If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes, we would. Next.
Actually, the answer is "No, we wouldn't"
You'd have to be more naive than I take you for to believe that.
Steve Barclay just challenged Corbyn and Starmer to come clean on just how long a referendum would take and how long an extension would be needed
They both looked as if they had been caught in the headlights
Given that it has assumed control of Brexit from the Government, for the remainder of this parliament would it not be more meaningful for there to be Questions to the Leader of the Opposition every noon on Wednesdays?
When we’ve discussed second votes before the logistics take at least six months doesn’t it?
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes. Because the Express, Mail, Spectator and the ERG would have ensured we did.
And Parliament would have ignored them.
Parliament has largely ignored second referendum calls. There is not a majority for it.
Things that have a majority in parliament get an easier ride than those that dont! Our party leaders, especially on the tory side have forgotten how to count. That is the root cause of the problem. We have a divided nation and parliament, but a govt that refuses to recognise this blindingly obvious fact.
We have had two Governments who have put forward Deals a total of 4 times. But Parliament has failed to support them all 4 times using any number of ridiculous excuses. I assume at some point they will be rejecting the Deal because they don't like the font it is written in.
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes, we would. Next.
No we really wouldn't. Parliament would not have given it time of day. And they would have been absolutely right as well. The trouble is that this bunch of hypocrites currently infesting Parliament are not interested in doing the right thing, only in getting their own way no matter what the cost.
We would have had a majority Conservative government with Eurosceptic contenders vying to take over from David Cameron. The idea they would ignore the majority of their own electorate is totally implausible.
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes, we would. Next.
Actually, the answer is "No, we wouldn't"
Oh, well, prove it.
Anyone with deductive powers just knows
You think you can "deduce" that state of a counterfactual world 3+ years on from the divergence? Congratulations on being an interdimensional traveller. Please tell us whether there's a parallel universe in which having any kind of conversation with you is worth my while. And if there is, feck off there and carry on.
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes, we would. Next.
No we really wouldn't. Parliament would not have given it time of day. And they would have been absolutely right as well. The trouble is that this bunch of hypocrites currently infesting Parliament are not interested in doing the right thing, only in getting their own way no matter what the cost.
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes, we would. Next.
No we really wouldn't. Parliament would not have given it time of day. And they would have been absolutely right as well. The trouble is that this bunch of hypocrites currently infesting Parliament are not interested in doing the right thing, only in getting their own way no matter what the cost.
Steve Barclay just challenged Corbyn and Starmer to come clean on just how long a referendum would take and how long an extension would be needed
They both looked as if they had been caught in the headlights
Given that it has assumed control of Brexit from the Government, for the remainder of this parliament would it not be more meaningful for there to be Questions to the Leader of the Opposition every noon on Wednesdays?
When we’ve discussed second votes before the logistics take at least six months doesn’t it?
Yep. Any shortcut and I think they will incur the wrath of the Electoral Commission.
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes, we would. Next.
Actually, the answer is "No, we wouldn't"
Oh, well, prove it.
Anyone with deductive powers just knows
You think you can "deduce" that state of a counterfactual world 3+ years on from the divergence? Congratulations on being an interdimensional traveller. Please tell us whether there's a parallel universe in which having any kind of conversation with you is worth my while. And if there is, feck off there and carry on.
The next thing I expect to happen is Labour making big hookah about Governments changes to PD they will try and use to be build an alliance.
I know Mays PD has been changed by Boris, exactly what the beef is on the labour benches needs to be spelt out to me. Could some of our Labour friends Who post here explain what Labour’s problem is with the changes Boris made to PD and why it is such an issue?
Items were moved from the WA (legally binding) to the PD (not). They don't want to take back control
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes, we would. Next.
No we really wouldn't. Parliament would not have given it time of day. And they would have been absolutely right as well. The trouble is that this bunch of hypocrites currently infesting Parliament are not interested in doing the right thing, only in getting their own way no matter what the cost.
"infesting"? FFS.
Yep a word chosen very carefully to reflect exactly what I think of the current rabble on all sides.
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes. Because the Express, Mail, Spectator and the ERG would have ensured we did.
And Parliament would have ignored them.
Parliament has largely ignored second referendum calls. There is not a majority for it.
Things that have a majority in parliament get an easier ride than those that dont! Our party leaders, especially on the tory side have forgotten how to count. That is the root cause of the problem. We have a divided nation and parliament, but a govt that refuses to recognise this blindingly obvious fact.
We have had two Governments who have put forward Deals a total of 4 times. But Parliament has failed to support them all 4 times using any number of ridiculous excuses. I assume at some point they will be rejecting the Deal because they don't like the font it is written in.
We probably shouldn't have any more referendums, on anything. Since Parliament is sovereign and the potential for conflict is too great with any result from direct democracy it should just be whatever Parliament says.
So Sturgeon should simply be able to lay a bill before the Scottish Parliament outwith any referendum if she's granted the Section 30.
Steve Barclay just challenged Corbyn and Starmer to come clean on just how long a referendum would take and how long an extension would be needed
They both looked as if they had been caught in the headlights
Given that it has assumed control of Brexit from the Government, for the remainder of this parliament would it not be more meaningful for there to be Questions to the Leader of the Opposition every noon on Wednesdays?
When we’ve discussed second votes before the logistics take at least six months doesn’t it?
Yep. Any shortcut and I think they will incur the wrath of the Electoral Commission.
I think its 22 weeks if the commission does things in parallel and they really don't want to do that unless they had to.
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes, we would. Next.
No we really wouldn't. Parliament would not have given it time of day. And they would have been absolutely right as well. The trouble is that this bunch of hypocrites currently infesting Parliament are not interested in doing the right thing, only in getting their own way no matter what the cost.
We would have had a majority Conservative government with Eurosceptic contenders vying to take over from David Cameron. The idea they would ignore the majority of their own electorate is totally implausible.
Given that Conservative majority included a whole bunch of MPs committed to EU membership you are wrong. Any attempt to see them try and revive a referendum would have seen the VONC within days.
