politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As the Tory Brexit crisis continues Corbyn’s “Best PM” ratings

AmpfieldAndy said:

Benpointer said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

Gardenwalker said:

There is a lot of nonsense that a People’s Vote is betraying the will of the people.

The counter argument is that we are leaving it to some last minute hasty wheeling and dealing to make the decision on what Brexit means.

A People’s Vote is NOT a cancellation. It is a democratic exercise to validate whatever Parliament is able to come up with before March.

Having a second referendum before the first is implemented is not particularly democratic.

JRM hasn’t exactly covered himself in glory having failed to come up with no ideas of his own.

Who has?

AmpfieldAndy said:

Gardenwalker said:

There is a lot of nonsense that a People’s Vote is betraying the will of the people.

The counter argument is that we are leaving it to some last minute hasty wheeling and dealing to make the decision on what Brexit means.

A People’s Vote is NOT a cancellation. It is a democratic exercise to validate whatever Parliament is able to come up with before March.

Having a second referendum before the first is implemented is not particularly democratic.

Of course it is.

grabcocque said:

Theresa May: “Now is the time to put the national interest first”

Corbyn: “Take no deal off the table”

Theresa May: “No I meant the other sort of national interest”

For Theresa: 325
For Corbyn: 306

SunnyJim said:

AlastairMeeks said:

SunnyJim said:

AlastairMeeks said:

There you go again, using the poor as human shields. .

Absolutely Meeks.

Protect the financial interests of the poor by joining with Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, multi-nationals, billionaire financiers etc in fighting Brexit.

Since this started with a link to a manufacturer closing a plant in Britain because of Brexit, truly up is down in your mind. Just another reactionary Brexiteer backfilling a rationale to indulge your prejudices.

Want to engage with the content or flail with ad-homs?

Come on, you can do it!

I gave you one nice crunchy fact with the brick in the face. Deal with it.

Benpointer said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

Benpointer said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

Gardenwalker said:

There is a lot of nonsense that a People’s Vote is betraying the will of the people.

The counter argument is that we are leaving it to some last minute hasty wheeling and dealing to make the decision on what Brexit means.

A People’s Vote is NOT a cancellation. It is a democratic exercise to validate whatever Parliament is able to come up with before March.

Having a second referendum before the first is implemented is not particularly democratic.

JRM hasn’t exactly covered himself in glory having failed to come up with no ideas of his own.

Who has?

Failing to come up with no ideas of your own sounds like a good thing.

AlastairMeeks said:

SunnyJim said:

AlastairMeeks said:

SunnyJim said:

AlastairMeeks said:

There you go again, using the poor as human shields. .

Absolutely Meeks.

Protect the financial interests of the poor by joining with Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, multi-nationals, billionaire financiers etc in fighting Brexit.

Since this started with a link to a manufacturer closing a plant in Britain because of Brexit, truly up is down in your mind. Just another reactionary Brexiteer backfilling a rationale to indulge your prejudices.

Want to engage with the content or flail with ad-homs?

Come on, you can do it!

I gave you one nice crunchy fact with the brick in the face. Deal with it.

Leave it Meeks, he’s not wooooorrffff it.

Whitehall’s Brexit department has enforced seven “gagging orders” on outsourcing firms and suppliers working on no-deal preparations, despite Theresa May’s previous criticism of such contracts.

The disclosure comes as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), run by Michael Gove, confirmed for the first time that it had also asked suppliers to sign non-disclosure agreements [NDAs] as it geared up for the possibility of the UK crashing out of Europe.

Six government departments have now admitted using NDAs on more than 62 partners working on no-deal preparations, preventing them from revealing any information related to contingency plans.

SunnyJim said:

Gardenwalker said:

Leave it Meeks, he’s not wooooorrffff it.

Meeks has become progressively more unhinged as time has gone on.

Absolute crank.

To be honest, I’m not sure you’re adding anything. You seem like a common, garden troll.

Gardenwalker said:

SunnyJim said:

Gardenwalker said:

Leave it Meeks, he’s not wooooorrffff it.

