politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » NEW PB / Polling Matters podcast: What LAB and CON party membe
Comments
-
They would say Gove is the reason we are where we are under Remainer PM May.....TheScreamingEagles said:How would Tory Leavers feel if say Gove came out and publicly said ‘No Deal does NOT honour the referendum’
0 -
@DavidL I've considerable sympathy with your points. But Westminster is the Mother of Parliaments and an elite institution. Most of it's members fought hard to get there and went there to run things. It was/is always going to be psychologically very hard for such an institution to vote for May's vassalage.0
-
That is just more pathetic rationalisation (on their part Topping, not by you). If I see other people driving too fast in foggy conditions on a motorway am I at liberty to do the same or do I still have an obligation to drive with due care and attention? Perhaps, stretching the analogy a bit, I have an obligation to be even more careful and conscientious.TOPPING said:
Plenty of the rebels are dealers. It is saying we have a deal to leave the EU so we should leave with that deal. As @AlastairMeeks has noted, many leavers don't support the deal and hence have surrendered their right to hold anyone to any particular version of leave. The rebels, I imagine, would not have rebelled if their party was united behind the deal.DavidL said:AIUI Cooper's amendment restricts the ability of the government to make certain tax changes in the event of a no deal Brexit. Of course such tax changes will themselves require legislation which will supersede the amendment (assuming they are passed of course) so the amendment will have no effect.
I am sure it is just me but what was the point of this? If it was to show that there is and always has been a majority for remain in the House of Commons, despite the vast majority of them being elected on manifestos committed to implementing Brexit this is hardly news. If it was to show that this government no longer has a majority for pretty much anything including Finance bills that is hardly news either. If it was to highlight the fact that the Tory party is no longer a functioning or coherent whole capable of providing governance I suppose it had some effect, something the rebels might have reflected upon.
What I think we are actually seeing is yet more displacement activity by virtue signalers who are so sure of their own views. I suppose we have to fill in the unconscionable delays imposed by the PM with something. 5 more days of Brexit debate. What on earth is there still to say? Who on earth do these windbags think is still listening?0 -
They haven't voted against the finance bill - now it's been amended I am sure they will be voting for it. The amendment covers a hypothetical future situation and I doubt it would have been seen as an expulsion matter even with a majority and no FTPASandpit said:
In any other circumstances, MPs of the government party voting against the govt in a Finance Bill would have been cause for at least a lengthy suspension of the whip. The problem is that in the case doing so would lose the government their majority.AlastairMeeks said:
It's a quite astonishing collective blunder.Sean_F said:
They've certainly played into their opponents ' hands.AlastairMeeks said:If, as looks highly likely, a great majority of the MPs who voted Leave in 2016 reject Theresa May's deal, they can hardly object if the whole matter is reopened. The Leave prospectus was based on the deal being straightforward, not on crashing out without a deal at all.
Of those current MPs who were in Parliament at the time of the referendum vote and who voted Leave, I make it 90 who are currently opposed, 38 in favour (and just 12 of these are backbench MPs) and 9 still considering their position.
Last night's vote could have led to a GE, were it not for the FTPA.0 -
Dunno. Perhaps he should ask his wife first.TheScreamingEagles said:How would Tory Leavers feel if say Gove came out and publicly said ‘No Deal does NOT honour the referendum’
0 -
It's news that Dubai is in the EU.Sandpit said:
They want us to not leave the EU.kle4 said:
I think you nail it by calling it displacement activity. The actual choices before them and actions needed for those options are not actually complicated but mps on all sides are dancing around those options, delaying, distracting, focusing on peripheral matters.DavidL said:AIUI Cooper's amendment restricts the ability of the government to make certain tax changes in the event of a no deal Brexit. Of course such tax changes will themselves require legislation which will supersede the amendment (assuming they are passed of course) so the amendment will have no effect.
I am sure it is just me but what was the point of this? If it was to show that there is and always has been a majority for remain in the House of Commons, despite the vast majority of them being elected on manifestos committed to implementing Brexit this is hardly news. If it was to show that this government no longer has a majority for pretty much anything including Finance bills that is hardly news either. If it was to highlight the fact that the Tory party is no longer a functioning or coherent whole capable of providing governance I suppose it had some effect, something the rebels might have reflected upon.
What I think we are actually seeing is yet more displacement activity by virtue signalers who are so sure of their own views. I suppose we have to fill in the unconscionable delays imposed by the PM with something. 5 more days of Brexit debate. What on earth is there still to say? Who on earth do these windbags think is still listening?
It's all pretty pointless. We know what core groups want and what three options are possible. Just pick one, stop tweaking and pressuring and on and on and on. They don't even need to wait for the MV for everyone to just be clear what they seek.
But they don't have the balls to say so explicitly, because most of their constituents voted to leave the EU, and they were elected on a manifesto commitment to leave the EU following the referendum result.0 -
I could imagine the rebellion getting bigger rather than smaller, if some erstwhile loyalists decide that it's important to kill the deal stone dead to get onto the next stage.Sandpit said:
If fewer than 200 vote for the deal it could go down by well over 200 majority - then all bets are seriously off as to what happens next!!0 -
Who the hell cares what these idiots in the ERG say or think? If they go off and form their own party and suffer electoral oblivion some good will have come of this shambles.AlastairMeeks said:
Just imagine the Deal were passed with Remain votes while all the Leavers were, as they are, screaming betrayal. The "stab in the back" myth comes ready-made.DavidL said:
Those elected to implement Brexit have an obligation to do so in what they judge the best way possible, whether that is the deal or no deal. Their obligation does not vanish because others are behaving like irresponsible idiots.
Why on earth should they make themselves the fall-guys for the extremists' irredentists' fantasies? And how could they be confident that they were honouring the vote in any case if those whose project this is almost unanimously think otherwise?0 -
It would be odd to amend it and then vote against it.IanB2 said:
They haven't voted against the finance bill - now it's been amended I am sure they will be voting for it. The amendment covers a hypothetical future situation and I doubt it would have been seen as an expulsion matter even with a majority and no FTPASandpit said:
In any other circumstances, MPs of the government party voting against the govt in a Finance Bill would have been cause for at least a lengthy suspension of the whip. The problem is that in the case doing so would lose the government their majority.AlastairMeeks said:
It's a quite astonishing collective blunder.Sean_F said:
They've certainly played into their opponents ' hands.AlastairMeeks said:If, as looks highly likely, a great majority of the MPs who voted Leave in 2016 reject Theresa May's deal, they can hardly object if the whole matter is reopened. The Leave prospectus was based on the deal being straightforward, not on crashing out without a deal at all.
Of those current MPs who were in Parliament at the time of the referendum vote and who voted Leave, I make it 90 who are currently opposed, 38 in favour (and just 12 of these are backbench MPs) and 9 still considering their position.
Last night's vote could have led to a GE, were it not for the FTPA.
Will Brexit ultras vote against it, now it has the finance lock on their precious?0 -
I'd think he wrong. Not that I favour No Deal.TheScreamingEagles said:How would Tory Leavers feel if say Gove came out and publicly said ‘No Deal does NOT honour the referendum’
0 -
Or you are at the bar (the drinking kind) and as you wait patiently for the barman to catch your eye, a succession of drunks comes along, shouting loudly for their orders, and are served first.DavidL said:
That is just more pathetic rationalisation (on their part Topping, not by you). If I see other people driving too fast in foggy conditions on a motorway am I at liberty to do the same or do I still have an obligation to drive with due care and attention? Perhaps, stretching the analogy a bit, I have an obligation to be even more careful and conscientious.TOPPING said:
Plenty of the rebels are dealers. It is saying we have a deal to leave the EU so we should leave with that deal. As @AlastairMeeks has noted, many leavers don't support the deal and hence have surrendered their right to hold anyone to any particular version of leave. The rebels, I imagine, would not have rebelled if their party was united behind the deal.DavidL said:AIUI Cooper's amendment restricts the ability of the government to make certain tax changes in the event of a no deal Brexit. Of course such tax changes will themselves require legislation which will supersede the amendment (assuming they are passed of course) so the amendment will have no effect.
I am sure it is just me but what was the point of this? If it was to show that there is and always has been a majority for remain in the House of Commons, despite the vast majority of them being elected on manifestos committed to implementing Brexit this is hardly news. If it was to show that this government no longer has a majority for pretty much anything including Finance bills that is hardly news either. If it was to highlight the fact that the Tory party is no longer a functioning or coherent whole capable of providing governance I suppose it had some effect, something the rebels might have reflected upon.
What I think we are actually seeing is yet more displacement activity by virtue signalers who are so sure of their own views. I suppose we have to fill in the unconscionable delays imposed by the PM with something. 5 more days of Brexit debate. What on earth is there still to say? Who on earth do these windbags think is still listening?0 -
Mr. Meeks, still miffed I had 7 on under 200 MPs backing the 11 December vote, which never happened. Think that would've had a good chance of coming off.0
-
Be fun and games though if the ERG voted down the finance bill now because of the inclusion of this clause. Now THAT would be a crisis....IanB2 said:
They haven't voted against the finance bill - now it's been amended I am sure they will be voting for it. The amendment covers a hypothetical future situation and I doubt it would have been seen as an expulsion matter even with a majority and no FTPASandpit said:
In any other circumstances, MPs of the government party voting against the govt in a Finance Bill would have been cause for at least a lengthy suspension of the whip. The problem is that in the case doing so would lose the government their majority.AlastairMeeks said:
It's a quite astonishing collective blunder.Sean_F said:
They've certainly played into their opponents ' hands.AlastairMeeks said:If, as looks highly likely, a great majority of the MPs who voted Leave in 2016 reject Theresa May's deal, they can hardly object if the whole matter is reopened. The Leave prospectus was based on the deal being straightforward, not on crashing out without a deal at all.
