Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » No Leader of the Opposition has rated even nearly as badly as

2

Comments

  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Sean_F said:


    I think revoking A50 would hit the Conservatives' vote share hard.

    Yes, I think so too. The only route beyond the WA for May is No Deal and to hope the impacts are minimal enough for most people not to be too worried.

    Whether that's the only route for Conservative MPs is another question.

    Deal or No Deal MPs combined have 339 MPs according to Rentoul today, above the 326 threshold needed for a majority, EUref2 with a Remain option has just 300 MPs. That leaves Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal referendum as a last resort for May
    Deal or Remain MPs combined have 500 MPs according to Rentoul today, above the 326 threshold needed for a majority, EUref2 with a No Deal option has just 115 MPs. That leaves Leave with Deal v Remain referendum as a last resort for May
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311

    RoyalBlue said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    NFL need to change kick off rules as seems more unlikely to recover an onside kick than get mays deal through parliament.

    The NFL are trying to get rid of the kick off. It's only because of the onside kick that they have not already done so. It seems to me that the formation changes to the onside kick were made so that everyone would say "oh, just get rid of the kick off as this is pointless."

    Protection of the QBs has got silly this season too. Safety is important, but this is a contact sport. If you don't want to get hurt, go play tiddlywinks.
    I want to see the kick off go the other way. If you boot it out the back, restart even further up the field and really force kickers to try and hit the 0-10 yard area.

    As for QB protection, yes all the tackle but can’t end up with your weight on them is nonsense.
    Agree on the kick off. Kick it out the back of the end zone and your opponent starts on the 30 yard line, and if you take a knee in the end zone, you start on the 10 yard line.
    Do you think the NFL has a long-term future as America’s leading sport? I struggle to see it considering declining viewing audiences, growing numbers of parents who won’t let their sons play because of the brain damage issue, and demographic chance aiding the rise of football.
    What sport will overtake it? Baseball is down the pan more than NFL & and YouTube generation are even more unlikely to be excited by a long game where nothing exciting happens for ages. NBA just doesn’t have the same level of constant excitement. Hockey is just as violent as NFL.

    The reason nfl is some popular is provides constant excitement, virtually no blow out games and combined with ability to have ad breaks inserted seamlessly.
    I’ve always liked NFL but this year I’ve been watching NFL redzone on Sky Sports and it is great - all key action across split screens
    Redzone is the shit. Other sports need to copy it. I know sky have soccer Saturday but it just isn’t the same not being able to see the action.
    Soccer Saturday is the same it just suits NFL better. The slow build up which can be boring when watching 1 game is actually good across multiple games
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.


    Even so, he considerably outperformed the UNS. If Kinnock had taken seats proportionate to his rise in votes, Major would have had a majority of 77, and it's not hard to imagine the history of his premiership might have been somewhat different. For a start, Maastricht would have been much easier to pass.
    True, I think tactical voting was partly responsible for the majority of 21.

    The press turned against the Tories in the end .
    But which matters more now, the print media or the social media?
    It depends on the demographics you want to communicate a message toward and gain votes from that specific group of people.

    The older voters who historically have a higher propensity to vote are more likely to take information on board via print media. Obviously you will always find an exception to the rule but even today the printed media is highly influential with older voters. If the Sun, the Mail, the Telegraph and Express all withdraw their mainly supportive coverage like they did in the 1990s then the Tories will be in serious trouble. It is the drip-drip effect of news over years that can damage political parties.

    Social media is an interesting development
    Print media drop their circulations every year, theirs is a dwindling market and influence. Social media is consumer, rather than editor driven.
    True but I think circulation underestimates newspaper influence given the volume of visitors to newspaper websites. I am particularly interested in the Daily Mails web presence as it has a very strong following.
    I agree, the print media is not yet dead, but it certainly has a lot less influence than 20 years ago in the heyday of Blair and Mandleson.
    I am not so sure that it is not as influential as a whole, look at Brexit, the Tory press delivered that as they laid the groundwork for the outcome. Blair and Mandelson had an obsession with the media because of Foot and more pertinently Kinnocks portrayal in the press. The internet has certainly fragmented and changed communication but the press is still very important and one should not underestimate it. Every evening Sky and the BBC have a press preview not a social media summary.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    He doesn't present himself as wanting anything other than to replace the Tories. No one' s interested in his personal ambition but they are interested in what he might do. So far not a word that makes sense
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    edited January 2019
    This is what happens if you publish anything that appears to undermine the great man


    https://twitter.com/YorkshireLad_87/status/1082015119729717249
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311

    This is what happens if you publish anything that appears to undermine the great man


    https://twitter.com/YorkshireLad_87/status/1082015119729717249

    OMG - surely this is the kind of crap that undermines Corbyn. The IRA stuff is too much for me but it was 20 years ago - this is right now and happens repeatedly.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786

    This is what happens if you publish anything that appears to undermine the great man

    https://twitter.com/YorkshireLad_87/status/1082015119729717249

    I think he's mocking the Corbyn cult judging by his other tweets. #FBPE people have been the prime target of their paranoia recently.

    https://twitter.com/YorkshireLad_87/status/1082035564210204672
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    edited January 2019

    This is what happens if you publish anything that appears to undermine the great man


    https://twitter.com/YorkshireLad_87/status/1082015119729717249

    We all know you're funded by Russians, hence the honey trap... I mean party at the embassy. :p
  • NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 703
    edited January 2019
    BudG said:

    HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:
    That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
    It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
    Not sure about that Ben. This is from the article:

    On repeat votes, Erskine May says: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”

    Might be one for Mr Squeaker to adjudicate on. How he would love that!
    Chuka Umunna told Sky’s Sophie Ridge this morning that he had checked with the House of Commons clerks who confirmed that the exact same meaningful vote cannot be held in the same session. Neither could a slightly re-worded version (as in one word being changed).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited January 2019

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    And yet Labour’s polling is remarkably resilient notwithstanding Corbyn’s marmite character. A loss of Tory support to the LibDems could still see Corbyn in power which would be a disastrous outcome.

    Since when is Labour being down 6% from 2017 to just 34% today evidence of 'Labour's polling is remarkably resilient'?

    There is no loss of Tory support to the LDs, the movement is from Labour to the LDs

    Polls fluctuate over time and are often wrong. Treating the latest as gospel is unbelievably naive, particularly given what happened in the last election.

    I didn’t say there was a loss of support. I said there could be. Given the number of Tory Remain MPs threatening to resign the whip and Grieve openly speculating about Brexit leading to a split in the Tory Party, I think your complacency is worryingly naive.
    The vast majority of Tory voters either back Deal or No Deal in the polls, barely a handful back Remain now and want to reverse Brexit. The Tories are far more at risk of losing voters to UKIP by revoking Brexit than they are of losing voters to the LDs even in the event of No Deal.

    The vast majority of Labour voters though back Remain and EUref2 so the longer Corbyn refuses to back EUref2 with a Remain option the more Labour is likely to continue to lose voters to the LDs
    The parliamentary Tory Party is still heavily Remain oriented and many of those constituencies could easily be lost - Putney, Richmond, Winchester, Eastleigh etc

    UKIP are a busted flush. They have gone from being a one trick pony on immigration to a one trick party obsessed with Islam.
    The vast majority of Tory seats voted Leave, UKIP or a new Farage Party would revive quicker than Lazarus if the Tories revoked Brexit and Corbyn would be handed the next general election on a plate if large numbers of Tory Leavers moved to them.

    Even of the Remain seats you mention the majority are Tory v LD marginals, not Tory v Labour
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    I do appreciate the 'clickbait' alternate takes on offer, so helpful.

    This is what happens if you publish anything that appears to undermine the great man

    https://twitter.com/YorkshireLad_87/status/1082015119729717249

    I think he's mocking the Corbyn cult judging by his other tweets. #FBPE people have been the prime target of their paranoia recently.

    https://twitter.com/YorkshireLad_87/status/1082035564210204672
    Personally I very much look forward, as that chap seems to be, when people who in dedicated fashion take the party line then have to argue the opposite when the leader changes position. We're all inconsistent, but the intensity of the switch from the most devoted is usually good for a laugh.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.


    .
    True, I think tactical voting was partly responsible for the majority of 21.

    The press turned against the Tories in the end .
    But which matters more now, the print media or the social media?
    It depends on the demographics you want to communicate a message toward and gain votes from that specific group of people.

    The older voters who historically have a higher propensity to vote are more likely to take information on board via print media. Obviously you will always find an exception to the rule but even today the printed media is highly influential with older voters. If the Sun, the Mail, the Telegraph and Express all withdraw their mainly supportive coverage like they did in the 1990s then the Tories will be in serious trouble. It is the drip-drip effect of news over years that can damage political parties.

    Social media is an interesting development
    Print media drop their circulations every year, theirs is a dwindling market and influence. Social media is consumer, rather than editor driven.
    True but I think circulation underestimates newspaper influence given the volume of visitors to newspaper websites. I am particularly interested in the Daily Mails web presence as it has a very strong following.
    I agree, the print media is not yet dead, but it certainly has a lot less influence than 20 years ago in the heyday of Blair and Mandleson.
    I am not so sure that it is not as influential as a whole, look at Brexit, the Tory press delivered that as they laid the groundwork for the outcome. Blair and Mandelson had an obsession with the media because of Foot and more pertinently Kinnocks portrayal in the press. The internet has certainly fragmented and changed communication but the press is still very important and one should not underestimate it. Every evening Sky and the BBC have a press preview not a social media summary.
    I think that with the relative decline of the print media the power of the BBC has increased, it dominates both the television news, and website media.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Sean_F said:


    I think revoking A50 would hit the Conservatives' vote share hard.

    Yes, I think so too. The only route beyond the WA for May is No Deal and to hope the impacts are minimal enough for most people not to be too worried.

    Whether that's the only route for Conservative MPs is another question.

    Deal or No Deal MPs combined have 339 MPs according to Rentoul today, above the 326 threshold needed for a majority, EUref2 with a Remain option has just 300 MPs. That leaves Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal referendum as a last resort for May
    Deal or Remain MPs combined have 500 MPs according to Rentoul today, above the 326 threshold needed for a majority, EUref2 with a No Deal option has just 115 MPs. That leaves Leave with Deal v Remain referendum as a last resort for May
    The vast majority of Deal backers are Tories and will not vote for a Remain v Deal referendum and May certainly will not allow that to go forward given a plurality of Tory voters and a majority of Tory members back No Deal it would be political suicide for the Tories to allow a referendum without a No Deal option.

  • BudGBudG Posts: 711

    This is what happens if you publish anything that appears to undermine the great man


    https://twitter.com/YorkshireLad_87/status/1082015119729717249

    OMG - surely this is the kind of crap that undermines Corbyn. The IRA stuff is too much for me but it was 20 years ago - this is right now and happens repeatedly.
    It may undermine Corbyn if it came from a Labour member. But this is from a member of the Green Party. Not sure how such snipes from the Greens is supposed to undermine Corbyn.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    NeilVW said:

    BudG said:

    HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:
    That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
    It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
    Not sure about that Ben. This is from the article:

    On repeat votes, Erskine May says: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”

    Might be one for Mr Squeaker to adjudicate on. How he would love that!
    Chuka Umunna told Sky’s Sophie Ridge this morning that he had checked with the House of Commons clerks who confirmed that the exact same meaningful vote cannot be held in the same session. Neither could a slightly re-worded version (as in one word being changed).
    Only by parliamentary convention, it has no legal force if the executive decides otherwise
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311

    This is what happens if you publish anything that appears to undermine the great man


    https://twitter.com/YorkshireLad_87/status/1082015119729717249

    OMG - surely this is the kind of crap that undermines Corbyn. The IRA stuff is too much for me but it was 20 years ago - this is right now and happens repeatedly.
    Oh no - taken in by a troll. It may help if I understood twitter.- tried to use it but just don’t get it.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    FPT

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    FF43 said:

    This almost sounded like a reasonable reply until that classic last sentence. A master class in patronising tosh.

