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
CU is only a whisker short, Referendum is pretty close and there's a little splodge of each colour outside the centre of the diagram that went for the one not the other. Since most of these people are invested in getting to yes, you'd think those guys could cut a deal with each other to get a few more votes for each, enough to definitely push CU over the line and give Referendum a shot with a bit of luck and a following wind.
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.
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.
Dreamainiacs? Have a word with yourself and grow up
You are the least interesting when you are like this.
It’s not partisan to say that the prime minister who has lost her deal three times, need to offer something else to gain a majority. But I agree it’s not interesting, but very, very tedious. She tried appeasing the right, it’s time to look the other way. If she can’t do it, she should make way for someone that will.
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.
Then what Labour should do is vote for the WA and then campaign for the CU/CU2.0. they aren't doing that. They're the one playing party politics here by acting dishonestly.
The Tory line is that the WA is the FIRST thing which has to pass to leave the EU. I don't see anyone disagreeing with that.
the CU arguement is like worrying what colour your car is before you've even been to the forcourt and deciding what make of car you want. The logic is screwy.
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.
To my pleasant surprise, my MP, Ed Vaizey, did exactly that.
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.
Other than political optics, what do you see as the advantage of a permanent customs union over what's been on offer in MV1/2/3?
I'm well past caring about advantages. I'm only interested in getting a non-disruptive next step.
The exercise is about mitigating a complete disaster, not about sprinkling glitter on a turd.
The solution in that case lies with the 40 Labour MPs that abstained/voted against Ref#2 yesterday. The final ERG Spartans are extremists that can't be convinced. The moveable centre ground are therefore that block from Labour. Drop them a line and get them to buck their ideas up if you know any of them.
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
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.
We don’t risk losing the points we’d already won without them counting though.
Having a second referendum on anything without enacting the first result is wrong, in my opinion, and no argument can change my mind.
You are the least interesting when you are like this.
It’s not partisan to say that the prime minister who has lost her deal three times, need to offer something else to gain a majority. But I agree it’s not interesting, but very, very tedious. She tried appeasing the right, it’s time to look the other way. If she can’t do it, she should make way for someone that will.
And how many times do the alternatives get voted on? May's deal is the only one in town. If it's not signed, Brexit isn't happening.
"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.
The problem with a second referendum isn't that it's undemocratic to ask people to vote again if the facts have changed. It also isn't that you first need to wait until the first decision has been enacted - I'm deeply unclear why so many of my fellow Leavers have gotten hung up on this point.
The problem is the perception that the referendum will be re-run until the pre-determined "correct" answer is reached, at which point that will suddenly be it. There is a reason this perception exists, and it's entirely the EU's fault.
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.
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.
What's Nadine Dorries got to do with it?
Nadine Dorries is one of the more sensible MP's on this issue.
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.
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.
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.
Agree with much of that but there are few votes for the Tories in privatising the NHS and remember even Trump wanted to reform not scrap Obamacare completely, it was only the hard right of the Republicans who wanted to do that
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.
Then what Labour should do is vote for the WA and then campaign for the CU/CU2.0. they aren't doing that. They're the one playing party politics here by acting dishonestly.
The Tory line is that the WA is the FIRST thing which has to pass to leave the EU. I don't see anyone disagreeing with that.
the CU arguement is like worrying what colour your car is before you've even been to the forcourt and deciding what make of car you want. The logic is screwy.
Unless you don't really want a car at all.
The problem with the Tory line is that the current driver has already hit the kerb half a dozen times and the likely replacement drivers are all reeking of turps. The Tories need to find some way of persuading the doubters of their fitness to drive if they want to regain control of the process.
Once again the chat I am seeing about the SNP's position O line is leaving me confused.
CM2. 0 was a massive compromise by the SNP, it kills SindyRef2 stone dead as it stays within Sturgeon's red lines. The authority she got from Holyrood was based on the single market.
We don’t risk losing the points we’d already won without them counting though.
Having a second referendum on anything without enacting the first result is wrong, in my opinion, and no argument can change my mind.
Yes I understand that - just trying to point out that although it seems wrong to do so and one day after we have left would be the more appropriate time you are ignoring the facts on the ground. Which are that the current political system, together with the inhabitants of our Houses of Parliament, mean that we have arrived in this situation of it being an option.
Now of course I know you are not surprised at this because in the extensive wargaming and scenario analysis you, @Richard_Tyndall, @DavidL, and @Rochdale performed, looking at the HoC constituents and likely paths since the referendum, this outcome was presumably a high probability event, no?
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.
Other than political optics, what do you see as the advantage of a permanent customs union over what's been on offer in MV1/2/3?
I'm well past caring about advantages. I'm only interested in getting a non-disruptive next step.
The exercise is about mitigating a complete disaster, not about sprinkling glitter on a turd.
The solution in that case lies with the 40 Labour MPs that abstained/voted against Ref#2 yesterday. The final ERG Spartans are extremists that can't be convinced. The moveable centre ground are therefore that block from Labour. Drop them a line and get them to buck their ideas up if you know any of them.
The government should offer them whatever they want (though a few support No Deal Brexit).
One could argue that the fact most MPs are so desperate to avoid the European Elections is a perfect illustration of the problem. They're afraid of the voters doing the wrong thing at the ballot box, yet again. (ie. voting for parties other than Conservative or Labour, like the new incarnation of the Social Democrats which have quite interesting policies IMO).
You are the least interesting when you are like this.
It’s not partisan to say that the prime minister who has lost her deal three times, need to offer something else to gain a majority. But I agree it’s not interesting, but very, very tedious. She tried appeasing the right, it’s time to look the other way. If she can’t do it, she should make way for someone that will.
And how many times do the alternatives get voted on? May's deal is the only one in town. If it's not signed, Brexit isn't happening.
