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.
Should be a fun second referendum with the rebate gone - £350M a week becomes £425M.....
"“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.
Unless they have a well above average salary or parental or grandparental assistance with a deposit
Or buy in the North etc.
It is still possible to get 3 bedroom houses here with a deposit of 7k.
Yes house prices in the North East have actually fallen over the last decade
In Chiswick [ London W4 ], house prices have gone up 51% after inflation since 2007. In Surbiton, a measly 28%.
We have many living in this nation who have travelled thousands of miles to make a home here. What's stopping those in Chiswick moving less than a hundred miles if they want to reside somewhere cheaper?
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.
Option 2 isn’t on the table. The EU would screw the UK for every rebate/concession it has. Say goodbye to Sterling, say hello to Schengen.
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.
It’s a strange thing about Brexiteers. They believe the EU is getting a great deal out of the UK being a member. And also believe the EU won’t let us stay on the same terms.
I think it’s a likely outcome if we change our minds.
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?
Not in any time scale before 29th March 2019
So you are saying the bill would have to be amended to say something like:
'The government should seek an extension to the 29th March 2019 deadline, and if an adequate extension is successfully negotiated then the government shall hold a second referendum to decide whether to accept the terms negotiated or stay in.'
If this amendment was passed would any of the 27 states refuse to agree to the extension or of the UK staying in if the referendum went that way. I doubt any would object to what would be an easy way for them to get the problem to disappear.
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.
That's your point of view. Legally, we could easily have another referendum passed by Parliament and if people decide to remain in the EU, there will be time to revoke Art.50 before 29th March, 2019.
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?
The problem certainly doesn't disappear. Because you will still have approximately 50% of the population who oppose EU membership (a proportion that will increase as the EU project continues towards statehood) and all that will need to happen is for the next Tory leader to promise they will invoke Article 50 again if they win at an election. Even the threat will be enough to ;leave the EU in a permanent state of uncertainty.
@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.
Were the Tories in opposition to a Corbyn minority government all bets would be off as to which voters would be in play next time, especially if the economy went sharply downhill
Unless they have a well above average salary or parental or grandparental assistance with a deposit
Or buy in the North etc.
It is still possible to get 3 bedroom houses here with a deposit of 7k.
Yes house prices in the North East have actually fallen over the last decade
In Chiswick [ London W4 ], house prices have gone up 51% after inflation since 2007. In Surbiton, a measly 28%.
We have many living in this nation who have travelled thousands of miles to make a home here. What's stopping those in Chiswick moving less than a hundred miles if they want to reside somewhere cheaper?
Leave London ? Heaven forbid. How did such a thought enter your mind ?
@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 wasn’t comparing Ed M and TMay, but Corbyn and JRM - I was trying to make the point that just as it wasn’t enough for Corbyn to match Labour’s previous voteshare, it won’t be enough for JRM. I think there is little doubt among most political observers that the Conservatives current coalition matches JRM thinking - so unlike Corbyn the narrative will not be framed in terms of JRM potentially losing existing Conservative support. Instead it will be about the extent to which he can appeal to new voters.
Corbyn was never going to poll 10+ points now, several months after a GE particularly since the impact of Brexit hasn’t actually been felt yet. But it’s also because the country is very much divided at the moment, and only the impact of Brexit can break that dam to make voters swing to one side or another. It should be considered remarkable that a man who was supposed to literally kill the Labour Party for a generation is now polling 40%+ with few friends in the press.
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.
In London maybe - you can buy here for 100,000 ish for starter homes
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.
It’s a strange thing about Brexiteers. They believe the EU is getting a great deal out of the UK being a member. And also believe the EU won’t let us stay on the same terms.
I think it’s a likely outcome if we change our minds.
The EU is getting a great deal but we will be on our knees without any alternatives if we need to stay. There is no good reason for the EU to agree to allow our rebate to continue if we are begging to stay.
Every single budget round many nations have sought to get our rebate abolished. In the past we could threaten to veto a budget if we didn't get a rebate. We have lost that chip now. We can't veto the budget if we are not members and we are automatically not members unless we agree to whatever 27 nations demand from us to be allowed to stay.
Option 2 isn’t on the table. The EU would screw the UK for every rebate/concession it has. Say goodbye to Sterling, say hello to Schengen.
That's your view based on what ? Anti-EU prejudice ?
What we were told would be the case for an independent Scotland wouldn't necessarily be the case for a re-joining UK. To be honest, saying the UK would have to join the Euro and accept Schengen to remain in the EU is as much fear-mongering as anything REMAIN came up with in the 2016 referendum.
@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 wasn’t comparing Ed M and TMay, but Corbyn and JRM - I was trying to make the point that just as it wasn’t enough for Corbyn to match Labour’s previous voteshare, it won’t be enough for JRM. I think there is little doubt among most political observers that the Conservatives current coalition matches JRM thinking - so unlike Corbyn the narrative will not be framed in terms of JRM potentially losing existing Conservative support. Instead it will be about the extent to which he can appeal to new voters.
Corbyn was never going to poll 10+ points now, several months after a GE particularly since the impact of Brexit hasn’t actually been felt yet. But it’s also because the country is very much divided at the moment, and only the impact of Brexit can break that dam to make voters swing to one side or another. It should be considered remarkable that a man who was supposed to literally kill the Labour Party for a generation is now polling 40%+ with few friends in the press.
It would be equally remarkable for a politician whose views on social issues are set permanently in 1950 to get to 40%+ too. Corbyn v Mogg would be a choice of returning to the 1970s or the 1950s
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.
That's your point of view. Legally, we could easily have another referendum passed by Parliament and if people decide to remain in the EU, there will be time to revoke Art.50 before 29th March, 2019.
Not unilaterally. Article 50 can be invoked unilaterally but it says explicitly in the Treaty that to extend out membership requires unanimity.
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.
You mean those BMWs that are made in South Africa?
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.
They are not the ones leaving! The EU is stuck with that lot.
Option 2 isn’t on the table. The EU would screw the UK for every rebate/concession it has. Say goodbye to Sterling, say hello to Schengen.
That's your view based on what ? Anti-EU prejudice ?
What we were told would be the case for an independent Scotland wouldn't necessarily be the case for a re-joining UK. To be honest, saying the UK would have to join the Euro and accept Schengen to remain in the EU is as much fear-mongering as anything REMAIN came up with in the 2016 referendum.
I agree about Schengen and the Euro but the rebate is another matter. Our rebate is openly hated overseas and there is zero reason for the EU to allow us to stay with a rebate. All 27 nations would be better off if we lose the rebate so why wouldn't they insist upon it?
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.
Thats nice of you but my only worry is that democracy would be over ruled by the elite and the blackmail of the EU causing very serious consequences from those who felt betrayed
It’s a strange thing about Brexiteers. They believe the EU is getting a great deal out of the UK being a member. And also believe the EU won’t let us stay on the same terms.
A classic case of cognitive dissonance. Having bought into the pup that is Brexit, the last thing they want to hear is that they made a bad decision.
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.
It’s a strange thing about Brexiteers. They believe the EU is getting a great deal out of the UK being a member. And also believe the EU won’t let us stay on the same terms.
I think it’s a likely outcome if we change our minds.
The EU is getting a great deal but we will be on our knees without any alternatives if we need to stay. There is no good reason for the EU to agree to allow our rebate to continue if we are begging to stay.
Every single budget round many nations have sought to get our rebate abolished. In the past we could threaten to veto a budget if we didn't get a rebate. We have lost that chip now. We can't veto the budget if we are not members and we are automatically not members unless we agree to whatever 27 nations demand from us to be allowed to stay.
On the contrary - we will be able to say - we stay on existing terms or leave. You can have 10bn or nada. Given they wanted us to stay before - it’s an easy decision for the EU.
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.
60,000 neo nazis marching in Warsaw at the weekend was horrific
Option 2 isn’t on the table. The EU would screw the UK for every rebate/concession it has. Say goodbye to Sterling, say hello to Schengen.
That's your view based on what ? Anti-EU prejudice ?
