Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.
This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.
No one knew what A50 would entail? Not even MPs who passed the Act?
Of course they didn’t. Hence this shit show.
This is not some obscure regulation about deer feed in national parks or the like, Article 50 has had a centrality to proceedings since Lisbon was signed (you know the one we weren't allowed to vote down because G Brown ratted on a manifesto promise). If MP's really did not read up on what Article 50 meant and its workings on the greatest question for 50 years, why on God's earth should we entrust them with any time at all to screw things up further?
If they really didn't know about Article 50 they are clueless muppets, not fit for purpose, and should not use cutlery unsupervised.
I was also naive enough to think we had a sensible, grown up government who would produce a compromise to unite the nation.
Instead we’re left with a choice of shooting ourselves in the foot, or shooting ourselves in the head.
F*ck me, yeah?
Which part of May's withdrawal agreement do you object to ?
The part where it takes us out of the Single Market.
I must have missed that in the transition. When in the transition would we leave the Single Market?
Had May's Deal gone through we would still have been in the Single Market until the end of next year at the earliest and potentially longer if agreed.
I have come to the conclusion that there are about 30 conservative mps who want to stop no deal, but they fear a vonc for the precise reason they are mainly from London and the South and are under serious threat from the Lib Dems. A GE now would be a wipe out for them.
Indeed labour only started panicking when the Lib Dems became a real threat to labour London seats including Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell and Thornberry and that threat still remains
LDs plummeting since Tory Swinson started making TV appearances. Next GE is Tory No Deal or Jezza.
The next GE will be post 31st October
The mps are too scared to vonc next week which is the correct and proper thing to do
Just so long at it’s in either October or November. My winnings on the timing will pay for the booze and nibbles to watch it with.
The argument, as I understood it, was that the EU Withdrawal Act allows the UK to withdraw with a deal but not without one. The reasoning seemed to be that because the Act said that the UK could only agree a deal if the Commons approved it by resolution leaving without such a resolution was incompatible with the Act. It seemed to ignore the fact that once the Article 50 notice was served withdrawal was not just a matter for us but also the EU who had to agree to any extension.
Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.
Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"
Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.
Absolute wishful thinking. It will be Boris amended deal or no deal
Which 'amended deal'? There's no sign of one being put on the table, and even less of the EU agreeing to one if it is.
I expect there to be a fudge after the EU meeting in mid October then it is chose time for the HOC, fudged deal or no deal
Enough of a fudge for Boris Johnson not to blow his credibility by trying to ram it through the House of Commons?
Which way do you think Labour would vote if Johnson contrived a situation where the only options were deal or no deal?
It's not possible for him to contrive that situation. No Deal can be averted even on October 31st.
Can it? I thought any request of extension or revocation required the executive’s cooperation.
The executive can be replaced in hours if you have a majority lined up for an alternative.
Everyone except the Conservatives has an interest in seeing him stay in office until November without Britain leaving the EU. Why would they help him escape this fate?
Q: What happens if he resigns? Potentially advising HM that there is no one that can command the Commons?
He can resign. His views on the lack of a successor would no doubt be taken into account by HRH but she would need to call for someone, and then test that out.
That advice in any case would be quite irresponsible. There manifestly are people who could for the time being command the confidence of the House of Commons if called upon (eg Harriet Harman, Ken Clarke). The only question is whether other more contentious candidates, such as Jeremy Corbyn, need to be tested out first.
“HRH”? Are you guys going to demote her now because of yesterday?
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.
This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.
No one knew what A50 would entail? Not even MPs who passed the Act?
Of course they didn’t. Hence this shit show.
This is not some obscure regulation about deer feed in national parks or the like, Article 50 has had a centrality to proceedings since Lisbon was signed (you know the one we weren't allowed to vote down because G Brown ratted on a manifesto promise). If MP's really did not read up on what Article 50 meant and its workings on the greatest question for 50 years, why on God's earth should we entrust them with any time at all to screw things up further?
If they really didn't know about Article 50 they are clueless muppets, not fit for purpose, and should not use cutlery unsupervised.
I was also naive enough to think we had a sensible, grown up government who would produce a compromise to unite the nation.
Instead we’re left with a choice of shooting ourselves in the foot, or shooting ourselves in the head.
F*ck me, yeah?
Which part of May's withdrawal agreement do you object to ?
The part where it takes us out of the Single Market.
I must have missed that in the transition. When in the transition would we leave the Single Market?
Had May's Deal gone through we would still have been in the Single Market until the end of next year at the earliest and potentially longer if agreed.
Without it we could leave 9 weeks today.
Oops.
England can rejoin with the Euro soon enough. Suits me.
Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.
Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"
Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.
Absolute wishful thinking. It will be Boris amended deal or no deal
Which 'amended deal'? There's no sign of one being put on the table, and even less of the EU agreeing to one if it is.
I expect there to be a fudge after the EU meeting in mid October then it is chose time for the HOC, fudged deal or no deal
Enough of a fudge for Boris Johnson not to blow his credibility by trying to ram it through the House of Commons?
Which way do you think Labour would vote if Johnson contrived a situation where the only options were deal or no deal?
It's not possible for him to contrive that situation. No Deal can be averted even on October 31st.
Can it? I thought any request of extension or revocation required the executive’s cooperation.
The executive can be replaced in hours if you have a majority lined up for an alternative.
Quite a few ifs appearing here, especially for something that would have to be done in under a day.
I have come to the conclusion that there are about 30 conservative mps who want to stop no deal, but they fear a vonc for the precise reason they are mainly from London and the South and are under serious threat from the Lib Dems. A GE now would be a wipe out for them.
Indeed labour only started panicking when the Lib Dems became a real threat to labour London seats including Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell and Thornberry and that threat still remains
LDs plummeting since Tory Swinson started making TV appearances. Next GE is Tory No Deal or Jezza.
The next GE will be post 31st October
The mps are too scared to vonc next week which is the correct and proper thing to do
Just so long at it’s in either October or November. My winnings on the timing will pay for the booze and nibbles to watch it with.
The cowards in the HOC will not vonc next week and therefore the earliest they can is the 14th October. 14 days takes us to the 28th October.
Unless there is a successful vonc next week, and two thirds vote for one, there will not be a GE before 31st October
Everyone except the Conservatives has an interest in seeing him stay in office until November without Britain leaving the EU. Why would they help him escape this fate?
Q: What happens if he resigns? Potentially advising HM that there is no one that can command the Commons?
He can resign. His views on the lack of a successor would no doubt be taken into account by HRH but she would need to call for someone, and then test that out.
That advice in any case would be quite irresponsible. There manifestly are people who could for the time being command the confidence of the House of Commons if called upon (eg Harriet Harman, Ken Clarke). The only question is whether other more contentious candidates, such as Jeremy Corbyn, need to be tested out first.
“HRH”? Are you guys going to demote her now because of yesterday?
I have come to the conclusion that there are about 30 conservative mps who want to stop no deal, but they fear a vonc for the precise reason they are mainly from London and the South and are under serious threat from the Lib Dems. A GE now would be a wipe out for them.
Indeed labour only started panicking when the Lib Dems became a real threat to labour London seats including Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell and Thornberry and that threat still remains
LDs plummeting since Tory Swinson started making TV appearances. Next GE is Tory No Deal or Jezza.
Everyone except the Conservatives has an interest in seeing him stay in office until November without Britain leaving the EU. Why would they help him escape this fate?
Q: What happens if he resigns? Potentially advising HM that there is no one that can command the Commons?
He can resign. His views on the lack of a successor would no doubt be taken into account by HRH but she would need to call for someone, and then test that out.
That advice in any case would be quite irresponsible. There manifestly are people who could for the time being command the confidence of the House of Commons if called upon (eg Harriet Harman, Ken Clarke). The only question is whether other more contentious candidates, such as Jeremy Corbyn, need to be tested out first.
I'm not sure that it is manifest that Harman or Clarke could. Surely that would depend on their proposed agenda?
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.
This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.
No one knew what A50 would entail? Not even MPs who passed the Act?
Of course they didn’t. Hence this shit show.
This is not some obscure regulation about deer feed in national parks or the like, Article 50 has had a centrality to proceedings since Lisbon was signed (you know the one we weren't allowed to vote down because G Brown ratted on a manifesto promise). If MP's really did not read up on what Article 50 meant and its workings on the greatest question for 50 years, why on God's earth should we entrust them with any time at all to screw things up further?
If they really didn't know about Article 50 they are clueless muppets, not fit for purpose, and should not use cutlery unsupervised.
I was also naive enough to think we had a sensible, grown up government who would produce a compromise to unite the nation.
Instead we’re left with a choice of shooting ourselves in the foot, or shooting ourselves in the head.
F*ck me, yeah?
Sans Grieve et al stirring the pot, May presumably would've signed off her Government's deal last December with bthe EU, as a middlish way. I was prepared to compromise to support it, but good old Dominic wanted his say.
Well here we are. Parliament's been having its say since last December. Going well isn't it? The poor lambs could've not had summer holidays and debated some more, had they so voted, or maybe the odd Saturday too. I'm sure Mr Bercow would've found a precedent from the 14th century to help them. But no.
Everyone except the Conservatives has an interest in seeing him stay in office until November without Britain leaving the EU. Why would they help him escape this fate?
Q: What happens if he resigns? Potentially advising HM that there is no one that can command the Commons?
He can resign. His views on the lack of a successor would no doubt be taken into account by HRH but she would need to call for someone, and then test that out.
That advice in any case would be quite irresponsible. There manifestly are people who could for the time being command the confidence of the House of Commons if called upon (eg Harriet Harman, Ken Clarke). The only question is whether other more contentious candidates, such as Jeremy Corbyn, need to be tested out first.
“HRH”? Are you guys going to demote her now because of yesterday?
Apologies. Her Britannic Majesty.
Isn’t that only for use in countries where there is another monarch?
Everyone except the Conservatives has an interest in seeing him stay in office until November without Britain leaving the EU. Why would they help him escape this fate?
Q: What happens if he resigns? Potentially advising HM that there is no one that can command the Commons?
He can resign. His views on the lack of a successor would no doubt be taken into account by HRH but she would need to call for someone, and then test that out.
