TMPM on Andrew marr show - refuses to rule out another vote if she doesn’t get her deal through next week

FFS , any idea what happens next if she fails to get her vote through parliament. Leaks from Tory party HQ says she will keep putting the vote back until she does.

jesus , she should/ must now be sectioned .

tbf I would do the same, except that if they vote the deal down continuously,  would revoke art 50, in the last moment if need be. I would not want a no deal brexit on my watch

Don’t parliament have to vote to revoke Art 50 and if not , she would never be seen to do that , as it doesn’t deliver brexit , in fact quite the opposite?

I don't think parliament has to vote on the revocation

Pretty much everything she's done regarding Brexit has been divisive, destructive, dishonest, stupid or a combination of all of them.  Can hardly expect her to change now.

Revocation has to be "in good faith".  It would be interesting to know what that means in practice and what the consequences would be if it were decided that revocation was not in good faith.  What if, for example, May revoked and then after 12 months preparation a new leader declared it again without a new referendum?

What would the EU do?

She won’t revoke in a billion years. So if it’s voted down , there is only ONE option left right, and that is no deal , as there won’t be enough time for a people’s vote?

in that case they would probably start a procedure of exclusion as such limbo would not be acceptable for anyone

ebitda - no, she won't and yes, you're right

fucking ridiculous. maybe they (EU) come up with some wonder solution at v last minute to avoid all the no deal fall out?

EU released 80 documents containing detailed plans for no deal in March last year.

They don't want it but they're ready for it.

The mad woman says “ I am continuing discussion and negotiations with EU members next week “

Marr replied “what for !” Classic

DD , EU have nothing more to give , they just want her to stop bothering them, they have had enough. She’s fucking mental 

As Bloop states everything she has done on Brexit has been:

Divisive, destructive, dishonest, stupid or a combination of all of them.

She is an absolute joke of a PM.  A total and utter incompetent.  


The bizarre fantasy that we could have all the benefits of the EU without being a member should have been stamped on from the moment it was first opined.  Instead the mass media encouraged it and May, when she became PM, perpetuated it.

We're now at a point where no deal is both desirable and everyone else's fault at the same time.

Is this what mass insanity looks like?

There's a fungus called ergot which affects rye.  It causes hallucination and madness and can even cause death.  Rye affected with ergot was usually discarded but during poor harvests it was eaten.  Historians have even speculated that ergot epidemics have influenced and even caused major world events including possibly the French Revolution.

Makes you wonder....


With every interview she just confirms her incompetence and bloodymindedness, Pray for Parliament to keep knocking her back again and again until #peoplesvote is called.

Revocation is now the most likely outcome.

Yes it will piss off lots of people, be contrary to the manifesto of both parties, and admit total failure to implement the referendum result.  And to be accepted by the CJEU we'd have to agree not to use Art 50. again for at least five years or an EU treaty change.

But it would seem that there is a majority in the House for anything, anything, anything at all (including blocking funding for the NHS ffs) to prevent the UK leaving.

Another referendum isn't happening.

Why doesn't a backbencher use the Ten Minute Run to introduce a short Bill 'This House revokes the invocation of Art. 50 of the TEU'?

Of course, as you know, I'd much rather we left.  But even remaining is better than May's surrender

May is completely in control of this. Or if she isn't it's because she doesn't want to be.

She's playing like this insanely deep game of 3D chess.

You've got to remember that these people operate on a level that ordinary people just can't understand.

Yet they’ve revealed themselves to be entirely ordinary in their understanding of the EU.

She’s spouting now about the NHS and says she’s still “negotiating “ with the EU.

shes deranged. 

And she looks as if she’s about to melt down. Literally. 

that would be an understandable turn of events

and from the ashes rises.......






In the short term, Brexit is a disaster.  It has already caused a serious economic slowdown and diverted investment away from the UK and we haven't even left yet.  

In the long term, the lesson is that need much better MPs.  The current lot are just plain lazy, ignorant, thick, monoglot, inexperienced, untravelled and frankly an embarrassment.  Almost none of them would get a job in a real profession or as an executive in a real corporation.  

How do we go about ensuring we get much better MPs ?  

In the long term, the lesson is that need much better MPs. 

In my view it's more that the inadequacy of the UK's electoral system has finally delivered system-breaking shock.  It encourages short termism and pandering to the electorate at the expense of the national interest.

Sadly with the current state of the main parties and their leaders it is not going to change.

Actually, I'd say we need a better electorate.

