After the election outcome the Tories had the opportunity to go for some cross-party arrangements to oversee the negotiations (indeed there were calls from various sides for such), but instead they have kept everything to themselves, avoiding as best they can anyone outside government. A minority government has a thin claim to represent the interests of the whole country, or even most of it (indeed under our system even majority governments don't do so)
Messing around while the clock ticks is unhelpful. The UK will be out of the EU on 29/3/19, deal or no deal, and dilly-dallying, as the Tory minority government is now doing, doesn't help the chances of getting any reasonable deal.
I expect that the EU doesn't give a damn, as the UK's membership was a hindrance to creating a federal United States of Europe with common defence, financial and foreign policies, including universal adoption of the Euro, European armed forces (to replace the obsolescent NATO) and a lingua franca that is purely European (German is the obvious choice). On the international stage, it should be the EU that has the permanent seat on the UN Security Council, replacing France and the UK.
Eventually, a humiliated impoverished England will probably beg to rejoin, without any opt-outs.
As for Damian Green, if he had any integrity he should have gone by now.
I agree, except on the language - I think English has such global traction now that there is little chance of French or German mathching its status, spread or currency, even within Europe.
Once the UK leaves the EU, English will be a minority language within it, used to different extents just by Cyprus, Eire and Malta (all formerly ruled by Britain), but by no countries as their official first language.
Possibly. It is of course quite reasonable for an opposition to decline involvement and say they simply want to oppose. Most Labour MPs don't actually believe in Brexit, after all, whatever meaningless spin is currently their party line.
and yet all but 47 Labour MPs voted to activate Article 50 ?
A familiar line of discussion that I will cut short by jumping to my long-held conclusion that eventually they will come to support a second referendum, as the only way off the hook.
After the election outcome the Tories had the opportunity to go for some cross-party arrangements to oversee the negotiations (indeed there were calls from various sides for such), but instead they have kept everything to themselves, avoiding as best they can anyone outside government. A minority government has a thin claim to represent the interests of the whole country, or even most of it (indeed under our system even majority governments don't do so)
Messing around while the clock ticks is unhelpful. The UK will be out of the EU on 29/3/19, deal or no deal, and dilly-dallying, as the Tory minority government is now doing, doesn't help the chances of getting any reasonable deal.
I expect that the EU doesn't give a damn, as the UK's membership was a hindrance to creating a federal United States of Europe with common defence, financial and foreign policies, including universal adoption of the Euro, European armed forces (to replace the obsolescent NATO) and a lingua franca that is purely European (German is the obvious choice). On the international stage, it should be the EU that has the permanent seat on the UN Security Council, replacing France and the UK.
Eventually, a humiliated impoverished England will probably beg to rejoin, without any opt-outs.
As for Damian Green, if he had any integrity he should have gone by now.
I agree, except on the language - I think English has such global traction now that there is little chance of French or German mathching its status, spread or currency, even within Europe.
Once the UK leaves the EU, English will be a minority language within it, used to different extents just by Cyprus, Eire and Malta (formerly ruled by Britain), but by no countries as their official first language.
English will remain an official language of the EU, and its most widespread 2nd language.
There is no doubt in my mind these reports should be released but redacting them ensures any information in them does not compromise negotiations with the EU.
There are also clear suspicions in Government that Remainer MPs are trying to stop or undermine Brexit through Parliament.
I should hope that they are. It is beyond clear now that Brexit has the potential to be a colossal disaster for UK, that a significant part of the Leave campaign was funded by mischief-makers for their own nefarious ends...... ends which had absolutely nothing to do with the needs or indeed wants of the British people, and that some of the leaders of that campaign were in it purely to feather their own nests.
Yes, there were and are honest men and women who worked for and voted Leave, but there are some very unpleasant stories now coming into the public domain.
The question of whether to trigger A50 was, as the Supreme Court agreed, a matter that required parliamentary approval (result: "rammed through" with the overwhelming approval of parliament 498-114). But surely the subsequent deal negotiation is treaty negotiation, and thus wholly a matter for the executive under prerogative powers?
What should the government have done? Fought Starmer's constitutional game with ones of its own. Made the 58 assessments Cabinet papers, and told those who want it to abjectly surrender its negotiating position to come and have a look in 30 years. And asked them how they think that, uniquely in history, the country would benefit from telling its negotiating counterparty its strengths and weaknesses.
Second like Labour. What Starmer was trying to do with his motion last week was petty Parliamentary games, in an attempt to prejudice the negotiations that the British government is undertaking with the EU by forcing them to put their cards up on the table.
The negotiation documents are secret and should remain so.
On the contrary, it is the government which is playing games, in an effort to keep parliament in the dark. Given that the EU holds all the aces, controls the process, can make a "take it or leave it" offer or walk away at any time, and we'll still be out of the EU, it's difficult to see how the information in these documents can possibly be so intrinsically secret, sensitive, or prejudicial to the negotiations. The Brexit scrutiny select committee cannot do its job effectively, or properly, if material information is withheld. It should see, in confidence, the full unexpurgated reports. The extent to which the documentation may need redacting before any further disclosure, should then be agreed. There are better ways of hiding bad news. Who said that we are leaving the EU for economic reasons? Of course, the government will seek to redact the documentation to the point of rendering it meaningless, before disclosure to the Brexit scrutiny committee. Consistent with its policy of bypassing Parliament.
I agree that this has precious little to do with its effect on the negotiations and is aimed at bypassing parliament. (What price sovereignty now?)
However I think what really lies behind the attempt at secrecy is a desperation to keep the wider public in the dark about the consequences of Brexit. Leavers are scurrying to push ahead before public opinion turns against them. Most know they are skating on very thin ice.
Personally, I think it's less of a Leaver thing and more Theresa May's personal style of Government.
I think Michael Gove, for instance, however unlikely his premiership in the first place, would have operated very differently with respect to Parliament.
After the election outcome the Tories had the opportunity to go for some cross-party arrangements to oversee the negotiations (indeed there were calls from various sides for such), but instead they have kept everything to themselves, avoiding as best they can anyone outside government. A minority government has a thin claim to represent the interests of the whole country, or even most of it (indeed under our system even majority governments don't do so)
Messing around while the clock ticks is unhelpful. The UK will be out of the EU on 29/3/19, deal or no deal, and dilly-dallying, as the Tory minority government is now doing, doesn't help the chances of getting any reasonable deal.
I expect that the EU doesn't give a damn, as the UK's membership was a hindrance to creating a federal United States of Europe with common defence, financial and foreign policies, including universal adoption of the Euro, European armed forces (to replace the obsolescent NATO) and a lingua franca that is purely European (German is the obvious choice). On the international stage, it should be the EU that has the permanent seat on the UN Security Council, replacing France and the UK.
Eventually, a humiliated impoverished England will probably beg to rejoin, without any opt-outs.
As for Damian Green, if he had any integrity he should have gone by now.
I agree, except on the language - I think English has such global traction now that there is little chance of French or German mathching its status, spread or currency, even within Europe.
Once the UK leaves the EU, English will be a minority language within it, used to different extents just by Cyprus, Eire and Malta (all formerly ruled by Britain), but by no countries as their official first language.
And will therefore be a more 'neutral' choice than it has been, as far as the core France v Germany rivalry at the heart of the EU is concerned. And it will still be an official language of the EU as either Ireland or Malta will have to switch their choice.
There is no doubt in my mind these reports should be released but redacting them ensures any information in them does not compromise negotiations with the EU.
There are also clear suspicions in Government that Remainer MPs are trying to stop or undermine Brexit through Parliament.
I should hope that they are. It is beyond clear now that Brexit has the potential to be a colossal disaster for UK, that a significant part of the Leave campaign was funded by mischief-makers for their own nefarious ends...... ends which had absolutely nothing to do with the needs or indeed wants of the British people, and that some of the leaders of that campaign were in it purely to feather their own nests.
Yes, there wewre and are honest men and women who worked for and voted Leave, but there are some very unpleasant stories now coming into the public domain.
I am sure in the light of those revelations those men travelling to polling stations in their white vans and voting for the first time in their lives because they felt it was an issue that was important to them, and on which their voice would be heard, will now all be converted to ardent europhiles.
The question of whether to trigger A50 was, as the Supreme Court agreed, a matter that required parliamentary approval (result: "rammed through" with the overwhelming approval of parliament 498-114). But surely the subsequent deal negotiation is treaty negotiation, and thus wholly a matter for the executive under prerogative powers?
What should the government have done? Fought Starmer's constitutional game with ones of its own. Made the 58 assessments Cabinet papers, and told those who want it to abjectly surrender its negotiating position to come and have a look in 30 years. And asked them how they think that, uniquely in history, the country would benefit from telling its negotiating counterparty its strengths and weaknesses.
That was my solution, expressed here weeks ago.
If you cave on showing your hand on the negotiations for the most sensitive international deal the UK has undertaken in decades, then how can the Cabinet justify having any other papers held back for 30 years?
Second like Labour. What Starmer was trying to do with his motion last week was petty Parliamentary games, in an attempt to prejudice the negotiations that the British government is undertaking with the EU by forcing them to put their cards up on the table.
The negotiation documents are secret and should remain so.
On the contrary, it is the government which is playing games, in an effort to keep parliament in the dark. Given that the EU holds all the aces, controls the process, can make a "take it or leave it" offer or walk away at any time, and we'll still be out of the EU, it's difficult to see how the information in these documents can possibly be so intrinsically secret, sensitive, or prejudicial to the negotiations. The Brexit scrutiny select committee cannot do its job effectively, or properly, if material information is withheld. It should see, in confidence, the full unexpurgated reports. The extent to which the documentation may need redacting before any further disclosure, should then be agreed. There are better ways of hiding bad news. Who said that we are leaving the EU for economic reasons? Of course, the government will seek to redact the documentation to the point of rendering it meaningless, before disclosure to the Brexit scrutiny committee. Consistent with its policy of bypassing Parliament.
Welcome to PB. I’ve no problem at all with the relevant documents being made available to the Brexit committee, or to opposition politicians under Privy Council terms - processes which were designed to allow this sort of information to be seen by those on all sides with an interest in the subject.
I do have an objection to trying to force them to be publicly published, which has the effect of sending our team into the negotiations with one hand behind our back and all our cards face up on the table. The government’s reaction to this is clearly going to be to publish something containing a lot of black marker pen, and probably encourage them to communicate differently behind the scenes, in order to avoid future disclosure of our position to those on the other side of the negotiating table.
