politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Get ready for the no deal Blame Game
Comments
-
Timing people wasting their time; that really is an exercise in futility.Recidivist said:The petition website is down again. Not surprising. I just clocked sign up at 3,762 per minute. I'd suggest a workaround where we give people bits of paper where they can tick their preference and put it in a box.
0 -
Morning all
I did idly wonder if Theresa May was considering forming her own party, the TMP, and standing candidates against Conservatives and other parties. If the reservoir of support and sympathy for her is as strong as some on here claim perhaps she could "go it alone" and lead us forward.
You have the examples of Emmanuel Macron and Silvio Berlusconi who effectively formed their own political groupings around themselves and got to office while the likes of Donald Trump came in from outside, subverted a pre-existing party and used it as his own vehicle for winning power.
A political movement based around an individual - it's the Presidential/Parliamentary hybrid I suppose. To what extent does any political party become the representation of its leader? Is Labour truly Corbyn now? Many would say yes.
I'm now in the Revocation camp - simply asking for a long delay doesn't help. The WA is flawed and needs if not an overhaul then extensive revision. Shut down the A50 now with a pledge to re-start in 6 months with a new commitment to leave the EU in October 2021 assuming we aren't going to have a GE or a second referendum to ask if we still want to leave the EU.
0 -
0
-
Well, technically but PM Farage says 'we are leaving with no deal and until you agree an immediate date I will veto everything etc etc'williamglenn said:
That's not true under EU law. The only way to bring forward the exit date is via a negotiated agreement. 'No Deal' by definition is the absence of an agreement and only happens after the two years.dyedwoolie said:
Incorrect. There is no need for a two year period. It is only there if negotiation is requiredwilliamglenn said:
PM Farage would come up against the limits of state power just as May has. It's not possible to 'no deal' without the two year Article 50 period.dyedwoolie said:
PM Farsge takes us out no deal, no referendum, no negotiation
Unless you let me leave this golf club I'll dump on the 18th green every morning0 -
TM's pulled the plugkjh said:
Its gone again.bigjohnowls said:
Not even passed Trump visit yet.FrancisUrquhart said:
I believe that is what they call an alternative fact...tottenhamWC said:
Apparently it is now the biggest online UK petition in history according to several news sourceswilliamglenn said:
The one on Gordon Brown only got 72,000 signatures.Sandpit said:
The one calling on Gordon Brown to resign got about that, as did the one calling for a second EU referendum.FrancisUrquhart said:Didn't a previous petition reach 3-4 million?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/gordon-brown/6409786/72000-people-sign-petition-calling-for-Gordon-Brown-to-resign.html0 -
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?GreenHeron said:
Well count me down as one of those weird people. Allowing people to vote without implementing what they decided is not democratic. The vote must be implemented first, then if people want to call another vote to rejoin then that would be perfectly democratic.Anorak said:Weird people even think to argue against this. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108674754800701445
0 -
Its the outline of a dystopian future, we must need Brecit to rename NorsefireReggieCide said:
that's what I call ramping up the excitement levelsdyedwoolie said:Prediction
Panicked 12th hour revoke
Government collapses and GE called.
Brexit Party coalesces 35% via furious leavers against split remainers
PM Farsge takes us out no deal, no referendum, no negotiation
Civil unrest unseen in modern times0 -
On the other hand, as Vladimir Putin has effectively stated himself, the clear Russian interest is for Britain to leave. European discord is more of a priority for Russia than internal British discord.glw said:
That's not necessarily the case. Russian information warfare campaigns usually back both, or all, sides to cause as much polarisation and disruption as possible. So it can make sense from a "cause trouble" point of view to back apparently contradicatory views.Recidivist said:I've been keeping some stats so I can run some tests to see if there are any obvious signs of malpractice. But the interest on Twitter, and indeed on this forum, suggests it is a genuinely high level of participation. And why would foreign players be backing the policy that is advantageous to the UK? Players that don't have the UK's interests at heart would be backing Brexit.
0 -
Voting is people wasting their time; that really is an exercise in futility.Recidivist said:The petition website is down again. Not surprising. I just clocked sign up at 3,762 per minute. I'd suggest a workaround where we give people bits of paper where they can tick their preference and put it in a box.
0 -
Whats more in reality it is two options - no deal or revoke. The deal will not pass.anothernick said:
Yes this is a correct summation of the position IMO. And I guess Barnier is appraising Corbyn of that in Brussels today. The EU is not going to begin negotiations on a Norway option or any other option. It is make your mind up time - revoke or no deal.RochdalePioneers said:
Irrelevant. Pass the deal (will not happen). Revoke at the last minute. Or crash out.Big_G_NorthWales said:I expect TM will not bring MV3 to the HC unless there is a chance of it passing.
I expect indicative votes early next week and depending on the results, TM will either proceed with MV3 or tack towards Norway
What is better for the country - the collapse of the government this weekend or the weekend after? It WILL collapse. Just a question of when.
If you are a leaver then why vote for the deal when no deal is so close?
If you are a remainer why vote for the deal when revoke is so close?
If May persuades the House to vote again the defeat will eclipse the size of the first one.
I would love to find the post of mine months back where I speculated that her final act as PM could be to revoke. It really could be, regardless of what she is allegedly saying about it. And not necessarily with her hand freely writing the revocation.0 -
They're only wasting their time if they have something better to doTudorRose said:
Timing people wasting their time; that really is an exercise in futility.Recidivist said:The petition website is down again. Not surprising. I just clocked sign up at 3,762 per minute. I'd suggest a workaround where we give people bits of paper where they can tick their preference and put it in a box.
0 -
Why? I appreciate in most circumstance that would be the norm, but I don't understand why that is some sort of golden rule. You don't do that in life. If you or a business makes a decision you often change your mind before completion when the situation changes (or even on a whim).GreenHeron said:
Well count me down as one of those weird people. Allowing people to vote without implementing what they decided is not democratic. The vote must be implemented first, then if people want to call another vote to rejoin then that would be perfectly democratic.Anorak said:Weird people even think to argue against this. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108674754800701445
0 -
Because it's like a football match, or some other game, apparently.Ishmael_Z said:
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?GreenHeron said:
Well count me down as one of those weird people. Allowing people to vote without implementing what they decided is not democratic. The vote must be implemented first, then if people want to call another vote to rejoin then that would be perfectly democratic.Anorak said:Weird people even think to argue against this. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108674754800701445
Like - if you get engaged and one of you changes your mind, you have to go through with the wedding and then get divorced afterwards.0 -
If we have an election and the public decide they don’t like the result before parliament has sat, should we immediately have another election*? It’s, I appreciate, a poor argument but no better than your pathetic attempt.Ishmael_Z said:
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?GreenHeron said:
Well count me down as one of those weird people. Allowing people to vote without implementing what they decided is not democratic. The vote must be implemented first, then if people want to call another vote to rejoin then that would be perfectly democratic.Anorak said:Weird people even think to argue against this. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108674754800701445
*iOS just corrected this to loon...0 -
And how many of the signatories will not even be of voting age....WhisperingOracle said:
I'd be surprised at that. Once it gets news attention it will only increase the momentum.ReggieCide said:
It's still 17.4m vs 500k and I'd guess that 500k won't move much further as it reflects a Westminster nerds bubble (which includes me)Charles said:
I think they’d be fine with thatBarnesian said:
There is a validation process.asjohnstone said:
Isn't there a validation process that needs to be carried out to make sure they are real people ?eek said:So the petition has reached 500,000 so will need to be debated in Parliament. I wonder if that will be today, tomorrow or Monday as Bercow could prioritise it above everything else.
And that gives everyone a way out - put revoke to a vote and see who actually votes against.
You can be sure it isn't Russian bots. They don't want revoke!
They want turmoil and discontent. They don’t care how.0 -
context is allkjh said:
Why? I appreciate in most circumstance that would be the norm, but I don't understand why that is some sort of golden rule. You don't do that in life. If you or a business makes a decision you often change your mind before completion when the situation changes (or even on a whim).GreenHeron said:
Well count me down as one of those weird people. Allowing people to vote without implementing what they decided is not democratic. The vote must be implemented first, then if people want to call another vote to rejoin then that would be perfectly democratic.Anorak said:Weird people even think to argue against this. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108674754800701445
0 -
It's already running against potential Democrat candidates, both against them from a GOP perspective, and between the candidates for their policy stances.Sandpit said:And they’re going to use the same playbook trolling the Democrats in the next year. Wait for the fake news that candidate X is in favour of 40-week abortions, or giving US citizenship to anyone who turns up at the border
0 -
Thanks. That's really cheered me up.Dura_Ace said:
May would rather no deal than revoke - that much is certain. After that she'll get fucked right off in short order. Then the tories need a once-in-a-generation dissembler to persuade the great unsoaped that everything is, in fact and contrary to all appearances, just great in Aggressively Managed WTO Deal Global Britain. Step forward Boris.Barnesian said:If MV3 is voted down early next week, as seems likely, what are the possible next steps?