That advice in any case would be quite irresponsible. There manifestly are people who could for the time being command the confidence of the House of Commons if called upon (eg Harriet Harman, Ken Clarke). The only question is whether other more contentious candidates, such as Jeremy Corbyn, need to be tested out first.
“HRH”? Are you guys going to demote her now because of yesterday?
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.
This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.
No one knew what A50 would entail? Not even MPs who passed the Act?
Of course they didn’t. Hence this shit show.
This is not some obscure regulation about deer feed in national parks or the like, Article 50 has had a centrality to proceedings since Lisbon was signed (you know the one we weren't allowed to vote down because G Brown ratted on a manifesto promise). If MP's really did not read up on what Article 50 meant and its workings on the greatest question for 50 years, why on God's earth should we entrust them with any time at all to screw things up further?
If they really didn't know about Article 50 they are clueless muppets, not fit for purpose, and should not use cutlery unsupervised.
I was also naive enough to think we had a sensible, grown up government who would produce a compromise to unite the nation.
Instead we’re left with a choice of shooting ourselves in the foot, or shooting ourselves in the head.
F*ck me, yeah?
Which part of May's withdrawal agreement do you object to ?
The part where it takes us out of the Single Market.
That's news to me, quite sure we remained part of the European Single market during transition with the future relationship TBD. Can you point me to the part where the future relationship was constrained from being outwith a Norway style single market deal in the document ?
Yep. It's fill or kill time. Either they are going to stop it or they aren't. As we have seen from BoJo constitutional but controversial measures are fine. So it's s&&t or get off the pot time for anti-no dealers.
Of course such is the dramatic tension that when Boris brings back a/the deal to parliament he will (with some justification) be able to turn to Labour and say: "well what about it? Deal or no deal?"
Boris can't bring back May's deal without blowing all his political capital for nothing. It would make more sense for him to blackmail parliament with a No Deal or Revoke choice at the end of October. He can get off the hook for Brexit while maintaining his purity.
Absolute wishful thinking. It will be Boris amended deal or no deal
Which 'amended deal'? There's no sign of one being put on the table, and even less of the EU agreeing to one if it is.
I expect there to be a fudge after the EU meeting in mid October then it is chose time for the HOC, fudged deal or no deal
Enough of a fudge for Boris Johnson not to blow his credibility by trying to ram it through the House of Commons?
Which way do you think Labour would vote if Johnson contrived a situation where the only options were deal or no deal?
It's not possible for him to contrive that situation. No Deal can be averted even on October 31st.
Can it? I thought any request of extension or revocation required the executive’s cooperation.
The executive can be replaced in hours if you have a majority lined up for an alternative.
Quite a few ifs appearing here, especially for something that would have to be done in under a day.
I said it could be done, not that it would have to be done like that. The point is that Johnson cannot successfully narrow the choices without a stable majority. (And in any case he's bluffing. If parliament did absolutely nothing, we wouldn't leave on October the 31st.)
A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.
The USA lacks a monarch and is full of republicans. Whatever anyone thinks of Americans, their patriotism rarely in doubt.
A monarch is not required to be a patriot.
Would you view an American citizen who campaigned for the Queen to be crowned as Queen of the US as a patriot?
Indeed. That was my point but I used Kim Jong-Un as an example.
so what else is on the Topping Requirements for someone else to be allowed to say they love Britain? So far all I know is nobody is allowed to say that they think we should end the monarchy. But what about other constitutional changes eg: wanting to end FPTP for elections? wanting to get rid of the unelected House of Lords? wanting to disestablish the CofE?
or other symbolic changes: wanting to change the national flag? wanting to change the national anthem? wanting to change the colour of the passports?
I'm really curious what would be on your list, or is it solely a monarchy fetish?
And does it apply to other countries with the Queen as head of state eg: are Australians who want the Queen to no longer be head of state of Australia allowed to say they love Australia?
You seem quite het up. That was this morning's discussion.
Everyone except the Conservatives has an interest in seeing him stay in office until November without Britain leaving the EU. Why would they help him escape this fate?
Q: What happens if he resigns? Potentially advising HM that there is no one that can command the Commons?
He can resign. His views on the lack of a successor would no doubt be taken into account by HRH but she would need to call for someone, and then test that out.
That advice in any case would be quite irresponsible. There manifestly are people who could for the time being command the confidence of the House of Commons if called upon (eg Harriet Harman, Ken Clarke). The only question is whether other more contentious candidates, such as Jeremy Corbyn, need to be tested out first.
No, the question is whether Boris wants to be PM after the autumn election. If he does, that rules out Clarke because Boris needs to remain party leader, and probably Harman as well, as a GNU with Conservative members would also lead to pressure on Boris to step down. Boris needs Corbyn heading a minority Labour government. That way, Boris can remain leader of a united (or at least not formally split) Conservative Party and be swept back into Downing Street by a Brexit-crazed electorate.
More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.
This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.
No one knew what A50 would entail? Not even MPs who passed the Act?
Of course they didn’t. Hence this shit show.
This is not some obscure regulation about deer feed in national parks or the like, Article 50 has had a centrality to proceedings since Lisbon was signed (you know the one we weren't allowed to vote down because G Brown ratted on a manifesto promise). If MP's really did not read up on what Article 50 meant and its workings on the greatest question for 50 years, why on God's earth should we entrust them with any time at all to screw things up further?
If they really didn't know about Article 50 they are clueless muppets, not fit for purpose, and should not use cutlery unsupervised.
I was also naive enough to think we had a sensible, grown up government who would produce a compromise to unite the nation.
Instead we’re left with a choice of shooting ourselves in the foot, or shooting ourselves in the head.
F*ck me, yeah?
Which part of May's withdrawal agreement do you object to ?
I wasn't the one you questioned but in Aug. 2016 I'd have settled for Norway, i.e. 48% in, at least 52% out. Various leavers had proposed this. Subsequently they moved from this to more extreme versions, preferably with no more involvement with the EU than with with Panama.
So f*** them. I'd like to remain not just with the deal we already but 'a kind of United States of Europe'. Churchill wanted it too. His 1946 speech is there on Youtube; listen to it.
Federalism means devolution to the lowest possible level so some things could actually return to member states, if the EU acquired a constitution like a proper country. But many things are far better done on behalf of all 500 million of us, like regulating Amazon, FB et al.
As I said, PB has changed since 2016 from Political Betting into Perpetual Brexshit so I don't feel like contributing much more while that lasts. It's nearly all been said before whereas betting tips are at least new every time.
The fact that the future relationship was TBD is the problem. Corbyn was right about this one, it was a blind, Tory Brexit. Nothing for 50% of the population.
Rebranding a hard brexit as the ‘middle ground’ was the biggest bit of damage May caused.
Everyone except the Conservatives has an interest in seeing him stay in office until November without Britain leaving the EU. Why would they help him escape this fate?
Q: What happens if he resigns? Potentially advising HM that there is no one that can command the Commons?
He can resign. His views on the lack of a successor would no doubt be taken into account by HRH but she would need to call for someone, and then test that out.
That advice in any case would be quite irresponsible. There manifestly are people who could for the time being command the confidence of the House of Commons if called upon (eg Harriet Harman, Ken Clarke). The only question is whether other more contentious candidates, such as Jeremy Corbyn, need to be tested out first.
I'm not sure that it is manifest that Harman or Clarke could. Surely that would depend on their proposed agenda?
As we have been seeing over the last month, when a Prime Minister is in office, the question is not "would you like someone else more?" but "are there worse outcomes?". When presented with a binary choice on such a Prime Minister, a majority of MPs will calculate that they're getting at least half a loaf. Indeed, they might not even face such a vote. Boris Johnson didn't.
The fact that the future relationship was TBD is the problem. Corbyn was right about this one, it was a blind, Tory Brexit. Nothing for 50% of the population.
Rebranding a hard brexit as the ‘middle ground’ was the biggest bit of damage May caused.
Nothing we can do about that. Blame the EU’s sequencing (can blame that for NI, too)
Sans Grieve et al stirring the pot, May presumably would've signed off her Government's deal last December with bthe EU, as a middlish way. I was prepared to compromise to support it, but good old Dominic wanted his say.
Well here we are. Parliament's been having its say since last December. Going well isn't it? The poor lambs could've not had summer holidays and debated some more, had they so voted, or maybe the odd Saturday too. I'm sure Mr Bercow would've found a precedent from the 14th century to help them. But no.
The poor lambs not only couldn't be bothered to decide what they want before taking a six week holiday they also can't be bothered to sit on Fridays let alone Saturday.
Parliament is losing 4 sitting days to proroguation. If they vote to sit on Fridays that would make that up without disrupting the precious dears holidays.
The fact that the future relationship was TBD is the problem. Corbyn was right about this one, it was a blind, Tory Brexit. Nothing for 50% of the population.
Rebranding a hard brexit as the ‘middle ground’ was the biggest bit of damage May caused.
Nothing we can do about that. Blame the EU’s sequencing (can blame that for NI, too)
Of course we can. We can extend Article 50 until the PD is fully agreed in a legally binding form and have it come into affect at the same time we legally leave the EU.
Sans Grieve et al stirring the pot, May presumably would've signed off her Government's deal last December with bthe EU, as a middlish way. I was prepared to compromise to support it, but good old Dominic wanted his say.
Well here we are. Parliament's been having its say since last December. Going well isn't it? The poor lambs could've not had summer holidays and debated some more, had they so voted, or maybe the odd Saturday too. I'm sure Mr Bercow would've found a precedent from the 14th century to help them. But no.
The poor lambs not only couldn't be bothered to decide what they want before taking a six week holiday they also can't be bothered to sit on Fridays let alone Saturday.
Parliament is losing 4 sitting days to proroguation. If they vote to sit on Fridays that would make that up without disrupting the previous dears holidays.
Repeating a lie does not make it true. Do you have no shame?
The fact that the future relationship was TBD is the problem. Corbyn was right about this one, it was a blind, Tory Brexit. Nothing for 50% of the population.
Rebranding a hard brexit as the ‘middle ground’ was the biggest bit of damage May caused.
Nothing we can do about that. Blame the EU’s sequencing (can blame that for NI, too)
Of course we can. We can extend Article 50 until the PD is fully agreed in a legally binding form and have it come into affect at the same time we legally leave the EU.
Why would the EU breach one of their own red lines?
