Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Mitch McConnell’s failure to back Trump on Syria should be wor

SystemSystem Posts: 12,171
edited October 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Mitch McConnell’s failure to back Trump on Syria should be worrying for the White House

The total focus on Brexit over the past few days has taken the attention away from United States politics where the ongoing saga in relation to Donald Trump is becoming even more perilous for the 73 year old.

Read the full story here


«1345678

Comments

  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    First!
  • I like you think trump will not do a second term and have never thought he would. Trump is a businessman first not a career politician. He wants to use the contacts he has made to build his business. There is little added value to this from a second term and a lot of risk.

    Would it be cynical to suggest that maybe some Russian business associates were not unhappy with American retreat from Syria.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Gadfly said:
    The only problem with that is that the president has to be born in the United States. I
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    That he reversed his decision is remarkable. Despite his protestations it means even he realised hed crossed a particular line, even if he is blind elsewhere.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,236

    Gadfly said:
    The only problem with that is that the president has to be born in the United States.
    Ivanka was born in New York, I believe ?
    The real problem is that it would require Trump both to run and to win in 2020.

  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,751
    kle4 said:

    That he reversed his decision is remarkable. Despite his protestations it means even he realised hed crossed a particular line, even if he is blind elsewhere.

    This is an odd saga. Because when you get away from it all, most US public opinion probably falls into two overlapping camps:

    We should stand by the Kurds. We should carpet bomb ISIS.

    I can't imagine there are many votes out there for Trump from principled non-interventionists who are accepting of seeing the Kurds slaughtered, while letting captured ISIS fighters run amok. Apart from our friend Mr HYFUD perhaps but I get the impression he's not registered to vote in the US.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,751
    On Brexit, things it seems there is no majority for:

    - passing the Johnson Brexit deal by 31 October
    - a second referendum
    - No Deal
    - making Corbyn PM

    Things it seems there is a majority for:
    - the principle of Boris's Brexit deal
    - a customs union amendment to the Pol. Declaration.

    So govt loses the timetabling motion today/tomorrow. The bill gets bogged down so a flextension is granted. A second ref amendment fails. A customs union amendment passes.

    Then what? At third reading Labour vote to Brexit and Tory vote to Remain? My head hurts.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,236
    Brave indeed.

    http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201910210014.html
    Japan battled on, despite a couple of players carrying injuries, including props Jiwoon Koo, Keita Inagaki and flyhalf Yu Tamura.

    “The last five minutes of the test match epitomized this team. We were down by 20-odd... but we showed a never-die attitude and an ability to keep on getting up,” said Joseph, who revealed the influential Tamura had been playing with broken ribs for much of the match....
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited October 2019
    Canadian election: polling stations open at 12pm UK time.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.163014027
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    edited October 2019
    moonshine said:

    On Brexit, things it seems there is no majority for:

    - passing the Johnson Brexit deal by 31 October
    - a second referendum
    - No Deal
    - making Corbyn PM

    Things it seems there is a majority for:
    - the principle of Boris's Brexit deal
    - a customs union amendment to the Pol. Declaration.

    So govt loses the timetabling motion today/tomorrow. The bill gets bogged down so a flextension is granted. A second ref amendment fails. A customs union amendment passes.

    Then what? At third reading Labour vote to Brexit and Tory vote to Remain? My head hurts.

    It is a bit of a mess! I think even with CU amendments labour vote against though, if there's no referendum amendment passed. They cannot let Brexit happen no matter what without shipping support. Backing the CU amendment would just be to sabotage it among Brexiteers.

    A not inconsiderable chance Boris seeks to pull the legislation as it gets transformed, and tries to squat motionless in No.10 until he gets given his election.

    All rather depends on how helpful the EU are in a position where theres no deal but also no indication what will pass. We have seen February floated, and frankly its almost bizarre that they keep kicking the can without us even providing a reason. I know they dont want to be responsible for an accidental no deal, but the chances of that are much lower now we know the ERG and co have a deal they are willing to back, can they not see an extension should wait for a clear indication?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,627
    AndyJS said:

    Canadian election: polling stations open at 12pm UK time.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.163014027

    Looking like a hung Parliament in Canada, too close to call between the two main parties.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    kle4 said:

    moonshine said:

    On Brexit, things it seems there is no majority for:

    - passing the Johnson Brexit deal by 31 October
    - a second referendum
    - No Deal
    - making Corbyn PM

    Things it seems there is a majority for:
    - the principle of Boris's Brexit deal
    - a customs union amendment to the Pol. Declaration.

    So govt loses the timetabling motion today/tomorrow. The bill gets bogged down so a flextension is granted. A second ref amendment fails. A customs union amendment passes.

    Then what? At third reading Labour vote to Brexit and Tory vote to Remain? My head hurts.

    It is a bit of a mess! I think even with CU amendments labour vote against though, if there's no referendum amendment passed. They cannot let Brexit happen no matter what without shipping support. Backing the CU amendment would just be to sabotage it among Brexiteers.

    A not inconsiderable chance Boris seeks to pull the legislation as it gets transformed, and tries to squat motionless in No.10 until he gets given his election.

    All rather depends on how helpful the EU are in a position where theres no deal but also no indication what will pass. We have seen February floated, and frankly its almost bizarre that they keep kicking the can without us even providing a reason. I know they dont want to be responsible for an accidental no deal, but the chances of that are much lower now we know the ERG and co have a deal they are willing to back, can they not see an extension should wait for a clear indication?
    Corbyn wants an election as soon as possible as long as we don't leave on 31st October. I think that's still his position.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,627
    So the Labour plan is to try and get a vote on a customs union amendment (even though very few of them even understand what a CU is and how it works, they’re just doing it to piss off Tories), then vote down the amended Bill anyway?

    Oh, and they want to vote down the programme motion, not because they disagree with it, but because they don’t want the government to have the ‘win’ of leaving the EU on 31st October?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    Sandpit said:

    So the Labour plan is to try and get a vote on a customs union amendment (even though very few of them even understand what a CU is and how it works, they’re just doing it to piss off Tories), then vote down the amended Bill anyway?

    Oh, and they want to vote down the programme motion, not because they disagree with it, but because they don’t want the government to have the ‘win’ of leaving the EU on 31st October?