May needs to whip a compromise. Either a referendum or a restriction in the political declaration part that removes the risk of some deregulated future.
I may be missing something, but the indicative votes last night actually did the job in indicating to the Government that there were three possible routes the Government could take that would pass the House.
Given that the Government effectively held about 40 votes back in hand (votes they'd employed, plus a three line whip, on their preferred option, which had still failed hugely and repeatedly), then the Government could choose any one of the three options (or even two of them - the referendum plus either CU or CM2.0) and whip for them, employing the 40 "reserve" votes and ensuring they passed.
We could leave on time, without needing to have EU elections, with either the CU or CM2.0, for example. Whichever was preferred by the Government. Add the Cabinet voting, plus a three line Tory whip, and - unlike the WA - either of those two would easily pass.
It's in May's hands now; she could resolve Brexit and deliver her commitment now - but both of those options may damage her Party in the long run, and I am certain that she will elevate the interests of her Party above that. While decrying others on a similar subject.
The problem is the perception that the referendum will be re-run until the pre-determined "correct" answer is reached, at which point that will suddenly be it. There is a reason this perception exists, and it's entirely the EU's fault.
I think that's more of a talking point than the actual issue - if that was all it was then it would be entirely solved with a binding referendum.
"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.
The problem with a second referendum isn't that it's undemocratic to ask people to vote again if the facts have changed. It also isn't that you first need to wait until the first decision has been enacted - I'm deeply unclear why so many of my fellow Leavers have gotten hung up on this point.
The problem is the perception that the referendum will be re-run until the pre-determined "correct" answer is reached, at which point that will suddenly be it. There is a reason this perception exists, and it's entirely the EU's fault.
Yes of course, I agree - keep asking until you get the "right" answer. Horrible.
Then again, the line "the people voted three years ago for..." I realised the other day is feeling a bit stale. Three years!!??
Plus in the immortal phrase we are where we are. What are the other options? It is surely a viable option at least.
Once again the chat I am seeing about the SNP's position O line is leaving me confused.
CM2. 0 was a massive compromise by the SNP, it kills SindyRef2 stone dead as it stays within Sturgeon's red lines. The authority she got from Holyrood was based on the single market.
Customs Union beaches the red line.
Everyone has nudged but Theresa. Hers Is the next move. She needs to whip a compromise position . She will lose the ERG and a few Brexit ultras, but that is probably best for her party long term.
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.
What's Nadine Dorries got to do with it?
Nadine Dorries is one of the more sensible MP's on this issue.
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 is not the project that has failed it is the people executing it. There are, right now, perfectly reasonable Brexit routes on the table. May's Deal, Clarke's CU and Boles' CM2 all deliver Brexit and fulfill the remit of the referendum. It is entirely down to the idiocy of Parliament that we still do not have a route agreed.
The ERG no-deal brigade and Peoples Vote militia are both stuck in their trenches and hard to see enough of either moving in to the no-mans land of a compromise as to do so is to be shot at by their own side for doing so....
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 is not the project that has failed it is the people executing it. There are, right now, perfectly reasonable Brexit routes on the table. May's Deal, Clarke's CU and Boles' CM2 all deliver Brexit and fulfill the remit of the referendum. It is entirely down to the idiocy of Parliament that we still do not have a route agreed.
CU could scrape over the line on Wednesday if the Cabinet votes but no guarantees
We don’t risk losing the points we’d already won without them counting though.
Having a second referendum on anything without enacting the first result is wrong, in my opinion, and no argument can change my mind.
Yes I understand that - just trying to point out that although it seems wrong to do so and one day after we have left would be the more appropriate time you are ignoring the facts on the ground. Which are that the current political system, together with the inhabitants of our Houses of Parliament, mean that we have arrived in this situation of it being an option.
Now of course I know you are not surprised at this because in the extensive wargaming and scenario analysis you, @Richard_Tyndall, @DavidL, and @Rochdale performed, looking at the HoC constituents and likely paths since the referendum, this outcome was presumably a high probability event, no?
I assumed that, if we voted to Leave, PM Cameron would negotiate a deal with the EU, same as any other foreign body, as he did the Remain negotiation, and that would be that. I didn’t realise he would have to sell it to a Parliament with a large majority who would rather filibuster their way to revoking or asking the question again.
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.
What's Nadine Dorries got to do with it?
Nadine Dorries is one of the more sensible MP's on this issue.
If Nadine, who has to go on WhatsApp to find out what she thinks, is now the sanity checkpoint, the Tories truly are in a mess.
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 is not the project that has failed it is the people executing it. There are, right now, perfectly reasonable Brexit routes on the table. May's Deal, Clarke's CU and Boles' CM2 all deliver Brexit and fulfill the remit of the referendum. It is entirely down to the idiocy of Parliament that we still do not have a route agreed.
But you knew we had this parliament when we started.
(and as a courtesy to PB-ers I haven't gone through your post swapping "Brexit" for "True Socialism")
Once again the chat I am seeing about the SNP's position O line is leaving me confused.
CM2. 0 was a massive compromise by the SNP, it kills SindyRef2 stone dead as it stays within Sturgeon's red lines. The authority she got from Holyrood was based on the single market.
I may be missing something, but the indicative votes last night actually did the job in indicating to the Government that there were three possible routes the Government could take that would pass the House.
Given that the Government effectively held about 40 votes back in hand (votes they'd employed, plus a three line whip, on their preferred option, which had still failed hugely and repeatedly), then the Government could choose any one of the three options (or even two of them - the referendum plus either CU or CM2.0) and whip for them, employing the 40 "reserve" votes and ensuring they passed.
