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

245678

Comments

  • 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?
    Kenneth Clarke's customs union and Nick Boles's common market 2.0 proposals.
    They failed by large margins.

    They might have passed if a second referendum had been attached and the Government promoted it but why would they?
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502

    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.
    You know I’m a huge fan of the EU but it’s crazy to have no say in trade policy. At the moment the UK has a veto if it doesn’t like a future trade deal .

    The UK can have a very close customs arrangement and still maintain its own trade policy .
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,675

    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.
    They failed by large margins.

    They might have passed if a second referendum had been attached and the Government promoted it but why would they?
    To ‘get Brexit done’
  • Happy Trafalgar Day everybody.
  • Jonathan said:

    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.
    Not sure I understand your comment.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,675

    Jonathan said:

    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.
    Not sure I understand your comment.
    Referenda clearly bind future parliaments.
  • kle4 said:

    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.
    And the deal falls away
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468
    nico67 said:

    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.
    You know I’m a huge fan of the EU but it’s crazy to have no say in trade policy. At the moment the UK has a veto if it doesn’t like a future trade deal .

    The UK can have a very close customs arrangement and still maintain its own trade policy .
    Well considering it would be ‘a’ customs union rather than ‘the’ customs union we are unsure of the finer details.

    Regardless - what benefits exactly would we get from an independent trade policy? No-one seems to be able to say.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    Jonathan said:

    Harold Wilson was right.

    A week is a long time in politics.

    Yes - we were probably leaving the EU before the end of the year at the end of last week and this week we almost certainly wont and may not leave at all.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,406
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    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.
    Not sure I understand your comment.
    Referenda clearly bind future parliaments.
    Not quite - a Government could just ignore a non-binding referendum result but as all parties were elected in 2017 based on their manifesto commitments to the referendum result that isn't possible.

  • On topic, judges, that is all.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    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
    Lets hope its Lindsay Hoyle
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,616
    Jonathan said:

    Harold Wilson was right.

    A week is a long time in politics.

    Well Super-Saturday got massively over-hyped. What does Manic-Monday have in store?
  • eekeek Posts: 28,406
    nico67 said:

    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.
    You know I’m a huge fan of the EU but it’s crazy to have no say in trade policy. At the moment the UK has a veto if it doesn’t like a future trade deal .

    The UK can have a very close customs arrangement and still maintain its own trade policy .
    only if we agreed an FTA agreement with the EU - and the ERG don't want any deal with the EU as WTO terms are better in their eyes.

    Mind you they don't seem to understand that businesses don't care about tariffs most of the time - paperwork is the killer.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,751

    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
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47726787

    Last time customs union had 12 Labour votes against, implying you’d get a bigger rebellion on a Customs Union amendment than for Letwin. If there’s a smallish block of the ex Tories that will also reject it then the govt might squeak through, even if SNP, Lib Dems and everyone else join it as a wrecking amendment.

    14 votes short on Saturday, will be an interesting vote when it happens.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    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.
    Not sure I understand your comment.
    Referenda clearly bind future parliaments.
    No, but A50 was triggered and until they decide to revoke that the actions of the last parliament have effect.
  • 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.

    We’re negotiating with 27 individual countries effectively once we’ve Brexited. Many of them will have very few trading ties with the UK. But all will know that no deal hurts us a whole lot more, especially now the Irish border issue is resolved.

  • Jonathan said:

    Harold Wilson was right.

    A week is a long time in politics.

    Well Super-Saturday got massively over-hyped. What does Manic-Monday have in store?
    Boris Johnson dying in a ditch or Macron vetoing?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163

    kle4 said:

    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.
    And the deal falls away
    Thats the point. The DUP and all the opposition want that. Comes down to ex cons.
  • moonshine said:

    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
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47726787

    Last time customs union had 12 Labour votes against, implying you’d get a bigger rebellion on a Customs Union amendment than for Letwin. If there’s a smallish block of the ex Tories that will also reject it then the govt might squeak through, even if SNP, Lib Dems and everyone else join it as a wrecking amendment.

    14 votes short on Saturday, will be an interesting vote when it happens.
    And Letwin and Rudd came fully onside yesterday so 306 - 322 becomes 308 - 320
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163

    Jonathan said:

    Harold Wilson was right.

    A week is a long time in politics.

