Theresa May has been forced to give way in a row with MPs over how much influence Parliament has over her Brexit plan.
The Prime Minister was effectively pushed into allowing Tory MPs to vote for a Labour motion calling for greater scrutiny of her Brexit proposals, after it became clear some were planning to do so anyway.
I'm not convinced that running a big balance of payments deficit is a strong argument in favour of EU membership.
Remainers have been waiting to be vindicated on the economics since 24th June. With the recent fall in Sterling off the back of May's speech, they think they have.
Which is why so many are getting so excited.
They pinned their hopes initially on share prices, the PMI's and employment and output numbers, but they've all turned out to be disappointingly good.
Well, house prices have collapsed.
Oh,.. wait a minute.
That "Oh,.. wait" thing is definitely on the list.
I'm not convinced that running a big balance of payments deficit is a strong argument in favour of EU membership.
Remainers have been waiting to be vindicated on the economics since 24th June. With the recent fall in Sterling off the back of May's speech, they think they have.
Which is why so many are getting so excited.
They pinned their hopes initially on share prices, the PMI's and employment and output numbers, but they've all turned out to be disappointingly good.
As will this long overdue correction to the currency markets.
What is hilarious is that we all know Germany has done well (and Southern Europe badly) from the Euro as it locked in an under valued exchange rate for the Germans and an over valued one for Southern Europe.
Now we are supposed to be upset that with a mammoth trade deficit of nearly 6% of GDP our FX is being corrected from an over valued one to a fairer exchange rate? I don't think so.
A lot depends on British consumers reaction to the Brexit devaluation, if they keep buying the same German cars, Italian fridges and Chinese electronics, and put up with the price increases by cutting back elsewhere then the balance of payments deficit may well increase rather than reduce.
Do you really honestly believe that will happen?
EDIT: And what about the other side of the coin: exports?
North carolina is an odd case. There is huge dissatisfaction with McCrory, the Republican governor, because of a law cslled HB2 which allows churchgoers to be free to legally discriminate against anyone.
Translating...
Not sure what it has to do with churchgoers in particular (other than in that neck of the woods they may support it), but Isn't that the law that says that people should use restrooms in accordance with the biological organs they happen to possess?
Are you not slightly everegging your rhetoric?
That is part of what it says. It also has provisions affecting local laws and workplace rules. Nonetheless because it promotes discrimination many companies are pulling back from NC as are sporting organisations. You cannot go around promoting equality in eork and sports and then hold conventions meetings or events in a place the discriminates
As an example, paypal pulled a support centre it was planning. 400 jobs gone.... the NCAA has cancelled 7 events for next year etc
Interested. Could you provide a link to a comprehensive analysis?
Although the best known provision of this law is the bathroom part it also has a section regulating minimum wage and overriding city ordinances. Many cities had a higher minimum wage than the State MW but the State provision now overrides this.
Thanks.
I forgot to ask why you introduced churchgoers into this? Is this in some part of the law - I couldn't find any references on a skim-read of the law (!)
I find it curious those having a snide dig at Labour and muttering about revealing our negotiating position in advance are the first to stand up for transparency in other circumstances. Making decisions behind closed doors in smoke filled rooms was the cry used by Conservatives when Labour Governments talked to the TUC or when the subject of PR and Coalition Governments is raised.
Now, we are told to be quiet and allow the Government to negotiate in secret behind our backs - not that we will be allowed any say in the outcome of the A50 negotiations either.
I would rather trust my crown jewels to a psychopath with a rusty knife than allow Curly, Mo and Larry to decide our economic future in secret. We want as much transparency, accountability and visibility as possible so when they screw up (not if), there will be nowhere for them or the Prime Minister to hide.
As for the outcome of the A50 negotiations, the final Treaty should be formally debated and ratified by Parliament as the supreme legislative body. I see no need for a second referendum (here I part company with Tim Farron and others) but there does need to be a formal process of scrutiny and debate. If the new economic treaty between the EU and the UK can command a majority in the Commons, so be it.
Those wishing a further negotiation or re-negotiation process can suggest that in their 2020 election manifestos and explain the areas of the Treaty with which they disagree or which they think can be improved.
Yes, take back control. Let Parliament Vote.
How realistic is it to expect something like this to be dealt with behind closed doors with the details kept secret for two years or more, anyway? In a modern media-driven democracy I would say it would be almost impossible. Just look at last night's Newsnight story, picked up elsewhere in today's media, about the possibility of our continuing to make payments to the EU through some kind of support fund for Eastern Europe. If you dig into the story the whole thing appears to be based on a comment by an unnamed cabinet minister and some off the record briefing by a civil servant.
The Government would be well advised to try a more open and transparent approach to A50 and the negotiations, since the alternative is years of similar stories and leaks based on unattributable comments, true or false, with the markets needlessly spooked as each new rumour starts going around.
Also, if the EU views us as being disunited they will be more tempted to try and divide further. A parliamentary vote would be a clear signal of support.
@IainDale: 21% of the EU's 40,000 laws & regulations apply to the Single Market. I did not vote to stay in 21% of the EU. End of.
A very large portion of the laws and regulations are - of course - just instituting standards from various international bodies, and they will need to be enshrined in UK in one way or another.
Unless, of course, Iain is planning on taking us outside all international trade.
)
While I agree with that, I think we also need to be realistic.
(1) Pick up any piece of electronics. It will contain (at least) three logos on the back: FCC, CE and UL. Two of those are US standards, the third is a European. I have never seen a piece of electronics that does not have those three.
(2) Pretty mich all free trade agreements contain provisions against using product standards as non-tariff barriers. So, EU products, made to EU standards, will be saleable in the UK. As the EU market will be 5x bigger than the UK one, very few people (if any will) make products to UK rather than EU standards. (In Canada, this has essentially meant that the Canadian standards body has been effectively denuded of power. The US, by its size, effectively sets all product standards in NAFTA).
(3) Rules on electromagnetic radiation, and the like, are set by international bodies. The good news is that we will now get our own voice on these, rather than the EU speaking for us. The bad news is that we'll still end up with basically the same set of product regulations the US and the EU have.
It certainly wont change for emissions.
More debateable is immunity which the EU requires full compliance with but the US rules regard it as being a contractual matter between buyer and seller in many cases.
Immuity tests are far more complicated and therefore expensive than emissions.
The 2004 directive removing the obligation from the 1989 directive for an external competent body to approve a technical construction file and allowing self certification instead drew a lot of the sting from it in any case and deprived a lot of consultants of work.
A lot of non compliant equipment still gets in under the radar. I have seen a model railway controller originating in Canada without CE or FCC or UL advertised second hand by UK online model railway shops. Similarly there are all sorts of domestic electronic model railway products from small scale cottage industry sellers without any certification. That said they are all 5 or 12 volt low current so low risk (although not negligable risk of causing RF interference which is why the EMC rules were principally brought in for after mobile phones were invented)
''the real economic consequences of the vote to LEAVE are yet to be played out ''
Sorry but that wasn;'t what the remainers told us. They told us there would be a cataclysm from day one.
They were totally wrong then. so I see absolutely no reason to believe them now.
These are just the miserable scrotes who, if you won £10m on the National Lottery, wouldn't congratulate you, but would suck air through their teeth, muttering "But tonight's Euromillions is £100m....."
Theresa May has been forced to give way in a row with MPs over how much influence Parliament has over her Brexit plan.
The Prime Minister was effectively pushed into allowing Tory MPs to vote for a Labour motion calling for greater scrutiny of her Brexit proposals, after it became clear some were planning to do so anyway.
Theresa's got to call a general election and secure a landslide.
