I'm still of the belief that Labour lost the election BECAUSE of Corbyn. The Tory campaign was a shambles, the Tory leader was a shambles, the Tory government was a shambles ...and still Labour lost
I'm not sure Andy Burnham would have inspired the same level of surge, although, clearly, he'd have adopted a much firmer position on Brexit, and there still would have been one.
If Andy Burnham, or indeed anyone other than Corbyn, had been leader of the Labour Party at the time of the referendum, then Remain would have won. The failure of Labour to campaign for Remain in any meaningful way was the single biggest factor in shifting the result to Leave, IMO.
Absolutely. Labour were planning a parallel set of Remain speeches delivered by Tone from Northern Ireland, Gord from Scotland, Neil from Wales and Jezza from England. That would have provided a copper-bottomed incentive for the faithful to turn out for Remain. Instead Jezza scuppered it, prevaricated and ended getting endorsed by Farage. What an unspeakable rotter!
The EU is negotiating how it always negotiates: bureaucratically. Since that suits it tactically, it doesn't see any reason to mix it up.
Why Leavers thought that the EU was going to be flexible and accommodating, goodness only knows.
I think they will get a nasty shock if and when it all goes wrong; they seem to be as deluded as anyone else as to the risks they are running.
Not that that is any consolation to us, of course.
Britain's best hope is that the EU comes to realise that it needs to present something that will get through the House of Commons. I don't see another route to a happy ending.
I'm still of the belief that Labour lost the election BECAUSE of Corbyn. The Tory campaign was a shambles, the Tory leader was a shambles, the Tory government was a shambles ...and still Labour lost
I'm not sure Andy Burnham would have inspired the same level of surge, although, clearly, he'd have adopted a much firmer position on Brexit, and there still would have been one.
If Andy Burnham, or indeed anyone other than Corbyn, had been leader of the Labour Party at the time of the referendum, then Remain would have won. The failure of Labour to campaign for Remain in any meaningful way was the single biggest factor in shifting the result to Leave, IMO.
It was immigration and sovereignty which lost it for Remain not lacking Andy Burnham as a key spokesman
It wasn't Andy Burnham as a key spokesman (LOL!), but Labour getting its vote out which was the missing factor.
Corbyn is expected to become prime minister...........Corbyn will no doubt continue to defy expectations.
Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.
I have voted Labour at every election for 40 years -including 2017. I continue to believe that Corbyn is a disaster. Things could turn out very differently at the next election. Even if I am wrong and he became PM, that could be even worse for Labour as a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. To those who say that Corbyn has not destroyed the Labour party, I say "give him a chance".
But that's not what a lot of the seats showed. They cut the Tory majorities in a lot of places they didn't win, and got back some seats in Scotland. And yes, he didn't do as well as Brown, but he did better than Ed Milliband ( and with a lot less of press with him and a wing of his own party against him)
And he lost seats and had Labour majorities cut too. Winning seats in Scotland makes no difference at all since the SNP would support a Labour government. Corbyn won fewer seats than Kinnock did in 1992. Labour will have to win twice as many seats next time to form a government with majority than in 2017, and the Tories will have a new leader, will have learned from their ation.
The Tories only have to lose around 20 seats to anyone and a Jeremy Corbyn led coalition becomes a realistic option.
So it is entirely possible Corbyn becomes PM with 280 MPs whilst the Tories are on 300 MPs.
The Tories also only need to win 10 seats for an overall majority
Once the main governing party starts losing seats, it is generally down hill from then on.
No leader since Heath has lost his first general election and then won his second as Corbyn will have to and he only lasted a term. Of course the Tories also increased their voteshare in 2017 even though they lost seats
That was by piling up votes in their safe seats. Yo can't criticise Corbyn for doing that and ignore May for doing the same!
May still got almost 60 more seats than Corbyn
But lost seats overall. Saying she got a higher percentage of the vote and lost seats just says to me she was piling on the vote in Tory safe seats.
You are making exactly the same mistake as the more loony Brexiteers made before the referendum: assuming that the UK can unilaterally choose between a range of options, none of which are actually on offer.
This really shouldn't need explaining, but the degree of delusion is quite remarkable.
It's rare I agree with you, Richard, but that's where I am as well. The foolish notion being perpetrated by Tim Farron and now Vince Cable that somehow by voting down any A50 Treaty we can reset the clock to 22/6/16 makes me angry as a LD member and LEAVE voter.
I do think if the clock is running down and an agreement needs a few more days the A50 time can and would be extended but I think by days or a month at most.
That said, it has to be hoped the prospect of the cliff edge exercises minds more than Cameron calling an In-Out referendum did. His "nuclear" option backfired in that it didn't provoke the agreement he wanted, his bluff was called and we all know the outcome. If the EU didn't, couldn't or wouldn't do a deal then, will they do so now ?
MY concern is whether our Government really wants a deal or do they want to crash out the EU as a badge of honour so they can call an election and blame the "perfidious Europeans" ?
British negotiators have argued that issues like the Irish border are inextricably linked to both sides’ future relationship, and that making progress on one necessitates making progress on the other. The U.K. isn’t exactly wrong, said Steven Peers, a professor of law at the University of Essex. “The sequencing makes things actually technically very awkward,” he told me. “There are things we can’t discuss in advance of knowing what's going to happen in the future. It’s just not feasible to do that.”
I'm increasingly of the view that the EU isn't really interested in negotiating.
When it says the UK needs to "get serious" about negotiations, what it means is the UK accepting its terms and timetable wholesale, no questions asked, and being grateful for it.
Why Leavers thought that the EU was going to be flexible and accommodating, goodness only knows.
BMWs and prosecco sales apparently.
If that doesn't work, throw a few insults at them and talk loudly about World War 2.
I'm still of the belief that Labour lost the election BECAUSE of Corbyn. The Tory campaign was a shambles, the Tory leader was a shambles, the Tory government was a shambles ...and still Labour lost
I'm not sure Andy Burnham would have inspired the same level of surge, although, clearly, he'd have adopted a much firmer position on Brexit, and there still would have been one.
If Andy Burnham, or indeed anyone other than Corbyn, had been leader of the Labour Party at the time of the referendum, then Remain would have won. The failure of Labour to campaign for Remain in any meaningful way was the single biggest factor in shifting the result to Leave, IMO.
Absolutely. Labour were planning a parallel set of Remain speeches delivered by Tone from Northern Ireland, Gord from Scotland, Neil from Wales and Jezza from England. That would have provided a copper-bottomed incentive for the faithful to turn out for Remain. Instead Jezza scuppered it, prevaricated and ended getting endorsed by Farage. What an unspeakable rotter!
No it wouldn't as those speeches would not have resolved the immigration and sovereignty concerns of Labour Leavers
So you think the independence issue has been dealt with in Scotland - how insular you are!
To the extent that the SNP got almost 10% less than Yes got in 2014 at the general election and unlike Spain Scotland is not facing possible martial law to prevent a referendum yes
An extraordinary moment in modern Spanish history. The chief of the Catalonian police has been told by the Spanish public prosecutor's office to prevent the independence referendum called for 1st October because it has been declared illegal by Spain's constitutional court. If he refuses, the rule of law in Spain has broken down and Catalonia's regional authorities are essentially in a state of open insurrection. This could get extremely nasty.