    Well Super-Saturday got massively over-hyped. What does Manic-Monday have in store?
    Finding out if Boris did not send a letter properly. Tusk will be very surprised to receive the same letter with a new covering letter saying to ignore the previous letter as it did not really ask for an extension, even though treated it like it did . The EU may well need to delay responding whe they think on that.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    eek said:

    nico67 said:

    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.
    You know I’m a huge fan of the EU but it’s crazy to have no say in trade policy. At the moment the UK has a veto if it doesn’t like a future trade deal .

    The UK can have a very close customs arrangement and still maintain its own trade policy .
    only if we agreed an FTA agreement with the EU - and the ERG don't want any deal with the EU as WTO terms are better in their eyes.

    Mind you they don't seem to understand that businesses don't care about tariffs most of the time - paperwork is the killer.
    I think it would be humiliating as a country to have trade deals enforced on you with no say , the EU could agree to anything and the UK would just have to suck it up .

    In the EU you have input and a veto. Labour picked the CU as a means to avoid backing anything , and also because it doesn’t entail FOM .

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,362
    edited October 2019
    I see the Scottish fishermen are being well looked after, not even out yet and they are being sold down the river, poetic justice.

  • BantermanBanterman Posts: 287
    Aside from whether you are pro Brexit or not, a real problem the uk faces is the sheer number of mp's who will definitely lose their seats/jobs/profile in an election and will do everything to stop one, whilst hiding behind a clock of Brexit debate.
    Will Anna Soubry ever been on tv again lecturing us about how stupid voters didn't understand what they voted for once she's an ex mp? Yes, a big silver lining of an election.
  • kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    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.
    And the deal falls away
    Thats the point. The DUP and all the opposition want that. Comes down to ex cons.
    And at the GE the conservatives will be united and will put forward leaving with their deal with brexit happening within days of the GE

    That is a powerful message and so is the Lib Dems revoke

    Clear messaging from both is going to be deadly for labour and for that reason I can see a good number of labour mps wanting the deal
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,675
    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    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.
    Not sure I understand your comment.
    Referenda clearly bind future parliaments.
    No, but A50 was triggered and until they decide to revoke that the actions of the last parliament have effect.
    Politically the whole past three years is the argument that the referendum takes precedent over parliament. De facto referenda bind future parliaments.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,893
    malcolmg said:

    I see the Scottish fishermen are being well looked after, not even out yet and they are being sold down the river, poetic justice.

    Morning, Malc. I see there has been discussion of the Scottish fishing industry moving en masse to NI, both for registration and for landing its catches. Of course that assumes Mr Johnson's deal takes place. Of course the farmers can't move their fields ...
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,751
    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Harold Wilson was right.

    A week is a long time in politics.

    Well Super-Saturday got massively over-hyped. What does Manic-Monday have in store?
    Finding out if Boris did not send a letter properly. Tusk will be very surprised to receive the same letter with a new covering letter saying to ignore the previous letter as it did not really ask for an extension, even though treated it like it did . The EU may well need to delay responding whe they think on that.
    What’s the diplomatic equivalent of Recall Message in MS Outlook?

    “Quick, recall! Perhaps no one’s opened it yet!”

  • malcolmg said:

    I see the Scottish fishermen are being well looked after, not even out yet and they are being sold down the river, poetic justice.

    Morning Malc. It looks very sensible to me
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    edited October 2019

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    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.
    And the deal falls away
    Thats the point. The DUP and all the opposition want that. Comes down to ex cons.
    And at the GE the conservatives will be united and will put forward leaving with their deal with brexit happening within days of the GE

    That is a powerful message and so is the Lib Dems revoke

    Clear messaging from both is going to be deadly for labour and for that reason I can see a good number of labour mps wanting the deal
    Better defeat tomorrow than today. First step is stop Boris's momentum and wreck his plans, then they can worry if they can keep doing so .
    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    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.
    Not sure I understand your comment.
    Referenda clearly bind future parliaments.
    No, but A50 was triggered and until they decide to revoke that the actions of the last parliament have effect.
    Politically the whole past three years is the argument that the referendum takes precedent over parliament. De facto referenda bind future parliaments.
    Except that argument has not been win yet as within days or weeks we may be on the path to them putting a new referendum or most parties campaigning in a GE saying the other ref can go hang.
  • kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Harold Wilson was right.

    A week is a long time in politics.

    Well Super-Saturday got massively over-hyped. What does Manic-Monday have in store?
    Finding out if Boris did not send a letter properly. Tusk will be very surprised to receive the same letter with a new covering letter saying to ignore the previous letter as it did not really ask for an extension, even though treated it like it did . The EU may well need to delay responding whe they think on that.
    Now you are a sensible poster but your last sentence is unusually silly
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,362
    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    I see the Scottish fishermen are being well looked after, not even out yet and they are being sold down the river, poetic justice.

