To give the British Parliament time to think of a reason for the next extension
Agreed.
I could easily see a hilarious position whereby the UK is constantly in 'Article 50' mode. Extend, extend, extend but never leave (or revoke). Bit like how Income Tax is a temporary measure to fund the Napoleonic wars.
If we are to extend again (and for a final time) I see only THREE reasons why:
1. For a Referendum; 2. For a General Election 3. Because the government want to scrap the Deal currently negotiated and try again.
I see no reason for any other extension. And I doubt the EU would entertain (3) anyway, so unless its (1) or (2), I just wouldn't bother.
Who the hell wants another year of this shitshow?
I heard one Macron adviser recently saying we should be forced to extend for 5 years so our elected MEPs serve a full term. Having nearly 80 MEPs leave mid term throws up all sorts of issues for the party groupings in the parliament and committees.
I have to say I find this rather concerning. I am no fan of his, but as far as I know he has done nothing wrong on the platform, so surely should be treated equally until he does do something wrong.
Where do we stop? We say Alex Jones should go because he was pushing dangerous conspiracy theories, now Tommy Robinson, where does it stop? Carl Benjamin, again not a fan, but is getting restricted on various platforms (twitter I can understand the ban), but again his content isn't my cup of tea but doesn't seem crazy extremist.
I thought Jones was booted because he told libelous lies about the Sandy Hook parents?
Do you think private companies should have rules imposed on them about who they offer their services to?
As I say, Jones seems rightly booted for his dangerous conspiracy theory about Sandy Hook.
It doesn't appear Robinson has done anything wrong on his YouTube channel, and Carl Benjamin certainly hasn't (but Paetron for instance removed him for something he said on somebodies elses podcast that had nothing to do with his channel and taken out of context)
It used to be ok to say no blacks, no Irish, no dogs, no gays, under the guise of being a private business.
The problem with these social media giants is increasingly the inconsistency of how they apply their rules, the difficulty in appealing etc e.g. a load of tech youtubers got copyright strikes because they took the piss out of a Vox Media Group video, despite using the video under perfectly legal fair usage.
Twitter higher up were recently on JRE podcast and challenged on various bans it was a shit show. Certainly some were valid bans, but other were far from clear cut and they seemed totally in a bubble to opinions that didn't fit their world view.
The private company argument is also becoming more difficult, due to the monologist nature.
To give the British Parliament time to think of a reason for the next extension
Agreed.
I could easily see a hilarious position whereby the UK is constantly in 'Article 50' mode. Extend, extend, extend but never leave (or revoke). Bit like how Income Tax is a temporary measure to fund the Napoleonic wars.
If we are to extend again (and for a final time) I see only THREE reasons why:
1. For a Referendum; 2. For a General Election 3. Because the government want to scrap the Deal currently negotiated and try again.
I see no reason for any other extension. And I doubt the EU would entertain (3) anyway, so unless its (1) or (2), I just wouldn't bother.
Who the hell wants another year of this shitshow?
The shitshow is going to go on for years and years and years....thanks to the 52% we are fucked for generations to come. A basket case nation, lurching form one crisis to another between Corbynesque nutters on one side and Francoisesque nutters on the other. People who wished for more interesting politics some years ago will be nostalgic for political boredom.
To give the British Parliament time to think of a reason for the next extension
Agreed.
I could easily see a hilarious position whereby the UK is constantly in 'Article 50' mode. Extend, extend, extend but never leave (or revoke). Bit like how Income Tax is a temporary measure to fund the Napoleonic wars.
The annual Meaningful Vote could replace the Outlawries Bill as part of the arcana surrounding the State Opening of Parliament.
Nope, the final choice is the PM’s. She is the only one who can revoke. It’s her decision alone.
If parliament were to vote with a clear majority in favour of revocation, you'd have a point. Without such a vote, the legal position is unclear and it's not realistic politically.
If the EU genuinely does refuse a proper extension, do you not think it's quite likely that a majority of the Commons WILL vote to revoke A50?
I think it would be very close.
Close-ish, but I'd be surprised if there would be many Labour rebels in that circumstance - I'm not even sure Caroline Flint would rebel.
So it would basically come down to whether a Tory rebellion could be kept down to less than 20....seems unlikely to me, but who knows.
This Pelosi defence of Biden ought to be no surprise. We, in a global sense, need to move on from this generation and their bizarre attitudes to entitlement.
It was pretty much the same argument used by the defenders of Clinton. But it is not a generational thing. There is plenty of evidence around that younger men have a similar sense of entitlement when it comes to women. And as much evidence of politicians taking a "my party: right or wrong" approach to misbehaviour of any kind.
Yes, I agree there are young men with a similar sense. The evidence is all around. The difference is that those who aspire to lead from younger generations generally don't treat it as a peccadillo to be indulged. This is the point that needs to change. The outright enabling from those in power needs to stop.
Boris. Apparently popular with Tories and some from the younger generation on here. His peccadillos are very much indulged.
I think the difference is whether it involves consenting participants.
Boris may be a rogue and you can judge him morally but that is a whole different matter.
To err is human. To forgive someone who is a self centred egotistical serial liar and charlatan takes something rather more than simply being devine
To give the British Parliament time to think of a reason for the next extension
Agreed.
I could easily see a hilarious position whereby the UK is constantly in 'Article 50' mode. Extend, extend, extend but never leave (or revoke). Bit like how Income Tax is a temporary measure to fund the Napoleonic wars.
The annual Meaningful Vote could replace the Outlawries Bill as part of the arcana surrounding the State Opening of Parliament.
The Meaningful Vote to be followed by the traditional Statement of Regret from the Prime Minister.
To give the British Parliament time to think of a reason for the next extension
Agreed.
I could easily see a hilarious position whereby the UK is constantly in 'Article 50' mode. Extend, extend, extend but never leave (or revoke). Bit like how Income Tax is a temporary measure to fund the Napoleonic wars.
If we are to extend again (and for a final time) I see only THREE reasons why:
1. For a Referendum; 2. For a General Election 3. Because the government want to scrap the Deal currently negotiated and try again.
I see no reason for any other extension. And I doubt the EU would entertain (3) anyway, so unless its (1) or (2), I just wouldn't bother.
Who the hell wants another year of this shitshow?
I heard one Macron adviser recently saying we should be forced to extend for 5 years so our elected MEPs serve a full term. Having nearly 80 MEPs leave mid term throws up all sorts of issues for the party groupings in the parliament and committees.
Imagine this going on until 2024.
5 years is probably the time we will need to work out what we want to do and agree an FTA. So it kinda makes sense.
Nope, the final choice is the PM’s. She is the only one who can revoke. It’s her decision alone.
If parliament were to vote with a clear majority in favour of revocation, you'd have a point. Without such a vote, the legal position is unclear and it's not realistic politically.
It's another example of the unreality of the situation, that there are people who seem to think it feasible that May will break totally with her party and lead about 30 of her MPs into alliance with Labour, in order to revoke Brexit or hold a second referendum.
I don't think it's feasible. That's my entire point. May will always choose the position that keeps most Tories inside the Tory party.
Curse of new thread. Am beginning to think passing TMs Deal may turn out to be the worst possible result for the government. All other scenarios, and blame can be deflected. Especially, as the government may well fall, leaving another to deal with the fall out. In that one, you still have a fractured, resentful Party, still in power, with no one else to shoulder the responsibility. And no solution to the fundamental problem...we don't know what future relationship we want.
Seems to me that the government will fall in any case. Either May will put her deal again and lose again or, more likely, she will be forced to ask for a long extension for either a referendum or a general election. And that will be her last act as PM.
Seems about right. Logical or not parliament will not approve her deal (and it is seen that way so it is about her, despite Becketts insults) and every other option (and even that one probably) cause a split and a collapse.
Are today's noises from Cabinet about ramping up no-deal planning:
(a) as a, er, backstop in case the EU rejects an extension. (b) realistic contingency planning after another 10 days' Commons faffing. (c) a sign she's about to grab the steering wheel and head for the cliffs ?
I sometimes wonder whether she fancies taking her chances, with however much enthusiasm, and seeing where the cards (and the bits of the bus) land. It's probably the best chance of keeping 80 per cent of the party together.
