How many of those were thinking of voting Tory anyway?
Who knows. If the polls are anything to go by there are about 2 million Tory voters who want to stay in the EU out there. They would have an above average incentive to sign the petition. I'd have thought that the Tories might have made some effort to keep them on board.
I'm still not surprised that Conservatives don't want to be seen flirting with the idea of Revocation. Whilst I think that Brexit won't be the most important factor in the next General Election, failing to deliver any form of Brexit at all has much greater potential consequences for them in terms of loss of trust and fragmentation of their voter coalition than any Brexit outcome does - even No Deal, save perhaps if the consequences thereof turn out to be apocalyptic.
Or, to put it more succinctly, it's not possible to please everyone.
There are ways of saying no respectfully.
You could just as easily argue that a Revoke debate is about a relatively small minority of MPs representing a relatively small minority of voters telling the 52% to shove their Brexit where the Sun don't shine. That's hardly respectful either.
Yes, the Government could've sent a junior minister along to restate its long-held opinion that the will of the people, expressed in 2016, should be respected - but what would this have achieved? We knew this already. It would've been a waste of time.
If one were being crude then, theoretically, the whole event might best be described as one massive circle jerk for desperate hardcore Remainiacs. But I'm a good boy so will not stoop so low.
Revoke and no deal have both been off the agenda for most of the time since the vote. That revoke is now not only an option, but as it happens the most popular option, is entirely due to the chaotic nature of the leave process. It is not the work of hard core remainiacs. It is not remotely sensible for the government to attempt to sideline its proponents just because they aren't represented in the house. If there are sound reasons for rejecting it, let's hear them.
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.
No, it's nothing toexpected them to.
Remain would be and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.
None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.
I'm not sure that's true.
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
Indeed.
I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.
Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?
The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.
I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.
Leave’s problem would be that any of those leading it would be extremely polarising. I think both campaigns would start with significant difficulties to overcome.
I agree with that. Nevertheless a public vote isn’t necessarily about its leaders or what its leaders want it to be about.
Remain would seek to make it a referendum on Francois, Farage, Grayling, Bridgen, Rees Mogg, Johnson, Trump, etc. If they’re for Leave, aren’t you against? It will be a pretty strong calling card if played probably. That said, I can’t see a referendum happening.
Leave would make it about "Who governs us? MPs - or voters? Let them know...."
When Heath asked that question he didnt get the answer that he wanted.
1. "Remain or No Deal" 2. "Remain or Deal" 3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy.
Etc.
The problem is thatCalvinball.
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.
No, it's nothing toexpected them to.
Remain would be and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.
None of it's at all a cert, but that.
I'm not sure that's true.
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
Indeed.
I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.
Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?
The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.
I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.
Leave’s problem would be that any of those leading it would be extremely polarising. I think both campaigns would start with significant difficulties to overcome.
I agree with that. Nevertheless a public vote isn’t necessarily about its leaders or what its leaders want it to be about.
Remain would seek to make it a referendum on Francois, Farage, Grayling, Bridgen, Rees Mogg, Johnson, Trump, etc. If they’re for Leave, aren’t you against? It will be a pretty strong calling card if played probably. That said, I can’t see a referendum happening.
Leave would make it about "Who governs us? MPs - or voters? Let them know...."
Yep, I know. As I say, both sides would start with big negatives, but also some very strong calling cards. It would undoubtedly be very close again.
1. "Remain or No Deal" 2. "Remain or Deal" 3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the
Easypeasy.
Etc.
The problem is thatCalvinball.
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.
No, it's nothing toexpected them to.
Remain would countries.
None of it's at all a cert, that.
I'm not sure that's true.
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
Indeed.
I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.
Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?
The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.
I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.
Leave’s problem would be that any of those leading it would be extremely polarising. I think.
I agree with that. Nevertheless a public vote isn’t necessarily about its leaders or what its leaders want it to be about.
Remain would seek to make it a referendum on Francois, Farage, Grayling, Bridgen, Rees Mogg, Johnson, Trump, etc. If they’re for Leave, aren’t you against? It will be a pretty strong calling card if played probably. That said, I can’t see a referendum happening.
“Come sneer with us at the gammons and the white proles that thought they knew better than us”
If you want to hold Francois, Bridgen, Rees Mogg and co as representative of a majority demographic in the UK, good luck!
Why don’t you fight on the virtues of the EU ?
Why does it have to be an intersectional battle against your own white mans guilt ?
I must say that I find it difficult to see how MP's can abstain, apparently on the grounds that that the shade of whatever version of sky-blue pink on offer isn't QUITE blue or pink enough.
On a happier note the operation which I had almost two weeks ago seems to have freed up my legs, although of course the healing process is by no means completed. Walked to (and from) the pub last Sunday evening with none of my previous discomfort!
I know it has already been trialed and failed on Friday but for me the current solution is to approve the WA but say to the EU we are still trying to decide what our future relationship with the EU should be so we would prefer not to have a PD at the moment. I think that they would be ok with that.
As I recall the existence of the PD at this stage was a concession to a demand from May. The EU would have been perfectly happy for us to leave without one.
They would be exasperated at having negotiated one only to junk it, but that's a relatively small admittance in the current context.
I must say that I find it difficult to see how MP's can abstain, apparently on the grounds that that the shade of whatever version of sky-blue pink on offer isn't QUITE blue or pink enough.
On a happier note the operation which I had almost two weeks ago seems to have freed up my legs, although of course the healing process is by no means completed. Walked to (and from) the pub last Sunday evening with none of my previous discomfort!
Good news, hope the recovery continues, for the benefit both of yourself and the Licensed trade!
1) An amendment to the deal to get a referendum. 2) A long extension to A50 to enable referendum to take place 3) A VONC in the government 4) A General Election
I suppose Mike is right that the likeliest thing is that the EU will agree to more time next week, even without a consensus on a plan.
What is going on now just seems so disconnected from reality, given how much of the discussion is about the future relationship, and how little that has to do with the Withdrawal Agreement, which is what needs to be dealt with immediately.
And - as ever - the extent to which the backstop is an insurance policy against something happening that everyone concerned has extremely strong reasons to prevent anyway.
I must say that I find it difficult to see how MP's can abstain, apparently on the grounds that that the shade of whatever version of sky-blue pink on offer isn't QUITE blue or pink enough.
On a happier note the operation which I had almost two weeks ago seems to have freed up my legs, although of course the healing process is by no means completed. Walked to (and from) the pub last Sunday evening with none of my previous discomfort!
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
That's certainly a possibility. Against that Remainiacs are riled up in a way they weren't originally.
But that answers your other question. Rightly or wrongly leavers don't feel they should have to win another referendum. So it's just really hard to get leavers in general, and Tory MPs specifically, to back the idea of having another referendum, no matter how it's set up.
I’d reluctantly back one - along the lines Robert is suggesting - if Parliament is incapable of making a decision, and it gets us out of this.
But, it would need to be imposed by Parliament under Letwin as legislation led by Parliament in recognition it had failed to do so.
With the bulk of the ERG onside, the problems we are experiencing in our democracy are now entirely down to Remainer MPs refusing to back the deal on offer from the EU. Do MPs really think the voters can't see this?
Yes
They’ve calculated (I think correctly) that it’ll be the Conservatives that take the blame.
I think you're wrong, remember our voters want no deal, it's Labour voters that are watching their party vote against the WA despite it being the only realistic way of avoiding no deal. That isn't going unnoticed. If Corbyn scuppers MV4 (it's coming back) then I'm certain he will get shat on by Labour voters who want to avoid no deal.
1. "Remain or No Deal" 2. "Remain or Deal" 3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the
Easypeasy.
Etc.
The problem is thatCalvinball.
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.
No, it's nothing toexpected them to.
Remain would countries.
None of it's at all a cert, that.
I'm not sure that's true.
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
Indeed.
I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.
Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?
The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.
I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.
Leave’s problem would be that any of those leading it would be extremely polarising. I think.
I agree with that. Nevertheless a public vote isn’t necessarily about its leaders or what its leaders want it to be about.
“Come sneer with us at the gammons and the white proles that thought they knew better than us”
If you want to hold Francois, Bridgen, Rees Mogg and co as representative of a majority demographic in the UK, good luck!
Why don’t you fight on the virtues of the EU ?
Why does it have to be an intersectional battle against your own white mans guilt ?
Eh?
This is about the future of the country not settling your scores with the posh boys.
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.
No, it's nothing toexpected them to.
Remain would be and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.
None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.
I'm not sure that's true.
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
Indeed.
I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.
Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?
The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.
I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.
Leave’s problem would be that any of those leading it would be extremely polarising. I think both campaigns would start with significant difficulties to overcome.
I agree with that. Nevertheless a public vote isn’t necessarily about its leaders or what its leaders want it to be about.
Remain would seek to make it a referendum on Francois, Farage, Grayling, Bridgen, Rees Mogg, Johnson, Trump, etc. If they’re for Leave, aren’t you against? It will be a pretty strong calling card if played probably. That said, I can’t see a referendum happening.