1. Mrs May immediately resigns as leader and PM and says it is up to parliament. Who is interim PM for the rest of the week? Lidington? May?
2. Mrs May doesn't resign but government loses VONC as some Tory MPs renege in desperation. Who is interim PM for the rest of the week? Lidington? May?
3. Mrs May doesn't resign or lose VNOC. EU offers unconditional long extension. May refuses. What then?
How, in practical terms do MPs, including Cabinet Ministers, take control from a rogue PM?0 -
yet?MarqueeMark said:
And how many of the signatories will not even be of voting age....WhisperingOracle said:
I'd be surprised at that. Once it gets news attention it will only increase the momentum.ReggieCide said:
It's still 17.4m vs 500k and I'd guess that 500k won't move much further as it reflects a Westminster nerds bubble (which includes me)Charles said:
I think they’d be fine with thatBarnesian said:
There is a validation process.asjohnstone said:
Isn't there a validation process that needs to be carried out to make sure they are real people ?eek said:So the petition has reached 500,000 so will need to be debated in Parliament. I wonder if that will be today, tomorrow or Monday as Bercow could prioritise it above everything else.
And that gives everyone a way out - put revoke to a vote and see who actually votes against.
You can be sure it isn't Russian bots. They don't want revoke!
They want turmoil and discontent. They don’t care how.0 -
The Yang Gang nonsense seems to be getting a big push.glw said:
It's already running against potential Democrat candidates, both against them from a GOP perspective, and between the candidates for their policy stances.Sandpit said:And they’re going to use the same playbook trolling the Democrats in the next year. Wait for the fake news that candidate X is in favour of 40-week abortions, or giving US citizenship to anyone who turns up at the border
0 -
The idea that the Brexit Party will win election seats is unlikely - it's not like the Tories won't be standing as a leave party...dyedwoolie said:
Well, technically but PM Farage says 'we are leaving with no deal and until you agree an immediate date I will veto everything etc etc'williamglenn said:
That's not true under EU law. The only way to bring forward the exit date is via a negotiated agreement. 'No Deal' by definition is the absence of an agreement and only happens after the two years.dyedwoolie said:
Incorrect. There is no need for a two year period. It is only there if negotiation is requiredwilliamglenn said:
PM Farage would come up against the limits of state power just as May has. It's not possible to 'no deal' without the two year Article 50 period.dyedwoolie said:
PM Farsge takes us out no deal, no referendum, no negotiation0 -
No, and what an embarrassingly stupid post. I did not call for a further vote in 2016, 2017 or 2018. I am now calling for one in 2019. Now you have a good, long think about what "immediately" means, and let us know what you come up with. Numpty.matt said:
If we have an election and the public decide they don’t like the result before parliament has sat, should we immediately have another election*? It’s, I appreciate, a poor argument but no better than your pathetic attempt.Ishmael_Z said:
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?GreenHeron said:
Well count me down as one of those weird people. Allowing people to vote without implementing what they decided is not democratic. The vote must be implemented first, then if people want to call another vote to rejoin then that would be perfectly democratic.Anorak said:Weird people even think to argue against this. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108674754800701445
*iOS just corrected this to loon...0 -
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1108674862967595008
Get rid. Now.
The Cabinet has a duty to act.0 -
Or if you make a suicide pact.Andy_Cooke said:
Because it's like a football match, or some other game, apparently.Ishmael_Z said:
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?GreenHeron said:
Well count me down as one of those weird people. Allowing people to vote without implementing what they decided is not democratic. The vote must be implemented first, then if people want to call another vote to rejoin then that would be perfectly democratic.Anorak said:Weird people even think to argue against this. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108674754800701445
Like - if you get engaged and one of you changes your mind, you have to go through with the wedding and then get divorced afterwards.0 -
I think the last bit is a reassuring truth - in today's circumstances at leasteek said:
The idea that the Brexit Party will win election seats is unlikely - it's not like the Tories won't be standing as a leave party...dyedwoolie said:
Well, technically but PM Farage says 'we are leaving with no deal and until you agree an immediate date I will veto everything etc etc'williamglenn said:
That's not true under EU law. The only way to bring forward the exit date is via a negotiated agreement. 'No Deal' by definition is the absence of an agreement and only happens after the two years.dyedwoolie said:
Incorrect. There is no need for a two year period. It is only there if negotiation is requiredwilliamglenn said:
PM Farage would come up against the limits of state power just as May has. It's not possible to 'no deal' without the two year Article 50 period.dyedwoolie said:
PM Farsge takes us out no deal, no referendum, no negotiation0 -
What would happen if there was a free vote on whether to revoke? Revoke plus new referendum with remain and structured leave options? A revoke vote in parliament would give cover for PM (probably not May but could be). EU may not be keen on revoke but prefer longer extension linked to referendum so they may try to preempt moves to revoke with that offer. There are two completely different arguments for revoking: opportunity to remain long term and as a hard ball Brexit tactic.0
-
Biden, your country needs you.FrancisUrquhart said:
The Yang Gang nonsense seems to be getting a big push.glw said:
It's already running against potential Democrat candidates, both against them from a GOP perspective, and between the candidates for their policy stances.Sandpit said:And they’re going to use the same playbook trolling the Democrats in the next year. Wait for the fake news that candidate X is in favour of 40-week abortions, or giving US citizenship to anyone who turns up at the border
0 -
.... which won't stand up if we've just revoked (which was the premise of the original post).eek said:
The idea that the Brexit Party will win election seats is unlikely - it's not like the Tories won't be standing as a leave party...dyedwoolie said:
Well, technically but PM Farage says 'we are leaving with no deal and until you agree an immediate date I will veto everything etc etc'williamglenn said:
That's not true under EU law. The only way to bring forward the exit date is via a negotiated agreement. 'No Deal' by definition is the absence of an agreement and only happens after the two years.dyedwoolie said:
Incorrect. There is no need for a two year period. It is only there if negotiation is requiredwilliamglenn said:
PM Farage would come up against the limits of state power just as May has. It's not possible to 'no deal' without the two year Article 50 period.dyedwoolie said:
PM Farsge takes us out no deal, no referendum, no negotiation0 -
Except that revoking must be intended to be a permanent decision, not an a reset of negotiations - otherwise the EU won't accept it. Revoking at this point is probably impossible - I can't see the EU wearing it given that if it happened the near certainly is the government falling and being replaced after an election by the hardest bunch of hard Brexiteers the world has ever seen.stodge said:Morning all
I did idly wonder if Theresa May was considering forming her own party, the TMP, and standing candidates against Conservatives and other parties. If the reservoir of support and sympathy for her is as strong as some on here claim perhaps she could "go it alone" and lead us forward.
You have the examples of Emmanuel Macron and Silvio Berlusconi who effectively formed their own political groupings around themselves and got to office while the likes of Donald Trump came in from outside, subverted a pre-existing party and used it as his own vehicle for winning power.
A political movement based around an individual - it's the Presidential/Parliamentary hybrid I suppose. To what extent does any political party become the representation of its leader? Is Labour truly Corbyn now? Many would say yes.
I'm now in the Revocation camp - simply asking for a long delay doesn't help. The WA is flawed and needs if not an overhaul then extensive revision. Shut down the A50 now with a pledge to re-start in 6 months with a new commitment to leave the EU in October 2021 assuming we aren't going to have a GE or a second referendum to ask if we still want to leave the EU.0 -
You really are clutching at straws here (although I will accept those signing the petition are clutching for different straws).MarqueeMark said:
And how many of the signatories will not even be of voting age....WhisperingOracle said:
I'd be surprised at that. Once it gets news attention it will only increase the momentum.ReggieCide said:
It's still 17.4m vs 500k and I'd guess that 500k won't move much further as it reflects a Westminster nerds bubble (which includes me)Charles said:
I think they’d be fine with thatBarnesian said:
There is a validation process.asjohnstone said:
Isn't there a validation process that needs to be carried out to make sure they are real people ?eek said:So the petition has reached 500,000 so will need to be debated in Parliament. I wonder if that will be today, tomorrow or Monday as Bercow could prioritise it above everything else.
And that gives everyone a way out - put revoke to a vote and see who actually votes against.
You can be sure it isn't Russian bots. They don't want revoke!
They want turmoil and discontent. They don’t care how.
The simple fact is given the number of signatures the thresholds required have been met..
And we are still a Parliamentary democracy and Parliament needs to decide and enact its decision..0 -
Reading the thread there are many well intentioned ideas how to resolve the issue including revoke, as a second referendum is now all but impossible with the EU elections in May and our need to pass legislation to participate which is unlikely between now and the 11th April
The only realistic choices are TM deal - no deal - revoke and all in a week
Our mps have to make a decision and stick to it
We run out of time on the 22nd May altogether0 -
More to the point, a reason which they can't ignore.rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1108674862967595008
Get rid. Now.
The Cabinet has a duty to act.
