I struggle to see how the story matches the headline on this one:
How Oliver Letwin Could Go From Zero To Hero Among Brexiteers: Letwin, ridiculed as ‘Parliament’s prime minister’, could help Boris Johnson more than many assume.
It's not very clear, but I think it's saying that Johnson secretly thinks he may need a fortnight's extension for the legislation, and if the Benn Act is triggered he won't need to take responsibility for it.
Which I could believe, since I don't think Boris and co probably think it is a good idea to rush through legislation (for a given value of rush at least), but I don't see how it helps actually approve the legislation which is the sticking point, since most of those backing the Letwin amended vote tomorrow will not back the legislation (being mostly Labour votes) and we're no closer to actually knowing if Boris has the votes for it to pass.
So it gets the time to pass the legislation, but that was not really the problem. The problem was knowing if it would get through or not.
In any case, we can leave as soon as the WA is ratified, whether an extension has been agreed or not. Johnson says it can be ratified by 31 October.
This is the point, Chris. There are some of us who think such a crucial piece of future legislation requires appropriate time and scrutiny (which is after all what Parliament and MPs are there for). They aren't the People's Assembly which simply rubber-stamps the diktats of the Dear Leader.
Letwin also doesn't trust Boris not to try to play us all for fools and not get the WA ratified which, in the absence of any further extension, means we exit without a Deal on 31/10. Part of me thinks Johnson is going to play that game and when we exit he will blame the Opposition MPs for holding up the WA.
So we need Letwin to block an "accidental" No Deal.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Hammond voting alongside Corbyn. Yes it will ruin his reputation and contradict his position on wanting a deal but clearly he doesn't want Brexit and he doesn't want Boris to succeed, it's very personal and if he thinks he can swing the vote I've no doubt he will. Possibly Rudd will act in the same way.
Telegraph reporting that Hammond is the only whipless one not engaging with the process for the rebels to get the whip back. Support all votes on WA. support QS and support budget on 6th Nov.
That is surely not true of other Whipless Tories such as Grieve, Bebb, Greening and possibly Sandbach.
It is not saying they are all on board, just not engaging. i.e to me the others are all talking, but Hammond is not even doing that,
I wouldn't be surprised to see Hammond voting alongside Corbyn. Yes it will ruin his reputation and contradict his position on wanting a deal but clearly he doesn't want Brexit and he doesn't want Boris to succeed, it's very personal and if he thinks he can swing the vote I've no doubt he will. Possibly Rudd will act in the same way.
Telegraph reporting that Hammond is the only whipless one not engaging with the process for the rebels to get the whip back. Support all votes on WA. support QS and support budget on 6th Nov.
That is surely not true of other Whipless Tories such as Grieve, Bebb, Greening and possibly Sandbach.
It is not saying they are all on board, just not engaging. i.e to me the others are all talking, but Hammond is not even doing that,
Given Greening has already said she is opposing the WA, what's to discuss ?
OGH asked about six hours ago what benefits he could now expect given that we are now leaving. I missed the hundreds of responses that he received can anyone summaries them for me without talking about sovereignty please
I have just done an 8 hour drive down from Aberdeen to Lincolnshire so missed all of today's threads.
So first of all thanks to OblitussumMe for an excellent thread earlier.
In answer to your question the benefit for me and millions of other people including you and OGH - though I know you will deny it - is that it makes our politicians more accountable to us. I am the first to admit that there are many things wrong with our system but there is absolutely no point making changes to it as long as so much decision making rested with the EU
This is particularly well illustrated where it is UK politicians who have suggested additional rules or regulations. If they do this within our Parliament and we subsequently decide, as a nation, that the law was stupid then we can get it changed in our own Parliament. If it has been turned into a regulation or directive by the EU and then adopted into UK law it is practically impossible to get this reversed. You would have to be able somehow to persuade the representatives of either the majority of or all of the other 27 countries to agree to the change.
You can see this in the way EU supporters on both the left and the right consider the EU important to stop the other side from changing things. Conservative Europhiles have argued that the EU will stop Corbyn and his socialist ideas whilst Labour supporters argue that the EU is important to stop the Tories removing rights or legal protections on various things like the environment.
The point they both miss is that what they are actually arguing is that democratically elected Governments should be prevented from enacting the promises they made to the electorate and which helped to win them a majority.
I don't expect you to agree with any of this but you wanted an answer and it is one I believe in.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Hammond voting alongside Corbyn. Yes it will ruin his reputation and contradict his position on wanting a deal but clearly he doesn't want Brexit and he doesn't want Boris to succeed, it's very personal and if he thinks he can swing the vote I've no doubt he will. Possibly Rudd will act in the same way.
Telegraph reporting that Hammond is the only whipless one not engaging with the process for the rebels to get the whip back. Support all votes on WA. support QS and support budget on 6th Nov.
That is surely not true of other Whipless Tories such as Grieve, Bebb, Greening and possibly Sandbach.
There are seats in the Lords to be had. As Crossbenchers if they want. But a nice cushy seat in Westminster still, without the faff of voters. That should suit arch-remainers down to the ground.....
I struggle to see how the story matches the headline on this one:
How Oliver Letwin Could Go From Zero To Hero Among Brexiteers: Letwin, ridiculed as ‘Parliament’s prime minister’, could help Boris Johnson more than many assume.
It's not very clear, but I think it's saying that Johnson secretly thinks he may need a fortnight's extension for the legislation, and if the Benn Act is triggered he won't need to take responsibility for it.
I actually said as much as huffingtonpost earlier today
Boris sends in the letter, the EU grant a couple of weeks, and de facto Letwin has finished off a GE and referendum and left deal or no deal
I struggle to see how the story matches the headline on this one:
How Oliver Letwin Could Go From Zero To Hero Among Brexiteers: Letwin, ridiculed as ‘Parliament’s prime minister’, could help Boris Johnson more than many assume.
It's not very clear, but I think it's saying that Johnson secretly thinks he may need a fortnight's extension for the legislation, and if the Benn Act is triggered he won't need to take responsibility for it.
I actually said as much as huffingtonpost earlier today
Boris sends in the letter, the EU grant a couple of weeks, and de facto Letwin has finished off a GE and referendum and left deal or no deal
Politics hey
Well don't tell that to the opposition backing it, they don't seem to believe those options will be finished off thanks to Letwin.
In any case, we can leave as soon as the WA is ratified, whether an extension has been agreed or not. Johnson says it can be ratified by 31 October.
This is the point, Chris. There are some of us who think such a crucial piece of future legislation requires appropriate time and scrutiny (which is after all what Parliament and MPs are there for). They aren't the People's Assembly which simply rubber-stamps the diktats of the Dear Leader.
Letwin also doesn't trust Boris not to try to play us all for fools and not get the WA ratified which, in the absence of any further extension, means we exit without a Deal on 31/10. Part of me thinks Johnson is going to play that game and when we exit he will blame the Opposition MPs for holding up the WA.
So we need Letwin to block an "accidental" No Deal.
Of course if the EU say no extension, just get on with it then Letwin just handed the headbangers the key to no deal on the 31st, they just need to sink the WAIB and they get their clean break. Well done Oliver you clever fox
There are very few EU laws that HMG objected to that they were forced to accept although am willing to be corrected on that, I still maintain our political system actually makes MPs only accountable to the party faithful, not the electorate as a whole. There will not be voting so we won’t get any real say in forming our laws.
You miss my point. It is not the UK Government against the EU, it is the electorate against both the UK Government and the EU. If the UK Government passes a law that the majority of people in Britain disagree with we can get them voted out and get the law changed. If they persuade the EU to adopt the meat of that law on an EU wide basis we are screwed. There is no way we can get rid of that law no matter what we do.
I want Government and laws that can be got rid of or repealed if they have been introduced against majority view or people change their minds. Being in the EU makes that far more difficult if not impossible.
I’ll buy all this, well I have actually run up the surrender flag, if it is supported by a fundamental change in our voting system which respects every vote, it really is not a lot to ask for is it?
I used to be opposed to PR because it gives undue influence to the Party machinery. I still have this concern and want to see the power of parties reduced not increased. But if we can come up with a fairer voting system that has every vote count without increasing the power of the parties in the system then I would be for it all the way.
Yes, PR with closed lists does exactly that and I would never advocate it. Voters should be able to support a good MP from any party whilst still seeking to gain better representation for their point of view. I doubt if my point of view gains traction but thanks for considering it.
I struggle to see how the story matches the headline on this one:
How Oliver Letwin Could Go From Zero To Hero Among Brexiteers: Letwin, ridiculed as ‘Parliament’s prime minister’, could help Boris Johnson more than many assume.
It's not very clear, but I think it's saying that Johnson secretly thinks he may need a fortnight's extension for the legislation, and if the Benn Act is triggered he won't need to take responsibility for it.
I actually said as much as huffingtonpost earlier today
Boris sends in the letter, the EU grant a couple of weeks, and de facto Letwin has finished off a GE and referendum and left deal or no deal
Politics hey
Well don't tell that to the opposition backing it, they don't seem to believe those options will be finished off thanks to Letwin.
In any case, we can leave as soon as the WA is ratified, whether an extension has been agreed or not. Johnson says it can be ratified by 31 October.
This is the point, Chris. There are some of us who think such a crucial piece of future legislation requires appropriate time and scrutiny (which is after all what Parliament and MPs are there for). They aren't the People's Assembly which simply rubber-stamps the diktats of the Dear Leader.
Letwin also doesn't trust Boris not to try to play us all for fools and not get the WA ratified which, in the absence of any further extension, means we exit without a Deal on 31/10. Part of me thinks Johnson is going to play that game and when we exit he will blame the Opposition MPs for holding up the WA.
So we need Letwin to block an "accidental" No Deal.
Of course if the EU say no extension, just get on with it then Letwin just handed the headbangers the key to no deal on the 31st, they just need to sink the WAIB and they get their clean break. Well done Oliver you clever fox
In any case, we can leave as soon as the WA is ratified, whether an extension has been agreed or not. Johnson says it can be ratified by 31 October.
This is the point, Chris. There are some of us who think such a crucial piece of future legislation requires appropriate time and scrutiny (which is after all what Parliament and MPs are there for). They aren't the People's Assembly which simply rubber-stamps the diktats of the Dear Leader.
Letwin also doesn't trust Boris not to try to play us all for fools and not get the WA ratified which, in the absence of any further extension, means we exit without a Deal on 31/10. Part of me thinks Johnson is going to play that game and when we exit he will blame the Opposition MPs for holding up the WA.
So we need Letwin to block an "accidental" No Deal.
Of course if the EU say no extension, just get on with it then Letwin just handed the headbangers the key to no deal on the 31st, they just need to sink the WAIB and they get their clean break. Well done Oliver you clever fox
A risk, but a pretty slight one.
Not really. If the EU try and force parliament to get it done by refusing an extension or granting a very short one, Benn is done, the safety net is gone and no deal looms very large in Francois and cos excited piggy little eyes. Letwins amendment is utterly moronic
I struggle to see how the story matches the headline on this one:
How Oliver Letwin Could Go From Zero To Hero Among Brexiteers: Letwin, ridiculed as ‘Parliament’s prime minister’, could help Boris Johnson more than many assume.
