You mean the one that shows labour rent their HQ from a tax haven, John McDonnells pension is vested in a tax haven as are the BBC's, and two labour councils in the north use tax havens
Its going to be a silly debate in which both sides will have prepared lists of the known use of tax haven by their opponents. When someone stands up to make a point, the list will be checked for the obvious rebuttal and much hilarity and finger pointing will follow.
You mean the one that shows labour rent their HQ from a tax haven, John McDonnells pension is vested in a tax haven as are the BBC's, and two labour councils in the north use tax havens
Its going to be a silly debate in which both sides will have prepared lists of the known use of tax haven by their opponents. When someone stands up to make a point, the list will be checked for the obvious rebuttal and much hilarity and finger pointing will follow.
The easiest rebuttal will be every single one of them will have some sort of pension fund that indirectly invests in a) a company the BBC / Guardian moral arbitrators have judged to be bad and b) have money in a hedge fund based overseas.
As it was shown, all the BBC employees fail this test.
I do not think today's "concession" has any value. What if Parliament rejects a deal ? Brexit with no deal will happen anyway or, worse, the "deal" could still be implemented.
Parliament must have the right to call a new referendum to approve the deal.
I do not think today's "concession" has any value. What if Parliament rejects a deal ? Brexit with no deal will happen anyway or, worse, the "deal" could still be implemented.
Parliament must have the right to call a new referendum to approve the deal.
And if the public say no? We're still out without a deal.
That said, if we have got to the point where a deal with the EU27 has been agreed it is likely to be pretty much on the EU’s terms.
I still think the wild card is going to be the EP, which might decide to throw the deal out anyway, or at least spend so long looking at it that we pass the two year deadline.
The bit that blows my mind is that the EP can apparently amend the deal, how does that work when the CoE and the UK already have found something they can both live with.
Very messy and a crisis for the EU with the Parliament having the power to block the will of the 27 nations
"“It smells of decline, and the people won’t have it."
I very much doubt Mrs May appreciated that bon mot.
He added that he supports Theresa May “to the hilt” and urged the party to seize the middle ground in politics, adding: “We have to give people something to vote for.”
The "middle ground" is contaminated - it gave us Iraq, the financial crisis and austerity. It is seen by many as being populated by identikit politicians whose stock in trade is meaningless soundbites, flexible principles and self-enrichment. This may not be fair, but it is a widely-held perception. People do not want more of the same - there is a huge desire for something different, as evidenced by the Brexit vote and the general election result (and Trump in the US). There is no way back to the "middle ground" approach of Blair and Cameron, it is a bygone era. We are moving into an age of sharper divisions, radical prescriptions and a desire for more authenticity in politics.
I agree.
That said people are overstating the extent to which authenticity will get votes. People will respect authenticity, but they have to, you know, agree with what you’re actually saying. Corbyn's supporters didn’t just vote for him because he’s ‘authentic’. They did so because tapped into their disaffection with the current economic status quo, and their dislike of a hardline Hard Brexit agenda and the social conservatism that comes with that. The question, as I’ve said before for the JRM fans who believe in his electability, is who is left out there that buys into his world view, but isn’t voting Tory? And are there enough of them, in the right places under FPTP to get the Tories a majority come the next GE? Because JRM is not going to win over those younger voters who are against a Hard Brexit, who are socially liberal, and those who no longer believe in the economic status quo. Indeed his view simply seems to align with those who already vote Conservative, and thus the possibilities to broaden the Conservative’s coalition of voters seems limited if he were to become leader.
RE those bringing up the IRA and Corbyn being a ‘Marxist’ - Corbyn’s supporters are unlikely to have lived through, or remembered the days where IRA bombed places in the UK, or indeed the fall of communism. I only know about these things because of (a. my interest in politics (b. my mum having discussions with me about them. On top of that, Corbyn’s more hardcore supporters see successive governments association with Saudi Arabia, and Thatcher’s association with Pinochet as morally equivalent (edit: actually, thinking about it - they see it as worse) to Corbyn’s IRA association. That’s a message which gets relayed down to his less hardcore supporters meaning that to this group, the moral distinctions that Conservatives and others feel exist between them and Corbyn on these kinds of matters evaporate in the eyes of Corbyn’s biggest and more lukewarm supporters.
I think the term ‘Marxist’ would mean nothing at all, to most people actually - how many ordinary voters do you know who could provide a specific definition of Marxism? Then there’s the matter that if you've grown up in the post-crash years, it’s is likely that it won’t be Marxism that will be the dirty word, but rather capitalism or, more specifically ‘neo-liberalism’. It will be that system that many will associate with hardship, a lack of social mobility and unfairness.
Then there’s the fact that many of these anti-Corbyn stories tended to be printed in outlets such as the Mail, and the right wing press more generally - sources of information that Corbyn’s voters by and large aren’t reading and don’t take seriously. The Tories have a real problem that their cheerleaders in the press are seen as joke by many of those who aren’t old.
Damning statement on ITV Wales tonight about the Welsh Labour party from Steve Jones, former special advisor to Carwyn Jones, saying it was a toxic place to work with some ministers including Carl Sargeant being targetted
Steve Jones said this did not commence on the night of 3rd November 2017
This story is terrible for the family and friends of Carl Sargeant
As a result of the referendum the Uk voted to leave the UK. Any further choice by parliament or by a second referendum is a choice between the negotiated settlement and WTO rules.
The BBC has uncovered details of a secret deal that let hundreds of IS fighters and their families escape from Raqqa, under the gaze of the US and British-led coalition and Kurdish-led forces who control the city.
A convoy included some of IS’s most notorious members and – despite reassurances – dozens of foreign fighters. Some of those have spread out across Syria, even making it as far as Turkey.
The question, as I’ve said before for the JRM fans who believe in his electability, is who is left out there that buys into his world view, but isn’t voting Tory? And are there enough of them, in the right places under FPTP to get the Tories a majority come the next GE? Because JRM is not going to win over those younger voters who are against a Hard Brexit, who are socially liberal, and those who no longer believe in the economic status quo. Indeed his view simply seems to align with those who already vote Conservative, and thus the possibilities to broaden the Conservative’s coalition of voters seems limited if he were to become leader.
That is only half the question. Election can be won either by motivating younger voters to vote Tory (which is a tall order for any Conservative at the moment) or by firing up the base and getting them to turn out (which JRM will do wonderfully). They could win a majority by getting the same number of younger voters out as before and pulling the oldies off their couches in droves, especially since they are more likely to be registered, and more likely to vote.
Mrs Indigo Snr's blue rinse set will be down the polling booths like a shot to vote for that nice well spoken Mr Rees-Mogg.
As a result of the referendum the Uk voted to leave the UK. Any further choice by parliament or by a second referendum is a choice between the negotiated settlement and WTO rules.
So the only two options are LEAVE with a deal or LEAVE without a deal. There's no provision to continue negotiation toward getting a better deal. Time's up - we either accept whatever thin gruel is dished up to us by David Davis or we walk out to WTO rules.
Well, if that's not putting the metaphorical gun to everyone's heads I'm not sure what is. I agree with Dominic Grieve about as often as it snows in July but he seems to be talking some sense here.
The A50 timeline can be extended by mutual consent - it's May who is acting all tough for reasons to which I'm not party - and since presumably both the UK and the EU want a deal that works for both sides why not allow extra time for that deal to happen ?
I do not think today's "concession" has any value. What if Parliament rejects a deal ? Brexit with no deal will happen anyway or, worse, the "deal" could still be implemented.
Parliament must have the right to call a new referendum to approve the deal.
And if the public say no? We're still out without a deal.
The second referendum would be a choice between two options:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins then Art.50 is revoked. [ as long as the second referendum took place before 29th March 2019.
This presupposes Parliament do not reject any deal but invites through an amendment a referendum with the above choices.
That said, if we have got to the point where a deal with the EU27 has been agreed it is likely to be pretty much on the EU’s terms.
I still think the wild card is going to be the EP, which might decide to throw the deal out anyway, or at least spend so long looking at it that we pass the two year deadline.
The bit that blows my mind is that the EP can apparently amend the deal, how does that work when the CoE and the UK already have found something they can both live with.
Presumably UKIP and perhaps Conservative MEPs will vote against the deal in the EU parliament on the basis that it is too mean to the UK.
The A50 timeline can be extended by mutual consent - it's May who is acting all tough for reasons to which I'm not party - and since presumably both the UK and the EU want a deal that works for both sides why not allow extra time for that deal to happen ?
Because it doesnt matter what the EU wants, it matters what the governments of the other member states of the EU want in accordance with their normal procedures (which might involve referenda etc). If even one of them says no, then we are out.
As a result of the referendum the Uk voted to leave the UK. Any further choice by parliament or by a second referendum is a choice between the negotiated settlement and WTO rules.
So the only two options are LEAVE with a deal or LEAVE without a deal. There's no provision to continue negotiation toward getting a better deal. Time's up - we either accept whatever thin gruel is dished up to us by David Davis or we walk out to WTO rules.
Well, if that's not putting the metaphorical gun to everyone's heads I'm not sure what is. I agree with Dominic Grieve about as often as it snows in July but he seems to be talking some sense here.
The A50 timeline can be extended by mutual consent - it's May who is acting all tough for reasons to which I'm not party - and since presumably both the UK and the EU want a deal that works for both sides why not allow extra time for that deal to happen ?
High stakes but giving extra time weakens the UK position but more importantly it is not on offer and even it it was 27 states would have to agree and the EP.