The fact that the future relationship was TBD is the problem. Corbyn was right about this one, it was a blind, Tory Brexit. Nothing for 50% of the population.
Rebranding a hard brexit as the ‘middle ground’ was the biggest bit of damage May caused.
Nothing we can do about that. Blame the EU’s sequencing (can blame that for NI, too)
Of course we can. We can extend Article 50 until the PD is fully agreed in a legally binding form and have it come into affect at the same time we legally leave the EU.
Why would the EU breach one of their own red lines?
The fact that the future relationship was TBD is the problem. Corbyn was right about this one, it was a blind, Tory Brexit. Nothing for 50% of the population.
Rebranding a hard brexit as the ‘middle ground’ was the biggest bit of damage May caused.
Your precious EU demanded that.
Agreeing to the EU's sequencing was one of May's many mistakes but there we have it.
The fact that the future relationship was TBD is the problem. Corbyn was right about this one, it was a blind, Tory Brexit. Nothing for 50% of the population.
Rebranding a hard brexit as the ‘middle ground’ was the biggest bit of damage May caused.
Nothing we can do about that. Blame the EU’s sequencing (can blame that for NI, too)
Of course we can. We can extend Article 50 until the PD is fully agreed in a legally binding form and have it come into affect at the same time we legally leave the EU.
Why would the EU breach one of their own red lines?
What red line is that?
No negotiation/agreement on the future relationship until the UK is out of the EU.
Sans Grieve et al stirring the pot, May presumably would've signed off her Government's deal last December with bthe EU, as a middlish way. I was prepared to compromise to support it, but good old Dominic wanted his say.
Well here we are. Parliament's been having its say since last December. Going well isn't it? The poor lambs could've not had summer holidays and debated some more, had they so voted, or maybe the odd Saturday too. I'm sure Mr Bercow would've found a precedent from the 14th century to help them. But no.
The poor lambs not only couldn't be bothered to decide what they want before taking a six week holiday they also can't be bothered to sit on Fridays let alone Saturday.
Parliament is losing 4 sitting days to proroguation. If they vote to sit on Fridays that would make that up without disrupting the precious dears holidays.
That's an awful lot of words from both of you to say that democracy is an inconvenience.
I said it could be done, not that it would have to be done like that. The point is that Johnson cannot successfully narrow the choices without a stable majority. (And in any case he's bluffing. If parliament did absolutely nothing, we wouldn't leave on October the 31st.)
Johnson's strategy is to convince everyone that he's serious about no deal in the hope that a deal he can recommend emerges from the maelstrom. Narcissist that he is, he has probably convinced himself that this is the likely outcome. But it isn't, there's almost no chance of it happening, and if it doesn't he faces either the humiliation of not leaving or the disaster of no deal. Nothing that has happened in the past 24 hours has changed this reality.
The fact that the future relationship was TBD is the problem. Corbyn was right about this one, it was a blind, Tory Brexit. Nothing for 50% of the population.
Rebranding a hard brexit as the ‘middle ground’ was the biggest bit of damage May caused.
Nothing we can do about that. Blame the EU’s sequencing (can blame that for NI, too)
Of course we can. We can extend Article 50 until the PD is fully agreed in a legally binding form and have it come into affect at the same time we legally leave the EU.
Why would the EU breach one of their own red lines?
What red line is that?
No negotiation on the future relationship until the UK is out of the EU.
I said it could be done, not that it would have to be done like that. The point is that Johnson cannot successfully narrow the choices without a stable majority. (And in any case he's bluffing. If parliament did absolutely nothing, we wouldn't leave on October the 31st.)
Johnson's strategy is to convince everyone that he's serious about no deal in the hope that a deal he can recommend emerges from the maelstrom. Narcissist that he is, he has probably convinced himself that this is the likely outcome. But it isn't, there's almost no chance of it happening, and if it doesn't he faces either the humiliation of not leaving or the disaster of no deal. Nothing that has happened in the past 24 hours has changed this reality.
We've gone from "no prospect" to "almost no chance" in under an hour
I have come to the conclusion that there are about 30 conservative mps who want to stop no deal, but they fear a vonc for the precise reason they are mainly from London and the South and are under serious threat from the Lib Dems. A GE now would be a wipe out for them.
Indeed labour only started panicking when the Lib Dems became a real threat to labour London seats including Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell and Thornberry and that threat still remains
LDs plummeting since Tory Swinson started making TV appearances. Next GE is Tory No Deal or Jezza.
You do talk some crap
No, he is quite right. All Swinson is doing is aiding and abetting a no deal Brexit.
Better to be pure and lose than compromise and win seems to be the Lib Dem position.
The fact that the future relationship was TBD is the problem. Corbyn was right about this one, it was a blind, Tory Brexit. Nothing for 50% of the population.
Rebranding a hard brexit as the ‘middle ground’ was the biggest bit of damage May caused.
Nothing we can do about that. Blame the EU’s sequencing (can blame that for NI, too)
Of course we can. We can extend Article 50 until the PD is fully agreed in a legally binding form and have it come into affect at the same time we legally leave the EU.
Why would the EU breach one of their own red lines?
What red line is that?
No negotiation on the future relationship until the UK is out of the EU.
That clearly is not a red line as we have the PD.
Which isn't legally binding. It's more of a list of aspirations that either side could decide to ignore. The red line is that they won't sign an agreement on the future relationship until the UK is out.
The fact that the future relationship was TBD is the problem. Corbyn was right about this one, it was a blind, Tory Brexit. Nothing for 50% of the population.
Rebranding a hard brexit as the ‘middle ground’ was the biggest bit of damage May caused.
Nothing we can do about that. Blame the EU’s sequencing (can blame that for NI, too)
Of course we can. We can extend Article 50 until the PD is fully agreed in a legally binding form and have it come into affect at the same time we legally leave the EU.
Why would the EU breach one of their own red lines?
What red line is that?
No negotiation/agreement on the future relationship until the UK is out of the EU.
Indeed, they have been extremely inflexible but their line is and remains “no trade negotiation until you’re a third country”. We never have should have gone along with it, but then with a proper Leave voting PM we could have done the sensible thing and refused to trigger Article 50 up front.
The fact that the future relationship was TBD is the problem. Corbyn was right about this one, it was a blind, Tory Brexit. Nothing for 50% of the population.
Rebranding a hard brexit as the ‘middle ground’ was the biggest bit of damage May caused.
This is a classic case of how tribal dualist thinking screws us over. When the UK government spotted this problem back in the day, most Remainers instinctively took the EU's side. I was one of the few Remainers that agreed with the UK position and was attacked online for "falling for Brexiteer talking points". If prominent Remainers had come out and backed the UK government, the EU might have backed down. But they instead revelled in May getting a defeat. So now we are left with a likely No Deal.
But of course no-one reflects on themselves. Why bother when you can just pretend the other side is entirely to blame?
I have come to the conclusion that there are about 30 conservative mps who want to stop no deal, but they fear a vonc for the precise reason they are mainly from London and the South and are under serious threat from the Lib Dems. A GE now would be a wipe out for them.
Indeed labour only started panicking when the Lib Dems became a real threat to labour London seats including Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell and Thornberry and that threat still remains
LDs plummeting since Tory Swinson started making TV appearances. Next GE is Tory No Deal or Jezza.
The next GE will be post 31st October
The mps are too scared to vonc next week which is the correct and proper thing to do
Just so long at it’s in either October or November. My winnings on the timing will pay for the booze and nibbles to watch it with.
The cowards in the HOC will not vonc next week and therefore the earliest they can is the 14th October. 14 days takes us to the 28th October.
Unless there is a successful vonc next week, and two thirds vote for one, there will not be a GE before 31st October
Cowards? Or looking forward to capitalising on the Conservative party taking us out without a deal? Are they looking forward to what happens to the Conservative party year on year following 31st October this year.
HY has been counting the Brexit Party voters coming through front door of the Tory house, has he missed the many millions of pro EU conservatives disappearing out the back door?
Cowards you say, maybe carpet baggers is the correct term.
Sans Grieve et al stirring the pot, May presumably would've signed off her Government's deal last December with bthe EU, as a middlish way. I was prepared to compromise to support it, but good old Dominic wanted his say.
Well here we are. Parliament's been having its say since last December. Going well isn't it? The poor lambs could've not had summer holidays and debated some more, had they so voted, or maybe the odd Saturday too. I'm sure Mr Bercow would've found a precedent from the 14th century to help them. But no.
The poor lambs not only couldn't be bothered to decide what they want before taking a six week holiday they also can't be bothered to sit on Fridays let alone Saturday.
Parliament is losing 4 sitting days to proroguation. If they vote to sit on Fridays that would make that up without disrupting the precious dears holidays.
That's an awful lot of words from both of you to say that democracy is an inconvenience.
It's not an inconvenience it is ongoing.
The fact that the MPs in Parliament can't agree anything and can't organise a piss up in a brewery is a fault of our MPs not democracy. They still have plenty of time to do so and can find more time if the part timers can be bothered to turn up to work more often.
The fact that the future relationship was TBD is the problem. Corbyn was right about this one, it was a blind, Tory Brexit. Nothing for 50% of the population.
Rebranding a hard brexit as the ‘middle ground’ was the biggest bit of damage May caused.
Nothing we can do about that. Blame the EU’s sequencing (can blame that for NI, too)
Of course we can. We can extend Article 50 until the PD is fully agreed in a legally binding form and have it come into affect at the same time we legally leave the EU.
We can't. We can request and 27 others can think about it.
The fact that the future relationship was TBD is the problem. Corbyn was right about this one, it was a blind, Tory Brexit. Nothing for 50% of the population.
Rebranding a hard brexit as the ‘middle ground’ was the biggest bit of damage May caused.
Nothing we can do about that. Blame the EU’s sequencing (can blame that for NI, too)
Of course we can. We can extend Article 50 until the PD is fully agreed in a legally binding form and have it come into affect at the same time we legally leave the EU.
Why would the EU breach one of their own red lines?
What red line is that?
No negotiation on the future relationship until the UK is out of the EU.
That clearly is not a red line as we have the PD.
Which isn't legally binding. It's more of a list of aspirations that either side could decide to ignore.
The EU have made it very clear that the current WA and PD is a result of British red lines, not the EUs.
2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?
Not to mention a six week holiday.
