True, and likely another hung parliament with the dup taking a bung.
it's just all idiocy.
If they ignore a majority outcome in an indicative vote then the no confidence motion that will be placed I suspect will pass a
That would require the Tories to vote for a General election - which ain't gonna happen.
Looking ever more certain that we will crash out with no deal.
That would require the Tories to vote for a General election – which ain’t gonna happen.
Depends how many she has pissed off.
To be honest we need to see where this next vote goes.
By the noises coming out of Brussels this morning, it sounds like the EU are taking a No Deal Crash out as a given. Its difficult to see anythign else really
I think that between now and that ultimately inevitable event we're going to witness levels of self-serving muppetry an epic incompetence on a truly biblical scale. I know we've see that already but I've got a horrible sinking feeling that we ain't seen nothing yet
If we have a general election, won’t we just be faced with the same choice as last time. 2 parties of useless self-serving muppets, both of whom seek to deliver some fantasy cake-and-eat-it Brexit?
No, I’ll be voting for a third party, who don’t want any Brexit at all and have been completely united in their opposition to it throughout the process
They’re only standing in 58 seats though.
So, here’s the question...If the SNP didn’t constantly bang on about independence all the time and stood nationally with rest of their manifesto except the independence stuff would you vote for them instead?
So... we're having another vote until we get the answer we want? It'd be amusing if the Tories had to go cap in hand to TIG for support.
Brexit aside, the whole thing is a farce. Not only could government not organise a piss-up in a brewery, when they tried they used actual piss. It's truly an embarrassment.
If we have a general election, won’t we just be faced with the same choice as last time. 2 parties of useless self-serving muppets, both of whom seek to deliver some fantasy cake-and-eat-it Brexit?
Well if the 56% or whatever it is now of voters decide "just this once" to consider Brexit to be the single most important issue the country faces at the moment and more important than party loyalty, a non-Brexit party could form a government in a GE.
What about MPs of all parties making it clear they support either a referendum on the deal, or parliament stopping Brexit by recinding A50? Should they be unopposed by this mythical "anti-Brexit" party? I mentioned that a TORY GOVERNMENT MINISTER has said he will back a vote in parliament to recind A50 now. Plenty of Labour MPs have been talking sense for months (years) on this as well. A general election will solve nothing on its own. Get Brexit stopped (or at least made clear and let us vote to accept/reject it) and then a general election will be follow on behind before you know it. May can't survive that, and nor can any replacement Tory government avoid seeking a new mandate.
I don't think a second referendum would solve anything unless it was a massive landslide towards a meaningful outcome (i.e. either Revoke A50, accept May's Deal, or No Deal).
Chances are though that it will be a marginal decision and just raise tensions on the "will of the people" still further.
Insightful and damning article by the FT (no pay wall).
https://www.ft.com/content/5f3df8bc-4c03-11e9-bde6-79eaea5acb64
BBC R4 world at one talking like indicative votes and parliament taking control of the house is a certainty.
I don’t think a second referendum would solve anything unless it was a massive landslide towards a meaningful outcome (i.e. either Revoke A50, accept May’s Deal, or No Deal).
It's what would happen in between now and then that would be meaningful.
In a democratic environment, the ability to gather facts and review a current state of affairs in light of new information is universally the most appropriate way forward. We have reached the point where we have the ability to take a period of reflection, debate, and inform the nation of what could lie ahead.
Without this, ploughing ahead regardless of consequences will set a chain of events that will almost certainly not be seen kindly in history.
I don’t think a second referendum would solve anything unless it was a massive landslide towards a meaningful outcome (i.e. either Revoke A50, accept May’s Deal, or No Deal).
I don't think anything will fix anything quickly.
In my mind we have a acute problem - we need to do something with Brexit in days, not months or years. We can't ignore it (not that it's really possible) and parliament can't do it. Sadly, all the very factions apart from the ones who just want to remain are too busy fighting tooth and nail to accept the chance of losing fairly with a vote based on fact and not fiction. If they can get over that, of just enough MPs in the middle can, then a Deal v Remain vote will break that deadlock. Ignore the ****s who think WTO is a good idea or are making bullshit claims of being able to sort a better deal in days with the EU who aren't open to that. It's deal or remain, that's the only two real options.
