The country boasts the world’s gayest legislature, according to Andrew Reynolds, a professor of political science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: some 45 of the 650 members of Parliament elected in June are openly gay or bisexual. Britain is also tied with Sweden as the least homophobic country on the Gay Travel Index, an annual ranking produced by Spartacus World, a gay holiday guide.
That Parliamentary process is important and I am clear that where Members of Parliament think they can improve the Bill, this government will listen to them. Indeed, this amendment to put the date of our departure on the face of the Bill is itself a great example of that – coming as it did with cross-party backing.
But I am just as clear of this: we will not tolerate attempts from any quarter to use the process of amendments to this Bill as a mechanism to try to block the democratic wishes of the British people by attempting to slow down or stop our departure from the European Union.
The British people have been clear. Parliament itself voted for Article 50 – and for this Bill at its Second Reading. We are leaving the European Union on March 29, 2019.
I have grave doubts about specifying in law the exit date. It means Britain can't ask for an extension, even for a couple of weeks to allow for ratification of a last-minute deal. The possibility of a crash Brexit (including a short, temporary one), increase markedly with this clause.
They can change the law back again. They will probably do just that.
They'd have to do so extremely quickly if negotiations go down to the wire - which would need the support of all parties. And if it was repealed at the last minute, it would look far worse than having not done anything in the first place. True Grand Old Duke of York stuff.
I have lost track. Doesn't the deal including a possible extension of A50 have to be ratified by Parliament anyway? They would make the date change then.
Apparently any form of transition other than an A50 extension is legally problematic for the EU, and by implication the UK too.
The date is grandstanding by the government, but I am not sure it's a serious problem (we have plenty of those!)
That Parliamentary process is important and I am clear that where Members of Parliament think they can improve the Bill, this government will listen to them. Indeed, this amendment to put the date of our departure on the face of the Bill is itself a great example of that – coming as it did with cross-party backing.
But I am just as clear of this: we will not tolerate attempts from any quarter to use the process of amendments to this Bill as a mechanism to try to block the democratic wishes of the British people by attempting to slow down or stop our departure from the European Union.
The British people have been clear. Parliament itself voted for Article 50 – and for this Bill at its Second Reading. We are leaving the European Union on March 29, 2019.
I have grave doubts about specifying in law the exit date. It means Britain can't ask for an extension, even for a couple of weeks to allow for ratification of a last-minute deal. The possibility of a crash Brexit (including a short, temporary one), increase markedly with this clause.
But it will concentrate minds and may well be popular despite the consequences
It will be popular among the tiny number of people who care about that level of detail, most of whom are already in the Tory tent and who wouldn't leave for the sake of a minor delay.
I think the direct confirmation by TM today that we will be out at 11.00am on the 29th March 2019 will resonate with a large part of the population. Polls have tended to show about 68% want to leave so it is not just conservatives in the tent
Polls don't show about 68% want to leave. That is a serious misreading.
Polls show that a substantial number of people think that leaving was and is a mistake but now sadly necessary. There is no evidence that they are excited or enthused by the prospect. Their mood is more one of a funeral - the deceased is sorely missed but not burying the cadaver is not an option. They don't expect bunting and balloons.
I think you are splitting hairs. I did not say the 68% are a joyous band of brothers and agree that it includes those, like me, who voted remain but now accept the result of the referendum
I think the direct confirmation by TM today that we will be out at 11.00am on the 29th March 2019 will resonate with a large part of the population. Polls have tended to show about 68% want to leave so it is not just conservatives in the tent
Polls don't show about 68% want to leave. That is a serious misreading.
Polls show that a substantial number of people think that leaving was and is a mistake but now sadly necessary. There is no evidence that they are excited or enthused by the prospect. Their mood is more one of a funeral - the deceased is sorely missed but not burying the cadaver is not an option. They don't expect bunting and balloons.
I think you are splitting hairs. I did not say the 68% are a joyous band of brothers and agree that it includes those, like me, who voted remain but now accept the result of the referendum
It's not splitting hairs at all. You suggested that a direct confirmation of the Brexit date would resonate with a large part of the population, citing this statistic.
In fact, it's like advertising a funeral date for many people in that group. Hardly something to make them feel joyous.
Miss Vance, whether a referendum or Commons revocation is sought, the key is whether MPs are persuaded on a change. Obviously, if the former the electorate must be persuaded subsequently as well.
Out of curiosity, if say we get the worst case scenario of economic ruin because of (a no deal/WTO) Brexit, would you switch to Remain, or would you still want Brexit?
I think that can only happen after Brexit and some years down the road.
It will be interesting to see if labour put rejoining in their 2022 manifesto (if there is not an earlier GE)
You don't seriously think Brexit is going to happen do you? It's just a parlour game to give the Tories something to do to kill time. The idea of it going through when parliament has the chance it stop it must be close to nil. Don't confuse keeping their powder dry by the overwhelming parliamentary Remainers with acquiescence.
I think we will end up in a stalemate and join forces with Liechtenstein.
That Parliamentary process is important and I am clear that where Members of Parliament think they can improve the Bill, this government will listen to them. Indeed, this amendment to put the date of our departure on the face of the Bill is itself a great example of that – coming as it did with cross-party backing.
But I am just as clear of this: we will not tolerate attempts from any quarter to use the process of amendments to this Bill as a mechanism to try to block the democratic wishes of the British people by attempting to slow down or stop our departure from the European Union.
The British people have been clear. Parliament itself voted for Article 50 – and for this Bill at its Second Reading. We are leaving the European Union on March 29, 2019.
I have grave doubts about specifying in law the exit date. It means Britain can't ask for an extension, even for a couple of weeks to allow for ratification of a last-minute deal. The possibility of a crash Brexit (including a short, temporary one), increase markedly with this clause.
