All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
You make a good point. The precedents for a small clique of marketing men (or propagandists as they were known) backed up by an egregious media leading the least educated and most ignorant has some pretty uncomfortable precedents.
The worst being Rwanda in the 90's or closer to home though longer ago Germany in the 30's.
Cameron should have done his history. He's got a lot to answer for.
Good to hear the views of someone who lives by choice in a country where les Le Pen are a serious political dynasty about the dangers of fascism. And by the way
You may say none of that has anything to do with you, but the correlation between touching pitch and being defiled is fairly strong.
(Aprpos of nothing) I read a very good post of yours yesterday which I'm looking for.....
I suspect you were a Remainer though I'm not sure you've ever said so on here?
I voted Remain, with considerable reluctance, and made the decision in the polling booth itself.
On the night before the vote I went to the theatre (Breakfast at Tiffany's with Pixie L:ott - don't bother). There were Remain campaigners out in the rain outside the theatre campaigning for Remain, and they were still there when I came out, and who knows? - that may have influenced my decision. So my question to moaning Remainers is, if you were so bloody certain of the right answer and it mattered so much to you, were you out in the rain that night, and if not why not?
That's a good question. I suspect the answer is that we're used to getting the right answers. Even if we're Labour supporters and the Tories get in it's usually because the time is right.....
We're not used to the idea of a non reversable referendum. I watched the result in an Italian cafe which had more nationalities in it that night than the UN. Everyone was confident and enjoying the party. The result never seemed to be in doubt until it was.
I haven't seen the stage play of Breakfast at Tiffany's but a little unfair to expect an Audrey Hepburn performance from Pixie Lott!
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
The very 'worst' Brexit deal is no deal. Which is better than a bad deal. So I'm not really seeing a 'disaster' at all. Remaining on the other hand would have meant we're irrevocably chained in to the EU, an emerging superstate (of super fragility and internal contradictions), and would essentially lose our democracy. You can't vote for a change of EU government ot change of policy. Remain means the effective death of the UK as a nation state. Now that would be a disaster in my books. As I've said ad nauseam - Remainers never ever talk about and never seem to care about democracy. Just money.
Democracy is a means through which to deliver the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people. That inevitably involves money. The idea that 23rd June 2016 was the last chance we would ever have had to consider our membership of the EU is risible.
Of course it wasn't the last chance to consider our membership. For now we have taken a decision to leave. You can in future campaign to rejoin, and may even manage to get a referendum on the issue - have fun doing that without the status quo and government machine on your side.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
The very 'worst' Brexit deal is no deal. Which is better than a bad deal. So I'm not really seeing a 'disaster' at all. Remaining on the other hand would have meant we're irrevocably chained in to the EU, an emerging superstate (of super fragility and internal contradictions), and would essentially lose our democracy. You can't vote for a change of EU government ot change of policy. Remain means the effective death of the UK as a nation state. Now that would be a disaster in my books. As I've said ad nauseam - Remainers never ever talk about and never seem to care about democracy. Just money.
Democracy is a means through which to deliver the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people. That inevitably involves money. The idea that 23rd June 2016 was the last chance we would ever have had to consider our membership of the EU is risible.
The conservative remainers in parliament have a lot of power and influence if they use it.
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
You make a good point. The precedents for a small clique of marketing men (or propagandists as they were known) backed up by an egregious media leading the least educated and most ignorant has some pretty uncomfortable precedents.
The worst being Rwanda in the 90's or closer to home though longer ago Germany in the 30's.
Cameron should have done his history. He's got a lot to answer for.
Don't worry, when the leavers fire up the ovens you'll be first in line, not long to wait now.
Something to look forward to in these dark times, Roger.
Good fucking lord.
(Genuinely) Comparing leavers to Nazis and genocidal Rwandans wasn't enough to get a reaction, but my joke was. Oh dear.
Remain means the effective death of the UK as a nation state. Now that would be a disaster in my books.
So in a choice between the 'effective' death of the UK as a nation state, and the literal death of the UK as a nation state, your bloody-mindedness forces you to vote to make the latter inevitable.
'Literal death'! WTO terms? FFS! This sort of over reach / over-egging of project fear goes a long way to explaining why we voted to leave.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
The very 'worst' Brexit deal is no deal. Which is better than a bad deal. So I'm not really seeing a 'disaster' at all. Remaining on the other hand would have meant we're irrevocably chained in to the EU, an emerging superstate (of super fragility and internal contradictions), and would essentially lose our democracy. You can't vote for a change of EU government ot change of policy. Remain means the effective death of the UK as a nation state. Now that would be a disaster in my books. As I've said ad nauseam - Remainers never ever talk about and never seem to care about democracy. Just money.
Democracy is a means through which to deliver the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people. That inevitably involves money. The idea that 23rd June 2016 was the last chance we would ever have had to consider our membership of the EU is risible.
Of course it wasn't the last chance to consider our membership. For now we have taken a decision to leave. You can in future campaign to rejoin, and may even manage to get a referendum on the issue - have fun doing that without the status quo and government machine on your side.
Nope - I think that once are are out we are out and I don't think Brexit can or should now be reversed. What I am opposed to is a Brexit that does substantial, log-lasting harm both to the economy and our national institutions. There are strong indications that the strategy being pursued by the government will lead to both.
IMHO its right that Parliament has a meaningful vote and I cannot understand why there is so much opposition to it.
Because it is simply not possible. The government has to negotiate a deal with 27 other countries and the Commission. Once they have done so we either take it or leave without a deal. Those are the options. Having Parliament saying we want to alter X or Y is completely meaningless. Changes to the deal are not in their gift or in the power of the government to deliver.
So Parliament says deal or no deal. And that's it. Which is almost certainly going to be pretty meaningless since no deal is fraught with uncertainty.
Well, let's take a plausible scenario. The deal, reached after much agonising, involves Britain paying £23 billion and agreeing to take EU migrants for 10 years, with the right to refuse them benefits; in return, we have partially tariff-free access to the single market, with various complicatedrules to ensure that we're not a channel for other countries to avoid tariffs. The economy has turned down, people feel grumpy and dubious whether the package is really worthwhile.
Then the EU makes a surprise offer: if you really don't like the deal, we can freeze the whole process indefinitely ("stopping the clock" is a standard EU decision). We can talk about whether you can get better terms, or whether you stay on after all. Or you can have this rather crap package.
At that point, it would be odd if Parliament was not allowed to take a view.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
The very 'worst' Brexit deal is no deal. Which is better than a bad deal. So I'm not really seeing a 'disaster' at all. Remaining on the other hand would have meant we're irrevocably chained in to the EU, an emerging superstate (of super fragility and internal contradictions), and would essentially lose our democracy. You can't vote for a change of EU government ot change of policy. Remain means the effective death of the UK as a nation state. Now that would be a disaster in my books. As I've said ad nauseam - Remainers never ever talk about and never seem to care about democracy. Just money.
Democracy is a means through which to deliver the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people. That inevitably involves money. The idea that 23rd June 2016 was the last chance we would ever have had to consider our membership of the EU is risible.
So if the Remainiacs succeed and we somehow stay in then how long before another British government would offer us an exit referendum? Another 40 years? For those who have wanted out for 40 years this was a one time opportunity to do just that.
The beautiful thing about the Leave vote is that it has forced so many people to show their true colours. I think this will be great for politics.
For years we were ruled by a group of people from the three main parties who agreed with each other but exaggerated minute differences over details in order to look like they weren't all the same. People who disagreed had nowhere to go and no one spoke for them. Now the old rulers openly admit they are all the same, in parliament and on derivatives like PB. Politics needed to be shaken up, and it has been. The closed shop is open!!
In the 80's Heseltine was largely concerned about Heseltine. His conversion to the Tory left was seen as arriviste by genuine Tory one nation activists of that time of which I was one (folly of youth!). His move to oust Thatcher was the action of someone whose ambitions had been thwarted. Nowadays he is principally on a self justificatory mission. Naturally he is relishing the belated attention the fawning media are giving him - his turn on BBC breakfast was nauseating as was the toadying nature of his interviewer Dan Walker.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
Brexit will only be a 'disaster' if the EU goes out of their way to cause harm to us, in effect declare war on us for leaving.
IF that happens (possible, but hopefully not), then it will be a necessary step to get away from such an appalling organisation. In the end, we will be better off than if we'd chosen to surrender today.
But you Leavers said that wouldn't happen. That the likes of BMW and Mercedes-Benz would force the EU to give us a good deal.
I did point out the silliness of the Leave position.
Some of you Leavers need to sack up and stop blaming the problems of this country on Jonny Foreigner.
I suspect many of the problems from the EU were caused by UK politicians and civil servants, and the subservient and rule-gold-plating way they dealt with them. Also the expansion of immigration to rub people's nose in diversity. All UK decisions, but using the EU as a covering excuse.
