I just cashed out on Betfair. A bird in the hand... not that there are many political bets with a result in the near future in which to invest my modest winnings. Is there a market on whether Mrs May will win the vote this evening?
If you are prepared to wait, Sadiq Khan as next London mayor at 1.33 looks attractive to me, a return of about 13% p.a. over two and a half years. Hard to see Labour losing in London before the GE and hard to see Sadiq not wanting a second term, since he has stood down from parliament.
I don't bet on timescales over 12 months. I invest in stocks and shares and look for a return of 8% plus with no danger of losing all my investment.
I just cashed out on Betfair. A bird in the hand... not that there are many political bets with a result in the near future in which to invest my modest winnings. Is there a market on whether Mrs May will win the vote this evening?
If you are prepared to wait, Sadiq Khan as next London mayor at 1.33 looks attractive to me, a return of about 13% p.a. over two and a half years. Hard to see Labour losing in London before the GE and hard to see Sadiq not wanting a second term, since he has stood down from parliament.
I don't bet on timescales over 12 months. I invest in stocks and shares and look for a return of 8% plus with no danger of losing all my investment.
I doubt you can get anything like that without some risk to capital, but of course not quite so risky as betting!
Mr. Brooke, not really EU policy so much as Merkel being a moron.
Having been in power for 12 years and having come through elections successfully, I think you must operate on the assumption that a) she is not a moron; and b) she has and had a democratic mandate to do what she did; and c) no one else would have been able to do it any better.
That or the German electoral system is a grave warning to us all about how complicated voting systems make it incredibly difficult to bring about a change in government.
Merkel has failed, utterly, and the AFD winning 94 seats is symptomatic of that. Yet still Merkel won't budge, and the AFD are, of course, too right wing to do business with.
So you get a situation where the Germans will carry on sticking their fingers in their ears and going la la la, I'm not listening to you, which will mean the far right will continue to grow.
Contrast and compare that to GE2015 and GE2017, where UKIP won 12.6%, forced a referendum, then condemned themselves to irrelevance (1.8%) at GE2017 - effectively neutering the British "far" right.
For all its flaws, the British electoral system isn't half bad.
European history has given its cultures good reason to fear the rule of the mob, but in Britain revolution has largely taken place peacefully at the ballot box, with once mightly leaders humbled and brought to heel.
It is this difference between the UK and the rest of the EU states that makes our democratic cultures so fundamentally incompatible.
Does all that make Merkel a moron?
It makes her an autocrat who was able to impose mass immigration not just on her own country, but the rest of the Schengen zone. Now the EU is demanding countries that won't take in "their fair share" of immigrants pay €250,000 per immigrant.
It is the clearest example of the democratic deficit at the heart of the EU I can think of - that one country's leader can unilaterally impose a policy that has such a profound, dramatic and destabilising effect on every other country, without the citizens of that country having recourse to reject that leader at the ballot box.
And that is what makes her a moron.
What was the practical alternative to Merkel's decision back in August 2015? Any other approach certainly wouldn't have relieved other EU countries of the burden of dealing with refugees - quite the contrary.
Create and maintain well funded refugee camps in Lebanon, return anyone found to be crossing the border into the EU, at the very least respect the Dublin protocol (the unilateral suspension of which vastly increased the crisis by encouraging the mass migration of people).
What was the practical alternative to Merkel's decision back in August 2015? Any other approach certainly wouldn't have relieved other EU countries of the burden of dealing with refugees - quite the contrary.
The practical approach was that proposed by Cameron. What Merkel did was to tell every migrant who had access to the message that if they could get to Germany they would be welcome to stay. She encouraged tens of thousands of extra hugely dangerous crossings of the Mediterranean and hundreds if not thousands of extra deaths occurred directly because of her actions.
She hung countries like Hungary out to dry. They were trying to enforce the agreed Dublin 2 rules and she attacked them for it and unilaterally scrapped an agreement with no consultation with, or agreement from, other countries. She made things far worse for the front line countries not better.
Mr. Brooke, not really EU policy so much as Merkel being a moron.
Having been in power for 12 years and having come through elections successfully, I think you must operate on the assumption that a) she is not a moron; and b) she has and had a democratic mandate to do what she did; and c) no one else would have been able to do it any better.
That or the German electoral system is a grave warning to us all about how complicated voting systems make it incredibly difficult to bring about a change in government.
