Re: Is May going to resign today?
Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:57 pm
Ah yes I’d almost forgot...the Bercow factor
http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboard/
http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=37718
The problem is it is not just about what we or Parliament decide.AndrewJB wrote:I think it all comes down to a second referendum. Start dusting off your sandals, your yellow vests, and your prawn sandwiches everyone.
May's deal will only get an extension when passed. May's deal won't get passed, and when a no deal exit is the last stop on the line, parliament will have a choice between revoking article 50, or calling another referendum. We could also have another election, but there won't be a majority enough for that in parliament, so we come to the final endgame - though by the way politicians flap this way and that we might be forgiven for not seeing the wood for the trees.
If we don't allow no deal,nor another election, and the EU don't give us an extension; then it's second referendum. Because our government won't kill Article 50.
That's what I think.
The EU have said they'll extend Article 50 if we hold an election, hold another referendum, or significantly change our position (such as staying in the customs union). As the clock winds down and May's deal isn't passed (which I don't think it will be), we either exit with no deal, revoke, or provide the EU with a reason for extending. It's fairly clear there is no support in parliament for no deal, though I can't see parliament outright revoking Article 50 either - so this is why I think another referendum will be the last option.Hipper wrote:The problem is it is not just about what we or Parliament decide.
The EU have decisions to make too and they are in control. We have decided to leave. We have negotiated terms. Yet we can't agree those terms domestically. The EU would need to agree to revoke or extend article 50 before March 29th, and in the conditions you describe (no agreement, a new referendum with no obvious end in site) why should they. They too want to get on with managing EU affairs.
As things stand at the moment, if May does get a third Parliamentary vote and it is lost again, it is surely 'no deal'.
France didn't sound like they were going to extend for another referendum. An extension needs unanimous approval by all 27 countries.AndrewJB wrote:The EU have said they'll extend Article 50 if we hold an election, hold another referendum, or significantly change our position (such as staying in the customs union). As the clock winds down and May's deal isn't passed (which I don't think it will be), we either exit with no deal, revoke, or provide the EU with a reason for extending. It's fairly clear there is no support in parliament for no deal, though I can't see parliament outright revoking Article 50 either - so this is why I think another referendum will be the last option.
They might not sound like that, but most of the twenty-seven won't be happy if we've called for a referendum and France crashes us out anyway. Considering we could then just revoke A50, it would only be an empty negative gesture.dsr wrote:France didn't sound like they were going to extend for another referendum. An extension needs unanimous approval by all 27 countries.
It will be last resorts for a 2nd referendum or GE as it takes away the power from the MPs.AndrewJB wrote:The EU have said they'll extend Article 50 if we hold an election, hold another referendum, or significantly change our position (such as staying in the customs union). As the clock winds down and May's deal isn't passed (which I don't think it will be), we either exit with no deal, revoke, or provide the EU with a reason for extending. It's fairly clear there is no support in parliament for no deal, though I can't see parliament outright revoking Article 50 either - so this is why I think another referendum will be the last option.
And it could see the complete opposite as well, which is why brexiteers don't want to risk it.MPs have all the power now but a GE could see all remainer MPs in Leave areas voted out and Corbyn losing again so will have to resign. He can't carry on can he?
A 2nd referendum could see Leave winning again and maybe a big vote for no deal. That would be a huge blow for the MPs and I just can't see them risking it.
Yes you're right it could be the opposite, which is why all MPs won't want to risk it.Lancasterclaret wrote:And it could see the complete opposite as well, which is why brexiteers don't want to risk it.
Because of our FPTP system, it would be perfectly possible for remain to win the popular vote, and get about 100 MPs, and ditto Leave.
Leave with a deal is the safest way out of this.
As a lifelong Labour supporter I don't think that's a bad shout IanIanMcL wrote:If she was a referee, the UK would be singing in harmony...
"You don't know what you're doing!"
Best if May, Cable and Corbyn resigned and we had another referendum, followed by a GE.
Clean sweep of everyone.
Well Cable's going, May is unlikely to last beyond the autumn, and if Corbyn gets it wrong at the EU elections then there'll be huge pressure from rank and file for him to go, especially as it's absolutely clear that he will never tackle the ant-semitism issue.Vino blanco wrote:Mel, as a life long labour supporter, that you say you are, you know it's not going to happen. But good luck with your dreams.
If Miliband (D) were to become leader of the Labour Party, reclaim some of the centre ground, root out anti-semitism, adopt Green policies and campaign on the promise of a Confirmatory Vote, my view is that Labour would quickly see off the challenge presented by Change UK and the Lib Dems, and the party would storm ahead of the Tories in the polls.IanMcL wrote:David Miliband looking to rescue Labour? Starting to pop up, here and there.