I really don't think that there is anything left to be said. People need to choose. Its as simple as that.
Choose what?
MPs need to do something rather than constantly voting against everything.
They haven’t been given the chance. Even in the indicative votes, the government did not properly engage. You need to give the house free votes otherwise it will always be the house voting against the government. That’s how our parliament works.
They had three chances to vote for May's Shit Deal.
Ironically, a year on Labour will end up voting for something very close to it by 31st October. Having swapped loser May for big winner Boris in the process. Whilst clinging on to Corbyn.
It wasn't a shit deal but to expect any more enlightenment from you than from Mark Francois I appreciate is a big ask.
It was neither here nor there whether the deal was shit or not, it ticked the box of leaving the EU and respecting the referendum result. The moment this chaos unfolded was when MPs didn’t just sign it off as a matter of course.
Some refused in order to get no deal, others in order to get no Brexit.
The fact that the future relationship was TBD is the problem. Corbyn was right about this one, it was a blind, Tory Brexit. Nothing for 50% of the population.
Rebranding a hard brexit as the ‘middle ground’ was the biggest bit of damage May caused.
Nothing we can do about that. Blame the EU’s sequencing (can blame that for NI, too)
Of course we can. We can extend Article 50 until the PD is fully agreed in a legally binding form and have it come into affect at the same time we legally leave the EU.
Why would the EU breach one of their own red lines?
What red line is that?
No negotiation on the future relationship until the UK is out of the EU.
That clearly is not a red line as we have the PD.
Which isn't legally binding. It's more of a list of aspirations that either side could decide to ignore.
The EU have made it very that the current WA and PD is a result of British red lines, not the EUs.
We seem to be drifting away from the point at hand. The EU's position is that they will not negotiate or agree a future relationship until the UK is out. So the future relationship was always going to be "TBD".
The fact that the future relationship was TBD is the problem. Corbyn was right about this one, it was a blind, Tory Brexit. Nothing for 50% of the population.
Rebranding a hard brexit as the ‘middle ground’ was the biggest bit of damage May caused.
Nothing we can do about that. Blame the EU’s sequencing (can blame that for NI, too)
Of course we can. We can extend Article 50 until the PD is fully agreed in a legally binding form and have it come into affect at the same time we legally leave the EU.
Why would the EU breach one of their own red lines?
What red line is that?
No negotiation on the future relationship until the UK is out of the EU.
That clearly is not a red line as we have the PD.
Which isn't legally binding. It's more of a list of aspirations that either side could decide to ignore.
The EU have made it very that the current WA and PD is a result of British red lines, not the EUs.
Just think how much of a vassal state we'd have ended up with without those red lines. It doesn't bare thinking about.
Sans Grieve et al stirring the pot, May presumably would've signed off her Government's deal last December with bthe EU, as a middlish way. I was prepared to compromise to support it, but good old Dominic wanted his say.
Well here we are. Parliament's been having its say since last December. Going well isn't it? The poor lambs could've not had summer holidays and debated some more, had they so voted, or maybe the odd Saturday too. I'm sure Mr Bercow would've found a precedent from the 14th century to help them. But no.
The poor lambs not only couldn't be bothered to decide what they want before taking a six week holiday they also can't be bothered to sit on Fridays let alone Saturday.
Parliament is losing 4 sitting days to proroguation. If they vote to sit on Fridays that would make that up without disrupting the precious dears holidays.
That's an awful lot of words from both of you to say that democracy is an inconvenience.
It's not an inconvenience it is ongoing.
The fact that the MPs in Parliament can't agree anything and can't organise a piss up in a brewery is a fault of our MPs not democracy. They still have plenty of time to do so and can find more time if the part timers can be bothered to turn up to work more often.
So why have the suspension at all? You can't pretend it is anything bit trying to prevent MPs having their say.
I have come to the conclusion that there are about 30 conservative mps who want to stop no deal, but they fear a vonc for the precise reason they are mainly from London and the South and are under serious threat from the Lib Dems. A GE now would be a wipe out for them.
Indeed labour only started panicking when the Lib Dems became a real threat to labour London seats including Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell and Thornberry and that threat still remains
LDs plummeting since Tory Swinson started making TV appearances. Next GE is Tory No Deal or Jezza.
The next GE will be post 31st October
The mps are too scared to vonc next week which is the correct and proper thing to do
Just so long at it’s in either October or November. My winnings on the timing will pay for the booze and nibbles to watch it with.
The cowards in the HOC will not vonc next week and therefore the earliest they can is the 14th October. 14 days takes us to the 28th October.
Unless there is a successful vonc next week, and two thirds vote for one, there will not be a GE before 31st October
Cowards? Or looking forward to capitalising on the Conservative party taking us out without a deal? Are they looking forward to what happens to the Conservative party year on year following 31st October this year.
HY has been counting the Brexit Party voters coming through front door of the Tory house, has he missed the many millions of pro EU conservatives disappearing out the back door?
Cowards you say, maybe carpet baggers is the correct term.
Cowards are those who run away.
The mps are running away from a vonc next week for their own reasons and in many cases self preservation.
The fact that the future relationship was TBD is the problem. Corbyn was right about this one, it was a blind, Tory Brexit. Nothing for 50% of the population.
Rebranding a hard brexit as the ‘middle ground’ was the biggest bit of damage May caused.
Nothing we can do about that. Blame the EU’s sequencing (can blame that for NI, too)
Of course we can. We can extend Article 50 until the PD is fully agreed in a legally binding form and have it come into affect at the same time we legally leave the EU.
Why would the EU breach one of their own red lines?
What red line is that?
No negotiation on the future relationship until the UK is out of the EU.
That clearly is not a red line as we have the PD.
Which isn't legally binding. It's more of a list of aspirations that either side could decide to ignore.
The EU have made it very that the current WA and PD is a result of British red lines, not the EUs.
We seem to be drifting away from the point at hand. The EU's position is that they will not negotiate or agree a future relationship until the UK is out. So the future relationship was always going to be "TBD".
Total nonsense. Article 50 itself states that the framework for the future relationship must be agreed.
Sans Grieve et al stirring the pot, May presumably would've signed off her Government's deal last December with bthe EU, as a middlish way. I was prepared to compromise to support it, but good old Dominic wanted his say.
Well here we are. Parliament's been having its say since last December. Going well isn't it? The poor lambs could've not had summer holidays and debated some more, had they so voted, or maybe the odd Saturday too. I'm sure Mr Bercow would've found a precedent from the 14th century to help them. But no.
The poor lambs not only couldn't be bothered to decide what they want before taking a six week holiday they also can't be bothered to sit on Fridays let alone Saturday.
Parliament is losing 4 sitting days to proroguation. If they vote to sit on Fridays that would make that up without disrupting the precious dears holidays.
That's an awful lot of words from both of you to say that democracy is an inconvenience.
It's not an inconvenience it is ongoing.
The fact that the MPs in Parliament can't agree anything and can't organise a piss up in a brewery is a fault of our MPs not democracy. They still have plenty of time to do so and can find more time if the part timers can be bothered to turn up to work more often.
So why have the suspension at all? You can't pretend it is anything bit trying to prevent MPs having their say.
Boris was quite clear on this matter - the suspension is to allow for a Queen's Speech on 14th Oct so that his government can do great things.
I have come to the conclusion that there are about 30 conservative mps who want to stop no deal, but they fear a vonc for the precise reason they are mainly from London and the South and are under serious threat from the Lib Dems. A GE now would be a wipe out for them.
Indeed labour only started panicking when the Lib Dems became a real threat to labour London seats including Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell and Thornberry and that threat still remains
LDs plummeting since Tory Swinson started making TV appearances. Next GE is Tory No Deal or Jezza.
The next GE will be post 31st October
The mps are too scared to vonc next week which is the correct and proper thing to do
Just so long at it’s in either October or November. My winnings on the timing will pay for the booze and nibbles to watch it with.
The cowards in the HOC will not vonc next week and therefore the earliest they can is the 14th October. 14 days takes us to the 28th October.
Unless there is a successful vonc next week, and two thirds vote for one, there will not be a GE before 31st October
Cowards? Or looking forward to capitalising on the Conservative party taking us out without a deal? Are they looking forward to what happens to the Conservative party year on year following 31st October this year.
HY has been counting the Brexit Party voters coming through front door of the Tory house, has he missed the many millions of pro EU conservatives disappearing out the back door?
Cowards you say, maybe carpet baggers is the correct term.
So you are saying opposition MPs are putting party politics ahead of what they view as best for the country?
Sans Grieve et al stirring the pot, May presumably would've signed off her Government's deal last December with bthe EU, as a middlish way. I was prepared to compromise to support it, but good old Dominic wanted his say.
Well here we are. Parliament's been having its say since last December. Going well isn't it? The poor lambs could've not had summer holidays and debated some more, had they so voted, or maybe the odd Saturday too. I'm sure Mr Bercow would've found a precedent from the 14th century to help them. But no.
The poor lambs not only couldn't be bothered to decide what they want before taking a six week holiday they also can't be bothered to sit on Fridays let alone Saturday.
Parliament is losing 4 sitting days to proroguation. If they vote to sit on Fridays that would make that up without disrupting the precious dears holidays.
That's an awful lot of words from both of you to say that democracy is an inconvenience.
No it's not. But the machinations of our MP's and their inability to decide anything has been quite breathtaking. They also have not actually used the time available to them to the fullest extent they could have.
Parliament can sack the Govt in a similar way that shareholders can sack a company board. Here we've had the sight of "shareholders" not replacing the board but deciding they know how to run sales and production and QC, and moaning when they end up with three triangular wheels on a tatty go kart rather than their dreams of a Ferrari.
Sans Grieve et al stirring the pot, May presumably would've signed off her Government's deal last December with bthe EU, as a middlish way. I was prepared to compromise to support it, but good old Dominic wanted his say.
Well here we are. Parliament's been having its say since last December. Going well isn't it? The poor lambs could've not had summer holidays and debated some more, had they so voted, or maybe the odd Saturday too. I'm sure Mr Bercow would've found a precedent from the 14th century to help them. But no.
The poor lambs not only couldn't be bothered to decide what they want before taking a six week holiday they also can't be bothered to sit on Fridays let alone Saturday.
Parliament is losing 4 sitting days to proroguation. If they vote to sit on Fridays that would make that up without disrupting the precious dears holidays.