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes, we would. Next.
No we really wouldn't. Parliament would not have given it time of day. And they would have been absolutely right as well. The trouble is that this bunch of hypocrites currently infesting Parliament are not interested in doing the right thing, only in getting their own way no matter what the cost.
Its not a loophole, it was an explicit option in the Benn Act that if Parliament agreed a deal no letter was needed, so deciding not to vote on the deal does not close a loophole it goes against what was passed in the Benn Act.
The Benn Act was badly drafted to be in this mess. Perhaps it should have said that a letter would need to be sent unless Parliament had passed a Withdrawal Act but it didn't.
But it IS in practice a loophole in the scheme to make No Deal a zero possibility.
Pass the MV today, Benn letter withdrawn, then WAIB perhaps fails or is delayed, we No Deal on 31 Oct.
It doesn't matter if you think that in reality this is paranoia and/or filibustering, the point is if the MV came again today, so would the same amendment - for the same reasons - ergo a guaranteed repeat of Saturday.
As Bercow said - repetitive and disorderly.
He is clearly right on this occasion. It's logic and logic is free of bias.
Steve Barclay just challenged Corbyn and Starmer to come clean on just how long a referendum would take and how long an extension would be needed
They both looked as if they had been caught in the headlights
Given that it has assumed control of Brexit from the Government, for the remainder of this parliament would it not be more meaningful for there to be Questions to the Leader of the Opposition every noon on Wednesdays?
When we’ve discussed second votes before the logistics take at least six months doesn’t it?
It was said that 22 weeks is needed for the campaign but frankly short of a GE it likely to get bogged down with an unco-operative HOC and even then it needs to go to the electoral commission for the wording
Furthermore, any attempt at missing no deal off the ballot would see Farage and others in the Supreme Court faster than Gina Miller
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes, we would. Next.
No we really wouldn't. Parliament would not have given it time of day. And they would have been absolutely right as well. The trouble is that this bunch of hypocrites currently infesting Parliament are not interested in doing the right thing, only in getting their own way no matter what the cost.
We would have had a majority Conservative government with Eurosceptic contenders vying to take over from David Cameron. The idea they would ignore the majority of their own electorate is totally implausible.
We would have a minority Conservative govt and an opposition getting 40%, both elected by committing to Europhile policies with the only Eurosceptic party getting 7%, and Leave defeated in a referendum, if the roles were the reverse of what we have now.
Of course, in reality there would have been swathes of MPs elected on a Leave mandate, but that isn't what happened in 2017 for Remain.
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes, we would. Next.
No we really wouldn't. Parliament would not have given it time of day. And they would have been absolutely right as well. The trouble is that this bunch of hypocrites currently infesting Parliament are not interested in doing the right thing, only in getting their own way no matter what the cost.
We would have had a majority Conservative government with Eurosceptic contenders vying to take over from David Cameron. The idea they would ignore the majority of their own electorate is totally implausible.
Given that Conservative majority included a whole bunch of MPs committed to EU membership you are wrong. Any attempt to see them try and revive a referendum would have seen the VONC within days.
Who do you think would have taken over from Cameron and how do you think they would have campaigned to win over the Tory selectorate?
The interesting question is why did the government propose another vote?
It would have known that it was not in order. It’s just another cynical attempt by the government to increase the divisions, return to an atmosphere of hostility and feed the mob.
More to the point even if Bercow had ruled it in order, why on earth did they think it would not be amended in exactly the same way again this time - with the additional annoyance of having wasted yet more time on it and probably lost a few more votes for bills and amendments further down the line.
Is it possible they didn't realise that a yes vote would enable Johnson to withdraw his letter? Or that they thought enough MPs didn't realise that?
I don't know Chris. As I said the other day this has all got so convoluted I have no idea what the implications are of any of these actions at the moment. The fact that even the journalists who are supposed to make a living out of explaining this stuff to us seemed to be unclear about whether the MV passed or not kind of shows how daft it has all become.
They should just get on and debate the WAIB. Make some bloody decisions.
According to the BBC, the bill is being published in about an hour's time. As far as I know, the second reading is still scheduled for tomorrow.
What the point of today's hoo-hah was, I'm not sure.
Ken Clarke says he is happy for the deal to pass by the 31st but subject to proper scrutiny
There they go again the wavey mavises, exactly what I have been saying in this thread right on que! 🙄 It’s not exactly yes is it because there is only so much endless fillabustering and trying to tweak things Boris and his deal can take before EU slaps a strapping extension on us saying sort yourselves out your a shower.
Or say no extension. Get it sorted now or out you go.
I think EU will lean towards extension rather than no deal wouldn’t they? But a long one so we can have GE or 2nd ref when winter is out the way? Is anyone keeping an ear out for Number times a EU or member state politician mentions second ref in the last week, they mention it all the time. 👂
Yes, but the reason was that they wanted the letter to be sent. That it now has been is a material change of circumstances.
To be clear, I think Bercow was right, but I can see the argument on the other side.
They wanted the letter sent AND the WAIB passed. If the MV passed today, Johnson could withdraw the letter, hence reopening the No Deal loophole. So the same amendment would have been needed to close it - Groundhog Day.
Its not a loophole, it was an explicit option in the Benn Act that if Parliament agreed a deal no letter was needed, so deciding not to vote on the deal does not close a loophole it goes against what was passed in the Benn Act.
The Benn Act was badly drafted to be in this mess. Perhaps it should have said that a letter would need to be sent unless Parliament had passed a Withdrawal Act but it didn't.
Probably the trouble was that, given the timing of the European Council meeting, that would have put the deadline too close to 31 October.
Apparently the government will have to put something in the WAIB to get round the Treaty provisions regarding having to have 21 days before it can be ratified.
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes, we would. Next.
No we really wouldn't. Parliament would not have given it time of day. And they would have been absolutely right as well. The trouble is that this bunch of hypocrites currently infesting Parliament are not interested in doing the right thing, only in getting their own way no matter what the cost.
We would have had a majority Conservative government with Eurosceptic contenders vying to take over from David Cameron. The idea they would ignore the majority of their own electorate is totally implausible.
