I was a huge Cameron fan, but he didn't appreciate the average Briton's loathing of the EU - and then decided to insult a load of them. For a PR man, that was absolutely dreadful.
That deer in the headlights direct appeal to the public 2 outside 10 Downing St. days before the vote was one the most desperate acts I have ever witnessed in politics.
Yup the mandateless PM has lost control and is egregiously unqualified to be PM
@tnewtondunn: On Cabinet's Brexit rows, No10 insists PM "happy for there to be a debate before a decision is reached". But the look is she's lost control.
WTF is going on here?
Are some people really wanting to see a party split (with the potential of Corbyn getting in) over negotiations that haven't even started yet. Bonkers!
As someone put it to me at conference 'in hindsight, project fear were low balling the risks of Brexit'
Theresa May's real fault, for you, is that she isn't George Osborne.
Nonsense. Her real fault is that she's pleasing the loonbags like Simon Heffer who are comparing her to Enoch Powell.
Oh dear. The worst kind of dithering. The whole industry has been briefed that Heathrow has got the go ahead. Just announce it and be damned. A u turn now would make the nation into a laughing stock.
Delaying the announcement until after the Witney by-election.
Which is interesting...
If you live in Oxfordshire wouldn't LHR be the best option?
Yup the mandateless PM has lost control and is egregiously unqualified to be PM
@tnewtondunn: On Cabinet's Brexit rows, No10 insists PM "happy for there to be a debate before a decision is reached". But the look is she's lost control.
How long before Osborne returns to "get a grip" ?
That's not a bad idea - it could be a send-for-the-cavalry moment akin to when Gordon brought back Mandy. I can't think of a single member of the public who wouldn't feel reassured.
Yup the mandateless PM has lost control and is egregiously unqualified to be PM
@tnewtondunn: On Cabinet's Brexit rows, No10 insists PM "happy for there to be a debate before a decision is reached". But the look is she's lost control.
I usually find your comments highly illuminating TSE, but the idea that May is a mandateless PM is rubbish. Under the system of government we have she is perfectly entitled to be where she is.
She lacks a mandate to what she is planning to do, cf grammar schools as the prime example
I have to agree with this, the 2015 manifesto, which she campaigned on, made a firm commitment to the single market. If she wants to leave the single market then she will have to go to the public and get a mandate to do so.
Out of genuine interest what would be the mechanism for this in the context of the fixed term parliaments act? If the PM triggers A50 before March as promised and the EU decide it's a hard Brexit then where next? The Brexit vote requires an election really but the FTPA prevents one. Bit of a constitutional Catch-22 no? Vote of no confidence is the way through?
Yes, no confidence and then the waiting period I think. Or repeal the FTPA, the government has a majority.
Just a simple single line vote with a two-thirds majority in the Commons voting for an early election on a specified date is all that is required. No wait, no Lords.
She'd need Labour MPs. A vote of no confidence has a better chance of success than dissolution.
No opposition MP could ever deny an early election, unless its a Hung Parliament and they can arrange a new coalition, which it isn't. Not only have Labour already been calling for one, they would be signing their own death warrant as completely frit and afraid to face the public if they said no.
That's not a bad idea - it could be a send-for-the-cavalry moment akin to when Gordon brought back Mandy. I can't think of a single member of the public who wouldn't feel reassured.
Yup the mandateless PM has lost control and is egregiously unqualified to be PM
@tnewtondunn: On Cabinet's Brexit rows, No10 insists PM "happy for there to be a debate before a decision is reached". But the look is she's lost control.
How long before Osborne returns to "get a grip" ?
That's not a bad idea - it could be a send-for-the-cavalry moment akin to when Gordon brought back Mandy. I can't think of a single member of the public who wouldn't feel reassured.
I can think of about 5-10 million.
Osborne is disliked by a large number of voters. How do people not see that?
Yup the mandateless PM has lost control and is egregiously unqualified to be PM
@tnewtondunn: On Cabinet's Brexit rows, No10 insists PM "happy for there to be a debate before a decision is reached". But the look is she's lost control.
WTF is going on here?
Are some people really wanting to see a party split (with the potential of Corbyn getting in) over negotiations that haven't even started yet. Bonkers!
As someone put it to me at conference 'in hindsight, project fear were low balling the risks of Brexit'
So they'd rather double down on the hyperbole, as opposed to trying their best to implement the will of the people?
The PM could be damn close to calling an election if the EU-loving 'new bastards' don't shut up.
That's the irony, Brexit and Mrs May have turned some Leavers into supporters of the EU.
No opposition MP could ever deny an early election, unless its a Hung Parliament and they can arrange a new coalition, which it isn't. Not only have Labour already been calling for one, they would be signing their own death warrant as completely frit and afraid to face the public if they said no.
If a GE was called "now", would Momentum have time to deselect all the Labour MPs, or would they automatically be on the ballots?
Yup the mandateless PM has lost control and is egregiously unqualified to be PM
@tnewtondunn: On Cabinet's Brexit rows, No10 insists PM "happy for there to be a debate before a decision is reached". But the look is she's lost control.
I usually find your comments highly illuminating TSE, but the idea that May is a mandateless PM is rubbish. Under the system of government we have she is perfectly entitled to be where she is.
She lacks a mandate to what she is planning to do, cf grammar schools as the prime example
I have to agree with this, the 2015 manifesto, which she campaigned on, made a firm commitment to the single market. If she wants to leave the single market then she will have to go to the public and get a mandate to do so.
Out of genuine interest what would be the mechanism for this in the context of the fixed term parliaments act? If the PM triggers A50 before March as promised and the EU decide it's a hard Brexit then where next? The Brexit vote requires an election really but the FTPA prevents one. Bit of a constitutional Catch-22 no? Vote of no confidence is the way through?
She puts a vote to the House of Commons for the motion "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election". This needs to be passed by two-thirds of MPs.
In theory Labour could vote against it, but that's politically quite a difficult thing for an opposition to do at the best of times. In this case there's a clear rationale and it's very hard to see Corbyn opposing it. Even if he did, it's not clear that he'd take his MPs with him, because they get a new election on the old boundaries, and a chance to get rid of Corbyn right after losing instead of waiting until 2020.
Yup the mandateless PM has lost control and is egregiously unqualified to be PM
@tnewtondunn: On Cabinet's Brexit rows, No10 insists PM "happy for there to be a debate before a decision is reached". But the look is she's lost control.
How long before Osborne returns to "get a grip" ?
I can't think of a single member of the public who wouldn't feel reassured.
Then you must move in very tight circles......61% of Conservatives and 73% of UK voters don't think he's up to the job of PM:
Yup the mandateless PM has lost control and is egregiously unqualified to be PM
@tnewtondunn: On Cabinet's Brexit rows, No10 insists PM "happy for there to be a debate before a decision is reached". But the look is she's lost control.
How long before Osborne returns to "get a grip" ?
That's not a bad idea - it could be a send-for-the-cavalry moment akin to when Gordon brought back Mandy. I can't think of a single member of the public who wouldn't feel reassured.
I can think of about 5-10 million.
Osborne is disliked by a large number of voters. How do people not see that?
Because Sir Lynton's polling shows you don't need to be liked to win votes.
Why do you think the Tory GE2015 campaign focussed so heavily on Osborne's stewardship of the economy? Because he got the Tories votes.
Oh dear. The worst kind of dithering. The whole industry has been briefed that Heathrow has got the go ahead. Just announce it and be damned. A u turn now would make the nation into a laughing stock.
Delaying the announcement until after the Witney by-election.
Which is interesting...
If you live in Oxfordshire wouldn't LHR be the best option?
If the current vote is about 30/45 LD/Con, it wouldn't take much to push a few environmentalist Tories into the LD camp and for the anti-Airport Greens to hold their noses. I don't think it will make any difference which is why the safety first approach is not necessary.
However, if it is the reason for the delay then it shows that No. 10 have as much faith in the 14% poll leads as TSE.
Theresa May is to allow a short pause on whether to give the go-ahead to a new runway at Heathrow so that Cabinet ministers can express their views. Sources in Whitehall told the BBC that expansion at Heathrow is the clear front runner. However, the prime minister has made it clear she wants to hear the wide-ranging opinions of colleagues. The BBC has been told the Cabinet will discuss the issue tomorrow but no final decision is expected. It will then be left to the Economic Affairs (Transport) sub-committee, chaired by Mrs May, to make the final choice on whether to back Heathrow or Gatwick. One option being looked at is for that committee to meet next Tuesday, 25 October, with an announcement on the same day.
Yup the mandateless PM has lost control and is egregiously unqualified to be PM
@tnewtondunn: On Cabinet's Brexit rows, No10 insists PM "happy for there to be a debate before a decision is reached". But the look is she's lost control.
WTF is going on here?
Are some people really wanting to see a party split (with the potential of Corbyn getting in) over negotiations that haven't even started yet. Bonkers!
As someone put it to me at conference 'in hindsight, project fear were low balling the risks of Brexit'
So they'd rather double down on the hyperbole, as opposed to trying their best to implement the will of the people?
The PM could be damn close to calling an election if the EU-loving 'new bastards' don't shut up.
That's the irony, Brexit and Mrs May have turned some Leavers into supporters of the EU.
I'd like to see a source for that claim.
As I've stated a few times, it was based on my experiences at conference, which is also backed up by some polling too.
No opposition MP could ever deny an early election, unless its a Hung Parliament and they can arrange a new coalition, which it isn't. Not only have Labour already been calling for one, they would be signing their own death warrant as completely frit and afraid to face the public if they said no.
If a GE was called "now", would Momentum have time to deselect all the Labour MPs, or would they automatically be on the ballots?
Might be a factor?
The Labour Party has an emergency selection procedure within X days of a GE where, as I recall, the selection reverts from the local party to the NEC. That, many years ago, was how Alan Johnson got 'selected' in Hull.
Yup the mandateless PM has lost control and is egregiously unqualified to be PM
@tnewtondunn: On Cabinet's Brexit rows, No10 insists PM "happy for there to be a debate before a decision is reached". But the look is she's lost control.
WTF is going on here?
Are some people really wanting to see a party split (with the potential of Corbyn getting in) over negotiations that haven't even started yet. Bonkers!
As someone put it to me at conference 'in hindsight, project fear were low balling the risks of Brexit'
Theresa May's real fault, for you, is that she isn't George Osborne.
Who we now know was probably the true author of BREXIT.....funny old world.....
