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.
No, you apparently think the terms of Brexit should have been dictated by David Cameron.
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?
Is this the same france with the 20th week of gilets jaunes protest.
yes, its safe to say we're quite a long way from that stage.
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).
Holding up Mark Francois and David Lammy as equally ridiculous is the embodiment of white privilege.
That would lose the ERG off one end as they want No Deal next week. Would DUP support any of those options? Of the Three I think the Customs Union would have most support.
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,
How many would break a three-line whip? The WA wasn't a free vote; why should one of these be?
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 Le Pen areas of France correlate remarkably closely with the areas of France where English forenames like Kevin have been particularly popular over recent decades. Just saying.
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.
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.
No, you apparently think the terms of Brexit should have been dictated by David Cameron.
Is that what you said at the time?
Sure was. I said I’d accept his renegotiation as the withdrawal act if Leave won.
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?
Is this the same france with the 20th week of gilets jaunes protest.
yes, its safe to say we're quite a long way from that stage.
Thanks Roger, for the useful continental insight!
Last time France had a general strike 3 months last time U.K. had a General Strike 1926
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).
Holding up Mark Francois and David Lammy as equally ridiculous is the embodiment of white privilege.
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 agree (and I'm not particularly in favour of one, either). It is up to MPs to do their jobs and sort out this mess.
That would lose the ERG off one end as they want No Deal next week. Would DUP support any of those options? Of the Three I think the Customs Union would have most support.
Its an interesting suggestion. Working back from the end, Parliament would prefer anything to no deal, so whatever is on the table would pass.
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.
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.
A confirmatory referendum is a specific thing in Parliament. It's one where the legislation is already passed prior to the referendum, which gives the final "yea" or "nay".
An advisory referendum is one where no legislation is yet passed and Parliament can choose whether or not to enact its results.
For a confirmatory referendum, the WA (or CM2.0, or WA+CU, or No Deal) would be passed by Parliament subject to the referendum, which would cause it to be immediately enacted without going back to the House.
You seem to be implying that it's just an adjective applied to another advisory referendum, like a "we promise, honest" attached to it. It's not. It has legal force.
If I was the government I’d look to hold a “do you want a customs union yes/no” referendum at this point. If people say no then it’s WA or no deal. If people say yes well at least it gives the government cover to change tack, and has a nice way of neutralising the ERG.
Of course, this is the government of the living dead so May doesn’t have the political strength to go for that.
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.
And legislation can be changed afterwards.
Promises are worthless.
Changed given enough time and a decisive, coordinated majority, yes. Are you trying to tell me that you think parliament has a decisive, coordinated majority? Seriously?
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.
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.
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
It would have been voted upon in the Commons when the next EU treaty went to Parliament for ratification had Remain won.
Mrs May has signalled clearly enough that if her deal is turned down the alternative is Euro elections and a long extension. She is against no deal and so are the vast majority of MPs.
This morning, at cabinet, they will be rejecting the idea of an early election or going back to the EU to negotiate changes to the backstop. So they will decide on a final attempt at her deal and if that fails (and it will) then Euro elections and a long extension.
She needs to give a reason to the EU for a long extension. Two possible reasons.
1. Drop her red line on a customs union and/or 2. Propose negotiating PD or even FTA over next year or two before WDA is finally passed. The separation of WDA and FTA is a large part of the problem because of the lack of trust by UK MPs in a future Tory PM. The EU will recognise that problem and might relent.
She will lose a few cabinet ministers (Fox and Mordaunt but not Grayling and Williamson who will cling on like leeches) but she can weather that.
A successful VNOC in the government will still leave her as acting PM on the 10th April as it is within the 14 days.
Am I the only person who thinks it is weird that we are in effect prevented from leaving the EU by the Good Friday Agreement. It is getting to the stage where it would be easier to renegotiate that.
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,
How many would break a three-line whip? The WA wasn't a free vote; why should one of these be?
Gove, Mordaunt, Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, Hunt, The Saj, Truss, Cox, for starters.
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,
How many would break a three-line whip? The WA wasn't a free vote; why should one of these be?
Gove, Mordaunt, Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, Hunt, The Saj, Truss, Cox, for starters.
Am I the only person who thinks it is weird that we are in effect prevented from leaving the EU by the Good Friday Agreement. It is getting to the stage where it would be easier to renegotiate that.
You are aware of the situation the Good Friday Agreement was designed to address?
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.
And legislation can be changed afterwards.
Promises are worthless.
