politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This looks like a spectacular bust up between the SNP and the
Comments
-
I meant to reply to your posting on this vein last night (I think it was). I thought your programme is very good and certainly a good destination (as far as I am concerned). I would still probably prefer an EEA Brexit as it is simpler but if not then an EFTA Brexit which can be modified to suit the bilateral needs of ourselves and the EU does seem to me to be a good alternative.stodge said:
I stated on here before the referendum my preference was for the UK to rejoin EFTA and seek to re-invigorate that organisation as a counterbalance to the EU.MaxPB said:Switzerland isn't on the EEA, it's in EFTA.
The Swiss have a network of bilateral arrangements with the EU and I've always thought we could have something similar.
Instead of making trite observations how about engaging in some debate for a change - would you support a Swiss-style arrangement for the UK (in EFFA, outside the EEA and with bespoke bilateral deals with the EU) ?0 -
So I have heard. He got money for it though, as the BBC report he agreed to pay it back.Charles said:.
He never claimed expenses for the moat...kle4 said:
Moat man Hogg to grow up? Sounds unlikely.Charles said:
FFS Douglas! Grow up!Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960Philip_Thompson said:After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?
If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.
(Edit: Sarah is close to Major, so I suspect Douglas is just doing what he’s told. As usual
)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8051027.stm
Conservative MP Douglas Hogg has agreed to repay £2,200 - the cost of clearing his moat at his country estate
Best case scenario from that story he is really stupid and couldn't handle his paperwork
Mr Hogg maintained he had not claimed the money but agreed it had not been "positively excluded" from paperwork submitted to the Commons fees office
Weasel words if ever there was. Particularly as his overall defence was the same childish 'It was within the rules'.0 -
MarqueeMark said:
So the Lords is reduced to being "mischief makers for Remain".Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960Philip_Thompson said:After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?
If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.
Remind me - what precisely is the case for not abolishing them?
Two unhinged Leavers complaining that the House of Lords might seek to ensure that the House of Commons gets the chance to consider amendments previously dropped because the Prime Minister appears to have been deceptive. No doubt this makes sense in their befuddled peabrains.Elliot said:
May just needs to stack the Lords already. They are completely vandalising our constitution. The government was elected on a manifesto of CU and SM exit.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960Philip_Thompson said:After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?
If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.0 -
In fairness May seems to have, intentionally or not, deceived some of her MPs about what she promised them.MarqueeMark said:
So the Lords is reduced to being "mischief makers for Remain".Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960Philip_Thompson said:After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?
If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.
Remind me - what precisely is the case for not abolishing them?0 -
Nope I agree with you. I took a look. Section 3 is all about elections to the Scottish Parliament and Section 72 (4) is about statutory instruments.Alistair said:
Is he suggesting there should be a GE in Scotland?0 -
Why not make your case without the abusive comments. You are better than thatAlastairMeeks said:MarqueeMark said:
So the Lords is reduced to being "mischief makers for Remain".Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960Philip_Thompson said:After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?
If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.
Remind me - what precisely is the case for not abolishing them?
Two unhinged Leavers complaining that the House of Lords might seek to ensure that the House of Commons gets the chance to consider amendments previously dropped because the Prime Minister appears to have been deceptive. No doubt this makes sense in their befuddled peabrains.Elliot said:
May just needs to stack the Lords already. They are completely vandalising our constitution. The government was elected on a manifesto of CU and SM exit.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960Philip_Thompson said:After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?
If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.0 -
The fact that knee jerk legislation leads to bad law.MarqueeMark said:
So the Lords is reduced to being "mischief makers for Remain".Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960Philip_Thompson said:After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?
If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.
Remind me - what precisely is the case for not abolishing them?
Any proposals to change the House of Lords should be made as a result of an extensive consultation and ideally agreement between the parties. It should not be made because the Lords have upset one side or another in a debate.0 -
Monomaniac cretins deserve both barrels when they seek to upend the constitution because they find it inconvenient.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Why not make your case without the abusive comments. You are better than thatAlastairMeeks said:MarqueeMark said:
So the Lords is reduced to being "mischief makers for Remain".Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960Philip_Thompson said:After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?
If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.
Remind me - what precisely is the case for not abolishing them?
Two unhinged Leavers complaining that the House of Lords might seek to ensure that the House of Commons gets the chance to consider amendments previously dropped because the Prime Minister appears to have been deceptive. No doubt this makes sense in their befuddled peabrains.Elliot said:
May just needs to stack the Lords already. They are completely vandalising our constitution. The government was elected on a manifesto of CU and SM exit.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960Philip_Thompson said:After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?
If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.
0 -
His follow up says:Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope I agree with you. I took a look. Section 3 is all about elections to the Scottish Parliament and Section 72 (4) is about statutory instruments.Alistair said:
Is he suggesting there should be a GE in Scotland?
s.3 brings forward the next Holyrood election to May 2020. It’s not in force. s 74(4) gives @DavidMundellDCT by SI the power to bring it into force
Not sure why they would want to do that. I think the polls are saying the SNP would not have an indy supporting majority in Holyrood based on current polls, but 2020 would still be some way off and plenty of time for things to change.0 -
Well said. Reform of some kind of the Lords is definitely overdue, but sudden stacking or abolition is hardly going to be a good reaction to frustration. As of yet they've not actually done anything other than send a set of amendments to the Commons, which is part of the job.Richard_Tyndall said:
The fact that knee jerk legislation leads to bad law.MarqueeMark said:
So the Lords is reduced to being "mischief makers for Remain".Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960Philip_Thompson said:After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?
If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.
