It is going to be very interesting to see how the DUP vote on the Queen's Speech and the Budget.
If they want the investment agreed in NI then with the government
But they have every incentive now to make life as difficult as possible for the Government in the remaining weeks and months of this Parlianent. The desire for revenge will likely be strong. 'Pay back' time might be at hand!
The funding for NI is part of a formal c and s agreement. If they breach that no money for their constituents.
But that agreement expired at the new Queens Speech - it was not for the 5 year Parliament.
In any case, we can leave as soon as the WA is ratified, whether an extension has been agreed or not. Johnson says it can be ratified by 31 October.
This is the point, Chris. There are some of us who think such a crucial piece of future legislation requires appropriate time and scrutiny (which is after all what Parliament and MPs are there for). They aren't the People's Assembly which simply rubber-stamps the diktats of the Dear Leader.
Letwin also doesn't trust Boris not to try to play us all for fools and not get the WA ratified which, in the absence of any further extension, means we exit without a Deal on 31/10. Part of me thinks Johnson is going to play that game and when we exit he will blame the Opposition MPs for holding up the WA.
So we need Letwin to block an "accidental" No Deal.
Thanks. But parliament always has the VONC and new PM option if Bozo tries to play silly buggers.
It is going to be very interesting to see how the DUP vote on the Queen's Speech and the Budget.
If they want the investment agreed in NI then with the government
But they have every incentive now to make life as difficult as possible for the Government in the remaining weeks and months of this Parlianent. The desire for revenge will likely be strong. 'Pay back' time might be at hand!
The funding for NI is part of a formal c and s agreement. If they breach that no money for their constituents.
But that agreement expired at the new Queens Speech - it was not for the 5 year Parliament.
It also obliges the DUP to vote with the government on EU exit implementation legislation
...or else...?
Well, quite. Any funds not spent yet as part of the agreement should be withheld. The DUP will have breached their agreement. They must answer to their constituents for the money withdrawn .
The Betfair rules for the market state "For clarity if the House of Commons vote to amend the motion then this market will be settled on the vote on the Government Motion AS AMENDED" So that could apply if the Letwin amendment is carried.
This is the point, Chris. There are some of us who think such a crucial piece of future legislation requires appropriate time and scrutiny (which is after all what Parliament and MPs are there for). They aren't the People's Assembly which simply rubber-stamps the diktats of the Dear Leader.
Letwin also doesn't trust Boris not to try to play us all for fools and not get the WA ratified which, in the absence of any further extension, means we exit without a Deal on 31/10. Part of me thinks Johnson is going to play that game and when we exit he will blame the Opposition MPs for holding up the WA.
So we need Letwin to block an "accidental" No Deal.
Of course if the EU say no extension, just get on with it then Letwin just handed the headbangers the key to no deal on the 31st, they just need to sink the WAIB and they get their clean break. Well done Oliver you clever fox
A risk, but a pretty slight one.
Not really. If the EU try and force parliament to get it done by refusing an extension or granting a very short one, Benn is done, the safety net is gone and no deal looms very large in Francois and cos excited piggy little eyes. Letwins amendment is utterly moronic
It's the first part of the premise where it falls apart for me. Despite attempts at tough talk, on this point I don't believe the EU when they hint about 'forcing' parliament to get it done. They can see that is the no deal hope of some, they don't want no deal either so won't let themselves or us fall into it by default.
If we request am extension before even passing a MV on the deal they are going to tell us to take a running jump. Its pathetic and would make us a total laughing stock
They are not fools. They are capable of seeing and understanding what's going on at least as well as the people here.
Hence the anger reported on twittwr in the EU at letwins games
But Twitter ...
Silly me.
Yes how silly, at least we know everything will be ok because Chris says so.
By all means carry on believing Twitter if you prefer.
Obviously. You're just some bloke. Twitter is millions of some blokes
You may even be just some bloke yourself. Who knows?
The Lib Dems hard to say , although I can understand many might think they’re screwed but there are a lot of angry Remainers out there.
There will be plenty of angry Remainers who think "fuck the lot of them if they couldn't stop Brexit" - and sit on their arses on polling day.
I think if there's one thing that Remainers won't do it will be not voting. As Brexit unfurls in all its toxic nastiness, Remainers will be queuing up to punish whoever is appropriate at the ballot box. Leavers own this shit now, they'd better start working hard to prove it has been worth it.
This is the point, Chris. There are some of us who think such a crucial piece of future legislation requires appropriate time and scrutiny (which is after all what Parliament and MPs are there for). They aren't the People's Assembly which simply rubber-stamps the diktats of the Dear Leader.
Letwin also doesn't trust Boris not to try to play us all for fools and not get the WA ratified which, in the absence of any further extension, means we exit without a Deal on 31/10. Part of me thinks Johnson is going to play that game and when we exit he will blame the Opposition MPs for holding up the WA.
So we need Letwin to block an "accidental" No Deal.
Of course if the EU say no extension, just get on with it then Letwin just handed the headbangers the key to no deal on the 31st, they just need to sink the WAIB and they get their clean break. Well done Oliver you clever fox
A risk, but a pretty slight one.
Not really. If the EU try and force parliament to get it done by refusing an extension or granting a very short one, Benn is done, the safety net is gone and no deal looms very large in Francois and cos excited piggy little eyes. Letwins amendment is utterly moronic
It's the first part of the premise where it falls apart for me. Despite attempts at tough talk, on this point I don't believe the EU when they hint about 'forcing' parliament to get it done. They can see that is the no deal hope of some, they don't want no deal either so won't let themselves or us fall into it by default.
If we request am extension before even passing a MV on the deal they are going to tell us to take a running jump. Its pathetic and would make us a total laughing stock
They are not fools. They are capable of seeing and understanding what's going on at least as well as the people here.
Hence the anger reported on twittwr in the EU at letwins games
But Twitter ...
Silly me.
Yes how silly, at least we know everything will be ok because Chris says so.
By all means carry on believing Twitter if you prefer.
Obviously. You're just some bloke. Twitter is millions of some blokes
You may even be just some bloke yourself. Who knows?
Quite right. But it is still a million times easier to effect change than it is at the EU level.
It's not, there's basically nothing you can do in either case except hope that what other voters want correlate with what you want. Eventually this manifests when some other dude you've never met in some place you've never been to who is the de-facto swing voter flips and in the next iteration the policy changes.
But all the main issues - high or low tax, workers' rights, climate policy, immigration, drug liberalisation - correlate right across all developed economies.
Except of course they don't which is why the various countries even within the EU have such different policies on all those subjects.
Moreover it is undeniable that it is easier to get a change in both the Government and individual items of law at the nation state level than it is at the EU level.
Can you cite an actual example of where the EU did something that materially affected your life in a negative way, which the UK government had no ability to block?
That's slightly different to Richard's objection, where he's given a good example with the chicken feed.
If we look to UK law we have the recent example of FOBTs where New Labour liberalised the gambling laws in 2005, since then people have campaigned against the impact they have had, and the law changed earlier this year to limit their stakes to £2 in response to that public pressure.
It would be interesting if anyone knows of an example where an EU law was amended or repealed after being introduced in response to a campaign in a similar way.
Hillary seeing Russians behind everything again. Projection at its finest. How much did Bill make speaking in Russia after that cooky Uranium deal again?
The Lib Dems hard to say , although I can understand many might think they’re screwed but there are a lot of angry Remainers out there.
There will be plenty of angry Remainers who think "fuck the lot of them if they couldn't stop Brexit" - and sit on their arses on polling day.
It depends what’s in the manifestos . If I was the Lib Dems I wouldn’t touch rejoin , even ardent Remainers like me don’t want to know , it’s too soon and best left well into the future .
I’d go for a very close relationship with freedom of movement something like an EEA set up . That would get my vote . It could also do well in Scotland where you have many that want to stay in the UK but want a close EU relationship.
In any case, we can leave as soon as the WA is ratified, whether an extension has been agreed or not. Johnson says it can be ratified by 31 October.
This is the point, Chris. There are some of us who think such a crucial piece of future legislation requires appropriate time and scrutiny (which is after all what Parliament and MPs are there for). They aren't the People's Assembly which simply rubber-stamps the diktats of the Dear Leader.
Letwin also doesn't trust Boris not to try to play us all for fools and not get the WA ratified which, in the absence of any further extension, means we exit without a Deal on 31/10. Part of me thinks Johnson is going to play that game and when we exit he will blame the Opposition MPs for holding up the WA.
So we need Letwin to block an "accidental" No Deal.
Thanks. But parliament always has the VONC and new PM option if Bozo tries to play silly buggers.
