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

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

LL is right. May's deal is "leave". He's effectively just stating Labour's policy (sic).

He'd vote for his unicorn if it were available over EU membership.

But he wouldn't vote for the currently negotiated agreement over EU membership.

Even though they are basically the same thing anyway.

Yes he is. Apologies @LondonLax  I’ve just seen this

Quote

In an interview with Sophy Ridge on Sky News, the Labour leader was explicit that he would countenance a people’s vote only on a “credible” deal – which is to say a Labour Brexit. He also made clear, when pressed by Ridge, that, in such a referendum, he would vote for Brexit: an important admission of a position that has long been suspected but never publicly declared.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/17/delay-brexit-tories-theresa-may-deal-pause

which is saying he’d go for a ref on a labour deal and then vote against the labour deal, personally.

[chrisp65]

Well, it's good to see at least one party leader with a firm grip and a clear position.

The problem is, the voting public have largely been educated that voting is a case of red or blue. Very few stray away from the basics. So there will be no lessons dished out by the electorate after this. Some blues may turn red, some reds may stay home. But essentially, the next parliament will be made up of mostly reds and blues all claiming to have learnt lessons and to be moving forward and to be being very clear.

The SNP may do ok out of this. Plaid might get 5 MP's instead of 4. TIG's might get an MP. But essentially, it'll be red vs blue.

[snowychap]

(more to the thread than the tweets quoted)

Edited March 18, 2019 by snowychap

[snowychap]

And lest we forget, even if the votes were to come in for the WA in a MV3, there's still a way to go before ratification:

(more to the thread than the tweets quoted)

[blandy]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

Well, it's good to see at least one party leader with a firm grip and a clear position.

The problem is, the voting public have largely been educated that voting is a case of red or blue. Very few stray away from the basics. So there will be no lessons dished out by the electorate after this. Some blues may turn red, some reds may stay home. But essentially, the next parliament will be made up of mostly reds and blues all claiming to have learnt lessons and to be moving forward and to be being very clear.

The SNP may do ok out of this. Plaid might get 5 MP's instead of 4. TIG's might get an MP. But essentially, it'll be red vs blue.

Depressing, isn't it?

Mind you, whenever the next election is, May will be gone and maybe Catweazle too (we can only hope). And then the  options maybe won't be a choice between two heaps of dung. It could be a choice between one heap of dung, or something palatable. Or maybe post the apocalypse smaller parties in England as well as Scotland and Wales will do much better (and DUP will be eradicated). We live in hope. 

[NurembergVillan]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Depressing, isn't it?

Mind you, whenever the next election is, May will be gone and maybe Catweazle too (we can only hope). And then the  options maybe won't be a choice between two heaps of dung. It could be a choice between one heap of dung, or something palatable. Or maybe post the apocalypse smaller parties in England as well as Scotland and Wales will do much better (and DUP will be eradicated). We live in hope. 

Starmer v Gove / Johnson / Leadsom would provide an interesting contest.

[desensitized43]

Yet more MP's switching to back the deal...surely she can't get this through? It's astonishing the amount of MPs saying publicly they'll back it even though they know it's a bad deal/wrong for the country. It's like a choice between being kicked in the head or kicked in the balls.

 

[snowychap]

Assuming the content of the tweet below is correct then my earlier cynicism was misplaced.

 

[StefanAVFC]

As I said before, even if she gets it through, it changes nothing 

• Around the reasons we voted to leave anyway
• The divisions caused by this mess
• The parliamentary precedents that have been smashed to pieces

[blandy]

1 hour ago, NurembergVillan said:

Starmer v Gove / Johnson / Leadsom would provide an interesting contest.

The care in the community assistant trying to re-integrate a permanently befuddled 1970s Trot up against either the escaped satanic spirit from an exorcism, a Satirical experiment gone horribly, calamitously wrong or yet another god-botherering, sociopathic clone of T. May trying to channel the bitter, seeping, putrid essence of Thatcher.

"Interesting" as you say.

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, NurembergVillan said:

Starmer v Gove / Johnson / Leadsom would provide an interesting contest.

Gove is keeping his head down and staying loyal to May by and large  , so I think he's def playing the leadership game and would be a contender ( though Raab seems to be popular within the party)

Gove's usually quite articulate (though he  did a somewhat baffling speech the other day ) , he'd do a great job debating and in parliament ..just not sure he'd win over the public 

 

[villa4europe]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

Yes he is. Apologies @LondonLax  I’ve just seen this

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/17/delay-brexit-tories-theresa-may-deal-pause

which is saying he’d go for a ref on a labour deal and then vote against the labour deal, personally.

so if i read that right corbyns stance is - 

if there was a general election, which they're wont be, if labour won, which they probably wont, he would then present his deal to parliament, which if labour won by a sizeable majority, which they definitely wont, would then get passed in the HoC, otherwise it would just be kicked around for months like May's deal, so if it ever got voted in he would then present it to the EU who have declared negotiations as over for negotiation and then if they agreed to it he would have a 2nd referendum on it? which if it passed we would leave the EU

pick as many holes in that as you want but i still dont see an answer beyond corbyn will do absolutely nothing

[HanoiVillan]

25 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

so if i read that right corbyns stance is - 

if there was a general election, which they're wont be

Well, the first flaw is here. There won't be an election if she gets the bill through in MV3, I think we can be sure of that. However, if she ends up asking for a long extension (per @snowychap's post above) then the EU will want to see something concrete change, which pretty much has to be a national ballot (either a second referendum or an election). 

So, is there going to be an election? Dunno. Couldn't even guesstimate the probability. But it's certainly well over 0%. 

[blandy]

15 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

it's certainly well over 0%.

As high as that!.I'm no good at maths, but that sounds like a lot.

 

[villa4europe]

33 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

So, is there going to be an election? Dunno. Couldn't even guesstimate the probability. But it's certainly well over 0%. 

on to the next if, you think labour would win? by a majority big enough to mean their deal would pass?

[snowychap]

 

[blandy]

 

SPEAK ENGLISH. BREXIT MEANS BREXIT NO FORINERS.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, villa4europe said:

on to the next if, you think labour would win? by a majority big enough to mean their deal would pass?

I have no idea. The situation is so volatile that any result would be possible. Obviously last time there was an enormous difference between pre-campaign polls and the actual result, and that could happen again (in either direction). On the other hand, maybe it wouldn't. Again, it's certainly not impossible for Labour to win by 20-30 seats, which is all that would be needed in all likelihood. 

[Chindie]

Bercow has just gone in dry on the government. Refused to allow a third vote on the deal unless it significantly changes.

Given that it isn't going to change any time soon, it'you have to suspect the argument is going to be made that the situation changing (i.e. time running out) is enough to see it come back.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Chindie

[ml1dch]

2 hours ago, villa4europe said:

on to the next if, you think labour would win? by a majority big enough to mean their deal would pass?

By "their deal" do you mean the thing that they say they want, or the thing that they would actually be able to negotiate?