*If* there's a second referendum, and it's a three option referendum, then I think May's deal wins. Most voters are not bitter enders who would rather have nothing at all, than have to compromise, and it will be most voters' second choice.
So, we can be sure that Remain MPs in the Commons would rule that out. Their best chance is to make it a binary option Remain/No Deal (and frighten the voters into Remain) or Remain/Deal, and hope that enough hard Brexiters sit on their hands.
And, if Remain loses second time around, there's endless scope to demand further referenda in the future.
I don't think deal would win. Who would speak to defend it? After the Commons on left And right unite to condemn it?
In aggregate, voters are wiser than MP's.
In a three-way referendum, Deal goes down first.
Today it would win.
I think every poll (certainly, the majority of them), which have polled deal / no deal / remain, have found 'deal' to have least support. In a campaign, it would likely only be squeezed further.
Even though No Deal is the least popular option on first preferences, it would beat Remain 52:48 in a two-way competition according to the preference orderings above. This is because Deal supporters prefer No Deal to Remain by a large margin.
As well as beating Remain in a two-way comparison, the May Agreement would also beat No Deal in a straight contest by a large margin, 58 to 42. The modest first-preference lead for the Deal would be strengthened because Remainers strongly prefer the Deal to No Deal.
So constructing a series of two-way contests from the preference orderings means that there is a majority for the Deal over No Deal and for the Deal over Remain. This means that May’s Agreement is what political scientists call the Condorcet winner
The key paragraph is this one, echoing a point @Big_G_NorthWales has made:
A key tactic for the Brexit vote is to allow all the other options to be voted on via MPs submitting amendments, and let them fail first, forcing MPs to consider May’s deal as the only realistic option on the table. The Smith argument is that none of the various alternatives command a majority in the Commons.
Alas Mr Smith is no longer my MP, so I can't write to him urging him to vote against May's deal.
As I am now a resident of the Shipley constituency, I don't think my current MP needs any persuasion!
With respect I do not think you appreciate the process under this procedure
We seem to be severely pissing off our friends in the EU. Perfidious Albion rides again! Win lose or draw, that doesn't bode well for the future. And when all this is over we're going to need our friends.
Friends? You are a venerable chap iirc, you know very well that countries don't have friends.
Very nice. Had dinner with a Cons MP (voted Remain) last night who showed me some of their emails. Typical: You ******** traitor. Make sure you ******* vote against the **** ****** deal you Remoaner c***.
As I said something about the mindset of Leave vs Remain supporters.
I think Alastair Burt was right that the attacks on the deal from Leavers will tend to make former Remain MPs feel that they are no longer obliged to respect the referendum result.
It certainly provides cover to any of them.
It's more than cover - if Leavers have decided that they now don't like the Brexit they campaigned for and voted for, then why on earth should Remainer MPs who think Brexit is a mistake, but were deferring to the democratic decision, continue to defer to it?
Because Brexit isn't the mistake. Remainer May's fake Brexit is the mistake.
Well hopefully you're right there will be a chance for proper brexit. But if not what then? Mps may have to face that choice.
MPs may not get that choice. The only chance for a Brexit we voted for is to see Remainer May's deal voted down. Too many Remainer MPs see that as a voting down of Brexit as @Richard_Nabavi alluded too and not merely a voting down of the mess May has tried to drag us into.
Not a chance - forget brexit if that is your attitude
Fine by me.
The 2016 referendum boiled down to a choice between "taking back control" (Leave) or "economic stability" (Remain).
I was torn at first but went for Leave in the end as I thought the risks were overblown but we'd gain more from control than we lose from any instability.
May's deal has sacrificed our control in order to gain economic stability. I'm sorry but to me that's a complete betrayal of the vote. If you want stability, vote remain, but we had that debate and control beat stability.
If you had to choose between May's deal, No Deal or No Brexit which would it be?
I genuinely dunno what I'd choose. My feelings vary by the minute.
Definitely no deal, but with the caveat that I'd ratify the deal if the backstop is removed and replaced by a simple pledge by both sides to use best endeavours to avoid a hard border.
But I wouldn't negotiate any further. I would put all exertions on getting ready for a no deal Brexit starting with planning for the soon to come Irish hard border unless or until the Irish back down. If they don't back down, so be it.
Whilst I don't like Bercow, he does act correctly on parliamentary procedures. (I have the impression that's he also much more impartial now that Cameron has gone. I won't speculate as to why that might be!).
I am not sure that is true.
He seems as anti-Government as ever, if not more so.
In the recent Brexit statements, he has called anti-May backbenchers repeatedly before anyone who might offer any support
Some of which latter are spitting feathers, as I'm sure you are aware.
Sure, but Mann (Or Hopkins in Sean_F ) case are clearly not unthinking Labour party hacks and might vote through the deal.
John is his own man and absolutely will not be told what to do, but whips, Corbyn, constituents or the Archangel Gabriel. If pressured, his inclination will be to do the opposite. Kelvin is very different - a quiet, consistent left-winger suspended due to non-political allegations. I think he's likely to vote with Corbyn.
@NickPalmer - totally off topic, but were you close to Fiona Jones during her brief period as MP for Newark at all?
A few years back I read an awful article on what she has been through during her trial. I'd hope MP's would be better supported nowadays but I doubt it.
Yes, I knew her very well - we shared an office. (Earlier, she'd beaten me by a small margin to the Newark selection, but the credibility for coming second helped me get Broxtowe next door). I liked her a lot - she was high-spirited and willing to take on hostile audiences - I remember a meeting with farmers demanding bigger subsidies where she said "We need to be careful about spending and if I don't vote for more money for single parents in desperate poverty I'm certainly not going to vote for it for you." She ran into the same sort of issue as the Tories later encountered with defining whether constituency election expenses should include outside assistance (in her case phone canvassing from regional HQ) - an assistant who she'd annoyed gave unhelpful evidence,. and she was unseated but reinstated on appeal.
Unfortunately she became obsessed with the belief (right or wrong, I don't know) that the police had conspired to stitch her up and pursued that beyond the point of a reasonable hope of success. At some point IIRC, the party stopped supporting her legal actions. When she lost her seat she found it very hard to resume her previous job as a journalist and eventually, I think, drank to an extent that contributed to her death.
She didn't say to me that she felt unsupported, though I lost touch with her after she lost her seat. But it was an awful example of someone with real guts who was eventually ground down.
This whole Brexit thing, it's gonna be fine, right?
"When the sun rises in the west and sets in the east," said Mirri Maz Duur. "When the seas go dry and mountains blow in the wind like leaves. When your womb quickens again, and you bear a living child. Then you will leave the backstop, and not before."
We seem to be severely pissing off our friends in the EU. Perfidious Albion rides again! Win lose or draw, that doesn't bode well for the future. And when all this is over we're going to need our friends.
Friends? You are a venerable chap iirc, you know very well that countries don't have friends.
Whilst I don't like Bercow, he does act correctly on parliamentary procedures. (I have the impression that's he also much more impartial now that Cameron has gone. I won't speculate as to why that might be!).
In the recent Brexit statements, he has called anti-May backbenchers repeatedly before anyone who might offer any support
The contrast between the statement on the WA - where he chooses MPs - and PMQs, where the list is established beforehand was striking - it was over an hour before he called a sympathetic voice, and the second hour was markedly more sympathetic than the first.
We seem to be severely pissing off our friends in the EU. Perfidious Albion rides again! Win lose or draw, that doesn't bode well for the future. And when all this is over we're going to need our friends.
Friends? You are a venerable chap iirc, you know very well that countries don't have friends.
See my reply to Richard Tyndall upthread. And because I'm a venerable chap I've seen, and heard, the effect of falling out with our neighbours.
Very nice. Had dinner with a Cons MP (voted Remain) last night who showed me some of their emails. Typical: You ******** traitor. Make sure you ******* vote against the **** ****** deal you Remoaner c***.
As I said something about the mindset of Leave vs Remain supporters.
I think Alastair Burt was right that the attacks on the deal from Leavers will tend to make former Remain MPs feel that they are no longer obliged to respect the referendum result.
It certainly provides cover to any of them.
It's more than cover - if Leavers have decided that they now don't like the Brexit they campaigned for and voted for, then why on earth should Remainer MPs who think Brexit is a mistake, but were deferring to the democratic decision, continue to defer to it?
Because Brexit isn't the mistake. Remainer May's fake Brexit is the mistake.
Well hopefully you're right there will be a chance for proper brexit. But if not what then? Mps may have to face that choice.
MPs may not get that choice. The only chance for a Brexit we voted for is to see Remainer May's deal voted down. Too many Remainer MPs see that as a voting down of Brexit as @Richard_Nabavi alluded too and not merely a voting down of the mess May has tried to drag us into.
Not a chance - forget brexit if that is your attitude
If you want stability, vote remain, but we had that debate and control beat stability.
And 48% of the voters did want stability - and Remain - and May is PM for the whole country, not just LEAVE voters.
We seem to be severely pissing off our friends in the EU. Perfidious Albion rides again! Win lose or draw, that doesn't bode well for the future. And when all this is over we're going to need our friends.