We could leave on time, without needing to have EU elections, with either the CU or CM2.0, for example. Whichever was preferred by the Government. Add the Cabinet voting, plus a three line Tory whip, and - unlike the WA - either of those two would easily pass.
It's in May's hands now; she could resolve Brexit and deliver her commitment now - but both of those options may damage her Party in the long run, and I am certain that she will elevate the interests of her Party above that. While decrying others on a similar subject.
Absolutely right Andy. There is a route out if only May will take it.
The problem is the perception that the referendum will be re-run until the pre-determined "correct" answer is reached, at which point that will suddenly be it. There is a reason this perception exists, and it's entirely the EU's fault.
I think that's more of a talking point than the actual issue - if that was all it was then it would be entirely solved with a binding referendum.
Referendums are only binding if they produce the result the establishment wants.
We don’t risk losing the points we’d already won without them counting though.
Having a second referendum on anything without enacting the first result is wrong, in my opinion, and no argument can change my mind.
Yes I understand that - just trying to point out that although it seems wrong to do so and one day after we have left would be the more appropriate time you are ignoring the facts on the ground. Which are that the current political system, together with the inhabitants of our Houses of Parliament, mean that we have arrived in this situation of it being an option.
Now of course I know you are not surprised at this because in the extensive wargaming and scenario analysis you, @Richard_Tyndall, @DavidL, and @Rochdale performed, looking at the HoC constituents and likely paths since the referendum, this outcome was presumably a high probability event, no?
I assumed that, if we voted to Leave, PM Cameron would negotiate a deal with the EU, same as any other foreign body, as he did the Remain negotiation, and that would be that. I didn’t realise he would have to sell it to a Parliament with a large majority who would rather filibuster their way to revoking or asking the question again.
Did you think that we had a parliamentary majority for Leave?
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.
Other than political optics, what do you see as the advantage of a permanent customs union over what's been on offer in MV1/2/3?
I'm well past caring about advantages. I'm only interested in getting a non-disruptive next step.
The exercise is about mitigating a complete disaster, not about sprinkling glitter on a turd.
The solution in that case lies with the 40 Labour MPs that abstained/voted against Ref#2 yesterday. The final ERG Spartans are extremists that can't be convinced. The moveable centre ground are therefore that block from Labour. Drop them a line and get them to buck their ideas up if you know any of them.
The government should offer them whatever they want (though a few support No Deal Brexit).
What do you suggest the government offers? A steak sandwich and a backrub? Some kindle vouchers?
May should be making it clear to them that they have two unhappy futures ahead of them: either being seen by their voters to have blocked brexit or being seen by their members to have facilitated a no-deal brexit. Alternatively they can be the grownups in the room that broke the deadlock.
I may be missing something, but the indicative votes last night actually did the job in indicating to the Government that there were three possible routes the Government could take that would pass the House.
Given that the Government effectively held about 40 votes back in hand (votes they'd employed, plus a three line whip, on their preferred option, which had still failed hugely and repeatedly), then the Government could choose any one of the three options (or even two of them - the referendum plus either CU or CM2.0) and whip for them, employing the 40 "reserve" votes and ensuring they passed.
We could leave on time, without needing to have EU elections, with either the CU or CM2.0, for example. Whichever was preferred by the Government. Add the Cabinet voting, plus a three line Tory whip, and - unlike the WA - either of those two would easily pass.
It's in May's hands now; she could resolve Brexit and deliver her commitment now - but both of those options may damage her Party in the long run, and I am certain that she will elevate the interests of her Party above that. While decrying others on a similar subject.
I may be missing something, but the indicative votes last night actually did the job in indicating to the Government that there were three possible routes the Government could take that would pass the House.
Given that the Government effectively held about 40 votes back in hand (votes they'd employed, plus a three line whip, on their preferred option, which had still failed hugely and repeatedly), then the Government could choose any one of the three options (or even two of them - the referendum plus either CU or CM2.0) and whip for them, employing the 40 "reserve" votes and ensuring they passed.
We could leave on time, without needing to have EU elections, with either the CU or CM2.0, for example. Whichever was preferred by the Government. Add the Cabinet voting, plus a three line Tory whip, and - unlike the WA - either of those two would easily pass.
It's in May's hands now; she could resolve Brexit and deliver her commitment now - but both of those options may damage her Party in the long run, and I am certain that she will elevate the interests of her Party above that. While decrying others on a similar subject.
I'm not sure how many of the 40 reserve votes would back those options.
We don’t risk losing the points we’d already won without them counting though.
Having a second referendum on anything without enacting the first result is wrong, in my opinion, and no argument can change my mind.
Yes I understand that - just trying to point out that although it seems wrong to do so and one day after we have left would be the more appropriate time you are ignoring the facts on the ground. Which are that the current political system, together with the inhabitants of our Houses of Parliament, mean that we have arrived in this situation of it being an option.
Now of course I know you are not surprised at this because in the extensive wargaming and scenario analysis you, @Richard_Tyndall, @DavidL, and @Rochdale performed, looking at the HoC constituents and likely paths since the referendum, this outcome was presumably a high probability event, no?
I assumed that, if we voted to Leave, PM Cameron would negotiate a deal with the EU, same as any other foreign body, as he did the Remain negotiation, and that would be that. I didn’t realise he would have to sell it to a Parliament with a large majority who would rather filibuster their way to revoking or asking the question again.
Did you think that we had a parliamentary majority for Leave?
I may be missing something, but the indicative votes last night actually did the job in indicating to the Government that there were three possible routes the Government could take that would pass the House.
Given that the Government effectively held about 40 votes back in hand (votes they'd employed, plus a three line whip, on their preferred option, which had still failed hugely and repeatedly), then the Government could choose any one of the three options (or even two of them - the referendum plus either CU or CM2.0) and whip for them, employing the 40 "reserve" votes and ensuring they passed.
