Westminstenders: Stuck in the Middle With TIGGERS

[RedToothBrush]

Well I don't know how we got here tonight.
We've got the feeling that something ain't right.
We're so scared as we leave the EU
And we're wondering how we'll get out of this stew

Antisemites to the left of me!
Dog Whistles to the right!
Here I am stuck in the middle whilst we leave the EU.

'Cause I'm stuck in the middle whilst we leave the EU.
And I'm wondering what it is we should do.
It's so hard to keep this smile from my face.
Losing control and running all over the place.

Clowns to the left of me!
Jokers to the right!
Here I am stuck in the middle whilst we leave the EU.

When you started off with rights
And you're starting to wonder if thats for life.
And all the politicians come crawling
Slap you on the back and say
Please . . .
Please . . .
Vote Leave and back EU Withdrawal

But we see it makes no sense at all.

Best to keep your money offshore
Than to visit the bookstore

Deniers to the left of me!
Islamaphobes to the right!
Here I am stuck in the middle with you.

Its finally happened. FINALLY.

MPs have seen that their leaders have lost the plot and are hell bent on destruction and politicial ideology ahead of practicality and will justify the unjustifable in the face of democracy and they have jumped ship.

Enter stage left and stage right: The TIGGERS - members of The Independent Group.

Will there be more. Hard to say no. It seems almost certain there will be more.

Will it make a difference? Difficult to call, but these MPs would be driven out sooner or later. Such is our accelerating politicial polarisation and narrowing of views. This is their last stand. They have nothing left to lose on a personal level.

Whether you agree with the TIGGERS or still look to the other parties for policy, I do think that the emergence of the TIGGERS marks a feeling of optimism and much needed hope for many many Remainers / Moderates, even if it ultimately does fizzle out.

A reflection from 2017: People voted for Corbyn because they were looking for Hope. When he's failed to deliver that, its led to disillusionment and he can not pull the same trick again at a future GE. This makes that doubly so. People are STILL very much looking for that hope. If Brexit does go tits up in a big fashion, then what happens? To what direction do people look? I'm sure there will be the bitterest of recriminations, but... hope is a big deal. We need something...

Tick tick tick. 37 days til Brexit.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/eu_referendum_2016_/3492426-Westministenders-Abbreviation

Not much would get done, and bullying types would dominate. Bit like what we have now maybe.

“Are people certain the confusion over "no deal" and "no Brexit" has been cleared up across the board ?”

It really needs a simple, positive word like “Stay!” Imho. Don’t like “Remain”, myself.

This is pretty complicated but I think what I've highlighted here gives you the main thrust of the point and how we are now entering uncharted and potentially very controversial waters for May.

ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/02/21/michael-james-clifton-parliaments-role-in-withdrawing-from-the-eea-and-difficulties-in-ratifying-the-eea-efta-separation-agreement/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Michael-James Clifton: Parliament’s Role in Withdrawing from the EEA, and Difficulties in Ratifying the EEA EFTA Separation Agreement

The importance and role of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement has often been overlooked. Yet, as the UK exits the European Union, the question of the UK’s desired relationship with not only the EU27 but also the EEA30 has never been more live. In a previous blog post I argued that the UK has not notified its intention to leave the EEA as required. This post examines the domestic law implications of this conclusion.

On 20th December 2018, the day after Parliament rose, the Government published an ‘EEA EFTA Separation Agreement’. This was accompanied by an ‘EEA EFTA Explainer’. To date, the EEA EFTA Separation Agreement has been ‘agreed,’ but not ‘signed’.

And

CRAG requires that the EEA EFTA Separation Agreement must be laid before both Houses in the form of a command paper either in the Miscellaneous Series or, less likely, the European Union Series for 21 sitting days defined as days upon which both Houses sit (s.20(9) CRAG). During this period the treaty may not be ratified. Both Houses can resolve against ratification: the Lords once only, and the Commons repeatedly (triggering a new 21-sitting-day period each time).

The calculation of sitting days is difficult. The Leader of the House of Commons, for instance, may determine that the House will sit on a Friday that had previously looked like a non-sitting Friday. At present, it appears as though the Government will have to lay treaties by 22nd February before Parliament if it will honour the full 21-day period and for those treaties to be ratified before 29th March.

A weekly list of treaties subject to CRAG – with the last date for objections – is available here [RTB: link not included in this post, see article for it]. It must be noted, however, that s.22 CRAG allows the usual 21-sitting-day period to be curtailed or avoided in ‘exceptional cases’ so long as the treaty is laid before Parliament at some point and the circumstances explained by a Minister. Interestingly, in a letter of 13th February 2019 to the Chair of the House of Commons Procedure Committee, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the Rt. Hon. Steve Barclay MP, wrote, ‘In respect of international agreements which are concluded to ensure continuity to existing EU agreements following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, the Government’s intention is to lay treaties subject to ratification under the 2010 Act [CRAG] in the normal way, but cannot exclude the possibility of using section 22 if an exceptional case should arise which justified its use.’

Enjoying Anna Soubry on LBC

Right to vote @ righttovote_uk
This morning our Chair, @DrPhillipLeeMP met @theresa_may in Number 10 to discuss #righttovote. Talks were open and we are encouraged she listened to our case. We continue to campaign for a #timeout in the #Brexit process

RE tweeted by Phillip Lee and complete with photo taken outside no 10.

So that's why he was there.

I was mulling over something similar yesterday peregrina. MPs could join various specialist and wider interest groups that act like loose coalitions to push anything from single issues to wider ideological view points. It would mean a whole new way of viewing government and leadership as effectively you wouldn't have a fixed party that won but a large number of individuals whose alliances might shift hugely across the course of a parliament.