Changed given enough time and a decisive, coordinated majority, yes. Are you trying to tell me that you think parliament has a decisive, coordinated majority? Seriously?
Are you telling me to trust Parliament not to do that ?
' A once in a generation decision ... This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide. '
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 be fair, there are plenty on the Conservative benches who think a No Deal Brexit won't result in profound disruption. They are, I think, completely wrong - but that's what they think.
The same cannot be said of the likes of Chuka and Heidi Allen who voted against Common Market 2.0 and the customs union option.
They are, by their own reckoning, risking disaster all for the unlikely chance of getting a 50/50 shot at reversing the referendum result.
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).
Holding up Mark Francois and David Lammy as equally ridiculous is the embodiment of white privilege.
?
What I mean is that there are different bars. David Lammy is an intelligent and serious man who sometimes says things that go against mainstream opinion. Mark Francois is an utter lunatic. I doubt that a black man as stupid as Francois could have become an MP. The fact that Francois has is an example of white privilege in action (I know lots of people on here think it's made up so thought it was a useful service to highlight this glaring example).
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
It would have been voted upon in the Commons when the next EU treaty went to Parliament for ratification had Remain won.
Ok thanks. What if a eurosceptic parliament has rejected it? He’d have offered another referendum?
I agree with AndyJS's sensible post - Mrs May now has at least two ways to resolve the issue. Yes, they'd fracture the party, but it's not exactly united at the moment. Frankly she needs to choose a side - either the moderates (i.e. accept customs union or Common Maket 2.0) or the Brexiteers (i.e. accept a hard exit). A passage between them simply doesn't exist.
Would it be possible to run the site headers through a Word check? There are quite often typos in them which the sophisticated Word checker would probably pick up (today I see "shift bit", a faulty "it's" and an uncapitalised commons). I know the pace of events makes it difficult, though, and I'm certainly not the right man to point the finger about typos.
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).
Holding up Mark Francois and David Lammy as equally ridiculous is the embodiment of white privilege.
?
What I mean is that there are different bars. David Lammy is an intelligent and serious man who sometimes says things that go against mainstream opinion. Mark Francois is an utter lunatic. I doubt that a black man as stupid as Francois could have become an MP. The fact that Francois has is an example of white privilege in action (I know lots of people on here think it's made up so thought it was a useful service to highlight this glaring example).
While yielding to no one in my estimation of Mark Francois as a complete moron, and having defended Lammy vigorously over his comic relief comments, I think it is a stretch to call Francois' election as an example of white privelege.
Many many things is it an example of but not I think of white privelege.
Am I the only person who thinks it is weird that we are in effect prevented from leaving the EU by the Good Friday Agreement. It is getting to the stage where it would be easier to renegotiate that.
You are aware of the situation the Good Friday Agreement was designed to address?
Yet the sanctity of the GFA was not mentioned when the Irish government implemented regulatory divergence from Northern Ireland.
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).
Holding up Mark Francois and David Lammy as equally ridiculous is the embodiment of white privilege.
?
What I mean is that there are different bars. David Lammy is an intelligent and serious man who sometimes says things that go against mainstream opinion. Mark Francois is an utter lunatic. I doubt that a black man as stupid as Francois could have become an MP. The fact that Francois has is an example of white privilege in action (I know lots of people on here think it's made up so thought it was a useful service to highlight this glaring example).
But 24 of the pieces were going above the ISS, said Bridenstine. “That is a terrible, terrible thing to create an event that sends debris at an apogee that goes above the International Space Station,” he said, adding: “That kind of activity is not compatible with the future of human spaceflight.”
“It’s unacceptable and Nasa needs to be very clear about what its impact to us is.”
The US military tracks objects in space to predict the collision risk for the ISS and for satellites. They are tracking 23,000 objects larger than 10cm. That includes about 10,000 pieces of space debris, of which nearly 3,000 were created by a single event: a Chinese anti-satellite test in 2007, 530 miles above the surface....
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).
Holding up Mark Francois and David Lammy as equally ridiculous is the embodiment of white privilege.
?
What I mean is that there are different bars. David Lammy is an intelligent and serious man who sometimes says things that go against mainstream opinion. Mark Francois is an utter lunatic. I doubt that a black man as stupid as Francois could have become an MP. The fact that Francois has is an example of white privilege in action (I know lots of people on here think it's made up so thought it was a useful service to highlight this glaring example).
Both have good academic records, and both of them dumb down for political reasons.