We could leave on time, without needing to have EU elections, with either the CU or CM2.0, for example. Whichever was preferred by the Government. Add the Cabinet voting, plus a three line Tory whip, and - unlike the WA - either of those two would easily pass.
It's in May's hands now; she could resolve Brexit and deliver her commitment now - but both of those options may damage her Party in the long run, and I am certain that she will elevate the interests of her Party above that. While decrying others on a similar subject.
But you knew we had this parliament when we started.
(and as a courtesy to PB-ers I haven't gone through your post swapping "Brexit" for "True Socialism")
Actually we didn't have this Parliament when we started. Nor does your swap work because there are no viable solutions for 'true socialism' whereas we have three solutions already on the table for Brexit.
I may be missing something, but the indicative votes last night actually did the job in indicating to the Government that there were three possible routes the Government could take that would pass the House.
Given that the Government effectively held about 40 votes back in hand (votes they'd employed, plus a three line whip, on their preferred option, which had still failed hugely and repeatedly), then the Government could choose any one of the three options (or even two of them - the referendum plus either CU or CM2.0) and whip for them, employing the 40 "reserve" votes and ensuring they passed.
We could leave on time, without needing to have EU elections, with either the CU or CM2.0, for example. Whichever was preferred by the Government. Add the Cabinet voting, plus a three line Tory whip, and - unlike the WA - either of those two would easily pass.
It's in May's hands now; she could resolve Brexit and deliver her commitment now - but both of those options may damage her Party in the long run, and I am certain that she will elevate the interests of her Party above that. While decrying others on a similar subject.
I'm not sure how many of the 40 reserve votes would back those options.
The problem is the perception that the referendum will be re-run until the pre-determined "correct" answer is reached, at which point that will suddenly be it. There is a reason this perception exists, and it's entirely the EU's fault.
I think that's more of a talking point than the actual issue - if that was all it was then it would be entirely solved with a binding referendum.
I agree, as far as most people on here are concerned, but it's about wider public perception. Most people think the first one was binding, because the government told us it would be. Why should they believe them again? Why bother voting when Parliament will just find some way of wriggling out of doing things it doesn't want to do? What happens if Remain wins 51:49 on a 60% turnout?
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.
What's Nadine Dorries got to do with it?
Nadine Dorries is one of the more sensible MP's on this issue.
It's the way you tell 'em
Compared to Mark Francois or David Lammy, she's the voice of reason (I accept, I'm not setting the bar high).
I may be missing something, but the indicative votes last night actually did the job in indicating to the Government that there were three possible routes the Government could take that would pass the House.
Given that the Government effectively held about 40 votes back in hand (votes they'd employed, plus a three line whip, on their preferred option, which had still failed hugely and repeatedly), then the Government could choose any one of the three options (or even two of them - the referendum plus either CU or CM2.0) and whip for them, employing the 40 "reserve" votes and ensuring they passed.
We could leave on time, without needing to have EU elections, with either the CU or CM2.0, for example. Whichever was preferred by the Government. Add the Cabinet voting, plus a three line Tory whip, and - unlike the WA - either of those two would easily pass.
It's in May's hands now; she could resolve Brexit and deliver her commitment now - but both of those options may damage her Party in the long run, and I am certain that she will elevate the interests of her Party above that. While decrying others on a similar subject.
France has never seemed further from the UK. I can strongly recommend it. We have never had such an ugly government in my memory. Where did Mark Francois crawl out of?
I may be missing something, but the indicative votes last night actually did the job in indicating to the Government that there were three possible routes the Government could take that would pass the House.
Given that the Government effectively held about 40 votes back in hand (votes they'd employed, plus a three line whip, on their preferred option, which had still failed hugely and repeatedly), then the Government could choose any one of the three options (or even two of them - the referendum plus either CU or CM2.0) and whip for them, employing the 40 "reserve" votes and ensuring they passed.
We could leave on time, without needing to have EU elections, with either the CU or CM2.0, for example. Whichever was preferred by the Government. Add the Cabinet voting, plus a three line Tory whip, and - unlike the WA - either of those two would easily pass.
It's in May's hands now; she could resolve Brexit and deliver her commitment now - but both of those options may damage her Party in the long run, and I am certain that she will elevate the interests of her Party above that. While decrying others on a similar subject.
I'm not sure how many of the 40 reserve votes would back those options.
France has never seemed further from the UK. I can strongly recommend it. We have never had such an ugly government in my memory. Where did Mark Francois crawl out of?
Genuinely could be taken as being from either viewpoint!
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.
I may be missing something, but the indicative votes last night actually did the job in indicating to the Government that there were three possible routes the Government could take that would pass the House.
Given that the Government effectively held about 40 votes back in hand (votes they'd employed, plus a three line whip, on their preferred option, which had still failed hugely and repeatedly), then the Government could choose any one of the three options (or even two of them - the referendum plus either CU or CM2.0) and whip for them, employing the 40 "reserve" votes and ensuring they passed.
We could leave on time, without needing to have EU elections, with either the CU or CM2.0, for example. Whichever was preferred by the Government. Add the Cabinet voting, plus a three line Tory whip, and - unlike the WA - either of those two would easily pass.
It's in May's hands now; she could resolve Brexit and deliver her commitment now - but both of those options may damage her Party in the long run, and I am certain that she will elevate the interests of her Party above that. While decrying others on a similar subject.
I'm not sure how many of the 40 reserve votes would back those options.
Worth a try isn’t it?
With 250+ Conservative MP's voting against? No one remembers Ramsay Macdonald kindly.
France has never seemed further from the UK. I can strongly recommend it. We have never had such an ugly government in my memory. Where did Mark Francois crawl out of?
I’ll happily settle for parliamentary squabbling over Brexit to the gilets jaunes.