Correlation is not causation
"A different model — one which controlled for those other factors — might give a very different counterfactual. Indeed, one of the models run by the authors suggests that fiscal cuts have the opposite effect (Table 6, column 2). "
Yup the mandateless PM has lost control and is egregiously unqualified to be PM
@tnewtondunn: On Cabinet's Brexit rows, No10 insists PM "happy for there to be a debate before a decision is reached". But the look is she's lost control.
WTF is going on here?
Are some people really wanting to see a party split (with the potential of Corbyn getting in) over negotiations that haven't even started yet. Bonkers!
As someone put it to me at conference 'in hindsight, project fear were low balling the risks of Brexit'
So they'd rather double down on the hyperbole, as opposed to trying their best to implement the will of the people?
The PM could be damn close to calling an election if the EU-loving 'new bastards' don't shut up.
That's the irony, Brexit and Mrs May have turned some Leavers into supporters of the EU.
I'd like to see a source for that claim.
As I've stated a few times, it was based on my experiences at conference, which is also backed up by some polling too.
One thing that isn't in doubt - it's a big gamble, both for the country and the party, at a time where the Tory Party would have had things pretty much sewn up on a steady ship.
That was all in the context of being members of the EU. The referendum has overriden that in the same way as defeat at the 2015 election is a legitimate reason for Labour and the Lib Dems to revise their own policies.
No
The question was about mandate.
Is there a mandate for staying in? Yes, because the Tories won a majority on a manifesto that included a commitment to stay in (not predicated on the result of the referendum)
Labour and the Lib Dems have no mandate for their policies, so are free to revise them
And if membership of the Single Market is incompatible with Brexit, for practical purposes?
Yup the mandateless PM has lost control and is egregiously unqualified to be PM
@tnewtondunn: On Cabinet's Brexit rows, No10 insists PM "happy for there to be a debate before a decision is reached". But the look is she's lost control.
WTF is going on here?
Are some people really wanting to see a party split (with the potential of Corbyn getting in) over negotiations that haven't even started yet. Bonkers!
As someone put it to me at conference 'in hindsight, project fear were low balling the risks of Brexit'
So they'd rather double down on the hyperbole, as opposed to trying their best to implement the will of the people?
The PM could be damn close to calling an election if the EU-loving 'new bastards' don't shut up.
That's the irony, Brexit and Mrs May have turned some Leavers into supporters of the EU.
I'd like to see a source for that claim.
As I've stated a few times, it was based on my experiences at conference, which is also backed up by some polling too.
One thing that isn't in doubt - it's a big gamble, both for the country and the party, at a time where the Tory Party would have had things pretty much sewn up on a steady ship.
I pointed out on here, given the business interests of a lot of Tory donors
Osborne is disliked by a large number of voters. How do people not see that?
These are people who by and large also think that the EU is great. Being oblivious to the prevailing attitudes of the country they live in comes naturally to them, it must be something to do with their schooling.
Yup the mandateless PM has lost control and is egregiously unqualified to be PM
@tnewtondunn: On Cabinet's Brexit rows, No10 insists PM "happy for there to be a debate before a decision is reached". But the look is she's lost control.
How long before Osborne returns to "get a grip" ?
That's not a bad idea - it could be a send-for-the-cavalry moment akin to when Gordon brought back Mandy. I can't think of a single member of the public who wouldn't feel reassured.
I can think of about 5-10 million.
Osborne is disliked by a large number of voters. How do people not see that?
Because Sir Lynton's polling shows you don't need to be liked to win votes.
''Er, LOL, no. Many voters didn't even know what the EU was or did when they voted to leave it, never mind being "perfectly aware" of the nuances between a soft EEA-style arrangement and a full blown departure as you claim.''
Here we go with the patronising 'voters are thick, let us decide' remainer bullsh8t that has become increasingly nauseating since remain got beat.
The latest remainer condescension, that the plebs will flock back to remain when their beer and bingo becomes more expensive, is perhaps the most nauseating.
The only thing we voted for on June 23rd was to leave the EU. No amount of bluster from the likes of your good self is going to change that. Your interpretation of what people who voted Leave wanted is no more than an opinion.
Would exiting the EU and adopting an EEA/EFTA style arrangement fulfil the terms of the question on the ref ballot paper? A straight Yes or No will suffice.
That was all in the context of being members of the EU. The referendum has overriden that in the same way as defeat at the 2015 election is a legitimate reason for Labour and the Lib Dems to revise their own policies.
No
The question was about mandate.
Is there a mandate for staying in? Yes, because the Tories won a majority on a manifesto that included a commitment to stay in (not predicated on the result of the referendum)
Labour and the Lib Dems have no mandate for their policies, so are free to revise them
And if membership of the Single Market is incompatible with Brexit, for practical purposes?
Yes. Governments frequently do things for which there is no explicit mandate. Where was Blair's madate for the Iraq war? He used parliamentary approval and royal prerogative. Some people are turning the mandate concept into a fetish.
Yup the mandateless PM has lost control and is egregiously unqualified to be PM
@tnewtondunn: On Cabinet's Brexit rows, No10 insists PM "happy for there to be a debate before a decision is reached". But the look is she's lost control.
How long before Osborne returns to "get a grip" ?
I can't think of a single member of the public who wouldn't feel reassured.
Then you must move in very tight circles......61% of Conservatives and 73% of UK voters don't think he's up to the job of PM:
Theresa May is to allow a short pause on whether to give the go-ahead to a new runway at Heathrow so that Cabinet ministers can express their views. Sources in Whitehall told the BBC that expansion at Heathrow is the clear front runner. However, the prime minister has made it clear she wants to hear the wide-ranging opinions of colleagues. The BBC has been told the Cabinet will discuss the issue tomorrow but no final decision is expected. It will then be left to the Economic Affairs (Transport) sub-committee, chaired by Mrs May, to make the final choice on whether to back Heathrow or Gatwick. One option being looked at is for that committee to meet next Tuesday, 25 October, with an announcement on the same day.
Yup the mandateless PM has lost control and is egregiously unqualified to be PM
@tnewtondunn: On Cabinet's Brexit rows, No10 insists PM "happy for there to be a debate before a decision is reached". But the look is she's lost control.
WTF is going on here?
Are some people really wanting to see a party split (with the potential of Corbyn getting in) over negotiations that haven't even started yet. Bonkers!
As someone put it to me at conference 'in hindsight, project fear were low balling the risks of Brexit'
So they'd rather double down on the hyperbole, as opposed to trying their best to implement the will of the people?
The PM could be damn close to calling an election if the EU-loving 'new bastards' don't shut up.
That's the irony, Brexit and Mrs May have turned some Leavers into supporters of the EU.
I'd like to see a source for that claim.
As I've stated a few times, it was based on my experiences at conference, which is also backed up by some polling too.
Yes but your experiences at Conference would not just be anecdotal but also the people grumbling likely were Remain supporters in the first place. What evidence is there that people have switched from Leave to supporting the EU?
Similarly for the polls there has been no statistically significant swing to Remain that I can see in any polls at all.
Osborne is disliked by a large number of voters. How do people not see that?
These are people who by and large also think that the EU is great. Being oblivious to the prevailing attitudes of the country they live in comes naturally to them, it must be something to do with their schooling.
I doubt it. I was at a large and famous public school. Some of my contemporaries are now journalists at the Times and the Guardian. So too was Daniel Hannan. I don't think schooling makes you break lefty or righty, remainer or leaver. That comes from somewhere else. Parents probably. They fuck you up, your mum and dad!
Yup the mandateless PM has lost control and is egregiously unqualified to be PM
@tnewtondunn: On Cabinet's Brexit rows, No10 insists PM "happy for there to be a debate before a decision is reached". But the look is she's lost control.
How long before Osborne returns to "get a grip" ?
That's not a bad idea - it could be a send-for-the-cavalry moment akin to when Gordon brought back Mandy. I can't think of a single member of the public who wouldn't feel reassured.
I can think of about 5-10 million.
Osborne is disliked by a large number of voters. How do people not see that?
Because Sir Lynton's polling shows you don't need to be liked to win votes.
That was all in the context of being members of the EU. The referendum has overriden that in the same way as defeat at the 2015 election is a legitimate reason for Labour and the Lib Dems to revise their own policies.
No
The question was about mandate.
Is there a mandate for staying in? Yes, because the Tories won a majority on a manifesto that included a commitment to stay in (not predicated on the result of the referendum)
Labour and the Lib Dems have no mandate for their policies, so are free to revise them
And if membership of the Single Market is incompatible with Brexit, for practical purposes?
Yup the mandateless PM has lost control and is egregiously unqualified to be PM
@tnewtondunn: On Cabinet's Brexit rows, No10 insists PM "happy for there to be a debate before a decision is reached". But the look is she's lost control.
WTF is going on here?
Are some people really wanting to see a party split (with the potential of Corbyn getting in) over negotiations that haven't even started yet. Bonkers!
As someone put it to me at conference 'in hindsight, project fear were low balling the risks of Brexit'
So they'd rather double down on the hyperbole, as opposed to trying their best to implement the will of the people?
The PM could be damn close to calling an election if the EU-loving 'new bastards' don't shut up.
That's the irony, Brexit and Mrs May have turned some Leavers into supporters of the EU.
I'd like to see a source for that claim.
As I've stated a few times, it was based on my experiences at conference, which is also backed up by some polling too.
One thing that isn't in doubt - it's a big gamble, both for the country and the party, at a time where the Tory Party would have had things pretty much sewn up on a steady ship.
Hard Brexit = Donors' strike
But Tusk has said the only alternative to 'Hard Brexit' is 'No Brexit'......
Theresa May is to allow a short pause on whether to give the go-ahead to a new runway at Heathrow so that Cabinet ministers can express their views. Sources in Whitehall told the BBC that expansion at Heathrow is the clear front runner. However, the prime minister has made it clear she wants to hear the wide-ranging opinions of colleagues. The BBC has been told the Cabinet will discuss the issue tomorrow but no final decision is expected. It will then be left to the Economic Affairs (Transport) sub-committee, chaired by Mrs May, to make the final choice on whether to back Heathrow or Gatwick. One option being looked at is for that committee to meet next Tuesday, 25 October, with an announcement on the same day.
Oh dear. The worst kind of dithering. The whole industry has been briefed that Heathrow has got the go ahead. Just announce it and be damned. A u turn now would make the nation into a laughing stock.
Jeez, there's never a good time for an unpopular infrastructure decision, get on with it you bunch of bloody ditherers!!!