Hence the EU was blamed via Brexit.
Trying to put a straw man argument of "yous all blaming the foreners" doesn't improve your case.
Remain means the effective death of the UK as a nation state. Now that would be a disaster in my books.
So in a choice between the 'effective' death of the UK as a nation state, and the literal death of the UK as a nation state, your bloody-mindedness forces you to vote to make the latter inevitable.
'Literal death'! WTO terms? FFS! This sort of over reach / over-egging of project fear goes a long way to explaining why we voted to leave.
Is there anything that does not explain the vote to Leave? If Scotland leaves the Union, then it is the death of the UK. There is a not unreasonable chance that they may happen. Meanwhile, over in Northern Ireland parties opposing Brexit have just received 70% of the votes cast in the assembly elections and talk of reunification with Ireland is intensifying. I suspect that by UK what you actually mean is England.
Remain means the effective death of the UK as a nation state. Now that would be a disaster in my books.
So in a choice between the 'effective' death of the UK as a nation state, and the literal death of the UK as a nation state, your bloody-mindedness forces you to vote to make the latter inevitable.
'Literal death'! WTO terms? FFS! This sort of over reach / over-egging of project fear goes a long way to explaining why we voted to leave.
The economics are secondary; I'm talking about territorial integrity. If NI goes due to the threat of a hard border, what's left will no longer have any historical justification to call itself the UK.
Miss Plato, that gender-swapping video is pretty interesting. There was also a nice blog by Joe Abercrombie (fantasy author) some years ago now about swapping all the genders in Best Served Cold. The protagonist's sexual aggression (from what I remember) might have come across rather differently...
[I occasionally toy with doing either a gender swap for Sir Edric, or writing a short story about his paramour, Corkwell, just to see how it works].
On a similar theme and going back decades I remember 'Who dares wins' transporting an 'Allo Allo' sketch to a NI pub during the troubles. It was really thought provoking to watch.
If you can find the youtube for that, I'd be grateful. Very grateful.
I'm off out, but I'll look out for it tonight or tomorrow.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
Brexit will only be a 'disaster' if the EU goes out of their way to cause harm to us, in effect declare war on us for leaving.
IF that happens (possible, but hopefully not), then it will be a necessary step to get away from such an appalling organisation. In the end, we will be better off than if we'd chosen to surrender today.
But you Leavers said that wouldn't happen. That the likes of BMW and Mercedes-Benz would force the EU to give us a good deal.
I did point out the silliness of the Leave position.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
The very 'worst' Brexit deal is no deal. Which is better than a bad deal. So I'm not really seeing a 'disaster' at all. Remaining on the other hand would have meant we're irrevocably chained in to the EU, an emerging superstate (of super fragility and internal contradictions), and would essentially lose our democracy. You can't vote for a change of EU government ot change of policy. Remain means the effective death of the UK as a nation state. Now that would be a disaster in my books. As I've said ad nauseam - Remainers never ever talk about and never seem to care about democracy. Just money.
Democracy is a means through which to deliver the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people. That inevitably involves money. The idea that 23rd June 2016 was the last chance we would ever have had to consider our membership of the EU is risible.
So if the Remainiacs succeed and we somehow stay in then how long before another British government would offer us an exit referendum? Another 40 years? For those who have wanted out for 40 years this was a one time opportunity to do just that.
The Remainiacs will not get their way. But if they somehow do, our Parliamentary democracy ensures that they can be voted out and a new referendum can take place almost immediately.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
The very 'worst' Brexit deal is no deal. Which is better than a bad deal. So I'm not really seeing a 'disaster' at all. Remaining on the other hand would have meant we're irrevocably chained in to the EU, an emerging superstate (of super fragility and internal contradictions), and would essentially lose our democracy. You can't vote for a change of EU government ot change of policy. Remain means the effective death of the UK as a nation state. Now that would be a disaster in my books. As I've said ad nauseam - Remainers never ever talk about and never seem to care about democracy. Just money.
Democracy is a means through which to deliver the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people. That inevitably involves money. The idea that 23rd June 2016 was the last chance we would ever have had to consider our membership of the EU is risible.
So if the Remainiacs succeed and we somehow stay in then how long before another British government would offer us an exit referendum? Another 40 years? For those who have wanted out for 40 years this was a one time opportunity to do just that.
The Remainiacs will not get their way. But if they somehow do, our Parliamentary democracy ensures that they can be voted out and a new referendum can take place almost immediately.
F1: BBC's got an option to guess the three fastest and three slowest cars this season. Apparently, quite a few aren't picking Mercedes as top (I did). Interesting. May also indicate a shift in the markets when Ladbrokes comes back, but we'll see.
In the 80's Heseltine was largely concerned about Heseltine. His conversion to the Tory left was seen as arriviste by genuine Tory one nation activists of that time of which I was one (folly of youth!). His move to oust Thatcher was the action of someone whose ambitions had been thwarted. Nowadays he is principally on a self justificatory mission. Naturally he is relishing the belated attention the fawning media are giving him - his turn on BBC breakfast was nauseating as was the toadying nature of his interviewer Dan Walker.
Hesltine actually made me vote LEAVE.
I had a pretty big wobble mid-campaign when Jo Cox MP was murdered and Farage unveiled *that* poster but in the end I remembered seeing Heseltine on telly a few months earlier saying that in his view, it was "inevitable" that sooner or later the UK would have to join the Euro.
So I thought this was probably going to be the final chance to take back control from Heseltine and the elite and I steeled myself to to back Brexit (even with concerns over Farage and his cronies...)
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
Brexit will only be a 'disaster' if the EU goes out of their way to cause harm to us, in effect declare war on us for leaving.
IF that happens (possible, but hopefully not), then it will be a necessary step to get away from such an appalling organisation. In the end, we will be better off than if we'd chosen to surrender today.
So Brexit will only be a disaster if everyone doesn't do what we want! Good luck with that. Could never, god forbid, be the Brexiters own fault for making the wrong decision in the first place, Noooo.
If Brexit fails the "Brexiters Book of Excuses" will rival War and Peace in length if not literary merit.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
The very 'worst' Brexit deal is no deal. Which is better than a bad deal. So I'm not really seeing a 'disaster' at all. Remaining on the other hand would have meant we're irrevocably chained in to the EU, an emerging superstate (of super fragility and internal contradictions), and would essentially lose our democracy. You can't vote for a change of EU government ot change of policy. Remain means the effective death of the UK as a nation state. Now that would be a disaster in my books. As I've said ad nauseam - Remainers never ever talk about and never seem to care about democracy. Just money.
Democracy is a means through which to deliver the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people. That inevitably involves money. The idea that 23rd June 2016 was the last chance we would ever have had to consider our membership of the EU is risible.
So if the Remainiacs succeed and we somehow stay in then how long before another British government would offer us an exit referendum? Another 40 years? For those who have wanted out for 40 years this was a one time opportunity to do just that.
The Remainiacs will not get their way. But if they somehow do, our Parliamentary democracy ensures that they can be voted out and a new referendum can take place almost immediately.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
Brexit will only be a 'disaster' if the EU goes out of their way to cause harm to us, in effect declare war on us for leaving.
IF that happens (possible, but hopefully not), then it will be a necessary step to get away from such an appalling organisation. In the end, we will be better off than if we'd chosen to surrender today.
So Brexit will only be a disaster if everyone doesn't do what we want! Good luck with that. Could never, god forbid, be the Brexiters own fault for making the wrong decision in the first place, Noooo.
If Brexit fails the "Brexiters Book of Excuses" will rival War and Peace in length if not literary merit.
Your reinterpretation of what I said is not an accurate one.
If you are indeed referring to break-up of the UK as 'literal death' - than I fully accept that our decision to leave poses a risk (although very far from a certainty) that various Nats might get what they want. I had interpreted the comment as a warning that a hard Brexit would be economically the end of days - which is of course blatant gobshite.
Billy Hills "Trader" having a big think about my mahoosive budget bet.........
& Cut from £40 to £30.
Anyway Betting Post
Over 50 minutes @ 4-6. HILLS
The shortest budget speech ever was 45 minutes back in 1867.
Hammond took around 57 minutes for his autumn statement judging by Hansard 12.38 pm The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond) I commend this statement to the House. 1.29 pm John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Hammond strikes me as a man who won't rush... - I make this more of a 1-2 shot personally, DYOR of course.
The other side is at 11-10, which looks far too short to me.
Quite important, as, theoretically, he could be parachuted into North Korea if Kim Jong-un gets toppled. One suspects the lad's life expectancy isn't fantastic, however.
Edited extra bit: chap's name is Kim Han-sol, incidentally.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
Brexit will only be a 'disaster' if the EU goes out of their way to cause harm to us, in effect declare war on us for leaving.