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.
France has never seemed further from the UK. I can strongly recommend it. We have never had such an ugly government in my memory. Where did Mark Francois crawl out of?
You might have Le Pen or Melanchon, before long. Do you spend much time in those parts of France where they are popular?
The problem is the perception that the referendum will be re-run until the pre-determined "correct" answer is reached, at which point that will suddenly be it. There is a reason this perception exists, and it's entirely the EU's fault.
I think that's more of a talking point than the actual issue - if that was all it was then it would be entirely solved with a binding referendum.
I agree, as far as most people on here are concerned, but it's about wider public perception. Most people think the first one was binding, because the government told us it would be. Why should they believe them again? Why bother voting when Parliament will just find some way of wriggling out of doing things it doesn't want to do? What happens if Remain wins 51:49 on a 60% turnout?
I think it's fairly clear that if there is a final vote between two precise and specific options, that'll be it and I doubt we'd see another referendum on anything during our lifetime.
We don’t risk losing the points we’d already won without them counting though.
Having a second referendum on anything without enacting the first result is wrong, in my opinion, and no argument can change my mind.
Yes I understand that - just trying to point out that although it seems wrong to do so and one day after we have left would be the more appropriate time you are ignoring the facts on the ground. Which are that the current political system, together with the inhabitants of our Houses of Parliament, mean that we have arrived in this situation of it being an option.
Now of course I know you are not surprised at this because in the extensive wargaming and scenario analysis you, @Richard_Tyndall, @DavidL, and @Rochdale performed, looking at the HoC constituents and likely paths since the referendum, this outcome was presumably a high probability event, no?
I assumed that, if we voted to Leave, PM Cameron would negotiate a deal with the EU, same as any other foreign body, as he did the Remain negotiation, and that would be that. I didn’t realise he would have to sell it to a Parliament with a large majority who would rather filibuster their way to revoking or asking the question again.
Did you think that we had a parliamentary majority for Leave?
I’ve said about a million times that we didn’t!
I don’t think parliament should have had a say.
Yes the counter factual is seemingly attractive. Certainly without the restraint of knowing there would be an MV who knows what May would have come up with. Perhaps the same, perhaps harder, but I think we would have ended up in the same place because it isn't only Parliament that is split. The Cabinet is split also so take out the MV and you might have had Bridgen, Francois and Cash in the Cabinet once the others had resigned. And then the others might have split a la TIG/Boles, and then....
So I think we would have ended up just where we are today.
CU is only a whisker short, Referendum is pretty close and there's a little splodge of each colour outside the centre of the diagram that went for the one not the other. Since most of these people are invested in getting to yes, you'd think those guys could cut a deal with each other to get a few more votes for each, enough to definitely push CU over the line and give Referendum a shot with a bit of luck and a following wind.
You'd have to be exceedingly gullible to vote for the WA in the expectation the tories won't renege on any CU commitment.
I may be missing something, but the indicative votes last night actually did the job in indicating to the Government that there were three possible routes the Government could take that would pass the House.
Given that the Government effectively held about 40 votes back in hand (votes they'd employed, plus a three line whip, on their preferred option, which had still failed hugely and repeatedly), then the Government could choose any one of the three options (or even two of them - the referendum plus either CU or CM2.0) and whip for them, employing the 40 "reserve" votes and ensuring they passed.
We could leave on time, without needing to have EU elections, with either the CU or CM2.0, for example. Whichever was preferred by the Government. Add the Cabinet voting, plus a three line Tory whip, and - unlike the WA - either of those two would easily pass.
It's in May's hands now; she could resolve Brexit and deliver her commitment now - but both of those options may damage her Party in the long run, and I am certain that she will elevate the interests of her Party above that. While decrying others on a similar subject.
I'm not sure how many of the 40 reserve votes would back those options.
The problem is the perception that the referendum will be re-run until the pre-determined "correct" answer is reached, at which point that will suddenly be it. There is a reason this perception exists, and it's entirely the EU's fault.
I think that's more of a talking point than the actual issue - if that was all it was then it would be entirely solved with a binding referendum.
Referendums are only binding if they produce the result the establishment wants.
That's simply not true. If you pass the legislation for a binding referendum resulting in leaving the EU on an already-negotiated deal the week after the vote, there is no way for MPs to prevent it happening except for immediately convening a parliamentary session and hurriedly and decisively repeal the legislation. Even if they wanted to do that, one superpower the current parliament definitely doesn't have is acting hurriedly and decisively.
I may be missing something, but the indicative votes last night actually did the job in indicating to the Government that there were three possible routes the Government could take that would pass the House.
Given that the Government effectively held about 40 votes back in hand (votes they'd employed, plus a three line whip, on their preferred option, which had still failed hugely and repeatedly), then the Government could choose any one of the three options (or even two of them - the referendum plus either CU or CM2.0) and whip for them, employing the 40 "reserve" votes and ensuring they passed.
We could leave on time, without needing to have EU elections, with either the CU or CM2.0, for example. Whichever was preferred by the Government. Add the Cabinet voting, plus a three line Tory whip, and - unlike the WA - either of those two would easily pass.
It's in May's hands now; she could resolve Brexit and deliver her commitment now - but both of those options may damage her Party in the long run, and I am certain that she will elevate the interests of her Party above that. While decrying others on a similar subject.
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.
Loving the double port manteau. Anyone who think that the ERG group are the issue does not understand Parliament. They are 100 tops out of 600. It is the inability of our political class mainly on the left to compromise with the right. Reasons for this include the fact that the public hammered the Lib Dem’s for compromising, and a cadre of Labour MPs who won’t even have a Tory as a friend.
