politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On this day lets not forget the 1998 Good Friday Agreement tha
Comments
-
With the greatest of respect you cannot conditionally revoke A50 by reserving the right to re-invokeDanny565 said:
If they refuse an A50 extension, then we revoke A50 altogether while reserving the right to re-invoke in future, our right to do so having been confirmed by the ECJ.david_herdson said:
I don't think the EU27 will agree to an extension just to enable the UK to keep bickering (though I think they would keep open the option of agreeing the Deal even after 29/3).Danny565 said:
Why do you think the "Extending Article 50" option will leave the table?david_herdson said:
For now, yes.TOPPING said:
NPXMP called it a long time ago as up to six would vote for the deal. I see no reason to think that is underestimating the number.grabcocque said:
The professional commentariat have been STUNNED to find this large group of Labour MPs they promised would be willing to commit career suicide to rush to the defence of a doomed Tory prime has utterly failed to materialise.Sean_F said:
10 maybe. Labour want a general election. They don't want to reach agreement with the government.Pulpstar said:I think Lucy Powell's proposal to reach across the house is sensible actually - better than no deal or no Brexit nonsense perpetuated by plenty of others.
With the DUP and ERG's wishes clearly incompatible to an agreement with the EU it is an avenue worth persuing.
How many Labour backbenchers can she bring along ?
Tells you all you need to know about how little the professional commentariat understand about anything.
Question is: what do they do once all the other options have left the table and only Deal and No Deal remain?
An A50 extension is highly likely if parliament has already ratified, as it'll be needed to tidy up the legislative loose ends. I think the EU would accept that because there's a clear end point in sight then.
Corbyn and Starmer have already indicated this is the stance they'll take if/when the no confidence motion fails.
If A50 was be to invoked again, it would need to follow another referendum or a political party receiving a majority on a manifesto commitment to leave the EU
I do not know about Corbyn but Starmer, as a lawyer, knows very well you cannot play games with revoking A50
I know we all at times get a bit carried away with our ideas but on this you are either expressing your own hope or are mistaken0 -
-
They are and it is illegitimate.Nigel_Foremain said:Unfortunately many of them are arguing for more than this. Even Theresa May played to the gallery when she thought it would curry favour with the headbangers.
Perhaps the most noxious sentence in the lexicon right now* - used again and again by both Hard Leavers and Hard Remainers ...
"This is not the Brexit that people voted for".
It is.
PS: A close run thing with "Nobody voted to be poorer".0 -
If she does that, I think her sanity will be called into question. Seriously. To keep repeating the same failing actions over and over over....TOPPING said:
She will unilaterally extend A50 and keep hammering away at the deal. Should that fail she will have to ask for a deal vs Remain referendum.Richard_Nabavi said:I think the most sensible thing Theresa May could do is hold a series of indicative votes, asking the children whether they want:
- To leave with no deal
- To revoke Article 50
- To hold a Revoke vs Deal referendum.
- Or whether they'd prefer the deal after all.
Those are the options. It's already ridiculously late to be be arguing about them, they need to choose one.0 -
who do you think has been hegotiating on our behalf for the last 40 years ?Beverley_C said:
I was referring to the Withdrawal Agreement. I suspect we also have not got the faintest idea about the next stage either and we will send another bunch of uninformed unfortunates to sit in Brussels to face a well-prepared EU team.RobD said:
The end position is immaterial, the EU are refusing to negotiate on that until we are a third party.Beverley_C said:
In a commercial negotiation, the negotiators are given a clear set of objectives and constraints. Our negotiators have no clue what the end position is because our government has no clue.MarqueeMark said:Rule out No Deal - and you rule out ANY chance of the EU blinking frst.
Which is why negotaition by House of Commons is stupid. In a commercial negotaition, you have a small team undertaking that negotiation, reporting to the Board (Cabinet). Ultimately the CEO (PM) will carry the can if that fails . But what you can NEVER have is not just every member of the Board giving direction - but every shareholder (MP) too.
The last two years have been a total waste of everyone's time. Whatever we settle on will be caused by force of circumstance rather than achieving what we wanted.
Frankly, I am getting to the point were I am amazed that those in govt can actually manage to write their names without help.
0 -
2010.CD13 said:At the next GE, the party forming a government could be elected with around 40% of the votes cast. When was the last time that the government was elected with more than 50% of the votes cast?
When, if ever. did the elected party get more than 17 million votes?
What's that? Oh, it's tumbleweed drifting across.
Parties forming a government got 10,703,754 plus 6,836,824 = 17,540,578 votes
Or 59.1% of the votes cast.0 -
More like the board dont like the result of the shareholders vote and are frustrating the CEO's attempts to implement it.Gardenwalker said:
Are you still peddling this crap?MarqueeMark said:
Rule out No Deal - and you rule out ANY chance of the EU blinking frst.Gardenwalker said:
I think we are talking in the context of a Plan B. May would be derelict in my view not to rule out a No Deal in my opinion, at first rhetorically and then by seeking an amendment to the bill (Corbyn or Norway or ref or a combination) which might gain a majority in Parliament.Sean_F said:
They haven't thought about that.david_herdson said:
*How* exactly, is the PM supposed to take No Deal off the table?Gardenwalker said:
She is quite right but May doesn’t do leadership.williamglenn said:
Not in the commonly accepted sense.
If the vote against is 200+, I am really not sure how she is able to kick the can any further. Aof negligence.
Brexit is legislated for in UK law, and is set to take place in EU law. Only two things can prevent that and one can defer it.
A deferral requires the consent of the EU27, which may not be forthcoming. The PM can ask, but cannot unilaterally implement an A50 extension.
Revoking Arey area). In any case, revoking A50 probably isn't politically possible for the PM.
And the only other way out is for the deal the PM has negotiated to be ratified by parliament, which again - very obviously - isn't within the PM's power alone.
So while it's fine to be against No Deal in principle, how do people like Rudd plan on preventing it in practice?
She cannot let the ERGers hold the country to ransom, and her grave responsibility is to pursue
Which is why negotaition by House of Commons is stupid. In a commercial negotaition, you have a small team undertaking that negotiation, reporting to the Board (Cabinet). Ultimately the CEO (PM) will carry the can if that fails . But what you can NEVER have is not just every member of the Board giving direction - but every shareholder (MP) too.
To use your analogy the CEO has gone rogue, and the saner members of the Board never wanted a negotiation in the first place.0 -
A fair chunk of them are sitting in the House of Lords right now, and queued up to piss all over May's deal last night.Alanbrooke said:
who do you think has been hegotiating on our behalf for the last 40 years ?0 -
TouchéAndy_Cooke said:
2010.CD13 said:At the next GE, the party forming a government could be elected with around 40% of the votes cast. When was the last time that the government was elected with more than 50% of the votes cast?