Unless they've already squared him that's a very foolish call to make.
His job is to enforce the law. The law says the referendum should not be held. If a police chief refuses to enforce laws he does not like he is in rebellion. This is big stuff. It's not impossible that other state institutions - the army or the guardia civil - will be ordered in. That will lead to very serious civil disobedience and, in all likelihood, violence. And all the time remember - most Catalans are opposed to independence. The one way that is likely to change is if Madrid goes in too heavy-handed. The PP has already done a huge amount to advance the cause of Catalan separatism. Will it now do exactly what the separatists want once more?
That's not a gun to the PM's head, it's a gun to the UK's head.
This is exactly the scenario which could lead to a potentially catastrophic situation where we can't agree anything with the EU and crash out in utter chaos.
The election result really was the most disastrous in modern times.
The EU is run by ideologues. For now, EU (member state) leaders are letting them do the running.
You've got to remember those EU ideologues (utter maniacs like Verhofstadht) only talk to those who agree with them, and UK ultra-Remainers who egg them on. They haven't a clue what lay behind the Leave vote, and nor do they care as they totally disrespect it.
So, they are purely motivated by making an example of the UK. They think they have the UK totally over a barrel and can demand whatever they like, without having to justify or negotiate any of it, and the UK only has to fold and accept it.
Will we? Me might, on some of it, even much of it, but they run the risk politically of a giant two fingers from the UK as well with public opinion here moving behind it.
One small chink of light: if "no deal" does look likely, I'd expect EU member states to try and draw some more sanity over it, even if that's at one minute to midnight.
That could be a basic continuity deal agreed in the last 96 hours, or everyone agreeing to extend the A50 period (don't dismiss this, as the EU27 unanimously agreed the negotiating position in the first place) to give more time.
I'm still of the belief that Labour lost the election BECAUSE of Corbyn. The Tory campaign was a shambles, the Tory leader was a shambles, the Tory government was a shambles ...and still Labour lost
I'm not sure Andy Burnham would have inspired the same level of surge, although, clearly, he'd have adopted a much firmer position on Brexit, and there still would have been one.
If Andy Burnham, or indeed anyone other than Corbyn, had been leader of the Labour Party at the time of the referendum, then Remain would have won. The failure of Labour to campaign for Remain in any meaningful way was the single biggest factor in shifting the result to Leave, IMO.
It was immigration and sovereignty which lost it for Remain not lacking Andy Burnham as a key spokesman
It wasn't Andy Burnham as a key spokesman (LOL!), but Labour getting its vote out which was the missing factor.
It was still immigration and sovereignty which prevented Labour Leavers voting Remain not the turnout operation
Corbyn is expected to become prime minister...........Corbyn will no doubt continue to defy expectations.
Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.
I have voted Labour at every election for 40 years -including 2017. I continue to believe that Corbyn is a disaster. Things could turn out very differently at the next election. Even if I am wrong and he became PM, that could be even worse for Labour as a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. To those who say that Corbyn has not destroyed the Labour party, I say "give him a chance".
But that's not what a lot of the seats showed. They cut the Tory majorities in a lot of places they didn't win, and got back some seats in Scotland. And yes, he didn't do as well as Brown, but he did better than Ed Milliband ( and with a lot less of press with him and a wing of his own party against him)
And he lost seats and had Labour majorities cut earned from their ation.
The Tories only have to lose around 20 seats to anyone and a Jeremy Corbyn led coalition becomes a realistic option.
So it is entirely possible Corbyn becomes PM with 280 MPs whilst the Tories are on 300 MPs.
The Tories also only need to win 10 seats for an overall majority
Once the main governing party starts losing seats, it is generally down hill from then on.
No leader since Heath has lost his first general election and then won his second as Corbyn will have to and he only lasted a term. Of course the Tories also increased their voteshare in 2017 even though they lost seats
That was by piling up votes in their safe seats. Yo can't criticise Corbyn for doing that and ignore May for doing the same!
May still got almost 60 more seats than Corbyn
But lost seats overall. Saying she got a higher percentage of the vote and lost seats just says to me she was piling on the vote in Tory safe seats.
She won more seats than any Tory leader bar Cameron 2015 and Major 1992 in the past 25 years, they were not all Tiru safe seats
But that's not what a lot of the seats showed. They cut the Tory majorities in a lot of places they didn't win, and got back some seats in Scotland. And yes, he didn't do as well as Brown, but he did better than Ed Milliband ( and with a lot less of press with him and a wing of his own party against him)
And he lost seats and had Labour majorities cut too. Winning seats in Scotland makes no difference at all since the SNP would support a Labour government. Corbyn won fewer seats than Kinnock did in 1992. Labour will have to win twice as many seats next time to form a government with majority than in 2017, and the Tories will have a new leader, will have learned from their ation.
The Tories only have to lose around 20 seats to anyone and a Jeremy Corbyn led coalition becomes a realistic option.
So it is entirely possible Corbyn becomes PM with 280 MPs whilst the Tories are on 300 MPs.
The Tories also only need to win 10 seats for an overall majority
Once the main governing party starts losing seats, it is generally down hill from then on.
No leader since Heath has lost his first general election and then won his second as Corbyn will have to and he only lasted a term. Of course the Tories also increased their voteshare in 2017 even though they lost seats
That was by piling up votes in their safe seats. Yo can't criticise Corbyn for doing that and ignore May for doing the same!
May still got almost 60 more seats than Corbyn
But lost seats overall. Saying she got a higher percentage of the vote and lost seats just says to me she was piling on the vote in Tory safe seats.
Not true (IIRC) - she gained a lot of votes in marginals. It's just that Corbyn gained more...
The EU is negotiating how it always negotiates: bureaucratically. Since that suits it tactically, it doesn't see any reason to mix it up.
Why Leavers thought that the EU was going to be flexible and accommodating, goodness only knows.
I think they will get a nasty shock if and when it all goes wrong; they seem to be as deluded as anyone else as to the risks they are running.
Not that that is any consolation to us, of course.
That's possible.
Equally possible is that they are fully aware that delaying until the eleventh hour puts them in a stronger position to dictate terms, show a little last minute generosity, and effectively sell a deal which is far better for them than for us.
The problem is that the risks are asymmetric - and even a completely failed deal has one or two upsides for those who wish to forge a European state, whereas for us it's just several years of pain... plus the likelihood of a Corbyn government just to exacerbate matters.
Will we? Me might, on some of it, even much of it, but they run the risk politically of a giant two fingers from the UK as well with public opinion here moving behind it.
This was the reason for my highlighting the 'Brexit in name only' foreign policy paper. The UK simply cannot give a giant two fingers without doing untold damage to itself in every respect - economically, politically and diplomatically. It's not hyperbole to say that we would not be respected in the world for a very long time to come.
An extraordinary moment in modern Spanish history. The chief of the Catalonian police has been told by the Spanish public prosecutor's office to prevent the independence referendum called for 1st October because it has been declared illegal by Spain's constitutional court. If he refuses, the rule of law in Spain has broken down and Catalonia's regional authorities are essentially in a state of open insurrection. This could get extremely nasty.
