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".
It might have been but what we were discussing was the original point that Parliament would not have spent the last 3 years trying to overturn the referendum result which is what in reality it has been trying to do.
And many of us would not have agreed with reopening the question. Unlike the current bunch of fuckwits in Parliament we have principles.
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
It's chewing up Johnson's time too as we approach 31st October.
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.
No
I do get daily mail on line mainly as my wife loves the puzzles but I rarely read it at any length
Being retired, and in the heart of this crisis, I have Sky news on most of the day sometimes switching to the BBC and on occasions Euro News
I read on line the guardian, guido, and the express but also follow political journalists of all persuasions on twitter, though I do not contribute to twitter myself
I do try to assimilate all the information coming at me and of course I have a bias to a deal but equally I do try to be contructive in my criticism apart from on Corbyn who I just cannot stand at all
eek said "It's not. A referendum can be called in 6 months (22 weeks is the minimum time from memory). So we could hold it just after Easter."
Yes - but the point I was making is that I cannot see the EU granting an extension (if they do) that provides insufficient window to have a referendum but sufficient window to have a GE. This would be meddling somewhat??
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 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.
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).
So we could hold it just after Easter.
In this parliament it has no chance of going through. It can be called in six months but for that you need a government fully committed to passing it
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).
So we could hold it just after Easter.
Am I right in saying that a new referendum would need primary legislation and that it would be a money bill? So given HMG don't want one, you'd need a GE first to get a minister to move 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.
.
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.
But that is entirely your assumption based on them rejecting two deals that parliament was allowed no say in negotiating, nor were the opposition parties or devolved parliaments. Rejecting two deals does not mean that none were viable. A different approach would have got to a viable deal far more quickly.
And I still think the current deal will be passed by parliament, despite the ongoing bizarre best efforts of the govt to lose swing MPs. The approach of Johnson has been more effective than May, but both have been pathetic attempts at leading the nation.
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.
Establishing an internal frontier between two parts of the same country is not making a mountain out of a molehill. And if you have to do It every single day...
We do not need an economic impact assessment. We broadly know what it would be, and that brexiteers will say it is pessimistic. It will not further the debate one iota.
I am sure there are other parts of the bill where scrutiny would be far more beneficial, particularly how the future relationship is going to be agreed.
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".
It might have been but what we were discussing was the original point that Parliament would not have spent the last 3 years trying to overturn the referendum result which is what in reality it has been trying to do.
And many of us would not have agreed with reopening the question. Unlike the current bunch of fuckwits in Parliament we have principles.
No, the original question was "would we be discussing a second referendum?" It seems you now are now conceding that we would be.
**Narrator** "Six months later, they were on MV8 and Letwin/Griever were negotiating their latest wrecking amendment with Leader of the Opposition John Bercow."
**Narrator** "Six months later, they were on MV8 and Letwin/Griever were negotiating their latest wrecking amendment with Leader of the Opposition John Bercow."
Peter Altmaier, a key ally of the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, said he believed either a technical extension to allow extra time for legislation to pass, or a longer period to accommodate a general election or second referendum would be offered.
“We have already twice agreed to an extension. I have repeatedly said as my own opinion I am not ideologically opposed to extending again a few days or a few weeks if you then certainly get a good solution that excludes a hard Brexit,” Altmaier said.
”If the British are to opt for one of the longer-term options, that is new elections or a new referendum, then it goes without saying that the European Union should do it, for me anyway.”...
I do not think this is in doubt. The EU will grant an extension. It will be either a short one to get the Deal through, a medium one for a GE, or a long one for Ref2. Those ranked in decreasing order of likelihood.
Spot on. When it comes to who will give ground for sake of unity the money is on the 'dont want an extension' crowd.
Nigel has been one of the most influential politicians of our generation if not the most. Some of the things he has fronted have been disgustingly racist (eg. *that* poster) but (huge but) if the country honours its major politicians then it is not impossible that he should be considered for one such.
**Narrator** "Six months later, they were on MV8 and Letwin/Griever were negotiating their latest wrecking amendment with Leader of the Opposition John Bercow."
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.
No
I do get daily mail on line mainly as my wife loves the puzzles but I rarely read it at any length
Being retired, and in the heart of this crisis, I have Sky news on most of the day sometimes switching to the BBC and on occasions Euro News
I read on line the guardian, guido, and the express but also follow political journalists of all persuasions on twitter, though I do not contribute to twitter myself
I do try to assimilate all the information coming at me and of course I have a bias to a deal but equally I do try to be contructive in my criticism apart from on Corbyn who I just cannot stand at all
Thanks BigG, I always find your input interesting! I look at many differet sources myself. I take it as sceptically as you might as well!
