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

[bickster]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Oppositions also need to 'make the case' for why they should become the government one day.

That really is failing miserably isn't it? "We should become the government one day because  our position on this is totally unobtainable and not only that we're trying to please everyone but pleasing no-one"

[HanoiVillan]

23 minutes ago, blandy said:

If you replace "second referendum" with outcome (as I've done in the quote) that sums it up for whatever option, doesn't it?

Yes; however, there's no reason to assume that all outcomes are therefore created equal. The government actually are committed to a different outcome. 

26 minutes ago, blandy said:

I also think that when you say "if there was a majority in the House to pass a bill mandating a confirmatory referendum for May's WA, then there would be a majority for May's WA without the referendum" that is not at all how I see it. I see a way out, possibly that way (via a PV) for Corbyn and Labour, when they don't get May to do a Labour Brexit (and they won't, and they'd be absolutely mental to support any kind of Tory Brexit. Plus Corbyn's whole thing all along has been "I like Brexit, I really like the tories getting blamed for the mess of Brexit and me getting a go at PM. He'd therefore be off his rocket to actually facilitate Brexit, and have Labour's fingerprints on it.

I'm not trying to be thick, but I don't understand what you're saying here. How will Labour be choosing what happens, absent a general election victory (or quasi-victory as head of a coalition or similar?)

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

The government actually should be committed

FTFY

[HanoiVillan]

24 minutes ago, bickster said:

To write that proves you didn't read my post correctly

I apologise if I've misunderstood or mischaracterised your post; it wasn't intentional. 

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Yes; however, there's no reason to assume that all outcomes are therefore created equal. The government actually are committed to a different outcome. 

I'm not trying to be thick, but I don't understand what you're saying here. How will Labour be choosing what happens, absent a general election victory (or quasi-victory as head of a coalition or similar?)

On the first point, "the Gov't" aren't really committed to any course of action. May has one view, Rudd another, Gove another - ministers etc. have kept resigning to oppose whatever plan their Gov't has come up with each time. Sure the official (current) idea is the negotiated "deal" but neither the Gov't nor parliament generally actually supports in sufficient numbers any one route.

On Labour what I'm saying is that a party (including the official opposition) should dutifully set out what their alternative is, what they as a party believe is the right thing to do, the right approach or policy. With Labour we know most members, MPs, voters are anti Brexit. We know they decided at their conference to try to get a (unicorn) deal, failing that second choice a GE and failing that a PV. The unicorn deal and the GE are gone. They should be on, now, the third option of a PV, given where everything's at. But they've reverted to a now outdated re-hash of what applied 6 moths ago, where the first 2 options are now off the table, completely. The option on the table from May is "vote for my deal". The only alternatives are no deal or no Brexit or PV. Labour has to pick one of those (or support May's deal). They should not support May's deal - they're supposed to be the opposition, therefore they should do what their MPs, members, party policy and voters overwhelmingly want. But because Catweazle is personally anti that, they're stuck in a mess.

[bickster]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

I apologise if I've misunderstood or mischaracterised your post; it wasn't intentional. 

The point was NONE of those outcomes are particularly likely. For the record I don't think a 2nd referendum is that likely its just more likely than what Labour are chasing. The cancel button is far more likely

But what Labour are chasing is the remotest of remote chances, in football terms it's like the manager of Stafford Rangers declaring that they will go all the way to Wembley before the first game of their FA Cup campaign

There will be no General Election before October, there will be no renegotiation of the WA. A General Election will not stop the clock because as it stands the two main parties are ostensibly both on the same side of the debate. The chances of Labour winning that GE are currently looking slimmer by the day, peak Corbyn was sometime back and I can't see how he claws it back. In that sense a 2nd Ref whilst still very unlikely is still more likely as parliament can take control and ignore the leadership of their parties.

[snowychap]

One less vote against the WA for May to worry about - Fiona the faker has gone so that seat is vacant.

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, snowychap said:

One less vote against the WA for May to worry about - Fiona the faker has gone so that seat is vacant.

Wasn't she in jail for most of the votes anyway?

[snowychap]

Just now, bickster said:

Wasn't she in jail for most of the votes anyway?

Possibly (she was inside for less than a month, I think).

I was meaning more for in the future (though I suppose it could be balanced out by Williamson voting against it?).

