Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Leaver case for a second referendum

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited March 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Leaver case for a second referendum

Once upon a time a grand and determined queen wanted to build a bold new home on the hilltop. Everyday her men would work hard to build the palace only to find on following day their work undone in piles of rubble. The queen was advised to seek help of a local boy born to a virgin mother. The boy advised why the palace could not be built, in a pool beneath the hill two dragons were entwined in combat. He told the queen to dig looking for the lake and the dragons, only once their conflict is resolved can the palace stand and the lands be at peace.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    First! Like LEAVE. Both times. Because the second time won't be about the EU.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Interesting article.

    I wasn't clear what you thought should go on the ballot paper?

    Deal vs "Remain"? ("Remain" answered in 2016)
    Deal vs No Deal? (How to get thru HoC?)
    Deal vs Unicorns (Labour position, or any number of other un-negotiated with EU option)
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    Here we are 12 days till Brexit, nothing agreed.

    It really is a shocking failure by every one involved on both sides.

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    Now let’s be honest, if polls showed leave with 20 point lead if there was second referendum, would many be very hostile to a new public vote on the deal, because it’s is so clearly undemocratic and brexit betrayal, actually be in favour?
    This is the thing about procedural stuff - people actually feel genuine, non-tactical emotion about the fairness of this vs that vs the other; They often feel more strongly about these fairness issues than the underlying issues. But their views also line up very strongly with the thing that's tactically best for their side. This predicts almost all political parties' views on voting systems, nearly every politician's take on referendums at any given time, and the views of most of their followers.

    If you find yourself getting angry about a procedure (as opposed to an issue) it's worth taking a step back and considering that you probably wouldn't be feeling that if the circumstances were different. That doesn't mean that nobody's right about the procedure, but it does mean you should be suspicious of your own convictions about who it is.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    Here we are 12 days till Brexit, nothing agreed.

    It really is a shocking failure by every one involved on both sides.

    One side has a deal agreed to by all the people who need to agree to it. The other side has not been able to get agreement from those who need to agree. Who do you think has failed to do their job?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    edited March 2019
    One shoe I think will eventually drop is that if - as appears likely - we end up with a prolonged delay, at least some of the pro-deal Leave supporters will eventually support a referendum as a way of just getting the damn thing done. I don't think this will happen straight away, but once you're a couple of months into an extension, it becomes clear that you're not really heading anywhere except a further extension.

    There are also strong tactical moves that No Deal supporters could make in supporting the right kind of referendum, but notwithstanding my previous post, it takes a bit of time to turn an outrage bus around, so I'm not sure if they'll be able to make that pivot.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    No doubt there are other factors involved (“Look how the Tories are starving the poor” may have stayed a few hands)but Lammy’s foot and his mouth do appear to have a strong affinity:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/comic-relief-down-8m-after-david-lammy-white-saviour-row-dxtv733bp
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Thanks for the header, Dots!
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,882
    edited March 2019
    I can see the argument. If you're a IDS/Rees-Mogg type, your vision of Brexit is not going to garner majority support in the country or House of Commons any time soon but if you hide it behind a "no deal" banner in a second referendum, then they've got a chance.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,770
    edited March 2019
    I’m not sure I follow this. Are you suggesting a second referendum between types of Brexit or between a type and remain? The problem with your hypothesis is how many types do you want and who is going to explain the differences?

    The question asked was superficially simple: do you want to remain in the EU? I think that anything more complicated than that runs into the same sort of problems that we currently have in the HoC. The attempt by Parliament to fine tune the process has been a disaster. Negotiations are, rightly, a matter for the Executive. I just don’t see this working at all.
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276

    Here we are 12 days till Brexit, nothing agreed.

    It really is a shocking failure by every one involved on both sides.

    One side has a deal agreed to by all the people who need to agree to it. The other side has not been able to get agreement from those who need to agree. Who do you think has failed to do their job?
    Both obviously. Agreeing a deal that the one party can't get ratified is a failure on the side of the EU as much as the UK.

    It gains them nothing and carries the very real risk of no deal.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited March 2019
    Seattle Times are doing a very good job of reporting this.

    The 737 Max is going to have to get properly re-certified from scratch, I don’t see how they are going to get away with anything less.

    How they were ever allowed to get away with continuing to use the 52-year-old Type Certificate, for what’s clearly a completely different aeroplane, is a question the FAA need to answer. I think it’s fair to say that they’re not regulating Boeing as well as they should be, and haven’t for some years now - the 787 also had issues on release and had to be grounded.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    On topic, a good piece from @dots, well done for writing.

    Personally I can’t see any way that the deal on the table gets passed, there’s too many people ideologically opposed to it who aren’t going to change their minds unless the deal itself changes.

    I’m also not sure there’s the numbers for a long extension, and the EU are not going to offer a short one without an agreed deal, because of the dynamics of their own elections in May.

    I think the end point is going to be a binary choice either of no deal or revoke A50, closely followed by a general election in which the MPs can be held accountable for their decision.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Sandpit said:

    Seattle Times are doing a very good job of reporting this.

    The 737 Max is going to have to get properly re-certified from scratch, I don’t see how they are going to get away with anything less.

    How they were ever allowed to get away with continuing to use the 52-year-old Type Certificate, for what’s clearly a completely different aeroplane, is a question the FAA need to answer. I think it’s fair to say that they’re not regulating Boeing as well as they should be, and haven’t for some years now - the 787 also had issues on release and had to be grounded.
    I wonder if the Seattle Times have become more robust in their reporting since Boeing moved their corporate hq to Chicago?

    But as the reporter points out the flaws were well known well before the Ethiopian crash.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Dagger to the heart of Remainia:

    https://twitter.com/ReutersUK/status/1107518550816759809?s=20

    They’ll be gutted in Hartlepool....
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:

    Seattle Times are doing a very good job of reporting this.

    The 737 Max is going to have to get properly re-certified from scratch, I don’t see how they are going to get away with anything less.

    How they were ever allowed to get away with continuing to use the 52-year-old Type Certificate, for what’s clearly a completely different aeroplane, is a question the FAA need to answer. I think it’s fair to say that they’re not regulating Boeing as well as they should be, and haven’t for some years now - the 787 also had issues on release and had to be grounded.
    I wonder if the Seattle Times have become more robust in their reporting since Boeing moved their corporate hq to Chicago?

    But as the reporter points out the flaws were well known well before the Ethiopian crash.
    To be fair to Boeing, the flaws are coming out as a result of the ongoing investigation into the Lion Air crash in Indonesia collating data from other users.

    I’m not too sure that the largest employer in the city really want the local paper all over their problems, but they’ve clearly got a breadth of industry knowledge from decades of reporting on Boeing. As we’ve discussed previously, most of the MSM reporting on anything to do with aviation is clearly bollocks to anyone with a passing knowledge of the industry.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    Here we are 12 days till Brexit, nothing agreed.

    It really is a shocking failure by every one involved on both sides.

    Peter Hitchens predicted this at the time of the referendum. He said that if the result was Leave there would be total deadlock because 80% of MPs are Remainers.

    https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2019/03/mystic-hitchens-where-i-was-right-and-where-i-was-wrong-about-the-eu-crisis.html

    "A democratically elected Parliament, which wants to stay, will confront a force as great as itself - a national vote, equally democratic, which wants to quit. Are we about to find out what actually happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?"
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718

    No doubt there are other factors involved (“Look how the Tories are starving the poor” may have stayed a few hands)but Lammy’s foot and his mouth do appear to have a strong affinity:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/comic-relief-down-8m-after-david-lammy-white-saviour-row-dxtv733bp

    Good morning everyone; looks quite a bright one here in Essex.

