politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay is the odds-on favourite to win a TV Brexit debate with C
Options
Comments
-
Would it need to take that long?david_herdson said:
Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:Scott_P said:
11 Dec - Deal voted down
12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.
Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
I would have thought:
Mid Jan - New document produced
Late Jan - EU Summit sign-off
Early Feb - House of Commons
0 -
It requires a Prime Minister willing not to request an extension while real world impacts start kicking in around them. The path of least resistance is not No Deal.Sean_F said:
A No Deal Brexit requires no actions, only the avoidance of actions.williamglenn said:
It's impossible to engineer a no deal Brexit without putting in place a Prime Minister who's actually willing to go through with it.Nigelb said:
Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?grabcocque said:McDonnell now saying that a second referendum is 'inevitable'.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1067792910027026432
This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.0 -
Thanks. That makes sense.david_herdson said:
No, it's not possible.borisnut said:
Could some learned posters here clarify what I think I read that Bercow might allow amendments to the "deal" bill after the substantive motion is lost ? Is that possible ? Or, did I misunderstand it .Notch said:
The Speaker could allow an amendment to be tabled that requires a referendum. A month is ample time. If officials say "Britain needs 10 times longer to do something than Greece because that's how we do things here", they can resign to general guffawing and look for jobs in restaurants. (The time-wasting jobsworth sods would be well advised not to apply anywhere that serves moussaka though.) Bercow could also let a referendum motion be tabled on 11 December.david_herdson said:
Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:Scott_P said:
11 Dec - Deal voted down
12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.
Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
He could - and probably will - allow relevant amendments to the motion to be tabled. These will be voted on before the motion itself (whether amended or as originally tabled). Only if that passes will there be a subsequent Bill. Obviously, if there is such a Bill, then MPs are free to table amendments as normal.0 -
The Plan B of extension doesn't require a majority, just a rational PM.MarqueeMark said:
No Deal is very, very easy. It needs no "engineering". Just no Plan B that enough can be forced to get behind.williamglenn said:
It's impossible to engineer a no deal Brexit without putting in place a Prime Minister who's actually willing to go through with it.Nigelb said:
Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?grabcocque said:McDonnell now saying that a second referendum is 'inevitable'.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1067792910027026432
This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.0 -
Actually, I think it's an even shorter timeframe than that. I think the 30 minutes after the vote goes down will be the most critical in British political history since at least Howe's speech in 1990; possibly for many decades before that. How May and Corbyn respond will likely determine what happens in the VoNC the following day - and hence how events cascade from there. She gets one shot at that - 'nothing has changed' will not cut it.dixiedean said:
Seems an eminently plausible series of events. If they happen we will end up with Deal, as Labour and other opposition parties will back it above No Deal.david_herdson said:
Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:Scott_P said:
11 Dec - Deal voted down
12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.
Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
However, what happens Dec 12 is key. Almost anything could. Would be very surprised if there were not 48 letters. May might resign. The grey suits may call time. The govt may lose a VONC. The EU or May or both may not re open negotiations. Then all subsequent actions proceed along a very different decision tree.
I'll probably return to this in greater detail on Saturday.0 -
On occasion, you can be remarkably naive.williamglenn said:
It's impossible to engineer a no deal Brexit without putting in place a Prime Minister who's actually willing to go through with it.Nigelb said:
Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?grabcocque said:McDonnell now saying that a second referendum is 'inevitable'.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1067792910027026432
This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.0 -
Isn’t the solution the addition to the political disagreement that the UKcan exit the backstop at any time by exiting on a WTO basis?dixiedean said:
Seems an eminently plausible series of events. If they happen we will end up with Deal, as Labour and other opposition parties will back it above No Deal.david_herdson said:
Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:Scott_P said:
11 Dec - Deal voted down
12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.
Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
However, what happens Dec 12 is key. Almost anything could. Would be very surprised if there were not 48 letters. May might resign. The grey suits may call time. The govt may lose a VONC. The EU or May or both may not re open negotiations. Then all subsequent actions proceed along a very different decision tree.
That’s a statement of fact - all it would involving the EU giving up is the potential moral suasion that the UK doesn’t like abrogation.
It’s a marginal give on their side but would possibly set minds at rest in the U.K.0 -
1) Point taken. Make it a binding motion then.Richard_Tyndall said:
Wrong on almost every point.Notch said:
The Speaker could allow an amendment to be tabled that requires a referendum. A month is ample time. If officials say "Britain needs 10 times longer to do something than Greece because that's how we do things here", they can resign to general guffawing and look for jobs in restaurants. (The time-wasting jobsworth sods would be well advised not to apply anywhere that serves moussaka though.) Bercow could also let a referendum motion be tabled on 11 December.david_herdson said:
Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:Scott_P said:
11 Dec - Deal voted down
12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.
Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
1.The Speaker cannot allow a binding amendment to a non binding motion.
2. There are minimum times set down by the Electoral Commission for the various stages of referendum planning. Do you really want to have the EC saying that your Referendum Rerun does not meet basic electoral standards and should not be considered safe?
You can be pretty sure if there is any meaningful cut into the time for developing the balanced question (12 weeks) or for picking the sides and allowing them to prepare for the referendum (10 weeks) then the EC will be making some pretty loud noises about rigging the vote.
3. Even if you get to the vote you then have to deal with the legal challenges all the way up to the Supreme Court. Which will be all the more powerful if they can point to the referendum being rushed.
2) The EC are statutory and Parliament makes and changes statutes at will.
3) The Supreme Court can't strike down a statute.
(Wasn't British parliamentary sovereignty supposed to be what Leave was about?)0 -
I don't think that's naive. Explain in practical terms how no deal actually happens.Nigelb said:
On occasion, you can be remarkably naive.williamglenn said:
It's impossible to engineer a no deal Brexit without putting in place a Prime Minister who's actually willing to go through with it.Nigelb said:
Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?grabcocque said:McDonnell now saying that a second referendum is 'inevitable'.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1067792910027026432
This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.0 -
So Mr Corbyn - what question appears on the ballot paper ?
0 -
I don't believe the Labour leadership are at all behind a second referendum - McDonnell knows well enough that it would expose Labour's splits almost as much as the Tories'.grabcocque said:McDonnell now saying that a second referendum is 'inevitable'.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1067792910027026432
This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.
