Brexit delayed

[Which Tyler]

298 : 56
Does that count as BJ's first vote win? Even though the motion is defeated?
I'm confused.


Must admit, I was expecting BJ to try his "simple motion election" gambit there.
Which I don't understand how not could work as surely the FTPA foresaw that possibility and negated it.
Surely...
Remind me, how competent was Cameron again? The last couple of PMs make him seem like an absolute genius

[cashead]

298 : 56
Does that count as BJ's first vote win? Even though the motion is defeated?
I'm confused.

It's a loss, since he needed 2/3 of the votes (about 430-odd, IIRC) and he failed to get those numbers. Seeing as how that vote count adds up to just over half of the MPs, obviously there were loads of abstentions and/or absences, which, I supposed, one could consider tantamount to a vote against him.

[canta_brian]

298 : 56
Does that count as BJ's first vote win? Even though the motion is defeated?
I'm confused.


Must admit, I was expecting BJ to try his "simple motion election" gambit there.
Which I don't understand how not could work as surely the FTPA foresaw that possibility and negated it.
Surely...
Remind me, how competent was Cameron again? The last couple of PMs make him seem like an absolute genius

With 298 in favour I doubt he can even try the simple motion election gambit. As it stands he still loses. His only hope is the Corbyn shoots himself in the foot and takes the bait. Although, the SNP could end the Tories in Scotland. Maybe the will support a Johnson bill saying he has no confidence in himself.

[cashead]

298 : 56
Does that count as BJ's first vote win? Even though the motion is defeated?
I'm confused.


Must admit, I was expecting BJ to try his "simple motion election" gambit there.
Which I don't understand how not could work as surely the FTPA foresaw that possibility and negated it.
Surely...
Remind me, how competent was Cameron again? The last couple of PMs make him seem like an absolute genius

With 298 in favour I doubt he can even try the simple motion election gambit. As it stands he still loses. His only hope is the Corbyn shoots himself in the foot and takes the bait. Although, the SNP could end the Tories in Scotland. Maybe the will support a Johnson bill saying he has no confidence in himself.

Yep, it's not even at the halfway point. He's barely been in office and his tenure has been defined as a joke, suffering two back-to-back humiliations in the space of a week. Maybe he'll overcome, but to paraphrase Malcolm Tucker, he's "fucked, like Caligula's favourite watermelon."

[Stones of granite]

298 : 56
Does that count as BJ's first vote win? Even though the motion is defeated?
I'm confused.


Must admit, I was expecting BJ to try his "simple motion election" gambit there.
Which I don't understand how not could work as surely the FTPA foresaw that possibility and negated it.
Surely...
Remind me, how competent was Cameron again? The last couple of PMs make him seem like an absolute genius

With 298 in favour I doubt he can even try the simple motion election gambit. As it stands he still loses. His only hope is the Corbyn shoots himself in the foot and takes the bait. Although, the SNP could end the Tories in Scotland. Maybe the will support a Johnson bill saying he has no confidence in himself.

Yep, it's not even at the halfway point. He's barely been in office and his tenure has been defined as a joke, suffering two back-to-back humiliations in the space of a week. Maybe he'll overcome, but to paraphrase Malcolm Tucker, he's "fucked, like Caligula's favourite watermelon."

It’s a joy to behold.

[cashead]

So what happens now that an attempt at an early election has been thoroughly stymied?

[Stones of granite]

So what happens now that an attempt at an early election has been thoroughly stymied?

The clown-in-chief will attempt some more manoeuvres then try again. I’m sure DC has “wargamed” this scenario, though I’m not sure it’s turning out the way he thought it would.

[Banquo]

What a sh*t show parliament is. Chief clown backed by dickensian loons. Corbyn reading from a script, losing his place and only rescued by an inane dickensian intervention. Blackford saying the same thing over and over again, backed up by the cast of Shameless. Swinson verging on hysteria. Fck the lot of them, bar Ken Clarke eviscerating Bozza. This is not a representative democracy in action but a circus of freaks.

[Banquo]

A Supermajority either way.
So not exactly likely, but it's the only thing that has any chance at all.
IMO

Not sure the risk is worth the outside chance of a reward. Mind, whilst parliament is so dead set against leaving I can't see a happy outcome ever tbh. No idea what any way forward could be.

What's the risk? That "we" might lose?
If there's a genuine majority for no deal, then so be it; I'll just reserve the right to say "I told you so" as it all goes to shit, even though I'll be just as badly affected

As your point was about healing, the risk is clearly making the divisions we see worse (and accompanying disgraceful dialogue), which a narrow majority either way will likely do, though its just possible that remainers will shrug their shoulders if a narrow leave vote.