Leave would make it about "Who governs us? MPs - or voters? Let them know...."
When Heath asked that question he didnt get the answer that he wanted.
In 1979, Mrs T came to power and by 1981, she was lower in the polls than a snake's belly. By 1983, she was riding high again thanks to a combination of Galtieri and a left-wing Labour leader.
The cries of Apocalypse for both parties are probably overdone. But if I were either party, I wouldn't start from here.
Now that Norway has been taken off the table, there are only two effective choices - No Deal or Revocation. May still wants her deal although for no obvious reason given its total lack of merit. Corbyn still wants as much chaos as possible to boost his longing for a General Election. The British political system and British politicians have failed entirely and made the country an international laughing stock achieving precisely nothing.
The only possible way out would be a so-called Gov of National Unity but getting one of those set up with an agreed agenda that can command any kind of popular support will take too long. No Deal or Revocation it is.
1. "Remain or No Deal" 2. "Remain or Deal" 3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the
Easypeasy.
Etc.
The problem is thatCalvinball.
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.
No, it's nothing toexpected them to.
Remain would countries.
None of it's at all a cert, that.
I'm not sure that's true.
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
Indeed.
I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.
Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?
The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.
I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.
Leave’s problem would be that any of those leading it would be extremely polarising. I think.
I agree with that. Nevertheless a public vote isn’t necessarily about its leaders or what its leaders want it to be about.
“Come sneer with us at the gammons and the white proles that thought they knew better than us”
If you want to hold Francois, Bridgen, Rees Mogg and co as representative of a majority demographic in the UK, good luck!
Why don’t you fight on the virtues of the EU ?
Why does it have to be an intersectional battle against your own white mans guilt ?
Eh?
This is about the future of the country not settling your scores with the posh boys.
Yep - I don’t see the country’s future in the same way that the hard right does.
If accurately reported, isn't it interesting that a long extension is presented as something the UK can choose, rather than something that will be granted only if we can make a very convincing case for it?
The EU had two conditions for further extension beyond April 12th.
First the House of Commons comes up with a majority for an alternative to May's Deal and second the UK contests the EU Parliament elections. If we do not meet the first there is no guarantee we will get the second even with a further extension.
Now that Norway has been taken off the table, there are only two effective choices - No Deal or Revocation. May still wants her deal although for no obvious reason given its total lack of merit. Corbyn still wants as much chaos as possible to boost his longing for a General Election. The British political system and British politicians have failed entirely and made the country an international laughing stock achieving precisely nothing.
The only possible way out would be a so-called Gov of National Unity but getting one of those set up with an agreed agenda that can command any kind of popular support will take too long. No Deal or Revocation it is.
This is about how I read it this morning save they may engineer an election which will solve very little.
I suppose Mike is right that the likeliest thing is that the EU will agree to more time next week, even without a consensus on a plan.
What is going on now just seems so disconnected from reality, given how much of the discussion is about the future relationship, and how little that has to do with the Withdrawal Agreement, which is what needs to be dealt with immediately.
And - as ever - the extent to which the backstop is an insurance policy against something happening that everyone concerned has extremely strong reasons to prevent anyway.
The willingness of a large cohort of Tory MPs to use no deal as a negotiating tactic - with all that implies for Ireland - provides all the justification required for the EU to insist on the backstop.
It’s a problem for Conservatives, the bulk of whose voters have turned into moon-howling maniacs.
This sort of crude characterisation really doesn't help. There are howling ultras dug in on both sides of this argument; most of the population - representing various shades of opinion from "the referendum should be respected" to "the referendum should be run again," and encompassing groups such as "this is all so confusing" and "what is this Brexit mullarkey anyway" are stuck between the warring factions. This includes at least a very large fraction of both the Tory and Labour votes.
When we next get to a General Election, the most important determinants of voting behaviour are still liable to be cultural/habit/robotic voting, and the perceived desirability or otherwise of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. The Leave/Remain divide is a factor, but it's not the be all and end all of everything. Not by a long chalk.
Except there's a reason why 250 Conservative MPs voted against every indicative option and it's got a lot to do with the number of moon-howling maniacs who comprise their support. It may be a crude characterisation but it's an essential element of what's going wrong now.
1) An amendment to the deal to get a referendum. 2) A long extension to A50 to enable referendum to take place 3) A VONC in the government 4) A General Election
The first two options need EU consent and the last two result in No Deal - unless May survives another VONC.
The Commons needs a plan - and a figurehead for that plan - to replace her. It doesn't have one, and that's why May is still there.
Chicken and Egg. If she went, they would find one very quickly.
No it wouldn't unless Letwin can introduce some form of preference system on Wednesday it is difficult to see how a majority is achieved for any form of Brexit option
1) An amendment to the deal to get a referendum. 2) A long extension to A50 to enable referendum to take place 3) A VONC in the government 4) A General Election
The first two options need EU consent and the last two result in No Deal - unless May survives another VONC.
In the case of a general election the EU might grant an extension as if Corbyn and the SNP win that enables EUref2 or BINO
1. "Remain or No Deal" 2. "Remain or Deal" 3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy.
Etc.
The problem is thatCalvinball.
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.
No, it's nothing toexpected them to.
Remain would be and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.
None of it's at all a cert, but that.
Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?
The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.
I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.
Leave’s problem would be that any of those leading it would be extremely polarising. I think both campaigns would start with significant difficulties to overcome.
I agree with that. Nevertheless a public vote isn’t necessarily about its leaders or what its leaders want it to be about.
Remain would seek to make it a referendum on Francois, Farage, Grayling, Bridgen, Rees Mogg, Johnson, Trump, etc. If they’re for Leave, aren’t you against? It will be a pretty strong calling card if played probably. That said, I can’t see a referendum happening.
Leave would make it about "Who governs us? MPs - or voters? Let them know...."
Yep, I know. As I say, both sides would start with big negatives, but also some very strong calling cards. It would undoubtedly be very close again.
Yep both sides would have plenty of fire power and plenty of weaknesses.Although i am bemused about people claiming it would 'bring us together'....
It’s a problem for Conservatives, the bulk of whose voters have turned into moon-howling maniacs.
This sort of crude characterisation really doesn't help. There are howling ultras dug in on both sides of this argument; most of the population - representing various shades of opinion from "the referendum should be respected" to "the referendum should be run again," and encompassing groups such as "this is all so confusing" and "what is this Brexit mullarkey anyway" are stuck between the warring factions. This includes at least a very large fraction of both the Tory and Labour votes.
When we next get to a General Election, the most important determinants of voting behaviour are still liable to be cultural/habit/robotic voting, and the perceived desirability or otherwise of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. The Leave/Remain divide is a factor, but it's not the be all and end all of everything. Not by a long chalk.
Except there's a reason why 250 Conservative MPs voted against every indicative option and it's got a lot to do with the number of moon-howling maniacs who comprise their support. It may be a crude characterisation but it's an essential element of what's going wrong now.
"Moon-howling maniacs" = those who don't want democracy debased......
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.
No, it's nothing toexpected them to.
Remain would be and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.
None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.
I'm not sure that's true.
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
Indeed.
I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.
Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?
The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.
I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.
Leave’s problem would be that any of those leading it would be extremely polarising. I think both campaigns would start with significant difficulties to overcome.
I agree with that. Nevertheless a public vote isn’t necessarily about its leaders or what its leaders want it to be about.
Remain would seek to make it a referendum on Francois, Farage, Grayling, Bridgen, Rees Mogg, Johnson, Trump, etc. If they’re for Leave, aren’t you against? It will be a pretty strong calling card if played probably. That said, I can’t see a referendum happening.
No one has heard of Francois or Bridgen, & Farage, Johnson & Trump have proven success at overturning the odds vs the Establishment, so they’d be unwise to make it a referendum on them, especially when two have clean hands on the parliamentary debacle that has angered the country.
I think the next referendum will be about betrayal and lies, and leave have the better ammo
This is about the future of the country not settling your scores with the posh boys.
At some point our posh boys problem will have to be dealt with. But this might not be the time for it. By the time the superanuated soggy biscuit contest of Brexit is over there may not be many of them left standing in any case, and we might be ready to be governed responsibly by people rooted in their communities for whom politics is not a game.
It’s a problem for Conservatives, the bulk of whose voters have turned into moon-howling maniacs.
This sort of crude characterisation really doesn't help. There are howling ultras dug in on both sides of this argument; most of the population - representing various shades of opinion from "the referendum should be respected" to "the referendum should be run again," and encompassing groups such as "this is all so confusing" and "what is this Brexit mullarkey anyway" are stuck between the warring factions. This includes at least a very large fraction of both the Tory and Labour votes.
When we next get to a General Election, the most important determinants of voting behaviour are still liable to be cultural/habit/robotic voting, and the perceived desirability or otherwise of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. The Leave/Remain divide is a factor, but it's not the be all and end all of everything. Not by a long chalk.
Except there's a reason why 250 Conservative MPs voted against every indicative option and it's got a lot to do with the number of moon-howling maniacs who comprise their support. It may be a crude characterisation but it's an essential element of what's going wrong now.