Of course if the EU say no extension, just get on with it then Letwin just handed the headbangers the key to no deal on the 31st, they just need to sink the WAIB and they get their clean break. Well done Oliver you clever fox
A risk, but a pretty slight one.
Not really. If the EU try and force parliament to get it done by refusing an extension or granting a very short one, Benn is done, the safety net is gone and no deal looms very large in Francois and cos excited piggy little eyes. Letwins amendment is utterly moronic
It's the first part of the premise where it falls apart for me. Despite attempts at tough talk, on this point I don't believe the EU when they hint about 'forcing' parliament to get it done. They can see that is the no deal hope of some, they don't want no deal either so won't let themselves or us fall into it by default.
If we request am extension before even passing a MV on the deal they are going to tell us to take a running jump. Its pathetic and would make us a total laughing stock
EU when they heard about Letwin called out British Politicians for gaming the system and it has angered them. The EU is geared up for the 31st and frankly want to move on.
Macron has said multiple times today no extension and to then agree will shred his reputation
He said that last time and look what happened.
Also, if Johnson believes no extension will be offoered he should just send the request in and see it rejected... His deal would then sail through the HoC.
I fully expect that to happen if Letwin passes
Why on earth would the EU precipitate No Deal if Letwin passes when a likely route to seeing the HoC approve Boris's Deal remains very much alive?
To be honest I have completely lost the thread here.
You're not the only one Richard. I've no idea what Letwin implies.
That Saturday is a waste of day and the real fight will be on the votes on the legislation.
There is a safeguard in democracy that doesn't exist with alternative systems like the EU. If a Johnson Government reduces a right or protection that you want or imposes a restriction you don't want then you can elect an alternative government within 5 years.
If in the EU the EU reduces a right or protection that you want or imposes a restriction you don't want then you have no way to change that. You'd need to change not just our government but the governments across Europe too.
Isn't this like saying that London has to leave the UK because Londoners have no ability to affect UK laws except if the rest of the UK, where Londoners have no vote, agrees? The EU is also a democracy, it simply operates over a larger geographic area. It has a parliament in which we had a say. Perhaps if the UK were not such a centralised country we would be more comfortable with the idea of different rules being made at different levels of government. More importantly, the EU mostly seems to make laws over relatively technical things where common standards are important, like food or product safety. I personally have never felt like the EU negatively affected my rights or freedoms in any meaningful way. Whereas leaving the EU has certainly taken important rights and freedoms from me. Can you cite an actual example of where the EU did something that materially affected your life in a negative way, which the UK government had no ability to block?
No what it is saying is that the level at which laws and regulations are decided should always be the lowest practicable. There should be a huge increase in the amount of decision making done at the local level. Those things that are not suitable for that level should be promoted to national level. There absolutely no reason under such a scheme for a Governmental entity above national level interfering in laws and regulations that should properly be decided much further down the chain.
There is an argument made that there are some things hat are better dealt with at supranational level but that does not require governance at that level - just the sorts of bilateral and multilateral agreements that have existed for decades. There is certainly no need for a supranational law making body like the EU.
Farage will be very upset - he's enjoyed for years the effect of having 20 or so MPs in parliament without the hassle of having to actually corral them, and now they are going rogue on him.
Farage will be very upset - he's enjoyed for years the effect of having 20 or so MPs in parliament without the hassle of having to actually corral them, and now they are going rogue on him.
In any case, we can leave as soon as the WA is ratified, whether an extension has been agreed or not. Johnson says it can be ratified by 31 October.
This is the point, Chris. There are some of us who think such a crucial piece of future legislation requires appropriate time and scrutiny (which is after all what Parliament and MPs are there for). They aren't the People's Assembly which simply rubber-stamps the diktats of the Dear Leader.
Letwin also doesn't trust Boris not to try to play us all for fools and not get the WA ratified which, in the absence of any further extension, means we exit without a Deal on 31/10. Part of me thinks Johnson is going to play that game and when we exit he will blame the Opposition MPs for holding up the WA.
So we need Letwin to block an "accidental" No Deal.
Thanks. But parliament always has the VONC and new PM option if Bozo tries to play silly buggers.
Yes, but they are desperate to avoid that for some reason.
Can you cite an actual example of where the EU did something that materially affected your life in a negative way, which the UK government had no ability to block?
That's slightly different to Richard's objection, where he's given a good example with the chicken feed.
If we look to UK law we have the recent example of FOBTs where New Labour liberalised the gambling laws in 2005, since then people have campaigned against the impact they have had, and the law changed earlier this year to limit their stakes to £2 in response to that public pressure.
It would be interesting if anyone knows of an example where an EU law was amended or repealed after being introduced in response to a campaign in a similar way.
Seriously? I have lost my right to live and work across Europe while our economy has faced a multibillion pound hit because somebody didn't like the EU rules on chicken feed? The point is that most issues of first order importance like FOBTs are determined at the national level even inside the EU. So we didn't need to leave the EU in order to change this law. And I bet the laws on chicken feed won't change anyway because UK chicken producers will still want to sell chicken to the EU. And if they do change it will be because we do a trade deal with the US and start feeding our chickens chlorinated chicken feed.
In any case, we can leave as soon as the WA is ratified, whether an extension has been agreed or not. Johnson says it can be ratified by 31 October.
This is the point, Chris. There are some of us who think such a crucial piece of future legislation requires appropriate time and scrutiny (which is after all what Parliament and MPs are there for). They aren't the People's Assembly which simply rubber-stamps the diktats of the Dear Leader.
Letwin also doesn't trust Boris not to try to play us all for fools and not get the WA ratified which, in the absence of any further extension, means we exit without a Deal on 31/10. Part of me thinks Johnson is going to play that game and when we exit he will blame the Opposition MPs for holding up the WA.
So we need Letwin to block an "accidental" No Deal.
Thanks. But parliament always has the VONC and new PM option if Bozo tries to play silly buggers.
Yes, but they are desperate to avoid that for some reason.
Tonights poll
Best Brexit policy.
Boris 47% Corbyn 15%
When will labour wake up to the albatross round their neck
The Lib Dems hard to say , although I can understand many might think they’re screwed but there are a lot of angry Remainers out there.
There will be plenty of angry Remainers who think "fuck the lot of them if they couldn't stop Brexit" - and sit on their arses on polling day.
I think if there's one thing that Remainers won't do it will be not voting. As Brexit unfurls in all its toxic nastiness, Remainers will be queuing up to punish whoever is appropriate at the ballot box. Leavers own this shit now, they'd better start working hard to prove it has been worth it.
But @MarqueeMark lives in his own fantasy world where he needs to make up facts without any source whatsoever.
Why everybody else has your Tory Swinson party on 17% or less
Bullying of a female party leader is not a good look. You should drop it.
BJO is a fool but why is criticising Swinson bullying? I thought grown ups believed in equality these days. Get a grip.
Nah BJO goes on at and about her because he is a coward.
You are really being quite stupid to expect a female politician to be treated dofferently to any other. His politics are lousy but he is passionate and his criticism of Swinson is perfectly logical. Stop being her proxy snowflake.
Don't be a c**t. He is emboldened because she is female. Such vituperation is classic bully coward MO. He persists against her because he perceives himself as safe from reprisal.
Farage will be very upset - he's enjoyed for years the effect of having 20 or so MPs in parliament without the hassle of having to actually corral them, and now they are going rogue on him.
Interesting to see the report that Aaron Banks backs the Deal as well. Farage is rapidly losing his last few remaining allies.
Can you cite an actual example of where the EU did something that materially affected your life in a negative way, which the UK government had no ability to block?
That's slightly different to Richard's objection, where he's given a good example with the chicken feed.
If we look to UK law we have the recent example of FOBTs where New Labour liberalised the gambling laws in 2005, since then people have campaigned against the impact they have had, and the law changed earlier this year to limit their stakes to £2 in response to that public pressure.
It would be interesting if anyone knows of an example where an EU law was amended or repealed after being introduced in response to a campaign in a similar way.
So I've done some very brief googling on the internet and I've found what looks like a good example where there have been reforms to the Posted Workers Directive. So that's good for the EU then.
Can you cite an actual example of where the EU did something that materially affected your life in a negative way, which the UK government had no ability to block?
That's slightly different to Richard's objection, where he's given a good example with the chicken feed.
If we look to UK law we have the recent example of FOBTs where New Labour liberalised the gambling laws in 2005, since then people have campaigned against the impact they have had, and the law changed earlier this year to limit their stakes to £2 in response to that public pressure.
It would be interesting if anyone knows of an example where an EU law was amended or repealed after being introduced in response to a campaign in a similar way.
