Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ruth Davidson’s hard won Scots Tory gains at GE2017 look set t

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited August 6 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ruth Davidson’s hard won Scots Tory gains at GE2017 look set to evaporate at an early general election

One thing that is looking increasingly likely at the next election is that a lot more seats are going to change hands than usual. BJohnson’s party will be looking to make gains in Leave areas to offset likely losses to the resurgent LDs and in Scotland the SNP.

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 34,681
    First! Like the SNP in Scotland, sadly....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 59,526
    edited August 6
    The Ashcroft poll gives a 6.5% swing from the Tories to the SNP since 2011 and a 5.5% swing from Labour to the SNP but a 5.5% swing from the SNP to the LDs. On that basis the Tories would lose 10 Scottish seats and hold 3, Labour would lose 6 seats and hold 1 but the LDs would gain 1 seat from the SNP, Fife North East
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 59,526
    The poll also suggests that at Westminster the LDs are now the main Unionist challengers to the SNP, even while at Holyrood the main Unionist challengers to the SNP remain Ruth Davidson's Tories.

    That was reinforced by the Ashcroft poll showing Jo Swinson more popular than both Boris and Corbyn with Scottish voters but Ruth Davidson even more popular than Swinson with Scots
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 59,526
    HYUFD said:

    The Ashcroft poll gives a 6.5% swing from the Tories to the SNP since 2011 and a 5.5% swing from Labour to the SNP but a 5.5% swing from the SNP to the LDs. On that basis the Tories would lose 10 Scottish seats and hold 3, Labour would lose 6 seats and hold 1 but the LDs would gain 1 seat from the SNP, Fife North East

    Actually a 6.5% swing from SNP to the LDs apologies but still only 1 LD gain from the SNP
  • eekeek Posts: 4,803
    It's a shame that we don't have a percentage for the Tories in a coalition / deal with Brexit.

    It would be great to know what impact that has on voting intent as I suspect it's different (and worse) to the values there.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 34,681
    The strongly pro-Remain LDs and Scottish Greens come out of this particularly well

    But not as well as the strongly pro-Remain SNP - so that leaves the Lib Dems potentially fishing in the Remain-Unionist corner of the pool - not the most extensive of expanses of water and one where Con have nearly half the voters. How is a strong Pro-Remain message going to get them?

    Unfortunately Lord Ashcroft does not give us a breakdown of LibDem 2017 voters (another rather small pool), but what we can see among the three traditional parties is what proportion of their 2017 vote they are hanging on to:

    Con: 71
    Lab: 56
    SNP: 88

    Green voters are coming from Labour (30) and SNP (34), Lib Dems spread pretty evenly (Con 26, Lab 32, SNP 20) while the Brexit Party are overwhelmingly Tory (Con 35, Lab 12, SNP 8).

    So that suggests that while the SNP clearly remain head & shoulders above the rest, there is a degree of stickiness to the SCon vote, and leakage has gone to the Brexit party, which as we have seen in other polling may have peaked.

    Looking at Remain/Leave voters - mean certainty to vote is:

    Con: 14 / 46
    Lab: 27 / 15
    SNP: 54 / 28
    LibD: 34 / 16
    BXT: 4 / 39
    Grn: 33 / 13

    A majority of Remain voters support the SNP, while SCon clearly leads among Leave voters

    So the LibDems are up against the Greens and SNP for the Remain vote (well behind the SNP, parity with the Greens) and Scon is up against the Brexit Party, which they lead, for the Leave Vote. I know who I'd rather be up against.

    And finally, while the traditional parties are pretty broad churches by social grade, the LibDems skew upscale and the Greens skew heavily upscale, while the Brexit party skews downscale.

    Con: 25 / 23
    Lab: 25 / 22
    SNP: 45 / 44
    LibD: 34 / 21
    BXT: 13 / 18
    Grn: 33 / 13


  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 59,526
    edited August 6
    eek said:

    It's a shame that we don't have a percentage for the Tories in a coalition / deal with Brexit.

    It would be great to know what impact that has on voting intent as I suspect it's different (and worse) to the values there.

    Scottish Tories plus Scottish Brexit Party equals 40% to 45% for the SNP.

    In the unlikely event every Brexit Party voter voted Tory there would actually be a 1.5% swing from the SNP to the Tories, the Tories would hold all their Scottish seats and gain 5 Scottish seats from the SNP
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,006
    HYUFD said:

    The Ashcroft poll gives a 6.5% swing from the Tories to the SNP since 2011 and a 5.5% swing from Labour to the SNP but a 5.5% swing from the SNP to the LDs. On that basis the Tories would lose 10 Scottish seats and hold 3, Labour would lose 6 seats and hold 1 but the LDs would gain 1 seat from the SNP, Fife North East

    Why do you make the comparison with 2011? Presumably it makes it look better for the Tories, but it does rather lose its point.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 34,681
    edited August 6
    Also interesting comparing the rating of the 'National' Leader vs the 'Local' one:

    "Positive Mean"
    Johnson / Davidson: 24 / 36
    Corbyn / Leonard: 22 / 22
    Swinson / Rennie: 31 / 22

    Labour's leaders are equally useless rated, while Ruth has a 'home team' advantage, not enjoyed by her Lib Dem counterpart.

    For comparison:
    Sturgeon: 45
    Farage: 18

    Farage's bottom of the table rating again raises questions over the robustness of the BXP vote.
  • eekeek Posts: 4,803
    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    It's a shame that we don't have a percentage for the Tories in a coalition / deal with Brexit.

    It would be great to know what impact that has on voting intent as I suspect it's different (and worse) to the values there.

    Scottish Tories plus Scottish Brexit Party equals 40% to 45% for the SNP.

    In the unlikely event every Brexit Party voter voted Tory there would actually be a 1.5% swing from the SNP to the Tories, the Tories would hold all their Scottish seats and gain 5 Scottish seats from the SNP
    Which shows you don’t understand the basis of the poll. It is not % of vote, it’s willingness that people will vote for that party.

    And I suspect a lot of that Brexit vote would never vote Tory and a bit of that Tory vote won’t vote for a Tory party with a formal relationship to Farage
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 15,586
    edited August 6
    Three thoughts this morning:
    1. Mr Palmer's thought-provoking piece earlier today deserves more consideration. Assuming that we do Leave without a Deal on 31st Oct and reasonably shortly afterwards Johnson manages to finagle an election, what will the various parties manifestoes look like?
    2. The nearer we come to an election the more the Brexit Party's manifesto will be looked at, and, I suggest the likelier many of those who say "Voting Brexit, we gotter come out' are going have doubts about what else may happen with a significant number of Brexit MP's. UKIP MEP's behaviour doesn't give cause for much confidence.
    3. England need to have a careful think about how they approach Test cricket, in the long as well as the short term.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 6,757
    Its only a poll.. what will happen may be very different.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,572
    Good morning, everyone.

    We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?

    Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 716
    "The strongly pro-Remain LDs and Scottish Greens come out of this particularly well suggesting a basis for deal between the two in key seats."

    Any sort of talk of "Remain alliance" type deals and pacts is going to fall apart when it gets to Scotland.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 15,586

    Good morning, everyone.

    We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?

    Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.

    I thought it was our PM who didn't want to negotiate.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 7,726
    I think these results are misleading. The Scottish Greens are a popular second choice among SNP voters because they are also pro-independence. This means they score well in this question, but it won't win them any votes in FPTP.

