A Right of exit from Backstop - won't be called B No deal - 160 same as last time C Customs Union -300 (264 last time. Now modified to include word "minimum") D CM 2.0 - 290 (188 last time. Now heavily modified) E Confirmatory PV - 268 (same as last time) F PV to prevent No Deal - won't be called G Parliamentary Supremacy - 280? Not proposed last time. H EFTA and EEA - won't be called.
Mrs May's deal is not up for consideration. It got 286 votes last time out.
FPT Got B wrong. Wasn't called. I got the rest right.
Revised predictions
C Customs Union -300 (264 last time. Now modified to include word "minimum") D CM 2.0 - 290 (188 last time. Now heavily modified) E Confirmatory PV -280 (268 last time) G Parliamentary Supremacy - 280? Not proposed last time.
Some of these may win a majority. Perhaps more than one, which is fine as some are content and some are process.
Personal best guesses
C - wins 290-260 D - wins 290-260 E - very close, 280-280 G - loses 200-270
I agree. I was just following Ishmael's rather tortuous logic.
No you were not. You need to answer the question why direct decisions should be immune to the equivalent of an early election under the ftpa and not subject to any time limit. Saying that General Elections should in some way act as a proxy are unworkable, because General Elections are about more than one issue.
All primary decisions in life need some sort of review mechanism. You are in a ridiculous position because you don't trust the electorate to replicate the 2016 result, so you have to pretend to think that referendum results are unique in a way they just aren't. As soon as you make any concession at all on any kind of review mechanism you are stuffed, and you know it.
So, again: should referendum results never, ever be subject to any form of review in any circumstances?
Elect a party with a 2nd ref in their Manifesto. We never got one when UKIP won a couple of seats/got 20% in a poll.
The TIGgers are such scaredy cats they wont even risk by elections in seats they won in 2017, and they supposedly have the public's change of opinion on the EU behind them
Just the point JRM threw back at Soubry in a fiesty exchange
Out of that lot Raab has the best chance I think as he's got the fewest enemies... Although the Murdoch press will support Hunt for what that's worth these days...
Raab is a lightweight and a moron. He couldn't hack it as Brexit secretary. Yeah: May undermined him. So what? He should have been a damn sight tougher. If he can't deal with that, he doesn't have the balls needed to be leader or PM.
Frankly, no-one in the Cabinet particularly impresses. The Tories are split, are messing up the country and need to go away into a darkened corner and grow up before bothering the rest of us.
His academic record suggests otherwise to the accusation of being a moron. His employment record before before becoming an MP pushes strongly back against your accusation. Something to do with Westminster perhaps.
He .
Not exactly what he said about Dover-Calais
He said he didn’t realise it was “quite as significant” as it was.
That’s a relative statement rather than the absolute one you report
I don't think there is a contradiction. But in any case it hardly helps his case, does it? Not quite as significant as what, exactly? Our exports from the port of Liverpool perhaps? Or Maryport? For God's sake, the first thing a Brexit secretary should have done is got a briefing on our trade and what routes it uses. He might even have thought to get such a briefing before he became a Brexiteer and started campaigning for us to leave.
In the context it sounded like (made up numbers for illustration) he thought it was 70% of trade and it turned out to be 80%
And it was a reference to before being appointed vs after it
Goodness knows that’s there’s enough to criticise the government for without making stuff up
That we are still talking about it - and that it is about the only thing anyone knows about Raab - is ample demonstration of his utter ineffectiveness as a politician.
Nah. A lie is halfway round the world before the truth has its boots on
= politics. No such thing as society, etc. If you are in the game you should know the offside rule.
A Right of exit from Backstop - won't be called B No deal - 160 same as last time C Customs Union -300 (264 last time. Now modified to include word "minimum") D CM 2.0 - 290 (188 last time. Now heavily modified) E Confirmatory PV - 268 (same as last time) F PV to prevent No Deal - won't be called G Parliamentary Supremacy - 280? Not proposed last time. H EFTA and EEA - won't be called.
Mrs May's deal is not up for consideration. It got 286 votes last time out.
FPT Got B wrong. Wasn't called. I got the rest right.
Revised predictions
C Customs Union -300 (264 last time. Now modified to include word "minimum") D CM 2.0 - 290 (188 last time. Now heavily modified) E Confirmatory PV -280 (268 last time) G Parliamentary Supremacy - 280? Not proposed last time.
Some of these may win a majority. Perhaps more than one, which is fine as some are content and some are process.
Personal best guesses
C - wins 290-260 D - wins 290-260 E - very close, 280-280 G - loses 200-270
The key there is the PV - if that wins the Commons, it will change the narrative very significantly.
The decision of Corbyn to join the SNP and probably the DUP and LDs and vote for Boles' Norway Plus amendment greatly increases the prospects of it winning a majority.
However by committing Labour to backing free movement, Corbyn may also have hit Labour's prospects in Leave voting marginal seats
He did not understand about the importance of the Dover-Calais route to our trade. I don't give two hoots about his academic record. I have spent over three decades dealing with people with fantastic academic records who are as stupid as fuck. Being good at whatever he was doing before he became an MP says nothing about his achievements as an MP and there and in Cabinet he has not distinguished himself. He looks - and is - out of his depth.
Not exactly what he said about Dover-Calais
He said he didn’t realise it was “quite as significant” as it was.
That’s a relative statement rather than the absolute one you report
I don't think there is a contradiction. But in any case it hardly helps his case, does it? Not quite as significant as what, exactly? Our exports from the port of Liverpool perhaps? Or Maryport? For God's sake, the first thing a Brexit secretary should have done is got a briefing on our trade and what routes it uses. He might even have thought to get such a briefing before he became a Brexiteer and started campaigning for us to leave.
