> @Nigel_Foremain said: > > @Ishmael_Z said: > > I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country. > > > > How is asking the people to vote anti-democratic? > > > > Asking them the same question repeatedly until you get the answer you want seems a touch anti-democratic. > > > > But nobody proposes that another vote will be, either in wording or in substance, on the same question as the 2016 one. So that disposes of that point, unless your claim is that your rules excluse both a question already asked and also any other question which (you being the sole arbiter of this) is in any way cognate with the 2016 question. > > > > Why do you hate democracy, boy? > > The will-o-the-people must be preserved in aspic. They must never be allowed the opportunity to say that "they" have changed "their" mind. This is how populism and fascism work. ____________________________
The views of Attlee, Heath, Thatcher and now Clarke: basically 'referendums are a disaster' (their wordings differ).
Davis: 'A democracy that cannot change its mind ceases to be a democracy'.
If the reason of holding it is to ratify the leave terms, it's not even a change of mind. It's a sensible precaution, like MS Windows asking me 'are you sure?' when I tell it to delete a file.
> @Recidivist said: > > @Scott_P said: > > > You implement the decision first. > > > > > > We did. > > > > > > We have spent 3 years of blood and treasure. > > > > > > A democracy does not dictate the number or timing of votes > > > > Democracy is asking people to vote and then enacting their decision. We have not left and therefore have not enacted their decision. Holding another vote before the result of the vote has been enacted completely destroys the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country. > > No it doesn't.
And unfortunately you will keep believing that even as the whole system falls apart around you.
> @williamglenn said: > > @OblitusSumMe said: > > > @williamglenn said: > > > If she faces them down, what can they do? > > > > Ultimately they can vote her down in a VONC and then support one of their own in a subsequent confidence motion. > > They can't guarantee one of their own would be able to win a subsequent confidence motion and avoid a snap general election.
Hard to see a majority of MPs voting for a GE at this point with the polls as they are.
> @justin124 said: > > @maaarsh said: > > > @justin124 said: > > > > @maaarsh said: > > > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > > If she faces them down, what can they do? > > > > > > > > Change the rules and no-con vote. > > > > > > But not before the recess - so no vote until June. > > > > There's a 1922 exec meeting in 90 minutes. If they really wanted to, they could get it all over and done with tonight - they clearly won't, but there are no built in timescales here. > > But MPs hardly have time to vote today. Even if there were to be an avalanche of letters sent in to Brady , difficult to see a vote this week. Possibility of a legal challenge to any rule change has also been raised.
The recess could be cancelled. If May falls Corbyn may want to table a confidence motion.
> @JosiasJessop said: > > @IanB2 said: > > > > @Scott_P said: > > > > https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1131175303907348480 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1131175517464481792 > > > > > > > > A vote on a referendum was always coming, such an amendment being inevitable. Tory MPs need to calm down. That said, the media is all talking about a second vote now, and it is hard to believe May didn’t know that would be the inevitable consequence of her raising it in her speech. But it is rumoured she was blocked by cabinet from putting it on the face of the bill, and this is her revenge. > > > > > > Another vote is starting to look inevitable. Quite a change in mood from the day I suggested we could end up here, back in early 2017, to the scorn of many PB’ers. If I could be bothered to look it would be fun to find that thread again. > > > > I still just cant figure out how it is considered acceptable to ask again. What has become of us? > > People who voted leave were lied to; they were promised whatever they wanted, and the contradictory positions proved unreconcilable and undeliverable. May tried to produce a middle ground that resolved many of those contradictions, but too many hardcore leavers - the same people who made those lies, and many of whom are looking to their own careers rather than the good of the country - were not willing to compromise. > > Hence we are in a stalemate that is damaging to the country.
LOL. What a load of rubbish. Sad to see people twisting the facts to try to defend the indefensible.
What direction can a future leader have? What could they achieve that she couldnt? I think two years ago before it really became defined as to what kind of brexit people wanted she could have pushed a norway for now suck it and see approach and introduce a series of domestic measures aimed at satisfying those concerned of wage undermining by unskilled unlimited migration.
But now, everything that isnt the magical WTO is a betrayal.
I think the strategic mistake made (and I understand fully why she did what she did) by May was not to try to build a national concensus around what kind of LEAVE had been sought by those advocating it from the summer of 2016 onwards. There was, I think, a "soft" position which many pro-REMAIN voters could have signed up to which would have emphasised the political disengagement rather than the economic.
However, in the light of the traumatic events of early 2016 and the death of Jo Cox, I believe May felt the last thing the country needed was another period of national introspection. Her priority became re-unifying the country and her Party, calming things down and trying to take the heat out of the debate.
That came down to "Brexit means Brexit" and "Trust Theresa". By internalising the issue she hoped to neutralise the rancour. Everyone could hope or believe their version of Brexit was the one and I re-iterate, had the 2017 GE gone according to plan, she'd have got her WA through the Commons supported by the newly elected Conservatives who owed their position to her.
I do think once it became clear the WA would not clear the Commons after mid January, she should have resigned but there is a sense of duty and an ethos there which, pace Thatcher, will mean she will have to be dragged from No.10 by her own Cabinet who will then take the blame for her assassination and it may not help any of their careers ultimately (especially if Boris prevails).
Mein gott, can we please not do the PB Groundhog Day of "it's anti-democratic" / "no it isn't" / "but enact the decision" / "but voting can never be anti-democratic" yet again.
No-one is going to change their mind on this and it's all been said a thousand times before.
There are much more enjoyable things to talk about right now, like the possibility of a Prime Minister being forced out the day before the European elections.
Very true. Although I'm right on this - @Richard_Tyndall please note. And that will be the end of it.
> But MPs hardly have time to vote today. Even if there were to be an avalanche of letters sent in to Brady , difficult to see a vote this week. Possibility of a legal challenge to any rule change has also been raised.
The recess could be cancelled. If May falls Corbyn may want to table a confidence motion.
If you have 160 letters, you don't need a vote. And if you can obviously get 160 letters, you don't need 160 letters.
Which is to say that rules and procedures are frequently very important, but obsessing over them can sometimes cause you to miss the wood for the trees.
You don't even understand what the word means. You seem to think that the mere act of asking the question satisfies the definition even when you then ignore the result.
I think it's fair to say that whatever has happened over the past three years, no one has ignored the result.
And unfortunately you will keep believing that even as the whole system falls apart around you.
The 2016 result was a negative majority against something, not a positive majority for something. It's the attempt to co-opt that vote to implement something without positive support that is destroying the system.
> @stodge said: > Afternoon all > > I thought May was very good in the Commons - not quite a tour de force but a bravura performance in the face of overwhelming opposition bordering on derision. > > I'm no supporter of her or her Party but I respect what I believe she was trying to do in July 2016. She saw a country polarised and divided by months of increasingly rancorous debate which culminated in the murder of a fellow MP. I think May saw her primary objective as re-unifying the country and the Party (not sure in which order), calming things down, allowing time to cool heads and for political life to try to return to normal. > > "Brexit means Brexit" can be seen in that context. It's the ultimate non-statement onto which anyone and everyone could project their reality of what Brexit meant from the softest possible to bricking up the Channel Tunnel. Getting any Deal through Parliament was risky with a majority of 12 but with the polls showing the majority of LEAVE voters happy to sit in the May camp the election looked to have little risk - with a majority of 50-100 and a raft of new MPs beholden to her, May could have got any Deal through the Commons. > > Once the election gambit spectacularly failed, the trap began to close. Forced to try to reconcile irreconcilable positions she inevitably ended up antagonising all sides and was effectively finished on January 15th. Since then she has staggered on, an increasingly irrelevant and powerless figure. > > The irony is she's right in that passing the WA would be the quickest and cleanest way for the UK to leave the EU - it always has been. However, by trying to play both sides, she's ended up with a WA which, whatever the reality, has become politically toxic. Could another PM have presented the same WA and got it through?
Good points. As to your final question I expect that we may find out! The WA will have to be passed with only cosmetic changes if we are to leave and enter negotiations for a long term relationship. It is being sabotaged by rigid paranoid thinking by DUP, bone headed ideological obsession by ERG, a mixture of partisan gamesmanship, stupidity and ideological purity by various parts of LP. In this febrile and infantile political chaos I'm abandoning my "support a pragmatic exit to honour the referendum mandate" to go full remainer and I'm voting LD and want a second referendum.
I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
How is asking the people to vote anti-democratic?
Asking them the same question repeatedly until you get the answer you want seems a touch anti-democratic.
