Yes that makes sense except I don't see how much further we would be from what we have today (Remainer in No.10, etc). The ERG would presumably make demands of Javid but, as with May today, he is first of all a Remainer, and second of all, would be PM and hence not, I hope, at liberty to accede to some of the bonkers demands that they would try to make. So what would be the point of the ERG endorsing it if they got nothing more than they are already getting, whatever that is?
It puts Gove into number 11, Javid is not an ideological remainer and would be a much more pragmatic and decisive PM than May. I think if he went in and walked the route of Brexit as the City would like it (what Robert, myself and other leavers on here have proposed) they would probably live with it as long as the end goal was being completely out within a few years and no open-ended commitments to the CU or SM are made (as May seems ready to do).
Javid has already spoken out against the customs union, a few times so that will help win over the moderate sceptics (which make up the majority of the MPs and members) and enough of the ERG to not put forwards a challenge despite coming out for remain, IMO.
I also think getting Hammond out of number 11 (and Gove in) would count as a huge win for the ERG, which is why if Javid and Gove run a joint ticket they get most of the party behind them.
Sadly and disappointingly, we saw from the O'Hagan Grenfell article what kind of principles Javid has - a range. And I wouldn't have put May down as being an ideological remainer either. Being PM is a world away from being not PM (as we saw with May) and things change especially when you are juggling with interest groups.
And the pressure to do similar things all over will be as high with Javid as with May. Gove in No. 11 does I agree help the ERG but again his principles have been shown to be flaky at best.
That's sort of my point, it's a compromise ticket. I think any idiot can see that the ERG won't be able to win with their own candidates, they might not even be able to get their own ticket to the members' ballot. It's the age old question of having some influence vs none. I know on which you fall with that argument.
Gove is a brilliant Cabinet Minister but would be a disaster as Tory leader, his yougov rating is -65% and he polls the worst of any politician Tory, Labour or LD in frontrank politics today.
That's other frustrating thing with Northern, they'll wait 45 mins to tell you your train is cancelled even though they've known for days that train won't be running.
Do they know, or are they being told by Network Rail that it might be able to be run?
Northern Rail managers know trains are ‘likely’ to be cancelled the night before - but don’t tell the public, it has been claimed.
The source for that claim is the Manchester mayor, who as you know is my favourite person in the whole world (not), whom I would never call a low piece of scum.
If I'm reading that correctly, 60% of the possible cancellations went ahead, which means that 40% did run. If they cancelled all of the list then that piece of scum would be complaining about unnecessary cancellations.
Of course they'll be thinking about what services may be cut: but they don't *know* if they'll run or not.
At least that's my reading of that.
Quite a few train and station staff have confirmed such a policy to staff.
I have not followed this in detail so I was wondering how exactly have Northern Rail screwed this up so badly? Did they introduce a timetable that they couldn't themselves meet or is there a problem because if it works it is a worse timetable than they had before. Is it interfacing with Network Rail that is the issue or is it all down to NR's internal mismanagement of their own business?
A bit of both.
They introduced the timetable change whilst Liverpool and a few other stations are closed.
Plus the drivers aren't yet fully trained on the new trains/routes.
As someone who commutes to Manchester daily and most of my staff commute in using Northern it is stressful.
There's been a few life threatening situations as the platforms are heaving full of people waiting for cancelled/delayed trains and arriving trains have a load of passengers wishing to get off.
Fortunately I used Trans Pennine Express
Aren't TPE just as affected by the infrastructure changes though? How come they seem to be coping much better?
Trans Pennine don’t run as many services as Northern nor have they radically changed their timetables.
That's other frustrating thing with Northern, they'll wait 45 mins to tell you your train is cancelled even though they've known for days that train won't be running.
Do they know, or are they being told by Network Rail that it might be able to be run?
Northern Rail managers know trains are ‘likely’ to be cancelled the night before - but don’t tell the public, it has been claimed.
The source for that claim is the Manchester mayor, who as you know is my favourite person in the whole world (not), whom I would never call a low piece of scum.
If I'm reading that correctly, 60% of the possible cancellations went ahead, which means that 40% did run. If they cancelled all of the list then that piece of scum would be complaining about unnecessary cancellations.
Of course they'll be thinking about what services may be cut: but they don't *know* if they'll run or not.
At least that's my reading of that.
It’s still not clear from these articles what’s the actual reason behind all the cancellations though.
Is it that they don’t have enough drivers, that the drivers they have aren’t certified for trains and/or routes, rolling stock shortages, line capacity / signalling issues, works in progress or something else?
Gove is a brilliant Cabinet Minister but would be a disaster as Tory leader, his yougov rating is -65% and he polls the worst of any politician Tory, Labour or LD in frontrank politics today.
Gove also still trails Mogg in the ConHome members poll anyway and Javid is gaining on him fast
That rating is based on just the last 100 respondent so is even less reliable than a Scottish sub sample.
It is updated regularly and Gove has been consistently last for months
So are Scottish sub samples
Scottish sub samples were not miles off at the last general election but if you want to believe swing voters are praying for a Gove premiership that is up to you
Wonder if Boris has enough on Gove to scupper his chances.
More generally, what will Boris Johnson do if a vacancy seems set to come up? He must know that now is not his moment. Will he shore up TMPM? Will he throw his hat in the ring anyway? To whom would he give his endorsement, which must still count for quite a bit? And what would he want in return?
Yes that makes sense except I don't see how much further we would be from what we have today (Remainer in No.10, etc). The ERG would presumably make demands of Javid but, as with May today, he is first of all a Remainer, and second of all, would be PM and hence not, I hope, at liberty to accede to some of the bonkers demands that they would try to make. So what would be the point of the ERG endorsing it if they got nothing more than they are already getting, whatever that is?
It puts Gove into number 11, Javid is not an ideological remainer and would be a much more pragmatic and decisive PM than May. I think if he went in and walked the route of Brexit as the City would like it (what Robert, myself and other leavers on here have proposed) they would probably live with it as long as the end goal was being completely out within a few years and no open-ended commitments to the CU or SM are made (as May seems ready to do).
Javid has already spoken out against the customs union, a few times so that will help win over the moderate sceptics (which make up the majority of the MPs and members) and enough of the ERG to not put forwards a challenge despite coming out for remain, IMO.
I also think getting Hammond out of number 11 (and Gove in) would count as a huge win for the ERG, which is why if Javid and Gove run a joint ticket they get most of the party behind them.
I would be a lot happier with Gove in number 11 than number 10. I think he has the intellect to seize the problems of the Treasury and our absurd tax system. I think he would also be more ambitious about housing and infrastructure and slightly less anxious about the deficit. Hammond is really steady as you go and that is not what is needed if this country is to maintain its dynamism.