Are you seriously suggesting that the EU couldn't work out the impact of Brexit on the various sectors of the UK economy for themselves? It's nothing more than a fig leaf to stop the great British public being told what the consequences of Brexit might be.
”Parliament means, in the mouth of a lawyer (though the word has often a different sense in conversation) The King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons: these three bodies acting together may be aptly described as the "King in Parliament", and constitute Parliament.” Dicey 1885 quoted in Wikipedia. Shenanigans between the govt and the commons have nothing to do with parliamentary sovereignty in this sense. Leavers may be making this mistake but I'd like to see evidence that they are; without it I am inclined to see here another example of remainer strawmanning.
I agree with you. Remainers are using the phrase in irony because it was used by Leave campaigners before the referendum.
I expect most Leave voters care little for Parliament and those in it, especially given that it was Parliament that was keeping us in the EU.
You mean aside from parliament having voted by clear, nay overwhelming, majority for us to activate Article 50 ?
Which they would never have done had the referendum result not forced their hands.
Second like Labour. What Starmer was trying to do with his motion last week was petty Parliamentary games, in an attempt to prejudice the negotiations that the British government is undertaking with the EU by forcing them to put their cards up on the table.
The negotiation documents are secret and should remain so.
On the contrary, it is the government which is playing games, in an effort to keep parliament in the dark. Given that the EU holds all the aces, controls the process, can make a "take it or leave it" offer or walk away at any time, and we'll still be out of the EU, it's difficult to see how the information in these documents can possibly be so intrinsically secret, sensitive, or prejudicial to the negotiations. The Brexit scrutiny select committee cannot do its job effectively, or properly, if material information is withheld. It should see, in confidence, the full unexpurgated reports. The extent to which the documentation may need redacting before any further disclosure, should then be agreed. There are better ways of hiding bad news. Who said that we are leaving the EU for economic reasons? Of course, the government will seek to redact the documentation to the point of rendering it meaningless, before disclosure to the Brexit scrutiny committee. Consistent with its policy of bypassing Parliament.
Welcome to PB. I’ve no problem at all with the relevant documents being made available to the Brexit committee, or to opposition politicians under Privy Council terms - processes which were designed to allow this sort of information to be seen by those on all sides with an interest in the subject.
I do have an objection to trying to force them to be publicly published, which has the effect of sending our team into the negotiations with one hand behind our back and all our cards face up on the table. The government’s reaction to this is clearly going to be to publish something containing a lot of black marker pen, and probably encourage them to communicate differently behind the scenes, in order to avoid future disclosure of our position to those on the other side of the negotiating table.
Are you seriously suggesting that the EU couldn't work out the impact of Brexit on the various sectors of the UK economy for themselves? It's nothing more than a fig leaf to stop the great British public being told what the consequences of Brexit might be.
If the EU has, they are quite a liberty to show their findings to the British public if it suits them.
There is no doubt in my mind these reports should be released but redacting them ensures any information in them does not compromise negotiations with the EU.
There are also clear suspicions in Government that Remainer MPs are trying to stop or undermine Brexit through Parliament.
I should hope that they are. It is beyond clear now that Brexit has the potential to be a colossal disaster for UK, that a significant part of the Leave campaign was funded by mischief-makers for their own nefarious ends...... ends which had absolutely nothing to do with the needs or indeed wants of the British people, and that some of the leaders of that campaign were in it purely to feather their own nests.
Yes, there wewre and are honest men and women who worked for and voted Leave, but there are some very unpleasant stories now coming into the public domain.
I am sure in the light of those revelations those men travelling to polling stations in their white vans and voting for the first time in their lives because they felt it was an issue that was important to them, and on which their voice would be heard, will now all be converted to ardent europhiles.
As I said, there were honest men and women who voted Leave. People who don’t like being lied to, and get very angry when they find out they have been.
After the election outcome the Tories had the opportunity to go for some cross-party arrangements to oversee the negotiations (indeed there were calls from various sides for such), but instead they have kept everything to themselves, avoiding as best they can anyone outside government. A minority government has a thin claim to represent the interests of the whole country, or even most of it (indeed under our system even majority governments don't do so)
Messing around while the clock ticks is unhelpful. The UK will be out of the EU on 29/3/19, deal or no deal, and dilly-dallying, as the Tory minority government is now doing, doesn't help the chances of getting any reasonable deal.
I expect that the EU doesn't give a damn, as the UK's membership was a hindrance to creating a federal United States of Europe with common defence, financial and foreign policies, including universal adoption of the Euro, European armed forces (to replace the obsolescent NATO) and a lingua franca that is purely European (German is the obvious choice). On the international stage, it should be the EU that has the permanent seat on the UN Security Council, replacing France and the UK.
Eventually, a humiliated impoverished England will probably beg to rejoin, without any opt-outs.
As for Damian Green, if he had any integrity he should have gone by now.
I agree, except on the language - I think English has such global traction now that there is little chance of French or German mathching its status, spread or currency, even within Europe.
Once the UK leaves the EU, English will be a minority language within it, used to different extents just by Cyprus, Eire and Malta (all formerly ruled by Britain), but by no countries as their official first language.
That is a strange answer. European Countries all have their own languages but English is the accepted common denominator. I have just returned from a cruise throughout the Med and everywhere we went ashore English was being used.
It may suit your agenda to deminish the use of English but it is the World's language and will continue to be so no matter how much Juncker and others may disagree
After the election outcome the Tories had the opportunity to go for some cross-party arrangements to oversee the negotiations (indeed there were calls from various sides for such), but instead they have kept everything to themselves, avoiding as best they can anyone outside government. A minority government has a thin claim to represent the interests of the whole country, or even most of it (indeed under our system even majority governments don't do so)
Messing around while the clock ticks is unhelpful. The UK will be out of the EU on 29/3/19, deal or no deal, and dilly-dallying, as the Tory minority government is now doing, doesn't help the chances of getting any reasonable deal.
I expect that the EU doesn't give a damn, as the UK's membership was a hindrance to creating a federal United States of Europe with common defence, financial and foreign policies, including universal adoption of the Euro, European armed forces (to replace the obsolescent NATO) and a lingua franca that is purely European (German is the obvious choice). On the international stage, it should be the EU that has the permanent seat on the UN Security Council, replacing France and the UK.
Eventually, a humiliated impoverished England will probably beg to rejoin, without any opt-outs.
As for Damian Green, if he had any integrity he should have gone by now.
What an absurdly biased post.
The Government is now making clear progress towards a FTA with EU similar to the one Canada now has.
Europe is NOT the same as the EU and never has been, just ask Switzerland, Iceland and Norway. When we were in EFTA from 1960 to 1975 were we any less European? Of course not. It is NATO which has largely been responsible for keeping the peace in Europe since WW2 the idea that EU armed forces (minus Britain) would be better able to contain Russia, for example, than NATO armed forces is absurd. The 2 could work together but the former should certainly not replace the latter. English is the most commonly spoken language across Europe, not German, try getting the Greeks to speak German as the main European language. Why would the French give up their UN Security Council for the EU? At most there may be an EU seat added alongside an Indian and Japanese seat but that requires member states to agree.
Wales of course voted Leave, not just England and so far the biggest consequence of the post Brexit general election was Scotland gave even more support to pro Union parties. So far too the economy is performing better than many doomladen Remain campaign predictions were making.
”Parliament means, in the mouth of a lawyer (though the word has often a different sense in conversation) The King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons: these three bodies acting together may be aptly described as the "King in Parliament", and constitute Parliament.” Dicey 1885 quoted in Wikipedia. Shenanigans between the govt and the commons have nothing to do with parliamentary sovereignty in this sense. Leavers may be making this mistake but I'd like to see evidence that they are; without it I am inclined to see here another example of remainer strawmanning.
I agree with you. Remainers are using the phrase in irony because it was used by Leave campaigners before the referendum.
I expect most Leave voters care little for Parliament and those in it, especially given that it was Parliament that was keeping us in the EU.
You mean aside from parliament having voted by clear, nay overwhelming, majority for us to activate Article 50 ?
Which they would never have done had the referendum result not forced their hands.
The referendum vote only forced their hand the the extent that they might lose their jobs if they didn't follow it. Doing things your voters want or losing your job is the very essence of being a MP surely ?
Second like Labour. What Starmer was trying to do with his motion last week was petty Parliamentary games, in an attempt to prejudice the negotiations that the British government is undertaking with the EU by forcing them to put their cards up on the table.
The negotiation documents are secret and should remain so.
On the contrary, it is the government which is playing games, in an effort to keep parliament in the dark. Given that the EU holds all the aces, controls the process, can make a "take it or leave it" offer or walk away at any time, and we'll still be out of the EU, it's difficult to see how the information in these documents can possibly be so intrinsically secret, sensitive, or prejudicial to the negotiations. The Brexit scrutiny select committee cannot do its job effectively, or properly, if material information is withheld. It should see, in confidence, the full unexpurgated reports. The extent to which the documentation may need redacting before any further disclosure, should then be agreed. There are better ways of hiding bad news. Who said that we are leaving the EU for economic reasons? Of course, the government will seek to redact the documentation to the point of rendering it meaningless, before disclosure to the Brexit scrutiny committee. Consistent with its policy of bypassing Parliament.
Welcome to PB. I’ve no problem at all with the relevant documents being made available to the Brexit committee, or to opposition politicians under Privy Council terms - processes which were designed to allow this sort of information to be seen by those on all sides with an interest in the subject.
I do have an objection to trying to force them to be publicly published, which has the effect of sending our team into the negotiations with one hand behind our back and all our cards face up on the table. The government’s reaction to this is clearly going to be to publish something containing a lot of black marker pen, and probably encourage them to communicate differently behind the scenes, in order to avoid future disclosure of our position to those on the other side of the negotiating table.
Are you seriously suggesting that the EU couldn't work out the impact of Brexit on the various sectors of the UK economy for themselves? It's nothing more than a fig leaf to stop the great British public being told what the consequences of Brexit might be.
Both the Eu and the Government are already well aware. Being tied to it whether they like it or not, HMG has to keep the plates spinning and the rest of us in the dark for as long as possible, ideally beyond the next GE
There is no doubt in my mind these reports should be released but redacting them ensures any information in them does not compromise negotiations with the EU.