Remind me - what precisely is the case for not abolishing them?
Any proposals to change the House of Lords should be made as a result of an extensive consultation and ideally agreement between the parties. It should not be made because the Lords have upset one side or another in a debate.0 -
Thank you for the kind word, Richard.Richard_Tyndall said:
I meant to reply to your posting on this vein last night (I think it was). I thought your programme is very good and certainly a good destination (as far as I am concerned). I would still probably prefer an EEA Brexit as it is simpler but if not then an EFTA Brexit which can be modified to suit the bilateral needs of ourselves and the EU does seem to me to be a good alternative.
I don't know why this wasn't enunciated as Government policy from an early stage. I fear the EEA door has been slammed shut tonight but the EFTA door is still open and I don't understand why this Government won't consider rejoining EFTA (a Conservative Government took us in back in 1960).
I have heard the notion the Swiss got some very good deals out of the EU but do we have such little confidence in our negotiators we couldn't try for something similar ?
0 -
They have a right to their views and you have a right to oppose them but you have lost me when you resort to your unnecessary languageAlastairMeeks said:
Monomaniac cretins deserve both barrels when they seek to upend the constitution because they find it inconvenient.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Why not make your case without the abusive comments. You are better than thatAlastairMeeks said:MarqueeMark said:
So the Lords is reduced to being "mischief makers for Remain".Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960Philip_Thompson said:After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?
If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.
Remind me - what precisely is the case for not abolishing them?
Two unhinged Leavers complaining that the House of Lords might seek to ensure that the House of Commons gets the chance to consider amendments previously dropped because the Prime Minister appears to have been deceptive. No doubt this makes sense in their befuddled peabrains.Elliot said:
May just needs to stack the Lords already. They are completely vandalising our constitution. The government was elected on a manifesto of CU and SM exit.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960Philip_Thompson said:After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?
If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.0 -
The idea that a minister in London should have the right to impose an election in the Scottish Parliament when one is not needed and simply because it will undermine one party seems perverse to me.kle4 said:
His follow up says:Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope I agree with you. I took a look. Section 3 is all about elections to the Scottish Parliament and Section 72 (4) is about statutory instruments.Alistair said:
Is he suggesting there should be a GE in Scotland?
s.3 brings forward the next Holyrood election to May 2020. It’s not in force. s 74(4) gives @DavidMundellDCT by SI the power to bring it into force
Not sure why they would want to do that. I think the polls are saying the SNP would not have an indy supporting majority in Holyrood based on current polls, but 2020 would still be some way off and plenty of time for things to change.0 -
What he did was write a letter to the expenses team saying that the cost of running Kettlethorpe is way above the expenses cap and could they kindly send him the full amount by monthly standing order without him submitting any claimskle4 said:
So I have heard. He got money for it though, as the BBC report he agreed to pay it back.Charles said:.
He never claimed expenses for the moat...kle4 said:
Moat man Hogg to grow up? Sounds unlikely.Charles said:
FFS Douglas! Grow up!Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960Philip_Thompson said:After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?
If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.
(Edit: Sarah is close to Major, so I suspect Douglas is just doing what he’s told. As usual )
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8051027.stm
Conservative MP Douglas Hogg has agreed to repay £2,200 - the cost of clearing his moat at his country estate
Best case scenario from that story he is really stupid and couldn't handle his paperwork
Mr Hogg maintained he had not claimed the money but agreed it had not been "positively excluded" from paperwork submitted to the Commons fees office
Weasel words if ever there was. Particularly as his overall defence was the same childish 'It was within the rules'.
He then added a list of expenditure - including the moat - as evidence (in fact the staff costs were greater than the expenses cap).
What he did in practice was ok, but politically indefensible and lazy. He really is a blithering tone deaf idiot sometimes0 -
I can't see what the pretext could be for such an act, and when even a pretext is hard to find, it is almost certainly a bad idea no matter the partisan gain someone thinks might come from it.Richard_Tyndall said:
The idea that a minister in London should have the right to impose an election in the Scottish Parliament when one is not needed and simply because it will undermine one party seems perverse to me.kle4 said:
His follow up says:Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope I agree with you. I took a look. Section 3 is all about elections to the Scottish Parliament and Section 72 (4) is about statutory instruments.Alistair said:
Is he suggesting there should be a GE in Scotland?
s.3 brings forward the next Holyrood election to May 2020. It’s not in force. s 74(4) gives @DavidMundellDCT by SI the power to bring it into force
Not sure why they would want to do that. I think the polls are saying the SNP would not have an indy supporting majority in Holyrood based on current polls, but 2020 would still be some way off and plenty of time for things to change.0 -
There seems inherent hypocrisy in a three line whip to abstain for any reason other than thinking there is some constitutional impediment to voting on the matter in hand?
Breaking it is apparently undermining the determination to show that the party in question has made its mind up that it can't make its mind up.0 -
Well he says himself its meaningful but not life changing, which seems reasonable enough. Most people are not Brexit at any Cost supporters, they're Brexit at some Cost supporters (or believing there will be no cost, but are there still many who think there will be no cost) I suspect, though hard to judge how much cost is too much for many people.SeanT said:
10%. If this is repeated across the City (and I think it will be less, firms like MS are more exposed) it means London will lose about 30,000 jobs, out of 350,000 frontline finance sector jobs. Yes a lot of them are high paying blah blah, but it is hardly the Somme.williamglenn said:0 -
No. Antifrank was better than that.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Why not make your case without the abusive comments. You are better than thatAlastairMeeks said:MarqueeMark said:
So the Lords is reduced to being "mischief makers for Remain".Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960Philip_Thompson said:After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?