Javid has worried me for a bit because he has often seemed a little lacking in critical analysis of a problem or substance (he was disappointing at Business) but he would be a better frontman choice than Gove. The ideal would be if Javid/Gove could get Osborne back inside the tent as well. We are desperately short of real talent in front line politics in this country.
May and Hammond need to win big next week on all of these votes. If they don't their time may well be up.
I think he had a much better time of it at the DCLG, he definitely recognised the issue of home ownership better than others in out party.
Agree that May and Hammond need next week to be a blowout, if they manage to keep the Con rebellion to under 5 MPs it pretty much gives them licence to get on with it.
Wonder if Boris has enough on Gove to scupper his chances.
More generally, what will Boris Johnson do if a vacancy seems set to come up? He must know that now is not his moment. Will he shore up TMPM? Will he throw his hat in the ring anyway? To whom would he give his endorsement, which must still count for quite a bit? And what would he want in return?
One to think about.
Could Boris serve under Gove? Surely not.
This is set up to be bloody.
An ally of Boris Johnson wants to cut off Gove’s willy.
Wonder if Boris has enough on Gove to scupper his chances.
More generally, what will Boris Johnson do if a vacancy seems set to come up? He must know that now is not his moment. Will he shore up TMPM? Will he throw his hat in the ring anyway? To whom would he give his endorsement, which must still count for quite a bit? And what would he want in return?
One to think about.
Could Boris serve under Gove? Surely not.
This is set up to be bloody.
An ally of Boris Johnson wants to cut off Gove’s willy.
Off topic - can't see why Labour would bother to whip the Heathrow decision - the SNP will back it, so the Government will win, so why not tell MPs to follow their judgment and consider their constituents' views on this? Avoids an unnecessary squabble when we wouldn't win either way.
Wonder if Boris has enough on Gove to scupper his chances.
More generally, what will Boris Johnson do if a vacancy seems set to come up? He must know that now is not his moment. Will he shore up TMPM? Will he throw his hat in the ring anyway? To whom would he give his endorsement, which must still count for quite a bit? And what would he want in return?
One to think about.
Could Boris serve under Gove? Surely not.
This is set up to be bloody.
An ally of Boris Johnson wants to cut off Gove’s willy.
Having shown us all a great example of the Peter Principle with his stint at the FCO, do that many in the Parliamentary party care much about what Boris thinks any more?
Wonder if Boris has enough on Gove to scupper his chances.
More generally, what will Boris Johnson do if a vacancy seems set to come up? He must know that now is not his moment. Will he shore up TMPM? Will he throw his hat in the ring anyway? To whom would he give his endorsement, which must still count for quite a bit? And what would he want in return?
One to think about.
Could Boris serve under Gove? Surely not.
This is set up to be bloody.
An ally of Boris Johnson wants to cut off Gove’s willy.
Wonder if Boris has enough on Gove to scupper his chances.
More generally, what will Boris Johnson do if a vacancy seems set to come up? He must know that now is not his moment. Will he shore up TMPM? Will he throw his hat in the ring anyway? To whom would he give his endorsement, which must still count for quite a bit? And what would he want in return?
One to think about.
Could Boris serve under Gove? Surely not.
This is set up to be bloody.
An ally of Boris Johnson wants to cut off Gove’s willy.
Having shown us all a great example of the Peter Principle with his stint at the FCO, do that many in the Parliamentary party care much about what Boris thinks any more?
There's a few.
They are living on past glories, Boris won the referendum, Boris won Labour London twice.
If the Tory leadership is held in 2021 onwards then I'd expect Boris to back Jo as next Tory leader.
It was at the 2013 Tory conference when Boris said he would never do an Ed (Miliband) on his brother.
Wonder if Boris has enough on Gove to scupper his chances.
More generally, what will Boris Johnson do if a vacancy seems set to come up? He must know that now is not his moment. Will he shore up TMPM? Will he throw his hat in the ring anyway? To whom would he give his endorsement, which must still count for quite a bit? And what would he want in return?
One to think about.
Could Boris serve under Gove? Surely not.
This is set up to be bloody.
An ally of Boris Johnson wants to cut off Gove’s willy.
How would you know which bit to lop off?
In all seriousness, if Gove gets it,Boris is condemned to the back benches. This is high stakes.
This is rather clever. If the government is minded to ignore the customs union vote should it lose (or even indicates that it might), it is setting itself up for a repeat rebellion on this clause too, which is altogether more stringent. But if the government makes any concessions to potential rebels on the first customs union vote to head off a rebellion on this one too, the headbangers will go mad.
They keep edging their way to new positions, based principally it seems on ensuring opposition to whatever the government is proposing (this week at any rate). I'm still not convinced Labour won't end up backing a Remain position, despite Corbyn's personal views.
This is rather clever. If the government is minded to ignore the customs union vote should it lose (or even indicates that it might), it is setting itself up for a repeat rebellion on this clause too, which is altogether more stringent. But if the government makes any concessions to potential rebels on the first customs union vote to head off a rebellion on this one too, the headbangers will go mad.
It doesn't make any sense (I appreciate that's a very minor drawback). The government already has the negotiating objective of trying to ensure full access to the internal market., with no new impediments to trade etc etc. So I wouldn't expect the government to oppose this amendment.
So still not membership of the single market then!
I am genuinely not sure what that even means. What is "underpinned by shared institutions and regulations" supposed to mean? Still subject to the jurisdiction of the CJE? Regulatory alignment? In the Customs Union? All of the above?
And what does "an objective" mean. Negotiable or not?
They have tried so hard to paper over their own divisions they have ended up with something quite vacuous.
This is rather clever. If the government is minded to ignore the customs union vote should it lose (or even indicates that it might), it is setting itself up for a repeat rebellion on this clause too, which is altogether more stringent. But if the government makes any concessions to potential rebels on the first customs union vote to head off a rebellion on this one too, the headbangers will go mad.
It doesn't make any sense (I appreciate that's a very minor drawback). The government already has the negotiating objective of trying to ensure full access to the internal market., with no new impediments to trade etc etc. So I wouldn't expect the government to oppose this amendment.
Because all the signs are that US inflation is on the rise. The Trump budget is hugely expansionary
But the monetary policy of the Fed is increasingly contractionary with their reversal of QE reducing the money supply by a very small amount each month. Monetarism v Fiscal stimulus. I could start to feel young again!
So still not membership of the single market then!
I am genuinely not sure what that even means. What is "underpinned by shared institutions and regulations" supposed to mean? Still subject to the jurisdiction of the CJE? Regulatory alignment? In the Customs Union? All of the above?
And what does "an objective" mean. Negotiable or not?
They have tried so hard to paper over their own divisions they have ended up with something quite vacuous.
That's other frustrating thing with Northern, they'll wait 45 mins to tell you your train is cancelled even though they've known for days that train won't be running.
Do they know, or are they being told by Network Rail that it might be able to be run?
