Sam Gyimah is suggesting that he knows what Number 10's current thinking is.
1) Meaningful Vote. They expect to lose, hard. 2) They agree a series of indicative votes, in conference with the other party leaders, to be put the house. 3) If no winner emerges, least popular choices will be eliminated and the process repeated (an exhaustive ballot, essentially) 4) All the party leaders (including the PM) will agree, beforehand, the the votes will be free votes, and the party's whips will agree to be bound by the result of the indicative votes.
Sounds too much like common sense to be plausible. What's in it for Labour?
Labour really doesn't want to have to have its internal contradictions exposed any more than the Tories do. Labour's looking for a way to backpedal from their confused mess of a Brexit policy as much as the Tories.
By making the votes all be free votes, it's hoped that no one party will get the blame for the (almost certain) remain result this process will produce.
You may be right - I hope you are.
I struggle to see how we could Remain without a further referendum though.
I think you mean 2 further referendums. No way one remain win would settle it.
No, a very narrow majority of those who actually voted, voted to leave the EU. That was all.
Spot on. No one can dictate what form Leave MUST take. For me and many other Leavers May's deal. although far from perfect is certainly Leave which is why it should be supported - if only for fear of allowing Remain back in.
And as you know Richard many Remainers, including me, would take May's Deal as the 'best of a bad job' and a way to ensure avoiding the chaos of No Deal.
However, the grown-ups in the HoC know better it seems.
Articulate why you have such fears in a comprehensible manner rather than simply regurgitate Hammonds reincarnation of Project Fear.
6 - The Irish border. Unless we accept a sort of de facto backstop where Northern Ireland accepts everything from the Republic whatever the standards and regulations that applies to it (and there will certainly be chancers around for this), there's a hard border and shit happens there.
That's just off the top of my head.
What Mini component(s) cross the channel multiple times? How many Mini components cross the channel multiple times? What percentage of components cross the channel multiple times? Pretty basic info.
But as a Brexiteer you know the answer.
You simply must to have any creditabilty on JIT manufacturing and the impact on the no deal you want
The famous component that was used as the example of millions of parts that cross the channel multiple times in the case of Mini production was the crankshaft by Faisal Islam on Sky and he specifically stated that the crankshaft went France, UK, Munich, UK. So intelligent people put their brains into gear and had a think. Mini crankshafts are cast in France. The Mini engine factories are petrol, Hams Hall UK and Austria for diesel. So why was the crankshaft going to Munich, there is no Mini Engine factory in Munich? The answer is the BMW performance engines are made in Munich "M" power. The Mini engine made in Munich is the special edition John Cooper Works Edition. So the answer is a tiny percentage of mini crankshafts cross the channel multiple times. The sad thing is that because of new EU emissions rules the JCW Edition is no longer made so now no cranks shafts at all cross the channel multiple times. Of course as I have said before if the remain campaign had given us a breakdown of all these parts crossing the channel multiple times as a proof point that could not be argued about because it was factual, us brexiteers would not think it is propaganda as opposed to fact.
No, a very narrow majority of those who actually voted, voted to leave the EU. That was all.
Spot on. No one can dictate what form Leave MUST take. For me and many other Leavers May's deal. although far from perfect is certainly Leave which is why it should be supported - if only for fear of allowing Remain back in.
And as you know Richard many Remainers, including me, would take May's Deal as the 'best of a bad job' and a way to ensure avoiding the chaos of No Deal.
However, the grown-ups in the HoC know better it seems.
There are reasonable people on all sides. Unfortunately there are also, on both sides, utter fools who would see this country ruined rather than compromise.
Sam Gyimah is suggesting that he knows what Number 10's current thinking is.
1) Meaningful Vote. They expect to lose, hard. 2) They agree a series of indicative votes, in conference with the other party leaders, to be put the house. 3) If no winner emerges, least popular choices will be eliminated and the process repeated (an exhaustive ballot, essentially) 4) All the party leaders (including the PM) will agree, beforehand, the the votes will be free votes, and the party's whips will agree to be bound by the result of the indicative votes.
Sounds too much like common sense to be plausible. What's in it for Labour?
Labour really doesn't want to have to have its internal contradictions exposed any more than the Tories do. Labour's looking for a way to backpedal from their confused mess of a Brexit policy as much as the Tories.
By making the votes all be free votes, it's hoped that no one party will get the blame for the (almost certain) remain result this process will produce.
You may be right - I hope you are.
I struggle to see how we could Remain without a further referendum though.
I think you mean 2 further referendums. No way one remain win would settle it.
It would settle it for the time being.
Nothing to stop Leavers campaigning for a further leave ref of course - although I suspect they might want to avoid the "easiest deal in the world", "they need us more than we need them" and "£350m a week for the NHS" arguments next time.
No, a very narrow majority of those who actually voted, voted to leave the EU. That was all.
Spot on. No one can dictate what form Leave MUST take. For me and many other Leavers May's deal. although far from perfect is certainly Leave which is why it should be supported - if only for fear of allowing Remain back in.
Edit; since I notice I have answered two points from you in succession, Evening by the way
History will come to see the deal as the missed opportunity for leavers. It has taken decades to integrate our economies and institutions with our EU partners. If the process is to be unwound, it needs to be done carefully and slowly, over years: Brexit is a journey, not a destination. The deal is a sensible first step.
Unfortunately its advocates don't have confidence that their project would withstand the scrutiny and battering it would get meanwhile, and insist on Cold Turkey Brexit or nothing, in defiance of all logic or common sense.
No, a very narrow majority of those who actually voted, voted to leave the EU. That was all.
Spot on. No one can dictate what form Leave MUST take. For me and many other Leavers May's deal. although far from perfect is certainly Leave which is why it should be supported - if only for fear of allowing Remain back in.
And as you know Richard many Remainers, including me, would take May's Deal as the 'best of a bad job' and a way to ensure avoiding the chaos of No Deal.
However, the grown-ups in the HoC know better it seems.
There are reasonable people on all sides. Unfortunately there are also, on both sides, utter fools who would see this country ruined rather than compromise.
Indeed. Let's hope commonsense prevails in the end.
If true that seems pretty conclusive that the reports on Barwell and Liddington were porkies. A 2nd ref on May's watch seems incredibly far fetched, ironically if she had been deposed I suspect parliament might have felt the circumstances for one would be considerably more favourable.
No, a very narrow majority of those who actually voted, voted to leave the EU. That was all.
Spot on. No one can dictate what form Leave MUST take. For me and many other Leavers May's deal. although far from perfect is certainly Leave which is why it should be supported - if only for fear of allowing Remain back in.
Edit; since I notice I have answered two points from you in succession, Evening by the way
History will come to see the deal as the missed opportunity for leavers. It has taken decades to integrate our economies and institutions with our EU partners. If the process is to be unwound, it needs to be done carefully and slowly, over years: Brexit is a journey, not a destination. The deal is a sensible first step.
Unfortunately its advocates don't have confidence that their project would withstand the scrutiny and battering it would get meanwhile, and insist on Cold Turkey Brexit or nothing, in defiance of all logic or common sense.
And so make it more likely it will either never happen or be a disaster.
I say that as someone who is sceptical of some of the claims of catastrophe but thinks that, since there is a deal on the table, it is dumb to tempt fate.
Sam Gyimah is suggesting that he knows what Number 10's current thinking is.
1) Meaningful Vote. They expect to lose, hard. 2) They agree a series of indicative votes, in conference with the other party leaders, to be put the house. 3) If no winner emerges, least popular choices will be eliminated and the process repeated (an exhaustive ballot, essentially) 4) All the party leaders (including the PM) will agree, beforehand, the the votes will be free votes, and the party's whips will agree to be bound by the result of the indicative votes.
This is interesting. Especially if they realise that there really are only three options: the deal, leaving with no deal and remaining. The deal may actually be the Condorcet winner in the Commons.
Sam Gyimah is suggesting that he knows what Number 10's current thinking is.
1) Meaningful Vote. They expect to lose, hard. 2) They agree a series of indicative votes, in conference with the other party leaders, to be put the house. 3) If no winner emerges, least popular choices will be eliminated and the process repeated (an exhaustive ballot, essentially) 4) All the party leaders (including the PM) will agree, beforehand, the the votes will be free votes, and the party's whips will agree to be bound by the result of the indicative votes.
Sounds too much like common sense to be plausible. What's in it for Labour?
