Yvette has a thumping majority but her constituency was 70% leave. Interesting to see the swing at zny election given her making a nuisance of herself over Brexit
FPT - From what I’ve read and observed of Steve Baker over the last week (including the Laura Kuenssberg documentary) my assessment is that I think deep down he’s worried he might have got this badly wrong, but has boxed himself into a corner with his ego and feels he now has no choice but to fight ever more vociferously as a consequence.
I think he’s going to badly regret this in years to come.
Cooper-Letwin Bill passes the second reading by 315 v 310
Onwards to line by line consideration by the house sitting in committee
Then the third reading debate with a final vote at 10pm
Assuming that goes through, which is likely, the Brexiteers have just a few days to save Brexit. They'd better use the time wisely (hint: stop chasing a chaotic crash-out).
Except that this legislation is completely useless. The EU won't extend without a plan B that is acceptable to it - thus, even if Theresa May obeys such a new law and troops off to Brussels to ask for more time, without plan B they'll just tell her to get lost.
Plan B creates the extension. The legislation is useless without plan B, because it can only compel the UK Government and not the EU, and it is useless with plan B, because the logical consequence of such a thing is that the Government would need to ask for an extension anyway.
Thus, the entire thing is a total waste of a significant fraction of what little Parliamentary time there is left before the next European Council. From the point of view of everybody *EXCEPT* those who actually want No Deal, it is therefore not merely useless, but worse than useless.
Or is there some unrecognised brilliance to this master stratagem that has escaped me?
I thought they were trying to find a plan B that started with the WA? which is ok with the EU, doesnt need an extension and parliament can pass in a day.
But my point is that any legislation to attempt to frustrate or forbid No Deal is useless, and debating it is surely a waste of time? No Deal can only be prevented by some other positive choice that both Parliament and the EU can accept (save in the case of Revocation, which is the only option that the UK can choose unilaterally.)
If Parliament achieves a majority for something that the Government can take to the EU - a Revocation letter, the existing Withdrawal Agreement, or some kind of plan either for a WA vs Remain referendum or an Andrex Soft Brexit deal that the EU27 might be prepared to allow more time to be arranged, then we avoid No Deal. Otherwise No Deal happens. In this respect at least, Theresa May was entirely correct: it's no use MPs saying what they are against, they have to make up their mind what they are for.
FPT - From what I’ve read and observed of Steve Baker over the last week (including the Laura Kuenssberg documentary) my assessment is that I think deep down he’s worried he might have got this badly wrong, but has boxed himself into a corner with his ego and feels he now has no choice but to fight ever more vociferously as a consequence.
I think he’s going to badly regret this in years to come.
General Election on same day as European poll, or shortly thereafter.
Result completely unpredictable.
ould pick up a relief rally from people opposed to Brexit in the first place, or just pleased to see the Tories stuffed.
I think it would depend on the manifestos, the next Labour manifesto has surely got tod am drawn toward Change UK or failing that Lib Dem. This is not because I feel they can win but a protest vote!
Well, strike me down with a feather.
I thought you were a Lib Dem!
I was a Tory member until shortly before TM became PM. I thought Cameron was very good until he made the mistake of 2016 referendum. It is a pity he 'won' in 2015 as his legacy would have been much better if he had just taken the UK through the dark period of austerity, which was hard but necessary.
I have no political ambition now, I never really had any serious ambition anyway i.e. being an MP as I have done too many stupid things that might become public knowledge and used against me!
My membership of the Tory party was based on sound public finances and running a strong dynamic economy. All this nonsense on Europe has become tiresome. In the early to mid nineties I used to think getting out of the EEC/ EU was viable if we had a Free Trade deal with Nafta, failing that the US. I have thought for a decade or more that this approach will not work it is a pipe dream as we are too integrated with the EU. Besides the economy and reality does not really work like this!
Your perspective - supporting the Tories for managing the public purse and maintaining economic stability, whilst otherwise restraining from interfering in people's lives - does I suspect drive a lot of the Conservatives' otherwise fairly apolitical middle class base. Your commentary underlines the damage that their obsession with Brexit is doing to their core support.
At the 2017 general election the Tories lost some support from 2015 with Remain leaning but made up for it with gains from Leave voting C2s. Tory vote support is now arguably as much skilled working class as upper middle class, with unskilled working class DE voters still solid Labour and C1 lower middle class voters the key swing voters both on Brexit and at general elections
Yvette has a thumping majority but her constituency was 70% leave. Interesting to see the swing at zny election given her making a nuisance of herself over Brexit
She suffered a bigger swing against her in 2010 than Balls did, as I recall, although she reversed the process in 2015, increasing her majority while his vanished.
I wonder whether May's deal will take part in the indicative votes in May and whether Baker and other refuseniks finally back it?
Nope.
They are far too proud and won’t work through the seven stages of grief fast enough to reconcile themselves to backing it in time.
They’ll go down with the ship and try and convince themselves they were martyrs in the years to come as they wrestle with their well-buried secret regrets. It’s the easier path for them emotionally, now.
Bit OTT at White Hart Lane the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium. When we moved to the Emirates we walked out at 15:00 on the first Saturday of the season and played a game of football.
You’re just jealous that they’ve got a better stadium than yours.
Is it? What I know for certain is that I'm much happier travelling to Islington rather than Haringey.
Tottenham is hip these days. Some banging clubs up there and the regen scheme around the new stadium has improved the area. Highbury is a bit too posh middle class for football.
Hard to argue with the conclusions of the header. I do think it important to note the point that May's own errors were aided or compounded by a supine parliament. I agree it looks better for her to seem bourne by events, it's why no indicative vote having a majority was probably an annoyance, as it made her (seeming) capitulation that much more troublesome.
Cooper-Letwin Bill passes the second reading by 315 v 310
Onwards to line by line consideration by the house sitting in committee
Then the third reading debate with a final vote at 10pm
Assuming that goes through, which is likely, the Brexiteers have just a few days to save Brexit. They'd better use the time wisely (hint: stop chasing a chaotic crash-out).
Except that this legislation is completely useless. The EU won't extend without a plan B that is acceptable to it - thus, even if Theresa May obeys such a new law and troops off to Brussels to ask for more time, without plan B they'll just tell her to get lost.
Plan B creates the extension. The legislation is useless without plan B, because it can only compel the UK Government and not the EU, and it is useless with plan B, because the logical consequence of such a thing is that the Government would need to ask for an extension anyway.
Thus, the entire thing is a total waste of a significant fraction of what little Parliamentary time there is left before the next European Council. From the point of view of everybody *EXCEPT* those who actually want No Deal, it is therefore not merely useless, but worse than useless.
Or is there some unrecognised brilliance to this master stratagem that has escaped me?
I thought they were trying to find a plan B that started with the WA? which is ok with the EU, doesnt need an extension and parliament can pass in a day.
But my point is that any legislation to attempt to frustrate or forbid No Deal is useless, and debating it is surely a waste of time? No Deal can only be prevented by some other positive choice that both Parliament and the EU can accept (save in the case of Revocation, which is the only option that the UK can choose unilaterally.)
If Parliament achieves a majority for something that the Government can take to the EU - a Revocation letter, the existing Withdrawal Agreement, or some kind of plan either for a WA vs Remain referendum or an Andrex Soft Brexit deal that the EU27 might be prepared to allow more time to be arranged, then we avoid No Deal. Otherwise No Deal happens. In this respect at least, Theresa May was entirely correct: it's no use MPs saying what they are against, they have to make up their mind what they are for.
Basically they want a magic piece of legislation that means May has to revoke without them ever actually voting for revoke themselves.
I wonder whether May's deal will take part in the indicative votes in May and whether Baker and other refuseniks finally back it?
Nope.
They are far too proud and won’t work through the seven stages of grief fast enough to reconcile themselves to backing it in time.
They’ll go down with the ship and try and convince themselves they were martyrs in the years to come as they wrestle with their well-buried secret regrets. It’s the easier path for them emotionally, now.
Also, doesn't have the numbers even with the ERG behind.