"Moon-howling maniacs" = those who don't want democracy debased......
And pb's chief moon-howler turns up right on cue. The ballot paper did not specify a form of Brexit. It is not debasing democracy either to offer a different form of Brexit or to offer a fresh referendum. But the nutjobs have convinced themselves that a bit of chaos and destruction is fine if that secures the form of Brexit they want.
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.
No, it's nothing toexpected them to.
Remain would be and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.
Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?
The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.
I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.
Leave’s problem would be that any of those leading it would be extremely polarising. I think both campaigns would start with significant difficulties to overcome.
Remain would seek to make it a referendum on Francois, Farage, Grayling, Bridgen, Rees Mogg, Johnson, Trump, etc. If they’re for Leave, aren’t you against? It will be a pretty strong calling card if played probably. That said, I can’t see a referendum happening.
No one has heard of Francois or Bridgen, & Farage, Johnson & Trump have proven success at overturning the odds vs the Establishment, so they’d be unwise to make it a referendum on them, especially when two have clean hands on the parliamentary debacle that has angered the country.
I think the next referendum will be about betrayal and lies, and leave have the better ammo
Both sides lied, time and time again, it's one reason we are where we are.
F1: amused to see my Verstappen bet (tipped with a tiny stake yesterday at 15, each way, to win in China) has, er, lengthened to 17.
Intriguing that Leclerc now has shorter odds than Vettel to win the title (3.75 versus 4.33). Bottas is 13. That's Bottas, as in, 'man currently leading the pack'.
The each way has, already, fallen to a third the odds for top 2, rather than fifth the odds top 3. Somewhat tempted to back Bottas, but I suspect Ferrari and Red Bull will be strong in China (they were last year) so the odds may be better after that. It was around that time I backed Raikkonen in 2018 to finish top 3 (61 each way for the title).
MPs need to stop acting the fool and pass May's deal. Otherwise it has to be No Deal (which they claim they don't want)
That's all there is too it.
Quite, and perhaps MPs who claim to support Brexit butoppose no deal could get it into their thick heads that the Withdrawal Agreement does not determine the form of Brexit that ultimately arises.
I’m fed up of individuals arguing against May’s deal and in favour of “Customs Union”, “Norway”, “Common Market 2.0” etc etc, when all are not incompatible with the WA (the primary benefit of which is to remove No deal once and for all from the equation, provide some medium term certainty for businesses* and ALLOW US TO MOVE ON!)
*who must have found it difficult enough planning for no deal on a known date, let alone one which is completely up in the air.
Unless they genuinely think we'll get No Deal on 12th April rather than a year extension and political chaos, the ERG are really playing a silly game here. They could all vote for MV4 and it would still not get over the line, without the DUP and a good chunk of Labour rebels.
At that point, the next Conservative Leader would find more sympathy with the public that the only reason Brexit was delayed was because Continuity Remainers chose to block Brexit and they'd stand a good chance of winning an election with a mandate for Malthouse / Managed No Deal.
Whatever anyone might say now, No Deal was not a major feature of the referendum campaign and there are plenty of moderate Conservative voters that are perhaps irrevocably turned off by these games.
Who will fold ? Not the EU, not Ireland, not Dodds, not Corbyn.
It'll be May.
Sure, we know that TMay will surrender. But what we don't know is who she'll surrender *to*...
I am not sure that she can surrender. If she surrenders to the ERG and goes no deal then she loses a chunk of her cabinet including her Chancellor. If she surrenders to the CU she loses any pretense of having a majority in the Commons. Either way she loses power after which who cares what she thinks?
The majority of Tories now seem to see No Deal as a viable option. So that’s where May will go.
Then she falls from power and there is a GE where Corbyn probably wins against a completely divided, potentially outright split, Tory party. Its not a good option. No wonder she keeps coming back to her deal which has something for everyone if not everything for anyone.
Her Deal only passes with Labour votes. That means concessions written into law and that, too, brings down her government. She has no good options left, so she’ll take the least worst one. For her that’s the one that leads to the smallest Tory split. And that means No Deal.
May has said she will not positively pursue No Deal unless the Commons votes for it, which means she will put forward MV4 and a vote to contest the European elections though of course it takes only 1 EU nation to veto further extension if the Commons does not vote for MV4 or any positive alternative
It’s a problem for Conservatives, the bulk of whose voters have turned into moon-howling maniacs.
This sort of crude characterisation really doesn't help. There are howling ultras dug in on both sides of this argument; most of the population - representing various shades of opinion from "the referendum should be respected" to "the referendum should be run again," and encompassing groups such as "this is all so confusing" and "what is this Brexit mullarkey anyway" are stuck between the warring factions. This includes at least a very large fraction of both the Tory and Labour votes.
When we next get to a General Election, the most important determinants of voting behaviour are still liable to be cultural/habit/robotic voting, and the perceived desirability or otherwise of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. The Leave/Remain divide is a factor, but it's not the be all and end all of everything. Not by a long chalk.
Alastair's shorthand is provocative, but looking at the Times column quoted upthread, it is not entirely inaccurate in describing the situation of Tory MPs. Though it seems as much a fear of their constituency associations, as concern for the views of their electorate.
This is about the future of the country not settling your scores with the posh boys.
At some point our posh boys problem will have to be dealt with. But this might not be the time for it. By the time the superanuated soggy biscuit contest of Brexit is over there may not be many of them left standing in any case, and we might be ready to be governed responsibly by people rooted in their communities for whom politics is not a game.
People like Dennis Skinner? I'd for the educated and intelligent over the "rooted in their communities" every time. Andrew Bridgen is well rooted in his community (in a non-Australian sense).
1. "Remain or No Deal" 2. "Remain or Deal" 3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.
The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.
Would they?
This ensures that we find the Concordet Winner, which is what we should all be aiming for, right?
Given the EU will not change the WA, this is the clear and only way out.
There's no real room for voters to game the system - or at least not without risking getting something they really don't want.
The current situation means people deliberately lie.
If you are a Leaver, and you want us to Leave without a Deal, then it is incumbent upon you to convince more moderate Leavers that you think the Deal is worse than Remain. Because that's the only way you'll get what you want. But in the system I propose, lying is a dangerous game.
If Remain really is the Concordet winner, then so be it.
It’s a problem for Conservatives, the bulk of whose voters have turned into moon-howling maniacs.
This sort of crude characterisation really doesn't help. There are howling ultras dug in on both sides of this argument; most of the population - representing various shades of opinion from "the referendum should be respected" to "the referendum should be run again," and encompassing groups such as "this is all so confusing" and "what is this Brexit mullarkey anyway" are stuck between the warring factions. This includes at least a very large fraction of both the Tory and Labour votes.
When we next get to a General Election, the most important determinants of voting behaviour are still liable to be cultural/habit/robotic voting, and the perceived desirability or otherwise of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. The Leave/Remain divide is a factor, but it's not the be all and end all of everything. Not by a long chalk.
Except there's a reason why 250 Conservative MPs voted against every indicative option and it's got a lot to do with the number of moon-howling maniacs who comprise their support. It may be a crude characterisation but it's an essential element of what's going wrong now.
"Moon-howling maniacs" = those who don't want democracy debased......
And pb's chief moon-howler turns up right on cue. The ballot paper did not specify a form of Brexit. It is not debasing democracy either to offer a different form of Brexit or to offer a fresh referendum. But the nutjobs have convinced themselves that a bit of chaos and destruction is fine if that secures the form of Brexit they want.
I’d say it was debasing democracy to offer a second referendum before the first result was enacted, especially without going through the same procedure needed to get the first one, a manifesto commitment from a party winning a majority
1. "Remain or No Deal" 2. "Remain or Deal" 3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy.
Etc.
The problem is thatCalvinball.
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.
No
I'm not sure that's true.
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
Indeed.
I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.
Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?
The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.
I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.
Leave’s problem would be that any of those leading it would be extremely polarising. I think both campaigns would start with significant difficulties to overcome.
I agree with that. Nevertheless a public vote isn’t necessarily about its leaders or what its leaders want it to be about.
Remain would seek to make it a referendum on Francois, Farage, Grayling, Bridgen, Rees Mogg, Johnson, Trump, etc. If they’re for Leave, aren’t you against? It will be a pretty strong calling card if played probably. That said, I can’t see a referendum happening.
That’s a good example of how Remain shouldn’t do, which goes back to what I was saying earlier.
That will only play strongly to voters who already agree with them, and they already have in the bag.
The biggest blame, by far, for the impasse lies with Theresa May. She actively undermined the search for alternatives and saw the bulk of her MPs vote against every choice.
The indicative votes did indicate something: that three out of the four proposals would win with government support. May needs to choose one of them and say, we're going with this.
Why not submit her own deal for the fifth time? Because too many of her own MPs think it's poison and her coalition partners are implacably opposed. If it does get passed it will only be because Labour MPs were shanghaied into acquiescence to avoid something worse. This is no basis for a stable policy and will bite her in less than two weeks.