    In actual fact you’ve nothing to base your Leave position on apart from windy garbage that “we” just don’t fit in.
    We don’t have an optimal currency area. We don’t have a common legal system. We don’t have a unified demos. We have different global interests. That’s 4 for a start.

    It makes a lot of sense to trade and cooperate with our European neighbours. The EU isn’t the right structure for us. In my view Cameron’s real failure (and Merkel) was that they were to able to develop a structure that could accommodate those different needs while preserving what is good about the set up.

    May (and Merkel and Barnier)’s failure is they haven’t been able to focus on the bigger picture.

    These are all question begging declarations, except the first which makes no sense given we are not in the Euro.

    I agree with your points about the varyinf failures, but would have to say the fault lies largely with the U.K.
    Well you rather offensively said that my leave position was based on “windy garbage”. I gave you four statements (or “declarations”) if you like on why we are a poor fit for the EU. I didn’t write a thesis on them each but they are all points that people debate - you’ve chosen to dismiss them simply because you don’t have an answer.

    But I’m a charitable soul so will give you a second chance.

    1. OCA - power inside the EU is structurally concentrated in the Eurozone (particularly the interplay with QMV). If we are not in the EZ we are not - and cannot be - “at the heart of Europe”. Read Otmar Issing’s work on OCAs - we are not one - so it makes no sense for us to join the EZ. I’d rather be a friendly neighbour than a junior partner.

    2. Common legal system? Umm... Napoleonic Code vs Common Law principles?

    3. Unified Demos - more of a theoretical discussion but until the people of Europe truly vote on a pan-European basis there will be a democratic deficit and lack of accountability in the EU. That’s not acceptable in my view

    4. Different global interests. For some reason Germany is much softer on Russia than we are. It might be to do with their dependence on Russian gas. I think they are wrong headed and short-termist but it’s up to them to decide what the right policy is for Germany. But there’s a different “right policy” for the U.K. because...umm... we have different interests.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,543

    This is what happens if you publish anything that appears to undermine the great man


    https://twitter.com/YorkshireLad_87/status/1082015119729717249

    I think tongue in cheek.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    RoyalBlue said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    NFL need to change kick off rules as seems more unlikely to recover an onside kick than get mays deal through parliament.

    The NFL are trying to get rid of the kick off. It's only because of the onside kick that they have not already done so. It seems to me that the formation changes to the onside kick were made so that everyone would say "oh, just get rid of the kick off as this is pointless."

    Protection of the QBs has got silly this season too. Safety is important, but this is a contact sport. If you don't want to get hurt, go play tiddlywinks.
    I want to see the kick off go the other way. If you boot it out the back, restart even further up the field and really force kickers to try and hit the 0-10 yard area.

    As for QB protection, yes all the tackle but can’t end up with your weight on them is nonsense.
    Agree on the kick off. Kick it out the back of the end zone and your opponent starts on the 30 yard line, and if you take a knee in the end zone, you start on the 10 yard line.
    Do you think the NFL has a long-term future as America’s leading sport? I struggle to see it considering declining viewing audiences, growing numbers of parents who won’t let their sons play because of the brain damage issue, and demographic chance aiding the rise of football.
    What sport will overtake it? Baseball is down the pan more than NFL & and YouTube generation are even more unlikely to be excited by a long game where nothing exciting happens for ages. NBA just doesn’t have the same level of constant excitement. Hockey is just as violent as NFL.

    The reason nfl is some popular is provides constant excitement, virtually no blow out games and combined with ability to have ad breaks inserted seamlessly.
    I’ve always liked NFL but this year I’ve been watching NFL redzone on Sky Sports and it is great - all key action across split screens
    Redzone is the shit. Other sports need to copy it. I know sky have soccer Saturday but it just isn’t the same not being able to see the action.
    Soccer Saturday is often hillarious as the presenters try and describe what they’re not allowed to show.

    Alternatively, walk into any bar in Expatsville at 3pm UK time on a Saturday, and see six screens showing six matches, all with Sky English commentary! There’s a rumour that Sky are going to press hard to be allowed to show the 3pm games from the next TV contract, given the huge amount of pirate steaming back to the UK from the foreign transmissions that goes on at the moment.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Sean_F said:


    I think revoking A50 would hit the Conservatives' vote share hard.

    Yes, I think so too. The only route beyond the WA for May is No Deal and to hope the impacts are minimal enough for most people not to be too worried.

    Whether that's the only route for Conservative MPs is another question.

    Deal or No Deal MPs combined have 339 MPs according to Rentoul today, above the 326 threshold needed for a majority, EUref2 with a Remain option has just 300 MPs. That leaves Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal referendum as a last resort for May
    Deal or Remain MPs combined have 500 MPs according to Rentoul today, above the 326 threshold needed for a majority, EUref2 with a No Deal option has just 115 MPs. That leaves Leave with Deal v Remain referendum as a last resort for May
    The vast majority of Deal backers are Tories and will not vote for a Remain v Deal referendum and May certainly will not allow that to go forward given a plurality of Tory voters and a majority of Tory members back No Deal it would be political suicide for the Tories to allow a referendum without a No Deal option.

    The majority of Tory members may back No Deal but Mrs May doesn't, so she's got a problem with her members anyway. I doubt she cares much. She's not looking for their votes for the leadership.

    She cares passionately about her Deal. If the only way to get it through parliament is to offer it with a second referendum , Deal or Remain, she would get it through as 500 MPs support Deal or Remain. The Tories are committing political suicide anyway unless she gets her Deal passed, and even then they're in trouble with the awkward squad.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,269
    edited January 2019
    NeilVW said:

    BudG said:

    HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:
    That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
    It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
    Not sure about that Ben. This is from the article:

    On repeat votes, Erskine May says: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”

    Might be one for Mr Squeaker to adjudicate on. How he would love that!
    Chuka Umunna told Sky’s Sophie Ridge this morning that he had checked with the House of Commons clerks who confirmed that the exact same meaningful vote cannot be held in the same session. Neither could a slightly re-worded version (as in one word being changed).
    Mmmm. Ok fair enough, I could have got that wrong. I guess we will find out in the next few weeks (possibly).
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    edited January 2019
    Charles said:

    1. OCA - power inside the EU is structurally concentrated in the Eurozone (particularly the interplay with QMV). If we are not in the EZ we are not - and cannot be - “at the heart of Europe”. Read Otmar Issing’s work on OCAs - we are not one - so it makes no sense for us to join the EZ. I’d rather be a friendly neighbour than a junior partner.

    2. Common legal system? Umm... Napoleonic Code vs Common Law principles?

    3. Unified Demos - more of a theoretical discussion but until the people of Europe truly vote on a pan-European basis there will be a democratic deficit and lack of accountability in the EU. That’s not acceptable in my view

    4. Different global interests. For some reason Germany is much softer on Russia than we are. It might be to do with their dependence on Russian gas. I think they are wrong headed and short-termist but it’s up to them to decide what the right policy is for Germany. But there’s a different “right policy” for the U.K. because...umm... we have different interests.

    1. Currency territories are always politically defined, not based on OCAs. Is the UK an OCA? There's no reason for us not to join the Eurozone.

    2. So what? Both Canada and the US combine civil and common law in the same system.

    3. There's no unified UK demos, so should we dissolve the UK?

    4. That's opinion, not fact. The UK was the number one source of foreign investment in Russia last year.
  • Harris_TweedHarris_Tweed Posts: 1,300
    On print v social media: social media is only really a delivery mechanism. Facebook isn’t generating content, and although its algorithms can shape what flies, it’s basically a popularity contest for stories and, longer-term, brands who can get the most likes/shares/clicks.

    So the Mail (and Sky and the BBC and other big media providers) are powerful because they get traction among readers there. This transition has been far easier in an editorial sense - trusted brands remaining trusted in a new sphere - than it has been financially. That is, with the exception of the Mail, no-one’s worked out how to monetise it.

    The problem is that some real bollocks-merchants (or “non-traditional media”, as I believe they prefer to be known), can easily muscle in with stuff which is nonsense but clickworthy. In itself, it’s not a bad thing, but the evidence is that consumers aren’t yet judging the relative strength of the political reporting in the Times versus a polemic by an intern on EvolvePolitics. There are some new media who’ve taken advantage (editorially if not financially) without racing to the bottom (HuffPost... maybe BuzzFeed, even some of Guido’s reporting as opposed to the comments). Where I think people *have* got the hang of it is that a comment from JRM or JC on twitter *is* just an opinion with all the baggage you’d expect.

    And whatever those publishers’ successes, most of them have decent online platforms for their social accounts to link to: no-one’s actually just putting news on Facebook.

    So, yes there’s a shift to digital; yes social is part of that; but big brands still dominate and people want a trusted guide. The tools are there for a democratisation of the media, but while the Mail’s front page isn’t as powerful as 20 years ago (even with the digital buzz it creates), it’s still a bigger influencer than JRM’s Twitter account.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    Cross party move or something which will amount to nothing?

    https://twitter.com/LucyMPowell/status/1082042275402784768
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    HYUFD said:

    NeilVW said:

    BudG said:

    HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:
    That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
    It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
    Not sure about that Ben. This is from the article:

    On repeat votes, Erskine May says: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”

    Might be one for Mr Squeaker to adjudicate on. How he would love that!
    Chuka Umunna told Sky’s Sophie Ridge this morning that he had checked with the House of Commons clerks who confirmed that the exact same meaningful vote cannot be held in the same session. Neither could a slightly re-worded version (as in one word being changed).
    Only by parliamentary convention, it has no legal force if the executive decides otherwise
    If the executive decides to ignore parliamentary convention, they are in danger of parliament taking back control by freezing all legislation and making the government impotent. It would be the nuclear option.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    @Corporeal Thanks for sharing your thoughts and graphs.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    edited January 2019
    Anyone who believes the Never Brexit MPs can starve the government of funds in the event of no deal needs to follow Nikki da Costa on twitter. Royal assent for the finance bill is not required until May.

    Strikes me that there is still nothing that can be done to stop Brexit happening - whatever happens - provided the Govt retains the confidence of the house.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    dr_spyn said:

    @Corporeal Thanks for sharing your thoughts and graphs.

