politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s time we moved back to MPs choosing the party leader inste

nico67 said:

This ploy looks to cut off the chance of a further extension .

Vote the WA and after April 12 it’s too late to organize EU elections . So saying to the ERG get it through and the UK is definitely out by May 22 . Of course they could then derail the WAIB and force no deal unless the nuclear option of revoke happens .

In terms of EU elections there’s nothing in the ECJ decision to stop revocation past April 12 . The EU can’t stop that as long as that happens before the expiry of the May 22 extension.

And if the WA comes back tomorrow , then amendments could be put down so that could cause the government more problems .

But the whole argument before was vote it through and be out by March 29th (tomorrow). Why would they relent now? Their aim is to stall everything and achieve crash out no deal.

Benpointer said:

Norm said:

Danny565 said:

Tory MP says a long Article 50 extension is a less bad option than voting for May's Deal:

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1111265909371359232?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1111265909371359232&ref_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-47696409

Such self- indulgence when for example the British Chamber of Commerce just meeting down the road are saying the current uncertainty is now causing real practical difficulties to importers and exporters.

And how does he gain a new PM under that scenario given TM's resignation is conditional?

He waits till December I guess. May should make tomorrow's vote a confidence matter, remove the whip from the ERG hard-liners who still vote against, and call an election...

They'd be disqualified from standing as Tories in the GE, I believe.

Grieve would be dewhipped too.

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Parties are partnerships between members and MPs. There isn't a problem about the membership having a say, because that allows some balance. The problems come when only the membership has the say.

Yes, there is a degree of balance in the Tory process, with elimination to the final two ensuring that a leader must enjoy a reasonably high level of support amongst many MPs even if the successful candidate is not the first choice of the majority. The problem with the Tory process is with the procedure for getting rid of a leader who just scrapes home against a challenge (i.e. the 12 month embargo) not with the process of choosing them.

Generally MPs rally around their new leader anyway if they are any good, so an initial shortfall of MPs won't last. Ed Miliband achieved that - it was opponents outside not inside the party who tried to use the electoral college outcome against him. The problem with the new Labour process is that the MPs nominations threshold is far too low, effectively stripping them of influence. And the electoral college was a far better means of achieving balance anyway.

I agree. The Labour method is too membership orientated. A 50/50 weighting MPs vs Members would be appropriate IMO.

OldKingCole said:

dyedwoolie said:

tlg86 said:

dyedwoolie said:

tlg86 said:

Pro_Rata said:

tlg86 said:

Pro_Rata said:

Off topic: I may actually cry at this.

www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/8721508/inter-ac-milan-san-siro-new-stadium/amp/

Concrete it may be, but the San Siro is one of the most unconscionability beautiful structures in the world imho.

Have you been?

A couple of times some years ago. The sight lines and in stadium experience are not modern, it's very vertiginous, and when not full the lowest ring near the pitch tends to be pretty empty putting gap between fan and pitch that was never intended.

But if I were to choose any stadium in the world to survive to 4000AD to tell those people of our times, forget your fancy new stadia, I would choose this one.

The facilities in the (Milan) away end certainly leave a lot to be desired. That said, I'm glad I've been as it is iconic. If Arsenal get past Napoli and play Valencia in the semi final I'll go as I've always wanted to go to the Mestalla.

In terms of stadia of iconicness then St John's Wood is as far as one need go. Perhaps notwithstanding the MCG on the first morning of a Boxing Day Ashes test

I've only watched professional cricket at one ground - Woodbridge Road, Guildford. I think I'd put Newlands ahead of the MCG as far as grounds I would like to visit.

I've always wanted to go the Perth test. The world could explode in nuclear war on the first morning and the test would be over before news reached.
Antigua or St Lucia would be good.
Norfolks old ground at lakenham was fun if only because I saw them beat a rest of the world side there, it was a terrible wicket though

A Test Match, even more a one-day game, in Sri Lanka is an experience. And Galle is a visual one as well. Newlands is spectacular.
Chelmsford, where I go frequently, desperatly needs a rebuild, but the atmosphere on a Friday night for a T20 can be great.
Worst ground in this part of he world is the Garon Stadium in Southend. Featureless, cold, poor outfield and appalling access.

Last time I was at Chelmsford was 1985 for the touring aussies, including a decrepit Jeff Thomson

TOPPING said:

nico67 said:

This ploy looks to cut off the chance of a further extension .