If she goes for one of the other policies she will have something the opposition have actively voted for. May is the prime minister, Brexit is her policy. She is the one who will deliver it. She needs to start being responsible.
I must say that I find it difficult to see how MP's can abstain, apparently on the grounds that that the shade of whatever version of sky-blue pink on offer isn't QUITE blue or pink enough.
On a happier note the operation which I had almost two weeks ago seems to have freed up my legs, although of course the healing process is by no means completed. Walked to (and from) the pub last Sunday evening with none of my previous discomfort!
Glad to hear the op went well.
I think you're absolutely right, abstaining is getting silly now. Some Tories like Ken Clarke, Nick Boles, Letwin are at least providing potential solutions. I remain very worried that the People's Vote campaign are going to give us a No Deal Brexit.
1. "Remain or No Deal" 2. "Remain or Deal" 3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.
The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.
No, it's nothing to do with being intelligent and thoughtful. If they were intelligent and thoughtful they wouldn't change their minds based on the brexit negotiations turning out the way intelligent and thoughtful people already expected them to.
Remain would be favourite because Leave only just squeaked in before, so there's no scope to lose voters, and they'd lose some to Remain when faced with either of the specific ways of leaving that would be on the ballot. Plus, it's going worse than floating voters expected, and a lot of them are sick of it. Plus, the combination of Trump, a better economy and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.
None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.
I'm not sure that's true.
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
Indeed.
I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.
Well if you are so confident let's get out the pencils.
F1: amused to see my Verstappen bet (tipped with a tiny stake yesterday at 15, each way, to win in China) has, er, lengthened to 17.
Intriguing that Leclerc now has shorter odds than Vettel to win the title (3.75 versus 4.33). Bottas is 13. That's Bottas, as in, 'man currently leading the pack'.
The each way has, already, fallen to a third the odds for top 2, rather than fifth the odds top 3. Somewhat tempted to back Bottas, but I suspect Ferrari and Red Bull will be strong in China (they were last year) so the odds may be better after that. It was around that time I backed Raikkonen in 2018 to finish top 3 (61 each way for the title).
I would be disinclined to bet on Bottas beating Hamilton in China. One of his stronger tracks - and Bahrain was one of his weaker ones...
Ferrari, if reliable, ought to be favourites again, assuming reliability. They very clearly have a straight line speed advantage, whether from a more powerful engine, or more efficient aero, and China has the longest straight of any circuit.
Red Bull will have to up their game substantially to compete.
The biggest blame, by far, for the impasse lies with Theresa May. She actively undermined the search for alternatives and saw the bulk of her MPs vote against every choice.
But there are no alternatives. Every alternative is either a unicorn or not brexit at all. The only way to leave the EU is via the WA, as Barnier has said time and time again.
Her logic is sound. To leave the EU with a deal is to pass the WA. Thats it. CU/CU2.0 is all later stuff.
I must say that I find it difficult to see how MP's can abstain, apparently on the grounds that that the shade of whatever version of sky-blue pink on offer isn't QUITE blue or pink enough.
On a happier note the operation which I had almost two weeks ago seems to have freed up my legs, although of course the healing process is by no means completed. Walked to (and from) the pub last Sunday evening with none of my previous discomfort!
We have now reached the stage where any responsible MP would be voting yes to any option that did not result in profound disruption. So, yes to Theresa May’s Deal, yes to Common Market 2.0, yes to a customs union and yes to a new referendum.
Britain has few responsible MPs.
It shows up that few of them are actually concerned about the consequences of what happens if they dont get what they want. They know to pretend they care but there votes demonstrate they think the cost is worth it.
1. "Remain or No Deal" 2. "Remain or Deal" 3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.
The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.
None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.
I'm not sure that's true.
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
Indeed.
I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.
Well if you are so confident let's get out the pencils.
I’m not confident.
I just don’t see it as the slam dunk you do.
I think Arsenal would beat Newcastle again if last nights game were replayed, but seeing as we got the maximum points available already I’m not up for it
1. "Remain or No Deal" 2. "Remain or Deal" 3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy.
Etc.
The problem is thatCalvinball.
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.
No
I'm not sure that's true.
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
Indeed.
I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.
Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?
The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.
I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.
Leave’s problem would be that any of those leading it would be extremely polarising. I think both campaigns would start with significant difficulties to overcome.
I agree with that. Nevertheless a public vote isn’t necessarily about its leaders or what its leaders want it to be about.
Remain would seek to make it a referendum on Francois, Farage, Grayling, Bridgen, Rees Mogg, Johnson, Trump, etc. If they’re for Leave, aren’t you against? It will be a pretty strong calling card if played probably. That said, I can’t see a referendum happening.
That’s a good example of how Remain shouldn’t do, which goes back to what I was saying earlier.
That will only play strongly to voters who already agree with them, and they already have in the bag.
For once, I agree with you. You should let your opponents' ugliness speak for itself.
May is one of the worst politicians that we have ever had as PM, totally incapable of building a consensus about anything, but she is not stupid. What the indicative vote nonsense has shown is that her deal and the red lines on which it is based comes closer to meeting most peoples' aspirations than anything else, not least because it leaves so much up for grabs in the PD.
So much of the debate yesterday are about options that will still be on the table if the WA goes through. I know it has already been trialed and failed on Friday but for me the current solution is to approve the WA but say to the EU we are still trying to decide what our future relationship with the EU should be so we would prefer not to have a PD at the moment. I think that they would be ok with that.
I think that the logical outcome of that would be that there would be a GE well within the 2 years of the transitional agreement so that a new Parliament with a new PM can decide what the arrangement with the EU should be.
Makes sense - actually gives us time for a GE and the timing of the GE would not be problematic.
It’s a problem for Conservatives, the bulk of whose voters have turned into moon-howling maniacs.
This sort of crude characterisation really doesn't help. There are howling ultras dug in on both sides of this argument; most of the population - representing various shades of opinion from "the referendum should be respected" to "the referendum should be run again," and encompassing groups such as "this is all so confusing" and "what is this Brexit mullarkey anyway" are stuck between the warring factions. This includes at least a very large fraction of both the Tory and Labour votes.
When we next get to a General Election, the most important determinants of voting behaviour are still liable to be cultural/habit/robotic voting, and the perceived desirability or otherwise of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. The Leave/Remain divide is a factor, but it's not the be all and end all of everything. Not by a long chalk.
Except there's a reason why 250 Conservative MPs voted against every indicative option and it's got a lot to do with the number of moon-howling maniacs who comprise their support. It may be a crude characterisation but it's an essential element of what's going wrong now.
Leaving the customs union and single market was in their manifesto.
I note you don’t offer the same criticism to LDs and TIGers also voting down such compromises because they want a PV or full revocation only.
Rachel Sylvester's article in the Times this morning is instructive.
David Cameron's plan was to distance the Conservative party from UKIP. May has chosen to embrace them instead.
A Brexit-supporting minister is convinced that there is a reservoir of potential voters in Leave-voting constituencies who “want a sense of belonging” and could be won over to a patriotic Tory party. “One of the missing elements of ‘Modernisation 1.0’ was the failure to secure the support of working-class voters and people in the north and the Midlands,” he says. “They’re the people who have now come over.
One MP on the liberal wing concedes that the Tory party could turn itself into a right-wing populist party with working-class appeal: socially conservative, tough on crime and immigration, in favour of public spending. “It would be a kind of Ukip-lite, forcing Labour out of its northern strongholds, except in urban areas,” he says. “But it’s not a Tory party I would ever be able to be part of.”
The Tories can do the hard right English nationalism. They can’t do the public spending. That’s their problem.
Sadly, I don't think it will be their problem.
Our politics is becoming Americanised, and the ERG/post-May Tories will be the new Republicans. Their soft-nationalist, self-sufficiency messages pull in the less well-off, less well-educated as well as the traditionally-inclined middle-class. Low public spending is an electoral asset here - "look, we're cutting benefits to scroungers" quickly becomes "we are funding the NHS, it's just going to waste because of inefficient overpaid Guardian-reading managers/immigrant scroungers filling the beds/etc... so let's privatise it to put some rigour in there".
Labour, meanwhile, are echoing the AOC redistributive message... albeit without anyone in the Shadow Cabinet remotely as appealing as AOC. Instead they have Barry Gardiner and Richard Burgon. Heaven help us.
May, to her credit, did once appear to ostensibly believe in a more compassionate, generous Conservatism. Unfortunately her political skills haven't been up to the task, and her mean-spirited inability to build bridges with others has squandered any chance of building even an intra-party coalition in the way that Cameron did.
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.
No, it's nothing toexpected them to.
Remain would be and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.
None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.
I'm not sure that's true.
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
Indeed.
I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.
Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?
The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.
I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.
Leave’s problem would be that any of those leading it would be extremely polarising. I think both campaigns would start with significant difficulties to overcome.
I agree with that. Nevertheless a public vote isn’t necessarily about its leaders or what its leaders want it to be about.
I can’t see a referendum happening.