Northern Rail managers know trains are ‘likely’ to be cancelled the night before - but don’t tell the public, it has been claimed.
The source for that claim is the Manchester mayor, who as you know is my favourite person in the whole world (not), whom I would never call a low piece of scum.
If I'm reading that correctly, 60% of the possible cancellations went ahead, which means that 40% did run. If they cancelled all of the list then that piece of scum would be complaining about unnecessary cancellations.
Of course they'll be thinking about what services may be cut: but they don't *know* if they'll run or not.
At least that's my reading of that.
Quite a few train and station staff have confirmed such a policy to staff.
I'd be very careful about taking such anecdata seriously. From my reading, I'm finding it really hard to blame Northern for this mess (although there reaction may have been poor), and the hysteria against them seems counter to reality (or reality as it currently appears to be).
The situation with GTR down south is fairly different in detail, and they are much more to blame for their woes (although still third behind NR and DfT).
What would you have Northern do, given the timetabled paths are (AIUI) granted by Network Rail?
This is rather clever. If the government is minded to ignore the customs union vote should it lose (or even indicates that it might), it is setting itself up for a repeat rebellion on this clause too, which is altogether more stringent. But if the government makes any concessions to potential rebels on the first customs union vote to head off a rebellion on this one too, the headbangers will go mad.
It doesn't make any sense (I appreciate that's a very minor drawback). The government already has the negotiating objective of trying to ensure full access to the internal market., with no new impediments to trade etc etc. So I wouldn't expect the government to oppose this amendment.
So still not membership of the single market then!
I am genuinely not sure what that even means. What is "underpinned by shared institutions and regulations" supposed to mean? Still subject to the jurisdiction of the CJE? Regulatory alignment? In the Customs Union? All of the above?
And what does "an objective" mean. Negotiable or not?
They have tried so hard to paper over their own divisions they have ended up with something quite vacuous.
bilge ?
If I had instructions like that I genuinely wouldn't know what I was trying to achieve. Clearly some kind of a deal. Not WTO. Apart from that....
This is rather clever. If the government is minded to ignore the customs union vote should it lose (or even indicates that it might), it is setting itself up for a repeat rebellion on this clause too, which is altogether more stringent. But if the government makes any concessions to potential rebels on the first customs union vote to head off a rebellion on this one too, the headbangers will go mad.
It doesn't make any sense (I appreciate that's a very minor drawback). The government already has the negotiating objective of trying to ensure full access to the internal market., with no new impediments to trade etc etc. So I wouldn't expect the government to oppose this amendment.
But if it didn't oppose Rees-Mogg, Farage etc. would proclaim a secret government plot of EU membership by the back door. Any attempt at a nuanced explanation would be lost beneath a maelstrom of opprobrium. Theresa must tread carefully here.
This is rather clever. If the government is minded to ignore the customs union vote should it lose (or even indicates that it might), it is setting itself up for a repeat rebellion on this clause too, which is altogether more stringent. But if the government makes any concessions to potential rebels on the first customs union vote to head off a rebellion on this one too, the headbangers will go mad.
It doesn't make any sense (I appreciate that's a very minor drawback). The government already has the negotiating objective of trying to ensure full access to the internal market., with no new impediments to trade etc etc. So I wouldn't expect the government to oppose this amendment.
Of course it doesn't make any particular sense. But it does require the government to accept an explicit negotiating objective, with the implication that it will be held to account according to how it pursues that.
It would, I think, break new ground for Parliament to impose such an objective on the executive. Given how weaselly the government has been, it has to be said they would completely deserve it.
That's other frustrating thing with Northern, they'll wait 45 mins to tell you your train is cancelled even though they've known for days that train won't be running.
Do they know, or are they being told by Network Rail that it might be able to be run?
Northern Rail managers know trains are ‘likely’ to be cancelled the night before - but don’t tell the public, it has been claimed.
The source for that claim is the Manchester mayor, who as you know is my favourite person in the whole world (not), whom I would never call a low piece of scum.
If I'm reading that correctly, 60% of the possible cancellations went ahead, which means that 40% did run. If they cancelled all of the list then that piece of scum would be complaining about unnecessary cancellations.
Of course they'll be thinking about what services may be cut: but they don't *know* if they'll run or not.
At least that's my reading of that.
It’s still not clear from these articles what’s the actual reason behind all the cancellations though.
Is it that they don’t have enough drivers, that the drivers they have aren’t certified for trains and/or routes, rolling stock shortages, line capacity / signalling issues, works in progress or something else?
I'm guessing there's a whole host of issues now; and one you haven't mentioned is staff morale. Most of them want to deliver a good service, and this sort of situation can be as tough on them as it can be the passengers.
This is rather clever. If the government is minded to ignore the customs union vote should it lose (or even indicates that it might), it is setting itself up for a repeat rebellion on this clause too, which is altogether more stringent. But if the government makes any concessions to potential rebels on the first customs union vote to head off a rebellion on this one too, the headbangers will go mad.
It doesn't make any sense (I appreciate that's a very minor drawback). The government already has the negotiating objective of trying to ensure full access to the internal market., with no new impediments to trade etc etc. So I wouldn't expect the government to oppose this amendment.
Sense in politics? How quaint.
True, silly me.
I remember when we used to argue the merits of relatively sensible alternatives. A long time ago.
This is rather clever. If the government is minded to ignore the customs union vote should it lose (or even indicates that it might), it is setting itself up for a repeat rebellion on this clause too, which is altogether more stringent. But if the government makes any concessions to potential rebels on the first customs union vote to head off a rebellion on this one too, the headbangers will go mad.
It doesn't make any sense (I appreciate that's a very minor drawback). The government already has the negotiating objective of trying to ensure full access to the internal market., with no new impediments to trade etc etc. So I wouldn't expect the government to oppose this amendment.
Sense in politics? How quaint.
True, silly me.
I remember when we used to argue the merits of relatively sensible alternatives. A long time ago.
everything is through the prism of Brexit, you can expect nothing sensisble
This is rather clever. If the government is minded to ignore the customs union vote should it lose (or even indicates that it might), it is setting itself up for a repeat rebellion on this clause too, which is altogether more stringent. But if the government makes any concessions to potential rebels on the first customs union vote to head off a rebellion on this one too, the headbangers will go mad.
It doesn't make any sense (I appreciate that's a very minor drawback). The government already has the negotiating objective of trying to ensure full access to the internal market., with no new impediments to trade etc etc. So I wouldn't expect the government to oppose this amendment.
Of course it doesn't make any particular sense. But it does require the government to accept an explicit negotiating objective, with the implication that it will be held to account according to how it pursues that.
It would, I think, break new ground for Parliament to impose such an objective on the executive. Given how weaselly the government has been, it has to be said they would completely deserve it.