This Pelosi defence of Biden ought to be no surprise. We, in a global sense, need to move on from this generation and their bizarre attitudes to entitlement.
It was pretty much the same argument used by the defenders of Clinton. But it is not a generational thing. There is plenty of evidence around that younger men have a similar sense of entitlement when it comes to women. And as much evidence of politicians taking a "my party: right or wrong" approach to misbehaviour of any kind.
Yes, I agree there are young men with a similar sense. The evidence is all around. The difference is that those who aspire to lead from younger generations generally don't treat it as a peccadillo to be indulged. This is the point that needs to change. The outright enabling from those in power needs to stop.
Boris. Apparently popular with Tories and some from the younger generation on here. His peccadillos are very much indulged.
I think the difference is whether it involves consenting participants.
Boris may be a rogue and you can judge him morally but that is a whole different matter.
Well, I would not be quite as sanguine as you about whether someone who has such an eye for the ladies as Boris reputedly has is always as respectful of whether women he has his eye on are keen for his attentions. The line between a Casanova and a sex pest is a fine one.
To give the British Parliament time to think of a reason for the next extension
All seems like a lot of desperate displacement activity and probably bad law. I seem to recall people saying it was wrong of May to ram something through, but it's ok to rush through actual legislation super quick rather than agree something that provides a reason for an extension?
Actually its clearly just more focusing on blame for no deal rather than anything else.
Curse of new thread. Am beginning to think passing TMs Deal may turn out to be the worst possible result for the government. All other scenarios, and blame can be deflected. Especially, as the government may well fall, leaving another to deal with the fall out. In that one, you still have a fractured, resentful Party, still in power, with no one else to shoulder the responsibility. And no solution to the fundamental problem...we don't know what future relationship we want.
Seems to me that the government will fall in any case. Either May will put her deal again and lose again or, more likely, she will be forced to ask for a long extension for either a referendum or a general election. And that will be her last act as PM.
Seems about right. Logical or not parliament will not approve her deal (and it is seen that way so it is about her, despite Becketts insults) and every other option (and even that one probably) cause a split and a collapse.
Are today's noises from Cabinet about ramping up no-deal planning:
(a) as a, er, backstop in case the EU rejects an extension. (b) realistic contingency planning after another 10 days' Commons faffing. (c) a sign she's about to grab the steering wheel and head for the cliffs ?
I sometimes wonder whether she fancies taking her chances, with however much enthusiasm, and seeing where the cards (and the bits of the bus) land. It's probably the best chance of keeping 80 per cent of the party together.
After the next election - what's 80% of bugger-all?
Nope, the final choice is the PM’s. She is the only one who can revoke. It’s her decision alone.
If parliament were to vote with a clear majority in favour of revocation, you'd have a point. Without such a vote, the legal position is unclear and it's not realistic politically.
Yep, it's not realistic politically. It would destroy the Conservative party. But if we get to No Deal it will be because Mrs May's government has rejected the chance to revoke.
And that’s the thing without May’s deal the options are - blow the party up now and revoke or watch it be destroy if and when No Deal goes wrong and it will
Nope, the final choice is the PM’s. She is the only one who can revoke. It’s her decision alone.
If parliament were to vote with a clear majority in favour of revocation, you'd have a point. Without such a vote, the legal position is unclear and it's not realistic politically.
It's another example of the unreality of the situation, that there are people who seem to think it feasible that May will break totally with her party and lead about 30 of her MPs into alliance with Labour, in order to revoke Brexit or hold a second referendum.
I don't think it's feasible. That's my entire point. May will always choose the position that keeps most Tories inside the Tory party.
Agreed. She clearly doesnt want no deal, but it's what most of her MPs want if the deal fails, which it will.
To give the British Parliament time to think of a reason for the next extension
Agreed.
I could easily see a hilarious position whereby the UK is constantly in 'Article 50' mode. Extend, extend, extend but never leave (or revoke). Bit like how Income Tax is a temporary measure to fund the Napoleonic wars.
If we are to extend again (and for a final time) I see only THREE reasons why:
1. For a Referendum; 2. For a General Election 3. Because the government want to scrap the Deal currently negotiated and try again.
I see no reason for any other extension. And I doubt the EU would entertain (3) anyway, so unless its (1) or (2), I just wouldn't bother.
Who the hell wants another year of this shitshow?
I heard one Macron adviser recently saying we should be forced to extend for 5 years so our elected MEPs serve a full term. Having nearly 80 MEPs leave mid term throws up all sorts of issues for the party groupings in the parliament and committees.
Imagine this going on until 2024.
5 years is probably the time we will need to work out what we want to do and agree an FTA. So it kinda makes sense.
Macron wants the extra five years of British MEPs doing their bit for the Strasbourg hotel trade.
Well, I would not be quite as sanguine as you about whether someone who has such an eye for the ladies as Boris reputedly has is always as respectful of whether women he has his eye on are keen for his attentions. The line between a Casanova and a sex pest is a fine one.
Watched the Brexit doc on the Beeb last night and the vibe between Laura K and BoJo in the little chats they had was very much one of 'woman handling dubious man with a mix of contempt, wariness and amusement'.
Nope, the final choice is the PM’s. She is the only one who can revoke. It’s her decision alone.
If parliament were to vote with a clear majority in favour of revocation, you'd have a point. Without such a vote, the legal position is unclear and it's not realistic politically.
Yep, it's not realistic politically. It would destroy the Conservative party. But if we get to No Deal it will be because Mrs May's government has rejected the chance to revoke.
And that’s the thing without May’s deal the options are - blow the party up now and revoke or watch it be destroy if and when No Deal goes wrong and it will</blockquot
You ignore the possibility that No deal will turn out better than expected (and given the level of those expectations that seems at least possible and imho is likely). If Revoke means immediate implosion of the party then by your own logic Tory MPs are making a perfectly rational choice in opting reluctantly for No Deal.
Nope, the final choice is the PM’s. She is the only one who can revoke. It’s her decision alone.
If parliament were to vote with a clear majority in favour of revocation, you'd have a point. Without such a vote, the legal position is unclear and it's not realistic politically.
Yep, it's not realistic politically. It would destroy the Conservative party. But if we get to No Deal it will be because Mrs May's government has rejected the chance to revoke.
And that’s the thing without May’s deal the options are - blow the party up now and revoke or watch it be destroy if and when No Deal goes wrong and it will
Extending forever might be worse than either option.
Well, I would not be quite as sanguine as you about whether someone who has such an eye for the ladies as Boris reputedly has is always as respectful of whether women he has his eye on are keen for his attentions. The line between a Casanova and a sex pest is a fine one.
Watched the Brexit doc on the Beeb last night and the vibe between Laura K and BoJo in the little chats they had was very much of 'woman handling dubious man with a mix of contempt, wariness and amusement'.
I reckon would have be a good idea to wear a hazmat suit.
Nope, the final choice is the PM’s. She is the only one who can revoke. It’s her decision alone.
If parliament were to vote with a clear majority in favour of revocation, you'd have a point. Without such a vote, the legal position is unclear and it's not realistic politically.
It's another example of the unreality of the situation, that there are people who seem to think it feasible that May will break totally with her party and lead about 30 of her MPs into alliance with Labour, in order to revoke Brexit or hold a second referendum.
I don't think it's feasible. That's my entire point. May will always choose the position that keeps most Tories inside the Tory party.
Agreed. She clearly doesnt want no deal, but it's what most of her MPs want if the deal fails, which it will.
She would rather her legacy be No Deal and all its consequences for the UK rather than the complete break-up of the Conservative party.
This Pelosi defence of Biden ought to be no surprise. We, in a global sense, need to move on from this generation and their bizarre attitudes to entitlement.
It was pretty much the same argument used by the defenders of Clinton. But it is not a generational thing. There is plenty of evidence around that younger men have a similar sense of entitlement when it comes to women. And as much evidence of politicians taking a "my party: right or wrong" approach to misbehaviour of any kind.
Yes, I agree there are young men with a similar sense. The evidence is all around. The difference is that those who aspire to lead from younger generations generally don't treat it as a peccadillo to be indulged. This is the point that needs to change. The outright enabling from those in power needs to stop.