IF that happens (possible, but hopefully not), then it will be a necessary step to get away from such an appalling organisation. In the end, we will be better off than if we'd chosen to surrender today.
But you Leavers said that wouldn't happen. That the likes of BMW and Mercedes-Benz would force the EU to give us a good deal.
I did point out the silliness of the Leave position.
Mr. Pulpstar, I'd avoid that. I agree Hammond isn't likely to rush but this is the last Spring Budget, and may be more like a Spring Statement, with a full Budget in the Autumn.
He's trying to force May to do a Brown, equivocate for ages about whether there will be an election or not. If people keep talking about it and she doesn't call one, she will seem frit (this is Corbyn's plan I think, but not what will actually happen)
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
Brexit will only be a 'disaster' if the EU goes out of their way to cause harm to us, in effect declare war on us for leaving.
IF that happens (possible, but hopefully not), then it will be a necessary step to get away from such an appalling organisation. In the end, we will be better off than if we'd chosen to surrender today.
But you Leavers said that wouldn't happen. That the likes of BMW and Mercedes-Benz would force the EU to give us a good deal.
I did point out the silliness of the Leave position.
Quite important, as, theoretically, he could be parachuted into North Korea if Kim Jong-un gets toppled. One suspects the lad's life expectancy isn't fantastic, however.
Edited extra bit: chap's name is Kim Han-sol, incidentally.
Han Sol? Wonder whether Kim Joing-Nam was a Star Wars fan?
I think at some point soon China will have to pull the plug on Kim Jong-Un?
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
The very 'worst' Brexit deal is no deal. Which is better than a bad deal. So I'm not really seeing a 'disaster' at all. Remaining on the other hand would have meant we're irrevocably chained in to the EU, an emerging superstate (of super fragility and internal contradictions), and would essentially lose our democracy. You can't vote for a change of EU government ot change of policy. Remain means the effective death of the UK as a nation state. Now that would be a disaster in my books. As I've said ad nauseam - Remainers never ever talk about and never seem to care about democracy. Just money.
Democracy is a means through which to deliver the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people. That inevitably involves money. The idea that 23rd June 2016 was the last chance we would ever have had to consider our membership of the EU is risible.
The conservative remainers in parliament have a lot of power and influence if they use it.
But they won't be Conservative Remainers in Parliament for very long if they try and use that power and influence.
Whilst I'm not surprised that Heseltine has been put out to grass, it would be a great pity if his work on regional regeneration were to falter as a result. By all accounts he has been making a significant contribution to this, working two or three days a week on it.
Mr. Pulpstar, I'd avoid that. I agree Hammond isn't likely to rush but this is the last Spring Budget, and may be more like a Spring Statement, with a full Budget in the Autumn.
If China could replace Kim Jong-un with a slightly more economically liberal (as per China) figure, they'd do it in a short. They'd keep an ally and enhance stability on their border.
Tricky, though. North Korea's been paranoid for ages, and there'd be a risk of Kim Han-sol (and his close friend, Chu Bak-ka) getting done in by one general or another.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Pulpstar, indeed, just thought it worth mentioning.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
Brexit will only be a 'disaster' if the EU goes out of their way to cause harm to us, in effect declare war on us for leaving.
IF that happens (possible, but hopefully not), then it will be a necessary step to get away from such an appalling organisation. In the end, we will be better off than if we'd chosen to surrender today.
But you Leavers said that wouldn't happen. That the likes of BMW and Mercedes-Benz would force the EU to give us a good deal.
I did point out the silliness of the Leave position.
Mr. Pulpstar, I'd avoid that. I agree Hammond isn't likely to rush but this is the last Spring Budget, and may be more like a Spring Statement, with a full Budget in the Autumn.
He's rather cleverly ensured that Britain gets two budgets in a year with an unusually unclear medium term outlook without getting the second one labelled an emergency budget. I have to say that's smart politics.
For those betting on these matters, the budget physically looks quite thin:
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
Brexit will only be a 'disaster' if the EU goes out of their way to cause harm to us, in effect declare war on us for leaving.
IF that happens (possible, but hopefully not), then it will be a necessary step to get away from such an appalling organisation. In the end, we will be better off than if we'd chosen to surrender today.
But you Leavers said that wouldn't happen. That the likes of BMW and Mercedes-Benz would force the EU to give us a good deal.
I did point out the silliness of the Leave position.
Some of you Leavers need to sack up and stop blaming the problems of this country on Jonny Foreigner.
That's right. The blame needs to be laid squarely at the feet of your heroes Cameron and Osborne.
Bless, I think the voters might blame the Leavers rather than the guys who warned this would happen.
It happened on their watch. But if it is a Leave voters vs Remain voters issue, let me ask you a question: when Iceland beat Ingerland in the kickball last year, who looked like a bunch of incompetent, self-satisfied wazzocks - the winners or the losers?
"Based on the conversations after the performances, it sounded like audience members had their beliefs rattled in a similar way. What were some themes that emerged from their responses?
We heard a lot of “now I understand how this happened”—meaning how Trump won the election. People got upset. There was a guy two rows in front of me who was literally holding his head in his hands, and the person with him was rubbing his back. The simplicity of Trump’s message became easier for people to hear when it was coming from a woman—that was a theme. One person said, “I’m just so struck by how precise Trump’s technique is.” Another—a musical theater composer, actually—said that Trump created “hummable lyrics,” while Clinton talked a lot, and everything she was was true and factual, but there was no “hook” to it. Another theme was about not liking either candidate—you know, “I wouldn’t vote for either one.”
Someone said that Jonathan Gordon [the male Hillary Clinton] was “really punchable” because of all the smiling. And a lot of people were just very surprised by the way it upended their expectations about what they thought they would feel or experience. There was someone who described Brenda King [the female Donald Trump] as his Jewish aunt who would take care of him, even though he might not like his aunt. Someone else described her as the middle school principal who you don’t like, but you know is doing good things for you...
An interesting and ingenious experiment.
Nonetheless, we need to remember that history is written by the victors, and that applies to elections as well. Think back to the aftermath of the last few British elections and referendums and recall the studies and reports and even the blog posts that show the result was clearly due to the ground game, or the party leader (for good or ill) or big data or social media or dead cats. A different factor each time.
This shows why Trump won. Does it also show why three million more Americans voted for Hillary?
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
Brexit will only be a 'disaster' if the EU goes out of their way to cause harm to us, in effect declare war on us for leaving.
IF that happens (possible, but hopefully not), then it will be a necessary step to get away from such an appalling organisation. In the end, we will be better off than if we'd chosen to surrender today.
But you Leavers said that wouldn't happen. That the likes of BMW and Mercedes-Benz would force the EU to give us a good deal.
I did point out the silliness of the Leave position.
Well, let's take a plausible scenario. The deal, reached after much agonising, involves Britain paying £23 billion and agreeing to take EU migrants for 10 years, with the right to refuse them benefits; in return, we have partially tariff-free access to the single market, with various complicatedrules to ensure that we're not a channel for other countries to avoid tariffs. The economy has turned down, people feel grumpy and dubious whether the package is really worthwhile.
Then the EU makes a surprise offer: if you really don't like the deal, we can freeze the whole process indefinitely ("stopping the clock" is a standard EU decision). We can talk about whether you can get better terms, or whether you stay on after all. Or you can have this rather crap package.
At that point, it would be odd if Parliament was not allowed to take a view.
A very interesting post from Nick, and the first time I've seen a plausible attempt to justify the amendment (those supporting it in the Lords were absolutely dire).
However, Nick's scenario is incomplete. There would actually be three options in the case he outlines:
1. Accepting the deal as negotiated 2. Cancelling the referendum result by taking the 'stay in' option. 3. Telling our EU friends where they can stuff their deal and leaving without a deal (and without paying them £23bn)
Clearly, in such a scenario parliament would and should 'take a view'. In fact, no one could stop them taking a view.
But would they really have democratic and moral legitimacy to impose option 2 on the country, in direct contradiction of the referendum result? Nick's scenario doesn't change the fact that we voted to leave.
Edit: And also, Nick's thinking, if it were replicated in the EU27, demonstrates exactly the point that the amendment could encourage them to offer us a bad deal.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
The very 'worst' Brexit deal is no deal. Which is better than a bad deal. So I'm not really seeing a 'disaster' at all. Remaining on the other hand would have meant we're irrevocably chained in to the EU, an emerging superstate (of super fragility and internal contradictions), and would essentially lose our democracy. You can't vote for a change of EU government ot change of policy. Remain means the effective death of the UK as a nation state. Now that would be a disaster in my books. As I've said ad nauseam - Remainers never ever talk about and never seem to care about democracy. Just money.