I should, though, have asked what the referendum question would be?

[Stom]

Not sure the risk is worth the outside chance of a reward. Mind, whilst parliament is so dead set against leaving I can't see a happy outcome ever tbh. No idea what any way forward could be.

What's the risk? That "we" might lose?
If there's a genuine majority for no deal, then so be it; I'll just reserve the right to say "I told you so" as it all goes to shit, even though I'll be just as badly affected

As your point was about healing, the risk is clearly making the divisions we see worse (and accompanying disgraceful dialogue), which a narrow majority either way will likely do, though its just possible that remainers will shrug their shoulders if a narrow leave vote.

I should, though, have asked what the referendum question would be?

Labour have said the ref should be a deal vs remain, and I think that's fair enough.

If it is a specific deal vs remain, we're likely to leave with the specific deal. If it were a 3 way ref followed by a 2 way one, with no deal on the first paper and only the 2 biggest options on the 2nd, we'd remain.

Because everyone who votes no deal would vote to leave again, and not everyone who votes for a deal would vote for no deal.

There is still an almost 50/50 split on stay vs remain, which is absolute insanity.

And the biggest thing any leavers now say is: we need to know what's going on, let's leave and GET IT DONE WITH.

Completely ignoring the fact that the last trade deal we negotiated took 6 fucking years.

And we'd have to negotiate 10s of them!

I just can't believe no-one says it:

If we leave, we're going to be "leaving" for a lifetime.

[Stom]

btw, and as I'm not in the UK I don't see any ads, has anyone been running any ads destroying Boris' character?

There should be ads after ads after ads showing his previous lies and painting him as a serial liar.

And they should be by people the public trust.

We should see footballers, actors from Eastenders and Coronation Street, everyone else telling the UK how much of a liar Boris is.

And the same group of celebrities should be telling us all about the trade deals, how no deal creates more uncertainty and the only way to have certainty is with a managed Brexit or to remain.

Not pushing remain but explaining the choice clearly and succinctly.

But the left are atrocious at this.

Right wingers are just better at mass manipulation. They would be, they're the psychopaths.

[Mellsblue]

Not sure the risk is worth the outside chance of a reward. Mind, whilst parliament is so dead set against leaving I can't see a happy outcome ever tbh. No idea what any way forward could be.

What's the risk? That "we" might lose?
If there's a genuine majority for no deal, then so be it; I'll just reserve the right to say "I told you so" as it all goes to shit, even though I'll be just as badly affected

As your point was about healing, the risk is clearly making the divisions we see worse (and accompanying disgraceful dialogue), which a narrow majority either way will likely do, though its just possible that remainers will shrug their shoulders if a narrow leave vote.

I should, though, have asked what the referendum question would be?

The campaigning period will be horrible. The divisive rhetoric will be ramped up day by day. All the usual tropes will be trotted out and everything will slowly become more bitter and nasty.
That said, a second referendum, as much as I dread it for the reason above, is the only way out. It’ll have to be based on a ranking/preferential voting system. So, remain and no deal, plus withdrawal agreement, customs union, EFTA, Common Market 2.0, FTA once alternative arrangements are sorted. Who knows.
What I would love is to make the campaign non-political. Only info from independent bodies with no political history - IFG, ONS etc etc. Impossible to achieve, of course.
Then, finally, we have to hope the EU agree to whichever option wins.

[Mellsblue]

What's the risk? That "we" might lose?
If there's a genuine majority for no deal, then so be it; I'll just reserve the right to say "I told you so" as it all goes to shit, even though I'll be just as badly affected

As your point was about healing, the risk is clearly making the divisions we see worse (and accompanying disgraceful dialogue), which a narrow majority either way will likely do, though its just possible that remainers will shrug their shoulders if a narrow leave vote.

I should, though, have asked what the referendum question would be?

Labour have said the ref should be a deal vs remain, and I think that's fair enough.

If it is a specific deal vs remain, we're likely to leave with the specific deal. If it were a 3 way ref followed by a 2 way one, with no deal on the first paper and only the 2 biggest options on the 2nd, we'd remain.

Because everyone who votes no deal would vote to leave again, and not everyone who votes for a deal would vote for no deal.

There is still an almost 50/50 split on stay vs remain, which is absolute insanity.

And the biggest thing any leavers now say is: we need to know what's going on, let's leave and GET IT DONE WITH.

Completely ignoring the fact that the last trade deal we negotiated took 6 fucking years.