There is a block of Labour MPs and Tories who have no problem with the WA and could vote it through subject to extra parliamentary scrutiny for the PD. If the proposal included a customs union it may also pass. But Labour don’t want to let the PM succeed. They have painted themselves into a corner by describing it as a Tory deal, and a bad Brexit.
They think that they will be able to get a general election out of this, and they might. Last nights support of CM 2.0 is another case in point, not designed out of belief, no labour spokesman has said that they want the FoM, but designed to split the Tories.
I may be missing something, but the indicative votes last night actually did the job in indicating to the Government that there were three possible routes the Government could take that would pass the House.
Given that the Government effectively held about 40 votes back in hand (votes they'd employed, plus a three line whip, on their preferred option, which had still failed hugely and repeatedly), then the Government could choose any one of the three options (or even two of them - the referendum plus either CU or CM2.0) and whip for them, employing the 40 "reserve" votes and ensuring they passed.
We could leave on time, without needing to have EU elections, with either the CU or CM2.0, for example. Whichever was preferred by the Government. Add the Cabinet voting, plus a three line Tory whip, and - unlike the WA - either of those two would easily pass.
It's in May's hands now; she could resolve Brexit and deliver her commitment now - but both of those options may damage her Party in the long run, and I am certain that she will elevate the interests of her Party above that. While decrying others on a similar subject.
I'm not sure how many of the 40 reserve votes would back those options.
Worth a try isn’t it?
With 250+ Conservative MP's voting against? No one remembers Ramsay Macdonald kindly.
Besides Ramsay Macdonald stayed, May is going.
When she's replaced by one of the 250+ Conservative MPs opposed to a Customs Union that is non-binding because the PD can't be binding, what then?
It seems odd to call a second referendum undemocratic, yet want to deny parliament the right to vote on the deal.
If leave had pulled their fingers out of their arses and decided on what leave actually meant before the referendum, then such arguments might hold more water (but they would also have lost). However the Schrodinger's-leave campaigns left so many contradictions in their promises that no-one could have known what shape the final deal was going to take.
In those circumstances, not allowing parliament a vote would be utterly undemocratic. Parliament may have failed to do their job, but it was right for them to be asked.
Since they haven't done their job, perhaps the impasse can be solved by another public vote.
Not that I think remain (and what would 'remain' mean) would win.
CU is only a whisker short, Referendum is pretty close and there's a little splodge of each colour outside the centre of the diagram that went for the one not the other. Since most of these people are invested in getting to yes, you'd think those guys could cut a deal with each other to get a few more votes for each, enough to definitely push CU over the line and give Referendum a shot with a bit of luck and a following wind.
You'd have to be exceedingly gullible to vote for the WA in the expectation the tories won't renege on any CU commitment.
I agree, but apparently the parliamentary exceedingly gullible faction is only a few guys short...
We don’t risk losing the points we’d already won without them counting though.
Having a second referendum on anything without enacting the first result is wrong, in my opinion, and no argument can change my mind.
Yes I understand that - just trying to point out that although it seems wrong to do so and one day after we have left would be the more appropriate time you are ignoring the facts on the ground. Which are that the current political system, together with the inhabitants of our Houses of Parliament, mean that we have arrived in this situation of it being an option.
Now of course I know you are not surprised at this because in the extensive wargaming and scenario analysis you, @Richard_Tyndall, @DavidL, and @Rochdale performed, looking at the HoC constituents and likely paths since the referendum, this outcome was presumably a high probability event, no?
I assumed that, if we voted to Leave, PM Cameron would negotiate a deal with the EU, same as any other foreign body, as he did the Remain negotiation, and that would be that. I didn’t realise he would have to sell it to a Parliament with a large majority who would rather filibuster their way to revoking or asking the question again.
Did you think that we had a parliamentary majority for Leave?
I’ve said about a million times that we didn’t!
I don’t think parliament should have had a say.
Yes the counter factual is seemingly attractive. Certainly without the restraint of knowing there would be an MV who knows what May would have come up with. Perhaps the same, perhaps harder, but I think we would have ended up in the same place because it isn't only Parliament that is split. The Cabinet is split also so take out the MV and you might have had Bridgen, Francois and Cash in the Cabinet once the others had resigned. And then the others might have split a la TIG/Boles, and then....
So I think we would have ended up just where we are today.
Theresa May could have just appointed a cabinet that would have passed it.
Cameron’s renegotiation deal with the EU wasn’t voted on in the commons, and I don’t see anyone saying it would have had to be after a Remain win
CU is only a whisker short, Referendum is pretty close and there's a little splodge of each colour outside the centre of the diagram that went for the one not the other. Since most of these people are invested in getting to yes, you'd think those guys could cut a deal with each other to get a few more votes for each, enough to definitely push CU over the line and give Referendum a shot with a bit of luck and a following wind.
You'd have to be exceedingly gullible to vote for the WA in the expectation the tories won't renege on any CU commitment.
Yes, a key point here is lack of trust in the government.
MPs have heard the promise of a "reject no deal" motion when MV2 went down, then saw May try and stitch them up with some additional wording. MPs heard the promise of indicative votes if MV2 went down and then found the government claiming there "wasn't time". No-one trusts the government to keep its word and hence MPs, not unreasonably, will want any compromise tied down, as far as is possible.
I may be missing something, but the indicative votes last night actually did the job in indicating to the Government that there were three possible routes the Government could take that would pass the House.
Given that the Government effectively held about 40 votes back in hand (votes they'd employed, plus a three line whip, on their preferred option, which had still failed hugely and repeatedly), then the Government could choose any one of the three options (or even two of them - the referendum plus either CU or CM2.0) and whip for them, employing the 40 "reserve" votes and ensuring they passed.
We could leave on time, without needing to have EU elections, with either the CU or CM2.0, for example. Whichever was preferred by the Government. Add the Cabinet voting, plus a three line Tory whip, and - unlike the WA - either of those two would easily pass.