    Similarly,.the relatively poor score for the Tories reflects to an extent how negatively non-Tories view them. This might mean they win fewer tactical pro-Union votes, but it means you would expect them to score lower in a question like this rather than standard voting intention. And how much difference does it make that people who won't vote Tory *really* won't vote Tory? Tactical voting is not so important when the SNP are so dominant.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,388
    Re last thread - I haven’t read the Times story because I don’t subscribe

    But the Queen doesn’t have to take the advice of the PM on who his successor is. She makes her own judgement (based on her staff’s discussions with various senior people

    If it was clear that someone else had the confidence of the House they would be appointed regardless of what Boris did or didn’t do
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,861
    Quite easy for the Brexit Party to make a unilateral decision (ie no formal deal with Boris) not to put up candidates in Scotland.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,388

    Also interesting comparing the rating of the 'National' Leader vs the 'Local' one:

    "Positive Mean"
    Johnson / Davidson: 24 / 36
    Corbyn / Leonard: 22 / 22
    Swinson / Rennie: 31 / 22

    Labour's leaders are equally useless rated, while Ruth has a 'home team' advantage, not enjoyed by her Lib Dem counterpart.

    For comparison:
    Sturgeon: 45
    Farage: 18

    Farage's bottom of the table rating again raises questions over the robustness of the BXP vote.

    Unless the Farage rating is among BXP voters surely all it means is that he is a marmite politician with a low ceiling? I don’t think you can question robustness based on that datapoint?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,388

    Good morning, everyone.

    We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?

    Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.

    It slightly amuses that there are people who are criticising Boris for “refusing to negotiate without preconditions” and, at the same time, are applauding the EU for “sticking to their guns” on the backstop
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 29,960
    Charles said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?

    Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.

    It slightly amuses that there are people who are criticising Boris for “refusing to negotiate without preconditions” and, at the same time, are applauding the EU for “sticking to their guns” on the backstop
    The difference is that it’s not the EU that wants to change the deal.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,536

    Quite easy for the Brexit Party to make a unilateral decision (ie no formal deal with Boris) not to put up candidates in Scotland.

    Why would they do that, give the views of many of the Scot Tory MPs?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,388
    edited August 6

    Charles said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?

    Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.

    It slightly amuses that there are people who are criticising Boris for “refusing to negotiate without preconditions” and, at the same time, are applauding the EU for “sticking to their guns” on the backstop
    The difference is that it’s not the EU that wants to change the deal.
    There isn’t a deal. There’s a proposal from the EU that has been rejected by Parliament
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,572
    King Cole, Johnson wants a better deal. Just for it to appear magically.

    In the same way he wants no backstop but doesn't even have a proposal for an alternative. I'm not a fan of the backstop but having no preferred option is just daft.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 1,816
    FPT, @NickPalmer asked:

    “But what of the LibDems? The logic of “Bollocks to Brexit” suggests that they should stand on a platform of rejoining. But even among hardened Remainers (like me), the prospect of starting the negotiations all over again looks wearying, with no real prospect that the EU will entertain a fresh application for a moment – after the experience of the last 3 years, they would be mad to do so. So would the Lib Dem policy, too, be “make the best of it”?”

    Isn’t the answer blisteringly obvious? EFTA as a first step to eventually rejoining the EU.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,536
    Charles said:

    Re last thread - I haven’t read the Times story because I don’t subscribe

    But the Queen doesn’t have to take the advice of the PM on who his successor is. She makes her own judgement (based on her staff’s discussions with various senior people

    If it was clear that someone else had the confidence of the House they would be appointed regardless of what Boris did or didn’t do

    Sumption on R4 saying HMQ does have to take the government’s advice. He says the only ways out are to somehow pass legislation or agree a replacement government during the 14 days.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 11,636
    Charles said:


    There isn’t a deal. There’s a proposal from the EU that has been rejected by Parliament

    I vaguely recall the British government was also involved in this
  • eekeek Posts: 4,803
    Charles said:

    Re last thread - I haven’t read the Times story because I don’t subscribe

    But the Queen doesn’t have to take the advice of the PM on who his successor is. She makes her own judgement (based on her staff’s discussions with various senior people

    If it was clear that someone else had the confidence of the House they would be appointed regardless of what Boris did or didn’t do

    It reads as a rehash of yesterday's Telegraph story (Boris is going to call an election) with added someone doesn't understand the other half of the FTPA either..

    By the sounds of it Boris and co will be barricading themselves in Downing Street when things stop playing how they hoped.

    Why they expect those tactics to go down well I really don't understand.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,536
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?

    Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.

    It slightly amuses that there are people who are criticising Boris for “refusing to negotiate without preconditions” and, at the same time, are applauding the EU for “sticking to their guns” on the backstop
    The difference is that it’s not the EU that wants to change the deal.
    There isn’t a deal. There’s a proposal from the EU that has been rejected by Parliament
    Technically it is a deal between the negotiators that wasn’t ratified by one side’s legislature.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 34,681
    Charles said:

    Also interesting comparing the rating of the 'National' Leader vs the 'Local' one:

    "Positive Mean"
    Johnson / Davidson: 24 / 36
    Corbyn / Leonard: 22 / 22
    Swinson / Rennie: 31 / 22

    Labour's leaders are equally useless rated, while Ruth has a 'home team' advantage, not enjoyed by her Lib Dem counterpart.

    For comparison:
    Sturgeon: 45
    Farage: 18

    Farage's bottom of the table rating again raises questions over the robustness of the BXP vote.

    Unless the Farage rating is among BXP voters surely all it means is that he is a marmite politician with a low ceiling?
    There is no breakout for BXP voters. Among all voters Farage enjoys a very low ceiling (along with Boris and Corbyn).

    Taking the Median positive rating:

    Sturgeon: 50
    Johnson: 3
    Swinson: 25
    Corbyn: 9
    Farage: 2
    Davidson: 26
    Leonard: 10
    Rennie: 25
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,388
    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Re last thread - I haven’t read the Times story because I don’t subscribe

    But the Queen doesn’t have to take the advice of the PM on who his successor is. She makes her own judgement (based on her staff’s discussions with various senior people

    If it was clear that someone else had the confidence of the House they would be appointed regardless of what Boris did or didn’t do

    Sumption on R4 saying HMQ does have to take the government’s advice. He says the only ways out are to somehow pass legislation or agree a replacement government during the 14 days.
    I’m happy to defer to Sumption’s expertise

    But effectively we are saying the same thing - the Queen won’t chose just anyone. But if someone has the majority support of the Commons it doesn’t matter what Boris does.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,388
    edited August 6

    Charles said:


    There isn’t a deal. There’s a proposal from the EU that has been rejected by Parliament

    I vaguely recall the British government was also involved in this
    The former government.

    The point is people saying “this is the deal that was agreed” are missing the point: it WASN’T agreed. It was recommended and rejected.

    Boris has said the backstop is unacceptable. The EU says it is essential. If neither of them move then there is no deal to be done. So what’s the point of spending time negotiating unless you can resolve this central point?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,536
    eek said:

    Charles said:

    Re last thread - I haven’t read the Times story because I don’t subscribe

    But the Queen doesn’t have to take the advice of the PM on who his successor is. She makes her own judgement (based on her staff’s discussions with various senior people

    If it was clear that someone else had the confidence of the House they would be appointed regardless of what Boris did or didn’t do

    It reads as a rehash of yesterday's Telegraph story (Boris is going to call an election) with added someone doesn't understand the other half of the FTPA either..

    By the sounds of it Boris and co will be barricading themselves in Downing Street when things stop playing how they hoped.

    Why they expect those tactics to go down well I really don't understand.