She made the latest request to the EU, which commits the UK to a particular course of action, without any cabinet consultation or even knowledge. I cannot see how any of her cabinet can happily ignore that.0 -
That's a completely superficial reading of Russian politics and strategic goals. The theoretical basis for Putinism's nationalism since the late 90s has been Dugin's Osnovy geopolitiki: Geopoliticheskoe budushchee Rossii. It is probably the only book Putin has ever read and is literally, in the true sense of the word, the textbook used to teach Russian diplomats, security personnel and military officers. In Foundations of Geopolitics the political separation of the UK from Europe is an enabling goal in the grand project of the 'Finlandisation' of Europe.Charles said:
I think they’d be fine with thatBarnesian said:
There is a validation process.asjohnstone said:
Isn't there a validation process that needs to be carried out to make sure they are real people ?eek said:So the petition has reached 500,000 so will need to be debated in Parliament. I wonder if that will be today, tomorrow or Monday as Bercow could prioritise it above everything else.
And that gives everyone a way out - put revoke to a vote and see who actually votes against.
You can be sure it isn't Russian bots. They don't want revoke!
They want turmoil and discontent. They don’t care how.0 -
Self-righteous pomposity combined with taking an affront at the drop of a hat. Have you considered becoming an MP?Ishmael_Z said:
No, and what an embarrassingly stupid post. I did not call for a further vote in 2016, 2017 or 2018. I am now calling for one in 2019. Now you have a good, long think about what "immediately" means, and let us know what you come up with. Numpty.matt said:
If we have an election and the public decide they don’t like the result before parliament has sat, should we immediately have another election*? It’s, I appreciate, a poor argument but no better than your pathetic attempt.Ishmael_Z said:
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?GreenHeron said:
Well count me down as one of those weird people. Allowing people to vote without implementing what they decided is not democratic. The vote must be implemented first, then if people want to call another vote to rejoin then that would be perfectly democratic.Anorak said:Weird people even think to argue against this. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108674754800701445
*iOS just corrected this to loon...0 -
Nope the need for the decision to be permanent was not part of the final ruling.theProle said:
Except that revoking must be intended to be a permanent decision, not an a reset of negotiations - otherwise the EU won't accept it. Revoking at this point is probably impossible - I can't see the EU wearing it given that if it happened the near certainly is the government falling and being replaced after an election by the hardest bunch of hard Brexiteers the world has ever seen.stodge said:Morning all
I did idly wonder if Theresa May was considering forming her own party, the TMP, and standing candidates against Conservatives and other parties. If the reservoir of support and sympathy for her is as strong as some on here claim perhaps she could "go it alone" and lead us forward.
You have the examples of Emmanuel Macron and Silvio Berlusconi who effectively formed their own political groupings around themselves and got to office while the likes of Donald Trump came in from outside, subverted a pre-existing party and used it as his own vehicle for winning power.
A political movement based around an individual - it's the Presidential/Parliamentary hybrid I suppose. To what extent does any political party become the representation of its leader? Is Labour truly Corbyn now? Many would say yes.
I'm now in the Revocation camp - simply asking for a long delay doesn't help. The WA is flawed and needs if not an overhaul then extensive revision. Shut down the A50 now with a pledge to re-start in 6 months with a new commitment to leave the EU in October 2021 assuming we aren't going to have a GE or a second referendum to ask if we still want to leave the EU.0 -
Their court said that revocation can be unilateral though - the EU don’t have a choice to accept it or not.theProle said:
Except that revoking must be intended to be a permanent decision, not an a reset of negotiations - otherwise the EU won't accept it. Revoking at this point is probably impossible - I can't see the EU wearing it given that if it happened the near certainly is the government falling and being replaced after an election by the hardest bunch of hard Brexiteers the world has ever seen.stodge said:Morning all
I did idly wonder if Theresa May was considering forming her own party, the TMP, and standing candidates against Conservatives and other parties. If the reservoir of support and sympathy for her is as strong as some on here claim perhaps she could "go it alone" and lead us forward.
You have the examples of Emmanuel Macron and Silvio Berlusconi who effectively formed their own political groupings around themselves and got to office while the likes of Donald Trump came in from outside, subverted a pre-existing party and used it as his own vehicle for winning power.
A political movement based around an individual - it's the Presidential/Parliamentary hybrid I suppose. To what extent does any political party become the representation of its leader? Is Labour truly Corbyn now? Many would say yes.
I'm now in the Revocation camp - simply asking for a long delay doesn't help. The WA is flawed and needs if not an overhaul then extensive revision. Shut down the A50 now with a pledge to re-start in 6 months with a new commitment to leave the EU in October 2021 assuming we aren't going to have a GE or a second referendum to ask if we still want to leave the EU.0 -
It is this peculiar characteristic of the EU’s ‘liberal empire’ that explains the tortured political process in Britain following the Brexit referendum. The electorate voted to ‘take back control’ of politics and the state. In response, the bulk of the political class has been united with the civil service, big business and academia in a shared determination to resist that. The British elite prefers intergovernmental collaboration to assertions of national sovereignty. Its preference for this way of governing is so ingrained that the government has been unable to imagine adopting a robust negotiating position with the EU, and even the weak negotiating efforts of the executive have been relentlessly, and very publicly, undermined by Parliament and other politically influential figures. The effect has been to create a situation in which the options now available to the UK are so unattractive that a sense of emergency can be manufactured. In this climate, it might be possible, one way or another, to nullify the effect of the original vote to Leave.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/03/14/the-eu-is-a-default-empire-of-nations-in-denial/0 -
Exactly. It is too late as it needs approval of both the HOC and the EU who will apply conditions to ittheProle said:
Except that revoking must be intended to be a permanent decision, not an a reset of negotiations - otherwise the EU won't accept it. Revoking at this point is probably impossible - I can't see the EU wearing it given that if it happened the near certainly is the government falling and being replaced after an election by the hardest bunch of hard Brexiteers the world has ever seen.stodge said:Morning all
I did idly wonder if Theresa May was considering forming her own party, the TMP, and standing candidates against Conservatives and other parties. If the reservoir of support and sympathy for her is as strong as some on here claim perhaps she could "go it alone" and lead us forward.
You have the examples of Emmanuel Macron and Silvio Berlusconi who effectively formed their own political groupings around themselves and got to office while the likes of Donald Trump came in from outside, subverted a pre-existing party and used it as his own vehicle for winning power.
A political movement based around an individual - it's the Presidential/Parliamentary hybrid I suppose. To what extent does any political party become the representation of its leader? Is Labour truly Corbyn now? Many would say yes.
I'm now in the Revocation camp - simply asking for a long delay doesn't help. The WA is flawed and needs if not an overhaul then extensive revision. Shut down the A50 now with a pledge to re-start in 6 months with a new commitment to leave the EU in October 2021 assuming we aren't going to have a GE or a second referendum to ask if we still want to leave the EU.
Revoke is the end of brexit, in my opinion, in a generation0 -
Won't it were Boris to be the leader?TudorRose said:
.... which won't stand up if we've just revoked (which was the premise of the original post).eek said:
The idea that the Brexit Party will win election seats is unlikely - it's not like the Tories won't be standing as a leave party...dyedwoolie said:
Well, technically but PM Farage says 'we are leaving with no deal and until you agree an immediate date I will veto everything etc etc'williamglenn said:
That's not true under EU law. The only way to bring forward the exit date is via a negotiated agreement. 'No Deal' by definition is the absence of an agreement and only happens after the two years.dyedwoolie said:
Incorrect. There is no need for a two year period. It is only there if negotiation is requiredwilliamglenn said:
PM Farage would come up against the limits of state power just as May has. It's not possible to 'no deal' without the two year Article 50 period.dyedwoolie said:
PM Farsge takes us out no deal, no referendum, no negotiation0 -
Actually I think Theresa's played a blinder. While she hasn't completely exonerated herself and shifted the blame to parliament, she's muddied the waters sufficiently to mean that enough people are no longer sure if she's wholly to blame or not. In the circumstances that's job done.rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1108674862967595008
Get rid. Now.
The Cabinet has a duty to act.0 -
Why do I keep feeling like I am living within the government's Transition To War plan of the 80s? Kent activating Operation Yellowhammer feels a bit like the government warning that war is imminent and be prepared.