When, if ever. did the elected party get more than 17 million votes?
What's that? Oh, it's tumbleweed drifting across.
Parties forming a government got 10,703,754 plus 6,836,824 = 17,540,578 votes
Or 59.1% of the votes cast.0 -
The time for EHV (Enormo-Haddock Voting) is upon us. Welcome your piscine overlords!0
-
+1MarqueeMark said:
Rule out No Deal - and you rule out ANY chance of the EU blinking frst.Gardenwalker said:
I think we are talking in the context of a Plan B. May would be derelict in my view not to rule out a No Deal in my opinion, at first rhetorically and then by seeking an amendment to the bill (Corbyn or Norway or ref or a combination) which might gain a majority in Parliament.Sean_F said:
They haven't thought about that.david_herdson said:
*How* exactly, is the PM supposed to take No Deal off the table?Gardenwalker said:
She is quite right but May doesn’t do leadership.williamglenn said:
Not in the commonly accepted sense.
If the vote against is 200+, I am really not sure how she is able to kick the can any further. After tonight’s defeat, if she attempts to come back to the House with another deferral, she should be deposed. It would be a form of negligence.
Brexit is legislated for in UK law, and is set to take place in EU law. Only two things can prevent that and one can defer it.
A deferral requires the consent of the EU27, which may not be forthcoming. The PM can ask, but cannot unilaterally implement an A50 extension.
Revoking A50 would take No Deal off the table but it's far from clear whether the government has the power to do so unilaterally under UK law, given that the Notification Act only authorised the government to invoke A50, not to revoke it. (There is an argument that the government could revoke on executive authority, as revoking is simply retaining the status quo and not overriding existing legislation, however it would certainly override the spirit of the Notification Act and is at least a grey area). In any case, revoking A50 probably isn't politically possible for the PM.
And the only other way out is for the deal the PM has negotiated to be ratified by parliament, which again - very obviously - isn't within the PM's power alone.
So while it's fine to be against No Deal in principle, how do people like Rudd plan on preventing it in practice?
She cannot let the ERGers hold the country to ransom, and her grave responsibility is to pursue
Which is why negotaition by House of Commons is stupid. In a commercial negotaition, you have a small team undertaking that negotiation, reporting to the Board (Cabinet). Ultimately the CEO (PM) will carry the can if that fails . But what you can NEVER have is not just every member of the Board giving direction - but every shareholder (MP) too.0 -
Grieve is the antithesis of Cox in almost every way, and I know which strategy I think has been more effective.Richard_Nabavi said:0 -
which is the only reason the rest of us dont know...grabcocque said:Does anyone else think it really odd that Mrs May appears not to have told anybody what her next moves will be?
Cabinet seem to be completely in the dark.0 -
Totally disagree.Big_G_NorthWales said:
With the greatest of respect you cannot conditionally revoke A50 by reserving the right to re-invokeDanny565 said:
If they refuse an A50 extension, then we revoke A50 altogether while reserving the right to re-invoke in future, our right to do so having been confirmed by the ECJ.david_herdson said:
I don't think the EU27 will agree to an extension just to enable the UK to keep bickering (though I think they would keep open the option of agreeing the Deal even after 29/3).Danny565 said:
Why do you think the "Extending Article 50" option will leave the table?david_herdson said:
For now, yes.TOPPING said:
NPXMP called it a long time ago as up to six would vote for the deal. I see no reason to think that is underestimating the number.grabcocque said:
Tells you all you need to know about how little the professional commentariat understand about anything.Sean_F said:
10 maybe. Labour want a general election. They don't want to reach agreement with the government.Pulpstar said:I think Lucy Powell's proposal to reach across the house is sensible actually - better than no deal or no Brexit nonsense perpetuated by plenty of others.
With the DUP and ERG's wishes clearly incompatible to an agreement with the EU it is an avenue worth persuing.
How many Labour backbenchers can she bring along ?
Question is: what do they do once all the other options have left the table and only Deal and No Deal remain?
An A50 extension is highly likely if parliament has already ratified, as it'll be needed to tidy up the legislative loose ends. I think the EU would accept that because there's a clear end point in sight then.
Corbyn and Starmer have already indicated this is the stance they'll take if/when the no confidence motion fails.
If A50 was be to invoked again, it would need to follow another referendum or a political party receiving a majority on a manifesto commitment to leave the EU
I do not know about Corbyn but Starmer, as a lawyer, knows very well you cannot play games with revoking A50
I know we all at times get a bit carried away with our ideas but on this you are either expressing your own hope or are mistaken
There is a referendum and GE mandate for carrying out Brexit. Just because MPs can’t agree on the form and manner of our exit doesn’t mean that mandate is voided.
Following your own logic, there is no mandate for revoking in the first place.0 -
I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country.
It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.0 -
-
Seems rather like saying "If I definitely rule out shooting myself in the head people are only going to take advantage of it."Philip_Thompson said:
Which does nothing but encourage the EU to play silly buggers to encourage revocation.Chris said:
I suppose in theory the government could bring forward a one-line bill requiring Brexit to be revoked if no withdrawal agreement has been ratified by the exit date.david_herdson said:
*How* exactly, is the PM supposed to take No Deal off the table?Gardenwalker said:
She is quite right but May doesn’t do leadership.williamglenn said:
Not in the commonly accepted sense.
If the vote against is 200+, I am really not sure how she is able to kick the can any further. After tonight’s defeat, if she attempts to come back to the House with another deferral, she should be deposed. It would be a form of negligence.
Brexit is legislated for in UK law, and is set to take place in EU law. Only two things can prevent that and one can defer it.
A deferral requires the consent of the EU27, which may not be forthcoming. The PM can ask, but cannot unilaterally implement an A50 extension.
Revoking A50 would take No Deal off the table but it's far from clear whether the government has the power to do so unilaterally under UK law, given that the Notification Act only authorised the government to invoke A50, not to revoke it. (There is an argument that the government could revoke on executive authority, as revoking is simply retaining the status quo and not overriding existing legislation, however it would certainly override the spirit of the Notification Act and is at least a grey area). In any case, revoking A50 probably isn't politically possible for the PM.
And the only other way out is for the deal the PM has negotiated to be ratified by parliament, which again - very obviously - isn't within the PM's power alone.
So while it's fine to be against No Deal in principle, how do people like Rudd plan on preventing it in practice?0 -
Which would be fair enough had they done any better over that forty year period.grabcocque said:
A fair chunk of them are sitting in the House of Lords right now, and queued up to piss all over May's deal last night.Alanbrooke said:
who do you think has been hegotiating on our behalf for the last 40 years ?0 -
Playing the expectations game nicely there...Scott_P said:0 -
preciselygrabcocque said:
A fair chunk of them are sitting in the House of Lords right now, and queued up to piss all over May's deal last night.Alanbrooke said:
who do you think has been hegotiating on our behalf for the last 40 years ?
and the people who screwed the who;e thing up get to do it once more0 -
Neither of these are democratic.Gardenwalker said:I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country.