    'Other factors' might include fatigue and just possibly, perhaps a public perception that we need to keep some cash for a rainy day ourselves. I don't get the feeling that there's a public sense of well-being in the nation.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,066

    Dagger to the heart of Remainia:

    https://twitter.com/ReutersUK/status/1107518550816759809?s=20

    They’ll be gutted in Hartlepool....

    Though Leaverstan may be more troubled by Aporkalypse Now!

    https://twitter.com/seanfarrington/status/1107526868113260544?s=19
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,920

    Here we are 12 days till Brexit, nothing agreed.

    It really is a shocking failure by every one involved on both sides.

    One side has a deal agreed to by all the people who need to agree to it. The other side has not been able to get agreement from those who need to agree. Who do you think has failed to do their job?
    We are primarily in this position because of 1) the recklessness of David Cameron; 2) the ineptitude of Theresa May; and 3) the stupidity of the ERG.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,083
    edited March 2019
    DavidL said:

    I’m not sure I follow this. Are you suggesting a second referendum between types of Brexit or between a type and remain? The problem with your hypothesis is how many types do you want and who is going to explain the differences?

    The question asked was superficially simple: do you want to remain in the EU? I think that anything more complicated than that runs into the same sort of problems that we currently have in the HoC. The attempt by Parliament to fine tune the process has been a disaster. Negotiations are, rightly, a matter for the Executive. I just don’t see this working at all.

    He is right, however, that there should have been a specific proposition.

    It is as if we had held a referendum on "do you want a fairer voting system?" (or some similar neutrally worded question), and after deciding yes, parliament falls into a huge argument over whether we go for STV or AMS or a List system (as it surely would). The PM wants a List system so she sets about forcing this through.

    Meanwhile Boris appears to have worked out how to best bring about May's demise. With Boris against surely the chance of having the vote on Tuesday reduces significantly.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,083

    Here we are 12 days till Brexit, nothing agreed.

    It really is a shocking failure by every one involved on both sides.

    One side has a deal agreed to by all the people who need to agree to it. The other side has not been able to get agreement from those who need to agree. Who do you think has failed to do their job?
    We are primarily in this position because of 1) the recklessness of David Cameron; 2) the ineptitude of Theresa May; and 3) the stupidity of the ERG.
    I blame the Tories.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751
    edited March 2019
    Foxy said:

    Dagger to the heart of Remainia:

    https://twitter.com/ReutersUK/status/1107518550816759809?s=20

    They’ll be gutted in Hartlepool....

    Though Leaverstan may be more troubled by Aporkalypse Now!

    https://twitter.com/seanfarrington/status/1107526868113260544?s=19
    Yes. We import around 50% of all pork products, mainly from Denmark and the Netherlands. These are mostly, due to lax welfare standards in Denmark in particular and laxer enforcement of them, much cheaper than the British equivalents as well. Therefore, they are most likely to be stocked and used by commercial restaurants, hotels, takeaways etc. They are also probably the ones most commonly bought by Leavers.

    More information here:

    http://www.pig-world.co.uk/news/business/27903.html
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    dots said:

    kle4 said:

    AndyJS said:

    It doesn't take many Tory MPs to vote against the Deal for it to be blocked, does it? Around 20 probably.

    Without an equal number of Lab MPs to counter then, yes.

    3 Lab and 4 Ind voted in favour at MV2 (Barron, Flint, Mann and Austin, Field, Lloyd and Hermon).

    That compares to 3 Lab and 3 Ind at MV1, but one of the Lab votes at that time is now the extra Ind vote. So really only Flint changed her mind between the two votes.

    75 needed to switch. Assume the DUP and most of the 75 Tory MPs (generous still to suggest) and they get within a few dozen.

    So even with the lesser spotted Lab MP who will voted for the deal doing so, it would still be nail bitingly close.

    My own guess is no more than 12 or so Lab MPs will vote for the deal, including those that already have. I just do not see why those willing to do so would not have at MV2, and I don't see why the DUP potentially switching would convince them. I think the number who might, at this final chance, do so could counter the Tory remainer half dozen. So if the DUP come on board I think 20 is indeed the max Tory rebels to maybe see it through, which means the ERG rebels need to be around 15 or less.

    Not easy.
    A few observations to run passed you. Does it matter how the DUP come on board? Davis and I think Mogg too saying the issue needs to be sorted, but if the DUP come on board because of a nice big bung, and some other titbits like seat at table for further negotiation (something May could stitch a successor up with if she granted that) that would be nothing has substantially changed? Rather than look sorted, with big money bung would it fact look sordid, and rather off putting to play along with?

    And something Mr Tyndall said I have been thinking over. Originally there was no meaningful vote, till grieves intervened? In a counter factual universe cabinet would have agreed it end of story? That both feels tempting... but also sort of wrong?
    On the DUP it clearly will matter to some but perhaps not as many as we think. It depends how many really are looking to climb down and how many were only using the DUP as an excuse. But the money will presumably not be announced till later so we can pretend that is not a factor.

    I'd agree something like this does seem like it should require parliamentary sign off. But I think that would have been the case in the sense legislation would still be needed? Very different if it was a fait accompli though I guess.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,083
    Artist said:

    I can see the argument. If you're a IDS/Rees-Mogg type, your vision of Brexit is not going to garner majority support in the country or House of Commons any time soon but if you hide it behind a "no deal" banner in a second referendum, then they've got a chance.

    Also explaining why they are in the Conservative Party in the first place.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    AndyJS said:

    It doesn't take many Tory MPs to vote against the Deal for it to be blocked, does it? Around 20 probably.

    But then, the narrative becomes that Labour MPs blocked Brexit.
    Which most of labour will love.
    rcs1000 said:

    shiney2 said:

    " not changing rules but changing treaties"

    The eu makes treaties with other states cf Japan - which is currently encouraging the repatriation of EU based japanese owned car factories (eg 4UK 0DE). These apply to us in Transition and maybe later, but we will have no representation under the WA, or later if our useless remainer governing class accept it in the FR treaty.

    I agree the treaties you mentioned are internal (Lisbon stuff) but these treaties allow regulations to be issued in the UK and elsewhere which become laws. eg If states want to encourage movement of people from their counties into the uk then they have ample scope under may's WA to achieve it. If you issue another state's laws there isn't much you can't do in practice over a few years.

    I'm sorry, but this is barely comprehensible.

    What exactly is your point?

    The EU cannot unilaterally change treaties any more than the UK can. As far as I can tell, you are basically saying that unless we have a scorched earth Brexit now, then in the future UK politicians might sign us up to deals with the EU you don't like.
    Oh the horror.
    AndyJS said:

    A BBC reporter says there are about 25 Tory MPs determined to vote against the deal whatever happens.

    They need 35 lab mps to be confident. Given they either dont want to back the deal or are too cowardly to do it unless it looks like winning, I'd bet on the vote being pulled as they dont seem like going public in support beforehand.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    kle4 said:

    dots said:

    kle4 said:

    AndyJS said:

    It doesn't take many Tory MPs to vote against the Deal for it to be blocked, does it? Around 20 probably.

    Without an equal number of Lab MPs to counter then, yes.

    3 Lab and 4 Ind voted in favour at MV2 (Barron, Flint, Mann and Austin, Field, Lloyd and Hermon).

    That compares to 3 Lab and 3 Ind at MV1, but one of the Lab votes at that time is now the extra Ind vote. So really only Flint changed her mind between the two votes.