It's in May's hands now; she could resolve Brexit and deliver her commitment now - but both of those options may damage her Party in the long run, and I am certain that she will elevate the interests of her Party above that. While decrying others on a similar subject.
Absolutely right Andy. There is a route out if only May will take it.
Excellent summary by Andy Cooke. In addition, as I said yesterday, CU and CM2.0 are basically May's Deal anyway. Let's hope common sense prevails, but it requires a considerable number of Labour MPs to actually man up and vote with the Government. I am not sure there is enough of them.
So I can see us hurtling headlong to No Deal and "who blinks first". I think it may well be the EU, as the Irish go into full blown panic mode. But I would rather not take the risk. I am also not sure we actually have a "panic button" to be pressed at the 11th hour, because whether its "agree to the EU's penal terms next week for a long extension" or "Revoke", I don't see how either of those gets the support of a majority in the House, and May can't do either unilaterally.
I may be missing something, but the indicative votes last night actually did the job in indicating to the Government that there were three possible routes the Government could take that would pass the House.
Given that the Government effectively held about 40 votes back in hand (votes they'd employed, plus a three line whip, on their preferred option, which had still failed hugely and repeatedly), then the Government could choose any one of the three options (or even two of them - the referendum plus either CU or CM2.0) and whip for them, employing the 40 "reserve" votes and ensuring they passed.
We could leave on time, without needing to have EU elections, with either the CU or CM2.0, for example. Whichever was preferred by the Government. Add the Cabinet voting, plus a three line Tory whip, and - unlike the WA - either of those two would easily pass.
It's in May's hands now; she could resolve Brexit and deliver her commitment now - but both of those options may damage her Party in the long run, and I am certain that she will elevate the interests of her Party above that. While decrying others on a similar subject.
I'm not sure how many of the 40 reserve votes would back those options.
20 on each side and it would still lose by three?
I think that on a free vote, there would be majorities against all three, among the 40,
Another ERG member, Laurence Robertson, talking utter garbage and sees sunny uplands with no deal
I have come to the conclusion that in the end TM may have to make MV4 a confidence vote and any conservative who abstains or votes against has the whip withdrawn and they cannot stand for the party in a GE
Take bleak comfort Tories, things are going swimmingly on the 'left' side (though the lines are increasingly blurred). Presumably everyone has now sensibly given up on the idea that Brexit is not about immigration?
It seems odd to call a second referendum undemocratic, yet want to deny parliament the right to vote on the deal.
If leave had pulled their fingers out of their arses and decided on what leave actually meant before the referendum, then such arguments might hold more water (but they would also have lost). However the Schrodinger's-leave campaigns left so many contradictions in their promises that no-one could have known what shape the final deal was going to take.
In those circumstances, not allowing parliament a vote would be utterly undemocratic. Parliament may have failed to do their job, but it was right for them to be asked.
Since they haven't done their job, perhaps the impasse can be solved by another public vote.
Not that I think remain (and what would 'remain' mean) would win.
Leave did decide what leave meant.
Vote Leave specifically said that Leave meant: Leaving the Single Market, Leaving the Customs Union, ending the supremacy of the ECJ, ending free movement, controlling our laws, agreeing a Free Trade deal with the EU. It was the Canada option, as Barnier said at the start of the process.
France has never seemed further from the UK. I can strongly recommend it. We have never had such an ugly government in my memory. Where did Mark Francois crawl out of?
I don't see what's so wonderful about France at the moment, with protestors having their eyes and fingers mutilated by the riot police on a regular basis.
France has never seemed further from the UK. I can strongly recommend it. We have never had such an ugly government in my memory. Where did Mark Francois crawl out of?
You might have Le Pen or Melanchon, before long. Do you spend much time in those parts of France where they are popular?
I think you're too close to it. The UK looks worse than pre Common Market Italy.
It seems odd to call a second referendum undemocratic, yet want to deny parliament the right to vote on the deal.
If leave had pulled their fingers out of their arses and decided on what leave actually meant before the referendum, then such arguments might hold more water (but they would also have lost). However the Schrodinger's-leave campaigns left so many contradictions in their promises that no-one could have known what shape the final deal was going to take.
In those circumstances, not allowing parliament a vote would be utterly undemocratic. Parliament may have failed to do their job, but it was right for them to be asked.
Since they haven't done their job, perhaps the impasse can be solved by another public vote.
Not that I think remain (and what would 'remain' mean) would win.
But another vote is simply not favoured in parliament. Kyle-Wilson has taken all the low hanging fruit and one can work out roughly what the current Tory cabinet's view would be on any sort of "People's vote" in a free vote. It doesn't have the numbers.
I may be missing something, but the indicative votes last night actually did the job in indicating to the Government that there were three possible routes the Government could take that would pass the House.
Given that the Government effectively held about 40 votes back in hand (votes they'd employed, plus a three line whip, on their preferred option, which had still failed hugely and repeatedly), then the Government could choose any one of the three options (or even two of them - the referendum plus either CU or CM2.0) and whip for them, employing the 40 "reserve" votes and ensuring they passed.
We could leave on time, without needing to have EU elections, with either the CU or CM2.0, for example. Whichever was preferred by the Government. Add the Cabinet voting, plus a three line Tory whip, and - unlike the WA - either of those two would easily pass.
It's in May's hands now; she could resolve Brexit and deliver her commitment now - but both of those options may damage her Party in the long run, and I am certain that she will elevate the interests of her Party above that. While decrying others on a similar subject.
You are missing nothing. Excellent point!
Except that she very likely won't ?
*thinking about it*
It is missing something. Surely she would lose Lab if she whipped it?