Someone I know very nearly lost his job due to 'inappropriate body contact'. He doesn't deny that it happened but maintains that it was unintentional. Furthermore, I understand that the 'victim' wasn't aware of it, it was reported by a third party. He was suspended from work for a month or so. Eventually, he was given a final warning and moved to another team.
The reality is that there is now a terror associated with any claim of sexual harrassment. Unlike sexual assault, it can never be disproven.
Hmmm. It's easy to criticise, but isn't this a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-dont situation? If they hadn't laid on these ferries and Brexit had occurred on schedule, there would be chaos. And a clause that says 'you may not need to operate these ferries' would probably cost just as much as actually running them.
The ferries are an insurance policy we haven't needed.
This Pelosi defence of Biden ought to be no surprise. We, in a global sense, need to move on from this generation and their bizarre attitudes to entitlement.
It was pretty much the same argument used by the defenders of Clinton. But it is not a generational thing. There is plenty of evidence around that younger men have a similar sense of entitlement when it comes to women. And as much evidence of politicians taking a "my party: right or wrong" approach to misbehaviour of any kind.
Yes, I agree there are young men with a similar sense. The evidence is all around. The difference is that those who aspire to lead from younger generations generally don't treat it as a peccadillo to be indulged. This is the point that needs to change. The outright enabling from those in power needs to stop.
Boris. Apparently popular with Tories and some from the younger generation on here. His peccadillos are very much indulged.
I think the difference is whether it involves consenting participants.
Boris may be a rogue and you can judge him morally but that is a whole different matter.
Well, I would not be quite as sanguine as you about whether someone who has such an eye for the ladies as Boris reputedly has is always as respectful of whether women he has his eye on are keen for his attentions. The line between a Casanova and a sex pest is a fine one.
Agreed. Me-Tooers would kill him. OTOH if there are any I'd have expected to hear from them by now. If there aren't any, the thought of a significant number of voters (even Conservative Party members) being put off by consensual adultery is positively quaint.
Nope, the final choice is the PM’s. She is the only one who can revoke. It’s her decision alone.
If parliament were to vote with a clear majority in favour of revocation, you'd have a point. Without such a vote, the legal position is unclear and it's not realistic politically.
It's another example of the unreality of the situation, that there are people who seem to think it feasible that May will break totally with her party and lead about 30 of her MPs into alliance with Labour, in order to revoke Brexit or hold a second referendum.
I don't think it's feasible. That's my entire point. May will always choose the position that keeps most Tories inside the Tory party.
Agreed. She clearly doesnt want no deal, but it's what most of her MPs want if the deal fails, which it will.
She would rather her legacy be No Deal and all its consequences for the UK rather than the complete break-up of the Conservative party.
No Deal will lead to the complete break-up of the Conservative party (which is of course why Corbyn is working towards it).
I think @Sean_F is right that a VoNC should narrowly fail in the event of the MV passing.
On the one hand I’d expect the DUP to vote with the opposition (they mean what they say) but other independents and possibly even TIGers abstaining to avoid a GE and/or putting Corbyn in power, so HMG would survive. Just.
Question then is how the Con minority administration survives a new leader with c.300-310 MPs (I expect a few more casualties of war) for another 3 years with no C&S partner.
Nope, the final choice is the PM’s. She is the only one who can revoke. It’s her decision alone.
If parliament were to vote with a clear majority in favour of revocation, you'd have a point. Without such a vote, the legal position is unclear and it's not realistic politically.
It's another example of the unreality of the situation, that there are people who seem to think it feasible that May will break totally with her party and lead about 30 of her MPs into alliance with Labour, in order to revoke Brexit or hold a second referendum.
I don't think it's feasible. That's my entire point. May will always choose the position that keeps most Tories inside the Tory party.
Agreed. She clearly doesnt want no deal, but it's what most of her MPs want if the deal fails, which it will.
She would rather her legacy be No Deal and all its consequences for the UK rather than the complete break-up of the Conservative party.
Yes, as would any other party leader's choice in the same situation be. I think the unique feature of May is that unlike nearly anyone else in the same situation, she may well tell us exactly that at some point.
Nope, the final choice is the PM’s. She is the only one who can revoke. It’s her decision alone.
If parliament were to vote with a clear majority in favour of revocation, you'd have a point. Without such a vote, the legal position is unclear and it's not realistic politically.
It's another example of the unreality of the situation, that there are people who seem to think it feasible that May will break totally with her party and lead about 30 of her MPs into alliance with Labour, in order to revoke Brexit or hold a second referendum.
I don't think it's feasible. That's my entire point. May will always choose the position that keeps most Tories inside the Tory party.
Agreed. She clearly doesnt want no deal, but it's what most of her MPs want if the deal fails, which it will.
She would rather her legacy be No Deal and all its consequences for the UK rather than the complete break-up of the Conservative party.
Why would you expect the Conservative Party leader to take an action that leads to the complete break up of their party?
No party leader would ever do that.
Sure, you’ll be cross but you were never going to vote Conservative anyway and those that do by & large disagree with you.
Im struggling to identify what ChangeUK want to change.
Theyre the more of the same party
Yes! They’re the party that seek to deny the biggest change in British political history in favour of maintaining the status quo... 1984-esque branding
Politics has been killing language for decades. Mrs T put an end to the Conservatives being a conservative party, and Tony Blair started all the (re)branding nonsense, e.g. changing the names of schools to academies.
This Pelosi defence of Biden ought to be no surprise. We, in a global sense, need to move on from this generation and their bizarre attitudes to entitlement.
It was pretty much the same argument used by the defenders of Clinton. But it is not a generational thing. There is plenty of evidence around that younger men have a similar sense of entitlement when it comes to women. And as much evidence of politicians taking a "my party: right or wrong" approach to misbehaviour of any kind.
Yes, I agree there are young men with a similar sense. The evidence is all around. The difference is that those who aspire to lead from younger generations generally don't treat it as a peccadillo to be indulged. This is the point that needs to change. The outright enabling from those in power needs to stop.
Boris. Apparently popular with Tories and some from the younger generation on here. His peccadillos are very much indulged.
I think the difference is whether it involves consenting participants.
Boris may be a rogue and you can judge him morally but that is a whole different matter.
Well, I would not be quite as sanguine as you about whether someone who has such an eye for the ladies as Boris reputedly has is always as respectful of whether women he has his eye on are keen for his attentions. The line between a Casanova and a sex pest is a fine one.
Agreed. Me-Tooers would kill him. OTOH if there are any I'd have expected to hear from them by now. If there aren't any, the thought of a significant number of voters (even Conservative Party members) being put off by consensual adultery is positively quaint.
It reminds me of a comment made when efforts were made to enlist the Countryside Alliance to canvas for the Cons after the introduction of gay marriage: "the idea that the hunting community should all of a sudden be up in arms about the sanctity of marriage is one of the more absurd things I have heard."
I think @Sean_F is right that a VoNC should narrowly fail in the event of the MV passing.
On the one hand I’d expect the DUP to vote with the opposition (they mean what they say) but other independents and possibly even TIGers abstaining to avoid a GE and/or putting Corbyn in power, so HMG would survive. Just.
Question then is how the Con minority administration survives a new leader with c.300-310 MPs (I expect a few more casualties of war) for another 3 years with no C&S partner.
If (and its a huge if), we'll need a GE sooner rather than later. Parliment can't go on like this.
5 years is probably the time we will need to work out what we want to do and agree an FTA. So it kinda makes sense.
Except we cannot do a trade deal until we have left. Big problem, this, since it appears we are not keen on leaving until we have done a trade deal. Blind Brexit and all that.
Nope, the final choice is the PM’s. She is the only one who can revoke. It’s her decision alone.
If parliament were to vote with a clear majority in favour of revocation, you'd have a point. Without such a vote, the legal position is unclear and it's not realistic politically.
If the EU genuinely does refuse a proper extension, do you not think it's quite likely that a majority of the Commons WILL vote to revoke A50?
I think it would be very close.
Close-ish, but I'd be surprised if there would be many Labour rebels in that circumstance - I'm not even sure Caroline Flint would rebel.
So it would basically come down to whether a Tory rebellion could be kept down to less than 20....seems unlikely to me, but who knows.
I think there would be a lot of abstentions.
It’d fail something like 230 to 220 votes, I think, with the rest abstentions as you say.
Im struggling to identify what ChangeUK want to change.