    +1 - thanks for all three threads @Corporeal
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    NeilVW said:

    BudG said:

    HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:
    That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
    It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
    Not sure about that Ben. This is from the article:

    On repeat votes, Erskine May says: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”

    Might be one for Mr Squeaker to adjudicate on. How he would love that!
    Chuka Umunna told Sky’s Sophie Ridge this morning that he had checked with the House of Commons clerks who confirmed that the exact same meaningful vote cannot be held in the same session. Neither could a slightly re-worded version (as in one word being changed).
    Only by parliamentary convention, it has no legal force if the executive decides otherwise
    If the executive decides to ignore parliamentary convention, they are in danger of parliament taking back control by freezing all legislation and making the government impotent. It would be the nuclear option.
    What legislation do you think needs to be passed before Brexit?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited January 2019
    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    NeilVW said:

    BudG said:

    HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:
    That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
    It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
    Not sure about that Ben. This is from the article:

    On repeat votes, Erskine May says: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”

    Might be one for Mr Squeaker to adjudicate on. How he would love that!
    Chuka Umunna told Sky’s Sophie Ridge this morning that he had checked with the House of Commons clerks who confirmed that the exact same meaningful vote cannot be held in the same session. Neither could a slightly re-worded version (as in one word being changed).
    Only by parliamentary convention, it has no legal force if the executive decides otherwise
    If the executive decides to ignore parliamentary convention, they are in danger of parliament taking back control by freezing all legislation and making the government impotent. It would be the nuclear option.
    By the sound of things Cooper et al plan to do that if the government tries for a No Deal option anyway, something has to give
  • Harris_TweedHarris_Tweed Posts: 1,300
    edited January 2019
    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Sean_F said:


    I think revoking A50 would hit the Conservatives' vote share hard.

    Yes, I think so too. The only route beyond the WA for May is No Deal and to hope the impacts are minimal enough for most people not to be too worried.

    Whether that's the only route for Conservative MPs is another question.

    Deal or No Deal MPs combined have 339 MPs according to Rentoul today, above the 326 threshold needed for a majority, EUref2 with a Remain option has just 300 MPs. That leaves Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal referendum as a last resort for May
    Deal or Remain MPs combined have 500 MPs according to Rentoul today, above the 326 threshold needed for a majority, EUref2 with a No Deal option has just 115 MPs. That leaves Leave with Deal v Remain referendum as a last resort for May
    The vast majority of Deal backers are Tories and will not vote for a Remain v Deal referendum and May certainly will not allow that to go forward given a plurality of Tory voters and a majority of Tory members back No Deal it would be political suicide for the Tories to allow a referendum without a No Deal option.

    The majority of Tory members may back No Deal but Mrs May doesn't, so she's got a problem with her members anyway. I doubt she cares much. She's not looking for their votes for the leadership.

    She cares passionately about her Deal. If the only way to get it through parliament is to offer it with a second referendum , Deal or Remain, she would get it through as 500 MPs support Deal or Remain. The Tories are committing political suicide anyway unless she gets her Deal passed, and even then they're in trouble with the awkward squad.
    I think the only way a referendum gets through is with two questions/three answers. Any two outcomes on the ballot will have supporters of the third crying betrayal - probably noisily enough to block it. I don’t underestimate the problems such a vote would cause, but I’m not seeing any massively optimal outcomes here.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    dr_spyn said:

    @Corporeal Thanks for sharing your thoughts and graphs.

    +1 three fantastic articles today, thanks and well done @corporeal!
  • FPT


    Richard, I'm fluent in French and German, which are two of the six languages I'm fluent in.

    [Swaggering] That's nothing! I have GCSE A-grades in French and German :)
    Strange that TSE should think that fluency in other languages means he actually knows what the people of those countries are thinking. I am also fluent in French and Norwegian but clearly the people I talk to on a daily basis are very different to those that TSE imagines in his fevered Europhile dreams.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Sean_F said:


    I think revoking A50 would hit the Conservatives' vote share hard.

    Yes, I think so too. The only route beyond the WA for May is No Deal and to hope the impacts are minimal enough for most people not to be too worried.

    Whether that's the only route for Conservative MPs is another question.

    Deal or No Deal MPs combined have 339 MPs according to Rentoul today, above the 326 threshold needed for a majority, EUref2 with a Remain option has just 300 MPs. That leaves Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal referendum as a last resort for May
    Deal or Remain MPs combined have 500 MPs according to Rentoul today, above the 326 threshold needed for a majority, EUref2 with a No Deal option has just 115 MPs. That leaves Leave with Deal v Remain referendum as a last resort for May
    The vast majority of Deal backers are Tories and will not vote for a Remain v Deal referendum and May certainly will not allow that to go forward given a plurality of Tory voters and a majority of Tory members back No Deal it would be political suicide for the Tories to allow a referendum without a No Deal option.

    The majority of Tory members may back No Deal but Mrs May doesn't, so she's got a problem with her members anyway. I doubt she cares much. She's not looking for their votes for the leadership.

    She cares passionately about her Deal. If the only way to get it through parliament is to offer it with a second referendum , Deal or Remain, she would get it through as 500 MPs support Deal or Remain. The Tories are committing political suicide anyway unless she gets her Deal passed, and even then they're in trouble with the awkward squad.
    She will be looking though to keep Tory voters in the tent and she cannot afford to lose No Deal Tory voters to UKIP or a new Farage Party.

    May also can read the polls, Deal tends to beat No Deal comfortably, however Deal only ties Remain at best. The best way to get the Deal to win any referendum is against a No Deal option ie either Deal v No Deal or Leave v Remain and if Leave wins then Leave with Deal v No Deal. Leave with Deal v Remain is the Deal's least likely way of winning.


  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited January 2019
    Mortimer said:

    Anyone who believes the Never Brexit MPs can starve the government of funds in the event of no deal needs to follow Nikki da Costa on twitter. Royal assent for the finance bill is not required until May.

    Strikes me that there is still nothing that can be done to stop Brexit happening - whatever happens - provided the Govt retains the confidence of the house.

    I don't think it will. If May holds firm at some point those who claim to want to stop no deal will have to take action if things like this finance matter don't work. The Tory remainers in particular will face a choice - they cannot pass the deal by themselves but they can bring down the gov. Is remaining worth that to them? Probably yes but so far they can pretend otherwise.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,957
    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    NeilVW said:

    BudG said:

    HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:
    That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
    It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
    Not sure about that Ben. This is from the article:

    On repeat votes, Erskine May says: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”

    Might be one for Mr Squeaker to adjudicate on. How he would love that!
    Chuka Umunna told Sky’s Sophie Ridge this morning that he had checked with the House of Commons clerks who confirmed that the exact same meaningful vote cannot be held in the same session. Neither could a slightly re-worded version (as in one word being changed).
    Only by parliamentary convention, it has no legal force if the executive decides otherwise
    If the executive decides to ignore parliamentary convention, they are in danger of parliament taking back control by freezing all legislation and making the government impotent. It would be the nuclear option.
    By the sound of things Cooper et al plan to do that if the government tries for a No Deal option anyway, something has to give
    If they try that, May is awkward enough to just close down all non-essential business until 30th March.

    "OK Parliament, we have Brexited. Now - we have work to do..."
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Sandpit said:

    dr_spyn said:

    @Corporeal Thanks for sharing your thoughts and graphs.

    +1 three fantastic articles today, thanks and well done @corporeal!
    I feel somewhat spoiled by all three in one day.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    dr_spyn said:

    Cross party move or something which will amount to nothing?

    https://twitter.com/LucyMPowell/status/1082042275402784768

    Adds nothing if it still requires free movement
  • Harris_TweedHarris_Tweed Posts: 1,300
    dr_spyn said:

    Cross party move or something which will amount to nothing?

    https://twitter.com/LucyMPowell/status/1082042275402784768

    If it was Ken Clarke and Margaret Beckett I’d be more confident. It’s going to need some serious heft to pull sufficient numbers against the whip (and probably can’t be done without Vonc-ing TM anyway). Three months ago would probably have been sensible too, though I think the “this deal is all we have time for” may not be true if one’s talking about moving closer to the EU position.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited January 2019
    I don’t understand why the PM didn’t take the opportunity when interviewed today, to close down any talk of a second referendum, making very clear that it’s her deal or no deal - and if her deal doesn’t pass next week then the no-deal preparations will go full steam ahead.

    Right now she’s got two or maybe three groups of MPs who oppose her deal for opppsoite reasons, who together can block it. She’s got to get some of them back onside (or at least abstaining) by ruling out their preferred option and leaving them with a binary choice.

    I’m still not sure that Corbyn doesn’t pull an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria and whip an abstention on the day of the vote under pressure from his own MPs. His reasoning would be that the deal vote going through forces a VoC in the government from the DUP.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    Mortimer said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    NeilVW said:

    BudG said:

    HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:
    That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
    It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
    Not sure about that Ben. This is from the article:

    On repeat votes, Erskine May says: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”

    Might be one for Mr Squeaker to adjudicate on. How he would love that!
    Chuka Umunna told Sky’s Sophie Ridge this morning that he had checked with the House of Commons clerks who confirmed that the exact same meaningful vote cannot be held in the same session. Neither could a slightly re-worded version (as in one word being changed).
    Only by parliamentary convention, it has no legal force if the executive decides otherwise
    If the executive decides to ignore parliamentary convention, they are in danger of parliament taking back control by freezing all legislation and making the government impotent. It would be the nuclear option.
    What legislation do you think needs to be passed before Brexit?
    There are approximately 800 Statutory Instruments that have to be passed. Of these about 20-30% require the affirmative procedure. An SI laid under the affirmative procedure must be actively approved by both Houses of Parliament.

    http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/procedure-committee/exiting-the-european-union-scrutiny-of-delegated-legislation/oral/82332.html
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Sandpit said:

    I don’t understand why the PM didn’t take the opportunity when interviewed today, to close down any talk of a second referendum, making very clear that it’s her deal or no deal - and if her deal doesn’t pass next week then the no-deal preparations will go full steam ahead.

    Right now she’s got two or maybe three groups of MPs who oppose her deal for opppsoite reasons, who together can block it. She’s got to get some of them back onside (or at least abstaining) by ruling out their preferred option and leaving them with a binary choice.

    I’m still not sure that Corbyn doesn’t pull an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria and whip an abstention on the day of the vote under pressure from his own MPs.

    His Mps and members would not pressurise him to abstain. That would enable brexit and that is abhorrent to most of them.