In the context it sounded like (made up numbers for illustration) he thought it was 70% of trade and it turned out to be 80%
And it was a reference to before being appointed vs after it
Goodness knows that’s there’s enough to criticise the government for without making stuff up
I am not making anything up. He did not bother to properly brief himself on something he apparently cares deeply about. That makes him both stupid and frivolous. Not up to the job, as one C Attlee said of a minister he sacked.
There comes a point when you have to give up arguing with Charles when he is defending the indefensible.
I’m not defending Raab. I’m arguing that what he said was wilfully misrepresented by his political opponents. Unfortunately @Cyclefree has been taken in by it.
The issue is Raab should have done his homework before backing Brexit.
'I hadn’t quite understood the full extent of this, but if you look at the UK and look at how we trade in goods, we are particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing.'
I mean anyone else shocked that our most important trading route with the EU is the shortest distance between the UK and mainland Europe?
He says all 4 options chosen continue freedom of movement . The Customs Union doesn’t . He really is an odious twat .
This is why I'm against Common Market 2.0 being presented as the Brexit option in a second referendum. It's would be too easy for people like him to delegitimise it. At least if it's May's deal then people can argue it's a non-fantasy version of what was sold to people in 2016. May's Deal v Remain stands the best chance of being accepted as a legitimate choice on all sides.
I agree. I was just following Ishmael's rather tortuous logic.
No you were not. You need to answer the question why direct decisions should be immune to the equivalent of an early election under the ftpa and not subject to any time limit. Saying that General Elections should in some way act as a proxy are unworkable, because General Elections are about more than one issue.
All primary decisions in life need some sort of review mechanism. You are in a ridiculous position because you don't trust the electorate to replicate the 2016 result, so you have to pretend to think that referendum results are unique in a way they just aren't. As soon as you make any concession at all on any kind of review mechanism you are stuffed, and you know it.
So, again: should referendum results never, ever be subject to any form of review in any circumstances?
Not when the facts are in such dispute no. I think your view of the consequence of Leaving is utterly divorced from reality. The only way to resolve the facts in a reasonable, democratic way is to abide by the result of the referendum and leave. If there is then a majority in favour of another referendum based on what actually happens then fine.
Until then the logic of your argument is that we shoukd have another referendum on EU membership every single time the polls show a majority against the status quo. As I said before that is a recipe for chaos.
A Right of exit from Backstop - won't be called B No deal - 160 same as last time C Customs Union -300 (264 last time. Now modified to include word "minimum") D CM 2.0 - 290 (188 last time. Now heavily modified) E Confirmatory PV - 268 (same as last time) F PV to prevent No Deal - won't be called G Parliamentary Supremacy - 280? Not proposed last time. H EFTA and EEA - won't be called.
Mrs May's deal is not up for consideration. It got 286 votes last time out.
FPT Got B wrong. Wasn't called. I got the rest right.
Revised predictions
C Customs Union -300 (264 last time. Now modified to include word "minimum") D CM 2.0 - 290 (188 last time. Now heavily modified) E Confirmatory PV -280 (268 last time) G Parliamentary Supremacy - 280? Not proposed last time.
Some of these may win a majority. Perhaps more than one, which is fine as some are content and some are process.
Personal best guesses
C - wins 290-260 D - wins 290-260 E - very close, 280-280 G - loses 200-270
C - Loses by 1 D - Loses by 10 E - Loses by 25 G - Loses by 75+
Ken sorting out Brexit currently if only people would listen
He is so very wise
Ken's principal argument is that nothing we can gain from trade deals outside the EU could make up for the loss if we end up outside the EU's CU. Says that the CM2.0 proposal subsumes his own, if carried. Reminds the House that as an arch remainer, putting it forward represents a considerable compromise on his part.
He did not understand about the importance of the Dover-Calais route to our trade. I don't give two hoots about his academic record. I have spent over three decades dealing with people with fantastic academic records who are as stupid as fuck. Being good at whatever he was doing before he became an MP says nothing about his achievements as an MP and there and in Cabinet he has not distinguished himself. He looks - and is - out of his depth.
Not exactly what he said about Dover-Calais
He said he didn’t realise it was “quite as significant” as it was.
That’s a relative statement rather than the absolute one you report
I don't think there is a contradiction. But in any case it hardly helps his case, does it? Not quite as significant as what, exactly? Our exports from the port of Liverpool perhaps? Or Maryport? For God's sake, the first thing a Brexit secretary should have done is got a briefing on our trade and what routes it uses. He might even have thought to get such a briefing before he became a Brexiteer and started campaigning for us to leave.
In the context it sounded like (made up numbers for illustration) he thought it was 70% of trade and it turned out to be 80%
And it was a reference to before being appointed vs after it
Goodness knows that’s there’s enough to criticise the government for without making stuff up
I am not making anything up. He did not bother to properly brief himself on something he apparently cares deeply about. That makes him both stupid and frivolous. Not up to the job, as one C Attlee said of a minister he sacked.
There comes a point when you have to give up arguing with Charles when he is defending the indefensible.
I’m not defending Raab. I’m arguing that what he said was wilfully misrepresented by his political opponents. Unfortunately @Cyclefree has been taken in by it.
The issue is Raab should have done his homework before backing Brexit.
'I hadn’t quite understood the full extent of this, but if you look at the UK and look at how we trade in goods, we are particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing.'
I mean anyone else shocked that our most important trading route with the EU is the shortest distance between the UK and mainland Europe?
Raab's biggest misconception in backing Brexit was his assumption it would allow huge cuts in Whitehall. He seemed to think that if we didn't have to implement EU law, we could fire half the civil servants, and was shocked to discover that actually we needed more of them.
The decision of Corbyn to join the SNP and probably the DUP and LDs and vote for Boles' Norway Plus amendment greatly increases the prospects of it winning a majority.
However by committing Labour to backing free movement, Corbyn may also have hit Labour's prospects in Leave voting marginal seats
Ken sorting out Brexit currently if only people would listen
He is so very wise
Ken's principal argument is that nothing we can gain from trade deals outside the EU could make up for the loss if we end up outside the EU's CU. Says that the CM2.0 proposal subsumed his own. Reminds the House that as an arch remainer, putting it forward represents a considerable compromise on his part.