That's an awful lot of words from both of you to say that democracy is an inconvenience.
It's not an inconvenience it is ongoing.
The fact that the MPs in Parliament can't agree anything and can't organise a piss up in a brewery is a fault of our MPs not democracy. They still have plenty of time to do so and can find more time if the part timers can be bothered to turn up to work more often.
So why have the suspension at all? You can't pretend it is anything bit trying to prevent MPs having their say.
Boris was quite clear on this matter - the suspension is to allow for a Queen's Speech on 14th Oct so that his government can do great things.
If that was the case, which it isn’t, it wouldn’t be so long.
The fact that the future relationship was TBD is the problem. Corbyn was right about this one, it was a blind, Tory Brexit. Nothing for 50% of the population.
Rebranding a hard brexit as the ‘middle ground’ was the biggest bit of damage May caused.
Nothing we can do about that. Blame the EU’s sequencing (can blame that for NI, too)
Of course we can. We can extend Article 50 until the PD is fully agreed in a legally binding form and have it come into affect at the same time we legally leave the EU.
Why would the EU breach one of their own red lines?
What red line is that?
No negotiation on the future relationship until the UK is out of the EU.
That clearly is not a red line as we have the PD.
Which isn't legally binding. It's more of a list of aspirations that either side could decide to ignore.
The EU have made it very that the current WA and PD is a result of British red lines, not the EUs.
We seem to be drifting away from the point at hand. The EU's position is that they will not negotiate or agree a future relationship until the UK is out. So the future relationship was always going to be "TBD".
It is also not accurate to say the type of Brexit is a "Tory" one. Bankers and hedgies are a core Tory group and are aghast at this Brexit. The socially conservative Labour working class voters quite like it. Brexit is a cleavage that transcends typical left-right divisions, though I can understand why Corbyn wants to force it into that division.
The fact that the future relationship was TBD is the problem. Corbyn was right about this one, it was a blind, Tory Brexit. Nothing for 50% of the population.
Rebranding a hard brexit as the ‘middle ground’ was the biggest bit of damage May caused.
Nothing we can do about that. Blame the EU’s sequencing (can blame that for NI, too)
Of course we can. We can extend Article 50 until the PD is fully agreed in a legally binding form and have it come into affect at the same time we legally leave the EU.
Why would the EU breach one of their own red lines?
What red line is that?
No negotiation on the future relationship until the UK is out of the EU.
That clearly is not a red line as we have the PD.
Which isn't legally binding. It's more of a list of aspirations that either side could decide to ignore.
The EU have made it very that the current WA and PD is a result of British red lines, not the EUs.
We seem to be drifting away from the point at hand. The EU's position is that they will not negotiate or agree a future relationship until the UK is out. So the future relationship was always going to be "TBD".
Total nonsense. Article 50 itself states that the framework for the future relationship must be agreed.
No it doesn't. It must merely "take account" of the framework for its future relationship. There is no requirement for the substance of a future treaty to be agreed.
Sans Grieve et al stirring the pot, May presumably would've signed off her Government's deal last December with bthe EU, as a middlish way. I was prepared to compromise to support it, but good old Dominic wanted his say.
Well here we are. Parliament's been having its say since last December. Going well isn't it? The poor lambs could've not had summer holidays and debated some more, had they so voted, or maybe the odd Saturday too. I'm sure Mr Bercow would've found a precedent from the 14th century to help them. But no.
The poor lambs not only couldn't be bothered to decide what they want before taking a six week holiday they also can't be bothered to sit on Fridays let alone Saturday.
Parliament is losing 4 sitting days to proroguation. If they vote to sit on Fridays that would make that up without disrupting the precious dears holidays.
That's an awful lot of words from both of you to say that democracy is an inconvenience.
It's not an inconvenience it is ongoing.
The fact that the MPs in Parliament can't agree anything and can't organise a piss up in a brewery is a fault of our MPs not democracy. They still have plenty of time to do so and can find more time if the part timers can be bothered to turn up to work more often.
So why have the suspension at all? You can't pretend it is anything bit trying to prevent MPs having their say.
It is a constitutional requirement prior to a Queens Speech which itself is a constitutional requirement prior to Boris introducing into Parliament any of his domestic agenda.
The fact that the future relationship was TBD is the problem. Corbyn was right about this one, it was a blind, Tory Brexit. Nothing for 50% of the population.
Rebranding a hard brexit as the ‘middle ground’ was the biggest bit of damage May caused.
Nothing we can do about that. Blame the EU’s sequencing (can blame that for NI, too)
Of course we can. We can extend Article 50 until the PD is fully agreed in a legally binding form and have it come into affect at the same time we legally leave the EU.
Why would the EU breach one of their own red lines?
What red line is that?
No negotiation on the future relationship until the UK is out of the EU.
That clearly is not a red line as we have the PD.
Which isn't legally binding. It's more of a list of aspirations that either side could decide to ignore.
The EU have made it very that the current WA and PD is a result of British red lines, not the EUs.
We seem to be drifting away from the point at hand. The EU's position is that they will not negotiate or agree a future relationship until the UK is out. So the future relationship was always going to be "TBD".
Total nonsense. Article 50 itself states that the framework for the future relationship must be agreed.
No it doesn't. It must merely "take account" of the framework for its future relationship. There is no requirement for the substance of a future treaty to be agreed.
Well I don’t agree.
If we hadn’t treated this as an ‘us vs them’ and treated it as a new settlement everybody would have been more amenable to a compromise.
Sans Grieve et al stirring the pot, May presumably would've signed off her Government's deal last December with bthe EU, as a middlish way. I was prepared to compromise to support it, but good old Dominic wanted his say.
Well here we are. Parliament's been having its say since last December. Going well isn't it? The poor lambs could've not had summer holidays and debated some more, had they so voted, or maybe the odd Saturday too. I'm sure Mr Bercow would've found a precedent from the 14th century to help them. But no.
The poor lambs not only couldn't be bothered to decide what they want before taking a six week holiday they also can't be bothered to sit on Fridays let alone Saturday.
Parliament is losing 4 sitting days to proroguation. If they vote to sit on Fridays that would make that up without disrupting the precious dears holidays.
That's an awful lot of words from both of you to say that democracy is an inconvenience.
It's not an inconvenience it is ongoing.
The fact that the MPs in Parliament can't agree anything and can't organise a piss up in a brewery is a fault of our MPs not democracy. They still have plenty of time to do so and can find more time if the part timers can be bothered to turn up to work more often.
So why have the suspension at all? You can't pretend it is anything bit trying to prevent MPs having their say.
Boris was quite clear on this matter - the suspension is to allow for a Queen's Speech on 14th Oct so that his government can do great things.
If that was the case, which it isn’t, it wouldn’t be so long.
Out Great leader was quite clear that that *is* the case and that there'll be plenty of time to debate Brexit before, during and after the crucial EU Summit on the 17th.
Sans Grieve et al stirring the pot, May presumably would've signed off her Government's deal last December with bthe EU, as a middlish way. I was prepared to compromise to support it, but good old Dominic wanted his say.
Well here we are. Parliament's been having its say since last December. Going well isn't it? The poor lambs could've not had summer holidays and debated some more, had they so voted, or maybe the odd Saturday too. I'm sure Mr Bercow would've found a precedent from the 14th century to help them. But no.
The poor lambs not only couldn't be bothered to decide what they want before taking a six week holiday they also can't be bothered to sit on Fridays let alone Saturday.
Parliament is losing 4 sitting days to proroguation. If they vote to sit on Fridays that would make that up without disrupting the precious dears holidays.
That's an awful lot of words from both of you to say that democracy is an inconvenience.
It's not an inconvenience it is ongoing.
The fact that the MPs in Parliament can't agree anything and can't organise a piss up in a brewery is a fault of our MPs not democracy. They still have plenty of time to do so and can find more time if the part timers can be bothered to turn up to work more often.
So why have the suspension at all? You can't pretend it is anything bit trying to prevent MPs having their say.
It is a constitutional requirement prior to a Queens Speech which itself is a constitutional requirement prior to Boris introducing into Parliament any of his domestic agenda.
I have come to the conclusion that there are about 30 conservative mps who want to stop no deal, but they fear a vonc for the precise reason they are mainly from London and the South and are under serious threat from the Lib Dems. A GE now would be a wipe out for them.
Indeed labour only started panicking when the Lib Dems became a real threat to labour London seats including Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell and Thornberry and that threat still remains
LDs plummeting since Tory Swinson started making TV appearances. Next GE is Tory No Deal or Jezza.
The next GE will be post 31st October
The mps are too scared to vonc next week which is the correct and proper thing to do
Just so long at it’s in either October or November. My winnings on the timing will pay for the booze and nibbles to watch it with.
The cowards in the HOC will not vonc next week and therefore the earliest they can is the 14th October. 14 days takes us to the 28th October.
Unless there is a successful vonc next week, and two thirds vote for one, there will not be a GE before 31st October
Cowards? Or looking forward to capitalising on the Conservative party taking us out without a deal? Are they looking forward to what happens to the Conservative party year on year following 31st October this year.
HY has been counting the Brexit Party voters coming through front door of the Tory house, has he missed the many millions of pro EU conservatives disappearing out the back door?
Cowards you say, maybe carpet baggers is the correct term.
So you are saying opposition MPs are putting party politics ahead of what they view as best for the country?
Yeah!
You saying they won’t get away with it after the way the world views yesterday?
The fact that the future relationship was TBD is the problem. Corbyn was right about this one, it was a blind, Tory Brexit. Nothing for 50% of the population.
Rebranding a hard brexit as the ‘middle ground’ was the biggest bit of damage May caused.
Nothing we can do about that. Blame the EU’s sequencing (can blame that for NI, too)
Of course we can. We can extend Article 50 until the PD is fully agreed in a legally binding form and have it come into affect at the same time we legally leave the EU.
Why would the EU breach one of their own red lines?
What red line is that?
No negotiation on the future relationship until the UK is out of the EU.
That clearly is not a red line as we have the PD.
Which isn't legally binding. It's more of a list of aspirations that either side could decide to ignore.
The EU have made it very that the current WA and PD is a result of British red lines, not the EUs.
