Nik, you might want to cut a few flaps in that banner if this wind keeps up!
DavPaz wrote:
Nik, you might want to cut a few flaps in that banner if this wind keeps up!
I was hoping to use it to fly across the channel.
But yes, good idea, thanks.
I'm not entirely sure how these things work on marches. I keep getting emails from different groups saying "join our bloc". Not sure if I need to be in a bloc, or if there's a bloc for people who hate Brexit but like swearing. Also it sounds like each bloc has one banner and many placards, so my wife and I might be one very small bloc. Then there's the risk of being arrested for public obscenity, but that could be quite a laugh.
The first amendment MPs will vote on today is about a second referendum. I'm not getting my hopes up, but if the number of Tories voting for it is larger than the number of Labour opposing it, that would be a positive step.
Nik wrote:
I'm not entirely sure how these things work on marches. I keep getting emails from different groups saying "join our bloc". Not sure if I need to be in a bloc, or if there's a bloc for people who hate Brexit but like swearing. Also it sounds like each bloc has one banner and many placards, so my wife and I might be one very small bloc.
One of the memories from sixth-form that's stuck in my mind was my politics teacher encouraging us to go on marches but warning us to stay well away from the SWP.
Quote:
Then there's the risk of being arrested for public obscenity, but that could be quite a laugh.
Until you try to get a DBS check.
Based on the banners I photographed at the Trump march, a "fuck" isn't going to even register.
Kern wrote:
The first amendment MPs will vote on today is about a second referendum.
I'm still worried that the vote would turn out the same way.
Grim... wrote:
Kern wrote:
The first amendment MPs will vote on today is about a second referendum.
I'm still worried that the vote would turn out the same way.
So am I. But at least that break the logjam in Parliament. We've been dealt a very painful lesson here that unless very carefully phrased, referendums are poisonous to representative democracy. We need to get the poison out.
I think that the Spelman/Cooper amendment would mean that a second referendum would have to be remain/renegotiate deal, with No Deal not an option. That does something to the maths, I think.
Obviously, I meant "third referendum"' or "final say vote" ("'people's vote" irks me for some reason but apparently it's been roadtested).
Yes, it's a heck of a risk but unless a party were to win on a manifesto clearly stating "revoke and/or rejoin", going back to the populace is the only way to avoid cries of "betrayal".
The remain side would have the benefit of three years' experience of leaving, the demographic churn of the leave vote, and picking up tips from the previous campaign winners. Note how these days it's all about different groups pushing for it, not one organisation fronted by Cameron and Osborne.
In the first post in this thread I stated that I was happy with the franchise (UK General Election). Whilst it's unfair on 16-18 year olds and our friends from other EU countries, I think we have to stick to it, just to further reduce any claims of gerrymandering.
Yes, it's a heck of a risk but unless a party were to win on a manifesto clearly stating "revoke and/or rejoin", going back to the populace is the only way to avoid cries of "betrayal".
The remain side would have the benefit of three years' experience of leaving, the demographic churn of the leave vote, and picking up tips from the previous campaign winners. Note how these days it's all about different groups pushing for it, not one organisation fronted by Cameron and Osborne.
In the first post in this thread I stated that I was happy with the franchise (UK General Election). Whilst it's unfair on 16-18 year olds and our friends from other EU countries, I think we have to stick to it, just to further reduce any claims of gerrymandering.
DBSnappa wrote:
I’m doing the march on 23rd. Anybody from here going?
Well, y'know what, maybe I'm not so keen on putting in the effort now, when you put it like this:
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1106196481172746240
So Remainer organisations are now telling Remainer MPs to abstain from supporting a People's Vote, before organising a march next weekend for a People's Vote.
— Ian Dunt (@IanDunt) March 14, 2019
Kern wrote:
Yes, it's a heck of a risk but unless a party were to win on a manifesto clearly stating "revoke and/or rejoin", going back to the populace is the only way to avoid cries of "betrayal".
If there's another referendum they'll be cries of "betrayal" too, and I struggle to disagree with them.
The same is true of any outcome other than a no deal brexit though.