Theyre the more of the same party
Yes! They’re the party that seek to deny the biggest change in British political history in favour of maintaining the status quo... 1984-esque branding
Says they person who'd have been happy with Cameron's deal as the Leave deal.
This is what's so absurd about Brexit. For supporters it's mainly about winning and losing, regardless of the detail.
Nope, the final choice is the PM’s. She is the only one who can revoke. It’s her decision alone.
If parliament were to vote with a clear majority in favour of revocation, you'd have a point. Without such a vote, the legal position is unclear and it's not realistic politically.
It's another example of the unreality of the situation, that there are people who seem to think it feasible that May will break totally with her party and lead about 30 of her MPs into alliance with Labour, in order to revoke Brexit or hold a second referendum.
I don't think it's feasible. That's my entire point. May will always choose the position that keeps most Tories inside the Tory party.
Agreed. She clearly doesnt want no deal, but it's what most of her MPs want if the deal fails, which it will.
She would rather her legacy be No Deal and all its consequences for the UK rather than the complete break-up of the Conservative party.
Why would you expect the Conservative Party leader to take an action that leads to the complete break up of their party?
No party leader would ever do that.
Sure, you’ll be cross but you were never going to vote Conservative anyway and those that do by & large disagree with you.
I do not expect May to do anything other than put her party first. I accept she has absolutely no interest in governing for anyone who is not an actual or potential Conservative voter.
To give the British Parliament time to think of a reason for the next extension
Agreed.
I could easily see a hilarious position whereby the UK is constantly in 'Article 50' mode. Extend, extend, extend but never leave (or revoke). Bit like how Income Tax is a temporary measure to fund the Napoleonic wars.
If we are to extend again (and for a final time) I see only THREE reasons why:
1. For a Referendum; 2. For a General Election 3. Because the government want to scrap the Deal currently negotiated and try again.
I see no reason for any other extension. And I doubt the EU would entertain (3) anyway, so unless its (1) or (2), I just wouldn't bother.
Who the hell wants another year of this shitshow?
The shitshow is going to go on for years and years and years....thanks to the 52% we are fucked for generations to come. A basket case nation, lurching form one crisis to another between Corbynesque nutters on one side and Francoisesque nutters on the other. People who wished for more interesting politics some years ago will be nostalgic for political boredom.
Thankfully, we’ll have your insightful commentary throughout though.
Nope, the final choice is the PM’s. She is the only one who can revoke. It’s her decision alone.
If parliament were to vote with a clear majority in favour of revocation, you'd have a point. Without such a vote, the legal position is unclear and it's not realistic politically.
It's another example of the unreality of the situation, that there are people who seem to think it feasible that May will break totally with her party and lead about 30 of her MPs into alliance with Labour, in order to revoke Brexit or hold a second referendum.
I don't think it's feasible. That's my entire point. May will always choose the position that keeps most Tories inside the Tory party.
Agreed. She clearly doesnt want no deal, but it's what most of her MPs want if the deal fails, which it will.
She would rather her legacy be No Deal and all its consequences for the UK rather than the complete break-up of the Conservative party.
No deal would lead immediately to the complete break up of the Conservative Party.
I think @Sean_F is right that a VoNC should narrowly fail in the event of the MV passing.
On the one hand I’d expect the DUP to vote with the opposition (they mean what they say) but other independents and possibly even TIGers abstaining to avoid a GE and/or putting Corbyn in power, so HMG would survive. Just.
Question then is how the Con minority administration survives a new leader with c.300-310 MPs (I expect a few more casualties of war) for another 3 years with no C&S partner.
If (and its a huge if), we'll need a GE sooner rather than later. Parliment can't go on like this.
If we ever get leaving out the way though then the Tories will be united on more normal stuff like budgets.
They have just confirmed what he bangs on about, that the establishment are trying to silence him etc etc etc.
Far better to let him publish, and let the internet pick up any horseshit he spouts (which if the internet is good at one thing, it is jumping on that bandwagon when somebody gets caught out).
It is also a dangerous precedent. Do they also boot say stefan molyneux, I understand he "skirts" the boundaries (I don't watch, but I understand he appears very "interested" in religion and race/IQ stuff), so ok lets boot him...what about Sam Harris....on religion he isn't a million miles away as he is very anti, in particular Islam, and certainly talked about race / IQ issues in the past...then where...Joe Rogan, well he has all sorts of nutters on.
Nope, the final choice is the PM’s. She is the only one who can revoke. It’s her decision alone.
If parliament were to vote with a clear majority in favour of revocation, you'd have a point. Without such a vote, the legal position is unclear and it's not realistic politically.
It's another example of the unreality of the situation, that there are people who seem to think it feasible that May will break totally with her party and lead about 30 of her MPs into alliance with Labour, in order to revoke Brexit or hold a second referendum.
I don't think it's feasible. That's my entire point. May will always choose the position that keeps most Tories inside the Tory party.
Agreed. She clearly doesnt want no deal, but it's what most of her MPs want if the deal fails, which it will.
She would rather her legacy be No Deal and all its consequences for the UK rather than the complete break-up of the Conservative party.
Why would you expect the Conservative Party leader to take an action that leads to the complete break up of their party?
No party leader would ever do that.
Sure, you’ll be cross but you were never going to vote Conservative anyway and those that do by & large disagree with you.
I do not expect May to do anything other than put her party first. I accept she has absolutely no interest in governing for anyone who is not an actual or potential Conservative voter.
I think @Sean_F is right that a VoNC should narrowly fail in the event of the MV passing.
On the one hand I’d expect the DUP to vote with the opposition (they mean what they say) but other independents and possibly even TIGers abstaining to avoid a GE and/or putting Corbyn in power, so HMG would survive. Just.
Question then is how the Con minority administration survives a new leader with c.300-310 MPs (I expect a few more casualties of war) for another 3 years with no C&S partner.
I think the much more likely case of a VONC passing is if the government's intention becomes "No Deal", especially if they ignore a Parliament vote on getting a long A50 extension / revoking. In that case, I would've thought there was a chance of enough Tory MPs rebelling to bring them down - Ken Clarke for one basically said he'd vote them out in that case.
I think @Sean_F is right that a VoNC should narrowly fail in the event of the MV passing.
On the one hand I’d expect the DUP to vote with the opposition (they mean what they say) but other independents and possibly even TIGers abstaining to avoid a GE and/or putting Corbyn in power, so HMG would survive. Just.
Question then is how the Con minority administration survives a new leader with c.300-310 MPs (I expect a few more casualties of war) for another 3 years with no C&S partner.
If (and its a huge if), we'll need a GE sooner rather than later. Parliment can't go on like this.
I think @Sean_F is right that a VoNC should narrowly fail in the event of the MV passing.
On the one hand I’d expect the DUP to vote with the opposition (they mean what they say) but other independents and possibly even TIGers abstaining to avoid a GE and/or putting Corbyn in power, so HMG would survive. Just.
Question then is how the Con minority administration survives a new leader with c.300-310 MPs (I expect a few more casualties of war) for another 3 years with no C&S partner.
If (and its a huge if), we'll need a GE sooner rather than later. Parliment can't go on like this.
The Tories will be slaughtered in any new GE.
Wouldn't fancy being a Tory councillor having to defend right now either. Being hit from all sides on Brexit and no-one wants to talk about refuse collections or potholes.
I do not expect May to do anything other than put her party first. I accept she has absolutely no interest in governing for anyone who is not an actual or potential Conservative voter.
It would be refreshing if you would from time make exactly the same point about exactly the same behaviour from Labour politicians. But you won't, will you? It's odd that some as generally sensible as you has this extraordinarly partisan blind-spot (even though you don't even support the current version of Labour particularly!)
Nope, the final choice is the PM’s. She is the only one who can revoke. It’s her decision alone.
If parliament were to vote with a clear majority in favour of revocation, you'd have a point. Without such a vote, the legal position is unclear and it's not realistic politically.
It's another example of the unreality of the situation, that there are people who seem to think it feasible that May will break totally with her party and lead about 30 of her MPs into alliance with Labour, in order to revoke Brexit or hold a second referendum.
I don't think it's feasible. That's my entire point. May will always choose the position that keeps most Tories inside the Tory party.
Agreed. She clearly doesnt want no deal, but it's what most of her MPs want if the deal fails, which it will.