Kissinger had it right though. There are no permanent friends or enemies, only interests."
The key paragraph is this one, echoing a point @Big_G_NorthWales has made:
A key tactic for the Brexit vote is to allow all the other options to be voted on via MPs submitting amendments, and let them fail first, forcing MPs to consider May’s deal as the only realistic option on the table. The Smith argument is that none of the various alternatives command a majority in the Commons.
Alas Mr Smith is no longer my MP, so I can't write to him urging him to vote against May's deal.
As I am now a resident of the Shipley constituency, I don't think my current MP needs any persuasion!
With respect I do not think you appreciate the process under this procedure
I fully understand the process. May argues her case to the nation, and we are then meant to urge our MPs to vote the way we want them to. Well, May has failed to persuade me of the merits of her deal, so I am very happy that my MP will be voting against. That he gets to take his better half into the lobby with him is just icing on the cake.
Just out of interest, what is he position on deselection. Is it in the hands of Central Office or the individual constituencies?
For a sitting MP, there's automatic reselection unless either the local association no-confidences their MP, or if they have the whip withdrawn.
An MP that supported a VONC against their government would absolutely lose the whip, and therefore could not be reselected as Tory candidate for the next election.
So what happens if they still have the support of their constituency. Does that effectively mean no Tory candidate in that constituency?
The constituency association would be expected to conduct a selection process, irrespective of the preferences of the members, Exec or officers for the sitting MP. That selection would have to be conducted without the suspended MP.
If the Association wasn't willing to do that then I expect that CCHQ would step in in some form, probably involving putting the Association into special measures. For example, it could either to run the selection process itself - possibly through an Area officer - or even impose a candidate directly. Depending on time constraints, the former option would be the more sensible but if a VoNC was carried, I can't imagine that there would be any sympathy for an Association which backed an MP which had just brought down their own government.
Which kind of sums up what is wrong with the party system. My party right or wrong is no way to run politics.
With respect, that's not the argument.
On a vote of confidence, it is reasonable for both a party and voters to expect an MP to back the leadership of the party they belong to. That is how the party system works, how voters can back candidates as proxies for their preferred government, and how governments can be held to account by voters. Certainly, MPs should not be expected to be robots, following the party line on every division, but on a VoNC, different considerations apply. If MPs can break party ranks on an issue that defines what a party is (remember that parties originated in parliament), then what is the point of them?
Unpopular though they might be at times, parties are essential and - grudgingly, perhaps - appreciated by voters for doing donkey work that they might otherwise have to do themselves.
We seem to be severely pissing off our friends in the EU. Perfidious Albion rides again! Win lose or draw, that doesn't bode well for the future. And when all this is over we're going to need our friends.
Quite but the EU post brexit will be our enemies......
This whole Brexit thing, it's gonna be fine, right?
Yes if we get Mays deal through parliament.
The fear of Corbyn should work , to herd Tory mps through the correct lobby.
It shouldn't even come to that. May's deal unlike almost all the alternatives is deliverable, and it's quite acceptable to most people who aren't diehard Europhiles or Europhobes. Any deal that comes after at 52/48 split in a referendum would have to be a compromise that annoys those people at the extremes.
Get the deal through Parliament, and move on to what actually matters, the future trade deal with the EU. The sooner we do that, the sooner we can get through the transition and avoid the backstop.
Very nice. Had dinner with a Cons MP (voted Remain) last night who showed me some of their emails. Typical: You ******** traitor. Make sure you ******* vote against the **** ****** deal you Remoaner c***.
As I said something about the mindset of Leave vs Remain supporters.
I think Alastair Burt was right that the attacks on the deal from Leavers will tend to make former Remain MPs feel that they are no longer obliged to respect the referendum result.
It certainly provides cover to any of them.
It's more than cover - if Leavers have decided that they now don't like the Brexit they campaigned for and voted for, then why on earth should Remainer MPs who think Brexit is a mistake, but were deferring to the democratic decision, continue to defer to it?
Because Brexit isn't the mistake. Remainer May's fake Brexit is the mistake.
Well hopefully you're right there will be a chance for proper brexit. But if not what then? Mps may have to face that choice.
MPs may not get that choice. The only chance for a Brexit we voted for is to see Remainer May's deal voted down. Too many Remainer MPs see that as a voting down of Brexit as @Richard_Nabavi alluded too and not merely a voting down of the mess May has tried to drag us into.
Not a chance - forget brexit if that is your attitude
If you want stability, vote remain, but we had that debate and control beat stability.
And 48% of the voters did want stability - and Remain - and May is PM for the whole country, not just LEAVE voters.
And even more to the point, the Leave campaigns specifically and repeatedly told voters there would be stability, that there would be no disruption to supply chains, and that we would be part of a 'free trade area from Ireland to Turkey'. It is absolutely absurd to call Theresa May's deal, which attempts as far as possible to comply with exactly what the Leave campaigns promised, as 'betrayal'. It would be much more a betrayal of Leave voters to slip into no-deal chaos.
We seem to be severely pissing off our friends in the EU. Perfidious Albion rides again! Win lose or draw, that doesn't bode well for the future. And when all this is over we're going to need our friends.
At the risk of sounding like David Davis in 2016, they need us too: it's not Britain that has a border with Russia.
Likewise, the pissing-off thing is a two-way process.
... they took their chance to kick the powers that be out of their complacency. The breaking of that complacency will imo be the major long term gain from the EUref.
*shrugs*
What use is that to everyone? It will not keep you warm, clothed, fed or healthy. And what is "Long Term"? Does that mean we have to wait for my Grandkids to benefit? Or their kids?
Which flavour of Brexit has stolen your clothes, turned off your heating, starved you and made you poorly? ...
That would be what people call "No Deal Brexit" which is my MPs will not allow it to happen
Sure, but Mann (Or Hopkins in Sean_F ) case are clearly not unthinking Labour party hacks and might vote through the deal.
John is his own man and absolutely will not be told what to do, but whips, Corbyn, constituents or the Archangel Gabriel. If pressured, his inclination will be to do the opposite. Kelvin is very different - a quiet, consistent left-winger suspended due to non-political allegations. I think he's likely to vote with Corbyn.
@NickPalmer - totally off topic, but were you close to Fiona Jones during her brief period as MP for Newark at all?
A few years back I read an awful article on what she has been through during her trial. I'd hope MP's would be better supported nowadays but I doubt it.
Yes, I knew her very well - we shared an office. (Earlier, she'd beaten me by a small margin to the Newark selection, but the credibility for coming second helped me get Broxtowe next door). I liked her a lot - she was high-spirited and willing to take on hostile audiences - I remember a meeting with farmers demanding bigger subsidies where she said "We need to be careful about spending and if I don't vote for more money for single parents in desperate poverty I'm certainly not going to vote for it for you." She ran into the same sort of issue as the Tories later encountered with defining whether constituency election expenses should include outside assistance (in her case phone canvassing from regional HQ) - an assistant who she'd annoyed gave unhelpful evidence,. and she was unseated but reinstated on appeal.
Unfortunately she became obsessed with the belief (right or wrong, I don't know) that the police had conspired to stitch her up and pursued that beyond the point of a reasonable hope of success. At some point IIRC, the party stopped supporting her legal actions. When she lost her seat she found it very hard to resume her previous job as a journalist and eventually, I think, drank to an extent that contributed to her death.
She didn't say to me that she felt unsupported, though I lost touch with her after she lost her seat. But it was an awful example of someone with real guts who was eventually ground down.
" ...an assistant who she'd annoyed gave unhelpful evidence"
She managed to annoy practically the whole Labour Party in Newark. By the time she came back into office she had very few friends left in the constituency so it is no surprise she was one of the few Labour MPs to lose their seat in the 2001 election.
... they took their chance to kick the powers that be out of their complacency. The breaking of that complacency will imo be the major long term gain from the EUref.
*shrugs*
What use is that to everyone? It will not keep you warm, clothed, fed or healthy. And what is "Long Term"? Does that mean we have to wait for my Grandkids to benefit? Or their kids?
Which flavour of Brexit has stolen your clothes, turned off your heating, starved you and made you poorly? ...
That would be what people call "No Deal Brexit" which is my MPs will not allow it to happen
They don't exactly have that many ways they can stop it.
We seem to be severely pissing off our friends in the EU. Perfidious Albion rides again! Win lose or draw, that doesn't bode well for the future. And when all this is over we're going to need our friends.
Quite but the EU post brexit will be our enemies......
Just out of interest, what is he position on deselection. Is it in the hands of Central Office or the individual constituencies?
For a sitting MP, there's automatic reselection unless either the local association no-confidences their MP, or if they have the whip withdrawn.
An MP that supported a VONC against their government would absolutely lose the whip, and therefore could not be reselected as Tory candidate for the next election.
So what happens if they still have the support of their constituency. Does that effectively mean no Tory candidate in that constituency?
The constituency association would be expected to conduct a selection process, irrespective of the preferences of the members, Exec or officers for the sitting MP. That selection would have to be conducted without the suspended MP.