Labour really doesn't want to have to have its internal contradictions exposed any more than the Tories do. Labour's looking for a way to backpedal from their confused mess of a Brexit policy as much as the Tories.
By making the votes all be free votes, it's hoped that no one party will get the blame for the (almost certain) remain result this process will produce.
You may be right - I hope you are.
I struggle to see how we could Remain without a further referendum though.
I think you mean 2 further referendums. No way one remain win would settle it.
If we get off this chaotic nightmare political ride, there isn't going to be much appetite to get back on for quite some time. One vote would settle it, provided it isn't on a knife edge.
I will go for your upgrade. My daughter regularly travels from Abergele/Rhyl to Bridgend and Llanelli for meetings and not only does she have to stay in a hotel overnight, she has chaotic delays and cancellations all via the new Wales government franchise
Useless fact for most people probably: just found out that Lloyds Bank no longer requires you to inform them when you're going abroad and intending to use their cards.
Sam Gyimah is suggesting that he knows what Number 10's current thinking is.
1) Meaningful Vote. They expect to lose, hard. 2) They agree a series of indicative votes, in conference with the other party leaders, to be put the house. 3) If no winner emerges, least popular choices will be eliminated and the process repeated (an exhaustive ballot, essentially) 4) All the party leaders (including the PM) will agree, beforehand, the the votes will be free votes, and the party's whips will agree to be bound by the result of the indicative votes.
Wasn’t this the idea that was hatched on here several days back?
Can MPs have some of these votes by secret ballot or must they traipse through the lobbies, causing some to change their vote out of sheer fear of the mob? That's what 'respecting the vote' is code for.
I was at an event held by the dairy industry the other week. There was general consternation at the lack of information about what will happen after 29 March. Most milk used in the UK is home produced but large quantities of butter and cream are imported, cream from Holland and butter from Ireland. Producers are stockpiling butter, which can be frozen, but there is limited capacity for storage. Cream cannot be stockpiled and supplies would dry up in a few days if there delays at cross channel ports. The general expectation was that a no deal Brexit would mean shortages of some items and big price increases for those that were available.
Which is why "managed" no deal will have a shelf life of weeks, at most. You can have cream* if you sign the Withdrawal Agreement. Do you think they won't sign? People don't know what a backstop is, but they certainly can recognise shortages.
* Substitute 1000 other products and services here
If true that seems pretty conclusive that the reports on Barwell and Liddington were porkies. A 2nd ref on May's watch seems incredibly far fetched, ironically if she had been deposed I suspect parliament might have felt the circumstances for one would be considerably more favourable.
It's a handy issue of principle on which a principled woman can reasonably resign, with her honour intact - a lot better than being turfed out by her colleagues or by a VNOC after her life's work is comprehensively rejected. I suspect this is Theresa planning her own exit.
Sam Gyimah is suggesting that he knows what Number 10's current thinking is.
1) Meaningful Vote. They expect to lose, hard. 2) They agree a series of indicative votes, in conference with the other party leaders, to be put the house. 3) If no winner emerges, least popular choices will be eliminated and the process repeated (an exhaustive ballot, essentially) 4) All the party leaders (including the PM) will agree, beforehand, the the votes will be free votes, and the party's whips will agree to be bound by the result of the indicative votes.
Sounds too much like common sense to be plausible. What's in it for Labour?
Labour really doesn't want to have to have its internal contradictions exposed any more than the Tories do. Labour's looking for a way to backpedal from their confused mess of a Brexit policy as much as the Tories.
By making the votes all be free votes, it's hoped that no one party will get the blame for the (almost certain) remain result this process will produce.
You may be right - I hope you are.
I struggle to see how we could Remain without a further referendum though.
I think you mean 2 further referendums. No way one remain win would settle it.
If we get off this chaotic nightmare political ride, there isn't going to be much appetite to get back on for quite some time. One vote would settle it, provided it isn't on a knife edge.
Unless its a bigger margin on a bigger turnout then a remain win will ensure Leave are relentless in persuing the best of 3 and let's be honest does anyone think another leave win will shut up the People's Vote campaign? Another referendum makes this go on twice as long and makes it twice as nasty.
Sam Gyimah is suggesting that he knows what Number 10's current thinking is.
1) Meaningful Vote. They expect to lose, hard. 2) They agree a series of indicative votes, in conference with the other party leaders, to be put the house. 3) If no winner emerges, least popular choices will be eliminated and the process repeated (an exhaustive ballot, essentially) 4) All the party leaders (including the PM) will agree, beforehand, the the votes will be free votes, and the party's whips will agree to be bound by the result of the indicative votes.
Wasn’t this the idea that was hatched on here several days back?
Can MPs have some of these votes by secret ballot or must they traipse through the lobbies, causing some to change their vote out of sheer fear of the mob? That's what 'respecting the vote' is code for.
Divisions are a matter of record. Mainly so that voters know what their MP did while in the Commons.
Well, at a time of threats to MPs, especially female ones, and intimations of mob rule, I won't be surprised if some Labour MPs for rough northern seats change their vote from 'rescind A50' to 'accept the deal'.
If VONCs in the PM can take place by secret ballot, it's disappointing that an exception can't be made for this vote.
My mind is made up, man, and I'm being totally consistent.
There's nothing wrong with the total level of immigration that we have. We should be loosening immigration controls on Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians as we tighten them on people from the 26 EU countries (excluding Ireland, for obvious reasons).
No other Commonwealth countries due for some 'loosening'?
It wasn't an exhaustive list.
Something that those three countries have in common that I just can't quite put my finger on..
I was at an event held by the dairy industry the other week. There was general consternation at the lack of information about what will happen after 29 March. Most milk used in the UK is home produced but large quantities of butter and cream are imported, cream from Holland and butter from Ireland. Producers are stockpiling butter, which can be frozen, but there is limited capacity for storage. Cream cannot be stockpiled and supplies would dry up in a few days if there delays at cross channel ports. The general expectation was that a no deal Brexit would mean shortages of some items and big price increases for those that were available.
Which is why "managed" no deal will have a shelf life of weeks, at most. You can have cream* if you sign the Withdrawal Agreement. Do you think they won't sign? People don't know what a backstop is, but they certainly can recognise shortages.
* Substitute 1000 other products and services here
For lamb and beef production it was the opposite - they sell into the EU and the British meat is seen as a premium product and priced accordingly. If they lose easy access to those markets through red tape (the third country inspection regime is quite onerous) and tariffs, they would have to dump onto the British market and drop prices considerably to shift the volumes in competition with non-EU imports. So good news for the consumer, at least in the short run, but a lot of farmers would be in financial difficulty.
Sam Gyimah is suggesting that he knows what Number 10's current thinking is.
1) Meaningful Vote. They expect to lose, hard. 2) They agree a series of indicative votes, in conference with the other party leaders, to be put the house. 3) If no winner emerges, least popular choices will be eliminated and the process repeated (an exhaustive ballot, essentially) 4) All the party leaders (including the PM) will agree, beforehand, the the votes will be free votes, and the party's whips will agree to be bound by the result of the indicative votes.
Sounds too much like common sense to be plausible. What's in it for Labour?
Labour really doesn't want to have to have its internal contradictions exposed any more than the Tories do. Labour's looking for a way to backpedal from their confused mess of a Brexit policy as much as the Tories.
By making the votes all be free votes, it's hoped that no one party will get the blame for the (almost certain) remain result this process will produce.
You may be right - I hope you are.
I struggle to see how we could Remain without a further referendum though.
I think you mean 2 further referendums. No way one remain win would settle it.
It would settle it for the time being.
Nothing to stop Leavers campaigning for a further leave ref of course - although I suspect they might want to avoid the "easiest deal in the world", "they need us more than we need them" and "£350m a week for the NHS" arguments next time.
If we don’t leave the EU now we will be sucked into an ever centralising EU superstate that only wants ever closer union and will not stop until the nation state is fully destroyed. With one president , one army, one currency. We will eventually lose all right to self determination and self rule and consequently our hard won freedoms will be forever lost. Leaving the EU is a once in a lifetime chance to save our nation from being sucked into the coming EU superstate which is engulfing mainland Europe. It would be the end of true democracy ultimately being replaced by a pseudo democracy in name only, run by foreign powers who do not always have our best interest at heart. For me it is make or break now, if brexit fails to be enacted then the UK is forever finished, if we leave there will be birth pains and no doubt some disruption in the short term but in the long term we will have regained our nation and freedom
Sam Gyimah is suggesting that he knows what Number 10's current thinking is.
