It is the last resort but the Country may well turn against the EU itself if it perceives it as being unreasonable. And no matter the polls absolutely no election please.
But in fairness how would you resolve it
On the assumption I'd been stupid enough and inept enough to have got myself to this point..
May has four options - one, agree to whatever the EU wants. On the not unreasonable assumption the EU only wants limited punishment, any deal is unlikely to be too adverse to the UK economy. The political price of what will be hailed as the greatest act of appeasement since Munich will be heavy but the world will keep turning.
Second, walk out now and irrevocably. Say no deal and no money and to hell with you. Electorally popular with many, we would then spend the next nine months frantically trying to prepare for the new reality of 30/3/19. We'd have to prepare for the worst and hope for the best possibly by agreeing FTAs (though hugely unfavourable in many other aspects) with the likes of Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Third, May could decide what deal she wants and challenge the Cabinet to back her or put up against her. Any Minister that doesn't agree is sacked and any Conservative MP voting against her deal is expelled from the party, no argument. If the Cabinet turn on her as they did Thatcher she can either fight or resign (her choice) but it will then be somebody else's problem. Her BINO deal would probably get enough support from Labour, SNP and the LDs to get through but her position would be analogous to that of Ramsey McDonald.
Fourth, carry on Micawber-like and hope "something will turn up". Nothing that has happened this week has diffused the tension and all she has done has kicked the can down the road once again. The problem is she is running out of both can and road.
I see that YouGov and Survation have provided polls to keep both Tory and Labour supporters happy today. Tories will love the YouGov one, and Corbyn supporters will love the Survation one.
Why would labour love Survation when it shows them behind despite the chaos in government
As if Labour have had a last good six months. It’s been disastrous for the government, but Labour have had a disaster class since January. Of course the polling showing them pretty much level pegging could be rubbish, I’m cautious about polls these days. But after the last six months, Corbyn supporters will take these figures.
I see that YouGov and Survation have provided polls to keep both Tory and Labour supporters happy today. Tories will love the YouGov one, and Corbyn supporters will love the Survation one.
Why would labour love Survation when it shows them behind despite the chaos in government
As if Labour have had a last good six months. It’s been disastrous for the government, but Labour have had a disaster class since January. Of course the polling showing them pretty much level pegging could be rubbish, I’m cautious about polls these days. But after the last six months, Corbyn supporters will take these figures.
Do I sense a little discontent among pb's Leavers this afternoon?
Might this afternoon be the afternoon where those Leavers acknowledge that negotiating with the EU hasn't turned out to be quite as straightforward as they had aggressively asserted it would be before the referendum vote?
Only because the virulent remainers in the cabinet didn't allow any WTO exit planning. Though I put the blame on Davis for not resigning when the PM denied the planning.
I suspect the truth is that the Remainers didn't want to risk no deal, and the Brexiteers believed their own bullshit.
Yes that's probably right. Though if they had bought any single report from the City they would have been able to read the advice to prepare for a WTO exit "just in case".
There was no excuse not to prepare. Indeed, I suspect preparation would actually have made a deal easier to reach, because we'd have a plausible fallback position. . . .
The naïvity of May's negotiating position has been laughable. Trump would have advised her better than our mandarins.
Our mandarins did advise her correctly, but she got rid instead. We have no need of experts.
Ivan Rogers resignation letter is worth reading, as he seems quite prophetic now.
It is the last resort but the Country may well turn against the EU itself if it perceives it as being unreasonable. And no matter the polls absolutely no election please.
But in fairness how would you resolve it
On the assumption I'd been stupid enough and inept enough to have got myself to this point..
May has four options - one, agree to whatever the EU wants. On the not unreasonable assumption the EU only wants limited punishment, any deal is unlikely to be too adverse to the UK economy. The political price of what will be hailed as the greatest act of appeasement since Munich will be heavy but the world will keep turning.
Second, walk out now and irrevocably. Say no deal and no money and to hell with you. Electorally popular with many, we would then spend the next nine months frantically trying to prepare for the new reality of 30/3/19. We'd have to prepare for the worst and hope for the best possibly by agreeing FTAs (though hugely unfavourable in many other aspects) with the likes of Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Third, May could decide what deal she wants and challenge the Cabinet to back her or put up against her. Any Minister that doesn't agree is sacked and any Conservative MP voting against her deal is expelled from the party, no argument. If the Cabinet turn on her as they did Thatcher she can either fight or resign (her choice) but it will then be somebody else's problem. Her BINO deal would probably get enough support from Labour, SNP and the LDs to get through but her position would be analogous to that of Ramsey McDonald.
