politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trying to work out what is Britain’s European Strategy

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Barnesian said:

kle4 said:

AndyJS said:

Ayes 303
Noes 296

I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.

There won't be a vote. The government has the authority to do it unilaterally.

No - The ruling stated it has to be done with Parliamentary approval

If you're referring to the Gina Miller case, it doesn't apply to revocation as citizens lose no rights.

Nope. It is a law passed by Parliament. It cannot be set aside other than by another vote by Parliament. Of course we do have Ms Miller to thank for that for insisting (quite rightly) that Parliament should be involved in the decision.

It is amusing now to see all those screaming that Parliament should be the ones making the decision, now claiming they should not be involved in the reversal of that decision.

There's no majority for no deal, but noone wants May's deal. Which leaves either fantasy unicorn alternative deal, or remain.

Jonathan said:

Isn’t the finance bill about next years money? Ie after Brexit?

Yes. Starting in April.

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Barnesian said:

kle4 said:

AndyJS said:

Ayes 303
Noes 296

I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.

There won't be a vote. The government has the authority to do it unilaterally.

No - The ruling stated it has to be done with Parliamentary approval

If you're referring to the Gina Miller case, it doesn't apply to revocation as citizens lose no rights.

No - it was the ECJ ruling

The ECJ didn't say revocation needed parliamentary approval.

It needs constitutional approval. ie - a vote in the HOC

Anazina said:

This government is starting to make a habit of losing votes

It won't last another 6 months. Humpty Dumpty is not being put back togehter.

solarflare said:

There's no majority for no deal, but noone wants May's deal. Which leaves either fantasy unicorn alternative deal, or remain.

There'll be another month at least of frantic activity and shouting as the various unicorn backers battle it out, and then we remain. Unless the EU grant an extension for a referendum of Deal or Remain (since parliament clearly would not pass no deal), but that would be a spit in the face at this point.

slade said:

Further to the earlier comment about the R4 programme on the similarities between the present Conservative split on Europe and that in the 1900s on tariff reform, I note that Joe Chamberlain used the phrase 'take back control' in relation to the empire in a system of colonial preference. Nothing new under the sun.

Salisbury won a big Tory victory in 1900 using the patriotism and Empire card and although the Tories lost the subsequent 1906 general election by a landslide they won the popular vote in both 1910 elections albeit the Liberals won more MPs and the Tories won a big majority of MPs in 1918

Jonathan said:

The opposition whips are doing a cracking job.

Ba-boom Tish!

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

AndyJS said:

Ayes 303
Noes 296

I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.

Who is going to propose it. Tonights vote was almost certainly won by Olicer Letwin's passion against no deal and is the first really important vote to send a message to brexiteers.

TM WDA or remain through a referendum are increasingly the only two options

Ironically I am relaxed about either though I think a referendum would be horribly divisive

As I said it changes nothing. It is like voting against gravity.

Gravity cannot be unilaterally revoked.

Nothing they have done makes revocation more likely. It just makes the consequences of NO Deal more difficult to deal with. And gives us someone different to blame for that.

Your second sentence is why the first is not true.

Not at all. It makes revocation less likely since May will be able to blame other MPs for the consequences. It was that nasty Ms Cooper who stopped us taking action to mitigate a hard Brexit!!

GIN1138 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

GIN1138 said:

ydoethur said:

GIN1138 said:

Brilliant - So we're still moving remorselessly to No Deal as that's the default option of A50 but now MP's have ensured that if it happens the government will be unable to spend any money?

What a total waste of space the Conservative Party is.

Didn't know Yvette Cooper was a member of the Conservative Party.

Well clearly it's Conservative Remainer MP's that have made the difference.

And those with sense to stop no deal

"No Deal" can't be stopped in that sense as it's a default end point of A50.

You can stop Brexit by revoking A50, having another referendum and so on and then you stop No Deal but otherwise...

Basically all these MP's now throwing their toys out of the pram voted for No Deal when they voted to invoke A50.

All they've achieved with vote is is to make life for the government even harder if it is No Deal and make the country look even more foolish as it seems we've got a majority of MP's that are so stupid they didn't know what the end result of A50 could be when they chose to invoke it.

That's certainly very true. The level of anger far exceeds what is reasonable when they should always have known no deal was a risk. Even if they thought that risk was low, that a better PM would have made it very low, it was always a risk and if they could not countenance that then they should not have been so cowardly. It's jumping off the cliff then complaining they were pushed off.

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

GIN1138 said:

Brilliant - So we're still moving remorselessly to No Deal as that's the default option of A50 but now MP's have ensured that if it happens the government will be unable to spend any money?

What a total waste of space the Conservative Party is.

Didn't know Yvette Cooper was a member of the Conservative Party.

It's passed because of the Tories being so ridiculously divided. Labour look far more competent in parliamentary terms than the Tories. Corbyn is a terrible leader, but frankly the country cannot do much worse at the present time.

Be careful. Oskar Von Hindenburg thought that and he proved to be tragically mistaken.

HYUFD said:

Danny565 said:

Can anyone explain to me how a 2nd referendum is going to pass through the Commons, when even blocking 'No Deal' only gets a majority of 7, despite Corbyn's support?

If Tory MPs are not willing to even vote against the most extreme version of Brexit, I really can't see how they're going to vote to block Brexit altogether.

May is also.highly unlikely to propose any referendum with a Remain option, so it would require enough Remainers and No Dealers to join Dealers in voting for a Leave with the Deal v Leave with No Deal referendum

Or enough remainers/sane MPs amending her referendum bill to include the remain option. Seems more likely.