1) Meaningful Vote. They expect to lose, hard. 2) They agree a series of indicative votes, in conference with the other party leaders, to be put the house. 3) If no winner emerges, least popular choices will be eliminated and the process repeated (an exhaustive ballot, essentially) 4) All the party leaders (including the PM) will agree, beforehand, the the votes will be free votes, and the party's whips will agree to be bound by the result of the indicative votes.
Wasn’t this the idea that was hatched on here several days back?
Can MPs have some of these votes by secret ballot or must they traipse through the lobbies, causing some to change their vote out of sheer fear of the mob? That's what 'respecting the vote' is code for.
Divisions are a matter of record. Mainly so that voters know what their MP did while in the Commons.
Well, at a time of threats to MPs, especially female ones, and intimations of mob rule, I won't be surprised if some Labour MPs for rough northern seats change their vote from 'rescind A50' to 'accept the deal'.
If VONCs in the PM can take place by secret ballot, it's disappointing that an exception can't be made for this vote.
It was VONC of party leader, who just happened to be PM. Having secret ballots in the commons would make the disconnect between public and MPs even bigger.
Sam Gyimah is suggesting that he knows what Number 10's current thinking is.
1) Meaningful Vote. They expect to lose, hard. 2) They agree a series of indicative votes, in conference with the other party leaders, to be put the house. 3) If no winner emerges, least popular choices will be eliminated and the process repeated (an exhaustive ballot, essentially) 4) All the party leaders (including the PM) will agree, beforehand, the the votes will be free votes, and the party's whips will agree to be bound by the result of the indicative votes.
Wasn’t this the idea that was hatched on here several days back?
Can MPs have some of these votes by secret ballot or must they traipse through the lobbies, causing some to change their vote out of sheer fear of the mob? That's what 'respecting the vote' is code for.
Divisions are a matter of record. Mainly so that voters know what their MP did while in the Commons.
Well, at a time of threats to MPs, especially female ones, and intimations of mob rule, I won't be surprised if some Labour MPs for rough northern seats change their vote from 'rescind A50' to 'accept the deal'.
If VONCs in the PM can take place by secret ballot, it's disappointing that an exception can't be made for this vote.
No, I think it's important we know how our representatives vote in the HoC.
Sam Gyimah is suggesting that he knows what Number 10's current thinking is.
1) Meaningful Vote. They expect to lose, hard. 2) They agree a series of indicative votes, in conference with the other party leaders, to be put the house. 3) If no winner emerges, least popular choices will be eliminated and the process repeated (an exhaustive ballot, essentially) 4) All the party leaders (including the PM) will agree, beforehand, the the votes will be free votes, and the party's whips will agree to be bound by the result of the indicative votes.
Sounds too much like common sense to be plausible. What's in it for Labour?
Labour really doesn't want to have to have its internal contradictions exposed any more than the Tories do. Labour's looking for a way to backpedal from their confused mess of a Brexit policy as much as the Tories.
By making the votes all be free votes, it's hoped that no one party will get the blame for the (almost certain) remain result this process will produce.
You may be right - I hope you are.
I struggle to see how we could Remain without a further referendum though.
I think you mean 2 further referendums. No way one remain win would settle it.
It would settle it for the time being.
Nothing to stop Leavers campaigning for a further leave ref of course - although I suspect they might want to avoid the "easiest deal in the world", "they need us more than we need them" and "£350m a week for the NHS" arguments next time.
If we don’t leave the EU now we will be sucked into an ever centralising EU superstate that only wants ever closer union and will not stop until the nation state is fully destroyed. With one president , one army, one currency. We will eventually lose all right to self determination and self rule and consequently our hard won freedoms will be forever lost. Leaving the EU is a once in a lifetime chance to save our nation from being sucked into the coming EU superstate which is engulfing mainland Europe. It would be the end of true democracy ultimately being replaced by a pseudo democracy in name only, run by foreign powers who do not always have our best interest at heart. For me it is make or break now, if brexit fails to be enacted then the UK is forever finished, if we leave there will be birth pains and no doubt some disruption in the short term but in the long term we will have regained our nation and freedom
Sam Gyimah is suggesting that he knows what Number 10's current thinking is.
1) Meaningful Vote. They expect to lose, hard. 2) They agree a series of indicative votes, in conference with the other party leaders, to be put the house. 3) If no winner emerges, least popular choices will be eliminated and the process repeated (an exhaustive ballot, essentially) 4) All the party leaders (including the PM) will agree, beforehand, the the votes will be free votes, and the party's whips will agree to be bound by the result of the indicative votes.
Wasn’t this the idea that was hatched on here several days back?
Can MPs have some of these votes by secret ballot or must they traipse through the lobbies, causing some to change their vote out of sheer fear of the mob? That's what 'respecting the vote' is code for.
Divisions are a matter of record. Mainly so that voters know what their MP did while in the Commons.
Well, at a time of threats to MPs, especially female ones, and intimations of mob rule, I won't be surprised if some Labour MPs for rough northern seats change their vote from 'rescind A50' to 'accept the deal'.
If VONCs in the PM can take place by secret ballot, it's disappointing that an exception can't be made for this vote.
Rubbish. The VONC was an internal party matter for the Conservatives. This is a matter of how our elected representatives vote in on our behalf in the House. It should never be secret.
If we don’t leave the EU now we will be sucked into an ever centralising EU superstate that only wants ever closer union and will not stop until the nation state is fully destroyed. With one president , one army, one currency. We will eventually lose all right to self determination and self rule and consequently our hard won freedoms will be forever lost. Leaving the EU is a once in a lifetime chance to save our nation from being sucked into the coming EU superstate which is engulfing mainland Europe. It would be the end of true democracy ultimately being replaced by a pseudo democracy in name only, run by foreign powers who do not always have our best interest at heart. For me it is make or break now, if brexit fails to be enacted then the UK is forever finished, if we leave there will be birth pains and no doubt some disruption in the short term but in the long term we will have regained our nation and freedom
Bless. And you typed all that yourself.
How condescending. The concern about increased centralisation of the EU is a legitimate one.
Sam Gyimah is suggesting that he knows what Number 10's current thinking is.
1) Meaningful Vote. They expect to lose, hard. 2) They agree a series of indicative votes, in conference with the other party leaders, to be put the house. 3) If no winner emerges, least popular choices will be eliminated and the process repeated (an exhaustive ballot, essentially) 4) All the party leaders (including the PM) will agree, beforehand, the the votes will be free votes, and the party's whips will agree to be bound by the result of the indicative votes.
Sounds too much like common sense to be plausible. What's in it for Labour?
Labour really doesn't want to have to have its internal contradictions exposed any more than the Tories do. Labour's looking for a way to backpedal from their confused mess of a Brexit policy as much as the Tories.
By making the votes all be free votes, it's hoped that no one party will get the blame for the (almost certain) remain result this process will produce.
You may be right - I hope you are.
I struggle to see how we could Remain without a further referendum though.
I think you mean 2 further referendums. No way one remain win would settle it.
It would settle it for the time being.
Nothing to stop Leavers campaigning for a further leave ref of course - although I suspect they might want to avoid the "easiest deal in the world", "they need us more than we need them" and "£350m a week for the NHS" arguments next time.
If we don’t leave the EU now we will be sucked into an ever centralising EU superstate that only wants ever closer union and will not stop until the nation state is fully destroyed. With one president , one army, one currency. We will eventually lose all right to self determination and self rule and consequently our hard won freedoms will be forever lost. Leaving the EU is a once in a lifetime chance to save our nation from being sucked into the coming EU superstate which is engulfing mainland Europe. It would be the end of true democracy ultimately being replaced by a pseudo democracy in name only, run by foreign powers who do not always have our best interest at heart. For me it is make or break now, if brexit fails to be enacted then the UK is forever finished, if we leave there will be birth pains and no doubt some disruption in the short term but in the long term we will have regained our nation and freedom
Well you may just have to get used to the idea that your fellow zealots have fucked-up their chance, pardon my anglo-saxon.
Sam Gyimah is suggesting that he knows what Number 10's current thinking is.
1) Meaningful Vote. They expect to lose, hard. 2) They agree a series of indicative votes, in conference with the other party leaders, to be put the house. 3) If no winner emerges, least popular choices will be eliminated and the process repeated (an exhaustive ballot, essentially) 4) All the party leaders (including the PM) will agree, beforehand, the the votes will be free votes, and the party's whips will agree to be bound by the result of the indicative votes.
