Theresa May says she "is talking to colleagues" about their concerns over the Northern Ireland "backstop" ahead of a crucial vote on her EU deal. She suggested MPs could be "given a role" in deciding whether to activate the backstop, which is designed to stop the return of a physical border.But she told the BBC there could be no deal with the EU without a backstop. It comes amid speculation Tuesday's Commons vote could be delayed to avoid a defeat for the prime minister.
Eight random residents of Bedford on R4 now; why Bedford of all places?
Because places like Bedford and Worcester are where EUref2 will be won or lost.
The media likes to have an away-day in Jaywick or Boston and indulge in hand-wringing about "left-behind Britain" and "forgotten small-town England" and all of that, but it's lazy journalism, just recycling stereotypes about the extremes. Jaywick will always vote Out and Oxford will always vote In. It's passable social commentary but doesn't tell you anything new. The current Guardian piece about Clacton is a prime example.
The Bedfords of England are the "battleground states".
Incidentally, on the header, David's point that "there are (as far as I can see) no intercity trains running on Boxing Day" is debatable. Southeastern are running their Highspeed service and that probably counts as intercity. Chiltern are running to Oxford Parkway, and if they get the 68s out then that's definitely intercity, though perhaps not if it's just 168s. Where's Sunil when you need him?
The 'as far as I can see' was East Coast, West Coast, East Mids and GWR. I didn't have time to check the regional operators in to London, which in any case cover ground that probably could reasonably be made by car if necessary. But yes, I didn't check everything and I knew that there was a chance that some services might be on as it's not the universal shutdown that Christmas Day is.
But those four operators I did check means that any MP from the West Country, Wales, the north of England, Scotland and (at least) large parts of the outer Midlands does not have rail as a Boxing Day option to London.
One aspect of Brexit that has not received much analysis here is that it has revealed Pete Wishart has some serious competition for his title of dumbest MP at Westminster
There is no upside at all for the Cons to have a general election. If they win they are back where they started and if they lose, well then they will have lost.
The only benefit would be a back me or sack me plea to the electorate on the Deal. Because that is the only Cons policy right now and they don't have time to find a new leader and a new Brexit policy in the meantime.
But then that sounds a lot like a referendum given the option at a GE would likely be the deal or Lab staying in.
As Hislop said yesterday a general election solves nothing. Even if Corbyn becomes PM it would then just switch to Labour divisions and infighting, toing and froing from Brussels and still a likely hung parliament
I think this is the Corbyn Paradox - the more that Brexit goes wrong, the more likely he is to become PM BUT the harder it would be to get through his agenda while firefighting Brexit.
On the other hand if he helped May get the deal through then a PM Corbyn would have a clean slate to get his agenda through, BUT be less likely to win the election.
Arguably there is a nice route through a very soft Brexit or no Brexit which sees the Tories lose votes to a Brexit betrayal narrative and has Corbyn take over without disaster.
It needs a legislative vote by the HoC to change the law that set A50 in motion. I think such a vote can only be introduced by the Government.
It then needs the Government to actually go and do the formal revoking bit by letter.
Nope, such a vote could be introduced in an amendment to any suitable act or motion and the meaningful vote is probably a suitable candidate.
No it needs primary legislation to revoke and supersede the Withdrawal bill.
Now you might know better than a former clerk of the Commons, but I doubt it.
I just guessed the opposite, but have no pretensions to know better than a former clerk - do you have a link for that and any more on the reasoning? I’m fairly sure there are precedents of finance bills being amended to change various tax acts which weren’t amended in the original drafting of the finance bill in question, though generally it would be clear that the ultimate outcome is in line with the overall intention of the bill.
I’ll try and dig it out later, o2 permitting.
His general gist was bemoaning MPs who don’t know how bills work nor what the default of the withdrawal bill (We Leave next March is the law).
You’d have to introduce a new bill as there are so many clauses in the withdrawal bill.
These new amendments were like passing a law denying the existence of gravity.
Arguably there is a nice route through a very soft Brexit or no Brexit which sees the Tories lose votes to a Brexit betrayal narrative and has Corbyn take over without disaster.
If the ultimate end of the Breirteers' 40 year crusade was no Brexit and the most left wing government in history, that should be sufficient reason to expel them
I can already hear the cries of "you didn't know what you voted for" if the plebs vote for no deal in a referendum.
Probably best to make sure that it’s fully defined in any referendum question (‘the government has already enacted legislation mandating that in the event of no deal it will raise taxes by x, cut spending by £y and immediately begin the following preparations at a cost of £z’) to avoid that risk.
They already did that for the last one with the emergency budget. Might not work as well this time though.
It needs a legislative vote by the HoC to change the law that set A50 in motion. I think such a vote can only be introduced by the Government.
It then needs the Government to actually go and do the formal revoking bit by letter.
Nope, such a vote could be introduced in an amendment to any suitable act or motion and the meaningful vote is probably a suitable candidate.
No it needs primary legislation to revoke and supersede the Withdrawal bill.
Now you might know better than a former clerk of the Commons, but I doubt it.
I just guessed the opposite, but have no pretensions to know better than a former clerk - do you have a link for that and any more on the reasoning? I’m fairly sure there are precedents of finance bills being amended to change various tax acts which weren’t amended in the original drafting of the finance bill in question, though generally it would be clear that the ultimate outcome is in line with the overall intention of the bill.
I believe that is because finance bills count as primary legislation.
It needs a legislative vote by the HoC to change the law that set A50 in motion. I think such a vote can only be introduced by the Government.
It then needs the Government to actually go and do the formal revoking bit by letter.
Nope, such a vote could be introduced in an amendment to any suitable act or motion and the meaningful vote is probably a suitable candidate.
No it needs primary legislation to revoke and supersede the Withdrawal bill.
Now you might know better than a former clerk of the Commons, but I doubt it.
I just guessed the opposite, but have no pretensions to know better than a former clerk - do you have a link for that and any more on the reasoning? I’m fairly sure there are precedents of finance bills being amended to change various tax acts which weren’t amended in the original drafting of the finance bill in question, though generally it would be clear that the ultimate outcome is in line with the overall intention of the bill.
I’ll try and dig it out later, o2 permitting.
His general gist was bemoaning MPs who don’t know how bills work nor what the default of the withdrawal bill (We Leave next March is the law).
You’d have to introduce a new bill as there are so many clauses in the withdrawal bill.
These new amendments were like passing a law denying the existence of gravity.
Dominic Grieve might be able to think something up. He shouldn't have voted to enact Art. 50 in view of his subsequent actions but he's got more brains than the ERG put together.
It needs a legislative vote by the HoC to change the law that set A50 in motion. I think such a vote can only be introduced by the Government.
It then needs the Government to actually go and do the formal revoking bit by letter.
Nope, such a vote could be introduced in an amendment to any suitable act or motion and the meaningful vote is probably a suitable candidate.
No it needs primary legislation to revoke and supersede the Withdrawal bill.
Now you might know better than a former clerk of the Commons, but I doubt it.
I just guessed the opposite, but have no pretensions to know better than a former clerk - do you have a link for that and any more on the reasoning? I’m fairly sure there are precedents of finance bills being amended to change various tax acts which weren’t amended in the original drafting of the finance bill in question, though generally it would be clear that the ultimate outcome is in line with the overall intention of the bill.
I’ll try and dig it out later, o2 permitting.
His general gist was bemoaning MPs who don’t know how bills work nor what the default of the withdrawal bill (We Leave next March is the law).
You’d have to introduce a new bill as there are so many clauses in the withdrawal bill.
These new amendments were like passing a law denying the existence of gravity.
I prefer the “pi = 4 bill” of Indiana (it didn’t really say that, but not too far off).
I can already hear the cries of "you didn't know what you voted for" if the plebs vote for no deal in a referendum.
Probably best to make sure that it’s fully defined in any referendum question (‘the government has already enacted legislation mandating that in the event of no deal it will raise taxes by x, cut spending by £y and immediately begin the following preparations at a cost of £z’) to avoid that risk.
They already did that for the last one with the emergency budget. Might not work as well this time though.
Apart from the ‘already enacting legislation’ bit, specifying numbers, and stating the preparations that would immediately begin, they already did that.
I can see why such a sequence of events would be attractive for you as it saves May, the Deal and her Government at the same time.
Life doesn't always work out how you want, though, does it?
The Morgan-Letwin BINO has no status - there is a Withdrawal Agreement which the EU and May have already agreed. That is in effect what is being debated and the EU have said there's no further negotiation so any other "plan" has no status.
If we don't agree the WA, the options are either to leave without a Deal in as ordered and managed a way as possible or seek to extend A50 for further negotiation. It doesn't matter for what there is or isn't a majority apart from the WA for which there is clearly no majority at present.
So in the end the final card is immigration - threatening the continuation of Freedom of Movement if the WA isn't agreed. It was all going to come down to this, wasn't it? The threats of which you speak to Labour and ERG MPs apply to Conservative MPs in pro-REMAIN areas so it cuts both ways.
We would of course end Freedom of Movement on 29/3/19 if we left without any kind of Deal but leaving without a Deal doesn't have to mean a disorderly exit and chaos. There's still time for the planning which you derided the other day to be done and for measures to be put in place - it's late and it will cost but chaos can be prevented without passing a Deal which so many find so unsatisfactory.
No deal depends on the A50 decision on monday. If A50 can be withdrawn by UK up to the 29th March the HOC large anti no deal majority will instruct its withdrawal
Can HoC revoke A50 by a simple majority vote?