General Election on same day as European poll, or shortly thereafter.
Result completely unpredictable.
ould pick up a relief rally from people opposed to Brexit in the first place, or just pleased to see the Tories stuffed.
I think it would depend on the manifestos, the next Labour manifesto has surely got tod am drawn toward Change UK or failing that Lib Dem. This is not because I feel they can win but a protest vote!
Well, strike me down with a feather.
I thought you were a Lib Dem!
I was a Tory member until shortly before TM became PM. I thought Cameron was very good until he made the mistake of 2016 referendum. It is a pity he 'won' in 2015 as his legacy would have been much better if he had just taken the UK through the dark period of austerity, which was hard but necessary.
I have no political ambition now, I never really had any serious ambition anyway i.e. being an MP as I have done too many stupid things that might become public knowledge and used against me!
My membership of the Tory party was based on sound public finances and running a strong dynamic economy. All this nonsense on Europe has become tiresome. In the early to mid nineties I used to think getting out of the EEC/ EU was viable if we had a Free Trade deal with Nafta, failing that the US. I have thought for a decade or more that this approach will not work it is a pipe dream as we are too integrated with the EU. Besides the economy and reality does not really work like this!
Your perspective - supporting the Tories for managing the public purse and maintaining economic stability, whilst otherwise restraining from interfering in people's lives - does I suspect drive a lot of the Conservatives' otherwise fairly apolitical middle class base. Your commentary underlines the damage that their obsession with Brexit is doing to their core support.
At the 2017 general election the Tories lost some support from 2015 with Remain leaning but made up for it with gains from Leave voting C2s. Tory vote support is now arguably as much skilled working class as upper middle class, with unskilled working class DE voters still solid Labour and C1 lower middle class voters the key swing voters both on Brexit and at general elections
And how sustainable is that going to be? Brexit has nothing to offer those new supporters whereas those you have foregone will take a long time to forget and forgive.
General Election on same day as European poll, or shortly thereafter.
Result completely unpredictable.
If revoke wins then it will be with Labour, LD and SNP votes, most Tory MPs will vote against.
No Deal a majority of MPs might well feel they have no choice but to back Revoke, although I expect it would be close.
Remember so far more MPs have voted for Cherry's amendment to revoke Article 50 than for Baron's amendment for No Deal
If it does come down to an eleventh hour vote on Revocation then yes, I think the outcome would be close and I wouldn't like to bet on it, but if forced to pick sides I'd imagine that Revocation would win out. The number of Tories willing to vote to abandon Brexit would most likely exceed the numbers of Labour MPs who either back Brexit or represent heavily Leave-leaning seats, and might therefore move in the opposite direction.
Besides which, I suspect that the DUP would also vote to Revoke. It forestalls the prospect of a border poll, and the failure to deliver Brexit can always be blamed on Tory incompetence.
Agreed, Portillo said a fortnight ago on This week he thinks Revoke edges it in the Commons over No Deal, in which case I am sure Remainers will be awarding 'the Mark Francois trophy for services to Brussels' for years to come
Yvette has a thumping majority but her constituency was 70% leave. Interesting to see the swing at zny election given her making a nuisance of herself over Brexit
She suffered a bigger swing against her in 2010 than Balls did, as I recall, although she reversed the process in 2015, increasing her majority while his vanished.
It was a new seat in 2010 from the old pontefract seat.
Shes gone from 48% to 59% but the Tories piled on 10% in 2017 and are thr only other player in the seat Could see her bring cut back to under 50% but holding easily enough
General Election on same day as European poll, or shortly thereafter.
Result completely unpredictable.
Cannot revoke without confirmation of UK participation in EU elections.
Revocation on the 11th would instantly confirm UK participation in EU elections.
How if it is not approved
Why would they need to be approved? Elections happen when scheduled and it is still legally scheduled.
Is it
Yes. The repeal of EU elections only occurs on 'exit day' so if exit day doesn't happen there are elections.
The EU documents last time referred to the UK's stated "intention" not to host elections. If the UK decides it intends to host elections they would proceed as normal, no legislation necessary.
Slightly awks for the EU parliament since they have redistributed some the UK seats so there would be 778 MEPs which is above the 751 allowed by the Lisbon Treaty. But I am someone will find a way round that.
If we participate then I assume that the redistribution is simply cancelled? If it were some kind of insurmountable obstacle then there would be no talk of potential long extensions to the A50 process - the EU27 would've set either May 22nd (day before the elections should've happened) or June 30th (day before the new European Parliament convenes) as the absolute cut-off for Brexit, when we would be out regardless of whether or not any agreement had been reached, or if we'd changed our minds and decided to Revoke, or anything else.
Yvette has a thumping majority but her constituency was 70% leave. Interesting to see the swing at zny election given her making a nuisance of herself over Brexit
I cannot see Labour supporters withholding their support in a GE in her patch even if UKIP or a Brexit party run candidates.
General Election on same day as European poll, or shortly thereafter.
Result completely unpredictable.
Cannot revoke without confirmation of UK participation in EU elections.
Revocation on the 11th would instantly confirm UK participation in EU elections.
How if it is not approved
Revoke doesn't need anyone else's approval - it is totally at our own discretion. We issue a revocation of A50, and it is done. No need for acceptance, approval, agreement, or conditions.
General Election on same day as European poll, or shortly thereafter.
Result completely unpredictable.
Cannot revoke without confirmation of UK participation in EU elections.
Revocation on the 11th would instantly confirm UK participation in EU elections.
How if it is not approved
Why would they need to be approved? Elections happen when scheduled and it is still legally scheduled.
Is it
Yes. The repeal of EU elections only occurs on 'exit day' so if exit day doesn't happen there are elections.
The EU documents last time referred to the UK's stated "intention" not to host elections. If the UK decides it intends to host elections they would proceed as normal, no legislation necessary.
Slightly awks for the EU parliament since they have redistributed some the UK seats so there would be 778 MEPs which is above the 751 allowed by the Lisbon Treaty. But I am someone will find a way round that.
If we participate then I assume that the redistribution is simply cancelled? If it were some kind of insurmountable obstacle then there would be no talk of potential long extensions to the A50 process - the EU27 would've set either May 22nd (day before the elections should've happened) or June 30th (day before the new European Parliament convenes) as the absolute cut-off for Brexit, when we would be out regardless of whether or not any agreement had been reached, or if we'd changed our minds and decided to Revoke, or anything else.
AIUI the whole purpose of 22 May was to give other EU nations time to adjust their electoral arrangements
General Election on same day as European poll, or shortly thereafter.
Result completely unpredictable.
ould pick up a relief rally from people opposed to Brexit in the first place, or just pleased to see the Tories stuffed.
I think it would depend on the manifestos, the next Labour manifesto has surely got tod am drawn toward Change UK or failing that Lib Dem. This is not because I feel they can win but a protest vote!
Well, strike me down with a feather.
I thought you were a Lib Dem!
I was a Tory member until shortly before TM became PM. I thought Cameron was very good until he made the mistake of 2016 referendum. It is a pity he 'won' in 2015 as his legacy would have been much better if he had just taken the UK through the dark period of austerity, which was hard but necessary.
I have no political ambition now, I never really had any serious ambition anyway i.e. being an MP as I have done too many stupid things that might become public knowledge and used against me!
My membership of the Tory party was based on sound public finances and running a strong dynamic economy. All this nonsense on Europe has become tiresome. In the early to mid nineties I used to think getting out not really work like this!
Your perspective - supporting the Tories for managing the public purse and maintaining economic stability, whilst otherwise restraining from interfering in people's lives - does I suspect drive a lot of the Conservatives' otherwise fairly apolitical middle class base. Your commentary underlines the damage that their obsession with Brexit is doing to their core support.
At the 2017 general election the Tories lost some support from 2015 with Remain leaning but made up for it with gains from Leave voting C2s. Tory vote support is now arguably as much skilled working class as upper middle class, with unskilled working class DE voters still solid Labour and C1 lower middle class voters the key swing voters both on Brexit and at general elections
And how sustainable is that going to be? Brexit has nothing to offer those new supporters whereas those you have foregone will take a long time to forget and forgive.