Wasn’t this the idea that was hatched on here several days back?
Can MPs have some of these votes by secret ballot or must they traipse through the lobbies, causing some to change their vote out of sheer fear of the mob? That's what 'respecting the vote' is code for.
Divisions are a matter of record. Mainly so that voters know what their MP did while in the Commons.
Well, at a time of threats to MPs, especially female ones, and intimations of mob rule, I won't be surprised if some Labour MPs for rough northern seats change their vote from 'rescind A50' to 'accept the deal'.
If VONCs in the PM can take place by secret ballot, it's disappointing that an exception can't be made for this vote.
Nah an MP is accountable to their constituents. Nearly 85% of Constiuencies in England voted leave.
My mind is made up, man, and I'm being totally consistent.
There's nothing wrong with the total level of immigration that we have. We should be loosening immigration controls on Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians as we tighten them on people from the 26 EU countries (excluding Ireland, for obvious reasons).
No other Commonwealth countries due for some 'loosening'?
It wasn't an exhaustive list.
Something that those three countries have in common that I just can't quite put my finger on..
They are our kith and kin and should come first?
...and we're back to this again. Not everybody has this concept in their head, and those that do may have other kiths and kins in mind. During the Referendum many Asian UK voters voted with the intent to increase immigration from India or Pakistan. And I assume other ethnicities prioritised their patrimonies also.
Sam Gyimah is suggesting that he knows what Number 10's current thinking is.
1) Meaningful Vote. They expect to lose, hard. 2) They agree a series of indicative votes, in conference with the other party leaders, to be put the house. 3) If no winner emerges, least popular choices will be eliminated and the process repeated (an exhaustive ballot, essentially) 4) All the party leaders (including the PM) will agree, beforehand, the the votes will be free votes, and the party's whips will agree to be bound by the result of the indicative votes.
Wasn’t this the idea that was hatched on here several days back?
Can MPs have some of these votes by secret ballot or must they traipse through the lobbies, causing some to change their vote out of sheer fear of the mob? That's what 'respecting the vote' is code for.
Divisions are a matter of record. Mainly so that voters know what their MP did while in the Commons.
Well, at a time of threats to MPs, especially female ones, and intimations of mob rule, I won't be surprised if some Labour MPs for rough northern seats change their vote from 'rescind A50' to 'accept the deal'.
If VONCs in the PM can take place by secret ballot, it's disappointing that an exception can't be made for this vote.
Nah an MP is accountable to their constituents. Nearly 85% of Constiuencies in England voted leave.
My mind is made up, man, and I'm being totally consistent.
There's nothing wrong with the total level of immigration that we have. We should be loosening immigration controls on Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians as we tighten them on people from the 26 EU countries (excluding Ireland, for obvious reasons).
No other Commonwealth countries due for some 'loosening'?
It wasn't an exhaustive list.
Something that those three countries have in common that I just can't quite put my finger on..
I will go for your upgrade. My daughter regularly travels from Abergele/Rhyl to Bridgend and Llanelli for meetings and not only does she have to stay in a hotel overnight, she has chaotic delays and cancellations all via the new Wales government franchise
My mind is made up, man, and I'm being totally consistent.
There's nothing wrong with the total level of immigration that we have. We should be loosening immigration controls on Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians as we tighten them on people from the 26 EU countries (excluding Ireland, for obvious reasons).
No other Commonwealth countries due for some 'loosening'?
It wasn't an exhaustive list.
Something that those three countries have in common that I just can't quite put my finger on..
They are our kith and kin and should come first?
Our blood squatting on other peoples' soil in other words.
Sam Gyimah is suggesting that he knows what Number 10's current thinking is.
1) Meaningful Vote. They expect to lose, hard. 2) They agree a series of indicative votes, in conference with the other party leaders, to be put the house. 3) If no winner emerges, least popular choices will be eliminated and the process repeated (an exhaustive ballot, essentially) 4) All the party leaders (including the PM) will agree, beforehand, the the votes will be free votes, and the party's whips will agree to be bound by the result of the indicative votes.
What might this achieve if none of the options receives a majority? Option A - yes or no? Answer: no, by 300 votes. Option B - yes or no? Answer: no, by 200 votes. Option C - yes or no? Answer: no, by 100 votes. Eliminate option A. Same answers again for B or C. Or are they seriously going to ask "Which do you prefer out of A and B, and bear in mind you must answer?" Then same for A and C, and for B and C.
Surely politicians do not actually wish to look even more like the bunch of shitclowns that most of the population already consider them to be? Is this their idea for a Christmas party?
A free vote, with whips agreeing to be bound by the result? Then a whipped vote after the free vote. So Deal ends up with unanimous support then? What a complete and utter fantasy. There is absolutely no way this will yield a majority for any option.
My mind is made up, man, and I'm being totally consistent.
There's nothing wrong with the total level of immigration that we have. We should be loosening immigration controls on Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians as we tighten them on people from the 26 EU countries (excluding Ireland, for obvious reasons).
No other Commonwealth countries due for some 'loosening'?
It wasn't an exhaustive list.
Something that those three countries have in common that I just can't quite put my finger on..
They are our kith and kin and should come first?
You mean descended from Germanic tribes?
Oi, some of my ancestors were here when those bloody Angles and Saxons arrived.
Sam Gyimah is suggesting that he knows what Number 10's current thinking is.
1) Meaningful Vote. They expect to lose, hard. 2) They agree a series of indicative votes, in conference with the other party leaders, to be put the house. 3) If no winner emerges, least popular choices will be eliminated and the process repeated (an exhaustive ballot, essentially) 4) All the party leaders (including the PM) will agree, beforehand, the the votes will be free votes, and the party's whips will agree to be bound by the result of the indicative votes.
What might this achieve if none of the options receives a majority? Option A - yes or no? Answer: no, by 300 votes. Option B - yes or no? Answer: no, by 200 votes. Option C - yes or no? Answer: no, by 100 votes. Eliminate option A. Same answers again for B or C. Or are they seriously going to ask "Which do you prefer out of A and B, and bear in mind you must answer?" Then same for A and C, and for B and C.
Surely politicians do not actually wish to look even more like the bunch of shitclowns that most of the population already consider them to be? Is this their idea for a Christmas party?
A free vote, with whips agreeing to be bound by the result? So Deal ends up with unanimous support then? What a complete and utter fantasy.
I imagine it's the former, based on what they did for House of Lords reform.
There are, in fact, a couple of votes in Parliament that are conducted by secret ballot:
The election of the speaker of the house. The election of select committee chairs.
These were changed from open to secret ballots because it was felt that the party whips had too much control over these elections and it weakened the impartiality these roles were intended to possess.
My mind is made up, man, and I'm being totally consistent.
There's nothing wrong with the total level of immigration that we have. We should be loosening immigration controls on Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians as we tighten them on people from the 26 EU countries (excluding Ireland, for obvious reasons).
No other Commonwealth countries due for some 'loosening'?
It wasn't an exhaustive list.
Something that those three countries have in common that I just can't quite put my finger on..
They are our kith and kin and should come first?
You mean descended from Germanic tribes?
Oi, some of my ancestors were here when those bloody Angles and Saxons arrived.
Sam Gyimah is suggesting that he knows what Number 10's current thinking is.
1) Meaningful Vote. They expect to lose, hard. 2) They agree a series of indicative votes, in conference with the other party leaders, to be put the house. 3) If no winner emerges, least popular choices will be eliminated and the process repeated (an exhaustive ballot, essentially) 4) All the party leaders (including the PM) will agree, beforehand, the the votes will be free votes, and the party's whips will agree to be bound by the result of the indicative votes.
What might this achieve if none of the options receives a majority? Option A - yes or no? Answer: no, by 300 votes. Option B - yes or no? Answer: no, by 200 votes. Option C - yes or no? Answer: no, by 100 votes. Eliminate option A. Same answers again for B or C. Or are they seriously going to ask "Which do you prefer out of A and B, and bear in mind you must answer?" Then same for A and C, and for B and C.
Surely politicians do not actually wish to look even more like the bunch of shitclowns that most of the population already consider them to be? Is this their idea for a Christmas party?
A free vote, with whips agreeing to be bound by the result? So Deal ends up with unanimous support then? What a complete and utter fantasy.
I imagine it's the former, based on what they did for House of Lords reform.
At least two of the options that time won majorities.
Sam Gyimah is suggesting that he knows what Number 10's current thinking is.