It's not very clear, but I think it's saying that Johnson secretly thinks he may need a fortnight's extension for the legislation, and if the Benn Act is triggered he won't need to take responsibility for it.
I actually said as much as huffingtonpost earlier today
Boris sends in the letter, the EU grant a couple of weeks, and de facto Letwin has finished off a GE and referendum and left deal or no deal
Politics hey
Well don't tell that to the opposition backing it, they don't seem to believe those options will be finished off thanks to Letwin.
But they will don't you think
I don't, no. I think a showdown vote tomorrow which either succeeded, or had a referendum tacked on, would have settled the path before us, but that making it all contingent on the legislation going through means a series of further complicated fights. It's not over until it is over, and if there was even the slighest risk that it was over for referendum or a GE I don't think the opposition parties would risk supporting it. They'd pile in behind something else - they haven't, because Letwin does not close off their preferred paths. The deal backing ex cons might be concerned with ensuring Boris does not pull a fast one, but those others still need to shoot it all down, and think this allows them that chance still.
OGH asked about six hours ago what benefits he could now expect given that we are now leaving. I missed the hundreds of responses that he received can anyone summaries them for me without talking about sovereignty please
I have just done an 8 hour drive down from Aberdeen to Lincolnshire so missed all of today's threads.
So first of all thanks to OblitussumMe for an excellent thread earlier.
In answer to your question the benefit for me and millions of other people including you and OGH - though I know you will deny it - is that it makes our politicians more accountable to us. I am the first to admit that there are many things wrong with our system but there is absolutely no point making changes to it as long as so much decision making rested with the EU
This is particularly well illustrated where it is UK politicians who have suggested additional rules or regulations. If they do this within our Parliament and we subsequently decide, as a nation, that the law was stupid then we can get it changed in our own Parliament. If it has been turned into a regulation or directive by the EU and then adopted into UK law it is practically impossible to get this reversed. You would have to be able somehow to persuade the representatives of either the majority of or all of the other 27 countries to agree to the change.
You can see this in the way EU supporters on both the left and the right consider the EU important to stop the other side from changing things. Conservative Europhiles have argued that the EU will stop Corbyn and his socialist ideas whilst Labour supporters argue that the EU is important to stop the Tories removing rights or legal protections on various things like the environment.
The point they both miss is that what they are actually arguing is that democratically elected Governments should be prevented from enacting the promises they made to the electorate and which helped to win them a majority.
I don't expect you to agree with any of this but you wanted an answer and it is one I believe in.
That was quite a civilized response. Thank you.
Actually Richard and I might just be in agreement!
In any case, we can leave as soon as the WA is ratified, whether an extension has been agreed or not. Johnson says it can be ratified by 31 October.
This is the point, Chris. There are some of us who think such a crucial piece of future legislation requires appropriate time and scrutiny (which is after all what Parliament and MPs are there for). They aren't the People's Assembly which simply rubber-stamps the diktats of the Dear Leader.
Letwin also doesn't trust Boris not to try to play us all for fools and not get the WA ratified which, in the absence of any further extension, means we exit without a Deal on 31/10. Part of me thinks Johnson is going to play that game and when we exit he will blame the Opposition MPs for holding up the WA.
So we need Letwin to block an "accidental" No Deal.
Of course if the EU say no extension, just get on with it then Letwin just handed the headbangers the key to no deal on the 31st, they just need to sink the WAIB and they get their clean break. Well done Oliver you clever fox
A risk, but a pretty slight one.
Not really. If the EU try and force parliament to get it done by refusing an extension or granting a very short one, Benn is done, the safety net is gone and no deal looms very large in Francois and cos excited piggy little eyes. Letwins amendment is utterly moronic
It's the first part of the premise where it falls apart for me. Despite attempts at tough talk, on this point I don't believe the EU when they hint about 'forcing' parliament to get it done. They can see that is the no deal hope of some, they don't want no deal either so won't let themselves or us fall into it by default.
In answer to your question the benefit for me and millions of other people including you and OGH - though I know you will deny it - is that it makes our politicians more accountable to us. I am the first to admit that there are many things wrong with our system but there is absolutely no point making changes to it as long as so much decision making rested with the EU
You can see this in the way EU supporters on both the left and the right consider the EU important to stop the other side from changing things. Conservative Europhiles have argued that the EU will stop Corbyn and his socialist ideas whilst Labour supporters argue that the EU is important to stop the Tories removing rights or legal protections on various things like the environment.
The point they both miss is that what they are actually arguing is that democratically elected Governments should be prevented from enacting the promises they made to the electorate and which helped to win them a majority.
Indeed a civilised response, Richard, and in an ideal world I'd agree with all of it.
The problem is as we have seen what gets put in a manifesto and what is then enacted aren't always the same thing and many key policy decisions aren't explicitly stated in a manifesto but are brought in (often surreptitiously) three years into an five year Government.
There's no requirement, once elected, for a Government to enact any of its manifesto - in many ways, it's more a statement to get them into power rather than a document containing what they will do once in power.
I fear a Johnson Government will reduce or remove my rights and protections and I also think it will cut taxes for the very wealthy. Now, they won't say that in the Manifesto because they want to win votes not lose them but once elected there are no checks and balances for the five years they have a majority.
That's the problem with democracy - once you hand a Party a working majority, you had them more or less absolute power. The EU did act as a safeguard to some and an impediment to others and I think overall it was a positive.
Just thinking aloud - give the people a veto on any legislation. If you get 20 million to sign a countermand the legislation to which it refers must be annulled.
In any case, we can leave as soon as the WA is ratified, whether an extension has been agreed or not. Johnson says it can be ratified by 31 October.
This is the point, Chris. There are some of us who think such a crucial piece of future legislation requires appropriate time and scrutiny (which is after all what Parliament and MPs are there for). They aren't the People's Assembly which simply rubber-stamps the diktats of the Dear Leader.
Letwin also doesn't trust Boris not to try to play us all for fools and not get the WA ratified which, in the absence of any further extension, means we exit without a Deal on 31/10. Part of me thinks Johnson is going to play that game and when we exit he will blame the Opposition MPs for holding up the WA.
So we need Letwin to block an "accidental" No Deal.
Of course if the EU say no extension, just get on with it then Letwin just handed the headbangers the key to no deal on the 31st, they just need to sink the WAIB and they get their clean break. Well done Oliver you clever fox
A risk, but a pretty slight one.
Not really. If the EU try and force parliament to get it done by refusing an extension or granting a very short one, Benn is done, the safety net is gone and no deal looms very large in Francois and cos excited piggy little eyes. Letwins amendment is utterly moronic
It's the first part of the premise where it falls apart for me. Despite attempts at tough talk, on this point I don't believe the EU when they hint about 'forcing' parliament to get it done. They can see that is the no deal hope of some, they don't want no deal either so won't let themselves or us fall into it by default.
If we request am extension before even passing a MV on the deal they are going to tell us to take a running jump. Its pathetic and would make us a total laughing stock
In any case, we can leave as soon as the WA is ratified, whether an extension has been agreed or not. Johnson says it can be ratified by 31 October.
This is the point, Chris. There are some of us who think such a crucial piece of future legislation requires appropriate time and scrutiny (which is after all what Parliament and MPs are there for). They aren't the People's Assembly which simply rubber-stamps the diktats of the Dear Leader.
Letwin also doesn't trust Boris not to try to play us all for fools and not get the WA ratified which, in the absence of any further extension, means we exit without a Deal on 31/10. Part of me thinks Johnson is going to play that game and when we exit he will blame the Opposition MPs for holding up the WA.
So we need Letwin to block an "accidental" No Deal.
I agree, but I'm pointing out to the Brexiteers that they're not really losing anything by agreeing to an extension, because if it's all done by 31 October - as Johnson claims it can be - then we don't have to use the extension. We leave as soon as the ratification process is complete.
I struggle to see how the story matches the headline on this one:
How Oliver Letwin Could Go From Zero To Hero Among Brexiteers: Letwin, ridiculed as ‘Parliament’s prime minister’, could help Boris Johnson more than many assume.
It's not very clear, but I think it's saying that Johnson secretly thinks he may need a fortnight's extension for the legislation, and if the Benn Act is triggered he won't need to take responsibility for it.
I actually said as much as huffingtonpost earlier today
Boris sends in the letter, the EU grant a couple of weeks, and de facto Letwin has finished off a GE and referendum and left deal or no deal
Politics hey
Well don't tell that to the opposition backing it, they don't seem to believe those options will be finished off thanks to Letwin.
But they will don't you think
I don't, no. I think a showdown vote tomorrow which either succeeded, or had a referendum tacked on, would have settled the path before us, but that making it all contingent on the legislation going through means a series of further complicated fights. It's not over until it is over, and if there was even the slighest risk that it was over for referendum or a GE I don't think the opposition parties would risk supporting it. They'd pile in behind something else - they haven't, because Letwin does not close off their preferred paths. The deal backing ex cons might be concerned with ensuring Boris does not pull a fast one, but those others still need to shoot it all down, and think this allows them that chance still.
In any case, we can leave as soon as the WA is ratified, whether an extension has been agreed or not. Johnson says it can be ratified by 31 October.
This is the point, Chris. There are some of us who think such a crucial piece of future legislation requires appropriate time and scrutiny (which is after all what Parliament and MPs are there for). They aren't the People's Assembly which simply rubber-stamps the diktats of the Dear Leader.
Letwin also doesn't trust Boris not to try to play us all for fools and not get the WA ratified which, in the absence of any further extension, means we exit without a Deal on 31/10. Part of me thinks Johnson is going to play that game and when we exit he will blame the Opposition MPs for holding up the WA.
So we need Letwin to block an "accidental" No Deal.
I agree, but I'm pointing out to the Brexiteers that they're not really losing anything by agreeing to an extension, because if it's all done by 31 October - as Johnson claims it can be - then we don't have to use the extension. We leave as soon as the ratification process is complete.
Once the extension is agreed any impetus to pass anything disappears until we next approach the end of the extension. Its can kicking.
In any case, we can leave as soon as the WA is ratified, whether an extension has been agreed or not. Johnson says it can be ratified by 31 October.
This is the point, Chris. There are some of us who think such a crucial piece of future legislation requires appropriate time and scrutiny (which is after all what Parliament and MPs are there for). They aren't the People's Assembly which simply rubber-stamps the diktats of the Dear Leader.
Letwin also doesn't trust Boris not to try to play us all for fools and not get the WA ratified which, in the absence of any further extension, means we exit without a Deal on 31/10. Part of me thinks Johnson is going to play that game and when we exit he will blame the Opposition MPs for holding up the WA.
So we need Letwin to block an "accidental" No Deal.
Of course if the EU say no extension, just get on with it then Letwin just handed the headbangers the key to no deal on the 31st, they just need to sink the WAIB and they get their clean break. Well done Oliver you clever fox
A risk, but a pretty slight one.
Not really. If the EU try and force parliament to get it done by refusing an extension or granting a very short one, Benn is done, the safety net is gone and no deal looms very large in Francois and cos excited piggy little eyes. Letwins amendment is utterly moronic
It's the first part of the premise where it falls apart for me. Despite attempts at tough talk, on this point I don't believe the EU when they hint about 'forcing' parliament to get it done. They can see that is the no deal hope of some, they don't want no deal either so won't let themselves or us fall into it by default.