There would almost certainly be a court case if that was tried, to which we can't know a definitive answer.
The Withdrawal Act defines 29 March as exit day and provides for the repeal of the ECA(1972), though that section may not have been put into force - but as it only takes a ministerial order, it could be done at any time and with any motivation.
Obviously, legislation cannot be amended by a simple vote, although the definition of Brexit Day can be amended by the minister in the context of implementing an agreement. Whether a revocation could count as an agreement is dubious but I suppose arguable. At the minimum, it would need EU assent (which the CJEU might give implicitly if it follows the Adv Gen opinion).
There's also the question of notification. The Notification Act only gave the PM the power to notify of withdrawal, not to notify the revocation of a withdrawal notice. Some argue that the latter power is implicit in the former; others, that parliament clearly meant the power to be limited to was is in the text, and that that's how it should be read.
My opinion, FWIW, and IANAL, is that revising legislation would certainly be wise and probably necessary.
There is no upside at all for the Cons to have a general election. If they win they are back where they started and if they lose, well then they will have lost.
The only benefit would be a back me or sack me plea to the electorate on the Deal. Because that is the only Cons policy right now and they don't have time to find a new leader and a new Brexit policy in the meantime.
But then that sounds a lot like a referendum given the option at a GE would likely be the deal or Lab staying in.
why would anyone vote Tory ? They've lost the plot
The only reason would be to stop a thick little anti-Semitic scarecrow who behaves like sixth form common room bore from holding the highest office of state in the land. That would be my reasoning.
I can already hear the cries of "you didn't know what you voted for" if the plebs vote for no deal in a referendum.
Probably best to make sure that it’s fully defined in any referendum question (‘the government has already enacted legislation mandating that in the event of no deal it will raise taxes by x, cut spending by £y and immediately begin the following preparations at a cost of £z’) to avoid that risk.
They already did that for the last one with the emergency budget. Might not work as well this time though.
Apart from the ‘already enacting legislation’ bit, specifying numbers, and stating the preparations that would immediately begin, they already did that.
Oh right they really would mean it and not just be scaremongering this time.
It needs a legislative vote by the HoC to change the law that set A50 in motion. I think such a vote can only be introduced by the Government.
It then needs the Government to actually go and do the formal revoking bit by letter.
Nope, such a vote could be introduced in an amendment to any suitable act or motion and the meaningful vote is probably a suitable candidate.
No it needs primary legislation to revoke and supersede the Withdrawal bill.
Now you might know better than a former clerk of the Commons, but I doubt it.
I just guessed the opposite, but have no pretensions to know better than a former clerk - do you have a link for that and any more on the reasoning? I’m fairly sure there are precedents of finance bills being amended to change various tax acts which weren’t amended in the original drafting of the finance bill in question, though generally it would be clear that the ultimate outcome is in line with the overall intention of the bill.
I’ll try and dig it out later, o2 permitting.
His general gist was bemoaning MPs who don’t know how bills work nor what the default of the withdrawal bill (We Leave next March is the law).
You’d have to introduce a new bill as there are so many clauses in the withdrawal bill.
These new amendments were like passing a law denying the existence of gravity.
Dominic Grieve might be able to think something up. He shouldn't have voted to enact Art. 50 in view of his subsequent actions but he's got more brains than the ERG put together.
The ERG's collective brainpower is an embarrassment to the Conservative Party and the country in general. Whilst there clearly are a lot of bright people in the HoC, there really are a lot of very stupid ones. An IQ and EQ test should be a prerequisite for anyone holding any office of state or shadow position. I would love to see Corbyn's results!
I can already hear the cries of "you didn't know what you voted for" if the plebs vote for no deal in a referendum.
Probably best to make sure that it’s fully defined in any referendum question (‘the government has already enacted legislation mandating that in the event of no deal it will raise taxes by x, cut spending by £y and immediately begin the following preparations at a cost of £z’) to avoid that risk.
They already did that for the last one with the emergency budget. Might not work as well this time though.
I can already hear the cries of "you didn't know what you voted for" if the plebs vote for no deal in a referendum.
Probably best to make sure that it’s fully defined in any referendum question (‘the government has already enacted legislation mandating that in the event of no deal it will raise taxes by x, cut spending by £y and immediately begin the following preparations at a cost of £z’) to avoid that risk.
They already did that for the last one with the emergency budget. Might not work as well this time though.
It wasn't specified in the referendum question though. Equally if we assume that it's poorer paid workers who vote leave tax rises probably don't impact them that much as the income tax threshold keeps most of their income outside tax. So I actually doubt it would have an impact..
One aspect of Brexit that has not received much analysis here is that it has revealed Pete Wishart has some serious competition for his title of dumbest MP at Westminster
I can already hear the cries of "you didn't know what you voted for" if the plebs vote for no deal in a referendum.
Probably best to make sure that it’s fully defined in any referendum question (‘the government has already enacted legislation mandating that in the event of no deal it will raise taxes by x, cut spending by £y and immediately begin the following preparations at a cost of £z’) to avoid that risk.
They already did that for the last one with the emergency budget. Might not work as well this time though.
I can already hear the cries of "you didn't know what you voted for" if the plebs vote for no deal in a referendum.
Probably best to make sure that it’s fully defined in any referendum question (‘the government has already enacted legislation mandating that in the event of no deal it will raise taxes by x, cut spending by £y and immediately begin the following preparations at a cost of £z’) to avoid that risk.
They already did that for the last one with the emergency budget. Might not work as well this time though.
It wasn't specified in the referendum question though. Equally if we assume that it's poorer paid workers who vote leave tax rises probably don't impact them that much as the income tax threshold keeps most of their income outside tax. So I actually doubt it would have an impact..
You want all the negative parts of leaving with no deal on the ballot paper? ha ha.
Does that mean we can list everything wrong with staying in the EU like our weekly payment and the EU army plans on there too?
I'm not sure the ballot paper would be large enough to list everything wrong with May's deal though.
One aspect of Brexit that has not received much analysis here is that it has revealed Pete Wishart has some serious competition for his title of dumbest MP at Westminster
I hope you are right. Many of us have said all along that nothing good will come of it. Whether Brexit dies or prevails, it has damaged our wealth and international prestige. Those public figures that endorsed this folly, and the useful idiots like Corbyn that allowed it to continue, need to be called to account.
Wrong target.
It would appear that the collective view of parliament is that we cannot effectively leave the EU without threatening peace in Ireland and/or the integrity of the UK.
The 2016 referendum therefore included an option (Leave) which was not in practice deliverable.
So I await a full and frank apology to the nation from the person who in his 'wisdom' decided to hold that referendum. A certain David Cameron.
It would help. He did it for Bloody Sunday and he was good.
There would almost certainly be a court case if that was tried, to which we can't know a definitive answer.
The Withdrawal Act defines 29 March as exit day and provides for the repeal of the ECA(1972), though that section may not have been put into force - but as it only takes a ministerial order, it could be done at any time and with any motivation.
Obviously, legislation cannot be amended by a simple vote, although the definition of Brexit Day can be amended by the minister in the context of implementing an agreement. Whether a revocation could count as an agreement is dubious but I suppose arguable. At the minimum, it would need EU assent (which the CJEU might give implicitly if it follows the Adv Gen opinion).
There's also the question of notification. The Notification Act only gave the PM the power to notify of withdrawal, not to notify the revocation of a withdrawal notice. Some argue that the latter power is implicit in the former; others, that parliament clearly meant the power to be limited to was is in the text, and that that's how it should be read.
My opinion, FWIW, and IANAL, is that revising legislation would certainly be wise and probably necessary.
There would almost certainly be a court case if that was tried, to which we can't know a definitive answer.
The Withdrawal Act defines 29 March as exit day and provides for the repeal of the ECA(1972), though that section may not have been put into force - but as it only takes a ministerial order, it could be done at any time and with any motivation.
Obviously, legislation cannot be amended by a simple vote, although the definition of Brexit Day can be amended by the minister in the context of implementing an agreement. Whether a revocation could count as an agreement is dubious but I suppose arguable. At the minimum, it would need EU assent (which the CJEU might give implicitly if it follows the Adv Gen opinion).
There's also the question of notification. The Notification Act only gave the PM the power to notify of withdrawal, not to notify the revocation of a withdrawal notice. Some argue that the latter power is implicit in the former; others, that parliament clearly meant the power to be limited to was is in the text, and that that's how it should be read.
My opinion, FWIW, and IANAL, is that revising legislation would certainly be wise and probably necessary.
I'm a great believer that if the powers that be want something to happen then the legal side will fall into place afterwards.
The reason Brexit has hit so many legal hurdles is because the establishment really didn't want it to happen.
I can already hear the cries of "you didn't know what you voted for" if the plebs vote for no deal in a referendum.
Probably best to make sure that it’s fully defined in any referendum question (‘the government has already enacted legislation mandating that in the event of no deal it will raise taxes by x, cut spending by £y and immediately begin the following preparations at a cost of £z’) to avoid that risk.
They already did that for the last one with the emergency budget. Might not work as well this time though.
Apart from the ‘already enacting legislation’ bit, specifying numbers, and stating the preparations that would immediately begin, they already did that.
Oh right they really would mean it and not just be scaremongering this time.
Yeah, that’s the general idea. It wasn’t scaremongering last time either, but those ‘threatening’ it ceased to be in power shortly after the referendum and I think it’s generally agreed across the spectrum of views that we have a woeful level of preparedness for no-deal. If there’s another referendum the electorate have to be given a choice between two or more real-world options with the full content of those options made clear and binding. Set out a bit better by @pro_rata downthread (8.12am) but perhaps the only way to get there, including the E.U. allowing the necessary revocation of A50 to buy time, is to set up the referendum to it binds the government to begin that preparation process before invoking A50 again in a number of years’ time once the preparations are sufficiently advanced.