Vote the WA and after April 12 it’s too late to organize EU elections . So saying to the ERG get it through and the UK is definitely out by May 22 . Of course they could then derail the WAIB and force no deal unless the nuclear option of revoke happens .

In terms of EU elections there’s nothing in the ECJ decision to stop revocation past April 12 . The EU can’t stop that as long as that happens before the expiry of the May 22 extension.

And if the WA comes back tomorrow , then amendments could be put down so that could cause the government more problems .

But the whole argument before was vote it through and be out by March 29th (tomorrow). Why would they relent now? Their aim is to stall everything and achieve crash out no deal.

It's either that or the line Dan Hannan and others are suggesting i.e. that we should merrily extend for up to 21 months, hold euro elections (don't rate his chances of being returned lol) and renegotiate a Swiss or EFTA style deal. And stay outside the Customs Union which he hates.

anothernick said:

Benpointer said:

Norm said:

Danny565 said:

Tory MP says a long Article 50 extension is a less bad option than voting for May's Deal:

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1111265909371359232?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1111265909371359232&ref_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-47696409

Such self- indulgence when for example the British Chamber of Commerce just meeting down the road are saying the current uncertainty is now causing real practical difficulties to importers and exporters.

And how does he gain a new PM under that scenario given TM's resignation is conditional?

He waits till December I guess. May should make tomorrow's vote a confidence matter, remove the whip from the ERG hard-liners who still vote against, and call an election...

They'd be disqualified from standing as Tories in the GE, I believe.

The FTPA does not allow the government to deem random votes to be matters of confidence. Confidence votes have to use a prescribed wording and follow a set procedure.

Another thoughtful change left to us by David Cameron.

Wasn't that one demanded by Clegg?

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1111051719851606018

This is essentially what I have been saying for a while is a very feasible outcome.

Uncouple the WA from the PD.
WA passed and we leave in Q2.
Tories select new leader.
GE to decide who runs with the Future Relationship.

Has a lot going for it.

It’s a mirage. The EU Withdrawal Act explicitly links ratification of the WA to the PD.

So amend the Act.....

dyedwoolie said:

OldKingCole said:

dyedwoolie said:

tlg86 said:

dyedwoolie said:

tlg86 said:

Pro_Rata said:

tlg86 said:

Pro_Rata said:

Off topic: I may actually cry at this.

www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/8721508/inter-ac-milan-san-siro-new-stadium/amp/

Concrete it may be, but the San Siro is one of the most unconscionability beautiful structures in the world imho.

Have you been?

A couple of times some years ago. The sight lines and in stadium experience are not modern, it's very vertiginous, and when not full the lowest ring near the pitch tends to be pretty empty putting gap between fan and pitch that was never intended.

But if I were to choose any stadium in the world to survive to 4000AD to tell those people of our times, forget your fancy new stadia, I would choose this one.

The facilities in the (Milan) away end certainly leave a lot to be desired. That said, I'm glad I've been as it is iconic. If Arsenal get past Napoli and play Valencia in the semi final I'll go as I've always wanted to go to the Mestalla.

In terms of stadia of iconicness then St John's Wood is as far as one need go. Perhaps notwithstanding the MCG on the first morning of a Boxing Day Ashes test

I've only watched professional cricket at one ground - Woodbridge Road, Guildford. I think I'd put Newlands ahead of the MCG as far as grounds I would like to visit.

I've always wanted to go the Perth test. The world could explode in nuclear war on the first morning and the test would be over before news reached.
Antigua or St Lucia would be good.
Norfolks old ground at lakenham was fun if only because I saw them beat a rest of the world side there, it was a terrible wicket though

A Test Match, even more a one-day game, in Sri Lanka is an experience. And Galle is a visual one as well. Newlands is spectacular.
Chelmsford, where I go frequently, desperatly needs a rebuild, but the atmosphere on a Friday night for a T20 can be great.
Worst ground in this part of he world is the Garon Stadium in Southend. Featureless, cold, poor outfield and appalling access.

Last time I was at Chelmsford was 1985 for the touring aussies, including a decrepit Jeff Thomson

The 2005 game against the Aussies was the one to be at; Essex rolled them over and the crowd were chanting "Are you Scotland in disguise?" Cook at 21 scored a double century off a more or less Test attack.

Andrew said:

Uncouple + amend EU Withdrawal Act + some parliamentary oversight committee for PD?

