Can someone tell me - if a vote for the deal today meant Johnson could withdraw his request for an extension, why would the MPs who voted for Letwin on Saturday enable him to do so?
And why should the Speaker view the sending of the letter as a sufficient change in circumstances to allow the same motion to be put again?
This is not without betting significance, because - even if Bercow allows the vote - if it can be assumed that the MPs who voted to force an extension request on Saturday won't vote to allow it to be withdrawn on Monday, then the betting markets are offering free money. (Betfair's implied probability of the Meaningful Vote passing today is about 50%.)
I can assure you that my messages were far more polite and considered. Last night in a pub discussion which contained Tory Brexiteers , I referred to the manure thrown in my direction yesterday as a result of my reference to the 1933 Enabling Act in the Reichstag. I read out my message , and not one of those present considered its content to be remotely anti-semitic.I am greatly reassured by that.
Was that before or after you all got up and sang Tomorrow Belongs to Me?
I did not do that - though I did remind them of Thatcher having won the Adolf Hitler Memorial Prize three times.
Labour may well rise in the polls once we're out. What's the point of voting Tory once we're out many will ask !
The behaviour of MPs/parties who said they would implement the result of the referendum at GE 17, then did all they could to prevent that implementation once elected will hopefully stick long in the memory of voters
Lab: no Tory deal Cons: the best possible deal as we leave the EU in a smooth and orderly exit Voters: Not going to let either of you do what you want.
You blame the remainer parliament whereas it's the voters who decided we would have this impasse. Because the voters are split and didn't the tiniest bit feel beholden to "honour the 2016 referendum".
Fair enough. A referendum between the Tory deal and the Labour deal then.
I can assure you that my messages were far more polite and considered. Last night in a pub discussion which contained Tory Brexiteers , I referred to the manure thrown in my direction yesterday as a result of my reference to the 1933 Enabling Act in the Reichstag. I read out my message , and not one of those present considered its content to be remotely anti-semitic.I am greatly reassured by that.
Was that before or after you all got up and sang Tomorrow Belongs to Me?
I did not do that - though I did remind them of Thatcher having won the Adolf Hitler Memorial Prize three times.
Labour may well rise in the polls once we're out. What's the point of voting Tory once we're out many will ask !
The behaviour of MPs/parties who said they would implement the result of the referendum at GE 17, then did all they could to prevent that implementation once elected will hopefully stick long in the memory of voters
Lab: no Tory deal Cons: the best possible deal as we leave the EU in a smooth and orderly exit Voters: Not going to let either of you do what you want.
You blame the remainer parliament whereas it's the voters who decided we would have this impasse. Because the voters are split and didn't the tiniest bit feel beholden to "honour the 2016 referendum".
Fair enough. A referendum between the Tory deal and the Labour deal then.
And the LD's revoke.
If we're going the party political route...
I thought you were basing your argument on the GE17 result?
In happier news, The Outer Worlds is out on Friday. And Civ 6, next month, becomes the first proper entry in the series to release on consoles since Civ 2 back in 1999.
I can assure you that my messages were far more polite and considered. Last night in a pub discussion which contained Tory Brexiteers , I referred to the manure thrown in my direction yesterday as a result of my reference to the 1933 Enabling Act in the Reichstag. I read out my message , and not one of those present considered its content to be remotely anti-semitic.I am greatly reassured by that.
Was that before or after you all got up and sang Tomorrow Belongs to Me?
I did not do that - though I did remind them of Thatcher having won the Adolf Hitler Memorial Prize three times.
Thing is, whether you wanted it to or not, your email falls precisely into the same category of message that the one to Nandy falls into - sent by a frothing moron.
I'm sure everyone will agree with me that Harriet would be a fantastic choice. However, I don't think she will win.
I think next to no one will agree with you. Hoyle has been an excellent deputy and always seems fair and courteous. It makes far more sense to have someone who already knows the role and is good at it.
I'm sure all except you will agree with me then
Harman is too political. Hoyle would be a much better choice. Bring back Betty Boothroyd I say.
Harriet is the lady for our times: a winner for leavers and remainers alike. The consensual choice!
I am resident in the Buckingham constituency and this is my perspective from my part of it (it is geographically leage).
The village in which I live (Haddenham) recently voted in a Green district councillor who has been active within the community for years and built up a sizeable personal following. As there is a train station which can take you to Marylebone in 35 minutes at peak times (despite being 40 miles outside London) there has been a large influx from London. These in the most part are the definition of metropolitan liberals with a fair few champagne socialists. These cohorts are very strongly for Remain and have a very negative view of Boris as you might expect. I do not think though that they will want to vote for Corbyn due to all the claims of antisemitism.
On the other hand there are considerable numbers of older residents who fit the national picture of being very heavily Leave and I would therefore expect to support Boris.
This is of course the village where I live (although a very large one) and there are plenty of other villages as to which I don't have such a clear view. I'd expect them to have fewer people having moved out from London though.
Overally I think the Lib Dems will do well for getting the anti-Brexit vote. Labour will perform poorly and the Greens are a bit of a mystery as to their performance. Tories ought to hold it but given the last real election was 14 years ago it really is not clear what is likely to happen.