If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.
Remind me - what precisely is the case for not abolishing them?
Two unhinged Leavers complaining that the House of Lords might seek to ensure that the House of Commons gets the chance to consider amendments previously dropped because the Prime Minister appears to have been deceptive. No doubt this makes sense in their befuddled peabrains.Elliot said:
May just needs to stack the Lords already. They are completely vandalising our constitution. The government was elected on a manifesto of CU and SM exit.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960Philip_Thompson said:After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?
If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.
But he hadn't been driven absolutely mental by a referendum.0 -
Self awareness, much?AlastairMeeks said:
Monomaniac cretinsBig_G_NorthWales said:
Why not make your case without the abusive comments. You are better than thatAlastairMeeks said:MarqueeMark said:
So the Lords is reduced to being "mischief makers for Remain".Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960Philip_Thompson said:After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?
If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.
Remind me - what precisely is the case for not abolishing them?
Two unhinged Leavers complaining that the House of Lords might seek to ensure that the House of Commons gets the chance to consider amendments previously dropped because the Prime Minister appears to have been deceptive. No doubt this makes sense in their befuddled peabrains.Elliot said:
May just needs to stack the Lords already. They are completely vandalising our constitution. The government was elected on a manifesto of CU and SM exit.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960Philip_Thompson said:After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?
If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.0 -
Channeling your "Inner Malc" there Alastair?AlastairMeeks said:
Monomaniac cretins deserve both barrels
0 -
So says our tame Conservative PB expert on everything to do with the Lib Dems and Labour.HYUFD said:
I can certainly see a lot of Labour Remain voters in the more middle class areas of the seat like Blackheath switching to the LDs to protest Corbyn's failure to support staying in the EEA but the more working class Leave areas of the seat will likely stay Laboursteve_garner said:Is it too late for Labour's shambles today to lead to a Lib Dem surge tomorrow in Lewisham?
Stand by for some elderly Tories crying in their milk tomorrow. I have the impression that something wonderful is happening in Lewisham.0 -
An amusing way of putting it. I'm not generally a fan of abstentions, I feel like parties should be able to come down on side or against something, and abstaining is an easy route to avoiding blame, even when if they'd backed one side or another it could have been decisive so it is still partly their fault, for better and worse. It's always small p political of course, but somehow abstentions feel even more so than usual to me, though idon't think that makes sense in fairness.initforthemoney said:There seems inherent hypocrisy in a three line whip to abstain for any reason other than thinking there is some constitutional impediment to voting on the matter in hand?
Breaking it is apparently undermining the determination to show that the party in question has made its mind up that it can't make its mind up.0 -
If he can't afford the upkeep of his estate then he should come to an arrangement with English Heritage, the National Trust or open it up in some other manner for public enjoyment to aid with the costs.Charles said:
What he did was write a letter to the expenses team saying that the cost of running Kettlethorpe is way above the expenses cap and could they kindly send him the full amount by monthly standing order without him submitting any claimskle4 said:
So I have heard. He got money for it though, as the BBC report he agreed to pay it back.Charles said:.
He never claimed expenses for the moat...kle4 said:
Moat man Hogg to grow up? Sounds unlikely.Charles said:
FFS Douglas! Grow up!Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960Philip_Thompson said:After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?
If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.
(Edit: Sarah is close to Major, so I suspect Douglas is just doing what he’s told. As usual )
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8051027.stm
Conservative MP Douglas Hogg has agreed to repay £2,200 - the cost of clearing his moat at his country estate
Best case scenario from that story he is really stupid and couldn't handle his paperwork
Mr Hogg maintained he had not claimed the money but agreed it had not been "positively excluded" from paperwork submitted to the Commons fees office
Weasel words if ever there was. Particularly as his overall defence was the same childish 'It was within the rules'.
He then added a list of expenditure - including the moat - as evidence (in fact the staff costs were greater than the expenses cap).
What he did in practice was ok, but politically indefensible and lazy. He really is a blithering tone deaf idiot sometimes0 -
Your fellow travellers are so desperate to avoid scrutiny of legislation that they would abolish the House of Lords because one of its members might have sought to ensure that legislation was properly considered by the House of Commons. It’s pretty clear which side is mental.JonnyJimmy said:
No. Antifrank was better than that.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Why not make your case without the abusive comments. You are better than thatAlastairMeeks said:MarqueeMark said:
So the Lords is reduced to being "mischief makers for Remain".Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960Philip_Thompson said:After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?
If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.
Remind me - what precisely is the case for not abolishing them?
Two unhinged Leavers complaining that the House of Lords might seek to ensure that the House of Commons gets the chance to consider amendments previously dropped because the Prime Minister appears to have been deceptive. No doubt this makes sense in their befuddled peabrains.Elliot said:
May just needs to stack the Lords already. They are completely vandalising our constitution. The government was elected on a manifesto of CU and SM exit.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960Philip_Thompson said:After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?
If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.
But he hadn't been driven absolutely mental by a referendum.0 -
Today's Tesco Strawberry score is eight:
Aberdeenshire
Perthshire
Staffordshire
Norfolk
Kent
Surrey
Somerset
Herefordshire
Changes from yesterday are gains of Perthshire and Staffordshire and losses of Angus, Cambridgeshire and West Sussex.0 -
Good luck! Anything for an exciting by-election. Or at least some measure of exciting - LDs coming second is good for them of course given where they were just a year ago, but it's not what we all hope for when it comes to By-elections and excitement.PClipp said:
So says our tame Conservative PB expert on everything to do with the Lib Dems and Labour.HYUFD said:
I can certainly see a lot of Labour Remain voters in the more middle class areas of the seat like Blackheath switching to the LDs to protest Corbyn's failure to support staying in the EEA but the more working class Leave areas of the seat will likely stay Laboursteve_garner said:Is it too late for Labour's shambles today to lead to a Lib Dem surge tomorrow in Lewisham?
