I think even though there is no practicle point to Brexit, like the Labour membership that voted for Corbyn, the British/Labour people voted for it so it should be delivered.
We need a Sunrise Clause. The Government can invoke A50 when it's done X and laid notification before the HoC for 28 days with no negative vote. X being something reasonable that can unite nearly all the opposition and bring across soft Brexit Tories.
If X fails to get into the Bill in the Commons then the Lords should pass it without a vote at Second Reading but stick it into a Committee of the Full House.
Out of curiosity YS if the vote had been 52% Remain what would you be proposing now to accommodate the wishes of the 48% who voted Leave ?
If 52% had voted Remain Cameron's deal would have kicked in. Cameron would have gone or be going by now. The new/next Tory leader would be a Leaver and the next referendum campaign would already have begun. I wouldn't be telling Leavers to shut up and accept the result uncritically and if I did you'd rightly laugh at me.
So if the 48% were Leave voters then their wishes wouldn't have to be accommodated.
But as the 48% are Remain voters their wishes do have to be accommodated.
In my scenario the Leave 48% would get a PM who was on their side and a quick acknowledgement another referendum was ' inevitable '. That sounds accommodating to me.
Its not accommodating at all.
The UK would be in for at least another decade of EverCloserUnion after which it might have been impossible to ever leave - even if there was a Leave PM in a Leave government and after another referendum.
We can already see how difficult it is to leave the EU and that would have got harder year by year.
Meanwhile the 48% would have got abuse not accommodation.
Now compare to how the 48% Remain are treated - their views are taken into consideration and if constructive might form part of the settlement.
And if the 48% Remain are still committed to the EU then they can support a party which advocates rejoining.
Instead of whining about the apparent deference being shown to the 48%, why don't you continue to make the positive case for leaving the EU since you surely believe it to be so persuasive?
This is what they seem to be struggling with.
Clearly not as Leave won. There is little point in rehashing the same pre-referendum arguments. The focus should be on what kind of Brexit takes place.
Out of curiosity YS if the vote had been 52% Remain what would you be proposing now to accommodate the wishes of the 48% who voted Leave ?
If 52% had voted Remain Cameron's deal would have kicked in. Cameron would have gone or be going by now. The new/next Tory leader would be a Leaver and the next referendum campaign would already have begun. I wouldn't be telling Leavers to shut up and accept the result uncritically and if I did you'd rightly laugh at me.
So if the 48% were Leave voters then their wishes wouldn't have to be accommodated.
But as the 48% are Remain voters their wishes do have to be accommodated.
In my scenario the Leave 48% would get a PM who was on their side and a quick acknowledgement another referendum was ' inevitable '. That sounds accommodating to me.
Its not accommodating at all.
The UK would be in for at least another decade of EverCloserUnion after which it might have been impossible to ever leave - even if there was a Leave PM in a Leave government and after another referendum.
We can already see how difficult it is to leave the EU and that would have got harder year by year.
Meanwhile the 48% would have got abuse not accommodation.
Now compare to how the 48% Remain are treated - their views are taken into consideration and if constructive might form part of the settlement.
And if the 48% Remain are still committed to the EU then they can support a party which advocates rejoining.
Also we aren't seeing how difficult it is to leave the EU. We're seeing how easy it is. Even a crushing defeat in the Supreme Court means the government has to pass a three clause bill. Those could have been inserted into the Referendum Act if MP's understood the Constitution.
What we're seeing is how difficult it is to #1 leave the EU successfully. #2 In a way consistent with the putrid and incoherent tissue of lies Leave told to win the vote. Those are very distinct things from leaving the EU in general.
And it would have been even more difficult to leave the EU successfully in 10 years time.
I think Topping would disagree that Leave lied, let alone lied putridly and incoherently.
Topping would explain that Leave were engaging in sound Realpolitik.
Say you're a France watcher in the British foreign service. The two rounds of the French presidential election will be held on 23 April and 8 May. Let's imagine you want to make it less likely, not more, that Le Pen will be elected.
I posit that you'd advise against invoking A50 anywhere near the end of March.
You wouldn't want the British and EU27 negotiators both declaring to the world's press that they're confident they'll reach an agreement that's mutually advantageous. That would send the message that a country that leaves the EU has it fine.
Nor would you want want them announcing that they expect their talks to be fraught with difficulties. If the rump of the EU has it tough when a country leaves, then many would conclude that it must have been milking that country. Never mind economists referring to comparative advantage and mutually beneficial trade: they wouldn't get that message across to voters.
Nope. You'd say FFS wait until after 8 May. You wouldn't say give Le Pen a wonderful present by sending the letter three weeks before the first round.
So if the 48% were Leave voters then their wishes wouldn't have to be accommodated.
But as the 48% are Remain voters their wishes do have to be accommodated.
You need to understand that the Remainers are simply better and more important than everyone else.
We are by virtue of
1) Being better educated than Leavers
2) Because we are more likely to be econically active, we are net contributors to The Exchequer, unlike Leavers who suck on the teat of the taxpayers
3) Leavers are smelly, as evidenced by them not changing their undies as often as Remainers.
Out of curiosity were you ever 7/10 for Leave as you once said ?
{ I'm not being judgemental or critical at all, just curious }
I ask because almost all PBers went the way I would have predicted. The only exceptions being Philip Thompson and possibly DavidL who I thought would be Remain and AndyJS who I thought would probably be Leave.
I had you down as a certain Remainer and so was surprised when you leant Leave initially. So it was quite a relief when you became an ardent Remainer.
I took the Robert view that perhaps it might be best for all parties if the UK left the EU and allow them to integrate properly, to have a single currency and economic union without a political union is bonkers, but I realised political union (for the Eurozone) ain't happening whilst we're in the EU.
But as I reviewed Brexit through the prism of work, I realised that the EU has a very important role, even for non eurozone countries.
I explained on here a while back, one of the reasons I'm a Tory is my love of free trade, it is crucial for success, one of Thatcher's finest achievement was the single market. The more I heard of Leave's plans I thought no, this definitely isn't for me.
We've gone from Leavers saying there'll be no hit from Brexit, to them saying, there'll be a short term hit.
Plus Brexit re-awoke something. I reckon by leaving we're screwing Eastern Europe, I was always so proud that we encouraged and delivered the old Warsaw Pact countries to join the EU and NATO.
Greetings from Shanghai, China. Interestin fact: the city is a free trade area and, as a result, here you can access Goigle, Twitter, Facebook etc with no problem. The Google we get is the Vietnamese version.
Another interesting fact: Trump will drive Chinese investors and interests towards Europe. He is creating opportunities that would not have existed otherwise to tap into the Chinese market. That could be very good news.
So if the 48% were Leave voters then their wishes wouldn't have to be accommodated.
But as the 48% are Remain voters their wishes do have to be accommodated.
You need to understand that the Remainers are simply better and more important than everyone else.
We are by virtue of
1) Being better educated than Leavers
2) Because we are more likely to be econically active, we are net contributors to The Exchequer, unlike Leavers who suck on the teat of the taxpayers
3) Leavers are smelly, as evidenced by them not changing their undies as often as Remainers.
Out of curiosity were you ever 7/10 for Leave as you once said ?
{ I'm not being judgemental or critical at all, just curious }
I ask because almost all PBers went the way I would have predicted. The only exceptions being Philip Thompson and possibly DavidL who I thought would be Remain and AndyJS who I thought would probably be Leave.
I had you down as a certain Remainer and so was surprised when you leant Leave initially. So it was quite a relief when you became an ardent Remainer.
I took the Robert view that perhaps it might be best for all parties if the UK left the EU and allow them to integrate properly, to have a single currency and economic union without a political union is bonkers, but I realised political union (for the Eurozone) ain't happening whilst we're in the EU.
But as I reviewed Brexit through the prism of work, I realised that the EU has a very important role, even for non eurozone countries.