Meeks has become progressively more unhinged as time has gone on.

Absolute crank.

To be honest, I’m not sure you’re adding anything. You seem like a common, garden troll.

Misusing the term ad hominim is classic troll, circa 2010

grabcocque said:

SunnyJim said:

grabcocque said:

Me, a gloomy dimwit pessimist: "The EU is imperfect but the freedom to live, work and love anywhere in a united and peaceful Europe is a dream that millions fought for."

Good grief, you know you're on the right side of the argument when the opposition is claiming WW2 was about the EU and its Freedom of Movement rules.

One of, if not the, stupidest things i've ever read on here.

Yes, you're right. I now realise what a FUCKING RETARD I've been for suggesting that the primary impetus behind european integration was healing the scars of a century of brutal war and bringing peace and prosperity to Europe.

Gosh I do wish I had your towering intellect Mr Jim, but as a mere simpleton I now realise how foolish I've been in suggesting that using institutions to bring liberty or peace were in any way at the forefront of the minds of the post-war reconstruction era politicians.

In fact, it's only now that I've realised the true depths of my awesome lack of intellect for somehow thinking that the european project, starting as it did after two of the bloodiest conflicts in human history, was in ANY WAY a response to try to prevent them from happening again.

What a truly pitiful thickie dim muddlebum I am.

Please forgive me, I feel awful for sullying your vast intellect with my wretched dumbness.

I have little doubt that one of the original aims of the Iron and Steel community was to foster working together rather than having wars.
This is why I find the fact the oldies in the ref voting so strongly out. I find it illogical, they may not have been fighting in the War, but they were hiding under the stairs and then their teenage years spent with rationing and living the next 10-20 years in bombed out cities, etc.

Something to these people went very wrong, having lived through these times they should have been strong remain, just like they were in 1973.

AmpfieldAndy said:

williamglenn said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

IanB2 said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

Gardenwalker said:

There is a lot of nonsense that a People’s Vote is betraying the will of the people.

The counter argument is that we are leaving it to some last minute hasty wheeling and dealing to make the decision on what Brexit means.

A People’s Vote is NOT a cancellation. It is a democratic exercise to validate whatever Parliament is able to come up with before March.

Having a second referendum before the first is implemented is not particularly democratic.

Of course it is.

Nonsense. On that basis we’d be continually having referenda and never get anything done.

The problem with your approach is that there will never be a consensus on when the 2016 referendum has been implemented.

Maybe, but we know there is concensus for leaving the EU. If people want to change the basis on which we leave after we’ve left, is a perfectly legitimate subject for debate then.

No we don't. We know only that in 2016, 52% of people who voted, voted Leave.

AmpfieldAndy said:

williamglenn said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

williamglenn said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

IanB2 said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

Gardenwalker said:

There is a lot of nonsense that a People’s Vote is betraying the will of the people.

The counter argument is that we are leaving it to some last minute hasty wheeling and dealing to make the decision on what Brexit means.

A People’s Vote is NOT a cancellation. It is a democratic exercise to validate whatever Parliament is able to come up with before March.

Having a second referendum before the first is implemented is not particularly democratic.

Of course it is.

Nonsense. On that basis we’d be continually having referenda and never get anything done.

The problem with your approach is that there will never be a consensus on when the 2016 referendum has been implemented.

Maybe, but we know there is concensus for leaving the EU. If people want to change the basis on which we leave after we’ve left, is a perfectly legitimate subject for debate then.

No we don't. We know only that in 2016, 52% of people who voted, voted Leave.

We know that and we know that the electorate overwhelmingly supported political parties committed to implement that 2016 result in the 2017 election. You just want asking the question until you get the answer that suits you because you can’t teconcile yourself to the fact that democracy doesn’t always give the answer you want.

And yet, you are the one who fears what a democratic 2nd ref might deliver.

Benpointer said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

williamglenn said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

williamglenn said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

IanB2 said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

Gardenwalker said:

There is a lot of nonsense that a People’s Vote is betraying the will of the people.

