On topic - this is just the impact of bad press on Brexit, or normal statistical noise.
If the predicted economic damage comes - then that will move opinions much more obviously. But it may be too late then.
I do think it would be wise for someone to be working on a 'get back into the EU strategy' just in case public opinion shifts quickly.
Given all the trouble we have caused by our blundering attempt to leave I very much doubt the EU would have us back in the short term. We'd be left to stew for a few years to make sure we were sufficiently chastened never to attempt to leave again.
Why wouldn't they want us back?
I don't really buy this us causing lots of trouble argument, Brexit isn't even that big a political issue in EU countries as far as I can see.
If we get a transition deal which takes away our voting rights but leaves everything else the same (my rough understanding of what TM proposed), then it will still be much easier to stay in at the end of the transition than to leave.
Exactly. And that will be in 4 years time. A lot will have happened. Think bag to how different the Cameron/Clegg/Miliband world of 2013 looks to today. I'd think going straight back in after the transitional period is pretty likely.
They aren't going to be arsed with Britain being prima donnas. After having spent endless years dealing with numerous British politicians who have been at best high maintenance and at worst unhinged, they are not going to want to volunteer to do the whole thing all over again.
I just don't think this is right.
The EU have consistently said they are stronger with Britain, they regret us leaving... if we came to regret it also - they would hardly push us away if there was a route for us to rejoin/stay in easily.
Your "if" is the key point. Talk me through the terms of rejoining that you anticipate. Do you think the exact same terms Britain left on would be available? Because I don't. And if they aren't, where is Britain going to compromise? Bear in mind that the unhinged Brexit right want Philip Hammond tried for treason for expressing concerns about the most extreme forms of Brexit. How do you think they'd react to (a) rejoining and (b) compromising further on the rejoining terms?
I am sure Vince Cable will welcome George to the LD parliamentary candidates list, Osborne's son campaigned for Cable at the last general election anyway
By that logic Clement Attlee is a Tory because his grandson became a Tory peer. Or an SDPer because his son joined the SDP
Clement Attlee did not push through Tory policies, Osborne was in a coalition government with the LDs, backed Remain like the LDs and opposes more grammar schools like the LDs. Osborne is certainly closer ideologically now to Cable than to May and Boris on most issues
The problem for the Conservatives is that in all probability most people who voted Conservative in 2017 are now closer to Cable and the Lib Dems than they are to the May-Boris-Gove headbangers.
On topic - this is just the impact of bad press on Brexit, or normal statistical noise.
If the predicted economic damage comes - then that will move opinions much more obviously. But it may be too late then.
I do think it would be wise for someone to be working on a 'get back into the EU strategy' just in case public opinion shifts quickly.
Given all the trouble we have caused by our blundering attempt to leave I very much doubt the EU would have us back in the short term. We'd be left to stew for a few years to make sure we were sufficiently chastened never to attempt to leave again.
Why wouldn't they want us back?
I don't really buy this us causing lots of trouble argument, Brexit isn't even that big a political issue in EU countries as far as I can see.
If we get a transition deal which takes away our voting rights but leaves everything else the same (my rough understanding of what TM proposed), then it will still be much easier to stay in at the end of the transition than to leave.
Exactly. And that will be in 4 years time. A lot will have happened. Think bag to how different the Cameron/Clegg/Miliband world of 2013 looks to today. I'd think going straight back in after the transitional period is pretty likely.
They aren't going to be arsed with Britain being prima donnas. After having spent endless years dealing with numerous British politicians who have been at best high maintenance and at worst unhinged, they are not going to want to volunteer to do the whole thing all over again.
I just don't think this is right.
The EU have consistently said they are stronger with Britain, they regret us leaving... if we came to regret it also - they would hardly push us away if there was a route for us to rejoin/stay in easily.
Your "if" is the key point. Talk me through the terms of rejoining that you anticipate. Do you think the exact same terms Britain left on would be available? Because I don't. And if they aren't, where is Britain going to compromise? Bear in mind that the unhinged Brexit right want Philip Hammond tried for treason for expressing concerns about the most extreme forms of Brexit. How do you think they'd react to (a) rejoining and (b) compromising further on the rejoining terms?
The rebate would be gone so the bus would be accurate!
On topic - this is just the impact of bad press on Brexit, or normal statistical noise.
If the predicted economic damage comes - then that will move opinions much more obviously. But it may be too late then.
I do think it would be wise for someone to be working on a 'get back into the EU strategy' just in case public opinion shifts quickly.
Given all the trouble we have caused by our blundering attempt to leave I very much doubt the EU would have us back in the short term. We'd be left to stew for a few years to make sure we were sufficiently chastened never to attempt to leave again.
Why wouldn't they want us back?
I don't really buy this us causing lots of trouble argument, Brexit isn't even that big a political issue in EU countries as far as I can see.
If we get a transition deal which takes away our voting rights but leaves everything else the same (my rough understanding of what TM proposed), then it will still be much easier to stay in at the end of the transition than to leave.
Exactly. And that will be in 4 years time. A lot will have happened. Think bag to how different the Cameron/Clegg/Miliband world of 2013 looks to today. I'd think going straight back in after the transitional period is pretty likely.
They aren't going to be arsed with Britain being prima donnas. After having spent endless years dealing with numerous British politicians who have been at best high maintenance and at worst unhinged, they are not going to want to volunteer to do the whole thing all over again.
I just don't think this is right.
The EU have consistently said they are stronger with Britain, they regret us leaving... if we came to regret it also - they would hardly push us away if there was a route for us to rejoin/stay in easily.
Your "if" is the key point. Talk me through the terms of rejoining that you anticipate. Do you think the exact same terms Britain left on would be available? Because I don't. And if they aren't, where is Britain going to compromise? Bear in mind that the unhinged Brexit right want Philip Hammond tried for treason for expressing concerns about the most extreme forms of Brexit. How do you think they'd react to (a) rejoining and (b) compromising further on the rejoining terms?
And then there is the De Gaulle factor. An unpopular French president might see a veto of a British re-entry as an easy way to boost his standing at home. Or the Spanish could demand joint sovereignty of Gibraltar as the price of their support.
On topic - this is just the impact of bad press on Brexit, or normal statistical noise.
If the predicted economic damage comes - then that will move opinions much more obviously. But it may be too late then.
I do think it would be wise for someone to be working on a 'get back into the EU strategy' just in case public opinion shifts quickly.
Given all the trouble we have caused by our blundering attempt to leave I very much doubt the EU would have us back in the short term. We'd be left to stew for a few years to make sure we were sufficiently chastened never to attempt to leave again.
Why wouldn't they want us back?
I don't really buy this us causing lots of trouble argument, Brexit isn't even that big a political issue in EU countries as far as I can see.
If we get a transition deal which takes away our voting rights but leaves everything else the same (my rough understanding of what TM proposed), then it will still be much easier to stay in at the end of the transition than to leave.
Exactly. And that will be in 4 years time. A lot will have happened. Think bag to how different the Cameron/Clegg/Miliband world of 2013 looks to today. I'd think going straight back in after the transitional period is pretty likely.
They aren't going to be arsed with Britain being prima donnas. After having spent endless years dealing with numerous British politicians who have been at best high maintenance and at worst unhinged, they are not going to want to volunteer to do the whole thing all over again.
I just don't think this is right.
The EU have consistently said they are stronger with Britain, they regret us leaving... if we came to regret it also - they would hardly push us away if there was a route for us to rejoin/stay in easily.
I have encountered quite a few senior business people in the EU who believe that Brexit will not happen in any meaningful sense - either Brexit in name only, or the UK will in the end stay in. My observation being that this view appears to be especially prominent in places like Luxembourg and Brussels, where business people tend to know and socialise with Eurocrats.
The idea that allowing the Chancellor to be attacked because he points out, quite reasonably, the issues involved is some sort of worthwhile tactical manoeuvre is strange, to say the least.
All it is doing is undermining the government and the country. It is also getting us nowhere in terms of an outcome which works for the majority.
The key thing to understand is that those attacking the Chancellor don't want a deal. They are setting it up to fail, just as they did with Cameron and his EU negotiation. They want our bridges AND boats to be burnt to a crisp. Leavers who do want a deal (and we are all Leavers now, I guess) need to face them down.
Your "if" is the key point. Talk me through the terms of rejoining that you anticipate. Do you think the exact same terms Britain left on would be available? Because I don't. And if they aren't, where is Britain going to compromise? Bear in mind that the unhinged Brexit right want Philip Hammond tried for treason for expressing concerns about the most extreme forms of Brexit. How do you think they'd react to (a) rejoining and (b) compromising further on the rejoining terms?
I think you overestimate the unhinged Brexit right. What they crave is the catharsis of defeat. Be prepared for some unlikely people to start saying that if Brexit can't work, we might as well sign up for the lot.
I am sure Vince Cable will welcome George to the LD parliamentary candidates list, Osborne's son campaigned for Cable at the last general election anyway
By that logic Clement Attlee is a Tory because his grandson became a Tory peer. Or an SDPer because his son joined the SDP
Clement Attlee did not push through Tory policies, Osborne was in a coalition government with the LDs, backed Remain like the LDs and opposes more grammar schools like the LDs. Osborne is certainly closer ideologically now to Cable than to May and Boris on most issues
The problem for the Conservatives is that in all probability most people who voted Conservative in 2017 are now closer to Cable and the Lib Dems than they are to the May-Boris-Gove headbangers.
Really?
I don't think that's the case at all. I think 30-35%+ of the voters of this fine country are fully or mostly on board with the May-Boris-Gove nutters.