Richard_Tyndall said:

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

AndyJS said:

Ayes 303
Noes 296

I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.

Who is going to propose it. Tonights vote was almost certainly won by Olicer Letwin's passion against no deal and is the first really important vote to send a message to brexiteers.

TM WDA or remain through a referendum are increasingly the only two options

Ironically I am relaxed about either though I think a referendum would be horribly divisive

As I said it changes nothing. It is like voting against gravity.

Gravity cannot be unilaterally revoked.

Nothing they have done makes revocation more likely. It just makes the consequences of NO Deal more difficult to deal with. And gives us someone different to blame for that.

Your second sentence is why the first is not true.

Not at all. It makes revocation less likely since May will be able to blame other MPs for the consequences. It was that nasty Ms Cooper who stopped us taking action to mitigate a hard Brexit!!

No, because with so many Tory MPs on board to do this, it increases the chance there are enough to bring her down even at the cost of their careers, in order to properly stop it.

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Barnesian said:

kle4 said:

AndyJS said:

Ayes 303
Noes 296

I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.

There won't be a vote. The government has the authority to do it unilaterally.

No - The ruling stated it has to be done with Parliamentary approval

If you're referring to the Gina Miller case, it doesn't apply to revocation as citizens lose no rights.

No - it was the ECJ ruling

The ECJ didn't say revocation needed parliamentary approval.

It needs constitutional approval. ie - a vote in the HOC

No, it needs to be as per our constitutional requirements. It's within the power of the PM to do that without a vote of Parliament therefore it is not required.

That will not happen. A vote will take place if revoke is proposed

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

AndyJS said:

Ayes 303
Noes 296

I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.

Who is going to propose it. Tonights vote was almost certainly won by Olicer Letwin's passion against no deal and is the first really important vote to send a message to brexiteers.

TM WDA or remain through a referendum are increasingly the only two options

Ironically I am relaxed about either though I think a referendum would be horribly divisive

As I said it changes nothing. It is like voting against gravity.

Gravity cannot be unilaterally revoked.

Nothing they have done makes revocation more likely. It just makes the consequences of NO Deal more difficult to deal with. And gives us someone different to blame for that.

Your second sentence is why the first is not true.

Not at all. It makes revocation less likely since May will be able to blame other MPs for the consequences. It was that nasty Ms Cooper who stopped us taking action to mitigate a hard Brexit!!

No, because with so many Tory MPs on board to do this, it increases the chance there are enough to bring her down even at the cost of their careers, in order to properly stop it.

They cannot bring her down, May is safe from challenge by Tory MPs until December now post Brexit having won the vote of no confidence last year

Jonathan said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Jonathan said:

Isn’t the finance bill about next years money? Ie after Brexit?

Yes. Starting in April.

So this has no impact on Brexit preparation at all. If we did no deal the government would come asking for money which would be granted. It’s meaningless.

But that clauses deals with spending powers now.

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

AndyJS said:

Ayes 303
Noes 296

I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.

Who is going to propose it. Tonights vote was almost certainly won by Olicer Letwin's passion against no deal and is the first really important vote to send a message to brexiteers.

TM WDA or remain through a referendum are increasingly the only two options

Ironically I am relaxed about either though I think a referendum would be horribly divisive

As I said it changes nothing. It is like voting against gravity.

Gravity cannot be unilaterally revoked.

Nothing they have done makes revocation more likely. It just makes the consequences of NO Deal more difficult to deal with. And gives us someone different to blame for that.

Your second sentence is why the first is not true.

Not at all. It makes revocation less likely since May will be able to blame other MPs for the consequences. It was that nasty Ms Cooper who stopped us taking action to mitigate a hard Brexit!!

No, because with so many Tory MPs on board to do this, it increases the chance there are enough to bring her down even at the cost of their careers, in order to properly stop it.

They cannot bring her down, May is safe from challenge by Tory MPs until December now post Brexit having won the vote of no confidence last year

I did not mean as leader of the party, I meant as PM. Brexit, and no deal Brexit, is a matter beyond party politics. They can vote with the opposition to remove her. It is the logical position if they cannot accept no deal and she tried to pivot to it. And given the ERG, she has no choice but to.

HYUFD said:

SquareRoot said:

HYUFD said:

Jonathan said:

If there were two Tory parties.

National Conservatives led by Boris, following a Brexit/ Thatcherite agenda
Liberal Conservatives led by Amber Rudd, following a Cameroon agenda

Which would you support? And which would be bigger?

The former would be the biggest easily as it would be the main party of the right, the latter would not be able to challenge for power on its own unless it teamed up with the LDs and centrist Labour MPs. Personally as a Remain voter who likes Boris I could vote for either

Why do you like Boris.. hopeless as F Sec.. why would he make a good PM.. He is just a clever buffoon.

Boris is hugely charismatic and very intelligent and a big personality, the kind of PM Britain would need if we leave with No Deal

He is a buffoon

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Barnesian said:

kle4 said:

AndyJS said:

Ayes 303
Noes 296

I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.

There won't be a vote. The government has the authority to do it unilaterally.

No - The ruling stated it has to be done with Parliamentary approval

If you're referring to the Gina Miller case, it doesn't apply to revocation as citizens lose no rights.

No - it was the ECJ ruling

The ECJ didn't say revocation needed parliamentary approval.

It needs constitutional approval. ie - a vote in the HOC

No, it needs to be as per our constitutional requirements. It's within the power of the PM to do that without a vote of Parliament therefore it is not required.

No it isn't. The Executive cannot set aside a piece of primary legislation passed by Parliament.