We seem to be drifting away from the point at hand. The EU's position is that they will not negotiate or agree a future relationship until the UK is out. So the future relationship was always going to be "TBD".
Total nonsense. Article 50 itself states that the framework for the future relationship must be agreed.
No it doesn't. It must merely "take account" of the framework for its future relationship. There is no requirement for the substance of a future treaty to be agreed.
Well I don’t agree.
If we hadn’t treated this as an ‘us vs them’ and treated it as a new settlement everybody would have been more amenable to a compromise.
The text in the treaty is there in black and white. It doesn't leave much room for interpretation.
The fact that the future relationship was TBD is the problem. Corbyn was right about this one, it was a blind, Tory Brexit. Nothing for 50% of the population.
Rebranding a hard brexit as the ‘middle ground’ was the biggest bit of damage May caused.
Nothing we can do about that. Blame the EU’s sequencing (can blame that for NI, too)
Of course we can. We can extend Article 50 until the PD is fully agreed in a legally binding form and have it come into affect at the same time we legally leave the EU.
Why would the EU breach one of their own red lines?
What red line is that?
No negotiation on the future relationship until the UK is out of the EU.
That clearly is not a red line as we have the PD.
Which isn't legally binding. It's more of a list of aspirations that either side could decide to ignore.
The EU have made it very that the current WA and PD is a result of British red lines, not the EUs.
We seem to be drifting away from the point at hand. The EU's position is that they will not negotiate or agree a future relationship until the UK is out. So the future relationship was always going to be "TBD".
Total nonsense. Article 50 itself states that the framework for the future relationship must be agreed.
Both partly correct IMHO. But Article 50 does not require binding agreement beyond the WA. Taking account of 'framework for its future relationship' is not clear enough to amount to need agreement, nor is it without force or meaning.
The fact that the future relationship was TBD is the problem. Corbyn was right about this one, it was a blind, Tory Brexit. Nothing for 50% of the population.
Rebranding a hard brexit as the ‘middle ground’ was the biggest bit of damage May caused.
Nothing we can do about that. Blame the EU’s sequencing (can blame that for NI, too)
Of course we can. We can extend Article 50 until the PD is fully agreed in a legally binding form and have it come into affect at the same time we legally leave the EU.
Why would the EU breach one of their own red lines?
What red line is that?
No negotiation on the future relationship until the UK is out of the EU.
That clearly is not a red line as we have the PD.
Which isn't legally binding. It's more of a list of aspirations that either side could decide to ignore.
The EU have made it very that the current WA and PD is a result of British red lines, not the EUs.
We seem to be drifting away from the point at hand. The EU's position is that they will not negotiate or agree a future relationship until the UK is out. So the future relationship was always going to be "TBD".
Total nonsense. Article 50 itself states that the framework for the future relationship must be agreed.
No it doesn't. It must merely "take account" of the framework for its future relationship. There is no requirement for the substance of a future treaty to be agreed.
Well I don’t agree.
If we hadn’t treated this as an ‘us vs them’ and treated it as a new settlement everybody would have been more amenable to a compromise.
EU Good/UK bad - yeah just keep up with that mantra in your head - it's doing your mental state the world of good I'm sure.
The fact that the future relationship was TBD is the problem. Corbyn was right about this one, it was a blind, Tory Brexit. Nothing for 50% of the population.
Rebranding a hard brexit as the ‘middle ground’ was the biggest bit of damage May caused.
Nothing we can do about that. Blame the EU’s sequencing (can blame that for NI, too)
Of course we can. We can extend Article 50 until the PD is fully agreed in a legally binding form and have it come into affect at the same time we legally leave the EU.
Why would the EU breach one of their own red lines?
What red line is that?
No negotiation on the future relationship until the UK is out of the EU.
That clearly is not a red line as we have the PD.
Which isn't legally binding. It's more of a list of aspirations that either side could decide to ignore.
The EU have made it very that the current WA and PD is a result of British red lines, not the EUs.
We seem to be drifting away from the point at hand. The EU's position is that they will not negotiate or agree a future relationship until the UK is out. So the future relationship was always going to be "TBD".
Total nonsense. Article 50 itself states that the framework for the future relationship must be agreed.
No it doesn't. It must merely "take account" of the framework for its future relationship. There is no requirement for the substance of a future treaty to be agreed.
Well I don’t agree.
If we hadn’t treated this as an ‘us vs them’ and treated it as a new settlement everybody would have been more amenable to a compromise.
The text in the treaty is there in black and white. It doesn't leave much room for interpretation.
The fact that the future relationship was TBD is the problem. Corbyn was right about this one, it was a blind, Tory Brexit. Nothing for 50% of the population.
Rebranding a hard brexit as the ‘middle ground’ was the biggest bit of damage May caused.
Nothing we can do about that. Blame the EU’s sequencing (can blame that for NI, too)
Of course we can. We can extend Article 50 until the PD is fully agreed in a legally binding form and have it come into affect at the same time we legally leave the EU.
Why would the EU breach one of their own red lines?
What red line is that?
No negotiation on the future relationship until the UK is out of the EU.
That clearly is not a red line as we have the PD.
Which isn't legally binding. It's more of a list of aspirations that either side could decide to ignore.
The EU have made it very that the current WA and PD is a result of British red lines, not the EUs.
We seem to be drifting away from the point at hand. The EU's position is that they will not negotiate or agree a future relationship until the UK is out. So the future relationship was always going to be "TBD".
Total nonsense. Article 50 itself states that the framework for the future relationship must be agreed.
No it doesn't. It must merely "take account" of the framework for its future relationship. There is no requirement for the substance of a future treaty to be agreed.
Well I don’t agree.
If we hadn’t treated this as an ‘us vs them’ and treated it as a new settlement everybody would have been more amenable to a compromise.
EU Good/UK bad - yeah just keep up with that mantra in your head - it's doing your mental state the world of good I'm sure.
Well it is true. The EU are the grown ups and we are the racist Little Englanders.
Sans Grieve et al stirring the pot, May presumably would've signed off her Government's deal last December with bthe EU, as a middlish way. I was prepared to compromise to support it, but good old Dominic wanted his say.
Well here we are. Parliament's been having its say since last December. Going well isn't it? The poor lambs could've not had summer holidays and debated some more, had they so voted, or maybe the odd Saturday too. I'm sure Mr Bercow would've found a precedent from the 14th century to help them. But no.
The poor lambs not only couldn't be bothered to decide what they want before taking a six week holiday they also can't be bothered to sit on Fridays let alone Saturday.
Parliament is losing 4 sitting days to proroguation. If they vote to sit on Fridays that would make that up without disrupting the precious dears holidays.
That's an awful lot of words from both of you to say that democracy is an inconvenience.
It's not an inconvenience it is ongoing.
The fact that the MPs in Parliament can't agree anything and can't organise a piss up in a brewery is a fault of our MPs not democracy. They still have plenty of time to do so and can find more time if the part timers can be bothered to turn up to work more often.
So why have the suspension at all? You can't pretend it is anything bit trying to prevent MPs having their say.
It is a constitutional requirement prior to a Queens Speech which itself is a constitutional requirement prior to Boris introducing into Parliament any of his domestic agenda.
More nonsense.
Philip is right - it is a constitutional requirement. However it only needs to be 1 day (and it's usually 2-5 days) not 5 weeks. Equally it's usually planned so there aren't many bills lost by the changing of session.
Sans Grieve et al stirring the pot, May presumably would've signed off her Government's deal last December with bthe EU, as a middlish way. I was prepared to compromise to support it, but good old Dominic wanted his say.
Well here we are. Parliament's been having its say since last December. Going well isn't it? The poor lambs could've not had summer holidays and debated some more, had they so voted, or maybe the odd Saturday too. I'm sure Mr Bercow would've found a precedent from the 14th century to help them. But no.
The poor lambs not only couldn't be bothered to decide what they want before taking a six week holiday they also can't be bothered to sit on Fridays let alone Saturday.
Parliament is losing 4 sitting days to proroguation. If they vote to sit on Fridays that would make that up without disrupting the precious dears holidays.
That's an awful lot of words from both of you to say that democracy is an inconvenience.
It's not an inconvenience it is ongoing.
The fact that the MPs in Parliament can't agree anything and can't organise a piss up in a brewery is a fault of our MPs not democracy. They still have plenty of time to do so and can find more time if the part timers can be bothered to turn up to work more often.
So why have the suspension at all? You can't pretend it is anything bit trying to prevent MPs having their say.
It is a constitutional requirement prior to a Queens Speech which itself is a constitutional requirement prior to Boris introducing into Parliament any of his domestic agenda.
More nonsense.
Philip is right - it is a constitutional requirement. However it only needs to be 1 day (and it's usually 2-5 days) not 5 weeks. Equally it's usually planned so there aren't many bills lost by the changing of session.
I have come to the conclusion that there are about 30 conservative mps who want to stop no deal, but they fear a vonc for the precise reason they are mainly from London and the South and are under serious threat from the Lib Dems. A GE now would be a wipe out for them.
Indeed labour only started panicking when the Lib Dems became a real threat to labour London seats including Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell and Thornberry and that threat still remains
LDs plummeting since Tory Swinson started making TV appearances. Next GE is Tory No Deal or Jezza.
The next GE will be post 31st October
The mps are too scared to vonc next week which is the correct and proper thing to do
Just so long at it’s in either October or November. My winnings on the timing will pay for the booze and nibbles to watch it with.
The cowards in the HOC will not vonc next week and therefore the earliest they can is the 14th October. 14 days takes us to the 28th October.
Unless there is a successful vonc next week, and two thirds vote for one, there will not be a GE before 31st October
Cowards? Or looking forward to capitalising on the Conservative party taking us out without a deal? Are they looking forward to what happens to the Conservative party year on year following 31st October this year.
HY has been counting the Brexit Party voters coming through front door of the Tory house, has he missed the many millions of pro EU conservatives disappearing out the back door?
Cowards you say, maybe carpet baggers is the correct term.
Cowards are those who run away.
The mps are running away from a vonc next week for their own reasons and in many cases self preservation.
There’s Absolutely no argument what the Conservative party is going to do to this country with no deal, and how all other parties will make hay in that new landscape for years to come.
I have come to the conclusion that there are about 30 conservative mps who want to stop no deal, but they fear a vonc for the precise reason they are mainly from London and the South and are under serious threat from the Lib Dems. A GE now would be a wipe out for them.
