***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 79 *****
IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ
Before discussions start in this thread, I would like to point out that any petty arguments, personal attacks, or any other infringement of house rules, etc. will be deleted where we feel fit from now on.
We will not give notice that we have deleted something. Nor will we enter into discussion why something was deleted. That will also be deleted.
It seems that discussion about Brexit brings out the worst in some people.
Be nice, Play nice, and control your temper. Your co-operation would be appreciated.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 30 Mar 19 at 20:31
|
Narrow Majority for ruling out no-deal leaving. 312/308.
I wonder if Rees-Mogg and his crew will still remember their often shouted words that democratic decisions should be respected?
Will he respect that we may not now leave with "No Deal" and that no second vote should be called?
|
|
In fact, I'd guess that a no-deal exit is now the most likely outcome.
|
|
They voted against the "Malthouse Compromise" which is just as well since it wasn't actually possible.
|
|
Looks like the government will ask for an extension to 30 june 19.
|
>>Looks like the government will ask for an extension to 30 june 19.
Next Euro elections are at the end of May - will we need to vote for new MEPs?
|
The only logical conclusion from the last few days is that our politicians think the EU will change their minds and negotiate further.
We want a deal, we don't want the deal on offer give us something else or what? We will stamp our feet and throw a huge tantrum?
|
|
I read that there should now be a series of indicative votes, but haven't already had them?
|
|
I keep saying this but eventually the Theresa May deal will be agreed TINA
|
The EU has made it perfectly clear. There are two options on the table. The "TM deal", or No Deal. At no point, as far as I am aware, has the UK even tabled a third option, or at least one which parliament would be certain to back (and therefore would be worth the EU's time considering).
Parliament has voted to reject both the options on the table. Which is interesting, as it will be facing at one of them, whether it wants it or not. The UK isn't in the driving seat here. The EU is, as it always has been, and as it was always going to be. This is even more true now because we are effectively out of time.
I genuinely cannot believe our elected officials are this incompetent or complacent. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but it's hard to imagine there isn't a master plan at work here. Either that, or we genuinely are doomed.
It is also interesting that the politicians of 27 separate sovereign states can put aside differences enough to present a united front, and act like grown ups, yet our wonderful domestic politicians cannot.
Last edited by: DP on Thu 14 Mar 19 at 07:13
|
>> Parliament has voted to reject both the options on the table. Which is interesting, as
>> it will be facing at one of them, whether it wants it or not. The
>> UK isn't in the driving seat here. The EU is, as it always has been,
>> and as it was always going to be.
We decided to leave the golf club.
We asked the committee for some special leaving privileges and concessions. They said no.
What leverage do we have as a country leaving the EU?
None.
|
|
The trouble with that analogy is that some would say we never properly agreed to leave the golf club and tha we should withdraw our notice and think about the whole thing again.
|
>> I genuinely cannot believe our elected officials are this incompetent or complacent. I'm no conspiracy
>> theorist, but it's hard to imagine there isn't a master plan at work here.
There is, the best one she could muster.
Problem. Country voted to leave EU, Half her party want out of the EU and also want to look good to half country who voted out. Everyone knows its a bad thing globoeconomically, those in the country who voted out dont care assuming the rest will bail them out, those in parliament supporting them just want their seat back on the gravy train next election, and a small bunch of the party want out and economic chaos so they can make money.
Solution. Brexit in Name Only. Everyone happy (except those who wont make money -JRM)
Method, Get a BINO deal in the bag, run down the clock, ride out the storm, run down the clock.
Working well so far.
|
Are the EU more likely to agree to a delay if it is a longer delay ie time to fully go back to the drawing board and start all over again ? Whether that does or does not include another referendum?
I keep hearing the democratic right and we must leave etc or democracy fails, but surely with all the misinformation, Cambridge Analytica, Banks, the lies on billboards etc etc, surely no one can say that the vote was truly democratic in its principles?
|
|
Rumours are coming out that the WA will be voted on again next week as the ERG are likely to for it. I'm not sure they've got enough votes to get through. They've got, what 35/40 votes?
|
>> Rumours are coming out that the WA will be voted on again next week as
>> the ERG are likely to for it. I'm not sure they've got enough votes to
>> get through. They've got, what 35/40 votes?