What we were told would be the case for an independent Scotland wouldn't necessarily be the case for a re-joining UK. To be honest, saying the UK would have to join the Euro and accept Schengen to remain in the EU is as much fear-mongering as anything REMAIN came up with in the 2016 referendum.
I agree about Schengen and the Euro but the rebate is another matter. Our rebate is openly hated overseas and there is zero reason for the EU to allow us to stay with a rebate. All 27 nations would be better off if we lose the rebate so why wouldn't they insist upon it?
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 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.
It’s a strange thing about Brexiteers. They believe the EU is getting a great deal out of the UK being a member. And also believe the EU won’t let us stay on the same terms.
I think it’s a likely outcome if we change our minds.
The EU is getting a great deal but we will be on our knees without any alternatives if we need to stay. There is no good reason for the EU to agree to allow our rebate to continue if we are begging to stay.
Every single budget round many nations have sought to get our rebate abolished. In the past we could threaten to veto a budget if we didn't get a rebate. We have lost that chip now. We can't veto the budget if we are not members and we are automatically not members unless we agree to whatever 27 nations demand from us to be allowed to stay.
On the contrary - we will be able to say - we stay on existing terms or leave. You can have 10bn or nada. Given they wanted us to stay before - it’s an easy decision for the EU.
We could if the government was negotiating that. If a second referendum has resulted in a stay vote we can't say that as the EU 27 would know threatening to leave was a bluff.
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 wasn’t comparing Ed M and TMay, but Corbyn and JRM - I was trying to make the point that just as it wasn’t enough for Corbyn to match Labour’s previous voteshare, it won’t be enough for JRM. I think there is little doubt among most political observers that the Conservatives current coalition matches JRM thinking - so unlike Corbyn the narrative will not be framed in terms of JRM potentially losing existing Conservative support. Instead it will be about the extent to which he can appeal to new voters.
Corbyn was never going to poll 10+ points now, several months after a GE particularly since the impact of Brexit hasn’t actually been felt yet. But it’s also because the country is very much divided at the moment, and only the impact of Brexit can break that dam to make voters swing to one side or another. It should be considered remarkable that a man who was supposed to literally kill the Labour Party for a generation is now polling 40%+ with few friends in the press.
It would be equally remarkable for a politician whose views on social issues are set permanently in 1950 to get to 40%+ too. Corbyn v Mogg would be a choice of returning to the 1970s or the 1950s
Given much of the Conservative vote sympathises with that world view of JRM, that is not so. The only issue I’ve seen evidence that the Tory base disagree with him on is abortion, and even then there is the likelihood that a lot of Conservative voters consider Brexit more important that current law on abortion continuing.
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?
The problem certainly doesn't disappear. Because you will still have approximately 50% of the population who oppose EU membership (a proportion that will increase as the EU project continues towards statehood) and all that will need to happen is for the next Tory leader to promise they will invoke Article 50 again if they win at an election. Even the threat will be enough to ;leave the EU in a permanent state of uncertainty.
And no UK government could promise that never again, would a successor not invoke A50.
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
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.
Thats nice of you but my only worry is that democracy would be over ruled by the elite and the blackmail of the EU causing very serious consequences from those who felt betrayed
It would be parliament doing the overruling. I would imagine they would also look for a second referendum for extra legitimacy or at least sustained polling of 65%+ Remain leads.
It’s therefore quite unlikely - but if it does happen, it will be because most people accept we made a mistake. So democracy will be fine.
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.
That's your point of view. Legally, we could easily have another referendum passed by Parliament and if people decide to remain in the EU, there will be time to revoke Art.50 before 29th March, 2019.
Not unilaterally. Article 50 can be invoked unilaterally but it says explicitly in the Treaty that to extend out membership requires unanimity.
Where does it say that? It says that any extension of the 2 year period starting with an Art 50 notification requires unanimity, but that's not the same thing. If revocation of an Art 50 notice is permitted, and happens, it will presumably be as if it had never been given in the first place.
Option 2 isn’t on the table. The EU would screw the UK for every rebate/concession it has. Say goodbye to Sterling, say hello to Schengen.
That's your view based on what ? Anti-EU prejudice ?
What we were told would be the case for an independent Scotland wouldn't necessarily be the case for a re-joining UK. To be honest, saying the UK would have to join the Euro and accept Schengen to remain in the EU is as much fear-mongering as anything REMAIN came up with in the 2016 referendum.
I agree about Schengen and the Euro but the rebate is another matter. Our rebate is openly hated overseas and there is zero reason for the EU to allow us to stay with a rebate. All 27 nations would be better off if we lose the rebate so why wouldn't they insist upon it?
I think we would lose our rebate.
The price to pay for this silly distraction we have committed. But then again, we would not have to pay £60bn up front and we keep our access, manufacturing and financial to the largest single bloc in the world. Other countries are queuing up to make a deal with the EU [ even the UK now ].
I agree about Schengen and the Euro but the rebate is another matter. Our rebate is openly hated overseas and there is zero reason for the EU to allow us to stay with a rebate. All 27 nations would be better off if we lose the rebate so why wouldn't they insist upon it?
So there's a bill if we go and a bill if we stay (so to speak). There will be those who think it curious the world's fifth largest economy cannot and should not be a net contributor to the EU if not to the extent of the world's fourth largest economy and it's reasonable to ask whether the world's seventh largest economy shouldn't be a net contributor as well.
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.
Should be a fun second referendum with the rebate gone - £350M a week becomes £425M.....
UM No. The £350 million a week included the rebate which was why it was such a stupid and dishonest figure to use. If you remove the rebate from the equation then the actual amount was £288 million a week.
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.
That's your point of view. Legally, we could easily have another referendum passed by Parliament and if people decide to remain in the EU, there will be time to revoke Art.50 before 29th March, 2019.
Not unilaterally. Article 50 can be invoked unilaterally but it says explicitly in the Treaty that to extend out membership requires unanimity.
Where does it say that? It says that any extension of the 2 year period starting with an Art 50 notification requires unanimity, but that's not the same thing. If revocation of an Art 50 notice is permitted, and happens, it will presumably be as if it had never been given in the first place.
What would be the point of limiting extensions to require unanimity if A50 could be revoked and immediately invoked with the same nett effect and no unanimity ?
Option 2 isn’t on the table. The EU would screw the UK for every rebate/concession it has. Say goodbye to Sterling, say hello to Schengen.
That's your view based on what ? Anti-EU prejudice ?
What we were told would be the case for an independent Scotland wouldn't necessarily be the case for a re-joining UK. To be honest, saying the UK would have to join the Euro and accept Schengen to remain in the EU is as much fear-mongering as anything REMAIN came up with in the 2016 referendum.
I agree about Schengen and the Euro but the rebate is another matter. Our rebate is openly hated overseas and there is zero reason for the EU to allow us to stay with a rebate. All 27 nations would be better off if we lose the rebate so why wouldn't they insist upon it?
I think we would lose our rebate.
The price to pay for this silly distraction we have committed. But then again, we would not have to pay £60bn up front and we keep our access, manufacturing and financial to the largest single bloc in the world. Other countries are queuing up to make a deal with the EU [ even the UK now ].
I agree. Brexit is a fool's fantasy, but I have resigned myself to watching the whole shambles with a good supply of wine and various nibbles...
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.
That's your point of view. Legally, we could easily have another referendum passed by Parliament and if people decide to remain in the EU, there will be time to revoke Art.50 before 29th March, 2019.
And then the next government can just invoke it again. I am sure the EU will just love that.
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.
That's your point of view. Legally, we could easily have another referendum passed by Parliament and if people decide to remain in the EU, there will be time to revoke Art.50 before 29th March, 2019.
Not unilaterally. Article 50 can be invoked unilaterally but it says explicitly in the Treaty that to extend out membership requires unanimity.
Where does it say that? It says that any extension of the 2 year period starting with an Art 50 notification requires unanimity, but that's not the same thing. If revocation of an Art 50 notice is permitted, and happens, it will presumably be as if it had never been given in the first place.
