Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Kier Starmer in the HoC currently talking on behalf of the proposed Indicative Vote ammendment.
Speaking well and making sensible points.

The Indicative Vote process seems to me to be just about the only hope of a breaking the current log jam.
Unsurprisingly TM has said that the government will vote against the ammendment.
 
SteveJ said:
Pretty damn shameful:

'About half an hour ago Dominic Grieve, the Conservative pro-European, mentioned reports saying the cabinet has been taking Brexit decisions based on what is best for the Conservative party, not what is best for the country.

The Times columnist Rachel Sylvester has just published a column with more on this charge. Here is an extract.

I am told that the minutes of the cabinet meeting contain at least five references to the Tories’ narrow political concerns. According to the official account, written by Sir Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, ministers discussed how the government is “committed to delivering Brexit — not to do so would be damaging to the Conservative party”. And in a clear sign of the political nature of the discussion chaired by the prime minister, the minutes end with the words: “The Conservative party wants to stay in government and get councillors elected. The arguments in parliament could jeopardise that.”

It is extremely unusual for such language to creep into a civil service note — partisan debates are supposed to be limited to special political cabinet meetings from which officials are excluded. In fact the tone of the minutes was so extraordinary that the issue was raised at this morning’s cabinet meeting by ministers who stressed the importance of governing in the national rather than the party interest.

This was, however, part of a pattern. One Whitehall source says: “In recent weeks there have been an increasing number of mentions in cabinet minutes about how Brexit has to be delivered for the sake of the Conservative party. That will be damning when the public inquiry into Brexit happens. The civil service are now finding ways of ensuring that the political decisions that are being taken will one day be fully understood.”'
Click to expand...
Shameful indeed. This has been clear looking in from the outside, but good to see civil servants making sure it is all on record.
 
Ken Clarke talking about having a single transferable vote on the indicative votes. Makes perfect sense, they have to be considered simultaneously or else the order of the votes becomes very significant.
 
SteveJ said:
Pretty damn shameful:

'About half an hour ago Dominic Grieve, the Conservative pro-European, mentioned reports saying the cabinet has been taking Brexit decisions based on what is best for the Conservative party, not what is best for the country.

The Times columnist Rachel Sylvester has just published a column with more on this charge. Here is an extract.

I am told that the minutes of the cabinet meeting contain at least five references to the Tories’ narrow political concerns. According to the official account, written by Sir Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, ministers discussed how the government is “committed to delivering Brexit — not to do so would be damaging to the Conservative party”. And in a clear sign of the political nature of the discussion chaired by the prime minister, the minutes end with the words: “The Conservative party wants to stay in government and get councillors elected. The arguments in parliament could jeopardise that.”

It is extremely unusual for such language to creep into a civil service note — partisan debates are supposed to be limited to special political cabinet meetings from which officials are excluded. In fact the tone of the minutes was so extraordinary that the issue was raised at this morning’s cabinet meeting by ministers who stressed the importance of governing in the national rather than the party interest.

This was, however, part of a pattern. One Whitehall source says: “In recent weeks there have been an increasing number of mentions in cabinet minutes about how Brexit has to be delivered for the sake of the Conservative party. That will be damning when the public inquiry into Brexit happens. The civil service are now finding ways of ensuring that the political decisions that are being taken will one day be fully understood.”'
Click to expand...

You say 'when the public inquiry'
Is it when or is it if....
 
Penna said:
Ken Clarke talking about having a single transferable vote on the indicative votes. Makes perfect sense, they have to be considered simultaneously or else the order of the votes becomes very significant.
Click to expand...
He's tried to introduce this before as an amendment to May's deal bills, but the speaker didn't select it. Although now the EU have shown willingness to extend then it could be put to the public instead of MPs, but whether parliament or people single transferable vote is the best way forward for me.
 
Penna said:
Ken Clarke talking about having a single transferable vote on the indicative votes. Makes perfect sense, they have to be considered simultaneously or else the order of the votes becomes very significant.
Click to expand...

Entirely correct.
As with everything, the devil is in the detail.
 
SteveJ said:
Pretty damn shameful:

'About half an hour ago Dominic Grieve, the Conservative pro-European, mentioned reports saying the cabinet has been taking Brexit decisions based on what is best for the Conservative party, not what is best for the country.