By tomorrow evening?

dyedwoolie said:

I was taken by a Welsh university mate to a game at Neath when I visited him one holiday. That's the most intimidating thing I've experienced in a sports arena

The chants of Neaf Neaf Neaf are well known. Funnily enough the only time I've been there was to watch cricket next door. Glamorgan vs Australia. Mark Waugh attempted to hit 6 sixes in an over off a young bowler called Stuart Phelps. He managed 4 but then the fifth one he scuffed for a single to long on. My brother swears he hit the ground with his bat in annoyance. Almost exactly 25 years after Garfield Sobers had first achieved it - down the road in St Helens.

SeanT said:

brendan16 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1111051719851606018

So when is the election then - late June?

And does that mean we leave on 22 May - before the election? I can see Labour being torn - but they could wipe out the Tiggers.

And then we can have an election about whether we are in a customs arrangement, no customs union, a customs union or the customs union - and within a few days we will probably all end up being driven to needing free social care!

I'm just lost now. And I am a politics geek like the rest of you. But this - this is now a special kind of wtf-ery.

I'm not sure there's anyone who actually and properly understands the entirety of what is happening. It's like a sport where nineteen different teams play against each other simultaneously, on the same pitch, each with a small but significantly different understanding of the rules.

Oh, a lot of people are understanding what is happening. They are watching democracy be debased.

SeanT said:

brendan16 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1111051719851606018

So when is the election then - late June?

And does that mean we leave on 22 May - before the election? I can see Labour being torn - but they could wipe out the Tiggers.

And then we can have an election about whether we are in a customs arrangement, no customs union, a customs union or the customs union - and within a few days we will probably all end up being driven to needing free social care!

I'm just lost now. And I am a politics geek like the rest of you. But this - this is now a special kind of wtf-ery.

I'm not sure there's anyone who actually and properly understands the entirety of what is happening. It's like a sport where nineteen different teams play against each other simultaneously, on the same pitch, each with a small but significantly different understanding of the rules.

Like!

RobD said:

anothernick said:

Benpointer said:

Norm said:

Danny565 said:

Tory MP says a long Article 50 extension is a less bad option than voting for May's Deal:

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1111265909371359232?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1111265909371359232&ref_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-47696409

Such self- indulgence when for example the British Chamber of Commerce just meeting down the road are saying the current uncertainty is now causing real practical difficulties to importers and exporters.

And how does he gain a new PM under that scenario given TM's resignation is conditional?

He waits till December I guess. May should make tomorrow's vote a confidence matter, remove the whip from the ERG hard-liners who still vote against, and call an election...

They'd be disqualified from standing as Tories in the GE, I believe.

The FTPA does not allow the government to deem random votes to be matters of confidence. Confidence votes have to use a prescribed wording and follow a set procedure.

Another thoughtful change left to us by David Cameron.

Wasn't that one demanded by Clegg?

Possibly. I think it was supposed to prevent the Tories calling an early election to dump the Lib Dems though they still had the numbers to call one as long as the opposition went along with it, which obviously it would have done.

OldKingCole said:

dyedwoolie said:

OldKingCole said:

dyedwoolie said:

tlg86 said:

dyedwoolie said:

tlg86 said:

Pro_Rata said:

tlg86 said:

Pro_Rata said:

Off topic: I may actually cry at this.

www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/8721508/inter-ac-milan-san-siro-new-stadium/amp/

Concrete it may be, but the San Siro is one of the most unconscionability beautiful structures in the world imho.

Have you been?

A couple of times some years ago. The sight lines and in stadium experience are not modern, it's very vertiginous, and when not full the lowest ring near the pitch tends to be pretty empty putting gap between fan and pitch that was never intended.

But if I were to choose any stadium in the world to survive to 4000AD to tell those people of our times, forget your fancy new stadia, I would choose this one.

The facilities in the (Milan) away end certainly leave a lot to be desired. That said, I'm glad I've been as it is iconic. If Arsenal get past Napoli and play Valencia in the semi final I'll go as I've always wanted to go to the Mestalla.

In terms of stadia of iconicness then St John's Wood is as far as one need go. Perhaps notwithstanding the MCG on the first morning of a Boxing Day Ashes test

I've only watched professional cricket at one ground - Woodbridge Road, Guildford. I think I'd put Newlands ahead of the MCG as far as grounds I would like to visit.

I've always wanted to go the Perth test. The world could explode in nuclear war on the first morning and the test would be over before news reached.
Antigua or St Lucia would be good.
Norfolks old ground at lakenham was fun if only because I saw them beat a rest of the world side there, it was a terrible wicket though

A Test Match, even more a one-day game, in Sri Lanka is an experience. And Galle is a visual one as well. Newlands is spectacular.
Chelmsford, where I go frequently, desperatly needs a rebuild, but the atmosphere on a Friday night for a T20 can be great.
Worst ground in this part of he world is the Garon Stadium in Southend. Featureless, cold, poor outfield and appalling access.