Theresa May is to allow a short pause on whether to give the go-ahead to a new runway at Heathrow so that Cabinet ministers can express their views. Sources in Whitehall told the BBC that expansion at Heathrow is the clear front runner. However, the prime minister has made it clear she wants to hear the wide-ranging opinions of colleagues. The BBC has been told the Cabinet will discuss the issue tomorrow but no final decision is expected. It will then be left to the Economic Affairs (Transport) sub-committee, chaired by Mrs May, to make the final choice on whether to back Heathrow or Gatwick. One option being looked at is for that committee to meet next Tuesday, 25 October, with an announcement on the same day.
I'm sure she won't take as long as Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or David Cameron did.....
I daresay she'd like to try.
It's going to cause her hassles she can do without. That's the problem with big infrastructure projects: they cause immediate political hassles, and the benefits from them are very much in the future, after your political career is over.
There are one or two notable exceptions, such as the Millennium Dome. And even that covered both Major's and Blair's governments.
That was all in the context of being members of the EU. The referendum has overriden that in the same way as defeat at the 2015 election is a legitimate reason for Labour and the Lib Dems to revise their own policies.
No
The question was about mandate.
Is there a mandate for staying in? Yes, because the Tories won a majority on a manifesto that included a commitment to stay in (not predicated on the result of the referendum)
Labour and the Lib Dems have no mandate for their policies, so are free to revise them
And if membership of the Single Market is incompatible with Brexit, for practical purposes?
Yes. Governments frequently do things for which there is no explicit mandate. Where was Blair's madate for the Iraq war? He used parliamentary approval and royal prerogative. Some people are turning the mandate concept into a fetish.
The referendum was an imprecise answer to a vague question. Nothing will make it more or less than that and all the sophistry surrounding it will yield nothing. The government must do what it feels right within the constraints of parliamentary and prerogative powers.
Yup the mandateless PM has lost control and is egregiously unqualified to be PM
@tnewtondunn: On Cabinet's Brexit rows, No10 insists PM "happy for there to be a debate before a decision is reached". But the look is she's lost control.
WTF is going on here?
Are some people really wanting to see a party split (with the potential of Corbyn getting in) over negotiations that haven't even started yet. Bonkers!
As someone put it to me at conference 'in hindsight, project fear were low balling the risks of Brexit'
Theresa May's real fault, for you, is that she isn't George Osborne.
Nonsense. Her real fault is that she's pleasing the loonbags like Simon Heffer who are comparing her to Enoch Powell.
Osborne - 6.9% trade deficit.
#Marchofthemakers
I don't dislike Osborne but that's a pretty damning statistic.
The latest remainer condescension, that the plebs will flock back to remain when their beer and bingo becomes more expensive, is perhaps the most nauseating.
What happens if public opinion moves decisively to remaining before we invoke Article 50? It could happen.
I actually think another vote is a growing possibility, and the majority of the public would be relaxed about it. The Leave movement is looking a lot uglier since nice Mr Gove and Boris were fronting it - Farage is now Trump's court jester, May is in thrall to the hard-right and an impression of nastiness and incompetence abounds. With hindsight, many Leavers will conclude that the whole caper just wasn't worth the bother.
I'm not sure May is entirely serious about what she is saying right now, I think there is a great deal of manoeuvring going on behind the scenes.
Yes Brexit won by 52-48% but May is not stupid, she must be aware that a within that a majority of working people voted to Remain, a majority of Scotland voted to Remain, a majority of London voted to Remain, a majority of people below retirement age voted to Remain, a majority of Northern Ireland voted to Remain etc etc. Had we voted to Brexit 70% to 30% then it would be a different scenario, as it is pushing for he most extreme sort of Brexit makes no political sense at all.
''Er, LOL, no. Many voters didn't even know what the EU was or did when they voted to leave it, never mind being "perfectly aware" of the nuances between a soft EEA-style arrangement and a full blown departure as you claim.''
Here we go with the patronising 'voters are thick, let us decide' remainer bullsh8t that has become increasingly nauseating since remain got beat.
The latest remainer condescension, that the plebs will flock back to remain when their beer and bingo becomes more expensive, is perhaps the most nauseating.
The only thing we voted for on June 23rd was to leave the EU. No amount of bluster from the likes of your good self is going to change that. Your interpretation of what people who voted Leave wanted is no more than an opinion.
Would exiting the EU and adopting an EEA/EFTA style arrangement fulfil the terms of the question on the ref ballot paper? A straight Yes or No will suffice.
No.
The arguments as to what would happen if we voted Leave were:
From the Leave Side: We would stop contributions to the EU, we would regain "control", we would leave the jurisdiction of the ECJ, we would control immigration.
From the Remain Side: We would leave the Single Market, we would lose trade, our economy would be harmed.
"Hard" Brexit is the only option that mirrors what was debated and chosen in the referendum. Hard Brexit is Brexit, a Brexit in name only is not what was chosen.
Theresa May is to allow a short pause on whether to give the go-ahead to a new runway at Heathrow so that Cabinet ministers can express their views. Sources in Whitehall told the BBC that expansion at Heathrow is the clear front runner. However, the prime minister has made it clear she wants to hear the wide-ranging opinions of colleagues. The BBC has been told the Cabinet will discuss the issue tomorrow but no final decision is expected. It will then be left to the Economic Affairs (Transport) sub-committee, chaired by Mrs May, to make the final choice on whether to back Heathrow or Gatwick. One option being looked at is for that committee to meet next Tuesday, 25 October, with an announcement on the same day.
Oh dear. The worst kind of dithering. The whole industry has been briefed that Heathrow has got the go ahead. Just announce it and be damned. A u turn now would make the nation into a laughing stock.
Jeez, there's never a good time for an unpopular infrastructure decision, get on with it you bunch of bloody ditherers!!!
Yet Hinkley C couldn't be agreed to quickly enough once May was in !
HR3 is sorely needed, not that I'd ever voluntarily catch a flight from there myself...
Continuity Osbornism is the least defensible position in the Tory party, discuss?
Osbornism, you mean the only kind of Toryism that has won either a majority or a general election in the last 20 years plus?
What about extending past 20 years. What and when was the last form of Toryism not to win either a majority or a general election when the opposition wasn't led by Tony Blair?
Theresa May is to allow a short pause on whether to give the go-ahead to a new runway at Heathrow so that Cabinet ministers can express their views. Sources in Whitehall told the BBC that expansion at Heathrow is the clear front runner. However, the prime minister has made it clear she wants to hear the wide-ranging opinions of colleagues. The BBC has been told the Cabinet will discuss the issue tomorrow but no final decision is expected. It will then be left to the Economic Affairs (Transport) sub-committee, chaired by Mrs May, to make the final choice on whether to back Heathrow or Gatwick. One option being looked at is for that committee to meet next Tuesday, 25 October, with an announcement on the same day.
I'm sure she won't take as long as Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or David Cameron did.....
I daresay she'd like to try.
It's going to cause her hassles she can do without. That's the problem with big infrastructure projects: they cause immediate political hassles, and the benefits from them are very much in the future, after your political career is over.
There are one or two notable exceptions, such as the Millennium Dome. And even that covered both Major's and Blair's governments.
The big infrastructure projects are an artificial attempt to raise demand. Heathrow will utilise private money sources, HS2 state ones, but the object is the same: An attempt to bring forwards tomorrow's gains into this electoral cycle's spending.
Theresa May is to allow a short pause on whether to give the go-ahead to a new runway at Heathrow so that Cabinet ministers can express their views. Sources in Whitehall told the BBC that expansion at Heathrow is the clear front runner. However, the prime minister has made it clear she wants to hear the wide-ranging opinions of colleagues. The BBC has been told the Cabinet will discuss the issue tomorrow but no final decision is expected. It will then be left to the Economic Affairs (Transport) sub-committee, chaired by Mrs May, to make the final choice on whether to back Heathrow or Gatwick. One option being looked at is for that committee to meet next Tuesday, 25 October, with an announcement on the same day.
Oh dear. The worst kind of dithering. The whole industry has been briefed that Heathrow has got the go ahead. Just announce it and be damned. A u turn now would make the nation into a laughing stock.
Jeez, there's never a good time for an unpopular infrastructure decision, get on with it you bunch of bloody ditherers!!!
Yet Hinkley C couldn't be agreed to quickly enough once May was in !
HR3 is sorely needed, not that I'd ever voluntarily catch a flight from there myself...
As others have said, GET ON WITH IT
If she's announcing a decision next week that isn't dithering that's getting your ducks in a row. Its been kicked into the long grass for so many years now its about bloody time we get a decision whether its this week or next. So long as its not kicked into next year.
Yup the mandateless PM has lost control and is egregiously unqualified to be PM
@tnewtondunn: On Cabinet's Brexit rows, No10 insists PM "happy for there to be a debate before a decision is reached". But the look is she's lost control.
WTF is going on here?
Are some people really wanting to see a party split (with the potential of Corbyn getting in) over negotiations that haven't even started yet. Bonkers!
As someone put it to me at conference 'in hindsight, project fear were low balling the risks of Brexit'
So they'd rather double down on the hyperbole, as opposed to trying their best to implement the will of the people?
The PM could be damn close to calling an election if the EU-loving 'new bastards' don't shut up.
That's the irony, Brexit and Mrs May have turned some Leavers into supporters of the EU.
I'd like to see a source for that claim.
As I've stated a few times, it was based on my experiences at conference, which is also backed up by some polling too.
One thing that isn't in doubt - it's a big gamble, both for the country and the party, at a time where the Tory Party would have had things pretty much sewn up on a steady ship.
Hard Brexit = Donors' strike
But Tusk has said the only alternative to 'Hard Brexit' is 'No Brexit'......
Yet when I saw Macron six months ago, he said that there were four options for the UK:
EU, EFTA/EEA, Canada, or WTO
I don't think those options have changed. The only questions are: what are the costs of the various elements, and where is the popular support in the UK?
Continuity Osbornism is the least defensible position in the Tory party, discuss?
Osbornism, you mean the only kind of Toryism that has won either a majority or a general election in the last 20 years plus?
What about extending past 20 years. What and when was the last form of Toryism not to win either a majority or a general election when the opposition wasn't led by Tony Blair?
John Major, a one nation Tory, won a majority and was plagued by the headbangers.
We can see clearly from today's thread how the Brexit vote is still at risk. I hope May just triggers A50 in January. That puts us on an irreversible path to leaving the EU. At that point most leavers will be happy/happier. It would give May space to negotiate something perhaps less than a diamond hard Brexit.
Yup the mandateless PM has lost control and is egregiously unqualified to be PM
@tnewtondunn: On Cabinet's Brexit rows, No10 insists PM "happy for there to be a debate before a decision is reached". But the look is she's lost control.
WTF is going on here?