ERG support seems to be dependant on clarification of legal advice. How likely is advice of either (a) the Attorney General or (b) the ERG 'Star Chamber' of lawyers to vary?
OTOH, faced with May's deal or a long delay to Brexit there may be enough of them willing to hold their noses and vote.
Are the DUP wobbling too?
|
>>Are the DUP wobbling too?
Not wobbling, exactly. I think they see their relevance reaching it's expiry date and would like to
make the most of it in the short term.
|
>> Are the EU more likely to agree to a delay if it is a longer
>> delay ie time to fully go back to the drawing board and start all over
>> again ? Whether that does or does not include another referendum?
>>
>> I keep hearing the democratic right and we must leave etc or democracy fails, but
>> surely with all the misinformation, Cambridge Analytica, Banks, the lies on billboards etc etc, surely
>> no one can say that the vote was truly democratic in its principles?
Propaganda, smears, rhetoric, hyperbole, and extreme economy with the truth are all part of the democratic process.
You will find examples whichever end of the telescope you are looking down.
More relevant in the is case I would say is the margin.
Given that there is a range of possible Brexits, none of which was specified in the referendum and some of which are barely Brexit at all, natural justice would be to have something near the middle - a softish Brexit.
The problem with that in these days of 'populism' is that most voters seem to lie at the extremes of opinion - cutting the baby in half means nearly everybody is unhappy.
|
|
Blair will be grinning like a slice of melon as the odds shorten on him becoming president of Europe.
|
Vote 1)
May: Vote for my deal because it's good.
Westminster: No
Vote 2)
May: Vote for my deal or we might leave with no deal.
Westminster: No
Vote 3)
May: Vote to leave No Deal on the table then.
Westminster: No.
Vote 4)
May: Vote for no extension to our leave date.
Westminster: No.
Vote 5)May: Vote for my deal or we'll have to get a very long delay from the EU
Westminster: [tbd]
How long will this woman keep going? It would appear that she'll do anything to keep people occupied while the clock runs out.
www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47579033
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 15 Mar 19 at 19:07
|
|
Her deal will be agreed next week.
|
………..as each politician in turn pretends that something has changed and that change was entirely down to their previous "no" vote, but now that the Prime Minister has "listened" to them they are prepared to do their duty for the country and vote "yes".
Fidiots. All of them.
|
Does everybody understand that to leave or not leave is a binary decision. There are no conditions to leaving, there is nothing to be agreed.
It is just leave or stay.
An entirely secondary matter is whether or not the EU will agree to keeping some of the arrangements in place for a period of time after we have left while we sort things out, and that is called a transition agreement. Which it isn't really, it's more like a period of grace.
The EU is prepared to do that, and has told us the price. And has told us it won't change the price.
What are we saying now?
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47594875
The first of many, I wonder how many MPs will be deselected or just not bother standing again?
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47594875
"I regret that my relationship with you should end in this way. But a politician without principles is worthless"
We know, we've got several hundred of them.
|
|
we have spares, the wedding joke springs to mind.
|
Speaker has made a statement to the house which appears to rule out another Meaningful Vote unless it is substantially different to that put last Tuesday.
Lot of points of order raised and he's made clear this is not his final word on the subject:
goo.gl/ywZs6P
Wind start time back to 15:32.
|
May is asking for a three month extension in order to have time to put the laws through. If it takes 3 months for that to happen then that means before Christmas she knew it couldn't be done by March, but she waited until now to ask for an extension.
Fidiots.
|
|
As far as I can tell can see no request has yet been made to the EU for an extension 3 months or otherwise. Do you have a source?
|
>> As far as I can tell can see no request has yet been made to
>> the EU for an extension 3 months or otherwise. Do you have a source?
Was being widely reported this morning following speculation she might go for long extension with option to bail out after 3 months if her deal had passed by then. Said to be threats of cabinet resignations (BArclay and Fox, possibly Leadsom) if she went for longer.