He is an example to so many and Dominic Grieve would have been wise to follow his example
I would say I support Dominic Grieve in my party and reject the hard right attempt to deselect him
Ken sorting out Brexit currently if only people would listen
He is so very wise
Ken's principal argument is that nothing we can gain from trade deals outside the EU could make up for the loss if we end up outside the EU's CU. Says that the CM2.0 proposal subsumes his own, if carried. Reminds the House that as an arch remainer, putting it forward represents a considerable compromise on his part.
Now Kyle moves the Kyle-Wilson confirmatory PV.
Gravitas, experience of high office(s), of trade deals, and a willingness to accept remain lost despite being Mr EU and to find a least bad way forward that the house can come together over.... of course the vast majority of the ERG weren't there to listen.
I agree. I was just following Ishmael's rather tortuous logic.
No you were not. You need to answer the question why direct decisions should be immune to the equivalent of an early election under the ftpa and not subject to any time limit. Saying that General Elections should in some way act as a proxy are unworkable, because General Elections are about more than one issue.
All primary decisions in life need some sort of review mechanism. You are in a ridiculous position because you don't trust the electorate to replicate the 2016 result, so you have to pretend to think that referendum results are unique in a way they just aren't. As soon as you make any concession at all on any kind of review mechanism you are stuffed, and you know it.
So, again: should referendum results never, ever be subject to any form of review in any circumstances?
Elect a party with a 2nd ref in their Manifesto. We never got one when UKIP won a couple of seats/got 20% in a poll.
The TIGgers are such scaredy cats they wont even risk by elections in seats they won in 2017, and they supposedly have the public's change of opinion on the EU behind them
Just the point JRM threw back at Soubry in a fiesty exchange
Expecting any MP to remove themselves from being able to vote at such a time is a tiny bit ridiculous.
The decision of Corbyn to join the SNP and probably the DUP and LDs and vote for Boles' Norway Plus amendment greatly increases the prospects of it winning a majority.
However by committing Labour to backing free movement, Corbyn may also have hit Labour's prospects in Leave voting marginal seats
Ken sorting out Brexit currently if only people would listen
He is so very wise
Ken's principal argument is that nothing we can gain from trade deals outside the EU could make up for the loss if we end up outside the EU's CU. Says that the CM2.0 proposal subsumes his own, if carried. Reminds the House that as an arch remainer, putting it forward represents a considerable compromise on his part.
Now Kyle moves the Kyle-Wilson confirmatory PV.
Gravitas, experience of high office(s), of trade deals, and a willingness to accept remain lost despite being Mr EU and to find a least bad way forward that the house can come together over.... of course the vast majority of the ERG weren't there to listen.
Busy having their own private meetings listening to their own whips and own leaders no doubt. Totally not a different party.
If CM2 can achieve a clear overall majority of MPs the upshot will be that the WA passes and we leave by 30 June at the latest. The same if it just wins the indicative contest and is then used as a stick by Mrs May to get her deal through. WA passed, we leave, PD either unchanged or now reflecting the CM2 aspiration.
Therefore the PV faction should oppose and if Labour want a PRE Brexit general election they should try to look like they are supporting it but be hoping that the wheels come off.
Chances of the wheels coming off? Surely not negligible.
CM2 = FOM.
Ain't gonna happen.
If it does, there will be an anti immigration party doing quite well in future Elections, but so be it. If it was hard Brexit there would be a concerted effort from Centrists. Nothing is ever settled is it? All that has happened really is the consensus of "We are in the EU and that's that" which was established for the first 15 years of this century, is no longer there.
Good point. We can go back to those pre-EURef what's the point type discussions on PB.
OT, but "Chronicles Vol 2" now up on Waterstones and several other sites, with a Dec 31 publication date. Maybe an April Fool, or may be the second magical-realist autobiography, and possibly even less revealing than the first. Who knows?
I agree. I was just following Ishmael's rather tortuous logic.
No you were not. You need to answer the question why direct decisions should be immune to the equivalent of an early election under the ftpa and not subject to any time limit. Saying that General Elections should in some way act as a proxy are unworkable, because General Elections are about more than one issue.
All primary decisions in life need some sort of review mechanism. You are in a ridiculous position because you don't trust the electorate to replicate the 2016 result, so you have to pretend to think that referendum results are unique in a way they just aren't. As soon as you make any concession at all on any kind of review mechanism you are stuffed, and you know it.
So, again: should referendum results never, ever be subject to any form of review in any circumstances?
Elect a party with a 2nd ref in their Manifesto. We never got one when UKIP won a couple of seats/got 20% in a poll.
The TIGgers are such scaredy cats they wont even risk by elections in seats they won in 2017, and they supposedly have the public's change of opinion on the EU behind them
Just the point JRM threw back at Soubry in a fiesty exchange
The decision of Corbyn to join the SNP and probably the DUP and LDs and vote for Boles' Norway Plus amendment greatly increases the prospects of it winning a majority.
However by committing Labour to backing free movement, Corbyn may also have hit Labour's prospects in Leave voting marginal seats
I see a straw being clutched.
Far from it, most Tory marginal seats and Labour marginal seats voted Leave, I imagine CCHQ will be printing 'Vote Corbyn to guarantee free movement' leaflets already
He did not understand about the importance of the Dover-Calais route to our trade. I don't give two hoots about his academic record. I have spent over three decades dealing with people with fantastic academic records who are as stupid as fuck. Being good at whatever he was doing before he became an MP says nothing about his achievements as an MP and there and in Cabinet he has not distinguished himself. He looks - and is - out of his depth.
Not exactly what he said about Dover-Calais
He said he didn’t realise it was “quite as significant” as it was.