Given that Conservative majority included a whole bunch of MPs committed to EU membership you are wrong. Any attempt to see them try and revive a referendum would have seen the VONC within days.
Who do you think would have taken over from Cameron and how do you think they would have campaigned to win over the Tory selectorate?
No one would have taken over from Cameron. He campaigned on staying in the EU and would have won his referendum. There would have been no reason for him to be replaced. He would have been able to say he had given the country the voice he promised and they had backed him.
When even such committed Eurosceptics as me would have accepted that, for all we would have hated it, there is no chance at all there would have been any viable support for a second referendum. And quite rightly as well.
The interesting question is why did the government propose another vote?
It would have known that it was not in order. It’s just another cynical attempt by the government to increase the divisions, return to an atmosphere of hostility and feed the mob.
More to the point even if Bercow had ruled it in order, why on earth did they think it would not be amended in exactly the same way again this time - with the additional annoyance of having wasted yet more time on it and probably lost a few more votes for bills and amendments further down the line.
Is it possible they didn't realise that a yes vote would enable Johnson to withdraw his letter? Or that they thought enough MPs didn't realise that?
I don't know Chris. As I said the other day this has all got so convoluted I have no idea what the implications are of any of these actions at the moment. The fact that even the journalists who are supposed to make a living out of explaining this stuff to us seemed to be unclear about whether the MV passed or not kind of shows how daft it has all become.
They should just get on and debate the WAIB. Make some bloody decisions.
According to the BBC, the bill is being published in about an hour's time. As far as I know, the second reading is still scheduled for tomorrow.
What the point of today's hoo-hah was, I'm not sure.
We need a meaningful vote according to the Letwin amendment still. I assume that comes after 3rd reading (And quickly) by acclamation at that stage ?
The interesting question is why did the government propose another vote?
It would have known that it was not in order. It’s just another cynical attempt by the government to increase the divisions, return to an atmosphere of hostility and feed the mob.
More to the point even if Bercow had ruled it in order, why on earth did they think it would not be amended in exactly the same way again this time - with the additional annoyance of having wasted yet more time on it and probably lost a few more votes for bills and amendments further down the line.
Is it possible they didn't realise that a yes vote would enable Johnson to withdraw his letter? Or that they thought enough MPs didn't realise that?
I don't know Chris. As I said the other day this has all got so convoluted I have no idea what the implications are of any of these actions at the moment. The fact that even the journalists who are supposed to make a living out of explaining this stuff to us seemed to be unclear about whether the MV passed or not kind of shows how daft it has all become.
They should just get on and debate the WAIB. Make some bloody decisions.
According to the BBC, the bill is being published in about an hour's time. As far as I know, the second reading is still scheduled for tomorrow.
What the point of today's hoo-hah was, I'm not sure.
We need a meaningful vote according to the Letwin amendment still. I assume that comes after 3rd reading (And quickly) by acclamation at that stage ?
This is where I was unsure. Did the motion say we needed another vote or that the Motion was passed subject to the WAIB being passed by Parliament?
The interesting question is why did the government propose another vote?
It would have known that it was not in order. It’s just another cynical attempt by the government to increase the divisions, return to an atmosphere of hostility and feed the mob.
More to the point even if Bercow had ruled it in order, why on earth did they think it would not be amended in exactly the same way again this time - with the additional annoyance of having wasted yet more time on it and probably lost a few more votes for bills and amendments further down the line.
Is it possible they didn't realise that a yes vote would enable Johnson to withdraw his letter? Or that they thought enough MPs didn't realise that?
I don't know Chris. As I said the other day this has all got so convoluted I have no idea what the implications are of any of these actions at the moment. The fact that even the journalists who are supposed to make a living out of explaining this stuff to us seemed to be unclear about whether the MV passed or not kind of shows how daft it has all become.
They should just get on and debate the WAIB. Make some bloody decisions.
According to the BBC, the bill is being published in about an hour's time. As far as I know, the second reading is still scheduled for tomorrow.
What the point of today's hoo-hah was, I'm not sure.
To be honest, and maybe not, but Cummings wargaming this knowing it would cause the speaker to be confronted and lots of noise and fury adding to the publics anger
Remember CRAG? It's a fresh headache for the Govt's bid to pass the Brexit deal by October 31. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act (2010) requires any treaty be laid before the House for 21 days before it can be ratified. The Brexit deal is such as treaty 1.
Steve Barclay just challenged Corbyn and Starmer to come clean on just how long a referendum would take and how long an extension would be needed
They both looked as if they had been caught in the headlights
Given that it has assumed control of Brexit from the Government, for the remainder of this parliament would it not be more meaningful for there to be Questions to the Leader of the Opposition every noon on Wednesdays?
When we’ve discussed second votes before the logistics take at least six months doesn’t it?
It was said that 22 weeks is needed for the campaign but frankly short of a GE it likely to get bogged down with an unco-operative HOC and even then it needs to go to the electoral commission for the wording
Furthermore, any attempt at missing no deal off the ballot would see Farage and others in the Supreme Court faster than Gina Miller
For these reasons I just do not see it happening
Yes anything more than 2 clear options on a ballot would be a farce. The whole point of a second vote is to create clarity not more confusion. You couldn’t put votes for Boris deal and Farage No deal together and say brexit won any more than votes for the labour CU brexit and votes for the Lib Dem revoke together, it’s four different things.
Remember CRAG? It's a fresh headache for the Govt's bid to pass the Brexit deal by October 31. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act (2010) requires any treaty be laid before the House for 21 days before it can be ratified. The Brexit deal is such as treaty 1.
Tweet from Tom Newton Dunn
There's a get out clause
(1)Section 20 does not apply to a treaty if a Minister of the Crown is of the opinion that, exceptionally, the treaty should be ratified without the requirements of that section having been met.
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes. Because the Express, Mail, Spectator and the ERG would have ensured we did.
And Parliament would have ignored them.
Parliament has largely ignored second referendum calls. There is not a majority for it.