It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.0 -
I think it was stated earlier that we can't revoke just to decide how to leaveGardenwalker said:I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country.
It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.0 -
People do vote to be poorer (eg overseas aid) and the only questions on the ballot were leave and remain.kinabalu said:
They are and it is illegitimate.Nigel_Foremain said:Unfortunately many of them are arguing for more than this. Even Theresa May played to the gallery when she thought it would curry favour with the headbangers.
Perhaps the most noxious sentence in the lexicon right now* - used again and again by both Hard Leavers and Hard Remainers ...
"This is not the Brexit that people voted for".
It is.
PS: A close run thing with "Nobody voted to be poorer".0 -
There is nothing democratic about a unilateral revocation of Article 50 by a majority of MPs who were elected on manifestos promising to deliver Brexit, following a referendum which saw the greatest direct mandate in British history.Gardenwalker said:I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country.
It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.0 -
More like the board and the CEO both don't like the result of the shareholders vote but the board are frustrating the CEO's attempts to implement something intended to deceive shareholders as a means to saving her own position.notme2 said:
More like the board dont like the result of the shareholders vote and are frustrating the CEO's attempts to implement it.Gardenwalker said:
Are you still peddling this crap?MarqueeMark said:
Rule out No Deal - and you rule out ANY chance of the EU blinking frst.Gardenwalker said:
I think we are talking in the context of a Plan B. May would be derelict in my view not to rule out a No Deal in my opinion, at first rhetorically and then by seeking an amendment to the bill (Corbyn or Norway or ref or a combination) which might gain a majority in Parliament.Sean_F said:
They haven't thought about that.david_herdson said:
*How* exactly, is the PM supposed to take No Deal off the table?Gardenwalker said:
She is quite right but May doesn’t do leadership.williamglenn said:
Not in the commonly accepted sense.
If the vote against is 200+, I am really not sure how she is able to kick the can any further. Aof negligence.
Brexit is legislated for in UK law, and is set to take place in EU law. Only two things can prevent that and one can defer it.
A deferral requires the consent of the EU27, which may not be forthcoming. The PM can ask, but cannot unilaterally implement an A50 extension.
Revoking Arey area). In any case, revoking A50 probably isn't politically possible for the PM.
And the only other way out is for the deal the PM has negotiated to be ratified by parliament, which again - very obviously - isn't within the PM's power alone.
So while it's fine to be against No Deal in principle, how do people like Rudd plan on preventing it in practice?
She cannot let the ERGers hold the country to ransom, and her grave responsibility is to pursue
Which is why negotaition by House of Commons is stupid. In a commercial negotaition, you have a small team undertaking that negotiation, reporting to the Board (Cabinet). Ultimately the CEO (PM) will carry the can if that fails . But what you can NEVER have is not just every member of the Board giving direction - but every shareholder (MP) too.
To use your analogy the CEO has gone rogue, and the saner members of the Board never wanted a negotiation in the first place.0 -
nonsenseGardenwalker said:I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country.
It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
ignoring the electorate is the modus operandi of politicians on the EU
you just dont like it because the shoes on the other foot this time0 -
*Yawn*RoyalBlue said:
There is nothing democratic about a unilateral revocation of Article 50 by a majority of MPs who were elected on manifestos promising to deliver Brexit, following a referendum which saw the greatest direct mandate in British history.Gardenwalker said:I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country.
It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
Using population figures is disengenous because population has increased over time. You got 52% and that’s no huge mandate what so ever.0 -
It would be more democratic than what we may be about to witness. May is using the clock to overpower public consent and Parliament.RoyalBlue said:
There is nothing democratic about a unilateral revocation of Article 50 by a majority of MPs who were elected on manifestos promising to deliver Brexit, following a referendum which saw the greatest direct mandate in British history.Gardenwalker said:I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country.
It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
So stop the clock.0 -
It's still more than Remain got.Gallowgate said:
*Yawn*RoyalBlue said:
There is nothing democratic about a unilateral revocation of Article 50 by a majority of MPs who were elected on manifestos promising to deliver Brexit, following a referendum which saw the greatest direct mandate in British history.Gardenwalker said:I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country.
It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
Using population figures is disengenous because population has increased over time. You got 52% and that’s no huge mandate what so ever.0 -
This is a nonsense response.Alanbrooke said:
nonsenseGardenwalker said:I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country.
It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
ignoring the electorate is the modus operandi of politicians on the EU
you just dont like it because the shoes on the other foot this time
In fact is it proto-totalitarian.0 -
Hard to see how they can limit the majority to such a low (!) figure as 80-100, unless a substantial number of Tory MPs who have said they won't support the deal abstain rather than vote against.NickPalmer said:0 -
I agree with most of that. I would have settled with an EEA deal akin to Norway once she lost her majority if she’d focussed instead on domestic policy. That seemed to me to be the message of the 2017 GE - too many other issues needed urgent attention. Now I’ll take no deal but there is no chance it will happen. Too many people seem to be pushing Norway simply as a base to rejoin.TOPPING said:
This was the Theresa May's "original sin". She treated a once in a generation referendum as a five-yearly general election. A general election it's fine to say sod you to the opposition and not take a scintilla of their demands into account when formulating policy (unless you can't get a majority at the GE!).AmpfieldAndy said:kinabalu said:
The 2016 referendum result does not represent the will of the people. The term is far too grandiose for a 52/48 majority answer to a poorly understood question.Nigel_Foremain said:Except that they have said they are in favour of remaining within the CU, and almost all of their MPs are not sympathetic to hard brexit. Therefore the will of the people is far from clear. When you combine that with the MPs on the Conservative Party that are hostile to Brexit and the other parties including (I hate to have to mention them) the SNP it becomes clear that it is not clear at all. Brexit can't be Brexit, because there is no clear mandate for any one version
What it represents is what it says on the tin. It is an instruction to parliament to take the UK out of the European Union on the best terms that can in practice by negotiated by the government with the EU27.
Arguing that it means anything more or less than this, from wherever and whoever the argument comes from, is special pleading and wholly without merit.
But with an epochal referendum, especially a close one, where there is (not expected to be) another vote any time soon, that is not the right approach. It was a fundamental mistake to apply an adversarial winner takes all approach to a far more complex situation.
The trouble is Brexit means whatever people want it to mean and May hasn’t built a concensus. She only knows adversarial politics and she has made too many mistakes chasing her deal, not least abandoning the DUP. If Labour were led by anyone other than Corbyn with McDonnell as his Shadow Chancellor, May couldn’t even rely on their support in the VONC.
I wouldn’t be too sure there won’t be another referendum soon. There shouldn’t be a need for a second referendum without the first having been implemented but the failure of our political system I think makes it quite likely it will happen.