Paragraph 13 of the Supreme Court Ruling in the Miller case stated that a simple motion in Parliament was not sufficient and it required primary legislation before Article 50 could be enacted. As such it will require Parliament to vote to allow revocation.

@Barnesian seems to think otherwise.

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

AndyJS said:

Ayes 303
Noes 296

I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.

Who is going to propose it. Tonights vote was almost certainly won by Olicer Letwin's passion against no deal and is the first really important vote to send a message to brexiteers.

TM WDA or remain through a referendum are increasingly the only two options

Ironically I am relaxed about either though I think a referendum would be horribly divisive

As I said it changes nothing. It is like voting against gravity.

Gravity cannot be unilaterally revoked.

Nothing they have done makes revocation more likely. It just makes the consequences of NO Deal more difficult to deal with. And gives us someone different to blame for that.

Your second sentence is why the first is not true.

Not at all. It makes revocation less likely since May will be able to blame other MPs for the consequences. It was that nasty Ms Cooper who stopped us taking action to mitigate a hard Brexit!!

No, because with so many Tory MPs on board to do this, it increases the chance there are enough to bring her down even at the cost of their careers, in order to properly stop it.

It makes a referendum amendment to the meaningful vote much more likely to succeed

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Barnesian said:

kle4 said:

AndyJS said:

Ayes 303
Noes 296

I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.

There won't be a vote. The government has the authority to do it unilaterally.

No - The ruling stated it has to be done with Parliamentary approval

If you're referring to the Gina Miller case, it doesn't apply to revocation as citizens lose no rights.

No - it was the ECJ ruling

The ECJ didn't say revocation needed parliamentary approval.

It needs constitutional approval. ie - a vote in the HOC

No, it needs to be as per our constitutional requirements. It's within the power of the PM to do that without a vote of Parliament therefore it is not required.

No it isn't. The Executive cannot set aside a piece of primary legislation passed by Parliament.

Paragraph 13 of the Supreme Court Ruling in the Miller case stated that a simple motion in Parliament was not sufficient and it required primary legislation before Article 50 could be enacted. As such it will require Parliament to vote to allow revocation.

@Barnesian seems to think otherwise.

He is, with genuine respect, wrong.

Verulamius said:

Jonathan said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Jonathan said:

Isn’t the finance bill about next years money? Ie after Brexit?

Yes. Starting in April.

So this has no impact on Brexit preparation at all. If we did no deal the government would come asking for money which would be granted. It’s meaningless.

But that clauses deals with spending powers now.

The bill has not yet passed. How can it impact spending now? And even when eventually it does receive ascent, does it really apply to 18-19 spending already approved ?

HYUFD said:

Polruan said:

HYUFD said:

Danny565 said:

Can anyone explain to me how a 2nd referendum is going to pass through the Commons, when even blocking 'No Deal' only gets a majority of 7, despite Corbyn's support?

If Tory MPs are not willing to even vote against the most extreme version of Brexit, I really can't see how they're going to vote to block Brexit altogether.

May is also.highly unlikely to propose any referendum with a Remain option, so it would require enough Remainers and No Dealers to join Dealers in voting for a Leave with the Deal v Leave with No Deal referendum

Or enough remainers/sane MPs amending her referendum bill to include the remain option. Seems more likely.

That needs 326 MPs to be sure, more than even voted against No Deal tonight

Sinn Fein are going to start voting?

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

AndyJS said:

Ayes 303
Noes 296

I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.

Who is going to propose it. Tonights vote was almost certainly won by Olicer Letwin's passion against no deal and is the first really important vote to send a message to brexiteers.

TM WDA or remain through a referendum are increasingly the only two options

Ironically I am relaxed about either though I think a referendum would be horribly divisive

As I said it changes nothing. It is like voting against gravity.

Gravity cannot be unilaterally revoked.

Nothing they have done makes revocation more likely. It just makes the consequences of NO Deal more difficult to deal with. And gives us someone different to blame for that.

Your second sentence is why the first is not true.

Not at all. It makes revocation less likely since May will be able to blame other MPs for the consequences. It was that nasty Ms Cooper who stopped us taking action to mitigate a hard Brexit!!

No, because with so many Tory MPs on board to do this, it increases the chance there are enough to bring her down even at the cost of their careers, in order to properly stop it.

Conservative MP's would have to be prepared to (a) give up their careers (b) be willing for Labour to take power (c) trust Corbyn to revoke A50. In the face of a large majority of their own voters who would revile them as turncoats.

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

AndyJS said:

Ayes 303
Noes 296

I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.

Who is going to propose it. Tonights vote was almost certainly won by Olicer Letwin's passion against no deal and is the first really important vote to send a message to brexiteers.

TM WDA or remain through a referendum are increasingly the only two options

Ironically I am relaxed about either though I think a referendum would be horribly divisive

As I said it changes nothing. It is like voting against gravity.

Gravity cannot be unilaterally revoked.

Nothing they have done makes revocation more likely. It just makes the consequences of NO Deal more difficult to deal with. And gives us someone different to blame for that.

Your second sentence is why the first is not true.

Not at all. It makes revocation less likely since May will be able to blame other MPs for the consequences. It was that nasty Ms Cooper who stopped us taking action to mitigate a hard Brexit!!

No, because with so many Tory MPs on board to do this, it increases the chance there are enough to bring her down even at the cost of their careers, in order to properly stop it.

They cannot bring her down except through a vote of No Confidence in Parliament leading to a GE. Now they might do that but I wouldn't bet any money at all on it.