That’s a relative statement rather than the absolute one you report
I don't think there is a contradiction. But in any case it hardly helps his case, does it? Not quite as significant as what, exactly? Our exports from the port of Liverpool perhaps? Or Maryport? For God's sake, the first thing a Brexit secretary should have done is got a briefing on our trade and what routes it uses. He might even have thought to get such a briefing before he became a Brexiteer and started campaigning for us to leave.
In the context it sounded like (made up numbers for illustration) he thought it was 70% of trade and it turned out to be 80%
And it was a reference to before being appointed vs after it
Goodness knows that’s there’s enough to criticise the government for without making stuff up
That we are still talking about it - and that it is about the only thing anyone knows about Raab - is ample demonstration of his utter ineffectiveness as a politician.
Nah. A lie is halfway round the world before the truth has its boots on
To reiterate, you're basically acknowledging that Raab is incapable of dealing with the normal rough and tumble of politics.
The decision of Corbyn to join the SNP and probably the DUP and LDs and vote for Boles' Norway Plus amendment greatly increases the prospects of it winning a majority.
However by committing Labour to backing free movement, Corbyn may also have hit Labour's prospects in Leave voting marginal seats
I see a straw being clutched.
Far from it, most Tory marginal seats and Labour marginal seats voted Leave, I imagine CCHQ will be printing 'Vote Corbyn to guarantee free movement' leaflets already
"If you want a European for a neighbour, vote Labour", you mean? The Tories have come a long way...
The decision of Corbyn to join the SNP and probably the DUP and LDs and vote for Boles' Norway Plus amendment greatly increases the prospects of it winning a majority.
However by committing Labour to backing free movement, Corbyn may also have hit Labour's prospects in Leave voting marginal seats
I see a straw being clutched.
Far from it, most Tory marginal seats and Labour marginal seats voted Leave, I imagine CCHQ will be printing 'Vote Corbyn to guarantee free movement' leaflets already
About as effective as we will steal your house when you die
The decision of Corbyn to join the SNP and probably the DUP and LDs and vote for Boles' Norway Plus amendment greatly increases the prospects of it winning a majority.
However by committing Labour to backing free movement, Corbyn may also have hit Labour's prospects in Leave voting marginal seats
I see a straw being clutched.
Far from it, most Tory marginal seats and Labour marginal seats voted Leave, I imagine CCHQ will be printing 'Vote Corbyn to guarantee free movement' leaflets already
Like the ones about sorting out dementia, I suppose.
I agree. I was just following Ishmael's rather tortuous logic.
No you were not. You need to answer the question why direct decisions should be immune to the equivalent of an early election under the ftpa and not subject to any time limit. Saying that General Elections should in some way act as a proxy are unworkable, because General Elections are about more than one issue.
All primary decisions in life need some sort of review mechanism. You are in a ridiculous position because you don't trust the electorate to replicate the 2016 result, so you have to pretend to think that referendum results are unique in a way they just aren't. As soon as you make any concession at all on any kind of review mechanism you are stuffed, and you know it.
So, again: should referendum results never, ever be subject to any form of review in any circumstances?
Elect a party with a 2nd ref in their Manifesto. We never got one when UKIP won a couple of seats/got 20% in a poll.
The TIGgers are such scaredy cats they wont even risk by elections in seats they won in 2017, and they supposedly have the public's change of opinion on the EU behind them
I am not a defender of the TIGgers.
Why, when what is needed is a specific right to review, wouyld you leave it to General Election manifestos? A specific Second Referendum party is not going to get elected, and there are a thousand and one topics on which the two electable parties differ which people want to vote on in a GE.
Concrete example: Trump at one stage wante to send a manned mission to Mars during his presidency. Say he put this to a referendum and won. Would you then say, when it transpired that this would cost 25% of GDP and the astronauts would all die of cosmic rays, that there was no democratic alternative but to push on in accordance with the mandate, bankrupting the country and killing astronauts, until the next presidential elections?
As to the argument that if the vote had gone the other way, it would have been regarded as settled for a generation. One thing is, staying is inherently easier than leaving, it is just well-known business as usual, so it's inherent in leave's choice that things are more likely to go wrong for them. That's life. Secondly the same argument does apply to remain, anyway. If remain had won and it turned out today that the EU had a program for converting itself into a single federal state with its own army and centralised economy and whatever, that would be grounds for a further vote.
The decision of Corbyn to join the SNP and probably the DUP and LDs and vote for Boles' Norway Plus amendment greatly increases the prospects of it winning a majority.
However by committing Labour to backing free movement, Corbyn may also have hit Labour's prospects in Leave voting marginal seats
I see a straw being clutched.
Far from it, most Tory marginal seats and Labour marginal seats voted Leave, I imagine CCHQ will be printing 'Vote Corbyn to guarantee free movement' leaflets already
"If you want a European for a neighbour, vote Labour", you mean? The Tories have come a long way...
"Despite the worst that Labour and the Lib Dems threw at us - we managed to acheive Brexit" would probably be better politically. (Hint don't use it when the Tory candidate is still a Remainer - if there are any of them left).
That's typical for all Brexit debates. Most Tory MPs - not the diehard Brexiteers or the small group of Remainers - just wish the whole thing would go away.
Why waste your time - the debate is pointless political posturing with no discernable benefit. Get a few G&Ts at the bar and watch BBC Parliament instead of the comedy channel.
I am not convinced that K-W will carry. But if it does, Parliament voting for another referendum will be the story of the night that sets the agenda, regardless of anything the government might say.
Various members referring to the "distraction" during Kyle's speech, but no indication who it was. References to naturism and pointless nakedness suggests it might have been an unusual sort of protest.
The decision of Corbyn to join the SNP and probably the DUP and LDs and vote for Boles' Norway Plus amendment greatly increases the prospects of it winning a majority.
However by committing Labour to backing free movement, Corbyn may also have hit Labour's prospects in Leave voting marginal seats
I see a straw being clutched.
