Major new development tonight as the Evening Standard is reporting the Attorney General Geoffrey Cox has told the Cabinet that the Government would be legally bound if the Commons votes for an indicative option tonight and then also votes for a Bill MPs led by Letwin intend to rush through on Wednesday and Thursday.
Cox has told Ministers under our system of parliamentary sovereignty if they fail to work 'in good faith' for Common Market 2.0 or a Customs Union if the Commons votes for it that will be acting illegally. Civil servants, including the Brexit negotiating team, would have to then act under mandate direct from Parliament
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.
If you can't maintain a consensus long enough in order for it to be delivered or win a confirmatory vote, you should look at why that is instead of complaining about it.
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.
Me too. Preferably in conjunction with a reform of the benefits system.
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.
The current debate is a direct result of Grieve's manoeuvrings. It should have happened much sooner.
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.
There is no mandate on a referendum ballot paper, and to say that there is, is to deny the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The refendum was advisory, whatever any smarmy salesman on one side or the other may have said to the contrary: parliamentary sovereignty trumps everything else.
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.
There is no mandate on a referendum ballot paper, and to say that there is, is to deny the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The refendum was advisory, whatever any smarmy salesman on one side or the other may have said to the contrary: parliamentary sovereignty trumps everything else.
It was a mandate, even if not a legally enforceable one. And leaving the EU is all that was mandated.
Major new development tonight as the Evening Standard is reporting the Attorney General Geoffrey Cox has told the Cabinet that the Government would be legally bound if the Commons votes for an indicative option tonight and then also votes for a Bill MPs led by Letwin intend to rush through on Wednesday and Thursday.
Cox has told Ministers under our system of parliamentary sovereignty if they fail to work 'in good faith' for Common Market 2.0 or a Customs Union if the Commons votes for it that will be acting illegally. Civil servants, including the Brexit negotiating team, would have to then act under mandate direct from Parliament
What is the point of May’s deal running off against WA + CU or Boles Up the Market 2.0 That’s like asking Steve Baker, a tea drinker to choose between two coffee choices. He chooses WA over WA + CU the front bench sanctimoniously declares now expect you to vote that way in a proper WA vote, Steve’s only fair response is to laugh so violently in their faces their blood freezes.
A choice between May’s deal and the winner of the indicative votes process, Its even more ridiculous from the DUP point of view, asking whether they want fundamental betrayal served to them by a gay man dressed as serving wench in a Living Coral tight fitted bodice, cowl neck and split sleeves worn in mini dress style or fundamental betrayal served to them by a gay man dressed as serving wench in Rapture rose tight fitted bodice, cowl neck and split sleeves worn in mini dress style. Like WTF?
whichever way the result falls it would decide nothing, even with expected strong win for May’s WA for Cabinet minsters to talk up on Today programme next day, the only thing it would be indicative of is this sort of petty game playing that’s getting us deeper into this mess! Mr Speaker, Anyone who attempts to move such a ridiculous motion, to the tower with them!!! Place them in an Iron Brexit with a pear of backstop destiny up their arse and throw away the key.
Okay so rapture rose is so last year but you get the point. Put dots down as against the idea of a run off between May’s deal and the winner of the indicative votes can I have that put on record
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.
Do you mean that nobody at all should have voted? A fair point, I suppose.
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?
Indeed. I did not make anything up and have not been taken in by anything. Raab - like other ERG’ers - has not bothered to do his homework.
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.
Plenty of key leavers said we should stay in the single market, thus retain FoM.
Regardless, the referendum ballot didn't ask anything about this. The question was merely leave or stay, so any outcome where we leave is justified. Future governments are free to campaign for whatever changes they want.
The ballot paper said "Leave the EU". Common Market 2.0 does that. Anything past that is pure projection, and leavers have said many contradictory things about the single market in particular over the years.
Major new development tonight as the Evening Standard is reporting the Attorney General Geoffrey Cox has told the Cabinet that the Government would be legally bound if the Commons votes for an indicative option tonight and then also votes for a Bill MPs led by Letwin intend to rush through on Wednesday and Thursday.