Unless they've already squared him that's a very foolish call to make.
His job is to enforce the law. The law says the referendum should not be held. If a police chief refuses to enforce laws he does not like he is in rebellion. This is big stuff. It's not impossible that other state institutions - the army or the guardia civil - will be ordered in. That will lead to very serious civil disobedience and, in all likelihood, violence. And all the time remember - most Catalans are opposed to independence. The one way that is likely to change is if Madrid goes in too heavy-handed. The PP has already done a huge amount to advance the cause of Catalan separatism. Will it now do exactly what the separatists want once more?
I agree - my point was simply that making a call like this in public inflames things.
If you made it privately and he refused, you solve the issue another way and then resign him later.
The EU is negotiating how it always negotiates: bureaucratically. Since that suits it tactically, it doesn't see any reason to mix it up.
Why Leavers thought that the EU was going to be flexible and accommodating, goodness only knows.
I think they will get a nasty shock if and when it all goes wrong; they seem to be as deluded as anyone else as to the risks they are running.
Not that that is any consolation to us, of course.
Britain's best hope is that the EU comes to realise that it needs to present something that will get through the House of Commons. I don't see another route to a happy ending.
That's Brexit's best hope. Britain's best hope is that Brexit becomes as popular as the Iraq war before the negotiations are finished.
Equally possible is that they are fully aware that delaying until the eleventh hour puts them in a stronger position to dictate terms, show a little last minute generosity, and effectively sell a deal which is far better for them than for us.
The problem is that the risks are asymmetric - and even a completely failed deal has one or two upsides for those who wish to forge a European state, whereas for us it's just several years of pain... plus the likelihood of a Corbyn government just to exacerbate matters.
If that is their reasoning, and it may well be, they are taking a risky approach, especially given the weakness of the British minority government. It's perfectly possible that any such deal agreed to by Theresa May would collapse in the Commons. I'm not confident that our EU friends are very good at reading British politics (the same is true in the opposite direction, of course).
An extraordinary moment in modern Spanish history. The chief of the Catalonian police has been told by the Spanish public prosecutor's office to prevent the independence referendum called for 1st October because it has been declared illegal by Spain's constitutional court. If he refuses, the rule of law in Spain has broken down and Catalonia's regional authorities are essentially in a state of open insurrection. This could get extremely nasty.
Unless they've already squared him that's a very foolish call to make.
His job is to enforce the law. The law says the referendum should not be held. If a police chief refuses to enforce laws he does not like he is in rebellion. This is big stuff. It's not impossible that other state institutions - the army or the guardia civil - will be ordered in. That will lead to very serious civil disobedience and, in all likelihood, violence. And all the time remember - most Catalans are opposed to independence. The one way that is likely to change is if Madrid goes in too heavy-handed. The PP has already done a huge amount to advance the cause of Catalan separatism. Will it now do exactly what the separatists want once more?
I agree - my point was simply that making a call like this in public inflames things.
If you made it privately and he refused, you solve the issue another way and then resign him later.
This is one of the problems: his job is in the hands of the Catalan government. He can be arrested by Spanish law enforcement and imprisoned by the courts. But the Spanish state cannot fire him. I guess a situation like this was never envisaged!
Will we? Me might, on some of it, even much of it, but they run the risk politically of a giant two fingers from the UK as well with public opinion here moving behind it.
This was the reason for my highlighting the 'Brexit in name only' foreign policy paper. The UK simply cannot give a giant two fingers without doing untold damage to itself in every respect - economically, politically and diplomatically. It's not hyperbole to say that we would not be respected in the world for a very long time to come.
The Presidents of the USA and Russia even backed Brexit
Corbyn is expected to become prime minister...........Corbyn will no doubt continue to defy expectations.
Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.
I have voted Labour at every election for 40 years -including 2017. I continue to believe that Corbyn is a disaster. Things could turn out very differently at the next election. Even if I am wrong and he became PM, that could be even worse for Labour as a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. To those who say that Corbyn has not destroyed the Labour party, I say "give him a chance".
But that's not what a lot of the seats showed. They cut the Tory majorities in a lot of places they didn't win, and got back some seats in Scotland. And yes, he didn't do as well as Brown, but he did better than Ed Milliband ( and with a lot less of press with him and a wing of his own party against him)
He actually did a bit better than Brown who only managed 258 seats to Corbyn's 262. Moreover, Corbyn performed much better in England & Wales than Brown did in 2010 in that Brown's total included over 40 seats from Scotland.
The Tories though got 318 seats to 306 in 2010, 2017 was not as good for the Tories as 2015 in terms of seats but better than 2010
Will we? Me might, on some of it, even much of it, but they run the risk politically of a giant two fingers from the UK as well with public opinion here moving behind it.
This was the reason for my highlighting the 'Brexit in name only' foreign policy paper. The UK simply cannot give a giant two fingers without doing untold damage to itself in every respect - economically, politically and diplomatically. It's not hyperbole to say that we would not be respected in the world for a very long time to come.
The EU is negotiating how it always negotiates: bureaucratically. Since that suits it tactically, it doesn't see any reason to mix it up.
Why Leavers thought that the EU was going to be flexible and accommodating, goodness only knows.
I think they will get a nasty shock if and when it all goes wrong; they seem to be as deluded as anyone else as to the risks they are running.
Not that that is any consolation to us, of course.
That's possible.
Equally possible is that they are fully aware that delaying until the eleventh hour puts them in a stronger position to dictate terms, show a little last minute generosity, and effectively sell a deal which is far better for them than for us.
The problem is that the risks are asymmetric - and even a completely failed deal has one or two upsides for those who wish to forge a European state, whereas for us it's just several years of pain... plus the likelihood of a Corbyn government just to exacerbate matters.
If the prize of no deal is ending free movement and not paying 100 billion euros to the EU why go for Corbyn who cannot make his mind up either to back that or stay in the single market anyway?
You are making exactly the same mistake as the more loony Brexiteers made before the referendum: assuming that the UK can unilaterally choose between a range of options, none of which are actually on offer.
This really shouldn't need explaining, but the degree of delusion is quite remarkable.
It's rare I agree with you, Richard, but that's where I am as well. The foolish notion being perpetrated by Tim Farron and now Vince Cable that somehow by voting down any A50 Treaty we can reset the clock to 22/6/16 makes me angry as a LD member and LEAVE voter.
I do think if the clock is running down and an agreement needs a few more days the A50 time can and would be extended but I think by days or a month at most.
That said, it has to be hoped the prospect of the cliff edge exercises minds more than Cameron calling an In-Out referendum did. His "nuclear" option backfired in that it didn't provoke the agreement he wanted, his bluff was called and we all know the outcome. If the EU didn't, couldn't or wouldn't do a deal then, will they do so now ?
MY concern is whether our Government really wants a deal or do they want to crash out the EU as a badge of honour so they can call an election and blame the "perfidious Europeans" ?
British negotiators have argued that issues like the Irish border are inextricably linked to both sides’ future relationship, and that making progress on one necessitates making progress on the other. The U.K. isn’t exactly wrong, said Steven Peers, a professor of law at the University of Essex. “The sequencing makes things actually technically very awkward,” he told me. “There are things we can’t discuss in advance of knowing what's going to happen in the future. It’s just not feasible to do that.”