If the Association wasn't willing to do that then I expect that CCHQ would step in in some form, probably involving putting the Association into special measures. For example, it could either to run the selection process itself - possibly through an Area officer - or even impose a candidate directly. Depending on time constraints, the former option would be the more sensible but if a VoNC was carried, I can't imagine that there would be any sympathy for an Association which backed an MP which had just brought down their own government.
Which kind of sums up what is wrong with the party system. My party right or wrong is no way to run politics.
With respect, that's not the argument.
On a vote of confidence, it is reasonable for both a party and voters to expect an MP to back the leadership of the party they belong to. That is how the party system works, how voters can back candidates as proxies for their preferred government, and how governments can be held to account by voters. Certainly, MPs should not be expected to be robots, following the party line on every division, but on a VoNC, different considerations apply. If MPs can break party ranks on an issue that defines what a party is (remember that parties originated in parliament), then what is the point of them?
Unpopular though they might be at times, parties are essential and - grudgingly, perhaps - appreciated by voters for doing donkey work that they might otherwise have to do themselves.
I don't believe they are essential - at least not in the form they have evolved into today. They are a blight on politics rather than an asset and they pervert the position of the MPs who are supposed to be elected as representatives of their constituencies not as voting fodder for a party
... they took their chance to kick the powers that be out of their complacency. The breaking of that complacency will imo be the major long term gain from the EUref.
*shrugs*
What use is that to everyone? It will not keep you warm, clothed, fed or healthy. And what is "Long Term"? Does that mean we have to wait for my Grandkids to benefit? Or their kids?
Which flavour of Brexit has stolen your clothes, turned off your heating, starved you and made you poorly? ...
"No Deal Brexit" which is my MPs will not allow it to happen
How, exactly?
They have voted for Article 50 - and we leave the EU in March. They voted for that already. Unless the government proposes and wins a bill to repeal it its happening.
The key paragraph is this one, echoing a point @Big_G_NorthWales has made:
A key tactic for the Brexit vote is to allow all the other options to be voted on via MPs submitting amendments, and let them fail first, forcing MPs to consider May’s deal as the only realistic option on the table. The Smith argument is that none of the various alternatives command a majority in the Commons.
Alas Mr Smith is no longer my MP, so I can't write to him urging him to vote against May's deal.
As I am now a resident of the Shipley constituency, I don't think my current MP needs any persuasion!
With respect I do not think you appreciate the process under this procedure
I fully understand the process. May argues her case to the nation, and we are then meant to urge our MPs to vote the way we want them to. Well, May has failed to persuade me of the merits of her deal, so I am very happy that my MP will be voting against. That he gets to take his better half into the lobby with him is just icing on the cake.
You have just made my case.
Under the meaningful vote each amendment will be voted on including second referendum, no deal, moving A50, labours wrecking deal, norway etc, and as each falls the final meaningful deal with be on TM deal. In those circumstances the HOC will vote for, as anything else will collapse the markets as all other options are exhausted and no deal is default
The only caveat is of course that if any amendment passed and was attached to the meaningful vote, the attached amendment on the deal would pass
It is not just get my mp to take it down. It is more complex than that
I don't think deal would win. Who would speak to defend it? After the Commons on left And right unite to condemn it?
In aggregate, voters are wiser than MP's.
In a three-way referendum, Deal goes down first.
Today it would win.
I think every poll (certainly, the majority of them), which have polled deal / no deal / remain, have found 'deal' to have least support. In a campaign, it would likely only be squeezed further.
Even though No Deal is the least popular option on first preferences, it would beat Remain 52:48 in a two-way competition according to the preference orderings above. This is because Deal supporters prefer No Deal to Remain by a large margin.
As well as beating Remain in a two-way comparison, the May Agreement would also beat No Deal in a straight contest by a large margin, 58 to 42. The modest first-preference lead for the Deal would be strengthened because Remainers strongly prefer the Deal to No Deal.
So constructing a series of two-way contests from the preference orderings means that there is a majority for the Deal over No Deal and for the Deal over Remain. This means that May’s Agreement is what political scientists call the Condorcet winner
In the real world, where a referendum would be conducted under AV or with two questions, Deal finishes last.
Given the only evidence you have to go on of the three question option is the Deltapoll and they say you are wrong, what do you base that claim on?
Survation and Opinium both had surveys with the three options on in the last fortnight.
But I am not sure they phrased them in the form of an AV vote. I think they just had separate questions asking about one over another.
They had a choice-of-three question, which is sufficient to know which is least popular under AV.
One of them (Survation, IIRC), also had a question as to which was respondents' second preference - and helpfully divided them by first-preference option.
The key paragraph is this one, echoing a point @Big_G_NorthWales has made:
A key tactic for the Brexit vote is to allow all the other options to be voted on via MPs submitting amendments, and let them fail first, forcing MPs to consider May’s deal as the only realistic option on the table. The Smith argument is that none of the various alternatives command a majority in the Commons.
Alas Mr Smith is no longer my MP, so I can't write to him urging him to vote against May's deal.
As I am now a resident of the Shipley constituency, I don't think my current MP needs any persuasion!
With respect I do not think you appreciate the process under this procedure
I fully understand the process. May argues her case to the nation, and we are then meant to urge our MPs to vote the way we want them to. Well, May has failed to persuade me of the merits of her deal, so I am very happy that my MP will be voting against. That he gets to take his better half into the lobby with him is just icing on the cake.
... they took their chance to kick the powers that be out of their complacency. The breaking of that complacency will imo be the major long term gain from the EUref.
*shrugs*
What use is that to everyone? It will not keep you warm, clothed, fed or healthy. And what is "Long Term"? Does that mean we have to wait for my Grandkids to benefit? Or their kids?
Which flavour of Brexit has stolen your clothes, turned off your heating, starved you and made you poorly? ...
That would be what people call "No Deal Brexit" which is my MPs will not allow it to happen
It is not as easy for them to not allow it as they are pretending. I think they can find a way, but they are ignoring that they signed an exit into law and it will take more work than just saying they won't allow it to prevent it.
We seem to be severely pissing off our friends in the EU. Perfidious Albion rides again! Win lose or draw, that doesn't bode well for the future. And when all this is over we're going to need our friends.
Kissinger had it right though. There are no permanent friends or enemies, only interests."
And our interests are pretty well always aligned with those of our neighbours. Even fisheries policy could be sorted out if here was a bit of goodwill, and AIUI, if big business hadn't decided to trade quotas.
That doesn't alter the fact that they are not our friends. They are temporary allies of convenience. That is the way of international politics.
The key paragraph is this one, echoing a point @Big_G_NorthWales has made:
A key tactic for the Brexit vote is to allow all the other options to be voted on via MPs submitting amendments, and let them fail first, forcing MPs to consider May’s deal as the only realistic option on the table. The Smith argument is that none of the various alternatives command a majority in the Commons.
Alas Mr Smith is no longer my MP, so I can't write to him urging him to vote against May's deal.
As I am now a resident of the Shipley constituency, I don't think my current MP needs any persuasion!
With respect I do not think you appreciate the process under this procedure
I fully understand the process. May argues her case to the nation, and we are then meant to urge our MPs to vote the way we want them to. Well, May has failed to persuade me of the merits of her deal, so I am very happy that my MP will be voting against. That he gets to take his better half into the lobby with him is just icing on the cake.
... they took their chance to kick the powers that be out of their complacency. The breaking of that complacency will imo be the major long term gain from the EUref.
*shrugs*
What use is that to everyone? It will not keep you warm, clothed, fed or healthy. And what is "Long Term"? Does that mean we have to wait for my Grandkids to benefit? Or their kids?
Which flavour of Brexit has stolen your clothes, turned off your heating, starved you and made you poorly? ...
That would be what people call "No Deal Brexit" which is my MPs will not allow it to happen
It is not as easy for them to not allow it as they are pretending. I think they can find a way, but they are ignoring that they signed an exit into law and it will take more work than just saying they won't allow it to prevent it.
It's very easy. They just need to vote for the deal.
This whole Brexit thing, it's gonna be fine, right?
Yes if we get Mays deal through parliament.
The fear of Corbyn should work , to herd Tory mps through the correct lobby.
It shouldn't even come to that. May's deal unlike almost all the alternatives is deliverable, and it's quite acceptable to most people who aren't diehard Europhiles or Europhobes. Any deal that comes after at 52/48 split in a referendum would have to be a compromise that annoys those people at the extremes.
Get the deal through Parliament, and move on to what actually matters, the future trade deal with the EU. The sooner we do that, the sooner we can get through the transition and avoid the backstop.
Being in or out of the EU is a binary situation. Your either in or out. It's like being pregnant - either you are or you aren't.
... they took their chance to kick the powers that be out of their complacency. The breaking of that complacency will imo be the major long term gain from the EUref.
*shrugs*
What use is that to everyone? It will not keep you warm, clothed, fed or healthy. And what is "Long Term"? Does that mean we have to wait for my Grandkids to benefit? Or their kids?