As Mark says they knew in December it would take 3 months after agreement passed to get multiple pieces of legislation through. Some of that legislation is likely to be controversial. It should be remembered that while Ted Heath got his 'Meaningful Vote' to join in 71 over the line by significant majority much of subsequent legislation was late night/close call guerilla warfare.
Heath had a working majority.
|
Report here:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/20/brexit-theresa-may-to-ask-for-three-month-delay-to-article-50
EU seem frustrated as it's by no means clear that May has agreement to do anything in the 3 month timescale. Meanwhile she has been 'requested' to attend tonights meeting of the Tory party backbench 1922 Committee.
|
One can only hope the EU say 'non'.
Then it's revoke A50 or no deal time.
Parliament have already rejected no deal...
|
>> As far as I can tell can see no request has yet been made to
>> the EU for an extension 3 months or otherwise. Do you have a source?
Ahh, I see subtlety of that question now. Although Number 10 has briefed on having requested 6 months Donald Tusk denies having received anything.
|
letter just received by EU
tinyurl.com/yysxz5ys - links to news.yahoo.com
(link shortened to restore correct page width)
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 20 Mar 19 at 12:53
|
As I said...
"May is asking for a three month extension in order to have time to put the laws through. If it takes 3 months for that to happen then that means before Christmas she knew it couldn't be done by March, but she waited until now to ask for an extension."
Even if her deal had been passed, she knew there was not sufficient time. She *KNEW* two months ago that she would be asking for an extension.
Awful woman, and getting awful-er.
|
|
1:45 p.m. Daily Telegraph reports that Juncker opines that 23 May should be the maximum extension, to avoid UK participating in UE elections
|
|
4:10. Tusc says short extension possible if May's deal is passed by Commons. That seems to mean no extension.
|
>> 4:10. Tusc says short extension possible if May's deal is passed by Commons. That seems
>> to mean no extension.
I think what they mean is she cannot have a short extension to kick the can down the road again. Three months is estimated time needed to pass Withdrawal Agreement Bill and multiple tranches of secondary legislation that goes with it. As I suggested earlier her parlous majority and split party may mean clauses being lost or a wholesale logjam. And then there's the Lords....
If it was a meaningful extension to allow a different proposal such as a softer Brexit with UK in Customs Union or EFTA type deal attitude may be different. Same obviously if there's a GE or another referendum.
|
Seems a fair response to me;
"We need more time to pass the laws after agreement."
"Well call me when you've made your agreement."
Clearly she intends to keep submitting her deal until it is finally passed.
I do have a bright idea though;
The object to May's plan was that we would remain subject to the EU rules and regs for those two years, we'd have to keep paying in, we thought we could get a better transition deal, we didn't wan tot sign up to it, and of course the back stop.
Well, why doesn't she go back and say;
"ok, we want an extension of 2 years, and then in two years time we'll hard exit"
No transition deal, no long lasting backstop, nothing to sign up to, no hard border in Ireland, no endless agreement; just two years for companies and people to do what the Government clearly can't and then hard exit.
I see no flaw.
|
An interesting one for Brussels to propose would be
"Ok you can have a 3m extension if you can persuade us that it is reasonably probable that you will exit by 30 June, (i.e. get the deal passed in Parliament first or decide to leave without one) OR it's a 5 year extension for you to solve your problem in another way which is clearly not a quick job."
That would give the UK time (given two years is clearly not enough) to put the current mess down a deep hole and forget it, have a general election after the parties have had time to set out their stalls., have another referendum if necessary, maybe with a supermajority required, and with a defined deal option for leaving to vote on that leaves nothing to be agreed and therefore requires no backstop other than remaining in the EU (on the grounds that if producing a unicorn in 5 years can't be done then it is impossible).
I don't agree with referendums, but maybe the only way to change the decision and to include a meaningful definition of it is to have another one with the choices fully defined.
|
I think the only outcome that lets the Tory party move on would be TM's deal.
No deal or no Brexit both leave half the party unhappy with each other.
TM's deal means they all get to save face and b*tch about TM letting them down!