The Times columnist Rachel Sylvester has just published a column with more on this charge. Here is an extract.

I am told that the minutes of the cabinet meeting contain at least five references to the Tories’ narrow political concerns. According to the official account, written by Sir Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, ministers discussed how the government is “committed to delivering Brexit — not to do so would be damaging to the Conservative party”. And in a clear sign of the political nature of the discussion chaired by the prime minister, the minutes end with the words: “The Conservative party wants to stay in government and get councillors elected. The arguments in parliament could jeopardise that.”

It is extremely unusual for such language to creep into a civil service note — partisan debates are supposed to be limited to special political cabinet meetings from which officials are excluded. In fact the tone of the minutes was so extraordinary that the issue was raised at this morning’s cabinet meeting by ministers who stressed the importance of governing in the national rather than the party interest.

This was, however, part of a pattern. One Whitehall source says: “In recent weeks there have been an increasing number of mentions in cabinet minutes about how Brexit has to be delivered for the sake of the Conservative party. That will be damning when the public inquiry into Brexit happens. The civil service are now finding ways of ensuring that the political decisions that are being taken will one day be fully understood.”'
Click to expand...
Maybe its just me, but if i had been frontstabbed by my colleagues in the ERG multiple times i would be tempted to just say "feck the lot of you" and push for soft Brexit or Remain. Just to spite them.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Nah, @Siorac is right. The term 'nation state' is anachronistic and England was a pretty diverse place at the time with huge cultural variation between various areas. The Danelaw (and the north east in paticular) was particularly was pretty different to the rest of England and had strong links to Scandinavia as a result of Viking settlement. You'll often see the term 'Anglo-Scandinavian' in historic writing to describe those areas, and William of Malmesbury complained in 1130ish that he couldn't understand people form the north because they spoke such a weird language. Hell, William the Conqueror only went North of the Humber about three times, and one of those was to commit genocide because the northerners were being too rebellious.



I'm not really sure what the relevance of it is on anything to do with Brexit, mind.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth.

The Danelaw had fallen to Athelstan king of the Anglo Saxon's of Wessex and Mercia at the time. Which is the point of citing it as the first time England as an entity existed.

Following the failed attempt to defeat him at the battle of Brunanburh he ruled as king of the English from 927 until he died in 939.
 


Guys, you're saying the quiet bit loud again.
 
Minimalist said:
My reaction to most of this stuff now is a mixture of laughter, confusion and eventually it reaches the old faithful of...

MFbZbn8.gif

yeeoo
Click to expand...
Where’s that from? I miss Billy Connelly.
 
Siorac said:
No, England was not a nation state before the Normann conquest. That is factually wrong on a number of levels. The modern concept of nation didn't even exist back then. The Kingdom of England was no more of a nation state than the Kingdom of Poland. Or the Holy Roman Empire.

And I hear often that 'if only the EU had remained a trading block'. First, for the UK it's still pretty close to being just that: you opted out of almost everything else yet it's clearly still not enough.

Second, I'm pretty sure the UK would want out of the EEC if it was still called that. Because even when you joined it was already a lot more than a simple trading block. It already had freedom of movement for workers. It had already been working towards further integration. Because it had never been intended to be a simple trading block.

What’s happening now is basically the return of the idea of splendid isolation. It shows that the British still don't really consider themselves to be part of Europe. You want out because you can't dictate the terms. Because you think you don't need those pesky Europeans who are such a bother and you can do just fine without them. Yes, we'll grant them the favour of trade but otherwise leave us alone.

It's a shame because European cooperation could really use the Brits. But they simply don't want it.
Click to expand...

Yes. Although only 17 million of the 67 million population didn't want it. Compulsory voting really should be a thing.
 
711 said:
You're wrong about England not being a nation state, it was pretty homogeneous with an agreed government before the Norman conquest, as @Steerpike says. Everyone, bar possibly the Cornish, spoke the same language, and that language wasn't spoken elsewhere. It's arguable GB or the UK isn't a nation state, but a group of nations, you may be getting confused with that.

The rest is about right, except it tends to apply to about half of the British, and not the other half, which is of course the problem in the first place.
Click to expand...