    For Corbyn the best answer politically at this point is oppose the Tories no matter what and castigate the gov for no deal problems. Yes it's no deal but the Tories get first share of the blame and his party would prioritise anger there. It also fits his instincts as an opposition.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    edited January 2019
    Barnesian said:

    Mortimer said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    NeilVW said:

    BudG said:

    HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:
    That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
    It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
    Not sure about that Ben. This is from the article:

    On repeat votes, Erskine May says: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”

    Might be one for Mr Squeaker to adjudicate on. How he would love that!
    Chuka Umunna told Sky’s Sophie Ridge this morning that he had checked with the House of Commons clerks who confirmed that the exact same meaningful vote cannot be held in the same session. Neither could a slightly re-worded version (as in one word being changed).
    Only by parliamentary convention, it has no legal force if the executive decides otherwise
    If the executive decides to ignore parliamentary convention, they are in danger of parliament taking back control by freezing all legislation and making the government impotent. It would be the nuclear option.
    What legislation do you think needs to be passed before Brexit?
    There are approximately 800 Statutory Instruments that have to be passed. Of these about 20-30% require the affirmative procedure. An SI laid under the affirmative procedure must be actively approved by both Houses of Parliament.

    http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/procedure-committee/exiting-the-european-union-scrutiny-of-delegated-legislation/oral/82332.html
    And yet preventing those passing won’t prevent Brexit...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited January 2019
    Barnesian said:

    Mortimer said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    NeilVW said:

    BudG said:

    HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:
    That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
    It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
    Not sure about that Ben. This is from the article:

    On repeat votes, Erskine May says: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”

    Might be one for Mr Squeaker to adjudicate on. How he would love that!
    Chuka Umunna told Sky’s Sophie Ridge this morning that he had checked with the House of Commons clerks who confirmed that the exact same meaningful vote cannot be held in the same session. Neither could a slightly re-worded version (as in one word being changed).
    Only by parliamentary convention, it has no legal force if the executive decides otherwise
    If the executive decides to ignore parliamentary convention, they are in danger of parliament taking back control by freezing all legislation and making the government impotent. It would be the nuclear option.
    What legislation do you think needs to be passed before Brexit?
    There are approximately 800 Statutory Instruments that have to be passed. Of these about 20-30% require the affirmative procedure. An SI laid under the affirmative procedure must be actively approved by both Houses of Parliament.

    http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/procedure-committee/exiting-the-european-union-scrutiny-of-delegated-legislation/oral/82332.html
    Yes, if the deal is approved next week there’s still an awful lot to get done in Parliament before 29th March.

    If it’s no-deal they’ll likely be siitting on Saturdays to get everything through that’s required. Hope MPs and Lords have understanding wives and husbands if this comes to pass.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Mortimer said:

    Barnesian said:

    Mortimer said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    NeilVW said:

    BudG said:

    HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:
    That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
    It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
    Not sure about that Ben. This is from the article:

    On repeat votes, Erskine May says: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”

    Might be one for Mr Squeaker to adjudicate on. How he would love that!
    Chuka Umunna told Sky’s Sophie Ridge this morning that he had checked with the House of Commons clerks who confirmed that the exact same meaningful vote cannot be held in the same session. Neither could a slightly re-worded version (as in one word being changed).
    Only by parliamentary convention, it has no legal force if the executive decides otherwise
    If the executive decides to ignore parliamentary convention, they are in danger of parliament taking back control by freezing all legislation and making the government impotent. It would be the nuclear option.
    What legislation do you think needs to be passed before Brexit?
    There are approximately 800 Statutory Instruments that have to be passed. Of these about 20-30% require the affirmative procedure. An SI laid under the affirmative procedure must be actively approved by both Houses of Parliament.

    http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/procedure-committee/exiting-the-european-union-scrutiny-of-delegated-legislation/oral/82332.html
    And yet preventing those passing won’t prevent Brexit...
    If we are even more unprepared than now they believe we will revoke. It's very high risk, as all sides are going all or nothing and fuck the country if they fail.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    Sandpit said:

    I don’t understand why the PM didn’t take the opportunity when interviewed today, to close down any talk of a second referendum, making very clear that it’s her deal or no deal - and if her deal doesn’t pass next week then the no-deal preparations will go full steam ahead.

    Right now she’s got two or maybe three groups of MPs who oppose her deal for opppsoite reasons, who together can block it. She’s got to get some of them back onside (or at least abstaining) by ruling out their preferred option and leaving them with a binary choice.

    I’m still not sure that Corbyn doesn’t pull an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria and whip an abstention on the day of the vote under pressure from his own MPs. His reasoning would be that the deal vote going through forces a VoC in the government from the DUP.

    You're right. She didn't close down any talk of a second referendum. She said Brexit was in danger if her deal wasn't passed and that we would then be in "uncharted waters". An interesting phrase. It sounds a bit like "all options would then be on the table".
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    I don’t understand why the PM didn’t take the opportunity when interviewed today, to close down any talk of a second referendum, making very clear that it’s her deal or no deal - and if her deal doesn’t pass next week then the no-deal preparations will go full steam ahead.

    Right now she’s got two or maybe three groups of MPs who oppose her deal for opppsoite reasons, who together can block it. She’s got to get some of them back onside (or at least abstaining) by ruling out their preferred option and leaving them with a binary choice.

    I’m still not sure that Corbyn doesn’t pull an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria and whip an abstention on the day of the vote under pressure from his own MPs.

    His Mps and members would not pressurise him to abstain. That would enable brexit and that is abhorrent to most of them.

    For Corbyn the best answer politically at this point is oppose the Tories no matter what and castigate the gov for no deal problems. Yes it's no deal but the Tories get first share of the blame and his party would prioritise anger there. It also fits his instincts as an opposition.
    The reasoning would be that seeing the vote pass would result in a VoC from the DUP and a possible election.

    It’s worth bearing in mind that the ‘meanignful’ vote isn’t the end of the legislative process, there’s an enabling Act required to formally ratify the deal as a Treaty, which needs to go through the usual process of primary legislation in order to leave under the deal. The EU Parliament also need to ratify it, all before 29th March.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    HYUFD said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Cross party move or something which will amount to nothing?

    https://twitter.com/LucyMPowell/status/1082042275402784768

    Adds nothing if it still requires free movement
    Anything that might pass the commons and the EU adds something. Whether this would I don't know, the rushing into something last minute seems unwise, but frankly anything goes now.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Cross party move or something which will amount to nothing?

    https://twitter.com/LucyMPowell/status/1082042275402784768

    Adds nothing if it still requires free movement
    Anything that might pass the commons and the EU adds something. Whether this would I don't know, the rushing into something last minute seems unwise, but frankly anything goes now.
    It’s not a plan that avoids the need for a WA, though.

    It isn’t an alternative to the WA. I’m still not convinced that enough MPs understand this..
  • theProletheProle Posts: 948
    edited January 2019
    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    NeilVW said:

    BudG said:

    HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:
    That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
    It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
    Not sure about that Ben. This is from the article:

    On repeat votes, Erskine May says: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”

    Might be one for Mr Squeaker to adjudicate on. How he would love that!
    Chuka Umunna told Sky’s Sophie Ridge this morning that he had checked with the House of Commons clerks who confirmed that the exact same meaningful vote cannot be held in the same session. Neither could a slightly re-worded version (as in one word being changed).
    Only by parliamentary convention, it has no legal force if the executive decides otherwise
    If the executive decides to ignore parliamentary convention, they are in danger of parliament taking back control by freezing all legislation and making the government impotent. It would be the nuclear option.
    By the sound of things Cooper et al plan to do that if the government tries for a No Deal option anyway, something has to give
    While the the same question cannot be put on its own, is there anything to stop it being combined into another vote with a barely related issue?

    E. G. This house believes that the practice of hunting snails with cats as a bloodsport is cruel and inhumane, and calls upon the government to a) bring forward legislation to effect a ban on this practice, and b) to ratify the European Union withdrawal agreement in order to prevent unnecessary disruption to ecological agreements regarding the keeping, breeding and welfare of snails.
  • The government should be using the time left before March 29th to be arranging side deals to WTO with the rest of the EU.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited January 2019
    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    I don’t understand why the PM didn’t take the opportunity when interviewed today, to close down any talk of a second referendum, making very clear that it’s her deal or no deal - and if her deal doesn’t pass next week then the no-deal preparations will go full steam ahead.

    Right now she’s got two or maybe three groups of MPs who oppose her deal for opppsoite reasons, who together can block it. She’s got to get some of them back onside (or at least abstaining) by ruling out their preferred option and leaving them with a binary choice.

    I’m still not sure that Corbyn doesn’t pull an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria and whip an abstention on the day of the vote under pressure from his own MPs.

    His Mps and members would not pressurise him to abstain. That would enable brexit and that is abhorrent to most of them.

    For Corbyn the best answer politically at this point is oppose the Tories no matter what and castigate the gov for no deal problems. Yes it's no deal but the Tories get first share of the blame and his party would prioritise anger there. It also fits his instincts as an opposition.
    The reasoning would be that seeing the vote pass would result in a VoC from the DUP and a possible election.
    Yes, and I think the best path for Corbyn in the start was the deal squeaked through thanks to some labour rebels. No deal avoided thus pleasing his party but brexit itself not their fault and they could continue to say all options including remain would have been an option under them.

    But active labour support or abstention is too much for them. They cannot claim to want to renegotiate if they do that, they cannot claim to be willing to remain. That would possibly hit them in an election.

    Which is Why Corbyn is still pushing the initial policy to keep all options open. Tory brexit must not be seen to be aided and since May is not showing her hand yet he will also delay.
  • BudGBudG Posts: 711
    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    I don’t understand why the PM didn’t take the opportunity when interviewed today, to close down any talk of a second referendum, making very clear that it’s her deal or no deal - and if her deal doesn’t pass next week then the no-deal preparations will go full steam ahead.

    Right now she’s got two or maybe three groups of MPs who oppose her deal for opppsoite reasons, who together can block it. She’s got to get some of them back onside (or at least abstaining) by ruling out their preferred option and leaving them with a binary choice.

    I’m still not sure that Corbyn doesn’t pull an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria and whip an abstention on the day of the vote under pressure from his own MPs.

    His Mps and members would not pressurise him to abstain. That would enable brexit and that is abhorrent to most of them.

    For Corbyn the best answer politically at this point is oppose the Tories no matter what and castigate the gov for no deal problems. Yes it's no deal but the Tories get first share of the blame and his party would prioritise anger there. It also fits his instincts as an opposition.
    The reasoning would be that seeing the vote pass would result in a VoC from the DUP and a possible election.

    It’s worth bearing in mind that the ‘meanignful’ vote isn’t the end of the legislative process, there’s an enabling Act required to formally ratify the deal as a Treaty, which needs to go through the usual process of primary legislation in order to leave under the deal. The EU Parliament also need to ratify it, all before 29th March.
    So the ERG mob could support the WA and it passes and the deadline comes ever closer and then the ERG could suddenly withdraw their support for the primary legislation and leave May's deal high and dry with very little time left to do anything before 29th March and we could crash out.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    theProle said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    NeilVW said:

    BudG said:

    HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:
    That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
    It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
    Not sure about that Ben. This is from the article:

    On repeat votes, Erskine May says: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”

    Might be one for Mr Squeaker to adjudicate on. How he would love that!
    Chuka Umunna told Sky’s Sophie Ridge this morning that he had checked with the House of Commons clerks who confirmed that the exact same meaningful vote cannot be held in the same session. Neither could a slightly re-worded version (as in one word being changed).
    Only by parliamentary convention, it has no legal force if the executive decides otherwise
    If the executive decides to ignore parliamentary convention, they are in danger of parliament taking back control by freezing all legislation and making the government impotent. It would be the nuclear option.
    By the sound of things Cooper et al plan to do that if the government tries for a No Deal option anyway, something has to give
    While the the same question cannot be put on its own, is there anything to stop it being combined into another vote with a barely related issue?

    E. G. This house believes that the practice of hunting snails with cats as a bloodsport is cruel and inhumane, and calls upon the government to a) bring forward legislation to effect a ban on this practice, and b) to ratify the European Union withdrawal agreement in order to prevent unnecessary disruption to ecological agreements regarding the keeping, breeding and welfare of snails.
    I think that's possible in some legislatures but not ours, though they can get creative about how related. Dr Palmer would know.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Barnesian said:

    Sandpit said:

    I don’t understand why the PM didn’t take the opportunity when interviewed today, to close down any talk of a second referendum, making very clear that it’s her deal or no deal - and if her deal doesn’t pass next week then the no-deal preparations will go full steam ahead.