There are also clear suspicions in Government that Remainer MPs are trying to stop or undermine Brexit through Parliament.
I should hope that they are. It is beyond clear now that Brexit has the potential to be a colossal disaster for UK, that a significant part of the Leave campaign was funded by mischief-makers for their own nefarious ends...... ends which had absolutely nothing to do with the needs or indeed wants of the British people, and that some of the leaders of that campaign were in it purely to feather their own nests.
Yes, there were and are honest men and women who worked for and voted Leave, but there are some very unpleasant stories now coming into the public domain.
The Brexit vote was to regain sovereignty and reduce immigration, those 2 key principles must be respected.
There is no doubt in my mind these reports should be released but redacting them ensures any information in them does not compromise negotiations with the EU.
You'd have to be laughably naive to think that the EU doesn't already have copies of them via either Remainers in the civil service or foreign intelligence gathering.
There is no doubt in my mind these reports should be released but redacting them ensures any information in them does not compromise negotiations with the EU.
There are also clear suspicions in Government that Remainer MPs are trying to stop or undermine Brexit through Parliament.
I should hope that they are. It is beyond clear now that Brexit has the potential to be a colossal disaster for UK, that a significant part of the Leave campaign was funded by mischief-makers for their own nefarious ends...... ends which had absolutely nothing to do with the needs or indeed wants of the British people, and that some of the leaders of that campaign were in it purely to feather their own nests.
Yes, there wewre and are honest men and women who worked for and voted Leave, but there are some very unpleasant stories now coming into the public domain.
I am sure in the light of those revelations those men travelling to polling stations in their white vans and voting for the first time in their lives because they felt it was an issue that was important to them, and on which their voice would be heard, will now all be converted to ardent europhiles.
As I said, there were honest men and women who voted Leave. People who don’t like being lied to, and get very angry when they find out they have been.
No that won't wash after the Punishment Budget etc, the public are well aware that both sides lied through their teeth about a whole lot of things. I would wager the vast majority of voters were well aware that these were lies before they even cast their vote... why ? because that is what politicians seeking a mandate from voters do.
There is no doubt in my mind these reports should be released but redacting them ensures any information in them does not compromise negotiations with the EU.
There are also clear suspicions in Government that Remainer MPs are trying to stop or undermine Brexit through Parliament.
I should hope that they are. It is beyond clear now that Brexit has the potential to be a colossal disaster for UK, that a significant part of the Leave campaign was funded by mischief-makers for their own nefarious ends...... ends which had absolutely nothing to do with the needs or indeed wants of the British people, and that some of the leaders of that campaign were in it purely to feather their own nests.
Yes, there wewre and are honest men and women who worked for and voted Leave, but there are some very unpleasant stories now coming into the public domain.
I am sure in the light of those revelations those men travelling to polling stations in their white vans and voting for the first time in their lives because they felt it was an issue that was important to them, and on which their voice would be heard, will now all be converted to ardent europhiles.
As I said, there were honest men and women who voted Leave. People who don’t like being lied to, and get very angry when they find out they have been.
No that won't wash after the Punishment Budget etc, the public are well aware that both sides lied through their teeth about a whole lot of things. I would wager the vast majority of voters were well aware that these were lies before they even cast their vote... why ? because that is what politicians seeking a mandate from voters do.
In politics the consequences of lying about a change that you go on to make tend to be more severe than of lying about something that never happens.
If she had a safe seat surely she should be PM till Jezza takes over.
Problem is she is a Remainer and she does not poll that well with the public.
Survation, for example, had the Tories polling slightly worse against Corbyn with her as leader than they were under May and would do under Davis or Boris, though she did slightly better than Hammond.
Europhile leftwingers probably like her most of the Tory contenders but as none of them would vote Tory anyway her leadership would not be of much use for improving Tory prospects given the Tories would likely lose some Leave voters to UKIP instead.
There is no doubt in my mind these reports should be released but redacting them ensures any information in them does not compromise negotiations with the EU.
You'd have to be laughably naive to think that the EU doesn't already have copies of them via either Remainers in the civil service or foreign intelligence gathering.
Just as the UK will have a rough idea of the economic damage to the EU of no deal but that is not the same as wholesale publication.
Are you seriously suggesting that the EU couldn't work out the impact of Brexit on the various sectors of the UK economy for themselves? It's nothing more than a fig leaf to stop the great British public being told what the consequences of Brexit might be.
If the EU has, they are quite a liberty to show their findings to the British public if it suits them.
Not sure how that relates to my point which is that claiming we all have to be kept in the dark and can't be allowed to know what the impact assessments say because it would harm our negotiating position doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
"It is also needlessly alienating those Leavers in Parliament for whom Parliamentary sovereignty is a very big deal indeed."
I doubt many Leavers, inside or outside Parliament, will go against this even in their own minds - the halo effect is too strong. (ie If Brexit is a good thing, anything purportedly supporting Brexit must be a good thing - much as we found with the Article 50 court case, where Parliamentary sovereignty became rather less crucial to the sovereignty-its, and they tended to manage to genuinely rationalise it)
If she had a safe seat surely she should be PM till Jezza takes over.
Problem is she is a Remainer and she does not poll that well with the public.
Survation, for example, had the Tories polling slightly worse under Corbyn with her as leader than they were under May and would do under Davis or Boris, though she did slightly better than Hammond.
Europhile leftwingers probably like her most of the Tory contenders but as none of them would vote Tory anyway her leadership would not be of much use for improving Tory prospects given the Tories would likely lose some Leave voters to UKIP instead.
If she had a safe seat surely she should be PM till Jezza takes over.
Problem is she is a Remainer and she does not poll that well with the public.
Survation, for example, had the Tories polling slightly worse under Corbyn with her as leader than they were under May and would do under Davis or Boris, though she did slightly better than Hammond.
Europhile leftwingers probably like her most of the Tory contenders but as none of them would vote Tory anyway her leadership would not be of much use for improving Tory prospects given the Tories would likely lose some Leave voters to UKIP instead.
She comes over well on Marr.
It comes back to what I said yesterday in as much as when the time comes candidates for the role (including Rudd no doubt) will go before the hustings and hopefully a star will rise but I do not think the old guard will win the day
If she had a safe seat surely she should be PM till Jezza takes over.
Problem is she is a Remainer and she does not poll that well with the public.
Survation, for example, had the Tories polling slightly worse against Corbyn with her as leader than they were under May and would do under Davis or Boris, though she did slightly better than Hammond.
Europhile leftwingers probably like her most of the Tory contenders but as none of them would vote Tory anyway her leadership would not be of much use for improving Tory prospects given the Tories would likely lose some Leave voters to UKIP instead.
Not to mention that with 80%+ of the party membership being pro-BrExit and largely pro-HardBrExit, even if she was lucky enough to get to the last round and put to the membership, she would lose against just about anyone else that was clearly from the Leave camp.
Mr. Owls, she's one of those, along with May and Cooper, who think a magic algorithm can exist that stops Bad Things being shown at all on the internet, or can stop Adult Things ever being seen by children.
It's akin to the scientific naivety of idiots who think the polygraph actually is a lie-detector (which is also a cross-party cretinous view that's led to released paedophiles being subjected to the polygraph as a means to 'prove' they've not been up to no good).
If she had a safe seat surely she should be PM till Jezza takes over.
Problem is she is a Remainer and she does not poll that well with the public.
Survation, for example, had the Tories polling slightly worse against Corbyn with her as leader than they were under May and would do under Davis or Boris, though she did slightly better than Hammond.
Europhile leftwingers probably like her most of the Tory contenders but as none of them would vote Tory anyway her leadership would not be of much use for improving Tory prospects given the Tories would likely lose some Leave voters to UKIP instead.
Not to mention that with 80%+ of the party membership being pro-BrExit and largely pro-HardBrExit, even if she was lucky enough to get to the last round and put to the membership, she would lose against just about anyone else that was clearly from the Leave camp.
I think it is quite likely MPs will put her in the final 2 to the membership alongside Davis or Boris but that the latter would win.
After the election outcome the Tories had the opportunity to go for some cross-party arrangements to oversee the negotiations (indeed there were calls from various sides for such), but instead they have kept everything to themselves, avoiding as best they can anyone outside government. A minority government has a thin claim to represent the interests of the whole country, or even most of it (indeed under our system even majority governments don't do so)
Messing around while the clock ticks is unhelpful. The UK will be out of the EU on 29/3/19, deal or no deal, and dilly-dallying, as the Tory minority government is now doing, doesn't help the chances of getting any reasonable deal.
I expect that the EU doesn't give a damn, as the UK's membership was a hindrance to creating a federal United States of Europe with common defence, financial and foreign policies, including universal adoption of the Euro, European armed forces (to replace the obsolescent NATO) and a lingua franca that is purely European (German is the obvious choice). On the international stage, it should be the EU that has the permanent seat on the UN Security Council, replacing France and the UK.
Eventually, a humiliated impoverished England will probably beg to rejoin, without any opt-outs.
As for Damian Green, if he had any integrity he should have gone by now.
LOL. What a fabulously idiotic comment. Wrong in almost every way. The only thing you got right was that the UK was trying (and failing to prevent the moves towards a United States of Europe. The rest of your comment is just blind Europhilliac rubbish.
Are you seriously suggesting that the EU couldn't work out the impact of Brexit on the various sectors of the UK economy for themselves? It's nothing more than a fig leaf to stop the great British public being told what the consequences of Brexit might be.
If the EU has, they are quite a liberty to show their findings to the British public if it suits them.
Not sure how that relates to my point which is that claiming we all have to be kept in the dark and can't be allowed to know what the impact assessments say because it would harm our negotiating position doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Because the EU's finger-in-the-air figures are not quite the same thing as detailed government figures taken from official sources.
Rudd is good. A glimpse of human in an increasingly barren Tory party. If they had any sense they would promote her.
Meanwhile, back in real Tory circles JRM continues to excite.
I seem to remember many Tories on here said the same about Liz Kendall and Corbyn in 2015. (For Kendall read Rudd and for Corbyn read JRM).
You are truly lost.
No, it is exactly the same scenario.
Tories were advising Labour members to pick Kendall over Corbyn as she was more 'electable' despite the fact that none of them would vote for a Kendall led Labour Party.
