Howdy, Stranger!

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

Undefined discussion subject.

124

Comments

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 26,696
    Scott_P said:
    What an embarrassment that letter is. Cliché piled upon cliché, worn-out slogan substituting for actual thought.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 38,793
    GIN1138 said:
    Shredder on standby.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,722
    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.
    Where exercising that veto meant we exited without a deal.

    That's where we SHOULD be. MPs getting in the mix has not exactly enhanced their reputation for being go to guys and gals....
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 30,526
    GIN1138 said:
    Tear it up live on TV and say he won't be intimidated by anyone called François.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,496
    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's been on the agenda since 1968 and before. Another reason why we should be aiming to shaft Dublin left right and centre over their approach to Brexit.
    Dublin has the EU behind them. The days of us being able to shaft them will be over if we leave.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,722
    GIN1138 said:
    Wonder which way he'd vote.....
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,722

    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.
    Where's the honesty been in spending forty years quietly ensuring Brexit wasn't deliverable? At each step without any public engagement.....them's the chickens.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,496
    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.
    Yes it was. It was only a few weeks ago. But the period before that when revoking Article 50 was so far off the agenda that it wasn't even discussed already seems like ancient history.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,139

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's been on the agenda since 1968 and before. Another reason why we should be aiming to shaft Dublin left right and centre over their approach to Brexit.
    Dublin has the EU behind them. The days of us being able to shaft them will be over if we leave.
    Indeed. One of the many ironies of Brexit is that it has enabled Ireland, which has been bullied and generally pushed around by the British for centuries, to gain the upper hand with the support of the EU.
  • isamisam Posts: 27,685
    edited April 8

    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.
    Mays deal is operable though.

    I guess one way of a second referendum being fair is to have three options, Mays Deal, Remain, or more negotiations, and if Remain fails to get a majority, the other two have to thrash it out in parliament.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,496

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's been on the agenda since 1968 and before. Another reason why we should be aiming to shaft Dublin left right and centre over their approach to Brexit.
    Dublin has the EU behind them. The days of us being able to shaft them will be over if we leave.
    Indeed. One of the many ironies of Brexit is that it has enabled Ireland, which has been bullied and generally pushed around by the British for centuries, to gain the upper hand with the support of the EU.
    Yes ironic is one adjective. Pig headed stupidity is another.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 47,100

    Scott_P said:
    What an embarrassment that letter is. Cliché piled upon cliché, worn-out slogan substituting for actual thought.
    While I understand the appeal of righteous anger, i have to wonder if the man really thinks throwing what is obviously a temper tantrum is a positive thing for anyone, including him.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,496
    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    What an embarrassment that letter is. Cliché piled upon cliché, worn-out slogan substituting for actual thought.
    While I understand the appeal of righteous anger, i have to wonder if the man really thinks throwing what is obviously a temper tantrum is a positive thing for anyone, including him.
    Someone should give him a Curley Wurley so he calms down a bit.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 47,100
    Sean_F said:

    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
    Yes, but now it is out in the open.
  • PeterMannionPeterMannion Posts: 462
    Francois' comments are indicative that he is a thickie
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 6,240
    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    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
    Yes, but now it is out in the open.
    Revoke is starting to look like a good bet bet at 5/2.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 6,240
    isam said:

    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.
    Mays deal is operable though.

    I guess one way of a second referendum being fair is to have three options, Mays Deal, Remain, or more negotiations, and if Remain fails to get a majority, the other two have to thrash it out in parliament.
    You think it's operable, I think it is operable. Parliament does not.

    See the snag?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,751
    Brexiters starting to panic under the pressure.
  • isamisam Posts: 27,685
    edited April 8

    isam said:

    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.
    Mays deal is operable though.

    I guess one way of a second referendum being fair is to have three options, Mays Deal, Remain, or more negotiations, and if Remain fails to get a majority, the other two have to thrash it out in parliament.
    You think it's operable, I think it is operable. Parliament does not.

    See the snag?
    That’s why they shouldn’t have been asked! There was no point having a referendum if MPs had the option of ignoring the result
  • 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.
    Where's the honesty been in spending forty years quietly ensuring Brexit wasn't deliverable? At each step without any public engagement.....them's the chickens.
    Oh the blame spreads far and wide, Mark, and far into the past, but it going to be very difficult for The Government to avoid owning this clusterfuck.

    Never mind. Corbyn remains LOTO. Be thankful for small mercies.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,139



    Yes it was. It was only a few weeks ago. But the period before that when revoking Article 50 was so far off the agenda that it wasn't even discussed already seems like ancient history.

    Indeed. The PV campaign only began just over a year ago with few hundred people at an obscure venue in Camden. I was there and afterwards one of the speakers came up to me and explained, rather sadly, that he thought there was a minimal chance of success "but we have to try".

    And here we are, a year later with Brexit on the verge of collapse.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 6,240
    isam said:

    isam said:

    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.
    Mays deal is operable though.

    I guess one way of a second referendum being fair is to have three options, Mays Deal, Remain, or more negotiations, and if Remain fails to get a majority, the other two have to thrash it out in parliament.
    You think it's operable, I think it is operable. Parliament does not.

    See the snag?
    That’s why they shouldn’t have been asked! There was no point having a referendum if MPs had the option of ignoring the result
    Ain't the way a parliamentary democracy usually works, and if you want it to work that way, it's a good idea to have two choices that are readily understood and equally operable.

    The referendum looks more and more like a fraud.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,215
    isam said:

    isam said:

    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.
    Mays deal is operable though.

    I guess one way of a second referendum being fair is to have three options, Mays Deal, Remain, or more negotiations, and if Remain fails to get a majority, the other two have to thrash it out in parliament.
    You think it's operable, I think it is operable. Parliament does not.