Democracy is a means through which to deliver the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people. That inevitably involves money. The idea that 23rd June 2016 was the last chance we would ever have had to consider our membership of the EU is risible.
The conservative remainers in parliament have a lot of power and influence if they use it.
But they won't be Conservative Remainers in Parliament for very long if they try and use that power and influence.
Yes very true depends if they think their belief what is best for the country outweighs their personal current career prospects.
Whilst I'm not surprised that Heseltine has been put out to grass, it would be a great pity if his work on regional regeneration were to falter as a result. By all accounts he has been making a significant contribution to this, working two or three days a week on it.
Yes having lambasted Hezza for his grandstanding I don't deny the man's preparedness to put in the hard yards. Hopefully that work will be continued. However as he has said this morning the overarching issue for him is "Europe" (not the EU of course) and as someone who clearly wants to destabilise the Brexit process he had to go.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
Brexit will only be a 'disaster' if the EU goes out of their way to cause harm to us, in effect declare war on us for leaving.
IF that happens (possible, but hopefully not), then it will be a necessary step to get away from such an appalling organisation. In the end, we will be better off than if we'd chosen to surrender today.
But you Leavers said that wouldn't happen. That the likes of BMW and Mercedes-Benz would force the EU to give us a good deal.
I did point out the silliness of the Leave position.
Some of you Leavers need to sack up and stop blaming the problems of this country on Jonny Foreigner.
That's right. The blame needs to be laid squarely at the feet of your heroes Cameron and Osborne.
Bless, I think the voters might blame the Leavers rather than the guys who warned this would happen.
Brexit - or the threat of it- so far has overwhelmingly brought benefits. It is Cameron and Osborne's mismanagement of the economy that is screwing us. Remember that much of the positive stuff Hammond will be able to do today is a result of post referendum improvements .
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
Brexit will only be a 'disaster' if the EU goes out of their way to cause harm to us, in effect declare war on us for leaving.
IF that happens (possible, but hopefully not), then it will be a necessary step to get away from such an appalling organisation. In the end, we will be better off than if we'd chosen to surrender today.
But you Leavers said that wouldn't happen. That the likes of BMW and Mercedes-Benz would force the EU to give us a good deal.
I did point out the silliness of the Leave position.
Remember pre-BREXIT when a £ was worth nearly $1.50 and you could get a litre of unleaded for less than £1.
Remember pre-Brexit referendum when our growth was crawling along the floor, tax receipts were crashing and the deficit was ballooning under Osborne? You should be thanking Leavers for helping to save the economy.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
The very 'worst' Brexit deal is no deal. Which is better than a bad deal. So I'm not really seeing a 'disaster' at all. Remaining on the other hand would have meant we're irrevocably chained in to the EU, an emerging superstate (of super fragility and internal contradictions), and would essentially lose our democracy. You can't vote for a change of EU government ot change of policy. Remain means the effective death of the UK as a nation state. Now that would be a disaster in my books. As I've said ad nauseam - Remainers never ever talk about and never seem to care about democracy. Just money.
Democracy is a means through which to deliver the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people. That inevitably involves money. The idea that 23rd June 2016 was the last chance we would ever have had to consider our membership of the EU is risible.
The conservative remainers in parliament have a lot of power and influence if they use it.
But they won't be Conservative Remainers in Parliament for very long if they try and use that power and influence.
So the Conservative party is no longer a broad church. Just a hive for true believers.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
Brexit will only be a 'disaster' if the EU goes out of their way to cause harm to us, in effect declare war on us for leaving.
IF that happens (possible, but hopefully not), then it will be a necessary step to get away from such an appalling organisation. In the end, we will be better off than if we'd chosen to surrender today.
But you Leavers said that wouldn't happen. That the likes of BMW and Mercedes-Benz would force the EU to give us a good deal.
I did point out the silliness of the Leave position.
Any remainer who would not have preferred the counterfactual of a Miliband government to the present situation is clearly 'intensely relaxed' regarding Brexit.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
The very 'worst' Brexit deal is no deal. Which is better than a bad deal. So I'm not really seeing a 'disaster' at all. Remaining on the other hand would have meant we're irrevocably chained in to the EU, an emerging superstate (of super fragility and internal contradictions), and would essentially lose our democracy. You can't vote for a change of EU government ot change of policy. Remain means the effective death of the UK as a nation state. Now that would be a disaster in my books. As I've said ad nauseam - Remainers never ever talk about and never seem to care about democracy. Just money.
Democracy is a means through which to deliver the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people. That inevitably involves money. The idea that 23rd June 2016 was the last chance we would ever have had to consider our membership of the EU is risible.
The conservative remainers in parliament have a lot of power and influence if they use it.
But they won't be Conservative Remainers in Parliament for very long if they try and use that power and influence.
So the Conservative party is no longer a broad church. Just a hive for true believers.
When the hive reject their queen it will get ugly...
Any remainer who would not have preferred the counterfactual of a Miliband government to the present situation is clearly 'intensely relaxed' regarding Brexit.
Not at all. The issue of our relationship with the EU wouldn't have gone away (and of course we wouldn't have had the advantages of Cameron's negotiation either).
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
The very 'worst' Brexit deal is no deal. Which is better than a bad deal. So I'm not really seeing a 'disaster' at all. Remaining on the other hand would have meant we're irrevocably chained in to the EU, an emerging superstate (of super fragility and internal contradictions), and would essentially lose our democracy. You can't vote for a change of EU government ot change of policy. Remain means the effective death of the UK as a nation state. Now that would be a disaster in my books. As I've said ad nauseam - Remainers never ever talk about and never seem to care about democracy. Just money.
Democracy is a means through which to deliver the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people. That inevitably involves money. The idea that 23rd June 2016 was the last chance we would ever have had to consider our membership of the EU is risible.
The conservative remainers in parliament have a lot of power and influence if they use it.
But they won't be Conservative Remainers in Parliament for very long if they try and use that power and influence.
Yes very true depends if they think their belief what is best for the country outweighs their personal current career prospects.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
Brexit will only be a 'disaster' if the EU goes out of their way to cause harm to us, in effect declare war on us for leaving.
IF that happens (possible, but hopefully not), then it will be a necessary step to get away from such an appalling organisation. In the end, we will be better off than if we'd chosen to surrender today.
But you Leavers said that wouldn't happen. That the likes of BMW and Mercedes-Benz would force the EU to give us a good deal.
I did point out the silliness of the Leave position.
Caption of picture: "England Netball's board is 90% women"
"Under a new code that comes into effect on 1 April, organisations must have a minimum of 30% women on their board, or risk losing funding."
*cough*
Edited extra bit: worth noting it emerged a few weeks ago that 'male' sports were having their funding slashed but netball (female-dominated, of course) was having millions thrown at it.
Why? Because cycling was successful getting people into it, but most cyclists are men.
I watched the BBC News until 6:30 this morning and by then they already had 2 seriously misreported stories, of which this was one.
The 'quota of 30% women' is tendentious bollocks for International Womens' Day made up by the BBC as far as I can tell.
And seems to be couched in terms of diversity for gender, and not quotas for women - which is a far more sensible idea if you *must* make the decision to impose recommendations or quotes. Imposing sexist quotas in "defence" of equality would be beyond gormless.
But Sport England did not do what the BBC claimed. And the report is explicit that these are not quotas:
"2.3 ... The targets referred to in Requirement 2.1 are explicitly targets, and not fixed quotas. The obligation on funded organisations is to demonstrably commit to working towards achieving them, and to to take all appropriate actions in order to do so."
The consideration of funding cuts is correct, however, through sensationalised.
And they do apply to "Sports", they apply to "Tier 3" Sports funded with packages of >1 million. A scoping error. There are more than 68 sports bodies in the UK that receive funding packages.
This is the BBC trying to manufacture a poor little female victims story for IWD.
The rational participation comparison would be with the population who do the sport, and to recognise that some sports are designed for particular minorities or communities. eg Fitness Classes are overwhelmingly women as is netball, vs eg fishing. A 30% expectation for able-bodied or sighted people for Goalball would be crazy, as would be men for netball. I rather suspect that the consultation creating this was ramped.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
The very 'worst' Brexit deal is no deal. Which is better than a bad deal. So I'm not really seeing a 'disaster' at all. Remaining on the other hand would have meant we're irrevocably chained in to the EU, an emerging superstate (of super fragility and internal contradictions), and would essentially lose our democracy. You can't vote for a change of EU government ot change of policy. Remain means the effective death of the UK as a nation state. Now that would be a disaster in my books. As I've said ad nauseam - Remainers never ever talk about and never seem to care about democracy. Just money.
Democracy is a means through which to deliver the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people. That inevitably involves money. The idea that 23rd June 2016 was the last chance we would ever have had to consider our membership of the EU is risible.
The conservative remainers in parliament have a lot of power and influence if they use it.
