Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Undefined discussion subject.

135

Comments

  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 2,720
    Govt should have got Nabavi to promote the WDA. That list is seriously scrumptious.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 25,448
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Bridgen on PL arguing for a long extension and Euro elections, get rid of May and start afresh with a new PM

    Bridgen? That Bridgen? Are you sure you heard that night.
    Absolutely. He is on right now. Wants a long extension and a Brexit PM.
    :lol:

    They really don't want to have Brexit do they? It was all so much more fun when it was just an idea they could rant about to each other in the saloon of the golf club.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 30,526
    geoffw said:

    Govt should have got Nabavi to promote the WDA. That list is seriously scrumptious.


    He made Cameron's deal sound similarly scrumptious. Why didn't that persuade you at the time?
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 1,188
    An "indicative vote for Tory MP's" ?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 77,123
    I've gone off Johnny Mercer, he's a bit Mark Francois to me.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 15,948
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Bridgen on PL arguing for a long extension and Euro elections, get rid of May and start afresh with a new PM

    Bridgen? That Bridgen? Are you sure you heard that night.
    Absolutely. He is on right now. Wants a long extension and a Brexit PM.
    I can understand the Brexit PM, but I want to be 18 again and know what I know now!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 77,123
    Scott_P said:
    Tough, the people have spoken (last December in fact) and it was the will of the electorate for Mrs May to continue.

    I wish these losers would accept they lost and stop asking for a revote.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 28,070

    IanB2 said:

    Bridgen on PL arguing for a long extension and Euro elections, get rid of May and start afresh with a new PM

    Bridgen? That Bridgen? Are you sure you heard that night.
    Bridgen still thinks there's a majority for Hard Brexit in the Commons, which is being inexplicably blocked by Theresa May.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 2,720

    geoffw said:

    Govt should have got Nabavi to promote the WDA. That list is seriously scrumptious.


    He made Cameron's deal sound similarly scrumptious. Why didn't that persuade you at the time?
    De gustibus non est disputandum.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 28,070

    O/T the Welsh poll shows how even under PR, you may not get a proportionate result.

    Each of the Lib Dems/Change UK and Brexit Party/UKIP can win a Welsh seat if they put up a combined slate, whereas divided, they get nothing. If they get nothing, Labour wins 2 out of 4 seats, on 30% of the vote.
  • NormNorm Posts: 1,179
    TGOHF said:

    There's a majority for remain in parliament. Fear of what happens if they revoke us why the option has got nowhere near in any outing so far. Claims we just get on with other stuff and shrug it off are way off imo

    I suspect they will try and revoke first and worry about the aftermath later - they are that stupid.
    As far as the local elections are concerned while the Tories will obviously not have a particularly good night - revocation is the one thing that would turn disappointment into disaster.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,751
    edited April 8
    Sean_F said:

    IanB2 said:

    Bridgen on PL arguing for a long extension and Euro elections, get rid of May and start afresh with a new PM

    Bridgen? That Bridgen? Are you sure you heard that night.
    Bridgen still thinks there's a majority for Hard Brexit in the Commons, which is being inexplicably blocked by Theresa May.
    He doesn't understand the effect a "Brexit PM" would have on the size of his Parliamentary Party, or its support in the country. He doesn't understand the effect that more time will have on the resolve of leavers and remainers. He thinks there is an appetite for starting this whole thing over and taking another year or two to get back to where we are.

    Truly he lives in a bubble.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 10,554

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It isn't because I hate it, it's because it lost in the first round and there is no reason to think anything has changed.

    There has been a huge and unexpected change: many of those who were prominent in the Leave campaign have decided they don't like the Brexit they campaigned for after all, and have torpedoed its implementation.
    Nope. They still like Brexit, they just don't think that what is on offer qualifies. I think they are wrong but to claim 'they don't like the Brexit they campaigned for' is clearly a dishonest misrepresentation.
    It's not a dishonest representation at all. It's the exact truth:

    - Out of the political structures of the EU
    - Out of ever-closer union
    - Definitively out of the 'EU Army' (nonsense of course, but they claimed to believe it)
    - Out of the CAP
    - Out of the CFP
    - Out of the Single Market
    - Out of the Customs Union
    - Out of direct jurisdiction of the ECJ in UK domestic law
    - Possible to do our own trade deals
    - End of Freedom of Movement (aka 'Control of our borders')
    - End of big payments to the EU budget (aka '£350m a week for the NHS')
    - In a comprehensive free-trade deal with the EU
    - And - most important of all - all this with the promised smooth transition and minimal disruption.
    Yes, politicians have screwed up by not accepting the deal, after Dominic Grieve screwed up by getting them a vote on it, but that doesn't mean anything has changed in the general public.
    You're confusing two different things here. First, is there any reason to hold a fresh referendum? It's not obvious that there is.

    Second, if there is, what options should be given? Obviously popular options should be available in any referendum. Political parties are not barred from standing again at the next general election just because they lost last time out.
    Things have moved on. Leavers should have grabbed the #peoplesvote on the deal when proposed.

    The Zeigeist is now to just Revoke. That petition was unexpectedly popular.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,400
    Norm said:

    TGOHF said:

    There's a majority for remain in parliament. Fear of what happens if they revoke us why the option has got nowhere near in any outing so far. Claims we just get on with other stuff and shrug it off are way off imo

    I suspect they will try and revoke first and worry about the aftermath later - they are that stupid.
    As far as the local elections are concerned while the Tories will obviously not have a particularly good night - revocation is the one thing that would turn disappointment into disaster.
    Except most Tory MPs would vote against revocation, it would only pass with opposition MPs support
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 2,720
    Which would Parliament choose between Revoke and No Deal?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 77,123
    I think we're missing the big news.

    Who knew Mark Francois could write?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    geoffw said:

    Which would Parliament choose between Revoke and No Deal?

    Revoke by miles.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 30,526
    geoffw said:

    Which would Parliament choose between Revoke and No Deal?

    Sensible Brexiteers would say, "Revoke and fight to leave another day".
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 50,101

    Sensible Brexiteers would say, "Revoke and fight to leave another day".

    You can count the number of those in Parliament on the fingers of one hand.

    In unary
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 28,070
    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It isn't because I hate it, it's because it lost in the first round and there is no reason to think anything has changed.

    There has been a huge and unexpected change: many of those who were prominent in the Leave campaign have decided they don't like the Brexit they campaigned for after all, and have torpedoed its implementation.
    Nope. They still like Brexit, they just don't think that what is on offer qualifies. I think they are wrong but to claim 'they don't like the Brexit they campaigned for' is clearly a dishonest misrepresentation.
    It's not a dishonest representation at all. It's the exact truth:

    - Out of the political structures of the EU
    - Out of ever-closer union
    - Definitively out of the 'EU Army' (nonsense of course, but they claimed to believe it)
    - Out of the CAP
    - Out of the CFP
    - Out of the Single Market
    - Out of the Customs Union
    - Out of direct jurisdiction of the ECJ in UK domestic law
    - Possible to do our own trade deals
    - End of Freedom of Movement (aka 'Control of our borders')
    - End of big payments to the EU budget (aka '£350m a week for the NHS')
    - In a comprehensive free-trade deal with the EU
    - And - most important of all - all this with the promised smooth transition and minimal disruption.
    Yes, politicians have screwed up by not accepting the deal, after Dominic Grieve screwed up by getting them a vote on it, but that doesn't mean anything has changed in the general public.
    You're confusing two different things here. First, is there any reason to hold a fresh referendum? It's not obvious that there is.

    Second, if there is, what options should be given? Obviously popular options should be available in any referendum. Political parties are not barred from standing again at the next general election just because they lost last time out.
    Things have moved on. Leavers should have grabbed the #peoplesvote on the deal when proposed.

    The Zeigeist is now to just Revoke. That petition was unexpectedly popular.
    Revoke/re-running the Referendum is the same cause
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 2,720
    I think the WDA wins in Parliament if pitted against either Revoke or No-deal.
  • eekeek Posts: 5,524
    geoffw said:

    Which would Parliament choose between Revoke and No Deal?