Cox has told Ministers under our system of parliamentary sovereignty if they fail to work 'in good faith' for Common Market 2.0 or a Customs Union if the Commons votes for it that will be acting illegally. Civil servants, including the Brexit negotiating team, would have to then act under mandate direct from Parliament
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.
Mrs May has been acting on it for almost three years now. How much more time does she need? Or morepertinently, why has she been unable to carry people along with her?
I think a compromise on FOM is possible. It's not a first order issue for the EU and it's big for Leavers in general. The EU will insist any immigration regime will rule based. ie the UK can accept or reject immigrants according to agreed rules, not judgment . The rules must be applied consistently to all EU nationalities and the rules will be applied reciprocally to UK citizens. If we don't apply full FOM services will be excluded from the trade deal, which is where we have an advantage. So there would be a cost to us for removing FOM, but it is available within a UK EU 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”
What does that even mean?
That he is making even people who don't like Bercow look more kindly on 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 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.
The current debate is a direct result of Grieve's manoeuvrings. It should have happened much sooner.
I'm far from convinced that what is happening now is a good thing - though I hope I'm proved wrong and you're proved right!
What is the point of May’s deal running off against WA + CU or Boles Up the Market 2.0 That’s like asking Steve Baker, a tea drinker to choose between two coffee choices. He chooses WA over WA + CU the front bench sanctimoniously declares now expect you to vote that way in a proper WA vote, Steve’s only fair response is to laugh so violently in their faces their blood freezes.
A choice between May’s deal and the winner of the indicative votes process, Its even more ridiculous from the DUP point of view, asking whether they want fundamental betrayal served to them by a gay man dressed as serving wench in a Living Coral tight fitted bodice, cowl neck and split sleeves worn in mini dress style or fundamental betrayal served to them by a gay man dressed as serving wench in Rapture rose tight fitted bodice, cowl neck and split sleeves worn in mini dress style. Like WTF?
whichever way the result falls it would decide nothing, even with expected strong win for May’s WA for Cabinet minsters to talk up on Today programme next day, the only thing it would be indicative of is this sort of petty game playing that’s getting us deeper into this mess! Mr Speaker, Anyone who attempts to move such a ridiculous motion, to the tower with them!!! Place them in an Iron Brexit with a pear of backstop destiny up their arse and throw away the key.
Okay so rapture rose is so last year but you get the point. Put dots down as against the idea of a run off between May’s deal and the winner of the indicative votes can I have that put on record
Thanks
It won't matter to the hardcore leavers whether we leave with May's deal or Common Market 2.0, surely ? To Steve Baker it is anathema as Sinn Fein turning up to choose between a Labour and a Tory Gov't.
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.
The current debate is a direct result of Grieve's manoeuvrings. It should have happened much sooner.
I'm far from convinced that what is happening now is a good thing - though I hope I'm proved wrong and you're proved right!
Indeed. There are rather a lot of us on here. Robert S is another who immediately springs to mind.
True enough. But the representation of liberal leavers on here is, I would venture, considerably greater than amongst the 17 million.
I am an illiberal Leaver if you like, who would have voted Remain if we could have stayed in without FOM (of course there wouldnt have been a referendum or UKIP 13% if that were possible) but I am happy to leave with Cameron's renegotiation as the Withdrawal agreement
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.
Leave has had two and a half years and hasn't delivered anything. The referendum mandate expired last Friday.
Bercow seems obsessed with calling the same people over and over again in these debates. Surely more MPs have something to say than the usual suspects that have dominated these talking shops.
We have heard all of these points being made over and over and over. It isn't helpful to just give the same people the opportunity to repeat themselves over and over and over again.
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 he is making even people who don't like Bercow look more kindly on him.
Err no.. Bercow is losing the plot. I doubt that he will survive Brexit.
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.
That's just making things worse, it means that selecting one of the options besides referendum does not actually lead to a conclusion at all, since some people might back those two because they aren't confirmatory referendums.
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 he is making even people who don't like Bercow look more kindly on him.
Err no.. Bercow is losing the plot. I doubt that he will survive Brexit.
I think Bercow has played fast and loose with things and I am very mad at him for it, but not selecting no deal seems completely justified given how many votes it got last time.
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.