In fact a referendum is the only one that wouldn't be a betrayal, because the option would be there for every single leave voter to vote the exact same way they did before.
If they then don't win because of people changing their minds now they know what brexit will actually mean, that's not a betrayal of anything, that's just whining that they can't have their unicorns.
If they then don't win because of people changing their minds now they know what brexit will actually mean, that's not a betrayal of anything, that's just whining that they can't have their unicorns.
I think any chance of second referendum flew away earlier.
Cras wrote:
In fact a referendum is the only one that wouldn't be a betrayal, because the option would be there for every single leave voter to vote the exact same way they did before.
If they then don't win because of people changing their minds now they know what brexit will actually mean, that's not a betrayal of anything, that's just whining that they can't have their unicorns.
If they then don't win because of people changing their minds now they know what brexit will actually mean, that's not a betrayal of anything, that's just whining that they can't have their unicorns.
Are we going to have another referendum after that?
I don't buy that as an argument because this isn't the same referendum. This is between actual choices of known outcomes, the last one was vague undefined principles.
The Gammons won't think that though.
I struggle to understand why people would consider a second referendum a "betrayal". Surely it could be positioned as an option of "now you can choose the type of brexit you want, or just say screw it all"? That's not a betrayal, that's asking the country how they want to proceed now that the government has attempted to negotiate a withdrawal and we know how each route of Brexit could go.
It's been not far off 3 years now since the referendum. If we're going to say that the population isn't going to have changed their mind in those 3 years, and that we "must honour the results", then isn't that almost the same as asking: Why do we have elections every 4 years? Isn't that a betrayal of what/who we chose 4 years ago? Suggesting we need to stick to a result from 3 years ago when we knew pretty much nothing about what would happen just seems incredibly stupid to me.
It's been not far off 3 years now since the referendum. If we're going to say that the population isn't going to have changed their mind in those 3 years, and that we "must honour the results", then isn't that almost the same as asking: Why do we have elections every 4 years? Isn't that a betrayal of what/who we chose 4 years ago? Suggesting we need to stick to a result from 3 years ago when we knew pretty much nothing about what would happen just seems incredibly stupid to me.
If it's a straight choice between Deal or No Deal, then I have the perfect man to front the campaign...
If it’s a choice of Pixies Deal or no Deal, I pick Deal. They’ve been crap ever since she left.
TheCookie197 wrote:
I struggle to understand why people would consider a second referendum a "betrayal". Surely it could be positioned as an option of "now you can choose the type of brexit you want, or just say screw it all"? That's not a betrayal, that's asking the country how they want to proceed now that the government has attempted to negotiate a withdrawal and we know how each route of Brexit could go.
It's been not far off 3 years now since the referendum. If we're going to say that the population isn't going to have changed their mind in those 3 years, and that we "must honour the results", then isn't that almost the same as asking: Why do we have elections every 4 years? Isn't that a betrayal of what/who we chose 4 years ago? Suggesting we need to stick to a result from 3 years ago when we knew pretty much nothing about what would happen just seems incredibly stupid to me.
It's been not far off 3 years now since the referendum. If we're going to say that the population isn't going to have changed their mind in those 3 years, and that we "must honour the results", then isn't that almost the same as asking: Why do we have elections every 4 years? Isn't that a betrayal of what/who we chose 4 years ago? Suggesting we need to stick to a result from 3 years ago when we knew pretty much nothing about what would happen just seems incredibly stupid to me.
Well said!
I've never been to Deal, but I've been to Canterbury, which is pretty close, and once caught a ferry from Dover. I guess that's No Deal then.
Grim... wrote:
If there's another referendum they'll be cries of "betrayal" too, and I struggle to disagree with them.
There is substantial precedent in politics for:
(1) should we attempt to do the thing?
(2) <attempts to negotiate thing, to some degree of success>
(3) here's the deal we have negotiated, do you agree to that deal or not?
I don't buy the argument that a ratification referendum is a constitutional outrage. It's a pretty standard practice in this sort of thing. Usually, (1) and (3) are both run by Parliament, but Cameron chose to make (1) a poll of the public. It follows that it is perfectly consistent for (3) to also be up to the same public.