Stand by for some elderly Tories crying in their milk tomorrow. I have the impression that something wonderful is happening in Lewisham.0 -
Maybe Iain Smart wants an SNP super majority or something because that would be the only possible outcome of Westminster forcing elections on Scotland.Richard_Tyndall said:
The idea that a minister in London should have the right to impose an election in the Scottish Parliament when one is not needed and simply because it will undermine one party seems perverse to me.kle4 said:
His follow up says:Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope I agree with you. I took a look. Section 3 is all about elections to the Scottish Parliament and Section 72 (4) is about statutory instruments.Alistair said:
Is he suggesting there should be a GE in Scotland?
s.3 brings forward the next Holyrood election to May 2020. It’s not in force. s 74(4) gives @DavidMundellDCT by SI the power to bring it into force
Not sure why they would want to do that. I think the polls are saying the SNP would not have an indy supporting majority in Holyrood based on current polls, but 2020 would still be some way off and plenty of time for things to change.
It would be a catastrophic blunder to end all blunders.0 -
I agree. But more than that it seems fundamentally wrong to me that the Government should have the right or ability to impose an election on Scotland unless the franchise had come to its end and the Parliament refused to hold due elections. Under any other circumstances it should surely be a matter purely for the Scottish Parliament.Alistair said:
Maybe Iain Smart wants an SNP super majority or something because that would be the only possible outcome of Westminster forcing elections on Scotland.Richard_Tyndall said:
The idea that a minister in London should have the right to impose an election in the Scottish Parliament when one is not needed and simply because it will undermine one party seems perverse to me.kle4 said:
His follow up says:Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope I agree with you. I took a look. Section 3 is all about elections to the Scottish Parliament and Section 72 (4) is about statutory instruments.Alistair said:
Is he suggesting there should be a GE in Scotland?
s.3 brings forward the next Holyrood election to May 2020. It’s not in force. s 74(4) gives @DavidMundellDCT by SI the power to bring it into force
Not sure why they would want to do that. I think the polls are saying the SNP would not have an indy supporting majority in Holyrood based on current polls, but 2020 would still be some way off and plenty of time for things to change.
It would be a catastrophic blunder to end all blunders.0 -
Any interesting also-rans in Lewisham btw? I see Anne Marie Waters is standing for Britain. Sorry, that's 'For Britain'. To think she came second to Henry Bolton not that long ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Britain0 -
Of course he can afford it* - he just wanted someone else to pay for it.Pulpstar said:
If he can't afford the upkeep of his estate then he should come to an arrangement with English Heritage, the National Trust or open it up in some other manner for public enjoyment to aid with the costs.Charles said:
What he did was write a letter to the expenses team saying that the cost of running Kettlethorpe is way above the expenses cap and could they kindly send him the full amount by monthly standing order without him submitting any claimskle4 said:
So I have heard. He got money for it though, as the BBC report he agreed to pay it back.Charles said:.
He never claimed expenses for the moat...kle4 said:
Moat man Hogg to grow up? Sounds unlikely.Charles said:
FFS Douglas! Grow up!Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960Philip_Thompson said:After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?
If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.
(Edit: Sarah is close to Major, so I suspect Douglas is just doing what he’s told. As usual )
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8051027.stm
Conservative MP Douglas Hogg has agreed to repay £2,200 - the cost of clearing his moat at his country estate
Best case scenario from that story he is really stupid and couldn't handle his paperwork
Mr Hogg maintained he had not claimed the money but agreed it had not been "positively excluded" from paperwork submitted to the Commons fees office
Weasel words if ever there was. Particularly as his overall defence was the same childish 'It was within the rules'.
He then added a list of expenditure - including the moat - as evidence (in fact the staff costs were greater than the expenses cap).
What he did in practice was ok, but politically indefensible and lazy. He really is a blithering tone deaf idiot sometimes
* his great-grandfather was Quintin Hogg who had a very profitable stint as chairman of the East India company. He gave most of the money to found and endow the University of Westminster but kept enough back Douglas doesn’t need to worry where the next meal is coming from.0 -
90 Labour MPs vote against their leadership and 6 shadow cabinet ministers resign. Is this for real? What a jerk Corbyn is. He couldn't run a whelk stall.0
-
You're the one who has quite obviously lost it since the referendum went against you. You've become bitter and nasty. And you want to blame it on 17m xenophobes. Because of a poster. You rant like a nutcase about it.AlastairMeeks said:
Your fellow travellers are so desperate to avoid scrutiny of legislation that they would abolish the House of Lords because one of its members might have sought to ensure that legislation was properly considered by the House of Commons. It’s prety clear which side is mental.0 -
So much for the threat of a new Banks/Farage party.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1006978600447430656?s=210 -
Wasn't Smarty one of those salivating over the inevitable destruction of the SNP after losing Indyref? His Scottish political insights are unparalleled.Alistair said:
Maybe Iain Smart wants an SNP super majority or something because that would be the only possible outcome of Westminster forcing elections on Scotland.Richard_Tyndall said:
The idea that a minister in London should have the right to impose an election in the Scottish Parliament when one is not needed and simply because it will undermine one party seems perverse to me.kle4 said:
His follow up says:Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope I agree with you. I took a look. Section 3 is all about elections to the Scottish Parliament and Section 72 (4) is about statutory instruments.Alistair said:
Is he suggesting there should be a GE in Scotland?
s.3 brings forward the next Holyrood election to May 2020. It’s not in force. s 74(4) gives @DavidMundellDCT by SI the power to bring it into force
Not sure why they would want to do that. I think the polls are saying the SNP would not have an indy supporting majority in Holyrood based on current polls, but 2020 would still be some way off and plenty of time for things to change.
