I have to say that I dislike an attitude which categorises my views as treasonous, just because I have a different view of what sort of country I want for my children and grandchildren. A view, moreover, which is, more or less, held by, demonstrably, almost 50% of the population last time the question was directly asked.
The Daily Heil is becoming almost a parody of itself!
It does all rather suggest that Leavers don't really have a lot of confidence in their case and their ability to convince others by reasoned argument.
Faut de mieux, I guess. Though the way he's been playing, a desperate gamble on a replacement might not be out of order.
Stoneman might not be the greatest batsman, but he's got serious bottle.
Funnily enough, Cook's opening partner at Essex, Nick Browne would make a good replacement. He's a similar player to Stoneman and might easily have got the nod instead of him - or as well as him if the selectors hadn't wasted the opportunities against South Africa on the out of form Jennings.
Ah, but Essex is out of favour with Lords.
Not just Essex. The procedure for generations has been that whenever a vacancy occurs, check the Middlesex playing squad for eligible replacements and only if there is nobody suitable do you start looking around the other counties.
Toby Roland-Jones and Dawid Malan are decent enough cricketers, but if they played for any other county they would still be waiting for their first caps.
Counties with Test Match grounds seem to do better, generally. Not sure which is the horse and which is the cart, though. Do they have better players generally, or are they seen more?
For all that I want Brexit to happen and am sure it will, I cannot find it in myself to criticise MPs for voting to give Parliament more say over the form of Brexit.
I do actually think that in this case it is kind of pointless as the choice they will have will be between accepting whatever deal comes back or having a hard Brexit. But the basic principle of Parliament having a say in these matters is not one that I think anyone who values democracy should criticise.
Faut de mieux, I guess. Though the way he's been playing, a desperate gamble on a replacement might not be out of order.
Stoneman might not be the greatest batsman, but he's got serious bottle.
Funnily enough, Cook's opening partner at Essex, Nick Browne would make a good replacement. He's a similar player to Stoneman and might easily have got the nod instead of him - or as well as him if the selectors hadn't wasted the opportunities against South Africa on the out of form Jennings.
Ah, but Essex is out of favour with Lords.
Not just Essex. The procedure for generations has been that whenever a vacancy occurs, check the Middlesex playing squad for eligible replacements and only if there is nobody suitable do you start looking around the other counties.
Toby Roland-Jones and Dawid Malan are decent enough cricketers, but if they played for any other county they would still be waiting for their first caps.
Counties with Test Match grounds seem to do better, generally. Not sure which is the horse and which is the cart, though. Do they have better players generally, or are they seen more?
They certainly do better, OKC, but the problem was rather poignantly illustrated for me when I read recently of the death of the the great Don Shepherd, a county which England selectors are generally unaware of. Here's an extract from Cricinfo's profile, which speaks for itself:
Initially a right-arm fast-medium seamer and subsequently a medium-paced offcutter, Don Shepherd was a stalwart of Glamorgan cricket for two decades, taking a county record of 2, 174 wickets between 1950 and 1972. In all first-class cricket, he claimed 2,218 victims, yet remarkably, Shepherd never played in Test cricket. His remarkable record also spoke volumes both for his ability and perseverance. As a fast-medium bowler, he took 155 wickets in 1952, winning his county cap, but he lost his form in the mid 1950s and converted to bowling offcutters as a result. In the first season of this change - 1956 - he took 168 wickets, and he exceeded 100 wickets 11 more times. His stamina and ability to bowl well on most types of pitch made him a godsend to successive captains. His batting was exciting, as evidenced by a 15-minute fifty against the Australians in 1961. But despite this, he never won an England call-up...
Faut de mieux, I guess. Though the way he's been playing, a desperate gamble on a replacement might not be out of order.
Stoneman might not be the greatest batsman, but he's got serious bottle.
Funnily enough, Cook's opening partner at Essex, Nick Browne would make a good replacement. He's a similar player to Stoneman and might easily have got the nod instead of him - or as well as him if the selectors hadn't wasted the opportunities against South Africa on the out of form Jennings.
Ah, but Essex is out of favour with Lords.
Not just Essex. The procedure for generations has been that whenever a vacancy occurs, check the Middlesex playing squad for eligible replacements and only if there is nobody suitable do you start looking around the other counties.
Toby Roland-Jones and Dawid Malan are decent enough cricketers, but if they played for any other county they would still be waiting for their first caps.
Counties with Test Match grounds seem to do better, generally. Not sure which is the horse and which is the cart, though. Do they have better players generally, or are they seen more?
They certainly do better, OKC, but the problem was rather poignantly illustrated for me when I read recently of the death of the the great Don Shepherd, a county which England selectors are generally unaware of. Here's an extract from Cricinfo's profile, which speaks for itself:
Initially a right-arm fast-medium seamer and subsequently a medium-paced offcutter, Don Shepherd was a stalwart of Glamorgan cricket for two decades, taking a county record of 2, 174 wickets between 1950 and 1972. In all first-class cricket, he claimed 2,218 victims, yet remarkably, Shepherd never played in Test cricket. His remarkable record also spoke volumes both for his ability and perseverance. As a fast-medium bowler, he took 155 wickets in 1952, winning his county cap, but he lost his form in the mid 1950s and converted to bowling offcutters as a result. In the first season of this change - 1956 - he took 168 wickets, and he exceeded 100 wickets 11 more times. His stamina and ability to bowl well on most types of pitch made him a godsend to successive captains. His batting was exciting, as evidenced by a 15-minute fifty against the Australians in 1961. But despite this, he never won an England call-up...
What does this vote actually gain that a vote of no confidence in the government would not? Arguably ownership of the decision which is likely to be a good thing for Parliament and the country but, since we live in democracy, Parliament can hold the government to account any time it wants.
My concern last night was it was being suggested that this vote would require yet another Act of Parliament. I don't really see how that fits into the timetable for a deal but a vote in the HoC is perfectly appropriate.
It does, however, put the focus on the word "meaningful". What we can't have is people in Parliament trying to pull the strings of those involved in the negotiations. They will be best placed to judge what is possible and what is not, where the EU will move and where it won't, where the trade offs can be made etc. I really struggle to see how Parliament gets a meaningful vote that does not boil down to take it or leave it.
Faut de mieux, I guess. Though the way he's been playing, a desperate gamble on a replacement might not be out of order.
Stoneman might not be the greatest batsman, but he's got serious bottle.
Funnily enough, Cook's opening partner at Essex, Nick Browne would make a good replacement. He's a similar player to Stoneman and might easily have got the nod instead of him - or as well as him if the selectors hadn't wasted the opportunities against South Africa on the out of form Jennings.
Ah, but Essex is out of favour with Lords.
Not just Essex. The procedure for generations has been that whenever a vacancy occurs, check the Middlesex playing squad for eligible replacements and only if there is nobody suitable do you start looking around the other counties.
Toby Roland-Jones and Dawid Malan are decent enough cricketers, but if they played for any other county they would still be waiting for their first caps.
Counties with Test Match grounds seem to do better, generally. Not sure which is the horse and which is the cart, though. Do they have better players generally, or are they seen more?
They certainly do better, OKC, but the problem was rather poignantly illustrated for me when I read recently of the death of the the great Don Shepherd, a county which England selectors are generally unaware of. Here's an extract from Cricinfo's profile, which speaks for itself:
I batting was exciting, as evidenced by a 15-minute fifty against the Australians in 1961. But despite this, he never won an England call-up...
