Mr. P, Labour are wibbling about a binding vote in Parliament on the deal. If that happens, then the consequence of it being voted down has to be (in a purely logical sense) either departing with no deal, or another referendum.
There I disagree - with your second point.
The consequence of voting it down would be leaving with no deal. There is no mechanism for us to unilaterally extend Article 50. We are leaving whether we like it or not now - we're committed. If we reject the deal, we leave on WTO terms.
Whether Labour have twigged that simple truth yet is another question.
It is unlikely a full FTA will be agreed and finalised by April 2019 which is why May wants the 2 year transition period.
Labour's rhetoric has been vaguely nonsensical, but largely because the whole situation is. Invoking Article 50 has left us in a position where we either take almost any deal offered or crash out in a way we were told was an impossibility during the referendum campaign. It's a bizarre form of politics where both parties are committed to the inevitability of something both their leaderships believe is likely to be to the detriment of the country. Labour's position I think is in that context - a holding one that gives a sense of "We think the Tories are doing an awful job" until something puts flesh on it and the whole thing is less opaque. These are likely to be the release of the impact assessments and any legal advice on whether Article 50 is revocable, as even Donald Tusk seems to think. The former would make it abundantly clear why 'no deal' is really not an option. The latter means that "no" to a deal isn't necessarily "no deal" - a government could revoke either to give itself more time to negotiate, or to ask people to rethink given how far the whole process has diverged from what was promised.
In the end May might need Labour and LD and SNP votes for any deal getting through Parliament especially with rebellions from Tory hard Brexiteers like Mogg and Patterson and possibly Boris over £50 billion+ payments.There will also be a few Labour Leavers like Skinner and Hoey voting against too. Though leaving free movement uncontrolled and staying in the single market after all unlikely.
I'm pretty sure that all Opposition MP's (except perhaps a handful of Labour rebels) will vote against any deal that the government puts to the Commons.
TM begged Junker for help 're BREXIT according to Victoria Derbyshire programme.
I spoke to a lobbyist with extremely good connections in the Tory party last week and he said:
* Before the German elections May and co really did think that Merkel would ride to the UK's rescue as soon as she was re-elected; * In the past few weeks the Germans have made it clear that they have no intention of changing their stance, which is actually harder and less friendly to the UK than some of the other 27; * May's dinner with Junker was arranged at short notice and the aim was to see if he and Barnier could be lent on to persuade the 27 to be more flexible (or to beg them for help if you prefer more colourful language); * Partly as a result of this the language that came out of the summit was more emollient but underneath nothing has really changed.
Mr. P, Labour are wibbling about a binding vote in Parliament on the deal. If that happens, then the consequence of it being voted down has to be (in a purely logical sense) either departing with no deal, or another referendum.
There I disagree - with your second point.
The consequence of voting it down would be leaving with no deal. There is no mechanism for us to unilaterally extend Article 50. We are leaving whether we like it or not now - we're committed. If we reject the deal, we leave on WTO terms.
Whether Labour have twigged that simple truth yet is another question.
It is unlikely a full FTA will be agreed and finalised by April 2019 which is why May wants the 2 year transition period.
Labour's rhetoric has been vaguely nonsensical, but largely because the whole situation is. Invoking Article 50 has left us in a position where we either take almost any deal offered or crash out in a way we were told was an impossibility during the referendum campaign. It's a bizarre form of politics where both parties are k. The former would make it abundantly clear why 'no deal' is really not an option. The latter means that "no" to a deal isn't necessarily "no deal" - a government could revoke either to give itself more time to negotiate, or to ask people to rethink given how far the whole process has diverged from what was promised.
In the end May might need Labour and LD and SNP votes for any deal getting through Parliament especially with rebellions from Tory hard Brexiteers like Mogg and Patterson and possibly Boris over £50 billion+ payments.There will also be a few Labour Leavers like Skinner and Hoey voting against too. Though leaving free movement uncontrolled and staying in the single market after all unlikely.
I'm pretty sure that all Opposition MP's (except perhaps a handful of Labour rebels) will vote against any deal that the government puts to the Commons.
If they do and Britain crashes out without a deal as Labour voted against it it would be the height of hypocrisy and if, as is likely, it ends up with a Corbyn minority government dealing with a hard Brexit UK that would be nothing less than what Corbyn deserves. Leave Corbyn to clear up the mess.
(I think the LDs would back a deal with the EU by the way if one could be agreed and possibly the SNP too).
Incidentally, whilst we're discussing cross-party political idiocy, I saw a snippet of the Sunday Politics (sadly without Andrew Neil hosting) during which there was a section on internet companies policing extremist content. Cooper, now chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, was wibbling about 'some way' for companies to take down or prevent the posting of extremist content.
That level of authoritarianism coupled with technical ignorance is alarming, and mirrors precisely the moronic pronouncements of May and Rudd. Technology isn't magic. As someone halfway to being a Luddite, it's disconcerting and disturbing when I seem to have a better understanding of technology than politicians seeking to pass laws and regulations governing said technology.
The attraction of authoritarianism is it feeds on genuine concerns. The Mail and other papers whip up this notion of every teenager being radicalised by or spending their time surfing the "Dark Net" only encourages the "something must be done" brigade.
There is an understandable urge to protect and safeguard and I get that - I really do.
It's a balancing act and those who support freedom of speech and expression to the furthest extent need to address rather than belittle these concerns. That there are disturbing and offensive images and comments on the Internet is undeniable but, like you I suspect, I agree the answer is to challenge the content not to remove it.
I dislike the Alt-Right and if there is such a thing, the Alt-Left. The one thing they have in common is the simplicity and weakness of their arguments couched in half-truths and generalisations. Drag them kicking and screaming into the light and they are soon revealed.
Mr. P, Labour are wibbling about a binding vote in Parliament on the deal. If that happens, then the consequence of it being voted down has to be (in a purely logical sense) either departing with no deal, or another referendum.
There I disagree - with your second point.
The consequence of voting it down would be leaving with no deal. There is no mechanism for us to unilaterally extend Article 50. We are leaving whether we like it or not now - we're committed. If we reject the deal, we leave on WTO terms.
Whether Labour have twigged that simple truth yet is another question.
It is unlikely a full FTA will be agreed and finalised by April 2019 which is why May wants the 2 year transition period.
Labour's rhetoric has been vaguely nonsensical, but largely because the whole situation is. Invoking Article 50 has left us in a position where we either take almost any deal offered or crash out in a way we were told was an impossibility during the referendum campaign. It's a bizarre form of politics where both parties are committed to the inevitability of something both their leaderships believe is likely to be to the detriment of the country. Labour's position I think is in that context - a holding one that gives a sense of "We think the Tories are doing an awful job" until something puts flesh on it and the whole thing is less opaque. These are likely to be the release of the impact assessments and any legal advice on whether Article 50 is revocable, as even Donald Tusk seems to think. The former would make it abundantly clear why 'no deal' is really not an option. The latter means that "no" to a deal isn't necessarily "no deal" - a government could revoke either to give itself more time to negotiate, or to ask people to rethink given how far the whole process has diverged from what was promised.
In the end May might need Labour and LD and SNP votes for any deal getting through Parliament especially with rebellions from Tory hard Brexiteers like Mogg and Patterson and possibly Boris over £50 billion+ payments.There will also be a few Labour Leavers like Skinner and Hoey voting against too. Though leaving free movement uncontrolled and staying in the single market after all unlikely.
Boris would have to resign to vote against the three line whip, assuming he’d not been sacked first.
He may well do so if a deal involves big payments to the EU as is likely.
Mr. P, Labour are wibbling about a binding vote in Parliament on the deal. If that happens, then the consequence of it being voted down has to be (in a purely logical sense) either departing with no deal, or another referendum.
There I disagree - with your second point.
The consequence of voting it down would be leaving with no deal. There is no mechanism for us to unilaterally extend Article 50. We are leaving whether we like it or not now - we're committed. If we reject the deal, we leave on WTO terms.
Whether Labour have twigged that simple truth yet is another question.
It is unlikely a full FTA will be agreed and finalised by April 2019 which is why May wants the 2 year transition period.
Labour's rhetoric has been vaguely nonsensical, but largely because the whole situation is. Invoking Article 50 has left us in a position where we either take almost any deal offered or crash out in a way we were told was an impossibility during the referendum campaign. It's a bizarre form of politics where both parties are k. The former would make it abundantly clear why 'no deal' is really not an option. The latter means that "no" to a deal isn't necessarily "no deal" - a government could revoke either to give itself more time to negotiate, or to ask people to rethink given how far the whole process has diverged from what was promised.
In the end May might need Labour and LD and SNP votes for any deal getting through Parliament especially with rebellions from Tory hard Brexiteers like Mogg and Patterson and possibly Boris over £50 billion+ payments.There will also be a few Labour Leavers like Skinner and Hoey voting against too. Though leaving free movement uncontrolled and staying in the single market after all unlikely.
I'm pretty sure that all Opposition MP's (except perhaps a handful of Labour rebels) will vote against any deal that the government puts to the Commons.
If they do and Britain crashes out without a deal as Labour voted against it it would be the height of hypocrisy and if, as is likely, it ends up with a Corbyn minority government dealing with a hard Brexit UK that would be nothing less than what Corbyn deserves. Leave Corbyn to clear up the mess.
(I think the LDs would back a deal with the EU by the way if one could be agreed and possibly the SNP too).
And nothing less than what he wants. He can blame the mess he would instantly make through incompetence and dogmatism on Brexit. It might get Labour ten years in power - and think what they could do in that time assuming Corbyn's successor is Cat Smith or Laura Pidcock.
Mr. P, Labour are wibbling about a binding vote in Parliament on the deal. If that happens, then the consequence of it being voted down has to be (in a purely logical sense) either departing with no deal, or another referendum.
There I disagree - with your second point.
The consequence of voting it down would be leaving with no deal. There is no mechanism for us to unilaterally extend Article 50. We are leaving whether we like it or not now - we're committed. If we reject the deal, we leave on WTO terms.
Whether Labour have twigged that simple truth yet is another question.
It is unlikely a full FTA will be agreed and finalised by April 2019 which is why May wants the 2 year transition period.
Labour's rhetoric has been vaguely nonsensical, but largely because the whole situation is. Invoking Article 50 has left us in a position where we either take almost any deal offered or crash out in a way we were told was an impossibility during the referendum campaign. It's a bizarre form of politics where both parties are k. The former would make it abundantly clear why 'no deal' is really not an option. The latter means that "no" to a deal isn't necessarily "no deal" - a government could revoke either to give itself more time to negotiate, or to ask people to rethink given how far the whole process has diverged from what was promised.
In the end May might need Labour and LD and SNP votes for any deal getting through Parliament especially with rebellions from Tory hard Brexiteers like Mogg and Patterson and possibly Boris over £50 billion+ payments.There will also be a few Labour Leavers like Skinner and Hoey voting against too. Though leaving free movement uncontrolled and staying in the single market after all unlikely.
I'm pretty sure that all Opposition MP's (except perhaps a handful of Labour rebels) will vote against any deal that the government puts to the Commons.
If they do and Britain crashes out without a deal as Labour voted against it it would be the height of hypocrisy and if, as is likely, it ends up with a Corbyn minority government dealing with a hard Brexit UK that would be nothing less than what Corbyn deserves. Leave Corbyn to clear up the mess.
(I think the LDs would back a deal with the EU by the way if one could be agreed and possibly the SNP too).
No chance of Jezza being PM if LAB votes down a deal and we end up with no deal.
Meanwhile, over in Catalonia the latest voting intentions shows almost no change from the elections that took place in 2015; that is a very slender majority in seats for pro-independence parties, but with less than 50% of the vote.
This comes on the back of other polling published in the same newspaper which shows majority opposition to UDI and strong support for a negotiated settlement that leaves Catalonia inside Spain.
The trick is how to get to the point where Catalans are voting in a referendum on more autonomy rather than in an election about independence. If the PP had any sense whatsoever - which it has demonstrated time and again it doesn't - it would be using the next few months to work out a new constitutional settlement with the other major Spanish parties that would mean the next Catalan election was framed around an offer of Basque-level self-government for Catalonia, rather than separation. This is what PSOE had agreed with the Catalans 10 years ago and which they back overwhelmingly in a referendum before PP scuppered it.
Meanwhile, Spain-wide polling continues to show that PP is getting no benefit from the Catalonia crisis.
Out of curiosity - it isn't vitally important - does the Spanish constitutional provision that Spain's territorial integrity is sacrosanct apply to Ceuta and Melilla? I know they would like it to apply to Gibraltar?
I just ask because I imagine Morocco would be less than thrilled by such a provision being enforced should the two cities vote to return to it.
The Spanish argue that Melilla and Ceuta existed as part of Spain long before Morocco existed as a country. The are run as Spanish provinces like any others.