But it will concentrate minds and may well be popular despite the consequences
It will be popular among the tiny number of people who care about that level of detail, most of whom are already in the Tory tent and who wouldn't leave for the sake of a minor delay.
I think the direct confirmation by TM today that we will be out at 11.00am on the 29th March 2019 will resonate with a large part of the population. Polls have tended to show about 68% want to leave so it is not just conservatives in the tent
It won't resonate with anyone. Do you really think anyone gives a damn whether we leave on 29 March 2019 or, say, 15 April 2019? A difference of a little over 1% in the time since the referendum? What matters most is the fact of leaving, and the nature of leaving. The date, providing it's within ballpark of expectations, is a triviality.
David Davis looks like a man overwhelmed by the magnitude of what he's taken on.
EU stalls until next summer, then makes new offer?
Not sure.
I've been of the opinion for a long time that doing Brexit within two years is nigh on impossible.
You cannot undo and replicate 44 years worth of laws, regulations, and standards overnight.
There's just no enough time to do it properly, especially with the red lines of the Brexiteers on things like no ECJ.
Why do you need to undo or replicate them? You simply need to provide that they remain in force until Parliament orders otherwise. Of course you have to change the regulatory body and appeal structure where that is EU but that will be a relatively simple matter in the relatively small number of cases where it applies.
That said, I do think the government should get on with it.
I agree but I am not without criticism of TM but I do not see an alternative at present.
Although I believe you, like many solid Tory supporters, would at least like to be presented with some alternatives. Preferably from the newer intake, who a) haven't a track record of being fuckwits in office and b) are less likely to destabilise the PM in the coming months whilst Brexit gets to its denouement.....
I absolutely agree with that and hope TM does bring in new blood after the budget
A big reshuffle... Pluses: New blood, new faces, new life in the old dog. Minuses: More enemies behind her on the green benches and newbies ain’t always better than the oldies. Decision time for Mrs May: http://www.lifestuff.xyz/blog/indecision-is-fatal
David Davis looks like a man overwhelmed by the magnitude of what he's taken on.
EU stalls until next summer, then makes new offer?
Not sure.
I've been of the opinion for a long time that doing Brexit within two years is nigh on impossible.
You cannot undo and replicate 44 years worth of laws, regulations, and standards overnight.
There's just no enough time to do it properly, especially with the red lines of the Brexiteers on things like no ECJ.
I do find it interesting that a Govt. Minister (who, coincidentally of course, was a cheer-leader for Brexit) has had to walk the plank for having some meetings without proper authorisation. Yet many of the same crowd that were calling for her head were the very same people who, over decades, have - on the sly - got us to the point where exiting the EU was meant to be impossible.
Of course, they don't think they should all have to resign en masse for this far, far graver dereliction of duty to democracy.
There's a massive stench of hypocrisy coming off the fetid ranks of Remainers.
It seems to me to be very sensible to confirm the exit date in law. Quite apart from anything else, knowing the exit date is an absolute prerequisite for sorting out lots of other legal, regulatory and contractual changes, most of them involving third parties who need to know what is happening when - changes to VAT regulations, changes to the legal framework for aviation, changes to financial regulation, etc etc etc.
Miss Vance, whether a referendum or Commons revocation is sought, the key is whether MPs are persuaded on a change. Obviously, if the former the electorate must be persuaded subsequently as well.
Out of curiosity, if say we get the worst case scenario of economic ruin because of (a no deal/WTO) Brexit, would you switch to Remain, or would you still want Brexit?
I think that can only happen after Brexit and some years down the road.
It will be interesting to see if labour put rejoining in their 2022 manifesto (if there is not an earlier GE)
You don't seriously think Brexit is going to happen do you? It's just a parlour game to give the Tories something to do to kill time. The idea of it going through when parliament has the chance it stop it must be close to nil. Don't confuse keeping their powder dry by the overwhelming parliamentary Remainers with acquiescence.
Mr. Eagles, almost as if Article 50 was designed to be Article Alcatraz. Not impossible to leave, just very difficult.
It also gave an option to extend the two year exit timetable.
Brexit should be a process not an event.
That I do agree with. It has always been the case that our relationship with the EU will continue to evolve after Brexit as it did before. There will be areas where close cooperation with the EU 27 makes sense and other areas where we thought it made sense but in fact turns out not to be worth it. Thinking this is "the deal" as in the end of history is not at all sensible and will prevent a number of things being held over which undoubtedly require more time.
Miss Vance, whether a referendum or Commons revocation is sought, the key is whether MPs are persuaded on a change. Obviously, if the former the electorate must be persuaded subsequently as well.
Out of curiosity, if say we get the worst case scenario of economic ruin because of (a no deal/WTO) Brexit, would you switch to Remain, or would you still want Brexit?
I think that can only happen after Brexit and some years down the road.
It will be interesting to see if labour put rejoining in their 2022 manifesto (if there is not an earlier GE)
You don't seriously think Brexit is going to happen do you? It's just a parlour game to give the Tories something to do to kill time. The idea of it going through when parliament has the chance it stop it must be close to nil. Don't confuse keeping their powder dry by the overwhelming parliamentary Remainers with acquiescence.
Leaving and rejoining is against the national interest as it loses our four opt-outs. Denmark, by staying in, retains its opt outs.
The electorate in 2016 voted to go back to 1972, not 1956/pre-EEC or 1949/pre-ECSC. We're being dragged back to 1949.
Under FPTP, the governing wing (UKIP) of the governing party (Tory) can partly dictate events, as is happening. If Tory remainers are 45% of the PCP, they lose the internal party battle by 45/55%. Unless they abstain or cross the floor and vote with Labour, the headbangers prevail.
Miss Vance, whether a referendum or Commons revocation is sought, the key is whether MPs are persuaded on a change. Obviously, if the former the electorate must be persuaded subsequently as well.