Merkel has failed, utterly, and the AFD winning 94 seats is symptomatic of that. Yet still Merkel won't budge, and the AFD are, of course, too right wing to do business with.
So you get a situation where the Germans will carry on sticking their fingers in their ears and going la la la, I'm not listening to you, which will mean the far right will continue to grow.
Contrast and compare that to GE2015 and GE2017, where UKIP won 12.6%, forced a referendum, then condemned themselves to irrelevance (1.8%) at GE2017 - effectively neutering the British "far" right.
For all its flaws, the British electoral system isn't half bad.
European history has given its cultures good reason to fear the rule of the mob, but in Britain revolution has largely taken place peacefully at the ballot box, with once mightly leaders humbled and brought to heel.
It is this difference between the UK and the rest of the EU states that makes our democratic cultures so fundamentally incompatible.
Does all that make Merkel a moron?
It makes her an autocrat who was able to impose mass immigration not just on her own country, but the rest of the Schengen zone. Now the EU is demanding countries that won't take in "their fair share" of immigrants pay €250,000 per immigrant.
It is the clearest example of the democratic deficit at the heart of the EU I can think of - that one country's leader can unilaterally impose a policy that has such a profound, dramatic and destabilising effect on every other country, without the citizens of that country having recourse to reject that leader at the ballot box.
And that is what makes her a moron.
What was the practical alternative to Merkel's decision back in August 2015? Any other approach certainly wouldn't have relieved other EU countries of the burden of dealing with refugees - quite the contrary.
the practical alternative was to STFU and not cause a crisis
I just cashed out on Betfair. A bird in the hand... not that there are many political bets with a result in the near future in which to invest my modest winnings. Is there a market on whether Mrs May will win the vote this evening?
If you are prepared to wait, Sadiq Khan as next London mayor at 1.33 looks attractive to me, a return of about 13% p.a. over two and a half years. Hard to see Labour losing in London before the GE and hard to see Sadiq not wanting a second term, since he has stood down from parliament.
Momentum are likely to be a bigger threat to SK than the other political parties.
Mr. Brooke, not really EU policy so much as Merkel being a moron.
Having been in power for 12 years and having come through elections successfully, I think you must operate on the assumption that a) she is not a moron; and b) she has and had a democratic mandate to do what she did; and c) no one else would have been able to do it any better.
That or the German electoral system is a grave warning to us all about how complicated voting systems make it incredibly difficult to bring about a change in government.
Merkel has failed, utterly, and the AFD winning 94 seats is symptomatic of that. Yet still Merkel won't budge, and the AFD are, of course, too right wing to do business with.
So you get a situation where the Germans will carry on sticking their fingers in their ears and going la la la, I'm not listening to you, which will mean the far right will continue to grow.
Contrast and compare that to GE2015 and GE2017, where UKIP won 12.6%, forced a referendum, then condemned themselves to irrelevance (1.8%) at GE2017 - effectively neutering the British "far" right.
For all its flaws, the British electoral system isn't half bad.
European history has given its cultures good reason to fear the rule of the mob, but in Britain revolution has largely taken place peacefully at the ballot box, with once mightly leaders humbled and brought to heel.
It is this difference between the UK and the rest of the EU states that makes our democratic cultures so fundamentally incompatible.
You need to keep perspective. AfD got 13 % of the vote, and Merkel, Schulz, Die Linke, FDP and the Greens got 87%. None of these could be described as far Right. Merkel is the preferred choice for Chancellor in all polls.
Everyone's political career comes to an end at some point, but Merkel retains support.
Mr. Brooke, not really EU policy so much as Merkel being a moron.
Having been in power for 12 years and having come through elections successfully, I think you must operate on the assumption that a) she is not a moron; and b) she has and had a democratic mandate to do what she did; and c) no one else would have been able to do it any better.
That or the German electoral system is a grave warning to us all about how complicated voting systems make it incredibly difficult to bring about a change in government.
Merkel has failed, utterly, and the AFD winning 94 seats is symptomatic of that. Yet still Merkel won't budge, and the AFD are, of course, too right wing to do business with.
So you get a situation where the Germans will carry on sticking their fingers in their ears and going la la la, I'm not listening to you, which will mean the far right will continue to grow.