If we request am extension before even passing a MV on the deal they are going to tell us to take a running jump. Its pathetic and would make us a total laughing stock
They are not fools. They are capable of seeing and understanding what's going on at least as well as the people here.
In any case, we can leave as soon as the WA is ratified, whether an extension has been agreed or not. Johnson says it can be ratified by 31 October.
This is the point, Chris. There are some of us who think such a crucial piece of future legislation requires appropriate time and scrutiny (which is after all what Parliament and MPs are there for). They aren't the People's Assembly which simply rubber-stamps the diktats of the Dear Leader.
Letwin also doesn't trust Boris not to try to play us all for fools and not get the WA ratified which, in the absence of any further extension, means we exit without a Deal on 31/10. Part of me thinks Johnson is going to play that game and when we exit he will blame the Opposition MPs for holding up the WA.
So we need Letwin to block an "accidental" No Deal.
Of course if the EU say no extension, just get on with it then Letwin just handed the headbangers the key to no deal on the 31st, they just need to sink the WAIB and they get their clean break. Well done Oliver you clever fox
A risk, but a pretty slight one.
Not really. If the EU try and force parliament to get it done by refusing an extension or granting a very short one, Benn is done, the safety net is gone and no deal looms very large in Francois and cos excited piggy little eyes. Letwins amendment is utterly moronic
It's the first part of the premise where it falls apart for me. Despite attempts at tough talk, on this point I don't believe the EU when they hint about 'forcing' parliament to get it done. They can see that is the no deal hope of some, they don't want no deal either so won't let themselves or us fall into it by default.
If we request am extension before even passing a MV on the deal they are going to tell us to take a running jump. Its pathetic and would make us a total laughing stock
They are not fools. They are capable of seeing and understanding what's going on at least as well as the people here.
Hence the anger reported on twittwr in the EU at letwins games
In answer to your question the benefit for me and millions of other people including you and OGH - though I know you will deny it - is that it makes our politicians more accountable to us. I am the first to admit that there are many things wrong with our system but there is absolutely no point making changes to it as long as so much decision making rested with the EU
You can see this in the way EU supporters on both the left and the right consider the EU important to stop the other side from changing things. Conservative Europhiles have argued that the EU will stop Corbyn and his socialist ideas whilst Labour supporters argue that the EU is important to stop the Tories removing rights or legal protections on various things like the environment.
The point they both miss is that what they are actually arguing is that democratically elected Governments should be prevented from enacting the promises they made to the electorate and which helped to win them a majority.
Indeed a civilised response, Richard, and in an ideal world I'd agree with all of it.
The problem is as we have seen what gets put in a manifesto and what is then enacted aren't always the same thing and many key policy decisions aren't explicitly stated in a manifesto but are brought in (often surreptitiously) three years into an five year Government.
There's no requirement, once elected, for a Government to enact any of its manifesto - in many ways, it's more a statement to get them into power rather than a document containing what they will do once in power.
I fear a Johnson Government will reduce or remove my rights and protections and I also think it will cut taxes for the very wealthy. Now, they won't say that in the Manifesto because they want to win votes not lose them but once elected there are no checks and balances for the five years they have a majority.
That's the problem with democracy - once you hand a Party a working majority, you had them more or less absolute power. The EU did act as a safeguard to some and an impediment to others and I think overall it was a positive.
Just thinking aloud - give the people a veto on any legislation. If you get 20 million to sign a countermand the legislation to which it refers must be annulled.
There is the check and balance that they can be sacked at the next election. That does not apply to laws handed down by the EU. That's the point.
In any case, we can leave as soon as the WA is ratified, whether an extension has been agreed or not. Johnson says it can be ratified by 31 October.
This is the point, Chris. There are some of us who think such a crucial piece of future legislation requires appropriate time and scrutiny (which is after all what Parliament and MPs are there for). They aren't the People's Assembly which simply rubber-stamps the diktats of the Dear Leader.
Letwin also doesn't trust Boris not to try to play us all for fools and not get the WA ratified which, in the absence of any further extension, means we exit without a Deal on 31/10. Part of me thinks Johnson is going to play that game and when we exit he will blame the Opposition MPs for holding up the WA.
So we need Letwin to block an "accidental" No Deal.
Of course if the EU say no extension, just get on with it then Letwin just handed the headbangers the key to no deal on the 31st, they just need to sink the WAIB and they get their clean break. Well done Oliver you clever fox
A risk, but a pretty slight one.
Not really. If the EU try and force parliament to get it done by refusing an extension or granting a very short one, Benn is done, the safety net is gone and no deal looms very large in Francois and cos excited piggy little eyes. Letwins amendment is utterly moronic
It's the first part of the premise where it falls apart for me. Despite attempts at tough talk, on this point I don't believe the EU when they hint about 'forcing' parliament to get it done. They can see that is the no deal hope of some, they don't want no deal either so won't let themselves or us fall into it by default.
If we request am extension before even passing a MV on the deal they are going to tell us to take a running jump. Its pathetic and would make us a total laughing stock
We shall soon find out, but I think expecting them to give a firm 'bugger off', however reasonable, is optimistic. That'd be telling us what to do, not merely encouraging us what to do.
On the vote itself, the BBC prediction (and none of these seem to matter given Letwin, but never mind) is less bold than the FT in guessing about the undecideds, but does not think Lamb will be going against his party.
In any case, we can leave as soon as the WA is ratified, whether an extension has been agreed or not. Johnson says it can be ratified by 31 October.
This is the point, Chris. There are some of us who think such a crucial piece of future legislation requires appropriate time and scrutiny (which is after all what Parliament and MPs are there for). They aren't the People's Assembly which simply rubber-stamps the diktats of the Dear Leader.
Letwin also doesn't trust Boris not to try to play us all for fools and not get the WA ratified which, in the absence of any further extension, means we exit without a Deal on 31/10. Part of me thinks Johnson is going to play that game and when we exit he will blame the Opposition MPs for holding up the WA.
So we need Letwin to block an "accidental" No Deal.
Of course if the EU say no extension, just get on with it then Letwin just handed the headbangers the key to no deal on the 31st, they just need to sink the WAIB and they get their clean break. Well done Oliver you clever fox
A risk, but a pretty slight one.
Not really. If the EU try and force parliament to get it done by refusing an extension or granting a very short one, Benn is done, the safety net is gone and no deal looms very large in Francois and cos excited piggy little eyes. Letwins amendment is utterly moronic
It's the first part of the premise where it falls apart for me. Despite attempts at tough talk, on this point I don't believe the EU when they hint about 'forcing' parliament to get it done. They can see that is the no deal hope of some, they don't want no deal either so won't let themselves or us fall into it by default.
If we request am extension before even passing a MV on the deal they are going to tell us to take a running jump. Its pathetic and would make us a total laughing stock
EU when they heard about Letwin called out British Politicians for gaming the system and it has angered them. The EU is geared up for the 31st and frankly want to move on.
Macron has said multiple times today no extension and to then agree will shred his reputation
So I'm coming in late so apologies if every single of the last 1000 posts have been on the Letwin amendment, but, basically, is it merely reinforcing my personal theory that every single time you think "this is the point Brexit will finally be decided" it turns out, no, the saga will go on to the NEXT big crunch point?
It is going to be very interesting to see how the DUP vote on the Queen's Speech and the Budget.They have the potential to cause mayhem. Do they have the will?
Once again, remember the rule of Johnson - he will say whatever he thinks the audience in front of him wants to hear. He clearly flimflammed the EU leaders with a lot of big talk about getting the WA done and now they realise he may not be able to deliver.
I'd argue they aren't angry at Letwin - they are angry at allowing themselves to be fooled by Johnson.
In answer to your question the benefit for me and millions of other people including you and OGH - though I know you will deny it - is that it makes our politicians more accountable to us. I am the first to admit that there are many things wrong with our system but there is absolutely no point making changes to it as long as so much decision making rested with the EU
You can see this in the way EU supporters on both the left and the right consider the EU important to stop the other side from changing things. Conservative Europhiles have argued that the EU will stop Corbyn and his socialist ideas whilst Labour supporters argue that the EU is important to stop the Tories removing rights or legal protections on various things like the environment.
The point they both miss is that what they are actually arguing is that democratically elected Governments should be prevented from enacting the promises they made to the electorate and which helped to win them a majority.
Indeed a civilised response, Richard, and in an ideal world I'd agree with all of it.
The problem is as we have seen what gets put in a manifesto and what is then enacted aren't always the same thing and many key policy decisions aren't explicitly stated in a manifesto but are brought in (often surreptitiously) three years into an five year Government.
There's no requirement, once elected, for a Government to enact any of its manifesto - in many ways, it's more a statement to get them into power rather than a document containing what they will do once in power.
I fear a Johnson Government will reduce or remove my rights and protections and I also think it will cut taxes for the very wealthy. Now, they won't say that in the Manifesto because they want to win votes not lose them but once elected there are no checks and balances for the five years they have a majority.
That's the problem with democracy - once you hand a Party a working majority, you had them more or less absolute power. The EU did act as a safeguard to some and an impediment to others and I think overall it was a positive.
Just thinking aloud - give the people a veto on any legislation. If you get 20 million to sign a countermand the legislation to which it refers must be annulled.
I like that idea. But I would also try and reduce the power of the parties. Introduce a power of recall tied to compulsory MPs personal manifestos
I will/won't vote for X. If they act counter to the promises then their constituents can start the recall process.
As I have said before I would also reduce the power of the whips.
If only all leavers had the same clarity. I of course do disagree because in my experience the politicians rarely blame the EU. There is usually an ulterior motive and if there blame it falls on the previous government.
I genuinely don't recall a politician moan that it was the EU wot made me do it. Even VAT on home energy supplies (the sovereignty cause celebre) I haven't heard anyone agitate for it outside the Brexit debate.
It is not a case of them blaming the EU. It is just a matter of fact that once laws and regulations have been adopted at an EU level there is little if anything we as the electorate of this country can do to get them repealed or changed.
The chicken feed discussion we had the other day is a minor but obvious example of this. It was the UK who pushed for it across the whole of the EU. There would be no chance of getting it changed if we remained in the EU.
It cements in pace regulations that politicians fear might later be repealed if left in the remit of the UK Parliament.
We are part of that club. If we really want any law repealed we can campaign for it to be so. That's all part of being in the club. And collectively following its rules.
OGH asked about six hours ago what benefits he could now expect given that we are now leaving. I missed the hundreds of responses that he received can anyone summaries them for me without talking about sovereignty please
I have just done an 8 hour drive down from Aberdeen to Lincolnshire so missed all of today's threads.
So first of all thanks to OblitussumMe for an excellent thread earlier.
In answer to your question the benefit for me and millions of other people including you and OGH - though I know you will deny it - is that it makes our politicians more accountable to us. I am the first to admit that there are many things wrong with our system but there is absolutely no point making changes to it as long as so much decision making rested with the EU
This is particularly well illustrated where it is UK politicians who have suggested additional rules or regulations. If they do this within our Parliament and we subsequently decide, as a nation, that the law was stupid then we can get it changed in our own Parliament. If it has been turned into a regulation or directive by the EU and then adopted into UK law it is practically impossible to get this reversed. You would have to be able somehow to persuade the representatives of either the majority of or all of the other 27 countries to agree to the change.