What would be the point of limiting extensions to require unanimity if A50 could be revoked and immediately invoked with the same nett effect and no unanimity ?
Search me. I didn't draft it but Lord Kerr did and he says it is revocable.
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.
That's your point of view. Legally, we could easily have another referendum passed by Parliament and if people decide to remain in the EU, there will be time to revoke Art.50 before 29th March, 2019.
Not unilaterally. Article 50 can be invoked unilaterally but it says explicitly in the Treaty that to extend out membership requires unanimity.
Where does it say that? It says that any extension of the 2 year period starting with an Art 50 notification requires unanimity, but that's not the same thing. If revocation of an Art 50 notice is permitted, and happens, it will presumably be as if it had never been given in the first place.
What would be the point of limiting extensions to require unanimity if A50 could be revoked and immediately invoked with the same nett effect and no unanimity ?
Search me. I didn't draft it but Lord Kerr did and he says it is revocable.
Option 2 isn’t on the table. The EU would screw the UK for every rebate/concession it has. Say goodbye to Sterling, say hello to Schengen.
That's your view based on what ? Anti-EU prejudice ?
What we were told would be the case for an independent Scotland wouldn't necessarily be the case for a re-joining UK. To be honest, saying the UK would have to join the Euro and accept Schengen to remain in the EU is as much fear-mongering as anything REMAIN came up with in the 2016 referendum.
I agree about Schengen and the Euro but the rebate is another matter. Our rebate is openly hated overseas and there is zero reason for the EU to allow us to stay with a rebate. All 27 nations would be better off if we lose the rebate so why wouldn't they insist upon it?
I think we would lose our rebate.
The price to pay for this silly distraction we have committed. But then again, we would not have to pay £60bn up front and we keep our access, manufacturing and financial to the largest single bloc in the world. Other countries are queuing up to make a deal with the EU [ even the UK now ].
So instead of paying £60 billion as a one off we would pay that same amount every three years for ever more.
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.
It’s a strange thing about Brexiteers. They believe the EU is getting a great deal out of the UK being a member. And also believe the EU won’t let us stay on the same terms.
I think it’s a likely outcome if we change our minds.
The EU is getting a great deal but we will be on our knees without any alternatives if we need to stay. There is no good reason for the EU to agree to allow our rebate to continue if we are begging to stay.
Every single budget round many nations have sought to get our rebate abolished. In the past we could threaten to veto a budget if we didn't get a rebate. We have lost that chip now. We can't veto the budget if we are not members and we are automatically not members unless we agree to whatever 27 nations demand from us to be allowed to stay.
On the contrary - we will be able to say - we stay on existing terms or leave. You can have 10bn or nada. Given they wanted us to stay before - it’s an easy decision for the EU.
We could if the government was negotiating that. If a second referendum has resulted in a stay vote we can't say that as the EU 27 would know threatening to leave was a bluff.
Well one option would be to secure a get back in deal before holding a referendum. It’s a bad idea to have a referendum where you don’t know if you can get an outcome you’re promising
In any case - Cameron managed to secure some concessions when they weren’t sure we would leave. Now they must be sure..
If we start demanding concessions to stay in like ending FOM then we won’t get anywhere. But otherwise I think a deal can be done. It’s kust much easier all round.
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.
That's your point of view. Legally, we could easily have another referendum passed by Parliament and if people decide to remain in the EU, there will be time to revoke Art.50 before 29th March, 2019.
Not unilaterally. Article 50 can be invoked unilaterally but it says explicitly in the Treaty that to extend out membership requires unanimity.
Where does it say that? It says that any extension of the 2 year period starting with an Art 50 notification requires unanimity, but that's not the same thing. If revocation of an Art 50 notice is permitted, and happens, it will presumably be as if it had never been given in the first place.
What would be the point of limiting extensions to require unanimity if A50 could be revoked and immediately invoked with the same nett effect and no unanimity ?
Search me. I didn't draft it but Lord Kerr did and he says it is revocable.
'It would be parliament doing the overruling. I would imagine they would also look for a second referendum for extra legitimacy or at least sustained polling of 65%+ Remain leads.
It’s therefore quite unlikely - but if it does happen, it will be because most people accept we made a mistake. So democracy will be fine.'
The country as now would be deeply divided and unfortunately however this is resolved it is likely to continue for years as remainers seek to rejoin or leavers seek to leave again
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.
That's your point of view. Legally, we could easily have another referendum passed by Parliament and if people decide to remain in the EU, there will be time to revoke Art.50 before 29th March, 2019.
Not unilaterally. Article 50 can be invoked unilaterally but it says explicitly in the Treaty that to extend out membership requires unanimity.
Where does it say that? It says that any extension of the 2 year period starting with an Art 50 notification requires unanimity, but that's not the same thing. If revocation of an Art 50 notice is permitted, and happens, it will presumably be as if it had never been given in the first place.
What would be the point of limiting extensions to require unanimity if A50 could be revoked and immediately invoked with the same nett effect and no unanimity ?
Search me. I didn't draft it but Lord Kerr did and he says it is revocable.
Given much of the Conservative vote sympathises with that world view of JRM, that is not so. The only issue I’ve seen evidence that the Tory base disagree with him on is abortion, and even then there is the likelihood that a lot of Conservative voters consider Brexit more important that current law on abortion continuing.
Abortion won't be an issue if JRM becomes leader - because he won't attempt to make it party policy to change the current law. Two reasons:
1) Con MPs wouldn't agree to it. 2) JRM will accept it's a matter of conscience - as it always has been. Indeed he has already said this.
It'll be a bit like Corbyn not supporting the Monarchy - it didn't become an issue at the GE because Corbyn accepted that he wouldn't attempt to impose his own views - JRM and abortion will be the same.
On the subject of no deal, I wonder if actually that outcome is the highest risk outcome for the EU. Suppose the UK crashes out, pays no further contributions and yet 2 years later, after some initial dislocation, the UK economy is doing ok and free trade agreements are coming to pass. That might make a number of other EU members thoughtful and much less likely to be bullied.
On another subject, how is it that Emma Dent Coad still has the whip? If a Tory had made such comments about a black Labour member the outrage from the left would have been deafening.
@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
Having dined out for ages telling us all that Boris is the perfect next PM, you're now going to do the same with JRM? Omg and lol.
'It would be parliament doing the overruling. I would imagine they would also look for a second referendum for extra legitimacy or at least sustained polling of 65%+ Remain leads.
It’s therefore quite unlikely - but if it does happen, it will be because most people accept we made a mistake. So democracy will be fine.'
The country as now would be deeply divided and unfortunately however this is resolved it is likely to continue for years as remainers seek to rejoin or leavers seek to leave again
I see no end to this saga
Not in my scenario.
Political arguments are never 100% over but on issues like the minimum wage, gay rights, abortion etc., things which were very controversial at the time but are now pretty settled.
If Brexit gets reversed it will be because it is very widely seen to be a huge error. There won’t then be much interest in going back over it.
On the subject of no deal, I wonder if actually that outcome is the highest risk outcome for the EU. Suppose the UK crashes out, pays no further contributions and yet 2 years later, after some initial dislocation, the UK economy is doing ok and free trade agreements are coming to pass. That might make a number of other EU members thoughtful and much less likely to be bullied.
On another subject, how is it that Emma Dent Coad still has the whip? If a Tory had made such comments about a black Labour member the outrage from the left would have been deafening.
I cannot understand how she has not been reported to the authorities for her outrageous comments
It is time a conservative mp called her out in the HOC
On the subject of no deal, I wonder if actually that outcome is the highest risk outcome for the EU. Suppose the UK crashes out, pays no further contributions and yet 2 years later, after some initial dislocation, the UK economy is doing ok and free trade agreements are coming to pass. That might make a number of other EU members thoughtful and much less likely to be bullied.
On another subject, how is it that Emma Dent Coad still has the whip? If a Tory had made such comments about a black Labour member the outrage from the left would have been deafening.