Whether they 'deserve' it or not is irrelevant. This is a negotiation. Parliament cannot legislate for the result, or bind the EU to deliver any particular outcome. That is why having parliament involved at all is a nonsense, especially since opposition parties are far more interested in trouble for trouble's sake than actually getting a good outcome.
But if it didn't oppose Rees-Mogg, Farage etc. would proclaim a secret government plot of EU membership by the back door. Any attempt at a nuanced explanation would be lost beneath a maelstrom of opprobrium. Theresa must tread carefully here.
Actually I don't think Rees-Mogg and the ERG would cause trouble on this. They know perfectly well that meaningless amendments can be ignored, and they are focused on getting the bill passed.
This is rather clever. If the government is minded to ignore the customs union vote should it lose (or even indicates that it might), it is setting itself up for a repeat rebellion on this clause too, which is altogether more stringent. But if the government makes any concessions to potential rebels on the first customs union vote to head off a rebellion on this one too, the headbangers will go mad.
It doesn't make any sense (I appreciate that's a very minor drawback). The government already has the negotiating objective of trying to ensure full access to the internal market., with no new impediments to trade etc etc. So I wouldn't expect the government to oppose this amendment.
Of course it doesn't make any particular sense. But it does require the government to accept an explicit negotiating objective, with the implication that it will be held to account according to how it pursues that.
It would, I think, break new ground for Parliament to impose such an objective on the executive. Given how weaselly the government has been, it has to be said they would completely deserve it.
The government have been doing their job. Various disappointed parties not used to losing, inside and outside of parliament, have tried to interfere.
Negotiating treaties is not weaselling; it is the explicit constitutional right of the Government.
This is rather clever. If the government is minded to ignore the customs union vote should it lose (or even indicates that it might), it is setting itself up for a repeat rebellion on this clause too, which is altogether more stringent. But if the government makes any concessions to potential rebels on the first customs union vote to head off a rebellion on this one too, the headbangers will go mad.
It doesn't make any sense (I appreciate that's a very minor drawback). The government already has the negotiating objective of trying to ensure full access to the internal market., with no new impediments to trade etc etc. So I wouldn't expect the government to oppose this amendment.
Of course it doesn't make any particular sense. But it does require the government to accept an explicit negotiating objective, with the implication that it will be held to account according to how it pursues that.
It would, I think, break new ground for Parliament to impose such an objective on the executive. Given how weaselly the government has been, it has to be said they would completely deserve it.
Whether they 'deserve' it or not is irrelevant. This is a negotiation. Parliament cannot legislate for the result, or bind the EU to deliver any particular outcome. That is why having parliament involved at all is a nonsense, especially since opposition parties are far more interested in trouble for trouble's sake than actually getting a good outcome.
This is rather clever. If the government is minded to ignore the customs union vote should it lose (or even indicates that it might), it is setting itself up for a repeat rebellion on this clause too, which is altogether more stringent. But if the government makes any concessions to potential rebels on the first customs union vote to head off a rebellion on this one too, the headbangers will go mad.
It doesn't make any sense (I appreciate that's a very minor drawback). The government already has the negotiating objective of trying to ensure full access to the internal market., with no new impediments to trade etc etc. So I wouldn't expect the government to oppose this amendment.
Of course it doesn't make any particular sense. But it does require the government to accept an explicit negotiating objective, with the implication that it will be held to account according to how it pursues that.
It would, I think, break new ground for Parliament to impose such an objective on the executive. Given how weaselly the government has been, it has to be said they would completely deserve it.
Whether they 'deserve' it or not is irrelevant. This is a negotiation. Parliament cannot legislate for the result, or bind the EU to deliver any particular outcome. That is why having parliament involved at all is a nonsense, especially since opposition parties are far more interesting in trouble for trouble's sake than actually getting a good outcome.
Parliament can set negotiating objectives. Since the government has careered from initially claiming that even to hint at what its negotiating objectives were would jeopardise the whole endeavour to arguing in public about which of two unattainable and already-rejected objectives it was going to put forward, Parliament can step into the vacuum.
If members of the government don't like the objectives set for them by the legislature, they can always decamp.
Wonder if Boris has enough on Gove to scupper his chances.
More generally, what will Boris Johnson do if a vacancy seems set to come up? He must know that now is not his moment. Will he shore up TMPM? Will he throw his hat in the ring anyway? To whom would he give his endorsement, which must still count for quite a bit? And what would he want in return?
One to think about.
Could Boris serve under Gove? Surely not.
This is set up to be bloody.
An ally of Boris Johnson wants to cut off Gove’s willy.
Having shown us all a great example of the Peter Principle with his stint at the FCO, do that many in the Parliamentary party care much about what Boris thinks any more?
There's a few.
They are living on past glories, Boris won the referendum, Boris won Labour London twice.
If the Tory leadership is held in 2021 onwards then I'd expect Boris to back Jo as next Tory leader.
It was at the 2013 Tory conference when Boris said he would never do an Ed (Miliband) on his brother.
Parliament can set negotiating objectives. Since the government has careered from initially claiming that even to hint at what its negotiating objectives were would jeopardise the whole endeavour to arguing in public about which of two unattainable and already-rejected objectives it was going to put forward, Parliament can step into the vacuum.
If members of the government don't like the objectives set for them by the legislature, they can always decamp.
The objective is too vague to be a constraint. The government already has the objective of negotiating as much access to the Single Market as possible and without tariffs and impediments. So what difference does it make?
They keep edging their way to new positions, based principally it seems on ensuring opposition to whatever the government is proposing (this week at any rate). I'm still not convinced Labour won't end up backing a Remain position, despite Corbyn's personal views.
They won't as Corbyn is ideologically opposed to the single market and a majority of Labour seats voted Leave
Parliament can set negotiating objectives. Since the government has careered from initially claiming that even to hint at what its negotiating objectives were would jeopardise the whole endeavour to arguing in public about which of two unattainable and already-rejected objectives it was going to put forward, Parliament can step into the vacuum.
If members of the government don't like the objectives set for them by the legislature, they can always decamp.
The objective is too vague to be a constraint. The government already has the objective of negotiating as much access to the Single Market as possible and without tariffs and impediments. So what difference does it make?
1) Does it? It seems directly at odds with Theresa May's previously stated positions. Though admittedly it's hard to keep track of all of them. 2) Its efforts can now be measured against that. If legislated for, the government could not ignore it. Presumably government ministers could be quizzed before select committees as to how they had pursued the objective. 3) Since there are large numbers of Conservative MPs who would directly reject such an objective, having it formalised as an objective would be unlikely to pass without demur from the Europhobic Reactionary Group.
Well, stop being seen as the f*cking party of anti-semites then.... It's in your hands.
I presume if any Tory activists/supporters feel intimidated by angry people shouting at them things they feel the Conservative party are responsible for then that is similarly the fault of the Conservative party?