She's not going to be able to achieve Brexit with Cameron's small majority, that much seems increasingly obvious.
I'm beginning to think the same. Though it would be tactically clever it would be another strategic mistake because of the boundary changes still not being through.
Hopefully Clarke would retire, and Nick can beat Soubry.....
It would be a double strategic mistake because of the boundary changes not being through and it will terminate Corbyn's leadership prematurely. In hindsight Corbyn's leadership of less than two years would become a minor footnote in history of a truly transformative period of British politics (Brexit being far more interesting than Corbyn).
On a purely partisan level, Corbynism continuing to fester within Labour for three more years is another opportunity for the Tories if we have a full term this Parliament.
@IainDale: 21% of the EU's 40,000 laws & regulations apply to the Single Market. I did not vote to stay in 21% of the EU. End of.
A very large portion of the laws and regulations are - of course - just instituting standards from various international bodies, and they will need to be enshrined in UK in one way or another.
Unless, of course, Iain is planning on taking us outside all international trade.
Well yes and those who want to sell into the single market will obviously have to comply with them anyway. But I do think that accepting that that volume of legislation from others into our law without us having a vote on it is unacceptable and why we will not be in the Single Market. The solution, obviously, is tariff free trade with the Single Market which should be our objective. Our exporters will still have to comply but our domestic market will only have to comply to the extent that we want it to (which may be quite a lot for the reasons you have pointed out.)
While I agree with that, I think we also need to be realistic.
(1) Pick up any piece of electronics. It will contain (at least) three logos on the back: FCC, CE and UL. Two of those are US standards, the third is a European. I have never seen a piece of electronics that does not have those three.
(2) Pretty mich all free trade agreements contain provisions against using product standards as non-tariff barriers. So, EU products, made to EU standards, will be saleable in the UK. As the EU market will be 5x bigger than the UK one, very few people (if any will) make products to UK rather than EU standards. (In Canada, this has essentially meant that the Canadian standards body has been effectively denuded of power. The US, by its size, effectively sets all product standards in NAFTA.)
(3) Rules on electromagnetic radiation, and the like, are set by international bodies. The good news is that we will now get our own voice on these, rather than the EU speaking for us. The bad news is that we'll still end up with basically the same set of product regulations the US and the EU have.
I think we all agree the UK should have a voice in the international order. Where Leavers and Remainers disagree is on the cost/benefit balance of our EU membership providing the main forum for that voice.
I really think a lot of people imagined we would invoke A50 on the morning of Friday 24th June and had we done so, I think we would have been in an infinitely worse position than we are.
I'm sorry, but that is complete bollocks.
You're not getting away with that - which part of it, in what way ?
Are you suggesting that had we invoked A50 on June 24th, we would be in a better position now ? How so ? In what way ?
I do think a lot of people were convinced the process of leaving the EU would begin as soon as the voting had ended - indeed, I think many people believed we would formally leave the EU on June 24th id we voted LEAVE.
A50 isn't well understood now and wasn't well understood or explained during the campaign.
Theresa May has been forced to give way in a row with MPs over how much influence Parliament has over her Brexit plan.
The Prime Minister was effectively pushed into allowing Tory MPs to vote for a Labour motion calling for greater scrutiny of her Brexit proposals, after it became clear some were planning to do so anyway.
Theresa May has been forced to give way in a row with MPs over how much influence Parliament has over her Brexit plan.
The Prime Minister was effectively pushed into allowing Tory MPs to vote for a Labour motion calling for greater scrutiny of her Brexit proposals, after it became clear some were planning to do so anyway.
Theresa's got to call a general election and secure a landslide.
She's not going to be able to achieve Brexit with Cameron's small majority, that much seems increasingly obvious.
I'm coming to the view that she needs to fight an election on a Brexit platform, with all official Conservative candidates signing up to it.
I think you're right. By leaving the decision over who can trigger Article 50 to the courts, she has effectively ceded the initiative to those are who likely to oppose Brexit. All the courts need to do is drag out the proceedings into Jan/Feb next year, and then rule it's not a prerogative power. Even if TM could get a one line Article 50 bill through Parliament, I doubt she'd be able to do it before her self-imposed deadline.
The public will not understand a delay of nearly a year in starting the process, and they will not be forgiving. Wholesale defection by Leave voters will see the Tory share slump, and UKIP rise.
Theresa May has been forced to give way in a row with MPs over how much influence Parliament has over her Brexit plan.
The Prime Minister was effectively pushed into allowing Tory MPs to vote for a Labour motion calling for greater scrutiny of her Brexit proposals, after it became clear some were planning to do so anyway.
Theresa's got to call a general election and secure a landslide.
She's not going to be able to achieve Brexit with Cameron's small majority, that much seems increasingly obvious.
I'm coming to the view that she needs to fight an election on a Brexit platform, with all official Conservative candidates signing up to it.
What Brexit platform though? There is no way that "no running commentary" would survive a General Election and nor should it then. If you don't want to provide a running commentary then get on with it, if you want a mandate you need to make it clear what you're going for. Our interests our best served by just getting on with it.
''And the former being unelected casuals who think they have a right to make Britain's most important decisions.''
The last time I looked the hard Brexiteers were MPs answerable to their constituents.
Of course remainers have long since lost the distinction between the accountable and the unaccountable, as their preference for the EU over independence shows us.
Theresa May has been forced to give way in a row with MPs over how much influence Parliament has over her Brexit plan.
The Prime Minister was effectively pushed into allowing Tory MPs to vote for a Labour motion calling for greater scrutiny of her Brexit proposals, after it became clear some were planning to do so anyway.
Theresa's got to call a general election and secure a landslide.
She's not going to be able to achieve Brexit with Cameron's small majority, that much seems increasingly obvious.
I'm beginning to think the same. Though it would be tactically clever it would be another strategic mistake because of the boundary changes still not being through.
Hopefully Clarke would retire, and Nick can beat Soubry.....
Even without boundary changes current polling suggests a Con majority of 80;
Mr. Jonathan, the EU isn't an ally, but a hegemon.
It's the best ally we had. It was in part us after all.
Ultimately, the UK would cease to exist as a political entity within the EU. The Project is about forging a new nation called Europe. One may consider that a good thing, but clearly most British people don't want that.
Thank God we have you here, Sean, to explain what people have in mind when they cast a secret ballot.
Do you have any evidence that the British people want to be subservient to a nation called Europe?
I don't remember that option being offered in the Referendum.
Theresa May has been forced to give way in a row with MPs over how much influence Parliament has over her Brexit plan.
The Prime Minister was effectively pushed into allowing Tory MPs to vote for a Labour motion calling for greater scrutiny of her Brexit proposals, after it became clear some were planning to do so anyway.
I see that this morning the site's Leavers have moved on from the idea that Theresa May's majority is impregnable thanks to the DUP, Gisela Stuart and the confluence of lunar cycles and onto the idea that she should call a general election and require all would-be Conservative MPs to swear an oath to Brexit while standing in a pentacle.
Since more than half of the current crop of Conservative MPs supported Remain, enforcing party loyalty on that basis may just possibly prove challenging.
I find it curious those having a snide dig at Labour and muttering about revealing our negotiating position in advance are the first to stand up for transparency in other circumstances. Making decisions behind closed doors in smoke filled rooms was the cry used by Conservatives when Labour Governments talked to the TUC or when the subject of PR and Coalition Governments is raised.
Now, we are told to be quiet and allow the Government to negotiate in secret behind our backs - not that we will be allowed any say in the outcome of the A50 negotiations either.