There is no mandate on a referendum ballot paper, and to say that there is, is to deny the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The refendum was advisory, whatever any smarmy salesman on one side or the other may have said to the contrary: parliamentary sovereignty trumps everything else.
It was a mandate, even if not a legally enforceable one. And leaving the EU is all that was mandated.
Indeed. There are rather a lot of us on here. Robert S is another who immediately springs to mind.
True enough. But the representation of liberal leavers on here is, I would venture, considerably greater than amongst the 17 million.
A Yougov poll on 8th June 2016, just prior to the vote, showed that 42% of Leave supporters would prefer the EFTA/EEA route post-Brexit with 45% opposing. This was after it had been explained as part of the question that that route would mean keeping Freedom of Movement.
Yes there was probably a majority of leavers in favour of ending FoM. But it was no where near as overwhelming as some people like to think.
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.
That's just making things worse, it means that selecting one of the options besides referendum does not actually lead to a conclusion at all, since some people might back those two because they aren't confirmatory referendums.
He knows - like most MPs know - that soft Brexit, an extension, and a confirmatory referendum is the most likely destination here.
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.
The current debate is a direct result of Grieve's manoeuvrings. It should have happened much sooner.
I'm far from convinced that what is happening now is a good thing - though I hope I'm proved wrong and you're proved right!
Too soon to tell really. Frustrating that it will take at least three days of MPs' controlling business to see if they can come up with something though.
I think a compromise on FOM is possible. It's not a first order issue for the EU and it's big for Leavers in general. The EU will insist any immigration regime will rule based. ie the UK can accept or reject immigrants according to agreed rules, not judgment . The rules must be applied consistently to all EU nationalities and the rules will be applied reciprocally to UK citizens. If we don't apply full FOM services will be excluded from the trade deal, which is where we have an advantage. So there would be a cost to us for removing FOM, but it is available within a UK EU deal.
To be honest it IS a first order issue for the EU. It is one of the 4 pillars that underpin the Single Market. I really can't see them moving on that one at all.
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.
That's just making things worse, it means that selecting one of the options besides referendum does not actually lead to a conclusion at all, since some people might back those two because they aren't confirmatory referendums.
He knows - like most MPs know - that soft Brexit, an extension, and a confirmatory referendum is the most likely destination here.
Yes, probably, but it is annoying that one of the options is a referendum, the others are not, and you still might get the latter. I'm not opposed given I don't think that is a bad idea now, given all the other options, but it seems like it will just extend the arguments.
Major new development tonight as the Evening Standard is reporting the Attorney General Geoffrey Cox has told the Cabinet that the Government would be legally bound if the Commons votes for an indicative option tonight and then also votes for a Bill MPs led by Letwin intend to rush through on Wednesday and Thursday.
Cox has told Ministers under our system of parliamentary sovereignty if they fail to work 'in good faith' for Common Market 2.0 or a Customs Union if the Commons votes for it that will be acting illegally. Civil servants, including the Brexit negotiating team, would have to then act under mandate direct from Parliament
Indeed. There are rather a lot of us on here. Robert S is another who immediately springs to mind.
True enough. But the representation of liberal leavers on here is, I would venture, considerably greater than amongst the 17 million.
A Yougov poll on 8th June 2016, just prior to the vote, showed that 42% of Leave supporters would prefer the EFTA/EEA route post-Brexit with 45% opposing. This was after it had been explained as part of the question that that route would mean keeping Freedom of Movement.
Yes there was probably a majority of leavers in favour of ending FoM. But it was no where near as overwhelming as some people like to think.
Of course EU migration to the UK has fallen since the Leave vote anyway making the EFTA case easier now
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.
That's just making things worse, it means that selecting one of the options besides referendum does not actually lead to a conclusion at all, since some people might back those two because they aren't confirmatory referendums.
He knows - like most MPs know - that soft Brexit, an extension, and a confirmatory referendum is the most likely destination here.
Yes, probably, but it is annoying that one of the options is a referendum, the others are not, and you still might get the latter. I'm not opposed given I don't think that is a bad idea now, given all the other options, but it seems like it will just extend the arguments.
The most important thing is to win the long extension May was ready to ask for a couple of weeks back.