Can someone tell me - if a vote for the deal today meant Johnson could withdraw his request for an extension, why would the MPs who voted for Letwin on Saturday enable him to do so?
And why should the Speaker view the sending of the letter as a sufficient change in circumstances to allow the same motion to be put again?
Johnson cannot unilaterally withdraw the application for an extension. The EU Parliament has indicated, as have others, specifically the French, that they want confirmation that the HoC supports this second deal in the way that they failed to support the first deal. The EU Parliament have deferred their decision until next week to allow the WAIB to pass but there is clearly a risk that this will not happen until too late. If they are to make arrangements they want to see that we really mean it this time.
There are allegedly 9+ people who voted for Letwin who support the deal (including Letwin himself). That would be enough but it needs to be tested. The HoC is not the only moving part here.
I can assure you that my messages were far more polite and considered. Last night in a pub discussion which contained Tory Brexiteers , I referred to the manure thrown in my direction yesterday as a result of my reference to the 1933 Enabling Act in the Reichstag. I read out my message , and not one of those present considered its content to be remotely anti-semitic.I am greatly reassured by that.
Was that before or after you all got up and sang Tomorrow Belongs to Me?
I did not do that - though I did remind them of Thatcher having won the Adolf Hitler Memorial Prize three times.
Thing is, whether you wanted it to or not, your email falls precisely into the same category of message that the one to Nandy falls into - sent by a frothing moron.
I can reasonably take that view of the comment you have just made. However, I will concede that one of those present last night did describe my message as 'rather strong'.
Can someone tell me - if a vote for the deal today meant Johnson could withdraw his request for an extension, why would the MPs who voted for Letwin on Saturday enable him to do so?
And why should the Speaker view the sending of the letter as a sufficient change in circumstances to allow the same motion to be put again?
Johnson cannot unilaterally withdraw the application for an extension.
The Benn Act says he can: "If, following a request for an extension under subsection (4) but before the end of 30 October 2019, the condition in subsection (1) or the condition in subsection (2) is met, the Prime Minister may withdraw or modify the request."
I can assure you that my messages were far more polite and considered. Last night in a pub discussion which contained Tory Brexiteers , I referred to the manure thrown in my direction yesterday as a result of my reference to the 1933 Enabling Act in the Reichstag. I read out my message , and not one of those present considered its content to be remotely anti-semitic.I am greatly reassured by that.
"Keep quiet dear and may be the strange man will go away"
Can someone tell me - if a vote for the deal today meant Johnson could withdraw his request for an extension, why would the MPs who voted for Letwin on Saturday enable him to do so?
And why should the Speaker view the sending of the letter as a sufficient change in circumstances to allow the same motion to be put again?
Johnson cannot unilaterally withdraw the application for an extension.
The Benn Act says he can: "If, following a request for an extension under subsection (4) but before the end of 30 October 2019, the condition in subsection (1) or the condition in subsection (2) is met, the Prime Minister may withdraw or modify the request."
Labour may well rise in the polls once we're out. What's the point of voting Tory once we're out many will ask !
The behaviour of MPs/parties who said they would implement the result of the referendum at GE 17, then did all they could to prevent that implementation once elected will hopefully stick long in the memory of voters
Lab: no Tory deal Cons: the best possible deal as we leave the EU in a smooth and orderly exit Voters: Not going to let either of you do what you want.
You blame the remainer parliament whereas it's the voters who decided we would have this impasse. Because the voters are split and didn't the tiniest bit feel beholden to "honour the 2016 referendum".
Fair enough. A referendum between the Tory deal and the Labour deal then.
And the LD's revoke.
If we're going the party political route...
I thought you were basing your argument on the GE17 result?
My argument was that the people didn't give anyone a mandate for anything and of the two front runners they declined to endorse either. You are trying to accommodate direct democracy within the parameters of a parliamentary democracy.
Sadly you can't, or rather the voters didn't want to square that circle.
Can someone tell me - if a vote for the deal today meant Johnson could withdraw his request for an extension, why would the MPs who voted for Letwin on Saturday enable him to do so?
And why should the Speaker view the sending of the letter as a sufficient change in circumstances to allow the same motion to be put again?
Johnson cannot unilaterally withdraw the application for an extension.
The Benn Act says he can: "If, following a request for an extension under subsection (4) but before the end of 30 October 2019, the condition in subsection (1) or the condition in subsection (2) is met, the Prime Minister may withdraw or modify the request."
Is it being assumed that MPs don't realise that?
Would the EU let him?
What does that provision mean, if it doesn't mean he no longer has to agree to an extension if it's offered?
Labour may well rise in the polls once we're out. What's the point of voting Tory once we're out many will ask !
The behaviour of MPs/parties who said they would implement the result of the referendum at GE 17, then did all they could to prevent that implementation once elected will hopefully stick long in the memory of voters
Lab: no Tory deal Cons: the best possible deal as we leave the EU in a smooth and orderly exit Voters: Not going to let either of you do what you want.
You blame the remainer parliament whereas it's the voters who decided we would have this impasse. Because the voters are split and didn't the tiniest bit feel beholden to "honour the 2016 referendum".
Fair enough. A referendum between the Tory deal and the Labour deal then.
And the LD's revoke.
If we're going the party political route...
I thought you were basing your argument on the GE17 result?
