Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.
Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.
No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
No it failed because over 400 MPs voted against it. Each of those votes counts equally.
Based on the manifestos, all the Labour MPs had a mandate from the electorate to reject it. None of the Conservative MPs did.
Conservatives put country before party. Labour put party before country.
Posting that first after recent events suggests you are losing touch with reality.
Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.
Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.
No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
No it failed because over 400 MPs voted against it. Each of those votes counts equally.
Based on the manifestos, all the Labour MPs had a mandate from the electorate to reject it. None of the Conservative MPs did.
Conservatives put country before party. Labour put party before country.
Which Conservatives do you think were putting country before party? Presumably the ones voting with Jeremy Corbyn?
Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.
Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.
No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
So 80% of Tory MPs voted for it and 3% of Labour MPs voted for it, yet it failed because the Tories didn't vote for it??
Too many tourists at Stonehnge. Very unapealing. Avebury much better. There are stone age monuments near Cardiff that nobody visits (except bizarrely Dutch tourists)
I'm planning a trip to Stonehenge for the little 'un, as it's something he's been fascinated by for a couple of years. It looks as though it's going to be a rather sad experience: apparently you have to book a time slot of half an hour for your tour, which is going to be awkward after a 3+ hour drive from home. Then you can't even get near the stones.
It all seems rather sad: what should be a rather magical experience for a 5-year old looks as though it's going to be a highly stage-managed, controlled and anaesthetic trip.
Fortunately, I'm planning to take him to Avebury afterwards to get some real contact with our past.
There are huge queues - you get a better view from the road 😉
Seriously though I think English Heritage has an option (premium) for an evening visit where you do get to walk among the stones
Thanks - but the trip's a little reward for him having done something, so I can't really cancel.
An evening walk'd be good, but probably not suitable for him, sadly.
(We're also panning to do Portsmouth (HMS Warrior/Victory), a hovercraft over to the IoW, and then Fishbourne Roman Palace in the trip).
If your little un is anything like ours, then Avebury is pretty close to the Steam museum at Swindon, which is a terrific afternoon out.
(whispers quietly)
He isn't interested in railways!
I live in hope that he'll develop the bug before I have to disown him, but at the moment trains leave him cold. He loves ancient history and buildings though.
We all move in our own bubbles and this distorts our perceptions but my bubble remains focused on the unmitigated disaster that independence would be for Scotland. This is a far, far more important issue for most Scots than Brexit because the consequences would be many times more significant.
This means that even although a significant part of Ruth's 2017 successful coalition is pretty unhappy with Brexit generally and horrified at Boris's apparent drive to a no deal in particular there is also concern about the current strength of the SNP and the possibility of yet more years of constitutional wrangling north of the border doing yet more damage to our business.
In the short term that unhappiness may well tempt electors to the Lib Dems, a solidly Unionist party who also oppose Brexit. Come elections in Scotland, however, whether for Holyrood or Westminster and the independence question will once again dominate proceedings to the almost complete exclusion of the secondary Brexit issue. That means where the Lib Dems have good prospects, such as Fife NE and possibly one of the Edinburgh seats, they will get Unionist support but in most of the country those votes will go Tory. I can't see the Lib Dems regaining any of their former strongholds in the borders for example.
In short Brexit has temporarily weakened Ruth's coalition but those arguing it cannot be put back together again are in my view overstating things. A further complicating factor is the incredible weakness of Scottish Labour which is boosting SNP support with left leaning voters. Lost Labour seats look inevitable at the moment boosting the SNP dominance once again.
It is coming David , the nay sayers are on the run , down to desperation
Nicola Sturgeon has said that her conversations with Theresa May during her time as prime minister were “pretty soul destroying”.
Scotland’s First Minister, speaking at an Edinburgh Fringe Festival event with Iain Dale on Monday, said that Mrs May would always stick to a prepared script and suggested that even light-hearted moments could become awkward.
Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.
Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.
No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
Indeed. The fact that so many prominent Conservative Brexiteers were against the deal and calling it all sorts of things gave others the opportunities to say that even the government's side didn't agree with it.
Worse, they have power to the Brexit Party's mantra of betrayal, which would have helped them in the Euros.
But as always with leavers, we're seeing: "It's all someone else's fault!"
No, this misses the point. Those who claim to be both opposed to the deal, and opposed to no deal also claim to reject that mantra of “no deal is better than a bad deal”. Unless they actually have a way of preventing no deal, and achieving that aim, then they must accept their share of responsibility for the outcome. Before God, if not the electorate. It is not a question of whether the deal would have passed had not the ERG opposed (I think it would).
For each individual it is a question of whether their actions have ultimately contributed to the worst case outcome.
I'm planning a trip to Stonehenge for the little 'un, as it's something he's been fascinated by for a couple of years. It looks as though it's going to be a rather sad experience: apparently you have to book a time slot of half an hour for your tour, which is going to be awkward after a 3+ hour drive from home. Then you can't even get near the stones.
It all seems rather sad: what should be a rather magical experience for a 5-year old looks as though it's going to be a highly stage-managed, controlled and anaesthetic trip.
Fortunately, I'm planning to take him to Avebury afterwards to get some real contact with our past.
There are huge queues - you get a better view from the road 😉
Seriously though I think English Heritage has an option (premium) for an evening visit where you do get to walk among the stones
Thanks - but the trip's a little reward for him having done something, so I can't really cancel.
An evening walk'd be good, but probably not suitable for him, sadly.
(We're also panning to do Portsmouth (HMS Warrior/Victory), a hovercraft over to the IoW, and then Fishbourne Roman Palace in the trip).
What a superb trip; bit over the top for a 5 year old, I would have thought, but you know your son.
I'm looking forward to a trip to Sutton Hoo again.
I'm planning to tire him out over three / four days. Mrs J's in the middle of project management madness, so I might as well take him away for a few days and spend her hard-earned money.
Sutton Hoo is great, though I haven't been there for years.
There's another place nearby I want to go - and which surprisingly I haven't done yet - Grimes Graves, a prehistoric flint mine.
Is there not a bit of an inconsistency here? Ruth Davidson gets the credit for the seats gained in 2017, but I'm guessing she won't get the blame were they to be lost in an autumn election.
Also, is there not a slight problem with the Lib Dems and Scottish Green given that one is pro-Union and one is pro-independence?
I'm planning a trip to Stonehenge for the little 'un, as it's something he's been fascinated by for a couple of years. It looks as though it's going to be a rather sad experience: apparently you have to book a time slot of half an hour for your tour, which is going to be awkward after a 3+ hour drive from home. Then you can't even get near the stones.
It all seems rather sad: what should be a rather magical experience for a 5-year old looks as though it's going to be a highly stage-managed, controlled and anaesthetic trip.
Fortunately, I'm planning to take him to Avebury afterwards to get some real contact with our past.
Must Farm and Flag Fen near Peterborough may well be handier, though Bronze age.
I agree that the current Stonehenge experience visit is pretty disappointing.
Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.
Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.
No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
No it failed because over 400 MPs voted against it. Each of those votes counts equally.
Based on the manifestos, all the Labour MPs had a mandate from the electorate to reject it. None of the Conservative MPs did.
Conservatives put country before party. Labour put party before country.
Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.
Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.
No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
No it failed because over 400 MPs voted against it. Each of those votes counts equally.
Based on the manifestos, all the Labour MPs had a mandate from the electorate to reject it. None of the Conservative MPs did.
Conservatives put country before party. Labour put party before country.
Which Conservatives do you think were putting country before party? Presumably the ones voting with Jeremy Corbyn?
Every Conservative MP that voted based on what they thought was best for the country and not what would give partisan advantage.
I'm planning a trip to Stonehenge for the little 'un, as it's something he's been fascinated by for a couple of years. It looks as though it's going to be a rather sad experience: apparently you have to book a time slot of half an hour for your tour, which is going to be awkward after a 3+ hour drive from home. Then you can't even get near the stones.
It all seems rather sad: what should be a rather magical experience for a 5-year old looks as though it's going to be a highly stage-managed, controlled and anaesthetic trip.
Fortunately, I'm planning to take him to Avebury afterwards to get some real contact with our past.
There are huge queues - you get a better view from the road 😉
Seriously though I think English Heritage has an option (premium) for an evening visit where you do get to walk among the stones
Thanks - but the trip's a little reward for him having done something, so I can't really cancel.
An evening walk'd be good, but probably not suitable for him, sadly.
(We're also panning to do Portsmouth (HMS Warrior/Victory), a hovercraft over to the IoW, and then Fishbourne Roman Palace in the trip).
Brading Roman Villa is well worth a visit.
Thanks, I'd never heard of that. I doubt we'll get a chance to go there on this trip, though.
I'm planning a trip to Stonehenge for the little 'un, as it's something he's been fascinated by for a couple of years. It looks as though it's going to be a rather sad experience: apparently you have to book a time slot of half an hour for your tour, which is going to be awkward after a 3+ hour drive from home. Then you can't even get near the stones.
It all seems rather sad: what should be a rather magical experience for a 5-year old looks as though it's going to be a highly stage-managed, controlled and anaesthetic trip.
Fortunately, I'm planning to take him to Avebury afterwards to get some real contact with our past.
There are huge queues - you get a better view from the road 😉
Seriously though I think English Heritage has an option (premium) for an evening visit where you do get to walk among the stones
Thanks - but the trip's a little reward for him having done something, so I can't really cancel.
An evening walk'd be good, but probably not suitable for him, sadly.
(We're also panning to do Portsmouth (HMS Warrior/Victory), a hovercraft over to the IoW, and then Fishbourne Roman Palace in the trip).
If your little un is anything like ours, then Avebury is pretty close to the Steam museum at Swindon, which is a terrific afternoon out.
(whispers quietly)
He isn't interested in railways!