So @Steerpike is saying that we are a group of nation states, that should leave a larger grouping of nation states, remaining as part of this smallet group of nation states, because being part of a group of nation states prevents us from functioning as a nation state? Glad we cleared that one up.
 
Last edited:
Wibble said:
So you are saying that we are a group of nation states, that should leave a larger grouping of nation states, remaining as part of this smallet group of nation states, because being part of a group of nation states prevents us from functioning as a nation state? Glad we cleared that one up.
Click to expand...
I did said that it was arguable that Britain or the UK were a group of nation states, as the Scots certainly would argue that. I didn't say we should leave the EU, I don't know where you got that from, and I'm not sure who said anything about being prevented from functioning as a nation state but it certainly wasn't me. Still, one out of three's not bad I suppose.

I suspect you may be mixing me up with someone else Wibs.
 
SteveJ said:
As in the US, there's too much power and authority vested in the leader. May's holding Parliament and the nation hostage.
Click to expand...

To be fair, May could be booted out tomorrow if the Tories wanted rid of her - just that no one else wants to step up.
 
Maticmaker said:
As far as the first part is concerned, not at the present, because the same trading laws/regulations/tariffs currently apply in the north and south. If there are changes in the future then customs checks may become necessary, however by then we are told reliably that the new customs technology advances we hear about should be operating everywhere.
Trade deals will change as an when required, at the moment its hard to see how things would change rapidly as it would not be in the interests of either side for that to happen, neither side , as I understand it, actually wants to stop trading with each other, certainly not on the Island of Ireland.
Click to expand...

That isn't how it works. Countries don't just decide ad hoc how to deal with custom checks. They're an essential part of any of the trade agreements we are already in, and want to enter into. Just deciding we don't care about that is what the WTO guards against, and is one of the main reasons a no deal outcome is particularly difficult to manage. Especially in the immediate aftermath.
 
The goverment are doing their usual trick again, promise the same as the amendment to get it to fail and then they'll water it down to their favour.

Tory remainer idiots will fall for it and Letwins amendment won't pass
 
Smores said:
The goverment are doing their usual trick again, promise the same as the amendment to get it to fail and then they'll water it down to their favour.

Tory remainer idiots will fall for it and Letwins amendment won't pass
Click to expand...

Yep. Looks likely that the amendment will fail:

 
711 said:
I did said that it was arguable that Britain or the UK were a group of nation states, as the Scots certainly would argue that. I didn't say we should leave the EU, I don't know where you got that from, and I'm not sure who said anything about being prevented from functioning as a nation state but it certainly wasn't me. Still, one out of three's not bad I suppose.

I suspect you may be mixing me up with someone else Wibs.
Click to expand...

I meant to say to "so @Steerpike is saying" - now edited, sorry for the confusion. And of course I was joking. Sort of. I guess groups of countries are ok as long as you can boss the other members around at will.
 
Are indicative votes the MPs having to say what they would be in favour of? If so why would the government not want to know the current state of things?
 
P-Nut said:
Are indicative votes the MPs having to say what they would be in favour of? If so why would the government not want to know the current state of things?
Click to expand...

Because what a majority of MP's want is unlikely to be what May wants, so she doesn't want to know.
 
711 said:
You're wrong about England not being a nation state, it was pretty homogeneous with an agreed government before the Norman conquest, as @Steerpike says. Everyone, bar possibly the Cornish, spoke the same language, and that language wasn't spoken elsewhere. It's arguable GB or the UK isn't a nation state, but a group of nations, you may be getting confused with that.

The rest is about right, except it tends to apply to about half of the British, and not the other half, which is of course the problem in the first place.
Click to expand...
There were no nation states at that time. None. At least not in the way that term is usually defined.

If you use a VERY loose definition (a united country where most people speak the same language) then yeah, sure. But that's not how it's usually defined, at least on the continent.
 
Siorac said:
There were no nation states at that time. None. At least not in the way that term is usually defined.

If you use a VERY loose definition (a united country where most people speak the same language) then yeah, sure. But that's not how it's usually defined, at least on the continent.
Click to expand...
Well yeah, the major European states were cobbled together in recent times by England's standard. Can't help that I'm afraid :)
 
Richard Harrington has resigned as a business minister and will likely vote in favour of the Letwin amendment tonight
 
You must log in or register to reply here.