Given May chose to delay the initial vote is he not effectively sticking pretty much to what would have been a three week window? With the end of March looming and with so much time spent ****ing about I don’t see the issue honestly. Perhaps I’m being over-simplistic about it. Long bastard train to Sheffield anyway. I’ve got two hours to go if anyone has any suggestions
You're lucky I didn't come today, as I could have told you (in about 2hrs) my new radical Brexit plan.
Bloody hell! No drinks service! for the £80 fare they wanted, I would have expected silver service! I blame the Tories. Ever since they sold the railways off, you can't get a stale old sandwich for £4.50.
"This crap from the EU about - you have our deal and we won't shift is what anyone says in negotiations - and when the deal looks to be going south, they shift, they haggle. The EU has form on this approach, it's done it time and time again." You're not the only person on this forum who is experienced in negotiating deals. Those are the facts of life. But substitute 'UK' for 'EU' and your sentence applies equally. You go into negotiations with a realistic wish list and having considered what is important to you and less important to you so that you can have something to give away in negotiations. All negotiators do that. There will often be that clash of non-negotiable principles at the start. However once the horse trading begins and both sides get to assess the strength of their opponent's case there will usually be a series of mutual concessions. It is highly unusual for one side to cave in or capitulate. The fact which has been grasped by many and may well be accepted to be based on reality but is always simply dismissed as Operation Fear by Brexiteers is that the UK's position was simply untenable. The real question is why has it gone so disastrously. Is it really because it was always some devious plot by a remainer at heart to thwart the will of the people or is it because she has realised that her starting position is flawed and unachievable without huge social economic and political cast to the UK. That first possibility seems unreal to me. It is as based in truth as most of the bullshit that has emanated form the Brexit side of the debate. If it were correct, our patriotic political intelligentsia really are stupid because they voted her in and continued to support her.
The issue is what problems this kind of rash circumvention of the rules has on Parliamentary business in the future, having set a dangerous precedent. It's about the right of government to govern, and the ability of opposition and other parties to frustrate that by controlling time limits on the passing of legislation. Apparently, Bercow could also make a change to Standing Order 14. This order states that government business has precedence at every Parliamentary sitting. Through centuries, this rule has given government dominance in the Commons. If Bercow allows a bi-pass of this article, it represents a fundamental shift between government and Parliament - The Sunday Times says the most fundamental since the Speaker defied Charles 1 in 2642. For Remain and Labour supporters, they may say, great let's do it. But, say Corbyn got into government, and the Tories, the DUP and a few UKIP mp's (it's possible) sought to prevent Corbyn from carrying out his agenda... This is why what Bercow is doing, in pursuit of his desire to stop Brexit, is so fundamentally serious
Sounds quite sensible based on that to be honest. I’d much rather put my trust in a majority of 650 MPs than the few who have clawed their way to the top of the tree.
What has gone wrong is that May treated the negotiations as friendly from the start, when they were not. They were hostile. If Trump had been negotiating, he would have started on the basis that we were leaving with no deal. This would be the central plank. Anything the EU wanted to offer beyond that would be considered against this. Instead, we've had May with her begging bowl, telling the electorate that she was sure there would be a deal, and the EU saying, no, not unless you capitulate on everything. The EU have never seriously been challenged to look at how badly they would be affected by a no-deal. There is only pain for them in it. For us, while it would be temporarily disruptive, we keep the £39bn to use as a bargaining chip in future negotiations and we resolve our Brexit problem and the parliamentary impasse.
But then you have the impossible situation that any government voted in by the electorate, will be told what to do by the opposition!
Not really. May chose to piss away a slim majority for a start and even with a minority government you’ll have MPs abstaining or agreeing with the government if an idea isn’t complete nonsense.
Many of May's problems are of her own making. But the changes Bercow seems to be intent on putting through will be felt long after May has left office. Even if a government has a healthy majority, the opposition could frustrate it carrying out what it promised in its manifesto by stalling tactics like amendments, that until now, would not have been possible.
Her vote share rose, she got 318 seats to Corbyn's 262. The DUP gives her the working majority. These arrangements have been made in parliament for centuries. What are you saying? That opposition parties should gather together and govern? Labour and the Scots Nats hate each other. They are at each other's throats whenever the electorate in Scotland is discussed.