You can see this in the way EU supporters on both the left and the right consider the EU important to stop the other side from changing things. Conservative Europhiles have argued that the EU will stop Corbyn and his socialist ideas whilst Labour supporters argue that the EU is important to stop the Tories removing rights or legal protections on various things like the environment.
The point they both miss is that what they are actually arguing is that democratically elected Governments should be prevented from enacting the promises they made to the electorate and which helped to win them a majority.
I don't expect you to agree with any of this but you wanted an answer and it is one I believe in.
Tbh I'm not seeing how it makes politicians that retain the bulk of the governing of my country more accountable, rather the reverse.
Which is why I favour Scottish Independence as well. The same arguments apply.
I know that and believe that you're sincere. However doesn't it give you pause for thought that the agents for this greater accountability for English pols are largely opposed to it in Scotland. and in fact would like to restrict it further?
I wouldn't be surprised to see Hammond voting alongside Corbyn. Yes it will ruin his reputation and contradict his position on wanting a deal but clearly he doesn't want Brexit and he doesn't want Boris to succeed, it's very personal and if he thinks he can swing the vote I've no doubt he will. Possibly Rudd will act in the same way.
Telegraph reporting that Hammond is the only whipless one not engaging with the process for the rebels to get the whip back. Support all votes on WA. support QS and support budget on 6th Nov.
That is surely not true of other Whipless Tories such as Grieve, Bebb, Greening and possibly Sandbach.
It is not saying they are all on board, just not engaging. i.e to me the others are all talking, but Hammond is not even doing that,
Given Greening has already said she is opposing the WA, what's to discuss ?
She may agree to vote for it in exchange for a safe seat.
If only all leavers had the same clarity. I of course do disagree because in my experience the politicians rarely blame the EU. There is usually an ulterior motive and if there blame it falls on the previous government.
I genuinely don't recall a politician moan that it was the EU wot made me do it. Even VAT on home energy supplies (the sovereignty cause celebre) I haven't heard anyone agitate for it outside the Brexit debate.
It is not a case of them blaming the EU. It is just a matter of fact that once laws and regulations have been adopted at an EU level there is little if anything we as the electorate of this country can do to get them repealed or changed.
The chicken feed discussion we had the other day is a minor but obvious example of this. It was the UK who pushed for it across the whole of the EU. There would be no chance of getting it changed if we remained in the EU.
It cements in pace regulations that politicians fear might later be repealed if left in the remit of the UK Parliament.
We are part of that club. If we really want any law repealed we can campaign for it to be so. That's all part of being in the club. And collectively following its rules.
That is kind of my point though. As long as we are part of that club we are very unlikely to ever be able to change the laws we don't like. Nor do I agree we should be throwing our weight around to try and force others to change their laws. Far better to accept we have a fundamental disagreement and leave the club.
Once again, remember the rule of Johnson - he will say whatever he thinks the audience in front of him wants to hear. He clearly flimflammed the EU leaders with a lot of big talk about getting the WA done and now they realise he may not be able to deliver.
I'd argue they aren't angry at Letwin - they are angry at allowing themselves to be fooled by Johnson.
Not from the live report I heard from Sky's Europe editor. They have had enough and even used the expression British politicians gaming the system and expressing annoyance and saying that this reduces the chance of an extension
It is going to be very interesting to see how the DUP vote on the Queen's Speech and the Budget.
If they want the investment agreed in NI then with the government
But they have every incentive now to make life as difficult as possible for the Government in the remaining weeks and months of this Parlianent. The desire for revenge will likely be strong. 'Pay back' time might be at hand!
In answer to your question the benefit for me and millions of other people including you and OGH - though I know you will deny it - is that it makes our politicians more accountable to us. I am the first to admit that there are many things wrong with our system but there is absolutely no point making changes to it as long as so much decision making rested with the EU
You can see this in the way EU supporters on both the left and the right consider the EU important to stop the other side from changing things. Conservative Europhiles have argued that the EU will stop Corbyn and his socialist ideas whilst Labour supporters argue that the EU is important to stop the Tories removing rights or legal protections on various things like the environment.
The point they both miss is that what they are actually arguing is that democratically elected Governments should be prevented from enacting the promises they made to the electorate and which helped to win them a majority.
Indeed a civilised response, Richard, and in an ideal world I'd agree with all of it.
The problem is as we have seen what gets put in a manifesto and what is then enacted aren't always the same thing and many key policy decisions aren't explicitly stated in a manifesto but are brought in (often surreptitiously) three years into an five year Government.
There's no requirement, once elected, for a Government to enact any of its manifesto - in many ways, it's more a statement to get them into power rather than a document containing what they will do once in power.
I fear a Johnson Government will reduce or remove my rights and protections and I also think it will cut taxes for the very wealthy. Now, they won't say that in the Manifesto because they want to win votes not lose them but once elected there are no checks and balances for the five years they have a majority.
That's the problem with democracy - once you hand a Party a working majority, you had them more or less absolute power. The EU did act as a safeguard to some and an impediment to others and I think overall it was a positive.
Just thinking aloud - give the people a veto on any legislation. If you get 20 million to sign a countermand the legislation to which it refers must be annulled.
There is the check and balance that they can be sacked at the next election. That does not apply to laws handed down by the EU. That's the point.
Come on our election gives little or no ability to sack anybody at the next election. The only MPs who I can recalled who was sacked by his constituency was Hamilton.
OGH asked about six hours ago what benefits he could now expect given that we are now leaving. I missed the hundreds of responses that he received can anyone summaries them for me without talking about sovereignty please
I have just done an 8 hour drive down from Aberdeen to Lincolnshire so missed all of today's threads.
So first of all thanks to OblitussumMe for an excellent thread earlier.
In answer to your question the benefit for me and millions of other people including you and OGH - though I know you will deny it - is that it makes our politicians more accountable to us. I am the first to admit that there are many things wrong with our system but there is absolutely no point making changes to it as long as so much decision making rested with the EU
This is particularly well illustrated where it is UK politicians who have suggested additional rules or regulations. If they do this within our Parliament and we subsequently decide, as a nation, that the law was stupid then we can get it changed in our own Parliament. If it has been turned into a regulation or directive by the EU and then adopted into UK law it is practically impossible to get this reversed. You would have to be able somehow to persuade the representatives of either the majority of or all of the other 27 countries to agree to the change.
You can see this in the way EU supporters on both the left and the right consider the EU important to stop the other side from changing things. Conservative Europhiles have argued that the EU will stop Corbyn and his socialist ideas whilst Labour supporters argue that the EU is important to stop the Tories removing rights or legal protections on various things like the environment.
The point they both miss is that what they are actually arguing is that democratically elected Governments should be prevented from enacting the promises they made to the electorate and which helped to win them a majority.
I don't expect you to agree with any of this but you wanted an answer and it is one I believe in.
Tbh I'm not seeing how it makes politicians that retain the bulk of the governing of my country more accountable, rather the reverse.
Which is why I favour Scottish Independence as well. The same arguments apply.
I know that and believe that you're sincere. However doesn't it give you pause for thought that the agents for this greater accountability for English pols are largely opposed to it in Scotland. and in fact would like to restrict it further?
When the extension request to the EU goes in, as it will, and they extend to January 2020, that's right back to where we were in April, since Tusk and Merkel among others suggested extension to early 2020 then. Such progress we have made. And rather shows the unliklihood that they could not stand us sticking around that long so will only allow a short extension or not grant one.
In answer to your question the benefit for me and millions of other people including you and OGH - though I know you will deny it - is that it makes our politicians more accountable to us. I am the first to admit that there are many things wrong with our system but there is absolutely no point making changes to it as long as so much decision making rested with the EU
You can see this in the way EU supporters on both the left and the right consider the EU important to stop the other side from changing things. Conservative Europhiles have argued that the EU will stop Corbyn and his socialist ideas whilst Labour supporters argue that the EU is important to stop the Tories removing rights or legal protections on various things like the environment.
The point they both miss is that what they are actually arguing is that democratically elected Governments should be prevented from enacting the promises they made to the electorate and which helped to win them a majority.
Indeed a civilised response, Richard, and in an ideal world I'd agree with all of it.
The problem is as we have seen what gets put in a manifesto and what is then enacted aren't always the same thing and many key policy decisions aren't explicitly stated in a manifesto but are brought in (often surreptitiously) three years into an five year Government.
There's no requirement, once elected, for a Government to enact any of its manifesto - in many ways, it's more a statement to get them into power rather than a document containing what they will do once in power.
I fear a Johnson Government will reduce or remove my rights and protections and I also think it will cut taxes for the very wealthy. Now, they won't say that in the Manifesto because they want to win votes not lose them but once elected there are no checks and balances for the five years they have a majority.
That's the problem with democracy - once you hand a Party a working majority, you had them more or less absolute power. The EU did act as a safeguard to some and an impediment to others and I think overall it was a positive.
Just thinking aloud - give the people a veto on any legislation. If you get 20 million to sign a countermand the legislation to which it refers must be annulled.
It's an interesting idea but 20million is a figure you'd never reach in any petition imo.
If only all leavers had the same clarity. I of course do disagree because in my experience the politicians rarely blame the EU. There is usually an ulterior motive and if there blame it falls on the previous government.
I genuinely don't recall a politician moan that it was the EU wot made me do it. Even VAT on home energy supplies (the sovereignty cause celebre) I haven't heard anyone agitate for it outside the Brexit debate.
It is not a case of them blaming the EU. It is just a matter of fact that once laws and regulations have been adopted at an EU level there is little if anything we as the electorate of this country can do to get them repealed or changed.
The chicken feed discussion we had the other day is a minor but obvious example of this. It was the UK who pushed for it across the whole of the EU. There would be no chance of getting it changed if we remained in the EU.
It cements in pace regulations that politicians fear might later be repealed if left in the remit of the UK Parliament.
We are part of that club. If we really want any law repealed we can campaign for it to be so. That's all part of being in the club. And collectively following its rules.
That is kind of my point though. As long as we are part of that club we are very unlikely to veer be able to change the laws we don't like. Nor do I agree we should be throwing our weight around to try and force others to change their laws. Far better to accept we have a fundamental disagreement and leave the club.
You just define ‘we’ in a narrow nationalist way because you are a narrow nationalist.
So I'm coming in late so apologies if every single of the last 1000 posts have been on the Letwin amendment, but, basically, is it merely reinforcing my personal theory that every single time you think "this is the point Brexit will finally be decided" it turns out, no, the saga will go on to the NEXT big crunch point?
Yes, unfortunately so. It's all about next week now, apparently.
It is going to be very interesting to see how the DUP vote on the Queen's Speech and the Budget.
If they want the investment agreed in NI then with the government
But they have every incentive now to make life as difficult as possible for the Government in the remaining weeks and months of this Parlianent. The desire for revenge will likely be strong. 'Pay back' time might be at hand!
And become an irrelevance in the next election. I expect them to act only in their interests and they will not have revenge in mind but what is in it for them
It is going to be very interesting to see how the DUP vote on the Queen's Speech and the Budget.