It would be a catastrophic blunder to end all blunders.0 -
Quite honestly I can't believe he was given the cash in the first place. I don't submit an expenses receipt for a lawnmower to my work !Charles said:
Of course he can afford it* - he just wanted someone else to pay for it.Pulpstar said:
If he can't afford the upkeep of his estate then he should come to an arrangement with English Heritage, the National Trust or open it up in some other manner for public enjoyment to aid with the costs.Charles said:
What he did was write a letter to the expenses team saying that the cost of running Kettlethorpe is way above the expenses cap and could they kindly send him the full amount by monthly standing order without him submitting any claimskle4 said:
So I have heard. He got money for it though, as the BBC report he agreed to pay it back.Charles said:.
He never claimed expenses for the moat...kle4 said:
Moat man Hogg to grow up? Sounds unlikely.Charles said:
FFS Douglas! Grow up!Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960Philip_Thompson said:After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?
If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.
(Edit: Sarah is close to Major, so I suspect Douglas is just doing what he’s told. As usual )
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8051027.stm
Conservative MP Douglas Hogg has agreed to repay £2,200 - the cost of clearing his moat at his country estate
Best case scenario from that story he is really stupid and couldn't handle his paperwork
Mr Hogg maintained he had not claimed the money but agreed it had not been "positively excluded" from paperwork submitted to the Commons fees office
Weasel words if ever there was. Particularly as his overall defence was the same childish 'It was within the rules'.
He then added a list of expenditure - including the moat - as evidence (in fact the staff costs were greater than the expenses cap).
What he did in practice was ok, but politically indefensible and lazy. He really is a blithering tone deaf idiot sometimes
* his great-grandfather was Quintin Hogg who had a very profitable stint as chairman of the East India company. He gave most of the money to found and endow the University of Westminster but kept enough back Douglas doesn’t need to worry where the next meal is coming from.0 -
To be fair; this is probably the first accurate statement that he has made on the matter!williamglenn said:So much for the threat of a new Banks/Farage party.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1006978600447430656?s=210 -
Actually that might be just about within his limit. May could lend him a hand.Roger said:90 Labour MPs vote against their leadership and 6 shadow cabinet ministers resign. Is this for real? What a jerk Corbyn is. He couldn't run a whelk stall.
It is almost fascinating that neither leader really has consistent command over their own MPs. Corbyn's on the whole don't tend to be as noisy as they used to be since he at least is personally popular with those that elect him, but they still ignore him when they feel like it, and we know how rough May is finding it at present.
Does Cable manage to generally lead his MPs or is he having problems too?0 -
Is there any evidence of that actually happening rather than wishful thinking? The local elections suggest a Labour landslide.HYUFD said:
I can certainly see a lot of Labour Remain voters in the more middle class areas of the seat like Blackheath switching to the LDs to protest Corbyn's failure to support staying in the EEA but the more working class Leave areas of the seat will likely stay Laboursteve_garner said:Is it too late for Labour's shambles today to lead to a Lib Dem surge tomorrow in Lewisham?
The Labour candidate is pretty pro remain/SM/CU as well isn't she.0 -
Though we are told that IF the Government stopped the A50 process, a new UKIP party would rise up and rampage across the land with civil unrest in its wake.williamglenn said:So much for the threat of a new Banks/Farage party.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1006978600447430656?s=21
When I told a certain individual who suggested this apocalyptic scenario he was talking nonsense and most people would shrug their shoulders and carry on I was admonished and told 17 million patriotic British LEAVE voters (of whom I'm one apparently) were ready to wreak havoc on the political classes.
0 -
Interesting that Banks considers bankrolling various mountebanks as 'being in politics'. A shame that his huge ego hadn't encouraged him to attempt to get people to vote for him.williamglenn said:So much for the threat of a new Banks/Farage party.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1006978600447430656?s=210 -
Does anyone know much about the new ONS owner-occupier housing cost inflation:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bulletins/consumerpriceinflation/may2018
Is it affected by house price changes ?0 -
Staff for the second home (live in gardener/cleaver couple) was an allowable expensePulpstar said:
Quite honestly I can't believe he was given the cash in the first place. I don't submit an expenses receipt for a lawnmower to my work !Charles said:
Of course he can afford it* - he just wanted someone else to pay for it.Pulpstar said:
If he can't afford the upkeep of his estate then he should come to an arrangement with English Heritage, the National Trust or open it up in some other manner for public enjoyment to aid with the costs.Charles said:
What he did was write a letter to the expenses team saying that the cost of running Kettlethorpe is way above the expenses cap and could they kindly send him the full amount by monthly standing order without him submitting any claimskle4 said:
So I have heard. He got money for it though, as the BBC report he agreed to pay it back.Charles said:.
He never claimed expenses for the moat...kle4 said:
Moat man Hogg to grow up? Sounds unlikely.Charles said:
FFS Douglas! Grow up!Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960Philip_Thompson said:After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?
If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.