It does as they voted strongly for Brexit and the Tories still led with ABs in 2017 with Corbyn the alternative even if by less than in 2015
I wonder whether May's deal will take part in the indicative votes in May and whether Baker and other refuseniks finally back it?
Nope.
They are far too proud and won’t work through the seven stages of grief fast enough to reconcile themselves to backing it in time.
They’ll go down with the ship and try and convince themselves they were martyrs in the years to come as they wrestle with their well-buried secret regrets. It’s the easier path for them emotionally, now.
Also, doesn't have the numbers even with the ERG behind.
314 votes is pretty bloody close.
With only 4-5 votes in it you’d have thought deals could be done.
Piers Morgan says something controversial on Twitter to draw attention to himself and your speechless?
Thing is I think Morgan now believes the ranting, red faced, 'political correctness gone mad' persona that he's created is genuine, and that he's spouting the uncontroversial good sense of the ordinary bloke on the street. For an aficionado of human hypocrisy he's rich pickings though.
General Election on same day as European poll, or shortly thereafter.
Result completely unpredictable.
If revoke wins then it will be with Labour, LD and SNP votes, most Tory MPs will vote against.
No Deal a majority of MPs might well feel they have no choice but to back Revoke, although I expect it would be close.
Remember so far more MPs have voted for Cherry's amendment to revoke Article 50 than for Baron's amendment for No Deal
If it does come down to an eleventh hour vote on Revocation then yes, I think the outcome would be close and I wouldn't like to bet on it, but if forced to pick sides I'd imagine that Revocation would win out. The number of Tories willing to vote to abandon Brexit would most likely exceed the numbers of Labour MPs who either back Brexit or represent heavily Leave-leaning seats, and might therefore move in the opposite direction.
Besides which, I suspect that the DUP would also vote to Revoke. It forestalls the prospect of a border poll, and the failure to deliver Brexit can always be blamed on Tory incompetence.
Agreed, Portillo said a fortnight ago on This week he thinks Revoke edges it in the Commons over No Deal, in which case I am sure Remainers will be awarding 'the Mark Francois trophy for services to Brussels' for years to come
Not many revokers outside London will be retaining their seats imo if they have anything kess than a 15% head start
Yvette has a thumping majority but her constituency was 70% leave. Interesting to see the swing at zny election given her making a nuisance of herself over Brexit
There was a post in the comments section on Labour-uncut below an article that said that Coopers CLP are moving against her over her stance on Brexit. Take it with as much salt as you want.
General Election on same day as European poll, or shortly thereafter.
Result completely unpredictable.
If revoke wins then it will be with Labour, LD and SNP votes, most Tory MPs will vote against.
No Deal a majority of MPs might well feel they have no choice but to back Revoke, although I expect it would be close.
Remember so far more MPs have voted for Cherry's amendment to revoke Article 50 than for Baron's amendment for No Deal
If it does come down to an eleventh hour vote on Revocation then yes, I think the outcome would be close and I wouldn't like to bet on it, but if forced to pick sides I'd imagine that Revocation would win out. The number of Tories willing to vote to abandon Brexit would most likely exceed the numbers of Labour MPs who either back Brexit or represent heavily Leave-leaning seats, and might therefore move in the opposite direction.
Besides which, I suspect that the DUP would also vote to Revoke. It forestalls the prospect of a border poll, and the failure to deliver Brexit can always be blamed on Tory incompetence.
Agreed, Portillo said a fortnight ago on This week he thinks Revoke edges it in the Commons over No Deal, in which case I am sure Remainers will be awarding 'the Mark Francois trophy for services to Brussels' for years to come
Not many revokers outside London will be retaining their seats imo if they have anything kess than a 15% head start
Agreed and UKIP and the Brexit Party will have an SNP style decapitation strategy for revokers but most revokers will be Labour, Tory revokers like Field and Neil and Greening and Clark will mainly represent Remain seats and be a minority of the party's MPs
General Election on same day as European poll, or shortly thereafter.
Result completely unpredictable.
If revoke wins then it will be with Labour, LD and SNP votes, most Tory MPs will vote against.
No Deal a majority of MPs might well feel they have no choice but to back Revoke, although I expect it would be close.
Remember so far more MPs have voted for Cherry's amendment to revoke Article 50 than for Baron's amendment for No Deal
If it does come down to an eleventh hour vote on Revocation then yes, I think the outcome would be close and I wouldn't like to bet on it, but if forced to pick sides I'd imagine that Revocation would win out. The number of Tories willing to vote to abandon Brexit would most likely exceed the numbers of Labour MPs who either back Brexit or represent heavily Leave-leaning seats, and might therefore move in the opposite direction.
Besides which, I suspect that the DUP would also vote to Revoke. It forestalls the prospect of a border poll, and the failure to deliver Brexit can always be blamed on Tory incompetence.
Agreed, Portillo said a fortnight ago on This week he thinks Revoke edges it in the Commons over No Deal, in which case I am sure Remainers will be awarding 'the Mark Francois trophy for services to Brussels' for years to come
Not many revokers outside London will be retaining their seats imo if they have anything kess than a 15% head start
I'd give good reward for a were you up for Yvette moment
General Election on same day as European poll, or shortly thereafter.
Result completely unpredictable.
If revoke wins then it will be with Labour, LD and SNP votes, most Tory MPs will vote against.
No Deal a majority of MPs might well feel they have no choice but to back Revoke, although I expect it would be close.
Remember so far more MPs have voted for Cherry's amendment to revoke Article 50 than for Baron's amendment for No Deal
If it does come down to an eleventh hour vote on Revocation then yes, I think the outcome would be close and I wouldn't like to bet on it, but if forced to pick sides I'd imagine that Revocation would win out. The number of Tories willing to vote to abandon Brexit would most likely exceed the numbers of Labour MPs who either back Brexit or represent heavily Leave-leaning seats, and might therefore move in the opposite direction.
Besides which, I suspect that the DUP would also vote to Revoke. It forestalls the prospect of a border poll, and the failure to deliver Brexit can always be blamed on Tory incompetence.
Agreed, Portillo said a fortnight ago on This week he thinks Revoke edges it in the Commons over No Deal, in which case I am sure Remainers will be awarding 'the Mark Francois trophy for services to Brussels' for years to come
Not many revokers outside London will be retaining their seats imo if they have anything kess than a 15% head start
I think it's really important to remember Mike Smithson's very wise post from many months ago, namely that Labour voters are less vexed about Brexit than Tory ones. It's less all-consuming, less decisive, as a factor in determining how they will vote in a General Election.
It may not feel that way right now, but other topics will emerge, come the time.
Looks like the responses are overwhemingly positive. The leftist media (Slate, Vice, Vox) in the US are as bad as Steve Baker though, they'll trash Joe Biden even though he's amazingly electable and probably the Dem's best chance to beat Trump.
General Election on same day as European poll, or shortly thereafter.
Result completely unpredictable.
If revoke wins then it will be with Labour, LD and SNP votes, most Tory MPs will vote against.
No Deal a majority of MPs might well feel they have no choice but to back Revoke, although I expect it would be close.
Remember so far more MPs have voted for Cherry's amendment to revoke Article 50 than for Baron's amendment for No Deal
If it does come down to an eleventh hour vote on Revocation then yes, I think the outcome would be close and I wouldn't like to bet on it, but if forced to pick sides I'd imagine that Revocation would win out. The number of Tories willing to vote to abandon Brexit would most likely exceed the numbers of Labour MPs who either back Brexit or represent heavily Leave-leaning seats, and might therefore move in the opposite direction.
Besides which, I suspect that the DUP would also vote to Revoke. It forestalls the prospect of a border poll, and the failure to deliver Brexit can always be blamed on Tory incompetence.