Parliament can set negotiating objectives. Since the government has careered from initially claiming that even to hint at what its negotiating objectives were would jeopardise the whole endeavour to arguing in public about which of two unattainable and already-rejected objectives it was going to put forward, Parliament can step into the vacuum.
If members of the government don't like the objectives set for them by the legislature, they can always decamp.
The objective is too vague to be a constraint. The government already has the objective of negotiating as much access to the Single Market as possible and without tariffs and impediments. So what difference does it make?
1) Does it? It seems directly at odds with Theresa May's previously stated positions. Though admittedly it's hard to keep track of all of them. 2) Its efforts can now be measured against that. If legislated for, the government could not ignore it. Presumably government ministers could be quizzed before select committees as to how they had pursued the objective. 3) Since there are large numbers of Conservative MPs who would directly reject such an objective, having it formalised as an objective would be unlikely to pass without demur from the Europhobic Reactionary Group.
I think you are over-reading it. This is about Labour trying to come up with some vague position which no-one disagrees with, so that after the event they can claim that it would all have been so much better if only they had been doing the negotiating, but without any serious intention of actually influencing things. How could they have such an intention, given that if anything they are more divided than the Tories on the issue?
Parliament can set negotiating objectives. Since the government has careered from initially claiming that even to hint at what its negotiating objectives were would jeopardise the whole endeavour to arguing in public about which of two unattainable and already-rejected objectives it was going to put forward, Parliament can step into the vacuum.
If members of the government don't like the objectives set for them by the legislature, they can always decamp.
The objective is too vague to be a constraint. The government already has the objective of negotiating as much access to the Single Market as possible and without tariffs and impediments. So what difference does it make?
1) Does it? It seems directly at odds with Theresa May's previously stated positions. Though admittedly it's hard to keep track of all of them. 2) Its efforts can now be measured against that. If legislated for, the government could not ignore it. Presumably government ministers could be quizzed before select committees as to how they had pursued the objective. 3) Since there are large numbers of Conservative MPs who would directly reject such an objective, having it formalised as an objective would be unlikely to pass without demur from the Europhobic Reactionary Group.
I think you are over-reading it. This is about Labour trying to come up with some vague position which no-one disagrees with, so that after the event they can claim that it would all have been so much better if only they had been doing the negotiating, but without any serious intention of actually influencing things. How could they have such an intention, given that if anything they are more divided than the Tories on the issue?
More divided seems unlikely, but divided, to be sure.
They keep edging their way to new positions, based principally it seems on ensuring opposition to whatever the government is proposing (this week at any rate). I'm still not convinced Labour won't end up backing a Remain position, despite Corbyn's personal views.
They won't as Corbyn is ideologically opposed to the single market and a majority of Labour seats voted Leave
More divided seems unlikely, but divided, to be sure.
They are more divided. A substantial group (Chuka, Chris Bryant and friends) want to stop the whole thing, or failing that keep us in the Single Market and Customs Union and in most of the institutions, i.e. not really leave at all. Another substantial group want to respect the referendum result, recognise this means leaving the Single Market, but want some kind of customs union deal. A further group, most notably the leadership, want to leave fully, but in this respect the leadership are heavily at odds with the membership and most of their MPs.
The Tories, in contrast, have just a handful of MPs in the first category (Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry and a couple of others), and very few party members who take this view. The disagreement is between the pragmatists, who want as close a deal as possible and wouldn't object to a customs union, and the full-on Brexiteers who insist on something looser. The biggest contrast with Labour is that the leadership and the membership are more closely aligned in their views.
Parliament can set negotiating objectives. Since the government has careered from initially claiming that even to hint at what its negotiating objectives were would jeopardise the whole endeavour to arguing in public about which of two unattainable and already-rejected objectives it was going to put forward, Parliament can step into the vacuum.
If members of the government don't like the objectives set for them by the legislature, they can always decamp.
The objective is too vague to be a constraint. The government already has the objective of negotiating as much access to the Single Market as possible and without tariffs and impediments. So what difference does it make?
1) Does it? It seems directly at odds with Theresa May's previously stated positions. Though admittedly it's hard to keep track of all of them. 2) Its efforts can now be measured against that. If legislated for, the government could not ignore it. Presumably government ministers could be quizzed before select committees as to how they had pursued the objective. 3) Since there are large numbers of Conservative MPs who would directly reject such an objective, having it formalised as an objective would be unlikely to pass without demur from the Europhobic Reactionary Group.
I think you are over-reading it. This is about Labour trying to come up with some vague position which no-one disagrees with, so that after the event they can claim that it would all have been so much better if only they had been doing the negotiating, but without any serious intention of actually influencing things. How could they have such an intention, given that if anything they are more divided than the Tories on the issue?
More divided seems unlikely, but divided, to be sure.
Divided, sure, but not with the same obsessional venom that is the staple of the Tories. With the odd exception such as Hoey, Labour Eurosceptics including Corbyn himself are not that bothered.
Well, stop being seen as the f*cking party of anti-semites then.... It's in your hands.
I presume if any Tory activists/supporters feel intimidated by angry people shouting at them things they feel the Conservative party are responsible for then that is similarly the fault of the Conservative party?
It's a view I guess.....
You are continually and utterly wrong-headed on this. Some things transcend party politics: if you genuinely believe that things like anti-Semitism or Islamaphobia are wrong, then you argue against it wherever you see it, even if it is in your own party. You do not excuse it because the accused are fellow travellers.
Labour had issues with anti-Semitism - and that is according to your namesake, yet alone lots of other MPs and activists. This is partly because of the leadership's lack of action against such people.
Now, I'll guarantee you one thing: there will be anti-Semites or Islamaphobes in the Labour party. There'll be some in the Conservative party, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP, etc, etc.
What matters is how you react to accusations, and that's why Labour's got into trouble.
More divided seems unlikely, but divided, to be sure.
They are more divided. A substantial group (Chuka, Chris Bryant and friends) want to stop the whole thing, or failing that keep us in the Single Market and Customs Union and in most of the institutions, i.e. not really leave at all. Another substantial group want to respect the referendum result, recognise this means leaving the Single Market, but want some kind of customs union deal. A further group, most notably the leadership, want to leave fully, but in this respect the leadership are heavily at odds with the membership and most of their MPs.
The Tories, in contrast, have just a handful of MPs in the first category (Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry and a couple of others), and very few party members who take this view. The disagreement is between the pragmatists, who want as close a deal as possible and wouldn't object to a customs union, and the full-on Brexiteers who insist on something looser. The biggest contrast with Labour is that the leadership and the membership are more closely aligned in their views.
The biggest contrast is Conservative members are not consulted and have no say.
They keep edging their way to new positions, based principally it seems on ensuring opposition to whatever the government is proposing (this week at any rate). I'm still not convinced Labour won't end up backing a Remain position, despite Corbyn's personal views.