    Morning, Malc. I see there has been discussion of the Scottish fishing industry moving en masse to NI, both for registration and for landing its catches. Of course that assumes Mr Johnson's deal takes place. Of course the farmers can't move their fields ...
    Morning Carnyx, that will be a great deal for Scotland indeed. Given the way they treat our MP's you can be sure they will shaft Scotland at every opportunity given they know they can get away with it.
  • As a businessman let me explain the issue with CU. Most tariffs are small and irrelevant. However the need to complete paperwork and pay them is slow and expensive. Ideally we would move to a single cu for the world. In the meantime the EU CU is a good compromise. There is no better deal available than the exiting one.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,893
    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    I see the Scottish fishermen are being well looked after, not even out yet and they are being sold down the river, poetic justice.

    Morning, Malc. I see there has been discussion of the Scottish fishing industry moving en masse to NI, both for registration and for landing its catches. Of course that assumes Mr Johnson's deal takes place. Of course the farmers can't move their fields ...
    Morning Carnyx, that will be a great deal for Scotland indeed. Given the way they treat our MP's you can be sure they will shaft Scotland at every opportunity given they know they can get away with it.
    Indeed. I'd be very worried if I were a processor.exporter/transport firm onshore in Scotland.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    In terms of the court case today re lettergate apparently the petitioners couldn’t avoid it.

    They had already agreed to update the court today at noon . It’s unlikely much will happen . Bozo sent the letter , the judges might just issue a slap on the wrist to him to remind him of Padfield and that will be that .
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Harold Wilson was right.

    A week is a long time in politics.

    Well Super-Saturday got massively over-hyped. What does Manic-Monday have in store?
    Finding out if Boris did not send a letter properly. Tusk will be very surprised to receive the same letter with a new covering letter saying to ignore the previous letter as it did not really ask for an extension, even though treated it like it did . The EU may well need to delay responding whe they think on that.
    Now you are a sensible poster but your last sentence is unusually silly
    Thats because it was a joke. Lighten up with the sermonising, thanks.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,675
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    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.
    And the deal falls away
    Thats the point. The DUP and all the opposition want that. Comes down to ex cons.
    And at the GE the conservatives will be united and will put forward leaving with their deal with brexit happening within days of the GE

    That is a powerful message and so is the Lib Dems revoke

    Clear messaging from both is going to be deadly for labour and for that reason I can see a good number of labour mps wanting the deal
    Better defeat tomorrow than today. First step is stop Boris's momentum and wreck his plans, then they can worry if they can keep doing so .
    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    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.
    Not sure I understand your comment.
    Referenda clearly bind future parliaments.
    No, but A50 was triggered and until they decide to revoke that the actions of the last parliament have effect.
    Politically the whole past three years is the argument that the referendum takes precedent over parliament. De facto referenda bind future parliaments.
    Except that argument has not been win yet as within days or weeks we may be on the path to them putting a new referendum or most parties campaigning in a GE saying the other ref can go hang.
    So only a referenda can trump a referenda.
  • kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Harold Wilson was right.

    A week is a long time in politics.

    Well Super-Saturday got massively over-hyped. What does Manic-Monday have in store?
    Finding out if Boris did not send a letter properly. Tusk will be very surprised to receive the same letter with a new covering letter saying to ignore the previous letter as it did not really ask for an extension, even though treated it like it did . The EU may well need to delay responding whe they think on that.
    Now you are a sensible poster but your last sentence is unusually silly
    Thats because it was a joke. Lighten up with the sermonising, thanks.
    OK - bit slow this morning - sorry
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,449
    The most likely outcome in the impeachment trial is that McConnell will allow vulnerable senators such as Collins to vote to convict, plus never-Trumps like Romney. The end result will probably be something like 55-45, well short of a conviction.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,151
    Trump won't stand down, most Republican voters are still behind him so he will still be GOP nominee in 2020 and whatever Republican Senators concerns about his Syria policy they are not going to vote to impeach him and get primaried
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    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.
    And the deal falls away
    Thats the point. The DUP and all the opposition want that. Comes down to ex cons.
    And at the GE the conservatives will be united and will put forward leaving with their deal with brexit happening within days of the GE

