politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Desperate times. A new way out of the Brexit impasse

SystemSystem Posts: 12,551
edited January 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Desperate times. A new way out of the Brexit impasse

8/ So the Government can't pass its deal

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,575
    Wibbly wobbly timey wimey as the Tenth Doctor put it.

    Alastair points out Julius Caesar has a month named after him, that loser Hannibal doesn't.

    Further proof that Caesar is magic, Hannibal is tragic.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,575
    Was that an e pluribus unum?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,159
    Why not just cancel the last two and half years?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,046
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Was that an e pluribus unum?

    I demand a judge led inquiry.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,046
    With regard to that tweet, how can an immovable object meet a brick wall? By definition it can't meet anything.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,020
    In the words of Boy George, “Time won’t give me time.”
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 4,250
    "by those who have advocated that the vote should be removed from the over 75s"

    Reminds me of something that came to mind yesterday, when I went to Choral Evensong at New College, Oxford.

    There were nine-year olds singing Howells' fiendishly difficult Westminster Service. Flawlessly. Just after they'd sung the Matthew Martin responses and just before they sang an intricate bit of 15th century French polyphony. Today they'll sing an entirely different set of music, no doubt just as flawlessly. And so on every day of term.

    I'll remember that next time some mouth-breather of a backbench Tory MP, perhaps one of the intellect of Andrew Bridgen or Nadine Dorries, argues fervently that 16-year olds don't have the smarts to be allowed a vote in the second referendum.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,667
    Err.. you wot?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    edited January 2019
    Surely simpler and more pragmatic to have February move to 31 days and March go to 28 days.

    A simple solution for a better Britain.

    (Back to filling the bath with Jam)
  • PendduPenddu Posts: 265
    ydoethur said:

    With regard to that tweet, how can an immovable object meet a brick wall? By definition it can't meet anything.

    It could if the brick wall was moving......lateral thinking needed!
  • ChrisChris Posts: 12,032
    I love the idea of months being renamed after Internet corporations.

    "Remember, remember the nineteenth of Facebook ..."
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    Chris said:

    I love the idea of months being renamed after Internet corporations.

    "Remember, remember the nineteenth of Facebook ..."

    Like vanity number plates the government could make money from the foolish. Sponsorship would be simpler.

    September was brought to you by Coca Cola.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,403
    edited January 2019
    I do love Mr Meeks' allusions to Back to the Future. I may not entirely agree with the metaphor but I can't deny it is too good not to use.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,110
    Time for a lie down in a darkened room Mr Meeks...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,302
    "The overwhelming majority of the House of Commons is unwilling to countenance no deal"

    Well clearly they are - or they wouldn't have fucked up by voting for 29th March to be exactly that - countenancing no deal as the default. And if they did realise afterwards that they had dropped a bollock, they could have remedied that by voting for May's Deal and pulling No Deal's life support.

    As they have done neither, they are clearly willing to countenance No Deal. Just not have the balls to admit they are doing it and why - for party political advantage.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    I do love Mr Meeks' allusions to Back to the Future. I may not entirely agree with the metaphor but I can't deny it is too good not to use.

    1955 more progressive for you hardened Brexiteer. Things went wrong after VE Day for that lot.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    Jonathan said:

    Chris said:

    I love the idea of months being renamed after Internet corporations.

    "Remember, remember the nineteenth of Facebook ..."

    Like vanity number plates the government could make money from the foolish. Sponsorship would be simpler.

    September was brought to you by Coca Cola.
    In this, the Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,110
    Oh, and this railway line that heads over the edge of a cliff - is it one that me and Sunil have yellow-penned or not?
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 5,108
    I'll repeat my suggestion from yesterday:
    Extend the transition period until end-2022.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,862
    ydoethur said:

    With regard to that tweet, how can an immovable object meet a brick wall? By definition it can't meet anything.

    Emblematic of the Brexit process that someone should make the effort to throw an entire brick wall at an immovable object...

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    FPT
    HYUFD said:

    Philip_Thompson said:


    No you are categorically wrong. When was the last time the Queen got involved in a conflict between the PM and Parliament?

    If there is a dispute then Parliament has a way to resolve it without the Queen getting involved.

    No I am absolutely right.


    There has never been a conflict in recent times between the PM and Parliament such that Parliament has consistently voted down what the PM intends as most PMs have had a majority in Parliament and have never refused to bow to the will of Parliament.


    If Parliament voted one way and the PM refused to implement it and in the unlikely event of the PM not then losing a VONC or resigning then the Queen would replace her chief minister with another one who could command the confidence of Parliament, as often happened in the 18th and early 19th centuries
    This is nonsense! If Parliament votes it has Confidence in the PM then the Monach is simply not going to force out a PM that Parliament has voted it has Confidence in. What you are suggesting is not that the Queen backs Parliament but instead that she contradicts and overrides Parliament despite Parliament voting it has Confidence in the PM.

    In the 18th and early 19th centuries the constitution was less formalised than it is now and confidence motions were completely different than they are now.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,862
    SandyRentool said:

    Oh, and this railway line that heads over the edge of a cliff - is it one that me and Sunil have yellow-penned or not?

    As a completist, Sunil could only take it after he had exhausted every other possibility.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 4,023
    I'll repeat my comment from October 2018:

    "I'm going to start really worrying about the Brexit can kicking when Philip Hammond announces during the Budget about the three new months being slotted in between January and March for "tax reasons".
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,848
    SandyRentool said:

    Oh, and this railway line that heads over the edge of a cliff - is it one that me and Sunil have yellow-penned or not?

    Railway aficionados will know that our railways still work on a 13 period calendar. Unfortunately it comes to an end on 31 March, so it’s not much help.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,046
    tlg86 said:

    SandyRentool said:

    Oh, and this railway line that heads over the edge of a cliff - is it one that me and Sunil have yellow-penned or not?

    Railway aficionados will know that our railways still work
    Your comment suddenly lost credibility with that word...
  • dotsdots Posts: 615
    Is it me or is the thread header utterly bizarre?