Are some people really wanting to see a party split (with the potential of Corbyn getting in) over negotiations that haven't even started yet. Bonkers!
As someone put it to me at conference 'in hindsight, project fear were low balling the risks of Brexit'
So they'd rather double down on the hyperbole, as opposed to trying their best to implement the will of the people?
The PM could be damn close to calling an election if the EU-loving 'new bastards' don't shut up.
That's the irony, Brexit and Mrs May have turned some Leavers into supporters of the EU.
I'd like to see a source for that claim.
As I've stated a few times, it was based on my experiences at conference, which is also backed up by some polling too.
One thing that isn't in doubt - it's a big gamble, both for the country and the party, at a time where the Tory Party would have had things pretty much sewn up on a steady ship.
Hard Brexit = Donors' strike
But Tusk has said the only alternative to 'Hard Brexit' is 'No Brexit'......
Yet when I saw Macron six months ago, he said that there were four options for the UK:
EU, EFTA/EEA, Canada, or WTO
I don't think those options have changed. The only questions are: what are the costs of the various elements, and where is the popular support in the UK?
Look when I spoke to the Queen last week, she said she was sick of your name dropping
Continuity Osbornism is the least defensible position in the Tory party, discuss?
Osbornism, you mean the only kind of Toryism that has won either a majority or a general election in the last 20 years plus?
What about extending past 20 years. What and when was the last form of Toryism not to win either a majority or a general election when the opposition wasn't led by Tony Blair?
John Major, a one nation Tory, won a majority and was plagued by the headbangers.
And before then? Did John Major come after a Labour rule?
Toryism has beat Labour (excluding "Tory Blair") for far longer than that.
I'm not sure May is entirely serious about what she is saying right now, I think there is a great deal of manoeuvring going on behind the scenes.
Yes Brexit won by 52-48% but May is not stupid, she must be aware that a within that a majority of working people voted to Remain, a majority of Scotland voted to Remain, a majority of London voted to Remain, a majority of people below retirement age voted to Remain, a majority of Northern Ireland voted to Remain etc etc. Had we voted to Brexit 70% to 30% then it would be a different scenario, as it is pushing for he most extreme sort of Brexit makes no political sense at all.
I think the most plausible explanation is that nobody has any idea WTF to do.
The problem with the "soft brexit" thing is that unless she gives up on restricting EU immigration, at which point large parts of her party would go berserk, it's not clear that she can actually get it. So she goes off to the negotiations, insisting that she'll restrict immigration while staying in the single market and keeping financial passporting, her negotiating partners tell her to piss off, and she comes back looking a complete charlie.
Yup the mandateless PM has lost control and is egregiously unqualified to be PM
@tnewtondunn: On Cabinet's Brexit rows, No10 insists PM "happy for there to be a debate before a decision is reached". But the look is she's lost control.
WTF is going on here?
Are some people really wanting to see a party split (with the potential of Corbyn getting in) over negotiations that haven't even started yet. Bonkers!
As someone put it to me at conference 'in hindsight, project fear were low balling the risks of Brexit'
So they'd rather double down on the hyperbole, as opposed to trying their best to implement the will of the people?
The PM could be damn close to calling an election if the EU-loving 'new bastards' don't shut up.
That's the irony, Brexit and Mrs May have turned some Leavers into supporters of the EU.
I'd like to see a source for that claim.
As I've stated a few times, it was based on my experiences at conference, which is also backed up by some polling too.
One thing that isn't in doubt - it's a big gamble, both for the country and the party, at a time where the Tory Party would have had things pretty much sewn up on a steady ship.
Hard Brexit = Donors' strike
But Tusk has said the only alternative to 'Hard Brexit' is 'No Brexit'......
Dozens of people have said dozens of things. Nothing is set in stone, it's all posturing one way or another. It is frankly ludicrous to claim we now must have a hard Brexit just because Tusk said so.
Continuity Osbornism is the least defensible position in the Tory party, discuss?
Osbornism, you mean the only kind of Toryism that has won either a majority or a general election in the last 20 years plus?
What about extending past 20 years. What and when was the last form of Toryism not to win either a majority or a general election when the opposition wasn't led by Tony Blair?
John Major, a one nation Tory, won a majority and was plagued by the headbangers.
And before then? Did John Major come after a Labour rule?
Toryism has beat Labour (excluding "Tory Blair") for far longer than that.
1987 when Labour were led by Kinnock who had to deal with militant and legacy of Foot's defeat in 83
Yup the mandateless PM has lost control and is egregiously unqualified to be PM
@tnewtondunn: On Cabinet's Brexit rows, No10 insists PM "happy for there to be a debate before a decision is reached". But the look is she's lost control.
WTF is going on here?
Are some people really wanting to see a party split (with the potential of Corbyn getting in) over negotiations that haven't even started yet. Bonkers!
As someone put it to me at conference 'in hindsight, project fear were low balling the risks of Brexit'
So they'd rather double down on the hyperbole, as opposed to trying their best to implement the will of the people?
The PM could be damn close to calling an election if the EU-loving 'new bastards' don't shut up.
That's the irony, Brexit and Mrs May have turned some Leavers into supporters of the EU.
I'd like to see a source for that claim.
As I've stated a few times, it was based on my experiences at conference, which is also backed up by some polling too.
One thing that isn't in doubt - it's a big gamble, both for the country and the party, at a time where the Tory Party would have had things pretty much sewn up on a steady ship.
Hard Brexit = Donors' strike
But Tusk has said the only alternative to 'Hard Brexit' is 'No Brexit'......
Yet when I saw Macron six months ago, he said that there were four options for the UK:
EU, EFTA/EEA, Canada, or WTO
I don't think those options have changed. The only questions are: what are the costs of the various elements, and where is the popular support in the UK?
Yes, Tusk is just playing defence at the moment. If we declared that we're seeking to pay our way into the single market, they'd be happy to accommodate the UK.
As so many said before the referendum, Brexit will be a journey. We need to remove ourselves from the influence of the EU one step at a time. In 10 years our relationship with the EU will be completely different to the day we leave. Detaching ourselves one step at a time is the only way to ensure we don't end up with a hard landing and a second referendum.
Yup the mandateless PM has lost control and is egregiously unqualified to be PM
@tnewtondunn: On Cabinet's Brexit rows, No10 insists PM "happy for there to be a debate before a decision is reached". But the look is she's lost control.
WTF is going on here?
Are some people really wanting to see a party split (with the potential of Corbyn getting in) over negotiations that haven't even started yet. Bonkers!
As someone put it to me at conference 'in hindsight, project fear were low balling the risks of Brexit'
So they'd rather double down on the hyperbole, as opposed to trying their best to implement the will of the people?
The PM could be damn close to calling an election if the EU-loving 'new bastards' don't shut up.
That's the irony, Brexit and Mrs May have turned some Leavers into supporters of the EU.
I'd like to see a source for that claim.
As I've stated a few times, it was based on my experiences at conference, which is also backed up by some polling too.
One thing that isn't in doubt - it's a big gamble, both for the country and the party, at a time where the Tory Party would have had things pretty much sewn up on a steady ship.
Hard Brexit = Donors' strike
But Tusk has said the only alternative to 'Hard Brexit' is 'No Brexit'......
Yet when I saw Macron six months ago, he said that there were four options for the UK:
EU, EFTA/EEA, Canada, or WTO
I don't think those options have changed. The only questions are: what are the costs of the various elements, and where is the popular support in the UK?
Canada and WTO are hard Brexit effectively (and a Canada type agreement would never be signed in time).
EFTA/EEA give no control over immigration and so won't satisfy enough Tory MPs let alone UKIPers.
Hard Brexit or no Brexit is therefor a pretty good summary of where we are.
It also ties in nicely with Mays 'Brexit means Brexit ' line.
Yup the mandateless PM has lost control and is egregiously unqualified to be PM
@tnewtondunn: On Cabinet's Brexit rows, No10 insists PM "happy for there to be a debate before a decision is reached". But the look is she's lost control.
WTF is going on here?
Are some people really wanting to see a party split (with the potential of Corbyn getting in) over negotiations that haven't even started yet. Bonkers!
As someone put it to me at conference 'in hindsight, project fear were low balling the risks of Brexit'
So they'd rather double down on the hyperbole, as opposed to trying their best to implement the will of the people?
The PM could be damn close to calling an election if the EU-loving 'new bastards' don't shut up.
That's the irony, Brexit and Mrs May have turned some Leavers into supporters of the EU.
I'd like to see a source for that claim.
As I've stated a few times, it was based on my experiences at conference, which is also backed up by some polling too.
One thing that isn't in doubt - it's a big gamble, both for the country and the party, at a time where the Tory Party would have had things pretty much sewn up on a steady ship.
Hard Brexit = Donors' strike
But Tusk has said the only alternative to 'Hard Brexit' is 'No Brexit'......
Dozens of people have said dozens of things. Nothing is set in stone, it's all posturing one way or another. It is frankly ludicrous to claim we now must have a hard Brexit just because Tusk said so.
I'm afraid your stating of the obvious and all-round common sense will fall on a few sets of deaf ears here.
It seems that, to some, a squeaky 52%-48% victory is equivalent to a crushing defeat and provides an impervious mandate for immediate hard brexit. And the consequences be damned!
''Er, LOL, no. Many voters didn't even know what the EU was or did when they voted to leave it, never mind being "perfectly aware" of the nuances between a soft EEA-style arrangement and a full blown departure as you claim.''
Here we go with the patronising 'voters are thick, let us decide' remainer bullsh8t that has become increasingly nauseating since remain got beat.
The latest remainer condescension, that the plebs will flock back to remain when their beer and bingo becomes more expensive, is perhaps the most nauseating.
The only thing we voted for on June 23rd was to leave the EU. No amount of bluster from the likes of your good self is going to change that. Your interpretation of what people who voted Leave wanted is no more than an opinion.
Would exiting the EU and adopting an EEA/EFTA style arrangement fulfil the terms of the question on the ref ballot paper? A straight Yes or No will suffice.
No.
The arguments as to what would happen if we voted Leave were:
From the Leave Side: We would stop contributions to the EU, we would regain "control", we would leave the jurisdiction of the ECJ, we would control immigration.
From the Remain Side: We would leave the Single Market, we would lose trade, our economy would be harmed.
"Hard" Brexit is the only option that mirrors what was debated and chosen in the referendum. Hard Brexit is Brexit, a Brexit in name only is not what was chosen.
Sorry all you are doing is trying to project your interpretation of what Leave voters intended when they marked their ballot papers. It has no validity, dozens of different things were said during the campaign and people voted Leave for a host of different reasons.