I do not think today's "concession" has any value. What if Parliament rejects a deal ? Brexit with no deal will happen anyway or, worse, the "deal" could still be implemented.
Parliament must have the right to call a new referendum to approve the deal.
And if the public say no? We're still out without a deal.
The second referendum would be a choice between two options:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins then Art.50 is revoked. [ as long as the second referendum took place before 29th March 2019.
This presupposes Parliament do not reject any deal but invites through an amendment a referendum with the above choices.
And presupposes the ECJ decides that we can revoke Article 50. I am dubious that they will, because if that were possible countries could play the okey-cokey indefinitely until they get the deal they want.
An amendment that said: "no, this isn't good enough, so the government is instructed to withdraw the Article 50 notice forthwith and Britain will stay in the EU instead".
Such a withdrawal notice would probably not be legally effective but politically it probably would be.
It would be politically effective for the few weeks before the opposition became the government, and then was landed with the legal (and political) problem.
I'm sure they'd be happy to have the legal and political problem then.
Do you think so? I'm not so sure, it would be the humdinger of all nightmares if as a result we crashed out anyway with no deal. In that scenario they couldn't escape blame.
I do think so. They'd expect a fair wind from Brussels in the circumstances. I expect they'd see it as well worth the gamble.
What would a 'fair wind' mean? The EU would hardly be incentivised to make concessions in that scenario.
1) The EU would prefer Britain in the EU than out, all things considered. 2) It would prefer to strengthen pro-EU forces in Britain against those opposed to the EU. 3) There would be an emotional sense of relief at the departure of what the EU no doubt sees as those awful Tories.
The EU would be incentivised to be fairly magnanimous.
In such circumstances, if the EU is magmanimous the EU will win a lot of friends in the UK it might not have had before - especially if polls are indicating that voters are not happy with the deal the government has negotiated.
That said, if we have got to the point where a deal with the EU27 has been agreed it is likely to be pretty much on the EU’s terms.
To be clear, I think this is all fantasy. I'm not expecting a deal.
The EU is not going to offer a deal that is politically acceptable to the UK.
Best to start preparing for no deal/WTO arrangements.
Mecedes, Audi,Volkswagen and BMW cars will be 10% more expensive in the UK.
I do not think today's "concession" has any value. What if Parliament rejects a deal ? Brexit with no deal will happen anyway or, worse, the "deal" could still be implemented.
Parliament must have the right to call a new referendum to approve the deal.
And if the public say no? We're still out without a deal.
The second referendum would be a choice between two options:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins then Art.50 is revoked. [ as long as the second referendum took place before 29th March 2019.
This presupposes Parliament do not reject any deal but invites through an amendment a referendum with the above choices.
And how are you going to revoke A50
It seems to me the hard reality is sinking in that it is deal or no deal
That said, if we have got to the point where a deal with the EU27 has been agreed it is likely to be pretty much on the EU’s terms.
I still think the wild card is going to be the EP, which might decide to throw the deal out anyway, or at least spend so long looking at it that we pass the two year deadline.
The bit that blows my mind is that the EP can apparently amend the deal, how does that work when the CoE and the UK already have found something they can both live with.
Presumably UKIP and perhaps Conservative MEPs will vote against the deal in the EU parliament on the basis that it is too mean to the UK.
Possibly, and other blocks will vote against it because its too generous.
An amendment that said: "no, this isn't good enough, so the government is instructed to withdraw the Article 50 notice forthwith and Britain will stay in the EU instead".
Such a withdrawal notice would probably not be legally effective but politically it probably would be.
It would be politically effective for the few weeks before the opposition became the government, and then was landed with the legal (and political) problem.
I'm sure they'd be happy to have the legal and political problem then.
Do you think so? I'm not so sure, it would be the humdinger of all nightmares if as a result we crashed out anyway with no deal. In that scenario they couldn't escape blame.
I do think so. They'd expect a fair wind from Brussels in the circumstances. I expect they'd see it as well worth the gamble.
What would a 'fair wind' mean? The EU would hardly be incentivised to make concessions in that scenario.
1) The EU would prefer Britain in the EU than out, all things considered. 2) It would prefer to strengthen pro-EU forces in Britain against those opposed to the EU. 3) There would be an emotional sense of relief at the departure of what the EU no doubt sees as those awful Tories.
The EU would be incentivised to be fairly magnanimous.
In such circumstances, if the EU is magmanimous the EU will win a lot of friends in the UK it might not have had before - especially if polls are indicating that voters are not happy with the deal the government has negotiated.
That said, if we have got to the point where a deal with the EU27 has been agreed it is likely to be pretty much on the EU’s terms.
To be clear, I think this is all fantasy. I'm not expecting a deal.
The EU is not going to offer a deal that is politically acceptable to the UK.
Best to start preparing for no deal/WTO arrangements.
Mecedes, Audi,Volkeswagen and BMW cars will be 10% more expensive in the UK.
An amendment that said: "no, this isn't good enough, so the government is instructed to withdraw the Article 50 notice forthwith and Britain will stay in the EU instead".
Such a withdrawal notice would probably not be legally effective but politically it probably would be.
It would be politically effective for the few weeks before the opposition became the government, and then was landed with the legal (and political) problem.
I'm sure they'd be happy to have the legal and political problem then.
Do you think so? I'm not so sure, it would be the humdinger of all nightmares if as a result we crashed out anyway with no deal. In that scenario they couldn't escape blame.
I do think so. They'd expect a fair wind from Brussels in the circumstances. I expect they'd see it as well worth the gamble.
What would a 'fair wind' mean? The EU would hardly be incentivised to make concessions in that scenario.
1) The EU would prefer Britain in the EU than out, all things considered. 2) It would prefer to strengthen pro-EU forces in Britain against those opposed to the EU. 3) There would be an emotional sense of relief at the departure of what the EU no doubt sees as those awful Tories.
The EU would be incentivised to be fairly magnanimous.
In such circumstances, if the EU is magmanimous the EU will win a lot of friends in the UK it might not have had before - especially if polls are indicating that voters are not happy with the deal the government has negotiated.
That said, if we have got to the point where a deal with the EU27 has been agreed it is likely to be pretty much on the EU’s terms.
To be clear, I think this is all fantasy. I'm not expecting a deal.
The EU is not going to offer a deal that is politically acceptable to the UK.
Best to start preparing for no deal/WTO arrangements.
Mecedes, Audi,Volkeswagen and BMW cars will be 10% more expensive in the UK.
RE those bringing up the IRA and Corbyn being a ‘Marxist’ - Corbyn’s supporters are unlikely to have lived through, or remembered the days where IRA bombed places in the UK, or indeed the fall of communism. I only know about these things because of (a. my interest in politics (b. my mum having discussions with me about them. On top of that, Corbyn’s more hardcore supporters see successive governments association with Saudi Arabia, and Thatcher’s association with Pinochet as morally equivalent (edit: actually, thinking about it - they see it as worse) to Corbyn’s IRA association. That’s a message which gets relayed down to his less hardcore supporters meaning that to this group, the moral distinctions that Conservatives and others feel exist between them and Corbyn on these kinds of matters evaporate in the eyes of Corbyn’s biggest and more lukewarm supporters.
I think the term ‘Marxist’ would mean nothing at all, to most people actually - how many ordinary voters do you know who could provide a specific definition of Marxism? Then there’s the matter that if you've grown up in the post-crash years, it’s is likely that it won’t be Marxism that will be the dirty word, but rather capitalism or, more specifically ‘neo-liberalism’. It will be that system that many will associate with hardship, a lack of social mobility and unfairness.
Then there’s the fact that many of these anti-Corbyn stories tended to be printed in outlets such as the Mail, and the right wing press more generally - sources of information that Corbyn’s voters by and large aren’t reading and don’t take seriously. The Tories have a real problem that their cheerleaders in the press are seen as joke by many of those who aren’t old.
One could argue the NHS is Marxist ideology supported by all the main political parties.Each main party picks and mixes from many traditions of thought namely , Conservatism , Liberalism, social reformism and Marxism.
Mr. rkrkrk, the weirdest finding (from years ago so no link, alas) I remember from the US was on trust. It was about how likely you were to give a lift to a hitchhiker if they were X. The least trusted, being tied on dodginess, categories were rapists and atheists.
I cannot fathom the thinking (I use the term generously) that can't separate in moral terms people who don't believe in a god, and people who are violent sex attackers. But there we are.
Well God was a violent sex offender.
He impregnated Mary without her consent.
Coming to this late but...
Actually, Luke says God did not impregnate Mary without consent. Gabriel tells her she will conceive, not that she has conceived. Mary asks how this will happen and Gabriel explains, again using the future tense. Mary responds, "I am the Lord's servant. May your word to me be fulfilled." (New International Version)
You've got your mother in a whirl She's not sure if you're a boy or a girl Hey babe, your hair's alright Hey babe, let's go out tonight You like me, and I like it all
We like dancing and we look divine You love bands when they're playing hard You want more and you want it fast They put you down, they say I'm wrong You tacky thing, you put them on
Rebel Rebel, you've torn your dress Rebel Rebel, your face is a mess Rebel Rebel, how could they know? Hot tramp, I love you so!
An amendment that said: "no, this isn't good enough, so the government is instructed to withdraw the Article 50 notice forthwith and Britain will stay in the EU instead".
Such a withdrawal notice would probably not be legally effective but politically it probably would be.