What I do think he's calculated is that it benefits Labour to *appear* to be behind a referendum, providing it's not actually delivered; and hence he's also concluded that it won't be delivered. I think he'd be right on both points.0 -
May gets chopped.williamglenn said:
I don't think that's naive. Explain in practical terms how no deal actually happens.Nigelb said:
On occasion, you can be remarkably naive.williamglenn said:
It's impossible to engineer a no deal Brexit without putting in place a Prime Minister who's actually willing to go through with it.Nigelb said:
Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?grabcocque said:McDonnell now saying that a second referendum is 'inevitable'.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1067792910027026432
This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.
The EU stupidly refuse to give new Con leader any flexibility.
Voila.
0 -
Notch said:
Parliament can rush through emergency legislation to repeal the PPRA. abolish the EC, and require local authorities to conduct a referendum. But, that implies a degree of consensus in Parliament that doesn't exist.Richard_Tyndall said:
1) Point taken. Make it a binding motion then.Notch said:
Wrong on almost every point.david_herdson said:
Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:Scott_P said:
11 Dec - Deal voted down
12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.
r.
1.The Speaker cannot allow a binding amendment to a non binding motion.
2. There are minimum times set down by the Electoral Commission for the various stages of referendum planning. Do you really want to have the EC saying that your Referendum Rerun does not meet basic electoral standards and should not be considered safe?
You can be pretty sure if there is any meaningful cut into the time for developing the balanced question (12 weeks) or for picking the sides and allowing them to prepare for the referendum (10 weeks) then the EC will be making some pretty loud noises about rigging the vote.
3. Even if you get to the vote you then have to deal with the legal challenges all the way up to the Supreme Court. Which will be all the more powerful if they can point to the referendum being rushed.
2) The EC are statutory and Parliament makes and changes statutes at will.
3) The Supreme Court can't strike down a statute.0 -
I've made the point before.Charles said:
Isn’t the solution the addition to the political disagreement that the UKcan exit the backstop at any time by exiting on a WTO basis?...dixiedean said:
Seems an eminently plausible series of events. If they happen we will end up with Deal, as Labour and other opposition parties will back it above No Deal.david_herdson said:
Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:Scott_P said:
11 Dec - Deal voted down
12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.
Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
However, what happens Dec 12 is key. Almost anything could. Would be very surprised if there were not 48 letters. May might resign. The grey suits may call time. The govt may lose a VONC. The EU or May or both may not re open negotiations. Then all subsequent actions proceed along a very different decision tree.
It would, in effect, not be wildly different from a no deal Brexit.
The significant difference is that it would require a government to deliberately opt for it, rather than, as now, happen automatically should no action be taken to avoid it.0 -
If she loses on Dec.11 [ still the most likely outcome ], I cannot see any other practical alternative to a 2nd vote. I cannot believe apart from the ERG [ some of them ], any MP will accept "No deal"Scott_P said:0 -
True. But can a government then defy the will of Parliament ?Charles said:
The “meaningful vote” is not primary legislationNotch said:
The Speaker could allow an amendment to be tabled that requires a referendum. A month is ample time. If officials say "Britain needs 10 times longer to do something than Greece because that's how we do things here", they can resign to general guffawing and look for jobs in restaurants. (The time-wasting jobsworth sods would be well advised not to apply anywhere that serves moussaka though.) Bercow could also let a referendum motion be tabled on 11 December.david_herdson said:
Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:Scott_P said:
11 Dec - Deal voted down
12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.
Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
A referendum requires that0 -
I see what he did there.williamglenn said:
0 -
-
No agreement is reached on any particular solution; no action is taken, and it happens.williamglenn said:
I don't think that's naive. Explain in practical terms how no deal actually happens.Nigelb said:
On occasion, you can be remarkably naive.williamglenn said:
It's impossible to engineer a no deal Brexit without putting in place a Prime Minister who's actually willing to go through with it.Nigelb said:
Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?grabcocque said:McDonnell now saying that a second referendum is 'inevitable'.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1067792910027026432
This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.
Maintaining an impasse is probably the easiest thing to arrange out of all the possibilities, given the ideologues and fools on both sides.0 -
OT is there a Vanilla setting RCS could tweak so that quoted tweets and the like are shrunk a bit rather than filling the browser?0
-
It's more the case that local authorities are under no obligation to do something which is not legally required of them.borisnut said:
True. But can a government then defy the will of Parliament ?Charles said:
The “meaningful vote” is not primary legislationNotch said:
The Speaker could allow an amendment to be tabled that requires a referendum. A month is ample time. If officials say "Britain needs 10 times longer to do something than Greece because that's how we do things here", they can resign to general guffawing and look for jobs in restaurants. (The time-wasting jobsworth sods would be well advised not to apply anywhere that serves moussaka though.) Bercow could also let a referendum motion be tabled on 11 December.david_herdson said:
Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:Scott_P said:
11 Dec - Deal voted down
12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.
Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
A referendum requires that0 -
I think it's deceptive to think it happens because of "no action". In reality, for a PM to set on that course and stick to it even as society erupts requires a hell of a lot of "action".Nigelb said:
No agreement is reached on any particular solution; no action is taken, and it happens.williamglenn said:
I don't think that's naive. Explain in practical terms how no deal actually happens.Nigelb said:
On occasion, you can be remarkably naive.williamglenn said:
It's impossible to engineer a no deal Brexit without putting in place a Prime Minister who's actually willing to go through with it.Nigelb said:
Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?grabcocque said:McDonnell now saying that a second referendum is 'inevitable'.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1067792910027026432
This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.0 -
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-article50/eus-top-court-will-give-quick-verdict-on-whether-uk-can-reverse-brexit-idUSKCN1NW0TJ
I take this will be known by Dec.11.0 -
Stalemate broken in World Chess Championship as Magnus Carlsen wins first match in the overtime rapid matches.0
-
But doesn't require passing a vote in the House. All other options do.williamglenn said:
I think it's deceptive to think it happens because of "no action". In reality, for a PM to set on that course and stick to it even as society erupts requires a hell of a lot of "action".Nigelb said:
No agreement is reached on any particular solution; no action is taken, and it happens.williamglenn said:
I don't think that's naive. Explain in practical terms how no deal actually happens.Nigelb said:
On occasion, you can be remarkably naive.williamglenn said:
It's impossible to engineer a no deal Brexit without putting in place a Prime Minister who's actually willing to go through with it.Nigelb said:
Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?grabcocque said:McDonnell now saying that a second referendum is 'inevitable'.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1067792910027026432
This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.0 -
Mr. T, new members are required to sign up to Schengen and the single currency. The UK has treaty opt-outs on those two items (not for the rebate, so we'd likely lose that if we remained). Rejoining is a different kettle of monkeys to remaining.0
-
Amusing that all these options are being bandied about without the consideration for the Conservative voters.SeanT said:Why is March 29 seen as so final?