    Neither - unless it was an actual decision - vote for x otherwise y will occur,

    Then they wouldn't vote for x and allow y to occur by default

    And I suspect that would be true regardless of whether y was No Deal or y was Revoke...

    As I've continually repeated no one wants responsibility for the end result - whatever it is.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,400
    In the locals I would expect a combination of apathy and minor parties doing well at the expense of the 2 main parties
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 28,070
    HYUFD said:

    Norm said:

    TGOHF said:

    There's a majority for remain in parliament. Fear of what happens if they revoke us why the option has got nowhere near in any outing so far. Claims we just get on with other stuff and shrug it off are way off imo

    I suspect they will try and revoke first and worry about the aftermath later - they are that stupid.
    As far as the local elections are concerned while the Tories will obviously not have a particularly good night - revocation is the one thing that would turn disappointment into disaster.
    Except most Tory MPs would vote against revocation, it would only pass with opposition MPs support
    I think a very large majority of Conservative MP's would vote against revoking A50, and that the majority to so would be in low double, maybe even single, figures.
  • glwglw Posts: 5,372
    TGOHF said:

    geoffw said:

    Which would Parliament choose between Revoke and No Deal?

    Revoke by miles.
    That's my guess too, and it fits my view that Parliament is likely to choose the worst option if given the chance. The best option — or least bad if you are a Remainer — is the WA, but Parliament seems hell bent on not supporting it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,400
    geoffw said:

    Which would Parliament choose between Revoke and No Deal?

    Revoke but only due to the SNP and Welsh Labour MPs
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,565
    edited April 8
    Mr Glenn,

    Sensible Brexiteers would say, "Revoke and fight to leave another day".

    Like sensible Remainers should say. "We lost. Get over it. Let's Leave and fight to rejoin another day. The advantage is we'll still have a functioning democracy"
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,751
    Finkelstein takinf Bridgen apart for his tactical stupidity.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 4,379
    OllyT said:

    I don't think we can revoke without a referendum but I think you are in danger of overplaying the anger bit. Sure some Yaxley-Lennon types will turn to a bit of violence but in my experience a lot of the leavers I know know Brexit isn't working out and can't really see any real benefits now. The only reason there really seems to be for leaving now is that we voted for it so we must.

    I agree. I sense that Leavers changing their mind (whether they admit it in public or not) is growing from trickle to flood and the dam is about to break.

    I wish I could join in but unfortunately I voted Remain and therefore I can't. I'm stuck with the tedious and potentially counter-productive "I told you so".

    Like the soldier who embraces pacifism after experiencing the horrors of conflict, how much more weighty would it be to announce that I was a BeLeaver in 2016 but in 2019 am not?

    Ah well.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 4,524
    CD13 said:

    Mr Gallowgate,


    " It’s May’s fault for not involving her own party, never mind the Commons. "

    I'm blaming her for involving the MPs. You remember, the ones who promised to honour the referendum result but were lying all along. Once trust is lost completely, why should we ever trust a manifesto again. Why even bother with writing it?

    Your MP was, at least, honest.

    By comparison, the expenses scandal was bad, but greed is a lesser crime than complete dishonesty.

    What are you talking about? Labour MPs were elected on a manifesto commitment to deliver a Labour Brexit. Not any Brexit. There is no dishonesty in them voting against May’s deal. ERG and DUP MPs were elected with their positions clear as well.

    There is no dishonesty in Parliament, you’re just upset that the Brexit dream is turning to ash because it was always an awful idea.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,400
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Norm said:

    TGOHF said:

    There's a majority for remain in parliament. Fear of what happens if they revoke us why the option has got nowhere near in any outing so far. Claims we just get on with other stuff and shrug it off are way off imo

    I suspect they will try and revoke first and worry about the aftermath later - they are that stupid.
    As far as the local elections are concerned while the Tories will obviously not have a particularly good night - revocation is the one thing that would turn disappointment into disaster.
    Except most Tory MPs would vote against revocation, it would only pass with opposition MPs support
    I think a very large majority of Conservative MP's would vote against revoking A50, and that the majority to so would be in low double, maybe even single, figures.
    Quite possibly based on Cooper.

    However more Tory MPs have voted to revoke Article 50, 10, than the 5 Labour and Independent MPs who have voted to keep No Deal on the table
  • NormNorm Posts: 1,179
    edited April 8
    HYUFD said:

    Norm said:

    TGOHF said:

    There's a majority for remain in parliament. Fear of what happens if they revoke us why the option has got nowhere near in any outing so far. Claims we just get on with other stuff and shrug it off are way off imo

    I suspect they will try and revoke first and worry about the aftermath later - they are that stupid.
    As far as the local elections are concerned while the Tories will obviously not have a particularly good night - revocation is the one thing that would turn disappointment into disaster.
    Except most Tory MPs would vote against revocation, it would only pass with opposition MPs support
    No take it from me I have been tramping the wards revocation this week would be disastrous for the Tories on 2nd May. Leavers will just not vote and remainers will not give the Tories a scintilla of credit for their unexpected prize.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 8,033
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    notme2 said:

    TGOHF said:

    stodge said:

    It's all gone quiet hasn't it this morning?

    After weeks of it being the only news story, Brexit has dropped down to six or seven so what's happening or rather what's not happening?

    The Prime Minister's Sunday afternoon chat to the people enjoying their roast beef lunch seems to have gone predictably well. In lieu of there being no MV4, we are forced to either leave on Friday evening or hope the EU will grant a long extension so the whole thing can be either sorted out or forgotten about.

    The politics of a long extension don't look clear to me and there's the assumption the EU will grant it. The Tusk "flexstension" seems to have confused everyone which was perhaps the objective but there's a strange calm - before a storm, who can say or will Brexit end not with a bang but with a whimper?

    The EU can have a revocation by the weekend if they block an extension- MPs are ready to vote for one if a gun is put to their head.
    No way May will permit a revoke. She will go to the country rather than allow that.
    How? She does not have that power, and arranging and running a GE between Wednesday and Friday will require a Tardis.
    She has to revoke it personally. Whilst she is PM she can theoretically block revoke by simply not doing it. Whether she would do such a thing is another matter. Pretty much no MP voting revoke- with a four figure majority is getting back in though, it'll be carnage
    I doubt it, people will be relieved that it's all over.
    Remain supporters will be; Leave supporters won't be.
    I would suggest that the atmosphere would be febrile.

    But if the choice comes down to No Deal or Revoke, and Revoke wins, I would think it the lesser of two evils. Leavers did not campaign on the merits of No Deal in the referendum campaign. They should not be able to force it onto the country by refusing to agree to a deal.
    That may or may not be so. But, Leave supporters will still be annoyed if Revoke takes place.
    The converse will also be true. If No Deal happens it will be because Remainers overreached and Remain supporters will be annoyed.

    We are in a situation where the best collective outcome probably involves a lot of compromise from all sides, but only a very small minority of the actors involved are willing to compromise at all, on all sides.

    So I reluctantly accept we are now choosing between bad options, but I don't think they're equally bad.
  • isamisam Posts: 27,685
    edited April 8

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It isn't because I hate it, it's because it lost in the first round and there is no reason to think anything has changed.

    There has been a huge and unexpected change: many of those who were prominent in the Leave campaign have decided they don't like the Brexit they campaigned for after all, and have torpedoed its implementation.
    Nope. They still like Brexit, they just don't think that what is on offer qualifies. I think they are wrong but to claim 'they don't like the Brexit they campaigned for' is clearly a dishonest misrepresentation.
    It's not a dishonest representation at all. It's the exact truth:

    - Out of the political structures of the EU
    - Out of ever-closer union
    - Definitively out of the 'EU Army' (nonsense of course, but they claimed to believe it)
    - Out of the CAP
    - Out of the CFP
    - Out of the Single Market
    - Out of the Customs Union
    - Out of direct jurisdiction of the ECJ in UK domestic law
    - Possible to do our own trade deals
    - End of Freedom of Movement (aka 'Control of our borders')
    - End of big payments to the EU budget (aka '£350m a week for the NHS')
    - In a comprehensive free-trade deal with the EU
    - And - most important of all - all this with the promised smooth transition and minimal disruption.
    Yes, politicians have screwed up by not accepting the deal, after Dominic Grieve screwed up by getting them a vote on it, but that doesn't mean anything has changed in the general public.
    You're confusing two different things here. First, is there any reason to hold a fresh referendum? It's not obvious that there is.