    That is a powerful message and so is the Lib Dems revoke

    Clear messaging from both is going to be deadly for labour and for that reason I can see a good number of labour mps wanting the deal
    Better defeat tomorrow than today. First step is stop Boris's momentum and wreck his plans, then they can worry if they can keep doing so .
    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    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.
    Not sure I understand your comment.
    Referenda clearly bind future parliaments.
    No, but A50 was triggered and until they decide to revoke that the actions of the last parliament have effect.
    Politically the whole past three years ture parliaments.
    Except that argument has not been win yet as within days or weeks we may be on the path to them putting a new referendum or most parties campaigning in a GE saying the other ref can go hang.
    So only a referenda can trump a referenda.
    Some are saying that. Of course others seek revoke and in theory could win. Plus that would still mean referenda arent binding as thered be a way around them.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065
    Banterman said:

    Aside from whether you are pro Brexit or not, a real problem the uk faces is the sheer number of mp's who will definitely lose their seats/jobs/profile in an election and will do everything to stop one, whilst hiding behind a clock of Brexit debate.
    Will Anna Soubry ever been on tv again lecturing us about how stupid voters didn't understand what they voted for once she's an ex mp? Yes, a big silver lining of an election.

    I hate to spoil your glee, but after the next election at least 70% of the MPs will be the same as in the current parliament. You will be happy to see some go but you will be sorry to see some others go.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,151
    moonshine said:

    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
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47726787

    Last time customs union had 12 Labour votes against, implying you’d get a bigger rebellion on a Customs Union amendment than for Letwin. If there’s a smallish block of the ex Tories that will also reject it then the govt might squeak through, even if SNP, Lib Dems and everyone else join it as a wrecking amendment.

    14 votes short on Saturday, will be an interesting vote when it happens.
    Plus LDs likely will not vote for a Customs Union as they did not in the indicative votes without a referendum attached, even if the DUP now will
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,751
    nico67 said:

    eek said:

    nico67 said:

    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.
    You know I’m a huge fan of the EU but it’s crazy to have no say in trade policy. At the moment the UK has a veto if it doesn’t like a future trade deal .

    The UK can have a very close customs arrangement and still maintain its own trade policy .
    only if we agreed an FTA agreement with the EU - and the ERG don't want any deal with the EU as WTO terms are better in their eyes.

    Mind you they don't seem to understand that businesses don't care about tariffs most of the time - paperwork is the killer.
    I think it would be humiliating as a country to have trade deals enforced on you with no say , the EU could agree to anything and the UK would just have to suck it up .

    In the EU you have input and a veto. Labour picked the CU as a means to avoid backing anything , and also because it doesn’t entail FOM .

    Not enough is made of the advantage once we leave the customs union to the UK consumer, from being able to set the tariff schedule to zero for goods currently under the EU’s warm protectionist blanket that we have little interest in protecting. This goes for everything from food to electric cars.

    Why should UK consumers have to pay a £4k import tax to the EU’s central coffers if they want to buy a Tesla rather than a diesel cheatmobile from Germany?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Harold Wilson was right.

    A week is a long time in politics.

    Well Super-Saturday got massively over-hyped. What does Manic-Monday have in store?
    Finding out if Boris did not send a letter properly. Tusk will be very surprised to receive the same letter with a new covering letter saying to ignore the previous letter as it did not really ask for an extension, even though treated it like it did . The EU may well need to delay responding whe they think on that.
    Now you are a sensible poster but your last sentence is unusually silly
    Thats because it was a joke. Lighten up with the sermonising, thanks.
    OK - bit slow this morning - sorry
    Well there wasnt a smiley emoji, happens to all of us.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,151
    edited October 2019
    moonshine said:

    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.
    The Kurds are not getting slaughtered as Assad has now sent Syrian forces to join them against Turkey, both the Kurds and Assad have already beaten ISIS
  • kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Harold Wilson was right.

    A week is a long time in politics.

    Well Super-Saturday got massively over-hyped. What does Manic-Monday have in store?
    Finding out if Boris did not send a letter properly. Tusk will be very surprised to receive the same letter with a new covering letter saying to ignore the previous letter as it did not really ask for an extension, even though treated it like it did . The EU may well need to delay responding whe they think on that.
    Now you are a sensible poster but your last sentence is unusually silly
    Thats because it was a joke. Lighten up with the sermonising, thanks.
    OK - bit slow this morning - sorry
    Well there wasnt a smiley emoji, happens to all of us.
    Indeed
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,720
    HYUFD said:
    That’s easy for a multi-millionaire singer based in Spain to say.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,675
    HYUFD said:
    Well that settles it. James Blunt has spoken. Rich people will be unaffected so that’s ok.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    The most likely outcome in the impeachment trial is that McConnell will allow vulnerable senators such as Collins to vote to convict, plus never-Trumps like Romney. The end result will probably be something like 55-45, well short of a conviction.

