The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, desensitized43 said:

If she does try any smoke and mirrors to save face Corbyn should be dusting off his VONC motion.

Wouldn't result in anything different. Arguably the result would be worse. The Tories and DUP aren't doing anything to risk a Labour government, let alone a Corbyn government, and the Not Party aren't going to support that either.

[blandy]

Quote

No majority of voters in any of the 632 constituencies in England, Scotland and Wales want their MP to back Theresa May's deal, according to a fresh analysis released just three days before a major Brexit vote.

It will come as a blow for the prime minister, who issued a plea on Friday for MPs to support her plans as she attempts to seek eleventh-hour concessions from Brussels in the tense negotiations. 

On Saturday, the talks descended into open hostility as the cabinet minister Andrea Leadsom accused the EU of playing "games" after a public row between the Brexit secretary, and the bloc's chief negotiator. 

The new constituency-by-constituency model based on YouGov polling for the People's Vote campaign of more than 25,000 voters presents grim reading for Downing Street ahead of Tuesday's "meaningful vote" on Ms May's Brexit agreement.

If "don't knows" are excluded from the polling, which was conducted in January, the results add that there is a majority support in just two constituencies in England, Scotland and Wales for the prime minister's deal. 

It suggests that even in Ms May's own parliamentary constituency of Maidenhead, voters are opposed to her deal passing in the Commons by 53 per cent to 47 per cent. 

The research also claims that if Labour fails to oppose Ms May's deal, the party could suffer at the next general election, with the Conservatives winning a 200-seat majority....Peter Kellner, the former president of the pollster YouGov, said: "The coalition that produced a narrow majority for Brexit three years ago is falling apart."

He continued: "It brought together traditionalists in Conservative Britain who saw the EU as a threat to British values and sovereignty, with families in Labour's heartlands who felt that 'Brussels' threatened their living standards and their children's job prospects.

"The prime minister's plan is unpopular essentially because few people in either group think it tackles the threat they face. 

"The fact that only two constituencies in the entire country (not including her own) want their MP to support her deal shows just how risky it would be for the prime minister to force this deal on the people now."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-brexit-deal-mp-house-of-commons-eu-brussels-peoples-vote-a8815826.html 

[peterms]

Pretty serious accusation from Francois.

Quote

In an interview with Radio 5 Live Mark Francois, the Tory Brexiter and vice chair of the European Research Group, said that, even though MPs voted for the Brady amendment saying the backstop should be “replaced”, Theresa May never asked for this in her talks with the EU. He told 5 Live’s Emma Barnett:

    What that [amendment] said was that they should ‘replace’ - that was the key word - the whole of the backstop. And the House of Commons voted for that. Almost the entire Conservative party voted for that, including almost the entire ERG. And the government begged us – and I use the word deliberately - to vote for the Brady amendment. That then gave the prime minister a mandate to go to Brussels and say, look, I have the support of the House of Commons to ask you to remove the backstop from the withdrawal agreement.

    We now know they never asked. The government never formally requested that the EU should replace it. Even though they had a mandate from parliament.

Asked how he could be sure that May did not ask the EU to replace, he said:

    We know from sources on the other side of the channel that they never asked …. We know from sources within the commission that she didn’t.

And asked why he thought May did not press the EU on this, Francois said:

Because she didn’t believe in it.

    She’s never wanted to do it. She is stuck to plan A. She is absolutely wedded to her original withdrawal agreement.

Francois also argued that this showed there would be no point in MPs voting for a motion backing May’s deal, conditional on further changes to it being made. (See (See 9.13am and 11.44am). He explained:

What is the point of us voting for something conditional, when we already did [so] in Brady, but then the government, because the remainers in the cabinet, and senior civil servants like Olly Robbins, didn’t agree with that, made sure that we never asked the EU the question in the first place.

 

Edited March 11, 2019 by peterms

[blandy]

43 minutes ago, peterms said:

Pretty serious accusation from Francois.

 

Not really, IMO. In fact I's say it's completely missing the reality, or the point, whatever. I'm sure it's serious to the throbber, but not (surely?) to anyone else.

December 2018 - Deal reached and agreed between EU and May, containing a backstop clause acceptable to both and included at the request of May, because the NI being treated differently thing suggested by the EU was (rightly) a non-starter for her.