    I thought I’d clicked on the wrong site 😧
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,122
    No_Offence_Alan said:

    I'll repeat my suggestion from yesterday:
    Extend the transition period until end-2022.

    I suspect that if we do the Government will do the square root of damn all until about Christmas Eve 2022.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 12,032
    Stereotomy said:

    Jonathan said:

    Chris said:

    I love the idea of months being renamed after Internet corporations.

    "Remember, remember the nineteenth of Facebook ..."

    Like vanity number plates the government could make money from the foolish. Sponsorship would be simpler.

    September was brought to you by Coca Cola.
    In this, the Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment
    "When is your birthday?"

    "It's the fifth of Mature Dating Online."
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,848
    ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    SandyRentool said:

    Oh, and this railway line that heads over the edge of a cliff - is it one that me and Sunil have yellow-penned or not?

    Railway aficionados will know that our railways still work
    Your comment suddenly lost credibility with that word...
    Ho ho ho.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,035
    Well it’s good to see someone is thinking outside the box!

    Great thread Alastair, a little levity for a Sunday evening.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,035
    Chris said:

    Stereotomy said:

    Jonathan said:

    Chris said:

    I love the idea of months being renamed after Internet corporations.

    "Remember, remember the nineteenth of Facebook ..."

    Like vanity number plates the government could make money from the foolish. Sponsorship would be simpler.

    September was brought to you by Coca Cola.
    In this, the Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment
    "When is your birthday?"

    "It's the fifth of Mature Dating Online."
    Mine would be the seventeenth of Betfair Exchange.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,046
    Sandpit said:

    Well it’s good to see someone is thinking outside the box!

    Great thread Alastair, a little levity for a Sunday evening.

    I don't know that Alistair mooning, er, suggesting we switch to a lunar calendar has helped matters.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,403
    FAO Viewcode

    just following on from what Casino Royal said at the end of the last thread. You have been unfailingly reasonable and decent throughout the debates of the last few weeks. You certainly have nothing to apologise for.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 12,032
    Seriously though, perhaps it would be easier to invent a time machine before Brexit date than to resolve the political issues.

    If I remember correctly, Andrea Leadsom has a Ph.D. in Quantum Physics and Temporal Engineering, so perhaps it could be done in-house.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,046
    Chris said:

    Seriously though, perhaps it would be easier to invent a time machine before Brexit date than to resolve the political issues.

    If I remember correctly, Andrea Leadsom has a Ph.D. in Quantum Physics and Temporal Engineering, so perhaps it could be done in-house.

    I thought that was Paul Nuttall? He used it to be in two places at once over Hillsborough...
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    Could we not unilaterally move the clocks forward two days early on 29 March - to give us an extra hour to sort things out? We would then leave at the same time as Brussels?

    Is it 11pm GMT or 11pm UK time?

    Every hour helps surely?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,035
    brendan16 said:

    Could we not unilaterally move the clocks forward two days early on 29 March - to give us an extra hour to sort things out? We would then leave at the same time as Brussels?

    Is it 11pm GMT or 11pm UK time?

    Every hour helps surely?

    The Treaties cease to apply at midnight, Brussels time.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,703
    edited January 2019
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Mr. Eagles, Barcelona is named after Hannibal's family, which conquered Spain for Carthage. Is there a comparable city for Caesar?

    Edited extra bit: I'm aware, of course,of Caesarea Philippi[sp] from the Bible, but I'm thinking of large, successful, modern cities.

    Hmm. I wonder how Alexandria's doing.

    Thessalonica was named after Cassander's wife, and might be the most successful Macedonian-named city, after Alexandria.
  • A_B_EagletonA_B_Eagleton Posts: 2
    People voted Brexit so MPs should have a free vote on the form of Brexit as follows. Each MP gets a 1st and 2nd preference with the 2nd preference counting in full force if the 1st has been eliminated. The options are simply:

    1) May's Deal
    2) No Deal
    3) Renegotiate softer Brexit
    4) Renegotiate harder Brexit

    This seems a good starting point. Then there could be a second vote using the same format to select from up to 4 versions of the preferred option. Democratic and effective.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 45,973
    edited January 2019
    Good header!

    And I like the idea of re-engineering time itself very much. Difficult? Sure, but easier to do than Brexit.

    One massive benefit that I can see immediately. Next time Michel Barnier tries to bully us with that sadistic 'the clock is ticking ... tick tock ... tick tock ..." routine of his, we just smirk and thumb our nose and go, "Oh no it isn't, pal, cos we Brits have just invented a new one that hardly moves. So frog off."
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,302
    A_B_Eagleton said:

    People voted Brexit so MPs should have a free vote on the form of Brexit as follows. Each MP gets a 1st and 2nd preference with the 2nd preference counting in full force if the 1st has been eliminated. The options are simply:

    1) May's Deal
    2) No Deal
    3) Renegotiate softer Brexit
    4) Renegotiate harder Brexit

    This seems a good starting point. Then there could be a second vote using the same format to select from up to 4 versions of the preferred option. Democratic and effective.

    So 3 and 4 win. EU says "Sod off...."

    Progress? Not so much...
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,555
    If we adopt the Meeks calendar this will mean that we have to recalculate the tax year.

    Currently the tax year ends on the 5 April. By taking 6 days away from January and March this would move the end of the tax year to 11 April (Thursday).

    But a better idea would be to fix Easter Sunday on 14 April, and start the tax year on the same day.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,705
    Alternatively our useless prats of politicians could just get on with it.

    Thanks for the laugh though, Alastair.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,703
    Mr. Verulamius, fix the date of Easter?!

    Blasphemy!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,705
    ydoethur said:

    With regard to that tweet, how can an immovable object meet a brick wall? By definition it can't meet anything.

    Not so. Just because we can’t move it doesn’t mean it is not moving.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 5,108
    OldKingCole said:

    No_Offence_Alan said:

    I'll repeat my suggestion from yesterday:
    Extend the transition period until end-2022.