If they want the investment agreed in NI then with the government
But they have every incentive now to make life as difficult as possible for the Government in the remaining weeks and months of this Parlianent. The desire for revenge will likely be strong. 'Pay back' time might be at hand!
The funding for NI is part of a formal c and s agreement. If they breach that no money for their constituents.
It is going to be very interesting to see how the DUP vote on the Queen's Speech and the Budget.
If they want the investment agreed in NI then with the government
But they have every incentive now to make life as difficult as possible for the Government in the remaining weeks and months of this Parlianent. The desire for revenge will likely be strong. 'Pay back' time might be at hand!
And become an irrelevance in the next election. I expect them to act only in their interests and they will not have revenge in mind but what is in it for them
That rather depends how the numbers fall in the event of another Hung Parliament.
If only all leavers had the same clarity. I of course do disagree because in my experience the politicians rarely blame the EU. There is usually an ulterior motive and if there blame it falls on the previous government.
I genuinely don't recall a politician moan that it was the EU wot made me do it. Even VAT on home energy supplies (the sovereignty cause celebre) I haven't heard anyone agitate for it outside the Brexit debate.
It is not a case of them blaming the EU. It is just a matter of fact that once laws and regulations have been adopted at an EU level there is little if anything we as the electorate of this country can do to get them repealed or changed.
The chicken feed discussion we had the other day is a minor but obvious example of this. It was the UK who pushed for it across the whole of the EU. There would be no chance of getting it changed if we remained in the EU.
It cements in pace regulations that politicians fear might later be repealed if left in the remit of the UK Parliament.
We are part of that club. If we really want any law repealed we can campaign for it to be so. That's all part of being in the club. And collectively following its rules.
That is kind of my point though. As long as we are part of that club we are very unlikely to veer be able to change the laws we don't like. Nor do I agree we should be throwing our weight around to try and force others to change their laws. Far better to accept we have a fundamental disagreement and leave the club.
You just define ‘we’ in a narrow nationalist way because you are a narrow nationalist.
I define we as being the smallest viable unit of the electorate. I want to go much further and see far more decision making done at the local level as opposed to the national level. If I am a narrow nationalist it is because I think the nation state is better than a supranational body. But I also think that for a large swathe of our laws the district or county (or whatever you want to call it) is better than the nation.
Power should be vested as close as possible to the people.
Once again, remember the rule of Johnson - he will say whatever he thinks the audience in front of him wants to hear. He clearly flimflammed the EU leaders with a lot of big talk about getting the WA done and now they realise he may not be able to deliver.
I'd argue they aren't angry at Letwin - they are angry at allowing themselves to be fooled by Johnson.
So the EU leaders are stupid? How did they fall for a promise it will get through, they can read the papers and would have known the numbers would be tight regardless?
In any case, we can leave as soon as the WA is ratified, whether an extension has been agreed or not. Johnson says it can be ratified by 31 October.
Thisccidental" No Deal.
Of course if the EU say no extension, just get on with it then Letwin just handed the headbangers the key to no deal on the 31st, they just need to sink the WAIB and they get their clean break. Well done Oliver you clever fox
A risk, but a pretty slight one.
Not rtterly moronic
It's the first part of the premise where it falls apart for me. Despite attempts at tough talk, on this point I don't believe thfault.
If we request am extension before even passing a MV on the deal they are going to tell us to take a running jump. Its pathetic and would make us a total laughing stock
EU when they heard about Letwin called out British Politicians for gaming the system and it has angered them. The EU is geared up for the 31st and frankly want to move on.
Macron has said multiple times today no extension and to then agree will shred his reputation
Shred it with whom? He talks tough, then concedes to the majority of EU leaders in the name of harmony, and argues he kept them to January 2020 rather than June 2020 or whatever, which some have floated. It happened before.
Just thinking aloud - give the people a veto on any legislation. If you get 20 million to sign a countermand the legislation to which it refers must be annulled.
One idea that has gone around a few times is to replace the House of Lords with a House of Lords (for one Parliamentary session) filled by citizens chosen randomly using the jury system. That way you would force politicians to explain new laws directly to members of the public to gain their consent to them.
I see where Richard is coming from in his argument, and I agree with it to some extent in that I think that we should move some decision-making down to more local levels so that people can be more involved in those decisions. However, there are some things that it does make sense to have common rules on at a supranational level, and I don't see in principle why it should not be possible for democracy at an EU level to be capable of amending or repealing rules once made.
I certainly agree that UK politicians have used the EU as a bogeyman to outsource blame onto and I hope that will be one benefit once we leave, though I fear that some will continue to try and use it to play that role.
If only all leavers had the same clarity. I of course do disagree because in my experience the politicians rarely blame the EU. There is usually an ulterior motive and if there blame it falls on the previous government.
I genuinely don't recall a politician moan that it was the EU wot made me do it. Even VAT on home energy supplies (the sovereignty cause celebre) I haven't heard anyone agitate for it outside the Brexit debate.
It is not a case of them blaming the EU. It is just a matter of fact that once laws and regulations have been adopted at an EU level there is little if anything we as the electorate of this country can do to get them repealed or changed.
The chicken feed discussion we had the other day is a minor but obvious example of this. It was the UK who pushed for it across the whole of the EU. There would be no chance of getting it changed if we remained in the EU.
It cements in pace regulations that politicians fear might later be repealed if left in the remit of the UK Parliament.
We are part of that club. If we really want any law repealed we can campaign for it to be so. That's all part of being in the club. And collectively following its rules.
That is kind of my point though. As long as we are part of that club we are very unlikely to veer be able to change the laws we don't like. Nor do I agree we should be throwing our weight around to try and force others to change their laws. Far better to accept we have a fundamental disagreement and leave the club.
You just define ‘we’ in a narrow nationalist way because you are a narrow nationalist.
I define we as being the smallest viable unit of the electorate. I want to go much further and see far more decision making done at the local level as opposed to the national level. If I am a narrow nationalist it is because I think the nation state is better than a supranational body. But I also think that for a large swathe of our laws the district or county (or whatever you want to call it) is better than the nation.
Power should be vested as close as possible to the people.
Ok, let’s give your town its own trade policy. How much power do you think you would gain?
It is going to be very interesting to see how the DUP vote on the Queen's Speech and the Budget.
If they want the investment agreed in NI then with the government
But they have every incentive now to make life as difficult as possible for the Government in the remaining weeks and months of this Parlianent. The desire for revenge will likely be strong. 'Pay back' time might be at hand!
The funding for NI is part of a formal c and s agreement. If they breach that no money for their constituents.
Not much of a punishment to go back to whatever the formula was pre 2017 without the Tories buning more at NI. Their seats are almost all secure regardless.
It is going to be very interesting to see how the DUP vote on the Queen's Speech and the Budget.
If they want the investment agreed in NI then with the government
But they have every incentive now to make life as difficult as possible for the Government in the remaining weeks and months of this Parlianent. The desire for revenge will likely be strong. 'Pay back' time might be at hand!
The funding for NI is part of a formal c and s agreement. If they breach that no money for their constituents.
But that agreement expired at the new Queens Speech - it was not for the 5 year Parliament.
In any case, we can leave as soon as the WA is ratified, whether an extension has been agreed or not. Johnson says it can be ratified by 31 October.
This is the point, Chris. There are some of us who think such a crucial piece of future legislation requires appropriate time and scrutiny (which is after all what Parliament and MPs are there for). They aren't the People's Assembly which simply rubber-stamps the diktats of the Dear Leader.
Letwin also doesn't trust Boris not to try to play us all for fools and not get the WA ratified which, in the absence of any further extension, means we exit without a Deal on 31/10. Part of me thinks Johnson is going to play that game and when we exit he will blame the Opposition MPs for holding up the WA.
So we need Letwin to block an "accidental" No Deal.
Of course if the EU say no extension, just get on with it then Letwin just handed the headbangers the key to no deal on the 31st, they just need to sink the WAIB and they get their clean break. Well done Oliver you clever fox
A risk, but a pretty slight one.
Not really. If the EU try and force parliament to get it done by refusing an extension or granting a very short one, Benn is done, the safety net is gone and no deal looms very large in Francois and cos excited piggy little eyes. Letwins amendment is utterly moronic
It's the first part of the premise where it falls apart for me. Despite attempts at tough talk, on this point I don't believe the EU when they hint about 'forcing' parliament to get it done. They can see that is the no deal hope of some, they don't want no deal either so won't let themselves or us fall into it by default.
If we request am extension before even passing a MV on the deal they are going to tell us to take a running jump. Its pathetic and would make us a total laughing stock
They are not fools. They are capable of seeing and understanding what's going on at least as well as the people here.
Hence the anger reported on twittwr in the EU at letwins games
In any case, we can leave as soon as the WA is ratified, whether an extension has been agreed or not. Johnson says it can be ratified by 31 October.
This is the point, Chris. There are some of us who think such a crucial piece of future legislation requires appropriate time and scrutiny (which is after all what Parliament and MPs are there for). They aren't the People's Assembly which simply rubber-stamps the diktats of the Dear Leader.
Letwin also doesn't trust Boris not to try to play us all for fools and not get the WA ratified which, in the absence of any further extension, means we exit without a Deal on 31/10. Part of me thinks Johnson is going to play that game and when we exit he will blame the Opposition MPs for holding up the WA.
So we need Letwin to block an "accidental" No Deal.
Of course if the EU say no extension, just get on with it then Letwin just handed the headbangers the key to no deal on the 31st, they just need to sink the WAIB and they get their clean break. Well done Oliver you clever fox
A risk, but a pretty slight one.
Not really. If the EU try and force parliament to get it done by refusing an extension or granting a very short one, Benn is done, the safety net is gone and no deal looms very large in Francois and cos excited piggy little eyes. Letwins amendment is utterly moronic
It's the first part of the premise where it falls apart for me. Despite attempts at tough talk, on this point I don't believe the EU when they hint about 'forcing' parliament to get it done. They can see that is the no deal hope of some, they don't want no deal either so won't let themselves or us fall into it by default.
If we request am extension before even passing a MV on the deal they are going to tell us to take a running jump. Its pathetic and would make us a total laughing stock
EU when they heard about Letwin called out British Politicians for gaming the system and it has angered them. The EU is geared up for the 31st and frankly want to move on.
Macron has said multiple times today no extension and to then agree will shred his reputation
He said that last time and look what happened.
Also, if Johnson believes no extension will be offoered he should just send the request in and see it rejected... His deal would then sail through the HoC.
I know that and believe that you're sincere. However doesn't it give you pause for thought that the agents for this greater accountability for English pols are largely opposed to it in Scotland. and in fact would like to restrict it further?
Which is why the only real answer to this is Scottish Independence. As long as Scotland remains part of the UK they will always be fighting an uphill struggle for any real power or influence.
I genuinely hope that one of the welcome side effects of Brexit is a successful Scottish Independence vote and then two countries side by side making civilised decisions that are beneficial to both electorates.