1) Meaningful Vote. They expect to lose, hard. 2) They agree a series of indicative votes, in conference with the other party leaders, to be put the house. 3) If no winner emerges, least popular choices will be eliminated and the process repeated (an exhaustive ballot, essentially) 4) All the party leaders (including the PM) will agree, beforehand, the the votes will be free votes, and the party's whips will agree to be bound by the result of the indicative votes.
Wasn’t this the idea that was hatched on here several days back?
Can MPs have some of these votes by secret ballot or must they traipse through the lobbies, causing some to change their vote out of sheer fear of the mob? That's what 'respecting the vote' is code for.
Divisions are a matter of record. Mainly so that voters know what their MP did while in the Commons.
Well, at a time of threats to MPs, especially female ones, and intimations of mob rule, I won't be surprised if some Labour MPs for rough northern seats change their vote from 'rescind A50' to 'accept the deal'.
If VONCs in the PM can take place by secret ballot, it's disappointing that an exception can't be made for this vote.
Nah an MP is accountable to their constituents. Nearly 85% of Constiuencies in England voted leave.
As the Kaiser Chiefs would say. I predict a riot.
Riots maybe, but probably a bit muted. Not the kind of thing average leaver really does. They’ll be some civil disobedience. And then we’ll start to get information about growing radicalism. Google + sense of grievance = something very very ugly
Sam Gyimah is suggesting that he knows what Number 10's current thinking is.
1) Meaningful Vote. They expect toll be free votes, and the party's whips will agree to be bound by the result of the indicative votes.
Sounds too much like common sense to be plausible. What's in it for Labour?
Labour really doesn't want to have to have its internal contradictions exposed any more than the Tories do. Labour's looking for a way to backpedal from their confused mess of a Brexit policy as much as the Tories.
By making the votes all be free votes, it's hoped that no one party will get the blame for the (almost certain) remain result this process will produce.
You may be right - I hope you are.
I struggle to see how we could Remain without a further referendum though.
I think you mean 2 further referendums. No way one remain win would settle it.
It would settle it for the time being.
Nothing to stop Leavers campaigning for a further leave ref of course - although I suspect they might want to avoid the "easiest deal in the world", "they need us more than we need them" and "£350m a week for the NHS" arguments next time.
If we don’t leave the EU now we will be sucked into an ever centralising EU superstate that only wants ever closer union and will not stop until the nation state is fully destroyed. With one president , one army, one currency. We will eventually lose all right to self determination and self rule and consequently our hard won freedoms will be forever lost. Leaving the EU is a once in a lifetime chance to save our nation from being sucked into the coming EU superstate which is engulfing mainland Europe. It would be the end of true democracy ultimately being replaced by a pseudo democracy in name only, run by foreign powers who do not always have our best interest at heart. For me it is make or break now, if brexit fails to be enacted then the UK is forever finished, if we leave there will be birth pains and no doubt some disruption in the short term but in the long term we will have regained our nation and freedom
Emotional arguments are powerful ones. But I would say I wouldn't want our nation falling behind in a backwater while our peers worked together to produce a strong European continent. Which one of us has the better vision?
Sam Gyimah is suggesting that he knows what Number 10's current thinking is.
1) Meaningful Vote. They expect to lose, hard. 2) They agree a series of indicative votes, in conference with the other party leaders, to be put the house. 3) If no winner emerges, least popular choices will be eliminated and the process repeated (an exhaustive ballot, essentially) 4) All the party leaders (including the PM) will agree, beforehand, the the votes will be free votes, and the party's whips will agree to be bound by the result of the indicative votes.
What might this achieve if none of the options receives a majority? Option A - yes or no? Answer: no, by 300 votes. Option B - yes or no? Answer: no, by 200 votes. Option C - yes or no? Answer: no, by 100 votes. Eliminate option A. Same answers again for B or C. Or are they seriously going to ask "Which do you prefer out of A and B, and bear in mind you must answer?" Then same for A and C, and for B and C.
Surely politicians do not actually wish to look even more like the bunch of shitclowns that most of the population already consider them to be? Is this their idea for a Christmas party?
A free vote, with whips agreeing to be bound by the result? Then a whipped vote after the free vote. So Deal ends up with unanimous support then? What a complete and utter fantasy. There is absolutely no way this will yield a majority for any option.
It looks like they're trying to get Labour MPs, in particular, make a decision between the three actual options without reference to the makeup of the government.
There are, in fact, a couple of votes in Parliament that are conducted by secret ballot:
The election of the speaker of the house. The election of select committee chairs.
These were changed from open to secret ballots because it was felt that the party whips had too much control over these elections and it weakened the impartiality these roles were intended to possess.
They aren't the same as votes on laws though. I think it would be pretty outrageous for article 50 to be revoked after a secret ballot in the commons. I note the EU parliament has no such scruples, and used a secret ballot to vote on the budget a few years ago!
There are, in fact, a couple of votes in Parliament that are conducted by secret ballot:
The election of the speaker of the house. The election of select committee chairs.
These were changed from open to secret ballots because it was felt that the party whips had too much control over these elections and it weakened the impartiality these roles were intended to possess.
They aren't the same as votes on laws though. I think it would be pretty outrageous for article 50 to be revoked after a secret ballot in the commons. I note the EU parliament has no such scruples, and used a secret ballot to vote on the budget a few years ago!
I agree with you, but what's being talked about here isn't votes on legislation, it's "indicative" votes, which are presumably designed to indicate where the real numbers lie. A series of secret ballots would almost certainly produce the most accurate numbers.
But any legislation brought forward as a result of the indicative votes most certainly will and must be public, as you say.
Oh look, another leaver making ominous but vague threats of violence again.
Once again I remind you that a phalanx of elderly gammons on mobility scooters with placards saying "brexit mean's brexit" isn't frightening anyone.
No. But the younger ones should. You can become a terrorist without being a member of the ‘religion of peace’.
Relax, the UK has plenty of experience of putting nazi fuckwits back in their box. I think we got this.
There will be a price to pay if Brexit is cancelled. If it’s cancelled due to a second referendum result to remain, there will be a lot,of shrugging of shoulders and general disgruntlement, but if it’s just revoked because it was too difficult, there won’t be enough boxes. There will be a price to pay, and it will be high.
Sam Gyimah is suggesting that he knows what Number 10's current thinking is.
1) Meaningful Vote. They expect to lose, hard. 2) They agree a series of indicative votes, in conference with the other party leaders, to be put the house. 3) If no winner emerges, least popular choices will be eliminated and the process repeated (an exhaustive ballot, essentially) 4) All the party leaders (including the PM) will agree, beforehand, the the votes will be free votes, and the party's whips will agree to be bound by the result of the indicative votes.
Wasn’t this the idea that was hatched on here several days back?
Can MPs have some of these votes by secret ballot or must they traipse through the lobbies, causing some to change their vote out of sheer fear of the mob? That's what 'respecting the vote' is code for.
Divisions are a matter of record. Mainly so that voters know what their MP did while in the Commons.
Well, at a time of threats to MPs, especially female ones, and intimations of mob rule, I won't be surprised if some Labour MPs for rough northern seats change their vote from 'rescind A50' to 'accept the deal'.
If VONCs in the PM can take place by secret ballot, it's disappointing that an exception can't be made for this vote.
Nah an MP is accountable to their constituents. Nearly 85% of Constiuencies in England voted leave.
As the Kaiser Chiefs would say. I predict a riot.
Riots maybe, but probably a bit muted. Not the kind of thing average leaver really does. They’ll be some civil disobedience. And then we’ll start to get information about growing radicalism. Google + sense of grievance = something very very ugly
Half a dozen people with the right motivation....
Before they riot, could someone tell them to aim their anger where it belongs, i.e. at Whitehall not Brussels for the following grievances (solutions in brackets)
'voting doesn't have any effect' (bring in PR) 'our MP is a useless tosser' (maybe have an IQ test, pay them more) 'all that happens is that the rich get richer, the poor get poorer' (reverse the move to regressive taxation) et al
and only aim their anger at Brussels for pooling sovereignty but it was with the full agreement of the UK PM so there I think responsibility is divided.