I explained on here a while back, one of the reasons I'm a Tory is my love of free trade, it is crucial for success, one of Thatcher's finest achievement was the single market. The more I heard of Leave's plans I thought no, this definitely isn't for me.
We've gone from Leavers saying there'll be no hit from Brexit, to them saying, there'll be a short term hit.
Plus Brexit re-awoke something. I reckon by leaving we're screwing Eastern Europe, I was always so proud that we encouraged and delivered the old Warsaw Pact countries to join the EU and NATO.
Eagles, we've shit the bed - Britain needs to follow through now.
So if the 48% were Leave voters then their wishes wouldn't have to be accommodated.
But as the 48% are Remain voters their wishes do have to be accommodated.
You need to understand that the Remainers are simply better and more important than everyone else.
We are by virtue of
1) Being better educated than Leavers
2) Because we are more likely to be econically active, we are net contributors to The Exchequer, unlike Leavers who suck on the teat of the taxpayers
3) Leavers are smelly, as evidenced by them not changing their undies as often as Remainers.
Out of curiosity were you ever 7/10 for Leave as you once said ?
{ I'm not being judgemental or critical at all, just curious }
I ask because almost all PBers went the way I would have predicted. The only exceptions being Philip Thompson and possibly DavidL who I thought would be Remain and AndyJS who I thought would probably be Leave.
I had you down as a certain Remainer and so was surprised when you leant Leave initially. So it was quite a relief when you became an ardent Remainer.
I took the Robert view that perhaps it might be best for all parties if the UK left the EU and allow them to integrate properly, to have a single currency and economic union without a political union is bonkers, but I realised political union (for the Eurozone) ain't happening whilst we're in the EU.
But as I reviewed Brexit through the prism of work, I realised that the EU has a very important role, even for non eurozone countries.
I explained on here a while back, one of the reasons I'm a Tory is my love of free trade, it is crucial for success, one of Thatcher's finest achievement was the single market. The more I heard of Leave's plans I thought no, this definitely isn't for me.
We've gone from Leavers saying there'll be no hit from Brexit, to them saying, there'll be a short term hit.
Plus Brexit re-awoke something. I reckon by leaving we're screwing Eastern Europe, I was always so proud that we encouraged and delivered the old Warsaw Pact countries to join the EU and NATO.
Eagles, we've shit the bed - Britain needs to follow through now.
Even better if you delay having promised to do it in March. That would really kill any momentum for Frexit.
Quitaly is more likely than Frexit, but both of them are long shots. There is a lot more emotional support for the EU on the continent than we sometimes appreciate.
And while it wouldn't attract Tory votes so not pass ( in the Commons ) an NHS amendment would be fun. In the style of the overseas aid law work out what our current % of GDP spent on the NHS is and what it would be with £350m pw added. Make spending the latter % on the NHS as a minimum law starting the April after we leave.
That would actually be very smart politics. Getting the Tory Leavers and the UKIP MP to vote against an extra £350 million a week for the NHS creates all kinds of interesting Brexit dividing lines, while uniting Labour.
Even better if you delay having promised to do it in March. That would really kill any momentum for Frexit.
Quitaly is more likely than Frexit, but both of them are long shots. There is a lot more emotional support for the EU on the continent than we sometimes appreciate.
There's more emotional support for it even in the UK than the Leavers appreciate. That's why the country is still not reconciled to the result of the referendum.
So if the 48% were Leave voters then their wishes wouldn't have to be accommodated.
But as the 48% are Remain voters their wishes do have to be accommodated.
You need to understand that the Remainers are simply better and more important than everyone else.
We are by virtue of
1) Being better educated than Leavers
2) Because we are more likely to be econically active, we are net contributors to The Exchequer, unlike Leavers who suck on the teat of the taxpayers
3) Leavers are smelly, as evidenced by them not changing their undies as often as Remainers.
Out of curiosity were you ever 7/10 for Leave as you once said ?
{ I'm not being judgemental or critical at all, just curious }
I ask because almost all PBers went the way I would have predicted. The only exceptions being Philip Thompson and possibly DavidL who I thought would be Remain and AndyJS who I thought would probably be Leave.
I had you down as a certain Remainer and so was surprised when you leant Leave initially. So it was quite a relief when you became an ardent Remainer.
I took the Robert view that perhaps it might be best for all parties if the UK left the EU and allow them to integrate properly, to have a single currency and economic union without a political union is bonkers, but I realised political union (for the Eurozone) ain't happening whilst we're in the EU.
But as I reviewed Brexit through the prism of work, I realised that the EU has a very important role, even for non eurozone countries.
I explained on here a while back, one of the reasons I'm a Tory is my love of free trade, it is crucial for success, one of Thatcher's finest achievement was the single market. The more I heard of Leave's plans I thought no, this definitely isn't for me.
We've gone from Leavers saying there'll be no hit from Brexit, to them saying, there'll be a short term hit.
Plus Brexit re-awoke something. I reckon by leaving we're screwing Eastern Europe, I was always so proud that we encouraged and delivered the old Warsaw Pact countries to join the EU and NATO.
Eagles, we've shit the bed - Britain needs to follow through now.
Greetings from Shanghai, China. Interestin fact: the city is a free trade area and, as a result, here you can access Goigle, Twitter, Facebook etc with no problem. The Google we get is the Vietnamese version.
Another interesting fact: Trump will drive Chinese investors and interests towards Europe. He is creating opportunities that would not have existed otherwise to tap into the Chinese market. That could be very good news.
Out of curiosity does that mean you don't get the little man on the motorbike if you access dodgy websites (e.g. the BBC, CNN, or any other organisation that might occasionally and inconveniently tell the truth)?
I explained on here a while back, one of the reasons I'm a Tory is my love of free trade, it is crucial for success, one of Thatcher's finest achievement was the single market. The more I heard of Leave's plans I thought no, this definitely isn't for me.
But you don't get the free trade without all the other BS, which is precisely why our EU membership has become such a toxic issue. If the EU was simply a free trade association we wouldn't be leaving, it has grown far beyond that as everyone knows. Most leavers want free trade too, but they aren't willing to pay a high price for it.
2) Because we are more likely to be econically active, we are net contributors to The Exchequer, unlike Leavers who suck on the teat of the taxpayers
3) Leavers are smelly, as evidenced by them not changing their undies as often as Remainers.
Out of curiosity were you ever 7/10 for Leave as you once said ?
{ I'm not being judgemental or critical at all, just curious }
I ask because almost all PBers went the way I would have predicted. The only exceptions being Philip Thompson and possibly DavidL who I thought would be Remain and AndyJS who I thought would probably be Leave.
I had you down as a certain Remainer and so was surprised when you leant Leave initially. So it was quite a relief when you became an ardent Remainer.
I took the Robert view that perhaps it might be best for all parties if the UK left the EU and allow them to integrate properly, to have a single currency and economic union without a political union is bonkers, but I realised political union (for the Eurozone) ain't happening whilst we're in the EU.
But as I reviewed Brexit through the prism of work, I realised that the EU has a very important role, even for non eurozone countries.
I explained on here a while back, one of the reasons I'm a Tory is my love of free trade, it is crucial for success, one of Thatcher's finest achievement was the single market. The more I heard of Leave's plans I thought no, this definitely isn't for me.
We've gone from Leavers saying there'll be no hit from Brexit, to them saying, there'll be a short term hit.
Plus Brexit re-awoke something. I reckon by leaving we're screwing Eastern Europe, I was always so proud that we encouraged and delivered the old Warsaw Pact countries to join the EU and NATO.
Thanks.
I'm very much of Robert's view but I can see the trade point.
As to Eastern Europe I think we've already screwed them - taking their best people to pick our potatoes and clean our hotel rooms is destroying their economic potential (and not doing ourselves any good either). An equivalent of Marshall Aid and outside business investment for Eastern Europe would have been much better for its future.
And we can't defend them against Russia any more either - the will has gone after too many failed military interventions and the means has gone after too many defence cuts.
Those are two things that Western Europe should be ashamed of.