Fourth, carry on Micawber-like and hope "something will turn up". Nothing that has happened this week has diffused the tension and all she has done has kicked the can down the road once again. The problem is she is running out of both can and road.
Looks as explosive as a damp Christmas cracker to me. Move along, nothing to see here...
Brooks is angling to be the Conservative candidate for the London Mayoralty in 2020. Whether he genuinely thinks he can cut into Khan's Inner London vote I'm far from certain but the article reads like a personal manifesto.
I see that YouGov and Survation have provided polls to keep both Tory and Labour supporters happy today. Tories will love the YouGov one, and Corbyn supporters will love the Survation one.
Why would labour love Survation when it shows them behind despite the chaos in government
As if Labour have had a last good six months. It’s been disastrous for the government, but Labour have had a disaster class since January. Of course the polling showing them pretty much level pegging could be rubbish, I’m cautious about polls these days. But after the last six months, Corbyn supporters will take these figures.
But Corbyn supporters will not get Corbyn elected
History would say that since Labour are not well ahead mid-term against a government which has been in power for 8 years, they (Labour) are facing defeat at the next GE. But these days history is not a valuable guide.
Labour will take heart from last year's GE campaign and believe they will gain +10% on the Tories during the next capmpaign. The Conservatives will be confident they won't make the same campaign mistakes again (but not so confident that they're ready to push for an early GE).
In truth, neither party, nor any of us, knows; we'll all have to wait and see. And literally anything could happen during the next 4 years.
Do I sense a little discontent among pb's Leavers this afternoon?
Might this afternoon be the afternoon where those Leavers acknowledge that negotiating with the EU hasn't turned out to be quite as straightforward as they had aggressively asserted it would be before the referendum vote?
Only because the virulent remainers in the cabinet didn't allow any WTO exit planning. Though I put the blame on Davis for not resigning when the PM denied the planning.
I suspect the truth is that the Remainers didn't want to risk no deal, and the Brexiteers believed their own bullshit.
Yes that's probably right. Though if they had bought any single report from the City they would have been able to read the advice to prepare for a WTO exit "just in case".
There was no excuse not to prepare. Indeed, I suspect preparation would actually have made a deal easier to reach, because we'd have a plausible fallback position. . . .
The naïvity of May's negotiating position has been laughable. Trump would have advised her better than our mandarins.
Our mandarins did advise her correctly, but she got rid instead. We have no need of experts.
Ivan Rogers resignation letter is worth reading, as he seems quite prophetic now.
According to his own words Ivan Rogers thinks every PM who has not fully embraced the EU programme was wrong.
He was right in his resignation letter though. This in particular sticks out to me. Indeed it remains the problem 18 months later:
"My own view remains as it has always been. We do not yet know what the government will set as negotiating objectives for the UK's relationship with the EU after exit."
Which is a problem of this Government and particularly of May not of Brexit. Apart from the die hard fanatical Remoaners there are plenty of people on both sides of this debate on here and in the wider country who could see the likely problems and how they should be dealt with. May has almost gone out of her way to make the British involvement in this process as ham fisted as possible.
Now I accept I have detested May from long before she ever got close to No 10 but I doubt I am alone amongst both Remain and Leave voters in thinking that practically no one could have done a worse job than she has.
Do I sense a little discontent among pb's Leavers this afternoon?
Might this afternoon be the afternoon where those Leavers acknowledge that negotiating with the EU hasn't turned out to be quite as straightforward as they had aggressively asserted it would be before the referendum vote?
Only because the virulent remainers in the cabinet didn't allow any WTO exit planning. Though I put the blame on Davis for not resigning when the PM denied the planning.
I suspect the truth is that the Remainers didn't want to risk no deal, and the Brexiteers believed their own bullshit.
Yes that's probably right. Though if they had bought any single report from the City they would have been able to read the advice to prepare for a WTO exit "just in case".
There was no excuse not to prepare. Indeed, I suspect preparation would actually have made a deal easier to reach, because we'd have a plausible fallback position. . . .