On the subject of no deal, I wonder if actually that outcome is the highest risk outcome for the EU. Suppose the UK crashes out, pays no further contributions and yet 2 years later, after some initial dislocation, the UK economy is doing ok and free trade agreements are coming to pass. That might make a number of other EU members thoughtful and much less likely to be bullied.
On another subject, how is it that Emma Dent Coad still has the whip? If a Tory had made such comments about a black Labour member the outrage from the left would have been deafening.
Dent Coad is a truly remarkably unpleasant piece of work. Someone on Facebook was trying to blame her on Momentum - even though she made these statements years before Momentum existed.
The hypocrisy of the Left on this is staggering - but not surprising.
'It would be parliament doing the overruling. I would imagine they would also look for a second referendum for extra legitimacy or at least sustained polling of 65%+ Remain leads.
It’s therefore quite unlikely - but if it does happen, it will be because most people accept we made a mistake. So democracy will be fine.'
The country as now would be deeply divided and unfortunately however this is resolved it is likely to continue for years as remainers seek to rejoin or leavers seek to leave again
I see no end to this saga
Not in my scenario.
Political arguments are never 100% over but on issues like the minimum wage, gay rights, abortion etc., things which were very controversial at the time but are now pretty settled.
If Brexit gets reversed it will be because it is very widely seen to be a huge error. There won’t then be much interest in going back over it.
Widely can only be seen in my view once we have left and the economic pluses and minuses become apparent and that is where a forced remain would run on tbe rocks as the evidence of failure ex EU has not been experienced
Political arguments are never 100% over but on issues like the minimum wage, gay rights, abortion etc., things which were very controversial at the time but are now pretty settled.
If Brexit gets reversed it will be because it is very widely seen to be a huge error. There won’t then be much interest in going back over it.
Not at all. A slight change - to give a reversal of the result in 2016 - would still leave almost 50% of the population angry at the result. And the EU is only ever going to go one way which is greater integration so that anger will only grow.
If you think that a second referendum would be the end of the matter then you really are deluded.
On the subject of no deal, I wonder if actually that outcome is the highest risk outcome for the EU. Suppose the UK crashes out, pays no further contributions and yet 2 years later, after some initial dislocation, the UK economy is doing ok and free trade agreements are coming to pass. That might make a number of other EU members thoughtful and much less likely to be bullied.
On another subject, how is it that Emma Dent Coad still has the whip? If a Tory had made such comments about a black Labour member the outrage from the left would have been deafening.
Dent Coad is a truly remarkably unpleasant piece of work. Someone on Facebook was trying to blame her on Momentum - even though she made these statements years before Momentum existed.
The hypocrisy of the Left on this is staggering - but not surprising.
Hasn't she also been quoted as a member of Grenfell TMO of approving the upgrading of the block
On the subject of no deal, I wonder if actually that outcome is the highest risk outcome for the EU. Suppose the UK crashes out, pays no further contributions and yet 2 years later, after some initial dislocation, the UK economy is doing ok and free trade agreements are coming to pass. That might make a number of other EU members thoughtful and much less likely to be bullied.
On another subject, how is it that Emma Dent Coad still has the whip? If a Tory had made such comments about a black Labour member the outrage from the left would have been deafening.
Dent Coad is a truly remarkably unpleasant piece of work. Someone on Facebook was trying to blame her on Momentum - even though she made these statements years before Momentum existed.
The hypocrisy of the Left on this is staggering - but not surprising.
Hasn't she also been quoted as a member of Grenfell TMO of approving the upgrading of the block
Political arguments are never 100% over but on issues like the minimum wage, gay rights, abortion etc., things which were very controversial at the time but are now pretty settled.
If Brexit gets reversed it will be because it is very widely seen to be a huge error. There won’t then be much interest in going back over it.
Not at all. A slight change - to give a reversal of the result in 2016 - would still leave almost 50% of the population angry at the result. And the EU is only ever going to go one way which is greater integration so that anger will only grow.
If you think that a second referendum would be the end of the matter then you really are deluded.
There will only be a second referendum if Remain would win in a landslide. If it would be 52-48 the other way then there just won’t be the momentum for it to happen.
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 wasn’t comparing Ed M and TMay, but Corbyn and JRM - I was trying to make the point that just as it wasn’t enough for Corbyn to match Labour’s previous voteshare, it won’t be enough for JRM. I think there is little doubt among most political observers that the Conservatives current coalition matches JRM thinking - so unlike Corbyn the narrative will not be framed in terms of JRM potentially losing existing Conservative support. Instead it will be about the extent to which he can appeal to new voters.
Corbyn was never going to poll 10+ points now, several months after a GE particularly since the impact of Brexit hasn’t actually been felt yet. But it’s also because the country is very much divided at the moment, and only the impact of Brexit can break that dam to make voters swing to one side or another. It should be considered remarkable that a man who was supposed to literally kill the Labour Party for a generation is now polling 40%+ with few friends in the press.
It would be equally remarkable for a politician whose views on social issues are set permanently in 1950 to get to 40%+ too. Corbyn v Mogg would be a choice of returning to the 1970s or the 1950s
Given much of the Conservative vote sympathises with that world view of JRM, that is not so. The only issue I’ve seen evidence that the Tory base disagree with him on is abortion, and even then there is the likelihood that a lot of Conservative voters consider Brexit more important that current law on abortion continuing.
Given much of the Labour vote sympathises with Corbyn's worldview what is your point?
On the subject of no deal, I wonder if actually that outcome is the highest risk outcome for the EU. Suppose the UK crashes out, pays no further contributions and yet 2 years later, after some initial dislocation, the UK economy is doing ok and free trade agreements are coming to pass. That might make a number of other EU members thoughtful and much less likely to be bullied.
On another subject, how is it that Emma Dent Coad still has the whip? If a Tory had made such comments about a black Labour member the outrage from the left would have been deafening.
Dent Coad is a truly remarkably unpleasant piece of work. Someone on Facebook was trying to blame her on Momentum - even though she made these statements years before Momentum existed.
The hypocrisy of the Left on this is staggering - but not surprising.
Hasn't she also been quoted as a member of Grenfell TMO of approving the upgrading of the block
'It would be parliament doing the overruling. I would imagine they would also look for a second referendum for extra legitimacy or at least sustained polling of 65%+ Remain leads.
It’s therefore quite unlikely - but if it does happen, it will be because most people accept we made a mistake. So democracy will be fine.'
The country as now would be deeply divided and unfortunately however this is resolved it is likely to continue for years as remainers seek to rejoin or leavers seek to leave again
I see no end to this saga
Not in my scenario.
Political arguments are never 100% over but on issues like the minimum wage, gay rights, abortion etc., things which were very controversial at the time but are now pretty settled.
If Brexit gets reversed it will be because it is very widely seen to be a huge error. There won’t then be much interest in going back over it.
Our EU membership was thought to have been settled, but it turned out that it was not. None of the factors that led to our being unhappy members is going to disappear.
@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
Having dined out for ages telling us all that Boris is the perfect next PM, you're now going to do the same with JRM? Omg and lol.
Both have a lot more support with Tory voters and the public at large than you would expect
Political arguments are never 100% over but on issues like the minimum wage, gay rights, abortion etc., things which were very controversial at the time but are now pretty settled.
If Brexit gets reversed it will be because it is very widely seen to be a huge error. There won’t then be much interest in going back over it.
Not at all. A slight change - to give a reversal of the result in 2016 - would still leave almost 50% of the population angry at the result. And the EU is only ever going to go one way which is greater integration so that anger will only grow.
If you think that a second referendum would be the end of the matter then you really are deluded.
A second and decisive referendum once the damage that will be done by leaving becomes very clear would be the end of the matter, except for a fringe of the same obsessives who have got us where we are.
The country as now would be deeply divided and unfortunately however this is resolved it is likely to continue for years as remainers seek to rejoin or leavers seek to leave again
I see no end to this saga
Not in my scenario.
Political arguments are never 100% over but on issues like the minimum wage, gay rights, abortion etc., things which were very controversial at the time but are now pretty settled.