I am sure Vince Cable will welcome George to the LD parliamentary candidates list, Osborne's son campaigned for Cable at the last general election anyway
By that logic Clement Attlee is a Tory because his grandson became a Tory peer. Or an SDPer because his son joined the SDP
Clement Attlee did not push through Tory policies, Osborne was in a coalition government with the LDs, backed Remain like the LDs and opposes more grammar schools like the LDs. Osborne is certainly closer ideologically now to Cable than to May and Boris on most issues
The problem for the Conservatives is that in all probability most people who voted Conservative in 2017 are now closer to Cable and the Lib Dems than they are to the May-Boris-Gove headbangers.
I think that’s only half true. Most conservative voters are probably not up for a prolonged period of economic pain on the way to the sunlit economic uplands of post-Brexit global trading Britain, but they still don’t want to be part of the EU with those nasty foreigners interfering in our laws. The core activity in politics at present is insisting that we can resolve the nasty interning foreigners problem without the economic pain and as long as Tory voters carry on believing Boris et al they’re a long way from Cable.
To put it another way, they probably are ideologically closer to Cable, but they are applying that ideology to a different set of “facts”.
The idea that allowing the Chancellor to be attacked because he points out, quite reasonably, the issues involved is some sort of worthwhile tactical manoeuvre is strange, to say the least.
All it is doing is undermining the government and the country. It is also getting us nowhere in terms of an outcome which works for the majority.
The key thing to understand is that those attacking the Chancellor don't want a deal. They are setting it up to fail, just as they did with Cameron and his EU negotiation. They want our bridges AND boats to be burnt to a crisp. Leavers who do want a deal (and we are all Leavers now, I guess) need to face them down.
Not a single Leaver has tried to face down the suicide Brexiters. Their cowardice is a disgrace.
Some well-known Leave supporters are quite unhinged. So much is unremarkable. What is quite remarkable is that Leave supporters who aspire to moderate status feel no need to dissociate themselves from such crazed views.
I don't think the moderates want to pour fuel on the fire.
That's the point. Their instinct is to back up the loonies, not to protect the sane.
I'm not sure that is the case within Government.
I increasingly think the senior members of the cabinet have a pact.
They know that as long as they stick together, the government can't be blown apart by the backbenchers. Boris just has to throw out some red meat from time to time in the form of some meaningless rhetoric to keep the more rabid Leavers happy, meanwhile they get on with quietly kicking Brexit into the long grass.
There might be something in this. Kicking Brexit into the long grass suggests a strength of purpose that I don't think this government possesses. I think they are just trying to hold their shit together so they can make it through Article 50 to Brexit Day. Doing that counts as success.
I am sure Vince Cable will welcome George to the LD parliamentary candidates list, Osborne's son campaigned for Cable at the last general election anyway
By that logic Clement Attlee is a Tory because his grandson became a Tory peer. Or an SDPer because his son joined the SDP
Clement Attlee did not push through Tory policies, Osborne was in a coalition government with the LDs, backed Remain like the LDs and opposes more grammar schools like the LDs. Osborne is certainly closer ideologically now to Cable than to May and Boris on most issues
The problem for the Conservatives is that in all probability most people who voted Conservative in 2017 are now closer to Cable and the Lib Dems than they are to the May-Boris-Gove headbangers.
That certainly describes me, and doubtless a fair few reluctant 2017 Tory remain voters, in the home counties especially. But that still doesn't mean the Lib Dems will get my vote. While the Lib Dems remain irrelevant in 90% of seats and a Corbyn government remains a realistic threat, people like me will unfortunately be forced to continue to vote Tory.
The Tory vote will collapse by 20% when a realistic, more centrist alternative government emerges.
I am sure Vince Cable will welcome George to the LD parliamentary candidates list, Osborne's son campaigned for Cable at the last general election anyway
By that logic Clement Attlee is a Tory because his grandson became a Tory peer. Or an SDPer because his son joined the SDP
Clement Attlee did not push through Tory policies, Osborne was in a coalition government with the LDs, backed Remain like the LDs and opposes more grammar schools like the LDs. Osborne is certainly closer ideologically now to Cable than to May and Boris on most issues
The problem for the Conservatives is that in all probability most people who voted Conservative in 2017 are now closer to Cable and the Lib Dems than they are to the May-Boris-Gove headbangers.
That certainly describes me, and doubtless a fair few reluctant 2017 Tory remain voters, in the home counties especially. But that still doesn't mean the Lib Dems will get my vote. While the Lib Dems remain irrelevant in 90% of seats and a Corbyn government remains a realistic threat, people like me will unfortunately be forced to continue to vote Tory.
The Tory vote will collapse by 20% when a realistic, more centrist alternative government emerges.
On topic - this is just the impact of bad press on Brexit, or normal statistical noise.
If the predicted economic damage comes - then that will move opinions much more obviously. But it may be too late then.
I do think it would be wise for someone to be working on a 'get back into the EU strategy' just in case public opinion shifts quickly.
Given all the trouble we have caused by our blundering attempt to leave I very much doubt the EU would have us back in the short term. We'd be left to stew for a few years to make sure we were sufficiently chastened never to attempt to leave again.
Why wouldn't they want us back?
I don't really buy this us causing lots of trouble argument, Brexit isn't even that big a political issue in EU countries as far as I can see.
If we get a transition deal which takes away our voting rights but leaves everything else the same (my rough understanding of what TM proposed), then it will still be much easier to stay in at the end of the transition than to leave.
I was thinking of a "no deal" scenario. If we get a BINO transition deal then I agree we could easily slip back into full membership but given the state of the Tory Party's negotiations with itself, not to mention the EU, and the short time available I think the chances of a transition are rapidly diminishing. As we were told (by Tusk i think?) right at the beginning of the process, it's a choice between hard Brexit and no Brexit.
As I said the other day you cannot just 'slip back in' to EU membership. It would require a new accession treaty and the agreement of all 27 existing members. The chances of that happening are very slight. The chances of it happening on terms we would accept is absolutely zero.
I am sure Vince Cable will welcome George to the LD parliamentary candidates list, Osborne's son campaigned for Cable at the last general election anyway
By that logic Clement Attlee is a Tory because his grandson became a Tory peer. Or an SDPer because his son joined the SDP
Clement Attlee did not push through Tory policies, Osborne was in a coalition government with the LDs, backed Remain like the LDs and opposes more grammar schools like the LDs. Osborne is certainly closer ideologically now to Cable than to May and Boris on most issues
The problem for the Conservatives is that in all probability most people who voted Conservative in 2017 are now closer to Cable and the Lib Dems than they are to the May-Boris-Gove headbangers.
That certainly describes me, and doubtless a fair few reluctant 2017 Tory remain voters, in the home counties especially. But that still doesn't mean the Lib Dems will get my vote. While the Lib Dems remain irrelevant in 90% of seats and a Corbyn government remains a realistic threat, people like me will unfortunately be forced to continue to vote Tory.
The Tory vote will collapse by 20% when a realistic, more centrist alternative government emerges.
precisely.
Thankfully Corbyn is safe and the Lib Dems continue to be an irrelevance.
I am sure Vince Cable will welcome George to the LD parliamentary candidates list, Osborne's son campaigned for Cable at the last general election anyway
By that logic Clement Attlee is a Tory because his grandson became a Tory peer. Or an SDPer because his son joined the SDP
Clement Attlee did not push through Tory policies, Osborne was in a coalition government with the LDs, backed Remain like the LDs and opposes more grammar schools like the LDs. Osborne is certainly closer ideologically now to Cable than to May and Boris on most issues
The problem for the Conservatives is that in all probability most people who voted Conservative in 2017 are now closer to Cable and the Lib Dems than they are to the May-Boris-Gove headbangers.
Cable wants us to dump Brexit and stay in the EU. If you think the majority of Tory voters agree with that then you are really out of touch with reality.
It looks like the Unionist anti-SNP tactical block is unwinding. I am guessing because the SNP is seen as less of a threat than because they have come to terms with it (but that's a guess). Equally it looks like a chunk of SNP support is willing to vote Labour at the UK level. Fair play to Davidson, she cleverly played the tactical vote just at the moment when the target for that tactical vote was buckling.
I wonder if the likely prospect of being reduced to weary battling with SLab over a mediocre second place at Holyrood (& bugger all chance of being FM) will make Ruth consider scuttling off to a safe WM seat with all the opportunities that will bring? She doesn't strike me as someone who won't have let all the fawning by the English commentariat go to her head.
I am sure Vince Cable will welcome George to the LD parliamentary candidates list, Osborne's son campaigned for Cable at the last general election anyway
By that logic Clement Attlee is a Tory because his grandson became a Tory peer. Or an SDPer because his son joined the SDP
Clement Attlee did not push through Tory policies, Osborne was in a coalition government with the LDs, backed Remain like the LDs and opposes more grammar schools like the LDs. Osborne is certainly closer ideologically now to Cable than to May and Boris on most issues
The problem for the Conservatives is that in all probability most people who voted Conservative in 2017 are now closer to Cable and the Lib Dems than they are to the May-Boris-Gove headbangers.
Almost. The brighter ones are not near the latter but equally the former are uninspiring. They are in the unrepresented camp.
On topic - this is just the impact of bad press on Brexit, or normal statistical noise.
If the predicted economic damage comes - then that will move opinions much more obviously. But it may be too late then.
I do think it would be wise for someone to be working on a 'get back into the EU strategy' just in case public opinion shifts quickly.
Given all the trouble we have caused by our blundering attempt to leave I very much doubt the EU would have us back in the short term. We'd be left to stew for a few years to make sure we were sufficiently chastened never to attempt to leave again.
Why wouldn't they want us back?
I don't really buy this us causing lots of trouble argument, Brexit isn't even that big a political issue in EU countries as far as I can see.