Of those current MPs who were in Parliament at the time of the referendum vote and who voted Leave, I make it 90 who are currently opposed, 38 in favour (and just 12 of these are backbench MPs) and 9 still considering their position.
Last night's vote could have led to a GE, were it not for the FTPA.0 -
It's not pointless at all. The game Mrs M has been trying to play for some time is to deny Parliament any opportunity to express a view by not allowing it to vote on anything. The votes that have and are to take place have all had to be forced upon the government, from the Miller case and the requirement for an MV onwards.kle4 said:
I think you nail it by calling it displacement activity. The actual choices before them and actions needed for those options are not actually complicated but mps on all sides are dancing around those options, delaying, distracting, focusing on peripheral matters.DavidL said:AIUI Cooper's amendment restricts the ability of the government to make certain tax changes in the event of a no deal Brexit. Of course such tax changes will themselves require legislation which will supersede the amendment (assuming they are passed of course) so the amendment will have no effect.
I am sure it is just me but what was the point of this? If it was to show that there is and always has been a majority for remain in the House of Commons, despite the vast majority of them being elected on manifestos committed to implementing Brexit this is hardly news. If it was to show that this government no longer has a majority for pretty much anything including Finance bills that is hardly news either. If it was to highlight the fact that the Tory party is no longer a functioning or coherent whole capable of providing governance I suppose it had some effect, something the rebels might have reflected upon.
What I think we are actually seeing is yet more displacement activity by virtue signalers who are so sure of their own views. I suppose we have to fill in the unconscionable delays imposed by the PM with something. 5 more days of Brexit debate. What on earth is there still to say? Who on earth do these windbags think is still listening?
It's all pretty pointless. We know what core groups want and what three options are possible. Just pick one, stop tweaking and pressuring and on and on and on. They don't even need to wait for the MV for everyone to just be clear what they seek.
So it is an achievement to have got to a vote and demonstrated that no deal doesn't have majority support.
They are also playing May at her own despicable game. Her whole strategy is to point to the cliff and claim she will push the country over it if she doesn't get what she wants. The MPs are simply making the cliff higher and asking the PM if she is still so keen?0 -
To rule is to decide. If Parliament wants to take back control that is what it must do addressing real world options not self indulgent fantasies.Yellow_Submarine said:@DavidL I've considerable sympathy with your points. But Westminster is the Mother of Parliaments and an elite institution. Most of it's members fought hard to get there and went there to run things. It was/is always going to be psychologically very hard for such an institution to vote for May's vassalage.
0 -
Morning all
To change the mood a little..
https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2019/01/whitehall-should-pass-more-power-councils-says-truss?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_term=
Some interesting comments from Liz Truss and I certainly agree a sense of disengagement from the decision-making process as a result of decades of centralisation was a big factor in the LEAVE vote in 2016.
The problem is while giving someone authority and responsibility is easy try taking it away from them and see how far you get.
I would have liked the A50 settlement and the repatriation of powers from Brussels to be matched by a simultaneous and equivalent transfer of powers from Whitehall and Westminster to local authorities and especially to county councils.0 -
But it's not just the ERG. A round 100 Conservative MPs are currently opposing the deal from a Brexit direction. As I note above, the great majority of MPs who voted Leave in 2016 oppose the deal. Those who support it are almost exclusively part of the payroll vote. The Parliamentary Leavers have decisively rejected the deal as not being a good enough Brexit. Given the very different way in which Leavers and Remainers approach the question in the first place, any conscientious Remain-inclined MP will rightly pay close regard to that when deciding whether the deal fulfils the Brexit mandate.DavidL said:
Who the hell cares what these idiots in the ERG say or think? If they go off and form their own party and suffer electoral oblivion some good will have come of this shambles.AlastairMeeks said:
Just imagine the Deal were passed with Remain votes while all the Leavers were, as they are, screaming betrayal. The "stab in the back" myth comes ready-made.DavidL said:
Those elected to implement Brexit have an obligation to do so in what they judge the best way possible, whether that is the deal or no deal. Their obligation does not vanish because others are behaving like irresponsible idiots.
Why on earth should they make themselves the fall-guys for the extremists' irredentists' fantasies? And how could they be confident that they were honouring the vote in any case if those whose project this is almost unanimously think otherwise?0 -
LOL!MarqueeMark said:
Be fun and games though if the ERG voted down the finance bill now because of the inclusion of this clause. Now THAT would be a crisis....IanB2 said:
They haven't voted against the finance bill - now it's been amended I am sure they will be voting for it. The amendment covers a hypothetical future situation and I doubt it would have been seen as an expulsion matter even with a majority and no FTPASandpit said:
In any other circumstances, MPs of the government party voting against the govt in a Finance Bill would have been cause for at least a lengthy suspension of the whip. The problem is that in the case doing so would lose the government their majority.AlastairMeeks said:
It's a quite astonishing collective blunder.Sean_F said:
They've certainly played into their opponents ' hands.AlastairMeeks said:If, as looks highly likely, a great majority of the MPs who voted Leave in 2016 reject Theresa May's deal, they can hardly object if the whole matter is reopened. The Leave prospectus was based on the deal being straightforward, not on crashing out without a deal at all.
Of those current MPs who were in Parliament at the time of the referendum vote and who voted Leave, I make it 90 who are currently opposed, 38 in favour (and just 12 of these are backbench MPs) and 9 still considering their position.
Last night's vote could have led to a GE, were it not for the FTPA.
I'd like to think that some well-whipped Conservative Lords will vote to remove the amendment next week, but that only means it returns to the green benches later - presumably with some very firm whipping indeed from the government side.0 -
Ah, another ad-hominem. Sure sign that people don't wish to engage with the argument.IanB2 said:
It's news that Dubai is in the EU.Sandpit said:
They want us to not leave the EU.kle4 said:
I think you nail it by calling it displacement activity. The actual choices before them and actions needed for those options are not actually complicated but mps on all sides are dancing around those options, delaying, distracting, focusing on peripheral matters.DavidL said:AIUI Cooper's amendment restricts the ability of the government to make certain tax changes in the event of a no deal Brexit. Of course such tax changes will themselves require legislation which will supersede the amendment (assuming they are passed of course) so the amendment will have no effect.
I am sure it is just me but what was the point of this? If it was to show that there is and always has been a majority for remain in the House of Commons, despite the vast majority of them being elected on manifestos committed to implementing Brexit this is hardly news. If it was to show that this government no longer has a majority for pretty much anything including Finance bills that is hardly news either. If it was to highlight the fact that the Tory party is no longer a functioning or coherent whole capable of providing governance I suppose it had some effect, something the rebels might have reflected upon.
What I think we are actually seeing is yet more displacement activity by virtue signalers who are so sure of their own views. I suppose we have to fill in the unconscionable delays imposed by the PM with something. 5 more days of Brexit debate. What on earth is there still to say? Who on earth do these windbags think is still listening?
It's all pretty pointless. We know what core groups want and what three options are possible. Just pick one, stop tweaking and pressuring and on and on and on. They don't even need to wait for the MV for everyone to just be clear what they seek.
But they don't have the balls to say so explicitly, because most of their constituents voted to leave the EU, and they were elected on a manifesto commitment to leave the EU following the referendum result.
0 -
I thought the Lords couldn’t amend Finance Bills?Sandpit said:
LOL!MarqueeMark said:
Be fun and games though if the ERG voted down the finance bill now because of the inclusion of this clause. Now THAT would be a crisis....IanB2 said:
They haven't voted against the finance bill - now it's been amended I am sure they will be voting for it. The amendment covers a hypothetical future situation and I doubt it would have been seen as an expulsion matter even with a majority and no FTPASandpit said:
In any other circumstances, MPs of the government party voting against the govt in a Finance Bill would have been cause for at least a lengthy suspension of the whip. The problem is that in the case doing so would lose the government their majority.AlastairMeeks said:
It's a quite astonishing collective blunder.Sean_F said:
They've certainly played into their opponents ' hands.AlastairMeeks said:If, as looks highly likely, a great majority of the MPs who voted Leave in 2016 reject Theresa May's deal, they can hardly object if the whole matter is reopened. The Leave prospectus was based on the deal being straightforward, not on crashing out without a deal at all.
Of those current MPs who were in Parliament at the time of the referendum vote and who voted Leave, I make it 90 who are currently opposed, 38 in favour (and just 12 of these are backbench MPs) and 9 still considering their position.
Last night's vote could have led to a GE, were it not for the FTPA.