Mr. P, Labour are wibbling about a binding vote in Parliament on the deal. If that happens, then the consequence of it being voted down has to be (in a purely logical sense) either departing with no deal, or another referendum.
There I disagree - with your second point.
The consequence of voting it down would be leaving with no deal. There is no mechanism for us to unilaterally extend Article 50. We are leaving whether we like it or not now - we're committed. If we reject the deal, we leave on WTO terms.
Whether Labour have twigged that simple truth yet is another question.
It is unlikely a full FTA will be agreed and finalised by April 2019 which is why May wants the 2 year transition period.
Labour's rhetoric has been vaguely nonsensical, but largely because the whole situation is. Invoking Article 50 has left us in a position where we either take almost any deal offered or crash out negotiate, or to ask people to rethink given how far the whole process has diverged from what was promised.
In the end May might need Labour and LD and SNP votes for any deal getting through Parliament especially with rebellions from Tory hard Brexiteers like Mogg and Patterson and possibly Boris over £50 billion+ payments.There will also be a few Labour Leavers like Skinner and Hoey voting against too. Though leaving free movement uncontrolled and staying in the single market after all unlikely.
I'm pretty sure that all Opposition MP's (except perhaps a handful of Labour rebels) will vote against any deal that the government puts to the Commons.
If they do and Britain crashes out without a deal as Labour voted against it it would be the height of hypocrisy and if, as is likely, it ends up with a Corbyn minority government dealing with a hard Brexit UK that would be nothing less than what Corbyn deserves. Leave Corbyn to clear up the mess.
(I think the LDs would back a deal with the EU by the way if one could be agreed and possibly the SNP too).
No chance of Jezza being PM if LAB votes down a deal and we end up with no deal.
I wouldn't vote for him in such a circumstance.
Fortunately that ain't going to happen.
Corbyn cares more about toppling the Tories than about trying to do a deal with the EU, he is shameless and I would not rule it out.
Meanwhile, over in Catalonia the latest voting intentions shows almost no change from the elections that took place in 2015; that is a very slender majority in seats for pro-independence parties, but with less than 50% of the vote.
This comes on the back of other polling published in the same newspaper which shows majority opposition to UDI and strong support for a negotiated settlement that leaves Catalonia inside Spain.
The trick is how to get to the point where Catalans are voting in a referendum on more autonomy rather than in an election about independence. If the PP had any sense whatsoever - which it has demonstrated time and again it doesn't - it would be using the next few months to work out a new constitutional settlement with the other major Spanish parties that would mean the next Catalan election was framed around an offer of Basque-level self-government for Catalonia, rather than separation. This is what PSOE had agreed with the Catalans 10 years ago and which they back overwhelmingly in a referendum before PP scuppered it.
Meanwhile, Spain-wide polling continues to show that PP is getting no benefit from the Catalonia crisis.
Out of curiosity - it isn't vitally important - does the Spanish constitutional provision that Spain's territorial integrity is sacrosanct apply to Ceuta and Melilla? I know they would like it to apply to Gibraltar?
I just ask because I imagine Morocco would be less than thrilled by such a provision being enforced should the two cities vote to return to it.
The Spanish argue that Melilla and Ceuta existed as part of Spain long before Morocco existed as a country. The are run as Spanish provinces like any others.
More interesting if the Canaries were in play, they are worth a bob or two.
If they do and Britain crashes out without a deal as Labour voted against it it would be the height of hypocrisy and if, as is likely, it ends up with a Corbyn minority government dealing with a hard Brexit UK that would be nothing less than what Corbyn deserves. Leave Corbyn to clear up the mess.
(I think the LDs would back a deal with the EU by the way if one could be agreed and possibly the SNP too).
To be fair, we haven't seen any deal yet. Interpreting the Labour position as "we'll voter against no deal" as "we'll support any deal" is a classic case of 2+2=6.
It's quite possible Labour (and others) will see the deal and say "it's not bad but could be refined here and here. Go back to Barnier, resolve these issues and then we can support it." After all, May herself once said a bad deal was worse than no deal so refining a deal to make it better would surely be Conservative policy and rejecting the whole thing would be the height of hypocrisy, wouldn't it ?
If Davis comes back with no deal, there's nothing to vote on. If the Commons voted to "reject" the no deal, Davis (or his successor) would have to go to the EU and ask for an extension to the A50 process to allow for further negotiation which the EU would, I suspect, accept.
Mr. Mortimer, jein. Labour seem to be batting for the other side in these negotiations. But that's entirely deliberate.
Likewise, the infamous bikiniphobe is trying to curry favour with Londoners.
Mr. Roger, even as a silly comment, that's not the kind of thing an adult should be writing. Get back to me when Leave voters support the crucifixion of children and burning people alive.
Mr. Doethur, hmm. You may be correct. But the second referendum line is one that Labour is pushing, and I do wonder if the friend of Hamas asked the eurocrats about this when he was busy undermining British interests in Brussels recently.
They're 70+% neanerthal morons. I was being kind making light of it in my last post.
Mr. P, Labour are wibbling about a binding vote in Parliament on the deal. If that happens, then the consequence of it being voted down has to be (in a purely logical sense) either departing with no deal, or another referendum.
There I disagree - with your second point.
The consequence of voting it down would be leaving with no deal. There is no mechanism for us to unilaterally extend Article 50. We are leaving whether we like it or not now - we're committed. If we reject the deal, we leave on WTO terms.
Whether Labour have twigged that simple truth yet is another question.
It is unlikely a full FTA will be agreed and finalised by April 2019 which is why May wants the 2 year transition period.
Labour's rhetoric has been vaguely nonsensical, but largely because the whole situation is. Invoking Article 50 has left us in a position where we either take almost any deal offered or crash out in a way we were told was an impossibility during the promised.
In the end May might need Labour and LD and SNP votes for any deal getting through Parliament especially with rebellions from Tory hard Brexiteers like Mogg and Patterson and possibly Boris over £50 billion+ payments.There will also be a few Labour Leavers like Skinner and Hoey voting against too. Though leaving free movement uncontrolled and staying in the single market after all unlikely.
I'm pretty sure that all Opposition MP's (except perhaps a handful of Labour rebels) will vote against any deal that the government puts to the Commons.
If they do and Britain crashes out without a deal as Labour voted against it it would be the height of hypocrisy and if, as is likely, it ends up with a Corbyn minority government dealing with a hard Brexit UK that would be nothing less than what Corbyn deserves. Leave Corbyn to clear up the mess.
(I think the LDs would back a deal with the EU by the way if one could be agreed and possibly the SNP too).
And nothing less than what he wants. He can blame the mess he would instantly make through incompetence and dogmatism on Brexit. It might get Labour ten years in power - and think what they could do in that time assuming Corbyn's successor is Cat Smith or Laura Pidcock.
No. Corbyn would end up PM of a weak minority government heading for recession and with some Remainers probably having defected to the LDs. Any Tory opposition leader worth his salt could topple a Corbyn government in such circumstances after just a term.
The Spanish argue that Melilla and Ceuta existed as part of Spain long before Morocco existed as a country. The are run as Spanish provinces like any others.
My history of Morocco is rather scanty - but surely it has an identifiable core going back to at least the 11th century? Meanwhile the Kingdom of Spain has only a clearly identified existence since the 15th, although parts of it go back much further, and Ceuta and Melilla were carved out in the 19th century?
Which would make their argument seem rather self-serving and inaccurate. The equivalent of Britain claiming China hadn't existed when they signed the lease on the mainland in 1898 because the People's Republic existed only from 1949.
As a Labour supporter who does not read the DailyMail (I say that because knee jerk Corbynistas instantly scream "Tory", I say again Corbyn will never be prime minister. It was the worst Tory campaign in living memory, the abstention of many older Tory supporters,and remainers voting Labour against hard Brexit plus Corbyn himself donning moderate clothes which saved his hard left skin, and not a desire by voters to have a ideological dinosaur in Downing Street.
His 40% was achieved by piling up votes in seats that Labour already holds (largely). He won about the same number of seats that Gordon Brown won in 2010 with 29%. He is very bad at winning Tory marginals. I cannot see where Corbyn will get the votes from next time-when the Tories will have a new leader, a better campaign, a more attractive manifesto -and crucially when Corbyn will be expected to win, which will cause huge numbers to come out to stop that outcome.
Jeremy Corbyn could in theory take over without an election if the Conservatives collapse incoherently. They're not yet at that stage.
He would be an excellent short-priced favourite for next-but-one Prime Minister, but there isn't a market for that.
He would be the first Leader of the Opposition to become Prime Minister not as the result of an election since Henry Campbell-Bannerman in 1905.
Campbell-Bannerman's second act as PM (his first being to smash Haldane's silly Relugas compact) was to call an election.
That's a complicated way of saying that I agree with you - I don't think it would happen. Corbyn doesn't have the numbers without the tacit support of the Conservatives.
It is unlikely a full FTA will be agreed and finalised by April 2019 which is why May wants the 2 year transition period.
Labour's rhetoric has been vaguely nonsensical, but largely because the whole situation is. Invoking Article 50 has left us in a position where we either take almost any deal offered or crash out in a way we were told was an impossibility during the referendum campaign. It's a bizarre form of politics where both parties are k. The former would make it abundantly clear why 'no deal' is really not an option. The latter means that "no" to a deal isn't necessarily "no deal" - a government could revoke either to give itself more time to negotiate, or to ask people to rethink given how far the whole process has diverged from what was promised.
In the end May might need Labour and LD and SNP votes for any deal getting through Parliament especially with rebellions from Tory hard Brexiteers like Mogg and Patterson and possibly Boris over £50 billion+ payments.There will also be a few Labour Leavers like Skinner and Hoey voting against too. Though leaving free movement uncontrolled and staying in the single market after all unlikely.
I'm pretty sure that all Opposition MP's (except perhaps a handful of Labour rebels) will vote against any deal that the government puts to the Commons.
If they do and Britain crashes out without a deal as Labour voted against it it would be the height of hypocrisy and if, as is likely, it ends up with a Corbyn minority government dealing with a hard Brexit UK that would be nothing less than what Corbyn deserves. Leave Corbyn to clear up the mess.
(I think the LDs would back a deal with the EU by the way if one could be agreed and possibly the SNP too).
No chance of Jezza being PM if LAB votes down a deal and we end up with no deal.
I wouldn't vote for him in such a circumstance.
Fortunately that ain't going to happen.
It’s one of those situations that’s very difficult for the opposition to get right, interesting game theory given that there are third parties also involved in putting together any deal.
Oppose the deal and we might end up with no deal, but support it and it becomes more difficult to criticise the government for the outcome.
Given that Parliament has no right to unilaterally alter any deal, the opposition’s approach could depend on the timing of the vote and the opportunity to send our negotiators back to Brussels. A very difficult call to make, especially given the variety of opinion on the Labour benches.
Meanwhile, over in Catalonia the latest voting intentions shows almost no change from the elections that took place in 2015; that is a very slender majority in seats for pro-independence parties, but with less than 50% of the vote.
This comes on the back of other polling published in the same newspaper which shows majority opposition to UDI and strong support for a negotiated settlement that leaves Catalonia inside Spain.
The trick is how to get to the point where Catalans are voting in a referendum on more autonomy rather than in an election about independence. If the PP had any sense whatsoever - which it has demonstrated time and again it doesn't - it would be using the next few months to work out a new constitutional settlement with the other major Spanish parties that would mean the next Catalan election was framed around an offer of Basque-level self-government for Catalonia, rather than separation. This is what PSOE had agreed with the Catalans 10 years ago and which they back overwhelmingly in a referendum before PP scuppered it.
Meanwhile, Spain-wide polling continues to show that PP is getting no benefit from the Catalonia crisis.
Out of curiosity - it isn't vitally important - does the Spanish constitutional provision that Spain's territorial integrity is sacrosanct apply to Ceuta and Melilla? I know they would like it to apply to Gibraltar?
I just ask because I imagine Morocco would be less than thrilled by such a provision being enforced should the two cities vote to return to it.
The Spanish argue that Melilla and Ceuta existed as part of Spain long before Morocco existed as a country. The are run as Spanish provinces like any others.
More interesting if the Canaries were in play, they are worth a bob or two.
There is a Canary Islands nationalist party, but it wants more autonomy rather than independence. It is well supported and currently runs the regional government. But the Canaries have always been a part of Spain and unlike the Basques and Catalans there is no different language (though the accent and influences are much more Latin American than on the peninsular)
Mr. Mortimer, jein. Labour seem to be batting for the other side in these negotiations. But that's entirely deliberate.
Likewise, the infamous bikiniphobe is trying to curry favour with Londoners.
Mr. Roger, even as a silly comment, that's not the kind of thing an adult should be writing. Get back to me when Leave voters support the crucifixion of children and burning people alive.
