Westminstenders: Compromise is a difficult word

[RedToothBrush]

Today the HoC had a water leak. It closed the house for the day. This isn't without consequence; any hope for the opportunity of Indicative Votes on Monday had cold water poured on it.

Meanwhile talks between talks between May and Corbyn were about as productive as you'd imagine. But apparently they had nice tea and biscuits.

The Cooper Bill, the last minute lock on May getting a extension to prevent no deal, has been in the Lords today. I say it's been in the Lords but Tories have filibuster Ed on procedure for over 6 hours to prevent the chance of it passing the house. Tory whips are timetabled until 6am but the opposition benches have vowed to go to 7.30am. So far the votes to ruin the procedure have failed comfortably so the opposition have the number. Its just a question of time.

The trouble is with the Lords not sitting tomorrow that means the bill won't get passed until Monday and there are fears it won't get royal assent until Tuesday.

The bill doesn't prevent accidental no deal but it would be a barrier to May.

It therefore looks like May's gambit with the EU to get an extension is to say her plan is ongoing talks with Labour for a cross party solution. It won't wash.

No deal looks more and more likely.

{My DH doesn't care whether or not he is right. He is the master of the Gallic shrug.}
Which is a 'human' version of the cat's 'and?' look.

Before you 'girls' get carried away with the 'all knowing and powerful' kick, a quick look at MN 'Trending talk' and I would argue that the divisor is not masculine or feminine. Yesterday's 'shocked at eating Easter eggs before Easter' seems to be dismissing rather a lot of real world problems for example.

A future referendum could be held between different variations of "leave", for example.

have as many as you want. Knock yourself out. But if you can't come up with a clear majority for one then we should remain (if possible at that juncture).

look on it as a group of friends a-calling-on to go to dinner. Only when they're outside and I'm getting my coat, it turns out that 10 people have 10 different tastes and no one can agree to compromise. At which point I put my coat back, and stay at home. I don't see why I should get wet and cold on account of their indecision.

EXCEPT all the leave voting areas have the least immigration.

There was a story not too long ago about where refugees where placed.

There isn't supposed to be a higher ratio per population than a certain number. And this is true of all local authorities. But what they found was when they broke it down by ward, refugees where being placed in really concentrated numbers in the very poorest wards because it was cheapest for councils.

There's also the effect of gentrification where people who lived in desirable areas faced problems because there wasn't enough social housing and instead councils have been 'dumping' people by relocating them to poorer areas across the country. This has a real negative effect on certain communities and particularly the social cohesion of some of them.

In a sense if this was your life experience it would be easy, in very white areas, to mistake what you were seeing on immigration rather than the effects of austerity.

I admit that the stuff about refugees was particularly shocking, because of how its been hidden in the data.

That's the point I was making Mother - everyone complains comments about the impact of the 10 DUP MPs and their £1 billion bung, but without the extra Scottish Conservative MPs, she wouldn't even have been in a position to lie to the Queen start the negotiations to form a Government

So you could say that it is Scotland's fault we are in this pickle - but you could also say that the 12 extra MPs came cheap as they didn't require a bung

But people in leave areas only want a certain type of population growth.

Dont they?

1tis you should read my comments on the thread about other halfs sharing their working day. DH and I deserve each other [shrug]

If there a 2 propositions then barring an extraordinary statistical unlikelyhood (precisely the same number voting for both among an electorate of 35m+), then one or other would surely have a majority of votes cast.

If you require a majority of eligible voters to back one or the other in order for them to be implemented then that's a different set of rules.

Timetable next week (please correct if wrong)

Monday - Yvette's Bill of Parliament to supposedly stop 'No Deal'

Then it goes to the Queen
Tuesday - Teresa May to go to Brussels
Thursday - EU27 meeting to decide our future (Extension/no extsn)
Friday - Possible No Deal Brexit Day

Possible other meetings with Corbyn who so far isn't talking about a 2nd referendum in any of his interviews.

If we did want to Revoke Article 50 instead of 'No Deal' then I think I read we need to give six days notice. Is this correct and if so there is no time anyway!

I’m out of touch here today. TM appears to be asking for a delay until June 30th-wasn’t that what she asked for before and they said no?