I'd like to think that some well-whipped Conservative Lords will vote to remove the amendment next week, but that only means it returns to the green benches later - presumably with some very firm whipping indeed from the government side.0 -
I thought it was that they couldn't vote them down.TheScreamingEagles said:
I thought the Lords couldn’t amend Finance Bills?Sandpit said:
LOL!MarqueeMark said:
Be fun and games though if the ERG voted down the finance bill now because of the inclusion of this clause. Now THAT would be a crisis....IanB2 said:
They haven't voted against the finance bill - now it's been amended I am sure they will be voting for it. The amendment covers a hypothetical future situation and I doubt it would have been seen as an expulsion matter even with a majority and no FTPASandpit said:
In any other circumstances, MPs of the government party voting against the govt in a Finance Bill would have been cause for at least a lengthy suspension of the whip. The problem is that in the case doing so would lose the government their majority.AlastairMeeks said:
It's a quite astonishing collective blunder.Sean_F said:
They've certainly played into their opponents ' hands.AlastairMeeks said:If, as looks highly likely, a great majority of the MPs who voted Leave in 2016 reject Theresa May's deal, they can hardly object if the whole matter is reopened. The Leave prospectus was based on the deal being straightforward, not on crashing out without a deal at all.
Of those current MPs who were in Parliament at the time of the referendum vote and who voted Leave, I make it 90 who are currently opposed, 38 in favour (and just 12 of these are backbench MPs) and 9 still considering their position.
Last night's vote could have led to a GE, were it not for the FTPA.
I'd like to think that some well-whipped Conservative Lords will vote to remove the amendment next week, but that only means it returns to the green benches later - presumably with some very firm whipping indeed from the government side.0 -
My favourite remainer argumentsDavidL said:
The fundamental problem remains (hah). The only thing that there has ever been a majority in the Commons for is remain. Some of those still gulp at the democratic outrage of ignoring the largest vote in our history but most have rationalised it to themselves by persuading themselves that we didn't know what we were doing, we were misled by a bus, things have changed, no one ever thought no deal was a possibility (really, I mean come on), May's deal is awful and not what was promised, we really should have another go, whatever.kle4 said:DavidL said:
Its pathetic and we all know ultimately they are going to prevent Brexit. This rationalisation process is just embarrassing. The damage to our country will be incalculable, far worse than even a no deal Brexit would have caused. But I am beginning to wish that they would just get on with it and stop the whining.
1.No-one voted to be poorer. This is one of the most nonsensical arguments I have ever heard. What about all the rich and celebrity Labour supporters who willingly vote for Labour knowing they will be worse off under it’s policies. They may have principles, or be wealthy enough to virtue signal, or be wealthy anough to arrange their tax affairs so they don’t get hit too much. In any case if those are valid reasons then it is perfectly possible for people to vote with conscience knowing we might be a little be less well off.
2. Nobody voted for Chaos. Whilst technically true - Chaos was not on my ballot paper in 2016 or 2017, I was able to choose between Leave or Remain, and then between Leave and remain supporting parties in those elections. In fact as a country we voted for it to be more likely that we would have chaos by not giving May our votes when she wanted a mega majority to deal with Brexit.
3. We were misled by a bus / poster. I saw a bus and poster on the news, and paid a little bit of attention to it at the time. I am fairly politically aware, and it didn’t register at the time as such a big issue, compared to the major speeches and information released daily. I suppose it may have had a cut through effect of simple messaging, but both were criticised at the time . Contrast to say the Iraq war where it turned out later that the justification was a lie. Also I think that both the economic argument and the Farage poster may have been reasons I voted Remain rather than Leave. I thought that a Leave vote would give UKIP a more prominent role rather than less.
4. Things have changed - things are always changing - but no one is arguing that we should have more frequent elections. It was clear before the referendum that it was a one off choice. This is the remainers Brexit means Brexit.
0 -
I thought the ERG claimed about 100 members/fellow travelers, albeit not all of them signed up to the VoC against May? The split in the Tory party is not going to be a small one. They are going to be out of power for a very long time. The Balfour analogy on The Long View yesterday seems ever more apposite.AlastairMeeks said:
But it's not just the ERG. A round 100 Conservative MPs are currently opposing the deal from a Brexit direction. As I note above, the great majority of MPs who voted Leave in 2016 oppose the deal. Those who support it are almost exclusively part of the payroll vote. The Parliamentary Leavers have decisively rejected the deal as not being a good enough Brexit. Given the very different way in which Leavers and Remainers approach the question in the first place, any conscientious Remain-inclined MP will rightly pay close regard to that when deciding whether the deal fulfils the Brexit mandate.DavidL said:
Who the hell cares what these idiots in the ERG say or think? If they go off and form their own party and suffer electoral oblivion some good will have come of this shambles.AlastairMeeks said:
Just imagine the Deal were passed with Remain votes while all the Leavers were, as they are, screaming betrayal. The "stab in the back" myth comes ready-made.DavidL said:
Those elected to implement Brexit have an obligation to do so in what they judge the best way possible, whether that is the deal or no deal. Their obligation does not vanish because others are behaving like irresponsible idiots.
Why on earth should they make themselves the fall-guys for the extremists' irredentists' fantasies? And how could they be confident that they were honouring the vote in any case if those whose project this is almost unanimously think otherwise?0 -
Liz Truss for PM!stodge said:Morning all
To change the mood a little..
https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2019/01/whitehall-should-pass-more-power-councils-says-truss?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_term=
Some interesting comments from Liz Truss and I certainly agree a sense of disengagement from the decision-making process as a result of decades of centralisation was a big factor in the LEAVE vote in 2016.
The problem is while giving someone authority and responsibility is easy try taking it away from them and see how far you get.
I would have liked the A50 settlement and the repatriation of powers from Brussels to be matched by a simultaneous and equivalent transfer of powers from Whitehall and Westminster to local authorities and especially to county councils.
Right, work to do...0 -
Leaving the EU honours the referendum. Leaving in anyway, even our status becoming a quasi associate member is still leaving and still honours it.TheScreamingEagles said:How would Tory Leavers feel if say Gove came out and publicly said ‘No Deal does NOT honour the referendum’
A flow diagram.
Will we still be a member of the EU?
Yes. Refenrdum result not honoured
No. Referendum result honoured.0 -
mail for youTheScreamingEagles said:
I thought the Lords couldn’t amend Finance Bills?Sandpit said:
LOL!MarqueeMark said:
Be fun and games though if the ERG voted down the finance bill now because of the inclusion of this clause. Now THAT would be a crisis....IanB2 said:
They haven't voted against the finance bill - now it's been amended I am sure they will be voting for it. The amendment covers a hypothetical future situation and I doubt it would have been seen as an expulsion matter even with a majority and no FTPASandpit said:
In any other circumstances, MPs of the government party voting against the govt in a Finance Bill would have been cause for at least a lengthy suspension of the whip. The problem is that in the case doing so would lose the government their majority.AlastairMeeks said:
It's a quite astonishing collective blunder.Sean_F said:
They've certainly played into their opponents ' hands.AlastairMeeks said:If, as looks highly likely, a great majority of the MPs who voted Leave in 2016 reject Theresa May's deal, they can hardly object if the whole matter is reopened. The Leave prospectus was based on the deal being straightforward, not on crashing out without a deal at all.
Of those current MPs who were in Parliament at the time of the referendum vote and who voted Leave, I make it 90 who are currently opposed, 38 in favour (and just 12 of these are backbench MPs) and 9 still considering their position.
Last night's vote could have led to a GE, were it not for the FTPA.
I'd like to think that some well-whipped Conservative Lords will vote to remove the amendment next week, but that only means it returns to the green benches later - presumably with some very firm whipping indeed from the government side.0 -
Got itAlanbrooke said:
mail for youTheScreamingEagles said:
I thought the Lords couldn’t amend Finance Bills?Sandpit said:
LOL!MarqueeMark said:
Be fun and games though if the ERG voted down the finance bill now because of the inclusion of this clause. Now THAT would be a crisis....IanB2 said:
They haven't voted against the finance bill - now it's been amended I am sure they will be voting for it. The amendment covers a hypothetical future situation and I doubt it would have been seen as an expulsion matter even with a majority and no FTPASandpit said:
In any other circumstances, MPs of the government party voting against the govt in a Finance Bill would have been cause for at least a lengthy suspension of the whip. The problem is that in the case doing so would lose the government their majority.AlastairMeeks said:
It's a quite astonishing collective blunder.Sean_F said:
They've certainly played into their opponents ' hands.AlastairMeeks said:If, as looks highly likely, a great majority of the MPs who voted Leave in 2016 reject Theresa May's deal, they can hardly object if the whole matter is reopened. The Leave prospectus was based on the deal being straightforward, not on crashing out without a deal at all.
Of those current MPs who were in Parliament at the time of the referendum vote and who voted Leave, I make it 90 who are currently opposed, 38 in favour (and just 12 of these are backbench MPs) and 9 still considering their position.
Last night's vote could have led to a GE, were it not for the FTPA.
I'd like to think that some well-whipped Conservative Lords will vote to remove the amendment next week, but that only means it returns to the green benches later - presumably with some very firm whipping indeed from the government side.0 -
There is a way to test all of those points, of course. If you’re right - and you could well be - the British people will confirm their decision to leave in a second referendum.Nemtynakht said:
My favourite remainer argumentsDavidL said:
The fundamental problem remains (hah). The only thing that there has ever been a majority in the Commonsreally, I mean come on), May's deal is awful and not what was promised, we really should have another go, whatever.kle4 said:DavidL said:
Its pathetic and we all know ultimately they are going to prevent Brexit. This rationalisation process is just embarrassing. The damage to our country will be incalculable, far worse than even a no deal Brexit would have caused. But I am beginning to wish that they would just get on with it and stop the whining.