Yes; one that England missed.
One of the many, I'm afraid. For years John Embury and Phil Edmonds served England well, as most cricket fans will know. In the same period however Essex had East and Acfield, who were better but never got a cap between them.
You must be the least self reflective person I have ever encountered. Too mucheria you decry with so little recognition you act in exactly the same way that I would fully believe you were a parody and not a real person had I not read so many genuinely well written, intelligent commentary when you are not having a massive whingy sulk.
Seriously, what exactly is it you want? That people cannot stomach these sorts of headlines? We cannot travel back in time and reverse our votes because of headlines like this, so what can we do but criticise it, which as you point out is not enough for you.
So what you've just admitted is you don't want anything from anybody, you just want a great big sulk while getting up on a great big high horse, since nothing anyone can do will be enough. You truly do not see how you are exactly the kind of blinkered, emotional obsessive you criticise do you? Read what you just wrote for christ;s sake: 'Can Leavers disown this?' 'Ok' 'It's not enough!' That's practically bipolar, its absurdity, you are demanding things, then admit if people do it you'll hold the same view. Utter illogic, and shows the utter lie when you pretend you are not so emotionally affected by all this.
Congratulations, you are better than me, I hope that will make you happy as it is clearly the only response you ever want to hear on the subject, when others, who are even more remainy, are willing to give and take on an issue. Have a wonderful day.
What do I want? I want those Leave supporters who fancy themselves as moderates to start to take a stand against the vile language used by their fellow travellers that is maiming British political life. Not just when prompted but actively to call it out as toxic and destructive. But why would they break a long habit and do that?
Xenophobic lies were passed over in silence because the referendum was seen as more important. Judges have been described as enemies of the people because they ruled that Parliament had a say in the Article 50 process: so-called moderate Leavers murmured into their cocoa. Those wanting rigour in overseeing Brexit have been called saboteurs, traitors and quislings. What do so-called moderates do? Nothing.
You have to conclude that these so-called moderates still regard Brexit as more important than dealing with the damage done by talking of political opponents as if they were military enemies. Which is why Brexit is going to continue to damage Britain indefinitely. The so-called moderates prefer to stick with the extremists than fight to re-establish political norms that allow the country to function with a level of cohesion. So the only way in which they're moderates is that they let others do their dirty work.
Nice post. Failing to see the controversy in your views and analysis.
There is a lot of protesting on here by Leavers. Too much, perhaps.
Mr. L, I agree. The vote means either acceptance of the deal negotiated, or we leave on WTO terms or end up remaining. The first of those makes the vote redundant, the second is not something the vast majority want, and the third would cause democratic ructions.
What does this vote actually gain that a vote of no confidence in the government would not? Arguably ownership of the decision which is likely to be a good thing for Parliament and the country but, since we live in democracy, Parliament can hold the government to account any time it wants.
My concern last night was it was being suggested that this vote would require yet another Act of Parliament. I don't really see how that fits into the timetable for a deal but a vote in the HoC is perfectly appropriate.
It does, however, put the focus on the word "meaningful". What we can't have is people in Parliament trying to pull the strings of those involved in the negotiations. They will be best placed to judge what is possible and what is not, where the EU will move and where it won't, where the trade offs can be made etc. I really struggle to see how Parliament gets a meaningful vote that does not boil down to take it or leave it.
I think it's largely symbolic. What it does is keep the door ajar to a possible rejection - and people who say that will automatically mean leaving with no deal don't understand how the EU or indeed politicians generally work: a rejection would be followed by a "what do we do now?" debate. I think a rejection is unlikely unless public opinion shifts drastically, but it prevents the sense of complete inevitability, which is why the Mail etc. are so upset.
What does this vote actually gain that a vote of no confidence in the government would not? Arguably ownership of the decision which is likely to be a good thing for Parliament and the country but, since we live in democracy, Parliament can hold the government to account any time it wants.
My concern last night was it was being suggested that this vote would require yet another Act of Parliament. I don't really see how that fits into the timetable for a deal but a vote in the HoC is perfectly appropriate.
It does, however, put the focus on the word "meaningful". What we can't have is people in Parliament trying to pull the strings of those involved in the negotiations. They will be best placed to judge what is possible and what is not, where the EU will move and where it won't, where the trade offs can be made etc. I really struggle to see how Parliament gets a meaningful vote that does not boil down to take it or leave it.
I think it's largely symbolic. What it does is keep the door ajar to a possible rejection - and people who say that will automatically mean leaving with no deal don't understand how the EU or indeed politicians generally work: a rejection would be followed by a "what do we do now?" debate. I think a rejection is unlikely unless public opinion shifts drastically, but it prevents the sense of complete inevitability, which is why the Mail etc. are so upset.
I don't have any problem with symbolism provided it does not damage our negotiating stance. I want our negotiators to get the best possible deal for the UK. Persuading myself that this is likely with DD at the wheel is hard enough although I think we saw in the first phase when push comes to shove May will call the shots.
Mr. Palmer, if we end up remaining because the EU, seeing the result of this, decides to offer us a shit sandwich and the Commons votes it down that will be a godsend for the far right.
I did write a while ago, a few times, about the improbable but plausible rise of the far right in British politics (the far left, of course, already leading the party of Opposition). This would be a step down that road.
Mr. Palmer, if we end up remaining because the EU, seeing the result of this, decides to offer us a shit sandwich and the Commons votes it down that will be a godsend for the far right.
I did write a while ago, a few times, about the improbable but plausible rise of the far right in British politics (the far left, of course, already leading the party of Opposition). This would be a step down that road.
If the Commons did that and there ended up being no Brexit and no new immigration controls despite the 17 million who voted Leave at the referendum, there is an outside chance of Henry Bolton or Nigel Farage becoming PM at the next general election on an SNP 2015 style surge. Remember under FPTP UKIP could win a majority on about 35 to 40% of the UK vote.
However I don't think MPs would be that stupid and will vote through any deal.
Mr. Palmer, if we end up remaining because the EU, seeing the result of this, decides to offer us a shit sandwich and the Commons votes it down that will be a godsend for the far right.
I did write a while ago, a few times, about the improbable but plausible rise of the far right in British politics (the far left, of course, already leading the party of Opposition). This would be a step down that road.
So we have to emasculate parliament or else we're far-right? What about racist campaigns, buses with Big Lies, and the murder of pro-European MPs (oh, we've all forgotten that so quickly)?
Can anyone think of any major strikes which happened in September 1979 ?
I ask because the ONS has got nearly 12 million working days lost to strikes in that month (and plenty more in August and October 1979) - approximately four times the number lost in each of the months of steelworkers and miners strikes or the Winter of Discontent.
Possibly some sort of public sector strike action ?
If the ONS haven't made a mistake then I'm amazed that such strikes aren't in widespread public memory.
There was the ITV strike and a British Leyland strike, BL was huge at the time.
Mr. EPG, that would be the Parliament that voted for the referendum to be held and then voted to confirm the result?
What do you think happens if the Commons votes down the deal negotiated? The UK Parliament cannot bind the other side of the negotiating table.
Mr. HYUFD, possibly, but Corbyn is a big motivator for both major parties. His cultists won't abandon Jezbollah, and those who think socialism is a terrible thing will stick with the Conservatives (mostly, anyway).
Faut de mieux, I guess. Though the way he's been playing, a desperate gamble on a replacement might not be out of order.
Stoneman might not be the greatest batsman, but he's got serious bottle.
Funnily enough, Cook's opening partner at Essex, Nick Browne would make a good replacement. He's a similar player to Stoneman and might easily have got the nod instead of him - or as well as him if the selectors hadn't wasted the opportunities against South Africa on the out of form Jennings.
Ah, but Essex is out of favour with Lords.
Not just Essex. The procedure for generations has been that whenever a vacancy occurs, check the Middlesex playing squad for eligible replacements and only if there is nobody suitable do you start looking around the other counties.
Toby Roland-Jones and Dawid Malan are decent enough cricketers, but if they played for any other county they would still be waiting for their first caps.
Amusingly I think the only regular Middlesex player during the 1980s who didn't play for England was Simon Hughes.
I trust the electorate not to back the far right just because MPs choose to vote in a certain way in Parliament. The English working class really isn’t as feral and reactionary as some on here seem to believe.
What does this vote actually gain that a vote of no confidence in the government would not? Arguably ownership of the decision which is likely to be a good thing for Parliament and the country but, since we live in democracy, Parliament can hold the government to account any time it wants.
My concern last night was it was being suggested that this vote would require yet another Act of Parliament. I don't really see how that fits into the timetable for a deal but a vote in the HoC is perfectly appropriate.
It does, however, put the focus on the word "meaningful". What we can't have is people in Parliament trying to pull the strings of those involved in the negotiations. They will be best placed to judge what is possible and what is not, where the EU will move and where it won't, where the trade offs can be made etc. I really struggle to see how Parliament gets a meaningful vote that does not boil down to take it or leave it.
I think it's largely symbolic. What it does is keep the door ajar to a possible rejection - and people who say that will automatically mean leaving with no deal don't understand how the EU or indeed politicians generally work: a rejection would be followed by a "what do we do now?" debate. I think a rejection is unlikely unless public opinion shifts drastically, but it prevents the sense of complete inevitability, which is why the Mail etc. are so upset.
I don't have any problem with symbolism provided it does not damage our negotiating stance. I want our negotiators to get the best possible deal for the UK. Persuading myself that this is likely with DD at the wheel is hard enough although I think we saw in the first phase when push comes to shove May will call the shots.
Last night the House of Commons stated it does not trust the government. That seems eminently reasonable to me.
What does this vote actually gain that a vote of no confidence in the government would not? Arguably ownership of the decision which is likely to be a good thing for Parliament and the country but, since we live in democracy, Parliament can hold the government to account any time it wants.
My concern last night was it was being suggested that this vote would require yet another Act of Parliament. I don't really see how that fits into the timetable for a deal but a vote in the HoC is perfectly appropriate.
It does, however, put the focus on the word "meaningful". What we can't have is people in Parliament trying to pull the strings of those involved in the negotiations. They will be best placed to judge what is possible and what is not, where the EU will move and where it won't, where the trade offs can be made etc. I really struggle to see how Parliament gets a meaningful vote that does not boil down to take it or leave it.
I think it's largely symbolic. What it does is keep the door ajar to a possible rejection - and people who say that will automatically mean leaving with no deal don't understand how the EU or indeed politicians generally work: a rejection would be followed by a "what do we do now?" debate. I think a rejection is unlikely unless public opinion shifts drastically, but it prevents the sense of complete inevitability, which is why the Mail etc. are so upset.
I don't have any problem with symbolism provided it does not damage our negotiating stance. I want our negotiators to get the best possible deal for the UK. Persuading myself that this is likely with DD at the wheel is hard enough although I think we saw in the first phase when push comes to shove May will call the shots.
Yep it's a bugger. @Richard_Nabavi blames the voters for not giving the Conservatives a 500-seat majority, and you blame those MPs who believe in parliamentary accountability.
For all that I want Brexit to happen and am sure it will, I cannot find it in myself to criticise MPs for voting to give Parliament more say over the form of Brexit.
I do actually think that in this case it is kind of pointless as the choice they will have will be between accepting whatever deal comes back or having a hard Brexit. But the basic principle of Parliament having a say in these matters is not one that I think anyone who values democracy should criticise.
Yep, in our democracy Parliament is sovereign.
No. The Crown-in-Parliament is Sovereign. All it means is that the PM controls the Royal Prerogative
Can anyone think of any major strikes which happened in September 1979 ?
I ask because the ONS has got nearly 12 million working days lost to strikes in that month (and plenty more in August and October 1979) - approximately four times the number lost in each of the months of steelworkers and miners strikes or the Winter of Discontent.
Possibly some sort of public sector strike action ?
If the ONS haven't made a mistake then I'm amazed that such strikes aren't in widespread public memory.
There was the ITV strike and a British Leyland strike, BL was huge at the time.
That would be explained by a record level of strike activity in that wauarter.
I think you perhaps need to probe a bit deeper. The world has changed a lot since the seventies. Back then things were a lot more physically interlocked. So if the dockers were on strike say, that would hit a lot of other activities dependent on them. So you could lose a lot of days to strikes without all or even most of the workers involved actually being in a dispute. I think this may be one of the reasons strikes weren't even popular among trade unionists themselves. The disruption and economic pain was pretty random sometimes.
For all that I want Brexit to happen and am sure it will, I cannot find it in myself to criticise MPs for voting to give Parliament more say over the form of Brexit.
I do actually think that in this case it is kind of pointless as the choice they will have will be between accepting whatever deal comes back or having a hard Brexit. But the basic principle of Parliament having a say in these matters is not one that I think anyone who values democracy should criticise.
Yep, in our democracy Parliament is sovereign.
No. The Crown-in-Parliament is Sovereign. All it means is that the PM controls the Royal Prerogative
Brexit is a political opinion expressed as a vote, not a state religion written on tablets. Political opinions change and like the US presidency, it becomes very difficult without clear consent from public opinion to scare waverers with retaliation.
It seems strange that this fact of referendums is recognised in countries that have referendums more often (Netherlands and neighbours) but not a country with Parliamentary sovereignty. If Dominic Grieve was likely to lose his job from today, that would be one thing. Without that threat, without a baseline of very high popularity, who's going to vote to impose a valid but non-legally binding result? It is hard to short-circuit Parliament.
Mr. EPG, that would be the Parliament that voted for the referendum to be held and then voted to confirm the result?
What do you think happens if the Commons votes down the deal negotiated? The UK Parliament cannot bind the other side of the negotiating table.
Mr. HYUFD, possibly, but Corbyn is a big motivator for both major parties. His cultists won't abandon Jezbollah, and those who think socialism is a terrible thing will stick with the Conservatives (mostly, anyway).
His working class voters want immigration cut not Mao
Can anyone think of any major strikes which happened in September 1979 ?
I ask because the ONS has got nearly 12 million working days lost to strikes in that month (and plenty more in August and October 1979) - approximately four times the number lost in each of the months of steelworkers and miners strikes or the Winter of Discontent.
Possibly some sort of public sector strike action ?
If the ONS haven't made a mistake then I'm amazed that such strikes aren't in widespread public memory.
There was the ITV strike and a British Leyland strike, BL was huge at the time.