The counter argument is that we are leaving it to some last minute hasty wheeling and dealing to make the decision on what Brexit means.

A People’s Vote is NOT a cancellation. It is a democratic exercise to validate whatever Parliament is able to come up with before March.

Having a second referendum before the first is implemented is not particularly democratic.

Of course it is.

Nonsense. On that basis we’d be continually having referenda and never get anything done.

The problem with your approach is that there will never be a consensus on when the 2016 referendum has been implemented.

Maybe, but we know there is concensus for leaving the EU. If people want to change the basis on which we leave after we’ve left, is a perfectly legitimate subject for debate then.

No we don't. We know only that in 2016, 52% of people who voted, voted Leave.

We know that and we know that the electorate overwhelmingly supported political parties committed to implement that 2016 result in the 2017 election. You just want asking the question until you get the answer that suits you because you can’t teconcile yourself to the fact that democracy doesn’t always give the answer you want.

And yet, you are the one who fears what a democratic 2nd ref might deliver.

A third referendum.

Because if the result of the first one isn't respected, why respect the result of a second?

IanB2 said:

Voters elect MPs, not parties

And over 550 of our MP's stood on a manifesto pledge to implement the 2016 referendum result.

kyf_100 said:

Benpointer said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

williamglenn said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

williamglenn said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

IanB2 said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

Gardenwalker said:

There is a lot of nonsense that a People’s Vote is betraying the will of the people.

The counter argument is that we are leaving it to some last minute hasty wheeling and dealing to make the decision on what Brexit means.

A People’s Vote is NOT a cancellation. It is a democratic exercise to validate whatever Parliament is able to come up with before March.

Having a second referendum before the first is implemented is not particularly democratic.

Of course it is.

Nonsense. On that basis we’d be continually having referenda and never get anything done.

The problem with your approach is that there will never be a consensus on when the 2016 referendum has been implemented.

Maybe, but we know there is concensus for leaving the EU. If people want to change the basis on which we leave after we’ve left, is a perfectly legitimate subject for debate then.

No we don't. We know only that in 2016, 52% of people who voted, voted Leave.

We know that and we know that the electorate overwhelmingly supported political parties committed to implement that 2016 result in the 2017 election. You just want asking the question until you get the answer that suits you because you can’t teconcile yourself to the fact that democracy doesn’t always give the answer you want.

And yet, you are the one who fears what a democratic 2nd ref might deliver.

A third referendum.

Because if the result of the first one isn't respected, why respect the result of a second?

If we have a second referendum with a choice between ratifying the withdrawal agreement and revoking notification, "respect" won't come into it. The action will follow automatically from the referendum. If we revoke and there's subsequently a renewed desire to leave the EU, so be it. That's democracy.

Private Eye for all those who missed it....

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/current-issue

Goodness me, everyone's very bad-tempered tonight.

Maybe this will cheer you up:

Three surgeons are deciding who is the best kind of patient to operate on. One says he likes electricians, because everything inside is colour coded. Another disagrees, because librarians are brilliant - everything tidily placed in alphabetical order and dead silence no matter what disaster happens. The third, however, tells them not to be foolish. 'Politicians are by far the best,' she says. 'They have no brains, no hearts, no guts and no spine. Plus their heads and butts are interchangeable.'

With grateful thanks to a colleague who had that ready for me when I arrived very late due to my car door having frozen solidly and immovably shut.

williamglenn said:

A vote for Labour in 2017 was not an endorsement of Brexit.

C4 Fact Check on Labour's 2017 manifesto...


Immigration and freedom of movement

Labour’s 2017 manifesto stated that “Freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union.


Single market membership

Immediately after the election, John McDonnell said “I think people will interpret membership of the single market as not respecting that referendum.”

williamglenn said:

kyf_100 said:

Benpointer said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

williamglenn said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

williamglenn said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

IanB2 said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

Gardenwalker said:

There is a lot of nonsense that a People’s Vote is betraying the will of the people.