    Right now she’s got two or maybe three groups of MPs who oppose her deal for opppsoite reasons, who together can block it. She’s got to get some of them back onside (or at least abstaining) by ruling out their preferred option and leaving them with a binary choice.

    I’m still not sure that Corbyn doesn’t pull an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria and whip an abstention on the day of the vote under pressure from his own MPs. His reasoning would be that the deal vote going through forces a VoC in the government from the DUP.

    You're right. She didn't close down any talk of a second referendum. She said Brexit was in danger if her deal wasn't passed and that we would then be in "uncharted waters". An interesting phrase. It sounds a bit like "all options would then be on the table".
    That’s what I don’t get. If all options are still on the table, then she’s going to lose the vote by 150-200 as everyone who doesn’t like the deal votes against it - whether they’d prefer to see a referendum, a revocation, a renegotiation or to leave with no deal. If that is the scale of the defeat she’ll be lucky if she’s not forced out by the Cabinet.

    Given that her own party are 95% for either her deal or no deal, it would make sense for her to leave those as the two options, and start making it very clear (by way of announcements on funding, on Parliamentary timetabling etc) that voting down the deal leads to no-deal as the outcome.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    Will the vote be on the 15th? Has it been confirmed yet?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Barnesian said:

    Sandpit said:

    I don’t understand why the PM didn’t take the opportunity when interviewed today, to close down any talk of a second referendum, making very clear that it’s her deal or no deal - and if her deal doesn’t pass next week then the no-deal preparations will go full steam ahead.

    Right now she’s got two or maybe three groups of MPs who oppose her deal for opppsoite reasons, who together can block it. She’s got to get some of them back onside (or at least abstaining) by ruling out their preferred option and leaving them with a binary choice.

    I’m still not sure that Corbyn doesn’t pull an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria and whip an abstention on the day of the vote under pressure from his own MPs. His reasoning would be that the deal vote going through forces a VoC in the government from the DUP.

    You're right. She didn't close down any talk of a second referendum. She said Brexit was in danger if her deal wasn't passed and that we would then be in "uncharted waters". An interesting phrase. It sounds a bit like "all options would then be on the table".
    Still trying to win over Brexiteers by intimating that brexit might be stopped perhaps. Futile, as they do not think we can/will revoke in time so are confident of some leave at least.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Cross party move or something which will amount to nothing?

    https://twitter.com/LucyMPowell/status/1082042275402784768

    Adds nothing if it still requires free movement
    Anything that might pass the commons and the EU adds something. Whether this would I don't know, the rushing into something last minute seems unwise, but frankly anything goes now.
    It won't, there are probably even fewer votes for Norway Plus than for EUref2 with a Remain option
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    theProle said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    NeilVW said:

    BudG said:

    HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:
    That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
    It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
    Not sure about that Ben. This is from the article:

    On repeat votes, Erskine May says: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”

    Might be one for Mr Squeaker to adjudicate on. How he would love that!
    Chuka Umunna told Sky’s Sophie Ridge this morning that he had checked with the House of Commons clerks who confirmed that the exact same meaningful vote cannot be held in the same session. Neither could a slightly re-worded version (as in one word being changed).
    Only by parliamentary convention, it has no legal force if the executive decides otherwise
    If the executive decides to ignore parliamentary convention, they are in danger of parliament taking back control by freezing all legislation and making the government impotent. It would be the nuclear option.
    By the sound of things Cooper et al plan to do that if the government tries for a No Deal option anyway, something has to give
    While the the same question cannot be put on its own, is there anything to stop it being combined into another vote with a barely related issue?

    E. G. This house believes that the practice of hunting snails with cats as a bloodsport is cruel and inhumane, and calls upon the government to a) bring forward legislation to effect a ban on this practice, and b) to ratify the European Union withdrawal agreement in order to prevent unnecessary disruption to ecological agreements regarding the keeping, breeding and welfare of snails.
    If needed I expect May would try anything to sneak her Deal through the Commons
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited January 2019
    Sandpit said:

    Barnesian said:

    Sandpit said:

    I don’t understand why the PM didn’t take the opportunity when interviewed today, to close down any talk of a second referendum, making very clear that it’s her deal or no deal - and if her deal doesn’t pass next week then the no-deal preparations will go full steam ahead.

    Right now she’s got two or maybe three groups of MPs who oppose her deal for opppsoite reasons, who together can block it. She’s got to get some of them back onside (or at least abstaining) by ruling out their preferred option and leaving them with a binary choice.

    I’m still not sure that Corbyn doesn’t pull an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria and whip an abstention on the day of the vote under pressure from his own MPs. His reasoning would be that the deal vote going through forces a VoC in the government from the DUP.

    You're right. She didn't close down any talk of a second referendum. She said Brexit was in danger if her deal wasn't passed and that we would then be in "uncharted waters". An interesting phrase. It sounds a bit like "all options would then be on the table".
    That’s what I don’t get. If all options are still on the table, then she’s going to lose the vote by 150-200 as everyone who doesn’t like the deal votes against it - whether they’d prefer to see a referendum, a revocation, a renegotiation or to leave with no deal. If that is the scale of the defeat she’ll be lucky if she’s not forced out by the Cabinet.

    Given that her own party are 95% for either her deal or no deal, it would make sense for her to leave those as the two options, and start making it very clear (by way of announcements on funding, on Parliamentary timetabling etc) that voting down the deal leads to no-deal as the outcome.
    Given the vast majority of Tory voters now back the Deal or No Deal and barely any back Remain those are the only 2 options May will consider.

    The Cabinet can of course say what they want, having won the confidence of Tory MPs May cannot be challenged again until December and cannot be forced out by the Cabinet unless she decides to go of her own accord so she will just persist with the Deal until Brexit Day if necessary, then short of a Deal v No Deal referendum, if the Commons still refuses to back it then she will take us to No Deal
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited January 2019
    @Charles

    Thankyou.

    1.
    I aware of what an optimal currency area is. I do not support U.K. membership of the Eurozone. Very few do. While Britain being out of the EZ creates a new power dynamic, on balance I think Britain ought to grasp the opportunity to lead a new cadre of countries inside the EU but outside the Eurozone. Indeed, I would argue this is also in the EU’s interests also. So, simply saying “optimal currency area” is not enough but I will also be charitable and assume you mean that QMV allows the Eurozone bloc to outvote the U.K. on critical issues like financial regulation and that this is unacceptable.

    2. I am also aware of the difference between common law and civil law. However, you don’t explain why the fact we have two different legal traditions is such a problem. England also has a different legal tradition to Scotland, but (and legal scholars, tell me otherwise) we’ve somehow survived since 1707.

    3. The fact there is no unified demos means what exactly? That the EU Parliament lacks legitimacy? In fact, it is the Council which holds ultimate power within the EU - which is the way member states want it, by the way. The Parliament acts as a scrutinising body. You should think harder about what your more democratic EU would imply in relationship to national sovereignty.

    4. Of course different countries have different interests? So what? The EU is a mechanism designed precisely to negotiate those differences across Europe. Talking darkly of German pro-Russianism (which seems to be on the wane along with it’s main standard bearer the SDP) doesn’t mean anything in isolation unless you can prove somehow that our own policy to Russia is somehow weakened. I see absolutely no evidence of that. I’m any case, 90% of non-trade foreign policy falls outside the EU’s remit.

    In sum, your points would be more valid if we were on the verge of dissolving the U.K. for absorption into a new national entity: ie the bogeyman of Eurosceptic fantasy.

    But having heard about this bogeyman since the Major years, it’s time to accept that it ain’t real.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    BudG said:

    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    I don’t understand why the PM didn’t take the opportunity when interviewed today, to close down any talk of a second referendum, making very clear that it’s her deal or no deal - and if her deal doesn’t pass next week then the no-deal preparations will go full steam ahead.

    Right now she’s got two or maybe three groups of MPs who oppose her deal for opppsoite reasons, who together can block it. She’s got to get some of them back onside (or at least abstaining) by ruling out their preferred option and leaving them with a binary choice.

    I’m still not sure that Corbyn doesn’t pull an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria and whip an abstention on the day of the vote under pressure from his own MPs.

    His Mps and members would not pressurise him to abstain. That would enable brexit and that is abhorrent to most of them.

    For Corbyn the best answer politically at this point is oppose the Tories no matter what and castigate the gov for no deal problems. Yes it's no deal but the Tories get first share of the blame and his party would prioritise anger there. It also fits his instincts as an opposition.
    The reasoning would be that seeing the vote pass would result in a VoC from the DUP and a possible election.

    It’s worth bearing in mind that the ‘meanignful’ vote isn’t the end of the legislative process, there’s an enabling Act required to formally ratify the deal as a Treaty, which needs to go through the usual process of primary legislation in order to leave under the deal. The EU Parliament also need to ratify it, all before 29th March.
    So the ERG mob could support the WA and it passes and the deadline comes ever closer and then the ERG could suddenly withdraw their support for the primary legislation and leave May's deal high and dry with very little time left to do anything before 29th March and we could crash out.
    That is plausible, yes.

    If it’s deal or no-deal there’s a shitload (apologies for the technical term) of Acts and Statutary Instruments required to avoid having legislative gaps on the day we leave, and this process can’t start until everyone’s agreed the text of the Treaty.

    It’s quite possible that a group of Parliamentarians in either House could disrupt this process by talking things out, calling points of order, bringing forward wrecking amendments and even voting down the final legislation. In extremis it might be that a workaround needs to be found for the rule that the same bill can’t be introduced again in the same session of Parliament - which probably means getting HMQ involved. It could get very messy indeed.
  • RoyalBlue said:

    Will the vote be on the 15th? Has it been confirmed yet?

    May said it would be within a day or so of that date.
  • @Charles

    Thankyou.

    1.
    I aware of what an optimal currency area is. I do not support U.K. membership of the Eurozone. Very few do. While Britain being out of the EZ creates a new power dynamic, on balance I think Britain ought to grasp the opportunity to lead a new cadre of countries inside the EU but outside the Eurozone. Indeed, I would argue this is also in the EU’s interests also. So, simply saying “optimal currency area” is not enough but I will also be charitable and assume you mean that QMV allows the Eurozone bloc to outvote the U.K. on critical issues like financial regulation and that this is unacceptable.

    2. I am also aware of the difference between common law and civil law. However, you don’t explain why the fact we have two different legal traditions is such a problem. England also has a different legal tradition to Scotland, but (and legal scholars, tell me otherwise) we’ve somehow survived since 1707.

    3. The fact there is no unified demos means what exactly? That the EU Parliament lacks legitimacy? In fact, it is the Council which holds ultimate power within the EU - which is the way member states want it, by the way. The Parliament acts as a scrutinising body. You should think harder about what your more democratic EU would imply in relationship to national sovereignty.

    4. Of course different countries have different interests? So what? The EU is a mechanism designed precisely to negotiate those differences across Europe. Talking darkly of German pro-Russianism (which seems to be on the wane along with it’s main standard bearer the SDP) doesn’t mean anything in isolation unless you can prove somehow that our own policy to Russia is somehow weakened. I see absolutely no evidence of that. I’m any case, 90% of non-trade foreign policy falls outside the EU’s remit.