    That latter is the key point. Everyone is looking at the legal procedure as to what they can and cannot do, rather than thinking about how all this would play out in what is likely to be a run-up to a GE. This is surely why Cummings is involved, and the manoeuvring now is to try and preshape the narrative.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 11,636
    IanB2 said:

    Technically it is a deal between the negotiators that wasn’t ratified by one side’s legislature.

    Yup. Or the other side's legislature for that matter.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 14,818
    IanB2 said:

    eek said:

    Charles said:

    Re last thread - I haven’t read the Times story because I don’t subscribe

    But the Queen doesn’t have to take the advice of the PM on who his successor is. She makes her own judgement (based on her staff’s discussions with various senior people

    If it was clear that someone else had the confidence of the House they would be appointed regardless of what Boris did or didn’t do

    It reads as a rehash of yesterday's Telegraph story (Boris is going to call an election) with added someone doesn't understand the other half of the FTPA either..

    By the sounds of it Boris and co will be barricading themselves in Downing Street when things stop playing how they hoped.

    Why they expect those tactics to go down well I really don't understand.

    That latter is the key point. Everyone is looking at the legal procedure as to what they can and cannot do, rather than thinking about how all this would play out in what is likely to be a run-up to a GE. This is surely why Cummings is involved, and the manoeuvring now is to try and preshape the narrative.
    The narrative they appear to be creating is of a government that refuses to come up with any alternative and that thinks it has a right to do whatever it wants regardless of anyone else's wishes.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 1,989
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?

    Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.

    It slightly amuses that there are people who are criticising Boris for “refusing to negotiate without preconditions” and, at the same time, are applauding the EU for “sticking to their guns” on the backstop
    The difference is that it’s not the EU that wants to change the deal.
    There isn’t a deal. There’s a proposal from the EU that has been rejected by Parliament
    That’s how many leavers want to have it projected as an EU deal whereas it was a deal negotiated by two parties in good faith which was then rejected by the HOC. It may also have been rejected by the EP but we'll never know but in no way was it an EU only proposal
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 29,960
    Charles said:


    The point is people saying “this is the deal that was agreed” are missing the point: it WASN’T agreed. It was recommended and rejected.

    So the government is not the the principal. The principal also cannot be parliament because parliament delegated the decision on EU membership to the people. Therefore only the people can accept or reject the deal in a referendum.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 13,630
    edited August 6
    IanB2 said:

    eek said:

    Charles said:

    Re last thread - I haven’t read the Times story because I don’t subscribe

    But the Queen doesn’t have to take the advice of the PM on who his successor is. She makes her own judgement (based on her staff’s discussions with various senior people

    If it was clear that someone else had the confidence of the House they would be appointed regardless of what Boris did or didn’t do

    It reads as a rehash of yesterday's Telegraph story (Boris is going to call an election) with added someone doesn't understand the other half of the FTPA either..

    By the sounds of it Boris and co will be barricading themselves in Downing Street when things stop playing how they hoped.

    Why they expect those tactics to go down well I really don't understand.

    That latter is the key point. Everyone is looking at the legal procedure as to what they can and cannot do, rather than thinking about how all this would play out in what is likely to be a run-up to a GE. This is surely why Cummings is involved, and the manoeuvring now is to try and preshape the narrative.
    That has been clear for some time. And of course in the slightly unlikely event of Parliament backing a new PM, and either extending or revoking, the Tories are not in the worst position to campaign in the subsequent election.
    And possibly a far better one than trying to fight an election in the middle of a No Deal Brexit - though naturally in that circumstance they would attempt to blame those who VONC’d them.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 13,630
    edited August 6

    Charles said:


    The point is people saying “this is the deal that was agreed” are missing the point: it WASN’T agreed. It was recommended and rejected.

    So the government is not the the principal. The principal also cannot be parliament because parliament delegated the decision on EU membership to the people. Therefore only the people can accept or reject the deal in a referendum.
    Of course it is. Parliament is there to ratify any deal (which it failed to do).
    The were no delegation of any decision over the means of leaving to ‘the people’. As you well know, the referendum vote was legally speaking an advisory one; absent the vote in parliament to invoke A50, we would not be leaving.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,388
    nichomar said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?

    Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.

    It slightly amuses that there are people who are criticising Boris for “refusing to negotiate without preconditions” and, at the same time, are applauding the EU for “sticking to their guns” on the backstop
    The difference is that it’s not the EU that wants to change the deal.
    There isn’t a deal. There’s a proposal from the EU that has been rejected by Parliament
    That’s how many leavers want to have it projected as an EU deal whereas it was a deal negotiated by two parties in good faith which was then rejected by the HOC. It may also have been rejected by the EP but we'll never know but in no way was it an EU only proposal
    At the time yes.

    But the current U.K. government isn’t recommending it. Therefore it becomes a proposal from the EU.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 1,262
    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?

    Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.

    It slightly amuses that there are people who are criticising Boris for “refusing to negotiate without preconditions” and, at the same time, are applauding the EU for “sticking to their guns” on the backstop
    The difference is that it’s not the EU that wants to change the deal.
    There isn’t a deal. There’s a proposal from the EU that has been rejected by Parliament
    Technically it is a deal between the negotiators that wasn’t ratified by one side’s legislature.
    And ratification hasn't been attempted in the other legislature.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,536
    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    There isn’t a deal. There’s a proposal from the EU that has been rejected by Parliament

    I vaguely recall the British government was also involved in this
    The former government.

    The point is people saying “this is the deal that was agreed” are missing the point: it WASN’T agreed. It was recommended and rejected.

    Boris has said the backstop is unacceptable. The EU says it is essential. If neither of them move then there is no deal to be done. So what’s the point of spending time negotiating unless you can resolve this central point?
    Nevertheless it is equally wrong to imply that it has no status.

    This is a position we found ourselves in many times during my career in industrial relations. After months of negotiation, a negotiated agreement is rejected by the union’s committee.

    Whilst it is clearly not reasonable to expect the union to accept an agreement its committee has rejected, it is equally not reasonable to discard a document that management has spent months working up in good faith with the union’s representatives, which already includes considered concessions by both parties.

    The situation is usually resolved by making some further relatively small changes to the document and putting it to the committee again. At this point the union negotiatiors are expected to spend some of their political capital getting the thing delivered.

    If this doesn’t work there is a crisis (one such led to Alan Johnson entering politics, but that’s another story) and loss of trust between the parties, which is hard to rebuild. Hence in sensible negotiations both sides try to avoid getting into such situations.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,388

    Charles said:


    The point is people saying “this is the deal that was agreed” are missing the point: it WASN’T agreed. It was recommended and rejected.

    So the government is not the the principal. The principal also cannot be parliament because parliament delegated the decision on EU membership to the people. Therefore only the people can accept or reject the deal in a referendum.
    The government is the principal for negotiation purposes, but it’s decisions are subject to ratification by Parliament

    Parliament delegated the question on membership. The voters gave their answer and left it up to the executive to sort out the details.

    The issue is actually parliament trying to grab power that doesn’t rightfully belong to it and interfere in the executive doing its job.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 13,630
    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    eek said:

    Charles said:

    Re last thread - I haven’t read the Times story because I don’t subscribe

    But the Queen doesn’t have to take the advice of the PM on who his successor is. She makes her own judgement (based on her staff’s discussions with various senior people

    If it was clear that someone else had the confidence of the House they would be appointed regardless of what Boris did or didn’t do

    It reads as a rehash of yesterday's Telegraph story (Boris is going to call an election) with added someone doesn't understand the other half of the FTPA either..