Things that have a majority in parliament get an easier ride than those that dont! Our party leaders, especially on the tory side have forgotten how to count. That is the root cause of the problem. We have a divided nation and parliament, but a govt that refuses to recognise this blindingly obvious fact.
We have had two Governments who have put forward Deals a total of 4 times. But Parliament has failed to support them all 4 times using any number of ridiculous excuses. I assume at some point they will be rejecting the Deal because they don't like the font it is written in.
They have been rejected as they do not have majority support! The fourth time has not been voted down yet, although the govt seem to be doing their best to antagonise the swing MPs - again if they focussed on winning winnable votes in parliament rather than playing to the social media and brexit press galleries they would get it done quite quickly.
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes, we would. Next.
No we really wouldn't. Parliament would not have given it time of day. And they would have been absolutely right as well. The trouble is that this bunch of hypocrites currently infesting Parliament are not interested in doing the right thing, only in getting their own way no matter what the cost.
We would have had a majority Conservative government with Eurosceptic contenders vying to take over from David Cameron. The idea they would ignore the majority of their own electorate is totally implausible.
Given that Conservative majority included a whole bunch of MPs committed to EU membership you are wrong. Any attempt to see them try and revive a referendum would have seen the VONC within days.
Who do you think would have taken over from Cameron and how do you think they would have campaigned to win over the Tory selectorate?
No one would have taken over from Cameron. He campaigned on staying in the EU and would have won his referendum. There would have been no reason for him to be replaced. He would have been able to say he had given the country the voice he promised and they had backed him.
When even such committed Eurosceptics as me would have accepted that, for all we would have hated it, there is no chance at all there would have been any viable support for a second referendum. And quite rightly as well.
This view is completely divorced from the reality of Tory party politics. He had already pre-resigned and the manner in which he conducted the referendum meant he would have been forced out in short order anyway.
Steve Barclay just challenged Corbyn and Starmer to come clean on just how long a referendum would take and how long an extension would be needed
They both looked as if they had been caught in the headlights
Given that it has assumed control of Brexit from the Government, for the remainder of this parliament would it not be more meaningful for there to be Questions to the Leader of the Opposition every noon on Wednesdays?
When we’ve discussed second votes before the logistics take at least six months doesn’t it?
It was said that 22 weeks is needed for the campaign but frankly short of a GE it likely to get bogged down with an unco-operative HOC and even then it needs to go to the electoral commission for the wording
Furthermore, any attempt at missing no deal off the ballot would see Farage and others in the Supreme Court faster than Gina Miller
For these reasons I just do not see it happening
Yes anything more than 2 clear options on a ballot would be a farce. The whole point of a second vote is to create clarity not more confusion. You couldn’t put votes for Boris deal and Farage No deal together and say brexit won any more than votes for the labour CU brexit and votes for the Lib Dem revoke together, it’s four different things.
Just demonstrates how complex a referendum is and to be honest nobody seems to want to discuss the practicalities and no doubt haven't even thought it through themselves
Rumours that the government might try and put something in the WAIB which means second reading is effectively MV6.
I’m not sure though of the legalities and technicalities of this.
On a lighter note I see media outlets today saying MV3 or 4, covering themselves because technically, as Bernard from yes minister would say, as KLE pointed out we haven’t reached three yet. Unless Saturday has to count as three, but there is some dispute about that?
Steve Barclay just challenged Corbyn and Starmer to come clean on just how long a referendum would take and how long an extension would be needed
They both looked as if they had been caught in the headlights
Given that it has assumed control of Brexit from the Government, for the remainder of this parliament would it not be more meaningful for there to be Questions to the Leader of the Opposition every noon on Wednesdays?
When we’ve discussed second votes before the logistics take at least six months doesn’t it?
It was said that 22 weeks is needed for the campaign but frankly short of a GE it likely to get bogged down with an unco-operative HOC and even then it needs to go to the electoral commission for the wording
Furthermore, any attempt at missing no deal off the ballot would see Farage and others in the Supreme Court faster than Gina Miller
For these reasons I just do not see it happening
Yes anything more than 2 clear options on a ballot would be a farce. The whole point of a second vote is to create clarity not more confusion. You couldn’t put votes for Boris deal and Farage No deal together and say brexit won any more than votes for the labour CU brexit and votes for the Lib Dem revoke together, it’s four different things.
Just demonstrates how complex a referendum is and to be honest nobody seems to want to discuss the practicalities and no doubt haven't even thought it through themselves
Good point. Whilst Simultaneously pushing for one for years now.
It was a major strategic mistake. Now the votes take place in the wrong order from their perspective.
I remain unconvinced this is not a Dominic Cummings double bluff in order to achieve a general election before Brexit. This sequence is what Boris wanted from Jeremy Corbyn just last month, and still offers the best chance of reelection.
No wonder Bozzy Bear wanted to ram this through without any scrutiny.
I withdraw (some of) my remarks about the DUP, I don't blame them for going tonto over this,
It is a very simple three page form, and I am sure an even more simplified version will be made. This is Ian Dunt's guerilla warfare strategy of making mountains out of molehills.
Steve Barclay just challenged Corbyn and Starmer to come clean on just how long a referendum would take and how long an extension would be needed
They both looked as if they had been caught in the headlights
Given that it has assumed control of Brexit from the Government, for the remainder of this parliament would it not be more meaningful for there to be Questions to the Leader of the Opposition every noon on Wednesdays?
When we’ve discussed second votes before the logistics take at least six months doesn’t it?
It was said that 22 weeks is needed for the campaign but frankly short of a GE it likely to get bogged down with an unco-operative HOC and even then it needs to go to the electoral commission for the wording
Furthermore, any attempt at missing no deal off the ballot would see Farage and others in the Supreme Court faster than Gina Miller
For these reasons I just do not see it happening
Yes anything more than 2 clear options on a ballot would be a farce. The whole point of a second vote is to create clarity not more confusion. You couldn’t put votes for Boris deal and Farage No deal together and say brexit won any more than votes for the labour CU brexit and votes for the Lib Dem revoke together, it’s four different things.