No one has heard of Francois or Bridgen, & Farage, Johnson & Trump have proven success at overturning the odds vs the Establishment, so they’d be unwise to make it a referendum on them, especially when two have clean hands on the parliamentary debacle that has angered the country.
I think the next referendum will be about betrayal and lies, and leave have the better ammo
I’d explicitly take the whip away from Francois now, even knowing it would cut the Government majority to three.
It’s a problem for Conservatives, the bulk of whose voters have turned into moon-howling maniacs.
This sort of crude characterisation really doesn't help. There are howling ultras dug in on both sides of this argument; most of the population - representing various shades of opinion from "the referendum should be respected" to "the referendum should be run again," and encompassing groups such as "this is all so confusing" and "what is this Brexit mullarkey anyway" are stuck between the warring factions. This includes at least a very large fraction of both the Tory and Labour votes.
When we next get to a General Election, the most important determinants of voting behaviour are still liable to be cultural/habit/robotic voting, and the perceived desirability or otherwise of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. The Leave/Remain divide is a factor, but it's not the be all and end all of everything. Not by a long chalk.
Except there's a reason why 250 Conservative MPs voted against every indicative option and it's got a lot to do with the number of moon-howling maniacs who comprise their support. It may be a crude characterisation but it's an essential element of what's going wrong now.
"Moon-howling maniacs" = those who don't want democracy debased......
And pb's chief moon-howler turns up right on cue. The ballot paper did not specify a form of Brexit. It is not debasing democracy either to offer a different form of Brexit or to offer a fresh referendum. But the nutjobs have convinced themselves that a bit of chaos and destruction is fine if that secures the form of Brexit they want.
Moon-howler? I'm for May's Shit Deal. Have been for ages.
How does the tag of pb's chief democracy-debaser sit with you??
It’s a problem for Conservatives, the bulk of whose voters have turned into moon-howling maniacs.
This sort of crude characterisation really doesn't help. There are howling ultras dug in on both sides of this argument; most of the population - representing various shades of opinion from "the referendum should be respected" to "the referendum should be run again," and encompassing groups such as "this is all so confusing" and "what is this Brexit mullarkey anyway" are stuck between the warring factions. This includes at least a very large fraction of both the Tory and Labour votes.
When we next get to a General Election, the most important determinants of voting behaviour are still liable to be cultural/habit/robotic voting, and the perceived desirability or otherwise of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. The Leave/Remain divide is a factor, but it's not the be all and end all of everything. Not by a long chalk.
Except there's a reason why 250 Conservative MPs voted against every indicative option and it's got a lot to do with the number of moon-howling maniacs who comprise their support. It may be a crude characterisation but it's an essential element of what's going wrong now.
"Moon-howling maniacs" = those who don't want democracy debased......
And pb's chief moon-howler turns up right on cue. The ballot paper did not specify a form of Brexit. It is not debasing democracy either to offer a different form of Brexit or to offer a fresh referendum. But the nutjobs have convinced themselves that a bit of chaos and destruction is fine if that secures the form of Brexit they want.
I’d say it was debasing democracy to offer a second referendum before the first result was enacted, especially without going through the same procedure needed to get the first one, a manifesto commitment from a party winning a majority
The first result has proved impossible to enact, because of the central lie at the heart of leave: the attempt to appeal to fundamentally incompatible visions.
That doesn't mean a second referendum is the right way forward (and as I've said in the past, too many remainers have wasted the last two years when they should have been selling their vision). But the idea that a second referendum would be undemocratic after the last two years of chaos is rather silly IMO. Things have changed.
The biggest blame, by far, for the impasse lies with Theresa May. She actively undermined the search for alternatives and saw the bulk of her MPs vote against every choice.
But there are no alternatives. Every alternative is either a unicorn or not brexit at all. The only way to leave the EU is via the WA, as Barnier has said time and time again.
Her logic is sound. To leave the EU with a deal is to pass the WA. Thats it. CU/CU2.0 is all later stuff.
If it doesn't matter, choose one of the options and get it passed.
"I think it's simply the case of their having been arguing about this for such a very, very long time by now that a great many MPs are dug into entrenched positions from which they no longer feel able to move."
Western Front WW1. Who will play the roles of the Strosstruppen/Americans?
Who will fold ? Not the EU, not Ireland, not Dodds, not Corbyn.
It'll be May.
Sure, we know that TMay will surrender. But what we don't know is who she'll surrender *to*...
I am not sure that she can surrender. If she surrenders to the ERG and goes no deal then she loses a chunk of her cabinet including her Chancellor. If she surrenders to the CU she loses any pretense of having a majority in the Commons. Either way she loses power after which who cares what she thinks?
The majority of Tories now seem to see No Deal as a viable option. So that’s where May will go.
Then she falls from power and there is a GE where Corbyn probably wins against a completely divided, potentially outright split, Tory party. Its not a good option. No wonder she keeps coming back to her deal which has something for everyone if not everything for anyone.
Her Deal only passes with Labour votes. That means concessions written into law and that, too, brings down her government. She has no good options left, so she’ll take the least worst one. For her that’s the one that leads to the smallest Tory split. And that means No Deal.
This seems the most likely unfortunately . We are told some 200 Tory mps want no deal as the back up now. She wont go against that though it costs her more cabinet members.
Its just the easiest route open to her if the deal wont pass and even now why woukd it? Drax has reneged and I doubt Boles will back it again. So she needs everyone else from before plus 32 others. 32 others who didn't vote for it without the PD and knowing without passing it it would be no deal or long extension.
The biggest blame, by far, for the impasse lies with Theresa May. She actively undermined the search for alternatives and saw the bulk of her MPs vote against every choice.
But there are no alternatives. Every alternative is either a unicorn or not brexit at all. The only way to leave the EU is via the WA, as Barnier has said time and time again.
Her logic is sound. To leave the EU with a deal is to pass the WA. Thats it. CU/CU2.0 is all later stuff.
If it doesn't matter, choose one of the options and get it passed.
It’s a problem for Conservatives, the bulk of whose voters have turned into moon-howling maniacs.
This sort of crude characterisation really doesn't help. There are howling ultras dug in on both sides of this argument; most of the population - representing various shades of opinion from "the referendum should be respected" to "the referendum should be run again," and encompassing groups such as "this is all so confusing" and "what is this Brexit mullarkey anyway" are stuck between the warring factions. This includes at least a very large fraction of both the Tory and Labour votes.
When we next get to a General Election, the most important determinants of voting behaviour are still liable to be cultural/habit/robotic voting, and the perceived desirability or otherwise of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. The Leave/Remain divide is a factor, but it's not the be all and end all of everything. Not by a long chalk.
Except there's a reason why 250 Conservative MPs voted against every indicative option and it's got a lot to do with the number of moon-howling maniacs who comprise their support. It may be a crude characterisation but it's an essential element of what's going wrong now.
Leaving the customs union and single market was in their manifesto.
I note you don’t offer the same criticism to LDs and TIGers also voting down such compromises because they want a PV or full revocation only.
I offer exactly the same criticism of them. The time for seeking the perfect outcome or even a reasonably desirable outcome is past. The time for avoiding chaos has been reached and MPs should vote accordingly.
It’s a problem for Conservatives, the bulk of whose voters have turned into moon-howling maniacs.
Except there's a reason why 250 Conservative MPs voted against every indicative option and it's got a lot to do with the number of moon-howling maniacs who comprise their support. It may be a crude characterisation but it's an essential element of what's going wrong now.
"Moon-howling maniacs" = those who don't want democracy debased......
And pb's chief moon-howler turns up right on cue. The ballot paper did not specify a form of Brexit. It is not debasing democracy either to offer a different form of Brexit or to offer a fresh referendum. But the nutjobs have convinced themselves that a bit of chaos and destruction is fine if that secures the form of Brexit they want.
I’d say it was debasing democracy to offer a second referendum before the first result was enacted, especially without going through the same procedure needed to get the first one, a manifesto commitment from a party winning a majority
The first result has proved impossible to enact, because of the central lie at the heart of leave: the attempt to appeal to fundamentally incompatible visions.
That doesn't mean a second referendum is the right way forward (and as I've said in the past, too many remainers have wasted the last two years when they should have been selling their vision). But the idea that a second referendum would be undemocratic after the last two years of chaos is rather silly IMO. Things have changed.
I don’t see that anything has changed. If you put a decision made by the public to a house with a majority that are dead set against it, it results in what we have. Would have been the same if they’d been voting on it on June 24th 2016. The MPs have just filibustered the public because they lost. The PMs deal should not have been put to them.
Following OKC good news this morning I thought I would warm your hearts by recounting this conversation with my younger granddaughter yesterday after we had picked her and her brother up from school
Cuddling upto me she said
'Papa, do you know what I said to my Daddy on the way to school this morning'
'No sweetheart, what did you say to your Daddy this morning'
'I said to Daddy we have to look after our grand parents so they do not die'
Such innocence and caring from one so young raises your sprits especially in this political climate of despair
Suspect May's legacy is definitively toast if she pursues no deal. Parliament has strongly voted against no deal and she has agreed to shortly step down as PM, so she can't influence future events (but will be blamed for them) and perhaps leads to Corbyn.