There is no upside at all for the Cons to have a general election. If they win they are back where they started and if they lose, well then they will have lost.
The only benefit would be a back me or sack me plea to the electorate on the Deal. Because that is the only Cons policy right now and they don't have time to find a new leader and a new Brexit policy in the meantime.
But then that sounds a lot like a referendum given the option at a GE would likely be the deal or Lab staying in.
why would anyone vote Tory ? They've lost the plot
The only reason would be to stop a thick little anti-Semitic scarecrow who behaves like sixth form common room bore from holding the highest office of state in the land. That would be my reasoning.
You are quite a specimen.
I am skewered by your rapier like repartee! Are you a follower of the Jeremy "2Es" Corbyn Cult?
To negotiate well they had to make it clear that they had the option of walking away. They never did that making it explicit that no deal was never an option.
The reason Brexit has hit so many legal hurdles is because the establishment really didn't want it to happen.
Except Brexit has not hit any legal hurdles.
Parliament has waived through every single vote (so far).
The only hurdles that Brexit has encountered have been the harsh realities that Brexiteers dismissed as Project Fear, as predicted by the experts they derided.
I can already hear the cries of "you didn't know what you voted for" if the plebs vote for no deal in a referendum.
Probably best to make sure that it’s fully defined in any referendum question (‘the government has already enacted legislation mandating that in the event of no deal it will raise taxes by x, cut spending by £y and immediately begin the following preparations at a cost of £z’) to avoid that risk.
They already did that for the last one with the emergency budget. Might not work as well this time though.
Apart from the ‘already enacting legislation’ bit, specifying numbers, and stating the preparations that would immediately begin, they already did that.
Oh right they really would mean it and not just be scaremongering this time.
Yeah, that’s the general idea. It wasn’t scaremongering last time either, but those ‘threatening’ it ceased to be in power shortly after the referendum and I think it’s generally agreed across the spectrum of views that we have a woeful level of preparedness for no-deal. If there’s another referendum the electorate have to be given a choice between two or more real-world options with the full content of those options made clear and binding. Set out a bit better by @pro_rata downthread (8.12am) but perhaps the only way to get there, including the E.U. allowing the necessary revocation of A50 to buy time, is to set up the referendum to it binds the government to begin that preparation process before invoking A50 again in a number of years’ time once the preparations are sufficiently advanced.
The emergency budget and stock market crash upon a leave vote wasn't scaremongering?
As part of the preparation to ender May's godforsaken "transitional" eternal purgatory of vassalage helldeath, we have repealed a large amont of the acquis and grandfathered them into UK law.
I'm unclear as to whether revoking A50 means we'd have to repeal the repeals and put statute law bach where it was before, or if we could function as an ongoing member having grandfathered EU law into UK law.
To negotiate well they had to make it clear that they had the option of walking away. They never did that making it explicit that no deal was never an option.
It was the worst negotiating tactic ever.
And now with the Benn amendment Parliament will say that we can never have no deal.
The reason Brexit has hit so many legal hurdles is because the establishment really didn't want it to happen.
Except Brexit has not hit any legal hurdles.
Parliament has waived through every single vote (so far).
The only hurdles that Brexit has encountered have been the harsh realities that Brexiteers dismissed as Project Fear, as predicted by the experts they derided.
I must have imagined the Gina Miller court case then.
The reason Brexit has hit so many legal hurdles is because the establishment really didn't want it to happen.
Except Brexit has not hit any legal hurdles.
Parliament has waived through every single vote (so far).
The only hurdles that Brexit has encountered have been the harsh realities that Brexiteers dismissed as Project Fear, as predicted by the experts they derided.
I must have imagined the Gina Miller court case then.
I think it's fair to say A50 was "waved through" by Parliament with nary a second thought for the consequences. Now we're reaping those consequences.
Parliament has finally started scrutinizing the Brexit process thoroughly, but it might have been better had it done this 18 months ago.
I can already hear the cries of "you didn't know what you voted for" if the plebs vote for no deal in a referendum.
Probably best to make sure that it’s fully defined in any referendum question (‘the government has already enacted legislation mandating that in the event of no deal it will raise taxes by x, cut spending by £y and immediately begin the following preparations at a cost of £z’) to avoid that risk.
They already did that for the last one with the emergency budget. Might not work as well this time though.
Apart from the ‘already enacting legislation’ bit, specifying numbers, and stating the preparations that would immediately begin, they already did that.
Oh right they really would mean it and not just be scaremongering this time.
Yeah, that’s the general idea. It wasn’t scaremongering last time either, but those ‘threatening’ it ceased to be in power shortly after the referendum and I think it’s generally agreed across the spectrum of views that we have a woeful level of preparedness for no-deal. If there’s another referendum the electorate have to be given a choice between two or more real-world options with the full content of those options made clear and binding. Set out a bit better by @pro_rata downthread (8.12am) but perhaps the only way to get there, including the E.U. allowing the necessary revocation of A50 to buy time, is to set up the referendum to it binds the government to begin that preparation process before invoking A50 again in a number of years’ time once the preparations are sufficiently advanced.
The emergency budget and stock market crash upon a leave vote wasn't scaremongering?
You're obviously new to this game. Everything Remainers say is true and everything Brexiters say is false.
I can already hear the cries of "you didn't know what you voted for" if the plebs vote for no deal in a referendum.
Probably best to make sure that it’s fully defined in any referendum question (‘the government has already enacted legislation mandating that in the event of no deal it will raise taxes by x, cut spending by £y and immediately begin the following preparations at a cost of £z’) to avoid that risk.
They already did that for the last one with the emergency budget. Might not work as well this time though.
Apart from the ‘already enacting legislation’ bit, specifying numbers, and stating the preparations that would immediately begin, they already did that.
Oh right they really would mean it and not just be scaremongering this time.
Yeah, that’s the general idea. It wasn’t scaremongering last time either, but those ‘threatening’ it ceased to be in power shortly after the referendum and I think it’s generally agreed across the spectrum of views that we have a woeful level of preparedness for no-deal. If there’s another referendum the electorate have to be given a choice between two or more real-world options with the full content of those options made clear and binding. Set out a bit better by @pro_rata downthread (8.12am) but perhaps the only way to get there, including the E.U. allowing the necessary revocation of A50 to buy time, is to set up the referendum to it binds the government to begin that preparation process before invoking A50 again in a number of years’ time once the preparations are sufficiently advanced.
The emergency budget and stock market crash upon a leave vote wasn't scaremongering?
You're obviously new to this game. Everything Remainers say is true and everything Brexiters say is false.
I would go with "uninformed nonsense" rather than "false".
To negotiate well they had to make it clear that they had the option of walking away. They never did that making it explicit that no deal was never an option.
It was the worst negotiating tactic ever.
And now with the Benn amendment Parliament will say that we can never have no deal.
That's going to make Labour's planned renegotiation go well.
They should just be honest and say they aren't going to do Brexit because it's too hard and they don't really want to.
I can already hear the cries of "you didn't know what you voted for" if the plebs vote for no deal in a referendum.
Probably best to make sure that it’s fully defined in any referendum question (‘the government has already enacted legislation mandating that in the event of no deal it will raise taxes by x, cut spending by £y and immediately begin the following preparations at a cost of £z’) to avoid that risk.
They already did that for the last one with the emergency budget. Might not work as well this time though.
Apart from the ‘already enacting legislation’ bit, specifying numbers, and stating the preparations that would immediately begin, they already did that.
Oh right they really would mean it and not just be scaremongering this time.
Yeah, that’s the general idea. It wasn’t scaremongering last time either, but those ‘threatening’ it ceased to be in power shortly after the referendum and I think it’s generally agreed across the spectrum of views that we have a woeful level of preparedness for no-deal. If there’s another referendum the electorate have to be given a choice between two or more real-world options with the full content of those options made clear and binding. Set out a bit better by @pro_rata downthread (8.12am) but perhaps the only way to get there, including the E.U. allowing the necessary revocation of A50 to buy time, is to set up the referendum to it binds the government to begin that preparation process before invoking A50 again in a number of years’ time once the preparations are sufficiently advanced.
The emergency budget and stock market crash upon a leave vote wasn't scaremongering?
Osborne was unceremoniously fired without delivering another budget. To an extent the FTSE has been propped up by a weakening currency, but probably the best time to test the market reaction would be the point where there’s widespread belief that the U.K. really is going to leave on self-harming terms, rather than expecting a deal to be done, or at least the can to be hoofed a good long way down the road again.
To negotiate well they had to make it clear that they had the option of walking away. They never did that making it explicit that no deal was never an option.
It was the worst negotiating tactic ever.
And now with the Benn amendment Parliament will say that we can never have no deal.
The reason Brexit has hit so many legal hurdles is because the establishment really didn't want it to happen.
Except Brexit has not hit any legal hurdles.
Parliament has waived through every single vote (so far).
The only hurdles that Brexit has encountered have been the harsh realities that Brexiteers dismissed as Project Fear, as predicted by the experts they derided.
I must have imagined the Gina Miller court case then.
I think it's fair to say A50 was "waved through" by Parliament with nary a second thought for the consequences. Now we're reaping those consequences.
Parliament has finally started scrutinizing the Brexit process thoroughly, but it might have been better had it done this 18 months ago.