Then there's the chronic problem of decades of distrust of the EU and the hatred and bile that's built up between normal people in the UK, the Hard Right EDL / UKIP and Hard Left Socialist Workers Party types are few in number and deeply entrenched. Frankly most of them are so full of hate of the people who they've chosen to blame for their problems they'll never change. It's not an instant fix, but a vote of Deal v Remain, whatever the result is tolerable for most people.
I'm an dyed in the wool remainer, but if I 'lost' a real world deal v remain ref, I'd accept it, I'd live with it, and I'd move on.
I think it's the only way for the UK to heal from this, it's the only way the UK political system can survive this and it's the only way to move forward.
Even if we leave on May's deal, which, as above, is tolerable, Reaminers like me will always blame it whenever things go wrong and the ERG / Momentum types will always do the same.
…and just raise tensions on the “will of the people” still further.
Every single option beyond Friday will result in this. Farage is out there saying that even the tiny delay 'till middle of next month is a betrayal, and that the Withdrawal Agreement does not reflect the will of the people… etc. Anything that happens now will be painted as "undemocratic" and "not what people voted for" whether we have further public votes or not.
fantasy cake
mmm, cake
popped out for a bike ride (well couriering some stuff for work) only tok about 90 mins in the time I was away MV3 was on, off then on again, but maybe later in the week
a few years ago this level of dysfunction would have been shocking
now, its just a regular day in Carry On Up The Brexit
From the Guardian: " In it, she [May] says she cannot commit to accept the result of anything decided in indicative votes.
She says no MP can commit to accepting something that contradicts the manifesto on which they were elected."
She has also ruled out no deal if Parliment is still agianst it.
So it seems to me the only optiosn as it stands is her deal or a general election. Of course sh'e probably changed her mind already
Of course sh’e probably changed her mind already
That’s why her name isn’t Theresa Will
She says no MP can commit to accepting something that contradicts the manifesto on which they were elected.”
There is one born every minute, it's almost Homer Simpson like in the "It's my first day" that one... I'm sure there are a list of things in manifesto's she has gone back on, or does not trying to do it not count?
In other news: Darren Grimes, youth face of Leave caught up in election controversy for being a very naughty boy with his campaigning, unwittingly thinks Schengen is brilliant when he tweeted about breezing into Switzerland.
Just crossed the border from Italy into Switzerland, not a bother, it’s almost like it doesn’t have to be. Somehow. It’s almost like it’s not beyond the wit of man.
You know, Schengen, the whole principle of freedom of movement you pushed people to vote to remove?
Either trolling or thick as two bricks. Not sure which at this point in time.
You know, Schengen, the whole principle of freedom of movement you pushed people to vote against?
Either trolling or thick as two bricks. Not sure which at this point in time.
Ah so that is how we fix the NI Border we join Schengen
Ah so that is how we fix the NI Border we join Schengen
Someone let Theresa know!
That's unwitting genius.
At the same time, we could do some sort of useful trade deal with this region of no border checks.
If we have a general election, won’t we just be faced with the same choice as last time. 2 parties of useless self-serving muppets, both of whom seek to deliver some fantasy cake-and-eat-it Brexit?
Unless something massive changes the two major parties at the moment would only offer May's Brexit (which is at least 'real') and Corbyn's which the EU hasn't agreed, fun times.
My Local MP Anna McMorrin has been saying and doing some good things for the Remain camp, but North Cardiff voted with a higher % of remain voters than London, so it's to be expected.
I would love a massive change and the Indies / Lib Dems to make massive in-roads, but the last that seemed likely it didn't really come to pass and cost them dearly.
Interesting read regarding the legalities around "crashing out" etc...
https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2019/03/23/extending-article-50-separating-myth-and-legal-reality
Theresa May, hypocrite, today:
"No government could give a blank cheque to commit to an outcome without knowing what it is."
Such as for instance committing to do some sort of Brexit and triggering A50, without knowing what sort of Brexit will happen, because you haven't agreed what the Brexit deal is with Europe?
Oooofff… Tory MP on PM (Radio4) saying that it is not for parliament to decide how we Leave… and she'll vote against any proposal on how we Leave except for No Deal… as that is the Will Of The People.
Except the EU very clearly stated that they would not entertain any negotiations until A50 was triggered. So how could anyone know what the deal was beforehand?
Seems neither side is above making stuff up to suit an agenda.
@kelvin wtf? She's a bit late, Boris already dropped that bombshell the morning after.
Except the EU very clearly stated that they would not entertain any negotiations until A50 was triggered.