HYUFD said:

Polruan said:

HYUFD said:

Danny565 said:

Can anyone explain to me how a 2nd referendum is going to pass through the Commons, when even blocking 'No Deal' only gets a majority of 7, despite Corbyn's support?

If Tory MPs are not willing to even vote against the most extreme version of Brexit, I really can't see how they're going to vote to block Brexit altogether.

May is also.highly unlikely to propose any referendum with a Remain option, so it would require enough Remainers and No Dealers to join Dealers in voting for a Leave with the Deal v Leave with No Deal referendum

Or enough remainers/sane MPs amending her referendum bill to include the remain option. Seems more likely.

That needs 326 MPs to be sure, more than even voted against No Deal tonight

Are you expecting an unusually participatory role from Sinn Fein and the Speakers?

JosiasJessop said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

SquareRoot said:

HYUFD said:

Jonathan said:

If there were two Tory parties.

National Conservatives led by Boris, following a Brexit/ Thatcherite agenda
Liberal Conservatives led by Amber Rudd, following a Cameroon agenda

Which would you support? And which would be bigger?

The former would be the biggest easily as it would be the main party of the right, the latter would not be able to challenge for power on its own unless it teamed up with the LDs and centrist Labour MPs. Personally as a Remain voter who likes Boris I could vote for either

Why do you like Boris.. hopeless as F Sec.. why would he make a good PM.. He is just a clever buffoon.

Boris is hugely charismatic and very intelligent and a big personality, the kind of PM Britain would need if we leave with No Deal

He is a buffoon

Indeed. But he is a hugely charismatic, very intelligent buffoon with a big personality.

Personally, I think he'd be a disastrous leader of the party, and his time as mayor was not stellar (witness his part in the Garden Bridge debacle).

There is much I like about him. He's an entertainer. But he's not a leader.

He is as much a leader as Trump or Berlusconi and they both won

Richard_Tyndall said:

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

AndyJS said:

Ayes 303
Noes 296

I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.

Who is going to propose it. Tonights vote was almost certainly won by Olicer Letwin's passion against no deal and is the first really important vote to send a message to brexiteers.

TM WDA or remain through a referendum are increasingly the only two options

Ironically I am relaxed about either though I think a referendum would be horribly divisive

As I said it changes nothing. It is like voting against gravity.

Gravity cannot be unilaterally revoked.

Nothing they have done makes revocation more likely. It just makes the consequences of NO Deal more difficult to deal with. And gives us someone different to blame for that.

Your second sentence is why the first is not true.

Not at all. It makes revocation less likely since May will be able to blame other MPs for the consequences. It was that nasty Ms Cooper who stopped us taking action to mitigate a hard Brexit!!

No, because with so many Tory MPs on board to do this, it increases the chance there are enough to bring her down even at the cost of their careers, in order to properly stop it.

They cannot bring her down except through a vote of No Confidence in Parliament leading to a GE. Now they might do that but I wouldn't bet any money at all on it.

Or by changing the rules to permit a fresh change. Which requires the same number or votes as winning the challenge requires.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

SquareRoot said:

HYUFD said:

Jonathan said:

If there were two Tory parties.

National Conservatives led by Boris, following a Brexit/ Thatcherite agenda
Liberal Conservatives led by Amber Rudd, following a Cameroon agenda

Which would you support? And which would be bigger?

The former would be the biggest easily as it would be the main party of the right, the latter would not be able to challenge for power on its own unless it teamed up with the LDs and centrist Labour MPs. Personally as a Remain voter who likes Boris I could vote for either

Why do you like Boris.. hopeless as F Sec.. why would he make a good PM.. He is just a clever buffoon.

Boris is hugely charismatic and very intelligent and a big personality, the kind of PM Britain would need if we leave with No Deal

He is a buffoon

No he is not, as his London Mayoral and EU referendum wins prove

He is a buffoon who would split the party wide open

I happen to think he would be a very effective Leader of the Opposition against a fundamentally unstable Labour-SNP coalition.....

kle4 said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Barnesian said:

kle4 said:

AndyJS said:

Ayes 303
Noes 296

I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.

There won't be a vote. The government has the authority to do it unilaterally.

No - The ruling stated it has to be done with Parliamentary approval

If you're referring to the Gina Miller case, it doesn't apply to revocation as citizens lose no rights.

No - it was the ECJ ruling

The ECJ didn't say revocation needed parliamentary approval.

It needs constitutional approval. ie - a vote in the HOC

No, it needs to be as per our constitutional requirements. It's within the power of the PM to do that without a vote of Parliament therefore it is not required.

No it isn't. The Executive cannot set aside a piece of primary legislation passed by Parliament.

Paragraph 13 of the Supreme Court Ruling in the Miller case stated that a simple motion in Parliament was not sufficient and it required primary legislation before Article 50 could be enacted. As such it will require Parliament to vote to allow revocation.

@Barnesian seems to think otherwise.

The finest legal minds in the land can disagree on these matters. Not all the justices agreed parliament needed to approve A50 in the first place. They'd surely need to be asked for certain if it was needed to revoke.

But this is a much simpler question with centuries of precedent behind it. I can't see any court in the land saying that the Executive can unilaterally revoke primary legislation without Parliamentary approval.

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

SquareRoot said:

HYUFD said:

Jonathan said:

If there were two Tory parties.

National Conservatives led by Boris, following a Brexit/ Thatcherite agenda
Liberal Conservatives led by Amber Rudd, following a Cameroon agenda

Which would you support? And which would be bigger?