I get that it's Brexit Day,
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
May won't be allowed to drive the party into a ditch - all these fanciful options of 2nd referendums, crap deals etc do just that.0 -
We can't rejoin 'at once'. Once we're out, we'd need an Accession Treaty, which would have to be ratified by all 27 other members.SeanT said:Why is March 29 seen as so final?
I get that it's Brexit Day,
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
In theory, that could be sorted pretty quickly given that the UK would already be fully aligned with the EU acquis and if both sides were willing to accept the status quo ante then the treaty positions would already be embedded in existing EU law. Question is: would they be so willing?0 -
Yes, that's a significant shift from Labour.williamglenn said:
Defeat in the HoC will almost mean than May will turn to the country once again now that Labour is onside.0 -
Which is precisely why it's less likely. The PM acting alone can prevent No Deal.Nigelb said:
But doesn't require passing a vote in the House. All other options do.williamglenn said:
I think it's deceptive to think it happens because of "no action". In reality, for a PM to set on that course and stick to it even as society erupts requires a hell of a lot of "action".Nigelb said:
No agreement is reached on any particular solution; no action is taken, and it happens.williamglenn said:
I don't think that's naive. Explain in practical terms how no deal actually happens.Nigelb said:
On occasion, you can be remarkably naive.williamglenn said:
It's impossible to engineer a no deal Brexit without putting in place a Prime Minister who's actually willing to go through with it.Nigelb said:
Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?grabcocque said:McDonnell now saying that a second referendum is 'inevitable'.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1067792910027026432
This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.0 -
I'm surprised there has not been more coverage of the chess world championship in London. Maybe the sponsorship and media rights arrangements need looking at.FrancisUrquhart said:Stalemate broken in World Chess Championship as Magnus Carlsen wins first match in the overtime rapid matches.
0 -
Not if she's not PM anymore.williamglenn said:
Which is precisely why it's less likely. The PM acting alone can prevent No Deal.Nigelb said:
But doesn't require passing a vote in the House. All other options do.williamglenn said:
I think it's deceptive to think it happens because of "no action". In reality, for a PM to set on that course and stick to it even as society erupts requires a hell of a lot of "action".Nigelb said:
No agreement is reached on any particular solution; no action is taken, and it happens.williamglenn said:
I don't think that's naive. Explain in practical terms how no deal actually happens.Nigelb said:
On occasion, you can be remarkably naive.williamglenn said:
It's impossible to engineer a no deal Brexit without putting in place a Prime Minister who's actually willing to go through with it.Nigelb said:
Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?grabcocque said:McDonnell now saying that a second referendum is 'inevitable'.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1067792910027026432
This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.
0 -
Mr. S, entirely possible she may want to, however, she may be defenestrated before that happens.0
-
The number of viewers on twitch / youtube are huge, where they aren't even showing the video of the match as it is PPV.DecrepitJohnL said:
I'm surprised there has not been more coverage of the chess world championship in London. Maybe the sponsorship and media rights arrangements need looking at.FrancisUrquhart said:Stalemate broken in World Chess Championship as Magnus Carlsen wins first match in the overtime rapid matches.
Two guys talking about the match as it goes on (without you being able to see anything) is the regularly the most viewed channel on twitch.0 -
Opponent got bored before he did ?FrancisUrquhart said:Stalemate broken in World Chess Championship as Magnus Carlsen wins first match in the overtime rapid matches.
0 -
Any PM would be subject to the same pressures, and there is no party with a majority which makes it almost impossible for a minority group to impose a nutter.TGOHF said:
Not if she's not PM anymore.williamglenn said:
Which is precisely why it's less likely. The PM acting alone can prevent No Deal.Nigelb said:
But doesn't require passing a vote in the House. All other options do.williamglenn said:
I think it's deceptive to think it happens because of "no action". In reality, for a PM to set on that course and stick to it even as society erupts requires a hell of a lot of "action".Nigelb said:
No agreement is reached on any particular solution; no action is taken, and it happens.williamglenn said:
I don't think that's naive. Explain in practical terms how no deal actually happens.Nigelb said:
On occasion, you can be remarkably naive.williamglenn said:
It's impossible to engineer a no deal Brexit without putting in place a Prime Minister who's actually willing to go through with it.Nigelb said:
Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?grabcocque said:McDonnell now saying that a second referendum is 'inevitable'.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1067792910027026432
This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.0 -
This is the most astounding section of that article:borisnut said:https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-article50/eus-top-court-will-give-quick-verdict-on-whether-uk-can-reverse-brexit-idUSKCN1NW0TJ
I take this will be known by Dec.11.
"Richard Keen the lawyer for the British government, said the ECJ should refuse to consider the issue at all, saying it was hypothetical as the UK had no plans to reverse Brexit."
It's the equivalent to saying don't bother with that medical insurance quote as I'm not planning on getting ill thanks.0 -
We'd be even more humiliated if they turned us down.SeanT said:
Yes, they would be more than willing. Most of them wish Brexit didn't exist and wasn't happening. The British changing their minds would be seen as a huge boost to a project in some peril. An injection of good news.david_herdson said:
We can't rejoin 'at once'. Once we're out, we'd need an Accession Treaty, which would have to be ratified by all 27 other members.SeanT said:Why is March 29 seen as so final?
I get that it's Brexit Day,
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
In theory, that could be sorted pretty quickly given that the UK would already be fully aligned with the EU acquis and if both sides were willing to accept the status quo ante then the treaty positions would already be embedded in existing EU law. Question is: would they be so willing?
Also, we'd be somewhat humiliated, and the French in particular might find that to their taste.