And we'd have to negotiate 10s of them!

I just can't believe no-one says it:

If we leave, we're going to be "leaving" for a lifetime.

Labs official position - just like Cons official position is leave on 31/10 come what may - is a ref on a Labour negotiated deal v Remain. That’s an important distinction.

I’m not sure how you can confidently claim the results of a second referendum. You only need look at the first one and the last GE to know how much things can move during the campaign period.

[Banquo]

What's the risk? That "we" might lose?
If there's a genuine majority for no deal, then so be it; I'll just reserve the right to say "I told you so" as it all goes to shit, even though I'll be just as badly affected

As your point was about healing, the risk is clearly making the divisions we see worse (and accompanying disgraceful dialogue), which a narrow majority either way will likely do, though its just possible that remainers will shrug their shoulders if a narrow leave vote.

I should, though, have asked what the referendum question would be?

Labour have said the ref should be a deal vs remain, and I think that's fair enough.

If it is a specific deal vs remain, we're likely to leave with the specific deal. If it were a 3 way ref followed by a 2 way one, with no deal on the first paper and only the 2 biggest options on the 2nd, we'd remain.

Because everyone who votes no deal would vote to leave again, and not everyone who votes for a deal would vote for no deal.

There is still an almost 50/50 split on stay vs remain, which is absolute insanity.

And the biggest thing any leavers now say is: we need to know what's going on, let's leave and GET IT DONE WITH.

Completely ignoring the fact that the last trade deal we negotiated took 6 fucking years.

And we'd have to negotiate 10s of them!

I just can't believe no-one says it:

If we leave, we're going to be "leaving" for a lifetime.

Which was implying No Deal on the ballot paper.
We have a withdrawal agreement (so called deal) on the table, yet that was not voted through- bet the ERG regret that now! I don't think the EU are about to change.
I agree on your last point.
The obvious elephant in the room is that a (sizeable) majority of MPs, including many tories, don't believe we should leave; some on the Tory benches, even Ken Clarke, are sucking that up and saying we should leave nevertheless as that was the referendum result. But the Libdems and SNP are absolutely clear that want to stop Brexit, and the bills they have supported have all been about buying time; most Labour MPs don't believe we should leave either. I think some honesty would be great, but it really doesn't suit Labour plan to do this, and that's fair enough I suppose.

[Banquo]

btw, and as I'm not in the UK I don't see any ads, has anyone been running any ads destroying Boris' character?

There should be ads after ads after ads showing his previous lies and painting him as a serial liar.

And they should be by people the public trust.

We should see footballers, actors from Eastenders and Coronation Street, everyone else telling the UK how much of a liar Boris is.

And the same group of celebrities should be telling us all about the trade deals, how no deal creates more uncertainty and the only way to have certainty is with a managed Brexit or to remain.

Not pushing remain but explaining the choice clearly and succinctly.

But the left are atrocious at this.

Right wingers are just better at mass manipulation. They would be, they're the psychopaths.

Kk is on the sauce again.

[Mellsblue]

btw, and as I'm not in the UK I don't see any ads, has anyone been running any ads destroying Boris' character?

There should be ads after ads after ads showing his previous lies and painting him as a serial liar.

And they should be by people the public trust.

We should see footballers, actors from Eastenders and Coronation Street, everyone else telling the UK how much of a liar Boris is.

And the same group of celebrities should be telling us all about the trade deals, how no deal creates more uncertainty and the only way to have certainty is with a managed Brexit or to remain.

Not pushing remain but explaining the choice clearly and succinctly.

But the left are atrocious at this.

Right wingers are just better at mass manipulation. They would be, they're the psychopaths.

Kk is on the sauce again.

Hehe.

[Lizard]

So I’ve read the Benn Bill. I think there’s a problem with it. Although it requires the PM to send a letter to the EU requesting an extension, there is no express consequence if that is not done. It seems to me (not a UK public law expert) that the only way to enforce it would be for someone to sue Boris for failure to discharge a statutory duty, and seek a mandatory injunction requiring him to do so, and then when he doesn’t, going back to court for an order holding him in contempt and if he doesn’t cure his contempt getting an order for his arrest and imprisonment for contempt of court.

They should have made failure to comply a criminal offence right from the start.

[Which Tyler]

As your point was about healing, the risk is clearly making the divisions we see worse (and accompanying disgraceful dialogue), which a narrow majority either way will likely do, though its just possible that remainers will shrug their shoulders if a narrow leave vote.

I should, though, have asked what the referendum question would be?