What an omnifuckingshambles this is. And afterwards the Tory party thinks people will roll up and vote for them?0 -
I imagine the 2012 Olympics took place immediately after the Great Fire of London, did they? Lucky they got the infrastructure back up and running in time. Phew.matt said:
Self-righteous pomposity combined with taking an affront at the drop of a hat. Have you considered becoming an MP?Ishmael_Z said:
No, and what an embarrassingly stupid post. I did not call for a further vote in 2016, 2017 or 2018. I am now calling for one in 2019. Now you have a good, long think about what "immediately" means, and let us know what you come up with. Numpty.matt said:
If we have an election and the public decide they don’t like the result before parliament has sat, should we immediately have another election*? It’s, I appreciate, a poor argument but no better than your pathetic attempt.Ishmael_Z said:
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?GreenHeron said:
Well count me down as one of those weird people. Allowing people to vote without implementing what they decided is not democratic. The vote must be implemented first, then if people want to call another vote to rejoin then that would be perfectly democratic.Anorak said:Weird people even think to argue against this. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108674754800701445
*iOS just corrected this to loon...0 -
I think we run out of time next week if TM's deal is not passed. The EU will not extend unless they have that guarantee.Big_G_NorthWales said:Reading the thread there are many well intentioned ideas how to resolve the issue including revoke, as a second referendum is now all but impossible with the EU elections in May and our need to pass legislation to participate which is unlikely between now and the 11th April
The only realistic choices are TM deal - no deal - revoke and all in a week
Our mps have to make a decision and stick to it
We run out of time on the 22nd May altogether0 -
I don't think that the EU can refuse a legally constituted revoke.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Exactly. It is too late as it needs approval of both the HOC and the EU who will apply conditions to ittheProle said:
Except that revoking must be intended to be a permanent decision, not an a reset of negotiations - otherwise the EU won't accept it. Revoking at this point is probably impossible - I can't see the EU wearing it given that if it happened the near certainly is the government falling and being replaced after an election by the hardest bunch of hard Brexiteers the world has ever seen.stodge said:Morning all
I did idly wonder if Theresa May was considering forming her own party, the TMP, and standing candidates against Conservatives and other parties. If the reservoir of support and sympathy for her is as strong as some on here claim perhaps she could "go it alone" and lead us forward.
You have the examples of Emmanuel Macron and Silvio Berlusconi who effectively formed their own political groupings around themselves and got to office while the likes of Donald Trump came in from outside, subverted a pre-existing party and used it as his own vehicle for winning power.
A political movement based around an individual - it's the Presidential/Parliamentary hybrid I suppose. To what extent does any political party become the representation of its leader? Is Labour truly Corbyn now? Many would say yes.
I'm now in the Revocation camp - simply asking for a long delay doesn't help. The WA is flawed and needs if not an overhaul then extensive revision. Shut down the A50 now with a pledge to re-start in 6 months with a new commitment to leave the EU in October 2021 assuming we aren't going to have a GE or a second referendum to ask if we still want to leave the EU.
Revoke is the end of brexit, in my opinion, in a generation0 -
That makes sense - we ourselves have everything ready - just need to decide on when to switch on the alternative arrangements.RochdalePioneers said:Floater said:
Did you not plan for this eventuality in advance?RochdalePioneers said:
I've just signed it. Whilst on a Brexit conference call planning our immediate actions now that we assume its no deal...franklyn said:currently over 3000 per minute
Sure - we have done a lot already. But the final stage of our contingency planning costs us further money so we've held off.
0 -
This. It doesn't matter about collective responsibility any more. There is no reason for any of them to resign as there is no authority left for them to be in breech of. But sure to God out of basic professional pride they need to pull the plug on her.Nigelb said:
More to the point, a reason which they can't ignore.rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1108674862967595008
Get rid. Now.
The Cabinet has a duty to act.
She made the latest request to the EU, which commits the UK to a particular course of action, without any cabinet consultation or even knowledge. I cannot see how any of her cabinet can happily ignore that.
Problem is that all of them - that twunt Corbyn included - have already accepted that its no deal and are now positioning themselves for advantage after it happens.0 -
If they revoke they won't thats for sure.RochdalePioneers said:Why do I keep feeling like I am living within the government's Transition To War plan of the 80s? Kent activating Operation Yellowhammer feels a bit like the government warning that war is imminent and be prepared.
What an omnifuckingshambles this is. And afterwards the Tory party thinks people will roll up and vote for them?
A problem nearly entirely of May's own making.0 -
Andy_Cooke said:
Because it's like a football match, or some other game, apparently.Ishmael_Z said:
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?GreenHeron said:
Well count me down as one of those weird people. Allowing people to vote without implementing what they decided is not democratic. The vote must be implemented first, then if people want to call another vote to rejoin then that would be perfectly democratic.Anorak said:Weird people even think to argue against this. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108674754800701445
Like - if you get engaged and one of you changes your mind, you have to go through with the wedding and then get divorced afterwards.
Best analogy yet. 0 -
I'm not clutching at straws. Just making the point that there is no age limit on signing the petition, whereas there is in voting in a(nother) referendum. Four million kids could sign it, just to piss off the grown ups. And?eek said:
You really are clutching at straws here (although I will accept those signing the petition are clutching for different straws).MarqueeMark said:
And how many of the signatories will not even be of voting age....WhisperingOracle said:
I'd be surprised at that. Once it gets news attention it will only increase the momentum.ReggieCide said:
It's still 17.4m vs 500k and I'd guess that 500k won't move much further as it reflects a Westminster nerds bubble (which includes me)Charles said:
I think they’d be fine with thatBarnesian said:
There is a validation process.asjohnstone said:
Isn't there a validation process that needs to be carried out to make sure they are real people ?eek said:So the petition has reached 500,000 so will need to be debated in Parliament. I wonder if that will be today, tomorrow or Monday as Bercow could prioritise it above everything else.
And that gives everyone a way out - put revoke to a vote and see who actually votes against.
You can be sure it isn't Russian bots. They don't want revoke!
They want turmoil and discontent. They don’t care how.
The simple fact is given the number of signatures the thresholds required have been met..
And we are still a Parliamentary democracy and Parliament needs to decide and enact its decision..0 -
I think we will see a lot of "support" for fringe Democrat candidates coming from the same places that got behind Trump meme magic, a similar thing happened to a degree with Sanders in 2016. I expect that efforts to push fringe Democrat candidates and policy positions will be much bigger in 2020.FrancisUrquhart said:The Yang Gang nonsense seems to be getting a big push.
0 -
I keep saying the trot part of Labour wants us to no deal - and the icing on the cake is to be able to blame it on others.RochdalePioneers said:
This. It doesn't matter about collective responsibility any more. There is no reason for any of them to resign as there is no authority left for them to be in breech of. But sure to God out of basic professional pride they need to pull the plug on her.Nigelb said:
More to the point, a reason which they can't ignore.rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1108674862967595008
Get rid. Now.
The Cabinet has a duty to act.
She made the latest request to the EU, which commits the UK to a particular course of action, without any cabinet consultation or even knowledge. I cannot see how any of her cabinet can happily ignore that.
Problem is that all of them - that twunt Corbyn included - have already accepted that its no deal and are now positioning themselves for advantage after it happens.
Nothing else can explain the childish behaviour of Corbyn last night0 -
If we've revoked under May then the remaining six members of the Tory party can unanimously elect Grieve as leader.eek said:
Won't it were Boris to be the leader?TudorRose said:
.... which won't stand up if we've just revoked (which was the premise of the original post).eek said:
The idea that the Brexit Party will win election seats is unlikely - it's not like the Tories won't be standing as a leave party...dyedwoolie said:
Well, technically but PM Farage says 'we are leaving with no deal and until you agree an immediate date I will veto everything etc etc'williamglenn said:
That's not true under EU law. The only way to bring forward the exit date is via a negotiated agreement. 'No Deal' by definition is the absence of an agreement and only happens after the two years.dyedwoolie said:
Incorrect. There is no need for a two year period. It is only there if negotiation is requiredwilliamglenn said:
PM Farage would come up against the limits of state power just as May has. It's not possible to 'no deal' without the two year Article 50 period.dyedwoolie said:
PM Farsge takes us out no deal, no referendum, no negotiation
0 -
The difference is that Sanders and Trump achieved take-off. I think it's more likely that they'll repeat the experience of the likes of Ben Carson.glw said:
I think we will see a lot of "support" for fringe Democrat candidates coming from the same places that got behind Trump meme magic, a similar thing happened to a degree with Sanders in 2016. I expect that efforts to push fringe Democrat candidates and policy positions will be much bigger in 2020.FrancisUrquhart said:The Yang Gang nonsense seems to be getting a big push.