If we get a transition deal which takes away our voting rights but leaves everything else the same (my rough understanding of what TM proposed), then it will still be much easier to stay in at the end of the transition than to leave.
I was thinking of a "no deal" scenario. If we get a BINO transition deal then I agree we could easily slip back into full membership but given the state of the Tory Party's negotiations with itself, not to mention the EU, and the short time available I think the chances of a transition are rapidly diminishing. As we were told (by Tusk i think?) right at the beginning of the process, it's a choice between hard Brexit and no Brexit.
As I said the other day you cannot just 'slip back in' to EU membership. It would require a new accession treaty and the agreement of all 27 existing members. The chances of that happening are very slight. The chances of it happening on terms we would accept is absolutely zero.
It looks like the Unionist anti-SNP tactical block is unwinding. I am guessing because the SNP is seen as less of a threat than because they have come to terms with it (but that's a guess). Equally it looks like a chunk of SNP support is willing to vote Labour at the UK level. Fair play to Davidson, she cleverly played the tactical vote just at the moment when the target for that tactical vote was buckling.
I wonder if the likely prospect of being reduced to weary battling with SLab over a mediocre second place at Holyrood (& bugger all chance of being FM) will make Ruth consider scuttling off to a safe WM seat with all the opportunities that will bring? She doesn't strike me as someone who won't have let all the fawning by the English commentariat go to her head.
I don't have quite the same prejudice against Ms Davidson that you have. Nevertheless the swap from the face of Unionism to the face of the Conservative Party in Scotland wasn't a profitable one for her.
On topic - this is just the impact of bad press on Brexit, or normal statistical noise.
If the predicted economic damage comes - then that will move opinions much more obviously. But it may be too late then.
I do think it would be wise for someone to be working on a 'get back into the EU strategy' just in case public opinion shifts quickly.
Given all the trouble we have caused by our blundering attempt to leave I very much doubt the EU would have us back in the short term. We'd be left to stew for a few years to make sure we were sufficiently chastened never to attempt to leave again.
Why wouldn't they want us back?
I don't really buy this us causing lots of trouble argument, Brexit isn't even that big a political issue in EU countries as far as I can see.
If we get a transition deal which takes away our voting rights but leaves everything else the same (my rough understanding of what TM proposed), then it will still be much easier to stay in at the end of the transition than to leave.
I was thinking of a "no deal" scenario. If we get a BINO transition deal then I agree we could easily slip back into full membership but given the state of the Tory Party's negotiations with itself, not to mention the EU, and the short time available I think the chances of a transition are rapidly diminishing. As we were told (by Tusk i think?) right at the beginning of the process, it's a choice between hard Brexit and no Brexit.
As I said the other day you cannot just 'slip back in' to EU membership. It would require a new accession treaty and the agreement of all 27 existing members. The chances of that happening are very slight. The chances of it happening on terms we would accept is absolutely zero.
I am sure Vince Cable will welcome George to the LD parliamentary candidates list, Osborne's son campaigned for Cable at the last general election anyway
By that logic Clement Attlee is a Tory because his grandson became a Tory peer. Or an SDPer because his son joined the SDP
Clement Attlee did not push through Tory policies, Osborne was in a coalition government with the LDs, backed Remain like the LDs and opposes more grammar schools like the LDs. Osborne is certainly closer ideologically now to Cable than to May and Boris on most issues
The problem for the Conservatives is that in all probability most people who voted Conservative in 2017 are now closer to Cable and the Lib Dems than they are to the May-Boris-Gove headbangers.
That certainly describes me, and doubtless a fair few reluctant 2017 Tory remain voters, in the home counties especially. But that still doesn't mean the Lib Dems will get my vote. While the Lib Dems remain irrelevant in 90% of seats and a Corbyn government remains a realistic threat, people like me will unfortunately be forced to continue to vote Tory.
The Tory vote will collapse by 20% when a realistic, more centrist alternative government emerges.
precisely.
Thankfully Corbyn is safe and the Lib Dems continue to be an irrelevance.
I must ask myself very carefully what, at GE 2022, I would be voting for. If things stay the same (unlikely I grant you) then what would the Cons represent?
Muddling through, indecisive, determined to push through an agenda which destroys their reputation for economic competence, and nasty again.
Is that a profile that would have me rushing to the polling booth or hit the streets with my blue rosette proudly displayed? Not entirely sure it would be. Would I vote Jezza? Absolutely not. Would I vote Starmer, ceteris paribus (ex. McConnell) - well I would ponder it, yes.
Would I vote an as yet unnamed hero from the Cons backbenches who was sensible, Remain-y, and very much like Dave? For sure. Rudd? Perhaps, let's say yes if she could divorce herself from the euroloons.
Would I vote for George if he came back? In a heartbeat - as is now being proven, he is one of the most sane Cons politicians of his generation.
I am sure Vince Cable will welcome George to the LD parliamentary candidates list, Osborne's son campaigned for Cable at the last general election anyway
By that logic Clement Attlee is a Tory because his grandson became a Tory peer. Or an SDPer because his son joined the SDP
Clement Attlee did not push through Tory policies, Osborne was in a coalition government with the LDs, backed Remain like the LDs and opposes more grammar schools like the LDs. Osborne is certainly closer ideologically now to Cable than to May and Boris on most issues
The problem for the Conservatives is that in all probability most people who voted Conservative in 2017 are now closer to Cable and the Lib Dems than they are to the May-Boris-Gove headbangers.
That certainly describes me, and doubtless a fair few reluctant 2017 Tory remain voters, in the home counties especially. But that still doesn't mean the Lib Dems will get my vote. While the Lib Dems remain irrelevant in 90% of seats and a Corbyn government remains a realistic threat, people like me will unfortunately be forced to continue to vote Tory.
The Tory vote will collapse by 20% when a realistic, more centrist alternative government emerges.
precisely.
Thankfully Corbyn is safe and the Lib Dems continue to be an irrelevance.
I must ask myself very carefully what, at GE 2022, I would be voting for. If things stay the same (unlikely I grant you) then what would the Cons represent?
Muddling through, indecisive, determined to push through an agenda which destroys their reputation for economic competence, and nasty again.
Is that a profile that would have me rushing to the polling booth or hit the streets with my blue rosette proudly displayed? Not entirely sure it would be. Would I vote Jezza? Absolutely not. Would I vote Starmer, ceteris paribus (ex. McConnell) - well I would ponder it, yes.
Would I vote an as yet unnamed hero from the Cons backbenches who was sensible, Remain-y, and very much like Dave? For sure. Rudd? Perhaps, let's say yes if she could divorce herself from the euroloons.
Would I vote for George if he came back? In a heartbeat - as is now being proven, he is one of the most sane Cons politicians of his generation.
I totally agree that team blue are lacking in direction and purpose. Hard to regain those things while in power, unfortunately.
On topic - this is just the impact of bad press on Brexit, or normal statistical noise.
If the predicted economic damage comes - then that will move opinions much more obviously. But it may be too late then.
I do think it would be wise for someone to be working on a 'get back into the EU strategy' just in case public opinion shifts quickly.
Given all the trouble we have caused by our blundering attempt to leave I very much doubt the EU would have us back in the short term. We'd be left to stew for a few years to make sure we were sufficiently chastened never to attempt to leave again.
Why wouldn't they want us back?
I don't really buy this us causing lots of trouble argument, Brexit isn't even that big a political issue in EU countries as far as I can see.
If we get a transition deal which takes away our voting rights but leaves everything else the same (my rough understanding of what TM proposed), then it will still be much easier to stay in at the end of the transition than to leave.
I was thinking of a "no deal" scenario. If we get a BINO transition deal then I agree we could easily slip back into full membership but given the state of the Tory Party's negotiations with itself, not to mention the EU, and the short time available I think the chances of a transition are rapidly diminishing. As we were told (by Tusk i think?) right at the beginning of the process, it's a choice between hard Brexit and no Brexit.
As I said the other day you cannot just 'slip back in' to EU membership. It would require a new accession treaty and the agreement of all 27 existing members. The chances of that happening are very slight. The chances of it happening on terms we would accept is absolutely zero.
I totally agree that team blue are lacking in direction and purpose. Hard to regain those things while in power, unfortunately.
If they were firmly in power it would be fine. The problem is, you can't be decisive and effective when you are a minority government. That, along with the poisoned chalice of being instructed by voters to implement Brexit, is the root of the Tories' problems at the moment.
I am sure Vince Cable will welcome George to the LD parliamentary candidates list, Osborne's son campaigned for Cable at the last general election anyway
By that logic Clement Attlee is a Tory because his grandson became a Tory peer. Or an SDPer because his son joined the SDP
Clement Attlee did not push through Tory policies, Osborne was in a coalition government with the LDs, backed Remain like the LDs and opposes more grammar schools like the LDs. Osborne is certainly closer ideologically now to Cable than to May and Boris on most issues
The problem for the Conservatives is that in all probability most people who voted Conservative in 2017 are now closer to Cable and the Lib Dems than they are to the May-Boris-Gove headbangers.
That certainly describes me, and doubtless a fair few reluctant 2017 Tory remain voters, in the home counties especially. But that still doesn't mean the Lib Dems will get my vote. While the Lib Dems remain irrelevant in 90% of seats and a Corbyn government remains a realistic threat, people like me will unfortunately be forced to continue to vote Tory.
The Tory vote will collapse by 20% when a realistic, more centrist alternative government emerges.
The problem for the Conservatives is that in all probability most people who voted Conservative in 2017 are now closer to Cable and the Lib Dems than they are to the May-Boris-Gove headbangers.
That certainly describes me, and doubtless a fair few reluctant 2017 Tory remain voters, in the home counties especially. But that still doesn't mean the Lib Dems will get my vote. While the Lib Dems remain irrelevant in 90% of seats and a Corbyn government remains a realistic threat, people like me will unfortunately be forced to continue to vote Tory.