You could even go one stage further and argue that not holding a ratification referendum is the more substantive betrayal of the implicit promise of the first referendum. It was a very broad and ambiguous question that offered no guidance on any number of issues. In the absence of a second referendum, interpreting how to navigate all of those issues is left up to squabbling factions in Parliament. They might or might not arrive at a solution that genuinely reflects what people want... but we won't know if we don't check.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
It was a very broad and ambiguous question that offered no guidance on any number of issues
My MP assured me in her last letter that it wasn't ambiguous or open at all, but that people were voting to take control of their "laws, money, and borders". I gave up at that point and decided that such a patronising and insulting line, from someone who frankly should know better, was not deserving of any more of my time.
Besides, "peace, land, and bread" was always the better slogan.
Check out @elliotttimes’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/elliotttimes/status ... 1643341825
?
Check out @Steven_Swinford’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/sta ... 8608965632
?
Lolz
Read out from political cabinet:
— Francis Elliott (@elliotttimes) March 14, 2019
May "went batshit" at Remain rebels
Clark's effort to defend himself "ended badly"
Rudd "bashful".
?
Check out @Steven_Swinford’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/sta ... 8608965632
Latest from Cabinet
— Steven Swinford (@Steven_Swinford) March 14, 2019
Theresa May raised concerns about frequency & scale of leaks from Cabinet
She said there are too many and they are happening too often
She also suggested some ministers are being self-serving and are posturing
Cox made a 'unifying' intervention at end
?
Lolz
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Grim... wrote:
If there's another referendum they'll be cries of "betrayal" too, and I struggle to disagree with them.
There is substantial precedent in politics for:
(1) should we attempt to do the thing?
(2) <attempts to negotiate thing, to some degree of success>
(3) here's the deal we have negotiated, do you agree to that deal or not?
I don't buy the argument that a ratification referendum is a constitutional outrage. It's a pretty standard practice in this sort of thing. Usually, (1) and (3) are both run by Parliament, but Cameron chose to make (1) a poll of the public. It follows that it is perfectly consistent for (3) to also be up to the same public.
You could even go one stage further and argue that not holding a ratification referendum is the more substantive betrayal of the implicit promise of the first referendum. It was a very broad and ambiguous question that offered no guidance on any number of issues. In the absence of a second referendum, interpreting how to navigate all of those issues is left up to squabbling factions in Parliament. They might or might not arrive at a solution that genuinely reflects what people want... but we won't know if we don't check.
Let’s not overlook the fact that the Leave campaign was found, by the courts, of acting illegally during the campaign and the only reason the results weren’t negated is because the result isn’t legally binding
Cras wrote:
In fact a referendum is the only one that wouldn't be a betrayal, because the option would be there for every single leave voter to vote the exact same way they did before.
If they then don't win because of people changing their minds now they know what brexit will actually mean, that's not a betrayal of anything, that's just whining that they can't have their unicorns.
If they then don't win because of people changing their minds now they know what brexit will actually mean, that's not a betrayal of anything, that's just whining that they can't have their unicorns.
DBSnappa wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Grim... wrote:
If there's another referendum they'll be cries of "betrayal" too, and I struggle to disagree with them.
There is substantial precedent in politics for:
(1) should we attempt to do the thing?
(2) <attempts to negotiate thing, to some degree of success>
(3) here's the deal we have negotiated, do you agree to that deal or not?
I don't buy the argument that a ratification referendum is a constitutional outrage. It's a pretty standard practice in this sort of thing. Usually, (1) and (3) are both run by Parliament, but Cameron chose to make (1) a poll of the public. It follows that it is perfectly consistent for (3) to also be up to the same public.
You could even go one stage further and argue that not holding a ratification referendum is the more substantive betrayal of the implicit promise of the first referendum. It was a very broad and ambiguous question that offered no guidance on any number of issues. In the absence of a second referendum, interpreting how to navigate all of those issues is left up to squabbling factions in Parliament. They might or might not arrive at a solution that genuinely reflects what people want... but we won't know if we don't check.
