Any MP claiming to want to represent the people with a final vote is clearly bullshitting. The people have already had their say and we've instructed them to leave. Everything else is just obstructionism/treason dressed up as concern. The people have instructed the MPs. They no longer have sovereignty on the issue of Brexit.
No, if the final deal includes FoM in more or less its current form then it is important for Parliament to get its say, one way or another, rather than take diktat from Strong and Stable.
You may say she wouldn't agree to this, I am not so sure. Her red lines fade quickly.
The EU aren't going to roll over and make concessions just because Parliament voted it down are they?
No, but it gives Parliament the say over WTO hard Brexit or soft as eiderdown Brexit in that circumstance, and the MPs would have to own the decision.
If it is medium soft Brexit then endorsement by Parliament will be an impoetant part of the healing process.
The problem with this is simple. At the point Parliament gets a vote, it's too late potentially, to change the position. The 2 years is almost up, the EU parliament will want to vote on the deal the commission has agreed with the UK government.
So the UK government decides its not the right deal for whatever reason, and votes it down. Then there are three remaining options. 1) Go back and ask to renegotiate. There's very little time, if the issues are minor, it might just be possible. We might be able to get an extension, but this has to be by unanimity and then you're opening the EU up to blackmail by its own members (maybe Poland and Hungary over migrant resettlement). 2) Don't go back and negotiate, accept that there is no deal that UK and EU parliaments will both agree and crash into hard Brexit. Try to arrange basic agreements on Flights, Equivalence, shared projects, customs arrangements. Not a good move, going to be a rock hard Brexit. 3) Withdraw article 50 notification before the deadline.
Those who voted for the amendment would like the third option, which Andrew Adonis confirmed today - quite openly stating the first blow to 'Stop Brexit' had been scored.
I see the early evening Leave shift is happy to label Remain voters as traitors. I look forward to the later evening Leave shift grumpily complaining that Remain voters are never satisfied by the efforts made by Leavers to heal the divisions.
Not voters. Anyone is free to vote how they want. It's the MPs who are now acting as agents of a foreign power to frustrate or reverse the will of the people.
Would prefer some actual, you know, debate but fair enough and no, I'm not familiar with the phrase; is it a thing also?
Tell me, where do you draw the line? When Abbot's numbers on police pay were out by 3 orders of magnitude was she in fact having a meltdown, or was that, again, just what the sheeple were meant to think? How do you differentiate between Abbot losing control, and Gove losing control, of an interview.
Like all snobs you underestimate the intelligence of people you judge to be poorer or less well educated than you are. Almost everyone is capable of understanding the point that there's experts you go to when your health or your car breaks down, and wannabe financial experts who think the financial future is predictable, when it is perhaps the single most certain finding in the whole of economics, that it isn't.
Hmm a bit all over the place there.
Wasn't Abbott ill?
Are you saying I am underestimating Michael Gove?
So your view is that it was dashed bad luck and a bit of pressure that contributed to the creation of one of the main themes of the whole referendum campaign which was so powerful and which tapped into the zeitgeist so perfectly?
Hmm not sure how to put it into context of Radiohead, but it's not nearly as good as 7 and R1. It sits between 3 and 6 in terms of quality. Better than the prequels, but not as good as the originals.
The first 15-20 minutes is top drawer. After that, just enjoyable.
A bit of overload on the cutesy critters though.
Yeah, it started well, but it was all downhill from there.
I see the early evening Leave shift is happy to label Remain voters as traitors. I look forward to the later evening Leave shift grumpily complaining that Remain voters are never satisfied by the efforts made by Leavers to heal the divisions.
Not voters. Anyone is free to vote how they want. It's the MPs who are now acting as agents of a foreign power to frustrate or reverse the will of the people.
I'm disappointed that you didn't capitalise Will Of The People.
Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. There has been a general election since. The Will Of The People can change.
I see the early evening Leave shift is happy to label Remain voters as traitors. I look forward to the later evening Leave shift grumpily complaining that Remain voters are never satisfied by the efforts made by Leavers to heal the divisions.
Not voters. Anyone is free to vote how they want. It's the MPs who are now acting as agents of a foreign power to frustrate or reverse the will of the people.
I'm disappointed that you didn't capitalise Will Of The People.
Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. There has been a general election since. The Will Of The People can change.
I don’t think it’s changed much in the intervening time.
Any MP claiming to want to represent the people with a final vote is clearly bullshitting. The people have already had their say and we've instructed them to leave. Everything else is just obstructionism/treason dressed up as concern. The people have instructed the MPs. They no longer have sovereignty on the issue of Brexit.
No, if the final deal includes FoM in more or less its current form then it is important for Parliament to get its say, one way or another, rather than take diktat from Strong and Stable.
You may say she wouldn't agree to this, I am not so sure. Her red lines fade quickly.
The EU aren't going to roll over and make concessions just because Parliament voted it down are they?
No, but it gives Parliament the say over WTO hard Brexit or soft as eiderdown Brexit in that circumstance, and the MPs would have to own the decision.
If it is medium soft Brexit then endorsement by Parliament will be an impoetant part of the healing process.
The problem with this is simple. At the point Parliament gets a vote, it's too late potentially, to change the position. The 2 years is almost up, the EU parliament will want to vote on the deal the commission has agreed with the UK government.
So the UK government decides its not the right deal for whatever reason, and votes it down. Then there are three remaining options. 1) Go back and ask to renegotiate. There's very little time, if the issues are minor, it might just be possible. We might be able to get an extension, but this has to be by unanimity and then you're opening the EU up to blackmail by its own members (maybe Poland and Hungary over migrant resettlement). 2) Don't go back and negotiate, accept that there is no deal that UK and EU parliaments will both agree and crash into hard Brexit. Try to arrange basic agreements on Flights, Equivalence, shared projects, customs arrangements. Not a good move, going to be a rock hard Brexit. 3) Withdraw article 50 notification before the deadline.
Those who voted for the amendment would like the third option, which Andrew Adonis confirmed today - quite openly stating the first blow to 'Stop Brexit' had been scored.
I agree, back to the negotiating table is not on, and I dont think A50 withdrawal would get more than 25% of Parliament.
It is important that the MPs have to come down for or against the Deal. It shapes the future of the country for good or bad, and Parliament needs to take responsibility.
It does no good if the whingeing starts on both the frothers and remoaners side denouncing the May deal immediately. Endorsement by the HoC is the only way to make it stick, and an important part of the country moving on.
I see the early evening Leave shift is happy to label Remain voters as traitors. I look forward to the later evening Leave shift grumpily complaining that Remain voters are never satisfied by the efforts made by Leavers to heal the divisions.
Not voters. Anyone is free to vote how they want. It's the MPs who are now acting as agents of a foreign power to frustrate or reverse the will of the people.
I'm disappointed that you didn't capitalise Will Of The People.
Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. There has been a general election since. The Will Of The People can change.
Would prefer some actual, you know, debate but fair enough and no, I'm not familiar with the phrase; is it a thing also?
Tell me, where do you draw the line? When Abbot's numbers on police pay were out by 3 orders of magnitude was she in fact having a meltdown, or was that, again, just what the sheeple were meant to think? How do you differentiate between Abbot losing control, and Gove losing control, of an interview.
Like all snobs you underestimate the intelligence of people you judge to be poorer or less well educated than you are. Almost everyone is capable of understanding the point that there's experts you go to when your health or your car breaks down, and wannabe financial experts who think the financial future is predictable, when it is perhaps the single most certain finding in the whole of economics, that it isn't.
Hmm a bit all over the place there.
Wasn't Abbott ill?
Are you saying I am underestimating Michael Gove?
So your view is that it was dashed bad luck and a bit of pressure that contributed to the creation of one of the main themes of the whole referendum campaign which was so powerful and which tapped into the zeitgeist so perfectly?
Not so sure, myself.
You still haven't actually looked at it, have you? If you had we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Your case is as strong as this: if I say that "I hate so-called experts in astrology who prey on the innocent by selling them horoscopes", this is a dog-whistle way of telling the thick proles that I hate experts, and because they are thick proles they will think "quite right too", and vote for me. Good case, well done.
(...) Despite continued attempts of some Remainers to frustrate the biggest post-war vote in our history, almost all Leave voters have remained law abiding and restrained
And so I should hope, Mr HYUFD. But then, as is frequently pointed out on these pages, it takes only one nutter to do untold damage.
And the Leave campaign did attract more than its fair share of mutters-
I see the early evening Leave shift is happy to label Remain voters as traitors. I look forward to the later evening Leave shift grumpily complaining that Remain voters are never satisfied by the efforts made by Leavers to heal the divisions.
Not voters. Anyone is free to vote how they want. It's the MPs who are now acting as agents of a foreign power to frustrate or reverse the will of the people.
I'm disappointed that you didn't capitalise Will Of The People.
Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. There has been a general election since. The Will Of The People can change.
TMay needed to have equalled or exceeded the Cameron GE2015 majority for her version of Brexit to b given democratic mandate. That didn't happen and we are in limbo land
Any MP claiming to want to represent the people with a final vote is clearly bullshitting. The people have already had their say and we've instructed them to leave. Everything else is just obstructionism/treason dressed up as concern. The people have instructed the MPs. They no longer have sovereignty on the issue of Brexit.
No, if the final deal includes FoM in more or less its current form then it is important for Parliament to get its say, one way or another, rather than take diktat from Strong and Stable.
You may say she wouldn't agree to this, I am not so sure. Her red lines fade quickly.
The EU aren't going to roll over and make concessions just because Parliament voted it down are they?
No, but it gives Parliament the say over WTO hard Brexit or soft as eiderdown Brexit in that circumstance, and the MPs would have to own the decision.
If it is medium soft Brexit then endorsement by Parliament will be an impoetant part of the healing process.
The problem with this is simple.......
Those who voted for the amendment would like the third option, which Andrew Adonis confirmed today - quite openly stating the first blow to 'Stop Brexit' had been scored.
I agree, back to the negotiating table is not on, and I dont think A50 withdrawal would get more than 25% of Parliament.
It is important that the MPs have to come down for or against the Deal. It shapes the future of the country for good or bad, and Parliament needs to take responsibility.
It does no good if the whingeing starts on both the frothers and remoaners side denouncing the May deal immediately. Endorsement by the HoC is the only way to make it stick, and an important part of the country moving on.
What they're trying to do is force May to take less and less independence for the fear of the 'interpretation' of the word 'Meaningful'. MPs are 75% remain from the campaign. If meaningful doesn't mean 'Withdraw Art 50" - expect it to end in the courts. Delay, hope that we die off (I'm told that one all the time), and vote again.
I see the early evening Leave shift is happy to label Remain voters as traitors. I look forward to the later evening Leave shift grumpily complaining that Remain voters are never satisfied by the efforts made by Leavers to heal the divisions.
Not voters. Anyone is free to vote how they want. It's the MPs who are now acting as agents of a foreign power to frustrate or reverse the will of the people.
I'm disappointed that you didn't capitalise Will Of The People.
Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. There has been a general election since. The Will Of The People can change.
Any MP claiming to want to represent the people with a final vote is clearly bullshitting. The people have already had their say and we've instructed them to leave. Everything else is just obstructionism/treason dressed up as concern. The people have instructed the MPs. They no longer have sovereignty on the issue of Brexit.
No, if the final deal includes FoM in more or less its current form then it is important for Parliament to get its say, one way or another, rather than take diktat from Strong and Stable.
You may say she wouldn't agree to this, I am not so sure. Her red lines fade quickly.
The EU aren't going to roll over and make concessions just because Parliament voted it down are they?