The former would be the biggest easily as it would be the main party of the right, the latter would not be able to challenge for power on its own unless it teamed up with the LDs and centrist Labour MPs. Personally as a Remain voter who likes Boris I could vote for either

Why do you like Boris.. hopeless as F Sec.. why would he make a good PM.. He is just a clever buffoon.

Boris is hugely charismatic and very intelligent and a big personality, the kind of PM Britain would need if we leave with No Deal

He is a buffoon

No he is not, as his London Mayoral and EU referendum wins prove

Don't forget he invented the bicycle and the bus too.

I am not sure you can claim the EU referendum result proves his invincibility yet.

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

AndyJS said:

Ayes 303
Noes 296

I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.

Who is going to propose it. Tonights vote was almost certainly won by Olicer Letwin's passion against no deal and is the first really important vote to send a message to brexiteers.

TM WDA or remain through a referendum are increasingly the only two options

Ironically I am relaxed about either though I think a referendum would be horribly divisive

As I said it changes nothing. It is like voting against gravity.

Gravity cannot be unilaterally revoked.

Nothing they have done makes revocation more likely. It just makes the consequences of NO Deal more difficult to deal with. And gives us someone different to blame for that.

Your second sentence is why the first is not true.

Not at all. It makes revocation less likely since May will be able to blame other MPs for the consequences. It was that nasty Ms Cooper who stopped us taking action to mitigate a hard Brexit!!

No, because with so many Tory MPs on board to do this, it increases the chance there are enough to bring her down even at the cost of their careers, in order to properly stop it.

They cannot bring her down except through a vote of No Confidence in Parliament leading to a GE. Now they might do that but I wouldn't bet any money at all on it.

Or by changing the rules to permit a fresh change. Which requires the same number or votes as winning the challenge requires.

But you are talking about 20 MPs who voted today. Where are you going to find the other 137?

HYUFD said:

JosiasJessop said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

SquareRoot said:

HYUFD said:

Jonathan said:

If there were two Tory parties.

National Conservatives led by Boris, following a Brexit/ Thatcherite agenda
Liberal Conservatives led by Amber Rudd, following a Cameroon agenda

Which would you support? And which would be bigger?

The former would be the biggest easily as it would be the main party of the right, the latter would not be able to challenge for power on its own unless it teamed up with the LDs and centrist Labour MPs. Personally as a Remain voter who likes Boris I could vote for either

Why do you like Boris.. hopeless as F Sec.. why would he make a good PM.. He is just a clever buffoon.

Boris is hugely charismatic and very intelligent and a big personality, the kind of PM Britain would need if we leave with No Deal

He is a buffoon

Indeed. But he is a hugely charismatic, very intelligent buffoon with a big personality.

Personally, I think he'd be a disastrous leader of the party, and his time as mayor was not stellar (witness his part in the Garden Bridge debacle).

There is much I like about him. He's an entertainer. But he's not a leader.

He is as much a leader as Trump or Berlusconi and they both won

Our poor Country - we deserve better, much better, than those aspirations

kle4 said:

Sean_F said:

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

AndyJS said:

Ayes 303
Noes 296

I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.

Who is going to propose it. Tonights vote was almost certainly won by Olicer Letwin's passion against no deal and is the first really important vote to send a message to brexiteers.

TM WDA or remain through a referendum are increasingly the only two options

Ironically I am relaxed about either though I think a referendum would be horribly divisive

As I said it changes nothing. It is like voting against gravity.

Gravity cannot be unilaterally revoked.

Nothing they have done makes revocation more likely. It just makes the consequences of NO Deal more difficult to deal with. And gives us someone different to blame for that.

Your second sentence is why the first is not true.

Not at all. It makes revocation less likely since May will be able to blame other MPs for the consequences. It was that nasty Ms Cooper who stopped us taking action to mitigate a hard Brexit!!

No, because with so many Tory MPs on board to do this, it increases the chance there are enough to bring her down even at the cost of their careers, in order to properly stop it.

Conservative MP's would have to be prepared to (a) give up their careers (b) be willing for Labour to take power (c) trust Corbyn to revoke A50. In the face of a large majority of their own voters who would revile them as turncoats.

Yes. That would be very very hard. I do not think more than a handful might. Certainly not all those who voted in the amendment tonight. But if they think no deal is so terrible and yet May insists on doing it, that would be a price they would have to pay for the sake of the country.

HYUFD said:

She cannot be removed as PM without an alternative and no Tory MPs are going to remove her in favour of Corbyn

I don't agree. Either they cannot accept no deal or they can. If they cannot, and May insists on it, they have only one further choice.

Do they truly believe no deal is unacceptable or are they talking nonsense? If they can accept no deal, having made preparing for it even more difficult, then they should be willing to go further.

They believe No Deal is unacceptable except at the cost of Corbyn.

Albeit on the latest polls if they forced a general election May might win it anyway

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

SquareRoot said:

HYUFD said:

Jonathan said:

If there were two Tory parties.

National Conservatives led by Boris, following a Brexit/ Thatcherite agenda
Liberal Conservatives led by Amber Rudd, following a Cameroon agenda

Which would you support? And which would be bigger?

The former would be the biggest easily as it would be the main party of the right, the latter would not be able to challenge for power on its own unless it teamed up with the LDs and centrist Labour MPs. Personally as a Remain voter who likes Boris I could vote for either

Why do you like Boris.. hopeless as F Sec.. why would he make a good PM.. He is just a clever buffoon.