Comments
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1112981272702390272
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6875319/Gun-toting-jihadi-known-ISIS-matchmaker-Syrian-refugee-camp.html
The Tory line is that the WA is the FIRST thing which has to pass to leave the EU. I don't see anyone disagreeing with that.
the CU arguement is like worrying what colour your car is before you've even been to the forcourt and deciding what make of car you want. The logic is screwy.
Unless you don't really want a car at all.
Having a second referendum on anything without enacting the first result is wrong, in my opinion, and no argument can change my mind.
The problem is the perception that the referendum will be re-run until the pre-determined "correct" answer is reached, at which point that will suddenly be it. There is a reason this perception exists, and it's entirely the EU's fault.
I asked my mother
What will I be
Will I be pretty
Will I be rich
Here's what she said to me
Que sera sera
Whatever will be will be
The future is Corbyn I see
Que sera sera....
Self-awareness chip malfunctioning again.
CM2. 0 was a massive compromise by the SNP, it kills SindyRef2 stone dead as it stays within Sturgeon's red lines. The authority she got from Holyrood was based on the single market.
Customs Union beaches the red line.
Now of course I know you are not surprised at this because in the extensive wargaming and scenario analysis you, @Richard_Tyndall, @DavidL, and @Rochdale performed, looking at the HoC constituents and likely paths since the referendum, this outcome was presumably a high probability event, no?
Given that the Government effectively held about 40 votes back in hand (votes they'd employed, plus a three line whip, on their preferred option, which had still failed hugely and repeatedly), then the Government could choose any one of the three options (or even two of them - the referendum plus either CU or CM2.0) and whip for them, employing the 40 "reserve" votes and ensuring they passed.
We could leave on time, without needing to have EU elections, with either the CU or CM2.0, for example. Whichever was preferred by the Government. Add the Cabinet voting, plus a three line Tory whip, and - unlike the WA - either of those two would easily pass.
It's in May's hands now; she could resolve Brexit and deliver her commitment now - but both of those options may damage her Party in the long run, and I am certain that she will elevate the interests of her Party above that. While decrying others on a similar subject.
Then again, the line "the people voted three years ago for..." I realised the other day is feeling a bit stale. Three years!!??
Plus in the immortal phrase we are where we are. What are the other options? It is surely a viable option at least.
(and as a courtesy to PB-ers I haven't gone through your post swapping "Brexit" for "True Socialism")
Ah, I take your point.
May should be making it clear to them that they have two unhappy futures ahead of them: either being seen by their voters to have blocked brexit or being seen by their members to have facilitated a no-deal brexit. Alternatively they can be the grownups in the room that broke the deadlock.
I don’t think parliament should have had a say.
Edit. I know the backstop involved all UK but was there an option that didn't single out NI for distinct treatment. Which is what enrages the DUP?
https://twitter.com/imgur/status/1112748234559143936
One final MV on deal.
Three amendments,
CM2
CU
PV
Government and Labour whips whatever is agreed.
If it fails
No deal next week.
So I think we would have ended up just where we are today.
There is a block of Labour MPs and Tories who have no problem with the WA and could vote it through subject to extra parliamentary scrutiny for the PD. If the proposal included a customs union it may also pass. But Labour don’t want to let the PM succeed. They have painted themselves into a corner by describing it as a Tory deal, and a bad Brexit.
They think that they will be able to get a general election out of this, and they might. Last nights support of CM 2.0 is another case in point, not designed out of belief, no labour spokesman has said that they want the FoM, but designed to split the Tories.
When she's replaced by one of the 250+ Conservative MPs opposed to a Customs Union that is non-binding because the PD can't be binding, what then?
If leave had pulled their fingers out of their arses and decided on what leave actually meant before the referendum, then such arguments might hold more water (but they would also have lost). However the Schrodinger's-leave campaigns left so many contradictions in their promises that no-one could have known what shape the final deal was going to take.
In those circumstances, not allowing parliament a vote would be utterly undemocratic. Parliament may have failed to do their job, but it was right for them to be asked.
Since they haven't done their job, perhaps the impasse can be solved by another public vote.
Not that I think remain (and what would 'remain' mean) would win.
Cameron’s renegotiation deal with the EU wasn’t voted on in the commons, and I don’t see anyone saying it would have had to be after a Remain win
MPs have heard the promise of a "reject no deal" motion when MV2 went down, then saw May try and stitch them up with some additional wording. MPs heard the promise of indicative votes if MV2 went down and then found the government claiming there "wasn't time". No-one trusts the government to keep its word and hence MPs, not unreasonably, will want any compromise tied down, as far as is possible.
So I can see us hurtling headlong to No Deal and "who blinks first". I think it may well be the EU, as the Irish go into full blown panic mode. But I would rather not take the risk. I am also not sure we actually have a "panic button" to be pressed at the 11th hour, because whether its "agree to the EU's penal terms next week for a long extension" or "Revoke", I don't see how either of those gets the support of a majority in the House, and May can't do either unilaterally.
I have come to the conclusion that in the end TM may have to make MV4 a confidence vote and any conservative who abstains or votes against has the whip withdrawn and they cannot stand for the party in a GE
https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/1112747157591941122
Vote Leave specifically said that Leave meant: Leaving the Single Market, Leaving the Customs Union, ending the supremacy of the ECJ, ending free movement, controlling our laws, agreeing a Free Trade deal with the EU. It was the Canada option, as Barnier said at the start of the process.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/slide_presented_by_barnier_at_euco_15-12-2017.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/27/gilets-jaunes-leader-hit-in-eye-during-protest-will-be-disabled-for-life
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/yellow-vest-protests-paris-police-grenade-sting-ball-national-assembly-gilets-jaunes-macron-a8771701.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47185279
It is missing something. Surely she would lose Lab if she whipped it?