In answer to your question the benefit for me and millions of other people including you and OGH - though I know you will deny it - is that it makes our politicians more accountable to us. I am the first to admit that there are many things wrong with our system but there is absolutely no point making changes to it as long as so much decision making rested with the EU
You can see this in the way EU supporters on both the left and the right consider the EU important to stop the other side from changing things. Conservative Europhiles have argued that the EU will stop Corbyn and his socialist ideas whilst Labour supporters argue that the EU is important to stop the Tories removing rights or legal protections on various things like the environment.
The point they both miss is that what they are actually arguing is that democratically elected Governments should be prevented from enacting the promises they made to the electorate and which helped to win them a majority.
Indeed a civilised response, Richard, and in an ideal world I'd agree with all of it.
The problem is as we have seen what gets put in a manifesto and what is then enacted aren't always the same thing and many key policy decisions aren't explicitly stated in a manifesto but are brought in (often surreptitiously) three years into an five year Government.
There's no requirement, once elected, for a Government to enact any of its manifesto - in many ways, it's more a statement to get them into power rather than a document containing what they will do once in power.
I fear a Johnson Government will reduce or remove my rights and protections and I also think it will cut taxes for the very wealthy. Now, they won't say that in the Manifesto because they want to win votes not lose them but once elected there are no checks and balances for the five years they have a majority.
That's the problem with democracy - once you hand a Party a working majority, you had them more or less absolute power. The EU did act as a safeguard to some and an impediment to others and I think overall it was a positive.
Just thinking aloud - give the people a veto on any legislation. If you get 20 million to sign a countermand the legislation to which it refers must be annulled.
There is a safeguard in democracy that doesn't exist with alternative systems like the EU. If a Johnson Government reduces a right or protection that you want or imposes a restriction you don't want then you can elect an alternative government within 5 years.
If in the EU the EU reduces a right or protection that you want or imposes a restriction you don't want then you have no way to change that. You'd need to change not just our government but the governments across Europe too.
It is going to be very interesting to see how the DUP vote on the Queen's Speech and the Budget.They have the potential to cause mayhem. Do they have the will?
In answer to your question the benefit for me and millions of other people including you and OGH - though I know you will deny it - is that it makes our politicians more accountable to us. I am the first to admit that there are many things wrong with our system but there is absolutely no point making changes to it as long as so much decision making
You can see this in the way EU supporters on both the left and the right consider the EU important to stop the other side from changing things. Conservative Europhiles have argued that the EU will stop Corbyn and his socialist ideas whilst Labour supporters argue that the EU is important to stop the Tories removing rights or legal protections on various things like the environment.
The point they both miss is that what they are actually arguing is that democratically elected Governments should be prevented from enacting the promises they made to the electorate and which helped to win them a majority.
Indeed a civilised response, Richard, and in an ideal world I'd agree with all of it.
The problem is as we have seen what gets put in a manifesto and what is then enacted aren't always the same thing and many key policy decisions aren't explicitly stated in a manifesto but are brought in (often surreptitiously) three years into an five year Government.
There's no requirement, once elected, for a Government to enact any of its manifesto - in many ways, it's more a statement to get them into power rather than a document containing what they will do once in power.
I fear a Johnson Government will reduce or remove my rights and protections and I also think it will cut taxes for the very wealthy. Now, they won't say that in the Manifesto because they want to win votes not lose them but once elected there are no checks and balances for the five years they have a majority.
That's the problem with democracy - once you hand a Party a working majority, you had them more or less absolute power. The EU did act as a safeguard to some and an impediment to others and I think overall it was a positive.
Just thinking aloud - give the people a veto on any legislation. If you get 20 million to sign a countermand the legislation to which it refers must be annulled.
There is a safeguard in democracy that doesn't exist with alternative systems like the EU. If a Johnson Government reduces a right or protection that you want or imposes a restriction you don't want then you can elect an alternative government within 5 years.
If in the EU the EU reduces a right or protection that you want or imposes a restriction you don't want then you have no way to change that. You'd need to change not just our government but the governments across Europe too.
And God knows the Conservatives are all about restricting what we do
In any case, we can leave as soon as the WA is ratified, whether an extension has been agreed or not. Johnson says it can be ratified by 31 October.
This is the point, Chris. There are some of us who think such a crucial piece of future legislation requires appropriate time and scrutiny (which is after all what Parliament and MPs are there for). They aren't the People's Assembly which simply rubber-stamps the diktats of the Dear Leader.
Letwin also doesn't trust Boris not to try to play us all for fools and not get the WA ratified which, in the absence of any further extension, means we exit without a Deal on 31/10. Part of me thinks Johnson is going to play that game and when we exit he will blame the Opposition MPs for holding up the WA.
So we need Letwin to block an "accidental" No Deal.
Of course if the EU say no extension, just get on with it then Letwin just handed the headbangers the key to no deal on the 31st, they just need to sink the WAIB and they get their clean break. Well done Oliver you clever fox
A risk, but a pretty slight one.
Not really. If the EU try and force parliament to get it done by refusing an extension or granting a very short one, Benn is done, the safety net is gone and no deal looms very large in Francois and cos excited piggy little eyes. Letwins amendment is utterly moronic
It's the first part of the premise where it falls apart for me. Despite attempts at tough talk, on this point I don't believe the EU when they hint about 'forcing' parliament to get it done. They can see that is the no deal hope of some, they don't want no deal either so won't let themselves or us fall into it by default.
If we request am extension before even passing a MV on the deal they are going to tell us to take a running jump. Its pathetic and would make us a total laughing stock
They are not fools. They are capable of seeing and understanding what's going on at least as well as the people here.
Hence the anger reported on twittwr in the EU at letwins games
But Twitter ...
Silly me.
Yes how silly, at least we know everything will be ok because Chris says so.
My guess is that Oliver Letwin's amendment is going to sink Boris, because a handful of Labour MPs who were going to vote for the deal are now going to abstain and vote for Letwin instead.
If only all leavers had the same clarity. I of course do disagree because in my experience the politicians rarely blame the EU. There is usually an ulterior motive and if there blame it falls on the previous government.
I genuinely don't recall a politician moan that it was the EU wot made me do it. Even VAT on home energy supplies (the sovereignty cause celebre) I haven't heard anyone agitate for it outside the Brexit debate.
It is not a case of them blaming the EU. It is just a matter of fact that once laws and regulations have been adopted at an EU level there is little if anything we as the electorate of this country can do to get them repealed or changed.
The chicken feed discussion we had the other day is a minor but obvious example of this. It was the UK who pushed for it across the whole of the EU. There would be no chance of getting it changed if we remained in the EU.
It cements in pace regulations that politicians fear might later be repealed if left in the remit of the UK Parliament.
We are part of that club. If we really want any law repealed we can campaign for it to be so. That's all part of being in the club. And collectively following its rules.
That is kind of my point though. As long as we are part of that club we are very unlikely to veer be able to change the laws we don't like. Nor do I agree we should be throwing our weight around to try and force others to change their laws. Far better to accept we have a fundamental disagreement and leave the club.
You just define ‘we’ in a narrow nationalist way because you are a narrow nationalist.
I define we as being the smallest viable unit of the electorate. I want to go much further and see far more decision making done at the local level as opposed to the national level. If I am a narrow nationalist it is because I think the nation state is better than a supranational body. But I also think that for a large swathe of our laws the district or county (or whatever you want to call it) is better than the nation.
Power should be vested as close as possible to the people.
Ok, let’s give your town its own trade policy. How much power do you think you would gain?
You ignored my use of the word viable and also indulged in the logical fallacy of Appeal to the Extremes.
If only all leavers had the same clarity. I of course do disagree because in my experience the politicians rarely blame the EU. There is usually an ulterior motive and if there blame it falls on the previous government.
I genuinely don't recall a politician moan that it was the EU wot made me do it. Even VAT on home energy supplies (the sovereignty cause celebre) I haven't heard anyone agitate for it outside the Brexit debate.
It is not a case of them blaming the EU. It is just a matter of fact that once laws and regulations have been adopted at an EU level there is little if anything we as the electorate of this country can do to get them repealed or changed.
The chicken feed discussion we had the other day is a minor but obvious example of this. It was the UK who pushed for it across the whole of the EU. There would be no chance of getting it changed if we remained in the EU.
It cements in pace regulations that politicians fear might later be repealed if left in the remit of the UK Parliament.
We are part of that club. If we really want any law repealed we can campaign for it to be so. That's all part of being in the club. And collectively following its rules.
That is kind of my point though. As long as we are part of that club we are very unlikely to veer be able to change the laws we don't like. Nor do I agree we should be throwing our weight around to try and force others to change their laws. Far better to accept we have a fundamental disagreement and leave the club.
You just define ‘we’ in a narrow nationalist way because you are a narrow nationalist.
I define we as being the smallest viable unit of the electorate. I want to go much further and see far more decision making done at the local level as opposed to the national level. If I am a narrow nationalist it is because I think the nation state is better than a supranational body. But I also think that for a large swathe of our laws the district or county (or whatever you want to call it) is better than the nation.
Power should be vested as close as possible to the people.
You might not like it but you are a liberal, that’s what liberalism is all about most decisions made by local communities but those that need to be made at a Supra national level made by consensus by those willing to sign up to it. The best solution is to abolish Westminster sand devolve as much decision making power to the lowest, level of government possible
It is going to be very interesting to see how the DUP vote on the Queen's Speech and the Budget.
If they want the investment agreed in NI then with the government
But they have every incentive now to make life as difficult as possible for the Government in the remaining weeks and months of this Parlianent. The desire for revenge will likely be strong. 'Pay back' time might be at hand!
And become an irrelevance in the next election. I expect them to act only in their interests and they will not have revenge in mind but what is in it for them
That rather depends how the numbers fall in the event of another Hung Parliament.
That is for then and if needs be a new c & s arrangement
My guess is that Oliver Letwin's amendment is going to sink Boris, because a handful of Labour MPs who were going to vote for the deal are now going to abstain and vote for Letwin instead.
Doesn't Letwin get voted on first? So they can't abstain and then vote.
Philip Hammond is an angry mardy arse. He went AWOL in the GE campaign because May was looking to move him on. As a result, the Chancellor did nothing to rip Labour' spending commitments apart. He may have cost them the majority, single-handed.
I won't be at all surprised if he goes AWOL tomorrow too.
Why everybody else has your Tory Swinson party on 17% or less
Bullying of a female party leader is not a good look. You should drop it.
BJO is a fool but why is criticising Swinson bullying? I thought grown ups believed in equality these days. Get a grip.
Nah BJO goes on at and about her because he is a coward.
You are really being quite stupid to expect a female politician to be treated dofferently to any other. His politics are lousy but he is passionate and his criticism of Swinson is perfectly logical. Stop being her proxy snowflake.
You might not like it but you are a liberal, that’s what liberalism is all about most decisions made by local communities but those that need to be made at a Supra national level made by consensus by those willing to sign up to it. The best solution is to abolish Westminster sand devolve as much decision making power to the lowest, level of government possible
Oh I would be delighted to be a Liberal. But I fear the real liberals disappeared sometime in the 60s or 70s. Except perhaps for those few hanging on down the years in local Government in Liverpool.
There is a safeguard in democracy that doesn't exist with alternative systems like the EU. If a Johnson Government reduces a right or protection that you want or imposes a restriction you don't want then you can elect an alternative government within 5 years.