    See the snag?
    That’s why they shouldn’t have been asked! There was no point having a referendum if MPs had the option of ignoring the result
    Brexit is perfectly possible, just not the 'have your cake and eat it' Brexit Vote Leave promised.

    And what really killed Brexit, was May losing her majority and diluting the mandate given to Parliament by the referendum.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 783
    brendan16 said:

    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.
    Could the PM be playing a blinder with the Deal or No Brexit (ie Revoke) card? If the EU think we are on the verge of revoking that could be enough to make at least one country, probably France, refuse any sort of extension.They aren't keen anyway. Once refused the pressure is really on to pass a deal or lose Brexit forever. Still hard to see where all the votes come from to pass it though.

  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,496



    Yes it was. It was only a few weeks ago. But the period before that when revoking Article 50 was so far off the agenda that it wasn't even discussed already seems like ancient history.

    Indeed. The PV campaign only began just over a year ago with few hundred people at an obscure venue in Camden. I was there and afterwards one of the speakers came up to me and explained, rather sadly, that he thought there was a minimal chance of success "but we have to try".

    And here we are, a year later with Brexit on the verge of collapse.
    Well done!
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 3,717
    isam said:

    isam said:

    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.
    Mays deal is operable though.

    I guess one way of a second referendum being fair is to have three options, Mays Deal, Remain, or more negotiations, and if Remain fails to get a majority, the other two have to thrash it out in parliament.
    You think it's operable, I think it is operable. Parliament does not.

    See the snag?
    That’s why they shouldn’t have been asked! There was no point having a referendum if MPs had the option of ignoring the result
    They haven't ignored the result. Had they done so this would all have been over ages ago. More of them need to grow some and tell the public that the referendum question was ridiculously simplistic and that there needs to be a clarification. The public needs the opportunity to have an indicative vote with a STV system demonstrating preferences.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited April 8

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's been on the agenda since 1968 and before. Another reason why we should be aiming to shaft Dublin left right and centre over their approach to Brexit.
    Dublin has the EU behind them. The days of us being able to shaft them will be over if we leave.
    Indeed. One of the many ironies of Brexit is that it has enabled Ireland, which has been bullied and generally pushed around by the British for centuries, to gain the upper hand with the support of the EU.
    Ireland hasn't been pushed around by the UK for sometime - as its been a semi automomous province of the ECB since 2008. It has the highest debt per capita of any eurozone member following the bank bailouts in 2010 - future generations may well pay a heavy price for their efforts to save the Euro.

    As long as course as it is able to offer low corporation tax rates to keep the US multinationals there it can easily service the debt. But that of course may not continue for ever.


  • kle4kle4 Posts: 47,100
    IanB2 said:

    Brexiters starting to panic under the pressure.

    They should have panicked ages ago. That many eventually did and finally backed the deal is notable, as it showed they hadn't paid attention to the very clear and true warnings that by saying no before then they might get nothing. They seemed to think that there would be no counter from remainers and suff brexiteers, that they could just wait things out and it would be there when they were ready.

    Now the ones who held out even then are panicking, even as they are unable to compromise.

    It's why I blame them more than continuity remainers. Sure, some people have worked hard to stop Brexit, but they had their chance to ensure it. And if they say that that was not really Brexit then they shouldn't be mad it is taken away.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 15,741
    One tidbit from the Francois letter does is that it says several other MPs have sent letters asking for an indicative vote in TM...
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 6,837
    GIN1138 said:

    One tidbit from the Francois letter does is that it says several other MPs have sent letters asking for an indicative vote in TM...

    loony letters
  • Torby_FennelTorby_Fennel Posts: 419
    On topic: I can only speak for my own area but what we (Lib Dems) are finding is that our vote is pretty solid and motivated. Our canvassers are finding that everyone they speak to who voted for us last time, in our top target ward here (Labour held with us 2nd last time), will be voting for us again this time.

    Also a very small number of previously Labour and Conservative voters are coming over to us. A number of Labour and Conservative voters are claiming that they'll not vote at all this time citing Labour anti-Semitism and/or Labour/Conservative Brexit betrayal. UKIP voters are raging that there are not UKIP candidates standing in the city this time... what they'll do if they turn out we don't know. All here wards have Green candidates too but nobody seems to be mentioning them... they'll probably pick up votes when people who didn't know they were standing see them listed on the ballot papers though.

    In summary... I think our vote share will be respectably up but our actual vote numbers will be up just slightly.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,751
    JonathanD said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    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.
    Mays deal is operable though.

    I guess one way of a second referendum being fair is to have three options, Mays Deal, Remain, or more negotiations, and if Remain fails to get a majority, the other two have to thrash it out in parliament.
    You think it's operable, I think it is operable. Parliament does not.

    See the snag?
    That’s why they shouldn’t have been asked! There was no point having a referendum if MPs had the option of ignoring the result
    Brexit is perfectly possible, just not the 'have your cake and eat it' Brexit Vote Leave promised.

    And what really killed Brexit, was May losing her majority and diluting the mandate given to Parliament by the referendum.
    And even so, had her deal been acclaimed by her party in the way Boris began at Chequers it would have got through the Commons even without the DUP, and we would have left by now. We can only hope the ERG have saved us from themselves.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,496
    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Brexiters starting to panic under the pressure.

    They should have panicked ages ago. That many eventually did and finally backed the deal is notable, as it showed they hadn't paid attention to the very clear and true warnings that by saying no before then they might get nothing. They seemed to think that there would be no counter from remainers and suff brexiteers, that they could just wait things out and it would be there when they were ready.

    Now the ones who held out even then are panicking, even as they are unable to compromise.