    There's a lot of.vulnerable Senators. This is the class. Of 2014, a very good year for the Republicans.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,751
    HYUFD said:

    moonshine said:

    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
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47726787

    Last time customs union had 12 Labour votes against, implying you’d get a bigger rebellion on a Customs Union amendment than for Letwin. If there’s a smallish block of the ex Tories that will also reject it then the govt might squeak through, even if SNP, Lib Dems and everyone else join it as a wrecking amendment.

    14 votes short on Saturday, will be an interesting vote when it happens.
    Plus LDs likely will not vote for a Customs Union as they did not in the indicative votes without a referendum attached, even if the DUP now will
    The Tiggers also voted against last time. But it’s at the point where they’ll all vote for any old horsesh** so long as it acts as a wrecking amendment. When it comes to it the Lib Dems will vote for it I reckon.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Also, any REPUBLICAN senator that votes to convict Trump is gonna be primaried to he'll and back.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,151
    edited October 2019
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    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.
    Are you sure?

    My understanding was they wanted the *benefits* of SM/CU without actually being members

    (How that works in practice, I know not)
  • Jonathan said:

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

    Doomed to failure, naturally.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    ydoethur said:

    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.
    What’s the age qualification for president?

    I’m sure it’s 35 for Congress but is it 40/45 for President? I think Ivanka is about 42/43
  • As we get closer to an agreement and an election how many MPs will get cold feet. E.g. Tory MPs in London and Scotland will be facing the dole with few routes back. There could be a massive realignment of politics about to happen. It all feels like the post referendum election in Scotland where the losers ended up winning.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,751
    HYUFD said:

    moonshine said:

    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.
    The Kurds are not getting slaughtered as Assad has now sent Syrian forces to join them against Turkey, both the Kurds and Assad have already beaten ISIS
    Oh good that’s a relief. Assad of Axis of Evil fame is now fighting against a NATO ally. That’s a good result.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,151
    edited October 2019
    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:
    Well that settles it. James Blunt has spoken. Rich people will be unaffected so that’s ok.
    Working class people voted for Brexit, it is mainly rich people trying to stop it and scaremonger as James Blunt shows
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,720
    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    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.
    What’s the age qualification for president?

    I’m sure it’s 35 for Congress but is it 40/45 for President? I think Ivanka is about 42/43
    It’s 35. (Mayor Pete is 37.)
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065
    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:


    So only a referenda can trump a referenda.

    Some are saying that. Of course others seek revoke and in theory could win. Plus that would still mean referenda arent binding as thered be a way around them.
    I'm pretty sure that nowhere in the UK's disparate constitution does it say that a referrendum is legally binding, that a referendum binds this and/or future governments, or that a referendum can only be reversed by another referendum.

    So what was the referendum? It was an official poll of the whole UK electorate on a specific question.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Happy Trafalgar Day everybody.

    As a portent for today's vote, can anyone remember if at the Battle of Trafalgar (New Labour edition) did the red team beat the blue team or the other way round?
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,289
    Aren't the supposed wrecking amendments something of a red herring?

    If the government, as they claim, have the votes to pass their WAIB, then they have the votes to defeat a people's vote and CU, surely.

    Are any MPs currently on track to vote for the WAIB indicating that they will seek addition of either of these elements? (Note: this is a different question to any MPs indicating they'd like to add these elements and only then, just possibly, support the WAIB).
  • malcolmg said:

    I see the Scottish fishermen are being well looked after, not even out yet and they are being sold down the river, poetic justice.

    It's great to see that there are still some eternal verities, e.g. it's always, ALWAYS the Tory party that sells out the fishermen (and they always fall for it).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,151
    Pro_Rata said:

    Aren't the supposed wrecking amendments something of a red herring?

    If the government, as they claim, have the votes to pass their WAIB, then they have the votes to defeat a people's vote and CU, surely.

    Are any MPs currently on track to vote for the WAIB indicating that they will seek addition of either of these elements? (Note: this is a different question to any MPs indicating they'd like to add these elements and only then, just possibly, support the WAIB).

    Maybe Rudd, Gauke, Sandbach and Hammond for the CU?
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,751
    HYUFD said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Aren't the supposed wrecking amendments something of a red herring?