The Tory vote will collapse by 20% when a realistic, more centrist alternative government emerges.
It's pretty obvious that Corbyn is focusing his efforts on presenting a sober alternative government - haven't heard him say anything very controversial for a long time. If he and McDonnell can keep that up for years while the Tories fall apart, I think a proportion of the people who are now shifting to Labour on "best policies" will shift VI as well.
I am sure Vince Cable will welcome George to the LD parliamentary candidates list, Osborne's son campaigned for Cable at the last general election anyway
By that logic Clement Attlee is a Tory because his grandson became a Tory peer. Or an SDPer because his son joined the SDP
The problem for the Conservatives is that in all probability most people who voted Conservative in 2017 are now closer to Cable and the Lib Dems than they are to the May-Boris-Gove headbangers.
That certainly describes me, and doubtless a fair few reluctant 2017 Tory remain voters, in the home counties especially. But that still doesn't mean the Lib Dems will get my vote. While the Lib Dems remain irrelevant in 90% of seats and a Corbyn government remains a realistic threat, people like me will unfortunately be forced to continue to vote Tory.
The Tory vote will collapse by 20% when a realistic, more centrist alternative government emerges.
precisely.
Thankfully Corbyn is safe and the Lib Dems continue to be an irrelevance.
I must ask myself very carefully what, at GE 2022, I would be voting for. If things stay the same (unlikely I grant you) then what would the Cons represent?
Muddling through, indecisive, determined to push through an agenda which destroys their reputation for economic competence, and nasty again.
Is that a profile that would have me rushing to the polling booth or hit the streets with my blue rosette proudly displayed? Not entirely sure it would be. Would I vote Jezza? Absolutely not. Would I vote Starmer, ceteris paribus (ex. McConnell) - well I would ponder it, yes.
Would I vote an as yet unnamed hero from the Cons backbenches who was sensible, Remain-y, and very much like Dave? For sure. Rudd? Perhaps, let's say yes if she could divorce herself from the euroloons.
Would I vote for George if he came back? In a heartbeat - as is now being proven, he is one of the most sane Cons politicians of his generation.
Largely agree with your comments though, in the case of Rudd, I really have to question the judgement of someone who thought it was a good idea to marry AA Gill. Who was the last PM or major party leader who has been divorced?
Mr. Song, ha. Trust the German Government, given they appear to be behind EU intransigence on negotiations?
With respect, the British negotiating position can be summarised as, "Oi you *****, we require a moon on a stick. It's an outrage that you won't give it to us.". Feel free to explain why that's a winning argument.
Seems fitting as we approach the 100th birthday of Eire.
I would go with that.
Malvinas to Argentina too
I can understand (maybe) NI, but no one in the Falklands wants to be ruled by Argentina.
Few in Hong Kong wanted to be ruled by China.
Check out what Foreign Office minister Nicholas Ridley - that raving Corbynite anti-imperialist - said to Falkland Islanders not long before the invasion....basically we can't afford to defend you so accept Argentina having shared sovereignty and make the best of it.
We could beat Argentina if necessary to defend the Falklands, we were unlikely to beat China to defend Hong Kong
Not very easily these days. We have a much reduced defence capability compared with 1982. And even then the mission was touch and go and entirely dependent on our sweet talking the Americans around from their natural opposition to it. Not sure we could rely on them now. Furthermore we also had essential support from neighbouring countries like Pinochet's Chile, which would be very unlikely to be forthcoming today.
Whether or not we could still militarily defend the islands, our ownership of the Falklands is now an outdated colonial anachronism from which we gain zero benefit, ie it is a big waste of money. Hence Ridley's comments, and they are even more true today.
While the UK may have a reduced capacity, the Argentine one has reduced even further.
Just for fun, I did a little research as to whether we have enough resources to do a repeat of Black Buck with modern Voyagers and Typhoons. Answer - maybe, with two or three Voyagers needed per Typhoon and very dependent on optimum speeds and weights and bomb load. I bet someone in a big brass hat thought of that when they ordered the Voyager!
The problem for the Conservatives is that in all probability most people who voted Conservative in 2017 are now closer to Cable and the Lib Dems than they are to the May-Boris-Gove headbangers.
That certainly describes me, and doubtless a fair few reluctant 2017 Tory remain voters, in the home counties especially. But that still doesn't mean the Lib Dems will get my vote. While the Lib Dems remain irrelevant in 90% of seats and a Corbyn government remains a realistic threat, people like me will unfortunately be forced to continue to vote Tory.
The Tory vote will collapse by 20% when a realistic, more centrist alternative government emerges.
precisely.
Thankfully Corbyn is safe and the Lib Dems continue to be an irrelevance.
I must ask myself very carefully what, at GE 2022, I would be voting for. If things stay the same (unlikely I grant you) then what would the Cons represent?
Muddling through, indecisive, determined to push through an agenda which destroys their reputation for economic competence, and nasty again.
Is that a profile that would have me rushing to the polling booth or hit the streets with my blue rosette proudly displayed? Not entirely sure it would be. Would I vote Jezza? Absolutely not. Would I vote Starmer, ceteris paribus (ex. McConnell) - well I would ponder it, yes.
Would I vote an as yet unnamed hero from the Cons backbenches who was sensible, Remain-y, and very much like Dave? For sure. Rudd? Perhaps, let's say yes if she could divorce herself from the euroloons.
Would I vote for George if he came back? In a heartbeat - as is now being proven, he is one of the most sane Cons politicians of his generation.
Largely agree with your comments though, in the case of Rudd, I really have to question the judgement of someone who thought it was a good idea to marry AA Gill. Who was the last PM or major party leader who has been divorced?
Not to comment other than to say she married him when she was very very young (as was he) and they separated relatively soon afterwards and then remained on good terms until his tragic recent death.
Or, genuinely, was that a joke?
As for last PM to be divorced good question. Not sure it would hold her back.
Largely agree with your comments though, in the case of Rudd, I really have to question the judgement of someone who thought it was a good idea to marry AA Gill. Who was the last PM or major party leader who had been divorced?
Maybe you don't count Jeremy Corbyn as a major party leader, but he's divorced, twice.
Yeah, who cares about the ability to set interest rates, or perform QE?
One can say the same for Scotland, Northen Ireland , the North East or Wales. There are different economic conditions which have frequently been subordinated to a generalised, and often South East focused, good.
The problem for the Conservatives is that in all probability most people who voted Conservative in 2017 are now closer to Cable and the Lib Dems than they are to the May-Boris-Gove headbangers.
That certainly describes me, and doubtless a fair few reluctant 2017 Tory remain voters, in the home counties especially. But that still doesn't mean the Lib Dems will get my vote. While the Lib Dems remain irrelevant in 90% of seats and a Corbyn government remains a realistic threat, people like me will unfortunately be forced to continue to vote Tory.
The Tory vote will collapse by 20% when a realistic, more centrist alternative government emerges.
It's pretty obvious that Corbyn is focusing his efforts on presenting a sober alternative government - haven't heard him say anything very controversial for a long time. If he and McDonnell can keep that up for years while the Tories fall apart, I think a proportion of the people who are now shifting to Labour on "best policies" will shift VI as well.
I think that's a fair comment Nick. And in any case, it's possible for Labour to outpoll the Tories by a narrow margin without winning over a single Tory voter, simply by winning SNP votes. That of itself might be enough to kick the Tories out of government.
The problem for the Conservatives is that in all probability most people who voted Conservative in 2017 are now closer to Cable and the Lib Dems than they are to the May-Boris-Gove headbangers.
That certainly describes me, and doubtless a fair few reluctant 2017 Tory remain voters, in the home counties especially. But that still doesn't mean the Lib Dems will get my vote. While the Lib Dems remain irrelevant in 90% of seats and a Corbyn government remains a realistic threat, people like me will unfortunately be forced to continue to vote Tory.
The Tory vote will collapse by 20% when a realistic, more centrist alternative government emerges.
It's pretty obvious that Corbyn is focusing his efforts on presenting a sober alternative government - haven't heard him say anything very controversial for a long time. If he and McDonnell can keep that up for years while the Tories fall apart, I think a proportion of the people who are now shifting to Labour on "best policies" will shift VI as well.
And the nationalisations? They remain, don't they? That's pretty unsober.
Yeah, who cares about the ability to set interest rates, or perform QE?
One can say the same for Scotland, Northen Ireland , the North East or Wales. There are different economic conditions which have frequently been subordinated to a generalised, and often South East focused, good.
Largely agree with your comments though, in the case of Rudd, I really have to question the judgement of someone who thought it was a good idea to marry AA Gill. Who was the last PM or major party leader who had been divorced?
Maybe you don't count Jeremy Corbyn as a major party leader, but he's divorced, twice.
How could I forget Corbyn. Can't think of anyone recent apart from him though.
With respect please read what was being written and what I answered to. Everything you have linked to relates to Britain deciding to stay in the EU before we leave. That is not what the discussion was about. It was about having a very soft Brexit (BINO) and then 'slipping back into' the EU. The transition deal does not mean we have not left. We will have left as far as the treaties are concerned in March 2019. At that point, no matter how close we are and how much we might be abiding by Single Market rules etc we will not be in the EU.
That is simply not possible. As I said and as should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about the subject, once we leave we would have to go through the whole process of an accession treaty and it would have to be agreed unanimously by all 27 countries.
The problem for the Conservatives is that in all probability most people who voted Conservative in 2017 are now closer to Cable and the Lib Dems than they are to the May-Boris-Gove headbangers.