No, but it gives Parliament the say over WTO hard Brexit or soft as eiderdown Brexit in that circumstance, and the MPs would have to own the decision.
If it is medium soft Brexit then endorsement by Parliament will be an impoetant part of the healing process.
The problem with this is simple.......
Those who voted for the amendment would like the third option, which Andrew Adonis confirmed today - quite openly stating the first blow to 'Stop Brexit' had been scored.
I agree, back to the negotiating table is not on, and I dont think A50 withdrawal would get more than 25% of Parliament.
It is important that the MPs have to come down for or against the Deal. It shapes the future of the country for good or bad, and Parliament needs to take responsibility.
It does no good if the whingeing starts on both the frothers and remoaners side denouncing the May deal immediately. Endorsement by the HoC is the only way to make it stick, and an important part of the country moving on.
What they're trying to do is force May to take less and less independence for the fear of the 'interpretation' of the word 'Meaningful'. MPs are 75% remain from the campaign. If meaningful doesn't mean 'Withdraw Art 50" - expect it to end in the courts. Delay, hope that we die off (I'm told that one all the time), and vote again.
The MPs voted overwhelmingly to implement Article 50. They are no longer Remainers.
We have to trust our democratic representatives. They are struggling to make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
Importantly, they are no more Remainer than May, and it is not her decision that should matter, but rather that of the whole house. She has form in the matter of poor judgement.
Any MP claiming to want to represent the people with a final vote is clearly bullshitting. The people have already had their say and we've instructed them to leave. Everything else is just obstructionism/treason dressed up as concern. The people have instructed the MPs. They no longer have sovereignty on the issue of Brexit.
No, if the final deal includes FoM in more or less its current form then it is important for Parliament to get its say, one way or another, rather than take diktat from Strong and Stable.
You may say she wouldn't agree to this, I am not so sure. Her red lines fade quickly.
The EU aren't going to roll over and make concessions just because Parliament voted it down are they?
No, but it gives Parliament the say over WTO hard Brexit or soft as eiderdown Brexit in that circumstance, and the MPs would have to own the decision.
If it is medium soft Brexit then endorsement by Parliament will be an impoetant part of the healing process.
The problem with this is simple.......
Those who voted for the amendment would like the third option, which Andrew Adonis confirmed today - quite openly stating the first blow to 'Stop Brexit' had been scored.
I agree, back to the negotiating table is not on, and I dont think A50 withdrawal would get more than 25% of Parliament.
It is important that the MPs have to come down for or against the Deal. It shapes the future of the country for good or bad, and Parliament needs to take responsibility.
It does no good if the whingeing starts on both the frothers and remoaners side denouncing the May deal immediately. Endorsement by the HoC is the only way to make it stick, and an important part of the country moving on.
What they're trying to do is force May to take less and less independence for the fear of the 'interpretation' of the word 'Meaningful'. MPs are 75% remain from the campaign. If meaningful doesn't mean 'Withdraw Art 50" - expect it to end in the courts. Delay, hope that we die off (I'm told that one all the time), and vote again.
I think if the MPs reject the deal, then we will have a general election. And unlike 2017, it really will be about Brexit.
Would prefer some actual, you know, debate but fair enough and no, I'm not familiar with the phrase; is it a thing also?
Tell me, where do you draw the line? When Abbot's numbers on police pay were out by 3 orders of magnitude was she in fact having a meltdown, or was that, again, just what the sheeple were meant to think? How do you differentiate between Abbot losing control, and Gove losing control, of an interview.
Like all snobs you underestimate the intelligence of people you judge to be poorer or less well educated than you are. Almost everyone is capable of understanding the point that there's experts you go to when your health or your car breaks down, and wannabe financial experts who think the financial future is predictable, when it is perhaps the single most certain finding in the whole of economics, that it isn't.
Hmm a bit all over the place there.
Wasn't Abbott ill?
Are you saying I am underestimating Michael Gove?
So your view is that it was dashed bad luck and a bit of pressure that contributed to the creation of one of the main themes of the whole referendum campaign which was so powerful and which tapped into the zeitgeist so perfectly?
Not so sure, myself.
You still haven't actually looked at it, have you? If you had we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Your case is as strong as this: if I say that "I hate so-called experts in astrology who prey on the innocent by selling them horoscopes", this is a dog-whistle way of telling the thick proles that I hate experts, and because they are thick proles they will think "quite right too", and vote for me. Good case, well done.
The fact that you have to implore people to go and read (where?) what he actually said just makes my point for me.
Would prefer some actual, you know, debate but fair enough and no, I'm not familiar with the phrase; is it a thing also?
Tell me, where do you draw the line? When Abbot's numbers on police pay were out by 3 orders of magnitude was she in fact having a meltdown, or was that, again, just what the sheeple were meant to think? How do you differentiate between Abbot losing control, and Gove losing control, of an interview.
Like all snobs you underestimate the intelligence of people you judge to be poorer or less well educated than you are. Almost everyone is capable of understanding the point that there's experts you go to when your health or your car breaks down, and wannabe financial experts who think the financial future is predictable, when it is perhaps the single most certain finding in the whole of economics, that it isn't.
Hmm a bit all over the place there.
Wasn't Abbott ill?
Are you saying I am underestimating Michael Gove?
So your view is that it was dashed bad luck and a bit of pressure that contributed to the creation of one of the main themes of the whole referendum campaign which was so powerful and which tapped into the zeitgeist so perfectly?
Not so sure, myself.
You still haven't actually looked at it, have you? If you had we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Your case is as strong as this: if I say that "I hate so-called experts in astrology who prey on the innocent by selling them horoscopes", this is a dog-whistle way of telling the thick proles that I hate experts, and because they are thick proles they will think "quite right too", and vote for me. Good case, well done.
The fact that you have to implore people to go and read (where?) what he actually said just makes my point for me.
Are you drunk? We are talking about a televised interview, so why on earth would you interpret "look at it" as "read it"? I know this interwebby stuff is difficult, so here it is for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGgiGtJk7MA
And instead of seeing for yourself, you were prepared to accept Scott's misrepresentation of Islam's misrepresentation as gospel, because it shows Gove and the proles in a bad light, so bound to be correct. Very rigorous and scholarly.
I see the early evening Leave shift is happy to label Remain voters as traitors. I look forward to the later evening Leave shift grumpily complaining that Remain voters are never satisfied by the efforts made by Leavers to heal the divisions.
Not voters. Anyone is free to vote how they want. It's the MPs who are now acting as agents of a foreign power to frustrate or reverse the will of the people.
I'm disappointed that you didn't capitalise Will Of The People.
Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. There has been a general election since. The Will Of The People can change.
TMay needed to have equalled or exceeded the Cameron GE2015 majority for her version of Brexit to b given democratic mandate. That didn't happen and we are in limbo land
80% voted for the Tories and Labour both of whom had manifesto commitments to leave the single market and end free movement.
The LDs were committed to permanent single market membership and got just 7%
Any MP claiming to want to represent the people with a final vote is clearly bullshitting. The people have already had their say and we've instructed them to leave. Everything else is just obstructionism/treason dressed up as concern. The people have instructed the MPs. They no longer have sovereignty on the issue of Brexit.
No, if the final deal includes FoM in more or less its current form then it is important for Parliament to get its say, one way or another, rather than take diktat from Strong and Stable.
You may say she wouldn't agree to this, I am not so sure. Her red lines fade quickly.
The EU aren't going to roll over and make concessions just because Parliament voted it down are they?
No, but it gives Parliament the say over WTO hard Brexit or soft as eiderdown Brexit in that circumstance, and the MPs would have to own the decision.
If it is medium soft Brexit then endorsement by Parliament will be an impoetant part of the healing process.
The problem with this is simple.......
Those who voted for the amendment would like the third option, which Andrew Adonis confirmed today - quite openly stating the first blow to 'Stop Brexit' had been scored.
I agree, back to the negotiating table is not on, and I dont think A50 withdrawal would get more than 25% of Parliament.
It is important that the MPs have to come down for or against the Deal. It shapes the future of the country for good or bad, and Parliament needs to take responsibility.
It does no good if the whingeing starts on both the frothers and remoaners side denouncing the May deal immediately. Endorsement by the HoC is the only way to make it stick, and an important part of the country moving on.
What they're trying to do is force May to take less and less independence for the fear of the 'interpretation' of the word 'Meaningful'. MPs are 75% remain from the campaign. If meaningful doesn't mean 'Withdraw Art 50" - expect it to end in the courts. Delay, hope that we die off (I'm told that one all the time), and vote again.
I think if the MPs reject the deal, then we will have a general election. And unlike 2017, it really will be about Brexit.
If we have such a controversial deal it my well be because it is so soft.
So your view is that it was dashed bad luck and a bit of pressure that contributed to the creation of one of the main themes of the whole referendum campaign which was so powerful and which tapped into the zeitgeist so perfectly?
Not so sure, myself.
Doesn't sound likely, does it? Especially when Gove doubled-down on it after that interview when he later compared experts who predicted negative consequences from Brexit to 'German scientists' who were paid by the government to denounce Einstein's ideas. (No prizes for guessing who plays the role of Einstein in his analogy.)
Any MP claiming to want to represent the people with a final vote is clearly bullshitting. The people have already had their say and we've instructed them to leave. Everything else is just obstructionism/treason dressed up as concern. The people have instructed the MPs. They no longer have sovereignty on the issue of Brexit.
No, if the final deal includes FoM in more or less its current form then it is important for Parliament to get its say, one way or another, rather than take diktat from Strong and Stable.
You may say she wouldn't agree to this, I am not so sure. Her red lines fade quickly.
The EU aren't going to roll over and make concessions just because Parliament voted it down are they?
No, but it gives Parliament the say over WTO hard Brexit or soft as eiderdown Brexit in that circumstance, and the MPs would have to own the decision.
If it is medium soft Brexit then endorsement by Parliament will be an impoetant part of the healing process.
The problem with this is simple.......
Those who voted for the amendment would like the third option, which Andrew Adonis confirmed today - quite openly stating the first blow to 'Stop Brexit' had been scored.
I agree, back to the negotiating table is not on, and I dont think A50 withdrawal would get more than 25% of Parliament.
It is important that the MPs have to come down for or against the Deal. It shapes the future of the country for good or bad, and Parliament needs to take responsibility.
It does no good if the whingeing starts on both the frothers and remoaners side denouncing the May deal immediately. Endorsement by the HoC is the only way to make it stick, and an important part of the country moving on.
What they're trying to do is force May to take less and less independence for the fear of the 'interpretation' of the word 'Meaningful'. MPs are 75% remain from the campaign. If meaningful doesn't mean 'Withdraw Art 50" - expect it to end in the courts. Delay, hope that we die off (I'm told that one all the time), and vote again.
I think if the MPs reject the deal, then we will have a general election. And unlike 2017, it really will be about Brexit.
If we have such a controversial deal it my well be because it is so soft.
Hard to see how that gets rejected. Tory hardliners plus Jezza's lot, but I'd have thought that the bulk of Tory and Labour MPs would agree to BINO.
I see the early evening Leave shift is happy to label Remain voters as traitors. I look forward to the later evening Leave shift grumpily complaining that Remain voters are never satisfied by the efforts made by Leavers to heal the divisions.
Not voters. Anyone is free to vote how they want. It's the MPs who are now acting as agents of a foreign power to frustrate or reverse the will of the people.
I'm disappointed that you didn't capitalise Will Of The People.
Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. There has been a general election since. The Will Of The People can change.