I agree with AndyJS's sensible post - Mrs May now has at least two ways to resolve the issue. Yes, they'd fracture the party, but it's not exactly united at the moment. Frankly she needs to choose a side - either the moderates (i.e. accept customs union or Common Maket 2.0) or the Brexiteers (i.e. accept a hard exit). A passage between them simply doesn't exist.
Would it be possible to run the site headers through a Word check? There are quite often typos in them which the sophisticated Word checker would probably pick up (today I see "shift bit", a faulty "it's" and an uncapitalised commons). I know the pace of events makes it difficult, though, and I'm certainly not the right man to point the finger about typos.
Are you telling me to trust Parliament not to do that ?
You could trust them not to do that but no, that's not what I'm telling you. I'm telling you to trust *this* parliament not to be *capable* of doing that, even if it wants to.
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?
- looks at tweet - looks at rest of Paul Embery's timeline - sees pinned tweet is a reference to an article by "Me, for @unherd" - ah, the Giles Fraser Tendency, aka the Hipster Thug Left - stops reading
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
I agree. This is only plausible however if all big beast candidates for her job come out publicly and agree with the strategy. But it's make your mind-up time. If Greening wants to stay in the EU that much, there's at least two parties now that would welcome her. If Baker/Francois can't compromise at all at this stage, well there's two you can go and join as well. Long past time for the Tory party to coalesce around a single broad position on Europe. This is their chance.
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.
No, you apparently think the terms of Brexit should have been dictated by David Cameron.
Is that what you said at the time?
Sure was. I said I’d accept his renegotiation as the withdrawal act if Leave won.
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
I agree. This is only plausible however if all big beast candidates for her job come out publicly and agree with the strategy. But it's make your mind-up time. If Greening wants to stay in the EU that much, there's at least two parties now that would welcome her. If Baker/Francois can't compromise at all at this stage, well there's two you can go and join as well. Long past time for the Tory party to coalesce around a single broad position on Europe. This is their chance.
Ban the Conservative Party, force all their MPs to join the alternative political party of their choice, then take the votes again?
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.
No, you apparently think the terms of Brexit should have been dictated by David Cameron.
Is that what you said at the time?
Sure was. I said I’d accept his renegotiation as the withdrawal act if Leave won.
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?
There is no indication that either is remotely close to power. The coverage of France in the UK usually forgets to mention that most polling indicates Macron is the most popular party leader and that En Marche tops most polls.
France does have deep-seated issues of long-standing and a tradition of street action. We have the former, but not the latter - though the Tommy Robinson stormtroopers are trying to change that. They probably drink too much to be successful, though.
I agree with AndyJS's sensible post - Mrs May now has at least two ways to resolve the issue. Yes, they'd fracture the party, but it's not exactly united at the moment. Frankly she needs to choose a side - either the moderates (i.e. accept customs union or Common Maket 2.0) or the Brexiteers (i.e. accept a hard exit). A passage between them simply doesn't exist.
Would it be possible to run the site headers through a Word check? There are quite often typos in them which the sophisticated Word checker would probably pick up (today I see "shift bit", a faulty "it's" and an uncapitalised commons). I know the pace of events makes it difficult, though, and I'm certainly not the right man to point the finger about typos.
I think that was the other Andy.
Given that he's stabbed me countless times in Diplomacy, should I be hurt by him not knowing who I am?
. David Lammy is an intelligent and serious man who sometimes says things that go against mainstream opinion.
Bollocks - he is neither of those things. He has all too frequently demonstrated the ability to engage mouth before he engages brain and certainly jumps on the outrage bandwagon far too frequently to be taken seriously
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.
No, you apparently think the terms of Brexit should have been dictated by David Cameron.
Is that what you said at the time?
Sure was. I said I’d accept his renegotiation as the withdrawal act if Leave won.
“Renegotiation”?
Yes the deal he struck were we to vote Remain
You’re not making sense. You wanted a Leave vote to mean implementing Cameron’s deal?
I agree with AndyJS's sensible post - Mrs May now has at least two ways to resolve the issue. Yes, they'd fracture the party, but it's not exactly united at the moment. Frankly she needs to choose a side - either the moderates (i.e. accept customs union or Common Maket 2.0) or the Brexiteers (i.e. accept a hard exit). A passage between them simply doesn't exist.
Would it be possible to run the site headers through a Word check? There are quite often typos in them which the sophisticated Word checker would probably pick up (today I see "shift bit", a faulty "it's" and an uncapitalised commons). I know the pace of events makes it difficult, though, and I'm certainly not the right man to point the finger about typos.
I think that was the other Andy.