The counter argument is that we are leaving it to some last minute hasty wheeling and dealing to make the decision on what Brexit means.

A People’s Vote is NOT a cancellation. It is a democratic exercise to validate whatever Parliament is able to come up with before March.

Having a second referendum before the first is implemented is not particularly democratic.

Of course it is.

Nonsense. On that basis we’d be continually having referenda and never get anything done.

The problem with your approach is that there will never be a consensus on when the 2016 referendum has been implemented.

Maybe, but we know there is concensus for leaving the EU. If people want to change the basis on which we leave after we’ve left, is a perfectly legitimate subject for debate then.

No we don't. We know only that in 2016, 52% of people who voted, voted Leave.

We know that and we know that the electorate overwhelmingly supported political parties committed to implement that 2016 result in the 2017 election. You just want asking the question until you get the answer that suits you because you can’t teconcile yourself to the fact that democracy doesn’t always give the answer you want.

And yet, you are the one who fears what a democratic 2nd ref might deliver.

A third referendum.

Because if the result of the first one isn't respected, why respect the result of a second?

If we have a second referendum with a choice between ratifying the withdrawal agreement and revoking notification, "respect" won't come into it. The action will follow automatically from the referendum. If we revoke and there's subsequently a renewed desire to leave the EU, so be it. That's democracy.

Wrong again. Democracy is not just asking a question. It is acting on the answer.

williamglenn said:

kyf_100 said:

Benpointer said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

williamglenn said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

williamglenn said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

IanB2 said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

Gardenwalker said:

There is a lot of nonsense that a People’s Vote is betraying the will of the people.

The counter argument is that we are leaving it to some last minute hasty wheeling and dealing to make the decision on what Brexit means.

A People’s Vote is NOT a cancellation. It is a democratic exercise to validate whatever Parliament is able to come up with before March.

Having a second referendum before the first is implemented is not particularly democratic.

Of course it is.

Nonsense. On that basis we’d be continually having referenda and never get anything done.

The problem with your approach is that there will never be a consensus on when the 2016 referendum has been implemented.

Maybe, but we know there is concensus for leaving the EU. If people want to change the basis on which we leave after we’ve left, is a perfectly legitimate subject for debate then.

No we don't. We know only that in 2016, 52% of people who voted, voted Leave.

We know that and we know that the electorate overwhelmingly supported political parties committed to implement that 2016 result in the 2017 election. You just want asking the question until you get the answer that suits you because you can’t teconcile yourself to the fact that democracy doesn’t always give the answer you want.

And yet, you are the one who fears what a democratic 2nd ref might deliver.

A third referendum.

Because if the result of the first one isn't respected, why respect the result of a second?

If we have a second referendum with a choice between ratifying the withdrawal agreement and revoking notification, "respect" won't come into it. The action will follow automatically from the referendum. If we revoke and there's subsequently a renewed desire to leave the EU, so be it. That's democracy.

The action should follow automatically from the first referendum. We leave with a deal, or we leave without.

That is what was voted for. That's democracy.

AmpfieldAndy said:

williamglenn said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

williamglenn said:

Theresa May called that election saying: "In recent weeks Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the SNP say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union, and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government's majority is so small, that our resolve will weaken and they can force us to change course. They are wrong.”

A vote for Labour in 2017 was not an endorsement of Brexit.

Read their manifesto

We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain.

Labour recognises that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain and that it would do damage to our economy and trade. We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option and if needs be negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid a 'Cliff-edge’ for the economy.

Nothing there that suggests Remaining.

Nothing there that suggests delivering anything either.

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

kyf_100 said:

Benpointer said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

williamglenn said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

williamglenn said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

IanB2 said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

Gardenwalker said:

There is a lot of nonsense that a People’s Vote is betraying the will of the people.

The counter argument is that we are leaving it to some last minute hasty wheeling and dealing to make the decision on what Brexit means.

A People’s Vote is NOT a cancellation. It is a democratic exercise to validate whatever Parliament is able to come up with before March.