Also fair to point out at this point that Labour were demanding Art 50 be followed immediately after the referendum.
And, that the EU were saying no talks of any nature until Art 50 was envoked.
I can already hear the cries of "you didn't know what you voted for" if the plebs vote for no deal in a referendum.
Probably best to make sure that it’s fully defined in any referendum question (‘the government has already enacted legislation mandating that in the event of no deal it will raise taxes by x, cut spending by £y and immediately begin the following preparations at a cost of £z’) to avoid that risk.
They already did that for the last one with the emergency budget. Might not work as well this time though.
Apart from the ‘already enacting legislation’ bit, specifying numbers, and stating the preparations that would immediately begin, they already did that.
Oh right they really would mean it and not just be scaremongering this time.
Yeah, that’s the general idea. It wasn’t scaremongering last time either, but those ‘threatening’ it ceased to be in power shortly after the referendum and I think it’s generally agreed across the spectrum of views that we have a woeful level of preparedness for no-deal. If there’s another referendum the electorate have to be given a choice between two or more real-world options with the full content of those options made clear and binding. Set out a bit better by @pro_rata downthread (8.12am) but perhaps the only way to get there, including the E.U. allowing the necessary revocation of A50 to buy time, is to set up the referendum to it binds the government to begin that preparation process before invoking A50 again in a number of years’ time once the preparations are sufficiently advanced.
The emergency budget and stock market crash upon a leave vote wasn't scaremongering?
You're obviously new to this game. Everything Remainers say is true and everything Brexiters say is false.
I would go with "uninformed nonsense" rather than "false".
lol
and little people should tug their forelocks when they meet their betters on the street
To negotiate well they had to make it clear that they had the option of walking away. They never did that making it explicit that no deal was never an option.
It was the worst negotiating tactic ever.
I think the worst negotiating tactic was making someone as lazy and stupid as David Davis Secretary of State
To negotiate well they had to make it clear that they had the option of walking away. They never did that making it explicit that no deal was never an option.
It was the worst negotiating tactic ever.
And now with the Benn amendment Parliament will say that we can never have no deal.
That amendment shouldn't be allowed, the bill dies if it is attached anyway.
It needs a legislative vote by the HoC to change the law that set A50 in motion. I think such a vote can only be introduced by the Government.
It then needs the Government to actually go and do the formal revoking bit by letter.
Nope, such a vote could be introduced in an amendment to any suitable act or motion and the meaningful vote is probably a suitable candidate.
No it needs primary legislation to revoke and supersede the Withdrawal bill.
Now you might know better than a former clerk of the Commons, but I doubt it.
I just guessed the opposite, but have no pretensions to know better than a former clerk - do you have a link for that and any more on the reasoning? I’m fairly sure there are precedents of finance bills being amended to change various tax acts which weren’t amended in the original drafting of the finance bill in question, though generally it would be clear that the ultimate outcome is in line with the overall intention of the bill.
I’ll try and dig it out later, o2 permitting.
His general gist was bemoaning MPs who don’t know how bills work nor what the default of the withdrawal bill (We Leave next March is the law).
You’d have to introduce a new bill as there are so many clauses in the withdrawal bill.
These new amendments were like passing a law denying the existence of gravity.
Dominic Grieve might be able to think something up. He shouldn't have voted to enact Art. 50 in view of his subsequent actions but he's got more brains than the ERG put together.
if it's a no to unilateral revocation, then that'll help May quite a lot with Remainer MPs when it comes to the 11 December vote on her deal. But if it's a yes, they'll, by and large, abandon the deal. What will Leaver MPs do? It likely won't affect the deal passing or failing, but it may affect the market on MPs who support it.
There is no upside at all for the Cons to have a general election. If they win they are back where they started and if they lose, well then they will have lost.
The only benefit would be a back me or sack me plea to the electorate on the Deal. Because that is the only Cons policy right now and they don't have time to find a new leader and a new Brexit policy in the meantime.
But then that sounds a lot like a referendum given the option at a GE would likely be the deal or Lab staying in.
why would anyone vote Tory ? They've lost the plot
The only reason would be to stop a thick little anti-Semitic scarecrow who behaves like sixth form common room bore from holding the highest office of state in the land. That would be my reasoning.
You are quite a specimen.
I'm sure he's lovely once you get past the ranting...
if it's a no to unilateral revocation, then that'll help May quite a lot with Remainer MPs when it comes to the 11 December vote on her deal. But if it's a yes, they'll, by and large, abandon the deal. What will Leaver MPs do? It likely won't affect the deal passing or failing, but it may affect the market on MPs who support it.
The factor to be considered by tory MPs that if they pass the deal they are going to get spitroasted by a VoNC and a GE.
I can already hear the cries of "you didn't know what you voted for" if the plebs vote for no deal in a referendum.
Probably best to make sure that it’s fully defined in any referendum question (‘the government has already enacted legislation mandating that in the event of no deal it will raise taxes by x, cut spending by £y and immediately begin the following preparations at a cost of £z’) to avoid that risk.
They already did that for the last one with the emergency budget. Might not work as well this time though.
Apart from the ‘already enacting legislation’ bit, specifying numbers, and stating the preparations that would immediately begin, they already did that.
Oh right they really would mean it and not just be scaremongering this time.
Yeah, that’s the general idea. It wasn’t scaremongering last time either, but those ‘threatening’ it ceased to be in power shortly after the referendum and I think it’s generally agreed across the spectrum of views that we have a woeful level of preparedness for no-deal. If there’s another referendum the electorate have to be given a choice between two or more real-world options with the full content of those options made clear and binding. Set out a bit better by @pro_rata downthread (8.12am) but perhaps the only way to get there, including the E.U. allowing the necessary revocation of A50 to buy time, is to set up the referendum to it binds the government to begin that preparation process before invoking A50 again in a number of years’ time once the preparations are sufficiently advanced.
The emergency budget and stock market crash upon a leave vote wasn't scaremongering?
You're obviously new to this game. Everything Remainers say is true and everything Brexiters say is false.
I would go with "uninformed nonsense" rather than "false".
lol
and little people should tug their forelocks when they meet their betters on the street
That is your chip speaking, Alan. Or do you include JRM, Redwood, Cash, and Duncan Smith as "little people".
I can already hear the cries of "you didn't know what you voted for" if the plebs vote for no deal in a referendum.
Probably best to make sure that it’s fully defined in any referendum question (‘the government has already enacted legislation mandating that in the event of no deal it will raise taxes by x, cut spending by £y and immediately begin the following preparations at a cost of £z’) to avoid that risk.
They already did that for the last one with the emergency budget. Might not work as well this time though.
Apart from the ‘already enacting legislation’ bit, specifying numbers, and stating the preparations that would immediately begin, they already did that.
Oh right they really would mean it and not just be scaremongering this time.
Yeah, that’s the general idea. It wasn’t scaremongering last time either, but those ‘threatening’ it ceased to be in power shortly after the referendum and I think it’s generally agreed across the spectrum of views that we have a woeful level of preparedness for no-deal. If there’s another referendum the electorate have to be given a choice between two or more real-world options with the full content of those options made clear and binding. Set out a bit better by @pro_rata downthread (8.12am) but perhaps the only way to get there, including the E.U. allowing the necessary revocation of A50 to buy time, is to set up the referendum to it binds the government to begin that preparation process before invoking A50 again in a number of years’ time once the preparations are sufficiently advanced.
The emergency budget and stock market crash upon a leave vote wasn't scaremongering?
You're obviously new to this game. Everything Remainers say is true and everything Brexiters say is false.
I would go with "uninformed nonsense" rather than "false".
It's debatable which is more snide, but whichever it is, that's the one.
The reason Brexit has hit so many legal hurdles is because the establishment really didn't want it to happen.
Except Brexit has not hit any legal hurdles.
Parliament has waived through every single vote (so far).
The only hurdles that Brexit has encountered have been the harsh realities that Brexiteers dismissed as Project Fear, as predicted by the experts they derided.
I must have imagined the Gina Miller court case then.
I think it's fair to say A50 was "waved through" by Parliament with nary a second thought for the consequences. Now we're reaping those consequences.
Parliament has finally started scrutinizing the Brexit process thoroughly, but it might have been better had it done this 18 months ago.
Also fair to point out at this point that Labour were demanding Art 50 be followed immediately after the referendum.
Err no they didn't.
It was pointed out that triggering art 50 was the next step in the process but Labour weren't calling for it to be triggered immediately.
It was pointed out that triggering art 50 was the next step in the process but Labour weren't calling for it to be triggered immediately.
Corbyn the day after the referendum: "The British people have made their decision. We must respect that result and Article 50 has to be invoked now so that we negotiate an exit from the European Union."
To negotiate well they had to make it clear that they had the option of walking away. They never did that making it explicit that no deal was never an option.
It was the worst negotiating tactic ever.
I think the worst negotiating tactic was making someone as lazy and stupid as David Davis Secretary of State
Bloke is useless, but it didn't matter as he was completely ignored anyway.
if it's a no to unilateral revocation, then that'll help May quite a lot with Remainer MPs when it comes to the 11 December vote on her deal. But if it's a yes, they'll, by and large, abandon the deal. What will Leaver MPs do? It likely won't affect the deal passing or failing, but it may affect the market on MPs who support it.
The factor to be considered by tory MPs that if they pass the deal they are going to get spitroasted by a VoNC and a GE.
They're ahead in the polls right now. If they had some discipline about them and got behind May they'd be in a strong position going into a GE.