Given that he's stabbed me countless times in Diplomacy, should I be hurt by him not knowing who I am?
Would she lose Lab if she did as you suggested, though?
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).
Holding up Mark Francois and David Lammy as equally ridiculous is the embodiment of white privilege.
?
What I mean is that there are different bars. David Lammy is an intelligent and serious man who sometimes says things that go against mainstream opinion. Mark Francois is an utter lunatic. I doubt that a black man as stupid as Francois could have become an MP. The fact that Francois has is an example of white privilege in action (I know lots of people on here think it's made up so thought it was a useful service to highlight this glaring example).
You might have a point here, but it's entirely defeated by the existence of Dawn Butler and Diane Abbott. Who, in addition to being black, have the added disadvantage of being female.
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.
No, you apparently think the terms of Brexit should have been dictated by David Cameron.
Is that what you said at the time?
Sure was. I said I’d accept his renegotiation as the withdrawal act if Leave won.
“Renegotiation”?
Yes the deal he struck were we to vote Remain
You’re not making sense. You wanted a Leave vote to mean implementing Cameron’s deal?
Are you a spreadsheet or a human?
As long as we left I would take the softest possible Brexit, and it can be changed at the next GE, or not if people were ok with it. Saying I’d take Cameron’s Deal is a way of illustrating that.
. David Lammy is an intelligent and serious man who sometimes says things that go against mainstream opinion.
Bollocks - he is neither of those things. He has all too frequently demonstrated the ability to engage mouth before he engages brain and certainly jumps on the outrage bandwagon far too frequently to be taken seriously
Having a good academic record and a lack of common sense are not mutually exclusive conditions.
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.
No, you apparently think the terms of Brexit should have been dictated by David Cameron.
Is that what you said at the time?
Sure was. I said I’d accept his renegotiation as the withdrawal act if Leave won.
“Renegotiation”?
Yes the deal he struck were we to vote Remain
You’re not making sense. You wanted a Leave vote to mean implementing Cameron’s deal?
Are you a spreadsheet or a human?
As long as we left I would take the softest possible Brexit, and it can be changed at the next GE, or not if people were ok with it. Saying I’d take Cameron’s Deal is a way of illustrating that.
But Cameron’s deal literally wasn’t leaving. It was never going to be possible to actually leave without huge upheaval like this.
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.
No, you apparently think the terms of Brexit should have been dictated by David Cameron.
Is that what you said at the time?
Sure was. I said I’d accept his renegotiation as the withdrawal act if Leave won.
“Renegotiation”?
Yes the deal he struck were we to vote Remain
You’re not making sense. You wanted a Leave vote to mean implementing Cameron’s deal?
Are you a spreadsheet or a human?
As long as we left I would take the softest possible Brexit, and it can be changed at the next GE, or not if people were ok with it. Saying I’d take Cameron’s Deal is a way of illustrating that.
Dave's deal was to remain. If you were happy with it you voted the wrong way!
I agree with AndyJS's sensible post - Mrs May now has at least two ways to resolve the issue. Yes, they'd fracture the party, but it's not exactly united at the moment. Frankly she needs to choose a side - either the moderates (i.e. accept customs union or Common Maket 2.0) or the Brexiteers (i.e. accept a hard exit). A passage between them simply doesn't exist.
Would it be possible to run the site headers through a Word check? There are quite often typos in them which the sophisticated Word checker would probably pick up (today I see "shift bit", a faulty "it's" and an uncapitalised commons). I know the pace of events makes it difficult, though, and I'm certainly not the right man to point the finger about typos.
I think that was the other Andy.
Given that he's stabbed me countless times in Diplomacy, should I be hurt by him not knowing who I am?
Would she lose Lab if she did as you suggested, though?
If so, then Lab would shoulder all the burden of whatever happened afterwards. She could point to the fact that she's making a compromise, going with what the House (and the majority of Labour MPs) has indicated - and Labour have suddenly swerved away and said, effectively, "Yeah, but not if you actually agree to do what we've asked!"
It would be unequovocally all on Labour at that point, and they'd know it. So I don't think they would shift like that.
. David Lammy is an intelligent and serious man who sometimes says things that go against mainstream opinion.
Bollocks - he is neither of those things. He has all too frequently demonstrated the ability to engage mouth before he engages brain and certainly jumps on the outrage bandwagon far too frequently to be taken seriously
Perhaps it's just because he generally gets outraged about things that seem to me to actually be outrageous. And he speaks up for people who are more or less ignored by most politicians. Francois just seems in a different category to me, unserious, unhinged, talking utter bollocks more or less constantly. It just didn't strike me that they were comparable.