Contrast and compare that to GE2015 and GE2017, where UKIP won 12.6%, forced a referendum, then condemned themselves to irrelevance (1.8%) at GE2017 - effectively neutering the British "far" right.
For all its flaws, the British electoral system isn't half bad.
European history has given its cultures good reason to fear the rule of the mob, but in Britain revolution has largely taken place peacefully at the ballot box, with once mightly leaders humbled and brought to heel.
It is this difference between the UK and the rest of the EU states that makes our democratic cultures so fundamentally incompatible.
You need to keep perspective. AfD got 13 % of the vote, and Merkel, Schulz, Die Linke, FDP and the Greens got 87%. None of these could be described as far Right. Merkel is the preferred choice for Chancellor in all polls.
Everyone's political career comes to an end at some point, but Merkel retains support.
What really fascinates me is the direct comparison between UKIP and the AFD. Under the British system, fear of UKIP at 12.6% led to the referendum - now for all the division that has come from that, one positive we can take from it is that it completely defused UKIP as a movement - by showing moderate Eurosceptics who were previously drawn towards the party that they were being listened to.
As a medical man, I'm sure you believe it's best to lance a boil rather than let it fester. We have lanced our boil, in Germany the situation is likely to get worse and worse.
I'm still don't understand the point behind the amendment.
If it passes there are two options.
One is that we crash out without a deal, as whatever the deal, the die-hard remain MPs will never agree with it.
Surely no one wants that?
Unless w very transparent.
There will be no second option.
If it passes there are two options:
A minority government will not be able to determine the form of Brexit without winning the agreement of MPs. It seems pretty clear that MPs won’t vote to overturn the referendum result but beyond that all possible forms (that were argued for by various Leavers) including EEA membership, customs union membership, CETA or WTO are legitimate endpoints.
A majority government that can whip its MPs successfully will be able to determine those terms.
The problem being that it is not in the hands of the MPs to make those decisions, for all we wish it were. If the Government has negotiated a settlement and the MPs vote it down then the only realistic option on the table is a WTO relationship and no Brexit deal. Because I don't think there is a cat in hells chance that the EU are going to turn around and agree to renegotiate for something else with only a couple of months left before the deadline.
I want MPs to vote on the final deal. But the idea that, realistically, the choice will be anything but 'The Deal' or 'No Deal' is pretty fanciful.
The choice will also include “extend and fudge” and “don’t leave”. The reason that the government aren’t prepared to give ground here is that when the deal can’t live up to the mutually incompatible promises they’ve made, it has to be forced through and ancient history before the next GE. If they’re still negotiating and not making progress at that point they’re toast. So “extend and fudge” must be opposed even if it’s in the national interest.
'Extend and fudge' is also not in our hands. That requires the agreement of all 27 other EU countries. 'Don't leave' will destroy the political system in this country and simply hand ammunition to the extremists.
I agree it’s not formally in our hands, but the EU has little form in saying “No! That can stays here and no farther down the road!” This is the one that the EU will accept, on the basis that a bad Brexit hurts then as well as us, but a postponement involves no loss of face and doesn’t set a precedent for other would-be leavers.
Inch by inch unarticulated changes in the status quo *might* get us things we want. Forcing definite statements over a short timescale will result in statements we definitely don’t want.
Mr. Brooke, not really EU policy so much as Merkel being a moron.
Having been in power for 12 years and having come through elections successfully, I think you must operate on the assumption that a) she is not a moron; and b) she has and had a democratic mandate to do what she did; and c) no one else would have been able to do it any better.
Merkel has failed, utterly, and the AFD winning 94 seats is symptomatic of that. Yet still Merkel won't budge, and the AFD are, of course, too right wing to do business with.
So you get a situation where the Germans will carry on sticking their fingers in their ears and going la la la, I'm not listening to you, which will mean the far right will continue to grow.
Contrast and compare that to GE2015 and GE2017, where UKIP won 12.6%, forced a referendum, then condemned themselves to irrelevance (1.8%) at GE2017 - effectively neutering the British "far" right.
For all its flaws, the British electoral system isn't half bad.
European history has given its cultures good reason to fear the rule of the mob, but in Britain revolution has largely taken place peacefully at the ballot box, with once mightly leaders humbled and brought to heel.
It is this difference between the UK and the rest of the EU states that makes our democratic cultures so fundamentally incompatible.
Does all that make Merkel a moron?