I live in hope that he'll develop the bug before I have to disown him, but at the moment trains leave him cold. He loves ancient history and buildings though.
His best friend is train and car mad, though.
Two of our grandchildren were dinosaur-mad at about that age as I recall. Only got one that age now and she doesn't seem 'devoted' to anything particularly. New school in a week or two though, so something might come.
I live in hope that he'll develop the bug before I have to disown him, but at the moment trains leave him cold. He loves ancient history and buildings though.
His best friend is train and car mad, though.
Mein gott!
We left la France profonde at 10am yesterday and arrived back here at 7.30pm. All by train. Junior loved it.
I’m intrigued to see what No Deal will do to the Eurostar experience at Gare du Nord, though, as the only possible way I can conceive of making it worse is by applying a rotary cheesegrater to all passengers as they pass through immigration control.
If MPs opposing the deal think no deal is better, that makes sense. If they think no deal is worse, they're delinquent and in dereliction of their duty.
Mr. B2, every MP is responsible for how they vote. If the ERG are determining how non-Conservatives vote, that's a sign of the idiocy of non-Conservative MPs.
Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.
Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.
No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
No it failed because over 400 MPs voted against it. Each of those votes counts equally.
Based on the manifestos, all the Labour MPs had a mandate from the electorate to reject it. None of the Conservative MPs did.
They didn't as the Withdrawal Agreement is just the mechanism for leaving the EU ie resolving the exit bill, citizens' rights and the Irish border. The Political Declaration is non binding and once the Withdrawal Agreement passed anything from staying in the Single Market and Customs Union to a Canada style FTA could have been negotiated in the transition period.
Which was why MPs who rejected the Withdrawal Agreement were idiots to do so unless they really wanted No Deal or nothing but revoke Article 50 and stay in the EU would do
The point is people saying “this is the deal that was agreed” are missing the point: it WASN’T agreed. It was recommended and rejected.
So the government is not the the principal. The principal also cannot be parliament because parliament delegated the decision on EU membership to the people. Therefore only the people can accept or reject the deal in a referendum.
Of course it is. Parliament is there to ratify any deal (which it failed to do). The were no delegation of any decision over the means of leaving to ‘the people’. As you well know, the referendum vote was legally speaking an advisory one; absent the vote in parliament to invoke A50, we would not be leaving.
I was just trying to show that Charles’ logic leads to a people’s vote.
William, I hate to sound like a Brexiteer but if somebody suggested nuking Brussels as a way out of our many difficulties you would still insist that would lead ultimately to a People's Vote, followed by revocation and joining the Euro.
Yes, where is HY this morning?
Perhaps he's still recovering after the comments about Priti Patel 'banging the Israeli big guns' on the previous thread.
It certainly gave me a mental image of Netanyahu and Patel that I'm sure I didn't need.
He'll still be laminating photographs of Brexit Party candidates, ready for some stiff campaigning.
I'm planning a trip to Stonehenge for the little 'un, as it's something he's been fascinated by for a couple of years. It looks as though it's going to be a rather sad experience: apparently you have to book a time slot of half an hour for your tour, which is going to be awkward after a 3+ hour drive from home. Then you can't even get near the stones.
It all seems rather sad: what should be a rather magical experience for a 5-year old looks as though it's going to be a highly stage-managed, controlled and anaesthetic trip.
Fortunately, I'm planning to take him to Avebury afterwards to get some real contact with our past.
There are huge queues - you get a better view from the road 😉
Seriously though I think English Heritage has an option (premium) for an evening visit where you do get to walk among the stones
Thanks - but the trip's a little reward for him having done something, so I can't really cancel.
An evening walk'd be good, but probably not suitable for him, sadly.
(We're also panning to do Portsmouth (HMS Warrior/Victory), a hovercraft over to the IoW, and then Fishbourne Roman Palace in the trip).
By the power of coincidental timewasting on Youtube, here is Jeremy Clarkson driving past Stonehenge on the A303 (I think) which may or may not give you some idea. https://youtu.be/LuANURnBzWQ?t=128s
It would be interesting to see if there were an election prior to October 31st (ie. before we had left the EU and with a theoretical chance of either staying in the EU or leaving with a deal) and the outcome gave Johnson a clear majority for leaving Oct 31st without a deal (with the expectation that he would follow through on this), but the Lib Dem’s gaining, say 100 seats (clearly an enormously hypothetical scenario).
I'm planning a trip to Stonehenge for the little 'un, as it's something he's been fascinated by for a couple of years. It looks as though it's going to be a rather sad experience: apparently you have to book a time slot of half an hour for your tour, which is going to be awkward after a 3+ hour drive from home. Then you can't even get near the stones.
It all seems rather sad: what should be a rather magical experience for a 5-year old looks as though it's going to be a highly stage-managed, controlled and anaesthetic trip.
Fortunately, I'm planning to take him to Avebury afterwards to get some real contact with our past.
There are huge queues - you get a better view from the road 😉
Seriously though I think English Heritage has an option (premium) for an evening visit where you do get to walk among the stones
Thanks - but the trip's a little reward for him having done something, so I can't really cancel.
An evening walk'd be good, but probably not suitable for him, sadly.
(We're also panning to do Portsmouth (HMS Warrior/Victory), a hovercraft over to the IoW, and then Fishbourne Roman Palace in the trip).
Brading Roman Villa is well worth a visit.
Thanks, I'd never heard of that. I doubt we'll get a chance to go there on this trip, though.
Its up there with Fishbourne - indeed the mosaics are said to be better (I haven't visited Fishbourne so cant say). Two stops on the Island Line after your hovercraft trip and then about 20 min walk (shortened by a couple of stops on the bus, or short taxi ride) from the station.
Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.
Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.
No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
No it failed because over 400 MPs voted against it. Each of those votes counts equally.
Based on the manifestos, all the Labour MPs had a mandate from the electorate to reject it. None of the Conservative MPs did.
They didn't as the Withdrawal Agreement is just the mechanism for leaving the EU ie resolving the exit bill, citizens' rights and the Irish border. The Political Declaration is non binding and once the Withdrawal Agreement passed anything from staying in the Single Market and Customs Union to a Canada style FTA could have been negotiated in the transition period.
Which was why MPs who rejected the Withdrawal Agreement were idiots to do so unless they really wanted No Deal or nothing but revoke Article 50 and stay in the EU would do
Well you are sort of right - those who rejected the deal either do want No Deal or No Brexit. But I concede that some of them are also idiots.
Every Conservative MP that voted based on what they thought was best for the country and not what would give partisan advantage.
Bollocks
Quite, but that was Mrs May's delusion; that Conservative Party interest = National interest. And that the interests or opinions of members of other parties were less so.
Is there not a bit of an inconsistency here? Ruth Davidson gets the credit for the seats gained in 2017, but I'm guessing she won't get the blame were they to be lost in an autumn election.
Also, is there not a slight problem with the Lib Dems and Scottish Green given that one is pro-Union and one is pro-independence?
Even on the above poll the Tories would still hold 3 seats in Scotland while Labour would be back to just 1, the LDs would be up to 5 Scottish seats
Is there not a bit of an inconsistency here? Ruth Davidson gets the credit for the seats gained in 2017, but I'm guessing she won't get the blame were they to be lost in an autumn election.
Also, is there not a slight problem with the Lib Dems and Scottish Green given that one is pro-Union and one is pro-independence?
Even on the above poll the Tories would still hold 3 seats in Scotland while Labour would be back to just 1, the LDs would be up to 4 Scottish seats
Ruth might get the chance to make Willie First Minister.
We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?
Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.
It slightly amuses that there are people who are criticising Boris for “refusing to negotiate without preconditions” and, at the same time, are applauding the EU for “sticking to their guns” on the backstop
It's a fair point. The backstop is a hefty reach. To be fair to the EU, and leaving aside questions of relative bargaining power, the EU is correct on the issue. If you want a soft border in Ireland, you either need the backstop or an alternative to it. On the UK's suggestion, the EU proposed an all UK Customs arrangement, only for the UK to renege on the deal. The UK hasn't proposed s viable alternative or properly engaged on the issue. Hence the lack of trust and Ireland/EU doubling down.
Is there not a bit of an inconsistency here? Ruth Davidson gets the credit for the seats gained in 2017, but I'm guessing she won't get the blame were they to be lost in an autumn election.
Also, is there not a slight problem with the Lib Dems and Scottish Green given that one is pro-Union and one is pro-independence?
It would be interesting to see if there were an election prior to October 31st (ie. before we had left the EU and with a theoretical chance of either staying in the EU or leaving with a deal) and the outcome gave Johnson a clear majority for leaving Oct 31st without a deal (with the expectation that he would follow through on this), but the Lib Dem’s gaining, say 100 seats (clearly an enormously hypothetical scenario).
Would the reaction of LibDem politicians be
1) jubilation? 2) despair?
In between, as if they gained a 100 seats but Boris still won a majority Labour would have been decimated by losses to the Tories and Labour and well under 200 seats and the LDs would be in touching distance of replacing Labour as the main party of the centre left if it stuck with Corbynism
I'm planning a trip to Stonehenge for the little 'un, as it's something he's been fascinated by for a couple of years. It looks as though it's going to be a rather sad experience: apparently you have to book a time slot of half an hour for your tour, which is going to be awkward after a 3+ hour drive from home. Then you can't even get near the stones.
It all seems rather sad: what should be a rather magical experience for a 5-year old looks as though it's going to be a highly stage-managed, controlled and anaesthetic trip.
Fortunately, I'm planning to take him to Avebury afterwards to get some real contact with our past.
Its up there with Fishbourne - indeed the mosaics are said to be better (I haven't visited Fishbourne so cant say). Two stops on the Island Line after your hovercraft trip and then about 20 min walk (shortened by a couple of stops on the bus, or short taxi ride) from the station.