Which flavour of Brexit has stolen your clothes, turned off your heating, starved you and made you poorly? ...
That would be what people call "No Deal Brexit" which is my MPs will not allow it to happen
No Deal Brexit is the default. Nobody has to do anything to make it happen and MPs can't stop it, other than voting for May's curate's egg of a deal.
On topic, the big surprise for me has been just how unwilling Conservative MPs have been to compromise with reality. I expected them to vote for the eventual deal in the absence of an alternative. But despite the absence of a viable alternative, they still seem intent on voting it down en masse.
That a sizable number would take the stance they have was not surprising. The deal has big issues after all. I confess the extent against it has surprised me. They are much more confident of alternatives being viable than I anticipated
I think it's great that the Left does not have a monopoly on virtue signalling.
We seem to be severely pissing off our friends in the EU. Perfidious Albion rides again! Win lose or draw, that doesn't bode well for the future. And when all this is over we're going to need our friends.
Kissinger had it right though. There are no permanent friends or enemies, only interests."
Lord Palmerstone, 1848.
Cheers.
I had heard the quote and went looking for it but the only reference I could find was Kissinger.
1. If Deal loses in the Commons, then the possibilities are
A ) No Deal, by default; B ) May or her successor will call a referendum on No Deal versus Remain; C ) A government of some complexion or other will negotiate a new Deal that wins a vote in the Commons.
2. A is No Deal. B leads to No Deal, because Leave will kick Remain's butt in EUref2. C is extremely improbable.
3. Since the only realistic options are Deal and No Deal, I will vote for Deal.
The problem here is that No Deal being well placed to destroy Remain in any referendum is not something that many Remainer MPs would want to state publicly as their reason for backing the Deal. It is true, though. (Sorry, pollsters. Polling isn't taking account of the future influence of a crescendo of emotionally affecting "fear the immigrants" stories.)
The key paragraph is this one, echoing a point @Big_G_NorthWales has made:
A key tactic for the Brexit vote is to allow all the other options to be voted on via MPs submitting amendments, and let them fail first, forcing MPs to consider May’s deal as the only realistic option on the table. The Smith argument is that none of the various alternatives command a majority in the Commons.
Alas Mr Smith is no longer my MP, so I can't write to him urging him to vote against May's deal.
As I am now a resident of the Shipley constituency, I don't think my current MP needs any persuasion!
With respect I do not think you appreciate the process under this procedure
I fully understand the process. May argues her case to the nation, and we are then meant to urge our MPs to vote the way we want them to. Well, May has failed to persuade me of the merits of her deal, so I am very happy that my MP will be voting against. That he gets to take his better half into the lobby with him is just icing on the cake.
Being in or out of the EU is a binary situation. Your either in or out. It's like being pregnant - either you are or you aren't.
Of course, but there are different degrees of cooperation between the UK and EU. The people who want BINO or "blow up the Channel Tunnel" are going to be disappointed.
Very nice. Had dinner with a Cons MP (voted Remain) last night who showed me some of their emails. Typical: You ******** traitor. Make sure you ******* vote against the **** ****** deal you Remoaner c***.
As I said something about the mindset of Leave vs Remain supporters.
I think Alastair Burt was right that the attacks on the deal from Leavers will tend to make former Remain MPs feel that they are no longer obliged to respect the referendum result.
It certainly provides cover to any of them.
It's more than cover - if Leavers have decided that they now don't like the Brexit they campaigne defer to it?
Because Brexit isn't the mistake. Remainer May's fake Brexit is the mistake.
Well hopefully you're right there will be a chance for proper brexit. But if not what then? Mps may have to face that choice.
MPs may not get that choice. The only chance for a Brexit we voted for is to see Remainer May's deal voted down. Too many Remainer MPs see that as a voting down of Brexit as @Richard_Nabavi alluded too and not merely a voting down of the mess May has tried to drag us into.
Not a chance - forget brexit if that is your attitude
Fine by me.
The 2016 referendum boiled down to a choice between "taking back control" (Leave) or "economic stability" (Remain).
I was torn at first but went for Leave in the end as I thought the risks were overblown but we'd gain more from control than we lose from any instability.
May's deal has sat stability.
If you had to choose between May's deal, No Deal or No Brexit which would it be?
I genuinely dunno what I'd choose. My feelings vary by the minute.
It's not an easy choice, to be sure. MPs pretending it is easy is one of the more frustrating things around. But for me I just don't buy that the deal is not some kind of Brexit, and at this point I think there's a real chance there will be no Brexit at all without it. Unless one is going to just give up on Brexit entirely (or was always ok with no deal) that seems better than remaining on the hope that proper brexit will follow, and trying to get the next stage right under the next leader, seems easier than fighting all over again for the very principle of brexit.
We seem to be severely pissing off our friends in the EU. Perfidious Albion rides again! Win lose or draw, that doesn't bode well for the future. And when all this is over we're going to need our friends.
At the risk of sounding like David Davis in 2016, they need us too: it's not Britain that has a border with Russia.
Likewise, the pissing-off thing is a two-way process.
So we don't have a border with Russia; how much reliance should anyone put on our depleted and cash-starved Armed Services? If that's what your saying.
1. If Deal loses in the Commons, then the possibilities are
A ) No Deal, by default; B ) May or her successor will call a referendum on No Deal versus Remain; C ) A government of some complexion or other will negotiate a new Deal that wins a vote in the Commons.
2. A is No Deal. B leads to No Deal, because Leave will kick Remain's butt in EUref2. C is extremely improbable.
3. Since the only realistic options are Deal and No Deal, I will vote for Deal.
The problem here is that No Deal being well placed to destroy Remain in any referendum is not something that many Remainer MPs would want to state publicly as their reason for backing the Deal. It is true, though. (Sorry, pollsters. Polling isn't taking account of the future influence of a crescendo of emotionally affecting "fear the immigrants" stories.)
Voting down the deal means you are full well prepared to countenance the very hardest of Brexits.
On topic, the big surprise for me has been just how unwilling Conservative MPs have been to compromise with reality. I expected them to vote for the eventual deal in the absence of an alternative. But despite the absence of a viable alternative, they still seem intent on voting it down en masse.
That a sizable number would take the stance they have was not surprising. The deal has big issues after all. I confess the extent against it has surprised me. They are much more confident of alternatives being viable than I anticipated
I think it's great that the Left does not have a monopoly on virtue signalling.
We seem to be severely pissing off our friends in the EU. Perfidious Albion rides again! Win lose or draw, that doesn't bode well for the future. And when all this is over we're going to need our friends.
Kissinger had it right though. There are no permanent friends or enemies, only interests."
And our interests are pretty well always aligned with those of our neighbours. Even fisheries policy could be sorted out if here was a bit of goodwill, and AIUI, if big business hadn't decided to trade quotas.
That doesn't alter the fact that they are not our friends. They are temporary allies of convenience. That is the way of international politics.
... they took their chance to kick the powers that be out of their complacency. The breaking of that complacency will imo be the major long term gain from the EUref.
*shrugs*
What use is that to everyone? It will not keep you warm, clothed, fed or healthy. And what is "Long Term"? Does that mean we have to wait for my Grandkids to benefit? Or their kids?
Which flavour of Brexit has stolen your clothes, turned off your heating, starved you and made you poorly? ...
That would be what people call "No Deal Brexit" which is my MPs will not allow it to happen
It is very touching. MPs make things happen by wishing and talking.
The Welsh Assembly has a wonderful piece of legislation, "The Well-Being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015"
This means that the future generations of Wales are guaranteed their well-being.
We seem to be severely pissing off our friends in the EU. Perfidious Albion rides again! Win lose or draw, that doesn't bode well for the future. And when all this is over we're going to need our friends.
Kissinger had it right though. There are no permanent friends or enemies, only interests."
And our interests are pretty well always aligned with those of our neighbours. Even fisheries policy could be sorted out if here was a bit of goodwill, and AIUI, if big business hadn't decided to trade quotas.
That doesn't alter the fact that they are not our friends. They are temporary allies of convenience. That is the way of international politics.
Was the way of international politics. If we do not hang together....
... they took their chance to kick the powers that be out of their complacency. The breaking of that complacency will imo be the major long term gain from the EUref.
*shrugs*
What use is that to everyone? It will not keep you warm, clothed, fed or healthy. And what is "Long Term"? Does that mean we have to wait for my Grandkids to benefit? Or their kids?
Which flavour of Brexit has stolen your clothes, turned off your heating, starved you and made you poorly? ...
That would be what people call "No Deal Brexit" which is my MPs will not allow it to happen
It is not as easy for them to not allow it as they are pretending. I think they can find a way, but they are ignoring that they signed an exit into law and it will take more work than just saying they won't allow it to prevent it.
It's very easy. They just need to vote for the deal.
Yes. But they don;t actually dislike no deal as much as they say. Actions speak louder than words.
The key paragraph is this one, echoing a point @Big_G_NorthWales has made:
A key tactic for the Brexit vote is to allow all the other options to be voted on via MPs submitting amendments, and let them fail first, forcing MPs to consider May’s deal as the only realistic option on the table. The Smith argument is that none of the various alternatives command a majority in the Commons.