They won't as Corbyn is ideologically opposed to the single market and a majority of Labour seats voted Leave
Corbyn is ideologically disposed to power.
He also wants power to do something and nationalise etc, the single market constrains that
More divided seems unlikely, but divided, to be sure.
They are more divided. A substantial group (Chuka, Chris Bryant and friends) want to stop the whole thing, or failing that keep us in the Single Market and Customs Union and in most of the institutions, i.e. not really leave at all. Another substantial group want to respect the referendum result, recognise this means leaving the Single Market, but want some kind of customs union deal. A further group, most notably the leadership, want to leave fully, but in this respect the leadership are heavily at odds with the membership and most of their MPs.
The Tories, in contrast, have just a handful of MPs in the first category (Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry and a couple of others), and very few party members who take this view. The disagreement is between the pragmatists, who want as close a deal as possible and wouldn't object to a customs union, and the full-on Brexiteers who insist on something looser. The biggest contrast with Labour is that the leadership and the membership are more closely aligned in their views.
The biggest contrast is Conservative members are not consulted and have no say.
Unlike Labour members, who overwhelmingly back Corbyn's lifelong opposition to Britain's EU membership, I suppose?
More divided seems unlikely, but divided, to be sure.
They are more divided. A substantial group (Chuka, Chris Bryant and friends) want to stop the whole thing, or failing that keep us in the Single Market and Customs Union and in most of the institutions, i.e. not really leave at all. Another substantial group want to respect the referendum result, recognise this means leaving the Single Market, but want some kind of customs union deal. A further group, most notably the leadership, want to leave fully, but in this respect the leadership are heavily at odds with the membership and most of their MPs.
The Tories, in contrast, have just a handful of MPs in the first category (Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry and a couple of others), and very few party members who take this view. The disagreement is between the pragmatists, who want as close a deal as possible and wouldn't object to a customs union, and the full-on Brexiteers who insist on something looser. The biggest contrast with Labour is that the leadership and the membership are more closely aligned in their views.
The biggest contrast is Conservative members are not consulted and have no say.
Conservatives just have to vote with their feet.
Do we know how many Conservative members have resigned and joined the Lib Dems in the last couple of years?
Seems government position is Comcast bid for Sky is absolutely fine, 21CF bid will be accepted if they divest Sky News. But they can divest it to Disney, which is looking to take-over 21CF.
So basically a fudge, that means little in reality. Disney can buy 21CF, which buys Sky, while selling Sky News to Disney.
Not a fudge
Issue isn’t 21CF owning Sky News, it’s common ownership of 21CF and Newscorp.
Once the Murdochs aren't in control of 21CF you can reunite the assets
I have not followed this in detail so I was wondering how exactly have Northern Rail screwed this up so badly? Did they introduce a timetable that they couldn't themselves meet or is there a problem because if it works it is a worse timetable than they had before. Is it interfacing with Network Rail that is the issue or is it all down to NR's internal mismanagement of their own business?
A bit of both.
They introduced the timetable change whilst Liverpool and a few other stations are closed.
Plus the drivers aren't yet fully trained on the new trains/routes.
As someone who commutes to Manchester daily and most of my staff commute in using Northern it is stressful.
There's been a few life threatening situations as the platforms are heaving full of people waiting for cancelled/delayed trains and arriving trains have a load of passengers wishing to get off.
Fortunately I used Trans Pennine Express
Aren't TPE just as affected by the infrastructure changes though? How come they seem to be coping much better?
Trans Pennine don’t run as many services as Northern nor have they radically changed their timetables.
They are also pretty much dead last for punctionality aren't they?
Abortion in NI should me a matter for Stormont, Westminster is a caretaker not a dictator
Inthatcase Stormont should form a government. If they refuse to do so, then it is them that lose autonomy.
I am surprised that they do not want to have a devolved government looking at the border issue. There is nowt queere than Ulster folk.
No it is not, Westminster should only be dealing with devolved issues to ensure the running of essential services not poking its nose into social issues like abortion which should wait if and until the Stormont executive is restored
More divided seems unlikely, but divided, to be sure.
They are more divided. A substantial group (Chuka, Chris Bryant and friends) want to stop the whole thing, or failing that keep us in the Single Market and Customs Union and in most of the institutions, i.e. not really leave at all. Another substantial group want to respect the referendum result, recognise this means leaving the Single Market, but want some kind of customs union deal. A further group, most notably the leadership, want to leave fully, but in this respect the leadership are heavily at odds with the membership and most of their MPs.
The Tories, in contrast, have just a handful of MPs in the first category (Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry and a couple of others), and very few party members who take this view. The disagreement is between the pragmatists, who want as close a deal as possible and wouldn't object to a customs union, and the full-on Brexiteers who insist on something looser. The biggest contrast with Labour is that the leadership and the membership are more closely aligned in their views.
The biggest contrast is Conservative members are not consulted and have no say.
Conservative members (and voters) are, by data and anecdote, far more Leave-oriented.
Personally I'd prefer if it if Westminster brought same sex marriage to Northern Ireland first.
Have you someone in mind ?
I can recommend some venues if you do.
I'm never getting married again, once was enough for me.
A friend of mine is in a same sex relationship with an Ulsterman and it seems perverse that *I* can marry someone of the same sex as myself in my home country and he cannot.
It's a good day for people who want to throw their money away investing in Gove. It's also a good day for investors in Rees-Mogg, since they can now increase their investment at a lower price.
Meanwhile, here is what the government should announce.
1) Full Brexit cannot come with an open border in Ireland or with a continuation of the FTA. Full Brexit means Hard Border. The signatories of the Good Friday Agreement did not envisage Brexit.
2) The border in Ireland is an international one between sovereign countries. Just as the British side in cross-Channel trade relations is a matter for the British government, not for Kent County Council, so is the British side in matters concerning the Irish border. The British government will not be held to ransom by the DUP.
3) ALTERNATIVE A
i) Since Brexit brings consequences for British-Irish relations that were not made clear at the time of the referendum, there should be another British referendum with a Remain option. The RoI of course has a special relationship with Britain but it is an EU member state and that relationship will become less special if Britain leaves the EU. The British people must decide whether or not they want that.
ii) If the result of another Brexit referendum is again Leave, then the people of NI need to decide whether they want free movement with GB or free movement with the rest of Ireland. Therefore in that event the British government will propose that referendums on Irish reunification should be held on both sides of the Irish border. That will of course need to be agreed with the Irish government.
ALTERNATIVE B
There should be separate referendums in GB and NI. In GB the question should be Remain versus Leave. In NI the question should be Leave Britain and Stay in the EU or Stay in Britain and Leave the EU. And if GB votes to leave the EU whereas NI votes to stay in the EU, then it will be up to the people of NI to decide whether they want full independence (after which they can apply for EU membership) or, subject to RoI agreement, to join the RoI.