Just demonstrates how complex a referendum is and to be honest nobody seems to want to discuss the practicalities and no doubt haven't even thought it through themselves
Good point. Whilst Simultaneously pushing for one for years now.
Like so much on brexit a referendum is banded around as the answer but without any detail or thought how it comes about
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes, we would. Next.
No we really wouldn't. Parliament would not have given it time of day. And they would have been absolutely right as well. The trouble is that this bunch of hypocrites currently infesting Parliament are not interested in doing the right thing, only in getting their own way no matter what the cost.
We would have had a majority Conservative government with Eurosceptic contenders vying to take over from David Cameron. The idea they would ignore the majority of their own electorate is totally implausible.
Given that Conservative majority included a whole bunch of MPs committed to EU membership you are wrong. Any attempt to see them try and revive a referendum would have seen the VONC within days.
Who do you think would have taken over from Cameron and how do you think they would have campaigned to win over the Tory selectorate?
No one would have taken over from Cameron. He campaigned on staying in the EU and would have won his referendum. There would have been no reason for him to be replaced. He would have been able to say he had given the country the voice he promised and they had backed him.
When even such committed Eurosceptics as me would have accepted that, for all we would have hated it, there is no chance at all there would have been any viable support for a second referendum. And quite rightly as well.
Dont take this the wrong way but you will always have wanted out and maybe after a small period of procrastination should remain have won, you would be itching for leaving the EU! I respect your views because even though i disagree with them, you have taken the time to recommend a deal you think is optimal. I think the best deal is remaining in the EU but i am always sceptical about further intergration i.e. joining the euro is a big no no for me.
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes, we would. Next.
No we really wouldn't. Parliament would not have given it time of day. And they would have been absolutely right as well. The trouble is that this bunch of hypocrites currently infesting Parliament are not interested in doing the right thing, only in getting their own way no matter what the cost.
We would have had a majority Conservative government with Eurosceptic contenders vying to take over from David Cameron. The idea they would ignore the majority of their own electorate is totally implausible.
Given that Conservative majority included a whole bunch of MPs committed to EU membership you are wrong. Any attempt to see them try and revive a referendum would have seen the VONC within days.
Who do you think would have taken over from Cameron and how do you think they would have campaigned to win over the Tory selectorate?
No one would have taken over from Cameron. He campaigned on staying in the EU and would have won his referendum. There would have been no reason for him to be replaced. He would have been able to say he had given the country the voice he promised and they had backed him.
When even such committed Eurosceptics as me would have accepted that, for all we would have hated it, there is no chance at all there would have been any viable support for a second referendum. And quite rightly as well.
This view is completely divorced from the reality of Tory party politics. He had already pre-resigned and the manner in which he conducted the referendum meant he would have been forced out in short order anyway.
Of course he had not pre-resigned. He had even said he would stay on if he lost - and then went back on his word. The earliest he would have been looking at resigning would probably have been around now ready for the 2020 election. It is you who are rewriting history here.
I’m frankly amazed that the media still don’t understand what happened on Saturday .
The amended motion was no longer a MV.
What they perhaps could have done is back the amended motion and put it to a division so the narrative would have been a huge majority in favour, but that wouldn't have suited the parliament v people rhetoric they are going for.
Big_G_NorthWales said: "Just demonstrates how complex a referendum is and to be honest nobody seems to want to discuss the practicalities and no doubt haven't even thought it through themselves"
Kyle is on Radio 4 sounding confident about having the majority for a confirmatory referendum.
What would happen if the commons voted for a referendum? This would take something like 5 months to happen. Is it likely that EU would grant an extention to February in the knowledge that this would rule out a referendum?
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes, we would. Next.
No we really wouldn't. Parliament would not have given it time of day. And they would have been absolutely right as well. The trouble is that this bunch of hypocrites currently infesting Parliament are not interested in doing the right thing, only in getting their own way no matter what the cost.
We would have had a majority Conservative government with Eurosceptic contenders vying to take over from David Cameron. The idea they would ignore the majority of their own electorate is totally implausible.
Given that Conservative majority included a whole bunch of MPs committed to EU membership you are wrong. Any attempt to see them try and revive a referendum would have seen the VONC within days.
Who do you think would have taken over from Cameron and how do you think they would have campaigned to win over the Tory selectorate?
No one would have taken over from Cameron. He campaigned on staying in the EU and would have won his referendum. There would have been no reason for him to be replaced. He would have been able to say he had given the country the voice he promised and they had backed him.
When even such committed Eurosceptics as me would have accepted that, for all we would have hated it, there is no chance at all there would have been any viable support for a second referendum. And quite rightly as well.
This view is completely divorced from the reality of Tory party politics. He had already pre-resigned and the manner in which he conducted the referendum meant he would have been forced out in short order anyway.
Of course he had not pre-resigned. He had even said he would stay on if he lost - and then went back on his word. The earliest he would have been looking at resigning would probably have been around now ready for the 2020 election. It is you who are rewriting history here.
For the sake of argument, let's say he stayed on until now. Do you really think that talk of a second referendum wouldn't figure in the contest to replace him?
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes. Because the Express, Mail, Spectator and the ERG would have ensured we did.
And Parliament would have ignored them.
Parliament has largely ignored second referendum calls. There is not a majority for it.
Things that have a majority in parliament get an easier ride than those that dont! Our party leaders, especially on the tory side have forgotten how to count. That is the root cause of the problem. We have a divided nation and parliament, but a govt that refuses to recognise this blindingly obvious fact.
We have had two Governments who have put forward Deals a total of 4 times. But Parliament has failed to support them all 4 times using any number of ridiculous excuses. I assume at some point they will be rejecting the Deal because they don't like the font it is written in.
They have been rejected as they do not have majority support! The fourth time has not been voted down yet, although the govt seem to be doing their best to antagonise the swing MPs - again if they focussed on winning winnable votes in parliament rather than playing to the social media and brexit press galleries they would get it done quite quickly.