Seriously? I have lost my right to live and work across Europe while our economy has faced a multibillion pound hit because somebody didn't like the EU rules on chicken feed? The point is that most issues of first order importance like FOBTs are determined at the national level even inside the EU. So we didn't need to leave the EU in order to change this law. And I bet the laws on chicken feed won't change anyway because UK chicken producers will still want to sell chicken to the EU. And if they do change it will be because we do a trade deal with the US and start feeding our chickens chlorinated chicken feed.
The EU has done a bad job selling itself on the big stuff (other than with platitudes) and so faced a focus on the small, silly stuff (and no, naughty media doing that is no excuse for being bad at countering the naughty media or national politicians). It now has much more of a passionate following than it ever had pre-referendum, and should we actually leave (which is not yet certain, though Boris is getting closer than ever before it seems) there will be a strong core who do want to rejoin.
No one expects that to be easy (well, some people do think it will be easy, if we no deal first), but it can be done and if the EU's benefits are obvious, and if the young are so keen, and if it is inevitable (for the williamglenns of this world) then we won't be out for long. At this point I'd rather not leave, but if it is so great leaving will be short lived.
The Lib Dems hard to say , although I can understand many might think they’re screwed but there are a lot of angry Remainers out there.
There will be plenty of angry Remainers who think "fuck the lot of them if they couldn't stop Brexit" - and sit on their arses on polling day.
I think if there's one thing that Remainers won't do it will be not voting. As Brexit unfurls in all its toxic nastiness, Remainers will be queuing up to punish whoever is appropriate at the ballot box. Leavers own this shit now, they'd better start working hard to prove it has been worth it.
But @MarqueeMark lives in his own fantasy world where he needs to make up facts without any source whatsoever.
Can you cite an actual example of where the EU did something that materially affected your life in a negative way, which the UK government had no ability to block?
That's slightly different to Richard's objection, where he's given a good example with the chicken feed.
If we look to UK law we have the recent example of FOBTs where New Labour liberalised the gambling laws in 2005, since then people have campaigned against the impact they have had, and the law changed earlier this year to limit their stakes to £2 in response to that public pressure.
It would be interesting if anyone knows of an example where an EU law was amended or repealed after being introduced in response to a campaign in a similar way.
Seriously? I have lost my right to live and work across Europe while our economy has faced a multibillion pound hit because somebody didn't like the EU rules on chicken feed? The point is that most issues of first order importance like FOBTs are determined at the national level even inside the EU. So we didn't need to leave the EU in order to change this law. And I bet the laws on chicken feed won't change anyway because UK chicken producers will still want to sell chicken to the EU. And if they do change it will be because we do a trade deal with the US and start feeding our chickens chlorinated chicken feed.
It is nothing to do with the ability to sell chickens. It is a blanket law that applies to all poultry kept in any circumstances even just as pets. It is just bloody stupid. The trouble is that even though it started with our own idiotic politicians it has now been adopted by the whole of the EU so there is zero chance of it being reversed.
It would be perfectly reasonable for a Government with the power to amend the rules to say that poultry kept for non commercial purposes were exempt. But of course they don't have the power.
In any case, we can leave as soon as the WA is ratified, whether an extension has been agreed or not. Johnson says it can be ratified by 31 October.
This is the point, Chris. There are some of us who think such a crucial piece of future legislation requires appropriate time and scrutiny (which is after all what Parliament and MPs are there for). They aren't the People's Assembly which simply rubber-stamps the diktats of the Dear Leader.
Letwin also doesn't trust Boris not to try to play us all for fools and not get the WA ratified which, in the absence of any further extension, means we exit without a Deal on 31/10. Part of me thinks Johnson is going to play that game and when we exit he will blame the Opposition MPs for holding up the WA.
So we need Letwin to block an "accidental" No Deal.
Thanks. But parliament always has the VONC and new PM option if Bozo tries to play silly buggers.
Yes, but they are desperate to avoid that for some reason.
Tonights poll
Best Brexit policy.
Boris 47% Corbyn 15%
When will labour wake up to the albatross round their neck
I would be surprised now if any ERG voted against as they would surely lose the whip and go into the wilderness
If they want Brexit they need to vote for it. The chance aint gonna come again if it fails this week. They have been told.
Took them long enough to get the message. Again, I'll own up to not thinking Boris would get as many of them on board as well, but I think by getting probably half of them genuinely on board the others can take his threat to remove the whip seriously, when they wouldn't if the whole mass of them held firm. Even though removing the whip from the others has and will cause other problems, if they can get a deal and restore it to at least a good number of those ones, its effect in showing the ERG spartans that he was serious does seem to have worked, and on balance done more good than harm, at least to his odds of passing something.
The Lib Dems hard to say , although I can understand many might think they’re screwed but there are a lot of angry Remainers out there.
There will be plenty of angry Remainers who think "fuck the lot of them if they couldn't stop Brexit" - and sit on their arses on polling day.
I think if there's one thing that Remainers won't do it will be not voting. As Brexit unfurls in all its toxic nastiness, Remainers will be queuing up to punish whoever is appropriate at the ballot box. Leavers own this shit now, they'd better start working hard to prove it has been worth it.
But @MarqueeMark lives in his own fantasy world where he needs to make up facts without any source whatsoever.
The Lib Dems hard to say , although I can understand many might think they’re screwed but there are a lot of angry Remainers out there.
There will be plenty of angry Remainers who think "fuck the lot of them if they couldn't stop Brexit" - and sit on their arses on polling day.
I think if there's one thing that Remainers won't do it will be not voting. As Brexit unfurls in all its toxic nastiness, Remainers will be queuing up to punish whoever is appropriate at the ballot box. Leavers own this shit now, they'd better start working hard to prove it has been worth it.
But @MarqueeMark lives in his own fantasy world where he needs to make up facts without any source whatsoever.
In any case, we can leave as soon as the WA is ratified, whether an extension has been agreed or not. Johnson says it can be ratified by 31 October.
This is the point, Chris. There are some of us who think such a crucial piece of future legislation requires appropriate time and scrutiny (which is after all what Parliament and MPs are there for). They aren't the People's Assembly which simply rubber-stamps the diktats of the Dear Leader.
Letwin also doesn't trust Boris not to try to play us all for fools and not get the WA ratified which, in the absence of any further extension, means we exit without a Deal on 31/10. Part of me thinks Johnson is going to play that game and when we exit he will blame the Opposition MPs for holding up the WA.
So we need Letwin to block an "accidental" No Deal.
Thanks. But parliament always has the VONC and new PM option if Bozo tries to play silly buggers.
Yes, but they are desperate to avoid that for some reason.
Tonights poll
Best Brexit policy.
Boris 47% Corbyn 15%
When will labour wake up to the albatross round their neck
When they are decimated in the forthcoming GE.
Please, please make it so.
This far left monster needs to be soundly thrashed
No what it is saying is that the level at which laws and regulations are decided should always be the lowest practicable. There should be a huge increase in the amount of decision making done at the local level. Those things that are not suitable for that level should be promoted to national level. There absolutely no reason under such a scheme for a Governmental entity above national level interfering in laws and regulations that should properly be decided much further down the chain.
There is an argument made that there are some things hat are better dealt with at supranational level but that does not require governance at that level - just the sorts of bilateral and multilateral agreements that have existed for decades. There is certainly no need for a supranational law making body like the EU.
It is hard to achieve the level of economic integration that the EU has achieved in its single market without a supranational mechanism for deciding and enforcing a common rule book. The kind of deals you are talking about support a far lower level of integration. I honestly can't think of a single EU rule that has negatively affected my life. All the important decisions about things that matter are made at the UK level or by devolved governments. I would like to see far more devolution by the way, would be great if London could stop subsidising the rest of the country. We need a new tube line where I live and it's crazy we're being asked to pay for stuff in Wales or Hartlepool or wherever instead. Anyway, it's stupid to keep rehearsing the argument over Brexit. You Leavers have won, congratulations. You'd better start demonstrating how your great project is going to make our lives better. Because if control over our chicken feed laws is the best you can come up with I think you're going to be in trouble.
I would be surprised now if any ERG voted against as they would surely lose the whip and go into the wilderness
It's now up to the Tory rebels.....
Looks as if many are supporting it and will be returned the whip
I think Ken Clarke will be the box office and most important speech tomorrow
Ken Clarke has always supported May's Deal and was never in doubt for supporting this one.