    It's why I blame them more than continuity remainers. Sure, some people have worked hard to stop Brexit, but they had their chance to ensure it. And if they say that that was not really Brexit then they shouldn't be mad it is taken away.
    I still don't think it has sunk in just how badly they played their hand. There was Brexit in a package ready to roll. Remainers might not have liked it but they could not oppose the will of the people. The only way out of Brexit was if its erstwhile supporters renounced it or fluffed it. And fluff it they did. Now not only do we have no Brexit. We have Brexiters to blame for no Brexit. A perfect happy ending.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 6,240
    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Brexiters starting to panic under the pressure.

    They should have panicked ages ago. That many eventually did and finally backed the deal is notable, as it showed they hadn't paid attention to the very clear and true warnings that by saying no before then they might get nothing. They seemed to think that there would be no counter from remainers and suff brexiteers, that they could just wait things out and it would be there when they were ready.

    Now the ones who held out even then are panicking, even as they are unable to compromise.

    It's why I blame them more than continuity remainers. Sure, some people have worked hard to stop Brexit, but they had their chance to ensure it. And if they say that that was not really Brexit then they shouldn't be mad it is taken away.
    Isn't there a group of them though that prefer No Brexit to May's Deal, because they believe that under the former they can continue to hope for their ultimate true goal, whereas under the latter all hope of Nirvana disappears permanently?

    (Sorry, but although I'm not a religious fanatic myself I do like to try and understand the mentality of those that are.)
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 15,948
    brendan16 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's been on the agenda since 1968 and before. Another reason why we should be aiming to shaft Dublin left right and centre over their approach to Brexit.
    Dublin has the EU behind them. The days of us being able to shaft them will be over if we leave.
    Indeed. One of the many ironies of Brexit is that it has enabled Ireland, which has been bullied and generally pushed around by the British for centuries, to gain the upper hand with the support of the EU.
    Ireland hasn't been pushed around by the UK for sometime - as its been a semi automomous province of the ECB since 2008. It has the highest debt per capita of any eurozone member following the bank bailouts in 2010 - future generations may well pay a heavy price for their efforts to save the Euro.

    As long as course as it is able to offer low corporation tax rates to keep the US multinationals there it can easily service the debt. But that of course may not continue for ever.


    Not pushed around for 10 years; contrast that, in Irish eyes, with the previous 900. Or thereabouts.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 15,741

    GIN1138 said:

    One tidbit from the Francois letter does is that it says several other MPs have sent letters asking for an indicative vote in TM...

    loony letters
    Maybe. But as we've always said if it becomes obvious that TM has lost the support of the PCP a "way" will be found to get rid of her even though she's nominally "safe" until December...
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315

    isam said:

    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.
    Mays deal is operable though.

    I guess one way of a second referendum being fair is to have three options, Mays Deal, Remain, or more negotiations, and if Remain fails to get a majority, the other two have to thrash it out in parliament.
    You think it's operable, I think it is operable. Parliament does not.

    See the snag?
    Most of parliament does think it is operable - most Labour and Tory MPs do. The DUP, ERG, LDs and SNP object to it on principle which is another matter.

    What Labour wants could be agreed as part of the future arrangements - the WDA prevents none of those.

    Labour just won't vote for it because its not good politics!
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 6,240
    brendan16 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's been on the agenda since 1968 and before. Another reason why we should be aiming to shaft Dublin left right and centre over their approach to Brexit.
    Dublin has the EU behind them. The days of us being able to shaft them will be over if we leave.
    Indeed. One of the many ironies of Brexit is that it has enabled Ireland, which has been bullied and generally pushed around by the British for centuries, to gain the upper hand with the support of the EU.
    Ireland hasn't been pushed around by the UK for sometime - as its been a semi automomous province of the ECB since 2008. It has the highest debt per capita of any eurozone member following the bank bailouts in 2010 - future generations may well pay a heavy price for their efforts to save the Euro.

    As long as course as it is able to offer low corporation tax rates to keep the US multinationals there it can easily service the debt. But that of course may not continue for ever.


    There's a good reason why the EU tolerates this Tax Haven in its midst.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 77,123
    edited April 8
    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    One tidbit from the Francois letter does is that it says several other MPs have sent letters asking for an indicative vote in TM...

    loony letters
    Maybe. But as we've always said if it becomes obvious that TM has lost the support of the PCP a "way" will be found to get rid of her even though she's nominally "safe" until December...
    But that involves voting against the government in a Parliamentary vote of no confidence.

    If the ERG do that their careers in the Tory party will be over.

    But I’m glad you and they are now in favour of a revote if you think the electorate have changed their minds.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 6,240

    brendan16 said:

    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.
    Could the PM be playing a blinder with the Deal or No Brexit (ie Revoke) card? If the EU think we are on the verge of revoking that could be enough to make at least one country, probably France, refuse any sort of extension.They aren't keen anyway. Once refused the pressure is really on to pass a deal or lose Brexit forever. Still hard to see where all the votes come from to pass it though.

    Portillo expressed the view a whie back that if Parliament is asked to vote Revoke versus No Deal, Revoke wins narrowly. I suspect the balance has shifted marginally in Revokes favour recently but I would still expect it to be close.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 38,793

    brendan16 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's been on the agenda since 1968 and before. Another reason why we should be aiming to shaft Dublin left right and centre over their approach to Brexit.
    Dublin has the EU behind them. The days of us being able to shaft them will be over if we leave.
    Indeed. One of the many ironies of Brexit is that it has enabled Ireland, which has been bullied and generally pushed around by the British for centuries, to gain the upper hand with the support of the EU.
    Ireland hasn't been pushed around by the UK for sometime - as its been a semi automomous province of the ECB since 2008. It has the highest debt per capita of any eurozone member following the bank bailouts in 2010 - future generations may well pay a heavy price for their efforts to save the Euro.

