cyrusr Posted March 27, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted March 27, 2019 If the WA now passes because of this it’s a disgrace. Literally nothing has changed when it’s was first defeated by 230 votes. How can they justify the change in position just because she’s going? It’s still the same deal that they all said was “a bad deal”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 1 minute ago, cyrusr said: If the WA now passes because of this it’s a disgrace. Literally nothing has changed when it’s was first defeated by 230 votes. How can they justify the change in position just because she’s going? It’s still the same deal that they all said was “a bad deal”. They lost the who will blink first game with the EU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 54 minutes ago, peterms said: They would first need other options to fall. In a situation where it is a choice between no deal and revoke, they would revoke. Moving to that position too quickly is an invitation to all the press and all their opponents to paint them as having wanted to remain all along, which was not the position agreed at conference. It's not moving to any position. It votes for what they claim is their current position. "In a situation where it is a choice between no deal and revoke, they would revoke". Well that's exactly what this motion says. It doesn't stop them being in favour of their fantasy Brexit if they want to keep supporting that. It just supports something that they claim to currently support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 1 minute ago, Genie said: They lost the who will blink first game with the EU. That's really because they were the only side that thought that was actually a game that both sides were playing in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 6 minutes ago, ml1dch said: It's not moving to any position. It votes for what they claim is their current position. "In a situation where it is a choice between no deal and revoke, they would revoke". Well that's exactly what this motion says. It doesn't stop them being in favour of their fantasy Brexit if they want to keep supporting that. It just supports something that they claim to currently support. Oh come on. They are facing resignations as a result of whipping for a second referendum, which is party policy. Moving now to whip for revocation would be a further step, which many MPs and voters wouldn't accept. They are trying to manage the situation. For remainers to be affronted that they don't now fully embrace the remainer position and discard the policy agreed at conference is just unrealistic. Either that, or mischievous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 1 minute ago, peterms said: Oh come on. They are facing resignations as a result of whipping for a second referendum, which is party policy. Moving now to whip for revocation would be a further step, which many MPs and voters wouldn't accept. They are trying to manage the situation. For remainers to be affronted that they don't now fully embrace the remainer position and discard the policy agreed at conference is just unrealistic. Either that, or mischievous. Have you even read the amendment? The above suggests not. It's not an amendment for revocation. It's an amendment that says that in the event of an imminent (48 hour) exit with no other alternative or potential extension available, a vote is held on whether the House is happy to leave on those terms. And if not, revocation occurs. Which is Labour's current stated position. Unless it's changed since Corbyn said on January 13th "We will do everything we can to prevent a no-deal exit". Unless I have it wrong, and he's changed position since January, and in the specific circumstances described in the amendment, Labour wouldn't back revocation? Or unless the policy has changed since you said "In a situation where it is a choice between no deal and revoke, they would revoke", this amendment does literally nothing more than what you claim they would want to do. It's literally an amendment doing what you've said they would want to do. Hence my original question. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 38 minutes ago, ml1dch said: Have you even read the amendment? The above suggests not. It's not an amendment for revocation. It's an amendment that says that in the event of an imminent (48 hour) exit with no other alternative or potential extension available, a vote is held on whether the House is happy to leave on those terms. And if not, revocation occurs. Which is Labour's current stated position. Unless it's changed since Corbyn said on January 13th "We will do everything we can to prevent a no-deal exit". Unless I have it wrong, and he's changed position since January, and in the specific circumstances described in the amendment, Labour wouldn't back revocation? Or unless the policy has changed since you said "In a situation where it is a choice between no deal and revoke, they would revoke", this amendment does literally nothing more than what you claim they would want to do. It's literally an amendment doing what you've said they would want to do. Hence my original question. Yes, I think you have it wrong. The current votes are indicative. Unless I've misunderstood it, they don't rule things out or prevent options being posed again. They are testing out which options might secure a majority. Does the Speaker's ruling on not bringing back a similar motion apply to something which has been discussed as a purely indicative vote rather than determining policy? I assume not. What do you think? Voting to revoke at this point, like other options, is signalling. The Labour position, I think, is that this is an option, but not one of the most preferred. If that is their position, that