She would rather her legacy be No Deal and all its consequences for the UK rather than the complete break-up of the Conservative party.
No Deal will lead to the complete break-up of the Conservative party (which is of course why Corbyn is working towards it).
Corbyn wants it because it is his only path to power and because he is a disaster socialist who believes that the suffering is one of the pre-conditions of proletarian revolt.
The Tories will fracture, they won't break-up. They are in the process of becoming a hard right English nationalist party - the party of Rees Mogg, Bridgen, Farage and Francois - and there will be a sizeable constituency for that in England. But the days of the Tories being pragmatic, pro-business and outward looking are over, whatever happens from here.
Another longer term implication of recent events is that the total failure of Labour, the SNP, PC, the LDs and the Greens to work together to prevent a Tory No Deal Brexit demonstrates clearly that there is next to no chance of a progressive coalition - formal or otherwise - to keep the Tories out of power after the next election.
The 'Tory' No Deal Brexit - if it happens - will have been the choice of a progressive alliance of the SNP, Labour, LibDems. TIGgers and, err, the DUP and ERG. How about that for a broad-based coalition?
Your comments are generally pretty sensible but I think you are way off the mark on this.
If we end up with No Deal the Conservatives, and the ERG in particular, are going to get both barrels from the electorate if it proves to be a disaster. It will be a bloodbath
Another longer term implication of recent events is that the total failure of Labour, the SNP, PC, the LDs and the Greens to work together to prevent a Tory No Deal Brexit demonstrates clearly that there is next to no chance of a progressive coalition - formal or otherwise - to keep the Tories out of power after the next election.
The 'Tory' No Deal Brexit - if it happens - will have been the choice of a progressive alliance of the SNP, Labour, LibDems. TIGgers and, err, the DUP and ERG. How about that for a broad-based coalition?
Your comments are generally pretty sensible but I think you are way off the mark on this.
If we end up with No Deal the Conservatives, and the ERG in particular, are going to get both barrels from the electorate if it proves to be a disaster. It will be a bloodbath
As I said a bit later, I was referring to who deserved blame, not who would get it. You are right on whom the electorate will (mainly) blame.
I think @Sean_F is right that a VoNC should narrowly fail in the event of the MV passing.
On the one hand I’d expect the DUP to vote with the opposition (they mean what they say) but other independents and possibly even TIGers abstaining to avoid a GE and/or putting Corbyn in power, so HMG would survive. Just.
Question then is how the Con minority administration survives a new leader with c.300-310 MPs (I expect a few more casualties of war) for another 3 years with no C&S partner.
If (and its a huge if), we'll need a GE sooner rather than later. Parliment can't go on like this.
The Tories will be slaughtered in any new GE.
I don't know. It'll take some time, but if a new leader can pull the parlimentary party together, get som shiny new non-brexit policies and if the economy holds together in 12-18 months it might be ok.
I do not expect May to do anything other than put her party first. I accept she has absolutely no interest in governing for anyone who is not an actual or potential Conservative voter.
It would be refreshing if you would from time make exactly the same point about exactly the same behaviour from Labour politicians. But you won't, will you? It's odd that some as generally sensible as you has this extraordinarly partisan blind-spot (even though you don't even support the current version of Labour particularly!)
I have said many times that the current Labour leadership actively wants a Tory No Deal Brexit for entirely partisan reasons. It is their dream scenario and it will be delivered to them in less than two weeks.
Nope, the final choice is the PM’s. She is the only one who can revoke. It’s her decision alone.
If parliament were to vote with a clear majority in favour of revocation, you'd have a point. Without such a vote, the legal position is unclear and it's not realistic politically.
It's another example of the unreality of the situation, that there are people who seem to think it feasible that May will break totally with her party and lead about 30 of her MPs into alliance with Labour, in order to revoke Brexit or hold a second referendum.
I don't think it's feasible. That's my entire point. May will always choose the position that keeps most Tories inside the Tory party.
Agreed. She clearly doesnt want no deal, but it's what most of her MPs want if the deal fails, which it will.
She would rather her legacy be No Deal and all its consequences for the UK rather than the complete break-up of the Conservative party.
No Deal will lead to the complete break-up of the Conservative party (which is of course why Corbyn is working towards it).
But the days of the Tories being pragmatic, pro-business and outward looking are over, whatever happens from here.
They have just confirmed what he bangs on about, that the establishment are trying to silence him etc etc etc.
Far better to let him publish, and let the internet pick up any horseshit he spouts (which if the internet is good at one thing, it is jumping on that bandwagon when somebody gets caught out).
The problem with that is the Internet becomes bubbles. The sane Internet might pick up on what he spouts, but the people who follow his sh*t might not pick up on that because they don't follow the right places (and the same goes for others as well).
I think there's a reasonable rule of thumb: if you'd get arrested for standing in the street and shouting something into a megaphone, you shouldn't expect a right to say it on open forums on the Internet. Though there are difficulties with that concept as well wrt territories.
I do not expect May to do anything other than put her party first. I accept she has absolutely no interest in governing for anyone who is not an actual or potential Conservative voter.
It would be refreshing if you would from time make exactly the same point about exactly the same behaviour from Labour politicians. But you won't, will you? It's odd that some as generally sensible as you has this extraordinarly partisan blind-spot (even though you don't even support the current version of Labour particularly!)
It's not partisan, it's a question on who is in government and who is not. This one is happening on the Conservatives watch. It is quite right that they are held to account and they should be acting in the national interest. Hell even the SNP are doing a better job of that at the moment.
I think @Sean_F is right that a VoNC should narrowly fail in the event of the MV passing.
On the one hand I’d expect the DUP to vote with the opposition (they mean what they say) but other independents and possibly even TIGers abstaining to avoid a GE and/or putting Corbyn in power, so HMG would survive. Just.
Question then is how the Con minority administration survives a new leader with c.300-310 MPs (I expect a few more casualties of war) for another 3 years with no C&S partner.
If (and its a huge if), we'll need a GE sooner rather than later. Parliment can't go on like this.
Will a GE make any difference, on the current and recent polls?
1 Slight move Tory to Labour. 2 But possibly more Labour SWP-type MPs who oppose EU membership 3 Slight move away from Tories. 4 But definitely fewer pro-EU Tories in the HoC, e.g. prospects of Grieve, Boles and Wollaston are uncertain and Soubry and Greening have very unsafe seats. 5 Possible modest gains by SNP,PC,LD and Green barely compensate for the above.
Net move - roughly zero. Still a Fysh Bone parliament and no more palatable than those objects.
Another longer term implication of recent events is that the total failure of Labour, the SNP, PC, the LDs and the Greens to work together to prevent a Tory No Deal Brexit demonstrates clearly that there is next to no chance of a progressive coalition - formal or otherwise - to keep the Tories out of power after the next election.
The 'Tory' No Deal Brexit - if it happens - will have been the choice of a progressive alliance of the SNP, Labour, LibDems. TIGgers and, err, the DUP and ERG. How about that for a broad-based coalition?
Your comments are generally pretty sensible but I think you are way off the mark on this.
If we end up with No Deal the Conservatives, and the ERG in particular, are going to get both barrels from the electorate if it proves to be a disaster. It will be a bloodbath
As I said a bit later, I was referring to who deserved blame, not who would get it. You are right on whom the electorate will (mainly) blame.
A majority government whipped against all the amendments to the Article 50 bill.
Another longer term implication of recent events is that the total failure of Labour, the SNP, PC, the LDs and the Greens to work together to prevent a Tory No Deal Brexit demonstrates clearly that there is next to no chance of a progressive coalition - formal or otherwise - to keep the Tories out of power after the next election.
The 'Tory' No Deal Brexit - if it happens - will have been the choice of a progressive alliance of the SNP, Labour, LibDems. TIGgers and, err, the DUP and ERG. How about that for a broad-based coalition?
Your comments are generally pretty sensible but I think you are way off the mark on this.
If we end up with No Deal the Conservatives, and the ERG in particular, are going to get both barrels from the electorate if it proves to be a disaster. It will be a bloodbath
Depends what they do in response to a no deal.
If they let Phil and the civil service sit back and look at their spreadsheets then they won't get the credit for any prosperity.
If under a new leader and CoTE they are pro-active and dynamic then they could win bigly.