    As long as course as it is able to offer low corporation tax rates to keep the US multinationals there it can easily service the debt. But that of course may not continue for ever.


    Not pushed around for 10 years; contrast that, in Irish eyes, with the previous 900. Or thereabouts.
    Maybe no longer pushed around, but still willing to take handouts from HMG.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 12,995
    Most canvassers tend to talk their book, not least as by definition they are highly motivated themselves. But FWIW in deep blue Waverley (Surrey, current Labour councillor count zero) SW Labour members seem more motivated than long-standing members can recall since 1997 - more candidates, more canvassing, more leaflets, and IMO a chance of winning a couple of seats. Most of this comes from the energy of a few people infecting others, and I think more than we'd like to admit depends on that. But the Labour vote feels pretty solid here (such as it is!) - posters going up, offers of help, etc.

    I get the impression that the LibDems are doing well too - meeting more people than usual who say "I'm definitely voting LibDem". Tory voters seem to vary between the routinely we-do-our-duty committed and the seriously demoralised: I'm not encountering much Conservative enthusiasm, though the core remains politely resolute. As previously reported, almost nobody wants to talk about local issues even when prompted - it's all Brexit.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 1,398
    edited April 8

    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.
    3. That the Hickenbottom - Haddon-Cave appeal court judgement put the onus on parliament, as the now ultimate arbiter of a advisory referendum, to consider any issues with the validity of the referendum based on the perceived seriousness of the (then under appeal, now conceded) offences by the Leave side, and the ongoing National Crime Agency investigation. If parliament were to decide the referendum unsafe (and I don't know who would do this or whether they have issued something - AG, counsel for the legislature, select committee) and voted accordingly, a second referendum would be the least we could grant voters.

    ?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,992
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    A long, flexible extension remains me of Kryten's groin attachment.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 6,240
    brendan16 said:

    isam said:

    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.
    Mays deal is operable though.

    I guess one way of a second referendum being fair is to have three options, Mays Deal, Remain, or more negotiations, and if Remain fails to get a majority, the other two have to thrash it out in parliament.
    You think it's operable, I think it is operable. Parliament does not.

    See the snag?
    Most of parliament does think it is operable - most Labour and Tory MPs do. The DUP, ERG, LDs and SNP object to it on principle which is another matter.

    What Labour wants could be agreed as part of the future arrangements - the WDA prevents none of those.

    Labour just won't vote for it because its not good politics!
    Sure. Labour has no obligation to help the Government out. Whatever it said in its Manifesto became irrelevant when it lost the election. It is now perfectly entitled to proceed in accordance with the wishes of its members and voters. As it happens, this appears to be in the country's best interests too, so win win time for Beardy....as long as he can keep his private thoughts hidden!
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 2,475
    edited April 8
    Lord Pannick and some crossbenchers have tabled a Lords amendment which gives May more flexibility re an extension and means she doesn’t have to come back to the Commons to get that agreed .

    As long as any extension lasts longer than May 22nd May can agree to it .

    This is a sensible amendment and reduces the chance of an accidental no deal . I suspect what the EU will offer is similar to last time with two options .

    If the WA is passed and ratified in time the UK leaves by 30 June but must hold EU elections just in case it’s not .

    If the WA is not passed by that time then an extension till next March kicks in with flexibility to end it earlier if a deal is ratified .

    This allows May to say we can get out by June and might reduce a Tory rebellion .
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,751

    Most canvassers tend to talk their book, not least as by definition they are highly motivated themselves. But FWIW in deep blue Waverley (Surrey, current Labour councillor count zero) SW Labour members seem more motivated than long-standing members can recall since 1997 - more candidates, more canvassing, more leaflets, and IMO a chance of winning a couple of seats. Most of this comes from the energy of a few people infecting others, and I think more than we'd like to admit depends on that. But the Labour vote feels pretty solid here (such as it is!) - posters going up, offers of help, etc.

    I get the impression that the LibDems are doing well too - meeting more people than usual who say "I'm definitely voting LibDem". Tory voters seem to vary between the routinely we-do-our-duty committed and the seriously demoralised: I'm not encountering much Conservative enthusiasm, though the core remains politely resolute. As previously reported, almost nobody wants to talk about local issues even when prompted - it's all Brexit.

    There's a strange article on ConHome about the excellent campaign the Tories are apparently fighting in Chelmsford - in the text the council leader admits they are "mostly not canvassing" to avoid annoying the voters, not doing any social media as people don't like that sort of thing, and not making any promises or pledges. As far as you can tell all they are doing is delivering a very traditional election address. And writing an article for ConHome, of course.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,565
    Mr Punter,

    "Revoke is starting to look like a good bet bet at 5/2."

    Who would revoke?

    The Tories? No chance.
    Labour? And say goodbye to the North? What excuse would they have without the camouflage of a re-run of the referendum?
    An alliance of the daft, the dozy and the undemocratic? In what alternative universe?
  • isamisam Posts: 27,685

    isam said:

    isam said:

    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.
    Mays deal is operable though.

    I guess one way of a second referendum being fair is to have three options, Mays Deal, Remain, or more negotiations, and if Remain fails to get a majority, the other two have to thrash it out in parliament.
    You think it's operable, I think it is operable. Parliament does not.

    See the snag?
    That’s why they shouldn’t have been asked! There was no point having a referendum if MPs had the option of ignoring the result
    Ain't the way a parliamentary democracy usually works, and if you want it to work that way, it's a good idea to have two choices that are readily understood and equally operable.