Mr. Doethur, hmm. You may be correct. But the second referendum line is one that Labour is pushing, and I do wonder if the friend of Hamas asked the eurocrats about this when he was busy undermining British interests in Brussels recently.
They're 70+% neanerthal morons. I was being kind making light of it in my last post.
Neanderthal, rog, and what a beautifully self-stultifying post. There is no evidence *at all* suggesting Neanderthal man was moronic, but obviously it is safe to assume he was because he has a funny Kraut name and was first identified by the sales Boches.
And btw you have Neanderthal genes in you. But don't worry, I won't tell anybody if you don't.
Mr. Mortimer, jein. Labour seem to be batting for the other side in these negotiations. But that's entirely deliberate.
Likewise, the infamous bikiniphobe is trying to curry favour with Londoners.
Mr. Roger, even as a silly comment, that's not the kind of thing an adult should be writing. Get back to me when Leave voters support the crucifixion of children and burning people alive.
Mr. Doethur, hmm. You may be correct. But the second referendum line is one that Labour is pushing, and I do wonder if the friend of Hamas asked the eurocrats about this when he was busy undermining British interests in Brussels recently.
They're 70+% neanerthal morons. I was being kind making light of it in my last post.
Mr. P, Labour are wibbling about a binding vote in Parliament on the deal. If that happens, then the consequence of it being voted down has to be (in a purely logical sense) either departing with no deal, or another referendum.
There I disagree - with your second point.
The consequence of voting it down would be leaving with no deal. There is no mechanism for us to unilaterally extend Article 50. We are leaving whether we like it or not now - we're committed. If we reject the deal, we leave on WTO terms.
Whether Labour have twigged that simple truth yet is another question.
It is unlikely a full FTA will be agreed and finalised by April 2019 which is why May wants the 2 year transition period.
Labour's rhetoric has been vaguely nonsensical, but largely because the whole situation is. Invoking Article 50 has left us in a position where we either take almost any deal offered or crash out in a way we were told was an impossibility during the referendum campaign. It's a bizarre form of politics where both parties are k. The former would make it abundantly clear why 'no deal' is really not an option. The latter means that "no" to a deal isn't necessarily "no deal" - a government could revoke either to give itself more time to negotiate, or to ask people to rethink given how far the whole process has diverged from what was promised.
In the end May might need Labour and LD and SNP votes for any deal getting through Parliament especially with rebellions from Tory hard Brexiteers like Mogg and Patterson and possibly Boris over £50 billion+ payments.There will also be a few Labour Leavers like Skinner and Hoey voting against too. Though leaving free movement uncontrolled and staying in the single market after all unlikely.
I'm pretty sure that all Opposition MP's (except perhaps a handful of Labour rebels) will vote against any deal that the government puts to the Commons.
If they do and Britain crashes out without a deal as Labour voted against it it would be the height of hypocrisy and if, as is likely, it ends up with a Corbyn minority government dealing with a hard Brexit UK that would be nothing less than what Corbyn deserves. Leave Corbyn to clear up the mess.
(I think the LDs would back a deal with the EU by the way if one could be agreed and possibly the SNP too).
The Opposition simply want to make life as hard as possible for the government which, to be fair, is their job.
The Iberian peninsula is misleading. If you look at a map, it's easy to look at the landmass and think Spain is a coherent country. But until very recently, the central part of the peninsula acted as a barrier between different areas rather than a link, with the mountains far harder to navigate than an ocean. Spain is a series of coastal islands cut off from each other.
If the Commons voted to "reject" the no deal, Davis (or his successor) would have to go to the EU and ask for an extension to the A50 process to allow for further negotiation which the EU would, I suspect, accept.
How long an extension? To what end? And if the EU don't budge an inch?
The political imperative is that if there is no deal, then we leave in March 2019 with no deal - and no cheque to Brussels. The next UK election will then pass judgment on whether that was the right thing to do.
As a Labour supporter who does not read the DailyMail (I say that because knee jerk Corbynistas instantly scream "Tory", I say again Corbyn will never be prime minister. It was the worst Tory campaign in living memory, the abstention of many older Tory supporters,and remainers voting Labour against hard Brexit plus Corbyn himself donning moderate clothes which saved his hard left skin, and not a desire by voters to have a ideological dinosaur in Downing Street.
His 40% was achieved by piling up votes in seats that Labour already holds (largely). He won about the same number of seats that Gordon Brown won in 2010 with 29%. He is very bad at winning Tory marginals. I cannot see where Corbyn will get the votes from next time-when the Tories will have a new leader, a better campaign, a more attractive manifesto -and crucially when Corbyn will be expected to win, which will cause huge numbers to come out to stop that outcome.
You mean as a former Labour supporter who hates Corbyn don't you?
There is a Canary Islands nationalist party, but it wants more autonomy rather than independence. It is well supported and currently runs the regional government. But the Canaries have always been a part of Spain and unlike the Basques and Catalans there is no different language (though the accent and influences are much more Latin American than on the peninsular)
Plus there is the argument "Let's ask the Guanche"; "What a good idea, but we had exterminated every last one of them by the end of the C16th, what a shame, never mind". And they were "conquered" 1402 - 1496, wiki says, so not earlier than Ceuta (which only changed hands Portugal-Spain in c 1580, which weakens the Spanish claim a bit).
The Iberian peninsula is misleading. If you look at a map, it's easy to look at the landmass and think Spain is a coherent country. But until very recently, the central part of the peninsula acted as a barrier between different areas rather than a link, with the mountains far harder to navigate than an ocean. Spain is a series of coastal islands cut off from each other.
That’s an interesting way of thinking about it. So when the different coastal regions wanted to discuss something, then all went inland to meet on neutral ground - or Madrid, as we now call it.
As a Labour supporter who does not read the DailyMail (I say that because knee jerk Corbynistas instantly scream "Tory", I say again Corbyn will never be prime minister. It was the worst Tory campaign in living memory, the abstention of many older Tory supporters,and remainers voting Labour against hard Brexit plus Corbyn himself donning moderate clothes which saved his hard left skin, and not a desire by voters to have a ideological dinosaur in Downing Street.
His 40% was achieved by piling up votes in seats that Labour already holds (largely). He won about the same number of seats that Gordon Brown won in 2010 with 29%. He is very bad at winning Tory marginals. I cannot see where Corbyn will get the votes from next time-when the Tories will have a new leader, a better campaign, a more attractive manifesto -and crucially when Corbyn will be expected to win, which will cause huge numbers to come out to stop that outcome.
All things being equal this is a spot-on analysis. I would add the caveats that if either Brexit and/or the Tories implode it may change, and neither are impossible.
How long an extension? To what end? And if the EU don't budge an inch?
The political imperative is that if there is no deal, then we leave in March 2019 with no deal - and no cheque to Brussels. The next UK election will then pass judgment on whether that was the right thing to do.
That's your view, the Daily Mail view, the "We owe you nothing" view.
The "political imperative", as you put it, is how the Conservatives have tried to sell the A50 negotiation process to the electorate and especially those who wanted us out on 24/6/16.
For those of us not of the Conservative viewpoint and who want to leave the EU on the best terms possible for our economic future, that's a nonsensical viewpoint.
Cutting off your nose to spite your face might make you feel better but it'll stop you smelling the roses, the coffee or indeed anything else. Short of a catastrophic breakdown in relations, the EU will still want to make a deal and so should we. If that means extending A50 for a few months to complete the process, so be it.
May once opined a bad deal would be worse than no deal - fair enough - but would no deal be better than any deal ?
As a Labour supporter who does not read the DailyMail (I say that because knee jerk Corbynistas instantly scream "Tory", I say again Corbyn will never be prime minister. It was the worst Tory campaign in living memory, the abstention of many older Tory supporters,and remainers voting Labour against hard Brexit plus Corbyn himself donning moderate clothes which saved his hard left skin, and not a desire by voters to have a ideological dinosaur in Downing Street.
His 40% was achieved by piling up votes in seats that Labour already holds (largely). He won about the same number of seats that Gordon Brown won in 2010 with 29%. He is very bad at winning Tory marginals. I cannot see where Corbyn will get the votes from next time-when the Tories will have a new leader, a better campaign, a more attractive manifesto -and crucially when Corbyn will be expected to win, which will cause huge numbers to come out to stop that outcome.
There is a lot of sense in this prediction. But four years out a lot could change.
Mr. P, Labour are wibbling about a binding vote in Parliament on the deal. If that happens, then the consequence of it being voted down has to be (in a purely logical sense) either departing with no deal, or another referendum.
There I disagree - with your second point.
The consequence of voting it down would be leaving with no deal. There is no mechanism for us to unilaterally extend Article 50. We are leaving whether we like it or not now - we're committed. If we reject the deal, we leave on WTO terms.
Whether Labour have twigged that simple truth yet is another question.
It is unlikely a full FTA will be agreed and finalised by April 2019 which is why May wants the 2 year transition period.
In the end May might need Labour and LD and SNP votes for any deal getting through Parliament especially with rebellions from Tory hard Brexiteers like Mogg and Patterson and possibly Boris over £50 billion+ payments.There will also be a few Labour Leavers like Skinner and Hoey voting against too. Though leaving free movement uncontrolled and staying in the single market after all unlikely.
Indeed. Hence the holding position of "We'll vote against a bad deal and no deal", even if under the current stance of the government means that if we were pushed into a deal vote tomorrow, it would effectively mean voting for "no deal". Essentially it allows for one of two movements, depending on events. If May manages to negotiate something like that, possibly including Labour backed clauses, they can reluctantly go along with it saying the alternative is even worse and they've helped make the deal better. Not what we'd have gone for, in government we'll look to improve it, but in the national interest we'll vote for it. Corbyn can legitimately argue that if Labour's leave voters don't like the deal, it's not his fault and he is delivering Brexit as responsibly as possible.
If, on the other hand we're staring down the barrel of no deal and the likely outcome looks like a complete calamity (it shouldn't be food shortages we worry about primarily, but price hikes) it allows for a shift to "let's rethink the whole thing", either through remaining in the EEA/EFTA, an extended transition (probably with the aim of staying in EEA/EFTA), or a rethink on the entire process. This would of course have the added benefit of splitting the Tory party.
Not that he'd be the primary driver in that (I don't think he even understands Brexit), but his MPs and membership would.
As a Labour supporter who does not read the DailyMail (I say that because knee jerk Corbynistas instantly scream "Tory", I say again Corbyn will never be prime minister. It was the worst Tory campaign in living memory, the abstention of many older Tory supporters,and remainers voting Labour against hard Brexit plus Corbyn himself donning moderate clothes which saved his hard left skin, and not a desire by voters to have a ideological dinosaur in Downing Street.
His 40% was achieved by piling up votes in seats that Labour already holds (largely). He won about the same number of seats that Gordon Brown won in 2010 with 29%. He is very bad at winning Tory marginals. I cannot see where Corbyn will get the votes from next time-when the Tories will have a new leader, a better campaign, a more attractive manifesto -and crucially when Corbyn will be expected to win, which will cause huge numbers to come out to stop that outcome.
All things being equal this is a spot-on analysis. I would add the caveats that if either Brexit and/or the Tories implode it may change, and neither are impossible.
I don't agree it's a spot on analysis Lab lost ground in many heartlands losing places like Mansfield and Walsall but won in Canterbury Kensington Leamington etc .
Meanwhile, over in Catalonia the latest voting intentions shows almost no change from the elections that took place in 2015; that is a very slender majority in seats for pro-independence parties, but with less than 50% of the vote.
This comes on the back of other polling published in the same newspaper which shows majority opposition to UDI and strong support for a negotiated settlement that leaves Catalonia inside Spain.
The trick is how to get to the point where Catalans are voting in a referendum on more autonomy rather than in an election about independence. If the PP had any sense whatsoever - which it has demonstrated time and again it doesn't - it would be using the next few months to work out a new constitutional settlement with the other major Spanish parties that would mean the next Catalan election was framed around an offer of Basque-level self-government for Catalonia, rather than separation. This is what PSOE had agreed with the Catalans 10 years ago and which they back overwhelmingly in a referendum before PP scuppered it.
Meanwhile, Spain-wide polling continues to show that PP is getting no benefit from the Catalonia crisis.
Out of curiosity - it isn't vitally important - does the Spanish constitutional provision that Spain's territorial integrity is sacrosanct apply to Ceuta and Melilla? I know they would like it to apply to Gibraltar?
The Spanish argue that Melilla and Ceuta existed as part of Spain long before Morocco existed as a country. The are run as Spanish provinces like any others.
There is a Canary Islands nationalist party, but it wants more autonomy rather than independence. It is well supported and currently runs the regional government. But the Canaries have always been a part of Spain and unlike the Basques and Catalans there is no different language (though the accent and influences are much more Latin American than on the peninsular)
There’s a whistling language in La Gomera, opne of the smaller islands. Franco banned it, but it’s now been revived. Not sure hopw useful it was for meaningful conversations; more a long distance communication system, I suspect.