I visited the St Albans mosaic this weekend. Fascinating.
Its a repeating pattern, except it isn't. The supposition is it took 2 years to complete, perhaps with different workers. Each pattern repeats once, except they are slightly different, the number of tiles, the colours, the shapes.
Is there not a bit of an inconsistency here? Ruth Davidson gets the credit for the seats gained in 2017, but I'm guessing she won't get the blame were they to be lost in an autumn election.
Also, is there not a slight problem with the Lib Dems and Scottish Green given that one is pro-Union and one is pro-independence?
Even on the above poll the Tories would still hold 3 seats in Scotland while Labour would be back to just 1, the LDs would be up to 5 Scottish seats
Glad you’re happy with Unionist parties winning 9 seats and the SNP winning 50 seats.
Perhaps Unionists would get on better if you set higher goals.
“Instructing the Executive to do X” isn’t and shouldn’t be a thing.
Revocation it is then.
Sure, if someone who will revoke can command majority support in the House of Commons. I have my doubts, but it would certainly be valid constitutionally albeit politically unwise.
Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.
Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.
No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
No it failed because over 400 MPs voted against it. Each of those votes counts equally.
Based on the manifestos, all the Labour MPs had a mandate from the electorate to reject it. None of the Conservative MPs did.
They didn't as the Withdrawal Agreement is just the mechanism for leaving the EU ie resolving the exit bill, citizens' rights and the Irish border. The Political Declaration is non binding and once the Withdrawal Agreement passed anything from staying in the Single Market and Customs Union to a Canada style FTA could have been negotiated in the transition period.
Which was why MPs who rejected the Withdrawal Agreement were idiots to do so unless they really wanted No Deal or nothing but revoke Article 50 and stay in the EU would do
Well you are sort of right - those who rejected the deal either do want No Deal or No Brexit. But I concede that some of them are also idiots.
Not all of them, Stephen Kinnock, Lisa Nandy etc amongst many Labour MPs who voted 3 times against the Withdrawal Agreement but all want a Brexit Deal and oppose No Deal and No Brexit
I'm planning a trip to Stonehenge for the little 'un, as it's something he's been fascinated by for a couple of years. It looks as though it's going to be a rather sad experience: apparently you have to book a time slot of half an hour for your tour, which is going to be awkward after a 3+ hour drive from home. Then you can't even get near the stones.
It all seems rather sad: what should be a rather magical experience for a 5-year old looks as though it's going to be a highly stage-managed, controlled and anaesthetic trip.
Fortunately, I'm planning to take him to Avebury afterwards to get some real contact with our past.
There are huge queues - you get a better view from the road 😉
Seriously though I think English Heritage has an option (premium) for an evening visit where you do get to walk among the stones
Thanks - but the trip's a little reward for him having done something, so I can't really cancel.
An evening walk'd be good, but probably not suitable for him, sadly.
(We're also panning to do Portsmouth (HMS Warrior/Victory), a hovercraft over to the IoW, and then Fishbourne Roman Palace in the trip).
Brading Roman Villa is well worth a visit.
Thanks, I'd never heard of that. I doubt we'll get a chance to go there on this trip, though.
Its up there with Fishbourne - indeed the mosaics are said to be better (I haven't visited Fishbourne so cant say). Two stops on the Island Line after your hovercraft trip and then about 20 min walk (shortened by a couple of stops on the bus, or short taxi ride) from the station.
The Wightlink car ferry goes direct from Portsmouth to Fishbourne, but is no hovercraft. Carisbrooke Castle near Newport is great for kids. Englands Rocket launch station near the Needles is worth a look too.
Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.
Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.
No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
No it failed because over 400 MPs voted against it. Each of those votes counts equally.
Based on the manifestos, all the Labour MPs had a mandate from the electorate to reject it. None of the Conservative MPs did.
Conservatives put country before party. Labour put party before country.
Which Conservatives do you think were putting country before party? Presumably the ones voting with Jeremy Corbyn?
Every Conservative MP that voted based on what they thought was best for the country and not what would give partisan advantage.
Is there not a bit of an inconsistency here? Ruth Davidson gets the credit for the seats gained in 2017, but I'm guessing she won't get the blame were they to be lost in an autumn election.
Also, is there not a slight problem with the Lib Dems and Scottish Green given that one is pro-Union and one is pro-independence?
Even on the above poll the Tories would still hold 3 seats in Scotland while Labour would be back to just 1, the LDs would be up to 4 Scottish seats
Ruth might get the chance to make Willie First Minister.
The reverse as while Swinson leads Boris and Corbyn on the Ashcroft poll, Ruth leads Willie and Leonard
Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.
Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.
No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
So 80% of Tory MPs voted for it and 3% of Labour MPs voted for it, yet it failed because the Tories didn't vote for it??
It was a Conservative government with a majority. Opposition MPs were not elected to support the Conservative government.
I'm planning a trip to Stonehenge for the little 'un, as it's something he's been fascinated by for a couple of years. It looks as though it's going to be a rather sad experience: apparently you have to book a time slot of half an hour for your tour, which is going to be awkward after a 3+ hour drive from home. Then you can't even get near the stones.
It all seems rather sad: what should be a rather magical experience for a 5-year old looks as though it's going to be a highly stage-managed, controlled and anaesthetic trip.
Fortunately, I'm planning to take him to Avebury afterwards to get some real contact with our past.
There are huge queues - you get a better view from the road 😉
Seriously though I think English Heritage has an option (premium) for an evening visit where you do get to walk among the stones
Thanks - but the trip's a little reward for him having done something, so I can't really cancel.
An evening walk'd be good, but probably not suitable for him, sadly.
(We're also panning to do Portsmouth (HMS Warrior/Victory), a hovercraft over to the IoW, and then Fishbourne Roman Palace in the trip).
Brading Roman Villa is well worth a visit.
Thanks, I'd never heard of that. I doubt we'll get a chance to go there on this trip, though.
Its up there with Fishbourne - indeed the mosaics are said to be better (I haven't visited Fishbourne so cant say). Two stops on the Island Line after your hovercraft trip and then about 20 min walk (shortened by a couple of stops on the bus, or short taxi ride) from the station.
The Wightlink car ferry goes direct from Portsmouth to Fishbourne, but is no hovercraft. Carisbrooke Castle near Newport is great for kids. Englands Rocket launch station near the Needles is worth a look too.
Is there not a bit of an inconsistency here? Ruth Davidson gets the credit for the seats gained in 2017, but I'm guessing she won't get the blame were they to be lost in an autumn election.
Also, is there not a slight problem with the Lib Dems and Scottish Green given that one is pro-Union and one is pro-independence?
Even on the above poll the Tories would still hold 3 seats in Scotland while Labour would be back to just 1, the LDs would be up to 5 Scottish seats
Glad you’re happy with Unionist parties winning 9 seats and the SNP winning 50 seats.
Perhaps Unionists would get on better if you set higher goals.
Given the SNP won 56 seats in 2015 it could be worse for Unionists, albeit Scottish Labour would be back to 2015 levels on this poll unlike the Scottish Tories and LDs
I'm planning a trip to Stonehenge for the little 'un, as it's something he's been fascinated by for a couple of years. It looks as though it's going to be a rather sad experience: apparently you have to book a time slot of half an hour for your tour, which is going to be awkward after a 3+ hour drive from home. Then you can't even get near the stones.
It all seems rather sad: what should be a rather magical experience for a 5-year old looks as though it's going to be a highly stage-managed, controlled and anaesthetic trip.
Fortunately, I'm planning to take him to Avebury afterwards to get some real contact with our past.
There are huge queues - you get a better view from the road 😉
Seriously though I think English Heritage has an option (premium) for an evening visit where you do get to walk among the stones
Thanks - but the trip's a little reward for him having done something, so I can't really cancel.
An evening walk'd be good, but probably not suitable for him, sadly.
(We're also panning to do Portsmouth (HMS Warrior/Victory), a hovercraft over to the IoW, and then Fishbourne Roman Palace in the trip).
Mr. 43, the UK didn't renege. Parliament never endorsed the deal.
However, you're right that the absence of an alternative proposal is nonsense from Johnson et al. Even if one believes in the hardest of hard borders, some kind of relationship is required. So what will it be, and how will it work?
'Not this' isn't an answer, just as idiot MPs opposing every alternative is not an answer to anything.
Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.
Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.
No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
So 80% of Tory MPs voted for it and 3% of Labour MPs voted for it, yet it failed because the Tories didn't vote for it??
It was a Conservative government with a majority. Opposition MPs were not elected to support the Conservative government.
i agree, but by voting against the "deal" it was always going to lead to the situation we are in now. The EU had consistently said it was the WA or nothing. Parliament voted against every other idea as well. Each MP who voted against the deal has to take some blame for the no deal we now face.
Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.
Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.
No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
No it failed because over 400 MPs voted against it. Each of those votes counts equally.
Based on the manifestos, all the Labour MPs had a mandate from the electorate to reject it. None of the Conservative MPs did.
Conservatives put country before party. Labour put party before country.
Which Conservatives do you think were putting country before party? Presumably the ones voting with Jeremy Corbyn?
Every Conservative MP that voted based on what they thought was best for the country and not what would give partisan advantage.
Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.
Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.
No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
So 80% of Tory MPs voted for it and 3% of Labour MPs voted for it, yet it failed because the Tories didn't vote for it??
It was a Conservative government with a majority. Opposition MPs were not elected to support the Conservative government.
i agree, but by voting against the "deal" it was always going to lead to the situation we are in now. The EU had consistently said it was the WA or nothing. Parliament voted against every other idea as well. Each MP who voted against the deal has to take some blame for the no deal we now face.