There are enough credible candidates covering enough different positions in the Democrat race this time that it will be much harder for fringe candidates to break through.0 -
Not really. We've been married for forty years. We've filed for divorce. But we are being told we will have to live together for ever, deeply unhappily, because the lawyers have screwed up the paperwork....Ishmael_Z said:Andy_Cooke said:
Because it's like a football match, or some other game, apparently.Ishmael_Z said:
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?GreenHeron said:
Well count me down as one of those weird people. Allowing people to vote without implementing what they decided is not democratic. The vote must be implemented first, then if people want to call another vote to rejoin then that would be perfectly democratic.Anorak said:Weird people even think to argue against this. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108674754800701445
Like - if you get engaged and one of you changes your mind, you have to go through with the wedding and then get divorced afterwards. Best analogy yet.0 -
But 100% of us voted to get married! Even now, it's 50:50 and that's simply not enough to overturn the original result. Now, where's the vicar?Ishmael_Z said:Andy_Cooke said:
Because it's like a football match, or some other game, apparently.Ishmael_Z said:
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?GreenHeron said:
Well count me down as one of those weird people. Allowing people to vote without implementing what they decided is not democratic. The vote must be implemented first, then if people want to call another vote to rejoin then that would be perfectly democratic.Anorak said:Weird people even think to argue against this. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108674754800701445
Like - if you get engaged and one of you changes your mind, you have to go through with the wedding and then get divorced afterwards. Best analogy yet.0 -
Damn it - both replies so much better than mine.AlastairMeeks said:
Or if you make a suicide pact.Andy_Cooke said:
Because it's like a football match, or some other game, apparently.Ishmael_Z said:
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?GreenHeron said:
Well count me down as one of those weird people. Allowing people to vote without implementing what they decided is not democratic. The vote must be implemented first, then if people want to call another vote to rejoin then that would be perfectly democratic.Anorak said:Weird people even think to argue against this. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108674754800701445
Like - if you get engaged and one of you changes your mind, you have to go through with the wedding and then get divorced afterwards.0 -
Key point. In effect we are in grave danger in a crisis that has exposed the structural inadequacies of our constitution. The combination of Brexit and the destruction of social democratic Labour (not really appreciated or understood by many voters) crash against the rigid two party system.Floater said:
I keep saying the trot part of Labour wants us to no deal - and the icing on the cake is to be able to blame it on others.RochdalePioneers said:
This. It doesn't matter about collective responsibility any more. There is no reason for any of them to resign as there is no authority left for them to be in breech of. But sure to God out of basic professional pride they need to pull the plug on her.Nigelb said:
More to the point, a reason which they can't ignore.rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1108674862967595008
Get rid. Now.
The Cabinet has a duty to act.
She made the latest request to the EU, which commits the UK to a particular course of action, without any cabinet consultation or even knowledge. I cannot see how any of her cabinet can happily ignore that.
Problem is that all of them - that twunt Corbyn included - have already accepted that its no deal and are now positioning themselves for advantage after it happens.
Nothing else can explain the childish behaviour of Corbyn last night0 -
True but remember this is a game of avoiding the blame. May's deal is dead as a Dodo (in fact I suspect resurrecting the Dodo is more likely) which leaves No Deal or revoke as the options left.TudorRose said:
If we've revoked under May then the remaining six members of the Tory party can unanimously elect Grieve as leader.eek said:
Won't it were Boris to be the leader?TudorRose said:
.... which won't stand up if we've just revoked (which was the premise of the original post).eek said:
The idea that the Brexit Party will win election seats is unlikely - it's not like the Tories won't be standing as a leave party...dyedwoolie said:
Well, technically but PM Farage says 'we are leaving with no deal and until you agree an immediate date I will veto everything etc etc'williamglenn said:
That's not true under EU law. The only way to bring forward the exit date is via a negotiated agreement. 'No Deal' by definition is the absence of an agreement and only happens after the two years.dyedwoolie said:
Incorrect. There is no need for a two year period. It is only there if negotiation is requiredwilliamglenn said:
PM Farage would come up against the limits of state power just as May has. It's not possible to 'no deal' without the two year Article 50 period.dyedwoolie said:
PM Farsge takes us out no deal, no referendum, no negotiation
Given those options which one has more recovery options...0 -
What are people worried about
"The EU will cave in they have too much to lose"
!We hold all the Cards"0 -
It’s all very easy as a comfortable middle class person to mock those with poorer education, living in council estates around the country. But the themes that song, with its cringeworthy lyrics was hitting at was the reasons why many voted to leave. You took away from this the lyric “they’ve taken all the fish”. The most important line was “we’re more than just a star”. It’s a comprehensive rejection of the entire European project, and it was done by the lower orders. Probably not since the debates around extending the franchise to those without property have working people been so sneered at for ‘voting the wrong way’.Foxy said:
Is it as good as "they've taken all our fish"?Sandpit said:As a counterpoint to the Revoke petition, a group of Leavers have recorded a song called “17 Million F*** Offs” and it’s going to chart in the top 10 tomorrow.
https://order-order.com/2019/03/20/17-million-fk-os/
Not a classic musical anthem, but that’s not the point.
https://youtu.be/BBi-KXc0CRk
They had last laugh. You asked us, we told you, just F’off.0 -
They have an emergency head of state meeting penciled in for next Thursday and that is the crisis meeting for everyone, as no deal happens next dayTudorRose said:
I think we run out of time next week if TM's deal is not passed. The EU will not extend unless they have that guarantee.Big_G_NorthWales said:Reading the thread there are many well intentioned ideas how to resolve the issue including revoke, as a second referendum is now all but impossible with the EU elections in May and our need to pass legislation to participate which is unlikely between now and the 11th April
The only realistic choices are TM deal - no deal - revoke and all in a week
Our mps have to make a decision and stick to it
We run out of time on the 22nd May altogether
I expect them to agree a transition period to no deal at that time0 -
Yes, another good one for the collection. Although I liked the one submitted the other day about when you walk along the South Coast and, having reached Beachy Head, you peer down and don't like the look of the drop. But, you are duty bound to throw yourself anyway.Ishmael_Z said:Andy_Cooke said:
Because it's like a football match, or some other game, apparently.Ishmael_Z said:
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?GreenHeron said:
Well count me down as one of those weird people. Allowing people to vote without implementing what they decided is not democratic. The vote must be implemented first, then if people want to call another vote to rejoin then that would be perfectly democratic.Anorak said:Weird people even think to argue against this. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108674754800701445
Like - if you get engaged and one of you changes your mind, you have to go through with the wedding and then get divorced afterwards. Best analogy yet.0 -
They aren't trying to get a fringe candidate elected they are trying to polarise the electorate and cause trouble. The fringe candidate can crash and burn, what matters is that the mainstream canidates and their supports are arguing more.david_herdson said:There are enough credible candidates covering enough different positions in the Democrat race this time that it will be much harder for fringe candidates to break through.
0 -
I agree but the ECJ could rule if it is being used inappropriatelyNorthofStoke said:
I don't think that the EU can refuse a legally constituted revoke.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Exactly. It is too late as it needs approval of both the HOC and the EU who will apply conditions to ittheProle said:
Except that revoking must be intended to be a permanent decision, not an a reset of negotiations - otherwise the EU won't accept it. Revoking at this point is probably impossible - I can't see the EU wearing it given that if it happened the near certainly is the government falling and being replaced after an election by the hardest bunch of hard Brexiteers the world has ever seen.stodge said:Morning all
I did idly wonder if Theresa May was considering forming her own party, the TMP, and standing candidates against Conservatives and other parties. If the reservoir of support and sympathy for her is as strong as some on here claim perhaps she could "go it alone" and lead us forward.
You have the examples of Emmanuel Macron and Silvio Berlusconi who effectively formed their own political groupings around themselves and got to office while the likes of Donald Trump came in from outside, subverted a pre-existing party and used it as his own vehicle for winning power.
A political movement based around an individual - it's the Presidential/Parliamentary hybrid I suppose. To what extent does any political party become the representation of its leader? Is Labour truly Corbyn now? Many would say yes.
I'm now in the Revocation camp - simply asking for a long delay doesn't help. The WA is flawed and needs if not an overhaul then extensive revision. Shut down the A50 now with a pledge to re-start in 6 months with a new commitment to leave the EU in October 2021 assuming we aren't going to have a GE or a second referendum to ask if we still want to leave the EU.
Revoke is the end of brexit, in my opinion, in a generation0 -
We already allowed them to do so - they elected a new Parliament in 2017.GreenHeron said:
Well count me down as one of those weird people. Allowing people to vote without implementing what they decided is not democratic. The vote must be implemented first, then if people want to call another vote to rejoin then that would be perfectly democratic.Anorak said:Weird people even think to argue against this. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108674754800701445
Are you saying that Parliament has no mandate ?0 -
Technically it was an advisory referendum so therefore no need to implement it but when the government who called the referendum promise, in government literature, said specifically that what the people decide will be implemented, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the result will be implemented, and to claim that disregarding the first result in the hope of getting the right result second time is somehow more democratic than implementing the first result first is misleading at best.Ishmael_Z said:
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?GreenHeron said:
Well count me down as one of those weird people. Allowing people to vote without implementing what they decided is not democratic. The vote must be implemented first, then if people want to call another vote to rejoin then that would be perfectly democratic.Anorak said:Weird people even think to argue against this. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108674754800701445
It has long been my view that if the people make a mistake, then that mistake must be delivered fully. The strongest and most productive governments of my lifetime have come on the back of bad times and possibly mistakes. The winter of discontent yielded Thatcher, the dysfunctionality of the Major years yielded the boom around the Millennium and the successful early Blair years, the 2008 financial crisis yielded a highly competent coalition government.