I would rather trust my crown jewels to a psychopath with a rusty knife than allow Curly, Mo and Larry to decide our economic future in secret. We want as much transparency, accountability and visibility as possible so when they screw up (not if), there will be nowhere for them or the Prime Minister to hide.
As for the outcome of the A50 negotiations, the final Treaty should be formally debated and ratified by Parliament as the supreme legislative body. I see no need for a second referendum (here I part company with Tim Farron and others) but there does need to be a formal process of scrutiny and debate. If the new economic treaty between the EU and the UK can command a majority in the Commons, so be it.
Those wishing a further negotiation or re-negotiation process can suggest that in their 2020 election manifestos and explain the areas of the Treaty with which they disagree or which they think can be improved.
Yes, take back control. Let Parliament Vote.
How realistic is it to expect something like this to be dealt with behind closed doors with the details kept secret for two years or more, anyway? In a modern media-driven democracy I would say it would be almost impossible. Just look at last night's Newsnight story, picked up elsewhere in today's media, about the possibility of our continuing to make payments to the EU through some kind of support fund for Eastern Europe. If you dig into the story the whole thing appears to be based on a comment by an unnamed cabinet minister and some off the record briefing by a civil servant.
The Government would be well advised to try a more open and transparent approach to A50 and the negotiations, since the alternative is years of similar stories and leaks based on unattributable comments, true or false, with the markets needlessly spooked as each new rumour starts going around.
If we say in public "this is our starting position, and this is our fallback position", the other side in the negotiations will start with the fallback position and work from there.
FT contains the line: "Moreover, it is quite likely that today’s huge current account deficits will be unsustainable post-Brexit"
How's that for the start of a crisis that will lead to a rethink on Brexit?
Are they seriously suggesting that it was sustainable if we'd stayed in the EU?
Probably not - rather suggesting that the day of reckoning has been brought forward. Unless sterling stabilises the inflation and interest rate effects will kick in quicker. Of course the latter would not be bad news at all for many of us but it could hurt quite quickly for those highly leveraged with property, etc. The squeals would undoubtedly impact on government popularity. Despite all the positives of a sterling depreciation to pretend it is a totally good news story is fanciful - as most sensible 'leavers' appreciate. The UK economy was not in a great place before the referendum and it is arguably in a worse one now.
I really think a lot of people imagined we would invoke A50 on the morning of Friday 24th June and had we done so, I think we would have been in an infinitely worse position than we are.
I'm sorry, but that is complete bollocks.
You're not getting away with that - which part of it, in what way ?
Are you suggesting that had we invoked A50 on June 24th, we would be in a better position now ? How so ? In what way ?
I do think a lot of people were convinced the process of leaving the EU would begin as soon as the voting had ended - indeed, I think many people believed we would formally leave the EU on June 24th id we voted LEAVE.
A50 isn't well understood now and wasn't well understood or explained during the campaign.
Try a little debate and argument.
I don't think any of the predictions of Armageddon were predicated on A50 being triggered the day after the vote. At no point was that caveat made. It is simply a rewriting of history.
Indeed it would Mr Gin - but I'm looking for ways to cement One Nation Toryism for two generations, not just 5 years.
The boundary changes are key....
It would be a dicey business IMHO. An election campaign would put the government under huge pressure on what exactly Brexit means and could expose the serious rifts within the Conservatives that the new leadership is currently managing to keep mostly patched over. Corbyn being off the scale doesn't in itself mean he can't pick up significant support, as our American friends are proving for us.
On the electoral maths there aren't a huge number of currently Labour seats where the Tories are well positioned to make gains, and a government will always struggle to make big gains in an election anyhow. There aren't any LibDem seats to win, and indeed the likelihood is that the Tories would suffer at least a few losses back to the LDs. It is hard to see the Tories getting that far in Scotland.
So the upside for the Tories is limited (although I do see that even a small increase in majority would make things considerably easier) but with some significant downside risk.
The biggest opportunity was seen as letting UKIP have a go at Labour in the North - which looks rather less likely now.
But the bottom line is that Labour is - and always has been - the ideal opponent for the Tories. As a class-based Union-tied party its attitudes and behaviour trigger sufficient distaste amongst the Tory population to keep their people motivated. Labour's support is sufficiently concentrated that it doesn't win too often and can only win by reaching out to non-Labour people - so a true left-wing government appears impossible. And the voting system stops the non-Tory majority ganging up on them.
The Tories fear the prospect of credible opposition from the centre left (as the Lib/SDP Alliance nearly achieved in the 1980s) or from the populist right via UKIP far more than their current opponent. Far fewer seats would be safe Tory. So an election when Labour is on the ropes may look good tactics - but would be appalling strategy, boundary changes or no.
That was based on Cameron's assertion that Article 50 would be triggered on day one.
Not just Cameron's. It seemed to be generally assumed (and was overhyped by the media in all its forms) that A50 would be triggered on the Friday morning. It's all part of the appalling short-termist instant gratification no patience culture we have created for ourselves.
We want it all and we want it now as Mr Mercury once advised (and that's a 1980s pop reference for TSE's benefit)
It's been a real shock to some of the more hardcore LEAVE supporters that not only have we not left the EU, we haven't even started to leave yet they witter on about some revolutionary utopia now existing just because they won a vote.
I'm not convinced that running a big balance of payments deficit is a strong argument in favour of EU membership.
Remainers have been waiting to be vindicated on the economics since 24th June. With the recent fall in Sterling off the back of May's speech, they think they have.
Which is why so many are getting so excited.
They pinned their hopes initially on share prices, the PMI's and employment and output numbers, but they've all turned out to be disappointingly good.
As will this long overdue correction to the currency markets.
What is hilarious is that we all know Germany has done well (and Southern Europe badly) from the Euro as it locked in an under valued exchange rate for the Germans and an over valued one for Southern Europe.
Now we are supposed to be upset that with a mammoth trade deficit of nearly 6% of GDP our FX is being corrected from an over valued one to a fairer exchange rate? I don't think so.
A lot depends on British consumers reaction to the Brexit devaluation, if they keep buying the same German cars, Italian fridges and Chinese electronics, and put up with the price increases by cutting back elsewhere then the balance of payments deficit may well increase rather than reduce.
Do you really honestly believe that will happen?
EDIT: And what about the other side of the coin: exports?
People continue in their buying habits, and holiday habits, not least because there are few British equivalents for many of these. I am not currently looking for a new car, but none of the ones made in the UK are particularly appealing. Similarly, in terms of exports, there may be a nudge upwards of Jaguar or Bentley sales, but on the whole these are not particularly price sensitive products.
I suspect that the current account deficit will remain stubbonly large despite the slide in Sterling.
Another piece of tinder for the fire. Buried in an FT article on how the recent rise in minimum wage seems to be causing a few issues for some businesses is the consolatory thought that as median earnings are predicted to grow less quickly (post Brexit), so the minimum wage will not rise as quickly, since Osborne pegged the two.
The worse off to suffer then. Not what was promised, surely?
'I will forgive no one who does not respect the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken.Whether it is a majority of 1% of 20% when the British people have spoken you do what they command.Either you believe in democracy or you do not'
Theresa May has been forced to give way in a row with MPs over how much influence Parliament has over her Brexit plan.
The Prime Minister was effectively pushed into allowing Tory MPs to vote for a Labour motion calling for greater scrutiny of her Brexit proposals, after it became clear some were planning to do so anyway.
I really think a lot of people imagined we would invoke A50 on the morning of Friday 24th June and had we done so, I think we would have been in an infinitely worse position than we are.
I'm sorry, but that is complete bollocks.
You're not getting away with that - which part of it, in what way ?
Are you suggesting that had we invoked A50 on June 24th, we would be in a better position now ? How so ? In what way ?