Last time I was at Chelmsford was 1985 for the touring aussies, including a decrepit Jeff Thomson

The 2005 game against the Aussies was the one to be at; Essex rolled them over and the crowd were chanting "Are you Scotland in disguise?" Cook at 21 scored a double century off a more or less Test attack.

Yes the first time I heard chef mentioned as a future test player!
2005, dizzy Gillespie's nightmare

dyedwoolie said:

OldKingCole said:

dyedwoolie said:

OldKingCole said:

dyedwoolie said:

tlg86 said:

dyedwoolie said:

tlg86 said:

Pro_Rata said:

tlg86 said:

Pro_Rata said:

Off topic: I may actually cry at this.

www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/8721508/inter-ac-milan-san-siro-new-stadium/amp/

Concrete it may be, but the San Siro is one of the most unconscionability beautiful structures in the world imho.

Have you been?

But if I were to choose any stadium in the world to survive to 4000AD to tell those people of our times, forget your fancy new stadia, I would choose this one.

The facilities in the (Milan) away end certainly leave a lot to be desired. That said, I'm glad I've been as it is iconic. If Arsenal get past Napoli and play Valencia in the semi final I'll go as I've always wanted to go to the Mestalla.

In terms of stadia of iconicness then St John's Wood is as far as one need go. Perhaps notwithstanding the MCG on the first morning of a Boxing Day Ashes test

I've only watched professional cricket at one ground - Woodbridge Road, Guildford. I think I'd put Newlands ahead of the MCG as far as grounds I would like to visit.

I've always wanted to go the Perth test. The world could explode in nuclear war on the first morning and the test would be over before news reached.
Antigua or St Lucia would be good.
Norfolks old ground at lakenham was fun if only because I saw them beat a rest of the world side there, it was a terrible wicket though

A Test Match, even more a one-day game, in Sri Lanka is an experience. And Galle is a visual one as well. Newlands is spectacular.
Chelmsford, where I go frequently, desperatly needs a rebuild, but the atmosphere on a Friday night for a T20 can be great.
Worst ground in this part of he world is the Garon Stadium in Southend. Featureless, cold, poor outfield and appalling access.

Last time I was at Chelmsford was 1985 for the touring aussies, including a decrepit Jeff Thomson

The 2005 game against the Aussies was the one to be at; Essex rolled them over and the crowd were chanting "Are you Scotland in disguise?" Cook at 21 scored a double century off a more or less Test attack.

Yes the first time I heard chef mentioned as a future test player!
2005, dizzy Gillespie's nightmare

It was. He trudged back to field in front of the stand where I was sitting like a man going to execution.

MarqueeMark said:

Pulpstar said:

Benpointer said:

Norm said:

Danny565 said:

Tory MP says a long Article 50 extension is a less bad option than voting for May's Deal:

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1111265909371359232?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1111265909371359232&ref_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-47696409

Such self- indulgence when for example the British Chamber of Commerce just meeting down the road are saying the current uncertainty is now causing real practical difficulties to importers and exporters.

And how does he gain a new PM under that scenario given TM's resignation is conditional?

He waits till December I guess. May should make tomorrow's vote a confidence matter, remove the whip from the ERG hard-liners who still vote against, and call an election...

They'd be disqualified from standing as Tories in the GE, I believe.

Grieve would be dewhipped too.

And the TIGs, not having a party, would have to stand as Independents.

Can't see either of those points as likely to put Theresa off tbh.

OldKingCole said:

dyedwoolie said:

OldKingCole said:

dyedwoolie said:

OldKingCole said:

dyedwoolie said:

tlg86 said:

dyedwoolie said:

tlg86 said:

Pro_Rata said:

tlg86 said:

Pro_Rata said:

Off topic: I may actually cry at this.

www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/8721508/inter-ac-milan-san-siro-new-stadium/amp/

Concrete it may be, but the San Siro is one of the most unconscionability beautiful structures in the world imho.

Have you been?

But if I were to choose any stadium in the world to survive to 4000AD to tell those people of our times, forget your fancy new stadia, I would choose this one.

The facilities in the (Milan) away end certainly leave a lot to be desired. That said, I'm glad I've been as it is iconic. If Arsenal get past Napoli and play Valencia in the semi final I'll go as I've always wanted to go to the Mestalla.