Having a second referendum before the first is implemented is not particularly democratic.

Of course it is.

Nonsense. On that basis we’d be continually having referenda and never get anything done.

The problem with your approach is that there will never be a consensus on when the 2016 referendum has been implemented.

Maybe, but we know there is concensus for leaving the EU. If people want to change the basis on which we leave after we’ve left, is a perfectly legitimate subject for debate then.

No we don't. We know only that in 2016, 52% of people who voted, voted Leave.

We know that and we know that the electorate overwhelmingly supported political parties committed to implement that 2016 result in the 2017 election. You just want asking the question until you get the answer that suits you because you can’t teconcile yourself to the fact that democracy doesn’t always give the answer you want.

And yet, you are the one who fears what a democratic 2nd ref might deliver.

A third referendum.

Because if the result of the first one isn't respected, why respect the result of a second?

If we have a second referendum with a choice between ratifying the withdrawal agreement and revoking notification, "respect" won't come into it. The action will follow automatically from the referendum. If we revoke and there's subsequently a renewed desire to leave the EU, so be it. That's democracy.

Wrong again. Democracy is not just asking a question. It is acting on the answer.

We acted on the result of the 2016 referendum, and we would act on the result of my proposed referendum. Arguing that we haven't acted on the 2016 referendum given the position we're in now is utterly absurd.

williamglenn said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

williamglenn said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

williamglenn said:

Theresa May called that election saying: "In recent weeks Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the SNP say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union, and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government's majority is so small, that our resolve will weaken and they can force us to change course. They are wrong.”

A vote for Labour in 2017 was not an endorsement of Brexit.

Read their manifesto

We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain.

Labour recognises that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain and that it would do damage to our economy and trade. We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option and if needs be negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid a 'Cliff-edge’ for the economy.

Nothing there that suggests Remaining.

Nothing there that suggests delivering anything either.

TBF, that could have been the title of Labour's entire manifesto.

dr_spyn said:

https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1085976286529490944

A Citizen's Assembly, what sort of nonsense is Gordon Brown proposing. Sounds wonderful but cannot over ride primacy of Parliament.

Isn't the House of Commons a 'citizen's assembly'? Or is he really suggesting we need more (presumably) paid politicians?

Cyclefree said:

We could have the WA tomorrow, apart from the very minor fact that Parliament voted against it by a majority of 230.

Grieve is right about a Norway-type deal. There is very little point leaving the EU, then following all the rules of the EU without any input into them. You have all the downsides of being in the EU without any of the upsides. The closer the relationship the less control you have. The less close the relationship the more theoretical control you have but also much more friction and cost and loss of trade.

Brexiteers refuse to come to terms with this and refuse to be honest with voters about this, preferring to blame the EU for not giving Britain everything it wants.

I would be pedantic and point out that:
- Norway-type deal only follows a small fraction of the rules of the EU, rather than "all" of them (no CAP, no CFP, no justice rules, no foreign policy rules, no defence pillar, etc, etc)
- Norway and others do, in fact, have an input into the fraction of the acquis that applies to them.

It also comes with no Eurozone requirement, no Schengen requirement, significantly reduced contributions (even from our rebated level), no ever-closer union, etc.
There are negatives, but not those.

MarqueeMark said:

Turn Hastings From Amber To Red!

It should be a Red-Amber-Green three-way marginal.

williamglenn said:

kyf_100 said:

williamglenn said:

If we have a second referendum with a choice between ratifying the withdrawal agreement and revoking notification, "respect" won't come into it. The action will follow automatically from the referendum. If we revoke and there's subsequently a renewed desire to leave the EU, so be it. That's democracy.

The action should follow automatically from the first referendum. We leave with a deal, or we leave without.

That is what was voted for. That's democracy.

Nobody can claim they voted for no deal even if they would be happy with that outcome themselves. This is what Vote Leave proposed:

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html

"We have a new UK-EU Treaty based on free trade and friendly cooperation. There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it."

There were two options on the ballot paper.