Let’s not overlook the fact that the Leave campaign was found, by the courts, of acting illegally during the campaign and the only reason the results weren’t negated is because the result isn’t legally binding
Also
Well, the Wollaston amendment lost 85 - 334.
That suggests that were Labour to have backed it, it probably wouldn't pass. But circumstances might change between now and whenever it comes back to the floor (if it does).
That suggests that were Labour to have backed it, it probably wouldn't pass. But circumstances might change between now and whenever it comes back to the floor (if it does).
Kern wrote:
Well, the Wollaston amendment lost 85 - 334.
That suggests that were Labour to have backed it, it probably wouldn't pass. But circumstances might change between now and whenever it comes back to the floor (if it does).
That suggests that were Labour to have backed it, it probably wouldn't pass. But circumstances might change between now and whenever it comes back to the floor (if it does).
I don't think it will.
The Benn amendment giving control over the process to the House, failed 312-314.
Guess MPs didn't really like taking back control after all.
Guess MPs didn't really like taking back control after all.
This is fun isn't it?
I suspect if someone put forward an amendment to give all MPs a 50% raise and a free handjob it would get voted down by 310-308 (or close to that) at the moment...
I suspect if someone put forward an amendment to give all MPs a 50% raise and a free handjob it would get voted down by 310-308 (or close to that) at the moment...
I've just discovered the official Commons app, giving all the results, all the time. Genius.
After tonight's entertainment, I'm now fearing that the Prime Minister will win on the third attempt. Several tiles switched to the pessimism pile.
Wales are probably going to win on Saturday too now.
Wales are probably going to win on Saturday too now.
They have passed a vote with a significant majority!
To ask the EU for an extension, to which I expect their response will be "for what?"
To ask the EU for an extension, to which I expect their response will be "for what?"
To not ask until they know whether another go at voting on the deal will pass on the 20th...
Asking the same question 3 times? Surely that goes against the will of the people?
A rather excellent reminder of how the Irish border is much more than a Brexit bargaining chip:
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2019-irish-border/
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2019-irish-border/
https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/stat ... 5518574592
Today in Brexit. It's all perfectly simplehttps://t.co/jyhLGLz92P pic.twitter.com/787jp3k9r7
— Michael Deacon (@MichaelPDeacon) March 14, 2019
Spotted by one of my team mates in Hong Kong
This March for Leave is hilarious
Indeed.
https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/11 ... 0532947968
https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/11 ... 0532947968
Day two of the #MarchToLeave. 77 people including photographers. @Nigel_farage should apologise to those marchers for this farce. But of course he’s disappeared. Shameful. pic.twitter.com/I2MRNsAOR1
— Led By Donkeys (@ByDonkeys) March 17, 2019
Crazy. £50 to join in - that would include your accommodation along the route. So, a bargain (paid for by shady figures, presumably). And still, bugger all people.
Holy shit, Bercow is telling May to go piss up a rope
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/11 ... 7638757376
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/11 ... 7638757376
Bercow ‘if the govt wishes to bring forward a new proposition that is not same or substantially the same’ as deal last week - but he says govt ‘cannot legitimately’ put substantially the same deal back to the House
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) March 18, 2019
I'm not entirely sure he can do that
MrChris wrote:
I'm not entirely sure he can do that
Erskine and May is quite clear that he can.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/ ... 4844721154
Here’s the relevant extract - page 397 of Erskine May: pic.twitter.com/Foi3ZIGQCi
— Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) March 18, 2019
(edit to change to a better quality image)
Giphy "shit just got real":
https://media3.giphy.com/media/elxy6ZsuLHjCE/giphy-loop.mp4
https://media3.giphy.com/media/elxy6ZsuLHjCE/giphy-loop.mp4
What defines a "session"?
A queens speech I think
Trooper wrote:
What defines a "session"?
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/occasions/calendar/
In other news
https://twitter.com/jeremydcape/status/ ... 8965698560
You should have been paying attention in episode 4 of Season 2 of Brexit, when the camera dwelt on the Speaker as he mentioned the discourtesy to the House, because it was destined to be relevant in episode 12 of Season 3.
— Jeremy Cape (@jeremydcape) March 18, 2019
Page 104 of 131 [ 6503 posts ]