> @Morris_Dancer said: > Mr. Roger, for those without the time to watch, what would his preferred method have been?
His argument is that the reason we have parliamentary democracy is because parliament has a duty to work in the interests of society as a whole whereas a referedum necessarily only serves the interest of the individual who is voting irrespective of the possible harm done to those on the other side.
Mr. Roger, normally, I'd agree. But the political centre had moved far from common ground with the electorate. Whilst the current situation is bad, we should not forget this division could have been delayed, but probably not averted, and it could've been far worse.
> @Pulpstar said: > > @Pulpstar said: > > > Someone has confidence in the Betfair rules... Movement on the Lib Dem 15-20% market. > > > > Unusual for free money to be on offer at 1.11 after an election result has been declared? > > I've got £74 at 1.07 average in "after hours" trading. Yes, it should be 'free money' but I got burnt Friday by May's non resignation so I've got a possibly worry they'll settle on GB shares or some such.
Exactly. You lose cofnidence in them enforcing their own rules.
If you're small stake, then spotting the tricks is important, because it can give you the edge.
> @Pulpstar said: > > @Pulpstar said: > > > Someone has confidence in the Betfair rules... Movement on the Lib Dem 15-20% market. > > > > Unusual for free money to be on offer at 1.11 after an election result has been declared? > > I've got £74 at 1.07 average in "after hours" trading. Yes, it should be 'free money' but I got burnt Friday by May's non resignation so I've got a possibly worry they'll settle on GB shares or some such.
It says quite clearly it's the whole of the UK in the rules. My first bet on that bracket was made at 4.2 so I wont be happy if they don't follow their own rules.
> @williamglenn said: > > @RobD said: > > > > It's the typical EU approach to democracy. > -------- > > The Spitzenkandidaten process isn't official. It was an idea that came from Selmayr. According to the treaties the EU Council can decide who they want as long as the parliament votes for them.
Various people seem suddenly to be getting fugues at this current sudden outbreak of a minimal amount of democracy in the EU Parliament.
> @Sean_F said: > All thins considered, expelling Campbell is actually a point in favour of Corbyn.
Indeed - such an act brings his party into disrepute. He deserves to be expelled on the same basis that the Militant Tendency crowd were in the mid-1980s for being 'a party within a party'..
Bercow's position is a very important factor is how things will play out. Osborne, as so often, nailed it completely in his editorial today:
<i class="Italic">"The Institute for Government says by proroguing Parliament, and having no meaningful votes, “it looks like a near impossible task for MPs to stop a PM who is determined to leave the EU without a deal”. Respectfully, we disagree. Parliament can revoke Article 50. Or it can deliver a vote of no confidence. The institute calls this “politics”. Exactly, that’s what governing depends on. If it ultimately comes to a Tory Government insisting on no-deal, then there are sufficient numbers of Conservative MPs who will join a majority to stop them — and there is a Speaker who will find a way for that majority to be heard. The Lib Dem threat now breathing down the neck of Tory MPs in marginal seats will only swell those numbers. That parliamentary majority will either revoke Brexit or bring down the Government. "</i>
What's more, although Bercow will get a lot of flak on this, with the usual suspects accusing him of Betrayal! and of taking sides, it's actually his job to ensure that parliament's will prevails, even if it is inconvenient to the government or the PM or one side of the current divide.
> @Richard_Nabavi said: > Bercow's position is a very important factor is how things will play out. Osborne, as so often, nailed it completely in his editorial today: > > <i class="Italic">"The Institute for Government says by proroguing Parliament, and having no meaningful votes, “it looks like a near impossible task for MPs to stop a PM who is determined to leave the EU without a deal”. Respectfully, we disagree. Parliament can revoke Article 50. Or it can deliver a vote of no confidence. The institute calls this “politics”. Exactly, that’s what governing depends on. If it ultimately comes to a Tory Government insisting on no-deal, then there are sufficient numbers of Conservative MPs who will join a majority to stop them — and there is a Speaker who will find a way for that majority to be heard. The Lib Dem threat now breathing down the neck of Tory MPs in marginal seats will only swell those numbers. That parliamentary majority will either revoke Brexit or bring down the Government. "</i> > > https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-tories-are-about-to-crash-into-the-solid-brexit-wall-a4152821.html > > What's more, although Bercow will get a lot of flak on this, with the usual suspects accusing him of Betrayal! and of taking sides, it's actually his job to ensure that parliament's will prevails, even if it is inconvenient to the government or the PM or one side of the current divide.
And he has little to lose, and will love having such a place in history.
If it ultimately comes to a Tory Government insisting on no-deal, then there are sufficient numbers of Conservative MPs who will join a majority to stop them —
Sure. But does spreadsheet Phil want to secure his place in history as the chap who ended the Conservative party ?
Would suggest a boldness that has never appeared in any of his policies.
> @TGOHF said: > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > If it ultimately comes to a Tory Government insisting on no-deal, then there are sufficient numbers of Conservative MPs who will join a majority to stop them — > > Sure. But does spreadsheet Phil want to secure his place in history as the chap who ended the Conservative party ? > > Would suggest a boldness that has never appeared in any of his policies.
On this yes and many others too as they would lose their seats in anycase if we no deal
No deal will not happen despite Farage and the Spartans expectations
If it ultimately comes to a Tory Government insisting on no-deal, then there are sufficient numbers of Conservative MPs who will join a majority to stop them —
Sure. But does spreadsheet Phil want to secure his place in history as the chap who ended the Conservative party ?
Would suggest a boldness that has never appeared in any of his policies.
You are right, he is cautious. That's why he won't go along with a no-deal crash out, which will be a disaster and will certainly be the end of the Conservative Party.
In truth, though, the party is probably dead anyway, killed by the ERG nutjobs. Maybe in a decade or two some future David Cameron will be able to revive it, but only once it has, like a drug addict, reached the bottom and finally resolved to be serious about rehab.
> @Richard_Nabavi said: > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > > If it ultimately comes to a Tory Government insisting on no-deal, then there are sufficient numbers of Conservative MPs who will join a majority to stop them — > > > Sure. But does spreadsheet Phil want to secure his place in history as the chap who ended the Conservative party ? > > > Would suggest a boldness that has never appeared in any of his policies. > > You are right, he is cautious. That's why he won't go along with a no-deal crash out, which will be a disaster and will certainly be the end of the Conservative Party. > > In truth, though, the party is probably dead anyway, killed by the ERG nutjobs. Maybe in a decade or two some future David Cameron will be able to revive it, but only once it has, like a drug addict, reached the bottom and finally resolved to be serious about rehab.
No deal is a risk - but one that can be mitigated by policy. Probably policies too radical for CoTE Hammond to support.
No Brexit has no risk element - destruction is assured.
> @Roger said: > The Reith Lecture by Jonathan Sumption. A Judge's view on why the Referenum was the wrong method to sort out the UK's issues with the EU and why the only way to rescue ourselves from the mistake is probably another referendum. > > Long but well argued for those with the time and patience. Not one for the Jeremy Kyle/Guido set > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0005f
That's part of the problem, Roger. Not including the Jeremy Kyle set has got us into this mess in the first place.
> @Richard_Nabavi said: > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > > If it ultimately comes to a Tory Government insisting on no-deal, then there are sufficient numbers of Conservative MPs who will join a majority to stop them — > > > Sure. But does spreadsheet Phil want to secure his place in history as the chap who ended the Conservative party ? > > > Would suggest a boldness that has never appeared in any of his policies. > > You are right, he is cautious. That's why he won't go along with a no-deal crash out, which will be a disaster and will certainly be the end of the Conservative Party. > > In truth, though, the party is probably dead anyway, killed by the ERG nutjobs. Maybe in a decade or two some future David Cameron will be able to revive it, but only once it has, like a drug addict, reached the bottom and finally resolved to be serious about rehab.
Indeed. By refusing to compromise on their theology the ERG have forced us into a choice between no deal and no Brexit. And it won't be no deal.
> @TGOHF said: > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > > > > > If it ultimately comes to a Tory Government insisting on no-deal, then there are sufficient numbers of Conservative MPs who will join a majority to stop them — > > > > > > Sure. But does spreadsheet Phil want to secure his place in history as the chap who ended the Conservative party ? > > > > > > Would suggest a boldness that has never appeared in any of his policies. > > > > You are right, he is cautious. That's why he won't go along with a no-deal crash out, which will be a disaster and will certainly be the end of the Conservative Party. > > > > In truth, though, the party is probably dead anyway, killed by the ERG nutjobs. Maybe in a decade or two some future David Cameron will be able to revive it, but only once it has, like a drug addict, reached the bottom and finally resolved to be serious about rehab. > > No deal is a risk - but one that can be mitigated by policy. Probably policies too radical for CoTE Hammond to support. > > No Brexit has no risk element - destruction is assured. > >
No deal cannot happen so the argument is irrelevant.
> @twistedfirestopper3 said: > > @Roger said: > > The Reith Lecture by Jonathan Sumption. A Judge's view on why the Referenum was the wrong method to sort out the UK's issues with the EU and why the only way to rescue ourselves from the mistake is probably another referendum. > > > > Long but well argued for those with the time and patience. Not one for the Jeremy Kyle/Guido set > > > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0005f > > That's part of the problem, Roger. Not including the Jeremy Kyle set has got us into this mess in the first place.
Are you suggesting that we should get Boris on the polygraph, and expose him in front of his wives and mistresses?
I can't see any way out for the Tories. The number of people who will blame them for no Brexit betrayal[1] will be close to 100% of their natural leave inclined support. No deal chaos will be avoided as enough Tories will act in extremis to bring down the Gov't, or the Gov't will avoid it themselves but that brings us back to [1].
Noone voting for the Brexit party will be thinking "Oh that Mr Bercow and the opposition stopped us from leaving"... they'll blame the Tories.
No deal is a risk - but one that can be mitigated by policy. Probably policies too radical for CoTE Hammond to support.
No Brexit has no risk element - destruction is assured.
Only some aspects of the No Deal disaster can be mitigated by policy. Most of them can't.
You are right about No Brexit, although it's definitely the lesser of the disasters both for the country and the party.