It would be politically effective for the few weeks before the opposition became the government, and then was landed with the legal (and political) problem.
I'm sure they'd be happy to have the legal and political problem then.
Do you think so? I'm not so sure, it would be the humdinger of all nightmares if as a result we crashed out anyway with no deal. In that scenario they couldn't escape blame.
I do think so. They'd expect a fair wind from Brussels in the circumstances. I expect they'd see it as well worth the gamble.
What would a 'fair wind' mean? The EU would hardly be incentivised to make concessions in that scenario.
1) The EU would prefer Britain in the EU than out, all things considered. 2) It would prefer to strengthen pro-EU forces in Britain against those opposed to the EU. 3) There would be an emotional sense of relief at the departure of what the EU no doubt sees as those awful Tories.
The EU would be incentivised to be fairly magnanimous.
In such circumstances, if the EU is magmanimous the EU will win a lot of friends in the UK it might not have had before - especially if polls are indicating that voters are not happy with the deal the government has negotiated.
That said, if we have got to the point where a deal with the EU27 has been agreed it is likely to be pretty much on the EU’s terms.
To be clear, I think this is all fantasy. I'm not expecting a deal.
The EU is not going to offer a deal that is politically acceptable to the UK.
Best to start preparing for no deal/WTO arrangements.
Mecedes, Audi,Volkeswagen and BMW cars will be 10% more expensive in the UK.
"“It smells of decline, and the people won’t have it."
I very much doubt Mrs May appreciated that bon mot.
He added that he supports Theresa May “to the hilt” and urged the party to seize the middle ground in politics, adding: “We have to give people something to vote for.”
The "middle ground" is contaminated - it gave us Iraq, the financial crisis and austerity. It nticity in politics.
I agree.
That said people are overstating the extent to which authenticity will get votes. People will respect authenticity, but they have to, you know, agree with what you’re actually saying. Corbyn's supporters didn’t just vote for him because he’s ‘authentic’. They did so because tapped into their disaffection with the current economic status quo, and their dislike of a hardline Hard Brexit agenda and the social conservatism that comes with that. The question, as I’ve said before for the JRM fans who believe in his electability, is who is left out there that buys into his world view, but isn’t voting Tory? And are there enough of them, in the right places under FPTP to get the Tories a majority come the next GE? Because JRM is not going to win over those younger voters who are against a Hard Brexit, who are socially liberal, and those who no longer believe in the economic status quo. Indeed his view simply seems to align with those who already vote Conservative, and thus the possibilities to broaden the Conservative’s coalition of voters seems limited if he were to become leader.
42% for May was below par, 42% for Rees Mogg on a traditionalist, socially conservative, pro Brexit agenda would be an astonishing achievement. It is all about exceeding expectations as is the case with Corbyn.
I do not think today's "concession" has any value. What if Parliament rejects a deal ? Brexit with no deal will happen anyway or, worse, the "deal" could still be implemented.
Parliament must have the right to call a new referendum to approve the deal.
And if the public say no? We're still out without a deal.
The second referendum would be a choice between two options:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins then Art.50 is revoked. [ as long as the second referendum took place before 29th March 2019.
This presupposes Parliament do not reject any deal but invites through an amendment a referendum with the above choices.
And how are you going to revoke A50
It seems to me the hard reality is sinking in that it is deal or no deal
By creating an Act of Parliament.
Parliament will pass an Act in early February either directly through a bill or an amendment to a suitable bill to hold a referendum in early March.
The questions will be framed as such:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government or, if there is no deal
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins, an act of Parliament will invoke Art.50 before 29th March.
I do not think today's "concession" has any value. What if Parliament rejects a deal ? Brexit with no deal will happen anyway or, worse, the "deal" could still be implemented.
Parliament must have the right to call a new referendum to approve the deal.
On the contrary - if the EU gives us an unfavourable deal then we will have the spectacle of Remainer MPs voting down the EU's offer as unacceptable.
There have been three polls taken after the story which put Moore ahead, one tied, and one putting Jones ahead. I think that Moore would have to rape a boy to have a real chance of losing.
"“It smells of decline, and the people won’t have it."
I very much doubt Mrs May appreciated that bon mot.
He added that he supports Theresa May “to the hilt” and urged the party to seize the middle ground in politics, adding: “We have to give people something to vote for.”
The "middle ground" is contaminated - it gave us Iraq, the financial crisis and austerity. It is seen by many as being populated by identikit politicians whose ore authenticity in politics.
I agree.
That said people are overstating the extent to which authenticity will get votes. People will respect authenticity, but they have to, you know, agree with what you’re actually saying. Corbyn's supporters didn’t just vote for him because he’s ‘authentic’. They did so because tapped into their disaffection with the current economic status quo, and their dislike of a hardline Hard Brexit agenda and the social conservatism that comes with that. The question, as I’ve said before for the JRM fans who believe in his electability, is who is left out there that buys into his world view, but isn’t voting Tory? And are there enough of them, in the right places under FPTP to get the Tories a majority come the next GE? Because JRM is not going to win over those younger voters who are against a Hard Brexit, who are socially liberal, and those who no longer believe in the economic status quo. Indeed his view simply seems to align with those who already vote Conservative, and thus the possibilities to broaden the Conservative’s coalition of voters seems limited if he were to become leader.
42% for May was below par, 42% for Rees Mogg on a very socially conservative, traditionalist, pro Brexit platform would be an astonishing achievement. It is all about exceeding expectations as Corbyn discovered
There have been three polls taken after the story which put Moore ahead, one tied, and one putting Jones ahead. I think that Moore would have to rape a boy to have a real chance of losing.
As a result of the referendum the Uk voted to leave the UK. Any further choice by parliament or by a second referendum is a choice between the negotiated settlement and WTO rules.
And if MPs amend the bill to say the government shall hold a second referendum to decide whether to accept the terms negotiated or stay in. What happens then? Is this at all possible or plausible?
As a result of the referendum the Uk voted to leave the UK. Any further choice by parliament or by a second referendum is a choice between the negotiated settlement and WTO rules.
So the only two options are LEAVE with a deal or LEAVE without a deal. There's no provision to continue negotiation toward getting a better deal. Time's up - we either accept whatever thin gruel is dished up to us by David Davis or we walk out to WTO rules.
Well, if that's not putting the metaphorical gun to everyone's heads I'm not sure what is. I agree with Dominic Grieve about as often as it snows in July but he seems to be talking some sense here.
The A50 timeline can be extended by mutual consent - it's May who is acting all tough for reasons to which I'm not party - and since presumably both the UK and the EU want a deal that works for both sides why not allow extra time for that deal to happen ?
The EU 27 are not going to change their negotiating position because the Uk parliament votes against the deal.
Best to action a non deal/WTO arrangement and then negotiate a trade deal from a position of strength with EU exporters applying pressure to the EU.
I do not think today's "concession" has any value. What if Parliament rejects a deal ? Brexit with no deal will happen anyway or, worse, the "deal" could still be implemented.
Parliament must have the right to call a new referendum to approve the deal.
And if the public say no? We're still out without a deal.
The second referendum would be a choice between two options:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins then Art.50 is revoked. [ as long as the second referendum took place before 29th March 2019.
This presupposes Parliament do not reject any deal but invites through an amendment a referendum with the above choices.
And how are you going to revoke A50
It seems to me the hard reality is sinking in that it is deal or no deal
By creating an Act of Parliament.
Parliament will pass an Act in early February either directly through a bill or an amendment to a suitable bill to hold a referendum in early March.
The questions will be framed as such:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government or, if there is no deal
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins, an act of Parliament will invoke Art.50 before 29th March.
As a result of the referendum the Uk voted to leave the UK. Any further choice by parliament or by a second referendum is a choice between the negotiated settlement and WTO rules.
And if MPs amend the bill to say the government shall hold a second referendum to decide whether to accept the terms negotiated or stay in. What happens then? Is this at all possible or plausible?
There have been three polls taken after the story which put Moore ahead, one tied, and one putting Jones ahead. I think that Moore would have to rape a boy to have a real chance of losing.
On live TV!
I suppose if he said he was gay, or pro- choice, or an atheist, or voted for Hillary, that would lose him the election.
There have been three polls taken after the story which put Moore ahead, one tied, and one putting Jones ahead. I think that Moore would have to rape a boy to have a real chance of losing.
Alabama has voted Republican at every Presidential election since 1976. For a Democrat to be ahead in even one poll in an Alabama Senate race is astonishing. If Jones actually won it it would be an even bigger story than Scott Brown's shock win in Massachusetts in 2010, a state which had not voted for a Republican at the Presidential level since 1984
The question, as I’ve said before for the JRM fans who believe in his electability, is who is left out there that buys into his world view, but isn’t voting Tory? And are there enough of them, in the right places under FPTP to get the Tories a majority come the next GE? Because JRM is not going to win over those younger voters who are against a Hard Brexit, who are socially liberal, and those who no longer believe in the economic status quo. Indeed his view simply seems to align with those who already vote Conservative, and thus the possibilities to broaden the Conservative’s coalition of voters seems limited if he were to become leader.
That is only half the question. Election can be won either by motivating younger voters to vote Tory (which is a tall order for any Conservative at the moment) or by firing up the base and getting them to turn out (which JRM will do wonderfully). They could win a majority by getting the same number of younger voters out as before and pulling the oldies off their couches in droves, especially since they are more likely to be registered, and more likely to vote.