That would be explained by a record level of strike activity in that wauarter.
I think you perhaps need to probe a bit deeper. The world has changed a lot since the seventies. Back then things were a lot more physically interlocked. So if the dockers were on strike say, that would hit a lot of other activities dependent on them. So you could lose a lot of days to strikes without all or even most of the workers involved actually being in a dispute. I think this may be one of the reasons strikes weren't even popular among trade unionists themselves. The disruption and economic pain was pretty random sometimes.
Sure, but what happened in Septemeber 1979 was huge - four time more days lost than in the Winter of Discontent.
There should surely be some memory of what happened.
For all that I want Brexit to happen and am sure it will, I cannot find it in myself to criticise MPs for voting to give Parliament more say over the form of Brexit.
I do actually think that in this case it is kind of pointless as the choice they will have will be between accepting whatever deal comes back or having a hard Brexit. But the basic principle of Parliament having a say in these matters is not one that I think anyone who values democracy should criticise.
Yep, in our democracy Parliament is sovereign.
No. The Crown-in-Parliament is Sovereign. All it means is that the PM controls the Royal Prerogative
Whatever!!
It completely negates your argument that it's about Parliament taking back sovereignty
There is nothing this vote gives that a vote of confidence wouldn't.
(And if MPs voted the deal down the PM would bring it back as a Matter of Confidence)
Mr. EPG, that would be the Parliament that voted for the referendum to be held and then voted to confirm the result?
What do you think happens if the Commons votes down the deal negotiated? The UK Parliament cannot bind the other side of the negotiating table.
Mr. HYUFD, possibly, but Corbyn is a big motivator for both major parties. His cultists won't abandon Jezbollah, and those who think socialism is a terrible thing will stick with the Conservatives (mostly, anyway).
His working class voters want immigration cut not Mao
I am sure you're right, but I don't see any prospect of them getting either.
Faut de mieux, I guess. Though the way he's been playing, a desperate gamble on a replacement might not be out of order.
Stoneman might not be the greatest batsman, but he's got serious bottle.
Funnily enough, Cook's opening partner at Essex, Nick Browne would make a good replacement. He's a similar player to Stoneman and might easily have got the nod instead of him - or as well as him if the selectors hadn't wasted the opportunities against South Africa on the out of form Jennings.
Ah, but Essex is out of favour with Lords.
Not just Essex. The procedure for generations has been that whenever a vacancy occurs, check the Middlesex playing squad for eligible replacements and only if there is nobody suitable do you start looking around the other counties.
Toby Roland-Jones and Dawid Malan are decent enough cricketers, but if they played for any other county they would still be waiting for their first caps.
Counties with Test Match grounds seem to do better, generally. Not sure which is the horse and which is the cart, though. Do they have better players generally, or are they seen more?
They certainly do better, OKC, but the problem was rather poignantly illustrated for me when I read recently of the death of the the great Don Shepherd, a county which England selectors are generally unaware of. Here's an extract from Cricinfo's profile, which speaks for itself:
I batting was exciting, as evidenced by a 15-minute fifty against the Australians in 1961. But despite this, he never won an England call-up...
Yes; one that England missed.
One of the many, I'm afraid. For years John Embury and Phil Edmonds served England well, as most cricket fans will know. In the same period however Essex had East and Acfield, who were better but never got a cap between them.
Twas ever thus, and remains so to this day.
There’s some dispute now, though, over what Acfield, as Teasurer has brougfht to the club. Yes, we’re in surplus, but the redevelopment plans seem totally stalled. And it’s part of his ‘parish’.
Mr. Observer, if we end up remaining after voting to leave, people will be pissed off.
Edited extra bit: I still think that's very unlikely, but it remains a plausible outcome.
I believe it to be a mistake to assume that so many people voted in the EU referendum with really strong views on the issue. Regardless of how they jumped, it was often a very marginal - 55/45 - decision, and I suspect that only the relatively few ultras on either side would have been seriously disturbed by the result going the other way. For the majority , it is far too technical an issue.
There are supposedly three options now. There are only two. Parliament rejection of the deal which I think is certain whatever the deal, will lead to either a no-deal scenario or a no-leave scenario. Both are disasters. One externally, the other internally.
My reasoning ...Politicians and political fanatics usually believe the end justifies the means if it's their end that is achieved. The majority of MPs are Remainers and don't want to leave. They believe they do know best, so their machinations are for the greater good. Self-awareness is never their strong point.
It coincides with the viewpoint of the Metropolitan elite (I prefer to call it the media elite, but whatever).. Those who disagree are either ignorant or vindictive. Democracy is fine as long as it achieves the correct result. They are saving us from ourselves - a noble act in their view.
They usually have a veneer of couth - they can be charming at times. Trump fails this test badly, he is totally uncouth and that's one reason the media hate him so much, it's not just his barmy politics.
There are exceptions. I've always had time for Frank Field for instance, and there are other examples.
But generally ... put not your trust in politicians as the saying nearly goes.
I'm biased. I have views I believe in and they're often wrong. I know that, so I'd be a disaster as PM. My only saving grace is that I'm aware of that. Those who aren't often go into politics as a career to spread their infallibly. Or the media to educate the ignorant public.
I have to say that I dislike an attitude which categorises my views as treasonous, just because I have a different view of what sort of country I want for my children and grandchildren. A view, moreover, which is, more or less, held by, demonstrably, almost 50% of the population last time the question was directly asked.
The Daily Heil is becoming almost a parody of itself!
It does all rather suggest that Leavers don't really have a lot of confidence in their case and their ability to convince others by reasoned argument.
It also gives the lie to the "sovereignty" argument - that they wanted Parliament to regain sovereignty. Howls of fury whenever Parliament exercise sovereignty do somewhat detract from it and make the more cynical assume the Leave case was solely on immigration. I am certain that there are a significant amount on the Leave side who do deplore such attacks on the sovereignty argument. There has to be, right?
For all that I want Brexit to happen and am sure it will, I cannot find it in myself to criticise MPs for voting to give Parliament more say over the form of Brexit.
I do actually think that in this case it is kind of pointless as the choice they will have will be between accepting whatever deal comes back or having a hard Brexit. But the basic principle of Parliament having a say in these matters is not one that I think anyone who values democracy should criticise.
Yep, in our democracy Parliament is sovereign.
No. The Crown-in-Parliament is Sovereign. All it means is that the PM controls the Royal Prerogative
No, it has implications far beyond that. Since the PM cannot operate without the support of the MPs it means that ultimately it is Parliament in the form of the elected members and appointed Lords that is sovereign. The PM may control the Royal Prerogative but, quite rightly, the MPs control the PM.
And of course the electorate should control the MPs. This kind of fails at the moment because we lack abilities such as recall which would properly hold MPs to account but it is still better than an executive ignoring our elected representatives and doing what they want. Just because right now that might mean that May does what I want in no way means I should support the basic principle because soon enough another PM will be along who won't do what I want and if we have set the principle that they can also ignore Parliament than we are in for a whole load of trouble.
For all that I want Brexit to happen and am sure it will, I cannot find it in myself to criticise MPs for voting to give Parliament more say over the form of Brexit.
I do actually think that in this case it is kind of pointless as the choice they will have will be between accepting whatever deal comes back or having a hard Brexit. But the basic principle of Parliament having a say in these matters is not one that I think anyone who values democracy should criticise.