Far from it, most Tory marginal seats and Labour marginal seats voted Leave, I imagine CCHQ will be printing 'Vote Corbyn to guarantee free movement' leaflets already
"If you want a European for a neighbour, vote Labour", you mean? The Tories have come a long way...
"Despite the worst that Labour and the Lib Dems threw at us - we managed to acheive Brexit" would probably be better politically. (Hint don't use it when the Tory candidate is still a Remainer - if there are any of them left).
Kind of assumes that Brexit will be popular. Methinks it will be the turd in the swimming pool.
I agree. I was just following Ishmael's rather tortuous logic.
No you were not. You need to answer the question why direct decisions should be immune to the equivalent of an early election under the ftpa and not subject to any time limit. Saying that General Elections should in some way act as a proxy are unworkable, because General Elections are about more than one issue.
All primary decisions in life need some sort of review mechanism. You are in a ridiculous position because you don't trust the electorate to replicate the 2016 result, so you have to pretend to think that referendum results are unique in a way they just aren't. As soon as you make any concession at all on any kind of review mechanism you are stuffed, and you know it.
So, again: should referendum results never, ever be subject to any form of review in any circumstances?
Elect a party with a 2nd ref in their Manifesto. We never got one when UKIP won a couple of seats/got 20% in a poll.
The TIGgers are such scaredy cats they wont even risk by elections in seats they won in 2017, and they supposedly have the public's change of opinion on the EU behind them
I am not a defender of the TIGgers.
Why, when what is needed is a specific right to review, wouyld you leave it to General Election manifestos? A specific Second Referendum party is not going to get elected, and there are a thousand and one topics on which the two electable parties differ which people want to vote on in a GE.
Concrete example: Trump at one stage wante to send a manned mission to Mars during his presidency. Say he put this to a referendum and won. Would you then say, when it transpired that this would cost 25% of GDP and the astronauts would all die of cosmic rays, that there was no democratic alternative but to push on in accordance with the mandate, bankrupting the country and killing astronauts, until the next presidential elections?
As to the argument that if the vote had gone the other way, it would have been regarded as settled for a generation. One thing is, staying is inherently easier than leaving, it is just well-known business as usual, so it's inherent in leave's choice that things are more likely to go wrong for them. That's life. Secondly the same argument does apply to remain, anyway. If remain had won and it turned out today that the EU had a program for converting itself into a single federal state with its own army and centralised economy and whatever, that would be grounds for a further vote.
Yes but you are giving as examples things that actually happened to change the public's mind... all that has happened in this case is that MP's who didn't want to leave, still don't.
Yes but you are giving as examples things that dactualy happened to change the public's mind... all that has happened in this case is that MP's who didn't want to leave, still don't.
That's not all that's happened. In 2016 we didn't know what the withdrawal agreement would look like. Now we do.
Yes but you are giving as examples things that dactualy happened to change the public's mind... all that has happened in this case is that MP's who didn't want to leave, still don't.
That's not all that's happened. In 2016 we didn't know what the withdrawal agreement would look like. Now we do.
Yes but you are giving as examples things that dactualy happened to change the public's mind... all that has happened in this case is that MP's who didn't want to leave, still don't.
That's not all that's happened. In 2016 we didn't know what the withdrawal agreement would look like. Now we do.
Yes but you are giving as examples things that dactualy happened to change the public's mind... all that has happened in this case is that MP's who didn't want to leave, still don't.
That's not all that's happened. In 2016 we didn't know what the withdrawal agreement would look like. Now we do.
Wow
You disagree?
Of course. People aren't as stupid as you think, they voted knowing there were lots of different ways we could leave.
Yes but you are giving as examples things that actually happened to change the public's mind... all that has happened in this case is that MP's who didn't want to leave, still don't.
And members of the electorate who wanted to leave, or didn't mind leaving, now want to remain.
If you think I am wrong about that, I have a *really* good idea for how we could put it to the test...
Yes but you are giving as examples things that actually happened to change the public's mind... all that has happened in this case is that MP's who didn't want to leave, still don't.
And members of the electorate who wanted to leave, or didn't mind leaving, now want to remain.
If you think I am wrong about that, I have a *really* good idea for how we could put it to the test...
Ken sorting out Brexit currently if only people would listen
He is so very wise
Ken's principal argument is that nothing we can gain from trade deals outside the EU could make up for the loss if we end up outside the EU's CU. Says that the CM2.0 proposal subsumed his own. Reminds the House that as an arch remainer, putting it forward represents a considerable compromise on his part.
He is an example to so many and Dominic Grieve would have been wise to follow his example
I would say I support Dominic Grieve in my party and reject the hard right attempt to deselect him
Grieve is every bit as much a part of the problem as is Steve Baker - interesting BTW that Grieve and Baker are in neighbouring constituencies representing the same party with diametrically opposed views don't you think?
Clarke, whose views on the EU are very close to Grieve's, has shown leadership and a willingness to accept that his views might need to be tempered for the greater good. Grieve has tried every trick in the book to impose his views on the country, the government and his own voters without any real mandate or support from the people who elected him and helped get him elected, and he deserves every bit of trouble he is experiencing.
Yes but you are giving as examples things that dactualy happened to change the public's mind... all that has happened in this case is that MP's who didn't want to leave, still don't.
That's not all that's happened. In 2016 we didn't know what the withdrawal agreement would look like. Now we do.
Wow
You disagree?
Of course. People aren't as stupid as you think, They voted knowing there was lots of different ways we could leave.
I'm not saying people were stupid, but it's incontrovertible that people didn't vote for a concrete treaty and had many different things in mind. Some voted thinking we'd renegotiate and stay in. Some voted thinking we'd trigger the collapse of the EU. Some voted for a Swiss-style deal. Some voted for a Canada-style deal.
Mr Bridgen says the Speaker has “ridden roughshod through all the conventions of the House of Commons and in my view he’s ripped up every book of impartiality from the Speaker’s handbook”
Yes but you are giving as examples things that dactualy happened to change the public's mind... all that has happened in this case is that MP's who didn't want to leave, still don't.