@CarlottaVance But Tusk has said the only alternative to 'Hard Brexit' is 'No Brexit'......
---
Yet when I saw Macron six months ago, he said that there were four options for the UK:
EU, EFTA/EEA, Canada, or WTO
I don't think those options have changed. The only questions are: what are the costs of the various elements, and where is the popular support in the UK?
We are out of the EU because we voted out. Canada is probably too specific to Canada, there won't be time to negotiate something similar and in any case it is not even "Canada" yet because it hasn't been agreed.
That would then leave either EFTA/EEA or WTO - if Macron is correct about the other options. EFTA/EEA would have to be "as-is", not EEA with modifications - ie we accept full FoM, payments to EU and adoption of EU law as directed by them. If that's not acceptable to us, and I doubt it is, that leaves WTO. In that case Tusk is right. It's Hard Brexit.
I think from everything I've read that she is resolute where she shouldn't be, and weak where she needn't be.
So, she's resolute in opposing a Common Vote on the Article 50 Enabling Bill. Why? Utter madness. It would be carried 550-100, it would force MPs to bow to the will of the people. Her insistence on keeping it out the Commons is bonkers. It's a desire to not to appear weak, that weakens her.
On the other side of the fence, she green lighted HPC, because she doesn't want a fight with the Chinese. She's entering into a deal that will be disastrous for the UK, because she doesn't want to say "Sorry, this doesn't work for us anymore."
Her willingness to callously rid CCHQ of her predecessor's people, without even a "thanks for all your work", speaks to a desire to appear decisive, but only with people who can't fight back.
And now Heathrow. Stop being weak and green light it. Heck, it even gives you an excuse for why Witney was so bad if need be.
I'm not sure May is entirely serious about what she is saying right now, I think there is a great deal of manoeuvring going on behind the scenes.
Yes Brexit won by 52-48% but May is not stupid, she must be aware that a within that a majority of working people voted to Remain, a majority of Scotland voted to Remain, a majority of London voted to Remain, a majority of people below retirement age voted to Remain, a majority of Northern Ireland voted to Remain etc etc. Had we voted to Brexit 70% to 30% then it would be a different scenario, as it is pushing for he most extreme sort of Brexit makes no political sense at all.
I think the most plausible explanation is that nobody has any idea WTF to do.
The problem with the "soft brexit" thing is that unless she gives up on restricting EU immigration, at which point large parts of her party would go berserk, it's not clear that she can actually get it. So she goes off to the negotiations, insisting that she'll restrict immigration while staying in the single market and keeping financial passporting, her negotiating partners tell her to piss off, and she comes back looking a complete charlie.
EFTA states, while in the Single Market, have the right to restrict or suspend the 4 freedoms under article 112 of the EEA Agreement. Rebalancing can take place under Art 113, but the reaction must pass the test of proportionality as laid out in Lisbon.
Yup the mandateless PM has lost control and is egregiously unqualified to be PM
@tnewtondunn: On Cabinet's Brexit rows, No10 insists PM "happy for there to be a debate before a decision is reached". But the look is she's lost control.
How long before Osborne returns to "get a grip" ?
That's not a bad idea - it could be a send-for-the-cavalry moment akin to when Gordon brought back Mandy. I can't think of a single member of the public who wouldn't feel reassured.
I can think of about 5-10 million.
Osborne is disliked by a large number of voters. How do people not see that?
Because Sir Lynton's polling shows you don't need to be liked to win votes.
Heck - Osborne makes Corbyn (-2, +7 Lab2015) look good.....
Do me a favour, and dig out the public polling from say April 2015....
May 2012 might also be fun
The World has moved on since May 2015. It has been moved on by the voters. Berate them as stupid in private if you want, but they were offered the opportunity to end the era of Cameron and Osborne - and they took it. Kudos to Cameron for accepting it. I wish some others would follow his path.
The Tory Party chose to give Theresa May the hospital pass of implementing Brexit, either through others having lack of support from colleagues - or else deciding they didn't want an extended period in A&E themselves. To her credit, May has said she will implement the majority view, to leave the EU. She has no alternative. Any PM who tried to do anything else would rightly be castigated. And they wouldn't just have to acknowledge their own failure to deliver Brexit. They would have to admit to the people of the UK that without ever asking their permission, they had been so tightly bound into the structures of the EU that it was now impossible to perform the surgery to separate us from the unwanted political union we were now in. And therein would lie the greatest betrayal of democracy this country has ever known.
Once the UK leaves, then I look forward to those who disagree with this decision having the balls to argue for the UK to rejoin the EU. If they are not prepared to stand up as Rejoiners, but instead try to block and frustrate and deny the outcome of the biggest democratic mandate ever delivered by our people, then frankly, they deserve to be at best ignored.
Continuity Osbornism is the least defensible position in the Tory party, discuss?
Osbornism, you mean the only kind of Toryism that has won either a majority or a general election in the last 20 years plus?
What about extending past 20 years. What and when was the last form of Toryism not to win either a majority or a general election when the opposition wasn't led by Tony Blair?
John Major, a one nation Tory, won a majority and was plagued by the headbangers.
And before then? Did John Major come after a Labour rule?
Toryism has beat Labour (excluding "Tory Blair") for far longer than that.
Yup the mandateless PM has lost control and is egregiously unqualified to be PM
@tnewtondunn: On Cabinet's Brexit rows, No10 insists PM "happy for there to be a debate before a decision is reached". But the look is she's lost control.
WTF is going on here?
Are some people really wanting to see a party split (with the potential of Corbyn getting in) over negotiations that haven't even started yet. Bonkers!
As someone put it to me at conference 'in hindsight, project fear were low balling the risks of Brexit'
So they'd rather double down on the hyperbole, as opposed to trying their best to implement the will of the people?
The PM could be damn close to calling an election if the EU-loving 'new bastards' don't shut up.
That's the irony, Brexit and Mrs May have turned some Leavers into supporters of the EU.
I'd like to see a source for that claim.
As I've stated a few times, it was based on my experiences at conference, which is also backed up by some polling too.
One thing that isn't in doubt - it's a big gamble, both for the country and the party, at a time where the Tory Party would have had things pretty much sewn up on a steady ship.
Hard Brexit = Donors' strike
But Tusk has said the only alternative to 'Hard Brexit' is 'No Brexit'......
Dozens of people have said dozens of things. Nothing is set in stone, it's all posturing one way or another. It is frankly ludicrous to claim we now must have a hard Brexit just because Tusk said so.
I'm afraid your stating of the obvious and all-round common sense will fall on a few sets of deaf ears here.
It seems that, to some, a squeaky 52%-48% victory is equivalent to a crushing defeat and provides an impervious mandate for immediate hard brexit. And the consequences be damned!
There is a crude rule of advocacy which says: never ask a witness a question unless you know what the answer is going to be. There is a more sophisticated version of the same rule which says: never ask a witness a question unless you have thought through all the possible answers to the question, and have a strategy planned for each and every possibility. In other words: Cameron is a wanker. That is all there is to it.
'Yet when I saw Macron six months ago, he said that there were four options for the UK:
EU, EFTA/EEA, Canada, or WTO
I don't think those options have changed. The only questions are: what are the costs of the various elements, and where is the popular support in the UK?'
Clearly the smoothest route would be to join EFTA, get all our trade deals in place with the ROW & then do a Canadian type deal with the EU.
Unfortunately this wasn't on the ballot paper or proposed by any of the key players.
We can see clearly from today's thread how the Brexit vote is still at risk. I hope May just triggers A50 in January. That puts us on an irreversible path to leaving the EU. At that point most leavers will be happy/happier. It would give May space to negotiate something perhaps less than a diamond hard Brexit.
The biggest risk to Brexit is a major recession between invocation and exit, resulting in the collapse of the government, and then the election of a pro-EU party.
'Yet when I saw Macron six months ago, he said that there were four options for the UK:
EU, EFTA/EEA, Canada, or WTO
I don't think those options have changed. The only questions are: what are the costs of the various elements, and where is the popular support in the UK?'
Clearly the smoothest route would be to join EFTA, get all our trade deals in place with the ROW & then do a Canadian type deal with the EU.
Unfortunately this wasn't on the ballot paper or proposed by any of the key players.
I've been proposing time limited (say five to seven years) EEA for some time. But "the usual suspects" have been calling this a betrayal.
And if membership of the Single Market is incompatible with Brexit, for practical purposes?
Which it is.
We are leaving the EU and therefore the Single Market. There was only one even vaguely plausible route by which we could leave the EU and remain in the Single Market, namely the EEA option (were it to be available to us, which is not a given). However, that option was firmly closed off by the Leave campaign, who made immigration the centrepiece of their case. If they had wanted us to join the EEA, they should have said that was the goal, and accepted that therefore leaving the EU would make no difference to EU immigration. (They would of course have lost if they'd done that). Instead, they won, using control over immigration as the principal advantage of leaving. OK, Dan Hannan might not agree. But what he thinks is as irrelevant as what Nick Clegg thinks - even more so, in fact, since he was a member of the Vote Leave policy committee which deliberately decided that immigration was to be the centrepiece of their campaign.
I've been somwhat critical of our new PM on various points, but on this central point I think she absolutely 'gets it'. Brexit means Brexit, we must have substantial control over immigration , and therefore we will not be 'in' the Single Market under any circumstances. Once you've accepted that, everything becomes much clearer: we are talking about degree of access to the Single Market from the outside. Maximising that, within the political constraints, should be the top priority of the government, and I believe it is.
As for disunity in the government, I don't think this is (yet) as big a problem as some are making out, for one very simple reason: currently it's the boys quarrelling, but the Head Mistress hasn't come down on one side or the other. Her personal authority is (as yet) completely unchallenged. That might change, and it is true that as time goes on it becomes more likely to change, but for now she's 100% in control. That is another reason why delay to triggering Article 50 couldn't go on too long.
@CarlottaVance But Tusk has said the only alternative to 'Hard Brexit' is 'No Brexit'......
---
Yet when I saw Macron six months ago, he said that there were four options for the UK:
EU, EFTA/EEA, Canada, or WTO
I don't think those options have changed. The only questions are: what are the costs of the various elements, and where is the popular support in the UK?
We are out of the EU because we voted out. Canada is probably too specific to Canada, there won't be time to negotiate something similar and in any case it is not even "Canada" yet because it hasn't been agreed.
That would then leave either EFTA/EEA or WTO - if Macron is correct about the other options. EFTA/EEA would have to be "as-is", not EEA with modifications - ie we accept full FoM, payments to EU and adoption of EU law as directed by them. If that's not acceptable to us, and I doubt it is, that leaves WTO. In that case Tusk is right. It's Hard Brexit.