    In sum, your points would be more valid if we were on the verge of dissolving the U.K. for absorption into a new national entity: ie the bogeyman of Eurosceptic fantasy.

    But having heard about this bogeyman since the Major years, it’s time to accept that it ain’t real.

    You are the frog sitting in the pan of water unaware that it is already heading towards boiling point.

    Everything that has happened since we joined the EEC has been moving towards the ultimate aim of a single European state. It is written right there in the treaties and has been declared as an explicit aim by successive honest European politicians (unlike the dishonest UK ones) repeatedly over the last 60 years. Just because it takes time and occasionally suffers setbacks does not mean it is not still the ultimate goal. Indeed some on here like William welcome it. Much as I disagree with him on many points he is far more honest than those Europhiles who try to pretend it is not the goal.
  • There will be plenty of Remain MPs trying to stop Brexit and they will use the default No Deal Brexit to try to recruit more MPs to their cause.

    However, without the government on their side they can not change the law that parliament has already laid down - that we leave on March 29th.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited January 2019
    Barnesian said:

    Sandpit said:

    I don’t understand why the PM didn’t take the opportunity when interviewed today, to close down any talk of a second referendum, making very clear that it’s her deal or no deal - and if her deal doesn’t pass next week then the no-deal preparations will go full steam ahead.

    Right now she’s got two or maybe three groups of MPs who oppose her deal for opppsoite reasons, who together can block it. She’s got to get some of them back onside (or at least abstaining) by ruling out their preferred option and leaving them with a binary choice.

    I’m still not sure that Corbyn doesn’t pull an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria and whip an abstention on the day of the vote under pressure from his own MPs. His reasoning would be that the deal vote going through forces a VoC in the government from the DUP.

    You're right. She didn't close down any talk of a second referendum. She said Brexit was in danger if her deal wasn't passed and that we would then be in "uncharted waters". An interesting phrase. It sounds a bit like "all options would then be on the table".
    I noted this too.

    In fact, my takeaway was that while she was strongly against a second ref it would be out of her hands if Parliamentary reality made it the only path.

    I also thought - and this may be my wishful thinking - that No Deal was absolutely her worst scenario. When invited to reiterate that it would be better than a Bad Deal I though that she wriggled a bit.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Looks like the Remainers are first up with the Parliamentary sabotage tactics:
    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1082040686218825728

    Also two other stories of note on that front page - one is that the high street retailers are under serious pressures, the other is perhaps the biggest British manufacturing success story of the past decade, McLaren sales up 44% year-on-year to nearly 5,000 cars with an average price of around £250k.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,957
    edited January 2019
    Barnesian said:

    Sandpit said:

    I don’t understand why the PM didn’t take the opportunity when interviewed today, to close down any talk of a second referendum, making very clear that it’s her deal or no deal - and if her deal doesn’t pass next week then the no-deal preparations will go full steam ahead.

    Right now she’s got two or maybe three groups of MPs who oppose her deal for opppsoite reasons, who together can block it. She’s got to get some of them back onside (or at least abstaining) by ruling out their preferred option and leaving them with a binary choice.

    I’m still not sure that Corbyn doesn’t pull an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria and whip an abstention on the day of the vote under pressure from his own MPs. His reasoning would be that the deal vote going through forces a VoC in the government from the DUP.

    You're right. She didn't close down any talk of a second referendum. She said Brexit was in danger if her deal wasn't passed and that we would then be in "uncharted waters". An interesting phrase. It sounds a bit like "all options would then be on the table".
    No Deal Brexit is unchartered waters.......

    (EDIT or uncharted waters, for those who didn't get my ferry-related gag)
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    kle4 said:

    theProle said:



    E. G. This house believes that the practice of hunting snails with cats as a bloodsport is cruel and inhumane, and calls upon the government to a) bring forward legislation to effect a ban on this practice, and b) to ratify the European Union withdrawal agreement in order to prevent unnecessary disruption to ecological agreements regarding the keeping, breeding and welfare of snails.

    I think that's possible in some legislatures but not ours, though they can get creative about how related. Dr Palmer would know.
    Lol, entertaining example. I'm not honestly sure. kle4 is I think correct that a motion which addresses a bunch of different subjects at once would be ruled out of order, and I think the Government would need to stay serious to avoid MPs voting no merely in protest at not being taken seriously. It's probably not beyond the wit of man to find a new way to put the motion that would get Bercow's reluctant acceptance, but I'm pretty sure he'd rule it out of order to be put 30 times as Government sources have suggested. One option would be to make it an explicit vote of confidence with a General Election if it failed - that would bring most Tories into line, but probably not the DUP.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.

    In the end voters may just not be willing to hand over the keys of No 10 to Corbyn as they were not to Kinnock and even if Corbyn does become PM it will almost certainly only be due to SNP support and without an overall majority

    It isn't actually - because Yougov provide GB figures. In 1992 Labour polled 35.2% in GB under Kinnock.
  • NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 703

    Barnesian said:

    Sandpit said:

    I don’t understand why the PM didn’t take the opportunity when interviewed today, to close down any talk of a second referendum, making very clear that it’s her deal or no deal - and if her deal doesn’t pass next week then the no-deal preparations will go full steam ahead.

    Right now she’s got two or maybe three groups of MPs who oppose her deal for opppsoite reasons, who together can block it. She’s got to get some of them back onside (or at least abstaining) by ruling out their preferred option and leaving them with a binary choice.

    I’m still not sure that Corbyn doesn’t pull an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria and whip an abstention on the day of the vote under pressure from his own MPs. His reasoning would be that the deal vote going through forces a VoC in the government from the DUP.

    You're right. She didn't close down any talk of a second referendum. She said Brexit was in danger if her deal wasn't passed and that we would then be in "uncharted waters". An interesting phrase. It sounds a bit like "all options would then be on the table".
    I also thought - and this may be my wishful thinking - that No Deal was absolutely her worst scenario. When invited to reiterate that it would be better than a Bad Deal I though that she wriggled a bit.
    I don’t think she wriggled. Indeed I recall she did reiterate it, and added that hers was a good deal.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    Mortimer said:

    Anyone who believes the Never Brexit MPs can starve the government of funds in the event of no deal needs to follow Nikki da Costa on twitter. Royal assent for the finance bill is not required until May.

    Strikes me that there is still nothing that can be done to stop Brexit happening - whatever happens - provided the Govt retains the confidence of the house.

    Indeed. All roads lead to Brexit

    https://twitter.com/commonslibrary/status/1068476917228232705
  • NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 703

    kle4 said:

    theProle said:



    E. G. This house believes that the practice of hunting snails with cats as a bloodsport is cruel and inhumane, and calls upon the government to a) bring forward legislation to effect a ban on this practice, and b) to ratify the European Union withdrawal agreement in order to prevent unnecessary disruption to ecological agreements regarding the keeping, breeding and welfare of snails.

    I think that's possible in some legislatures but not ours, though they can get creative about how related. Dr Palmer would know.
    One option would be to make it an explicit vote of confidence with a General Election if it failed - that would bring most Tories into line, but probably not the DUP.
    I thought that under the FTPA, to trigger a possible GE a specific motion with particular wording had to be passed to vote no confidence in the Government, and that such a motion couldn’t be tacked on to something else. Happy to be corrected though.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    1. OCA - power inside the EU is structurally concentrated in the Eurozone (particularly the interplay with QMV). If we are not in the EZ we are not - and cannot be - “at the heart of Europe”. Read Otmar Issing’s work on OCAs - we are not one - so it makes no sense for us to join the EZ. I’d rather be a friendly neighbour than a junior partner.

    2. Common legal system? Umm... Napoleonic Code vs Common Law principles?

    3. Unified Demos - more of a theoretical discussion but until the people of Europe truly vote on a pan-European basis there will be a democratic deficit and lack of accountability in the EU. That’s not acceptable in my view

    4. Different global interests. For some reason Germany is much softer on Russia than we are. It might be to do with their dependence on Russian gas. I think they are wrong headed and short-termist but it’s up to them to decide what the right policy is for Germany. But there’s a different “right policy” for the U.K. because...umm... we have different interests.

    1. Currency territories are always politically defined, not based on OCAs. Is the UK an OCA? There's no reason for us not to join the Eurozone.

    2. So what? Both Canada and the US combine civil and common law in the same system.

    3. There's no unified UK demos, so should we dissolve the UK?

    4. That's opinion, not fact. The UK was the number one source of foreign investment in Russia last year.
    1. Common currencies can be made to work outside of an OCA but only with the use of fiscal transfers (eg NY to Arkansas). As long as German voters don’t want to support Greece or Spain there is a serious structural flaw in the Eurozone. It would be worse if you added in the U.K. because of the different composition of our economy (eg assymptomatic impact of interest rate changes on consumer behaviour)

    2. It’s fundamentally different. AFAIK in Canada and the US it’s only Quebec and Louisiana and it’s only state not federal law. I’m sure you personally would be ok with the U.K. system being a state level legal system with a Napoleonic Code based federal law but I don’t think many people have got there yet

    3. Disagree - there is a UK demos.

    4. The principle is accurate. Any example can be debated. But I suggest you read up on Nordstream 2.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,911



    You are the frog sitting in the pan of water unaware that it is already heading towards boiling point.

    Everything that has happened since we joined the EEC has been moving towards the ultimate aim of a single European state. It is written right there in the treaties and has been declared as an explicit aim by successive honest European politicians (unlike the dishonest UK ones) repeatedly over the last 60 years. Just because it takes time and occasionally suffers setbacks does not mean it is not still the ultimate goal. Indeed some on here like William welcome it. Much as I disagree with him on many points he is far more honest than those Europhiles who try to pretend it is not the goal.

    +1

    Anybody with eyes can see that the direction of travel, of ever closer union, is inevitably towards a single European state. I also have much more respect for those who argue in favour of it, than those who dishonestly tell us that it won't ever happen.

    In my opinion, it was the biggest lie of the entire referendum campaign. The only options on the ballot should have been "do you wish to leave the EU" or "do you wish to slowly become part of a federal superstate?" The status quo was never on the menu. It was one or the other and we made our choice.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited January 2019
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.

    In the end voters may just not be willing to hand over the keys of No 10 to Corbyn as they were not to Kinnock and even if Corbyn does become PM it will almost certainly only be due to SNP support and without an overall majority

    It isn't actually - because Yougov provide GB figures. In 1992 Labour polled 35.2% in GB under Kinnock.
    So Corbyn is now doing even worse than Kinnock did in 1992 then
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    kyf_100 said:



    You are the frog sitting in the pan of water unaware that it is already heading towards boiling point.

    Everything that has happened since we joined the EEC has been moving towards the ultimate aim of a single European state. It is written right there in the treaties and has been declared as an explicit aim by successive honest European politicians (unlike the dishonest UK ones) repeatedly over the last 60 years. Just because it takes time and occasionally suffers setbacks does not mean it is not still the ultimate goal. Indeed some on here like William welcome it. Much as I disagree with him on many points he is far more honest than those Europhiles who try to pretend it is not the goal.