Major new development tonight as the Evening Standard is reporting the Attorney General Geoffrey Cox has told the Cabinet that the Government would be legally bound if the Commons votes for an indicative option tonight and then also votes for a Bill MPs led by Letwin intend to rush through on Wednesday and Thursday.
Cox has told Ministers under our system of parliamentary sovereignty if they fail to work 'in good faith' for Common Market 2.0 or a Customs Union if the Commons votes for it that will be acting illegally. Civil servants, including the Brexit negotiating team, would have to then act under mandate direct from Parliament
It is though kind of meaningless because all that would happen is that once we are into the transition period there would be a GE at which point all bets are off as far as what is the UK final relationship position. A new government could then seek to overturn anything passed at this point.
Indeed. There are rather a lot of us on here. Robert S is another who immediately springs to mind.
True enough. But the representation of liberal leavers on here is, I would venture, considerably greater than amongst the 17 million.
A Yougov poll on 8th June 2016, just prior to the vote, showed that 42% of Leave supporters would prefer the EFTA/EEA route post-Brexit with 45% opposing. This was after it had been explained as part of the question that that route would mean keeping Freedom of Movement.
Yes there was probably a majority of leavers in favour of ending FoM. But it was no where near as overwhelming as some people like to think.
Of course EU migration to the UK has fallen since the Leave vote anyway making the EFTA case easier now
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.
Leave has had two and a half years and hasn't delivered anything. The referendum mandate expired last Friday.
No it didn't. That is just your wishful thinking. You are comprehensively wrong on every part of that comment.
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.
Leave has had two and a half years and hasn't delivered anything. The referendum mandate expired last Friday.
No it didn't. That is just your wishful thinking. You are comprehensively wrong on every part of that comment.
I would agree that the mandate hasn't expired - Leave really hasn't delivered anything deliverable though....
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.
Leave has had two and a half years and hasn't delivered anything. The referendum mandate expired last Friday.
No it didn't. That is just your wishful thinking. You are comprehensively wrong on every part of that comment.
You are right. It has preoccupied government for nearly three years and delivered our political system to its knees. By any objective assessment most people now want rid of it.
It won't hold, especially if it's in the "a" category. A future government will unwind it at the first opportunity. "The" customs still has some mileage as the EU does have a great many trade deals (though many are not advantageous to a non-agricultural nation like ours) but he "a" variety is a truly awful idea.
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.
Leave has had two and a half years and hasn't delivered anything. The referendum mandate expired last Friday.
No it didn't. That is just your wishful thinking. You are comprehensively wrong on every part of that comment.
I would agree that the mandate hasn't expired - Leave really hasn't delivered anything deliverable though....
Leave have not been in charge. Nor have Remain. May has. And that is a situation unique in its horror.
Major new development tonight as the Evening Standard is reporting the Attorney General Geoffrey Cox has told the Cabinet that the Government would be legally bound if the Commons votes for an indicative option tonight and then also votes for a Bill MPs led by Letwin intend to rush through on Wednesday and Thursday.
Cox has told Ministers under our system of parliamentary sovereignty if they fail to work 'in good faith' for Common Market 2.0 or a Customs Union if the Commons votes for it that will be acting illegally. Civil servants, including the Brexit negotiating team, would have to then act under mandate direct from Parliament
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 he is making even people who don't like Bercow look more kindly on him.
Err no.. Bercow is losing the plot. I doubt that he will survive Brexit.
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.
Leave has had two and a half years and hasn't delivered anything. The referendum mandate expired last Friday.
No it didn't. That is just your wishful thinking. You are comprehensively wrong on every part of that comment.
You are right. It has preoccupied government for nearly three years and delivered our political system to its knees. By any objective assessment most people now want rid of it.
The fault was with our political system and some, at least, of our politicians, not with Brexit.
Indeed if the IVs do come up with a reasonable Leave solution in a matter of a few days where May has failed utterly for the last 3 years then it will show exactly where the fault has lain.
As Kyle-Wilson is on any amendment tonight, unless it has had some surge of support from God only knows where there is no way whatever passes this evening will be subject to a PV. Whatever comes out, that'll be it. People just want this over with.