Mrs Indigo Snr's blue rinse set will be down the polling booths like a shot to vote for that nice well spoken Mr Rees-Mogg.
I don’t really agree. The Conservatives already ran a pretty right wing campaign on issues such as Brexit and immigration - a kind of campaign designed to get their vote out. People can mention the dementia tax but the polling shows it didn’t make much truck with older voters - it was the younger voters who seemed to dislike it more. The narrative about older voters being more likely being registered to vote, and being more likely to vote was narrative that also featured during the GE and the reality is it didn’t stop the Conservatives from losing their majority. The danger is the more you attempt to appeal to the instincts of the base, the more you act as a recruiting Sargeant for the opposition - this is what happened during the GE, where the hardline agenda on Brexit if anything further motivated voters to coalesce around Corbyn as a means of protesting it. Then there’s the matter of FPTP. The Tories actually increased their vote share with older voters last time, and were able to motivate them to come out and support them in the same way you say JRM will. The trouble is, under FPTP, Labour’s increases with younger voters seem to be the thing which made the difference - despite increasing their share of the vote with the oldies, the Tories lost seats, while Labour in increasing their share with younger voters, won seats.
"“It smells of decline, and the people won’t have it."
I very much doubt Mrs May appreciated that bon mot.
He added that he supports Theresa May “to the hilt” and urged the party to seize the middle ground in politics, adding: “We have to give people something to vote for.”
The "middle ground" is contaminated - it gave us Iraq, the financial crisis and austerity. It is seen by many as being populated by identikit politicians whose ore authenticity in politics.
I agree.
That said people are overstating the extent to which authenticity will get votes. People will respect authenticity, but they have to, you know, agree with what you’re actually saying. Corbyn's supporters didn’t just vote for him because he’s ‘authentic’. They did so because tapped into their disaffection with the current economic status quo, and their dislike of a hardline Hard Brexit agenda and the social conservatism that comes with that. The question, as I’ve said before for the JRM fans who believe in his electability, is who is left out there that buys into his world view, but isn’t voting Tory? And are there enough of them, in the right places under FPTP to get the Tories a majority come the next GE? Because JRM is not going to win over those younger voters who are against a Hard Brexit, who are socially liberal, and those who no longer believe in the economic status quo. Indeed his view simply seems to align with those who already vote Conservative, and thus the possibilities to broaden the Conservative’s coalition of voters seems limited if he were to become leader.
42% for May was below par, 42% for Rees Mogg on a very socially conservative, traditionalist, pro Brexit platform would be an astonishing achievement. It is all about exceeding expectations as Corbyn discovered
i think that both Trump and Corbyn have demonstrated that there are unconventional paths to victory.
What noise is she hearing from the rebels? Perhaps this song ........
Ramona, come closer Shut softly your watery eyes The pangs of your sadness Will pass as your senses will rise The flowers of the city Though breathlike, get deathlike at times And there's no use in tryin' To deal with the dyin' Though I cannot explain that in lines.
I am not big on Nobodaddy studies, but I think the answer is that that isn't ex cathedra so it's not binding doctrine, It's just the Pope riffing on the theme in his capacity of fallible human being. Either jrm will get himself an all-purpose pass on the basis of my deeply held faith is personal to me and separate from my public life, or he won't, but sniping on the basis of vatican policy is not going to bringhim down.
As a result of the referendum the Uk voted to leave the UK. Any further choice by parliament or by a second referendum is a choice between the negotiated settlement and WTO rules.
And if MPs amend the bill to say the government shall hold a second referendum to decide whether to accept the terms negotiated or stay in. What happens then? Is this at all possible or plausible?
I do not think today's "concession" has any value. What if Parliament rejects a deal ? Brexit with no deal will happen anyway or, worse, the "deal" could still be implemented.
Parliament must have the right to call a new referendum to approve the deal.
And if the public say no? We're still out without a deal.
The second referendum would be a choice between two options:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins then Art.50 is revoked. [ as long as the second referendum took place before 29th March 2019.
This presupposes Parliament do not reject any deal but invites through an amendment a referendum with the above choices.
And how are you going to revoke A50
It seems to me the hard reality is sinking in that it is deal or no deal
By creating an Act of Parliament.
Parliament will pass an Act in early February either directly through a bill or an amendment to a suitable bill to hold a referendum in early March.
The questions will be framed as such:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government or, if there is no deal
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins, an act of Parliament will invoke Art.50 before 29th March.
The question, as I’ve said before for the JRM fans who believe in his electability, is who is left out there that buys into his world view, but isn’t voting Tory? And are there enough of them, in the right places under FPTP to get the Tories a majority come the next GE? Because JRM is not going to win over those younger voters who are against a Hard Brexit, who are socially liberal, and those who no longer believe in the economic status quo. Indeed his view simply seems to align with those who already vote Conservative, and thus the possibilities to broaden the Conservative’s coalition of voters seems limited if he were to become leader.
That is only half the question. Election can be won either by motivating younger voters to vote Tory (which is a tall order for any Conservative at the moment) or by firing up the base and getting them to turn out (which JRM will do wonderfully). They could win a majority by getting the same number specially since they are more likely to be registered, and more likely to vote.
Mrs Indigo Snr's blue rinse set will be down the polling booths like a shot to vote for that nice well spoken Mr Rees-Mogg.
I don’t really agree. The Conservatives already ran a pretty right wing campaign on issues such as Brexit and immigration - a kind of campaign designed to get their vote out. People can mention the dementia tax but the polling shows it didn’t make much truck with older voters - it was the younger voters who seemed to dislike it more. The narrative about older voters being more likely being registered to vote, and being more likely to vote was narrative that also featured during the GE and the reality is it didn’t stop the Conservatives from losing their majority. The danger is the more you attempt to appeal to the instincts of the base, the more you act as a recruiting Sargeant for the opposition - this is what happened during the GE, where the hardline agenda on Brexit if anything further motivated voters to coalesce around Corbyn as a means of protesting it. Then there’s the matter of FPTP. The Tories actually increased their vote share with older voters last time, and were able to motivate them to come out and support them in the same way you say JRM will. The trouble is, under FPTP, Labour’s increases with younger voters seem to be the thing which made the difference - despite increasing their share of the vote with the oldies, the Tories lost seats, while Labour in increasing their share with younger voters, won seats.
However, turnout fell slightly among older voters.
The key group were voters in their forties, who were massively pro-Conservative at the outset, but broke narrowly for Labour at the end. They were the ones who were furious about the care proposals.
There have been three polls taken after the story which put Moore ahead, one tied, and one putting Jones ahead. I think that Moore would have to rape a boy to have a real chance of losing.
On live TV!
Remember Jerry Lee Lewis married a thirteen year old girl - prior to being divorced from his wife. He remained very popular.
I do not think today's "concession" has any value. What if Parliament rejects a deal ? Brexit with no deal will happen anyway or, worse, the "deal" could still be implemented.
Parliament must have the right to call a new referendum to approve the deal.
And if the public say no? We're still out without a deal.
The second referendum would be a choice between two options:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins then Art.50 is revoked. [ as long as the second referendum took place before 29th March 2019.
This presupposes Parliament do not reject any deal but invites through an amendment a referendum with the above choices.
And how are you going to revoke A50
It seems to me the hard reality is sinking in that it is deal or no deal
By creating an Act of Parliament.
Parliament will pass an Act in early February either directly through a bill or an amendment to a suitable bill to hold a referendum in early March.
The questions will be framed as such:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government or, if there is no deal
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins, an act of Parliament will invoke Art.50 before 29th March.
Legally nothing will have happened by then.
It cannot revoke A50
The EU says it can. Tusk himself said so.
No one has said it can - some think it can but it would need 27 states to agree and the EP
I do not think today's "concession" has any value. What if Parliament rejects a deal ? Brexit with no deal will happen anyway or, worse, the "deal" could still be implemented.
Parliament must have the right to call a new referendum to approve the deal.
And if the public say no? We're still out without a deal.
The second referendum would be a choice between two options:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins then Art.50 is revoked. [ as long as the second referendum took place before 29th March 2019.
This presupposes Parliament do not reject any deal but invites through an amendment a referendum with the above choices.
And how are you going to revoke A50
It seems to me the hard reality is sinking in that it is deal or no deal
By creating an Act of Parliament.
Parliament will pass an Act in early February either directly through a bill or an amendment to a suitable bill to hold a referendum in early March.
The questions will be framed as such:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government or, if there is no deal
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins, an act of Parliament will invoke Art.50 before 29th March.
Legally nothing will have happened by then.
Legally something has already happened, we have already invoked Article 50.
Let's say we decide that we want to reverse Article 50, the French say no you've messed us around enough we want you out now so we can't get a unanimous agreement as required by A50 and then the ECJ says A50 can't be reversed. What happens then?
The Tories need Rees Mogg in charge. It’s the only way to tame their right flank. Ultimately, the Conservative party is deeply pragmatic. It will see how the Moggster and his policies fare under the harsh, unstinting glare of the spotlight and will move back to the centre.
People said the same about Labour under Corbyn
The Tories are surely a lot more pragmatic than Labour. Even now. Aren’t they?
No, most Tory members I know now are fed up of having been typecast as the 'establishment' for the best part of a decade and what a leader who is authentic and says what they believe in
I do not think today's "concession" has any value. What if Parliament rejects a deal ? Brexit with no deal will happen anyway or, worse, the "deal" could still be implemented.
Parliament must have the right to call a new referendum to approve the deal.