Out of curiosity, if say we get the worst case scenario of economic ruin because of (a no deal/WTO) Brexit, would you switch to Remain, or would you still want Brexit?
You're addressing a person who appears to be proud not to own a smartphone. I can guess the answer.
Mr. Eagles, almost as if Article 50 was designed to be Article Alcatraz. Not impossible to leave, just very difficult.
Article 50 gives a two year window to agree stuff on an accelerated process while the leaving state is still a member. Anything we don't agree now we will have to do later, at the bottom of the cliff and it will be more difficult to get agreement and take longer.
It does encourage us to say "Yes", which is why it is there.
And one from Anthony Wells. Paging @SouthamObserver on this bit:
An alternative possibility is that Tory voters are sticking with the Conservatives, however poor they are, because the alternative is Jeremy Corbyn. To test this YouGov asked people who said they’d vote Tory tomorrow why they were supporting them. Only 7% of Tory voters said it was because they both agreed with the government’s aims and thought they were delivering them, 48% said they agreed with the government’s aims even if they were struggling to deliver them, 22% said they thought the government were competent, even if they didn’t agree with all their aims. 19% of Tory voters, however, said they didn’t think the government were governing well and didn’t agree with their aims… but they still preferred them to Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour.
Interesting. but even if you take off the 19%, that'd still leave the Tories in the low 30s overall, which is better than they polled through much of 2013-4. A fair chunk of that UKIP transfer looks pretty solid.
The Labour vote is far more enthusiastic - 31% agree with the objectives and think theyt'd be delivered well (Con: 7%), 36% think the objectives are good but they'd struggle (Con: 48%), 16% don't agree but think they would be competent (Con: 22%), just 9% only support Lab because they think the Tories are worse (Con equivalent: 19% as above).
They think Johnson, Green and Patel (taken before resignation - but most are "don't know" on Green and Patel) should be sacked, meh response on everyone else. Sacking Boris would be very popular (44-26), yet he leads (weakly, with 10%) as best alternative to May.
David Davis looks like a man overwhelmed by the magnitude of what he's taken on.
EU stalls until next summer, then makes new offer?
Not sure.
I've been of the opinion for a long time that doing Brexit within two years is nigh on impossible.
You cannot undo and replicate 44 years worth of laws, regulations, and standards overnight.
There's just no enough time to do it properly, especially with the red lines of the Brexiteers on things like no ECJ.
I do find it interesting that a Govt. Minister (who, coincidentally of course, was a cheer-leader for Brexit) has had to walk the plank for having some meetings without proper authorisation. Yet many of the same crowd that were calling for her head were the very same people who, over decades, have - on the sly - got us to the point where exiting the EU was meant to be impossible.
Of course, they don't think they should all have to resign en masse for this far, far graver dereliction of duty to democracy.
There's a massive stench of hypocrisy coming off the fetid ranks of Remainers.
Completely mental.
As Leave performs worse, their cheerleaders get battier. There is no doubt a direct causal link.
It seems to me to be very sensible to confirm the exit date in law. Quite apart from anything else, knowing the exit date is an absolute prerequisite for sorting out lots of other legal, regulatory and contractual changes, most of them involving third parties who need to know what is happening when - changes to VAT regulations, changes to the legal framework for aviation, changes to financial regulation, etc etc etc.
Agreed. I really don't see how we can leave that level of uncertainty. Of course that does not mean that we cannot agree to have further discussions about a whole range of issues afterwards.
I have grave doubts about specifying in law the exit date. It means Britain can't ask for an extension, even for a couple of weeks to allow for ratification of a last-minute deal. The possibility of a crash Brexit (including a short, temporary one), increase markedly with this clause.
They can change the law back again. They will probably do just that.
They'd have to do so extremely quickly if negotiations go down to the wire - which would need the support of all parties. And if it was repealed at the last minute, it would look far worse than having not done anything in the first place. True Grand Old Duke of York stuff.
I have lost track.
1. Doesn't the deal including a possible extension of A50 have to be ratified by Parliament anyway? They would make the date change then.
2. Apparently any form of transition other than an A50 extension is legally problematic for the EU, and by implication the UK too.
The date is grandstanding by the government, but I am not sure it's a serious problem (we have plenty of those!)
1. No, the extension is separate from the deal. I think you're thinking of a transitional period. An extension to the A50 period could be requested by the government without the need for parliament's involvement (though it would be politic to do so anyway). It's the deal itself resulting from the A50 negotiations that the government's promised parliament a vote on - though this might just be the first of several such deals, with others, which finalise the exit arrangement, following on during the exit transition.
2. I don't see why that should be the case. The EU has all sorts of associate nation agreements. The only difficulty would be if the UK retained some formal powers within the EU, which it surely wouldn't concede anyway.
Mr. Eagles, indeed, a gradual change would be better.
Mr. 43, the EU deliberately making it difficult to leave does not speak well of them.
That wasn't what I said. Article 50 gives us an opportunity to sort things out before we leave. if we choose not to use that opportunity, we will have to deal with them later under much less propitious circumstances. Denial doesn't make issues go away.
Miss Vance, whether a referendum or Commons revocation is sought, the key is whether MPs are persuaded on a change. Obviously, if the former the electorate must be persuaded subsequently as well.
Out of curiosity, if say we get the worst case scenario of economic ruin because of (a no deal/WTO) Brexit, would you switch to Remain, or would you still want Brexit?
I think that can only happen after Brexit and some years down the road.
It will be interesting to see if labour put rejoining in their 2022 manifesto (if there is not an earlier GE)
You don't seriously think Brexit is going to happen do you? It's just a parlour game to give the Tories something to do to kill time. The idea of it going through when parliament has the chance it stop it must be close to nil. Don't confuse keeping their powder dry by the overwhelming parliamentary Remainers with acquiescence.
