politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ladbrokes make it 6/4 that there’ll be another Brexit referend

The Government is embarrassing the Queen by dragging her into the political arena.

25/1 for this year?! That's way too short. It's simply not possible in the time available

HYUFD said:

Hillary Clinton says she 'fears' for Britain under PM Boris Johnson, describing both him and Trump as 'blowhards' and 'authoritarians.'

https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2019/10/14/hillary-clinton-says-she-fears-for-britain-under-boris-johnson/

Deplorable?

NickPalmer said:

Do we actually know for sure that the Queen's Speech will not get a majority? I don't have a feeling for how all the Tory expulsees are feeling, but perhaps some of them think the speech is fine except for the, cough, unfortunate references to Brexit and want to keep channels open to a possible return one day, so will vote for it?

It is Johnson's right to try. I'm not sure why we have so much pearl clutching at this.

If MPs don't like him having a QS, they should have given him the GE he wanted.

6/4 seems ridiculously short given there is no sign of a PV on the horizon, the 6/4 and 4/1 certainly don't match up - you'd expect a Remain win to be 2/1 in that case.

AndyJS said:

BBC Radio 4: Richard Burgon confirms that official Labour policy is for a general election before a referendum, and that the entire shadow cabinet agrees with this position.

Given the current state of labour party announcements, that position will have probably changed by teatime.

Noo said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Europe: That UK, eh? It's a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, all swaddled in a load of Ruritanian pish.

https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1183673365359411200?s=20

It's a morris dancer, wrapped inside a tapestry, all swaddled in a plastic itch cone. Do you think they know they look like a bunch of tossers?

I'm sure they know it looks ridiculous. What does that matter?

Next step let's complaining about the US president pardoning Turkeys.

NickPalmer said:

Do we actually know for sure that the Queen's Speech will not get a majority? I don't have a feeling for how all the Tory expulsees are feeling, but perhaps some of them think the speech is fine except for the, cough, unfortunate references to Brexit and want to keep channels open to a possible return one day, so will vote for it?

It's possible that they or most of them might support it. On the specific point of Brexit, Faisal Islam has pointed out that there's almost no reference to a No Deal outcome in the speech itself or the explanatory document, which would certainly make it easier for them to support it.

Still, it's a side-show really.

FPT:

Noo said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/13/tories-distract-from-brexit-crime-focused-queens-speech

Depressing read.

Evidence based policy is needed more than ever in criminal justice, but 'Hangman' Patel shows her true ignorant reactionary colours.

What an awful Home Secretary we have indeed.

If you read this criticism from the piece:

'Frances Crook, chief executive from the Howard League for Penal Reform, said the sentencing changes were not “a sensible, evidence-based policy”. She said: “It is the politics of the lynch mob … this is about making people spend more time in prison, which will affect thousands of men and will probably put staff in danger by taking hope away from people. We already know that prisoners are in appalling conditions, with a lot of violence, injury and suicides. A lot of it is directed at staff. It’s very irresponsible.”'

What she is saying is that if we don't release these prisoners early, they will inflict violence on prison staff. Does that indicate that we should support these prisoners being released early? It is inherently contradictory.

Sure, that's exactly what she's saying. If you want to oversimplify it to the point of gutting most of the meaning out of it. But then... of course you do.

Not having access to her words in full, I don't know if she offers more nuance, but to me she is very clearly saying she fears a violent backlash on prison staff if 2/3 sentences are implemented, clearly implying that it would be safer for prison staff if we release these people earlier. I don't see that argument being very convincing to a member of the public. If you have a different interpretation, I'm all ears.

"Bring 'em on! I'd prefer a straight fight to all this sneaking around!"

AFAIK there isn't enough time for a referendum this year.

NickPalmer said:

Do we actually know for sure that the Queen's Speech will not get a majority? I don't have a feeling for how all the Tory expulsees are feeling, but perhaps some of them think the speech is fine except for the, cough, unfortunate references to Brexit and want to keep channels open to a possible return one day, so will vote for it?