I think his comments regarding Letwin, which I assume he will be supporting, and what they should all think it means, may be crucial. The theory that even though the amended motion does not mean the WA is approved, passing that amended motion will in a sense commit more MPs to actually approve it, is not one I fully buy, but if Clarke and some other influential voices set out that in their eyes this is in effect if not law passing the deal, with the legislation a wrap up, and they can argue that point persuasively, it might swing the still undecided who are backing Letwin in order to buy themselves time, without committing to the WA.
Obviously nearly all will have made up their minds anyway, but a speech from Clarke and some others might speak to the, what, 20-30 votes that are up for grabs? For example, with it not being decisive there might be more Labour votes passing the motion tomorrow - can they be persuaded that if they do that, even with the motion Letwined, that they really should commit to the legislation too?
The worst case for tomorrow is that its meaningless in all senses and we're no closer to an actual resolution. Best case is that while the House is not bound, its momentum sets in inexorably toward a resolution, whether that is WA or referendum.
Can you cite an actual example of where the EU did something that materially affected your life in a negative way, which the UK government had no ability to block?
That's slightly different to Richard's objection, where he's given a good example with the chicken feed.
If we look to UK law we have the recent example of FOBTs where New Labour liberalised the gambling laws in 2005, since then people have campaigned against the impact they have had, and the law changed earlier this year to limit their stakes to £2 in response to that public pressure.
It would be interesting if anyone knows of an example where an EU law was amended or repealed after being introduced in response to a campaign in a similar way.
Seriously? I have lost my right to live and work across Europe while our economy has faced a multibillion pound hit because somebody didn't like the EU rules on chicken feed? The point is that most issues of first order importance like FOBTs are determined at the national level even inside the EU. So we didn't need to leave the EU in order to change this law. And I bet the laws on chicken feed won't change anyway because UK chicken producers will still want to sell chicken to the EU. And if they do change it will be because we do a trade deal with the US and start feeding our chickens chlorinated chicken feed.
It is nothing to do with the ability to sell chickens. It is a blanket law that applies to all poultry kept in any circumstances even just as pets. It is just bloody stupid. The trouble is that even though it started with our own idiotic politicians it has now been adopted by the whole of the EU so there is zero chance of it being reversed.
It would be perfectly reasonable for a Government with the power to amend the rules to say that poultry kept for non commercial purposes were exempt. But of course they don't have the power.
Why don't you just ignore the rules? Do you think some kind of EU poultry Gestapo is going to arrest you for giving your pet chicken a carrot?
Can you cite an actual example of where the EU did something that materially affected your life in a negative way, which the UK government had no ability to block?
That's slightly different to Richard's objection, where he's given a good example with the chicken feed.
If we look to UK law we have the recent example of FOBTs where New Labour liberalised the gambling laws in 2005, since then people have campaigned against the impact they have had, and the law changed earlier this year to limit their stakes to £2 in response to that public pressure.
It would be interesting if anyone knows of an example where an EU law was amended or repealed after being introduced in response to a campaign in a similar way.
Seriously? I have lost my right to live and work across Europe while our economy has faced a multibillion pound hit because somebody didn't like the EU rules on chicken feed? The point is that most issues of first order importance like FOBTs are determined at the national level even inside the EU. So we didn't need to leave the EU in order to change this law. And I bet the laws on chicken feed won't change anyway because UK chicken producers will still want to sell chicken to the EU. And if they do change it will be because we do a trade deal with the US and start feeding our chickens chlorinated chicken feed.
It is nothing to do with the ability to sell chickens. It is a blanket law that applies to all poultry kept in any circumstances even just as pets. It is just bloody stupid. The trouble is that even though it started with our own idiotic politicians it has now been adopted by the whole of the EU so there is zero chance of it being reversed.
It would be perfectly reasonable for a Government with the power to amend the rules to say that poultry kept for non commercial purposes were exempt. But of course they don't have the power.
Why don't you just ignore the rules? Do you think some kind of EU poultry Gestapo is going to arrest you for giving your pet chicken a carrot?
While the point about an undue focus on minor issues is well made, 'why don't you just ignore the rules if you don't like them as you won't get punished' is an odd argument. There's lots of rules we could easily ignore on that basis.
If a rule is bad it should be changed, not ignored.
The Lib Dems hard to say , although I can understand many might think they’re screwed but there are a lot of angry Remainers out there.
There will be plenty of angry Remainers who think "fuck the lot of them if they couldn't stop Brexit" - and sit on their arses on polling day.
I think if there's one thing that Remainers won't do it will be not voting. As Brexit unfurls in all its toxic nastiness, Remainers will be queuing up to punish whoever is appropriate at the ballot box. Leavers own this shit now, they'd better start working hard to prove it has been worth it.
But @MarqueeMark lives in his own fantasy world where he needs to make up facts without any source whatsoever.
No what it is saying is that the level at which laws and regulations are decided should always be the lowest practicable. There should be a huge increase in the amount of decision making done at the local level. Those things that are not suitable for that level should be promoted to national level. There absolutely no reason under such a scheme for a Governmental entity above national level interfering in laws and regulations that should properly be decided much further down the chain.
There is an argument made that there are some things hat are better dealt with at supranational level but that does not require governance at that level - just the sorts of bilateral and multilateral agreements that have existed for decades. There is certainly no need for a supranational law making body like the EU.
It is hard to achieve the level of economic integration that the EU has achieved in its single market without a supranational mechanism for deciding and enforcing a common rule book. The kind of deals you are talking about support a far lower level of integration. I honestly can't think of a single EU rule that has negatively affected my life. All the important decisions about things that matter are made at the UK level or by devolved governments. I would like to see far more devolution by the way, would be great if London could stop subsidising the rest of the country. We need a new tube line where I live and it's crazy we're being asked to pay for stuff in Wales or Hartlepool or wherever instead. Anyway, it's stupid to keep rehearsing the argument over Brexit. You Leavers have won, congratulations. You'd better start demonstrating how your great project is going to make our lives better. Because if control over our chicken feed laws is the best you can come up with I think you're going to be in trouble.
Its all part of the ongoing struggle. Brexit is not the end, just one important step on the way.
Can you cite an actual example of where the EU did something that materially affected your life in a negative way, which the UK government had no ability to block?
That's slightly different to Richard's objection, where he's given a good example with the chicken feed.
If we look to UK law we have the recent example of FOBTs where New Labour liberalised the gambling laws in 2005, since then people have campaigned against the impact they have had, and the law changed earlier this year to limit their stakes to £2 in response to that public pressure.
It would be interesting if anyone knows of an example where an EU law was amended or repealed after being introduced in response to a campaign in a similar way.
Seriously? I have lost my right to live and work across Europe while our economy has faced a multibillion pound hit because somebody didn't like the EU rules on chicken feed? The point is that most issues of first order importance like FOBTs are determined at the national level even inside the EU. So we didn't need to leave the EU in order to change this law. And I bet the laws on chicken feed won't change anyway because UK chicken producers will still want to sell chicken to the EU. And if they do change it will be because we do a trade deal with the US and start feeding our chickens chlorinated chicken feed.
It is nothing to do with the ability to sell chickens. It is a blanket law that applies to all poultry kept in any circumstances even just as pets. It is just bloody stupid. The trouble is that even though it started with our own idiotic politicians it has now been adopted by the whole of the EU so there is zero chance of it being reversed.
It would be perfectly reasonable for a Government with the power to amend the rules to say that poultry kept for non commercial purposes were exempt. But of course they don't have the power.
Why don't you just ignore the rules? Do you think some kind of EU poultry Gestapo is going to arrest you for giving your pet chicken a carrot?
While the point about an undue focus on minor issues is well made, 'why don't you just ignore the rules if you don't like them as you won't get punished' is an odd argument. There's lots of rules we could easily ignore on that basis.
If a rule is bad it should be changed, not ignored.
In the real world most people ignore loads of pointless and unenforceable rules every day. My point is if you want to give your chicken some kitchen waste contraband you can probably do that without tearing up our entire trading and political relationship with Europe.
Can you cite an actual example of where the EU did something that materially affected your life in a negative way, which the UK government had no ability to block?
That's slightly different to Richard's objection, where he's given a good example with the chicken feed.
If we look to UK law we have the recent example of FOBTs where New Labour liberalised the gambling laws in 2005, since then people have campaigned against the impact they have had, and the law changed earlier this year to limit their stakes to £2 in response to that public pressure.
It would be interesting if anyone knows of an example where an EU law was amended or repealed after being introduced in response to a campaign in a similar way.
Seriously? I have lost my right to live and work across Europe while our economy has faced a multibillion pound hit because somebody didn't like the EU rules on chicken feed? The point is that most issues of first order importance like FOBTs are determined at the national level even inside the EU. So we didn't need to leave the EU in order to change this law. And I bet the laws on chicken feed won't change anyway because UK chicken producers will still want to sell chicken to the EU. And if they do change it will be because we do a trade deal with the US and start feeding our chickens chlorinated chicken feed.