    I suspect that if we do the Government will do the square root of damn all until about Christmas Eve 2022.
    Well the whole point is we get a new government, of some description, before then.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,705
    Actually I am a bit concerned about this header. Abolishing 29th March sounds just like the sort of thing Grieve might try next.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,302
    edited January 2019
    Pink Floyd - The Brexit Song

    Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day
    You fritter and waste the hours in an offhand way
    Kicking around on a piece of ground in your home town
    Waiting for someone or something to show you the way

    Tired of lying in the sunshine
    Staying home to watch the rain
    You are young and life is long
    And there is time to kill today
    And then one day you find
    Ten Two years have got behind you
    No one told you when to run
    You missed the starting gun

    And you run and you run to catch up with the sun, but it's sinking
    Racing around to come up behind you again
    The sun is the same in a relative way but you're older
    Shorter of breath

    and one day closer to death
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,705
    A_B_Eagleton said:

    People voted Brexit so MPs should have a free vote on the form of Brexit as follows. Each MP gets a 1st and 2nd preference with the 2nd preference counting in full force if the 1st has been eliminated. The options are simply:

    1) May's Deal
    2) No Deal
    3) Renegotiate softer Brexit
    4) Renegotiate harder Brexit

    This seems a good starting point. Then there could be a second vote using the same format to select from up to 4 versions of the preferred option. Democratic and effective.

    The options of negotiating both a harder and a softer Brexit are both open once the WA is approved.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,302
    DavidL said:

    Actually I am a bit concerned about this header. Abolishing 29th March sounds just like the sort of thing Grieve might try next.

    Can't we all agree to abolish Grieve instead?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,705
    Anyway after that slightly manic burst I am rejoining the surprisingly snowless A9 and going on to Inverness. Laters.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,302
    edited January 2019
    DavidL said:

    Anyway after that slightly manic burst I am rejoining the surprisingly snowless A9 and going on to Inverness. Laters.

    I remember going south on the A9 in a blizzard. Huge flakes, and it was for all the world like driving in the Millenium Falcon when it jumps to hyper-space....
  • dellertronicdellertronic Posts: 133
    What this country needs is to remove the house of commons in it's entirety and replace it with people that actually have the competency to do the job. These MP's and parties called a referendum on a false prospectus. There was never any intention of delivering on a leave outcome before, during or after the vote. Every Con & Lab MP elected in 2017 was elected on the lie of respecting the referendum vote. They had no intention of doing so. These lies have now totally caught up with the political class. Ironically the only people to have to0ld the truth were the EU. Their stated aim was to ensure that there was no route to leaving the EU. That meant there could never under any circumstances be any deal. The so called professional politicians have proved themselves anything but. With their constant lies they have lost our confidence, they have lost our trust and they have lost all moral authority to continue in office. They collectively are the problem and their removal is the start of the solution. Life bans form office for all current MP's, Bans from the next election for all current Westminster parties and their members and new elections without them are the start of the answer.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,705
    MarqueeMark said:

    DavidL said:

    Anyway after that slightly manic burst I am rejoining the surprisingly snowless A9 and going on to Inverness. Laters.

    I remember going south on the A9 in a blizzard. Huge flakes, and it was for all the world like driving in the Millenium Falcon when it jumps to hyper-space....
    Today (thankfully) is not that day.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    MarqueeMark said:

    DavidL said:

    Actually I am a bit concerned about this header. Abolishing 29th March sounds just like the sort of thing Grieve might try next.

    Can't we all agree to abolish Grieve instead?
    Why would you want to abolish one of the few sensible people in the Conservative Party?
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,711
    A very interesting suggestion, Alastair, but is there not the small difficulty that the EU would probably not adopt our innovative calendar quickly enough? We would end up believing we are still In whilst the EU believes we are Out.

    Good evening, everyone.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,122
    No_Offence_Alan said:

    OldKingCole said:

    No_Offence_Alan said:

    I'll repeat my suggestion from yesterday:
    Extend the transition period until end-2022.

    I suspect that if we do the Government will do the square root of damn all until about Christmas Eve 2022.
    Well the whole point is we get a new government, of some description, before then.
    Ah yes, we must have an election by the end of June 2022. Of course. Silly me.

    So this Government will do the square root of damn all about Brexit until about Spring Bank Holiday 2022!
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,079
    PClipp said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    DavidL said:

    Actually I am a bit concerned about this header. Abolishing 29th March sounds just like the sort of thing Grieve might try next.

    Can't we all agree to abolish Grieve instead?
    Why would you want to abolish one of the few sensible people in the Conservative Party?
    OK, so we're looking at impossible solutions to an impossible problem.
    Right, it's easy then. All Labour, SNP, LibDem, PC and Green MPs with the exception of Corbyn and a few acolytes defect to the Tory Party and force May to do something sensible then resign.
    The following Tory leadership election should be fun.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,936
    PClipp said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    DavidL said:

    Actually I am a bit concerned about this header. Abolishing 29th March sounds just like the sort of thing Grieve might try next.

    Can't we all agree to abolish Grieve instead?
    Why would you want to abolish one of the few sensible people in the Conservative Party?
    That is because you want to remain and unlike many, he has the position and knowledge, in collusion with the speaker, to help you on the way you want to go

    He certainly has more intellect than the whole of ERG put together
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,046
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    PClipp said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    DavidL said:

    Actually I am a bit concerned about this header. Abolishing 29th March sounds just like the sort of thing Grieve might try next.

    Can't we all agree to abolish Grieve instead?
    Why would you want to abolish one of the few sensible people in the Conservative Party?
    That is because you want to remain and unlike many, he has the position and knowledge, in collusion with the speaker, to help you on the way you want to go

    He certainly has more intellect than the whole of ERG put together
    That's not too hard though, is it Big_G? It would be like saying somebody has more integrity than the whole of the Shadow Cabinet added together.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,936
    ydoethur said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    PClipp said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    DavidL said:

    Actually I am a bit concerned about this header. Abolishing 29th March sounds just like the sort of thing Grieve might try next.