Surely anyone who doesn't want the government to resign tomorrow, would be in favour of it?

rottenborough said:

AndyJS said:

BBC Radio 4: Richard Burgon confirms that official Labour policy is for a general election before a referendum.

Except he is from the Corbyn camp.

The McDonnell camp is telling radio the exact opposite.

They want to try and get out of this with 200 seats rather than 100

Peter_the_Punter said:

The Government is embarrassing the Queen by dragging her into the political arena.

If she can bear reading out Tony Blair's split infinitives, this is a walk in the park.

GIN1138 said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1183724409061855234

Nowhere near long enough surely?

LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!

FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.

The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.

NickPalmer said:

Do we actually know for sure that the Queen's Speech will not get a majority? I don't have a feeling for how all the Tory expulsees are feeling, but perhaps some of them think the speech is fine except for the, cough, unfortunate references to Brexit and want to keep channels open to a possible return one day, so will vote for it?

The rebels seem to be in 2 camps. Those that might return are the majority, maybe 12 to 15, the rest seem to have the fire of zealots and are 'neverweres'. Hammond, Grieve, Greening, perhaps Gauke, Rudd'........

Philip_Thompson said:

Time_to_Leave said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

NickPalmer said:

Do we actually know for sure that the Queen's Speech will not get a majority? I don't have a feeling for how all the Tory expulsees are feeling, but perhaps some of them think the speech is fine except for the, cough, unfortunate references to Brexit and want to keep channels open to a possible return one day, so will vote for it?

It's possible that they or most of them might support it. On the specific point of Brexit, Faisal Islam has pointed out that there's almost no reference to a No Deal outcome in the speech itself or the explanatory document, which would certainly make it easier for them to support it.

Still, it's a side-show really.

I’m not sure. If (yes, not a trivial “if”) a deal passes on Saturday, then a Queen’s Speech win would feed a “comeback” narrative the media would love. Especially if it was said to have been impossible.

When will the Queen's Speech be voted on? Surely before Saturday?

I think next Monday.......

https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1183663217941327872

dyedwoolie said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Time_to_Leave said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

NickPalmer said:

Do we actually know for sure that the Queen's Speech will not get a majority? I don't have a feeling for how all the Tory expulsees are feeling, but perhaps some of them think the speech is fine except for the, cough, unfortunate references to Brexit and want to keep channels open to a possible return one day, so will vote for it?

It's possible that they or most of them might support it. On the specific point of Brexit, Faisal Islam has pointed out that there's almost no reference to a No Deal outcome in the speech itself or the explanatory document, which would certainly make it easier for them to support it.

Still, it's a side-show really.

I’m not sure. If (yes, not a trivial “if”) a deal passes on Saturday, then a Queen’s Speech win would feed a “comeback” narrative the media would love. Especially if it was said to have been impossible.

When will the Queen's Speech be voted on? Surely before Saturday?

I think next Monday.......

I think it has to be Thursday as (from dim and distance o' level politics memory) Parliament can't vote on anything until the Queen's speech has been voted on.

oxfordsimon said:

GIN1138 said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1183724409061855234

Nowhere near long enough surely?

LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!

FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.

The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.

This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.

They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.

ozymandias said:

148grss said:

https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1183663217941327872

Guardian doesn’t like Tory Queen’s Speech shocker.

And a barrister that has a long history of talking about the failings of this government in spending regarding criminal justice is what, just another expert to be ignored? Just because they're writing in the Guardian, doesn't mean one shouldn't look at what they have to say.

Sandpit said:

dyedwoolie said:

ozymandias said:

148grss said:

https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1183663217941327872

Guardian doesn’t like Tory Queen’s Speech shocker.

And The 'My political persuasion is not so Secret Barrister' retweets it double shocker

To be fair to him, he did write the piece.

Oh pish , I'm not letting facts get in the way of my ranting

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

dyedwoolie said:

ozymandias said:

148grss said:

https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1183663217941327872

Guardian doesn’t like Tory Queen’s Speech shocker.