It is nothing to do with the ability to sell chickens. It is a blanket law that applies to all poultry kept in any circumstances even just as pets. It is just bloody stupid. The trouble is that even though it started with our own idiotic politicians it has now been adopted by the whole of the EU so there is zero chance of it being reversed.
It would be perfectly reasonable for a Government with the power to amend the rules to say that poultry kept for non commercial purposes were exempt. But of course they don't have the power.
Why don't you just ignore the rules? Do you think some kind of EU poultry Gestapo is going to arrest you for giving your pet chicken a carrot?
I do. But that is hardly the answer is it. Just ignore laws you don't like.
Except of course they don't which is why the various countries even within the EU have such different policies on all those subjects.
They have different central points at any given time but the directions they move in are the same: Drug policy goes more prohibitive or more liberal, anti-immigration feeling grows across the continents mostly in unison, the liberal backlash creeps back everywhere, facebook does facebook things and everyone says "maybe we should regulate this", the whole thing is correlated not just in the EU but beyond. If you're an individual voter who wants change, the way you get change is by waiting until those people who are correlated you become numerous enough to flip it, and this works just as well with EU voters as it does with UK ones.
There are some exceptions with unique dynamics at the national level, but they're mostly also handled at the national level.
Thought I'd look at 'They Work For You' for Ken Clarke to see what it concluded about his voting record. Quite a lot of 'generally voted' and 'voted for a mixture', or at least is seems like a lot compared to it being almost always etc. But I did think it was amusing, given he is indeed an arch europhile, that is stated he only 'Generally voted for UK Membership of the EU'.
No what it is saying is that the level at which laws and regulations are decided should always be the lowest practicable. There should be a huge increase in the amount of decision making done at the local level. Those things that are not suitable for that level should be promoted to national level. There absolutely no reason under such a scheme for a Governmental entity above national level interfering in laws and regulations that should properly be decided much further down the chain.
There is an argument made that there are some things hat are better dealt with at supranational level but that does not require governance at that level - just the sorts of bilateral and multilateral agreements that have existed for decades. There is certainly no need for a supranational law making body like the EU.
It is hard to achieve the level of economic integration that the EU has achieved in its single market without a supranational mechanism for deciding and enforcing a common rule book. The kind of deals you are talking about support a far lower level of integration. I honestly can't think of a single EU rule that has negatively affected my life. All the important decisions about things that matter are made at the UK level or by devolved governments. I would like to see far more devolution by the way, would be great if London could stop subsidising the rest of the country. We need a new tube line where I live and it's crazy we're being asked to pay for stuff in Wales or Hartlepool or wherever instead. Anyway, it's stupid to keep rehearsing the argument over Brexit. You Leavers have won, congratulations. You'd better start demonstrating how your great project is going to make our lives better. Because if control over our chicken feed laws is the best you can come up with I think you're going to be in trouble.
Its all part of the ongoing struggle. Brexit is not the end, just one important step on the way.
To what? Some kind of anarcho-poulty utopia? Seriously, what is all this for in your mind?
Hillary seeing Russians behind everything again. Projection at its finest. How much did Bill make speaking in Russia after that cooky Uranium deal again?
In the real world most people ignore loads of pointless and unenforceable rules every day. My point is if you want to give your chicken some kitchen waste contraband you can probably do that without tearing up our entire trading and political relationship with Europe.
I said at the very start it was just one small example. There are plenty more.
Can you cite an actual example of where the EU did something that materially affected your life in a negative way, which the UK government had no ability to block?
That's slightly different to Richard's objection, where he's given a good example with the chicken feed.
If we look to UK law we have the recent example of FOBTs where New Labour liberalised the gambling laws in 2005, since then people have campaigned against the impact they have had, and the law changed earlier this year to limit their stakes to £2 in response to that public pressure.
It would be interesting if anyone knows of an example where an EU law was amended or repealed after being introduced in response to a campaign in a similar way.
Seriously? I have lost my right to live and work across Europe while our economy has faced a multibillion pound hit because somebody didn't like the EU rules on chicken feed? The point is that most issues of first order importance like FOBTs are determined at the national level even inside the EU. So we didn't need to leave the EU in order to change this law. And I bet the laws on chicken feed won't change anyway because UK chicken producers will still want to sell chicken to the EU. And if they do change it will be because we do a trade deal with the US and start feeding our chickens chlorinated chicken feed.
It is nothing to do with the ability to sell chickens. It is a blanket law that applies to all poultry kept in any circumstances even just as pets. It is just bloody stupid. The trouble is that even though it started with our own idiotic politicians it has now been adopted by the whole of the EU so there is zero chance of it being reversed.
It would be perfectly reasonable for a Government with the power to amend the rules to say that poultry kept for non commercial purposes were exempt. But of course they don't have the power.
Why don't you just ignore the rules? Do you think some kind of EU poultry Gestapo is going to arrest you for giving your pet chicken a carrot?
I do. But that is hardly the answer is it. Just ignore laws you don't like.
In the real world most people ignore loads of pointless and unenforceable rules every day. My point is if you want to give your chicken some kitchen waste contraband you can probably do that without tearing up our entire trading and political relationship with Europe.
I said at the very start it was just one small example. There are plenty more.
If only all leavers had the same clarity. I of course do disagree because in my experience the politicians rarely blame the EU. There is usually an ulterior motive and if there blame it falls on the previous government.
I genuinely don't recall a politician moan that it was the EU wot made me do it. Even VAT on home energy supplies (the sovereignty cause celebre) I haven't heard anyone agitate for it outside the Brexit debate.
It is not a case of them blaming the EU. It is just a matter of fact that once laws and regulations have been adopted at an EU level there is little if anything we as the electorate of this country can do to get them repealed or changed.
The chicken feed discussion we had the other day is a minor but obvious example of this. It was the UK who pushed for it across the whole of the EU. There would be no chance of getting it changed if we remained in the EU.
It cements in pace regulations that politicians fear might later be repealed if left in the remit of the UK Parliament.
We are part of that club. If we really want any law repealed we can campaign for it to be so. That's all part of being in the club. And collectively following its rules.
That is kind of my point though. As long as we are part of that club we are very unlikely to veer be able to change the laws we don't like. Nor do I agree we should be throwing our weight around to try and force others to change their laws. Far better to accept we have a fundamental disagreement and leave the club.
You just define ‘we’ in a narrow nationalist way because you are a narrow nationalist.
I define we as being the smallest viable unit of the electorate. I want to go much further and see far more decision making done at the local level as opposed to the national level. If I am a narrow nationalist it is because I think the nation state is better than a supranational body. But I also think that for a large swathe of our laws the district or county (or whatever you want to call it) is better than the nation.
Power should be vested as close as possible to the people.
Ok, let’s give your town its own trade policy. How much power do you think you would gain?
You ignored my use of the word viable and also indulged in the logical fallacy of Appeal to the Extremes.
Can you cite an actual example of where the EU did something that materially affected your life in a negative way, which the UK government had no ability to block?
That's slightly different to Richard's objection, where he's given a good example with the chicken feed.
If we look to UK law we have the recent example of FOBTs where New Labour liberalised the gambling laws in 2005, since then people have campaigned against the impact they have had, and the law changed earlier this year to limit their stakes to £2 in response to that public pressure.
It would be interesting if anyone knows of an example where an EU law was amended or repealed after being introduced in response to a campaign in a similar way.
Seriously? I have lost my right to live and work across Europe while our economy has faced a multibillion pound hit because somebody didn't like the EU rules on chicken feed? The point is that most issues of first order importance like FOBTs are determined at the national level even inside the EU. So we didn't need to leave the EU in order to change this law. And I bet the laws on chicken feed won't change anyway because UK chicken producers will still want to sell chicken to the EU. And if they do change it will be because we do a trade deal with the US and start feeding our chickens chlorinated chicken feed.
It is nothing to do with the ability to sell chickens. It is a blanket law that applies to all poultry kept in any circumstances even just as pets. It is just bloody stupid. The trouble is that even though it started with our own idiotic politicians it has now been adopted by the whole of the EU so there is zero chance of it being reversed.
It would be perfectly reasonable for a Government with the power to amend the rules to say that poultry kept for non commercial purposes were exempt. But of course they don't have the power.
Why don't you just ignore the rules? Do you think some kind of EU poultry Gestapo is going to arrest you for giving your pet chicken a carrot?
While the p
If a rule is bad it should be changed, not ignored.