That certainly describes me, and doubtless a fair few reluctant 2017 Tory remain voters, in the home counties especially. But that still doesn't mean the Lib Dems will get my vote. While the Lib Dems remain irrelevant in 90% of seats and a Corbyn government remains a realistic threat, people like me will unfortunately be forced to continue to vote Tory.
The Tory vote will collapse by 20% when a realistic, more centrist alternative government emerges.
It's pretty obvious that Corbyn is focusing his efforts on presenting a sober alternative government - haven't heard him say anything very controversial for a long time. If he and McDonnell can keep that up for years while the Tories fall apart, I think a proportion of the people who are now shifting to Labour on "best policies" will shift VI as well.
A fair point. It’s also very easy (and a bloody good idea) to say almost nothing when those on the opposite benches are generating unfavourable headlines for themselves!
How could I forget Corbyn. Can't think of anyone recent apart from him though.
Ed Miliband of course famously did the reverse ferret, and got married for the same reason that Jeremy Corbyn has discovered a taste for smart suits and ties. Authentic is the word, I think.
The idea that allowing the Chancellor to be attacked because he points out, quite reasonably, the issues involved is some sort of worthwhile tactical manoeuvre is strange, to say the least.
All it is doing is undermining the government and the country. It is also getting us nowhere in terms of an outcome which works for the majority.
The key thing to understand is that those attacking the Chancellor don't want a deal. They are setting it up to fail, just as they did with Cameron and his EU negotiation. They want our bridges AND boats to be burnt to a crisp. Leavers who do want a deal (and we are all Leavers now, I guess) need to face them down.
There is a school of thought that having this pressure on May from the hard Leavers increases our chances of her getting a deal, since the EU don't want to risk her being pushed out and being succeeded by one of them.
How could I forget Corbyn. Can't think of anyone recent apart from him though.
Ed Miliband of course famously did the reverse ferret, and got married for the same reason that Jeremy Corbyn has discovered a taste for smart suits and ties. Authentic is the word, I think.
Ditto William Hague and Gordon Brown
I guess if being divorced didn't even harm Reagan in the 80s it'd be a non-issue here now.
I've never had much sympathy for him anyway. He was one of the first to legitimise the idea of leaving the EU within the Tory party during the coalition years.
I've never had much sympathy for him anyway. He was one of the first to legitimise the idea of leaving the EU within the Tory party during the coalition years.
And now he has committed the final act of betrayal....
"Mr Hammond rejected accusations of pessimism saying he found it “a slightly bizarre observation” and insisted that he was “very optimistic about the UK economy”.
Once current uncertainties, which are damaging consumption and investment, were resolved, he expected the economy to “start powering forward”."
How could I forget Corbyn. Can't think of anyone recent apart from him though.
Ed Miliband of course famously did the reverse ferret, and got married for the same reason that Jeremy Corbyn has discovered a taste for smart suits and ties. Authentic is the word, I think.
Ironically Cameron’s comment about Corbyn smartening himself up was one of the best things anyone ever said to the old socialist.
His aides dragging him through a tailor’s shop for that one blue suit he wore to the election debates could well have made the difference in half a dozen ultra marginals that cost the Tory majority.
The idea that allowing the Chancellor to be attacked because he points out, quite reasonably, the issues involved is some sort of worthwhile tactical manoeuvre is strange, to say the least.
All it is doing is undermining the government and the country. It is also getting us nowhere in terms of an outcome which works for the majority.
The key thing to understand is that those attacking the Chancellor don't want a deal. They are setting it up to fail, just as they did with Cameron and his EU negotiation. They want our bridges AND boats to be burnt to a crisp. Leavers who do want a deal (and we are all Leavers now, I guess) need to face them down.
There is a school of thought that having this pressure on May from the hard Leavers increases our chances of her getting a deal, since the EU don't want to risk her being pushed out and being succeeded by one of them.
Interesting. Whose school of thought is it? The Ultras or the Moderates?
In practice I am sure it's not the case. The government spends 90% of its capital on negotiating with its party members and only 10% actually trying to sort something out with the EU. What people think and what they are different things. Both are worth understanding.
The idea that allowing the Chancellor to be attacked because he points out, quite reasonably, the issues involved is some sort of worthwhile tactical manoeuvre is strange, to say the least.
All it is doing is undermining the government and the country. It is also getting us nowhere in terms of an outcome which works for the majority.
The key thing to understand is that those attacking the Chancellor don't want a deal. They are setting it up to fail, just as they did with Cameron and his EU negotiation. They want our bridges AND boats to be burnt to a crisp. Leavers who do want a deal (and we are all Leavers now, I guess) need to face them down.
I think those attacking the Chancellor don't want the deal he wants - EEA or renegotiated 'Associate Membership'. Their attacks might be a little off base (like calling for his prosecution), but the idea that the govt is actually not fighting itself at this stage is contrary to the evidence, and that it's not 'Hard against Soft', but EEA deal against Non EEA Deal. Two forms of soft Brexit - The Tories' fear is that the EEA version of Soft Brexit, will simply rear up into Brexit 2 in a decade and they'll have to go through the whole thing again.
So yes, its a party management issue, but it's not Hard against Soft Brexit - It's Brexit in one stage or two.
I totally agree that team blue are lacking in direction and purpose. Hard to regain those things while in power, unfortunately.
If they were firmly in power it would be fine. The problem is, you can't be decisive and effective when you are a minority government. That, along with the poisoned chalice of being instructed by voters to implement Brexit, is the root of the Tories' problems at the moment.
None of this sh*te would have happened if the tories had reached out to young people, instead of screwing them over. Almost all of their problems were logical consequences of pandering to an elderly membership* in response to the 2014 kipper rebellion.
Dave & George could have cemented the party in the centre. Instead, they kissed & made up with the elderly nutter fringe, who were then empowered.
*apologies for any offence caused to the non-nutty, older tories. You have my sympathies.
Your "if" is the key point. Talk me through the terms of rejoining that you anticipate. Do you think the exact same terms Britain left on would be available? Because I don't. And if they aren't, where is Britain going to compromise? Bear in mind that the unhinged Brexit right want Philip Hammond tried for treason for expressing concerns about the most extreme forms of Brexit. How do you think they'd react to (a) rejoining and (b) compromising further on the rejoining terms?
1) We would need a decisive shift in public opinion. Very possible - but it might come too late.
2) It's no good public opinion changing, and then us discovering that there is no process to rejoin...
TM is going for a transition deal to buy more time essentially. I think she will get that deal.
What needs to be part of it - is a mechanism by which we can go back in, rather than leaving. Within a certain timeframe.
At present it sounds as though the transition will be very similar to what we currently have. That's good - it means limited change will be required to go back in.
I think provided we hadn't properly left, introduced new customs checks, written a whole bunch of new laws that contradict EU rules - we would be able to stay on the terms we have now.
Why would the EU suddenly demand we lose our opt-outs when they were content for us to have them before?
It would be challenging even for them to agree demands... For instance - non-Eurozone countries aren't going to want to establish the principle of being forced into the Euro. We might see the rebate shrink I suppose but ultimately it would be easiest for all parties to just to leave things as they are.
If public opinion shifts - then we won't need to worry too much about the Brexit right. Yes the likes of JRM will be very angry - but if there's 70-30 polling to stay in, we will discover a large number of re-Remainer MPs. We have a second referendum if needed to give them cover.
The idea that allowing the Chancellor to be attacked because he points out, quite reasonably, the issues involved is some sort of worthwhile tactical manoeuvre is strange, to say the least.
All it is doing is undermining the government and the country. It is also getting us nowhere in terms of an outcome which works for the majority.
The key thing to understand is that those attacking the Chancellor don't want a deal. They are setting it up to fail, just as they did with Cameron and his EU negotiation. They want our bridges AND boats to be burnt to a crisp. Leavers who do want a deal (and we are all Leavers now, I guess) need to face them down.
I think those attacking the Chancellor don't want the deal he wants - EEA or renegotiated 'Associate Membership'. Their attacks might be a little off base (like calling for his prosecution), but the idea that the govt is actually not fighting itself at this stage is contrary to the evidence, and that it's not 'Hard against Soft', but EEA deal against Non EEA Deal. Two forms of soft Brexit - The Tories' fear is that the EEA version of Soft Brexit, will simply rear up into Brexit 2 in a decade and they'll have to go through the whole thing again.
So yes, its a party management issue, but it's not Hard against Soft Brexit - It's Brexit in one stage or two.
His attackers are rightly attacking him for a) cocking up the April tax changes b) being a misery guts moper.
He seems to have u-turned on b. Can he deliver a competent and confident budget next month ?
I have encountered quite a few senior business people in the EU who believe that Brexit will not happen in any meaningful sense - either Brexit in name only, or the UK will in the end stay in. My observation being that this view appears to be especially prominent in places like Luxembourg and Brussels, where business people tend to know and socialise with Eurocrats.
They are surely wrong to be confident about that outcome. But it is certainly a possibility.
The problem for the Conservatives is that in all probability most people who voted Conservative in 2017 are now closer to Cable and the Lib Dems than they are to the May-Boris-Gove headbangers.
That certainly describes me, and doubtless a fair few reluctant 2017 Tory remain voters, in the home counties especially. But that still doesn't mean the Lib Dems will get my vote. While the Lib Dems remain irrelevant in 90% of seats and a Corbyn government remains a realistic threat, people like me will unfortunately be forced to continue to vote Tory.
The Tory vote will collapse by 20% when a realistic, more centrist alternative government emerges.
It's pretty obvious that Corbyn is focusing his efforts on presenting a sober alternative government - haven't heard him say anything very controversial for a long time. If he and McDonnell can keep that up for years while the Tories fall apart, I think a proportion of the people who are now shifting to Labour on "best policies" will shift VI as well.