Well, for a start, we wouldn't have had three months of bad losers trying to stop A50 being invoked...
I really think a lot of people imagined we would invoke A50 on the morning of Friday 24th June and had we done so, I think we would have been in an infinitely worse position than we are.
I'm sorry, but that is complete bollocks.
You're not getting away with that - which part of it, in what way ?
Are you suggesting that had we invoked A50 on June 24th, we would be in a better position now ? How so ? In what way ?
Well, for a start, we wouldn't have had three months of bad losers trying to stop A50 being invoked...
Mr. Jonathan, the EU isn't an ally, but a hegemon.
It's the best ally we had. It was in part us after all.
Ultimately, the UK would cease to exist as a political entity within the EU. The Project is about forging a new nation called Europe. One may consider that a good thing, but clearly most British people don't want that.
Thank God we have you here, Sean, to explain what people have in mind when they cast a secret ballot.
Do you have any evidence that the British people want to be subservient to a nation called Europe?
I don't remember that option being offered in the Referendum.
That'll be a "no", then. Thanks for clarifying.
That may be so, but the Referendum isn't evidence for it.
I refer remainers to the best thing I have ever read on Brexit, Bogdanor's letter to the Times.
“Sir, I voted Remain, but clearly my standpoint has not found favour with the British people, 72 per cent of whom turned out in the referendum, the highest turnout since the the general election of 1992. Turnout seems to have been highest among Leave voters and lowest among Remain voters. Yet the former are now told by academics, lawyers and others that, as the Bishop of Durham suggests (letter, July 2), they were not voting on the EU at all but on “longstanding social grievances”. Others also have suggested that Leave voters did not know what they were doing, or were bigoted (though bigotry in the form of antisemitism is more likely to be found among university students or on the Labour left than in the pubs of Sunderland or Hartlepool).
The arguments against accepting the legitimacy of the outcome of the referendum are similar to those used in the 19th century against extending the franchise. Were they to succeed, the poorer members of the community might well begin to ask whether democracy has anything at all to offer them; and that would be a very dangerous development. VERNON BOGDANOR, Professor of Government, KCL”
The Tories fear the prospect of credible opposition from the centre left (as the Lib/SDP Alliance nearly achieved in the 1980s) or from the populist right via UKIP far more than their current opponent. Far fewer seats would be safe Tory. So an election when Labour is on the ropes may look good tactics - but would be appalling strategy, boundary changes or no.
Of course running off for an election for no reason at all would look bad but if it's because she can't carry out the countries wishes following the referendum because Parliament is being too obstructive, then I think the public would understand.
Remember, although the overall vote shares and ballots polled were quite close, outside London and Scotland, on a Constituency by Constituency basis, the LEAVE victory on 23rd June was overwhelming.
Theresa May has been forced to give way in a row with MPs over how much influence Parliament has over her Brexit plan.
The Prime Minister was effectively pushed into allowing Tory MPs to vote for a Labour motion calling for greater scrutiny of her Brexit proposals, after it became clear some were planning to do so anyway.
Theresa's got to call a general election and secure a landslide.
She's not going to be able to achieve Brexit with Cameron's small majority, that much seems increasingly obvious.
I'm coming to the view that she needs to fight an election on a Brexit platform, with all official Conservative candidates signing up to it.
That is my view.
All she needs is Corbyn's acquiescence.
She actually doesn't. She just needs 105 Labour MPs to vote with her.
I think she could get them.
Everybody is entitled to their own opinion....
Which bit do you disagree with? CR is quite right in his inference that Corbyn's agreement doesn't mean anything if his backbenchers don't follow him.
You could argue that she might need fewer than 105 Labour MPs if she can gain some support elsewhere (though I can't see any good reason why any of the other parties will be too keen for an early election) but the maths of the big picture remains the same.
As for Brexit, no, she doesn't need an election. There's not much that parliament has to approve and while it could set parameters if motions were put down to that effect, it'll be a lot harder gaining majority positive support for any alternative proposition to the government's than to vote against what May, Johnson, Davis and Fox come up with.
I'm not convinced that running a big balance of payments deficit is a strong argument in favour of EU membership.
Remainers have been waiting to be vindicated on the economics since 24th June. With the recent fall in Sterling off the back of May's speech, they think they have.
Which is why so many are getting so excited.
That is funny as I was told by several people the other day that the fall in sterling was nothing to do with May's speech but part of a treasury plot to talk the economy down. But heigh ho either way it was something the 'experts' predicted. More important the problem now is less the fall than the sense it has some way to go. As ever business craves stability - the government is a key player here and is currently coming up short. There is clearly disunity as the attacks on Hammond showed clearly.
North carolina is an odd case. There is huge dissatisfaction with McCrory, the Republican governor, because of a law cslled HB2 which allows churchgoers to be free to legally discriminate against anyone.
Translating...
Not sure what it has to do with churchgoers in particular (other than in that neck of the woods they may support it), but Isn't that the law that says that people should use restrooms in accordance with the biological organs they happen to possess?
Are you not slightly everegging your rhetoric?
That is part of what it says. It also has provisions affecting local laws and workplace rules. Nonetheless because it promotes discrimination many companies are pulling back from NC as are sporting organisations. You cannot go around promoting equality in eork and sports and then hold conventions meetings or events in a place the discriminates
As an example, paypal pulled a support centre it was planning. 400 jobs gone.... the NCAA has cancelled 7 events for next year etc
Interested. Could you provide a link to a comprehensive analysis?
Although the best known provision of this law is the bathroom part it also has a section regulating minimum wage and overriding city ordinances. Many cities had a higher minimum wage than the State MW but the State provision now overrides this.
Thanks.
I forgot to ask why you introduced churchgoers into this? Is this in some part of the law - I couldn't find any references on a skim-read of the law (!)
This little overview from the Telegraph paints a picture of what is going on.
I see that this morning the site's Leavers have moved on from the idea that Theresa May's majority is impregnable thanks to the DUP, Gisela Stuart and the confluence of lunar cycles and onto the idea that she should call a general election and require all would-be Conservative MPs to swear an oath to Brexit while standing in a pentacle.
Since more than half of the current crop of Conservative MPs supported Remain, enforcing party loyalty on that basis may just possibly prove challenging.
A few of the fainter hearted ones have. Its just froth. The days of government being run by the previous days headlines are over
I see that this morning the site's Leavers have moved on from the idea that Theresa May's majority is impregnable thanks to the DUP, Gisela Stuart and the confluence of lunar cycles and onto the idea that she should call a general election and require all would-be Conservative MPs to swear an oath to Brexit while standing in a pentacle.
Since more than half of the current crop of Conservative MPs supported Remain, enforcing party loyalty on that basis may just possibly prove challenging.
God forbid we come to new conclusions after further reflection and new information.
Scorched earth Remainers are trying to kill Brexit via a thousand cuts. TM should flush them out!
I really think a lot of people imagined we would invoke A50 on the morning of Friday 24th June and had we done so, I think we would have been in an infinitely worse position than we are.
I'm sorry, but that is complete bollocks.
You're not getting away with that - which part of it, in what way ?
Are you suggesting that had we invoked A50 on June 24th, we would be in a better position now ? How so ? In what way ?
I do think a lot of people were convinced the process of leaving the EU would begin as soon as the voting had ended - indeed, I think many people believed we would formally leave the EU on June 24th id we voted LEAVE.
A50 isn't well understood now and wasn't well understood or explained during the campaign.
Try a little debate and argument.
I don't think any of the predictions of Armageddon were predicated on A50 being triggered the day after the vote. At no point was that caveat made. It is simply a rewriting of history.