And how does parliament 'stop it'?
There is no 'overwhelming parliamentary Remain' lobby; it melted with the referendum result. See the vote triggering A50 (which *was* the moment parliament could have stopped it).
Only Britain with its post-imperial status can come with two exactly opposite scenarios re: the Northern Irish border:
1. Northern Ireland will not be part of the EU customs union
2. There will be no "physical" border.
The only way the second is possible is through a FTA with the EU but this would still entail customs controls between the UK and EU in order to check that goods originate within the parties to the FTA and so are entitled to the zero tariff concession.
The EU has said that there will be no progress towards a FTA unless the 3 substantive issues are clarified. In any case, a Free Trade Agreement operates by granting zero tariffs to goods which originate within the parties to the FTA. But to do so it is necessary to operate customs controls at the internal borders between the members of the FTA in order to check that the goods do originate within the FTA member and so are entitled to the zero-tariff concession [ as above ]
And one from Anthony Wells. Paging @SouthamObserver on this bit:
An alternative possibility is that Tory voters are sticking with the Conservatives, however poor they are, because the alternative is Jeremy Corbyn. To test this YouGov asked people who said they’d vote Tory tomorrow why they were supporting them. Only 7% of Tory voters said it was because they both agreed with the government’s aims and thought they were delivering them, 48% said they agreed with the government’s aims even if they were struggling to deliver them, 22% said they thought the government were competent, even if they didn’t agree with all their aims. 19% of Tory voters, however, said they didn’t think the government were governing well and didn’t agree with their aims… but they still preferred them to Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour.
Interesting. but even if you take off the 19%, that'd still leave the Tories in the low 30s overall, which is better than they polled through much of 2013-4. A fair chunk of that UKIP transfer looks pretty solid.
The Labour vote is far more enthusiastic - 31% agree with the objectives and think theyt'd be delivered well (Con: 7%), 36% think the objectives are good but they'd struggle (Con: 48%), 16% don't agree but think they would be competent (Con: 22%), just 9% only support Lab because they think the Tories are worse (Con equivalent: 19% as above).
They think Johnson, Green and Patel (taken before resignation - but most are "don't know" on Green and Patel) should be sacked, meh response on everyone else. Sacking Boris would be very popular (44-26), yet he leads (weakly, with 10%) as best alternative to May.
Interestingly Rees Mogg leads with Tory voters though on who they want to succeed May with 18% to 12% for Boris and Davis 3rd on 7%.
With all voters Boris leads with 10% and Rees Mogg is on 8% and Davis and Rudd are tied for third on 4%.
David Davis looks like a man overwhelmed by the magnitude of what he's taken on.
EU stalls until next summer, then makes new offer?
Not sure.
I've been of the opinion for a long time that doing Brexit within two years is nigh on impossible.
You cannot undo and replicate 44 years worth of laws, regulations, and standards overnight.
There's just no enough time to do it properly, especially with the red lines of the Brexiteers on things like no ECJ.
I do find it interesting that a Govt. Minister (who, coincidentally of course, was a cheer-leader for Brexit) has had to walk the plank for having some meetings without proper authorisation. Yet many of the same crowd that were calling for her head were the very same people who, over decades, have - on the sly - got us to the point where exiting the EU was meant to be impossible.
Of course, they don't think they should all have to resign en masse for this far, far graver dereliction of duty to democracy.
There's a massive stench of hypocrisy coming off the fetid ranks of Remainers.
Completely mental.
As Leave performs worse, their cheerleaders get battier. There is no doubt a direct causal link.
Have you ever - I mean, just for one moment - taken a tiniest smidgen of responsibility for Brexit happening?
Brexit didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened because of people like you. Those with a certainty of the European Project's unquestionable correctness being so obvious, it clearly didn't require any democratic imprimatur.
Miss Vance, whether a referendum or Commons revocation is sought, the key is whether MPs are persuaded on a change. Obviously, if the former the electorate must be persuaded subsequently as well.
Out of curiosity, if say we get the worst case scenario of economic ruin because of (a no deal/WTO) Brexit, would you switch to Remain, or would you still want Brexit?
I think that can only happen after Brexit and some years down the road.
It will be interesting to see if labour put rejoining in their 2022 manifesto (if there is not an earlier GE)
You don't seriously think Brexit is going to happen do you? It's just a parlour game to give the Tories something to do to kill time. The idea of it going through when parliament has the chance it stop it must be close to nil. Don't confuse keeping their powder dry by the overwhelming parliamentary Remainers with acquiescence.
Leaving and rejoining is against the national interest as it loses our four opt-outs. Denmark, by staying in, retains its opt outs.
The electorate in 2016 voted to go back to 1972, not 1956/pre-EEC or 1949/pre-ECSC. We're being dragged back to 1949.
Under FPTP, the governing wing (UKIP) of the governing party (Tory) can partly dictate events, as is happening. If Tory remainers are 45% of the PCP, they lose the internal party battle by 45/55%. Unless they abstain or cross the floor and vote with Labour, the headbangers prevail.
Point of information: the ECSC was founded in 1952, with the treaty establishing it having been signed the previous year.
David Davis looks like a man overwhelmed by the magnitude of what he's taken on.
EU stalls until next summer, then makes new offer?
Not sure.
I've been of the opinion for a long time that doing Brexit within two years is nigh on impossible.
You cannot undo and replicate 44 years worth of laws, regulations, and standards overnight.
There's just no enough time to do it properly, especially with the red lines of the Brexiteers on things like no ECJ.
I do find it interesting that a Govt. Minister (who, coincidentally of course, was a cheer-leader for Brexit) has had to walk the plank for having some meetings without proper authorisation. Yet many of the same crowd that were calling for her head were the very same people who, over decades, have - on the sly - got us to the point where exiting the EU was meant to be impossible.