The reason Brexit has hit so many legal hurdles is because the establishment really didn't want it to happen.
Except Brexit has not hit any legal hurdles.
Parliament has waived through every single vote (so far).
The only hurdles that Brexit has encountered have been the harsh realities that Brexiteers dismissed as Project Fear, as predicted by the experts they derided.
I must have imagined the Gina Miller court case then.
I think it's fair to say A50 was "waved through" by Parliament with nary a second thought for the consequences. Now we're reaping those consequences.
Parliament has finally started scrutinizing the Brexit process thoroughly, but it might have been better had it done this 18 months ago.
Also fair to point out at this point that Labour were demanding Art 50 be followed immediately after the referendum.
Err no they didn't.
It was pointed out that triggering art 50 was the next step in the process but Labour weren't calling for it to be triggered immediately.
They must have done. Isn't it policy to tip every horse in every race and back none?
The reason Brexit has hit so many legal hurdles is because the establishment really didn't want it to happen.
Except Brexit has not hit any legal hurdles.
Parliament has waived through every single vote (so far).
The only hurdles that Brexit has encountered have been the harsh realities that Brexiteers dismissed as Project Fear, as predicted by the experts they derided.
I must have imagined the Gina Miller court case then.
I think it's fair to say A50 was "waved through" by Parliament with nary a second thought for the consequences. Now we're reaping those consequences.
Parliament has finally started scrutinizing the Brexit process thoroughly, but it might have been better had it done this 18 months ago.
Also fair to point out at this point that Labour were demanding Art 50 be followed immediately after the referendum.
Err no they didn't.
It was pointed out that triggering art 50 was the next step in the process but Labour weren't calling for it to be triggered immediately.
I can already hear the cries of "you didn't know what you voted for" if the plebs vote for no deal in a referendum.
Probably best to make sure that it’s fully defined in any referendum question (‘the government has already enacted legislation mandating that in the event of no deal it will raise taxes by x, cut spending by £y and immediately begin the following preparations at a cost of £z’) to avoid that risk.
They already did that for the last one with the emergency budget. Might not work as well this time though.
Apart from the ‘already enacting legislation’ bit, specifying numbers, and stating the preparations that would immediately begin, they already did that.
Oh right they really would mean it and not just be scaremongering this time.
Yeah, that’s the general idea. It wasn’t scar advanced.
The emergency budget and stock market crash upon a leave vote wasn't scaremongering?
You're obviously new to this game. Everything Remainers say is true and everything Brexiters say is false.
I would go with "uninformed nonsense" rather than "false".
lol
and little people should tug their forelocks when they meet their betters on the street
That is your chip speaking, Alan. Or do you include JRM, Redwood, Cash, and Duncan Smith as "little people".
Ignorance is an equal opportunity trait.
well I could equally argue the remain vote was based of the frightened ( project fear ) and the gullible ( all those young voters) but I cant be arsed.PB has had 2 years of yadda yadda and nobody's any better for it.
Theres very litlle to be gained by accusing the other side of whatever. Both sides had their chances, they both ran fairly discreditable campigns and both have to live with the result.
The problem for remainers as I see it is they still havent understood why they lost and until they get it the country cant move on. Corbyn is better equipped to tackle the issue than the tantrum Tories,
It would just be nice if the so called adults acted a bit more like adults.
I can already hear the cries of "you didn't know what you voted for" if the plebs vote for no deal in a referendum.
Probably best to make sure that it’s fully defined in any referendum question (‘the government has already enacted legislation mandating that in the event of no deal it will raise taxes by x, cut spending by £y and immediately begin the following preparations at a cost of £z’) to avoid that risk.
They already did that for the last one with the emergency budget. Might not work as well this time though.
Apart from the ‘already enacting legislation’ bit, specifying numbers, and stating the preparations that would immediately begin, they already did that.
Oh right they really would mean it and not just be scaremongering this time.
Yeah, that’s the general idea. It wasn’t scaremongering last time either, but those ‘threatening’ it ceased to be in power shortly after the referendum and I think it’s generally agreed across the spectrum of views that we have a woeful level of preparedness for no-deal. If there’s another referendum the electorate have to be given a choice between two or more real-world options with the full content of those options made clear and binding. Set out a bit better by @pro_rata downthread (8.12am) but perhaps the only way to get there, including the E.U. allowing the necessary revocation of A50 to buy time, is to set up the referendum to it binds the government to begin that preparation process before invoking A50 again in a number of years’ time once the preparations are sufficiently advanced.
The emergency budget and stock market crash upon a leave vote wasn't scaremongering?
You're obviously new to this game. Everything Remainers say is true and everything Brexiters say is false.
I would go with "uninformed nonsense" rather than "false".
It's debatable which is more snide, but whichever it is, that's the one.
The reason Brexit has hit so many legal hurdles is because the establishment really didn't want it to happen.
Except Brexit has not hit any legal hurdles.
Parliament has waived through every single vote (so far).
The only hurdles that Brexit has encountered have been the harsh realities that Brexiteers dismissed as Project Fear, as predicted by the experts they derided.
I must have imagined the Gina Miller court case then.
I think it's fair to say A50 was "waved through" by Parliament with nary a second thought for the consequences. Now we're reaping those consequences.
Parliament has finally started scrutinizing the Brexit process thoroughly, but it might have been better had it done this 18 months ago.
Also fair to point out at this point that Labour were demanding Art 50 be followed immediately after the referendum.
Err no they didn't.
It was pointed out that triggering art 50 was the next step in the process but Labour weren't calling for it to be triggered immediately.
Reality Check: Has Corbyn changed his mind on Article 50? 22 July 2016 Reality Check verdict: Mr Corbyn's message has certainly changed, either because he has changed his mind or because he misspoke on 24 June and waited a month to correct himself. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36866170
The reason Brexit has hit so many legal hurdles is because the establishment really didn't want it to happen.
Except Brexit has not hit any legal hurdles.
Parliament has waived through every single vote (so far).
The only hurdles that Brexit has encountered have been the harsh realities that Brexiteers dismissed as Project Fear, as predicted by the experts they derided.
I must have imagined the Gina Miller court case then.
I think it's fair to say A50 was "waved through" by Parliament with nary a second thought for the consequences. Now we're reaping those consequences.
Parliament has finally started scrutinizing the Brexit process thoroughly, but it might have been better had it done this 18 months ago.
Also fair to point out at this point that Labour were demanding Art 50 be followed immediately after the referendum.
Err no they didn't.
It was pointed out that triggering art 50 was the next step in the process but Labour weren't calling for it to be triggered immediately.
I can already hear the cries of "you didn't know what you voted for" if the plebs vote for no deal in a referendum.
Probably best to make sure that it’s fully defined in any referendum question (‘the government has already enacted legislation mandating that in the event of no deal it will raise taxes by x, cut spending by £y and immediately begin the following preparations at a cost of £z’) to avoid that risk.
They already did that for the last one with the emergency budget. Might not work as well this time though.
Apart from the ‘already enacting legislation’ bit, specifying numbers, and stating the preparations that would immediately begin, they already did that.
Oh right they really would mean it and not just be scaremongering this time.
Yeah, that’s the general idea. It wasn’t scaremongering last time either, but those ‘threatening’ it ceased to be in power shortly after the referendum and I think it’s generally agreed across the spectrum of views that we have a woeful level of preparedness for no-deal. If there’s another referendum the electorate have to be given a choice between two or more real-world options with the full content of those options made clear and binding. Set out a bit better by @pro_rata downthread (8.12am) but perhaps the only way to get there, including the E.U. allowing the necessary revocation of A50 to buy time, is to set up the referendum to it binds the government to begin that preparation process before invoking A50 again in a number of years’ time once the preparations are sufficiently advanced.
The emergency budget and stock market crash upon a leave vote wasn't scaremongering?
You're obviously new to this game. Everything Remainers say is true and everything Brexiters say is false.
I would go with "uninformed nonsense" rather than "false".
It's debatable which is more snide, but whichever it is, that's the one.
Dominic Grieve might be able to think something up. He shouldn't have voted to enact Art. 50 in view of his subsequent actions but he's got more brains than the ERG put together.
No he should not have voted for art 50. To do so and now machinate for no brexit rather than support a deal which seeks to leave the EU in a soft and orderly low-risk way is deeply dishonourable.
Apart from Boris Johnson who occupies an integrity free space all of his own, these tory remainaics are IMO behaving worse than anyone in the current shambles.
The ERG crazies are at least driven by a sincere albeit zealous and utterly indefensible view of what the referendum result meant. The DUP are the DUP. And Labour are after all the opposition. But this Grieve, JoJo, Wollaston etc faction ... the pits.
It was pointed out that triggering art 50 was the next step in the process but Labour weren't calling for it to be triggered immediately.
Corbyn the day after the referendum: "The British people have made their decision. We must respect that result and Article 50 has to be invoked now so that we negotiate an exit from the European Union."
Which part of that sentence is wrong?
Now does not mean immediately the next stage in the process was triggering Article 50. If he meant right now that second the interview would have had to take place as he walked to the houses of commons... so even the people stating now meant immediately do not mean immediately.
People everyday use the word now without meaning right now. I linked an article the other day using the word now in exactly the way Corbyn did. Labour issued a clarification stating that he wasn't calling for it immediately fairly soon after and it seems unlikely that article 50 would have been triggered by Labour in that time on the basis of Corbyn not specifying.