For sure. But those whose job it is to support the government carry a lot more blame than those whose job it is to oppose.
Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.
Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.
No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
No it failed because over 400 MPs voted against it. Each of those votes counts equally.
Based on the manifestos, all the Labour MPs had a mandate from the electorate to reject it. None of the Conservative MPs did.
Conservatives put country before party. Labour put party before country.
Which Conservatives do you think were putting country before party? Presumably the ones voting with Jeremy Corbyn?
Every Conservative MP that voted based on what they thought was best for the country and not what would give partisan advantage.
Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.
Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.
No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
No it failed because over 400 MPs voted against it. Each of those votes counts equally.
Based on the manifestos, all the Labour MPs had a mandate from the electorate to reject it. None of the Conservative MPs did.
Conservatives put country before party. Labour put party before country.
Which Conservatives do you think were putting country before party? Presumably the ones voting with Jeremy Corbyn?
Every Conservative MP that voted based on what they thought was best for the country and not what would give partisan advantage.
Struggling to think of an example of that.
You'd think he hadn't read the last 10,000 posts from HY explaining how every move of recent months has been decided on the basis of Conservative electoral prospects?
Is there not a bit of an inconsistency here? Ruth Davidson gets the credit for the seats gained in 2017, but I'm guessing she won't get the blame were they to be lost in an autumn election.
Also, is there not a slight problem with the Lib Dems and Scottish Green given that one is pro-Union and one is pro-independence?
Even on the above poll the Tories would still hold 3 seats in Scotland while Labour would be back to just 1, the LDs would be up to 5 Scottish seats
Glad you’re happy with Unionist parties winning 9 seats and the SNP winning 50 seats.
Perhaps Unionists would get on better if you set higher goals.
Given the SNP won 56 seats in 2015 it could be worse for Unionists
I just feel that Unionists lack that vision thing. What is your goal regarding Scotland? Where do you want to get to?
Without a clear, inspiring, uplifting answer, you cannot even begin to answer the next question: how do you get there?
I could write a vision of a Scotland at peace with itself within the Union. It would be a work of fiction, but I can imagine it. I’m beginning to think that Unionism simply cannot. David L’s despairing post above is a typical example of the Unionist mindset: forever fighting a rearguard action.
Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.
Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.
No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
So 80% of Tory MPs voted for it and 3% of Labour MPs voted for it, yet it failed because the Tories didn't vote for it??
It was a Conservative government with a majority. Opposition MPs were not elected to support the Conservative government.
i agree, but by voting against the "deal" it was always going to lead to the situation we are in now. The EU had consistently said it was the WA or nothing. Parliament voted against every other idea as well. Each MP who voted against the deal has to take some blame for the no deal we now face.
For sure. But those whose job it is to support the government carry a lot more blame than those whose job it is to oppose.
What’s “blame” got to do with it? It looks as if Conservatives who voted against are largely going to get what they wanted. Others who voted against are not.
4 months ago pro remain campaigners were jubilantly declaring Brexit to be “dead”. It looks as if they are not just going to get Brexit, but apparently a form of Brexit they reject above all others.
We all move in our own bubbles and this distorts our perceptions but my bubble remains focused on the unmitigated disaster that independence would be for Scotland. This is a far, far more important issue for most Scots than Brexit because the consequences would be many times more significant.
This means that even although a significant part of Ruth's 2017 successful coalition is pretty unhappy with Brexit generally and horrified at Boris's apparent drive to a no deal in particular there is also concern about the current strength of the SNP and the possibility of yet more years of constitutional wrangling north of the border doing yet more damage to our business.
In the short term that unhappiness may well tempt electors to the Lib Dems, a solidly Unionist party who also oppose Brexit. Come elections in Scotland, however, whether for Holyrood or Westminster and the independence question will once again dominate proceedings to the almost complete exclusion of the secondary Brexit issue. That means where the Lib Dems have good prospects, such as Fife NE and possibly one of the Edinburgh seats, they will get Unionist support but in most of the country those votes will go Tory. I can't see the Lib Dems regaining any of their former strongholds in the borders for example.
In short Brexit has temporarily weakened Ruth's coalition but those arguing it cannot be put back together again are in my view overstating things. A further complicating factor is the incredible weakness of Scottish Labour which is boosting SNP support with left leaning voters. Lost Labour seats look inevitable at the moment boosting the SNP dominance once again.
It is coming David , the nay sayers are on the run , down to desperation
Would it be unkind to point out you wrote that last time?
Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.
Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.
No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
So 80% of Tory MPs voted for it and 3% of Labour MPs voted for it, yet it failed because the Tories didn't vote for it??
It was a Conservative government with a majority. Opposition MPs were not elected to support the Conservative government.
i agree, but by voting against the "deal" it was always going to lead to the situation we are in now. The EU had consistently said it was the WA or nothing. Parliament voted against every other idea as well. Each MP who voted against the deal has to take some blame for the no deal we now face.
Rubbish. This is a Tory problem and they are accountable. Governments in this country have a majority in Parliament by design. It’s May’s fault for not negotiating a deal her majority would pass.
Mr. B2, if 400 odd MPs vote against something, singling out 30-50 of them and pretending the other 300-350 don't exist seems an odd way of expressing dismay the vote failed to pass.
Most MPs are pro-EU. These MPs have voted successively to leave the EU and against the deal. They're now upset that we're on course to leave with no deal.
The difference between them and the ERG is that the ERG is voting for what it wants and is glad it's getting it. The pro-EU bloc are voting for something they think is terrible and are horrified that their actions have consequences diametrically opposed to their desires.
TMay opted to go for a Blue Brexit. This relied on her side supporting it. It also gave Corbyn the excuse not to support it. Corbyn has consistently and successfully whipped his MPs to vote against Blue Brexit, not because he doesn't want Brexit, but because he wants a General Election.
As far as individual MPs are concerned, the ERG's strategy is just as risky as the Remainer strategy. The ERG keeps voting against Blue Brexit because it believes it can eventually get Hard Brexit or No Deal Brexit. But as each month passes, the chances increase that we'll end up with no Brexit at all. There are two risks for Remainers: No Deal and a GE. They're right, I think, to discount No Deal. BJ is just TMay mk 2 with added bravado. Next month parliament will step in - either BJ will backtrack or he will fall.
The bigger risk for Remainers is a GE. The referendum needed 50% to pass; a GE only needs around 33% for a Hard Brexit government to gain power.
Is there not a bit of an inconsistency here? Ruth Davidson gets the credit for the seats gained in 2017, but I'm guessing she won't get the blame were they to be lost in an autumn election.
Also, is there not a slight problem with the Lib Dems and Scottish Green given that one is pro-Union and one is pro-independence?
Even on the above poll the Tories would still hold 3 seats in Scotland while Labour would be back to just 1, the LDs would be up to 5 Scottish seats
Glad you’re happy with Unionist parties winning 9 seats and the SNP winning 50 seats.
Perhaps Unionists would get on better if you set higher goals.
Given the SNP won 56 seats in 2015 it could be worse for Unionists
I just feel that Unionists lack that vision thing. What is your goal regarding Scotland? Where do you want to get to?
Without a clear, inspiring, uplifting answer, you cannot even begin to answer the next question: how do you get there?
I could write a vision of a Scotland at peace with itself within the Union. It would be a work of fiction, but I can imagine it. I’m beginning to think that Unionism simply cannot. David L’s despairing post above is a typical example of the Unionist mindset: forever fighting a rearguard action.
The only vision on offer is of Global Britain, connecting with “old friends and new allies” and helping the UK “forge a new place for itself in the world”.
Unionism is now indelibly linked to the bankrupt project that is Brexit.
Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.
Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.
No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
So 80% of Tory MPs voted for it and 3% of Labour MPs voted for it, yet it failed because the Tories didn't vote for it??
It was a Conservative government with a majority. Opposition MPs were not elected to support the Conservative government.
i agree, but by voting against the "deal" it was always going to lead to the situation we are in now. The EU had consistently said it was the WA or nothing. Parliament voted against every other idea as well. Each MP who voted against the deal has to take some blame for the no deal we now face.
For sure. But those whose job it is to support the government carry a lot more blame than those whose job it is to oppose.
What’s “blame” got to do with it? It looks as if Conservatives who voted against are largely going to get what they wanted. Others who voted against are not.
4 months ago pro remain campaigners were jubilantly declaring Brexit to be “dead”. It looks as if they are not just going to get Brexit, but apparently a form of Brexit they reject above all others.
Then you should head straight over to Betfair to make some money, since not having a no deal exit in 2019 remains the betting favourite.
Is there not a bit of an inconsistency here? Ruth Davidson gets the credit for the seats gained in 2017, but I'm guessing she won't get the blame were they to be lost in an autumn election.
Also, is there not a slight problem with the Lib Dems and Scottish Green given that one is pro-Union and one is pro-independence?
Even on the above poll the Tories would still hold 3 seats in Scotland while Labour would be back to just 1, the LDs would be up to 5 Scottish seats
Glad you’re happy with Unionist parties winning 9 seats and the SNP winning 50 seats.
Perhaps Unionists would get on better if you set higher goals.
Given the SNP won 56 seats in 2015 it could be worse for Unionists
I just feel that Unionists lack that vision thing. What is your goal regarding Scotland? Where do you want to get to?
Without a clear, inspiring, uplifting answer, you cannot even begin to answer the next question: how do you get there?
I could write a vision of a Scotland at peace with itself within the Union. It would be a work of fiction, but I can imagine it. I’m beginning to think that Unionism simply cannot. David L’s despairing post above is a typical example of the Unionist mindset: forever fighting a rearguard action.