    Second, if there is, what options should be given? Obviously popular options should be available in any referendum. Political parties are not barred from standing again at the next general election just because they lost last time out.
    There is no reason to offer a second referendum, that much is true.

    But you are confusing two different things in the second point. We have elections at least once every five years, so of course political parties get to stand again once they’ve lost. The referendum was sold as a once in a generation vote, with no recourse to a second vote, by the very people trying to get another go.


  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,400
    edited April 8
    Norm said:

    HYUFD said:

    Norm said:

    TGOHF said:

    There's a majority for remain in parliament. Fear of what happens if they revoke us why the option has got nowhere near in any outing so far. Claims we just get on with other stuff and shrug it off are way off imo

    I suspect they will try and revoke first and worry about the aftermath later - they are that stupid.
    As far as the local elections are concerned while the Tories will obviously not have a particularly good night - revocation is the one thing that would turn disappointment into disaster.
    Except most Tory MPs would vote against revocation, it would only pass with opposition MPs support
    No take it from me I have been tramping the wards revocation this week would be disastrous for the Tories on 2nd May. Leavers will just not vote and remainers will not give the Tories a scintilla of credit for their prize.
    Well so be it but I expect Labour support would also be down, especially given most Labour seats voted Leave even if most Labour voters voted Remain.

    Revocation is still better than breaking up the Union and trashing the economy with No Deal, the Tories have had terrible local election nights in Government before and can survive another one then revive by replacing May with Boris, Leadsom or Raab or Patel or another hard Brexiteer
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,751
    Norm said:

    TGOHF said:

    There's a majority for remain in parliament. Fear of what happens if they revoke us why the option has got nowhere near in any outing so far. Claims we just get on with other stuff and shrug it off are way off imo

    I suspect they will try and revoke first and worry about the aftermath later - they are that stupid.
    As far as the local elections are concerned while the Tories will obviously not have a particularly good night - revocation is the one thing that would turn disappointment into disaster.
    Your "one thing" is surely wrong.

    A no deal exit this week is very likely to hit the Tories very badly, unless by some miracle none of the expected chaos and damage occurs.

    And, actually, the one thing we are seeing (not just on PB) is a growing expectation that there will be at least a chunk of time to rethink and at best moves towards abandoning Brexit, possibly via a PV. I'd suggest that even leaving on a deal this week, while generating some short-term relief, would disappoint sufficient of the educated middle class that used to be the bedrock Tory vote that there could easily be a backlash in the locals. People are getting close to expecting Brexit to die now.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,565
    Mr Gallowgate,

    "you’re just upset that the Brexit dream is turning to ash because it was always an awful idea."

    If you read my posts carefully, you'll see I'm complaining about the dishonesty of MPs. I voted Leave but whether we go or stay is no longer the issue. It will make no major difference to my life. But having a government and opposition consistently lie does irritate me. I feel it as a personal insult.

    Let's remove the culprits from public life. Remove the false mask and revoke if you wish See what the reaction is. There'll be a few chuckles from the rest of Europe. "British Democracy, you're having a giraffe!"
  • notme2notme2 Posts: 1,006
    IanB2 said:

    Norm said:

    TGOHF said:

    There's a majority for remain in parliament. Fear of what happens if they revoke us why the option has got nowhere near in any outing so far. Claims we just get on with other stuff and shrug it off are way off imo

    I suspect they will try and revoke first and worry about the aftermath later - they are that stupid.
    As far as the local elections are concerned while the Tories will obviously not have a particularly good night - revocation is the one thing that would turn disappointment into disaster.
    Your "one thing" is surely wrong.

    A no deal exit this week is very likely to hit the Tories very badly, unless by some miracle none of the expected chaos and damage occurs.

    And, actually, the one thing we are seeing (not just on PB) is a growing expectation that there will be at least a chunk of time to rethink and at best moves towards abandoning Brexit, possibly via a PV. I'd suggest that even leaving on a deal this week, while generating some short-term relief, would disappoint sufficient of the educated middle class that used to be the bedrock Tory vote that there could easily be a backlash in the locals. People are getting close to expecting Brexit to die now.
    I disagree. People expect some kind of disruption now. Though there are many things that could be bad, it will just overall make us a little bit poorer. There’s might be a small interruption in tarquin’s avocados and Gemima’s almond milk supply, but we live in a global market place. The market place is organic. The vacuum of demand will be filled very very quickly.

    A no deal would get the gvt over the local elections line.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 4,379
    geoffw said:

    I think the WDA wins in Parliament if pitted against either Revoke or No-deal.

    And quite easily too.

    I think TM will have that in mind if she comes back with some sort of pref voting on the options.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 8,033
    isam said:


    You're confusing two different things here. First, is there any reason to hold a fresh referendum? It's not obvious that there is.

    Second, if there is, what options should be given? Obviously popular options should be available in any referendum. Political parties are not barred from standing again at the next general election just because they lost last time out.

    There is no reason to offer a second referendum, that much is true.

    But you are confusing two different things in the second point. We have elections at least once every five years, so of course political parties get to stand again once they’ve lost. The referendum was sold as a once in a generation vote, with no recourse to a second vote, by the very people trying to get another go.
    The choice of the question follows from the reason for calling the referendum.

    1. If the referendum is called because it seems clear that public opinion has changed, then of course Remain has to be on the ballot paper to allow for that chair of opinion to be expressed.
    2. If the referendum is called because there is deadlock in Parliament, unable to choose between different options for the future relationship, then it seems obvious that the choice on the ballot paper would be between those different options: Norway, CU, Canada, etc.

    Unfortunately neither of those clear models seems to apply to the current situation where neither of the sides in Parliament is willing to vote for something that they don't want, the Withdrawal Agreement, as a compromise, but of course they would be willing to go along with it being the other option in a referendum with their preferred option: No Deal or Remain.

    It's an absurd situation.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,565
    Mr Gallowgate,

    I'm impressed that you know what a Labour Brexit is. Could you enlighten me?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 4,524
    CD13 said:

    Mr Gallowgate,

    "you’re just upset that the Brexit dream is turning to ash because it was always an awful idea."

    If you read my posts carefully, you'll see I'm complaining about the dishonesty of MPs. I voted Leave but whether we go or stay is no longer the issue. It will make no major difference to my life. But having a government and opposition consistently lie does irritate me. I feel it as a personal insult.

    Let's remove the culprits from public life. Remove the false mask and revoke if you wish See what the reaction is. There'll be a few chuckles from the rest of Europe. "British Democracy, you're having a giraffe!"

    And as I reasoned in my post, which you chose to ignore, there is no dishonesty from MPs.

    May’s fault for not reaching out for a consensus. Brexit would be done by now if she had.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 5,660
    Afternoon all :)

    My view for some time has been it would be political suicide for the Conservatives to revoke or even to allow revoke to happen on their watch. Were the Opposition to try to force revoke through the Commons it would be "interesting" but I simply can't see it happening.

    As for "No Deal", I thought that would also be disastrous for the Conservatives politically but I'm less convinced now. With the prospect of a long extension looming, those who want us out have swung sharply to No Deal as the only way to enable or enact Brexit. Were May to take us out without a WA and were the consequences to be less than serious, I can see an upside for the Conservatives.

    Obviously, if we are all fighting over the last rat by Easter, I'd expect a hit for the Conservatives (though not too severe given turnout will be depressed as we'll be fighting over the last rat rather than voting or completing on line opinion polls). For whatever reason, and I can only assume what she has been told, May says No Deal as the worst possible option though not to be ruled out.

    What of the "long extension"? Presumably, there'd be some short-term gain as the issue would just go away but the anger, which seems palpable out there, won't subside so quickly. The European Parliamentary elections look a disaster in the making but to be honest that doesn't matter very much. May will doubtless depart sooner rather than later and the Conservative leadership handicap open to 3-y-o of all ages will take its place as part of a new Spring Treble with the Grand National and Eurovision.