Yep, in our democracy Parliament is sovereign.
No. The Crown-in-Parliament is Sovereign. All it means is that the PM controls the Royal Prerogative
Whatever!!
It completely negates your argument that it's about Parliament taking back sovereignty
There is nothing this vote gives that a vote of confidence wouldn't.
(And if MPs voted the deal down the PM would bring it back as a Matter of Confidence)
When was the last time the sovereign chose to overrule Parliament?
It could just be that last night’s vote shows the government that its best option is to agree a Brexit deal the Commons will back.
That pesky parliament getting in the way of the executive's grand plans.
Good.
Yet again we see those who sought to reestablish Parliamentary sovereignty getting upset that Parliament is exercising its authority.
There are similar levels of upset with other controversial parliamentary votes - bombing Syria for example.
With Brexit this in magnified by the lack of trust that the establishment will respect the Referendum result.
As we know votes against the EU have a long history of being ignored and some people will fear similar attempts are being made now.
We already know, for example, that the claim made by Cameron and in the government leaflet that the decision was in the hands of the people wasn't true.
Surely the wider point is that tory rebels have voted against the government and defeated it. That taboo has now been broken and I'm sure quite a few of them will have enjoyed the experience and be ready for another taste of human flesh before long.
For all that I want Brexit to happen and am sure it will, I cannot find it in myself to criticise MPs for voting to give Parliament more say over the form of Brexit.
I do actually think that in this case it is kind of pointless as the choice they will have will be between accepting whatever deal comes back or having a hard Brexit. But the basic principle of Parliament having a say in these matters is not one that I think anyone who values democracy should criticise.
Yep, in our democracy Parliament is sovereign.
No. The Crown-in-Parliament is Sovereign. All it means is that the PM controls the Royal Prerogative
No, it has implications far beyond that. Since the PM cannot operate without the support of the MPs it means that ultimately it is Parliament in the form of the elected members and appointed Lords that is sovereign. The PM may control the Royal Prerogative but, quite rightly, the MPs control the PM.
And of course the electorate should control the MPs. This kind of fails at the moment because we lack abilities such as recall which would properly hold MPs to account but it is still better than an executive ignoring our elected representatives and doing what they want. Just because right now that might mean that May does what I want in no way means I should support the basic principle because soon enough another PM will be along who won't do what I want and if we have set the principle that they can also ignore Parliament than we are in for a whole load of trouble.
^^^^ This.
(One of the reasons I made sure to emphasise that some Leavers certainly were making their choice on sovereignty grounds and the Mail has insulted them and detracted from their argument was Leavers like Richard Tyndall)
Surely the wider point is that tory rebels have voted against the government and defeated it. That taboo has now been broken and I'm sure quite a few of them will have enjoyed the experience and be ready for another taste of human flesh before long.
According to the Public Whip, each of the rebels has rebelled before.
For all that I want Brexit to happen and am sure it will, I cannot find it in myself to criticise MPs for voting to give Parliament more say over the form of Brexit.
I do actually think that in this case it is kind of pointless as the choice they will have will be between accepting whatever deal comes back or having a hard Brexit. But the basic principle of Parliament having a say in these matters is not one that I think anyone who values democracy should criticise.
Yep, in our democracy Parliament is sovereign.
No. The Crown-in-Parliament is Sovereign. All it means is that the PM controls the Royal Prerogative
Whatever!!
It completely negates your argument that it's about Parliament taking back sovereignty
There is nothing this vote gives that a vote of confidence wouldn't.
(And if MPs voted the deal down the PM would bring it back as a Matter of Confidence)
When was the last time the sovereign chose to overrule Parliament?
It could just be that last night’s vote shows the government that its best option is to agree a Brexit deal the Commons will back.
For all that I want Brexit to happen and am sure it will, I cannot find it in myself to criticise MPs for voting to give Parliament more say over the form of Brexit.
I do actually think that in this case it is kind of pointless as the choice they will have will be between accepting whatever deal comes back or having a hard Brexit. But the basic principle of Parliament having a say in these matters is not one that I think anyone who values democracy should criticise.
Yep, in our democracy Parliament is sovereign.
No. The Crown-in-Parliament is Sovereign. All it means is that the PM controls the Royal Prerogative
No, it has implications far beyond that. Since the PM cannot operate without the support of the MPs it means that ultimately it is Parliament in the form of the elected members and appointed Lords that is sovereign. The PM may control the Royal Prerogative but, quite rightly, the MPs control the PM.
And of course the electorate should control the MPs. This kind of fails at the moment because we lack abilities such as recall which would properly hold MPs to account but it is still better than an executive ignoring our elected representatives and doing what they want. Just because right now that might mean that May does what I want in no way means I should support the basic principle because soon enough another PM will be along who won't do what I want and if we have set the principle that they can also ignore Parliament than we are in for a whole load of trouble.
^^^^ This.
(One of the reasons I made sure to emphasise that some Leavers certainly were making their choice on sovereignty grounds and the Mail has insulted them and detracted from their argument was Leavers like Richard Tyndall)
To be fair I can often detract from my own arguments as well
For all that I want Brexit to happen and am sure it will, I cannot find it in myself to criticise MPs for voting to give Parliament more say over the form of Brexit.
I do actually think that in this case it is kind of pointless as the choice they will have will be between accepting whatever deal comes back or having a hard Brexit. But the basic principle of Parliament having a say in these matters is not one that I think anyone who values democracy should criticise.
Yep, in our democracy Parliament is sovereign.
No. The Crown-in-Parliament is Sovereign. All it means is that the PM controls the Royal Prerogative
Whatever!!
It completely negates your argument that it's about Parliament taking back sovereignty
There is nothing this vote gives that a vote of confidence wouldn't.
(And if MPs voted the deal down the PM would bring it back as a Matter of Confidence)
There's no such thing as a Matter of Confidence anymore.
They usually have a veneer of couth - they can be charming at times. Trump fails this test badly, he is totally uncouth and that's one reason the media hate him so much, it's not just his barmy politics.
The media don't hate Trump. He's literally a reality TV character, he creates drama every single day. He's the best thing that's happened to them in decades.
Mr. EPG, that would be the Parliament that voted for the referendum to be held and then voted to confirm the result?
What do you think happens if the Commons votes down the deal negotiated? The UK Parliament cannot bind the other side of the negotiating table.
Mr. HYUFD, possibly, but Corbyn is a big motivator for both major parties. His cultists won't abandon Jezbollah, and those who think socialism is a terrible thing will stick with the Conservatives (mostly, anyway).
His working class voters want immigration cut not Mao
I am sure you're right, but I don't see any prospect of them getting either.
We are still ending free movement and the net immigration rate is also falling post Brexit, even the Tories have eased back on austerity post the general election
For all that I want Brexit to happen and am sure it will, I cannot find it in myself to criticise MPs for voting to give Parliament more say over the form of Brexit.
I do actually think that in this case it is kind of pointless as the choice they will have will be between accepting whatever deal comes back or having a hard Brexit. But the basic principle of Parliament having a say in these matters is not one that I think anyone who values democracy should criticise.
Yep, in our democracy Parliament is sovereign.
No. The Crown-in-Parliament is Sovereign. All it means is that the PM controls the Royal Prerogative
Whatever!!