(Edit: Sarah is close to Major, so I suspect Douglas is just doing what he’s told. As usual )
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8051027.stm
Conservative MP Douglas Hogg has agreed to repay £2,200 - the cost of clearing his moat at his country estate
Best case scenario from that story he is really stupid and couldn't handle his paperwork
Mr Hogg maintained he had not claimed the money but agreed it had not been "positively excluded" from paperwork submitted to the Commons fees office
Weasel words if ever there was. Particularly as his overall defence was the same childish 'It was within the rules'.
He then added a list of expenditure - including the moat - as evidence (in fact the staff costs were greater than the expenses cap).
What he did in practice was ok, but politically indefensible and lazy. He really is a blithering tone deaf idiot sometimes
* his great-grandfather was Quintin Hogg who had a very profitable stint as chairman of the East India company. He gave most of the money to found and endow the University of Westminster but kept enough back Douglas doesn’t need to worry where the next meal is coming from.0 -
Job losses they've already announced four times.SeanT said:
10%. If this is repeated across the City (and I think it will be less, firms like MS are more exposed) it means London will lose about 30,000 jobs, out of 350,000 frontline finance sector jobs. Yes a lot of them are high paying blah blah, but it is hardly the Somme.williamglenn said:
And, this, of course, presumes that London will not fight back with better regulation, bankers' bonuses, etc.
I don't want this Hard No Deal Brexit, and it WILL damage London in the short term, but the sheer weight and magnetism of the London economy means we will survive. And quite possibly prosper more than before, over time, IF we hold our nerve.
I am liking some of the new talk coming from Javid's department over migration, Nobody minds Singaporean scientists, French chefs, or Brazilian doctors coming here, it is uneducated Pakistani/Bangladeshi Muslim and freeloading Roma that gets everyone riled. To be perfectly blunt.
The truth is, the city has added something like 10% since June 2016 - it's wiping a couple of years growth off, not more0 -
I assume you accept my last point since you have no answer to it.JonnyJimmy said:
You're the one who has quite obviously lost it since the referendum went against you. You've become bitter and nasty. And you want to blame it on 17m xenophobes. Because of a poster. You rant like a nutcase about it.AlastairMeeks said:
Your fellow travellers are so desperate to avoid scrutiny of legislation that they would abolish the House of Lords because one of its members might have sought to ensure that legislation was properly considered by the House of Commons. It’s prety clear which side is mental.
And your reading comprehension skills are woeful. I blame race-baiting Leave activists for degrading Britain because they regarded leaving the EU as more important than protecting Britain’s civic society. Since the referendum they have continued in the same vein, seeking to pull apart the BBC, the judiciary, the House of Lords and the civil service in pursuit of their obsession.
But the bad man said a few unpleasant words, and that’s more important.0 -
She also ran for UKIP in Lewisham before, in 2015 and got 9.1% of the vote, so does have some local connections.kle4 said:Any interesting also-rans in Lewisham btw? I see Anne Marie Waters is standing for Britain. Sorry, that's 'For Britain'. To think she came second to Henry Bolton not that long ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Britain
I think Shadsy's 5/2 match bet For Britain over UKIP is worth a punt
0 -
Overdue common sense but all we've done is give ourselves a chance to attract the best. There's a world of opportunity (literally) for skilled individuals and their families - might we have to do even more to attract the very best here ?SeanT said:Go Javid
Prediction: students will be dropped from migration stats and the absurd 100,000 commitment will gather dust
But cheap arranged brides from Pakistan and Roma Big Issue Sellers will find it very much harder to get in. Win win.
0 -
16/1 with Shadsy at over 70%...brendan16 said:
Is there any evidence of that actually happening rather than wishful thinking? The local elections suggest a Labour landslide.HYUFD said:
I can certainly see a lot of Labour Remain voters in the more middle class areas of the seat like Blackheath switching to the LDs to protest Corbyn's failure to support staying in the EEA but the more working class Leave areas of the seat will likely stay Laboursteve_garner said:Is it too late for Labour's shambles today to lead to a Lib Dem surge tomorrow in Lewisham?
The Labour candidate is pretty pro remain/SM/CU as well isn't she.0 -
Excellent. The EU vote was worth it if it’s going to keep out cheap arranged brides from Pakistan.SeanT said:Go Javid
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1007012034016358400
Prediction: students will be dropped from migration stats and the absurd 100,000 commitment will gather dust
But cheap arranged brides from Pakistan and Roma Big Issue Sellers will find it very much harder to get in. Win win.0 -
Yes, it’s interesting that after all the talk of Tory rebels it is Labour which has faced the biggest rebellion.Roger said:90 Labour MPs vote against their leadership and 6 shadow cabinet ministers resign. Is this for real? What a jerk Corbyn is. He couldn't run a whelk stall.
0 -
Fanny of the day awardThe_Taxman said:
The SNP were hollow and pathetic today. Is this the best they can do?CarlottaVance said:
I don't think it will help their cause apart from the headbangers who go on and on about Scotland becoming Independent.
I dislike all this Constitutional stuff as the bread and butter issues are neglected and Governments get away with selling the population short.0 -
There's still an hour left to snatch the award folks, let's see what we can do.malcolmg said:
Fanny of the day awardThe_Taxman said:
The SNP were hollow and pathetic today. Is this the best they can do?CarlottaVance said:
I don't think it will help their cause apart from the headbangers who go on and on about Scotland becoming Independent.
I dislike all this Constitutional stuff as the bread and butter issues are neglected and Governments get away with selling the population short.0 -
Oh yes, absolutely. I've said many times that we should get the Swiss in to do Brexit for us.stodge said:
I stated on here before the referendum my preference was for the UK to rejoin EFTA and seek to re-invigorate that organisation as a counterbalance to the EU.MaxPB said:Switzerland isn't on the EEA, it's in EFTA.