It really worries me how many people are happy to ditch basic democratic principles because they don't like a decision the people have made, and expect that by doing so, that precedent will not be used against them in the future and there will be no long term effect of such a decision. And I say this as someone who thinks the deal is awful and No Deal a reckless risk, at least in the short term. The long term implications of revoke, however, I believe to be much much worse.0 -
If we are going no-deal then that would be a sensible move. I suspect that some form of negotiation would operate during that period depending on what happens in UK.Big_G_NorthWales said:
They have an emergency head of state meeting penciled in for next Thursday and that is the crisis meeting for everyone, as no deal happens next dayTudorRose said:
I think we run out of time next week if TM's deal is not passed. The EU will not extend unless they have that guarantee.Big_G_NorthWales said:Reading the thread there are many well intentioned ideas how to resolve the issue including revoke, as a second referendum is now all but impossible with the EU elections in May and our need to pass legislation to participate which is unlikely between now and the 11th April
The only realistic choices are TM deal - no deal - revoke and all in a week
Our mps have to make a decision and stick to it
We run out of time on the 22nd May altogether
I expect them to agree a transition period to no deal at that time0 -
You would hope if it was a Russian bot operation, they would be a lot smarter than that. I mean, I was recently the victim of insurance scam, where a gang used my details to sign up for 20+ car and van insurances.Floater said:
Speaking to the various insurances companies to sort this matter out, they admitted oh its dead easy...they just download bits and pieces of different people's personal info and piece it together. It only has to pass the initial checks i.e. they had my correct name / address / age and had spliced it together with somebody else's bank details etc.
I would have thought the Russians could do the same for a non-binding poorly policed petition site, without having to sign up from North Korea etc.0 -
1&2 = MayBarnesian said:If MV3 is voted down early next week, as seems likely, what are the possible next steps?
1. Mrs May immediately resigns as leader and PM and says it is up to parliament. Who is interim PM for the rest of the week? Lidington? May?
2. Mrs May doesn't resign but government loses VONC as some Tory MPs renege in desperation. Who is interim PM for the rest of the week? Lidington? May?
3. Mrs May doesn't resign or lose VNOC. EU offers unconditional long extension. May refuses. What then?
How, in practical terms do MPs, including Cabinet Ministers, take control from a rogue PM?
3 = VoNC0 -
And yet you, in all your wargaming, scenario-analysing wisdom, voted Leave.RochdalePioneers said:Why do I keep feeling like I am living within the government's Transition To War plan of the 80s? Kent activating Operation Yellowhammer feels a bit like the government warning that war is imminent and be prepared.
What an omnifuckingshambles this is. And afterwards the Tory party thinks people will roll up and vote for them?
Because of course you thought the Brexit fairy would come and sprinkle gold dust on the chocolate Brexit cake you were promised.0 -
Or (here's a cheeky thought) they 'forget' to invite the Irish and offer to remove the backstop instead.Big_G_NorthWales said:
They have an emergency head of state meeting penciled in for next Thursday and that is the crisis meeting for everyone, as no deal happens next dayTudorRose said:
I think we run out of time next week if TM's deal is not passed. The EU will not extend unless they have that guarantee.Big_G_NorthWales said:Reading the thread there are many well intentioned ideas how to resolve the issue including revoke, as a second referendum is now all but impossible with the EU elections in May and our need to pass legislation to participate which is unlikely between now and the 11th April
The only realistic choices are TM deal - no deal - revoke and all in a week
Our mps have to make a decision and stick to it
We run out of time on the 22nd May altogether
I expect them to agree a transition period to no deal at that time0 -
Both make a fair few people very upset but one damages real lives whereas the other leaves things be.eek said:
True but remember this is a game of avoiding the blame. May's deal is dead as a Dodo (in fact I suspect resurrecting the Dodo is more likely) which leaves No Deal or revoke as the options left.TudorRose said:
If we've revoked under May then the remaining six members of the Tory party can unanimously elect Grieve as leader.eek said:
Won't it were Boris to be the leader?TudorRose said:
.... which won't stand up if we've just revoked (which was the premise of the original post).eek said:
The idea that the Brexit Party will win election seats is unlikely - it's not like the Tories won't be standing as a leave party...dyedwoolie said:
Well, technically but PM Farage says 'we are leaving with no deal and until you agree an immediate date I will veto everything etc etc'williamglenn said:
That's not true under EU law. The only way to bring forward the exit date is via a negotiated agreement. 'No Deal' by definition is the absence of an agreement and only happens after the two years.dyedwoolie said:
Incorrect. There is no need for a two year period. It is only there if negotiation is requiredwilliamglenn said:
PM Farage would come up against the limits of state power just as May has. It's not possible to 'no deal' without the two year Article 50 period.dyedwoolie said:
PM Farsge takes us out no deal, no referendum, no negotiation
Given those options which one has more recovery options...0 -
I do wonder whether she gets FROISO shortly *before* we get to No Deal. If the "metropolitan liberal elite" are determined to do it, they may as well do so when they have the (appearance of a) chance to do something useful with it.Dura_Ace said:
May would rather no deal than revoke - that much is certain. After that she'll get fucked right off in short order. Then the tories need a once-in-a-generation dissembler to persuade the great unsoaped that everything is, in fact and contrary to all appearances, just great in Aggressively Managed WTO Deal Global Britain. Step forward Boris.Barnesian said:If MV3 is voted down early next week, as seems likely, what are the possible next steps?
1. Mrs May immediately resigns as leader and PM and says it is up to parliament. Who is interim PM for the rest of the week? Lidington? May?
2. Mrs May doesn't resign but government loses VONC as some Tory MPs renege in desperation. Who is interim PM for the rest of the week? Lidington? May?
3. Mrs May doesn't resign or lose VNOC. EU offers unconditional long extension. May refuses. What then?
How, in practical terms do MPs, including Cabinet Ministers, take control from a rogue PM?0 -
We need more defectionsNorthofStoke said:
Key point. In effect we are in grave danger in a crisis that has exposed the structural inadequacies of our constitution. The combination of Brexit and the destruction of social democratic Labour (not really appreciated or understood by many voters) crash against the rigid two party system.Floater said:
I keep saying the trot part of Labour wants us to no deal - and the icing on the cake is to be able to blame it on others.RochdalePioneers said:
This. It doesn't matter about collective responsibility any more. There is no reason for any of them to resign as there is no authority left for them to be in breech of. But sure to God out of basic professional pride they need to pull the plug on her.Nigelb said:
More to the point, a reason which they can't ignore.rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1108674862967595008
Get rid. Now.
The Cabinet has a duty to act.
She made the latest request to the EU, which commits the UK to a particular course of action, without any cabinet consultation or even knowledge. I cannot see how any of her cabinet can happily ignore that.
Problem is that all of them - that twunt Corbyn included - have already accepted that its no deal and are now positioning themselves for advantage after it happens.
Nothing else can explain the childish behaviour of Corbyn last night0 -
Yep - if the Tories think Revoke is bad, wait until they see the result of No Deal is 1 year down the line...IanB2 said:
Both make a fair few people very upset but one damages real lives whereas the other leaves things be.eek said:
True but remember this is a game of avoiding the blame. May's deal is dead as a Dodo (in fact I suspect resurrecting the Dodo is more likely) which leaves No Deal or revoke as the options left.TudorRose said:
If we've revoked under May then the remaining six members of the Tory party can unanimously elect Grieve as leader.eek said:
Won't it were Boris to be the leader?TudorRose said:
.... which won't stand up if we've just revoked (which was the premise of the original post).eek said:
The idea that the Brexit Party will win election seats is unlikely - it's not like the Tories won't be standing as a leave party...dyedwoolie said:
Well, technically but PM Farage says 'we are leaving with no deal and until you agree an immediate date I will veto everything etc etc'williamglenn said:
That's not true under EU law. The only way to bring forward the exit date is via a negotiated agreement. 'No Deal' by definition is the absence of an agreement and only happens after the two years.dyedwoolie said:
Incorrect. There is no need for a two year period. It is only there if negotiation is requiredwilliamglenn said:
PM Farage would come up against the limits of state power just as May has. It's not possible to 'no deal' without the two year Article 50 period.dyedwoolie said:
PM Farsge takes us out no deal, no referendum, no negotiation
Given those options which one has more recovery options...0 -
This is my understanding of how the initial Russian interference started last time. It started before Trump was even a candidate. They had built big online groups of different demographics and were pumping those with stories that would inflame them e.g. black christian group and push reports of a racist attack against a black church goer etc. They weren't even "fake news", it was more selected and heavily targeted.glw said:
They aren't trying to get a fringe candidate elected they are trying to polarise the electorate and cause trouble. The fringe candidate can crash and burn, what matters is that the mainstream canidates and their supports are arguing more.david_herdson said:There are enough credible candidates covering enough different positions in the Democrat race this time that it will be much harder for fringe candidates to break through.