    In the national interest, of course.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,533
    Sandpit said:

    So the Labour plan is to try and get a vote on a customs union amendment (even though very few of them even understand what a CU is and how it works, they’re just doing it to piss off Tories), then vote down the amended Bill anyway?

    Oh, and they want to vote down the programme motion, not because they disagree with it, but because they don’t want the government to have the ‘win’ of leaving the EU on 31st October?

    Er, what? Customs Union has been fixed Labour policy ever since the referendum. Everyone broadly understands it - upside is easier trade with the EU, downside is to make separate trade deals harder. What makes you think this is mysterious to MPs?

    And yes, Labour wants to prevent the current deal being rushed through, or indeed passed at all. We don't agree with it. There is no moral or political reason why the Opposition should automatically agree with whatever the PM comes up with.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,614
    Sandpit said:

    So the Labour plan is to try and get a vote on a customs union amendment (even though very few of them even understand what a CU is and how it works, they’re just doing it to piss off Tories), then vote down the amended Bill anyway?

    Oh, and they want to vote down the programme motion, not because they disagree with it, but because they don’t want the government to have the ‘win’ of leaving the EU on 31st October?

    Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could tell us how much it is going to cost us in fees to be in the CU?

    Ball-park would do, Jeremy.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    edited October 2019

    Gadfly said:
    The only problem with that is that the president has to be born in the United States. I
    Ivanka’s his daughter. She was born in New York I think?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,798

    Sandpit said:

    So the Labour plan is to try and get a vote on a customs union amendment (even though very few of them even understand what a CU is and how it works, they’re just doing it to piss off Tories), then vote down the amended Bill anyway?

    Oh, and they want to vote down the programme motion, not because they disagree with it, but because they don’t want the government to have the ‘win’ of leaving the EU on 31st October?

    Er, what? Customs Union has been fixed Labour policy ever since the referendum. Everyone broadly understands it - upside is easier trade with the EU, downside is to make separate trade deals harder. What makes you think this is mysterious to MPs?

    And yes, Labour wants to prevent the current deal being rushed through, or indeed passed at all. We don't agree with it. There is no moral or political reason why the Opposition should automatically agree with whatever the PM comes up with.
    Yes, the constitutional duty of the opposition to help the government pass legislation that it disagrees with and for which the government cannot assemble a majority is a novel one, but frequently cited on PB. Chiefly by people who would scream bloody murder if it were the other way round.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,627

    Sandpit said:

    So the Labour plan is to try and get a vote on a customs union amendment (even though very few of them even understand what a CU is and how it works, they’re just doing it to piss off Tories), then vote down the amended Bill anyway?

    Oh, and they want to vote down the programme motion, not because they disagree with it, but because they don’t want the government to have the ‘win’ of leaving the EU on 31st October?

    Er, what? Customs Union has been fixed Labour policy ever since the referendum. Everyone broadly understands it - upside is easier trade with the EU, downside is to make separate trade deals harder. What makes you think this is mysterious to MPs?

    And yes, Labour wants to prevent the current deal being rushed through, or indeed passed at all. We don't agree with it. There is no moral or political reason why the Opposition should automatically agree with whatever the PM comes up with.
    So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424

    Gadfly said:
    The only problem with that is that the president has to be born in the United States. I
    No there isn't. They have to be a 'natural born citizen' but it doesn't say they have to be physically born in the US. McCain wasn't, for example.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,627

    Sandpit said:

    So the Labour plan is to try and get a vote on a customs union amendment (even though very few of them even understand what a CU is and how it works, they’re just doing it to piss off Tories), then vote down the amended Bill anyway?

    Oh, and they want to vote down the programme motion, not because they disagree with it, but because they don’t want the government to have the ‘win’ of leaving the EU on 31st October?

    Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could tell us how much it is going to cost us in fees to be in the CU?

    Ball-park would do, Jeremy.
    More worrying is the asymmetric part of it - the only CU that’s available to non-members is a real Turkey of a deal.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    So the Labour plan is to try and get a vote on a customs union amendment (even though very few of them even understand what a CU is and how it works, they’re just doing it to piss off Tories), then vote down the amended Bill anyway?

    Oh, and they want to vote down the programme motion, not because they disagree with it, but because they don’t want the government to have the ‘win’ of leaving the EU on 31st October?

    Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could tell us how much it is going to cost us in fees to be in the CU?

    Ball-park would do, Jeremy.
    More worrying is the asymmetric part of it - the only CU that’s available to non-members is a real Turkey of a deal.
    Are you saying the EU would gobble us up?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,614
    DougSeal said:

    Gadfly said:
    The only problem with that is that the president has to be born in the United States. I
    Ivanka’s his daughter. She was born in New York I think?
    Born 30 October 1981 in Manhattan, New York.

    Married to Jared Kushnar.

    "As a result of his father's conviction for fraud and incarceration, [Jared] took over management of his father's real estate company Kushner Companies, which launched his business career."

    What could possibly go wrong?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424

    DougSeal said:

    Gadfly said:
    The only problem with that is that the president has to be born in the United States. I
    Ivanka’s his daughter. She was born in New York I think?
    Born 30 October 1981 in Manhattan, New York.

    Married to Jared Kushnar.

    "As a result of his father's conviction for fraud and incarceration, [Jared] took over management of his father's real estate company Kushner Companies, which launched his business career."

    What could possibly go wrong?
    There is a nice assonance to it though. From a wanker to Ivanka.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,491
    What are the odds the Republicans just decide to ditch him and pick someone else at their convention?

    Denies the Democrats the “win” of an impeachment.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,491
    What I want to know is if the Labour rebels will stick with the Government throughout the WA legislative process, come what may.

    Will Sarah Champion, Caroline Flint and Stephen Kinnock vote down all the amendments?

    They must know that if they don’t, and they pass, that the ERG will vote against it on 3rd reading.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    Sandpit said:

    So the Labour plan is to try and get a vote on a customs union amendment (even though very few of them even understand what a CU is and how it works, they’re just doing it to piss off Tories), then vote down the amended Bill anyway?

    Oh, and they want to vote down the programme motion, not because they disagree with it, but because they don’t want the government to have the ‘win’ of leaving the EU on 31st October?