Now Labour supporters are advising Tory members to pick Rudd over JRM (or Boris) despite the fact none of them would vote for a Rudd led Tory Party.
If she had a safe seat surely she should be PM till Jezza takes over.
Problem is she is a Remainer and she does not poll that well with the public.
Survation, for example, had the Tories polling slightly worse against Corbyn with her as leader than they were under May and would do under Davis or Boris, though she did slightly better than Hammond.
Europhile leftwingers probably like her most of the Tory contenders but as none of them would vote Tory anyway her leadership would not be of much use for improving Tory prospects given the Tories would likely lose some Leave voters to UKIP instead.
Not to mention that with 80%+ of the party membership being pro-BrExit and largely pro-HardBrExit, even if she was lucky enough to get to the last round and put to the membership, she would lose against just about anyone else that was clearly from the Leave camp.
I think it is quite likely MPs will put her in the final 2 to the membership alongside Davis or Boris but that the latter would win.
I do admire your faith in Boris but I cannot see him as next leader, his time has gone
If she had a safe seat surely she should be PM till Jezza takes over.
Problem is she is a Remainer and she does not poll that well with the public.
Survation, for example, had the Tories polling slightly worse against Corbyn with her as leader than they were under May and would do under Davis or Boris, though she did slightly better than Hammond.
Europhile leftwingers probably like her most of the Tory contenders but as none of them would vote Tory anyway her leadership would not be of much use for improving Tory prospects given the Tories would likely lose some Leave voters to UKIP instead.
Not to mention that with 80%+ of the party membership being pro-BrExit and largely pro-HardBrExit, even if she was lucky enough to get to the last round and put to the membership, she would lose against just about anyone else that was clearly from the Leave camp.
I think it is quite likely MPs will put her in the final 2 to the membership alongside Davis or Boris but that the latter would win.
May probably understands that the party needs her to cling on long enough for the old guard like DD and BJ to be overtaken by better younger prospects.
Edit/quite possibly the thinking behind the surprise Defence appointment
If she had a safe seat surely she should be PM till Jezza takes over.
Problem is she is a Remainer and she does not poll that well with the public.
Survation, for example, had the Tories polling slightly worse against Corbyn with her as leader than they were under May and would do under Davis or Boris, though she did slightly better than Hammond.
Europhile leftwingers probably like her most of the Tory contenders but as none of them would vote Tory anyway her leadership would not be of much use for improving Tory prospects given the Tories would likely lose some Leave voters to UKIP instead.
Not to mention that with 80%+ of the party membership being pro-BrExit and largely pro-HardBrExit, even if she was lucky enough to get to the last round and put to the membership, she would lose against just about anyone else that was clearly from the Leave camp.
I think it is quite likely MPs will put her in the final 2 to the membership alongside Davis or Boris but that the latter would win.
If she had a safe seat surely she should be PM till Jezza takes over.
Problem is she is a Remainer and she does not poll that well with the public.
Survation, for example, had the Tories polling slightly worse under Corbyn with her as leader than they were under May and would do under Davis or Boris, though she did slightly better than Hammond.
Europhile leftwingers probably like her most of the Tory contenders but as none of them would vote Tory anyway her leadership would not be of much use for improving Tory prospects given the Tories would likely lose some Leave voters to UKIP instead.
Except she comes over as competent unlike TM
And some say elections are won from the centre
Elections are won by holding your base and then reaching out to the centre, they are not won from the centre alone, ask Heath in 1974 or Major in 1997 or Kim Campbell in 1993 or Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Tories were advising Labour members to pick Kendall over Corbyn as she was more 'electable' despite the fact that none of them would vote for a Kendall led Labour Party.
Now Labour supporters are advising Tory members to pick Rudd over JRM (or Boris) despite the fact none of them would vote for a Rudd led Tory Party.
Those who believe in Parliamentary democracy should surely support all available parties being "electable" ?
There is no doubt in my mind these reports should be released but redacting them ensures any information in them does not compromise negotiations with the EU.
There are also clear suspicions in Government that Remainer MPs are trying to stop or undermine Brexit through Parliament.
I should hope that they are. It is beyond clear now that Brexit has the potential to be a colossal disaster for UK, that a significant part of the Leave campaign was funded by mischief-makers for their own nefarious ends...... ends which had absolutely nothing to do with the needs or indeed wants of the British people, and that some of the leaders of that campaign were in it purely to feather their own nests.
Yes, there wewre and are honest men and women who worked for and voted Leave, but there are some very unpleasant stories now coming into the public domain.
I am sure in the light of those revelations those men travelling to polling stations in their white vans and voting for the first time in their lives because they felt it was an issue that was important to them, and on which their voice would be heard, will now all be converted to ardent europhiles.
As I said, there were honest men and women who voted Leave. People who don’t like being lied to, and get very angry when they find out they have been.
No that won't wash after the Punishment Budget etc, the public are well aware that both sides lied through their teeth about a whole lot of things. I would wager the vast majority of voters were well aware that these were lies before they even cast their vote... why ? because that is what politicians seeking a mandate from voters do.
Both sides lied repeatedly and egregiously.
But the biggest lie of all was that things could remain as they were - it was always going to be a case of leave or ever closer union, sooner or later.
Ignore the 350m a day, the punishment budget, the collapse of the economy and the threat of World War III. What this came down to was by whom do we wish to be governed. And the people made their choice.
For that reason, I think Mr Meeks makes a very good point in the thread header. The government of the day needs to show greater respect for parliamentary sovereignty.
If she had a safe seat surely she should be PM till Jezza takes over.
Problem is she is a Remainer and she does not poll that well with the public.
Survation, for example, had the Tories polling slightly worse against Corbyn with her as leader than they were under May and would do under Davis or Boris, though she did slightly better than Hammond.
Europhile leftwingers probably like her most of the Tory contenders but as none of them would vote Tory anyway her leadership would not be of much use for improving Tory prospects given the Tories would likely lose some Leave voters to UKIP instead.
Not to mention that with 80%+ of the party membership being pro-BrExit and largely pro-HardBrExit, even if she was lucky enough to get to the last round and put to the membership, she would lose against just about anyone else that was clearly from the Leave camp.
I think it is quite likely MPs will put her in the final 2 to the membership alongside Davis or Boris but that the latter would win.
May probably understands that the party needs her to cling on long enough for the old guard like DD and BJ to be overtaken by better younger prospects.
Edit/quite possibly the thinking behind the surprise Defence appointment
If she had a safe seat surely she should be PM till Jezza takes over.
Problem is she is a Remainer and she does not poll that well with the public.
Survation, for example, had the Tories polling slightly worse under Corbyn with her as leader than they were under May and would do under Davis or Boris, though she did slightly better than Hammond.
Europhile leftwingers probably like her most of the Tory contenders but as none of them would vote Tory anyway her leadership would not be of much use for improving Tory prospects given the Tories would likely lose some Leave voters to UKIP instead.
She comes over well on Marr.
It comes back to what I said yesterday in as much as when the time comes candidates for the role (including Rudd no doubt) will go before the hustings and hopefully a star will rise but I do not think the old guard will win the day
Rudd is good. A glimpse of human in an increasingly barren Tory party. If they had any sense they would promote her.
Meanwhile, back in real Tory circles JRM continues to excite.
I seem to remember many Tories on here said the same about Liz Kendall and Corbyn in 2015. (For Kendall read Rudd and for Corbyn read JRM).
You are truly lost.
No, it is exactly the same scenario.
Tories were advising Labour members to pick Kendall over Corbyn as she was more 'electable' despite the fact that none of them would vote for a Kendall led Labour Party.
Now Labour supporters are advising Tory members to pick Rudd over JRM (or Boris) despite the fact none of them would vote for a Rudd led Tory Party.
Even disregarding his ludicrous views and party-act persona, JRM has never shown either inclination or ability to lead or manage anything. In politics his career has gone nowhere.
If she had a safe seat surely she should be PM till Jezza takes over.
Problem is she is a Remainer and she does not poll that well with the public.
Survation, for example, had the Tories polling slightly worse under Corbyn with her as leader than they were under May and would do under Davis or Boris, though she did slightly better than Hammond.
Europhile leftwingers probably like her most of the Tory contenders but as none of them would vote Tory anyway her leadership would not be of much use for improving Tory prospects given the Tories would likely lose some Leave voters to UKIP instead.
She comes over well on Marr.
It comes back to what I said yesterday in as much as when the time comes candidates for the role (including Rudd no doubt) will go before the hustings and hopefully a star will rise but I do not think the old guard will win the day
Rudd is good. A glimpse of human liberal metropolitanism in an increasingly barren Tory party. If they had any sense they would promote her.
Fixed that for you. You can barely put a cigarette paper between her background and Cameron's and it shows.
Are you saying she lacks the down to Earth grit of JRM?
I am saying that Cameronism is way out of fashion with nearly all the membership except Mr Eagles. The next leader is almost certainly going to be middle ground old school Tory and a leaver, DD will have it in the bag if he pulls anything at all from the BrExit fire, so low have the memberships (and publics) expectations been set.
Tories were advising Labour members to pick Kendall over Corbyn as she was more 'electable' despite the fact that none of them would vote for a Kendall led Labour Party.
Now Labour supporters are advising Tory members to pick Rudd over JRM (or Boris) despite the fact none of them would vote for a Rudd led Tory Party.
Those who believe in Parliamentary democracy should surely support all available parties being "electable" ?
Except what is supposedly 'electable' ie pro EU, fiscally conservative, socially liberal centrists, has been clearly proven to be less 'electable' since the EU referendum and 2017 general election than was previously thought.
If she had a safe seat surely she should be PM till Jezza takes over.
Problem is she is a Remainer and she does not poll that well with the public.
Survation, for example, had the Tories polling slightly worse under Corbyn with her as leader than they were under May and would do under Davis or Boris, though she did slightly better than Hammond.
Europhile leftwingers probably like her most of the Tory contenders but as none of them would vote Tory anyway her leadership would not be of much use for improving Tory prospects given the Tories would likely lose some Leave voters to UKIP instead.
She comes over well on Marr.
It comes back to what I said yesterday in as much as when the time comes candidates for the role (including Rudd no doubt) will go before the hustings and hopefully a star will rise but I do not think the old guard will win the day
Rudd is good. A glimpse of human in an increasingly barren Tory party. If they had any sense they would promote her.