0 -
https://twitter.com/dril/status/1085205226481537026\
America: where President Big Boy serves cold fast food to sports teams to 'stick it to the libtards'.0 -
That's wrong. The advocate general's recommendation was that we shouldn't be able to revoke, only to re-invoke later -- but the ECJ's final ruling rejected that recommendation. The ECJ's only caveat to our right to revoke A50 was that it had to be within the UK's own constitutional requirements.eek said:
I think it was stated earlier that we can't revoke just to decide how to leaveGardenwalker said:I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country.
It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.0 -
Re public consent on the Deal:Gardenwalker said:I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country.
It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
I think she would be up for putting it to the public as a simple ratify the treaty? yes/no - but the consensus on here is that no way would this be allowed.
Leaving only the option of a Deal v Remain referendum.
Now that might just come to pass but I would not hail it as being particularly democratic. It would be more a last gasp desperate measure - a Plan Z - to end the gridlock.0 -
youve gone madder than a box of frogs dusted with crystal methGardenwalker said:
This is a nonsense response.Alanbrooke said:
nonsenseGardenwalker said:I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country.
It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
ignoring the electorate is the modus operandi of politicians on the EU
you just dont like it because the shoes on the other foot this time
In fact is it proto-totalitarian.
this is the first time in ages the elctorate has been asked its views, every other move to ever closer union has seen the electorate shut out
this was of course nuts as nearly every vote would have seen a curmudgeonly electorate hold its nose and vote it through0 -
I think it is false to suggest “no one ever voted to be poorer”, but in this instance Leave promised milk and honey.Sean_F said:
People do vote to be poorer (eg overseas aid) and the only questions on the ballot were leave and remain.kinabalu said:
They are and it is illegitimate.Nigel_Foremain said:Unfortunately many of them are arguing for more than this. Even Theresa May played to the gallery when she thought it would curry favour with the headbangers.
Perhaps the most noxious sentence in the lexicon right now* - used again and again by both Hard Leavers and Hard Remainers ...
"This is not the Brexit that people voted for".
It is.
PS: A close run thing with "Nobody voted to be poorer".
IIRC polling after the vote backed this up (leave voters did *not* vote to be poorer) but leave sentiment changed as the economic realities became undeniable.0 -
Quite.notme2 said:
which is the only reason the rest of us dont know...grabcocque said:Does anyone else think it really odd that Mrs May appears not to have told anybody what her next moves will be?
Cabinet seem to be completely in the dark.
You can't negotiate if you reveal up front what you would do if you fail to reach an agreement.
Sometimes cards do have to be kept very close to your chest - for legitimate and understandable reasons.
It is a shame that so many MPs (and commentators) seem to have lost the ability to reason over this.0 -
I think you may misunderstand me. Your first paragraph is the reason A50 was invoked by 498 mps giving the go aheadMortimer said:
Totally disagree.Big_G_NorthWales said:
With the greatest of respect you cannot conditionally revoke A50 by reserving the right to re-invokeDanny565 said:
If they refuse an A50 extension, then we revoke A50 altogether while reserving the right to re-invoke in future, our right to do so having been confirmed by the ECJ.david_herdson said:
I think the EU would accept that because there's a clear end point in sight then.Danny565 said:
Why do you think the "Extending Article 50" option will leave the table?david_herdson said:
For now, yes.TOPPING said:
NPXMP called it a long time ago as up to six would vote for the deal. I see no reason to think that is underestimating the number.grabcocque said:
Tells you all you need to know about how little the professional commentariat understand about anything.Sean_F said:
10 maybe. Labour want a general election. They don't want to reach agreement with the government.Pulpstar said:I think Lucy Powell's proposal to reach across the house is sensible actually - better than no deal or no Brexit nonsense perpetuated by plenty of others.
With the DUP and ERG's wishes clearly incompatible to an agreement with the EU it is an avenue worth persuing.
How many Labour backbenchers can she bring along ?
Question is: what do they do once all the other options have left the table and only Deal and No Deal remain?
Corbyn and Starmer have already indicated this is the stance they'll take if/when the no confidence motion fails.
If A50 was be to invoked again, it would need to follow another referendum or a political party receiving a majority on a manifesto commitment to leave the EU
I do not know about Corbyn but Starmer, as a lawyer, knows very well you cannot play games with revoking A50
I know we all at times get a bit carried away with our ideas but on this you are either expressing your own hope or are mistaken
There is a referendum and GE mandate for carrying out Brexit. Just because MPs can’t agree on the form and manner of our exit doesn’t mean that mandate is voided.
Following your own logic, there is no mandate for revoking in the first place.
If we decide to revoke now it has to be done constitutionally and cannot be a ruse for buying time to restart the process. If Parliament revokes A50 it would need authority to re-invoke it0 -
https://www.itv.com/news/london/2019-01-15/find-out-how-your-mp-is-likely-to-vote-on-theresa-mays-brexit-deal/
ITV reports that Bob Blackman will vote for the Deal.0 -
I think a 90 majority would be the worst of all worlds, giving Mrs May a short term boost, but still no obvious path to a majorityRichard_Nabavi said:
Hard to see how they can limit the majority to such a low (!) figure as 80-100, unless a substantial number of Tory MPs who have said they won't support the deal abstain rather than vote against.NickPalmer said:0 -
grabcocque said:
Lest we forget
Hannan’s Interest has only ever been trade. Nothing wrong with that but negotiating trade deals with others if you’re bound by the SM regs would be a challenge.
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken early on in the campaign, by Gove I think, precisely to facilitate trade deals with other countries.0 -
I've made this point before. Can't support = won't vote for. But not against. a) it's not in Tory MPs DNA to vote against their PM and b) a significant number want to express dismay at the deal whilst NOT being tied to supporting the headbangers. Expect a lot of unexpected abstentions.Richard_Nabavi said:
Hard to see how they can limit the majority to such a low (!) figure as 80-100, unless a substantial number of Tory MPs who have said they won't support the deal abstain rather than vote against.NickPalmer said:
0 -
It was (and is) very common among Leave voters to expect little change in their circumstances.Gardenwalker said:
I think it is false to suggest “no one ever voted to be poorer”, but in this instance Leave promised milk and honey.Sean_F said:
People do vote to be poorer (eg overseas aid) and the only questions on the ballot were leave and remain.kinabalu said:
They are and it is illegitimate.Nigel_Foremain said:Unfortunately many of them are arguing for more than this. Even Theresa May played to the gallery when she thought it would curry favour with the headbangers.
Perhaps the most noxious sentence in the lexicon right now* - used again and again by both Hard Leavers and Hard Remainers ...
"This is not the Brexit that people voted for".
It is.
PS: A close run thing with "Nobody voted to be poorer".