The vision is quite simple 'better together' but of course DavidL is right that even more Scottish exports go to England than UK exports go to the EU so Scexit in the event of No Deal Brexit would make Westminster negotiations with Holyrood even tougher than Brussels negotiations with Westminster
Worth reading - though as the tweet points out the headline is more positive than the substance.
This cannot be repeated enough:
A no-deal Brexit can be prevented only by legislation, not by a mere expression of parliamentary opinion, nor by a motion.....
...But any legislation designed to postpone or prevent Brexit has public spending implications. For were the UK to stay in the EU beyond 31 October it would have to make further budget contributions. But standing order 48 requires any charge on public revenue to be recommended by the crown, which, for practical purposes, means a government minister responsible to parliament and through parliament to the people, not backbenchers. So that standing order too would have to be suspended.
The practical difficulties would be enormous. Backbenchers would have to steer the relevant legislation through all of its stages in the Commons, and deal with a host of amendments in committee together with endless filibustering by enraged Brexiteers.
If backbenchers were to succeed in taking over the legislative timetable, they would in effect be taking over the functions of government. Logic surely requires that they themselves become the government. That would require a no-confidence vote in which enough Conservatives would have to abstain or vote against the government to counter Labour Brexiteers prepared to abstain or vote with the government. But a no-confidence vote can only be moved by the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn.
In the end, the only way they can do it is VONC - but then as we've seen, Boris can hold the GE after Oct31, legally.
I do feel sorry and partly guilty toward those whose visit to Stonehenge has been, by the need to preserve the monument for future generations, as JJ puts it, "stage managed, controlled and anaesthetic".
We always used to go to spend most of August with my grandparents at St Ives which meant a very long drive and an early start so we would reach Stonehenge not long after dawn and I remember us stopping and being able to run among the stones and touch them - now, of course, impossible. I understand the need for preservation but if all we covered, protected and shielded does it have that value apart from as a historical artefact?
On topic, I leave Scottish politics to others. Off topic (again), pace Thelma and Louise, the UK and EU are in the car and heading straight for the No Deal cliff edge and at the moment neither side can turn the wheel or apply the brake or wants to.- Boris can't because it would mean his political destruction and probably that of his Party but the EU know that if they blink for us, they might blink for an Italy or a Hungary or another future leaver. We haven't always appreciated how important keeping the "club" together is for the EU - they won't blink either.
Is there not a bit of an inconsistency here? Ruth Davidson gets the credit for the seats gained in 2017, but I'm guessing she won't get the blame were they to be lost in an autumn election.
I'm planning a trip to Stonehenge for the little 'un, as it's something he's been fascinated by for a couple of years. It looks as though it's going to be a rather sad experience: apparently you have to book a time slot of half an hour for your tour, which is going to be awkward after a 3+ hour drive from home. Then you can't even get near the stones.
It all seems rather sad: what should be a rather magical experience for a 5-year old looks as though it's going to be a highly stage-managed, controlled and anaesthetic trip.
Fortunately, I'm planning to take him to Avebury afterwards to get some real contact with our past.
Stonehenge is a very boring experience
I beg to differ re Stonehenge although I accept it might be very busy this time of year. We went a few years ago on new year's eve and saw the sun set through the stones - very lovely.
The visitor centre is pretty good too. If you are NT members you can get in free (I think English Heritage own the stones and the NT owns the land).
The new visitor centre is a big improvement. I have driven past the stones on the A303 countless times but you only get a glimpse from the road (and you can't really stop). I know it's controversial but the planned A303 improvement will make the road and the site much better imho.
I's love to see EH build a replica of how it would have looked originally, with real stones, close to the visitor centre... that would satisfy half the visitors and the actual stones (half a mile away) would be less busy.
Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.
Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.
No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
So 80% of Tory MPs voted for it and 3% of Labour MPs voted for it, yet it failed because the Tories didn't vote for it??
It was a Conservative government with a majority. Opposition MPs were not elected to support the Conservative government.
i agree, but by voting against the "deal" it was always going to lead to the situation we are in now. The EU had consistently said it was the WA or nothing. Parliament voted against every other idea as well. Each MP who voted against the deal has to take some blame for the no deal we now face.
For sure. But those whose job it is to support the government carry a lot more blame than those whose job it is to oppose.
What’s “blame” got to do with it? It looks as if Conservatives who voted against are largely going to get what they wanted. Others who voted against are not.
4 months ago pro remain campaigners were jubilantly declaring Brexit to be “dead”. It looks as if they are not just going to get Brexit, but apparently a form of Brexit they reject above all others.
Then you should head straight over to Betfair to make some money, since not having a no deal exit in 2019 remains the betting favourite.
If no deal doesn’t happen I will be wrong in what I posted. Would your views change if it does?
Worth reading - though as the tweet points out the headline is more positive than the substance.
This cannot be repeated enough:
A no-deal Brexit can be prevented only by legislation, not by a mere expression of parliamentary opinion, nor by a motion.....
...But any legislation designed to postpone or prevent Brexit has public spending implications. For were the UK to stay in the EU beyond 31 October it would have to make further budget contributions. But standing order 48 requires any charge on public revenue to be recommended by the crown, which, for practical purposes, means a government minister responsible to parliament and through parliament to the people, not backbenchers. So that standing order too would have to be suspended.
The practical difficulties would be enormous. Backbenchers would have to steer the relevant legislation through all of its stages in the Commons, and deal with a host of amendments in committee together with endless filibustering by enraged Brexiteers.
If backbenchers were to succeed in taking over the legislative timetable, they would in effect be taking over the functions of government. Logic surely requires that they themselves become the government. That would require a no-confidence vote in which enough Conservatives would have to abstain or vote against the government to counter Labour Brexiteers prepared to abstain or vote with the government. But a no-confidence vote can only be moved by the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn.
In the end, the only way they can do it is VONC - but then as we've seen, Boris can hold the GE after Oct31, legally.
Unless a GONU that commands a majority can be put together and advanced early in the 14 day period. It is becoming increasingly obvious that's the only escape route.
Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.
Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.
No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
So 80% of Tory MPs voted for it and 3% of Labour MPs voted for it, yet it failed because the Tories didn't vote for it??
It was a Conservative government with a majority. Opposition MPs were not elected to support the Conservative government.
i agree, but by voting against the "deal" it was always going to lead to the situation we are in now. The EU had consistently said it was the WA or nothing. Parliament voted against every other idea as well. Each MP who voted against the deal has to take some blame for the no deal we now face.
For sure. But those whose job it is to support the government carry a lot more blame than those whose job it is to oppose.
What’s “blame” got to do with it? It looks as if Conservatives who voted against are largely going to get what they wanted. Others who voted against are not.
4 months ago pro remain campaigners were jubilantly declaring Brexit to be “dead”. It looks as if they are not just going to get Brexit, but apparently a form of Brexit they reject above all others.
Then you should head straight over to Betfair to make some money, since not having a no deal exit in 2019 remains the betting favourite.
If no deal doesn’t happen I will be wrong in what I posted. Would your views change if it does?
In respect of responsibility for not landing the deal, no. In terms of responsibility for the mess we would then be in - yes, because opposition MPs have already ducked or fluffed chances to avoid a no deal exit and would by then have failed in the final one of replacing this government with a more sensible one.
Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.
Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.
No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
No it failed because over 400 MPs voted against it. Each of those votes counts equally.
Based on the manifestos, all the Labour MPs had a mandate from the electorate to reject it. None of the Conservative MPs did.
They didn't as the Withdrawal Agreement is just the mechanism for leaving the EU ie resolving the exit bill, citizens' rights and the Irish border. The Political Declaration is non binding and once the Withdrawal Agreement passed anything from staying in the Single Market and Customs Union to a Canada style FTA could have been negotiated in the transition period.
Which was why MPs who rejected the Withdrawal Agreement were idiots to do so unless they really wanted No Deal or nothing but revoke Article 50 and stay in the EU would do
Well you are sort of right - those who rejected the deal either do want No Deal or No Brexit. But I concede that some of them are also idiots.
Not all of them, Stephen Kinnock, Lisa Nandy etc amongst many Labour MPs who voted 3 times against the Withdrawal Agreement but all want a Brexit Deal and oppose No Deal and No Brexit
Worth reading - though as the tweet points out the headline is more positive than the substance.
This cannot be repeated enough:
A no-deal Brexit can be prevented only by legislation, not by a mere expression of parliamentary opinion, nor by a motion.....
...But any legislation designed to postpone or prevent Brexit has public spending implications. For were the UK to stay in the EU beyond 31 October it would have to make further budget contributions. But standing order 48 requires any charge on public revenue to be recommended by the crown, which, for practical purposes, means a government minister responsible to parliament and through parliament to the people, not backbenchers. So that standing order too would have to be suspended.
The practical difficulties would be enormous. Backbenchers would have to steer the relevant legislation through all of its stages in the Commons, and deal with a host of amendments in committee together with endless filibustering by enraged Brexiteers.
If backbenchers were to succeed in taking over the legislative timetable, they would in effect be taking over the functions of government. Logic surely requires that they themselves become the government. That would require a no-confidence vote in which enough Conservatives would have to abstain or vote against the government to counter Labour Brexiteers prepared to abstain or vote with the government. But a no-confidence vote can only be moved by the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn.
In the end, the only way they can do it is VONC - but then as we've seen, Boris can hold the GE after Oct31, legally.
Unless a GONU that commands a majority can be put together and advanced early in the 14 day period. It is becoming increasingly obvious that's the only escape route.
Normally when a government resigns the Queen would send for the leader of the opposition. To depart from accepted practice, she would need a cast-iron guarantee in writing from a majority of MPs that they would support a government of national unity under a named prime minister.
If MPs opposing the deal think no deal is better, that makes sense. If they think no deal is worse, they're delinquent and in dereliction of their duty.