Think her options are realistically long vanilla extension without a GE or referendum (if EU agrees without cause), no deal or a confirmatory referendum on her deal. Last is probably best for her own personal legacy, even if not within the Conservative party.
This is about the future of the country not settling your scores with the posh boys.
At some point our posh boys problem will have to be dealt with. But this might not be the time for it. By the time the superanuated soggy biscuit contest of Brexit is over there may not be many of them left standing in any case, and we might be ready to be governed responsibly by people rooted in their communities for whom politics is not a game.
People like Dennis Skinner? I'd for the educated and intelligent over the "rooted in their communities" every time. Andrew Bridgen is well rooted in his community (in a non-Australian sense).
There are plenty of educated and intelligent people in this country who are not posh boys (the fact that posh boys believe they are the only educated and intelligent people in the country being part of the problem).
It’s a problem for Conservatives, the bulk of whose voters have turned into moon-howling maniacs.
This sort of crude characterisation really doesn't help. There are howling ultras dug in on both sides of this argument; most of the population - representing various shades of opinion from "the referendum should be respected" to "the referendum should be run again," and encompassing groups such as "this is all so confusing" and "what is this Brexit mullarkey anyway" are stuck between the warring factions. This includes at least a very large fraction of both the Tory and Labour votes.
When we next get to a General Election, the most important determinants of voting behaviour are still liable to be cultural/habit/robotic voting, and the perceived desirability or otherwise of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. The Leave/Remain divide is a factor, but it's not the be all and end all of everything. Not by a long chalk.
Except there's a reason why 250 Conservative MPs voted against every indicative option and it's got a lot to do with the number of moon-howling maniacs who comprise their support. It may be a crude characterisation but it's an essential element of what's going wrong now.
"Moon-howling maniacs" = those who don't want democracy debased......
And pb's chief moon-howler turns up right on cue. The ballot paper did not specify a form of Brexit. It is not debasing democracy either to offer a different form of Brexit or to offer a fresh referendum. But the nutjobs have convinced themselves that a bit of chaos and destruction is fine if that secures the form of Brexit they want.
Moon-howler? I'm for May's Shit Deal. Have been for ages.
How does the tag of pb's chief democracy-debaser sit with you??
May's Shit Deal is not the only conceivable non-disruptive route out of this mess. For the bulk of the Conservative party to vote as if it were is utterly irresponsible.
1. "Remain or No Deal" 2. "Remain or Deal" 3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.
The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.
No, it's nothing to do with being intelligent and thoughtful. If they were intelligent and thoughtful they wouldn't change their minds based on the brexit negotiations turning out the way intelligent and thoughtful people already expected them to.
Remain would be favourite because Leave only just squeaked in before, so there's no scope to lose voters, and they'd lose some to Remain when faced with either of the specific ways of leaving that would be on the ballot. Plus, it's going worse than floating voters expected, and a lot of them are sick of it. Plus, the combination of Trump, a better economy and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.
None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.
I'm not sure that's true.
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
Indeed.
I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.
Well if you are so confident let's get out the pencils.
It’s a problem for Conservatives, the bulk of whose voters have turned into moon-howling maniacs.
This sort of crude characterisation really doesn't help. There are howling ultras dug in on both sides of this argument; most of the population - representing various shades of opinion from "the referendum should be respected" to "the referendum should be run again," and encompassing groups such as "this is all so confusing" and "what is this Brexit mullarkey anyway" are stuck between the warring factions. This includes at least a very large fraction of both the Tory and Labour votes.
When we next get to a General Election, the most important determinants of voting behaviour are still liable to be cultural/habit/robotic voting, and the perceived desirability or otherwise of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. The Leave/Remain divide is a factor, but it's not the be all and end all of everything. Not by a long chalk.
Except there's a reason why 250 Conservative MPs voted against every indicative option and it's got a lot to do with the number of moon-howling maniacs who comprise their support. It may be a crude characterisation but it's an essential element of what's going wrong now.
"Moon-howling maniacs" = those who don't want democracy debased......
And pb's chief moon-howler turns up right on cue. The ballot paper did not specify a form of Brexit. It is not debasing democracy either to offer a different form of Brexit or to offer a fresh referendum. But the nutjobs have convinced themselves that a bit of chaos and destruction is fine if that secures the form of Brexit they want.
I’d say it was debasing democracy to offer a second referendum before the first result was enacted, especially without going through the same procedure needed to get the first one, a manifesto commitment from a party winning a majority
There has been enough time for the referendum to be enacted. I don't see why it should be given any more. Every failed project has to be ended some time.
It’s a problem for Conservatives, the bulk of whose voters have turned into moon-howling maniacs.
This sort of crude characterisation really doesn't help. There are howling ultras dug in on both sides of this argument; most of the population - representing various shades of opinion from "the referendum should be respected" to "the referendum should be run again," and encompassing groups such as "this is all so confusing" and "what is this Brexit mullarkey anyway" are stuck between the warring factions. This includes at least a very large fraction of both the Tory and Labour votes.
When we next get to a General Election, the most important determinants of voting behaviour are still liable to be cultural/habit/robotic voting, and the perceived desirability or otherwise of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. The Leave/Remain divide is a factor, but it's not the be all and end all of everything. Not by a long chalk.
Except there's a reason why 250 Conservative MPs voted against every indicative option and it's got a lot to do with the number of moon-howling maniacs who comprise their support. It may be a crude characterisation but it's an essential element of what's going wrong now.
"Moon-howling maniacs" = those who don't want democracy debased......
And pb's chief moon-howler turns up right on cue. The ballot paper did not specify a form of Brexit. It is not debasing democracy either to offer a different form of Brexit or to offer a fresh referendum. But the nutjobs have convinced themselves that a bit of chaos and destruction is fine if that secures the form of Brexit they want.
Moon-howler? I'm for May's Shit Deal. Have been for ages.
How does the tag of pb's chief democracy-debaser sit with you??
May's Shit Deal is not the only conceivable non-disruptive route out of this mess. For the bulk of the Conservative party to vote as if it were is utterly irresponsible.
it's the only route if you beleive that Brexit should happen.
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.
No, it's nothing toexpected them to.
Remain would be and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.
None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.
I'm not sure that's true.
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
Indeed.
I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.
Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?
The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.
I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.
Leave’s problem would be that any of those leading it would be extremely polarising. I think both campaigns would start with significant difficulties to overcome.
I agree with that. Nevertheless a public vote isn’t necessarily about its leaders or what its leaders want it to be about.
I can’t see a referendum happening.
No one has heard of Francois or Bridgen, & Farage, Johnson & Trump have proven success at overturning the odds vs the Establishment, so they’d be unwise to make it a referendum on them, especially when two have clean hands on the parliamentary debacle that has angered the country.
I think the next referendum will be about betrayal and lies, and leave have the better ammo
I’d explicitly take the whip away from Francois now, even knowing it would cut the Government majority to three.
It’s a problem for Conservatives, the bulk of whose voters have turned into moon-howling maniacs.
Except there's a reason why 250 Conservative MPs voted against every indicative option and it's got a lot to do with the number of moon-howling maniacs who comprise their support. It may be a crude characterisation but it's an essential element of what's going wrong now.
"Moon-howling maniacs" = those who don't want democracy debased......
And pb's chief moon-howler turns up right on cue. The ballot paper did not specify a form of Brexit. It is not debasing democracy either to offer a different form of Brexit or to offer a fresh referendum. But the nutjobs have convinced themselves that a bit of chaos and destruction is fine if that secures the form of Brexit they want.
I’d say it was debasing democracy to offer a second referendum before the first result was enacted, especially without going through the same procedure needed to get the first one, a manifesto commitment from a party winning a majority
The first result has proved impossible to enact, because of the central lie at the heart of leave: the attempt to appeal to fundamentally incompatible visions.
That doesn't mean a second referendum is the right way forward (and as I've said in the past, too many remainers have wasted the last two years when they should have been selling their vision). But the idea that a second referendum would be undemocratic after the last two years of chaos is rather silly IMO. Things have changed.
I don’t see that anything has changed. If you put a decision made by the public to a house with a majority that are dead set against it, it results in what we have. Would have been the same if they’d been voting on it on June 24th 2016. The MPs have just filibustered the public because they lost. The PMs deal should not have been put to them.
'Nothing has changed' if you ignore the last two years. If you take into account, much has changed.
It’s a problem for Conservatives, the bulk of whose voters have turned into moon-howling maniacs.
This sort of crude characterisation really doesn't help. There are howling ultras dug in on both sides of this argument; most of the population - representing various shades of opinion from "the referendum should be respected" to "the referendum should be run again," and encompassing groups such as "this is all so confusing" and "what is this Brexit mullarkey anyway" are stuck between the warring factions. This includes at least a very large fraction of both the Tory and Labour votes.
When we next get to a General Election, the most important determinants of voting behaviour are still liable to be cultural/habit/robotic voting, and the perceived desirability or otherwise of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. The Leave/Remain divide is a factor, but it's not the be all and end all of everything. Not by a long chalk.