TMay needed to have equalled or exceeded the Cameron GE2015 majority for her version of Brexit to b given democratic mandate. That didn't happen and we are in limbo land
Yep.
I still don't get why she didn't hold an election earlier, pre-A50.
IMO, she would have won 45-50%+ of the vote and a 150+maj (depending on the LD's) with or without her bucket of sick manifesto.
I see the early evening Leave shift is happy to label Remain voters as traitors. I look forward to the later evening Leave shift grumpily complaining that Remain voters are never satisfied by the efforts made by Leavers to heal the divisions.
Not voters. Anyone is free to vote how they want. It's the MPs who are now acting as agents of a foreign power to frustrate or reverse the will of the people.
I'm disappointed that you didn't capitalise Will Of The People.
Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. There has been a general election since. The Will Of The People can change.
TMay needed to have equalled or exceeded the Cameron GE2015 majority for her version of Brexit to b given democratic mandate. That didn't happen and we are in limbo land
Yep.
Nope. May's vision of a FTA that ends free movement is what most voters want
Any MP claiming to want to represent the people with a final vote is clearly bullshitting. The people have already had their say and we've instructed them to leave. Everything else is just obstructionism/treason dressed up as concern. The people have instructed the MPs. They no longer have sovereignty on the issue of Brexit.
No, if the final deal includes FoM in more or less its current form then it is important for Parliament to get its say, one way or another, rather than take diktat from Strong and Stable.
You may say she wouldn't agree to this, I am not so sure. Her red lines fade quickly.
The EU aren't going to roll over and make concessions just because Parliament voted it down are they?
No, but it gives Parliament the say over WTO hard Brexit or soft as eiderdown Brexit in that circumstance, and the MPs would have to own the decision.
If it is medium soft Brexit then endorsement by Parliament will be an impoetant part of the healing process.
The problem with this is simple.......
Those who voted for the amendment would like the third option, which Andrew Adonis confirmed today - quite openly stating the first blow to 'Stop Brexit' had been scored.
I agree, back to the negotiating table
What they're trying to do is force May to take less and less independence for the fear of the 'interpretation' of the word 'Meaningful'. MPs are 75% remain from the campaign. If meaningful doesn't mean 'Withdraw Art 50" - expect it to end in the courts. Delay, hope that we die off (I'm told that one all the time), and vote again.
I think if the MPs reject the deal, then we will have a general election. And unlike 2017, it really will be about Brexit.
If we have such a controversial deal it my well be because it is so soft.
Hard to see how that gets rejected. Tory hardliners plus Jezza's lot, but I'd have thought that the bulk of Tory and Labour MPs would agree to BINO.
I don't think it would be rejected either, but it may be unpopular in some quarters. In such a circumstance it is important for it to get official endorsement by all parties.
This is probably the most likely endgame. The EU27 has played a blinder, to have us following the rules, paying up and not getting a say in the rules. The first round was 3 nil to the EU, the second round looks a repeat.
So your view is that it was dashed bad luck and a bit of pressure that contributed to the creation of one of the main themes of the whole referendum campaign which was so powerful and which tapped into the zeitgeist so perfectly?
Not so sure, myself.
Doesn't sound likely, does it? Especially when Gove doubled-down on it after that interview when he later compared experts who predicted negative consequences from Brexit to 'German scientists' who were paid by the government to denounce Einstein's ideas. (No prizes for guessing who plays the role of Einstein in his analogy.)
To be fair, we are talking about a group of experts who seem to be consistently wrong about the things they claim to be experts in. All these posho centrist journalists posing as economists and political scientists. Remember the guy who had to pretend to eat his book on TV because he got the election so badly wrong? This class of experts have been metaphorically eating the book for the last decade in the eyes of the public.
I see the early evening Leave shift is happy to label Remain voters as traitors. I look forward to the later evening Leave shift grumpily complaining that Remain voters are never satisfied by the efforts made by Leavers to heal the divisions.
Not voters. Anyone is free to vote how they want. It's the MPs who are now acting as agents of a foreign power to frustrate or reverse the will of the people.
I'm disappointed that you didn't capitalise Will Of The People.
Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. There has been a general election since. The Will Of The People can change.
TMay needed to have equalled or exceeded the Cameron GE2015 majority for her version of Brexit to b given democratic mandate. That didn't happen and we are in limbo land
Yep.
Nope. May's vision of a FTA that ends free movement is what most voters want
It may not be what they get. May has rubbed out her redlines previously. Hence the importance of this being a collective rather than executive decision. Parliament needs to own it, and May needs to persuade the House that it is the best option.
Would prefer some actual, you know, debate but fair enough and no, I'm not familiar with the phrase; is it a thing also?
Tell me, where do you draw the line? When Abbot's numbers on police pay were out by 3 orders of magnitude was she in fact having a meltdown, or was that, again, just what the sheeple were meant to think? How do you differentiate between Abbot losing control, and Gove losing control, of an interview.
Like all snobs you underestimate the intelligence of people you judge to be poorer or less well educated than you are. Almost everyone is capable of understanding the point that there's experts you go to when your health or your car breaks down, and wannabe financial experts who think the financial future is predictable, when it is perhaps the single most certain finding in the whole of economics, that it isn't.
Hmm a bit all over the place there.
Wasn't Abbott ill?
Are you saying I am underestimating Michael Gove?
So your view is that it was dashed bad luck and a bit of pressure that contributed to the creation of one of the main themes of the whole referendum campaign which was so powerful and which tapped into the zeitgeist so perfectly?
Not so sure, myself.
You still haven't actually looked at it, have you? If you had we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Your case is as strong as this: if I say that "I hate so-called experts in astrology who prey on the innocent by selling them horoscopes", this is a dog-whistle way of telling the thick proles that I hate experts, and because they are thick proles they will think "quite right too", and vote for me. Good case, well done.
The fact that you have to implore people to go and read (where?) what he actually said just makes my point for me.
Are you drunk? We are talking about a televised interview, so why on earth would you interpret "look at it" as "read it"? I know this interwebby stuff is difficult, so here it is for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGgiGtJk7MA
And instead of seeing for yourself, you were prepared to accept Scott's misrepresentation of Islam's misrepresentation as gospel, because it shows Gove and the proles in a bad light, so bound to be correct. Very rigorous and scholarly.
No sane person would want or know where to find that clip.
I'm sceptical that a penny either way on the rate of Scottish tax is going to make all that much difference to behaviours.
Could well make a difference on the borders. And, as ever, the better off will be able to circumvent it one way or another.
Given up to 70% will pay less tax it is hard to see it being an issue. I will be caught at every level but it is still small fry compared to earnings and fact that I could afford 4x 4 bedroom detached houses here for the price of an ex council house in London does put it in perspective. Add free prescriptions , university , blah blah blah.
I see the early evening Leave shift is happy to label Remain voters as traitors. I look forward to the later evening Leave shift grumpily complaining that Remain voters are never satisfied by the efforts made by Leavers to heal the divisions.
Not voters. Anyone is free to vote how they want. It's the MPs who are now acting as agents of a foreign power to frustrate or reverse the will of the people.
I'm disappointed that you didn't capitalise Will Of The People.
Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. There has been a general election since. The Will Of The People can change.
TMay needed to have equalled or exceeded the Cameron GE2015 majority for her version of Brexit to b given democratic mandate. That didn't happen and we are in limbo land
Yep.
Nope. May's vision of a FTA that ends free movement is what most voters want
It may not be what they get. May has rubbed out her redlines previously. Hence the importance of this being a collective rather than executive decision. Parliament needs to own it, and May needs to persuade the House that it is the best option.
It is what we will get unless we stay permanently in the single market, which the Tory Party will never allow May to do (and Corbyn opposes too) as it leaves free movement and the ECJ permanently in place, now we have paid the exit bill, settled citizens' rights and the Irish border
I see the early evening Leave shift is happy to label Remain voters as traitors. I look forward to the later evening Leave shift grumpily complaining that Remain voters are never satisfied by the efforts made by Leavers to heal the divisions.
Not voters. Anyone is free to vote how they want. It's the MPs who are now acting as agents of a foreign power to frustrate or reverse the will of the people.
I'm disappointed that you didn't capitalise Will Of The People.
Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. There has been a general election since. The Will Of The People can change.
TMay needed to have equalled or exceeded the Cameron GE2015 majority for her version of Brexit to b given democratic mandate. That didn't happen and we are in limbo land
Yep.
I still don't get why she didn't hold an election earlier, pre-A50.
IMO, she would have won 45-50%+ of the vote and a 150+maj (depending on the LD's) with or without her bucket of sick manifesto.
I disagree. Brexit didn’t lose it for May, or the delay in calling a vote until spring. What lost it was that people suddenly woke up to the fact that they were having an election and they weren’t just voting on recent events but on the governments whole record, austerity included. And the bucket of sick manifesto probably turned a majority of about 40 or so into what we saw happen. It was doom, doom, doom.
Now if they had come out with a couple more baubles, they’d probably have squeaked it but as it was it was a vote for another 5 years of what a lot of people thought looked like misery. It was too responsible for its own good.
I see the early evening Leave shift is happy to label Remain voters as traitors. I look forward to the later evening Leave shift grumpily complaining that Remain voters are never satisfied by the efforts made by Leavers to heal the divisions.
I'll be calling you a traitor later, but I'm not on till 9.
I don't think it would be rejected either, but it may be unpopular in some quarters. In such a circumstance it is important for it to get official endorsement by all parties.
This is probably the most likely endgame. The EU27 has played a blinder, to have us following the rules, paying up and not getting a say in the rules. The first round was 3 nil to the EU, the second round looks a repeat.
There were concessions on both sides. For example, do you really think the EU went into the negotiations with a view that time-limited ECJ jurisdiction for EU citizens was sufficient, and only if the Supreme Court decides to refer?
I see the early evening Leave shift is happy to label Remain voters as traitors. I look forward to the later evening Leave shift grumpily complaining that Remain voters are never satisfied by the efforts made by Leavers to heal the divisions.
Not voters. Anyone is free to vote how they want. It's the MPs who are now acting as agents of a foreign power to frustrate or reverse the will of the people.
I'm disappointed that you didn't capitalise Will Of The People.
Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. There has been a general election since. The Will Of The People can change.
TMay needed to have equalled or exceeded the Cameron GE2015 majority for her version of Brexit to b given democratic mandate. That didn't happen and we are in limbo land
Yep.
Nope. May's vision of a FTA that ends free movement is what most voters want
It may not be what they get. May has rubbed out her redlines previously. Hence the importance of this being a collective rather than executive decision. Parliament needs to own it, and May needs to persuade the House that it is the best option.
It is what we will get unless we stay permanently in the single market, which the Tory Party will never allow May to do (and Corbyn opposes too) as it leaves free movement and the ECJ permanently in place, now we have paid the exit bill, settled citizens' rights and the Irish border
The mechanism of the party stopping May agreeing to stay in the SM (and the fudge over the Irish border is being interpreted in RoI as staying in the SM) is a Parliamentary vote. If it is an executive decision by May, then they would have to suck it up.
A Parliamentary vote is more important for Hard Brexiteers as May is going as soft as a Walls 99 in the Sahara.
I don't think it would be rejected either, but it may be unpopular in some quarters. In such a circumstance it is important for it to get official endorsement by all parties.
This is probably the most likely endgame. The EU27 has played a blinder, to have us following the rules, paying up and not getting a say in the rules. The first round was 3 nil to the EU, the second round looks a repeat.