Remain a member of the European Union.

Leave the European Union.

Leave won.

dr_spyn said:

https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1085976286529490944

A Citizen's Assembly, what sort of nonsense is Gordon Brown proposing. Sounds wonderful but cannot over ride primacy of Parliament.

A 12 month extension would mean we'd have to re-elect MEPs - totally insane.

Not to mention the fact that it would increase our net contribution in the period given that our total time to exit would be 1 year plus two years in transition.

williamglenn said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

We know that and we know that the electorate overwhelmingly supported political parties committed to implement that 2016 result in the 2017 election. You just want asking the question until you get the answer that suits you because you can’t reconcile yourself to the fact that democracy doesn’t always give the answer you want.

Theresa May called that election saying: "In recent weeks Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the SNP say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union, and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government's majority is so small, that our resolve will weaken and they can force us to change course. They are wrong.”

A vote for Labour in 2017 was not an endorsement of Brexit.

"The issues that affect our continent now will continue to do so in the future – and Labour will continue to work constructively with the EU and other European nations on issues such as climate change, refugee crises and counter-terrorism. We will build a close co-operative future relationship with the EU, not as members but as partners." - Labour Party manifesto for GE 2017, p.24

The Labour manifesto said that Brexit would be delivered. Was this a unicorn Brexit? Possibly. Was it BINO? Certainly. But was it staying in the EU? No.

Whatever else may be disputed, the statement "...we know that the electorate overwhelmingly supported political parties committed to implement that 2016 result in the 2017 election," and the contents of the Labour and Conservative Party manifestos, are factually consistent with one another.

FWIW, I maintain that if, having given such reassurances, most MPs from pro-Brexit parties now believe that they have behaved really, really stupidly, and that the consequences of any form of Brexit are too disastrous to contemplate, then they have a duty to revoke A50 - not to throw the decision back to the electorate. Then there should be a dissolution, and all the MPs who stood on pro-Brexit manifestos and then changed their minds (i.e. the bulk of them) can be held accountable for their self-confessed total lack of judgement at a General Election.

https://twitter.com/MattCartoonist/status/1085981177129897984

Cyclefree said:

SouthamObserver said:

This captures the malign stupidity of our ruling class rather well, I think:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/sunday/brexit-ireland-empire.html

Snap! Already posted - and already being criticised by the usual suspects on here!

Ah, if people disagree with you its them being the usual suspects, implicitly doing so in reactionary fashion and thus easily dismissable. How could one disagree with you about its excellence without merely being 'the usual suspects'?

I've not read it so I don't agree or disagree with it, and it'd be good to know how I might be permitted to disagree before I even attempt it.

kyf_100 said:

williamglenn said:

kyf_100 said:

williamglenn said:

If we have a second referendum with a choice between ratifying the withdrawal agreement and revoking notification, "respect" won't come into it. The action will follow automatically from the referendum. If we revoke and there's subsequently a renewed desire to leave the EU, so be it. That's democracy.

The action should follow automatically from the first referendum. We leave with a deal, or we leave without.

That is what was voted for. That's democracy.

Nobody can claim they voted for no deal even if they would be happy with that outcome themselves. This is what Vote Leave proposed:

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html

"We have a new UK-EU Treaty based on free trade and friendly cooperation. There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it."

There were two options on the ballot paper.

Remain a member of the European Union.

Leave the European Union.

Leave won.

Leave won a vote but mistook that for winning the argument when the argument was only beginning.

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1085886962311999488

dr_spyn said:

https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1085976286529490944

A Citizen's Assembly, what sort of nonsense is Gordon Brown proposing. Sounds wonderful but cannot over ride primacy of Parliament.

A Citizen's Assembly is even more bonkers than any of the other muted ways forward. What makes anybody think that some randoms of the street with have any more of an idea than MPs?

And of course the cynical side of me says it is just a way of stuffing the process with people who agree with your side of the argument.

blueblue said:

Excellent news for once - the public is finally seeing through Magic Grandpa, and Vince Cable has made an intervention that has real political significance. Now Corbyn has to either stick to his position (in which case he can never get an early election) or do a 180 to campaign for a second referendum and Remain (in which case he can never win one, as his Old Labour base stays home).