Agreed, Portillo said a fortnight ago on This week he thinks Revoke edges it in the Commons over No Deal, in which case I am sure Remainers will be awarding 'the Mark Francois trophy for services to Brussels' for years to come
Not many revokers outside London will be retaining their seats imo if they have anything kess than a 15% head start
I think it's really important to remember Mike Smithson's very wise post from many months ago, namely that Labour voters are less vexed about Brexit than Tory ones. It's less all-consuming, less decisive, as a factor in determining how they will vote in a General Election.
It may not feel that way right now, but other topics will emerge, come the time.
True but there is an underlying mistrust in politicians that would be crystallized in that moment of 'betraysl' as leavers and even general voters may see it that would act as a rallying point for tactical and revenge voting
But my point is that any legislation to attempt to frustrate or forbid No Deal is useless, and debating it is surely a waste of time? No Deal can only be prevented by some other positive choice that both Parliament and the EU can accept (save in the case of Revocation, which is the only option that the UK can choose unilaterally.)
If Parliament achieves a majority for something that the Government can take to the EU - a Revocation letter, the existing Withdrawal Agreement, or some kind of plan either for a WA vs Remain referendum or an Andrex Soft Brexit deal that the EU27 might be prepared to allow more time to be arranged, then we avoid No Deal. Otherwise No Deal happens. In this respect at least, Theresa May was entirely correct: it's no use MPs saying what they are against, they have to make up their mind what they are for.
Basically they want a magic piece of legislation that means May has to revoke without them ever actually voting for revoke themselves.
Oh, I see, of course...
...however, (a) if things get that far then everyone who votes for this bill will be categorised as a revoke supporter, so it won't actually help much; and (b) if the Commons explicitly voted to invoke A50 (as it, of course, did) but then failed to explicitly vote to revoke A50, wouldn't that leave them on somewhat dubious legal ground?
Looks like the responses are overwhemingly positive. The leftist media (Slate, Vice, Vox) in the US are as bad as Steve Baker though, they'll trash Joe Biden even though he's amazingly electable and probably the Dem's best chance to beat Trump.
It would be somewhat bizarre if rubbing noses with a woman disqualifies Biden from standing against a guy who boasts about grabbing hold of their pussies.
General Election on same day as European poll, or shortly thereafter.
Result completely unpredictable.
ould pick up a relief rally from people opposed to Brexit in the first place, or just pleased to see the Tories stuffed.
I think it would depend on the manifestos, the next Labour manifesto has surely got tod am drawn toward Change UK or failing that Lib Dem. This is not because I feel they can win but a protest vote!
Well, strike me down with a feather.
I thought you were a Lib Dem!
At the 2017 general election the Tories lost some support from 2015 with Remain leaning but made up for it with gains from Leave voting C2s. Tory vote support is now arguably as much skilled working class as upper middle class, with unskilled working class DE voters still solid Labour and C1 lower middle class voters the key swing voters both on Brexit and at general elections
And how sustainable is that going to be? Brexit has nothing to offer those new supporters whereas those you have foregone will take a long time to forget and forgive.
It does as they voted strongly for Brexit and the Tories still led with ABs in 2017 with Corbyn the alternative even if by less than in 2015
I think you read this wrongly.
Basically you are saying that in the long run the Conservative party should ignore people like me who were members or Conservative voters since age 18 and instead try to keep fair weather friend supporters who are likely to remove their support in the future. In an election it is important to fire up your base/ your natural supporters as well as trying to win over a few converts.
The distribution of sympathetic voters has also got to pay tactically. It has no point or value if the Conservative party appeals to certain voters in safe Labour seats for instance as very few of them will be converted into gains. 2017 if anything was a repudiation of your analysis of where the Tory party should appeal in the future as the Tories failed to win a majority and went backwards. The vote distribution was poor and given the Tories percentage of the vote vs. seat count less efficient than 2015. The Tories will also find diminishing returns on the Brexit issue even if we exit the EU, whether it is a Deal or No Deal.
But my point is that any legislation to attempt to frustrate or forbid No Deal is useless, and debating it is surely a waste of time? No Deal can only be prevented by some other positive choice that both Parliament and the EU can accept (save in the case of Revocation, which is the only option that the UK can choose unilaterally.)
If Parliament achieves a majority for something that the Government can take to the EU - a Revocation letter, the existing Withdrawal Agreement, or some kind of plan either for a WA vs Remain referendum or an Andrex Soft Brexit deal that the EU27 might be prepared to allow more time to be arranged, then we avoid No Deal. Otherwise No Deal happens. In this respect at least, Theresa May was entirely correct: it's no use MPs saying what they are against, they have to make up their mind what they are for.
Basically they want a magic piece of legislation that means May has to revoke without them ever actually voting for revoke themselves.
Oh, I see, of course...
...however, (a) if things get that far then everyone who votes for this bill will be categorised as a revoke supporter, so it won't actually help much; and (b) if the Commons explicitly voted to invoke A50 (as it, of course, did) but then failed to explicitly vote to revoke A50, wouldn't that leave them on somewhat dubious legal ground?
Not if the EU won't allow us to extend and Parliament rules out No Deal. That leaves Revoke as the only option with no one except TMay's finger prints on it (and even then she would be forced into it by Parliament even though they haven't insisted upon it).
And remember the only game in town here is that no one takes the blame for whatever result is the result.
Looks like the responses are overwhemingly positive. The leftist media (Slate, Vice, Vox) in the US are as bad as Steve Baker though, they'll trash Joe Biden even though he's amazingly electable and probably the Dem's best chance to beat Trump.
It would be somewhat bizarre if rubbing noses with a woman disqualifies Biden from standing against a guy who boasts about grabbing hold of their pussies.
Its the weight of accusers (now at 4 I believe) and videos (plenty) that will do for him
Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) Caroline Flint (Don Valley) Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) John Mann (Bassetlaw) Graham Stringer (Backley and Broughton)
Yvette has a thumping majority but her constituency was 70% leave. Interesting to see the swing at zny election given her making a nuisance of herself over Brexit
She suffered a bigger swing against her in 2010 than Balls did, as I recall, although she reversed the process in 2015, increasing her majority while his vanished.
I'd suggest her constituency still has more tribal Labour, whereas Balls's saw more demographic change as it has been turned into a suburb of Leeds. You might also say that whilst the Labour Council's running if the wider area has been shambolic, the part of it that Cooper's constituency is in has fared relatively well, and so will suffer less collateral loss of votes from that.
I wonder whether May's deal will take part in the indicative votes in May and whether Baker and other refuseniks finally back it?
Nope.
They are far too proud and won’t work through the seven stages of grief fast enough to reconcile themselves to backing it in time.
They’ll go down with the ship and try and convince themselves they were martyrs in the years to come as they wrestle with their well-buried secret regrets. It’s the easier path for them emotionally, now.
Also, doesn't have the numbers even with the ERG behind.
314 votes is pretty bloody close.
With only 4-5 votes in it you’d have thought deals could be done.
General Election on same day as European poll, or shortly thereafter.
Result completely unpredictable.
Cannot revoke without confirmation of UK participation in EU elections.
Revocation on the 11th would instantly confirm UK participation in EU elections.
How if it is not approved
Why would they need to be approved? Elections happen when scheduled and it is still legally scheduled.
Is there some diabolical time-travel paradox possible where we extend to May 22 without Euro elections but shortly before that date, decide to Revoke anyway?
But my point is that any legislation to attempt to frustrate or forbid No Deal is useless, and debating it is surely a waste of time? No Deal can only be prevented by some other positive choice that both Parliament and the EU can accept (save in the case of Revocation, which is the only option that the UK can choose unilaterally.)
If Parliament achieves a majority for something that the Government can take to the EU - a Revocation letter, the existing Withdrawal Agreement, or some kind of plan either for a WA vs Remain referendum or an Andrex Soft Brexit deal that the EU27 might be prepared to allow more time to be arranged, then we avoid No Deal. Otherwise No Deal happens. In this respect at least, Theresa May was entirely correct: it's no use MPs saying what they are against, they have to make up their mind what they are for.
Basically they want a magic piece of legislation that means May has to revoke without them ever actually voting for revoke themselves.
Oh, I see, of course...