Not necessarily - there are options which are time limited, in the sense that they are always regarded as interim position for a set period of time, and can be used to protect both parties in the negotiation from economic shock, and allow both sides to escape without too much political fallout.
So for example, we cold utilise a kind of unilateral adoption of EEA annex regulations and the Agreement terms (to which we are already a party) to simply carry on as before, in a holding position that leaves us outside the ECJ and the expanding corpus of EU law, while keeping with the Single Mkt regs. That can be held while we negotiate a trade deal.
Equally, we might need more than 2 years to deal with the issues of customs procedures, Authorised Economic Operator status and other issues, so there might be a holding position in the customs union until the process is complete.
Yup the mandateless PM has lost control and is egregiously unqualified to be PM
@tnewtondunn: On Cabinet's Brexit rows, No10 insists PM "happy for there to be a debate before a decision is reached". But the look is she's lost control.
WTF is going on here?
Are some people really wanting to see a party split (with the potential of Corbyn getting in) over negotiations that haven't even started yet. Bonkers!
As someone put it to me at conference 'in hindsight, project fear were low balling the risks of Brexit'
So they'd rather double down on the hyperbole, as opposed to trying their best to implement the will of the people?
The PM could be damn close to calling an election if the EU-loving 'new bastards' don't shut up.
That's the irony, Brexit and Mrs May have turned some Leavers into supporters of the EU.
I'd like to see a source for that claim.
As I've stated a few times, it was based on my experiences at conference, which is also backed up by some polling too.
One thing that isn't in doubt - it's a big gamble, both for the country and the party, at a time where the Tory Party would have had things pretty much sewn up on a steady ship.
Hard Brexit = Donors' strike
But Tusk has said the only alternative to 'Hard Brexit' is 'No Brexit'......
Dozens of people have said dozens of things. Nothing is set in stone, it's all posturing one way or another. It is frankly ludicrous to claim we now must have a hard Brexit just because Tusk said so.
I'm afraid your stating of the obvious and all-round common sense will fall on a few sets of deaf ears here.
It seems that, to some, a squeaky 52%-48% victory is equivalent to a crushing defeat and provides an impervious mandate for immediate hard brexit. And the consequences be damned!
Damned? No....and the consequences be celebrated!
When Brexit proves a massive success it's going to be like when I saw Botham at Headingley in 1981. More people will eventually claim to have voted LEAVE and been part of the famous victory than will have actually been on the electoral roll at the time!
I'm not sure May is entirely serious about what she is saying right now, I think there is a great deal of manoeuvring going on behind the scenes.
Yes Brexit won by 52-48% but May is not stupid, she must be aware that a within that a majority of working people voted to Remain, a majority of Scotland voted to Remain, a majority of London voted to Remain, a majority of people below retirement age voted to Remain, a majority of Northern Ireland voted to Remain etc etc. Had we voted to Brexit 70% to 30% then it would be a different scenario, as it is pushing for he most extreme sort of Brexit makes no political sense at all.
I think the most plausible explanation is that nobody has any idea WTF to do.
The problem with the "soft brexit" thing is that unless she gives up on restricting EU immigration, at which point large parts of her party would go berserk, it's not clear that she can actually get it. So she goes off to the negotiations, insisting that she'll restrict immigration while staying in the single market and keeping financial passporting, her negotiating partners tell her to piss off, and she comes back looking a complete charlie.
EFTA states, while in the Single Market, have the right to restrict or suspend the 4 freedoms under article 112 of the EEA Agreement. Rebalancing can take place under Art 113, but the reaction must pass the test of proportionality as laid out in Lisbon.
That still sounds to me like a "large parts of her party would go berserk" solution. But I suppose she might be able to fudge the scope of what it meant, especially if she had something going into practice immediately, with a tacit understanding that it would be dropped after the general election.
Dunno what was wrong with the Boris Island idea. Build a massive 6 runway, 12 terminal airport on an artificial island in the Thames estuary, no one to complain about noise or pollution because the planes fly over the water. Close Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stanstead for redevelopment to pay for it. Call it not 'Boris Island' but say the Queen Elizabeth the Second international airport or 'London QEII' It would be the largest and busiest airport in the world, served by superfast trains from the centre of London. I don't think this idea has been properly explored.
Dozens of people have said dozens of things. Nothing is set in stone, it's all posturing one way or another. It is frankly ludicrous to claim we now must have a hard Brexit just because Tusk said so.
We must have something which our EU friends can claim is 'Hard Brexit'. A subtle but important difference.
Dozens of people have said dozens of things. Nothing is set in stone, it's all posturing one way or another. It is frankly ludicrous to claim we now must have a hard Brexit just because Tusk said so.
I'm afraid your stating of the obvious and all-round common sense will fall on a few sets of deaf ears here.
It seems that, to some, a squeaky 52%-48% victory is equivalent to a crushing defeat and provides an impervious mandate for immediate hard brexit. And the consequences be damned!
There is a crude rule of advocacy which says: never ask a witness a question unless you know what the answer is going to be. There is a more sophisticated version of the same rule which says: never ask a witness a question unless you have thought through all the possible answers to the question, and have a strategy planned for each and every possibility. In other words: Cameron is a wanker. That is all there is to it.
And if membership of the Single Market is incompatible with Brexit, for practical purposes?
Which it is.
We are leaving the EU and therefore the Single Market. There was only one even vaguely plausible route by which we could leave the EU and remain in the Single Market, namely the EEA option (were it to be available to us, which is not a given). However, that option was firmly closed off by the Leave campaign, who made immigration the centrepiece of their case. If they had wanted us to join the EEA, they should have said that was the goal, and accepted that therefore leaving the EU would make no difference to EU immigration. (They would of course have lost if they'd done that). Instead, they won, using control over immigration as the principal advantage of leaving. OK, Dan Hannan might not agree. But what he thinks is as irrelevant as what Nick Clegg thinks - even more so, in fact, since he was a member of the Vote Leave policy committee which deliberately decided that immigration was to be the centrepiece of their campaign.
I've been somwhat critical of our new PM on various points, but on this central point I think she absolutely 'gets it'. Brexit means Brexit, we must have substantial control over immigration , and therefore we will not be 'in' the Single Market under any circumstances. Once you've accepted that, everything becomes much clearer: we are talking about degree of access to the Single Market from the outside. Maximising that, within the political constraints, should be the top priority of the governement, and I believe it is.
As for disunity in the government, I don't think this is (yet) as big a problem as some are making out, for one very simple reason: currently it's the boys quarrelling, but the Head Mistress hasn't come down on one side or the other. Her personal authority is (as yet) completely unchallenged. That might change, and it is true that as time goes on it becomes more likely to change, but for now she's 100% in control. That is another reason why delay to triggering Article 50 couldn't go on too long.
Continuity Osbornism is the least defensible position in the Tory party, discuss?
Osbornism, you mean the only kind of Toryism that has won either a majority or a general election in the last 20 years plus?
Blairite Toryism won several.
A convenient rebranding for you. I dare say you didn't consider Blair a Tory when he was in power.
What are else are you to call it when Blair was able to pull together a coalition of voters based on implementing a Manifesto that said the Budget would be continuity-Clarke?
Dunno what was wrong with the Boris Island idea. Build a massive 6 runway, 12 terminal airport on an artificial island in the Thames estuary, no one to complain about noise or pollution because the planes fly over the water. Close Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stanstead for redevelopment to pay for it. Call it not 'Boris Island' but say the Queen Elizabeth the Second international airport or 'London QEII' It would be the largest and busiest airport in the world, served by superfast trains from the centre of London. I don't think this idea has been properly explored.
No it's been explored to death, even after every competent study agreed it was a dumb non-starter.
Cameron thought he'd be rather good at politics, and he was a good politician, but infected by the hubris that comes to infect them all.
He called a referendum and could have ... (a) Gone to the EU and confessed that it was tight. Asked for more than the joke offer he received. He didn't do that. (b) Instructed the Civil Service to do their job and prepare the ground for a possible Brexit. That would have left us prepared and reminded the EU that it was a serious proposition. He didn't do that. (c) Sat on his arse, secure in the knowledge that he was invincible and nothing needed to be done. Unfortunately he did that instead.
Now he's buggered off to make money. In the pantheon of great politicians, he lags badly.
Christ on a bike, another Hard/Soft BrExit finger pointing thread.
If we take the EU at their word there is either Hard BrExit or No BrExit, and the public voted, however marginally for Leaving the EU, so are unlikely to be looking for the No BrExit option. What does that leave us. (A lot of lying, backsliding and disingenuity followed by UKIP getting 60 seats at the next GE and the rock hardest BrExit possible)
I'm not sure May is entirely serious about what she is saying right now, I think there is a great deal of manoeuvring going on behind the scenes.
Yes Brexit won by 52-48% but May is not stupid, she must be aware that a within that a majority of working people voted to Remain, a majority of Scotland voted to Remain, a majority of London voted to Remain, a majority of people below retirement age voted to Remain, a majority of Northern Ireland voted to Remain etc etc. Had we voted to Brexit 70% to 30% then it would be a different scenario, as it is pushing for he most extreme sort of Brexit makes no political sense at all.
I think the most plausible explanation is that nobody has any idea WTF to do.
The problem with the "soft brexit" thing is that unless she gives up on restricting EU immigration, at which point large parts of her party would go berserk, it's not clear that she can actually get it. So she goes off to the negotiations, insisting that she'll restrict immigration while staying in the single market and keeping financial passporting, her negotiating partners tell her to piss off, and she comes back looking a complete charlie.
EFTA states, while in the Single Market, have the right to restrict or suspend the 4 freedoms under article 112 of the EEA Agreement. Rebalancing can take place under Art 113, but the reaction must pass the test of proportionality as laid out in Lisbon.
That still sounds to me like a "large parts of her party would go berserk" solution. But I suppose she might be able to fudge the scope of what it meant, especially if she had something going into practice immediately, with a tacit understanding that it would be dropped after the general election.
Why would you have to fudge it? It's there and has been previously utilised. The real issue is 'How long for'. The answer to that is more complex, and reliant on the parameters on which a final FTA would be based. It might take significant time - but EEA/EFTA takes the pressure off, and allows a degree of face saving on the EU side (which can be mitigated here if May is careful).
As for disunity in the government, I don't think this is (yet) as big a problem as some are making out, for one very simple reason: currently it's the boys quarrelling, but the Head Mistress hasn't come down on one side or the other. Her personal authority is (as yet) completely unchallenged. That might change, and it is true that as time goes on it becomes more likely to change, but for now she's 100% in control.