It completely negates your argument that it's about Parliament taking back sovereignty
There is nothing this vote gives that a vote of confidence wouldn't.
(And if MPs voted the deal down the PM would bring it back as a Matter of Confidence)
There's no such thing as a Matter of Confidence anymore.
Charles is living in an era wherein the Provisions of Oxford is hot news.
I have to say that I dislike an attitude which categorises my views as treasonous, just because I have a different view of what sort of country I want for my children and grandchildren. A view, moreover, which is, more or less, held by, demonstrably, almost 50% of the population last time the question was directly asked.
The Daily Heil is becoming almost a parody of itself!
It does all rather suggest that Leavers don't really have a lot of confidence in their case and their ability to convince others by reasoned argument.
It also gives the lie to the "sovereignty" argument - that they wanted Parliament to regain sovereignty. Howls of fury whenever Parliament exercise sovereignty do somewhat detract from it and make the more cynical assume the Leave case was solely on immigration. I am certain that there are a significant amount on the Leave side who do deplore such attacks on the sovereignty argument. There has to be, right?
I don't know why Remainers keep repeating this like it's some killer point.
Leavers want parliament to be sovereign, of course, but they don't want that argument twisted on its head with Remainer MPs using it to prevent it becoming sovereign by obstructing Brexit from occurring in the first place, to find the UK Parliament with no more sovereignty or control that it had before.
I suspect it's merely used because it's felt a clever way to troll Leavers.
Nice post. Failing to see the controversy in your views and analysis.
There is a lot of protesting on here by Leavers. Too much, perhaps.
Nah. It's just Mr Meeks and his fantasy raving. The man has become seriously unhinged.
Thing is, there is a nastiness about the language of some of the press, and some of the Leavers. Others have remained silent on this language. I am not putting a ruler and drawing a line between such language and previous incidents, nor the potential end of our civilisation. But, you know, no one expected...
I voted leave but expected to lose - certainly as the opinion polls showed Remain ahead.
Losing would have been a disappointment but not a major issue.
If however, the result is ignored because it doesn't suit the self-elected superior beings, I will be very annoyed. I detest hypocrisy. Be upfront, do it because you think it's the wrong decision, but don't do it in the name of democracy.
As Cammo's leaflet said ..."the decision is up to you", but it never was, was it?
I have to say that I dislike an attitude which categorises my views as treasonous, just because I have a different view of what sort of country I want for my children and grandchildren. A view, moreover, which is, more or less, held by, demonstrably, almost 50% of the population last time the question was directly asked.
The Daily Heil is becoming almost a parody of itself!
It does all rather suggest that Leavers don't really have a lot of confidence in their case and their ability to convince others by reasoned argument.
It also gives the lie to the "sovereignty" argument - that they wanted Parliament to regain sovereignty. Howls of fury whenever Parliament exercise sovereignty do somewhat detract from it and make the more cynical assume the Leave case was solely on immigration. I am certain that there are a significant amount on the Leave side who do deplore such attacks on the sovereignty argument. There has to be, right?
The only thing Leavers care about is Leaving. Their hatred of the EU is visceral. Everything else is subordinate.
All rationales for Brexit have to be understood in that light. They can be abandoned at a moment's notice if they look like getting in the way of Leaving. So you see sovereigntists who are appalled when Parliament asserts its authority, fiscal hawks happy to spend vast sums on Brexit and so on.
I have to say that I dislike an attitude which categorises my views as treasonous, just because I have a different view of what sort of country I want for my children and grandchildren. A view, moreover, which is, more or less, held by, demonstrably, almost 50% of the population last time the question was directly asked.
The Daily Heil is becoming almost a parody of itself!
It does all rather suggest that Leavers don't really have a lot of confidence in their case and their ability to convince others by reasoned argument.
It also gives the lie to the "sovereignty" argument - that they wanted Parliament to regain sovereignty. Howls of fury whenever Parliament exercise sovereignty do somewhat detract from it and make the more cynical assume the Leave case was solely on immigration. I am certain that there are a significant amount on the Leave side who do deplore such attacks on the sovereignty argument. There has to be, right?
The only thing Leavers care about is Leaving. Their hatred of the EU is visceral. Everything else is subordinate.
All rationales for Brexit have to be understood in that light. They can be abandoned at a moment's notice if they look like getting in the way of Leaving. So you see sovereigntists who are appalled when Parliament asserts its authority, fiscal hawks happy to spend vast sums on Brexit and so on.
The only real motivator is hatred of the EU.
How do you know what motivates leavers? For what it is worth, your posts radiate hatred.
I have to say that I dislike an attitude which categorises my views as treasonous, just because I have a different view of what sort of country I want for my children and grandchildren. A view, moreover, which is, more or less, held by, demonstrably, almost 50% of the population last time the question was directly asked.
The Daily Heil is becoming almost a parody of itself!
It does all rather suggest that Leavers don't really have a lot of confidence in their case and their ability to convince others by reasoned argument.
It also gives the lie to the "sovereignty" argument - that they wanted Parliament to regain sovereignty. Howls of fury whenever Parliament exercise sovereignty do somewhat detract from it and make the more cynical assume the Leave case was solely on immigration. I am certain that there are a significant amount on the Leave side who do deplore such attacks on the sovereignty argument. There has to be, right?
The only thing Leavers care about is Leaving. Their hatred of the EU is visceral. Everything else is subordinate.
All rationales for Brexit have to be understood in that light. They can be abandoned at a moment's notice if they look like getting in the way of Leaving. So you see sovereigntists who are appalled when Parliament asserts its authority, fiscal hawks happy to spend vast sums on Brexit and so on.
The only real motivator is hatred of the EU.
There is only one person around here who has been radiating hate and that is you. You are simply deluded.
I have to say that I dislike an attitude which categorises my views as treasonous, just because I have a different view of what sort of country I want for my children and grandchildren. A view, moreover, which is, more or less, held by, demonstrably, almost 50% of the population last time the question was directly asked.
The Daily Heil is becoming almost a parody of itself!
It does all rather suggest that Leavers don't really have a lot of confidence in their case and their ability to convince others by reasoned argument.
It also gives the lie to the "sovereignty" argument - that they wanted Parliament to regain sovereignty. Howls of fury whenever Parliament exercise sovereignty do somewhat detract from it and make the more cynical assume the Leave case was solely on immigration. I am certain that there are a significant amount on the Leave side who do deplore such attacks on the sovereignty argument. There has to be, right?
The only thing Leavers care about is Leaving. Their hatred of the EU is visceral. Everything else is subordinate.
All rationales for Brexit have to be understood in that light. They can be abandoned at a moment's notice if they look like getting in the way of Leaving. So you see sovereigntists who are appalled when Parliament asserts its authority, fiscal hawks happy to spend vast sums on Brexit and so on.
The only real motivator is hatred of the EU.
No, the motivator is reestablishing sovereign British democracy.
You'd be right to say there is chronic distrust of the EU, because most Leavers believe it's trying to establish a federal USE on the sly.
I see that the retail sales 'end of days' last month has been revised away with updated figures and that yet another retail sales all time high has been reached:
So it is only Germany, France and Italy who are suffering the retail sales 'end of days'.
Looking further back retail sales are over double in the austerity deprived, food back dependent present than they were in the loadsamoney and yuppies Lawson Boom era thirty years ago.