Such is the mess the nutjobs have got the party and country into by trashing the deal which would have implemented the referendum result faithfully and without too much economic damage. What could have been an orderly Brexit, acceptable to the vast majority if not ideal for anyone, was thrown away.
> @DecrepitJohnL said: > > @Pulpstar said: > > > Hah, I need my tiny wins to pay for May Exit date betting disaster. > > The May exit date being problematic as well because no-one, not even CCHQ, knows if Theresa May will still be leader between June and the new leader.
The Tory constitution simply refers to "initiation of the process of electing a new leader", without spelling out the details of how this happens (presumably this is a matter for the parliamentary party), with the new leader taking office when the process is completed. The implication (and it is just my reading) is that the current leader stays until the new one is chosen, UNLESS they have specifically relinquished the post by resignation on an earlier date. Thus it comes down to deciding whether May has formally resigned (in early June), or not.
> @IanB2 said: > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > Bercow's position is a very important factor is how things will play out. Osborne, as so often, nailed it completely in his editorial today: > > > > <i class="Italic">"The Institute for Government says by proroguing Parliament, and having no meaningful votes, “it looks like a near impossible task for MPs to stop a PM who is determined to leave the EU without a deal”. Respectfully, we disagree. Parliament can revoke Article 50. Or it can deliver a vote of no confidence. The institute calls this “politics”. Exactly, that’s what governing depends on. If it ultimately comes to a Tory Government insisting on no-deal, then there are sufficient numbers of Conservative MPs who will join a majority to stop them — and there is a Speaker who will find a way for that majority to be heard. The Lib Dem threat now breathing down the neck of Tory MPs in marginal seats will only swell those numbers. That parliamentary majority will either revoke Brexit or bring down the Government. "</i> > > > > https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-tories-are-about-to-crash-into-the-solid-brexit-wall-a4152821.html > > > > What's more, although Bercow will get a lot of flak on this, with the usual suspects accusing him of Betrayal! and of taking sides, it's actually his job to ensure that parliament's will prevails, even if it is inconvenient to the government or the PM or one side of the current divide. > > And he has little to lose, and will love having such a place in history.
I don't see how Parliament can revoke article 50. Parliament could repeal the withdrawal bill but it has no power to make the PM write to the EU and withdraw article 50.
Some Tories could vote against the new Con leader in a vote of no confidence but they would have the whip removed and would then have to choose between an immediate election or installing Corbyn as PM.
Years ago, perhaps 2014/15, I posted on here that British Politics needed to be realigned into three new groups as the current political parties coalitions were no longer sustainable. I am pretty sure (although I would say this) thjat hey were something along the lines of
Old School Labour, Eurosceptic Tories and UKIP Cameroons, Lib Dems and Blairite Labour Loony left & Greens?
It probably wasnt as accurate as that,. but Brexit has made it happen.
> @GarethoftheVale2 said: > > @IanB2 said: > > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > > Bercow's position is a very important factor is how things will play out. Osborne, as so often, nailed it completely in his editorial today: > > > > > > <i class="Italic">"The Institute for Government says by proroguing Parliament, and having no meaningful votes, “it looks like a near impossible task for MPs to stop a PM who is determined to leave the EU without a deal”. Respectfully, we disagree. Parliament can revoke Article 50. Or it can deliver a vote of no confidence. The institute calls this “politics”. Exactly, that’s what governing depends on. If it ultimately comes to a Tory Government insisting on no-deal, then there are sufficient numbers of Conservative MPs who will join a majority to stop them — and there is a Speaker who will find a way for that majority to be heard. The Lib Dem threat now breathing down the neck of Tory MPs in marginal seats will only swell those numbers. That parliamentary majority will either revoke Brexit or bring down the Government. "</i> > > > > > > https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-tories-are-about-to-crash-into-the-solid-brexit-wall-a4152821.html > > > > > > What's more, although Bercow will get a lot of flak on this, with the usual suspects accusing him of Betrayal! and of taking sides, it's actually his job to ensure that parliament's will prevails, even if it is inconvenient to the government or the PM or one side of the current divide. > > > > And he has little to lose, and will love having such a place in history. > > I don't see how Parliament can revoke article 50. Parliament could repeal the withdrawal bill but it has no power to make the PM write to the EU and withdraw article 50. > > Some Tories could vote against the new Con leader in a vote of no confidence but they would have the whip removed and would then have to choose between an immediate election or installing Corbyn as PM.
It may not have the specific legal power, but it has the particular political power.
We had all this with no deal - PB'ers claiming that Parliament couldn't rule it out and/or that the PM could or would press ahead regardless. All wrong.
> @Roger said: > The Reith Lecture by Jonathan Sumption. A Judge's view on why the Referenum was the wrong method to sort out the UK's issues with the EU and why the only way to rescue ourselves from the mistake is probably another referendum. > > Long but well argued for those with the time and patience. Not one for the Jeremy Kyle/Guido set > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0005f05
> @GarethoftheVale2 said: > > @IanB2 said: > > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > > Bercow's position is a very important factor is how things will play out. Osborne, as so often, nailed it completely in his editorial today: > > > > > > <i class="Italic">"The Institute for Government says by proroguing Parliament, and having no meaningful votes, “it looks like a near impossible task for MPs to stop a PM who is determined to leave the EU without a deal”. Respectfully, we disagree. Parliament can revoke Article 50. Or it can deliver a vote of no confidence. The institute calls this “politics”. Exactly, that’s what governing depends on. If it ultimately comes to a Tory Government insisting on no-deal, then there are sufficient numbers of Conservative MPs who will join a majority to stop them — and there is a Speaker who will find a way for that majority to be heard. The Lib Dem threat now breathing down the neck of Tory MPs in marginal seats will only swell those numbers. That parliamentary majority will either revoke Brexit or bring down the Government. "</i> > > > > > > https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-tories-are-about-to-crash-into-the-solid-brexit-wall-a4152821.html > > > > > > What's more, although Bercow will get a lot of flak on this, with the usual suspects accusing him of Betrayal! and of taking sides, it's actually his job to ensure that parliament's will prevails, even if it is inconvenient to the government or the PM or one side of the current divide. > > > > And he has little to lose, and will love having such a place in history. > > I don't see how Parliament can revoke article 50. Parliament could repeal the withdrawal bill but it has no power to make the PM write to the EU and withdraw article 50. > > Some Tories could vote against the new Con leader in a vote of no confidence but they would have the whip removed and would then have to choose between an immediate election or installing Corbyn as PM.
They'd have to let Corbyn become PM, as an immediate election would see them knocked into third or fourth place.
Good strategy: get Farage to really own No Deal. When the maelstrom hits, it will at least give us some satisfaction to see him try to wriggle out of it.
The Tory constitution simply refers to "initiation of the process of electing a new leader", without spelling out the details of how this happens (presumably this is a matter for the parliamentary party), with the new leader taking office when the process is completed. The implication (and it is just my reading) is that the current leader stays until the new one is chosen, UNLESS they have specifically relinquished the post by resignation on an earlier date. Thus it comes down to deciding whether May has formally resigned (in early June), or not.
Yes, it will be entirely clear and unambiguous at the time. Either she will be leader on 8th June or she won't. It's not entirely clear now whether she meant she will put in her formal resignation with immediate effect on the 7th June, or that she will put in her formal resignation on 7th June to take effect when the new leader is appointed. I think the latter is much more likely to be the case.
> @Pulpstar said: > I can't see any way out for the Tories. The number of people who will blame them for no Brexit betrayal[1] will be close to 100% of their natural leave inclined support. > No deal chaos will be avoided as enough Tories will act in extremis to bring down the Gov't, or the Gov't will avoid it themselves but that brings us back to [1]. > > Noone voting for the Brexit party will be thinking "Oh that Mr Bercow and the opposition stopped us from leaving"... they'll blame the Tories.
The way out is to "negotiate" with the EU and some how get the new deal (albeit one that is identical to May's Deal) through Parliament. In that way the Tories will have ensured Brexit occurs.
Unless they pull that trick off the Tories will be blamed for not leaving (and probably blamed if we did leave without a deal as the first things went wrong).
Oh and things will go wrong with a No Deal departure which the media will run with well beyond it's actual impact. Remember KFC's delivery issues last year...
> @IanB2 said: > > @DecrepitJohnL said: > > > @Pulpstar said: > > > > > Hah, I need my tiny wins to pay for May Exit date betting disaster. > > > > The May exit date being problematic as well because no-one, not even CCHQ, knows if Theresa May will still be leader between June and the new leader. > > The Tory constitution simply refers to "initiation of the process of electing a new leader", without spelling out the details of how this happens (presumably this is a matter for the parliamentary party), with the new leader taking office when the process is completed. The implication (and it is just my reading) is that the current leader stays until the new one is chosen, UNLESS they have specifically relinquished the post by resignation on an earlier date. Thus it comes down to deciding whether May has formally resigned (in early June), or not.
TM ceases to be leader on the 7th June. That is already confirmed and the 1922 committee presumably will run the party till late July when the new PM takes over in a straight handover of office
> @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > @Scott_P said: > > The EU says no renegotiation. > > > > Bercow says no no deal. > > > > How does swapping May for BoZo move us forwards? > > I never thought it would. TM achieved the best and only deal available > >
Its a bad deal. And we know what TM said about those early on ...
> @Pulpstar said: > Going through each council area and adding the > > Green + CHUK + Lib Dem + Labour and comparing it to Brexit + Tories + UKIP would be an interesting exercise.
Probably a big lead for the latter, in terms of councils or constituencies, due to lower turnout and more efficient distribution of support.