It won't hold, especially if it's in the "a" category. A future government will unwind it at the first opportunity. "The" customs still has some mileage as the EU does have a great many trade deals (though many are not advantageous to a non-agricultural nation like ours) but he "a" variety is a truly awful idea.
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.
Leave has had two and a half years and hasn't delivered anything. The referendum mandate expired last Friday.
No it didn't. That is just your wishful thinking. You are comprehensively wrong on every part of that comment.
I would agree that the mandate hasn't expired - Leave really hasn't delivered anything deliverable though....
Leave have not been in charge. Nor have Remain. May has. And that is a situation unique in its horror.
She's managed to almost get a deal over the line when a huge number of MPs that should be abstaining are simply voting everything down. If you're a Remainer MP you should abstain, or choose a Brexit route.
She's the good guy here. I'll concede that she's perhaps the worst good guy I've ever nominated as such though.
I'm not sure who the kitchen cabinet is but I don't really agree with much of this article. The central problem for the Tories is not Theresa May. It is the fact they are a split party. I'm struck when speaking to ordinary people how little animosity there is towards her. People blame David Cameron for leaving a mess for her to clear up. She may not have come across as warm during the election but some attractive policies and ability to think on her feet would have made up for that. It was the lack of spontaneity rather than warmth which probably crystallised the 'Maybot' moniker. Neither do I think there is anything personable about McVey and Truss.
I haven't followed much polling on BoJo lately - I thought the general consensus was that the sheen had come off some time ago.
As Kyle-Wilson is on any amendment tonight, unless it has had some surge of support from God only knows where there is no way whatever passes this evening will be subject to a PV. Whatever comes out, that'll be it. People just want this over with.
I fear that is wishful thinking. If it is not explicitly disallowed, they will come back with it. MPs don't just want it over, they've proven that many times.
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.
Leave has had two and a half years and hasn't delivered anything. The referendum mandate expired last Friday.
No it didn't. That is just your wishful thinking. You are comprehensively wrong on every part of that comment.
I would agree that the mandate hasn't expired - Leave really hasn't delivered anything deliverable though....
Leave have not been in charge. Nor have Remain. May has. And that is a situation unique in its horror.
She's managed to almost get a deal over the line when a huge number of MPs that should be abstaining are simply voting everything down. If you're a Remainer MP you should abstain, or choose a Brexit route.
She's the good guy here. I'll concede that she's perhaps the worst good guy I've ever nominated as such though.
The word ‘almost’ is stretched to the point of falsehood in that post.
As Kyle-Wilson is on any amendment tonight, unless it has had some surge of support from God only knows where there is no way whatever passes this evening will be subject to a PV. Whatever comes out, that'll be it. People just want this over with.
I fear that is wishful thinking. If it is not explicitly disallowed, they will come back with it. MPs don't just want it over, they've proven that many times.
It'll be allowed, but it won't have the numbers ultimately.
I'm not sure who the kitchen cabinet is but I don't really agree with much of this article. The central problem for the Tories is not Theresa May. It is the fact they are a split party. I'm struck when speaking to ordinary people how little animosity there is towards her. People blame David Cameron for leaving a mess for her to clear up. She may not have come across as warm during the election but some attractive policies and ability to think on her feet would have made up for that. It was the lack of spontaneity rather than warmth which probably crystallised the 'Maybot' moniker. Neither do I think there is anything personable about McVey and Truss.
I haven't followed much polling on BoJo lately - I thought the general consensus was that the sheen had come off some time ago.
Yes, she is probably a rare case of a PM leaving office with greater public regard than political regard. And one whose reputation is likely to decline as historians pore over all the misjudgements.
I'm not sure who the kitchen cabinet is but I don't really agree with much of this article. The central problem for the Tories is not Theresa May. It is the fact they are a split party. I'm struck when speaking to ordinary people how little animosity there is towards her. People blame David Cameron for leaving a mess for her to clear up. She may not have come across as warm during the election but some attractive policies and ability to think on her feet would have made up for that. It was the lack of spontaneity rather than warmth which probably crystallised the 'Maybot' moniker. Neither do I think there is anything personable about McVey and Truss.
I haven't followed much polling on BoJo lately - I thought the general consensus was that the sheen had come off some time ago.