"They have been rejected as they do not have majority support" is a statement of the bleeding obvious. But the reason they didn't have majority support is because the various MPs were more interested in playing politics or stopping Brexit than they were in actually doing what they were elected to do.
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes. Because the Express, Mail, Spectator and the ERG would have ensured we did.
And Parliament would have ignored them.
Parliament has largely ignored second referendum calls. There is not a majority for it.
Things that have a majority in parliament get an easier ride than those that dont! Our party leaders, especially on the tory side have forgotten how to count. That is the root cause of the problem. We have a divided nation and parliament, but a govt that refuses to recognise this blindingly obvious fact.
We have had two Governments who have put forward Deals a total of 4 times. But Parliament has failed to support them all 4 times using any number of ridiculous excuses. I assume at some point they will be rejecting the Deal because they don't like the font it is written in.
They have been rejected as they do not have majority support! The fourth time has not been voted down yet, although the govt seem to be doing their best to antagonise the swing MPs - again if they focussed on winning winnable votes in parliament rather than playing to the social media and brexit press galleries they would get it done quite quickly.
"They have been rejected as they do not have majority support" is a statement of the bleeding obvious. But the reason they didn't have majority support is because the various MPs were more interested in playing politics or stopping Brexit than they were in actually doing what they were elected to do.
I have no idea why you seem to exclude the government from your analysis when they set both the agenda and tone of enacting what they are elected to do.
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes. Because the Express, Mail, Spectator and the ERG would have ensured we did.
And Parliament would have ignored them.
Parliament has largely ignored second referendum calls. There is not a majority for it.
Things that have a majority in parliament get an easier ride than those that dont! Our party leaders, especially on the tory side have forgotten how to count. That is the root cause of the problem. We have a divided nation and parliament, but a govt that refuses to recognise this blindingly obvious fact.
We have had two Governments who have put forward Deals a total of 4 times. But Parliament has failed to support them all 4 times using any number of ridiculous excuses. I assume at some point they will be rejecting the Deal because they don't like the font it is written in.
They have been rejected as they do not have majority support! The fourth time has not been voted down yet, although the govt seem to be doing their best to antagonise the swing MPs - again if they focussed on winning winnable votes in parliament rather than playing to the social media and brexit press galleries they would get it done quite quickly.
"They have been rejected as they do not have majority support" is a statement of the bleeding obvious. But the reason they didn't have majority support is because the various MPs were more interested in playing politics or stopping Brexit than they were in actually doing what they were elected to do.
I have no idea why you seem to exclude the government from your analysis when they set both the agenda and tone of enacting what they are elected to do.
Because they were the ones putting forward viable Deals which had been agreed with the EU.
The Brexit Secretary has today demonstrated that he does not understand key provisions of the withdrawal agreement. Given that, it is clearly in the best interests of the country (and the Brexit secretary personally) that it gets detailed scrutiny. If that means leaving slightly later than 31st October, so be it.
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes. Because the Express, Mail, Spectator and the ERG would have ensured we did.
And Parliament would have ignored them.
Parliament has largely ignored second referendum calls. There is not a majority for it.
Things that have a majority in parliament get an easier ride than those that dont! Our party leaders, especially on the tory side have forgotten how to count. That is the root cause of the problem. We have a divided nation and parliament, but a govt that refuses to recognise this blindingly obvious fact.
We have had two Governments who have put forward Deals a total of 4 times. But Parliament has failed to support them all 4 times using any number of ridiculous excuses. I assume at some point they will be rejecting the Deal because they don't like the font it is written in.
They have been rejected as they do not have majority support! The fourth time has not been voted down yet, although the govt seem to be doing their best to antagonise the swing MPs - again if they focussed on winning winnable votes in parliament rather than playing to the social media and brexit press galleries they would get it done quite quickly.
"They have been rejected as they do not have majority support" is a statement of the bleeding obvious. But the reason they didn't have majority support is because the various MPs were more interested in playing politics or stopping Brexit than they were in actually doing what they were elected to do.
I have no idea why you seem to exclude the government from your analysis when they set both the agenda and tone of enacting what they are elected to do.
Because they were the ones putting forward viable Deals which had been agreed with the EU.
I’m frankly amazed that the media still don’t understand what happened on Saturday .
The amended motion was no longer a MV.
What they perhaps could have done is back the amended motion and put it to a division so the narrative would have been a huge majority in favour, but that wouldn't have suited the parliament v people rhetoric they are going for.
They did back the amended motion ! It was passed through by AYE on the nod.
I don't understand this? They did contest the Letwin amendment. What else should they have contested?
Indeed. The government did win the motion as it passed on a voice vote. It's just that the motion was amended to no longer do what the government needed it to do.
The DUP are going to implode at the admission by Barclay regarding customs declarations.
This is not what was implied by Johnson, if you need to fill in declarations then you’re no longer in the same customs territory.
What a surprise, the pathological liar has lied again !
They were not lying. They did not realise. They do not actually know what it is they have signed up to. If that is not the definitive argument for detailed scrutiny of the the agreement and the legislaiton I do not know what is.
I don't understand this? They did contest the Letwin amendment. What else should they have contested?
Indeed. The government did win the motion as it passed on a voice vote. It's just that the motion was amended to no longer do what the government needed it to do.
It was a major strategic mistake. Now the votes take place in the wrong order from their perspective.
How do they contest the vote on Saturday though - Shout "Noe" to the amended motion !?
Yes, they could have, which would have brought it to a division. But once the Letwin amendment passed, they were in a lose/lose situation. They could vote down the substantive motion or vote for it in a form that no longer did what they needed it to do, so they just let it pass unopposed on the voice vote.
No 10. 'Disappointed Speaker denied chance to deliver on the will of the people'
Tomorrows headlines writ large
Cummings is a genuius but I want him gone asap
Just out of interest BigG, do you recieve a newspaper? If you do which one? The reason i ask is purely academic as political socialisation is an interesting topic.
Barclay has impressed me since he`s joined the cabinet - anyone see him as a possible futiure Tory leader?