What is going to be different now?!

If the EU rumour is true that they are going to offer a year delay (and Brexit will happen quicker if they find a deal), will that be dependent on anything? GE? PV? Or just another year of nothing and we’ll all be here again in a year with TM in charge muttering ‘nothing has changed, Brexit means Brexit’?!

Well, it'll mean exam season won't be affected if its 30th June

I’m out of touch here today. TM appears to be asking for a delay until June 30th-wasn’t that what she asked for before and they said no?

Yes. She is a bit dim.

How about a coalition with everyone but the Tories, or Tories and UKIP if the latter won the odd seat?
Who could complain about that, except the Tories?

Louise that would be a good way around the issue and was done in the 1970s Scottish Devolution Ref (needed 40% electorate support which it didn't get despite winning) BUT Remainers would surely cry foul as minimum share of electorate wasn't specified in EuRef 1?

Fun fact. The 1997 Devolution Ref didn't have the 40% electorate safeguard but actually did satisfy it (60% turn out and 74% Yes vote for the mathematicians (wee bit rounding just to infuriate Bigchoc))

If there a 2 propositions then barring an extraordinary statistical unlikelyhood (precisely the same number voting for both among an electorate of 35m+), then one or other would surely have a majority of votes cast.

I actually quite like the idea of a "how should we leave" referendum throwing up a 51/49 split and years of Brexiteers calling each other traitors and enemies of the people.

Peregrina that is what a lot of people thought they were voting for in 2010 and look what happened.

The LibDems gamed the system then ....

Businesses in the UK and across Europe and further afield NEED a decision as soon as possible. Putting this nonsense on hold for another year would be very dangerous.
If you know where you are going you can plan for it, even if you would prefer not to be doing it. Buggering around for another year is unacceptable.

Corbyn-May Brexit talks seem to have collapsed.

Labour spokesperson: "We are disappointed that the government has not offered real change on or compromise

“We urge the Prime Minister to come forward with genuine changes"

From Heather Stewart at the Guardian, and Ashley Cowburn at the Independent

Lots of renewed interest and talk here (Norn Irn) about the possibility of a border poll. Tellingly, there is widespread support for experts to get together and discuss what it would actually look like, what are the potential sticking points, what's the real cost. In other words, a proper informed debate to be had BEFORE anything is put to a vote.

Lots of renewed interest and talk here (Norn Irn) about the possibility of a border poll. Tellingly, there is widespread support for experts to get together and discuss what it would actually look like, what are the potential sticking points, what's the real cost. In other words, a proper informed debate to be had BEFORE anything is put to a vote.

Would both polls have to happen at the same time ? It would hopefully be a lot harder for bollocks to be spouted unchallenged if there's some oversight (which I presume would be need in Ireland at least ?)

I don't agree with thresholds based on percentage of the electorate, because that can be abused (viz the 1979 Scottish devolution) by one side saying "just don't vote" - as they did in 1979 . And that's assuming dangerous the electoral register is 100% accurate and that the correct assumptions are made about the numbers of those that were too young to vote but already on the register (as was the case with me in 1979 but I was OK with that as I would have voted "No" ) and those that have died before the day of the vote but haven't yet been taken off the register

I do think that major constitutional changes, if they are going to be decided by referendum, do need "super majorities" - as is the case in most countries that are used to using referendums.

And yes, I include an Indyref2 in that requirement

More reasons to despise Michael Gove for the horrific damage he did to state school education.
www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2019/03/30/the-agony-and-ecstasy-of-grammar
My family are all numerate, but the destruction of grammar teaching hit us hard
and it will hit diplomacy and business for decades to come.

Krishnan Guru-Murthy
@krishgm
Sir Keir Starmer says : "So far, the Government isn't proposing any changes to the deal. In particular it's not countenancing any changes to the actual wording of the political declaration."
WHAT HAVE THEY BEEN DOING?????

^Sir Keir Starmer says : "So far, the Government isn't proposing any changes to the deal. In particular it's not countenancing any changes to the actual wording of the political declaration."
WHAT HAVE THEY BEEN DOING?????^

Well, that's 48 hours pissed away. 168 to go ...