The caveat wasn't needed because Cammo as PM had already declared that is what he would do. And of course few people actually anticipated a leave win and I don't remember anyone envisaging what has actually happened - a leave vote followed by months of seeming inactivity.
I see that this morning the site's Leavers have moved on from the idea that Theresa May's majority is impregnable thanks to the DUP, Gisela Stuart and the confluence of lunar cycles and onto the idea that she should call a general election and require all would-be Conservative MPs to swear an oath to Brexit while standing in a pentacle.
Since more than half of the current crop of Conservative MPs supported Remain, enforcing party loyalty on that basis may just possibly prove challenging.
I'm sure those same Tory MPs will tell the electorate that they intend to keep frustrating the will of the people, if re-elected.
Yeah, right. You really don't get this politics thing, do you?
I'm not convinced that running a big balance of payments deficit is a strong argument in favour of EU membership.
Remainers have been waiting to be vindicated on the economics since 24th June. With the recent fall in Sterling off the back of May's speech, they think they have.
Which is why so many are getting so excited.
That is funny as I was told by several people the other day that the fall in sterling was nothing to do with May's speech but part of a treasury plot to talk the economy down. But heigh ho either way it was something the 'experts' predicted. More important the problem now is less the fall than the sense it has some way to go. As ever business craves stability - the government is a key player here and is currently coming up short. There is clearly disunity as the attacks on Hammond showed clearly.
Sterling probably does still have some way to fall, but if the only real consequence of Brexit is a slightly undervalued currency, and a bit of stalling of business investment for 2-3 years with very low growth but without a recession, then we will have got away lightly.
Witney by election appears to have the makings of the Sutton and Cheam by election in 1972.
What makes you say that? Comments on the Vote UK site from a Lib Dem activist campaigning there suggest that they're looking to a decent second place as the limit of their ambition.
Realistically, the conditions aren't right for a LD spectacular. The Conservatives are not sufficiently unpopular as a governing party and the Lib Dems are not sufficiently untainted from their time in government to act as the bucket protest vote party that they once were for Labour-inclined voters in seats like this.
@MarqueeMark You will find few MPs telling the electorate that they intend to keep frustrating the will of the people if re-elected. You might find quite a lot telling the electorate that they intend to ensure that the terms of the negotiation are given close and continuing scrutiny.
It's only Brexiteers in fairy dairy land who think that scrutiny by elected representatives is a bad idea.
''the real economic consequences of the vote to LEAVE are yet to be played out ''
Sorry but that wasn;'t what the remainers told us. They told us there would be a cataclysm from day one.
They were totally wrong then. so I see absolutely no reason to believe them now.
That was based on Cameron's assertion that Article 50 would be triggered on day one.
Article 50 is an arcane legal technicality to say that we will be leaving the EU and need to start negotiations.
In the real world the June 23rd vote said we will be leaving the EU and need to start negotiations.
Article 50 itself will have negligible impact on the markets that the vote has not already had.
The markets reacted to the mere fact of a speech more than 3 months after the vote.
Indeed. And a reminder it was that supposedly rational markets can also suffer from complacence and delusion.
The triggering of A50, when it comes, *ought* to have no effect because it should have been priced in ever since the referendum. I wouldn't bank on it though.
I really think a lot of people imagined we would invoke A50 on the morning of Friday 24th June and had we done so, I think we would have been in an infinitely worse position than we are.
I'm sorry, but that is complete bollocks.
You're not getting away with that - which part of it, in what way ?
Are you suggesting that had we invoked A50 on June 24th, we would be in a better position now ? How so ? In what way ?
I do think a lot of people were convinced the process of leaving the EU would begin as soon as the voting had ended - indeed, I think many people believed we would formally leave the EU on June 24th id we voted LEAVE.
A50 isn't well understood now and wasn't well understood or explained during the campaign.
Try a little debate and argument.
I don't think any of the predictions of Armageddon were predicated on A50 being triggered the day after the vote. At no point was that caveat made. It is simply a rewriting of history.
The caveat wasn't needed because Cammo as PM had already declared that is what he would do. And of course few people actually anticipated a leave win and I don't remember anyone envisaging what has actually happened - a leave vote followed by months of seeming inactivity.
Have you seen this secret recording of the inner cabinet discussing Brexit?
I see that this morning the site's Leavers have moved on from the idea that Theresa May's majority is impregnable thanks to the DUP, Gisela Stuart and the confluence of lunar cycles and onto the idea that she should call a general election and require all would-be Conservative MPs to swear an oath to Brexit while standing in a pentacle.
Since more than half of the current crop of Conservative MPs supported Remain, enforcing party loyalty on that basis may just possibly prove challenging.
@ProfChalmers: I do wonder if anyone saying "if you tell the other side in a negotiation what you want it weakens your hand" has ever negotiated anything.
I don't think any of the predictions of Armageddon were predicated on A50 being triggered the day after the vote. At no point was that caveat made. It is simply a rewriting of history.
I don't agree but I do appreciate the comment. I think it was more subtle and nuanced than that.
Given the way we change Governments in the UK which is, by the standards of many European countries for example, a very quick and brutal business, there was, I think, a general belief and expectation that leaving the EU would be a similar "quick" business.
The notion we wouldn't even start to leave the EU for perhaps nine months after the vote wasn't seriously entertained because, for example, if we choose a Labour Government to replace a Conservative Government (or indeed vice versa), the transitional period is barely 18 hours.
The predictions weren't predicated on A50 in and of itself and I accept that but they were predicated on the cultural sense that once we had voted to LEAVE, we would either LEAVE immediately or (and I genuinely believe this to be the case), for many people the vote itself would be the act of leaving and we would be out of the EU on June 24th.
As I've said elsewhere, it's part of our immediacy, short-termist world view that we want things to happen and expect them to happen and happen quickly. Cameron triggered a political crisis by effectively resigning on the morning of the 24th (though he didn't) but he prevented that becoming a deeper economic crisis by not triggering A50 and kicking that can down the road for his successor.
I really think a lot of people imagined we would invoke A50 on the morning of Friday 24th June and had we done so, I think we would have been in an infinitely worse position than we are.
I'm sorry, but that is complete bollocks.
You're not getting away with that - which part of it, in what way ?
Are you suggesting that had we invoked A50 on June 24th, we would be in a better position now ? How so ? In what way ?
I do think a lot of people were convinced the process of leaving the EU would begin as soon as the voting had ended - indeed, I think many people believed we would formally leave the EU on June 24th id we voted LEAVE.
A50 isn't well understood now and wasn't well understood or explained during the campaign.
Try a little debate and argument.
I don't think any of the predictions of Armageddon were predicated on A50 being triggered the day after the vote. At no point was that caveat made. It is simply a rewriting of history.
The caveat wasn't needed because Cammo as PM had already declared that is what he would do. And of course few people actually anticipated a leave win and I don't remember anyone envisaging what has actually happened - a leave vote followed by months of seeming inactivity.
Erm, that's exactly what I thought would happen if Leave won. Cameron also said he wouldn't resign, I don't remember anyone seriously believing him.
I really think a lot of people imagined we would invoke A50 on the morning of Friday 24th June and had we done so, I think we would have been in an infinitely worse position than we are.
I'm sorry, but that is complete bollocks.
You're not getting away with that - which part of it, in what way ?
Are you suggesting that had we invoked A50 on June 24th, we would be in a better position now ? How so ? In what way ?
Well, for a start, we wouldn't have had three months of bad losers trying to stop A50 being invoked...
Apart from the application for judicial review
If A50 had been invoked on June 24th (or, more likely, June 27th) and accepted by the EU, there couldn't have been a judicial review.