We needed a UK plan/position before we started negotiating. Surely it must be clear to everyone why by now? Yes, the EU would say no… but only if "we" ignored the advice of our diplomats and those in our civil service who said, quite clearly, from the start, what the trade offs would be, and what the EU position, based on its known laws and rules, would be.
wtf?
I don't know. As an MP she is choosing her preferred way of Leaving, and voting accordingly, but it's not for MPs to decide, according to her.
Except the EU very clearly stated that they would not entertain any negotiations until A50 was triggered. So how could anyone know what the deal was beforehand?
The sticking point has been getting the 'deal' past parliament, not the EU. Might've been prudent to sort that out before even bothering wasting the EU's time with a deal we don't want ourselves, n'est-ce pas?
Having the first clue what Brexit would look like, before triggering A50, might indeed have been a good idea, as in "we will exit, if we can get yyy and zzz". Maybe also some sort of option for "if we can't get xxx, then we revoke A50". Or even, just to satisfy the nutbags, "if we can get aaa, bbb, and ccc, but not ddd, then nuclear". Who knows what crazy stuff they could have dreamed up, argued about, and agreed on before all this last minute headless chicken act came to be.
The EU might not have officially "entertained negotiations" but I'd bet there would be some senior figures who would have been willing to at least suggest the likely acceptable outcomes.
But what we had was no plan at all. None, nada, zip, squat, FA. Which was, frankly, lunacy. And here we are. With headless chickens in charge.
Absolutely, but that's not what...
Such as for instance committing to do some sort of Brexit and triggering A50, without knowing what sort of Brexit will happen, because you haven’t agreed what the Brexit deal is with Europe?
... was saying.
D, A & F selected.
Amendment D: Jeremy Corbyn
Calls on government to make time this week to find a majority for a different approachAmendment A: Sir Oliver Letwin
Takes control of parliamentary timetable on Weds 27th to debate and vote on alternative ways forwardAmendment F: Margaret Beckett
Orders that MPs be given time to vote on whether to leave EU with no deal or to seek an extension, if we get within 7 days of leaving the EU without a deal being passed
So, official opposition amendment a total waste of time… when the Letwin version was briefed well in advance, and has an actual clear step to take. More vague postering. Some good and useful Labour back bench (and other opposition party) amendments lost out.
You're right, it's not, and I apologise for incorrectly wording my half assed anti MayBot rant.
Except the EU very clearly stated that they would not entertain any negotiations until A50 was triggered. So how could anyone know what the deal was beforehand?
Well for a start they could have come up with a position that was compatible with the rules of the eu and agreed that before triggering. A starting position for negotiation could have been agreed by parliament
Very good to see the must leave not selected.
You’re right, it’s not, and I apologise for incorrectly wording my half assed anti MayBot rant.
Yeah, likewise sorry for casting aspersions.
Well for a start they could have come up with a position that was compatible with the rules of the eu and agreed that before triggering. A starting position for negotiation could have been agreed by parliament
Mike, you're late, it's all over. We know. 😉
Except the EU very clearly stated that they would not entertain any negotiations until A50 was triggered. So how could anyone know what the deal was beforehand?
Seems neither side is above making stuff up to suit an agenda.
Waaat?
The EU said quite clearly that they wouldn't split the 4 freedoms, they offered us any of the existing deals they have with third countries, but we couldn't split the 4 freedoms.
That May kept up the brexiteets campaign fantasy that we somehow could was always setting her & the UK up for a fall.
She says no MP can commit to accepting something that contradicts the manifesto on which they were elected.”
Not strictly true. May's own Dementia Tax was quietly dropped after the election in June '17. Fans of historical Trafalgar Sq fisticuffs will also note that the Poll Tax manifesto pledge was similarly dropped once it proved to be a guaranteed vote loser.
Mike, you’re late, it’s all over. We know
The perils of posting from the train..
Waaat?
The EU said quite clearly that they wouldn’t split the 4 freedoms, they offered us any of the existing deals they have with third countries, but we couldn’t split the 4 freedoms.
That May kept up the brexiteets campaign fantasy that we somehow could was always setting her & the UK up for a fall.
@kimbers, they stated quite clearly after the referendum that they would not negotiate or discuss anything until Article 50 had been triggered.
You are arguing about something else entirely that nobody has brought up.
Mike - yeah, sometimes the cache is a bit slow.