My argument was that the people didn't give anyone a mandate for anything and of the two front runners they declined to endorse either. You are trying to accommodate direct democracy within the parameters of a parliamentary democracy.
Sadly you can't, or rather the voters didn't want to square that circle.
"You are trying to accommodate direct democracy within the parameters of a parliamentary democracy."
It isn't me doing that, its what happens when the country has a referendum. The way through it is for the PM to agree a deal with the EU, and that is that. Unfortunately, Remainers who couldnt accept the result demanded, then sabotaged, every vote.
But your argument is that the GE17 defines what voters wanted; A Tory deal or a Labour deal. OK then. Why is there still, and has there ever been any, talk of Remain as an option?
The letter to Donald Tusk from the heads of the Scottish and Welsh governments reads as though it could have been written by, well, by someone in local government:
"We are writing", "As you are aware", "obviously", "clearly" (x2), "the last 24 hours", "undertake the scrutiny of", "in a 10 day period", "a concern we fully share", "the way in which", "to adequately scrutinise", "a referendum with remain on the ballot paper", "to ensure (the option) is not closed off on the EU side", "the leaders of the political parties within the House of Commons".
Careful you don't let that hedge grow too high, Donald!
I mean obviously be careful of the way in which the hedge is managed to fully ensure it complies with legal requirements before the conclusion of a 7 day period.
I can assure you that my messages were far more polite and considered. Last night in a pub discussion which contained Tory Brexiteers , I referred to the manure thrown in my direction yesterday as a result of my reference to the 1933 Enabling Act in the Reichstag. I read out my message , and not one of those present considered its content to be remotely anti-semitic.I am greatly reassured by that.
Was that before or after you all got up and sang Tomorrow Belongs to Me?
I did not do that - though I did remind them of Thatcher having won the Adolf Hitler Memorial Prize three times.
Thing is, whether you wanted it to or not, your email falls precisely into the same category of message that the one to Nandy falls into - sent by a frothing moron.
I can reasonably take that view of the comment you have just made. However, I will concede that one of those present last night did describe my message as 'rather strong'.
We thank goodness are all free to be frothing morons on PB. That is a long way from sending emails to MPs in the context we know of them receiving horrendous and threatening abuse.
And if your friend says it was "rather strong" I think we can imagine what he really thought of it.
Can someone tell me - if a vote for the deal today meant Johnson could withdraw his request for an extension, why would the MPs who voted for Letwin on Saturday enable him to do so?
And why should the Speaker view the sending of the letter as a sufficient change in circumstances to allow the same motion to be put again?
Johnson cannot unilaterally withdraw the application for an extension.
The Benn Act says he can: "If, following a request for an extension under subsection (4) but before the end of 30 October 2019, the condition in subsection (1) or the condition in subsection (2) is met, the Prime Minister may withdraw or modify the request."
Is it being assumed that MPs don't realise that?
Would the EU let him?
What does that provision mean, if it doesn't mean he no longer has to agree to an extension if it's offered?
Ah, sorry. I thought Boris had no say on the extension after the request had been made.
I can assure you that my messages were far more polite and considered. Last night in a pub discussion which contained Tory Brexiteers , I referred to the manure thrown in my direction yesterday as a result of my reference to the 1933 Enabling Act in the Reichstag. I read out my message , and not one of those present considered its content to be remotely anti-semitic.I am greatly reassured by that.
Was that before or after you all got up and sang Tomorrow Belongs to Me?
I did not do that - though I did remind them of Thatcher having won the Adolf Hitler Memorial Prize three times.
How often do you manage to get through a whole day without thinking about or mentioning in conversation either Jews or Hitler?
Can someone tell me - if a vote for the deal today meant Johnson could withdraw his request for an extension, why would the MPs who voted for Letwin on Saturday enable him to do so?
And why should the Speaker view the sending of the letter as a sufficient change in circumstances to allow the same motion to be put again?
Johnson cannot unilaterally withdraw the application for an extension.
The Benn Act says he can: "If, following a request for an extension under subsection (4) but before the end of 30 October 2019, the condition in subsection (1) or the condition in subsection (2) is met, the Prime Minister may withdraw or modify the request."
Is it being assumed that MPs don't realise that?
To be honest I hadn't realised that myself. I think in those circumstances the best we can have is an indicative vote, not a MV in terms of s1(1). But I would still like the HoC to commit to a positive way forward before we get bogged down in the WAIB.
I can reasonably take that view of the comment you have just made. However, I will concede that one of those present last night did describe my message as 'rather strong'.
Didn't care for the Hitler/Jews allusion - let's leave that to Ken - but your point, I thought, was and is perfectly respectable.
Like this -
1. Johnson Deal passing gives him massive boost. 2. That in turn probably leads to a large GE Tory majority. 3. Which in turn enables a trashing of working class economic interests.
Ergo, any Labour MP voting for this Deal is at best a useful idiot, at worst a class traitor.
Can someone tell me - if a vote for the deal today meant Johnson could withdraw his request for an extension, why would the MPs who voted for Letwin on Saturday enable him to do so?
And why should the Speaker view the sending of the letter as a sufficient change in circumstances to allow the same motion to be put again?
Johnson cannot unilaterally withdraw the application for an extension.
