Huh?? What could May have possibly told Foster to in any way reassure her over the backstop? She seems to have no wiggle room there at all.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Can only be some sort of clarification on the temporary/indefinite nature of the backstop. EU may be prepared to give on that a little.
Another Billion?
But Foster was demanding the backstop be completely removed from the withdrawal agreement as recently as last night. Would be a major climb down for Foster to accept a clarification at this stage.
What she says in public and what she does behind closed doors clearly are two different things.
The reason we might have to resort to another referendum, is because the whole process was started by one. There's precedence in this matter. If you've already asked the people whether you should trigger A50 or not, it only makes sense that you'd ask them to either: a) ratify the withdrawal agreement or b) go for no-deal Brexit. Maybe even an option c) to bin the project.
If the government can't force the deal through the House, what other options are there? To crash out on no-deal? Is that what people voted for?
Very true. Foster also has the RHI inquiry wrapping up this week too.
You shouldn't have to appeal them - they had no business being made in the first place.
I don't know how cases are brought to the ECJ - presumably in the example I brought, it was a prisoner who raised it.
You know the UK also has a say in the EU Laws and regulations. As one of the leading states we actually had quite a large say in what the rules were. So at times we've even been able to bend the will of europe to what we want and believe in as a nation and used it to our benefit.
That sentence has inadvertently placed a terrible image in my head.
Fudge incoming.
That's a funny one, given the UK's unique "nations within a nation" approach to the nation state. And the house of Lords, etc.
The EU strikes me as much lesser threat to democratic sovereignty than your presently accepted status quo.
I will never understand why people will actively and knowingly damage the life of themselves, their families and the country as a whole just in the name of pointless things with no real logic behind them like sovereignty or austerity.
Surely the most important thing is to make sure you and your family are put in the best situation possible in their lives.
Surely the most important thing is to make sure you and your family are put in the best situation possible in their lives.
Oh god sorry.
I don't have a problem with a third person arbitrarily looking over rulings where an objective opinion is required. Yes it likely was and the UK created and signed up for rulings from the ECJ but there is still an appeals process. Much like I would say there is a high court in the UK.
Stop repeating this, it's wrong. More people didn't vote than voted leave the first time around. 17.4m is about a quarter of the population, and by all polls has shrunk since.
That would be the whole population and not the voting population
Why? They would have the opportunity together with the rest of the country to vote on the leave negotiated by the government firstly on their behalf and for the rest of the country.
I can tell you that 17.4m voters all voted for different reasons with a very big majority of them doing it to control immigration at any cost while some were swayed by the lies of the leave campaign and would understandably be angry that the promises are not materialising.
I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm just saying that once that result was in then for the democratic purists any 2nd referendum should only have the methods of leaving on the paper.
Irrelevant. Such huge changes should require a majority of the population to vote for it. We're being driven off a cliff by a fraction of the populace.
About 37% of the voting population. Wheres Remain got 35%. Turnout was 72% Voting population was 46m. So 28% people or nearly 13m didn't vote.
Maybe, and I am thinking on the fly here, another referendum could be offered, now that the choices were more 'informed' where voting was to be made mandatory.
I think the pretence it was anything else is gradually dying, listening to Sky News, all you hear is "people voted because they wanted to stop freedom of movement , even the presenters are saying it". We know, you know.
It will have the methods of leaving. Do you want to leave with this deal which is what the government has negotiated or is this not what you voted for? This ensures the whole country has a say in it and it does not exclude the 16.1m who voted to remain.
Maybe also not do it on a work day. It's kind of insane we don't have voting on a bank holiday or a weekend like some countries do. I remember the last Brexit vote, ended up having to queue for ages and ended up late for work. Also there was a lot of delays at Waterloo due to the severe rain which may have impacted some people's ability/eagerness to vote.
The number of people who were eligible to vote in the referendum was around 46.5 million, so 17.4 million represents about 37% of the total electorate. That's rather more than typically vote for the party which gets to form the government (which probably is rarely more than 25% of the electorate). The turnout for the referendum was over 72%, so the number of people who voted to leave is greater than the number who could have voted but didn't (as indeed is the number who voted to remain).
Your statement is broadly true (it's nearer 27%) if you are including all the people who weren't entitled to vote in the numbers, but I'm not sure why such a figure would be relevant.
It doesn't do that at all in any logical sense.
Just get on with it.
*feel this needs posting on at least every other page*
*feel this needs posting on at least every other page*
It is difficult that's for sure. How do you word it so as to be fair and not make people feel they are being fecked over.
Tories return the whip of a sex-texter, so he can vote for he vicar's daughter.
Not really - if it turns out that, contrary to the promises of leading Brexiteers, “leave” means continuing to follow EU laws (but without having a seat at the table when those laws are made), then some moderate Leavers may wish to have the Remain option.
Downing Street suggesting 165 votes for May would be a good result. Seems like classic expectations management to me, they must expect her to get more but would be quite hilarious if the ERG were on the receiving end of a decisive 52%-48% defeat...
Out of curiosity how would cafites vote if they were MPs?
Consider you have this WA in front of you and if it gets voted down, we could be getting no-deal Brexit, or a referendum (with unknown options), or a GE . Would you vote for it or against it?
EDIT: For the record, I would probably vote for it.
Consider you have this WA in front of you and if it gets voted down, we could be getting no-deal Brexit, or a referendum (with unknown options), or a GE . Would you vote for it or against it?
EDIT: For the record, I would probably vote for it.
So, as I have said, a referendum is way too blunt an instrument for something like this.
what time does shit start going down?
May addressing backbenchers in the 1922 committee any moment now, the vote will be held 6pm-8pm, result probably just after 8.
I'd vote for May's Deal. 100%. It's not as good as being in the EU but I actually think it has some potential.
I agree it’s ridiculous but, given the original sin of Cameron’s decision to hold the referendum, it’s difficult to dig ourselves out of this hole without going back to a referendum.
Speaking as someone from N.Ireland, who supports the Union but wouldn't vote for the DUP if you paid me - I'd back it over the no deal scenario. It actually benefits us in a way.
Obviously remain is the best option of all but we won't get that.
Boris absent from debates as usual. What a coward of a man.
I can see how it would too. Benefits of the EU without having to pay for it - because future relationship could take years. NI could become the Hong Kong of Europe