If we don’t leave the EU now we will be sucked into an ever centralising EU superstate that only wants ever closer union and will not stop until the nation state is fully destroyed. With one president , one army, one currency. We will eventually lose all right to self determination and self rule and consequently our hard won freedoms will be forever lost. Leaving the EU is a once in a lifetime chance to save our nation from being sucked into the coming EU superstate which is engulfing mainland Europe. It would be the end of true democracy ultimately being replaced by a pseudo democracy in name only, run by foreign powers who do not always have our best interest at heart. For me it is make or break now, if brexit fails to be enacted then the UK is forever finished, if we leave there will be birth pains and no doubt some disruption in the short term but in the long term we will have regained our nation and freedom
I grow tired of saying this, but we are leaving. In 103 days. The question before us is how best to handle the departure. Few people in Government or Parliament seem to have a clue how to achieve this and several are actively considering a chaotic departure in the hope that they personally will profit.
Aaargh.
I've had a bad day. I'll better stop posting now because I'm repeating myself. Good night everybody.
Oh look, another leaver making ominous but vague threats of violence again.
Once again I remind you that a phalanx of elderly gammons on mobility scooters with placards saying "brexit mean's brexit" isn't frightening anyone.
No. But the younger ones should. You can become a terrorist without being a member of the ‘religion of peace’.
Relax, the UK has plenty of experience of putting nazi fuckwits back in their box. I think we got this.
There will be a price to pay if Brexit is cancelled. If it’s cancelled due to a second referendum result to remain, there will be a lot,of shrugging of shoulders and general disgruntlement, but if it’s just revoked because it was too difficult, there won’t be enough boxes. There will be a price to pay, and it will be high.
Eh, nobody cares what a bunch of 70 IQ troglodytes think about Brexit or anything else. If you ever find yourself agreeing with Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, you deserve to be ignored and/or ridiculed.
Sam Gyimah is suggesting that he knows what Number 10's current thinking is.
1) Meaningful Vote. They expect to lose, hard. 2) They agree a series of indicative votes, in conference with the other party leaders, to be put the house. 3) If no winner emerges, least popular choices will be eliminated and the process repeated (an exhaustive ballot, essentially) 4) All the party leaders (including the PM) will agree, beforehand, the the votes will be free votes, and the party's whips will agree to be bound by the result of the indicative votes.
Wasn’t this the idea that was hatched on here several days back?
Can MPs have some of these votes by secret ballot or must they traipse through the lobbies, causing some to change their vote out of sheer fear of the mob? That's what 'respecting the vote' is code for.
Divisions are a matter of record. Mainly so that voters know what their MP did while in the Commons.
Well, at a time of threats to MPs, especially female ones, and intimations of mob rule, I won't be surprised if some Labour MPs for rough northern seats change their vote from 'rescind A50' to 'accept the deal'.
If VONCs in the PM can take place by secret ballot, it's disappointing that an exception can't be made for this vote.
Nah an MP is accountable to their constituents. Nearly 85% of Constiuencies in England voted leave.
As the Kaiser Chiefs would say. I predict a riot.
Riots maybe, but probably a bit muted. Not the kind of thing average leaver really does. They’ll be some civil disobedience. And then we’ll start to get information about growing radicalism. Google + sense of grievance = something very very ugly
Half a dozen people with the right motivation....
Before they riot, could someone tell them to aim their anger where it belongs, i.e. at Whitehall not Brussels for the following grievances (solutions in brackets)
'voting doesn't have any effect' (bring in PR) 'our MP is a useless tosser' (maybe have an IQ test, pay them more) 'all that happens is that the rich get richer, the poor get poorer' (reverse the move to regressive taxation) et al
and only aim their anger at Brussels for pooling sovereignty but it was with the full agreement of the UK PM so there I think responsibility is divided.
Emotional arguments are powerful ones. But I would say I wouldn't want our nation falling behind in a backwater while our peers worked together to produce a strong European continent. Which one of us has the better vision?
We do. Our vision is based on individual rights and accountable Government, on free trade with the 93% of the world that is not in the EU.
Theirs is based on centralisation, Government by technocrats and punishment for any country that does not conform.
The few good Tories who could satisfyingly lead the country are not yet in Cabinet or even in Westminster.
I'd say Gove's capricious nature if more significant than his being an ideologue.
I'd say his hubris and administrative incompetence are bigger issues.
That, and the fact that he sees experts who dare to disagree with him as 'the enemy'.
Wasn't he just being critical of specific experts not expertise in general?
Not even that. He was being critical of pretended experts who keep coming up with the wrong answer but are somehow still touted as experts.
Like himself and Adonis, you mean?
I don't care whether he said any such thing - I don't know if he did. I'm telling you how he acts. He sees anyone who disagrees with him as the enemy. Even and perhaps especially when they are proved right, as they have been over both education and Brexit.
That is why he would be a dreadful choice as Prime Minister, a slightly less principled and considerably more arrogant version of Corbyn.
Brexit isn't over. On education, Gove has been consistently vindicated.
He would be a poor choice of Conservative leader because they need an election winner, voters are fickle, and he has a punchable face. If the question were one of merit, he'd be right up there.
Emotional arguments are powerful ones. But I would say I wouldn't want our nation falling behind in a backwater while our peers worked together to produce a strong European continent. Which one of us has the better vision?
We do. Our vision is based on individual rights and accountable Government, on free trade with the 93% of the world that is not in the EU.
Theirs is based on centralisation, Government by technocrats and punishment for any country that does not conform.
People who live in glass houses centralised, multinational states with glaring constitutional problems shouldn't throw stones vote for Brexit in the name of protesting against the same.
If we don’t leave the EU now we will be sucked into an ever centralising EU superstate that only wants ever closer union and will not stop until the nation state is fully destroyed. With one president , one army, one currency. We will eventually lose all right to self determination and self rule and consequently our hard won freedoms will be forever lost. Leaving the EU is a once in a lifetime chance to save our nation from being sucked into the coming EU superstate which is engulfing mainland Europe. It would be the end of true democracy ultimately being replaced by a pseudo democracy in name only, run by foreign powers who do not always have our best interest at heart. For me it is make or break now, if brexit fails to be enacted then the UK is forever finished, if we leave there will be birth pains and no doubt some disruption in the short term but in the long term we will have regained our nation and freedom
I grow tired of saying this, but we are leaving. In 103 days. The question before us is how best to handle the departure. Few people in Government or Parliament seem to have a clue how to achieve this and several are actively considering a chaotic departure in the hope that they personally will profit.
Aaargh.
I've had a bad day. I'll better stop posting now because I'm repeating myself. Good night everybody.
You were right the first time you posted it and are not any less right now.
Brexit isn't over, its just in an ICT and being revived twice a night by a crash team because its relatives hate it too much to pull and the plug and let it die a peaceful death.
Brexit isn't over, its just in an ICT and being revived twice a night by a crash because its relatives hate it too much to pull and the plug and let it die a peaceful death.
How certain are you that Brexit won’t happen? What odds?
I've had a bad day. I'll better stop posting now because I'm repeating myself. Good night everybody.
You were right the first time you posted it and are not any less right now.
A lot of people claim the Corbyn is happy to let a chaotic no-deal Brexit happen as long as the Tories carry the can for it. And I can buy that it *might* be true, what I'm missing is any convincing evidence that it *is* true.
I guess it all depends how much of a sociopath we assume Corbyn is?
Brexit isn't over, its just in an ICT and being revived twice a night by a crash because its relatives hate it too much to pull and the plug and let it die a peaceful death.
How certain are you that Brexit won’t happen? What odds?
I look at those flowcharts of the 77 possible different outcomes and the part of my brain that understands probabilities just goes breeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Brexit isn't over, its just in an ICT and being revived twice a night by a crash because its relatives hate it too much to pull and the plug and let it die a peaceful death.
How certain are you that Brexit won’t happen? What odds?
I look at those flowcharts of the 77 possible different outcomes and the part of my brain that understands probabilities just goes breeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
I've had a bad day. I'll better stop posting now because I'm repeating myself. Good night everybody.
You were right the first time you posted it and are not any less right now.
A lot of people claim the Corbyn is happy to let a chaotic no-deal Brexit happen as long as the Tories carry the can for it. And I can buy that it *might* be true, what I'm missing is any convincing evidence that it *is* true.
I guess it all depends how much of a sociopath we assume Corbyn is?
He doesn't need to be a sociopath. Look at it this way:
The revolution is inevitable. The midwife of the revolution is war. However, a car crash brexit might also work. Which would you prefer, a car crash brexit or war?
I've had a bad day. I'll better stop posting now because I'm repeating myself. Good night everybody.
You were right the first time you posted it and are not any less right now.