0 -
That just shows how blinkered you are.Recidivist said:
I've been keeping some stats so I can run some tests to see if there are any obvious signs of malpractice. But the interest on Twitter, and indeed on this forum, suggests it is a genuinely high level of participation. And why would foreign players be backing the policy that is advantageous to the UK? Players that don't have the UK's interests at heart would be backing Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
10% of petition signatures made yesterday daytime.topherdawson said:Parliamentary petition to "Revoke Article 50 and Stay in the EU" was at 630209 signatures at 0941 this morning. Signatures coming in at 4000 per minute. Petitions site has now crashed.
90% overnight while people are in bed.
Aren't foreign bot farms great.
The Russians seek polarisation and division. Little would be more polarising and divisive than revocation - especially without a mandate. It would cause democratic outrage, a surge of support to extremists and leave a malcontent and bitter UK as a trouble maker in the EU.0 -
Touching to see Leavers so concerned about Russian interference in UK politics now.FrancisUrquhart said:
You would hope if it was a Russian bot operation, they would be a lot smarter than that. I mean, I was recently the victim of insurance scam, where a gang used my details to sign up for 20+ car and van insurances.Floater said:
Speaking to the various insurances companies to sort this matter out, they admitted oh its dead easy...they just download bits and pieces of different people's personal info and piece it together. It only has to pass the initial checks i.e. they had my correct name / address / age and had spliced it together with somebody else's bank details etc.
I would have thought the Russians could do the same for a non-binding poorly policed petition site, without having to sign up from North Korea etc.0 -
I cannot see that any basic democratic principle is being infringed. The deomcratic obligation was to pay due attention to the result and to give Leave a reasonable amount of time to demonstrate that the result was capable of enactment. We have done all that.GreenHeron said:
Technically it was an advisory referendum so therefore no need to implement it but when the government who called the referendum promise, in government literature, said specifically that what the people decide will be implemented, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the result will be implemented, and to claim that disregarding the first result in the hope of getting the right result second time is somehow more democratic than implementing the first result first is misleading at best.Ishmael_Z said:
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?GreenHeron said:
Well count me down as one of those weird people. Allowing people to vote without implementing what they decided is not democratic. The vote must be implemented first, then if people want to call another vote to rejoin then that would be perfectly democratic.Anorak said:Weird people even think to argue against this. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108674754800701445
It has long been my view that if the people make a mistake, then that mistake must be delivered fully. The strongest and most productive governments of my lifetime have come on the back of bad times and possibly mistakes. The winter of discontent yielded Thatcher, the dysfunctionality of the Major years yielded the boom around the Millennium and the successful early Blair years, the 2008 financial crisis yielded a highly competent coalition government.
It really worries me how many people are happy to ditch basic democratic principles because they don't like a decision the people have made, and expect that by doing so, that precedent will not be used against them in the future and there will be no long term effect of such a decision. And I say this as someone who thinks the deal is awful and No Deal a reckless risk, at least in the short term. The long term implications of revoke, however, I believe to be much much worse.0 -
I am not a leaver....and my point was I doubt the Russian would be so rubbish.AlastairMeeks said:
Touching to see Leavers so concerned about Russian interference in UK politics now.FrancisUrquhart said:
You would hope if it was a Russian bot operation, they would be a lot smarter than that. I mean, I was recently the victim of insurance scam, where a gang used my details to sign up for 20+ car and van insurances.Floater said:
Speaking to the various insurances companies to sort this matter out, they admitted oh its dead easy...they just download bits and pieces of different people's personal info and piece it together. It only has to pass the initial checks i.e. they had my correct name / address / age and had spliced it together with somebody else's bank details etc.
I would have thought the Russians could do the same for a non-binding poorly policed petition site, without having to sign up from North Korea etc.
I am not at all surprised there is a genuine swell of backing for this petition.0 -
Mr. B2, 'leaves things be' is a very inaccurate description of what the situation would be if ended up revoking (particularly if that were done directly by Parliament rather than via a second referendum).0
-
Similar to us crashing out of the ERM?eek said:
Yep - if the Tories think Revoke is bad, wait until they see the result of No Deal is 1 year down the line...IanB2 said:
Both make a fair few people very upset but one damages real lives whereas the other leaves things be.eek said:
True but remember this is a game of avoiding the blame. May's deal is dead as a Dodo (in fact I suspect resurrecting the Dodo is more likely) which leaves No Deal or revoke as the options left.TudorRose said:
If we've revoked under May then the remaining six members of the Tory party can unanimously elect Grieve as leader.eek said:
Won't it were Boris to be the leader?TudorRose said:
.... which won't stand up if we've just revoked (which was the premise of the original post).eek said:
The idea that the Brexit Party will win election seats is unlikely - it's not like the Tories won't be standing as a leave party...dyedwoolie said:
Well, technically but PM Farage says 'we are leaving with no deal and until you agree an immediate date I will veto everything etc etc'williamglenn said:
That's not true under EU law. The only way to bring forward the exit date is via a negotiated agreement. 'No Deal' by definition is the absence of an agreement and only happens after the two years.dyedwoolie said:
Incorrect. There is no need for a two year period. It is only there if negotiation is requiredwilliamglenn said:
PM Farage would come up against the limits of state power just as May has. It's not possible to 'no deal' without the two year Article 50 period.dyedwoolie said:
PM Farsge takes us out no deal, no referendum, no negotiation
Given those options which one has more recovery options...0 -
I would consider it deliberate not to hide it if the purpose is to cause mayhem. Remainers will be bigging up the number of signatures and Casino Royale and other conspiracy theorists will be on here tonight telling us all that only a few hundred were genuine. Nobody wins and it is just anarchy , which is probably the purpose.FrancisUrquhart said:
You would hope if it was a Russian bot operation, they would be a lot smarter than that. I mean, I was recently the victim of insurance scam, where a gang used my details to sign up for 20+ car and van insurances.Floater said:
Speaking to the various insurances companies to sort this matter out, they admitted oh its dead easy...they just download bits and pieces of different people's personal info and piece it together. It only has to pass the initial checks i.e. they had my correct name / address / age and had spliced it together with somebody else's bank details etc.
I would have thought the Russians could do the same for a non-binding poorly policed petition site, without having to sign up from North Korea etc.0 -
Sorry, I was more referring to Order Order.FrancisUrquhart said:
I am not a leaver....and my point was I doubt the Russian would be so rubbish.AlastairMeeks said:
Touching to see Leavers so concerned about Russian interference in UK politics now.FrancisUrquhart said:
You would hope if it was a Russian bot operation, they would be a lot smarter than that. I mean, I was recently the victim of insurance scam, where a gang used my details to sign up for 20+ car and van insurances.Floater said:
Speaking to the various insurances companies to sort this matter out, they admitted oh its dead easy...they just download bits and pieces of different people's personal info and piece it together. It only has to pass the initial checks i.e. they had my correct name / address / age and had spliced it together with somebody else's bank details etc.
I would have thought the Russians could do the same for a non-binding poorly policed petition site, without having to sign up from North Korea etc.