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
I agree. This is only plausible however if all big beast candidates for her job come out publicly and agree with the strategy. But it's make your mind-up time. If Greening wants to stay in the EU that much, there's at least two parties now that would welcome her. If Baker/Francois can't compromise at all at this stage, well there's two you can go and join as well. Long past time for the Tory party to coalesce around a single broad position on Europe. This is their chance.
Ban the Conservative Party, force all their MPs to join the alternative political party of their choice, then take the votes again?
There's what, now only 8 Remain Rebels left and just under 30 ERG? Both of those numbers should be squeezable down to single digits. This has ceased to be a policy area where different wings get to take a different view and the show stays on the road.
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.
If it were true that implementation had been blocked by remainers that would be true. It isn't. The problem was the leavers' failure to agree.
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).
Holding up Mark Francois and David Lammy as equally ridiculous is the embodiment of white privilege.
?
What I mean is that there are different bars. David Lammy is an intelligent and serious man who sometimes says things that go against mainstream opinion. Mark Francois is an utter lunatic. I doubt that a black man as stupid as Francois could have become an MP. The fact that Francois has is an example of white privilege in action (I know lots of people on here think it's made up so thought it was a useful service to highlight this glaring example).
You might have a point here, but it's entirely defeated by the existence of Dawn Butler and Diane Abbott. Who, in addition to being black, have the added disadvantage of being female.
I don't know anything about Dawn Butler TBH. I don't think Abbott is stupid by any stretch of the imagination. Although I do have the impression that she is a bit lazy and her period of peak effectiveness is probably over (she has been in politics for around 4 decades).
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.
. David Lammy is an intelligent and serious man who sometimes says things that go against mainstream opinion.
Bollocks - he is neither of those things. He has all too frequently demonstrated the ability to engage mouth before he engages brain and certainly jumps on the outrage bandwagon far too frequently to be taken seriously
Having a good academic record and a lack of common sense are not mutually exclusive conditions.
He's certainly intelligent in some respects, and I do think it was unfair to compare him with Francois. Baker may be a better comparison. Calling Lammy serious is pushing it a bit.
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.
May's Deal vs CU straight vote.
"Versus" doesn't get you a consensus. The onus is on the prime minister to find the compromise. She's the leader and Brexit is her policy. Paris was worth a mass. Brexit should be worth a common Market, customs union or confirmatory referendum.
I detect a change in calculus and mood. Up to now I have held the view (and a robust view too) that the only way a 2nd referendum comes about is via a pre Brexit GE with Labour offering it and winning. Not so sure now. The Tories are terrified of an election and in any case they need time to choose a new leader. So, if there is not to be a GE pre Brexit, either the WA must somehow pass or there must be a long extension (assuming, as I still do, that No Deal is verboten). Now, the EU might, I suppose, grant a long extension with no commitment to GE or REF2. But if they don't, and the Tories cannot stomach a GE, there must now be a real possibility that TM caves and brings back her Deal with referendum attached. Which would pass. I still don't think so but I'm no longer laying it. I think the 2/1 is about right. It's maybe even a buy now.
There has to be an election. It may not solve anything if we get a similar makeup of parliament, but at this point it's a necessary if not sufficient step at resolving the impasse. May is highly unlikely to get her deal through at MV4 because the pendulum has swung away from "my deal or soft brexit" to "my deal or no deal or no brexit", so the extremes on both sides are again energised. Have we heard recent comments from ERG turncoats like Boris on whether they still back the deal after last night's indicative votes dealt soft brexit a blow?
Honestly the best thing now for the tories is to lose an election and let Corbyn try and deal with Brexit. It would clog up his parliament so he won't get much else sorted, and it would lead him to shoulder the blame afterwards.
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.
No, you apparently think the terms of Brexit should have been dictated by David Cameron.
Is that what you said at the time?
Sure was. I said I’d accept his renegotiation as the withdrawal act if Leave won.
“Renegotiation”?
Yes the deal he struck were we to vote Remain
You’re not making sense. You wanted a Leave vote to mean implementing Cameron’s deal?
Are you a spreadsheet or a human?
As long as we left I would take the softest possible Brexit, and it can be changed at the next GE, or not if people were ok with it. Saying I’d take Cameron’s Deal is a way of illustrating that.
But Cameron’s deal literally wasn’t leaving. It was never going to be possible to actually leave without huge upheaval like this.