I'm increasingly of the view that the EU isn't really interested in negotiating.
When it says the UK needs to "get serious" about negotiations, what it means is the UK accepting its terms and timetable wholesale, no questions asked, and being grateful for it.
The EU is negotiating how it always negotiates: bureaucratically. Since that suits it tactically, it doesn't see any reason to mix it up.
Why Leavers thought that the EU was going to be flexible and accommodating*, goodness only knows.
Corbyn is expected to become prime minister...........Corbyn will no doubt continue to defy expectations.
Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.
I have voted Labour at every election for 40 years -including 2017. I continue to believe that Corbyn is a disaster. Things could turn out very differently at the next election. Even if I am wrong and he became PM, that could be even worse for Labour as a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. To those who say that Corbyn has not destroyed the Labour party, I say "give him a chance".
But that's not what a lot of the seats showed. They cut the Tory majorities in a lot of places they didn't win, and got back some seats in Scotland. And yes, he didn't do as well as Brown, but he did better than Ed Milliband ( and with a lot less of press with him and a wing of his own party against him)
He actually did a bit better than Brown who only managed 258 seats to Corbyn's 262. Moreover, Corbyn performed much better in England & Wales than Brown did in 2010 in that Brown's total included over 40 seats from Scotland.
The Tories though got 318 seats to 306 in 2010, 2017 was not as good for the Tories as 2015 in terms of seats but better than 2010
No, it was 317 (318 includes Bercow, BBC style).
Who was elected as a Tory before he became speaker but even 317 is 11 more than 306
Equally possible is that they are fully aware that delaying until the eleventh hour puts them in a stronger position to dictate terms, show a little last minute generosity, and effectively sell a deal which is far better for them than for us.
The problem is that the risks are asymmetric - and even a completely failed deal has one or two upsides for those who wish to forge a European state, whereas for us it's just several years of pain... plus the likelihood of a Corbyn government just to exacerbate matters.
If that is their reasoning, and it may well be, they are taking a risky approach, especially given the weakness of the British minority government. It's perfectly possible that any such deal agreed to by Theresa May would collapse in the Commons. I'm not confident that our EU friends are very good at reading British politics (the same is true in the opposite direction, of course).
I'm starting to panic. We know from the Maastricht saga how easy it is for Labour to manipulate the Tory hard-Right to make things impossible for their leader. Jezza will do his utmost to engineer a disaster Brexit. Theresa will get blamed and Jezza will have what he wanted all along - a means to discredit capitalism.
I'm still of the belief that Labour lost the election BECAUSE of Corbyn. The Tory campaign was a shambles, the Tory leader was a shambles, the Tory government was a shambles ...and still Labour lost
I'm not sure Andy Burnham would have inspired the same level of surge, although, clearly, he'd have adopted a much firmer position on Brexit, and there still would have been one.
If Andy Burnham, or indeed anyone other than Corbyn, had been leader of the Labour Party at the time of the referendum, then Remain would have won. The failure of Labour to campaign for Remain in any meaningful way was the single biggest factor in shifting the result to Leave, IMO.
Probably. And, by the same token, there'd have been no early election.
The EU is negotiating how it always negotiates: bureaucratically. Since that suits it tactically, it doesn't see any reason to mix it up.
Why Leavers thought that the EU was going to be flexible and accommodating, goodness only knows.
I think they will get a nasty shock if and when it all goes wrong; they seem to be as deluded as anyone else as to the risks they are running.
Not that that is any consolation to us, of course.
That's possible.
Equally possible is that they are fully aware that delaying until the eleventh hour puts them in a stronger position to dictate terms, show a little last minute generosity, and effectively sell a deal which is far better for them than for us.
The problem is that the risks are asymmetric - and even a completely failed deal has one or two upsides for those who wish to forge a European state, whereas for us it's just several years of pain... plus the likelihood of a Corbyn government just to exacerbate matters.
There is no time for any deal other than an "off the shelf" EEA position to be agreed before 2019. The EU has said many times that it is not interested in offering a bespoke deal - even if the negotiators wanted to do so such a deal is very unlikely to get through the European Parliament and the Council not to mention the 27 other parliaments.
The UK will either crash out with no deal, accept the EEA option or revoke article 50 and stay in. Revocation seems very unlikely therefore the choice will be no deal or EEA.
An extraordinary moment in modern Spanish history. The chief of the Catalonian police has been told by the Spanish public prosecutor's office to prevent the independence referendum called for 1st October because it has been declared illegal by Spain's constitutional court. If he refuses, the rule of law in Spain has broken down and Catalonia's regional authorities are essentially in a state of open insurrection. This could get extremely nasty.
Unless they've already squared him that's a very foolish call to make.
His job is to enforce the law. The law says the referendum should not be held. If a police chief refuses to enforce laws he does not like he is in rebellion. This is big stuff. It's not impossible that other state institutions - the army or the guardia civil - will be ordered in. That will lead to very serious civil disobedience and, in all likelihood, violence. And all the time remember - most Catalans are opposed to independence. The one way that is likely to change is if Madrid goes in too heavy-handed. The PP has already done a huge amount to advance the cause of Catalan separatism. Will it now do exactly what the separatists want once more?
For the hyperbole, it's worth drawing a contrast here between how the UK Government handled both the Scottish Independence and EU referendums.
We might hurl incentive and insults at one another, but aside from some partisan flag-waving and marching that's as far as it goes, and we respect democracy.
Will we? Me might, on some of it, even much of it, but they run the risk politically of a giant two fingers from the UK as well with public opinion here moving behind it.
This was the reason for my highlighting the 'Brexit in name only' foreign policy paper. The UK simply cannot give a giant two fingers without doing untold damage to itself in every respect - economically, politically and diplomatically. It's not hyperbole to say that we would not be respected in the world for a very long time to come.
The Presidents of the USA and Russia even backed Brexit
Yup having Putin and Trump onside will definitely help the UK
The EU is negotiating how it always negotiates: bureaucratically. Since that suits it tactically, it doesn't see any reason to mix it up.
Why Leavers thought that the EU was going to be flexible and accommodating, goodness only knows.
I think they will get a nasty shock if and when it all goes wrong; they seem to be as deluded as anyone else as to the risks they are running.
Not that that is any consolation to us, of course.
That's possible.
Equally possible is that they are fully aware that delaying until the eleventh hour puts them in a stronger position to dictate terms, show a little last minute generosity, and effectively sell a deal which is far better for them than for us.
The problem is that the risks are asymmetric - and even a completely failed deal has one or two upsides for those who wish to forge a European state, whereas for us it's just several years of pain... plus the likelihood of a Corbyn government just to exacerbate matters.
There is no time for any deal other than an "off the shelf" EEA position to be agreed before 2019. The EU has said many times that it is not interested in offering a bespoke deal - even if the negotiators wanted to do so such a deal is very unlikely to get through the European Parliament and the Council not to mention the 27 other parliaments.
The UK will either crash out with no deal, accept the EEA option or revoke article 50 and stay in. Revocation seems very unlikely therefore the choice will be no deal or EEA.