Jan '19 - Parliament votes down the deal. EU say immediately "we're not re-opening the deal, we're not changing it, it's finalised....but we can look at some suggestions if you come up with any. We absolutely will not remove the backstop" and they repeat this stance, forcefully, multiple times.

May's been trying ever since to get some weasel words put in to some side paper and got (unsurprisingly) absolutely nowhere. The throbber's "accusations" are meaningless - it's another case of wanting a Unicorn and being all cross when one doesn't get delivered. It's not serious at all, it's comical. Clowns to the right of me clowns to the left.

[blandy]

On 08/03/2019 at 13:55, chrisp65 said:

Genuinely too thick to comprehend the difference, or relying on the support of people he thinks will be too thick to understand the difference?

 

 

 

[bickster]

Vile lying duplicitous witch

 

[desensitized43]

46 minutes ago, blandy said:

 

I love that first clip so much. Will Self can be (and tbh, is) a massive dick (no pun intended) but he's 100% correct there. Francois knew exactly what he said the first time he said it, pretended to be offended and completely misrepresented what was said to suit his own agenda....Brexit in a nutshell. People on my facebook timeline and twitter that I know personally, though their views I have no time or respect for at all who constantly post "Tommy Robinson" rubbish all voted out. I don't know a racist bigot that didn't.

[bickster]

Profiteering gobshite - to the tune of £7mil since the referendum

 

[bickster]

 

[peterms]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

Not really, IMO. In fact I's say it's completely missing the reality, or the point, whatever. I'm sure it's serious to the throbber, but not (surely?) to anyone else

What the amendment demanded may be unrealistic, or impossible.  That's not my point.  He is saying that May asked for a specific mandate, the HoC and the tory party backed her in instructing the government to pursue a specific line, that she chose not to do it, that she concealed this from parliament, and that he has found out through back channels.

He is saying that she acted in bad faith, defied the will of parliament, and deceived her own party by asking them to support something she opposed herself and which she did not intend to pursue.

I'd call that a serious accusation.

[Dr_Pangloss]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Profiteering gobshite - to the tune of £7mil since the referendum

 

For a man with so much to say his discomfort really stuck me, clearly he is concealing his true motivates, an absolute slimy rat faced word removed if there ever were one.

[bickster]

Just now, Dr_Pangloss said:

For a man with so much to say his discomfort really stuck me, clearly he is concealing his true motivates, an absolute slimy rat faced word removed if there ever were one.

Watch Ch4 tonight to see more of the same I suspect

[chrisp65]

To be fair to Jacob Rees-Mogg he's just trying to stick it to the man and help us fight the elite.

[jackbauer24]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

 

Completely irrelevant note - but Ben Fryer is a massive Villa fan. We're everywhere...

[Chindie]

Now being reported May wants to extend A50 until 24th May. Why? It creates her deal or No Deal.

Quote

May clearly plans to use this timing to her advantage. She knows there is a complication in Article 50 extensions. That complication is the European parliament election in May. If Britain takes part, even in a strictly formal way, it can keep on extending Article 50 after July. But if it does not take part, July 1st becomes an absolute unextendable cliff edge.

I wrote about this in detail last week. It has now been confirmed by the prime minister in the Commons. She said:

"An extension beyond the end of June would mean the UK taking part in the European parliament elections. What kind of message would that send to the more than 17 million people who voted to leave the EU nearly three years ago now? And the House should be clear that a short extension – not beyond the end of June – would almost certainly have to be a one-off.  If we had not taken part in the European parliament elections, it would be extremely difficult to extend again, so it would create a much sharper cliff edge in a few months’ time."

The prime minister never speaks clearly. It is not in her nature. But the implicit message was perfectly decipherable. It is there in the warning about Brexit voters being confused by UK participation in the elections. And it is there in the statement that the extension would "almost certainly" have to be a one-off. She is going to ask for a short extension - probably a couple of months - then refuse to take part in the European elections. July 1st then becomes the cliff-edge-which-cannot-be-moved.

Ian Dunt a couple of weeks ago

May 24th? The day after European elections start. Hmm.

She's beneath contempt.