In terms of stadia of iconicness then St John's Wood is as far as one need go. Perhaps notwithstanding the MCG on the first morning of a Boxing Day Ashes test

I've only watched professional cricket at one ground - Woodbridge Road, Guildford. I think I'd put Newlands ahead of the MCG as far as grounds I would like to visit.

I've always wanted to go the Perth test. The world could explode in nuclear war on the first morning and the test would be over before news reached.
Antigua or St Lucia would be good.
Norfolks old ground at lakenham was fun if only because I saw them beat a rest of the world side there, it was a terrible wicket though

A Test Match, even more a one-day game, in Sri Lanka is an experience. And Galle is a visual one as well. Newlands is spectacular.
Chelmsford, where I go frequently, desperatly needs a rebuild, but the atmosphere on a Friday night for a T20 can be great.
Worst ground in this part of he world is the Garon Stadium in Southend. Featureless, cold, poor outfield and appalling access.

Last time I was at Chelmsford was 1985 for the touring aussies, including a decrepit Jeff Thomson

The 2005 game against the Aussies was the one to be at; Essex rolled them over and the crowd were chanting "Are you Scotland in disguise?" Cook at 21 scored a double century off a more or less Test attack.

Yes the first time I heard chef mentioned as a future test player!
2005, dizzy Gillespie's nightmare

It was. He trudged back to field in front of the stand where I was sitting like a man going to execution.

Him shaking his head in the 2nd test as Pietersen took him apart is a great memory

Benpointer said:

You need to ask yourself @Stodge if there's less enthusiasm for crashing out with no deal or taking part in the EU elections (amongst MPs since they are the ones deciding).

I think if the WA is not passed tomorrow we are taking part in the EU elections. Could be fun!

The view I'm hearing from Europe is the EU aren't keen on us taking part in elections when we are leaving. I suppose the analogy would be if Scotland, having voted for independence in 2014, had been allowed to elect MPs to the Westminster parliament in 2015 while the mechanics of separation were being worked out.

However, they are stymied by the legality and the democracy which says if we are members we have to hold the elections.

Politicians might enjoy stumping the doorstep but I can't see the rest of us being very enthused. We would be compelled to spend public money on an election with no meaning and who would benefit. How would a Conservative fancy going out on the doorsteps especially if the local elections aren't good?

I suppose the EU could refuse and allow us to leave without a WA on 12/4. I don't see Leadsom forcing Parliament to sit after next Friday achieves anything.

I'm not even sure the WA will have changed significantly enough for Bercow to allow it but if he doesn't that can go under the "the dog ate my homework" set of excuses waiting to the peddled by the Conservatives on the morning of 13/4.

kinabalu said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1111051719851606018

This is essentially what I have been saying for a while is a very feasible outcome.

Uncouple the WA from the PD.
WA passed and we leave in Q2.
Tories select new leader.
GE to decide who runs with the Future Relationship.

Has a lot going for it.

And where will TM get the additional votes when the DUP vote against and Labour don't come over for fear of a hard right Tory PM?

And the DUP would then VONC the government.

rottenborough said:

"Vote Leave campaign director Dominic Cummings has put out a call to arms for Leavers to mobilise for a new party."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/28/tories-have-lost-hope-seeing-brexit-new-political-party-can/

The SDP are the only party filling the gap for economically left/socially right voters, but do they have the pizazzz to woo voters?

Our parliament isn't really fit for purpose.

First, we probably need more, not fewer, MPs. 1 person representing ~100,000 people's interests seems a bit much.

Second, we probably need more, not less, devolution. Give the other national govs more power, and give local councils more money and authority.

Third, we need more, not less, "prole" engagement with parties. People need to have a stake in politics. Civic engagement should be encouraged, not discouraged. All parties should give their members decent rights within the party structure, and each party should probably devolve more to local branches (except strategy, coz activists such at strategy).

Forth, we deffo need to change the voting system. Copy the Germans, or Canadians, or some federal, PR / AV system. It just makes so many people angry. I may hate UKIP, but they did get a large % of the vote with no representation. Also, a second fully elected house. Make it somewhat senatey?

Lastly, throw away parliamentary procedure and start again; a decent, understandable by the layman, written constitution. None of this "erskin may" business. If the man on the street can't figure out what's going on it makes it all seem like the elites are trying to pull a fast one no matter what (which of course, they are).