The EEA option does not solve any of the three issues which are currently under discussion.
- Citizens rights: Not a solution because the UK could leave the EEA with a year's notice. - Money: Not a solution because accumulated obligations can't be written off just because initially the UK will agree to ongoing contributions for single market access. - Ireland: Not a solution because it would still create a new customs border, and there would be no guarantee of its permanence anyway.
There is no quick fix. The UK is trapped, and faces inevitable humiliation.
The EU is negotiating how it always negotiates: bureaucratically. Since that suits it tactically, it doesn't see any reason to mix it up.
Why Leavers thought that the EU was going to be flexible and accommodating, goodness only knows.
I think they will get a nasty shock if and when it all goes wrong; they seem to be as deluded as anyone else as to the risks they are running.
Not that that is any consolation to us, of course.
That's possible.
Equally possible is that they are fully aware that delaying until the eleventh hour puts them in a stronger position to dictate terms, show a little last minute generosity, and effectively sell a deal which is far better for them than for us.
The problem is that the risks are asymmetric - and even a completely failed deal has one or two upsides for those who wish to forge a European state, whereas for us it's just several years of pain... plus the likelihood of a Corbyn government just to exacerbate matters.
There is no time for any deal other than an "off the shelf" EEA position to be agreed before 2019. The EU has said many times that it is not interested in offering a bespoke deal - even if the negotiators wanted to do so such a deal is very unlikely to get through the European Parliament and the Council not to mention the 27 other parliaments.
The UK will either crash out with no deal, accept the EEA option or revoke article 50 and stay in. Revocation seems very unlikely therefore the choice will be no deal or EEA.
But the Tory euro-sceptic Right have now set their faces like flint against anything vaguely resembling a 'Noway Option'. And Jezza will certainly help them scupper it in parliament. It's cliff edge here we come.
Equally possible is that they are fully aware that delaying until the eleventh hour puts them in a stronger position to dictate terms, show a little last minute generosity, and effectively sell a deal which is far better for them than for us.
The problem is that the risks are asymmetric - and even a completely failed deal has one or two upsides for those who wish to forge a European state, whereas for us it's just several years of pain... plus the likelihood of a Corbyn government just to exacerbate matters.
If that is their reasoning, and it may well be, they are taking a risky approach, especially given the weakness of the British minority government. It's perfectly possible that any such deal agreed to by Theresa May would collapse in the Commons. I'm not confident that our EU friends are very good at reading British politics (the same is true in the opposite direction, of course).
I'm starting to panic. We know from the Maastricht saga how easy it is for Labour to manipulate the Tory hard-Right to make things impossible for their leader. Jezza will do his utmost to engineer a disaster Brexit. Theresa will get blamed and Jezza will have what he wanted all along - a means to discredit capitalism.
What is a disaster Brexit? For most Leavers including many on the Labour side it is leaving free movement uncontrolled and paying 100 billion euros to the EU
An extraordinary moment in modern Spanish history. The chief of the Catalonian police has been told by the Spanish public prosecutor's office to prevent the independence referendum called for 1st October because it has been declared illegal by Spain's constitutional court. If he refuses, the rule of law in Spain has broken down and Catalonia's regional authorities are essentially in a state of open insurrection. This could get extremely nasty.
Unless they've already squared him that's a very foolish call to make.
His job is to enforce the law. The law says the referendum should not be held. If a police chief refuses to enforce laws he does not like he is in rebellion. This is big stuff. It's not impossible that other state institutions - the army or the guardia civil - will be ordered in. That will lead to very serious civil disobedience and, in all likelihood, violence. And all the time remember - most Catalans are opposed to independence. The one way that is likely to change is if Madrid goes in too heavy-handed. The PP has already done a huge amount to advance the cause of Catalan separatism. Will it now do exactly what the separatists want once more?
For the hyperbole, it's worth drawing a contrast here between how the UK Government handled both the Scottish Independence and EU referendums.
We might hurl incentive and insults at one another, but aside from some partisan flag-waving and marching that's as far as it goes, and we respect democracy.
Truly, we are blessed to live here.
Scottish independence is tangible and deliverable - it simply involves a transfer of sovereign power.
On the other hand trying to leave the EU but negotiate the same benefits while treating EU27 citizens as second class is to use 'democracy' as a weapon in international relations. That cannot and must not be allowed to get anywhere.
The EU is negotiating how it always negotiates: bureaucratically. Since that suits it tactically, it doesn't see any reason to mix it up.
Why Leavers thought that the EU was going to be flexible and accommodating, goodness only knows.
I think they will get a nasty shock if and when it all goes wrong; they seem to be as deluded as anyone else as to the risks they are running.
Not that that is any consolation to us, of course.
That's possible.
Equally possible is that they are fully aware that delaying until the eleventh hour puts them in a stronger position to dictate terms, show a little last minute generosity, and effectively sell a deal which is far better for them than for us.
The problem is that the risks are asymmetric - and even a completely failed deal has one or two upsides for those who wish to forge a European state, whereas for us it's just several years of pain... plus the likelihood of a Corbyn government just to exacerbate matters.
There is no time for any deal other than an "off the shelf" EEA position to be agreed before 2019. The EU has said many times that it is not interested in offering a bespoke deal - even if the negotiators wanted to do so such a deal is very unlikely to get through the European Parliament and the Council not to mention the 27 other parliaments.
The UK will either crash out with no deal, accept the EEA option or revoke article 50 and stay in. Revocation seems very unlikely therefore the choice will be no deal or EEA.
But the Tory euro-sceptic Right have now set their faces like flint against anything vaguely resembling a 'Noway Option'. And Jezza will certainly help them scupper it in parliament. It's cliff edge here we come.
May's government would collapse if a cliff edge was looming. This would lead to either a general election and a Labour Governmemt (which would accept EEA) or perhaps some form of national government (which would also accept EEA). So at the moment I think EEA is the most likely outcome, though a cliff edge is a serious possibility.
Equally possible is that they are fully aware that delaying until the eleventh hour puts them in a stronger position to dictate terms, show a little last minute generosity, and effectively sell a deal which is far better for them than for us.
The problem is that the risks are asymmetric - and even a completely failed deal has one or two upsides for those who wish to forge a European state, whereas for us it's just several years of pain... plus the likelihood of a Corbyn government just to exacerbate matters.
If that is their reasoning, and it may well be, they are taking a risky approach, especially given the weakness of the British minority government. It's perfectly possible that any such deal agreed to by Theresa May would collapse in the Commons. I'm not confident that our EU friends are very good at reading British politics (the same is true in the opposite direction, of course).
I don't disagree with any of that. I struggle to think of any evidence that either side is particularly good at reading the other (other than a good instinct for the best way to wind each other up).
Those who think a crash Brexit will be good for the Conservatives' electoral prospects are likely deluding themselves.
An extraordinary moment in modern Spanish history. The chief of the Catalonian police has been told by the Spanish public prosecutor's office to prevent the independence referendum called for 1st October because it has been declared illegal by Spain's constitutional court. If he refuses, the rule of law in Spain has broken down and Catalonia's regional authorities are essentially in a state of open insurrection. This could get extremely nasty.