And The 'My political persuasion is not so Secret Barrister' retweets it double shocker

To be fair to him, he did write the piece.

The remainer barrister. Is it Jolyan Maugham ?

Cant be, he absolutely hates the sound of his own voice. Very reserved and humble man

Philip_Thompson said:

oxfordsimon said:

OldKingCole said:

AndyJS said:

AFAIK there isn't enough time for a referendum this year.

And the longer we wait, the fewer public halls etc for counts will be available.

As I just said on the previous thread:

"That's not really an issue. Hall bookings are cancelled all the time - I have had a number of rehearsals cancelled/moved because of bookings for elections. A way is always found - venues will always put the needs of an election ahead of regular hall users."

Given in the pre-FTPA era, elections were called at much shorter notice than we get now, this was never an issue then and won't be an issue now.

There'll be more anger if Christmas performances get cancelled than routine rehearsals.

I don't know of many polling stations that take place in theatres. And they are the locations that are known and fixed. If an election is called, polling stations will be opened where they usually are. Schools will be closed for the day where necessary. Bookings will be cancelled.

Counts can take place in a wide range of spaces. Councils will find large enough venues. If really isn't a big job

dyedwoolie said:

NickPalmer said:

Do we actually know for sure that the Queen's Speech will not get a majority? I don't have a feeling for how all the Tory expulsees are feeling, but perhaps some of them think the speech is fine except for the, cough, unfortunate references to Brexit and want to keep channels open to a possible return one day, so will vote for it?

The rebels seem to be in 2 camps. Those that might return are the majority, maybe 12 to 15, the rest seem to have the fire of zealots and are 'neverweres'. Hammond, Grieve, Greening, perhaps Gauke, Rudd'........

That doesn't seem like enough to pass, but are any of the TIGs / ex-Labour independents potentially amenable?

If the odds on a Remain victory are 4/1 (25%), surely that means Leave is 1/4 (75%) in a second referendum?

Given the polls show a small but consistent Remain majority, why is this?

dyedwoolie said:

Anorak said:

dyedwoolie said:

ozymandias said:

148grss said:

https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1183663217941327872

Guardian doesn’t like Tory Queen’s Speech shocker.

And The 'My political persuasion is not so Secret Barrister' retweets it double shocker

He (assume it's a he) wrote that article.

I see that now.

Whatever you think of his politics, his portrait of Patel as a reactionary, populist half-wit is spot on.

edmundintokyo said:

dyedwoolie said:

NickPalmer said:

Do we actually know for sure that the Queen's Speech will not get a majority? I don't have a feeling for how all the Tory expulsees are feeling, but perhaps some of them think the speech is fine except for the, cough, unfortunate references to Brexit and want to keep channels open to a possible return one day, so will vote for it?

The rebels seem to be in 2 camps. Those that might return are the majority, maybe 12 to 15, the rest seem to have the fire of zealots and are 'neverweres'. Hammond, Grieve, Greening, perhaps Gauke, Rudd'........

That doesn't seem like enough to pass, but are any of the TIGs / ex-Labour independents potentially amenable?

I think the rebel rebels will abstain. Some indies will be amenable, possibly enough. It will be very very tight. Kate Hoey is a possible yes vote, omara and mann will be effective abstentions. Hermon 'might' vote in favour or abstain. Austin, Lewis might abstain but will likely vote against. If the majority of rebels vote yes and a few abstain I think it squeezes through. If hammond and co vote against its going down.......

numbertwelve said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1183724409061855234

Nowhere near long enough surely?

He wants to force through a meaningful vote as quickly as he can, though it might backfire if MPs say they don’t have enough time to scrutinise it.

(I suspect there will be a deal now, though it won’t be anything like what the ERG and the DUP hope for).

Someone mentioned on here that the EU might say “here’s the deal, no more extensions except to implement it.” I think that could well happen. It will force the Commons into deal or revoke (we all know it will not back no deal).

I think it's unbelievable now that there can be a deal fit to be voted on by Saturday - let alone to be passed into law by the end of the month.