Of course, they don't think they should all have to resign en masse for this far, far graver dereliction of duty to democracy.
There's a massive stench of hypocrisy coming off the fetid ranks of Remainers.
Completely mental.
As Leave performs worse, their cheerleaders get battier. There is no doubt a direct causal link.
Have you ever - I mean, just for one moment - taken a tiniest smidgen of responsibility for Brexit happening?
Brexit didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened because of people like you. Those with a certainty of the European Project's unquestionable correctness being so obvious, it clearly didn't require any democratic imprimatur.
I don't have certainty about the European Project's unquestionable correctness. I never have. In the true sense of the word, I am a Eurosceptic.
So you have followed one completely batshit mental post with another. You're on quite a roll.
Interesting reaction from the Zoomers, but nobody has pointed out the potential upside.
If he has his own shows on RT and LBC, is it just possible the BBC will find less airtime for him?
Some politicians get addicted to the exposure they have been given, and are unable to retire gracefully.
Indeed, though some get their addiction fed more easily than others.
Big Gord getting some top quality, self exculpatory gear from the state broadcaster at this very moment.
It really doesn’t look good for Alex to take a sackful of Roubles though, does it?
I’ve always disagreed with him but had a grudging respect for what he did for his party and the wider independence movement - but now he comes across as a traitor to his own cause, especially given the context of the wider issues about Russia and politics at the moment.
I can only congratulate you (& so many others) on your reticence on hitherto revealing your grudging respect for Salmond, and for now courageously admitting he has a reputation to lose. Who knew there was much admiration for Eck?
Anyone who thinks he's doing it for the cash hasn't much of a clue.
Presumably he just wants the Russian troll farms on his side for IR2? End justifies the means etc
And one from Anthony Wells. Paging @SouthamObserver on this bit:
An alternative possibility is that Tory voters are sticking with the Conservatives, however poor they are, because the alternative is Jeremy Corbyn. To test this YouGov asked people who said they’d vote Tory tomorrow why they were supporting them. Only 7% of Tory voters said it was because they both agreed with the government’s aims and thought they were delivering them, 48% said they agreed with the government’s aims even if they were struggling to deliver them, 22% said they thought the government were competent, even if they didn’t agree with all their aims. 19% of Tory voters, however, said they didn’t think the government were governing well and didn’t agree with their aims… but they still preferred them to Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour.
Interesting. but even if you take off the 19%, that'd still leave the Tories in the low 30s overall, which is better than they polled through much of 2013-4. A fair chunk of that UKIP transfer looks pretty solid.
The Labour vote is far more enthusiastic - 31% agree with the objectives and think theyt'd be delivered well (Con: 7%), 36% think the objectives are good but they'd struggle (Con: 48%), 16% don't agree but think they would be competent (Con: 22%), just 9% only support Lab because they think the Tories are worse (Con equivalent: 19% as above).
They think Johnson, Green and Patel (taken before resignation - but most are "don't know" on Green and Patel) should be sacked, meh response on everyone else. Sacking Boris would be very popular (44-26), yet he leads (weakly, with 10%) as best alternative to May.
Interestingly Rees Mogg leads with Tory voters though on who they want to succeed May with 18% to 12% for Boris and Davis 3rd on 7%.
With all voters Boris leads with 10% and Rees Mogg is on 8% and Davis and Rudd are tied for third on 4%.
There is probably a slice on the Venn Diagram of people who think Boris should be sacked but also think he should succeed May.
David Davis looks like a man overwhelmed by the magnitude of what he's taken on.
EU stalls until next summer, then makes new offer?
Not sure.
I've been of the opinion for a long time that doing Brexit within two years is nigh on impossible.
You cannot undo and replicate 44 years worth of laws, regulations, and standards overnight.
There's just no enough time to do it properly, especially with the red lines of the Brexiteers on things like no ECJ.
Why do you need to undo or replicate them? You simply need to provide that they remain in force until Parliament orders otherwise. Of course you have to change the regulatory body and appeal structure where that is EU but that will be a relatively simple matter in the relatively small number of cases where it applies.
That said, I do think the government should get on with it.
I'll have to check my briefing papers, but IIRC the problem with your approach is that working out which bits of UK law came from the EU is not as simple as it may sound.
Only Britain with its post-imperial status can come with two exactly opposite scenarios re: the Northern Irish border:
1. Northern Ireland will not be part of the EU customs union
2. There will be no "physical" border.
The only way the second is possible is through a FTA with the EU but this would still entail customs controls between the UK and EU in order to check that goods originate within the parties to the FTA and so are entitled to the zero tariff concession.
The EU has said that there will be no progress towards a FTA unless the 3 substantive issues are clarified. In any case, a Free Trade Agreement operates by granting zero tariffs to goods which originate within the parties to the FTA. But to do so it is necessary to operate customs controls at the internal borders between the members of the FTA in order to check that the goods do originate within the FTA member and so are entitled to the zero-tariff concession [ as above ]
I refer the Hon gentleman to my Quantum Brexit proposal:
And one from Anthony Wells. Paging @SouthamObserver on this bit:
An alternative possibility is that Tory voters are sticking with the Conservatives, however poor they are, because the alternative is Jeremy Corbyn. To test this YouGov asked people who said they’d vote Tory tomorrow why they were supporting them. Only 7% of Tory voters said it was because they both agreed with the government’s aims and thought they were delivering them, 48% said they agreed with the government’s aims even if they were struggling to deliver them, 22% said they thought the government were competent, even if they didn’t agree with all their aims. 19% of Tory voters, however, said they didn’t think the government were governing well and didn’t agree with their aims… but they still preferred them to Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour.
Interesting. but even if you take off the 19%, that'd still leave the Tories in the low 30s overall, which is better than they polled through much of 2013-4. A fair chunk of that UKIP transfer looks pretty solid.