    Er, what? Customs Union has been fixed Labour policy ever since the referendum. Everyone broadly understands it - upside is easier trade with the EU, downside is to make separate trade deals harder. What makes you think this is mysterious to MPs?

    And yes, Labour wants to prevent the current deal being rushed through, or indeed passed at all. We don't agree with it. There is no moral or political reason why the Opposition should automatically agree with whatever the PM comes up with.
    Jolly glad that's the case. Corbyn's outright opposition is screwing Labour good and proper. Long may it continue. Hey we might even get a Lib Dem Govt....
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,751

    Sandpit said:

    So the Labour plan is to try and get a vote on a customs union amendment (even though very few of them even understand what a CU is and how it works, they’re just doing it to piss off Tories), then vote down the amended Bill anyway?

    Oh, and they want to vote down the programme motion, not because they disagree with it, but because they don’t want the government to have the ‘win’ of leaving the EU on 31st October?

    Er, what? Customs Union has been fixed Labour policy ever since the referendum. Everyone broadly understands it - upside is easier trade with the EU, downside is to make separate trade deals harder. What makes you think this is mysterious to MPs?
    Presumably all those MPs understand that staying in the customs union would potentially mean an asymmetrical tariff structure for the UK with respect to third countries?

    That is to say, the UK would have to allow tariff and quota free imports if that is what the EU decided, but would not necessarily have the right to export tariff and quota free to the same country? Much less to have the UK's prized services industries given any prominence at all in future trade talks?

    Can't you see that this would leave the UK as the bargaining chip in all future EU trade negotiations? What's even more absurd given this is Labour policy, is that this is effectively what May negotiated (a Backstop with a view to permanent customs union). And yet Labour voted it down, even though it also had Level Playing Field conditions in the legally binding section of the treaty (now shifted to the non-binding Pol. Declaration of course).

    Labour's customs union policy is pig-headed and designed for a single purpose - maximum short term political chaos over an issue that few people on the street will understand the implications of. While I have some sympathy that tribalism puts pressure on you to toe the line, it's such a disingenuous policy that it does you no credit at all for backing it.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,413
    The mistake isnt withdrawing from Syria, the mistake was getting involved in the first place.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,806
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Brooke, perhaps. Some argue more involvement earlier would've been better.

    Turns out the Middle East can be a quagmire.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176
    Can someone explain how the WA passes without another Queen's Speech?
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,751
    AndyJS said:

    kle4 said:

    moonshine said:

    On Brexit, things it seems there is no majority for:

    - passing the Johnson Brexit deal by 31 October
    - a second referendum
    - No Deal
    - making Corbyn PM

    Things it seems there is a majority for:
    - the principle of Boris's Brexit deal
    - a customs union amendment to the Pol. Declaration.

    So govt loses the timetabling motion today/tomorrow. The bill gets bogged down so a flextension is granted. A second ref amendment fails. A customs union amendment passes.

    Then what? At third reading Labour vote to Brexit and Tory vote to Remain? My head hurts.

    It is a bit of a mess! I think even with CU amendments labour vote against though, if there's no referendum amendment passed. They cannot let Brexit happen no matter what without shipping support. Backing the CU amendment would just be to sabotage it among Brexiteers.

    A not inconsiderable chance Boris seeks to pull the legislation as it gets transformed, and tries to squat motionless in No.10 until he gets given his election.

    All rather depends on how helpful the EU are in a position where theres no deal but also no indication what will pass. We have seen February floated, and frankly its almost bizarre that they keep kicking the can without us even providing a reason. I know they dont want to be responsible for an accidental no deal, but the chances of that are much lower now we know the ERG and co have a deal they are willing to back, can they not see an extension should wait for a clear indication?
    Corbyn wants an election as soon as possible as long as we don't leave on 31st October. I think that's still his position.
    If that's the case then we'd be looking at an election being called next week after the extension is granted? That doesn't seem to be the popular view among bettors on this website.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,533
    Sandpit said:



    So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?

    Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?

    That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,122
    edited October 2019

    What I want to know is if the Labour rebels will stick with the Government throughout the WA legislative process, come what may.

    Will Sarah Champion, Caroline Flint and Stephen Kinnock vote down all the amendments?

    They must know that if they don’t, and they pass, that the ERG will vote against it on 3rd reading.

    I think Boris will pull it if a referendum or customs union passes and call on the EU to provide the extension for a GE
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,814
    tlg86 said:

    Can someone explain how the WA passes without another Queen's Speech?

    You don’t have to specify a bill in a Queens Speech to enable you to introduce it. There is a prerogative of the government to introduce legislation.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    On topic, Trump's main protection is red state primary voters. It's useful for him to keep the GOP bigwigs on-side, but they're not his last line of defence.

    The combination of obvious ongoing crimes and - ahem - unconventional - foreign policy is a little bit dangerous for Trump, but the obvious solution is to fix it at the foreign policy end.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176

    tlg86 said:

    Can someone explain how the WA passes without another Queen's Speech?

    You don’t have to specify a bill in a Queens Speech to enable you to introduce it. There is a prerogative of the government to introduce legislation.
    No, but Bercow apparently won't allow the government to put it to the Commons again as they've already done that once in this session.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,413

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Brooke, perhaps. Some argue more involvement earlier would've been better.

    Turns out the Middle East can be a quagmire.

    the Middle East is just best left alone there is little to be gained from meddling and lots to lose. It remains to be seen how things will change given the US no longer has a need for ME oil in any great quantities.

    Aside from a long standing commitment to the Saudis, the US has little to gain in the region. It is simply protecting China;s oil flows and for that matter the EUs. Those dependent on the oil may need to make thie own arrangements in future.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    Reposting my question FPT, does anybody understand what's going on?

    I don't understand the thing about bringing the MV back.

    They brought it, it got amended to "we'll let you know when we see the WAB", and the result apparently passed without a vote.