We need an answer that is deliverable, not an answer 'you want'.
We are in a fairly hideous situation atm. I'm not in favour of another referendum because I find it hard to see how the various options can be squeezed into the question. But would a referendum be anti-democratic, after the last three years of leave-inspired chaos? No, of course not.
> @Richard_Tyndall said: > > @Nigelb said: > > I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country. > > > > That is pernicious hyperbole. > > > > That said, I can fully understand a large number of people finding it deeply irksome - but the deep damage is being done to the established parties, as a result of the bind the electorate put parliament in thanks to the 2017 GE vote, and the inability of the two major parties to talk to each other. > > > > I’m not at all convinced that any of this destroys the legitimacy of the democratic process any more than those who say if they don’t get their way they’ll never vote again does. > > Not hyperbole at all. Once you show people that their vote no longer matters and can be ignored or reversed at the whim of the politicians then why should they continue to have faith in the democratic process?
And Farage is deliberately copying the Trump playbook and attempting to delegitimise every part of the state, from regulated media to courts to the Electoral Commission to parliament. Once the political battleground has no accepted rules of decency or common framework, every contest has the potential to become existential.
> @Richard_Tyndall said: > > @Recidivist said: > > > @Scott_P said: > > > > > You implement the decision first. > > > > > > > > > > We did. > > > > > > > > > > We have spent 3 years of blood and treasure. > > > > > > > > > > A democracy does not dictate the number or timing of votes > > > > > > > > Democracy is asking people to vote and then enacting their decision. We have not left and therefore have not enacted their decision. Holding another vote before the result of the vote has been enacted completely destroys the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country. > > > > No it doesn't. > > And unfortunately you will keep believing that even as the whole system falls apart around you.
What is it about the 2016 referendum vote that takes complete precedence over the 2017 GE vote? I simply don't get it, both are valid democratic exercises, but the results of the two conflict with each other.
There needs to be a way to move forwards, my preferred way would be a compromise similar to that which May is finally offering, but if parliament is not willing to do that, the democratic resolutions involve either a new GE and/or another referendum. A GE is unlikely to lead to a clear cut resolution, so the most likely democratic way to move forward is another referendum.
> > A democracy does not dictate the number or timing of votes
>
>
>
> Democracy is asking people to vote and then enacting their decision. We have not left and therefore have not enacted their decision. Holding another vote before the result of the vote has been enacted completely destroys the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
>
> No it doesn't.
And unfortunately you will keep believing that even as the whole system falls apart around you.
We have a hung parliament. Chaos and indecision is the democratic decision. Normal service will be resumed when one of the big two gets a working majority.
> Mein gott, can we please not do the PB Groundhog Day of "it's anti-democratic" / "no it isn't" / "but enact the decision" / "but voting can never be anti-democratic" yet again.
I know. Sorry. It's so hard to let RT have the final word.
If you led the field after, lets say, lap 5 of a multi-lap race, and only then, there is not a lot left if you abandon your invented-on-the-fly, unsupported-by-authority-or-principle rule that all races are of five laps.
> @david_herdson said: > > @maaarsh said: > > > @williamglenn said: > > > If she faces them down, what can they do? > > > > Change the rules and no-con vote. > > I have been saying this for some time.
I think it's a given that the 1922 will change the rules later this afternoon. Hopefully to allow another contest with immediate effect. The question then is whether May will wait to lose the VONC amongst Tory MPs or just go of her own accord.
> @Recidivist said: > > @Recidivist said: > > > > @Scott_P said: > > > > > > > You implement the decision first. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We did. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have spent 3 years of blood and treasure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A democracy does not dictate the number or timing of votes > > > > > > > > > > > > Democracy is asking people to vote and then enacting their decision. We have not left and therefore have not enacted their decision. Holding another vote before the result of the vote has been enacted completely destroys the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country. > > > > > > No it doesn't. > > > > And unfortunately you will keep believing that even as the whole system falls apart around you. > > We have a hung parliament. Chaos and indecision is the democratic decision. Normal service will be resumed when one of the big two gets a working majority.
So you're saying get ued to chaos and indecision as the new normal?
> @stodge said: > What direction can a future leader have? What could they achieve that she couldnt? I think two years ago before it really became defined as to what kind of brexit people wanted she could have pushed a norway for now suck it and see approach and introduce a series of domestic measures aimed at satisfying those concerned of wage undermining by unskilled unlimited migration. > > But now, everything that isnt the magical WTO is a betrayal. > > I think the strategic mistake made (and I understand fully why she did what she did) by May was not to try to build a national concensus around what kind of LEAVE had been sought by those advocating it from the summer of 2016 onwards. There was, I think, a "soft" position which many pro-REMAIN voters could have signed up to which would have emphasised the political disengagement rather than the economic. > > However, in the light of the traumatic events of early 2016 and the death of Jo Cox, I believe May felt the last thing the country needed was another period of national introspection. Her priority became re-unifying the country and her Party, calming things down and trying to take the heat out of the debate. > > That came down to "Brexit means Brexit" and "Trust Theresa". By internalising the issue she hoped to neutralise the rancour. Everyone could hope or believe their version of Brexit was the one and I re-iterate, had the 2017 GE gone according to plan, she'd have got her WA through the Commons supported by the newly elected Conservatives who owed their position to her. > > I do think once it became clear the WA would not clear the Commons after mid January, she should have resigned but there is a sense of duty and an ethos there which, pace Thatcher, will mean she will have to be dragged from No.10 by her own Cabinet who will then take the blame for her assassination and it may not help any of their careers ultimately (especially if Boris prevails).
Reunify the country? May? You must be joking - she condemned half the country as citizens of nowhere and then decided unilaterally, without consulting even the cabinet, that Brexit meant leaving the single market and customs union and it would be pushed through with Tory votes, to hell with the opposition. She discovered the need for unity far too late when it was clear that her project had failed.
> @Tissue_Price said: > > @justin124 said: > > > But MPs hardly have time to vote today. Even if there were to be an avalanche of letters sent in to Brady , difficult to see a vote this week. Possibility of a legal challenge to any rule change has also been raised. > > > > The recess could be cancelled. If May falls Corbyn may want to table a confidence motion. > > If you have 160 letters, you don't need a vote. And if you can obviously get 160 letters, you don't need 160 letters. > > Which is to say that rules and procedures are frequently very important, but obsessing over them can sometimes cause you to miss the wood for the trees.
But she might be able to mount a legal challenge on the basis that a change in the rules should not be retrospective. 160 letters would,thus, have no standing until December.
> I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
>
> How is asking the people to vote anti-democratic?
>
> Asking them the same question repeatedly until you get the answer you want seems a touch anti-democratic.
>
> But nobody proposes that another vote will be, either in wording or in substance, on the same question as the 2016 one. So that disposes of that point, unless your claim is that your rules excluse both a question already asked and also any other question which (you being the sole arbiter of this) is in any way cognate with the 2016 question.
>
> Why do you hate democracy, boy?
You don't even understand what the word means. You seem to think that the mere act of asking the question satisfies the definition even when you then ignore the result.
The result has not been ignored. We've spent three years trying to respect the result, and it's proved impossible - and much of that is due to leavers failing to compromise.
What if there was a general election, where the result was such that it had proved impossible to form a government for two years (unlikely but possible under FPTP). Would it be undemocratic to pause, take a breath, and ask the public again, given the knowledge of what happened during the negotiations?
> @justin124 said: > > @Tissue_Price said: > > > @justin124 said: > > > > > But MPs hardly have time to vote today. Even if there were to be an avalanche of letters sent in to Brady , difficult to see a vote this week. Possibility of a legal challenge to any rule change has also been raised. > > > > > > > > The recess could be cancelled. If May falls Corbyn may want to table a confidence motion. > > > > If you have 160 letters, you don't need a vote. And if you can obviously get 160 letters, you don't need 160 letters. > > > > Which is to say that rules and procedures are frequently very important, but obsessing over them can sometimes cause you to miss the wood for the trees. > > But she might be able to mount a legal challenge on the basis that a change in the rules should not be retrospective. 160 letters would,thus, have no standing until December.
I think you're in danger of needing an even bigger reminder to not miss the wood for the trees.
It is theoretically possible that the prime minister could litigate against her own party and MPs such that they can't replace her. But it is a vanishingly possible, utterly ridiculous edge case.
> > But MPs hardly have time to vote today. Even if there were to be an avalanche of letters sent in to Brady , difficult to see a vote this week. Possibility of a legal challenge to any rule change has also been raised.
>
>
>
> The recess could be cancelled. If May falls Corbyn may want to table a confidence motion.