I have to say that I dislike an attitude which categorises my views as treasonous, just because I have a different view of what sort of country I want for my children and grandchildren. A view, moreover, which is, more or less, held by, demonstrably, almost 50% of the population last time the question was directly asked.
The Daily Heil is becoming almost a parody of itself!
It does all rather suggest that Leavers don't really have a lot of confidence in their case and their ability to convince others by reasoned argument.
It also gives the lie to the "sovereignty" argument - that they wanted Parliament to regain sovereignty. Howls of fury whenever Parliament exercise sovereignty do somewhat detract from it and make the more cynical assume the Leave case was solely on immigration. I am certain that there are a significant amount on the Leave side who do deplore such attacks on the sovereignty argument. There has to be, right?
The only thing Leavers care about is Leaving. Their hatred of the EU is visceral. Everything else is subordinate.
All rationales for Brexit have to be understood in that light. They can be abandoned at a moment's notice if they look like getting in the way of Leaving. So you see sovereigntists who are appalled when Parliament asserts its authority, fiscal hawks happy to spend vast sums on Brexit and so on.
The only real motivator is hatred of the EU.
No, the motivator is reestablishing sovereign British democracy.
You'd be right to say there is chronic distrust of the EU, because most Leavers believe it's trying to establish a federal USE on the sly.
I have to say that I dislike an attitude which categorises my views as treasonous, just because I have a different view of what sort of country I want for my children and grandchildren. A view, moreover, which is, more or less, held by, demonstrably, almost 50% of the population last time the question was directly asked.
The Daily Heil is becoming almost a parody of itself!
It does all rather suggest that Leavers don't really have a lot of confidence in their case and their ability to convince others by reasoned argument.
It also gives the lie to the "sovereignty" argument - that they wanted Parliament to regain sovereignty. Howls of fury whenever Parliament exercise sovereignty do somewhat detract from it and make the more cynical assume the Leave case was solely on immigration. I am certain that there are a significant amount on the Leave side who do deplore such attacks on the sovereignty argument. There has to be, right?
The only thing Leavers care about is Leaving. Their hatred of the EU is visceral. Everything else is subordinate.
All rationales for Brexit have to be understood in that light. They can be abandoned at a moment's notice if they look like getting in the way of Leaving. So you see sovereigntists who are appalled when Parliament asserts its authority, fiscal hawks happy to spend vast sums on Brexit and so on.
The only real motivator is hatred of the EU.
No, the motivator is reestablishing sovereign British democracy.
You'd be right to say there is chronic distrust of the EU, because most Leavers believe it's trying to establish a federal USE on the sly.
We were always sovereign.
Another shibboleth you tirelessly and endlessly repeat, also as if it's some killer point.
I have to say that I dislike an attitude which categorises my views as treasonous, just because I have a different view of what sort of country I want for my children and grandchildren. A view, moreover, which is, more or less, held by, demonstrably, almost 50% of the population last time the question was directly asked.
The Daily Heil is becoming almost a parody of itself!
It does all rather suggest that Leavers don't really have a lot of confidence in their case and their ability to convince others by reasoned argument.
It also gives the lie to the "sovereignty" argument - that they wanted Parliament to regain sovereignty. Howls of fury whenever Parliament exercise sovereignty do somewhat detract from it and make the more cynical assume the Leave case was solely on immigration. I am certain that there are a significant amount on the Leave side who do deplore such attacks on the sovereignty argument. There has to be, right?
The only thing Leavers care about is Leaving. Their hatred of the EU is visceral. Everything else is subordinate.
All rationales for Brexit have to be understood in that light. They can be abandoned at a moment's notice if they look like getting in the way of Leaving. So you see sovereigntists who are appalled when Parliament asserts its authority, fiscal hawks happy to spend vast sums on Brexit and so on.
The only real motivator is hatred of the EU.
No, the motivator is reestablishing sovereign British democracy.
You'd be right to say there is chronic distrust of the EU, because most Leavers believe it's trying to establish a federal USE on the sly.
We were always sovereign.
Another shibboleth you tirelessly and endlessly repeat, also as if it's some killer point.
Not me, sunshine, that giant of British politics, guiding us out of the EU - David Davis.
I have to say that I dislike an attitude which categorises my views as treasonous, just because I have a different view of what sort of country I want for my children and grandchildren. A view, moreover, which is, more or less, held by, demonstrably, almost 50% of the population last time the question was directly asked.
The Daily Heil is becoming almost a parody of itself!
It does all rather suggest that Leavers don't really have a lot of confidence in their case and their ability to convince others by reasoned argument.
It also gives the lie to the "sovereignty" argument - that they wanted Parliament to regain sovereignty. Howls of fury whenever Parliament exercise sovereignty do somewhat detract from it and make the more cynical assume the Leave case was solely on immigration. I am certain that there are a significant amount on the Leave side who do deplore such attacks on the sovereignty argument. There has to be, right?
The only thing Leavers care about is Leaving. Their hatred of the EU is visceral. Everything else is subordinate.
All rationales for Brexit have to be understood in that light. They can be abandoned at a moment's notice if they look like getting in the way of Leaving. So you see sovereigntists who are appalled when Parliament asserts its authority, fiscal hawks happy to spend vast sums on Brexit and so on.
The only real motivator is hatred of the EU.
No, the motivator is reestablishing sovereign British democracy.
You'd be right to say there is chronic distrust of the EU, because most Leavers believe it's trying to establish a federal USE on the sly.
There's not "chronic distrust". There's wild, lunatic, foaming unmitigable hatred of the EU.
Once again the Mail reaches for "treachery" from the thesaurus. Perhaps Leavers might care to disown this latest attempt to delegitimise alternative points of view?
Sure, though you're never satisfied when people do. I must say though that compared to mutineers and saboteurs, this one is tame by comparison. Hell, its even framed it as a question directed at them, perhaps the Mail are growing after all.
Given all the mewling and puking I get when I make the entirely factual observation that Leavers surfed to victory on xenophobic lies, I'm continually astonished that these sensitive souls are able to stomach entirely unfounded accusations of sabotage, mutiny, treachery and the labelling of opponents as quislings. So no, I'm not satisfied.
Speaking as a Scots Green who lives close to Dacre's country estate, I observe the debate on here with horrified fascination. Alastair Meek makes rational points and is attacked as deranged. What comes over to me is that this whole Brexit thing is a bitter internal dispute within the Tory party. I feel like a bus passenger watching two madmen fighting over the steering wheel as we career towards a cliff. The two sides will still be blaming each other and the EU as we speed over the edge.
Our only escape, speaking as a Scot, is independence, for which there is now 47% support. The SNP's demise has been much exaggerated on this site. It is still the largest party in Scotland and independence has not gone away.
English nationalism disguised as British nationalism is driving Brexit; you may find yourselves independent of Scotland and Europe sooner than you think.
Comments
Initially a right-arm fast-medium seamer and subsequently a medium-paced offcutter, Don Shepherd was a stalwart of Glamorgan cricket for two decades, taking a county record of 2, 174 wickets between 1950 and 1972. In all first-class cricket, he claimed 2,218 victims, yet remarkably, Shepherd never played in Test cricket. His remarkable record also spoke volumes both for his ability and perseverance. As a fast-medium bowler, he took 155 wickets in 1952, winning his county cap, but he lost his form in the mid 1950s and converted to bowling offcutters as a result. In the first season of this change - 1956 - he took 168 wickets, and he exceeded 100 wickets 11 more times. His stamina and ability to bowl well on most types of pitch made him a godsend to successive captains. His batting was exciting, as evidenced by a 15-minute fifty against the Australians in 1961. But despite this, he never won an England call-up...