PS get rid of the constitutional role of the royals and the church and whatnot. Disestablishment would be great.

TrèsDifficile said:

TrèsDifficile said:

The people of Britain will never knowingly consent to be governed by those who do not speak their language, live in their country or depend upon their votes. The power of self-government, the right to hire and fire our rulers and the capacity to chart our own destiny are inalienable birthrights. They should not be traded in for a mess of pottage otherwise known as a back row seat at a show called "The Heart of Europe". Our destiny is surely as a self-governing nation which trades freely with the world. The future is bright; the future is global. Our success in it is dependent upon the vision, self confidence and calibre of our leaders, our businesses and our workforce.

I seem to have forgotten to attribute this..

John Bercow MP, lecture to the Bruges Group

148grss said:

Our parliament isn't really fit for purpose.

First, we probably need more, not fewer, MPs. 1 person representing ~100,000 people's interests seems a bit much.

Second, we probably need more, not less, devolution. Give the other national govs more power, and give local councils more money and authority.

Third, we need more, not less, "prole" engagement with parties. People need to have a stake in politics. Civic engagement should be encouraged, not discouraged. All parties should give their members decent rights within the party structure, and each party should probably devolve more to local branches (except strategy, coz activists such at strategy).

Forth, we deffo need to change the voting system. Copy the Germans, or Canadians, or some federal, PR / AV system. It just makes so many people angry. I may hate UKIP, but they did get a large % of the vote with no representation. Also, a second fully elected house. Make it somewhat senatey?

Lastly, throw away parliamentary procedure and start again; a decent, understandable by the layman, written constitution. None of this "erskin may" business. If the man on the street can't figure out what's going on it makes it all seem like the elites are trying to pull a fast one no matter what (which of course, they are).

PS get rid of the constitutional role of the royals and the church and whatnot. Disestablishment would be great.

I agree with most of what you have said, but I regret that we are a minority. As a conservative party member I am probably in a minority of 1

stodge said:

Benpointer said:

You need to ask yourself @Stodge if there's less enthusiasm for crashing out with no deal or taking part in the EU elections (amongst MPs since they are the ones deciding).

I think if the WA is not passed tomorrow we are taking part in the EU elections. Could be fun!

The view I'm hearing from Europe is the EU aren't keen on us taking part in elections when we are leaving. I suppose the analogy would be if Scotland, having voted for independence in 2014, had been allowed to elect MPs to the Westminster parliament in 2015 while the mechanics of separation were being worked out.

However, they are stymied by the legality and the democracy which says if we are members we have to hold the elections.

Politicians might enjoy stumping the doorstep but I can't see the rest of us being very enthused. We would be compelled to spend public money on an election with no meaning and who would benefit. How would a Conservative fancy going out on the doorsteps especially if the local elections aren't good?

I suppose the EU could refuse and allow us to leave without a WA on 12/4. I don't see Leadsom forcing Parliament to sit after next Friday achieves anything.

I'm not even sure the WA will have changed significantly enough for Bercow to allow it but if he doesn't that can go under the "the dog ate my homework" set of excuses waiting to the peddled by the Conservatives on the morning of 13/4.

That's it, isn't it? We're going out without a deal on April 12th, and the whole sorry charade until then is just about getting the excuses straight.

Mr. Enjineeya, we may well end up leaving with no deal because nothing proactive has a majority.

At which point both sides will blame the other.

"If only they had compromised and agreed with us, everything would be far better!"

TOPPING said:

TrèsDifficile said:

TrèsDifficile said:

The people of Britain will never knowingly consent to be governed by those who do not speak their language, live in their country or depend upon their votes. The power of self-government, the right to hire and fire our rulers and the capacity to chart our own destiny are inalienable birthrights. They should not be traded in for a mess of pottage otherwise known as a back row seat at a show called "The Heart of Europe". Our destiny is surely as a self-governing nation which trades freely with the world. The future is bright; the future is global. Our success in it is dependent upon the vision, self confidence and calibre of our leaders, our businesses and our workforce.

I seem to have forgotten to attribute this..

John Bercow MP, lecture to the Bruges Group

LOL!

The credits of BBC This Week last Thursday was an old interview with Bercow on the banks of the Thames denouncing the EU and saying we would never be subservient to it.

It seems to me that government is doing MV3 tomorrow just because they feel the need to do something. They know events are slipping from their grasp but think they ought to be in charge and are just doing the only thing that they can think of to appear in control, doomed to fail though it almost certainly is. We aren't far from sending orders to imaginary divisions territory now.