"According to a report by Frankfurter Allegmeine Zeitung (FAZ), Mr Juncker thought the Prime Minister looked “anxious, despondent and disheartened” during the hastily organised dinner last week.
The EU President also thought Mrs May looked “marked” by battles over Brexit with her own Conservative ministers and that she was “a woman who trusts hardly anyone but is also not ready for a clear-out to free herself”, according to the newspaper.
Mrs May is also said to have asked for help to overcome British divisions.
The paper said: “She indicated that back home friend and foe are at her back plotting to bring her down."
As a Labour supporter who does not read the DailyMail (I say that because knee jerk Corbynistas instantly scream "Tory", I say again Corbyn will never be prime minister. It was the worst Tory campaign in living memory, the abstention of many older Tory supporters,and remainers voting Labour against hard Brexit plus Corbyn himself donning moderate clothes which saved his hard left skin, and not a desire by voters to have a ideological dinosaur in Downing Street.
His 40% was achieved by piling up votes in seats that Labour already holds (largely). He won about the same number of seats that Gordon Brown won in 2010 with 29%. He is very bad at winning Tory marginals. I cannot see where Corbyn will get the votes from next time-when the Tories will have a new leader, a better campaign, a more attractive manifesto -and crucially when Corbyn will be expected to win, which will cause huge numbers to come out to stop that outcome.
All things being equal this is a spot-on analysis. I would add the caveats that if either Brexit and/or the Tories implode it may change, and neither are impossible.
I don't agree it's a spot on analysis Lab lost ground in many heartlands losing places like Mansfield and Walsall but won in Canterbury Kensington Leamington etc .
That doesn't fit with the analysis at all
There was some swapping of seats, true. And Corbyn won far more seats in England than Brown did although he was barely ahead overall, those 30-odd seats missing in Scotland being of course the difference.
However, the vote spread was very inefficient. If you look at the charts, although Labour have slightly more seats in play than the Conservatives on a 5% swing - 79 against 63 - the fact they are 56 behind and 63 seats from a majority rather negates that theoretical advantage.
To put it another way, Labour need a swing of roughly 5% (a Thatcher-style swing) just to have a bare majority, while the Tories could have a majority of 44 on a swing of just 2%. It is worth pointing out that in theory at least that suggests the Labour vote for a majority needs to be higher than the Tory one.
(And yes, I know the UNS concept is a load of bollocks and that chart includes seats Labour wouldn't win if they were up against Nick Griffin, a sheep and a naturist. But there is some reason to think far too many votes got piled up in the wrong places. Tony Blair would not have got 40% and been 56 seats behind.)
JRM currently on LBC subbing for James O'Brien. Aside from the rather sizeable shift in perspective between the two presenters, there is something wonderfully soothing about the Moggmeister's voice regardless of the nonsense coming out of it.
I still think the Tory powers that be are missing a trick in writing him off. He looks, sounds, and believes like a Tory.
F1: just updating my records, as one does, and it seems that since the mid-season interval Hamilton has come 2nd once and won every other race. Impressive, even aided by Ferrari cocking up a few times.
How long an extension? To what end? And if the EU don't budge an inch?
The political imperative is that if there is no deal, then we leave in March 2019 with no deal - and no cheque to Brussels. The next UK election will then pass judgment on whether that was the right thing to do.
That's your view, the Daily Mail view, the "We owe you nothing" view.
The "political imperative", as you put it, is how the Conservatives have tried to sell the A50 negotiation process to the electorate and especially those who wanted us out on 24/6/16.
For those of us not of the Conservative viewpoint and who want to leave the EU on the best terms possible for our economic future, that's a nonsensical viewpoint.
Cutting off your nose to spite your face might make you feel better but it'll stop you smelling the roses, the coffee or indeed anything else. Short of a catastrophic breakdown in relations, the EU will still want to make a deal and so should we. If that means extending A50 for a few months to complete the process, so be it.
May once opined a bad deal would be worse than no deal - fair enough - but would no deal be better than any deal ?
Any deal? ANY? Try selling joining the Euro, the ECJ jurisdiction over the people of the UK, our troops wearing the dark blue beret of the EU army, etc etc.
Nobody is talking "any deal" though. I fully expect some deal to be hammered out at the last minute. I fully expect the Remainers to say it is a shit deal. I fully expect the Leavers to say it is a shit deal.
If the Commons voted to "reject" the no deal, Davis (or his successor) would have to go to the EU and ask for an extension to the A50 process to allow for further negotiation which the EU would, I suspect, accept.
How long an extension? To what end? And if the EU don't budge an inch?
The political imperative is that if there is no deal, then we leave in March 2019 with no deal - and no cheque to Brussels. The next UK election will then pass judgment on whether that was the right thing to do.
This all depends on how catastrophic you think "no deal" will be. If it's as bad as certain informed reports suggest then no government in their right mind would willingly go through with it. Which is why we really do need to see the government's impact assessments to determine if "no deal" really is an option - it could be the equivalent of having a vote on whether shooting our leg off was the right thing to do.
Saying that this is as far as I or my client or my party can go is a perfectly normal tactic in negotiations and it would be pretty stupid to deliver such a message with a smile on your face that undermined the message. To describe it as begging is once again to fail to understand the negotiation process.
It is, however, a dangerous tactic because you really need to mean it. If you make such a representation and then give further ground you have no credibility and the other side will push and push at what they see as an opponent in retreat and disarray.
If there is any truth about what Mrs May is alleged to have said at this dinner then my reservation is about timing. This is quite early in the process to play this card. If she tries to play it again later it will have very little effect.
Any deal? ANY? Try selling joining the Euro, the ECJ jurisdiction over the people of the UK, our troops wearing the dark blue beret of the EU army, etc etc.
Nobody is talking "any deal" though. I fully expect some deal to be hammered out at the last minute. I fully expect the Remainers to say it is a shit deal. I fully expect the Leavers to say it is a shit deal.
No one is suggesting your Europhile hysteria would be on the table so no need to get yourself wound up about that.
If you're right (and there's a fair chance you are), May and Davis will have to come back and try to sell a deal which a lot of people won't like.
It's probably fair to argue that since a lot of people will be vociferous about not liking it, it probably won't be a bad deal. When both sides hate it, you've probably got it about right.
The question is whether the sound and fury of those opposed will translate into votes on the floor of the Commons and enough to prevent said Treaty getting passed.
As a Labour supporter who does not read the DailyMail (I say that because knee jerk Corbynistas instantly scream "Tory", I say again Corbyn will never be prime minister. It was the worst Tory campaign in living memory, the abstention of many older Tory supporters,and remainers voting Labour against hard Brexit plus Corbyn himself donning moderate clothes which saved his hard left skin, and not a desire by voters to have a ideological dinosaur in Downing Street.
His 40% was achieved by piling up votes in seats that Labour already holds (largely). He won about the same number of seats that Gordon Brown won in 2010 with 29%. He is very bad at winning Tory marginals. I cannot see where Corbyn will get the votes from next time-when the Tories will have a new leader, a better campaign, a more attractive manifesto -and crucially when Corbyn will be expected to win, which will cause huge numbers to come out to stop that outcome.
You mean as a former Labour supporter who hates Corbyn don't you?
Yes every sentence he utters re enforces that view.
As a Labour supporter who does not read the DailyMail (I say that because knee jerk Corbynistas instantly scream "Tory", I say again Corbyn will never be prime minister. It was the worst Tory campaign in living memory, the abstention of many older Tory supporters,and remainers voting Labour against hard Brexit plus Corbyn himself donning moderate clothes which saved his hard left skin, and not a desire by voters to have a ideological dinosaur in Downing Street.
His 40% was achieved by piling up votes in seats that Labour already holds (largely). He won about the same number of seats that Gordon Brown won in 2010 with 29%. He is very bad at winning Tory marginals. I cannot see where Corbyn will get the votes from next time-when the Tories will have a new leader, a better campaign, a more attractive manifesto -and crucially when Corbyn will be expected to win, which will cause huge numbers to come out to stop that outcome.
You mean as a former Labour supporter who hates Corbyn don't you?
Yes every sentence he utters re enforces that view.
If the Commons voted to "reject" the no deal, Davis (or his successor) would have to go to the EU and ask for an extension to the A50 process to allow for further negotiation which the EU would, I suspect, accept.
How long an extension? To what end? And if the EU don't budge an inch?
The political imperative is that if there is no deal, then we leave in March 2019 with no deal - and no cheque to Brussels. The next UK election will then pass judgment on whether that was the right thing to do.
This all depends on how catastrophic you think "no deal" will be. If it's as bad as certain informed reports suggest then no government in their right mind would willingly go through with it. Which is why we really do need to see the government's impact assessments to determine if "no deal" really is an option - it could be the equivalent of having a vote on whether shooting our leg off was the right thing to do.
No deal would be an epic fail. "Leaving the EU" was always one half of the equation, "and then X" being the other half. No deal is essentially leaving with "we'll be alright" as what we do next.
Yes, a fudge will be found to keep planes flying. But a fudge won't be found in how the EU manages its external affairs with non-member non-CU non-SM 3rd parties like ourselves. We know what they will do with "no deal". Wassocks like IDS seem to think we just trade with other people instead. Which is nice. If they ever come back to planet earth I hope the burn up on re-entry
JRM currently on LBC subbing for James O'Brien. Aside from the rather sizeable shift in perspective between the two presenters, there is something wonderfully soothing about the Moggmeister's voice regardless of the nonsense coming out of it.
I still think the Tory powers that be are missing a trick in writing him off. He looks, sounds, and believes like a Tory.
I agree, but I am afraid the hardline RC stuff rules him out.
JRM currently on LBC subbing for James O'Brien. Aside from the rather sizeable shift in perspective between the two presenters, there is something wonderfully soothing about the Moggmeister's voice regardless of the nonsense coming out of it.
I still think the Tory powers that be are missing a trick in writing him off. He looks, sounds, and believes like a Tory.
Yup. The confidence in his own skin is remarkably refreshing.
He should be able to get to, e.g. FS, without a problem.
JRM currently on LBC subbing for James O'Brien. Aside from the rather sizeable shift in perspective between the two presenters, there is something wonderfully soothing about the Moggmeister's voice regardless of the nonsense coming out of it.
I still think the Tory powers that be are missing a trick in writing him off. He looks, sounds, and believes like a Tory.
I agree, but I am afraid the hardline RC stuff rules him out.
The only person who’s claimed Selmayr is the source is Nick Timothy, not the journalist who wrote it.
Journalists don't name 'anonymous sources' - and since Selmayer was 'credited' with the leak from the first dinner, its a not unreasonable assumption that he might be responsible for the second. The more relevant question is the one Selmayer poses - cui bono?
F1: just updating my records, as one does, and it seems that since the mid-season interval Hamilton has come 2nd once and won every other race. Impressive, even aided by Ferrari cocking up a few times.
He’s also scored points at every race this season, which if he carries on to the last race must be a record. He’s only missed the top six once (Monaco) and has eight wins and a dozen podium finishes from 17 races. http://www.espn.com/racing/driver/raceresults/_/id/868/series/6/lewis-hamilton <<— awesome US sports stats website.
As a Labour supporter who does not read the DailyMail (I say that because knee jerk Corbynistas instantly scream "Tory", I say again Corbyn will never be prime minister. It was the worst Tory campaign in living memory, the abstention of many older Tory supporters,and remainers voting Labour against hard Brexit plus Corbyn himself donning moderate clothes which saved his hard left skin, and not a desire by voters to have a ideological dinosaur in Downing Street.
His 40% was achieved by piling up votes in seats that Labour already holds (largely). He won about the same number of seats that Gordon Brown won in 2010 with 29%. He is very bad at winning Tory marginals. I cannot see where Corbyn will get the votes from next time-when the Tories will have a new leader, a better campaign, a more attractive manifesto -and crucially when Corbyn will be expected to win, which will cause huge numbers to come out to stop that outcome.
You mean as a former Labour supporter who hates Corbyn don't you?
Yes every sentence he utters re enforces that view.
There is no way he voted Lab. in GE2017 IMO.
He is a kind of SO on acid!!
Very true as I said earlier to a post ,90% was to low on here of posters who do not give an ounce of credit to Corbyn even after the GE result.Anyways however blinkered they are the discourse in the country and government has changed because of Jeremy Corbyn.
JRM currently on LBC subbing for James O'Brien. Aside from the rather sizeable shift in perspective between the two presenters, there is something wonderfully soothing about the Moggmeister's voice regardless of the nonsense coming out of it.
I still think the Tory powers that be are missing a trick in writing him off. He looks, sounds, and believes like a Tory.
I agree, but I am afraid the hardline RC stuff rules him out.
To be fair he repeatedly rules himself out.
Of course he does, would be terribly uncouth for a gentleman to be out punting for a role that's currently filled. But look at how he's increased his profile this year - he wants political advancement.