It makes her an autocrat who was able to impose mass immigration not just on her own country, but the rest of the Schengen zone. Now the EU is demanding countries that won't take in "their fair share" of immigrants pay €250,000 per immigrant.
It is the clearest example of the democratic deficit at the heart of the EU I can think of - that one country's leader can unilaterally impose a policy that has such a profound, dramatic and destabilising effect on every other country, without the citizens of that country having recourse to reject that leader at the ballot box.
And that is what makes her a moron.
What was the practical alternative to Merkel's decision back in August 2015? Any other approach certainly wouldn't have relieved other EU countries of the burden of dealing with refugees - quite the contrary.
Maintaining border control, keeping her citizens safe, actually respecting that she campaigned and was elected as a conservative not as a open-borders fanatic...
Basic stuff like that. Result: no Brexit, no far right upsurge across Europe, and easy 4th or even 5th term if she wanted it.
The biggest problem is that this is yet another statute being required meaning that those waste of spacers in the HoL will be sticking their oar in yet again.
Mr. Brooke, not really EU policy so much as Merkel being a moron.
Having been in power for 12 years and having come through elections successfully, I think you must operate on the assumption that a) she is not a moron; and b) she has and had a democratic mandate to do what she did; and c) no one else would have been able to do it any better.
That or the German electoral system is a grave warning to us all about how complicated voting systems make it incredibly difficult to bring about a change in government.
Merkel has failed, utterly, and the AFD winning 94 seats is symptomatic of that. Yet still Merkel won't budge, and the AFD are, of course, too right wing to do business with.
You need to keep perspective. AfD got 13 % of the vote, and Merkel, Schulz, Die Linke, FDP and the Greens got 87%. None of these could be described as far Right. Merkel is the preferred choice for Chancellor in all polls.
Everyone's political career comes to an end at some point, but Merkel retains support.
What really fascinates me is the direct comparison between UKIP and the AFD. Under the British system, fear of UKIP at 12.6% led to the referendum - now for all the division that has come from that, one positive we can take from it is that it completely defused UKIP as a movement - by showing moderate Eurosceptics who were previously drawn towards the party that they were being listened to.
As a medical man, I'm sure you believe it's best to lance a boil rather than let it fester. We have lanced our boil, in Germany the situation is likely to get worse and worse.
Lancing a boil is a form of drainage of encapsulated pus. Draining it externally to remove it from the body is the aim. Dispersing that toxic material into tissues causes sepsis. Festering is better than that.
I don't think the 2015 migrant crisis was well handled, but the root cause was the facilitation of the crisis by the Turkish authorities, and the refugee convention that establishes rights when a toe has touched territory. Of course the real root cause is the appalling regimes that people were fleeing. 85% of the refugees were from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Eritrea.
650 - 7 SF - 4 Speakers - 4 tellers = 635 in theory.
However I believe MPs who chair the Committee of the whole house (ie they act like a Speaker just for the committee) also don't vote - Lilley (Con) and Hanson (Lab) are two of these. If we allow four of these (approx) that would leave 631.
Implying (approx) 17 abstentions - which looks high.
Another unexpected backer of the amendment was Charlie Elphicke, the MP for Dover who is currently suspended from the Conservative whip over sexual harassment allegations. Elphicke said voters had backed Brexit partly because they wanted to support “the rule of law”.
Well done Tory remainders. Substantially increasing the chance of no deal here
The irony of it is that an amendment voted for by Remainers could end up being used by Brexiteers to sabotage a deal, which will end up scuppering Brexit altogether.
Another unexpected backer of the amendment was Charlie Elphicke, the MP for Dover who is currently suspended from the Conservative whip over sexual harassment allegations. Elphicke said voters had backed Brexit partly because they wanted to support “the rule of law”.
Well he doesn't exactly owe any favours. Does anyone have a complete list of rebels from each side ?
Another unexpected backer of the amendment was Charlie Elphicke, the MP for Dover who is currently suspended from the Conservative whip over sexual harassment allegations. Elphicke said voters had backed Brexit partly because they wanted to support “the rule of law”.
Well he doesn't exactly owe any favours. Does anyone have a complete list of rebels from each side ?
the best thing leaver MPs can do is trigger leadership challenge in new year . install a true leaver PM and call an election . make the campaign about Brexit
The biggest problem is that this is yet another statute being required meaning that those waste of spacers in the HoL will be sticking their oar in yet again.