> @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > @IanB2 said: > > > @DecrepitJohnL said: > > > > @Pulpstar said: > > > > > > > Hah, I need my tiny wins to pay for May Exit date betting disaster. > > > > > > The May exit date being problematic as well because no-one, not even CCHQ, knows if Theresa May will still be leader between June and the new leader. > > > > The Tory constitution simply refers to "initiation of the process of electing a new leader", without spelling out the details of how this happens (presumably this is a matter for the parliamentary party), with the new leader taking office when the process is completed. The implication (and it is just my reading) is that the current leader stays until the new one is chosen, UNLESS they have specifically relinquished the post by resignation on an earlier date. Thus it comes down to deciding whether May has formally resigned (in early June), or not. > > TM ceases to be leader on the 7th June. That is already confirmed and the 1922 committee presumably will run the party till late July when the new PM takes over in a straight handover of office
TM ceases to be leader on the 7th June. That is already confirmed and the 1922 committee presumably will run the party till late July when the new PM takes over in a straight handover of office
Betfair sent me this :
Hi Pulpstar
I am contacting you regarding the bet id - 1:165483383489. We are not settling any Theresa May markets until she officially ceases as leader of the conservative party. While she will step down to make way for a leadership contest on the 7th June, she will not officially leave until a new leader of the conservative party is chosen, hence why the market has not traded out
> @IanB2 said: > > @GarethoftheVale2 said: > > > @IanB2 said: > > > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > > > Bercow's position is a very important factor is how things will play out. Osborne, as so often, nailed it completely in his editorial today: > > > > > > > > <i class="Italic">"The Institute for Government says by proroguing Parliament, and having no meaningful votes, “it looks like a near impossible task for MPs to stop a PM who is determined to leave the EU without a deal”. Respectfully, we disagree. Parliament can revoke Article 50. Or it can deliver a vote of no confidence. The institute calls this “politics”. Exactly, that’s what governing depends on. If it ultimately comes to a Tory Government insisting on no-deal, then there are sufficient numbers of Conservative MPs who will join a majority to stop them — and there is a Speaker who will find a way for that majority to be heard. The Lib Dem threat now breathing down the neck of Tory MPs in marginal seats will only swell those numbers. That parliamentary majority will either revoke Brexit or bring down the Government. "</i> > > > > > > > > https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-tories-are-about-to-crash-into-the-solid-brexit-wall-a4152821.html > > > > > > > > What's more, although Bercow will get a lot of flak on this, with the usual suspects accusing him of Betrayal! and of taking sides, it's actually his job to ensure that parliament's will prevails, even if it is inconvenient to the government or the PM or one side of the current divide. > > > > > > And he has little to lose, and will love having such a place in history. > > > > I don't see how Parliament can revoke article 50. Parliament could repeal the withdrawal bill but it has no power to make the PM write to the EU and withdraw article 50. > > > > Some Tories could vote against the new Con leader in a vote of no confidence but they would have the whip removed and would then have to choose between an immediate election or installing Corbyn as PM. > > It may not have the specific legal power, but it has the particular political power. > > We had all this with no deal - PB'ers claiming that Parliament couldn't rule it out and/or that the PM could or would press ahead regardless. All wrong.
Exactly. If there's a single minded majority, parliament can demand the PM revoke. If (s)he doesn't, they VONC and install a new PM they decide on themselves. Remember, this is a majority. They can do literally anything that doesn't break the laws of physics if they have a common will. Replacing the PM with one of their number who will revoke is a doddle if they have the nerve. They certainly have the right.
When the new leader takes over and says this deal is dead and its a new deal or no deal, no extension without a new deal being negotiated - let us see what they say then.
> @Philip_Thompson said: > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > > @Scott_P said: > > > The EU says no renegotiation. > > > > > > Bercow says no no deal. > > > > > > How does swapping May for BoZo move us forwards? > > > > I never thought it would. TM achieved the best and only deal available > > > > > > Its a bad deal. And we know what TM said about those early on ...
To the ERG it is but to many of us it was not and the WDA should have gone through
A Brexit/Tory pact could do very well if the Tories run as the Tories in their natural constituencies and The Brexit Party goes down on the ballot in Hartlepool etc.
Not sure I can see Farage's ego agreeing to that though.
Easy reply to that. Thanks for saving us wasted time and money trying to renegotiate. WTO it is. BTW if you'd like to attend we are having a 'little' party in Trafalger Square on 31st Oct to celebrate freedom day...
> @Philip_Thompson said: > > They would say that, wouldn't they? > > When the new leader takes over and says this deal is dead and its a new deal or no deal, no extension without a new deal being negotiated - let us see what they say then.
Why on earth would they say anything different? No Deal doesn't become any more credible because it's being threatened by a different leader.
> @Philip_Thompson said: > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > > @IanB2 said: > > > > @DecrepitJohnL said: > > > > > @Pulpstar said: > > > > > > > > > Hah, I need my tiny wins to pay for May Exit date betting disaster. > > > > > > > > The May exit date being problematic as well because no-one, not even CCHQ, knows if Theresa May will still be leader between June and the new leader. > > > > > > The Tory constitution simply refers to "initiation of the process of electing a new leader", without spelling out the details of how this happens (presumably this is a matter for the parliamentary party), with the new leader taking office when the process is completed. The implication (and it is just my reading) is that the current leader stays until the new one is chosen, UNLESS they have specifically relinquished the post by resignation on an earlier date. Thus it comes down to deciding whether May has formally resigned (in early June), or not. > > > > TM ceases to be leader on the 7th June. That is already confirmed and the 1922 committee presumably will run the party till late July when the new PM takes over in a straight handover of office > > Who confirmed that?
TM said she would stand down as leader on the 7th June and the report was that the 1922 will oversee the party until the succession
I cant think of anybody better to do security on the london underground...
London Bridge terror leader Khuram Butt had appeared in C4 documentary about jihadis, demonstrated with hate preacher Anjem Choudary and been reported to authorities by his family but STILL got Tube security job
> @Richard_Nabavi said: > No deal is a risk - but one that can be mitigated by policy. Probably policies too radical for CoTE Hammond to support. > > > No Brexit has no risk element - destruction is assured. > > Only some aspects of the No Deal disaster can be mitigated by policy. Most of them can't. > > You are right about No Brexit, although it's definitely the lesser of the disasters both for the country and the party. > > Such is the mess the nutjobs have got the party and country into by trashing the deal which would have implemented the referendum result faithfully and without too much economic damage. What could have been an orderly Brexit, acceptable to the vast majority if not ideal for anyone, was thrown away.
It isn't the lesser disaster for the party - no Brexit is the end. Canada style. Forever. Dolts like Hammond may not get that but there is not way out of it.
> @Pulpstar said: > A Brexit/Tory pact could do very well if the Tories run as the Tories in their natural constituencies and The Brexit Party goes down on the ballot in Hartlepool etc. > > Not sure I can see Farage's ego agreeing to that though.
@TOPPING That is what I thought but noone seems to have a scooby clue and the message I've received directly from betfair contradicts that assesment - I'm redded out on June & July with wins past August.
> @Philip_Thompson said: > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > > @Scott_P said: > > > The EU says no renegotiation. > > > > > > Bercow says no no deal. > > > > > > How does swapping May for BoZo move us forwards? > > > > I never thought it would. TM achieved the best and only deal available > > > > > > Its a bad deal. And we know what TM said about those early on ...
How is it a bad deal? It seems pretty balanced under the circumstances. The only way you can say it is a bad deal is when compared with the excellent one we have already.
> @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > @TGOHF said: > > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > > > > > > > > If it ultimately comes to a Tory Government insisting on no-deal, then there are sufficient numbers of Conservative MPs who will join a majority to stop them — > > > > > > > > > Sure. But does spreadsheet Phil want to secure his place in history as the chap who ended the Conservative party ? > > > > > > > > > Would suggest a boldness that has never appeared in any of his policies. > > > > > > You are right, he is cautious. That's why he won't go along with a no-deal crash out, which will be a disaster and will certainly be the end of the Conservative Party. > > > > > > In truth, though, the party is probably dead anyway, killed by the ERG nutjobs. Maybe in a decade or two some future David Cameron will be able to revive it, but only once it has, like a drug addict, reached the bottom and finally resolved to be serious about rehab. > > > > No deal is a risk - but one that can be mitigated by policy. Probably policies too radical for CoTE Hammond to support. > > > > No Brexit has no risk element - destruction is assured. > > > > > > No deal cannot happen so the argument is irrelevant. > > It is either a deal or revoke
Much as I would like to believe you are right, why can't No Deal happen?
What about: Let's say the next conservative leader - Johnson, for example - becomes PM, promising to negotiate a better deal. He then just keeps stringing everyone along, at what point do rebel tories VONC him to avoid No Deal? Perhaps only when it is too late to avoid, maybe miscalculating that the EU will grant another extension which is instead vetoed by Macron.
Or the new Conservative PM enjoys a massive honeymoon, calls a general election, wins a landslide majority against a hopelessly divided remainish vote, fails hopelessly in attempts to negotiate a new deal, and exits with no deal to loud cheers from the patriotic "British" media.
Or they call a referendum, which No Deal wins.
In any case, the subsequent chaos will be blamed (successfully enough with the support of the newspapers) on foreigners and traitors. The economic situation will give whichever far-right Conservative wins the cover to do what they want to do anyway: sell the NHS off to big American private companies, scrap environmental protections and lower taxes on the rich.
Now this may all not be that probable, but it seems possible to me.
Which is why the ERG are not idiots or morons. This is their goal, and so far they have played a blinder. They are just not interested in Brexit as such, it has to be a disaster Brexit. They are disaster Brexiteers.
> @williamglenn said: > > @Philip_Thompson said: > > > > They would say that, wouldn't they? > > > > When the new leader takes over and says this deal is dead and its a new deal or no deal, no extension without a new deal being negotiated - let us see what they say then. > > Why on earth would they say anything different? No Deal doesn't become any more credible because it's being threatened by a different leader. --------- You seem to be forgetting once again William that we hold all the cards!
> @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > @GIN1138 said: > > Bercows decision further increases the likelihood of an October general election and a Brexit Party/Con pact IMO. > > And the end of brexit
If the Conservative Party enters into a pact with a crypto-fascist party then it is finished completely. Maybe then Farage's revenge for being refused as a candidate will be complete.
It isn't the lesser disaster for the party - no Brexit is the end. Canada style. Forever. Dolts like Hammond may not get that but there is not way out of it.