We should teach civics in school properly.  The political system is fundamental to people's lives.

More civics and less RE would probably help a lot....

We need a government of national unity. From the centre. I’m sick of underqualified over ideologied Labour and Tories. Bring back competent politicians. 

So you think a system where a party can get 12% or more of the national vote and no representation is a good system?

RE would be fine if it was ethics not faith based. Linked to civics of course. 

Problem is that minorities are better motivated than the complacent CofE, and will speak up to push their agenda. 

It would be a helpful start to define how the system is supposed to work.

Is the Member of Parliament 'of Bristol' or 'for Bristol'?  At the moment MPs lobby fr investments in their constituency even when it is clearly not in the national interest playing the 'for Bristol' card, and then five minutes later vote against the undoubted wishes of their constituency by playing the 'of Bristol' card.

It is worth noting that although Edmund Burke laid out very clearly the 'of Bristol' position his electorate threw him out at the earliest possible opportunity so presumable they disagreed.

But an even bigger problem is that people think that politics is like economics: if everyone votes in their own best interest a 'good' outcome is achieved.  But this is not so.  Adam Smith's invisible hand works in markets to find a price that balances supply and demand. If people pay more for meat they have less money for potatoes.  But in the public sphere everyone can vote for more spending on gender studies without giving up anything else.

It may not have quite worked that way in practice, but surely the principle of democracy in Athens was that the voters were noble in more ways than one and voted for what they thought was best for the state, not their own personal interest.

But nowadays its like Strictly, people vote for who they personally like the most, not whose best in any objective sense.

So voters don't vote for what is best for the country. And MPs are believed to vote what's best for their careers.  On the latter point I have a lot of sympathy with the Five Star view that elected politicians should only ever serve one term

elected politicians should only ever serve one term

Is it wise to discard their experience?  Would there be no other, unelected role for them if they wanted to serve?  

Isabel Hardman pretty much nails why we have shit politicians in her most recent book.

'I have a lot of sympathy for' does not mean that I agree hook, line and sinker.  Th principle of not having career politicians is a good one.

This reminds me of another issue.

MPs have six roles:

- voting on legislation

- working in committees to review draft legislation 

- working in committees to hold Government to account

- working in their constituency to address individual grievances particularly with Central government in particular and the Public Sector in general

- working in their constituency on local issues of public interest

- working in their constituency to communicate Government or Opposition party policies to the local community

I've deliberately omitted social media, TV appearances, writing books etc. And of course those MPs who are also in government have other executive responsibilities.

It seems to me that it is only voting that really needs to be an elected position. All the others could be, and arguably better would be, staffed by paid professionals or volunteers.  So there is a role where ex-MPs and Senators could usefully contribute their experience.

Particularly hard done by are constituents where the MP is a Minister.  That's another gray area that could usefully be clarified. Is an MP's role supposed to be full-time?  If so, how can you have Ministers doing their Ministerial job, presumably that's regarded as full-time, on top.  If it's not full-time, why should they get paid more than the national average income?




The blurred lines between legislature and executive are certainly problems in my view.

I'm sure I don't have to explain this but just in case...

MP = legislature

Minister = executive

Interestingly many MPs are also active or former QCs and lawyers, possibly more than any other profession.  Not explicitly part of the judiciary but separation of powers is not a strong feature of UK government.

Marr actually gave her a easy time I was so disappointed 

'Theresa May has said she is working on getting further assurances from the European Union so she can win the Commons vote on her Brexit deal.

The PM said that after delaying the vote last month, there was "some further movement from the EU" at December's European Council.

She said further measures would be set out ahead of the vote, now set for Tuesday, 15 January.

However, the EU Commission has said there will be no renegotiation.'


So she is lying?

ABS of course she is, and any such assurances she may get are worthless and don’t change the landscape at all

How has no one yet mentioned extension of A.50? Far more likely than revocation IMHO (although extension needs EU consent and revocation doesn't). 


I'm very wary of changing electoral systems and constitutional arrangements that have stood successfully for centuries. Our FPTP system (and other aspects) have their flaws, but all other systems have their flaws too - we'll just be exchanging one set of flaws for another. At least we know this system and its flaws. 


I'm with Doggers - I think we need a better electorate. Google the Abraham Lincoln-Douglas debates from the 1850s (when Lincoln stood for the Senate). Look at the quality of speech and depth of analysis and argument in the speeches, and keep in mind that the audience for these speeches was the average working man in rural Illinois (of course no votes for women back then). Think anyone would make speeches like that to the night shift crew from the Nissan plant in Sunderland?

electoral systems and constitutional arrangements that have stood successfully for centuries

Successfully for whom?  