Mr. B2, every MP is responsible for how they vote. If the ERG are determining how non-Conservatives vote, that's a sign of the idiocy of non-Conservative MPs.
Precisely! People like IanB2 are pretending still the alternative to May's Deal was remaining, when the alternative was no deal ultimately.
Worth reading - though as the tweet points out the headline is more positive than the substance.
This cannot be repeated enough:
A no-deal Brexit can be prevented only by legislation, not by a mere expression of parliamentary opinion, nor by a motion.....
...But any legislation designed to postpone or prevent Brexit has public spending implications. For were the UK to stay in the EU beyond 31 October it would have to make further budget contributions. But standing order 48 requires any charge on public revenue to be recommended by the crown, which, for practical purposes, means a government minister responsible to parliament and through parliament to the people, not backbenchers. So that standing order too would have to be suspended.
The practical difficulties would be enormous. Backbenchers would have to steer the relevant legislation through all of its stages in the Commons, and deal with a host of amendments in committee together with endless filibustering by enraged Brexiteers.
If backbenchers were to succeed in taking over the legislative timetable, they would in effect be taking over the functions of government. Logic surely requires that they themselves become the government. That would require a no-confidence vote in which enough Conservatives would have to abstain or vote against the government to counter Labour Brexiteers prepared to abstain or vote with the government. But a no-confidence vote can only be moved by the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn.
In the end, the only way they can do it is VONC - but then as we've seen, Boris can hold the GE after Oct31, legally.
Unless a GONU that commands a majority can be put together and advanced early in the 14 day period. It is becoming increasingly obvious that's the only escape route.
Normally when a government resigns the Queen would send for the leader of the opposition. To depart from accepted practice, she would need a cast-iron guarantee in writing from a majority of MPs that they would support a government of national unity under a named prime minister.
Exactly. Which is why it would be perilous for MPs to wait until the fortnight arrives and then dissolve into arguments as to what is to be done.
I would expect the leading no deal opponents already to be working up a plan and lining up their colleagues to deliver it.
My fear would be that several different groups of MPs are all working up different plans.
Edit/ also worth noting that nothing says the process stops after the LOTO tries and fails. Let Corbyn lose his VOC, then the House combines around a GONU.
If MPs opposing the deal think no deal is better, that makes sense. If they think no deal is worse, they're delinquent and in dereliction of their duty.
Mr. B2, every MP is responsible for how they vote. If the ERG are determining how non-Conservatives vote, that's a sign of the idiocy of non-Conservative MPs.
Precisely! People like IanB2 are pretending still the alternative to May's Deal was remaining, when the alternative was no deal ultimately.
You too should get onto Betfair and make yourself some money.
The Wightlink car ferry goes direct from Portsmouth to Fishbourne, but is no hovercraft. Carisbrooke Castle near Newport is great for kids. Englands Rocket launch station near the Needles is worth a look too.
Thanks. The situation is that these are all things he wants to do: he loves Stonehenge, and I've been putting off visiting (as I fear he's going to be disappointed I've added Avebury). He wants to see the ship we got married on (so that's Portsmouth Historic Dockyard), and wants to go on a hovercraft. He's also fascinated by Romans, and wants to visit a Roman place - so it's either Fishbourne or Portchester Castle, depending on the weather.
We'r'e not getting a family holiday this year (as usual), so it's a sort-of min-break - albeit a rather expensive one a he loves staying at hotels! I'm also planning to leave it rather open-ended aside from Stonehenge, so if he just wants to play on a beach for a few hours he can.
I've done the Needles area - such a lot of military history on one little headland.
Is there not a bit of an inconsistency here? Ruth Davidson gets the credit for the seats gained in 2017, but I'm guessing she won't get the blame were they to be lost in an autumn election.
No
+1 Davidson won seats for May as she added to May's votes.
Boris is so repellent that votes (and so seats) are lost in Scotland as Davidson starts with fewer votes than 2017..
It would be interesting to see if there were an election prior to October 31st (ie. before we had left the EU and with a theoretical chance of either staying in the EU or leaving with a deal) and the outcome gave Johnson a clear majority for leaving Oct 31st without a deal (with the expectation that he would follow through on this), but the Lib Dem’s gaining, say 100 seats (clearly an enormously hypothetical scenario).
Worth reading - though as the tweet points out the headline is more positive than the substance.
This cannot be repeated enough:
A no-deal Brexit can be prevented only by legislation, not by a mere expression of parliamentary opinion, nor by a motion.....
...But any legislation designed to postpone or prevent Brexit has public spending implications. For were the UK to stay in the EU beyond 31 October it would have to make further budget contributions. But standing order 48 requires any charge on public revenue to be recommended by the crown, which, for practical purposes, means a government minister responsible to parliament and through parliament to the people, not backbenchers. So that standing order too would have to be suspended.
The practical difficulties would be enormous. Backbenchers would have to steer the relevant legislation through all of its stages in the Commons, and deal with a host of amendments in committee together with endless filibustering by enraged Brexiteers.
If backbenchers were to succeed in taking over the legislative timetable, they would in effect be taking over the functions of government. Logic surely requires that they themselves become the government. That would require a no-confidence vote in which enough Conservatives would have to abstain or vote against the government to counter Labour Brexiteers prepared to abstain or vote with the government. But a no-confidence vote can only be moved by the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn.
In the end, the only way they can do it is VONC - but then as we've seen, Boris can hold the GE after Oct31, legally.
Unless a GONU that commands a majority can be put together and advanced early in the 14 day period. It is becoming increasingly obvious that's the only escape route.
Normally when a government resigns the Queen would send for the leader of the opposition. To depart from accepted practice, she would need a cast-iron guarantee in writing from a majority of MPs that they would support a government of national unity under a named prime minister.
Surely she sends for Corbyn who would then recommend the most suitable candidate (if it wasn't him).
Personally while he may want to be PM I doubt he wants to extend (as it might cost Labour a few votes by association) so he might which want someone else to ask for the extension.
I'm planning a trip to Stonehenge for the little 'un, as it's something he's been fascinated by for a couple of years. It looks as though it's going to be a rather sad experience: apparently you have to book a time slot of half an hour for your tour, which is going to be awkward after a 3+ hour drive from home. Then you can't even get near the stones.
It all seems rather sad: what should be a rather magical experience for a 5-year old looks as though it's going to be a highly stage-managed, controlled and anaesthetic trip.
Fortunately, I'm planning to take him to Avebury afterwards to get some real contact with our past.
If you’re in that area, a trip to the Army Flying Museum at Middle Wallop is also worth a look. https://www.armyflying.com/
Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.
Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.
No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
No it failed because over 400 MPs voted against it. Each of those votes counts equally.
Based on the manifestos, all the Labour MPs had a mandate from the electorate to reject it. None of the Conservative MPs did.
Conservatives put country before party. Labour put party before country.
Which Conservatives do you think were putting country before party? Presumably the ones voting with Jeremy Corbyn?
Every Conservative MP that voted based on what they thought was best for the country and not what would give partisan advantage.
Struggling to think of an example of that.
You'd think he hadn't read the last 10,000 posts from HY explaining how every move of recent months has been decided on the basis of Conservative electoral prospects?
Well, quite. It’s not exactly been hard working out what motivates Conservatives. And it’s certainly not the best interests of the country.
Exactly. Which is why it would be perilous for MPs to wait until the fortnight arrives and then dissolve into arguments as to what is to be done.
I would expect the leading no deal opponents already to be working up a plan and lining up their colleagues to deliver it.
My fear would be that several different groups of MPs are all working up different plans.
Edit/ also worth noting that nothing says the process stops after the LOTO tries and fails. Let Corbyn lose his VOC, then the House combines around a GONU.
Quite. And those working on this process - Starmer, Clarke, Hammond, Cooper, Benn etc are some of the brightest and most experienced brains in the Commons, they will be fully aware of the pitfalls and the need for an agreed endgame which must involve a new government of some kind to seek an A50 extension in advance of a GE.
Worth reading - though as the tweet points out the headline is more positive than the substance.
This cannot be repeated enough:
A no-deal Brexit can be prevented only by legislation, not by a mere expression of parliamentary opinion, nor by a motion.....
...But any legislation designed to postpone or prevent Brexit has public spending implications. For were the UK to stay in the EU beyond 31 October it would have to make further budget contributions. But standing order 48 requires any charge on public revenue to be recommended by the crown, which, for practical purposes, means a government minister responsible to parliament and through parliament to the people, not backbenchers. So that standing order too would have to be suspended.
The practical difficulties would be enormous. Backbenchers would have to steer the relevant legislation through all of its stages in the Commons, and deal with a host of amendments in committee together with endless filibustering by enraged Brexiteers.
If backbenchers were to succeed in taking over the legislative timetable, they would in effect be taking over the functions of government. Logic surely requires that they themselves become the government. That would require a no-confidence vote in which enough Conservatives would have to abstain or vote against the government to counter Labour Brexiteers prepared to abstain or vote with the government. But a no-confidence vote can only be moved by the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn.
In the end, the only way they can do it is VONC - but then as we've seen, Boris can hold the GE after Oct31, legally.
Parliament wants to stop No Deal, and it has a Speaker who is willing to help it. BJ cocking a snook and childishly repeating the mantra "nur nur No Deal by default" will only make parliament more determined.
Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.
Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.
No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
No it failed because over 400 MPs voted against it. Each of those votes counts equally.
Based on the manifestos, all the Labour MPs had a mandate from the electorate to reject it. None of the Conservative MPs did.
They didn't as the Withdrawal Agreement is just the mechanism for leaving the EU ie resolving the exit bill, citizens' rights and the Irish border. The Political Declaration is non binding and once the Withdrawal Agreement passed anything from staying in the Single Market and Customs Union to a Canada style FTA could have been negotiated in the transition period.