I agree BINO looks odds on at the moment. The transitional period is clearly going to be "no change" as far as the single market and customs union are concerned - the UK will just leave the EU political structure. That will move the economic cliff edge to 2021 - a year before the next election. It's very unlikely that a long-term trade deal will have been agreed by then since the UK cannot agree on what it wants and the EU will have no incentive to hurry so the transition will be extended. That takes us well beyond the next election. So the "transition" will become a semi-permanent position.
Norway has been in what was originally billed as a "transition" position for more than 20 years.
I see the early evening Leave shift is happy to label Remain voters as traitors. I look forward to the later evening Leave shift grumpily complaining that Remain voters are never satisfied by the efforts made by Leavers to heal the divisions.
Not voters. Anyone is free to vote how they want. It's the MPs who are now acting as agents of a foreign power to frustrate or reverse the will of the people.
I'm disappointed that you didn't capitalise Will Of The People.
Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. There has been a general election since. The Will Of The People can change.
TMay needed to have equalled or exceeded the Cameron GE2015 majority for her version of Brexit to b given democratic mandate. That didn't happen and we are in limbo land
Yep.
I still don't get why she didn't hold an election earlier, pre-A50.
IMO, she would have won 45-50%+ of the vote and a 150+maj (depending on the LD's) with or without her bucket of sick manifesto.
I disagree. Brexit didn’t lose it for May, or the delay in calling a vote until spring. What lost it was that people suddenly woke up to the fact that they were having an election and they weren’t just voting on recent events but on the governments whole record, austerity included. And the bucket of sick manifesto probably turned a majority of about 40 or so into what we saw happen. It was doom, doom, doom.
Now if they had come out with a couple more baubles, they’d probably have squeaked it but as it was it was a vote for another 5 years of what a lot of people thought looked like misery. It was too responsible for its own good.
But Pre-A50 the electoral dynamic was completely different. Brexit was in doubt. The leave coalition would have almost entirely swung behind May. The remain coalition was much more likely to remain split between Lab/LD rather than breaking so strongly to lab. Rather than destroying the LD's, She could have empowered them enough to massacre corbyn under FPTP.
If the triggering of A50 was dependent on her winning a majority then would have mattered during the campaign. The dementia tax wouldn't have got traction.
Pre-A50, leavers were still able to project the brexit they wanted onto TM & the tories. She needed the GE to be EUREF take 2 to get her mandate - the trigger of A50 was her ace card.
I see the early evening Leave shift is happy to label Remain voters as traitors. I look forward to the later evening Leave shift grumpily complaining that Remain voters are never satisfied by the efforts made by Leavers to heal the divisions.
Not voters. Anyone is free to vote how they want. It's the MPs who are now acting as agents of a foreign power to frustrate or reverse the will of the people.
I'm disappointed that you didn't capitalise Will Of The People.
Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. There has been a general election since. The Will Of The People can change.
TMay needed to have equalled or exceeded the Cameron GE2015 majority for her version of Brexit to b given democratic mandate. That didn't happen and we are in limbo land
Yep.
Nope. May's vision of a FTA that ends free movement is what most voters want
It may not be what they get. May has rubbed out her redlines previously. Hence the importance of this being a collective rather than executive decision. Parliament needs to own it, and May needs to persuade the House that it is the best option.
It is what we will get unless we stay permanently in the single market, which the Tory Party will never allow May to do (and Corbyn opposes too) as it leaves free movement and the ECJ permanently in place, now we have paid the exit bill, settled citizens' rights and the Irish border
The ECj does not adjudicate the EEA agreement - that is the EFTA court. The twin pillar system for new EEA relevant legislation and the pre legislative process means that the EEA annexes rarely have to be referred anyway, on the basis that we have agreed all of this legislation at one stage or another.
As a long transition, it's a good template. IF we want to go further then we take the CETA template and build on it, but later.
I don't think it would be rejected either, but it may be unpopular in some quarters. In such a circumstance it is important for it to get official endorsement by all parties.
This is probably the most likely endgame. The EU27 has played a blinder, to have us following the rules, paying up and not getting a say in the rules. The first round was 3 nil to the EU, the second round looks a repeat.
I agree BINO looks odds on at the moment. The transitional period is clearly going to be "no change" as far as the single market and customs union are concerned - the UK will just leave the EU political structure. That will move the economic cliff edge to 2021 - a year before the next election. It's very unlikely that a long-term trade deal will have been agreed by then since the UK cannot agree on what it wants and the EU will have no incentive to hurry so the transition will be extended. That takes us well beyond the next election. So the "transition" will become a semi-permanent position.
Norway has been in what was originally billed as a "transition" position for more than 20 years.
Was it really billed as a simple transition? Norwegians have always been opposed to EU membership, so it would seem unlikely they would call it that.
I don't think it would be rejected either, but it may be unpopular in some quarters. In such a circumstance it is important for it to get official endorsement by all parties.
This is probably the most likely endgame. The EU27 has played a blinder, to have us following the rules, paying up and not getting a say in the rules. The first round was 3 nil to the EU, the second round looks a repeat.
I agree BINO looks odds on at the moment. The transitional period is clearly going to be "no change" as far as the single market and customs union are concerned - the UK will just leave the EU political structure. That will move the economic cliff edge to 2021 - a year before the next election. It's very unlikely that a long-term trade deal will have been agreed by then since the UK cannot agree on what it wants and the EU will have no incentive to hurry so the transition will be extended. That takes us well beyond the next election. So the "transition" will become a semi-permanent position.
Norway has been in what was originally billed as a "transition" position for more than 20 years.
Ironically virtually identical to Kier Starmer's position.
"Ms Pidcock and Mr Kebede are estimated to be on a combined salary of more than £100,000. For all their loathing of the Tory ‘enemy’ they may find it difficult to avoid Conservative supporters in their new surroundings. Situated in the foothills of the Pennines, the village is home to professionals who commute to the university city of Durham just a few miles away, as well as to nearby Newcastle. The estate agent’s blurb for the house boasts of its ‘impressive period features, two receptions rooms, superbly finished, refurbished in 2016, real stone floors, oak doors, sitting/dining room with exposed stone wall, contemporary fitted kitchen, stone patio and lawned garden’. The agents say that it is ‘just 300 yards from the centre of the village, close to the cricket club and with countryside walks nearby.’"
I don't think it would be rejected either, but it may be unpopular in some quarters. In such a circumstance it is important for it to get official endorsement by all parties.
This is probably the most likely endgame. The EU27 has played a blinder, to have us following the rules, paying up and not getting a say in the rules. The first round was 3 nil to the EU, the second round looks a repeat.
I agree BINO looks odds on at the moment. The transitional period is clearly going to be "no change" as far as the single market and customs union are concerned - the UK will just leave the EU political structure. That will move the economic cliff edge to 2021 - a year before the next election. It's very unlikely that a long-term trade deal will have been agreed by then since the UK cannot agree on what it wants and the EU will have no incentive to hurry so the transition will be extended. That takes us well beyond the next election. So the "transition" will become a semi-permanent position.
Norway has been in what was originally billed as a "transition" position for more than 20 years.
Ironically virtually identical to Kier Starmer's position.
It will be interesting to see if the Tory ultras go along with the UK effectively converting itself into an economic colony of the EU or whether they try to topple May and replace her with a "cliff edge" Brexiteer.
I don't think it would be rejected either, but it may be unpopular in some quarters. In such a circumstance it is important for it to get official endorsement by all parties.
This is probably the most likely endgame. The EU27 has played a blinder, to have us following the rules, paying up and not getting a say in the rules. The first round was 3 nil to the EU, the second round looks a repeat.
I agree BINO looks odds on at the moment. The transitional period is clearly going to be "no change" as far as the single market and customs union are concerned - the UK will just leave the EU political structure. That will move the economic cliff edge to 2021 - a year before the next election. It's very unlikely that a long-term trade deal will have been agreed by then since the UK cannot agree on what it wants and the EU will have no incentive to hurry so the transition will be extended. That takes us well beyond the next election. So the "transition" will become a semi-permanent position.
Norway has been in what was originally billed as a "transition" position for more than 20 years.
Ironically virtually identical to Kier Starmer's position.
It will be interesting to see if the Tory ultras go along with the UK effectively converting itself into an economic colony of the EU or whether they try to topple May and replace her with a "cliff edge" Brexiteer.
Neither side wants the transition to be permanent. More likely we end up with a deal like Canada's.
I don't think it would be rejected either, but it may be unpopular in some quarters. In such a circumstance it is important for it to get official endorsement by all parties.
This is probably the most likely endgame. The EU27 has played a blinder, to have us following the rules, paying up and not getting a say in the rules. The first round was 3 nil to the EU, the second round looks a repeat.
I agree BINO looks odds on at the moment. The transitional period is clearly going to be "no change" as far as the single market and customs union are concerned - the UK will just leave the EU political structure. That will move the economic cliff edge to 2021 - a year before the next election. It's very unlikely that a long-term trade deal will have been agreed by then since the UK cannot agree on what it wants and the EU will have no incentive to hurry so the transition will be extended. That takes us well beyond the next election. So the "transition" will become a semi-permanent position.
Norway has been in what was originally billed as a "transition" position for more than 20 years.
Was it really billed as a simple transition? Norwegians have always been opposed to EU membership, so it would seem unlikely they would call it that.
Yes. The EEA was simply a treaty designed to align the market rules so that the other nation s of Europe (in EFTA) could start to harmonise with the EU in the hope that they would eventually join. There were originally 6 non EU EEA states I think. (Sweeden, Austria, Finland, Luxembourg, Iceland and Norway).
The argument is that it could be used in both directions.
Dominic Grieve, the Conservative MP, has faced death threats after leading a parliamentary rebellion that resulted in the prime minister’s first defeat on Brexit.
The former Tory attorney has reported incidents to the police. Other colleagues who rebelled have also come under pressure. Grieve told the Guardian:
'The thing which continues to cause me concern is not that people will disagree vigorously with the positions we take but that the atmosphere is so febrile that it leads firstly to people not listening to what the debate is about, secondly suggests that any questions around Brexit amount to an intention to sabotage and thirdly result in some people expressing themselves in terms that at times include death threats.
Death threats should have no part in the political process of a democracy.'
Grieve also questioned the response of some newspapers to the vote, including a front page story from the Daily Mail that claimed 11 Tory “self-consumed malcontents” had betrayed their leader, party and 17.4m Brexit voters and had increased the “possibility of a Marxist in No 10”. Grieve said:
'The form of reporting that the Daily Mail adopts is an incitement to obscuring what the issues actually are. That then adds to the atmosphere.'
I don't think it would be rejected either, but it may be unpopular in some quarters. In such a circumstance it is important for it to get official endorsement by all parties.
This is probably the most likely endgame. The EU27 has played a blinder, to have us following the rules, paying up and not getting a say in the rules. The first round was 3 nil to the EU, the second round looks a repeat.
I agree BINO looks odds on at the moment. The transitional period is clearly going to be "no change" as far as the single market and customs union are concerned - the UK will just leave the EU political structure. That will move the economic cliff edge to 2021 - a year before the next election. It's very unlikely that a long-term trade deal will have been agreed by then since the UK cannot agree on what it wants and the EU will have no incentive to hurry so the transition will be extended. That takes us well beyond the next election. So the "transition" will become a semi-permanent position.
Norway has been in what was originally billed as a "transition" position for more than 20 years.
Was it really billed as a simple transition? Norwegians have always been opposed to EU membership, so it would seem unlikely they would call it that.
Yes. The EEA was simply a treaty designed to align the market rules so that the other nation s of Europe (in EFTA) could start to harmonise with the EU in the hope that they would eventually join. There were originally 6 non EU EEA states I think. (Sweeden, Austria, Finland, Luxembourg, Iceland and Norway).