    Can't we all agree to abolish Grieve instead?
    Why would you want to abolish one of the few sensible people in the Conservative Party?
    That is because you want to remain and unlike many, he has the position and knowledge, in collusion with the speaker, to help you on the way you want to go

    He certainly has more intellect than the whole of ERG put together
    That's not too hard though, is it Big_G? It would be like saying somebody has more integrity than the whole of the Shadow Cabinet added together.
    So true
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,976
    edited January 2019
    The overwhelming majority of the House of Commons is unwilling to countenance no deal, but there is nothing approaching a majority on what they would in practice countenance

    Nor do they show much sign of urgency in determining what they would in practice countenance.

    This bit was cutting though

    Now it might be argued, perhaps by those who have advocated that Britain should go into union with Australia Canada and New Zealand or by those who have advocated that the vote should be removed from the over 75s, that this idea is far too eccentric to be worthy of further attention
    PClipp said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    DavidL said:

    Actually I am a bit concerned about this header. Abolishing 29th March sounds just like the sort of thing Grieve might try next.

    Can't we all agree to abolish Grieve instead?
    Why would you want to abolish one of the few sensible people in the Conservative Party?
    He's not sensible. Remaining might well be sensible after all this mess, but he is indulging in arcane trick after procedural wrangling - very clever wrangling too - to pursue his fanatical agenda with absolutely no thought as to wider consequences. If remaining is the sensible course now there are very simple ways to do it, in the first instance he could have tried to bring down the government, but instead he is indulging in procedural theatrics with potentially far reaching consequences, and the very fact he might insist they are only for now only emphasises that he is not thinking about anything other than his short term goals.

    Grieve is intelligent and effective in pursuit of what many would regard as a noble goal. But that is not the same as him being sensible, and fanatical pursuit at all costs even of a noble goal is not sensible. He should not be able to get away with pretending that because he is erudite that he is any better than his ultra opposites on the other side, willing to risk everything if he does not get exactly what he wants, unwilling to accept anything less than perfection. He's no better than a no leave ultra (but he is more effective). He has a closed mind on anything except his ideals.

    The leave ultras also believe it is essential for this country that they get exactly what they want and to hell with anyone who thinks otherwise. That childish attitude is displayed by Grieve as well. Ah, but because he's right that makes his acting like a child ok.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,936
    kle4 said:

    The overwhelming majority of the House of Commons is unwilling to countenance no deal, but there is nothing approaching a majority on what they would in practice countenance

    Nor do they show much sign of urgency in determining what they would in practice countenance.

    This bit was cutting though

    Now it might be argued, perhaps by those who have advocated that Britain should go into union with Australia Canada and New Zealand or by those who have advocated that the vote should be removed from the over 75s, that this idea is far too eccentric to be worthy of further attention

    PClipp said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    DavidL said:

    Actually I am a bit concerned about this header. Abolishing 29th March sounds just like the sort of thing Grieve might try next.

    Can't we all agree to abolish Grieve instead?
    Why would you want to abolish one of the few sensible people in the Conservative Party?
    He's not sensible. Remaining might well be sensible after all this mess, but he is indulging in arcane trick after procedural wrangling - very clever wrangling too - to pursue his fanatical agenda with absolutely no thought as to wider consequences. If remaining is the sensible course now there are very simple ways to do it, in the first instance he could have tried to bring down the government, but instead he is indulging in procedural theatrics with potentially far reaching consequences, and the very fact he might insist they are only for now only emphasises that he is not thinking about anything other than his short term goals.

    Grieve is intelligent and effective in pursuit of what many would regard as a noble goal. But that is not the same as him being sensible, and fanatical pursuit at all costs even of a noble goal is not sensible. He should not be able to get away with pretending that because he is erudite that he is any better than his ultra opposites on the other side, willing to risk everything if he does not get exactly what he wants, unwilling to accept anything less than perfection. He's no better than a no leave ultra.

    The leave ultras also believe it is essential for this country that they get exactly what they want and to hell with anyone who thinks otherwise. That childish attitude is displayed by Grieve as well. Ah, but because he's right that makes his acting like a child ok.

    Very good post and nails it in one
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,817
    DavidL said:

    A_B_Eagleton said:

    People voted Brexit so MPs should have a free vote on the form of Brexit as follows. Each MP gets a 1st and 2nd preference with the 2nd preference counting in full force if the 1st has been eliminated. The options are simply:

    1) May's Deal
    2) No Deal
    3) Renegotiate softer Brexit
    4) Renegotiate harder Brexit

    This seems a good starting point. Then there could be a second vote using the same format to select from up to 4 versions of the preferred option. Democratic and effective.

    The options of negotiating both a harder and a softer Brexit are both open once the WA is approved.

    Agree. Given the degree of crisis we are in this simple truth is being woefully underestimated.
    We need some big time courageous Labour abstentions next time around.

  • dotsdots Posts: 615
    If Mike Ashley isn’t careful he will begin to look like a carpet bagger 🤭
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 5,108
    DavidL said:

    A_B_Eagleton said:

    People voted Brexit so MPs should have a free vote on the form of Brexit as follows. Each MP gets a 1st and 2nd preference with the 2nd preference counting in full force if the 1st has been eliminated. The options are simply:

    1) May's Deal
    2) No Deal
    3) Renegotiate softer Brexit
    4) Renegotiate harder Brexit

    This seems a good starting point. Then there could be a second vote using the same format to select from up to 4 versions of the preferred option. Democratic and effective.

    The options of negotiating both a harder and a softer Brexit are both open once the WA is approved.
    But at present only by the current government, hence my suggestion to extend the transition period.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    We don't need more time.

    Parliament has voted to leave on March 29th.

    Parliament having rejected May's deal, has voted for WTO deal by default.

    The Government should now focus on negotiating side deals around a WTO deal.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 45,973
    DavidL said:

    The options of negotiating both a harder and a softer Brexit are both open once the WA is approved.