It is a truly pathetic British government that cannot stand up to the DUP and soon people are going to get sick of it.
Personally I'd prefer if it if Westminster brought same sex marriage to Northern Ireland first.
Have you someone in mind ?
I can recommend some venues if you do.
I'm never getting married again, once was enough for me.
A friend of mine is in a same sex relationship with an Ulsterman and it seems perverse that *I* can marry someone of the same sex as myself in my home country and he cannot.
Parliament can set negotiating objectives. Since the government has careered from initially claiming that even to hint at what its negotiating objectives were would jeopardise the whole endeavour to arguing in public about which of two unattainable and already-rejected objectives it was going to put forward, Parliament can step into the vacuum.
If members of the government don't like the objectives set for them by the legislature, they can always decamp.
The objective is too vague to be a constraint. The government already has the objective of negotiating as much access to the Single Market as possible and without tariffs and impediments. So what difference does it make?
Since when did the legislature have the right to limit the executive on executive actions anyway? Parliament is there to make laws. The government is there to govern.
Personally I'd prefer if it if Westminster brought same sex marriage to Northern Ireland first.
Have you someone in mind ?
I can recommend some venues if you do.
I'm never getting married again, once was enough for me.
A friend of mine is in a same sex relationship with an Ulsterman and it seems perverse that *I* can marry someone of the same sex as myself in my home country and he cannot.
different countries have different laws shock.....
Personally I'd prefer if it if Westminster brought same sex marriage to Northern Ireland first.
Have you someone in mind ?
I can recommend some venues if you do.
I'm never getting married again, once was enough for me.
A friend of mine is in a same sex relationship with an Ulsterman and it seems perverse that *I* can marry someone of the same sex as myself in my home country and he cannot.
Best not marry a Pakistani bloke then
Ah but Pakistan is not my home country. Le Royaume-Uni is.
Does Northern Ireland really want to be known as Pakistan on The Lagan?
Personally I'd prefer if it if Westminster brought same sex marriage to Northern Ireland first.
Have you someone in mind ?
I can recommend some venues if you do.
I'm never getting married again, once was enough for me.
A friend of mine is in a same sex relationship with an Ulsterman and it seems perverse that *I* can marry someone of the same sex as myself in my home country and he cannot.
In the UAE you cannot even have sex if you are not married
It's a good day for people who want to throw their money away investing in Gove. It's also a good day for investors in Rees-Mogg, since they can now increase their investment at a lower price.
Meanwhile, here is what the government should announce.
1) Full Brexit cannot come with an open border in Ireland or with a continuation of the FTA. Full Brexit means Hard Border. The signatories of the Good Friday Agreement did not envisage Brexit.
2) The border in Ireland is an international one between sovereign countries. Just as the British side in cross-Channel trade relations is a matter for the British government, not for Kent County Council, so is the British side in matters concerning the Irish border. The British government will not be held to ransom by the DUP.
3) ALTERNATIVE A
i) Since Brexit brings consequences for British-Irish relations that were not made clear at the time of the referendum, there should be another British referendum with a Remain option. The RoI of course has a special relationship with Britain but it is an EU member state and that relationship will become less special if Britain leaves the EU. The British people must decide whether or not they want that.
ii) If the result of another Brexit referendum is again Leave, then the people of NI need to decide whether they want free movement with GB or free movement with the rest of Ireland. Therefore in that event the British government will propose that referendums on Irish reunification should be held on both sides of the Irish border. That will of course need to be agreed with the Irish government.
ALTERNATIVE B
There should be separate referendums in GB and NI. In GB the question should be Remain versus Leave. In NI the question should be Leave Britain and Stay in the EU or Stay in Britain and Leave the EU. And if GB votes to leave the EU whereas NI votes to stay in the EU, then it will be up to the people of NI to decide whether they want full independence (after which they can apply for EU membership) or, subject to RoI agreement, to join the RoI.
It is a truly pathetic British government that cannot stand up to the DUP and soon people are going to get sick of it.
A second referendum with a Remain option? You are JC Juncker and I claim my five pounds....
I wonder if it makes Tory Leavers queasy that by his deeds Corbyn is supporting a hard Brexit.
He wants to undo all of Lady Thatcher's hard work on economic reforms with massive state intervention, EU membership prevents that.
Yes. It does, very very much. I must be in a minority I assumed that we would stay in the Single Market. If we have a problem with our economy and society being too much of a draw to eastern europeans then it is in our hands to structure our welfare policies to prevent the draw. We could do all that from within the Single Market.
With the Single Market, that old style protectionism is dead and buried with a gigantic spectre of an almighty European Court of Justice to enforce it. Outside of the Single Market Corbyn and Mcdonell can burn the economy down, not just bugger up the budget.
Personally I'd prefer if it if Westminster brought same sex marriage to Northern Ireland first.
Have you someone in mind ?
I can recommend some venues if you do.
I'm never getting married again, once was enough for me.
A friend of mine is in a same sex relationship with an Ulsterman and it seems perverse that *I* can marry someone of the same sex as myself in my home country and he cannot.
Best not marry a Pakistani bloke then
Ah but Pakistan is not my home country. Le Royaume-Uni is.
Does Northern Ireland really want to be known as Pakistan on The Lagan?
yes but you could meet a Pakistani bloke and want to get married at his place.
Personally I'd prefer if it if Westminster brought same sex marriage to Northern Ireland first.
Have you someone in mind ?
I can recommend some venues if you do.
I'm never getting married again, once was enough for me.
A friend of mine is in a same sex relationship with an Ulsterman and it seems perverse that *I* can marry someone of the same sex as myself in my home country and he cannot.
Best not marry a Pakistani bloke then
Ah but Pakistan is not my home country. Le Royaume-Uni is.
Does Northern Ireland really want to be known as Pakistan on The Lagan?
yes but you could meet a Pakistani bloke and want to get married at his place.
I try and spend as little time with Pakistanis as possible.
Everyone one of my Mum's friends are trying to marry me off.
I saw on the news , that illegal immigrants were paying to go through Dublin Airport .Using false passports , then by vehicle to northern Ireland , ferry to Scotland , and train to London.
They were saying this route was far easier , than Calais.
Yes that makes sense except I don't see how much further we would be from what we have today (Remainer in No.10, etc). The ERG would presumably make demands of Javid but, as with May today, he is first of all a Remainer, and second of all, would be PM and hence not, I hope, at liberty to accede to some of the bonkers demands that they would try to make. So what would be the point of the ERG endorsing it if they got nothing more than they are already getting, whatever that is?