And if the public say no? We're still out without a deal.
The second referendum would be a choice between two options:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins then Art.50 is revoked. [ as long as the second referendum took place before 29th March 2019.
This presupposes Parliament do not reject any deal but invites through an amendment a referendum with the above choices.
And how are you going to revoke A50
It seems to me the hard reality is sinking in that it is deal or no deal
By creating an Act of Parliament.
Parliament will pass an Act in early February either directly through a bill or an amendment to a suitable bill to hold a referendum in early March.
The questions will be framed as such:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government or, if there is no deal
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins, an act of Parliament will invoke Art.50 before 29th March.
Legally nothing will have happened by then.
It cannot revoke A50
The EU says it can. Tusk himself said so.
No one has said it can - some think it can but it would need 27 states to agree and the EP
No-one needs to say it, quite clearly if the will of Parliament is to revoke it, then the EU would have the burden upon it to prove that the Vienna Convention does not apply to the TFEU. Except it wouldn't bother, because the northern states want us in to keep the present balance.
I do not think today's "concession" has any value. What if Parliament rejects a deal ? Brexit with no deal will happen anyway or, worse, the "deal" could still be implemented.
Parliament must have the right to call a new referendum to approve the deal.
And if the public say no? We're still out without a deal.
The second referendum would be a choice between two options:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins then Art.50 is revoked. [ as long as the second referendum took place before 29th March 2019.
This presupposes Parliament do not reject any deal but invites through an amendment a referendum with the above choices.
And how are you going to revoke A50
It seems to me the hard reality is sinking in that it is deal or no deal
By creating an Act of Parliament.
Parliament will pass an Act in early February either directly through a bill or an amendment to a suitable bill to hold a referendum in early March.
The questions will be framed as such:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government or, if there is no deal
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins, an act of Parliament will invoke Art.50 before 29th March.
Legally nothing will have happened by then.
It cannot revoke A50
The EU says it can. Tusk himself said so.
No one has said it can - some think it can but it would need 27 states to agree and the EP
If UK wants to remain in the EU, all 27 will agree !
Mrs Indigo Snr's blue rinse set will be down the polling booths like a shot to vote for that nice well spoken Mr Rees-Mogg.
I don’t really agree. The Conservatives already ran a pretty right wing campaign on issues such as Brexit and immigration - a kind of campaign designed to get their vote out. People can mention the dementia tax but the polling shows it didn’t make much truck with older voters - it was the younger voters who seemed to dislike it more. The narrative about older voters being more likely being registered to vote, and being more likely to vote was narrative that also featured during the GE and the reality is it didn’t stop the Conservatives from losing their majority. The danger is the more you attempt to appeal to the instincts of the base, the more you act as a recruiting Sargeant for the opposition - this is what happened during the GE, where the hardline agenda on Brexit if anything further motivated voters to coalesce around Corbyn as a means of protesting it. Then there’s the matter of FPTP. The Tories actually increased their vote share with older voters last time, and were able to motivate them to come out and support them in the same way you say JRM will. The trouble is, under FPTP, Labour’s increases with younger voters seem to be the thing which made the difference - despite increasing their share of the vote with the oldies, the Tories lost seats, while Labour in increasing their share with younger voters, won seats.
However, turnout fell slightly among older voters.
The key group were voters in their forties, who were massively pro-Conservative at the outset, but broke narrowly for Labour at the end. They were the ones who were furious about the care proposals.
Many people think they should not have to pay for their own accommodation and day to day living expenses when they get old and that the government should pay this for them.
@HYUFD It’s more than just about exceeding expectations. It’s important to remember that Corbyn actually did much better than Ed Miliband did. While him matching Ed M would have still likely have seen him keep his job, I doubt many would think he that would be in with a chance of winning the next GE if that’s all he’d have done. You’re getting a lot of the ‘fanfare’ around Corbyn now because he exceeded expectations to such an extent that people think he might get into government/win a majority.
There are unconventional ways of winning, but the potential route to power offered by supporters of JRM is hardly unconventional. Appealing to older, more socially conservative voters is something we’ve been told is the basis for winning a majority for some time now. That all you need is affluent baby boomers/silent generation, and the WWC vote, and that’s it = significant majority. If anything it’s Corbyn’s coalition and means of gaining votes which was highly unconventional.
I do not think today's "concession" has any value. What if Parliament rejects a deal ? Brexit with no deal will happen anyway or, worse, the "deal" could still be implemented.
Parliament must have the right to call a new referendum to approve the deal.
And if the public say no? We're still out without a deal.
The second referendum would be a choice between two options:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins then Art.50 is revoked. [ as long as the second referendum took place before 29th March 2019.
This presupposes Parliament do not reject any deal but invites through an amendment a referendum with the above choices.
And how are you going to revoke A50
It seems to me the hard reality is sinking in that it is deal or no deal
By creating an Act of Parliament.
Parliament will pass an Act in early February either directly through a bill or an amendment to a suitable bill to hold a referendum in early March.
The questions will be framed as such:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government or, if there is no deal
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins, an act of Parliament will invoke Art.50 before 29th March.
Legally nothing will have happened by then.
It cannot revoke A50
The EU says it can. Tusk himself said so.
No one has said it can - some think it can but it would need 27 states to agree and the EP
If UK wants to remain in the EU, all 27 will agree !
Why - because they love us ? Or just love our contributions ?
I do not think today's "concession" has any value. What if Parliament rejects a deal ? Brexit with no deal will happen anyway or, worse, the "deal" could still be implemented.
Parliament must have the right to call a new referendum to approve the deal.
And if the public say no? We're still out without a deal.
The second referendum would be a choice between two options:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins then Art.50 is revoked. [ as long as the second referendum took place before 29th March 2019.
This presupposes Parliament do not reject any deal but invites through an amendment a referendum with the above choices.
And how are you going to revoke A50
It seems to me the hard reality is sinking in that it is deal or no deal
By creating an Act of Parliament.
Parliament will pass an Act in early February either directly through a bill or an amendment to a suitable bill to hold a referendum in early March.
The questions will be framed as such:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government or, if there is no deal
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins, an act of Parliament will invoke Art.50 before 29th March.
Legally nothing will have happened by then.
It cannot revoke A50
The EU says it can. Tusk himself said so.
No one has said it can - some think it can but it would need 27 states to agree and the EP
The question, as I’ve said before for the JRM fans who believe in his electability, is who is left out there that buys into his world view, but isn’t voting Tory? And are there enough of them, in the right places under FPTP to get the Tories a majority come the next GE? Because JRM is not going to win over those younger voters who are against a Hard Brexit, who are socially liberal, and those who no longer believe in the economic status quo. Indeed his view simply seems to align with those who already vote Conservative, and thus the possibilities to broaden the Conservative’s coalition of voters seems limited if he were to become leader.
Mrs Indigo Snr's blue rinse set will be down the polling booths like a shot to vote for that nice well spoken Mr Rees-Mogg.
I don’t really agree. The Conservatives already ran a pretty right wing campaign on issues such as Brexit and immigration - a kind of campaign designed to get their vote out. People can mention the dementia tax but the polling shows it didn’t make much truck with older voters - it was the younger voters who seemed to dislike it more. The narrative about older voters being more likely being registered to vote, and being more likely to vote was narrative that also featured during the GE and the reality is it didn’t stop the Conservatives from losing their majority. The danger is the more you attempt to appeal to the instincts of the base, the more you act as a recruiting Sargeant for the opposition - this is what happened during the GE, where the hardline agenda on Brexit if anything further motivated voters to coalesce around Corbyn as a means of protesting it. Then there’s the matter of FPTP. The Tories actually increased their vote share with older voters last time, and were able to motivate them to come out and support them in the same way you say JRM will. The trouble is, under FPTP, Labour’s increases with younger voters seem to be the thing which made the difference - despite increasing their share of the vote with the oldies, the Tories lost seats, while Labour in increasing their share with younger voters, won seats.
However, turnout fell slightly among older voters.
The key group were voters in their forties, who were massively pro-Conservative at the outset, but broke narrowly for Labour at the end. They were the ones who were furious about the care proposals.
...and seeing their children having to pay for tuition fees.
The next election will be decided on housing. Only those already owning house[s], can buy another house now.
I think Davis is more likely to succeed May as PM, hence he is joint favourite with Mogg but if and when the Tories go back into opposition Mogg must be favourite to become Leader of the Opposition to Corbyn's Premiership.
Can you imagine what odds you would have got on your last sentence coming true say three years ago? It still boggles the mind when you think how much has changed in the political scene recently
A product of the 2008 Crash, austerity and Brexit.
The question, as I’ve said before for the JRM fans who believe in his electability, is who is left out there that buys into his world view, but isn’t voting Tory? And are there enough of them, in the right places under FPTP to get the Tories a majority come the next GE? Because JRM is not going to win over those younger voters who are against a Hard Brexit, who are socially liberal, and those who no longer believe in the economic status quo. Indeed his view simply seems to align with those who already vote Conservative, and thus the possibilities to broaden the Conservative’s coalition of voters seems limited if he were to become leader.
Mrs Indigo Snr's blue rinse set will be down the polling booths like a shot to vote for that nice well spoken Mr Rees-Mogg.