Boris is hugely charismatic and very intelligent and a big personality, the kind of PM Britain would need if we leave with No Deal

He is a buffoon

No he is not, as his London Mayoral and EU referendum wins prove

He is a buffoon who would split the party wide open

He leads both this month's Tory members polls, including the non ConHome scientific won from Tim Bale. Corbyn was hardly a unity figure either after he won the membership vote in Labour

He wont have a party to lead

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

JosiasJessop said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

SquareRoot said:

HYUFD said:

Jonathan said:

If there were two Tory parties.

National Conservatives led by Boris, following a Brexit/ Thatcherite agenda
Liberal Conservatives led by Amber Rudd, following a Cameroon agenda

Which would you support? And which would be bigger?

The former would be the biggest easily as it would be the main party of the right, the latter would not be able to challenge for power on its own unless it teamed up with the LDs and centrist Labour MPs. Personally as a Remain voter who likes Boris I could vote for either

Why do you like Boris.. hopeless as F Sec.. why would he make a good PM.. He is just a clever buffoon.

Boris is hugely charismatic and very intelligent and a big personality, the kind of PM Britain would need if we leave with No Deal

He is a buffoon

Indeed. But he is a hugely charismatic, very intelligent buffoon with a big personality.

Personally, I think he'd be a disastrous leader of the party, and his time as mayor was not stellar (witness his part in the Garden Bridge debacle).

There is much I like about him. He's an entertainer. But he's not a leader.

He is as much a leader as Trump or Berlusconi and they both won

Our poor Country - we deserve better, much better, than those aspirations

Boris only needs to beat Corbyn, not Blair 1997

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Polruan said:

HYUFD said:

Danny565 said:

Can anyone explain to me how a 2nd referendum is going to pass through the Commons, when even blocking 'No Deal' only gets a majority of 7, despite Corbyn's support?

If Tory MPs are not willing to even vote against the most extreme version of Brexit, I really can't see how they're going to vote to block Brexit altogether.

May is also.highly unlikely to propose any referendum with a Remain option, so it would require enough Remainers and No Dealers to join Dealers in voting for a Leave with the Deal v Leave with No Deal referendum

Or enough remainers/sane MPs amending her referendum bill to include the remain option. Seems more likely.

That needs 326 MPs to be sure, more than even voted against No Deal tonight

Sinn Fein are going to start voting?

Who knows if a hard border looms

If they did they would be extra votes for having remain as an option.

As part of the 326

No, less would still suffice. Speaker Bercow wouldn't vote but would cast a casting vote in a tie in favour of having Remain as an option. Both by arguing it is the existing status quo (so meeting the rule of tradition) but foremost because he is a die-hard Remainer.

kle4 said:

GIN1138 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

GIN1138 said:

ydoethur said:

GIN1138 said:

Brilliant - So we're still moving remorselessly to No Deal as that's the default option of A50 but now MP's have ensured that if it happens the government will be unable to spend any money?

What a total waste of space the Conservative Party is.

Didn't know Yvette Cooper was a member of the Conservative Party.

Well clearly it's Conservative Remainer MP's that have made the difference.

And those with sense to stop no deal

"No Deal" can't be stopped in that sense as it's a default end point of A50.

You can stop Brexit by revoking A50, having another referendum and so on and then you stop No Deal but otherwise...

Basically all these MP's now throwing their toys out of the pram voted for No Deal when they voted to invoke A50.

All they've achieved with vote is is to make life for the government even harder if it is No Deal and make the country look even more foolish as it seems we've got a majority of MP's that are so stupid they didn't know what the end result of A50 could be when they chose to invoke it.

That's certainly very true. The level of anger far exceeds what is reasonable when they should always have known no deal was a risk. Even if they thought that risk was low, that a better PM would have made it very low, it was always a risk and if they could not countenance that then they should not have been so cowardly. It's jumping off the cliff then complaining they were pushed off.

I do wonder if the point of wrecking tactics like Yvette Cooper's is not so much to force revocation, or even a second referendum - either of which would require pro-EU MPs to explicitly undo the result of the first - but to tie an already feeble Government up in so many knots that a No Deal Brexit is made as destructive as possible?

Thwarting Brexit outright requires the majority in Parliament to break across political lines and, if Theresa May won't capitulate, to throw her out and replace her with an emergency Government in order to give notice of revocation to the European Council, and to repeal the Withdrawal Act and all the rest of the Brexit legislation. That self-same majority would then have to submit itself to a General Election, at which it could be held liable for defying the majority of the electorate.

Perhaps they've simply decided to allow Brexit to happen, but do everything in their power to guarantee that it is a catastrophe? Then they can try to pin all of the blame on the Brexiteers, punish the voters for not doing what they wanted, and try to get enough people to repent of their sin in order to attempt to join the EU again (minus all the opt-outs) in a few years' time?

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1082717988841758720?s=21

The only patriots left in the Tory party.

Patriots or not - and we will have to agree to disagree on that one - they are fools doing little more than virtue signalling.

Headline summaries seem rather telling.

On the main BBC page 'Minister defeated over no deal brexit', but click on the story and the headline is the subtly different 'Brexit: MPs defeat government over no-deal preparations'.

A lot of people will think no brexit cannot now occur. That might be right. I think it is, but it requires further action. But others may not give way elsewhere as they think enough has been done to prevent something which is still a possibility.

Black_Rook said:

kle4 said:

GIN1138 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

GIN1138 said:

ydoethur said:

GIN1138 said:

Brilliant - So we're still moving remorselessly to No Deal as that's the default option of A50 but now MP's have ensured that if it happens the government will be unable to spend any money?

What a total waste of space the Conservative Party is.

Didn't know Yvette Cooper was a member of the Conservative Party.