    By the sounds of it Boris and co will be barricading themselves in Downing Street when things stop playing how they hoped.

    Why they expect those tactics to go down well I really don't understand.

    That latter is the key point. Everyone is looking at the legal procedure as to what they can and cannot do, rather than thinking about how all this would play out in what is likely to be a run-up to a GE. This is surely why Cummings is involved, and the manoeuvring now is to try and preshape the narrative.
    The narrative they appear to be creating is of a government that refuses to come up with any alternative and that thinks it has a right to do whatever it wants regardless of anyone else's wishes.
    But rather like Trump’s racist rabble rousing in the US, it is blatant to those who recognise it, and invisible to those who back him.The narrative is an atavistic, not a logical one.
    And he is hoping win a significant plurality of the vote in an English electorate divided among three, perhaps four parties
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 12,816
    Charles said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?

    Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.

    It slightly amuses that there are people who are criticising Boris for “refusing to negotiate without preconditions” and, at the same time, are applauding the EU for “sticking to their guns” on the backstop
    Put more neutrally, there is simply not a basis for negotiation. The EU says the WA in general and the backstop in particular cannot be reopened, though they'll talk about other things. Johnson says the WA in general and the backstop in particular are unacceptable, though he'll talk about other things. There's no point in blaming anyone for not negotiating - it would be a total waste of time. With those starting points, they'd be just as profitably engaged drinking lager and watching Love Island.

    The position will potentially be different if we acquire a PM with different red lines. But as things stand, No Deal is obviously the outcome.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 13,630
    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    The point is people saying “this is the deal that was agreed” are missing the point: it WASN’T agreed. It was recommended and rejected.

    So the government is not the the principal. The principal also cannot be parliament because parliament delegated the decision on EU membership to the people. Therefore only the people can accept or reject the deal in a referendum.
    The government is the principal for negotiation purposes, but it’s decisions are subject to ratification by Parliament

    Parliament delegated the question on membership. The voters gave their answer and left it up to the executive to sort out the details.

    The issue is actually parliament trying to grab power that doesn’t rightfully belong to it and interfere in the executive doing its job.
    No, it’s really not. The government does not command a majority in Parliament for its policy, and Parliament has given itself the means to test that before the end of October.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 29,960
    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:


    The point is people saying “this is the deal that was agreed” are missing the point: it WASN’T agreed. It was recommended and rejected.

    So the government is not the the principal. The principal also cannot be parliament because parliament delegated the decision on EU membership to the people. Therefore only the people can accept or reject the deal in a referendum.
    Of course it is. Parliament is there to ratify any deal (which it failed to do).
    The were no delegation of any decision over the means of leaving to ‘the people’. As you well know, the referendum vote was legally speaking an advisory one; absent the vote in parliament to invoke A50, we would not be leaving.
    I was just trying to show that Charles’ logic leads to a people’s vote.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 12,816

    FPT, @NickPalmer asked:

    “But what of the LibDems? The logic of “Bollocks to Brexit” suggests that they should stand on a platform of rejoining. But even among hardened Remainers (like me), the prospect of starting the negotiations all over again looks wearying, with no real prospect that the EU will entertain a fresh application for a moment – after the experience of the last 3 years, they would be mad to do so. So would the Lib Dem policy, too, be “make the best of it”?”

    Isn’t the answer blisteringly obvious? EFTA as a first step to eventually rejoining the EU.

    Perhaps! But they've not said so. I think they should give it some thought, and they might come to your conclusion.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 13,630

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:


    The point is people saying “this is the deal that was agreed” are missing the point: it WASN’T agreed. It was recommended and rejected.

    So the government is not the the principal. The principal also cannot be parliament because parliament delegated the decision on EU membership to the people. Therefore only the people can accept or reject the deal in a referendum.
    Of course it is. Parliament is there to ratify any deal (which it failed to do).
    The were no delegation of any decision over the means of leaving to ‘the people’. As you well know, the referendum vote was legally speaking an advisory one; absent the vote in parliament to invoke A50, we would not be leaving.
    I was just trying to show that Charles’ logic leads to a people’s vote.
    Fair enough. Charles’s logic is chopped.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,388
    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    There isn’t a deal. There’s a proposal from the EU that has been rejected by Parliament

    I vaguely recall the British government was also involved in this
    The former government.

    The point is people saying “this is the deal that was agreed” are missing the point: it WASN’T agreed. It was recommended and rejected.

    Boris has said the backstop is unacceptable. The EU says it is essential. If neither of them move then there is no deal to be done. So what’s the point of spending time negotiating unless you can resolve this central point?
    Nevertheless it is equally wrong to imply that it has no status.

    This is a position we found ourselves in many times during my career in industrial relations. After months of negotiation, a negotiated agreement is rejected by the union’s committee.

    Whilst it is clearly not reasonable to expect the union to accept an agreement its committee has rejected, it is equally not reasonable to discard a document that management has spent months working up in good faith with the union’s representatives, which already includes considered concessions by both parties.

    The situation is usually resolved by making some further relatively small changes to the document and putting it to the committee again. At this point the union negotiatiors are expected to spend some of their political capital getting the thing delivered.

    If this doesn’t work there is a crisis (one such led to Alan Johnson entering politics, but that’s another story) and loss of trust between the parties, which is hard to rebuild. Hence in sensible negotiations both sides try to avoid getting into such situations.
    I agree with all that

    But if there is no willingness to move on THE issue then there’s no much point in spending time. Maybe if there were other outstanding issues you could get a give and take going and end up with someone willing to compromise, but here there isn’t.

    In your analogy it’s like the union negotiators saying “we like your deal on the whole but the executive rejected it because of point A. Unless you can help us here we can’t get it through”. Management is then responding “this is the deal we negotiated and we are not willing to change it”. That’s going to end up with a strike.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 29,960

    FPT, @NickPalmer asked:

    “But what of the LibDems? The logic of “Bollocks to Brexit” suggests that they should stand on a platform of rejoining. But even among hardened Remainers (like me), the prospect of starting the negotiations all over again looks wearying, with no real prospect that the EU will entertain a fresh application for a moment – after the experience of the last 3 years, they would be mad to do so. So would the Lib Dem policy, too, be “make the best of it”?”

    Isn’t the answer blisteringly obvious? EFTA as a first step to eventually rejoining the EU.

    EFTA/EEA doesn’t solve the Irish border problem. In some ways it actively makes the problem worse because it would preclude a customs union unless the EFTA convention were changed. It’s certainly not a shortcut to anything.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,536

    FPT, @NickPalmer asked:

    “But what of the LibDems? The logic of “Bollocks to Brexit” suggests that they should stand on a platform of rejoining. But even among hardened Remainers (like me), the prospect of starting the negotiations all over again looks wearying, with no real prospect that the EU will entertain a fresh application for a moment – after the experience of the last 3 years, they would be mad to do so. So would the Lib Dem policy, too, be “make the best of it”?”

    Isn’t the answer blisteringly obvious? EFTA as a first step to eventually rejoining the EU.

    Perhaps! But they've not said so. I think they should give it some thought, and they might come to your conclusion.
    In political terms the main thing is to retain their crown as the pro-European party; there is no point in trying to work up a detailed plan in advance of knowing the circumstances and consequences of our departure. “Rejoin when the time is right” should be sufficient.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,388

    Charles said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?

    Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.