    This is true. But to be fair the backstop steers to a softer one.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,976
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    dots said:


    Richard, what is your view of what Edmund Burke left us with:
    Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

    I have commented on what Burke said often before. He was of course right but his was only half of the equation. The other half was that when he followed his maxim, he was then unceremoniously dumped by his constituents in Bristol at the next opportunity. If an MP is to decide they known better than their constituents then they have to be prepared to suffer the consequences.

    Moreover what we have far too much today is MPs acting as the representatives of their parties or of their own interests rather than of their electorate.

    In fact this whole episode has been quite refreshing for the number of MPs (on both sides of the debate) who have stood by their consciences rather than by their party.
    In a sense yes, although frankly I think too many are still thinking primarily about party. And in fact plenty more could stand by their consciences and honestly argue for remain rather than 'revocations' and delays. More no dealers are on record about what they want, although I'd put both May and Corbyn as at this point aiming for it but not being honest about it.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    PClipp said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    DavidL said:

    Actually I am a bit concerned about this header. Abolishing 29th March sounds just like the sort of thing Grieve might try next.

    Can't we all agree to abolish Grieve instead?
    Why would you want to abolish one of the few sensible people in the Conservative Party?
    That is because you want to remain and unlike many, he has the position and knowledge, in collusion with the speaker, to help you on the way you want to go

    He certainly has more intellect than the whole of ERG put together
    Sometimes you can be too clever for your own good and Grieve is in danger of falling into that category.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,733
    The Ethiopian calendar has 13 months. I do wonder whether Mr Meeks just looks up an obscure word, then sets himself a task to fit it into a thread header.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    The bath is full of jam, but Brexit not sorted. Damn it.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,905
    Chris said:

    Seriously though, perhaps it would be easier to invent a time machine before Brexit date than to resolve the political issues.

    If I remember correctly, Andrea Leadsom has a Ph.D. in Quantum Physics and Temporal Engineering, so perhaps it could be done in-house.

    If Leadsom had a time machine she could go back and forget to mention her children.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,703
    Mr. Jonathan, don't worry.

    When despair is at its peak, then the enormo-haddock will strike!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,424
    David_Evershed said:

    We don't need more time.

    Parliament has voted to leave on March 29th.

    Parliament having rejected May's deal, has voted for WTO deal by default.

    The Government should now focus on negotiating side deals around a WTO deal.

    By the end of this week it is possible indeed likely Parliament will already have voted for Grieve's amendment to extend Article 50 beyond March 29th and for Boles and Cooper's amendments to prevent No Deal
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    dellertronic said:

    What this country needs is to remove the house of commons in it's entirety and replace it with people that actually have the competency to do the job. These MP's and parties called a referendum on a false prospectus. There was never any intention of delivering on a leave outcome before, during or after the vote. Every Con & Lab MP elected in 2017 was elected on the lie of respecting the referendum vote. They had no intention of doing so. These lies have now totally caught up with the political class. Ironically the only people to have to0ld the truth were the EU. Their stated aim was to ensure that there was no route to leaving the EU. That meant there could never under any circumstances be any deal. The so called professional politicians have proved themselves anything but. With their constant lies they have lost our confidence, they have lost our trust and they have lost all moral authority to continue in office. They collectively are the problem and their removal is the start of the solution. Life bans form office for all current MP's, Bans from the next election for all current Westminster parties and their members and new elections without them are the start of the answer.

    Parliament survived MP expenses - It will survive not implementing Brexit. People don't generally like politicians anyway, the ones they vote for are normally deemed to be less bad than the other option. The referendum was only advisory and Boris Johnson before the referendum claimed a vote to Leave could still mean remaining in the EU if a better deal than the status quo could not be obtained:

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/social-affairs/politics/news/68437/boris-johnson-vote-leave-get-better-eu-deal-britain
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,905
    kle4 said:

    The overwhelming majority of the House of Commons is unwilling to countenance no deal, but there is nothing approaching a majority on what they would in practice countenance

    Nor do they show much sign of urgency in determining what they would in practice countenance.

    This bit was cutting though

    Now it might be argued, perhaps by those who have advocated that Britain should go into union with Australia Canada and New Zealand or by those who have advocated that the vote should be removed from the over 75s, that this idea is far too eccentric to be worthy of further attention

    PClipp said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    DavidL said:

    Actually I am a bit concerned about this header. Abolishing 29th March sounds just like the sort of thing Grieve might try next.

    Can't we all agree to abolish Grieve instead?
    Why would you want to abolish one of the few sensible people in the Conservative Party?
    He's not sensible. Remaining might well be sensible after all this mess, but he is indulging in arcane trick after procedural wrangling - very clever wrangling too - to pursue his fanatical agenda with absolutely no thought as to wider consequences. If remaining is the sensible course now there are very simple ways to do it, in the first instance he could have tried to bring down the government, but instead he is indulging in procedural theatrics with potentially far reaching consequences, and the very fact he might insist they are only for now only emphasises that he is not thinking about anything other than his short term goals.

    Grieve is intelligent and effective in pursuit of what many would regard as a noble goal. But that is not the same as him being sensible, and fanatical pursuit at all costs even of a noble goal is not sensible. He should not be able to get away with pretending that because he is erudite that he is any better than his ultra opposites on the other side, willing to risk everything if he does not get exactly what he wants, unwilling to accept anything less than perfection. He's no better than a no leave ultra (but he is more effective). He has a closed mind on anything except his ideals.

    The leave ultras also believe it is essential for this country that they get exactly what they want and to hell with anyone who thinks otherwise. That childish attitude is displayed by Grieve as well. Ah, but because he's right that makes his acting like a child ok.

    If you are going to push the envelope, it is certainly preferable to be right rather than wrong.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,976
    HYUFD said:

    David_Evershed said:

    We don't need more time.

    Parliament has voted to leave on March 29th.

    Parliament having rejected May's deal, has voted for WTO deal by default.

    The Government should now focus on negotiating side deals around a WTO deal.