Tim Montgomery's piece in The Guardian refers to Rob Halfron stating that the Tories have no vision or purpose. Thats because they have let a load of mediocre apparatchiks fill the cabinet (as Brown did) and have no idea about what to do in power apart from stay in power. They need someone who can drive an agenda, and the Moggmeister would do that.
What does being a Catholic have to do with anything?
If the Commons voted to "reject" the no deal, Davis (or his successor) would have to go to the EU and ask for an extension to the A50 process to allow for further negotiation which the EU would, I suspect, accept.
How long an extension? To what end? And if the EU don't budge an inch?
The political imperative is that if there is no deal, then we leave in March 2019 with no deal - and no cheque to Brussels. The next UK election will then pass judgment on whether that was the right thing to do.
This all depends on how catastrophic you think "no deal" will be. If it's as bad as certain informed reports suggest then no government in their right mind would willingly go through with it. Which is why we really do need to see the government's impact assessments to determine if "no deal" really is an option - it could be the equivalent of having a vote on whether shooting our leg off was the right thing to do.
When people say "no deal" what exactly do they mean?
JRM currently on LBC subbing for James O'Brien. Aside from the rather sizeable shift in perspective between the two presenters, there is something wonderfully soothing about the Moggmeister's voice regardless of the nonsense coming out of it.
I still think the Tory powers that be are missing a trick in writing him off. He looks, sounds, and believes like a Tory.
I agree, but I am afraid the hardline RC stuff rules him out.
To be fair he repeatedly rules himself out.
Of course he does, would be terribly uncouth for a gentleman to be out punting for a role that's currently filled. But look at how he's increased his profile this year - he wants political advancement.
Tim Montgomery's piece in The Guardian refers to Rob Halfron stating that the Tories have no vision or purpose. Thats because they have let a load of mediocre apparatchiks fill the cabinet (as Brown did) and have no idea about what to do in power apart from stay in power. They need someone who can drive an agenda, and the Moggmeister would do that.
What does being a Catholic have to do with anything?
The Catholic comment was Ishmael's rather than mine!
As a Labour supporter who does not read the DailyMail (I say that because knee jerk Corbynistas instantly scream "Tory", I say again Corbyn will never be prime minister. It was the worst Tory campaign in living memory, the abstention of many older Tory supporters,and remainers voting Labour against hard Brexit plus Corbyn himself donning moderate clothes which saved his hard left skin, and not a desire by voters to have a ideological dinosaur in Downing Street.
His 40% was achieved by piling up votes in seats that Labour already holds (largely). He won about the same number of seats that Gordon Brown won in 2010 with 29%. He is very bad at winning Tory marginals. I cannot see where Corbyn will get the votes from next time-when the Tories will have a new leader, a better campaign, a more attractive manifesto -and crucially when Corbyn will be expected to win, which will cause huge numbers to come out to stop that outcome.
All things being equal this is a spot-on analysis. I would add the caveats that if either Brexit and/or the Tories implode it may change, and neither are impossible.
I don't agree it's a spot on analysis Lab lost ground in many heartlands losing places like Mansfield and Walsall but won in Canterbury Kensington Leamington etc .
That doesn't fit with the analysis at all
Corbyn cannot win over the middle -Englanders he needs to become PM. They have too much to lose with his brand of sub-Soviet Socialism. Even Labour minded voters over a certain age (like myself) find the Hamas/Provisional IRA baggage a step too far.
Mr. Sandpit, yeah, I noticed that when filling in my own numbers. Bottas and Ocon are tied, after Hamilton, for most points finishes, with 16 each (and 1 DNF apiece).
F1: just updating my records, as one does, and it seems that since the mid-season interval Hamilton has come 2nd once and won every other race. Impressive, even aided by Ferrari cocking up a few times.
I do not know why you bother with those long F1 previews. Qualifying: Hamilton gets pole. Race: Hamilton wins. It's more reliable than a general election with 20-point Tory poll leads.
Come to think of it, I really ought to be rich by now.
If the Commons voted to "reject" the no deal, Davis (or his successor) would have to go to the EU and ask for an extension to the A50 process to allow for further negotiation which the EU would, I suspect, accept.
How long an extension? To what end? And if the EU don't budge an inch?
The political imperative is that if there is no deal, then we leave in March 2019 with no deal - and no cheque to Brussels. The next UK election will then pass judgment on whether that was the right thing to do.
This all depends on how catastrophic you think "no deal" will be. If it's as bad as certain informed reports suggest then no government in their right mind would willingly go through with it. Which is why we really do need to see the government's impact assessments to determine if "no deal" really is an option - it could be the equivalent of having a vote on whether shooting our leg off was the right thing to do.
No deal would be an epic fail. "Leaving the EU" was always one half of the equation, "and then X" being the other half. No deal is essentially leaving with "we'll be alright" as what we do next.
Yes, a fudge will be found to keep planes flying. But a fudge won't be found in how the EU manages its external affairs with non-member non-CU non-SM 3rd parties like ourselves. We know what they will do with "no deal". Wassocks like IDS seem to think we just trade with other people instead. Which is nice. If they ever come back to planet earth I hope the burn up on re-entry
I agree, from what I understand of the issues. If we crashed out with no deal I think we'd be the only country in the world other than Mauritania without some form of free trade agreement, and given the integration of our economy with the EU it spells disaster. But the loonier leave advocates will continue to claim that things will be fine whatever evidence is put in front of them. Redwood would still say we should leave even if someone returned from the future and explained how it would ineitably cause a nuclear holocaust. Therefore what we really need to know is the government's assessment. That's as an objective one as you're going to get as it's civil servants actively trying to work out the implications of no deal if it were to come to pass and we can then assess whether Fox, Davis et al are dangerously betraying the nation's interests by ignoring it.
If the Commons voted to "reject" the no deal, Davis (or his successor) would have to go to the EU and ask for an extension to the A50 process to allow for further negotiation which the EU would, I suspect, accept.
How long an extension? To what end? And if the EU don't budge an inch?
The political imperative is that if there is no deal, then we leave in March 2019 with no deal - and no cheque to Brussels. The next UK election will then pass judgment on whether that was the right thing to do.
This all depends on how catastrophic you think "no deal" will be. If it's as bad as certain informed reports suggest then no government in their right mind would willingly go through with it. Which is why we really do need to see the government's impact assessments to determine if "no deal" really is an option - it could be the equivalent of having a vote on whether shooting our leg off was the right thing to do.
No deal would be an epic fail. "Leaving the EU" was always one half of the equation, "and then X" being the other half. No deal is essentially leaving with "we'll be alright" as what we do next.
Yes, a fudge will be found to keep planes flying. But a fudge won't be found in how the EU manages its external affairs with non-member non-CU non-SM 3rd parties like ourselves. We know what they will do with "no deal". Wassocks like IDS seem to think we just trade with other people instead. Which is nice. If they ever come back to planet earth I hope the burn up on re-entry
I agree, from what I understand of the issues. If we crashed out with no deal I think we'd be the only country in the world other than Mauritania without some form of free trade agreement, and given the integration of our economy with the EU it spells disaster. But the loonier leave advocates will continue to claim that things will be fine whatever evidence is put in front of them. Redwood would still say we should leave even if someone returned from the future and explained how it would ineitably cause a nuclear holocaust. Therefore what we really need to know is the government's assessment. That's as an objective one as you're going to get as it's civil servants actively trying to work out the implications of no deal if it were to come to pass and we can then assess whether Fox, Davis et al are dangerously betraying the nation's interests by ignoring it.
The problem is that no other countries had to pay £60bn up front before any talks on a trade agreement could took place.
The fact that they are demanding that from us is a complete disgrace.
JRM currently on LBC subbing for James O'Brien. Aside from the rather sizeable shift in perspective between the two presenters, there is something wonderfully soothing about the Moggmeister's voice regardless of the nonsense coming out of it.
I still think the Tory powers that be are missing a trick in writing him off. He looks, sounds, and believes like a Tory.
I agree, but I am afraid the hardline RC stuff rules him out.
To be fair he repeatedly rules himself out.
Of course he does, would be terribly uncouth for a gentleman to be out punting for a role that's currently filled. But look at how he's increased his profile this year - he wants political advancement.
Tim Montgomery's piece in The Guardian refers to Rob Halfron stating that the Tories have no vision or purpose. Thats because they have let a load of mediocre apparatchiks fill the cabinet (as Brown did) and have no idea about what to do in power apart from stay in power. They need someone who can drive an agenda, and the Moggmeister would do that.
What does being a Catholic have to do with anything?
Nothing, in practice. In theory, however, I believe many people would be uneasy with a PM holding views which do not chime with what we have come to expect and understand as "the norm" today.
Some people might feel unnerved that their PM is driven to such an extent by what they might term illogical motivation.
If the Commons voted to "reject" the no deal, Davis (or his successor) would have to go to the EU and ask for an extension to the A50 process to allow for further negotiation which the EU would, I suspect, accept.
How long an extension? To what end? And if the EU don't budge an inch?
The political imperative is that if there is no deal, then we leave in March 2019 with no deal - and no cheque to Brussels. The next UK election will then pass judgment on whether that was the right thing to do.
This all depends on how catastrophic you think "no deal" will be. If it's as bad as certain informed reports suggest then no government in their right mind would willingly go through with it. Which is why we really do need to see the government's impact assessments to determine if "no deal" really is an option - it could be the equivalent of having a vote on whether shooting our leg off was the right thing to do.
When people say "no deal" what exactly do they mean?
I take it to mean no deal on anything, except perhaps short term arrangements on stuff like keeping planes in the air in the weeks following March 2019. So, trading on WTO terms, full customs checks, no EU passporting for banks etc...
JRM currently on LBC subbing for James O'Brien. Aside from the rather sizeable shift in perspective between the two presenters, there is something wonderfully soothing about the Moggmeister's voice regardless of the nonsense coming out of it.
I still think the Tory powers that be are missing a trick in writing him off. He looks, sounds, and believes like a Tory.
I agree, but I am afraid the hardline RC stuff rules him out.
To be fair he repeatedly rules himself out.
Of course he does, would be terribly uncouth for a gentleman to be out punting for a role that's currently filled. But look at how he's increased his profile this year - he wants political advancement.
Tim Montgomery's piece in The Guardian refers to Rob Halfron stating that the Tories have no vision or purpose. Thats because they have let a load of mediocre apparatchiks fill the cabinet (as Brown did) and have no idea about what to do in power apart from stay in power. They need someone who can drive an agenda, and the Moggmeister would do that.
What does being a Catholic have to do with anything?
Against same sex marriage, against abortion in any circs, will cost too many votes esp among the younger generations with which Con desperately to detoxify themselves.
Obvious and easily verifiable points, incidentally.
Mr. Mortimer, jein. Labour seem to be batting for the other side in these negotiations. But that's entirely deliberate.
Likewise, the infamous bikiniphobe is trying to curry favour with Londoners.
Mr. Roger, even as a silly comment, that's not the kind of thing an adult should be writing. Get back to me when Leave voters support the crucifixion of children and burning people alive.
Mr. Doethur, hmm. You may be correct. But the second referendum line is one that Labour is pushing, and I do wonder if the friend of Hamas asked the eurocrats about this when he was busy undermining British interests in Brussels recently.
They're 70+% neanerthal morons. I was being kind making light of it in my last post.
I agree, from what I understand of the issues. If we crashed out with no deal I think we'd be the only country in the world other than Mauritania without some form of free trade agreement, and given the integration of our economy with the EU it spells disaster. But the loonier leave advocates will continue to claim that things will be fine whatever evidence is put in front of them. Redwood would still say we should leave even if someone returned from the future and explained how it would ineitably cause a nuclear holocaust. Therefore what we really need to know is the government's assessment. That's as an objective one as you're going to get as it's civil servants actively trying to work out the implications of no deal if it were to come to pass and we can then assess whether Fox, Davis et al are dangerously betraying the nation's interests by ignoring it.
The problem is that no other countries had to pay £60bn up front before any talks on a trade agreement could took place.
The fact that they are demanding that from us is a complete disgrace.
In fairness to the EU, no other country has signed up to an agreed budget before renegotiating an existing deal, which is what we are doing.
However, their reluctance to even consider budging on this is to put it politely rather tin-eared. It would probably cost them 30 billion in lost trade if we crash out with no deal, so there is mileage in going for 40-odd as a lump sum and extra balance payments over a transition.
I suspect the real reason they are sticking over this is because they don't want to be seen forcing the breakdown of talks over the Irish border or citizens' rights, where their proposals have been either ungenerous or totally ludicrous.
Mr. Mortimer, jein. Labour seem to be batting for the other side in these negotiations. But that's entirely deliberate.
Likewise, the infamous bikiniphobe is trying to curry favour with Londoners.