Which was why MPs who rejected the Withdrawal Agreement were idiots to do so unless they really wanted No Deal or nothing but revoke Article 50 and stay in the EU would do
Well you are sort of right - those who rejected the deal either do want No Deal or No Brexit. But I concede that some of them are also idiots.
Not all of them, Stephen Kinnock, Lisa Nandy etc amongst many Labour MPs who voted 3 times against the Withdrawal Agreement but all want a Brexit Deal and oppose No Deal and No Brexit
Well that's what they say in public.
Thought Nandy had said in public with millions of witnesses she would vote for No Deal if it was only option vs No Brexit
I'm planning a trip to Stonehenge for the little 'un, as it's something he's been fascinated by for a couple of years. It looks as though it's going to be a rather sad experience: apparently you have to book a time slot of half an hour for your tour, which is going to be awkward after a 3+ hour drive from home. Then you can't even get near the stones.
It all seems rather sad: what should be a rather magical experience for a 5-year old looks as though it's going to be a highly stage-managed, controlled and anaesthetic trip.
Fortunately, I'm planning to take him to Avebury afterwards to get some real contact with our past.
If you’re in that area, a trip to the Army Flying Museum at Middle Wallop is also worth a look. https://www.armyflying.com/
Between us we can turn his day out into a grand tour!
Is there not a bit of an inconsistency here? Ruth Davidson gets the credit for the seats gained in 2017, but I'm guessing she won't get the blame were they to be lost in an autumn election.
Also, is there not a slight problem with the Lib Dems and Scottish Green given that one is pro-Union and one is pro-independence?
Even on the above poll the Tories would still hold 3 seats in Scotland while Labour would be back to just 1, the LDs would be up to 5 Scottish seats
Glad you’re happy with Unionist parties winning 9 seats and the SNP winning 50 seats.
Perhaps Unionists would get on better if you set higher goals.
Given the SNP won 56 seats in 2015 it could be worse for Unionists
I just feel that Unionists lack that vision thing. What is your goal regarding Scotland? Where do you want to get to?
Without a clear, inspiring, uplifting answer, you cannot even begin to answer the next question: how do you get there?
I could write a vision of a Scotland at peace with itself within the Union. It would be a work of fiction, but I can imagine it. I’m beginning to think that Unionism simply cannot. David L’s despairing post above is a typical example of the Unionist mindset: forever fighting a rearguard action.
The only vision on offer is of Global Britain, connecting with “old friends and new allies” and helping the UK “forge a new place for itself in the world”.
Unionism is now indelibly linked to the bankrupt project that is Brexit.
The “Global Britain” they mean is the British Empire. Whilst I do not doubt that there are still folk inspired by the Empire (not least at PB), the vast majority of normal people are rightly repulsed by it.
The only Empire left is Scotland, Wales, NI, Gibraltar, the Falklands etc. *That* is why Scotland is so important to them: it is symbolic. They don’t give a damn about the Scots themselves.
We all move in our own bubbles and this distorts our perceptions but my bubble remains focused on the unmitigated disaster that independence would be for Scotland. This is a far, far more important issue for most Scots than Brexit because the consequences would be many times more significant.
This means that even although a significant part of Ruth's 2017 successful coalition is pretty unhappy with Brexit generally and horrified at Boris's apparent drive to a no deal in particular there is also concern about the current strength of the SNP and the possibility of yet more years of constitutional wrangling north of the border doing yet more damage to our business.
In the short term that unhappiness may well tempt electors to the Lib Dems, a solidly Unionist party who also oppose Brexit. Come elections in Scotland, however, whether for Holyrood or Westminster and the independence question will once again dominate proceedings to the almost complete exclusion of the secondary Brexit issue. That means where the Lib Dems have good prospects, such as Fife NE and possibly one of the Edinburgh seats, they will get Unionist support but in most of the country those votes will go Tory. I can't see the Lib Dems regaining any of their former strongholds in the borders for example.
In short Brexit has temporarily weakened Ruth's coalition but those arguing it cannot be put back together again are in my view overstating things. A further complicating factor is the incredible weakness of Scottish Labour which is boosting SNP support with left leaning voters. Lost Labour seats look inevitable at the moment boosting the SNP dominance once again.
Ruth's coalition is made up of a huge chunk of former Lib Dem voters. Given the option of their First Choice party actually having a purpose and vision again or voting for Team Boris Let's Go Hard Brexit I doubt that coalition holds.
The Wightlink car ferry goes direct from Portsmouth to Fishbourne, but is no hovercraft. Carisbrooke Castle near Newport is great for kids. Englands Rocket launch station near the Needles is worth a look too.
Thanks. The situation is that these are all things he wants to do: he loves Stonehenge, and I've been putting off visiting (as I fear he's going to be disappointed I've added Avebury). He wants to see the ship we got married on (so that's Portsmouth Historic Dockyard), and wants to go on a hovercraft. He's also fascinated by Romans, and wants to visit a Roman place - so it's either Fishbourne or Portchester Castle, depending on the weather.
We'r'e not getting a family holiday this year (as usual), so it's a sort-of min-break - albeit a rather expensive one a he loves staying at hotels! I'm also planning to leave it rather open-ended aside from Stonehenge, so if he just wants to play on a beach for a few hours he can.
I've done the Needles area - such a lot of military history on one little headland.
Worth clicking on the website link to Brading I left downthread - If you're doing the Hovercraft trip it may well be quicker to take in Brading than detour off to Fishbourne once you're back on North Island. And it would give the hovercraft trip a purpose. Hoping it isn't too windy.
Edit/ and there's a grand beach minutes away from where the hovercraft drops you.
Is there not a bit of an inconsistency here? Ruth Davidson gets the credit for the seats gained in 2017, but I'm guessing she won't get the blame were they to be lost in an autumn election.
Also, is there not a slight problem with the Lib Dems and Scottish Green given that one is pro-Union and one is pro-independence?
Even on the above poll the Tories would still hold 3 seats in Scotland while Labour would be back to just 1, the LDs would be up to 5 Scottish seats
Glad you’re happy with Unionist parties winning 9 seats and the SNP winning 50 seats.
Perhaps Unionists would get on better if you set higher goals.
Given the SNP won 56 seats in 2015 it could be worse for Unionists
I just feel that Unionists lack that vision thing. What is your goal regarding Scotland? Where do you want to get to?
Without a clear, inspiring, uplifting answer, you cannot even begin to answer the next question: how do you get there?
I could write a vision of a Scotland at peace with itself within the Union. It would be a work of fiction, but I can imagine it. I’m beginning to think that Unionism simply cannot. David L’s despairing post above is a typical example of the Unionist mindset: forever fighting a rearguard action.
The vision is quite simple 'better together' but of course DavidL is right that even more Scottish exports go to England than UK exports go to the EU so Scexit in the event of No Deal Brexit would make Westminster negotiations with Holyrood even tougher than Brussels negotiations with Westminster
We ask for an uplifting vision, and we receive threats.
Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.
Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.
No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
No it failed because over 400 MPs voted against it. Each of those votes counts equally.
Based on the manifestos, all the Labour MPs had a mandate from the electorate to reject it. None of the Conservative MPs did.
They didn't as the Withdrawal Agreement is just the mechanism for leaving the EU ie resolving the exit bill, citizens' rights and the Irish border. The Political Declaration is non binding and once the Withdrawal Agreement passed anything from staying in the Single Market and Customs Union to a Canada style FTA could have been negotiated in the transition period.
Which was why MPs who rejected the Withdrawal Agreement were idiots to do so unless they really wanted No Deal or nothing but revoke Article 50 and stay in the EU would do
Well you are sort of right - those who rejected the deal either do want No Deal or No Brexit. But I concede that some of them are also idiots.
Not all of them, Stephen Kinnock, Lisa Nandy etc amongst many Labour MPs who voted 3 times against the Withdrawal Agreement but all want a Brexit Deal and oppose No Deal and No Brexit
Well that's what they say in public.
Thought Nandy had said in public with millions of witnesses she would vote for No Deal if it was only option vs No Brexit
But will she support the government in a VONC? I strongly suspect that she will not.
The House will not be presented with the kind of forced choice she implies, it will just be asked to reject no deal and seek a further extension of A50.
The Wightlink car ferry goes direct from Portsmouth to Fishbourne, but is no hovercraft. Carisbrooke Castle near Newport is great for kids. Englands Rocket launch station near the Needles is worth a look too.
Thanks. The situation is that these are all things he wants to do: he loves Stonehenge, and I've been putting off visiting (as I fear he's going to be disappointed I've added Avebury). He wants to see the ship we got married on (so that's Portsmouth Historic Dockyard), and wants to go on a hovercraft. He's also fascinated by Romans, and wants to visit a Roman place - so it's either Fishbourne or Portchester Castle, depending on the weather.
We'r'e not getting a family holiday this year (as usual), so it's a sort-of min-break - albeit a rather expensive one a he loves staying at hotels! I'm also planning to leave it rather open-ended aside from Stonehenge, so if he just wants to play on a beach for a few hours he can.
I've done the Needles area - such a lot of military history on one little headland.
Worth clicking on the website link to Brading I left downthread - If you're doing the Hovercraft trip it may well be quicker to take in Brading than detour off to Fishbourne once you're back on North Island. And it would give the hovercraft trip a purpose. Hoping it isn't too windy.
Edit/ and there's a grand beach minutes away from where the hovercraft drops you.
Thanks, I'll look into the logisitics of that - and the beaches (I've walked the IoW coast, but it's a bit of a blur now).
BTW, I love the way you referred to the mainland as 'North Island' !
We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?
Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.