...however, (a) if things get that far then everyone who votes for this bill will be categorised as a revoke supporter, so it won't actually help much; and (b) if the Commons explicitly voted to invoke A50 (as it, of course, did) but then failed to explicitly vote to revoke A50, wouldn't that leave them on somewhat dubious legal ground?
Not if the EU won't allow us to extend and Parliament rules out No Deal.
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
So Parliament will own whatever mess they cook up, having rejected the only realistic option open to them. They either trash the economy, or the democratic institutions of this country.
Serve them right for being so useless, but why do they have to bugger the rest of us along the way?
General Election on same day as European poll, or shortly thereafter.
Result completely unpredictable.
Cannot revoke without confirmation of UK participation in EU elections.
Revocation on the 11th would instantly confirm UK participation in EU elections.
How if it is not approved
Why would they need to be approved? Elections happen when scheduled and it is still legally scheduled.
Is there some diabolical time-travel paradox possible where we extend to May 22 without Euro elections but shortly before that date, decide to Revoke anyway?
The EU are very wary of this. It would cause legal and procedural nightmares. Hence may 22 only being if the WA is agreed and passed
General Election on same day as European poll, or shortly thereafter.
Result completely unpredictable.
Cannot revoke without confirmation of UK participation in EU elections.
Revocation on the 11th would instantly confirm UK participation in EU elections.
How if it is not approved
Why would they need to be approved? Elections happen when scheduled and it is still legally scheduled.
Is there some diabolical time-travel paradox possible where we extend to May 22 without Euro elections but shortly before that date, decide to Revoke anyway?
I fail to see what the fuss is about the EU elections. So what if we participate in them?
General Election on same day as European poll, or shortly thereafter.
Result completely unpredictable.
Cannot revoke without confirmation of UK participation in EU elections.
Revocation on the 11th would instantly confirm UK participation in EU elections.
How if it is not approved
Why would they need to be approved? Elections happen when scheduled and it is still legally scheduled.
Is there some diabolical time-travel paradox possible where we extend to May 22 without Euro elections but shortly before that date, decide to Revoke anyway?
I fail to see what the fuss is about the EU elections. So what if we participate in them?
I think it is more than participating in them means we have had a long extension, and not without reason given most reasons for a long extension are pathways toward remain via a GE or referendum, the fear is a long extension means we will never leave.
If we participate then I assume that the redistribution is simply cancelled? If it were some kind of insurmountable obstacle then there would be no talk of potential long extensions to the A50 process - the EU27 would've set either May 22nd (day before the elections should've happened) or June 30th (day before the new European Parliament convenes) as the absolute cut-off for Brexit, when we would be out regardless of whether or not any agreement had been reached, or if we'd changed our minds and decided to Revoke, or anything else.
Yes, the redistribution of seats is conditional on the UK having left, if the UK hasn't left then it's cancelled.
General Election on same day as European poll, or shortly thereafter.
Result completely unpredictable.
Cannot revoke without confirmation of UK participation in EU elections.
Revocation on the 11th would instantly confirm UK participation in EU elections.
How if it is not approved
Why would they need to be approved? Elections happen when scheduled and it is still legally scheduled.
Is there some diabolical time-travel paradox possible where we extend to May 22 without Euro elections but shortly before that date, decide to Revoke anyway?
I fail to see what the fuss is about the EU elections. So what if we participate in them?
Other than the fact that the major parties might get whacked at the benefit of some more extreme Brexity parties, I don't think there's much to it other than May continually trying to find the new hard deadline to scare everyone into accepting her deal.
But my point is that any legislation to attempt to frustrate or forbid No Deal is useless, and debating it is surely a waste of time? No Deal can only be prevented by some other positive choice that both Parliament and the EU can accept (save in the case of Revocation, which is the only option that the UK can choose unilaterally.)
If Parliament achieves a majority for something that the Government can take to the EU - a Revocation letter, the existing Withdrawal Agreement, or some kind of plan either for a WA vs Remain referendum or an Andrex Soft Brexit deal that the EU27 might be prepared to allow more time to be arranged, then we avoid No Deal. Otherwise No Deal happens. In this respect at least, Theresa May was entirely correct: it's no use MPs saying what they are against, they have to make up their mind what they are for.
Basically they want a magic piece of legislation that means May has to revoke without them ever actually voting for revoke themselves.
Oh, I see, of course...
...however, (a) if things get that far then everyone who votes for this bill will be categorised as a revoke supporter, so it won't actually help much; and (b) if the Commons explicitly voted to invoke A50 (as it, of course, did) but then failed to explicitly vote to revoke A50, wouldn't that leave them on somewhat dubious legal ground?
Not if the EU won't allow us to extend and Parliament rules out No Deal. That leaves Revoke as the only option with no one except TMay's finger prints on it (and even then she would be forced into it by Parliament even though they haven't insisted upon it).
And remember the only game in town here is that no one takes the blame for whatever result is the result.
If you didn't know already and just went by the politicians/media attitude, you simply could not believe that Leave actually won!
Doom doom doom
Anyone who says the result should be implemented is seen as some kind of oddball, its as if people have convinced themselves that Leave was a temporary, one day, phenomenon
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
So Parliament will own whatever mess they cook up, having rejected the only realistic option open to them. They either trash the economy, or the democratic institutions of this country.
Serve them right for being so useless, but why do they have to bugger the rest of us along the way?
You see, that's what I assumed to be the case. Parliament can vote to force the Government to ask for an extension, but presumably it can't use such procedural jiggery-pokery to get around revocation itself? I would've thought that, given the explicit vote to trigger the A50 process, there would need to be a countermanding vote to stop it - to satisfy our own requirements, let alone those of the ECJ?
His claim given Eisen's very long history of Holocaust denial which was making waves as long ago as the Irving trial in 2000, is about as convincing as Theresa May's leadership.
And that's before I start on his links to Iran, Hamas etc.
And we can always start talking about TMay's friendship with Trump and Saudi Princelings bombing the hell out of Yemen with UK weapon systems and personnel, or Blair's with Ghaddafi and Al-Assad, or Thatcher with dodgy major UK building construction in Malaysia, Saddam Hussein and Pinochet. How much blood and crime do you want to ignore?
General Election on same day as European poll, or shortly thereafter.
Result completely unpredictable.
ould pick up a relief rally from people opposed to Brexit in the first place, or just pleased to see the Tories stuffed.
I think it would depend on the manifeel they can win but a protest vote!
Well, strike me down with a feather.
I thought you were a Lib Dem!
At the 2017 general election trgive.
It does as they voted strongly for Brexit and the Tories still led with ABs in 2017 with Corbyn the alternative even if by less than in 2015
I think you read this wrongly.
Basically you are saying that in the long run the Conservative party should ignore people like me who were members or Conservative voters since age 18 and instead try to keep fair weather friend supporters who are likely to remove their support in the future. In an election it is important to fire up your base/ your natural supporters as well as trying to win over a few converts.
The distribution of sympathetic voters has also got to pay tactically. It has no point or value if the Conservative party appeals to certain voters in safe Labour seats for instance as very few of them will be converted into gains. 2017 if anything was a repudiation of your analysis of where the Tory party should appeal in the future as the Tories failed to win a majority and went backwards. The vote distribution was poor and given the Tories percentage of the vote vs. seat count less efficient than 2015. The Tories will also find diminishing returns on the Brexit issue even if we exit the EU, whether it is a Deal or No Deal.
The Tories made gains in the marginal rich West Midlands in 2017 actually and got a higher voteshare than Cameron got in 2015 if fewer seats (but more seats than Cameron got in 2010).
I am not dismissing the Tory need to win AB votes but you are wrong to dismiss the Tory need to win C2 votes, do not forget even Cameron only won a majority in 2015 by winning ABs AND C2s (his EU referendum pledge being key for many C2s), the Tories need both to win, they cannot win with one alone. That means combining prudent fiscal conservatism for the former while also respecting the Brexit vote and desire for tighter immigration controls of the latter
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
So Parliament will own whatever mess they cook up, having rejected the only realistic option open to them. They either trash the economy, or the democratic institutions of this country.