IIRC polling after the vote backed this up (leave voters did *not* vote to be poorer) but leave sentiment changed as the economic realities became undeniable.0 -
-
I like the way people are talking like an 80 vote defeat is a victory. What comes next? Redefining black as white? Wet as dry?
A defeat of 80 is still a defeat. And a big one.0 -
But not as big as 200Beverley_C said:I like the way people are talking like an 80 vote defeat is a victory. What comes next? Redefining black as white? Wet as dry?
A defeat of 80 is still a defeat. And a big one.
0 -
Not David Davis, Liam Fox or Boris "Phew! Err.. Golly" Johnson.Alanbrooke said:
who do you think has been hegotiating on our behalf for the last 40 years ?Beverley_C said:
I was referring to the Withdrawal Agreement. I suspect we also have not got the faintest idea about the next stage either and we will send another bunch of uninformed unfortunates to sit in Brussels to face a well-prepared EU team.RobD said:
The end position is immaterial, the EU are refusing to negotiate on that until we are a third party.Beverley_C said:
In a commercial negotiation, the negotiators are given a clear set of objectives and constraints. Our negotiators have no clue what the end position is because our government has no clue.MarqueeMark said:Rule out No Deal - and you rule out ANY chance of the EU blinking frst.
Which is why negotaition by House of Commons is stupid. In a commercial negotaition, you have a small team undertaking that negotiation, reporting to the Board (Cabinet). Ultimately the CEO (PM) will carry the can if that fails . But what you can NEVER have is not just every member of the Board giving direction - but every shareholder (MP) too.
The last two years have been a total waste of everyone's time. Whatever we settle on will be caused by force of circumstance rather than achieving what we wanted.
Frankly, I am getting to the point were I am amazed that those in govt can actually manage to write their names without help.0 -
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken by the Prime Minister when she took office.AmpfieldAndy said:grabcocque said:Lest we forget
Hannan’s Interest has only ever been trade. Nothing wrong with that but negotiating trade deals with others if you’re bound by the SM regs would be a challenge.
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken early on in the campaign, by Gove I think, precisely to facilitate trade deals with other countries.0 -
I'm sure you think highly of Ken Clarke. Could you explain why he thinks that the ECJ ruling does mean we can revoke and then re-invoke when we wish?Big_G_NorthWales said:
With the greatest of respect you cannot conditionally revoke A50 by reserving the right to re-invokeDanny565 said:
If they refuse an A50 extension, then we revoke A50 altogether while reserving the right to re-invoke in future, our right to do so having been confirmed by the ECJ.david_herdson said:
I don't think the EU27 will agree to an extension just to enable the UK to keep bickering (though I think they would keep open the option of agreeing the Deal even after 29/3).Danny565 said:
Why do you think the "Extending Article 50" option will leave the table?david_herdson said:
For now, yes.TOPPING said:
NPXMP called it a long time ago as up to six would vote for the deal. I see no reason to think that is underestimating the number.grabcocque said:
The professional commentariat have been STUNNED to find this large group of Labour MPs they promised would be willing to commit career suicide to rush to the defence of a doomed Tory prime has utterly failed to materialise.Sean_F said:
10 maybe. Labour want a general election. They don't want to reach agreement with the government.Pulpstar said:I think Lucy Powell's proposal to reach across the house is sensible actually - better than no deal or no Brexit nonsense perpetuated by plenty of others.
With the DUP and ERG's wishes clearly incompatible to an agreement with the EU it is an avenue worth persuing.
How many Labour backbenchers can she bring along ?
Tells you all you need to know about how little the professional commentariat understand about anything.
Question is: what do they do once all the other options have left the table and only Deal and No Deal remain?
An A50 extension is highly likely if parliament has already ratified, as it'll be needed to tidy up the legislative loose ends. I think the EU would accept that because there's a clear end point in sight then.
Corbyn and Starmer have already indicated this is the stance they'll take if/when the no confidence motion fails.
If A50 was be to invoked again, it would need to follow another referendum or a political party receiving a majority on a manifesto commitment to leave the EU
I do not know about Corbyn but Starmer, as a lawyer, knows very well you cannot play games with revoking A50
I know we all at times get a bit carried away with our ideas but on this you are either expressing your own hope or are mistaken0 -
80-100 would be a good result for May given some current estimates. Both she and the EU would probably see that as green light for Plan B to simply representing her deal - until MPs get the answer “right”.NickPalmer said:0 -
I have consistently argued that there ought to have been referendums for Maastricht and Lisbon.Alanbrooke said:
youve gone madder than a box of frogs dusted with crystal methGardenwalker said:
This is a nonsense response.Alanbrooke said:
nonsenseGardenwalker said:I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country.
It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
ignoring the electorate is the modus operandi of politicians on the EU
you just dont like it because the shoes on the other foot this time
In fact is it proto-totalitarian.
this is the first time in ages the elctorate has been asked its views, every other move to ever closer union has seen the electorate shut out
this was of course nuts as nearly every vote would have seen a curmudgeonly electorate hold its nose and vote it through
And, I was in favour of this referendum.
However May is attempting to impose a solution *nobody* wants, and arguing that “your side does it” smacks of life under a Latin American junta.0 -
once again the inadequacies of the FTPA come to the foreBeverley_C said:I like the way people are talking like an 80 vote defeat is a victory. What comes next? Redefining black as white? Wet as dry?
A defeat of 80 is still a defeat. And a big one.0 -
While the UK has taken steps to ensure that UK customers of EU insurers will hold valid contracts no matter what, a reciprocal step is yet to be taken by the EU as a whole. The latest BoE estimate shows that 9m policyholders in the EEA remain at risk.Scott_P said:
What a shame.0 -
Abstentions work just as well for the 'aye' sellers..Richard_Nabavi said:
Hard to see how they can limit the majority to such a low (!) figure as 80-100, unless a substantial number of Tory MPs who have said they won't support the deal abstain rather than vote against.NickPalmer said:0 -
We got 8% more votes than you guys. It’s not that narrow.Gallowgate said:
*Yawn*RoyalBlue said:
There is nothing democratic about a unilateral revocation of Article 50 by a majority of MPs who were elected on manifestos promising to deliver Brexit, following a referendum which saw the greatest direct mandate in British history.Gardenwalker said:I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country.
It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
Using population figures is disengenous because population has increased over time. You got 52% and that’s no huge mandate what so ever.0 -
A damn shame the Tories didn't get a majority at the last election - it would have been ditched (although quite how you close pandora's box wrt the prerogative is beyond me).Alanbrooke said:
once again the inadequacies of the FTPA come to the foreBeverley_C said:I like the way people are talking like an 80 vote defeat is a victory. What comes next? Redefining black as white? Wet as dry?