It slightly amuses that there are people who are criticising Boris for “refusing to negotiate without preconditions” and, at the same time, are applauding the EU for “sticking to their guns” on the backstop
Do the folk who criticise the stubborn inflexibility of the EU while applauding Boris for sticking to his guns afford you a similar degree of amusement?
The Wightlink car ferry goes direct from Portsmouth to Fishbourne, but is no hovercraft. Carisbrooke Castle near Newport is great for kids. Englands Rocket launch station near the Needles is worth a look too.
Thanks. The situation is that these are all things he wants to do: he loves Stonehenge, and I've been putting off visiting (as I fear he's going to be disappointed I've added Avebury). He wants to see the ship we got married on (so that's Portsmouth Historic Dockyard), and wants to go on a hovercraft. He's also fascinated by Romans, and wants to visit a Roman place - so it's either Fishbourne or Portchester Castle, depending on the weather.
We'r'e not getting a family holiday this year (as usual), so it's a sort-of min-break - albeit a rather expensive one a he loves staying at hotels! I'm also planning to leave it rather open-ended aside from Stonehenge, so if he just wants to play on a beach for a few hours he can.
I've done the Needles area - such a lot of military history on one little headland.
Worth clicking on the website link to Brading I left downthread - If you're doing the Hovercraft trip it may well be quicker to take in Brading than detour off to Fishbourne once you're back on North Island. And it would give the hovercraft trip a purpose. Hoping it isn't too windy.
Edit/ and there's a grand beach minutes away from where the hovercraft drops you.
Thanks, I'll look into the logisitics of that - and the beaches (I've walked the IoW coast, but it's a bit of a blur now).
BTW, I love the way you referred to the mainland as 'North Island' !
“Mainland” - wash your mouth out; one island is as good as another!
Jossias Jessop: The Hovercraft goes from Portsmouth to Ryde. (We went on it in April this year. Rather noisy.) I haven't been to Brading but Fishbourne (which is near me) is well worth seeing.
Comments
He isn't interested in railways!
I live in hope that he'll develop the bug before I have to disown him, but at the moment trains leave him cold.
His best friend is train and car mad, though.
For each individual it is a question of whether their actions have ultimately contributed to the worst case outcome.
Sutton Hoo is great, though I haven't been there for years.
There's another place nearby I want to go - and which surprisingly I haven't done yet - Grimes Graves, a prehistoric flint mine.
https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/grimes-graves-prehistoric-flint-mine/
Also, is there not a slight problem with the Lib Dems and Scottish Green given that one is pro-Union and one is pro-independence?
I agree that the current Stonehenge experience visit is pretty disappointing.
He might like King Tut later this year too:
https://tutankhamun-london.com/tickets/
We left la France profonde at 10am yesterday and arrived back here at 7.30pm. All by train. Junior loved it.
I’m intrigued to see what No Deal will do to the Eurostar experience at Gare du Nord, though, as the only possible way I can conceive of making it worse is by applying a rotary cheesegrater to all passengers as they pass through immigration control.
If MPs opposing the deal think no deal is better, that makes sense. If they think no deal is worse, they're delinquent and in dereliction of their duty.
Mr. B2, every MP is responsible for how they vote. If the ERG are determining how non-Conservatives vote, that's a sign of the idiocy of non-Conservative MPs.
Which was why MPs who rejected the Withdrawal Agreement were idiots to do so unless they really wanted No Deal or nothing but revoke Article 50 and stay in the EU would do
https://youtu.be/LuANURnBzWQ?t=128s
Would the reaction of LibDem politicians be
1) jubilation?
2) despair?
https://bradingromanvilla.org.uk/
And that the interests or opinions of members of other parties were less so.
Yes.
Its a repeating pattern, except it isn't. The supposition is it took 2 years to complete, perhaps with different workers. Each pattern repeats once, except they are slightly different, the number of tiles, the colours, the shapes.
Still amazing
Perhaps Unionists would get on better if you set higher goals.
https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/carisbrooke-castle/
(Seriously, though, I'd suggest Stonehenge from the car is absolutely fine. Spend more time at Avebury).
Or possibly Uffington which I used to love as a kid
https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/uffington-castle-white-horse-and-dragon-hill/
However, you're right that the absence of an alternative proposal is nonsense from Johnson et al. Even if one believes in the hardest of hard borders, some kind of relationship is required. So what will it be, and how will it work?
'Not this' isn't an answer, just as idiot MPs opposing every alternative is not an answer to anything.
But they've only won one by election and came second in the Euros...
"ThE ReSuRgEnT LDs"
Without a clear, inspiring, uplifting answer, you cannot even begin to answer the next question: how do you get there?
I could write a vision of a Scotland at peace with itself within the Union. It would be a work of fiction, but I can imagine it. I’m beginning to think that Unionism simply cannot. David L’s despairing post above is a typical example of the Unionist mindset: forever fighting a rearguard action.
4 months ago pro remain campaigners were jubilantly declaring Brexit to be “dead”. It looks as if they are not just going to get Brexit, but apparently a form of Brexit they reject above all others.
As far as individual MPs are concerned, the ERG's strategy is just as risky as the Remainer strategy. The ERG keeps voting against Blue Brexit because it believes it can eventually get Hard Brexit or No Deal Brexit. But as each month passes, the chances increase that we'll end up with no Brexit at all. There are two risks for Remainers: No Deal and a GE. They're right, I think, to discount No Deal. BJ is just TMay mk 2 with added bravado. Next month parliament will step in - either BJ will backtrack or he will fall.
The bigger risk for Remainers is a GE. The referendum needed 50% to pass; a GE only needs around 33% for a Hard Brexit government to gain power.
Unionism is now indelibly linked to the bankrupt project that is Brexit.
Worth reading - though as the tweet points out the headline is more positive than the substance.
This cannot be repeated enough:
A no-deal Brexit can be prevented only by legislation, not by a mere expression of parliamentary opinion, nor by a motion.....
...But any legislation designed to postpone or prevent Brexit has public spending implications. For were the UK to stay in the EU beyond 31 October it would have to make further budget contributions. But standing order 48 requires any charge on public revenue to be recommended by the crown, which, for practical purposes, means a government minister responsible to parliament and through parliament to the people, not backbenchers. So that standing order too would have to be suspended.
The practical difficulties would be enormous. Backbenchers would have to steer the relevant legislation through all of its stages in the Commons, and deal with a host of amendments in committee together with endless filibustering by enraged Brexiteers.
If backbenchers were to succeed in taking over the legislative timetable, they would in effect be taking over the functions of government. Logic surely requires that they themselves become the government. That would require a no-confidence vote in which enough Conservatives would have to abstain or vote against the government to counter Labour Brexiteers prepared to abstain or vote with the government. But a no-confidence vote can only be moved by the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn.
In the end, the only way they can do it is VONC - but then as we've seen, Boris can hold the GE after Oct31, legally.
I do feel sorry and partly guilty toward those whose visit to Stonehenge has been, by the need to preserve the monument for future generations, as JJ puts it, "stage managed, controlled and anaesthetic".
We always used to go to spend most of August with my grandparents at St Ives which meant a very long drive and an early start so we would reach Stonehenge not long after dawn and I remember us stopping and being able to run among the stones and touch them - now, of course, impossible. I understand the need for preservation but if all we covered, protected and shielded does it have that value apart from as a historical artefact?
On topic, I leave Scottish politics to others. Off topic (again), pace Thelma and Louise, the UK and EU are in the car and heading straight for the No Deal cliff edge and at the moment neither side can turn the wheel or apply the brake or wants to.- Boris can't because it would mean his political destruction and probably that of his Party but the EU know that if they blink for us, they might blink for an Italy or a Hungary or another future leaver. We haven't always appreciated how important keeping the "club" together is for the EU - they won't blink either.
The visitor centre is pretty good too. If you are NT members you can get in free (I think English Heritage own the stones and the NT owns the land).
The new visitor centre is a big improvement. I have driven past the stones on the A303 countless times but you only get a glimpse from the road (and you can't really stop). I know it's controversial but the planned A303 improvement will make the road and the site much better imho.
I's love to see EH build a replica of how it would have looked originally, with real stones, close to the visitor centre... that would satisfy half the visitors and the actual stones (half a mile away) would be less busy.
I would expect the leading no deal opponents already to be working up a plan and lining up their colleagues to deliver it.
My fear would be that several different groups of MPs are all working up different plans.
Edit/ also worth noting that nothing says the process stops after the LOTO tries and fails. Let Corbyn lose his VOC, then the House combines around a GONU.
https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1158648367913799680
We'r'e not getting a family holiday this year (as usual), so it's a sort-of min-break - albeit a rather expensive one a he loves staying at hotels! I'm also planning to leave it rather open-ended aside from Stonehenge, so if he just wants to play on a beach for a few hours he can.
I've done the Needles area - such a lot of military history on one little headland.
Boris is so repellent that votes (and so seats) are lost in Scotland as Davidson starts with fewer votes than 2017..
Personally while he may want to be PM I doubt he wants to extend (as it might cost Labour a few votes by association) so he might which want someone else to ask for the extension.
https://www.armyflying.com/
The only Empire left is Scotland, Wales, NI, Gibraltar, the Falklands etc. *That* is why Scotland is so important to them: it is symbolic. They don’t give a damn about the Scots themselves.
isn't too windy.
Edit/ and there's a grand beach minutes away from where the hovercraft drops you.
Do you see the problem here?
Does anybody have any idea what he is up to?
But will she support the government in a VONC? I strongly suspect that she will not.
The House will not be presented with the kind of forced choice she implies, it will just be asked to reject no deal and seek a further extension of A50.
BTW, I love the way you referred to the mainland as 'North Island' !
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attraction_Review-g503890-d8310461-Reviews-Ryde_Beach-Ryde_Isle_of_Wight_England.html