You are probably right that No Brexit is the end for the party. You are completely wrong in thinking Hammond doesn't understand that, or that he is a dolt. The missing bit in your thinking is not appreciating that crashing out in no deal, with the attendant job losses, bankruptcies and disruption to daily life, is even worse. It will never be forgotten, especially by the younger people who will be the ones most badly hit.
> @isam said: > Years ago, perhaps 2014/15, I posted on here that British Politics needed to be realigned into three new groups as the current political parties coalitions were no longer sustainable. I am pretty sure (although I would say this) thjat hey were something along the lines of > > Old School Labour, Eurosceptic Tories and UKIP > Cameroons, Lib Dems and Blairite Labour > Loony left & Greens? > > It probably wasnt as accurate as that,. but Brexit has made it happen.
I'm not sure it has. The loony left is in the kitchen with the Purple Tories and Ukip hunched around a cauldron with something evil-smelling bubbling within. The Greens and Lib Dems are on opposite sides of the bedroom sexting each other, and working up to something they are about to do despite/because they know it'll be so very wrong. Old school Labour is rocking back and forth in the cellar with the Blairites in a headlock. The Cameroons are in the shed.
It is simultaneously amusing, heartbreaking, and terrifying to watch Brexit destroy the two party system (just another victim of Brexit’s insatiable maw).
No one seems to know how to stop the nuclear clock countdown, on either side of the House.
As a hardcore Remainer I eventually reconciled myself to May’s final deal, only to see it demolished on impact by so-called Labour Brexiters like Lisa Nandy (among others). Perhaps Nandy needs to explain *that* to her constituents.
@Richard_Nabavi At least I've got a relatively simple choice here in Bassetlaw if it becomes a Labour - Brexit Party two horse race. Well I do if Mann is the candidate anyway...
> @Gardenwalker said: > It is simultaneously amusing, heartbreaking, and terrifying to watch Brexit destroy the two party system (just another victim of Brexit’s insatiable maw). > > No one seems to know how to stop the nuclear clock countdown, on either side of the House. > > As a hardcore Remainer I eventually reconciled myself to May’s final deal, only to see it demolished on impact by so-called Labour Brexiters like Lisa Nandy (among others). Perhaps Nandy needs to explain *that* to her constituents.
She will have cover for that (I know my MP does). She will have asked her constituents what to do and they will have replied that the deal wasn't what they wanted....
> @kamski said: > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > > @TGOHF said: > > > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > > > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > > > > > > > > > > > If it ultimately comes to a Tory Government insisting on no-deal, then there are sufficient numbers of Conservative MPs who will join a majority to stop them — > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure. But does spreadsheet Phil want to secure his place in history as the chap who ended the Conservative party ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Would suggest a boldness that has never appeared in any of his policies. > > > > > > > > You are right, he is cautious. That's why he won't go along with a no-deal crash out, which will be a disaster and will certainly be the end of the Conservative Party. > > > > > > > > In truth, though, the party is probably dead anyway > > > > > > No deal is a risk - but one that can be mitigated by policy. Probably policies too radical for CoTE Hammond to support. > > > > > > No Brexit has no risk element - destruction is assured. > > > > > > > > > > No deal cannot happen so the argument is irrelevant. > > > > It is either a deal or revoke > > Much as I would like to believe you are right, why can't No Deal happen? > > What about: > Let's say the next conservative leader - Johnson, for example - becomes PM, promising to negotiate a better deal. He then just keeps stringing everyone along, at what point do rebel tories VONC him to avoid No Deal? Perhaps only when it is too late to avoid, maybe miscalculating that the EU will grant another extension which is instead vetoed by Macron. > > Or the new Conservative PM enjoys a massive honeymoon, calls a general election, wins a landslide majority against a hopelessly divided remainish vote, fails hopelessly in attempts to negotiate a new deal, and exits with no deal to loud cheers from the patriotic "British" media. > > Or they call a referendum, which No Deal wins. > > In any case, the subsequent chaos will be blamed (successfully enough with the support of the newspapers) on foreigners and traitors. The economic situation will give whichever far-right Conservative wins the cover to do what they want to do anyway: sell the NHS off to big American private companies, scrap environmental protections and lower taxes on the rich. > > Now this may all not be that probable, but it seems possible to me. > > Which is why the ERG are not idiots or morons. This is their goal, and so far they have played a blinder. They are just not interested in Brexit as such, it has to be a disaster Brexit. They are disaster Brexiteers.
It is only too late to vonc on the 31st October. The HOC will not let any new PM string them along over such a vital matter and I would expect a vonc by the middle of October if we have not obtained a deal, an extension or enacted another referendum
> @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > @GIN1138 said: > > Bercows decision further increases the likelihood of an October general election and a Brexit Party/Con pact IMO. > > And the end of brexit
Brexit will only happen with a new parliament - this parliament will never allow it.
So it's do or die in October - The people WILL have a vote but it will be in a general election not a second referendum, IMO.
> @Sean_F said: > > @Pulpstar said: > > Going through each council area and adding the > > > > Green + CHUK + Lib Dem + Labour and comparing it to Brexit + Tories + UKIP would be an interesting exercise. > > Probably a big lead for the latter, in terms of councils or constituencies, due to lower turnout and more efficient distribution of support.
Unlikely, given that the national shares would be 50% plays 44%. I doubt distribution would negate a 6% national lead - and in any case really it would be 55% plays 44% because the SNP and PC can reasonably be added to the remainers.
> @Richard_Nabavi said: > It isn't the lesser disaster for the party - no Brexit is the end. Canada style. Forever. Dolts like Hammond may not get that but there is not way out of it. > > You are probably right that No Brexit is the end for the party. You are completely wrong in thinking Hammond doesn't understand that, or that he is a dolt. The missing bit in your thinking is not appreciating that crashing out in no deal, with the attendant job losses, bankruptcies and disruption to daily life, is even worse. It will never be forgotten, especially by the younger people who will be the ones most badly hit.
I think younger people are already equating Conservatives with austerity + Brexit. As Conservatives can no longer claim to be the party of the economy (except by contrast with Mr Thicky), it is difficult to imagine they have any way back, particularly if Labour exchanges Corbyn for a moderate with half a brain.
Not really. He's a sledgehammer. Useful if you want to smash something, but there is a whole art of political interviewing that relies on finessing answers out of subjects. Plus, he's politically compromised, and a lot of people without his right-wing beliefs are turned off by him. That harms his ability to find the right audience. They see him as a participant in politics, not a fair shiner of lights. Whether or not that's a _fair_ judgement, it's a _justified_ one. He is highly partisan on Twitter.
> @Benpointer said: > > @Stark_Dawning said: > > > @williamglenn said: > > > https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1133377952006180864 > > > > Good strategy: get Farage to really own No Deal. When the maelstrom hits, it will at least give us some satisfaction to see him try to wriggle out of it. > > -------- > > It will be: 'the political establishment implemented No Deal badly, if I had done it it would have been a blazing success'.
Yep, and there are 30% of the electorate who are so mind numbingly stupid that they will believe the lying little toad
> @GIN1138 said: > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > > @GIN1138 said: > > > Bercows decision further increases the likelihood of an October general election and a Brexit Party/Con pact IMO. > > > > And the end of brexit > > Brexit will only happen with a new parliament - this parliament will never allow it. > > So it's do or die in October - The people WILL have a vote but it will be in a general election not a second referendum, IMO.
Someone earlier came up with an interesting - and quite creative - future Brexit referendum scenario.
Remain vs. No Deal are the two options, with a necessary 55 per cent threshold to be validated (plus, in addition, an equivalent or greater level of support is required, on top, to exceed those that voted "Leave" last time - >17.4 million).
Otherwise, if both options fall short of 55 per cent (or less than 17.4 million votes); we follow through with Theresa May's already negotiated (and deliverable) deal as the compromise "default" option.
Also, as a bonus, it sets a nice precedent for any future Scottish independence referendum in terms of threshold required to change the result from last time.....
Am sure there are much worse options in terms of getting the Tories out of the mess
> @Nigel_Foremain said: > > @Pulpstar said: > > A Brexit/Tory pact could do very well if the Tories run as the Tories in their natural constituencies and The Brexit Party goes down on the ballot in Hartlepool etc. > > Not sure I can see Farage's ego agreeing to that though. > Will Arron Banks and his backers approve though? ______________________
I can almost see it happening. It's best called using FPTP to fiddle the result.
Lord Ashcroft's poll gave four parties Lab/Con/LD/B****t all on ~18-22%. Under FPTP, that gives maybe 275 Lab seats, due to FPTP being overgenerous to Lab on tiny percentages. But little chance of a Lab majority. It would need LDs, SNP or both.
Even so, an effectively SDP government is far too left-wing for Banks et al. So Con and B****t hope to create a fake party on a combined 35-40% of the vote to get 350 seats a.k.a. the usual elected dictatorship.
Thatcher Emerges from the Grave, as Bogdanor put it. Aaargh.
It is only too late to vonc on the 31st October. The HOC will not let any new PM string them along over such a vital matter and I would expect a vonc by the middle of October if we have not obtained a deal, an extension or enacted another referendum
I don't think it will come to a VONC, which neither main party wants as it might risk a GE in the worst possible circumstances for both. I'm pretty sure that parliament would be able to find some other way to take control - after all, the Speaker will be onside for this and if necessary parliament can just change its rules first.
Of course there will have to be an extension - the timetable of the Tory leadership contest pretty much guarantees that, whatever route is taken even including No Deal (which still requires a lot of legislation to cover the legal gaps). We are at some risk because of the possibility that the EU27 won't grant the extension, however.
> @Nigel_Foremain said: > > @Benpointer said: > > > @Stark_Dawning said: > > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1133377952006180864 > > > > > > Good strategy: get Farage to really own No Deal. When the maelstrom hits, it will at least give us some satisfaction to see him try to wriggle out of it. > > > > -------- > > > > It will be: 'the political establishment implemented No Deal badly, if I had done it it would have been a blazing success'. > > Yep, and there are 30% of the electorate who are so mind numbingly stupid that they will believe the lying little toad
Maybe. But don't forget that only 11% of the electorate were stupid enough to vote for him last Thursday.