Indeed labour only started panicking when the Lib Dems became a real threat to labour London seats including Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell and Thornberry and that threat still remains
LDs plummeting since Tory Swinson started making TV appearances. Next GE is Tory No Deal or Jezza.
You do talk some crap
No, he is quite right. All Swinson is doing is aiding and abetting a no deal Brexit.
Better to be pure and lose than compromise and win seems to be the Lib Dem position.
Seeing the grief they get from Corbynites for "compromising" with the Tories between 2010 & 2015, I'm not that surprised at a hesitation now to get in line behind one of the main parties.
But yes, whatever hopes they fleetingly had in the spring of being the major non-right party appear to have gone, and their role as Not One of the Big Two means they either pal up with other people or sit there and tweet about the unfairness of it all.
2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?
Not to mention a six week holiday.
I really don't think that there is anything left to be said. People need to choose. Its as simple as that.
Choose what?
MPs need to do something rather than constantly voting against everything.
They haven’t been given the chance. Even in the indicative votes, the government did not properly engage. You need to give the house free votes otherwise it will always be the house voting against the government. That’s how our parliament works.
They had three chances to vote for May's Shit Deal.
Ironically, a year on Labour will end up voting for something very close to it by 31st October. Having swapped loser May for big winner Boris in the process. Whilst clinging on to Corbyn.
It wasn't a shit deal but to expect any more enlightenment from you than from Mark Francois I appreciate is a big ask.
It was neither here nor there whether the deal was shit or not, it ticked the box of leaving the EU and respecting the referendum result. The moment this chaos unfolded was when MPs didn’t just sign it off as a matter of course.
Some refused in order to get no deal, others in order to get no Brexit.
Surely you have explained why it was a good deal.
Not sure I follow, but it doesn’t matter whether I, or anyone other than Mrs May and the EU negotiators, thought it was good or not.
The fact that the future relationship was TBD is the problem. Corbyn was right about this one, it was a blind, Tory Brexit. Nothing for 50% of the population.
Rebranding a hard brexit as the ‘middle ground’ was the biggest bit of damage May caused.
Nothing we can do about that. Blame the EU’s sequencing (can blame that for NI, too)
Of course we can. We can extend Article 50 until the PD is fully agreed in a legally binding form and have it come into affect at the same time we legally leave the EU.
Why would the EU breach one of their own red lines?
What red line is that?
No negotiation on the future relationship until the UK is out of the EU.
That clearly is not a red line as we have the PD.
Which isn't legally binding. It's more of a list of aspirations that either side could decide to ignore.
The EU have made it very that the current WA and PD is a result of British red lines, not the EUs.
We seem to be drifting away from the point at hand. The EU's position is that they will not negotiate or agree a future relationship until the UK is out. So the future relationship was always going to be "TBD".
Total nonsense. Article 50 itself states that the framework for the future relationship must be agreed.
No it doesn't. It must merely "take account" of the framework for its future relationship. There is no requirement for the substance of a future treaty to be agreed.
Well I don’t agree.
If we hadn’t treated this as an ‘us vs them’ and treated it as a new settlement everybody would have been more amenable to a compromise.
EU Good/UK bad - yeah just keep up with that mantra in your head - it's doing your mental state the world of good I'm sure.
Well it is true. The EU are the grown ups and we are the racist Little Englanders.
EU are behaving like spoilt brats to be honest. They should re-open negotiations like a responsible supra-national body would
The fact that the future relationship was TBD is the problem. Corbyn was right about this one, it was a blind, Tory Brexit. Nothing for 50% of the population.
Rebranding a hard brexit as the ‘middle ground’ was the biggest bit of damage May caused.
Nothing we can do about that. Blame the EU’s sequencing (can blame that for NI, too)
Of course we can. We can extend Article 50 until the PD is fully agreed in a legally binding form and have it come into affect at the same time we legally leave the EU.
Why would the EU breach one of their own red lines?
What red line is that?
No negotiation on the future relationship until the UK is out of the EU.
That clearly is not a red line as we have the PD.
Which isn't legally binding. It's more of a list of aspirations that either side could decide to ignore.
The EU have made it very that the current WA and PD is a result of British red lines, not the EUs.
We seem to be drifting away from the point at hand. The EU's position is that they will not negotiate or agree a future relationship until the UK is out. So the future relationship was always going to be "TBD".
Total nonsense. Article 50 itself states that the framework for the future relationship must be agreed.
No it doesn't. It must merely "take account" of the framework for its future relationship. There is no requirement for the substance of a future treaty to be agreed.
Well I don’t agree.
If we hadn’t treated this as an ‘us vs them’ and treated it as a new settlement everybody would have been more amenable to a compromise.
EU Good/UK bad - yeah just keep up with that mantra in your head - it's doing your mental state the world of good I'm sure.
I still don't see how you can make no deal impossible seeing as it is the default option and seeing how it is enshrined in EU law unless we agree an extension or revocation
Both partly correct IMHO. But Article 50 does not require binding agreement beyond the WA. Taking account of 'framework for its future relationship' is not clear enough to amount to need agreement, nor is it without force or meaning.
One could argue the PD is "taking account" of the future relationship.
Personally, I think we made a number of major errors:
1. A terrible job was done in replicating existing trading arrangements early on, which made us extremely vulnerable to No Deal.
2. There was no attempt to reach out beyond the Conservative Party to Leavers and moderate Remainers, this meant that the government had no allies on the other side of the House.
3. The language used about the EU in the early stages of the negotiation was ridiculously triumphant and unnecessarily antagonistic. When you dump someone, it's always best to say "it's not you, it's me"
4. Mrs May barely reported on any of her discussions with Brussels in the first two years of negotiations.
5. We forgot that when we leave the EU, then there needs to be primary legislation in many EU countries (and the UK) in areas such as citizens rights and taxation. These are agreements we fall out of when we leave, and which the EU has no say over once we become a third party. That only Spain has passed appropriate tax legislation is going to come back and bite us hard if there's no transition. 5a. We've also done a shit job with EU citizens already in the UK, such that the ones we want to stay will be the ones most likely to go.
I am not sure the EU gettting involved at this point is the most sensible thing though - it would allow Boris to play the 'Britan versus the world' card.
Sans Grieve et al stirring the pot, May presumably would've signed off her Government's deal last December with bthe EU, as a middlish way. I was prepared to compromise to support it, but good old Dominic wanted his say.
Well here we are. Parliament's been having its say since last December. Going well isn't it? The poor lambs could've not had summer holidays and debated some more, had they so voted, or maybe the odd Saturday too. I'm sure Mr Bercow would've found a precedent from the 14th century to help them. But no.
The poor lambs not only couldn't be bothered to decide what they want before taking a six week holiday they also can't be bothered to sit on Fridays let alone Saturday.
Parliament is losing 4 sitting days to proroguation. If they vote to sit on Fridays that would make that up without disrupting the precious dears holidays.
I don't think that's true. Could I have a source please.
Sans Grieve et al stirring the pot, May presumably would've signed off her Government's deal last December with bthe EU, as a middlish way. I was prepared to compromise to support it, but good old Dominic wanted his say.
Well here we are. Parliament's been having its say since last December. Going well isn't it? The poor lambs could've not had summer holidays and debated some more, had they so voted, or maybe the odd Saturday too. I'm sure Mr Bercow would've found a precedent from the 14th century to help them. But no.
The poor lambs not only couldn't be bothered to decide what they want before taking a six week holiday they also can't be bothered to sit on Fridays let alone Saturday.
Parliament is losing 4 sitting days to proroguation. If they vote to sit on Fridays that would make that up without disrupting the precious dears holidays.
That's an awful lot of words from both of you to say that democracy is an inconvenience.
It's not an inconvenience it is ongoing.
The fact that the MPs in Parliament can't agree anything and can't organise a piss up in a brewery is a fault of our MPs not democracy. They still have plenty of time to do so and can find more time if the part timers can be bothered to turn up to work more often.
Suspending Parliament for five weeks to make it as hard as possible for MPs to hold to account an unelected Prime Minister leading a government with no majority in the Commons pursuing a policy that no one voted for is an affront to democracy.
If it's been good for one thing, it's been to flush out the enemies of democracy that lurk among us.
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.
This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.
Bullshit. Those enacting Article 50 were in the perfect position to know what it entailed and the potential outcomes. If they claim they didn't then they are unfit to be in their jobs.
People, including MPs, are entitled to change their minds Richard as the facts change. If they are so dogmatic they are unable to have humility and admit a mistake, then they are most definitely unfit for their jobs. From the poll on this header it would suggest that there are quite a lot of people who now realise it was a mistake, and also want to change their minds.
I wasn't arguing that. I was calling out Gallowgate for the ridiculous idea that the 650 MPs who voted on whether or not to invoke Article 50 didn't know what they were voting for. It is a facile and fraudulent argument which implies that Parliamentary Sovereignty is a bankrupt concept. After all if MPs are so dumb they didn't understand something as straight forward as Article 50 then Boris should do us all a favour and shut down Psrliament permanently..
Except that Johnson himself apparently didn't know what No Deal meant as recently as a few weeks ago.
Maybe he should do us all a favour and shut himself down.
Sans Grieve et al stirring the pot, May presumably would've signed off her Government's deal last December with bthe EU, as a middlish way. I was prepared to compromise to support it, but good old Dominic wanted his say.
Well here we are. Parliament's been having its say since last December. Going well isn't it? The poor lambs could've not had summer holidays and debated some more, had they so voted, or maybe the odd Saturday too. I'm sure Mr Bercow would've found a precedent from the 14th century to help them. But no.
The poor lambs not only couldn't be bothered to decide what they want before taking a six week holiday they also can't be bothered to sit on Fridays let alone Saturday.
Parliament is losing 4 sitting days to proroguation. If they vote to sit on Fridays that would make that up without disrupting the precious dears holidays.
I don't think that's true. Could I have a source please.
Both partly correct IMHO. But Article 50 does not require binding agreement beyond the WA. Taking account of 'framework for its future relationship' is not clear enough to amount to need agreement, nor is it without force or meaning.
One could argue the PD is "taking account" of the future relationship.
