Brexit delayed

[Which Tyler]

Puzzled how a 2nd Ref would heal?

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

[Digby]

Government losing voters at this point

[Mellsblue]

I’ve just seen Bercow’s tantrum at Gove. It’s no wonder they all behave like boorish fools if that’s what the Leader of the House behaves like.
You just get the feeling that he, Corbyn and JRM were badly bullied at school for being weirdos and we are all now paying the price as they vicariously take their revenge out on all of us whilst pissed with power.

[Son of Mathonwy]

We could have the interesting spectacle of Tories voting against their government in a motion of no confidence and Labour voting to support a Tory government

I don't think it would be a confidence vote, it would be a vote for an early election. Which I'm glad to say Corbyn isn't stupid enough to go for.

Cameron's revenge from beyond the political grave.

Looks like the SNP have walked back on their desire to vote in favour of a GE as well - which probably screws that option, even as a simple bill (for which, surely the FTPA foresaw and accounted for - if not, then that act is as useful as a chocolate fire guard)

For now, we need to prioritise. A GE won't solve anything, and will probably lead to a 3-way coalition or confidence and supply. Which is why it's BJ's preferred backup.

IMO We need to get an extension, and get a 2nd referendum, before heading for a GE. The chances are that a second ref will come back with a small majority, but it's the only thing that is capable of healing divisions.
Potential flies in the ointment are if May's deal is ressurected - which I think means prorogation needs to happen first, or BJ wins a vote on his strategy.


It's going to be fascinating to see what the whipless Tories do.
Greeningnis quitting anyway. Clarke wasn't intending to stand down at the next GE anyway, but may be pissed off enough to change his mind. Hammond looks like he's going to fight potential deselection.
Which leaves 18 (and a few others who must be getting annoyed by Cummings' bully-boy tactics).
I can't see m/any of the grandees joining LibDem. Do they join CHUKb? Do they stand their ground and go quietly at the GE? Do they stand as independents? Do they start their own Moderate Conservative party (and try to win back some CHUKb ex-tories).


Question.
Given the (significantly) minority government, could we see a standing article 24 force a second referendum? Or would only a GNU be able to do that?

Agreed. If this bill goes into law BJs best hope is a GE. Even if happens after an extension is agreed there is the real danger that he could get a majority. Or get one with the DUP & Brexit. So yes, if it is humanly possible, this parliament, with its ever-diminishing band of Tories, should bring Brexit to a 2nd referendum and maybe even a conclusion.

[Mellsblue]

Could May have the last laugh........

[Which Tyler]

I've been out for a few hours (walking rugby).

WTF has happened with the Kinnock amendment, and what are the repercussions?

[Puja]

I've been out for a few hours (walking rugby).

WTF has happened with the Kinnock amendment, and what are the repercussions?

No-one's entirely sure. Basically, it brings back the cross-party adaptation of May's deal (basically the last iteration as she tried to get Labour MPs to vote for it) as an option to be voted on if Boris doesn't come back with his deal on October 19th. But it doesn't seem to be worded in a way that will compel anyone to do anything.

As to how it happened, the government "failed" to provide a teller for the No vote section, so the vote automatically went to the Ayes. An accident, I'm sure, and not a deliberate attempt to taint the bill with May's failure.

Puja

ETA. Also, how the hell does walking rugby work? I'd find it impossible not to speed up if I saw a gap and I'm a forward!

[Digby]

The government teller failing to show up is on a par with the Tories screwing over Jo Swinson on the pairings and sending their chap through to vote

[Which Tyler]

ETA. Also, how the hell does walking rugby work? I'd find it impossible not to speed up if I saw a gap and I'm a forward!

Thank you

ETA: it's great fun for those of us in the playrs' knacker's yard; give it a shot.
3-7 per side, 1/4 - 1/2 pitch, touch rugby, running/jumping is banned, but you can walk quickly if you like/can

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.