If Brexit gets reversed it will be because it is very widely seen to be a huge error. There won’t then be much interest in going back over it.
Widely can only be seen in my view once we have left and the economic pluses and minuses become apparent and that is where a forced remain would run on tbe rocks as the evidence of failure ex EU has not been experienced
I tend to agree. Not enough time for people to change their minds. And worst effects if they come will come when it is too late.
If we start demanding concessions to stay in like ending FOM then we won’t get anywhere. But otherwise I think a deal can be done. It’s kust much easier all round.
Ending freedom of movement is an absolute necessity for any kind of deal to be done - that is why any negotiation that aims to keep us in at this point is likely dead in the water.
Freedom of movement has absolutely shafted our working class, from driving down wages to lowering living standards due to increased competition for school and hospital places, to contributing to explosive house price growth (demand far outstripping supply), as well as changing communities beyond recognition without their consent. Freedom of movement doesn't really negatively effect the middle classes but there is little upside and considerable downside to it if you are at the bottom end of the ladder.
Remaining in the EU without an opt out from freedom of movement is pretty much a guarantee of Prime Minister Farage, or the hemorrhaging of support from both Labour and the Tories to a new nativist / nationalist party with even uglier views than some of those espoused by UKIP.
On the subject of no deal, I wonder if actually that outcome is the highest risk outcome for the EU. Suppose the UK crashes out, pays no further contributions and yet 2 years later, after some initial dislocation, the UK economy is doing ok and free trade agreements are coming to pass. That might make a number of other EU members thoughtful and much less likely to be bullied.
On another subject, how is it that Emma Dent Coad still has the whip? If a Tory had made such comments about a black Labour member the outrage from the left would have been deafening.
Dent Coad is a truly remarkably unpleasant piece of work. Someone on Facebook was trying to blame her on Momentum - even though she made these statements years before Momentum existed.
The hypocrisy of the Left on this is staggering - but not surprising.
Hasn't she also been quoted as a member of Grenfell TMO of approving the upgrading of the block
I believe so - but nothing to do with her, guv...
I thought it was the housing scrutiny committee?
As far as I am aware she was on the TMO who had asked and got the upgrade. Questions for her to answer may well come out of the inquiry
On the subject of no deal, I wonder if actually that outcome is the highest risk outcome for the EU. Suppose the UK crashes out, pays no further contributions and yet 2 years later, after some initial dislocation, the UK economy is doing ok and free trade agreements are coming to pass. That might make a number of other EU members thoughtful and much less likely to be bullied.
On another subject, how is it that Emma Dent Coad still has the whip? If a Tory had made such comments about a black Labour member the outrage from the left would have been deafening.
Dent Coad is a truly remarkably unpleasant piece of work. Someone on Facebook was trying to blame her on Momentum - even though she made these statements years before Momentum existed.
The hypocrisy of the Left on this is staggering - but not surprising.
Hasn't she also been quoted as a member of Grenfell TMO of approving the upgrading of the block
I believe so - but nothing to do with her, guv...
I thought it was the housing scrutiny committee?
As far as I am aware she was on the TMO who had asked and got the upgrade. Questions for her to answer may well come out of the inquiry
And of the subject of that Council it is a disgrace to the consevative party, Dent Coad is a disgrace to labour, so can we all campaign for the lib dems in that seat (yes and I mean it)
This is what I don't understand about the whole Article 50 issue.
Until March 2019, as things stand, we are a full member of the EU. We cease being a member then because of the letter we sent in. If we passed an Act of Parliament saying that we were withdrawing the Article 50 notice and then sent a letter to the Commission saying just that, why does it need the other EU states to agree? We would be saying that the position remains the same as it was before 29 March 2017.
Article 50 does not, does it, force other EU states to expel a member which wanted to leave but then changed its mind?
A lot of "ifs" I realise.
And of course this does not deal with the political consequences within the UK of doing this nor within the wider EU.
I am just puzzled where the idea has come from that other states need to agree to a withdrawal of the Article 50 notice during the time when the state is an EU member state.
Maybe there is something there which has been explained before and I have missed it, in which case apologies.
Political arguments are never 100% over but on issues like the minimum wage, gay rights, abortion etc., things which were very controversial at the time but are now pretty settled.
If Brexit gets reversed it will be because it is very widely seen to be a huge error. There won’t then be much interest in going back over it.
Our EU membership was thought to have been settled, but it turned out that it was not. None of the factors that led to our being unhappy members is going to disappear.
Settled for quite some time though? Perhaps we will be reminded of some of the factors for why we joined in the first place.
On the subject of no deal, I wonder if actually that outcome is the highest risk outcome for the EU. Suppose the UK crashes out, pays no further contributions and yet 2 years later, after some initial dislocation, the UK economy is doing ok and free trade agreements are coming to pass. That might make a number of other EU members thoughtful and much less likely to be bullied.
On another subject, how is it that Emma Dent Coad still has the whip? If a Tory had made such comments about a black Labour member the outrage from the left would have been deafening.
Dent Coad is a truly remarkably unpleasant piece of work. Someone on Facebook was trying to blame her on Momentum - even though she made these statements years before Momentum existed.
The hypocrisy of the Left on this is staggering - but not surprising.
Hasn't she also been quoted as a member of Grenfell TMO of approving the upgrading of the block
I believe so - but nothing to do with her, guv...
I thought it was the housing scrutiny committee?
from her Wiki page:
She served as a council-appointed board member of Kensington and Chelsea TMO, the tenant management organisation which manages the council's housing stock, from 27 June 2008 to 31 October 2012. In 2013/4, she was a member of the council's Housing and Property Scrutiny Committee.
The planning application for the refurb of Grenfell was approved by the TMO on 2 May 2012 - so very much during her time as a board member.
@HYUFD I already made it. That few commentators doubt that most Conservative voters sympathise with JRM’s worldview, so he wouldn’t have ‘exceeded expectations’ if he keeps them. And BTW, many doubted prior to the GE the extent to which Labour voters sympathised with Corbyn’s worldview. That is why it was thought that Labour’s traditional voters would turn away from Corbyn in droves, when Corbyn ended up keeping the base and gaining votes. We had so many narratives and stories about lifelong Labour voters voting Tory for the first time because Corbyn is xyz. Now, we know that most of the Labour vote sympathises with Corbyn's worldview but people weren’t so sure prior to the GE.
This is what I don't understand about the whole Article 50 issue.
Until March 2019, as things stand, we are a full member of the EU. We cease being a member then because of the letter we sent in. If we passed an Act of Parliament saying that we were withdrawing the Article 50 notice and then sent a letter to the Commission saying just that, why does it need the other EU states to agree? We would be saying that the position remains the same as it was before 29 March 2017.
Article 50 does not, does it, force other EU states to expel a member which wanted to leave but then changed its mind?
A lot of "ifs" I realise.
And of course this does not deal with the political consequences within the UK of doing this nor within the wider EU.
I am just puzzled where the idea has come from that other states need to agree to a withdrawal of the Article 50 notice during the time when the state is an EU member state.
Maybe there is something there which has been explained before and I have missed it, in which case apologies.
The country as now would be deeply divided and unfortunately however this is resolved it is likely to continue for years as remainers seek to rejoin or leavers seek to leave again
I see no end to this saga
Not in my scenario.
Political arguments are never 100% over but on issues like the minimum wage, gay rights, abortion etc., things which were very controversial at the time but are now pretty settled.
If Brexit gets reversed it will be because it is very widely seen to be a huge error. There won’t then be much interest in going back over it.
Widely can only be seen in my view once we have left and the economic pluses and minuses become apparent and that is where a forced remain would run on tbe rocks as the evidence of failure ex EU has not been experienced
I tend to agree. Not enough time for people to change their minds. And worst effects if they come will come when it is too late.
And it follows that if, and it is if, it is seen as an economic failure the pressure to rejoin the EU would be irresistible
This is what I don't understand about the whole Article 50 issue.