    It slightly amuses that there are people who are criticising Boris for “refusing to negotiate without preconditions” and, at the same time, are applauding the EU for “sticking to their guns” on the backstop
    Put more neutrally, there is simply not a basis for negotiation. The EU says the WA in general and the backstop in particular cannot be reopened, though they'll talk about other things. Johnson says the WA in general and the backstop in particular are unacceptable, though he'll talk about other things. There's no point in blaming anyone for not negotiating - it would be a total waste of time. With those starting points, they'd be just as profitably engaged drinking lager and watching Love Island.

    The position will potentially be different if we acquire a PM with different red lines. But as things stand, No Deal is obviously the outcome.
    Agreed! I was just calling out bullshit
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,536

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:


    The point is people saying “this is the deal that was agreed” are missing the point: it WASN’T agreed. It was recommended and rejected.

    So the government is not the the principal. The principal also cannot be parliament because parliament delegated the decision on EU membership to the people. Therefore only the people can accept or reject the deal in a referendum.
    Of course it is. Parliament is there to ratify any deal (which it failed to do).
    The were no delegation of any decision over the means of leaving to ‘the people’. As you well know, the referendum vote was legally speaking an advisory one; absent the vote in parliament to invoke A50, we would not be leaving.
    I was just trying to show that Charles’ logic leads to a people’s vote.

    Just as in my industrial relations scenario any differences amongst the union side were resolved by putting the deal to a ballot of members, with any dissenting reps free to campaign on the no side.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,388
    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    The point is people saying “this is the deal that was agreed” are missing the point: it WASN’T agreed. It was recommended and rejected.

    So the government is not the the principal. The principal also cannot be parliament because parliament delegated the decision on EU membership to the people. Therefore only the people can accept or reject the deal in a referendum.
    The government is the principal for negotiation purposes, but it’s decisions are subject to ratification by Parliament

    Parliament delegated the question on membership. The voters gave their answer and left it up to the executive to sort out the details.

    The issue is actually parliament trying to grab power that doesn’t rightfully belong to it and interfere in the executive doing its job.
    No, it’s really not. The government does not command a majority in Parliament for its policy, and Parliament has given itself the means to test that before the end of October.
    I disagree with parliamentary ratification of treaties
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 11,636
    IanB2 said:


    Whilst it is clearly not reasonable to expect the union to accept an agreement its committee has rejected, it is equally not reasonable to discard a document that management has spent months working up in good faith with the union’s representatives, which already includes considered concessions by both parties.

    The situation is usually resolved by making some further relatively small changes to the document and putting it to the committee again. At this point the union negotiatiors are expected to spend some of their political capital getting the thing delivered.

    The other way it *could* be resolved was that many people on the committee who are currently opposed have said they'd accept the deal if it was approved by a ballot of the whole membership, and if the union negotiators also got behind that then it would pass.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,388

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:


    The point is people saying “this is the deal that was agreed” are missing the point: it WASN’T agreed. It was recommended and rejected.

    So the government is not the the principal. The principal also cannot be parliament because parliament delegated the decision on EU membership to the people. Therefore only the people can accept or reject the deal in a referendum.
    Of course it is. Parliament is there to ratify any deal (which it failed to do).
    The were no delegation of any decision over the means of leaving to ‘the people’. As you well know, the referendum vote was legally speaking an advisory one; absent the vote in parliament to invoke A50, we would not be leaving.
    I was just trying to show that Charles’ logic leads to a people’s vote.
    Shame you failed 😂
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,536
    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    There isn’t a deal. There’s a proposal from the EU that has been rejected by Parliament

    I vaguely recall the British government was also involved in this
    The former government.

    The point is people saying “this is the deal that was agreed” are missing the point: it WASN’T agreed. It was recommended and rejected.

    Boris has said the backstop is unacceptable. The EU says it is essential. If neither of them move then there is no deal to be done. So what’s the point of spending time negotiating unless you can resolve this central point?
    Nevertheless it is equally wrong to imply that it has no status.

    This is a position we found ourselves in many times during my career in industrial relations. After months of negotiation, a negotiated agreement is rejected by the union’s committee.

    Whilst it is clearly not reasonable to expect the union to accept an agreement its committee has rejected, it is equally not reasonable to discard a document that management has spent months working up in good faith with the union’s representatives, which already includes considered concessions by both parties.

    The situation is usually resolved by making some further relatively small changes to the document and putting it to the committee again. At this point the union negotiatiors are expected to spend some of their political capital getting the thing delivered.

    If this doesn’t work there is a crisis (one such led to Alan Johnson entering politics, but that’s another story) and loss of trust between the parties, which is hard to rebuild. Hence in sensible negotiations both sides try to avoid getting into such situations.
    I agree with all that

    But if there is no willingness to move on THE issue then there’s no much point in spending time. Maybe if there were other outstanding issues you could get a give and take going and end up with someone willing to compromise, but here there isn’t.

    In your analogy it’s like the union negotiators saying “we like your deal on the whole but the executive rejected it because of point A. Unless you can help us here we can’t get it through”. Management is then responding “this is the deal we negotiated and we are not willing to change it”. That’s going to end up with a strike.
    Yes, that is how Johnson entered politics. And there was a strike. Six years later essentially the same deal was finally done.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,169
    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    There isn’t a deal. There’s a proposal from the EU that has been rejected by Parliament

    I vaguely recall the British government was also involved in this
    The former government.

    The point is people saying “this is the deal that was agreed” are missing the point: it WASN’T agreed. It was recommended and rejected.

    Boris has said the backstop is unacceptable. The EU says it is essential. If neither of them move then there is no deal to be done. So what’s the point of spending time negotiating unless you can resolve this central point?
    Nevertheless it is equally wrong to imply that it has no status.

    This is a position we found ourselves in many times during my career in industrial relations. After months of negotiation, a negotiated agreement is rejected by the union’s committee.

    Whilst it is clearly not reasonable to expect the union to accept an agreement its committee has rejected, it is equally not reasonable to discard a document that management has spent months working up in good faith with the union’s representatives, which already includes considered concessions by both parties.

    The situation is usually resolved by making some further relatively small changes to the document and putting it to the committee again. At this point the union negotiatiors are expected to spend some of their political capital getting the thing delivered.

    If this doesn’t work there is a crisis (one such led to Alan Johnson entering politics, but that’s another story) and loss of trust between the parties, which is hard to rebuild. Hence in sensible negotiations both sides try to avoid getting into such situations.
    I agree with all that

    But if there is no willingness to move on THE issue then there’s no much point in spending time. Maybe if there were other outstanding issues you could get a give and take going and end up with someone willing to compromise, but here there isn’t.

    In your analogy it’s like the union negotiators saying “we like your deal on the whole but the executive rejected it because of point A. Unless you can help us here we can’t get it through”. Management is then responding “this is the deal we negotiated and we are not willing to change it”. That’s going to end up with a strike.
    Or a ballot of the members to accept the deal, without a union recommendation.

    Perhaps what we need is a "Deal versus no deal" referendum...

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 13,630
    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    The point is people saying “this is the deal that was agreed” are missing the point: it WASN’T agreed. It was recommended and rejected.

    So the government is not the the principal. The principal also cannot be parliament because parliament delegated the decision on EU membership to the people. Therefore only the people can accept or reject the deal in a referendum.
    The government is the principal for negotiation purposes, but it’s decisions are subject to ratification by Parliament

    Parliament delegated the question on membership. The voters gave their answer and left it up to the executive to sort out the details.

    The issue is actually parliament trying to grab power that doesn’t rightfully belong to it and interfere in the executive doing its job.
    No, it’s really not. The government does not command a majority in Parliament for its policy, and Parliament has given itself the means to test that before the end of October.
    I disagree with parliamentary ratification of treaties
    But surely not the sovereignty of Parliament ?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 20,514

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:


    The point is people saying “this is the deal that was agreed” are missing the point: it WASN’T agreed. It was recommended and rejected.