But they won't be Conservative Remainers in Parliament for very long if they try and use that power and influence.
Yes very true depends if they think their belief what is best for the country outweighs their personal current career prospects.
You don't get or like this democracy lark do you?
Ha, ha. How dare MPs do what they were elected to do, eh? How very Corbynista of you.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
The very 'worst' Brexit deal is no deal. Which is better than a bad deal. So I'm not really seeing a 'disaster' at all. Remaining on the other hand would have meant we're irrevocably chained in to the EU, an emerging superstate (of super fragility and internal contradictions), and would essentially lose our democracy. You can't vote for a change of EU government ot change of policy. Remain means the effective death of the UK as a nation state. Now that would be a disaster in my books. As I've said ad nauseam - Remainers never ever talk about and never seem to care about democracy. Just money.
Democracy is a means through which to deliver the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people. That inevitably involves money. The idea that 23rd June 2016 was the last chance we would ever have had to consider our membership of the EU is risible.
The conservative remainers in parliament have a lot of power and influence if they use it.
But they won't be Conservative Remainers in Parliament for very long if they try and use that power and influence.
Yes very true depends if they think their belief what is best for the country outweighs their personal current career prospects.
You don't get or like this democracy lark do you?
Ha, ha. How dare MPs do what they were elected to do, eh? How very Corbynista of you.
I think Yorkcity's implication was they should block it altogether. Happy to be corrected by him/her if that's not the case.
the people didn't vote for the process to be blocked
The process is not being blocked, it is being defined.
Isn't giving Parliament a genuine say meant to be "taking back control?"
Parliament referred this decision to the people , now they are trying to ignore the people because they didn't like the answer and are now trying bring us by machievellian means back under the control of Undemocratic Brussels. Oh, and by the way the democtratically elected commons chamber rejected this amendment for a meaningful vote, its just the unelected,outmoded, antiquarian gentry in the Lords who aren't accountable to the people and certainly not a democratic chamber (109 LibDem Lords / 8 MP's??? for example not to mention the hereditary peers)
Any remainer who would not have preferred the counterfactual of a Miliband government to the present situation is clearly 'intensely relaxed' regarding Brexit.
Not at all. The issue of our relationship with the EU wouldn't have gone away (and of course we wouldn't have had the advantages of Cameron's negotiation either).
You must surely be asking yourself why, with some of the lunatics currently taking over the asylum.
If I can cope with IDS being party leader, I can cope with Mrs May being leader.
Those of us representing the libertarian, free trade, one nation conservatism are staying and fighting the good fight.
Plus George Osborne will need us when he becomes leader/PM in the next few years.
To quit now would be positively French.
Osborne is swanning around giving expensive speeches to his City mates, rather than taking May's rather good advice of getting to know the party and/or learning some emotional intelligence. Indications are he doesn't want to be leader. At least pin your hopes on someone like Hammond.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
The very 'worst' Brexit deal is no deal. Which is better than a bad deal. So I'm not really seeing a 'disaster' at all. Remaining on the other hand would have meant we're irrevocably chained in to the EU, an emerging superstate (of super fragility and internal contradictions), and would essentially lose our democracy. You can't vote for a change of EU government ot change of policy. Remain means the effective death of the UK as a nation state. Now that would be a disaster in my books. As I've said ad nauseam - Remainers never ever talk about and never seem to care about democracy. Just money.
Democracy is a means through which to deliver the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people. That inevitably involves money. The idea that 23rd June 2016 was the last chance we would ever have had to consider our membership of the EU is risible.
The conservative remainers in parliament have a lot of power and influence if they use it.
But they won't be Conservative Remainers in Parliament for very long if they try and use that power and influence.
Yes very true depends if they think their belief what is best for the country outweighs their personal current career prospects.
You don't get or like this democracy lark do you?
Ha, ha. How dare MPs do what they were elected to do, eh? How very Corbynista of you.
When MPs return the power to make a specific decision to the people, they lose the right to overrule that decision.
If they are that insistent that the outcome they believe in should be implemented then they should never have put the question to the people.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
The very 'worst' Brexit deal is no deal. Which is better than a bad deal. So I'm not really seeing a 'disaster' at all. Remaining on the other hand would have meant we're irrevocably chained in to the EU, an emerging superstate (of super fragility and internal contradictions), and would essentially lose our democracy. You can't vote for a change of EU government ot change of policy. Remain means the effective death of the UK as a nation state. Now that would be a disaster in my books. As I've said ad nauseam - Remainers never ever talk about and never seem to care about democracy. Just money.
Democracy is a means through which to deliver the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people. That inevitably involves money. The idea that 23rd June 2016 was the last chance we would ever have had to consider our membership of the EU is risible.
The conservative remainers in parliament have a lot of power and influence if they use it.
But they won't be Conservative Remainers in Parliament for very long if they try and use that power and influence.
Yes very true depends if they think their belief what is best for the country outweighs their personal current career prospects.
You don't get or like this democracy lark do you?
Ha, ha. How dare MPs do what they were elected to do, eh? How very Corbynista of you.
When MPs return the power to make a specific decision to the people, they lose the right to overrule that decision.
If they are that insistent that the outcome they believe in should be implemented then they should never have put the question to the people.
The reporting sounds horrendously inaccurate and politically motivated. Not, as Jon Sopel claimed when in a press conference with Trump, free, fair and impartial.
You must surely be asking yourself why, with some of the lunatics currently taking over the asylum.
If I can cope with IDS being party leader, I can cope with Mrs May being leader.
Those of us representing the libertarian, free trade, one nation conservatism are staying and fighting the good fight.
Plus George Osborne will need us when he becomes leader/PM in the next few years.
To quit now would be positively French.
Osborne is swanning around giving expensive speeches to his City mates, rather than taking May's rather good advice of getting to know the party and/or learning some emotional intelligence. Indications are he doesn't want to be leader. At least pin your hopes on someone like Hammond.
You know he is capable of multitasking.
It's not his fault so many people want to pay six figure amounts to hear him speak.
You must surely be asking yourself why, with some of the lunatics currently taking over the asylum.
If I can cope with IDS being party leader, I can cope with Mrs May being leader.
Those of us representing the libertarian, free trade, one nation conservatism are staying and fighting the good fight.
Plus George Osborne will need us when he becomes leader/PM in the next few years.
To quit now would be positively French.
You certainly don't represent either Libertarian nor free trade conservatism.
The party you were recently a member of opposed same sex marriage, whilst my then and current party leader backed it.
As for free trade is the best thing in the world, I endorse it whole heartedly.
Free trade on a level playing field is great. Free trade with parasitical nations like Germany and China is not good for anyone except Germany and China.
The reporting sounds horrendously inaccurate and politically motivated. Not, as Jon Sopel claimed when in a press conference with Trump, free, fair and impartial.
The press simply must be fundamentally dishonest because fair, balanced and accurate reporting wouldn't shift nearly as many papers or get as many views.
the people didn't vote for the process to be blocked
The process is not being blocked, it is being defined.
Isn't giving Parliament a genuine say meant to be "taking back control?"
Parliament referred this decision to the people , now they are trying to ignore the people because they didn't like the answer and are now trying bring us by machievellian means back under the control of Undemocratic Brussels. Oh, and by the way the democtratically elected commons chamber rejected this amendment for a meaningful vote, its just the unelected,outmoded, antiquarian gentry in the Lords who aren't accountable to the people and certainly not a democratic chamber (109 LibDem Lords / 8 MP's??? for example not to mention the hereditary peers)
The LibDems got 8% of the vote in 2015 and just under 1.25% of the seats in the House of Commons.
The party you were recently a member of opposed same sex marriage, whilst my then and current party leader backed it.
As for free trade is the best thing in the world, I endorse it whole heartedly.
In the absence of Osborne from the scene, Phil Hammond is a sound alternative. He'll continue his great predecessor's good work, albeit in the more difficult environment of Brexit.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
The very 'worst' Brexit deal is no deal. Which is better than a bad deal. So I'm not really seeing a 'disaster' at all. Remaining on the other hand would have meant we're irrevocably chained in to the EU, an emerging superstate (of super fragility and internal contradictions), and would essentially lose our democracy. You can't vote for a change of EU government ot change of policy. Remain means the effective death of the UK as a nation state. Now that would be a disaster in my books. As I've said ad nauseam - Remainers never ever talk about and never seem to care about democracy. Just money.
Democracy is a means through which to deliver the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people. That inevitably involves money. The idea that 23rd June 2016 was the last chance we would ever have had to consider our membership of the EU is risible.
The conservative remainers in parliament have a lot of power and influence if they use it.
But they won't be Conservative Remainers in Parliament for very long if they try and use that power and influence.
Yes very true depends if they think their belief what is best for the country outweighs their personal current career prospects.