Given this, why not call a GE? Now that the public is seeing through Corbyn, we can be confident he’ll be destroyed, surely....

As for Corbyn’s Brexit position I think he’ll find various ways to keep being ambiguous on the issue. He’s gone with this no deal line knowing that not only will many of the moderates will back it, but that May will never rule out no deal. In order to do that, May would have to commit to revoking article 50 if it came down to it, and she won’t do that knowing that her coalition of voters will not be happy with this at all.


On VC - Stephen Bush has an interesting peace on that today: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/01/how-liberal-democrats-coalition-past-endangers-their-anti-brexit-future

FrancisUrquhart said:

dr_spyn said:

https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1085976286529490944

A Citizen's Assembly, what sort of nonsense is Gordon Brown proposing. Sounds wonderful but cannot over ride primacy of Parliament.

A Citizen's Assembly is even more bonkers than any of the other muted ways forward. What makes anybody think that some randoms of the street with have any more of an idea than MPs?

And of course the cynical side of me says it is just a way of stuffing the process with people who agree with your side of the argument.

I guess the argument is that our MPs are too preoccupied with personal career and party political advantage to be able to address the issues dispassionately.

Sean_F said:

OldKingCole said:

Sean_F said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Just listened to classic fm 4.00pm news that confirmed meetings were continuing with leaders and mps. Tom Brake confirmed he had had a meeting and had said that no deal has to come off the table and a referendum considered. He said further meetings will take place

Then Corbyn banning all his mps from the meetings was confirmed and it was immediately followed by confirmation that Benn and Cooper had been at a meeting, breaking his embargo

Any one listening could only come go the conclusion that Corbyn does not know what he is doing and is scoring an own goal

I hear everyone saying nothing has changed with these meetings but it is a process and until a path through has a common denominator and the amendments on the 29th have been voted on TM is unlikely to pivot away from her position

I do expect no deal will be taken out of the equation at sometime in the next few weeks

I thought it was significant that JRM has said the ERG will support the government in any vonc even if there are problems with their form of brexit

The only way to take No Deal out of the equation is to Extend or Revoke A50. So effectively to cancel the result of the referendum. Under those circumstances I don't see JRM or any other committed leaver continuing to support May.

In order to do that. she to break completely with her party, taking a few dozen of her MPs into a Coalition with the other parties.

Odds on that, maybe 1000-1

No, more than that. She's made it clear that for her it's Party first, country second. She bangs on about her 'precious union' but it's evident that for her it's party first.

Politics is the art of the possible. Everyone dreams of an opposing party leader who will tell their supporters where to go, ignoring the fact that those supporters would promptly tell that leader where to go.

Well, moderates on both sides dream of that instead of asking why they are out of fashion on both the right and the left.

TudorRose said:

dr_spyn said:

https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1085976286529490944

A Citizen's Assembly, what sort of nonsense is Gordon Brown proposing. Sounds wonderful but cannot over ride primacy of Parliament.

Isn't the House of Commons a 'citizen's assembly'? Or is he really suggesting we need more (presumably) paid politicians?

Good question. Is it just another Parliament of Saints? Problem with giving a political question over to non politicians is it turns them into politicians, so what's the point?

Benpointer said:

grabcocque said:

Omnium said:

In realistic terms you're right. It suits them too. Post Brexit an offer of a good cigar and a meal will have them dropping Irish interests on a whim though.

Whilst NI and Ireland continue to be different countries the guarantee of no hard border cannot be a guarantee. It's just a stupid clause in an agreement that all sides really like as its stopped a lot of far more stupid stuff.

As Marting Selmayr has made clear several times, if the UK leaves, the EU will have its pound of flesh. And that will be Northern Ireland.

They'll probably end up with Scotland and maybe, in time, Wales too, tbf.

Wales voted leave.