As Kyle-Wilson is on any amendment tonight, unless it has had some surge of support from God only knows where there is no way whatever passes this evening will be subject to a PV. Whatever comes out, that'll be it. People just want this over with.
I fear that is wishful thinking. If it is not explicitly disallowed, they will come back with it. MPs don't just want it over, they've proven that many times.
It'll be allowed, but it won't have the numbers ultimately.
Why? Surely most Lab MPs, who want remain, are only going for other things on the basis they know they can get a referendum on top of things. Tories won't see it over the line.
Major new development tonight as the Evening Standard is reporting the Attorney General Geoffrey Cox has told the Cabinet that the Government would be legally bound if the Commons votes for an indicative option tonight and then also votes for a Bill MPs led by Letwin intend to rush through on Wednesday and Thursday.
Cox has told Ministers under our system of parliamentary sovereignty if they fail to work 'in good faith' for Common Market 2.0 or a Customs Union if the Commons votes for it that will be acting illegally. Civil servants, including the Brexit negotiating team, would have to then act under mandate direct from Parliament
I'm not sure who the kitchen cabinet is but I don't really agree with much of this article. The central problem for the Tories is not Theresa May. It is the fact they are a split party. I'm struck when speaking to ordinary people how little animosity there is towards her. People blame David Cameron for leaving a mess for her to clear up. She may not have come across as warm during the election but some attractive policies and ability to think on her feet would have made up for that. It was the lack of spontaneity rather than warmth which probably crystallised the 'Maybot' moniker. Neither do I think there is anything personable about McVey and Truss.
I haven't followed much polling on BoJo lately - I thought the general consensus was that the sheen had come off some time ago.
I'm coming round to the view that Mrs May is going to be PM for some time. Anyone else would split the party even more.
Major new development tonight as the Evening Standard is reporting the Attorney General Geoffrey Cox has told the Cabinet that the Government would be legally bound if the Commons votes for an indicative option tonight and then also votes for a Bill MPs led by Letwin intend to rush through on Wednesday and Thursday.
Cox has told Ministers under our system of parliamentary sovereignty if they fail to work 'in good faith' for Common Market 2.0 or a Customs Union if the Commons votes for it that will be acting illegally. Civil servants, including the Brexit negotiating team, would have to then act under mandate direct from Parliament
Major new development tonight as the Evening Standard is reporting the Attorney General Geoffrey Cox has told the Cabinet that the Government would be legally bound if the Commons votes for an indicative option tonight and then also votes for a Bill MPs led by Letwin intend to rush through on Wednesday and Thursday.
Cox has told Ministers under our system of parliamentary sovereignty if they fail to work 'in good faith' for Common Market 2.0 or a Customs Union if the Commons votes for it that will be acting illegally. Civil servants, including the Brexit negotiating team, would have to then act under mandate direct from Parliament
As Kyle-Wilson is on any amendment tonight, unless it has had some surge of support from God only knows where there is no way whatever passes this evening will be subject to a PV. Whatever comes out, that'll be it. People just want this over with.
I fear that is wishful thinking. If it is not explicitly disallowed, they will come back with it. MPs don't just want it over, they've proven that many times.
I suspect the only people who want it over are the party leaderships - they really don't want to have to fight an EU Parliament election which a confirmation referendum would force upon them.
I'm not sure who the kitchen cabinet is but I don't really agree with much of this article. The central problem for the Tories is not Theresa May. It is the fact they are a split party. I'm struck when speaking to ordinary people how little animosity there is towards her. People blame David Cameron for leaving a mess for her to clear up. She may not have come across as warm during the election but some attractive policies and ability to think on her feet would have made up for that. It was the lack of spontaneity rather than warmth which probably crystallised the 'Maybot' moniker. Neither do I think there is anything personable about McVey and Truss.
I haven't followed much polling on BoJo lately - I thought the general consensus was that the sheen had come off some time ago.
I agree with KC in the header that the Tories need someone with a bit of charisma, but not sure why he thinks Truss amd McVey have it. I suspect that it will come second place to being a true Brexiteer.
To be honest, I can't see any of the leading contenders doing it. They are all variously flawed.