Not as though there isn't precedent for that....0 -
Whatever her reason, I think she has worked this out in her head before. She has run the clock down deliberately. I still cannot see why the EU27 could not have agreed the draft in their October summit. There was hardly any momentous change since then.david_herdson said:
Actually, I think it's an even shorter timeframe than that. I think the 30 minutes after the vote goes down will be the most critical in British political history since at least Howe's speech in 1990; possibly for many decades before that. How May and Corbyn respond will likely determine what happens in the VoNC the following day - and hence how events cascade from there. She gets one shot at that - 'nothing has changed' will not cut it.dixiedean said:
Seems an eminently plausible series of events. If they happen we will end up with Deal, as Labour and other opposition parties will back it above No Deal.david_herdson said:
Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:Scott_P said:
Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
However, what happens Dec 12 is key. Almost anything could. Would be very surprised if there were not 48 letters. May might resign. The grey suits may call time. The govt may lose a VONC. The EU or May or both may not re open negotiations. Then all subsequent actions proceed along a very different decision tree.
I'll probably return to this in greater detail on Saturday.
She has worked out that in the end Parliament will not agree to a No Deal. Therefore, May's Deal will stand at the 2nd, 3rd .... vote.
From Corbyn's point of view [ not necessarily the membership or most MPs ], is a permanent backstop any different to staying in a customs union ? May's Deal is not a million miles from the official Labour policy at the moment.
McDonnell's statement probably also confirms his reading that the clock has been run down sufficiently.0 -
I think the court doesn't deal with hypothetical situations, so it's just a way to get the case dismissed. At some level the ambiguity may help - if it's decided the UK can't revoke unilaterally (which I think is likely), the UK is even more beholden to the EU.AllyPally_Rob said:
This is the most astounding section of that article:borisnut said:https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-article50/eus-top-court-will-give-quick-verdict-on-whether-uk-can-reverse-brexit-idUSKCN1NW0TJ
I take this will be known by Dec.11.
"Richard Keen the lawyer for the British government, said the ECJ should refuse to consider the issue at all, saying it was hypothetical as the UK had no plans to reverse Brexit."
It's the equivalent to saying don't bother with that medical insurance quote as I'm not planning on getting ill thanks.0 -
Very true Mr. Dancer - and on that point I really haven't got a clue on the Tory next leader market - it's as clear as mud. All I know is to lay the favourite(s).Morris_Dancer said:Mr. S, entirely possible she may want to, however, she may be defenestrated before that happens.
0 -
"Survival of the Uk" = leaving a trading club.SeanT said:
I think this is now going way beyond party politics. This is about the survival of the UK and so on and so forth.TGOHF said:
Amusing that all these options are being bandied about without the consideration for the Conservative voters.SeanT said:Why is March 29 seen as so final?
I get that it's Brexit Day,
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
May won't be allowed to drive the party into a ditch - all these fanciful options of 2nd referendums, crap deals etc do just that.
Does the Uk need to go into witness protection in Idaho ?
0 -
The easiest route out is to vote in favour of the WA.SeanT said:
I think this is now going way beyond party politics. This is about the survival of the UK and so on and so forth.TGOHF said:
Amusing that all these options are being bandied about without the consideration for the Conservative voters.SeanT said:Why is March 29 seen as so final?
I get that it's Brexit Day,
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
May won't be allowed to drive the party into a ditch - all these fanciful options of 2nd referendums, crap deals etc do just that.0 -
Project fear round 2 seems to be more effective than the first one.TGOHF said:
"Survival of the Uk" = leaving a trading club.SeanT said:
I think this is now going way beyond party politics. This is about the survival of the UK and so on and so forth.TGOHF said:
Amusing that all these options are being bandied about without the consideration for the Conservative voters.SeanT said:Why is March 29 seen as so final?
I get that it's Brexit Day,
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
May won't be allowed to drive the party into a ditch - all these fanciful options of 2nd referendums, crap deals etc do just that.
Does the Uk need to go into witness protection in Idaho ?0 -
Guardian covers it wellDecrepitJohnL said:
I'm surprised there has not been more coverage of the chess world championship in London. Maybe the sponsorship and media rights arrangements need looking at.FrancisUrquhart said:Stalemate broken in World Chess Championship as Magnus Carlsen wins first match in the overtime rapid matches.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/live/2018/nov/28/magnus-carlsen-v-fabiano-caruana-world-chess-championship-tie-breakers-live0 -
The European Council has never taken a view on it. Some Eurocrats have said that it would - and they may be right - but there's no guarantee when every government has a veto, may demand a price, and may change between now and the request.Xenon said:
Didn't the EU say they would extend A50 for a referendum?david_herdson said:
Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:Scott_P said:
11 Dec - Deal voted down
12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.
Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
I think practically it would be difficult to go beyond the EP elections (which Britain would then be entitled to take part in), and even that would be pushing it to fit the necessary steps in.0 -
The Daily Mail’s parliamentary sketchwriter and theatre critic, Quentin Letts, has left the newspaper as it continues its transformation under its remain-supporting editor, Geordie Greig.
The Mail’s editorial line has shifted significantly following this summer’s departure of former editor Paul Dacre, a staunch proponent of a hard Brexit, leading some of the newspaper’s leading voices to look for work elsewhere.
Letts confirmed he was leaving the Mail in the coming months and would be writing for a number of other publications. “I have had 18 busy and exciting years writing for the Mail and its fine readers but I have now agreed a future economic partnership – as Guardian readers might put it - with the Times, Sunday Times and the Sun.”
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/nov/28/quentin-letts-to-leave-daily-mail-the-times-brexit0 -
We need a treaty letting us back in.SeanT said:Why is March 29 seen as so final?
I get that it's Brexit Day,
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
They'd probably stick in a few requirements that we wouldn't make them go through this again, something like The UK agrees not to trigger Article 50 until the year 3000 at the earliest, also the UK agrees to join the Euro, and cede Gibraltar to Spain for perpetuity.
Good luck on selling that on the doorstep.0 -
Sureborisnut said:
True. But can a government then defy the will of Parliament ?Charles said:
The “meaningful vote” is not primary legislationNotch said:
The Speaker could allow an amendment to be tabled that requires a referendum. A month is ample time. If officials say "Britain needs 10 times longer to do something than Greece because that's how we do things here", they can resign to general guffawing and look for jobs in restaurants. (The time-wasting jobsworth sods would be well advised not to apply anywhere that serves moussaka though.) Bercow could also let a referendum motion be tabled on 11 December.david_herdson said:
Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:Scott_P said:
11 Dec - Deal voted down
12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.
Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
A referendum requires that0 -
Perhaps with some plastic surgery, a new name and a moustache we can pass ourselves off as Iceland.Xenon said:
Project fear round 2 seems to be more effective than the first one.TGOHF said:
"Survival of the Uk" = leaving a trading club.SeanT said:
I think this is now going way beyond party politics. This is about the survival of the UK and so on and so forth.TGOHF said:
Amusing that all these options are being bandied about without the consideration for the Conservative voters.SeanT said:Why is March 29 seen as so final?
I get that it's Brexit Day,
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
May won't be allowed to drive the party into a ditch - all these fanciful options of 2nd referendums, crap deals etc do just that.
Does the Uk need to go into witness protection in Idaho ?
But - will the EU track us down via an FBI agent gone bad and force us to buy their £300Bn of goods ?
0 -
Option 4 may be tricky. I wouldn't expect those dastardly Spaniards to fall for the old fireship trick again...Anorak said:0 -
Mr. S, oh, that's easy. The next Conservative contest will be between Hunt and Mordaunt. (I'd be rather pleased if Mordaunt won it).
Mr. Eagles, ha. The year 3000 reminds me of Busted's logically challenging lyric:
Not much had changed
But we lived underwater0 -
Emphasis on *IF* it means lower econimic growth over 15 years of course...Scott_P said:0 -
In what way ?williamglenn said:
Which is precisely why it's less likely. The PM acting alone can prevent No Deal.Nigelb said:
But doesn't require passing a vote in the House. All other options do.williamglenn said:
I think it's deceptive to think it happens because of "no action". In reality, for a PM to set on that course and stick to it even as society erupts requires a hell of a lot of "action".Nigelb said:
No agreement is reached on any particular solution; no action is taken, and it happens.williamglenn said:
I don't think that's naive. Explain in practical terms how no deal actually happens.Nigelb said:
On occasion, you can be remarkably naive.williamglenn said:
It's impossible to engineer a no deal Brexit without putting in place a Prime Minister who's actually willing to go through with it.Nigelb said:
Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?grabcocque said:McDonnell now saying that a second referendum is 'inevitable'.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1067792910027026432
This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.0 -
Plus your great, great, great granddaughter would be around 800 years old in the year 3000.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. S, oh, that's easy. The next Conservative contest will be between Hunt and Mordaunt. (I'd be rather pleased if Mordaunt won it).
Mr. Eagles, ha. The year 3000 reminds me of Busted's logically challenging lyric:
Not much had changed
But we lived underwater0 -
A second referendum of Remain vs Mays Deal = hanging vs strangulation ?SeanT said:
Perhaps you haven't noticed this thing called the Northern Irish backstop which literally hives off a chunk of the UK and puts it, in various ways, in a different jurisdiction, ruled in part by the EU and ECJ (without any representation) and evermore divergent over time, a situation which would probably lead to a border poll and a united Ireland. This process could then be repeated for Scotland.TGOHF said:
"Survival of the Uk" = leaving a trading club.SeanT said:
I think this is now going way beyond party politics. This is about the survival of the UK and so on and so forth.TGOHF said:
Amusing that all these options are being bandied about without the consideration for the Conservative voters.SeanT said:Why is March 29 seen as so final?
I get that it's Brexit Day,
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
May won't be allowed to drive the party into a ditch - all these fanciful options of 2nd referendums, crap deals etc do just that.
Does the Uk need to go into witness protection in Idaho ?
Yes, this is about the survival of the UK.
0 -
Only because there's no counter argument being put. Once the referendum campaign is actually underway both sides have to be given equal airtime and scrutiny again.Xenon said:
Project fear round 2 seems to be more effective than the first one.TGOHF said:
"Survival of the Uk" = leaving a trading club.SeanT said:
I think this is now going way beyond party politics. This is about the survival of the UK and so on and so forth.TGOHF said:
Amusing that all these options are being bandied about without the consideration for the Conservative voters.SeanT said:Why is March 29 seen as so final?
I get that it's Brexit Day,
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
May won't be allowed to drive the party into a ditch - all these fanciful options of 2nd referendums, crap deals etc do just that.
Does the Uk need to go into witness protection in Idaho ?0 -
Yes, it ruins the credibility of the song for me. Just as ABBA irritate with their factual innacuracy over the Battle of Waterloo.TheScreamingEagles said:
Plus your great, great, great granddaughter would be around 800 years old in the year 3000.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. S, oh, that's easy. The next Conservative contest will be between Hunt and Mordaunt. (I'd be rather pleased if Mordaunt won it).
Mr. Eagles, ha. The year 3000 reminds me of Busted's logically challenging lyric:
Not much had changed
But we lived underwater0 -
Foreign policy, taxation, defence, health, education, criminal justice, immigration, public spending would all be determined by Westminster and/or Stormont. It's a huge exaggeration to say that the Backstop breaks up the UK.SeanT said:
Perhaps you haven't noticed this thing called the Northern Irish backstop which literally hives off a chunk of the UK and puts it, in various ways, in a different jurisdiction, ruled in part by the EU and ECJ (without any representation) and evermore divergent over time, a situation which would probably lead to a border poll and a united Ireland. This process could then be repeated for Scotland.TGOHF said:
"Survival of the Uk" = leaving a trading club.SeanT said:
I think this is now going way beyond party politics. This is about the survival of the UK and so on and so forth.TGOHF said:
Amusing that all these options are being bandied about without the consideration for the Conservative voters.SeanT said:Why is March 29 seen as so final?
I get that it's Brexit Day,
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
May won't be allowed to drive the party into a ditch - all these fanciful options of 2nd referendums, crap deals etc do just that.
Does the Uk need to go into witness protection in Idaho ?
Yes, this is about the survival of the UK.0 -
The voters were warned that Leave might put the union/peace process at risk, will of the people and all that jazz.SeanT said:
Perhaps you haven't noticed this thing called the Northern Irish backstop which literally hives off a chunk of the UK and puts it, in various ways, in a different jurisdiction, ruled in part by the EU and ECJ (without any representation) and evermore divergent over time, a situation which would probably lead to a border poll and a united Ireland. This process could then be repeated for Scotland.TGOHF said:
"Survival of the Uk" = leaving a trading club.SeanT said:
I think this is now going way beyond party politics. This is about the survival of the UK and so on and so forth.TGOHF said:
Amusing that all these options are being bandied about without the consideration for the Conservative voters.SeanT said:Why is March 29 seen as so final?