Why do you think I’m so in favour of electoral and constitution reform?
There’s a theory that this bill will be a money so their Lordships won’t be able to play silly beggars.
the best thing leaver MPs can do is trigger leadership challenge in new year . install a true leaver PM and call an election . make the campaign about Brexit
the best thing leaver MPs can do is trigger leadership challenge in new year . install a true leaver PM and call an election . make the campaign about Brexit
the best thing leaver MPs can do is trigger leadership challenge in new year . install a true leaver PM and call an election . make the campaign about Brexit
the best thing leaver MPs can do is trigger leadership challenge in new year . install a true leaver PM and call an election . make the campaign about Brexit
I think May tried that one....
she wasnt a true leaver and stupidly made the campaign about social care
the best thing leaver MPs can do is trigger leadership challenge in new year . install a true leaver PM and call an election . make the campaign about Brexit
Finally. Months after it was first teased, we finally have the government defeat on this amendment. Obviously not what the government wanted, but I'd be wary of too much reaction frankly - we already knew the government position was on a knife edge, and if the EU did not already know that they are idiots.
Another unexpected backer of the amendment was Charlie Elphicke, the MP for Dover who is currently suspended from the Conservative whip over sexual harassment allegations. Elphicke said voters had backed Brexit partly because they wanted to support “the rule of law”.
Well he doesn't exactly owe any favours. Does anyone have a complete list of rebels from each side ?
Well done Tory remainders. Substantially increasing the chance of no deal here
The irony of it is that an amendment voted for by Remainers could end up being used by Brexiteers to sabotage a deal, which will end up scuppering Brexit altogether.
That is what taking back control means in a country split down the middle. It requires a deal that gets majority support of our Parliament.
Can someone explain to me how this vote makes sense? The EU aren't going to roll over if parliament tells May to go back and negotiate a better deal especially after spending years negotiating the deal put to a parliamentary vote.
Finally. Months after it was first teased, we finally have the government defeat on this amendment. Obviously not what the government wanted, but I'd be wary of too much reaction frankly - we already knew the government position was on a knife edge, and if the EU did not already know that they are idiots.
Well done Tory remainders. Substantially increasing the chance of no deal here
The irony of it is that an amendment voted for by Remainers could end up being used by Brexiteers to sabotage a deal, which will end up scuppering Brexit altogether.
That is what taking back control means in a country split down the middle. It requires a deal that gets majority support of our Parliament.
These Tories are in Alice in Wonderland mode. We've seen Barnier is a tough negotiator. If we don't like the deal well leave without one.
Finally. Months after it was first teased, we finally have the government defeat on this amendment. Obviously not what the government wanted, but I'd be wary of too much reaction frankly - we already knew the government position was on a knife edge, and if the EU did not already know that they are idiots.
The Government needs to move on.
Storm in a tea cup
A government defeat in parliament is not a storm in a teacup.
Another unexpected backer of the amendment was Charlie Elphicke, the MP for Dover who is currently suspended from the Conservative whip over sexual harassment allegations. Elphicke said voters had backed Brexit partly because they wanted to support “the rule of law”.
Well he doesn't exactly owe any favours. Does anyone have a complete list of rebels from each side ?
He’s a staunch Leaver too.
So staunch he ticked the remain box
I did warn that Mrs May’s shameful behaviour towards Charlie Elphicke would have dire consequences.
Mr. Topping, enclaves, rising crime/terrorism, little integration, rowing back of crucial values (it's already happening with free speech).
Mr. Tyndall, any chance that MPs will try and make the choice between the deal or status quo (ie remaining)?
How does the number of terrorist incidents in Germany vs here stack up?
It is not just the number of terrorist incidents that is important - it is other incidents and the reaction of the authorities to them. That is where the real problems lie.
A senior journo friend of mine has just spent two years working for the German equivalent of the BBC (English-language version). He started in the beeb and he's a dyed-in-the-wool lefty. Hates Tories. We have happy arguments all the time, usually about politics, sometimes rugby (he's a Taff). All in all he is a top bloke.
He said he was utterly shocked, when he moved to Berlin, to discover how much the news there is neutered and censored to fit a politically correct, centrist social democrat version of events, especially anything to do with race, asylum seekers, refugees, Islam. There is no attempt at balance, they don't even pretend to give both sides to an argument.