    It all hinges on tomorrow and Wednesday - May will effectively go cap in hand to Merkel and plead for her support against Macron and those others not keen on offering the UK anything. The problem is, what has May got to offer? A GE which might solve nothing, a second vote which will be politically disastrous for her party or some vague notion of a CU which isn't widely favoured by her own party either.
  • isamisam Posts: 27,685

    isam said:


    You're confusing two different things here. First, is there any reason to hold a fresh referendum? It's not obvious that there is.

    Second, if there is, what options should be given? Obviously popular options should be available in any referendum. Political parties are not barred from standing again at the next general election just because they lost last time out.

    There is no reason to offer a second referendum, that much is true.

    But you are confusing two different things in the second point. We have elections at least once every five years, so of course political parties get to stand again once they’ve lost. The referendum was sold as a once in a generation vote, with no recourse to a second vote, by the very people trying to get another go.
    The choice of the question follows from the reason for calling the referendum.

    1. If the referendum is called because it seems clear that public opinion has changed, then of course Remain has to be on the ballot paper to allow for that chair of opinion to be expressed.
    2. If the referendum is called because there is deadlock in Parliament, unable to choose between different options for the future relationship, then it seems obvious that the choice on the ballot paper would be between those different options: Norway, CU, Canada, etc.

    Unfortunately neither of those clear models seems to apply to the current situation where neither of the sides in Parliament is willing to vote for something that they don't want, the Withdrawal Agreement, as a compromise, but of course they would be willing to go along with it being the other option in a referendum with their preferred option: No Deal or Remain.

    It's an absurd situation.
    It’s why the PM’s agreement with the EU should never have had to be ratified by parliament
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 77,123
    So what you’re saying is PBers are turning Japanese ?
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 2,307

    So what you’re saying is PBers are turning Japanese ?
    I really think so.
  • isamisam Posts: 27,685
    Is it a bit surprising for the term ‘straight’ to be used in the media nowadays?
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 6,344
    isam said:

    isam said:


    You're confusing two different things here. First, is there any reason to hold a fresh referendum? It's not obvious that there is.

    Second, if there is, what options should be given? Obviously popular options should be available in any referendum. Political parties are not barred from standing again at the next general election just because they lost last time out.

    There is no reason to offer a second referendum, that much is true.

    But you are confusing two different things in the second point. We have elections at least once every five years, so of course political parties get to stand again once they’ve lost. The referendum was sold as a once in a generation vote, with no recourse to a second vote, by the very people trying to get another go.
    The choice of the question follows from the reason for calling the referendum.

    1. If the referendum is called because it seems clear that public opinion has changed, then of course Remain has to be on the ballot paper to allow for that chair of opinion to be expressed.
    2. If the referendum is called because there is deadlock in Parliament, unable to choose between different options for the future relationship, then it seems obvious that the choice on the ballot paper would be between those different options: Norway, CU, Canada, etc.

    Unfortunately neither of those clear models seems to apply to the current situation where neither of the sides in Parliament is willing to vote for something that they don't want, the Withdrawal Agreement, as a compromise, but of course they would be willing to go along with it being the other option in a referendum with their preferred option: No Deal or Remain.

    It's an absurd situation.
    It’s why the PM’s agreement with the EU should never have had to be ratified by parliament
    Gina Miller and her disastrous lawsuit
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 4,524
    CD13 said:

    Mr Gallowgate,

    I'm impressed that you know what a Labour Brexit is. Could you enlighten me?

    It doesn’t matter what it is. All that matters is that was the commitment. There is no commitment to implement ‘any old Brexit’. In
    fact that would be incredibly irresponsible in itself.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,751
    Its pensioners, expats, and hedge fund managers.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 1,973
    Scott_P said:
    Interesting. It puts pressure on Brady and on the 1922 Committee Executive as a whole.

    The formation of the 1922 Committee arose from a crisis within the Conservative Party of no greater scale than what we are seeing now. Is there scope for for the formation of a 2019 Committee to organise such an indicative vote, assuming that Brady will not act?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 15,853

    So what you’re saying is PBers are turning Japanese ?
    I'd forgotten how pervy the lyrics were.

    I've got your picture, I've got your picture
    I'd like a million of you all 'round my cell
    I want the doctor to take your picture
    So I can look at you from inside as well
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 10,554

    isam said:

    isam said:


    You're confusing two different things here. First, is there any reason to hold a fresh referendum? It's not obvious that there is.

    Second, if there is, what options should be given? Obviously popular options should be available in any referendum. Political parties are not barred from standing again at the next general election just because they lost last time out.

    There is no reason to offer a second referendum, that much is true.

    But you are confusing two different things in the second point. We have elections at least once every five years, so of course political parties get to stand again once they’ve lost. The referendum was sold as a once in a generation vote, with no recourse to a second vote, by the very people trying to get another go.
    The choice of the question follows from the reason for calling the referendum.

    1. If the referendum is called because it seems clear that public opinion has changed, then of course Remain has to be on the ballot paper to allow for that chair of opinion to be expressed.
    2. If the referendum is called because there is deadlock in Parliament, unable to choose between different options for the future relationship, then it seems obvious that the choice on the ballot paper would be between those different options: Norway, CU, Canada, etc.

    Unfortunately neither of those clear models seems to apply to the current situation where neither of the sides in Parliament is willing to vote for something that they don't want, the Withdrawal Agreement, as a compromise, but of course they would be willing to go along with it being the other option in a referendum with their preferred option: No Deal or Remain.

    It's an absurd situation.
    It’s why the PM’s agreement with the EU should never have had to be ratified by parliament
    Gina Miller and her disastrous lawsuit
    Parliament taking back control. Rule of Law.

    These things matter :)
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 3,717
    notme2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Norm said:

    TGOHF said:

    There's a majority for remain in parliament. Fear of what happens if they revoke us why the option has got nowhere near in any outing so far. Claims we just get on with other stuff and shrug it off are way off imo

    I suspect they will try and revoke first and worry about the aftermath later - they are that stupid.
    As far as the local elections are concerned while the Tories will obviously not have a particularly good night - revocation is the one thing that would turn disappointment into disaster.
    Your "one thing" is surely wrong.

    A no deal exit this week is very likely to hit the Tories very badly, unless by some miracle none of the expected chaos and damage occurs.

    And, actually, the one thing we are seeing (not just on PB) is a growing expectation that there will be at least a chunk of time to rethink and at best moves towards abandoning Brexit, possibly via a PV. I'd suggest that even leaving on a deal this week, while generating some short-term relief, would disappoint sufficient of the educated middle class that used to be the bedrock Tory vote that there could easily be a backlash in the locals. People are getting close to expecting Brexit to die now.
    I disagree. People expect some kind of disruption now. Though there are many things that could be bad, it will just overall make us a little bit poorer. There’s might be a small interruption in tarquin’s avocados and Gemima’s almond milk supply, but we live in a global market place. The market place is organic. The vacuum of demand will be filled very very quickly.

    A no deal would get the gvt over the local elections line.
    Clearly, like other people who believe in the uber-madness of No-deal Brexit, you are out of your mind. Even Michael Gove realises it would wreck the economy. It would not be "some kind of disruption" it will be extreme economic vandalism to appease a bunch of nutters that are obsessed by Brexit at any cost. If you are so convinced you have public support for this stupidity you should advocate putting it to another referendum. There is absolutely no mandate for no-deal.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 3,826
    I went to Japan last year for the sole purpose of hanging out at motorway rest area (Daikoku Fotu) on a Friday night. When I was lost trying to find my hotel afterwards I wandered into what was obviously a jump zone and was surprised at how well dressed the pros were. They were dressed like they were going sell me home and contents insurance.
  • isamisam Posts: 27,685
    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    isam said:


    You're confusing two different things here. First, is there any reason to hold a fresh referendum? It's not obvious that there is.

    Second, if there is, what options should be given? Obviously popular options should be available in any referendum. Political parties are not barred from standing again at the next general election just because they lost last time out.

    There is no reason to offer a second referendum, that much is true.

    But you are confusing two different things in the second point. We have elections at least once every five years, so of course political parties get to stand again once they’ve lost. The referendum was sold as a once in a generation vote, with no recourse to a second vote, by the very people trying to get another go.
    The choice of the question follows from the reason for calling the referendum.