It puts Gove into number 11, Javid is not an ideological remainer and would be a much more pragmatic and decisive PM than May. I think if he went in and walked the route of Brexit as the City would like it (what Robert, myself and other leavers on here have proposed) they would probably live with it as long as the end goal was being completely out within a few years and no open-ended commitments to the CU or SM are made (as May seems ready to do).
Javid has already spoken out against the customs union, a few times so that will help win over the moderate sceptics (which make up the majority of the MPs and members) and enough of the ERG to not put forwards a challenge despite coming out for remain, IMO.
I also think getting Hammond out of number 11 (and Gove in) would count as a huge win for the ERG, which is why if Javid and Gove run a joint ticket they get most of the party behind them.
I would be a lot happier with Gove in number 11 than number 10. I think he has the intellect to seize the problems of the Treasury and our absurd tax system. I think he would also be more ambitious about housing and infrastructure and slightly less anxious about the deficit. Hammond is really steady as you go and that is not what is needed if this country is to maintain its dynamism.
Javid has worried me for a bit because he has often seemed a little lacking in critical analysis of a problem or substance (he was disappointing at Business) but he would be a better frontman choice than Gove. The ideal would be if Javid/Gove could get Osborne back inside the tent as well. We are desperately short of real talent in front line politics in this country.
May and Hammond need to win big next week on all of these votes. If they don't their time may well be up.
George Osborne - the Shadow Chancellor who failed to predict a recession which happened and the Chancellor who predicted a recession which didn't happen.
Comments
https://mobile.twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/1004022423019294722
Is it that they don’t have enough drivers, that the drivers they have aren’t certified for trains and/or routes, rolling stock shortages, line capacity / signalling issues, works in progress or something else?
This is set up to be bloody.
Agree that May and Hammond need next week to be a blowout, if they manage to keep the Con rebellion to under 5 MPs it pretty much gives them licence to get on with it.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/michael-gove-game-of-thrones-tory-leadership-brexit-boris-johnson-ally-threatens-theon-greyjoy-a7113656.html
They are living on past glories, Boris won the referendum, Boris won Labour London twice.
If the Tory leadership is held in 2021 onwards then I'd expect Boris to back Jo as next Tory leader.
It was at the 2013 Tory conference when Boris said he would never do an Ed (Miliband) on his brother.
In all seriousness, if Gove gets it,Boris is condemned to the back benches. This is high stakes.
Still subject to the jurisdiction of the CJE?
Regulatory alignment?
In the Customs Union?
All of the above?
And what does "an objective" mean. Negotiable or not?
They have tried so hard to paper over their own divisions they have ended up with something quite vacuous.
The situation with GTR down south is fairly different in detail, and they are much more to blame for their woes (although still third behind NR and DfT).
What would you have Northern do, given the timetabled paths are (AIUI) granted by Network Rail?
It would, I think, break new ground for Parliament to impose such an objective on the executive. Given how weaselly the government has been, it has to be said they would completely deserve it.
Negotiating treaties is not weaselling; it is the explicit constitutional right of the Government.
Corbyn and Starmer have done May a favour.
If members of the government don't like the objectives set for them by the legislature, they can always decamp.
2) Its efforts can now be measured against that. If legislated for, the government could not ignore it. Presumably government ministers could be quizzed before select committees as to how they had pursued the objective.
3) Since there are large numbers of Conservative MPs who would directly reject such an objective, having it formalised as an objective would be unlikely to pass without demur from the Europhobic Reactionary Group.
It's a view I guess.....
https://twitter.com/GuardianHeather/status/1004051751597690881
The Tories, in contrast, have just a handful of MPs in the first category (Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry and a couple of others), and very few party members who take this view. The disagreement is between the pragmatists, who want as close a deal as possible and wouldn't object to a customs union, and the full-on Brexiteers who insist on something looser. The biggest contrast with Labour is that the leadership and the membership are more closely aligned in their views.
Labour had issues with anti-Semitism - and that is according to your namesake, yet alone lots of other MPs and activists. This is partly because of the leadership's lack of action against such people.
Now, I'll guarantee you one thing: there will be anti-Semites or Islamaphobes in the Labour party. There'll be some in the Conservative party, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP, etc, etc.
What matters is how you react to accusations, and that's why Labour's got into trouble.
He wants to undo all of Lady Thatcher's hard work on economic reforms with massive state intervention, EU membership prevents that.
I am surprised that they do not want to have a devolved government looking at the border issue. There is nowt queere than Ulster folk.
Female Tory PMs have a long history of civilising the Celts.
Mrs Thatcher decriminalised homosexuality in Northern Ireland and Scotland after they lagged years behind England & Wales.
Do we know how many Conservative members have resigned and joined the Lib Dems in the last couple of years?
Issue isn’t 21CF owning Sky News, it’s common ownership of 21CF and Newscorp.
Once the Murdochs aren't in control of 21CF you can reunite the assets
I can recommend some venues if you do.
A friend of mine is in a same sex relationship with an Ulsterman and it seems perverse that *I* can marry someone of the same sex as myself in my home country and he cannot.
Meanwhile, here is what the government should announce.
1) Full Brexit cannot come with an open border in Ireland or with a continuation of the FTA. Full Brexit means Hard Border. The signatories of the Good Friday Agreement did not envisage Brexit.
2) The border in Ireland is an international one between sovereign countries. Just as the British side in cross-Channel trade relations is a matter for the British government, not for Kent County Council, so is the British side in matters concerning the Irish border. The British government will not be held to ransom by the DUP.
3) ALTERNATIVE A
i) Since Brexit brings consequences for British-Irish relations that were not made clear at the time of the referendum, there should be another British referendum with a Remain option. The RoI of course has a special relationship with Britain but it is an EU member state and that relationship will become less special if Britain leaves the EU. The British people must decide whether or not they want that.
ii) If the result of another Brexit referendum is again Leave, then the people of NI need to decide whether they want free movement with GB or free movement with the rest of Ireland. Therefore in that event the British government will propose that referendums on Irish reunification should be held on both sides of the Irish border. That will of course need to be agreed with the Irish government.
ALTERNATIVE B
There should be separate referendums in GB and NI. In GB the question should be Remain versus Leave. In NI the question should be Leave Britain and Stay in the EU or Stay in Britain and Leave the EU. And if GB votes to leave the EU whereas NI votes to stay in the EU, then it will be up to the people of NI to decide whether they want full independence (after which they can apply for EU membership) or, subject to RoI agreement, to join the RoI.
It is a truly pathetic British government that cannot stand up to the DUP and soon people are going to get sick of it.
Does Northern Ireland really want to be known as Pakistan on The Lagan?
With the Single Market, that old style protectionism is dead and buried with a gigantic spectre of an almighty European Court of Justice to enforce it. Outside of the Single Market Corbyn and Mcdonell can burn the economy down, not just bugger up the budget.
Everyone one of my Mum's friends are trying to marry me off.
They were saying this route was far easier , than Calais.
Real talent.