I'm probably being naïve here (or possibly less naïve about where things are heading), but I'm not sure the divisions can get much worse than they're currently headed for. Either No Deal or Revoke will almost certainly end with violence on the streets.
I would certainly have any 3rd referendum being required to abide by electoral commission regulations, however; which should curb some of the bullshit; and I think politicians themselves stand a much better chance at countering what bullshit there would be, now they shouldn't be caught unawares. Of course, the bullshitters are presumably more accomplished now as well.

As for what should go on the referendum - I'd favour a preferential system of some sort with the various options included; Remain, "Norway" EEA, "Swiss" EFTA, "Turkish" Customs Union, "Canadian" CETA, No Deal. All existing "off the shelf" options with known, provable costs and benefits, no imaginary "plus"s anywhere - none of this "your vote for Norway+ can only be interpreted as a vote for No Deal bollocks.
But then I also still think that, with a long enough extension, the EU would renegotiate - but only if we withdrew Theresa's personal red lines (rather than Boris's additional red lines); though I suspect that any renegotiation would be in the form of "have this existing deal that we have with another country". I know that this is not a popular opinion.

So I’ve read the Benn Bill. I think there’s a problem with it. Although it requires the PM to send a letter to the EU requesting an extension, there is no express consequence if that is not done. It seems to me (not a UK public law expert) that the only way to enforce it would be for someone to sue Boris for failure to discharge a statutory duty, and seek a mandatory injunction requiring him to do so, and then when he doesn’t, going back to court for an order holding him in contempt and if he doesn’t cure his contempt getting an order for his arrest and imprisonment for contempt of court.

They should have made failure to comply a criminal offence right from the start.

I've not read the bill in detail; and I'm not a legal expert of any system; but... the bill is creating a new law; surely breaking it would be a criminal offense by definition?

[Son of Mathonwy]

So I’ve read the Benn Bill. I think there’s a problem with it. Although it requires the PM to send a letter to the EU requesting an extension, there is no express consequence if that is not done. It seems to me (not a UK public law expert) that the only way to enforce it would be for someone to sue Boris for failure to discharge a statutory duty, and seek a mandatory injunction requiring him to do so, and then when he doesn’t, going back to court for an order holding him in contempt and if he doesn’t cure his contempt getting an order for his arrest and imprisonment for contempt of court.

They should have made failure to comply a criminal offence right from the start.

Hammond said the bill was designed to give time for litigation, should BJ take the despicable but entirely in character route of ignoring the law.

I suppose, also, there is the final option of the rebels forming a government following a vote of confidence.

[Mellsblue]

Supposedly, Macron has now poopooed the CETA (++) option due to the fact the UK is only 25 miles from Calais.

[Mellsblue]

So I’ve read the Benn Bill. I think there’s a problem with it. Although it requires the PM to send a letter to the EU requesting an extension, there is no express consequence if that is not done. It seems to me (not a UK public law expert) that the only way to enforce it would be for someone to sue Boris for failure to discharge a statutory duty, and seek a mandatory injunction requiring him to do so, and then when he doesn’t, going back to court for an order holding him in contempt and if he doesn’t cure his contempt getting an order for his arrest and imprisonment for contempt of court.

They should have made failure to comply a criminal offence right from the start.

Hammond said the bill was designed to give time for litigation, should BJ take the despicable but entirely in character route of ignoring the law.

I suppose, also, there is the final option of the rebels forming a government following a vote of confidence.

Who would lead this rebel govt. Swinson and Hammond have said it can’t be Corbyn, Corbyn won’t allow it to be some other Lab MP, for obvious reasons, and a majority Lab govt surely can’t be led by a Tory.

[Banquo]

As your point was about healing, the risk is clearly making the divisions we see worse (and accompanying disgraceful dialogue), which a narrow majority either way will likely do, though its just possible that remainers will shrug their shoulders if a narrow leave vote.

I should, though, have asked what the referendum question would be?

I'm probably being naïve here (or possibly less naïve about where things are heading), but I'm not sure the divisions can get much worse than they're currently headed for. Either No Deal or Revoke will almost certainly end with violence on the streets.
I would certainly have any 3rd referendum being required to abide by electoral commission regulations, however; which should curb some of the bullshit; and I think politicians themselves stand a much better chance at countering what bullshit there would be, now they shouldn't be caught unawares. Of course, the bullshitters are presumably more accomplished now as well.