    1. If the referendum is called because it seems clear that public opinion has changed, then of course Remain has to be on the ballot paper to allow for that chair of opinion to be expressed.
    2. If the referendum is called because there is deadlock in Parliament, unable to choose between different options for the future relationship, then it seems obvious that the choice on the ballot paper would be between those different options: Norway, CU, Canada, etc.

    Unfortunately neither of those clear models seems to apply to the current situation where neither of the sides in Parliament is willing to vote for something that they don't want, the Withdrawal Agreement, as a compromise, but of course they would be willing to go along with it being the other option in a referendum with their preferred option: No Deal or Remain.

    It's an absurd situation.
    It’s why the PM’s agreement with the EU should never have had to be ratified by parliament
    Gina Miller and her disastrous lawsuit
    Parliament taking back control. Rule of Law.

    These things matter :)
    Parliament taking back control from the EU was the point, not from the people
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,565
    Mr Gallowgate,

    "It doesn’t matter what it is. All that matters is that was the commitment."

    An interesting interpretation. As I've said earlier, they will vote against anything that doesn't have their stamp on it. How is that honouring the referendum result? Would Labour voting for a revoke also honour that commitment?

  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 6,344
    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    isam said:


    You're confusing two different things here. First, is there any reason to hold a fresh referendum? It's not obvious that there is.

    Second, if there is, what options should be given? Obviously popular options should be available in any referendum. Political parties are not barred from standing again at the next general election just because they lost last time out.

    There is no reason to offer a second referendum, that much is true.

    But you are confusing two different things in the second point. We have elections at least once every five years, so of course political parties get to stand again once they’ve lost. The referendum was sold as a once in a generation vote, with no recourse to a second vote, by the very people trying to get another go.
    The choice of the question follows from the reason for calling the referendum.

    1. If the referendum is called because it seems clear that public opinion has changed, then of course Remain has to be on the ballot paper to allow for that chair of opinion to be expressed.
    2. If the referendum is called because there is deadlock in Parliament, unable to choose between different options for the future relationship, then it seems obvious that the choice on the ballot paper would be between those different options: Norway, CU, Canada, etc.

    Unfortunately neither of those clear models seems to apply to the current situation where neither of the sides in Parliament is willing to vote for something that they don't want, the Withdrawal Agreement, as a compromise, but of course they would be willing to go along with it being the other option in a referendum with their preferred option: No Deal or Remain.

    It's an absurd situation.
    It’s why the PM’s agreement with the EU should never have had to be ratified by parliament
    Gina Miller and her disastrous lawsuit
    Parliament taking back control. Rule of Law.

    These things matter :)
    Ugh. Parliament. Den of fools and thieves
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 10,554
    isam said:

    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    isam said:


    You're confusing two different things here. First, is there any reason to hold a fresh referendum? It's not obvious that there is.

    Second, if there is, what options should be given? Obviously popular options should be available in any referendum. Political parties are not barred from standing again at the next general election just because they lost last time out.

    There is no reason to offer a second referendum, that much is true.

    But you are confusing two different things in the second point. We have elections at least once every five years, so of course political parties get to stand again once they’ve lost. The referendum was sold as a once in a generation vote, with no recourse to a second vote, by the very people trying to get another go.
    The choice of the question follows from the reason for calling the referendum.

    1. If the referendum is called because it seems clear that public opinion has changed, then of course Remain has to be on the ballot paper to allow for that chair of opinion to be expressed.
    2. If the referendum is called because there is deadlock in Parliament, unable to choose between different options for the future relationship, then it seems obvious that the choice on the ballot paper would be between those different options: Norway, CU, Canada, etc.

    Unfortunately neither of those clear models seems to apply to the current situation where neither of the sides in Parliament is willing to vote for something that they don't want, the Withdrawal Agreement, as a compromise, but of course they would be willing to go along with it being the other option in a referendum with their preferred option: No Deal or Remain.

    It's an absurd situation.
    It’s why the PM’s agreement with the EU should never have had to be ratified by parliament
    Gina Miller and her disastrous lawsuit
    Parliament taking back control. Rule of Law.

    These things matter :)
    Parliament taking back control from the EU was the point, not from the people
    Parliament is the people, Gina Miller merely established what the law required.
  • notme2notme2 Posts: 1,006

    notme2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Norm said:

    TGOHF said:

    There's a majority for remain in parliament. Fear of what happens if they revoke us why the option has got nowhere near in any outing so far. Claims we just get on with other stuff and shrug it off are way off imo

    I suspect they will try and revoke first and worry about the aftermath later - they are that stupid.
    As far as the local elections are concerned while the Tories will obviously not have a particularly good night - revocation is the one thing that would turn disappointment into disaster.
    Your "one thing" is surely wrong.

    A no deal exit this week is very likely to hit the Tories very badly, unless by some miracle none of the expected chaos and damage occurs.

    And, actually, the one thing we are seeing (not just on PB) is a growing expectation that there will be at least a chunk of time to rethink and at best moves towards abandoning Brexit, possibly via a PV. I'd suggest that even leaving on a deal this week, while generating some short-term relief, would disappoint sufficient of the educated middle class that used to be the bedrock Tory vote that there could easily be a backlash in the locals. People are getting close to expecting Brexit to die now.
    I disagree. People expect some kind of disruption now. Though there are many things that could be bad, it will just overall make us a little bit poorer. There’s might be a small interruption in tarquin’s avocados and Gemima’s almond milk supply, but we live in a global market place. The market place is organic. The vacuum of demand will be filled very very quickly.

    A no deal would get the gvt over the local elections line.
    Clearly, like other people who believe in the uber-madness of No-deal Brexit, you are out of your mind. Even Michael Gove realises it would wreck the economy. It would not be "some kind of disruption" it will be extreme economic vandalism to appease a bunch of nutters that are obsessed by Brexit at any cost. If you are so convinced you have public support for this stupidity you should advocate putting it to another referendum. There is absolutely no mandate for no-deal.
    I don’t want it. I think it’s madness. But it’s a pool of ever shallow options.
  • felixfelix Posts: 8,995
    IanB2 said:

    Its pensioners, expats, and hedge fund managers.
    Most expats I know voted remain. There were some vocal leavers but they were mostly non-resident here.
  • isamisam Posts: 27,685
    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    isam said:


    You're confusing two different things here. First, is there any reason to hold a fresh referendum? It's not obvious that there is.

    Second, if there is, what options should be given? Obviously popular options should be available in any referendum. Political parties are not barred from standing again at the next general election just because they lost last time out.

    There is no reason to offer a second referendum, that much is true.

    But you are confusing two different things in the second point. We have elections at least once every five years, so of course political parties get to stand again once they’ve lost. The referendum was sold as a once in a generation vote, with no recourse to a second vote, by the very people trying to get another go.
    The choice of the question follows from the reason for calling the referendum.

    1. If the referendum is called because it seems clear that public opinion has changed, then of course Remain has to be on the ballot paper to allow for that chair of opinion to be expressed.
    2. If the referendum is called because there is deadlock in Parliament, unable to choose between different options for the future relationship, then it seems obvious that the choice on the ballot paper would be between those different options: Norway, CU, Canada, etc.

    Unfortunately neither of those clear models seems to apply to the current situation where neither of the sides in Parliament is willing to vote for something that they don't want, the Withdrawal Agreement, as a compromise, but of course they would be willing to go along with it being the other option in a referendum with their preferred option: No Deal or Remain.

    It's an absurd situation.
    It’s why the PM’s agreement with the EU should never have had to be ratified by parliament
    Gina Miller and her disastrous lawsuit
    Parliament taking back control. Rule of Law.

    These things matter :)
    Parliament taking back control from the EU was the point, not from the people
    Parliament is the people, Gina Miller merely established what the law required.
    I thought she was the article 50 person? I’m talking about giving MPs the final vote, which I was led to believe was Dominic Grieve’s doing.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 6,344
    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    isam said:


    You're confusing two different things here. First, is there any reason to hold a fresh referendum? It's not obvious that there is.