Another longer term implication of recent events is that the total failure of Labour, the SNP, PC, the LDs and the Greens to work together to prevent a Tory No Deal Brexit demonstrates clearly that there is next to no chance of a progressive coalition - formal or otherwise - to keep the Tories out of power after the next election.
The 'Tory' No Deal Brexit - if it happens - will have been the choice of a progressive alliance of the SNP, Labour, LibDems. TIGgers and, err, the DUP and ERG. How about that for a broad-based coalition?
Your comments are generally pretty sensible but I think you are way off the mark on this.
If we end up with No Deal the Conservatives, and the ERG in particular, are going to get both barrels from the electorate if it proves to be a disaster. It will be a bloodbath
Agreed. All Corbyn needs do is shrug his shoulders and say "if you want cross-party support on a controversial policy in a hung parliament, you have to do what other parties want. Meanwhile, they call me 'Leader of the Opposition' for a reason". I can see why May chose not to do that, but she's the government and it's her job to govern.
(That's not to deny Corbyn *could* have decided to help implement a "harmful Tory Brexit" and avoid an even more harmful No Deal one, but I suspect he's got the politics right in not doing so)
I think @Sean_F is right that a VoNC should narrowly fail in the event of the MV passing.
On the one hand I’d expect the DUP to vote with the opposition (they mean what they say) but other independents and possibly even TIGers abstaining to avoid a GE and/or putting Corbyn in power, so HMG would survive. Just.
Question then is how the Con minority administration survives a new leader with c.300-310 MPs (I expect a few more casualties of war) for another 3 years with no C&S partner.
If (and its a huge if), we'll need a GE sooner rather than later. Parliment can't go on like this.
The Tories will be slaughtered in any new GE.
I still think Corbyn will be a huge help to them. Labour will be all but wiped out in Scotland and will probably lose seats in Wales. It will not win enough in England to get close to an overall majority. The Tories' real problems will begin when he has gone, but I don't expect that for many years yet.
They have just confirmed what he bangs on about, that the establishment are trying to silence him etc etc etc.
Far better to let him publish, and let the internet pick up any horseshit he spouts (which if the internet is good at one thing, it is jumping on that bandwagon when somebody gets caught out).
The problem with that is the Internet becomes bubbles. The sane Internet might pick up on what he spouts, but the people who follow his sh*t might not pick up on that because they don't follow the right places (and the same goes for others as well).
I think there's a reasonable rule of thumb: if you'd get arrested for standing in the street and shouting something into a megaphone, you shouldn't expect a right to say it on open forums on the Internet. Though there are difficulties with that concept as well wrt territories.
But I don't think on his YouTube channel he has. I believe it is actually very toned down (compared to his EDL days), and YouTube state hasn't broken any rules.
Nope, the final choice is the PM’s. She is the only one who can revoke. It’s her decision alone.
If parliament were to vote with a clear majority in favour of revocation, you'd have a point. Without such a vote, the legal position is unclear and it's not realistic politically.
It's another example of the unreality of the situation, that there are people who seem to think it feasible that May will break totally with her party and lead about 30 of her MPs into alliance with Labour, in order to revoke Brexit or hold a second referendum.
I don't think it's feasible. That's my entire point. May will always choose the position that keeps most Tories inside the Tory party.
Agreed. She clearly doesnt want no deal, but it's what most of her MPs want if the deal fails, which it will.
She would rather her legacy be No Deal and all its consequences for the UK rather than the complete break-up of the Conservative party.
No Deal will lead to the complete break-up of the Conservative party (which is of course why Corbyn is working towards it).
Corbyn wants it because it is his only path to power and because he is a disaster socialist who believes that the suffering is one of the pre-conditions of proletarian revolt.
The Tories will fracture, they won't break-up. They are in the process of becoming a hard right English nationalist party - the party of Rees Mogg, Bridgen, Farage and Francois - and there will be a sizeable constituency for that in England. But the days of the Tories being pragmatic, pro-business and outward looking are over, whatever happens from here.
I wonder what would happen to Boris if that occurred. Would the ultras install him as a puppet leader or would he be sent into exile, like a kind of Brexit Trotsky?
I do not expect May to do anything other than put her party first. I accept she has absolutely no interest in governing for anyone who is not an actual or potential Conservative voter.
It would be refreshing if you would from time make exactly the same point about exactly the same behaviour from Labour politicians. But you won't, will you? It's odd that some as generally sensible as you has this extraordinarly partisan blind-spot (even though you don't even support the current version of Labour particularly!)
It's not partisan, it's a question on who is in government and who is not. This one is happening on the Conservatives watch. It is quite right that they are held to account and they should be acting in the national interest. Hell even the SNP are doing a better job of that at the moment.
It’s not just the government that matters. There’s been a few votes in Parliament, too.
Is Tiger Roll as good as all that ? Perhaps a straight lay on the Betfair exchanges is 'the bet'...
There'll be no change in the torrent of "virtual" racing. That's been there all the time - no one bets on it as far as I can see. It creates an illusion of activity to lure in the stupid and the gullible (like me I imagine). There's morning dog racing from the real world starting as early as 8.12 for those who like their greyhounds Irish and their breakfast English.
The view from the bookies is the shops have to be "busy" with a betting opportunity every minute or two. If today is anything to go by, that's coming to an end. Like other aspects of the High Street, retail bookmaking is going to lose out to the online world - most of those in the East Ham shops were old, white and male (me included). The FOBT players (who were only one of the three) have gone.
As for TIGER ROLL, he might well win and the handicapper has given him a right chance but 7/2!! He could be carried out or brought down at the first or indeed any of the other 30 obstacles. It's a price only for the mugs as is RATHVINDEN at 8s. I was told by Grandpa Stodge every horse should be 10/1 just to get round but that was a different race. It's still a spectacle but it's lost something and is really Britain's attempt at emulating the Melbourne Cup these days.
I always make a point of checking out how busy bookies are when I pass... always empty, almost a complete waste of time them existing
This Pelosi defence of Biden ought to be no surprise. We, in a global sense, need to move on from this generation and their bizarre attitudes to entitlement.
It was pretty much the same argument used by the defenders of Clinton. But it is not a generational thing. There is plenty of evidence around that younger men have a similar sense of entitlement when it comes to women. And as much evidence of politicians taking a "my party: right or wrong" approach to misbehaviour of any kind.
Yes, I agree there are young men with a similar sense. The evidence is all around. The difference is that those who aspire to lead from younger generations generally don't treat it as a peccadillo to be indulged. This is the point that needs to change. The outright enabling from those in power needs to stop.
Boris. Apparently popular with Tories and some from the younger generation on here. His peccadillos are very much indulged.
I think the difference is whether it involves consenting participants.
Boris may be a rogue and you can judge him morally but that is a whole different matter.
Well, I would not be quite as sanguine as you about whether someone who has such an eye for the ladies as Boris reputedly has is always as respectful of whether women he has his eye on are keen for his attentions. The line between a Casanova and a sex pest is a fine one.
Agreed. Me-Tooers would kill him. OTOH if there are any I'd have expected to hear from them by now. If there aren't any, the thought of a significant number of voters (even Conservative Party members) being put off by consensual adultery is positively quaint.
It reminds me of a comment made when efforts were made to enlist the Countryside Alliance to canvas for the Cons after the introduction of gay marriage: "the idea that the hunting community should all of a sudden be up in arms about the sanctity of marriage is one of the more absurd things I have heard."
He will even retain some of the moral dinosaur vote, on the grounds that at least it proves he's not a bloody poofter.
Nope, the final choice is the PM’s. She is the only one who can revoke. It’s her decision alone.
If parliament were to vote with a clear majority in favour of revocation, you'd have a point. Without such a vote, the legal position is unclear and it's not realistic politically.
It's another example of the unreality of the situation, that there are people who seem to think it feasible that May will break totally with her party and lead about 30 of her MPs into alliance with Labour, in order to revoke Brexit or hold a second referendum.
I don't think it's feasible. That's my entire point. May will always choose the position that keeps most Tories inside the Tory party.
Agreed. She clearly doesnt want no deal, but it's what most of her MPs want if the deal fails, which it will.
She would rather her legacy be No Deal and all its consequences for the UK rather than the complete break-up of the Conservative party.