I get that it's Brexit Day,
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
May won't be allowed to drive the party into a ditch - all these fanciful options of 2nd referendums, crap deals etc do just that.
Does the Uk need to go into witness protection in Idaho ?
Yes, this is about the survival of the UK.0 -
Mr. Eagles, another serious flaw, although it's possible Busted took the view, which some people do, that within a few decades human life can be extended to limits currently considered impossible through medical and technological advances.0
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=izQB2-KmiicTheScreamingEagles said:
Plus your great, great, great granddaughter would be around 800 years old in the year 3000.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. S, oh, that's easy. The next Conservative contest will be between Hunt and Mordaunt. (I'd be rather pleased if Mordaunt won it).
Mr. Eagles, ha. The year 3000 reminds me of Busted's logically challenging lyric:
Not much had changed
But we lived underwater0 -
FPT
grabcocque said:
Bercow has invited Kier Starmer to write him a letter so he can rule whether the government is in Contempt of Parliament for ignoring the terms of the Humble Address?
Any experts on Parliamentary diddling can tell us what happens if the government is held in contempt of parliament by the Speaker?
Richard Nabavi said:
Some guy in fancy dress drags David Lidington into the dungeon, I believe,
There must be some downside to this. Can he not vote for the deal whilst in a dungeon?0 -
They would, of course, have us over a barrel again - and they have not exactly demonstrated a desperate unwillingness to take advantage of that up until now.SeanT said:
The UK changing its mind and Brexit being reversed (even after March 29) would be a huge moral and political victory for Brussels (plus they'd get all that money AND the UK back in the Single Market and CU in perpetuity). The EU would be insane not to make this as inviting a prospect as possible for UK voters.TheScreamingEagles said:
We need a treaty letting us back in.SeanT said:Why is March 29 seen as so final?
I get that it's Brexit Day,
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
They'd probably stick in a few requirements that we wouldn't make them go through this again, something like The UK agrees not to trigger Article 50 until the year 3000 at the earliest, also the UK agrees to join the Euro, and cede Gibraltar to Spain for perpetuity.
Good luck on selling that on the doorstep.
Making it punitive would be incomprehensibly dumb. Nonetheless, incomprehensibly dumb things have attended this whole process so, sure, it is possible Brussels might act like that, in a spasm of sadistic stupidity.
And justify it by reference to deeply seated principle.0 -
They would simply refuse. As noted, there's a mechanism to rejoin. They would love for us to lose our opt-outs.CarlottaVance said:0 -
Maybe he has to wear a gimp mask.DavidL said:FPT
grabcocque said:
Bercow has invited Kier Starmer to write him a letter so he can rule whether the government is in Contempt of Parliament for ignoring the terms of the Humble Address?
Any experts on Parliamentary diddling can tell us what happens if the government is held in contempt of parliament by the Speaker?
Richard Nabavi said:
Some guy in fancy dress drags David Lidington into the dungeon, I believe,
There must be some downside to this. Can he not vote for the deal whilst in a dungeon?0 -
The government & Opposition.....united in shambles...
https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/10678183229290414100 -
There is no Condorcet paradox in the data Stephen Fisher analysed:
https://twitter.com/StephenDFisher/status/10678098671995904000 -
Not sure I've ever seen the line that a politician's words don't mean what he thinks spun out before.CarlottaVance said:The government & Opposition.....united in shambles...
https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1067818322929041410
I mean its obviously normally true, but opponents tend to point it out.0 -
Talking about Busted....and I thought we hit rock bottom when there was discussions on fluffers...0
-
The EU cannot pass any law it likes in the fields which I listed, and which are the most important areas of policy. But, in any case, the Backstop is uncomfortable for the EU. It gives us (in their eyes) privileged access to their markets, without our making financial contributions or accepting freedom of movement. That is why it will be in their interest to negotiate with us.SeanT said:
It doesn't immediately break up the UK, but it creates an ever-widening wedge between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.Sean_F said:
Foreign policy, taxation, defence, health, education, criminal justice, immigration, public spending would all be determined by Westminster and/or Stormont. It's a huge exaggeration to say that the Backstop breaks up the UK.SeanT said:
Perhaps you haven't noticed this thing called the Northern Irish backstop which literally hives off a chunk of the UK and puts it, in various ways, in a different jurisdiction, ruled in part by the EU and ECJ (without any representation) and evermore divergent over time, a situation which would probably lead to a border poll and a united Ireland. This process could then be repeated for Scotland.TGOHF said:
"Survival of the Uk" = leaving a trading club.SeanT said:
I think this is now going way beyond party politics. This is about the survival of the UK and so on and so forth.TGOHF said:
Amusing that all these options are being bandied about without the consideration for the Conservative voters.SeanT said:Why is March 29 seen as so final?
I get that it's Brexit Day,
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
May won't be allowed to drive the party into a ditch - all these fanciful options of 2nd referendums, crap deals etc do just that.
Does the Uk need to go into witness protection in Idaho ?
Yes, this is about the survival of the UK.
And we will only be allowed out of this if we, iconically, give up access to our fishing waters (and much else, no doubt). And we have no say during all this, the EU can pass any law it likes (without British input) and we have to accept it. This is a terrible deal.
And who gets to decide when we can be finally free? The EU. Literally.0 -
You want me to start a discussion/thread about when McFly and Busted did a tour under the McBusted name?FrancisUrquhart said:Talking about Busted....and I thought we hit rock bottom when there was discussions on fluffers...