Stories of, say, refugees raping German women are simply not covered. "Too controversial". If a story is SO big it cannot, in the end, despite the best efforts of press and police, be entirely ignored (e.g. the Cologne New Year refugee rape spree), then it is presented in the most Guardian way possible: the story is "Oh no, now there will be a rightwing backlash", or "pity the poor refugees getting blamed for the trivial, laddish misbehaviour of a few". That's it.
My friend was so incensed by the lack of balance (and recall he is leftwing) he complained, e.g. he asked: why can't we have a spokesman here from AfD, to give an alternative view? And he was simply told to fuck off, this is Germany, this is how we do things, we don't want to give Nazis airtime, refugees are brilliant, go away.
He has now left, in despair, and runs the entire broadcasting network on a sunny rich Caribbean island, and good luck to him.
I think the situation in the German press is much more nuanced and fair, but German broadcast media is hideously biased to a liberal bien pensant point of view, and TV is where most Germans get their news. And Germans are more regimented in their thinking and will follow a party line more dutifully than bolshy Brits.
That's how Merkel has got herself re-elected despite her migration disasters. Germans are not told the news. They are told what to think.
It makes one despair of Western civilization. I only hope I live long enough to enjoy the schadenfreude of watching what happens to leftism once their friends start dictating social policy.
If the Government/Leavers want to blame anyone blame IDS. It was his snide, personal bitching at Grieve that appears to have cemented Grieve's resolve.
Finally. Months after it was first teased, we finally have the government defeat on this amendment. Obviously not what the government wanted, but I'd be wary of too much reaction frankly - we already knew the government position was on a knife edge, and if the EU did not already know that they are idiots.
The Government needs to move on.
Storm in a tea cup
A government defeat in parliament is not a storm in a teacup.
In the context of Brexit a narrow defeat is a storm in the tea cup.
Finally. Months after it was first teased, we finally have the government defeat on this amendment. Obviously not what the government wanted, but I'd be wary of too much reaction frankly - we already knew the government position was on a knife edge, and if the EU did not already know that they are idiots.
The Government needs to move on.
Storm in a tea cup
A government defeat in parliament is not a storm in a teacup.
In the context of Brexit a narrow defeat is a storm in the tea cup.
The MPs voted for the referendum because not to do would leave them open to the accusation of being ant-democratic if they didn't. Now they've voted to have the final say, because that is their version of democracy.
They can force May to return and ask for a non-leave leave to which the EU will, of course, agree to. The alternative is a no-deal leave which can be blamed totally on May and the Tories.
Finally. Months after it was first teased, we finally have the government defeat on this amendment. Obviously not what the government wanted, but I'd be wary of too much reaction frankly - we already knew the government position was on a knife edge, and if the EU did not already know that they are idiots.
The Government needs to move on.
Storm in a tea cup
A government defeat in parliament is not a storm in a teacup.
No it is not, but a single defeat even on a significant amendment is not a hurricane either, especially when a meaningful vote may not be all that much of a big deal in the first place (why the government didn't just concede is another matter, and that they didn't is why it isn't nothing).
Finally. Months after it was first teased, we finally have the government defeat on this amendment. Obviously not what the government wanted, but I'd be wary of too much reaction frankly - we already knew the government position was on a knife edge, and if the EU did not already know that they are idiots.
The Government needs to move on.
Storm in a tea cup
A government defeat in parliament is not a storm in a teacup.
In the context of Brexit a narrow defeat is a storm in the tea cup.
Democracy.
Agree to an extent but if the motive is to stop Brexit that is an affront to democracy.
However, the defeat will not result in a no confidence vote or a GE, so a storm in a tea cup it is
sorry if i’m being thick but if no deal can be agreed by the government does parliament still get a meaningful vote?
Since there is no deal to approve, no.
if that’s true then the option of no deal is still leverage the government holds with the EU thus strengthening our negotiating hand, we can still walk away if we want
Can someone explain to me how this vote makes sense? The EU aren't going to roll over if parliament tells May to go back and negotiate a better deal especially after spending years negotiating the deal put to a parliamentary vote.
Fuckwittery of the highest order. And MPs wonder why they have a reputation lower than a snake’s pubic wart....
sorry if i’m being thick but if no deal can be agreed by the government does parliament still get a meaningful vote?