The argument is that it could be used in both directions.
One wonders how they got away with that with the electorate, given their continued opposition to membership.
Looks like longstanding Labour Peer Lord Lipsey may have just resigned the Labour whip.
He is now being shown as non-affiliated on the official Parliament website.
Can't see any media reports on this anywhere.
Pardon me for asking but how on Earth did you (or anyone else) even notice that??
There's a State of the Parties table and I periodically check it for changes - of which there are quite a lot with deaths, retirements, appointments etc.
Noticed Lab had gone down for no reason so a quick scan of the non-affiliateds list and he's there.
In the past it's taken mainstream media quite a while to notice similar changes - when more high profile people have done similar.
I don't think it would be rejected either, but it may be unpopular in some quarters. In such a circumstance it is important for it to get official endorsement by all parties.
This is probably the most likely endgame. The EU27 has played a blinder, to have us following the rules, paying up and not getting a say in the rules. The first round was 3 nil to the EU, the second round looks a repeat.
I agree BINO looks odds on at the moment. The transitional period is clearly going to be "no change" as far as the single market and customs union are concerned - the UK will just leave the EU political structure. That will move the economic cliff edge to 2021 - a year before the next election. It's very unlikely that a long-term trade deal will have been agreed by then since the UK cannot agree on what it wants and the EU will have no incentive to hurry so the transition will be extended. That takes us well beyond the next election. So the "transition" will become a semi-permanent position.
Norway has been in what was originally billed as a "transition" position for more than 20 years.
Was it really billed as a simple transition? Norwegians have always been opposed to EU membership, so it would seem unlikely they would call it that.
Yes. The EEA was simply a treaty designed to align the market rules so that the other nation s of Europe (in EFTA) could start to harmonise with the EU in the hope that they would eventually join. There were originally 6 non EU EEA states I think. (Sweeden, Austria, Finland, Luxembourg, Iceland and Norway).
The argument is that it could be used in both directions.
One wonders how they got away with that with the electorate, given their continued opposition to membership.
Because opposition wasn't so strong then, and their main political parties were all pro EU. I'm not sure the public got a say in it at all. There is a movement now (nei til EU) which is campaigning for EEA exit for Norway.
I don't think the Lords will matter much as Commons will just reverse all Lords amendments - and we've seen over the first 7 days of Commons Committee that Govt support is pretty watertight across all issues except Grieve amendment.
I don't think it would be rejected either, but it may be unpopular in some quarters. In such a circumstance it is important for it to get official endorsement by all parties.
This is probably the most likely endgame. The EU27 has played a blinder, to have us following the rules, paying up and not getting a say in the rules. The first round was 3 nil to the EU, the second round looks a repeat.
I agree BINO looks odds on at the moment. The transitional period is clearly going to be "no change" as far as the single market and customs union are concerned - the UK will just leave the EU political structure. That will move the economic cliff edge to 2021 - a year before the next election. It's very unlikely that a long-term trade deal will have been agreed by then since the UK cannot agree on what it wants and the EU will have no incentive to hurry so the transition will be extended. That takes us well beyond the next election. So the "transition" will become a semi-permanent position.
Norway has been in what was originally billed as a "transition" position for more than 20 years.
Was it really billed as a simple transition? Norwegians have always been opposed to EU membership, so it would seem unlikely they would call it that.
Yes. The EEA was simply a treaty designed to align the market rules so that the other nation s of Europe (in EFTA) could start to harmonise with the EU in the hope that they would eventually join. There were originally 6 non EU EEA states I think. (Sweeden, Austria, Finland, Luxembourg, Iceland and Norway).
The argument is that it could be used in both directions.
One wonders how they got away with that with the electorate, given their continued opposition to membership.
Because opposition wasn't so strong then, and their main political parties were all pro EU. I'm not sure the public got a say in it at all. There is a movement now (nei til EU) which is campaigning for EEA exit for Norway.
They've definitely become far more against EU membership these days, with Yes lucky to get above 20%.
I don't think it would be rejected either, but it may be unpopular in some quarters. In such a circumstance it is important for it to get official endorsement by all parties.
This is probably the most likely endgame. The EU27 has played a blinder, to have us following the rules, paying up and not getting a say in the rules. The first round was 3 nil to the EU, the second round looks a repeat.
I agree BINO looks odds on at the moment. The transitional period is clearly going to be "no change" as far as the single market and customs union are concerned - the UK will just leave the EU political structure. That will move the economic cliff edge to 2021 - a year before the next election. It's very unlikely that a long-term trade deal will have been agreed by then since the UK cannot agree on what it wants and the EU will have no incentive to hurry so the transition will be extended. That takes us well beyond the next election. So the "transition" will become a semi-permanent position.
Norway has been in what was originally billed as a "transition" position for more than 20 years.
Was it really billed as a simple transition? Norwegians have always been opposed to EU membership, so it would seem unlikely they would call it that.
Yes. The EEA was simply a treaty designed to align the market rules so that the other nation s of Europe (in EFTA) could start to harmonise with the EU in the hope that they would eventually join. There were originally 6 non EU EEA states I think. (Sweeden, Austria, Finland, Luxembourg, Iceland and Norway).
The argument is that it could be used in both directions.
One wonders how they got away with that with the electorate, given their continued opposition to membership.
Because opposition wasn't so strong then, and their main political parties were all pro EU. I'm not sure the public got a say in it at all. There is a movement now (nei til EU) which is campaigning for EEA exit for Norway.
When EEA agreement came into force, Norway was gearing up for a referendum on full membership which was won 52/48 by the No side.
What do the words 'defeat of Brexit' mean? I can't see how it can possibly translate into other than the obstruction of the expressed wish of the populace.
I don't think it would be rejected either, but it may be unpopular in some quarters. In such a circumstance it is important for it to get official endorsement by all parties.
This is probably the most likely endgame. The EU27 has played a blinder, to have us following the rules, paying up and not getting a say in the rules. The first round was 3 nil to the EU, the second round looks a repeat.
I agree BINO looks odds on at the moment. The transitional period is clearly going to be "no change" as far as the single market and customs union are concerned - the UK will just leave the EU political structure. That will move the economic cliff edge to 2021 - a year before the next election. It's very unlikely that a long-term trade deal will have been agreed by then since the UK cannot agree on what it wants and the EU will have no incentive to hurry so the transition will be extended. That takes us well beyond the next election. So the "transition" will become a semi-permanent position.
Norway has been in what was originally billed as a "transition" position for more than 20 years.
Was it really billed as a simple transition? Norwegians have always been opposed to EU membership, so it would seem unlikely they would call it that.
Not vey opposed! Both the 1972 and 1994 Norway referendums were narrow victories for out 53%/47%.
I don't think the Lords will matter much as Commons will just reverse all Lords amendments - and we've seen over the first 7 days of Commons Committee that Govt support is pretty watertight across all issues except Grieve amendment.
That's not what I meant. Conservatives are looking at the Canada + version of Brexit because they don't want to be in another pickle in 10 years time, when the EU try to roll up the EEA into the main treaty. (This has always been the plan for the EEA really, for all the EEA states to join the EU, and for the market and the State to become indivisible).
So they fear if they stay in the EEA, the EU will eventually create their Windows 10 moment - the final upgrade of the treaty, which will create two tiers of membership (see the Fundamental Law Spinelli group document), at which point we will have another cliff edge to navigate. Rejoin as an associate member or WTO.
Unless we can get a long transition, via shadow EEA or something similar, to a trade deal that will work however the EU evolves, then the hard liners will keep coming back for another shot at proper Brexit, because they will see the problem approaching. And they will see too much compromise now as a betrayal. So the tories will be fighting themselves for a generation over it. But we must never agree EEA in perpetuity, or we will be back here again in a decade or so, with another divisive situation.
I don't think the Lords will matter much as Commons will just reverse all Lords amendments - and we've seen over the first 7 days of Commons Committee that Govt support is pretty watertight across all issues except Grieve amendment.
That's not what I meant. Conservatives are looking at the Canada + version of Brexit because they don't want to be in another pickle in 10 years time, when the EU try to roll up the EEA into the main treaty. (This has always been the plan for the EEA really, for all the EEA states to join the EU, and for the market and the State to become indivisible).
So they fear if they stay in the EEA, the EU will eventually create their Windows 10 moment - the final upgrade of the treaty, which will create two tiers of membership (see the Fundamental Law Spinelli group document), at which point we will have another cliff edge to navigate. Rejoin as an associate member or WTO.
Unless we can get a long transition, via shadow EEA or something similar, to a trade deal that will work however the EU evolves, then the hard liners will keep coming back for another shot at proper Brexit, because they will see the problem approaching. And they will see too much compromise now as a betrayal. So the tories will be fighting themselves for a generation over it. But we must never agree EEA in perpetuity, or we will be back here again in a decade or so, with another divisive situation.
Which is why there needs to be a Parliamentary vote on the Deal. A May fait accomplie would not stick.
I don't think it would be rejected either, but it may be unpopular in some quarters. In such a circumstance it is important for it to get official endorsement by all parties.
This is probably the most likely endgame. The EU27 has played a blinder, to have us following the rules, paying up and not getting a say in the rules. The first round was 3 nil to the EU, the second round looks a repeat.
I agree BINO looks odds on at the moment. The transitional period is clearly going to be "no change" as far as the single market and customs union are concerned - the UK will just leave the EU political structure. That will move the economic cliff edge to 2021 - a year before the next election. It's very unlikely that a long-term trade deal will have been agreed by then since the UK cannot agree on what it wants and the EU will have no incentive to hurry so the transition will be extended. That takes us well beyond the next election. So the "transition" will become a semi-permanent position.
Norway has been in what was originally billed as a "transition" position for more than 20 years.
Was it really billed as a simple transition? Norwegians have always been opposed to EU membership, so it would seem unlikely they would call it that.
Yes. The EEA was simply a treaty designed to align the market rules so that the other nation s of Europe (in EFTA) could start to harmonise with the EU in the hope that they would eventually join. There were originally 6 non EU EEA states I think. (Sweeden, Austria, Finland, Luxembourg, Iceland and Norway).
The argument is that it could be used in both directions.
One wonders how they got away with that with the electorate, given their continued opposition to membership.
Because opposition wasn't so strong then, and their main political parties were all pro EU. I'm not sure the public got a say in it at all. There is a movement now (nei til EU) which is campaigning for EEA exit for Norway.
When EEA agreement came into force, Norway was gearing up for a referendum on full membership which was won 52/48 by the No side.
Yes, they were only offered a choice on full membership, not on the EEA itself. The Govt entered the EEA treaty at its inception in 1992, ready for its start date of 1/1/1994. the referendum on EU entry was not held until November 1994.
I don't think the Lords will matter much as Commons will just reverse all Lords amendments - and we've seen over the first 7 days of Commons Committee that Govt support is pretty watertight across all issues except Grieve amendment.
That's not what I meant. Conservatives are looking at the Canada + version of Brexit because they don't want to be in another pickle in 10 years time, when the EU try to roll up the EEA into the main treaty. (This has always been the plan for the EEA really, for all the EEA states to join the EU, and for the market and the State to become indivisible).
So they fear if they stay in the EEA, the EU will eventually create their Windows 10 moment - the final upgrade of the treaty, which will create two tiers of membership (see the Fundamental Law Spinelli group document), at which point we will have another cliff edge to navigate. Rejoin as an associate member or WTO.