    75 needed to switch. Assume the DUP and most of the 75 Tory MPs (generous still to suggest) and they get within a few dozen.

    So even with the lesser spotted Lab MP who will voted for the deal doing so, it would still be nail bitingly close.

    My own guess is no more than 12 or so Lab MPs will vote for the deal, including those that already have. I just do not see why those willing to do so would not have at MV2, and I don't see why the DUP potentially switching would convince them. I think the number who might, at this final chance, do so could counter the Tory remainer half dozen. So if the DUP come on board I think 20 is indeed the max Tory rebels to maybe see it through, which means the ERG rebels need to be around 15 or less.

    Not easy.
    A few observations to run passed you. Does it matter how the DUP come on board? Davis and I think Mogg too saying the issue needs to be sorted, but if the DUP come on board because of a nice big bung, and some other titbits like seat at table for further negotiation (something May could stitch a successor up with if she granted that) that would be nothing has substantially changed? Rather than look sorted, with big money bung would it fact look sordid, and rather off putting to play along with?

    And something Mr Tyndall said I have been thinking over. Originally there was no meaningful vote, till grieves intervened? In a counter factual universe cabinet would have agreed it end of story? That both feels tempting... but also sort of wrong?
    On the DUP it clearly will matter to some but perhaps not as many as we think. It depends how many really are looking to climb down and how many were only using the DUP as an excuse. But the money will presumably not be announced till later so we can pretend that is not a factor.

    I'd agree something like this does seem like it should require parliamentary sign off. But I think that would have been the case in the sense legislation would still be needed? Very different if it was a fait accompli though I guess.
    I find it appalling that the nation's future depends on how much 'bribe' a small group of 'principled fanatics' in a small part of the Union need to swallow their alleged principles.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good morning, everyone.

    I doubt most Leavers would support a second referendum.

    That 737 story looks horrendous. Families of those on the Ethiopian plane must be furious.

    F1: my post-race analysis of an interesting season opener is up here: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2019/03/australia-post-race-analysis-2019.html

    I was amused to hear the BBC belittling the race as boring. One imagines it would've been full of tension and surprises after testing, had it been on the BBC.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751

    I find it appalling that the nation's future depends on how much 'bribe' a small group of 'principled fanatics' in a small part of the Union need to swallow their alleged principles.

    I'm not sure I'd describe Labour as 'principled.'

    Oh, sorry, you meant the DUP? Hmmm. I'm afraid my objection still applies...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Dots should cite his sources, I have doubts about the accuracy of the historical story in the first paragraph.

    There is a leave case for a second vote. I've been amazed how it has not gained even more traction as an idea in parliament.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    I think, though, that you are upending the democratic structure in the U.K. without a clear idea of what you want. Fundamentally we have a representative democracy - in my view outside of special cases such as Switzerland - this is the best form of government.

    In representative government parliament has the delegates authority to make law. However, should they refer back to the source of that authority - the people - Ona question of principal then they are duty bound to follow it

    That is what has happened here. Parliament requested guidance on whether we should stay in or leave. They were instructed to leave. It is their job to execute on that instruction in the way they see fit (and, no, that does not include choosing to ignore it) and then be judged for it at the next election

    A separate point is that introducing a second referendum at this point is changing to rules of the game after the event. If it had been set up front as a two referendum approach that would have been legitimate. But for the people who lost to agitate for a revote is fundamentally undemocratic no matter how they paint it

    (And, I don’t agree that a second referendum will drain the well. But I thought you story was about Vortigern and his castle not a queen and her palace? The fighting dragons were the Saxons and the British/Welsh)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751
    edited March 2019

    That 737 story looks horrendous. Families of those on the Ethiopian plane must be furious.

    You have to wonder with this one whether it's Boeing or the FAA that are more immediately in the firing line. But there seems a non-trivial chance they could both be consumed by it. Deservedly so given the number of deaths caused by their arrogance.

    Ultimately, part of that story suggests that an aircraft was certified as safe despite not meeting minimum regulatory requirements, even though evidence was twisted to try and make it look as though it was compliant. That'a something that just can't be overlooked, especially not after causing north of 300 deaths.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    kle4 said:

    dots said:

    kle4 said:

    AndyJS said:

    It doesn't take many Tory MPs to vote against the Deal for it to be blocked, does it? Around 20 probably.

    Without an equal number of Lab MPs to counter then, yes.

    3 Lab and 4 Ind voted in favour at MV2 (Barron, Flint, Mann and Austin, Field, Lloyd and Hermon).

    That compares to 3 Lab and 3 Ind at MV1, but one of the Lab votes at that time is now the extra Ind vote. So really only Flint changed her mind between the two votes.

    75 needed to switch. Assume the DUP and most of the 75 Tory MPs (generous still to suggest) and they get within a few dozen.

    So even with the lesser spotted Lab MP who will voted means the ERG rebels need to be around 15 or less.

    Not easy.
    A few observations to run passed you. Does it matter how the DUP come on board? Davis and I think Mogg too saying the issue needs to be sorted, but if the DUP come on board because of a nice big bung, and some other titbits like seat at table for further negotiation (something May could stitch a successor up with if she granted that) that would be nothing has substantially
    On the DUP it clearly will matter to some but perhaps not as many as we think. It depends how many really are looking to climb down and how many were only using the DUP as an excuse. But the money will presumably not be announced till later so we can pretend that is not a factor.

    I'd agree something like this does seem like it should require parliamentary sign off. But I think that would have been the case in the sense legislation would still be needed? Very different if it was a fait accompli though I guess.
    I find it appalling that the nation's future depends on how much 'bribe' a small group of 'principled fanatics' in a small part of the Union need to swallow their alleged principles.
    Whether they really are principled or just masters of political gamesmanship the DUP are incredibly frustrating. Politics in NI generally just makes me want to cry. I totally get those who seem so frustrated by it they wish we could just give the place to Ireland and that would work out .

    If the government survives they should swallow their pride and do a Brexit deal for the next phase with labour whatever it takes rather than be beholden to the DUP all the time. They're too obviously thrilled at being able to dictate to the Tories.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Sandpit said:

    Seattle Times are doing a very good job of reporting this.

    The 737 Max is going to have to get properly re-certified from scratch, I don’t see how they are going to get away with anything less.

    How they were ever allowed to get away with continuing to use the 52-year-old Type Certificate, for what’s clearly a completely different aeroplane, is a question the FAA need to answer. I think it’s fair to say that they’re not regulating Boeing as well as they should be, and haven’t for some years now - the 787 also had issues on release and had to be grounded.
    I can only speak for the FDA but there is regulatory capture by some of the largest US drug companies. I wouldn’t be surprised if the FAA is the same.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    ydoethur said:

    I find it appalling that the nation's future depends on how much 'bribe' a small group of 'principled fanatics' in a small part of the Union need to swallow their alleged principles.

    I'm not sure I'd describe Labour as 'principled.'

    Oh, sorry, you meant the DUP? Hmmm. I'm afraid my objection still applies...
    Principled fanatics is in inverted commas.

    Part of the reason for this whole sorry mess is that May has made little or no attempt to get Labour on board. For her it's the Tory Way or No Way.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751
    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Seattle Times are doing a very good job of reporting this.

    The 737 Max is going to have to get properly re-certified from scratch, I don’t see how they are going to get away with anything less.