    By the end of this week it is possible indeed likely Parliament will already have voted for Grieve's amendment to extend Article 50 beyond March 29th and for Boles and Cooper's amendments to prevent No Deal
    It just seems so pointless. If it doesn't want to no deal it can just vote for what it wants and then seek an extension in order to allow time for whatever legislative processes are needed. How long do you seek an extension for if you haven't picked an option yet? Sure as shit more debate is not going to lead to a breakthrough, the ticking clock is the thing that might.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,020
    Thread:

    https://twitter.com/rolandmcs/status/1086899951735574528?s=21
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,424
    edited January 2019
    Philip_Thompson said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    Philip_Thompson said:


    No you are categorically wrong. When was the last time the Queen got involved in a conflict between the PM and Parliament?

    If there is a dispute then Parliament has a way to resolve it without the Queen getting involved.

    No I am absolutely right.


    There has never been a conflict in recent times between the PM and Parliament such that Parliament has consistently voted down what the PM intends as most PMs have had a majority in Parliament and have never refused to bow to the will of Parliament.


    If Parliament voted one way and the PM refused to implement it and in the unlikely event of the PM not then losing a VONC or resigning then the Queen would replace her chief minister with another one who could command the confidence of Parliament, as often happened in the 18th and early 19th centuries
    This is nonsense! If Parliament votes it has Confidence in the PM then the Monach is simply not going to force out a PM that Parliament has voted it has Confidence in. What you are suggesting is not that the Queen backs Parliament but instead that she contradicts and overrides Parliament despite Parliament voting it has Confidence in the PM.

    In the 18th and early 19th centuries the constitution was less formalised than it is now and confidence motions were completely different than they are now.
    Firstly it was technically a vote of confidence in the Government not May, secondly May last week effectively handed over Brexit to Parliament anyway asking them to set the way forward and I expect would accept Deal v Remain referendum if Parliament voted for it even if she did not propose it herself. In the event the Commons and the Lords voted for EUref2 and the PM refused to implement it the monarch would likely simply replace the PM with another PM from the Government who would e.g. Hammond or Rudd.

    We still have an unwritten constitution as now and political power in this country still lies in the Crown in Parliament ie the Crown implementing the will of Parliament, the PM is neither the Crown nor Parliament, merely a servant of the Crown
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    HYUFD said:

    David_Evershed said:

    We don't need more time.

    Parliament has voted to leave on March 29th.

    Parliament having rejected May's deal, has voted for WTO deal by default.

    The Government should now focus on negotiating side deals around a WTO deal.

    By the end of this week it is possible indeed likely Parliament will already have voted for Grieve's amendment to extend Article 50 beyond March 29th and for Boles and Cooper's amendments to prevent No Deal
    It has to be remembered that MPs also have the most recent mandate from the electorate in 2017. Everything in international relations has moved since Trump was elected in November 2016. No easy trade deals or alternative pre-packed trade deals to replace the one we have within the EU at the moment. It puzzles me why Brexiteer politicians claim things are set in stone when they most patently are not.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    rkrkrk said:

    The Ethiopian calendar has 13 months. I do wonder whether Mr Meeks just looks up an obscure word, then sets himself a task to fit it into a thread header.

    I use obscure words or specific phrases as a means to find threads later speedily by googling.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,976
    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    The overwhelming majority of the House of Commons is unwilling to countenance no deal, but there is nothing approaching a majority on what they would in practice countenance

    Nor do they show much sign of urgency in determining what they would in practice countenance.

    This bit was cutting though

    Now it might be argued, perhaps by those who have advocated that Britain should go into union with Australia Canada and New Zealand or by those who have advocated that the vote should be removed from the over 75s, that this idea is far too eccentric to be worthy of further attention

    PClipp said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    DavidL said:

    Actually I am a bit concerned about this header. Abolishing 29th March sounds just like the sort of thing Grieve might try next.

    Can't we all agree to abolish Grieve instead?
    Why would you want to abolish one of the few sensible people in the Conservative Party?
    He's not sensible. Remaining might well be sensible after all this mess, but he is indulging in arcane trick after procedural wrangling - very clever wrangling too - to pursue his fanatical agenda with absolutely no thought as to wider consequences. If remaining is the sensible course now there are very simple ways to do it, in the first instance he could have tried to bring down the government, but instead he is indulging in procedural theatrics with potentially far reaching consequences, and the very fact he might insist they are only for now only emphasises that he is not thinking about anything other than his short term goals.

    Grieve is intelligent and effective in pursuit of what many would regard as a noble goal. But that is not the same as him being sensible, and fanatical pursuit at all costs even of a noble goal is not sensible. He should not be able to get away with pretending that because he is erudite that he is any better than his ultra opposites on the other side, willing to risk everything if he does not get exactly what he wants, unwilling to accept anything less than perfection. He's no better than a no leave ultra (but he is more effective). He has a closed mind on anything except his ideals.

    The leave ultras also believe it is essential for this country that they get exactly what they want and to hell with anyone who thinks otherwise. That childish attitude is displayed by Grieve as well. Ah, but because he's right that makes his acting like a child ok.

    If you are going to push the envelope, it is certainly preferable to be right rather than wrong.
    Both sides think they are right, so that gets us nowhere.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,424
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    David_Evershed said:

    We don't need more time.

    Parliament has voted to leave on March 29th.

    Parliament having rejected May's deal, has voted for WTO deal by default.

    The Government should now focus on negotiating side deals around a WTO deal.