Until March 2019, as things stand, we are a full member of the EU. We cease being a member then because of the letter we sent in. If we passed an Act of Parliament saying that we were withdrawing the Article 50 notice and then sent a letter to the Commission saying just that, why does it need the other EU states to agree? We would be saying that the position remains the same as it was before 29 March 2017.
Article 50 does not, does it, force other EU states to expel a member which wanted to leave but then changed its mind?
A lot of "ifs" I realise.
And of course this does not deal with the political consequences within the UK of doing this nor within the wider EU.
I am just puzzled where the idea has come from that other states need to agree to a withdrawal of the Article 50 notice during the time when the state is an EU member state.
Maybe there is something there which has been explained before and I have missed it, in which case apologies.
I always found Article 50(1) of interest "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements." What if we said that we had eventually determined that our constitutional arrangements did not permit withdrawal?
@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
Having dined out for ages telling us all that Boris is the perfect next PM, you're now going to do the same with JRM? Omg and lol.
Both have a lot more support with Tory voters and the public at large than you would expect
In contrast, JRM's "really don't like" is 44%, so he's an absolute beacon of popularity in comparison. Don't look at Corbyn's scores, they'll only depress you.
This is what I don't understand about the whole Article 50 issue.
Until March 2019, as things stand, we are a full member of the EU. We cease being a member then because of the letter we sent in. If we passed an Act of Parliament saying that we were withdrawing the Article 50 notice and then sent a letter to the Commission saying just that, why does it need the other EU states to agree? We would be saying that the position remains the same as it was before 29 March 2017.
Article 50 does not, does it, force other EU states to expel a member which wanted to leave but then changed its mind?
A lot of "ifs" I realise.
And of course this does not deal with the political consequences within the UK of doing this nor within the wider EU.
I am just puzzled where the idea has come from that other states need to agree to a withdrawal of the Article 50 notice during the time when the state is an EU member state.
Maybe there is something there which has been explained before and I have missed it, in which case apologies.
Other member states are entitled to take us at our word. The principle is the same as terminating a contract, or exercising a break clause in a lease.
@HYUFD I already made it. That few commentators doubt that most Conservative voters sympathise with JRM’s worldview, so he wouldn’t have ‘exceeded expectations’ if he keeps them. And BTW, many doubted prior to the GE the extent to which Labour voters sympathised with Corbyn’s worldview. That is why it was thought that Labour’s traditional voters would turn away from Corbyn in droves, when Corbyn ended up keeping the base and gaining votes. We had so many narratives and stories about lifelong Labour voters voting Tory for the first time because Corbyn is xyz. Now, we know that most of the Labour vote sympathises with Corbyn's worldview but people weren’t so sure prior to the GE.
Eh? If 42% vote for a Tory leader who opposes gay marriage and abortion, as Rees Mogg does unlike May, that would be a dramatic reversal for the socially liberal consensus of the past few decades when coupled with Brexit and the rejection that was of ever increasing immigration. Just as the 40% who voted for Corbyn was a dramatic reversal for neoliberal economic model of the past few decades too
@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
Having dined out for ages telling us all that Boris is the perfect next PM, you're now going to do the same with JRM? Omg and lol.
Both have a lot more support with Tory voters and the public at large than you would expect
In contrast, JRM's "really don't like" is 44%, so he's an absolute beacon of popularity in comparison. Don't look at Corbyn's scores, they'll only depress you.
The trouble with that sort of polling is that not everyone has the same public profile/level of scrutiny and so it is hard to do meaningful comparisons between different subjects.
@HYUFD I already made it. That few commentators doubt that most Conservative voters sympathise with JRM’s worldview, so he wouldn’t have ‘exceeded expectations’ if he keeps them. And BTW, many doubted prior to the GE the extent to which Labour voters sympathised with Corbyn’s worldview. That is why it was thought that Labour’s traditional voters would turn away from Corbyn in droves, when Corbyn ended up keeping the base and gaining votes. We had so many narratives and stories about lifelong Labour voters voting Tory for the first time because Corbyn is xyz. Now, we know that most of the Labour vote sympathises with Corbyn's worldview but people weren’t so sure prior to the GE.
Eh? If 42% vote for a Tory leader who opposes gay marriage and abortion, unlike May, that would be a dramatic reversal for the socially liberal consensus of the past few decades. Just as the 40% who voted for Corbyn was a dramatic reversal for neoliberal economic model of the past few decades too
Yeah, but your point is is about ‘exceeding expectations’. No one will be surprised about existing Tory voters staying with the party under a JRM leadership because we know prior to the GE that these voters share his world view for the most part. While most people are supportive of gay marriage as whole, most Tory MPs voted against it, and it caused a stir among members IIRC.
By contrast before the GE many didn’t know the extent to which people were unhappy with neo-liberalism.
@HYUFD I already made it. That few commentators doubt that most Conservative voters sympathise with JRM’s worldview, so he wouldn’t have ‘exceeded expectations’ if he keeps them. And BTW, many doubted prior to the GE the extent to which Labour voters sympathised with Corbyn’s worldview. That is why it was thought that Labour’s traditional voters would turn away from Corbyn in droves, when Corbyn ended up keeping the base and gaining votes. We had so many narratives and stories about lifelong Labour voters voting Tory for the first time because Corbyn is xyz. Now, we know that most of the Labour vote sympathises with Corbyn's worldview but people weren’t so sure prior to the GE.
Eh? If 42% vote for a Tory leader who opposes gay marriage and abortion, as Rees Mogg does unlike May, that would be a dramatic reversal for the socially liberal consensus of the past few decades when coupled with Brexit and the rejection that was of ever increasing immigration. Just as the 40% who voted for Corbyn was a dramatic reversal for neoliberal economic model of the past few decades too
No it wouldn't be - because JRM will not put changes to gay marriage or abortion in the Con manifesto.
This is what I don't understand about the whole Article 50 issue.
Until March 2019, as things stand, we are a full member of the EU. We cease being a member then because of the letter we sent in. If we passed an Act of Parliament saying that we were withdrawing the Article 50 notice and then sent a letter to the Commission saying just that, why does it need the other EU states to agree? We would be saying that the position remains the same as it was before 29 March 2017.
Article 50 does not, does it, force other EU states to expel a member which wanted to leave but then changed its mind?
A lot of "ifs" I realise.
And of course this does not deal with the political consequences within the UK of doing this nor within the wider EU.
I am just puzzled where the idea has come from that other states need to agree to a withdrawal of the Article 50 notice during the time when the state is an EU member state.
Maybe there is something there which has been explained before and I have missed it, in which case apologies.
I always found Article 50(1) of interest "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements." What if we said that we had eventually determined that our constitutional arrangements did not permit withdrawal?
This is what I don't understand about the whole Article 50 issue.
Until March 2019, as things stand, we are a full member of the EU. We cease being a member then because of the letter we sent in. If we passed an Act of Parliament saying that we were withdrawing the Article 50 notice and then sent a letter to the Commission saying just that, why does it need the other EU states to agree? We would be saying that the position remains the same as it was before 29 March 2017.
Article 50 does not, does it, force other EU states to expel a member which wanted to leave but then changed its mind?
A lot of "ifs" I realise.
And of course this does not deal with the political consequences within the UK of doing this nor within the wider EU.
I am just puzzled where the idea has come from that other states need to agree to a withdrawal of the Article 50 notice during the time when the state is an EU member state.
Maybe there is something there which has been explained before and I have missed it, in which case apologies.
Because the Lisbon Treaty states what happens regarding Article 50 so our invoking it followed the provisions set in the Treaty. There is no provision for it to be reversed and to allow it to be reversed unilaterally would defeat the unanimous agreement requirement regarding extending negotiations as you could just revoke one day and invoke again the next otherwise.
If there is unanimity we could definitely stay at the least by an agreement to extend our membership indefinitely. To stay without ubabimity would be tricky.
Not to forget too that our Rebate expires at the end of the current funding round and has to be won again next time. If we do a hokey cokey non Brexit we woild be an international laughing stock and nobody is going to have any reason to renew the Rebate.