    How they were ever allowed to get away with continuing to use the 52-year-old Type Certificate, for what’s clearly a completely different aeroplane, is a question the FAA need to answer. I think it’s fair to say that they’re not regulating Boeing as well as they should be, and haven’t for some years now - the 787 also had issues on release and had to be grounded.
    I can only speak for the FDA but there is regulatory capture by some of the largest US drug companies. I wouldn’t be surprised if the FAA is the same.
    When President Trump is the only person in authority acting with anything like common sense on an issue, there is something dreadfully wrong somewhere.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Charles said:

    If it had been set up front as a two referendum approach that would have been legitimate. But for the people who lost to agitate for a revote is fundamentally undemocratic no matter how they paint it

    Like this guy...

    https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1102446242540515328
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    kle4 said:

    AndyJS said:

    It doesn't take many Tory MPs to vote against the Deal for it to be blocked, does it? Around 20 probably.

    But then, the narrative becomes that Labour MPs blocked Brexit.
    Which most of labour will love.
    rcs1000 said:

    shiney2 said:

    " not changing rules but changing treaties"

    The eu makes treaties with other states cf Japan - which is currently encouraging the repatriation of EU based japanese owned car factories (eg 4UK 0DE). These apply to us in Transition and maybe later, but we will have no representation under the WA, or later if our useless remainer governing class accept it in the FR treaty.

    I agree the treaties you mentioned are internal (Lisbon stuff) but these treaties allow regulations to be issued in the UK and elsewhere which become laws. eg If states want to encourage movement of people from their counties into the uk then they have ample scope under may's WA to achieve it. If you issue another state's laws there isn't much you can't do in practice over a few years.

    I'm sorry, but this is barely comprehensible.

    What exactly is your point?

    The EU cannot unilaterally change treaties any more than the UK can. As far as I can tell, you are basically saying that unless we have a scorched earth Brexit now, then in the future UK politicians might sign us up to deals with the EU you don't like.
    Oh the horror.
    AndyJS said:

    A BBC reporter says there are about 25 Tory MPs determined to vote against the deal whatever happens.

    They need 35 lab mps to be confident. Given they either dont want to back the deal or are too cowardly to do it unless it looks like winning, I'd bet on the vote being pulled as they dont seem like going public in support beforehand.
    If there are 25 holdouts, but the DUP switch, then I think they'd need 12 Labour M P's.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    Now let’s be honest, if polls showed leave with 20 point lead if there was second referendum, would many be very hostile to a new public vote on the deal, because it’s is so clearly undemocratic and brexit betrayal, actually be in favour?
    This is the thing about procedural stuff - people actually feel genuine, non-tactical emotion about the fairness of this vs that vs the other; They often feel more strongly about these fairness issues than the underlying issues. But their views also line up very strongly with the thing that's tactically best for their side. This predicts almost all political parties' views on voting systems, nearly every politician's take on referendums at any given time, and the views of most of their followers.

    If you find yourself getting angry about a procedure (as opposed to an issue) it's worth taking a step back and considering that you probably wouldn't be feeling that if the circumstances were different. That doesn't mean that nobody's right about the procedure, but it does mean you should be suspicious of your own convictions about who it is.


    Good point well made. Lots of complaints about order of things or the problem with rule x when really its behaviour or culture that's behind an issue too.

    It's also why people tinker with procedures a lot because they can when tackling the real issues can be harder.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751

    ydoethur said:

    I find it appalling that the nation's future depends on how much 'bribe' a small group of 'principled fanatics' in a small part of the Union need to swallow their alleged principles.

    I'm not sure I'd describe Labour as 'principled.'

    Oh, sorry, you meant the DUP? Hmmm. I'm afraid my objection still applies...
    Principled fanatics is in inverted commas.

    Part of the reason for this whole sorry mess is that May has made little or no attempt to get Labour on board. For her it's the Tory Way or No Way.
    Well, yes, but nobody disputes they're fanatics.

    And as I understand it May made several early efforts to get Labour on board but was repeatedly rebuffed by Corbyn.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    kle4 said:

    dots said:

    kle4 said:

    AndyJS said:

    It doesn't take many Tory MPs to vote against the Deal for it to be blocked, does it? Around 20 probably.

    Without an equal number of Lab MPs to counter then, yes.

    3 Lab and 4 Ind voted in favour at MV2 (Barron, Flint, Mann and Austin, Field, Lloyd and Hermon).

    That compares to 3 Lab and 3 Ind at MV1, but one of the Lab votes at that time is now the extra Ind vote. So really only Flint changed her mind between the two votes.

    75 needed to switch. Assume the DUP and most of the 75 Tory MPs (generous still to suggest) and they get within a few dozen.

    So even with the lesser spotted Lab MP who will voted for the deal doing so, it would still be nail bitingly close.

    My own guess is no more than 12 or so Lab MPs will vote for the deal, including those that already have. I just do not see why those willing to do so would not have at MV2, and I don't see why the DUP potentially switching would convince them. I think the number who might, at this final chance, do so could counter the Tory remainer half dozen. So if the DUP come on board I think 20 is indeed the max Tory rebels to maybe see it through, which means the ERG rebels need to be around 15 or less.

    Not easy.
    A few observations to run passed you. Does it matter how the DUP come on board? Davis and I think Mogg too saying the issue needs to be sorted, but if the DUP come on board because of a nice big bung, and some other titbits like seat at table for further negotiation (something May could stitch a successor up with if she granted that) that would be nothing has substantially changed? Rather than look sorted, with big money bung would it fact look sordid, and rather off putting to play along with?

    And something Mr Tyndall said I have been thinking over. Originally there was no meaningful vote, till grieves intervened? In a counter factual universe cabinet would have agreed it end of story? That both feels tempting... but also sort of wrong?
    On the DUP it clearly will matter to some but perhaps not as many as we think. It depends how many really are looking to climb down and how many were only using the DUP as an excuse. But the money will presumably not be announced till later so we can pretend that is not a factor.

    I'd agree something like this does seem like it should require parliamentary sign off. But I think that would have been the case in the sense legislation would still be needed? Very different if it was a fait accompli though I guess.
    I find it appalling that the nation's future depends on how much 'bribe' a small group of 'principled fanatics' in a small part of the Union need to swallow their alleged principles.
    ‘‘Twas always thus
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    kle4 said:

    Dots should cite his sources, I have doubts about the accuracy of the historical story in the first paragraph.

    There is a leave case for a second vote. I've been amazed how it has not gained even more traction as an idea in parliament.

    What do you mean Our Island Story isn’t accurate??!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751
    Scott_P said:
    What's his footwear?

    I know he doesn't do sandals. But I'm thinking flip-flops might suit?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    No doubt there are other factors involved (“Look how the Tories are starving the poor” may have stayed a few hands)but Lammy’s foot and his mouth do appear to have a strong affinity:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/comic-relief-down-8m-after-david-lammy-white-saviour-row-dxtv733bp

    Curious that there was such a significant drop. But presumably Lammy would be happy about that drop, as he would not want people endorsing with money a vision of Africa that requires white saviours.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I find it appalling that the nation's future depends on how much 'bribe' a small group of 'principled fanatics' in a small part of the Union need to swallow their alleged principles.

    I'm not sure I'd describe Labour as 'principled.'

    Oh, sorry, you meant the DUP? Hmmm. I'm afraid my objection still applies...
    Principled fanatics is in inverted commas.

    Part of the reason for this whole sorry mess is that May has made little or no attempt to get Labour on board. For her it's the Tory Way or No Way.
    Well, yes, but nobody disputes they're fanatics.