    So the government is not the the principal. The principal also cannot be parliament because parliament delegated the decision on EU membership to the people. Therefore only the people can accept or reject the deal in a referendum.
    Of course it is. Parliament is there to ratify any deal (which it failed to do).
    The were no delegation of any decision over the means of leaving to ‘the people’. As you well know, the referendum vote was legally speaking an advisory one; absent the vote in parliament to invoke A50, we would not be leaving.
    I was just trying to show that Charles’ logic leads to a people’s vote.
    William, I hate to sound like a Brexiteer but if somebody suggested nuking Brussels as a way out of our many difficulties you would still insist that would lead ultimately to a People's Vote, followed by revocation and joining the Euro.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 13,630
    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:


    The point is people saying “this is the deal that was agreed” are missing the point: it WASN’T agreed. It was recommended and rejected.

    So the government is not the the principal. The principal also cannot be parliament because parliament delegated the decision on EU membership to the people. Therefore only the people can accept or reject the deal in a referendum.
    Of course it is. Parliament is there to ratify any deal (which it failed to do).
    The were no delegation of any decision over the means of leaving to ‘the people’. As you well know, the referendum vote was legally speaking an advisory one; absent the vote in parliament to invoke A50, we would not be leaving.
    I was just trying to show that Charles’ logic leads to a people’s vote.
    Shame you failed 😂
    Marking your own homework is... unimpressive.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 13,630
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:


    The point is people saying “this is the deal that was agreed” are missing the point: it WASN’T agreed. It was recommended and rejected.

    So the government is not the the principal. The principal also cannot be parliament because parliament delegated the decision on EU membership to the people. Therefore only the people can accept or reject the deal in a referendum.
    Of course it is. Parliament is there to ratify any deal (which it failed to do).
    The were no delegation of any decision over the means of leaving to ‘the people’. As you well know, the referendum vote was legally speaking an advisory one; absent the vote in parliament to invoke A50, we would not be leaving.
    I was just trying to show that Charles’ logic leads to a people’s vote.
    William, I hate to sound like a Brexiteer but if somebody suggested nuking Brussels as a way out of our many difficulties you would still insist that would lead ultimately to a People's Vote, followed by revocation and joining the Euro.
    ..... eventually.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,388
    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:


    The point is people saying “this is the deal that was agreed” are missing the point: it WASN’T agreed. It was recommended and rejected.

    So the government is not the the principal. The principal also cannot be parliament because parliament delegated the decision on EU membership to the people. Therefore only the people can accept or reject the deal in a referendum.
    Of course it is. Parliament is there to ratify any deal (which it failed to do).
    The were no delegation of any decision over the means of leaving to ‘the people’. As you well know, the referendum vote was legally speaking an advisory one; absent the vote in parliament to invoke A50, we would not be leaving.
    I was just trying to show that Charles’ logic leads to a people’s vote.

    Just as in my industrial relations scenario any differences amongst the union side were resolved by putting the deal to a ballot of members, with any dissenting reps free to campaign on the no side.
    Sure - a choice between deal and no deal

    You wouldn’t go to your members and say “this deal or we go back to the old terms”. It would be “this deal or strike”
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 405

    FPT, @NickPalmer asked:

    “But what of the LibDems? The logic of “Bollocks to Brexit” suggests that they should stand on a platform of rejoining. But even among hardened Remainers (like me), the prospect of starting the negotiations all over again looks wearying, with no real prospect that the EU will entertain a fresh application for a moment – after the experience of the last 3 years, they would be mad to do so. So would the Lib Dem policy, too, be “make the best of it”?”

    Isn’t the answer blisteringly obvious? EFTA as a first step to eventually rejoining the EU.

    EFTA/EEA doesn’t solve the Irish border problem. In some ways it actively makes the problem worse because it would preclude a customs union unless the EFTA convention were changed. It’s certainly not a shortcut to anything.
    I think it is becoming quite clear that Johnson's Brexit will solve the Irish question (and quite possibly the Scottish question) by ending the UK in its current form.

    The very survival of the UK is now dependent on forces beyond the control of the "cast of Fraggle Rock presided over by the Honey Monster" which currently forms the government.

    Well played Tories ! You utterly contemptible ***** !
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 23,325

    "The strongly pro-Remain LDs and Scottish Greens come out of this particularly well suggesting a basis for deal between the two in key seats."

    Any sort of talk of "Remain alliance" type deals and pacts is going to fall apart when it gets to Scotland.

    Yes a seat each
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,536
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:


    The point is people saying “this is the deal that was agreed” are missing the point: it WASN’T agreed. It was recommended and rejected.

    So the government is not the the principal. The principal also cannot be parliament because parliament delegated the decision on EU membership to the people. Therefore only the people can accept or reject the deal in a referendum.
    Of course it is. Parliament is there to ratify any deal (which it failed to do).
    The were no delegation of any decision over the means of leaving to ‘the people’. As you well know, the referendum vote was legally speaking an advisory one; absent the vote in parliament to invoke A50, we would not be leaving.
    I was just trying to show that Charles’ logic leads to a people’s vote.
    William, I hate to sound like a Brexiteer but if somebody suggested nuking Brussels as a way out of our many difficulties you would still insist that would lead ultimately to a People's Vote, followed by revocation and joining the Euro.
    Yes, where is HY this morning?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 24,114
    Off-topic:

    I'm planning a trip to Stonehenge for the little 'un, as it's something he's been fascinated by for a couple of years. It looks as though it's going to be a rather sad experience: apparently you have to book a time slot of half an hour for your tour, which is going to be awkward after a 3+ hour drive from home. Then you can't even get near the stones.

    It all seems rather sad: what should be a rather magical experience for a 5-year old looks as though it's going to be a highly stage-managed, controlled and anaesthetic trip.

    Fortunately, I'm planning to take him to Avebury afterwards to get some real contact with our past. ;)
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 1,262

    Charles said:


    The point is people saying “this is the deal that was agreed” are missing the point: it WASN’T agreed. It was recommended and rejected.

    So the government is not the the principal. The principal also cannot be parliament because parliament delegated the decision on EU membership to the people. Therefore only the people can accept or reject the deal in a referendum.
    But would Parliament/Government implement the result? They didn't the first time.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,169
    Basically virtually every leading politician (on all sides) are caught in positions where they don't want to be if they purport to represent the interests of their electorates (as opposed to themselves).

    The Government don't really want no deal.

    Remainers argue that they refuse to accept that "no deal is better than a bad deal", but refuse to follow the logic of that argument through (given that it seems increasingly unlikely that they can prevent no deal)

    The EU argue against any deal without a backstop and a hard border in Ireland, even though no deal means a hard border in Ireland (don't get me started on the rather absurd position that post Brexit talks, after a no deal exit, must retain the backstop as a precondition, when the whole point of the backstop is to prevent a newly created hard border in the event that a satisfactory trade deal cannot be negotiated).

    About the only people who can look the electorate in the face are those who genuinely desire no deal and are working towards it, or those who voted for the deal but are trying to avert no deal given its rejection.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,536
    Hardly news, but:

    Nicola Sturgeon has said that her conversations with Theresa May during her time as prime minister were “pretty soul destroying”.

    Scotland’s First Minister, speaking at an Edinburgh Fringe Festival event with Iain Dale on Monday, said that Mrs May would always stick to a prepared script and suggested that even light-hearted moments could become awkward.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,572
    Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.

    Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.
  • Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.

    Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.

    Post of the day
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,536

    Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.

    Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.

    No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,324
    We all move in our own bubbles and this distorts our perceptions but my bubble remains focused on the unmitigated disaster that independence would be for Scotland. This is a far, far more important issue for most Scots than Brexit because the consequences would be many times more significant.

    This means that even although a significant part of Ruth's 2017 successful coalition is pretty unhappy with Brexit generally and horrified at Boris's apparent drive to a no deal in particular there is also concern about the current strength of the SNP and the possibility of yet more years of constitutional wrangling north of the border doing yet more damage to our business.

    In the short term that unhappiness may well tempt electors to the Lib Dems, a solidly Unionist party who also oppose Brexit. Come elections in Scotland, however, whether for Holyrood or Westminster and the independence question will once again dominate proceedings to the almost complete exclusion of the secondary Brexit issue. That means where the Lib Dems have good prospects, such as Fife NE and possibly one of the Edinburgh seats, they will get Unionist support but in most of the country those votes will go Tory. I can't see the Lib Dems regaining any of their former strongholds in the borders for example.

    In short Brexit has temporarily weakened Ruth's coalition but those arguing it cannot be put back together again are in my view overstating things. A further complicating factor is the incredible weakness of Scottish Labour which is boosting SNP support with left leaning voters. Lost Labour seats look inevitable at the moment boosting the SNP dominance once again.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,536
    edited August 6
    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:


    The point is people saying “this is the deal that was agreed” are missing the point: it WASN’T agreed. It was recommended and rejected.

    So the government is not the the principal. The principal also cannot be parliament because parliament delegated the decision on EU membership to the people. Therefore only the people can accept or reject the deal in a referendum.
    Of course it is. Parliament is there to ratify any deal (which it failed to do).
    The were no delegation of any decision over the means of leaving to ‘the people’. As you well know, the referendum vote was legally speaking an advisory one; absent the vote in parliament to invoke A50, we would not be leaving.
    I was just trying to show that Charles’ logic leads to a people’s vote.

    Just as in my industrial relations scenario any differences amongst the union side were resolved by putting the deal to a ballot of members, with any dissenting reps free to campaign on the no side.
    Sure - a choice between deal and no deal

    You wouldn’t go to your members and say “this deal or we go back to the old terms”. It would be “this deal or strike”
    Only if management were intending to impose the agreement regardless. Otherwise you do leave the status quo in place.

    Anyhow I have done what I have accused others of and led the Brexit discussion off into some analogy. Best stop.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 20,514
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:


    The point is people saying “this is the deal that was agreed” are missing the point: it WASN’T agreed. It was recommended and rejected.

    So the government is not the the principal. The principal also cannot be parliament because parliament delegated the decision on EU membership to the people. Therefore only the people can accept or reject the deal in a referendum.
    Of course it is. Parliament is there to ratify any deal (which it failed to do).
    The were no delegation of any decision over the means of leaving to ‘the people’. As you well know, the referendum vote was legally speaking an advisory one; absent the vote in parliament to invoke A50, we would not be leaving.
    I was just trying to show that Charles’ logic leads to a people’s vote.
    William, I hate to sound like a Brexiteer but if somebody suggested nuking Brussels as a way out of our many difficulties you would still insist that would lead ultimately to a People's Vote, followed by revocation and joining the Euro.
    Yes, where is HY this morning?
    Perhaps he's still recovering after the comments about Priti Patel 'banging the Israeli big guns' on the previous thread.

    It certainly gave me a mental image of Netanyahu and Patel that I'm sure I didn't need.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 20,514
    IanB2 said:

    Hardly news, but:

    Nicola Sturgeon has said that her conversations with Theresa May during her time as prime minister were “pretty soul destroying”.

    Doubtless Mrs May thought the same thing.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 29,960

    Charles said:


    The point is people saying “this is the deal that was agreed” are missing the point: it WASN’T agreed. It was recommended and rejected.

    So the government is not the the principal. The principal also cannot be parliament because parliament delegated the decision on EU membership to the people. Therefore only the people can accept or reject the deal in a referendum.
    But would Parliament/Government implement the result? They didn't the first time.
    They did. Article 50 was invoked and the legislation to repeal the European Communities Act was passed.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 11,636
    edited August 6
    Good summary of the GoNAfaE issue:
    http://www.democraticaudit.com/2019/08/05/is-it-too-late-to-stop-a-no-deal-brexit/

    Basically matches the pb non-bonkers-person consensus from previous threads but also has lots of extra detail.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 24,114
    IanB2 said:

    Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.

    Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.

    No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
    Indeed. The fact that so many prominent Conservative Brexiteers were against the deal and calling it all sorts of things gave others the opportunities to say that even the government's side didn't agree with it.

    Worse, they have power to the Brexit Party's mantra of betrayal, which would have helped them in the Euros.

    But as always with leavers, we're seeing: "It's all someone else's fault!"
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,388
    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    The point is people saying “this is the deal that was agreed” are missing the point: it WASN’T agreed. It was recommended and rejected.

    So the government is not the the principal. The principal also cannot be parliament because parliament delegated the decision on EU membership to the people. Therefore only the people can accept or reject the deal in a referendum.
    The government is the principal for negotiation purposes, but it’s decisions are subject to ratification by Parliament

    Parliament delegated the question on membership. The voters gave their answer and left it up to the executive to sort out the details.

    The issue is actually parliament trying to grab power that doesn’t rightfully belong to it and interfere in the executive doing its job.
    No, it’s really not. The government does not command a majority in Parliament for its policy, and Parliament has given itself the means to test that before the end of October.
    I disagree with parliamentary ratification of treaties
    But surely not the sovereignty of Parliament ?
    No. But it’s sovereignty of the Crown-in-Parliament which is NOT the same as “what Parliament says goes”

    The Executive and the Legislature have different roles.

    Essentially the voters said “do this”
    The Executive came up with a detailed proposal
    Parliament rejected it and have since offered no alternative

    There are only 3 options

    1. Ratify the WA
    2. Sack the executive and replace them with someone that will revoke or extend
    3. Leave with No Deal

    “Instructing the Executive to do X” isn’t and shouldn’t be a thing. It’s the job of the executive to do what it thinks is right. If parliament disagrees they replace the executive. Every few years the voters get to cast judgement on their representatives’ actions.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 13,630

    Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.

    Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.

    The deal was negotiated on the basis of red lines which were not accepted by either of the opposition parties, and was the logical consequence of (and a pretty good outcome given) those red lines.
    The ERG were, and are, in denial of reality.

    While it’s entirely reasonable to criticise the opposition (and Labour in particular, given their policy convolutions, and nominal support for some sort of undefined Brexit), there was at least a logical basis for their opposition.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 29,960
    Charles said:

    Essentially the voters said “do this”

    “Instructing the Executive to do X” isn’t and shouldn’t be a thing.

    Revocation it is then.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 48,427

    Fortunately, I'm planning to take him to Avebury afterwards to get some real contact with our past. ;)

    That's a proper day out
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,388

    Off-topic:

    I'm planning a trip to Stonehenge for the little 'un, as it's something he's been fascinated by for a couple of years. It looks as though it's going to be a rather sad experience: apparently you have to book a time slot of half an hour for your tour, which is going to be awkward after a 3+ hour drive from home. Then you can't even get near the stones.

    It all seems rather sad: what should be a rather magical experience for a 5-year old looks as though it's going to be a highly stage-managed, controlled and anaesthetic trip.