Of course without reading his mind you can argue that he did mean it should be triggered right then as it's impossible to know, balance of probabilities doesn't favour it though.
well I could equally argue the remain vote was based of the frightened ( project fear ) and the gullible ( all those young voters) but I cant be arsed.PB has had 2 years of yadda yadda and nobody's any better for it.
Theres very litlle to be gained by accusing the other side of whatever. Both sides had their chances, they both ran fairly discreditable campigns and both have to live with the result.
The problem for remainers as I see it is they still havent understood why they lost and until they get it the country cant move on. Corbyn is better equipped to tackle the issue than the tantrum Tories,
It would just be nice if the so called adults acted a bit more like adults.
We understand why we lost. People wanted to stick it to the man. Something we have noted on here for those two years and indeed there was a good article about it (Cohen?) only yesterday or at least this week.
We also understand that the vast majority of the grievances that Leavers had had nothing to do with the EU but they had grown disillusioned with successive British governments seeming to ride roughshod over their hopes and desires (except for a new iPhone X or Range Rover Evoque which they have continued to buy on the never never) and as such they hoped that by voting to "Leave the EU", the reality and implications of which most people hadn't the fainest clue about, just like they might once have kicked the telly when it was on the fritz, all their problems would be solved.
We also understand that a non-trivial proportion of Leave voters don't like foreigners. Some of course wanted to "control not limit" foreigners but when it comes down to it, the referendum legitimised anti-foreigner feeling.
Then there were the purist types (our very own @Richard_Tyndall for example) who voted for all the best reasons, even if they did have to hitch their wagons to the ignorant and the bigots.
Dominic Grieve might be able to think something up. He shouldn't have voted to enact Art. 50 in view of his subsequent actions but he's got more brains than the ERG put together.
No he should not have voted for art 50. To do so and now machinate for no brexit rather than support a deal which seeks to leave the EU in a soft and orderly low-risk way is deeply dishonourable.
I would rather Parliament have done its job properly at the start, but better late than never. Grieve surely a shoo-in for Parliamentarian of the Year now.
I wonder if he'd be interested in being Speaker when a vacancy arrives in the summer?
It was pointed out that triggering art 50 was the next step in the process but Labour weren't calling for it to be triggered immediately.
Corbyn the day after the referendum: "The British people have made their decision. We must respect that result and Article 50 has to be invoked now so that we negotiate an exit from the European Union."
Which part of that sentence is wrong?
Now does not mean immediately the next stage in the process was triggering Article 50. If he meant right now that second the interview would have had to take place as he walked to the houses of commons... so even the people stating now meant immediately do not mean immediately.
People everyday use the word now without meaning right now. I linked an article the other day using the word now in exactly the way Corbyn did. Labour issued a clarification stating that he wasn't calling for it immediately fairly soon after and it seems unlikely that article 50 would have been triggered by Labour in that time on the basis of Corbyn not specifying.
Of course without reading his mind you can argue that he did mean it should be triggered right then as it's impossible to know, balance of probabilities doesn't favour it though.
OH NO! We are back to what the meaning of is now is.
It was pointed out that triggering art 50 was the next step in the process but Labour weren't calling for it to be triggered immediately.
Corbyn the day after the referendum: "The British people have made their decision. We must respect that result and Article 50 has to be invoked now so that we negotiate an exit from the European Union."
Which part of that sentence is wrong?
Now does not mean immediately the next stage in the process was triggering Article 50. If he meant right now that second the interview would have had to take place as he walked to the houses of commons... so even the people stating now meant immediately do not mean immediately.
People everyday use the word now without meaning right now. I linked an article the other day using the word now in exactly the way Corbyn did. Labour issued a clarification stating that he wasn't calling for it immediately fairly soon after and it seems unlikely that article 50 would have been triggered by Labour in that time on the basis of Corbyn not specifying.
Of course without reading his mind you can argue that he did mean it should be triggered right then as it's impossible to know, balance of probabilities doesn't favour it though.
Invoking Article 50 immediately was a catastrophic error. May was foolish for doing it, Corbyn was foolish for enabling her. Parliament was foolish for not giving it a moment's scrutiny.
But we are where we are; at least Parliament is trying to fix its mistakes *now*.
The reason Brexit has hit so many legal hurdles is because the establishment really didn't want it to happen.
Except Brexit has not hit any legal hurdles.
Parliament has waived through every single vote (so far).
The only hurdles that Brexit has encountered have been the harsh realities that Brexiteers dismissed as Project Fear, as predicted by the experts they derided.
I must have imagined the Gina Miller court case then.
I think it's fair to say A50 was "waved through" by Parliament with nary a second thought for the consequences. Now we're reaping those consequences.
Parliament has finally started scrutinizing the Brexit process thoroughly, but it might have been better had it done this 18 months ago.
Also fair to point out at this point that Labour were demanding Art 50 be followed immediately after the referendum.
Err no they didn't.
It was pointed out that triggering art 50 was the next step in the process but Labour weren't calling for it to be triggered immediately.
_____________________________________________ England will now play either Russia or Croatia in the World Cup 2018 semi-finals on Wednesday 11 July 2018. _______________________________
Why doesn't the football writer want the English football team to have any team to prepare for possibly the biggest game we have had in decades?! (this article was pretty much straight after our quarter final)
He is as mad as Corbyn in his suggestion we should play the game right now!!
Even if we ignore the impracticality of the Croatia Vs Russia game having to finish before it even starts so our game against the winners can start.
This article is also written on the 7th July. He wants the team to play a game now which is on the 11th July. Somehow they have to bend time to make the 11th July immeadiate.
Either that or this professional journalist is employing a widely used use of the word now that is perfectly acceptable and widely understood and not used against him because there is no political benefit.
Admittedly it is more obvious the football journalist doesn't mean right now when he says now but those seeking political advantage can claim to know exactly what was meant.
well I could equally argue the remain vote was based of the frightened ( project fear ) and the gullible ( all those young voters) but I cant be arsed.PB has had 2 years of yadda yadda and nobody's any better for it.
Theres very litlle to be gained by accusing the other side of whatever. Both sides had their chances, they both ran fairly discreditable campigns and both have to live with the result.
The problem for remainers as I see it is they still havent understood why they lost and until they get it the country cant move on. Corbyn is better equipped to tackle the issue than the tantrum Tories,
It would just be nice if the so called adults acted a bit more like adults.
We understand why we lost. People wanted to stick it to the man. Something we have noted on here for those two years and indeed there was a good article about it (Cohen?) only yesterday or at least this week.
We also understand that the vast majority of the grievances that Leavers had had nothing to do with the EU but they had grown disillusioned with successive British governments seeming to ride roughshod over their hopes and desires (except for a new iPhone X or Range Rover Evoque which they have continued to buy on the never never) and as such they hoped that by voting to "Leave the EU", the reality and implications of which most people hadn't the fainest clue about just like they might once have kicked the telly when it was on the fritz.
We also understand that a non-trivial proportion of Leave voters don't like foreigners. Some of course wanted to "control not limit" foreigners but when it comes down to it, the referendum legitimised anti-foreigner feeling.
Then there were the purist types (our very own @Richard_Tyndall for example) who voted for all the best reasons, even if they did have to hitch their wagons to the ignorant and the bigots.
We understand very well why we lost.
Which is why you are studiously doing nothing about it and ceding the ground to Corbyn ? Except of course running once again the discretied scare stories and chucking out random insults.
well I could equally argue the remain vote was based of the frightened ( project fear ) and the gullible ( all those young voters) but I cant be arsed.PB has had 2 years of yadda yadda and nobody's any better for it.
Theres very litlle to be gained by accusing the other side of whatever. Both sides had their chances, they both ran fairly discreditable campigns and both have to live with the result.
The problem for remainers as I see it is they still havent understood why they lost and until they get it the country cant move on. Corbyn is better equipped to tackle the issue than the tantrum Tories,
It would just be nice if the so called adults acted a bit more like adults.
We understand why we lost. People wanted to stick it to the man. Something we have noted on here for those two years and indeed there was a good article about it (Cohen?) only yesterday or at least this week.
We also understand that the vast majority of the grievances that Leavers had had nothing to do with the EU but they had grown disillusioned with successive British governments seeming to ride roughshod over their hopes and desires (except for a new iPhone X or Range Rover Evoque which they have continued to buy on the never never) and as such they hoped that by voting to "Leave the EU", the reality and implications of which most people hadn't the fainest clue about, just like they might once have kicked the telly when it was on the fritz, all their problems would be solved.
We also understand that a non-trivial proportion of Leave voters don't like foreigners. Some of course wanted to "control not limit" foreigners but when it comes down to it, the referendum legitimised anti-foreigner feeling.
Then there were the purist types (our very own @Richard_Tyndall for example) who voted for all the best reasons, even if they did have to hitch their wagons to the ignorant and the bigots.
We understand very well why we lost.
Worse than that. In the most blighted parts of the UK, the EU, it seems to me, were the only people actually doing anything, other than massively underfunded local councils. ERDF for post-industrial areas like Mansfield and rural stuff in places like Wales and Cornwall.
Brexiteers will say the same money will be spent, but frankly I don't believe them and there has been sod of evidence in decades that it would happen.
It was pointed out that triggering art 50 was the next step in the process but Labour weren't calling for it to be triggered immediately.
Corbyn the day after the referendum: "The British people have made their decision. We must respect that result and Article 50 has to be invoked now so that we negotiate an exit from the European Union."
Which part of that sentence is wrong?
Now does not mean immediately the next stage in the process was triggering Article 50. If he meant right now that second the interview would have had to take place as he walked to the houses of commons... so even the people stating now meant immediately do not mean immediately.