    The referendum looks more and more like a fraud.
    No the opposition don’t usually get a vote on our foreign trade deals
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 2,125

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Brexiters starting to panic under the pressure.

    They should have panicked ages ago. That many eventually did and finally backed the deal is notable, as it showed they hadn't paid attention to the very clear and true warnings that by saying no before then they might get nothing. They seemed to think that there would be no counter from remainers and suff brexiteers, that they could just wait things out and it would be there when they were ready.

    Now the ones who held out even then are panicking, even as they are unable to compromise.

    It's why I blame them more than continuity remainers. Sure, some people have worked hard to stop Brexit, but they had their chance to ensure it. And if they say that that was not really Brexit then they shouldn't be mad it is taken away.
    I still don't think it has sunk in just how badly they played their hand. There was Brexit in a package ready to roll. Remainers might not have liked it but they could not oppose the will of the people. The only way out of Brexit was if its erstwhile supporters renounced it or fluffed it. And fluff it they did. Now not only do we have no Brexit. We have Brexiters to blame for no Brexit. A perfect happy ending.
    Plus the imminent destruction of the Tory party! What a glorious time to be alive!
  • tottenhamWCtottenhamWC Posts: 348
    CD13 said:

    Mr Punter,

    "Revoke is starting to look like a good bet bet at 5/2."

    Who would revoke?

    The Tories? No chance.
    Labour? And say goodbye to the North? What excuse would they have without the camouflage of a re-run of the referendum?
    An alliance of the daft, the dozy and the undemocratic? In what alternative universe?

    In the alternative universe of versus no deal.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 9,934
    Can I respectfully point out that an extension to June 30th is insane, as it would require elections for MEPs in May that can never take their seats (the first sitting is in July!). What the heck is the election campaign going to look like?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 15,853
    Fortuitously there will be only a sliver of moon during the locals, else the howling would be off the scale.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 6,240

    Fortuitously there will be only a sliver of moon during the locals, else the howling would be off the scale.
    Isn't there a risk that the X lands in the wrong box?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,751
    nico67 said:

    Lord Pannick and some crossbenchers have tabled a Lords amendment which gives May more flexibility re an extension and means she doesn’t have to come back to the Commons to get that agreed .

    As long as any extension lasts longer than May 22nd May can agree to it .

    This is a sensible amendment and reduces the chance of an accidental no deal . I suspect what the EU will offer is similar to last time with two options .

    If the WA is passed and ratified in time the UK leaves by 30 June but must hold EU elections just in case it’s not .

    If the WA is not passed by that time then an extension till next March kicks in with flexibility to end it earlier if a deal is ratified .

    This allows May to say we can get out by June and might reduce a Tory rebellion .

    The imperative is to get the Bill through asap so, even if sensible, I would be surprised if the Lords want to entertain it. Cooper/Letwin is for a one off circumstance and becomes irrelevant after this week anyway. Indeed after midweek since it needs time to actually debate any proposed extension on Thursday, so must be passed today or tomorrow or in absolute extremis Wednesday. Any significant amendment would give its Commons opponents another go including scope for filibustering.

    Meanwhile it doesn't look like anything interesting will happen in Parliament until the 1800 business statement.


  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 6,240
    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    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.
    Mays deal is operable though.

    I guess one way of a second referendum being fair is to have three options, Mays Deal, Remain, or more negotiations, and if Remain fails to get a majority, the other two have to thrash it out in parliament.
    You think it's operable, I think it is operable. Parliament does not.

    See the snag?
    That’s why they shouldn’t have been asked! There was no point having a referendum if MPs had the option of ignoring the result
    Ain't the way a parliamentary democracy usually works, and if you want it to work that way, it's a good idea to have two choices that are readily understood and equally operable.

    The referendum looks more and more like a fraud.
    No the opposition don’t usually get a vote on our foreign trade deals
    Well they do, it's just that they don't usually count for much. Different with a minority Government though.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,992
    edited April 8
    Nothing quite like someone asking me to change something because they've identified a problem that doesn't exist.

    *sighs*

    Edited extra bit: from earlier post - remains = reminds*.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,565
    edited April 8
    Mr WC,

    "In the alternative universe of versus no deal"

    But who would be happy to take the blame? You've always got Mrs May's soft Brexit as an alternative. To ignore that and a no-deal will mark you as a fanatical Remainer and anti-democrat. It might play well in some parts but it's not a recipe for a good GE.

    It's a reasonable question.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,992
    Mr. CD13, if revoke includes a Remain result in a referendum, that might be worth contemplating.

    That said, I already have a little on that happening anyway.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,123
    viewcode said:

    Can I respectfully point out that an extension to June 30th is insane, as it would require elections for MEPs in May that can never take their seats (the first sitting is in July!). What the heck is the election campaign going to look like?

    No that's the point. An extension to 30th June is a trick, because Euro elections would not need to be held, but then Brexit would have to happen, whatever, making No Deal quite likely.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 9,952
    viewcode said:

    Can I respectfully point out that an extension to June 30th is insane, as it would require elections for MEPs in May that can never take their seats (the first sitting is in July!). What the heck is the election campaign going to look like?

    Isn't that the point?

    I mean, it's a pointLESS election, rather than one that accepts or presumes that UK MEPs have a role to play in Europe on a continuing basis.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 28,070
    edited April 8

    Most canvassers tend to talk their book, not least as by definition they are highly motivated themselves. But FWIW in deep blue Waverley (Surrey, current Labour councillor count zero) SW Labour members seem more motivated than long-standing members can recall since 1997 - more candidates, more canvassing, more leaflets, and IMO a chance of winning a couple of seats. Most of this comes from the energy of a few people infecting others, and I think more than we'd like to admit depends on that. But the Labour vote feels pretty solid here (such as it is!) - posters going up, offers of help, etc.