No Deal will lead to the complete break-up of the Conservative party (which is of course why Corbyn is working towards it).
Corbyn wants it because it is his only path to power and because he is a disaster socialist who believes that the suffering is one of the pre-conditions of proletarian revolt.
The Tories will fracture, they won't break-up. They are in the process of becoming a hard right English nationalist party - the party of Rees Mogg, Bridgen, Farage and Francois - and there will be a sizeable constituency for that in England. But the days of the Tories being pragmatic, pro-business and outward looking are over, whatever happens from here.
I wonder what would happen to Boris if that occurred. Would the ultras install him as a puppet leader or would he be sent into exile, like a kind of Brexit Trotsky?
Johnson wants to be PM. He will say and do whatever it takes to get there.
What stirring prospectus would the Conservatives offer the country? There's not going to be an early general election if the Conservatives can help it. Turkeys don't accelerate towards Christmas.
The Tories will fracture, they won't break-up. They are in the process of becoming a hard right English nationalist party - the party of Rees Mogg, Bridgen, Farage and Francois - and there will be a sizeable constituency for that in England. But the days of the Tories being pragmatic, pro-business and outward looking are over, whatever happens from here.
No, I don't think that is right. There is a huge split, with the pragmatic, pro-business wing of the party still dominant at the MP level. Just look at the Cabinet: Hammond, Rudd, Gauke, Clark etc are absolutely nothing like Rees Mogg and Francois, nor for that matter are Javid, Gove, or Hunt. Not even is Theresa May, although she's buffeted by forces outside her control.
If we crash out in no-deal chaos, them I think the split will become explicit, especially if it is the deliberate result of Theresa May's (or a replacement PM's) policy. I'd expect a major ministerial and cabinet walk-out, and possibly a formal split of the party's MPs. I can't for example see MPs like Richard Harrington (loyal though he is) wanting to be associated with a party implementing crash-out.
Another longer term implication of recent events is that the total failure of Labour, the SNP, PC, the LDs and the Greens to work together to prevent a Tory No Deal Brexit demonstrates clearly that there is next to no chance of a progressive coalition - formal or otherwise - to keep the Tories out of power after the next election.
The 'Tory' No Deal Brexit - if it happens - will have been the choice of a progressive alliance of the SNP, Labour, LibDems. TIGgers and, err, the DUP and ERG. How about that for a broad-based coalition?
Your comments are generally pretty sensible but I think you are way off the mark on this.
If we end up with No Deal the Conservatives, and the ERG in particular, are going to get both barrels from the electorate if it proves to be a disaster. It will be a bloodbath
And if the No Deal project fear has been overblown? If we have a few bumps in the road, but kinda cope? Labour's scheme will have failed....
I'm once again puzzled as to what Parliament is trying to achieve. Yesterday was a monumental waste of time and effort and today's Cooper/Letwin nonsense is no better.
I understand the concerns people have about a "No Deal" - some of the possible consequences may or may not have been alarmist and there was a clear political dimension and objective behind some of what was said and by whom it was said.
I understand the desire to prevent it but it can't be prevented by voting against it in the UK Parliament unless you think Parliament has the right or obligation to bind the Prime Minister in any and all future negotiations. The EU deals with the UK Government not the UK Parliament.
So what impact does any legislative attempt to prevent a No Deal actually have? It doesn't pass a WA - it would force the PM to ask the EU for an extension (it doesn't compel the EU to grant one of course) but does it set a time limit on any extension? Presumably not.
If there is no WA and the EU refuses to grant a further extension, there will be No Deal irrespective of what the UK Parliament has legislated. The effective act would be to pass the WA as its proponents have argued ad infinitum - an extension is a matter for the UK Government and the EU. Above and beyond that, there's nothing.
I don't know if May will seek a further extension - there are political consequences in so doing for her Party - and if she doesn't and we leave without a WA on 12/4 there'll be plenty of blame to throw around.
Nope, the final choice is the PM’s. She is the only one who can revoke. It’s her decision alone.
If parliament were to vote with a clear majority in favour of revocation, you'd have a point. Without such a vote, the legal position is unclear and it's not realistic politically.
It's another example of the unreality of the situation, that there are people who seem to think it feasible that May will break totally with her party and lead about 30 of her MPs into alliance with Labour, in order to revoke Brexit or hold a second referendum.
I don't think it's feasible. That's my entire point. May will always choose the position that keeps most Tories inside the Tory party.
Agreed. She clearly doesnt want no deal, but it's what most of her MPs want if the deal fails, which it will.
She would rather her legacy be No Deal and all its consequences for the UK rather than the complete break-up of the Conservative party.
Why would you expect the Conservative Party leader to take an action that leads to the complete break up of their party?
No party leader would ever do that.
Sure, you’ll be cross but you were never going to vote Conservative anyway and those that do by & large disagree with you.
I think a politician who has become PM should put the interests of the country first if it comes to it. Perhaps I am being naive in expecting that. So be it.
Clearly, no competent politician should allow themselves to be put in such a position. But it is like having a conflict of interest in any other work situation: if there is a conflict of interest between your personal interests or your employer's interests and that of the client you always put the client first. The same here: if there is a conflict between the interests of the country of which she is PM and the interests of the party then she should always put the interests of the country first.
Yeah - and the Cabinet Secretary saying that this will make the country less safe, at a time when there are loads of returning IS fighters. Oh and food prices will go up - so sucks to those JAMS she claimed to care about.
If May is really minded to do this then she is a danger to the country. If her MPs cannot understand that and/or won't take action to stop her, they deserve everything they will get.
Yes - our mass orchestrated outrage over a rather stupid 19 year old girl with a child who wants to come home compared to little or no outrage at letting several hundred young male ISIS fighters back in to no doubt to live a life on welfare giving them plenty of time for other 'activities'. Very easy to ban a teenage girl - and let the male soldiers back in their hundreds!
Bizarre to be concerned about 'national security' therefore - one can't help being a little cynical.
I was thinking more of the fact that co-operation with EU security services and access to information will be curtailed. Given that returning terrorists will likely be travelling through Continental Europe to get here that does raise security concerns. I find it extraordinary that a former Home Secretary would disregard such concerns.
Security is the single most important role of any government. To embark on a course of action that risks that is a complete abdication of responsibility by the government. It is only arising because May is weak, has boxed herself into a corner, refuses to compromise and listens to no-one. She is simply not fit to be PM and it is a failing of our system that there seem to be no effective restraints on her power to make a mess of things in a way that places us at risk. We may as well have a mad King in charge, frankly.
Nope, the final choice is the PM’s. She is the only one who can revoke. It’s her decision alone.
If parliament were to vote with a clear majority in favour of revocation, you'd have a point. Without such a vote, the legal position is unclear and it's not realistic politically.
It's another example of the unreality of the situation, that there are people who seem to think it feasible that May will break totally with her party and lead about 30 of her MPs into alliance with Labour, in order to revoke Brexit or hold a second referendum.
I don't think it's feasible. That's my entire point. May will always choose the position that keeps most Tories inside the Tory party.
Agreed. She clearly doesnt want no deal, but it's what most of her MPs want if the deal fails, which it will.
She would rather her legacy be No Deal and all its consequences for the UK rather than the complete break-up of the Conservative party.
No Deal will lead to the complete break-up of the Conservative party (which is of course why Corbyn is working towards it).
But the days of the Tories being pragmatic, pro-business and outward looking are over, whatever happens from here.
Then what party 'is'??
The party best-placed to assume the mantle is probably the LDs, but that then sets up a dog-fight inside their much-reduced ranks!
What stirring prospectus would the Conservatives offer the country? There's not going to be an early general election if the Conservatives can help it. Turkeys don't accelerate towards Christmas.
What stirring prospectus would the Conservatives offer the country? There's not going to be an early general election if the Conservatives can help it. Turkeys don't accelerate towards Christmas.
I have to say, despite Yang having to right bonkers ideas, he is actually trying to think of idea about how to solve the actual future coming down the tracks in a way that relates into the world we live in now (not the 1970s).
We aren't seeing much of that elsewhere in the US or the UK.
Another longer term implication of recent events is that the total failure of Labour, the SNP, PC, the LDs and the Greens to work together to prevent a Tory No Deal Brexit demonstrates clearly that there is next to no chance of a progressive coalition - formal or otherwise - to keep the Tories out of power after the next election.