You don't get or like this democracy lark do you?
Ha, ha. How dare MPs do what they were elected to do, eh? How very Corbynista of you.
When MPs return the power to make a specific decision to the people, they lose the right to overrule that decision.
If they are that insistent that the outcome they believe in should be implemented then they should never have put the question to the people.
Exactly!
Remainers trying to interpret the LEAVE decision in video form
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
The very 'worst' Brexit deal is no deal. Which is better than a bad deal. So I'm not really seeing a 'disaster' at all. Remaining on the other hand would have meant we're irrevocably chained in to the EU, an emerging superstate (of super fragility and internal contradictions), and would essentially lose our democracy. You can't vote for a change of EU government ot change of policy. Remain means the effective death of the UK as a nation state. Now that would be a disaster in my books. As I've said ad nauseam - Remainers never ever talk about and never seem to care about democracy. Just money.
Democracy is a means through which to deliver the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people. That inevitably involves money. The idea that 23rd June 2016 was the last chance we would ever have had to consider our membership of the EU is risible.
The conservative remainers in parliament have a lot of power and influence if they use it.
But they won't be Conservative Remainers in Parliament for very long if they try and use that power and influence.
Yes very true depends if they think their belief what is best for the country outweighs their personal current career prospects.
You don't get or like this democracy lark do you?
Ha, ha. How dare MPs do what they were elected to do, eh? How very Corbynista of you.
When MPs return the power to make a specific decision to the people, they lose the right to overrule that decision.
If they are that insistent that the outcome they believe in should be implemented then they should never have put the question to the people.
Isn't that up to the voters to decide? If only we had elections where that were possible.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
The very 'worst' Brexit deal is no deal. Which is better than a bad deal. So I'm not really seeing a 'disaster' at all. Remaining on the other hand would have meant we're irrevocably chained in to the EU, an emerging superstate (of super fragility and internal contradictions), and would essentially lose our democracy. You can't vote for a change of EU government ot change of policy. Remain means the effective death of the UK as a nation state. Now that would be a disaster in my books. As I've said ad nauseam - Remainers never ever talk about and never seem to care about democracy. Just money.
Democracy is a means through which to deliver the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people. That inevitably involves money. The idea that 23rd June 2016 was the last chance we would ever have had to consider our membership of the EU is risible.
The conservative remainers in parliament have a lot of power and influence if they use it.
But they won't be Conservative Remainers in Parliament for very long if they try and use that power and influence.
Yes very true depends if they think their belief what is best for the country outweighs their personal current career prospects.
You don't get or like this democracy lark do you?
Ha, ha. How dare MPs do what they were elected to do, eh? How very Corbynista of you.
I think Yorkcity's implication was they should block it altogether. Happy to be corrected by him/her if that's not the case.
No not to block it altogether but to use their influence to get the best deal regarding access to single market.I agree we should leave the EU as the result of the referendum.
The party you were recently a member of opposed same sex marriage, whilst my then and current party leader backed it.
As for free trade is the best thing in the world, I endorse it whole heartedly.
In the absence of Osborne from the scene, Phil Hammond is a sound alternative. He'll continue his great predecessor's good work, albeit in the more difficult environment of Brexit.
He's always looked like a chancellor to me, astonishing to think I got 14-1 on him getting the gig after Osborne.
I'm hoping he delivers this speech with the care and gravitas it deserves.
Well, let's take a plausible scenario. The deal, reached after much agonising, involves Britain paying £23 billion and agreeing to take EU migrants for 10 years, with the right to refuse them benefits; in return, we have partially tariff-free access to the single market, with various complicatedrules to ensure that we're not a channel for other countries to avoid tariffs. The economy has turned down, people feel grumpy and dubious whether the package is really worthwhile.
Then the EU makes a surprise offer: if you really don't like the deal, we can freeze the whole process indefinitely ("stopping the clock" is a standard EU decision). We can talk about whether you can get better terms, or whether you stay on after all. Or you can have this rather crap package.
At that point, it would be odd if Parliament was not allowed to take a view.
A very interesting post from Nick, and the first time I've seen a plausible attempt to justify the amendment (those supporting it in the Lords were absolutely dire).
However, Nick's scenario is incomplete. There would actually be three options in the case he outlines:
1. Accepting the deal as negotiated 2. Cancelling the referendum result by taking the 'stay in' option. 3. Telling our EU friends where they can stuff their deal and leaving without a deal (and without paying them £23bn)
Clearly, in such a scenario parliament would and should 'take a view'. In fact, no one could stop them taking a view.
But would they really have democratic and moral legitimacy to impose option 2 on the country, in direct contradiction of the referendum result? Nick's scenario doesn't change the fact that we voted to leave.
Edit: And also, Nick's thinking, if it were replicated in the EU27, demonstrates exactly the point that the amendment could encourage them to offer us a bad deal.
The "Edit" is the killer fact. If our negotiating stance is "we'll leave unless we're given a really crap offer", then - guess what - we'll end up with a really crap offer.
Increasingly I feel that we'll crash out without a deal in two years time, because Theresa May won't be able to agree to the terms on offer. Three years later we'll lose a case in the International Court of Arbitration where we end up making substantial payments to the EU.
I've always felt that it is best to think of Brexit as a process, and that that process is best spread out over a considerable period of time. Sadly, I appear to be in a minority.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
Democracy is a means through which to deliver the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people. That inevitably involves money. The idea that 23rd June 2016 was the last chance we would ever have had to consider our membership of the EU is risible.
The conservative remainers in parliament have a lot of power and influence if they use it.
But they won't be Conservative Remainers in Parliament for very long if they try and use that power and influence.
Yes very true depends if they think their belief what is best for the country outweighs their personal current career prospects.
You don't get or like this democracy lark do you?
Ha, ha. How dare MPs do what they were elected to do, eh? How very Corbynista of you.
When MPs return the power to make a specific decision to the people, they lose the right to overrule that decision.
If they are that insistent that the outcome they believe in should be implemented then they should never have put the question to the people.
Isn't that up to the voters to decide? If only we had elections where that were possible.
Why should the opposition get a vote on our trade deal with a foreign country? That is why we elect governments, and we elected (neither you & I, but the country) a Conservative majority. Now it is for them to interpret the referendum result as they please. If enough people dislike it, they c an vote someone else in, and they can reverse it.
Remainers may well win in the end, why not show some patience and see how it develops?
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
The very 'worst' Brexit deal is no deal. Which is better than a bad deal. So I'm not really seeing a 'disaster' at all. Remaining on the other hand would have meant we're irrevocably chained in to the EU, an emerging superstate (of super fragility and internal contradictions), and would essentially lose our democracy. You can't vote for a change of EU government ot change of policy. Remain means the effective death of the UK as a nation state. Now that would be a disaster in my books. As I've said ad nauseam - Remainers never ever talk about and never seem to care about democracy. Just money.
Democracy is a means through which to deliver the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people. That inevitably involves money. The idea that 23rd June 2016 was the last chance we would ever have had to consider our membership of the EU is risible.
The conservative remainers in parliament have a lot of power and influence if they use it.
But they won't be Conservative Remainers in Parliament for very long if they try and use that power and influence.
Yes very true depends if they think their belief what is best for the country outweighs their personal current career prospects.
You don't get or like this democracy lark do you?
Ha, ha. How dare MPs do what they were elected to do, eh? How very Corbynista of you.
When MPs return the power to make a specific decision to the people, they lose the right to overrule that decision.
If they are that insistent that the outcome they believe in should be implemented then they should never have put the question to the people.
Isn't that up to the voters to decide? If only we had elections where that were possible.
Why should the opposition get a vote on our trade deal with a foreign country?
Eh? I am sure you did not mean that to sound like it does sound.
the people didn't vote for the process to be blocked
The process is not being blocked, it is being defined.
Isn't giving Parliament a genuine say meant to be "taking back control?"
Parliament referred this decision to the people , now they are trying to ignore the people because they didn't like the answer and are now trying bring us by machievellian means back under the control of Undemocratic Brussels. Oh, and by the way the democtratically elected commons chamber rejected this amendment for a meaningful vote, its just the unelected,outmoded, antiquarian gentry in the Lords who aren't accountable to the people and certainly not a democratic chamber (109 LibDem Lords / 8 MP's??? for example not to mention the hereditary peers)
The LibDems got 8% of the vote in 2015 and just under 1.25% of the seats in the House of Commons.
last time i checked the people chose (via a democratic referendum) to stay with FPTP as the means for electing their MP's or do you want to ignore that referendum too? And BTW 8% of the Lords would give them 64 Lords not 109. And what are we doing with hereditary peers in the 21st century?
You must surely be asking yourself why, with some of the lunatics currently taking over the asylum.
If I can cope with IDS being party leader, I can cope with Mrs May being leader.