This is what I don't understand about the whole Article 50 issue.
Until March 2019, as things stand, we are a full member of the EU. We cease being a member then because of the letter we sent in. If we passed an Act of Parliament saying that we were withdrawing the Article 50 notice and then sent a letter to the Commission saying just that, why does it need the other EU states to agree? We would be saying that the position remains the same as it was before 29 March 2017.
Article 50 does not, does it, force other EU states to expel a member which wanted to leave but then changed its mind?
A lot of "ifs" I realise.
And of course this does not deal with the political consequences within the UK of doing this nor within the wider EU.
I am just puzzled where the idea has come from that other states need to agree to a withdrawal of the Article 50 notice during the time when the state is an EU member state.
Maybe there is something there which has been explained before and I have missed it, in which case apologies.
If he meant it to be revocable he would have written that into it. He has already said that when it was written it was not envisaged that anyone would actually ever want to use it. SO his word on this is garbage.
Ultimately the only court that can decide whether it is revocable is the ECJ. That is, after all, what they are there for, to interpret the law on the basis of the treaties.
Political arguments are never 100% over but on issues like the minimum wage, gay rights, abortion etc., things which were very controversial at the time but are now pretty settled.
If Brexit gets reversed it will be because it is very widely seen to be a huge error. There won’t then be much interest in going back over it.
Our EU membership was thought to have been settled, but it turned out that it was not. None of the factors that led to our being unhappy members is going to disappear.
Settled for quite some time though? Perhaps we will be reminded of some of the factors for why we joined in the first place.
Well we certainly haven't been reminded of them so far.
Political arguments are never 100% over but on issues like the minimum wage, gay rights, abortion etc., things which were very controversial at the time but are now pretty settled.
If Brexit gets reversed it will be because it is very widely seen to be a huge error. There won’t then be much interest in going back over it.
Our EU membership was thought to have been settled, but it turned out that it was not. None of the factors that led to our being unhappy members is going to disappear.
Settled for quite some time though? Perhaps we will be reminded of some of the factors for why we joined in the first place.
Well we certainly haven't been reminded of them so far.
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.
In the age of the internet and smartphone, how can there be any excuse for people not to know the basic outline of recent history as far as the IRA and other subjects is concerned? They don't even have to go to the library to get a book on it. It's a duty of being a citizen to take an interest in the history of the country you live in.
Political arguments are never 100% over but on issues like the minimum wage, gay rights, abortion etc., things which were very controversial at the time but are now pretty settled.
If Brexit gets reversed it will be because it is very widely seen to be a huge error. There won’t then be much interest in going back over it.
Not at all. A slight change - to give a reversal of the result in 2016 - would still leave almost 50% of the population angry at the result. And the EU is only ever going to go one way which is greater integration so that anger will only grow.
If you think that a second referendum would be the end of the matter then you really are deluded.
A second and decisive referendum once the damage that will be done by leaving becomes very clear would be the end of the matter, except for a fringe of the same obsessives who have got us where we are.
Again, if you believe that you are genuinely deluded. Indeed this is exactly the same argument that was made for decades by those opposed to giving people the choice. And look how wrong they turned out to be.
With the coverage in the paper,the landlord recieved a phone call last night from someone who told him that the pub would be fire bombed,police were called again.
The pub still has boards up to protect the big windows from last week,police will do nothing because it may cause a riot.
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.
In the age of the internet and smartphone, how can there be any excuse for people not to know the basic outline of recent history as far as the IRA and other subjects is concerned? They don't even have to go to the library to get a book on it. It's a duty of being a citizen to take an interest in the history of the country you live in.
The truth may be darker, that some of Corbyn's supporters like the IRA, and thoroughly approve of their actions. After all, they were killing Conservatives, Unionists, and members of the armed forces.
Well, completely off topic but an interesting if very sad family dilemma that a friend has.
One of the grown up children in their early 20's, since graduating, has completely failed to take any steps to find a job or some other useful activity. It is driving the parents insane and all attempts at forcing or incentivising the child to engage with life have failed. Suggestions have been made, opportunities offered, including medical assistance for possible depression Nothing has worked.
It is now getting to the stage where the parents feel that the only option, for themselves and the rest of the family, is to throw the child out, which means - in effect - the streets. Sink or swim, even though they fear that this means the very worst will happen. But what else can they do?
No-one is legally obliged to maintain a lazy adult who takes no steps to help themselves. But they feel that, having done everything possible long past the stage that many would think reasonable, they have no more moral or emotional obligation. They are, though, utterly heartbroken as well as infuriated by the situation.
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.
The UK sends £100m a week too much to the NHS. Let's spend that on the EU instead.
Well, completely off topic but an interesting if very sad family dilemma that a friend has.
One of the grown up children in their early 20's, since graduating, has completely failed to take any steps to find a job or some other useful activity. It is driving the parents insane and all attempts at forcing or incentivising the child to engage with life have failed. Suggestions have been made, opportunities offered, including medical assistance for possible depression Nothing has worked.
It is now getting to the stage where the parents feel that the only option, for themselves and the rest of the family, is to throw the child out, which means - in effect - the streets. Sink or swim, even though they fear that this means the very worst will happen. But what else can they do?
No-one is legally obliged to maintain a lazy adult who takes no steps to help themselves. But they feel that, having done everything possible long past the stage that many would think reasonable, they have no more moral or emotional obligation. They are, though, utterly heartbroken as well as infuriated by the situation.
What do PB'ers think?
Too harsh. Worse things than this. Are they poor or rich?
The EU negotiators attitude to the UK just emphasises the reasons the UK wanted out.
What's surprising is still how few Remainers making the positive case for the EU, and its mission of the European dream.
Most posts from those advocating we stay are purely about avoiding an apocalypse, and/or wanting to value-signal against what they caricature as insular nationalism.
@HYUFD I already made it. That few commentators doubt that most Conservative voters sympathise with JRM’s worldview, so he wouldn’t have ‘exceeded expectations’ if he keeps them. And BTW, many doubted prior to the GE the extent to which Labour voters sympathised with Corbyn’s worldview. That is why it was thought that Labour’s traditional voters would turn away from Corbyn in droves, when Corbyn ended up keeping the base and gaining votes. We had so many narratives and stories about lifelong Labour voters voting Tory for the first time because Corbyn is xyz. Now, we know that most of the Labour vote sympathises with Corbyn's worldview but people weren’t so sure prior to the GE.
Eh? If 42% vote for a Tory leader who opposes gay marriage and abortion, as Rees Mogg does unlike May, that would be a dramatic reversal for the socially liberal consensus of the past few decades when coupled with Brexit and the rejection that was of ever increasing immigration. Just as the 40% who voted for Corbyn was a dramatic reversal for neoliberal economic model of the past few decades too
No it wouldn't be - because JRM will not put changes to gay marriage or abortion in the Con manifesto.
He would set a more socially conservative tone from the top though and would still vote against those things in Parliament even if he allowed a free vote on them
Comments
They believe the EU is getting a great deal out of the UK being a member.
And also believe the EU won’t let us stay on the same terms.
I think it’s a likely outcome if we change our minds.
'The government should seek an extension to the 29th March 2019 deadline, and if an adequate extension is successfully negotiated then the government shall hold a second referendum to decide whether to accept the terms negotiated or stay in.'
If this amendment was passed would any of the 27 states refuse to agree to the extension or of the UK staying in if the referendum went that way. I doubt any would object to what would be an easy way for them to get the problem to disappear.
Corbyn was never going to poll 10+ points now, several months after a GE particularly since the impact of Brexit hasn’t actually been felt yet. But it’s also because the country is very much divided at the moment, and only the impact of Brexit can break that dam to make voters swing to one side or another. It should be considered remarkable that a man who was supposed to literally kill the Labour Party for a generation is now polling 40%+ with few friends in the press.
Every single budget round many nations have sought to get our rebate abolished. In the past we could threaten to veto a budget if we didn't get a rebate. We have lost that chip now. We can't veto the budget if we are not members and we are automatically not members unless we agree to whatever 27 nations demand from us to be allowed to stay.