He’s impressed me too. He’s serving two distinct leaders calmly and stoutly. Not one to ramp or rave or be rude, so when he speaks we listen.
I doubt he will make leader but could certainly imagine him as a chancellor or home secretary at some point. Given his obscurity when taking over, and the inevitable difficulties of his role, he has done well, particularly within the HoC.
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes, we would. Next.
We would have had a majority Conservative government with Eurosceptic contenders vying to take over from David Cameron. The idea they would ignore the majority of their own electorate is totally implausible.
Given that Conservative majority included a whole bunch of MPs committed to EU membership you are wrong. Any attempt to see them try and revive a referendum would have seen the VONC within days.
Who do you think would have taken over from Cameron and how do you think they would have campaigned to win over the Tory selectorate?
No one would have taken over from Cameron. He campaigned on staying in the EU and would have won his referendum. There would have been no reason for him to be replaced. He would have been able to say he had given the country the voice he promised and they had backed him.
When even such committed Eurosceptics as me would have accepted that, for all we would have hated it, there is no chance at all there would have been any viable support for a second referendum. And quite rightly as well.
This view is completely divorced from the reality of Tory party politics. He had already pre-resigned and the manner in which he conducted the referendum meant he would have been forced out in short order anyway.
Of course he had not pre-resigned. He had even said he would stay on if he lost - and then went back on his word. The earliest he would have been looking at resigning would probably have been around now ready for the 2020 election. It is you who are rewriting history here.
For the sake of argument, let's say he stayed on until now. Do you really think that talk of a second referendum wouldn't figure in the contest to replace him?
If we were in the opposite scenario to now, hundreds of MPs wasting parliamentary time doing nothing but trying to get a second referendum would have been elected on a pro EU manifesto, giving pledges to accept the 2016 vote
For the sake of argument, let's say he stayed on until now. Do you really think that talk of a second referendum wouldn't figure in the contest to replace him?
Who knows. What is clear is that without a GE there is no way Parliament itself would in any way be considering a second referendum. Making people vote again when you don't like the result is a Remainer disease.
The Brexit Secretary has today demonstrated that he does not understand key provisions of the withdrawal agreement. Given that, it is clearly in the best interests of the country (and the Brexit secretary personally) that it gets detailed scrutiny. If that means leaving slightly later than 31st October, so be it.
The public inquiry on all this is going to be something else.
I don't understand this? They did contest the Letwin amendment. What else should they have contested?
Indeed. The government did win the motion as it passed on a voice vote. It's just that the motion was amended to no longer do what the government needed it to do.
So it counts as MV3 the next is 4?
I guess. The problem is that the meaningful vote motion in terms of the EUWA was debated on Saturday, and so cannot be debated again this session. But the motion was amended to a form that no longer satisfied the requirements of the EUWA. I guess the way out is for the government to use the WAIB to amend the EUWA to remove the MV requirement or designate the third reading of the WAIB in the Commons as satisfying the MV requirement.
It's a good job the British constitution does not prohibit retrospective legislation!
I don't understand this? They did contest the Letwin amendment. What else should they have contested?
Indeed. The government did win the motion as it passed on a voice vote. It's just that the motion was amended to no longer do what the government needed it to do.
Big_G_NorthWales said: "Just demonstrates how complex a referendum is and to be honest nobody seems to want to discuss the practicalities and no doubt haven't even thought it through themselves"
Kyle is on Radio 4 sounding confident about having the majority for a confirmatory referendum.
What would happen if the commons voted for a referendum? This would take something like 5 months to happen. Is it likely that EU would grant an extention to February in the knowledge that this would rule out a referendum?
He is talking nonsense and of course this HOC would fillibuster it all the way to oblivion and the EU would deliver the coup d'etat
And 5 months is the campaign period so in practical terms better part of a year
For the sake of argument, let's say he stayed on until now. Do you really think that talk of a second referendum wouldn't figure in the contest to replace him?
Who knows. What is clear is that without a GE there is no way Parliament itself would in any way be considering a second referendum. Making people vote again when you don't like the result is a Remainer disease.
A referendum commitment would have been highly likely to be in the Tory 2020 manifesto, with Farage breathing down their neck about "unfinished business".
For the sake of argument, let's say he stayed on until now. Do you really think that talk of a second referendum wouldn't figure in the contest to replace him?
Who knows. What is clear is that without a GE there is no way Parliament itself would in any way be considering a second referendum. Making people vote again when you don't like the result is a Remainer disease.
What on earth was the government trying to do today then if not a losers revote?
The next thing I expect to happen is Labour making big hookah about Governments changes to PD they will try and use to be build an alliance.
I know Mays PD has been changed by Boris, exactly what the beef is on the labour benches needs to be spelt out to me. Could some of our Labour friends Who post here explain what Labour’s problem is with the changes Boris made to PD and why it is such an issue?
I believe Labour are concerned because workers rights in Johnson deal are moved from the withdrawal agreement to the political declaration. So if the deal is passed these rights could be eroded. Any Labour MP not fighting for workers rights, is in the wrong party.
On the other hand though, perhaps I’m over thinking it, if they are not quickly taking back control, of that, kicking the taking control of that into the future, there’s no immediate reason for the Labour benches to get agitated about it?
If Remain had won in 2016 (Might as well have done for the difference it has made), then at the next GE UKIP were the only party still backing Leave, and had got 7% of the vote, would we be discussing a second referendum if they were now on 20%, and Leave ahead in hypothetical polls ?
Yes. Because the Express, Mail, Spectator and the ERG would have ensured we did.
And Parliament would have ignored them.
Parliament has largely ignored second referendum calls. There is not a majority for it.
Things that have a majority in parliament get an easier ride than those that dont! Our party leaders, especially on the tory side have forgotten how to count. That is the root cause of the problem. We have a divided nation and parliament, but a govt that refuses to recognise this blindingly obvious fact.
We have had two Governments who have put forward Deals a total of 4 times. But Parliament has failed to support them all 4 times using any number of ridiculous excuses. I assume at some point they will be rejecting the Deal because they don't like the font it is written in.