    If the government, as they claim, have the votes to pass their WAIB, then they have the votes to defeat a people's vote and CU, surely.

    Are any MPs currently on track to vote for the WAIB indicating that they will seek addition of either of these elements? (Note: this is a different question to any MPs indicating they'd like to add these elements and only then, just possibly, support the WAIB).

    Maybe Rudd, Gauke, Sandbach and Hammond for the CU?
    And Clarke. And Stewart. And who knows how many Labour.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,289
    HYUFD said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Aren't the supposed wrecking amendments something of a red herring?

    If the government, as they claim, have the votes to pass their WAIB, then they have the votes to defeat a people's vote and CU, surely.

    Are any MPs currently on track to vote for the WAIB indicating that they will seek addition of either of these elements? (Note: this is a different question to any MPs indicating they'd like to add these elements and only then, just possibly, support the WAIB).

    Maybe Rudd, Gauke, Sandbach and Hammond for the CU?
    You get a lot of flak on here, often deserved, but thanks - that was exactly the kind of response I had in mind.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    eek said:

    nico67 said:

    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.
    You know I’m a huge fan of the EU but it’s crazy to have no say in trade policy. At the moment the UK has a veto if it doesn’t like a future trade deal .

    The UK can have a very close customs arrangement and still maintain its own trade policy .
    only if we agreed an FTA agreement with the EU - and the ERG don't want any deal with the EU as WTO terms are better in their eyes.

    Mind you they don't seem to understand that businesses don't care about tariffs most of the time - paperwork is the killer.
    That’s a misrepresentation of their position

    WTO was better than May’s deal. Boris’s deal is better than WTO

    I’m fairly sure a reasonable FTA will be better than WTO
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,616

    As we get closer to an agreement and an election how many MPs will get cold feet. E.g. Tory MPs in London and Scotland will be facing the dole with few routes back. There could be a massive realignment of politics about to happen. It all feels like the post referendum election in Scotland where the losers ended up winning.

    The losers - or the frustrated? Those who have tried to block Brexit have frustrated 17.4m voters.....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,151
    edited October 2019
    moonshine said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Aren't the supposed wrecking amendments something of a red herring?

    If the government, as they claim, have the votes to pass their WAIB, then they have the votes to defeat a people's vote and CU, surely.

    Are any MPs currently on track to vote for the WAIB indicating that they will seek addition of either of these elements? (Note: this is a different question to any MPs indicating they'd like to add these elements and only then, just possibly, support the WAIB).

    Maybe Rudd, Gauke, Sandbach and Hammond for the CU?
    And Clarke. And Stewart. And who knows how many Labour.
    Del Piero would vote for the Deal but also a CU, probably Flint too
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,675
    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:
    Well that settles it. James Blunt has spoken. Rich people will be unaffected so that’s ok.
    Working class people voted for Brexit, it is mainly rich people trying to stop it and scaremonger as James Blunt shows
    This is what straw clutching looks like.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,289
    moonshine said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Aren't the supposed wrecking amendments something of a red herring?

    If the government, as they claim, have the votes to pass their WAIB, then they have the votes to defeat a people's vote and CU, surely.

    Are any MPs currently on track to vote for the WAIB indicating that they will seek addition of either of these elements? (Note: this is a different question to any MPs indicating they'd like to add these elements and only then, just possibly, support the WAIB).

    Maybe Rudd, Gauke, Sandbach and Hammond for the CU?
    And Clarke. And Stewart. And who knows how many Labour.
    I think the likes of Flint, who are indicating as for the deal, were not looking kindly on what they saw as shenanigans.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065

    As we get closer to an agreement and an election how many MPs will get cold feet. E.g. Tory MPs in London and Scotland will be facing the dole with few routes back. There could be a massive realignment of politics about to happen. It all feels like the post referendum election in Scotland where the losers ended up winning.

    It has always seemed to me that this idea of being "on the dole" if you lose your seat, and the fear of this motivates the voting of MPs is very overstated.

    On one level you can say that an MP who votes based on keeping their job rather on the politics should not be an MP. On a more practical level, most Ex-MPs are either over 65 and could easily retire or will have little problem finding another job, probably with less nights away from home, better hours and less hassle from the public and journalists.

    It would be nice to get Nick Palmer's take on this.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    malcolmg said:

    I see the Scottish fishermen are being well looked after, not even out yet and they are being sold down the river, poetic justice.

    Are you against collaborative management of fish stocks?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,151
    edited October 2019
    Pro_Rata said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Aren't the supposed wrecking amendments something of a red herring?