How do MPs ensure that compromises they need to make as one of many reflect the will of those they represent? How in this situation do we decide on a PM? What if we didn't have a single PM at all? How do you provide the stability required to work with other countries over the longer term?

I know I'm getting a but out there now but it was an interesting thought exercise to pass some time.

Commons debate on trade bizarrely empty..

Fuck business

Oh, dear ...

www.theregister.co.uk/2019/02/21/data_breach_labour_locks_down_member_databases/

The UK's Labour Party has been forced to lock down access to membership databases and campaign tools over concerns the info was being sucked up by breakaway MPs, in a possible breach of data protection laws.

The party's general secretary, Jennie Formby, yesterday said Labour had "become aware of a number of attempts to access personal data" on its systems by "individuals who are not, or are no longer, authorised to do so".

The inference was that one or more of the Labour MPs that have this week left the party to form The Independent Group had slurped members' details to take with them for use in future campaigns.

Under the UK's Data Protection Act 2018 (s170), it is an offence to obtain or retain personal data without the consent of the controller – which means someone downloading a database of members' deets is likely to find themselves in hot water.

(contd)

How do MPs ensure that compromises they need to make as one of many reflect the will of those they represent? How in this situation do we decide on a PM? What if we didn't have a single PM at all? How do you provide the stability required to work with other countries over the longer term?

How do other countries do it ?

Funny. They weren't interested when I reported that Momentum had accessed the membership database and was using it. And I had seen momentum with lists that could have only come from the membership database

I call fake news

I do hope they remember to report themselves for this data breach. That would be the responsible thing to do, wouldn’t it boys and girls?

Enjoying Anna Soubry on LBC

Yes, she's been excellent - comes over as honest, principled and committed. James O'B should be worried! (Not really, I love listening to him. His show accounts for my allotted time for radio listening, which saves me ever having to hear Frottage on the same station).

Does anyone have a link for a TIG website? Tried Googling, but find no link.

I think I've just had a bit of a realisation.

It has been a constant bugbear of mine that leavers claim the EU is undemocratic when it has a clear structure of elections and representation. More so than parts of our own system (house of lords for example). I just haven't been able to get my head around this complete twaddle about the EU being so terribly unaccountable.

I've just realised why people feel like this. It's because we have a system built on the idea of winners and losers and that you should be able to vote and win and if you win you get to decide everything. What people find 'undemocratic" about the EU is that we can't "win". It doesn't matter if ever person in the UK voted for the same group we still only get a certain amount of representatives within the parliament and so only a certain amount of say over what goes on. Our entire political system and culture is built on the idea that winner takes all and we just can't compute a system that demands compromise and alliances with other groups in order to get what we want.

This is why so many people can't understand the EU and see it as undemocratic. It's why we have two parties who are fundamentally unable to compromise and a PM who can't understand why she can't just demand and it will be done. It is why leavers can't see why the EU won't just make every super for them just because as they see it they have won.

Sorry if this has been obvious to everyone else but I've just had one of those "oh, so now that makes sense" moments and had to share.

How do other countries do it ?

Well, I'm not aware of any countries with a policy of not having a single elected (or unelected) leader, so...

We can look towards countries with coalitions of smaller parties which I think tend to have a more collaborative feel (though I'm no expert) but I don't know any where a parliament is made up solely of independents with no formal parties, just loose groupings. I know some countries have much more changes in parties and people moving about so that might be an interesting model to look at how they manage. I think the UK is used to voting for a party with a manifesto that is than carried out so the idea of voting for an individual who is very unlikely to ever get all their manifesto through would be a big change in how we view the process of voting and government.

That's an interesting insight Bigly,thank you.

Glad you thought so wherearemychickens

I think there's a danger of trying to distort what we have even more (arguably where a lot of the problems come from) rather than have some blue-sky thinking ? Starting with a really fundamental and philosophical question of "what does a government actually do ?". What is the purpose of government - indeed of the state ?

Personally I see a pyramid of duties, topped with the single most important duty which is to safeguard the life, liberty and happiness of it's citizens. Everything else is subordinate to that. So that covers your army, and defence, and then coming down the pyramid you have the lesser duties.

Another not very frequent poster here, but the education I have had from all these threads is astounding. It is my first source of political education (as opposed to breaking news) - thank you all so much.

Oh that's interesting DG because I'd say if we're talking about life, liberty and happiness is that military defence or is it health and social care? Or even food supply, fresh water, electrics, etc... Depends on situation and context. In a time of peace I wouldn't necessarily our the military above healthcare. And I certainly wouldn't put them over fresh water supplies.

In response to this tweet

I suspect Greening will go too. She's London in a heavily pro remain area if I recall correctly. Her seat is unsafe if she stays with the Tories IMHO, so nothing to lose.

Yep. It’s her one chance of retaining her seat.

DGR is right.

What is the purpose of government. What are its key functions.

You start with the basics and work from that.

It's tempting to skip that stage and go on about types of electoral reform but unless you understand the purpose of government you easily miss important points.

Oh that's interesting DG because I'd say if we're talking about life, liberty and happiness is that military defence or is it health and social care? Or even food supply, fresh water, electrics, etc... Depends on situation and context. In a time of peace I wouldn't necessarily our the military above healthcare. And I certainly wouldn't put them over fresh water supplies.

I think there is a case for starting with a job description of what a government is ... because currently we don't have one, and it's allowed the scope creep we've seen where you aren't allowed to disagree without having to look over your shoulder.

So, what is the legally binding definition of what government should do ? Bearing in mind civil liberties/human rights are what exist to protect you from the government - any government.

While we're on the subject there is the argument that the defining feature of a functioning civilisation in in fact waste removal.

So when you get down to it I think a pyramid structure is far to static and hierarchical. We need to be looking at government as something more fluid and complex in order to really look after the life, liberty and happiness of all citizens.