That's not all that's happened. In 2016 we didn't know what the withdrawal agreement would look like. Now we do.
Wow
You disagree?
Of course. People aren't as stupid as you think, They voted knowing there was lots of different ways we could leave.
I'm not saying people were stupid, but it's incontrovertible that people didn't vote for a concrete treaty and had many different things in mind. Some voted thinking we'd renegotiate and stay in. Some voted thinking we'd trigger the collapse of the EU. Some voted for a Swiss-style deal. Some voted for a Canada-style deal.
.. and they knew that their perfect arrangement wasn't guaranteed, but still voted to Leave.
Mr Bridgen says the Speaker has “ridden roughshod through all the conventions of the House of Commons and in my view he’s ripped up every book of impartiality from the Speaker’s handbook”
Mr Bridgen says the Speaker has “ridden roughshod through all the conventions of the House of Commons and in my view he’s ripped up every book of impartiality from the Speaker’s handbook”
What does that even mean?
That the no deal proposal wasn't selected, despite having been rejected by large majorities over and over.
Yes but you are giving as examples things that dactualy happened to change the public's mind... all that has happened in this case is that MP's who didn't want to leave, still don't.
That's not all that's happened. In 2016 we didn't know what the withdrawal agreement would look like. Now we do.
Wow
You disagree?
Of course. People aren't as stupid as you think, They voted knowing there was lots of different ways we could leave.
I'm not saying people were stupid, but it's incontrovertible that people didn't vote for a concrete treaty and had many different things in mind. Some voted thinking we'd renegotiate and stay in. Some voted thinking we'd trigger the collapse of the EU. Some voted for a Swiss-style deal. Some voted for a Canada-style deal.
.. and they knew that their perfect arrangement wasn't guaranteed, but still voted to Leave.
To give people another say on the withdrawal agreement isn't to take something away from them but to respect them enough to take the decision that was put in their hands in the first place.
Ken sorting out Brexit currently if only people would listen
He is so very wise
Ken's principal argument is that nothing we can gain from trade deals outside the EU could make up for the loss if we end up outside the EU's CU. Says that the CM2.0 proposal subsumes his own, if carried. Reminds the House that as an arch remainer, putting it forward represents a considerable compromise on his part.
Now Kyle moves the Kyle-Wilson confirmatory PV.
He is wrong to the extent that the CU is not just about trade deals but also about having a voice on those bodies above the EU which set the rules these days. Inside the CU we have no seat, no voice and no vote. Just like being inside the EU.
Boles pointing out that if CU or CM2 goes forward into a withdrawal bill, a confirmatory referendum can be added as a requirement as an amendment during passage of the bill.
Yes but you are giving as examples things that dactualy happened to change the public's mind... all that has happened in this case is that MP's who didn't want to leave, still don't.
That's not all that's happened. In 2016 we didn't know what the withdrawal agreement would look like. Now we do.
Wow
You disagree?
Of course. People aren't as stupid as you think, They voted knowing there was lots of different ways we could leave.
I'm not saying people were stupid, but it's incontrovertible that people didn't vote for a concrete treaty and had many different things in mind. Some voted thinking we'd renegotiate and stay in. Some voted thinking we'd trigger the collapse of the EU. Some voted for a Swiss-style deal. Some voted for a Canada-style deal.
.. and they knew that their perfect arrangement wasn't guaranteed, but still voted to Leave.
To give people another say on the withdrawal agreement isn't to take something away from them but to respect them enough to take the decision that was put in their hands in the first place.
Ken sorting out Brexit currently if only people would listen
He is so very wise
Ken's principal argument is that nothing we can gain from trade deals outside the EU could make up for the loss if we end up outside the EU's CU. Says that the CM2.0 proposal subsumed his own. Reminds the House that as an arch remainer, putting it forward represents a considerable compromise on his part.
He is an example to so many and Dominic Grieve would have been wise to follow his example
I would say I support Dominic Grieve in my party and reject the hard right attempt to deselect him
Grieve is every bit as much a part of the problem as is Steve Baker - interesting BTW that Grieve and Baker are in neighbouring constituencies representing the same party with diametrically opposed views don't you think?
Clarke, whose views on the EU are very close to Grieve's, has shown leadership and a willingness to accept that his views might need to be tempered for the greater good. Grieve has tried every trick in the book to impose his views on the country, the government and his own voters without any real mandate or support from the people who elected him and helped get him elected, and he deserves every bit of trouble he is experiencing.
I disagree. While both are uncompromising ultras on opposite sides of the Brexit question, Grieve has at least been a fundamental mover of the effort to give Parliament a say; Baker the effort to filibuster into No Deal.
I really hope Common Market 2.0 is agreed. It's clearly the best compromise that honours the referendum result but also conserves the economy. I'd prefer remain but I can live with it. It's really where Britain should have been all along.
Yes but you are giving as examples things that dactualy happened to change the public's mind... all that has happened in this case is that MP's who didn't want to leave, still don't.
That's not all that's happened. In 2016 we didn't know what the withdrawal agreement would look like. Now we do.
Wow
You disagree?
Of course. People aren't as stupid as you think, They voted knowing there was lots of different ways we could leave.
I'm not saying people were stupid, but it's incontrovertible that people didn't vote for a concrete treaty and had many different things in mind. Some voted thinking we'd renegotiate and stay in. Some voted thinking we'd trigger the collapse of the EU. Some voted for a Swiss-style deal. Some voted for a Canada-style deal.
.. and they knew that their perfect arrangement wasn't guaranteed, but still voted to Leave.
To give people another say on the withdrawal agreement isn't to take something away from them but to respect them enough to take the decision that was put in their hands in the first place.
Yes it does take a great deal away. It completely removes the basic right to have your vote respected and complied with. It takes away the basis of our democracy.