1.No-one voted to be poorer. This is one of the most nonsensical arguments I have ever heard. What about all the rich and celebrity Labour supporters who willingly vote for Labour knowing they will be worse off under it’s policies. They may have principles, or be wealthy enough to virtue signal, or be wealthy anough to arrange their tax affairs so they don’t get hit too much. In any case if those are valid reasons then it is perfectly possible for people to vote with conscience knowing we might be a little be less well off.
2. Nobody voted for Chaos. Whilst technically true - Chaos was not on my ballot paper in 2016 or 2017, I was able to choose between Leave or Remain, and then between Leave and remain supporting parties in those elections. In fact as a country we voted for it to be more likely that we would have chaos by not giving May our votes when she wanted a mega majority to deal with Brexit.
3. We were misled by a bus / poster. I saw a bus and poster on the news, and paid a little bit of attention to it at the time. I am fairly politically aware, and it didn’t register at the time as such a big issue, compared to the major speeches and information released daily. I suppose it may have had a cut through effect of simple messaging, but both were criticised at the time . Contrast to say the Iraq war where it turned out later that the justification was a lie. Also I think that both the economic argument and the Farage poster may have been reasons I voted Remain rather than Leave. I thought that a Leave vote would give UKIP a more prominent role rather than less.
4. Things have changed - things are always changing - but no one is arguing that we should have more frequent elections. It was clear before the referendum that it was a one off choice. This is the remainers Brexit means Brexit.
0 -
If Grieve gets his new amendment, then HoC is taking back control, to coin a phrase.0 -
I agree with this. Symbolic votes are all very well, but ultimately they are meaningless. If MPs do not want May’s deal they have to come up with an alternative scenario. If they don’t, No Deal is on their shoulders too.DavidL said:
To rule is to decide. If Parliament wants to take back control that is what it must do addressing real world options not self indulgent fantasies.Yellow_Submarine said:@DavidL I've considerable sympathy with your points. But Westminster is the Mother of Parliaments and an elite institution. Most of it's members fought hard to get there and went there to run things. It was/is always going to be psychologically very hard for such an institution to vote for May's vassalage.
0 -
As I also pointed out yesterday Balfour lost heavily in 1906 but the Tories won the popular vote in 1910 albeit the Liberals most MPs and the Tories won a clear majority in 1918.DavidL said:
I thought the ERG claimed about 100 members/fellow travelers, albeit not all of them signed up to the VoC against May? The split in the Tory party is not going to be a small one. They are going to be out of power for a very long time. The Balfour analogy on The Long View yesterday seems ever more apposite.AlastairMeeks said:
But it's not just the ERG. A round 100 Conservative MPs are currently opposing the deal from a Brexit direction. As I note above, the great majority of MPs who voted Leave in 2016 oppose the deal. Those who support it are almost exclusively part of the payroll vote. The Parliamentary Leavers have decisively rejected the deal as not being a good enough Brexit. Given the very different way in which Leavers and Remainers approach the question in the first place, any conscientious Remain-inclined MP will rightly pay close regard to that when deciding whether the deal fulfils the Brexit mandate.DavidL said:
Who the hell cares what these idiots in the ERG say or think? If they go off and form their own party and suffer electoral oblivion some good will have come of this shambles.AlastairMeeks said:
Just imagine the Deal were passed with Remain votes while all the Leavers were, as they are, screaming betrayal. The "stab in the back" myth comes ready-made.DavidL said:
Those elected to implement Brexit have an obligation to do so in what they judge the best way possible, whether that is the deal or no deal. Their obligation does not vanish because others are behaving like irresponsible idiots.
Why on earth should they make themselves the fall-guys for the extremists' irredentists' fantasies? And how could they be confident that they were honouring the vote in any case if those whose project this is almost unanimously think otherwise?
Labour of course is also split between inner city Remainers and working class Leavers in industrial towns0 -
Who knows ?TheScreamingEagles said:How would Tory Leavers feel if say Gove came out and publicly said ‘No Deal does NOT honour the referendum’
There are 17m or so possible opinions, and those expressed here aren't necessarily representative of all of them.
In any event, it might be more accurate to say that 'No Deal' meets the narrow test of leaving the EU, but at a cost more than likely unacceptable to a significant majority of the electorate.
To pretend otherwise would be utterly dishonest.0 -
Mr. Observer, aye. There was a surprisingly straightforward Conservative MP on Look North last night who, rightly, said that those opposed to May's deal and no deal need to actually say what they want, because, as it stands, voting against May's deal is effectively voting for no deal.0
-
That wasn't mentioned in the podcast as I remember though most Tory members are from the South East. The interesting point really though not mentioned in my tongue-in-chhek post was that Tory members are more right wing than their MPs and often more than UKIP members. As I said a very informative podcast and for fans of 'Voters Parties and leaders' a necessary updateAndyJS said:
Is it true that more than 50% of current Labour members live in Greater London?Roger said:Very interesting podcast. Labour members younger brighter more numerous more ethnically diverse more geographically diverse more gender equal and 9/10 against leaving the EU. The Tories by contrast are bigoted old white male socially illiberal anti EU small in number and right wing.
Who'd have guessed?
Elect Keir Starmer as Labour leader and Labour have it in the bag0 -
Trouble with asking the ERG for their plan, is that they will give it and it is "all will be ok No Deal".
Then the govt is obligated to dismiss it because it is a moronic suggestion and then we're back to square one.0 -
I think they already have and not before time. The PM in this country has far too much power without even needing to be electedrottenborough said:
If Grieve gets his new amendment, then HoC is taking back control, to coin a phrase.0 -
In God We Truss!Sandpit said:
Liz Truss for PM!stodge said:Morning all
To change the mood a little..
https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2019/01/whitehall-should-pass-more-power-councils-says-truss?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_term=
Some interesting comments from Liz Truss and I certainly agree a sense of disengagement from the decision-making process as a result of decades of centralisation was a big factor in the LEAVE vote in 2016.
The problem is while giving someone authority and responsibility is easy try taking it away from them and see how far you get.
I would have liked the A50 settlement and the repatriation of powers from Brussels to be matched by a simultaneous and equivalent transfer of powers from Whitehall and Westminster to local authorities and especially to county councils.
Right, work to do...0 -
Is this a (teeny bit whiny I have to say) pledge that there will be no whining after such an outcome? Most principled, but I fear there there is much work to be done to get your fellow leavers to sign up.DavidL said:
The fundamental problem remains (hah). The only thing that there has ever been a majority in the Commons for is remain. Some of those still gulp at the democratic outrage of ignoring the largest vote in our history but most have rationalised it to themselves by persuading themselves that we didn't know what we were doing, we were misled by a bus, things have changed, no one ever thought no deal was a possibility (really, I mean come on), May's deal is awful and not what was promised, we really should have another go, whatever.kle4 said:
I think you nail it by calling it displacement activity. The actual choices before them and actions needed for those options are not actually complicated but mps on all sides are dancing around those options, delaying, distracting, focusing on peripheral matters.DavidL said:AIUI Cooper's amendment restricts the ability of the government to make certain tax changes in the event of a no deal Brexit. Of course such tax changes will themselves require legislation which will supersede the amendment (assuming they are passed of course) so the amendment will have no effect.
I am sure it is just me but what was the point of this? If it was to show that there is and always has been a majority for remain in the House of Commons, despite the vast majority of them being elected on manifestos committed to implementing Brexit this is hardly news. If it was to show that this government no longer has a majority for pretty much anything including Finance bills that is hardly news either. If it was to highlight the fact that the Tory party is no longer a functioning or coherent whole capable of providing governance I suppose it had some effect, something the rebels might have reflected upon.
What I think we are actually seeing is yet more displacement activity by virtue signalers who are so sure of their own views. I suppose we have to fill in the unconscionable delays imposed by the PM with something. 5 more days of Brexit debate. What on earth is there still to say? Who on earth do these windbags think is still listening?
It's all pretty pointless. We know what core groups want and what three options are possible. Just pick one, stop tweaking and pressuring and on and on and on. They don't even need to wait for the MV for everyone to just be clear what they seek.