Personally, I think we made a number of major errors:
1. A terrible job was done in replicating existing trading arrangements early on, which made us extremely vulnerable to No Deal.
2. There was no attempt to reach out beyond the Conservative Party to Leavers and moderate Remainers, this meant that the government had no allies on the other side of the House.
3. The language used about the EU in the early stages of the negotiation was ridiculously triumphant and unnecessarily antagonistic. When you dump someone, it's always best to say "it's not you, it's me"
4. Mrs May barely reported on any of her discussions with Brussels in the first two years of negotiations.
5. We forgot that when we leave the EU, then there needs to be primary legislation in many EU countries (and the UK) in areas such as citizens rights and taxation. These are agreements we fall out of when we leave, and which the EU has no say over once we become a third party. That only Spain has passed appropriate tax legislation is going to come back and bite us hard if there's no transition. 5a. We've also done a shit job with EU citizens already in the UK, such that the ones we want to stay will be the ones most likely to go.
I could go on.
All very fair points RCS. One question: do you think we were/are ever likely to get better trade deals outside the EU than the EU as a very large collective could?
Sans Grieve et al stirring the pot, May presumably would've signed off her Government's deal last December with bthe EU, as a middlish way. I was prepared to compromise to support it, but good old Dominic wanted his say.
Well here we are. Parliament's been having its say since last December. Going well isn't it? The poor lambs could've not had summer holidays and debated some more, had they so voted, or maybe the odd Saturday too. I'm sure Mr Bercow would've found a precedent from the 14th century to help them. But no.
The poor lambs not only couldn't be bothered to decide what they want before taking a six week holiday they also can't be bothered to sit on Fridays let alone Saturday.
Parliament is losing 4 sitting days to proroguation. If they vote to sit on Fridays that would make that up without disrupting the precious dears holidays.
I don't think that's true. Could I have a source please.
That 4 days fact has been all over the TV news.
Gullible. The actual facts are more complex and were set out on here ealier today.
I have come to the conclusion that there are about 30 conservative mps who want to stop no deal, but they fear a vonc for the precise reason they are mainly from London and the South and are under serious threat from the Lib Dems. A GE now would be a wipe out for them.
Indeed labour only started panicking when the Lib Dems became a real threat to labour London seats including Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell and Thornberry and that threat still remains
LDs plummeting since Tory Swinson started making TV appearances. Next GE is Tory No Deal or Jezza.
You do talk some crap
LDs on 23% when Tory Swinson elected now at 17%
Main reason Tory Swinson being crap? or perhaps you can provide another explanation for LDs plummeting since Tory Swinson started making TV appearances.
Surely if Gauke is involved they have the numbers already. If he is actively involved, you would guess another 15 Tories, maybe 25-30 would support.
How many "only opportunities" will there be before 31st October? There were a couple just before the PM changed, plus the missed VONC on his appointment. I would guess a further 4 or 5 to come (unless one of them is successfully taken).
Naive of him, everyone in France hid the resistance in their cellar. In retrospect.
There was a book recently published which said (I paraphrase) that the French Resistance didn't really do much for the war effort but was hugely important for the national psyche.
I'd imagine that applied to most of the resistance movements in WWII, with the exceptions of the Balkans and the Eastern front where partisans caused significant impairment to the Germans. Different kind of war though.
Sans Grieve et al stirring the pot, May presumably would've signed off her Government's deal last December with bthe EU, as a middlish way. I was prepared to compromise to support it, but good old Dominic wanted his say.
Well here we are. Parliament's been having its say since last December. Going well isn't it? The poor lambs could've not had summer holidays and debated some more, had they so voted, or maybe the odd Saturday too. I'm sure Mr Bercow would've found a precedent from the 14th century to help them. But no.
The poor lambs not only couldn't be bothered to decide what they want before taking a six week holiday they also can't be bothered to sit on Fridays let alone Saturday.
Parliament is losing 4 sitting days to proroguation. If they vote to sit on Fridays that would make that up without disrupting the precious dears holidays.
I don't think that's true. Could I have a source please.
That 4 days fact has been all over the TV news.
Gullible. The actual facts are more complex and were set out on here ealier today.
Sans Grieve et al stirring the pot, May presumably would've signed off her Government's deal last December with bthe EU, as a middlish way. I was prepared to compromise to support it, but good old Dominic wanted his say.
Well here we are. Parliament's been having its say since last December. Going well isn't it? The poor lambs could've not had summer holidays and debated some more, had they so voted, or maybe the odd Saturday too. I'm sure Mr Bercow would've found a precedent from the 14th century to help them. But no.
The poor lambs not only couldn't be bothered to decide what they want before taking a six week holiday they also can't be bothered to sit on Fridays let alone Saturday.
Parliament is losing 4 sitting days to proroguation. If they vote to sit on Fridays that would make that up without disrupting the precious dears holidays.
That's an awful lot of words from both of you to say that democracy is an inconvenience.
It's not an inconvenience it is ongoing.
The fact that the MPs in Parliament can't agree anything and can't organise a piss up in a brewery is a fault of our MPs not democracy. They still have plenty of time to do so and can find more time if the part timers can be bothered to turn up to work more often.
Suspending Parliament for five weeks to make it as hard as possible for MPs to hold to account an unelected Prime Minister leading a government with no majority in the Commons pursuing a policy that no one voted for is an affront to democracy.
If it's been good for one thing, it's been to flush out the enemies of democracy that lurk among us.
Surely if Gauke is involved they have the numbers already. If he is actively involved, you would guess another 15 Tories, maybe 25-30 would support.
How many "only opportunities" will there be before 31st October? There were a couple just before the PM changed, plus the missed VONC on his appointment. I would guess a further 4 or 5 to come (unless one of them is successfully taken).
There must surely be the 21 who signed Hammond's letter of 14 August?
Comments
Had May's Deal gone through we would still have been in the Single Market until the end of next year at the earliest and potentially longer if agreed.
Without it we could leave 9 weeks today.
Oops.
Unless there is a successful vonc next week, and two thirds vote for one, there will not be a GE before 31st October
Well here we are. Parliament's been having its say since last December. Going well isn't it? The poor lambs could've not had summer holidays and debated some more, had they so voted, or maybe the odd Saturday too. I'm sure Mr Bercow would've found a precedent from the 14th century to help them. But no.
Can you point me to the part where the future relationship was constrained from being outwith a Norway style single market deal in the document ?
So f*** them. I'd like to remain not just with the deal we already but 'a kind of United States of Europe'. Churchill wanted it too. His 1946 speech is there on Youtube; listen to it.
Federalism means devolution to the lowest possible level so some things could actually return to member states, if the EU acquired a constitution like a proper country. But many things are far better done on behalf of all 500 million of us, like regulating Amazon, FB et al.
As I said, PB has changed since 2016 from Political Betting into Perpetual Brexshit so I don't feel like contributing much more while that lasts. It's nearly all been said before whereas betting tips are at least new every time.
Rebranding a hard brexit as the ‘middle ground’ was the biggest bit of damage May caused.
Parliament is losing 4 sitting days to proroguation. If they vote to sit on Fridays that would make that up without disrupting the precious dears holidays.
Like plenty of leave voters in the referendum, the question being answered is not the one being asked.
Agreeing to the EU's sequencing was one of May's many mistakes but there we have it.
Better to be pure and lose than compromise and win seems to be the Lib Dem position.
But of course no-one reflects on themselves. Why bother when you can just pretend the other side is entirely to blame?
HY has been counting the Brexit Party voters coming through front door of the Tory house, has he missed the many millions of pro EU conservatives disappearing out the back door?
Cowards you say, maybe carpet baggers is the correct term.
The fact that the MPs in Parliament can't agree anything and can't organise a piss up in a brewery is a fault of our MPs not democracy. They still have plenty of time to do so and can find more time if the part timers can be bothered to turn up to work more often.
How close is Macron to saying "enough"?
The mps are running away from a vonc next week for their own reasons and in many cases self preservation.
Parliament can sack the Govt in a similar way that shareholders can sack a company board. Here we've had the sight of "shareholders" not replacing the board but deciding they know how to run sales and production and QC, and moaning when they end up with three triangular wheels on a tatty go kart rather than their dreams of a Ferrari.
If we hadn’t treated this as an ‘us vs them’ and treated it as a new settlement everybody would have been more amenable to a compromise.
You saying they won’t get away with it after the way the world views yesterday?
Equally it's usually planned so there aren't many bills lost by the changing of session.
Where’s the backstop alternative Boris?
Where’s the backstop negotiation?
But yes, whatever hopes they fleetingly had in the spring of being the major non-right party appear to have gone, and their role as Not One of the Big Two means they either pal up with other people or sit there and tweet about the unfairness of it all.
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1167089010784837633
https://twitter.com/number10staffer/status/1167089963743232002
Personally, I think we made a number of major errors:
1. A terrible job was done in replicating existing trading arrangements early on, which made us extremely vulnerable to No Deal.
2. There was no attempt to reach out beyond the Conservative Party to Leavers and moderate Remainers, this meant that the government had no allies on the other side of the House.
3. The language used about the EU in the early stages of the negotiation was ridiculously triumphant and unnecessarily antagonistic. When you dump someone, it's always best to say "it's not you, it's me"
4. Mrs May barely reported on any of her discussions with Brussels in the first two years of negotiations.
5. We forgot that when we leave the EU, then there needs to be primary legislation in many EU countries (and the UK) in areas such as citizens rights and taxation. These are agreements we fall out of when we leave, and which the EU has no say over once we become a third party. That only Spain has passed appropriate tax legislation is going to come back and bite us hard if there's no transition.
5a. We've also done a shit job with EU citizens already in the UK, such that the ones we want to stay will be the ones most likely to go.
I could go on.
I am not sure the EU gettting involved at this point is the most sensible thing though - it would allow Boris to play the 'Britan versus the world' card.
If it's been good for one thing, it's been to flush out the enemies of democracy that lurk among us.
Maybe he should do us all a favour and shut himself down.
Main reason Tory Swinson being crap? or perhaps you can provide another explanation for LDs plummeting since Tory Swinson started making TV appearances.
How many "only opportunities" will there be before 31st October? There were a couple just before the PM changed, plus the missed VONC on his appointment. I would guess a further 4 or 5 to come (unless one of them is successfully taken).
Democrats Vs Democrats
Which side will you be on???