    I get the impression that the LibDems are doing well too - meeting more people than usual who say "I'm definitely voting LibDem". Tory voters seem to vary between the routinely we-do-our-duty committed and the seriously demoralised: I'm not encountering much Conservative enthusiasm, though the core remains politely resolute. As previously reported, almost nobody wants to talk about local issues even when prompted - it's all Brexit.

    Waverley is an example of what I commented on upthread.

    The Conservatives have fielded a full slate of 57 candidates, the Lib Dems have fielded 27, Labour 19. 2 Conservatives have been returned unopposed.

    This is a council the Lib Dems controlled at various points between 1991 and 2007.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,751

    viewcode said:

    Can I respectfully point out that an extension to June 30th is insane, as it would require elections for MEPs in May that can never take their seats (the first sitting is in July!). What the heck is the election campaign going to look like?

    Isn't that the point?

    I mean, it's a pointLESS election, rather than one that accepts or presumes that UK MEPs have a role to play in Europe on a continuing basis.
    It presumes May's deal or something similar somehow goes through and the elections get pulled at the last minute
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 15,741
    edited April 8
    Scott_P said:
    Remain. Remain. Remain. Remain. Remain. Leave. Remain,
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,565
    Mr Dancer,

    "if revoke includes a Remain result in a referendum, that might be worth contemplating"


    That would be very generous of the bookmakers. Definitely an alternative universe.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 54,338
    edited April 8
    A flextension might be worse than a long one as May will constantly be trying to get Morbyn ver 5.6 or whatever through the commons with different groups of MPs deciding now is not the time.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 15,741
    Scott_P said:
    Tory Remainers and Labour Remainers having a discussion between themselves to work out how they can sabotage Brexit...
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,109

    Scott_P said:
    What an embarrassment that letter is. Cliché piled upon cliché, worn-out slogan substituting for actual thought.
    A pretty ignorant letter. He starts by saying 'I'm writing in a personal capacity'. As far as I'm aware he has no other capacity in which to write unless it's speaking on behalf of village idiots.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 28,070
    Sean_F said:

    Most canvassers tend to talk their book, not least as by definition they are highly motivated themselves. But FWIW in deep blue Waverley (Surrey, current Labour councillor count zero) SW Labour members seem more motivated than long-standing members can recall since 1997 - more candidates, more canvassing, more leaflets, and IMO a chance of winning a couple of seats. Most of this comes from the energy of a few people infecting others, and I think more than we'd like to admit depends on that. But the Labour vote feels pretty solid here (such as it is!) - posters going up, offers of help, etc.

    I get the impression that the LibDems are doing well too - meeting more people than usual who say "I'm definitely voting LibDem". Tory voters seem to vary between the routinely we-do-our-duty committed and the seriously demoralised: I'm not encountering much Conservative enthusiasm, though the core remains politely resolute. As previously reported, almost nobody wants to talk about local issues even when prompted - it's all Brexit.

    Waverley is an example of what I commented on upthread.

    The Conservatives have fielded a full slate of 57 candidates, the Lib Dems have fielded 27, Labour 19. 2 Conservatives have been returned unopposed.

    This is a council the Lib Dems controlled at various points between 1991 and 2007.
    In fact, Labour fielded four more candidates in 2015.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 9,952
    Roger said:

    Scott_P said:
    What an embarrassment that letter is. Cliché piled upon cliché, worn-out slogan substituting for actual thought.
    A pretty ignorant letter. He starts by saying 'I'm writing in a personal capacity'. As far as I'm aware he has no other capacity in which to write unless it's speaking on behalf of village idiots.
    Deputy Chair, ERG, no?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 30,526
    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    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.
    Mays deal is operable though.

    I guess one way of a second referendum being fair is to have three options, Mays Deal, Remain, or more negotiations, and if Remain fails to get a majority, the other two have to thrash it out in parliament.
    You think it's operable, I think it is operable. Parliament does not.

    See the snag?
    That’s why they shouldn’t have been asked! There was no point having a referendum if MPs had the option of ignoring the result
    Ain't the way a parliamentary democracy usually works, and if you want it to work that way, it's a good idea to have two choices that are readily understood and equally operable.

    The referendum looks more and more like a fraud.
    No the opposition don’t usually get a vote on our foreign trade deals
    Yes they do.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,722

    Most canvassers tend to talk their book, not least as by definition they are highly motivated themselves. But FWIW in deep blue Waverley (Surrey, current Labour councillor count zero) SW Labour members seem more motivated than long-standing members can recall since 1997 - more candidates, more canvassing, more leaflets, and IMO a chance of winning a couple of seats. Most of this comes from the energy of a few people infecting others, and I think more than we'd like to admit depends on that. But the Labour vote feels pretty solid here (such as it is!) - posters going up, offers of help, etc.

    I get the impression that the LibDems are doing well too - meeting more people than usual who say "I'm definitely voting LibDem". Tory voters seem to vary between the routinely we-do-our-duty committed and the seriously demoralised: I'm not encountering much Conservative enthusiasm, though the core remains politely resolute. As previously reported, almost nobody wants to talk about local issues even when prompted - it's all Brexit.

    SW Labour - Socialist Worker Labour?

    Is that on the ballot paper? :)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 38,793

    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    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.
    Mays deal is operable though.

    I guess one way of a second referendum being fair is to have three options, Mays Deal, Remain, or more negotiations, and if Remain fails to get a majority, the other two have to thrash it out in parliament.
    You think it's operable, I think it is operable. Parliament does not.

    See the snag?
    That’s why they shouldn’t have been asked! There was no point having a referendum if MPs had the option of ignoring the result
    Ain't the way a parliamentary democracy usually works, and if you want it to work that way, it's a good idea to have two choices that are readily understood and equally operable.