Yes but you are giving as examples things that dactualy happened to change the public's mind... all that has happened in this case is that MP's who didn't want to leave, still don't.
That's not all that's happened. In 2016 we didn't know what the withdrawal agreement would look like. Now we do.
Wow
You disagree?
Of course. People aren't as stupid as you think, They voted knowing there was lots of different ways we could leave.
I'm not saying people were stupid, but it's incontrovertible that people didn't vote for a concrete treaty and had many different things in mind. Some voted thinking we'd renegotiate and stay in. Some voted thinking we'd trigger the collapse of the EU. Some voted for a Swiss-style deal. Some voted for a Canada-style deal.
.. and they knew that their perfect arrangement wasn't guaranteed, but still voted to Leave.
To give people another say on the withdrawal agreement isn't to take something away from them but to respect them enough to take the decision that was put in their hands in the first place.
As long as Remain isnt on the ballot, no problem
Listen to the debate. If would be the default if the proposition for exit isn't agreed.
I really hope Common Market 2.0 is agreed. It's clearly the best compromise that honours the referendum result but also conserves the economy. I'd prefer remain but I can live with it. It's really where Britain should have been all along.
I don't see how it can be said to honour the referendum result when it doesn't deliver on the key things the Leave campaign were presenting to people.
I really hope Common Market 2.0 is agreed. It's clearly the best compromise that honours the referendum result but also conserves the economy. I'd prefer remain but I can live with it. It's really where Britain should have been all along.
I don't see how it can be said to honour the referendum result when it doesn't deliver on the key things the Leave campaign were presenting to people.
The Leave campaign said everything under the sun. The fallacy that 'Leave' was all about European immigration is just that.
I really hope Common Market 2.0 is agreed. It's clearly the best compromise that honours the referendum result but also conserves the economy. I'd prefer remain but I can live with it. It's really where Britain should have been all along.
I don't see how it can be said to honour the referendum result when it doesn't deliver on the key things the Leave campaign were presenting to people.
Leave presented a moon on the stick. And many people voted leave but actually don't mind Freedom of Labour - I'm one, I'm sure Richard Tyndall is another....
Yes but you are giving as examples things that dactualy happened to change the public's mind... all that has happened in this case is that MP's who didn't want to leave, still don't.
That's not all that's happened. In 2016 we didn't know what the withdrawal agreement would look like. Now we do.
Wow
You disagree?
Of course. People aren't as stupid as you think, They voted knowing there was lots of different ways we could leave.
I'm not saying people were stupid, but it's incontrovertible that people didn't vote for a concrete treaty and had many different things in mind. Some voted thinking we'd renegotiate and stay in. Some voted thinking we'd trigger the collapse of the EU. Some voted for a Swiss-style deal. Some voted for a Canada-style deal.
.. and they knew that their perfect arrangement wasn't guaranteed, but still voted to Leave.
To give people another say on the withdrawal agreement isn't to take something away from them but to respect them enough to take the decision that was put in their hands in the first place.
Yes it does take a great deal away. It completely removes the basic right to have your vote respected and complied with. It takes away the basis of our democracy.
The 2016 vote was respected and acted upon - we invoked Article 50. If we have a vote to decide between ratification of the withdrawal agreement and revocation of Article 50, that result will be acted upon too.
Yes but you are giving as examples things that dactualy happened to change the public's mind... all that has happened in this case is that MP's who didn't want to leave, still don't.
That's not all that's happened. In 2016 we didn't know what the withdrawal agreement would look like. Now we do.
Wow
You disagree?
Of course. People aren't as stupid as you think, They voted knowing there was lots of different ways we could leave.
I'm not saying people were stupid, but it's incontrovertible that people didn't vote for a concrete treaty and had many different things in mind. Some voted thinking we'd renegotiate and stay in. Some voted thinking we'd trigger the collapse of the EU. Some voted for a Swiss-style deal. Some voted for a Canada-style deal.
.. and they knew that their perfect arrangement wasn't guaranteed, but still voted to Leave.
To give people another say on the withdrawal agreement isn't to take something away from them but to respect them enough to take the decision that was put in their hands in the first place.
Yes it does take a great deal away. It completely removes the basic right to have your vote respected and complied with. It takes away the basis of our democracy.
The 2016 vote was respected and acted upon - we invoked Article 50. If we have a vote to decide between ratification of the withdrawal agreement and revocation of Article 50, that result will be acted upon too.
The vote was to leave the EU. That has not yet been respected nor acted upon.
I really hope Common Market 2.0 is agreed. It's clearly the best compromise that honours the referendum result but also conserves the economy. I'd prefer remain but I can live with it. It's really where Britain should have been all along.
I don't see how it can be said to honour the referendum result when it doesn't deliver on the key things the Leave campaign were presenting to people.
Because it meets entirely the mandate on the ballot paper.
Ken sorting out Brexit currently if only people would listen
He is so very wise
Ken's principal argument is that nothing we can gain from trade deals outside the EU could make up for the loss if we end up outside the EU's CU. Says that the CM2.0 proposal subsumed his own. Reminds the House that as an arch remainer, putting it forward represents a considerable compromise on his part.
He is an example to so many and Dominic Grieve would have been wise to follow his example
I would say I support Dominic Grieve in my party and reject the hard right attempt to deselect him
Grieve is every bit as much a part of the problem as is Steve Baker - interesting BTW that Grieve and Baker are in neighbouring constituencies representing the same party with diametrically opposed views don't you think?
Clarke, whose views on the EU are very close to Grieve's, has shown leadership and a willingness to accept that his views might need to be tempered for the greater good. Grieve has tried every trick in the book to impose his views on the country, the government and his own voters without any real mandate or support from the people who elected him and helped get him elected, and he deserves every bit of trouble he is experiencing.
I disagree. While both are uncompromising ultras on opposite sides of the Brexit question, Grieve has at least been a fundamental mover of the effort to give Parliament a say; Baker the effort to filibuster into No Deal.