Alas Mr Smith is no longer my MP, so I can't write to him urging him to vote against May's deal.
As I am now a resident of the Shipley constituency, I don't think my current MP needs any persuasion!
With respect I do not think you appreciate the process under this procedure
I fully understand the process. May argues her case to the nation, and we are then meant to urge our MPs to vote the way we want them to. Well, May has failed to persuade me of the merits of her deal, so I am very happy that my MP will be voting against. That he gets to take his better half into the lobby with him is just icing on the cake.
You have just made my case.
Under the meaningful vote each amendment will be voted on including second referendum, no deal, moving A50, labours wrecking deal, norway etc, and as each falls the final meaningful deal with be on TM deal. In those circumstances the HOC will vote for, as anything else will collapse the markets as all other options are exhausted and no deal is default
The only caveat is of course that if any amendment passed and was attached to the meaningful vote, the attached amendment on the deal would pass
It is not just get my mp to take it down. It is more complex than that
I am not sure it is possible to add an amendment on a second referendum because that would only happen if the vote is carried, and if the vote is carried it means May's deal is implemented (so a second referendum would not be applicable).
The key paragraph is this one, echoing a point @Big_G_NorthWales has made:
A key tactic for the Brexit vote is to allow all the other options to be voted on via MPs submitting amendments, and let them fail first, forcing MPs to consider May’s deal as the only realistic option on the table. The Smith argument is that none of the various alternatives command a majority in the Commons.
Alas Mr Smith is no longer my MP, so I can't write to him urging him to vote against May's deal.
As I am now a resident of the Shipley constituency, I don't think my current MP needs any persuasion!
With respect I do not think you appreciate the process under this procedure
I fully understand the process. May argues her case to the nation, and we are then meant to urge our MPs to vote the way we want them to. Well, May has failed to persuade me of the merits of her deal, so I am very happy that my MP will be voting against. That he gets to take his better half into the lobby with him is just icing on the cake.
You have just made my case.
Under the meaningful vote each amendment will be voted on including second referendum, no deal, moving A50, labours wrecking deal, norway etc, and as each falls the final meaningful deal with be on TM deal. In those circumstances the HOC will vote for, as anything else will collapse the markets as all other options are exhausted and no deal is default
The only caveat is of course that if any amendment passed and was attached to the meaningful vote, the attached amendment on the deal would pass
It is not just get my mp to take it down. It is more complex than that
I suspect 'New Prime Minister' is the default, and, as May has said several times in recent days "we are back to square one". New PM, new negotiation / GE / 2nd Referendum. Certainly not a No Deal Brexit.
We seem to be severely pissing off our friends in the EU. Perfidious Albion rides again! Win lose or draw, that doesn't bode well for the future. And when all this is over we're going to need our friends.
Kissinger had it right though. There are no permanent friends or enemies, only interests."
And our interests are pretty well always aligned with those of our neighbours. Even fisheries policy could be sorted out if here was a bit of goodwill, and AIUI, if big business hadn't decided to trade quotas.
That doesn't alter the fact that they are not our friends. They are temporary allies of convenience. That is the way of international politics.
I suspect you'd say the same about Scotland?
To a strong degree yes. Currently the UK government is supposed to govern for the good of the whole country. Once they are a separate country they need to govern for the good of their own people not for their neighbours. If those things are not mutually exclusive then fine. But of course times will arise when they are and at that point 'friends' become 'enemies' very quickly.
We seem to be severely pissing off our friends in the EU. Perfidious Albion rides again! Win lose or draw, that doesn't bode well for the future. And when all this is over we're going to need our friends.
Quite but the EU post brexit will be our enemies......
1. If Deal loses in the Commons, then the possibilities are
A ) No Deal, by default; B ) May or her successor will call a referendum on No Deal versus Remain; C ) A government of some complexion or other will negotiate a new Deal that wins a vote in the Commons.
2. A is No Deal. B leads to No Deal, because Leave will kick Remain's butt in EUref2. C is extremely improbable.
3. Since the only realistic options are Deal and No Deal, I will vote for Deal.
The problem here is that No Deal being well placed to destroy Remain in any referendum is not something that many Remainer MPs would want to state publicly as their reason for backing the Deal. It is true, though. (Sorry, pollsters. Polling isn't taking account of the future influence of a crescendo of emotionally affecting "fear the immigrants" stories.)
Voting down the deal means you are full well prepared to countenance the very hardest of Brexits.
The key paragraph is this one, echoing a point @Big_G_NorthWales has made:
A key tactic for the Brexit vote is to allow all the other options to be voted on via MPs submitting amendments, and let them fail first, forcing MPs to consider May’s deal as the only realistic option on the table. The Smith argument is that none of the various alternatives command a majority in the Commons.
Alas Mr Smith is no longer my MP, so I can't write to him urging him to vote against May's deal.
As I am now a resident of the Shipley constituency, I don't think my current MP needs any persuasion!
With respect I do not think you appreciate the process under this procedure
I fully understand the process. May argues her case to the nation, and we are then meant to urge our MPs to vote the way we want them to. Well, May has failed to persuade me of the merits of her deal, so I am very happy that my MP will be voting against. That he gets to take his better half into the lobby with him is just icing on the cake.
You have just made my case.
Under the meaningful vote each amendment will be voted on including second referendum, no deal, moving A50, labours wrecking deal, norway etc, and as each falls the final meaningful deal with be on TM deal. In those circumstances the HOC will vote for, as anything else will collapse the markets as all other options are exhausted and no deal is default
The only caveat is of course that if any amendment passed and was attached to the meaningful vote, the attached amendment on the deal would pass
It is not just get my mp to take it down. It is more complex than that
I suspect 'New Prime Minister' is the default, and, as May has said several times in recent days "we are back to square one". New PM, new negotiation / GE / 2nd Referendum. Certainly not a No Deal Brexit.
Donald Tusk has made it clear that there is no scope for re-negotiation. Take what's there, No Deal or pull back (if possible, on Article 50.
We seem to be severely pissing off our friends in the EU. Perfidious Albion rides again! Win lose or draw, that doesn't bode well for the future. And when all this is over we're going to need our friends.
Kissinger had it right though. There are no permanent friends or enemies, only interests."
And our interests are pretty well always aligned with those of our neighbours. Even fisheries policy could be sorted out if here was a bit of goodwill, and AIUI, if big business hadn't decided to trade quotas.
That doesn't alter the fact that they are not our friends. They are temporary allies of convenience. That is the way of international politics.
I suspect you'd say the same about Scotland?
To a strong degree yes. Currently the UK government is supposed to govern for the good of the whole country. Once they are a separate country they need to govern for the good of their own people not for their neighbours. If those things are not mutually exclusive then fine. But of course times will arise when they are and at that point 'friends' become 'enemies' very quickly.
As I thought, which to me suggests you misunderstand the essence of the quote because it is about statecraft - relations between states, not relations between peoples. The European Union is not a temporary alliance of convenience.
We seem to be severely pissing off our friends in the EU. Perfidious Albion rides again! Win lose or draw, that doesn't bode well for the future. And when all this is over we're going to need our friends.
Quite but the EU post brexit will be our enemies......
We've never been at war with Portugal.
1/27
Or Luxembourg. 2/27.
I don't think we've been at war with Sweden since the Vikings, have we. And we only bombarded Copenhagen because it was under Napoleonic control. We haven't fought the Dutch since the 17th Century and the Battle of the Medway. Have we ever been on the 'other side' to the Poles or Czechs?
This whole Brexit thing, it's gonna be fine, right?
Yes it will be fine as long as the MPs don't vote for this wretched deal.
No deal is going to be nowhere near as bad as they are claiming and no Brexit is exactly the same as things are now.
We don't know what Remain means. The EU is changing and becoming more unified. But exactly how remains to emerge. Should we remian in the EU we are entering unknown territory.
... they took their chance to kick the powers that be out of their complacency. The breaking of that complacency will imo be the major long term gain from the EUref.
*shrugs*
What use is that to everyone? It will not keep you warm, clothed, fed or healthy. And what is "Long Term"? Does that mean we have to wait for my Grandkids to benefit? Or their kids?
Which flavour of Brexit has stolen your clothes, turned off your heating, starved you and made you poorly? ...
That would be what people call "No Deal Brexit" which is my MPs will not allow it to happen
It is not as easy for them to not allow it as they are pretending. I think they can find a way, but they are ignoring that they signed an exit into law and it will take more work than just saying they won't allow it to prevent it.
It's very easy. They just need to vote for the deal.
Yes. But they don;t actually dislike no deal as much as they say. Actions speak louder than words.
Possibly. So far we've had lots of words but the actions of MPs won't be known until we see the results of the vote (or possibly 2nd vote, if there is one). At present I'd put it at about 10% chance of the deal (or a second version of it with very minor cosmetic changes/'clarifications') being approved
1. If Deal loses in the Commons, then the possibilities are
A ) No Deal, by default; B ) May or her successor will call a referendum on No Deal versus Remain; C ) A government of some complexion or other will negotiate a new Deal that wins a vote in the Commons.