Its pathetic and we all know ultimately they are going to prevent Brexit. This rationalisation process is just embarrassing. The damage to our country will be incalculable, far worse than even a no deal Brexit would have caused. But I am beginning to wish that they would just get on with it and stop the whining.0 -
Had an interesting talk yesterday in a non-political connection with a senior Tory (for various reasons I can't give details - I don't actually know his views on the EU issue and he's not an MP). In a brief pause in the main discussion, he was ruminating on what happens if the European elections happen after all. He said that his party and probably others had made zero preparations for it, and he assumed that all existing MEPs would be asked to stand again as there would be no time whatever for anything else. He predicted that in those circumstances a UKIP-like list (whether formally UKIP or not) would do extremely well.0
-
I’m not 100% against it but I do think a decision was made and by not enacting that decision unforeseen forces could be released (not in a superhero way!). My preference would be for Mays deal or something similar to go through, hopefully with some clarification on the backstop for that reason.SouthamObserver said:
There is a way to test all of those points, of course. If you’re right - and you could well be - the British people will confirm their decision to leave in a second referendum.Nemtynakht said:
If Remain supporting MPs (mainly from the opposition) hope to prevent No deal, and to vote against the deal, yet somehow still blame the Government then they are risking getting the blame themselves. There is one way to avoid No deal and respect the referendum - vote for Mays deal.0 -
It;s hard not to agree with that and it would probably be the worst news the EU establishment could get given other developments in the run up to May.NickPalmer said:Had an interesting talk yesterday in a non-political connection with a senior Tory (for various reasons I can't give details - I don't actually know his views on the EU issue and he's not an MP). In a brief pause in the main discussion, he was ruminating on what happens if the European elections happen after all. He said that his party and probably others had made zero preparations for it, and he assumed that all existing MEPs would be asked to stand again as there would be no time whatever for anything else. He predicted that in those circumstances a UKIP-like list (whether formally UKIP or not) would do extremely well.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6572309/Italy-Poland-discuss-UNITING-form-anti-EU-alliance-ahead-European-elections.html0 -
Agreed - kindly grandpa Corbyn needs to get off the fence and tell the truth to the great disappointment of manyMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Observer, aye. There was a surprisingly straightforward Conservative MP on Look North last night who, rightly, said that those opposed to May's deal and no deal need to actually say what they want, because, as it stands, voting against May's deal is effectively voting for no deal.
0 -
Nemtynakht said:
vote for Mays deal.
It's garbage and only May's most committed dickriders are going to vote for it in the HoC. No deal or revoke A50 are the only realistic options this side of a GE.0 -
What do you think of Corbyn’s Brexit policy - a schroedingers policy that is both remain and leave at the same time dependent on what the observer wants?NickPalmer said:Had an interesting talk yesterday in a non-political connection with a senior Tory (for various reasons I can't give details - I don't actually know his views on the EU issue and he's not an MP). In a brief pause in the main discussion, he was ruminating on what happens if the European elections happen after all. He said that his party and probably others had made zero preparations for it, and he assumed that all existing MEPs would be asked to stand again as there would be no time whatever for anything else. He predicted that in those circumstances a UKIP-like list (whether formally UKIP or not) would do extremely well.
0 -
I don't disagree that the Remainer arguments are poor, but I don't think these arguments against are any good.Nemtynakht said:...Contrast to say the Iraq war where it turned out later that the justification was a lie...
...but no one is arguing that we should have more frequent elections...
There was a lot of evidence before the Iraq war that the justification was fallacious. It's not good enough for people to say that they were hoodwinked.
I often argue for more frequent elections, and as annual Parliaments are, I think, the only outstanding demand of the Chartists, I would be surprised if I were alone in wanting general elections more frequently than every five (or four) years.0 -
I’d agree that if you want to remain then remain looks better, and if you are an ardent leaver then leaving full stop trade with EU as everyone else looks better, but the first does not respect the vote, and the second has a vast majority against it. I agree that the deal is not great, but I am sure that I like many others just want something to be agreed, not an endless negotiation.Dura_Ace said:Nemtynakht said:vote for Mays deal.
It's garbage and only May's most committed dickriders are going to vote for it in the HoC. No deal or revoke A50 are the only realistic options this side of a GE.0 -
Well, the five items you mention first are all in the gift of the UK Government and/or UK Parliament.Yellow_Submarine said:GONU, second referendums, A50 revocation, General Elections and VoNC are all distractions at the moment. A50 extension is the gateway drug we should be pushing.
A50 extension is not just up to us. It requires the unanimous approval of 27 other countries, and it has been mentioned by them on more than one occasion that they ain't approving it unless there's a significant political shift (eg one or more of the five items in our own gift comes to pass).0 -
Why cant they extend the term of the current incumbents for a time-limited period, whilst the UK's future is sorted out? This has been done for local councils when there is re-organisation or other imperative (indeed a whole batch of councillors got an extra month in office when the local election date was moved to line up with the last European election). The EU sets its own rules so it must be possible.Alanbrooke said:
It;s hard not to agree with that and it would probably be the worst news the EU establishment could get given other developments in the run up to May.NickPalmer said:Had an interesting talk yesterday in a non-political connection with a senior Tory (for various reasons I can't give details - I don't actually know his views on the EU issue and he's not an MP). In a brief pause in the main discussion, he was ruminating on what happens if the European elections happen after all. He said that his party and probably others had made zero preparations for it, and he assumed that all existing MEPs would be asked to stand again as there would be no time whatever for anything else. He predicted that in those circumstances a UKIP-like list (whether formally UKIP or not) would do extremely well.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6572309/Italy-Poland-discuss-UNITING-form-anti-EU-alliance-ahead-European-elections.html0 -
Thats a very good point. If we get a delay to leaving, and have to run the European Elections, then they almost become a dry-run a for a referedum.NickPalmer said:Had an interesting talk yesterday in a non-political connection with a senior Tory (for various reasons I can't give details - I don't actually know his views on the EU issue and he's not an MP). In a brief pause in the main discussion, he was ruminating on what happens if the European elections happen after all. He said that his party and probably others had made zero preparations for it, and he assumed that all existing MEPs would be asked to stand again as there would be no time whatever for anything else. He predicted that in those circumstances a UKIP-like list (whether formally UKIP or not) would do extremely well.
That would be very messy for all number of reasons.0 -
0
-
even if they were prepared, I think UKIP (or worse) would do pretty well. Its a free protest vote on the Government and on Labour. Would expect Greens and Lib Dems, to a lesser extent, to also overperform.NickPalmer said:Had an interesting talk yesterday in a non-political connection with a senior Tory (for various reasons I can't give details - I don't actually know his views on the EU issue and he's not an MP). In a brief pause in the main discussion, he was ruminating on what happens if the European elections happen after all. He said that his party and probably others had made zero preparations for it, and he assumed that all existing MEPs would be asked to stand again as there would be no time whatever for anything else. He predicted that in those circumstances a UKIP-like list (whether formally UKIP or not) would do extremely well.
0 -
A second referendum gives Remainers a free hit, so most are in favour. Let's be honest, to most people democracy is only a means to an end. I've met a few Remainers who would feel guilty and admit a re-run is wrong, but would only abstain at worst.
Why not just insist that opinion polls are in your favour at the moment, so we should just revoke? After all, if we'd gone on opinion polls instead of a referendum in 2016, Remain would have won.
Of course, Brexit voters would feel cheated but as they are all scum, it doesn't matter.0 -
Or just threaten to, credibly enough to force May's handSandpit said:
The most succinct reply:rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1082918804815073281
Oh please make it William Hague screams my wallet.
https://twitter.com/stephenj_colvin/status/1082921676042629121
The Tory remain rebels are going to have to quit the party if they wish to actually stop Brexit from happening.
If this happens we are most likely facing an election.0 -
A few might not care. Clarke for example would might see it as a great end to his career as a MP.Stereotomy said:
Or just threaten to, credibly enough to force May's handSandpit said:
The most succinct reply:rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1082918804815073281
Oh please make it William Hague screams my wallet.
https://twitter.com/stephenj_colvin/status/1082921676042629121
The Tory remain rebels are going to have to quit the party if they wish to actually stop Brexit from happening.
If this happens we are most likely facing an election.0 -
Not at all. There will be a reckoning.Theuniondivvie said:
Is this a (teeny bit whiny I have to say) pledge that there will be no whining after such an outcome? Most principled, but I fear there there is much work to be done to get your fellow leavers to sign up.DavidL said:
The fundamental problem remains (hah). The only thing that there has ever been a majority in the Commons for is remain. Some of those still gulp at the democratic outrage of ignoring the largest vote in our history but most have rationalised it to themselves by persuading themselves that we didn't know what we were doing, we were misled by a bus, things have changed, no one ever thought no deal was a possibility (really, I mean come on), May's deal is awful and not what was promised, we really should have another go, whatever.kle4 said:
I think you nail it by calling it displacement activity. The actual choices before them and actions needed for those options are not actually complicated but mps on all sides are dancing around those options, delaying, distracting, focusing on peripheral matters.DavidL said:
It's all pretty pointless. We know what core groups want and what three options are possible. Just pick one, stop tweaking and pressuring and on and on and on. They don't even need to wait for the MV for everyone to just be clear what they seek.
Its pathetic and we all know ultimately they are going to prevent Brexit. This rationalisation process is just embarrassing. The damage to our country will be incalculable, far worse than even a no deal Brexit would have caused. But I am beginning to wish that they would just get on with it and stop the whining.0 -
The next crisis could be one for Corbyn. According to the podcast Labour members are 9 out of 10 in favour of staying in the EU. if Corbyn doesn't start showing some coherent leadership it's not difficult to see Keir Starmer taking his placeNemtynakht said:
What do you think of Corbyn’s Brexit policy - a schroedingers policy that is both remain and leave at the same time dependent on what the observer wants?NickPalmer said:Had an interesting talk yesterday in a non-political connection with a senior Tory (for various reasons I can't give details - I don't actually know his views on the EU issue and he's not an MP). In a brief pause in the main discussion, he was ruminating on what happens if the European elections happen after all. He said that his party and probably others had made zero preparations for it, and he assumed that all existing MEPs would be asked to stand again as there would be no time whatever for anything else. He predicted that in those circumstances a UKIP-like list (whether formally UKIP or not) would do extremely well.