Mr. Roger, even as a silly comment, that's not the kind of thing an adult should be writing. Get back to me when Leave voters support the crucifixion of children and burning people alive.
Mr. Doethur, hmm. You may be correct. But the second referendum line is one that Labour is pushing, and I do wonder if the friend of Hamas asked the eurocrats about this when he was busy undermining British interests in Brussels recently.
They're 70+% neanerthal morons. I was being kind making light of it in my last post.
Neanderthal, rog, and what a beautifully self-stultifying post. There is no evidence *at all* suggesting Neanderthal man was moronic, but obviously it is safe to assume he was because he has a funny Kraut name and was first identified by the sales Boches.
And btw you have Neanderthal genes in you. But don't worry, I won't tell anybody if you don't.
NEANDERTAL "• an uncivilized, unintelligent, or uncouth man. the stereotype of the mechanic as a macho Neanderthal." (Oxford Dictionary)
Therefore what we really need to know is the government's assessment. That's as an objective one as you're going to get as it's civil servants actively trying to work out the implications of no deal if it were to come to pass and we can then assess whether Fox, Davis et al are dangerously betraying the nation's interests by ignoring it.
They can't share the assessment. If it was anything positive or even neutral they would have shared it by now. Even if it was "a wee bit bumpy but we'll be ok" they'd have shared it to distract from the mess of our "negotiations".
That it definitely can't be shared no no no demonstrates that it sets out clearly and simply that the people who run the ports, the Border Agency, HMRC, the hauliers, the food industry, the CBI etc etc are all correct - hard no deal Brexit would be like someone switching off the economy. A crash stop in the flow of trade that like all crash stops ends up with a large pile-up behind it and a pile of bodies.
We are a trading nation. Our economy is overly reliant on financial services and shopping, with the remaining industry we have left biased towards the highly specialised with mainly foreign owners and a heavy reliance on products and components for products crossing and recrossing the border. The idea that we just pull the plug on our trading relationships with everyone and start again is absolutely insane, more so that the people purporting this option are supposedly the people who represent big business and advocate free trade.
So yes, we need to see the assessment. It will take the courts to force their hand. And when they do, thats when the pre-Brexit economic calamity warned about by "project fear" becomes reality. As I keep saying, this will be an extinction level event for politicians and parties associated with it.
I agree, from what I understand of the issues. If we crashed out with no deal I think we'd be the only country in the world other than Mauritania without some form of free trade agreement, and given the integration of our economy with the EU it spells disaster. But the loonier leave advocates will continue to claim that things will be fine whatever evidence is put in front of them. Redwood would still say we should leave even if someone returned from the future and explained how it would ineitably cause a nuclear holocaust. Therefore what we really need to know is the government's assessment. That's as an objective one as you're going to get as it's civil servants actively trying to work out the implications of no deal if it were to come to pass and we can then assess whether Fox, Davis et al are dangerously betraying the nation's interests by ignoring it.
The problem is that no other countries had to pay £60bn up front before any talks on a trade agreement could took place.
The fact that they are demanding that from us is a complete disgrace.
In fairness to the EU, no other country has signed up to an agreed budget before renegotiating an existing deal, which is what we are doing.
However, their reluctance to even consider budging on this is to put it politely rather tin-eared. It would probably cost them 30 billion in lost trade if we crash out with no deal, so there is mileage in going for 40-odd as a lump sum and extra balance payments over a transition.
I suspect the real reason they are sticking over this is because they don't want to be seen forcing the breakdown of talks over the Irish border or citizens' rights, where their proposals have been either ungenerous or totally ludicrous.
As I pointed out before the budget we agreed to was in exchange for certain benefits from the EU which we will no longer have access to after we leave. They want us to lose the benefits (or pay extra for them), but continue to pay our part of the budget in full. Completely unacceptable.
If the Commons voted to "reject" the no deal, Davis (or his successor) would have to go to the EU and ask for an extension to the A50 process to allow for further negotiation which the EU would, I suspect, accept.
How long an extension? To what end? And if the EU don't budge an inch?
The political imperative is that if there is no deal, then we leave in March 2019 with no deal - and no cheque to Brussels. The next UK election will then pass judgment on whether that was the right thing to do.
This all depends on how catastrophic you think "no deal" will be. If it's as bad as certain informed reports suggest then no government in their right mind would willingly go through with it. Which is why we really do need to see the government's impact assessments to determine if "no deal" really is an option - it could be the equivalent of having a vote on whether shooting our leg off was the right thing to do.
When people say "no deal" what exactly do they mean?
I take it to mean no deal on anything, except perhaps short term arrangements on stuff like keeping planes in the air in the weeks following March 2019. So, trading on WTO terms, full customs checks, no EU passporting for banks etc...
Which of these things are the EU willing to discuss with us now? Are they even open to talking about keeping planes in the air yet?
"The current Labour polling leads are nowhere near what you would have thought they should be given the turmoil within the blue team."
Good analysis Mike. Yes, your last point is the crux of the matter. The political climate feels to me to be something akin to 1994-5, when the Tory Party was tearing itself apart in the wake of Maastricht and we had a Prime Minister who was regarded with derision by most of the general public. You can add to that something we didn't have then, which is a continued and accelerating squeeze on living standards of unparalleled length, such that the public now see through the promises of jam tomorrow on which the 2015 election was fought, plus a squeeze on public services far more intense and unrelenting compared to that of the Major years.
Yet the polls just don't reflect that as we did in 1994-95. Then, Gallup had Labour around 30% ahead, falling back to 13% at the 1997 GE which matched Blair's winning margin spot on. Currently Labour is between only 0% and 6% ahead. Even Ed Miliband managed to nudge double digit leads for a while.
Corbyn has helped change that narrative, but you didn't need to be on the far left to be able to mount a more robust challenge to the Tories than Ed Miliband could ever bring himself to, in a context that has vastly changed since the first half of the decade. At the same time Corbyn remains a Marmite figure, enthusing some but repulsing others. So while there's a fair chance now that Corbyn could win the most seats at the next election whenever that comes, nothing is nailed on as it was at the dog end of the Major years, whether it had been Blair, Brown or John Smith leading the Labour Party then.
If the Commons voted to "reject" the no deal, Davis (or his successor) would have to go to the EU and ask for an extension to the A50 process to allow for further negotiation which the EU would, I suspect, accept.
How long an extension? To what end? And if the EU don't budge an inch?
The political imperative is that if there is no deal, then we leave in March 2019 with no deal - and no cheque to Brussels. The next UK election will then pass judgment on whether that was the right thing to do.
This all depends on how catastrophic you think "no deal" will be. If it's as bad as certain informed reports suggest then no government in their right mind would willingly go through with it. Which is why we really do need to see the government's impact assessments to determine if "no deal" really is an option - it could be the equivalent of having a vote on whether shooting our leg off was the right thing to do.
No deal would be an epic fail. "Leaving the EU" was always one half of the equation, "and then X" being the other half. No deal is essentially leaving with "we'll be alright" as what we do next.
Yes, a fudge will be found to keep planes flying. But a fudge won't be found in how the EU manages its external affairs with non-member non-CU non-SM 3rd parties like ourselves. We know what they will do with "no deal". Wassocks like IDS seem to think we just trade with other people instead. Which is nice. If they ever come back to planet earth I hope the burn up on re-entry
The problem is that no other countries had to pay £60bn up front before any talks on a trade agreement could took place.
The fact that they are demanding that from us is a complete disgrace.
It's 60 billion Euros, so £53 billion (was lower before Brexit screwed the pound), and other countries seeking talks on a trade agreement hadn't previously committed to binding budget commitments that the EU would like settled, as they were signed off on the understanding Britain would contribute towards them. You can dispute the number - as I understand it the biggest contention is over future projects, where we, correctly, are arguing we should get some discount due to the value of the assets funded. But arguing with paying any bill at all, understandably makes the EU as furious as your mates would be if you ordered a load of dishes in the curry house, walked out after the starters after refusing to pay then expected them to be matey in the pub afterwards. You could walk out, but they're likely to tell you to sod off.
I agree, from what I understand of the issues. If we crashed out with no deal I think we'd be the only country in the world other than Mauritania without some form of free trade agreement, and given the integration of our economy with the EU it spells disaster. But the loonier leave advocates will continue to claim that things will be fine whatever evidence is put in front of them. Redwood would still say we should leave even if someone returned from the future and explained how it would ineitably cause a nuclear holocaust. Therefore what we really need to know is the government's assessment. That's as an objective one as you're going to get as it's civil servants actively trying to work out the implications of no deal if it were to come to pass and we can then assess whether Fox, Davis et al are dangerously betraying the nation's interests by ignoring it.
The problem is that no other countries had to pay £60bn up front before any talks on a trade agreement could took place.
The fact that they are demanding that from us is a complete disgrace.
In fairness to the EU, no other country has signed up to an agreed budget before renegotiating an existing deal, which is what we are doing.
However, their reluctance to even consider budging on this is to put it politely rather tin-eared. It would probably cost them 30 billion in lost trade if we crash out with no deal, so there is mileage in going for 40-odd as a lump sum and extra balance payments over a transition.
I suspect the real reason they are sticking over this is because they don't want to be seen forcing the breakdown of talks over the Irish border or citizens' rights, where their proposals have been either ungenerous or totally ludicrous.
As I pointed out before the budget we agreed to was in exchange for certain benefits from the EU which we will no longer have access to after we leave. They want us to lose the benefits (or pay extra for them), but continue to pay our part of the budget in full. Completely unacceptable.
The EU are simply pointing out (and taking advantage of) the changed power dynamic that has taken place because of the UKs decision to leave the EU. They will have judged that there is little point in trying to create a new UK - EU relationship until all of the eurosceptic headbangers have realised the reality of the new order.
Therefore what we really need to know is the government's assessment. That's as an objective one as you're going to get as it's civil servants actively trying to work out the implications of no deal if it were to come to pass and we can then assess whether Fox, Davis et al are dangerously betraying the nation's interests by ignoring it.
.
So yes, we need to see the assessment. It will take the courts to force their hand. And when they do, thats when the pre-Brexit economic calamity warned about by "project fear" becomes reality. As I keep saying, this will be an extinction level event for politicians and parties associated with it.
I tend to agree with this. The argument that seems preposterous is the one the government's making - that it will "undermine our negotiating hand". The EU have the largest team of trade negotiators in the world and access to our past economic data. They're perfectly capable of assessing the implications themselves. We know what they think - Macron has said it. That he believes no deal to be so daft it's a ridiculous bluff. Now, they might be wrong - but if they are, then releasing our more upbeat assessments strengthens rather than weakens our hand. If, on the other hand, they're as dire as has been reported, then no deal isn't a legitimate negotiating tactic anyway as it's too destructive to put forward as a serious option. The only people not publishing favours are the likes of IDS who would demand Brexit even if it resulted in the slaughter of the first born.
If the Commons voted to "reject" the no deal, Davis (or his successor) would have to go to the EU and ask for an extension to the A50 process to allow for further negotiation which the EU would, I suspect, accept.
How long an extension? To what end? And if the EU don't budge an inch?
The political imperative is that if there is no deal, then we leave in March 2019 with no deal - and no cheque to Brussels. The next UK election will then pass judgment on whether that was the right thing to do.
This all depends on how catastrophic you think "no deal" will be. If it's as bad as certain informed reports suggest then no government in their right mind would willingly go through with it. Which is why we really do need to see the government's impact assessments to determine if "no deal" really is an option - it could be the equivalent of having a vote on whether shooting our leg off was the right thing to do.
When people say "no deal" what exactly do they mean?
I take it to mean no deal on anything, except perhaps short term arrangements on stuff like keeping planes in the air in the weeks following March 2019. So, trading on WTO terms, full customs checks, no EU passporting for banks etc...
Which of these things are the EU willing to discuss with us now? Are they even open to talking about keeping planes in the air yet?
None. The sequencing of talks means the divorce bill, Ireland and EU citizens rights must be settled first. I can see Ireland being pushed into second lot of talks though as it's largely dependent on what our future relationship is. For example if we remain in the Customs Union and Single Market, the whole Ireland problem vanishes to a large extent. If not, it may be unsolvable.
"The current Labour polling leads are nowhere near what you would have thought they should be given the turmoil within the blue team."
Good analysis Mike. Yes, your last point is the crux of the matter. The political climate feels to me to be something akin to 1994-5, when the Tory Party was tearing itself apart in the wake of Maastricht and we had a Prime Minister who was regarded with derision by most of the general public. You can add to that something we didn't have then, which is a continued and accelerating squeeze on living standards of unparalleled length, such that the public now see through the promises of jam tomorrow on which the 2015 election was fought, plus a squeeze on public services far more intense and unrelenting compared to that of the Major years.
Yet the polls just don't reflect that as we did in 1994-95. Then, Gallup had Labour around 30% ahead, falling back to 13% at the 1997 GE which matched Blair's winning margin spot on. Currently Labour is between only 0% and 6% ahead. Even Ed Miliband managed to nudge double digit leads for a while.