My 84 year old lifelong Tory member mother was speaking positively about IDS when I rang her yesterday. This is not an April Fools!
Major new development tonight as the Evening Standard is reporting the Attorney General Geoffrey Cox has told the Cabinet that the Government would be legally bound if the Commons votes for an indicative option tonight and then also votes for a Bill MPs led by Letwin intend to rush through on Wednesday and Thursday.
Cox has told Ministers under our system of parliamentary sovereignty if they fail to work 'in good faith' for Common Market 2.0 or a Customs Union if the Commons votes for it that will be acting illegally. Civil servants, including the Brexit negotiating team, would have to then act under mandate direct from Parliament
I expect CU will win comfortably, CM2.0 will win and a second referendum will roughly break even.
At that point, it really is time to ditch the idea of second referendum, and get on with a Brexit compromise.
Who has changed their mind on CU??
Not SNP or LD or TIG.
Cabinet still not voting so not sure who will swap
Good point. I lazily assumed the SNP would switch.
In that case, CM2.0 will be a clear winner. Perhaps that can go up against the deal on Wednesday?
SNP will not go with anything that does not have FoM
Why is FoM a red line for the SNP?
Because so many people want to leave Scotland?
We are not xenophobic about people coming to live in our country, we welcome it, non unionists at least.
I was warmly welcomed as a unionist Malc
G , as you well know all are welcomed in Scotland, and many decent unionists as well live there but we have a lot of the bad sort as well. PS: does not take long for the xenophobes on here to come out of hiding.
Huw Merriman voting for a second referendum as the best way to deliver Brexit.
I think they should distinguish a 2nd referendum from a vote to ratify (or not) the leave terms. The latter is a perfectly legitimate exercise because the terms weren't obvious in 2016.
I'm not sure who the kitchen cabinet is but I don't really agree with much of this article. The central problem for the Tories is not Theresa May. It is the fact they are a split party. I'm struck when speaking to ordinary people how little animosity there is towards her. People blame David Cameron for leaving a mess for her to clear up. She may not have come across as warm during the election but some attractive policies and ability to think on her feet would have made up for that. It was the lack of spontaneity rather than warmth which probably crystallised the 'Maybot' moniker. Neither do I think there is anything personable about McVey and Truss.
I haven't followed much polling on BoJo lately - I thought the general consensus was that the sheen had come off some time ago.
I agree with KC in the header that the Tories need someone with a bit of charisma, but not sure why he thinks Truss amd McVey have it. I suspect that it will come second place to being a true Brexiteer.
To be honest, I can't see any of the leading contenders doing it. They are all variously flawed.
My 84 year old lifelong Tory member mother was speaking positively about IDS when I rang her yesterday. This is not an April Fools!
Boris has charisma, masses of baggage too but charisma definitely
Huw Merriman voting for a second referendum as the best way to deliver Brexit.
I think they should distinguish a 2nd referendum from a vote to ratify (or not) the leave terms. The latter is a perfectly legitimate exercise because the terms weren't obvious in 2016.
A second referendum is more open to criticism.
Although a Yes/No ratification referendum is fraught with danger for the establishment as you just know whatever deal the public is asked to ratify with be voted down just to troll the losers in Westminster.
Huw Merriman voting for a second referendum as the best way to deliver Brexit.
I think they should distinguish a 2nd referendum from a vote to ratify (or not) the leave terms. The latter is a perfectly legitimate exercise because the terms weren't obvious in 2016.
A second referendum is more open to criticism.
Because there is *nothing* more vilely undemocratic than giving the maximum possible number of people the maximum possible number of options, and letting them decide what their own future is to be.
I don't think I will ever stop laughing at that gag.
Leave have not been in charge. Nor have Remain. May has. And that is a situation unique in its horror.
She's managed to almost get a deal over the line when a huge number of MPs that should be abstaining are simply voting everything down. If you're a Remainer MP you should abstain, or choose a Brexit route.
She's the good guy here. I'll concede that she's perhaps the worst good guy I've ever nominated as such though.
The word ‘almost’ is stretched to the point of falsehood in that post.
I expect CU will win comfortably, CM2.0 will win and a second referendum will roughly break even.