>
> If you have 160 letters, you don't need a vote. And if you can obviously get 160 letters, you don't need 160 letters.
>
> Which is to say that rules and procedures are frequently very important, but obsessing over them can sometimes cause you to miss the wood for the trees.
But she might be able to mount a legal challenge on the basis that a change in the rules should not be retrospective. 160 letters would,thus, have no standing until December.
If you are mounting a legal challenge to stay on as leader you have lost. Totally.
> > But MPs hardly have time to vote today. Even if there were to be an avalanche of letters sent in to Brady , difficult to see a vote this week. Possibility of a legal challenge to any rule change has also been raised.
>
>
>
> The recess could be cancelled. If May falls Corbyn may want to table a confidence motion.
>
> If you have 160 letters, you don't need a vote. And if you can obviously get 160 letters, you don't need 160 letters.
>
> Which is to say that rules and procedures are frequently very important, but obsessing over them can sometimes cause you to miss the wood for the trees.
But she might be able to mount a legal challenge on the basis that a change in the rules should not be retrospective. 160 letters would,thus, have no standing until December.
Prime Ministers who have clearly lost the confidence of their own MPs do not mount legal challenges.
Initially I have some sympathy with May in extremely difficult circumstances, now it is worse than Gordon hanging on after the GE.
Not often I defend Gordon Brown, but he acted completely correctly after the 2015 GE. It was entirely proper to wait to see whether Cameron would be in a position to form a government before going to the Queen.
> > A vote on a referendum was always coming, such an amendment being inevitable. Tory MPs need to calm down. That said, the media is all talking about a second vote now, and it is hard to believe May didn’t know that would be the inevitable consequence of her raising it in her speech. But it is rumoured she was blocked by cabinet from putting it on the face of the bill, and this is her revenge.
>
> >
>
> > Another vote is starting to look inevitable. Quite a change in mood from the day I suggested we could end up here, back in early 2017, to the scorn of many PB’ers. If I could be bothered to look it would be fun to find that thread again.
>
>
>
> I still just cant figure out how it is considered acceptable to ask again. What has become of us?
>
> People who voted leave were lied to; they were promised whatever they wanted, and the contradictory positions proved unreconcilable and undeliverable. May tried to produce a middle ground that resolved many of those contradictions, but too many hardcore leavers - the same people who made those lies, and many of whom are looking to their own careers rather than the good of the country - were not willing to compromise.
>
> Hence we are in a stalemate that is damaging to the country.
LOL. What a load of rubbish. Sad to see people twisting the facts to try to defend the indefensible.
> @maaarsh said: > > @justin124 said: > > > @Tissue_Price said: > > > > @justin124 said: > > > > > > > But MPs hardly have time to vote today. Even if there were to be an avalanche of letters sent in to Brady , difficult to see a vote this week. Possibility of a legal challenge to any rule change has also been raised. > > > > > > > > > > > > The recess could be cancelled. If May falls Corbyn may want to table a confidence motion. > > > > > > If you have 160 letters, you don't need a vote. And if you can obviously get 160 letters, you don't need 160 letters. > > > > > > Which is to say that rules and procedures are frequently very important, but obsessing over them can sometimes cause you to miss the wood for the trees. > > > > But she might be able to mount a legal challenge on the basis that a change in the rules should not be retrospective. 160 letters would,thus, have no standing until December. > > I think you're in danger of needing an even bigger reminder to not miss the wood for the trees. > > It is theoretically possible that the prime minister could litigate against her own party and MPs such that they can't replace her. But it is a vanishingly possible, utterly ridiculous edge case.
I don't really disagree really - but this suggestion is not coming from me - it was mentioned a few days back and then followed by a denial from No 10. At one meeting with the 1922 she apparently did have a lawyer present.
> @Richard_Nabavi said: > Initially I have some sympathy with May in extremely difficult circumstances, now it is worse than Gordon hanging on after the GE. > > Not often I defend Gordon Brown, but he acted completely correctly after the 2015 GE. It was entirely proper to wait to see whether Cameron would be in a position to form a government before going to the Queen.
> Initially I have some sympathy with May in extremely difficult circumstances, now it is worse than Gordon hanging on after the GE.
>
> Not often I defend Gordon Brown, but he acted completely correctly after the 2015 GE. It was entirely proper to wait to see whether Cameron would be in a position to form a government before going to the Queen.
Many Con supporters are due JRM et al an apology - they told you in December she wasn't up to the job yet everyone derided their failed putsch.
At least they tried - the wet saps who kept her in place made a mistake.
She wasn't up to the job largely because they were stabbing her in the back. May's deal was a reasonable compromise - as can be seen by the number of leavers on here who support it. And they voted against reasonableness, and all too often because they had their own career progression in mind rather than country's good.
I hope the disloyal winnets (and that is putting it politely) get exactly the same loyalty returned by their colleagues and the general public.
> @Wulfrun_Phil said: > > @david_herdson said: > > > @maaarsh said: > > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > If she faces them down, what can they do? > > > > > > Change the rules and no-con vote. > > > > I have been saying this for some time. > > I think it's a given that the 1922 will change the rules later this afternoon. Hopefully to allow another contest with immediate effect. The question then is whether May will wait to lose the VONC amongst Tory MPs or just go of her own accord.
That May would lose a VoNC is the given. The question is whether she'll volunteer her resignation or wait to have it forced out of her.
Thought experiment on the "we must do what the referendum said before rethinking" argument:
In 1987, the Poll Tax was really clear in the Conservative manifesto which won the election.
Over the following couple of years, problems began to creep out of the woodwork, and by the time it was implemented, it was politically dead on arrival.
Suppose it had been canned before it started. Would that have been against the manifesto: yes. Would it have been embarrassing: yes. Would it have been better for the Conservatives than what happened?
> @Richard_Nabavi said: > Many Con supporters are due JRM et al an apology - they told you in December she wasn't up to the job yet everyone derided their failed putsch. > > > > At least they tried - the wet saps who kept her in place made a mistake. > > Bit early to make that judgement. It all depends on whether whoever comes next is worse.
That would minus polling figures for party share..
> @TGOHF said: > Many Con supporters are due JRM et al an apology - they told you in December she wasn't up to the job yet everyone derided their failed putsch. > > At least they tried - the wet saps who kept her in place made a mistake.
If the next PM loses Brexit altogether, it’ll be those Con supporters who are due the apology from JRM et al.
Many Con supporters are due JRM et al an apology - they told you in December she wasn't up to the job yet everyone derided their failed putsch.
At least they tried - the wet saps who kept her in place made a mistake.
I'm not a Conservative supporter, obviously, but I said at the time that I was baffled why Conservative MPs hadn't ousted her then. She was already obviously used up at that point.
> @Tissue_Price said: > > @Tissue_Price said: > > > > @justin124 said: > > > > > > > But MPs hardly have time to vote today. Even if there were to be an avalanche of letters sent in to Brady , difficult to see a vote this week. Possibility of a legal challenge to any rule change has also been raised. > > > > > > > > > > > > The recess could be cancelled. If May falls Corbyn may want to table a confidence motion. > > > > > > If you have 160 letters, you don't need a vote. And if you can obviously get 160 letters, you don't need 160 letters. > > > > > > Which is to say that rules and procedures are frequently very important, but obsessing over them can sometimes cause you to miss the wood for the trees. > > > > But she might be able to mount a legal challenge on the basis that a change in the rules should not be retrospective. 160 letters would,thus, have no standing until December. > > Prime Ministers who have clearly lost the confidence of their own MPs do not mount legal challenges.
I would agree with that normally - but May is very resilient and ' a bloody difficult woman'. Corbyn has also shown that a party leader can survive loss of confidence by parliamentary colleagues - though accept that Labour has different rules etc.
> @justin124 said: > > @Tissue_Price said: > > > @justin124 said: > > > > > But MPs hardly have time to vote today. Even if there were to be an avalanche of letters sent in to Brady , difficult to see a vote this week. Possibility of a legal challenge to any rule change has also been raised. > > > > > > > > The recess could be cancelled. If May falls Corbyn may want to table a confidence motion. > > > > If you have 160 letters, you don't need a vote. And if you can obviously get 160 letters, you don't need 160 letters. > > > > Which is to say that rules and procedures are frequently very important, but obsessing over them can sometimes cause you to miss the wood for the trees. > > But she might be able to mount a legal challenge on the basis that a change in the rules should not be retrospective. 160 letters would,thus, have no standing until December.