Quite so. And his stance on Brexit is carefully calibrated to retain the support of remainers whilst not alienating moderate leavers. As the Tories drag the country deeper and deeper into the brown stuff the demand for an alternative - any alternative - can only grow. And Corbyn is doing his best to make sure he will be that alternative.
I totally agree that team blue are lacking in direction and purpose. Hard to regain those things while in power, unfortunately.
If they were firmly in power it would be fine. The problem is, you can't be decisive and effective when you are a minority government. That, along with the poisoned chalice of being instructed by voters to implement Brexit, is the root of the Tories' problems at the moment.
None of this sh*te would have happened if the tories had reached out to young people, instead of screwing them over. Almost all of their problems were logical consequences of pandering to an elderly membership in response to the 2014 kipper rebellion.
Dave & George could have cemented the party in the centre. Instead, they kissed & made up with the nutters, who were then empowered.
All of this would’ve been avoided if Messrs Blair and Brown has not blatantly reneged on a referendum on Lisbon.
As I said the other day you cannot just 'slip back in' to EU membership. It would require a new accession treaty and the agreement of all 27 existing members. The chances of that happening are very slight. The chances of it happening on terms we would accept is absolutely zero.
Do they talk about the price they’d extract for membership? Kiss goodbye to the pound sterling, and the rebate!
Who wouldn't want to keep a rebate, but the pound hasn't exactly been helping our economy recently. I'd certainly be happy to switch. But if you want to keep it, the best chance is cancelling Brexit now rather than leaving and having to negotiate to get back in.
I totally agree that team blue are lacking in direction and purpose. Hard to regain those things while in power, unfortunately.
If they were firmly in power it would be fine. The problem is, you can't be decisive and effective when you are a minority government. That, along with the poisoned chalice of being instructed by voters to implement Brexit, is the root of the Tories' problems at the moment.
None of this sh*te would have happened if the tories had reached out to young people, instead of screwing them over. Almost all of their problems were logical consequences of pandering to an elderly membership in response to the 2014 kipper rebellion.
Dave & George could have cemented the party in the centre. Instead, they kissed & made up with the nutters, who were then empowered.
All of this would’ve been avoided if Messrs Blair and Brown has not blatantly reneged on a referendum on Lisbon.
1) We would need a decisive shift in public opinion. Very possible - but it might come too late.
2) It's no good public opinion changing, and then us discovering that there is no process to rejoin...
TM is going for a transition deal to buy more time essentially. I think she will get that deal.
What needs to be part of it - is a mechanism by which we can go back in, rather than leaving. Within a certain timeframe.
At present it sounds as though the transition will be very similar to what we currently have. That's good - it means limited change will be required to go back in.
I think provided we hadn't properly left, introduced new customs checks, written a whole bunch of new laws that contradict EU rules - we would be able to stay on the terms we have now.
Why would the EU suddenly demand we lose our opt-outs when they were content for us to have them before?
It would be challenging even for them to agree demands... For instance - non-Eurozone countries aren't going to want to establish the principle of being forced into the Euro. We might see the rebate shrink I suppose but ultimately it would be easiest for all parties to just to leave things as they are.
If public opinion shifts - then we won't need to worry too much about the Brexit right. Yes the likes of JRM will be very angry - but if there's 70-30 polling to stay in, we will discover a large number of re-Remainer MPs. We have a second referendum if needed to give them cover.
Just dealing with a few of those points as the others, though I may not agree with them, are at least plausible.
The Transition deal is NOT buying time as far as leaving the EU is concerned. It only extends the period after we have left where we remain in the Single Market etc. If she wants to buy time for further dealing with Brexit then the only way that can be done is to apply for an extension to the negotiations under Article 50 and secure the agreement of all 27 other countries. Otherwise come March 2019 we are out.
You are wrong about the opt outs I am afraid. They were not liked by the other EU countries nor the Commission whilst we were still a member and they certainly won't be looking to reapply them if we rejoin. There is a requirement under the Lisbon Treaty for all new members to sign up to the Euro and Schengen and there is nota cat in hells chance of them agreeing to the rebate given how much they have moaned about it before.
Basically if we want to rejoin we will need a new accession and our opt outs will not have a cat in hells chance of staying.
I totally agree that team blue are lacking in direction and purpose. Hard to regain those things while in power, unfortunately.
If they were firmly in power it would be fine. The problem is, you can't be decisive and effective when you are a minority government. That, along with the poisoned chalice of being instructed by voters to implement Brexit, is the root of the Tories' problems at the moment.
None of this sh*te would have happened if the tories had reached out to young people, instead of screwing them over. Almost all of their problems were logical consequences of pandering to an elderly membership in response to the 2014 kipper rebellion.
Dave & George could have cemented the party in the centre. Instead, they kissed & made up with the nutters, who were then empowered.
All of this would’ve been avoided if Messrs Blair and Brown has not blatantly reneged on a referendum on Lisbon.
I think they might have won that referendum.
I think that's the point, it would have given the UK-EU relationship renewed democratic legitimacy.
I totally agree that team blue are lacking in direction and purpose. Hard to regain those things while in power, unfortunately.
If they were firmly in power it would be fine. The problem is, you can't be decisive and effective when you are a minority government. That, along with the poisoned chalice of being instructed by voters to implement Brexit, is the root of the Tories' problems at the moment.
None of this sh*te would have happened if the tories had reached out to young people, instead of screwing them over. Almost all of their problems were logical consequences of pandering to an elderly membership* in response to the 2014 kipper rebellion.
Dave & George could have cemented the party in the centre. Instead, they kissed & made up with the elderly nutter fringe, who were then empowered.
*apologies for any offence caused to the non-nutty, older tories. You have my sympathies.
The inevitable consequence, eventually, being a government elected with the overwhelming support of the under 50s which proceeds to seriously hurt the retired and elderly. There will be little mercy when it comes to cutting pensions, social care and taxing property equity from the generations which the baby boomers have shat on.
I totally agree that team blue are lacking in direction and purpose. Hard to regain those things while in power, unfortunately.
If they were firmly in power it would be fine. The problem is, you can't be decisive and effective when you are a minority government. That, along with the poisoned chalice of being instructed by voters to implement Brexit, is the root of the Tories' problems at the moment.
None of this sh*te would have happened if the tories had reached out to young people, instead of screwing them over. Almost all of their problems were logical consequences of pandering to an elderly membership in response to the 2014 kipper rebellion.
Dave & George could have cemented the party in the centre. Instead, they kissed & made up with the nutters, who were then empowered.
All of this would’ve been avoided if Messrs Blair and Brown has not blatantly reneged on a referendum on Lisbon.
I think they might have won that referendum.
Personally I think it would’ve gone down in flames, but who knows. The fact of the reneging certainly played into my change of opinion because it looked like running from the voters ( which it was ). To me it meant 23rd June 2016 was a one off, a sub optimal choice of the nuclear button, but as the buggers had dodged the ballot box before, I figured I was never ever going to get the chance again. So it played heavily in my decision, and I doubt I was alone.
If you were involved in a business deal with another company and you heard one of the senior partners in that company referring to you as 'the enemy' I am not sure it would be likely to engender feelings of warmth and cooperation.
Whatever reason he did it for I think this is a really, really dumb move by Hammond.
Tipping point as the Stuart Dickson would have said. This hasty and ill thought through decision is going to give our leaders some very uncomfortable times. Why did anyone think that something engineered by Farage would be other than a disaster?
If you were involved in a business deal with another company and you heard one of the senior partners in that company referring to you as 'the enemy' I am not sure it would be likely to engender feelings of warmth and cooperation.
Whatever reason he did it for I think this is a really, really dumb move by Hammond.
I'd normally be blasé about this (it's pretty normal talk in business in my experience). It implies a one-off transaction rather than a relationship, mind. Many years ago, I worked for one client that had a series of Project Indians (Indian, Indian 2, Indian 3 etc). The logic being that "we" were the cowboys and "they" were the Indians.
However, I fear that in the present hysterical atmosphere the weaker-minded Leavers will take it literally.
Tipping point as the Stuart Dickson would have said. This hasty and ill thought through decision is going to give our leaders some very uncomfortable times. Why did anyone think that something engineered by Farage would be other than a disaster?
One man's tipping point is another man's margin of error.
Just dealing with a few of those points as the others, though I may not agree with them, are at least plausible.
The Transition deal is NOT buying time as far as leaving the EU is concerned. It only extends the period after we have left where we remain in the Single Market etc. If she wants to buy time for further dealing with Brexit then the only way that can be done is to apply for an extension to the negotiations under Article 50 and secure the agreement of all 27 other countries. Otherwise come March 2019 we are out.
You are wrong about the opt outs I am afraid. They were not liked by the other EU countries nor the Commission whilst we were still a member and they certainly won't be looking to reapply them if we rejoin. There is a requirement under the Lisbon Treaty for all new members to sign up to the Euro and Schengen and there is nota cat in hells chance of them agreeing to the rebate given how much they have moaned about it before.
Basically if we want to rejoin we will need a new accession and our opt outs will not have a cat in hells chance of staying.
Yes I agree on the transition deal - sorry if my post wasn't clear. The idea I was trying to express is that if we are still in SM, CU, subject to EU rules... from that position (even if technically Brexited) - it would be much easier to rejoin. Much harder if there is a no deal Brexit.
On the opt-outs, I think if tomorrow you offered the EU the chance for Britain to stay in as we are they would all say yes. The opt-outs will still continue to apply during the transition period I presume. So just continue them and keep things simple.
On the rebate - perhaps it would go, perhaps it would be reduced. Doesn't seem insurmountable to me.
It is a full blown Scottish poll, not a subsample.