    If they bring it back, are they bringing it back as amended so they can have a symbolic vote on it? Or is the idea that the previous amended motion is just left sitting there, and they have a go at repeating the exercise from the beginning and seeing if that gets amended as well?
  • ydoethur said:

    Gadfly said:
    The only problem with that is that the president has to be born in the United States. I
    No there isn't. They have to be a 'natural born citizen' but it doesn't say they have to be physically born in the US. McCain wasn't, for example.
    But was Ivanka born by Caesarean section?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,413
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Can someone explain how the WA passes without another Queen's Speech?

    You don’t have to specify a bill in a Queens Speech to enable you to introduce it. There is a prerogative of the government to introduce legislation.
    No, but Bercow apparently won't allow the government to put it to the Commons again as they've already done that once in this session.
    there are only 11 Bercow days left 9 if you discount the weekend. After that who knows how things will be handled ?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,236
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Can someone explain how the WA passes without another Queen's Speech?

    You don’t have to specify a bill in a Queens Speech to enable you to introduce it. There is a prerogative of the government to introduce legislation.
    No, but Bercow apparently won't allow the government to put it to the Commons again as they've already done that once in this session.
    They haven’t; they tried for a ‘meaningful vote’. That is what Bercow might prevent being brought back.
    The legislation for the WA itself is a quite different matter. It will, or course, require more than a single vote, and is likely to face a number of amendments as discussed below.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,236

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Can someone explain how the WA passes without another Queen's Speech?

    You don’t have to specify a bill in a Queens Speech to enable you to introduce it. There is a prerogative of the government to introduce legislation.
    No, but Bercow apparently won't allow the government to put it to the Commons again as they've already done that once in this session.
    there are only 11 Bercow days left 9 if you discount the weekend. After that who knows how things will be handled ?
    You imagine Bercow will actually step down halfway through this process ?
    I’d be mildly surprised.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176
    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Can someone explain how the WA passes without another Queen's Speech?

    You don’t have to specify a bill in a Queens Speech to enable you to introduce it. There is a prerogative of the government to introduce legislation.
    No, but Bercow apparently won't allow the government to put it to the Commons again as they've already done that once in this session.
    They haven’t; they tried for a ‘meaningful vote’. That is what Bercow might prevent being brought back.
    The legislation for the WA itself is a quite different matter. It will, or course, require more than a single vote, and is likely to face a number of amendments as discussed below.
    Is it possible Brexit happens without the meaningful vote?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,236
    edited October 2019

    ydoethur said:

    Gadfly said:
    The only problem with that is that the president has to be born in the United States. I
    No there isn't. They have to be a 'natural born citizen' but it doesn't say they have to be physically born in the US. McCain wasn't, for example.
    But was Ivanka born by Caesarean section?
    I don’t think the Framers had the plot of Macbeth in mind when they wrote ‘natural born’.

    Though, to be fair, the Supreme Court has never addressed the matter.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,478

    What I want to know is if the Labour rebels will stick with the Government throughout the WA legislative process, come what may.

    Will Sarah Champion, Caroline Flint and Stephen Kinnock vote down all the amendments?

    They must know that if they don’t, and they pass, that the ERG will vote against it on 3rd reading.

    I think Boris will pull it if a referendum or customs union passes and call on the EU to provide the extension for a GE
    A GE would be risky of course. And do either he or Cummings do risk? Seems to me that, like bullies and their like everywhere, he only moves when he either has to, or is sure he's going to get some advantage.Part of the reason we're in this mess is because he chickened out of a Tory leadership after Cameron resigned.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,236

    What are the odds the Republicans just decide to ditch him and pick someone else at their convention?

    Denies the Democrats the “win” of an impeachment.

    He would presumably want to resign, though, because he'll want his successor to pardon him. (Just in case.)
  • eekeek Posts: 28,405
    edited October 2019

    Reposting my question FPT, does anybody understand what's going on?

    I don't understand the thing about bringing the MV back.

    They brought it, it got amended to "we'll let you know when we see the WAB", and the result apparently passed without a vote.

    If they bring it back, are they bringing it back as amended so they can have a symbolic vote on it? Or is the idea that the previous amended motion is just left sitting there, and they have a go at repeating the exercise from the beginning and seeing if that gets amended as well?

    My beleive is that the way the law has been left is that it has passed but requires all the paperwork required to be debated (in detail) and approved by Parliament before we leave.

    I suspect were this to occur the paperwork would get through Parliament but it would be changed somewhat to include things Boris doesn't want like workers rights and a customs union.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,614
    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Can someone explain how the WA passes without another Queen's Speech?

    You don’t have to specify a bill in a Queens Speech to enable you to introduce it. There is a prerogative of the government to introduce legislation.
    No, but Bercow apparently won't allow the government to put it to the Commons again as they've already done that once in this session.
    They haven’t; they tried for a ‘meaningful vote’. That is what Bercow might prevent being brought back.
    The legislation for the WA itself is a quite different matter. It will, or course, require more than a single vote, and is likely to face a number of amendments as discussed below.
    Is it possible Brexit happens without the meaningful vote?
    Only if we No Deal.....
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,122
    edited October 2019
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Can someone explain how the WA passes without another Queen's Speech?

    You don’t have to specify a bill in a Queens Speech to enable you to introduce it. There is a prerogative of the government to introduce legislation.
    No, but Bercow apparently won't allow the government to put it to the Commons again as they've already done that once in this session.
    Bercow going on the 31st October will cleanse the office of speaker much debased by him as highlighted by his deputy Eleanor Laing

    Post his time the Brexit debate should be more fairly conducted and of course he will not go to the HOL as long as the government is in office

    Also Justin Greening refutes supporting a customs union on Sky just now so that must bring in play a lot of independents and the lib dems who will also reject it
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,236
    edited October 2019
    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Can someone explain how the WA passes without another Queen's Speech?

    You don’t have to specify a bill in a Queens Speech to enable you to introduce it. There is a prerogative of the government to introduce legislation.
    No, but Bercow apparently won't allow the government to put it to the Commons again as they've already done that once in this session.
    They haven’t; they tried for a ‘meaningful vote’. That is what Bercow might prevent being brought back.
    The legislation for the WA itself is a quite different matter. It will, or course, require more than a single vote, and is likely to face a number of amendments as discussed below.
    Is it possible Brexit happens without the meaningful vote?
    I believe so.

    The point of the Letwin amendment (for Letwin at least) was to ensure that the deal be fully legislated before we left, to avoid the possibility of No Deal.