A defeat of 80 is still a defeat. And a big one.0 -
Our 'Constitutional Requirements' are whatever the last person got away with.Danny565 said:
That's wrong. The advocate general's recommendation was that we shouldn't be able to revoke, only to re-invoke later -- but the ECJ's final ruling rejected that recommendation. The ECJ's only caveat to our right to revoke A50 was that it had to be within the UK's own constitutional requirements.eek said:
I think it was stated earlier that we can't revoke just to decide how to leaveGardenwalker said:I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country.
It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.0 -
It was a Vote Leave commitment in the campaign. May didn’t have to honour that. She saw it as the only way to stop freedom of movement, which it is, but then she only ever saw the referendum result in terms of stopping freedom of movement.notme2 said:
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken by the Prime Minister when she took office.AmpfieldAndy said:grabcocque said:Lest we forget
Hannan’s Interest has only ever been trade. Nothing wrong with that but negotiating trade deals with others if you’re bound by the SM regs would be a challenge.
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken early on in the campaign, by Gove I think, precisely to facilitate trade deals with other countries.0 -
Is there ANY section of life in which Brexit does not cause a balls-up? Seriously??Scott_P said:
And hordes of people still think that this shambles of an idea is a good one?
Unbelievable!!0 -
Major imposed a solution which was unpopular, so did Brown. The chronic problem for the EU is it cant build legitimacy on the back of a diktat. Those protesting about May's arm twisting are largely the same people who satyed silent when others twisted the arms.Gardenwalker said:
I have consistently argued that there ought to have been referendums for Maastricht and Lisbon.Alanbrooke said:
youve gone madder than a box of frogs dusted with crystal methGardenwalker said:
This is a nonsense response.Alanbrooke said:
nonsenseGardenwalker said:I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the h.
ignoring the electorate is the modus operandi of politicians on the EU
you just dont like it because the shoes on the other foot this time
In fact is it proto-totalitarian.
this is the first time in ages the elctorate has been asked its views, every other move to ever closer union has seen the electorate shut out
this was of course nuts as nearly every vote would have seen a curmudgeonly electorate hold its nose and vote it through
And, I was in favour of this referendum.
However May is attempting to impose a solution *nobody* wants, and arguing that “your side does it” smacks of life under a Latin American junta.0 -
Well, quite - so in effect our right to revoke A50 is absolute, even if we were to re-invoke it just 5 minutes later.notme2 said:
Our 'Constitutional Requirements' are whatever the last person got away with.Danny565 said:
That's wrong. The advocate general's recommendation was that we shouldn't be able to revoke, only to re-invoke later -- but the ECJ's final ruling rejected that recommendation. The ECJ's only caveat to our right to revoke A50 was that it had to be within the UK's own constitutional requirements.eek said:
I think it was stated earlier that we can't revoke just to decide how to leaveGardenwalker said:I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country.
It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.0 -
This doesn't sound like a balls-up. Just that a bit more time is needed.Beverley_C said:
Is there ANY section of life in which Brexit does not cause a balls-up? Seriously??Scott_P said:
And hordes of people still think that this shambles of an idea is a good one?
Unbelievable!!0 -
-
It's millions of people in the EU27/EEA countries who might not be able to claim - and that is because the EU has screwed up.Beverley_C said:
Is there ANY section of life in which Brexit does not cause a balls-up? Seriously??Scott_P said:
And hordes of people still think that this shambles of an idea is a good one?
Unbelievable!!
In practice I can't see it being a problem, the EU will just extend a blanket extension to the authorisations, so it's probably a non-story.0 -
Could be a lot of busy tellers with a lot of MPs walking into both lobbies.MarqueeMark said:
I've made this point before. Can't support = won't vote for. But not against. a) it's not in Tory MPs DNA to vote against their PM and b) a significant number want to express dismay at the deal whilst NOT being tied to supporting the headbangers. Expect a lot of unexpected abstentions.Richard_Nabavi said:
Hard to see how they can limit the majority to such a low (!) figure as 80-100, unless a substantial number of Tory MPs who have said they won't support the deal abstain rather than vote against.NickPalmer said:0 -
No, it's not. It needs to be "unequivocal and unconditional". I wouldn't call revoking for five minutes unequivocal.Danny565 said:
Well, quite - so in effect our right to revoke A50 is absolute, even if we were to re-invoke it just 5 minutes later.notme2 said:
Our 'Constitutional Requirements' are whatever the last person got away with.Danny565 said:
That's wrong. The advocate general's recommendation was that we shouldn't be able to revoke, only to re-invoke later -- but the ECJ's final ruling rejected that recommendation. The ECJ's only caveat to our right to revoke A50 was that it had to be within the UK's own constitutional requirements.eek said:
I think it was stated earlier that we can't revoke just to decide how to leaveGardenwalker said:I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country.
It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.0 -
Danny565 said:
You are possessed with this. I respect Ken Clarke but did not hear his commentsBig_G_NorthWales said:
I'm sure you think highly of Ken Clarke. Could you explain why he thinks that the ECJ ruling does mean we can revoke and then re-invoke when we wish?Danny565 said:
With the greatest of respect you cannot conditionally revoke A50 by reserving the right to re-invokedavid_herdson said:
If they refuse an A50 extension, then we revoke A50 altogether while reserving the right to re-invoke in future, our right to do so having been confirmed by the ECJ.Danny565 said:
I don't think the EU27 will agree to an extension just to enable the UK to keep bickering (though I think they would keep open the option of agreeing the Deal even after 29/3).david_herdson said:
Why do you think the "Extending Article 50" option will leave the table?TOPPING said:
For now, yes.grabcocque said:
NPXMP called it a long time ago as up to six would vote for the deal. I see no reason to think that is underestimating the number.Sean_F said:
10 maybe. Labour want a general election. They don't want to reach agreement with thePulpstar said:I think Lucy Powell's proposal to reach across the house is sensible actually - better than no deal or no Brexit nonsense perpetuated by plenty of others.
With the DUP and ERG's wishes clearly incompatible to an agreement with the EU it is an avenue worth persuing.
How many Labour backbenchers can she bring along ?
Tells you all you need to know about how little the professional commentariat understand about anything.
Question is: what do they do once all the other options have left the table and only Deal and No Deal remain?
Corbyn and Starmer have already indicated this is the stance they'll take if/when the no confidence motion fails.
If A50 was be to invoked again, it would need to follow another referendum or a political party receiving a majority on a manifesto commitment to leave the EU
I do not know about Corbyn but Starmer, as a lawyer, knows very well you cannot play games with revoking A50
I know we all at times get a bit carried away with our ideas but on this you are either expressing your own hope or are mistaken
The simple fact is A50 can only be revoked through the UK consitutional process
It cannot be used as a ruse and to re-invoke has to be in a manner that would pass an ECJ ruling0 -
Guido reports
John Bercow has slapped down May’s hopes of winning over sceptical backbenchers with Andrew Murrison’s amendment, by not sdelecting it to be voted on. The four he has selected instead are:
Jeremy Corbyn Rejects the deal because it does not meet Labour’s criteria, including a customs union and strong single market relationship. Says government should “pursue every option” for avoiding no-deal or leaving on the terms of May’s deal.