Yes I was saying i would take any deal as a stopgap so long as we had officially left. Being too pure about it left the door open for Parliament to never let us leave...
I detect a change in calculus and mood. Up to now I have held the view (and a robust view too) that the only way a 2nd referendum comes about is via a pre Brexit GE with Labour offering it and winning. Not so sure now. The Tories are terrified of an election and in any case they need time to choose a new leader. So, if there is not to be a GE pre Brexit, either the WA must somehow pass or there must be a long extension (assuming, as I still do, that No Deal is verboten). Now, the EU might, I suppose, grant a long extension with no commitment to GE or REF2. But if they don't, and the Tories cannot stomach a GE, there must now be a real possibility that TM caves and brings back her Deal with referendum attached. Which would pass. I still don't think so but I'm no longer laying it. I think the 2/1 is about right. It's maybe even a buy now.
Or the temporary leader who takes over from May, who has no personal ambitions himself, takes one for the team and unilaterally revokes Article 50.
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.
May's Deal vs CU straight vote.
"Versus" doesn't get you a consensus. The onus is on the prime minister to find the compromise. She's the leader and Brexit is her policy. Paris was worth a mass. Brexit should be worth a common Market, customs union or confirmatory referendum.
What's this consensus bollox - its one thing or another and its time to decide.
There has to be an election. It may not solve anything if we get a similar makeup of parliament, but at this point it's a necessary if not sufficient step at resolving the impasse. May is highly unlikely to get her deal through at MV4 because the pendulum has swung away from "my deal or soft brexit" to "my deal or no deal or no brexit", so the extremes on both sides are again energised. Have we heard recent comments from ERG turncoats like Boris on whether they still back the deal after last night's indicative votes dealt soft brexit a blow?
Honestly the best thing now for the tories is to lose an election and let Corbyn try and deal with Brexit. It would clog up his parliament so he won't get much else sorted, and it would lead him to shoulder the blame afterwards.
I can see you would like an election. But by what means do you think one will be delivered?
But Cameron’s deal literally wasn’t leaving. It was never going to be possible to actually leave without huge upheaval like this.
Yes I was saying i would take any deal as a stopgap so long as we had officially left. Being too pure about it left the door open for Parliament to never let us leave...
From the way you spoke about a "renegotiation" it sounded like you expected a slightly harder version of Cameron's Remain deal, that would then become the steady state relationship pending any further divergence that we could do in our own time. Is that right?
Varadkar is in real crisis as he must answer the question what he does when the EU put in place their border on the 13th April post no deal
In addition it may not be known here but he is in serious trouble with his fishermen
Kudos to him, he used his position to try to get to meet Kylie Minogue.
Not sure I understand your point Alastair
Furthermore, the IREXIT freedom party are growing and support the fishermen
Have you got any recent polling on the popularity of Irexit? Last time I saw the Irish were favouring staying in the EU by about 90% to 10%.
My wife is in touch with the Irish fishing community through her late Fathers and families long standard fishing ties and they are furious with Varadkar over his favouring EU fishermen at the expense of his own, thereby promoting increasing anger and support for the IREXIT party. It is very bitter and of course if Brexit goes to no deal, Varadkar would become very unpopular and who knows
I do not know the polling and I doubt IREXIT are too relevant, but the underlying anger in Ireland is not to be dismissed
I detect a change in calculus and mood. Up to now I have held the view (and a robust view too) that the only way a 2nd referendum comes about is via a pre Brexit GE with Labour offering it and winning. Not so sure now. The Tories are terrified of an election and in any case they need time to choose a new leader. So, if there is not to be a GE pre Brexit, either the WA must somehow pass or there must be a long extension (assuming, as I still do, that No Deal is verboten). Now, the EU might, I suppose, grant a long extension with no commitment to GE or REF2. But if they don't, and the Tories cannot stomach a GE, there must now be a real possibility that TM caves and brings back her Deal with referendum attached. Which would pass. I still don't think so but I'm no longer laying it. I think the 2/1 is about right. It's maybe even a buy now.
May wants to get her deal through. If she can't she will choose No Deal over an extension because that will keep the Tories together more successfully.
Curious move on Betfair last night: Geoffrey Cox was backed as low as 10.5 to be next Conservative leader. Someone obviously was very enthusiastic about his chances.
But Cameron’s deal literally wasn’t leaving. It was never going to be possible to actually leave without huge upheaval like this.
Yes I was saying i would take any deal as a stopgap so long as we had officially left. Being too pure about it left the door open for Parliament to never let us leave...