    The MV was intended to satisfy the Benn amendment so that an extension request did not have to be sent, and therefore leave open the prospect of No Deal in order to provide a means of pressuring the opposition.
    Clearly it has now failed in that, so I’m not really sure what the point of bringing it back is.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,478
    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Can someone explain how the WA passes without another Queen's Speech?

    You don’t have to specify a bill in a Queens Speech to enable you to introduce it. There is a prerogative of the government to introduce legislation.
    No, but Bercow apparently won't allow the government to put it to the Commons again as they've already done that once in this session.
    there are only 11 Bercow days left 9 if you discount the weekend. After that who knows how things will be handled ?
    You imagine Bercow will actually step down halfway through this process ?
    I’d be mildly surprised.
    TBH, I suggest it would be irresponsible of Bercow to voluntarily step down in the middle of these shenanigans.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Gadfly said:
    The only problem with that is that the president has to be born in the United States. I
    No there isn't. They have to be a 'natural born citizen' but it doesn't say they have to be physically born in the US. McCain wasn't, for example.
    But was Ivanka born by Caesarean section?
    I don’t think the Framers had the plot of Macbeth in mind when they wrote ‘natural born’.

    Though, to be fair, the Supreme Court has never addressed the matter.
    It’s never yet arisen because no actual President has been born outside the US (since ‘natural born’ became the criteria rather than ‘at the time this constitution is adopted’).

    But the general view is that it covers anyone who holds US citizenship from birth, regardless of where they are born.

    Otherwise there is an arguable if admittedly rather ridiculous case that Al Gore was ineligible to be VP.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    rcs1000 said:

    What are the odds the Republicans just decide to ditch him and pick someone else at their convention?

    Denies the Democrats the “win” of an impeachment.

    He would presumably want to resign, though, because he'll want his successor to pardon him. (Just in case.)
    The Republicans will need to go Ford after his tenure?
  • Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Can someone explain how the WA passes without another Queen's Speech?

    You don’t have to specify a bill in a Queens Speech to enable you to introduce it. There is a prerogative of the government to introduce legislation.
    No, but Bercow apparently won't allow the government to put it to the Commons again as they've already done that once in this session.
    there are only 11 Bercow days left 9 if you discount the weekend. After that who knows how things will be handled ?
    You imagine Bercow will actually step down halfway through this process ?
    I’d be mildly surprised.
    TBH, I suggest it would be irresponsible of Bercow to voluntarily step down in the middle of these shenanigans.
    Bercow's successor election takes place on the 4th November

    And he leaves on the 31st October no doubt taking the Chiltern Hundreds
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Sandpit said:



    So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?

    Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?

    That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
    It is remarkable how, over and over, hardline Leavers seek to bludgeon their own version of Brexit through the House of Commons when a different version would sail through. It’s almost as if they don’t really want to leave the EU at all.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,413

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Can someone explain how the WA passes without another Queen's Speech?

    You don’t have to specify a bill in a Queens Speech to enable you to introduce it. There is a prerogative of the government to introduce legislation.
    No, but Bercow apparently won't allow the government to put it to the Commons again as they've already done that once in this session.
    there are only 11 Bercow days left 9 if you discount the weekend. After that who knows how things will be handled ?
    You imagine Bercow will actually step down halfway through this process ?
    I’d be mildly surprised.
    TBH, I suggest it would be irresponsible of Bercow to voluntarily step down in the middle of these shenanigans.
    why ?

    he helped create them. going will clear the air.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,236

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Can someone explain how the WA passes without another Queen's Speech?

    You don’t have to specify a bill in a Queens Speech to enable you to introduce it. There is a prerogative of the government to introduce legislation.
    No, but Bercow apparently won't allow the government to put it to the Commons again as they've already done that once in this session.
    there are only 11 Bercow days left 9 if you discount the weekend. After that who knows how things will be handled ?
    You imagine Bercow will actually step down halfway through this process ?
    I’d be mildly surprised.
    TBH, I suggest it would be irresponsible of Bercow to voluntarily step down in the middle of these shenanigans.
    Bercow's successor election takes place on the 4th November

    And he leaves on the 31st October no doubt taking the Chiltern Hundreds
    That was the plan.
    Any bets it might change ?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176

    Sandpit said:



    So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?

    Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?

    That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
    It is remarkable how, over and over, hardline Leavers seek to bludgeon their own version of Brexit through the House of Commons when a different version would sail through. It’s almost as if they don’t really want to leave the EU at all.
    Was that not disproved with the indicative votes?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,236
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Gadfly said:
    The only problem with that is that the president has to be born in the United States. I
    No there isn't. They have to be a 'natural born citizen' but it doesn't say they have to be physically born in the US. McCain wasn't, for example.
    But was Ivanka born by Caesarean section?
    I don’t think the Framers had the plot of Macbeth in mind when they wrote ‘natural born’.

    Though, to be fair, the Supreme Court has never addressed the matter.
    It’s never yet arisen because no actual President has been born outside the US (since ‘natural born’ became the criteria rather than ‘at the time this constitution is adopted’).

    But the general view is that it covers anyone who holds US citizenship from birth, regardless of where they are born.

    Otherwise there is an arguable if admittedly rather ridiculous case that Al Gore was ineligible to be VP.
    There’s considerable speculation a suitably picked SC might rule otherwise.
    Though there’s also a dispute over whether it falls within their jurisdiction... which is probably why no one has yet tried.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,413
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Can someone explain how the WA passes without another Queen's Speech?

    You don’t have to specify a bill in a Queens Speech to enable you to introduce it. There is a prerogative of the government to introduce legislation.
    No, but Bercow apparently won't allow the government to put it to the Commons again as they've already done that once in this session.
    there are only 11 Bercow days left 9 if you discount the weekend. After that who knows how things will be handled ?
    You imagine Bercow will actually step down halfway through this process ?
    I’d be mildly surprised.
    TBH, I suggest it would be irresponsible of Bercow to voluntarily step down in the middle of these shenanigans.
    Bercow's successor election takes place on the 4th November

    And he leaves on the 31st October no doubt taking the Chiltern Hundreds
    That was the plan.
    Any bets it might change ?
    maybe somebody can take him to court to force him to resign.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,236

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Can someone explain how the WA passes without another Queen's Speech?