The Benn Act says he can: "If, following a request for an extension under subsection (4) but before the end of 30 October 2019, the condition in subsection (1) or the condition in subsection (2) is met, the Prime Minister may withdraw or modify the request."
Is it being assumed that MPs don't realise that?
Would the EU let him?
What does that provision mean, if it doesn't mean he no longer has to agree to an extension if it's offered?
Ah, sorry. I thought Boris had no say on the extension after the request had been made.
But you see what I mean - it doesn't really make sense to bring back the motion today, if passing it today would allow Johnson to wthdraw the request.
It's almost as though someone doesn't realise that would be the effect - or is assuming MPs don't realise that.
Can someone tell me - if a vote for the deal today meant Johnson could withdraw his request for an extension, why would the MPs who voted for Letwin on Saturday enable him to do so?
And why should the Speaker view the sending of the letter as a sufficient change in circumstances to allow the same motion to be put again?
Johnson cannot unilaterally withdraw the application for an extension.
The Benn Act says he can: "If, following a request for an extension under subsection (4) but before the end of 30 October 2019, the condition in subsection (1) or the condition in subsection (2) is met, the Prime Minister may withdraw or modify the request."
Is it being assumed that MPs don't realise that?
To be honest I hadn't realised that myself. I think in those circumstances the best we can have is an indicative vote, not a MV in terms of s1(1). But I would still like the HoC to commit to a positive way forward before we get bogged down in the WAIB.
But if the government is trying to bring back a straight meaningful vote today, are they actually assuming MPs don't realise that passing it would enable Johnson to withdraw the request?
Can someone tell me - if a vote for the deal today meant Johnson could withdraw his request for an extension, why would the MPs who voted for Letwin on Saturday enable him to do so?
And why should the Speaker view the sending of the letter as a sufficient change in circumstances to allow the same motion to be put again?
Johnson cannot unilaterally withdraw the application for an extension.
The Benn Act says he can: "If, following a request for an extension under subsection (4) but before the end of 30 October 2019, the condition in subsection (1) or the condition in subsection (2) is met, the Prime Minister may withdraw or modify the request."
Is it being assumed that MPs don't realise that?
Would the EU let him?
What does that provision mean, if it doesn't mean he no longer has to agree to an extension if it's offered?
Ah, sorry. I thought Boris had no say on the extension after the request had been made.
But you see what I mean - it doesn't really make sense to bring back the motion today, if passing it today would allow Johnson to wthdraw the request.
It's almost as though someone doesn't realise that would be the effect - or is assuming MPs don't realise that.
Yeah, it’s a waste of time and energy. They should just table the actual bill now.
I can reasonably take that view of the comment you have just made. However, I will concede that one of those present last night did describe my message as 'rather strong'.
Didn't care for the Hitler/Jews allusion - let's leave that to Ken - but your point, I thought, was and is perfectly respectable.
Like this -
1. Johnson Deal passing gives him massive boost. 2. That in turn probably leads to a large GE Tory majority. 3. Which in turn enables a trashing of working class economic interests.
Ergo, any Labour MP voting for this Deal is at best a useful idiot, at worst a class traitor.
Which would be fine if it was in the interests of working classes to have a Labour administration. That is a question to which the answer is not obviously 'Yes'.
Can someone tell me - if a vote for the deal today meant Johnson could withdraw his request for an extension, why would the MPs who voted for Letwin on Saturday enable him to do so?
And why should the Speaker view the sending of the letter as a sufficient change in circumstances to allow the same motion to be put again?
Johnson cannot unilaterally withdraw the application for an extension.
The Benn Act says he can: "If, following a request for an extension under subsection (4) but before the end of 30 October 2019, the condition in subsection (1) or the condition in subsection (2) is met, the Prime Minister may withdraw or modify the request."
Is it being assumed that MPs don't realise that?
To be honest I hadn't realised that myself. I think in those circumstances the best we can have is an indicative vote, not a MV in terms of s1(1). But I would still like the HoC to commit to a positive way forward before we get bogged down in the WAIB.
But if the government is trying to bring back a straight meaningful vote today, are they actually assuming MPs don't realise that passing it would enable Johnson to withdraw the request?
Don't know. Hard to see what else has changed unless they have a new deal with the DUP or something and its hard to see how that could have been kept quiet.
Top 3 place in Iowa is crucial to have much of a chance going forward.
I'm not sure that will apply this year. The front three (Biden, Sanders and Warren) are all knocking on a bit, so one of them might drop out for age or health reasons. Now, I'm not sure I believe this next bit but it has crossed my mind that such a withdrawal might taint the claims, probably unfairly but such is politics, of the other two. In other words, the front three might implode together.
Can someone tell me - if a vote for the deal today meant Johnson could withdraw his request for an extension, why would the MPs who voted for Letwin on Saturday enable him to do so?
And why should the Speaker view the sending of the letter as a sufficient change in circumstances to allow the same motion to be put again?
Johnson cannot unilaterally withdraw the application for an extension.
The Benn Act says he can: "If, following a request for an extension under subsection (4) but before the end of 30 October 2019, the condition in subsection (1) or the condition in subsection (2) is met, the Prime Minister may withdraw or modify the request."
Is it being assumed that MPs don't realise that?