Not going to happen, and they probably expect that to fail, it's an opening gambit. As there won't be any Letwin voters uncomfortable with such haste, when the main point (besides embarrassing Johnson) was to ensure time to scrutinise the bill.
Yes a lot of it will just be wrecking amendments, and some expediting is not unreasonable, but this ain't gonna fly.
"For the purposes of this Agreement a customs territory shall be understood to mean any territory with respect to which separate tariffs or other regulations of commerce are maintained for a substantial part of the trade of such territory with other territories."
Article XXIV, Para. 2 "For the purposes of this Agreement a customs territory shall be understood to mean any territory with respect to which separate tariffs or other regulations of commerce are maintained for a substantial part of the trade of such territory with other territories."
**Narrator** "Six months later, they were on MV8 and Letwin/Griever were negotiating their latest wrecking amendment with Leader of the Opposition John Bercow."
The aim is clearly to limit the chance anyone gets to read, understand and grasp the nasties within the bill.
Three days? Three days?!
You get fourteen to think about a mobile phone contract.
They have discussed the principles for years bar a few new details, they probably don't need that much time to go over legislative detail. But it is taking the piss again.
Someone should send him a first class cricket bat as a thankyou. I said a few months ago he has played everything with a remarkably straight bat and his been true to his word at all times. He has been the Geoffrey Boycott of politics.
Article XXIV, Para. 2 "For the purposes of this Agreement a customs territory shall be understood to mean any territory with respect to which separate tariffs or other regulations of commerce are maintained for a substantial part of the trade of such territory with other territories."
**Narrator** "Six months later, they were on MV8 and Letwin/Griever were negotiating their latest wrecking amendment with Leader of the Opposition John Bercow."
The aim is clearly to limit the chance anyone gets to read, understand and grasp the nasties within the bill.
Three days? Three days?!
You get fourteen to think about a mobile phone contract.
Given the Remainers rushed through their law to take charge of Parliament - setting a precedent that will have massive far reaching implications in the future - in less than one day, they are hardly in a position to complain.
Nigel has been one of the most influential politicians of our generation if not the most. Some of the things he has fronted have been disgustingly racist (eg. *that* poster) but (huge but) if the country honours its major politicians then it is not impossible that he should be considered for one such.
An interesting thought - from the neutral point of view of historical significance. But considering how unpopular he is with Labour, Tory, LD and SNP parties and therefore almost any likely planning committee in local gmt, he'll be lucky to get a statue, or indeed anything more than a Wetherspoons pub named after him.
We’ve moved from the Opposition hoping to vote down the WA (again) to it now hoping to drag out the process as long as possible in the hope something turns up.
That suggests that they too know they’ve already lost on the MV numbers.
**Narrator** "Six months later, they were on MV8 and Letwin/Griever were negotiating their latest wrecking amendment with Leader of the Opposition John Bercow."
The aim is clearly to limit the chance anyone gets to read, understand and grasp the nasties within the bill.
Three days? Three days?!
You get fourteen to think about a mobile phone contract.
They have discussed the principles for years bar a few new details, they probably don't need that much time to go over legislative detail. But it is taking the piss again.
Agreed about general principles, but the devil of this is in the details- what has to happen to make it legally watertight. We saw a bit of an example today with the NI to GB export paperwork. What else is in there?
**Narrator** "Six months later, they were on MV8 and Letwin/Griever were negotiating their latest wrecking amendment with Leader of the Opposition John Bercow."
The aim is clearly to limit the chance anyone gets to read, understand and grasp the nasties within the bill.
Three days? Three days?!
You get fourteen to think about a mobile phone contract.
Given the Remainers rushed through their law to take charge of Parliament - setting a precedent that will have massive far reaching implications in the future - in less than one day, they are hardly in a position to complain.
Sentences with hoist and petard in to be bandied about......
Does having GATT 1947 at my fingertips make mean I need to get a life outside of this forum?
Just think how smug you will be when it comes up in a pub quiz.
My local pub has a "smart-arse" question, hidden amongst the quiz questions. Get it right and you get 5 points deducted..... You have to carefully decide which qustion not to answer....