The Labour vote is far more enthusiastic - 31% agree with the objectives and think theyt'd be delivered well (Con: 7%), 36% think the objectives are good but they'd struggle (Con: 48%), 16% don't agree but think they would be competent (Con: 22%), just 9% only support Lab because they think the Tories are worse (Con equivalent: 19% as above).
They think Johnson, Green and Patel (taken before resignation - but most are "don't know" on Green and Patel) should be sacked, meh response on everyone else. Sacking Boris would be very popular (44-26), yet he leads (weakly, with 10%) as best alternative to May.
Interestingly Rees Mogg leads with Tory voters though on who they want to succeed May with 18% to 12% for Boris and Davis 3rd on 7%.
With all voters Boris leads with 10% and Rees Mogg is on 8% and Davis and Rudd are tied for third on 4%.
There is probably a slice on the Venn Diagram of people who think Boris should be sacked but also think he should succeed May.
Being a backbencher did not do Corbyn or Mogg much harm
Only Britain with its post-imperial status can come with two exactly opposite scenarios re: the Northern Irish border:
1. Northern Ireland will not be part of the EU customs union
2. There will be no "physical" border.
The only way the second is possible is through a FTA with the EU but this would still entail customs controls between the UK and EU in order to check that goods originate within the parties to the FTA and so are entitled to the zero tariff concession.
The EU has said that there will be no progress towards a FTA unless the 3 substantive issues are clarified. In any case, a Free Trade Agreement operates by granting zero tariffs to goods which originate within the parties to the FTA. But to do so it is necessary to operate customs controls at the internal borders between the members of the FTA in order to check that the goods do originate within the FTA member and so are entitled to the zero-tariff concession [ as above ]
What on earth has the Irish border problem got to do with Britain's 'post-imperial status'? You seem to have a post-imperial obsession.
On the substantive point, it is simply not the case that the existence of a legal border between the EU and the UK makes it necessary to have a physical border. We can do whatever we like. If we decide not to have routine physical checks, but instead to rely on self-certification declarations, that's absolutely fine. Similarly for the EU side. There's no universal law of nature operating here.
On the substantive point, it is simply not the case that the existence of a legal border between the EU and the UK makes it necessary to have a physical border. We can do whatever we like. If we decide not to have routine physical checks, but instead to rely on self-certifying declarations, that's absolutely fine. Similarly for the EU side. There's no universal law of nature operating here.
Yes, that's what the Swiss used to do. But the Irish border would probably become a major smuggling route into the EU and they can't really risk it.
And one from Anthony Wells. Paging @SouthamObserver on this bit:
An alternative possibility is that Tory voters are sticking with the Conservatives, however poor they are, because the alternative is Jeremy Corbyn. To test this YouGov asked people who said they’d vote Tory tomorrow why they were supporting them. Only 7% of Tory voters said it was because they both agreed with the government’s aims and thought they were delivering them, 48% said they agreed with the government’s aims even if they were struggling to deliver them, 22% said they thought the government were competent, even if they didn’t agree with all their aims. 19% of Tory voters, however, said they didn’t think the government were governing well and didn’t agree with their aims… but they still preferred them to Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour.
Interesting. but even if you take off the 19%, that'd still leave the Tories in the low 30s overall, which is better than they polled through much of 2013-4. A fair chunk of that UKIP transfer looks pretty solid.
The Labour vote is far more enthusiastic - 31% agree with the objectives and think theyt'd be delivered well (Con: 7%), 36% think the objectives are good but they'd struggle (Con: 48%), 16% don't agree but think they would be competent (Con: 22%), just 9% only support Lab because they think the Tories are worse (Con equivalent: 19% as above).
They think Johnson, Green and Patel (taken before resignation - but most are "don't know" on Green and Patel) should be sacked, meh response on everyone else. Sacking Boris would be very popular (44-26), yet he leads (weakly, with 10%) as best alternative to May.
Interestingly Rees Mogg leads with Tory voters though on who they want to succeed May with 18% to 12% for Boris and Davis 3rd on 7%.
With all voters Boris leads with 10% and Rees Mogg is on 8% and Davis and Rudd are tied for third on 4%.
There is probably a slice on the Venn Diagram of people who think Boris should be sacked but also think he should succeed May.
Being a backbencher did not do Corbyn or Mogg much harm
There's winning an election and then there's managing a party and (potentially) government afterwards. Very much not the same thing.
1. Doesn't the deal including a possible extension of A50 have to be ratified by Parliament anyway? They would make the date change then.
2. Apparently any form of transition other than an A50 extension is legally problematic for the EU, and by implication the UK too.
The date is grandstanding by the government, but I am not sure it's a serious problem (we have plenty of those!)
1. No, the extension is separate from the deal. I think you're thinking of a transitional period. An extension to the A50 period could be requested by the government without the need for parliament's involvement (though it would be politic to do so anyway). It's the deal itself resulting from the A50 negotiations that the government's promised parliament a vote on - though this might just be the first of several such deals, with others, which finalise the exit arrangement, following on during the exit transition.
2. I don't see why that should be the case. The EU has all sorts of associate nation agreements. The only difficulty would be if the UK retained some formal powers within the EU, which it surely wouldn't concede anyway.
1. I am still confused. The EU negotiating guidelines allow for "an indication of an overall understanding on the framework for the future relationship" and a possible time-limited transitional arrangement. Stripping out the ridiculously vague language, no permanent trading arrangement will be agreed as part of the Article 50 talks. There will simply be a commitment to have one. But there may a transition arrangement. To go back to my question, is Parliament voting on the totality of the Article 50 Withdrawal Agreement? If it is, it will almost certainly include a transition arrangement and that is likely to be in the form of an Article 50 extension because that it is the simplest and legally kosher way of doing it.