I see immigration is going well.... ;-)
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-parliaments-47653160
Mr Corbyn has faced criticism after walking out of a Brexit meeting with the PM on Wednesday because Labour defectors, who are now members of the Independent Group, turned up.
Unbelievable.
|
|
And at this moment in time he is in Brussels having talks. Sewer Rat.
|
>> And at this moment in time he is in Brussels having talks. Sewer Rat.
>
Is the sewer rat comment about his being in Brussels or just around Corbyn in general?
|
|
He doesn't play well with others, on recent form. E.g. refusing to engage with the Govt unless his conditions were met in full first...
|
www.itv.com/news/2019-03-21/has-the-prime-minister-cracked-her-chief-whip/
As if things couldn't get any worse for the PM she's managed to fall out with her chief whip.
|
tinyurl.com/A50-petition
As of time of posting this petition has 1.75m signatories.
At midday it was well under 1m.
|
Which means that approximately 64.25 million people haven't signed it.
The electorate voted to leave the EU. It wasn't my choice, but that was the democratic wish of the electorate.
|
The electorate is around 46 million.
|
|
Do you have to be on the electoral roll to sign an online petition?
|
>> Do you have to be on the electoral roll to sign an online petition?
I had to give my name and postcode so it's possible there's a check. OTOH should my two immediate colleagues who are EU residents here, or UK citizens resident in EU, be prohibited from taking part?
|
Someone asked on BBC HYS whether we should just not bother with local council elections as we already had one a few years back. Seems a reasonable point really. Lots has changed in the UK and the world since the original vote, not least the composition of the electorate, so why would a second vote be so bad, especially if it were framed to give a better idea of what the electorate really wants.
I must admit I strongly don't think a second referendum is the right thing to be doing but I also don't think it would be particularly anti-democracy.
|
I just logged on to write exactly what Smokie has already written.
How on earth is a second referendum after 3 years undemocratic?
That is not to say I think it should happen, because I don't. But undemocratic? Hardly.
Remain supporters want a second referendum because how could it be worse than now? And Leave supporters don't want a referendum because for them it can only get worse.
Naff all to do with anti-democracy.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 22 Mar 19 at 00:17
|
>> Someone asked on BBC HYS whether we should just not bother with local council elections
>> as we already had one a few years back. Seems a reasonable point really. Lots
>> has changed in the UK and the world since the original vote, not least the
>> composition of the electorate, so why would a second vote be so bad, especially if
>> it were framed to give a better idea of what the electorate really wants.
>>
>> I must admit I strongly don't think a second referendum is the right thing to
>> be doing but I also don't think it would be particularly anti-democracy.
>>
I agree with this. We vote to retain or change a government every 5 or fewer years based on how things have gone since the last vote, which is of course entirely democratic. The idea that holding another vote on leaving the EU based on how things have gone over the past 3 years is somehow undemocratic, is ridiculous.
It's like saying that the government we elect at the next general election should never be removed from office, no matter what happens during their tenure.
Last edited by: DP on Fri 22 Mar 19 at 08:09
|
Way are the anti-sencond referendum people so worried? Surely if thier case is still so water tight then it should be a walk in the park..but we know that it isn't.
As has been said a 3 year gap is more than enough time to have passed to justifiably hold a second vote.
|
"As has been said a 3 year gap is more than enough time to have passed to justifiably hold a second vote."
We should keep holding referendums until we get the right answer.
|
>> We should keep holding referendums until we get the right answer.
No, just a more informed answer now much of the guff spouted by both campaigns in the run up to the original vote has been debunked, and a clearer (if still not totally clear) view of the reality of the situation is available.
We know quite a lot of things now that we didn't know then, any of which could have significantly influenced the vote.