In the real world most people ignore loads of pointless and unenforceable rules every day. My point is if you want to give your chicken some kitchen waste contraband you can probably do that without tearing up our entire trading and political relationship with Europe.
Which is an entirely separate point to the admittedly true fact that people ignore rules, so why frame it that way? 'We can change it to be better' is stronger than 'just ignore that you don't like it'.
There is a safeguard in democracy that doesn't exist with alternative systems like the EU. If a Johnson Government reduces a right or protection that you want or imposes a restriction you don't want then you can elect an alternative government within 5 years.
If in the EU the EU reduces a right or protection that you want or imposes a restriction you don't want then you have no way to change that. You'd need to change not just our government but the governments across Europe too.
In Britain you don't vote for the government. If they do something you don't like you have to change not just your own MP, but the MPs across the other constituencies too.
That's very true.
However the reality is that I've lived in multiple constituencies across the UK. I'm old enough to have voted in five General Elections and in that time I've lived in four different constituencies. The issues debated whichever constituency I was in were basically the same as if in the other ones. The perspective of the voters may vary due to cultural or other differences across the nation but if I turn the news on it's the same channel ... if I go to a website it's the same website ... since registering to join this website I've voted in three General Elections in three different constituencies but I kept coming here. That is what people mean when they say demos.
The Lib Dems hard to say , although I can understand many might think they’re screwed but there are a lot of angry Remainers out there.
There will be plenty of angry Remainers who think "fuck the lot of them if they couldn't stop Brexit" - and sit on their arses on polling day.
No. Though we on the Remain side have lost, we don't feel any anger or disappointment towards the Remainer politicians who have kept on fighting for our interests. If anything respect for Remainer politicians from Remain voters has grown. We won't be staying at home or, in any other way, punishing Remainer politicians for trying their best against the odds.
There is a safeguard in democracy that doesn't exist with alternative systems like the EU. If a Johnson Government reduces a right or protection that you want or imposes a restriction you don't want then you can elect an alternative government within 5 years.
If in the EU the EU reduces a right or protection that you want or imposes a restriction you don't want then you have no way to change that. You'd need to change not just our government but the governments across Europe too.
In truth, "extreme" policies are constrained by the global market you could argue. If the UK instigated radical Marxist policies for example there would be a global market reaction which would act as a constraint on the policy makers.
I take your point and those who have always advocated reform of the EU would assert granting real power to the Parliament would be a start but that's not what national Governments want.
My problem is with those who believe "national" Government should be the repository of all power and accountability. There are issues (climate change) which require a regional if not a global approach but I also despair at Westminster controlling local authorities.
The Lib Dems hard to say , although I can understand many might think they’re screwed but there are a lot of angry Remainers out there.
There will be plenty of angry Remainers who think "fuck the lot of them if they couldn't stop Brexit" - and sit on their arses on polling day.
No. Though we on the Remain side have lost, we don't feel any anger or disappointment towards the Remainer politicians who have kept on fighting for our interests. If anything respect for Remainer politicians from Remain voters has grown. We won't be staying at home or, in any other way, punishing Remainer politicians for trying their best against the odds.
Except of course they don't which is why the various countries even within the EU have such different policies on all those subjects.
They have different central points at any given time but the directions they move in are the same: Drug policy goes more prohibitive or more liberal, anti-immigration feeling grows across the continents mostly in unison, the liberal backlash creeps back everywhere, facebook does facebook things and everyone says "maybe we should regulate this", the whole thing is correlated not just in the EU but beyond. If you're an individual voter who wants change, the way you get change is by waiting until those people who are correlated you become numerous enough to flip it, and this works just as well with EU voters as it does with UK ones.
There are some exceptions with unique dynamics at the national level, but they're mostly also handled at the national level.
The Dutch and Portuguese decriminalising drugs whilst other countries harden their anti-drugs laws
Estonia introducing a flat rate tax system whilst the UK system gets ever more complicated and the Irish use tax laws to encourage inward investment.
Germany taking active measures to encourage migrants to cross the Mediterranean whilst Italy and Greece are desperately trying to stop them coming.
Eastern European Countries openly flouting EU rules and daring the EU to do anything about it.
There is no unity. There is no common agreement. There is no common direction. There are just people in Brussels trying to force the continent into a unified policy when no such unity exists.
Farage will be very upset - he's enjoyed for years the effect of having 20 or so MPs in parliament without the hassle of having to actually corral them, and now they are going rogue on him.
Interesting to see the report that Aaron Banks backs the Deal as well. Farage is rapidly losing his last few remaining allies.
There was a young man named Farage Who one day got locked in his garage He campaigned so hard But let down his guard And fell to an electoral barrage.
Hillary seeing Russians behind everything again. Projection at its finest. How much did Bill make speaking in Russia after that cooky Uranium deal again?
Tulsi Gabbard is a Putin loving Assad apologist.
Thanks to Trump, the Kurds have aligned with Assad.
I look forward to seeing Letwin explain to the Commons his belief about the purpose of his amendment as ''my aim is to ensure that Boris's deal succeeds" etc etc insurance policy, then see if that belief of his is shared by all those others who speak in the debate who intend to vote for it.
Jeremy Corbyn, this amendment is stated as being to ensure the Prime Minister's deal succeeds, do you back that?
Can you cite an actual example of where the EU did something that materially affected your life in a negative way, which the UK government had no ability to block?
That's slightly different to Richard's objection, where he's given a good example with the chicken feed.
If we look to UK law we have the recent example of FOBTs where New Labour liberalised the gambling laws in 2005, since then people have campaigned against the impact they have had, and the law changed earlier this year to limit their stakes to £2 in response to that public pressure.
It would be interesting if anyone knows of an example where an EU law was amended or repealed after being introduced in response to a campaign in a similar way.
Seriously? I have lost my right to live and work across Europe while our economy has faced a multibillion pound hit because somebody didn't like the EU rules on chicken feed? The point is that most issues of first order importance like FOBTs are determined at the national level even inside the EU. So we didn't need to leave the EU in order to change this law. And I bet the laws on chicken feed won't change anyway because UK chicken producers will still want to sell chicken to the EU. And if they do change it will be because we do a trade deal with the US and start feeding our chickens chlorinated chicken feed.
It is nothing to do with the ability to sell chickens. It is a blanket law that applies to all poultry kept in any circumstances even just as pets. It is just bloody stupid. The trouble is that even though it started with our own idiotic politicians it has now been adopted by the whole of the EU so there is zero chance of it being reversed.
It would be perfectly reasonable for a Government with the power to amend the rules to say that poultry kept for non commercial purposes were exempt. But of course they don't have the power.
Why don't you just ignore the rules? Do you think some kind of EU poultry Gestapo is going to arrest you for giving your pet chicken a carrot?
I do. But that is hardly the answer is it. Just ignore laws you don't like.
Why not? Most people do it all the time.
This is a fundamental difference of philosophy. There are lots of laws I don't like but I don't advocate breaking them. If we as a country don't like particular laws and regulations the answer is not to just pretend they don't exist but to get them repealed or modified.
The Lib Dems hard to say , although I can understand many might think they’re screwed but there are a lot of angry Remainers out there.
There will be plenty of angry Remainers who think "fuck the lot of them if they couldn't stop Brexit" - and sit on their arses on polling day.
No. Though we on the Remain side have lost, we don't feel any anger or disappointment towards the Remainer politicians who have kept on fighting for our interests. If anything respect for Remainer politicians from Remain voters has grown. We won't be staying at home or, in any other way, punishing Remainer politicians for trying their best against the odds.
Remain hasn't lost yet.
They've been knocked down twice in the 7th and are getting battered from pillar to post by the blonde Bomber. Their corner really should chuck in the towel but in they go for another round.
Quite right. But it is still a million times easier to effect change than it is at the EU level.
It's not, there's basically nothing you can do in either case except hope that what other voters want correlate with what you want. Eventually this manifests when some other dude you've never met in some place you've never been to who is the de-facto swing voter flips and in the next iteration the policy changes.
But all the main issues - high or low tax, workers' rights, climate policy, immigration, drug liberalisation - correlate right across all developed economies.
Except of course they don't which is why the various countries even within the EU have such different policies on all those subjects.
Moreover it is undeniable that it is easier to get a change in both the Government and individual items of law at the nation state level than it is at the EU level.
The fact that EU countries all have such different rules rather undermines your argument that being in the EU means you can't have your own rules. Face it, Brexit is a dumb idea, and now you Brexiteers own it and you can't even tell us why it is worth it.