I don’t really agree. The Conservatives already ran a pretty right wing campaign on issues such as Brexit and immigration - a kind of campaign designed to get their vote out. People can mention the dementia tax but the polling shows it didn’t make much truck with older voters - it was the younger voters who seemed to dislike it more. The narrative about older voters being more likely being registered to vote, and being more likely to vote was narrative that also featured during the GE and the reality is it didn’t stop the Conservatives from losing their majority. The danger is the more you attempt to appeal to the instincts of the base, the more you act as a recruiting Sargeant for the opposition - this is what happened during the GE, where the hardline agenda on Brexit if anything further motivated voters to coalesce around Corbyn as a means of protesting it. Then there’s the matter of FPTP. The Tories actually increased their vote share with older voters last time, and were able to motivate them to come out and support them in the same way you say JRM will. The trouble is, under FPTP, Labour’s increases with younger voters seem to be the thing which made the difference - despite increasing their share of the vote with the oldies, the Tories lost seats, while Labour in increasing their share with younger voters, won seats.
However, turnout fell slightly among older voters.
The key group were voters in their forties, who were massively pro-Conservative at the outset, but broke narrowly for Labour at the end. They were the ones who were furious about the care proposals.
...and seeing their children having to pay for tuition fees.
The next election will be decided on housing. Only those already owning house[s], can buy another house now.
Unless they have a well above average salary or parental or grandparental assistance with a deposit
I do not think today's "concession" has any value. What if Parliament rejects a deal ? Brexit with no deal will happen anyway or, worse, the "deal" could still be implemented.
Parliament must have the right to call a new referendum to approve the deal.
And if the public say no? We're still out without a deal.
The second referendum would be a choice between two options:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins then Art.50 is revoked. [ as long as the second referendum took place before 29th March 2019.
This presupposes Parliament do not reject any deal but invites through an amendment a referendum with the above choices.
And how are you going to revoke A50
It seems to me the hard reality is sinking in that it is deal or no deal
By creating an Act of Parliament.
Parliament will pass an Act in early February either directly through a bill or an amendment to a suitable bill to hold a referendum in early March.
The questions will be framed as such:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government or, if there is no deal
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins, an act of Parliament will invoke Art.50 before 29th March.
Legally nothing will have happened by then.
It cannot revoke A50
The EU says it can. Tusk himself said so.
No one has said it can - some think it can but it would need 27 states to agree and the EP
If UK wants to remain in the EU, all 27 will agree !
Just as the French agreed to let us in originally. Oh wait no they didn't.
If we were to grovel to be allowed to stay afterall then it would be a devastating humiliation that many would seek to take advantage of. Eg sure you can stay ... If you surrender the rebate and your opt outs ....
I do not think today's "concession" has any value. What if Parliament rejects a deal ? Brexit with no deal will happen anyway or, worse, the "deal" could still be implemented.
Parliament must have the right to call a new referendum to approve the deal.
And if the public say no? We're still out without a deal.
The second referendum would be a choice between two options:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins then Art.50 is revoked. [ as long as the second referendum took place before 29th March 2019.
This presupposes Parliament do not reject any deal but invites through an amendment a referendum with the above choices.
And how are you going to revoke A50
It seems to me the hard reality is sinking in that it is deal or no deal
By creating an Act of Parliament.
Parliament will pass an Act in early February either directly through a bill or an amendment to a suitable bill to hold a referendum in early March.
The questions will be framed as such:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government or, if there is no deal
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins, an act of Parliament will invoke Art.50 before 29th March.
Legally nothing will have happened by then.
It cannot revoke A50
The EU says it can. Tusk himself said so.
No one has said it can - some think it can but it would need 27 states to agree and the EP
I do not think today's "concession" has any value. What if Parliament rejects a deal ? Brexit with no deal will happen anyway or, worse, the "deal" could still be implemented.
Parliament must have the right to call a new referendum to approve the deal.
And if the public say no? We're still out without a deal.
The second referendum would be a choice between two options:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins then Art.50 is revoked. [ as long as the second referendum took place before 29th March 2019.
This presupposes Parliament do not reject any deal but invites through an amendment a referendum with the above choices.
And how are you going to revoke A50
It seems to me the hard reality is sinking in that it is deal or no deal
By creating an Act of Parliament.
Parliament will pass an Act in early February either directly through a bill or an amendment to a suitable bill to hold a referendum in early March.
The questions will be framed as such:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government or, if there is no deal
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins, an act of Parliament will invoke Art.50 before 29th March.
Legally nothing will have happened by then.
It cannot revoke A50
The EU says it can. Tusk himself said so.
No one has said it can - some think it can but it would need 27 states to agree and the EP
I do not think today's "concession" has any value. What if Parliament rejects a deal ? Brexit with no deal will happen anyway or, worse, the "deal" could still be implemented.
Parliament must have the right to call a new referendum to approve the deal.
And if the public say no? We're still out without a deal.
The second referendum would be a choice between two options:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins then Art.50 is revoked. [ as long as the second referendum took place before 29th March 2019.
This presupposes Parliament do not reject any deal but invites through an amendment a referendum with the above choices.
And how are you going to revoke A50
It seems to me the hard reality is sinking in that it is deal or no deal
By creating an Act of Parliament.
Parliament will pass an Act in early February either directly through a bill or an amendment to a suitable bill to hold a referendum in early March.
The questions will be framed as such:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government or, if there is no deal
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins, an act of Parliament will invoke Art.50 before 29th March.
Legally nothing will have happened by then.
Legally something has already happened, we have already invoked Article 50.
Let's say we decide that we want to reverse Article 50, the French say no you've messed us around enough we want you out now so we can't get a unanimous agreement as required by A50 and then the ECJ says A50 can't be reversed. What happens then?
Answer is we crash out without a deal.
I am not aware of a single country who would not want is in. There maybe trouble within the UK, but revoking before the 29th of March 2019 is definitely possible.
It is going that way, anyway. No one knowingly wants to commit suicide which is the other alternative.
I do not think today's "concession" has any value. What if Parliament rejects a deal ? Brexit with no deal will happen anyway or, worse, the "deal" could still be implemented.
Parliament must have the right to call a new referendum to approve the deal.
And if the public say no? We're still out without a deal.
The second referendum would be a choice between two options:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins then Art.50 is revoked. [ as long as the second referendum took place before 29th March 2019.
This presupposes Parliament do not reject any deal but invites through an amendment a referendum with the above choices.
And how are you going to revoke A50
It seems to me the hard reality is sinking in that it is deal or no deal
By creating an Act of Parliament.
Parliament will pass an Act in early February either directly through a bill or an amendment to a suitable bill to hold a referendum in early March.
The questions will be framed as such:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government or, if there is no deal
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins, an act of Parliament will invoke Art.50 before 29th March.
Legally nothing will have happened by then.
It cannot revoke A50
The EU says it can. Tusk himself said so.
No one has said it can - some think it can but it would need 27 states to agree and the EP
I do not think today's "concession" has any value. What if Parliament rejects a deal ? Brexit with no deal will happen anyway or, worse, the "deal" could still be implemented.
Parliament must have the right to call a new referendum to approve the deal.
And if the public say no? We're still out without a deal.
The second referendum would be a choice between two options:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins then Art.50 is revoked. [ as long as the second referendum took place before 29th March 2019.
This presupposes Parliament do not reject any deal but invites through an amendment a referendum with the above choices.
And how are you going to revoke A50
It seems to me the hard reality is sinking in that it is deal or no deal
By creating an Act of Parliament.
Parliament will pass an Act in early February either directly through a bill or an amendment to a suitable bill to hold a referendum in early March.
The questions will be framed as such:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government or, if there is no deal
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins, an act of Parliament will invoke Art.50 before 29th March.
Legally nothing will have happened by then.
It cannot revoke A50
The EU says it can. Tusk himself said so.
No one has said it can - some think it can but it would need 27 states to agree and the EP
At least one of 27 states might object if they fear continual invoke article 50 then revoke it uncertainty continues scenario. But if the second referendum settles the matter that problem disappears. We'll allow you to stay but only if you give up your rebate might be a position some would want to adopt but would it look too much like extortion?
@HYUFD It’s more than just about exceeding expectations. It’s important to remember that Corbyn actually did much better than Ed Miliband did. While him matching Ed M would have still likely have seen him keep his job, I doubt many would think he that would be in with a chance of winning the next GE if that’s all he’d have done. You’re getting a lot of the ‘fanfare’ around Corbyn now because he exceeded expectations to such an extent that people think he might get into government/win a majority.
There are unconventional ways of winning, but the potential route to power offered by supporters of JRM is hardly unconventional. Appealing to older, more socially conservative voters is something we’ve been told is the basis for winning a majority for some time now. That all you need is affluent baby boomers/silent generation, and the WWC vote, and that’s it = significant majority. If anything it’s Corbyn’s coalition and means of gaining votes which was highly unconventional.
Ed Miliband got 30% of the vote, the second lowest Labour voteshare for 28 years, the 42% May got was the highest Tory voteshare for 34 years, a totally different proposition.
At the moment Corbyn is not going to win a majority on current polling even with the government's current problems, that gives plenty of room for Rees Mogg to challenge
I do not think today's "concession" has any value. What if Parliament rejects a deal ? Brexit with no deal will happen anyway or, worse, the "deal" could still be implemented.
Parliament must have the right to call a new referendum to approve the deal.
And if the public say no? We're still out without a deal.
The second referendum would be a choice between two options:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins then Art.50 is revoked. [ as long as the second referendum took place before 29th March 2019.
This presupposes Parliament do not reject any deal but invites through an amendment a referendum with the above choices.