Bloop Arseport07 Jan 19 12:33



| DM Reply |


| Message Poster

So you think a system where a party can get 12% or more of the national vote and no representation is a good system?


Yes, not perfect but good.

They may get 12% of the national vote but they aren't voted into the constituency.... and therefore those votes are lost.

As long as we have a constituency system that will occur, and I believe in that system more than the alternative.

I voted for my constituency MP notwithstanding I don't support his party.  In this case I think he is an honest and good constituency MP who benefits a poor area.  He has no scandal attached him and has devoted himself to politics since a teenager.


Elphi there is no appetite or the numbers to revoke Art 50 , some MPs would consider it political suicide. And don’t they need the consent of the EU anyway?

No consent needed to revoke. Only to extend. And if extended, then no consent needed to revoke in the extension period either. Last month's judgment set it out in detail

Stru ok understood, don’t parliament have to vote on either or can TMPM do it on her own volition ? She won’t revoke anyway , and extension of Art 50 is worst of all worlds .

its looking like no deal brexit more and more likely 

What Theresa May wants will increasingly become an irrelevance as time passes. 

If a no confidence vote is triggered, does it have to lead to a general election if the government loses. I assume the DUP could vote for one on the basis the Tories get a new leader who could in theory command a majority in Parliament.


No art 50 extension except for a new referendum with Remain on the ballot or possibly for a General Election.  EU certainly won't want UK a member during next European Parliament elections without a good reason. 

Reality is that a clear majority now want to remain, it's just that the Leavers make a disproportionate amount of noise.  Revocation would not be as big a deal as some are suggesting but a new referendum would be better.

The lie that we can have better terms outside than in has been shown to be unsustainable.  There might still be a lot of people who want to leave, but they want a different version of leaving than any that is on offer.  They don't want May's deal, they don't want no deal.

Tories get a new leader who could in theory command a majority in Parliament

Who can command a majority in the current parliament?  Isn't that the problem, that there's no majority for anything?  If all MPs were to have a free vote without consequence the majority would be for Remain, but right now that's not going to happen.

Elphi there is no appetite or the numbers to revoke Art 50 , some MPs would consider it political suicide.

I think some MPs need to get their heads around the likely consequences of a no deal Brexit and consider whether revoking Article 50 or letting no deal happen would be more politically suicidal.

One major silver lining of Brexit is that a lot of very unpleasant and/or useless heads are going to roll.

One major silver lining of Brexit is that a lot of very unpleasant and/or useless heads are going to roll.

Heh.  Yeah.  Right.

The current government are going to go down in history for delivering something that everybody hates (even the ones who thought they wanted it).

Why would they not be punished at the ballot box?

Reality is that a clear majority now want to remain, it's just that the Leavers make a disproportionate amount of noise.

Heh. I remember this being the accepted liberal view in 2016, backed up by polling.

Why would they not be punished at the ballot box?

In a two horse race with May as to who would make the best Prime Minister, Corbyn is currently polling third.

Amber according to numerous leaks in the paper and on TV this week no one wants the job and they want TMPM to carry on and sort the mess out for 2 years, I can see their rationale .

i think no deal is now a big favourite, the good thing about it , is it resigns the tories to 25 years of opposition. I don’t like labour,but they can do no worse , rest assured.

In a two horse race with May as to who would make the best Prime Minister, Corbyn is currently polling third.

That's because Corbyn's position is essentially indistinguishable from May's.

I believe all politicians, of all colours, who are seen to have caused or enabled this shit show, are going to be in serious trouble.

But they're all still going to be there, standing in the same constituencies.  Islington isn't suddenly going to elect a Lib Dem or a Tory.  Maidenhead isn't going to go Green.

Sure, the system is designed to weather any storm, but if any political catastrophe was able to break it, this is it. Bring it on.

These cunts are like cockroaches and cacti.  They and their bastard offspring will still be MPs when the sun explodes and all that's left of the earth is a very large pair of smoking shoes.

Thanks for mentioning Isabel Hardman's book Why We Get The Wrong Politicians. She looks like a really annoying person but the best journalists usually are.  

The book covers exactly what I have been worrying about.  I'll be interested in her views.  

Isabel Hardman for a while was very prominent on most politics programme, she seems to have been displaced by the other Isabel, Oakenshott, who is infinitely less impressive journalist, Oakenshott is a hack. A pity.