No what it is saying is that the level at which laws and regulations are decided should always be the lowest practicable. There should be a huge increase in the amount of decision making done at the local level. Those things that are not suitable for that level should be promoted to national level. There absolutely no reason under such a scheme for a Governmental entity above national level interfering in laws and regulations that should properly be decided much further down the chain.
There is an argument made that there are some things hat are better dealt with at supranational level but that does not require governance at that level - just the sorts of bilateral and multilateral agreements that have existed for decades. There is certainly no need for a supranational law making body like the EU.
It is hard to achieve the level of economic integration that the EU has achieved in its single market without a supranational mechanism for deciding and enforcing a common rule book. The kind of deals you are talking about support a far lower level of integration. I honestly can't think of a single EU rule that has negatively affected my life. All the important decisions about things that matter are made at the UK level or by devolved governments. I would like to see far more devolution by the way, would be great if London could stop subsidising the rest of the country. We need a new tube line where I live and it's crazy we're being asked to pay for stuff in Wales or Hartlepool or wherever instead. Anyway, it's stupid to keep rehearsing the argument over Brexit. You Leavers have won, congratulations. You'd better start demonstrating how your great project is going to make our lives better. Because if control over our chicken feed laws is the best you can come up with I think you're going to be in trouble.
Its all part of the ongoing struggle. Brexit is not the end, just one important step on the way.
To what? Some kind of anarcho-poulty utopia? Seriously, what is all this for in your mind?
The Lib Dems hard to say , although I can understand many might think they’re screwed but there are a lot of angry Remainers out there.
There will be plenty of angry Remainers who think "fuck the lot of them if they couldn't stop Brexit" - and sit on their arses on polling day.
No. Though we on the Remain side have lost, we don't feel any anger or disappointment towards the Remainer politicians who have kept on fighting for our interests. If anything respect for Remainer politicians from Remain voters has grown. We won't be staying at home or, in any other way, punishing Remainer politicians for trying their best against the odds.
Remain hasn't lost yet.
They've been knocked down twice in the 7th and are getting battered from pillar to post by the blonde Bomber. Their corner really should chuck in the towel but in they go for another round.
I'm concerned that that means we have another 5 rounds potentially to go!
Quite right. But it is still a million times easier to effect change than it is at the EU level.
It's not, there's basically nothing you can do in either case except hope that what other voters want correlate with what you want. Eventually this manifests when some other dude you've never met in some place you've never been to who is the de-facto swing voter flips and in the next iteration the policy changes.
But all the main issues - high or low tax, workers' rights, climate policy, immigration, drug liberalisation - correlate right across all developed economies.
Except of course they don't which is why the various countries even within the EU have such different policies on all those subjects.
Moreover it is undeniable that it is easier to get a change in both the Government and individual items of law at the nation state level than it is at the EU level.
The fact that EU countries all have such different rules rather undermines your argument that being in the EU means you can't have your own rules. Face it, Brexit is a dumb idea, and now you Brexiteers own it and you can't even tell us why it is worth it.
Nope that is just your rather blinkered view of things. As I said we clearly have utterly irreconcilable philosophies about the way the way both democracy and the legal system should work for the people.
There is a safeguard in democracy that doesn't exist with alternative systems like the EU. If a Johnson Government reduces a right or protection that you want or imposes a restriction you don't want then you can elect an alternative government within 5 years.
If in the EU the EU reduces a right or protection that you want or imposes a restriction you don't want then you have no way to change that. You'd need to change not just our government but the governments across Europe too.
In Britain you don't vote for the government. If they do something you don't like you have to change not just your own MP, but the MPs across the other constituencies too.
That's very true.
However the reality is that I've lived in multiple constituencies across the UK. I'm old enough to have voted in five General Elections and in that time I've lived in four different constituencies. The issues debated whichever constituency I was in were basically the same as if in the other ones. The perspective of the voters may vary due to cultural or other differences across the nation but if I turn the news on it's the same channel ... if I go to a website it's the same website ... since registering to join this website I've voted in three General Elections in three different constituencies but I kept coming here. That is what people mean when they say demos.
You can't say that about the EU.
What? Yes you can. I mean, obviously the parties are different so they're different websites but once you change the colours of the immigrants the populist dude is complaining about but it's the same thing everywhere. Definitely true of UK vs France where I've experienced election campaigns, partly even true of the UK vs Japan although Japan has its own extra layer of weirdness.
OGH asked about six hours ago what benefits he could now expect given that we are now leaving. I missed the hundreds of responses that he received can anyone summaries them for me without talking about sovereignty please
That Spectator tweet sums it up: move to a place with access to the SM. NI or, um, the EU.
Can you cite an actual example of where the EU did something that materially affected your life in a negative way, which the UK government had no ability to block?
That's slightly different to Richard's objection, where he's given a good example with the chicken feed.
If we look to UK law we have the recent example of FOBTs where New Labour liberalised the gambling laws in 2005, since then people have campaigned against the impact they have had, and the law changed earlier this year to limit their stakes to £2 in response to that public pressure.
It would be interesting if anyone knows of an example where an EU law was amended or repealed after being introduced in response to a campaign in a similar way.
Seriously? I have lost my right to live and work across Europe while our economy has faced a multibillion pound hit because somebody didn't like the EU rules on chicken feed? The point is that most issues of first order importance like FOBTs are determined at the national level even inside the EU. So we didn't need to leave the EU in order to change this law. And I bet the laws on chicken feed won't change anyway because UK chicken producers will still want to sell chicken to the EU. And if they do change it will be because we do a trade deal with the US and start feeding our chickens chlorinated chicken feed.
It is nothing to do with the ability to sell chickens. It is a blanket law that applies to all poultry kept in any circumstances even just as pets. It is just bloody stupid. The trouble is that even though it started with our own idiotic politicians it has now been adopted by the whole of the EU so there is zero chance of it being reversed.
It would be perfectly reasonable for a Government with the power to amend the rules to say that poultry kept for non commercial purposes were exempt. But of course they don't have the power.
Why don't you just ignore the rules? Do you think some kind of EU poultry Gestapo is going to arrest you for giving your pet chicken a carrot?
I do. But that is hardly the answer is it. Just ignore laws you don't like.
OGH asked about six hours ago what benefits he could now expect given that we are now leaving. I missed the hundreds of responses that he received can anyone summaries them for me without talking about sovereignty please
Can you cite an actual example of where the EU did something that materially affected your life in a negative way, which the UK government had no ability to block?
That's slightly different to Richard's objection, where he's given a good example with the chicken feed.
If we look to UK law we have the recent example of FOBTs where New Labour liberalised the gambling laws in 2005, since then people have campaigned against the impact they have had, and the law changed earlier this year to limit their stakes to £2 in response to that public pressure.
It would be interesting if anyone knows of an example where an EU law was amended or repealed after being introduced in response to a campaign in a similar way.
Seriously? I have lost my right to live and work across Europe while our economy has faced a multibillion pound hit because somebody didn't like the EU rules on chicken feed? The point is that most issues of first order importance like FOBTs are determined at the national level even inside the EU. So we didn't need to leave the EU in order to change this law. And I bet the laws on chicken feed won't change anyway because UK chicken producers will still want to sell chicken to the EU. And if they do change it will be because we do a trade deal with the US and start feeding our chickens chlorinated chicken feed.
It is nothing to do with the ability to sell chickens. It is a blanket law that applies to all poultry kept in any circumstances even just as pets. It is just bloody stupid. The trouble is that even though it started with our own idiotic politicians it has now been adopted by the whole of the EU so there is zero chance of it being reversed.
It would be perfectly reasonable for a Government with the power to amend the rules to say that poultry kept for non commercial purposes were exempt. But of course they don't have the power.
Why don't you just ignore the rules? Do you think some kind of EU poultry Gestapo is going to arrest you for giving your pet chicken a carrot?
I do. But that is hardly the answer is it. Just ignore laws you don't like.
That is the entire basis of Italian life.
Fatta la legge. Trovato l'inganno.
I have tried very hard to ignore those stereotypes this evening.
Can you cite an actual example of where the EU did something that materially affected your life in a negative way, which the UK government had no ability to block?
That's slightly different to Richard's objection, where he's given a good example with the chicken feed.
If we look to UK law we have the recent example of FOBTs where New Labour liberalised the gambling laws in 2005, since then people have campaigned against the impact they have had, and the law changed earlier this year to limit their stakes to £2 in response to that public pressure.
It would be interesting if anyone knows of an example where an EU law was amended or repealed after being introduced in response to a campaign in a similar way.