[blandy]

26 minutes ago, peterms said:

What the amendment demanded may be unrealistic, or impossible.  That's not my point.  He is saying that May asked for a specific mandate, the HoC and the tory party backed her in instructing the government to pursue a specific line, that she chose not to do it, that she concealed this from parliament, and that he has found out through back channels.

He is saying that she acted in bad faith, defied the will of parliament, and deceived her own party by asking them to support something she opposed herself and which she did not intend to pursue.

I'd call that a serious accusation.

Ah, OK. Got you. That makes sense. I'd misunderstood the bit you/he was cross about. 

[ml1dch]

32 minutes ago, peterms said:

What the amendment demanded may be unrealistic, or impossible.  That's not my point.  He is saying that May asked for a specific mandate, the HoC and the tory party backed her in instructing the government to pursue a specific line, that she chose not to do it, that she concealed this from parliament, and that he has found out through back channels.

The amendment wording was this:

"and requires the Northern Ireland backstop to be replaced with alternative arrangements to avoid a hard border; supports leaving the European Union with a deal and would therefore support the Withdrawal Agreement subject to this change"

This particular numpty is upset that his own, fantasy interpretation of "alternative arrangements" wasn't the chosen strategy. With good reason, as they're hilariously inadequate.

So, no. There was no "instructing the government to pursue a specific line". The amendment wording was deliberately vague, as anything more precise wouldn't have passed. 

In the future coffee table book bestseller, "1,001 times Theresa May acted in bad faith", this would be lucky to make the cut.

Edited March 11, 2019 by ml1dch

[blandy]

On 07/03/2019 at 20:58, HanoiVillan said:

What more can Labour do to prevent a No Deal Brexit, specifically? 

I've been saying for a while that (my opinion) is "no deal" isn't going to happen. I read today this in the indie, which kind of gives more logic than I've managed to get across

Quote

Theresa May is paying the price for saying different things to different audiences. In Grimsby on Friday she was still trying to scare Labour MPs into voting for her deal by saying it was better than a no-deal Brexit. In the next sentence, she was trying to scare Tory MPs by saying the alternative to her deal was that “we delay Brexit and carry on arguing about it, both amongst ourselves and with the EU”. 

Naturally, Labour MPs hear the message intended for Tories, and vice versa. Labour MPs think, “Why should we vote for the deal when we could delay Brexit, possibly for ever?” And Tory MPs think, “No-deal Brexit is what my local association wants.” 

Not only is May’s two-faced message counter-productive, however, it is wrong. She has already in effect ruled out leaving the EU without an agreement. Some of the no-deal Brexiteers have been slow to appreciate the significance of her statement on 26 February. She promised a vote in the Commons and said: “So the UK will only leave without a deal on 29 March if there is explicit consent in this house for that outcome.”

That doesn't make it impossible, of course, a change of leader to a throbber who essentially revokes what she said, or a catastropork of some sort, but it suggests that with the parliamentary maths as it is, there won't be a no deal Brexit, all things being equal. Labour therefore only needs to stay sane. Easier said than done, but still....

[peterms]

3 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

So, no. There was no "instructing the government to pursue a specific line". The amendment wording was deliberately vague, as anything more precise wouldn't have passed.  

Yes.  Again, my point is only about the strength of his accusation, not whether it was fair, accurate or anything else.  I think it's remarkable when a tory MP can speak in such terms about his own leader, especially given the store they set by effusive, if insincere, expressions of loyalty.

By the way, numpty is a particularly suitable term for Mr Francois.  Siri, show me...

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

The amendment wording was this:

"and requires the Northern Ireland backstop to be replaced with alternative arrangements to avoid a hard border; supports leaving the European Union with a deal and would therefore support the Withdrawal Agreement subject to this change"

This particular numpty is upset that his own, fantasy interpretation of "alternative arrangements" wasn't the chosen strategy. With good reason, as they're hilariously inadequate.

So, no. There was no "instructing the government to pursue a specific line". The amendment wording was deliberately vague, as anything more precise wouldn't have passed. 

In the future coffee table book bestseller, "1,001 times Theresa May acted in bad faith", this would be lucky to make the cut.

But they've not (because no such thing exists or is possible) proposed to the EU any "alternative arrangement", she's just looked to get some weasel words out of the EU. The EU doesn't trust her (rightly so).