Unless they've already squared him that's a very foolish call to make.
His job is to enforce the law. The law says the referendum should not be held. If a police chief refuses to enforce laws he does not like he is in rebellion. This is big stuff. It's not impossible that other state institutions - the army or the guardia civil - will be ordered in. That will lead to very serious civil disobedience and, in all likelihood, violence. And all the time remember - most Catalans are opposed to independence. The one way that is likely to change is if Madrid goes in too heavy-handed. The PP has already done a huge amount to advance the cause of Catalan separatism. Will it now do exactly what the separatists want once more?
For the hyperbole, it's worth drawing a contrast here between how the UK Government handled both the Scottish Independence and EU referendums.
We might hurl incentive and insults at one another, but aside from some partisan flag-waving and marching that's as far as it goes, and we respect democracy.
Truly, we are blessed to live here.
Totally agree. The rule of law is the bedrock of everything. We accept that here, as much as we sometimes may not like its exercise. In Spain it turns out they don't. That way trouble lies.
An extraordinary moment in modern Spanish history. The chief of the Catalonian police has been told by the Spanish public prosecutor's office to prevent the independence referendum called for 1st October because it has been declared illegal by Spain's constitutional court. If he refuses, the rule of law in Spain has broken down and Catalonia's regional authorities are essentially in a state of open insurrection. This could get extremely nasty.
Unless they've already squared him that's a very foolish call to make.
His job is to enforce the law. The law says the referendum should not be held. If a police chief refuses to enforce laws he does not like he is in rebellion. This is big stuff. It's not impossible that other state institutions - the army or the guardia civil - will be ordered in. That will lead to very serious civil disobedience and, in all likelihood, violence. And all the time remember - most Catalans are opposed to independence. The one way that is likely to change is if Madrid goes in too heavy-handed. The PP has already done a huge amount to advance the cause of Catalan separatism. Will it now do exactly what the separatists want once more?
For the hyperbole, it's worth drawing a contrast here between how the UK Government handled both the Scottish Independence and EU referendums.
We might hurl incentive and insults at one another, but aside from some partisan flag-waving and marching that's as far as it goes, and we respect democracy.
Truly, we are blessed to live here.
Scottish independence is tangible and deliverable - it simply involves a transfer of sovereign power.
On the other hand trying to leave the EU but negotiate the same benefits while treating EU27 citizens as second class is to use 'democracy' as a weapon in international relations. That cannot and must not be allowed to get anywhere.
Or more to the point you are an EU Federalist ideologue who would happily break up the UK tomorrow and just incorporate what is left as regions of an EU superstate
The EU is negotiating how it always negotiates: bureaucratically. Since that suits it tactically, it doesn't see any reason to mix it up.
Why Leavers thought that the EU was going to be flexible and accommodating, goodness only knows.
I think they will get a nasty shock if and when it all goes wrong; they seem to be as deluded as anyone else as to the risks they are running.
Not that that is any consolation to us, of course.
That's possible.
Equally possible is that they are fully aware that delaying until the eleventh hour puts them in a stronger position to dictate terms, show a little last minute generosity, and effectively sell a deal which is far better for them than for us.
The problem is that the risks are asymmetric - and even a completely failed deal has one or two upsides for those who wish to forge a European state, whereas for us it's just several years of pain... plus the likelihood of a Corbyn government just to exacerbate matters.
There is no time for any deal other than an "off the shelf" EEA position to be agreed before 2019. The EU has said many times that it is not interested in offering a bespoke deal - even if the negotiators wanted to do so such a deal is very unlikely to get through the European Parliament and the Council not to mention the 27 other parliaments.
The UK will either crash out with no deal, accept the EEA option or revoke article 50 and stay in. Revocation seems very unlikely therefore the choice will be no deal or EEA.
But the Tory euro-sceptic Right have now set their faces like flint against anything vaguely resembling a 'Noway Option'. And Jezza will certainly help them scupper it in parliament. It's cliff edge here we come.
It will probably take a future PM Umunna or another Labour moderate for the EEA to be considered as an option for the UK again
Corbyn is expected to become prime minister...........Corbyn will no doubt continue to defy expectations.
Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.
But that's not what a lot of the seats showed. They cut the Tory majorities in a lot of places they didn't win, and got back some seats in Scotland. And yes, he didn't do as well as Brown, but he did better than Ed Milliband ( and with a lot less of press with him and a wing of his own party against him)
And he lost seats and had Labour majorities cut too. Winning seats in Scotland makes no difference at all since the SNP would support a Labour government. Corbyn won fewer seats than Kinnock did in 1992. Labour will have to win twice as many seats next time to form a government with majority than in 2017, and the Tories will have a new leader, will have learned from their ation.
The Tories only have to lose around 20 seats to anyone and a Jeremy Corbyn led coalition becomes a realistic option.
So it is entirely possible Corbyn becomes PM with 280 MPs whilst the Tories are on 300 MPs.
The Tories also only need to win 10 seats for an overall majority
Once the main governing party starts losing seats, it is generally down hill from then on.
No leader since Heath has lost his first general election and then won his second as Corbyn will have to and he only lasted a term. Of course the Tories also increased their voteshare in 2017 even though they lost seats
That was by piling up votes in their safe seats. Yo can't criticise Corbyn for doing that and ignore May for doing the same!
May still got almost 60 more seats than Corbyn
But lost seats overall. Saying she got a higher percentage of the vote and lost seats just says to me she was piling on the vote in Tory safe seats.
Except that would also be wrong. The election saw some seats swing red and others swing blue. In the end there were more overall of the former than the latter but only enough for Labour to be 50+ seats behind and the Tories as the largest party. However, you must know this surely?
Equally possible is that they are fully aware that delaying until the eleventh hour puts them in a stronger position to dictate terms, show a little last minute generosity, and effectively sell a deal which is far better for them than for us.
The problem is that the risks are asymmetric - and even a completely failed deal has one or two upsides for those who wish to forge a European state, whereas for us it's just several years of pain... plus the likelihood of a Corbyn government just to exacerbate matters.
If that is their reasoning, and it may well be, they are taking a risky approach, especially given the weakness of the British minority government. It's perfectly possible that any such deal agreed to by Theresa May would collapse in the Commons. I'm not confident that our EU friends are very good at reading British politics (the same is true in the opposite direction, of course).
I don't disagree with any of that. I struggle to think of any evidence that either side is particularly good at reading the other (other than a good instinct for the best way to wind each other up).
Those who think a crash Brexit will be good for the Conservatives' electoral prospects are likely deluding themselves.
The political problem with a crash Brexit is what happens after all the flags have been waved. The Totirs might well get a polling boost after a big row with the EU. But then what? They have the fairer and more prosperous post-Brexit Britain to deliver. They can't do that without a deal.
Will we? Me might, on some of it, even much of it, but they run the risk politically of a giant two fingers from the UK as well with public opinion here moving behind it.
This was the reason for my highlighting the 'Brexit in name only' foreign policy paper. The UK simply cannot give a giant two fingers without doing untold damage to itself in every respect - economically, politically and diplomatically. It's not hyperbole to say that we would not be respected in the world for a very long time to come.