    And as I understand it May made several early efforts to get Labour on board but was repeatedly rebuffed by Corbyn.
    Getting Labour on board is impossible. Getting some Labour MP's on board is possible.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Scott_P said:

    Charles said:

    If it had been set up front as a two referendum approach that would have been legitimate. But for the people who lost to agitate for a revote is fundamentally undemocratic no matter how they paint it

    Like this guy...

    https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1102446242540515328
    Yes in 2011.

    As I said “if it had been set up front”

    But it wasn’t
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I find it appalling that the nation's future depends on how much 'bribe' a small group of 'principled fanatics' in a small part of the Union need to swallow their alleged principles.

    I'm not sure I'd describe Labour as 'principled.'

    Oh, sorry, you meant the DUP? Hmmm. I'm afraid my objection still applies...
    Principled fanatics is in inverted commas.

    Part of the reason for this whole sorry mess is that May has made little or no attempt to get Labour on board. For her it's the Tory Way or No Way.
    Well, yes, but nobody disputes they're fanatics.

    And as I understand it May made several early efforts to get Labour on board but was repeatedly rebuffed by Corbyn.
    Second point taken, but I wouldn't have thought Labour's discipline was such that approaches wouldn't have succeeded with more than just, for example, Hooey.

    And now I'm off to the gym for an hour. I'm sure it won't be sorted by the time I come back!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Scott_P said:
    Once more the cycle continues - some optimistic noises over the weekend about a potential way forward, dashed on Monday in the run un up to votes in the week.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    kle4 said:


    On the DUP it clearly will matter to some but perhaps not as many as we think. It depends how many really are looking to climb down and how many were only using the DUP as an excuse. But the money will presumably not be announced till later so we can pretend that is not a factor.

    It's disgusting how TM is planning to borrow another 1bn quid on behalf of the long suffering tax payer to finance a bribe that is purely for internal tory management. And it's probably not even going to work.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392


    This is the thing about procedural stuff - people actually feel genuine, non-tactical emotion about the fairness of this vs that vs the other; They often feel more strongly about these fairness issues than the underlying issues. But their views also line up very strongly with the thing that's tactically best for their side. This predicts almost all political parties' views on voting systems, nearly every politician's take on referendums at any given time, and the views of most of their followers.

    If you find yourself getting angry about a procedure (as opposed to an issue) it's worth taking a step back and considering that you probably wouldn't be feeling that if the circumstances were different. That doesn't mean that nobody's right about the procedure, but it does mean you should be suspicious of your own convictions about who it is.

    Good point well made. Lots of complaints about order of things or the problem with rule x when really its behaviour or culture that's behind an issue too.

    It's also why people tinker with procedures a lot because they can when tackling the real issues can be harder.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    Charles said:

    If it had been set up front as a two referendum approach that would have been legitimate. But for the people who lost to agitate for a revote is fundamentally undemocratic no matter how they paint it

    Like this guy...

    https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1102446242540515328
    Yes in 2011.

    As I said “if it had been set up front”

    But it wasn’t
    A two-stage referendum would have seen a huge vote to leave the EU at stage 1.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited March 2019
    Scott_P said:
    In fairness you have Clarke and Sandbach suggesting they might do the same, for different reasons.

    Bottom line is people can see it wont have the numbers even if the DUP switch and they're sick of voting on the question.

    A few Tories are switching to back it. Have any labour mps said the same? If not it will go the way of MV2. And please God no MV4.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059
    No more referendums until we have an agreed upon resolution as to how they fit into our constitution. The constitution has been broken in the last 10 years. It needs to be repaired.

    Firstly, the principle that the government is formed by the party that commands a majority in the Commons has been undermined by both main parties giving leadership decisions to their members outside Parliament. That has given us a leader of the opposition that can stay even after losing two confidence votes in the PLP and a PM who stays because her own Parliamentary party are terrified of what alternative the members outside Parliament will vote for should she be deposed by them.

    Secondly, Parliamentary Sovereignty has been undermined by the idea that there is another source of sovereignty by which it is bound. If sovereignty is to lie with the people, expressed by a referendum, then so be it, I don’t have a problem with the concept, but it needs to be decided somehow and the rules by which that new sovereignty is exercised. At the moment there is effectively a debate as to where sovereignty lies and how it is to be expressed.

    If you are and MP that believes in the constitution as it is (was?) then you need to stop accepting the whip of the two main parties and ignore the referendum and vote with your conscience as to what is in the best interest of your constituents. If you believe there is a new constitutional settlement overriding the above then by all means say so and give the basis on which you come to your conclusions, and outline the new rules so we know what they are.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Gadfly said:
    That set of tweets isn't very good IMO. It makes some rather interesting assumptions, and the core argument - that it wasn't the software's fault - looks as though it's wrong.

    I know what he's trying to say: that the software worked perfectly but the specification it worked to was incorrect, and that's where the investigators should look - but a) it's far too early to say that, and b) it's rather irrelevant.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Dura_Ace said:

    kle4 said:


    On the DUP it clearly will matter to some but perhaps not as many as we think. It depends how many really are looking to climb down and how many were only using the DUP as an excuse. But the money will presumably not be announced till later so we can pretend that is not a factor.

    It's disgusting how TM is planning to borrow another 1bn quid on behalf of the long suffering tax payer to finance a bribe that is purely for internal tory management. And it's probably not even going to work.
    Come now, she might not borrow another 1bn. She might just take it from the military instead
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    edited March 2019
    Sandpit said:

    On topic, a good piece from @dots, well done for writing.

    Personally I can’t see any way that the deal on the table gets passed, there’s too many people ideologically opposed to it who aren’t going to change their minds unless the deal itself changes.

    I’m also not sure there’s the numbers for a long extension, and the EU are not going to offer a short one without an agreed deal, because of the dynamics of their own elections in May.

    I think the end point is going to be a binary choice either of no deal or revoke A50, closely followed by a general election in which the MPs can be held accountable for their decision.

    Let's see how deep that "idealogical opposition" is.

    1. Get the DUP signed up to the Deal. Say Northern Ireland will get a big regional development fund, acknowledging that decades of The Troubles stunted growth. (With a proviso: the tap gets turned off the moment The Troubles 2 start up. And it will need the devolved executive and assembly back up and running, in order to sign off the process.)

    2. Isolate the hardest of hard core Tory rebels. Buy off the waverers. Get the "idealist opposition" down below 20. Those who are prepared to side against the DUP might be as few as 10.

    3. Find out, from discussions with their association chairmen, whether they have a preferred local candidate to replace their current MP if they will not pass the deal. Warn them that the selection process may need to be expedited with an EGM. Let the chairmen know you are happy fo rthem to discuss this succession-planning with their current MP.

    4. Cabinet sign up to a 3-line whip for MV3. Those that vote against WILL be expelled from the party. That will almost certainly be the end of their Parliamentary careers. Some, like Grieve, will join the TIGs. Some, like Boris, will wave goodbye to their ambitions. Or else rethink. Either way, it will end the power of the ERG and the extreme EUrophiles. Which is why May will get the authority to do it. Whoever succeeds her will have got a coherent, cohesive party back.

    5. Cabinet also sign up to a huge increase in the fund for redevelopment of town centres. As now, these towns will have to make well-argued applications, but those Labour MPs representing such northern, Leave-voting towns will be given a private reassurance these locally-driven projects in their constituency will be looked upon favourably. Personally, I can't think of a better way for Hammond to spend his war chest.