Serve them right for being so useless, but why do they have to bugger the rest of us along the way?
Parliament can choose to do anything they like in my book, or at least they should be able to do so. The only caveat is an intervention by HMQ.
I cannot believe that we've managed to get to a position in the first place where the ECJ even think they have jurisdiction, let alone actually have.
His claim given Eisen's very long history of Holocaust denial which was making waves as long ago as the Irving trial in 2000, is about as convincing as Theresa May's leadership.
And that's before I start on his links to Iran, Hamas etc.
And we can always start talking about TMay's friendship with Trump and Saudi Princelings bombing the hell out of Yemen with UK weapon systems and personnel, or Blair's with Ghaddafi and Al-Assad, or Thatcher with dodgy major UK building construction in Malaysia, Saddam Hussein and Pinochet. How much blood and crime do you want to ignore?
General Election on same day as European poll, or shortly thereafter.
Result completely unpredictable.
Cannot revoke without confirmation of UK participation in EU elections.
Revocation on the 11th would instantly confirm UK participation in EU elections.
How if it is not approved
Why would they need to be approved? Elections happen when scheduled and it is still legally scheduled.
Is there some diabolical time-travel paradox possible where we extend to May 22 without Euro elections but shortly before that date, decide to Revoke anyway?
The EU are very wary of this. It would cause legal and procedural nightmares. Hence may 22 only being if the WA is agreed and passed
Passed beyond the point as which a unilateral revocation is possible. That means the final Withdrawal Act that implements the Treaty passed and into law, not simply a single “meaningful vote” passing the Commons.
His claim given Eisen's very long history of Holocaust denial which was making waves as long ago as the Irving trial in 2000, is about as convincing as Theresa May's leadership.
And that's before I start on his links to Iran, Hamas etc.
And we can always start talking about TMay's friendship with Trump and Saudi Princelings bombing the hell out of Yemen with UK weapon systems and personnel, or Blair's with Ghaddafi and Al-Assad, or Thatcher with dodgy major UK building construction in Malaysia, Saddam Hussein and Pinochet. How much blood and crime do you want to ignore?
And the relevance of that comment is...?
Think it is fact that Theresa has caused a lot more pain and suffering than the bumbling Corbyn. PS: and mixes with at minimum , dodgy characters as bad as Corbyn.
His claim given Eisen's very long history of Holocaust denial which was making waves as long ago as the Irving trial in 2000, is about as convincing as Theresa May's leadership.
And that's before I start on his links to Iran, Hamas etc.
And we can always start talking about TMay's friendship with Trump and Saudi Princelings bombing the hell out of Yemen with UK weapon systems and personnel, or Blair's with Ghaddafi and Al-Assad, or Thatcher with dodgy major UK building construction in Malaysia, Saddam Hussein and Pinochet. How much blood and crime do you want to ignore?
And the relevance of that comment is...?
Think it is fact that Theresa has caused a lot more pain and suffering than the bumbling Corbyn.
But my point is that any legislation to attempt to frustrate or forbid No Deal is useless, and debating it is surely a waste of time? No Deal can only be prevented by some other positive choice that both Parliament and the EU can accept (save in the case of Revocation, which is the only option that the UK can choose unilaterally.)
If Parliament achieves a majority for something that the Government can take to the EU - a Revocation letter, the existing Withdrawal Agreement, or some kind of plan either for a WA vs Remain referendum or an Andrex Soft Brexit deal that the EU27 might be prepared to allow more time to be arranged, then we avoid No Deal. Otherwise No Deal happens. In this respect at least, Theresa May was entirely correct: it's no use MPs saying what they are against, they have to make up their mind what they are for.
We don't know, it's possible that TMay.could get an extension with just a request for an extension and a sad look on her face. Better not to risk it, but it might work if it came to that.
Basically there are three ways for No Deal to happen:
1) Parliament mandates it (it won't) 2) PM allows it 3) EU refuses the alternative, which at a minimum is a long, faff-based extension. The less hokey parliament's plan, the less likely this is.
Since No Deal is considered a bad idea, it seems prudent to block off (2). TMay's intentions are quite inscrutable and her actions inconsistent, and even if you trust her you don't know how long she'll be PM.
Obviously it's still a good idea to make a workable plan to reduce the risk of (3).
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
So Parliament will own whatever mess they cook up, having rejected the only realistic option open to them. They either trash the economy, or the democratic institutions of this country.
Serve them right for being so useless, but why do they have to bugger the rest of us along the way?
Parliament can choose to do anything they like in my book, or at least they should be able to do so. The only caveat is an intervention by HMQ.
I cannot believe that we've managed to get to a position in the first place where the ECJ even think they have jurisdiction, let alone actually have.
Well yes. That's the point. They could revoke. But they're not doing it. At this moment they are not in fact doing anything, they are failing to take the necessary steps to avoid the consequences of their earlier actions.
His claim given Eisen's very long history of Holocaust denial which was making waves as long ago as the Irving trial in 2000, is about as convincing as Theresa May's leadership.
And that's before I start on his links to Iran, Hamas etc.
And we can always start talking about TMay's friendship with Trump and Saudi Princelings bombing the hell out of Yemen with UK weapon systems and personnel, or Blair's with Ghaddafi and Al-Assad, or Thatcher with dodgy major UK building construction in Malaysia, Saddam Hussein and Pinochet. How much blood and crime do you want to ignore?
And the relevance of that comment is...?
Think it is fact that Theresa has caused a lot more pain and suffering than the bumbling Corbyn.
Give him time.
I doubt he will get a lot of time to do much damage.
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
So Parliament will own whatever mess they cook up, having rejected the only realistic option open to them. They either trash the economy, or the democratic institutions of this country.
Serve them right for being so useless, but why do they have to bugger the rest of us along the way?
Parliament can choose to do anything they like in my book, or at least they should be able to do so. The only caveat is an intervention by HMQ.
I cannot believe that we've managed to get to a position in the first place where the ECJ even think they have jurisdiction, let alone actually have.
Well yes. That's the point. They could revoke. But they're not doing it. At this moment they are not in fact doing anything, they are failing to take the necessary steps to avoid the consequences of their earlier actions.
It would be somewhat bizarre if rubbing noses with a woman disqualifies Biden from standing against a guy who boasts about grabbing hold of their pussies.
Trump has been accused of far, far worse than that.
So...are we any closer to a resolution? Assuming no agreement between May and Corbyn (we can hope, but seems safe), will Monday actually have a shot? Alistair makes a good case for further institutional gridlock, but if they can just about squeak through a bill in a day, surely they can come up with something?
And we can always start talking about TMay's friendship with Trump and Saudi Princelings bombing the hell out of Yemen with UK weapon systems and personnel, or Blair's with Ghaddafi and Al-Assad, or Thatcher with dodgy major UK building construction in Malaysia, Saddam Hussein and Pinochet. How much blood and crime do you want to ignore?
And the relevance of that comment is...?
Think it is fact that Theresa has caused a lot more pain and suffering than the bumbling Corbyn.
My point is he would meet with neo-Nazis (amusingly autocorrect called them his 'bros') but not with a former member of his own party who left because he was sick of Corbyn's racism.
That has nothing to do with the government's allies, our national trading partners, or the fact Trump appears to be compensating for inadequacy in the trouser department. The is just distraction therapy by one of his dim witted admirers to try and hide he fact Corbyn, for no reason other than personal choice and therefore presumably because he supported them, associates with a lot of vile criminals including murderers and apologists for Adolf Hitler. That says a lot about him - and not in a good way.
Fair play to the original poster - somebody I don't usually get on with - for just accepting that.
So...are we any closer to a resolution? Assuming no agreement between May and Corbyn (we can hope, but seems safe), will Monday actually have a shot? Alistair makes a good case for further institutional gridlock, but if they can just about squeak through a bill in a day, surely they can come up with something?
It would be nice to think so, but recent events are hardly encouraging.
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
So Parliament will own whatever mess they cook up, having rejected the only realistic option open to them. They either trash the economy, or the democratic institutions of this country.
Serve them right for being so useless, but why do they have to bugger the rest of us along the way?