    Second, if there is, what options should be given? Obviously popular options should be available in any referendum. Political parties are not barred from standing again at the next general election just because they lost last time out.

    There is no reason to offer a second referendum, that much is true.

    But you are confusing two different things in the second point. We have elections at least once every five years, so of course political parties get to stand again once they’ve lost. The referendum was sold as a once in a generation vote, with no recourse to a second vote, by the very people trying to get another go.
    The choice of the question follows from the reason for calling the referendum.

    1. If the referendum is called because it seems clear that public opinion has changed, then of course Remain has to be on the ballot paper to allow for that chair of opinion to be expressed.
    2. If the referendum is called because there is deadlock in Parliament, unable to choose between different options for the future relationship, then it seems obvious that the choice on the ballot paper would be between those different options: Norway, CU, Canada, etc.

    Unfortunately neither of those clear models seems to apply to the current situation where neither of the sides in Parliament is willing to vote for something that they don't want, the Withdrawal Agreement, as a compromise, but of course they would be willing to go along with it being the other option in a referendum with their preferred option: No Deal or Remain.

    It's an absurd situation.
    It’s why the PM’s agreement with the EU should never have had to be ratified by parliament
    Gina Miller and her disastrous lawsuit
    Parliament taking back control. Rule of Law.

    These things matter :)
    Parliament taking back control from the EU was the point, not from the people
    Parliament is the people, Gina Miller merely established what the law required.
    Should be the people but is not the people. Hasn't been in many long years
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 15,853
    Dura_Ace said:

    They were dressed like they were going sell me home and contents insurance.

    Phwoar, that's what I call proper filth.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 6,344
    isam said:

    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    isam said:


    You're confusing two different things here. First, is there any reason to hold a fresh referendum? It's not obvious that there is.

    Second, if there is, what options should be given? Obviously popular options should be available in any referendum. Political parties are not barred from standing again at the next general election just because they lost last time out.

    There is no reason to offer a second referendum, that much is true.

    But you are confusing two different things in the second point. We have elections at least once every five years, so of course political parties get to stand again once they’ve lost. The referendum was sold as a once in a generation vote, with no recourse to a second vote, by the very people trying to get another go.
    The choice of the question follows from the reason for calling the referendum.

    1. If the referendum is called because it seems clear that public opinion has changed, then of course Remain has to be on the ballot paper to allow for that chair of opinion to be expressed.
    2. If the referendum is called because there is deadlock in Parliament, unable to choose between different options for the future relationship, then it seems obvious that the choice on the ballot paper would be between those different options: Norway, CU, Canada, etc.

    Unfortunately neither of those clear models seems to apply to the current situation where neither of the sides in Parliament is willing to vote for something that they don't want, the Withdrawal Agreement, as a compromise, but of course they would be willing to go along with it being the other option in a referendum with their preferred option: No Deal or Remain.

    It's an absurd situation.
    It’s why the PM’s agreement with the EU should never have had to be ratified by parliament
    Gina Miller and her disastrous lawsuit
    Parliament taking back control. Rule of Law.

    These things matter :)
    Parliament taking back control from the EU was the point, not from the people
    Parliament is the people, Gina Miller merely established what the law required.
    I thought she was the article 50 person? I’m talking about giving MPs the final vote, which I was led to believe was Dominic Grieve’s doing.
    So many twats, its hard to remember which one twatted what up
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 8,033
    isam said:

    isam said:


    You're confusing two different things here. First, is there any reason to hold a fresh referendum? It's not obvious that there is.

    Second, if there is, what options should be given? Obviously popular options should be available in any referendum. Political parties are not barred from standing again at the next general election just because they lost last time out.

    There is no reason to offer a second referendum, that much is true.

    But you are confusing two different things in the second point. We have elections at least once every five years, so of course political parties get to stand again once they’ve lost. The referendum was sold as a once in a generation vote, with no recourse to a second vote, by the very people trying to get another go.
    The choice of the question follows from the reason for calling the referendum.

    1. If the referendum is called because it seems clear that public opinion has changed, then of course Remain has to be on the ballot paper to allow for that chair of opinion to be expressed.
    2. If the referendum is called because there is deadlock in Parliament, unable to choose between different options for the future relationship, then it seems obvious that the choice on the ballot paper would be between those different options: Norway, CU, Canada, etc.

    Unfortunately neither of those clear models seems to apply to the current situation where neither of the sides in Parliament is willing to vote for something that they don't want, the Withdrawal Agreement, as a compromise, but of course they would be willing to go along with it being the other option in a referendum with their preferred option: No Deal or Remain.

    It's an absurd situation.
    It’s why the PM’s agreement with the EU should never have had to be ratified by parliament
    That's not the conclusion I would draw.

    I would suggest that creating a "you are with me or against me" dynamic when you lead a minority government was doomed to failure. That Parliament should have been involved right at the start of negotiations, not ignored altogether.
  • eekeek Posts: 5,524

    notme2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Norm said:

    TGOHF said:

    There's a majority for remain in parliament. Fear of what happens if they revoke us why the option has got nowhere near in any outing so far. Claims we just get on with other stuff and shrug it off are way off imo

    I suspect they will try and revoke first and worry about the aftermath later - they are that stupid.
    As far as the local elections are concerned while the Tories will obviously not have a particularly good night - revocation is the one thing that would turn disappointment into disaster.
    Your "one thing" is surely wrong.

    A no deal exit this week is very likely to hit the Tories very badly, unless by some miracle none of the expected chaos and damage occurs.

    And, actually, the one thing we are seeing (not just on PB) is a growing expectation that there will be at least a chunk of time to rethink and at best moves towards abandoning Brexit, possibly via a PV. I'd suggest that even leaving on a deal this week, while generating some short-term relief, would disappoint sufficient of the educated middle class that used to be the bedrock Tory vote that there could easily be a backlash in the locals. People are getting close to expecting Brexit to die now.
    I disagree. People expect some kind of disruption now. Though there are many things that could be bad, it will just overall make us a little bit poorer. There’s might be a small interruption in tarquin’s avocados and Gemima’s almond milk supply, but we live in a global market place. The market place is organic. The vacuum of demand will be filled very very quickly.

    A no deal would get the gvt over the local elections line.
    Clearly, like other people who believe in the uber-madness of No-deal Brexit, you are out of your mind. Even Michael Gove realises it would wreck the economy. It would not be "some kind of disruption" it will be extreme economic vandalism to appease a bunch of nutters that are obsessed by Brexit at any cost. If you are so convinced you have public support for this stupidity you should advocate putting it to another referendum. There is absolutely no mandate for no-deal.
    I wouldn't object to No Deal quite as much if the people suggesting it weren't economically illiterate and could explain the reason why they thought no tariffs is a better strategy then imposing the maximum possible.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 4,379
    isam said:

    It’s why the PM’s agreement with the EU should never have had to be ratified by parliament

    I have much sympathy with this view. The 2016 referendum was an instruction for the UK government to take us out of the EU on the best and most suitable exit terms that it could in practice manage to negotiate. All other interpretations are hogwash fueled by selective hindsight and special pleading.

    OK, so they have done that now. They have negotiated such a deal. And here come MPs to block it. Thanks Gina. Love you lots.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 4,524
    CD13 said:

    Mr Gallowgate,

    "It doesn’t matter what it is. All that matters is that was the commitment."

    An interesting interpretation. As I've said earlier, they will vote against anything that doesn't have their stamp on it. How is that honouring the referendum result? Would Labour voting for a revoke also honour that commitment?

    The referendum indicated that the country on that day wanted to leave the EU. It didn’t say how and it didn’t say when. If Labour MPs consider that the public’s view has changed or that the proposed Brexit is not in their constituents best interests then they have every right to vote against.

    The referendum is not sacred for god sake.

    If they believe that revoking Article 50 at this time is the best thing for the country, which it is clearly is to avoid being bounced into accepting a deal that clearly no-one wants, even the public, then that is fair enough.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 2,475
    The cretin Francois wants to engineer a no deal and wants the EU to veto an extension . He really is a loathsome creature.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,006
    kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    It’s why the PM’s agreement with the EU should never have had to be ratified by parliament

    I have much sympathy with this view. The 2016 referendum was an instruction for the UK government to take us out of the EU on the best and most suitable exit terms that it could in practice manage to negotiate. All other interpretations are hogwash fueled by selective hindsight and special pleading.