Meanwhile, back in real Tory circles JRM continues to excite.
I seem to remember many Tories on here said the same about Liz Kendall and Corbyn in 2015. (For Kendall read Rudd and for Corbyn read JRM).
You are truly lost.
No, it is exactly the same scenario.
Tories were advising Labour members to pick Kendall over Corbyn as she was more 'electable' despite the fact that none of them would vote for a Kendall led Labour Party.
Now Labour supporters are advising Tory members to pick Rudd over JRM (or Boris) despite the fact none of them would vote for a Rudd led Tory Party.
Look at it this way. You may not vote for them, but some will get you off your fat arse and actively oppose them more than others. You need to activate your own base without being a recruiting sergeant for the opposition
May and Corbyn discovered this in June. JRM would be Labour's recruiting sergeant from heaven.
Rudd is good. A glimpse of human in an increasingly barren Tory party. If they had any sense they would promote her.
Meanwhile, back in real Tory circles JRM continues to excite.
I seem to remember many Tories on here said the same about Liz Kendall and Corbyn in 2015. (For Kendall read Rudd and for Corbyn read JRM).
You are truly lost.
No, it is exactly the same scenario.
Tories were advising Labour members to pick Kendall over Corbyn as she was more 'electable' despite the fact that none of them would vote for a Kendall led Labour Party.
Now Labour supporters are advising Tory members to pick Rudd over JRM (or Boris) despite the fact none of them would vote for a Rudd led Tory Party.
Even disregarding his ludicrous views and party-act persona, JRM has never shown either inclination or ability to lead or manage anything. In politics his career has gone nowhere.
Even disregarding his ludicrous views and party-act persona, JEREMY CORBYN has never shown either inclination or ability to lead or manage anything. In politics his career has gone nowhere...
Rudd is good. A glimpse of human in an increasingly barren Tory party. If they had any sense they would promote her.
Meanwhile, back in real Tory circles JRM continues to excite.
I seem to remember many Tories on here said the same about Liz Kendall and Corbyn in 2015. (For Kendall read Rudd and for Corbyn read JRM).
You are truly lost.
No, it is exactly the same scenario.
Tories were advising Labour members to pick Kendall over Corbyn as she was more 'electable' despite the fact that none of them would vote for a Kendall led Labour Party.
Now Labour supporters are advising Tory members to pick Rudd over JRM (or Boris) despite the fact none of them would vote for a Rudd led Tory Party.
Even disregarding his ludicrous views and party-act persona, JRM has never shown either inclination or ability to lead or manage anything. In politics his career has gone nowhere.
I wonder for some back benchers though if their career has gone exactly where they want it to go. There are undoubtedly some backbenchers on all sides of the House who do not wish ministerial position and who are very happy with a life representing their constituents and perhaps serving on select committees for the subjects they have a particular interest in.
This could be either because they do not consider themselves suited to ministerial position or because they feel they would have to sacrifice too many principles to adhere to the Government position on things.
Personally I have far more respect for those backbenchers who are content with the job of representing their constituents as opposed to those attempting to climb the greasy pole.
Rudd is good. A glimpse of human liberal metropolitanism in an increasingly barren Tory party. If they had any sense they would promote her.
Fixed that for you. You can barely put a cigarette paper between her background and Cameron's and it shows.
Are you saying she lacks the down to Earth grit of JRM?
I am saying that Cameronism is way out of fashion with nearly all the membership except Mr Eagles. The next leader is almost certainly going to be middle ground old school Tory and a leaver, DD will have it in the bag if he pulls anything at all from the BrExit fire, so low have the memberships (and publics) expectations been set.
eventually they will come to support a second referendum, as the only way off the hook.
Let's run with your fantasy of a second referendum. It has these potential outcomes:
1. A vote to re-affirm its decision to Brexit. You've added another 2 or more years uncertainty to the economy by pushing for this second vote. In the process, you've REALLY pissed off the voters, who told you what they wanted in 2016, then confirmed that by overwhelmingly voting for Brexit-commited parties in 2017. Dicking around, not grasping the Brexit nettle destroys the remaining faith in the political class - who are extensively culled at the next election --> epic fail.
2. The UK votes to rescind Brexit. You then have the situation where we have to ask the EU nicely if they will let us back in.
a) they say no. Piss off. We don't want you back. So by going for the second referendum, you have not concluded a negotiated deal, saying Brexit is too hard, too painful. You were expecting the voters would finally reject Brexit - but don't have any deal when the EU says shove it. You go out on WTO terms, the hardest of Brexits. Political class look even further removed from reality - who extesively culled at the next election --> epic fail.
b) the EU say OK, let's rescind Article 50 - but here's the price. Far more integration, maybe even the Euro. Far less veto opportunity. Bye-bye previous opt outs. Ever closer integration, with no more attempts to leave the EU, enshrined in the next round of Treaty changes. Go over there in the corner, be good little EUropeans - and STFU.
Option b) then itself has differing outcomes -
b(i) - a THIRD referendum, asking people whether they are prepared to accept the EU deal for effectively re-joining the EU on new terms.
b(i)(A) - the people say stuff that - you have used up your negotiating time, are out on WTO terms, hardest of Brexits --> epic fail.
b(i)(B) - the people vote to accept those terms - but a very sizeable minority vote for rejection, and they don't go away. They form themselves into a political party that still seeks to leave the EU, and cite every failure of Government as leading back to the EU. And at some point in the not too distant future, they pledge to take us out the EU on their manifesto commitment, without need of a further Referendum. And the EU can see this and just know that Brexit has just been kicked down the road a way. So we never get any sort of engagement from Brussels. And before too long, that anti-EU party gets power and does indeed just walk away --> epic fail.
b(ii) - you have no third referendum, just going ahead and signing up to rejoining. You then get a shortened time-scale of outcome b(i)(B) at the next general election --> epic fail
c) The EU says OK, let's forget this ever happened. Carry on as before. We'll even let you have another Referendum down the road, if you want. Yeah, right --> epic fail of reality
If she had a safe seat surely she should be PM till Jezza takes over.
Problem is she is a Remainer and she does not poll that well with the public.
Survation, for example, had the Tories polling slightly worse against Corbyn with her as leader than they were under May and would do under Davis or Boris, though she did slightly better than Hammond.
Europhile leftwingers probably like her most of the Tory contenders but as none of them would vote Tory anyway her leadership would not be of much use for improving Tory prospects given the Tories would likely lose some Leave voters to UKIP instead.
Not to mention that with 80%+ of the party membership being pro-BrExit and largely pro-HardBrExit, even if she was lucky enough to get to the last round and put to the membership, she would lose against just about anyone else that was clearly from the Leave camp.
I think it is quite likely MPs will put her in the final 2 to the membership alongside Davis or Boris but that the latter would win.
I do admire your faith in Boris but I cannot see him as next leader, his time has gone
At the moment it will clearly be Boris or Davis who succeeds May
Rudd is good. A glimpse of human in an increasingly barren Tory party. If they had any sense they would promote her.
Meanwhile, back in real Tory circles JRM continues to excite.
I seem to remember many Tories on here said the same about Liz Kendall and Corbyn in 2015. (For Kendall read Rudd and for Corbyn read JRM).
You are truly lost.
No, it is exactly the same scenario.
Tories were advising Labour members to pick Kendall over Corbyn as she was more 'electable' despite the fact that none of them would vote for a Kendall led Labour Party.
Now Labour supporters are advising Tory members to pick Rudd over JRM (or Boris) despite the fact none of them would vote for a Rudd led Tory Party.
Even disregarding his ludicrous views and party-act persona, JRM has never shown either inclination or ability to lead or manage anything. In politics his career has gone nowhere.
Look at it this way. You may not vote for them, but some will get you off your fat arse and actively oppose them more than others. You need to activate your own base without being a recruiting sergeant for the opposition
May and Corbyn discovered this in June. JRM would be Labour's recruiting sergeant from heaven.
The question of whether to trigger A50 was, as the Supreme Court agreed, a matter that required parliamentary approval (result: "rammed through" with the overwhelming approval of parliament 498-114). But surely the subsequent deal negotiation is treaty negotiation, and thus wholly a matter for the executive under prerogative powers?
What should the government have done? Fought Starmer's constitutional game with ones of its own. Made the 58 assessments Cabinet papers, and told those who want it to abjectly surrender its negotiating position to come and have a look in 30 years. And asked them how they think that, uniquely in history, the country would benefit from telling its negotiating counterparty its strengths and weaknesses.
That was my solution, expressed here weeks ago.
If you cave on showing your hand on the negotiations for the most sensitive international deal the UK has undertaken in decades, then how can the Cabinet justify having any other papers held back for 30 years?
One would expect that these shenanigans would become rarer as the Brexit clock ticks down, at least from elected politicians. The closer we are to the end of the two years, the less likely an intervention is to result in the UK remaining in the EU, and the more likely it is to put the intervener in a sticky position a la Fianna Fail post-referendum.
And if I did unconsciously burgle your idea, I apologise. Consider your moral rights asserted.
Messing around while the clock ticks is unhelpful. The UK will be out of the EU on 29/3/19, deal or no deal, and dilly-dallying, as the Tory minority government is now doing, doesn't help the chances of getting any reasonable deal.
I expect that the EU doesn't give a damn, as the UK's membership was a hindrance to creating a federal United States of Europe with common defence, financial and foreign policies, including universal adoption of the Euro, European armed forces (to replace the obsolescent NATO) and a lingua franca that is purely European (German is the obvious choice). On the international stage, it should be the EU that has the permanent seat on the UN Security Council, replacing France and the UK.
Eventually, a humiliated impoverished England will probably beg to rejoin, without any opt-outs.
As for Damian Green, if he had any integrity he should have gone by now.
What an absurdly biased post.
The Government is now making clear progress towards a FTA with EU similar to the one Canada now has.
Europe is NOT the same as the EU and never has been, just ask Switzerland, Iceland and Norway. When we were in EFTA from 1960 to 1975 were we any less European? Of course not. It is NATO which has largely been responsible for keeping the peace in Europe since WW2 the idea that EU armed forces (minus Britain) would be better able to contain Russia, for example, than NATO armed forces is absurd. The 2 could work together but the former should certainly not replace the latter. English is the most commonly spoken language across Europe, not German, try getting the Greeks to speak German as the main European language. Why would the French give up their UN Security Council for the EU? At most there may be an EU seat added alongside an Indian and Japanese seat but that requires member states to agree.