[HanoiVillan]

Okay, one final post and then I'll let other voices be heard:

1 hour ago, bickster said:

The point was NONE of those outcomes are particularly likely. For the record I don't think a 2nd referendum is that likely its just more likely than what Labour are chasing. The cancel button is far more likely

I agree that both options are extremely unlikely; I just don't agree that a second referendum is more likely than a GE specifically. This is even more true if we take October as the end point of the discussion; my understanding is that it would take upwards of 20 weeks to pass the legislation, organise the campaigns and hold the vote, so it may already be too late, or nearly too late, anyway. A General Election could be held a lot faster, and potentially solves one of the government's problems (the composition of the House of Commons) whereas a referendum doesn't solve any of the government's problems. To repeat, I completely agree that both are unlikely. 

1 hour ago, bickster said:

The chances of Labour winning that GE are currently looking slimmer by the day, peak Corbyn was sometime back and I can't see how he claws it back. In that sense a 2nd Ref whilst still very unlikely is still more likely as parliament can take control and ignore the leadership of their parties.

I don't really agree; Corbyn's personal numbers are horrific, but Labour have moved into a small lead in GE polling. However, if you're right, that makes a GE more likely rather than less (again, from a low base), as it makes it more likely the Tories would think they would win. 

1 hour ago, blandy said:

On the first point, "the Gov't" aren't really committed to any course of action. May has one view, Rudd another, Gove another - ministers etc. have kept resigning to oppose whatever plan their Gov't has come up with each time. Sure the official (current) idea is the negotiated "deal" but neither the Gov't nor parliament generally actually supports in sufficient numbers any one route.

You're sort of right. They certainly don't love it! But my point is related to the likelihood of a second referendum, specifically. And on that score, there are hundreds more Tory MP's willing to vote for May's WA than there are for a second referendum. If you split the Tory/DUP alliance into three groups based on past votes, Group A (May's Deal) comprises somewhere around 84% of these MP's, Group B (Harder Brexit) comprises roughly 15% of their MP's, and Group C (the 14 who voted for a confirmatory public vote in the Kyle amendment) are 4%*. It may very well be the case that May can't get that Group A to be big enough or united enough to actually win the vote, but it's the only group that could win. 

*%'s add up to more than 100% as some MP's are in both Group A and Group C

-----------------------------

I'll bow out here. Have a nice evening all!

Edited May 1, 2019 by HanoiVillan

[ml1dch]

7 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I think we're talking at cross-purposes. I agree with you; May's WA is a genuine leave option. The Labour alternative, with a different PD, is also a genuine leave option. Most people who support a second referendum (in fact, I think every MP who supports a second referendum) are not voting for May's WA, and a lot of them aren't voting for the Labour alternative either. The Tiggers notably refused to vote for anything except the referendum even in the indicative votes. 

I'm with you - yes, cross-purposes.

And I partly agree and partly disagree. On the indicative votes, everyone involved should be more pragmatic. This bunch included, but pretty much every other party should have as well. No arguments there.

However - they did support (and possibly even proposed) amendments to the DWA for the confirmatory referendum. 

So the implication being "we will support the thing that you have proposed as Brexit as long as the public do". If that amendment passed, I imagine the MPs to whom you refer would then vote for it.

Which is still in my eyes the most intellectually coherent way to deal with the whole thing. If the Government are convinced that the public support it, then there should be no fear confirming that. If they don't think that the public do then they shouldn't be putting it into legislation.

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by ml1dch

[Xann]

[chrisp65]

your best bet geographically if you want to register a remain vote

according to the remain alliance

[ml1dch]

 

Just in case anyone was in any doubt.

 

[bickster]

Well those council elections seem to have gone spectacularly well for the main Brexit-supporting parties

Both of them are seeming to spin this as voters showing a desire for Brexit to get done. They are clearly off their bloody chumps

[bickster]

Oh and Rees-Mogg should be seriously worried for his seat

[desensitized43]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

Oh and Rees-Mogg should be seriously worried for his seat

Saw that result. It would be spectacularly funny if he loses at the next GE.

[NurembergVillan]

1 hour ago, desensitized43 said:

Saw that result. It would be spectacularly funny if he loses at the next GE.

So long as he's got his No Deal Brexit through he won't give a shit.  That's his main objective.  I'm sure he'd love to be PM, if he can't at least he'll be even wealthier.

[chrisp65]

yeah, I'm sure the millions he's made moving money around europe will help a little if he loses his MP salary.

 

[sharkyvilla]

4 hours ago, bickster said:

Well those council elections seem to have gone spectacularly well for the main Brexit-supporting parties

Both of them are seeming to spin this as voters showing a desire for Brexit to get done. They are clearly off their bloody chumps

How much influence would Brexit have on council elections?  Normally the governing party gets a kicking in mid-term elections anyway.  I suppose you'd expect Labour to have gained rather than lost too under normal circumstances.