**Narrator** "Six months later, they were on MV8 and Letwin/Griever were negotiating their latest wrecking amendment with Leader of the Opposition John Bercow."
The aim is clearly to limit the chance anyone gets to read, understand and grasp the nasties within the bill.
Three days? Three days?!
You get fourteen to think about a mobile phone contract.
They have discussed the principles for years bar a few new details, they probably don't need that much time to go over legislative detail. But it is taking the piss again.
Agreed about general principles, but the devil of this is in the details- what has to happen to make it legally watertight. We saw a bit of an example today with the NI to GB export paperwork. What else is in there?
Which is why it is taking the piss. I'm just unclear how long would be reasonable, to know how much piss is being taken, and how much piss the opposition would be taking by stretching it out.
Please. That’s pure prevarication and filibustering.
Aside from NI the WA is meaningful the same as May’s exit Deal. We all know what the economic implications are and going over it (again) isn’t going to change anyone’s mind.
Nigel has been one of the most influential politicians of our generation if not the most. Some of the things he has fronted have been disgustingly racist (eg. *that* poster) but (huge but) if the country honours its major politicians then it is not impossible that he should be considered for one such.
Does having GATT 1947 at my fingertips make mean I need to get a life outside of this forum?
Just think how smug you will be when it comes up in a pub quiz.
My local pub has a "smart-arse" question, hidden amongst the quiz questions. Get it right and you get 5 points deducted..... You have to carefully decide which qustion not to answer....
Fair outrage or not - most seem to agree the DUP have decent reason to be upset - it's their own damn fault for not being more conciliatory. Same as with the Assembly. They aren't the only ones preventing it from working, but they are a big part of it and yet get really upset when it leads to things they don't like. Because with Brexit and other things they sat back and waited for everything to be handed to them, not once considering how it could go wrong.
We’ve moved from the Opposition hoping to vote down the WA (again) to it now hoping to drag out the process as long as possible in the hope something turns up.
That suggests that they too know they’ve already lost on the MV numbers.
Do you think they have lost on the timetable numbers? I see the government timetable as a gambit they expect to lose, but do you think it is a display of strength?
We’ve moved from the Opposition hoping to vote down the WA (again) to it now hoping to drag out the process as long as possible in the hope something turns up.
That suggests that they too know they’ve already lost on the MV numbers.
Letwin will fall into line if WAIB comes before MV4 and he will I suspect be critical in getting it over the line.
It's what he said after all. His one remaining spanner would be to say that he introduced his amendment for proper scrutiny and three days is not proper scrutiny.
Fair outrage or not - most seem to agree the DUP have decent reason to be upset - it's their own damn fault for not being more conciliatory. Same as with the Assembly. They aren't the only ones preventing it from working, but they are a big part of it and yet get really upset when it leads to things they don't like. Because with Brexit and other things they sat back and waited for everything to be handed to them, not once considering how it could go wrong.
Indeed, and it’s also synthetic outrage. The details of the full Deal haven’t been agreed, nor the schedules or all the goods that will be subject to this.
FWIW I expect the UK government will agree a very simple and light-touch way of agreeing/confirming that UK only goods moving between GB and NI are really UK only goods and I expect the EU to be practical on this too.
**Narrator** "Six months later, they were on MV8 and Letwin/Griever were negotiating their latest wrecking amendment with Leader of the Opposition John Bercow."
The aim is clearly to limit the chance anyone gets to read, understand and grasp the nasties within the bill.
Three days? Three days?!
You get fourteen to think about a mobile phone contract.
Given the Remainers rushed through their law to take charge of Parliament - setting a precedent that will have massive far reaching implications in the future - in less than one day, they are hardly in a position to complain.
We now know that a second referendum can be achieved quickly.
Nigel has been one of the most influential politicians of our generation if not the most. Some of the things he has fronted have been disgustingly racist (eg. *that* poster) but (huge but) if the country honours its major politicians then it is not impossible that he should be considered for one such.
I hate to say it, but I agree with you.
Hate that I've said something you agree with or hate that Nige might deserve an honour?
We’ve moved from the Opposition hoping to vote down the WA (again) to it now hoping to drag out the process as long as possible in the hope something turns up.
That suggests that they too know they’ve already lost on the MV numbers.
Letwin will fall into line if WAIB comes before MV4 and he will I suspect be critical in getting it over the line.
It's what he said after all. His one remaining spanner would be to say that he introduced his amendment for proper scrutiny and three days is not proper scrutiny.
Yes, that’s possible.