As for what should go on the referendum - I'd favour a preferential system of some sort with the various options included; Remain, "Norway" EEA, "Swiss" EFTA, "Turkish" Customs Union, "Canadian" CETA, No Deal. All existing "off the shelf" options with known, provable costs and benefits, no imaginary "plus"s anywhere - none of this "your vote for Norway+ can only be interpreted as a vote for No Deal bollocks.
But then I also still think that, with a long enough extension, the EU would renegotiate - but only if we withdrew Theresa's personal red lines (rather than Boris's additional red lines); though I suspect that any renegotiation would be in the form of "have this existing deal that we have with another country". I know that this is not a popular opinion.

So I’ve read the Benn Bill. I think there’s a problem with it. Although it requires the PM to send a letter to the EU requesting an extension, there is no express consequence if that is not done. It seems to me (not a UK public law expert) that the only way to enforce it would be for someone to sue Boris for failure to discharge a statutory duty, and seek a mandatory injunction requiring him to do so, and then when he doesn’t, going back to court for an order holding him in contempt and if he doesn’t cure his contempt getting an order for his arrest and imprisonment for contempt of court.

They should have made failure to comply a criminal offence right from the start.

I've not read the bill in detail; and I'm not a legal expert of any system; but... the bill is creating a new law; surely breaking it would be a criminal offense by definition?

I think you are being over-optimistic tbh, and I think that list of stuff for the referendum is incomprehensible to Joe public- hell the MPs couldn't make any sense of it, and demonstrably didn't understand the options and ramifications. These issues are precisely why parliament exists to represent the populace; however the genie is out of the bottle, partly because parliament have proved so useless.

[Stones of granite]

Supposedly, Macron has now poopooed the CETA (++) option due to the fact the UK is only 25 miles from Calais.

It's clear from that that JRM is winning - Macron using imperial units, I mean.

[Banquo]

hmm.....this has just been confirmed by Brussels apparently
'This point is being made quite strenuously by officials in Brussels this morning. Whatever happens with a request you still need the AGREEMENT of the U.K. government to whatever extension emerges.'
So looks like Bozza needs to agree the extension he is being asked to request. Murkier and murkier.

I wonder if that's why they decided to stop the filibustering.....

[Mellsblue]

As your point was about healing, the risk is clearly making the divisions we see worse (and accompanying disgraceful dialogue), which a narrow majority either way will likely do, though its just possible that remainers will shrug their shoulders if a narrow leave vote.

I should, though, have asked what the referendum question would be?

I'm probably being naïve here (or possibly less naïve about where things are heading), but I'm not sure the divisions can get much worse than they're currently headed for. Either No Deal or Revoke will almost certainly end with violence on the streets.
I would certainly have any 3rd referendum being required to abide by electoral commission regulations, however; which should curb some of the bullshit; and I think politicians themselves stand a much better chance at countering what bullshit there would be, now they shouldn't be caught unawares. Of course, the bullshitters are presumably more accomplished now as well.

As for what should go on the referendum - I'd favour a preferential system of some sort with the various options included; Remain, "Norway" EEA, "Swiss" EFTA, "Turkish" Customs Union, "Canadian" CETA, No Deal. All existing "off the shelf" options with known, provable costs and benefits, no imaginary "plus"s anywhere - none of this "your vote for Norway+ can only be interpreted as a vote for No Deal bollocks.
But then I also still think that, with a long enough extension, the EU would renegotiate - but only if we withdrew Theresa's personal red lines (rather than Boris's additional red lines); though I suspect that any renegotiation would be in the form of "have this existing deal that we have with another country". I know that this is not a popular opinion.

So I’ve read the Benn Bill. I think there’s a problem with it. Although it requires the PM to send a letter to the EU requesting an extension, there is no express consequence if that is not done. It seems to me (not a UK public law expert) that the only way to enforce it would be for someone to sue Boris for failure to discharge a statutory duty, and seek a mandatory injunction requiring him to do so, and then when he doesn’t, going back to court for an order holding him in contempt and if he doesn’t cure his contempt getting an order for his arrest and imprisonment for contempt of court.

They should have made failure to comply a criminal offence right from the start.

I've not read the bill in detail; and I'm not a legal expert of any system; but... the bill is creating a new law; surely breaking it would be a criminal offense by definition?

I think you are being over-optimistic tbh, and I think that list of stuff for the referendum is incomprehensible to Joe public- hell the MPs couldn't make any sense of it, and demonstrably didn't understand the options and ramifications. These issues are precisely why parliament exists to represent the populace; however the genie is out of the bottle, partly because parliament have proved so useless.

Let’s be honest, in any election most of the population don’t know what they’re voting for. It just needs to be a comprehensive list of options so nobody can then say we weren’t given instructions of exactly what the public so we’ll having a pissing contest for the next 5 years.