The extra £350m a week that we could spend on the NHS was nonsense
The economic rack and ruin that would materialise as a direct result of a Leave vote was nonsense
The idea the EU would roll over and give us everything because we are so important was nonsense
The idea that the EU was more afraid of a no deal scenario than we were was nonsense
The idea that our politicians were of a suitable calibre to lead us through this process was nonsense
The idea that leaving would be easy, and no deal wouldn't affect our economy was nonsense
We didn't know that the drop in EU immigration we've already seen would impact vital public services like the NHS in the way that they are starting to. According to the BMJ, 63,000 (5.7%) of NHS staff has non-UK European Union nationality, and for the first time in over 20 years we have a net exit from the NHS by EU-trained clinicians
We didn't know that prominent leave campaigners such as Rees-Mogg had a significant vested financial interest in a no deal Brexit.
The EU has presented a united front over and above individual member states concerns, at least in public. The German car industry / French wine industry has played second fiddle to the Union as a whole.
etc etc.
Any decision in life is based on the information to hand at the time. If new information comes to light that may affect that decision, it is a perfectly rational and reasonable response to feed that information into the decision-making process, and to potentially change your decision accordingly. Equally, you may decide not to change your mind. The point is, you would normally have the choice. These situations are fluid.
Last edited by: DP on Fri 22 Mar 19 at 11:24
|
I don't think that is so much as undemocratic but it is fairly unusual. Here and in many countries voting every 4/5/6 years is quite a routine affair. Having a referendum is rare, especially here, having a second referendum is even more so.
Both sides seem to be in favour or not of a second referendum because it'll advance or defend their position rather than an exercise in democracy.
|
>>Both sides seem to be in favour or not of a second referendum because it'll advance or defend their position rather than an exercise in democracy.
Exactly that.
I'd think that Remain would leave in a second referendum, but I doubt it'd be much more of a majority than Leave have this time so it would solve nothing. Unless a referendum is going to produce a sizeable majority one way or the other it is a pointless thing.
However, it's been three years and the politicians have achieved nothing and are still asking for delays. They should be sacked for such an abysmal failure. Though I notice that the main clowns have gone very quiet over recent weeks.
How may can go on about giving people they want and yet have taken 3 years and her only answer is to repeatedly have votes on the same thing is stupid. There's a woman subscribing to Haywain's approach of keep going until you get the answer you want.
I didn't think leaving was the right approach, but it could have been managed. The shambles of the last three years which also appears to be continuing indefinitely is quite another matter. Surely nobody can think that has been a good idea or good for the country.
|
>> tinyurl.com/A50-petition
>>
>> As of time of posting this petition has 1.75m signatories.
Now 3m all but. When does it get significant? 5m? 10m? 20m?
I guess at 17m it cannot be ignored, but if I was a political party I think I'd start to worry at 7.5m
However, I'm guessing it'll run out of steam before it gets to 4m.
|
The petition will have no effect on govt policy.
I think it will embolden the fifth columnists in parliament though.
No reason to suspect a second vote would have a much different outcome.
Not many leavers would switch their vote and vice versa - it's a decision of the gut for leavers.
And we know what guts contain.
May's vote will fail for a 3rd and final time.
No deal or No brexit.
Parliament has already ruled one out.
|
|
We should swap Theresa May for Alex McLeish, he'd get us out of Europe pretty damned quick.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 22 Mar 19 at 12:09
|
>>We should swap Theresa May for Alex McLeish, he'd get us out of Europe pretty damned quick.
You mean...?
tinyurl.com/May-fury-Scotland-Brexit
|
>>The petition will have no effect on govt policy.
If 20m voted then you'd have to be even more stupid than our current politicians to ignore it. Depending on the number of voters, it could absolutely have an impact on Government policy.
However, it simply won't get that many signatures.
|
>>However, it simply won't get that many signatures
Exactly. Not everyone uses t'internet or is aware of the petition.
TM will not change her tack even if it had 5 or 10m signatures.
When/if her deal fails to be agreed what option is there other than revoke A50?
Assuming rEU don't agree to a further extension, and even if they do we'll need a further round of MEP elections in May.
Perhaps this time we'll actually think about the fuds we send to Brussels.
Unlikely though, especially in England/Wales.
|
I have said many times that those who wanted Brexit should support TM's deal. Still they clung, and cling, to the belief that there is something better to be had.
Nonetheless, it would not surprise me if TM's deal is passed the next time around. What else are they going to do?
|
> No deal or No brexit.