I think the real scrutiny will come over the full FTA. It’s right and proper that a GE tests all parties plans for that.
Perhaps Labour should say to their MPs who want to agree the deal . Fair enough , there will be no disciplinary action but you must vote against the Programme motion .
We’ve moved from the Opposition hoping to vote down the WA (again) to it now hoping to drag out the process as long as possible in the hope something turns up.
That suggests that they too know they’ve already lost on the MV numbers.
Do you think they have lost on the timetable numbers? I see the government timetable as a gambit they expect to lose, but do you think it is a display of strength?
No, the Government could lost on the timetable numbers.
I think they should be ok on the main MV. The CU amendment will be closer but they should just carry it (if only because some MPs will be keeping their powder dry for the full FTA and don’t want to be seen to be scuppering Brexit period).
**Narrator** "Six months later, they were on MV8 and Letwin/Griever were negotiating their latest wrecking amendment with Leader of the Opposition John Bercow."
The aim is clearly to limit the chance anyone gets to read, understand and grasp the nasties within the bill.
Three days? Three days?!
You get fourteen to think about a mobile phone contract.
They have discussed the principles for years bar a few new details, they probably don't need that much time to go over legislative detail. But it is taking the piss again.
Agreed about general principles, but the devil of this is in the details- what has to happen to make it legally watertight. We saw a bit of an example today with the NI to GB export paperwork. What else is in there?
Which is why it is taking the piss. I'm just unclear how long would be reasonable, to know how much piss is being taken, and how much piss the opposition would be taking by stretching it out.
Nigel has been one of the most influential politicians of our generation if not the most. Some of the things he has fronted have been disgustingly racist (eg. *that* poster) but (huge but) if the country honours its major politicians then it is not impossible that he should be considered for one such.
I hate to say it, but I agree with you.
Hate that I've said something you agree with or hate that Nige might deserve an honour?
The latter. I think you and I agree on more than perhaps we give each other credit for!
Does having GATT 1947 at my fingertips make mean I need to get a life outside of this forum?
Just think how smug you will be when it comes up in a pub quiz.
My local pub has a "smart-arse" question, hidden amongst the quiz questions. Get it right and you get 5 points deducted..... You have to carefully decide which qustion not to answer....
Hah, that's brilliant!
It's an outrage! It'd cause riots among those I quiz with.
**Narrator** "Six months later, they were on MV8 and Letwin/Griever were negotiating their latest wrecking amendment with Leader of the Opposition John Bercow."
The aim is clearly to limit the chance anyone gets to read, understand and grasp the nasties within the bill.
Three days? Three days?!
You get fourteen to think about a mobile phone contract.
Given the Remainers rushed through their law to take charge of Parliament - setting a precedent that will have massive far reaching implications in the future - in less than one day, they are hardly in a position to complain.
Whilst it will be argued that there was more justification for it in the circumstances and not as complex, conceding the principle that scrutiny can be dispensed with even on matters of great significance was a move that could always be turned around on its proponents (yes such speed has happened before on rare occasions, I know).
At the very least while I too think the government is taking the piss suggesting it can reasonably be done this week, the principle of rushing things is not in itself outrageous according to their opponents.
**Narrator** "Six months later, they were on MV8 and Letwin/Griever were negotiating their latest wrecking amendment with Leader of the Opposition John Bercow."
The aim is clearly to limit the chance anyone gets to read, understand and grasp the nasties within the bill.
Three days? Three days?!
You get fourteen to think about a mobile phone contract.
They have discussed the principles for years bar a few new details, they probably don't need that much time to go over legislative detail. But it is taking the piss again.
Agreed about general principles, but the devil of this is in the details- what has to happen to make it legally watertight. We saw a bit of an example today with the NI to GB export paperwork. What else is in there?
Which is why it is taking the piss. I'm just unclear how long would be reasonable, to know how much piss is being taken, and how much piss the opposition would be taking by stretching it out.
Nigel has been one of the most influential politicians of our generation if not the most. Some of the things he has fronted have been disgustingly racist (eg. *that* poster) but (huge but) if the country honours its major politicians then it is not impossible that he should be considered for one such.
I hate to say it, but I agree with you.
Hate that I've said something you agree with or hate that Nige might deserve an honour?
The latter. I think you and I agree on more than perhaps we give each other credit for!
**Narrator** "Six months later, they were on MV8 and Letwin/Griever were negotiating their latest wrecking amendment with Leader of the Opposition John Bercow."