Maybe there can be some kind of deal in principle, but the indications don't look promising.

Surely there is going to be an extension now.

Tabman said:

If the odds on a Remain victory are 4/1 (25%), surely that means Leave is 1/4 (75%) in a second referendum?

Given the polls show a small but consistent Remain majority, why is this?

4/1 is 20%. It's d/(n+d), so 1/(4+1) = 1/5 = 0.2
1/4 is 80%. It's d/(n+d), so 4/(1+4) = 4/5 = 0.8

Anorak said:

dyedwoolie said:

Anorak said:

dyedwoolie said:

ozymandias said:

148grss said:

https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1183663217941327872

Guardian doesn’t like Tory Queen’s Speech shocker.

And The 'My political persuasion is not so Secret Barrister' retweets it double shocker

He (assume it's a he) wrote that article.

I see that now.

Whatever you think of his politics, his portrait of Patel as a reactionary, populist half-wit is spot on.

When the alternative is Diane 'mince' Abbott she can afford to be a bit shit

Good afternoon, everyone.

Interesting odds.

It should be even shorter. But that does require MPs to actually act coherently. So far they've been much better at opposing everything.

AndyJS said:

https://twitter.com/josepgoded/status/1183647496226164736

That's really not good.

Sadly, nothing will come of it of course, until possibly a new government pardons them in future. The EU should act but won't, long sentences like this for sedition are not compatible with basic human rights given that we're not talking about people trying to overthrow the government by physical force.

edmundintokyo said:

oxfordsimon said:

GIN1138 said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1183724409061855234

Nowhere near long enough surely?

LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!

FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.

The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.

This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.

They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.

Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.

When even a Scottish Tory thinks you're fcuking up, you're really fcuking up

https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/status/1183712603803136000?s=20.

Some of the replies from the Unionist fraternity are a joy to behold.

edmundintokyo said:

dyedwoolie said:

edmundintokyo said:

dyedwoolie said:

NickPalmer said:

Do we actually know for sure that the Queen's Speech will not get a majority? I don't have a feeling for how all the Tory expulsees are feeling, but perhaps some of them think the speech is fine except for the, cough, unfortunate references to Brexit and want to keep channels open to a possible return one day, so will vote for it?

The rebels seem to be in 2 camps. Those that might return are the majority, maybe 12 to 15, the rest seem to have the fire of zealots and are 'neverweres'. Hammond, Grieve, Greening, perhaps Gauke, Rudd'........

That doesn't seem like enough to pass, but are any of the TIGs / ex-Labour independents potentially amenable?

I think the rebel rebels will abstain. Some indies will be amenable, possibly enough. It will be very very tight. Kate Hoey is a possible yes vote, omara and mann will be effective abstentions. Hermon 'might' vote in favour or abstain. Austin, Lewis might abstain but will likely vote against. If the majority of rebels vote yes and a few abstain I think it squeezes through. If hammond and co vote against its going down.......

I wonder how much solidarity the ex-Cons have. If they can stick together it seems like a decent opportunity for them to say, sure we'll vote for you, but only if you restore the whip. If you don't want our support, you won't get it.

Get back the reluctant rebels and cut out the cancer. Win win

Pulpstar said:

Edit : @Theuniondivvie Madrid does however have a veto on new EU entrants

The line the SNP take on Scotland being "automatically" an EU state isn't sound. Madrid could potentially push back on it, pour encourager les Catalans.

Independent Scotland might well end up an independent EU state but it's not guaranteed. It also gives London a tremendous amount of power, no Section 30 => UDI = No EU membership for Scotland for sure.

Spain has already said they have no issue with Scotland joining the EU as long as independence is achieved constitutionally.

Anorak said:

On a lighter note, I like this a lot.
https://twitter.com/UncleDuke1969/status/1056173795034185728

Enlighten me please

Theuniondivvie said:

When even a Scottish Tory thinks you're fcuking up, you're really fcuking up

https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/status/1183712603803136000?s=20.

Some of the replies from the Unionist fraternity are a joy to behold.