My concern last night was it was being suggested that this vote would require yet another Act of Parliament. I don't really see how that fits into the timetable for a deal but a vote in the HoC is perfectly appropriate.
It does, however, put the focus on the word "meaningful". What we can't have is people in Parliament trying to pull the strings of those involved in the negotiations. They will be best placed to judge what is possible and what is not, where the EU will move and where it won't, where the trade offs can be made etc. I really struggle to see how Parliament gets a meaningful vote that does not boil down to take it or leave it.
Twas ever thus, and remains so to this day.
There is a lot of protesting on here by Leavers. Too much, perhaps.
Mr. L, I agree. The vote means either acceptance of the deal negotiated, or we leave on WTO terms or end up remaining. The first of those makes the vote redundant, the second is not something the vast majority want, and the third would cause democratic ructions.
I did write a while ago, a few times, about the improbable but plausible rise of the far right in British politics (the far left, of course, already leading the party of Opposition). This would be a step down that road.
However I don't think MPs would be that stupid and will vote through any deal.
I agree with you, but it's not 100%.
What about racist campaigns, buses with Big Lies, and the murder of pro-European MPs (oh, we've all forgotten that so quickly)?
For over 11 million days to be lost to strikes it would need half a million workers to be strike for the whole month.
Which is why I can only think of some public sector involvment.
Interestingly 1979q3 saw a severe drop in GDP, which was partially reversed in 1979q4:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyq/pn2
That would be explained by a record level of strike activity in that wauarter.
Good.
What do you think happens if the Commons votes down the deal negotiated? The UK Parliament cannot bind the other side of the negotiating table.
Mr. HYUFD, possibly, but Corbyn is a big motivator for both major parties. His cultists won't abandon Jezbollah, and those who think socialism is a terrible thing will stick with the Conservatives (mostly, anyway).
Edited extra bit: I still think that's very unlikely, but it remains a plausible outcome.
Tricky business, this democracy, isn't it?
It seems strange that this fact of referendums is recognised in countries that have referendums more often (Netherlands and neighbours) but not a country with Parliamentary sovereignty. If Dominic Grieve was likely to lose his job from today, that would be one thing. Without that threat, without a baseline of very high popularity, who's going to vote to impose a valid but non-legally binding result? It is hard to short-circuit Parliament.
There should surely be some memory of what happened.
There is nothing this vote gives that a vote of confidence wouldn't.
(And if MPs voted the deal down the PM would bring it back as a Matter of Confidence)
There are supposedly three options now. There are only two. Parliament rejection of the deal which I think is certain whatever the deal, will lead to either a no-deal scenario or a no-leave scenario. Both are disasters. One externally, the other internally.
My reasoning ...Politicians and political fanatics usually believe the end justifies the means if it's their end that is achieved. The majority of MPs are Remainers and don't want to leave. They believe they do know best, so their machinations are for the greater good. Self-awareness is never their strong point.
It coincides with the viewpoint of the Metropolitan elite (I prefer to call it the media elite, but whatever).. Those who disagree are either ignorant or vindictive. Democracy is fine as long as it achieves the correct result. They are saving us from ourselves - a noble act in their view.
They usually have a veneer of couth - they can be charming at times. Trump fails this test badly, he is totally uncouth and that's one reason the media hate him so much, it's not just his barmy politics.
There are exceptions. I've always had time for Frank Field for instance, and there are other examples.
But generally ... put not your trust in politicians as the saying nearly goes.
I'm biased. I have views I believe in and they're often wrong. I know that, so I'd be a disaster as PM. My only saving grace is that I'm aware of that. Those who aren't often go into politics as a career to spread their infallibly. Or the media to educate the ignorant public.
However, if we remain in contrary to the referendum result, that will rankle more than just strong EU-sceptics.
Howls of fury whenever Parliament exercise sovereignty do somewhat detract from it and make the more cynical assume the Leave case was solely on immigration.
I am certain that there are a significant amount on the Leave side who do deplore such attacks on the sovereignty argument. There has to be, right?
And of course the electorate should control the MPs. This kind of fails at the moment because we lack abilities such as recall which would properly hold MPs to account but it is still better than an executive ignoring our elected representatives and doing what they want. Just because right now that might mean that May does what I want in no way means I should support the basic principle because soon enough another PM will be along who won't do what I want and if we have set the principle that they can also ignore Parliament than we are in for a whole load of trouble.
It could just be that last night’s vote shows the government that its best option is to agree a Brexit deal the Commons will back.
With Brexit this in magnified by the lack of trust that the establishment will respect the Referendum result.
As we know votes against the EU have a long history of being ignored and some people will fear similar attempts are being made now.
We already know, for example, that the claim made by Cameron and in the government leaflet that the decision was in the hands of the people wasn't true.
(One of the reasons I made sure to emphasise that some Leavers certainly were making their choice on sovereignty grounds and the Mail has insulted them and detracted from their argument was Leavers like Richard Tyndall)
The
Empire Strikes BackLast Jedi is EPICMeanwhile, whether the vote last night is meaningful or not, it has spectacularly enraged ALL of the right people. Which is nice...
Leavers want parliament to be sovereign, of course, but they don't want that argument twisted on its head with Remainer MPs using it to prevent it becoming sovereign by obstructing Brexit from occurring in the first place, to find the UK Parliament with no more sovereignty or control that it had before.
I suspect it's merely used because it's felt a clever way to troll Leavers.
It isn't.
The Last Jedi is to Star Wars what SPECTRE is to James Bond.
Off to watch it in 4DX in a bit after watching it in IMAX last night.
Did you hit your head on the way out of the theatre?
Losing would have been a disappointment but not a major issue.
If however, the result is ignored because it doesn't suit the self-elected superior beings, I will be very annoyed. I detest hypocrisy. Be upfront, do it because you think it's the wrong decision, but don't do it in the name of democracy.
As Cammo's leaflet said ..."the decision is up to you", but it never was, was it?
NEW THREAD
All rationales for Brexit have to be understood in that light. They can be abandoned at a moment's notice if they look like getting in the way of Leaving. So you see sovereigntists who are appalled when Parliament asserts its authority, fiscal hawks happy to spend vast sums on Brexit and so on.
The only real motivator is hatred of the EU.
You'd be right to say there is chronic distrust of the EU, because most Leavers believe it's trying to establish a federal USE on the sly.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/retailindustry/timeseries/j467/drsi
So it is only Germany, France and Italy who are suffering the retail sales 'end of days'.
Looking further back retail sales are over double in the austerity deprived, food back dependent present than they were in the loadsamoney and yuppies Lawson Boom era thirty years ago.
Our only escape, speaking as a Scot, is independence, for which there is now 47% support. The SNP's demise has been much exaggerated on this site. It is still the largest party in Scotland and independence has not gone away.
English nationalism disguised as British nationalism is driving Brexit; you may find yourselves independent of Scotland and Europe sooner than you think.