Well clearly it's Conservative Remainer MP's that have made the difference.

And those with sense to stop no deal

"No Deal" can't be stopped in that sense as it's a default end point of A50.

You can stop Brexit by revoking A50, having another referendum and so on and then you stop No Deal but otherwise...

Basically all these MP's now throwing their toys out of the pram voted for No Deal when they voted to invoke A50.

All they've achieved with vote is is to make life for the government even harder if it is No Deal and make the country look even more foolish as it seems we've got a majority of MP's that are so stupid they didn't know what the end result of A50 could be when they chose to invoke it.

Thated off.

I do wonder if the point of wrecking tactics like Yvette Cooper's is not so much to force revocation, or even a second referendum - either of which would require pro-EU MPs to explicitly undo the result of the first - but to tie an already feeble Government up in so many knots that a No Deal Brexit is made as destructive as possible?

Thwarting Brexit outright requires the majority in Parliament to break across political lines and, if Theresa May won't capitulate, to throw her out and replace her with an emergency Government in order to give notice of revocation to the European Council, and to repeal the Withdrawal Act and all the rest of the Brexit legislation. That self-same majority would then have to submit itself to a General Election, at which it could be held liable for defying the majority of the electorate.

Perhaps they've simply decided to allow Brexit to happen, but do everything in their power to guarantee that it is a catastrophe? Then they can try to pin all of the blame on the Brexiteers, punish the voters for not doing what they wanted, and try to get enough people to repent of their sin in order to attempt to join the EU again (minus all the opt-outs) in a few years' time?

I certainly hope that is not the case. I have seen the theory, even the hope, that no deal is indeed a disaster that will hasten a rejoining movement, but to actively contribute to making ti a disaster rather than even attempt mitigation seems very untoward behaviour.

It strikes me that while the vote doesn’t really change anything legally for reasons cited by others - the vote *does* represent a nail in the coffin of No Deal.

At least 20 Tories are prepared to defy the whip to prevent a No Deal. It’s over for No Dealers.

Let the argument now continue between May’s Deal, another Deal (Norway plus) and Remain.

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

SquareRoot said:

HYUFD said:

Jonathan said:

If there were two Tory parties.

National Conservatives led by Boris, following a Brexit/ Thatcherite agenda
Liberal Conservatives led by Amber Rudd, following a Cameroon agenda

Which would you support? And which would be bigger?

The former would be the biggest easily as it would be the main party of the right, the latter would not be able to challenge for power on its own unless it teamed up with the LDs and centrist Labour MPs. Personally as a Remain voter who likes Boris I could vote for either

Why do you like Boris.. hopeless as F Sec.. why would he make a good PM.. He is just a clever buffoon.

Boris is hugely charismatic and very intelligent and a big personality, the kind of PM Britain would need if we leave with No Deal

He is a buffoon

No he is not, as his London Mayoral and EU referendum wins prove

Don't forget he invented the bicycle

Really? I thought it was a Frenchman.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

SquareRoot said:

HYUFD said:

Jonathan said:

If there were two Tory parties.

National Conservatives led by Boris, following a Brexit/ Thatcherite agenda
Liberal Conservatives led by Amber Rudd, following a Cameroon agenda

Which would you support? And which would be bigger?

The former would be the biggest easily as it would be the main party of the right, the latter would not be able to challenge for power on its own unless it teamed up with the LDs and centrist Labour MPs. Personally as a Remain voter who likes Boris I could vote for either

Why do you like Boris.. hopeless as F Sec.. why would he make a good PM.. He is just a clever buffoon.

Boris is hugely charismatic and very intelligent and a big personality, the kind of PM Britain would need if we leave with No Deal

He is a buffoon

No he is not, as his London Mayoral and EU referendum wins prove

He is a third rate, dishonest, incompetent, lazy, promiscuous and narcissistic buffoon who would split the party wide open.

Please forgive my minor improvements, Big_G.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Gardenwalker said:

It strikes me that while the vote doesn’t really change anything legally for reasons cited by others - the vote *does* represent a nail in the coffin of No Deal.

At least 20 Tories are prepared to defy the whip to prevent a No Deal. It’s over for No Dealers.

Let the argument now continue between May’s Deal, another Deal (Norway plus) and Remain.

I don't think that is right - there may be a majority against No Deal, but that doesn't mean there's a majority in favour of anything else (which has been the problem all along). That is especially the case because of the fact that the official Labour position is utter, risible nonsense, involving a ludicrous renegotiation which cannot possibly be achieved.

+1

Gardenwalker said:

It strikes me that while the vote doesn’t really change anything legally for reasons cited by others - the vote *does* represent a nail in the coffin of No Deal.

At least 20 Tories are prepared to defy the whip to prevent a No Deal. It’s over for No Dealers.

Let the argument now continue between May’s Deal, another Deal (Norway plus) and Remain.

We'll see. I guess May gets to decide.

When May decides then all Tory MPs have a decision to make.

Mexicanpete said:

ydoethur said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

SquareRoot said:

HYUFD said:

Jonathan said:

If there were two Tory parties.

National Conservatives led by Boris, following a Brexit/ Thatcherite agenda
Liberal Conservatives led by Amber Rudd, following a Cameroon agenda

Which would you support? And which would be bigger?

The former would be the biggest easily as it would be the main party of the right, the latter would not be able to challenge for power on its own unless it teamed up with the LDs and centrist Labour MPs. Personally as a Remain voter who likes Boris I could vote for either

Why do you like Boris.. hopeless as F Sec.. why would he make a good PM.. He is just a clever buffoon.