Since there is no deal to approve, no.
if that’s true then the option of no deal is still leverage the government holds with the EU thus strengthening our negotiating hand, we can still walk away if we want
I don’t think the UK’s leverage has increased with the passage of this amendment. Why would the EU change their stance just because the UK parliament asked them to?
Is there something wrong with a party taking action against rebels? Sometimes a lighter hand might be preferable, but surely the whole point of whipping is supposed to be that there are consequences to rebelling on the really big stuff. I've no problem with the amendment, other than mild confusion over what some people backing it think will happen as a result, but I'm not feeling the outrage of someone losing a position for going against what is current policy.
Can someone explain to me how this vote makes sense? The EU aren't going to roll over if parliament tells May to go back and negotiate a better deal especially after spending years negotiating the deal put to a parliamentary vote.
Fuckwittery of the highest order. And MPs wonder why they have a reputation lower than a snake’s pubic wart....
And then MPs wonder why people think they're essentially trying to overturn a referendum result. To many, this seems like another way to try and reel back on Brexit.
sorry if i’m being thick but if no deal can be agreed by the government does parliament still get a meaningful vote?
Since there is no deal to approve, no.
if that’s true then the option of no deal is still leverage the government holds with the EU thus strengthening our negotiating hand, we can still walk away if we want
I don’t think the UK’s leverage has increased with the passage of this amendment. Why would the EU change their stance just because the UK parliament asked them to?
the point is despite the amendment the government can still just threaten to walk away from a bad deal and go WTO
Can someone explain to me how this vote makes sense? The EU aren't going to roll over if parliament tells May to go back and negotiate a better deal especially after spending years negotiating the deal put to a parliamentary vote.
Fuckwittery of the highest order. And MPs wonder why they have a reputation lower than a snake’s pubic wart....
Why are you an enemy of Parliamentary sovereignty?
Mr. Brooke, not really EU policy so much as Merkel being a moron.
Having been in power for 12 years and having come through elections successfully, I think you must operate on the assumption that a) she is not a moron; and b) she has and had a democratic mandate to do what she did; and c) no one else would have been able to do it any better.
That or the German electoral system is a grave warning to us all about how complicated voting systems make it incredibly difficult to bring about a change in government.
Merkel has failed, utterly, and the AFD winning 94 seats is symptomatic of that. Yet still Merkel won't budge, and the AFD are, of course, too right wing to do business with.
You need to keep perspective. AfD got 13 % of the vote, and Merkel, Schulz, Die Linke, FDP and the Greens got 87%. None of these could be described as far Right. Merkel is the preferred choice for Chancellor in all polls.
Everyone's political career comes to an end at some point, but Merkel retains support.
What really fascinates me is the direct comparison between UKIP and the AFD. Under the British system, fear of UKIP at 12.6% led to the referendum - now for all the division that has come from that, one positive we can take from it is that it completely defused UKIP as a movement - by showing moderate Eurosceptics who were previously drawn towards the party that they were being listened to.
As a medical man, I'm sure you believe it's best to lance a boil rather than let it fester. We have lanced our boil, in Germany the situation is likely to get worse and worse.
Lancing a boil is a form of drainage of encapsulated pus. Draining it externally to remove it from the body is the aim. Dispersing that toxic material into tissues causes sepsis. Festering is better than that.
I don't think the 2015 migrant crisis was well handled, but the root cause was the facilitation of the crisis by the Turkish authorities, and the refugee convention that establishes rights when a toe has touched territory. Of course the real root cause is the appalling regimes that people were fleeing. 85% of the refugees were from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Eritrea.
O/t us the collection of German Expressionist paintings in Leicester any good?
Sacked for defying a three lined whip? I’m not exactly surprised...
She’s created yet another needless enemy.
But don’t worry her majority is so huge, she won’t have to worry about another malcontent on the backbenches.
Why would someone willing to take a principled stand no matter that it might have consequence react so poorly to there being a consequence? They defied the whip, they have received a punishment. Is it proportionate? IDK, but a reasonable person would neither be vindictive to the rebel moving forward, not vindictive toward person rebelled against.
Why does that create an enemy? So long as she doesn't go all the sacking of GO on the guy, why would this have longer consequences?
sorry if i’m being thick but if no deal can be agreed by the government does parliament still get a meaningful vote?