There's a bit of an Angela Merkel vibe to this one. Everyone sort-of thinks she secretly agrees with them, but she's not really committed to any particular person or proposition.
Dozens of people have said dozens of things. Nothing is set in stone, it's all posturing one way or another. It is frankly ludicrous to claim we now must have a hard Brexit just because Tusk said so.
We must have something which our EU friends can claim is 'Hard Brexit'. A subtle but important difference.
We have "EU friends"? Can you name two of them, please? Or just one, maybe?
Despite the headlines, including by the BBC, NatWest do not appear to have frozen Russia Today's accounts.
The letter published by Russia Today suggests that all NatWest have done is told them they'll close their accounts in two months' time and if there's a credit balance, they'll send it on by cheque.
A bank with close connections with one state gets narky with a media organisation with close connections with another state.
Dunno what was wrong with the Boris Island idea. Build a massive 6 runway, 12 terminal airport on an artificial island in the Thames estuary, no one to complain about noise or pollution because the planes fly over the water. Close Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stanstead for redevelopment to pay for it. Call it not 'Boris Island' but say the Queen Elizabeth the Second international airport or 'London QEII' It would be the largest and busiest airport in the world, served by superfast trains from the centre of London. I don't think this idea has been properly explored.
We no longer possess the vision of Victorian industrialists. It's what they would have done. And people would still be marvelling at it a century and a half on...
Dunno what was wrong with the Boris Island idea. Build a massive 6 runway, 12 terminal airport on an artificial island in the Thames estuary, no one to complain about noise or pollution because the planes fly over the water. Close Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stanstead for redevelopment to pay for it. Call it not 'Boris Island' but say the Queen Elizabeth the Second international airport or 'London QEII' It would be the largest and busiest airport in the world, served by superfast trains from the centre of London. I don't think this idea has been properly explored.
Dem boids, no workforce, unemployment at H, G, L and S, where are you getting your superfast trains from, SS Richard Montgomery, otherwise a sound plan.
''Er, LOL, no. Many voters didn't even know what the EU was or did when they voted to leave it, never mind being "perfectly aware" of the nuances between a soft EEA-style arrangement and a full blown departure as you claim.''
Here we go with the patronising 'voters are thick, let us decide' remainer bullsh8t that has become increasingly nauseating since remain got beat.
The latest remainer condescension, that the plebs will flock back to remain when their beer and bingo becomes more expensive, is perhaps the most nauseating.
The only thing we voted for on June 23rd was to leave the EU. No amount of bluster from the likes of your good self is going to change that. Your interpretation of what people who voted Leave wanted is no more than an opinion.
Would exiting the EU and adopting an EEA/EFTA style arrangement fulfil the terms of the question on the ref ballot paper? A straight Yes or No will suffice.
No.
The arguments as to what would happen if we voted Leave were:
From the Leave Side: We would stop contributions to the EU, we would regain "control", we would leave the jurisdiction of the ECJ, we would control immigration.
From the Remain Side: We would leave the Single Market, we would lose trade, our economy would be harmed.
"Hard" Brexit is the only option that mirrors what was debated and chosen in the referendum. Hard Brexit is Brexit, a Brexit in name only is not what was chosen.
Sorry all you are doing is trying to project your interpretation of what Leave voters intended when they marked their ballot papers. It has no validity, dozens of different things were said during the campaign and people voted Leave for a host of different reasons.
No I'm not I'm echoing what both campaigns said. Vote Leave which was the "official" Leave campaign claimed: no contributions, no ECJ, full control, controlled immigration. Does that mirror hard or soft Brexit? Britain Stronger in Europe the "official" Remain campaign claimed leaving would mean we would leave the Single Market. Is that Hard of Soft Brexit?
I would have preferred an exit to the EEA campaign from Vote Leave but that is not what happened.
Oh dear. The worst kind of dithering. The whole industry has been briefed that Heathrow has got the go ahead. Just announce it and be damned. A u turn now would make the nation into a laughing stock.
On that she's not dithereing - she's moving the decision from Cabinet to a committee she has stuffed with ministers who will vote the way she wants. Smart politics.
'Yet when I saw Macron six months ago, he said that there were four options for the UK:
EU, EFTA/EEA, Canada, or WTO
I don't think those options have changed. The only questions are: what are the costs of the various elements, and where is the popular support in the UK?'
Clearly the smoothest route would be to join EFTA, get all our trade deals in place with the ROW & then do a Canadian type deal with the EU.
Unfortunately this wasn't on the ballot paper or proposed by any of the key players.
I've been proposing time limited (say five to seven years) EEA for some time. But "the usual suspects" have been calling this a betrayal.
Time limited EEA would fly if it also included a stop to free movement of people and at the same time was accompanied by a long-term-residency test (e.g. UK NI number for 5 years - these still get issued to kids quite young, right?) for in work benefits
As Ms Cyclefree put it, 'Why' the EU insist on free movement of people, an inherently political construct, for a single market. It is not necessary in the way free movement of goods, capital and services are....
Dunno what was wrong with the Boris Island idea. Build a massive 6 runway, 12 terminal airport on an artificial island in the Thames estuary, no one to complain about noise or pollution because the planes fly over the water. Close Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stanstead for redevelopment to pay for it. Call it not 'Boris Island' but say the Queen Elizabeth the Second international airport or 'London QEII' It would be the largest and busiest airport in the world, served by superfast trains from the centre of London. I don't think this idea has been properly explored.
No it's been explored to death, even after every competent study agreed it was a dumb non-starter.
That depends on the constraints set on the study. In the long term (50+ years, passenger / freight growth continuing as it has), it is the most sensible, and possibly cheapest, option. Sadly, greater constraints were put on the commission.
I believe that the extra capacity enabled by HR3 will be filled pretty much as soon as it is opened, perhaps moving the bubble of capacity constraints elsewhere (e.g. terminal space, transport). Then we'll be going through this ordeal all over again.
Or, if the point-to-point proponents are to be believed, not.
Dunno what was wrong with the Boris Island idea. Build a massive 6 runway, 12 terminal airport on an artificial island in the Thames estuary, no one to complain about noise or pollution because the planes fly over the water. Close Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stanstead for redevelopment to pay for it. Call it not 'Boris Island' but say the Queen Elizabeth the Second international airport or 'London QEII' It would be the largest and busiest airport in the world, served by superfast trains from the centre of London. I don't think this idea has been properly explored.
We no longer possess the vision of Victorian industrialists. It's what they would have done. And people would still be marvelling at it a century and a half on...
The Chinese would have it build within 5-7 years.
Our leadership class are too busy fretting that they are being forced out of their expensive junket club.
Heathrow expansion makes sense in the context of the Brexit disaster. Delaying the announcement till a week on Tuesday isn't dithering when the decision was delayed for years by her predecessors. Which I don't to say Heathrow expansion isn't fraught with political problems May doesn't need and probably won't be able to solve. It's just we are where we are.
I'm not sure May is entirely serious about what she is saying right now, I think there is a great deal of manoeuvring going on behind the scenes.
Yes Brexit won by 52-48% but May is not stupid, she must be aware that a within that a majority of working people voted to Remain, a majority of Scotland voted to Remain, a majority of London voted to Remain, a majority of people below retirement age voted to Remain, a majority of Northern Ireland voted to Remain etc etc. Had we voted to Brexit 70% to 30% then it would be a different scenario, as it is pushing for he most extreme sort of Brexit makes no political sense at all.
I think the most plausible explanation is that nobody has any idea WTF to do.
The problem with the "soft brexit" thing is that unless she gives up on restricting EU immigration, at which point large parts of her party would go berserk, it's not clear that she can actually get it. So she goes off to the negotiations, insisting that she'll restrict immigration while staying in the single market and keeping financial passporting, her negotiating partners tell her to piss off, and she comes back looking a complete charlie.
EFTA states, while in the Single Market, have the right to restrict or suspend the 4 freedoms under article 112 of the EEA Agreement. Rebalancing can take place under Art 113, but the reaction must pass the test of proportionality as laid out in Lisbon.
That still sounds to me like a "large parts of her party would go berserk" solution. But I suppose she might be able to fudge the scope of what it meant, especially if she had something going into practice immediately, with a tacit understanding that it would be dropped after the general election.
Why would you have to fudge it? It's there and has been previously utilised. The real issue is 'How long for'. The answer to that is more complex, and reliant on the parameters on which a final FTA would be based. It might take significant time - but EEA/EFTA takes the pressure off, and allows a degree of face saving on the EU side (which can be mitigated here if May is careful).
After the promises made at the CPC about no ECJ, no payments, no laws made outside the UK, control our own immigration etc, and a majority of 12 she would be lucky to survive a confidence motion if she went for EEA.
Dunno what was wrong with the Boris Island idea. Build a massive 6 runway, 12 terminal airport on an artificial island in the Thames estuary, no one to complain about noise or pollution because the planes fly over the water. Close Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stanstead for redevelopment to pay for it. Call it not 'Boris Island' but say the Queen Elizabeth the Second international airport or 'London QEII' It would be the largest and busiest airport in the world, served by superfast trains from the centre of London. I don't think this idea has been properly explored.
It's obvious that no sooner is the third runway built that we will hear talk of a need for more runways. Sooner of later we need to build a brand new super-duper modern airport fit for this century not keep on patching up airports that were never fir for purpose in the first place.
Comments
That deer in the headlights direct appeal to the public 2 outside 10 Downing St. days before the vote was one the most desperate acts I have ever witnessed in politics.
Maganificent
Despite being interrupted several times @mike_pence did a great job on @meetthepress today hammering the corrupt media.
#MAGA
#TrumpTrain https://t.co/lPYFomsGSH
Osborne is disliked by a large number of voters. How do people not see that?
Might be a factor?
In theory Labour could vote against it, but that's politically quite a difficult thing for an opposition to do at the best of times. In this case there's a clear rationale and it's very hard to see Corbyn opposing it. Even if he did, it's not clear that he'd take his MPs with him, because they get a new election on the old boundaries, and a chance to get rid of Corbyn right after losing instead of waiting until 2020.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/03/22/public-approval-george-osborne/
Net approval ratings:
May: +12
Osborne: -52
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/08/15/theresa-may-more-popular-jeremy-corbyn-among-tradi/
The man's toxic.....
Why do you think the Tory GE2015 campaign focussed so heavily on Osborne's stewardship of the economy? Because he got the Tories votes.