She'd lose, even if she tried something so stupid (and the Party Board would probably back the MPs).
Besides, the Party rules also say that the members should have had a vote in 2016, which they weren't given. If May were to litigate, the finding could be that she is not validly the leader *now*.
> @Roger said: > Not being in the country at the moment and thus picking up the news without the 24 hour trivia I'd say; > > 1. Gove is going to be the next Prme Minister > > 2. If you want a second Referendum don't vote Tory or Labour tomorrow. > > 3. Scunthorpe's closure could damage the Brexit Party. >
If anyone goes after the Brexit Party on British Steel, they'll just point out it's EU membership which blocked a bailout. Score-draw at best.
> @david_herdson said: > > @justin124 said: > > > @Tissue_Price said: > > > > @justin124 said: > > > > > > > But MPs hardly have time to vote today. Even if there were to be an avalanche of letters sent in to Brady , difficult to see a vote this week. Possibility of a legal challenge to any rule change has also been raised. > > > > > > > > > > > > The recess could be cancelled. If May falls Corbyn may want to table a confidence motion. > > > > > > If you have 160 letters, you don't need a vote. And if you can obviously get 160 letters, you don't need 160 letters. > > > > > > Which is to say that rules and procedures are frequently very important, but obsessing over them can sometimes cause you to miss the wood for the trees. > > > > But she might be able to mount a legal challenge on the basis that a change in the rules should not be retrospective. 160 letters would,thus, have no standing until December. > > She'd lose, even if she tried something so stupid (and the Party Board would probably back the MPs). > > Besides, the Party rules also say that the members should have had a vote in 2016, which they weren't given. If May were to litigate, the finding could be that she is not validly the leader *now*.
She might very well lose but the process of losing might take quite some time!
I'm not a Conservative supporter, obviously, but I said at the time that I was baffled why Conservative MPs hadn't ousted her then. She was already obviously used up at that point.
You are mixing up the message and the messenger. She goes BFD. The message stays the same. People, dolts, have coalesced around hatred of her but fail to understand that she is only a mouthpiece for the only game in town, namely the deal.
Rory Stewart, it seems, is going to die in the ditch with his Prime Minister and replacing the leader won't change the fundamentals as someone else has already said.
IF May resigns on Friday she'll be the first leader to resign after the votes have been cast but before they've been counted. Nonetheless she will be fully aware of what looks like being the worst performance by the Conservatives in a national election ever.
Back in 1997, when Major walked the day after the Blair landslide, some Conservatives pleaded with him to stay on but there comes a point, I suspect, when any leader has just had enough.
Comparisons with Brown in 2010 are interesting - he rightly waited to see if the Con-LD coalition was a reality. Had those talks collapsed the outcome wouldn't have been a LAB-LD-others Government but a Cameron minority.
The issue for me isn't so much about the EC's selective action (and non action in the case of the "Peoples' Vote" funding) but about the crass insensitivity of the timing of a selective intervention just 3 days before a national poll. If the Commission felt the need to investigate they could have waited a few days surely.
Remember Comey reopening his investigation into Clinton's campaign in the period when early voting was taking place? Even though it was dropped before polling day there's a good case that it moved the polls and could have cost Clinton the election. Public bodies should intervene only in the most extreme and urgent circumstances in an election period.
Likewise, you would have thought that, if the EU bureaucracy were fair minded and impartial, they might just have decided not to make an announcement of an EU investigation into Farage's funding in the very week that votes were being cast. But then the EU bureaucracy consider it fair game to protect their project against existential threats, and will stop at nothing for that purpose.
The issue for me isn't so much about the EC's selective action (and non action in the case of the "Peoples' Vote" funding) but about the crass insensitivity of the timing of a selective intervention just 3 days before a national poll. If the Commission felt the need to investigate they could have waited a few days surely.
Remember Comey reopening his investigation into Clinton's campaign in the period when early voting was taking place? Even though it was dropped before polling day there's a good case that it moved the polls and could have cost Clinton the election. Public bodies should intervene only in the most extreme and urgent circumstances in an election period.
Likewise, you would have thought that, if the EU bureaucracy were fair minded and impartial, they might just have decided not to make an announcement of an EU investigation into Farage's funding in the very week that votes were being cast. But then the EU bureaucracy consider it fair game to protect their project against existential threats, and will stop at nothing for that purpose.
Well said. I hadn’t appreciated the EU were also up to the same tricks.
I'm not a Conservative supporter, obviously, but I said at the time that I was baffled why Conservative MPs hadn't ousted her then. She was already obviously used up at that point.
You are mixing up the message and the messenger. She goes BFD. The message stays the same. People, dolts, have coalesced around hatred of her but fail to understand that she is only a mouthpiece for the only game in town, namely the deal.
I'm not mixing them up at all. By staying in situ, she has ensured that the deal's chances were minimised, toxifying the deal as her own dismal creation. The medium is the message. On this occasion, the medium was mediocre.
I'm not a Conservative supporter, obviously, but I said at the time that I was baffled why Conservative MPs hadn't ousted her then. She was already obviously used up at that point.
You are mixing up the message and the messenger. She goes BFD. The message stays the same. People, dolts, have coalesced around hatred of her but fail to understand that she is only a mouthpiece for the only game in town, namely the deal.
I'm not mixing them up at all. By staying in situ, she has ensured that the deal's chances were minimised, toxifying the deal as her own dismal creation. The medium is the message. On this occasion, the medium was mediocre.
Who else do you think would have had a better chance that the Cons would have tolerated.
All roads I'm afraid lead to I wouldn't have started from here but here we are.
> @justin124 said: > > @david_herdson said: > > > @justin124 said: > > > > @Tissue_Price said: > > > > > @justin124 said: > > > > > > > > > But MPs hardly have time to vote today. Even if there were to be an avalanche of letters sent in to Brady , difficult to see a vote this week. Possibility of a legal challenge to any rule change has also been raised. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The recess could be cancelled. If May falls Corbyn may want to table a confidence motion. > > > > > > > > If you have 160 letters, you don't need a vote. And if you can obviously get 160 letters, you don't need 160 letters. > > > > > > > > Which is to say that rules and procedures are frequently very important, but obsessing over them can sometimes cause you to miss the wood for the trees. > > > > > > But she might be able to mount a legal challenge on the basis that a change in the rules should not be retrospective. 160 letters would,thus, have no standing until December. > > > > She'd lose, even if she tried something so stupid (and the Party Board would probably back the MPs). > > > > Besides, the Party rules also say that the members should have had a vote in 2016, which they weren't given. If May were to litigate, the finding could be that she is not validly the leader *now*. > > She might very well lose but the process of losing might take quite some time!
However, that case need not delay the replacement of May as PM. That's one of the joys of the FTPA. Con MPs could threaten to No Confidence May and then appoint a replacement as interim PM, irrespective of what was going on around the party leadership. Such a threat wouldn't be without risks in a hung parliament but nor would it be an empty one.
> @MikeL said: > Bizarre and unnecessary to try to get May out the day before the Euros. > > Surely the time for this is Friday or once the results are out on Monday (in practice Tuesday as Monday is a Bank Holiday).
Next week is recess, and getting rid of her would be a boost to the Tories with the voters they've lost.
After the Williamson debacle she could hardly complain about the same treatment.
> @TOPPING said: > I'm not a Conservative supporter, obviously, but I said at the time that I was baffled why Conservative MPs hadn't ousted her then. She was already obviously used up at that point. > > You are mixing up the message and the messenger. She goes BFD. The message stays the same. People, dolts, have coalesced around hatred of her but fail to understand that she is only a mouthpiece for the only game in town, namely the deal. > > I'm not mixing them up at all. By staying in situ, she has ensured that the deal's chances were minimised, toxifying the deal as her own dismal creation. The medium is the message. On this occasion, the medium was mediocre. > > Who else do you think would have had a better chance that the Cons would have tolerated. > > All roads I'm afraid lead to I wouldn't have started from here but here we are.
Anyone, pretty much. It would have been messy and disorderly but if the centre had lost control sooner MPs would have been ready to compromise sooner.
> @MikeL said: > Bizarre and unnecessary to try to get May out the day before the Euros. > > Surely the time for this is Friday or once the results are out on Monday (in practice Tuesday as Monday is a Bank Holiday).
Tit for tat from friends of Gavin Williamson?
Actually you just have to put that in writing to see how ridiculous it is. It's just headless chicken syndrome.