    6. If MV3 fails, the PM will ask for a lengthy extension, saying she already has Parliamentary authority for this. During that extension, the PM will not stand down. She will wait for the Party to move against her in December. If they have the numbers.


    I suspect much of the above is already in play.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    Scott_P said:
    He's only doing this so people ask him why. He's suffering from Relevancy Deprivation Syndrome and can't bear to be relegated to a minor role in the Brexit saga.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    Sandpit said:

    On topic, a good piece from @dots, well done for writing.

    Personally I can’t see any way that the deal on the table gets passed, there’s too many people ideologically opposed to it who aren’t going to change their minds unless the deal itself changes.

    I’m also not sure there’s the numbers for a long extension, to offer a short one without an agreed deal, because of the dynamics of their own elections in May.

    I think the end point is going to be a binary choice either of no deal or revoke A50, closely followed by a general election in which the MPs can be held accountable for their decision.

    Let's see how deep that "idealogical opposition" is.

    1. Get the DUP signed up to the Deal. Say Northern Ireland will get a big regional development fund, acknowledging that decades of The Troubles stunted growth. (With a proviso: the tap gets turned off the moment The Troubles 2 start up. And it will need the devolved executive and assembly back up and running, in order to sign off the process.)

    2. Isolate the hardest of hard core Tory rebels. Buy off the waverers. Get the "idealist opposition" down below 20. Those who are prepared to side against the DUP might be as few as 10.

    3. Find out, from discussions with their association chairmen, whether they have a preferred local candidate to replace their current MP if they will not pass the deal. Warn them that the selection process may need to be expedited with an EGM. Let the chairmen know you are happy fo rthem to discuss this succession-planning with their current MP.

    4. Cabinet sign up to a 3-line whip for MV3. Those that vote against WILL be expelled from the party. That will almost certainly be the end of their Parliamentary careers. Some, like Grieve, will join the TIGs. Some, like Boris, will wave goodbye to their ambitions. Or else rethink. Either way, it will end the power of the ERG and the extreme EUrophiles. Which is why May will get the authority to do it. Whoever succeeds her will have got a coherent, cohesive party back.

    5. Cabinet also sign up to a huge increase in the fund for redevelopment of town centres. As now, these towns will have to make well-argued applications, but those Labour MPs representing such northern, Leave-voting towns will be given a private reassurance these locally-driven projects in their constituency will be looked upon favourably. Personally, I can't think of a better way for Hammond to spend his war chest.

    6. If MV3 fails, the PM will ask for a lengthy extension, saying she already has Parliamentary authority for this. During that extension, the PM will not stand down. She will wait for the Party to move against her in December. If they have the numbers.


    I suspect much of the above is already in play.
    There should be some frank interviews with those MP's who have skeletons in their closets.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_P said:
    He's only doing this so people ask him why. He's suffering from Relevancy Deprivation Syndrome and can't bear to be relegated to a minor role in the Brexit saga.
    He's giving plenty of cover for those who'd sometimes wondered if they did the right thing in voting for Cameron as leader over him......
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,066
    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I find it appalling that the nation's future depends on how much 'bribe' a small group of 'principled fanatics' in a small part of the Union need to swallow their alleged principles.

    I'm not sure I'd describe Labour as 'principled.'

    Oh, sorry, you meant the DUP? Hmmm. I'm afraid my objection still applies...
    Principled fanatics is in inverted commas.

    Part of the reason for this whole sorry mess is that May has made little or no attempt to get Labour on board. For her it's the Tory Way or No Way.
    Well, yes, but nobody disputes they're fanatics.

    And as I understand it May made several early efforts to get Labour on board but was repeatedly rebuffed by Corbyn.
    Getting Labour on board is impossible. Getting some Labour MP's on board is possible.
    Previous convictions that there would be large numbers of Labour rebels have not been correct. Both wings of the party object for different reasons, but Nothing Has Changed.

    A Deal, subject to a binding referendum would pass with a huge majority. If Mrs May wanted it, she could have it.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748
    Foxy said:

    Dagger to the heart of Remainia:

    https://twitter.com/ReutersUK/status/1107518550816759809?s=20

    They’ll be gutted in Hartlepool....

    Though Leaverstan may be more troubled by Aporkalypse Now!

    https://twitter.com/seanfarrington/status/1107526868113260544?s=19
    I hope the police have beefed up their emergency response call centres in preparation.

    It looks like Blitz Spirit Brexit will provide a glut of fish & lamb, so we'll just have to revert to kippers & cutlets for brekkie.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I find it appalling that the nation's future depends on how much 'bribe' a small group of 'principled fanatics' in a small part of the Union need to swallow their alleged principles.

    I'm not sure I'd describe Labour as 'principled.'

    Oh, sorry, you meant the DUP? Hmmm. I'm afraid my objection still applies...
    Principled fanatics is in inverted commas.

    Part of the reason for this whole sorry mess is that May has made little or no attempt to get Labour on board. For her it's the Tory Way or No Way.
    Well, yes, but nobody disputes they're fanatics.

    And as I understand it May made several early efforts to get Labour on board but was repeatedly rebuffed by Corbyn.
    Getting Labour on board is impossible. Getting some Labour MP's on board is possible.
    Previous convictions that there would be large numbers of Labour rebels have not been correct. Both wings of the party object for different reasons, but Nothing Has Changed.

    A Deal, subject to a binding referendum would pass with a huge majority. If Mrs May wanted it, she could have it.
    Indeed. Any further labour MPs who do want to leave appear to be unwilling to do so in this way.

    MV3 is going to be pulled. May wants to pretend her deal might get approved and knows it will lose in a referendum, so dont vote and go to extension if she can and so preserve the fantasy her deal is not totally rejected as an option yet.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    Sean_F said:



    There should be some frank interviews with those MP's who have skeletons in their closets.

    So that's bribery and blackmail being advocated in pursuit of the WA. Maybe she should just threaten to have their kids drowned in the Tees.

    I note that the airy pronouncements of 'no deal it is then', which were once such a staple of pb.com tories, are now thin on in the ground.

  • notme2notme2 Posts: 1,006
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Dagger to the heart of Remainia:

    https://twitter.com/ReutersUK/status/1107518550816759809?s=20

    They’ll be gutted in Hartlepool....

    Though Leaverstan may be more troubled by Aporkalypse Now!

    https://twitter.com/seanfarrington/status/1107526868113260544?s=19
    Yes. We import around 50% of all pork products, mainly from Denmark and the Netherlands. These are mostly, due to lax welfare standards in Denmark in particular and laxer enforcement of them, much cheaper than the British equivalents as well. Therefore, they are most likely to be stocked and used by commercial restaurants, hotels, takeaways etc. They are also probably the ones most commonly bought by Leavers.

    More information here:

    http://www.pig-world.co.uk/news/business/27903.html
    Are welfare standards really lower in Denmark? Or is just comparative advantage in action?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    No MP who is a holdout is getting the whip withdrawn for as long as Boris Johnson is in their number. So you can all forget that idea.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958

    No MP who is a holdout is getting the whip withdrawn for as long as Boris Johnson is in their number. So you can all forget that idea.

    Who in the Cabinet would block it to protect Boris?
  • Harris_TweedHarris_Tweed Posts: 1,300

    No MP who is a holdout is getting the whip withdrawn for as long as Boris Johnson is in their number. So you can all forget that idea.