Wales of course voted Leave, not just England and so far the biggest consequence of the post Brexit general election was Scotland gave even more support to pro Union parties. So far too the economy is performing better than many doomladen Remain campaign predictions were making.
Re the economy, firms are holding their fire, but in 2018, if no deal seems a possible real prospect, businesses will make plans to relocate outside the UK and stop investing in it, to protect themselves against the possibility of a "no deal" outcome. A deal done in late 2018 or early 2019 will be too late. The economic consequences will not be good. The UK in 2017 is the worst performing of the G7 economies and eventually it will be a G6 without the UK.
But the biggest lie of all was that things could remain as they were - it was always going to be a case of leave or ever closer union, sooner or later.
Ignore the 350m a day, the punishment budget, the collapse of the economy and the threat of World War III. What this came down to was by whom do we wish to be governed. And the people made their choice.
For that reason, I think Mr Meeks makes a very good point in the thread header. The government of the day needs to show greater respect for parliamentary sovereignty.
+1
It was idiotic for the Government to fight the court case over Parliamentary approval for Article 50. I can see them making the same mistake again here.
Rudd is good. A glimpse of human in an increasingly barren Tory party. If they had any sense they would promote her.
Meanwhile, back in real Tory circles JRM continues to excite.
I seem to remember many Tories on here said the same about Liz Kendall and Corbyn in 2015. (For Kendall read Rudd and for Corbyn read JRM).
You are truly lost.
No, it is exactly the same scenario.
Tories were advising Labour members to pick Kendall over Corbyn as she was more 'electable' despite the fact that none of them would vote for a Kendall led Labour Party.
Now Labour supporters are advising Tory members to pick Rudd over JRM (or Boris) despite the fact none of them would vote for a Rudd led Tory Party.
Look at it this way. You may not vote for them, but some will get you off your fat arse and actively oppose them more than others. You need to activate your own base without being a recruiting sergeant for the opposition
May and Corbyn discovered this in June. JRM would be Labour's recruiting sergeant from heaven.
Corbyn was supposed to be the Tories recruiting sergeant from heaven but it did not quite work out that way as he motivated the left for him as much as JRM could motivate the right for him.
People want to vote for someone not just against someone.
Rudd is good. A glimpse of human in an increasingly barren Tory party. If they had any sense they would promote her.
Meanwhile, back in real Tory circles JRM continues to excite.
I seem to remember many Tories on here said the same about Liz Kendall and Corbyn in 2015. (For Kendall read Rudd and for Corbyn read JRM).
You are truly lost.
No, it is exactly the same scenario.
Tories were advising Labour members to pick Kendall over Corbyn as she was more 'electable' despite the fact that none of them would vote for a Kendall led Labour Party.
Now Labour supporters are advising Tory members to pick Rudd over JRM (or Boris) despite the fact none of them would vote for a Rudd led Tory Party.
Look at it this way. You may not vote for them, but some will get you off your fat arse and actively oppose them more than others. You need to activate your own base without being a recruiting sergeant for the opposition
May and Corbyn discovered this in June. JRM would be Labour's recruiting sergeant from heaven.
Conversely, he also enthuses people about Conservatism in a way that none of the other front runners do.
JRM's appeal is precisely that he appears ideological and principled, even when those principles are unpopular, e.g. abortion, an issue on which I find myself in profound disagreement with him.
But I also know enough of the man to know he wouldn't force those personal views on the public. I also know I want my leaders to govern from principle. Who else, out of the current crop of front runners, appears to have any principles beyond "I want to be leader" at all?
As Corbyn's resilience has demonstrated, we are entering an era where authenticity is all.
Look at it this way. You may not vote for them, but some will get you off your fat arse and actively oppose them more than others. You need to activate your own base without being a recruiting sergeant for the opposition
May and Corbyn discovered this in June. JRM would be Labour's recruiting sergeant from heaven.
Hate-crime.
Why? I was referring to my own stupendously proportioned behind that is currently being used in gravitational wave experiments.
1. A vote to re-affirm its decision to Brexit. You've added another 2 or more years uncertainty to the economy by pushing for this second vote. In the process, you've REALLY pissed off the voters, who told you what they wanted in 2016, then confirmed that by overwhelmingly voting for Brexit-commited parties in 2017. Dicking around, not grasping the Brexit nettle destroys the remaining faith in the political class - who are extensively culled at the next election --> epic fail.
2. The UK votes to rescind Brexit. You then have the situation where we have to ask the EU nicely if they will let us back in.
a) they say no. Piss off. We don't want you back. So by going for the second referendum, you have not concluded a negotiated deal, saying Brexit is too hard, too painful. You were expecting the voters would finally reject Brexit - but don't have any deal when the EU says shove it. You go out on WTO terms, the hardest of Brexits. Political class look even further removed from reality - who extesively culled at the next election --> epic fail.
b) the EU say OK, let's rescind Article 50 - but here's the price. Far more integration, maybe even the Euro. Far less veto opportunity. Bye-bye previous opt outs. Ever closer integration, with no more attempts to leave the EU, enshrined in the next round of Treaty changes. Go over there in the corner, be good little EUropeans - and STFU.
Option b) then itself has differing outcomes -
b(i) - a THIRD referendum, asking people whether they are prepared to accept the EU deal for effectively re-joining the EU on new terms.
b(i)(A) - the people say stuff that - you have used up your negotiating time, are out on WTO terms, hardest of Brexits --> epic fail.
b(i)(B) - the people vote to accept those terms - but a very sizeable minority vote for rejection, and they don't go away. They form themselves into a political party that still seeks to leave the EU, and cite every failure of Government as leading back to the EU. And at some point in the not too distant future, they pledge to take us out the EU on their manifesto commitment, without need of a further Referendum. And the EU can see this and just know that Brexit has just been kicked down the road a way. So we never get any sort of engagement from Brussels. And before too long, that anti-EU party gets power and does indeed just walk away --> epic fail.
b(ii) - you have no third referendum, just going ahead and signing up to rejoining. You then get a shortened time-scale of outcome b(i)(B) at the next general election --> epic fail
c) The EU says OK, let's forget this ever happened. Carry on as before. We'll even let you have another Referendum down the road, if you want. Yeah, right --> epic fail of reality
Great post. The Remoaners pushing for a reversal of the referendum really haven't thought out the consequences if they get what they want.
Messing around while the clock ticks is unhelpful. The UK will be out of the EU on 29/3/19, deal or no deal, and dilly-dallying, as the Tory minority government is now doing, doesn't help the chances of getting any reasonable deal.
I expect that the EU doesn't give a damn, as the UK's membership was a hindrance to creating a federal United States of Europe with common defence, financial and foreign policies, including universal adoption of the Euro, European armed forces (to replace the obsolescent NATO) and a lingua franca that is purely European (German is the obvious choice). On the international stage, it should be the EU that has the permanent seat on the UN Security Council, replacing France and the UK.
Eventually, a humiliated impoverished England will probably beg to rejoin, without any opt-outs.
As for Damian Green, if he had any integrity he should have gone by now.
What an absurdly biased post.
The Government is now making clear progress towards a FTA with EU similar to the one Canada now has.
Europe is NOT the same as the EU and never has been, just ask Switzerland, Iceland and Norway. When we were in EFTA from 1960 to 1975 were we any less European? Of course not. It is NATO which has largely been responsible for keeping the peace in Europe since WW2 the idea that EU armed forces (minus Britain) would be better able to contain Russia, for example, than NATO armed forces is absurd. The 2 could work together but the former should certainly not replace the latter. English is the most commonly spoken language across Europe, no
Re the economy, firms are holding their fire, but in 2018, if no deal seems a possible real prospect, businesses will make plans to relocate outside the UK and stop investing in it, to protect themselves against the possibility of a "no deal" outcome. A deal done in late 2018 or early 2019 will be too late. The economic consequences will not be good. The UK in 2017 is the worst performing of the G7 economies and eventually it will be a G6 without the UK.
In the long term a Canada+ deal will be fine for the UK.
The UK actually has lower unemployment than half the G7 and the idea Canada or Italy will ever overtake the UK is farcical.
In any case longer term it is the G20 (accounting for 85% of global gdp) which is becoming more important than the G7 (representing 46% of global gdp) as the former includes China, India, Brazil and Russia, as well as all the G7 nations.
The question of whether to trigger A50 was, as the Supreme Court agreed, a matter that required parliamentary approval (result: "rammed through" with the overwhelming approval of parliament 498-114). But surely the subsequent deal negotiation is treaty negotiation, and thus wholly a matter for the executive under prerogative powers?
What should the government have done? Fought Starmer's constitutional game with ones of its own. Made the 58 assessments Cabinet papers, and told those who want it to abjectly surrender its negotiating position to come and have a look in 30 years. And asked them how they think that, uniquely in history, the country would benefit from telling its negotiating counterparty its strengths and weaknesses.
That was my solution, expressed here weeks ago.
If you cave on showing your hand on the negotiations for the most sensitive international deal the UK has undertaken in decades, then how can the Cabinet justify having any other papers held back for 30 years?
One would expect that these shenanigans would become rarer as the Brexit clock ticks down, at least from elected politicians. The closer we are to the end of the two years, the less likely an intervention is to result in the UK remaining in the EU, and the more likely it is to put the intervener in a sticky position a la Fianna Fail post-referendum.
And if I did unconsciously burgle your idea, I apologise. Consider your moral rights asserted.
I'll just take it as great minds and all that... ;-)
Rudd is good. A glimpse of human in an increasingly barren Tory party. If they had any sense they would promote her.
Meanwhile, back in real Tory circles JRM continues to excite.
I seem to remember many Tories on here said the same about Liz Kendall and Corbyn in 2015. (For Kendall read Rudd and for Corbyn read JRM).
You are truly lost.
No, it is exactly the same scenario.
Tories were advising Labour members to pick Kendall over Corbyn as she was more 'electable' despite the fact that none of them would vote for a Kendall led Labour Party.
Now Labour supporters are advising Tory members to pick Rudd over JRM (or Boris) despite the fact none of them would vote for a Rudd led Tory Party.