I really think a lot of people imagined we would invoke A50 on the morning of Friday 24th June and had we done so, I think we would have been in an infinitely worse position than we are.
I'm sorry, but that is complete bollocks.
You're not getting away with that - which part of it, in what way ?
Are you suggesting that had we invoked A50 on June 24th, we would be in a better position now ? How so ? In what way ?
I do think a lot of people were convinced the process of leaving the EU would begin as soon as the voting had ended - indeed, I think many people believed we would formally leave the EU on June 24th id we voted LEAVE.
A50 isn't well understood now and wasn't well understood or explained during the campaign.
Try a little debate and argument.
I don't think any of the predictions of Armageddon were predicated on A50 being triggered the day after the vote. At no point was that caveat made. It is simply a rewriting of history.
The caveat wasn't needed because Cammo as PM had already declared that is what he would do. And of course few people actually anticipated a leave win and I don't remember anyone envisaging what has actually happened - a leave vote followed by months of seeming inactivity.
Have you seen this secret recording of the inner cabinet discussing Brexit?
Looks more like the Labour front bench to me. Certainly, that's Corbyn second from left.
On topic: I said yesterday that I see no need for a Commons vote pre negotiation. There is currently nothing to vote on, and the government needs maximum flexibility to reach some sort of understanding.
However, what would be good is if the three nimpties could stop making contradictory commentary which May has to slap down.
It comes across as completely shambolic.
Davis, Johnson and Fox: one is off-message, the second off-piste, and the third off his meds. Their stock has not risen.
I really think a lot of people imagined we would invoke A50 on the morning of Friday 24th June and had we done so, I think we would have been in an infinitely worse position than we are.
I'm sorry, but that is complete bollocks.
You're not getting away with that - which part of it, in what way ?
Are you suggesting that had we invoked A50 on June 24th, we would be in a better position now ? How so ? In what way ?
Well, for a start, we wouldn't have had three months of bad losers trying to stop A50 being invoked...
Apart from the application for judicial review
If A50 had been invoked on June 24th (or, more likely, June 27th) and accepted by the EU, there couldn't have been a judicial review.
I don't think any of the predictions of Armageddon were predicated on A50 being triggered the day after the vote. At no point was that caveat made. It is simply a rewriting of history.
I don't agree but I do appreciate the comment. I think it was more subtle and nuanced than that.
Given the way we change Governments in the UK which is, by the standards of many European countries for example, a very quick and brutal business, there was, I think, a general belief and expectation that leaving the EU would be a similar "quick" business.
The notion we wouldn't even start to leave the EU for perhaps nine months after the vote wasn't seriously entertained because, for example, if we choose a Labour Government to replace a Conservative Government (or indeed vice versa), the transitional period is barely 18 hours.
The predictions weren't predicated on A50 in and of itself and I accept that but they were predicated on the cultural sense that once we had voted to LEAVE, we would either LEAVE immediately or (and I genuinely believe this to be the case), for many people the vote itself would be the act of leaving and we would be out of the EU on June 24th.
As I've said elsewhere, it's part of our immediacy, short-termist world view that we want things to happen and expect them to happen and happen quickly. Cameron triggered a political crisis by effectively resigning on the morning of the 24th (though he didn't) but he prevented that becoming a deeper economic crisis by not triggering A50 and kicking that can down the road for his successor.
Exactly. Or, to make the same point more succinctly, leavers made the mistake of thinking the exit process would start straight away, and remainers that (any) serious economic consequences would impact straight away. In the real world almost everything takes longer than we would think, or wish.
I refer remainers to the best thing I have ever read on Brexit, Bogdanor's letter to the Times.
“Sir, I voted Remain, but clearly my standpoint has not found favour with the British people, 72 per cent of whom turned out in the referendum, the highest turnout since the the general election of 1992. Turnout seems to have been highest among Leave voters and lowest among Remain voters. Yet the former are now told by academics, lawyers and others that, as the Bishop of Durham suggests (letter, July 2), they were not voting on the EU at all but on “longstanding social grievances”. Others also have suggested that Leave voters did not know what they were doing, or were bigoted (though bigotry in the form of antisemitism is more likely to be found among university students or on the Labour left than in the pubs of Sunderland or Hartlepool).
The arguments against accepting the legitimacy of the outcome of the referendum are similar to those used in the 19th century against extending the franchise. Were they to succeed, the poorer members of the community might well begin to ask whether democracy has anything at all to offer them; and that would be a very dangerous development. VERNON BOGDANOR, Professor of Government, KCL”
That is - of course - absolutely correct.
The only argument now is about the nature of Brexit.
Were they to succeed, the poorer members of the community might well begin to ask whether democracy has anything at all to offer them; and that would be a very dangerous development. VERNON BOGDANOR, Professor of Government, KCL”
Which is why I believe that while leaving the EU is a bad idea, subverting the referendum result is a very much worse idea, so out we jolly well go!
'I will forgive no one who does not respect the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken.Whether it is a majority of 1% of 20% when the British people have spoken you do what they command.Either you believe in democracy or you do not' Has Paddy Ashdown now left the Lib Dems ?
Is that promise from Ashdown as reliable as his marriage oath?
@ProfChalmers: I do wonder if anyone saying "if you tell the other side in a negotiation what you want it weakens your hand" has ever negotiated anything.
@ProfChalmers: I do wonder if anyone saying "if you tell the other side in a negotiation what you want it weakens your hand" has ever negotiated anything.
MANAGER: "You asked to see me; what can I help with?"
CRACK NEGOTIATOR: "How stupid do you think I am?"
The point is not to avoid explaining to the EU what we want. The point is to avoid unhelpful narrative in our own media which creates fake "red lines" etc.
Witney by election appears to have the makings of the Sutton and Cheam by election in 1972.
What makes you say that? Comments on the Vote UK site from a Lib Dem activist campaigning there suggest that they're looking to a decent second place as the limit of their ambition.
Realistically, the conditions aren't right for a LD spectacular. The Conservatives are not sufficiently unpopular as a governing party and the Lib Dems are not sufficiently untainted from their time in government to act as the bucket protest vote party that they once were for Labour-inclined voters in seats like this.
Yet you've felt the need to come on here and comment as a good Conservative activist. I must admit there's been very little coverage of Witney - that will probably change early next week.
I don't think any of the predictions of Armageddon were predicated on A50 being triggered the day after the vote. At no point was that caveat made. It is simply a rewriting of history.
I don't agree but I do appreciate the comment. I think it was more subtle and nuanced than that.
Given the way we change Governments in the UK which is, by the standards of many European countries for example, a very quick and brutal business, there was, I think, a general belief and expectation that leaving the EU would be a similar "quick" business.
The notion we wouldn't even start to leave the EU for perhaps nine months after the vote wasn't seriously entertained because, for example, if we choose a Labour Government to replace a Conservative Government (or indeed vice versa), the transitional period is barely 18 hours.
The predictions weren't predicated on A50 in and of itself and I accept that but they were predicated on the cultural sense that once we had voted to LEAVE, we would either LEAVE immediately or (and I genuinely believe this to be the case), for many people the vote itself would be the act of leaving and we would be out of the EU on June 24th.
As I've said elsewhere, it's part of our immediacy, short-termist world view that we want things to happen and expect them to happen and happen quickly. Cameron triggered a political crisis by effectively resigning on the morning of the 24th (though he didn't) but he prevented that becoming a deeper economic crisis by not triggering A50 and kicking that can down the road for his successor.
Exactly. Or, to make the same point more succinctly, leavers made the mistake of thinking the exit process would start straight away, and remainers that (any) serious economic consequences would impact straight away. In the real world almost everything takes longer than we would think, or wish.