    OK, so they have done that now. They have negotiated such a deal. And here come MPs to block it. Thanks Gina. Love you lots.
    That wasn't Gina Miller - her case was about Article 50 notification (but the corollary of whether Parliament needs to legislate to revoke wasn't established). The meaningful vote process was Dominic Grieve's amendment.
  • isamisam Posts: 27,685
    edited April 8
    kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    It’s why the PM’s agreement with the EU should never have had to be ratified by parliament

    I have much sympathy with this view. The 2016 referendum was an instruction for the UK government to take us out of the EU on the best and most suitable exit terms that it could in practice manage to negotiate. All other interpretations are hogwash fueled by selective hindsight and special pleading.

    OK, so they have done that now. They have negotiated such a deal. And here come MPs to block it. Thanks Gina. Love you lots.
    Yes I find it amazing that the public voting to leave, followed by the PM negotiating a deal with the EU to leave, isn't enough.

    As @Tissue_Price Price says above, it was Dominic Grieve that stopped this seemingly logical sequence of events from happening. Here's to his deselection
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 6,344
    edited April 8
    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    It’s why the PM’s agreement with the EU should never have had to be ratified by parliament

    I have much sympathy with this view. The 2016 referendum was an instruction for the UK government to take us out of the EU on the best and most suitable exit terms that it could in practice manage to negotiate. All other interpretations are hogwash fueled by selective hindsight and special pleading.

    OK, so they have done that now. They have negotiated such a deal. And here come MPs to block it. Thanks Gina. Love you lots.
    Yes I find it amazing that the public voting to leave, followed by the PM negotiating a deal with the EU to Leave, isn't enough.
    Which goes to the heart of public annoyance- they aren't doing it in everyone's best interests, they are simply trying to remain by any means possible
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 25,448
    nico67 said:

    The cretin Francois wants to engineer a no deal and wants the EU to veto an extension . He really is a loathsome creature.

    I would die laughing if they thank him for his letter and then withdraw the whip.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,722

    Scott_P said:
    Interesting. It puts pressure on Brady and on the 1922 Committee Executive as a whole.

    The formation of the 1922 Committee arose from a crisis within the Conservative Party of no greater scale than what we are seeing now. Is there scope for for the formation of a 2019 Committee to organise such an indicative vote, assuming that Brady will not act?
    Be interesting if it garnered a wider support than the ERG.....
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 3,516

    CD13 said:

    Mr Gallowgate,

    "you’re just upset that the Brexit dream is turning to ash because it was always an awful idea."

    If you read my posts carefully, you'll see I'm complaining about the dishonesty of MPs. I voted Leave but whether we go or stay is no longer the issue. It will make no major difference to my life. But having a government and opposition consistently lie does irritate me. I feel it as a personal insult.

    Let's remove the culprits from public life. Remove the false mask and revoke if you wish See what the reaction is. There'll be a few chuckles from the rest of Europe. "British Democracy, you're having a giraffe!"

    And as I reasoned in my post, which you chose to ignore, there is no dishonesty from MPs.

    May’s fault for not reaching out for a consensus. Brexit would be done by now if she had.
    Although a consensus may well provide the worst result. There is no certainty that taking a bit of this idea and combining it with a bit of that idea produces anything other than a result that is intellectually shaky, practically unwieldy, misunderstood, disliked and may provide even more negative unintended consequences.


  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 4,524

    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    It’s why the PM’s agreement with the EU should never have had to be ratified by parliament

    I have much sympathy with this view. The 2016 referendum was an instruction for the UK government to take us out of the EU on the best and most suitable exit terms that it could in practice manage to negotiate. All other interpretations are hogwash fueled by selective hindsight and special pleading.

    OK, so they have done that now. They have negotiated such a deal. And here come MPs to block it. Thanks Gina. Love you lots.
    Yes I find it amazing that the public voting to leave, followed by the PM negotiating a deal with the EU to Leave, isn't enough.
    Which goes to the heart of public annoyance- they aren't doing it in everyone's best interests, they are simply trying to remain by any means possible
    No. Common Market 2.0 got opposition support and that would have been the compromise.

    What you are actually saying is that right wing zealots are trying to leave their way with no compromise by any means possible.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 6,293
    Francois on WATO arguing that the decision should be put to the electorate for a second time.
    On Mays leadership that is...
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 4,524
    philiph said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr Gallowgate,

    "you’re just upset that the Brexit dream is turning to ash because it was always an awful idea."

    If you read my posts carefully, you'll see I'm complaining about the dishonesty of MPs. I voted Leave but whether we go or stay is no longer the issue. It will make no major difference to my life. But having a government and opposition consistently lie does irritate me. I feel it as a personal insult.

    Let's remove the culprits from public life. Remove the false mask and revoke if you wish See what the reaction is. There'll be a few chuckles from the rest of Europe. "British Democracy, you're having a giraffe!"

    And as I reasoned in my post, which you chose to ignore, there is no dishonesty from MPs.

    May’s fault for not reaching out for a consensus. Brexit would be done by now if she had.
    Although a consensus may well provide the worst result. There is no certainty that taking a bit of this idea and combining it with a bit of that idea produces anything other than a result that is intellectually shaky, practically unwieldy, misunderstood, disliked and may provide even more negative unintended consequences.


    Common Market 2.0 was the compromise. Out of the EU but with minimal change to the status quo for the time being whilst we slowly separate from the EU. But no. Leavers were impatient to throw out immigrants and import chlorinated chicken.

    It’s Brexit supporters that have killed Brexit and no one else.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 2,475

    nico67 said:

    The cretin Francois wants to engineer a no deal and wants the EU to veto an extension . He really is a loathsome creature.

    I would die laughing if they thank him for his letter and then withdraw the whip.
    Wouldn’t it be great if May just said fxck the ERG they’re pissing me off and revokes Article 50 !

  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 1,973

    <

    Clearly, like other people who believe in the uber-madness of No-deal Brexit, you are out of your mind. Even Michael Gove realises it would wreck the economy. It would not be "some kind of disruption" it will be extreme economic vandalism to appease a bunch of nutters that are obsessed by Brexit at any cost. If you are so convinced you have public support for this stupidity you should advocate putting it to another referendum. There is absolutely no mandate for no-deal.

    1. uber-madness
    2. out of your mind
    3. wreck
    4. extreme economic vandalism
    5. bunch of nutters
    6. obsessed
    7. Brexit at any cost
    8. stupidity

    Pejorative, insulting crap not worthy of this site.

    If you wish to engage in debate with others whom you disagree with, at least show some civility.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 6,293

    nico67 said:

    The cretin Francois wants to engineer a no deal and wants the EU to veto an extension . He really is a loathsome creature.

    I would die laughing if they thank him for his letter and then withdraw the whip.
    So would I. They have a paper majority of 4 with the DUP. I seriously doubt anyone will be having the whip withdrawn any time soon.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 1,510

    CD13 said:

    Mr Gallowgate,

    "It doesn’t matter what it is. All that matters is that was the commitment."

    An interesting interpretation. As I've said earlier, they will vote against anything that doesn't have their stamp on it. How is that honouring the referendum result? Would Labour voting for a revoke also honour that commitment?

    The referendum indicated that the country on that day wanted to leave the EU. It didn’t say how and it didn’t say when. If Labour MPs consider that the public’s view has changed or that the proposed Brexit is not in their constituents best interests then they have every right to vote against.

    The referendum is not sacred for god sake.

    If they believe that revoking Article 50 at this time is the best thing for the country, which it is clearly is to avoid being bounced into accepting a deal that clearly no-one wants, even the public, then that is fair enough.
    People who vote in a referendum have a reasonable expectation that its result will be delivered, however.

    The problems with the referendum stem from the fact that Cameron didn’t have a Plan B and fully expected a remain victory.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 2,125
    isam said:

    isam said:


    You're confusing two different things here. First, is there any reason to hold a fresh referendum? It's not obvious that there is.