I am not at all surprised there is a genuine swell of backing for this petition.0 -
Yes, No Deal will be horrific and will certainly lead to PM Jezza. The public know just how much the Tories loathe and fear him, so will vote for him in vast numbers just to spite them if nothing else.eek said:
Yep - if the Tories think Revoke is bad, wait until they see the result of No Deal is 1 year down the line...IanB2 said:
Both make a fair few people very upset but one damages real lives whereas the other leaves things be.eek said:
True but remember this is a game of avoiding the blame. May's deal is dead as a Dodo (in fact I suspect resurrecting the Dodo is more likely) which leaves No Deal or revoke as the options left.TudorRose said:
If we've revoked under May then the remaining six members of the Tory party can unanimously elect Grieve as leader.eek said:
Won't it were Boris to be the leader?TudorRose said:
.... which won't stand up if we've just revoked (which was the premise of the original post).eek said:
The idea that the Brexit Party will win election seats is unlikely - it's not like the Tories won't be standing as a leave party...dyedwoolie said:
Well, technically but PM Farage says 'we are leaving with no deal and until you agree an immediate date I will veto everything etc etc'williamglenn said:
That's not true under EU law. The only way to bring forward the exit date is via a negotiated agreement. 'No Deal' by definition is the absence of an agreement and only happens after the two years.dyedwoolie said:
Incorrect. There is no need for a two year period. It is only there if negotiation is requiredwilliamglenn said:
PM Farage would come up against the limits of state power just as May has. It's not possible to 'no deal' without the two year Article 50 period.dyedwoolie said:
PM Farsge takes us out no deal, no referendum, no negotiation
Given those options which one has more recovery options...0 -
Nah. The problem is the immediate aftermath, the known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknown. A global market place is dynamic and the fundamentals are pretty good. If the EU desire to punish us in trade negotiations there are other countries who will very gladly take on their trade surpluses.eek said:
Yep - if the Tories think Revoke is bad, wait until they see the result of No Deal is 1 year down the line...IanB2 said:
Both make a fair few people very upset but one damages real lives whereas the other leaves things be.eek said:
True but remember this is a game of avoiding the blame. May's deal is dead as a Dodo (in fact I suspect resurrecting the Dodo is more likely) which leaves No Deal or revoke as the options left.TudorRose said:
If we've revoked under May then the remaining six members of the Tory party can unanimously elect Grieve as leader.eek said:
Won't it were Boris to be the leader?TudorRose said:
.... which won't stand up if we've just revoked (which was the premise of the original post).eek said:
The idea that the Brexit Party will win election seats is unlikely - it's not like the Tories won't be standing as a leave party...dyedwoolie said:
Well, technically but PM Farage says 'we are leaving with no deal and until you agree an immediate date I will veto everything etc etc'williamglenn said:
That's not true under EU law. The only way to bring forward the exit date is via a negotiated agreement. 'No Deal' by definition is the absence of an agreement and only happens after the two years.dyedwoolie said:
Incorrect. There is no need for a two year period. It is only there if negotiation is requiredwilliamglenn said:
PM Farage would come up against the limits of state power just as May has. It's not possible to 'no deal' without the two year Article 50 period.dyedwoolie said:
PM Farsge takes us out no deal, no referendum, no negotiation
Given those options which one has more recovery options...0 -
Technically you are correct but I'm not concerned about technicalities. I'm concerned about what people will do if it is proven that their democratic voice counts for nothing. How do you expect people to react when the ballot box ceases to be a viable way of expressing one's opinion?Ishmael_Z said:
I cannot see that any basic democratic principle is being infringed. The deomcratic obligation was to pay due attention to the result and to give Leave a reasonable amount of time to demonstrate that the result was capable of enactment. We have done all that.GreenHeron said:
Technically it was an advisory referendum so therefore no need to implement it but when the government who called the referendum promise, in government literature, said specifically that what the people decide will be implemented, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the result will be implemented, and to claim that disregarding the first result in the hope of getting the right result second time is somehow more democratic than implementing the first result first is misleading at best.Ishmael_Z said:
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?GreenHeron said:
Well count me down as one of those weird people. Allowing people to vote without implementing what they decided is not democratic. The vote must be implemented first, then if people want to call another vote to rejoin then that would be perfectly democratic.Anorak said:Weird people even think to argue against this. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108674754800701445
It has long been my view that if the people make a mistake, then that mistake must be delivered fully. The strongest and most productive governments of my lifetime have come on the back of bad times and possibly mistakes. The winter of discontent yielded Thatcher, the dysfunctionality of the Major years yielded the boom around the Millennium and the successful early Blair years, the 2008 financial crisis yielded a highly competent coalition government.
It really worries me how many people are happy to ditch basic democratic principles because they don't like a decision the people have made, and expect that by doing so, that precedent will not be used against them in the future and there will be no long term effect of such a decision. And I say this as someone who thinks the deal is awful and No Deal a reckless risk, at least in the short term. The long term implications of revoke, however, I believe to be much much worse.0 -
How would you expect that to work? Are we still members and subject to the Treaties (in which case, to all intents and purposes, it becomes a faffing extension during which we can still revoke or, probably, come up with Unicorns Plus). I thought everyone had been very clear that a transition period only applies to Deal - this is the first suggestion I've seen otherwise.. apart from Davis getting it arse-about-face in some Q&A.Big_G_NorthWales said:
They have an emergency head of state meeting penciled in for next Thursday and that is the crisis meeting for everyone, as no deal happens next dayTudorRose said:
I think we run out of time next week if TM's deal is not passed. The EU will not extend unless they have that guarantee.Big_G_NorthWales said:Reading the thread there are many well intentioned ideas how to resolve the issue including revoke, as a second referendum is now all but impossible with the EU elections in May and our need to pass legislation to participate which is unlikely between now and the 11th April
The only realistic choices are TM deal - no deal - revoke and all in a week
Our mps have to make a decision and stick to it
We run out of time on the 22nd May altogether
I expect them to agree a transition period to no deal at that time
(And if we're not actual members, then I suspect there are a lot of laws which aren't in place for any sort of special third country status).0 -
A yes but is also possible, with the deal made by amendment subject to a vote or fed into an indicative vote processCharles said:
1&2 = MayBarnesian said:If MV3 is voted down early next week, as seems likely, what are the possible next steps?
1. Mrs May immediately resigns as leader and PM and says it is up to parliament. Who is interim PM for the rest of the week? Lidington? May?
2. Mrs May doesn't resign but government loses VONC as some Tory MPs renege in desperation. Who is interim PM for the rest of the week? Lidington? May?
3. Mrs May doesn't resign or lose VNOC. EU offers unconditional long extension. May refuses. What then?
How, in practical terms do MPs, including Cabinet Ministers, take control from a rogue PM?
3 = VoNC
An amendment only has effect if the amended motion is carried0 -
With a great big "Meh."GreenHeron said:
Technically you are correct but I'm not concerned about technicalities. I'm concerned about what people will do if it is proven that their democratic voice counts for nothing. How do you expect people to react when the ballot box ceases to be a viable way of expressing one's opinion?Ishmael_Z said:
I cannot see that any basic democratic principle is being infringed. The deomcratic obligation was to pay due attention to the result and to give Leave a reasonable amount of time to demonstrate that the result was capable of enactment. We have done all that.GreenHeron said:
Technically it was an advisory referendum so therefore no need to implement it but when the government who called the referendum promise, in government literature, said specifically that what the people decide will be implemented, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the result will be implemented, and to claim that disregarding the first result in the hope of getting the right result second time is somehow more democratic than implementing the first result first is misleading at best.Ishmael_Z said:
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?GreenHeron said:
Well count me down as one of those weird people. Allowing people to vote without implementing what they decided is not democratic. The vote must be implemented first, then if people want to call another vote to rejoin then that would be perfectly democratic.Anorak said:Weird people even think to argue against this. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1108674754800701445
It has long been my view that if the people make a mistake, then that mistake must be delivered fully. The strongest and most productive governments of my lifetime have come on the back of bad times and possibly mistakes. The winter of discontent yielded Thatcher, the dysfunctionality of the Major years yielded the boom around the Millennium and the successful early Blair years, the 2008 financial crisis yielded a highly competent coalition government.
It really worries me how many people are happy to ditch basic democratic principles because they don't like a decision the people have made, and expect that by doing so, that precedent will not be used against them in the future and there will be no long term effect of such a decision. And I say this as someone who thinks the deal is awful and No Deal a reckless risk, at least in the short term. The long term implications of revoke, however, I believe to be much much worse.0 -
Anti-fracking campaigners say there will be protests against chemicals firm Ineos' takeover of Team Sky at this year's Tour de Yorkshire.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/476442460 -
Yes. The most almighty biggest risk for the EU is if we crash out, cut corporation tax and don’t bind ourselves to the many multi year transitional agreements that May has agreed to in the WA which are very advantageous to the EU, and that we prosper.Philip_Thompson said:
Similar to us crashing out of the ERM?eek said:
Yep - if the Tories think Revoke is bad, wait until they see the result of No Deal is 1 year down the line...IanB2 said:
Both make a fair few people very upset but one damages real lives whereas the other leaves things be.eek said:
True but remember this is a game of avoiding the blame. May's deal is dead as a Dodo (in fact I suspect resurrecting the Dodo is more likely) which leaves No Deal or revoke as the options left.TudorRose said:
If we've revoked under May then the remaining six members of the Tory party can unanimously elect Grieve as leader.eek said:
Won't it were Boris to be the leader?TudorRose said:
.... which won't stand up if we've just revoked (which was the premise of the original post).eek said:
The idea that the Brexit Party will win election seats is unlikely - it's not like the Tories won't be standing as a leave party...dyedwoolie said:
Well, technically but PM Farage says 'we are leaving with no deal and until you agree an immediate date I will veto everything etc etc'williamglenn said:
That's not true under EU law. The only way to bring forward the exit date is via a negotiated agreement. 'No Deal' by definition is the absence of an agreement and only happens after the two years.dyedwoolie said:
Incorrect. There is no need for a two year period. It is only there if negotiation is requiredwilliamglenn said:
PM Farage would come up against the limits of state power just as May has. It's not possible to 'no deal' without the two year Article 50 period.dyedwoolie said:
PM Farsge takes us out no deal, no referendum, no negotiation
Given those options which one has more recovery options...0 -
Revising for exams is a posisble alternative.ReggieCide said:
They're only wasting their time if they have something better to doTudorRose said:
Timing people wasting their time; that really is an exercise in futility.Recidivist said:The petition website is down again. Not surprising. I just clocked sign up at 3,762 per minute. I'd suggest a workaround where we give people bits of paper where they can tick their preference and put it in a box.
0 -
Here's tae the SNP, wha's like 'em, etc.Scott_P said:0 -
-
For the first time I think it's actually going to be a No Deal on Friday isn't it?
This is August 1914. Not many actually want war/no deal, but everyone is too entrenched and stubborn to compromise to avoid it.0 -
3/4 million for revoke any second0
-
Hope they'd be as flippant about Sindy being reversed if it all just proves too difficult.Scott_P said:0