I'm sorry, but can you point me in the direction of a Leaver on PB who is getting upset about the time being taken before triggering A50?
Because the speech gave an indication of a Hard Brexit instead of Soft Brexit. Not due to Article 50.
Surely political reality gave an indication of a Hard Brexit instead of Soft Brexit. We have known all along that we won't be in the single market as is because that will not allow adequate immigration controls. May only spelt out what we already know.
I refer remainers to the best thing I have ever read on Brexit, Bogdanor's letter to the Times.
“Sir, I voted Remain, but clearly my standpoint has not found favour with the British people, 72 per cent of whom turned out in the referendum, the highest turnout since the the general election of 1992. Turnout seems to have been highest among Leave voters and lowest among Remain voters. Yet the former are now told by academics, lawyers and others that, as the Bishop of Durham suggests (letter, July 2), they were not voting on the EU at all but on “longstanding social grievances”. Others also have suggested that Leave voters did not know what they were doing, or were bigoted (though bigotry in the form of antisemitism is more likely to be found among university students or on the Labour left than in the pubs of Sunderland or Hartlepool).
The arguments against accepting the legitimacy of the outcome of the referendum are similar to those used in the 19th century against extending the franchise. Were they to succeed, the poorer members of the community might well begin to ask whether democracy has anything at all to offer them; and that would be a very dangerous development. VERNON BOGDANOR, Professor of Government, KCL”
That is - of course - absolutely correct.
The only argument now is about the nature of Brexit.
On which Mr Navabi linked to an excellent article:
Will Brexit take the U.K. out of the single market?
Membership of the single market, according to the EU treaty and settled EU doctrine, requires upholding four supposedly indivisible freedoms -- free trade in goods, services and capital, and free movement of people.
The fourth freedom is avowedly political, not economic: Its purpose is to dissolve the EU's internal borders. This supranational character of the European Union project is the very thing Britain objects to, and the very thing the EU insists on.
So yes, Brexit means rejecting the fourth freedom, which in turn means no longer being a member of the single market.
Nobody should have needed May's speech for clarification on this.
I'm not convinced that running a big balance of payments deficit is a strong argument in favour of EU membership.
Remainers have been waiting to be vindicated on the economics since 24th June. With the recent fall in Sterling off the back of May's speech, they think they have.
Which is why so many are getting so excited.
That is funny as I was told by several people the other day that the fall in sterling was nothing to do with May's speech but part of a treasury plot to talk the economy down. But heigh ho either way it was something the 'experts' predicted. More important the problem now is less the fall than the sense it has some way to go. As ever business craves stability - the government is a key player here and is currently coming up short. There is clearly disunity as the attacks on Hammond showed clearly.
Sterling probably does still have some way to fall, but if the only real consequence of Brexit is a slightly undervalued currency, and a bit of stalling of business investment for 2-3 years with very low growth but without a recession, then we will have got away lightly.
Big if - how much inflation will there be and will interest rates rise. the latter are ridiculously low but have been so for a long time and mortgage payers have thus had some very good years. How will they react to their monthly payments shooting up - even with modest interest rate hikes. I repeat - the fall in the £ is less important than the slow continual slide and the sense of drift and instability. Too many on here still think everything is going swimmingly and will brook zero criticism. That is a very dangerous line to take in a world of realpolitic.
Mr. Jonathan, the EU isn't an ally, but a hegemon.
It's the best ally we had. It was in part us after all.
Ultimately, the UK would cease to exist as a political entity within the EU. The Project is about forging a new nation called Europe. One may consider that a good thing, but clearly most British people don't want that.
Thank God we have you here, Sean, to explain what people have in mind when they cast a secret ballot.
Do you have any evidence that the British people want to be subservient to a nation called Europe?
I don't remember that option being offered in the Referendum.
That'll be a "no", then. Thanks for clarifying.
That may be so, but the Referendum isn't evidence for it.
If you can come up with a plausible reason for someone who wants the UK to be subservient to a nation called Europe to have voted Leave, I'll listen...
Because the speech gave an indication of a Hard Brexit instead of Soft Brexit. Not due to Article 50.
Surely political reality gave an indication of a Hard Brexit instead of Soft Brexit. We have known all along that we won't be in the single market as is because that will not allow adequate immigration controls. May only spelt out what we already know.
@ProfChalmers: I do wonder if anyone saying "if you tell the other side in a negotiation what you want it weakens your hand" has ever negotiated anything.
MANAGER: "You asked to see me; what can I help with?"
CRACK NEGOTIATOR: "How stupid do you think I am?"
The point is not to avoid explaining to the EU what we want. The point is to avoid unhelpful narrative in our own media which creates fake "red lines" etc.
Actually the UK has been clear on 'what' we want. Access to the single market, and control over immigration. What we're rightly not clear about is what compromise deal we'll probably have to accept.
I really think a lot of people imagined we would invoke A50 on the morning of Friday 24th June and had we done so, I think we would have been in an infinitely worse position than we are.
I'm sorry, but that is complete bollocks.
You're not getting away with that - which part of it, in what way ?
Are you suggesting that had we invoked A50 on June 24th, we would be in a better position now ? How so ? In what way ?
Well, for a start, we wouldn't have had three months of bad losers trying to stop A50 being invoked...
Apart from the application for judicial review
If A50 had been invoked on June 24th (or, more likely, June 27th) and accepted by the EU, there couldn't have been a judicial review.
Yes there could. The remedy would for the government to contact the Commission again to tell them the letter had been sent unlawfully and ask for it to be unaccepted. What if someone slipped something into Theresa May's drink and made her write a letter because she thought the aliens were telling her to, and the Commission didn't realise? Would it be a matter of "Sorry. Done's done"?
Comments
Replacing Dave starting to look like a bit of a poisoned chalice?
EDIT: And what about the other side of the coin: exports?
More debateable is immunity which the EU requires full compliance with but the US rules regard it as being a contractual matter between buyer and seller in many cases.
Immuity tests are far more complicated and therefore expensive than emissions.
The 2004 directive removing the obligation from the 1989 directive for an external competent body to approve a technical construction file and allowing self certification instead drew a lot of the sting from it in any case and deprived a lot of consultants of work.
A lot of non compliant equipment still gets in under the radar. I have seen a model railway controller originating in Canada without CE or FCC or UL advertised second hand by UK online model railway shops. Similarly there are all sorts of domestic electronic model railway products from small scale cottage industry sellers without any certification. That said they are all 5 or 12 volt low current so low risk (although not negligable risk of causing RF interference which is why the EMC rules were principally brought in for after mobile phones were invented)
EDIT: In the Labour Party, obviously.
Are you suggesting that had we invoked A50 on June 24th, we would be in a better position now ? How so ? In what way ?
I do think a lot of people were convinced the process of leaving the EU would begin as soon as the voting had ended - indeed, I think many people believed we would formally leave the EU on June 24th id we voted LEAVE.
A50 isn't well understood now and wasn't well understood or explained during the campaign.
Try a little debate and argument.
The public will not understand a delay of nearly a year in starting the process, and they will not be forgiving. Wholesale defection by Leave voters will see the Tory share slump, and UKIP rise.
Potentially, she is courting disaster.
The last time I looked the hard Brexiteers were MPs answerable to their constituents.
Of course remainers have long since lost the distinction between the accountable and the unaccountable, as their preference for the EU over independence shows us.
For such a serious period she needs another 50 or so MP's behind her.
How do their constituents feel about that now?
In the real world the June 23rd vote said we will be leaving the EU and need to start negotiations.
Article 50 itself will have negligible impact on the markets that the vote has not already had.