And how are you going to revoke A50
It seems to me the hard reality is sinking in that it is deal or no deal
By creating an Act of Parliament.
Parliament will pass an Act in early February either directly through a bill or an amendment to a suitable bill to hold a referendum in early March.
The questions will be framed as such:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government or, if there is no deal
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins, an act of Parliament will invoke Art.50 before 29th March.
Legally nothing will have happened by then.
It cannot revoke A50
The EU says it can. Tusk himself said so.
No one has said it can - some think it can but it would need 27 states to agree and the EP
Without wishing to worry Big G before his operation...
Macron, Italian PM, German FM, head of European Parliament have all said it could be reversed.
The simple reality is the EU don’t want us gone - if we change our minds, I think they’d find a way for us to stay.
You think they'd let us keep the rebate?
The path of least resistance would be to leave everything as it is. If one country wants rebates, then another wants financial regulation, blah blah blah. So yes probably.
He doesn't technically say we can decide that unilaterally. It would probably require unanimity of the 28 which may be forthcoming but also may not.
Brexit is a total mess. Any opportunity to minimise the mess would likely be followed up. If that meant taking the UK back then a way would be found. Personally, I think that they would be mad to take us back unless the Tory party completely imploded. Without a complete change at the top, the EU is best rid of us and our xenophobically toxic right-wing politicians.
I do not think today's "concession" has any value. What if Parliament rejects a deal ? Brexit with no deal will happen anyway or, worse, the "deal" could still be implemented.
Parliament must have the right to call a new referendum to approve the deal.
And if the public say no? We're still out without a deal.
The second referendum would be a choice between two options:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins then Art.50 is revoked. [ as long as the second referendum took place before 29th March 2019.
This presupposes Parliament do not reject any deal but invites through an amendment a referendum with the above choices.
And how are you going to revoke A50
It seems to me the hard reality is sinking in that it is deal or no deal
By creating an Act of Parliament.
Parliament will pass an Act in early February either directly through a bill or an amendment to a suitable bill to hold a referendum in early March.
The questions will be framed as such:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government or, if there is no deal
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins, an act of Parliament will invoke Art.50 before 29th March.
Legally nothing will have happened by then.
It cannot revoke A50
The EU says it can. Tusk himself said so.
No one has said it can - some think it can but it would need 27 states to agree and the EP
If UK wants to remain in the EU, all 27 will agree !
Just as the French agreed to let us in originally. Oh wait no they didn't.
If we were to grovel to be allowed to stay afterall then it would be a devastating humiliation that many would seek to take advantage of. Eg sure you can stay ... If you surrender the rebate and your opt outs ....
They also may factor in that we the voters don't really want to stay in - just our MPs.
And that a voting down of the deal by those MPs may not be the end of the matter.
"“It smells of decline, and the people won’t have it."
I very much doubt Mrs May appreciated that bon mot.
He added that he supports Theresa May “to the hilt” and urged the party to seize the middle ground in politics, adding: “We have to give people something to vote for.”
The "middle ground" is contaminated - it gave us Iraq, the financial crisis and austerity. It is seen by many as being populated by identikit politicians whose ore authenticity in politics.
I agree.
That said people are overstating the extent to which authenticity will get votes. People will respect authenticity, but they have to, you know, agree with what you’re actually saying. Corbyn's supporters didn’t just vote for him because he’s ‘authentic’. They did so because tapped into their disaffection with the current economic status quo, and their dislike of a hardline Hard Brexit agenda and the social conservatism that comes with that. The question, as I’ve said before for the JRM fans who believe in his electability, is who is left out there that buys into his world view, but isn’t voting Tory? And are there enough of them, in the right places under FPTP to get the Tories a majority come the next GE? Because JRM is not going to win over those younger voters who are against a Hard Brexit, who are socially liberal, and those who no longer believe in the economic status quo. Indeed his view simply seems to align with those who already vote Conservative, and thus the possibilities to broaden the Conservative’s coalition of voters seems limited if he were to become leader.
42% for May was below par, 42% for Rees Mogg on a very socially conservative, traditionalist, pro Brexit platform would be an astonishing achievement. It is all about exceeding expectations as Corbyn discovered
i think that both Trump and Corbyn have demonstrated that there are unconventional paths to victory.
I do not think today's "concession" has any value. What if Parliament rejects a deal ? Brexit with no deal will happen anyway or, worse, the "deal" could still be implemented.
Parliament must have the right to call a new referendum to approve the deal.
And if the public say no? We're still out without a deal.
The second referendum would be a choice between two options:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins then Art.50 is revoked. [ as long as the second referendum took place before 29th March 2019.
This presupposes Parliament do not reject any deal but invites through an amendment a referendum with the above choices.
And how are you going to revoke A50
It seems to me the hard reality is sinking in that it is deal or no deal
By creating an Act of Parliament.
Parliament will pass an Act in early February either directly through a bill or an amendment to a suitable bill to hold a referendum in early March.
The questions will be framed as such:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government or, if there is no deal
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins, an act of Parliament will invoke Art.50 before 29th March.
Legally nothing will have happened by then.
Legally something has already happened, we have already invoked Article 50.
Let's say we decide that we want to reverse Article 50, the French say no you've messed us around enough we want you out now so we can't get a unanimous agreement as required by A50 and then the ECJ says A50 can't be reversed. What happens then?
Answer is we crash out without a deal.
I am not aware of a single country who would not want is in. There maybe trouble within the UK, but revoking before the 29th of March 2019 is definitely possible.
It is going that way, anyway. No one knowingly wants to commit suicide which is the other alternative.
There are many who have been unhappy with what they perceive as the special treatment of the UK and it's rebate, opt outs etc and view us as a break on integration they're happy to see the back of. Plus don't forget our exit times with the negotiations for the next budget round. If you honestly think they won't try and take as much advantage of us begging to remain as they are seeking an exit deal then you are naive.
He doesn't technically say we can decide that unilaterally. It would probably require unanimity of the 28 which may be forthcoming but also may not.
Brexit is a total mess. Any opportunity to minimise the mess would likely be followed up. If that meant taking the UK back then a way would be found. Personally, I think that they would be mad to take us back unless the Tory party completely imploded. Without a complete change at the top, the EU is best rid of us and our xenophobically toxic right-wing politicians.
The EU is better for having Britain and they know it. They all have their own toxic right wing politicians (indeed much worse than ours in many countries) - I don’t think that bothers them so much.
I do not think today's "concession" has any value. What if Parliament rejects a deal ? Brexit with no deal will happen anyway or, worse, the "deal" could still be implemented.
Parliament must have the right to call a new referendum to approve the deal.
And if the public say no? We're still out without a deal.
The second referendum would be a choice between two options:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins then Art.50 is revoked. [ as long as the second referendum took place before 29th March 2019.
This presupposes Parliament do not reject any deal but invites through an amendment a referendum with the above choices.
And how are you going to revoke A50
It seems to me the hard reality is sinking in that it is deal or no deal
By creating an Act of Parliament.
Parliament will pass an Act in early February either directly through a bill or an amendment to a suitable bill to hold a referendum in early March.
The questions will be framed as such:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government or, if there is no deal
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins, an act of Parliament will invoke Art.50 before 29th March.
Legally nothing will have happened by then.
Legally something has already happened, we have already invoked Article 50.
Let's say we decide that we want to reverse Article 50, the French say no you've messed us around enough we want you out now so we can't get a unanimous agreement as required by A50 and then the ECJ says A50 can't be reversed. What happens then?
Answer is we crash out without a deal.
I am not aware of a single country who would not want is in. There maybe trouble within the UK, but revoking before the 29th of March 2019 is definitely possible.
It is going that way, anyway. No one knowingly wants to commit suicide which is the other alternative.
There are many who have been unhappy with what they perceive as the special treatment of the UK and it's rebate, opt outs etc and view us as a break on integration they're happy to see the back of. Plus don't forget our exit times with the negotiations for the next budget round. If you honestly think they won't try and take as much advantage of us begging to remain as they are seeking an exit deal then you are naive.
They will negotiate. But we will agree. By that time the horrors of leaving will be there for all to see.
@Sean_F Yes, but the point is that it being said /implied more oldies voting Tory = Tory majority. While turnout among older voters fell slightly, this didn’t lead to less older voters voting Tory - more actually did.
I’ve had a similar exhange with HYUFD re those voters in their early forties/late thirties and with other Conservatives as well. I think after the last campaign, the Conservatives would be well advised to not rely on one section of voters turning out for them as a means to win a majority. The evidence appears to suggest that the Conservative’s losing a range of support from several demographics - Conservative Remainers, under 45 voters generally, and even going backwards with minorities all contributed to the loss of their majority in some way.
The path of least resistance would be to leave everything as it is. If one country wants rebates, then another wants financial regulation, blah blah blah. So yes probably.
They won't want the path of least resistance if we are begging to stay they will have us over the barrel. Our rebate is history no matter what - either we leave and it's gone, or we give it up as penance for Article 50 to be allowed to stay.
He doesn't technically say we can decide that unilaterally. It would probably require unanimity of the 28 which may be forthcoming but also may not.
Brexit is a total mess. Any opportunity to minimise the mess would likely be followed up. If that meant taking the UK back then a way would be found. Personally, I think that they would be mad to take us back unless the Tory party completely imploded. Without a complete change at the top, the EU is best rid of us and our xenophobically toxic right-wing politicians.