...and he is a Thunderbird after all!
(International Rescue)
So that gives her until August unless you are counting preseason matches.Top Claret wrote:Like I gave Dyche after the Everton defeat, she has 2 more games
He is certainly equipped to do that.nil_desperandum wrote:If Miliband (D) were to become leader of the Labour Party, reclaim some of the centre ground, root out anti-semitism, adopt Green policies and campaign on the promise of a Confirmatory Vote, my view is that Labour would quickly see off the challenge presented by Change UK and the Lib Dems, and the party would storm ahead of the Tories in the polls.
Yes, you're correct with your first sentence, but you come across as an intelligent poster, so you must understand that at a GE (with our FPTP system) either Tory or Labour will emerge as the largest party. The 2 centre ground parties, (+Greens) can't win many seats.If it be your will wrote:But we've already got 2 centre ground parties, you've just listed them. Anyone that wants a party for the status quo, one that won't rock the boat too much, is spoilt for choice already. Why do you want to remove the only genuinely left wing option? That doesn't sound very democratic.
I do agree with one thing, though: If D Miliband was made Labour leader, we'd never hear about anti-semitism in the Labour party again.
There's nothing like extremism of the centre to make you casually throw around such definitions.nil_desperandum wrote:... extremists like the ERG and DUP...
Where have you got that quote from?thatdberight wrote:There's nothing like extremism of the centre to make you casually throw around such definitions.
You could be central but be extreme in your view of what diverges sufficiently from the centre to merit the term 'extremist'. As you proved.nil_desperandum wrote:Where have you got that quote from?
It makes no sense at all. By definition if you're in the centre you can't be on the extremes, although I suppose you could be extremely central.
I suspect the Unions found his brother easier to boss around.mkmel wrote:A few years ago it should have been him and not his brother
Good reply.thatdberight wrote:You've really got it in for Liz Kendall, haven't you?
More seriously, I don't see your examples as "extremist" any more than I see Corbyn as extremist. I think that categorisation should be reserved for more extreme views or it becomes devalued. I also think it's counterproductive, and wrong, to label views which command significant support as "extremist". By definition, they're mainstream however much or little I might agree with them.nil_desperandum wrote:Good reply.
I've honestly no idea why my post came up like that with those massive gaps, and with the very colourless Liz at the bottom. For some reason it won't allow me to delete the gap when I edit, so apologies to other posters for the messy post.
I suppose it comes down to how you are defining "extreme". I'm simply using the term to describe the relative distance from the centre.thatdberight wrote:More seriously, I don't see your examples as "extremist" any more than I see Corbyn as extremist. I think that categorisation should be reserved for more extreme views or it becomes devalued. I also think it's counterproductive, and wrong, to label views which command significant support as "extremist". By definition, they're mainstream however much or little I might agree with them.
I'm certainly not going to define "extremists" by "anti-abortion, opposed to same-sex marriage,". You're in danger of describing many Sikhs, Catholics, Muslims and others (if religious or other persuasion) in the UK as "extremists". Out of step (although it should be noted only by 30-40 years and only in this country) perhaps, but "extremists"? Large swathes of the world have populations who have such views. Are they "extremists"? I don't doubt you do nuance and you might well say that extremism in this debate has a different threshold than others. I still think it's an unhelpful tag to attach too easily to people and shows, even inadvertently, how extremely narrow our mainstream is becoming.nil_desperandum wrote:I suppose it comes down to how you are defining "extreme". I'm simply using the term to describe the relative distance from the centre.
(i.e. Mark Francois further away from centre than most other people in his party).
Incidentally, being mainstream doesn't mean you can't be an extremist. (There are some rather obvious examples in history. [1930s and 40s Germany and Stalinist Russia for example])
You make good and interesting points, and I've enjoyed this little debate. I'd like to continue, but I'm driving down to Sussex at 6 in the morning, so need to do some prep and get to bed.thatdberight wrote:I'm certainly not going to define "extremists" by "anti-abortion, opposed to same-sex marriage,". You're in danger of describing many Sikhs, Catholics, Muslims and others (if religious or other persuasion) in the UK as "extremists". Out of step (although it should be noted only by 30-40 years and only in this country) perhaps, but "extremists"? Large swathes of the world have populations who have such views. Are they "extremists"? I don't doubt you do nuance and you might well say that extremism in this debate has a different threshold than others. I still think it's an unhelpful tag to attach too easily to people and shows, even inadvertently, how extremely narrow our mainstream is becoming.