>>
>> Parliament has already ruled one out.
They've indicated that they wouldn't like no deal but nothing more at the moment iirc.
|
"Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage suggested that "Russian collusion" was behind the unprecedented traffic towards the Brexit petition."
t***.
|
>> "Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage suggested that "Russian collusion" was behind the unprecedented traffic towards the Brexit petition."
>>
...his handler has confirmed it.....
|
If you look at the 'show on map' tab then use the '% of constituents' filter it tallies with the distribution I'd expect for genuine votes:
Urban Scotland, London, Brighton, Bristol, Oxford, Cambridge at higher end of votes, poorer and rural areas at lower end.
Doubt bot activity is significant.
3.4m last I looked.
|
|
Since you have to vote, give a post code, set up and then give a unique email, log into that mail some indeterminate time later and then reply to the confirming email, I'd have to believe that significant bot contribution is most unlikely.
|
>Since you have to vote, give a post code, set up and then give a unique email,..
It's not difficult to setup a bot to handle that, especially if you have the resources that someone wanting to intefere in British politics is likely to have.
Can't see why Russia would want to do it though. I would have thought that they would see it more advantageous in the long term for the EU to disintegrate.
|
|
I think setting up and validating 1m email addresses might slow it down a bit. That'd be the bothersome bit.
|
>I think setting up and validating 1m email addresses might slow it down a bit.
>That'd be the bothersome bit.
You don't need to, you just need to re-direct the email addresses you provide back to your server(s) and have the bot listening on the correct ports.
|
3.56m
Not going up as fast as yesterday, but still rising. Topping out though, I should think.
|
Map suggests they turkeys still want their Christmas.
Christmas means Christmas, and all that.
|
It's 3.66 now. So increasing, but a comparative crawl.
I do believe our country may be a little bit
f***ed.
|
Well how about that....
The voting continues it seems. Now 5,405,299.
Nothing like a majority of course, but still an awful lot of hacked off people for a political party to worry about.
|
"Brexit: Europe's no-deal preparation 'falls short', say businesses"
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47661237
|
|
Undoubtedly true. But for them that will be a bad thing, not the same as the disaster it will be for us.
|
>> Undoubtedly true. But for them that will be a bad thing, not the same as
>> the disaster it will be for us.
>>
Tbh the latter is looking better by the day rather than the endless going round in circles we've got now.
|
Here we go again...…..
www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47668067
Will people *never* learn? What a complete £u%^ this man is.
|
|
I am not a violent man, but the mere sight of his face makes me want to punch it repeatedly.
|
You were lucky you didn't live near me then, NF lived not far from Biggin Hill and I often saw him crossing the Waitrose car park before he went into the small Tesco express.
At that time he drove a oldish racing green Range Rover, daughter used to serve him and said he always bought the same, copy of the FT and 40 L&B.
Day after the referendum I literally bumped into him coming out of Tesco's along with two big burly body guards.
Still has an hour radio show on LBC which is an immediate turn over for me... just one big echo chamber!
|
|
He must have something to have created, virtually singlehandedly, such an historic constitutional turmoil.
|
>> He must have something to have created, virtually singlehandedly, such an historic constitutional turmoil.
He's risen to prominence at a time when a lot of people have seen their job security erode, their living standards fall, their health service decline, their kids come home with letters from the school asking for contributions to buy books and equipment, and austerity generally taking chunks out of all of their public services. People have been failed by the status quo, and he's capitalised on it. Not only that, but he's positioned the EU as being the reason for all these problems, and leaving it as the solution to it all. He's a textbook populist.
Trump is in the White House by similar means. Take people's genuine grievances and dissatisfaction, blame something for all of it, and vow to take action against that thing. It works. It has always worked.
Last edited by: DP on Mon 25 Mar 19 at 11:37
|
If you're one of those scared of the 'evil' EU, this this is not for you.
However, it's a news service I follow because you always get the European (not UK) perspective. Not necessarily that it is better quality, just that it is a different perspective. Unless reporting on Brexit, their perspective is that the UK will soon not be an EU Member and is therefore paid less attention.