To be honest I hadn't realised that myself. I think in those circumstances the best we can have is an indicative vote, not a MV in terms of s1(1). But I would still like the HoC to commit to a positive way forward before we get bogged down in the WAIB.
But if the government is trying to bring back a straight meaningful vote today, are they actually assuming MPs don't realise that passing it would enable Johnson to withdraw the request?
Don't know. Hard to see what else has changed unless they have a new deal with the DUP or something and its hard to see how that could have been kept quiet.
Perhaps the betting market on the Meaningful Vote being passed today really is free money.
Can someone tell me - if a vote for the deal today meant Johnson could withdraw his request for an extension, why would the MPs who voted for Letwin on Saturday enable him to do so?
And why should the Speaker view the sending of the letter as a sufficient change in circumstances to allow the same motion to be put again?
Johnson cannot unilaterally withdraw the application for an extension.
The Benn Act says he can: "If, following a request for an extension under subsection (4) but before the end of 30 October 2019, the condition in subsection (1) or the condition in subsection (2) is met, the Prime Minister may withdraw or modify the request."
Is it being assumed that MPs don't realise that?
Would the EU let him?
They can't grant an extension to a member state that doesn't want one. Any extension has to be agreed unanimously by the Council of which Britain is a member, and in case that is not sufficiently clear Article 50 states that it has to be agreed "by the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned".
I realise that doesn't answer your question about the British prime minister.
Can someone tell me - if a vote for the deal today meant Johnson could withdraw his request for an extension, why would the MPs who voted for Letwin on Saturday enable him to do so?
And why should the Speaker view the sending of the letter as a sufficient change in circumstances to allow the same motion to be put again?
Johnson cannot unilaterally withdraw the application for an extension.
The Benn Act says he can: "If, following a request for an extension under subsection (4) but before the end of 30 October 2019, the condition in subsection (1) or the condition in subsection (2) is met, the Prime Minister may withdraw or modify the request."
Is it being assumed that MPs don't realise that?
Would the EU let him?
They can't grant an extension to a member state that doesn't want one. Any extension has to be agreed unanimously by the Council of which Britain is a member, and in case that is not sufficiently clear Article 50 states that it has to be agreed "by the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned".
The Benn Act puts an obligation on the prime minister to accept an extension if offered, with various conditions.
But if the Benn Act allows his request to be withdrawn in specified circumstances, surely that relieves him of the obligation to accept any extension that is offered.
Can someone tell me - if a vote for the deal today meant Johnson could withdraw his request for an extension, why would the MPs who voted for Letwin on Saturday enable him to do so?
And why should the Speaker view the sending of the letter as a sufficient change in circumstances to allow the same motion to be put again?
Johnson cannot unilaterally withdraw the application for an extension.
The Benn Act says he can: "If, following a request for an extension under subsection (4) but before the end of 30 October 2019, the condition in subsection (1) or the condition in subsection (2) is met, the Prime Minister may withdraw or modify the request."
Is it being assumed that MPs don't realise that?
Would the EU let him?
They can't grant an extension to a member state that doesn't want one. Any extension has to be agreed unanimously by the Council of which Britain is a member, and in case that is not sufficiently clear Article 50 states that it has to be agreed "by the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned".
For purposes of A50, I don’t think Britain is classed as a member of the council. The clause you quoted is clear though!
Can someone tell me - if a vote for the deal today meant Johnson could withdraw his request for an extension, why would the MPs who voted for Letwin on Saturday enable him to do so?
And why should the Speaker view the sending of the letter as a sufficient change in circumstances to allow the same motion to be put again?
Johnson cannot unilaterally withdraw the application for an extension.
The Benn Act says he can: "If, following a request for an extension under subsection (4) but before the end of 30 October 2019, the condition in subsection (1) or the condition in subsection (2) is met, the Prime Minister may withdraw or modify the request."
Is it being assumed that MPs don't realise that?
To be honest I hadn't realised that myself. I think in those circumstances the best we can have is an indicative vote, not a MV in terms of s1(1). But I would still like the HoC to commit to a positive way forward before we get bogged down in the WAIB.
But if the government is trying to bring back a straight meaningful vote today, are they actually assuming MPs don't realise that passing it would enable Johnson to withdraw the request?
Don't know. Hard to see what else has changed unless they have a new deal with the DUP or something and its hard to see how that could have been kept quiet.
Perhaps the betting market on the Meaningful Vote being passed today really is free money.
Except for the fact that many MPs may not have picked up your point either. I had assumed, from what was being said in the media, that once lodged the application for an extension was effectively out of Boris' hands. Its clearly not.
I expect only a few thousand people would have seen Farage's poster if the remainiacs hadn't squealed and bitched quite so loudly about it. It was the squealing and bitching that got the news coverage.
The £350m per week would have had far less impact if the remainiacs hadn't squealed and bitched about how it was only £250m per week. Again it was the squealing and bitching that got the news coverage.
Well done to all the squealers and bitchers.
But just a week ago you said "news coverage doesn't matter, it doesn't change a single person's mind".
I don't think I did.
You did. Here's your full quote, I've just copied and pasted it: "You seem to think that it matters what the BBC says but news coverage doesn't matter, it doesn't change a single person's mind. In fact we could and should shut down all the newspapers in the country and it wouldn't change a thing."