Corbyn has helped change that narrative, but you didn't need to be on the far left to be able to mount a more robust challenge to the Tories than Ed Miliband could ever bring himself to, in a context that has vastly changed since the first half of the decade. At the same time Corbyn remains a Marmite figure, enthusing some but repulsing others. So while there's a fair chance now that Corbyn could win the most seats at the next election whenever that comes, nothing is nailed on as it was at the dog end of the Major years, whether it had been Blair, Brown or John Smith leading the Labour Party then.
I just dont believe this squeeze on living standards stuff, restaurants are packed all the time round here even midweek. When I was a kid I was taken out for a meal once a year on my birthday. These days kids are taken out every week for a meal.
I agree, from what I understand of the issues. If we crashed out with no deal I think we'd be the only country in the world other than Mauritania without some form of free trade agreement, and given the integration of our economy with the EU it spells disaster. But the loonier leave advocates will continue to claim that things will be fine whatever evidence is put in front of them. Redwood would still say we should leave even if someone returned from the future and explained how it would ineitably cause a nuclear holocaust. Therefore what we really need to know is the government's assessment. That's as an objective one as you're going to get as it's civil servants actively trying to work out the implications of no deal if it were to come to pass and we can then assess whether Fox, Davis et al are dangerously betraying the nation's interests by ignoring it.
The problem is that no other countries had to pay £60bn up front before any talks on a trade agreement could took place.
The fact that they are demanding that from us is a complete disgrace.
In fairness to the EU, no other country has signed up to an agreed budget before renegotiating an existing deal, which is what we are doing.
However, their reluctance to even consider budging on this is to put it politely rather tin-eared. It would probably cost them 30 billion in lost trade if we crash out with no deal, so there is mileage in going for 40-odd as a lump sum and extra balance payments over a transition.
I suspect the real reason they are sticking over this is because they don't want to be seen forcing the breakdown of talks over the Irish border or citizens' rights, where their proposals have been either ungenerous or totally ludicrous.
As I pointed out before the budget we agreed to was in exchange for certain benefits from the EU which we will no longer have access to after we leave. They want us to lose the benefits (or pay extra for them), but continue to pay our part of the budget in full. Completely unacceptable.
The EU are simply pointing out (and taking advantage of) the changed power dynamic that has taken place because of the UKs decision to leave the EU. They will have judged that there is little point in trying to create a new UK - EU relationship until all of the eurosceptic headbangers have realised the reality of the new order.
Don't take it personally - its just business.
The EU are pointing out the changed power dynamic because of the UK's decision to join the EU. Leaving has just let us see exactly how this relationship has always worked.
If the Commons voted to "reject" the no deal, Davis (or his successor) would have to go to the EU and ask for an extension to the A50 process to allow for further negotiation which the EU would, I suspect, accept.
How long an extension? To what end? And if the EU don't budge an inch?
The political imperative is that if there is no deal, then we leave in March 2019 with no deal - and no cheque to Brussels. The next UK election will then pass judgment on whether that was the right thing to do.
This all depends on how catastrophic you think "no deal" will be. If it's as bad as certain informed reports suggest then no government in their right mind would willingly go through with it. Which is why we really do need to see the government's impact assessments to determine if "no deal" really is an option - it could be the equivalent of having a vote on whether shooting our leg off was the right thing to do.
No deal would be an epic fail. "Leaving the EU" was always one half of the equation, "and then X" being the other half. No deal is essentially leaving with "we'll be alright" as what we do next.
Yes, a fudge will be found to keep planes flying. But a fudge won't be found in how the EU manages its external affairs with non-member non-CU non-SM 3rd parties like ourselves. We know what they will do with "no deal". Wassocks like IDS seem to think we just trade with other people instead. Which is nice. If they ever come back to planet earth I hope the burn up on re-entry
The problem is that no other countries had to pay £60bn up front before any talks on a trade agreement could took place.
The fact that they are demanding that from us is a complete disgrace.
It's 60 billion Euros, so £53 billion (was lower before Brexit screwed the pound), and other countries seeking talks on a trade agreement hadn't previously committed to binding budget commitments that the EU would like settled, as they were signed off on the understanding Britain would contribute towards them. You can dispute the number - as I understand it the biggest contention is over future projects, where we, correctly, are arguing we should get some discount due to the value of the assets funded. But arguing with paying any bill at all, understandably makes the EU as furious as your mates would be if you ordered a load of dishes in the curry house, walked out after the starters after refusing to pay then expected them to be matey in the pub afterwards. You could walk out, but they're likely to tell you to sod off.
You forgot the bit where your mates didn't let you have any of the curry.
I agree, from what I understand of the issues. If we crashed out with no deal I think we'd be the only country in the world other than Mauritania without some form of free trade agreement, and given the integration of our economy with the EU it spells disaster. But the loonier leave advocates will continue to claim that things will be fine whatever evidence is put in front of them. Redwood would still say we should leave even if someone returned from the future and explained how it would ineitably cause a nuclear holocaust. Therefore what we really need to know is the government's assessment. That's as an objective one as you're going to get as it's civil servants actively trying to work out the implications of no deal if it were to come to pass and we can then assess whether Fox, Davis et al are dangerously betraying the nation's interests by ignoring it.
The problem is that no other countries had to pay £60bn up front before any talks on a trade agreement could took place.
The fact that they are demanding that from us is a complete disgrace.
I suspect the real reason they are sticking over this is because they don't want to be seen forcing the breakdown of talks over the Irish border or citizens' rights, where their proposals have been either ungenerous or totally ludicrous.
As I pointed out before the budget we agreed to was in exchange for certain benefits from the EU which we will no longer have access to after we leave. They want us to lose the benefits (or pay extra for them), but continue to pay our part of the budget in full. Completely unacceptable.
The EU are simply pointing out (and taking advantage of) the changed power dynamic that has taken place because of the UKs decision to leave the EU. They will have judged that there is little point in trying to create a new UK - EU relationship until all of the eurosceptic headbangers have realised the reality of the new order.
Don't take it personally - its just business.
The EU are pointing out the changed power dynamic because of the UK's decision to join the EU. Leaving has just let us see exactly how this relationship has always worked.
The UKs foreign policy has historically been to avoid a situation where the whole of Europe is united against us. When we were part of the EU that was generally possible since we had plenty of natural allies on various topics: free trade, security, deregulation, etc.
Now that we are out of the EU, we can no longer play individual countries off against each other and are instead subjected to a Europe united against us.
I have an idea great majority of UK citizens living in the Irish Republic are dual nationality - so no need to worry about them. And the UK citizens living in France, Italy and Spain must be mostly holiday home owners - they might have to holiday somewhere else. An agreement on EU citizens rights will cost us billions a year (I hear the unemployment rate for last years arrivals is terrible, as little as 10% for some communities). Why do we want an agreement which is so one sided?
"The current Labour polling leads are nowhere near what you would have thought they should be given the turmoil within the blue team."
Good analysis Mike. Yes, your last point is the crux of the matter. The political climate feels to me to be something akin to 1994-5, when the Tory Party was tearing itself apart in the wake of Maastricht and we had a Prime Minister who was regarded with derision by most of the general public. You can add to that something we didn't have then, which is a continued and accelerating squeeze on living standards of unparalleled length, such that the public now see through the promises of jam tomorrow on which the 2015 election was fought, plus a squeeze on public services far more intense and unrelenting compared to that of the Major years.
Yet the polls just don't reflect that as we did in 1994-95. Then, Gallup had Labour around 30% ahead, falling back to 13% at the 1997 GE which matched Blair's winning margin spot on. Currently Labour is between only 0% and 6% ahead. Even Ed Miliband managed to nudge double digit leads for a while.
Corbyn has helped change that narrative, but you didn't need to be on the far left to be able to mount a more robust challenge to the Tories than Ed Miliband could ever bring himself to, in a context that has vastly changed since the first half of the decade. At the same time Corbyn remains a Marmite figure, enthusing some but repulsing others. So while there's a fair chance now that Corbyn could win the most seats at the next election whenever that comes, nothing is nailed on as it was at the dog end of the Major years, whether it had been Blair, Brown or John Smith leading the Labour Party then.
I just dont believe this squeeze on living standards stuff, restaurants are packed all the time round here even midweek. When I was a kid I was taken out for a meal once a year on my birthday. These days kids are taken out every week for a meal.
Re the last paragraph I get the impression that if you’re OK, you’re OK. If you’re not, you’re part of the screwed underclass. Depends where one live’s too.
Mrs May now plays her weakness as her strongest card. She warned EU leaders last Friday that if they didn’t help her, then her government would fall and they’d get Boris Johnson.
So a campaign that promised voters a restoration of sovereignty has ended up in a Brexit negotiation where Brussels gets to choose the British government. Brilliant.
If the Commons voted to "reject" the no deal, Davis (or his successor) would have to go to the EU and ask for an extension to the A50 process to allow for further negotiation which the EU would, I suspect, accept.
How long an extension? To what end? And if the EU don't budge an inch?
The political imperative is that if there is no deal, then we leave in March 2019 with no deal - and no cheque to Brussels. The next UK election will then pass judgment on whether that was the right thing to do.
This all depends on how catastrophic you think "no deal" will be. If it's as bad as certain informed reports suggest then no government in their right mind would willingly go through with it. Which is why we really do need to see the government's impact assessments to determine if "no deal" really is an option - it could be the equivalent of having a vote on whether shooting our leg off was the right thing to do.
The problem is that no other countries had to pay £60bn up front before any talks on a trade agreement could took place.
The fact that they are demanding that from us is a complete disgrace.
It's 60 billion Euros, so £53 billion (was lower before Brexit screwed the pound), and other countries seeking talks on a trade agreement hadn't previously committed to binding budget commitments that the EU would like settled, as they were signed off on the understanding Britain would contribute towards them. You can dispute the number - as I understand it the biggest contention is over future projects, where we, correctly, are arguing we should get some discount due to the value of the assets funded. But arguing with paying any bill at all, understandably makes the EU as furious as your mates would be if you ordered a load of dishes in the curry house, walked out after the starters after refusing to pay then expected them to be matey in the pub afterwards. You could walk out, but they're likely to tell you to sod off.
You forgot the bit where your mates didn't let you have any of the curry.
Well you're the one that's decided to sod off! They're saying (and still are) stay and share. We're the ones who're walking out the door in a huff because "don't like it now, wanna go talk to my other mates".
Mr. D, but not subject to QMV in a slew of areas because Brown threw away the vetoes signing a treaty and reneging upon the related referendum.
Did Brown make a power grab and usurp the democratically-elected government? Or, was Brown the head of a democratically-elected government. Which bit was confusing?
Mr. P, Labour are wibbling about a binding vote in Parliament on the deal. If that happens, then the consequence of it being voted down has to be (in a purely logical sense) either departing with no deal, or another referendum.
There I disagree - with your second point.
The consequence of voting it down would be leaving with no deal. There is no mechanism for us to unilaterally extend Article 50. We are leaving whether we like it or not now - we're committed. If we reject the deal, we leave on WTO terms.
Whether Labour have twigged that simple truth yet is another question.
It is unlikely a full FTA will be agreed and finalised by April 2019 which is why May wants the 2 year transition period.
Labour's rhetoric has been vaguely nonsensical, but largely because the whole situation is. Invoking Article 50 has left us in a position where we either take almost any deal offered or crash out in a way we were told was an impossibility during the referendum campaign. It's a bizarre form of politics where both parties are k. The former would make it abundantly romised.
In the end May might need Labour and LD and SNP votes for any deal getting through Parliament especially with rebellions from Tory hard Brexiteers like Mogg and Patterson and possibly Boris over £50 billion+ payments.There will also be a few Labour Leavers like Skinner and Hoey voting against too. Though leaving free movement uncontrolled and staying in the single market after all unlikely.
I'm pretty sure that all Opposition MP's (except perhaps a handful of Labour rebels) will vote against any deal that the government puts to the Commons.
If they do and Britain crashes out without a deal as Labour voted against it it would be the height of hypocrisy and if, as is likely, it ends up with a Corbyn minority government dealing with a hard Brexit UK that would be nothing less than what Corbyn deserves. Leave Corbyn to clear up the mess.
(I think the LDs would back a deal with the EU by the way if one could be agreed and possibly the SNP too).
The Opposition simply want to make life as hard as possible for the government which, to be fair, is their job.
If the opposition says a deal has to be agreed in all circumstances then promptly votes against that deal how on earth can they be taken seriously as a viable government?
Meanwhile, over in Catalonia the latest voting intentions shows almost no change from the elections that took place in 2015; that is a very slender majority in seats for pro-independence parties, but with less than 50% of the vote.