So if the 48% were Leave voters then their wishes wouldn't have to be accommodated.
But as the 48% are Remain voters their wishes do have to be accommodated.
You need to understand that the Remainers are simply better and more important than everyone else.
We are by virtue of
1) Being better educated than Leavers
2) Because we are more likely to be econically active, we are net contributors to The Exchequer, unlike Leavers who suck on the teat of the taxpayers
3) Leavers are smelly, as evidenced by them not changing their undies as often as Remainers.
Out of curiosity were you ever 7/10 for Leave as you once said ?
{ I'm not being judgemental or critical at all, just curious }
I ask because almost all PBers went the way I would have predicted. The only exceptions being Philip Thompson and possibly DavidL who I thought would be Remain and AndyJS who I thought would probably be Leave.
I had you down as a certain Remainer and so was surprised when you leant Leave initially. So it was quite a relief when you became an ardent Remainer.
I took the Robert view that perhaps it might be best for all parties if the UK left the EU and allow them to integrate properly, to have a single currency and economic union without a political union is bonkers, but I realised political union (for the Eurozone) ain't happening whilst we're in the EU.
But as I reviewed Brexit through the prism of work, I realised that the EU has a very important role, even for non eurozone countries.
I explained on here a while back, one of the reasons I'm a Tory is my love of free trade, it is crucial for success, one of Thatcher's finest achievement was the single market. The more I heard of Leave's plans I thought no, this definitely isn't for me.
We've gone from Leavers saying there'll be no hit from Brexit, to them saying, there'll be a short term hit.
Plus Brexit re-awoke something. I reckon by leaving we're screwing Eastern Europe, I was always so proud that we encouraged and delivered the old Warsaw Pact countries to join the EU and NATO.
Eagles, we've shit the bed - Britain needs to follow through now.
Yup. That's the problem with a democratic vote. It's neither right nor useful to try to work round it. If it was a personal decision or a company decision to leave, we could say on further investigation it doesn't add up and we're not going ahead.
Still it would be worth discussing what Brexit we want that causes the least damage. We have a couple of options. They are both crap, but in different ways.
We need a Sunrise Clause. The Government can invoke A50 when it's done X and laid notification before the HoC for 28 days with no negative vote. X being something reasonable that can unite nearly all the opposition and bring across soft Brexit Tories.
If X fails to get into the Bill in the Commons then the Lords should pass it without a vote at Second Reading but stick it into a Committee of the Full House.
Out of curiosity YS if the vote had been 52% Remain what would you be proposing now to accommodate the wishes of the 48% who voted Leave ?
If 52% had voted Remain Cameron's deal would have kicked in. Cameron would have gone or be going by now. The new/next Tory leader would be a Leaver and the next referendum campaign would already have begun. I wouldn't be telling Leavers to shut up and accept the result uncritically and if I did you'd rightly laugh at me.
Cameron would have gone if he had won the referendum?
Yeah, just look how bitter some Leavers are even after they won the referendum.
They'd have been even worse had Remain had won, they would have made Dave's life intolerable.
And if Cameron had supported Leave as he should have done after the failed renegotiations he would be a great hero and the Conservatives would be united behind him.
Silly boy. Very silly boy.
It's an interesting counter factual. #1 How would Labour voters and Scotland have responded to a Leave campaign led by a Tory PM ? #2 Would the broadcast media have been as deferential to £350m style nonsense from an establishment political ? #3 Would Leave have been a vote against the establishment if led by a Tory PM ?
I'm not convinced together those factors couldn't have achieved a 1.9% swing.
A (possibly) higher Remain vote in Scotland would have been dwarfed by the massive leave landslide in the rest of the UK.
Greetings from Shanghai, China. Interestin fact: the city is a free trade area and, as a result, here you can access Goigle, Twitter, Facebook etc with no problem. The Google we get is the Vietnamese version.
I think that's the hotel VPN. When I was at a middle-price hotel that was properly censored, but the big fancy one the conference was at was the way you describe. For mobile I had a VPN plan I bought at Narita along with my wireless dongle, and the line without that was also censored.
So if the 48% were Leave voters then their wishes wouldn't have to be accommodated.
But as the 48% are Remain voters their wishes do have to be accommodated.
You need to understand that the Remainers are simply better and more important than everyone else.
We are by virtue of
1) Being better educated than Leavers
2) Because we are more likely to be econically active, we are net contributors to The Exchequer, unlike Leavers who suck on the teat of the taxpayers
3) Leavers are smelly, as evidenced by them not changing their undies as often as Remainers.
Out of curiosity were you ever 7/10 for Leave as you once said ?
{ I'm not being judgemental or critical at all, just curious }
I ask because almost all PBers went the way I would have predicted. The only exceptions being Philip Thompson and possibly DavidL who I thought would be Remain and AndyJS who I thought would probably be Leave.
I had you down as a certain Remainer and so was surprised when you leant Leave initially. So it was quite a relief when you became an ardent Remainer.
I took the Robert view that perhaps it might be best for all parties if the UK left the EU and allow them to integrate properly, to have a single currency and economic union without a political union is bonkers, but I realised political union (for the Eurozone) ain't happening whilst we're in the EU.
But as I reviewed Brexit through the prism of work, I realised that the EU has a very important role, even for non eurozone countries.
I explained on here a while back, one of the reasons I'm a Tory is my love of free trade, it is crucial for success, one of Thatcher's finest achievement was the single market. The more I heard of Leave's plans I thought no, this definitely isn't for me.
We've gone from Leavers saying there'll be no hit from Brexit, to them saying, there'll be a short term hit.
Plus Brexit re-awoke something. I reckon by leaving we're screwing Eastern Europe, I was always so proud that we encouraged and delivered the old Warsaw Pact countries to join the EU and NATO.
Except of course you don't get free trade. You get a customs union with 6% of the world's population which then results in tariffs and protectionist barriers with the other 94% of the world. The EU is anti-free trade not pro.
I think even though there is no practicle point to Brexit, like the Labour membership that voted for Corbyn, the British/Labour people voted for it so it should be delivered.
The more I read the front pages the more it validates my post-Richmond By-election view that Theresa May has made a monumental error in kicking Article 50 till the spring.
Leaving such an explosive issue up in the air for months only guarantees months of infighting and instability that will only grow and other parties such as the LD and UKIP would exploit.
Cameron was right, Article 50 should have been invoked immediately.
That would actually be very smart politics. Getting the Tory Leavers and the UKIP MP to vote against an extra £350 million a week for the NHS creates all kinds of interesting Brexit dividing lines, while uniting Labour.
There's actually quite an easy way around that, put a date on it. As long as at that agreed future date then NHS has an extra £350 million a week, which will happen soonish anyway, you can claim to have delivered.
Greetings from Shanghai, China. Interestin fact: the city is a free trade area and, as a result, here you can access Goigle, Twitter, Facebook etc with no problem. The Google we get is the Vietnamese version.
I think that's the hotel VPN. When I was at a middle-price hotel that was properly censored, but the big fancy one the conference was at was the way you describe. For mobile I had a VPN plan I bought at Narita along with my wireless dongle, and the line without that was also censored.
Greetings from Shanghai, China. Interestin fact: the city is a free trade area and, as a result, here you can access Goigle, Twitter, Facebook etc with no problem. The Google we get is the Vietnamese version.
Another interesting fact: Trump will drive Chinese investors and interests towards Europe. He is creating opportunities that would not have existed otherwise to tap into the Chinese market. That could be very good news.
Out of curiosity does that mean you don't get the little man on the motorbike if you access dodgy websites (e.g. the BBC, CNN, or any other organisation that might occasionally and inconveniently tell the truth)?
It means they know foreigners are going to find a way to get twitter, but the domestic population won't be able to get it without jumping through hoops.
The more I read the front pages the more it validates my post-Richmond By-election view that Theresa May has made a monumental error in kicking Article 50 till the spring.
Cameron was right, Article 50 should have been invoked immediately.
It depends on how you see her role. She's allowing Brexit to test itself to destruction while keeping a steady hand on the tiller to ensure nothing seriously bad happens in the meantime. Her job is to protect the national interest, and given the circumstances in which she took over, so far she hasn't done a terrible job of it.
I think even though there is no practicle point to Brexit, like the Labour membership that voted for Corbyn, the British/Labour people voted for it so it should be delivered.
Except of course you don't get free trade. You get a customs union with 6% of the world's population which then results in tariffs and protectionist barriers with the other 94% of the world. The EU is anti-free trade not pro.
Particular issues exist with regard to food. There continue to be rather high tariff barriers between the EU and the rest of the planet. I was startled to find that food in Israel was roughly 40% cheaper than it is here.
The more I read the front pages the more it validates my post-Richmond By-election view that Theresa May has made a monumental error in kicking Article 50 till the spring.
Leaving such an explosive issue up in the air for months only guarantees months of infighting and instability that will only grow and other parties such as the LD and UKIP would exploit.
Cameron was right, Article 50 should have been invoked immediately.
Out of curiosity were you ever 7/10 for Leave as you once said ?
{ I'm not being judgemental or critical at all, just curious }
I ask because almost all PBers went the way I would have predicted. The only exceptions being Philip Thompson and possibly DavidL who I thought would be Remain and AndyJS who I thought would probably be Leave.
I had you down as a certain Remainer and so was surprised when you leant Leave initially. So it was quite a relief when you became an ardent Remainer.
I took the Robert view that perhaps it might be best for all parties if the UK left the EU and allow them to integrate properly, to have a single currency and economic union without a political union is bonkers, but I realised political union (for the Eurozone) ain't happening whilst we're in the EU.
But as I reviewed Brexit through the prism of work, I realised that the EU has a very important role, even for non eurozone countries.
I explained on here a while back, one of the reasons I'm a Tory is my love of free trade, it is crucial for success, one of Thatcher's finest achievement was the single market. The more I heard of Leave's plans I thought no, this definitely isn't for me.
We've gone from Leavers saying there'll be no hit from Brexit, to them saying, there'll be a short term hit.
Plus Brexit re-awoke something. I reckon by leaving we're screwing Eastern Europe, I was always so proud that we encouraged and delivered the old Warsaw Pact countries to join the EU and NATO.
Eagles, we've shit the bed - Britain needs to follow through now.
This was when the bed was shat:
' Immigration to the UK could increase by more than 10% as a result of EU enlargement, according to research commissioned by the Home Office.
A report indicated that up to 13,000 extra economic migrants could come to Britain each year as a direct result of 10 new countries joining the organisation.
The Conservatives have expressed fears that expanding the EU would result in large numbers of people from the former Communist countries looking for a more prosperous future in countries like the UK.
But Home Office Minister Beverley Hughes told MPs: “The number coming here for employment will be minimal.” ‘
This isn't going to be a normal election. The whole of the first week is going to be about Nuclear War. Corbyn will be asked to repeat his commitment never to use nuclear weapons ( and as the PM is the only person who can unilaterally disarming us the moment he kisses hands.) He'll do so unequivally. They'll then be a week of media coverage where he is asked nothing else but hypothetical senarios about the destruction of Britain where he says he won't retaliate then loses his temper with the press. Voters will be asked to imagine senarios where they and there children are all dead but Corbyn is in a bunker forbidding the military to retaliate. Something tells me most of those hypotheticals will feature the rogue government of a Muslim majority state rather than Russia as well. Potential debates need to be seen through this prism. Corbyn means it won't be a normal election.
After a week on Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament the next topic in the headlines will be the Monarchy.
Corbyn will be asked whether he supports the Monarchy. He won't reply directly - he'll just say he is isn't proposing any change. The media will then go bonkers with headlines of "Corbyn doesn't support the Monarchy" etc etc.
After a week of that it'll be back to Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament.
The more I read the front pages the more it validates my post-Richmond By-election view that Theresa May has made a monumental error in kicking Article 50 till the spring.
Cameron was right, Article 50 should have been invoked immediately.
It depends on how you see her role. She's allowing Brexit to test itself to destruction while keeping a steady hand on the tiller to ensure nothing seriously bad happens in the meantime. Her job is to protect the national interest, and given the circumstances in which she took over, so far she hasn't done a terrible job of it.
Yes clearly her strategy is to exhibit to the public the flaws in the plan in primary colours, then wait...
It is funny, a few of my friends were surprised that I was a Remainer.
Given my views on the nation of cheese eating surrender monkey collaborators France and the French, they couldn't quite believe I'd vote for continuing membership with an organisation which has France as a member.
Except of course you don't get free trade. You get a customs union with 6% of the world's population which then results in tariffs and protectionist barriers with the other 94% of the world. The EU is anti-free trade not pro.
When we leave the EU we will face higher tariff barriers not just with the EU but also with any country that has an FTA with the EU. Unless we get FTAs with all those countries, which certainly won't happen within say ten years and probably not after that either. The world has more or less stopped doing preferential trade deals.
The more I read the front pages the more it validates my post-Richmond By-election view that Theresa May has made a monumental error in kicking Article 50 till the spring.
Leaving such an explosive issue up in the air for months only guarantees months of infighting and instability that will only grow and other parties such as the LD and UKIP would exploit.
Cameron was right, Article 50 should have been invoked immediately.
Maybe he shouldn't have resigned immediately?
The original thought I think was for him to invoke Article 50 within the day or the week and then resign.
It was a sensible proposal, invoke Article 50 immediately in order to put the Referendum behind and then resign to clear the way for a new government to start negotiations.
Instead now the Government and the Tory party is stuck in an endless Referendum loop, unable to negotiate and slowly dissolving into acrimony and backstabbing where nothing gets done.
The more I read the front pages the more it validates my post-Richmond By-election view that Theresa May has made a monumental error in kicking Article 50 till the spring.
Leaving such an explosive issue up in the air for months only guarantees months of infighting and instability that will only grow and other parties such as the LD and UKIP would exploit.
Cameron was right, Article 50 should have been invoked immediately.
Maybe he shouldn't have resigned immediately?
The original thought I think was for him to invoke Article 50 within the day or the week and then resign.
It was a sensible proposal, invoke Article 50 immediately in order to put the Referendum behind and then resign to clear the way for a new government to start negotiations.
Instead now the Government and the Tory party is stuck in an endless Referendum loop, unable to negotiate and slowly dissolving into acrimony and backstabbing where nothing gets done.
Yes, but why didn't Cameron invoke A50 immediately?
The more I read the front pages the more it validates my post-Richmond By-election view that Theresa May has made a monumental error in kicking Article 50 till the spring.
Leaving such an explosive issue up in the air for months only guarantees months of infighting and instability that will only grow and other parties such as the LD and UKIP would exploit.
Cameron was right, Article 50 should have been invoked immediately.
Maybe he shouldn't have resigned immediately?
The original thought I think was for him to invoke Article 50 within the day or the week and then resign.
It was a sensible proposal, invoke Article 50 immediately in order to put the Referendum behind and then resign to clear the way for a new government to start negotiations.
Instead now the Government and the Tory party is stuck in an endless Referendum loop, unable to negotiate and slowly dissolving into acrimony and backstabbing where nothing gets done.
Yes, but why didn't Cameron invoke A50 immediately?
The more I read the front pages the more it validates my post-Richmond By-election view that Theresa May has made a monumental error in kicking Article 50 till the spring.
Leaving such an explosive issue up in the air for months only guarantees months of infighting and instability that will only grow and other parties such as the LD and UKIP would exploit.
Cameron was right, Article 50 should have been invoked immediately.
Maybe he shouldn't have resigned immediately?
The original thought I think was for him to invoke Article 50 within the day or the week and then resign.
It was a sensible proposal, invoke Article 50 immediately in order to put the Referendum behind and then resign to clear the way for a new government to start negotiations.
Instead now the Government and the Tory party is stuck in an endless Referendum loop, unable to negotiate and slowly dissolving into acrimony and backstabbing where nothing gets done.
There's nothing they can do, Brexit is a really terrible idea and all the options are shit. The sooner they do it, the worse it will be for them.
I think even though there is no practicle point to Brexit, like the Labour membership that voted for Corbyn, the British/Labour people voted for it so it should be delivered.
Spot on
There is no practical point to Brexit.
As I suspected.
You do like selective quotes - the people have spoken - it must be delivered and I accepted that the morning of the 24th after voting remain. I will do everything I can to see that we leave the EU but the answer cannot be one sided. The deal must be able to provide access to the single market but also to control our borders. How that is resolved is a matter for negotiation and I fully expect a deal that is neither hard or soft Brexit
Greetings from Shanghai, China. Interestin fact: the city is a free trade area and, as a result, here you can access Goigle, Twitter, Facebook etc with no problem. The Google we get is the Vietnamese version.
Another interesting fact: Trump will drive Chinese investors and interests towards Europe. He is creating opportunities that would not have existed otherwise to tap into the Chinese market. That could be very good news.
Out of curiosity does that mean you don't get the little man on the motorbike if you access dodgy websites (e.g. the BBC, CNN, or any other organisation that might occasionally and inconveniently tell the truth)?
It means they know foreigners are going to find a way to get twitter, but the domestic population won't be able to get it without jumping through hoops.
You can get all these sites inside the Shanghai Free Trade Zone now. Nowhere else in China, mind.
The more I read the front pages the more it validates my post-Richmond By-election view that Theresa May has made a monumental error in kicking Article 50 till the spring.
Leaving such an explosive issue up in the air for months only guarantees months of infighting and instability that will only grow and other parties such as the LD and UKIP would exploit.
Cameron was right, Article 50 should have been invoked immediately.
Maybe he shouldn't have resigned immediately?
The original thought I think was for him to invoke Article 50 within the day or the week and then resign.
It was a sensible proposal, invoke Article 50 immediately in order to put the Referendum behind and then resign to clear the way for a new government to start negotiations.
Instead now the Government and the Tory party is stuck in an endless Referendum loop, unable to negotiate and slowly dissolving into acrimony and backstabbing where nothing gets done.
Yes, but why didn't Cameron invoke A50 immediately?
Don't ask me, ask the person who convinced him not to.
Except of course you don't get free trade. You get a customs union with 6% of the world's population which then results in tariffs and protectionist barriers with the other 94% of the world. The EU is anti-free trade not pro.
When we leave the EU we will face higher tariff barriers not just with the EU but also with any country that has an FTA with the EU. Unless we get FTAs with all those countries, which certainly won't happen within say ten years and probably not after that either. The world has more or less stopped doing preferential trade deals.
Depends on which way we go. If we go the EFTA route they have considerably more free trade agreements with the rest of the world than the EU and retain free trade with the EU. Being outside the customs union is a very good thing as it allows us to have our own FTAs as EFTA countries do very successfully.
The more I read the front pages the more it validates my post-Richmond By-election view that Theresa May has made a monumental error in kicking Article 50 till the spring.
Leaving such an explosive issue up in the air for months only guarantees months of infighting and instability that will only grow and other parties such as the LD and UKIP would exploit.
Cameron was right, Article 50 should have been invoked immediately.
Maybe he shouldn't have resigned immediately?
The original thought I think was for him to invoke Article 50 within the day or the week and then resign.
It was a sensible proposal, invoke Article 50 immediately in order to put the Referendum behind and then resign to clear the way for a new government to start negotiations.
Instead now the Government and the Tory party is stuck in an endless Referendum loop, unable to negotiate and slowly dissolving into acrimony and backstabbing where nothing gets done.
Yes, but why didn't Cameron invoke A50 immediately?
Because he didn't want them first three months of the 2 year countdown period to be wasted by the Tory leadership contest
Except of course you don't get free trade. You get a customs union with 6% of the world's population which then results in tariffs and protectionist barriers with the other 94% of the world. The EU is anti-free trade not pro.
When we leave the EU we will face higher tariff barriers not just with the EU but also with any country that has an FTA with the EU. Unless we get FTAs with all those countries, which certainly won't happen within say ten years and probably not after that either. The world has more or less stopped doing preferential trade deals.
Depends on which way we go. If we go the EFTA route they have considerably more free trade agreements with the rest of the world than the EU and retain free trade with the EU. Being outside the customs union is a very good thing as it allows us to have our own FTAs as EFTA countries do very successfully.
I am not a trade person, but I would be amazed if most of the countries with whom the EU has FTAs would not be amenable to short agreements with the UK stipulating that the terms will continue* with the UK after Brexit.
* until better bilateral agreements can be negotiated.
Greetings from Shanghai, China. Interestin fact: the city is a free trade area and, as a result, here you can access Goigle, Twitter, Facebook etc with no problem. The Google we get is the Vietnamese version.
Another interesting fact: Trump will drive Chinese investors and interests towards Europe. He is creating opportunities that would not have existed otherwise to tap into the Chinese market. That could be very good news.
Out of curiosity does that mean you don't get the little man on the motorbike if you access dodgy websites (e.g. the BBC, CNN, or any other organisation that might occasionally and inconveniently tell the truth)?
It means they know foreigners are going to find a way to get twitter, but the domestic population won't be able to get it without jumping through hoops.
You can get all these sites inside the Shanghai Free Trade Zone now. Nowhere else in China, mind.
Interesting, guess it's changed since September, or maybe a bit random depending on the carrier/ISP.
The more I read the front pages the more it validates my post-Richmond By-election view that Theresa May has made a monumental error in kicking Article 50 till the spring.
Leaving such an explosive issue up in the air for months only guarantees months of infighting and instability that will only grow and other parties such as the LD and UKIP would exploit.
Cameron was right, Article 50 should have been invoked immediately.
Maybe he shouldn't have resigned immediately?
The original thought I think was for him to invoke Article 50 within the day or the week and then resign.
It was a sensible proposal, invoke Article 50 immediately in order to put the Referendum behind and then resign to clear the way for a new government to start negotiations.
Instead now the Government and the Tory party is stuck in an endless Referendum loop, unable to negotiate and slowly dissolving into acrimony and backstabbing where nothing gets done.
There's nothing they can do, Brexit is a really terrible idea and all the options are shit. The sooner they do it, the worse it will be for them.
I disagree.
A clean cut decision is always better than leaving an explosive issue to fester.
It's like a bomb, a controlled explosion is better than waiting for the bomb to explode.
Or in this case Brexit is like a grenade that it's pin has been pulled by the Referendum and Theresa May is refusing to let go of the grenade.
Being outside the customs union is a very good thing
...unless you want to manufacture cars
To sell to 6% of the world's population rather than the other 94%. I am afraid your Europhile parochialism blinds you to the fact it is a rapidly dwindling backwater as far as world trade is concerned.
This is the Scottish government's submission to the Supreme Court. If they win then we're in a Mexican standoff where Brexit cannot be delivered without destroying the UK.
Even better if you delay having promised to do it in March. That would really kill any momentum for Frexit.
Quitaly is more likely than Frexit, but both of them are long shots. There is a lot more emotional support for the EU on the continent than we sometimes appreciate.
Greetings from Shanghai, China. Interestin fact: the city is a free trade area and, as a result, here you can access Goigle, Twitter, Facebook etc with no problem. The Google we get is the Vietnamese version.
Another interesting fact: Trump will drive Chinese investors and interests towards Europe. He is creating opportunities that would not have existed otherwise to tap into the Chinese market. That could be very good news.
Out of curiosity does that mean you don't get the little man on the motorbike if you access dodgy websites (e.g. the BBC, CNN, or any other organisation that might occasionally and inconveniently tell the truth)?
It means they know foreigners are going to find a way to get twitter, but the domestic population won't be able to get it without jumping through hoops.
You can get all these sites inside the Shanghai Free Trade Zone now. Nowhere else in China, mind.
Interesting, guess it's changed since September, or maybe a bit random depending on the carrier/ISP.
I was out last night about six miles from the hotel and was accessing Twitter and the BBC. But it was a part of the city where a lot of foreignets live and play (comparatively), so maybe that's why.
This is the Scottish government's submission to the Supreme Court. If they win then we're in a Mexican standoff where Brexit cannot be delivered without destroying the UK.
This is the Scottish government's submission to the Supreme Court. If they win then we're in a Mexican standoff where Brexit cannot be delivered without destroying the UK.
The more I read the front pages the more it validates my post-Richmond By-election view that Theresa May has made a monumental error in kicking Article 50 till the spring.
Leaving such an explosive issue up in the air for months only guarantees months of infighting and instability that will only grow and other parties such as the LD and UKIP would exploit.
Cameron was right, Article 50 should have been invoked immediately.
Maybe he shouldn't have resigned immediately?
The original thought I think was for him to invoke Article 50 within the day or the week and then resign.
It was a sensible proposal, invoke Article 50 immediately in order to put the Referendum behind and then resign to clear the way for a new government to start negotiations.
Instead now the Government and the Tory party is stuck in an endless Referendum loop, unable to negotiate and slowly dissolving into acrimony and backstabbing where nothing gets done.
There's nothing they can do, Brexit is a really terrible idea and all the options are shit. The sooner they do it, the worse it will be for them.
I disagree.
A clean cut decision is always better than leaving an explosive issue to fester.
It's like a bomb, a controlled explosion is better than waiting for the bomb to explode.
Or in this case Brexit is like a grenade that it's pin has been pulled by the Referendum and Theresa May is refusing to let go of the grenade.
It's not a bomb though, it's a huge tangle of governmental agreements designed to make government across borders less destructive. Some unlucky person has to go through each one and work out how to make everything destructive again. It's a huge job, they don't have the guys to do it, and the sooner they get it done the more money and time they destroy.
That article was discussed some time ago and generally dismissed
PB generally dismissed the main legal case, as well, and much good that did those that bet accordingly.
The case appears to hinge on what 'normally' might mean in a piece of legislation, which is a coin toss (and an appalling piece of drafting in the first place).
To sell to 6% of the world's population rather than the other 94%.
British manufacturers already do sell the the other 94%. I am talking about how much it costs to make them, and therefore how much they can sell them for
It's impossible to guarantee anything in the negotiations. So would the Corbyn amendment have to contain a clause that somehow Article 50 was to be revoked if the "requirements" of the amendment are not achieved.
If not, how could the amendment actually come into play?
This is the Scottish government's submission to the Supreme Court. If they win then we're in a Mexican standoff where Brexit cannot be delivered without destroying the UK.
This is the Scottish government's submission to the Supreme Court. If they win then we're in a Mexican standoff where Brexit cannot be delivered without destroying the UK.
This isn't going to be a normal election. The whole of the first week is going to be about Nuclear War. Corbyn will be asked to repeat his commitment never to use nuclear weapons ( and as the PM is the only person who can unilaterally disarming us the moment he kisses hands.) He'll do so unequivally. They'll then be a week of media coverage where he is asked nothing else but hypothetical senarios about the destruction of Britain where he says he won't retaliate then loses his temper with the press. Voters will be asked to imagine senarios where they and there children are all dead but Corbyn is in a bunker forbidding the military to retaliate. Something tells me most of those hypotheticals will feature the rogue government of a Muslim majority state rather than Russia as well. Potential debates need to be seen through this prism. Corbyn means it won't be a normal election.
After a week on Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament the next topic in the headlines will be the Monarchy.
Corbyn will be asked whether he supports the Monarchy. He won't reply directly - he'll just say he is isn't proposing any change. The media will then go bonkers with headlines of "Corbyn doesn't support the Monarchy" etc etc.
After a week of that it'll be back to Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament.
I wish he would reply directly:
"No, I do not support the head of state being a hereditary position - I mean just look at the current heir to the throne. Have you read his book, Jeremy? It's called Harmony. He's a nutter. He also writes lots of letters to government ministers. And any government bill that affects his financial interests has to be okayed with him. Did you know that, Jeremy?"
"No, I do not accept the 'right to exist' of the ethnic-supremacist regime called 'Israel'."
"Yes, I do support unilateral nuclear disarmament."
This is the Scottish government's submission to the Supreme Court. If they win then we're in a Mexican standoff where Brexit cannot be delivered without destroying the UK.
Even better if you delay having promised to do it in March. That would really kill any momentum for Frexit.
Quitaly is more likely than Frexit, but both of them are long shots. There is a lot more emotional support for the EU on the continent than we sometimes appreciate.
The polls are meaningless; have we learned nothing?
They see themselves as the EU's founders.
They will care a lot more about leaving it to Germany to control than we do.
They would have to leave the currency as well, which is a BIG problem to which no-one has the answer. It could literally bankrupt the country and lots of individuals.
This is the Scottish government's submission to the Supreme Court. If they win then we're in a Mexican standoff where Brexit cannot be delivered without destroying the UK.
This is the Scottish government's submission to the Supreme Court. If they win then we're in a Mexican standoff where Brexit cannot be delivered without destroying the UK.
The Referendum question asked in Scotland was the same as in England, Wales and NI: should the UNITED KINGDOM leave or remain inside the EU?
And it was advisory, not binding, in Scotland, just the same as everywhere else.
Would you still bang on about it being only "advisory" if REMAIN had won?
I wasn't banging on, I was observing that your point misses the target.
It was advisory whoever won.
The point is a legal one - not a debating one (for us). Being advisory means that the decision has still to be taken, and the legal case is about whose decision it is.
Coming back to the Machiavellian nature of May's actions on the case, the only logically consistent conclusion I can see is that she wants to lose on all points and to have it ruled that the Scottish parliament needs to approve an A50 declaration.
This is the Scottish government's submission to the Supreme Court. If they win then we're in a Mexican standoff where Brexit cannot be delivered without destroying the UK.
The scottish parliament does not have a say on matters of Foreign or Defence Policy.
If it did, the SNP could vote for scotland to leave NATO.
EU membership is domestic just as much as it is foreign policy. The High Court sees it that way and so will the Supreme Court.
EU membership is not domestic policy, the EU treaties with foreign countries are a foreign policy matter.
Scotland cannot conduct it's own foreign policy.
If it comes down to that point, my guess is that would be shaky ground. It doesn't need to be wholly domestic for Scotland to win the point, just not wholly foreign policy. I think that would be an easy case to win.
The government will have to argue that the word 'normally' is in the legislation to cover an eventuality like the current abnormal one. Not a strong case by any means, although I can see the lawyer arguing that if the current circumstances aren't abnormal then what are?
Coming back to the Machiavellian nature of May's actions on the case, the only logically consistent conclusion I can see is that she wants to lose on all points and to have it ruled that the Scottish parliament needs to approve an A50 declaration.
What makes you say that? The document you linked was the Scottish Government's submission?
Coming back to the Machiavellian nature of May's actions on the case, the only logically consistent conclusion I can see is that she wants to lose on all points and to have it ruled that the Scottish parliament needs to approve an A50 declaration.
The sad thing is that if that is the ruling the Country will fall into bitter chaos and recriminations for years harming the Country's attraction to business and investment and probably resulting in the rise of the far right with dreadful consequences.
Coming back to the Machiavellian nature of May's actions on the case, the only logically consistent conclusion I can see is that she wants to lose on all points and to have it ruled that the Scottish parliament needs to approve an A50 declaration.
In that case Theresa May would have to resign from her position as PM and leader of the Tory party.
Her position would be as untenable as Cameron's after the referendum.
Even better if you delay having promised to do it in March. That would really kill any momentum for Frexit.
Quitaly is more likely than Frexit, but both of them are long shots. There is a lot more emotional support for the EU on the continent than we sometimes appreciate.
The polls are meaningless; have we learned nothing?
They see themselves as the EU's founders.
They will care a lot more about leaving it to Germany to control than we do.
They would have to leave the currency as well, which is a BIG problem to which no-one has the answer. It could literally bankrupt the country and lots of individuals.
In this instance the polls show the volatility of French opinion. France only helped set up the EEC after the plan to unite with Britain failed to get off the ground. Germany is a strong power but they want France to stay in rather than palling up with Britain outside.
I agree about the currency. The same applies if Italy leaves the euro - on which there may well be a referendum.
Coming back to the Machiavellian nature of May's actions on the case, the only logically consistent conclusion I can see is that she wants to lose on all points and to have it ruled that the Scottish parliament needs to approve an A50 declaration.
In that case Theresa May would have to resign from her position as PM and leader of the Tory party.
Her position would be as untenable as Cameron's after the referendum.
Coming back to the Machiavellian nature of May's actions on the case, the only logically consistent conclusion I can see is that she wants to lose on all points and to have it ruled that the Scottish parliament needs to approve an A50 declaration.
What makes you say that? The document you linked was the Scottish Government's submission?
If she'd accepted the original judgement and said she would put a bill to the Commons, the Scottish government wouldn't have had this opportunity to intervene and potentially put an additional legislative spanner in the works.
Ukip's new leader was at the centre of a ‘fake CV’ row last night over allegations that he falsely claimed to hold a university doctorate.
The row, which comes just days after Paul Nuttall had to backtrack over boasts about playing professional football for Tranmere Rovers, has blown up over his online CV which refers to a ‘PhD, History’ from ‘Liverpool Hope University’ in 2004.
It caused bafflement at the institution, which did not win university status until 2005 and did not have the authority to award PhDs until 2009.
Coming back to the Machiavellian nature of May's actions on the case, the only logically consistent conclusion I can see is that she wants to lose on all points and to have it ruled that the Scottish parliament needs to approve an A50 declaration.
In that case Theresa May would have to resign from her position as PM and leader of the Tory party.
Her position would be as untenable as Cameron's after the referendum.
Coming back to the Machiavellian nature of May's actions on the case, the only logically consistent conclusion I can see is that she wants to lose on all points and to have it ruled that the Scottish parliament needs to approve an A50 declaration.
In that case Theresa May would have to resign from her position as PM and leader of the Tory party.
Her position would be as untenable as Cameron's after the referendum.
Why
Sabotaging Brexit for her own personal beliefs.
There would be no trust for her in her personal interests or competence to continue to lead. The Tory party would have a political meltdown.
Coming back to the Machiavellian nature of May's actions on the case, the only logically consistent conclusion I can see is that she wants to lose on all points and to have it ruled that the Scottish parliament needs to approve an A50 declaration.
In that case Theresa May would have to resign from her position as PM and leader of the Tory party.
Her position would be as untenable as Cameron's after the referendum.
Why
Speedy likes to get ahead of himself sometimes.
The man needs to slow down a little.
May will be OK if she is seen to have tried but been thwarted by events. Especially as her main rivals all have their fingerprints on it, except Osborne who I continue to see as irredeemably damaged goods.
Coming back to the Machiavellian nature of May's actions on the case, the only logically consistent conclusion I can see is that she wants to lose on all points and to have it ruled that the Scottish parliament needs to approve an A50 declaration.
In that case Theresa May would have to resign from her position as PM and leader of the Tory party.
Her position would be as untenable as Cameron's after the referendum.
Why
Sabotaging Brexit for her own personal beliefs.
There would be no trust for her in her personal interests or competence to continue to lead. The Tory party would have a political meltdown.
Why has she sabotaged Brexit for her own personal beliefs by following the law
Coming back to the Machiavellian nature of May's actions on the case, the only logically consistent conclusion I can see is that she wants to lose on all points and to have it ruled that the Scottish parliament needs to approve an A50 declaration.
In that case Theresa May would have to resign from her position as PM and leader of the Tory party.
Her position would be as untenable as Cameron's after the referendum.
Why
Speedy likes to get ahead of himself sometimes.
The man needs to slow down a little.
May will be OK if she is seen to have tried but been thwarted by events. Especially as her main rivals all have their fingerprints on it, except Osborne who I continue to see as irredeemably damaged goods.
I disagree.
Keeping the Referendum result open is already having a detrimental effect on the stability of the Tory party internally and politically.
If she wants to keep it open forever the Tory party will collapse in the next GE, Leave voters will simply vote for the party that will deliver Brexit regardless of the legal entanglements.
If the Tabloids blew a casket on the judges about Brexit they will really blow their casket on Theresa May.
Coming back to the Machiavellian nature of May's actions on the case, the only logically consistent conclusion I can see is that she wants to lose on all points and to have it ruled that the Scottish parliament needs to approve an A50 declaration.
In that case Theresa May would have to resign from her position as PM and leader of the Tory party.
Her position would be as untenable as Cameron's after the referendum.
Why
Sabotaging Brexit for her own personal beliefs.
There would be no trust for her in her personal interests or competence to continue to lead. The Tory party would have a political meltdown.
Why has she sabotaged Brexit for her own personal beliefs by following the law
I won't believe that, given her past support for Remain. And neither will the voters, or the press, it's basic politics.
The public or at least the Leave camp will not be interested in intellectual arguments (in which case have they?), they will be out for her blood.
Coming back to the Machiavellian nature of May's actions on the case, the only logically consistent conclusion I can see is that she wants to lose on all points and to have it ruled that the Scottish parliament needs to approve an A50 declaration.
In that case Theresa May would have to resign from her position as PM and leader of the Tory party.
Her position would be as untenable as Cameron's after the referendum.
Why
Speedy likes to get ahead of himself sometimes.
The man needs to slow down a little.
May will be OK if she is seen to have tried but been thwarted by events. Especially as her main rivals all have their fingerprints on it, except Osborne who I continue to see as irredeemably damaged goods.
I disagree.
Keeping the Referendum result open is already having a detrimental effect on the stability of the Tory party internally and politically.
If she wants to keep it open forever the Tory party will collapse in the next GE, Leave voters will simply vote for the party that will deliver Brexit regardless of the legal entanglements.
If the Tabloids blew a casket on the judges about Brexit they will really blow their casket on Theresa May.
So your argument is that leave voters will simply vote for the party to deliver Brexit ignoring the law.
The French and German intelligence agencies must be furious. They aren't needed to spy on the British government factions to glean insights into the Brexit policy chaos. The French and German governments can just read the papers.
And they may be worried if Mrs May decides to play hardball with intelligence sharing.....
Coming back to the Machiavellian nature of May's actions on the case, the only logically consistent conclusion I can see is that she wants to lose on all points and to have it ruled that the Scottish parliament needs to approve an A50 declaration.
In that case Theresa May would have to resign from her position as PM and leader of the Tory party.
Her position would be as untenable as Cameron's after the referendum.
Why
Speedy likes to get ahead of himself sometimes.
The man needs to slow down a little.
May will be OK if she is seen to have tried but been thwarted by events. Especially as her main rivals all have their fingerprints on it, except Osborne who I continue to see as irredeemably damaged goods.
I disagree.
Keeping the Referendum result open is already having a detrimental effect on the stability of the Tory party internally and politically.
If she wants to keep it open forever the Tory party will collapse in the next GE, Leave voters will simply vote for the party that will deliver Brexit regardless of the legal entanglements.
If the Tabloids blew a casket on the judges about Brexit they will really blow their casket on Theresa May.
So your argument is that leave voters will simply vote for the party to deliver Brexit ignoring the law.
Well it's a view but one that results in anarchy
When have the voters took into account intellectual arguments when voting?
Try to say to a voter that his vote doesn't matter because of the law and still demand his vote, he will simply stick two fingers up to you and vote for the party that will promise to change the law instead.
Comments
I think Topping would disagree that Leave lied, let alone lied putridly and incoherently.
Topping would explain that Leave were engaging in sound Realpolitik.
I posit that you'd advise against invoking A50 anywhere near the end of March.
You wouldn't want the British and EU27 negotiators both declaring to the world's press that they're confident they'll reach an agreement that's mutually advantageous. That would send the message that a country that leaves the EU has it fine.
Nor would you want want them announcing that they expect their talks to be fraught with difficulties. If the rump of the EU has it tough when a country leaves, then many would conclude that it must have been milking that country. Never mind economists referring to comparative advantage and mutually beneficial trade: they wouldn't get that message across to voters.
Nope. You'd say FFS wait until after 8 May. You wouldn't say give Le Pen a wonderful present by sending the letter three weeks before the first round.
Meanwhile: No in Italy 1.35, Hofer 1.39.
But as I reviewed Brexit through the prism of work, I realised that the EU has a very important role, even for non eurozone countries.
I explained on here a while back, one of the reasons I'm a Tory is my love of free trade, it is crucial for success, one of Thatcher's finest achievement was the single market. The more I heard of Leave's plans I thought no, this definitely isn't for me.
We've gone from Leavers saying there'll be no hit from Brexit, to them saying, there'll be a short term hit.
Plus Brexit re-awoke something. I reckon by leaving we're screwing Eastern Europe, I was always so proud that we encouraged and delivered the old Warsaw Pact countries to join the EU and NATO.
Another interesting fact: Trump will drive Chinese investors and interests towards Europe. He is creating opportunities that would not have existed otherwise to tap into the Chinese market. That could be very good news.
We're leaving, sine die.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVu6Wihbp4Q
I'm very much of Robert's view but I can see the trade point.
As to Eastern Europe I think we've already screwed them - taking their best people to pick our potatoes and clean our hotel rooms is destroying their economic potential (and not doing ourselves any good either). An equivalent of Marshall Aid and outside business investment for Eastern Europe would have been much better for its future.
And we can't defend them against Russia any more either - the will has gone after too many failed military interventions and the means has gone after too many defence cuts.
Those are two things that Western Europe should be ashamed of.
Still it would be worth discussing what Brexit we want that causes the least damage. We have a couple of options. They are both crap, but in different ways.
It wouldn't have been remotely close.
As I suspected.
Leaving such an explosive issue up in the air for months only guarantees months of infighting and instability that will only grow and other parties such as the LD and UKIP would exploit.
Cameron was right, Article 50 should have been invoked immediately.
https://twitter.com/harrysiegel/status/805068828333998080
No surprise that Bannon was in the movie business before entering politics.
As I suspected
This memo is quite interesting although oddly doesn't allow for the possibility that we might cut tariffs for non-EU food:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/525178/defra-food-price-methodology-paper.pdf
' Immigration to the UK could increase by more than 10% as a result of EU enlargement, according to research commissioned by the Home Office.
A report indicated that up to 13,000 extra economic migrants could come to Britain each year as a direct result of 10 new countries joining the organisation.
The Conservatives have expressed fears that expanding the EU would result in large numbers of people from the former Communist countries looking for a more prosperous future in countries like the UK.
But Home Office Minister Beverley Hughes told MPs: “The number coming here for employment will be minimal.” ‘
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2967318.stm
Now, depending upon your point of view, we've either rolled in it or decided to clean it up.
Brexit is a consequence not a cause.
I wonder what decisions, perhaps unnoticed or seemingly minor, being made now will have the big consequences in the future.
Corbyn will be asked whether he supports the Monarchy. He won't reply directly - he'll just say he is isn't proposing any change. The media will then go bonkers with headlines of "Corbyn doesn't support the Monarchy" etc etc.
After a week of that it'll be back to Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament.
It is funny, a few of my friends were surprised that I was a Remainer.
Given my views on the nation of cheese eating surrender monkey collaborators France and the French, they couldn't quite believe I'd vote for continuing membership with an organisation which has France as a member.
It was a sensible proposal, invoke Article 50 immediately in order to put the Referendum behind and then resign to clear the way for a new government to start negotiations.
Instead now the Government and the Tory party is stuck in an endless Referendum loop, unable to negotiate and slowly dissolving into acrimony and backstabbing where nothing gets done.
.
https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/805188236008161280
* until better bilateral agreements can be negotiated.
Wikipedia says they were doing to make it unrestricted, then changed their minds, or different bits of the government said conflicting things.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Free-Trade_Zone
Apart from that...
A clean cut decision is always better than leaving an explosive issue to fester.
It's like a bomb, a controlled explosion is better than waiting for the bomb to explode.
Or in this case Brexit is like a grenade that it's pin has been pulled by the Referendum and Theresa May is refusing to let go of the grenade.
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0051/00510602.pdf
If it did, the SNP could vote for scotland to leave NATO.
The case appears to hinge on what 'normally' might mean in a piece of legislation, which is a coin toss (and an appalling piece of drafting in the first place).
What would be the legal effect?
It's impossible to guarantee anything in the negotiations. So would the Corbyn amendment have to contain a clause that somehow Article 50 was to be revoked if the "requirements" of the amendment are not achieved.
If not, how could the amendment actually come into play?
"No, I do not support the head of state being a hereditary position - I mean just look at the current heir to the throne. Have you read his book, Jeremy? It's called Harmony. He's a nutter. He also writes lots of letters to government ministers. And any government bill that affects his financial interests has to be okayed with him. Did you know that, Jeremy?"
"No, I do not accept the 'right to exist' of the ethnic-supremacist regime called 'Israel'."
"Yes, I do support unilateral nuclear disarmament."
"Yes, I do support British withdrawal from NATO."
They see themselves as the EU's founders.
They will care a lot more about leaving it to Germany to control than we do.
They would have to leave the currency as well, which is a BIG problem to which no-one has the answer. It could literally bankrupt the country and lots of individuals.
Scotland cannot conduct it's own foreign policy.
It was advisory whoever won.
The point is a legal one - not a debating one (for us). Being advisory means that the decision has still to be taken, and the legal case is about whose decision it is.
The government will have to argue that the word 'normally' is in the legislation to cover an eventuality like the current abnormal one. Not a strong case by any means, although I can see the lawyer arguing that if the current circumstances aren't abnormal then what are?
Her position would be as untenable as Cameron's after the referendum.
I agree about the currency. The same applies if Italy leaves the euro - on which there may well be a referendum.
Is "Jo Cox" now a neologistic verb in the same intensely annoying way that "ace" has become and adjective while nobody was looking?
Ukip's new leader was at the centre of a ‘fake CV’ row last night over allegations that he falsely claimed to hold a university doctorate.
The row, which comes just days after Paul Nuttall had to backtrack over boasts about playing professional football for Tranmere Rovers, has blown up over his online CV which refers to a ‘PhD, History’ from ‘Liverpool Hope University’ in 2004.
It caused bafflement at the institution, which did not win university status until 2005 and did not have the authority to award PhDs until 2009.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3997634/Ukip-leader-fake-CV-row-claims-holds-university-doctorate-history-vows-storm-Commons-standing-election.html
There would be no trust for her in her personal interests or competence to continue to lead.
The Tory party would have a political meltdown.
May will be OK if she is seen to have tried but been thwarted by events. Especially as her main rivals all have their fingerprints on it, except Osborne who I continue to see as irredeemably damaged goods.
Keeping the Referendum result open is already having a detrimental effect on the stability of the Tory party internally and politically.
If she wants to keep it open forever the Tory party will collapse in the next GE, Leave voters will simply vote for the party that will deliver Brexit regardless of the legal entanglements.
If the Tabloids blew a casket on the judges about Brexit they will really blow their casket on Theresa May.
And neither will the voters, or the press, it's basic politics.
The public or at least the Leave camp will not be interested in intellectual arguments (in which case have they?), they will be out for her blood.
Well it's a view but one that results in anarchy
http://www.wkyc.com/mb/news/politics/green-party-drops-statewide-pennsylvania-recount/362387741
Try to say to a voter that his vote doesn't matter because of the law and still demand his vote, he will simply stick two fingers up to you and vote for the party that will promise to change the law instead.