Yes but his sole objective in "giving Parliament a say" has been to ensure that we don't enact the referendum result. I appreciate you may approve of that strategy but I see no altruism in his actions, just machiavellian manoeuvrings that are no different in intention than Baker's, just on the other end of the scale.
If both had attempted to find a middle ground - as Clarke has - we'd be in a much better place.
I really hope Common Market 2.0 is agreed. It's clearly the best compromise that honours the referendum result but also conserves the economy. I'd prefer remain but I can live with it. It's really where Britain should have been all along.
I don't see how it can be said to honour the referendum result when it doesn't deliver on the key things the Leave campaign were presenting to people.
Leave presented a moon on the stick. And many people voted leave but actually don't mind Freedom of Labour - I'm one, I'm sure Richard Tyndall is another....
Indeed. There are rather a lot of us on here. Robert S is another who immediately springs to mind.
Yes but you are giving as examples things that dactualy happened to change the public's mind... all that has happened in this case is that MP's who didn't want to leave, still don't.
That's not all that's happened. In 2016 we didn't know what the withdrawal agreement would look like. Now we do.
Wow
You disagree?
Of course. People aren't as stupid as you think, They voted knowing there was lots of different ways we could leave.
I'm not saying people were stupid, but it's incontrovertible that people didn't vote for a concrete treaty and had many different things in mind. Some voted thinking we'd renegotiate and stay in. Some voted thinking we'd trigger the collapse of the EU. Some voted for a Swiss-style deal. Some voted for a Canada-style deal.
.. and they knew that their perfect arrangement wasn't guaranteed, but still voted to Leave.
To give people another say on the withdrawal agreement isn't to take something away from them but to respect them enough to take the decision that was put in their hands in the first place.
Yes it does take a great deal away. It completely removes the basic right to have your vote respected and complied with. It takes away the basis of our democracy.
The 2016 vote was respected and acted upon - we invoked Article 50. If we have a vote to decide between ratification of the withdrawal agreement and revocation of Article 50, that result will be acted upon too.
The vote was to leave the EU. That has not yet been respected nor acted upon.
It's had respect enough.
You know very well that any referendum will be between some sort of deal and staying a member.
Comments
C - wins 290-260
D - wins 290-260
E - very close, 280-280
G - loses 200-270
He says all 4 options chosen continue freedom of movement . The Customs Union doesn’t . He really is an odious twat .
If May doesnt incorporate CU its REVOKE or worst of all 2nd Vote
However by committing Labour to backing free movement, Corbyn may also have hit Labour's prospects in Leave voting marginal seats
'I hadn’t quite understood the full extent of this, but if you look at the UK and look at how we trade in goods, we are particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing.'
I mean anyone else shocked that our most important trading route with the EU is the shortest distance between the UK and mainland Europe?
Until then the logic of your argument is that we shoukd have another referendum on EU membership every single time the polls show a majority against the status quo. As I said before that is a recipe for chaos.
D - Loses by 10
E - Loses by 25
G - Loses by 75+
Now Kyle moves the Kyle-Wilson confirmatory PV.
I would say I support Dominic Grieve in my party and reject the hard right attempt to deselect him
https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1112755697974956034
Maybe an April Fool, or may be the second magical-realist autobiography, and possibly even less revealing than the first.
Who knows?
At that point, it really is time to ditch the idea of second referendum, and get on with a Brexit compromise.
Not SNP or LD or TIG.
Cabinet still not voting so not sure who will swap
The Tories have come a long way...
Why, when what is needed is a specific right to review, wouyld you leave it to General Election manifestos? A specific Second Referendum party is not going to get elected, and there are a thousand and one topics on which the two electable parties differ which people want to vote on in a GE.
Concrete example: Trump at one stage wante to send a manned mission to Mars during his presidency. Say he put this to a referendum and won. Would you then say, when it transpired that this would cost 25% of GDP and the astronauts would all die of cosmic rays, that there was no democratic alternative but to push on in accordance with the mandate, bankrupting the country and killing astronauts, until the next presidential elections?
As to the argument that if the vote had gone the other way, it would have been regarded as settled for a generation. One thing is, staying is inherently easier than leaving, it is just well-known business as usual, so it's inherent in leave's choice that things are more likely to go wrong for them. That's life. Secondly the same argument does apply to remain, anyway. If remain had won and it turned out today that the EU had a program for converting itself into a single federal state with its own army and centralised economy and whatever, that would be grounds for a further vote.
In that case, CM2.0 will be a clear winner. Perhaps that can go up against the deal on Wednesday?
https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/1112755997918011392?s=19
Various members referring to the "distraction" during Kyle's speech, but no indication who it was. References to naturism and pointless nakedness suggests it might have been an unusual sort of protest.
They are naked other than thongs/ Y-fronts.... Reportedly.
https://twitter.com/Jim_Cornelius/status/1112757311997661184?s=19
If you think I am wrong about that, I have a *really* good idea for how we could put it to the test...
Most security is surely (rightly) designed to prevent threats and weapons getting in. Not peaceful protestors taking their clothes off.
If the protestors were brandishing knives and not nipples then security would have failed.
Clarke, whose views on the EU are very close to Grieve's, has shown leadership and a willingness to accept that his views might need to be tempered for the greater good. Grieve has tried every trick in the book to impose his views on the country, the government and his own voters without any real mandate or support from the people who elected him and helped get him elected, and he deserves every bit of trouble he is experiencing.
What does that even mean?
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1112729365148782601
While both are uncompromising ultras on opposite sides of the Brexit question, Grieve has at least been a fundamental mover of the effort to give Parliament a say; Baker the effort to filibuster into No Deal.
Not with that lot though, having lunch with a pollster and a few friends from the political world.
If both had attempted to find a middle ground - as Clarke has - we'd be in a much better place.
You know very well that any referendum will be between some sort of deal and staying a member.