What we were told would be the case for an independent Scotland wouldn't necessarily be the case for a re-joining UK. To be honest, saying the UK would have to join the Euro and accept Schengen to remain in the EU is as much fear-mongering as anything REMAIN came up with in the 2016 referendum.
You can have 10bn or nada. Given they wanted us to stay before - it’s an easy decision for the EU.
It’s therefore quite unlikely - but if it does happen, it will be because most people accept we made a mistake. So democracy will be fine.
Shame.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628
What a stupid idea.
It’s a bad idea to have a referendum where you don’t know if you can get an outcome you’re promising
In any case - Cameron managed to secure some concessions when they weren’t sure we would leave. Now they must be sure..
If we start demanding concessions to stay in like ending FOM then we won’t get anywhere.
But otherwise I think a deal can be done. It’s kust much easier all round.
Not mentioned: freemasons or the illuminati
'It would be parliament doing the overruling. I would imagine they would also look for a second referendum for extra legitimacy or at least sustained polling of 65%+ Remain leads.
It’s therefore quite unlikely - but if it does happen, it will be because most people accept we made a mistake. So democracy will be fine.'
The country as now would be deeply divided and unfortunately however this is resolved it is likely to continue for years as remainers seek to rejoin or leavers seek to leave again
I see no end to this saga
1) Con MPs wouldn't agree to it.
2) JRM will accept it's a matter of conscience - as it always has been. Indeed he has already said this.
It'll be a bit like Corbyn not supporting the Monarchy - it didn't become an issue at the GE because Corbyn accepted that he wouldn't attempt to impose his own views - JRM and abortion will be the same.
On another subject, how is it that Emma Dent Coad still has the whip? If a Tory had made such comments about a black Labour member the outrage from the left would have been deafening.
I see no end to this saga
Not in my scenario.
Political arguments are never 100% over but on issues like the minimum wage, gay rights, abortion etc., things which were very controversial at the time but are now pretty settled.
If Brexit gets reversed it will be because it is very widely seen to be a huge error. There won’t then be much interest in going back over it.
It is time a conservative mp called her out in the HOC
The hypocrisy of the Left on this is staggering - but not surprising.
Political arguments are never 100% over but on issues like the minimum wage, gay rights, abortion etc., things which were very controversial at the time but are now pretty settled.
If Brexit gets reversed it will be because it is very widely seen to be a huge error. There won’t then be much interest in going back over it.
Widely can only be seen in my view once we have left and the economic pluses and minuses become apparent and that is where a forced remain would run on tbe rocks as the evidence of failure ex EU has not been experienced
If you think that a second referendum would be the end of the matter then you really are deluded.
If it would be 52-48 the other way then there just won’t be the momentum for it to happen.
Political arguments are never 100% over but on issues like the minimum wage, gay rights, abortion etc., things which were very controversial at the time but are now pretty settled.
If Brexit gets reversed it will be because it is very widely seen to be a huge error. There won’t then be much interest in going back over it.
Our EU membership was thought to have been settled, but it turned out that it was not. None of the factors that led to our being unhappy members is going to disappear.
And worst effects if they come will come when it is too late.
Freedom of movement has absolutely shafted our working class, from driving down wages to lowering living standards due to increased competition for school and hospital places, to contributing to explosive house price growth (demand far outstripping supply), as well as changing communities beyond recognition without their consent. Freedom of movement doesn't really negatively effect the middle classes but there is little upside and considerable downside to it if you are at the bottom end of the ladder.
Remaining in the EU without an opt out from freedom of movement is pretty much a guarantee of Prime Minister Farage, or the hemorrhaging of support from both Labour and the Tories to a new nativist / nationalist party with even uglier views than some of those espoused by UKIP.
Until March 2019, as things stand, we are a full member of the EU. We cease being a member then because of the letter we sent in. If we passed an Act of Parliament saying that we were withdrawing the Article 50 notice and then sent a letter to the Commission saying just that, why does it need the other EU states to agree? We would be saying that the position remains the same as it was before 29 March 2017.
Article 50 does not, does it, force other EU states to expel a member which wanted to leave but then changed its mind?
A lot of "ifs" I realise.
And of course this does not deal with the political consequences within the UK of doing this nor within the wider EU.
I am just puzzled where the idea has come from that other states need to agree to a withdrawal of the Article 50 notice during the time when the state is an EU member state.
Maybe there is something there which has been explained before and I have missed it, in which case apologies.
Perhaps we will be reminded of some of the factors for why we joined in the first place.
She served as a council-appointed board member of Kensington and Chelsea TMO, the tenant management organisation which manages the council's housing stock, from 27 June 2008 to 31 October 2012. In 2013/4, she was a member of the council's Housing and Property Scrutiny Committee.
The planning application for the refurb of Grenfell was approved by the TMO on 2 May 2012 - so very much during her time as a board member.
I already made it. That few commentators doubt that most Conservative voters sympathise with JRM’s worldview, so he wouldn’t have ‘exceeded expectations’ if he keeps them. And BTW, many doubted prior to the GE the extent to which Labour voters sympathised with Corbyn’s worldview. That is why it was thought that Labour’s traditional voters would turn away from Corbyn in droves, when Corbyn ended up keeping the base and gaining votes. We had so many narratives and stories about lifelong Labour voters voting Tory for the first time because Corbyn is xyz. Now, we know that most of the Labour vote sympathises with Corbyn's worldview but people weren’t so sure prior to the GE.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/eu-brexit-resolution-article-50-can-be-revoked-2017-3
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/article-50-trigger-brexit-eu-revoke-economic-plan-legal-trade-agreement-a7231446.html
Like: 13%
Ok: 12%
Don't like: 20%
Really don't like: 49%
https://yougov.co.uk/opi/browse/Boris_Johnson
In contrast, JRM's "really don't like" is 44%, so he's an absolute beacon of popularity in comparison. Don't look at Corbyn's scores, they'll only depress you.
https://yougov.co.uk/opi/browse/Jacob_Rees_Mogg
https://yougov.co.uk/opi/browse/Jeremy_Corbyn
By contrast before the GE many didn’t know the extent to which people were unhappy with neo-liberalism.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2196055/London-Metropolitan-University-crisis-Visas-sham-courses-bogus-students.html
If there is unanimity we could definitely stay at the least by an agreement to extend our membership indefinitely. To stay without ubabimity would be tricky.
Not to forget too that our Rebate expires at the end of the current funding round and has to be won again next time. If we do a hokey cokey non Brexit we woild be an international laughing stock and nobody is going to have any reason to renew the Rebate.
Ultimately the only court that can decide whether it is revocable is the ECJ. That is, after all, what they are there for, to interpret the law on the basis of the treaties.
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/15646726.Yobs_smash_windows_at_two_Bradford_pubs_in_vandalism_spree/
With the coverage in the paper,the landlord recieved a phone call last night from someone who told him that the pub would be fire bombed,police were called again.
The pub still has boards up to protect the big windows from last week,police will do nothing because it may cause a riot.
What a wonderful country we live in.
One of the grown up children in their early 20's, since graduating, has completely failed to take any steps to find a job or some other useful activity. It is driving the parents insane and all attempts at forcing or incentivising the child to engage with life have failed. Suggestions have been made, opportunities offered, including medical assistance for possible depression Nothing has worked.
It is now getting to the stage where the parents feel that the only option, for themselves and the rest of the family, is to throw the child out, which means - in effect - the streets. Sink or swim, even though they fear that this means the very worst will happen. But what else can they do?
No-one is legally obliged to maintain a lazy adult who takes no steps to help themselves. But they feel that, having done everything possible long past the stage that many would think reasonable, they have no more moral or emotional obligation. They are, though, utterly heartbroken as well as infuriated by the situation.
What do PB'ers think?
So the modernisation of the Tory Party goes on......
Most posts from those advocating we stay are purely about avoiding an apocalypse, and/or wanting to value-signal against what they caricature as insular nationalism.