Look at it this way. You may not vote for them, but some will get you off your fat arse and actively oppose them more than others. You need to activate your own base without being a recruiting sergeant for the opposition
May and Corbyn discovered this in June. JRM would be Labour's recruiting sergeant from heaven.
Corbyn was supposed to be the Tories recruiting sergeant from heaven but it did not quite work out that way as he motivated the left for him as much as JRM could motivate the right for him.
People want to vote for someone not just against someone.
Because the voters didn't believe Corbyn was in with a chance and wanted to limit May's majority. Now they believe Corbyn is in with a shout, and they will run a mile.
But the biggest lie of all was that things could remain as they were - it was always going to be a case of leave or ever closer union, sooner or later.
Ignore the 350m a day, the punishment budget, the collapse of the economy and the threat of World War III. What this came down to was by whom do we wish to be governed. And the people made their choice.
For that reason, I think Mr Meeks makes a very good point in the thread header. The government of the day needs to show greater respect for parliamentary sovereignty.
Rudd is good. A glimpse of human in an increasingly barren Tory party. If they had any sense they would promote her.
Meanwhile, back in real Tory circles JRM continues to excite.
I seem to remember many Tories on here said the same about Liz Kendall and Corbyn in 2015. (For Kendall read Rudd and for Corbyn read JRM).
You are truly lost.
No, it is exactly the same scenario.
Tories were advising Labour members to pick Kendall over Corbyn as she was more 'electable' despite the fact that none of them would vote for a Kendall led Labour Party.
Now Labour supporters are advising Tory members to pick Rudd over JRM (or Boris) despite the fact none of them would vote for a Rudd led Tory Party.
Look at it this way. You may not vote for them, but some will get you off your fat arse and actively oppose them more than others. You need to activate your own base without being a recruiting sergeant for the opposition
May and Corbyn discovered this in June. JRM would be Labour's recruiting sergeant from heaven.
Corbyn was supposed to be the Tories recruiting sergeant from heaven but it did not quite work out that way as he motivated the left for him as much as JRM could motivate the right for him.
People want to vote for someone not just against someone.
Because the voters didn't believe Corbyn was in with a chance and wanted to limit May's majority. Now they believe Corbyn is in with a shout, and they will run a mile.
Are you seriously suggesting that the EU couldn't work out the impact of Brexit on the various sectors of the UK economy for themselves? It's nothing more than a fig leaf to stop the great British public being told what the consequences of Brexit might be.
If the EU has, they are quite a liberty to show their findings to the British public if it suits them.
Not sure how that relates to my point which is that claiming we all have to be kept in the dark and can't be allowed to know what the impact assessments say because it would harm our negotiating position doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Because the EU's finger-in-the-air figures are not quite the same thing as detailed government figures taken from official sources.
They will all be projections of one sort or another so as far as the negotiations are concerned all that matters is the general thrust of the impact of Brexit on the 58 sectors. That can be broadly ascertained by the EU though I am not sure how it really affects their negotiating hand whether it knows or not.
This is all about making sure the British public are kept in the dark , Leavers are terrified public opinion could turn against them in a big way, particularly amongst the "working class" Leave vote which was nowhere near as ideologically committed to Brexit as the right-wing Brexiteers.
Rudd is good. A glimpse of human in an increasingly barren Tory party. If they had any sense they would promote her.
Meanwhile, back in real Tory circles JRM continues to excite.
I seem to remember many Tories on here said the same about Liz Kendall and Corbyn in 2015. (For Kendall read Rudd and for Corbyn read JRM).
You are truly lost.
No, it is exactly the same scenario.
Tories were advising Labour members to pick Kendall over Corbyn as she was more 'electable' despite the fact that none of them would vote for a Kendall led Labour Party.
Now Labour supporters are advising Tory members to pick Rudd over JRM (or Boris) despite the fact none of them would vote for a Rudd led Tory Party.
Look at it this way. You may not vote for them, but some will get you off your fat arse and actively oppose them more than others. You need to activate your own base without being a recruiting sergeant for the opposition
May and Corbyn discovered this in June. JRM would be Labour's recruiting sergeant from heaven.
Corbyn was supposed to be the Tories recruiting sergeant from heaven but it did not quite work out that way as he motivated the left for him as much as JRM could motivate the right for him.
People want to vote for someone not just against someone.
Because the voters didn't believe Corbyn was in with a chance and wanted to limit May's majority. Now they believe Corbyn is in with a shout, and they will run a mile.
+1
But where will they run.......of to Lib Dems, UKIP? either way it may still lead to a hung Parliament - very very few will go Tory according to your analysis
Let's run with your fantasy of a second referendum. It has these potential outcomes:
c) The EU says OK, let's forget this ever happened. Carry on as before. We'll even let you have another Referendum down the road, if you want. Yeah, right --> epic fail of reality
I think if the UK rescinded A50 - the EU overall would be fine with it. Less hassle all round. None of the countries really want us to go anyway.
After we've left into whatever transition deal - it's trickier but not impossible.
Are you seriously suggesting that the EU couldn't work out the impact of Brexit on the various sectors of the UK economy for themselves? It's nothing more than a fig leaf to stop the great British public being told what the consequences of Brexit might be.
If the EU has, they are quite a liberty to show their findings to the British public if it suits them.
Not sure how that relates to my point which is that claiming we all have to be kept in the dark and can't be allowed to know what the impact assessments say because it would harm our negotiating position doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Because the EU's finger-in-the-air figures are not quite the same thing as detailed government figures taken from official sources.
They will all be projections of one sort or another so as far as the negotiations are concerned all that matters is the general thrust of the impact of Brexit on the 58 sectors. That can be broadly ascertained by the EU though I am not sure how it really affects their negotiating hand whether it knows or not.
This is all about making sure the British public are kept in the dark , Leavers are terrified public opinion could turn against them in a big way, particularly amongst the "working class" Leave vote which was nowhere near as ideologically committed to Brexit as the right-wing Brexiteers.
The working class Leave vote just wants reduced immigration, they are actually more committed to hard Brexit and leaving the single market to end free movement than supposed 'rightwing' rich Brexiteers who just want to leave the EU but most of whom would be fine staying in the single market.
Rudd is good. A glimpse of human in an increasingly barren Tory party. If they had any sense they would promote her.
Meanwhile, back in real Tory circles JRM continues to excite.
I seem to remember many Tories on here said the same about Liz Kendall and Corbyn in 2015. (For Kendall read Rudd and for Corbyn read JRM).
You are truly lost.
No, it is exactly the same scenario.
Tories were advising Labour members to pick Kendall over Corbyn as she was more 'electable' despite the fact that none of them would vote for a Kendall led Labour Party.
Now Labour supporters are advising Tory members to pick Rudd over JRM (or Boris) despite the fact none of them would vote for a Rudd led Tory Party.
Look at it this way. You may not vote for them, but some will get you off your fat arse and actively oppose them more than others. You need to activate your own base without being a recruiting sergeant for the opposition
May and Corbyn discovered this in June. JRM would be Labour's recruiting sergeant from heaven.
Corbyn was supposed to be the Tories recruiting sergeant from heaven but it did not quite work out that way as he motivated the left for him as much as JRM could motivate the right for him.
People want to vote for someone not just against someone.
Because the voters didn't believe Corbyn was in with a chance and wanted to limit May's majority. Now they believe Corbyn is in with a shout, and they will run a mile.
This is the theory. It might be true. But it could just be wishful thinking.
Rudd is good. A glimpse of human in an increasingly barren Tory party. If they had any sense they would promote her.
Meanwhile, back in real Tory circles JRM continues to excite.
I seem to remember many Tories on here said the same about Liz Kendall and Corbyn in 2015. (For Kendall read Rudd and for Corbyn read JRM).
You are truly lost.
No, it is exactly the same scenario.
Tories were advising Labour members to pick Kendall over Corbyn as she was more 'electable' despite the fact that none of them would vote for a Kendall led Labour Party.
Now Labour supporters are advising Tory members to pick Rudd over JRM (or Boris) despite the fact none of them would vote for a Rudd led Tory Party.
Look at it this way. You may not vote for them, but some will get you off your fat arse and actively oppose them more than others. You need to activate your own base without being a recruiting sergeant for the opposition
May and Corbyn discovered this in June. JRM would be Labour's recruiting sergeant from heaven.
Corbyn was supposed to be the Tories recruiting sergeant from heaven but it did not quite work out that way as he motivated the left for him as much as JRM could motivate the right for him.
People want to vote for someone not just against someone.
Because the voters didn't believe Corbyn was in with a chance and wanted to limit May's majority. Now they believe Corbyn is in with a shout, and they will run a mile.
Not at the moment they aren't, at the moment we are heading for a Corbyn minority government.
Let's run with your fantasy of a second referendum. It has these potential outcomes:
c) The EU says OK, let's forget this ever happened. Carry on as before. We'll even let you have another Referendum down the road, if you want. Yeah, right --> epic fail of reality
I think if the UK rescinded A50 - the EU overall would be fine with it. Less hassle all round. None of the countries really want us to go anyway.
After we've left into whatever transition deal - it's trickier but not impossible.
I disagree. The UK has long been a thorn in the side of the EU and prevented many countries from moving the bloc in a direction they wanted. And whilst we are supported in our free market ethos by some of the Central European countries, most of the older members are not at all happy about that philosophy, nor about our continual opt outs from what they consider vital parts of the whole project.
Faced with the prospect of a recalcitrant UK deciding very reluctantly to stay in the EU and continue to moan about and fight against further integration, I am sure they would view that prospect with some dismay.
Rudd is good. A glimpse of human in an increasingly barren Tory party. If they had any sense they would promote her.
Meanwhile, back in real Tory circles JRM continues to excite.
I seem to remember many Tories on here said the same about Liz Kendall and Corbyn in 2015. (For Kendall read Rudd and for Corbyn read JRM).
You are truly lost.
No, it is exactly the same scenario.
Tories were advising Labour members to pick Kendall over Corbyn as she was more 'electable' despite the fact that none of them would vote for a Kendall led Labour Party.
Now Labour supporters are advising Tory members to pick Rudd over JRM (or Boris) despite the fact none of them would vote for a Rudd led Tory Party.
Look at it this way. You may not vote for them, but some will get you off your fat arse and actively oppose them more than others. You need to activate your own base without being a recruiting sergeant for the opposition
May and Corbyn discovered this in June. JRM would be Labour's recruiting sergeant from heaven.