2. A is No Deal. B leads to No Deal, because Leave will kick Remain's butt in EUref2. C is extremely improbable.
3. Since the only realistic options are Deal and No Deal, I will vote for Deal.
The problem here is that No Deal being well placed to destroy Remain in any referendum is not something that many Remainer MPs would want to state publicly as their reason for backing the Deal. It is true, though. (Sorry, pollsters. Polling isn't taking account of the future influence of a crescendo of emotionally affecting "fear the immigrants" stories.)
Voting down the deal means you are full well prepared to countenance the very hardest of Brexits.
How probable will No Deal be, though, if Deal gets voted down? Some Remainer MPs might be persuadable that it would be much more probable than Jeremy Corbyn suggested when he said nobody would allow it.
It's very easy. They just need to vote for the deal.
Quite. And unless they were one of the few to vote against article 50 they cannot both vote against and retain their integrity. Jo Johnson particularly irks. His motives are transparently about promoting himself as a player in the drama and nothing whatsoever to do with the merits and demerits of this or that brexit vs no brexit. What an unappetizing family they are.
This whole Brexit thing, it's gonna be fine, right?
Yes it will be fine as long as the MPs don't vote for this wretched deal.
No deal is going to be nowhere near as bad as they are claiming and no Brexit is exactly the same as things are now.
We don't know what Remain means. The EU is changing and becoming more unified. But exactly how remains to emerge. Should we remian in the EU we are entering unknown territory.
We seem to be severely pissing off our friends in the EU. Perfidious Albion rides again! Win lose or draw, that doesn't bode well for the future. And when all this is over we're going to need our friends.
Quite but the EU post brexit will be our enemies......
We've never been at war with Portugal.
1/27
Or Luxembourg. 2/27.
I don't think we've been at war with Sweden since the Vikings, have we. And we only bombarded Copenhagen because it was under Napoleonic control. We haven't fought the Dutch since the 17th Century and the Battle of the Medway. Have we ever been on the 'other side' to the Poles or Czechs?
It’s a shame there isn’t more time because a three way referendum in these circumstances would be ideal for approval voting..
Let's go Eurovision-style. Every voter has five votes, worth 7, 5, 3, 2, 1 points respectively. You don't have to assign all your points:
Options:
- Remain in status quo - Remain and go for Euro membership - Remain and go for Schengen but no Euro membership - Remain and go for Euro membership and Schengen (all out In) - Leave with No Deal - Leave with W/A and go for Norway+ - Leave with W/A and go towards CETA - Leave with W/A and go towards WTO - Ask to transition straight to EEA/EFTA and extend A50 for this purpose
We seem to be severely pissing off our friends in the EU. Perfidious Albion rides again! Win lose or draw, that doesn't bode well for the future. And when all this is over we're going to need our friends.
Quite but the EU post brexit will be our enemies......
We've never been at war with Portugal.
1/27
Or Luxembourg. 2/27.
I don't think we've been at war with Sweden since the Vikings, have we. And we only bombarded Copenhagen because it was under Napoleonic control. We haven't fought the Dutch since the 17th Century and the Battle of the Medway. Have we ever been on the 'other side' to the Poles or Czechs?
There were Polish Lancers fighting with Napoleons Grand Armee, and Czechs in the Austro-Hungarian forces in WWI. British troops fought the Austrians on both Italian and Macedonian fronts.
I recall that Luxembourg was annexed by Germany in WW2, so presumably served in the Nazi forces.
... they took their chance to kick the powers that be out of their complacency. The breaking of that complacency will imo be the major long term gain from the EUref.
*shrugs*
What use is that to everyone? It will not keep you warm, clothed, fed or healthy. And what is "Long Term"? Does that mean we have to wait for my Grandkids to benefit? Or their kids?
Which flavour of Brexit has stolen your clothes, turned off your heating, starved you and made you poorly? ...
That would be what people call "No Deal Brexit" which is my MPs will not allow it to happen
It is not as easy for them to not allow it as they are pretending. I think they can find a way, but they are ignoring that they signed an exit into law and it will take more work than just saying they won't allow it to prevent it.
It's very easy. They just need to vote for the deal.
Yes. But they don;t actually dislike no deal as much as they say. Actions speak louder than words.
Possibly. So far we've had lots of words but the actions of MPs won't be known until we see the results of the vote (or possibly 2nd vote, if there is one). At present I'd put it at about 10% chance of the deal (or a second version of it with very minor cosmetic changes/'clarifications') being approved
What do you put the chances of the deal being ratified after a significant change?
I don't see anyone else backing my theory that the sequence will be deal fails, talks resume, backstop gets replaced with a face-saving acceptable alternative. It works with the Parliamentary maths and it also works with the Irish wanting to avoid a hard border better than no deal does.
I believe you're no fan of the backstop. What odds would you put on that happening? I still think its more likely than other touted options like no deal since I don't think the Irish genuinely want to go into the abyss.
We seem to be severely pissing off our friends in the EU. Perfidious Albion rides again! Win lose or draw, that doesn't bode well for the future. And when all this is over we're going to need our friends.
Quite but the EU post brexit will be our enemies......
We've never been at war with Portugal.
1/27
Or Luxembourg. 2/27.
I don't think we've been at war with Sweden since the Vikings, have we. And we only bombarded Copenhagen because it was under Napoleonic control. We haven't fought the Dutch since the 17th Century and the Battle of the Medway. Have we ever been on the 'other side' to the Poles or Czechs?
There were Polish Lancers fighting with Napoleons Grand Armee, and Czechs in the Austro-Hungarian forces in WWI. British troops fought the Austrians on both Italian and Macedonian fronts.
Quite right, of course. And Austria, as part of Greater Germany was among our opponents in WWII. Gets complicated.
We seem to be severely pissing off our friends in the EU. Perfidious Albion rides again! Win lose or draw, that doesn't bode well for the future. And when all this is over we're going to need our friends.
Quite but the EU post brexit will be our enemies......
We've never been at war with Portugal.
1/27
Or Luxembourg. 2/27.
I don't think we've been at war with Sweden since the Vikings, have we. And we only bombarded Copenhagen because it was under Napoleonic control. We haven't fought the Dutch since the 17th Century and the Battle of the Medway. Have we ever been on the 'other side' to the Poles or Czechs?
We seem to be severely pissing off our friends in the EU. Perfidious Albion rides again! Win lose or draw, that doesn't bode well for the future. And when all this is over we're going to need our friends.
Kissinger had it right though. There are no permanent friends or enemies, only interests."
And our interests are pretty well always aligned with those of our neighbours. Even fisheries policy could be sorted out if here was a bit of goodwill, and AIUI, if big business hadn't decided to trade quotas.
That doesn't alter the fact that they are not our friends. They are temporary allies of convenience. That is the way of international politics.
I suspect you'd say the same about Scotland?
To a strong degree yes. Currently the UK government is supposed to govern for the good of the whole country. Once they are a separate country they need to govern for the good of their own people not for their neighbours. If those things are not mutually exclusive then fine. But of course times will arise when they are and at that point 'friends' become 'enemies' very quickly.
As I thought, which to me suggests you misunderstand the essence of the quote because it is about statecraft - relations between states, not relations between peoples. The European Union is not a temporary alliance of convenience.
But you misunderstand the original comments I was replying to in that case. That was about relationships between states not peoples. So in fact I was correct.
And the EU is an alliance of temporary inconvenience. Hopefully one that we will soon be out of.
What do you put the chances of the deal being ratified after a significant change?
I don't see anyone else backing my theory that the sequence will be deal fails, talks resume, backstop gets replaced with a face-saving acceptable alternative. It works with the Parliamentary maths and it also works with the Irish wanting to avoid a hard border better than no deal does.
I believe you're no fan of the backstop. What odds would you put on that happening? I still think its more likely than other touted options like no deal since I don't think the Irish genuinely want to go into the abyss.
I think there is no chance of a significant change. If there was a better solution, why wouldn't the two sides have found it already? I think it is possible that there could be some kind of further fudge on the backstop, sufficient to provide cover for some MPs to change their minds, but I don't expect it to be anything more than that.
Owls indicated it would mean deselection earlier. Let's see.
The Momentum deselection machine is certainly primed and ready to go. Mr Austin is, I think, one of the small number of MPs who has already decided that his deselection is somewhere between likely and nailed on, and so has little to lose.
The key paragraph is this one, echoing a point @Big_G_NorthWales has made:
A key tactic for the Brexit vote is to allow all the other options to be voted on via MPs submitting amendments, and let them fail first, forcing MPs to consider May’s deal as the only realistic option on the table. The Smith argument is that none of the various alternatives command a majority in the Commons.
Alas Mr Smith is no longer my MP, so I can't write to him urging him to vote against May's deal.
As I am now a resident of the Shipley constituency, I don't think my current MP needs any persuasion!