    +1

    Anybody with eyes can see that the direction of travel, of ever closer union, is inevitably towards a single European state. I also have much more respect for those who argue in favour of it, than those who dishonestly tell us that it won't ever happen.

    In my opinion, it was the biggest lie of the entire referendum campaign. The only options on the ballot should have been "do you wish to leave the EU" or "do you wish to slowly become part of a federal superstate?" The status quo was never on the menu. It was one or the other and we made our choice.
    Given that the EU is arguably already state-like in some respects, you need to be more precise about what you mean. How do you define crossing the rubicon? Which event will you be able to point to to say to @gardenwalker, "Aha! I was right!"
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.

    In the end voters may just not be willing to hand over the keys of No 10 to Corbyn as they were not to Kinnock and even if Corbyn does become PM it will almost certainly only be due to SNP support and without an overall majority

    It isn't actually - because Yougov provide GB figures. In 1992 Labour polled 35.2% in GB under Kinnock.
    So Corbyn is now doing even worse than Kinnock did in 1992 then
    On the basis of a dodgy Bank Holiday poll conducted over 2 weeks. On the other hand, Kinnock trailed Major by 7.6% in 1992 - so on that basis Corbyn is performing better.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    kyf_100 said:

    The only options on the ballot should have been "do you wish to leave the EU" or "do you wish to slowly become part of a federal superstate?"

    Is it even possible to be a federation and a state at the same time? Or is the "super" in "superstate" a way of saying it's a layer above the state, ie another way to say "federation" again???
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,911

    kyf_100 said:



    You are the frog sitting in the pan of water unaware that it is already heading towards boiling point.

    Everything that has happened since we joined the EEC has been moving towards the ultimate aim of a single European state. It is written right there in the treaties and has been declared as an explicit aim by successive honest European politicians (unlike the dishonest UK ones) repeatedly over the last 60 years. Just because it takes time and occasionally suffers setbacks does not mean it is not still the ultimate goal. Indeed some on here like William welcome it. Much as I disagree with him on many points he is far more honest than those Europhiles who try to pretend it is not the goal.

    +1

    Anybody with eyes can see that the direction of travel, of ever closer union, is inevitably towards a single European state. I also have much more respect for those who argue in favour of it, than those who dishonestly tell us that it won't ever happen.

    In my opinion, it was the biggest lie of the entire referendum campaign. The only options on the ballot should have been "do you wish to leave the EU" or "do you wish to slowly become part of a federal superstate?" The status quo was never on the menu. It was one or the other and we made our choice.
    Given that the EU is arguably already state-like in some respects, you need to be more precise about what you mean. How do you define crossing the rubicon? Which event will you be able to point to to say to @gardenwalker, "Aha! I was right!"
    A good question. You could argue that a country has the ability to control its own borders, something we lost with FoM. Or defend its own borders. Which we would lose if we became part of an EU army.

    However I'd say that the biggest identifier of statehood is the ability to raise its own taxes and decide on how they are spent. Our inability to zero rate vat on domestic fuel was one of my major bugbears about the EU, why the bloody hell should they be able to tell us how to set our taxes?

    The trouble is with the EU it has always been salami slice tactics. Very thin slices, so nobody even knows anything is being taken. But all those slices add up to a lot.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,230

    This is what happens if you publish anything that appears to undermine the great man


    https://twitter.com/YorkshireLad_87/status/1082015119729717249

    Excellent! I thought I was the only one! You should come round to our Secret Cabal of Zionist Imperialists, Mike. We meet on alternate Tuesdays in the bingo hall: we have gefilte fish. Bring lots of big felt-tip pens: revolutions don't finance certain themselves y'know, and Miriam won £200 last week!
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    kyf_100 said:


    A good question. You could argue that a country has the ability to control its own borders, something we lost with FoM.

    Historically there have been very few countries on that definition...
    kyf_100 said:


    Or defend its own borders. Which we would lose if we became part of an EU army.

    What? No, you'd lose it if you dissolved your own army. That's not a necessary condition of participating in an EU army.
    kyf_100 said:


    However I'd say that the biggest identifier of statehood is the ability to raise its own taxes and decide on how they are spent. Our inability to zero rate vat on domestic fuel was one of my major bugbears about the EU, why the bloody hell should they be able to tell us how to set our taxes?

    You're not going to like the WTO...

    Countries mutually agree to give up freedom to set tax rates because they don't want to be undercut by each other.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    edited January 2019
    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:



    You are the frog sitting in the pan of water unaware that it is already heading towards boiling point.

    Everything that has happened since we joined the EEC has been moving towards the ultimate aim of a single European state. It is written right there in the treaties and has been declared as an explicit aim by successive honest European politicians (unlike the dishonest UK ones) repeatedly over the last 60 years. Just because it takes time and occasionally suffers setbacks does not mean it is not still the ultimate goal. Indeed some on here like William welcome it. Much as I disagree with him on many points he is far more honest than those Europhiles who try to pretend it is not the goal.

    +1

    Anybody with eyes can see that the direction of travel, of ever closer union, is inevitably towards a single European state. I also have much more respect for those who argue in favour of it, than those who dishonestly tell us that it won't ever happen.

    In my opinion, it was the biggest lie of the entire referendum campaign. The only options on the ballot should have been "do you wish to leave the EU" or "do you wish to slowly become part of a federal superstate?" The status quo was never on the menu. It was one or the other and we made our choice.
    Given that the EU is arguably already state-like in some respects, you need to be more precise about what you mean. How do you define crossing the rubicon? Which event will you be able to point to to say to @gardenwalker, "Aha! I was right!"
    A good question. You could argue that a country has the ability to control its own borders, something we lost with FoM. Or defend its own borders. Which we would lose if we became part of an EU army.
    Why does EU free movement represent a loss of control of our own borders but the CTA doesn't?

    Why does EU defence represent a loss of the ability to defend our own borders but NATO membership doesn't?
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/06/theresa-may-pleads-for-eu-to-give-ground-brexit-deal

    "Downing Street insists new compromises can be won from Europe to ensure passage of PM’s plan"

    Er, what happened to "you have to vote for this because it's the only deal we'll get"?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:



    You are the frog sitting in the pan of water unaware that it is already heading towards boiling point.

    Everything that has happened since we joined the EEC has been moving towards the ultimate aim of a single European state. It is written right there in the treaties and has been declared as an explicit aim by successive honest European politicians (unlike the dishonest UK ones) repeatedly over the last 60 years. Just because it takes time and occasionally suffers setbacks does not mean it is not still the ultimate goal. Indeed some on here like William welcome it. Much as I disagree with him on many points he is far more honest than those Europhiles who try to pretend it is not the goal.

    +1

    Anybody with eyes can see that the direction of travel, of ever closer union, is inevitably towards a single European state. I also have much more respect for those who argue in favour of it, than those who dishonestly tell us that it won't ever happen.

    In my opinion, it was the biggest lie of the entire referendum campaign. The only options on the ballot should have been "do you wish to leave the EU" or "do you wish to slowly become part of a federal superstate?" The status quo was never on the menu. It was one or the other and we made our choice.
    Given that the EU is arguably already state-like in some respects, you need to be more precise about what you mean. How do you define crossing the rubicon? Which event will you be able to point to to say to @gardenwalker, "Aha! I was right!"
    A good question. You could argue that a country has the ability to control its own borders, something we lost with FoM. Or defend its own borders. Which we would lose if we became part of an EU army.
    Why does EU free movement represent a loss of control of our own borders but the CTA doesn't?

    Why does EU defence represent a loss of the ability to defend our own borders but NATO membership doesn't?
    The CTA is more analogous to Schengen, in that it is about the removal of internal border checks, not about the right to live and work.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:



    You are the frog sitting in the pan of water unaware that it is already heading towards boiling point.

    Everything that has happened since we joined the EEC has been moving towards the ultimate aim of a single European state. It is written right there in the treaties and has been declared as an explicit aim by successive honest European politicians (unlike the dishonest UK ones) repeatedly over the last 60 years. Just because it takes time and occasionally suffers setbacks does not mean it is not still the ultimate goal. Indeed some on here like William welcome it. Much as I disagree with him on many points he is far more honest than those Europhiles who try to pretend it is not the goal.

    +1

    Anybody with eyes can see that the direction of travel, of ever closer union, is inevitably towards a single European state. I also have much more respect for those who argue in favour of it, than those who dishonestly tell us that it won't ever happen.

    In my opinion, it was the biggest lie of the entire referendum campaign. The only options on the ballot should have been "do you wish to leave the EU" or "do you wish to slowly become part of a federal superstate?" The status quo was never on the menu. It was one or the other and we made our choice.
    Given that the EU is arguably already state-like in some respects, you need to be more precise about what you mean. How do you define crossing the rubicon? Which event will you be able to point to to say to @gardenwalker, "Aha! I was right!"
    A good question. You could argue that a country has the ability to control its own borders, something we lost with FoM. Or defend its own borders. Which we would lose if we became part of an EU army.
    Why does EU free movement represent a loss of control of our own borders but the CTA doesn't?

    Why does EU defence represent a loss of the ability to defend our own borders but NATO membership doesn't?
    The CTA is more analogous to Schengen, in that it is about the removal of internal border checks, not about the right to live and work.
    It's both, but the provisions go beyond EU free movement since resident citizens also get the right to vote.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,230
    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:



    You are the frog sitting in the pan of water unaware that it is already heading towards boiling point.

    Everything that has happened since we joined the EEC has been moving towards the ultimate aim of a single European state. It is written right there in the treaties and has been declared as an explicit aim by successive honest European politicians (unlike the dishonest UK ones) repeatedly over the last 60 years. Just because it takes time and occasionally suffers setbacks does not mean it is not still the ultimate goal. Indeed some on here like William welcome it. Much as I disagree with him on many points he is far more honest than those Europhiles who try to pretend it is not the goal.

    +1

    Anybody with eyes can see that the direction of travel, of ever closer union, is inevitably towards a single European state. I also have much more respect for those who argue in favour of it, than those who dishonestly tell us that it won't ever happen.

    In my opinion, it was the biggest lie of the entire referendum campaign. The only options on the ballot should have been "do you wish to leave the EU" or "do you wish to slowly become part of a federal superstate?" The status quo was never on the menu. It was one or the other and we made our choice.
    Given that the EU is arguably already state-like in some respects, you need to be more precise about what you mean. How do you define crossing the rubicon? Which event will you be able to point to to say to @gardenwalker, "Aha! I was right!"
    A good question. You could argue that a country has the ability to control its own borders, something we lost with FoM. Or defend its own borders. Which we would lose if we became part of an EU army.
    Why does EU free movement represent a loss of control of our own borders but the CTA doesn't?

    Why does EU defence represent a loss of the ability to defend our own borders but NATO membership doesn't?
    The CTA is more analogous to Schengen, in that it is about the removal of internal border checks, not about the right to live and work.
    ,Remind me again: which "internal" borders are eliminated by the CTA?... :)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:



    You are the frog sitting in the pan of water unaware that it is already heading towards boiling point.

    Everything that has happened since we joined the EEC has been moving towards the ultimate aim of a single European state. It is written right there in the treaties and has been declared as an explicit aim by successive honest European politicians (unlike the dishonest UK ones) repeatedly over the last 60 years. Just because it takes time and occasionally suffers setbacks does not mean it is not still the ultimate goal. Indeed some on here like William welcome it. Much as I disagree with him on many points he is far more honest than those Europhiles who try to pretend it is not the goal.