    By the end of this week it is possible indeed likely Parliament will already have voted for Grieve's amendment to extend Article 50 beyond March 29th and for Boles and Cooper's amendments to prevent No Deal
    It just seems so pointless. If it doesn't want to no deal it can just vote for what it wants and then seek an extension in order to allow time for whatever legislative processes are needed. How long do you seek an extension for if you haven't picked an option yet? Sure as shit more debate is not going to lead to a breakthrough, the ticking clock is the thing that might.
    The breakthrough looks increasingly likely to ultimately be EUref2, hence the extension to enable it
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,976
    dellertronic said:

    What this country needs is to remove the house of commons in it's entirety and replace it with people that actually have the competency to do the job. These MP's and parties called a referendum on a false prospectus. There was never any intention of delivering on a leave outcome before, during or after the vote. Every Con & Lab MP elected in 2017 was elected on the lie of respecting the referendum vote. They had no intention of doing so. These lies have now totally caught up with the political class. Ironically the only people to have to0ld the truth were the EU. Their stated aim was to ensure that there was no route to leaving the EU. That meant there could never under any circumstances be any deal. The so called professional politicians have proved themselves anything but. With their constant lies they have lost our confidence, they have lost our trust and they have lost all moral authority to continue in office. They collectively are the problem and their removal is the start of the solution. Life bans form office for all current MP's, Bans from the next election for all current Westminster parties and their members and new elections without them are the start of the answer.

    I appreciate it is not a serious suggestion, but fact is that politics makes politicians. Replace every MP and political party and the likelihood is whoever replaced them would be the same because they face the same issues. And chances are very few MPs will face consequences for what they do on Brexit.

    Remainer MPs have outplayed the leavers (who have split into self destruction) and the public is now so desperate for an outcome that while many will be furious at the cancellation of Brexit, opinion is now firmer behind Remain that was the case previously.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,905
    williamglenn said:

    Thread:

    https://twitter.com/rolandmcs/status/1086899951735574528?s=21

    Eurosceptic history should have showed that any exit plan loses Leavers' support the moment it is made flesh
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,936
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    David_Evershed said:

    We don't need more time.

    Parliament has voted to leave on March 29th.

    Parliament having rejected May's deal, has voted for WTO deal by default.

    The Government should now focus on negotiating side deals around a WTO deal.

    By the end of this week it is possible indeed likely Parliament will already have voted for Grieve's amendment to extend Article 50 beyond March 29th and for Boles and Cooper's amendments to prevent No Deal
    It just seems so pointless. If it doesn't want to no deal it can just vote for what it wants and then seek an extension in order to allow time for whatever legislative processes are needed. How long do you seek an extension for if you haven't picked an option yet? Sure as shit more debate is not going to lead to a breakthrough, the ticking clock is the thing that might.
    The breakthrough looks increasingly likely to ultimately be EUref2, hence the extension to enable it
    I think it has been suggested several times on here, even today, that you keep repeating the same outcome when in truth no one knows

    Yesterday's news that Caroline Flint and Lisa Nandy lead a substantial number of labour mps who will not accept a referendum, indeed it is possible that as many labour mps oppose a referendum as support one. In those circumstances a second referendum is not possible
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,976
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    David_Evershed said:

    We don't need more time.

    Parliament has voted to leave on March 29th.

    Parliament having rejected May's deal, has voted for WTO deal by default.

    The Government should now focus on negotiating side deals around a WTO deal.

    By the end of this week it is possible indeed likely Parliament will already have voted for Grieve's amendment to extend Article 50 beyond March 29th and for Boles and Cooper's amendments to prevent No Deal
    It just seems so pointless. If it doesn't want to no deal it can just vote for what it wants and then seek an extension in order to allow time for whatever legislative processes are needed. How long do you seek an extension for if you haven't picked an option yet? Sure as shit more debate is not going to lead to a breakthrough, the ticking clock is the thing that might.
    The breakthrough looks increasingly likely to ultimately be EUref2, hence the extension to enable it
    But when will the breakthrough be? An extension is needed once agreement is reached, so when does it become the plan? I severely doubt May will announce that tomorrow, someone would have leaked that talks with other parties on that topic had been successful if that was the case, so we're going to get a repeat of her speech when pulling the MV.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 4,023
    edited January 2019
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    David_Evershed said:

    We don't need more time.

    Parliament has voted to leave on March 29th.

    Parliament having rejected May's deal, has voted for WTO deal by default.

    The Government should now focus on negotiating side deals around a WTO deal.

    By the end of this week it is possible indeed likely Parliament will already have voted for Grieve's amendment to extend Article 50 beyond March 29th and for Boles and Cooper's amendments to prevent No Deal
    It just seems so pointless. If it doesn't want to no deal it can just vote for what it wants and then seek an extension in order to allow time for whatever legislative processes are needed. How long do you seek an extension for if you haven't picked an option yet? Sure as shit more debate is not going to lead to a breakthrough, the ticking clock is the thing that might.
    The breakthrough looks increasingly likely to ultimately be EUref2, hence the extension to enable it
    I think it has been suggested several times on here, even today, that you keep repeating the same outcome when in truth no one knows

    Yesterday's news that Caroline Flint and Lisa Nandy lead a substantial number of labour mps who will not accept a referendum, indeed it is possible that as many labour mps oppose a referendum as support one. In those circumstances a second referendum is not possible
    Basically this is why we need free indicative votes of all options to happen so we can understand what does have the most support, even if not a majority of support.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,936
    As a matter of interest does anyone know many mps of the two main parties are trying to stop leave are from London and how many from outside the M25
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,936
    solarflare said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    David_Evershed said:

    We don't need more time.

    Parliament has voted to leave on March 29th.

    Parliament having rejected May's deal, has voted for WTO deal by default.

    The Government should now focus on negotiating side deals around a WTO deal.