Except there's a reason why 250 Conservative MPs voted against every indicative option and it's got a lot to do with the number of moon-howling maniacs who comprise their support. It may be a crude characterisation but it's an essential element of what's going wrong now.
Leaving the customs union and single market was in their manifesto.
I note you don’t offer the same criticism to LDs and TIGers also voting down such compromises because they want a PV or full revocation only.
I offer exactly the same criticism of them. The time for seeking the perfect outcome or even a reasonably desirable outcome is past. The time for avoiding chaos has been reached and MPs should vote accordingly.
MPs can vote for any deal and legitimately say the result has been honoured. If they vote to revoke or for a second referendum they cannot say that.
If the public are as enraged by the deal as the ERG or UKIP then we’ll find out at the next GE. My guess is they will be glad to talk about something, anything else.
It’s a problem for Conservatives, the bulk of whose voters have turned into moon-howling maniacs.
Except there's a reason why 250 Conservative MPs voted against every indicative option and it's got a lot to do with the number of moon-howling maniacs who comprise their support. It may be a crude characterisation but it's an essential element of what's going wrong now.
"Moon-howling maniacs" = those who don't want democracy debased......
And pb's chief moon-howler turns up right on cue. The ballot paper did not specify a form of Brexit. It is not debasing democracy either to offer a different form of Brexit or to offer a fresh referendum. But the nutjobs have convinced themselves that a bit of chaos and destruction is fine if that secures the form of Brexit they want.
I’d say it was debasing democracy to offer a second referendum before the first result was enacted, especially without going through the same procedure needed to get the first one, a manifesto commitment from a party winning a majority
The first result has proved impossible to enact, because of the central lie at the heart of leave: the attempt to appeal to fundamentally incompatible visions.
That doesn't mean a second referendum is the right way forward (and as I've said in the past, too many remainers have wasted the last two years when they should have been selling their vision). But the idea that a second referendum would be undemocratic after the last two years of chaos is rather silly IMO. Things have changed.
I don’t see that anything has changed. If you put a decision made by the public to a house with a majority that are dead set against it, it results in what we have. Would have been the same if they’d been voting on it on June 24th 2016. The MPs have just filibustered the public because they lost. The PMs deal should not have been put to them.
'Nothing has changed' if you ignore the last two years. If you take into account, much has changed.
The biggest blame, by far, for the impasse lies with Theresa May. She actively undermined the search for alternatives and saw the bulk of her MPs vote against every choice.
But there are no alternatives. Every alternative is either a unicorn or not brexit at all. The only way to leave the EU is via the WA, as Barnier has said time and time again.
Her logic is sound. To leave the EU with a deal is to pass the WA. Thats it. CU/CU2.0 is all later stuff.
If it doesn't matter, choose one of the options and get it passed.
First things first. WA first then decide.
That won't work for the reasons I have set out. Theresa May has three options that will pass an opposition support. She just needs to choose one of them.
It's beyond poor leadership. Theresa May is utterly irresponsible.
It’s a problem for Conservatives, the bulk of whose voters have turned into moon-howling maniacs.
This sort of crude characterisation really doesn't help. There are howling ultras dug in on both sides of this argument; most of the population - representing various shades of opinion from "the referendum should be respected" to "the referendum should be run again," and encompassing groups such as "this is all so confusing" and "what is this Brexit mullarkey anyway" are stuck between the warring factions. This includes at least a very large fraction of both the Tory and Labour votes.
When we next get to a General Election, the most important determinants of voting behaviour are still liable to be cultural/habit/robotic voting, and the perceived desirability or otherwise of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. The Leave/Remain divide is a factor, but it's not the be all and end all of everything. Not by a long chalk.
Except there's a reason why 250 Conservative MPs voted against every indicative option and it's got a lot to do with the number of moon-howling maniacs who comprise their support. It may be a crude characterisation but it's an essential element of what's going wrong now.
Leaving the customs union and single market was in their manifesto.
I note you don’t offer the same criticism to LDs and TIGers also voting down such compromises because they want a PV or full revocation only.
I offer exactly the same criticism of them. The time for seeking the perfect outcome or even a reasonably desirable outcome is past. The time for avoiding chaos has been reached and MPs should vote accordingly.
MPs can vote for any deal and legitimately say the result has been honoured. If they vote to revoke or for a second referendum they cannot say that.
If the public are as enraged by the deal as the ERG or UKIP then we’ll find out at the next GE. My guess is they will be glad to talk about something, anything else.
It’s a problem for Conservatives, the bulk of whose voters have turned into moon-howling maniacs.
This sort of crude characterisation really doesn't help. There are howling ultras dug in on both sides of this argument; most of the population - representing various shades of opinion from "the referendum should be respected" to "the referendum should be run again," and encompassing groups such as "this is all so confusing" and "what is this Brexit mullarkey anyway" are stuck between the warring factions. This includes at least a very large fraction of both the Tory and Labour votes.
When we next get to a General Election, the most important determinants of voting behaviour are still liable to be cultural/habit/robotic voting, and the perceived desirability or otherwise of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. The Leave/Remain divide is a factor, but it's not the be all and end all of everything. Not by a long chalk.
Except there's a reason why 250 Conservative MPs voted against every indicative option and it's got a lot to do with the number of moon-howling maniacs who comprise their support. It may be a crude characterisation but it's an essential element of what's going wrong now.
"Moon-howling maniacs" = those who don't want democracy debased......
And pb's chief moon-howler turns up right on cue. The ballot paper did not specify a form of Brexit. It is not debasing democracy either to offer a different form of Brexit or to offer a fresh referendum. But the nutjobs have convinced themselves that a bit of chaos and destruction is fine if that secures the form of Brexit they want.
I’d say it was debasing democracy to offer a second referendum before the first result was enacted, especially without going through the same procedure needed to get the first one, a manifesto commitment from a party winning a majority
There has been enough time for the referendum to be enacted. I don't see why it should be given any more. Every failed project has to be ended some time.
The public vote resulted in a vote to leave. MPs who don’t want to leave have filibustered the public long enough to cast doubt on the vote. It would be outrageous to let them get away with that.
It’s a problem for Conservatives, the bulk of whose voters have turned into moon-howling maniacs.
This sort of crude characterisation really doesn't help. There are howling ultras dug in on both sides of this argument; most of the population - representing various shades of opinion from "the referendum should be respected" to "the referendum should be run again," and encompassing groups such as "this is all so confusing" and "what is this Brexit mullarkey anyway" are stuck between the warring factions. This includes at least a very large fraction of both the Tory and Labour votes.
When we next get to a General Election, the most important determinants of voting behaviour are still liable to be cultural/habit/robotic voting, and the perceived desirability or otherwise of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. The Leave/Remain divide is a factor, but it's not the be all and end all of everything. Not by a long chalk.
Except there's a reason why 250 Conservative MPs voted against every indicative option and it's got a lot to do with the number of moon-howling maniacs who comprise their support. It may be a crude characterisation but it's an essential element of what's going wrong now.
Leaving the customs union and single market was in their manifesto.
I note you don’t offer the same criticism to LDs and TIGers also voting down such compromises because they want a PV or full revocation only.
I offer exactly the same criticism of them. The time for seeking the perfect outcome or even a reasonably desirable outcome is past. The time for avoiding chaos has been reached and MPs should vote accordingly.
MPs can vote for any deal and legitimately say the result has been honoured. If they vote to revoke or for a second referendum they cannot say that.
If the public are as enraged by the deal as the ERG or UKIP then we’ll find out at the next GE. My guess is they will be glad to talk about something, anything else.
It’s a problem for Conservatives, the bulk of whose voters have turned into moon-howling maniacs.
This sort of crude characterisation really doesn't help. There are howling ultras dug in on both sides of this argument; most of the population - representing various shades of opinion from "the referendum should be respected" to "the referendum should be run again," and encompassing groups such as "this is all so confusing" and "what is this Brexit mullarkey anyway" are stuck between the warring factions. This includes at least a very large fraction of both the Tory and Labour votes.
When we next get to a General Election, the most important determinants of voting behaviour are still liable to be cultural/habit/robotic voting, and the perceived desirability or otherwise of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. The Leave/Remain divide is a factor, but it's not the be all and end all of everything. Not by a long chalk.
Except there's a reason why 250 Conservative MPs voted against every indicative option and it's got a lot to do with the number of moon-howling maniacs who comprise their support. It may be a crude characterisation but it's an essential element of what's going wrong now.
"Moon-howling maniacs" = those who don't want democracy debased......
And pb's chief moon-howler turns up right on cue. The ballot paper did not specify a form of Brexit. It is not debasing democracy either to offer a different form of Brexit or to offer a fresh referendum. But the nutjobs have convinced themselves that a bit of chaos and destruction is fine if that secures the form of Brexit they want.