Unless we can get a long transition, via shadow EEA or something similar, to a trade deal that will work however the EU evolves, then the hard liners will keep coming back for another shot at proper Brexit, because they will see the problem approaching. And they will see too much compromise now as a betrayal. So the tories will be fighting themselves for a generation over it. But we must never agree EEA in perpetuity, or we will be back here again in a decade or so, with another divisive situation.
Which is why there needs to be a Parliamentary vote on the Deal. A May fait accomplie would not stick.
Yes, but if the UK parliament only agrees to vote for EEA membership, and that's not on the table, we are looking at a real sticky situation.
That's not what I meant. Conservatives are looking at the Canada + version of Brexit because they don't want to be in another pickle in 10 years time, when the EU try to roll up the EEA into the main treaty. (This has always been the plan for the EEA really, for all the EEA states to join the EU, and for the market and the State to become indivisible).
So they fear if they stay in the EEA, the EU will eventually create their Windows 10 moment - the final upgrade of the treaty, which will create two tiers of membership (see the Fundamental Law Spinelli group document), at which point we will have another cliff edge to navigate. Rejoin as an associate member or WTO.
Unless we can get a long transition, via shadow EEA or something similar, to a trade deal that will work however the EU evolves, then the hard liners will keep coming back for another shot at proper Brexit, because they will see the problem approaching. And they will see too much compromise now as a betrayal. So the tories will be fighting themselves for a generation over it. But we must never agree EEA in perpetuity, or we will be back here again in a decade or so, with another divisive situation.
If the aim is to bring this all to a head and bring about a definitive break, these people will need to think much more seriously about Northern Ireland. It seems that the prior received wisdom among this group was that Brexit would force Ireland out of the EU to 'come with us' but that is clearly not going to happen.
I don't think the Lords will matter much as Commons will just reverse all Lords amendments - and we've seen over the first 7 days of Commons Committee that Govt support is pretty watertight across all issues except Grieve amendment.
That's not what I meant. Conservatives are looking at the Canada + version of Brexit because they don't want to be in another pickle in 10 years time, when the EU try to roll up the EEA into the main treaty. (This has always been the plan for the EEA really, for all the EEA states to join the EU, and for the market and the State to become indivisible).
So they fear if they stay in the EEA, the EU will eventually create their Windows 10 moment - the final upgrade of the treaty, which will create two tiers of membership (see the Fundamental Law Spinelli group document), at which point we will have another cliff edge to navigate. Rejoin as an associate member or WTO.
Unless we can get a long transition, via shadow EEA or something similar, to a trade deal that will work however the EU evolves, then the hard liners will keep coming back for another shot at proper Brexit, because they will see the problem approaching. And they will see too much compromise now as a betrayal. So the tories will be fighting themselves for a generation over it. But we must never agree EEA in perpetuity, or we will be back here again in a decade or so, with another divisive situation.
Which is why there needs to be a Parliamentary vote on the Deal. A May fait accomplie would not stick.
Yes, but if the UK parliament only agrees to vote for EEA membership, and that's not on the table, we are looking at a real sticky situation.
They will have a choice between accepting what May brings back or accepting a hard Brexit.
I don't think the Lords will matter much as Commons will just reverse all Lords amendments - and we've seen over the first 7 days of Commons Committee that Govt support is pretty watertight across all issues except Grieve amendment.
That's not what I meant. Conservatives are looking at the Canada + version of Brexit because they don't want to be in another pickle in 10 years time, when the EU try to roll up the EEA into the main treaty. (This has always been the plan for the EEA really, for all the EEA states to join the EU, and for the market and the State to become indivisible).
So they fear if they stay in the EEA, the EU will eventually create their Windows 10 moment - the final upgrade of the treaty, which will create two tiers of membership (see the Fundamental Law Spinelli group document), at which point we will have another cliff edge to navigate. Rejoin as an associate member or WTO.
Unless we can get a long transition, via shadow EEA or something similar, to a trade deal that will work however the EU evolves, then the hard liners will keep coming back for another shot at proper Brexit, because they will see the problem approaching. And they will see too much compromise now as a betrayal. So the tories will be fighting themselves for a generation over it. But we must never agree EEA in perpetuity, or we will be back here again in a decade or so, with another divisive situation.
Which is why there needs to be a Parliamentary vote on the Deal. A May fait accomplie would not stick.
Yes, but if the UK parliament only agrees to vote for EEA membership, and that's not on the table, we are looking at a real sticky situation.
If the May Deal is EEA Soft, and not voted on, that is another sticky situation.
Evading the decision by not debating it is one of the mistakes we have already made. Hammond said there had never been a Cabinet level debate on destination, let alone a Parliamentary one.
That debate needs to happen to force a choice (WTO vs whatever May comes up with).
I don't think the Lords will matter much as Commons will just reverse all Lords amendments - and we've seen over the first 7 days of Commons Committee that Govt support is pretty watertight across all issues except Grieve amendment.
That's not what I meant. Conservatives are looking at the Canada + version of Brexit because they don't want to be in another pickle in 10 years time, when the EU try to roll up the EEA into the main treaty. (This has always been the plan for the EEA really, for all the EEA states to join the EU, and for the market and the State to become indivisible).
So they fear if they stay in the EEA, the EU will eventually create their Windows 10 moment - the final upgrade of the treaty, which will create two tiers of membership (see the Fundamental Law Spinelli group document), at which point we will have another cliff edge to navigate. Rejoin as an associate member or WTO.
Unless we can get a long transition, via shadow EEA or something similar, to a trade deal that will work however the EU evolves, then the hard liners will keep coming back for another shot at proper Brexit, because they will see the problem approaching. And they will see too much compromise now as a betrayal. So the tories will be fighting themselves for a generation over it. But we must never agree EEA in perpetuity, or we will be back here again in a decade or so, with another divisive situation.
Which is why there needs to be a Parliamentary vote on the Deal. A May fait accomplie would not stick.
Yes, but if the UK parliament only agrees to vote for EEA membership, and that's not on the table, we are looking at a real sticky situation.
If the May Deal is EEA Soft, and not voted on, that is another sticky situation.
Evading the decision by not debating it is one of the mistakes we have already made. Hammond said there had never been a Cabinet level debate on destination, let alone a Parliamentary one.
That debate needs to happen to force a choice (WTO vs whatever May comes up with).
Yeah, but it will be far too late for any change of destination at that point, apart from the choice of the deal vs. no deal.
I don't think the Lords will matter much as Commons will just reverse all Lords amendments - and we've seen over the first 7 days of Commons Committee that Govt support is pretty watertight across all issues except Grieve amendment.
That's not what I meant. Conservatives are looking at the Canada + version of Brexit because they don't want to be in another pickle in 10 years time, when the EU try to roll up the EEA into the main treaty. (This has always been the plan for the EEA really, for all the EEA states to join the EU, and for the market and the State to become indivisible).
So they fear if they stay in the EEA, the EU will eventually create their Windows 10 moment - the final upgrade of the treaty, which will create two tiers of membership (see the Fundamental Law Spinelli group document), at which point we will have another cliff edge to navigate. Rejoin as an associate member or WTO.
Unless we can get a long transition, via shadow EEA or something similar, to a trade deal that will work however the EU evolves, then the hard liners will keep coming back for another shot at proper Brexit, because they will see the problem approaching. And they will see too much compromise now as a betrayal. So the tories will be fighting themselves for a generation over it. But we must never agree EEA in perpetuity, or we will be back here again in a decade or so, with another divisive situation.
Which is why there needs to be a Parliamentary vote on the Deal. A May fait accomplie would not stick.
Yes, but if the UK parliament only agrees to vote for EEA membership, and that's not on the table, we are looking at a real sticky situation.
If the May Deal is EEA Soft, and not voted on, that is another sticky situation.
Evading the decision by not debating it is one of the mistakes we have already made. Hammond said there had never been a Cabinet level debate on destination, let alone a Parliamentary one.
That debate needs to happen to force a choice (WTO vs whatever May comes up with).
I don't think the Lords will matter much as Commons will just reverse all Lords amendments - and we've seen over the first 7 days of Commons Committee that Govt support is pretty watertight across all issues except Grieve amendment.
That's not what I meant. Conservatives are looking at the Canada + version of Brexit because they don't want to be in another pickle in 10 years time, when the EU try to roll up the EEA into the main treaty. (This has always been the plan for the EEA really, for all the EEA states to join the EU, and for the market and the State to become indivisible).
So they fear if they stay in the EEA, the EU will eventually create their Windows 10 moment - the final upgrade of the treaty, which will create two tiers of membership (see the Fundamental Law Spinelli group document), at which point we will have another cliff edge to navigate. Rejoin as an associate member or WTO.
Unless we can get a long transition, via shadow EEA or something similar, to a trade deal that will work however the EU evolves, then the hard liners will keep coming back for another shot at proper Brexit, because they will see the problem approaching. And they will see too much compromise now as a betrayal. So the tories will be fighting themselves for a generation over it. But we must never agree EEA in perpetuity, or we will be back here again in a decade or so, with another divisive situation.
Which is why there needs to be a Parliamentary vote on the Deal. A May fait accomplie would not stick.
Yes, but if the UK parliament only agrees to vote for EEA membership, and that's not on the table, we are looking at a real sticky situation.
If the May Deal is EEA Soft, and not voted on, that is another sticky situation.
Evading the decision by not debating it is one of the mistakes we have already made. Hammond said there had never been a Cabinet level debate on destination, let alone a Parliamentary one.
That debate needs to happen to force a choice (WTO vs whatever May comes up with).
Yeah, but it will be far too late for any change of destination at that point, apart from the choice of the deal vs. no deal.
I agree that it is Hobsons choice, but nonetheless it seems that May is aiming at Soft, possibly Eiderdown Soft Brexit with FoM and all the trappings. It would be that or WTO and Parliament should debate and decide.
I agree that it is Hobsons choice, but nonetheless it seems that May is aiming at Soft, possibly Eiderdown Soft Brexit with FoM and all the trappings. It would be that or WTO and Parliament should debate and decide.
What makes you think she's aiming for that? I've heard nothing that would suggest that is her desired destination.
Wow - I've just been looking at Lord Adonis' ideas about defeating Brexit. He's not only advocating an anti-democratic idea of "defeat-Brexit", but he's busy suggesting some sort of betrayal on the part of those that don't agree with him.
Even if the brexit camp had in fact betrayed their country then as the majority they have that right - we choose things to be this way.
That's not what I meant. Conservatives are looking at the Canada + version of Brexit because they don't want to be in another pickle in 10 years time, when the EU try to roll up the EEA into the main treaty. (This has always been the plan for the EEA really, for all the EEA states to join the EU, and for the market and the State to become indivisible).
So they fear if they stay in the EEA, the EU will eventually create their Windows 10 moment - the final upgrade of the treaty, which will create two tiers of membership (see the Fundamental Law Spinelli group document), at which point we will have another cliff edge to navigate. Rejoin as an associate member or WTO.
Unless we can get a long transition, via shadow EEA or something similar, to a trade deal that will work however the EU evolves, then the hard liners will keep coming back for another shot at proper Brexit, because they will see the problem approaching. And they will see too much compromise now as a betrayal. So the tories will be fighting themselves for a generation over it. But we must never agree EEA in perpetuity, or we will be back here again in a decade or so, with another divisive situation.
Which is why there needs to be a Parliamentary vote on the Deal. A May fait accomplie would not stick.
Yes, but if the UK parliament only agrees to vote for EEA membership, and that's not on the table, we are looking at a real sticky situation.