From the way you spoke about a "renegotiation" it sounded like you expected a slightly harder version of Cameron's Remain deal, that would then become the steady state relationship pending any further divergence that we could do in our own time. Is that right?
I meant his pre referendum renegotiation, but yes the rest seems like what I’d have accepted.
I detect a change in calculus and mood. Up to now I have held the view (and a robust view too) that the only way a 2nd referendum comes about is via a pre Brexit GE with Labour offering it and winning. Not so sure now. The Tories are terrified of an election and in any case they need time to choose a new leader. So, if there is not to be a GE pre Brexit, either the WA must somehow pass or there must be a long extension (assuming, as I still do, that No Deal is verboten). Now, the EU might, I suppose, grant a long extension with no commitment to GE or REF2. But if they don't, and the Tories cannot stomach a GE, there must now be a real possibility that TM caves and brings back her Deal with referendum attached. Which would pass. I still don't think so but I'm no longer laying it. I think the 2/1 is about right. It's maybe even a buy now.
Or the temporary leader who takes over from May, who has no personal ambitions himself, takes one for the team and unilaterally revokes Article 50.
I can't see anyone taking one for the team and revoking Article 50. What I (once upon a time) could see was May revoking it and walking away but I'm not so sure anymore...
I detect a change in calculus and mood. Up to now I have held the view (and a robust view too) that the only way a 2nd referendum comes about is via a pre Brexit GE with Labour offering it and winning. Not so sure now. The Tories are terrified of an election and in any case they need time to choose a new leader. So, if there is not to be a GE pre Brexit, either the WA must somehow pass or there must be a long extension (assuming, as I still do, that No Deal is verboten). Now, the EU might, I suppose, grant a long extension with no commitment to GE or REF2. But if they don't, and the Tories cannot stomach a GE, there must now be a real possibility that TM caves and brings back her Deal with referendum attached. Which would pass. I still don't think so but I'm no longer laying it. I think the 2/1 is about right. It's maybe even a buy now.
May wants to get her deal through. If she can't she will choose No Deal over an extension because that will keep the Tories together more successfully.
I used to think that, but I've changed my mind about it slightly. Tory unity is very nearly the most important thing in the world for her, but the threat of anarchy or chaos might top that.
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.
May's Deal vs CU straight vote.
Ultimately, isn't that still May's Deal vs May's Deal. Would it comply with the Grieve amendment?
But Cameron’s deal literally wasn’t leaving. It was never going to be possible to actually leave without huge upheaval like this.
Yes I was saying i would take any deal as a stopgap so long as we had officially left. Being too pure about it left the door open for Parliament to never let us leave...
From the way you spoke about a "renegotiation" it sounded like you expected a slightly harder version of Cameron's Remain deal, that would then become the steady state relationship pending any further divergence that we could do in our own time. Is that right?
I meant his pre referendum renegotiation, but yes the rest seems like what I’d have accepted.
But that was never a possible way to carry out Brexit, as the Article 50 process so far should have shown.
If you had misconceptions about what you were voting for, you can blame parliament for the way it asked the question, but not for the way it reacted to the result.
I detect a change in calculus and mood. Up to now I have held the view (and a robust view too) that the only way a 2nd referendum comes about is via a pre Brexit GE with Labour offering it and winning. Not so sure now. The Tories are terrified of an election and in any case they need time to choose a new leader. So, if there is not to be a GE pre Brexit, either the WA must somehow pass or there must be a long extension (assuming, as I still do, that No Deal is verboten). Now, the EU might, I suppose, grant a long extension with no commitment to GE or REF2. But if they don't, and the Tories cannot stomach a GE, there must now be a real possibility that TM caves and brings back her Deal with referendum attached. Which would pass. I still don't think so but I'm no longer laying it. I think the 2/1 is about right. It's maybe even a buy now.
May wants to get her deal through. If she can't she will choose No Deal over an extension because that will keep the Tories together more successfully.
But it doesn't. A series of high profile resignations are pre-announced, and any sensible Tory knows they cant afford to say goodbye to their moderate wing, along with their backers in business and the middle class. And that's before you get to the damage that a whole host of aspects of no deal could do to the party's wider credibility. The Black Wednesday crisis lasted only a day or two yet dented their reputation for a decade. A bad no deal would be existential.
Comments
Is that what you said at the time?
yes, its safe to say we're quite a long way from that stage.
Thanks Roger, for the useful continental insight!
Promises are worthless.
last time U.K. had a General Strike 1926
An advisory referendum is one where no legislation is yet passed and Parliament can choose whether or not to enact its results.