People everyday use the word now without meaning right now. I linked an article the other day using the word now in exactly the way Corbyn did. Labour issued a clarification stating that he wasn't calling for it immediately fairly soon after and it seems unlikely that article 50 would have been triggered by Labour in that time on the basis of Corbyn not specifying.
Of course without reading his mind you can argue that he did mean it should be triggered right then as it's impossible to know, balance of probabilities doesn't favour it though.
OH NO! We are back to what the meaning of is now is.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn spoke to David Dimbleby on the BBC the morning of the EU Referendum result. His first remark was that: "The British people have made their decision. We must respect that result and Article 50 has to be invoked now so that we negotiate an exit from the European Union." Mr Dimbleby said the idea of an abrupt signing of Article 50 was at odds with suggestions from Tory MEP Daniel Hannan who said it would be better to take our time and develop a strategy. My Corbyn confirmed that it was important to have a strategy but did not disagree with the suggestion that he was calling for an abrupt triggering of Article 50.
well I could equally argue the remain vote was based of the frightened ( project fear ) and the gullible ( all those young voters) but I cant be arsed.PB has had 2 years of yadda yadda and nobody's any better for it.
Theres very litlle to be gained by accusing the other side of whatever. Both sides had their chances, they both ran fairly discreditable campigns and both have to live with the result.
The problem for remainers as I see it is they still havent understood why they lost and until they get it the country cant move on. Corbyn is better equipped to tackle the issue than the tantrum Tories,
It would just be nice if the so called adults acted a bit more like adults.
We understand why we lost. People wanted to stick it to the man. Something we have noted on here for those two years and indeed there was a good article about it (Cohen?) only yesterday or at least this week.
We also understand that the vast majority of the grievances that Leavers had had nothing to do with the EU but they had grown disillusioned with successive British governments seeming to ride roughshod over their hopes and desires (except for a new iPhone X or Range Rover Evoque which they have continued to buy on the never never) and as such they hoped that by voting to "Leave the EU", the reality and implications of which most people hadn't the fainest clue about just like they might once have kicked the telly when it was on the fritz.
We also understand that a non-trivial proportion of Leave voters don't like foreigners. Some of course wanted to "control not limit" foreigners but when it comes down to it, the referendum legitimised anti-foreigner feeling.
Then there were the purist types (our very own @Richard_Tyndall for example) who voted for all the best reasons, even if they did have to hitch their wagons to the ignorant and the bigots.
We understand very well why we lost.
Which is why you are studiously doing nothing about it and ceding the ground to Corbyn ? Except of course running once again the discretied scare stories and chucking out random insults.
strange strategy
cant see it working
That could have something to do with being lumbered with delivering Brexit.
well I could equally argue the remain vote was based of the frightened ( project fear ) and the gullible ( all those young voters) but I cant be arsed.PB has had 2 years of yadda yadda and nobody's any better for it.
Theres very litlle to be gained by accusing the other side of whatever. Both sides had their chances, they both ran fairly discreditable campigns and both have to live with the result.
The problem for remainers as I see it is they still havent understood why they lost and until they get it the country cant move on. Corbyn is better equipped to tackle the issue than the tantrum Tories,
It would just be nice if the so called adults acted a bit more like adults.
We understand why we lost. People wanted to stick it to the man. Something we have noted on here for those two years and indeed there was a good article about it (Cohen?) only yesterday or at least this week.
We also understand that the vast majority of the grievances that Leavers had had nothing to do with the EU but they had grown disillusioned with successive British governments seeming to ride roughshod over their hopes and desires (except for a new iPhone X or Range Rover Evoque which they have continued to buy on the never never) and as such they hoped that by voting to "Leave the EU", the reality and implications of which most people hadn't the fainest clue about, just like they might once have kicked the telly when it was on the fritz, all their problems would be solved.
We also understand that a non-trivial proportion of Leave voters don't like foreigners. Some of course wanted to "control not limit" foreigners but when it comes down to it, the referendum legitimised anti-foreigner feeling.
Then there were the purist types (our very own @Richard_Tyndall for example) who voted for all the best reasons, even if they did have to hitch their wagons to the ignorant and the bigots.
We understand very well why we lost.
Christ. It couldn't be possible that people voted to leave the EU because they actually wanted to leave the EU.
well I could equally argue the remain vote was based of the frightened ( project fear ) and the gullible ( all those young voters) but I cant be arsed.PB has had 2 years of yadda yadda and nobody's any better for it.
Theres very litlle to be gained by accusing the other side of whatever. Both sides had their chances, they both ran fairly discreditable campigns and both have to live with the result.
The problem for remainers as I see it is they still havent understood why they lost and until they get it the country cant move on. Corbyn is better equipped to tackle the issue than the tantrum Tories,
It would just be nice if the so called adults acted a bit more like adults.
We understand why we lost. People wanted to stick it to the man. Something we have noted on here for those two years and indeed there was a good article about it (Cohen?) only yesterday or at least this week.
We also understand that the vast majority of the grievances that Leavers had had nothing to do with the EU but they had grown disillusioned with successive British governments seeming to ride roughshod over their hopes and desires (except for a new iPhone X or Range Rover Evoque which they have continued to buy on the never never) and as such they hoped that by voting to "Leave the EU", the reality and implications of which most people hadn't the fainest clue about, just like they might once have kicked the telly when it was on the fritz, all their problems would be solved.
We also understand that a non-trivial proportion of Leave voters don't like foreigners. Some of course wanted to "control not limit" foreigners but when it comes down to it, the referendum legitimised anti-foreigner feeling.
Then there were the purist types (our very own @Richard_Tyndall for example) who voted for all the best reasons, even if they did have to hitch their wagons to the ignorant and the bigots.
We understand very well why we lost.
Worse than that. In the most blighted parts of the UK, the EU, it seems to me, were the only people actually doing anything, other than massively underfunded local councils. ERDF for post-industrial areas like Mansfield and rural stuff in places like Wales and Cornwall.
Brexiteers will say the same money will be spent, but frankly I don't believe them and there has been sod of evidence in decades that it would happen.
British goverbments dont invest in infrastructure. That has been the sorry state of affairs for the last 60 years.
It was pointed out that triggering art 50 was the next step in the process but Labour weren't calling for it to be triggered immediately.
Corbyn the day after the referendum: "The British people have made their decision. We must respect that result and Article 50 has to be invoked now so that we negotiate an exit from the European Union."
Which part of that sentence is wrong?
Now does not mean immediately the next stage in the process was triggering Article 50. If he meant right now that second the interview would have had to take place as he walked to the houses of commons... so even the people stating now meant immediately do not mean immediately.
People everyday use the word now without meaning right now. I linked an article the other day using the word now in exactly the way Corbyn did. Labour issued a clarification stating that he wasn't calling for it immediately fairly soon after and it seems unlikely that article 50 would have been triggered by Labour in that time on the basis of Corbyn not specifying.
Of course without reading his mind you can argue that he did mean it should be triggered right then as it's impossible to know, balance of probabilities doesn't favour it though.
He waited a month to clarify.
I thought Labour released a statement soon after clarifying?
Corbyn answering angry journalists questions as the Labour party was starting up the coup probably wasn't top of the list of priorities....
Betting wise there must be some reasonable value in a TM resignation or ousting in 2018. Talk of the 48 letters going in has diminished partly because there's so much else going on - not least a potential VoNC next week. But as many have pointed out TM has ruin out of road and is singularly unsuited given her previous stance/inaction to pivot to Norway or to No Deal.
well I could equally argue the remain vote was based of the frightened ( project fear ) and the gullible ( all those young voters) but I cant be arsed.PB has had 2 years of yadda yadda and nobody's any better for it.
Theres very litlle to be gained by accusing the other side of whatever. Both sides had their chances, they both ran fairly discreditable campigns and both have to live with the result.
The problem for remainers as I see it is they still havent understood why they lost and until they get it the country cant move on. Corbyn is better equipped to tackle the issue than the tantrum Tories,
It would just be nice if the so called adults acted a bit more like adults.
We understand why we lost. People wanted to stick it to the man. Something we have noted on here for those two years and indeed there was a good article about it (Cohen?) only yesterday or at least this week.
We also understand that the vast majority of the grievances that Leavers had had nothing to do with the EU but they had grown disillusioned with successive British governments seeming to ride roughshod over their hopes and desires (except for a new iPhone X or Range Rover Evoque which they have continued to buy on the never never) and as such they hoped that by voting to "Leave the EU", the reality and implications of which most people hadn't the fainest clue about just like they might once have kicked the telly when it was on the fritz.
We also understand that a non-trivial proportion of Leave voters don't like foreigners. Some of course wanted to "control not limit" foreigners but when it comes down to it, the referendum legitimised anti-foreigner feeling.
Then there were the purist types (our very own @Richard_Tyndall for example) who voted for all the best reasons, even if they did have to hitch their wagons to the ignorant and the bigots.
We understand very well why we lost.
Which is why you are studiously doing nothing about it and ceding the ground to Corbyn ? Except of course running once again the discretied scare stories and chucking out random insults.
strange strategy
cant see it working
We are trying to make the best of a very very bad job. eg. The Deal. Again, mistakes were made, many of them, by May back immediately after the referendum result - no big tent then, just idiotic red lines - but as they say we are where we are and the deal is the least bad option we have.
Plus, it's not my fault if 35.645% of the Tory party are, to use the vernacular, idiots talking uninformed nonsense.