A lot of people claim the Corbyn is happy to let a chaotic no-deal Brexit happen as long as the Tories carry the can for it. And I can buy that it *might* be true, what I'm missing is any convincing evidence that it *is* true.
I guess it all depends how much of a sociopath we assume Corbyn is?
I will go for your upgrade. My daughter regularly travels from Abergele/Rhyl to Bridgend and Llanelli for meetings and not only does she have to stay in a hotel overnight, she has chaotic delays and cancellations all via the new Wales government franchise
TM is spot on about the damage a 2nd Referendum would do to politics.
She'd better get out on the stage and deny she's trying to pave the way to another referendum using "indicative votes" in the Commons then.
If she does keep to the line that a referendum would be oh so awful, she'll probably be out of office by Thursday.
A lot of this isn't her fault but David Cameron's. If he'd heard the message the electorate sent him in the 2014 EU election, he wouldn't have waited two years to negotiate special status for Britain in the EU, "Dave's deal". (When a party with no MPs elected on its manifesto wins a nationwide election, there is a message there somewhere.) He'd have negotiated the "deal" in 2014 and thrown the media some events showing how the continentals plus Irish were all holding hands making their union "ever closer" as Britain looked in the air and whistled, or concentrated on eating chips out of newspaper, or on making corn dollies, or something. Then he'd have held the referendum after two years of that, and won.
I've had a bad day. I'll better stop posting now because I'm repeating myself. Good night everybody.
You were right the first time you posted it and are not any less right now.
A lot of people claim the Corbyn is happy to let a chaotic no-deal Brexit happen as long as the Tories carry the can for it. And I can buy that it *might* be true, what I'm missing is any convincing evidence that it *is* true.
I guess it all depends how much of a sociopath we assume Corbyn is?
He is a marxist - they need chaos to thrive
He must love the Tory party then - they created it. Until 2016 most on the Labour left couldn't have given a monkey's whether Britain was or wasn't in the EU. It was always a Tory issue, whipped up in the Tory press, foot-stamped about by Tories who were fuming at their own lad Edward Heath's "treachery" in the early 1970s, and who almost bust blood vessels when they thought of the units petrol came to be sold in.
(When a party with no MPs elected on its manifesto wins a nationwide election, there is a message there somewhere.)
The message being that pledging an in/out referendum had legitimised the loons instead of marginalising them as Cameron had hoped.
The same message would have been sent even if he hadn't promised that kind of referendum. But if he'd heard the message when the 2014 election results came in, he could have pondered about the causes.
But Mrs May will tell MPs on Monday: "Let us not break faith with the British people by trying to stage another referendum.
"Another vote which would do irreparable damage to the integrity of our politics, because it would say to millions who trusted in democracy, that our democracy does not deliver.
"Another vote which would likely leave us no further forward than the last.
"And another vote which would further divide our country at the very moment we should be working to unite it."
Does John Bercow think it's acceptable for a government minister to release the text of their Commons speech to the media before they deliver it to the Commons?
Sam Gyimah is suggesting that he knows what Number 10's current thinking is.
1) Meaningful Vote. They expect to lose, hard. 2) They agree a series of indicative votes, in conference with the other party leaders, to be put the house. 3) If no winner emerges, least popular choices will be eliminated and the process repeated (an exhaustive ballot, essentially) 4) All the party leaders (including the PM) will agree, beforehand, the the votes will be free votes, and the party's whips will agree to be bound by the result of the indicative votes.
Wasn’t this the idea that was hatched on here several days back?
Can MPs have some of these votes by secret ballot or must they traipse through the lobbies, causing some to change their vote out of sheer fear of the mob? That's what 'respecting the vote' is code for.
Divisions are a matter of record. Mainly so that voters know what their MP did while in the Commons.
Well, at a time of threats to MPs, especially female ones, and intimations of mob rule, I won't be surprised if some Labour MPs for rough northern seats change their vote from 'rescind A50' to 'accept the deal'.
If VONCs in the PM can take place by secret ballot, it's disappointing that an exception can't be made for this vote.
Nah an MP is accountable to their constituents. Nearly 85% of Constiuencies in England voted leave.
As the Kaiser Chiefs would say. I predict a riot.
Riots maybe, but probably a bit muted. Not the kind of thing average leaver really does. They’ll be some civil disobedience. And then we’ll start to get information about growing radicalism. Google + sense of grievance = something very very ugly
I've had a bad day. I'll better stop posting now because I'm repeating myself. Good night everybody.
You were right the first time you posted it and are not any less right now.
A lot of people claim the Corbyn is happy to let a chaotic no-deal Brexit happen as long as the Tories carry the can for it. And I can buy that it *might* be true, what I'm missing is any convincing evidence that it *is* true.
I guess it all depends how much of a sociopath we assume Corbyn is?
He doesn't need to be a sociopath. Look at it this way:
The revolution is inevitable. The midwife of the revolution is war. However, a car crash brexit might also work. Which would you prefer, a car crash brexit or war?
You can argue for multiple groups angling for a no deal Brexit if you want to apply dark motives to them.
Left, get chaos, blame the Tories. According to critics the only way they are getting back in.
Centre, Labour, get chaos, blame Corbyn and the Tories. According to critics the only way they are getting back in.
Similarly the centre Tories might hope that crash out Brexit discredits the right. Tory right have their own targets lined up as well although some in this group are actually intentionally going for no deal.
Sam Gyimah is suggesting that he knows what Number 10's current thinking is.
1) Meaningful Vote. They expect to lose, hard. 2) They agree a series of indicative votes, in conference with the other party leaders, to be put the house. 3) If no winner emerges, least popular choices will be eliminated and the process repeated (an exhaustive ballot, essentially) 4) All the party leaders (including the PM) will agree, beforehand, the the votes will be free votes, and the party's whips will agree to be bound by the result of the indicative votes.
Wasn’t this the idea that was hatched on here several days back?
Can MPs have some of these votes by secret ballot or must they traipse through the lobbies, causing some to change their vote out of sheer fear of the mob? That's what 'respecting the vote' is code for.
Divisions are a matter of record. Mainly so that voters know what their MP did while in the Commons.
Well, at a time of threats to MPs, especially female ones, and intimations of mob rule, I won't be surprised if some Labour MPs for rough northern seats change their vote from 'rescind A50' to 'accept the deal'.
If VONCs in the PM can take place by secret ballot, it's disappointing that an exception can't be made for this vote.
Nah an MP is accountable to their constituents. Nearly 85% of Constiuencies in England voted leave.
As the Kaiser Chiefs would say. I predict a riot.
Riots maybe, but probably a bit muted. Not the kind of thing average leaver really does. They’ll be some civil disobedience. And then we’ll start to get information about growing radicalism. Google + sense of grievance = something very very ugly
Half a dozen people with the right motivation....
There has been a sharp rise in far right extremism since the Brexit vote. If giving the knuckle draggers what they want encourages them, there doesn’t seem any downside on that front from not giving them what they want.
If Britain really wants to see a reduction in far right extremism then it needs to tackle the root cause, which is the willingness of slightly softer right figures to indulge in martial language, stirring up the real extremists, and the complicity of the rest of the Leave camp tolerating the far right and its tropes because something else is seen as more important.
Sam Gyimah is suggesting that he knows what Number 10's current thinking is.
1) Meaningful Vote. They expect to lose, hard. 2) They agree a series of indicative votes, in conference with the other party leaders, to be put the house. 3) If no winner emerges, least popular choices will be eliminated and the process repeated (an exhaustive ballot, essentially) 4) All the party leaders (including the PM) will agree, beforehand, the the votes will be free votes, and the party's whips will agree to be bound by the result of the indicative votes.
Wasn’t this the idea that was hatched on here several days back?
Can MPs have some of these votes by secret ballot or must they traipse through the lobbies, causing some to change their vote out of sheer fear of the mob? That's what 'respecting the vote' is code for.
Divisions are a matter of record. Mainly so that voters know what their MP did while in the Commons.
Well, at a time of threats to MPs, especially female ones, and intimations of mob rule, I won't be surprised if some Labour MPs for rough northern seats change their vote from 'rescind A50' to 'accept the deal'.
If VONCs in the PM can take place by secret ballot, it's disappointing that an exception can't be made for this vote.
Nah an MP is accountable to their constituents. Nearly 85% of Constiuencies in England voted leave.
As the Kaiser Chiefs would say. I predict a riot.