Even I think the sentences handed down by Madrid are draconian and grossly disproportionate. I commented as much this morning.

Does that make me an honorary Nit?

edmundintokyo said:

dyedwoolie said:

edmundintokyo said:

dyedwoolie said:

NickPalmer said:

Do we actually know for sure that the Queen's Speech will not get a majority? I don't have a feeling for how all the Tory expulsees are feeling, but perhaps some of them think the speech is fine except for the, cough, unfortunate references to Brexit and want to keep channels open to a possible return one day, so will vote for it?

The rebels seem to be in 2 camps. Those that might return are the majority, maybe 12 to 15, the rest seem to have the fire of zealots and are 'neverweres'. Hammond, Grieve, Greening, perhaps Gauke, Rudd'........

That doesn't seem like enough to pass, but are any of the TIGs / ex-Labour independents potentially amenable?

I think the rebel rebels will abstain. Some indies will be amenable, possibly enough. It will be very very tight. Kate Hoey is a possible yes vote, omara and mann will be effective abstentions. Hermon 'might' vote in favour or abstain. Austin, Lewis might abstain but will likely vote against. If the majority of rebels vote yes and a few abstain I think it squeezes through. If hammond and co vote against its going down.......

I wonder how much solidarity the ex-Cons have. If they can stick together it seems like a decent opportunity for them to say, sure we'll vote for you, but only if you restore the whip. If you don't want our support, you won't get it.

I think the level of personal contempt for BJ and his Government is being underestimated in reference to those who had the whip withdrawn. Brexit is so fundamental to the economy, I cannot see MP's who have had the whip withdrawn suddenly thinking it is a good idea to support BJ and his Government. If BJ does not ask for an extension then surley BJ will just removed anyway, so what would be the point in helping him get a QS through? Better to keep him week, so you can force him to enact the will of Parliament i.e.Benn act!

williamglenn said:

Pulpstar said:

Edit : @Theuniondivvie Madrid does however have a veto on new EU entrants

The line the SNP take on Scotland being "automatically" an EU state isn't sound. Madrid could potentially push back on it, pour encourager les Catalans.

Independent Scotland might well end up an independent EU state but it's not guaranteed. It also gives London a tremendous amount of power, no Section 30 => UDI = No EU membership for Scotland for sure.

Spain has already said they have no issue with Scotland joining the EU as long as independence is achieved constitutionally.

"is achieved constitutionally." Hence the necessity for a section 30 from London and why Sturgeon is leaning so heavily on Corbyn for this as the price of supporting his Gov't.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

dyedwoolie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

edmundintokyo said:

dyedwoolie said:

edmundintokyo said:

dyedwoolie said:

NickPalmer said:

Do we actually know for sure that the Queen's Speech will not get a majority? I don't have a feeling for how all the Tory expulsees are feeling, but perhaps some of them think the speech is fine except for the, cough, unfortunate references to Brexit and want to keep channels open to a possible return one day, so will vote for it?

The rebels seem to be in 2 camps. Those that might return are the majority, maybe 12 to 15, the rest seem to have the fire of zealots and are 'neverweres'. Hammond, Grieve, Greening, perhaps Gauke, Rudd'........

That doesn't seem like enough to pass, but are any of the TIGs / ex-Labour independents potentially amenable?

I think the rebel rebels will abstain. Some indies will be amenable, possibly enough. It will be very very tight. Kate Hoey is a possible yes vote, omara and mann will be effective abstentions. Hermon 'might' vote in favour or abstain. Austin, Lewis might abstain but will likely vote against. If the majority of rebels vote yes and a few abstain I think it squeezes through. If hammond and co vote against its going down.......

I wonder how much solidarity the ex-Cons have. If they can stick together it seems like a decent opportunity for them to say, sure we'll vote for you, but only if you restore the whip. If you don't want our support, you won't get it.

I expect any vote on Brexit and/or the QS will be precisely that.