For example there's just been a discussion on how the EU needs to stick together when dealing with China, especially now that the EU can now longer rely on US support.
Now they are examining the life of the Spanish Truck Driver under the EU - what's good and what's not. [Spanish truck drivers seemingly not happy]
etc. etc.
It's a similar format to BBC World News. I do recommend giving it a go, I find it interesting and, given my dealings, useful.
[It's English language, in case that is important to you. As a minimum there are subtitles, but most is actually in English].
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 26 Mar 19 at 15:22
|
|
What's the name of the news service?
|
Doh, what a t***. Sorry.
Euro News
www.euronews.com/live
|
JRM just now on the wireless: "One thing that people like me haven't considered yet is ...Brexit as a process, not an event".
Good grief. One thing I hadn't considered is that he is actually an idiot.
|
>>
>> One thing I hadn't considered is that he is actually an idiot.
>>
...Oh, I had; quite often.......
|
So May has announced her departure in last gasp attempt to get MV3 over line.
Looks like another epic fail as DUP have confirmed they'll still vote against.
Our politics look more and more like those 'What Happened Next' clips from A Question of Sport.
|
...as a comment I saw earlier said,
"Only Theresa May could throw herself under a bus, and miss....."
|
|
I guess this is why the parties have whips. I suppose it's back to the PM's deal or no deal.
|
We demand to take charge say the MP's.
And?
Shoot, we dont know what to do.
|
>> Shoot, we dont know what to do.
Grauniad reports all indicative offers defeated.
Not sure why that's a surprise. There were eight options; it would have been amazing if one commanded an immediate majority.
Eliminate the worst fails and hold round 2 vote on remaining choices.
Still no majority? Go to round three.
|
The idea is to establish whether ther is a compromise around which a majority can agree. The process of one of elimination so you shouldn’t expect an overall majority in the first round. Indeed If there was a clear initial favourite there wouldn’t be a need for the process.
Two ideas were not that far from a majority though, permanent customs union and second referendum so assuming the May deal continues to be rejected we are looking to be heading for a softer Brexit.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Wed 27 Mar 19 at 22:48
|
It doesn't work like that though does it.
Why would removing say 6 of the proposals necessarily change any MP's opinion of the other 3?
It isn't an exclusive/complete set of options, one of which must succeed.
To the extent that it is a list of all possibilities, it is only telling us that none would satisfy a majority.
|
>> We demand to take charge say the MP's.
>>
>>
>> And?
>>
>>
>> Shoot, we dont know what to do.
>>
It also brought to my mind a main BREXIT requirement of taking back control.
But surely giving it to that lot isn't betterment...?
|
|
The failure of parliament to act as a government just illustrates the value of and reason for the normal procedures, whereby the government proposes, and parliament votes on things.
|
The Majority of the populous voted out - they didn't care about or want any deal, they just wanted out full stop.The decision was made, who the heck do the MP's think they are to override the vote?
Judging by the hash they have made of it so far, and making Britain look like fools, they shouldn't be trusted to try and alter anything, and none of the bounders in Parliament today should ever be elected again, what else could you trust them with after this? - no deal is looking better and better!
|
|
I'm more of the opinion that that we should never trust the electorate to to make complicated decisions on issues they don't understand by referendums me and that we should revert to being a parliamentary democracy.
|
>> The Majority of the populous voted out
1) No, they didn't
2) "Out" was not defined
3) They were wrong to do so, if one of their metrics was the best for the UK.
|
>> The Majority of the populous voted out - they didn't care about or want any
>> deal, they just wanted out full stop.The decision was made, who the heck do the
>> MP's think they are to override the vote?
Leave won by a small margin on those who chose to vote; that's a long way from majority of the population.
The referendum was explicitly advisory, had it not been it's likely that UK citizens resident in EU would have had to be given a vote. During the campaign leave was mostly portrayed as being like Norway or Switzerland. Only later did referendum morph into a holy writ for hard Brexit.
Of options in yesterday's indicative vote only one, withdraw Article 50, directly contradicted the 2016 referendum. The rest were about different flavours of Brexit and need for a confirmatory referendum.