The aim is clearly to limit the chance anyone gets to read, understand and grasp the nasties within the bill.
Three days? Three days?!
You get fourteen to think about a mobile phone contract.
They have discussed the principles for years bar a few new details, they probably don't need that much time to go over legislative detail. But it is taking the piss again.
Agreed about general principles, but the devil of this is in the details- what has to happen to make it legally watertight. We saw a bit of an example today with the NI to GB export paperwork. What else is in there?
Which is why it is taking the piss. I'm just unclear how long would be reasonable, to know how much piss is being taken, and how much piss the opposition would be taking by stretching it out.
The days, but not over the months - that would demonstrate that the Letwin amendment was being used purely to delay passage, not scrutinise. 24/7 sittings to see it through, and 4 weeks total - a compromise.
We’ve moved from the Opposition hoping to vote down the WA (again) to it now hoping to drag out the process as long as possible in the hope something turns up.
That suggests that they too know they’ve already lost on the MV numbers.
Do you think they have lost on the timetable numbers? I see the government timetable as a gambit they expect to lose, but do you think it is a display of strength?
No, the Government could lost on the timetable numbers.
I think they should be ok on the main MV. The CU amendment will be closer but they should just carry it (if only because some MPs will be keeping their powder dry for the full FTA and don’t want to be seen to be scuppering Brexit period).
In which case what will be the effect of losing the timetable - the opposition is playing for time, so how much do we think they will be able to get?
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.
Yebbut the DUP want NI to be treated just like the rest of the UK so it surely can't be a problem, surely ...?
**Narrator** "Six months later, they were on MV8 and Letwin/Griever were negotiating their latest wrecking amendment with Leader of the Opposition John Bercow."
The aim is clearly to limit the chance anyone gets to read, understand and grasp the nasties within the bill.
Three days? Three days?!
You get fourteen to think about a mobile phone contract.
They have discussed the principles for years bar a few new details, they probably don't need that much time to go over legislative detail. But it is taking the piss again.
Agreed about general principles, but the devil of this is in the details- what has to happen to make it legally watertight. We saw a bit of an example today with the NI to GB export paperwork. What else is in there?
Which is why it is taking the piss. I'm just unclear how long would be reasonable, to know how much piss is being taken, and how much piss the opposition would be taking by stretching it out.
We’ve moved from the Opposition hoping to vote down the WA (again) to it now hoping to drag out the process as long as possible in the hope something turns up.
That suggests that they too know they’ve already lost on the MV numbers.
Do you think they have lost on the timetable numbers? I see the government timetable as a gambit they expect to lose, but do you think it is a display of strength?
No, the Government could lost on the timetable numbers.
I think they should be ok on the main MV. The CU amendment will be closer but they should just carry it (if only because some MPs will be keeping their powder dry for the full FTA and don’t want to be seen to be scuppering Brexit period).
In which case what will be the effect of losing the timetable - the opposition is playing for time, so how much do we think they will be able to get?
Probably a week or two, maybe just a few extra days.
Trying to compare the Benn Act with the WAIB is ridiculous.
The Benn Act was one page . The WAIB is 96 pages long with a host of additional material .
That's what happens when 3 and a half years are spent playing games. MPs can refuse the programme motion and take their time but if the EU refuse an extension they will have enabled no deal. Parliament has brought this on itself.
Trying to compare the Benn Act with the WAIB is ridiculous.
The Benn Act was one page . The WAIB is 96 pages long with a host of additional material .
Which means it is not reasonable to dismiss the outrage over the rush as if they are one and the same, because they are not, but it does mean that it is stated as ok to ignore scrutiny and procedure to do something very important, to some degree at least (as Benn was not flawless). Would 2 weeks take the piss? 3? Parliament would want it to be 150 if they could.
Nigel has been one of the most influential politicians of our generation if not the most. Some of the things he has fronted have been disgustingly racist (eg. *that* poster) but (huge but) if the country honours its major politicians then it is not impossible that he should be considered for one such.
I don't think there is any basis at all for honouring a politician who campaigns on the basis of disgustingly racist posters. That is to debase what "honour" means.
**Narrator** "Six months later, they were on MV8 and Letwin/Griever were negotiating their latest wrecking amendment with Leader of the Opposition John Bercow."
The aim is clearly to limit the chance anyone gets to read, understand and grasp the nasties within the bill.
Three days? Three days?!
You get fourteen to think about a mobile phone contract.