    Fortunately, I'm planning to take him to Avebury afterwards to get some real contact with our past. ;)

    There are huge queues - you get a better view from the road 😉

    Seriously though I think English Heritage has an option (premium) for an evening visit where you do get to walk among the stones
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743
    IanB2 said:

    Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.

    Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.

    No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
    No it failed because over 400 MPs voted against it. Each of those votes counts equally.
  • IanB2 said:

    Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.

    Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.

    No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
    So 80% of Tory MPs voted for it and 3% of Labour MPs voted for it, yet it failed because the Tories didn't vote for it??
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,572
    Mr. B2, if 400 odd MPs vote against something, singling out 30-50 of them and pretending the other 300-350 don't exist seems an odd way of expressing dismay the vote failed to pass.

    Most MPs are pro-EU. These MPs have voted successively to leave the EU and against the deal. They're now upset that we're on course to leave with no deal.

    The difference between them and the ERG is that the ERG is voting for what it wants and is glad it's getting it. The pro-EU bloc are voting for something they think is terrible and are horrified that their actions have consequences diametrically opposed to their desires.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 24,114
    Scott_P said:

    Fortunately, I'm planning to take him to Avebury afterwards to get some real contact with our past. ;)

    That's a proper day out
    I love Avebury. It's a superb place.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 29,960
    edited August 6

    IanB2 said:

    Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.

    Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.

    No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
    No it failed because over 400 MPs voted against it. Each of those votes counts equally.
    Based on the manifestos, all the Labour MPs had a mandate from the electorate to reject it. None of the Conservative MPs did.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 1,274
    A deal between the Scottish Green Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats? Why? Neither party have anything to gain.

    Where the Lib Dems don’t stand their votes would go to Con and Lab.

    The Greens don’t contest Westminster elections (they only stood in 3 out of 59 seats last time), but even in those 3 seats, if they didn’t stand, their votes would go SNP, Lab and LD, in that order.

    Scotland is not England.
    It isn’t Wales either.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,572
    F1: Verstappen's odds down a touch at 15 for the title. Wouldn't back. I think he'll get closer than anyone else, but the gap's too big.

    And bloody hell to the gap between him and Gasly in Spa. Can't say it's undeserved, but Verstappen's 8 for the win, and Gasly is 126.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 24,114
    Charles said:

    Off-topic:

    I'm planning a trip to Stonehenge for the little 'un, as it's something he's been fascinated by for a couple of years. It looks as though it's going to be a rather sad experience: apparently you have to book a time slot of half an hour for your tour, which is going to be awkward after a 3+ hour drive from home. Then you can't even get near the stones.

    It all seems rather sad: what should be a rather magical experience for a 5-year old looks as though it's going to be a highly stage-managed, controlled and anaesthetic trip.

    Fortunately, I'm planning to take him to Avebury afterwards to get some real contact with our past. ;)

    There are huge queues - you get a better view from the road 😉

    Seriously though I think English Heritage has an option (premium) for an evening visit where you do get to walk among the stones
    Thanks - but the trip's a little reward for him having done something, so I can't really cancel.

    An evening walk'd be good, but probably not suitable for him, sadly. :(

    (We're also panning to do Portsmouth (HMS Warrior/Victory), a hovercraft over to the IoW, and then Fishbourne Roman Palace in the trip).
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,536

    Charles said:

    Off-topic:

    I'm planning a trip to Stonehenge for the little 'un, as it's something he's been fascinated by for a couple of years. It looks as though it's going to be a rather sad experience: apparently you have to book a time slot of half an hour for your tour, which is going to be awkward after a 3+ hour drive from home. Then you can't even get near the stones.

    It all seems rather sad: what should be a rather magical experience for a 5-year old looks as though it's going to be a highly stage-managed, controlled and anaesthetic trip.

    Fortunately, I'm planning to take him to Avebury afterwards to get some real contact with our past. ;)

    There are huge queues - you get a better view from the road 😉

    Seriously though I think English Heritage has an option (premium) for an evening visit where you do get to walk among the stones
    Thanks - but the trip's a little reward for him having done something, so I can't really cancel.

    An evening walk'd be good, but probably not suitable for him, sadly. :(

    (We're also panning to do Portsmouth (HMS Warrior/Victory), a hovercraft over to the IoW, and then Fishbourne Roman Palace in the trip).
    Brading Roman Villa is well worth a visit.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 15,586

    Charles said:

    Off-topic:

    I'm planning a trip to Stonehenge for the little 'un, as it's something he's been fascinated by for a couple of years. It looks as though it's going to be a rather sad experience: apparently you have to book a time slot of half an hour for your tour, which is going to be awkward after a 3+ hour drive from home. Then you can't even get near the stones.

    It all seems rather sad: what should be a rather magical experience for a 5-year old looks as though it's going to be a highly stage-managed, controlled and anaesthetic trip.

    Fortunately, I'm planning to take him to Avebury afterwards to get some real contact with our past. ;)

    There are huge queues - you get a better view from the road 😉

    Seriously though I think English Heritage has an option (premium) for an evening visit where you do get to walk among the stones
    Thanks - but the trip's a little reward for him having done something, so I can't really cancel.

    An evening walk'd be good, but probably not suitable for him, sadly. :(

    (We're also panning to do Portsmouth (HMS Warrior/Victory), a hovercraft over to the IoW, and then Fishbourne Roman Palace in the trip).
    What a superb trip; bit over the top for a 5 year old, I would have thought, but you know your son.

    I'm looking forward to a trip to Sutton Hoo again.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743

    IanB2 said:

    Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.

    Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.

    No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
    No it failed because over 400 MPs voted against it. Each of those votes counts equally.
    Based on the manifestos, all the Labour MPs had a mandate from the electorate to reject it. None of the Conservative MPs did.
    Conservatives put country before party.
    Labour put party before country.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 1,816

    Charles said:

    Off-topic:

    I'm planning a trip to Stonehenge for the little 'un, as it's something he's been fascinated by for a couple of years. It looks as though it's going to be a rather sad experience: apparently you have to book a time slot of half an hour for your tour, which is going to be awkward after a 3+ hour drive from home. Then you can't even get near the stones.

    It all seems rather sad: what should be a rather magical experience for a 5-year old looks as though it's going to be a highly stage-managed, controlled and anaesthetic trip.

    Fortunately, I'm planning to take him to Avebury afterwards to get some real contact with our past. ;)

    There are huge queues - you get a better view from the road 😉

    Seriously though I think English Heritage has an option (premium) for an evening visit where you do get to walk among the stones
    Thanks - but the trip's a little reward for him having done something, so I can't really cancel.

    An evening walk'd be good, but probably not suitable for him, sadly. :(

    (We're also panning to do Portsmouth (HMS Warrior/Victory), a hovercraft over to the IoW, and then Fishbourne Roman Palace in the trip).
    If your little un is anything like ours, then Avebury is pretty close to the Steam museum at Swindon, which is a terrific afternoon out.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,536

    Mr. B2, if 400 odd MPs vote against something, singling out 30-50 of them and pretending the other 300-350 don't exist seems an odd way of expressing dismay the vote failed to pass.

    Most MPs are pro-EU. These MPs have voted successively to leave the EU and against the deal. They're now upset that we're on course to leave with no deal.

    The difference between them and the ERG is that the ERG is voting for what it wants and is glad it's getting it. The pro-EU bloc are voting for something they think is terrible and are horrified that their actions have consequences diametrically opposed to their desires.

    Politics is about a lot more than counting the vote. Conservative opponents of the deal killed its chances well before it got anywhere near the first MV.
This discussion has been closed.