Sir Edward Leigh States that a permanent backstop would constitute a change in circumstances compared to those in the Withdrawal Agreement and that this would give the UK the right to withdraw from it. Asks the government to confirm it would do so if this was the case.
John Baron Also says the deal should only be approved if the UK has the right to exit the backstop without the agreement of the EU.
Ian Blackford Rejects the deal, citing opposition from the devolved assemblies, and calls for an extension of Article 50.
These amendments will be voted on from 7pm. If, as expected, none of them pass, then the we can expect the meaningful vote to take place at 8pm, with the result at around 8:150 -
-
I was delighted to find my post code is the burglary capital of the UKBeverley_C said:
Is there ANY section of life in which Brexit does not cause a balls-up? Seriously??Scott_P said:
And hordes of people still think that this shambles of an idea is a good one?
Unbelievable!!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/bills/article-6577623/Britains-burglary-hotspots-revealed-B95-postcode-topping-charts.html
Mrs B decidedly unhappy0 -
Frank Field says he will support the deal. Surprised at that.0
-
-
NonsenseDanny565 said:
Well, quite - so in effect our right to revoke A50 is absolute, even if we were to re-invoke it just 5 minutes later.notme2 said:
Our 'Constitutional Requirements' are whatever the last person got away with.Danny565 said:
That's wrong. The advocate general's recommendation was that we shouldn't be able to revoke, only to re-invoke later -- but the ECJ's final ruling rejected that recommendation. The ECJ's only caveat to our right to revoke A50 was that it had to be within the UK's own constitutional requirements.eek said:
I think it was stated earlier that we can't revoke just to decide how to leaveGardenwalker said:I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country.
It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.0 -
WTF is Bercow doing?David_Evershed said:Guido reports
John Bercow has slapped down May’s hopes of winning over sceptical backbenchers with Andrew Murrison’s amendment, by not sdelecting it to be voted on. The four he has selected instead are:
Jeremy Corbyn Rejects the deal because it does not meet Labour’s criteria, including a customs union and strong single market relationship. Says government should “pursue every option” for avoiding no-deal or leaving on the terms of May’s deal.
Sir Edward Leigh States that a permanent backstop would constitute a change in circumstances compared to those in the Withdrawal Agreement and that this would give the UK the right to withdraw from it. Asks the government to confirm it would do so if this was the case.
John Baron Also says the deal should only be approved if the UK has the right to exit the backstop without the agreement of the EU.
Ian Blackford Rejects the deal, citing opposition from the devolved assemblies, and calls for an extension of Article 50.
These amendments will be voted on from 7pm. If, as expected, none of them pass, then the we can expect the meaningful vote to take place at 8pm, with the result at around 8:150 -
"It also means that the only Westminster representation comes from a party that got just 36% of the vote there in June 2017."
To be pedantic, there is also Sylvia Hermon representing a further 3.3% of voters (and I think she favour's May's deal).0 -
Please feel free to point me to where in the ECJ's ruling (as opposed to the advocate general's opinion) it says that we cannot re-invoke it in future.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are possessed with this. I respect Ken Clarke but did not hear his comments
The simple fact is A50 can only be revoked through the UK consitutional process
It cannot be used as a ruse and to re-invoke has to be in a manner that would pass an ECJ ruling0 -
He was in my "expected" category to vote for the deal. I haven't yet seen what Kelvin Hopkins is planning.AmpfieldAndy said:Frank Field says he will support the deal. Surprised at that.
John Woodcock is against, which surprised me a bit.0 -
I have said all I am going to on this.Danny565 said:
Please feel free to point me to where in the ECJ's ruling (as opposed to the advocate general's opinion) it says that we cannot re-invoke it in future.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are possessed with this. I respect Ken Clarke but did not hear his comments
The simple fact is A50 can only be revoked through the UK consitutional process
It cannot be used as a ruse and to re-invoke has to be in a manner that would pass an ECJ ruling0 -
In terms of the betting, what happens if MPs vote in both lobbies?0 -
Eh? It would be unequivocal and unconditional. No-one's suggesting we'd say "we revoke Article 50, only on condition that our contributions to the EU Budget are reduced". We'd be accepting we'd be staying in the EU unconditionally for now; what we would choose to do in future is a different matter.RobD said:
No, it's not. It needs to be "unequivocal and unconditional". I wouldn't call revoking for five minutes unequivocal.Danny565 said:
Well, quite - so in effect our right to revoke A50 is absolute, even if we were to re-invoke it just 5 minutes later.notme2 said:
Our 'Constitutional Requirements' are whatever the last person got away with.Danny565 said:
That's wrong. The advocate general's recommendation was that we shouldn't be able to revoke, only to re-invoke later -- but the ECJ's final ruling rejected that recommendation. The ECJ's only caveat to our right to revoke A50 was that it had to be within the UK's own constitutional requirements.eek said:
I think it was stated earlier that we can't revoke just to decide how to leaveGardenwalker said:I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country.
It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.0 -
What is the point - they should have done it beforewilliamglenn said:0 -
You really think after revoking and invoking after five minutes that the EU Commission wouldn't challenge that at the ECJ?Danny565 said:
Eh? It would be unequivocal and unconditional. No-one's suggesting we'd say "we revoke Article 50, only on condition that our contributions to the EU Budget are reduced".RobD said:
No, it's not. It needs to be "unequivocal and unconditional". I wouldn't call revoking for five minutes unequivocal.Danny565 said:
Well, quite - so in effect our right to revoke A50 is absolute, even if we were to re-invoke it just 5 minutes later.notme2 said:
Our 'Constitutional Requirements' are whatever the last person got away with.Danny565 said:
That's wrong. The advocate general's recommendation was that we shouldn't be able to revoke, only to re-invoke later -- but the ECJ's final ruling rejected that recommendation. The ECJ's only caveat to our right to revoke A50 was that it had to be within the UK's own constitutional requirements.eek said:
I think it was stated earlier that we can't revoke just to decide how to leaveGardenwalker said:I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country.