0 -
My faith in the universe has been shaken.Tissue_Price said:There is no Condorcet paradox in the data Stephen Fisher analysed:
https://twitter.com/StephenDFisher/status/1067809867199590400
Professor Fisher is never wrong.0 -
Labour will do what they have done effectively up till now, ride two horses.Pulpstar said:
Not sure I've ever seen the line that a politician's words don't mean what he thinks spun out before.CarlottaVance said:The government & Opposition.....united in shambles...
https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1067818322929041410
I mean its obviously normally true, but opponents tend to point it out.0 -
Year 0 of Brexit is a good place to implement what Corbyn and McDonnell REALLY want.SeanT said:
Labour are waaaay more divided than the Tories on Brexit. At least at the top.Pulpstar said:
Not sure I've ever seen the line that a politician's words don't mean what he thinks spun out before.CarlottaVance said:The government & Opposition.....united in shambles...
https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1067818322929041410
I mean its obviously normally true, but opponents tend to point it out.0 -
-
No, she can't. The PM isn't authorised to request an A50 extension unless there's either (1) a deal already agreed by parliament, or (2) an amendment to the Withdrawal Bill. The Withdrawal Bill specifies when Britain will leave the EU. She would be in breach of that if she either asked for an extension, or revoked notification (which she also probably doesn't have the power to do because the Notification Act only granted her the power to notify of withdrawal, not notification to remain).williamglenn said:
Which is precisely why it's less likely. The PM acting alone can prevent No Deal.Nigelb said:
But doesn't require passing a vote in the House. All other options do.williamglenn said:
I think it's deceptive to think it happens because of "no action". In reality, for a PM to set on that course and stick to it even as society erupts requires a hell of a lot of "action".Nigelb said:
No agreement is reached on any particular solution; no action is taken, and it happens.williamglenn said:
I don't think that's naive. Explain in practical terms how no deal actually happens.Nigelb said:
On occasion, you can be remarkably naive.williamglenn said:
It's impossible to engineer a no deal Brexit without putting in place a Prime Minister who's actually willing to go through with it.Nigelb said:
Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?grabcocque said:McDonnell now saying that a second referendum is 'inevitable'.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1067792910027026432
This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.
To go down any of those roads requires a vote in parliament. Most require amendment to legislation.0 -
I love the phrase “transcription error.” It sounds so much better than cock up.TheScreamingEagles said:
My faith in the universe has been shaken.Tissue_Price said:There is no Condorcet paradox in the data Stephen Fisher analysed:
https://twitter.com/StephenDFisher/status/1067809867199590400
Professor Fisher is never wrong.0 -
That's not the problem with the Northern Ireland backstop.SeanT said:It doesn't immediately break up the UK, but it creates an ever-widening wedge between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
And we will only be allowed out of this if we, iconically, give up access to our fishing waters (and much else, no doubt). And we have no say during all this, the EU can pass any law it likes (without British input) and we have to accept it. This is a terrible deal.
And who gets to decide when we can be finally free? The EU. Literally.
If the people of Northern Ireland voted in a referendum to end the backstop and join wholeheartedly with the UK, then irrespective of what was in the treaties, the EU would have to accept it.
The problem is that the backstop puts Northern Ireland in an incredibly privileged position. They are effectively part of two different customs areas. They are inside the EU, but not bound by EU's labour market or environmental or tax provisions. They will, undoubtedly, end up at the end of subsidies from both the UK and the EU.
Once Northern Ireland is in that position - no matter what the treaties say - it will be politically impossible to leave it. The Nationalist community will be 100% opposed to exit, and there will be many in the Unionist community who benefit financially, and also therefore oppose an exit.0 -
@SeanT
In 1922 Ireland signed off (or M Collins and the foreunners of Fine Gael did, whilst De Valera and the fore runners of Fianna Fail violently continued to disgaree for another year or so) on a "deal" that gave 26 counties Dominion status. I am not aware there was a "way out" of that, per se. It was permanent so to speak. All Ireland remained a de jure monarchy.
27 years later and a lot of "events dear boy events" as MacMillan used to say and a 26 county Republic was declared, and it was little more that a footnote, not a huge constitutional deal as it would've been.
I strongly suspect the same sort of processes would apply to the Backstop. Can't be sure of the timing but we would be out, and go from there.
Sit on the side of the riverbank long enough and the bodies of your enemies float by.
The ERG are just impatient.0 -
I think you're mistaken here. As I posted on the last thread, at yesterday's meeting McDonnell went even further: he made it clear that Labour would be likely to support a referendum if May's deal was defeated and an election wasn't possible, AND suggested that if Labour did gain power then it might be appropriate to have a referendum on whatever renegotiation was subsequently achieved.david_herdson said:
I don't believe the Labour leadership are at all behind a second referendum - McDonnell knows well enough that it would expose Labour's splits almost as much as the Tories'.grabcocque said:McDonnell now saying that a second referendum is 'inevitable'.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1067792910027026432
This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.
What I do think he's calculated is that it benefits Labour to *appear* to be behind a referendum, providing it's not actually delivered; and hence he's also concluded that it won't be delivered. I think he'd be right on both points.
Incidentally, he also said repeatedly that he personally was a Remainer. People project onto the Labour leadership an image of secretly fanatical Brexiteers, but it's actually low down on their priority list either way - they reckon we'll either remain or stay closely aligned, and regard the Tory obsession with it with some amazement. Winning an election and governing successfully comes a zillion miles ahead for them.0 -
Google “abrogation”SeanT said:
Perhaps you haven't noticed this thing called the Northern Irish backstop which literally hives off a chunk of the UK and puts it, in various ways, in a different jurisdiction, ruled in part by the EU and ECJ (without any representation) and evermore divergent over time, a situation which would probably lead to a border poll and a united Ireland. This process could then be repeated for Scotland.TGOHF said:
"Survival of the Uk" = leaving a trading club.SeanT said:
I think this is now going way beyond party politics. This is about the survival of the UK and so on and so forth.TGOHF said:
Amusing that all these options are being bandied about without the consideration for the Conservative voters.SeanT said:Why is March 29 seen as so final?
I get that it's Brexit Day,
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
May won't be allowed to drive the party into a ditch - all these fanciful options of 2nd referendums, crap deals etc do just that.
Does the Uk need to go into witness protection in Idaho ?
Yes, this is about the survival of the UK.
And then remember it can be done unilaterally with minimal consequences0 -
I do support the deal, not because it's great, but because I prefer it to Remain or No Deal.SeanT said:
I take it you support TMay's deal? Serious question.
Presuming it is voted down, what is your preferred alternative? No Deal?