At that point, it really is time to ditch the idea of second referendum, and get on with a Brexit compromise.
Who has changed their mind on CU??
Not SNP or LD or TIG.
Cabinet still not voting so not sure who will swap
Good point. I lazily assumed the SNP would switch.
In that case, CM2.0 will be a clear winner. Perhaps that can go up against the deal on Wednesday?
SNP will not go with anything that does not have FoM
Why is FoM a red line for the SNP?
Because so many people want to leave Scotland?
We are not xenophobic about people coming to live in our country, we welcome it, non unionists at least.
I was warmly welcomed as a unionist Malc
55% of Scottish voters are unionists.
Barking
You may have occupied it briefly, but don't push your luck!
Lots of Scottish voters are unionists though. Moreover I think that all Scottish people have some regard for the union - it's our shared history. If Scotland goes its own way that history will not be about English oppression - it'll be about cooperation.
Comments
Cox has told Ministers under our system of parliamentary sovereignty if they fail to work 'in good faith' for Common Market 2.0 or a Customs Union if the Commons votes for it that will be acting illegally. Civil servants, including the Brexit negotiating team, would have to then act under mandate direct from Parliament
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/chief-whip-julian-smith-accuses-mps-of-trying-to-undermine-theresa-may-in-bbc-documentary-on-brexit-a4105671.html
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/evening-standard-titanic-crash-looms-102700189.html
It should have happened much sooner.
A choice between May’s deal and the winner of the indicative votes process, Its even more ridiculous from the DUP point of view, asking whether they want fundamental betrayal served to them by a gay man dressed as serving wench in a Living Coral tight fitted bodice, cowl neck and split sleeves worn in mini dress style or fundamental betrayal served to them by a gay man dressed as serving wench in Rapture rose tight fitted bodice, cowl neck and split sleeves worn in mini dress style. Like WTF?
whichever way the result falls it would decide nothing, even with expected strong win for May’s WA for Cabinet minsters to talk up on Today programme next day, the only thing it would be indicative of is this sort of petty game playing that’s getting us deeper into this mess! Mr Speaker, Anyone who attempts to move such a ridiculous motion, to the tower with them!!! Place them in an Iron Brexit with a pear of backstop destiny up their arse and throw away the key.
Okay so rapture rose is so last year but you get the point. Put dots down as against the idea of a run off between May’s deal and the winner of the indicative votes can I have that put on record
Thanks
Regardless, the referendum ballot didn't ask anything about this. The question was merely leave or stay, so any outcome where we leave is justified. Future governments are free to campaign for whatever changes they want.
Anything past that is pure projection, and leavers have said many contradictory things about
the single market in particular over the years.
To Steve Baker it is anathema as Sinn Fein turning up to choose between a Labour and a Tory Gov't.
We have heard all of these points being made over and over and over. It isn't helpful to just give the same people the opportunity to repeat themselves over and over and over again.
Yes there was probably a majority of leavers in favour of ending FoM. But it was no where near as overwhelming as some people like to think.
Anyway it looks like Letwin 1 Francois 0 if Cox is right
Scottish Total Fertility Rate : 1.77
Indeed if the IVs do come up with a reasonable Leave solution in a matter of a few days where May has failed utterly for the last 3 years then it will show exactly where the fault has lain.
She's the good guy here. I'll concede that she's perhaps the worst good guy I've ever nominated as such though.
I haven't followed much polling on BoJo lately - I thought the general consensus was that the sheen had come off some time ago.
To be honest, I can't see any of the leading contenders doing it. They are all variously flawed.
My 84 year old lifelong Tory member mother was speaking positively about IDS when I rang her yesterday. This is not an April Fools!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/01/remainers-europe-excise-british-cancer
I know I'm one of the few people on our side who's actually interested in what the EU thinks.
PS: does not take long for the xenophobes on here to come out of hiding.
A second referendum is more open to criticism.
I don't think I will ever stop laughing at that gag.
Lots of Scottish voters are unionists though. Moreover I think that all Scottish people have some regard for the union - it's our shared history. If Scotland goes its own way that history will not be about English oppression - it'll be about cooperation.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/parentscountryofbirthenglandandwales/2017