So in extremis we get a vonc then Lab coalition. That would mean relying on Jezza to revoke (he has been through a lot but surely endorsing May's deal [still the only one on offer] is a step too far).
An extension would be no good as the EU has said it's the WA or nothing.
Equally I can't see him getting into No10 and agreeing a 2nd referendum.
Comments
> Mr. Roger, for those without the time to watch, what would his preferred method have been?
His argument is that the reason we have parliamentary democracy is because parliament has a duty to work in the interests of society as a whole whereas a referedum necessarily only serves the interest of the individual who is voting irrespective of the possible harm done to those on the other side.
> > @Pulpstar said:
>
> > Someone has confidence in the Betfair rules... Movement on the Lib Dem 15-20% market.
>
>
>
> Unusual for free money to be on offer at 1.11 after an election result has been declared?
>
> I've got £74 at 1.07 average in "after hours" trading. Yes, it should be 'free money' but I got burnt Friday by May's non resignation so I've got a possibly worry they'll settle on GB shares or some such.
Exactly. You lose cofnidence in them enforcing their own rules.
If you're small stake, then spotting the tricks is important, because it can give you the edge.
> > @Pulpstar said:
>
> > Someone has confidence in the Betfair rules... Movement on the Lib Dem 15-20% market.
>
>
>
> Unusual for free money to be on offer at 1.11 after an election result has been declared?
>
> I've got £74 at 1.07 average in "after hours" trading. Yes, it should be 'free money' but I got burnt Friday by May's non resignation so I've got a possibly worry they'll settle on GB shares or some such.
It says quite clearly it's the whole of the UK in the rules. My first bet on that bracket was made at 4.2 so I wont be happy if they don't follow their own rules.
> > @RobD said:
> >
> > It's the typical EU approach to democracy.
> --------
>
> The Spitzenkandidaten process isn't official. It was an idea that came from Selmayr. According to the treaties the EU Council can decide who they want as long as the parliament votes for them.
Various people seem suddenly to be getting fugues at this current sudden outbreak of a minimal amount of democracy in the EU Parliament.
Complete shocker !
> All thins considered, expelling Campbell is actually a point in favour of Corbyn.
Indeed - such an act brings his party into disrepute. He deserves to be expelled on the same basis that the Militant Tendency crowd were in the mid-1980s for being 'a party within a party'..
> Deleted.
Hah, I need my tiny wins to pay for May Exit date betting disaster.
Never mind.
<i class="Italic">"The Institute for Government says by proroguing Parliament, and having no meaningful votes, “it looks like a near impossible task for MPs to stop a PM who is determined to leave the EU without a deal”. Respectfully, we disagree. Parliament can revoke Article 50. Or it can deliver a vote of no confidence. The institute calls this “politics”. Exactly, that’s what governing depends on. If it ultimately comes to a Tory Government insisting on no-deal, then there are sufficient numbers of Conservative MPs who will join a majority to stop them — and there is a Speaker who will find a way for that majority to be heard. The Lib Dem threat now breathing down the neck of Tory MPs in marginal seats will only swell those numbers. That parliamentary majority will either revoke Brexit or bring down the Government. "</i>
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-tories-are-about-to-crash-into-the-solid-brexit-wall-a4152821.html
What's more, although Bercow will get a lot of flak on this, with the usual suspects accusing him of Betrayal! and of taking sides, it's actually his job to ensure that parliament's will prevails, even if it is inconvenient to the government or the PM or one side of the current divide.
> They've settled up the Lib Dems properly. Thank goodness for that.
And I made a very quick 77p, on top of my earlier position. Thanks for the tip!
> Bercow's position is a very important factor is how things will play out. Osborne, as so often, nailed it completely in his editorial today:
>
> <i class="Italic">"The Institute for Government says by proroguing Parliament, and having no meaningful votes, “it looks like a near impossible task for MPs to stop a PM who is determined to leave the EU without a deal”. Respectfully, we disagree. Parliament can revoke Article 50. Or it can deliver a vote of no confidence. The institute calls this “politics”. Exactly, that’s what governing depends on. If it ultimately comes to a Tory Government insisting on no-deal, then there are sufficient numbers of Conservative MPs who will join a majority to stop them — and there is a Speaker who will find a way for that majority to be heard. The Lib Dem threat now breathing down the neck of Tory MPs in marginal seats will only swell those numbers. That parliamentary majority will either revoke Brexit or bring down the Government. "</i>
>
> https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-tories-are-about-to-crash-into-the-solid-brexit-wall-a4152821.html
>
> What's more, although Bercow will get a lot of flak on this, with the usual suspects accusing him of Betrayal! and of taking sides, it's actually his job to ensure that parliament's will prevails, even if it is inconvenient to the government or the PM or one side of the current divide.
And he has little to lose, and will love having such a place in history.
If it ultimately comes to a Tory Government insisting on no-deal, then there are sufficient numbers of Conservative MPs who will join a majority to stop them —
Sure. But does spreadsheet Phil want to secure his place in history as the chap who ended the Conservative party ?
Would suggest a boldness that has never appeared in any of his policies.
> Hah, I need my tiny wins to pay for May Exit date betting disaster.
The May exit date being problematic as well because no-one, not even CCHQ, knows if Theresa May will still be leader between June and the new leader.
> > @Richard_Nabavi said:
>
> If it ultimately comes to a Tory Government insisting on no-deal, then there are sufficient numbers of Conservative MPs who will join a majority to stop them —
>
> Sure. But does spreadsheet Phil want to secure his place in history as the chap who ended the Conservative party ?
>
> Would suggest a boldness that has never appeared in any of his policies.
On this yes and many others too as they would lose their seats in anycase if we no deal
No deal will not happen despite Farage and the Spartans expectations
In truth, though, the party is probably dead anyway, killed by the ERG nutjobs. Maybe in a decade or two some future David Cameron will be able to revive it, but only once it has, like a drug addict, reached the bottom and finally resolved to be serious about rehab.
> > @Richard_Nabavi said:
>
>
> If it ultimately comes to a Tory Government insisting on no-deal, then there are sufficient numbers of Conservative MPs who will join a majority to stop them —
>
>
> Sure. But does spreadsheet Phil want to secure his place in history as the chap who ended the Conservative party ?
>
>
> Would suggest a boldness that has never appeared in any of his policies.
>
> You are right, he is cautious. That's why he won't go along with a no-deal crash out, which will be a disaster and will certainly be the end of the Conservative Party.
>
> In truth, though, the party is probably dead anyway, killed by the ERG nutjobs. Maybe in a decade or two some future David Cameron will be able to revive it, but only once it has, like a drug addict, reached the bottom and finally resolved to be serious about rehab.
No deal is a risk - but one that can be mitigated by policy. Probably policies too radical for CoTE Hammond to support.
No Brexit has no risk element - destruction is assured.
> The Reith Lecture by Jonathan Sumption. A Judge's view on why the Referenum was the wrong method to sort out the UK's issues with the EU and why the only way to rescue ourselves from the mistake is probably another referendum.
>
> Long but well argued for those with the time and patience. Not one for the Jeremy Kyle/Guido set
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0005f
That's part of the problem, Roger. Not including the Jeremy Kyle set has got us into this mess in the first place.
> > @Richard_Nabavi said:
>
>
> If it ultimately comes to a Tory Government insisting on no-deal, then there are sufficient numbers of Conservative MPs who will join a majority to stop them —
>
>
> Sure. But does spreadsheet Phil want to secure his place in history as the chap who ended the Conservative party ?
>
>
> Would suggest a boldness that has never appeared in any of his policies.
>
> You are right, he is cautious. That's why he won't go along with a no-deal crash out, which will be a disaster and will certainly be the end of the Conservative Party.
>
> In truth, though, the party is probably dead anyway, killed by the ERG nutjobs. Maybe in a decade or two some future David Cameron will be able to revive it, but only once it has, like a drug addict, reached the bottom and finally resolved to be serious about rehab.
Indeed. By refusing to compromise on their theology the ERG have forced us into a choice between no deal and no Brexit. And it won't be no deal.
> > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> >
> >
> > If it ultimately comes to a Tory Government insisting on no-deal, then there are sufficient numbers of Conservative MPs who will join a majority to stop them —
> >
> >
> > Sure. But does spreadsheet Phil want to secure his place in history as the chap who ended the Conservative party ?
> >
> >
> > Would suggest a boldness that has never appeared in any of his policies.
> >
> > You are right, he is cautious. That's why he won't go along with a no-deal crash out, which will be a disaster and will certainly be the end of the Conservative Party.
> >
> > In truth, though, the party is probably dead anyway, killed by the ERG nutjobs. Maybe in a decade or two some future David Cameron will be able to revive it, but only once it has, like a drug addict, reached the bottom and finally resolved to be serious about rehab.
>
> No deal is a risk - but one that can be mitigated by policy. Probably policies too radical for CoTE Hammond to support.
>
> No Brexit has no risk element - destruction is assured.
>
>
No deal cannot happen so the argument is irrelevant.
It is either a deal or revoke
> https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1133385861381447682
Is it really a Shadow Cabinet when you're the third largest party?
> > @Roger said:
> > The Reith Lecture by Jonathan Sumption. A Judge's view on why the Referenum was the wrong method to sort out the UK's issues with the EU and why the only way to rescue ourselves from the mistake is probably another referendum.
> >
> > Long but well argued for those with the time and patience. Not one for the Jeremy Kyle/Guido set
> >
> > https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0005f
>
> That's part of the problem, Roger. Not including the Jeremy Kyle set has got us into this mess in the first place.
Are you suggesting that we should get Boris on the polygraph, and expose him in front of his wives and mistresses?
No deal chaos will be avoided as enough Tories will act in extremis to bring down the Gov't, or the Gov't will avoid it themselves but that brings us back to [1].
Noone voting for the Brexit party will be thinking "Oh that Mr Bercow and the opposition stopped us from leaving"... they'll blame the Tories.
You are right about No Brexit, although it's definitely the lesser of the disasters both for the country and the party.
Such is the mess the nutjobs have got the party and country into by trashing the deal which would have implemented the referendum result faithfully and without too much economic damage. What could have been an orderly Brexit, acceptable to the vast majority if not ideal for anyone, was thrown away.