    If the government, as they claim, have the votes to pass their WAIB, then they have the votes to defeat a people's vote and CU, surely.

    Are any MPs currently on track to vote for the WAIB indicating that they will seek addition of either of these elements? (Note: this is a different question to any MPs indicating they'd like to add these elements and only then, just possibly, support the WAIB).

    Maybe Rudd, Gauke, Sandbach and Hammond for the CU?
    You get a lot of flak on here, often deserved, but thanks - that was exactly the kind of response I had in mind.
    Thankyou, I think they would only vote for a CU though not EUref2. The DUP would also prefer a CU only.

    The only independent Tories who would vote for EUref2 are Grieve, Bebb and Greening
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    As a businessman let me explain the issue with CU. Most tariffs are small and irrelevant. However the need to complete paperwork and pay them is slow and expensive. Ideally we would move to a single cu for the world. In the meantime the EU CU is a good compromise. There is no better deal available than the exiting one.

    You are only looking at the economic perspective. Others weighted philosophical questions more heavily
  • malcolmg said:

    I see the Scottish fishermen are being well looked after, not even out yet and they are being sold down the river, poetic justice.

    It's great to see that there are still some eternal verities, e.g. it's always, ALWAYS the Tory party that sells out the fishermen (and they always fall for it).
    Well the SNP are part of the opposition alliance that blocked No Deal so blame them.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited October 2019
    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    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.
    What’s the age qualification for president?

    I’m sure it’s 35 for Congress but is it 40/45 for President? I think Ivanka is about 42/43
    Ivanka won't thank you for adding five years to her age. She will be 38 next week according to her birth date upthread of 30 October 1981. Ivanka would also be the USA's first Jewish president.

    The minimum age is 35.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_eligibility_legislation
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    eristdoof said:

    As we get closer to an agreement and an election how many MPs will get cold feet. E.g. Tory MPs in London and Scotland will be facing the dole with few routes back. There could be a massive realignment of politics about to happen. It all feels like the post referendum election in Scotland where the losers ended up winning.

    It has always seemed to me that this idea of being "on the dole" if you lose your seat, and the fear of this motivates the voting of MPs is very overstated.

    On one level you can say that an MP who votes based on keeping their job rather on the politics should not be an MP. On a more practical level, most Ex-MPs are either over 65 and could easily retire or will have little problem finding another job, probably with less nights away from home, better hours and less hassle from the public and journalists.

    It would be nice to get Nick Palmer's take on this.
    Quite a lot of MP's who lose their seats deserve it. Its the bedbocker MP's who've been there a looooong time that need weeding out IMHO.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,627

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    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.
    What’s the age qualification for president?

    I’m sure it’s 35 for Congress but is it 40/45 for President? I think Ivanka is about 42/43
    It’s 35. (Mayor Pete is 37.)
    Yes. Article 2, Clause 5 of the Consitiution:

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Qualifications_for_office
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    HYUFD said:
    That’s easy for a multi-millionaire singer based in Spain to say.
    Just for reference in case you ever thought Jim is a man of the people

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Blount
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    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.
    What’s the age qualification for president?

    I’m sure it’s 35 for Congress but is it 40/45 for President? I think Ivanka is about 42/43
    It’s 35. (Mayor Pete is 37.)
    Ta
  • StreeterStreeter Posts: 684
    edited October 2019
    Charles said:

    As a businessman let me explain the issue with CU. Most tariffs are small and irrelevant. However the need to complete paperwork and pay them is slow and expensive. Ideally we would move to a single cu for the world. In the meantime the EU CU is a good compromise. There is no better deal available than the exiting one.

    You are only looking at the economic perspective. Others weighted philosophical questions more heavily
    Which MBA courses have a philosophy module?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,675

    eristdoof said:

    As we get closer to an agreement and an election how many MPs will get cold feet. E.g. Tory MPs in London and Scotland will be facing the dole with few routes back. There could be a massive realignment of politics about to happen. It all feels like the post referendum election in Scotland where the losers ended up winning.

    It has always seemed to me that this idea of being "on the dole" if you lose your seat, and the fear of this motivates the voting of MPs is very overstated.

    On one level you can say that an MP who votes based on keeping their job rather on the politics should not be an MP. On a more practical level, most Ex-MPs are either over 65 and could easily retire or will have little problem finding another job, probably with less nights away from home, better hours and less hassle from the public and journalists.