If anyone believes @Noo, then paste his "quote" into the Vanilla search function.
It returns one result: his post just now.
Oh, I see you're "squealing and bitching" about untruths. Feel different when the boot's on the other foot, doesn't it?
I'm not squealing or bitching, not even a little bit.
No, just searching for truth in public discourse. You aren't alone.
I have never seen a union jack beachtowel. I believe you just made that up.
No, I always strive for relevance.
Exchange with @Brom on PT revealed the grisly fact that he has a Union Jack beach towel.
What we do not know - and I will not speculate on this - is whether it was a gift or whether he bought it himself.
It was all my own work! In fairness when you go abroad there are plenty of towels with flags and emblems on, I think the only people that are bothered by it are rather insecure. I also own at least 2 England football shirts. What a disgrace!
Can someone tell me - if a vote for the deal today meant Johnson could withdraw his request for an extension, why would the MPs who voted for Letwin on Saturday enable him to do so?
And why should the Speaker view the sending of the letter as a sufficient change in circumstances to allow the same motion to be put again?
Johnson cannot unilaterally withdraw the application for an extension.
The Benn Act says he can: "If, following a request for an extension under subsection (4) but before the end of 30 October 2019, the condition in subsection (1) or the condition in subsection (2) is met, the Prime Minister may withdraw or modify the request."
Is it being assumed that MPs don't realise that?
Would the EU let him?
They can't grant an extension to a member state that doesn't want one. Any extension has to be agreed unanimously by the Council of which Britain is a member, and in case that is not sufficiently clear Article 50 states that it has to be agreed "by the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned".
The Benn Act puts an obligation on the prime minister to accept an extension if offered, with various conditions.
But if the Benn Act allows his request to be withdrawn in specified circumstances, surely that relieves him of the obligation to accept any extension that is offered.
If the request is withdrawn there would not be an offer, I assume.
I have never seen a union jack beachtowel. I believe you just made that up.
No, I always strive for relevance.
Exchange with @Brom on PT revealed the grisly fact that he has a Union Jack beach towel.
What we do not know - and I will not speculate on this - is whether it was a gift or whether he bought it himself.
It was all my own work! In fairness when you go abroad there are plenty of towels with flags and emblems on, I think the only people that are bothered by it are rather insecure. I also own at least 2 England football shirts. What a disgrace!
You might as well just join the BNP
I have a Portugal beach towel to throw them off the scent
Can someone tell me - if a vote for the deal today meant Johnson could withdraw his request for an extension, why would the MPs who voted for Letwin on Saturday enable him to do so?
And why should the Speaker view the sending of the letter as a sufficient change in circumstances to allow the same motion to be put again?
Johnson cannot unilaterally withdraw the application for an extension.
The Benn Act says he can: "If, following a request for an extension under subsection (4) but before the end of 30 October 2019, the condition in subsection (1) or the condition in subsection (2) is met, the Prime Minister may withdraw or modify the request."
Is it being assumed that MPs don't realise that?
Would the EU let him?
They can't grant an extension to a member state that doesn't want one. Any extension has to be agreed unanimously by the Council of which Britain is a member, and in case that is not sufficiently clear Article 50 states that it has to be agreed "by the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned".
The Benn Act puts an obligation on the prime minister to accept an extension if offered, with various conditions.
But if the Benn Act allows his request to be withdrawn in specified circumstances, surely that relieves him of the obligation to accept any extension that is offered.
If the request is withdrawn there would not be an offer, I assume.
Possibly not - though the Lisbon Treaty isn't couched in terms of requests by the leaving member and offers by the EU Council - just agreement between the two.
This, more than any amount of bluster expressed at various times on here, sums up the real problems the country is facing.
Not only are they the same, but they are both considerably less than half. There is no single concerned "public" , when it comes to the issue of Brexit.
The majority position is clearly fatigue, which whoever gets to define according to their own agenda, gets to set the agenda.
Labour may well rise in the polls once we're out. What's the point of voting Tory once we're out many will ask !
The behaviour of MPs/parties who said they would implement the result of the referendum at GE 17, then did all they could to prevent that implementation once elected will hopefully stick long in the memory of voters
Lab: no Tory deal Cons: the best possible deal as we leave the EU in a smooth and orderly exit Voters: Not going to let either of you do what you want.
You blame the remainer parliament whereas it's the voters who decided we would have this impasse. Because the voters are split and didn't the tiniest bit feel beholden to "honour the 2016 referendum".
85% of those they elected stood on a platform of honouring the 2016 referendum, but only a minority of those have been true to their word. The only blame that can attach to voters for the impasse is the blame to those who were naive enough as to believe what they were told by such devious remainer MPs.
Labour may well rise in the polls once we're out. What's the point of voting Tory once we're out many will ask !
The behaviour of MPs/parties who said they would implement the result of the referendum at GE 17, then did all they could to prevent that implementation once elected will hopefully stick long in the memory of voters
Lab: no Tory deal Cons: the best possible deal as we leave the EU in a smooth and orderly exit Voters: Not going to let either of you do what you want.