Whilst the EU can do whatever it likes, of course..
You are making exactly the same mistake as the more loony Brexiteers made before the referendum: assuming that the UK can unilaterally choose between a range of options, none of which are actually on offer.
This really shouldn't need explaining, but the degree of delusion is quite remarkable.
It's rare I agree with you, Richard, but that's where I am as well. The foolish notion being perpetrated by Tim Farron and now Vince Cable that somehow by voting down any A50 Treaty we can reset the clock to 22/6/16 makes me angry as a LD member and LEAVE voter.
I do think if the clock is running down and an agreement needs a few more days the A50 time can and would be extended but I think by days or a month at most.
That said, it has to be hoped the prospect of the cliff edge exercises minds more than Cameron calling an In-Out referendum did. His "nuclear" option backfired in that it didn't provoke the agreement he wanted, his bluff was called and we all know the outcome. If the EU didn't, couldn't or wouldn't do a deal then, will they do so now ?
MY concern is whether our Government really wants a deal or do they want to crash out the EU as a badge of honour so they can call an election and blame the "perfidious Europeans" ?
British negotiators have argued that issues like the Irish border are inextricably linked to both sides’ future relationship, and that making progress on one necessitates making progress on the other. The U.K. isn’t exactly wrong, said Steven Peers, a professor of law at the University of Essex. “The sequencing makes things actually technically very awkward,” he told me. “There are things we can’t discuss in advance of knowing what's going to happen in the future. It’s just not feasible to do that.”
I'm increasingly of the view that the EU isn't really interested in negotiating.
When it says the UK needs to "get serious" about negotiations, what it means is the UK accepting its terms and timetable wholesale, no questions asked, and being grateful for it.
The EU is negotiating how it always negotiates: bureaucratically. Since that suits it tactically, it doesn't see any reason to mix it up.
Why Leavers thought that the EU was going to be flexible and accommodating, goodness only knows.
An extraordinary moment in modern Spanish history. The chief of the Catalonian police has been told by the Spanish public prosecutor's office to prevent the independence referendum called for 1st October because it has been declared illegal by Spain's constitutional court. If he refuses, the rule of law in Spain has broken down and Catalonia's regional authorities are essentially in a state of open insurrection. This could get extremely nasty.
Unless they've already squared him that's a very foolish call to make.
His job is to enforce the law. The law says the referendum should not be held. If a police chief refuses to enforce laws he does not like he is in rebellion. This is big stuff. It's not impossible that other state institutions - the army or the guardia civil - will be ordered in. That will lead to very serious civil disobedience and, in all likelihood, violence. And all the time remember - most Catalans are opposed to independence. The one way that is likely to change is if Madrid goes in too heavy-handed. The PP has already done a huge amount to advance the cause of Catalan separatism. Will it now do exactly what the separatists want once more?
For the hyperbole, it's worth drawing a contrast here between how the UK Government handled both the Scottish Independence and EU referendums.
We might hurl incentive and insults at one another, but aside from some partisan flag-waving and marching that's as far as it goes, and we respect democracy.
Truly, we are blessed to live here.
Totally agree. The rule of law is the bedrock of everything. We accept that here, as much as we sometimes may not like its exercise. In Spain it turns out they don't. That way trouble lies.
Isn't the problem that the Spanish government is actually trying to enforce the law (it's a stupid law but it's the law)?
An extraordinary moment in modern Spanish history. The chief of the Catalonian police has been told by the Spanish public prosecutor's office to prevent the independence referendum called for 1st October because it has been declared illegal by Spain's constitutional court. If he refuses, the rule of law in Spain has broken down and Catalonia's regional authorities are essentially in a state of open insurrection. This could get extremely nasty.
Unless they've already squared him that's a very foolish call to make.
His job is to enforce the law. The law says the referendum should not be held. If a police chief refuses to enforce laws he does not like he is in rebellion. This is big stuff. It's not impossible that other state institutions - the army or the guardia civil - will be ordered in. That will lead to very serious civil disobedience and, in all likelihood, violence. And all the time remember - most Catalans are opposed to independence. The one way that is likely to change is if Madrid goes in too heavy-handed. The PP has already done a huge amount to advance the cause of Catalan separatism. Will it now do exactly what the separatists want once more?
For the hyperbole, it's worth drawing a contrast here between how the UK Government handled both the Scottish Independence and EU referendums.
We might hurl incentive and insults at one another, but aside from some partisan flag-waving and marching that's as far as it goes, and we respect democracy.
Truly, we are blessed to live here.
Scottish independence is tangible and deliverable - it simply involves a transfer of sovereign power.
On the other hand trying to leave the EU but negotiate the same benefits while treating EU27 citizens as second class is to use 'democracy' as a weapon in international relations. That cannot and must not be allowed to get anywhere.
Lord Haw Haw strikes again.
You are entitled to your views, but they disgust me.
Equally possible is that they are fully aware that delaying until the eleventh hour puts them in a stronger position to dictate terms, show a little last minute generosity, and effectively sell a deal which is far better for them than for us.
The problem is that the risks are asymmetric - and even a completely failed deal has one or two upsides for those who wish to forge a European state, whereas for us it's just several years of pain... plus the likelihood of a Corbyn government just to exacerbate matters.
If that is their reasoning, and it may well be, they are taking a risky approach, especially given the weakness of the British minority government. It's perfectly possible that any such deal agreed to by Theresa May would collapse in the Commons. I'm not confident that our EU friends are very good at reading British politics (the same is true in the opposite direction, of course).
I don't disagree with any of that. I struggle to think of any evidence that either side is particularly good at reading the other (other than a good instinct for the best way to wind each other up).
Those who think a crash Brexit will be good for the Conservatives' electoral prospects are likely deluding themselves.
The political problem with a crash Brexit is what happens after all the flags have been waved. The Totirs might well get a polling boost after a big row with the EU. But then what? They have the fairer and more prosperous post-Brexit Britain to deliver. They can't do that without a deal.
The new Tory leader will likely call a general election in late 2019/early 2020, soon after Brexit talks are complete. If they win it would then take a more centrist Labour leader like Umunna to really benefit from any longer term problems from Brexit
An extraordinary moment in modern Spanish history. The chief of the Catalonian police has been told by the Spanish public prosecutor's office to prevent the independence referendum called for 1st October because it has been declared illegal by Spain's constitutional court. If he refuses, the rule of law in Spain has broken down and Catalonia's regional authorities are essentially in a state of open insurrection. This could get extremely nasty.
Unless they've already squared him that's a very foolish call to make.
His job is to enforce the law. The law says the referendum should not be held. If a police chief refuses to enforce laws he does not like he is in rebellion. This is big stuff. It's not impossible that other state institutions - the army or the guardia civil - will be ordered in. That will lead to very serious civil disobedience and, in all likelihood, violence. And all the time remember - most Catalans are opposed to independence. The one way that is likely to change is if Madrid goes in too heavy-handed. The PP has already done a huge amount to advance the cause of Catalan separatism. Will it now do exactly what the separatists want once more?
For the hyperbole, it's worth drawing a contrast here between how the UK Government handled both the Scottish Independence and EU referendums.