    You don’t have to specify a bill in a Queens Speech to enable you to introduce it. There is a prerogative of the government to introduce legislation.
    No, but Bercow apparently won't allow the government to put it to the Commons again as they've already done that once in this session.
    there are only 11 Bercow days left 9 if you discount the weekend. After that who knows how things will be handled ?
    You imagine Bercow will actually step down halfway through this process ?
    I’d be mildly surprised.
    TBH, I suggest it would be irresponsible of Bercow to voluntarily step down in the middle of these shenanigans.
    Bercow's successor election takes place on the 4th November

    And he leaves on the 31st October no doubt taking the Chiltern Hundreds
    That was the plan.
    Any bets it might change ?
    maybe somebody can take him to court to force him to resign.
    That is one of the things on which they won’t rule.
    If a majority of the Commons wants rid of him, he’ll have to go... but is not entirely clear that they will while the current WA is being debated.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:



    So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?

    Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?

    That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
    It is remarkable how, over and over, hardline Leavers seek to bludgeon their own version of Brexit through the House of Commons when a different version would sail through. It’s almost as if they don’t really want to leave the EU at all.
    Was that not disproved with the indicative votes?
    No. Plenty of the indicative votes would have had huge majorities had the hardliners not been implacably opposed to them.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,675
    A valiant attempt to discuss something other than Brexit. 👍👍👍👍
  • eekeek Posts: 28,405

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Can someone explain how the WA passes without another Queen's Speech?

    You don’t have to specify a bill in a Queens Speech to enable you to introduce it. There is a prerogative of the government to introduce legislation.
    No, but Bercow apparently won't allow the government to put it to the Commons again as they've already done that once in this session.
    Bercow going on the 31st October will cleanse the office of speaker much debased by him as highlighted by his deputy Eleanor Laing

    Post his time the Brexit debate should be more fairly conducted and of course he will not go to the HOL as long as the government is in office

    Also Justin Greening refutes supporting a customs union on Sky just now so that must bring in play a lot of independents and the lib dems who will also reject it
    Independents are irrelevant if you can get Labour to tacitly support it.
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Can someone explain how the WA passes without another Queen's Speech?

    You don’t have to specify a bill in a Queens Speech to enable you to introduce it. There is a prerogative of the government to introduce legislation.
    No, but Bercow apparently won't allow the government to put it to the Commons again as they've already done that once in this session.
    there are only 11 Bercow days left 9 if you discount the weekend. After that who knows how things will be handled ?
    You imagine Bercow will actually step down halfway through this process ?
    I’d be mildly surprised.
    TBH, I suggest it would be irresponsible of Bercow to voluntarily step down in the middle of these shenanigans.
    Bercow's successor election takes place on the 4th November

    And he leaves on the 31st October no doubt taking the Chiltern Hundreds
    That was the plan.
    Any bets it might change ?
    No - he is going and the new speaker will be elected on the 4th November
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,614
    eek said:

    Reposting my question FPT, does anybody understand what's going on?

    I don't understand the thing about bringing the MV back.

    They brought it, it got amended to "we'll let you know when we see the WAB", and the result apparently passed without a vote.

    If they bring it back, are they bringing it back as amended so they can have a symbolic vote on it? Or is the idea that the previous amended motion is just left sitting there, and they have a go at repeating the exercise from the beginning and seeing if that gets amended as well?

    My beleive is that the way the law has been left is that it has passed but requires all the paperwork required to be debated (in detail) and approved by Parliament before we leave.

    I suspect were this to occur the paperwork would get through Parliament but it would be changed somewhat to include things Boris doesn't want like workers rights and a customs union.
    I reckon including a CU means many of the ERG will no longer be onside. It is political fuckwittery - the EU will charge us almost as much as we currently pay in fees for the privilege. And the Tories will pledge to go into an election saying they will save those fees by taking us out of it.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:



    So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?

    Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?

    That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
    It is remarkable how, over and over, hardline Leavers seek to bludgeon their own version of Brexit through the House of Commons when a different version would sail through. It’s almost as if they don’t really want to leave the EU at all.
    Was that not disproved with the indicative votes?
    No. Plenty of the indicative votes would have had huge majorities had the hardliners not been implacably opposed to them.
    I see, you're expecting them to give in. Fine, but that's not going to happen. As David Herdson said on Saturday, this only resolves itself after a GE (and that might not do the job).
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,236

    eek said:

    Reposting my question FPT, does anybody understand what's going on?

    I don't understand the thing about bringing the MV back.

    They brought it, it got amended to "we'll let you know when we see the WAB", and the result apparently passed without a vote.

    If they bring it back, are they bringing it back as amended so they can have a symbolic vote on it? Or is the idea that the previous amended motion is just left sitting there, and they have a go at repeating the exercise from the beginning and seeing if that gets amended as well?

    My beleive is that the way the law has been left is that it has passed but requires all the paperwork required to be debated (in detail) and approved by Parliament before we leave.

    I suspect were this to occur the paperwork would get through Parliament but it would be changed somewhat to include things Boris doesn't want like workers rights and a customs union.
    I reckon including a CU means many of the ERG will no longer be onside. It is political fuckwittery - the EU will charge us almost as much as we currently pay in fees for the privilege. And the Tories will pledge to go into an election saying they will save those fees by taking us out of it.
    Do any of the other Customs Union members (which technically included the microstates plus Turkey) pay fees?

    Given most of the fees paid by Switzerland, Norway, etc., are related to membership of specific programs, my guess is not.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,236
    Jonathan said:

    A valiant attempt to discuss something other than Brexit. 👍👍👍👍

    Did my best; even tried to talk about the rugby.

    Resistance is clearly futile.
  • eek said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Can someone explain how the WA passes without another Queen's Speech?