Quite what tomorrow's vote is intended to achieve is opaque and looks like a last throw of the dice where only the withdrawal agreement is on the table. It almost looks like a cynical attempt to portray Labour, should they vote against, as the party that tried to stop Brexit.
Even as the cliff edge crumbles under our feet it's still being played to the advantage of the Tory party.
|
>> Even as the cliff edge crumbles under our feet it's still being played to the advantage of the Tory party.
..and individuals within it.
Without a shadow of doubt insofar as the Conservative part as a whole is concerned the future of the UK comes a sad second to their own self interest.
|
>> The referendum was explicitly advisory,
That's as may be, but Cameron as I recall stated that the result would be implemented.
|
>>That's as may be, but Cameron as I recall stated that the result would be implemented
True, but constitutionally no government can tie the hands of a future one...
|
>> >>That's as may be, but Cameron as I recall stated that the result would be
>> implemented
>>
>> True, but constitutionally no government can tie the hands of a future one...
Good point.
|
>> >> True, but constitutionally no government can tie the hands of a future one...
>>
>> Good point.
We don't have a constitution.
|
>>
>> We don't have a constitution.
>>
......we don't have a Government........
:-(
|
|
Erskine May actually is accepted as a constitutional reference.
|
>> Erskine May actually is accepted as a constitutional reference.
>>
Erskine May is the reference work for parliamentary procedure and practice.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erskine_May:_Parliamentary_Practice
It is not a written national constitution, because we don't have one.
|
|
Erskine May is looked upon as as the foundation of the constitution..without it Parliament would not be able to function effectively and consistently
|
>> .without it Parliament would
>> not be able to function effectively and consistently
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Yeah well that went well
|
|
Of course we have a Constitution, just not a codified one like the United States. It draws upon a lot of different sources.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Thu 28 Mar 19 at 23:42
|
>> Of course we have a Constitution, just not a codified one like the United States.
>> It draws upon a lot of different sources.
Of course we don't have one. Any government in power can revoke any of of our human rights given a sufficient majority in parliament. There isn't even a check and balance functioning second house. One of the reasons for being in the EU was some form of protection from government.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 29 Mar 19 at 06:22
|
Russia, Venezuela and Syria have very fine written constitutions but they don't seem to offer very much protection to their people do they?
Our system has served us well over the years and English law. And Justice is respected the world over.
A written constitution is no guarantee that it will be implemented.
I don't recall anyone wanting to be in the EU to be protected from our Government
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Fri 29 Mar 19 at 08:00
|
>> I don't recall anyone wanting to be in the EU to be protected from our
>> Government
I think Zero may be inadvertently mixing up EU and the European Convention on Human Rights, together with its associated Court. By importing the ECHR into domestic law as the Human Rights Act we can enforce those rights in our own courts.
Looking at wider issue of constitution some of us are arguing from different premises.
Taking US as example the Constitution sets out how government is to work in terms of respective powers of both parts of Congress and the President and the checks and balances between them. It also gives rights to citizens such as all being equal and right to free speech. There is a long and ongoing history of both both Federal and State Governments riding roughshod over the latter.
In UK how government works is a mish mash of history, tradition and law. Erskine May is a guide to the history and traditions of Parliament codified into a set of rules.
What the Human Rights Act does is give us protections equivalent to some of those the US and other Constitutions provide to individuals. Government can still remove those protections by repealing the act, leaving those with grievances to take their cases to Strasbourg.
Or it can withdraw from the convention altogether.
|
The Majority of the populous voted out
1. Many believed genuinely that this was a "good thing"
2. Some voted out because of some strange notion of going back to a time that never existed
3. Some voted out because of a deluded view on immigration
4. Some voted out because they believed the lies they were told
5. Some voted out as a protest against the Government
6. At least one voted out despite agreeing with free movement
And a thousand other reasons
|
|
Another meaningful vote tomorrow. No signs of DUP changing their minds so looks like back to the EU fo a longer deferment of Article 50
|
Brexit Discussion - Volume 77 - No FM2R