2. Those association agreements are much shallower than our EU relationship and they take years to negotiate and ratify. Treaty changes require a two year ratification cycle once they have been agreed
Yes, that's what the Swiss used to do. But the Irish border would probably become a major smuggling route into the EU and they can't really risk it.
I don't think it would become a major smuggling route, except to the extent that it is already (because of course there are already 'border checks' in principle for booze and fags, which are the main items the gangs would want to smuggle).
It seems to me to be very sensible to confirm the exit date in law. Quite apart from anything else, knowing the exit date is an absolute prerequisite for sorting out lots of other legal, regulatory and contractual changes, most of them involving third parties who need to know what is happening when - changes to VAT regulations, changes to the legal framework for aviation, changes to financial regulation, etc etc etc.
Given the lack of preparation and lack of progress, extending the A50 period is clearly the most sensible way forward. Being the most sensible option it is of course the one the Tories now want to close off
I don't have certainty about the European Project's unquestionable correctness. I never have. In the true sense of the word, I am a Eurosceptic.
So you have followed one completely batshit mental post with another. You're on quite a roll.
You hide your Europhilia so well.
Unlike your using of mental illness as a slur. Stay classy, Mr. Meeks.
You will struggle, in many thousands of words that I have written on this site, to find many positive things that I have said about the way in which the EU works. My first extended foray on the subject was this one:
Only Britain with its post-imperial status can come with two exactly opposite scenarios re: the Northern Irish border:
1. Northern Ireland will not be part of the EU customs union
2. There will be no "physical" border.
The only way the second is possible is through a FTA with the EU but this would still entail customs controls between the UK and EU in order to check that goods originate within the parties to the FTA and so are entitled to the zero tariff concession.
The EU has said that there will be no progress towards a FTA unless the 3 substantive issues are clarified. In any case, a Free Trade Agreement operates by granting zero tariffs to goods which originate within the parties to the FTA. But to do so it is necessary to operate customs controls at the internal borders between the members of the FTA in order to check that the goods do originate within the FTA member and so are entitled to the zero-tariff concession [ as above ]
I refer the Hon gentleman to my Quantum Brexit proposal:
I am not a physicist, but I believe the Copenhagen account of the double slit experiment is pretty much toast these days, precisely because the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment is so absurd. It's all ”many worlds” these days, and it's just our misfortune that we are in the fork where brexit won.
That Parliamentary process is important and I am clear that where Members of Parliament think they can improve the Bill, this government will listen to them. Indeed, this amendment to put the date of our departure on the face of the Bill is itself a great example of that – coming as it did with cross-party backing.
But I am just as clear of this: we will not tolerate attempts from any quarter to use the process of amendments to this Bill as a mechanism to try to block the democratic wishes of the British people by attempting to slow down or stop our departure from the European Union.
The British people have been clear. Parliament itself voted for Article 50 – and for this Bill at its Second Reading. We are leaving the European Union on March 29, 2019.
I have grave doubts about specifying in law the exit date. It means Britain can't ask for an extension, even for a couple of weeks to allow for ratification of a last-minute deal. The possibility of a crash Brexit (including a short, temporary one), increase markedly with this clause.
Sounds a bit like the kind of negotiation where you put a gun to your own head and threaten to pull the trigger unless you get what you want.
And one from Anthony Wells. Paging @SouthamObserver on this bit:
An alternative possibility is that Tory voters are sticking with the Conservatives, however poor they are, because the alternative is Jeremy Corbyn. To test this YouGov asked people who said they’d vote Tory tomorrow why they were supporting them. Only 7% of Tory voters said it was because they both agreed with the government’s aims and remy Corbyn’s Labour.
Interesting. but even if you take off the 19%, that'd still leave the Tories in the low 30s overall, which is better than they polled through much of 2013-4. A fair chunk of that UKIP transfer looks pretty solid.
The Labour vote is far more enthusiastic - 31% agree with the objectives and think theyt'd be delivered well (Con: 7%), 36% think the objectives are good but they'd struggle (Con: 48%), 16% don't agree but think they would be competent (Con: 22%), just 9% only support Lab because they think the Tories are worse (Con equivalent: 19% as above).
They think Johnson, Green and Patel (taken before resignation - but most are "don't know" on Green and Patel) should be sacked, meh response on everyone else. Sacking Boris would be very popular (44-26), yet he leads (weakly, with 10%) as best alternative to May.
Interestingly Rees Mogg leads with Tory voters though on who they want to succeed May with 18% to 12% for Boris and Davis 3rd on 7%.
With all voters Boris leads with 10% and Rees Mogg is on 8% and Davis and Rudd are tied for third on 4%.
There is probably a slice on the Venn Diagram of people who think Boris should be sacked but also think he should succeed May.
Being a backbencher did not do Corbyn or Mogg much harm
There's winning an election and then there's managing a party and (potentially) government afterwards. Very much not the same thing.
Both are more likely opposition leaders than next PM
Miss Vance, whether a referendum or Commons revocation is sought, the key is whether MPs are persuaded on a change. Obviously, if the former the electorate must be persuaded subsequently as well.
Out of curiosity, if say we get the worst case scenario of economic ruin because of (a no deal/WTO) Brexit, would you switch to Remain, or would you still want Brexit?
I think that can only happen after Brexit and some years down the road.
It will be interesting to see if labour put rejoining in their 2022 manifesto (if there is not an earlier GE)
You don't seriously think Brexit is going to happen do you? It's just a parlour game to give the Tories something to do to kill time. The idea of it going through when parliament has the chance it stop it must be close to nil. Don't confuse keeping their powder dry by the overwhelming parliamentary Remainers with acquiescence.
Leaving and rejoining is against the national interest as it loses our four opt-outs. Denmark, by staying in, retains its opt outs.