    The referendum looks more and more like a fraud.
    No the opposition don’t usually get a vote on our foreign trade deals
    Yes they do.
    Do they normally veto them, or actually try to guide the negotiations?
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,123

    On topic: I can only speak for my own area but what we (Lib Dems) are finding is that our vote is pretty solid and motivated. Our canvassers are finding that everyone they speak to who voted for us last time, in our top target ward here (Labour held with us 2nd last time), will be voting for us again this time.

    By last time do you mean last time these seats were contested ie. in May 2015?
    The LDs would have to be attrocious not to hold on to those voters, which was your equivalent to the Tories in GE 1997.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 7,308
    Maybe he should put whether he's for or against too ;-)
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 28,070
    Roger said:

    Scott_P said:
    What an embarrassment that letter is. Cliché piled upon cliché, worn-out slogan substituting for actual thought.
    A pretty ignorant letter. He starts by saying 'I'm writing in a personal capacity'. As far as I'm aware he has no other capacity in which to write unless it's speaking on behalf of village idiots.
    He speaks on behalf of village idiots everywhere.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 31,443

    Roger said:

    Scott_P said:
    What an embarrassment that letter is. Cliché piled upon cliché, worn-out slogan substituting for actual thought.
    A pretty ignorant letter. He starts by saying 'I'm writing in a personal capacity'. As far as I'm aware he has no other capacity in which to write unless it's speaking on behalf of village idiots.
    Deputy Chair, ERG, no?
    Are the ERG even a thing?
  • DayTripperDayTripper Posts: 35
    edited April 8
    ...by which standard, 6 million signing a petition to revoke is equally a howl of rage. A much bigger one.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,677

    Charles said:

    FPT @JosiasJessop

    I think we are going to differ on the referendum

    In my view there was a simple question on the ballot: leave or remain.

    That is the question that was asked and answered

    Of course different people had different visions for the future and voters chose how to case their votes based on their own motivations

    The only hard fact that we have is that the voters instructed the government to arrange for the U.K. to leave. The precise details and timing are a political choice for them to make and reap the rewards / pay the price

    It was a simple question on this topic, but it was backed up with a heck of a lot of other ancillary information. For instance, in that question, 'remain' meant on the terms of Cameron's deal. Because Cameron and his team had done the work to define what it meant.

    There was no such ancillary information on what leave meant, just a whole load of wish-lists from various people, several large items of which were incompatible and inconsistent.

    Which is why we're in this mess.
    The electorate gave no instruction on “How” - zip, nada, nothing.

    Lots of people got up on their hind legs and presented a vision for the future. Some attractive, some less so.

    But all the electorate opined on was “What”.

    It’s up to the executive to determine “How”

    If you look at the major strategic problems of recent years - Syria or Brexit for example - they are down to Parliament intervening where they are not competent to act and ballsing it up.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 7,395
    But who is going to count them? They won't, presumably, subdivide spoiled ballots into those saying brexit and those not.
  • isamisam Posts: 27,685
    edited April 8
    viewcode said:

    Can I respectfully point out that an extension to June 30th is insane, as it would require elections for MEPs in May that can never take their seats (the first sitting is in July!). What the heck is the election campaign going to look like?

    A massive Brexit Ding Dong!
  • _Anazina__Anazina_ Posts: 1,810
    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Tory Remainers and Labour Remainers having a discussion between themselves to work out how they can sabotage Brexit...
    The only people who have sabotaged Brexit are the quarterwits from the ERG and their twerpish associates who thrice had the opportunity to vote for the Brexit deal and thrice declined to do so. There is not a great deal Remainers can do if Leavers keep voting down their own policy.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 38,793
    _Anazina_ said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Tory Remainers and Labour Remainers having a discussion between themselves to work out how they can sabotage Brexit...
    The only people who have sabotaged Brexit are the quarterwits from the ERG and their twerpish associates who thrice had the opportunity to vote for the Brexit deal and thrice declined to do so. There is not a great deal Remainers can do if Leavers keep voting down their own policy.
    I forget the numbers, would it have passed on the third attempt had they all voted for it?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,992
    Mr. CD13, to be fair, whenever I've had dealings with bookies they've almost always been reasonable. The one exception was when I had a bet voided, which won, when Hamilton started from the pit lane, a fact known at the time of the bet, and the exact opposite of which (Hamilton losing, which I'd backed on the exchange) was counted as a loss.

    One was not amused. But in a decade of betting that's the only example I'd raise of a bookie being unreasonable.

    Speaking of reason, we shall see if my cunning plan to use logic and facts prevails in my current correspondence.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,677

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    FPT @JosiasJessop

    I think we are going to differ on the referendum

    In my view there was a simple question on the ballot: leave or remain.

    That is the question that was asked and answered

    Of course different people had different visions for the future and voters chose how to case their votes based on their own motivations

    The only hard fact that we have is that the voters instructed the government to arrange for the U.K. to leave. The precise details and timing are a political choice for them to make and reap the rewards / pay the price

    And the government has arranged for the UK to Leave. Unfortunately the people's representatives, elected more recently than the referendum, do not support the government's proposals. Worse than that, the lack of support includes many Leave MPs.

    The only answer is to ask the people to tell parliament to implement May's Deal... or to not implement it, as the people wish.
    Agreed.

    I’m not a fan of deal / no deal as a referendum because it’s the result of obstruction by politicians but if it has to be that way then so be it
    You know that's not the choice that will be offered don't you? :wink:
    Sure

    Q. Are you f*****g idiots or not?

    A. Didn’t you f*****g hear us the first time?

    I don’t think that will help anyone
  • isamisam Posts: 27,685

    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    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.
    Mays deal is operable though.