Parliament can choose to do anything they like in my book, or at least they should be able to do so. The only caveat is an intervention by HMQ.
I cannot believe that we've managed to get to a position in the first place where the ECJ even think they have jurisdiction, let alone actually have.
Well yes. That's the point. They could revoke. But they're not doing it. At this moment they are not in fact doing anything, they are failing to take the necessary steps to avoid the consequences of their earlier actions.
They have until next Thursday , no rush.
At risk of sounding like your good self Malc, it would some of them that long to count to ten on their fingers.
Edit - if anyone saw that, I do apologise. It was a genuine typo.
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
So...are we any closer to a resolution? Assuming no agreement between May and Corbyn (we can hope, but seems safe), will Monday actually have a shot? Alistair makes a good case for further institutional gridlock, but if they can just about squeak through a bill in a day, surely they can come up with something?
who would know , they just talk mince. It is like a playground. anything could happen with these idiots.
So...are we any closer to a resolution? Assuming no agreement between May and Corbyn (we can hope, but seems safe), will Monday actually have a shot? Alistair makes a good case for further institutional gridlock, but if they can just about squeak through a bill in a day, surely they can come up with something?
They’ll come up with something. Whether it is sensible or workable will be down to chance. The decisions will eventually be made at high speed in a blind panic.
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
So Parliament will own whatever mess they cook up, having rejected the only realistic option open to them. They either trash the economy, or the democratic institutions of this country.
Serve them right for being so useless, but why do they have to bugger the rest of us along the way?
Parliament can choose to do anything they like in my book, or at least they should be able to do so. The only caveat is an intervention by HMQ.
I cannot believe that we've managed to get to a position in the first place where the ECJ even think they have jurisdiction, let alone actually have.
Well yes. That's the point. They could revoke. But they're not doing it. At this moment they are not in fact doing anything, they are failing to take the necessary steps to avoid the consequences of their earlier actions.
In the absence of a Fairy Godmother who appears out of a cloud, Revokes on their behalf and disappears again, 2nd best is a secret ballot. Parliament then has collective responsibility for a decision and is accountable as a whole. But individual MPs are relatively safe from retribution.
It seems to me that, if they were offered this, they'd revoke. Anonymity offers protection to vulnerable MPs who fear violence from thugs like those seen in London recently.
An unwritten constitution is 'flexible'. So can the speaker, whose clerks are no doubt reading this, investigate the feasibility?
And we can always start talking about TMay's friendship with Trump and Saudi Princelings bombing the hell out of Yemen with UK weapon systems and personnel, or Blair's with Ghaddafi and Al-Assad, or Thatcher with dodgy major UK building construction in Malaysia, Saddam Hussein and Pinochet. How much blood and crime do you want to ignore?
And the relevance of that comment is...?
Think it is fact that Theresa has caused a lot more pain and suffering than the bumbling Corbyn.
My point is he would meet with neo-Nazis (amusingly autocorrect called them his 'bros') but not with a former member of his own party who left because he was sick of Corbyn's racism.
That has nothing to do with the government's allies, our national trading partners, or the fact Trump appears to be compensating for inadequacy in the trouser department. The is just distraction therapy by one of his dim witted admirers to try and hide he fact Corbyn, for no reason other than personal choice and therefore presumably because he supported them, associates with a lot of vile criminals including murderers and apologists for Adolf Hitler. That says a lot about him - and not in a good way.
Fair play to the original poster - somebody I don't usually get on with - for just accepting that.
Agree he is a bit of an idiot , a 70's throwback who has not grown out of it.
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
So Parliament will own whatever mess they cook up, having rejected the only realistic option open to them. They either trash the economy, or the democratic institutions of this country.
Serve them right for being so useless, but why do they have to bugger the rest of us along the way?
Parliament can choose to do anything they like in my book, or at least they should be able to do so. The only caveat is an intervention by HMQ.
I cannot believe that we've managed to get to a position in the first place where the ECJ even think they have jurisdiction, let alone actually have.
Well yes. That's the point. They could revoke. But they're not doing it. At this moment they are not in fact doing anything, they are failing to take the necessary steps to avoid the consequences of their earlier actions.
They have until next Thursday , no rush.
At risk of sounding like your good self Malc, it would some of them that long to count to ten on their fingers.
Edit - if anyone saw that, I do apologise. It was a genuine typo.
I’d have thought if a man hadn’t learned to keep his hands to himself by his late 70s he wasn’t going to do so now. Though I suppose the sap might no longer be rising.
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
So Parliament will own whatever mess they cook up, having rejected the only realistic option open to them. They either trash the economy, or the democratic institutions of this country.
Serve them right for being so useless, but why do they have to bugger the rest of us along the way?
Parliament can choose to do anything they like in my book, or at least they should be able to do so. The only caveat is an intervention by HMQ.
I cannot believe that we've managed to get to a position in the first place where the ECJ even think they have jurisdiction, let alone actually have.
Well yes. That's the point. They could revoke. But they're not doing it. At this moment they are not in fact doing anything, they are failing to take the necessary steps to avoid the consequences of their earlier actions.
In the absence of a Fairy Godmother who appears out of a cloud, Revokes on their behalf and disappears again, 2nd best is a secret ballot. Parliament then has collective responsibility for a decision and is accountable as a whole. But individual MPs are relatively safe from retribution.
It seems to me that, if they were offered this, they'd revoke. Anonymity offers protection to vulnerable MPs who fear violence from thugs like those seen in London recently.
An unwritten constitution is 'flexible'. So can the speaker, whose clerks are no doubt reading this, investigate the feasibility?
A cornerstone of parliamentary democracy is an MPs accountability to his or her constituents, its not good enough to vote in secret and would, if allowed, become a cozy way out of accountability in the future
So...are we any closer to a resolution? Assuming no agreement between May and Corbyn (we can hope, but seems safe), will Monday actually have a shot? Alistair makes a good case for further institutional gridlock, but if they can just about squeak through a bill in a day, surely they can come up with something?
who would know , they just talk mince. It is like a playground. anything could happen with these idiots.
When we played football in the playground and the bell rang, opposing teams all agreed it was 'next goal wins' even if one had been losing up to that point, because whatever went on before that moment it was time to draw things to a close. I think the Commons could learn something from that.
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
There will be some for whom it is true, but pretending your opponents do not really know what they are doing is a tale as old as time. It's been a problem facing down the likes of the ERG and DUP, because people, including me, assumed they could not really want certain things could they?
It's also a way of avoiding blaming people for the way they voted, and just focusing on the leaders, even though we were all told the reasons not to Brexit at the time so it is our fault.
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
So Parliament will own whatever mess they cook up, having rejected the only realistic option open to them. They either trash the economy, or the democratic institutions of this country.
Serve them right for being so useless, but why do they have to bugger the rest of us along the way?
Parliament can choose to do anything they like in my book, or at least they should be able to do so. The only caveat is an intervention by HMQ.
I cannot believe that we've managed to get to a position in the first place where the ECJ even think they have jurisdiction, let alone actually have.
They have jurisdiction because it is their club and they make the rules. If you want to be in their club then you do it on their terms.
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
So Parliament will own whatever mess they cook up, having rejected the only realistic option open to them. They either trash the economy, or the democratic institutions of this country.
Serve them right for being so useless, but why do they have to bugger the rest of us along the way?
Parliament can choose to do anything they like in my book, or at least they should be able to do so. The only caveat is an intervention by HMQ.
I cannot believe that we've managed to get to a position in the first place where the ECJ even think they have jurisdiction, let alone actually have.
Well yes. That's the point. They could revoke. But they're not doing it. At this moment they are not in fact doing anything, they are failing to take the necessary steps to avoid the consequences of their earlier actions.
In the absence of a Fairy Godmother who appears out of a cloud, Revokes on their behalf and disappears again, 2nd best is a secret ballot. Parliament then has collective responsibility for a decision and is accountable as a whole. But individual MPs are relatively safe from retribution.
It seems to me that, if they were offered this, they'd revoke. Anonymity offers protection to vulnerable MPs who fear violence from thugs like those seen in London recently.