There are far more bluntly xenophobic politicians in many of the 27 States than there are here.
I do not think today's "concession" has any value. What if Parliament rejects a deal ? Brexit with no deal will happen anyway or, worse, the "deal" could still be implemented.
Parliament must have the right to call a new referendum to approve the deal.
And if the public say no? We're still out without a deal.
The second referendum would be a choice between two options:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins then Art.50 is revoked. [ as long as the second referendum took place before 29th March 2019.
This presupposes Parliament do not reject any deal but invites through an amendment a referendum with the above choices.
No thanks. We already had a vote to leave. The only reasonable vote now would be on whether to accept or reject the deal. If reject then we leave without a deal.
I do not think today's "concession" has any value. What if Parliament rejects a deal ? Brexit with no deal will happen anyway or, worse, the "deal" could still be implemented.
Parliament must have the right to call a new referendum to approve the deal.
And if the public say no? We're still out without a deal.
The second referendum would be a choice between two options:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins then Art.50 is revoked. [ as long as the second referendum took place before 29th March 2019.
This presupposes Parliament do not reject any deal but invites through an amendment a referendum with the above choices.
And how are you going to revoke A50
It seems to me the hard reality is sinking in that it is deal or no deal
By creating an Act of Parliament.
Parliament will pass an Act in early February either directly through a bill or an amendment to a suitable bill to hold a referendum in early March.
The questions will be framed as such:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government or, if there is no deal
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins, an act of Parliament will invoke Art.50 before 29th March.
Legally nothing will have happened by then.
It cannot revoke A50
The EU says it can. Tusk himself said so.
No one has said it can - some think it can but it would need 27 states to agree and the EP
Without wishing to worry Big G before his operation...
Macron, Italian PM, German FM, head of European Parliament have all said it could be reversed.
The simple reality is the EU don’t want us gone - if we change our minds, I think they’d find a way for us to stay.
You think they'd let us keep the rebate?
No. That's the irony. We had special status in the EU - effectively we had the cake and was eating it.
Our special status was only to partially make up for how badly the EUs funding formulae were taking advantage of our generosity. We were still net financially much worse off than the French despite a comparable economy and population etc
Comments
Anyway, I must venture forth into the cold and the darkness.
As it was shown, all the BBC employees fail this test.
Just so terrible
Parliament must have the right to call a new referendum to approve the deal.
That said people are overstating the extent to which authenticity will get votes. People will respect authenticity, but they have to, you know, agree with what you’re actually saying. Corbyn's supporters didn’t just vote for him because he’s ‘authentic’. They did so because tapped into their disaffection with the current economic status quo, and their dislike of a hardline Hard Brexit agenda and the social conservatism that comes with that. The question, as I’ve said before for the JRM fans who believe in his electability, is who is left out there that buys into his world view, but isn’t voting Tory? And are there enough of them, in the right places under FPTP to get the Tories a majority come the next GE? Because JRM is not going to win over those younger voters who are against a Hard Brexit, who are socially liberal, and those who no longer believe in the economic status quo. Indeed his view simply seems to align with those who already vote Conservative, and thus the possibilities to broaden the Conservative’s coalition of voters seems limited if he were to become leader.
I think the term ‘Marxist’ would mean nothing at all, to most people actually - how many ordinary voters do you know who could provide a specific definition of Marxism? Then there’s the matter that if you've grown up in the post-crash years, it’s is likely that it won’t be Marxism that will be the dirty word, but rather capitalism or, more specifically ‘neo-liberalism’. It will be that system that many will associate with hardship, a lack of social mobility and unfairness.
Then there’s the fact that many of these anti-Corbyn stories tended to be printed in outlets such as the Mail, and the right wing press more generally - sources of information that Corbyn’s voters by and large aren’t reading and don’t take seriously. The Tories have a real problem that their cheerleaders in the press are seen as joke by many of those who aren’t old.
Steve Jones said this did not commence on the night of 3rd November 2017
This story is terrible for the family and friends of Carl Sargeant
As a result of the referendum the Uk voted to leave the UK. Any further choice by parliament or by a second referendum is a choice between the negotiated settlement and WTO rules.
A convoy included some of IS’s most notorious members and – despite reassurances – dozens of foreign fighters. Some of those have spread out across Syria, even making it as far as Turkey.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/raqqas_dirty_secret
Mrs Indigo Snr's blue rinse set will be down the polling booths like a shot to vote for that nice well spoken Mr Rees-Mogg.
Well, if that's not putting the metaphorical gun to everyone's heads I'm not sure what is. I agree with Dominic Grieve about as often as it snows in July but he seems to be talking some sense here.
The A50 timeline can be extended by mutual consent - it's May who is acting all tough for reasons to which I'm not party - and since presumably both the UK and the EU want a deal that works for both sides why not allow extra time for that deal to happen ?
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins then Art.50 is revoked. [ as long as the second referendum took place before 29th March 2019.
This presupposes Parliament do not reject any deal but invites through an amendment a referendum with the above choices.
Presumably UKIP and perhaps Conservative MEPs will vote against the deal in the EU parliament on the basis that it is too mean to the UK.
Very very unlikely
Best to start preparing for no deal/WTO arrangements.
Mecedes, Audi,Volkswagen and BMW cars will be 10% more expensive in the UK.
It seems to me the hard reality is sinking in that it is deal or no deal
Actually, Luke says God did not impregnate Mary without consent. Gabriel tells her she will conceive, not that she has conceived. Mary asks how this will happen and Gabriel explains, again using the future tense. Mary responds, "I am the Lord's servant. May your word to me be fulfilled." (New International Version)
And there is definitely no evidence of violence.
You've got your mother in a whirl
She's not sure if you're a boy or a girl
Hey babe, your hair's alright
Hey babe, let's go out tonight
You like me, and I like it all
We like dancing and we look divine
You love bands when they're playing hard
You want more and you want it fast
They put you down, they say I'm wrong
You tacky thing, you put them on
Rebel Rebel, you've torn your dress
Rebel Rebel, your face is a mess
Rebel Rebel, how could they know?
Hot tramp, I love you so!
https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/11/10/pope-francis-nuclear-weapons-betray-mentality-fear/
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24926/jacob_rees-mogg/north_east_somerset/divisions?policy=984
Parliament will pass an Act in early February either directly through a bill or an amendment to a suitable bill to hold a referendum in early March.
The questions will be framed as such:
1. Leave the EU based on a deal agreed by the government or, if there is no deal
2. Remain in the EU
If 2. wins, an act of Parliament will invoke Art.50 before 29th March.
Legally nothing will have happened by then.
https://twitter.com/rockinrob7970/status/930133353134723073?s=17
Best to action a non deal/WTO arrangement and then negotiate a trade deal from a position of strength with EU exporters applying pressure to the EU.
Delicious...
Ramona, come closer
Shut softly your watery eyes
The pangs of your sadness
Will pass as your senses will rise
The flowers of the city
Though breathlike, get deathlike at times
And there's no use in tryin'
To deal with the dyin'
Though I cannot explain that in lines.
The key group were voters in their forties, who were massively pro-Conservative at the outset, but broke narrowly for Labour at the end. They were the ones who were furious about the care proposals.
Heh.
And if they do, the next step is likely the EU telling remainer MPs to sod off.
Heh heh.
Let's say we decide that we want to reverse Article 50, the French say no you've messed us around enough we want you out now so we can't get a unanimous agreement as required by A50 and then the ECJ says A50 can't be reversed. What happens then?
Answer is we crash out without a deal.
Au Contraire.....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-reversed-uk-donald-tusk-european-council-president-leave-eu-theresa-may-commons-mps-a8016691.html
There are unconventional ways of winning, but the potential route to power offered by supporters of JRM is hardly unconventional. Appealing to older, more socially conservative voters is something we’ve been told is the basis for winning a majority for some time now. That all you need is affluent baby boomers/silent generation, and the WWC vote, and that’s it = significant majority. If anything it’s Corbyn’s coalition and means of gaining votes which was highly unconventional.
The next election will be decided on housing. Only those already owning house[s], can buy another house now.
If we were to grovel to be allowed to stay afterall then it would be a devastating humiliation that many would seek to take advantage of. Eg sure you can stay ... If you surrender the rebate and your opt outs ....
Macron, Italian PM, German FM, head of European Parliament have all said it could be reversed.
The simple reality is the EU don’t want us gone - if we change our minds, I think they’d find a way for us to stay.
It is going that way, anyway. No one knowingly wants to commit suicide which is the other alternative.
It is still possible to get 3 bedroom houses here with a deposit of 7k.
At the moment Corbyn is not going to win a majority on current polling even with the government's current problems, that gives plenty of room for Rees Mogg to challenge
If one country wants rebates, then another wants financial regulation, blah blah blah.
So yes probably.
And that a voting down of the deal by those MPs may not be the end of the matter.
They all have their own toxic right wing politicians (indeed much worse than ours in many countries) - I don’t think that bothers them so much.
I’ve had a similar exhange with HYUFD re those voters in their early forties/late thirties and with other Conservatives as well. I think after the last campaign, the Conservatives would be well advised to not rely on one section of voters turning out for them as a means to win a majority. The evidence appears to suggest that the Conservative’s losing a range of support from several demographics - Conservative Remainers, under 45 voters generally, and even going backwards with minorities all contributed to the loss of their majority in some way.
Here’s one example of this, a pretty interesting analysis IMHO: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/why-theresa-mays-gamble-at-the-polls-failed/