0 -
Is this actually up to the Mayor of Calais? Surely it is an EU thing about border and third countries?
https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/10828962616934891520 -
On the other hand, members are not voters. If Corbyn blocks Brexit, then there will be another reckoning in many seats. Some gain, some losses, but who knows.Roger said:
The next crisis could be one for Corbyn. According to the podcast Labour members are 9 out of 10 in favour of staying in the EU. if Corbyn doesn't start showing some coherent leadership it's not difficult to see Keir Starmer taking his placeNemtynakht said:
What do you think of Corbyn’s Brexit policy - a schroedingers policy that is both remain and leave at the same time dependent on what the observer wants?NickPalmer said:Had an interesting talk yesterday in a non-political connection with a senior Tory (for various reasons I can't give details - I don't actually know his views on the EU issue and he's not an MP). In a brief pause in the main discussion, he was ruminating on what happens if the European elections happen after all. He said that his party and probably others had made zero preparations for it, and he assumed that all existing MEPs would be asked to stand again as there would be no time whatever for anything else. He predicted that in those circumstances a UKIP-like list (whether formally UKIP or not) would do extremely well.
0 -
Just talking his own book.rottenborough said:Is this actually up to the Mayor of Calais? Surely it is an EU thing about border and third countries?
https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/1082896261693489152
Which was pretty clear from the whining about possible competition from Ostend as a result of UK contingency planning.0 -
I assume there is some sort of provision where a country is unable to take part in the European elections at a certain time. As they are not held on the same day anyway in each country the timing is not so critical. For instance we had the foot and mouth issue, there could be a natural disasters in one country, etc, etc.0
-
Seem to recall something about July 2019 being latest date.kjh said:I assume there is some sort of provision where a country is unable to take part in the European elections at a certain time. As they are not held on the same day anyway in each country the timing is not so critical. For instance we had the foot and mouth issue, there could be a natural disasters in one country, etc, etc.
0 -
Jezza must be in a bit of a dilemma. Yes, the prospect of a No Deal horror show blamed on the Tories will be too delicious for words, but there must be a risk that he too will be seen as complicit. Fortunately for him, the like of Boris and Rees-Mogg have made themselves the No Deal poster boys, so that gives him some cover; but I can see that pair running to ground the moment disaster strikes leaving Jezza terribly exposed.0
-
when youre the mayor and this is your town's main business what else should you be doing ?rottenborough said:Is this actually up to the Mayor of Calais? Surely it is an EU thing about border and third countries?
https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/10828962616934891520 -
Ominous.DavidL said:
Not at all. There will be a reckoning.Theuniondivvie said:
Is this a (teeny bit whiny I have to say) pledge that there will be no whining after such an outcome? Most principled, but I fear there there is much work to be done to get your fellow leavers to sign up.DavidL said:
The fundamental problem remains (hah). The only thing that there has ever been a majority in the Commons for is remain. Some of those still gulp at the democratic outrage of ignoring the largest vote in our history but most have rationalised it to themselves by persuading themselves that we didn't know what we were doing, we were misled by a bus, things have changed, no one ever thought no deal was a possibility (really, I mean come on), May's deal is awful and not what was promised, we really should have another go, whatever.kle4 said:
I think you nail it by calling it displacement activity. The actual choices before them and actions needed for those options are not actually complicated but mps on all sides are dancing around those options, delaying, distracting, focusing on peripheral matters.DavidL said:
It's all pretty pointless. We know what core groups want and what three options are possible. Just pick one, stop tweaking and pressuring and on and on and on. They don't even need to wait for the MV for everyone to just be clear what they seek.
Its pathetic and we all know ultimately they are going to prevent Brexit. This rationalisation process is just embarrassing. The damage to our country will be incalculable, far worse than even a no deal Brexit would have caused. But I am beginning to wish that they would just get on with it and stop the whining.
Afaics currently we have the result of a referendum for which leavers voted, being enacted by a government for which most of them voted, making its peristaltic progress through a parliament that they think should have supreme oversight over the governance of this country (or countries). That they own this may cause a deal of discomfort, but own it they most certainly do.
0 -
Yes, I've seen unofficial EU sources say that a delay of a few months would be possible but it would cease to be viable when the new Parliament actually sits, which as you say is I think July. I believe there is a problem, though: British EU withdrawal changes the number of seats in the Parliament, and I believe that other countries have slightly more MEPs as a result - not something that could be undone after an election. (I might be wrong about that.)rottenborough said:
Seem to recall something about July 2019 being latest date.kjh said:I assume there is some sort of provision where a country is unable to take part in the European elections at a certain time. As they are not held on the same day anyway in each country the timing is not so critical. For instance we had the foot and mouth issue, there could be a natural disasters in one country, etc, etc.
0 -
And so here we are. Take two of the MV debate finally yawns. No suspense whatsoever as regards the result but nevertheless it is important that every single MP who wants to get up and opine has the opportunity to do so. Apparently. There will be much talk of 'vassalage', of 'my constituents', of 'nobody voted to be poorer'. There will be very little embracing of the reality that the public voted to leave the European Union and parliament is refusing to do so.
So, no doubting of the result, the Deal is going down to Chinatown, but the margin is surely crucial. Rather like playing the away leg in a Champions League tie, the objective is to limit the damage. Lose 5/0 and it's over. 2/0 and you are still in it. That can be clawed back when you get them back to your place. Even better 3/1, that away goal could make all the difference.
I hope Sporting Index make a market on this, on how many MPs will support the Deal. They really should.0 -
The shit deal is certainly pushing the contents of the canal forward....whilst giving many our MPs IBS.Theuniondivvie said:
Ominous.DavidL said:
Not at all. There will be a reckoning.Theuniondivvie said:
Is this a (teeny bit whiny I have to say) pledge that there will be no whining after such an outcome? Most principled, but I fear there there is much work to be done to get your fellow leavers to sign up.DavidL said:
The fundamental problem remains (hah). The only thing that there has ever been a majority in the Commons for is remain. Some of those still gulp at the democratic outrage of ignoring the largest vote in our history but most have rationalised it to themselves by persuading themselves that we didn't know what we were doing, we were misled by a bus, things have changed, no one ever thought no deal was a possibility (really, I mean come on), May's deal is awful and not what was promised, we really should have another go, whatever.kle4 said:
I think you nail it by calling it displacement activity. The actual choices before them and actions needed for those options are not actually complicated but mps on all sides are dancing around those options, delaying, distracting, focusing on peripheral matters.DavidL said:
It's all pretty pointless. We know what core groups want and what three options are possible. Just pick one, stop tweaking and pressuring and on and on and on. They don't even need to wait for the MV for everyone to just be clear what they seek.
Its pathetic and we all know ultimately they are going to prevent Brexit. This rationalisation process is just embarrassing. The damage to our country will be incalculable, far worse than even a no deal Brexit would have caused. But I am beginning to wish that they would just get on with it and stop the whining.
Afaics currently we have the result of a referendum for which leavers voted, being enacted by a government for which most of them voted, making its peristaltic progress through a parliament that they think should have supreme oversight over the governance of this country (or countries). That they own this may cause a deal of discomfort, but own it they most certainly do.
Irritable Bastard Syndrome.0 -
Given that 17.4 million people voted Leave and a large number of us did not vote Tory I would certainly dispute the claim that most of us voted for this Government.Theuniondivvie said:
Ominous.DavidL said:
Not at all. There will be a reckoning.Theuniondivvie said:
Is this a (teeny bit whiny I have to say) pledge that there will be no whining after such an outcome? Most principled, but I fear there there is much work to be done to get your fellow leavers to sign up.DavidL said:
The fundamental problem remains (hah). The only thing that there has ever been a majority in the Commons for is remain. Some of those still gulp at the democratic outrage of ignoring the largest vote in our history but most have rationalised it to themselves by persuading themselves that we didn't know what we were doing, we were misled by a bus, things have changed, no one ever thought no deal was a possibility (really, I mean come on), May's deal is awful and not what was promised, we really should have another go, whatever.kle4 said:
I think you nail it by calling it displacement activity. The actual choices before them and actions needed for those options are not actually complicated but mps on all sides are dancing around those options, delaying, distracting, focusing on peripheral matters.DavidL said:
It's all pretty pointless. We know what core groups want and what three options are possible. Just pick one, stop tweaking and pressuring and on and on and on. They don't even need to wait for the MV for everyone to just be clear what they seek.
Its pathetic and we all know ultimately they are going to prevent Brexit. This rationalisation process is just embarrassing. The damage to our country will be incalculable, far worse than even a no deal Brexit would have caused. But I am beginning to wish that they would just get on with it and stop the whining.
Afaics currently we have the result of a referendum for which leavers voted, being enacted by a government for which most of them voted, making its peristaltic progress through a parliament that they think should have supreme oversight over the governance of this country (or countries). That they own this may cause a deal of discomfort, but own it they most certainly do.