The 'Tory' No Deal Brexit - if it happens - will have been the choice of a progressive alliance of the SNP, Labour, LibDems. TIGgers and, err, the DUP and ERG. How about that for a broad-based coalition?
Your comments are generally pretty sensible but I think you are way off the mark on this.
If we end up with No Deal the Conservatives, and the ERG in particular, are going to get both barrels from the electorate if it proves to be a disaster. It will be a bloodbath
As I said a bit later, I was referring to who deserved blame, not who would get it. You are right on whom the electorate will (mainly) blame.
A majority government whipped against all the amendments to the Article 50 bill.
The blame lies with those that advocated it and those that voted for it. There. Told it how it is. The electorate should stop being so infantile, and allowing politicians to treat them as gullible fools. It is time government and politics was taught as a compulsory GCSE, and then maybe people would take it all a bit more seriously.
I think @Sean_F is right that a VoNC should narrowly fail in the event of the MV passing.
On the one hand I’d expect the DUP to vote with the opposition (they mean what they say) but other independents and possibly even TIGers abstaining to avoid a GE and/or putting Corbyn in power, so HMG would survive. Just.
Question then is how the Con minority administration survives a new leader with c.300-310 MPs (I expect a few more casualties of war) for another 3 years with no C&S partner.
If (and its a huge if), we'll need a GE sooner rather than later. Parliment can't go on like this.
The Tories will be slaughtered in any new GE.
It's almost like it was a terrible idea to let metropolitans take over a party of conservative voters.
Comments
Imagine this going on until 2024.
It doesn't appear Robinson has done anything wrong on his YouTube channel, and Carl Benjamin certainly hasn't (but Paetron for instance removed him for something he said on somebodies elses podcast that had nothing to do with his channel and taken out of context)
It used to be ok to say no blacks, no Irish, no dogs, no gays, under the guise of being a private business.
The problem with these social media giants is increasingly the inconsistency of how they apply their rules, the difficulty in appealing etc e.g. a load of tech youtubers got copyright strikes because they took the piss out of a Vox Media Group video, despite using the video under perfectly legal fair usage.
Twitter higher up were recently on JRE podcast and challenged on various bans it was a shit show. Certainly some were valid bans, but other were far from clear cut and they seemed totally in a bubble to opinions that didn't fit their world view.
The private company argument is also becoming more difficult, due to the monologist nature.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1112903454941474817
(a) as a, er, backstop in case the EU rejects an extension.
(b) realistic contingency planning after another 10 days' Commons faffing.
(c) a sign she's about to grab the steering wheel and head for the cliffs
?
I sometimes wonder whether she fancies taking her chances, with however much enthusiasm, and seeing where the cards (and the bits of the bus) land. It's probably the best chance of keeping 80 per cent of the party together.
Well, I would not be quite as sanguine as you about whether someone who has such an eye for the ladies as Boris reputedly has is always as respectful of whether women he has his eye on are keen for his attentions. The line between a Casanova and a sex pest is a fine one.
https://twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/1112930588342841344
The reality is that there is now a terror associated with any claim of sexual harrassment. Unlike sexual assault, it can never be disproven.
And I would not be amazed either if some way is found to avoid us having to hold the Euros.
The ferries are an insurance policy we haven't needed.
Yet.
On the one hand I’d expect the DUP to vote with the opposition (they mean what they say) but other independents and possibly even TIGers abstaining to avoid a GE and/or putting Corbyn in power, so HMG would survive. Just.
Question then is how the Con minority administration survives a new leader with c.300-310 MPs (I expect a few more casualties of war) for another 3 years with no C&S partner.
They really are a disgrace .
No party leader would ever do that.
Sure, you’ll be cross but you were never going to vote Conservative anyway and those that do by & large disagree with you.
That risks making a martyr of him.
This is what's so absurd about Brexit. For supporters it's mainly about winning and losing, regardless of the detail.
Anyone from the Cabinet done a Boles yet?
So, that’s something.
Far better to let him publish, and let the internet pick up any horseshit he spouts (which if the internet is good at one thing, it is jumping on that bandwagon when somebody gets caught out).
It is also a dangerous precedent. Do they also boot say stefan molyneux, I understand he "skirts" the boundaries (I don't watch, but I understand he appears very "interested" in religion and race/IQ stuff), so ok lets boot him...what about Sam Harris....on religion he isn't a million miles away as he is very anti, in particular Islam, and certainly talked about race / IQ issues in the past...then where...Joe Rogan, well he has all sorts of nutters on.
It would be no different if Labour was in power.
The Tories will fracture, they won't break-up. They are in the process of becoming a hard right English nationalist party - the party of Rees Mogg, Bridgen, Farage and Francois - and there will be a sizeable constituency for that in England. But the days of the Tories being pragmatic, pro-business and outward looking are over, whatever happens from here.
If we end up with No Deal the Conservatives, and the ERG in particular, are going to get both barrels from the electorate if it proves to be a disaster. It will be a bloodbath
But i can' really see it either.
I think there's a reasonable rule of thumb: if you'd get arrested for standing in the street and shouting something into a megaphone, you shouldn't expect a right to say it on open forums on the Internet. Though there are difficulties with that concept as well wrt territories.
1 Slight move Tory to Labour.
2 But possibly more Labour SWP-type MPs who oppose EU membership
3 Slight move away from Tories.
4 But definitely fewer pro-EU Tories in the HoC, e.g. prospects of Grieve, Boles and Wollaston are uncertain and Soubry and Greening have very unsafe seats.
5 Possible modest gains by SNP,PC,LD and Green barely compensate for the above.
Net move - roughly zero. Still a Fysh Bone parliament and no more palatable than those objects.
If they let Phil and the civil service sit back and look at their spreadsheets then they won't get the credit for any prosperity.
If under a new leader and CoTE they are pro-active and dynamic then they could win bigly.
(That's not to deny Corbyn *could* have decided to help implement a "harmful Tory Brexit" and avoid an even more harmful No Deal one, but I suspect he's got the politics right in not doing so)
As I say, I think it is a dangerous precedent.
He will even retain some of the moral dinosaur vote, on the grounds that at least it proves he's not a bloody poofter.
There's not going to be an early general election if the Conservatives can help it. Turkeys don't accelerate towards Christmas.
If we crash out in no-deal chaos, them I think the split will become explicit, especially if it is the deliberate result of Theresa May's (or a replacement PM's) policy. I'd expect a major ministerial and cabinet walk-out, and possibly a formal split of the party's MPs. I can't for example see MPs like Richard Harrington (loyal though he is) wanting to be associated with a party implementing crash-out.
I'm once again puzzled as to what Parliament is trying to achieve. Yesterday was a monumental waste of time and effort and today's Cooper/Letwin nonsense is no better.
I understand the concerns people have about a "No Deal" - some of the possible consequences may or may not have been alarmist and there was a clear political dimension and objective behind some of what was said and by whom it was said.
I understand the desire to prevent it but it can't be prevented by voting against it in the UK Parliament unless you think Parliament has the right or obligation to bind the Prime Minister in any and all future negotiations. The EU deals with the UK Government not the UK Parliament.
So what impact does any legislative attempt to prevent a No Deal actually have? It doesn't pass a WA - it would force the PM to ask the EU for an extension (it doesn't compel the EU to grant one of course) but does it set a time limit on any extension? Presumably not.
If there is no WA and the EU refuses to grant a further extension, there will be No Deal irrespective of what the UK Parliament has legislated. The effective act would be to pass the WA as its proponents have argued ad infinitum - an extension is a matter for the UK Government and the EU. Above and beyond that, there's nothing.
I don't know if May will seek a further extension - there are political consequences in so doing for her Party - and if she doesn't and we leave without a WA on 12/4 there'll be plenty of blame to throw around.
Clearly, no competent politician should allow themselves to be put in such a position. But it is like having a conflict of interest in any other work situation: if there is a conflict of interest between your personal interests or your employer's interests and that of the client you always put the client first. The same here: if there is a conflict between the interests of the country of which she is PM and the interests of the party then she should always put the interests of the country first.
The EU rejected it
We aren't seeing much of that elsewhere in the US or the UK.