    You don’t have to specify a bill in a Queens Speech to enable you to introduce it. There is a prerogative of the government to introduce legislation.
    No, but Bercow apparently won't allow the government to put it to the Commons again as they've already done that once in this session.
    Bercow going on the 31st October will cleanse the office of speaker much debased by him as highlighted by his deputy Eleanor Laing

    Post his time the Brexit debate should be more fairly conducted and of course he will not go to the HOL as long as the government is in office

    Also Justin Greening refutes supporting a customs union on Sky just now so that must bring in play a lot of independents and the lib dems who will also reject it
    Independents are irrelevant if you can get Labour to tacitly support it.
    The numbers are not there if the independents and lib dems do not back it

    Indeed you cannot assume all of labour will support it even on a 3 line whip

    Remember the government had 306 votes on Saturday v 322 so only 8 to change sides and both Letwin and Rudd committed to the deal yesterday.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,614
    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    Reposting my question FPT, does anybody understand what's going on?

    I don't understand the thing about bringing the MV back.

    They brought it, it got amended to "we'll let you know when we see the WAB", and the result apparently passed without a vote.

    If they bring it back, are they bringing it back as amended so they can have a symbolic vote on it? Or is the idea that the previous amended motion is just left sitting there, and they have a go at repeating the exercise from the beginning and seeing if that gets amended as well?

    My beleive is that the way the law has been left is that it has passed but requires all the paperwork required to be debated (in detail) and approved by Parliament before we leave.

    I suspect were this to occur the paperwork would get through Parliament but it would be changed somewhat to include things Boris doesn't want like workers rights and a customs union.
    I reckon including a CU means many of the ERG will no longer be onside. It is political fuckwittery - the EU will charge us almost as much as we currently pay in fees for the privilege. And the Tories will pledge to go into an election saying they will save those fees by taking us out of it.
    Do any of the other Customs Union members (which technically included the microstates plus Turkey) pay fees?

    Given most of the fees paid by Switzerland, Norway, etc., are related to membership of specific programs, my guess is not.
    If you think we can have the CU for free......there's a city in Belgium full of people who will quickly disabuse you of that!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:



    So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?

    Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?

    That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
    It is remarkable how, over and over, hardline Leavers seek to bludgeon their own version of Brexit through the House of Commons when a different version would sail through. It’s almost as if they don’t really want to leave the EU at all.
    Was that not disproved with the indicative votes?
    No. Plenty of the indicative votes would have had huge majorities had the hardliners not been implacably opposed to them.
    I see, you're expecting them to give in. Fine, but that's not going to happen. As David Herdson said on Saturday, this only resolves itself after a GE (and that might not do the job).
    I’m expecting them to want Brexit. But apparently securing their form of Brexit is more important than securing an agreed form of Brexit.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,751
    https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1186047498881650688?s=21

    Well at least Lady Nugee is an honest opponent of democracy, admitting she wants to “bind the hands” of the next parliament.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,614
    moonshine said:

    https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1186047498881650688?s=21

    Well at least Lady Nugee is an honest opponent of democracy, admitting she wants to “bind the hands” of the next parliament.

    Another example of telling the voters what they can't have, even if they were to vote for it.



  • moonshine said:

    https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1186047498881650688?s=21

    Well at least Lady Nugee is an honest opponent of democracy, admitting she wants to “bind the hands” of the next parliament.

    Not possible. No one can bind another majority government
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,491

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:



    So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?

    Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?

    That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
    It is remarkable how, over and over, hardline Leavers seek to bludgeon their own version of Brexit through the House of Commons when a different version would sail through. It’s almost as if they don’t really want to leave the EU at all.
    Was that not disproved with the indicative votes?
    No. Plenty of the indicative votes would have had huge majorities had the hardliners not been implacably opposed to them.
    Such as?
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    What are the odds the Republicans just decide to ditch him and pick someone else at their convention?

    Denies the Democrats the “win” of an impeachment.

    Must be a good chance that Trump would launch a third-party run if that happened. Would mean the GOP was gifting the Presidency to the Democrats.
  • Scott_P said:
    Justin Greening does not like Brexiteers and that is news

    More importantly she refutes adding a custom union to the deal but does want a referendum
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,614
    edited October 2019

    moonshine said:

    https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1186047498881650688?s=21

    Well at least Lady Nugee is an honest opponent of democracy, admitting she wants to “bind the hands” of the next parliament.

    Not possible. No one can bind another majority government
    If these MPs are so terrified of the horrors of No Deal bing visited upon the people of the UK, then Vote. For. The. Deal. We. Have.

    But then - we would Brexit.

    Yep Lady Nugee, that's where we are. It's where we have been since the Remainers had a toddler tantrum in aisle three when the voters told them in the referendum that no, you can't have chocolate for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
  • tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:



    So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?

    Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?

    That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
    It is remarkable how, over and over, hardline Leavers seek to bludgeon their own version of Brexit through the House of Commons when a different version would sail through. It’s almost as if they don’t really want to leave the EU at all.
    Was that not disproved with the indicative votes?
    No. Plenty of the indicative votes would have had huge majorities had the hardliners not been implacably opposed to them.
    That's a meaningless truism.

    A No Deal Brexit would have had a huge majority had hardline Remainers not been implacably opposed to it too.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    If these MPs are so terrified of the horrors of No Deal bing visited upon the people of the UK, then Vote. For. The. Deal. We. Have.

    That doesn't solve the problem.

    BoZo has assured the headbangers that even if they vote for this deal, we can still crash out next year.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    I’ve never understood this obsession with a CU .

    As a Remainer even I can’t see the logic of leaving the EU and then having your trade policy dictated by the EU with zip say in anything .

    If you’re going to stay in one thing it should be the single market which allows you to set your own trade policy . Sadly the Tories obsession with ending FOM means that’s not possible .

  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,914
    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:



    So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?

    Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?

    That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
    Rather than playing these games which are putting the economy and people's lives on hold, isn't it more elegant to just put this to voters in a snap election and get a quick answer?

    BPE: No Deal
    CON: The Deal
    LIB/SNP: Revoke
    LAB: People's Confirmatory Second Referendum on Remain vs Labour's Non-Tory Pro Jobs Brexit including a Customs Union, in which Labour would campaign for Remain except maybe some MPs in Leave seats if Momentum hasn't thrown bricks through their windows, as well as the Dear Leader who would not formally express a public opinion because that would go against his constitutional role but if asked outside his allotment by a well wisher would tell them that the "country should think carefully about the future".