For a confirmatory referendum, the WA (or CM2.0, or WA+CU, or No Deal) would be passed by Parliament subject to the referendum, which would cause it to be immediately enacted without going back to the House.
You seem to be implying that it's just an adjective applied to another advisory referendum, like a "we promise, honest" attached to it. It's not. It has legal force.
Of course, this is the government of the living dead so May doesn’t have the political strength to go for that.
This morning, at cabinet, they will be rejecting the idea of an early election or going back to the EU to negotiate changes to the backstop. So they will decide on a final attempt at her deal and if that fails (and it will) then Euro elections and a long extension.
She needs to give a reason to the EU for a long extension. Two possible reasons.
1. Drop her red line on a customs union
and/or
2. Propose negotiating PD or even FTA over next year or two before WDA is finally passed. The separation of WDA and FTA is a large part of the problem because of the lack of trust by UK MPs in a future Tory PM. The EU will recognise that problem and might relent.
She will lose a few cabinet ministers (Fox and Mordaunt but not Grayling and Williamson who will cling on like leeches) but she can weather that.
A successful VNOC in the government will still leave her as acting PM on the 10th April as it is within the 14 days.
' A once in a generation decision ... This is your decision. The Government will implement
what you decide. '
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf
The same cannot be said of the likes of Chuka and Heidi Allen who voted against Common Market 2.0 and the customs union option.
They are, by their own reckoning, risking disaster all for the unlikely chance of getting a 50/50 shot at reversing the referendum result.
Would it be possible to run the site headers through a Word check? There are quite often typos in them which the sophisticated Word checker would probably pick up (today I see "shift bit", a faulty "it's" and an uncapitalised commons). I know the pace of events makes it difficult, though, and I'm certainly not the right man to point the finger about typos.
Many many things is it an example of but not I think of white privelege.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/apr/02/a-terrible-thing-nasa-condemns-indias-destruction-of-satellite-and-resulting-space-junk
The Indian satellite was destroyed at a relatively low altitude of 180 miles (300km), well below the ISS and most satellites in orbit.
But 24 of the pieces were going above the ISS, said Bridenstine. “That is a terrible, terrible thing to create an event that sends debris at an apogee that goes above the International Space Station,” he said, adding: “That kind of activity is not compatible with the future of human spaceflight.”
“It’s unacceptable and Nasa needs to be very clear about what its impact to us is.”
The US military tracks objects in space to predict the collision risk for the ISS and for satellites. They are tracking 23,000 objects larger than 10cm. That includes about 10,000 pieces of space debris, of which nearly 3,000 were created by a single event: a Chinese anti-satellite test in 2007, 530 miles above the surface....
- looks at rest of Paul Embery's timeline
- sees pinned tweet is a reference to an article by "Me, for @unherd"
- ah, the Giles Fraser Tendency, aka the Hipster Thug Left
- stops reading
France does have deep-seated issues of long-standing and a tradition of street action. We have the former, but not the latter - though the Tommy Robinson stormtroopers are trying to change that. They probably drink too much to be successful, though.
https://www.juniqe.co.uk/jeremy-corbyn-bed-linen-3318718.html?gclid=Cj0KCQjw7YblBRDFARIsAKkK-dJgYTfhrFkeX5YetH-CQMmlHqEGAfUeB5XHbP-C3gpF5eqGyc4q26waAj_yEALw_wcB
Big, big Gove
As long as we left I would take the softest possible Brexit, and it can be changed at the next GE, or not if people were ok with it. Saying I’d take Cameron’s Deal is a way of illustrating that.
It would be unequovocally all on Labour at that point, and they'd know it. So I don't think they would shift like that.
We could have had it. We don't have it.
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/04/new-brexit-blow-brits-banned-from-amsterdams-cannabis-coffee-shops/
In addition it may not be known here but he is in serious trouble with his fishermen
Furthermore, the IREXIT freedom party are growing and support the fishermen
Honestly the best thing now for the tories is to lose an election and let Corbyn try and deal with Brexit. It would clog up his parliament so he won't get much else sorted, and it would lead him to shoulder the blame afterwards.
Commander in Cheat? Donald Trump's 18 golf tournament wins examined
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/apr/02/donald-trump-golf-28-club-championships
I do not know the polling and I doubt IREXIT are too relevant, but the underlying anger in Ireland is not to be dismissed
If you had misconceptions about what you were voting for, you can blame parliament for the way it asked the question, but not for the way it reacted to the result.