Corbyn was supposed to be the Tories recruiting sergeant from heaven but it did not quite work out that way as he motivated the left for him as much as JRM could motivate the right for him.
People want to vote for someone not just against someone.
Because the voters didn't believe Corbyn was in with a chance and wanted to limit May's majority. Now they believe Corbyn is in with a shout, and they will run a mile.
Not at the moment they aren't, at the moment we are heading for a Corbyn minority government.
Let's run with your fantasy of a second referendum. It has these potential outcomes:
c) The EU says OK, let's forget this ever happened. Carry on as before. We'll even let you have another Referendum down the road, if you want. Yeah, right --> epic fail of reality
I think if the UK rescinded A50 - the EU overall would be fine with it. Less hassle all round. None of the countries really want us to go anyway.
After we've left into whatever transition deal - it's trickier but not impossible.
Many in the EU are pleased that the most recalcitrant obstructive and troublesome member has decided to leave. They aren't going to permit a reversal of A50.
The UK has to leave and take the dire economic consequences and loss of international influence. At some point in the future, it (or parts of it) could enter the queue for rejoining, on the terms that the EU then offers to new members.
It's not so much what is said, which I'm sure plenty on here would disagree with, but the similar tenor of most of these pieces (outside the Breitbart/Russian troll area of the spectrum).
If you cannot be loved, at least be feared; never be laughed at.
Comments
Yes, there were and are honest men and women who worked for and voted Leave, but there are some very unpleasant stories now coming into the public domain.
What should the government have done? Fought Starmer's constitutional game with ones of its own.
Made the 58 assessments Cabinet papers, and told those who want it to abjectly surrender its negotiating position to come and have a look in 30 years. And asked them how they think that, uniquely in history, the country would benefit from telling its negotiating counterparty its strengths and weaknesses.
I think Michael Gove, for instance, however unlikely his premiership in the first place, would have operated very differently with respect to Parliament.
If you cave on showing your hand on the negotiations for the most sensitive international deal the UK has undertaken in decades, then how can the Cabinet justify having any other papers held back for 30 years?
It may suit your agenda to deminish the use of English but it is the World's language and will continue to be so no matter how much Juncker and others may disagree
It strikes me that having an impotent government at this time is no bad thing
The Government is now making clear progress towards a FTA with EU similar to the one Canada now has.
Europe is NOT the same as the EU and never has been, just ask Switzerland, Iceland and Norway. When we were in EFTA from 1960 to 1975 were we any less European? Of course not.
It is NATO which has largely been responsible for keeping the peace in Europe since WW2 the idea that EU armed forces (minus Britain) would be better able to contain Russia, for example, than NATO armed forces is absurd. The 2 could work together but the former should certainly not replace the latter. English is the most commonly spoken language across Europe, not German, try getting the Greeks to speak German as the main European language. Why would the French give up their UN Security Council for the EU? At most there may be an EU seat added alongside an Indian and Japanese seat but that requires member states to agree.
Wales of course voted Leave, not just England and so far the biggest consequence of the post Brexit general election was Scotland gave even more support to pro Union parties. So far too the economy is performing better than many doomladen Remain campaign predictions were making.
If she had a safe seat surely she should be PM till Jezza takes over.
Mr. Owls, yet laughably ill-informed on basic tech matters (as is May and Cooper, worryingly).
Survation, for example, had the Tories polling slightly worse against Corbyn with her as leader than they were under May and would do under Davis or Boris, though she did slightly better than Hammond.
Europhile leftwingers probably like her most of the Tory contenders but as none of them would vote Tory anyway her leadership would not be of much use for improving Tory prospects given the Tories would likely lose some Leave voters to UKIP instead.
Meanwhile, back in real Tory circles JRM continues to excite.
I doubt many Leavers, inside or outside Parliament, will go against this even in their own minds - the halo effect is too strong.
(ie If Brexit is a good thing, anything purportedly supporting Brexit must be a good thing - much as we found with the Article 50 court case, where Parliamentary sovereignty became rather less crucial to the sovereignty-its, and they tended to manage to genuinely rationalise it)
And some say elections are won from the centre
It comes back to what I said yesterday in as much as when the time comes candidates for the role (including Rudd no doubt) will go before the hustings and hopefully a star will rise but I do not think the old guard will win the day
Are TM or Jezza any better informed?
It's akin to the scientific naivety of idiots who think the polygraph actually is a lie-detector (which is also a cross-party cretinous view that's led to released paedophiles being subjected to the polygraph as a means to 'prove' they've not been up to no good).
And that's before we get onto encryption.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=stuart+campbell+arrest&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=JuD-Wfu5IY6g4gTcgoKoDw
Stuart Campbell charges dropped - only Bath Chronicle covers it !!
https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=stuart+campbell+charges+dropped&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=geD-WbiBIY6g4gTcgoKoDw
Trying to communicate with Jonathan: I hope all goes well with Mrs BJO. My thoughts are with you and your family.
** Vanilla is failing **
Tories were advising Labour members to pick Kendall over Corbyn as she was more 'electable' despite the fact that none of them would vote for a Kendall led Labour Party.
Now Labour supporters are advising Tory members to pick Rudd over JRM (or Boris) despite the fact none of them would vote for a Rudd led Tory Party.
Edit/quite possibly the thinking behind the surprise Defence appointment
But the biggest lie of all was that things could remain as they were - it was always going to be a case of leave or ever closer union, sooner or later.
Ignore the 350m a day, the punishment budget, the collapse of the economy and the threat of World War III. What this came down to was by whom do we wish to be governed. And the people made their choice.
For that reason, I think Mr Meeks makes a very good point in the thread header. The government of the day needs to show greater respect for parliamentary sovereignty.
Apparently we have a 5% tariff. So how is this free?
And the WTO tariff is?
May and Corbyn discovered this in June. JRM would be Labour's recruiting sergeant from heaven.
One could have written in 2015.
This could be either because they do not consider themselves suited to ministerial position or because they feel they would have to sacrifice too many principles to adhere to the Government position on things.
Personally I have far more respect for those backbenchers who are content with the job of representing their constituents as opposed to those attempting to climb the greasy pole.
1. A vote to re-affirm its decision to Brexit. You've added another 2 or more years uncertainty to the economy by pushing for this second vote. In the process, you've REALLY pissed off the voters, who told you what they wanted in 2016, then confirmed that by overwhelmingly voting for Brexit-commited parties in 2017. Dicking around, not grasping the Brexit nettle destroys the remaining faith in the political class - who are extensively culled at the next election --> epic fail.
2. The UK votes to rescind Brexit. You then have the situation where we have to ask the EU nicely if they will let us back in.
a) they say no. Piss off. We don't want you back. So by going for the second referendum, you have not concluded a negotiated deal, saying Brexit is too hard, too painful. You were expecting the voters would finally reject Brexit - but don't have any deal when the EU says shove it. You go out on WTO terms, the hardest of Brexits. Political class look even further removed from reality - who extesively culled at the next election --> epic fail.
b) the EU say OK, let's rescind Article 50 - but here's the price. Far more integration, maybe even the Euro. Far less veto opportunity. Bye-bye previous opt outs. Ever closer integration, with no more attempts to leave the EU, enshrined in the next round of Treaty changes. Go over there in the corner, be good little EUropeans - and STFU.
Option b) then itself has differing outcomes -
b(i) - a THIRD referendum, asking people whether they are prepared to accept the EU deal for effectively re-joining the EU on new terms.
b(i)(A) - the people say stuff that - you have used up your negotiating time, are out on WTO terms, hardest of Brexits --> epic fail.
b(i)(B) - the people vote to accept those terms - but a very sizeable minority vote for rejection, and they don't go away. They form themselves into a political party that still seeks to leave the EU, and cite every failure of Government as leading back to the EU. And at some point in the not too distant future, they pledge to take us out the EU on their manifesto commitment, without need of a further Referendum. And the EU can see this and just know that Brexit has just been kicked down the road a way. So we never get any sort of engagement from Brussels. And before too long, that anti-EU party gets power and does indeed just walk away --> epic fail.
b(ii) - you have no third referendum, just going ahead and signing up to rejoining. You then get a shortened time-scale of outcome b(i)(B) at the next general election --> epic fail
c) The EU says OK, let's forget this ever happened. Carry on as before. We'll even let you have another Referendum down the road, if you want. Yeah, right --> epic fail of reality
One could have written in 2015.
And if I did unconsciously burgle your idea, I apologise. Consider your moral rights asserted.
It was idiotic for the Government to fight the court case over Parliamentary approval for Article 50. I can see them making the same mistake again here.
People want to vote for someone not just against someone.
JRM's appeal is precisely that he appears ideological and principled, even when those principles are unpopular, e.g. abortion, an issue on which I find myself in profound disagreement with him.
But I also know enough of the man to know he wouldn't force those personal views on the public. I also know I want my leaders to govern from principle. Who else, out of the current crop of front runners, appears to have any principles beyond "I want to be leader" at all?
As Corbyn's resilience has demonstrated, we are entering an era where authenticity is all.
The UK actually has lower unemployment than half the G7 and the idea Canada or Italy will ever overtake the UK is farcical.
In any case longer term it is the G20 (accounting for 85% of global gdp) which is becoming more important than the G7 (representing 46% of global gdp) as the former includes China, India, Brazil and Russia, as well as all the G7 nations.
This is all about making sure the British public are kept in the dark , Leavers are terrified public opinion could turn against them in a big way, particularly amongst the "working class" Leave vote which was nowhere near as ideologically committed to Brexit as the right-wing Brexiteers.
Less hassle all round. None of the countries really want us to go anyway.
After we've left into whatever transition deal - it's trickier but not impossible.
But it could just be wishful thinking.
Faced with the prospect of a recalcitrant UK deciding very reluctantly to stay in the EU and continue to moan about and fight against further integration, I am sure they would view that prospect with some dismay.
The UK has to leave and take the dire economic consequences and loss of international influence. At some point in the future, it (or parts of it) could enter the queue for rejoining, on the terms that the EU then offers to new members.
'No One Knows What Britain Is Anymore'
http://tinyurl.com/y73jeb2f
It's not so much what is said, which I'm sure plenty on here would disagree with, but the similar tenor of most of these pieces (outside the Breitbart/Russian troll area of the spectrum).
If you cannot be loved, at least be feared; never be laughed at.