They have been rejected as they do not have majority support! The fourth time has not been voted down yet, although the govt seem to be doing their best to antagonise the swing MPs - again if they focussed on winning winnable votes in parliament rather than playing to the social media and brexit press galleries they would get it done quite quickly.
"They have been rejected as they do not have majority support" is a statement of the bleeding obvious. But the reason they didn't have majority support is because the various MPs were more interested in playing politics or stopping Brexit than they were in actually doing what they were elected to do.
I have no idea why you seem to exclude the government from your analysis when they set both the agenda and tone of enacting what they are elected to do.
Because they were the ones putting forward viable Deals which had been agreed with the EU.
Viable = winnable in parliament!
Not when Parliament considers that no deal should be allowed to pass. Viable means something that both sides of the negotiation are willing to accept. By your definition there is no viable way forward in any direction as Parliament will not agree anything.
It's a busy news day, but it's important to note that new abortion laws and gay marriage are being imposed on Northern Ireland tonight by Westminster. While I'm all in favour of both, it's hardly going to improve the mood of the DUP when dealing with what they no doubt regard as a treacherous government.
The interesting question is why did the government propose another vote?
It would have known that it was not in order. It’s just another cynical attempt by the government to increase the divisions, return to an atmosphere of hostility and feed the mob.
More to the point even if Bercow had ruled it in order, why on earth did they think it would not be amended in exactly the same way again this time - with the additional annoyance of having wasted yet more time on it and probably lost a few more votes for bills and amendments further down the line.
Is it possible they didn't realise that a yes vote would enable Johnson to withdraw his letter? Or that they thought enough MPs didn't realise that?
I don't know Chris. As I said the other day this has all got so convoluted I have no idea what the implications are of any of these actions at the moment. The fact that even the journalists who are supposed to make a living out of explaining this stuff to us seemed to be unclear about whether the MV passed or not kind of shows how daft it has all become.
They should just get on and debate the WAIB. Make some bloody decisions.
According to the BBC, the bill is being published in about an hour's time. As far as I know, the second reading is still scheduled for tomorrow.
What the point of today's hoo-hah was, I'm not sure.
I think a lot of it (not just today) is unproductively chewing up opponent's time at little cost to the government
Big_G_NorthWales said: "Just demonstrates how complex a referendum is and to be honest nobody seems to want to discuss the practicalities and no doubt haven't even thought it through themselves"
Kyle is on Radio 4 sounding confident about having the majority for a confirmatory referendum.
What would happen if the commons voted for a referendum? This would take something like 5 months to happen. Is it likely that EU would grant an extention to February in the knowledge that this would rule out a referendum?
He is talking nonsense and of course this HOC would fillibuster it all the way to oblivion and the EU would deliver the coup d'etat
And 5 months is the campaign period so in practical terms better part of a year
It's not. A referendum can be called in 6 months (22 weeks is the minimum time from memory).
For the sake of argument, let's say he stayed on until now. Do you really think that talk of a second referendum wouldn't figure in the contest to replace him?
Who knows. What is clear is that without a GE there is no way Parliament itself would in any way be considering a second referendum. Making people vote again when you don't like the result is a Remainer disease.
What on earth was the government trying to do today then if not a losers revote?
Strictly speaking they won the vote. The motion was passed. If anything it was a winners revote.
But joking aside that is immaterial given I think they were stupid whatever they were trying to do today. Maybe Remainer disease is catching.
Comments
So Sturgeon should simply be able to lay a bill before the Scottish Parliament outwith any referendum if she's granted the Section 30.
Pass the MV today, Benn letter withdrawn, then WAIB perhaps fails or is delayed, we No Deal on 31 Oct.
It doesn't matter if you think that in reality this is paranoia and/or filibustering, the point is if the MV came again today, so would the same amendment - for the same reasons - ergo a guaranteed repeat of Saturday.
As Bercow said - repetitive and disorderly.
He is clearly right on this occasion. It's logic and logic is free of bias.
Furthermore, any attempt at missing no deal off the ballot would see Farage and others in the Supreme Court faster than Gina Miller
For these reasons I just do not see it happening
Of course, in reality there would have been swathes of MPs elected on a Leave mandate, but that isn't what happened in 2017 for Remain.
What the point of today's hoo-hah was, I'm not sure.
When even such committed Eurosceptics as me would have accepted that, for all we would have hated it, there is no chance at all there would have been any viable support for a second referendum. And quite rightly as well.
Tweet from Tom Newton Dunn
I withdraw (some of) my remarks about the DUP, I don't blame them for going tonto over this,
I’m not sure though of the legalities and technicalities of this.
(1)Section 20 does not apply to a treaty if a Minister of the Crown is of the opinion that, exceptionally, the treaty should be ratified without the requirements of that section having been met.
It just requires a confirmatory vote.
This is not what was implied by Johnson, if you need to fill in declarations then you’re no longer in the same customs territory.
What a surprise, the pathological liar has lied again !
The amended motion was no longer a MV.
"Just demonstrates how complex a referendum is and to be honest nobody seems to want to discuss the practicalities and no doubt haven't even thought it through themselves"
Kyle is on Radio 4 sounding confident about having the majority for a confirmatory referendum.
What would happen if the commons voted for a referendum? This would take something like 5 months to happen. Is it likely that EU would grant an extention to February in the knowledge that this would rule out a referendum?
The motion itself when it was on the order paper was a MV.
Today’s is a MV.
The key is the original motion itself. Not what happened to it after the amendments.
No 10. 'Disappointed Speaker denied chance to deliver on the will of the people'
Tomorrows headlines writ large
Cummings is a genuius but I want him gone asap
He has improved and benefitted by being in the spotlight
He didn’t even know what he had agreed re the Northern Irish protocol.
They could have shouted "NO" and caused a division.
It's a good job the British constitution does not prohibit retrospective legislation!
And 5 months is the campaign period so in practical terms better part of a year
So we could hold it just after Easter.
But joking aside that is immaterial given I think they were stupid whatever they were trying to do today. Maybe Remainer disease is catching.