With respect I do not think you appreciate the process under this procedure
I fully understand the process. May argues her case to the nation, and we are then meant to urge our MPs to vote the way we want them to. Well, May has failed to persuade me of the merits of her deal, so I am very happy that my MP will be voting against. That he gets to take his better half into the lobby with him is just icing on the cake.
You have just made my case.
Under the meaningful vote each amendment will be voted on including second referendum, no deal, moving A50, labours wrecking deal, norway etc, and as each falls the final meaningful deal with be on TM deal. In those circumstances the HOC will vote for, as anything else will collapse the markets as all other options are exhausted and no deal is default
The only caveat is of course that if any amendment passed and was attached to the meaningful vote, the attached amendment on the deal would pass
It is not just get my mp to take it down. It is more complex than that
I am not sure it is possible to add an amendment on a second referendum because that would only happen if the vote is carried, and if the vote is carried it means May's deal is implemented (so a second referendum would not be applicable).
I believe it would make the deal subject to a referendum but I stand ready to be corrected
It’s a shame there isn’t more time because a three way referendum in these circumstances would be ideal for approval voting..
Let's go Eurovision-style. Every voter has five votes, worth 7, 5, 3, 2, 1 points respectively. You don't have to assign all your points:
Options:
- Remain in status quo - Remain and go for Euro membership - Remain and go for Schengen but no Euro membership - Remain and go for Euro membership and Schengen (all out In) - Leave with No Deal - Leave with W/A and go for Norway+ - Leave with W/A and go towards CETA - Leave with W/A and go towards WTO - Ask to transition straight to EEA/EFTA and extend A50 for this purpose
The panel have voted for remain, but the televote has gone for the polish ladies with the big boobies.
It’s a shame there isn’t more time because a three way referendum in these circumstances would be ideal for approval voting..
Let's go Eurovision-style. Every voter has five votes, worth 7, 5, 3, 2, 1 points respectively. You don't have to assign all your points:
Options:
- Remain in status quo - Remain and go for Euro membership - Remain and go for Schengen but no Euro membership - Remain and go for Euro membership and Schengen (all out In) - Leave with No Deal - Leave with W/A and go for Norway+ - Leave with W/A and go towards CETA - Leave with W/A and go towards WTO - Ask to transition straight to EEA/EFTA and extend A50 for this purpose
The panel have voted for remain, but the televote has gone for the polish ladies with the big boobies.
The panel voted to leave by triggering article 50.
The key paragraph is this one, echoing a point @Big_G_NorthWales has made:
A key tactic for the Brexit vote is to allow all the other options to be voted on via MPs submitting amendments, and let them fail first, forcing MPs to consider May’s deal as the only realistic option on the table. The Smith argument is that none of the various alternatives command a majority in the Commons.
Alas Mr Smith is no longer my MP, so I can't write to him urging him to vote against May's deal.
As I am now a resident of the Shipley constituency, I don't think my current MP needs any persuasion!
With respect I do not think you appreciate the process under this procedure
I fully understand the process. May argues her case to the nation, and we are then meant to urge our MPs to vote the way we want them to. Well, May has failed to persuade me of the merits of her deal, so I am very happy that my MP will be voting against. That he gets to take his better half into the lobby with him is just icing on the cake.
You have just made my case.
Under the meaningful vote each amendment will be voted on including second referendum, no deal, moving A50, labours wrecking deal, norway etc, and as each falls the final meaningful deal with be on TM deal. In those circumstances the HOC will vote for, as anything else will collapse the markets as all other options are exhausted and no deal is default
The only caveat is of course that if any amendment passed and was attached to the meaningful vote, the attached amendment on the deal would pass
It is not just get my mp to take it down. It is more complex than that
I suspect 'New Prime Minister' is the default, and, as May has said several times in recent days "we are back to square one". New PM, new negotiation / GE / 2nd Referendum. Certainly not a No Deal Brexit.
Not really. In the likely case outlined the HOC would vote deal over no deal.
Punters make it a 25% chance that she’ll be out this year which sort of assumes that there’ll be a CON MP confidence this side of Christmas.
It assumes that:
- There will be a Tory MP no-confidence vote, before Christmas, and - That she will lose it, and - That she will stand down as PM immediately or within a few days of losing it, rather than remaining as PM until a successor is chosen.
There's no way that's a 25% chance.
On the 'meaningful vote', this is a curious game of three-way chicken. For it to fail, those who above all want to avoid the disaster of a crash-out, and/or would prefer Remain, have to ally themselves with those who prefer the disaster of a crash-out, and who have been working for decades for us to Leave. At the moment a lot of MPs say they subscribe to that alliance, but it's a logical nonsense unless both sides are simply miscalculating badly. Maybe they are.
I like "three way chicken". Lots of people are missing this. The "alliance" of people who oppose the Deal is not an alliance at all, and both Hard Brexiteers and Remainers are gambling all on getting what they want by ignoring the real chance of a nightmare outcome. Defeating what appears to be the only Deal available in the time leads inexorably to crash out or Remain, which are highly suboptimal outcomes for nearly half the country.
Punters make it a 25% chance that she’ll be out this year which sort of assumes that there’ll be a CON MP confidence this side of Christmas.
It assumes that:
- There will be a Tory MP no-confidence vote, before Christmas, and - That she will lose it, and - That she will stand down as PM immediately or within a few days of losing it, rather than remaining as PM until a successor is chosen.
There's no way that's a 25% chance.
On the 'meaningful vote', this is a curious game of three-way chicken. For it to fail, those who above all want to avoid the disaster of a crash-out, and/or would prefer Remain, have to ally themselves with those who prefer the disaster of a crash-out, and who have been working for decades for us to Leave. At the moment a lot of MPs say they subscribe to that alliance, but it's a logical nonsense unless both sides are simply miscalculating badly. Maybe they are.
I like "three way chicken". Lots of people are missing this. The "alliance" of people who oppose the Deal is not an alliance at all, and both Hard Brexiteers and Remainers are gambling all on getting what they want by ignoring the real chance of a nightmare outcome. Defeating what appears to be the only Deal available in the time leads inexorably to crash out or Remain, which are highly suboptimal outcomes for nearly half the country.
Buuut, it's not a suboptimal outcome for the combatants in the Tory civil war and that's the important thing.
I would feel better if a senior Tory was prepared to say something along the lines of:
"This is an embarrassingly poor deal. But it's the only one we have. In reality, we have limited possibilities for renegotiating it. Attempting such renegotiations will leave us even less time to prepare for a No Deal Brexit if they fail. The Government has egregiously failed in its duty to prepare the nation for the worst effects of No deal - deliberately, in my mind, to cut off No Deal as a realistic option. People should be held to account for that in due course.
However, the over-riding duty is to deliver Brexit, in accordance with the wishes of the people as conveyed in the 2016 Referendum, then as reinforced in the 2017 General Election. A General Election in which over 85% of the votes cast were for parties pledged to deliver Brexit.
There are people still playing games trying to prevent Brexit happening at all. I hold these people in contempt, because these people hold the voters in contempt.
So my priority is to achieve Brexit, then move towards the best trade deal we can negotiate. And if the EU acts with anything I consider to be in bad faith in those negotiations, if it drags its feet, if it - or any of its member states - introduces conditions to get the deal signed, then I will have no hesitation in abrogating the Brexit Agreement. Just give me an excuse guys, just give me an excuse....
It goes without saying the trade agreement needs to be handled by an entirely new team. Top down. The PM should confirm that she will stand down and allow her successor to be in post by 31st March. If she gives that confirmation, then - and only then - will I vote for her Brexit deal."
A senior Tory saying that would be a long way towards getting my support.
I agree that this is a more logical approach to selling the deal than the one that May is taking but saying "this is really crap but our bungling has left us with no choice but to accept it" is not a very convincing sales pitch. Especially when the voters were promised something much better.
Oh, I agree. It really sticks in the craw. Which is why those who got us to this point deserve to be villified until Hell freezes over.
We seem to be severely pissing off our friends in the EU. Perfidious Albion rides again! Win lose or draw, that doesn't bode well for the future. And when all this is over we're going to need our friends.
Kissinger had it right though. There are no permanent friends or enemies, only interests."
And our interests are pretty well always aligned with those of our neighbours. Even fisheries policy could be sorted out if here was a bit of goodwill, and AIUI, if big business hadn't decided to trade quotas.
Be usual Tory deal on fishing , give away all Scotland's waters to get something for London.
It’s a shame there isn’t more time because a three way referendum in these circumstances would be ideal for approval voting..
Let's go Eurovision-style. Every voter has five votes, worth 7, 5, 3, 2, 1 points respectively. You don't have to assign all your points:
Options:
- Remain in status quo - Remain and go for Euro membership - Remain and go for Schengen but no Euro membership - Remain and go for Euro membership and Schengen (all out In) - Leave with No Deal - Leave with W/A and go for Norway+ - Leave with W/A and go towards CETA - Leave with W/A and go towards WTO - Ask to transition straight to EEA/EFTA and extend A50 for this purpose
The panel have voted for remain, but the televote has gone for the polish ladies with the big boobies.