    I’d also imagine the suggested conversations with association chairmen might not go to TM’s advantage either. “You want me to deselect him for voting to stop you binning Brexit? It’s a view”
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    No MP who is a holdout is getting the whip withdrawn for as long as Boris Johnson is in their number. So you can all forget that idea.

    Who in the Cabinet would block it to protect Boris?
    You really think that the Conservative party could currently afford to lose the figure who consistently tops the membership surveys for next leader? If you wanted to get a new breakaway party on the headbanger right started with a massive boost, you could hardly think of a better way of doing it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    No MP who is a holdout is getting the whip withdrawn for as long as Boris Johnson is in their number. So you can all forget that idea.

    Who in the Cabinet would block it to protect Boris?
    Who in the cabinet would back a plan that would see dozens lose the whip?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    edited March 2019
    kle4 said:

    No MP who is a holdout is getting the whip withdrawn for as long as Boris Johnson is in their number. So you can all forget that idea.

    Who in the Cabinet would block it to protect Boris?
    Who in the cabinet would back a plan that would see dozens lose the whip?
    You think there are dozens prepared to give up their careers to go against the DUP's position on May's Deal?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751
    notme2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Dagger to the heart of Remainia:

    https://twitter.com/ReutersUK/status/1107518550816759809?s=20

    They’ll be gutted in Hartlepool....

    Though Leaverstan may be more troubled by Aporkalypse Now!

    https://twitter.com/seanfarrington/status/1107526868113260544?s=19
    Yes. We import around 50% of all pork products, mainly from Denmark and the Netherlands. These are mostly, due to lax welfare standards in Denmark in particular and laxer enforcement of them, much cheaper than the British equivalents as well. Therefore, they are most likely to be stocked and used by commercial restaurants, hotels, takeaways etc. They are also probably the ones most commonly bought by Leavers.

    More information here:

    http://www.pig-world.co.uk/news/business/27903.html
    Are welfare standards really lower in Denmark? Or is just comparative advantage in action?
    Until about five years ago, there were effectively no welfare standards at all in Denmark because the laws were not enforced. Crates were the usual method of rearing pigs, even though the EU had banned them. Things have improved since but they are still much lower than they are here, hence why their pork products are cheaper. Nick Palmer would probably know more about current status.

    Have a good morning.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Anyway, I don't have the least scintilla of sympathy with self-proclaimed moderate Leavers now desperate to see the deal go through. At every stage for many years they have pandered to the hardliners and indulged them, copied their rhetoric and encouraged their wildest fantasies.

    Now it is costing them dearly. Tough shit. That's what you get for craven fawning. If you had hard truths to tell, you should have told them earlier.
  • Harris_TweedHarris_Tweed Posts: 1,300
    Erskine May (etc) geeks: If MV3 doesn’t happen pre-summit, and if (notwithstanding that) the EU offers a long delay for X, what level of parliamentary approval is required for the long delay and/or X?

    If the answer is ‘some’, will it be forthcoming?
    And if the answer is ‘none’, is there any scope for the SI on changing Exit Day being argued over?

    It seems to me that quite a few MPs would feel the heat of Brexiteers for threatening to support a long delay, and the current pattern of ‘do nothing’ might prevail.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    Anyway, I don't have the least scintilla of sympathy with self-proclaimed moderate Leavers now desperate to see the deal go through. At every stage for many years they have pandered to the hardliners and indulged them, copied their rhetoric and encouraged their wildest fantasies.

    Now it is costing them dearly. Tough shit. That's what you get for craven fawning. If you had hard truths to tell, you should have told them earlier.

    Its hard to disagree with that.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I find it appalling that the nation's future depends on how much 'bribe' a small group of 'principled fanatics' in a small part of the Union need to swallow their alleged principles.

    I'm not sure I'd describe Labour as 'principled.'

    Oh, sorry, you meant the DUP? Hmmm. I'm afraid my objection still applies...
    Principled fanatics is in inverted commas.

    Part of the reason for this whole sorry mess is that May has made little or no attempt to get Labour on board. For her it's the Tory Way or No Way.
    Well, yes, but nobody disputes they're fanatics.

    And as I understand it May made several early efforts to get Labour on board but was repeatedly rebuffed by Corbyn.
    Getting Labour on board is impossible. Getting some Labour MP's on board is possible.
    Previous convictions that there would be large numbers of Labour rebels have not been correct. Both wings of the party object for different reasons, but Nothing Has Changed.

    A Deal, subject to a binding referendum would pass with a huge majority. If Mrs May wanted it, she could have it.
    Indeed. Any further labour MPs who do want to leave appear to be unwilling to do so in this way.

    MV3 is going to be pulled. May wants to pretend her deal might get approved and knows it will lose in a referendum, so dont vote and go to extension if she can and so preserve the fantasy her deal is not totally rejected as an option yet.
    I think MV3 goes ahead. It's possible the margin of defeat could be reduced to under 100 - almost a triumph compared to MV1.

    Win or lose, however, it has to happen as it determines the length of the extension requested from the EU.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited March 2019

    kle4 said:

    No MP who is a holdout is getting the whip withdrawn for as long as Boris Johnson is in their number. So you can all forget that idea.

    Who in the Cabinet would block it to protect Boris?
    Who in the cabinet would back a plan that would see dozens lose the whip?
    You think there are dozens prepared to give up their careers to go against the DUP's position on May's Deal?
    Yes. The Grievers and 15 or so ERG.

    And even if it was less than that the cabinet would not do it. They don't have the guts to resign when they defy the whip themselves and may lacks the authority to sack them. No way they go against the fear of confronting the party factions that had led May to avoid decisions for so long.

    Not least because it immediately destroys the majority even with the DUP.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    Morning peeps,

    I have a feeling MV3 will be pulled this week and so our popcorn can stay in the cupboard. We will see tomorrow.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I find it appalling that the nation's future depends on how much 'bribe' a small group of 'principled fanatics' in a small part of the Union need to swallow their alleged principles.

    I'm not sure I'd describe Labour as 'principled.'

    Oh, sorry, you meant the DUP? Hmmm. I'm afraid my objection still applies...
    Principled fanatics is in inverted commas.

    Part of the reason for this whole sorry mess is that May has made little or no attempt to get Labour on board. For her it's the Tory Way or No Way.
    Well, yes, but nobody disputes they're fanatics.

    And as I understand it May made several early efforts to get Labour on board but was repeatedly rebuffed by Corbyn.
    Getting Labour on board is impossible. Getting some Labour MP's on board is possible.
    Previous convictions that there would be large numbers of Labour rebels have not been correct. Both wings of the party object for different reasons, but Nothing Has Changed.

    A Deal, subject to a binding referendum would pass with a huge majority. If Mrs May wanted it, she could have it.
    Indeed. Any further labour MPs who do want to leave appear to be unwilling to do so in this way.

    MV3 is going to be pulled. May wants to pretend her deal might get approved and knows it will lose in a referendum, so dont vote and go to extension if she can and so preserve the fantasy her deal is not totally rejected as an option yet.
    I think MV3 goes ahead. It's possible the margin of defeat could be reduced to under 100 - almost a triumph compared to MV1.

    Win or lose, however, it has to happen as it determines the length of the extension requested from the EU.
    Under 100 has been predicted as possible for MV1 and MV2, initially.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I find it appalling that the nation's future depends on how much 'bribe' a small group of 'principled fanatics' in a small part of the Union need to swallow their alleged principles.

    I'm not sure I'd describe Labour as 'principled.'

    Oh, sorry, you meant the DUP? Hmmm. I'm afraid my objection still applies...
    Principled fanatics is in inverted commas.