However, if it is the reason for the delay then it shows that No. 10 have as much faith in the 14% poll leads as TSE.
Correlation is not causation
"A different model — one which controlled for those other factors — might give a very different counterfactual. Indeed, one of the models run by the authors suggests that fiscal cuts have the opposite effect (Table 6, column 2). "
https://medium.com/@chrishanretty/did-austerity-cause-brexit-7051e691f0ab#.6bx0miutf
We should also perhaps note that this paper is not peer-reviewed
Bringing GO back would be like asking Woy back to manage England.
Hard Brexit = Donors' strike
Net Favourable Rating - Remain Voters (Con vote 2015)
May: -8 (+71)
Osborne:-54 (-24)
Heck - Osborne makes Corbyn (-2, +7 Lab2015) look good.....
Would exiting the EU and adopting an EEA/EFTA style arrangement fulfil the terms of the question on the ref ballot paper? A straight Yes or No will suffice.
Most voters say it's very/somewhat important for the losing candidate to accept the winner as the president https://t.co/AnEIoEWDOs h… https://t.co/CNF0NcaQfU
Similarly for the polls there has been no statistically significant swing to Remain that I can see in any polls at all.
May 2012 might also be fun
It's going to cause her hassles she can do without. That's the problem with big infrastructure projects: they cause immediate political hassles, and the benefits from them are very much in the future, after your political career is over.
There are one or two notable exceptions, such as the Millennium Dome. And even that covered both Major's and Blair's governments.
#Marchofthemakers
I don't dislike Osborne but that's a pretty damning statistic.
Yes Brexit won by 52-48% but May is not stupid, she must be aware that a within that a majority of working people voted to Remain, a majority of Scotland voted to Remain, a majority of London voted to Remain, a majority of people below retirement age voted to Remain, a majority of Northern Ireland voted to Remain etc etc. Had we voted to Brexit 70% to 30% then it would be a different scenario, as it is pushing for he most extreme sort of Brexit makes no political sense at all.
The arguments as to what would happen if we voted Leave were:
From the Leave Side: We would stop contributions to the EU, we would regain "control", we would leave the jurisdiction of the ECJ, we would control immigration.
From the Remain Side: We would leave the Single Market, we would lose trade, our economy would be harmed.
"Hard" Brexit is the only option that mirrors what was debated and chosen in the referendum. Hard Brexit is Brexit, a Brexit in name only is not what was chosen.
HR3 is sorely needed, not that I'd ever voluntarily catch a flight from there myself...
As others have said, GET ON WITH IT
EU,
EFTA/EEA,
Canada,
or
WTO
I don't think those options have changed. The only questions are: what are the costs of the various elements, and where is the popular support in the UK?
Toryism has beat Labour (excluding "Tory Blair") for far longer than that.
The problem with the "soft brexit" thing is that unless she gives up on restricting EU immigration, at which point large parts of her party would go berserk, it's not clear that she can actually get it. So she goes off to the negotiations, insisting that she'll restrict immigration while staying in the single market and keeping financial passporting, her negotiating partners tell her to piss off, and she comes back looking a complete charlie.
As so many said before the referendum, Brexit will be a journey. We need to remove ourselves from the influence of the EU one step at a time. In 10 years our relationship with the EU will be completely different to the day we leave. Detaching ourselves one step at a time is the only way to ensure we don't end up with a hard landing and a second referendum.
EFTA/EEA give no control over immigration and so won't satisfy enough Tory MPs let alone UKIPers.
Hard Brexit or no Brexit is therefor a pretty good summary of where we are.
It also ties in nicely with Mays 'Brexit means Brexit ' line.
It seems that, to some, a squeaky 52%-48% victory is equivalent to a crushing defeat and provides an impervious mandate for immediate hard brexit. And the consequences be damned!
https://twitter.com/scoote1972/status/787687084517654531
Loving the over the top post on here on PM may and the break down of once respected posters who have totally lost the plot over brexit.
That would then leave either EFTA/EEA or WTO - if Macron is correct about the other options. EFTA/EEA would have to be "as-is", not EEA with modifications - ie we accept full FoM, payments to EU and adoption of EU law as directed by them. If that's not acceptable to us, and I doubt it is, that leaves WTO. In that case Tusk is right. It's Hard Brexit.
I think from everything I've read that she is resolute where she shouldn't be, and weak where she needn't be.
So, she's resolute in opposing a Common Vote on the Article 50 Enabling Bill. Why? Utter madness. It would be carried 550-100, it would force MPs to bow to the will of the people. Her insistence on keeping it out the Commons is bonkers. It's a desire to not to appear weak, that weakens her.
On the other side of the fence, she green lighted HPC, because she doesn't want a fight with the Chinese. She's entering into a deal that will be disastrous for the UK, because she doesn't want to say "Sorry, this doesn't work for us anymore."
Her willingness to callously rid CCHQ of her predecessor's people, without even a "thanks for all your work", speaks to a desire to appear decisive, but only with people who can't fight back.
And now Heathrow. Stop being weak and green light it. Heck, it even gives you an excuse for why Witney was so bad if need be.
The Tory Party chose to give Theresa May the hospital pass of implementing Brexit, either through others having lack of support from colleagues - or else deciding they didn't want an extended period in A&E themselves. To her credit, May has said she will implement the majority view, to leave the EU. She has no alternative. Any PM who tried to do anything else would rightly be castigated. And they wouldn't just have to acknowledge their own failure to deliver Brexit. They would have to admit to the people of the UK that without ever asking their permission, they had been so tightly bound into the structures of the EU that it was now impossible to perform the surgery to separate us from the unwanted political union we were now in. And therein would lie the greatest betrayal of democracy this country has ever known.
Once the UK leaves, then I look forward to those who disagree with this decision having the balls to argue for the UK to rejoin the EU. If they are not prepared to stand up as Rejoiners, but instead try to block and frustrate and deny the outcome of the biggest democratic mandate ever delivered by our people, then frankly, they deserve to be at best ignored.
'Yet when I saw Macron six months ago, he said that there were four options for the UK:
EU,
EFTA/EEA,
Canada,
or
WTO
I don't think those options have changed. The only questions are: what are the costs of the various elements, and where is the popular support in the UK?'
Clearly the smoothest route would be to join EFTA, get all our trade deals in place with the ROW & then do a Canadian type deal with the EU.
Unfortunately this wasn't on the ballot paper or proposed by any of the key players.
A payment to the right hands and we could get an October Surprise akin to the canonical one of 1980.
We are leaving the EU and therefore the Single Market. There was only one even vaguely plausible route by which we could leave the EU and remain in the Single Market, namely the EEA option (were it to be available to us, which is not a given). However, that option was firmly closed off by the Leave campaign, who made immigration the centrepiece of their case. If they had wanted us to join the EEA, they should have said that was the goal, and accepted that therefore leaving the EU would make no difference to EU immigration. (They would of course have lost if they'd done that). Instead, they won, using control over immigration as the principal advantage of leaving. OK, Dan Hannan might not agree. But what he thinks is as irrelevant as what Nick Clegg thinks - even more so, in fact, since he was a member of the Vote Leave policy committee which deliberately decided that immigration was to be the centrepiece of their campaign.
I've been somwhat critical of our new PM on various points, but on this central point I think she absolutely 'gets it'. Brexit means Brexit, we must have substantial control over immigration , and therefore we will not be 'in' the Single Market under any circumstances. Once you've accepted that, everything becomes much clearer: we are talking about degree of access to the Single Market from the outside. Maximising that, within the political constraints, should be the top priority of the government, and I believe it is.
As for disunity in the government, I don't think this is (yet) as big a problem as some are making out, for one very simple reason: currently it's the boys quarrelling, but the Head Mistress hasn't come down on one side or the other. Her personal authority is (as yet) completely unchallenged. That might change, and it is true that as time goes on it becomes more likely to change, but for now she's 100% in control. That is another reason why delay to triggering Article 50 couldn't go on too long.
So for example, we cold utilise a kind of unilateral adoption of EEA annex regulations and the Agreement terms (to which we are already a party) to simply carry on as before, in a holding position that leaves us outside the ECJ and the expanding corpus of EU law, while keeping with the Single Mkt regs. That can be held while we negotiate a trade deal.
Equally, we might need more than 2 years to deal with the issues of customs procedures, Authorised Economic Operator status and other issues, so there might be a holding position in the customs union until the process is complete.
When Brexit proves a massive success it's going to be like when I saw Botham at Headingley in 1981. More people will eventually claim to have voted LEAVE and been part of the famous victory than will have actually been on the electoral roll at the time!
Build a massive 6 runway, 12 terminal airport on an artificial island in the Thames estuary, no one to complain about noise or pollution because the planes fly over the water.
Close Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stanstead for redevelopment to pay for it.
Call it not 'Boris Island' but say the Queen Elizabeth the Second international airport or 'London QEII'
It would be the largest and busiest airport in the world, served by superfast trains from the centre of London.
I don't think this idea has been properly explored.
He called a referendum and could have ...
(a) Gone to the EU and confessed that it was tight. Asked for more than the joke offer he received. He didn't do that.
(b) Instructed the Civil Service to do their job and prepare the ground for a possible Brexit. That would have left us prepared and reminded the EU that it was a serious proposition. He didn't do that.
(c) Sat on his arse, secure in the knowledge that he was invincible and nothing needed to be done. Unfortunately he did that instead.
Now he's buggered off to make money. In the pantheon of great politicians, he lags badly.
If we take the EU at their word there is either Hard BrExit or No BrExit, and the public voted, however marginally for Leaving the EU, so are unlikely to be looking for the No BrExit option. What does that leave us. (A lot of lying, backsliding and disingenuity followed by UKIP getting 60 seats at the next GE and the rock hardest BrExit possible)
Can you name two of them, please? Or just one, maybe?
The letter published by Russia Today suggests that all NatWest have done is told them they'll close their accounts in two months' time and if there's a credit balance, they'll send it on by cheque.
A bank with close connections with one state gets narky with a media organisation with close connections with another state.
I would have preferred an exit to the EEA campaign from Vote Leave but that is not what happened.
As Ms Cyclefree put it, 'Why' the EU insist on free movement of people, an inherently political construct, for a single market. It is not necessary in the way free movement of goods, capital and services are....
I believe that the extra capacity enabled by HR3 will be filled pretty much as soon as it is opened, perhaps moving the bubble of capacity constraints elsewhere (e.g. terminal space, transport). Then we'll be going through this ordeal all over again.
Or, if the point-to-point proponents are to be believed, not.
Our leadership class are too busy fretting that they are being forced out of their expensive junket club.
Its pathetic.