_____________________________________________ England will now play either Russia or Croatia in the World Cup 2018 semi-finals on Wednesday 11 July 2018. _______________________________
Why doesn't the football writer want the English football team to have any team to prepare for possibly the biggest game we have had in decades?! (this article was pretty much straight after our quarter final)
He is as mad as Corbyn in his suggestion we should play the game right now!!
Even if we ignore the impracticality of the Croatia Vs Russia game having to finish before it even starts so our game against the winners can start.
This article is also written on the 7th July. He wants the team to play a game now which is on the 11th July. Somehow they have to bend time to make the 11th July immeadiate.
Either that or this professional journalist is employing a widely used use of the word now that is perfectly acceptable and widely understood and not used against him because there is no political benefit.
Admittedly it is more obvious the football journalist doesn't mean right now when he says now but those seeking political advantage can claim to know exactly what was meant.
I don't believe Corbyn knew what he meant by "now" until a month later.
We are trying to make the best of a very very bad job. eg. The Deal. Again, mistakes were made, many of them, by May back immediately after the referendum result - no big tent then, just idiotic red lines - but as they say we are where we are and the deal is the least bad option we have.
Plus, it's not my fault if 35.645% of the Tory party are, to use the vernacular, idiots talking uninformed nonsense.
Comments
Farage, of course, denies he ever met with anyone from Russia, oh hang on...
https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2017-05/nigel-farage-brexit-ukip-russia-contacts/seite-3
But those four operators I did check means that any MP from the West Country, Wales, the north of England, Scotland and (at least) large parts of the outer Midlands does not have rail as a Boxing Day option to London.
https://twitter.com/andreajenkyns/status/1070616021483089921
No change to anything
His general gist was bemoaning MPs who don’t know how bills work nor what the default of the withdrawal bill (We Leave next March is the law).
You’d have to introduce a new bill as there are so many clauses in the withdrawal bill.
These new amendments were like passing a law denying the existence of gravity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill
There would almost certainly be a court case if that was tried, to which we can't know a definitive answer.
The Withdrawal Act defines 29 March as exit day and provides for the repeal of the ECA(1972), though that section may not have been put into force - but as it only takes a ministerial order, it could be done at any time and with any motivation.
Obviously, legislation cannot be amended by a simple vote, although the definition of Brexit Day can be amended by the minister in the context of implementing an agreement. Whether a revocation could count as an agreement is dubious but I suppose arguable. At the minimum, it would need EU assent (which the CJEU might give implicitly if it follows the Adv Gen opinion).
There's also the question of notification. The Notification Act only gave the PM the power to notify of withdrawal, not to notify the revocation of a withdrawal notice. Some argue that the latter power is implicit in the former; others, that parliament clearly meant the power to be limited to was is in the text, and that that's how it should be read.
My opinion, FWIW, and IANAL, is that revising legislation would certainly be wise and probably necessary.
Does that mean we can list everything wrong with staying in the EU like our weekly payment and the EU army plans on there too?
I'm not sure the ballot paper would be large enough to list everything wrong with May's deal though.
It would appear that the collective view of parliament is that we cannot effectively leave the EU without threatening peace in Ireland and/or the integrity of the UK.
The 2016 referendum therefore included an option (Leave) which was not in practice deliverable.
So I await a full and frank apology to the nation from the person who in his 'wisdom' decided to hold that referendum. A certain David Cameron.
It would help. He did it for Bloody Sunday and he was good.
The reason Brexit has hit so many legal hurdles is because the establishment really didn't want it to happen.
It was the worst negotiating tactic ever.
Parliament has waived through every single vote (so far).
The only hurdles that Brexit has encountered have been the harsh realities that Brexiteers dismissed as Project Fear, as predicted by the experts they derided.
I'm unclear as to whether revoking A50 means we'd have to repeal the repeals and put statute law bach where it was before, or if we could function as an ongoing member having grandfathered EU law into UK law.
Parliament has finally started scrutinizing the Brexit process thoroughly, but it might have been better had it done this 18 months ago.
They should just be honest and say they aren't going to do Brexit because it's too hard and they don't really want to.
"Ok, you'll be a 3rd country"
"We don't want to be a 3rd country. We want to have lots of things the EU provides."
"I thought you wanted to leave?"
"We do but we want our cake and to eat it"
"You can't but we can negotiate some access depending on what you want and how deeply you want to be involved."
"We don't want to be involved, but we want access."
"You can't, you are leaving. Do you know what a 3rd country is?"
"But, but, but, it's not fair. You are bullies etc etc etc etc"
And, that the EU were saying no talks of any nature until Art 50 was envoked.
and little people should tug their forelocks when they meet their betters on the street
if it's a no to unilateral revocation, then that'll help May quite a lot with Remainer MPs when it comes to the 11 December vote on her deal. But if it's a yes, they'll, by and large, abandon the deal. What will Leaver MPs do? It likely won't affect the deal passing or failing, but it may affect the market on MPs who support it.
Ignorance is an equal opportunity trait.
It was pointed out that triggering art 50 was the next step in the process but Labour weren't calling for it to be triggered immediately.
Corbyn: “Article 50 has to be invoked now”
Theres very litlle to be gained by accusing the other side of whatever. Both sides had their chances, they both ran fairly discreditable campigns and both have to live with the result.
The problem for remainers as I see it is they still havent understood why they lost and until they get it the country cant move on. Corbyn is better equipped to tackle the issue than the tantrum Tories,
It would just be nice if the so called adults acted a bit more like adults.
22 July 2016
Reality Check verdict: Mr Corbyn's message has certainly changed, either because he has changed his mind or because he misspoke on 24 June and waited a month to correct himself.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36866170
Apart from Boris Johnson who occupies an integrity free space all of his own, these tory remainaics are IMO behaving worse than anyone in the current shambles.
The ERG crazies are at least driven by a sincere albeit zealous and utterly indefensible view of what the referendum result meant. The DUP are the DUP. And Labour are after all the opposition. But this Grieve, JoJo, Wollaston etc faction ... the pits.
Now does not mean immediately the next stage in the process was triggering Article 50. If he meant right now that second the interview would have had to take place as he walked to the houses of commons... so even the people stating now meant immediately do not mean immediately.
People everyday use the word now without meaning right now. I linked an article the other day using the word now in exactly the way Corbyn did. Labour issued a clarification stating that he wasn't calling for it immediately fairly soon after and it seems unlikely that article 50 would have been triggered by Labour in that time on the basis of Corbyn not specifying.
Of course without reading his mind you can argue that he did mean it should be triggered right then as it's impossible to know, balance of probabilities doesn't favour it though.
Raab is thick as a pile of bricks, but also rather handsome. I'll take him.
We also understand that the vast majority of the grievances that Leavers had had nothing to do with the EU but they had grown disillusioned with successive British governments seeming to ride roughshod over their hopes and desires (except for a new iPhone X or Range Rover Evoque which they have continued to buy on the never never) and as such they hoped that by voting to "Leave the EU", the reality and implications of which most people hadn't the fainest clue about, just like they might once have kicked the telly when it was on the fritz, all their problems would be solved.
We also understand that a non-trivial proportion of Leave voters don't like foreigners. Some of course wanted to "control not limit" foreigners but when it comes down to it, the referendum legitimised anti-foreigner feeling.
Then there were the purist types (our very own @Richard_Tyndall for example) who voted for all the best reasons, even if they did have to hitch their wagons to the ignorant and the bigots.
We understand very well why we lost.
I wonder if he'd be interested in being Speaker when a vacancy arrives in the summer?
isnow is.But we are where we are; at least Parliament is trying to fix its mistakes *now*.
England will now play either Russia or Croatia in the World Cup 2018 semi-finals on Wednesday 11 July 2018.
_______________________________
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/england-world-cup-2018-semi-final-date-who-play-next-when-russia-croatia-vs-sweden-a8436431.html
Why doesn't the football writer want the English football team to have any team to prepare for possibly the biggest game we have had in decades?! (this article was pretty much straight after our quarter final)
He is as mad as Corbyn in his suggestion we should play the game right now!!
Even if we ignore the impracticality of the Croatia Vs Russia game having to finish before it even starts so our game against the winners can start.
This article is also written on the 7th July. He wants the team to play a game now which is on the 11th July. Somehow they have to bend time to make the 11th July immeadiate.
Either that or this professional journalist is employing a widely used use of the word now that is perfectly acceptable and widely understood and not used against him because there is no political benefit.
Admittedly it is more obvious the football journalist doesn't mean right now when he says now but those seeking political advantage can claim to know exactly what was meant.
strange strategy
cant see it working
Brexiteers will say the same money will be spent, but frankly I don't believe them and there has been sod of evidence in decades that it would happen.
1) literally everybody else alive
His first remark was that: "The British people have made their decision. We must respect that result and Article 50 has to be invoked now so that we negotiate an exit from the European Union."
Mr Dimbleby said the idea of an abrupt signing of Article 50 was at odds with suggestions from Tory MEP Daniel Hannan who said it would be better to take our time and develop a strategy.
My Corbyn confirmed that it was important to have a strategy but did not disagree with the suggestion that he was calling for an abrupt triggering of Article 50.
McD makes his move next week?
Seems more likely that May will call for another round of EU meetings and then another vote after Xmas.
Corbyn answering angry journalists questions as the Labour party was starting up the coup probably wasn't top of the list of priorities....
Oh, Han Dodges, never change.
Plus, it's not my fault if 35.645% of the Tory party are, to use the vernacular, idiots talking uninformed nonsense.
https://twitter.com/stevehiltonx/status/1070611145025830912?s=21