    Part of the reason for this whole sorry mess is that May has made little or no attempt to get Labour on board. For her it's the Tory Way or No Way.
    Well, yes, but nobody disputes they're fanatics.

    And as I understand it May made several early efforts to get Labour on board but was repeatedly rebuffed by Corbyn.
    Getting Labour on board is impossible. Getting some Labour MP's on board is possible.
    Previous convictions that there would be large numbers of Labour rebels have not been correct. Both wings of the party object for different reasons, but Nothing Has Changed.

    A Deal, subject to a binding referendum would pass with a huge majority. If Mrs May wanted it, she could have it.
    Indeed. Any further labour MPs who do want to leave appear to be unwilling to do so in this way.

    MV3 is going to be pulled. May wants to pretend her deal might get approved and knows it will lose in a referendum, so dont vote and go to extension if she can and so preserve the fantasy her deal is not totally rejected as an option yet.
    I think MV3 goes ahead. It's possible the margin of defeat could be reduced to under 100 - almost a triumph compared to MV1.

    Win or lose, however, it has to happen as it determines the length of the extension requested from the EU.
    Under 100 has been predicted as possible for MV1 and MV2, initially.
    Under 100 would be likely, IMHO, but it is nowhere near enough.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    The only second referendum most Leavers would support is to Leave with the Deal v Leave with No Deal
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Mr Dots,

    You have my sympathy. A nice try, but as always, you don't explain why there was a different response to the vote because of the result. A Remain win by 52 to 48 would have been met with a satisfied 'Job done'. No mention of the tightness of the result and a determination not to have a re-run 'for a generation.'

    Why the difference? Basically arrogance. The 'We know best' illusion writ large. The voters were stupid, misled, and short of information. My superior reasoning can see this, so why can't the fools who voted wrongly see this? That proves they're stupid. We need to reverse this asap.

    "I argue this not to bury brexit, but to save brexit from becoming a bad deal or vassalage."
    We thank you for your kindness, sir.

    Now, back to normal life. My son, who lives in Copenhagen, stocks up with bacon when he visits, claiming that the best stuff goes for export. They have their heads screwed on, those Danes.



  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    Morning peeps,

    I have a feeling MV3 will be pulled this week and so our popcorn can stay in the cupboard. We will see tomorrow.

    If it is pulled May will reportedly ask for a 2 year extension and we may well never leave at all
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited March 2019
    HYUFD said:

    The only second referendum most Leavers would support is to Leave with the Deal v Leave with No Deal

    Or a three way referendum. In other words, what they wouldn't support is Deal vs Remain, which just happens to be what the likes of Dominic Grieve want it to be.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748


    I find it appalling that the nation's future depends on how much 'bribe' a small group of 'principled fanatics' in a small part of the Union need to swallow their alleged principles.

    Ironically that was pretty much Cameron's 2015 GE strategy, except as a warning about a different party.

    Karma, eh?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I think it's too early to say what the majority in MV3 would look like. It's not going to be defeated by 150 this time though, that's clear.

    Winning over the DUP is a necessary but not sufficient condition for Theresa May.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958

    Anyway, I don't have the least scintilla of sympathy with self-proclaimed moderate Leavers now desperate to see the deal go through. At every stage for many years they have pandered to the hardliners and indulged them, copied their rhetoric and encouraged their wildest fantasies.

    Now it is costing them dearly. Tough shit. That's what you get for craven fawning. If you had hard truths to tell, you should have told them earlier.

    I don't have the least scintilla of sympathy with self-proclaimed Conservative MPs who refuse to implement the Conservative Manifesto commitment to implement Brexit, now apparently desperate to see no deal go through.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    kle4 said:

    No MP who is a holdout is getting the whip withdrawn for as long as Boris Johnson is in their number. So you can all forget that idea.

    Who in the Cabinet would block it to protect Boris?
    Who in the cabinet would back a plan that would see dozens lose the whip?
    You think there are dozens prepared to give up their careers to go against the DUP's position on May's Deal?
    There only need to be half a dozen floor-crossers (from either or both of the extreme Leave and Remain wings) to force an election (or May's replacement). There's certainly that many time-servers who'd take the retirement in order to stop the deal going through.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    No MP who is a holdout is getting the whip withdrawn for as long as Boris Johnson is in their number. So you can all forget that idea.

    Who in the Cabinet would block it to protect Boris?
    Tbh, if they walk because Boris gets the whip withdrawn then let them walk. We've got to a stage where the ERG need to be subjugated or expelled if they won't be.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited March 2019
    Fingers crossed the MV3 will be pulled or fail this week, we will get a decent delay and May will go.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,398
    Foxy said:

    Dagger to the heart of Remainia:

    https://twitter.com/ReutersUK/status/1107518550816759809?s=20

    They’ll be gutted in Hartlepool....

    Though Leaverstan may be more troubled by Aporkalypse Now!

    https://twitter.com/seanfarrington/status/1107526868113260544?s=19
    Let them eat gammon.
  • AndyJS said:

    HYUFD said:

    The only second referendum most Leavers would support is to Leave with the Deal v Leave with No Deal

    Or a three way referendum. In other words, what they wouldn't support is Deal vs Remain, which just happens to be what the likes of Dominic Grieve want it to be.
    Most leavers are Conservatives - It would be hypocritical of them not to allow a 'Remain' option on the referendum as they can obtain power only on a FPTP with a split centre-left, thus winning without obtaining a majority of the votes cast.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840


    I find it appalling that the nation's future depends on how much 'bribe' a small group of 'principled fanatics' in a small part of the Union need to swallow their alleged principles.

    Ironically that was pretty much Cameron's 2015 GE strategy, except as a warning about a different party.

    Karma, eh?
    The evil Scot nats and Red Ed would have unleashed unknown levels of chaos on the country. The known levels we are currently experiencing are far more reassuring.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    HYUFD said:

    The only second referendum most Leavers would support is to Leave with the Deal v Leave with No Deal

    Yes, and a lot of the polling on support for a 'second referendum' fails to mention what the question might be.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    No MP who is a holdout is getting the whip withdrawn for as long as Boris Johnson is in their number. So you can all forget that idea.

    Who in the Cabinet would block it to protect Boris?
    Who in the cabinet would back a plan that would see dozens lose the whip?
    You think there are dozens prepared to give up their careers to go against the DUP's position on May's Deal?
    There only need to be half a dozen floor-crossers (from either or both of the extreme Leave and Remain wings) to force an election (or May's replacement). There's certainly that many time-servers who'd take the retirement in order to stop the deal going through.
    And then we remain? Hasn't it become clear to everyone with half a brain that the PM will revoke before no deal.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    MaxPB said:

    No MP who is a holdout is getting the whip withdrawn for as long as Boris Johnson is in their number. So you can all forget that idea.

    Who in the Cabinet would block it to protect Boris?
    Tbh, if they walk because Boris gets the whip withdrawn then let them walk. We've got to a stage where the ERG need to be subjugated or expelled if they won't be.
    About a third of the Parliamentary party is associated with the ERG, probably at least half the membership supports its aims, that would be a very risky strategy
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    AndyJS said:

    HYUFD said:

    The only second referendum most Leavers would support is to Leave with the Deal v Leave with No Deal

    Or a three way referendum. In other words, what they wouldn't support is Deal vs Remain, which just happens to be what the likes of Dominic Grieve want it to be.
    Plus probably the only referendum the Commons would allow is Deal v Remain
This discussion has been closed.