Anyone know if the queen has ever had to step in
Tory MP Sir Oliver Letwin - one of those behind the amendment calling for MPs to take control of the parliamentary agenda on Wednesday - says ministers' objection to the amendment is "ostensibly" simply "constitutional".
He asks David Lidington whether the government intends to replicate "exactly" the process set out in the amendment in its own plan for a debate on alternative options.
"I can't give a commitment immediately for that level of detail," says Mr Lidington in reply.
"It may be that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State [Stephen Barclay] will be able to respond to that point in greater detail in his wind-up speech," he adds.
(From BBC Live https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-47696409 )
as transparent as good clean air.......
The Government wants to defeat Letwin's amendment by saying it will do that anyway to stack the field removing the choices they refuse to discuss.
So indicative votes on
May's Deal V1
May's Deal V2
May's Deal V3
Rather than the full suite of options
So indicative votes on
May’s Deal V1
May’s Deal V2
May’s Deal V3
Rather than the full suite of options
You really think that will fly given there's no change to the WA?
That would be sarcasm but there is a reason they want to be in charge of chosing them not the rest of parliament, it's already been suggested that any kind of remain option would not be presented by the government. Given they have already been held in contempt of parliament and have set out to frustrate parliament I don't expect them to do anything useful. That is why it's important that amendment goes through
Anyone know if the queen has ever had to step in
Quite a lot
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills
It's hard to tell sarcasm from satire from reality these day's, nevermind brexit fatigue, I think I've got amendment fatigue lol!
Not what the article says though, it says they have been asked for consent and only lists one that was not given
Military actions against Iraq (parliamentary approval bill) 1999 – consent not signified
It does not say either way if they monarchy had intervened or just given approval.
So pressure on the DUP
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1110267826600845312
Do you feel lucky? Well Do you?
Exactly how long after we leave will we be great again? I intend to hassle Grayling til he's in his grave if there's even a hint of things not being great.
I thought the DUP had totes fallen out with the tories as the WA would be treating NI differently to the UK, unless there's a UK wide customs agreement.
Have they had another bung and changed thier tune?
they stated quite clearly after the referendum that they would not negotiate or discuss anything until Article 50 had been triggered
They didn't have to. It's all written down… the rules regarding the Single Market etc… many Brits helped write them… we just had to listen to them before choosing our preferred path. Instead we sacked them, or ignored them, and pressed on before making any real decisions beyond the nonsense of "keeping all the benefits"…
I'd say it's more posturing from JRM in case it all falls apart - it wouldn't have mattered how he voted when the DUP wont vote for it. "I tried honest I tried - peasants"
So if England are not guaranteed to the World Cup are they going to stay home ?
Watching Parliament… now adding James Cartlidge to the growing list of sensible politicians. There really are a lot of MPs with an honest approach to why people voted, and what they are actually getting. Yes, many are Conservative. Not quoted in the press very often though. Definitely not appearing on the front page of the Telegraph with a new haircut, that's for sure. I've never heard of him before… yet all the headbangers are unavoidable.
Guys - debate with my fundamentalist brexiteer cousin over the proposed US / UK trade deal - linked her to some news stories on it and the US government paper on it but some analysis of what it actually means to us would be good. I think she might be starting to crack. Any good stuff to send her?
By the time the drug companies equalise the price in the right direction and we get a privatised NHS
Also with any trade deal it's not the headline numbers or cherry picked ones that make it good or bad for a country. It's about where it positions out key markets, helps our companies and core industries along with how it defends the needs of key areas like health, agriculture and defence.
Yes, many are Conservative
The media aren't interested in rational, well-thoughtout positions. Plenty of right of centre old-fashioned one-nation pro-EU Tories in parliament. Some of them even have a grasp of economics.
Performance artists are running the world.
Mike
The bill became Bill 35 in the 1998/1999 Parliamentary session, and was initially scheduled for second reading on 16 April 1999. As a bill modifying the monarch's prerogative powers, Queen's Consent was required before it could be debated in Parliament. The Queen, acting upon the advice of her government[4], refused to grant her consent for the Bill to be debated. The second reading was initially postponed from 16 April until 23 July 1999.[5][6] Due to the Crown's continuing refusal to signify its consent to the Bill being debated, it could not receive its second reading on 23 July 1999. In the absence of a request for a further postponement, the Bill was automatically dropped before it obtained its second reading.[7][8][9]
Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Action_Against_Iraq_(Parliamentary_Approval)_Bill
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1110276794823905280/photo/1
?? Does that work??