Bercow says no no deal.
How does swapping May for BoZo move us forwards?
> > @Pulpstar said:
>
> > Hah, I need my tiny wins to pay for May Exit date betting disaster.
>
> The May exit date being problematic as well because no-one, not even CCHQ, knows if Theresa May will still be leader between June and the new leader.
The Tory constitution simply refers to "initiation of the process of electing a new leader", without spelling out the details of how this happens (presumably this is a matter for the parliamentary party), with the new leader taking office when the process is completed. The implication (and it is just my reading) is that the current leader stays until the new one is chosen, UNLESS they have specifically relinquished the post by resignation on an earlier date. Thus it comes down to deciding whether May has formally resigned (in early June), or not.
> > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > Bercow's position is a very important factor is how things will play out. Osborne, as so often, nailed it completely in his editorial today:
> >
> > <i class="Italic">"The Institute for Government says by proroguing Parliament, and having no meaningful votes, “it looks like a near impossible task for MPs to stop a PM who is determined to leave the EU without a deal”. Respectfully, we disagree. Parliament can revoke Article 50. Or it can deliver a vote of no confidence. The institute calls this “politics”. Exactly, that’s what governing depends on. If it ultimately comes to a Tory Government insisting on no-deal, then there are sufficient numbers of Conservative MPs who will join a majority to stop them — and there is a Speaker who will find a way for that majority to be heard. The Lib Dem threat now breathing down the neck of Tory MPs in marginal seats will only swell those numbers. That parliamentary majority will either revoke Brexit or bring down the Government. "</i>
> >
> > https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-tories-are-about-to-crash-into-the-solid-brexit-wall-a4152821.html
> >
> > What's more, although Bercow will get a lot of flak on this, with the usual suspects accusing him of Betrayal! and of taking sides, it's actually his job to ensure that parliament's will prevails, even if it is inconvenient to the government or the PM or one side of the current divide.
>
> And he has little to lose, and will love having such a place in history.
I don't see how Parliament can revoke article 50. Parliament could repeal the withdrawal bill but it has no power to make the PM write to the EU and withdraw article 50.
Some Tories could vote against the new Con leader in a vote of no confidence but they would have the whip removed and would then have to choose between an immediate election or installing Corbyn as PM.
> The EU says no renegotiation.
>
> Bercow says no no deal.
>
> How does swapping May for BoZo move us forwards?
I never thought it would. TM achieved the best and only deal available
Old School Labour, Eurosceptic Tories and UKIP
Cameroons, Lib Dems and Blairite Labour
Loony left & Greens?
It probably wasnt as accurate as that,. but Brexit has made it happen.
> > @IanB2 said:
> > > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > > Bercow's position is a very important factor is how things will play out. Osborne, as so often, nailed it completely in his editorial today:
> > >
> > > <i class="Italic">"The Institute for Government says by proroguing Parliament, and having no meaningful votes, “it looks like a near impossible task for MPs to stop a PM who is determined to leave the EU without a deal”. Respectfully, we disagree. Parliament can revoke Article 50. Or it can deliver a vote of no confidence. The institute calls this “politics”. Exactly, that’s what governing depends on. If it ultimately comes to a Tory Government insisting on no-deal, then there are sufficient numbers of Conservative MPs who will join a majority to stop them — and there is a Speaker who will find a way for that majority to be heard. The Lib Dem threat now breathing down the neck of Tory MPs in marginal seats will only swell those numbers. That parliamentary majority will either revoke Brexit or bring down the Government. "</i>
> > >
> > > https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-tories-are-about-to-crash-into-the-solid-brexit-wall-a4152821.html
> > >
> > > What's more, although Bercow will get a lot of flak on this, with the usual suspects accusing him of Betrayal! and of taking sides, it's actually his job to ensure that parliament's will prevails, even if it is inconvenient to the government or the PM or one side of the current divide.
> >
> > And he has little to lose, and will love having such a place in history.
>
> I don't see how Parliament can revoke article 50. Parliament could repeal the withdrawal bill but it has no power to make the PM write to the EU and withdraw article 50.
>
> Some Tories could vote against the new Con leader in a vote of no confidence but they would have the whip removed and would then have to choose between an immediate election or installing Corbyn as PM.
It may not have the specific legal power, but it has the particular political power.
We had all this with no deal - PB'ers claiming that Parliament couldn't rule it out and/or that the PM could or would press ahead regardless. All wrong.
> The Reith Lecture by Jonathan Sumption. A Judge's view on why the Referenum was the wrong method to sort out the UK's issues with the EU and why the only way to rescue ourselves from the mistake is probably another referendum.
>
> Long but well argued for those with the time and patience. Not one for the Jeremy Kyle/Guido set
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0005f05
But that's three quarters of the people here
> > @IanB2 said:
> > > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > > Bercow's position is a very important factor is how things will play out. Osborne, as so often, nailed it completely in his editorial today:
> > >
> > > <i class="Italic">"The Institute for Government says by proroguing Parliament, and having no meaningful votes, “it looks like a near impossible task for MPs to stop a PM who is determined to leave the EU without a deal”. Respectfully, we disagree. Parliament can revoke Article 50. Or it can deliver a vote of no confidence. The institute calls this “politics”. Exactly, that’s what governing depends on. If it ultimately comes to a Tory Government insisting on no-deal, then there are sufficient numbers of Conservative MPs who will join a majority to stop them — and there is a Speaker who will find a way for that majority to be heard. The Lib Dem threat now breathing down the neck of Tory MPs in marginal seats will only swell those numbers. That parliamentary majority will either revoke Brexit or bring down the Government. "</i>
> > >
> > > https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-tories-are-about-to-crash-into-the-solid-brexit-wall-a4152821.html
> > >
> > > What's more, although Bercow will get a lot of flak on this, with the usual suspects accusing him of Betrayal! and of taking sides, it's actually his job to ensure that parliament's will prevails, even if it is inconvenient to the government or the PM or one side of the current divide.
> >
> > And he has little to lose, and will love having such a place in history.
>
> I don't see how Parliament can revoke article 50. Parliament could repeal the withdrawal bill but it has no power to make the PM write to the EU and withdraw article 50.
>
> Some Tories could vote against the new Con leader in a vote of no confidence but they would have the whip removed and would then have to choose between an immediate election or installing Corbyn as PM.
They'd have to let Corbyn become PM, as an immediate election would see them knocked into third or fourth place.
> https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1133377952006180864
Good strategy: get Farage to really own No Deal. When the maelstrom hits, it will at least give us some satisfaction to see him try to wriggle out of it.
Green + CHUK + Lib Dem + Labour and comparing it to Brexit + Tories + UKIP would be an interesting exercise.
> I can't see any way out for the Tories. The number of people who will blame them for no Brexit betrayal[1] will be close to 100% of their natural leave inclined support.
> No deal chaos will be avoided as enough Tories will act in extremis to bring down the Gov't, or the Gov't will avoid it themselves but that brings us back to [1].
>
> Noone voting for the Brexit party will be thinking "Oh that Mr Bercow and the opposition stopped us from leaving"... they'll blame the Tories.
The way out is to "negotiate" with the EU and some how get the new deal (albeit one that is identical to May's Deal) through Parliament. In that way the Tories will have ensured Brexit occurs.
Unless they pull that trick off the Tories will be blamed for not leaving (and probably blamed if we did leave without a deal as the first things went wrong).
Oh and things will go wrong with a No Deal departure which the media will run with well beyond it's actual impact. Remember KFC's delivery issues last year...
> > @DecrepitJohnL said:
> > > @Pulpstar said:
> >
> > > Hah, I need my tiny wins to pay for May Exit date betting disaster.
> >
> > The May exit date being problematic as well because no-one, not even CCHQ, knows if Theresa May will still be leader between June and the new leader.
>
> The Tory constitution simply refers to "initiation of the process of electing a new leader", without spelling out the details of how this happens (presumably this is a matter for the parliamentary party), with the new leader taking office when the process is completed. The implication (and it is just my reading) is that the current leader stays until the new one is chosen, UNLESS they have specifically relinquished the post by resignation on an earlier date. Thus it comes down to deciding whether May has formally resigned (in early June), or not.
TM ceases to be leader on the 7th June. That is already confirmed and the 1922 committee presumably will run the party till late July when the new PM takes over in a straight handover of office
> > @Scott_P said:
> > The EU says no renegotiation.
> >
> > Bercow says no no deal.
> >
> > How does swapping May for BoZo move us forwards?
>
> I never thought it would. TM achieved the best and only deal available
>
>
Its a bad deal. And we know what TM said about those early on ...
> Going through each council area and adding the
>
> Green + CHUK + Lib Dem + Labour and comparing it to Brexit + Tories + UKIP would be an interesting exercise.
Probably a big lead for the latter, in terms of councils or constituencies, due to lower turnout and more efficient distribution of support.
> > @IanB2 said:
> > > @DecrepitJohnL said:
> > > > @Pulpstar said:
> > >
> > > > Hah, I need my tiny wins to pay for May Exit date betting disaster.
> > >
> > > The May exit date being problematic as well because no-one, not even CCHQ, knows if Theresa May will still be leader between June and the new leader.
> >
> > The Tory constitution simply refers to "initiation of the process of electing a new leader", without spelling out the details of how this happens (presumably this is a matter for the parliamentary party), with the new leader taking office when the process is completed. The implication (and it is just my reading) is that the current leader stays until the new one is chosen, UNLESS they have specifically relinquished the post by resignation on an earlier date. Thus it comes down to deciding whether May has formally resigned (in early June), or not.
>
> TM ceases to be leader on the 7th June. That is already confirmed and the 1922 committee presumably will run the party till late July when the new PM takes over in a straight handover of office
Who confirmed that?
> Bercows decision further increases the likelihood of an October general election and a Brexit Party/Con pact IMO.
And the end of brexit
Hi Pulpstar
I am contacting you regarding the bet id - 1:165483383489. We are not settling any Theresa May markets until she officially ceases as leader of the conservative party. While she will step down to make way for a leadership contest on the 7th June, she will not officially leave until a new leader of the conservative party is chosen, hence why the market has not traded out
Apologies for the inconvenience caused.