The Swiss have a network of bilateral arrangements with the EU and I've always thought we could have something similar.
Instead of making trite observations how about engaging in some debate for a change - would you support a Swiss-style arrangement for the UK (in EFFA, outside the EEA and with bespoke bilateral deals with the EU) ?0 -
No, it’s not more important.AlastairMeeks said:
I assume you accept my last point since you have no answer to it.JonnyJimmy said:
You're the one who has quite obviously lost it since the referendum went against you. You've become bitter and nasty. And you want to blame it on 17m xenophobes. Because of a poster. You rant like a nutcase about it.AlastairMeeks said:
Your fellow travellers are so desperate to avoid scrutiny of legislation that they would abolish the House of Lords because one of its members might have sought to ensure that legislation was properly considered by the House of Commons. It’s prety clear which side is mental.
And your reading comprehension skills are woeful. I blame race-baiting Leave activists for degrading Britain because they regarded leaving the EU as more important than protecting Britain’s civic society. Since the referendum they have continued in the same vein, seeking to pull apart the BBC, the judiciary, the House of Lords and the civil service in pursuit of their obsession.
But the bad man said a few unpleasant words, and that’s more important.
But it does tend to detract from the good points you make.
I also think you tend to underestimate the extent to which a lack of effective control over immigration can itself also risk harming Britain’s civic society. But that is a discussion for another time.0 -
There are very few thicker halfwitted cretinous nutjobs at large than that dumplingAlistair said:
Maybe Iain Smart wants an SNP super majority or something because that would be the only possible outcome of Westminster forcing elections on Scotland.Richard_Tyndall said:
The idea that a minister in London should have the right to impose an election in the Scottish Parliament when one is not needed and simply because it will undermine one party seems perverse to me.kle4 said:
His follow up says:Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope I agree with you. I took a look. Section 3 is all about elections to the Scottish Parliament and Section 72 (4) is about statutory instruments.Alistair said:
Is he suggesting there should be a GE in Scotland?
s.3 brings forward the next Holyrood election to May 2020. It’s not in force. s 74(4) gives @DavidMundellDCT by SI the power to bring it into force
Not sure why they would want to do that. I think the polls are saying the SNP would not have an indy supporting majority in Holyrood based on current polls, but 2020 would still be some way off and plenty of time for things to change.
It would be a catastrophic blunder to end all blunders.0 -
Tory rebels was always a joke, they cannot risk not having someone to change their nappies.Cyclefree said:
Yes, it’s interesting that after all the talk of Tory rebels it is Labour which has faced the biggest rebellion.Roger said:90 Labour MPs vote against their leadership and 6 shadow cabinet ministers resign. Is this for real? What a jerk Corbyn is. He couldn't run a whelk stall.
0 -
Need to be soft in the head to want to come here given the xenophobia.stodge said:
Overdue common sense but all we've done is give ourselves a chance to attract the best. There's a world of opportunity (literally) for skilled individuals and their families - might we have to do even more to attract the very best here ?SeanT said:Go Javid
Prediction: students will be dropped from migration stats and the absurd 100,000 commitment will gather dust
But cheap arranged brides from Pakistan and Roma Big Issue Sellers will find it very much harder to get in. Win win.0 -
Brexit is beginning to turn into the Schleswig-Hostein question of our time.
Few understand it and those that do are driven mad by it.0 -
Be very hard to top that one, barking is being polite.kle4 said:
There's still an hour left to snatch the award folks, let's see what we can do.malcolmg said:
Fanny of the day awardThe_Taxman said:
The SNP were hollow and pathetic today. Is this the best they can do?CarlottaVance said:
I don't think it will help their cause apart from the headbangers who go on and on about Scotland becoming Independent.
I dislike all this Constitutional stuff as the bread and butter issues are neglected and Governments get away with selling the population short.0 -
There is obviously the issue of housing and other infrastructure to consider though obviously not as serious as under the current arrangements. Should we be looking at firms wishing to bring in skilled workers to contribute toward transport, education and other service costs ?SeanT said:
Perhaps. But the problem with Freedom of Movement is that we were getting tens of thousands of the very worst, from Eastern Europe, with literally no way of controlling them.
Now we will be able to pick and choose. I fully expect us to have an open, liberal and welcoming immigration regime, selecting the best of the applicants, and with a net migration rate of around 150,000-200,000. High, but not the 350,000 a year of migration at its crazy EU peak.
Moreover I expect us to introduce seasonal workers visas for people from Eastern Europe/Ukraine/Belarus etc who want to pick fruit for six months. Then go home.
A controlled and managed system like this will see immigration sink in the list of voters' concerns. Very swiftly.
As for "seasonal" workers, I suppose the analogy is the "Gastarbeiter" programme that operated in West Germany in the 70s and 80s. The problem is unless the visa system is properly policed individuals will go into the black economy on visa expiry.0 -
2 cheeks of the same arse.It;s 50-50 left cheek ,right cheek so 5-2 is indeed value for an even money shot.Foxy said:
She also ran for UKIP in Lewisham before, in 2015 and got 9.1% of the vote, so does have some local connections.kle4 said:Any interesting also-rans in Lewisham btw? I see Anne Marie Waters is standing for Britain. Sorry, that's 'For Britain'. To think she came second to Henry Bolton not that long ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Britain
I think Shadsy's 5/2 match bet For Britain over UKIP is worth a punt
0 -
4.3 on Betfair for the Tories to come second in Lewisham East tomorrow looks too long.0
-
Yes.stodge said:
There is obviously the issue of housing and other infrastructure to consider though obviously not as serious as under the current arrangements. Should we be looking at firms wishing to bring in skilled workers to contribute toward transport, education and other service costs ?SeanT said:
Perhaps. But the problem with Freedom of Movement is that we were getting tens of thousands of the very worst, from Eastern Europe, with literally no way of controlling them.