What do you put the chances of the deal being ratified after a significant change?
I don't see anyone else backing my theory that the sequence will be deal fails, talks resume, backstop gets replaced with a face-saving acceptable alternative. It works with the Parliamentary maths and it also works with the Irish wanting to avoid a hard border better than no deal does.
I believe you're no fan of the backstop. What odds would you put on that happening? I still think its more likely than other touted options like no deal since I don't think the Irish genuinely want to go into the abyss.
I think there is no chance of a significant change. If there was a better solution, why wouldn't the two sides have found it already? I think it is possible that there could be some kind of further fudge on the backstop, sufficient to provide cover for some MPs to change their minds, but I don't expect it to be anything more than that.
I think they wouldn't have found it already because the EU both arrogantly and accurately thought they didn't need to bend. You wrote about MPs playing chicken but the Irish have been playing a game of chicken too - threatening a hard border to guarantee no hard border. They knew May wasn't prepared for no deal so knew she would back down.
If May goes and someone who is prepared to go for no deal takes over then the game changes. The Irish can choose to go through with no deal and implement that hard border (or not) - or they can blink themselves.
Off topic anyone think Tyson Fury can win and is worth a punt ?
It depends if the old Klitskho beating Fury turns up. That Fury could very well have been the worlds best by quite a distance. He has not fought much quality up this fight and Wilder is quality. My decision making criteria is will Wilder knock him out or will Fury box him for 12 rounds and win on points.
The key paragraph is this one, echoing a point @Big_G_NorthWales has made:
A key tactic for the Brexit vote is to allow all the other options to be voted on via MPs submitting amendments, and let them fail first, forcing MPs to consider May’s deal as the only realistic option on the table. The Smith argument is that none of the various alternatives command a majority in the Commons.
Alas Mr Smith is no longer my MP, so I can't write to him urging him to vote against May's deal.
As I am now a resident of the Shipley constituency, I don't think my current MP needs any persuasion!
With respect I do not think you appreciate the process under this procedure
I fully understand the process. May argues her case to the nation, and we are then meant to urge our MPs to vote the way we want them to. Well, May has failed to persuade me of the merits of her deal, so I am very happy that my MP will be voting against. That he gets to take his better half into the lobby with him is just icing on the cake.
You have just made my case.
Under the meaningful vote each amendment will be voted on including second referendum, no deal, moving A50, labours wrecking deal, norway etc, and as each falls the final meaningful deal with be on TM deal. In those circumstances the HOC will vote for, as anything else will collapse the markets as all other options are exhausted and no deal is default
The only caveat is of course that if any amendment passed and was attached to the meaningful vote, the attached amendment on the deal would pass
It is not just get my mp to take it down. It is more complex than that
I suspect 'New Prime Minister' is the default, and, as May has said several times in recent days "we are back to square one". New PM, new negotiation / GE / 2nd Referendum. Certainly not a No Deal Brexit.
Donald Tusk has made it clear that there is no scope for re-negotiation. Take what's there, No Deal or pull back (if possible, on Article 50.
Or, Deal/ No Deal and re-apply for membership!
Donald Tusk still has some explaining to do as to how they got to No Deal. Blew huge amounts of cash, and left an unrestricted potential Super-Singapore on their border (with Ireland).
Must say that Parliament must vote for this deal because it voted for Article 50 is a somewhat weak argument. Not only can Parliament change its mind, it ignores the fact that that was a different Parliament. This Parliament was never asked. What happened to "No Parliament can bind its successors"?
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/30/labour-mps-reject-may-brexit-deal-voted-leave
But I wouldn't negotiate any further. I would put all exertions on getting ready for a no deal Brexit starting with planning for the soon to come Irish hard border unless or until the Irish back down. If they don't back down, so be it.
80% of British activity is domestic activity.
However, if we fail to Leave it will be straight back on the political agenda for a re-run and who wants that.
Unfortunately she became obsessed with the belief (right or wrong, I don't know) that the police had conspired to stitch her up and pursued that beyond the point of a reasonable hope of success. At some point IIRC, the party stopped supporting her legal actions. When she lost her seat she found it very hard to resume her previous job as a journalist and eventually, I think, drank to an extent that contributed to her death.
She didn't say to me that she felt unsupported, though I lost touch with her after she lost her seat. But it was an awful example of someone with real guts who was eventually ground down.
The fear of Corbyn should work , to herd Tory mps through the correct lobby.
On a vote of confidence, it is reasonable for both a party and voters to expect an MP to back the leadership of the party they belong to. That is how the party system works, how voters can back candidates as proxies for their preferred government, and how governments can be held to account by voters. Certainly, MPs should not be expected to be robots, following the party line on every division, but on a VoNC, different considerations apply. If MPs can break party ranks on an issue that defines what a party is (remember that parties originated in parliament), then what is the point of them?
Unpopular though they might be at times, parties are essential and - grudgingly, perhaps - appreciated by voters for doing donkey work that they might otherwise have to do themselves.
We've never been at war with Portugal.
Replacing the 'we' with 'I' will create a valid assertion.
Get the deal through Parliament, and move on to what actually matters, the future trade deal with the EU. The sooner we do that, the sooner we can get through the transition and avoid the backstop.
Likewise, the pissing-off thing is a two-way process.
She managed to annoy practically the whole Labour Party in Newark. By the time she came back into office she had very few friends left in the constituency so it is no surprise she was one of the few Labour MPs to lose their seat in the 2001 election.
They have voted for Article 50 - and we leave the EU in March. They voted for that already. Unless the government proposes and wins a bill to repeal it its happening.
Under the meaningful vote each amendment will be voted on including second referendum, no deal, moving A50, labours wrecking deal, norway etc, and as each falls the final meaningful deal with be on TM deal. In those circumstances the HOC will vote for, as anything else will collapse the markets as all other options are exhausted and no deal is default
The only caveat is of course that if any amendment passed and was attached to the meaningful vote, the attached amendment on the deal would pass
It is not just get my mp to take it down. It is more complex than that
One of them (Survation, IIRC), also had a question as to which was respondents' second preference - and helpfully divided them by first-preference option.
Which reninds me of the joke.
Knock knock.
Who's there.
Pregnancy.
Pregnancy who?
Pregnancy Deutsche.
I had heard the quote and went looking for it but the only reference I could find was Kissinger.
1. If Deal loses in the Commons, then the possibilities are
A ) No Deal, by default;
B ) May or her successor will call a referendum on No Deal versus Remain;
C ) A government of some complexion or other will negotiate a new Deal that wins a vote in the Commons.
2.
A is No Deal.
B leads to No Deal, because Leave will kick Remain's butt in EUref2.
C is extremely improbable.
3. Since the only realistic options are Deal and No Deal, I will vote for Deal.
The problem here is that No Deal being well placed to destroy Remain in any referendum is not something that many Remainer MPs would want to state publicly as their reason for backing the Deal. It is true, though. (Sorry, pollsters. Polling isn't taking account of the future influence of a crescendo of emotionally affecting "fear the immigrants" stories.)
No deal is going to be nowhere near as bad as they are claiming and no Brexit is exactly the same as things are now.
If that's what your saying.
The Welsh Assembly has a wonderful piece of legislation, "The Well-Being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015"
This means that the future generations of Wales are guaranteed their well-being.
Or, Deal/ No Deal and re-apply for membership!
We haven't fought the Dutch since the 17th Century and the Battle of the Medway.
Have we ever been on the 'other side' to the Poles or Czechs?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Swedish_War_(1810–1812)
Options:
- Remain in status quo
- Remain and go for Euro membership
- Remain and go for Schengen but no Euro membership
- Remain and go for Euro membership and Schengen (all out In)
- Leave with No Deal
- Leave with W/A and go for Norway+
- Leave with W/A and go towards CETA
- Leave with W/A and go towards WTO
- Ask to transition straight to EEA/EFTA and extend A50 for this purpose
I recall that Luxembourg was annexed by Germany in WW2, so presumably served in the Nazi forces.
I don't see anyone else backing my theory that the sequence will be deal fails, talks resume, backstop gets replaced with a face-saving acceptable alternative. It works with the Parliamentary maths and it also works with the Irish wanting to avoid a hard border better than no deal does.
I believe you're no fan of the backstop. What odds would you put on that happening? I still think its more likely than other touted options like no deal since I don't think the Irish genuinely want to go into the abyss.
Talk about winding the west up.
Gets complicated.
And the EU is an alliance of temporary inconvenience. Hopefully one that we will soon be out of.
(Unless May unexpectedly does a Merkel and hangs around for a decade as the Mother of the Nation)
But....
No.
If May goes and someone who is prepared to go for no deal takes over then the game changes. The Irish can choose to go through with no deal and implement that hard border (or not) - or they can blink themselves.
Is that not logical?
My decision making criteria is will Wilder knock him out or will Fury box him for 12 rounds and win on points.
edit: have I had a punt, no.
But hey, his job will be safe.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/the-primetime-brexit-tv-debate-is-turning-into-a-bit-of-a
What happened to "No Parliament can bind its successors"?