> @maaarsh said: > > @Roger said: > > Not being in the country at the moment and thus picking up the news without the 24 hour trivia I'd say; > > > > 1. Gove is going to be the next Prme Minister > > > > 2. If you want a second Referendum don't vote Tory or Labour tomorrow. > > > > 3. Scunthorpe's closure could damage the Brexit Party. > > > > If anyone goes after the Brexit Party on British Steel, they'll just point out it's EU membership which blocked a bailout. Score-draw at best.
I haven't yet heard a news item which hasn't mentioned Brexit as the principal reason for closure nor that Scunthorpe voted 63%-37% in favour of Leave
> @david_herdson said: > > @justin124 said: > > > @david_herdson said: > > > > @justin124 said: > > > > > @Tissue_Price said: > > > > > > @justin124 said: > > > > > > > > > > > But MPs hardly have time to vote today. Even if there were to be an avalanche of letters sent in to Brady , difficult to see a vote this week. Possibility of a legal challenge to any rule change has also been raised. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The recess could be cancelled. If May falls Corbyn may want to table a confidence motion. > > > > > > > > > > If you have 160 letters, you don't need a vote. And if you can obviously get 160 letters, you don't need 160 letters. > > > > > > > > > > Which is to say that rules and procedures are frequently very important, but obsessing over them can sometimes cause you to miss the wood for the trees. > > > > > > > > But she might be able to mount a legal challenge on the basis that a change in the rules should not be retrospective. 160 letters would,thus, have no standing until December. > > > > > > She'd lose, even if she tried something so stupid (and the Party Board would probably back the MPs). > > > > > > Besides, the Party rules also say that the members should have had a vote in 2016, which they weren't given. If May were to litigate, the finding could be that she is not validly the leader *now*. > > > > She might very well lose but the process of losing might take quite some time! > > However, that case need not delay the replacement of May as PM. That's one of the joys of the FTPA. Con MPs could threaten to No Confidence May and then appoint a replacement as interim PM, irrespective of what was going on around the party leadership. Such a threat wouldn't be without risks in a hung parliament but nor would it be an empty one.
I appreciate that. It really depends on how far she would be prepared to go in terms of 'being bloody difficult'.A VNOC would not happen until after the Recess and normally is in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.The Opposition would obviously seek to use such VNOC chaos for their own advantage.
> @SquareRoot said: > > @TheWhiteRabbit said: > > Range of possible options for the Tories tomorrow: > > > > Dreadful terrible, awful, catastrophic. > > > @TheWhiteRabbit said: > > Range of possible options for the Tories tomorrow: > > > > Dreadful terrible, awful, catastrophic. > > Sensible Tories will vote Lib Dem
> @noneoftheabove said: > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > @Recidivist said: > > > > @Scott_P said: > > > > > > > You implement the decision first. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We did. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have spent 3 years of blood and treasure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A democracy does not dictate the number or timing of votes > > > > > > > > > > > > Democracy is asking people to vote and then enacting their decision. We have not left and therefore have not enacted their decision. Holding another vote before the result of the vote has been enacted completely destroys the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country. > > > > > > No it doesn't. > > > > And unfortunately you will keep believing that even as the whole system falls apart around you. > > What is it about the 2016 referendum vote that takes complete precedence over the 2017 GE vote? I simply don't get it, both are valid democratic exercises, but the results of the two conflict with each other. > > There needs to be a way to move forwards, my preferred way would be a compromise similar to that which May is finally offering, but if parliament is not willing to do that, the democratic resolutions involve either a new GE and/or another referendum. A GE is unlikely to lead to a clear cut resolution, so the most likely democratic way to move forward is another referendum. > >
The 2017 GE was about a whole range of things over and above Brexit. Indeed both main parties neutralised Brexit as an issue by agreeing that they would abide by the result of the referendum. As such it has no validity as an argument for ignoring the 2016 vote.
> @Richard_Nabavi said: > "all Scots" probably. Still don't see who he's on about though. > > Good guess. I think I can complete the puzzle now: "It is no coincidence that those rallying around the PM at the moment are all Scots."
Comments
> > @Ishmael_Z said:
> > I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
> >
> > How is asking the people to vote anti-democratic?
> >
> > Asking them the same question repeatedly until you get the answer you want seems a touch anti-democratic.
> >
> > But nobody proposes that another vote will be, either in wording or in substance, on the same question as the 2016 one. So that disposes of that point, unless your claim is that your rules excluse both a question already asked and also any other question which (you being the sole arbiter of this) is in any way cognate with the 2016 question.
> >
> > Why do you hate democracy, boy?
>
> The will-o-the-people must be preserved in aspic. They must never be allowed the opportunity to say that "they" have changed "their" mind. This is how populism and fascism work.
____________________________
The views of Attlee, Heath, Thatcher and now Clarke:
basically 'referendums are a disaster' (their wordings differ).
Davis: 'A democracy that cannot change its mind ceases to be a democracy'.
If the reason of holding it is to ratify the leave terms, it's not even a change of mind. It's a sensible precaution, like MS Windows asking me 'are you sure?' when I tell it to delete a file.
> > @Scott_P said:
>
> > You implement the decision first.
>
> >
>
> > We did.
>
> >
>
> > We have spent 3 years of blood and treasure.
>
> >
>
> > A democracy does not dictate the number or timing of votes
>
>
>
> Democracy is asking people to vote and then enacting their decision. We have not left and therefore have not enacted their decision. Holding another vote before the result of the vote has been enacted completely destroys the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
>
> No it doesn't.
And unfortunately you will keep believing that even as the whole system falls apart around you.
> > @OblitusSumMe said:
> > > @williamglenn said:
> > > If she faces them down, what can they do?
> >
> > Ultimately they can vote her down in a VONC and then support one of their own in a subsequent confidence motion.
>
> They can't guarantee one of their own would be able to win a subsequent confidence motion and avoid a snap general election.
Hard to see a majority of MPs voting for a GE at this point with the polls as they are.
> > @maaarsh said:
> > > @justin124 said:
> > > > @maaarsh said:
> > > > > @williamglenn said:
> > > > > If she faces them down, what can they do?
> > > >
> > > > Change the rules and no-con vote.
> > >
> > > But not before the recess - so no vote until June.
> >
> > There's a 1922 exec meeting in 90 minutes. If they really wanted to, they could get it all over and done with tonight - they clearly won't, but there are no built in timescales here.
>
> But MPs hardly have time to vote today. Even if there were to be an avalanche of letters sent in to Brady , difficult to see a vote this week. Possibility of a legal challenge to any rule change has also been raised.
The recess could be cancelled. If May falls Corbyn may want to table a confidence motion.
> > @IanB2 said:
>
> > > @Scott_P said:
>
> > > https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1131175303907348480
>
>
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1131175517464481792
>
>
>
> >
>
> > A vote on a referendum was always coming, such an amendment being inevitable. Tory MPs need to calm down. That said, the media is all talking about a second vote now, and it is hard to believe May didn’t know that would be the inevitable consequence of her raising it in her speech. But it is rumoured she was blocked by cabinet from putting it on the face of the bill, and this is her revenge.
>
> >
>
> > Another vote is starting to look inevitable. Quite a change in mood from the day I suggested we could end up here, back in early 2017, to the scorn of many PB’ers. If I could be bothered to look it would be fun to find that thread again.
>
>
>
> I still just cant figure out how it is considered acceptable to ask again. What has become of us?
>
> People who voted leave were lied to; they were promised whatever they wanted, and the contradictory positions proved unreconcilable and undeliverable. May tried to produce a middle ground that resolved many of those contradictions, but too many hardcore leavers - the same people who made those lies, and many of whom are looking to their own careers rather than the good of the country - were not willing to compromise.
>
> Hence we are in a stalemate that is damaging to the country.
LOL. What a load of rubbish. Sad to see people twisting the facts to try to defend the indefensible.
However, in the light of the traumatic events of early 2016 and the death of Jo Cox, I believe May felt the last thing the country needed was another period of national introspection. Her priority became re-unifying the country and her Party, calming things down and trying to take the heat out of the debate.
That came down to "Brexit means Brexit" and "Trust Theresa". By internalising the issue she hoped to neutralise the rancour. Everyone could hope or believe their version of Brexit was the one and I re-iterate, had the 2017 GE gone according to plan, she'd have got her WA through the Commons supported by the newly elected Conservatives who owed their position to her.
I do think once it became clear the WA would not clear the Commons after mid January, she should have resigned but there is a sense of duty and an ethos there which, pace Thatcher, will mean she will have to be dragged from No.10 by her own Cabinet who will then take the blame for her assassination and it may not help any of their careers ultimately (especially if Boris prevails).