An unwritten constitution is 'flexible'. So can the speaker, whose clerks are no doubt reading this, investigate the feasibility?
A cornerstone of parliamentary democracy is an MPs accountability to his or her constituents, its not good enough to vote in secret and would, if allowed, become a cozy way out of accountability in the future
Agreed. No one wants MPs to be subjected to violence or intimidation, but letting them avoid being personally accountable because it is easier is not an answer, it has serious negative implications. Being an MP is not meant to be easy. Collective accountability is not enough. If it were, it would not have developed the way it has anyway.
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
The die-hard Remainers who think that Revoke or a Remain PV result will bring an end to the issue of the UK's relationship with the EU, are in my opinion madder than the maddest member of the ERG, and those guys are pretty damn mad.
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
A strong case can be made for saying that they didn't know what they were voting for. I had only the sketchiest understanding of what I was voting against when I voted remain. I certainly know a fuck of a lot more about it now then I did then.
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
So Parliament will own whatever mess they cook up, having rejected the only realistic option open to them. They either trash the economy, or the democratic institutions of this country.
Serve them right for being so useless, but why do they have to bugger the rest of us along the way?
Parliament can choose to do anything they like in my book, or at least they should be able to do so. The only caveat is an intervention by HMQ.
I cannot believe that we've managed to get to a position in the first place where the ECJ even think they have jurisdiction, let alone actually have.
Well yes. That's the point. They could revoke. But they're not doing it. At this moment they are not in fact doing anything, they are failing to take the necessary steps to avoid the consequences of their earlier actions.
In the absence of a et ballot. Parliament then has collective responsibility for a decision and is accountable as a whole. But individual MPs are relatively safe from retribution.
It seems to me that, if they were offered this, they'd revoke. Anonymity offers protection to vulnerable MPs who fear violence from thugs like those seen in London recently.
An unwritten constitution is 'flexible'. So can the speaker, whose clerks are no doubt reading this, investigate the feasibility?
A cornerstone of parliamentary democracy is an MPs accountability to his or her constituents, its not good enough to vote in secret and would, if allowed, become a cozy way out of accountability in the future
Agreed. No one wants MPs to be subjected to violence or intimidation, but letting them avoid being personally accountable because it is easier is not an answer, it has serious negative implications. Being an MP is not meant to be easy. Collective accountability is not enough. If it were, it would not have developed the way it has anyway.
So...are we any closer to a resolution? Assuming no agreement between May and Corbyn (we can hope, but seems safe), will Monday actually have a shot? Alistair makes a good case for further institutional gridlock, but if they can just about squeak through a bill in a day, surely they can come up with something?
who would know , they just talk mince. It is like a playground. anything could happen with these idiots.
When we played football in the playground and the bell rang, opposing teams all agreed it was 'next goal wins' even if one had been losing up to that point, because whatever went on before that moment it was time to draw things to a close. I think the Commons could learn something from that.
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
There will be some for whom it is true, but pretending your opponents do not really know what they are doing is a tale as old as time. It's been a problem facing down the likes of the ERG and DUP, because people, including me, assumed they could not really want certain things could they?
It's also a way of avoiding blaming people for the way they voted, and just focusing on the leaders, even though we were all told the reasons not to Brexit at the time so it is our fault.
The hideous James O'Brien, mentioned upthread, came out with possibly the most condescending load of drivel I have ever seen on the day of the London march
"Condemnation for the conmen, Compassion for the conned"
Honestly if he said that to the people he considers to have been conned he would get the hiding of his life, simply no idea about life outside of the bubble
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
A strong case can be made for saying that they didn't know what they were voting for. I had only the sketchiest understanding of what I was voting against when I voted remain. I certainly know a fuck of a lot more about it now then I did then.
So what should the future governments do to address the concerns of those 52% of voters?
It could be that they voted to Leave as a desperate act to show those in charge that they were unhappy, their one chance of getting their voice heard... If the establishment over rule them and carry on as before, how do you think it will pan out?
Comments
If Parliament achieves a majority for something that the Government can take to the EU - a Revocation letter, the existing Withdrawal Agreement, or some kind of plan either for a WA vs Remain referendum or an Andrex Soft Brexit deal that the EU27 might be prepared to allow more time to be arranged, then we avoid No Deal. Otherwise No Deal happens. In this respect at least, Theresa May was entirely correct: it's no use MPs saying what they are against, they have to make up their mind what they are for.
They are far too proud and won’t work through the seven stages of grief fast enough to reconcile themselves to backing it in time.
They’ll go down with the ship and try and convince themselves they were martyrs in the years to come as they wrestle with their well-buried secret regrets. It’s the easier path for them emotionally, now.
Shes gone from 48% to 59% but the Tories piled on 10% in 2017 and are thr only other player in the seat
Could see her bring cut back to under 50% but holding easily enough
With only 4-5 votes in it you’d have thought deals could be done.
It may not feel that way right now, but other topics will emerge, come the time.
...however, (a) if things get that far then everyone who votes for this bill will be categorised as a revoke supporter, so it won't actually help much; and (b) if the Commons explicitly voted to invoke A50 (as it, of course, did) but then failed to explicitly vote to revoke A50, wouldn't that leave them on somewhat dubious legal ground?
And remember the only game in town here is that no one takes the blame for whatever result is the result.
Kevin Barron (Rother Valley)
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire)
Caroline Flint (Don Valley)
Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow)
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall)
John Mann (Bassetlaw)
Graham Stringer (Backley and Broughton)
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
So Parliament will own whatever mess they cook up, having rejected the only realistic option open to them. They either trash the economy, or the democratic institutions of this country.
Serve them right for being so useless, but why do they have to bugger the rest of us along the way?
Yes, the redistribution of seats is conditional on the UK having left, if the UK hasn't left then it's cancelled.
Doom doom doom
Anyone who says the result should be implemented is seen as some kind of oddball, its as if people have convinced themselves that Leave was a temporary, one day, phenomenon
I cannot believe that we've managed to get to a position in the first place where the ECJ even think they have jurisdiction, let alone actually have.
That the arch PB Trumpton DyedWoolie reacted like that is in the Pope/Catholicism range of surprises.
PS: and mixes with at minimum , dodgy characters as bad as Corbyn.
Basically there are three ways for No Deal to happen:
1) Parliament mandates it (it won't)
2) PM allows it
3) EU refuses the alternative, which at a minimum is a long, faff-based extension. The less hokey parliament's plan, the less likely this is.
Since No Deal is considered a bad idea, it seems prudent to block off (2). TMay's intentions are quite inscrutable and her actions inconsistent, and even if you trust her you don't know how long she'll be PM.
Obviously it's still a good idea to make a workable plan to reduce the risk of (3).
That has nothing to do with the government's allies, our national trading partners, or the fact Trump appears to be compensating for inadequacy in the trouser department. The is just distraction therapy by one of his dim witted admirers to try and hide he fact Corbyn, for no reason other than personal choice and therefore presumably because he supported them, associates with a lot of vile criminals including murderers and apologists for Adolf Hitler. That says a lot about him - and not in a good way.
Fair play to the original poster - somebody I don't usually get on with - for just accepting that.
Is that right ?
Edit - if anyone saw that, I do apologise. It was a genuine typo.
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
It seems to me that, if they were offered this, they'd revoke. Anonymity offers protection to vulnerable MPs who fear violence from thugs like those seen in London recently.
An unwritten constitution is 'flexible'. So can the speaker, whose clerks are no doubt reading this, investigate the feasibility?
It's also a way of avoiding blaming people for the way they voted, and just focusing on the leaders, even though we were all told the reasons not to Brexit at the time so it is our fault.
"Condemnation for the conmen, Compassion for the conned"
Honestly if he said that to the people he considers to have been conned he would get the hiding of his life, simply no idea about life outside of the bubble
It could be that they voted to Leave as a desperate act to show those in charge that they were unhappy, their one chance of getting their voice heard... If the establishment over rule them and carry on as before, how do you think it will pan out?