You blame the remainer parliament whereas it's the voters who decided we would have this impasse. Because the voters are split and didn't the tiniest bit feel beholden to "honour the 2016 referendum".
85% of those they elected stood on a platform of honouring the 2016 referendum, but only a minority of those have been true to their word. The only blame that can attach to voters for the impasse is the blame to those who were naive enough as to believe what they were told by such devious remainer MPs.
As I stated, the pledge to honour the referendum came with the proviso to honour it according to party lines. Once that was the case only an overall majority would have cut the gordian knot. The British public declined to give any party such an overall majority.
Labour may well rise in the polls once we're out. What's the point of voting Tory once we're out many will ask !
The behaviour of MPs/parties who said they would implement the result of the referendum at GE 17, then did all they could to prevent that implementation once elected will hopefully stick long in the memory of voters
Lab: no Tory deal Cons: the best possible deal as we leave the EU in a smooth and orderly exit Voters: Not going to let either of you do what you want.
You blame the remainer parliament whereas it's the voters who decided we would have this impasse. Because the voters are split and didn't the tiniest bit feel beholden to "honour the 2016 referendum".
85% of those they elected stood on a platform of honouring the 2016 referendum, but only a minority of those have been true to their word. The only blame that can attach to voters for the impasse is the blame to those who were naive enough as to believe what they were told by such devious remainer MPs.
And it should have been obvious. They are politicians. Their lips were moving. All the signs were there.
From reports, it seems the plan is now for the European Parliament to hold an extraordinary session next week to ratify the deal, if the WAIB is passed.
Why would the government give John Bercow a peerage? It would cut across their lines to take.
And if it doesn't, why would John Bercow step down as an MP?
It would be difficult to be an ex-Speaker in the house in modern times.
Politically he's probably not a comfortable fit with the Tories, but if he sat as Labour it would suggest bias. He'd do well to sit as an independent but, even so, every vote or comment would be scrutinised.
Moreover, if he were ever to introduce a point of order which the new Speaker rejected...
Better for all for him to seek appointment as Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds
Which would be fine if it was in the interests of working classes to have a Labour administration. That is a question to which the answer is not obviously 'Yes'.
But these Labour MPs believe that a Labour government IS much better for their working class constituents than a Tory one. They would not be Labour MPs otherwise.
I can assure you that my messages were far more polite and considered. Last night in a pub discussion which contained Tory Brexiteers , I referred to the manure thrown in my direction yesterday as a result of my reference to the 1933 Enabling Act in the Reichstag. I read out my message , and not one of those present considered its content to be remotely anti-semitic.I am greatly reassured by that.
I also hang around like-minded people.
Several were Tories - and Brexiteers!
I can only assume they were agreeing with you to get you to stop wittering on about similarities between Brexit and Nazism.
There's a me in assume and there is an ass!
(Is that right? )
I think it is something like "assume makes an ass out of u and me"
From reports, it seems the plan is now for the European Parliament to hold an extraordinary session next week to ratify the deal, if the WAIB is passed.
I think next to no one will agree with you. Hoyle has been an excellent deputy and always seems fair and courteous. It makes far more sense to have someone who already knows the role and is good at it.
(i) People who like Harriet Harman. (ii) People who own Union Jack beach towels.
There is almost zero intersect between these two populations.
I have never seen a union jack beachtowel. I believe you just made that up.
I think next to no one will agree with you. Hoyle has been an excellent deputy and always seems fair and courteous. It makes far more sense to have someone who already knows the role and is good at it.
(i) People who like Harriet Harman. (ii) People who own Union Jack beach towels.
There is almost zero intersect between these two populations.
I have never seen a union jack beachtowel. I believe you just made that up.
Which would be fine if it was in the interests of working classes to have a Labour administration. That is a question to which the answer is not obviously 'Yes'.
But these Labour MPs believe that a Labour government IS much better for their working class constituents than a Tory one. They would not be Labour MPs otherwise.
A Labour government or a Labour government under the current leadership?
I think next to no one will agree with you. Hoyle has been an excellent deputy and always seems fair and courteous. It makes far more sense to have someone who already knows the role and is good at it.
(i) People who like Harriet Harman. (ii) People who own Union Jack beach towels.
There is almost zero intersect between these two populations.
I have never seen a union jack beachtowel. I believe you just made that up.
I can assure you that my messages were far more polite and considered. Last night in a pub discussion which contained Tory Brexiteers , I referred to the manure thrown in my direction yesterday as a result of my reference to the 1933 Enabling Act in the Reichstag. I read out my message , and not one of those present considered its content to be remotely anti-semitic.I am greatly reassured by that.
I also hang around like-minded people.
Several were Tories - and Brexiteers!
I can only assume they were agreeing with you to get you to stop wittering on about similarities between Brexit and Nazism.
There's a me in assume and there is an ass!
(Is that right? )
I think it is something like "assume makes an ass out of u and me"
I do hope nobody's surprised by this. I mean, parliament was quite clear about its wishes on Saturday.
Yes it was. We intend never make a positive decision on this. We will not have the courage to say so as a matter of principle but no deal brought before us will ever have our support. Oh and we oppose no deal also. But apart from that we are completely open minded.
I do hope nobody's surprised by this. I mean, parliament was quite clear about its wishes on Saturday.