Seriously? I have lost my right to live and work across Europe while our economy has faced a multibillion pound hit because somebody didn't like the EU rules on chicken feed? The point is that most issues of first order importance like FOBTs are determined at the national level even inside the EU. So we didn't need to leave the EU in order to change this law. And I bet the laws on chicken feed won't change anyway because UK chicken producers will still want to sell chicken to the EU. And if they do change it will be because we do a trade deal with the US and start feeding our chickens chlorinated chicken feed.
It is nothing to do with the ability to sell chickens. It is a blanket law that applies to all poultry kept in any circumstances even just as pets. It is just bloody stupid. The trouble is that even though it started with our own idiotic politicians it has now been adopted by the whole of the EU so there is zero chance of it being reversed.
It would be perfectly reasonable for a Government with the power to amend the rules to say that poultry kept for non commercial purposes were exempt. But of course they don't have the power.
Why don't you just ignore the rules? Do you think some kind of EU poultry Gestapo is going to arrest you for giving your pet chicken a carrot?
I do. But that is hardly the answer is it. Just ignore laws you don't like.
That is the entire basis of Italian life.
Fatta la legge. Trovato l'inganno.
I have tried very hard to ignore those stereotypes this evening.
The Betfair rules for the market state "For clarity if the House of Commons vote to amend the motion then this market will be settled on the vote on the Government Motion AS AMENDED" So that could apply if the Letwin amendment is carried.
(B) the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown. Only when these conditions have been met will it be deemed a 'Meaningful Vote' has taken place.
Surely if approval is removed from the motion approval had not been given.
I am leaving this market totally alone as it has clusterfuck written all over it.
Farage will be very upset - he's enjoyed for years the effect of having 20 or so MPs in parliament without the hassle of having to actually corral them, and now they are going rogue on him.
Interesting to see the report that Aaron Banks backs the Deal as well. Farage is rapidly losing his last few remaining allies.
There was a young man named Farage Who one day got locked in his garage He campaigned so hard But let down his guard And fell to an electoral barrage.
I'd have expected better scanning from you, Sunil. Clunky.
This is a fundamental difference of philosophy. There are lots of laws I don't like but I don't advocate breaking them. If we as a country don't like particular laws and regulations the answer is not to just pretend they don't exist but to get them repealed or modified.
Life is too short to wait around for things to become legal. For someone who wants to be free you don't seem to want to be very free.
There is a safeguard in democracy that doesn't exist with alternative systems like the EU. If a Johnson Government reduces a right or protection that you want or imposes a restriction you don't want then you can elect an alternative government within 5 years.
If in the EU the EU reduces a right or protection that you want or imposes a restriction you don't want then you have no way to change that. You'd need to change not just our government but the governments across Europe too.
In truth, "extreme" policies are constrained by the global market you could argue. If the UK instigated radical Marxist policies for example there would be a global market reaction which would act as a constraint on the policy makers.
I take your point and those who have always advocated reform of the EU would assert granting real power to the Parliament would be a start but that's not what national Governments want.
My problem is with those who believe "national" Government should be the repository of all power and accountability. There are issues (climate change) which require a regional if not a global approach but I also despair at Westminster controlling local authorities.
I don't see the EU as relevant to climate change.
Climate change needs global solutions implemented locally. EU isn't relevant for global or local.
Whether agreements on CFCs or agreements like Kyoto the EU is basically a bystander.
(B) the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown. Only when these conditions have been met will it be deemed a 'Meaningful Vote' has taken place.
Surely if approval is removed from the motion approval had not been given.
I am leaving this market totally alone as it has clusterfuck written all over it.
Comments
https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1185289626409406464?s=20
https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1185289627936219136?s=20
https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1185289629148291078?s=20
In response to this
https://twitter.com/TIME/status/1185295237561946112?s=20
Moreover it is undeniable that it is easier to get a change in both the Government and individual items of law at the nation state level than it is at the EU level.
If we look to UK law we have the recent example of FOBTs where New Labour liberalised the gambling laws in 2005, since then people have campaigned against the impact they have had, and the law changed earlier this year to limit their stakes to £2 in response to that public pressure.
It would be interesting if anyone knows of an example where an EU law was amended or repealed after being introduced in response to a campaign in a similar way.
How much did Bill make speaking in Russia after that cooky Uranium deal again?
I’d go for a very close relationship with freedom of movement something like an EEA set up . That would get my vote . It could also do well in Scotland where you have many that want to stay in the UK but want a close EU relationship.
Things just get worse every f**ing day
There is an argument made that there are some things hat are better dealt with at supranational level but that does not require governance at that level - just the sorts of bilateral and multilateral agreements that have existed for decades. There is certainly no need for a supranational law making body like the EU.
[edited]
The point is that most issues of first order importance like FOBTs are determined at the national level even inside the EU. So we didn't need to leave the EU in order to change this law.
And I bet the laws on chicken feed won't change anyway because UK chicken producers will still want to sell chicken to the EU. And if they do change it will be because we do a trade deal with the US and start feeding our chickens chlorinated chicken feed.
Best Brexit policy.
Boris 47% Corbyn 15%
When will labour wake up to the albatross round their neck
If they want Brexit they need to vote for it. The chance aint gonna come again if it fails this week. They have been told.
But knock yourself out keep on defending him.
I think Ken Clarke will be the box office and most important speech tomorrow
No one expects that to be easy (well, some people do think it will be easy, if we no deal first), but it can be done and if the EU's benefits are obvious, and if the young are so keen, and if it is inevitable (for the williamglenns of this world) then we won't be out for long. At this point I'd rather not leave, but if it is so great leaving will be short lived.
It would be perfectly reasonable for a Government with the power to amend the rules to say that poultry kept for non commercial purposes were exempt. But of course they don't have the power.
This far left monster needs to be soundly thrashed
I would like to see far more devolution by the way, would be great if London could stop subsidising the rest of the country. We need a new tube line where I live and it's crazy we're being asked to pay for stuff in Wales or Hartlepool or wherever instead.
Anyway, it's stupid to keep rehearsing the argument over Brexit. You Leavers have won, congratulations. You'd better start demonstrating how your great project is going to make our lives better. Because if control over our chicken feed laws is the best you can come up with I think you're going to be in trouble.
Obviously nearly all will have made up their minds anyway, but a speech from Clarke and some others might speak to the, what, 20-30 votes that are up for grabs? For example, with it not being decisive there might be more Labour votes passing the motion tomorrow - can they be persuaded that if they do that, even with the motion Letwined, that they really should commit to the legislation too?
The worst case for tomorrow is that its meaningless in all senses and we're no closer to an actual resolution. Best case is that while the House is not bound, its momentum sets in inexorably toward a resolution, whether that is WA or referendum.
You might want to take a break
If a rule is bad it should be changed, not ignored.
There are some exceptions with unique dynamics at the national level, but they're mostly also handled at the national level.
However the reality is that I've lived in multiple constituencies across the UK. I'm old enough to have voted in five General Elections and in that time I've lived in four different constituencies. The issues debated whichever constituency I was in were basically the same as if in the other ones. The perspective of the voters may vary due to cultural or other differences across the nation but if I turn the news on it's the same channel ... if I go to a website it's the same website ... since registering to join this website I've voted in three General Elections in three different constituencies but I kept coming here. That is what people mean when they say demos.
You can't say that about the EU.
I take your point and those who have always advocated reform of the EU would assert granting real power to the Parliament would be a start but that's not what national Governments want.
My problem is with those who believe "national" Government should be the repository of all power and accountability. There are issues (climate change) which require a regional if not a global approach but I also despair at Westminster controlling local authorities.
Estonia introducing a flat rate tax system whilst the UK system gets ever more complicated and the Irish use tax laws to encourage inward investment.
Germany taking active measures to encourage migrants to cross the Mediterranean whilst Italy and Greece are desperately trying to stop them coming.
Eastern European Countries openly flouting EU rules and daring the EU to do anything about it.
There is no unity. There is no common agreement. There is no common direction. There are just people in Brussels trying to force the continent into a unified policy when no such unity exists.
Who one day got locked in his garage
He campaigned so hard
But let down his guard
And fell to an electoral barrage.
Jeremy Corbyn, this amendment is stated as being to ensure the Prime Minister's deal succeeds, do you back that?
Fatta la legge. Trovato l'inganno.
Fatta la legge. Trovato l'inganno.
I have tried very hard to ignore those stereotypes this evening.
Not a stereotype I can assure you.
Surely if approval is removed from the motion approval had not been given.
I am leaving this market totally alone as it has clusterfuck written all over it.
Climate change needs global solutions implemented locally. EU isn't relevant for global or local.
Whether agreements on CFCs or agreements like Kyoto the EU is basically a bystander.