Yes I agree, is it 19th not 29th March 2019 by the way, I'll remember that! Of course it also means that anyone else - Remoaner to Brexit Buccaneer can frustrate or bring down ANY negotiated settlement ...... so a Dulcolax Brexit that might appeal to Vince Cable could also get wiped in theory. Equally it also means doesn't it that if the government gets on and negotiates whatever bunkum it is after it might then say to its small number of potential rebels, go on defeat it again and we'll call an election. They think Mutually Assured Destruction works for Trident, so why not Brexit?
I suppose it does edge us slightly towards No Brexit at the moment, which is what Dominic Grieve and Ken Clarke actually want, but if British people DID actually want a Brexit means Brexit when they voted in the referendum the Tories might suffer big-time if three years down the line the result of that vote was no change. And it raises the question would Labour stay with the rebels? Last night for instance Mr Skinner went through the lobby with his party. Will he do that if he is effectively killing Brexit? And he's not the only Bennite. And will Labour be adopting that same position after another 18 months of reading about Macron and Juncker's superstate, because the Mail and others won't be behind the door in maligning the EU and its plans if they perceive we might not leave at all ....... ? Other than Starmer most of Labour's front bench appear pretty malleable and deliberately quite nebulous on where they'd take us.
Unfortunately I don't think it'll be down to logic, negotiation or debate. The irony for me of those who think people voted LEAVE on a mere whim, is that most of our national and international decisions are arrived at through protracted processes that merely foster the illusion that they were arrived at by some higher and better means. For all their expensive suits and flights to Brussels their judgement is in no way superior to that of the common man or woman and far less impartial. IMO of course! (There's very little evidence that either knowing more, or more protracted decision-making processes result in better decisions.)
I suppose it does edge us slightly towards No Brexit at the moment, which is what Dominic Grieve and Ken Clarke actually want, but if British people DID actually want a Brexit means Brexit when they voted in the referendum the Tories might suffer big-time if three years down the line the result of that vote was no change. And it raises the question would Labour stay with the rebels? Last night for instance Mr Skinner went through the lobby with his party. Will he do that if he is effectively killing Brexit? And he's not the only Bennite. And will Labour be adopting that same position after another 18 months of reading about Macron and Juncker's superstate, because the Mail and others won't be behind the door in maligning the EU and its plans if they perceive we might not leave at all ....... ? Other than Starmer most of Labour's front bench appear pretty malleable and deliberately quite nebulous on where they'd take us.
Unfortunately I don't think it'll be down to logic, negotiation or debate. The irony for me of those who think people voted LEAVE on a mere whim, is that most of our national and international decisions are arrived at through protracted processes that merely foster the illusion that they were arrived at by some higher and better means. For all their expensive suits and flights to Brussels their judgement is in no way superior to that of the common man or woman and far less impartial. IMO of course! (There's very little evidence that either knowing more, or more protracted decision-making processes result in better decisions.)