    ... except of course people vote on other issues or out of habit/tradition. Plus the fact that many votes will be for candidates that don't win due to FPTP.
  • nico67 said:

    I’ve never understood this obsession with a CU .

    As a Remainer even I can’t see the logic of leaving the EU and then having your trade policy dictated by the EU with zip say in anything .

    If you’re going to stay in one thing it should be the single market which allows you to set your own trade policy . Sadly the Tories obsession with ending FOM means that’s not possible .

    A customs union is worst option and it is better to stay
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    Sandpit said:

    So the Labour plan is to try and get a vote on a customs union amendment (even though very few of them even understand what a CU is and how it works, they’re just doing it to piss off Tories), then vote down the amended Bill anyway?

    Oh, and they want to vote down the programme motion, not because they disagree with it, but because they don’t want the government to have the ‘win’ of leaving the EU on 31st October?

    Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could tell us how much it is going to cost us in fees to be in the CU?

    Ball-park would do, Jeremy.
    It’s been Labour policy since just after the last election, maybe the referendum. It’s not as if it has been sprung out of nowhere and given your glorious leader is relying on Labour votes to get this thing through, he could perhaps have prepared for this eventuality?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:



    So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?

    Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?

    That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
    It is remarkable how, over and over, hardline Leavers seek to bludgeon their own version of Brexit through the House of Commons when a different version would sail through. It’s almost as if they don’t really want to leave the EU at all.
    Was that not disproved with the indicative votes?
    No. Plenty of the indicative votes would have had huge majorities had the hardliners not been implacably opposed to them.
    Such as?
    Kenneth Clarke's customs union and Nick Boles's common market 2.0 proposals.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:



    So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?

    Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?

    That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
    It is remarkable how, over and over, hardline Leavers seek to bludgeon their own version of Brexit through the House of Commons when a different version would sail through. It’s almost as if they don’t really want to leave the EU at all.
    Was that not disproved with the indicative votes?
    No. Plenty of the indicative votes would have had huge majorities had the hardliners not been implacably opposed to them.
    That's a meaningless truism.

    A No Deal Brexit would have had a huge majority had hardline Remainers not been implacably opposed to it too.
    It is not Remainers' ambition to secure Brexit. It is for Leavers to consider how they are going to do that. It's not a meaningless truism to note that there are viable Brexit options that Leavers are spurning in pursuit of much more extreme versions.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468
    nico67 said:

    I’ve never understood this obsession with a CU .

    As a Remainer even I can’t see the logic of leaving the EU and then having your trade policy dictated by the EU with zip say in anything .

    If you’re going to stay in one thing it should be the single market which allows you to set your own trade policy . Sadly the Tories obsession with ending FOM means that’s not possible .

    Why would I believe the UK Government would do a better job at a trade policy than the EU?

    Its fine as it is.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:



    So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?

    Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?

    That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
    It is remarkable how, over and over, hardline Leavers seek to bludgeon their own version of Brexit through the House of Commons when a different version would sail through. It’s almost as if they don’t really want to leave the EU at all.
    Was that not disproved with the indicative votes?
    No. Plenty of the indicative votes would have had huge majorities had the hardliners not been implacably opposed to them.
    That's a meaningless truism.

    A No Deal Brexit would have had a huge majority had hardline Remainers not been implacably opposed to it too.
    That’s just not true . It’s not just hardline Remainers who want a deal . Most of the Tory party bar the ERG want to leave with a deal .

    Indeed if you ask the public aswell what their preferred outcome is a no deal is very much a minority opinion .
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163

    What I want to know is if the Labour rebels will stick with the Government throughout the WA legislative process, come what may.

    Will Sarah Champion, Caroline Flint and Stephen Kinnock vote down all the amendments?

    They must know that if they don’t, and they pass, that the ERG will vote against it on 3rd reading.

    Some of them will. A few will be picked off by things like the CU, as will some of the ex cons . That majority of maybe 5, estimated, will be gone.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,614
    Scott_P said:

    If these MPs are so terrified of the horrors of No Deal bing visited upon the people of the UK, then Vote. For. The. Deal. We. Have.

    That doesn't solve the problem.

    BoZo has assured the headbangers that even if they vote for this deal, we can still crash out next year.
    And if the EU acts as a bunch of complete c***s in the commercial negotations? Any other position than being able to walk away means we have no negotiating position - and must eat whatever shit they put on our plates for ever. Use the Euro? Join the EU army? That's the price, guys. And oh, you can't veto it. Because Scott_P said we had to stop the "headbangers"

    The hard decision has to be made once we have negotiated the deal. That was always just reality slapping you upside the head.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,675

    moonshine said:

    https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1186047498881650688?s=21

    Well at least Lady Nugee is an honest opponent of democracy, admitting she wants to “bind the hands” of the next parliament.

    Not possible. No one can bind another majority government
    Great. If that’s true, let’s forget about the 2016 referendum then.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163

    nico67 said:

    I’ve never understood this obsession with a CU .

    As a Remainer even I can’t see the logic of leaving the EU and then having your trade policy dictated by the EU with zip say in anything .

    If you’re going to stay in one thing it should be the single market which allows you to set your own trade policy . Sadly the Tories obsession with ending FOM means that’s not possible .

    A customs union is worst option and it is better to stay
    Then best get ready - some amendments will pass, and if the dup are on side that might be one of them.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,627

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Can someone explain how the WA passes without another Queen's Speech?

    You don’t have to specify a bill in a Queens Speech to enable you to introduce it. There is a prerogative of the government to introduce legislation.
    No, but Bercow apparently won't allow the government to put it to the Commons again as they've already done that once in this session.
    there are only 11 Bercow days left 9 if you discount the weekend. After that who knows how things will be handled ?
    You imagine Bercow will actually step down halfway through this process ?
    I’d be mildly surprised.
    TBH, I suggest it would be irresponsible of Bercow to voluntarily step down in the middle of these shenanigans.
    Bercow's successor election takes place on the 4th November

    And he leaves on the 31st October no doubt taking the Chiltern Hundreds
    Which will annoyingly leave one Con seat short while we wait for the by-election.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,675
    Harold Wilson was right.

    A week is a long time in politics.
This discussion has been closed.