If the May Deal is EEA Soft, and not voted on, that is another sticky situation.
Evading the decision by not debating it is one of the mistakes we have already made. Hammond said there had never been a Cabinet level debate on destination, let alone a Parliamentary one.
That debate needs to happen to force a choice (WTO vs whatever May comes up with).
Yeah, but it will be far too late for any change of destination at that point, apart from the choice of the deal vs. no deal.
That's true, but the very fact that there will be a Commons vote will ensure that May comes back with a soft Brexit deal that is acceptable to the vast majority of MPs, who recognise the need to respect the EU-ref but in a way that doesn't trash the economy.
Then, once the deal is passed by the HoC, the Tory headbangers will just have to suck it up, and shut up (at long last).
That's true, but the very fact that there will be a Commons vote will ensure that May comes back a soft Brexit deal that is acceptable to the vast majority of MPs, who recognise the need to respect the EU-ref but in a way that doesn't trash the economy.
Then, once the deal is passed by the HoC, the Tory headbangers will just have to suck it up, and shut up (at long last).
It's the best way forward all considered.
Or May calls their bluff because if they reject the deal it'll be no-deal Brexit.
That's true, but the very fact that there will be a Commons vote will ensure that May comes back a soft Brexit deal that is acceptable to the vast majority of MPs, who recognise the need to respect the EU-ref but in a way that doesn't trash the economy.
Then, once the deal is passed by the HoC, the Tory headbangers will just have to suck it up, and shut up (at long last).
It's the best way forward all considered.
Or May calls their bluff because if they reject the deal it'll be no-deal Brexit.
That's true, but the very fact that there will be a Commons vote will ensure that May comes back with a soft Brexit deal that is acceptable to the vast majority of MPs, who recognise the need to respect the EU-ref but in a way that doesn't trash the economy.
Then, once the deal is passed by the HoC, the Tory headbangers will just have to suck it up, and shut up (at long last).
It's the best way forward all considered.
How many "headbangers" are there? If there are 48 or more then May will be dumped if it looks like she's going back on leaving the Single Market.
That's true, but the very fact that there will be a Commons vote will ensure that May comes back a soft Brexit deal that is acceptable to the vast majority of MPs, who recognise the need to respect the EU-ref but in a way that doesn't trash the economy.
Then, once the deal is passed by the HoC, the Tory headbangers will just have to suck it up, and shut up (at long last).
It's the best way forward all considered.
Or May calls their bluff because if they reject the deal it'll be no-deal Brexit.
That's true, but the very fact that there will be a Commons vote will ensure that May comes back a soft Brexit deal that is acceptable to the vast majority of MPs, who recognise the need to respect the EU-ref but in a way that doesn't trash the economy.
Then, once the deal is passed by the HoC, the Tory headbangers will just have to suck it up, and shut up (at long last).
It's the best way forward all considered.
Or May calls their bluff because if they reject the deal it'll be no-deal Brexit.
I see the early evening Leave shift is happy to label Remain voters as traitors. I look forward to the later evening Leave shift grumpily complaining that Remain voters are never satisfied by the efforts made by Leavers to heal the divisions.
I do think that there was rather a whiff that it was more patriotic to vote "leave". Remarkable. Trump isn't the only master truth-bender.
That's true, but the very fact that there will be a Commons vote will ensure that May comes back a soft Brexit deal that is acceptable to the vast majority of MPs, who recognise the need to respect the EU-ref but in a way that doesn't trash the economy.
Then, once the deal is passed by the HoC, the Tory headbangers will just have to suck it up, and shut up (at long last).
It's the best way forward all considered.
Or May calls their bluff because if they reject the deal it'll be no-deal Brexit.
You forget that May is a Remainer!
Ah, she's been lying about it all along.
She campaigned for Remain IIRC
I'm talking about all the speeches she's given since the referendum. Abundantly clear that she's not aiming for a soft Brexit.
That's true, but the very fact that there will be a Commons vote will ensure that May comes back a soft Brexit deal that is acceptable to the vast majority of MPs, who recognise the need to respect the EU-ref but in a way that doesn't trash the economy.
Then, once the deal is passed by the HoC, the Tory headbangers will just have to suck it up, and shut up (at long last).
It's the best way forward all considered.
Or May calls their bluff because if they reject the deal it'll be no-deal Brexit.
You forget that May is a Remainer!
Ah, she's been lying about it all along.
She campaigned for Remain IIRC
I'm talking about all the speeches she's given since the referendum. Abundantly clear that she's not aiming for a soft Brexit.
You need to read her prepared speeches very carefully. In the Florence speech she ruled out a Canada-style deal because it would be economically damaging, and ruled out a Norway-style deal because it wouldn't give us a say in the rules. She is literally aiming for a Brexit that is not Brexit.
That's true, but the very fact that there will be a Commons vote will ensure that May comes back a soft Brexit deal that is acceptable to the vast majority of MPs, who recognise the need to respect the EU-ref but in a way that doesn't trash the economy.
Then, once the deal is passed by the HoC, the Tory headbangers will just have to suck it up, and shut up (at long last).
It's the best way forward all considered.
Or May calls their bluff because if they reject the deal it'll be no-deal Brexit.
You forget that May is a Remainer!
Ah, she's been lying about it all along.
She campaigned for Remain IIRC
I'm talking about all the speeches she's given since the referendum. Abundantly clear that she's not aiming for a soft Brexit.
You need to read her prepared speeches very carefully. In the Florence speech she ruled out a Canada-style deal because it would be economically damaging, and ruled out a Norway-style deal because it wouldn't give us a say in the rules. She is literally aiming for a Brexit that is not Brexit.
While at the same time saying there will be no ECJ oversight etc. Not sure you can do that while still being in the single market/customs union.
That's true, but the very fact that there will be a Commons vote will ensure that May comes back a soft Brexit deal that is acceptable to the vast majority of MPs, who recognise the need to respect the EU-ref but in a way that doesn't trash the economy.
Then, once the deal is passed by the HoC, the Tory headbangers will just have to suck it up, and shut up (at long last).
It's the best way forward all considered.
Or May calls their bluff because if they reject the deal it'll be no-deal Brexit.
You forget that May is a Remainer!
Ah, she's been lying about it all along.
She campaigned for Remain IIRC
I'm talking about all the speeches she's given since the referendum. Abundantly clear that she's not aiming for a soft Brexit.
I suppose it depends on your definition of 'soft' but it seems to me that that's where she is headed. I agree some of her speeches have sounded hard for the benefit of the headbangers but look at the reality of last week's agreement... Soft brexit here we come (thankfully)
That's true, but the very fact that there will be a Commons vote will ensure that May comes back a soft Brexit deal that is acceptable to the vast majority of MPs, who recognise the need to respect the EU-ref but in a way that doesn't trash the economy.
Then, once the deal is passed by the HoC, the Tory headbangers will just have to suck it up, and shut up (at long last).
It's the best way forward all considered.
Or May calls their bluff because if they reject the deal it'll be no-deal Brexit.
You forget that May is a Remainer!
Ah, she's been lying about it all along.
She campaigned for Remain IIRC
I'm talking about all the speeches she's given since the referendum. Abundantly clear that she's not aiming for a soft Brexit.
The trick she is trying to pull off is talk hard Brexit and walk soft.
That's true, but the very fact that there will be a Commons vote will ensure that May comes back a soft Brexit deal that is acceptable to the vast majority of MPs, who recognise the need to respect the EU-ref but in a way that doesn't trash the economy.
Then, once the deal is passed by the HoC, the Tory headbangers will just have to suck it up, and shut up (at long last).
It's the best way forward all considered.
Or May calls their bluff because if they reject the deal it'll be no-deal Brexit.
You forget that May is a Remainer!
Ah, she's been lying about it all along.
She campaigned for Remain IIRC
I'm talking about all the speeches she's given since the referendum. Abundantly clear that she's not aiming for a soft Brexit.
I suppose it depends on your definition of 'soft' but it seems to me that that's where she is headed. I agree some of her speeches have sounded hard for the benefit of the headbangers but look at the reality of last weeks agreement... Soft brexit here we come (thankfully)
The reality of last week's agreement? Tusk himself was saying it was likely the UK ends up with a deal similar to Canada's, and don't forget it was him that said there was no such thing as soft Brexit.
That's true, but the very fact that there will be a Commons vote will ensure that May comes back a soft Brexit deal that is acceptable to the vast majority of MPs, who recognise the need to respect the EU-ref but in a way that doesn't trash the economy.
Then, once the deal is passed by the HoC, the Tory headbangers will just have to suck it up, and shut up (at long last).
It's the best way forward all considered.
Or May calls their bluff because if they reject the deal it'll be no-deal Brexit.
You forget that May is a Remainer!
Ah, she's been lying about it all along.
She campaigned for Remain IIRC
I'm talking about all the speeches she's given since the referendum. Abundantly clear that she's not aiming for a soft Brexit.
The trick she is trying to pull off is talk hard Brexit and walk soft.
Agreed. Trying and succeeding.
I am no fan of May but I woldn't be surprised if she is still PM in 5 years time.
That's true, but the very fact that there will be a Commons vote will ensure that May comes back a soft Brexit deal that is acceptable to the vast majority of MPs, who recognise the need to respect the EU-ref but in a way that doesn't trash the economy.
Then, once the deal is passed by the HoC, the Tory headbangers will just have to suck it up, and shut up (at long last).
It's the best way forward all considered.
Or May calls their bluff because if they reject the deal it'll be no-deal Brexit.
You forget that May is a Remainer!
Ah, she's been lying about it all along.
She campaigned for Remain IIRC
I'm talking about all the speeches she's given since the referendum. Abundantly clear that she's not aiming for a soft Brexit.
The trick she is trying to pull off is talk hard Brexit and walk soft.
That's true, but the very fact that there will be a Commons vote will ensure that May comes back a soft Brexit deal that is acceptable to the vast majority of MPs, who recognise the need to respect the EU-ref but in a way that doesn't trash the economy.
Then, once the deal is passed by the HoC, the Tory headbangers will just have to suck it up, and shut up (at long last).
It's the best way forward all considered.
Or May calls their bluff because if they reject the deal it'll be no-deal Brexit.
You forget that May is a Remainer!
Ah, she's been lying about it all along.
She campaigned for Remain IIRC
I'm talking about all the speeches she's given since the referendum. Abundantly clear that she's not aiming for a soft Brexit.
I suppose it depends on your definition of 'soft' but it seems to me that that's where she is headed. I agree some of her speeches have sounded hard for the benefit of the headbangers but look at the reality of last weeks agreement... Soft brexit here we come (thankfully)
The reality of last week's agreement? Tusk himself was saying it was likely the UK ends up with a deal similar to Canada's, and don't forget it was him that said there was no such thing as soft Brexit.
That's true, but the very fact that there will be a Commons vote will ensure that May comes back a soft Brexit deal that is acceptable to the vast majority of MPs, who recognise the need to respect the EU-ref but in a way that doesn't trash the economy.
Then, once the deal is passed by the HoC, the Tory headbangers will just have to suck it up, and shut up (at long last).
It's the best way forward all considered.
Or May calls their bluff because if they reject the deal it'll be no-deal Brexit.
You forget that May is a Remainer!
Ah, she's been lying about it all along.
She campaigned for Remain IIRC
I'm talking about all the speeches she's given since the referendum. Abundantly clear that she's not aiming for a soft Brexit.
The trick she is trying to pull off is talk hard Brexit and walk soft.
What exactly has she done to walk soft?