IanB2 said:

It seems to me that government is doing MV3 tomorrow just because they feel the need to do something. They know events are slipping from their grasp but think they ought to be in charge and are just doing the only thing that they can think of to appear in control, doomed to fail though it almost certainly is. We aren't far from sending orders to imaginary divisions territory now.

Has the business motion passed ?

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

It’s a mirage. The EU Withdrawal Act explicitly links ratification of the WA to the PD.

If the WA is passed - a big if - I am sure that a way will be found for us to leave on 22/5 because it will suit both sides and will be the clear logical outcome. The EU care only about the WA and the PD is 100% meaningless now that TM is going. The Future Relationship will depend on who is the PM and what is the composition of parliament after the subsequent GE that IMO is looming.

The point is that there's no way to ratify the WA by stealth through parliament. May could conceivably try to game the process to create a harder cliff edge on May 22nd, but that would unravel quickly.

DavidL said:

Why is anyone a member of a political party? What do they get for it?

You get to do "delivery"

isam said:

rottenborough said:

"Vote Leave campaign director Dominic Cummings has put out a call to arms for Leavers to mobilise for a new party."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/28/tories-have-lost-hope-seeing-brexit-new-political-party-can/

The SDP are the only party filling the gap for economically left/socially right voters, but do they have the pizazzz to woo voters?

Well as someone who economically right/socially left I do hope not.

148grss said:

Our parliament isn't really fit for purpose.

First, we probably need more, not fewer, MPs. 1 person representing ~100,000 people's interests seems a bit much.

Second, we probably need more, not less, devolution. Give the other national govs more power, and give local councils more money and authority.

Third, we need more, not less, "prole" engagement with parties. People need to have a stake in politics. Civic engagement should be encouraged, not discouraged. All parties should give their members decent rights within the party structure, and each party should probably devolve more to local branches (except strategy, coz activists such at strategy).

Forth, we deffo need to change the voting system. Copy the Germans, or Canadians, or some federal, PR / AV system. It just makes so many people angry. I may hate UKIP, but they did get a large % of the vote with no representation. Also, a second fully elected house. Make it somewhat senatey?

Lastly, throw away parliamentary procedure and start again; a decent, understandable by the layman, written constitution. None of this "erskin may" business. If the man on the street can't figure out what's going on it makes it all seem like the elites are trying to pull a fast one no matter what (which of course, they are).

PS get rid of the constitutional role of the royals and the church and whatnot. Disestablishment would be great.

Good post. And a written constitution so that local government has enshrined rights and can't be reorganised or abolished or have its funding meddled with at the whim of central government.

The irony is that the voting system that has delivered Germany (formerly West Germany) such stability was designed for them by British civil servants. Who also delivered STV to Northern Ireland.

The last thing is we need more MPs...

SeanT said:

Christ

https://twitter.com/Mendelpol/status/1111253709911146498


This is like the leader of the New Zealand mosque who said the monstrous attack was staged by Mossad. They just can't help it. The Anti-Semitism is now in the DNA and might never be disentangled. It is tragic.

Vanilla message for you.

isam said:

rottenborough said:

"Vote Leave campaign director Dominic Cummings has put out a call to arms for Leavers to mobilise for a new party."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/28/tories-have-lost-hope-seeing-brexit-new-political-party-can/

The SDP are the only party filling the gap for economically left/socially right voters, but do they have the pizazzz to woo voters?

They don't even have a pineapple.

SeanT said:

Christ

https://twitter.com/Mendelpol/status/1111253709911146498


This is like the leader of the New Zealand mosque who said the monstrous attack was staged by Mossad. They just can't help it. The Anti-Semitism is now in the DNA and might never be disentangled. It is tragic.

Is there anything the Jews aren't repsonsible for or involved in? Must be Very busy people.

In all seriousness, I might be wrong, but I don't think this is the first time his lawyer has been on record saying some interesting things.

From Gary Larson via Reddit:

Cyclefree said:

Good header. I tend to agree. Having a party leader who does not have the support of his or her MPs in Parliament is a nonsense in a Parliamentary democracy.

Everyone seems to be assuming that we will get a long extension if we ask for it and agree to participate in the EU elections. Is that assumption correct?

Does the EU want us to continue as a member? Tusk yes. But the others? I can see them saying Goodbye (and good riddance) if we fail to pass the WA by the due date or to revoke Article 50.

Interesting to see that the Revoke Art 50 option came 3rd in yesterday's votes.