I’d say it was debasing democracy to offer a second referendum before the first result was enacted, especially without going through the same procedure needed to get the first one, a manifesto commitment from a party winning a majority
You would be asking the same people, Sam. Not a bussed in crowd from Portugal. Just as I was troubled but ultimately had no problem with Dave's referendum, amidst much criticism along the lines of we can't ask the people we might get the wrong answer, so although I don't favour a second referendum, I think it is perfectly democratic.
IT IS THE SAME PEOPLE YOU ARE ASKING SO THERE IS NO QUESTION OF IT BEING UNDEMOCRATIC.
Ahem, sorry about that. And I think the UK has been given enough time to find a way through and has failed so it is as least as bad/good as any other alternative. And as for playing Newcastle again? We do, every season. Twice.
CU would have passed comfortably, and Common Market 2 narrowly, if Remain ultras had backed it,
That they won't is entirely down to refusing to countenance ANY form of Brexit. 200+ Dreamainiacs are causing our current disfunctional Parliament. Not the now handful of Brexiteer hold-outs.
it's the only route if you beleive that Brexit should happen.
That's simply not true. Both a Customs Union and Common Market 2.0 were available to vote for last night.
BUT THEY NEED THE WA...
Sigh, this is like brick wall.
They could still have been voted for. Conservative MPs en masse decided to play ducks and drakes instead.
But why should Tories vote for something they don't want?
Because it would be awfully nice for the rest of us if, like, we didn't have chaos and disorder because some mutton-headed imbecile with a blue rosette couldn't compromise.
Comments
https://twitter.com/adamfleming/status/1112967660462116864?s=20
While it did not prevent the referendum being won by them, it has convinced me to stop voting for them.
On a happier note the operation which I had almost two weeks ago seems to have freed up my legs, although of course the healing process is by no means completed. Walked to (and from) the pub last Sunday evening with none of my previous discomfort!
They would be exasperated at having negotiated one only to junk it, but that's a relatively small admittance in the current context.
1) An amendment to the deal to get a referendum.
2) A long extension to A50 to enable referendum to take place
3) A VONC in the government
4) A General Election
What is going on now just seems so disconnected from reality, given how much of the discussion is about the future relationship, and how little that has to do with the Withdrawal Agreement, which is what needs to be dealt with immediately.
And - as ever - the extent to which the backstop is an insurance policy against something happening that everyone concerned has extremely strong reasons to prevent anyway.
The cries of Apocalypse for both parties are probably overdone. But if I were either party, I wouldn't start from here.
The only possible way out would be a so-called Gov of National Unity but getting one of those set up with an agreed agenda that can command any kind of popular support will take too long. No Deal or Revocation it is.
That's all there is too it.
Pleased to hear it/ A credit to British surgery and your own determination.
First the House of Commons comes up with a majority for an alternative to May's Deal and second the UK contests the EU Parliament elections. If we do not meet the first there is no guarantee we will get the second even with a further extension.
I think the next referendum will be about betrayal and lies, and leave have the better ammo
F1: amused to see my Verstappen bet (tipped with a tiny stake yesterday at 15, each way, to win in China) has, er, lengthened to 17.
Intriguing that Leclerc now has shorter odds than Vettel to win the title (3.75 versus 4.33). Bottas is 13. That's Bottas, as in, 'man currently leading the pack'.
The each way has, already, fallen to a third the odds for top 2, rather than fifth the odds top 3. Somewhat tempted to back Bottas, but I suspect Ferrari and Red Bull will be strong in China (they were last year) so the odds may be better after that. It was around that time I backed Raikkonen in 2018 to finish top 3 (61 each way for the title).
I’m fed up of individuals arguing against May’s deal and in favour of “Customs Union”, “Norway”, “Common Market 2.0” etc etc, when all are not incompatible with the WA (the primary benefit of which is to remove No deal once and for all from the equation, provide some medium term certainty for businesses* and ALLOW US TO MOVE ON!)
*who must have found it difficult enough planning for no deal on a known date, let alone one which is completely up in the air.
At that point, the next Conservative Leader would find more sympathy with the public that the only reason Brexit was delayed was because Continuity Remainers chose to block Brexit and they'd stand a good chance of winning an election with a mandate for Malthouse / Managed No Deal.
Whatever anyone might say now, No Deal was not a major feature of the referendum campaign and there are plenty of moderate Conservative voters that are perhaps irrevocably turned off by these games.
Though it seems as much a fear of their constituency associations, as concern for the views of their electorate.
https://twitter.com/jillongovt/status/1112974970089598976?s=20
Concordet is a little supersonic plane.
That will only play strongly to voters who already agree with them, and they already have in the bag.
The indicative votes did indicate something: that three out of the four proposals would win with government support. May needs to choose one of them and say, we're going with this.
Why not submit her own deal for the fifth time? Because too many of her own MPs think it's poison and her coalition partners are implacably opposed. If it does get passed it will only be because Labour MPs were shanghaied into acquiescence to avoid something worse. This is no basis for a stable policy and will bite her in less than two weeks.
If she goes for one of the other policies she will have something the opposition have actively voted for. May is the prime minister, Brexit is her policy. She is the one who will deliver it. She needs to start being responsible.
I think you're absolutely right, abstaining is getting silly now.
Some Tories like Ken Clarke, Nick Boles, Letwin are at least providing potential solutions.
I remain very worried that the People's Vote campaign are going to give us a No Deal Brexit.
I just don’t see it as the slam dunk you do.
Ferrari, if reliable, ought to be favourites again, assuming reliability. They very clearly have a straight line speed advantage, whether from a more powerful engine, or more efficient aero, and China has the longest straight of any circuit.
Red Bull will have to up their game substantially to compete.
Her logic is sound. To leave the EU with a deal is to pass the WA. Thats it. CU/CU2.0 is all later stuff.
You are the least interesting when you are like this.
You should let your opponents' ugliness speak for itself.
I note you don’t offer the same criticism to LDs and TIGers also voting down such compromises because they want a PV or full revocation only.
Our politics is becoming Americanised, and the ERG/post-May Tories will be the new Republicans. Their soft-nationalist, self-sufficiency messages pull in the less well-off, less well-educated as well as the traditionally-inclined middle-class. Low public spending is an electoral asset here - "look, we're cutting benefits to scroungers" quickly becomes "we are funding the NHS, it's just going to waste because of inefficient overpaid Guardian-reading managers/immigrant scroungers filling the beds/etc... so let's privatise it to put some rigour in there".
Labour, meanwhile, are echoing the AOC redistributive message... albeit without anyone in the Shadow Cabinet remotely as appealing as AOC. Instead they have Barry Gardiner and Richard Burgon. Heaven help us.
May, to her credit, did once appear to ostensibly believe in a more compassionate, generous Conservatism. Unfortunately her political skills haven't been up to the task, and her mean-spirited inability to build bridges with others has squandered any chance of building even an intra-party coalition in the way that Cameron did.
His behaviour has been absolutely appalling.
How does the tag of pb's chief democracy-debaser sit with you??
That doesn't mean a second referendum is the right way forward (and as I've said in the past, too many remainers have wasted the last two years when they should have been selling their vision). But the idea that a second referendum would be undemocratic after the last two years of chaos is rather silly IMO. Things have changed.
Time to rip up those.betting slips on honest Joe.
Its just the easiest route open to her if the deal wont pass and even now why woukd it? Drax has reneged and I doubt Boles will back it again. So she needs everyone else from before plus 32 others. 32 others who didn't vote for it without the PD and knowing without passing it it would be no deal or long extension.
I don’t see that anything has changed. If you put a decision made by the public to a house with a majority that are dead set against it, it results in what we have. Would have been the same if they’d been voting on it on June 24th 2016. The MPs have just filibustered the public because they lost. The PMs deal should not have been put to them.
Cuddling upto me she said
'Papa, do you know what I said to my Daddy on the way to school this morning'
'No sweetheart, what did you say to your Daddy this morning'
'I said to Daddy we have to look after our grand parents so they do not die'
Such innocence and caring from one so young raises your sprits especially in this political climate of despair
Think her options are realistically long vanilla extension without a GE or referendum (if EU agrees without cause), no deal or a confirmatory referendum on her deal. Last is probably best for her own personal legacy, even if not within the Conservative party.
If the public are as enraged by the deal as the ERG or UKIP then we’ll find out at the next GE. My guess is they will be glad to talk about something, anything else.
It's beyond poor leadership. Theresa May is utterly irresponsible.
CU would have passed comfortably, and Common Market 2 narrowly, if Remain ultras had backed it,
Sigh, this is like brick wall.
The exercise is about mitigating a complete disaster, not about sprinkling glitter on a turd.
IT IS THE SAME PEOPLE YOU ARE ASKING SO THERE IS NO QUESTION OF IT BEING UNDEMOCRATIC.
Ahem, sorry about that. And I think the UK has been given enough time to find a way through and has failed so it is as least as bad/good as any other alternative. And as for playing Newcastle again? We do, every season. Twice.
Those wanting the CU/CU2.0 can get that by also voting for the WA. In fact they HAVE to vote for the WA to get them.
It's those saying that they want CU/CU2.0 but not voting for the WA which is the mechanism to get it which are the ones being dishonest.