It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.0 -
FWIW, I think it would not be impossible to invoke A50 in the future. But, if we attempted to reinvoke it shortly after withdrawing it, we would not be seen as acting in good faith.Danny565 said:
Please feel free to point me to where in the ECJ's ruling (as opposed to the advocate general's opinion) it says that we cannot re-invoke it in future.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are possessed with this. I respect Ken Clarke but did not hear his comments
The simple fact is A50 can only be revoked through the UK consitutional process
It cannot be used as a ruse and to re-invoke has to be in a manner that would pass an ECJ ruling0 -
Enacting revenge for his humiliation the other week.SquareRoot said:
WTF is Bercow doing?David_Evershed said:Guido reports
John Bercow has slapped down May’s hopes of winning over sceptical backbenchers with Andrew Murrison’s amendment, by not sdelecting it to be voted on. The four he has selected instead are:
Jeremy Corbyn Rejects the deal because it does not meet Labour’s criteria, including a customs union and strong single market relationship. Says government should “pursue every option” for avoiding no-deal or leaving on the terms of May’s deal.
Sir Edward Leigh States that a permanent backstop would constitute a change in circumstances compared to those in the Withdrawal Agreement and that this would give the UK the right to withdraw from it. Asks the government to confirm it would do so if this was the case.
John Baron Also says the deal should only be approved if the UK has the right to exit the backstop without the agreement of the EU.
Ian Blackford Rejects the deal, citing opposition from the devolved assemblies, and calls for an extension of Article 50.
These amendments will be voted on from 7pm. If, as expected, none of them pass, then the we can expect the meaningful vote to take place at 8pm, with the result at around 8:150 -
Very interesting article. Can be applied to lots of other areas, including evolution and (maybe) Brexit.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/14/gm-foods-scientific-ignorance-fuels-extremist-views-study
The results from more than 2,500 respondents revealed the curious trend. “What we found is that as the extremity of opposition increased, objective knowledge went down, but self-assessed knowledge went up,” Fernbach said.
“The extremists are more poorly calibrated. If you don’t know much, it’s hard to assess how much you know,” Fernbach added. “The feeling of understanding that they have then stops them from learning the truth. Extremism can be perverse in that way.”0 -
Presumably they'd be counted in the Ayes.Sean_F said:
In terms of the betting, what happens if MPs vote in both lobbies?0 -
You can’t restore an extinguished prerogative but I would have thought some form of words along the lines of “Her Majesty, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, may make anRobD said:
A damn shame the Tories didn't get a majority at the last election - it would have been ditched (although quite how you close pandora's box wrt the prerogative is beyond me).Alanbrooke said:
once again the inadequacies of the FTPA come to the foreBeverley_C said:I like the way people are talking like an 80 vote defeat is a victory. What comes next? Redefining black as white? Wet as dry?
A defeat of 80 is still a defeat. And a big one.
order-in-council to dissolve Parliament” would do the trick.0 -
Quite. The lack of honour and integrity being shown by MPs of all persuasions is probably to be expected with the current crop. But it is dispiriting nonetheless.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What is the point - they should have done it beforewilliamglenn said:
A plague on most of their houses (there are a few exceptions...)0 -
precendence is dead :-)Sean_F said:
FWIW, I think it would not be impossible to invoke A50 in the future. But, if we attempted to reinvoke it shortly after withdrawing it, we would not be seen as acting in good faith.Danny565 said:
Please feel free to point me to where in the ECJ's ruling (as opposed to the advocate general's opinion) it says that we cannot re-invoke it in future.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are possessed with this. I respect Ken Clarke but did not hear his comments
The simple fact is A50 can only be revoked through the UK consitutional process
It cannot be used as a ruse and to re-invoke has to be in a manner that would pass an ECJ ruling0 -
You mean by Anna Soubry? or Ms Leadsom? or both?notme2 said:
Enacting revenge for his humiliation the other week.SquareRoot said:
WTF is Bercow doing?David_Evershed said:Guido reports
John Bercow has slapped down May’s hopes of winning over sceptical backbenchers with Andrew Murrison’s amendment, by not sdelecting it to be voted on. The four he has selected instead are:
Jeremy Corbyn Rejects the deal because it does not meet Labour’s criteria, including a customs union and strong single market relationship. Says government should “pursue every option” for avoiding no-deal or leaving on the terms of May’s deal.
Sir Edward Leigh States that a permanent backstop would constitute a change in circumstances compared to those in the Withdrawal Agreement and that this would give the UK the right to withdraw from it. Asks the government to confirm it would do so if this was the case.
John Baron Also says the deal should only be approved if the UK has the right to exit the backstop without the agreement of the EU.
Ian Blackford Rejects the deal, citing opposition from the devolved assemblies, and calls for an extension of Article 50.
These amendments will be voted on from 7pm. If, as expected, none of them pass, then the we can expect the meaningful vote to take place at 8pm, with the result at around 8:150 -
-
It would be a triumph. Which shows what a one-off situation this is.AmpfieldAndy said:80-100 would be a good result for May given some current estimates. Both she and the EU would probably see that as green light for Plan B to simply representing her deal - until MPs get the answer “right”.
50/1 on Betfair for the implied 'ayes' in such a result - although that calculation assumes no abstentions.0 -
Mr. Notme, possibly. More likely, I think, gratitude to Labour for saving him some months ago, and a genuine pro-EU belief coupled with an utter willingness to meddle in the game rather than be an objective umpire.0
-
On what grounds would the EU Commission challenge it? They'd have to prove it was against the UK's "constitutional requirements", since that was the only caveat to our right to revoke.RobD said:
You really think after revoking and invoking after five minutes that the EU Commission wouldn't challenge that at the ECJ?Danny565 said:
Eh? It would be unequivocal and unconditional. No-one's suggesting we'd say "we revoke Article 50, only on condition that our contributions to the EU Budget are reduced".RobD said:
No, it's not. It needs to be "unequivocal and unconditional". I wouldn't call revoking for five minutes unequivocal.Danny565 said:
Well, quite - so in effect our right to revoke A50 is absolute, even if we were to re-invoke it just 5 minutes later.notme2 said:
Our 'Constitutional Requirements' are whatever the last person got away with.Danny565 said:
That's wrong. The advocate general's recommendation was that we shouldn't be able to revoke, only to re-invoke later -- but the ECJ's final ruling rejected that recommendation. The ECJ's only caveat to our right to revoke A50 was that it had to be within the UK's own constitutional requirements.eek said:
I think it was stated earlier that we can't revoke just to decide how to leaveGardenwalker said:I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country.
It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
I'm sure they wouldn't be happy that it was happening, but they already lost the argument on whether the UK should have the power to do it in the original court case.0 -
WTF is a "vote leave commitment"?AmpfieldAndy said:
It was a Vote Leave commitment in the campaign. May didn’t have to honour that. She saw it as the only way to stop freedom of movement, which it is, but then she only ever saw the referendum result in terms of stopping freedom of movement.notme2 said:
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken by the Prime Minister when she took office.AmpfieldAndy said:grabcocque said:Lest we forget
Hannan’s Interest has only ever been trade. Nothing wrong with that but negotiating trade deals with others if you’re bound by the SM regs would be a challenge.
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken early on in the campaign, by Gove I think, precisely to facilitate trade deals with other countries.0