Baxtering that, plus using my GB EMA (exponential moving average) for all parties gives:
In Scotland, 8 SNP gains (5 from Con and 3 from LD incl Jo Swinson)
In GB, Con lose 37 (incl Amber Rudd and Zac Godsmith), Lab gain 31, LD lose net 1, PC lose 1, SNP gain 8.
Overall, Labour 33 short of a majority. (SNP on 43 and LDs on 11)
Not sure Baxtering in Scotland is a great idea. Labour are within touching distance of the SNP in well over a dozen seats, so small shifts in votes could produce pretty spectacular results. With that in mind, what we might also be seeing is what used to happen - shifts from Tory to SNP to stop Labour. All very intriguing.
Long way to go yet. Life is full of surprises.
If Tory tactical voting SNP to stop Labour succeeded in say ten seats, then labour would be 43 short of a majority and the SNP would be on 53. It doesn't change the high level picture much.
I guess that the safer the Union feels, the more chance the SNP has to get Unionist votes.
I totally agree that team blue are lacking in direction and purpose. Hard to regain those things while in power, unfortunately.
If they were firmly in power it would be fine. The problem is, you can't be decisive and effective when you are a minority government. That, along with the poisoned chalice of being instructed by voters to implement Brexit, is the root of the Tories' problems at the moment.
None of this sh*te would have happened if the tories had reached out to young people, instead of screwing them over. Almost all of their problems were logical consequences of pandering to an elderly membership in response to the 2014 kipper rebellion.
Dave & George could have cemented the party in the centre. Instead, they kissed & made up with the nutters, who were then empowered.
All of this would’ve been avoided if Messrs Blair and Brown has not blatantly reneged on a referendum on Lisbon.
I think they might have won that referendum.
I think that's the point, it would have given the UK-EU relationship renewed democratic legitimacy.
Fair point - I think you're right, it would have given renewed democratic legitimacy. (and perhaps also made another EU referendum seem a bit of a chore...)
I assumed the OP was thinking the other way around!
The problem for the Conservatives is that in all probability most people who voted Conservative in 2017 are now closer to Cable and the Lib Dems than they are to the May-Boris-Gove headbangers.
That certainly describes me, and doubtless a fair few reluctant 2017 Tory remain voters, in the home counties especially. But that still doesn't mean the Lib Dems will get my vote. While the Lib Dems remain irrelevant in 90% of seats and a Corbyn government remains a realistic threat, people like me will unfortunately be forced to continue to vote Tory.
The Tory vote will collapse by 20% when a realistic, more centrist alternative government emerges.
It's pretty obvious that Corbyn is focusing his efforts on presenting a sober alternative government - haven't heard him say anything very controversial for a long time. If he and McDonnell can keep that up for years while the Tories fall apart, I think a proportion of the people who are now shifting to Labour on "best policies" will shift VI as well.
I think that's a fair comment Nick. And in any case, it's possible for Labour to outpoll the Tories by a narrow margin without winning over a single Tory voter, simply by winning SNP votes. That of itself might be enough to kick the Tories out of government.
Only if Labour squeeze the SNP down below 20%, unlikely and even then if they do not win over any Tory voters the Tories would still be ahead of Labour on seats if not votes
I totally agree that team blue are lacking in direction and purpose. Hard to regain those things while in power, unfortunately.
If they were firmly in power it would be fine. The problem is, you can't be decisive and effective when you are a minority government. That, along with the poisoned chalice of being instructed by voters to implement Brexit, is the root of the Tories' problems at the moment.
None of this sh*te would have happened if the tories had reached out to young people, instead of screwing them over. Almost all of their problems were logical consequences of pandering to an elderly membership* in response to the 2014 kipper rebellion.
Dave & George could have cemented the party in the centre. Instead, they kissed & made up with the elderly nutter fringe, who were then empowered.
*apologies for any offence caused to the non-nutty, older tories. You have my sympathies.
The inevitable consequence, eventually, being a government elected with the overwhelming support of the under 50s which proceeds to seriously hurt the retired and elderly. There will be little mercy when it comes to cutting pensions, social care and taxing property equity from the generations which the baby boomers have shat on.
Alarmingly, their most logical electoral strategy for the next GE is to consolidate the 50+ vote & attempt to boost turnout.
With a bit of luck, a competent campaign, some pork for their client vote - scraped from the currently-labour-voters, not-yet-labour-voters and don't-voters, they'll win themselves a majority.
But then what?
Does it matter to them if the party (and the country) is dragged into the cemetery?
Does it matter to them if their grandchildren emigrate?
Just dealing with a few of those points as the others, though I may not agree with them, are at least plausible.
The Transition deal is NOT buying time as far as leaving the EU is concerned. It only extends the period after we have left where we remain in the Single Market etc. If she wants to buy time for further dealing with Brexit then the only way that can be done is to apply for an extension to the negotiations under Article 50 and secure the agreement of all 27 other countries. Otherwise come March 2019 we are out.
You are wrong about the opt outs I am afraid. They were not liked by the other EU countries nor the Commission whilst we were still a member and they certainly won't be looking to reapply them if we rejoin. There is a requirement under the Lisbon Treaty for all new members to sign up to the Euro and Schengen and there is nota cat in hells chance of them agreeing to the rebate given how much they have moaned about it before.
Basically if we want to rejoin we will need a new accession and our opt outs will not have a cat in hells chance of staying.
Yes I agree on the transition deal - sorry if my post wasn't clear. The idea I was trying to express is that if we are still in SM, CU, subject to EU rules... from that position (even if technically Brexited) - it would be much easier to rejoin. Much harder if there is a no deal Brexit.
On the opt-outs, I think if tomorrow you offered the EU the chance for Britain to stay in as we are they would all say yes. The opt-outs will still continue to apply during the transition period I presume. So just continue them and keep things simple.
On the rebate - perhaps it would go, perhaps it would be reduced. Doesn't seem insurmountable to me.
Much easier technically yes. But politically we would still be faced with the need to get 27 countries to agree an accession treaty - bearing in mind that every time one of these treaties comes up the countries use it as an excuse to try and tack on other concessions for themselves. And the Lisbon Treaty dictates that under those circumstances we would be signing up to the Euro and Schengen as well.
I am sure Vince Cable will welcome George to the LD parliamentary candidates list, Osborne's son campaigned for Cable at the last general election anyway
By that logic Clement Attlee is a Tory because his grandson became a Tory peer. Or an SDPer because his son joined the SDP
Clement Attlee did not push through Tory policies, Osborne was in a coalition government with the LDs, backed Remain like the LDs and opposes more grammar schools like the LDs. Osborne is certainly closer ideologically now to Cable than to May and Boris on most issues
The problem for the Conservatives is that in all probability most people who voted Conservative in 2017 are now closer to Cable and the Lib Dems than they are to the May-Boris-Gove headbangers.
Not true, 80% of 2017 Tory voters would now back Leave according to the polls.
The remaining 20% will still vote Tory while Corbyn remains the alternative
Regarding earlier debate about divorced Prime Ministers, Mrs. Thatcher married a divorcee.
I don't think divorce per se really registers as a problem with the public given that the current divorce rate is about 40%. I think the circumstances of the divorce might be of some bearing though.
As an example I have a very low opinion of Corbyn (outside of his politics) because he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a better school. To me such behaviour is so outrageous that it makes me think very poorly of him as a man.
I totally agree that team blue are lacking in direction and purpose. Hard to regain those things while in power, unfortunately.
If they were firmly in power it would be fine. The problem is, you can't be decisive and effective when you are a minority government. That, along with the poisoned chalice of being instructed by voters to implement Brexit, is the root of the Tories' problems at the moment.
None of this sh*te would have happened if the tories had reached out to young people, instead of screwing them over. Almost all of their problems were logical consequences of pandering to an elderly membership in response to the 2014 kipper rebellion.
Dave & George could have cemented the party in the centre. Instead, they kissed & made up with the nutters, who were then empowered.
All of this would’ve been avoided if Messrs Blair and Brown has not blatantly reneged on a referendum on Lisbon.
I think they might have won that referendum.
I think that's the point, it would have given the UK-EU relationship renewed democratic legitimacy.
Fair point - I think you're right, it would have given renewed democratic legitimacy. (and perhaps also made another EU referendum seem a bit of a chore...)
I assumed the OP was thinking the other way around!
Yes. This is the point. Had it been won by Brown it would’ve made a second referendum look overkill. Had it been lost hopefully QMV extension would’ve had a rethink. Personally I think it would’ve been a landslide no which might’ve produced some serious soul searching in Brussels ( one can only hope).
But to run away and send Gordo skulking in at midnight to sign under the cover of darkness just looked like “ yeah, we knew we’d never get this through but sod the voters they are going down the road of integration whether they want to or not”.
The rest is history. Do things without the consent of the people, even if you think it’s enlightened, and it will bite you on the bum eventually. It’s why we have elections every five years or so. Maybe the EU should have a Europe wide referendum every ten years on membership?
I’d only get excited if this kind of polling showed 15-20% leads for Wrong consistenly.
Even then, it won’t change things, we’re leaving for good or ill.
Arlene Foster is very emphatic that a customs border between NI and GB "cannot happen". If a customs border between NI and Ireland also cannot happen, then it's impossible to see any form of Brexit with a majority in the Commons.
The government will have to cancel Brexit, or Brexit will cancel the government.
Seems fitting as we approach the 100th birthday of Eire.
I would go with that.
Malvinas to Argentina too
I can understand (maybe) NI, but no one in the Falklands wants to be ruled by Argentina.
Few in Hong Kong wanted to be ruled by China.
Check out what Foreign Office minister Nicholas Ridley - that raving Corbynite anti-imperialist - said to Falkland Islanders not long before the invasion....basically we can't afford to defend you so accept Argentina having shared sovereignty and make the best of it.