They have discussed the principles for years bar a few new details, they probably don't need that much time to go over legislative detail. But it is taking the piss again.
Agreed about general principles, but the devil of this is in the details- what has to happen to make it legally watertight. We saw a bit of an example today with the NI to GB export paperwork. What else is in there?
Which is why it is taking the piss. I'm just unclear how long would be reasonable, to know how much piss is being taken, and how much piss the opposition would be taking by stretching it out.
Comments
And many of us would not have agreed with reopening the question. Unlike the current bunch of fuckwits in Parliament we have principles.
Nigel has more chance.
I do get daily mail on line mainly as my wife loves the puzzles but I rarely read it at any length
Being retired, and in the heart of this crisis, I have Sky news on most of the day sometimes switching to the BBC and on occasions Euro News
I read on line the guardian, guido, and the express but also follow political journalists of all persuasions on twitter, though I do not contribute to twitter myself
I do try to assimilate all the information coming at me and of course I have a bias to a deal but equally I do try to be contructive in my criticism apart from on Corbyn who I just cannot stand at all
Yes - but the point I was making is that I cannot see the EU granting an extension (if they do) that provides insufficient window to have a referendum but sufficient window to have a GE. This would be meddling somewhat??
All of the folk I know who voted for Brexit cite reasons other than economic - i.e. emotional reasons which speak to identity.
And I still think the current deal will be passed by parliament, despite the ongoing bizarre best efforts of the govt to lose swing MPs. The approach of Johnson has been more effective than May, but both have been pathetic attempts at leading the nation.
One (at 21) is for Sainz, Leclerc, Russell, and Verstappen to each win an F1 title by 2035.
Another is for Verstappen and Leclerc to win at least 2 each by the same year (11).
The latter is better value but the long time frame (perfect result is four years in the future) means there'll be plenty more value along the way.
I am sure there are other parts of the bill where scrutiny would be far more beneficial, particularly how the future relationship is going to be agreed.
It is a whopping admission though. More grist to those who said deal would unravel if they could filibuster and avoid a quick vote.
And the chancellors comment as well.
You get fourteen to think about a mobile phone contract.
Yes a lot of it will just be wrecking amendments, and some expediting is not unreasonable, but this ain't gonna fly.
understood to mean any territory with respect to which separate tariffs or
other regulations of commerce are maintained for a substantial part of the
trade of such territory with other territories."
https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt47_02_e.htm
We’ve moved from the Opposition hoping to vote down the WA (again) to it now hoping to drag out the process as long as possible in the hope something turns up.
That suggests that they too know they’ve already lost on the MV numbers.
Aside from NI the WA is meaningful the same as May’s exit Deal. We all know what the economic implications are and going over it (again) isn’t going to change anyone’s mind.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/21/uk-firm-highview-power-announces-plans-for-first-liquid-to-gas-cryogenic-battery
They’ve calculated this is all over.
It's what he said after all. His one remaining spanner would be to say that he introduced his amendment for proper scrutiny and three days is not proper scrutiny.
FWIW I expect the UK government will agree a very simple and light-touch way of agreeing/confirming that UK only goods moving between GB and NI are really UK only goods and I expect the EU to be practical on this too.
I think the real scrutiny will come over the full FTA. It’s right and proper that a GE tests all parties plans for that.
I think they should be ok on the main MV. The CU amendment will be closer but they should just carry it (if only because some MPs will be keeping their powder dry for the full FTA and don’t want to be seen to be scuppering Brexit period).
It's like one of those asinine garden makeover shows.
https://twitter.com/mattuthompson/status/1186326546417672195?s=19
I also like the scheme to drop 12,000 tonne weights down mine shafts to drive turbines. More cost effective than lithium batteries.
Lots of creativity.
At the very least while I too think the government is taking the piss suggesting it can reasonably be done this week, the principle of rushing things is not in itself outrageous according to their opponents.
Yeah, Charlie Dimmock will sort it.
The Benn Act was one page . The WAIB is 96 pages long with a host of additional material .
Brilliant.
Not much more than that.
MPs can refuse the programme motion and take their time but if the EU refuse an extension they will have enabled no deal. Parliament has brought this on itself.
https://twitter.com/markfrancois12?lang=en
Admittedly this new NI “rider” is 16 pages, with another 30 or so with schedules and annexes but this has been debated and reviewed to death.
No-one is buying these arguments anymore. A few days is plenty.
IMO.
Sensible?