Now we will be able to pick and choose. I fully expect us to have an open, liberal and welcoming immigration regime, selecting the best of the applicants, and with a net migration rate of around 150,000-200,000. High, but not the 350,000 a year of migration at its crazy EU peak.
Moreover I expect us to introduce seasonal workers visas for people from Eastern Europe/Ukraine/Belarus etc who want to pick fruit for six months. Then go home.
A controlled and managed system like this will see immigration sink in the list of voters' concerns. Very swiftly.
And even more so those who want unskilled migrants as skilled migrants will create more wealth and pay more tax than unskilled.0 -
For all its seeming complexity, the Schleswig-Holstein question was the issue that provoked the Prussian- Denmark war, and the following two wars that led to the unification of modern Germany. It was also the time that Britain and Prussia started to become rivals and enemies in place of longstanding alliance. Out of these little acorns great troubles arose...Cyclefree said:Brexit is beginning to turn into the Schleswig-Hostein question of our time.
Few understand it and those that do are driven mad by it.0 -
Neither the books nor the programme (nor, frankly, Cumberbatch) appealed. A bit like string trios or quartets. I recognise the talent, admire the virtuosity but it leaves me cold. So it is with this programme.SeanT said:RIGHT: I am watching the last episode of Patrick Melrose.
Anyone else watched it? Superb. Benedict Cumberbatch does the best portrayal of a smack addict I have ever seen (and I know whereof I speak). The later episodes are actually and seriously better than the books (which decline speedily in quality).
Recommended.0 -
Indeed, the nasty EU obviously stopped us doing that in the past.TOPPING said:
Excellent. The EU vote was worth it if it’s going to keep out cheap arranged brides from Pakistan.SeanT said:Go Javid
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1007012034016358400
Prediction: students will be dropped from migration stats and the absurd 100,000 commitment will gather dust
But cheap arranged brides from Pakistan and Roma Big Issue Sellers will find it very much harder to get in. Win win.0 -
I saw that John Crace in The Guardian, a former addict himself I was surprised to learn, was also full of praise.SeanT said:RIGHT: I am watching the last episode of Patrick Melrose.
Anyone else watched it? Superb. Benedict Cumberbatch does the best portrayal of a smack addict I have ever seen (and I know whereof I speak). The later episodes are actually and seriously better than the books (which decline speedily in quality).
Recommended.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/may/22/patrick-melrose-captures-heroin-addiction-perfectly-it-brought-my-memories-flooding-back0 -
Well. That’s cheered me up no end.Foxy said:
For all its seeming complexity, the Schleswig-Holstein question was the issue that provoked the Prussian- Denmark war, and the following two wars that led to the unification of modern Germany. It was also the time that Britain and Prussia started to become rivals and enemies in place of longstanding alliance. Out of these little acorns great troubles arose...Cyclefree said:Brexit is beginning to turn into the Schleswig-Hostein question of our time.
Few understand it and those that do are driven mad by it.0 -
A divided party loses elections.If you think this means Corbyn having to go then think on.Let's be clear,George Eaton reports Chuka Umunna is setting up his new "centrist party" with his fellow militarist neoliberal Chris Leslie called "Back Together",the only purpose of which is to make sure of a Tory majority rather than a Labour one led by Corbyn.Roger said:90 Labour MPs vote against their leadership and 6 shadow cabinet ministers resign. Is this for real? What a jerk Corbyn is. He couldn't run a whelk stall.
The SDP always was a wrecking venture to stop a Labour government and so will this mob be.
The starting point for a realignment of UK politics is to get rid of FPTP and this new party makes that possibility even less likely.0 -
NEW THREAD
0 -
I take the point though a large number of young men with little marriage prospects is a potential problem of its own.TOPPING said:
Excellent. The EU vote was worth it if it’s going to keep out cheap arranged brides from Pakistan.SeanT said:Go Javid
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1007012034016358400
Prediction: students will be dropped from migration stats and the absurd 100,000 commitment will gather dust
But cheap arranged brides from Pakistan and Roma Big Issue Sellers will find it very much harder to get in. Win win.0 -
Yes, I think (based on hunch only as I do not know the area) the Tories will edge second place.Richard_Nabavi said:4.3 on Betfair for the Tories to come second in Lewisham East tomorrow looks too long.
Tory voters turn out, there is no serious Leave alternative, and do not Tactically vote even in seats that they cannot win. Value bet IMO.0 -
A manifesto that did not achieve a majority of MPs. And do you have a copy of the constitution?Elliot said:
May just needs to stack the Lords already. They are completely vandalising our constitution. The government was elected on a manifesto of CU and SM exit.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960Philip_Thompson said:After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?
If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.0 -
But 86.6% of the votes at the June 2017 General Election were cast for parties pledging CU and SM exit. That's more of a mandate on the matter than anybody in the House of Lords has.not_on_fire said:
A manifesto that did not achieve a majority of MPs. And do you have a copy of the constitution?Elliot said:
May just needs to stack the Lords already. They are completely vandalising our constitution. The government was elected on a manifesto of CU and SM exit.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960Philip_Thompson said:After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?
If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.0