This comes on the back of other polling published in the same newspaper which shows majority opposition to UDI and strong support for a negotiated settlement that leaves Catalonia inside Spain.
The trick is how to get to the point where Catalans are voting in a referendum on more autonomy rather than in an election about independence. If the PP had any sense whatsoever efore PP scuppered it.
Meanwhile, Spain-wide polling continues to show that PP is getting no benefit from the Catalonia crisis.
Out of curiosity - it isn't vitally important - does the Spanish constitutional provision that Spain's territorial integrity is sacrosanct apply to Ceuta and Melilla? I know they would like it to apply to Gibraltar?
The Spanish argue that Melilla and Ceuta existed as part of Spain long before Morocco existed as a country. The are run as Spanish provinces like any others.
There is a Canary Islands nationalist party, but it wants more autonomy rather than independence. It is well supported and currently runs the regional government. But the Canaries have always been a part of Spain and unlike the Basques and Catalans there is no different language (though the accent and influences are much more Latin American than on the peninsular)
There’s a whistling language in La Gomera, opne of the smaller islands. Franco banned it, but it’s now been revived. Not sure hopw useful it was for meaningful conversations; more a long distance communication system, I suspect.
By the way can someone direct me to who exactly signed up to pay the EU budget in full even if we were going to leave halfway through the budget period?
Was it those twin geniuses Cameron and Osborne again? The latter of which is still bitching about the mess he created and left behind.
Comments
https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/922379754317254656
* Before the German elections May and co really did think that Merkel would ride to the UK's rescue as soon as she was re-elected;
* In the past few weeks the Germans have made it clear that they have no intention of changing their stance, which is actually harder and less friendly to the UK than some of the other 27;
* May's dinner with Junker was arranged at short notice and the aim was to see if he and Barnier could be lent on to persuade the 27 to be more flexible (or to beg them for help if you prefer more colourful language);
* Partly as a result of this the language that came out of the summit was more emollient but underneath nothing has really changed.
(I think the LDs would back a deal with the EU by the way if one could be agreed and possibly the SNP too).
There is an understandable urge to protect and safeguard and I get that - I really do.
It's a balancing act and those who support freedom of speech and expression to the furthest extent need to address rather than belittle these concerns. That there are disturbing and offensive images and comments on the Internet is undeniable but, like you I suspect, I agree the answer is to challenge the content not to remove it.
I dislike the Alt-Right and if there is such a thing, the Alt-Left. The one thing they have in common is the simplicity and weakness of their arguments couched in half-truths and generalisations. Drag them kicking and screaming into the light and they are soon revealed.
I wouldn't vote for him in such a circumstance.
Fortunately that ain't going to happen.
He would be an excellent short-priced favourite for next-but-one Prime Minister, but there isn't a market for that.
It's quite possible Labour (and others) will see the deal and say "it's not bad but could be refined here and here. Go back to Barnier, resolve these issues and then we can support it." After all, May herself once said a bad deal was worse than no deal so refining a deal to make it better would surely be Conservative policy and rejecting the whole thing would be the height of hypocrisy, wouldn't it ?
If Davis comes back with no deal, there's nothing to vote on. If the Commons voted to "reject" the no deal, Davis (or his successor) would have to go to the EU and ask for an extension to the A50 process to allow for further negotiation which the EU would, I suspect, accept.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36803544
Which would make their argument seem rather self-serving and inaccurate. The equivalent of Britain claiming China hadn't existed when they signed the lease on the mainland in 1898 because the People's Republic existed only from 1949.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/usa-post-race-analysis-2017.html
His 40% was achieved by piling up votes in seats that Labour already holds (largely). He won about the same number of seats that Gordon Brown won in 2010 with 29%. He is very bad at winning Tory marginals. I cannot see where Corbyn will get the votes from next time-when the Tories will have a new leader, a better campaign, a more attractive manifesto -and crucially when Corbyn will be expected to win, which will cause huge numbers to come out to stop that outcome.
Campbell-Bannerman's second act as PM (his first being to smash Haldane's silly Relugas compact) was to call an election.
That's a complicated way of saying that I agree with you - I don't think it would happen. Corbyn doesn't have the numbers without the tacit support of the Conservatives.
Oppose the deal and we might end up with no deal, but support it and it becomes more difficult to criticise the government for the outcome.
Given that Parliament has no right to unilaterally alter any deal, the opposition’s approach could depend on the timing of the vote and the opportunity to send our negotiators back to Brussels. A very difficult call to make, especially given the variety of opinion on the Labour benches.
And btw you have Neanderthal genes in you. But don't worry, I won't tell anybody if you don't.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/876894066478329857
The political imperative is that if there is no deal, then we leave in March 2019 with no deal - and no cheque to Brussels. The next UK election will then pass judgment on whether that was the right thing to do.
The "political imperative", as you put it, is how the Conservatives have tried to sell the A50 negotiation process to the electorate and especially those who wanted us out on 24/6/16.
For those of us not of the Conservative viewpoint and who want to leave the EU on the best terms possible for our economic future, that's a nonsensical viewpoint.
Cutting off your nose to spite your face might make you feel better but it'll stop you smelling the roses, the coffee or indeed anything else. Short of a catastrophic breakdown in relations, the EU will still want to make a deal and so should we. If that means extending A50 for a few months to complete the process, so be it.
May once opined a bad deal would be worse than no deal - fair enough - but would no deal be better than any deal ?
If, on the other hand we're staring down the barrel of no deal and the likely outcome looks like a complete calamity (it shouldn't be food shortages we worry about primarily, but price hikes) it allows for a shift to "let's rethink the whole thing", either through remaining in the EEA/EFTA, an extended transition (probably with the aim of staying in EEA/EFTA), or a rethink on the entire process. This would of course have the added benefit of splitting the Tory party.
Not that he'd be the primary driver in that (I don't think he even understands Brexit), but his MPs and membership would.
That doesn't fit with the analysis at all
"According to a report by Frankfurter Allegmeine Zeitung (FAZ), Mr Juncker thought the Prime Minister looked “anxious, despondent and disheartened” during the hastily organised dinner last week.
The EU President also thought Mrs May looked “marked” by battles over Brexit with her own Conservative ministers and that she was “a woman who trusts hardly anyone but is also not ready for a clear-out to free herself”, according to the newspaper.
Mrs May is also said to have asked for help to overcome British divisions.
The paper said: “She indicated that back home friend and foe are at her back plotting to bring her down."
https://twitter.com/TerraMiaLM/status/922372744959819776
https://twitter.com/greghands/status/922380660228149248
Fish and chips are splendid.
Unless you are Chris Huhne.
However, the vote spread was very inefficient. If you look at the charts, although Labour have slightly more seats in play than the Conservatives on a 5% swing - 79 against 63 - the fact they are 56 behind and 63 seats from a majority rather negates that theoretical advantage.
To put it another way, Labour need a swing of roughly 5% (a Thatcher-style swing) just to have a bare majority, while the Tories could have a majority of 44 on a swing of just 2%. It is worth pointing out that in theory at least that suggests the Labour vote for a majority needs to be higher than the Tory one.
(And yes, I know the UNS concept is a load of bollocks and that chart includes seats Labour wouldn't win if they were up against Nick Griffin, a sheep and a naturist. But there is some reason to think far too many votes got piled up in the wrong places. Tony Blair would not have got 40% and been 56 seats behind.)
I still think the Tory powers that be are missing a trick in writing him off. He looks, sounds, and believes like a Tory.
Nobody is talking "any deal" though. I fully expect some deal to be hammered out at the last minute. I fully expect the Remainers to say it is a shit deal. I fully expect the Leavers to say it is a shit deal.
It is, however, a dangerous tactic because you really need to mean it. If you make such a representation and then give further ground you have no credibility and the other side will push and push at what they see as an opponent in retreat and disarray.
If there is any truth about what Mrs May is alleged to have said at this dinner then my reservation is about timing. This is quite early in the process to play this card. If she tries to play it again later it will have very little effect.
If you're right (and there's a fair chance you are), May and Davis will have to come back and try to sell a deal which a lot of people won't like.
It's probably fair to argue that since a lot of people will be vociferous about not liking it, it probably won't be a bad deal. When both sides hate it, you've probably got it about right.
The question is whether the sound and fury of those opposed will translate into votes on the floor of the Commons and enough to prevent said Treaty getting passed.
He is a kind of SO on acid!!
Yes, a fudge will be found to keep planes flying. But a fudge won't be found in how the EU manages its external affairs with non-member non-CU non-SM 3rd parties like ourselves. We know what they will do with "no deal". Wassocks like IDS seem to think we just trade with other people instead. Which is nice. If they ever come back to planet earth I hope the burn up on re-entry
He should be able to get to, e.g. FS, without a problem.
http://www.espn.com/racing/driver/raceresults/_/id/868/series/6/lewis-hamilton <<— awesome US sports stats website.
Tim Montgomery's piece in The Guardian refers to Rob Halfron stating that the Tories have no vision or purpose. Thats because they have let a load of mediocre apparatchiks fill the cabinet (as Brown did) and have no idea about what to do in power apart from stay in power. They need someone who can drive an agenda, and the Moggmeister would do that.
What does being a Catholic have to do with anything?
The man is an unelectable disgrace!
Qualifying: Hamilton gets pole.
Race: Hamilton wins.
It's more reliable than a general election with 20-point Tory poll leads.
Come to think of it, I really ought to be rich by now.
The fact that they are demanding that from us is a complete disgrace.
Some people might feel unnerved that their PM is driven to such an extent by what they might term illogical motivation.
Obvious and easily verifiable points, incidentally.
Singapore stands out as one he won from the third row.
However, their reluctance to even consider budging on this is to put it politely rather tin-eared. It would probably cost them 30 billion in lost trade if we crash out with no deal, so there is mileage in going for 40-odd as a lump sum and extra balance payments over a transition.
I suspect the real reason they are sticking over this is because they don't want to be seen forcing the breakdown of talks over the Irish border or citizens' rights, where their proposals have been either ungenerous or totally ludicrous.
That it definitely can't be shared no no no demonstrates that it sets out clearly and simply that the people who run the ports, the Border Agency, HMRC, the hauliers, the food industry, the CBI etc etc are all correct - hard no deal Brexit would be like someone switching off the economy. A crash stop in the flow of trade that like all crash stops ends up with a large pile-up behind it and a pile of bodies.
We are a trading nation. Our economy is overly reliant on financial services and shopping, with the remaining industry we have left biased towards the highly specialised with mainly foreign owners and a heavy reliance on products and components for products crossing and recrossing the border. The idea that we just pull the plug on our trading relationships with everyone and start again is absolutely insane, more so that the people purporting this option are supposedly the people who represent big business and advocate free trade.
So yes, we need to see the assessment. It will take the courts to force their hand. And when they do, thats when the pre-Brexit economic calamity warned about by "project fear" becomes reality. As I keep saying, this will be an extinction level event for politicians and parties associated with it.
Good analysis Mike. Yes, your last point is the crux of the matter. The political climate feels to me to be something akin to 1994-5, when the Tory Party was tearing itself apart in the wake of Maastricht and we had a Prime Minister who was regarded with derision by most of the general public. You can add to that something we didn't have then, which is a continued and accelerating squeeze on living standards of unparalleled length, such that the public now see through the promises of jam tomorrow on which the 2015 election was fought, plus a squeeze on public services far more intense and unrelenting compared to that of the Major years.
Yet the polls just don't reflect that as we did in 1994-95. Then, Gallup had Labour around 30% ahead, falling back to 13% at the 1997 GE which matched Blair's winning margin spot on. Currently Labour is between only 0% and 6% ahead. Even Ed Miliband managed to nudge double digit leads for a while.
Corbyn has helped change that narrative, but you didn't need to be on the far left to be able to mount a more robust challenge to the Tories than Ed Miliband could ever bring himself to, in a context that has vastly changed since the first half of the decade. At the same time Corbyn remains a Marmite figure, enthusing some but repulsing others. So while there's a fair chance now that Corbyn could win the most seats at the next election whenever that comes, nothing is nailed on as it was at the dog end of the Major years, whether it had been Blair, Brown or John Smith leading the Labour Party then.
Don't take it personally - its just business.
Now that we are out of the EU, we can no longer play individual countries off against each other and are instead subjected to a Europe united against us.
Depends where one live’s too.
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-brussels-not-mrs-may-calls-the-shots-on-brexit-a3665306.html
Mrs May now plays her weakness as her strongest card. She warned EU leaders last Friday that if they didn’t help her, then her government would fall and they’d get Boris Johnson.
So a campaign that promised voters a restoration of sovereignty has ended up in a Brexit negotiation where Brussels gets to choose the British government. Brilliant.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41717394
The French and Russian are already doing this. They have special ops in Syria and Iraq targeting their own citizens to ensure they don’t come back.
Was it those twin geniuses Cameron and Osborne again? The latter of which is still bitching about the mess he created and left behind.