Which is to say that rules and procedures are frequently very important, but obsessing over them can sometimes cause you to miss the wood for the trees.
> Afternoon all
>
> I thought May was very good in the Commons - not quite a tour de force but a bravura performance in the face of overwhelming opposition bordering on derision.
>
> I'm no supporter of her or her Party but I respect what I believe she was trying to do in July 2016. She saw a country polarised and divided by months of increasingly rancorous debate which culminated in the murder of a fellow MP. I think May saw her primary objective as re-unifying the country and the Party (not sure in which order), calming things down, allowing time to cool heads and for political life to try to return to normal.
>
> "Brexit means Brexit" can be seen in that context. It's the ultimate non-statement onto which anyone and everyone could project their reality of what Brexit meant from the softest possible to bricking up the Channel Tunnel. Getting any Deal through Parliament was risky with a majority of 12 but with the polls showing the majority of LEAVE voters happy to sit in the May camp the election looked to have little risk - with a majority of 50-100 and a raft of new MPs beholden to her, May could have got any Deal through the Commons.
>
> Once the election gambit spectacularly failed, the trap began to close. Forced to try to reconcile irreconcilable positions she inevitably ended up antagonising all sides and was effectively finished on January 15th. Since then she has staggered on, an increasingly irrelevant and powerless figure.
>
> The irony is she's right in that passing the WA would be the quickest and cleanest way for the UK to leave the EU - it always has been. However, by trying to play both sides, she's ended up with a WA which, whatever the reality, has become politically toxic. Could another PM have presented the same WA and got it through?
Good points. As to your final question I expect that we may find out! The WA will have to be passed with only cosmetic changes if we are to leave and enter negotiations for a long term relationship. It is being sabotaged by rigid paranoid thinking by DUP, bone headed ideological obsession by ERG, a mixture of partisan gamesmanship, stupidity and ideological purity by various parts of LP. In this febrile and infantile political chaos I'm abandoning my "support a pragmatic exit to honour the referendum mandate" to go full remainer and I'm voting LD and want a second referendum.
We are in a fairly hideous situation atm. I'm not in favour of another referendum because I find it hard to see how the various options can be squeezed into the question. But would a referendum be anti-democratic, after the last three years of leave-inspired chaos? No, of course not.
> > @Nigelb said:
> > I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
> >
> > That is pernicious hyperbole.
> >
> > That said, I can fully understand a large number of people finding it deeply irksome - but the deep damage is being done to the established parties, as a result of the bind the electorate put parliament in thanks to the 2017 GE vote, and the inability of the two major parties to talk to each other.
> >
> > I’m not at all convinced that any of this destroys the legitimacy of the democratic process any more than those who say if they don’t get their way they’ll never vote again does.
>
> Not hyperbole at all. Once you show people that their vote no longer matters and can be ignored or reversed at the whim of the politicians then why should they continue to have faith in the democratic process?
And Farage is deliberately copying the Trump playbook and attempting to delegitimise every part of the state, from regulated media to courts to the Electoral Commission to parliament. Once the political battleground has no accepted rules of decency or common framework, every contest has the potential to become existential.
> > @Recidivist said:
> > > @Scott_P said:
> >
> > > You implement the decision first.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > We did.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > We have spent 3 years of blood and treasure.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > A democracy does not dictate the number or timing of votes
> >
> >
> >
> > Democracy is asking people to vote and then enacting their decision. We have not left and therefore have not enacted their decision. Holding another vote before the result of the vote has been enacted completely destroys the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
> >
> > No it doesn't.
>
> And unfortunately you will keep believing that even as the whole system falls apart around you.
What is it about the 2016 referendum vote that takes complete precedence over the 2017 GE vote? I simply don't get it, both are valid democratic exercises, but the results of the two conflict with each other.
There needs to be a way to move forwards, my preferred way would be a compromise similar to that which May is finally offering, but if parliament is not willing to do that, the democratic resolutions involve either a new GE and/or another referendum. A GE is unlikely to lead to a clear cut resolution, so the most likely democratic way to move forward is another referendum.
Has May resigned yet?
https://order-order.com/2019/05/22/led-donkeys-questions-electoral-commission/
> > @maaarsh said:
> > > @williamglenn said:
> > > If she faces them down, what can they do?
> >
> > Change the rules and no-con vote.
>
> I have been saying this for some time.
I think it's a given that the 1922 will change the rules later this afternoon. Hopefully to allow another contest with immediate effect. The question then is whether May will wait to lose the VONC amongst Tory MPs or just go of her own accord.
> https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1131193123701448704
Initially I have some sympathy with May in extremely difficult circumstances, now it is worse than Gordon hanging on after the GE.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/22/jeremy-hunt-has-just-needed-truly-great-prime-minister/
> > @Recidivist said:
>
> > > @Scott_P said:
>
> >
>
> > > You implement the decision first.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > We did.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > We have spent 3 years of blood and treasure.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > A democracy does not dictate the number or timing of votes
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Democracy is asking people to vote and then enacting their decision. We have not left and therefore have not enacted their decision. Holding another vote before the result of the vote has been enacted completely destroys the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
>
> >
>
> > No it doesn't.
>
>
>
> And unfortunately you will keep believing that even as the whole system falls apart around you.
>
> We have a hung parliament. Chaos and indecision is the democratic decision. Normal service will be resumed when one of the big two gets a working majority.
So you're saying get ued to chaos and indecision as the new normal?
> What direction can a future leader have? What could they achieve that she couldnt? I think two years ago before it really became defined as to what kind of brexit people wanted she could have pushed a norway for now suck it and see approach and introduce a series of domestic measures aimed at satisfying those concerned of wage undermining by unskilled unlimited migration.
>
> But now, everything that isnt the magical WTO is a betrayal.
>
> I think the strategic mistake made (and I understand fully why she did what she did) by May was not to try to build a national concensus around what kind of LEAVE had been sought by those advocating it from the summer of 2016 onwards. There was, I think, a "soft" position which many pro-REMAIN voters could have signed up to which would have emphasised the political disengagement rather than the economic.
>
> However, in the light of the traumatic events of early 2016 and the death of Jo Cox, I believe May felt the last thing the country needed was another period of national introspection. Her priority became re-unifying the country and her Party, calming things down and trying to take the heat out of the debate.
>
> That came down to "Brexit means Brexit" and "Trust Theresa". By internalising the issue she hoped to neutralise the rancour. Everyone could hope or believe their version of Brexit was the one and I re-iterate, had the 2017 GE gone according to plan, she'd have got her WA through the Commons supported by the newly elected Conservatives who owed their position to her.
>
> I do think once it became clear the WA would not clear the Commons after mid January, she should have resigned but there is a sense of duty and an ethos there which, pace Thatcher, will mean she will have to be dragged from No.10 by her own Cabinet who will then take the blame for her assassination and it may not help any of their careers ultimately (especially if Boris prevails).
Reunify the country? May? You must be joking - she condemned half the country as citizens of nowhere and then decided unilaterally, without consulting even the cabinet, that Brexit meant leaving the single market and customs union and it would be pushed through with Tory votes, to hell with the opposition. She discovered the need for unity far too late when it was clear that her project had failed.
> > @justin124 said:
>
> > But MPs hardly have time to vote today. Even if there were to be an avalanche of letters sent in to Brady , difficult to see a vote this week. Possibility of a legal challenge to any rule change has also been raised.
>
>
>
> The recess could be cancelled. If May falls Corbyn may want to table a confidence motion.
>
> If you have 160 letters, you don't need a vote. And if you can obviously get 160 letters, you don't need 160 letters.
>
> Which is to say that rules and procedures are frequently very important, but obsessing over them can sometimes cause you to miss the wood for the trees.
But she might be able to mount a legal challenge on the basis that a change in the rules should not be retrospective. 160 letters would,thus, have no standing until December.
>
>It's happening.
>
>The end game.
I have to say the end of this GoT thingy is a bit shit.
What if there was a general election, where the result was such that it had proved impossible to form a government for two years (unlikely but possible under FPTP). Would it be undemocratic to pause, take a breath, and ask the public again, given the knowledge of what happened during the negotiations?
> > @Tissue_Price said:
> > > @justin124 said:
> >
> > > But MPs hardly have time to vote today. Even if there were to be an avalanche of letters sent in to Brady , difficult to see a vote this week. Possibility of a legal challenge to any rule change has also been raised.
> >
> >
> >
> > The recess could be cancelled. If May falls Corbyn may want to table a confidence motion.
> >
> > If you have 160 letters, you don't need a vote. And if you can obviously get 160 letters, you don't need 160 letters.