    By the end of this week it is possible indeed likely Parliament will already have voted for Grieve's amendment to extend Article 50 beyond March 29th and for Boles and Cooper's amendments to prevent No Deal
    It just seems so pointless. If it doesn't want to no deal it can just vote for what it wants and then seek an extension in order to allow time for whatever legislative processes are needed. How long do you seek an extension for if you haven't picked an option yet? Sure as shit more debate is not going to lead to a breakthrough, the ticking clock is the thing that might.
    The breakthrough looks increasingly likely to ultimately be EUref2, hence the extension to enable it
    I think it has been suggested several times on here, even today, that you keep repeating the same outcome when in truth no one knows

    Yesterday's news that Caroline Flint and Lisa Nandy lead a substantial number of labour mps who will not accept a referendum, indeed it is possible that as many labour mps oppose a referendum as support one. In those circumstances a second referendum is not possible
    Basically this is why we need free indicative votes of all options to happen so we can understand what does have the most support, even if not a majority of support.
    That does seem to be sensible and would draw out positions but as David Lammy said today it could also lead to a labour split
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    As a matter of interest does anyone know many mps of the two main parties are trying to stop leave are from London and how many from outside the M25

    That’s a really good question. Here’s a map of MPs’ stated positions:

    https://twitter.com/electionmapsuk/status/1086674588535324673?s=21
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,976
    edited January 2019
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    As a matter of interest does anyone know many mps of the two main parties are trying to stop leave are from London and how many from outside the M25

    That’s a really good question. Here’s a map of MPs’ stated positions:

    https://twitter.com/electionmapsuk/status/1086674588535324673?s=21
    What an excellent map. If/when Lab policy becomes a dishonestname vote then it will be pretty overwhelming.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,936
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    As a matter of interest does anyone know many mps of the two main parties are trying to stop leave are from London and how many from outside the M25

    That’s a really good question. Here’s a map of MPs’ stated positions:

    https://twitter.com/electionmapsuk/status/1086674588535324673?s=21
    Thanks Alastair
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,976
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    solarflare said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    David_Evershed said:

    We don't need more time.

    Parliament has voted to leave on March 29th.

    Parliament having rejected May's deal, has voted for WTO deal by default.

    The Government should now focus on negotiating side deals around a WTO deal.

    By the end of this week it is possible indeed likely Parliament will already have voted for Grieve's amendment to extend Article 50 beyond March 29th and for Boles and Cooper's amendments to prevent No Deal
    It just seems so pointless. If it doesn't want to no deal it can just vote for what it wants and then seek an extension in order to allow time for whatever legislative processes are needed. How long do you seek an extension for if you haven't picked an option yet? Sure as shit more debate is not going to lead to a breakthrough, the ticking clock is the thing that might.
    The breakthrough looks increasingly likely to ultimately be EUref2, hence the extension to enable it
    I think it has been suggested several times on here, even today, that you keep repeating the same outcome when in truth no one knows

    Yesterday's news that Caroline Flint and Lisa Nandy lead a substantial number of labour mps who will not accept a referendum, indeed it is possible that as many labour mps oppose a referendum as support one. In those circumstances a second referendum is not possible
    Basically this is why we need free indicative votes of all options to happen so we can understand what does have the most support, even if not a majority of support.
    That does seem to be sensible and would draw out positions but as David Lammy said today it could also lead to a labour split
    Oh Labour rebels always claim anything will lead to a split. I don't think either party can keep pretending forever, dividing to some degree on the final option is inevitable.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,936
    kle4 said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    solarflare said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    David_Evershed said:

    We don't need more time.

    Parliament has voted to leave on March 29th.

    Parliament having rejected May's deal, has voted for WTO deal by default.

    The Government should now focus on negotiating side deals around a WTO deal.

    By the end of this week it is possible indeed likely Parliament will already have voted for Grieve's amendment to extend Article 50 beyond March 29th and for Boles and Cooper's amendments to prevent No Deal
    It just seems so pointless. If it doesn't want to no deal it can just vote for what it wants and then seek an extension in order to allow time for whatever legislative processes are needed. How long do you seek an extension for if you haven't picked an option yet? Sure as shit more debate is not going to lead to a breakthrough, the ticking clock is the thing that might.
    The breakthrough looks increasingly likely to ultimately be EUref2, hence the extension to enable it
    I think it has been suggested several times on here, even today, that you keep repeating the same outcome when in truth no one knows

    Yesterday's news that Caroline Flint and Lisa Nandy lead a substantial number of labour mps who will not accept a referendum, indeed it is possible that as many labour mps oppose a referendum as support one. In those circumstances a second referendum is not possible
    Basically this is why we need free indicative votes of all options to happen so we can understand what does have the most support, even if not a majority of support.
    That does seem to be sensible and would draw out positions but as David Lammy said today it could also lead to a labour split
    Oh Labour rebels always claim anything will lead to a split. I don't think either party can keep pretending forever, dividing to some degree on the final option is inevitable.
    I suspect Lammy's thinking, if he is capable of that, is to try to frighten labour leave mps to come to his position
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,046
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    As a matter of interest does anyone know many mps of the two main parties are trying to stop leave are from London and how many from outside the M25

    That’s a really good question. Here’s a map of MPs’ stated positions:

    https://twitter.com/electionmapsuk/status/1086674588535324673?s=21
    There are 147 people who know what Labour's position on Brexit is?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,976
    edited January 2019
    ydoethur said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    As a matter of interest does anyone know many mps of the two main parties are trying to stop leave are from London and how many from outside the M25

    That’s a really good question. Here’s a map of MPs’ stated positions:

    https://twitter.com/electionmapsuk/status/1086674588535324673?s=21
    There are 147 people who know what Labour's position on Brexit is?
    Why would you assume an MP would need to know/understand a position before they agreed to support it?

    Interesting to note that on the position descriptor wheel 'soft brexit' is further along the scale than the Labour position.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    ydoethur said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    As a matter of interest does anyone know many mps of the two main parties are trying to stop leave are from London and how many from outside the M25

    That’s a really good question. Here’s a map of MPs’ stated positions:

    https://twitter.com/electionmapsuk/status/1086674588535324673?s=21
    There are 147 people who know what Labour's position on Brexit is?
    out of 65 Million? sounds about right
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    ydoethur said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    As a matter of interest does anyone know many mps of the two main parties are trying to stop leave are from London and how many from outside the M25

    That’s a really good question. Here’s a map of MPs’ stated positions:

    https://twitter.com/electionmapsuk/status/1086674588535324673?s=21
    There are 147 people who know what Labour's position on Brexit is?
    You touch on the key question. What will the two main parties’ loyalist MPs do when it comes to the crunch? We have no clear picture.
This discussion has been closed.