Absolutely the EU want us to continue as a member in some form. The apparent debate between Tusk and Juncker is whether the EU have lined themselves up in the WA to screw us so successfully in the next 21 months that they should leave us to end up in that impotent vassal state status as opposed to allowing us to continue as a fully fledged member by eventually revoking.

What the EU do not want is for us to leave unconditionally, initially on WTO terms and to sort out the new relationship subsequently from a much stronger negotiating position (and with a stronger PM to negotiate it).

DavidL said:

Why is anyone a member of a political party? What do they get for it? The parties have pretty much abandoned any pretense of allowing the membership to determine policy. Their job is to clap at truly boring conferences. Given this who the leader is and what direction they want to take the party in is even more important. If input in that decision was taken away from the Membership then participation in our political parties would fall from its current derisory levels with adverse consequences for our democracy.

And, frankly, the idea of leaving anything important to the bunch of incompetents who managed to vote down all 8 options yesterday is a bit of a joke. They are simply not capable of making decisions on anything bigger than their monthly expense claims.

One of the problems of political discourse was that open disagreement came to be viewed not as a strength but as a weakness. I was at Eastbourne in 1986 when the Liberal Party discussed the defence plan. We had heard from David Owen the day before but on the Tuesday afternoon I was witness to a full-blown political argument. There were tremendous speeches on both sides In the end, the Steel leadership lost as the anti-nuclear amendment carried but the political damage was that but it allowed the Conservative and Labour parties to create the notion the parties weren't united and therefore unsuitable to govern.

In the 1990s a divided Conservative Party and Government were systematically destroyed first at local and then at national level by a seemingly united Labour Party under Blair. Labour wasn't united at all but the Left were able to keep quiet and preserve the illusion of unity allowing Blair to sweep the 1997 GE.

If you want to look strong and united as a Party, the one thing you can't have is disagreement and division so Conferences are now rallies. The Conference managers ensure anything even remotely divisive isn't debated or pushed to the fringe. I agree that's bad but you would need a change in political culture to ensure competing and adversarial parties don't try to maximise their strengths and their opponent's weakness.

Times's Coates reporting that another option the government is considering is a symbolic non-binding (indicative?!) vote on the MV3 tomorrow, to make it different from actually deciding to agree it.

Is a symbolic loss any better than a real one? And surely even less reason for people to back it.

I take a different view from the header.

I think the issue is the MPs in safe seats who hang around for decades getting more and more self-important and less and less in touch. My solution would be to bring in term limits. If you reach 25 years as an MP you are not allowed to stand for re-election.

From the graurdian..

It was agreed among the member states that for there to be any talks after the UK has crashed out, the bloc’s 27 capitals will expect Downing Street to agree to signal by 18 April that it will pay the £39bn Brexit bill despite the failure of the Commons to ratify the withdrawal agreement.

The terms of the Irish backstop, keeping Northern Ireland in large parts of single market legislation and the EU’s customs territory, in order to protect the Good Friday agreement would remain as the bloc’s solution for avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/28/eu-discusses-terms-for-talks-after-no-deal-brexit

SeanT said:

Norm said:

This man Dunt is apparently a Remainer hero. He appears to be going apoplectic here.

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1111245762799812610

"Going" apoplectic? He's been in a state of crazed and drooling fury since the vote. What makes it even more delicious is that he used to be a raging eurosceptic. True story.

Heaven protect us from these nutjobs who swing from one extreme to the other at the drop of a hat firing off emotional and sweary tirades.

IanB2 said:

Times's Coates reporting that another option the government is considering is a symbolic non-binding (indicative?!) vote on the MV3 tomorrow, to make it different from actually deciding to agree it.

Is a symbolic loss any better than a real one? And surely even less reason for people to back it.

Sunil's Meaningless Vote !?

Do you have to dissolve parliament the moment an election is called? Could you not schedule an election for, say, June and say that parliament will be disolved in two weeks, etc

FrancisUrquhart said:

From the graurdian..

It was agreed among the member states that for there to be any talks after the UK has crashed out, the bloc’s 27 capitals will expect Downing Street to agree to signal by 18 April that it will pay the £39bn Brexit bill despite the failure of the Commons to ratify the withdrawal agreement.

The terms of the Irish backstop, keeping Northern Ireland in large parts of single market legislation and the EU’s customs territory, in order to protect the Good Friday agreement would remain as the bloc’s solution for avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/28/eu-discusses-terms-for-talks-after-no-deal-brexit

Sounds like they're preparing to boot us out !