Basically Tories Whipping No to all Amendments, then Aye if all fail then no if it doesnt
Tom...
Did you read my post?
you claimed the Queen and PoW had intervened lots of times - that article doesn't say that.
I said yes at one point they had and it turns out that was at the request of the actual government
The Queen, acting upon the advice of her government[4], refused to grant her consent for the Bill to be debated.
In which I would think it was about the time parliament was trying to stop Blair going to war.
So there is one case on record where there was shown to be consent refused. It's not lots is it
That's a bit of a superficial appraisal of the article.
Just because only one was pulled doesn't mean to say that the spectre of royal approval doesn't effect the other bills in a more indirect or softer fashion - the fact that they have to get it past the Royals could influence decision making in of itself. I'm sure government ministers have a good idea of what will actually get past them before they even bother trying.
In which I would think it was about the time parliament was trying to stop Blair going to war.
Was he gearing up for it in 1999?
It's a distillation of the fact, after that you are in speculation. There is 1 documented case of any interference and it was at the request of the government. It's also said that in other cases they actually had to technically ask so it's not conclusive either way.
DUP spitting dummies about government seeking to protect NI from a no deal Brexit. Going to get much messier… fast…
It’s a distillation of the fact, after that you are in speculation. There is 1 documented case of any interference and it was at the request of the government. It’s also said that in other cases they actually had to technically ask so it’s not conclusive either way.
The fact that government fought hard not to release what little it actually did makes them suspect.
But even the one instance of known interference makes a mockery of "taking back" democratic control from the unelected EU boooorocratzs? Doesn't it? "At the request of government" doesn't make it any less of a mockery of democracy either, considering the huge amount of public opposition there was to the Iraq war.
Personally IDGAF but run all you like with it, just read what you are linking to and see if it actually proves what you are saying rather than speculates about it. Or just post some pics of people with Jimmy Saville
Well, if you really want to argue semantics Mike - technically the monarchy have "stepped in" every time they are asked to contribute to the legislative process. Just because the majority of those times ended with an outcome that you appear to deem acceptable, doesn't make that any less so.
I'm not arguing semantics, that is what you are doing to try and prove something there are no available facts to do.
If there were documented cases apart from the one under advice from the government then that would be different.
You are trying to then argue that a procedural ask is equivalent to interference, even if it results in a simple procedural agree.
It's like that "Does anyone know of any lawful impediment" bit of a wedding
procedural ask is equivalent to interference, even if it results in a simple procedural agree.
The fact that one was knocked back, doesn't make it the fluffy quaint kind "procedural" does it? It means that there is a very real threat there that legislation can be halted, in which case - the monarchy are "stepping in", every single time they are asked to sign off on legislature.
To think that we laugh at Americans.
Guys – debate with my fundamentalist brexiteer cousin over the proposed US / UK trade deal – linked her to some news stories on it and the US government paper on it but some analysis of what it actually means to us would be good. I think she might be starting to crack. Any good stuff to send her?
Once the UK is decimated, we'll all be able to get smaked up on state sponsored heroin rather than health care.
So at least we'll be so high we won't care... Is that a plus?
in which case – the monarchy are “stepping in”, every single time they are asked to do so.
I hope you don't apply that logic at work.
I do - asking for QA sign off is "procedural" - 95 times out of a hundred people have done their jobs properly and I sign - doesn't mean that it's a fluffy joke though. Don't tell me, R&D per chance?
Nope in this case you have decided a result, checked the evidence that doesn't fit and then tried to flip meanings and intent to make it fit the result you picked up front.....
anyway votes looming
Nope in this case you have decided a result, checked the evidence that doesn’t fit and then tried to flip meanings and intent to make it fit the result you picked up front…..
anyway votes looming
Nahhh, you're just reading too much into three words and a link and then projecting your thoughts onto me.
raybanwomble
Member
Anyone know if the queen has ever had to step in
Quite a lot
To quote....
Or more precisely once on record only at the request of the government. What did you mean by your three words? Once? Twice? Three times a lady?
You still don't like my definition of "stepping in" then do you? Is it only stepping in if it's bad? Put down the cocaine dude.
More your counting......
Well said Jenny Chapman, this is the key constitutional question how long can the government ignore Parliament.