I think she could get them.
Since more than half of the current crop of Conservative MPs supported Remain, enforcing party loyalty on that basis may just possibly prove challenging.
Again. Try going to the country with that sophists argument, the way people feel now. 60% wanted companies to put foreign names on lists.
UKIP's lowest score in any poll I;ve seen is 11%, possibly because people realise those who govern us would come out with this stuff.
Won't be that low for long.
On the electoral maths there aren't a huge number of currently Labour seats where the Tories are well positioned to make gains, and a government will always struggle to make big gains in an election anyhow. There aren't any LibDem seats to win, and indeed the likelihood is that the Tories would suffer at least a few losses back to the LDs. It is hard to see the Tories getting that far in Scotland.
So the upside for the Tories is limited (although I do see that even a small increase in majority would make things considerably easier) but with some significant downside risk.
The biggest opportunity was seen as letting UKIP have a go at Labour in the North - which looks rather less likely now.
But the bottom line is that Labour is - and always has been - the ideal opponent for the Tories. As a class-based Union-tied party its attitudes and behaviour trigger sufficient distaste amongst the Tory population to keep their people motivated. Labour's support is sufficiently concentrated that it doesn't win too often and can only win by reaching out to non-Labour people - so a true left-wing government appears impossible. And the voting system stops the non-Tory majority ganging up on them.
The Tories fear the prospect of credible opposition from the centre left (as the Lib/SDP Alliance nearly achieved in the 1980s) or from the populist right via UKIP far more than their current opponent. Far fewer seats would be safe Tory. So an election when Labour is on the ropes may look good tactics - but would be appalling strategy, boundary changes or no.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-170-questions-full-list-brexit-eu-referendum-david-davis-theresa-may-uk-a7356841.html
Some are rather silly - if we are in a "transitional arrangement" will we have to pay in "indefinitely"?
I guess well pay in for the duration of the transitional arrangement.......
We want it all and we want it now as Mr Mercury once advised (and that's a 1980s pop reference for TSE's benefit)
It's been a real shock to some of the more hardcore LEAVE supporters that not only have we not left the EU, we haven't even started to leave yet they witter on about some revolutionary utopia now existing just because they won a vote.
334, two more than Obama.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
I suspect that the current account deficit will remain stubbonly large despite the slide in Sterling.
Another piece of tinder for the fire. Buried in an FT article on how the recent rise in minimum wage seems to be causing a few issues for some businesses is the consolatory thought that as median earnings are predicted to grow less quickly (post Brexit), so the minimum wage will not rise as quickly, since Osborne pegged the two.
The worse off to suffer then. Not what was promised, surely?
Has Paddy Ashdown now left the Lib Dems ?
Some wise chap said it was like bringing a bazooka to a water pistol fight.
“Sir, I voted Remain, but clearly my standpoint has not found favour with the British people, 72 per cent of whom turned out in the referendum, the highest turnout since the the general election of 1992. Turnout seems to have been highest among Leave voters and lowest among Remain voters. Yet the former are now told by academics, lawyers and others that, as the Bishop of Durham suggests (letter, July 2), they were not voting on the EU at all but on “longstanding social grievances”. Others also have suggested that Leave voters did not know what they were doing, or were bigoted (though bigotry in the form of antisemitism is more likely to be found among university students or on the Labour left than in the pubs of Sunderland or Hartlepool).
The arguments against accepting the legitimacy of the outcome of the referendum are similar to those used in the 19th century against extending the franchise. Were they to succeed, the poorer members of the community might well begin to ask whether democracy has anything at all to offer them; and that would be a very dangerous development. VERNON BOGDANOR, Professor of Government, KCL”
Remember, although the overall vote shares and ballots polled were quite close, outside London and Scotland, on a Constituency by Constituency basis, the LEAVE victory on 23rd June was overwhelming.
You could argue that she might need fewer than 105 Labour MPs if she can gain some support elsewhere (though I can't see any good reason why any of the other parties will be too keen for an early election) but the maths of the big picture remains the same.
As for Brexit, no, she doesn't need an election. There's not much that parliament has to approve and while it could set parameters if motions were put down to that effect, it'll be a lot harder gaining majority positive support for any alternative proposition to the government's than to vote against what May, Johnson, Davis and Fox come up with.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/12/transgender-bathroom-bills-dont-have-to-be-enforced--bigots-will/
The article also highlights the role of the Family Research Council, a conservative christian group, in the whole mess.
Scorched earth Remainers are trying to kill Brexit via a thousand cuts. TM should flush them out!
Yeah, right. You really don't get this politics thing, do you?
The other great irony is that as a backbencher, David Davis took his government to court.
Realistically, the conditions aren't right for a LD spectacular. The Conservatives are not sufficiently unpopular as a governing party and the Lib Dems are not sufficiently untainted from their time in government to act as the bucket protest vote party that they once were for Labour-inclined voters in seats like this.
It's only Brexiteers in fairy dairy land who think that scrutiny by elected representatives is a bad idea.
'Which EU Law Are You Most Looking Forward To Losing?'
https://tinyurl.com/jcxfd5r
The triggering of A50, when it comes, *ought* to have no effect because it should have been priced in ever since the referendum. I wouldn't bank on it though.
https://youtu.be/whljoIN4XU4
@ProfChalmers: Imagine them asking for a rise.
MANAGER: "You asked to see me; what can I help with?"
CRACK NEGOTIATOR: "How stupid do you think I am?"
Given the way we change Governments in the UK which is, by the standards of many European countries for example, a very quick and brutal business, there was, I think, a general belief and expectation that leaving the EU would be a similar "quick" business.
The notion we wouldn't even start to leave the EU for perhaps nine months after the vote wasn't seriously entertained because, for example, if we choose a Labour Government to replace a Conservative Government (or indeed vice versa), the transitional period is barely 18 hours.
The predictions weren't predicated on A50 in and of itself and I accept that but they were predicated on the cultural sense that once we had voted to LEAVE, we would either LEAVE immediately or (and I genuinely believe this to be the case), for many people the vote itself would be the act of leaving and we would be out of the EU on June 24th.
As I've said elsewhere, it's part of our immediacy, short-termist world view that we want things to happen and expect them to happen and happen quickly. Cameron triggered a political crisis by effectively resigning on the morning of the 24th (though he didn't) but he prevented that becoming a deeper economic crisis by not triggering A50 and kicking that can down the road for his successor.
And the call isn't to tell the EU, but to tell the Commons.
On topic: I said yesterday that I see no need for a Commons vote pre negotiation. There is currently nothing to vote on, and the government needs maximum flexibility to reach some sort of understanding.
However, what would be good is if the three nimpties could stop making contradictory commentary which May has to slap down.
It comes across as completely shambolic.
Davis, Johnson and Fox: one is off-message, the second off-piste, and the third off his meds.
Their stock has not risen.
The only argument now is about the nature of Brexit.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-09/ditch-the-hard-brexit-fallacy
Will Brexit take the U.K. out of the single market?
Membership of the single market, according to the EU treaty and settled EU doctrine, requires upholding four supposedly indivisible freedoms -- free trade in goods, services and capital, and free movement of people.
The fourth freedom is avowedly political, not economic: Its purpose is to dissolve the EU's internal borders. This supranational character of the European Union project is the very thing Britain objects to, and the very thing the EU insists on.
So yes, Brexit means rejecting the fourth freedom, which in turn means no longer being a member of the single market.
Nobody should have needed May's speech for clarification on this.
Cashed out handsomely.
It squares the circle.
I've got the image of Hillary Clinton in a gold bikini in my head now
https://twitter.com/JamesLiamCook/status/786134856958738433