Those of us representing the libertarian, free trade, one nation conservatism are staying and fighting the good fight.
Plus George Osborne will need us when he becomes leader/PM in the next few years.
To quit now would be positively French.
You certainly don't represent either Libertarian nor free trade conservatism.
The party you were recently a member of opposed same sex marriage, whilst my then and current party leader backed it.
As for free trade is the best thing in the world, I endorse it whole heartedly.
I was talking about you specifically. You support a protectionist and centralising bloc against the democratic will of the people. You support big government and the imposition of regulation and law which bypasses Parliament and over which our elected representatives have no control. Not only are you not a Libertarian or free trader you are scarcely a supporter of democracy.
Any remainer who would not have preferred the counterfactual of a Miliband government to the present situation is clearly 'intensely relaxed' regarding Brexit.
That's simplistic. A Miliband government would have likely engaged in the EU with the intent of Blair but without the skill. The blowback from the media and public after making goodwill gestures and signing up to unwanted cooperation while getting little to nothing in return would have been significant. Miliband himself would likely have had an extremely poor approval rating (he did as LotO, which is a much easier job, PR-wise, than PM), and Labour would have leaked more votes to the still-Farage-led UKIP.
Meanwhile, the Tories would have had a leadership contest to replace Cameron, with a good chance of Brexit Boris winning.
Quite how it all would have played out is anyone's guess but it's difficult to see that there wouldn't have been a reckoning towards the back-end of this decade or the beginning of the next one, with Leave in a much stronger position than it was in 2016.
Which is to say that given what we know now, it's highly likely that Brexit would have happened one way or another, unless someone had made a convincing positive case for the EU - and the EU had engaged in enabling a convincing positive case to be made.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
Democracy is a means through which to deliver the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people. That inevitably involves money. The idea that 23rd June 2016 was the last chance we would ever have had to consider our membership of the EU is risible.
The conservative remainers in parliament have a lot of power and influence if they use it.
But they won't be Conservative Remainers in Parliament for very long if they try and use that power and influence.
Yes very true depends if they think their belief what is best for the country outweighs their personal current career prospects.
You don't get or like this democracy lark do you?
Ha, ha. How dare MPs do what they were elected to do, eh? How very Corbynista of you.
When MPs return the power to make a specific decision to the people, they lose the right to overrule that decision.
If they are that insistent that the outcome they believe in should be implemented then they should never have put the question to the people.
Isn't that up to the voters to decide? If only we had elections where that were possible.
Why should the opposition get a vote on our trade deal with a foreign country?
Eh? I am sure you did not mean that to sound like it does sound.
I meant it to sound like there is no reason that Labour, the SNP, UKIP, or Lib Dem MPs have a right to decide on our deal with foreign trading blocs or countries.
When MPs return the power to make a specific decision to the people, they lose the right to overrule that decision.
Referendum results that have been overturned:
* renaming Leningrad as St Petersburg (the population voted against) * an economic reform package in Poland (early 1990s; can't recall the details) * the change to driving on the right in Sweden
The third is my favourite. What you have to know is that cars in Sweden had the driver's seat on the left and they were driven on the left. There was a referendum on whether the country should switch to driving on the right. And the people voted against. They wanted to stay as they were, so they could keep a close eye on the kerb as they drove along! The government said don't be so silly - and introduced the change regardless. Rightly.
Well, let's take a plausible scenario. The deal, reached after much agonising, involves Britain paying £23 billion and agreeing to take EU migrants for 10 years, with the right to refuse them benefits; in return, we have partially tariff-free access to the single market, with various complicatedrules to ensure that we're not a channel for other countries to avoid tariffs. The economy has turned down, people feel grumpy and dubious whether the package is really worthwhile.
Then the EU makes a surprise offer: if you really don't like the deal, we can freeze the whole process indefinitely ("stopping the clock" is a standard EU decision). We can talk about whether you can get better terms, or whether you stay on after all. Or you can have this rather crap package.
At that point, it would be odd if Parliament was not allowed to take a view.
A very interesting post from Nick, and the first time I've seen a plausible attempt to justify the amendment (those supporting it in the Lords were absolutely dire).
However, Nick's scenario is incomplete. There would actually be three options in the case he outlines:
1. Accepting the deal as negotiated 2. Cancelling the referendum result by taking the 'stay in' option. 3. Telling our EU friends where they can stuff their deal and leaving without a deal (and without paying them £23bn)
Clearly, in such a scenario parliament would and should 'take a view'. In fact, no one could stop them taking a view.
But would they really have democratic and moral legitimacy to impose option 2 on the country, in direct contradiction of the referendum result? Nick's scenario doesn't change the fact that we voted to leave.
Edit: And also, Nick's thinking, if it were replicated in the EU27, demonstrates exactly the point that the amendment could encourage them to offer us a bad deal.
The "Edit" is the killer fact. If our negotiating stance is "we'll leave unless we're given a really crap offer", then - guess what - we'll end up with a really crap offer.
Increasingly I feel that we'll crash out without a deal in two years time, because Theresa May won't be able to agree to the terms on offer. Three years later we'll lose a case in the International Court of Arbitration where we end up making substantial payments to the EU.
I've always felt that it is best to think of Brexit as a process, and that that process is best spread out over a considerable period of time. Sadly, I appear to be in a minority.
But that does not make you wrong. The ideologically-driven cliff-edge agreement that Theresa May seems to prefer to a deal that may involved any compromise on immigration has the potential to do immense long-term harm to this country's economy and institutions.
I've always felt that it is best to think of Brexit as a process, and that that process is best spread out over a considerable period of time. Sadly, I appear to be in a minority.
It started in 1992, with the opt-out from the Euro.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
Democracy is a means through which to deliver the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people. That inevitably involves money. The idea that 23rd June 2016 was the last chance we would ever have had to consider our membership of the EU is risible.
The conservative remainers in parliament have a lot of power and influence if they use it.
But they won't be Conservative Remainers in Parliament for very long if they try and use that power and influence.
Yes very true depends if they think their belief what is best for the country outweighs their personal current career prospects.
You don't get or like this democracy lark do you?
Ha, ha. How dare MPs do what they were elected to do, eh? How very Corbynista of you.
When MPs return the power to make a specific decision to the people, they lose the right to overrule that decision.
If they are that insistent that the outcome they believe in should be implemented then they should never have put the question to the people.
Isn't that up to the voters to decide? If only we had elections where that were possible.
Why should the opposition get a vote on our trade deal with a foreign country?
Eh? I am sure you did not mean that to sound like it does sound.
I meant it to sound like there is no reason that Labour, the SNP, UKIP, or Lib Dem MPs have a right to decide on our deal with foreign trading blocs or countries.
Got it - you are opposed to Parliamentary democracy, then.
That said, the Brexit deal is not a trade deal. It is about removing rights from both UK and EU citizens.
Comments
We're not used to the idea of a non reversable referendum. I watched the result in an Italian cafe which had more nationalities in it that night than the UN. Everyone was confident and enjoying the party. The result never seemed to be in doubt until it was.
I haven't seen the stage play of Breakfast at Tiffany's but a little unfair to expect an Audrey Hepburn performance from Pixie Lott!
Then the EU makes a surprise offer: if you really don't like the deal, we can freeze the whole process indefinitely ("stopping the clock" is a standard EU decision). We can talk about whether you can get better terms, or whether you stay on after all. Or you can have this rather crap package.
At that point, it would be odd if Parliament was not allowed to take a view.
For years we were ruled by a group of people from the three main parties who agreed with each other but exaggerated minute differences over details in order to look like they weren't all the same. People who disagreed had nowhere to go and no one spoke for them. Now the old rulers openly admit they are all the same, in parliament and on derivatives like PB. Politics needed to be shaken up, and it has been. The closed shop is open!!
I suspect many of the problems from the EU were caused by UK politicians and civil servants, and the subservient and rule-gold-plating way they dealt with them. Also the expansion of immigration to rub people's nose in diversity. All UK decisions, but using the EU as a covering excuse.
Hence the EU was blamed via Brexit.
Trying to put a straw man argument of "yous all blaming the foreners" doesn't improve your case.
A few of my conservative friends say they regret voting for Cameron...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39193115
I had a pretty big wobble mid-campaign when Jo Cox MP was murdered and Farage unveiled *that* poster but in the end I remembered seeing Heseltine on telly a few months earlier saying that in his view, it was "inevitable" that sooner or later the UK would have to join the Euro.
So I thought this was probably going to be the final chance to take back control from Heseltine and the elite and I steeled myself to to back Brexit (even with concerns over Farage and his cronies...)
So Brexit will only be a disaster if everyone doesn't do what we want! Good luck with that. Could never, god forbid, be the Brexiters own fault for making the wrong decision in the first place, Noooo.