We might hurl incentive and insults at one another, but aside from some partisan flag-waving and marching that's as far as it goes, and we respect democracy.
Truly, we are blessed to live here.
Scottish independence is tangible and deliverable - it simply involves a transfer of sovereign power.
On the other hand trying to leave the EU but negotiate the same benefits while treating EU27 citizens as second class is to use 'democracy' as a weapon in international relations. That cannot and must not be allowed to get anywhere.
Lord Haw Haw strikes again.
You are entitled to your views, but they disgust me.
Corbyn is expected to become prime minister...........Corbyn will no doubt continue to defy expectations.
Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.
I have voted Labour at every election for 40 years -including 2017. I continue to believe that Corbyn is a disaster. Things could turn out very differently at the next election. Even if I am wrong and he became PM, that could be even worse for Labour as a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. To those who say that Corbyn has not destroyed the Labour party, I say "give him a chance".
But that's not what a lot of the seats showed. They cut the Tory majorities in a lot of places they didn't win, and got back some seats in Scotland. And yes, he didn't do as well as Brown, but he did better than Ed Milliband ( and with a lot less of press with him and a wing of his own party against him)
He actually did a bit better than Brown who only managed 258 seats to Corbyn's 262. Moreover, Corbyn performed much better in England & Wales than Brown did in 2010 in that Brown's total included over 40 seats from Scotland.
The Tories though got 318 seats to 306 in 2010, 2017 was not as good for the Tories as 2015 in terms of seats but better than 2010
No, it was 317 (318 includes Bercow, BBC style).
Who was elected as a Tory before he became speaker but even 317 is 11 more than 306
He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.
The EU is negotiating how it always negotiates: bureaucratically. Since that suits it tactically, it doesn't see any reason to mix it up.
Why Leavers thought that the EU was going to be flexible and accommodating, goodness only knows.
I think they will get a nasty shock if and when it all goes wrong; they seem to be as deluded as anyone else as to the risks they are running.
Not that that is any consolation to us, of course.
Britain's best hope is that the EU comes to realise that it needs to present something that will get through the House of Commons. I don't see another route to a happy ending.
That's Brexit's best hope. Britain's best hope is that Brexit becomes as popular as the Iraq war before the negotiations are finished.
As far as Mrs May and particularly Mr Davis are concerned even if Brexit becomes as popular as the Iraq war, it does not change anything, as the only snapshot of public opinion that matters was the day of the referendum.
The optimism on planet PB is remarkable. The consensus seems to be that Davis, as a master of brinkmanship will prevail and Johnny Foreigner will capitulate at the 11th hour. I hope they are correct!
The EU is negotiating how it always negotiates: bureaucratically. Since that suits it tactically, it doesn't see any reason to mix it up.
Why Leavers thought that the EU was going to be flexible and accommodating, goodness only knows.
I think they will get a nasty shock if and when it all goes wrong; they seem to be as deluded as anyone else as to the risks they are running.
Not that that is any consolation to us, of course.
Britain's best hope is that the EU comes to realise that it needs to present something that will get through the House of Commons. I don't see another route to a happy ending.
That's Brexit's best hope. Britain's best hope is that Brexit becomes as popular as the Iraq war before the negotiations are finished.
The optimism on planet PB is remarkable. The consensus seems to be that Davis, as a master of brinkmanship will prevail and Johnny Foreigner will capitulate at the 11th hour. I hope they are correct!
I am not optimistic on a deal with the EU. The people heading up the EU give every sign of not wanting to negotiate so an exit on WTO terms seems inevitable.
So for the next three or four years, Corbyn will be favourite among pundits and betters to be the next and most hard left prime minister in British history. He will come under intense scrutiny in a way that he wasnt when Labour seemed to be heading for the iceberg. In the meantime the deluded Labour leadership will be emboldened to be more and more reckless, and -starting with the party conference -Labour will be in hubristic Sheffield rally mode as they publicly celebrate their triumph to come.
Frankly I cannot think of a more potent recipe for an interesting 10pm exit poll moment, the next time there is a general election.
Comments
Not that that is any consolation to us, of course.
So you think the independence issue has been dealt with in Scotland - how insular you are!
If that doesn't work, throw a few insults at them and talk loudly about World War 2.
You've got to remember those EU ideologues (utter maniacs like Verhofstadht) only talk to those who agree with them, and UK ultra-Remainers who egg them on. They haven't a clue what lay behind the Leave vote, and nor do they care as they totally disrespect it.
So, they are purely motivated by making an example of the UK. They think they have the UK totally over a barrel and can demand whatever they like, without having to justify or negotiate any of it, and the UK only has to fold and accept it.
Will we? Me might, on some of it, even much of it, but they run the risk politically of a giant two fingers from the UK as well with public opinion here moving behind it.
One small chink of light: if "no deal" does look likely, I'd expect EU member states to try and draw some more sanity over it, even if that's at one minute to midnight.
That could be a basic continuity deal agreed in the last 96 hours, or everyone agreeing to extend the A50 period (don't dismiss this, as the EU27 unanimously agreed the negotiating position in the first place) to give more time.
Equally possible is that they are fully aware that delaying until the eleventh hour puts them in a stronger position to dictate terms, show a little last minute generosity, and effectively sell a deal which is far better for them than for us.
The problem is that the risks are asymmetric - and even a completely failed deal has one or two upsides for those who wish to forge a European state, whereas for us it's just several years of pain... plus the likelihood of a Corbyn government just to exacerbate matters.
If you made it privately and he refused, you solve the issue another way and then resign him later.
Depends on where you are looking from.
The UK will either crash out with no deal, accept the EEA option or revoke article 50 and stay in. Revocation seems very unlikely therefore the choice will be no deal or EEA.
We might hurl incentive and insults at one another, but aside from some partisan flag-waving and marching that's as far as it goes, and we respect democracy.
Truly, we are blessed to live here.
- Citizens rights: Not a solution because the UK could leave the EEA with a year's notice.
- Money: Not a solution because accumulated obligations can't be written off just because initially the UK will agree to ongoing contributions for single market access.
- Ireland: Not a solution because it would still create a new customs border, and there would be no guarantee of its permanence anyway.
There is no quick fix. The UK is trapped, and faces inevitable humiliation.
On the other hand trying to leave the EU but negotiate the same benefits while treating EU27 citizens as second class is to use 'democracy' as a weapon in international relations. That cannot and must not be allowed to get anywhere.
Those who think a crash Brexit will be good for the Conservatives' electoral prospects are likely deluding themselves.
F1: still only the win market up, which is a bit slow.
Mr. Observer, it's certainly looking knotty.
(I am by no means an expert on Catalonia)
You are entitled to your views, but they disgust me.
NEW THREAD
The optimism on planet PB is remarkable. The consensus seems to be that Davis, as a master of brinkmanship will prevail and Johnny Foreigner will capitulate at the 11th hour. I hope they are correct!
In the meantime the deluded Labour leadership will be emboldened to be more and more reckless, and -starting with the party conference -Labour will be in hubristic Sheffield rally mode as they publicly celebrate their triumph to come.
Frankly I cannot think of a more potent recipe for an interesting 10pm exit poll moment, the next time there is a general election.