We could beat Argentina if necessary to defend the Falklands, we were unlikely to beat China to defend Hong Kong
Not very easily these days. We have a much reduced defence capability compared with 1982. And even then the mission was touch and go and entirely dependent on our sweet talking the Americans around from their natural opposition to it. Not sure we could rely on them now. Furthermore we also had essential support from neighbouring countries like Pinochet's Chile, which would be very unlikely to be forthcoming today.
Whether or not we could still militarily defend the islands, our ownership of the Falklands is now an outdated colonial anachronism from which we gain zero benefit, ie it is a big waste of money. Hence Ridley's comments, and they are even more true today.
Even with defence cuts we still have a bigger military and Navy than Argentina now has (it has also cut defence spending since the days of the military junta) so we could still defend the Falklands even if that is not saying much
No Tory PM would ever give away the Falklands and survive 5 minutes, Corbyn might but would lose his remaining white working class base
If you were involved in a business deal with another company and you heard one of the senior partners in that company referring to you as 'the enemy' I am not sure it would be likely to engender feelings of warmth and cooperation.
Whatever reason he did it for I think this is a really, really dumb move by Hammond.
Much easier technically yes. But politically we would still be faced with the need to get 27 countries to agree an accession treaty - bearing in mind that every time one of these treaties comes up the countries use it as an excuse to try and tack on other concessions for themselves. And the Lisbon Treaty dictates that under those circumstances we would be signing up to the Euro and Schengen as well.
This is a plausible albeit unlikely scenario I think.
It's March 2020. Britain has Brexited, but continues to apply all EU law and make payments into the EU budget. Public opinion in the UK has turned against Brexit and the government wants to change its mind on Brexit.
The EU countries can choose between us leaving the CU, SM, various trade disruption, filling a hole of debatable size in their budgets, losing the right for their citizens to come and live and work in Britain etc.
OR
Just go back to how things were.
I think they might well choose option 2.
If one country starts tacking on concessions, they all will, and then it won't happen. And they should know that. My suggestion is that we agree the process for this accession in advance as far as possible so that we can fast track the legal side of it.
Comments
I don't think that's the case at all. I think 30-35%+ of the voters of this fine country are fully or mostly on board with the May-Boris-Gove nutters.
To put it another way, they probably are ideologically closer to Cable, but they are applying that ideology to a different set of “facts”.
The Tory vote will collapse by 20% when a realistic, more centrist alternative government emerges.
"Brexit: Britain can still stay in the EU if it wants to, German finance minister says
Elder statesman of European politics says UK would find no obstacles if it decided to change its mind on Brexit "
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-eu-withdrawal-open-doors-change-mind-german-finance-minister-wolfgang-sch-uble-a7787736.html
http://www.politico.eu/article/9-ways-britain-could-stay-european-union-brexit/
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/20/european-parliament-will-welcome-britain-back-if-voters-veto-brexit
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/820001/Brexit-news-EU-Council-chief-Donald-Tusk-Britain-still-stay-in-EU
Muddling through, indecisive, determined to push through an agenda which destroys their reputation for economic competence, and nasty again.
Is that a profile that would have me rushing to the polling booth or hit the streets with my blue rosette proudly displayed? Not entirely sure it would be. Would I vote Jezza? Absolutely not. Would I vote Starmer, ceteris paribus (ex. McConnell) - well I would ponder it, yes.
Would I vote an as yet unnamed hero from the Cons backbenches who was sensible, Remain-y, and very much like Dave? For sure. Rudd? Perhaps, let's say yes if she could divorce herself from the euroloons.
Would I vote for George if he came back? In a heartbeat - as is now being proven, he is one of the most sane Cons politicians of his generation.
Mr. Song, ha. Trust the German Government, given they appear to be behind EU intransigence on negotiations?
I bet someone in a big brass hat thought of that when they ordered the Voyager!
Or, genuinely, was that a joke?
As for last PM to be divorced good question. Not sure it would hold her back.
That is simply not possible. As I said and as should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about the subject, once we leave we would have to go through the whole process of an accession treaty and it would have to be agreed unanimously by all 27 countries.
Always knew Hammond was a good egg...
I guess if being divorced didn't even harm Reagan in the 80s it'd be a non-issue here now.
"Mr Hammond rejected accusations of pessimism saying he found it “a slightly bizarre observation” and insisted that he was “very optimistic about the UK economy”.
Once current uncertainties, which are damaging consumption and investment, were resolved, he expected the economy to “start powering forward”."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/10/13/philip-hammond-fights-back-accusations-sabotaging-brexit/
His aides dragging him through a tailor’s shop for that one blue suit he wore to the election debates could well have made the difference in half a dozen ultra marginals that cost the Tory majority.
In practice I am sure it's not the case. The government spends 90% of its capital on negotiating with its party members and only 10% actually trying to sort something out with the EU. What people think and what they are different things. Both are worth understanding.
So yes, its a party management issue, but it's not Hard against Soft Brexit - It's Brexit in one stage or two.
Dave & George could have cemented the party in the centre. Instead, they kissed & made up with the elderly nutter fringe, who were then empowered.
*apologies for any offence caused to the non-nutty, older tories. You have my sympathies.
2) It's no good public opinion changing, and then us discovering that there is no process to rejoin...
TM is going for a transition deal to buy more time essentially. I think she will get that deal.
What needs to be part of it - is a mechanism by which we can go back in, rather than leaving. Within a certain timeframe.
At present it sounds as though the transition will be very similar to what we currently have. That's good - it means limited change will be required to go back in.
I think provided we hadn't properly left, introduced new customs checks, written a whole bunch of new laws that contradict EU rules - we would be able to stay on the terms we have now.
Why would the EU suddenly demand we lose our opt-outs when they were content for us to have them before?
It would be challenging even for them to agree demands...
For instance - non-Eurozone countries aren't going to want to establish the principle of being forced into the Euro. We might see the rebate shrink I suppose but ultimately it would be easiest for all parties to just to leave things as they are.
If public opinion shifts - then we won't need to worry too much about the Brexit right. Yes the likes of JRM will be very angry - but if there's 70-30 polling to stay in, we will discover a large number of re-Remainer MPs. We have a second referendum if needed to give them cover.
He seems to have u-turned on b. Can he deliver a competent and confident budget next month ?
But it is certainly a possibility.
https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/918853373545283584
The Transition deal is NOT buying time as far as leaving the EU is concerned. It only extends the period after we have left where we remain in the Single Market etc. If she wants to buy time for further dealing with Brexit then the only way that can be done is to apply for an extension to the negotiations under Article 50 and secure the agreement of all 27 other countries. Otherwise come March 2019 we are out.
You are wrong about the opt outs I am afraid. They were not liked by the other EU countries nor the Commission whilst we were still a member and they certainly won't be looking to reapply them if we rejoin. There is a requirement under the Lisbon Treaty for all new members to sign up to the Euro and Schengen and there is nota cat in hells chance of them agreeing to the rebate given how much they have moaned about it before.
Basically if we want to rejoin we will need a new accession and our opt outs will not have a cat in hells chance of staying.
Whatever reason he did it for I think this is a really, really dumb move by Hammond.
However, I fear that in the present hysterical atmosphere the weaker-minded Leavers will take it literally.
On the opt-outs, I think if tomorrow you offered the EU the chance for Britain to stay in as we are they would all say yes. The opt-outs will still continue to apply during the transition period I presume. So just continue them and keep things simple.
On the rebate - perhaps it would go, perhaps it would be reduced. Doesn't seem insurmountable to me.
(and perhaps also made another EU referendum seem a bit of a chore...)
I assumed the OP was thinking the other way around!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jRpXH4XjG5I
With a bit of luck, a competent campaign, some pork for their client vote - scraped from the currently-labour-voters, not-yet-labour-voters and don't-voters, they'll win themselves a majority.
But then what?
Does it matter to them if the party (and the country) is dragged into the cemetery?
Does it matter to them if their grandchildren emigrate?
Brexit is a far bigger problem than the Conservative Party realises
As a result of Brexit, many people who voted Tory in 2015 did not vote for them in 2017, and won't in 2022 either.
The remaining 20% will still vote Tory while Corbyn remains the alternative
Is that really true? I thought a reason for the Tories not winning a majority was that they didn't get enough of the ex-Kippers?
As an example I have a very low opinion of Corbyn (outside of his politics) because he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a better school. To me such behaviour is so outrageous that it makes me think very poorly of him as a man.
But to run away and send Gordo skulking in at midnight to sign under the cover of darkness just looked like “ yeah, we knew we’d never get this through but sod the voters they are going down the road of integration whether they want to or not”.
The rest is history. Do things without the consent of the people, even if you think it’s enlightened, and it will bite you on the bum eventually. It’s why we have elections every five years or so. Maybe the EU should have a Europe wide referendum every ten years on membership?
No Tory PM would ever give away the Falklands and survive 5 minutes, Corbyn might but would lose his remaining white working class base
Peston's source sounds like Hammond too.
It's March 2020. Britain has Brexited, but continues to apply all EU law and make payments into the EU budget. Public opinion in the UK has turned against Brexit and the government wants to change its mind on Brexit.
The EU countries can choose between us leaving the CU, SM, various trade disruption, filling a hole of debatable size in their budgets, losing the right for their citizens to come and live and work in Britain etc.
OR
Just go back to how things were.
I think they might well choose option 2.
If one country starts tacking on concessions, they all will, and then it won't happen. And they should know that. My suggestion is that we agree the process for this accession in advance as far as possible so that we can fast track the legal side of it.
Over the top. It'll annoy some people without persuading others.
I don't think it was a terribly clever thing to say.
Although actually I suspect 70:30 is the kind of decisive win Remain would need a 2nd time around.