> >
> > Which is to say that rules and procedures are frequently very important, but obsessing over them can sometimes cause you to miss the wood for the trees.
>
> But she might be able to mount a legal challenge on the basis that a change in the rules should not be retrospective. 160 letters would,thus, have no standing until December.
I think you're in danger of needing an even bigger reminder to not miss the wood for the trees.
It is theoretically possible that the prime minister could litigate against her own party and MPs such that they can't replace her. But it is a vanishingly possible, utterly ridiculous edge case.
> Good afternoon, everyone.
>
> Has May resigned yet?
I think there is a box* that needs to be opened for us to find out, but for now she exists in a state of quantum superposition.
* We have to hope that the box does not belong to Pandora.
> > @justin124 said:
> > > @Tissue_Price said:
> > > > @justin124 said:
> > >
> > > > But MPs hardly have time to vote today. Even if there were to be an avalanche of letters sent in to Brady , difficult to see a vote this week. Possibility of a legal challenge to any rule change has also been raised.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The recess could be cancelled. If May falls Corbyn may want to table a confidence motion.
> > >
> > > If you have 160 letters, you don't need a vote. And if you can obviously get 160 letters, you don't need 160 letters.
> > >
> > > Which is to say that rules and procedures are frequently very important, but obsessing over them can sometimes cause you to miss the wood for the trees.
> >
> > But she might be able to mount a legal challenge on the basis that a change in the rules should not be retrospective. 160 letters would,thus, have no standing until December.
>
> I think you're in danger of needing an even bigger reminder to not miss the wood for the trees.
>
> It is theoretically possible that the prime minister could litigate against her own party and MPs such that they can't replace her. But it is a vanishingly possible, utterly ridiculous edge case.
I don't really disagree really - but this suggestion is not coming from me - it was mentioned a few days back and then followed by a denial from No 10. At one meeting with the 1922 she apparently did have a lawyer present.
At least they tried - the wet saps who kept her in place made a mistake.
1. Gove is going to be the next Prme Minister
2. If you want a second Referendum don't vote Tory or Labour tomorrow.
3. Scunthorpe's closure could damage the Brexit Party.
> Initially I have some sympathy with May in extremely difficult circumstances, now it is worse than Gordon hanging on after the GE.
>
> Not often I defend Gordon Brown, but he acted completely correctly after the 2015 GE. It was entirely proper to wait to see whether Cameron would be in a position to form a government before going to the Queen.
2010 election!
I hope the disloyal winnets (and that is putting it politely) get exactly the same loyalty returned by their colleagues and the general public.
> > @david_herdson said:
> > > @maaarsh said:
> > > > @williamglenn said:
> > > > If she faces them down, what can they do?
> > >
> > > Change the rules and no-con vote.
> >
> > I have been saying this for some time.
>
> I think it's a given that the 1922 will change the rules later this afternoon. Hopefully to allow another contest with immediate effect. The question then is whether May will wait to lose the VONC amongst Tory MPs or just go of her own accord.
That May would lose a VoNC is the given. The question is whether she'll volunteer her resignation or wait to have it forced out of her.
> https://twitter.com/JoeMurphyLondon/status/1131194477329244160
Step 1 of plot: brief gullible journalist.
Step 2 of plot: wait for TM to resign.
In 1987, the Poll Tax was really clear in the Conservative manifesto which won the election.
Over the following couple of years, problems began to creep out of the woodwork, and by the time it was implemented, it was politically dead on arrival.
Suppose it had been canned before it started. Would that have been against the manifesto: yes. Would it have been embarrassing: yes. Would it have been better for the Conservatives than what happened?
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1131196563689230342
> Many Con supporters are due JRM et al an apology - they told you in December she wasn't up to the job yet everyone derided their failed putsch.
>
>
>
> At least they tried - the wet saps who kept her in place made a mistake.
>
> Bit early to make that judgement. It all depends on whether whoever comes next is worse.
That would minus polling figures for party share..
> Many Con supporters are due JRM et al an apology - they told you in December she wasn't up to the job yet everyone derided their failed putsch.
>
> At least they tried - the wet saps who kept her in place made a mistake.
If the next PM loses Brexit altogether, it’ll be those Con supporters who are due the apology from JRM et al.
> > @Tissue_Price said:
>
> > > @justin124 said:
>
> >
>
> > > But MPs hardly have time to vote today. Even if there were to be an avalanche of letters sent in to Brady , difficult to see a vote this week. Possibility of a legal challenge to any rule change has also been raised.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The recess could be cancelled. If May falls Corbyn may want to table a confidence motion.
>
> >
>
> > If you have 160 letters, you don't need a vote. And if you can obviously get 160 letters, you don't need 160 letters.
>
> >
>
> > Which is to say that rules and procedures are frequently very important, but obsessing over them can sometimes cause you to miss the wood for the trees.
>
>
>
> But she might be able to mount a legal challenge on the basis that a change in the rules should not be retrospective. 160 letters would,thus, have no standing until December.
>
> Prime Ministers who have clearly lost the confidence of their own MPs do not mount legal challenges.
I would agree with that normally - but May is very resilient and ' a bloody difficult woman'. Corbyn has also shown that a party leader can survive loss of confidence by parliamentary colleagues - though accept that Labour has different rules etc.
> > @Tissue_Price said:
> > > @justin124 said:
> >
> > > But MPs hardly have time to vote today. Even if there were to be an avalanche of letters sent in to Brady , difficult to see a vote this week. Possibility of a legal challenge to any rule change has also been raised.
> >
> >
> >
> > The recess could be cancelled. If May falls Corbyn may want to table a confidence motion.
> >
> > If you have 160 letters, you don't need a vote. And if you can obviously get 160 letters, you don't need 160 letters.
> >
> > Which is to say that rules and procedures are frequently very important, but obsessing over them can sometimes cause you to miss the wood for the trees.
>
> But she might be able to mount a legal challenge on the basis that a change in the rules should not be retrospective. 160 letters would,thus, have no standing until December.
She'd lose, even if she tried something so stupid (and the Party Board would probably back the MPs).
Besides, the Party rules also say that the members should have had a vote in 2016, which they weren't given. If May were to litigate, the finding could be that she is not validly the leader *now*.
> https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1131197150052933637
I'm not sure he's thought through the logic there...
> Not being in the country at the moment and thus picking up the news without the 24 hour trivia I'd say;
>
> 1. Gove is going to be the next Prme Minister
>
> 2. If you want a second Referendum don't vote Tory or Labour tomorrow.
>
> 3. Scunthorpe's closure could damage the Brexit Party.
>
If anyone goes after the Brexit Party on British Steel, they'll just point out it's EU membership which blocked a bailout. Score-draw at best.
> > @justin124 said:
> > > @Tissue_Price said:
> > > > @justin124 said:
> > >
> > > > But MPs hardly have time to vote today. Even if there were to be an avalanche of letters sent in to Brady , difficult to see a vote this week. Possibility of a legal challenge to any rule change has also been raised.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The recess could be cancelled. If May falls Corbyn may want to table a confidence motion.
> > >
> > > If you have 160 letters, you don't need a vote. And if you can obviously get 160 letters, you don't need 160 letters.
> > >
> > > Which is to say that rules and procedures are frequently very important, but obsessing over them can sometimes cause you to miss the wood for the trees.
> >
> > But she might be able to mount a legal challenge on the basis that a change in the rules should not be retrospective. 160 letters would,thus, have no standing until December.
>
> She'd lose, even if she tried something so stupid (and the Party Board would probably back the MPs).
>
> Besides, the Party rules also say that the members should have had a vote in 2016, which they weren't given. If May were to litigate, the finding could be that she is not validly the leader *now*.
She might very well lose but the process of losing might take quite some time!
IF May resigns on Friday she'll be the first leader to resign after the votes have been cast but before they've been counted. Nonetheless she will be fully aware of what looks like being the worst performance by the Conservatives in a national election ever.
Back in 1997, when Major walked the day after the Blair landslide, some Conservatives pleaded with him to stay on but there comes a point, I suspect, when any leader has just had enough.
Comparisons with Brown in 2010 are interesting - he rightly waited to see if the Con-LD coalition was a reality. Had those talks collapsed the outcome wouldn't have been a LAB-LD-others Government but a Cameron minority.
> I do think the Electoral Commission have some genuine questions to answer here:
> https://order-order.com/2019/05/22/led-donkeys-questions-electoral-commission/
The issue for me isn't so much about the EC's selective action (and non action in the case of the "Peoples' Vote" funding) but about the crass insensitivity of the timing of a selective intervention just 3 days before a national poll. If the Commission felt the need to investigate they could have waited a few days surely.