Andy_Cooke said:

Cyclefree said:

We could have the WA tomorrow, apart from the very minor fact that Parliament voted against it by a majority of 230.

Grieve is right about a Norway-type deal. There is very little point leaving the EU, then following all the rules of the EU without any input into them. You have all the downsides of being in the EU without any of the upsides. The closer the relationship the less control you have. The less close the relationship the more theoretical control you have but also much more friction and cost and loss of trade.

Brexiteers refuse to come to terms with this and refuse to be honest with voters about this, preferring to blame the EU for not giving Britain everything it wants.

I would be pedantic and point out that:
- Norway-type deal only follows a small fraction of the rules of the EU, rather than "all" of them (no CAP, no CFP, no justice rules, no foreign policy rules, no defence pillar, etc, etc)
- Norway and others do, in fact, have an input into the fraction of the acquis that applies to them.

It also comes with no Eurozone requirement, no Schengen requirement, significantly reduced contributions (even from our rebated level), no ever-closer union, etc.
There are negatives, but not those.

Norway (as opposed to the more restrictive Norway plus) was always an underappreciated option but it is disliked by both ERG types and the Corbyn faction who want to leave the single market so they can pursue their nationalisation agenda.

IanB2 said:

From the Green Party report back it sounds like May is still resisting any compromise to her plan, except showing a little bit of interest in a citizens assembly.

So no compromise except on the silliest suggestion yet. What a leader.

May clearly has to compromise. But most peoples' demands seems to be that she must do exactly as they want without compromise on their side, so this does all feel like a waste of time.

Not too keen on the citizens assembly idea, but I think it’s either no deal or revoking article 50 and then potentially a second ref. We can’t have second ref campaign between now and March with article 50 not revoked. And if Remainers chose people like Tony Blair to front the campaign, don’t be surprised when Leave wins again.

kle4 said:

TudorRose said:

dr_spyn said:

https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1085976286529490944

A Citizen's Assembly, what sort of nonsense is Gordon Brown proposing. Sounds wonderful but cannot over ride primacy of Parliament.

Isn't the House of Commons a 'citizen's assembly'? Or is he really suggesting we need more (presumably) paid politicians?

Good question. Is it just another Parliament of Saints? Problem with giving a political question over to non politicians is it turns them into politicians, so what's the point?

No, because they don't have members, and party executives, and career prospects, and elections to worry about

Chris said:

I see Betfair's implied probability of leaving on schedule has moved back up from about 15% earlier to more than 20% now.

Has anything happened to justify that?

Cold, hard realisation that No Deal Brexit is unstoppable?

blueblue said:

The_Apocalypse said:

blueblue said:

Excellent news for once - the public is finally seeing through Magic Grandpa, and Vince Cable has made an intervention that has real political significance. Now Corbyn has to either stick to his position (in which case he can never get an early election) or do a 180 to campaign for a second referendum and Remain (in which case he can never win one, as his Old Labour base stays home).

Given this, why not call a GE? Now that the public is seeing through Corbyn, we can be confident he’ll be destroyed, surely....

As for Corbyn’s Brexit position I think he’ll find various ways to keep being ambiguous on the issue. He’s gone with this no deal line knowing that not only will many of the moderates will back it, but that May will never rule out no deal. In order to do that, May would have to commit to revoking article 50 if it came down to it, and she won’t do that knowing that her coalition of voters will not be happy with this at all.


On VC - Stephen Bush has an interesting peace on that today: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/01/how-liberal-democrats-coalition-past-endangers-their-anti-brexit-future

Why not call a GE? Because an electorate that could breezily cripple the country by first voting for Brexit and then depriving the party enacting it of a working majority needs a long spell away from the voting booth, that's why!

So you believe the public are seeing through Corbyn but aren’t willingly to test that theory by having a GE?

Gardenwalker said:

Brexit is now globalish for massive, self-inflicted fuckstorm.

https://twitter.com/matthaig1/status/1085795949727883265?s=21

We still are spared fucking ukelele muzak in every public space though....