Riots maybe, but probably a bit muted. Not the kind of thing average leaver really does. They’ll be some civil disobedience. And then we’ll start to get information about growing radicalism. Google + sense of grievance = something very very ugly
Half a dozen people with the right motivation....
There has been a sharp rise in far right extremism since the Brexit vote. If giving the knuckle draggers what they want encourages them, there doesn’t seem any downside on that front from not giving them what they want.
If Britain really wants to see a reduction in far right extremism then it needs to tackle the root cause, which is the willingness of slightly softer right figures to indulge in martial language, stirring up the real extremists, and the complicity of the rest of the Leave camp tolerating the far right and its tropes because something else is seen as more important.
I will go for your upgrade. My daughter regularly travels from Abergele/Rhyl to Bridgend and Llanelli for meetings and not only does she have to stay in a hotel overnight, she has chaotic delays and cancellations all via the new Wales government franchise
I will go for your upgrade. My daughter regularly travels from Abergele/Rhyl to Bridgend and Llanelli for meetings and not only does she have to stay in a hotel overnight, she has chaotic delays and cancellations all via the new Wales government franchise
I will go for your upgrade. My daughter regularly travels from Abergele/Rhyl to Bridgend and Llanelli for meetings and not only does she have to stay in a hotel overnight, she has chaotic delays and cancellations all via the new Wales government franchise
Comments
However, the grown-ups in the HoC know better it seems.
The answer is the BMW performance engines are made in Munich "M" power. The Mini engine made in Munich is the special edition John Cooper Works Edition.
So the answer is a tiny percentage of mini crankshafts cross the channel multiple times. The sad thing is that because of new EU emissions rules the JCW Edition is no longer made so now no cranks shafts at all cross the channel multiple times.
Of course as I have said before if the remain campaign had given us a breakdown of all these parts crossing the channel multiple times as a proof point that could not be argued about because it was factual, us brexiteers would not think it is propaganda as opposed to fact.
As in all likelihood does Jezza but the New Labour Ultras won't let it lie.
At this rate Labour gets the blame for derailing BREXIT for which they will pay a huge Electoral price which of course the aforesaid MP s are Ok with.
The question is whether a referendum is one of the voting options, because that probably just encourages parliament to pass the buck.
Nothing to stop Leavers campaigning for a further leave ref of course - although I suspect they might want to avoid the "easiest deal in the world", "they need us more than we need them" and "£350m a week for the NHS" arguments next time.
Unfortunately its advocates don't have confidence that their project would withstand the scrutiny and battering it would get meanwhile, and insist on Cold Turkey Brexit or nothing, in defiance of all logic or common sense.
I say that as someone who is sceptical of some of the claims of catastrophe but thinks that, since there is a deal on the table, it is dumb to tempt fate.
https://www.thetrainline.com/train-times/rhyl-to-llanelli
* Substitute 1000 other products and services here
If VONCs in the PM can take place by secret ballot, it's disappointing that an exception can't be made for this vote.
They are our kith and kin and should come first?
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1074436301456371712?s=19
Nothing to stop Leavers campaigning for a further leave ref of course - although I suspect they might want to avoid the "easiest deal in the world", "they need us more than we need them" and "£350m a week for the NHS" arguments next time.
If we don’t leave the EU now we will be sucked into an ever centralising EU superstate that only wants ever closer union and will not stop until the nation state is fully destroyed. With one president , one army, one currency. We will eventually lose all right to self determination and self rule and consequently our hard won freedoms will be forever lost. Leaving the EU is a once in a lifetime chance to save our nation from being sucked into the coming EU superstate which is engulfing mainland Europe. It would be the end of true democracy ultimately being replaced by a pseudo democracy in name only, run by foreign powers who do not always have our best interest at heart. For me it is make or break now, if brexit fails to be enacted then the UK is forever finished, if we leave there will be birth pains and no doubt some disruption in the short term but in the long term we will have regained our nation and freedom
As the Kaiser Chiefs would say. I predict a riot.
Option A - yes or no? Answer: no, by 300 votes.
Option B - yes or no? Answer: no, by 200 votes.
Option C - yes or no? Answer: no, by 100 votes.
Eliminate option A.
Same answers again for B or C.
Or are they seriously going to ask "Which do you prefer out of A and B, and bear in mind you must answer?" Then same for A and C, and for B and C.
Surely politicians do not actually wish to look even more like the bunch of shitclowns that most of the population already consider them to be? Is this their idea for a Christmas party?
A free vote, with whips agreeing to be bound by the result? Then a whipped vote after the free vote. So Deal ends up with unanimous support then? What a complete and utter fantasy. There is absolutely no way this will yield a majority for any option.
Now where did I leave my beaker...
The election of the speaker of the house.
The election of select committee chairs.
These were changed from open to secret ballots because it was felt that the party whips had too much control over these elections and it weakened the impartiality these roles were intended to possess.
Half a dozen people with the right motivation....
Emotional arguments are powerful ones. But I would say I wouldn't want our nation falling behind in a backwater while our peers worked together to produce a strong European continent. Which one of us has the better vision?
... that's the week after, as any fule kno.
Once again I remind you that a phalanx of elderly gammons on mobility scooters with placards saying "brexit mean's brexit" isn't frightening anyone.
But any legislation brought forward as a result of the indicative votes most certainly will and must be public, as you say.
'voting doesn't have any effect' (bring in PR)
'our MP is a useless tosser' (maybe have an IQ test, pay them more)
'all that happens is that the rich get richer, the poor get poorer' (reverse the move to regressive taxation)
et al
and only aim their anger at Brussels for pooling sovereignty but it was with the full agreement of the UK PM so there I think responsibility is divided.
With that, good night ...
2) NO QUEERS SEND EM BACK TO QUEERSLAND
3) BRING BACK HANGING FOR PEEEEDOOOOOS
Aaargh.
I've had a bad day. I'll better stop posting now because I'm repeating myself. Good night everybody.
Good to see him leading Labour again this week.
Theirs is based on centralisation, Government by technocrats and punishment for any country that does not conform.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/13/gap-wealthy-poor-pupils-closing-wake-gove-primary-school-reforms/
He would be a poor choice of Conservative leader because they need an election winner, voters are fickle, and he has a punchable face. If the question were one of merit, he'd be right up there.
In fact almost as much damage as theTM premiership, but not quite.
I guess it all depends how much of a sociopath we assume Corbyn is?
The revolution is inevitable.
The midwife of the revolution is war.
However, a car crash brexit might also work.
Which would you prefer, a car crash brexit or war?
😇
If she does keep to the line that a referendum would be oh so awful, she'll probably be out of office by Thursday.
A lot of this isn't her fault but David Cameron's. If he'd heard the message the electorate sent him in the 2014 EU election, he wouldn't have waited two years to negotiate special status for Britain in the EU, "Dave's deal". (When a party with no MPs elected on its manifesto wins a nationwide election, there is a message there somewhere.) He'd have negotiated the "deal" in 2014 and thrown the media some events showing how the continentals plus Irish were all holding hands making their union "ever closer" as Britain looked in the air and whistled, or concentrated on eating chips out of newspaper, or on making corn dollies, or something. Then he'd have held the referendum after two years of that, and won.
Meanwhile, the BBC are reporting in direct quotation what Theresa May is going to say to the Commons tomorrow.
But Mrs May will tell MPs on Monday: "Let us not break faith with the British people by trying to stage another referendum.
"Another vote which would do irreparable damage to the integrity of our politics, because it would say to millions who trusted in democracy, that our democracy does not deliver.
"Another vote which would likely leave us no further forward than the last.
"And another vote which would further divide our country at the very moment we should be working to unite it."
Does John Bercow think it's acceptable for a government minister to release the text of their Commons speech to the media before they deliver it to the Commons?
Left, get chaos, blame the Tories. According to critics the only way they are getting back in.
Centre, Labour, get chaos, blame Corbyn and the Tories. According to critics the only way they are getting back in.
Similarly the centre Tories might hope that crash out Brexit discredits the right. Tory right have their own targets lined up as well although some in this group are actually intentionally going for no deal.
New EU referendum would break faith with Britons, May to warn MPs http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46586673
If Britain really wants to see a reduction in far right extremism then it needs to tackle the root cause, which is the willingness of slightly softer right figures to indulge in martial language, stirring up the real extremists, and the complicity of the rest of the Leave camp tolerating the far right and its tropes because something else is seen as more important.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
Still difficult, though.
(though Winderemere is the nearest I've been to Ullswater. I don't have very good coverage of the Lake District).