    +1

    Anybody with eyes can see that the direction of travel, of ever closer union, is inevitably towards a single European state. I also have much more respect for those who argue in favour of it, than those who dishonestly tell us that it won't ever happen.

    In my opinion, it was the biggest lie of the entire referendum campaign. The only options on the ballot should have been "do you wish to leave the EU" or "do you wish to slowly become part of a federal superstate?" The status quo was never on the menu. It was one or the other and we made our choice.
    Given that the EU is arguably already state-like in some respects, you need to be more precise about what you mean. How do you define crossing the rubicon? Which event will you be able to point to to say to @gardenwalker, "Aha! I was right!"
    A good question. You could argue that a country has the ability to control its own borders, something we lost with FoM. Or defend its own borders. Which we would lose if we became part of an EU army.
    Why does EU free movement represent a loss of control of our own borders but the CTA doesn't?

    Why does EU defence represent a loss of the ability to defend our own borders but NATO membership doesn't?
    The CTA is more analogous to Schengen, in that it is about the removal of internal border checks, not about the right to live and work.
    It's both, but the provisions go beyond EU free movement since resident citizens also get the right to vote.
    The CTA is distinct from the uk legislation which defines Irish citizens as non alien.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.

    In the end voters may just not be willing to hand over the keys of No 10 to Corbyn as they were not to Kinnock and even if Corbyn does become PM it will almost certainly only be due to SNP support and without an overall majority

    It isn't actually - because Yougov provide GB figures. In 1992 Labour polled 35.2% in GB under Kinnock.
    So Corbyn is now doing even worse than Kinnock did in 1992 then
    Depends which poll you pick to believe and which ones you ignore. On a lot of them he is doing better than any Labour leader for decades outside of Blair and then even one of Blairs wins.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,911

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:



    You are the frog sitting in the pan of water unaware that it is already heading towards boiling point.

    Everything that has happened since we joined the EEC has been moving towards the ultimate aim of a single European state. It is written right there in the treaties and has been declared as an explicit aim by successive honest European politicians (unlike the dishonest UK ones) repeatedly over the last 60 years. Just because it takes time and occasionally suffers setbacks does not mean it is not still the ultimate goal. Indeed some on here like William welcome it. Much as I disagree with him on many points he is far more honest than those Europhiles who try to pretend it is not the goal.

    +1

    Anybody with eyes can see that the direction of travel, of ever closer union, is inevitably towards a single European state. I also have much more respect for those who argue in favour of it, than those who dishonestly tell us that it won't ever happen.

    In my opinion, it was the biggest lie of the entire referendum campaign. The only options on the ballot should have been "do you wish to leave the EU" or "do you wish to slowly become part of a federal superstate?" The status quo was never on the menu. It was one or the other and we made our choice.
    Given that the EU is arguably already state-like in some respects, you need to be more precise about what you mean. How do you define crossing the rubicon? Which event will you be able to point to to say to @gardenwalker, "Aha! I was right!"
    A good question. You could argue that a country has the ability to control its own borders, something we lost with FoM. Or defend its own borders. Which we would lose if we became part of an EU army.
    Why does EU free movement represent a loss of control of our own borders but the CTA doesn't?

    Why does EU defence represent a loss of the ability to defend our own borders but NATO membership doesn't?
    Salami tactics. NATO isn't telling us whether or not we can zero rate VAT on fuel, nor placing limits our immigration policy. It is a clearly defined organisation that does a job in a specific area of competency, one we could withdraw from at any time. The EU just grabs more and more power for itself. Over time that power grab has been so great we are only now seeing how difficult it is to get out of.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.

    In the end voters may just not be willing to hand over the keys of No 10 to Corbyn as they were not to Kinnock and even if Corbyn does become PM it will almost certainly only be due to SNP support and without an overall majority

    It isn't actually - because Yougov provide GB figures. In 1992 Labour polled 35.2% in GB under Kinnock.
    So Corbyn is now doing even worse than Kinnock did in 1992 then
    On the basis of a dodgy Bank Holiday poll conducted over 2 weeks. On the other hand, Kinnock trailed Major by 7.6% in 1992 - so on that basis Corbyn is performing better.
    Don’t holiday polls normally go against the Tories? I suppose Corbyn is doing well amongst the ABC1 types
  • viewcode said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:



    You are the frog sitting in the pan of water unaware that it is already heading towards boiling point.

    Everything that has happened since we joined the EEC has been moving towards the ultimate aim of a single European state. It is written right there in the treaties and has been declared as an explicit aim by successive honest European politicians (unlike the dishonest UK ones) repeatedly over the last 60 years. Just because it takes time and occasionally suffers setbacks does not mean it is not still the ultimate goal. Indeed some on here like William welcome it. Much as I disagree with him on many points he is far more honest than those Europhiles who try to pretend it is not the goal.

    +1

    Anybody with eyes can see that the direction of travel, of ever closer union, is inevitably towards a single European state. I also have much more respect for those who argue in favour of it, than those who dishonestly tell us that it won't ever happen.

    In my opinion, it was the biggest lie of the entire referendum campaign. The only options on the ballot should have been "do you wish to leave the EU" or "do you wish to slowly become part of a federal superstate?" The status quo was never on the menu. It was one or the other and we made our choice.
    Given that the EU is arguably already state-like in some respects, you need to be more precise about what you mean. How do you define crossing the rubicon? Which event will you be able to point to to say to @gardenwalker, "Aha! I was right!"
    A good question. You could argue that a country has the ability to control its own borders, something we lost with FoM. Or defend its own borders. Which we would lose if we became part of an EU army.
    Why does EU free movement represent a loss of control of our own borders but the CTA doesn't?

    Why does EU defence represent a loss of the ability to defend our own borders but NATO membership doesn't?
    The CTA is more analogous to Schengen, in that it is about the removal of internal border checks, not about the right to live and work.
    ,Remind me again: which "internal" borders are eliminated by the CTA?... :)
    The NI/Eire border is internal to the CTA.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.

    In the end voters may just not be willing to hand over the keys of No 10 to Corbyn as they were not to Kinnock and even if Corbyn does become PM it will almost certainly only be due to SNP support and without an overall majority

    It isn't actually - because Yougov provide GB figures. In 1992 Labour polled 35.2% in GB under Kinnock.
    So Corbyn is now doing even worse than Kinnock did in 1992 then
    Depends which poll you pick to believe and which ones you ignore. On a lot of them he is doing better than any Labour leader for decades
    Which ones did you have in mind?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:



    You are the frog sitting in the pan of water unaware that it is already heading towards boiling point.

    Everything that has happened since we joined the EEC has been moving towards the ultimate aim of a single European state. It is written right there in the treaties and has been declared as an explicit aim by successive honest European politicians (unlike the dishonest UK ones) repeatedly over the last 60 years. Just because it takes time and occasionally suffers setbacks does not mean it is not still the ultimate goal. Indeed some on here like William welcome it. Much as I disagree with him on many points he is far more honest than those Europhiles who try to pretend it is not the goal.

    +1

    Anybody with eyes can see that the direction of travel, of ever closer union, is inevitably towards a single European state. I also have much more respect for those who argue in favour of it, than those who dishonestly tell us that it won't ever happen.

    In my opinion, it was the biggest lie of the entire referendum campaign. The only options on the ballot should have been "do you wish to leave the EU" or "do you wish to slowly become part of a federal superstate?" The status quo was never on the menu. It was one or the other and we made our choice.
    Given that the EU is arguably already state-like in some respects, you need to be more precise about what you mean. How do you define crossing the rubicon? Which event will you be able to point to to say to @gardenwalker, "Aha! I was right!"
    A good question. You could argue that a country has the ability to control its own borders, something we lost with FoM. Or defend its own borders. Which we would lose if we became part of an EU army.
    Why does EU free movement represent a loss of control of our own borders but the CTA doesn't?

    Why does EU defence represent a loss of the ability to defend our own borders but NATO membership doesn't?
    Salami tactics. NATO isn't telling us whether or not we can zero rate VAT on fuel, nor placing limits our immigration policy. It is a clearly defined organisation that does a job in a specific area of competency, one we could withdraw from at any time. The EU just grabs more and more power for itself. Over time that power grab has been so great we are only now seeing how difficult it is to get out of.
    What does "itself" mean in the context of the EU? Would you talk in similar terms about Westminster?
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.

    In the end voters may just not be willing to hand over the keys of No 10 to Corbyn as they were not to Kinnock and even if Corbyn does become PM it will almost certainly only be due to SNP support and without an overall majority

    It isn't actually - because Yougov provide GB figures. In 1992 Labour polled 35.2% in GB under Kinnock.
    So Corbyn is now doing even worse than Kinnock did in 1992 then
    Depends which poll you pick to believe and which ones you ignore. On a lot of them he is doing better than any Labour leader for decades
    Which ones did you have in mind?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2019

    Pretty much all of the ones which are above 35.2%, which is most of them.

    Although 'outside of Blair and then even one of Blairs wins.' which I originally wrote and you cut still applies to the statement.

    Looking at it outside of YouGov there is only a single poll below 35.2% since the election in 2017.
  • BBC reporting

    More than 200 MPs from different political parties have signed a letter to Theresa May, urging her to rule out a no-deal Brexit.

    The MPs - including both Leave and Remain supporters - have been invited to meet the prime minister on Tuesday.

    Tory ex-cabinet minister Dame Caroline Spelman, who organised the letter with Labour MP Jack Dromey, said a no-deal Brexit would cause job losses.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831

    BBC reporting

    More than 200 MPs from different political parties have signed a letter to Theresa May, urging her to rule out a no-deal Brexit.

    The MPs - including both Leave and Remain supporters - have been invited to meet the prime minister on Tuesday.

    Tory ex-cabinet minister Dame Caroline Spelman, who organised the letter with Labour MP Jack Dromey, said a no-deal Brexit would cause job losses.

    I can't believe they still don't understand the concept of negotiation.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    kyf_100 said:

    Salami tactics. NATO isn't telling us whether or not we can zero rate VAT on fuel, nor placing limits our immigration policy. It is a clearly defined organisation that does a job in a specific area of competency, one we could withdraw from at any time. The EU just grabs more and more power for itself. Over time that power grab has been so great we are only now seeing how difficult it is to get out of.

    All organisations tend to centralisation over time, unless there is some is some extenuating factor. Look at the Federal Government rather than the States in the US. Look at UK central government versus councils.

    The real, genuine point of power is money. Is the centre reliant on the willingness of its parts to send money? Or is the centre the source of money for the regions?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Salami tactics. NATO isn't telling us whether or not we can zero rate VAT on fuel, nor placing limits our immigration policy. It is a clearly defined organisation that does a job in a specific area of competency, one we could withdraw from at any time. The EU just grabs more and more power for itself. Over time that power grab has been so great we are only now seeing how difficult it is to get out of.

    All organisations tend to centralisation over time, unless there is some is some extenuating factor. Look at the Federal Government rather than the States in the US. Look at UK central government versus councils.

    The real, genuine point of power is money. Is the centre reliant on the willingness of its parts to send money? Or is the centre the source of money for the regions?
    It’s also important not to confuse state organisations with society itself.
This discussion has been closed.