I'm not sure about the alternative.0 -
She can change the date using Henry VIII powers. If she requests an extension from the Council they're not going to say, "I'm sorry but you'll need a vote in parliament first."david_herdson said:
No, she can't. The PM isn't authorised to request an A50 extension unless there's either (1) a deal already agreed by parliament, or (2) an amendment to the Withdrawal Bill. The Withdrawal Bill specifies when Britain will leave the EU. She would be in breach of that if she either asked for an extension, or revoked notification (which she also probably doesn't have the power to do because the Notification Act only granted her the power to notify of withdrawal, not notification to remain).williamglenn said:
Which is precisely why it's less likely. The PM acting alone can prevent No Deal.Nigelb said:
But doesn't require passing a vote in the House. All other options do.williamglenn said:
I think it's deceptive to think it happens because of "no action". In reality, for a PM to set on that course and stick to it even as society erupts requires a hell of a lot of "action".Nigelb said:
No agreement is reached on any particular solution; no action is taken, and it happens.williamglenn said:
I don't think that's naive. Explain in practical terms how no deal actually happens.Nigelb said:
On occasion, you can be remarkably naive.williamglenn said:
It's impossible to engineer a no deal Brexit without putting in place a Prime Minister who's actually willing to go through with it.Nigelb said:
Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?grabcocque said:McDonnell now saying that a second referendum is 'inevitable'.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1067792910027026432
This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.
To go down any of those roads requires a vote in parliament. Most require amendment to legislation.0 -
I'm fairly sure that Trump's spokesman has said it too.Pulpstar said:
Not sure I've ever seen the line that a politician's words don't mean what he thinks spun out before.CarlottaVance said:The government & Opposition.....united in shambles...
https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1067818322929041410
I mean its obviously normally true, but opponents tend to point it out.0 -
About five minutes before I had to make a presentation I realised I had made a massive error in my report.tlg86 said:
I love the phrase “transcription error.” It sounds so much better than cock up.TheScreamingEagles said:
My faith in the universe has been shaken.Tissue_Price said:There is no Condorcet paradox in the data Stephen Fisher analysed:
https://twitter.com/StephenDFisher/status/1067809867199590400
Professor Fisher is never wrong.
So I began the presentation with 'Well if I was the other side this is how I would proceed' then winged it from there.
It worked.
Thank the heavens for the abundance of intellectual self confidence I possess.0 -
0
-
Granted, it's not a perfect analogy (can't really compare 2020 UK to 1922 Ireland in terms of the economics), but it holds generally for me.SeanT said:
Hmm. During the years after 1922 Ireland became significantly poorer.... for a long, long time. And it only took them 30 years to finally gain freedom, and 70 years to catch up, economically?welshowl said:@SeanT
In 1922 Ireland signed off (or M Collins and the foreunners of Fine Gael did, whilst De Valera and the fore runners of Fianna Fail violently continued to disgaree for another year or so) on a "deal" that gave 26 counties Dominion status. I am not aware there was a "way out" of that, per se. It was permanent so to speak. All Ireland remained a de jure monarchy.
27 years later and a lot of "events dear boy events" as MacMillan used to say and a 26 county Republic was declared, and it was little more that a footnote, not a huge constitutional deal as it would've been.
I strongly suspect the same sort of processes would apply to the Backstop. Can't be sure of the timing but we would be out, and go from there.
Sit on the side of the riverbank long enough and the bodies of your enemies float by.
The ERG are just impatient.
Forgive me if I am not reassured.
I've tried to like TMay's deal, I really have, but I am afraid it does look like quasi-colonial to me, and also a menace to the UK.
Practically, I cannot see how it passes, anyway. Then what?
Cake: delayed a bit.0 -
Example One: President Donald J Trump and all of the US's existing Treaty obligations.Charles said:
Google “abrogation”SeanT said:
Perhaps you haven't noticed this thing called the Northern Irish backstop which literally hives off a chunk of the UK and puts it, in various ways, in a different jurisdiction, ruled in part by the EU and ECJ (without any representation) and evermore divergent over time, a situation which would probably lead to a border poll and a united Ireland. This process could then be repeated for Scotland.TGOHF said:
"Survival of the Uk" = leaving a trading club.SeanT said:
I think this is now going way beyond party politics. This is about the survival of the UK and so on and so forth.TGOHF said:
Amusing that all these options are being bandied about without the consideration for the Conservative voters.SeanT said:Why is March 29 seen as so final?
I get that it's Brexit Day,
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
May won't be allowed to drive the party into a ditch - all these fanciful options of 2nd referendums, crap deals etc do just that.
Does the Uk need to go into witness protection in Idaho ?
Yes, this is about the survival of the UK.
And then remember it can be done unilaterally with minimal consequences0 -
Doesn't read to me like he's confirming fears, seems to be confirming we need chemicals while simultaneously confirming we will have those chemicals and that the water "will be" safe. Seems like a big hoo haa over nothing.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Why are we importing this stuff in the first place?TheScreamingEagles said:
Are British companies incapable are creating the chemicals that can purify the water we drink?
Like I said on Sunday what the **** have British governments actually been doing for the past 40 years?0 -
I always admired "plebeian" in the original "Cry Me A River".SeanT said:Year 3000 by Busted (a brilliant song by a much under-rated band) is also notable as being the only hit single of the modern era to use the phrase "flux capacitor" in its lyrics.
0 -
LOL! At least the kids will be able to get on the housing ladder again...TheScreamingEagles said:
0 -
I don't want to Remain, and I think that No Deal would be extremely disruptive. I think that the consequences have been exaggerated, but they would be bad.SeanT said:
That's genuinely interesting. Your total lack of an alternative is less than comforting, however.Sean_F said:
I do support the deal, not because it's great, but because I prefer it to Remain or No Deal.SeanT said:
I take it you support TMay's deal? Serious question.
Presuming it is voted down, what is your preferred alternative? No Deal?
I'm not sure about the alternative.
0 -
This is a brilliant illustration of why people who think you can have a single market without politics are fooling themselves. A single market is inherently political.GIN1138 said:
Why are we importing this stuff in the first place?TheScreamingEagles said:
Are British companies incapable are creating the chemicals that can purify the water we drink?
Like I said on Sunday what the **** have British governments actually been doing for the past 40 years?0 -
Is this the same mis-reporting as last time when the BoE took extreme assumptions to 'stress test' the banks but which weren't in fact predictions about what might happen, just 'very much worst case' scenarios?TheScreamingEagles said:0
This discussion has been closed.