    Second, if there is, what options should be given? Obviously popular options should be available in any referendum. Political parties are not barred from standing again at the next general election just because they lost last time out.

    There is no reason to offer a second referendum, that much is true.

    But you are confusing two different things in the second point. We have elections at least once every five years, so of course political parties get to stand again once they’ve lost. The referendum was sold as a once in a generation vote, with no recourse to a second vote, by the very people trying to get another go.
    The choice of the question follows from the reason for calling the referendum.

    1. If the referendum is called because it seems clear that public opinion has changed, then of course Remain has to be on the ballot paper to allow for that chair of opinion to be expressed.
    2. If the referendum is called because there is deadlock in Parliament, unable to choose between different options for the future relationship, then it seems obvious that the choice on the ballot paper would be between those different options: Norway, CU, Canada, etc.

    Unfortunately neither of those clear models seems to apply to the current situation where neither of the sides in Parliament is willing to vote for something that they don't want, the Withdrawal Agreement, as a compromise, but of course they would be willing to go along with it being the other option in a referendum with their preferred option: No Deal or Remain.

    It's an absurd situation.
    It’s why the PM’s agreement with the EU should never have had to be ratified by parliament
    But it’s been convention and practice since the 1920s, and statute law since 2011, that all treaties are at the least submitted to Parliament for the possibility of veto.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 31,443
    dixiedean said:

    Francois on WATO arguing that the decision should be put to the electorate for a second time.
    On Mays leadership that is...

    Mark Francois = Napoleon
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited April 8
    HYUFD said:
    Peston does very long connected tweets.

    Will Mrs May finally go by Friday. Long extension or revoke - she really serves no purpose if either happens.

    But if by some quirk we leave with no deal surely that buys her some more time to manage the crisis.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 4,524

    CD13 said:

    Mr Gallowgate,

    "It doesn’t matter what it is. All that matters is that was the commitment."

    An interesting interpretation. As I've said earlier, they will vote against anything that doesn't have their stamp on it. How is that honouring the referendum result? Would Labour voting for a revoke also honour that commitment?

    The referendum indicated that the country on that day wanted to leave the EU. It didn’t say how and it didn’t say when. If Labour MPs consider that the public’s view has changed or that the proposed Brexit is not in their constituents best interests then they have every right to vote against.

    The referendum is not sacred for god sake.

    If they believe that revoking Article 50 at this time is the best thing for the country, which it is clearly is to avoid being bounced into accepting a deal that clearly no-one wants, even the public, then that is fair enough.
    People who vote in a referendum have a reasonable expectation that its result will be delivered, however.

    The problems with the referendum stem from the fact that Cameron didn’t have a Plan B and fully expected a remain victory.
    They also had a reasonable expectation that it would be handled in a sensible and competent way but maybe we all have too high expectations.
  • isamisam Posts: 27,685
    edited April 8
    rpjs said:

    isam said:

    isam said:


    You're confusing two different things here. First, is there any reason to hold a fresh referendum? It's not obvious that there is.

    Second, if there is, what options should be given? Obviously popular options should be available in any referendum. Political parties are not barred from standing again at the next general election just because they lost last time out.

    There is no reason to offer a second referendum, that much is true.

    But you are confusing two different things in the second point. We have elections at least once every five years, so of course political parties get to stand again once they’ve lost. The referendum was sold as a once in a generation vote, with no recourse to a second vote, by the very people trying to get another go.
    The choice of the question follows from the reason for calling the referendum.

    1. If the referendum is called because it seems clear that public opinion has changed, then of course Remain has to be on the ballot paper to allow for that chair of opinion to be expressed.
    2. If the referendum is called because there is deadlock in Parliament, unable to choose between different options for the future relationship, then it seems obvious that the choice on the ballot paper would be between those different options: Norway, CU, Canada, etc.

    Unfortunately neither of those clear models seems to apply to the current situation where neither of the sides in Parliament is willing to vote for something that they don't want, the Withdrawal Agreement, as a compromise, but of course they would be willing to go along with it being the other option in a referendum with their preferred option: No Deal or Remain.

    It's an absurd situation.
    It’s why the PM’s agreement with the EU should never have had to be ratified by parliament
    But it’s been convention and practice since the 1920s, and statute law since 2011, that all treaties are at the least submitted to Parliament for the possibility of veto.
    It should have been a walkover if they had any decency, but what was Grieve's thing all about then?
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,496
    TGOHF said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    notme2 said:

    TGOHF said:

    stodge said:

    It's all gone quiet hasn't it this morning?

    After weeks of it being the only news story, Brexit has dropped down to six or seven so what's happening or rather what's not happening?

    The Prime Minister's Sunday afternoon chat to the people enjoying their roast beef lunch seems to have gone predictably well. In lieu of there being no MV4, we are forced to either leave on Friday evening or hope the EU will grant a long extension so the whole thing can be either sorted out or forgotten about.

    The politics of a long extension don't look clear to me and there's the assumption the EU will grant it. The Tusk "flexstension" seems to have confused everyone which was perhaps the objective but there's a strange calm - before a storm, who can say or will Brexit end not with a bang but with a whimper?

    The EU can have a revocation by the weekend if they block an extension- MPs are ready to vote for one if a gun is put to their head.
    No way May will permit a revoke. She will go to the country rather than allow that.
    No way May will permit No deal. She would go to the country rather than allow that, but there isn't time.

    Dilemma.

    Revoke would have to be accompanied by a rider of ...and a GE or ...and a PV.
    Then Labour will pivot towards "not wasting time on another referendum or Brexit- focus on jobs n nurses and skools" for their manifesto.

    Hey presto - no Brexit as it goes down in flames with the Cons at the GE.
    I'll take any solution, but that one is a particularly satisfying one.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 6,240

    CD13 said:

    Mr Gallowgate,

    "It doesn’t matter what it is. All that matters is that was the commitment."

    An interesting interpretation. As I've said earlier, they will vote against anything that doesn't have their stamp on it. How is that honouring the referendum result? Would Labour voting for a revoke also honour that commitment?

    The referendum indicated that the country on that day wanted to leave the EU. It didn’t say how and it didn’t say when. If Labour MPs consider that the public’s view has changed or that the proposed Brexit is not in their constituents best interests then they have every right to vote against.

    The referendum is not sacred for god sake.

    If they believe that revoking Article 50 at this time is the best thing for the country, which it is clearly is to avoid being bounced into accepting a deal that clearly no-one wants, even the public, then that is fair enough.
    People who vote in a referendum have a reasonable expectation that its result will be delivered, however.

    The problems with the referendum stem from the fact that Cameron didn’t have a Plan B and fully expected a remain victory.
    They certainly have a right to expect it will be deliverable. That's where the dishonesty comes in. The public were offered a choice between something that was unpopular and something that was inoperable.

    The air thickens with chickens coming home to roost.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 15,741
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 1,767
    GIN1138 said:


    Wonder what Sir Graham will do? :D

    Rumour has it he has a more than adequate shredder for such circumstances.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 6,240

    <

    Clearly, like other people who believe in the uber-madness of No-deal Brexit, you are out of your mind. Even Michael Gove realises it would wreck the economy. It would not be "some kind of disruption" it will be extreme economic vandalism to appease a bunch of nutters that are obsessed by Brexit at any cost. If you are so convinced you have public support for this stupidity you should advocate putting it to another referendum. There is absolutely no mandate for no-deal.

    1. uber-madness
    2. out of your mind
    3. wreck
    4. extreme economic vandalism
    5. bunch of nutters
    6. obsessed
    7. Brexit at any cost
    8. stupidity

    Pejorative, insulting crap not worthy of this site.

    If you wish to engage in debate with others whom you disagree with, at least show some civility.
    Eh? How long you been posting here?

    I must introduce you to SeanT some time.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 6,240
    GIN1138 said:
    Kick the little fart in the orchestras, one trusts.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 7,395
    GIN1138 said:
    Forward it, unanswered, to the Whips office, I hope.

    I was going to say that Rees Mogg had lost his "biggest c--t in the Commons" title, but what are the odds he is orchestrating this and not wanting to be seen to get his Old Etonian hands dirty.
This discussion has been closed.