Yes it was. We intend never make a positive decision on this. We will not have the courage to say so as a matter of principle but no deal brought before us will ever have our support. Oh and we oppose no deal also. But apart from that we are completely open minded.
No "meaningful vote" today, which is required to satisfy the Benn act. Next step is a vote on the order paper, which will bring the actual withdrawal agreement bill before parliament.
A Labour government or a Labour government under the current leadership?
It has to be both. If they feel that this Labour leadership is so bad that a right wing Boris Johnson led Tory government would be preferable (!) they ought not to stand as Labour candidates at the GE.
Bercow has simply ruled that the government can't have an rerun of the vote they tabled on Saturday afternoon. The Commons ammended it and nodded the amended version through two days ago. The government is basically wasting everyone's time asking for it again.
Bercow has simply ruled that the government can't have an rerun of the vote they tabled on Saturday afternoon. The Commons ammended it and nodded the amended version through two days ago. The government is basically wasting everyone's time asking for it again.
Exactly. I thought they wanted to get on with delivering Brexit?
Comments
If we're going the party political route...
The village in which I live (Haddenham) recently voted in a Green district councillor who has been active within the community for years and built up a sizeable personal following. As there is a train station which can take you to Marylebone in 35 minutes at peak times (despite being 40 miles outside London) there has been a large influx from London. These in the most part are the definition of metropolitan liberals with a fair few champagne socialists. These cohorts are very strongly for Remain and have a very negative view of Boris as you might expect. I do not think though that they will want to vote for Corbyn due to all the claims of antisemitism.
On the other hand there are considerable numbers of older residents who fit the national picture of being very heavily Leave and I would therefore expect to support Boris.
This is of course the village where I live (although a very large one) and there are plenty of other villages as to which I don't have such a clear view. I'd expect them to have fewer people having moved out from London though.
Overally I think the Lib Dems will do well for getting the anti-Brexit vote. Labour will perform poorly and the Greens are a bit of a mystery as to their performance. Tories ought to hold it but given the last real election was 14 years ago it really is not clear what is likely to happen.
There are allegedly 9+ people who voted for Letwin who support the deal (including Letwin himself). That would be enough but it needs to be tested. The HoC is not the only moving part here.
However, I will concede that one of those present last night did describe my message as 'rather strong'.
"If, following a request for an extension under subsection (4) but before the end of 30 October 2019, the condition in subsection (1) or the condition in subsection (2) is met, the Prime Minister may withdraw or modify the request."
Is it being assumed that MPs don't realise that?
Sadly you can't, or rather the voters didn't want to square that circle.
But he's going before the end
It isn't me doing that, its what happens when the country has a referendum. The way through it is for the PM to agree a deal with the EU, and that is that. Unfortunately, Remainers who couldnt accept the result demanded, then sabotaged, every vote.
But your argument is that the GE17 defines what voters wanted; A Tory deal or a Labour deal. OK then. Why is there still, and has there ever been any, talk of Remain as an option?
"We are writing",
"As you are aware",
"obviously",
"clearly" (x2),
"the last 24 hours",
"undertake the scrutiny of",
"in a 10 day period",
"a concern we fully share",
"the way in which",
"to adequately scrutinise",
"a referendum with remain on the ballot paper",
"to ensure (the option) is not closed off on the EU side",
"the leaders of the political parties within the House of Commons".
Careful you don't let that hedge grow too high, Donald!
I mean obviously be careful of the way in which the hedge is managed to fully ensure it complies with legal requirements before the conclusion of a 7 day period.
And if your friend says it was "rather strong" I think we can imagine what he really thought of it.
Like this -
1. Johnson Deal passing gives him massive boost.
2. That in turn probably leads to a large GE Tory majority.
3. Which in turn enables a trashing of working class economic interests.
Ergo, any Labour MP voting for this Deal is at best a useful idiot, at worst a class traitor.
It's almost as though someone doesn't realise that would be the effect - or is assuming MPs don't realise that.
That's a very polite person.
I realise that doesn't answer your question about the British prime minister.
Exchange with @Brom on PT revealed the grisly fact that he has a Union Jack beach towel.
What we do not know - and I will not speculate on this - is whether it was a gift or whether he bought it himself.
But if the Benn Act allows his request to be withdrawn in specified circumstances, surely that relieves him of the obligation to accept any extension that is offered.
You aren't alone.
I have a Portugal beach towel to throw them off the scent
Not only are they the same, but they are both considerably less than half. There is no single concerned "public" , when it comes to the issue of Brexit.
The majority position is clearly fatigue, which whoever gets to define according to their own agenda, gets to set the agenda.
And here we are.
Politically he's probably not a comfortable fit with the Tories, but if he sat as Labour it would suggest bias. He'd do well to sit as an independent but, even so, every vote or comment would be scrutinised.
Moreover, if he were ever to introduce a point of order which the new Speaker rejected...
Better for all for him to seek appointment as Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuIJqF8av6I
What a surprise. Said no one ever.
https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1186291366449602561?s=21
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1186278260616896518?s=20
What's going on?
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1186293064295469058
Going to pat myself on the bum - I always said No Deal was a Not Happening event.
What does Bercow's ruling mean please?
What comes next (if anyone can answer that)?
They could have a QS every month?
And WOW