If in the EU the EU reduces a right or protection that you want or imposes a restriction you don't want then you have no way to change that. You'd need to change not just our government but the governments across Europe too.
And God knows the Conservatives are all about restricting what we do
Well if the Conservatives do something you dislike then elect an alternative.
In any case, we can leave as soon as the WA is ratified, whether an extension has been agreed or not. Johnson says it can be ratified by 31 October.
This is the point, Chris. There are some of us who think such a crucial piece of future legislation requires appropriate time and scrutiny (which is after all what Parliament and MPs are there for). They aren't the People's Assembly which simply rubber-stamps the diktats of the Dear Leader.
Letwin also doesn't trust Boris not to try to play us all for fools and not get the WA ratified which, in the absence of any further extension, means we exit without a Deal on 31/10. Part of me thinks Johnson is going to play that game and when we exit he will blame the Opposition MPs for holding up the WA.
So we need Letwin to block an "accidental" No Deal.
Of course if the EU say no extension, just get on with it then Letwin just handed the headbangers the key to no deal on the 31st, they just need to sink the WAIB and they get their clean break. Well done Oliver you clever fox
A risk, but a pretty slight one.
Not really. If the EU try and force parliament to get it done by refusing an extension or granting a very short one, Benn is done, the safety net is gone and no deal looms very large in Francois and cos excited piggy little eyes. Letwins amendment is utterly moronic
It's the first part of the premise where it falls apart for me. Despite attempts at tough talk, on this point I don't believe the EU when they hint about 'forcing' parliament to get it done. They can see that is the no deal hope of some, they don't want no deal either so won't let themselves or us fall into it by default.
If we request am extension before even passing a MV on the deal they are going to tell us to take a running jump. Its pathetic and would make us a total laughing stock
EU when they heard about Letwin called out British Politicians for gaming the system and it has angered them. The EU is geared up for the 31st and frankly want to move on.
Macron has said multiple times today no extension and to then agree will shred his reputation
He said that last time and look what happened.
Also, if Johnson believes no extension will be offoered he should just send the request in and see it rejected... His deal would then sail through the HoC.
It is going to be very interesting to see how the DUP vote on the Queen's Speech and the Budget.
If they want the investment agreed in NI then with the government
But they have every incentive now to make life as difficult as possible for the Government in the remaining weeks and months of this Parlianent. The desire for revenge will likely be strong. 'Pay back' time might be at hand!
The funding for NI is part of a formal c and s agreement. If they breach that no money for their constituents.
There is a safeguard in democracy that doesn't exist with alternative systems like the EU. If a Johnson Government reduces a right or protection that you want or imposes a restriction you don't want then you can elect an alternative government within 5 years.
If in the EU the EU reduces a right or protection that you want or imposes a restriction you don't want then you have no way to change that. You'd need to change not just our government but the governments across Europe too.
In Britain you don't vote for the government. If they do something you don't like you have to change not just your own MP, but the MPs across the other constituencies too.
It is going to be very interesting to see how the DUP vote on the Queen's Speech and the Budget.
If they want the investment agreed in NI then with the government
But they have every incentive now to make life as difficult as possible for the Government in the remaining weeks and months of this Parlianent. The desire for revenge will likely be strong. 'Pay back' time might be at hand!
The funding for NI is part of a formal c and s agreement. If they breach that no money for their constituents.
There is a safeguard in democracy that doesn't exist with alternative systems like the EU. If a Johnson Government reduces a right or protection that you want or imposes a restriction you don't want then you can elect an alternative government within 5 years.
If in the EU the EU reduces a right or protection that you want or imposes a restriction you don't want then you have no way to change that. You'd need to change not just our government but the governments across Europe too.
In Britain you don't vote for the government. If they do something you don't like you have to change not just your own MP, but the MPs across the other constituencies too.
Quite right. But it is still a million times easier to effect change than it is at the EU level.
Of course if the EU say no extension, just get on with it then Letwin just handed the headbangers the key to no deal on the 31st, they just need to sink the WAIB and they get their clean break. Well done Oliver you clever fox
A risk, but a pretty slight one.
Not really. If the EU try and force parliament to get it done by refusing an extension or granting a very short one, Benn is done, the safety net is gone and no deal looms very large in Francois and cos excited piggy little eyes. Letwins amendment is utterly moronic
It's the first part of the premise where it falls apart for me. Despite attempts at tough talk, on this point I don't believe the EU when they hint about 'forcing' parliament to get it done. They can see that is the no deal hope of some, they don't want no deal either so won't let themselves or us fall into it by default.
If we request am extension before even passing a MV on the deal they are going to tell us to take a running jump. Its pathetic and would make us a total laughing stock
EU when they heard about Letwin called out British Politicians for gaming the system and it has angered them. The EU is geared up for the 31st and frankly want to move on.
Macron has said multiple times today no extension and to then agree will shred his reputation
He said that last time and look what happened.
Also, if Johnson believes no extension will be offoered he should just send the request in and see it rejected... His deal would then sail through the HoC.
I fully expect that to happen if Letwin passes
Why on earth would the EU precipitate No Deal if Letwin passes when a likely route to seeing the HoC approve Boris's Deal remains very much alive?
Of course if the EU say no extension, just get on with it then Letwin just handed the headbangers the key to no deal on the 31st, they just need to sink the WAIB and they get their clean break. Well done Oliver you clever fox
A risk, but a pretty slight one.
Not really. If the EU try and force parliament to get it done by refusing an extension or granting a very short one, Benn is done, the safety net is gone and no deal looms very large in Francois and cos excited piggy little eyes. Letwins amendment is utterly moronic
It's the first part of the premise where it falls apart for me. Despite attempts at tough talk, on this point I don't believe the EU when they hint about 'forcing' parliament to get it done. They can see that is the no deal hope of some, they don't want no deal either so won't let themselves or us fall into it by default.
If we request am extension before even passing a MV on the deal they are going to tell us to take a running jump. Its pathetic and would make us a total laughing stock
EU when they heard about Letwin called out British Politicians for gaming the system and it has angered them. The EU is geared up for the 31st and frankly want to move on.
Macron has said multiple times today no extension and to then agree will shred his reputation
He said that last time and look what happened.
Also, if Johnson believes no extension will be offoered he should just send the request in and see it rejected... His deal would then sail through the HoC.
I fully expect that to happen if Letwin passes
Why on earth would the EU precipitate No Deal if Letwin passes when a likely route to seeing the HoC approve Boris's Deal remains very much alive?
To be honest I have completely lost the thread here.
Of course if the EU say no extension, just get on with it then Letwin just handed the headbangers the key to no deal on the 31st, they just need to sink the WAIB and they get their clean break. Well done Oliver you clever fox
A risk, but a pretty slight one.
Not really. If the EU try and force parliament to get it done by refusing an extension or granting a very short one, Benn is done, the safety net is gone and no deal looms very large in Francois and cos excited piggy little eyes. Letwins amendment is utterly moronic
It's the first part of the premise where it falls apart for me. Despite attempts at tough talk, on this point I don't believe the EU when they hint about 'forcing' parliament to get it done. They can see that is the no deal hope of some, they don't want no deal either so won't let themselves or us fall into it by default.
If we request am extension before even passing a MV on the deal they are going to tell us to take a running jump. Its pathetic and would make us a total laughing stock
EU when they heard about Letwin called out British Politicians for gaming the system and it has angered them. The EU is geared up for the 31st and frankly want to move on.
Macron has said multiple times today no extension and to then agree will shred his reputation
He said that last time and look what happened.
Also, if Johnson believes no extension will be offoered he should just send the request in and see it rejected... His deal would then sail through the HoC.
I fully expect that to happen if Letwin passes
Why on earth would the EU precipitate No Deal if Letwin passes when a likely route to seeing the HoC approve Boris's Deal remains very much alive?
Because if they extend to Jan 31, the arseholes in parliament will kick the can till Jan 31 then come sniffing for another extension?
In any case, we can leave as soon as the WA is ratified, whether an extension has been agreed or not. Johnson says it can be ratified by 31 October.
This is the point, Chris. There are some of us who think such a crucial piece of future legislation requires appropriate time and scrutiny (which is after all what Parliament and MPs are there for). They aren't the People's Assembly which simply rubber-stamps the diktats of the Dear Leader.
Letwin also doesn't trust Boris not to try to play us all for fools and not get the WA ratified which, in the absence of any further extension, means we exit without a Deal on 31/10. Part of me thinks Johnson is going to play that game and when we exit he will blame the Opposition MPs for holding up the WA.
So we need Letwin to block an "accidental" No Deal.
Of course if the EU say no extension, just get on with it then Letwin just handed the headbangers the key to no deal on the 31st, they just need to sink the WAIB and they get their clean break. Well done Oliver you clever fox
A risk, but a pretty slight one.
Not really. If the EU try and force parliament to get it done by refusing an extension or granting a very short one, Benn is done, the safety net is gone and no deal looms very large in Francois and cos excited piggy little eyes. Letwins amendment is utterly moronic
It's the first part of the premise where it falls apart for me. Despite attempts at tough talk, on this point I don't believe the EU when they hint about 'forcing' parliament to get it done. They can see that is the no deal hope of some, they don't want no deal either so won't let themselves or us fall into it by default.
If we request am extension before even passing a MV on the deal they are going to tell us to take a running jump. Its pathetic and would make us a total laughing stock
They are not fools. They are capable of seeing and understanding what's going on at least as well as the people here.
Hence the anger reported on twittwr in the EU at letwins games
But Twitter ...
Silly me.
Yes how silly, at least we know everything will be ok because Chris says so.
By all means carry on believing Twitter if you prefer.
It is going to be very interesting to see how the DUP vote on the Queen's Speech and the Budget.
If they want the investment agreed in NI then with the government
But they have every incentive now to make life as difficult as possible for the Government in the remaining weeks and months of this Parlianent. The desire for revenge will likely be strong. 'Pay back' time might be at hand!
The funding for NI is part of a formal c and s agreement. If they breach that no money for their constituents.
But that agreement expired at the new Queens Speech - it was not for the 5 year Parliament.
Of course if the EU say no extension, just get on with it then Letwin just handed the headbangers the key to no deal on the 31st, they just need to sink the WAIB and they get their clean break. Well done Oliver you clever fox
A risk, but a pretty slight one.
Not really. If the EU try and force parliament to get it done by refusing an extension or granting a very short one, Benn is done, the safety net is gone and no deal looms very large in Francois and cos excited piggy little eyes. Letwins amendment is utterly moronic
It's the first part of the premise where it falls apart for me. Despite attempts at tough talk, on this point I don't believe the EU when they hint about 'forcing' parliament to get it done. They can see that is the no deal hope of some, they don't want no deal either so won't let themselves or us fall into it by default.
If we request am extension before even passing a MV on the deal they are going to tell us to take a running jump. Its pathetic and would make us a total laughing stock
EU when they heard about Letwin called out British Politicians for gaming the system and it has angered them. The EU is geared up for the 31st and frankly want to move on.
Macron has said multiple times today no extension and to then agree will shred his reputation
He said that last time and look what happened.
Also, if Johnson believes no extension will be offoered he should just send the request in and see it rejected... His deal would then sail through the HoC.