Boris is hugely charismatic and very intelligent and a big personality, the kind of PM Britain would need if we leave with No Deal

He is a buffoon

No he is not, as his London Mayoral and EU referendum wins prove

Don't forget he invented the bicycle

Really? I thought it was a Frenchman.

You mean he didn't invent the Boris bike... or the Boris bus? No! You'll be saying he didn't invent the garden bridge either next.

Indeed no, it was the Chinese did that:
http://www.bjreview.com.cn/expo2010/2010-06/30/content_282180.htm

ydoethur said:

Gardenwalker said:

It strikes me that while the vote doesn’t really change anything legally for reasons cited by others - the vote *does* represent a nail in the coffin of No Deal.

At least 20 Tories are prepared to defy the whip to prevent a No Deal. It’s over for No Dealers.

Let the argument now continue between May’s Deal, another Deal (Norway plus) and Remain.

There is no other deal on the table. The EU are certainly not going to be receptive to further negotiations in advance of our leaving.

Without Corbyn's support, it is hard to see Revoke as an option. And it is harder still to see that support forthcoming without another referendum, which we don't have time for.

That means either the deal goes through, or we leave without one.

All this vote does is mean the consequences of the latter are still more damaging.

The irony is those who want a Norway model, or even rejoin, should be pushing for this deal as it does give time for us to arrange those outcomes.

Final paragraph, not really, as once we are into the transition period we are technically out.

Mexicanpete said:

ydoethur said:

Gardenwalker said:

It strikes me that while the vote doesn’t really change anything legally for reasons cited by others - the vote *does* represent a nail in the coffin of No Deal.

At least 20 Tories are prepared to defy the whip to prevent a No Deal. It’s over for No Dealers.

Let the argument now continue between May’s Deal, another Deal (Norway plus) and Remain.

There is no other deal on the table. The EU are certainly not going to be receptive to further negotiations in advance of our leaving.

Without Corbyn's support, it is hard to see Revoke as an option. And it is harder still to see that support forthcoming without another referendum, which we don't have time for.

That means either the deal goes through, or we leave without one.

All this vote does is mean the consequences of the latter are still more damaging.

The irony is those who want a Norway model, or even rejoin, should be pushing for this deal as it does give time for us to arrange those outcomes.

Final paragraph, not really, as once we are into the transition period we are technically out.

I agree it means we can't revoke. However, I think the EU would almost certainly accept an accelerated rejoin under A49, bearing in mind we would have full alignment in every respect during transition. That's why I said 'rejoin.'

kle4 said:

Black_Rook said:

I do wonder if the point of wrecking tactics like Yvette Cooper's is not so much to force revocation, or even a second referendum - either of which would require pro-EU MPs to explicitly undo the result of the first - but to tie an already feeble Government up in so many knots that a No Deal Brexit is made as destructive as possible?

Thwarting Brexit outright requires the majority in Parliament to break across political lines and, if Theresa May won't capitulate, to throw her out and replace her with an emergency Government in order to give notice of revocation to the European Council, and to repeal the Withdrawal Act and all the rest of the Brexit legislation. That self-same majority would then have to submit itself to a General Election, at which it could be held liable for defying the majority of the electorate.

Perhaps they've simply decided to allow Brexit to happen, but do everything in their power to guarantee that it is a catastrophe? Then they can try to pin all of the blame on the Brexiteers, punish the voters for not doing what they wanted, and try to get enough people to repent of their sin in order to attempt to join the EU again (minus all the opt-outs) in a few years' time?

I certainly hope that is not the case. I have seen the theory, even the hope, that no deal is indeed a disaster that will hasten a rejoining movement, but to actively contribute to making ti a disaster rather than even attempt mitigation seems very untoward behaviour.

I hope it's not the case either. Most likely it isn't. But, frankly, I think one would be naive to entirely rule out the possibility of "very untoward behaviour" by our politicians (and yes, I know they're not all rotten by any means, but they are held in low regard, as a class, for legitimate reasons beyond mere cynicism.) Especially when so many of the Remain backers have been left crestfallen by defeat, are very angry, and appear to have concluded that Brexit is entirely the product of the stupidity and/or wickedness of Leave voters. Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that some of them at least might enjoy exacting revenge upon the electorate, as well as the opportunity to say "I told you so"?

Richard_Tyndall said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

A key legal argument in the Miller case was Brexit removed citizens existing legal rights and thus needed primary legislation and couldn't be done via prerogative power. Revocation of A50 wouldn't remove any citizen rights. It would just keep the status quo. In addition the notification Act didn't invoke A50. It didn't even say it should be invoked. It just gave the PM the power to invoke if she wanted to and she did.

So there is a legal argument to be made both that Miller doesn't apply to revocation as no rights are removed by it and that no primary legislation is overruled by revocation. Parliament has never legislated to invoke A50.

But from a political point of view any revocation of A50 via prerogative would surely and reasonably end up in the Supreme Court and given the stakes the government woukd surely want to bullet proof it with legislation anyway. Though in the UK parliament can legislate retroactively.

That is completely irrelevant. Whatever the reasons given for requiring Primary Legislation, once it has been passed it cannot be revoked by the Executive without Parliamentary approval. Miller is yesterdays news as far as the law now stands. To revoke a piece of Primary Legislation you need a vote in Parliament.

Hamlet considered it sport to have the engineer hoist on his own petard.

I must confess I don't consider this huge mess that really silly ruling got us into (coupled with that even sillier ruling from the rubber stampers AGEU CJEU on A50) to be sport.

Unless we're talking about a full-on gladiatorial sport where everyone dies at the end.