Remember Comey reopening his investigation into Clinton's campaign in the period when early voting was taking place? Even though it was dropped before polling day there's a good case that it moved the polls and could have cost Clinton the election. Public bodies should intervene only in the most extreme and urgent circumstances in an election period.
Likewise, you would have thought that, if the EU bureaucracy were fair minded and impartial, they might just have decided not to make an announcement of an EU investigation into Farage's funding in the very week that votes were being cast. But then the EU bureaucracy consider it fair game to protect their project against existential threats, and will stop at nothing for that purpose.
> https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1131199686663184385
I will add this reply
https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1131200059188621313
All roads I'm afraid lead to I wouldn't have started from here but here we are.
Surely the time for this is Friday or once the results are out on Monday (in practice Tuesday as Monday is a Bank Holiday).
> > @david_herdson said:
> > > @justin124 said:
> > > > @Tissue_Price said:
> > > > > @justin124 said:
> > > >
> > > > > But MPs hardly have time to vote today. Even if there were to be an avalanche of letters sent in to Brady , difficult to see a vote this week. Possibility of a legal challenge to any rule change has also been raised.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The recess could be cancelled. If May falls Corbyn may want to table a confidence motion.
> > > >
> > > > If you have 160 letters, you don't need a vote. And if you can obviously get 160 letters, you don't need 160 letters.
> > > >
> > > > Which is to say that rules and procedures are frequently very important, but obsessing over them can sometimes cause you to miss the wood for the trees.
> > >
> > > But she might be able to mount a legal challenge on the basis that a change in the rules should not be retrospective. 160 letters would,thus, have no standing until December.
> >
> > She'd lose, even if she tried something so stupid (and the Party Board would probably back the MPs).
> >
> > Besides, the Party rules also say that the members should have had a vote in 2016, which they weren't given. If May were to litigate, the finding could be that she is not validly the leader *now*.
>
> She might very well lose but the process of losing might take quite some time!
However, that case need not delay the replacement of May as PM. That's one of the joys of the FTPA. Con MPs could threaten to No Confidence May and then appoint a replacement as interim PM, irrespective of what was going on around the party leadership. Such a threat wouldn't be without risks in a hung parliament but nor would it be an empty one.
> Bizarre and unnecessary to try to get May out the day before the Euros.
>
> Surely the time for this is Friday or once the results are out on Monday (in practice Tuesday as Monday is a Bank Holiday).
Next week is recess, and getting rid of her would be a boost to the Tories with the voters they've lost.
After the Williamson debacle she could hardly complain about the same treatment.
> I'm not a Conservative supporter, obviously, but I said at the time that I was baffled why Conservative MPs hadn't ousted her then. She was already obviously used up at that point.
>
> You are mixing up the message and the messenger. She goes BFD. The message stays the same. People, dolts, have coalesced around hatred of her but fail to understand that she is only a mouthpiece for the only game in town, namely the deal.
>
> I'm not mixing them up at all. By staying in situ, she has ensured that the deal's chances were minimised, toxifying the deal as her own dismal creation. The medium is the message. On this occasion, the medium was mediocre.
>
> Who else do you think would have had a better chance that the Cons would have tolerated.
>
> All roads I'm afraid lead to I wouldn't have started from here but here we are.
Anyone, pretty much. It would have been messy and disorderly but if the centre had lost control sooner MPs would have been ready to compromise sooner.
It could scarcely be worse than where we are now.
> Bizarre and unnecessary to try to get May out the day before the Euros.
>
> Surely the time for this is Friday or once the results are out on Monday (in practice Tuesday as Monday is a Bank Holiday).
Tit for tat from friends of Gavin Williamson?
Actually you just have to put that in writing to see how ridiculous it is. It's just headless chicken syndrome.
Dreadful terrible, awful, catastrophic.
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1131187807354011648
> Range of possible options for the Tories tomorrow:
>
> Dreadful terrible, awful, catastrophic.
> @TheWhiteRabbit said:
> Range of possible options for the Tories tomorrow:
>
> Dreadful terrible, awful, catastrophic.
Sensible Tories will vote Lib Dem
> > @Roger said:
> > Not being in the country at the moment and thus picking up the news without the 24 hour trivia I'd say;
> >
> > 1. Gove is going to be the next Prme Minister
> >
> > 2. If you want a second Referendum don't vote Tory or Labour tomorrow.
> >
> > 3. Scunthorpe's closure could damage the Brexit Party.
> >
>
> If anyone goes after the Brexit Party on British Steel, they'll just point out it's EU membership which blocked a bailout. Score-draw at best.
I haven't yet heard a news item which hasn't mentioned Brexit as the principal reason for closure nor that Scunthorpe voted 63%-37% in favour of Leave
> > @justin124 said:
> > > @david_herdson said:
> > > > @justin124 said:
> > > > > @Tissue_Price said:
> > > > > > @justin124 said:
> > > > >
> > > > > > But MPs hardly have time to vote today. Even if there were to be an avalanche of letters sent in to Brady , difficult to see a vote this week. Possibility of a legal challenge to any rule change has also been raised.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The recess could be cancelled. If May falls Corbyn may want to table a confidence motion.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you have 160 letters, you don't need a vote. And if you can obviously get 160 letters, you don't need 160 letters.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which is to say that rules and procedures are frequently very important, but obsessing over them can sometimes cause you to miss the wood for the trees.
> > > >
> > > > But she might be able to mount a legal challenge on the basis that a change in the rules should not be retrospective. 160 letters would,thus, have no standing until December.
> > >
> > > She'd lose, even if she tried something so stupid (and the Party Board would probably back the MPs).
> > >
> > > Besides, the Party rules also say that the members should have had a vote in 2016, which they weren't given. If May were to litigate, the finding could be that she is not validly the leader *now*.
> >
> > She might very well lose but the process of losing might take quite some time!
>
> However, that case need not delay the replacement of May as PM. That's one of the joys of the FTPA. Con MPs could threaten to No Confidence May and then appoint a replacement as interim PM, irrespective of what was going on around the party leadership. Such a threat wouldn't be without risks in a hung parliament but nor would it be an empty one.
I appreciate that. It really depends on how far she would be prepared to go in terms of 'being bloody difficult'.A VNOC would not happen until after the Recess and normally is in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.The Opposition would obviously seek to use such VNOC chaos for their own advantage.
> > @Scott_P said:
>
> > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1131197150052933637
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm not sure he's thought through the logic there...
>
> He might be drunk..
> https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1131187807354011648
Surely "mascots"?
> > @TheWhiteRabbit said:
> > Range of possible options for the Tories tomorrow:
> >
> > Dreadful terrible, awful, catastrophic.
>
> > @TheWhiteRabbit said:
> > Range of possible options for the Tories tomorrow:
> >
> > Dreadful terrible, awful, catastrophic.
>
> Sensible Tories will vote Lib Dem
Following the lead given by Mr Osborne.....
> > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> > > @Recidivist said:
> > > > @Scott_P said:
> > >
> > > > You implement the decision first.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > We did.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > We have spent 3 years of blood and treasure.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > A democracy does not dictate the number or timing of votes
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Democracy is asking people to vote and then enacting their decision. We have not left and therefore have not enacted their decision. Holding another vote before the result of the vote has been enacted completely destroys the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
> > >
> > > No it doesn't.
> >
> > And unfortunately you will keep believing that even as the whole system falls apart around you.
>
> What is it about the 2016 referendum vote that takes complete precedence over the 2017 GE vote? I simply don't get it, both are valid democratic exercises, but the results of the two conflict with each other.
>
> There needs to be a way to move forwards, my preferred way would be a compromise similar to that which May is finally offering, but if parliament is not willing to do that, the democratic resolutions involve either a new GE and/or another referendum. A GE is unlikely to lead to a clear cut resolution, so the most likely democratic way to move forward is another referendum.
>
>
The 2017 GE was about a whole range of things over and above Brexit. Indeed both main parties neutralised Brexit as an issue by agreeing that they would abide by the result of the referendum. As such it has no validity as an argument for ignoring the 2016 vote.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ascot
> https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1131197150052933637
Quite right, Rory, quite right!
Has she gone yet?
> "all Scots" probably. Still don't see who he's on about though.
>
> Good guess. I think I can complete the puzzle now: "It is no coincidence that those rallying around the PM at the moment are all Scots."
He thinks the union depends on May's survival?