If Brexit fails the "Brexiters Book of Excuses" will rival War and Peace in length if not literary merit.
Your reinterpretation of what I said is not an accurate one.
If you are indeed referring to break-up of the UK as 'literal death' - than I fully accept that our decision to leave poses a risk (although very far from a certainty) that various Nats might get what they want.
I had interpreted the comment as a warning that a hard Brexit would be economically the end of days - which is of course blatant gobshite.
& Cut from £40 to £30.
Anyway Betting Post
Over 50 minutes @ 4-6. HILLS
The shortest budget speech ever was 45 minutes back in 1867.
Hammond took around 57 minutes for his autumn statement judging by Hansard 12.38 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond) I commend this statement to the House. 1.29 pm
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Hammond strikes me as a man who won't rush... - I make this more of a 1-2 shot personally, DYOR of course.
The other side is at 11-10, which looks far too short to me.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39202424
Quite important, as, theoretically, he could be parachuted into North Korea if Kim Jong-un gets toppled. One suspects the lad's life expectancy isn't fantastic, however.
Edited extra bit: chap's name is Kim Han-sol, incidentally.
A Lab/SNP government would have been disastrous for the UK.
I think at some point soon China will have to pull the plug on Kim Jong-Un?
If China could replace Kim Jong-un with a slightly more economically liberal (as per China) figure, they'd do it in a short. They'd keep an ally and enhance stability on their border.
Tricky, though. North Korea's been paranoid for ages, and there'd be a risk of Kim Han-sol (and his close friend, Chu Bak-ka) getting done in by one general or another.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Pulpstar, indeed, just thought it worth mentioning.
Currently prices seem to be about half-way between highest and lowest points:
http://www.racfoundation.org/data/uk-pump-prices-over-time
He sets the o/u line at 1-2, 6-4 @ 60 minutes.
But we haven't left yet
For those betting on these matters, the budget physically looks quite thin:
https://twitter.com/PHammondMP/status/839424866348642305
Hope you are feeling better?
Nonetheless, we need to remember that history is written by the victors, and that applies to elections as well. Think back to the aftermath of the last few British elections and referendums and recall the studies and reports and even the blog posts that show the result was clearly due to the ground game, or the party leader (for good or ill) or big data or social media or dead cats. A different factor each time.
This shows why Trump won. Does it also show why three million more Americans voted for Hillary?
However, Nick's scenario is incomplete. There would actually be three options in the case he outlines:
1. Accepting the deal as negotiated
2. Cancelling the referendum result by taking the 'stay in' option.
3. Telling our EU friends where they can stuff their deal and leaving without a deal (and without paying them £23bn)
Clearly, in such a scenario parliament would and should 'take a view'. In fact, no one could stop them taking a view.
But would they really have democratic and moral legitimacy to impose option 2 on the country, in direct contradiction of the referendum result? Nick's scenario doesn't change the fact that we voted to leave.
Edit: And also, Nick's thinking, if it were replicated in the EU27, demonstrates exactly the point that the amendment could encourage them to offer us a bad deal.
http://www.racfoundation.org/data/uk-pump-prices-over-time
Petrol not below 100p since 2009.
Current price = 2008 price!
https://twitter.com/stephenpollard/status/839427670333063168
Those of us representing the libertarian, free trade, one nation conservatism are staying and fighting the good fight.
Plus George Osborne will need us when he becomes leader/PM in the next few years.
To quit now would be positively French.
The 'quota of 30% women' is tendentious bollocks for International Womens' Day made up by the BBC as far as I can tell.
The Code of Governance is here:
https://www.sportengland.org/media/11193/a_code_for_sports_governance.pdf
And seems to be couched in terms of diversity for gender, and not quotas for women - which is a far more sensible idea if you *must* make the decision to impose recommendations or quotes. Imposing sexist quotas in "defence" of equality would be beyond gormless.
But Sport England did not do what the BBC claimed. And the report is explicit that these are not quotas:
"2.3 ... The targets referred to in Requirement 2.1 are explicitly targets, and not fixed quotas. The obligation on funded organisations is to demonstrably commit to working towards achieving them, and to to take all appropriate actions in order to do so."
The consideration of funding cuts is correct, however, through sensationalised.
And they do apply to "Sports", they apply to "Tier 3" Sports funded with packages of >1 million. A scoping error. There are more than 68 sports bodies in the UK that receive funding packages.
This is the BBC trying to manufacture a poor little female victims story for IWD.
The rational participation comparison would be with the population who do the sport, and to recognise that some sports are designed for particular minorities or communities. eg Fitness Classes are overwhelmingly women as is netball, vs eg fishing. A 30% expectation for able-bodied or sighted people for Goalball would be crazy, as would be men for netball. I rather suspect that the consultation creating this was ramped.
The process is not being blocked, it is being defined.
Isn't giving Parliament a genuine say meant to be "taking back control?"
Parliament referred this decision to the people , now they are trying to ignore the people because they didn't like the answer and are now trying bring us by machievellian means back under the control of Undemocratic Brussels. Oh, and by the way the democtratically elected commons chamber rejected this amendment for a meaningful vote, its just the unelected,outmoded, antiquarian gentry in the Lords who aren't accountable to the people and certainly not a democratic chamber (109 LibDem Lords / 8 MP's??? for example not to mention the hereditary peers)
If they are that insistent that the outcome they believe in should be implemented then they should never have put the question to the people.
The reporting sounds horrendously inaccurate and politically motivated. Not, as Jon Sopel claimed when in a press conference with Trump, free, fair and impartial.
As for free trade is the best thing in the world, I endorse it whole heartedly.
It's not his fault so many people want to pay six figure amounts to hear him speak.
Isn't giving Parliament a genuine say meant to be "taking back control?"
Parliament referred this decision to the people , now they are trying to ignore the people because they didn't like the answer and are now trying bring us by machievellian means back under the control of Undemocratic Brussels. Oh, and by the way the democtratically elected commons chamber rejected this amendment for a meaningful vote, its just the unelected,outmoded, antiquarian gentry in the Lords who aren't accountable to the people and certainly not a democratic chamber (109 LibDem Lords / 8 MP's??? for example not to mention the hereditary peers)
The LibDems got 8% of the vote in 2015 and just under 1.25% of the seats in the House of Commons.
Remainers trying to interpret the LEAVE decision in video form
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbEppPN9dzY
I'm hoping he delivers this speech with the care and gravitas it deserves.
Increasingly I feel that we'll crash out without a deal in two years time, because Theresa May won't be able to agree to the terms on offer. Three years later we'll lose a case in the International Court of Arbitration where we end up making substantial payments to the EU.
I've always felt that it is best to think of Brexit as a process, and that that process is best spread out over a considerable period of time. Sadly, I appear to be in a minority.
Remainers may well win in the end, why not show some patience and see how it develops?
And, yes, he will deliver his speech with gravitas. In that respect he may be better than Osborne, although I'll miss Osborne's sly jokes.
Parliament referred this decision to the people , now they are trying to ignore the people because they didn't like the answer and are now trying bring us by machievellian means back under the control of Undemocratic Brussels. Oh, and by the way the democtratically elected commons chamber rejected this amendment for a meaningful vote, its just the unelected,outmoded, antiquarian gentry in the Lords who aren't accountable to the people and certainly not a democratic chamber (109 LibDem Lords / 8 MP's??? for example not to mention the hereditary peers)
The LibDems got 8% of the vote in 2015 and just under 1.25% of the seats in the House of Commons.
last time i checked the people chose (via a democratic referendum) to stay with FPTP as the means for electing their MP's or do you want to ignore that referendum too? And BTW 8% of the Lords would give them 64 Lords not 109. And what are we doing with hereditary peers in the 21st century?
Meanwhile, the Tories would have had a leadership contest to replace Cameron, with a good chance of Brexit Boris winning.
Quite how it all would have played out is anyone's guess but it's difficult to see that there wouldn't have been a reckoning towards the back-end of this decade or the beginning of the next one, with Leave in a much stronger position than it was in 2016.
Which is to say that given what we know now, it's highly likely that Brexit would have happened one way or another, unless someone had made a convincing positive case for the EU - and the EU had engaged in enabling a convincing positive case to be made.
* renaming Leningrad as St Petersburg (the population voted against)
* an economic reform package in Poland (early 1990s; can't recall the details)
* the change to driving on the right in Sweden
The third is my favourite. What you have to know is that cars in Sweden had the driver's seat on the left and they were driven on the left. There was a referendum on whether the country should switch to driving on the right. And the people voted against. They wanted to stay as they were, so they could keep a close eye on the kerb as they drove along! The government said don't be so silly - and introduced the change regardless. Rightly.
That said, the Brexit deal is not a trade deal. It is about removing rights from both UK and EU citizens.