The nutty leavers are only keeping quiet and going along with the stage one deal because they know rocking the boat makes things worse for them rather than better. Hence Davis hamfistedly tried to make reassuring noises that it could be changed later.
That's true, but the very fact that there will be a Commons vote will ensure that May comes back a soft Brexit deal that is acceptable to the vast majority of MPs, who recognise the need to respect the EU-ref but in a way that doesn't trash the economy.
Then, once the deal is passed by the HoC, the Tory headbangers will just have to suck it up, and shut up (at long last).
It's the best way forward all considered.
Or May calls their bluff because if they reject the deal it'll be no-deal Brexit.
You forget that May is a Remainer!
Ah, she's been lying about it all along.
She campaigned for Remain IIRC
I'm talking about all the speeches she's given since the referendum. Abundantly clear that she's not aiming for a soft Brexit.
The trick she is trying to pull off is talk hard Brexit and walk soft.
What exactly has she done to walk soft?
Agreed to Brexit bill + continued ECJ jurisdiction + regulatory alignment
That's true, but the very fact that there will be a Commons vote will ensure that May comes back a soft Brexit deal that is acceptable to the vast majority of MPs, who recognise the need to respect the EU-ref but in a way that doesn't trash the economy.
Then, once the deal is passed by the HoC, the Tory headbangers will just have to suck it up, and shut up (at long last).
It's the best way forward all considered.
Or May calls their bluff because if they reject the deal it'll be no-deal Brexit.
You forget that May is a Remainer!
Ah, she's been lying about it all along.
She campaigned for Remain IIRC
I'm talking about all the speeches she's given since the referendum. Abundantly clear that she's not aiming for a soft Brexit.
The trick she is trying to pull off is talk hard Brexit and walk soft.
Agreed. Trying and succeeding.
I am no fan of May but I woldn't be surprised if she is still PM in 5 years time.
What, after an election? I'd call that a low chance.
That's true, but the very fact that there will be a Commons vote will ensure that May comes back a soft Brexit deal that is acceptable to the vast majority of MPs, who recognise the need to respect the EU-ref but in a way that doesn't trash the economy.
Then, once the deal is passed by the HoC, the Tory headbangers will just have to suck it up, and shut up (at long last).
It's the best way forward all considered.
Or May calls their bluff because if they reject the deal it'll be no-deal Brexit.
You forget that May is a Remainer!
Ah, she's been lying about it all along.
She campaigned for Remain IIRC
I'm talking about all the speeches she's given since the referendum. Abundantly clear that she's not aiming for a soft Brexit.
The trick she is trying to pull off is talk hard Brexit and walk soft.
What exactly has she done to walk soft?
Agreed to Brexit bill + continued ECJ jurisdiction + regulatory alignment
Time-limited ECJ oversight, and regulatory alignment if there was no trade deal or a technological solution wasn't feasible. The bill was existing commitments, and I don't think it says anything about soft vs. hard.
That's true, but the very fact that there will be a Commons vote will ensure that May comes back a soft Brexit deal that is acceptable to the vast majority of MPs, who recognise the need to respect the EU-ref but in a way that doesn't trash the economy.
Then, once the deal is passed by the HoC, the Tory headbangers will just have to suck it up, and shut up (at long last).
It's the best way forward all considered.
Or May calls their bluff because if they reject the deal it'll be no-deal Brexit.
You forget that May is a Remainer!
Ah, she's been lying about it all along.
She campaigned for Remain IIRC
I'm talking about all the speeches she's given since the referendum. Abundantly clear that she's not aiming for a soft Brexit.
The trick she is trying to pull off is talk hard Brexit and walk soft.
What exactly has she done to walk soft?
The nutty leavers are only keeping quiet and going along with the stage one deal because they know rocking the boat makes things worse for them rather than better. Hence Davis hamfistedly tried to make reassuring noises that it could be changed later.
That's true, but the very fact that there will be a Commons vote will ensure that May comes back a soft Brexit deal that is acceptable to the vast majority of MPs, who recognise the need to respect the EU-ref but in a way that doesn't trash the economy.
Then, once the deal is passed by the HoC, the Tory headbangers will just have to suck it up, and shut up (at long last).
It's the best way forward all considered.
Or May calls their bluff because if they reject the deal it'll be no-deal Brexit.
You forget that May is a Remainer!
Ah, she's been lying about it all along.
She campaigned for Remain IIRC
I'm talking about all the speeches she's given since the referendum. Abundantly clear that she's not aiming for a soft Brexit.
The trick she is trying to pull off is talk hard Brexit and walk soft.
Agreed. Trying and succeeding.
I am no fan of May but I woldn't be surprised if she is still PM in 5 years time.
What, after an election? I'd call that a low chance.
Agreed it's a low chance but not impossible. 6 months ago I'd have said 'not a chance'.
That's true, but the very fact that there will be a Commons vote will ensure that May comes back a soft Brexit deal that is acceptable to the vast majority of MPs, who recognise the need to respect the EU-ref but in a way that doesn't trash the economy.
Then, once the deal is passed by the HoC, the Tory headbangers will just have to suck it up, and shut up (at long last).
It's the best way forward all considered.
Or May calls their bluff because if they reject the deal it'll be no-deal Brexit.
You forget that May is a Remainer!
Ah, she's been lying about it all along.
She campaigned for Remain IIRC
I'm talking about all the speeches she's given since the referendum. Abundantly clear that she's not aiming for a soft Brexit.
The trick she is trying to pull off is talk hard Brexit and walk soft.
Agreed. Trying and succeeding.
I am no fan of May but I woldn't be surprised if she is still PM in 5 years time.
What, after an election? I'd call that a low chance.
Agreed it's a low chance but not impossible. 6 months ago I'd have said 'not a chance'.
You're saying that probably counts as generous Christmas gift to the May household.
Comments
So the UK government decides its not the right deal for whatever reason, and votes it down. Then there are three remaining options.
1) Go back and ask to renegotiate. There's very little time, if the issues are minor, it might just be possible. We might be able to get an extension, but this has to be by unanimity and then you're opening the EU up to blackmail by its own members (maybe Poland and Hungary over migrant resettlement).
2) Don't go back and negotiate, accept that there is no deal that UK and EU parliaments will both agree and crash into hard Brexit. Try to arrange basic agreements on Flights, Equivalence, shared projects, customs arrangements. Not a good move, going to be a rock hard Brexit.
3) Withdraw article 50 notification before the deadline.
Those who voted for the amendment would like the third option, which Andrew Adonis confirmed today - quite openly stating the first blow to 'Stop Brexit' had been scored.
Wasn't Abbott ill?
Are you saying I am underestimating Michael Gove?
So your view is that it was dashed bad luck and a bit of pressure that contributed to the creation of one of the main themes of the whole referendum campaign which was so powerful and which tapped into the zeitgeist so perfectly?
Not so sure, myself.
Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. There has been a general election since. The Will Of The People can change.
It is important that the MPs have to come down for or against the Deal. It shapes the future of the country for good or bad, and Parliament needs to take responsibility.
It does no good if the whingeing starts on both the frothers and remoaners side denouncing the May deal immediately. Endorsement by the HoC is the only way to make it stick, and an important part of the country moving on.
Your case is as strong as this: if I say that "I hate
so-calledexpertsin astrology who prey on the innocent by selling them horoscopes", this is a dog-whistle way of telling the thick proles that I hate experts, and because they are thick proles they will think "quite right too", and vote for me. Good case, well done.And the Leave campaign did attract more than its fair share of mutters-
We have to trust our democratic representatives. They are struggling to make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
Importantly, they are no more Remainer than May, and it is not her decision that should matter, but rather that of the whole house. She has form in the matter of poor judgement.
And instead of seeing for yourself, you were prepared to accept Scott's misrepresentation of Islam's misrepresentation as gospel, because it shows Gove and the proles in a bad light, so bound to be correct. Very rigorous and scholarly.
The LDs were committed to permanent single market membership and got just 7%
I still don't get why she didn't hold an election earlier, pre-A50.
IMO, she would have won 45-50%+ of the vote and a 150+maj (depending on the LD's) with or without her bucket of sick manifesto.
This is probably the most likely endgame. The EU27 has played a blinder, to have us following the rules, paying up and not getting a say in the rules. The first round was 3 nil to the EU, the second round looks a repeat.
Now if they had come out with a couple more baubles, they’d probably have squeaked it but as it was it was a vote for another 5 years of what a lot of people thought looked like misery. It was too responsible for its own good.
He is now being shown as non-affiliated on the official Parliament website.
Can't see any media reports on this anywhere.
A Parliamentary vote is more important for Hard Brexiteers as May is going as soft as a Walls 99 in the Sahara.
Norway has been in what was originally billed as a "transition" position for more than 20 years.
If the triggering of A50 was dependent on her winning a majority then would have mattered during the campaign. The dementia tax wouldn't have got traction.
Pre-A50, leavers were still able to project the brexit they wanted onto TM & the tories. She needed the GE to be EUREF take 2 to get her mandate - the trigger of A50 was her ace card.
As a long transition, it's a good template. IF we want to go further then we take the CETA template and build on it, but later.
"Ms Pidcock and Mr Kebede are estimated to be on a combined salary of more than £100,000.
For all their loathing of the Tory ‘enemy’ they may find it difficult to avoid Conservative supporters in their new surroundings. Situated in the foothills of the Pennines, the village is home to professionals who commute to the university city of Durham just a few miles away, as well as to nearby Newcastle.
The estate agent’s blurb for the house boasts of its ‘impressive period features, two receptions rooms, superbly finished, refurbished in 2016, real stone floors, oak doors, sitting/dining room with exposed stone wall, contemporary fitted kitchen, stone patio and lawned garden’. The agents say that it is ‘just 300 yards from the centre of the village, close to the cricket club and with countryside walks nearby.’"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5163397/Tory-hating-Corbynista-MP-Laura-Pidock-buys-house.html
"EU 'has east-west split' on migrant quotas"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42352876
The argument is that it could be used in both directions.
Arguably more.
*ie, none.
https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/941026330958794753
Noticed Lab had gone down for no reason so a quick scan of the non-affiliateds list and he's there.
In the past it's taken mainstream media quite a while to notice similar changes - when more high profile people have done similar.
So they fear if they stay in the EEA, the EU will eventually create their Windows 10 moment - the final upgrade of the treaty, which will create two tiers of membership (see the Fundamental Law Spinelli group document), at which point we will have another cliff edge to navigate. Rejoin as an associate member or WTO.
Unless we can get a long transition, via shadow EEA or something similar, to a trade deal that will work however the EU evolves, then the hard liners will keep coming back for another shot at proper Brexit, because they will see the problem approaching. And they will see too much compromise now as a betrayal. So the tories will be fighting themselves for a generation over it. But we must never agree EEA in perpetuity, or we will be back here again in a decade or so, with another divisive situation.
The House wanted a top rate of income tax of 39.6% The Senate wanted 38.5%.
In conference they are compromising on 37%
No other choice is viable
Evading the decision by not debating it is one of the mistakes we have already made. Hammond said there had never been a Cabinet level debate on destination, let alone a Parliamentary one.
That debate needs to happen to force a choice (WTO vs whatever May comes up with).
Even if the brexit camp had in fact betrayed their country then as the majority they have that right - we choose things to be this way.
Then, once the deal is passed by the HoC, the Tory headbangers will just have to suck it up, and shut up (at long last).
It's the best way forward all considered.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-eu-defence/bad-news-for-our-enemies-eu-launches-defence-pact-idUKKBN1E811Z
I am no fan of May but I woldn't be surprised if she is still PM in 5 years time.