> > @GarethoftheVale2 said:
> > > @IanB2 said:
> > > > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > > > Bercow's position is a very important factor is how things will play out. Osborne, as so often, nailed it completely in his editorial today:
> > > >
> > > > <i class="Italic">"The Institute for Government says by proroguing Parliament, and having no meaningful votes, “it looks like a near impossible task for MPs to stop a PM who is determined to leave the EU without a deal”. Respectfully, we disagree. Parliament can revoke Article 50. Or it can deliver a vote of no confidence. The institute calls this “politics”. Exactly, that’s what governing depends on. If it ultimately comes to a Tory Government insisting on no-deal, then there are sufficient numbers of Conservative MPs who will join a majority to stop them — and there is a Speaker who will find a way for that majority to be heard. The Lib Dem threat now breathing down the neck of Tory MPs in marginal seats will only swell those numbers. That parliamentary majority will either revoke Brexit or bring down the Government. "</i>
> > > >
> > > > https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-tories-are-about-to-crash-into-the-solid-brexit-wall-a4152821.html
> > > >
> > > > What's more, although Bercow will get a lot of flak on this, with the usual suspects accusing him of Betrayal! and of taking sides, it's actually his job to ensure that parliament's will prevails, even if it is inconvenient to the government or the PM or one side of the current divide.
> > >
> > > And he has little to lose, and will love having such a place in history.
> >
> > I don't see how Parliament can revoke article 50. Parliament could repeal the withdrawal bill but it has no power to make the PM write to the EU and withdraw article 50.
> >
> > Some Tories could vote against the new Con leader in a vote of no confidence but they would have the whip removed and would then have to choose between an immediate election or installing Corbyn as PM.
>
> It may not have the specific legal power, but it has the particular political power.
>
> We had all this with no deal - PB'ers claiming that Parliament couldn't rule it out and/or that the PM could or would press ahead regardless. All wrong.
Exactly. If there's a single minded majority, parliament can demand the PM revoke. If (s)he doesn't, they VONC and install a new PM they decide on themselves. Remember, this is a majority. They can do literally anything that doesn't break the laws of physics if they have a common will. Replacing the PM with one of their number who will revoke is a doddle if they have the nerve. They certainly have the right.
> https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1133395727877574657
They would say that, wouldn't they?
When the new leader takes over and says this deal is dead and its a new deal or no deal, no extension without a new deal being negotiated - let us see what they say then.
> > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > > @Scott_P said:
> > > The EU says no renegotiation.
> > >
> > > Bercow says no no deal.
> > >
> > > How does swapping May for BoZo move us forwards?
> >
> > I never thought it would. TM achieved the best and only deal available
> >
> >
>
> Its a bad deal. And we know what TM said about those early on ...
To the ERG it is but to many of us it was not and the WDA should have gone through
> > @Scott_P said:
> > https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1133395727877574657
>
> They would say that, wouldn't they?
>
> When the new leader takes over and says this deal is dead and its a new deal or no deal, no extension without a new deal being negotiated - let us see what they say then.
I expect it will be you don't seem to have spent the last 6 months preparing for No Deal the way we have...
Not sure I can see Farage's ego agreeing to that though.
> > @Scott_P said:
> > https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1133395727877574657
>
> They would say that, wouldn't they?
>
> When the new leader takes over and says this deal is dead and its a new deal or no deal, no extension without a new deal being negotiated - let us see what they say then.
Easy reply to that. Thanks for saving us wasted time and money trying to renegotiate. WTO it is.
BTW if you'd like to attend we are having a 'little' party in Trafalger Square on 31st Oct to celebrate freedom day...
>
> They would say that, wouldn't they?
>
> When the new leader takes over and says this deal is dead and its a new deal or no deal, no extension without a new deal being negotiated - let us see what they say then.
Why on earth would they say anything different? No Deal doesn't become any more credible because it's being threatened by a different leader.
> > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > > @IanB2 said:
> > > > @DecrepitJohnL said:
> > > > > @Pulpstar said:
> > > >
> > > > > Hah, I need my tiny wins to pay for May Exit date betting disaster.
> > > >
> > > > The May exit date being problematic as well because no-one, not even CCHQ, knows if Theresa May will still be leader between June and the new leader.
> > >
> > > The Tory constitution simply refers to "initiation of the process of electing a new leader", without spelling out the details of how this happens (presumably this is a matter for the parliamentary party), with the new leader taking office when the process is completed. The implication (and it is just my reading) is that the current leader stays until the new one is chosen, UNLESS they have specifically relinquished the post by resignation on an earlier date. Thus it comes down to deciding whether May has formally resigned (in early June), or not.
> >
> > TM ceases to be leader on the 7th June. That is already confirmed and the 1922 committee presumably will run the party till late July when the new PM takes over in a straight handover of office
>
> Who confirmed that?
TM said she would stand down as leader on the 7th June and the report was that the 1922 will oversee the party until the succession
London Bridge terror leader Khuram Butt had appeared in C4 documentary about jihadis, demonstrated with hate preacher Anjem Choudary and been reported to authorities by his family but STILL got Tube security job
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7077943/Bodybuilding-steroids-did-not-make-London-Bridge-attackers-aggressive-inquest-hears.html
Who are they using to do the checks? The same people who do labours background checks?
Edit: acting PM =/= leader!
> No deal is a risk - but one that can be mitigated by policy. Probably policies too radical for CoTE Hammond to support.
>
>
> No Brexit has no risk element - destruction is assured.
>
> Only some aspects of the No Deal disaster can be mitigated by policy. Most of them can't.
>
> You are right about No Brexit, although it's definitely the lesser of the disasters both for the country and the party.
>
> Such is the mess the nutjobs have got the party and country into by trashing the deal which would have implemented the referendum result faithfully and without too much economic damage. What could have been an orderly Brexit, acceptable to the vast majority if not ideal for anyone, was thrown away.
It isn't the lesser disaster for the party - no Brexit is the end. Canada style. Forever. Dolts like Hammond may not get that but there is not way out of it.
> > @Scott_P said:
> > https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1133395727877574657
>
> They would say that, wouldn't they?
>
> When the new leader takes over and says this deal is dead and its a new deal or no deal, no extension without a new deal being negotiated - let us see what they say then.
It is dead will be the response
> A Brexit/Tory pact could do very well if the Tories run as the Tories in their natural constituencies and The Brexit Party goes down on the ballot in Hartlepool etc.
>
> Not sure I can see Farage's ego agreeing to that though.
Will Arron Banks and his backers approve though?
> > @williamglenn said:
> > https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1133377952006180864
>
> Good strategy: get Farage to really own No Deal. When the maelstrom hits, it will at least give us some satisfaction to see him try to wriggle out of it.
--------
It will be: 'the political establishment implemented No Deal badly, if I had done it it would have been a blazing success'.
> > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > > @Scott_P said:
> > > The EU says no renegotiation.
> > >
> > > Bercow says no no deal.
> > >
> > > How does swapping May for BoZo move us forwards?
> >
> > I never thought it would. TM achieved the best and only deal available
> >
> >
>
> Its a bad deal. And we know what TM said about those early on ...
How is it a bad deal? It seems pretty balanced under the circumstances. The only way you can say it is a bad deal is when compared with the excellent one we have already.
> https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1133399546573283330
Great news. I have been hoping for that since TM resigned
Will be very interesting and the polling during or after will be very useful
> https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1133399546573283330
Glad to see that Andrew Neil is involved - best in the business.
> > @TGOHF said:
> > > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > > > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > >
> > >
> > > If it ultimately comes to a Tory Government insisting on no-deal, then there are sufficient numbers of Conservative MPs who will join a majority to stop them —
> > >
> > >
> > > Sure. But does spreadsheet Phil want to secure his place in history as the chap who ended the Conservative party ?
> > >
> > >
> > > Would suggest a boldness that has never appeared in any of his policies.
> > >
> > > You are right, he is cautious. That's why he won't go along with a no-deal crash out, which will be a disaster and will certainly be the end of the Conservative Party.
> > >
> > > In truth, though, the party is probably dead anyway, killed by the ERG nutjobs. Maybe in a decade or two some future David Cameron will be able to revive it, but only once it has, like a drug addict, reached the bottom and finally resolved to be serious about rehab.
> >
> > No deal is a risk - but one that can be mitigated by policy. Probably policies too radical for CoTE Hammond to support.
> >
> > No Brexit has no risk element - destruction is assured.
> >
> >
>
> No deal cannot happen so the argument is irrelevant.
>
> It is either a deal or revoke
Much as I would like to believe you are right, why can't No Deal happen?
What about:
Let's say the next conservative leader - Johnson, for example - becomes PM, promising to negotiate a better deal. He then just keeps stringing everyone along, at what point do rebel tories VONC him to avoid No Deal? Perhaps only when it is too late to avoid, maybe miscalculating that the EU will grant another extension which is instead vetoed by Macron.
Or the new Conservative PM enjoys a massive honeymoon, calls a general election, wins a landslide majority against a hopelessly divided remainish vote, fails hopelessly in attempts to negotiate a new deal, and exits with no deal to loud cheers from the patriotic "British" media.
Or they call a referendum, which No Deal wins.
In any case, the subsequent chaos will be blamed (successfully enough with the support of the newspapers) on foreigners and traitors. The economic situation will give whichever far-right Conservative wins the cover to do what they want to do anyway: sell the NHS off to big American private companies, scrap environmental protections and lower taxes on the rich.
Now this may all not be that probable, but it seems possible to me.
Which is why the ERG are not idiots or morons. This is their goal, and so far they have played a blinder. They are just not interested in Brexit as such, it has to be a disaster Brexit. They are disaster Brexiteers.
> > @Philip_Thompson said:
> >
> > They would say that, wouldn't they?
> >
> > When the new leader takes over and says this deal is dead and its a new deal or no deal, no extension without a new deal being negotiated - let us see what they say then.
>
> Why on earth would they say anything different? No Deal doesn't become any more credible because it's being threatened by a different leader.