Vote for it and you are reinstated and the official conservative candidate at the GE

Except Grieve and Hammond and maybe Worzel Gummidge/Letwin

I expect it to apply to them all to be honest. If they vote for brexit and the QS they should be the candidate at the next election

Hard thinking for Hammond and Grieve but Letwin is standing down anyway

I think Hammond and Grieve have burned their bridges. Having said that they wint vote for Brexit anyway so its not I guess

Casino_Royale said:

ozymandias said:

148grss said:

https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1183663217941327872

Guardian doesn’t like Tory Queen’s Speech shocker.

The Secret Barrister is so Left-wing he makes Jeremy Corbyn look like Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Quite. It’s just an anti-tory rant. Nothing “expert” about it.

williamglenn said:

Pulpstar said:

Edit : @Theuniondivvie Madrid does however have a veto on new EU entrants

The line the SNP take on Scotland being "automatically" an EU state isn't sound. Madrid could potentially push back on it, pour encourager les Catalans.

Independent Scotland might well end up an independent EU state but it's not guaranteed. It also gives London a tremendous amount of power, no Section 30 => UDI = No EU membership for Scotland for sure.

Spain has already said they have no issue with Scotland joining the EU as long as independence is achieved constitutionally.

I look forward to the scottish backstop discussions

nichomar said:

Anorak said:

On a lighter note, I like this a lot.
https://twitter.com/UncleDuke1969/status/1056173795034185728

Enlighten me please

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where's_Wally?

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1183737054515138561

Alanbrooke said:

williamglenn said:

Pulpstar said:

Edit : @Theuniondivvie Madrid does however have a veto on new EU entrants

The line the SNP take on Scotland being "automatically" an EU state isn't sound. Madrid could potentially push back on it, pour encourager les Catalans.

Independent Scotland might well end up an independent EU state but it's not guaranteed. It also gives London a tremendous amount of power, no Section 30 => UDI = No EU membership for Scotland for sure.

Spain has already said they have no issue with Scotland joining the EU as long as independence is achieved constitutionally.

I look forward to the scottish backstop discussions

There’s no need for one. If England wants to leave the single market and customs union there can be a normal customs border.

148grss said:

ozymandias said:

148grss said:

https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1183663217941327872

Guardian doesn’t like Tory Queen’s Speech shocker.

And a barrister that has a long history of talking about the failings of this government in spending regarding criminal justice is what, just another expert to be ignored? Just because they're writing in the Guardian, doesn't mean one shouldn't look at what they have to say.

Are they a barrister?

Alanbrooke said:

Cyclefree said:

edmundintokyo said:

oxfordsimon said:

GIN1138 said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1183724409061855234

Nowhere near long enough surely?

LOL! Basically the doors are going to be locked and they're not being let out until something is agreed!

FFS they have talked and talked and talked about this. We have had more bloviating MPs rattling on about their entrenched positions on this than on any other subject in our history.

The time for talking is over. None of them have anything new to say.

This is a silly talking point. Their job isn't to talk about *brexit* overall, it's to scrutinize the specific proposal the government is proposing. This is important because governments will often fail to take account of important issues, and will sometimes deliberately conceal problems in a way that's hard to reveal without detailed questioning. A lot of this work happens in committees not the floor of the House, which in high-profile debates does indeed tend to attract a lot of repetitive bloviating.

They haven't yet spent a single day talking about what the government is proposing, because nobody knows WTF the government is proposing. It's ridiculous to say that the government needs three and a half years to work out an acceptable proposal, but then they can't even spare a few weeks for parliament to ask them what it'll mean in practice.

Well said. If - a big if - there is a deal, it will affect the lives of everyone for years to come. The very least we have the right to expect is that it be properly scrutinised notrushed through after a 5 hour debate.

Theyve had 3+ years and decided nothing

maybe a bit of pressure is what they need.

I am too tired to argue but that must rank as one of the stupidest ways of deciding something so important.

You don’t even know what the fucking deal is let alone its implications. It would probably take 5 hours to read let alone understand the legal text and any Bill implementing it. But hey let’s vote on it on the basis of total ignorance and screw those who are affected by it.

Jesus wept.