is the signal they should give. Not whipping for it tonight doesn't mean it can't be supported if it becomes a real and pressing choice, subject to the question above. But whipping for it now would ensure it is presented as an about turn which betrays lots of their supporters and contradicts their manifesto, which in practical rather than PR terms splits the PLP, and which also doesn't achieve an outcome regarding Brexit. Lots of bad outcomes, no good ones. And doing everything they can to prevent a no deal exit doesn't entail doing things in the order and on the date that you would prefer. Tactical considerations are important, in fact that's almost exclusively what media coverage is discussing right now. You might perhaps accept that while you might have views about outcomes, the people in parliament are better placed to judge which detailed tactics might work best. If they oppose the outcome you prefer, criticise them. If they adopt tactics they think better suited to the rapidly changing situation, maybe suspend criticism for a little while, unless youve done the headcounts, spoken to the waverers, understood the things that will make people split off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 1 hour ago, cyrusr said: If the WA now passes because of this it’s a disgrace. Literally nothing has changed when it’s was first defeated by 230 votes. How can they justify the change in position just because she’s going? It’s still the same deal that they all said was “a bad deal”. As I read it , it still won’t be allowed back for a third vote ... the Tory’s tried a paving motion and Bercow refused it ... but the appeared change in position of some is scandalous 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrusr Posted March 27, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted March 27, 2019 Just now, tonyh29 said: As I read it , it still won’t be allowed back for a third vote ... the Tory’s tried a paving motion and Bercow refused it ... but the appeared change in position of some is scandalous To be fair it sounds like the DUP are still saying they don’t like it and will vote against so it was pretty pointless of her. What is it with Tories not making sure they have the numbers? Don’t they teach maths at Eton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, cyrusr said: To be fair it sounds like the DUP are still saying they don’t like it and will vote against so it was pretty pointless of her. What is it with Tories not making sure they have the numbers? Don’t they teach maths at Eton? For all you can say about the DUP (and you could say a lot) at least they have conviction of their position. Contrast to Boris Johnson, who was saying it was a terrible deal as recently as yesterday, but when presented with a shot at becoming prime minister crumpled like a cheap suit. I'm almost starting to wonder if May is pulling a Machiavellian scheme playing the hard Brexiters off like this. I think that would probably be giving her too much credit but she has ensured her survival and exposed Johonson and Mogg with this latest move. Edited March 27, 2019 by LondonLax 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brommy Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 If it came to either revoking Article 50 or supporting the current WA proposal, which way would the DUP group vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted March 27, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted March 27, 2019 There isn't a grand plan. She does whatever she needs to do to survive another day. Even if that means rolling back on whatever is said a day later. You cannot trust a thing this government says, and least of all her. It's all cynical trucks and snide get outs to get whatever is the immediate thing she requires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 I'm surprised by the DUP thing. I assumed she would have found enough to bribe them with, and that her undoing would come from her own hardliners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted March 27, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted March 27, 2019 Just now, brommy said: If it came to either revoking Article 50 or supporting the current WA proposal, which way would the DUP group vote? They wouldn't back either. They want Brexit even if it's completely stupid. They will not support revoking A50. And they won't support the withdrawal agreement because it starts to chip away at Irish unification, which is the devil to the DUP. In a zero sum gun to the head vote between either, they'd abstain. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted March 27, 2019 Moderator Share Posted March 27, 2019 No to everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 Interesting none of the votes tonight got a majority Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 **** hell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted March 27, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted March 27, 2019 Nothing was expected to get a majority. The idea is basically to find what is hated the most by the House. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 23 minutes ago, cyrusr said: To be fair it sounds like the DUP are still saying they don’t like it and will vote against so it was pretty pointless of her. What is it with Tories not making sure they have the numbers? Don’t they teach maths at Eton? Sounds like she would need 35 labour MP’s to vote for her deal ( should it be allowed) seems unlikely ... but it could be after tonight that more Torys will back her deal rather than risk Brexit being cancelled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 Have we officially adopted nihilism as our national philosophy? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts