Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) population would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% would be too. Secretly anyway!
What has been done cannot be undone. We would not revert to the status quo ante were A50 not triggered after all this, either domestically or in Britain's relations with the EU.
Some of the 48% might have been relieved had Remain won but will now feel that even if continued membership could be achieved in a manner that was acceptable to the British electorate - which I doubt - it still wouldn't be worth it as the other EU members would have seen that when push came to shove, Britain crumbled and could be dealt with in future negotiations accordingly. The only reason for staying in / going back would be if the UK suddenly decided to sign up to the whole political project.
There is no "revert" to the status quo. If Article 50 is not triggered the status quo remains the status quo.
Looks like a cock up in the application, rather than any attempt to mass deport EU citizens. She failed to submit the passport during the initial application which caused the problem.
"The application form, which includes a “flummoxing” requirement to list every absence from the UK in the past 24 years, took an entire weekend to complete, she said"
As someone who has been dealing a lot with immigration recently, that's pretty standard.
My wife's permanent residence application is currently on hold because she doesn't know more precisely than "March or April 2005" the date on which she first arrived in the UK. We're hoping our trip to her parents next week will uncover some records that can give a firm date.
Trips abroad are easier due to my habit of never deleting emails (thank you, Gmail). And we had to do most of the work earlier this year for my Russian visa.
Thankfully I've got into the habit of keeping an excel log of all my trips abroad, so I can work out how many days I was in what country each year. Useful for both tax and immigration purposes!
Logging onto PB every day currently feels like walking into a pub and finding 100 Nigel Farages there...no matter what the topic starts as it ends up in the same predictable argument over EU.
One of the charms of PB for me when I checked a thread you never knew what the debate that day might be about and often not even political.
I open PB and depressingly it's more EU Ref Groundhog - I'm missing SIndy threads. Something I never expected.
I have been doing a lot of reading on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict this holiday (which I should add is a rather depressing way to spend Christmas).
Several times in the last 30 years they have come within a few words of peace, only for it to break down sometimes over the most trivial of objections (e.g. the right of the Palestinians who fled in 1948 to return to modern Israel - despite the fact almost all of them had died in the intervening fifty years).
It is hard to escape the conclusion that the real reason no deal has been struck is a mixture of willy-waving by the politicians and the fact that the Palestinians and Israelis genuinely hate each other, so they will look for any excuse to derail the peace process.
Negotiations over Brexit will be between David Davis, talented but erratic, and Michel Barnier, a man with the empathy, skill and intellect of a rabbit hit by a steamroller. They will also be between a country that has come to resent Europe as an imposition versus a bloc who feel they have been very publicly snubbed and humiliated.
At least there are no bulldozers, but I'm still not terribly optimistic. This could all go very horribly wrong.
You mistake me for an EU enthusiast, as opposed to someone appalled by the manner in which the Leave campaign was conducted. It was an indelible stain on our society.
Funny. That from the man who was enthusing about the EU and acting as one of its strongest advocates long before we ever got near the referendum campaign. Just because you changed your name doesn't mean we suddenly forget your years of drooling admiration for the EU.
David Cameron's deal takes effect the day the UK says it's decided to stay.
No it doesn't. It specifically expired the moment we voted Leave.
Evidence?
All the Council said is that there can be no new negotiations after the referendum. 'The UK got the most it could get and the EU gave the most it could give.' That hasn't changed.
This Decision shall take effect on the same date as the Government of the United Kingdom informs the Secretary-General of the Council that the United Kingdom has decided to remain a member of the European Union.
Constitutionally speaking, we haven't yet decided. The deal stands.
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) population would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% would be too. Secretly anyway!
What has been done cannot be undone. We would not revert to the status quo ante were A50 not triggered after all this, either domestically or in Britain's relations with the EU.
Some of the 48% might have been relieved had Remain won but will now feel that even if continued membership could be achieved in a manner that was acceptable to the British electorate - which I doubt - it still wouldn't be worth it as the other EU members would have seen that when push came to shove, Britain crumbled and could be dealt with in future negotiations accordingly. The only reason for staying in / going back would be if the UK suddenly decided to sign up to the whole political project.
There is no "revert" to the status quo. If Article 50 is not triggered the status quo remains the status quo.
There never was a status quo. That was just one of the many Remainder lies.
Looks like a cock up in the application, rather than any attempt to mass deport EU citizens. She failed to submit the passport during the initial application which caused the problem.
"The application form, which includes a “flummoxing” requirement to list every absence from the UK in the past 24 years, took an entire weekend to complete, she said"
As someone who has been dealing a lot with immigration recently, that's pretty standard.
My wife's permanent residence application is currently on hold because she doesn't know more precisely than "March or April 2005" the date on which she first arrived in the UK. We're hoping our trip to her parents next week will uncover some records that can give a firm date.
Trips abroad are easier due to my habit of never deleting emails (thank you, Gmail). And we had to do most of the work earlier this year for my Russian visa.
Don't you have entry/exit stamps in passports to cover all those dates ?
4. It is understood that, should the result of the referendum in the United Kingdom be for it to leave the European Union, the set of arrangements referred to in paragraph 2 above will cease to exist.
You mistake me for an EU enthusiast, as opposed to someone appalled by the manner in which the Leave campaign was conducted. It was an indelible stain on our society.
Funny. That from the man who was enthusing about the EU and acting as one of its strongest advocates long before we ever got near the referendum campaign. Just because you changed your name doesn't mean we suddenly forget your years of drooling admiration for the EU.
Here's a post I wrote under my previous name more than three years ago. I'll leave others to decide whether this is drooling admiration for the EU:
Leave said there would be an extra £100m for the NHS. It said that ValAT on people's energy bills would be abolished (costing about £30m a week). And it said existing payments for farmers and regional support would be maintained. All these statements are compatible with the contributions we make to the EU presently.
Anyone who thinks the referendum result would have been different if the ordinary punter thought we 'sent' £250m to the EU rather than £350m is deluding themselves.
I don't think 'you know, there might be political costs to not addressing public concerns as interpreted by the referendum campaign' is as stunning and unique an insight as portrayed. No kidding.
It's neither a stunning nor unique insight. What's fascinating is how desperate many Leavers are to suggest that the campaign was just a mild suggestion about everything other than the bare fact of leaving.
The Leave campaign was won by making the white folks angry and by splashing the cash around with preposterous promises. That now has to be delivered on. That ugly reality is one that far too many Leavers are frantic to deny that they participated in creating.
Leave won because the EU is crap.
You sound like a Hillary Clinton supporter blaming everyone apart from their own candidate for the defeat.
Leave won because it chose to whip up fears about immigration in particular. The lies about funding the NHS with an entirely fictitious figure plucked out of thin air were merely the cherry on top, to be referred to every time an "NHS in crisis" story comes out.
The nature of the Brexit that we get will be determined in large part by the Leave campaign that was run. It's astonishing how few Leavers are willing to own up to the consequences of their own campaign decisions.
It's almost as if most of them are ashamed of it.
There you go again. If you're promoting a bad cause, don't blame your opponents for beating you.
Looks like a cock up in the application, rather than any attempt to mass deport EU citizens. She failed to submit the passport during the initial application which caused the problem.
"The application form, which includes a “flummoxing” requirement to list every absence from the UK in the past 24 years, took an entire weekend to complete, she said"
As someone who has been dealing a lot with immigration recently, that's pretty standard.
My wife's permanent residence application is currently on hold because she doesn't know more precisely than "March or April 2005" the date on which she first arrived in the UK. We're hoping our trip to her parents next week will uncover some records that can give a firm date.
Trips abroad are easier due to my habit of never deleting emails (thank you, Gmail). And we had to do most of the work earlier this year for my Russian visa.
There’s a case in the Guardian about a German national who qualified as a neurosurgeon in UK, now works in UK, but thought he’d better appy for permaent residence. He was turned down on a technicality and told to leave the country To be fair the Home Office have said to him that the letter is ‘a mistake” and they’re looking at rephrasing it.
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) population would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% would be too. Secretly anyway!
What has been done cannot be undone. We would not revert to the status quo ante were A50 not triggered after all this, either domestically or in Britain's relations with the EU.
Some of the 48% might have been relieved had Remain won but will now feel that even if continued membership could be achieved in a manner that was acceptable to the British electorate - which I doubt - it still wouldn't be worth it as the other EU members would have seen that when push came to shove, Britain crumbled and could be dealt with in future negotiations accordingly. The only reason for staying in / going back would be if the UK suddenly decided to sign up to the whole political project.
There is no "revert" to the status quo. If Article 50 is not triggered the status quo remains the status quo.
I don't think anyone is doubting that Article 50 will be triggered?
4. It is understood that, should the result of the referendum in the United Kingdom be for it to leave the European Union, the set of arrangements referred to in paragraph 2 above will cease to exist.
Leave said there would be an extra £100m for the NHS. It said that ValAT on people's energy bills would be abolished (costing about £30m a week). And it said existing payments for farmers and regional support would be maintained. All these statements are compatible with the contributions we make to the EU presently.
Anyone who thinks the referendum result would have been different if the ordinary punter thought we 'sent' £250m to the EU rather than £350m is deluding themselves.
I don't think 'you know, there might be political costs to not addressing public concerns as interpreted by the referendum campaign' is as stunning and unique an insight as portrayed. No kidding.
It's neither a stunning nor unique insight. What's fascinating is how desperate many Leavers are to suggest that the campaign was just a mild suggestion about everything other than the bare fact of leaving.
The Leave campaign was won by making the white folks angry and by splashing the cash around with preposterous promises. That now has to be delivered on. That ugly reality is one that far too many Leavers are frantic to deny that they participated in creating.
Leave won because the EU is crap.
You sound like a Hillary Clinton supporter blaming everyone apart from their own candidate for the defeat.
Leave won because it chose to whip up fears about immigration in particular. The lies about funding the NHS with an entirely fictitious figure plucked out of thin air were merely the cherry on top, to be referred to every time an "NHS in crisis" story comes out.
The nature of the Brexit that we get will be determined in large part by the Leave campaign that was run. It's astonishing how few Leavers are willing to own up to the consequences of their own campaign decisions.
It's almost as if most of them are ashamed of it.
There you go again. If you're promoting a bad cause, don't blame your opponents for beating you.
You mistake me for an EU enthusiast
Now why do you think that is?
Because raving Europhobes are by and large unable to do any kind of nuance or, in many cases, read.
4. It is understood that, should the result of the referendum in the United Kingdom be for it to leave the European Union, the set of arrangements referred to in paragraph 2 above will cease to exist.
Bugger.
(However that's just a cover note. It's not clear who 'understands' that to be the case.)
It's March 2019, negotiations are deadlocked and the Tory party is tearing itself apart; Starmer has replaced Corbyn and the Lib Dems have taken two more by-elections off the Government. There is talk of a pro-EU electoral pact between Labour, Lib Dem and the SNP. The 27 come to the table and offer an Article 50 extension sine die, effectively suspending Brexit. What does May do?
4. It is understood that, should the result of the referendum in the United Kingdom be for it to leave the European Union, the set of arrangements referred to in paragraph 2 above will cease to exist.
Bugger.
and I think this clause makes your clause cease to exist. Sorry about that!
David Cameron's deal takes effect the day the UK says it's decided to stay.
No it doesn't. It specifically expired the moment we voted Leave.
Evidence?
All the Council said is that there can be no new negotiations after the referendum. 'The UK got the most it could get and the EU gave the most it could give.' That hasn't changed.
"In a free and democratic process, the British people have expressed their wish to leave the European Union. We regret this decision but respect it," said President Tusk, President Juncker, President Schulz and Netherlands Prime Minister Rutte in their joint statement.
"As agreed, the 'New Settlement for the United Kingdom within the European Union', reached at the European Council on 18-19 February 2016, will now not take effect and ceases to exist. There will be no renegotiation," they added.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) poipulation would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% woulod be too. Secretly anyway!
We had a thread a few days ago saying that opinion hadn't budged much? Anyway, I don't think they'd welcome us back with open arms if we did that. A penance would no doubt be extracted, and they'd probably get rid of any of our abilities to prevent further integration.
We don't need to go back because we haven't left yet. Why that fact eludes so many is completely baffling.
Once we have actived Article 50, potentially in about 12 weeks we are out in some shape or form, except in the very unlikely circumstance that the ECJ decides that Article 50 is reversible. In fact if Article 50 *is* reversible that is even worse, then the EU has every incentive to offer us the worst deal possible in the hope that we decide to reverse it - they have no incentive with a reversible A50 to make us an sort of mutually acceptable deal.
I would have thought that opposite was the case; best deal possible to encourage us to stay.
Why would we stay if they gave us an excellent deal to leave? I don't think our negotiators will be going there seeking a deal to remain in the EU.
Ah; lost in translation. I see.
Trouble is that from where I sit I can’t see Leaving being good for the UK at all. I think we’ll be encouraged to stay, not penalised if we do.
We're still in the same place we were before the referendum: Leaving will be worse than the status quo ante, but so will Remaining. I can't see the EU27 wanting to tolerate increasingly-reluctant Britain - we don't want (and have never wanted) to sign up to their Project so why should they?
I don't think anyone is doubting that Article 50 will be triggered?
I think it will be but it's not a certainty. Potential moves are: 1) Say it can't be done right now because of legal issues 2) Say preparatory work is taking a bit longer than expected so it'll be delayed 3) Call a general election, say you'll pull the lever after that 4) Delay because of Events that haven't happened yet, eg "The government will respect the result of the referendum and are still committed to Brexit, but we have decided to prioritize foraging for food supplies for the starving inhabitants of this nuclear bunker".
It's March 2019, negotiations are deadlocked and the Tory party is tearing itself apart; Starmer has replaced Corbyn and the Lib Dems have taken two more by-elections off the Government. There is talk of a pro-EU electoral pact between Labour, Lib Dem and the SNP. The 27 come to the table and offer an Article 50 extension sine die, effectively suspending Brexit. What does May do?
This is the crucial bit. They don't want a referendum to be used as a device to extract concessions. If we came back and said we wanted to sign up to the deal as it stands with no further negotiations I don't see how they lose face to resurrect the deal, quite the contrary.
I don't think anyone is doubting that Article 50 will be triggered?
I think it will be but it's not a certainty. Potential moves are: 1) Say it can't be done right now because of legal issues 2) Say preparatory work is taking a bit longer than expected so it'll be delayed 3) Call a general election, say you'll pull the lever after that 4) Delay because of Events that haven't happened yet, eg "The government will respect the result of the referendum and are still committed to Brexit, but we have decided to prioritize foraging for food supplies for the starving inhabitants of this nuclear bunker".
What odds would you put on it not being declared (say in the first half of 2017)?
This is the crucial bit. They don't want a referendum to be used as a device to extract concessions. If we came back and said we wanted to sign up to the deal as it stands with no further negotiations I don't see how they lose face to resurrect the deal, quite the contrary.
I think he was referring to the current package as the "renegotiation". Not a further renegotiation of the renegotiation.
I think it's fair to say that the Tories leading and fronting both the Remain and Leave campaigns told a belly-full of lies. It was to be expected. Whether any of these comes back to bite the Tories will be down to their opponents. So, the Tories should be OK. What will do for them - if anything does - is hubris and complacency. If May does prostrate herself in front of Trump (or can be portrayed as doing so) it will be a problem. If I were her, I'd be looking to rein in the deluded Atlanticists in the cabinet and right wing press dreaming of Maggie & Ronnie 2. If she doesn't, it could create potentially difficult electoral mood music.
4. It is understood that, should the result of the referendum in the United Kingdom be for it to leave the European Union, the set of arrangements referred to in paragraph 2 above will cease to exist.
As agreed, the “New Settlement for the United Kingdom within the European Union”, reached at the European Council on 18-19 February 2016, will now not take effect and ceases to exist. There will be no renegotiation.
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) population would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% would be too. Secretly anyway!
What has been done cannot be undone. We would not revert to the status quo ante were A50 not triggered after all this, either domestically or in Britain's relations with the EU.
Some of the 48% might have been relieved had Remain won but will now feel that even if continued membership could be achieved in a manner that was acceptable to the British electorate - which I doubt - it still wouldn't be worth it as the other EU members would have seen that when push came to shove, Britain crumbled and could be dealt with in future negotiations accordingly. The only reason for staying in / going back would be if the UK suddenly decided to sign up to the whole political project.
There is no "revert" to the status quo. If Article 50 is not triggered the status quo remains the status quo.
The referendum has been done. The history of that is what cannot be reverted from. Legally and constitutionally, yes, nothing would have changed but politically - there we would be in a wholly different world.
Looks like a cock up in the application, rather than any attempt to mass deport EU citizens. She failed to submit the passport during the initial application which caused the problem.
"The application form, which includes a “flummoxing” requirement to list every absence from the UK in the past 24 years, took an entire weekend to complete, she said"
As someone who has been dealing a lot with immigration recently, that's pretty standard.
My wife's permanent residence application is currently on hold because she doesn't know more precisely than "March or April 2005" the date on which she first arrived in the UK. We're hoping our trip to her parents next week will uncover some records that can give a firm date.
Trips abroad are easier due to my habit of never deleting emails (thank you, Gmail). And we had to do most of the work earlier this year for my Russian visa.
Don't you have entry/exit stamps in passports to cover all those dates ?
No, of course not. When we went to Russia in the autumn was the first time my passport had been stamped since I last went to the USA in 2006 (which was in a different passport).
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) population would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% would be too. Secretly anyway!
What has been done cannot be undone. We would not revert to the status quo ante were A50 not triggered after all this, either domestically or in Britain's relations with the EU.
Some of the 48% might have been relieved had Remain won but will now feel that even if continued membership could be achieved in a manner that was acceptable to the British electorate - which I doubt - it still wouldn't be worth it as the other EU members would have seen that when push came to shove, Britain crumbled and could be dealt with in future negotiations accordingly. The only reason for staying in / going back would be if the UK suddenly decided to sign up to the whole political project.
There is no "revert" to the status quo. If Article 50 is not triggered the status quo remains the status quo.
I don't think anyone is doubting that Article 50 will be triggered?
Gina Miller, Nick Clegg et al are trying their best.
To move off the EU and keep slightly on topic, I wonder if there's a nice counterfactual for someone to write over on alternatehistory.com.
Churchill is forced to resign in early 1953 under public indignation following the Smog which disrupted Christmas and caused thousands of deaths. A General Election is called for late February 1953 and Attlee is returned to office with a majority of 20.
Attlee retires in 1955 and Gaitskell becomes Prime Minister. My problem is working out how a Gaitskell Government would have handled Suez. Eden was very pro-intervention (with the French) and I suspect Gaitskell would have preferred to keep the Americans and the UN on side but while intervention destroyed Eden politically, what would no intervention look like - would it be seen as renewed appeasement ?
I just wonder whether even if the Labour Government didn't intervene the political cost would have been heavy and the Conservatives might have won under Butler in 1957 or 1958.
To go back off topic, a Gaitskell-led Government wouldn't have tried to join or be involved with the nascent EEC in the mid 50s.
It's March 2019, negotiations are deadlocked and the Tory party is tearing itself apart; Starmer has replaced Corbyn and the Lib Dems have taken two more by-elections off the Government. There is talk of a pro-EU electoral pact between Labour, Lib Dem and the SNP. The 27 come to the table and offer an Article 50 extension sine die, effectively suspending Brexit. What does May do?
It's March 2019, negotiations are deadlocked and the Tory party is tearing itself apart; Starmer has replaced Corbyn and the Lib Dems have taken two more by-elections off the Government. There is talk of a pro-EU electoral pact between Labour, Lib Dem and the SNP. The 27 come to the table and offer an Article 50 extension sine die, effectively suspending Brexit. What does May do?
There is no "revert" to the status quo. If Article 50 is not triggered the status quo remains the status quo.
Not at all true politically.
The status quo ante before the referendum was of the UK being a signed up member to the EU that had not voted (and very few thought really would vote) to leave the EU. We were committed members. That can not be said now. Eggs have been broken that can not be put back together.
What you're saying is like claiming a husband can say to his wife he doesn't love her and wants a divorce, tell that to all their friends, family, her coworkers and everyone else publicly ... then start the paperwork to do so but because the papers weren't filed can a year later turn around and say "actually we should be together" and nothing has changed.
Whether the legalities have changed or not, there is no love and that is public knowledge now. The status quo ante no longer exists.
It's March 2019, negotiations are deadlocked and the Tory party is tearing itself apart; Starmer has replaced Corbyn and the Lib Dems have taken two more by-elections off the Government. There is talk of a pro-EU electoral pact between Labour, Lib Dem and the SNP. The 27 come to the table and offer an Article 50 extension sine die, effectively suspending Brexit. What does May do?
Given the success of the remain campaign telling us that we're racist, lying idiots because of the Racist Poster and the Lying Bus, it seems surprising that they'd continue with exactly the same tactic now. Perhaps if they just say it all more slowly and loudly..
This is the crucial bit. They don't want a referendum to be used as a device to extract concessions. If we came back and said we wanted to sign up to the deal as it stands with no further negotiations I don't see how they lose face to resurrect the deal, quite the contrary.
Well the UK & EU can come to any agreement they like. A50 could be triggered, then both sides can agree that Britain rejoins under Cameron's deal. But that would be a new arrangement. The existing one is no more. It is an ex-deal.
I think it's fair to say that the Tories leading and fronting both the Remain and Leave campaigns told a belly-full of lies. It was to be expected. Whether any of these comes back to bite the Tories will be down to their opponents. So, the Tories should be OK. What will do for them - if anything does - is hubris and complacency. If May does prostrate herself in front of Trump (or can be portrayed as doing so) it will be a problem. If I were her, I'd be looking to rein in the deluded Atlanticists in the cabinet and right wing press dreaming of Maggie & Ronnie 2. If she doesn't, it could create potentially difficult electoral mood music.
Of course if Trump is unexpectedly successful then the music with shift, at the very least he is likely to bury the hatchet with Russia, piss off the Chinese and start a considerable construction led recovery on jobs, a "Buy American" campaign is almost a dead cert as well. All of which are going to go down well in middle America, at least for a few years until the bills start to become due.
I don't think anyone is doubting that Article 50 will be triggered?
I think it will be but it's not a certainty. Potential moves are: 1) Say it can't be done right now because of legal issues 2) Say preparatory work is taking a bit longer than expected so it'll be delayed 3) Call a general election, say you'll pull the lever after that 4) Delay because of Events that haven't happened yet, eg "The government will respect the result of the referendum and are still committed to Brexit, but we have decided to prioritize foraging for food supplies for the starving inhabitants of this nuclear bunker".
What odds would you put on it not being declared (say in the first half of 2017)?
This isn't an offer to bet on either side of this but I'd say the probability of it being triggered in the first half of 2017 is around 85%.
There's also a small-but-non-zero chance that they'll announce that they've triggered it, but after subsequent litigation it'll ultimately turn out that it wasn't triggered in accordance with Britain's constitutional requirements.
I don't think anyone is doubting that Article 50 will be triggered?
I think it will be but it's not a certainty. Potential moves are: 1) Say it can't be done right now because of legal issues 2) Say preparatory work is taking a bit longer than expected so it'll be delayed 3) Call a general election, say you'll pull the lever after that 4) Delay because of Events that haven't happened yet, eg "The government will respect the result of the referendum and are still committed to Brexit, but we have decided to prioritize foraging for food supplies for the starving inhabitants of this nuclear bunker".
What odds would you put on it not being declared (say in the first half of 2017)?
This isn't an offer to bet on either side of this but I'd say the probability of it being triggered in the first half of 2017 is around 85%.
There's also a small-but-non-zero chance that they'll announce that they've triggered it, but after subsequent litigation it'll ultimately turn out that it wasn't triggered in accordance with Britain's constitutional requirements.
An act would surely be sufficient, and I think that is what the government are preparing for with their short draft bill? Not sure what else could be constitutionally required.
It's March 2019, negotiations are deadlocked and the Tory party is tearing itself apart; Starmer has replaced Corbyn and the Lib Dems have taken two more by-elections off the Government. There is talk of a pro-EU electoral pact between Labour, Lib Dem and the SNP. The 27 come to the table and offer an Article 50 extension sine die, effectively suspending Brexit. What does May do?
Takes it and keeps negotiating.
And go to the country in 2020 with the message that we have failed to deliver Brexit?
Looks like a cock up in the application, rather than any attempt to mass deport EU citizens. She failed to submit the passport during the initial application which caused the problem.
"The application form, which includes a “flummoxing” requirement to list every absence from the UK in the past 24 years, took an entire weekend to complete, she said"
As someone who has been dealing a lot with immigration recently, that's pretty standard.
My wife's permanent residence application is currently on hold because she doesn't know more precisely than "March or April 2005" the date on which she first arrived in the UK. We're hoping our trip to her parents next week will uncover some records that can give a firm date.
Trips abroad are easier due to my habit of never deleting emails (thank you, Gmail). And we had to do most of the work earlier this year for my Russian visa.
Don't you have entry/exit stamps in passports to cover all those dates ?
No, of course not. When we went to Russia in the autumn was the first time my passport had been stamped since I last went to the USA in 2006 (which was in a different passport).
I ask because I played a similar game a few years ago, and suspicion that I would have to at some point was one of the reasons I have kept every passport ever issued to me (or indeed any of my family). But I have the advantage of hardly having travelled in the EU and travelled extensively in Asia so everything is stamped in my passport(s)
That said I am just coming off the back of a long (over a year) and very expensive skirmish with immigration on another incomprehensible bit of bureaucracy.
It's March 2019, negotiations are deadlocked and the Tory party is tearing itself apart; Starmer has replaced Corbyn and the Lib Dems have taken two more by-elections off the Government. There is talk of a pro-EU electoral pact between Labour, Lib Dem and the SNP. The 27 come to the table and offer an Article 50 extension sine die, effectively suspending Brexit. What does May do?
Takes it and keeps negotiating.
And go to the country in 2020 with the message that we have failed to deliver Brexit?
SouthamObserver - How has Mrs May already prostrated herself before Trump? You posted something to that effect on the last thread but without supporting evidence.
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) population would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% would be too. Secretly anyway!
What has been done cannot be undone. We would not revert to the status quo ante were A50 not triggered after all this, either domestically or in Britain's relations with the EU.
Some of the 48% might have been relieved had Remain won but will now feel that even if continued membership could be achieved in a manner that was acceptable to the British electorate - which I doubt - it still wouldn't be worth it as the other EU members would have seen that when push came to shove, Britain crumbled and could be dealt with in future negotiations accordingly. The only reason for staying in / going back would be if the UK suddenly decided to sign up to the whole political project.
There is no "revert" to the status quo. If Article 50 is not triggered the status quo remains the status quo.
There never was a status quo. That was just one of the many Remainder lies.
And I suppose 2016 won't turn out to be the warmest on record.
I don't think anyone is doubting that Article 50 will be triggered?
I think it will be but it's not a certainty. Potential moves are: 1) Say it can't be done right now because of legal issues 2) Say preparatory work is taking a bit longer than expected so it'll be delayed 3) Call a general election, say you'll pull the lever after that 4) Delay because of Events that haven't happened yet, eg "The government will respect the result of the referendum and are still committed to Brexit, but we have decided to prioritize foraging for food supplies for the starving inhabitants of this nuclear bunker".
What odds would you put on it not being declared (say in the first half of 2017)?
This isn't an offer to bet on either side of this but I'd say the probability of it being triggered in the first half of 2017 is around 85%.
There's also a small-but-non-zero chance that they'll announce that they've triggered it, but after subsequent litigation it'll ultimately turn out that it wasn't triggered in accordance with Britain's constitutional requirements.
An act would surely be sufficient, and I think that is what the government are preparing for with their short draft bill? Not sure what else could be constitutionally required.
IANAL but apparently the question of what they actually need is legally controversial. Since it seems plausible that Theresa May is trying to slow things down while appearing to be determined and defiant, it wouldn't be astonishing if the legal requirement was to do X and Y, so she did Z.
It's March 2019, negotiations are deadlocked and the Tory party is tearing itself apart; Starmer has replaced Corbyn and the Lib Dems have taken two more by-elections off the Government. There is talk of a pro-EU electoral pact between Labour, Lib Dem and the SNP. The 27 come to the table and offer an Article 50 extension sine die, effectively suspending Brexit. What does May do?
Or tells them to get stuffed, goes for a rock hard Brexit, and runs a jingoistic election campaign on the basis of EU intransigence and the reasonable, nay, generous efforts the government has made to find a solution. Wraps herself in the biggest Union Jack she can find and points to the unpatriotic and lily livered views of Starmer and the Labour front bench, and romps home to a majority of 70
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) population would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% would be too. Secretly anyway!
What has been done cannot be undone. We would not revert to the status quo ante were A50 not triggered after all this, either domestically or in Britain's relations with the EU.
Some of the 48% might have been relieved had Remain won but will now feel that even if continued membership could be achieved in a manner that was acceptable to the British electorate - which I doubt - it still wouldn't be worth it as the other EU members would have seen that when push came to shove, Britain crumbled and could be dealt with in future negotiations accordingly. The only reason for staying in / going back would be if the UK suddenly decided to sign up to the whole political project.
There is no "revert" to the status quo. If Article 50 is not triggered the status quo remains the status quo.
There never was a status quo. That was just one of the many Remainder lies.
And I suppose 2016 won't turn out to be the warmest on record.
I don't think anyone is doubting that Article 50 will be triggered?
I think it will be but it's not a certainty. Potential moves are: 1) Say it can't be done right now because of legal issues 2) Say preparatory work is taking a bit longer than expected so it'll be delayed 3) Call a general election, say you'll pull the lever after that 4) Delay because of Events that haven't happened yet, eg "The government will respect the result of the referendum and are still committed to Brexit, but we have decided to prioritize foraging for food supplies for the starving inhabitants of this nuclear bunker".
What odds would you put on it not being declared (say in the first half of 2017)?
This isn't an offer to bet on either side of this but I'd say the probability of it being triggered in the first half of 2017 is around 85%.
There's also a small-but-non-zero chance that they'll announce that they've triggered it, but after subsequent litigation it'll ultimately turn out that it wasn't triggered in accordance with Britain's constitutional requirements.
An act would surely be sufficient, and I think that is what the government are preparing for with their short draft bill? Not sure what else could be constitutionally required.
The problem is that such an Act will implicitly modify or override a whole library of other legislation. That may need to be made explicit.
It's March 2019, negotiations are deadlocked and the Tory party is tearing itself apart; Starmer has replaced Corbyn and the Lib Dems have taken two more by-elections off the Government. There is talk of a pro-EU electoral pact between Labour, Lib Dem and the SNP. The 27 come to the table and offer an Article 50 extension sine die, effectively suspending Brexit. What does May do?
Or tells them to get stuffed, goes for a rock hard Brexit, and runs a jingoistic election campaign on the basis of EU intransigence and the reasonable, nay, generous efforts the government has made to find a solution. Wraps herself in the biggest Union Jack she can find and points to the unpatriotic and lily livered views of Starmer and the Labour front bench, and romps home to a majority of 70
Next day the pound and FTSE 100 (& 250) crash. But who cares; the Tories have won!
I don't think anyone is doubting that Article 50 will be triggered?
I think it will be but it's not a certainty. Potential moves are: 1) Say it can't be done right now because of legal issues 2) Say preparatory work is taking a bit longer than expected so it'll be delayed 3) Call a general election, say you'll pull the lever after that 4) Delay because of Events that haven't happened yet, eg "The government will respect the result of the referendum and are still committed to Brexit, but we have decided to prioritize foraging for food supplies for the starving inhabitants of this nuclear bunker".
What odds would you put on it not being declared (say in the first half of 2017)?
This isn't an offer to bet on either side of this but I'd say the probability of it being triggered in the first half of 2017 is around 85%.
There's also a small-but-non-zero chance that they'll announce that they've triggered it, but after subsequent litigation it'll ultimately turn out that it wasn't triggered in accordance with Britain's constitutional requirements.
An act would surely be sufficient, and I think that is what the government are preparing for with their short draft bill? Not sure what else could be constitutionally required.
The problem is that such an Act will implicitly modify or override a whole library of other legislation. That may need to be made explicit.
But it won't, because which parts of that library are overridden or need modifying will depend on the results of the negotiation. If the negotiation result for example was EEA with all the bells and whistles then almost nothing would need to be changed.
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) population would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% would be too. Secretly anyway!
What has been done cannot be undone. We would not revert to the status quo ante were A50 not triggered after all this, either domestically or in Britain's relations with the EU.
Some of the 48% might have been relieved had Remain won but will now feel that even if continued membership could be achieved in a manner that was acceptable to the British electorate - which I doubt - it still wouldn't be worth it as the other EU members would have seen that when push came to shove, Britain crumbled and could be dealt with in future negotiations accordingly. The only reason for staying in / going back would be if the UK suddenly decided to sign up to the whole political project.
There is no "revert" to the status quo. If Article 50 is not triggered the status quo remains the status quo.
There never was a status quo. That was just one of the many Remainder lies.
And I suppose 2016 won't turn out to be the warmest on record.
To move off the EU and keep slightly on topic, I wonder if there's a nice counterfactual for someone to write over on alternatehistory.com.
Churchill is forced to resign in early 1953 under public indignation following the Smog which disrupted Christmas and caused thousands of deaths. A General Election is called for late February 1953 and Attlee is returned to office with a majority of 20.
Attlee retires in 1955 and Gaitskell becomes Prime Minister. My problem is working out how a Gaitskell Government would have handled Suez. Eden was very pro-intervention (with the French) and I suspect Gaitskell would have preferred to keep the Americans and the UN on side but while intervention destroyed Eden politically, what would no intervention look like - would it be seen as renewed appeasement ?
I just wonder whether even if the Labour Government didn't intervene the political cost would have been heavy and the Conservatives might have won under Butler in 1957 or 1958.
To go back off topic, a Gaitskell-led Government wouldn't have tried to join or be involved with the nascent EEC in the mid 50s.
There is the belief that it was the distraction of Suez which allowed the Russians to put down the Hungarian uprising without fear of western intervention. Could perhaps Churchill's resignation and Gaitskell's eventual succession have led to an early direct confrontation between the US and USSR?
It's March 2019, negotiations are deadlocked and the Tory party is tearing itself apart; Starmer has replaced Corbyn and the Lib Dems have taken two more by-elections off the Government. There is talk of a pro-EU electoral pact between Labour, Lib Dem and the SNP. The 27 come to the table and offer an Article 50 extension sine die, effectively suspending Brexit. What does May do?
Or tells them to get stuffed, goes for a rock hard Brexit, and runs a jingoistic election campaign on the basis of EU intransigence and the reasonable, nay, generous efforts the government has made to find a solution. Wraps herself in the biggest Union Jack she can find and points to the unpatriotic and lily livered views of Starmer and the Labour front bench, and romps home to a majority of 70
Next day the pound and FTSE 100 (& 250) crash. But who cares; the Tories have won!
Maybe.. heard projections of economic doom about the referendum as well, and yet oddly the FTSE250 is well above where it was a year ago.
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) population would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% would be too. Secretly anyway!
What has been done cannot be undone. We would not revert to the status quo ante were A50 not triggered after all this, either domestically or in Britain's relations with the EU.
Some of the 48% might have been relieved had Remain won but will now feel that even if continued membership could be achieved in a manner that was acceptable to the British electorate - which I doubt - it still wouldn't be worth it as the other EU members would have seen that when push came to shove, Britain crumbled and could be dealt with in future negotiations accordingly. The only reason for staying in / going back would be if the UK suddenly decided to sign up to the whole political project.
There is no "revert" to the status quo. If Article 50 is not triggered the status quo remains the status quo.
There never was a status quo. That was just one of the many Remainder lies.
And I suppose 2016 won't turn out to be the warmest on record.
"Because raving Europhobes are by and large unable to do any kind of nuance or, in many cases, read"
Ahhhh.....I see with that " cheap insult" you consider because of your moral superiority and being very clever in'all that OGH's requirement does not apply to you but of course....only to those whom you obviously look down on with disdain.
Mike Smithson- December 28 "Can I remind posters abort the ban on using derogatory terms to describe those who took a different view to themselves on BREXIT. Arguments are fine. Cheap insults are not what PB is about"
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) population would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% would be too. Secretly anyway!
What has been done cannot be undone. We would not revert to the status quo ante were A50 not triggered after all this, either domestically or in Britain's relations with the EU.
Some of the 48% might have been relieved had Remain won but will now feel that even if continued membership could be achieved in a manner that was acceptable to the British electorate - which I doubt - it still wouldn't be worth it as the other EU members would have seen that when push came to shove, Britain crumbled and could be dealt with in future negotiations accordingly. The only reason for staying in / going back would be if the UK suddenly decided to sign up to the whole political project.
There is no "revert" to the status quo. If Article 50 is not triggered the status quo remains the status quo.
There never was a status quo. That was just one of the many Remainder lies.
And I suppose 2016 won't turn out to be the warmest on record.
I don't think anyone is doubting that Article 50 will be triggered?
I think it will be but it's not a certainty. Potential moves are: 1) Say it can't be done right now because of legal issues 2) Say preparatory work is taking a bit longer than expected so it'll be delayed 3) Call a general election, say you'll pull the lever after that 4) Delay because of Events that haven't happened yet, eg "The government will respect the result of the referendum and are still committed to Brexit, but we have decided to prioritize foraging for food supplies for the starving inhabitants of this nuclear bunker".
What odds would you put on it not being declared (say in the first half of 2017)?
This isn't an offer to bet on either side of this but I'd say the probability of it being triggered in the first half of 2017 is around 85%.
There's also a small-but-non-zero chance that they'll announce that they've triggered it, but after subsequent litigation it'll ultimately turn out that it wasn't triggered in accordance with Britain's constitutional requirements.
An act would surely be sufficient, and I think that is what the government are preparing for with their short draft bill? Not sure what else could be constitutionally required.
The problem is that such an Act will implicitly modify or override a whole library of other legislation. That may need to be made explicit.
But it won't, because which parts of that library are overridden or need modifying will depend on the results of the negotiation. If the negotiation result for example was EEA with all the bells and whistles then almost nothing would need to be changed.
That sounds like a good case for an opposition amendment to make A50 authorisation conditional on not leaving the EEA.
If the EU says that such a condition binds the negotiations and isn't acceptable then Theresa May could go back to parliament to ask for more.
To move off the EU and keep slightly on topic, I wonder if there's a nice counterfactual for someone to write over on alternatehistory.com.
Churchill is forced to resign in early 1953 under public indignation following the Smog which disrupted Christmas and caused thousands of deaths. A General Election is called for late February 1953 and Attlee is returned to office with a majority of 20.
Attlee retires in 1955 and Gaitskell becomes Prime Minister. My problem is working out how a Gaitskell Government would have handled Suez. Eden was very pro-intervention (with the French) and I suspect Gaitskell would have preferred to keep the Americans and the UN on side but while intervention destroyed Eden politically, what would no intervention look like - would it be seen as renewed appeasement ?
I just wonder whether even if the Labour Government didn't intervene the political cost would have been heavy and the Conservatives might have won under Butler in 1957 or 1958.
To go back off topic, a Gaitskell-led Government wouldn't have tried to join or be involved with the nascent EEC in the mid 50s.
I'm a little surprised that the Smog would be blamed on Churchill's government as it had only been in office for a year and Labour had had the previous six years to take action on London's pollution.
Not to mention that the London county council had been Labour controlled since 1934.
I don't think anyone is doubting that Article 50 will be triggered?
I think it will be but it's not a certainty. Potential moves are: 1) Say it can't be done right now because of legal issues 2) Say preparatory work is taking a bit longer than expected so it'll be delayed 3) Call a general election, say you'll pull the lever after that 4) Delay because of Events that haven't happened yet, eg "The government will respect the result of the referendum and are still committed to Brexit, but we have decided to prioritize foraging for food supplies for the starving inhabitants of this nuclear bunker".
What odds would you put on it not being declared (say in the first half of 2017)?
This isn't an offer to bet on either side of this but I'd say the probability of it being triggered in the first half of 2017 is around 85%.
There's also a small-but-non-zero chance that they'll announce that they've triggered it, but after subsequent litigation it'll ultimately turn out that it wasn't triggered in accordance with Britain's constitutional requirements.
An act would surely be sufficient, and I think that is what the government are preparing for with their short draft bill? Not sure what else could be constitutionally required.
The problem is that such an Act will implicitly modify or override a whole library of other legislation. That may need to be made explicit.
But it won't, because which parts of that library are overridden or need modifying will depend on the results of the negotiation. If the negotiation result for example was EEA with all the bells and whistles then almost nothing would need to be changed.
That sounds like a good case for an opposition amendment to make A50 authorisation conditional on not leaving the EEA.
If the EU says that such a condition binds the negotiations and isn't acceptable then Theresa May could go back to parliament to ask for more.
Tories would be whipped mercilessly to vote that down!
"Because raving Europhobes are by and large unable to do any kind of nuance or, in many cases, read"
Ahhhh.....I see with that " cheap insult" you consider because of your moral superiority and being very clever in'all that OGH's requirement does not apply to you but of course....only to those whom you obviously look down on with disdain.
Mike Smithson- December 28 "Can I remind posters abort the ban on using derogatory terms to describe those who took a different view to themselves on BREXIT. Arguments are fine. Cheap insults are not what PB is about"
M'kay.
It appears that the eurotic fantasists are given a free rein. But then again there was a Racist Poster and a Lying Bus, in case you've forgotten already.
It's March 2019, negotiations are deadlocked and the Tory party is tearing itself apart; Starmer has replaced Corbyn and the Lib Dems have taken two more by-elections off the Government. There is talk of a pro-EU electoral pact between Labour, Lib Dem and the SNP. The 27 come to the table and offer an Article 50 extension sine die, effectively suspending Brexit. What does May do?
Takes it and keeps negotiating.
And go to the country in 2020 with the message that we have failed to deliver Brexit?
No. There would have to be a solution one way or the other before then. In fact, she'd probably be better refusing an indefinite extension but being willing to accept one that ran through to March 2020.
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were
. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) population would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% would be too. Secretly anyway!
What has been done cannot be undone. We would not revert to the status quo ante were A50 not triggered after all this, either domestically or in Britain's relations with the EU.
Some of the 48% might have been relieved had Remain won but will now feel that even if continued membership could be achieved in a manner that was acceptable to the British electorate - which I doubt - it still wouldn't be worth it as the other EU members would have seen that when push came to shove, Britain crumbled and could be dealt with in future negotiations accordingly. The only reason for staying in / going back would be if the UK suddenly decided to sign up to the whole political project.
There is no "revert" to the status quo. If Article 50 is not triggered the status quo remains the status quo.
There never was a status quo. That was just one of the many Remainder lies.
And I suppose 2016 won't turn out to be the warmest on record.
Can we please forget about the £350million. I must say I thought better of Gisela Stuart but Boris Johnson especially is an 'all promise and no performance merchant’ so whatever he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As someone said yesterday about something else. Leave made promises which they must have known they couldn’t keep and Remain made threats which they must have known were unlikely to be realised.
What we have to do in 2017 is try and sort out some sort of deal with the (now) rest of the EU. My personal preference is that the heads of the deal should be put to the vote again. If the majority like what they see, so be it. If they don’t, well, the whole thing’s off. An enormous amount of time will have been wasted of course. Either way.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) population would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% would be too. Secretly anyway!
What has been done cannot be undone. We would not revert to the status quo ante were A50 not triggered after all this, either domestically or in Britain's relations with the EU.
Some of the 48% might have been relieved had Remain won but will now feel that even if continued membership could be achieved in a manner that was acceptable to the British electorate - which I doubt - it still wouldn't be worth it as the other EU members would have seen that when push came to shove, Britain crumbled and could be dealt with in future negotiations accordingly. The only reason for staying in / going back would be if the UK suddenly decided to sign up to the whole political project.
There is no "revert" to the status quo. If Article 50 is not triggered the status quo remains the status quo.
I don't think anyone is doubting that Article 50 will be triggered?
Gina Miller, Nick Clegg et al are trying their best.
Nick Clegg is not working to block triggering Article 50. He is working for a soft BREXIT. Nick Clegg is the Lib Dem spokesperson on BREXIT.
Tim Farron, the leader, is not in favour of blocking Article 50 but still working for a second EU referendum to reverse the first one.
Lib Dem positioning is either very subtle or contradictory. Take your pick.
It's March 2019, negotiations are deadlocked and the Tory party is tearing itself apart; Starmer has replaced Corbyn and the Lib Dems have taken two more by-elections off the Government. There is talk of a pro-EU electoral pact between Labour, Lib Dem and the SNP. The 27 come to the table and offer an Article 50 extension sine die, effectively suspending Brexit. What does May do?
Or tells them to get stuffed, goes for a rock hard Brexit, and runs a jingoistic election campaign on the basis of EU intransigence and the reasonable, nay, generous efforts the government has made to find a solution. Wraps herself in the biggest Union Jack she can find and points to the unpatriotic and lily livered views of Starmer and the Labour front bench, and romps home to a majority of 70
Next day the pound and FTSE 100 (& 250) crash. But who cares; the Tories have won!
Maybe.. heard projections of economic doom about the referendum as well, and yet oddly the FTSE250 is well above where it was a year ago.
"Because raving Europhobes are by and large unable to do any kind of nuance or, in many cases, read"
Ahhhh.....I see with that " cheap insult" you consider because of your moral superiority and being very clever in'all that OGH's requirement does not apply to you but of course....only to those whom you obviously look down on with disdain.
Mike Smithson- December 28 "Can I remind posters abort the ban on using derogatory terms to describe those who took a different view to themselves on BREXIT. Arguments are fine. Cheap insults are not what PB is about"
M'kay.
It appears that the eurotic fantasists are given a free rein. But then again there was a Racist Poster and a Lying Bus, in case you've forgotten already.
Odd don't remember seeing that mentioned anywhere, did I miss it?
To move off the EU and keep slightly on topic, I wonder if there's a nice counterfactual for someone to write over on alternatehistory.com.
Churchill is forced to resign in early 1953 under public indignation following the Smog which disrupted Christmas and caused thousands of deaths. A General Election is called for late February 1953 and Attlee is returned to office with a majority of 20.
Attlee retires in 1955 and Gaitskell becomes Prime Minister. My problem is working out how a Gaitskell Government would have handled Suez. Eden was very pro-intervention (with the French) and I suspect Gaitskell would have preferred to keep the Americans and the UN on side but while intervention destroyed Eden politically, what would no intervention look like - would it be seen as renewed appeasement ?
I just wonder whether even if the Labour Government didn't intervene the political cost would have been heavy and the Conservatives might have won under Butler in 1957 or 1958.
To go back off topic, a Gaitskell-led Government wouldn't have tried to join or be involved with the nascent EEC in the mid 50s.
I'm a little surprised that the Smog would be blamed on Churchill's government as it had only been in office for a year and Labour had had the previous six years to take action on London's pollution.
Not to mention that the London county council had been Labour controlled since 1934.
I think The Crown took some artistic licence there. All the research and accounts from the time suggest there was no real panic with the great smog since people were used to the pea soupers and it was only after the event that the real death toll was realised. Certainly there is little evidence for Atlee either having forewarned of the issue or making much political capital out of it.
It's March 2019, negotiations are deadlocked and the Tory party is tearing itself apart; Starmer has replaced Corbyn and the Lib Dems have taken two more by-elections off the Government. There is talk of a pro-EU electoral pact between Labour, Lib Dem and the SNP. The 27 come to the table and offer an Article 50 extension sine die, effectively suspending Brexit. What does May do?
Takes it and keeps negotiating.
And go to the country in 2020 with the message that we have failed to deliver Brexit?
Leave said there would be an extra £100m for the NHS. It said that ValAT on people's energy bills would be abolished (costing about £30m a week). And it said existing payments for farmers and regional support would be maintained. All these statements are compatible with the contributions we make to the EU presently.
Anyone who thinks the referendum result would have been different if the ordinary punter thought we 'sent' £250m to the EU rather than £350m is deluding themselves.
I don't think 'you know, there might be political costs to not addressing public concerns as interpreted by the referendum campaign' is as stunning and unique an insight as portrayed. No kidding.
It's neither a stunning nor unique insight. What's fascinating is how desperate many Leavers are to suggest that the campaign was just a mild suggestion about everything other than the bare fact of leaving.
The Leave campaign was won by making the white folks angry and by splashing the cash around with preposterous promises. That now has to be delivered on. That ugly reality is one that far too many Leavers are frantic to deny that they participated in creating.
Leave won because the EU is crap.
You sound like a Hillary Clinton supporter blaming everyone apart from their own candidate for the defeat.
Leave won because it chose to whip up fears about immigration in particular. The lies about funding the NHS with an entirely fictitious figure plucked out of thin air were merely the cherry on top, to be referred to every time an "NHS in crisis" story comes out.
The nature of the Brexit that we get will be determined in large part by the Leave campaign that was run. It's astonishing how few Leavers are willing to own up to the consequences of their own campaign decisions.
It's almost as if most of them are ashamed of it.
There you go again. If you're promoting a bad cause, don't blame your opponents for beating you.
You mistake me for an EU enthusiast
Now why do you think that is?
Because raving Europhobes are by and large unable to do any kind of nuance or, in many cases, read.
Is the wrong answer.
People think you're an EU enthusiast because you act like an EU enthusiast and you sound like an EU enthusiast.
To move off the EU and keep slightly on topic, I wonder if there's a nice counterfactual for someone to write over on alternatehistory.com.
Churchill is forced to resign in early 1953 under public indignation following the Smog which disrupted Christmas and caused thousands of deaths. A General Election is called for late February 1953 and Attlee is returned to office with a majority of 20.
Attlee retires in 1955 and Gaitskell becomes Prime Minister. My problem is working out how a Gaitskell Government would have handled Suez. Eden was very pro-intervention (with the French) and I suspect Gaitskell would have preferred to keep the Americans and the UN on side but while intervention destroyed Eden politically, what would no intervention look like - would it be seen as renewed appeasement ?
I just wonder whether even if the Labour Government didn't intervene the political cost would have been heavy and the Conservatives might have won under Butler in 1957 or 1958.
To go back off topic, a Gaitskell-led Government wouldn't have tried to join or be involved with the nascent EEC in the mid 50s.
I'm a little surprised that the Smog would be blamed on Churchill's government as it had only been in office for a year and Labour had had the previous six years to take action on London's pollution.
Not to mention that the London county council had been Labour controlled since 1934.
I think a more likely scenario would have been that the ‘Inner Circle” weren’t able to keep the news of Churchill’s stroke quiet and the Government collapsed. As someone else posted the Hungarian Uprisng was rather overshadowed initially by the news from Suez ........ remember there were a lot of young National Service conscripts involved. I agree with the suggestion that Gaitskell wouldn’t have intervened; remember the British Government would have been renationalising whatever had first been denationalised and/ornationalising something else ....... IIRC sugar production was next, or at least high, on the list.
To move off the EU and keep slightly on topic, I wonder if there's a nice counterfactual for someone to write over on alternatehistory.com.
Churchill is forced to resign in early 1953 under public indignation following the Smog which disrupted Christmas and caused thousands of deaths. A General Election is called for late February 1953 and Attlee is returned to office with a majority of 20.
Attlee retires in 1955 and Gaitskell becomes Prime Minister. My problem is working out how a Gaitskell Government would have handled Suez. Eden was very pro-intervention (with the French) and I suspect Gaitskell would have preferred to keep the Americans and the UN on side but while intervention destroyed Eden politically, what would no intervention look like - would it be seen as renewed appeasement ?
I just wonder whether even if the Labour Government didn't intervene the political cost would have been heavy and the Conservatives might have won under Butler in 1957 or 1958.
To go back off topic, a Gaitskell-led Government wouldn't have tried to join or be involved with the nascent EEC in the mid 50s.
I'm a little surprised that the Smog would be blamed on Churchill's government as it had only been in office for a year and Labour had had the previous six years to take action on London's pollution.
Not to mention that the London county council had been Labour controlled since 1934.
No, but Churchill would very probably have been forced to resign in 1953 after his stroke had Eden not been ill at the same time. Had Churchill's stroke been even worse or had Eden's original gallstone operation not gone wrong (which necessitated the second operation that, by coincidence, took place at the same time as Churchill's stroke), Eden would have become PM in 1953.
And what happens if the deal is not endorsed in the referendum? We'll still be out.
Of course not; that’s the point.
Assuming of course that triggering A50 isn’t irrevocable.
It would indeed be a loveless marriage if we went back in after all this.
Why; 48% of the (voting) population would be very relieved and it appears that a good number of the 52% would be too. Secretly anyway!
What has been done cannot be undone. We would not revert to the status quo ante were A50 not triggered after all this, either domestically or in Britain's relations with the EU.
Some of the 48% might have been relieved had Remain won but will now feel that even if continued membership could be achieved in a manner that was acceptable to the British electorate - which I doubt - it still wouldn't be worth it as the other EU members would have seen that when push came to shove, Britain crumbled and could be dealt with in future negotiations accordingly. The only reason for staying in / going back would be if the UK suddenly decided to sign up to the whole political project.
There is no "revert" to the status quo. If Article 50 is not triggered the status quo remains the status quo.
I don't think anyone is doubting that Article 50 will be triggered?
Gina Miller, Nick Clegg et al are trying their best.
Nick Clegg is not working to block triggering Article 50. He is working for a soft BREXIT. Nick Clegg is the Lib Dem spokesperson on BREXIT.
Tim Farron, the leader, is not in favour of blocking Article 50 but still working for a second EU referendum to reverse the first one.
Lib Dem positioning is either very subtle or contradictory. Take your pick.
Lib Dems doing two contradictory things at the same time? Surely not.
Though to be fair in this instance, the two things could meaningfully be seen as Plan A and Plan B; that reversing Brexit is the priority but that if that isn't achieved then minimising its effects is next best for them.
To move off the EU and keep slightly on topic, I wonder if there's a nice counterfactual for someone to write over on alternatehistory.com.
Churchill is forced to resign in early 1953 under public indignation following the Smog which disrupted Christmas and caused thousands of deaths. A General Election is called for late February 1953 and Attlee is returned to office with a majority of 20.
Attlee retires in 1955 and Gaitskell becomes Prime Minister. My problem is working out how a Gaitskell Government would have handled Suez. Eden was very pro-intervention (with the French) and I suspect Gaitskell would have preferred to keep the Americans and the UN on side but while intervention destroyed Eden politically, what would no intervention look like - would it be seen as renewed appeasement ?
I just wonder whether even if the Labour Government didn't intervene the political cost would have been heavy and the Conservatives might have won under Butler in 1957 or 1958.
To go back off topic, a Gaitskell-led Government wouldn't have tried to join or be involved with the nascent EEC in the mid 50s.
I'm a little surprised that the Smog would be blamed on Churchill's government as it had only been in office for a year and Labour had had the previous six years to take action on London's pollution.
Not to mention that the London county council had been Labour controlled since 1934.
I think The Crown took some artistic licence there. All the research and accounts from the time suggest there was no real panic with the great smog since people were used to the pea soupers and it was only after the event that the real death toll was realised. Certainly there is little evidence for Atlee either having forewarned of the issue or making much political capital out of it.
I was a teenager at the time, just getting interested in politics. Although I lived outside London (S Essex) we were affected, both by the smog itself and by the disruption. However, I don’t recall either the existing Government or it’s predecessor being blamed. Such events were regarded as Acts of God and beyond the control of Governments. It was only well after the event that serious moves for Clean Air were proposed. I recall flying into Manchester Airport in 1961 after a holiday and seeing the black pall hanging over the city.
Leavers seem irked by my raising the £350 million a week for the NHS in the context of front page news about health crises. The trouble is that if you make preposterous promises, people have a habit of remembering them.
I don't think they were irked they merely pointed out that "We haven't left yet"
Mind you everyone is still waiting for the instant disasters prophesied by project fear for Day 1 after a leave vote. They are also remembered though rarely if ever mentioned now by Remainers
I think you'll find that preposterous promises will be remembered unfairly by those that believed them. You can fool some of the people but they aren't going to be impressed by excuses. Genies are expected to deliver the three wishes pronto.
You don't seem to wish to grasp the very basics of this which is not surprising.
We haven't left yet... I will repeat that "We haven't left yet."
As such we are duty bound to contribute to the EU system Ponzi scheme until we do. A basic principle you seem to forget or at least ignore simply to make a point.
Delays for this are caused by Remainers using every tiny excuse or even legal challenge available to prevent this. Until these challenges stop and the democratic will is recognised then nothing stated can be delivered so we won't know will we? Claiming non delivery when you are the very people preventing it is totally hypocritical to say the least.
No mention of project fear again then either? How unsurprising?
The basics of this are that Leave told a straight lie with forward effects. If you're telling me that rubbing the magic lamp isn't going to make my wishes come true for many years after you promised me that my wish would come true, I'm more likely to throw the lamp away than release the genie.
It is pointless even discussing this with you as you just wilfully refuse to accept any point but your own, refuse to accept the Remains lies in Project fear which also have not yet happened and that amongst other things ......in a nutshell .......is why people voted en mass to leave.
You want the genie to produce while you keep a cork in the spout. Well done!! this is taking utter hypocrisy to a whole new level.
Good day sir.
I will laugh so hard if the first Budget after we Leave actually does put £350m per week extra into the NHS...
You may not live that long. Are you sure Leave will happen ?
I asked my father and mother why they voted leave they said immigration .They are both nearly 80.There is immigration in York but mainly Chinese students.They both read the daily mail I believe that had more influence than the effect of where they live.However York Harrogate and Leeds voted remain..I do not think the arguments regarding sovereignty had any cut through with the vast majority.Immigration won it for leave.
Doesn't polling suggest otherwise?
Do you think Xenophobes admit to being anti-foreigner ?
I asked my father and mother why they voted leave they said immigration .They are both nearly 80.There is immigration in York but mainly Chinese students.They both read the daily mail I believe that had more influence than the effect of where they live.However York Harrogate and Leeds voted remain..I do not think the arguments regarding sovereignty had any cut through with the vast majority.Immigration won it for leave.
Doesn't polling suggest otherwise?
Do you think Xenophobes admit to being anti-foreigner ?
Yes.
Do you think non-xenophobes are really all just xenophobes?
To move off the EU and keep slightly on topic, I wonder if there's a nice counterfactual for someone to write over on alternatehistory.com.
Churchill is forced to resign in early 1953 under public indignation following the Smog which disrupted Christmas and caused thousands of deaths. A General Election is called for late February 1953 and Attlee is returned to office with a majority of 20.
Attlee retires in 1955 and Gaitskell becomes Prime Minister. My problem is working out how a Gaitskell Government would have handled Suez. Eden was very pro-intervention (with the French) and I suspect Gaitskell would have preferred to keep the Americans and the UN on side but while intervention destroyed Eden politically, what would no intervention look like - would it be seen as renewed appeasement ?
I just wonder whether even if the Labour Government didn't intervene the political cost would have been heavy and the Conservatives might have won under Butler in 1957 or 1958.
To go back off topic, a Gaitskell-led Government wouldn't have tried to join or be involved with the nascent EEC in the mid 50s.
There is the belief that it was the distraction of Suez which allowed the Russians to put down the Hungarian uprising without fear of western intervention. Could perhaps Churchill's resignation and Gaitskell's eventual succession have led to an early direct confrontation between the US and USSR?
Not to mention the rumoured KGB assassination of Gaitskell to ease Harold Wilson into place. (Whether said rumours were ever believed outside the small cabal that saw snow on Wilson's boots is another matter entirely.)
I asked my father and mother why they voted leave they said immigration .They are both nearly 80.There is immigration in York but mainly Chinese students.They both read the daily mail I believe that had more influence than the effect of where they live.However York Harrogate and Leeds voted remain..I do not think the arguments regarding sovereignty had any cut through with the vast majority.Immigration won it for leave.
Doesn't polling suggest otherwise?
Do you think Xenophobes admit to being anti-foreigner ?
With all due respect to the Leavers recent posting (which is probably too close to zero IMHO to be worth measurement) the "Four Horsemen" appeared on 'Day 1' it's just that you didn't see them. My business arranging holidays in the EU couldn't survive the instant 20% devaluation in our currency as our margin was 10% and I had to close it once our bookings made it unprofitable.
As for raising the issue about the £350m lie during the referendum I think all right thinking people pointed this out but weren't believed as the electorate would rather believe in the Unicorns on offer from the other side. I expect this will be taken on board by all parties at the next election and no one will be suggesting that a vote for a party supporting Leave will result in anything less than Armageddon. If the recent post by OGH regarding abuse was meant to be taken seriously then I expect you will be rightly dispatched to the naughty step MM and close the door behind you please.
The fact that your niche business which was directly linked to the EU went under does not support your claims that overall things changed for the worse after the vote. Whilst it might be bad for you personally, for the country as a while the devaluation was a very good thing - indeed it was something that we should have been trying to do for years irrespective of the EU question.
So no, the Four Horsemen did not turn up.
0.6% growth, rapidly falling primary income deficit, trade deficit finally starting to fall, savings growth up YoY and the government deficit will fall much further than the OBR have forecast. What's not to like?
I asked my father and mother why they voted leave they said immigration .They are both nearly 80.There is immigration in York but mainly Chinese students.They both read the daily mail I believe that had more influence than the effect of where they live.However York Harrogate and Leeds voted remain..I do not think the arguments regarding sovereignty had any cut through with the vast majority.Immigration won it for leave.
Doesn't polling suggest otherwise?
Do you think Xenophobes admit to being anti-foreigner ?
one third of black/Asian/ethnic minority pro-leave in non-voodoo polling 1/6/16, so in smearing the WWC you are implicitly also smearing a huge number of the BAMEWC. Comfortable with that?
And if this is all such a disaster - what did you do in the war, daddy? The lazy answer "no point campaigning in my constituency, it is solid tory/lab/whatever" doesn't work here, obviously, so on how many days and for how long were you out knocking on doors in the run up to 23 june? I didn't, because I was undecided till the actual day, and there is no future in telling people "you must absolutely, definitely vote x and when I make my mind up I'll be back to tell you what x is." You7 do not have that excuse. For Leave to triumph, it only requires good Remainers to do nothing.
I asked my father and mother why they voted leave they said immigration .They are both nearly 80.There is immigration in York but mainly Chinese students.They both read the daily mail I believe that had more influence than the effect of where they live.However York Harrogate and Leeds voted remain..I do not think the arguments regarding sovereignty had any cut through with the vast majority.Immigration won it for leave.
Doesn't polling suggest otherwise?
Do you think Xenophobes admit to being anti-foreigner ?
Ah yes, any discussion of immigration is racist.
As Delingpole said in today's Speccie
2017 will be one long vampire scream from the liberal elite. That moment when Christopher Lee finally gets staked through the heart: this is how it’s going to sound all year as all those vested interests now swamped by the tide of history and crushed by fortune’s wheel — Remoaners, Davos Man, the Eurocrats, US Democrats, green activists, everyone on Quentin Letts’s Spectator list of the most annoying people, etc — rage, rage, rage against the dying of their light.
I asked my father and mother why they voted leave they said immigration .They are both nearly 80.There is immigration in York but mainly Chinese students.They both read the daily mail I believe that had more influence than the effect of where they live.However York Harrogate and Leeds voted remain..I do not think the arguments regarding sovereignty had any cut through with the vast majority.Immigration won it for leave.
Doesn't polling suggest otherwise?
Do you think Xenophobes admit to being anti-foreigner ?
Yes.
Do you think non-xenophobes are really all just xenophobes?
If people say their motivation was 'control' it would be helpful to ask the follow up question 'of what?'. Immigration is top of the list.
Leavers seem irked by my raising the £350 million a week for the NHS in the context of front page news about health crises. The trouble is that if you make preposterous promises, people have a habit of remembering them.
I don't think they were irked they merely pointed out that "We haven't left yet"
Mind you everyone is still waiting for the instant disasters prophesied by project fear for Day 1 after a leave vote. They are also remembered though rarely if ever mentioned now by Remainers
I think .
.................
No mention of project fear again then either? How unsurprising?
The basics of this are that Leave told a straight lie with forward effects. If you're telling me that rubbing the magic lamp isn't going to make my wishes come true for many years after you promised me that my wish would come true, I'm more likely to throw the lamp away than release the genie.
It is pointless even discussing this with you as you just wilfully refuse to accept any point but your own, refuse to accept the Remains lies in Project fear which also have not yet happened and that amongst other things ......in a nutshell .......is why people voted en mass to leave.
You want the genie to produce while you keep a cork in the spout. Well done!! this is taking utter hypocrisy to a whole new level.
Good day sir.
I will laugh so hard if the first Budget after we Leave actually does put £350m per week extra into the NHS...
It will have to deliver the fabled £350 million, partly as the voters of Leave are the ones most dependent on the NHS, and partly because the NHS is facing a grim future without substantial investment.
While the free marketeers would regard the collapse of the NHS to be a BOGOF special for Brexit, the voters are not likely to see it the same.
That bus slogan has the potential to be the #Edstone for the next election, though helpfully concise.
The £350m promise was the biggest lie ever told in our electoral history.
Their supporters, therefore, are liars. This will be told and re-told thousands of time, as it should be.
Comments
No it doesn't. It specifically expired the moment we voted Leave.
Several times in the last 30 years they have come within a few words of peace, only for it to break down sometimes over the most trivial of objections (e.g. the right of the Palestinians who fled in 1948 to return to modern Israel - despite the fact almost all of them had died in the intervening fifty years).
It is hard to escape the conclusion that the real reason no deal has been struck is a mixture of willy-waving by the politicians and the fact that the Palestinians and Israelis genuinely hate each other, so they will look for any excuse to derail the peace process.
Negotiations over Brexit will be between David Davis, talented but erratic, and Michel Barnier, a man with the empathy, skill and intellect of a rabbit hit by a steamroller. They will also be between a country that has come to resent Europe as an imposition versus a bloc who feel they have been very publicly snubbed and humiliated.
At least there are no bulldozers, but I'm still not terribly optimistic. This could all go very horribly wrong.
All the Council said is that there can be no new negotiations after the referendum. 'The UK got the most it could get and the EU gave the most it could give.' That hasn't changed.
This Decision shall take effect on the same date as the Government of the United Kingdom informs the Secretary-General of the Council that the United Kingdom has decided to remain a member of the European Union.
Constitutionally speaking, we haven't yet decided. The deal stands.
4. It is understood that, should the result of the referendum in the United Kingdom be for it to leave the European Union, the set of arrangements referred to in paragraph 2 above will cease to exist.
http://politicalbetting.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-eu-and-britain.html
"In a free and democratic process, the British people have expressed their wish to leave the European Union. We regret this decision but respect it," said President Tusk, President Juncker, President Schulz and Netherlands Prime Minister Rutte in their joint statement.
"As agreed, the 'New Settlement for the United Kingdom within the European Union', reached at the European Council on 18-19 February 2016, will now not take effect and ceases to exist. There will be no renegotiation," they added.
(my emphasis)
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/06/24-joint-statement-uk-referendum/
1) Say it can't be done right now because of legal issues
2) Say preparatory work is taking a bit longer than expected so it'll be delayed
3) Call a general election, say you'll pull the lever after that
4) Delay because of Events that haven't happened yet, eg "The government will respect the result of the referendum and are still committed to Brexit, but we have decided to prioritize foraging for food supplies for the starving inhabitants of this nuclear bunker".
As agreed, the “New Settlement for the United Kingdom within the European Union”, reached at the European Council on 18-19 February 2016, will now not take effect and ceases to exist. There will be no renegotiation.
To move off the EU and keep slightly on topic, I wonder if there's a nice counterfactual for someone to write over on alternatehistory.com.
Churchill is forced to resign in early 1953 under public indignation following the Smog which disrupted Christmas and caused thousands of deaths. A General Election is called for late February 1953 and Attlee is returned to office with a majority of 20.
Attlee retires in 1955 and Gaitskell becomes Prime Minister. My problem is working out how a Gaitskell Government would have handled Suez. Eden was very pro-intervention (with the French) and I suspect Gaitskell would have preferred to keep the Americans and the UN on side but while intervention destroyed Eden politically, what would no intervention look like - would it be seen as renewed appeasement ?
I just wonder whether even if the Labour Government didn't intervene the political cost would have been heavy and the Conservatives might have won under Butler in 1957 or 1958.
To go back off topic, a Gaitskell-led Government wouldn't have tried to join or be involved with the nascent EEC in the mid 50s.
The status quo ante before the referendum was of the UK being a signed up member to the EU that had not voted (and very few thought really would vote) to leave the EU. We were committed members. That can not be said now. Eggs have been broken that can not be put back together.
What you're saying is like claiming a husband can say to his wife he doesn't love her and wants a divorce, tell that to all their friends, family, her coworkers and everyone else publicly ... then start the paperwork to do so but because the papers weren't filed can a year later turn around and say "actually we should be together" and nothing has changed.
Whether the legalities have changed or not, there is no love and that is public knowledge now. The status quo ante no longer exists.
Well the UK & EU can come to any agreement they like. A50 could be triggered, then both sides can agree that Britain rejoins under Cameron's deal. But that would be a new arrangement. The existing one is no more. It is an ex-deal.
There's also a small-but-non-zero chance that they'll announce that they've triggered it, but after subsequent litigation it'll ultimately turn out that it wasn't triggered in accordance with Britain's constitutional requirements.
That said I am just coming off the back of a long (over a year) and very expensive skirmish with immigration on another incomprehensible bit of bureaucracy.
In the New Year things will gradually calm down. Our national characteristics of quiet resolve and being polite to each other will return.
Optimistic, to say the least. But I hope he's right.
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/climate-records-set-in-2016
Although with a day to go there's a chance it won't be I guess. Not one I'd back though.
"...were 1.69°F above the long-term (1961-90) average and 1.2°C above pre-Industrial levels."
"Because raving Europhobes are by and large unable to do any kind of nuance or, in many cases, read"
Ahhhh.....I see with that " cheap insult" you consider because of your moral superiority and being very clever in'all that OGH's requirement does not apply to you but of course....only to those whom you obviously look down on with disdain.
Mike Smithson- December 28
"Can I remind posters abort the ban on using derogatory terms to describe those who took a different view to themselves on BREXIT. Arguments are fine. Cheap insults are not what PB is about"
M'kay.
If the EU says that such a condition binds the negotiations and isn't acceptable then Theresa May could go back to parliament to ask for more.
Not to mention that the London county council had been Labour controlled since 1934.
Nick Clegg is not working to block triggering Article 50. He is working for a soft BREXIT. Nick Clegg is the Lib Dem spokesperson on BREXIT.
Tim Farron, the leader, is not in favour of blocking Article 50 but still working for a second EU referendum to reverse the first one.
Lib Dem positioning is either very subtle or contradictory. Take your pick.
I suggest all outcomes ever are sub-optimal.
Discuss.
People think you're an EU enthusiast because you act like an EU enthusiast and you sound like an EU enthusiast.
Though to be fair in this instance, the two things could meaningfully be seen as Plan A and Plan B; that reversing Brexit is the priority but that if that isn't achieved then minimising its effects is next best for them.
Do you think non-xenophobes are really all just xenophobes?
At least, 10000 extra civil servants will get jobs. That's the only good news.
one third of black/Asian/ethnic minority pro-leave in non-voodoo polling 1/6/16, so in smearing the WWC you are implicitly also smearing a huge number of the BAMEWC. Comfortable with that?
And if this is all such a disaster - what did you do in the war, daddy? The lazy answer "no point campaigning in my constituency, it is solid tory/lab/whatever" doesn't work here, obviously, so on how many days and for how long were you out knocking on doors in the run up to 23 june? I didn't, because I was undecided till the actual day, and there is no future in telling people "you must absolutely, definitely vote x and when I make my mind up I'll be back to tell you what x is." You7 do not have that excuse. For Leave to triumph, it only requires good Remainers to do nothing.
2017 will be one long vampire scream from the liberal elite. That moment when Christopher Lee finally gets staked through the heart: this is how it’s going to sound all year as all those vested interests now swamped by the tide of history and crushed by fortune’s wheel — Remoaners, Davos Man, the Eurocrats, US Democrats, green activists, everyone on Quentin Letts’s Spectator list of the most annoying people, etc — rage, rage, rage against the dying of their light.
I thought he was taking the p*ss about this (http://www.coolfuturesfundsmanagement.com/), in the same article, but seems it's actually a thing, maybe one for Mr @FeersumEnjineeya to consider for future investments
Their supporters, therefore, are liars. This will be told and re-told thousands of time, as it should be.