---------
You seem to be forgetting once again William that we hold all the cards!
> > @GIN1138 said:
> > Bercows decision further increases the likelihood of an October general election and a Brexit Party/Con pact IMO.
>
> And the end of brexit
If the Conservative Party enters into a pact with a crypto-fascist party then it is finished completely. Maybe then Farage's revenge for being refused as a candidate will be complete.
> Years ago, perhaps 2014/15, I posted on here that British Politics needed to be realigned into three new groups as the current political parties coalitions were no longer sustainable. I am pretty sure (although I would say this) thjat hey were something along the lines of
>
> Old School Labour, Eurosceptic Tories and UKIP
> Cameroons, Lib Dems and Blairite Labour
> Loony left & Greens?
>
> It probably wasnt as accurate as that,. but Brexit has made it happen.
I'm not sure it has. The loony left is in the kitchen with the Purple Tories and Ukip hunched around a cauldron with something evil-smelling bubbling within.
The Greens and Lib Dems are on opposite sides of the bedroom sexting each other, and working up to something they are about to do despite/because they know it'll be so very wrong.
Old school Labour is rocking back and forth in the cellar with the Blairites in a headlock.
The Cameroons are in the shed.
And it's all on fire.
> Why on earth would they say anything different? No Deal doesn't become any more credible because it's being threatened by a different leader.
Indeed - a new PM has to offer them something different that benefits them too.
Otherwise piss off.
Moronic question gets boring answer shock..
No one seems to know how to stop the nuclear clock countdown, on either side of the House.
As a hardcore Remainer I eventually reconciled myself to May’s final deal, only to see it demolished on impact by so-called Labour Brexiters like Lisa Nandy (among others). Perhaps Nandy needs to explain *that* to her constituents.
> It is simultaneously amusing, heartbreaking, and terrifying to watch Brexit destroy the two party system (just another victim of Brexit’s insatiable maw).
>
> No one seems to know how to stop the nuclear clock countdown, on either side of the House.
>
> As a hardcore Remainer I eventually reconciled myself to May’s final deal, only to see it demolished on impact by so-called Labour Brexiters like Lisa Nandy (among others). Perhaps Nandy needs to explain *that* to her constituents.
She will have cover for that (I know my MP does). She will have asked her constituents what to do and they will have replied that the deal wasn't what they wanted....
> > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > > @TGOHF said:
> > > > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > > > > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If it ultimately comes to a Tory Government insisting on no-deal, then there are sufficient numbers of Conservative MPs who will join a majority to stop them —
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sure. But does spreadsheet Phil want to secure his place in history as the chap who ended the Conservative party ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Would suggest a boldness that has never appeared in any of his policies.
> > > >
> > > > You are right, he is cautious. That's why he won't go along with a no-deal crash out, which will be a disaster and will certainly be the end of the Conservative Party.
> > > >
> > > > In truth, though, the party is probably dead anyway
> > >
> > > No deal is a risk - but one that can be mitigated by policy. Probably policies too radical for CoTE Hammond to support.
> > >
> > > No Brexit has no risk element - destruction is assured.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > No deal cannot happen so the argument is irrelevant.
> >
> > It is either a deal or revoke
>
> Much as I would like to believe you are right, why can't No Deal happen?
>
> What about:
> Let's say the next conservative leader - Johnson, for example - becomes PM, promising to negotiate a better deal. He then just keeps stringing everyone along, at what point do rebel tories VONC him to avoid No Deal? Perhaps only when it is too late to avoid, maybe miscalculating that the EU will grant another extension which is instead vetoed by Macron.
>
> Or the new Conservative PM enjoys a massive honeymoon, calls a general election, wins a landslide majority against a hopelessly divided remainish vote, fails hopelessly in attempts to negotiate a new deal, and exits with no deal to loud cheers from the patriotic "British" media.
>
> Or they call a referendum, which No Deal wins.
>
> In any case, the subsequent chaos will be blamed (successfully enough with the support of the newspapers) on foreigners and traitors. The economic situation will give whichever far-right Conservative wins the cover to do what they want to do anyway: sell the NHS off to big American private companies, scrap environmental protections and lower taxes on the rich.
>
> Now this may all not be that probable, but it seems possible to me.
>
> Which is why the ERG are not idiots or morons. This is their goal, and so far they have played a blinder. They are just not interested in Brexit as such, it has to be a disaster Brexit. They are disaster Brexiteers.
It is only too late to vonc on the 31st October. The HOC will not let any new PM string them along over such a vital matter and I would expect a vonc by the middle of October if we have not obtained a deal, an extension or enacted another referendum
> > @GIN1138 said:
> > Bercows decision further increases the likelihood of an October general election and a Brexit Party/Con pact IMO.
>
> And the end of brexit
Brexit will only happen with a new parliament - this parliament will never allow it.
So it's do or die in October - The people WILL have a vote but it will be in a general election not a second referendum, IMO.
> > @Pulpstar said:
> > Going through each council area and adding the
> >
> > Green + CHUK + Lib Dem + Labour and comparing it to Brexit + Tories + UKIP would be an interesting exercise.
>
> Probably a big lead for the latter, in terms of councils or constituencies, due to lower turnout and more efficient distribution of support.
Unlikely, given that the national shares would be 50% plays 44%. I doubt distribution would negate a 6% national lead - and in any case really it would be 55% plays 44% because the SNP and PC can reasonably be added to the remainers.
> It isn't the lesser disaster for the party - no Brexit is the end. Canada style. Forever. Dolts like Hammond may not get that but there is not way out of it.
>
> You are probably right that No Brexit is the end for the party. You are completely wrong in thinking Hammond doesn't understand that, or that he is a dolt. The missing bit in your thinking is not appreciating that crashing out in no deal, with the attendant job losses, bankruptcies and disruption to daily life, is even worse. It will never be forgotten, especially by the younger people who will be the ones most badly hit.
I think younger people are already equating Conservatives with austerity + Brexit. As Conservatives can no longer claim to be the party of the economy (except by contrast with Mr Thicky), it is difficult to imagine they have any way back, particularly if Labour exchanges Corbyn for a moderate with half a brain.
> > @Scott_P said:
> > https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1133399546573283330
>
> Glad to see that Andrew Neil is involved - best in the business.
Not really. He's a sledgehammer. Useful if you want to smash something, but there is a whole art of political interviewing that relies on finessing answers out of subjects.
Plus, he's politically compromised, and a lot of people without his right-wing beliefs are turned off by him. That harms his ability to find the right audience. They see him as a participant in politics, not a fair shiner of lights. Whether or not that's a _fair_ judgement, it's a _justified_ one. He is highly partisan on Twitter.
> > @Stark_Dawning said:
> > > @williamglenn said:
> > > https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1133377952006180864
> >
> > Good strategy: get Farage to really own No Deal. When the maelstrom hits, it will at least give us some satisfaction to see him try to wriggle out of it.
>
> --------
>
> It will be: 'the political establishment implemented No Deal badly, if I had done it it would have been a blazing success'.
Yep, and there are 30% of the electorate who are so mind numbingly stupid that they will believe the lying little toad
And there are ways he can do that . He needs to stay on as long as possible to stop the nutjob take over of the country .
> > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > > @GIN1138 said:
> > > Bercows decision further increases the likelihood of an October general election and a Brexit Party/Con pact IMO.
> >
> > And the end of brexit
>
> Brexit will only happen with a new parliament - this parliament will never allow it.
>
> So it's do or die in October - The people WILL have a vote but it will be in a general election not a second referendum, IMO.
And in that election Brexit will die
https://twitter.com/bellacaledonia/status/1133383817400651776
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1133384127737155584
Remain vs. No Deal are the two options, with a necessary 55 per cent threshold to be validated (plus, in addition, an equivalent or greater level of support is required, on top, to exceed those that voted "Leave" last time - >17.4 million).
Otherwise, if both options fall short of 55 per cent (or less than 17.4 million votes); we follow through with Theresa May's already negotiated (and deliverable) deal as the compromise "default" option.
Also, as a bonus, it sets a nice precedent for any future Scottish independence referendum in terms of threshold required to change the result from last time.....
Am sure there are much worse options in terms of getting the Tories out of the mess
> > @Pulpstar said:
> > A Brexit/Tory pact could do very well if the Tories run as the Tories in their natural constituencies and The Brexit Party goes down on the ballot in Hartlepool etc.
> > Not sure I can see Farage's ego agreeing to that though.
> Will Arron Banks and his backers approve though?
______________________
I can almost see it happening. It's best called using FPTP to fiddle the result.
Lord Ashcroft's poll gave four parties Lab/Con/LD/B****t all on ~18-22%. Under FPTP, that gives maybe 275 Lab seats, due to FPTP being overgenerous to Lab on tiny percentages. But little chance of a Lab majority. It would need LDs, SNP or both.
Even so, an effectively SDP government is far too left-wing for Banks et al. So Con and B****t hope to create a fake party on a combined 35-40% of the vote to get 350 seats a.k.a. the usual elected dictatorship.
Thatcher Emerges from the Grave, as Bogdanor put it. Aaargh.
Of course there will have to be an extension - the timetable of the Tory leadership contest pretty much guarantees that, whatever route is taken even including No Deal (which still requires a lot of legislation to cover the legal gaps). We are at some risk because of the possibility that the EU27 won't grant the extension, however.
> > @Benpointer said:
> > > @Stark_Dawning said:
> > > > @williamglenn said:
> > > > https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1133377952006180864
> > >
> > > Good strategy: get Farage to really own No Deal. When the maelstrom hits, it will at least give us some satisfaction to see him try to wriggle out of it.
> >
> > --------
> >
> > It will be: 'the political establishment implemented No Deal badly, if I had done it it would have been a blazing success'.
>
> Yep, and there are 30% of the electorate who are so mind numbingly stupid that they will believe the lying little toad
Maybe. But don't forget that only 11% of the electorate were stupid enough to vote for him last Thursday.
An extension would be no good as the EU has said it's the WA or nothing.
Equally I can't see him getting into No10 and agreeing a 2nd referendum.
Doesn't fill me with confidence.