The electorate in 2016 voted to go back to 1972, not 1956/pre-EEC or 1949/pre-ECSC. We're being dragged back to 1949.
Under FPTP, the governing wing (UKIP) of the governing party (Tory) can partly dictate events, as is happening. If Tory remainers are 45% of the PCP, they lose the internal party battle by 45/55%. Unless they abstain or cross the floor and vote with Labour, the headbangers prevail.
Point of information: the ECSC was founded in 1952, with the treaty establishing it having been signed the previous year.
Thanks for the correction. UKIP on that Private Eye cover only wanted to go back to 1957. They'll be delighted with pre-1952!
No opposition that has not been 15 points ahead between elections has won the ensuing general election. Miliband Labour was 12. Corbyn can only manage 3.
No opposition that has not been 15 points ahead between elections has won the ensuing general election. Miliband Labour was 12. Corbyn can only manage 3.
Comments
The country boasts the world’s gayest legislature, according to Andrew Reynolds, a professor of political science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: some 45 of the 650 members of Parliament elected in June are openly gay or bisexual. Britain is also tied with Sweden as the least homophobic country on the Gay Travel Index, an annual ranking produced by Spartacus World, a gay holiday guide.
https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/11/daily-chart-6?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/
Apparently any form of transition other than an A50 extension is legally problematic for the EU, and by implication the UK too.
The date is grandstanding by the government, but I am not sure it's a serious problem (we have plenty of those!)
I've been of the opinion for a long time that doing Brexit within two years is nigh on impossible.
You cannot undo and replicate 44 years worth of laws, regulations, and standards overnight.
There's just no enough time to do it properly, especially with the red lines of the Brexiteers on things like no ECJ.
In fact, it's like advertising a funeral date for many people in that group. Hardly something to make them feel joyous.
That said, I do think the government should get on with it.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/09/brexit-deal-price-britain-hard-irish-border
Brexit should be a process not an event.
Pluses: New blood, new faces, new life in the old dog.
Minuses: More enemies behind her on the green benches and newbies ain’t always better than the oldies.
Decision time for Mrs May:
http://www.lifestuff.xyz/blog/indecision-is-fatal
Of course, they don't think they should all have to resign en masse for this far, far graver dereliction of duty to democracy.
There's a massive stench of hypocrisy coming off the fetid ranks of Remainers.
The electorate in 2016 voted to go back to 1972, not 1956/pre-EEC or 1949/pre-ECSC. We're being dragged back to 1949.
Under FPTP, the governing wing (UKIP) of the governing party (Tory) can partly dictate events, as is happening. If Tory remainers are 45% of the PCP, they lose the internal party battle by 45/55%. Unless they abstain or cross the floor and vote with Labour, the headbangers prevail.
It does encourage us to say "Yes", which is why it is there.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/t7a4lpcsdh/TimesResults_171108_VI_Trackers.pdf
The Labour vote is far more enthusiastic - 31% agree with the objectives and think theyt'd be delivered well (Con: 7%), 36% think the objectives are good but they'd struggle (Con: 48%), 16% don't agree but think they would be competent (Con: 22%), just 9% only support Lab because they think the Tories are worse (Con equivalent: 19% as above).
They think Johnson, Green and Patel (taken before resignation - but most are "don't know" on Green and Patel) should be sacked, meh response on everyone else. Sacking Boris would be very popular (44-26), yet he leads (weakly, with 10%) as best alternative to May.
As Leave performs worse, their cheerleaders get battier. There is no doubt a direct causal link.
Mr. 43, the EU deliberately making it difficult to leave does not speak well of them.
2. I don't see why that should be the case. The EU has all sorts of associate nation agreements. The only difficulty would be if the UK retained some formal powers within the EU, which it surely wouldn't concede anyway.
There is no 'overwhelming parliamentary Remain' lobby; it melted with the referendum result. See the vote triggering A50 (which *was* the moment parliament could have stopped it).
1. Northern Ireland will not be part of the EU customs union
2. There will be no "physical" border.
The only way the second is possible is through a FTA with the EU but this would still entail customs controls between the UK and EU in order to check that goods originate within the parties to the FTA and so are entitled to the zero tariff concession.
The EU has said that there will be no progress towards a FTA unless the 3 substantive issues are clarified. In any case, a Free Trade Agreement operates by granting zero tariffs to goods which originate within the parties to the FTA. But to do so it is necessary to operate customs controls at the internal borders between the members of the FTA in order to check that the goods do originate within the FTA member and so are entitled to the zero-tariff concession [ as above ]
With all voters Boris leads with 10% and Rees Mogg is on 8% and Davis and Rudd are tied for third on 4%.
Brexit didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened because of people like you. Those with a certainty of the European Project's unquestionable correctness being so obvious, it clearly didn't require any democratic imprimatur.
So you have followed one completely batshit mental post with another. You're on quite a roll.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/10/14/quantum-physics-could-have-the-answer-to-brexits-ireland-problem/
Anyway, time for me to be off. First practice is underway. Pre-qualifying should be up tomorrow afternoon.
#PullThePlugFriday
Unlike your using of mental illness as a slur. Stay classy, Mr. Meeks.
On the substantive point, it is simply not the case that the existence of a legal border between the EU and the UK makes it necessary to have a physical border. We can do whatever we like. If we decide not to have routine physical checks, but instead to rely on self-certification declarations, that's absolutely fine. Similarly for the EU side. There's no universal law of nature operating here.
2. Those association agreements are much shallower than our EU relationship and they take years to negotiate and ratify. Treaty changes require a two year ratification cycle once they have been agreed
NEW THREAD
http://politicalbetting.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-eu-and-britain.html
But so many Leavers are so deranged that anything other than foaming hatred of the EU is treated as treasonous consorting with the enemy.
Not always an effective strategy...
I see the predicted Ricciardo grid penalty has materialised, Mr.D.