    It would be nice to get Nick Palmer's take on this.
    Quite a lot of MP's who lose their seats deserve it. Its the bedbocker MP's who've been there a looooong time that need weeding out IMHO.
    More people like Jared O maras, fewer Ken Clarkes?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,900
    Morning all :)

    Canada votes today and the final polls confirm it's a dead heat between the Liberals and Conservatives but with both falling back and the NDP advancing.

    The final EKOS poll puts the Liberals four points ahead (34-30) with the NDP on 18%. That's quite a change from the poll on the 17th which had the Conservatives ahead by one and a half points.

    Research Company have a final poll showing the Liberals one point ahead (32-31) with the NDP on 19%. That's their first poll since September 26th and the changes are Liberals down four, Conservatives down two and the NDP up four and that seems the story of the campaign with both the main parties struggling and Singh's NDP exploiting that.

    The question for me now is whether the Liberals and NDP between them will have enough ridings to form a majority. I'd also be looking for a strong BQ performance but the Greens may not do as well as they had hoped.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Streeter said:

    Charles said:

    As a businessman let me explain the issue with CU. Most tariffs are small and irrelevant. However the need to complete paperwork and pay them is slow and expensive. Ideally we would move to a single cu for the world. In the meantime the EU CU is a good compromise. There is no better deal available than the exiting one.

    You are only looking at the economic perspective. Others weighted philosophical questions more heavily
    Which MBA courses have a philosophy module?
    Harvard, Wharton, Haas and INSEAD do. Don’t know about any others
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Jonathan said:

    eristdoof said:

    As we get closer to an agreement and an election how many MPs will get cold feet. E.g. Tory MPs in London and Scotland will be facing the dole with few routes back. There could be a massive realignment of politics about to happen. It all feels like the post referendum election in Scotland where the losers ended up winning.

    It has always seemed to me that this idea of being "on the dole" if you lose your seat, and the fear of this motivates the voting of MPs is very overstated.

    On one level you can say that an MP who votes based on keeping their job rather on the politics should not be an MP. On a more practical level, most Ex-MPs are either over 65 and could easily retire or will have little problem finding another job, probably with less nights away from home, better hours and less hassle from the public and journalists.

    It would be nice to get Nick Palmer's take on this.
    Quite a lot of MP's who lose their seats deserve it. Its the bedbocker MP's who've been there a looooong time that need weeding out IMHO.
    More people like Jared O maras, fewer Ken Clarkes?
    no JM is one who does deserve to be booted out. There are always exceptions like KC, to the rule, but there are those with huge majorities ……..
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,675

    Jonathan said:

    eristdoof said:

    As we get closer to an agreement and an election how many MPs will get cold feet. E.g. Tory MPs in London and Scotland will be facing the dole with few routes back. There could be a massive realignment of politics about to happen. It all feels like the post referendum election in Scotland where the losers ended up winning.

    It has always seemed to me that this idea of being "on the dole" if you lose your seat, and the fear of this motivates the voting of MPs is very overstated.

    On one level you can say that an MP who votes based on keeping their job rather on the politics should not be an MP. On a more practical level, most Ex-MPs are either over 65 and could easily retire or will have little problem finding another job, probably with less nights away from home, better hours and less hassle from the public and journalists.

    It would be nice to get Nick Palmer's take on this.
    Quite a lot of MP's who lose their seats deserve it. Its the bedbocker MP's who've been there a looooong time that need weeding out IMHO.
    More people like Jared O maras, fewer Ken Clarkes?
    no JM is one who does deserve to be booted out. There are always exceptions like KC, to the rule, but there are those with huge majorities ……..
    Sorry, couldn’t resist. There are useless MPs across the generations.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,900

    Quite a lot of MP's who lose their seats deserve it. Its the bedbocker MP's who've been there a looooong time that need weeding out IMHO.

    Would you back a term limit for MPs - say 20 years? The reasons the "bed blocker" MPs as you call them stay are simple - their local parties keep selecting them and the voters keep voting for them.

  • 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.
    They failed by large margins.

    They might have passed if a second referendum had been attached and the Government promoted it but why would they?
    Well, no they didn't:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47779783

    One lost by three votes and one lost by 21 votes.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,806
    Mr. Doof, the Commons voted to endorse the result of the referendum.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,616
    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:
    That’s easy for a multi-millionaire singer based in Spain to say.
    Just for reference in case you ever thought Jim is a man of the people

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Blount
    The MP for Derbyshire.

    Those were the days.....
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,616
    "Is it correct that you will always say no to everything?"
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    Billions and multiple millions?
This discussion has been closed.