Since there is no deal to approve, no.
if that’s true then the option of no deal is still leverage the government holds with the EU thus strengthening our negotiating hand, we can still walk away if we want
I don’t think the UK’s leverage has increased with the passage of this amendment. Why would the EU change their stance just because the UK parliament asked them to?
the point is despite the amendment the government can still just threaten to walk away from a bad deal and go WTO
Not sure the EU would buy that. The one positive Incan see is that May could justifiably say she needs a better deal for it to pass Parliament. Not sure the EU wild be keen to adjust the deal after it had been agreed by both parties.
Can someone explain to me how this vote makes sense? The EU aren't going to roll over if parliament tells May to go back and negotiate a better deal especially after spending years negotiating the deal put to a parliamentary vote.
Fuckwittery of the highest order. And MPs wonder why they have a reputation lower than a snake’s pubic wart....
Why are you an enemy of Parliamentary sovereignty?
because people parliament has become the enemy of the people’s sovereignty
Comments
She hung countries like Hungary out to dry. They were trying to enforce the agreed Dublin 2 rules and she attacked them for it and unilaterally scrapped an agreement with no consultation with, or agreement from, other countries. She made things far worse for the front line countries not better.
https://twitter.com/smizz/status/939606415156629505
Everyone's political career comes to an end at some point, but Merkel retains support.
Result in 15 mins.
As a medical man, I'm sure you believe it's best to lance a boil rather than let it fester. We have lanced our boil, in Germany the situation is likely to get worse and worse.
Inch by inch unarticulated changes in the status quo *might* get us things we want. Forcing definite statements over a short timescale will result in statements we definitely don’t want.
309 - 305
Govt DEFEAT.
Damn fine run thing. Worth pushing it.
Suggests no other amendments will get through.
If anything, it makes it more likely. Because of an impasse.
Basic stuff like that. Result: no Brexit, no far right upsurge across Europe, and easy 4th or even 5th term if she wanted it.
"If MPs vote the deal down the EU is hardly going to give us a better deal, are they?"
No, but the MP's can force May back to ask for a non-leave deal.
Bryant has already stated that in the debate, and the EU will happily agree.
really we should shut the dump and turn it over to car manufacturing
They could force the government to request an extension to article 50 so we get time to get a good deal.
I don't think the 2015 migrant crisis was well handled, but the root cause was the facilitation of the crisis by the Turkish authorities, and the refugee convention that establishes rights when a toe has touched territory. Of course the real root cause is the appalling regimes that people were fleeing. 85% of the refugees were from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Eritrea.
650 - 7 SF - 4 Speakers - 4 tellers = 635 in theory.
However I believe MPs who chair the Committee of the whole house (ie they act like a Speaker just for the committee) also don't vote - Lilley (Con) and Hanson (Lab) are two of these. If we allow four of these (approx) that would leave 631.
Implying (approx) 17 abstentions - which looks high.
Gonville & Caius is where all the cool kids go.
Can it be reversed at later readings or in Committee?
"We desperately needed a deal we can live with, and we got the best in the circumstances," they will cry.
No matter that we are leaving in name only.
297 - 316
Back to normal service.
(Total vote 613 vs 614 on Grieve amendment - implying a fair number absent / paired)
For once, I agree with you.
The MP Leavers have a majority, but I just wish for once, they'd be honest about their intentions.
Edit: Sorry, I mean MP Remainers
Does anyone have a complete list of rebels from each side ?
https://youtu.be/iHhwxpFOtl0
Needs a bit of refining....
There’s a theory that this bill will be a money so their Lordships won’t be able to play silly beggars.
294 - 315
Storm in a tea cup
292 - 311
The MPs voted for the referendum because not to do would leave them open to the accusation of being ant-democratic if they didn't. Now they've voted to have the final say, because that is their version of democracy.
They can force May to return and ask for a non-leave leave to which the EU will, of course, agree to. The alternative is a no-deal leave which can be blamed totally on May and the Tories.
However, the defeat will not result in a no confidence vote or a GE, so a storm in a tea cup it is
Democracy eh.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/941030365719875586
https://twitter.com/montie/status/941029072691449856
But don’t worry her majority is so huge, she won’t have to worry about another malcontent on the backbenches.
Why does that create an enemy? So long as she doesn't go all the sacking of GO on the guy, why would this have longer consequences?
Far too quick to sack him to look vindictive.