Most Tory voters may have voted Leave. That does not in any way mean that most Leave voters voted Tory.0 -
I have read the same thing about different seat allocations. Can't remember where. So I presume UK needs to say we will be holding or not holding a EU vote well before May, but might not actually need to hold it to July.NickPalmer said:
Yes, I've seen unofficial EU sources say that a delay of a few months would be possible but it would cease to be viable when the new Parliament actually sits, which as you say is I think July. I believe there is a problem, though: British EU withdrawal changes the number of seats in the Parliament, and I believe that other countries have slightly more MEPs as a result - not something that could be undone after an election. (I might be wrong about that.)rottenborough said:
Seem to recall something about July 2019 being latest date.kjh said:I assume there is some sort of provision where a country is unable to take part in the European elections at a certain time. As they are not held on the same day anyway in each country the timing is not so critical. For instance we had the foot and mouth issue, there could be a natural disasters in one country, etc, etc.
Messy.
Like everything Brexit touches.0 -
Tell him we'll respect Calais when it is English again.....Alanbrooke said:
when youre the mayor and this is your town's main business what else should you be doing ?rottenborough said:Is this actually up to the Mayor of Calais? Surely it is an EU thing about border and third countries?
https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/10828962616934891520 -
It would solve the crossing problem, by moving the EU border up the road into rural France.MarqueeMark said:
Tell him we'll respect Calais when it is English again.....Alanbrooke said:
when youre the mayor and this is your town's main business what else should you be doing ?rottenborough said:Is this actually up to the Mayor of Calais? Surely it is an EU thing about border and third countries?
https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/1082896261693489152
Excellent solution.0 -
We could trade Calais for Northern Ireland. Everyone happy.....rottenborough said:
It would solve the crossing problem, by moving the EU border up the road into rural France.MarqueeMark said:
Tell him we'll respect Calais when it is English again.....Alanbrooke said:
when youre the mayor and this is your town's main business what else should you be doing ?rottenborough said:Is this actually up to the Mayor of Calais? Surely it is an EU thing about border and third countries?
https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/1082896261693489152
Excellent solution.0 -
Presumably if most/all countries get an increased seat allocation that will cause them internal problems allocating those seats according to their systems and bureaucracy for doing so. For most I assume it would involve months, with reviews, parliamentary votes, etc. For us it usually takes years!rottenborough said:
I have read the same thing about different seat allocations. Can't remember where. So I presume UK needs to say we will be holding or not holding a EU vote well before May, but might not actually need to hold it to July.NickPalmer said:
Yes, I've seen unofficial EU sources say that a delay of a few months would be possible but it would cease to be viable when the new Parliament actually sits, which as you say is I think July. I believe there is a problem, though: British EU withdrawal changes the number of seats in the Parliament, and I believe that other countries have slightly more MEPs as a result - not something that could be undone after an election. (I might be wrong about that.)rottenborough said:
Seem to recall something about July 2019 being latest date.kjh said:I assume there is some sort of provision where a country is unable to take part in the European elections at a certain time. As they are not held on the same day anyway in each country the timing is not so critical. For instance we had the foot and mouth issue, there could be a natural disasters in one country, etc, etc.
Messy.
Like everything Brexit touches.0 -
-
I would say with regards to the Iraq war that whilst people weren’t convinced before the war, the dossier was an outright fabrication used to dupe MPsOblitusSumMe said:
I don't disagree that the Remainer arguments are poor, but I don't think these arguments against are any good.Nemtynakht said:...Contrast to say the Iraq war where it turned out later that the justification was a lie...
...but no one is arguing that we should have more frequent elections...
There was a lot of evidence before the Iraq war that the justification was fallacious. It's not good enough for people to say that they were hoodwinked.
I often argue for more frequent elections, and as annual Parliaments are, I think, the only outstanding demand of the Chartists, I would be surprised if I were alone in wanting general elections more frequently than every five (or four) years.
I agree on the more frequent elections point, however I think Brenda from Bristol would join most of the population in being against more frequent elections.0 -
100% of lorries are stopped and checked at Calais today.rottenborough said:Is this actually up to the Mayor of Calais? Surely it is an EU thing about border and third countries?
https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/10828962616934891520 -
Isn't it the time that is the issue. Few seconds a check - ok. A minute a check - chaos.ralphmalph said:
100% of lorries are stopped and checked at Calais today.rottenborough said:Is this actually up to the Mayor of Calais? Surely it is an EU thing about border and third countries?
https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/10828962616934891520 -
Clearly ruing the day it stopped being a staple portrottenborough said:
It would solve the crossing problem, by moving the EU border up the road into rural France.MarqueeMark said:
Tell him we'll respect Calais when it is English again.....Alanbrooke said:
when youre the mayor and this is your town's main business what else should you be doing ?rottenborough said:Is this actually up to the Mayor of Calais? Surely it is an EU thing about border and third countries?
https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/1082896261693489152
Excellent solution.0 -
I have been saying that the EU elections were the thing driving the March withdrawal date for a long time now and people on here have dismissed that..NickPalmer said:
Yes, I've seen unofficial EU sources say that a delay of a few months would be possible but it would cease to be viable when the new Parliament actually sits, which as you say is I think July. I believe there is a problem, though: British EU withdrawal changes the number of seats in the Parliament, and I believe that other countries have slightly more MEPs as a result - not something that could be undone after an election. (I might be wrong about that.)rottenborough said:
Seem to recall something about July 2019 being latest date.kjh said:I assume there is some sort of provision where a country is unable to take part in the European elections at a certain time. As they are not held on the same day anyway in each country the timing is not so critical. For instance we had the foot and mouth issue, there could be a natural disasters in one country, etc, etc.
0 -
Why are they still asking about flight cancellations when it has been agreed come what may no change for at least a year.AlastairMeeks said:twitter.com/UKandEU/status/1082940253650993155
0 -
Speaking with remain friends over the last few days they sense blood and are starting to become a bit "triumphalist"
If we do remain this will be the danger for UK society as a whole.
The liberal left should be careful what they are wishing for.0 -
Catch-22 for Remainers.
It has been pointed out that Remainers need more than just to scupper May's deal: they need an alternative to be voted through. (Leavers otoh do not need to do anything because no-deal is default.) It seems to be assumed that the referendum instruction could be reversed in a new referendum, which would require (i) a postponement of the 29/3 deadline by revocation of Art 50, and (ii) an election to get a new government committed to this.
But a new government can only arise from a successful VoNC and that needs the DUP which will only support a VoNC if the WDA passes, i.e. not be a consequence of the MV failing. So the WDA needs to pass before the Government can be challenged successfully, and then if the VoNC passes then a revocation is needed to give time for another referendum. But meanwhile the deal has been ratified by Parliament.
0 -
"More than 60%" of Leave voters voted Conservative in the 2017 general election. Chart 2 here: https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-impact/the-brexit-election-the-2017-general-election-in-ten-charts/#.XDXLcdL7SW8Richard_Tyndall said:
Given that 17.4 million people voted Leave and a large number of us did not vote Tory I would certainly dispute the claim that most of us voted for this Government.Theuniondivvie said:
Ominous.DavidL said:
Not at all. There will be a reckoning.Theuniondivvie said:
Is this a (teeny bit whiny I have to say) pledge that there will be no whining after such an outcome? Most principled, but I fear there there is much work to be done to get your fellow leavers to sign up.DavidL said:
The fundamental problem remains (hah). The only thing that there has ever been a majority in the Commons for is remain. Some of those still gulp at the democratic outrage of ignoring the largest vote in our history but most have rationalised it to themselves by persuading themselves that we didn't know what we were doing, we were misled by a bus, things have changed, no one ever thought no deal was a possibility (really, I mean come on), May's deal is awful and not what was promised, we really should have another go, whatever.kle4 said:
I think you nail it by calling it displacement activity. The actual choices before them and actions needed for those options are not actually complicated but mps on all sides are dancing around those options, delaying, distracting, focusing on peripheral matters.DavidL said:
It's all pretty pointless. We know what core groups want and what three options are possible. Just pick one, stop tweaking and pressuring and on and on and on. They don't even need to wait for the MV for everyone to just be clear what they seek.
Its pathetic and we all know ultimately they are going to prevent Brexit. This rationalisation process is just embarrassing. The damage to our country will be incalculable, far worse than even a no deal Brexit would have caused. But I am beginning to wish that they would just get on with it and stop the whining.
Afaics currently we have the result of a referendum for which leavers voted, being enacted by a government for which most of them voted, making its peristaltic progress through a parliament that they think should have supreme oversight over the governance of this country (or countries). That they own this may cause a deal of discomfort, but own it they most certainly do.