    I guess one way of a second referendum being fair is to have three options, Mays Deal, Remain, or more negotiations, and if Remain fails to get a majority, the other two have to thrash it out in parliament.
    You think it's operable, I think it is operable. Parliament does not.

    See the snag?
    That’s why they shouldn’t have been asked! There was no point having a referendum if MPs had the option of ignoring the result
    Ain't the way a parliamentary democracy usually works, and if you want it to work that way, it's a good idea to have two choices that are readily understood and equally operable.

    The referendum looks more and more like a fraud.
    No the opposition don’t usually get a vote on our foreign trade deals
    Yes they do.
    Fair enough.

    They shouldn’t on this one!
  • _Anazina__Anazina_ Posts: 1,810

    Maybe he should put whether he's for or against too ;-)
    Where do they drag up these plonkers?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 28,070

    Maybe he should put whether he's for or against too ;-)
    Voting for a pro-Brexit party would be a better idea.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 28,070
    RobD said:

    _Anazina_ said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Tory Remainers and Labour Remainers having a discussion between themselves to work out how they can sabotage Brexit...
    The only people who have sabotaged Brexit are the quarterwits from the ERG and their twerpish associates who thrice had the opportunity to vote for the Brexit deal and thrice declined to do so. There is not a great deal Remainers can do if Leavers keep voting down their own policy.
    I forget the numbers, would it have passed on the third attempt had they all voted for it?
    It would have fallen by two, although I expect the government could have got those extra two votes if Conservative hardliners had been ready to support it.
  • felixfelix Posts: 8,995
    RobD said:

    _Anazina_ said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Tory Remainers and Labour Remainers having a discussion between themselves to work out how they can sabotage Brexit...
    The only people who have sabotaged Brexit are the quarterwits from the ERG and their twerpish associates who thrice had the opportunity to vote for the Brexit deal and thrice declined to do so. There is not a great deal Remainers can do if Leavers keep voting down their own policy.
    I forget the numbers, would it have passed on the third attempt had they all voted for it?
    It may well have persuaded a few more Labour MPs to vote for or abstain
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 54,338
    RobD said:

    _Anazina_ said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Tory Remainers and Labour Remainers having a discussion between themselves to work out how they can sabotage Brexit...
    The only people who have sabotaged Brexit are the quarterwits from the ERG and their twerpish associates who thrice had the opportunity to vote for the Brexit deal and thrice declined to do so. There is not a great deal Remainers can do if Leavers keep voting down their own policy.
    I forget the numbers, would it have passed on the third attempt had they all voted for it?
    No.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,677

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    FPT @JosiasJessop

    I think we are going to differ on the referendum

    In my view there was a simple question on the ballot: leave or remain.

    That is the question that was asked and answered

    Of course different people had different visions for the future and voters chose how to case their votes based on their own motivations

    The only hard fact that we have is that the voters instructed the government to arrange for the U.K. to leave. The precise details and timing are a political choice for them to make and reap the rewards / pay the price

    And the government has arranged for the UK to Leave. Unfortunately the people's representatives, elected more recently than the referendum, do not support the government's proposals. Worse than that, the lack of support includes many Leave MPs.

    The only answer is to ask the people to tell parliament to implement May's Deal... or to not implement it, as the people wish.
    Agreed.

    I’m not a fan of deal / no deal as a referendum because it’s the result of obstruction by politicians but if it has to be that way then so be it
    Your current position seems to be that you accept that the last referendum was supported by people whose vision of Brexit will not come to pass but that they are not allowed to change their mind in the light of new information in a new referendum.
    It’s not my “current” position, it’s been my position since a second referendum was mooted.

    Parliament has behaved badly. You should not reward bad behaviour.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 26,253
    edited April 8

    Roger said:

    Scott_P said:
    What an embarrassment that letter is. Cliché piled upon cliché, worn-out slogan substituting for actual thought.
    A pretty ignorant letter. He starts by saying 'I'm writing in a personal capacity'. As far as I'm aware he has no other capacity in which to write unless it's speaking on behalf of village idiots.
    Deputy Chair, ERG, no?
    Are the ERG even a thing?
    As Sky have said just now they had their chance and blew it and TM is in place until December unless the ERG vonc their own government and put Corbyn in no 10

    I hope a long extension is agreed, we take part in the EU elections, and TM opens up the race to succeed her over the next few months.

    The longer the extension I believe it is more likely we remain and the irony would not be lost on many if Boris or some ERG supporter was PM when that happened
  • Harris_TweedHarris_Tweed Posts: 988
    Sean_F said:

    Maybe he should put whether he's for or against too ;-)
    Voting for a pro-Brexit party would be a better idea.
    I saw one reply to his tweet, expressing the hope that the "X" of Brexit landed in the LibDem or similar box :)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 26,640
    brendan16 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's been on the agenda since 1968 and before. Another reason why we should be aiming to shaft Dublin left right and centre over their approach to Brexit.
    Dublin has the EU behind them. The days of us being able to shaft them will be over if we leave.
    Indeed. One of the many ironies of Brexit is that it has enabled Ireland, which has been bullied and generally pushed around by the British for centuries, to gain the upper hand with the support of the EU.
    Ireland hasn't been pushed around by the UK for sometime - as its been a semi automomous province of the ECB since 2008. It has the highest debt per capita of any eurozone member following the bank bailouts in 2010 - future generations may well pay a heavy price for their efforts to save the Euro.

    As long as course as it is able to offer low corporation tax rates to keep the US multinationals there it can easily service the debt. But that of course may not continue for ever.


    Really?

    Would you like some facts with that:

    https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/government-debt-to-gdp
This discussion has been closed.