I fully expect that to happen if Letwin passes
Why on earth would the EU precipitate No Deal if Letwin passes when a likely route to seeing the HoC approve Boris's Deal remains very much alive?
They wouldn't, but if you take what some are saying about Letwin's amended motion as kind of sort of indicating approval of the deal (even though it does no such thing), then the EU should treat it as such and say 'fine, you get your extension, but given you are in the process of ratifying it, you only need a month', which would rule out any other option.
But of course that's not what Letwin's amendment does, so they won't.
Of course if the EU say no extension, just get on with it then Letwin just handed the headbangers the key to no deal on the 31st, they just need to sink the WAIB and they get their clean break. Well done Oliver you clever fox
A risk, but a pretty slight one.
Not really. If the EU try and force parliament to get it done by refusing an extension or granting a very short one, Benn is done, the safety net is gone and no deal looms very large in Francois and cos excited piggy little eyes. Letwins amendment is utterly moronic
It's the first part of the premise where it falls apart for me. Despite attempts at tough talk, on this point I don't believe the EU when they hint about 'forcing' parliament to get it done. They can see that is the no deal hope of some, they don't want no deal either so won't let themselves or us fall into it by default.
If we request am extension before even passing a MV on the deal they are going to tell us to take a running jump. Its pathetic and would make us a total laughing stock
EU when they heard about Letwin called out British Politicians for gaming the system and it has angered them. The EU is geared up for the 31st and frankly want to move on.
Macron has said multiple times today no extension and to then agree will shred his reputation
He said that last time and look what happened.
Also, if Johnson believes no extension will be offoered he should just send the request in and see it rejected... His deal would then sail through the HoC.
I fully expect that to happen if Letwin passes
Why on earth would the EU precipitate No Deal if Letwin passes when a likely route to seeing the HoC approve Boris's Deal remains very much alive?
You only need to look at the backers of Letwin' s amendment to see they are almost all full on remainers with an agenda to stop brexit
Of course if the EU say no extension, just get on with it then Letwin just handed the headbangers the key to no deal on the 31st, they just need to sink the WAIB and they get their clean break. Well done Oliver you clever fox
A risk, but a pretty slight one.
Not really. If the EU try and force parliament to get it done by refusing an extension or granting a very short one, Benn is done, the safety net is gone and no deal looms very large in Francois and cos excited piggy little eyes. Letwins amendment is utterly moronic
It's the first part of the premise where it falls apart for me. Despite attempts at tough talk, on this point I don't believe the EU when they hint about 'forcing' parliament to get it done. They can see that is the no deal hope of some, they don't want no deal either so won't let themselves or us fall into it by default.
If we request am extension before even passing a MV on the deal they are going to tell us to take a running jump. Its pathetic and would make us a total laughing stock
EU when they heard about Letwin called out British Politicians for gaming the system and it has angered them. The EU is geared up for the 31st and frankly want to move on.
Macron has said multiple times today no extension and to then agree will shred his reputation
He said that last time and look what happened.
Also, if Johnson believes no extension will be offoered he should just send the request in and see it rejected... His deal would then sail through the HoC.
I fully expect that to happen if Letwin passes
Why on earth would the EU precipitate No Deal if Letwin passes when a likely route to seeing the HoC approve Boris's Deal remains very much alive?
To be honest I have completely lost the thread here.
You're not the only one Richard. I've no idea what Letwin implies.
In any case, we can leave as soon as the WA is ratified, whether an extension has been agreed or not. Johnson says it can be ratified by 31 October.
This is the point, Chris. There are some of us who think such a crucial piece of future legislation requires appropriate time and scrutiny (which is after all what Parliament and MPs are there for). They aren't the People's Assembly which simply rubber-stamps the diktats of the Dear Leader.
Letwin also doesn't trust Boris not to try to play us all for fools and not get the WA ratified which, in the absence of any further extension, means we exit without a Deal on 31/10. Part of me thinks Johnson is going to play that game and when we exit he will blame the Opposition MPs for holding up the WA.
So we need Letwin to block an "accidental" No Deal.
Of course if the EU say no extension, just get on with it then Letwin just handed the headbangers the key to no deal on the 31st, they just need to sink the WAIB and they get their clean break. Well done Oliver you clever fox
A risk, but a pretty slight one.
Not really. If the EU try and force parliament to get it done by refusing an extension or granting a very short one, Benn is done, the safety net is gone and no deal looms very large in Francois and cos excited piggy little eyes. Letwins amendment is utterly moronic
It's the first part of the premise where it falls apart for me. Despite attempts at tough talk, on this point I don't believe the EU when they hint about 'forcing' parliament to get it done. They can see that is the no deal hope of some, they don't want no deal either so won't let themselves or us fall into it by default.
If we request am extension before even passing a MV on the deal they are going to tell us to take a running jump. Its pathetic and would make us a total laughing stock
They are not fools. They are capable of seeing and understanding what's going on at least as well as the people here.
Hence the anger reported on twittwr in the EU at letwins games
But Twitter ...
Silly me.
Yes how silly, at least we know everything will be ok because Chris says so.
By all means carry on believing Twitter if you prefer.
Obviously. You're just some bloke. Twitter is millions of some blokes
There is a safeguard in democracy that doesn't exist with alternative systems like the EU. If a Johnson Government reduces a right or protection that you want or imposes a restriction you don't want then you can elect an alternative government within 5 years.
If in the EU the EU reduces a right or protection that you want or imposes a restriction you don't want then you have no way to change that. You'd need to change not just our government but the governments across Europe too.
Isn't this like saying that London has to leave the UK because Londoners have no ability to affect UK laws except if the rest of the UK, where Londoners have no vote, agrees? The EU is also a democracy, it simply operates over a larger geographic area. It has a parliament in which we had a say. Perhaps if the UK were not such a centralised country we would be more comfortable with the idea of different rules being made at different levels of government. More importantly, the EU mostly seems to make laws over relatively technical things where common standards are important, like food or product safety. I personally have never felt like the EU negatively affected my rights or freedoms in any meaningful way. Whereas leaving the EU has certainly taken important rights and freedoms from me. Can you cite an actual example of where the EU did something that materially affected your life in a negative way, which the UK government had no ability to block?
It is going to be very interesting to see how the DUP vote on the Queen's Speech and the Budget.
If they want the investment agreed in NI then with the government
But they have every incentive now to make life as difficult as possible for the Government in the remaining weeks and months of this Parlianent. The desire for revenge will likely be strong. 'Pay back' time might be at hand!
The funding for NI is part of a formal c and s agreement. If they breach that no money for their constituents.
But that agreement expired at the new Queens Speech - it was not for the 5 year Parliament.
Quite right. But it is still a million times easier to effect change than it is at the EU level.
It's not, there's basically nothing you can do in either case except hope that what other voters want correlate with what you want. Eventually this manifests when some other dude you've never met in some place you've never been to who is the de-facto swing voter flips and in the next iteration the policy changes.
But all the main issues - high or low tax, workers' rights, climate policy, immigration, drug liberalisation - correlate right across all developed economies.
In any case, we can leave as soon as the WA is ratified, whether an extension has been agreed or not. Johnson says it can be ratified by 31 October.
This is the point, Chris. There are some of us who think such a crucial piece of future legislation requires appropriate time and scrutiny (which is after all what Parliament and MPs are there for). They aren't the People's Assembly which simply rubber-stamps the diktats of the Dear Leader.
Letwin also doesn't trust Boris not to try to play us all for fools and not get the WA ratified which, in the absence of any further extension, means we exit without a Deal on 31/10. Part of me thinks Johnson is going to play that game and when we exit he will blame the Opposition MPs for holding up the WA.
So we need Letwin to block an "accidental" No Deal.
Comments
So it gets the time to pass the legislation, but that was not really the problem. The problem was knowing if it would get through or not.
Letwin also doesn't trust Boris not to try to play us all for fools and not get the WA ratified which, in the absence of any further extension, means we exit without a Deal on 31/10. Part of me thinks Johnson is going to play that game and when we exit he will blame the Opposition MPs for holding up the WA.
So we need Letwin to block an "accidental" No Deal.
Boris sends in the letter, the EU grant a couple of weeks, and de facto Letwin has finished off a GE and referendum and left deal or no deal
Politics hey
Letwins amendment is utterly moronic
The problem is as we have seen what gets put in a manifesto and what is then enacted aren't always the same thing and many key policy decisions aren't explicitly stated in a manifesto but are brought in (often surreptitiously) three years into an five year Government.
There's no requirement, once elected, for a Government to enact any of its manifesto - in many ways, it's more a statement to get them into power rather than a document containing what they will do once in power.
I fear a Johnson Government will reduce or remove my rights and protections and I also think it will cut taxes for the very wealthy. Now, they won't say that in the Manifesto because they want to win votes not lose them but once elected there are no checks and balances for the five years they have a majority.
That's the problem with democracy - once you hand a Party a working majority, you had them more or less absolute power. The EU did act as a safeguard to some and an impediment to others and I think overall it was a positive.
Just thinking aloud - give the people a veto on any legislation. If you get 20 million to sign a countermand the legislation to which it refers must be annulled.
I don’t have kids , and I was born in the UK. My parents though allow me dual nationality which I intend to use !
I would have thought he’d support the deal .
If the deal goes through on Labour votes.. they have to go....and go
On the vote itself, the BBC prediction (and none of these seem to matter given Letwin, but never mind) is less bold than the FT in guessing about the undecideds, but does not think Lamb will be going against his party.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50096546
Macron has said multiple times today no extension and to then agree will shred his reputation
I'd argue they aren't angry at Letwin - they are angry at allowing themselves to be fooled by Johnson.
https://twitter.com/KateHoeyMP
I will/won't vote for X. If they act counter to the promises then their constituents can start the recall process.
As I have said before I would also reduce the power of the whips.
https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1185289626409406464
Power should be vested as close as possible to the people.
I see where Richard is coming from in his argument, and I agree with it to some extent in that I think that we should move some decision-making down to more local levels so that people can be more involved in those decisions. However, there are some things that it does make sense to have common rules on at a supranational level, and I don't see in principle why it should not be possible for democracy at an EU level to be capable of amending or repealing rules once made.
I certainly agree that UK politicians have used the EU as a bogeyman to outsource blame onto and I hope that will be one benefit once we leave, though I fear that some will continue to try and use it to play that role.
Silly me.
Also, if Johnson believes no extension will be offoered he should just send the request in and see it rejected... His deal would then sail through the HoC.
I genuinely hope that one of the welcome side effects of Brexit is a successful Scottish Independence vote and then two countries side by side making civilised decisions that are beneficial to both electorates.
If in the EU the EU reduces a right or protection that you want or imposes a restriction you don't want then you have no way to change that. You'd need to change not just our government but the governments across Europe too.
I won't be at all surprised if he goes AWOL tomorrow too.
I take pathetic slurs like that as a good reason to keep banging on about the shite Tory Swinson party.
The losers big time Labour and the DUP.
The Lib Dems hard to say , although I can understand many might think they’re screwed but there are a lot of angry Remainers out there.
But of course that's not what Letwin's amendment does, so they won't.
But all the main issues - high or low tax, workers' rights, climate policy, immigration, drug liberalisation - correlate right across all developed economies.