Most Tory voters may have voted Leave. That does not in any way mean that most Leave voters voted Tory.0 -
To see who's paying attention?FrancisUrquhart said:
Why are they still asking about flight cancellations when it has been agreed come what may no change for at least a year.AlastairMeeks said:twitter.com/UKandEU/status/1082940253650993155
0 -
Watched 'Brexit: The Uncivil War' last night and was very impressed. The actor who played Dan Hannan had his look, bearing and voice off to a T. (I might ask him to come along as a Hannan impersonator for the party I'll be throwing when Article 50 is revoked.) Talking of whom, I see the man himself has been dipping his toe in the murky waters of IQ demographics:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/dan-hannan-falling-iq-scores-may-explain-why-politics-has-turned-so-nasty?0 -
And if that’s the case why don’t MPs know!FrancisUrquhart said:
Why are they still asking about flight cancellations when it has been agreed come what may no change for at least a year.AlastairMeeks said:twitter.com/UKandEU/status/1082940253650993155
0 -
I think 60% counts as a landslide.FF43 said:
"More than 60%" of Leave voters voted Conservative in the 2017 general election. Chart 2 here: https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-impact/the-brexit-election-the-2017-general-election-in-ten-charts/#.XDXLcdL7SW8Richard_Tyndall said:
Given that 17.4 million people voted Leave and a large number of us did not vote Tory I would certainly dispute the claim that most of us voted for this Government.Theuniondivvie said:
Ominous.DavidL said:
Not at all. There will be a reckoning.Theuniondivvie said:
Is this a (teeny bit whiny I have to say) pledge that there will be no whining after such an outcome? Most principled, but I fear there there is much work to be done to get your fellow leavers to sign up.DavidL said:
The fundamental problem remains (hah). The only thing that there has ever been a majority in the Commons for is remain. Some of those still gulp at the democratic outrage of ignoring the largest vote in our history but most have rationalised it to themselves by persuading themselves that we didn't know what we were doing, we were misled by a bus, things have changed, no one ever thought no deal was a possibility (really, I mean come on), May's deal is awful and not what was promised, we really should have another go, whatever.kle4 said:
I think you nail it by calling it displacement activity. The actual choices before them and actions needed for those options are not actually complicated but mps on all sides are dancing around those options, delaying, distracting, focusing on peripheral matters.DavidL said:
It's all pretty pointless. We know what core groups want and what three options are possible. Just pick one, stop tweaking and pressuring and on and on and on. They don't even need to wait for the MV for everyone to just be clear what they seek.
Its pathetic and we all know ultimately they are going to prevent Brexit. This rationalisation process is just embarrassing. The damage to our country will be incalculable, far worse than even a no deal Brexit would have caused. But I am beginning to wish that they would just get on with it and stop the whining.
Afaics currently we have the result of a referendum for which leavers voted, being enacted by a government for which most of them voted, making its peristaltic progress through a parliament that they think should have supreme oversight over the governance of this country (or countries). That they own this may cause a deal of discomfort, but own it they most certainly do.
Most Tory voters may have voted Leave. That does not in any way mean that most Leave voters voted Tory.0 -
But at Calais they stop every truck and van and scan them, they can look at the customs declaration at the same time.rottenborough said:
Isn't it the time that is the issue. Few seconds a check - ok. A minute a check - chaos.ralphmalph said:
100% of lorries are stopped and checked at Calais today.rottenborough said:Is this actually up to the Mayor of Calais? Surely it is an EU thing about border and third countries?
https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/1082896261693489152
At Dover all vehicles have to arrive minimum 1 hour before departure, drivers sitting around having a cup of tea, etc, It can not be too difficult to check the customs doc at the tea stop, during the time they are already sitting around doing nothing.0 -
Looking at the numbers it's close. About a half of Leavers voted Tory.Richard_Tyndall said:Given that 17.4 million people voted Leave and a large number of us did not vote Tory I would certainly dispute the claim that most of us voted for this Government. Most Tory voters may have voted Leave. That does not in any way mean that most Leave voters voted Tory.
EDIT: Ok seen the more learned post below. 60%. So that is most.0 -
Its been well reported,Nemtynakht said:
And if that’s the case why don’t MPs know!FrancisUrquhart said:
Why are they still asking about flight cancellations when it has been agreed come what may no change for at least a year.AlastairMeeks said:twitter.com/UKandEU/status/1082940253650993155
Flights to continue between UK and EU for 12 months in event of no-deal Brexit
http://www.cityam.com/270797/flights-continue-between-uk-and-eu-12-months-event-no-deal0 -
Yes Hannan was a spit. So were some of the others. Who wasn't was Gove, zero resemblance other than he wore glasses, and worst of all, Banks. When he appeared I thought it was Robbie Williams.Stark_Dawning said:Watched 'Brexit: The Uncivil War' last night and was very impressed. The actor who played Dan Hannan had his look, bearing and voice off to a T. (I might ask him to come along as a Hannan impersonator for the party I'll be throwing when Article 50 is revoked.)
0 -
Some predictions for 2019 from Matthew Goodwin. Number 10 ("Twitter will become even more unbearable") looks nailed on.
https://unherd.com/2019/01/no-bregets-10-predictions-for-2019/0 -
Without being funny, you don't have to have any special insight or knowledge to make predictions like Macron will remain unpopular. That's less a prediction and more of a given.Tissue_Price said:Some predictions for 2019 from Matthew Goodwin. Number 10 ("Twitter will become even more unbearable") looks nailed on.
https://unherd.com/2019/01/no-bregets-10-predictions-for-2019/0 -
Up +5 in the latest polls.FrancisUrquhart said:
Without being funny, you don't have to have any special insight or knowledge to make predictions like Macron will remain unpopular. That's less a prediction and more of a given.Tissue_Price said:Some predictions for 2019 from Matthew Goodwin. Number 10 ("Twitter will become even more unbearable") looks nailed on.
https://unherd.com/2019/01/no-bregets-10-predictions-for-2019/0 -
As a member of it - that liberal left - I nevertheless agree with your sentiment. I don't want to win ugly. I want to play the beautiful game.timmo said:Speaking with remain friends over the last few days they sense blood and are starting to become a bit "triumphalist"
If we do remain this will be the danger for UK society as a whole.
The liberal left should be careful what they are wishing for.0 -
This is just nonsense. Hannan strings together three unrelated observations: IQ is falling; screentime is rising (for some values of screentime); politics is nastier. You can completely remove IQ from the article because his actual argument seems to be that people online don't or can't concentrate long enough to see what their opponents are saying.Stark_Dawning said:Watched 'Brexit: The Uncivil War' last night and was very impressed. The actor who played Dan Hannan had his look, bearing and voice off to a T. (I might ask him to come along as a Hannan impersonator for the party I'll be throwing when Article 50 is revoked.) Talking of whom, I see the man himself has been dipping his toe in the murky waters of IQ demographics:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/dan-hannan-falling-iq-scores-may-explain-why-politics-has-turned-so-nasty?
But there lies a trap we all fall into. My position is common sense and so self-evidently correct that the only reason anyone could disagree is they have not heard and understood it.
0 -
And sanity checking based on raw numbers: YouGov's poll indicated 65% of Leave voters plumped for the Tories and 25% of Remainers did the same. To check that this gives a sane result, assume that the ratios are accurate (65/25) and that gives about 72% of Tory voters having supported Leave. That's about 10 million of their 13.6 million votes, which is about 57% of the total Leave vote from 2016. That's fairly close, and certainly indicates a strong majority of the Leave vote from 2016 going Tory in 2017.FF43 said:
"More than 60%" of Leave voters voted Conservative in the 2017 general election. Chart 2 here: https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-impact/the-brexit-election-the-2017-general-election-in-ten-charts/#.XDXLcdL7SW8Richard_Tyndall said:
Given that 17.4 million people voted Leave and a large number of us did not vote Tory I would certainly dispute the claim that most of us voted for this Government.Theuniondivvie said:
Ominous.DavidL said:
Not at all. There will be a reckoning.
Afaics currently we have the result of a referendum for which leavers voted, being enacted by a government for which most of them voted, making its peristaltic progress through a parliament that they think should have supreme oversight over the governance of this country (or countries). That they own this may cause a deal of discomfort, but own it they most certainly do.
Most Tory voters may have voted Leave. That does not in any way mean that most Leave voters voted Tory.0 -
+5 from where...mega unpopular. He isn't going to suddenly become Mr Popular this year, unless he radically just throws in the towel on everything he promised to do.grabcocque said:
Up +5 in the latest polls.FrancisUrquhart said:
Without being funny, you don't have to have any special insight or knowledge to make predictions like Macron will remain unpopular. That's less a prediction and more of a given.Tissue_Price said:Some predictions for 2019 from Matthew Goodwin. Number 10 ("Twitter will become even more unbearable") looks nailed on.
https://unherd.com/2019/01/no-bregets-10-predictions-for-2019/0 -
Key word is continue, capped at 2018 levels. So any airline that had announced extra flights is shit out of luck and will be having to cancel them.FrancisUrquhart said:
Its been well reported,Nemtynakht said:
And if that’s the case why don’t MPs know!FrancisUrquhart said:
Why are they still asking about flight cancellations when it has been agreed come what may no change for at least a year.AlastairMeeks said:twitter.com/UKandEU/status/1082940253650993155
Flights to continue between UK and EU for 12 months in event of no-deal Brexit
http://www.cityam.com/270797/flights-continue-between-uk-and-eu-12-months-event-no-deal
And we lose rights to intra EU travel.0 -
Bernard Jenkin wasn't bad either.kinabalu said:
Yes Hannan was a spit. So were some of the others. Who wasn't was Gove, zero resemblance other than he wore glasses, and worst of all, Banks. When he appeared I thought it was Robbie Williams.Stark_Dawning said:Watched 'Brexit: The Uncivil War' last night and was very impressed. The actor who played Dan Hannan had his look, bearing and voice off to a T. (I might ask him to come along as a Hannan impersonator for the party I'll be throwing when Article 50 is revoked.)
0