The naïvity of May's negotiating position has been laughable. Trump would have advised her better than our mandarins.
Our mandarins did advise her correctly, but she got rid instead. We have no need of experts.
Ivan Rogers resignation letter is worth reading, as he seems quite prophetic now.
According to his own words Ivan Rogers thinks every PM who has not fully embraced the EU programme was wrong.
Citation?
Go and read the speech he made that was being widely quoted around here last week.
I have, several times, and am struggling to square it with your comment that: "According to his own words Ivan Rogers thinks every PM who has not fully embraced the EU programme was wrong." I can only conclude that you've made it up.
I see that YouGov and Survation have provided polls to keep both Tory and Labour supporters happy today. Tories will love the YouGov one, and Corbyn supporters will love the Survation one.
Why would labour love Survation when it shows them behind despite the chaos in government
As if Labour have had a last good six months. It’s been disastrous for the government, but Labour have had a disaster class since January. Of course the polling showing them pretty much level pegging could be rubbish, I’m cautious about polls these days. But after the last six months, Corbyn supporters will take these figures.
But Corbyn supporters will not get Corbyn elected
History would say that since Labour are not well ahead mid-term against a government which has been in power for 8 years, they (Labour) are facing defeat at the next GE. But these days history is not a valuable guide.
Labour will take heart from last year's GE campaign and believe they will gain +10% on the Tories during the next capmpaign. The Conservatives will be confident they won't make the same campaign mistakes again (but not so confident that they're ready to push for an early GE).
In truth, neither party, nor any of us, knows; we'll all have to wait and see. And literally anything could happen during the next 4 years.
Agree but very much doubt Corbyn will be PM at anytime
It is the last resort but the Country may well turn against the EU itself if it perceives it as being unreasonable. And no matter the polls absolutely no election please.
But in fairness how would you resolve it
On the assumption I'd been stupid enough and inept enough to have got myself to this point..
May has four options - one, agree to whatever the EU wants. On the not unreasonable assumption the EU only wants limited punishment, any deal is unlikely to be too adverse to the UK economy. The political price of what will be hailed as the greatest act of appeasement since Munich will be heavy but the world will keep turning.
Second, walk out now and irrevocably. Say no deal and no money and to hell with you. Electorally popular with many, we would then spend the next nine months frantically trying to prepare for the new reality of 30/3/19. We'd have to prepare for the worst and hope for the best possibly by agreeing FTAs (though hugely unfavourable in many other aspects) with the likes of Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Third, May could decide what deal she wants and challenge the Cabinet to back her or put up against her. Any Minister that doesn't agree is sacked and any Conservative MP voting against her deal is expelled from the party, no argument. If the Cabinet turn on her as they did Thatcher she can either fight or resign (her choice) but it will then be somebody else's problem. Her BINO deal would probably get enough support from Labour, SNP and the LDs to get through but her position would be analogous to that of Ramsey McDonald.
Fourth, carry on Micawber-like and hope "something will turn up". Nothing that has happened this week has diffused the tension and all she has done has kicked the can down the road once again. The problem is she is running out of both can and road.
I see that YouGov and Survation have provided polls to keep both Tory and Labour supporters happy today. Tories will love the YouGov one, and Corbyn supporters will love the Survation one.
The Survation one that still has the Tories in front?
It’s a one point, so pretty much level pegging.
Could be.
Though Survation had Labour 7% ahead in March so there still been a swing to the Conservatives with them.
That Survation 7 point lead was an outlier.
So could a Conservative lead of only 1%.
I think there's been a swing to the Conservatives in 2018 - whether that's been 1%, 2% or more I don't know.
It could be, although we’ve seen a fair few polls showing those kinds of figures, while it’s been rare to see seven point leads of any kind.
Anything over 5% is very likely an outlier.
But doing some quick poll averaging (with requisite warnings) gives:
Dec Lab +1.7% Jan Lab +1.4% Feb Con +0.3% Mar Con +0.6% Apr Con +1.6% May / Jun Con +2.6%
So a definite slow but steady swing over the last half year.
Do I sense a little discontent among pb's Leavers this afternoon?
Might this afternoon be the afternoon where those Leavers acknowledge that negotiating with the EU hasn't turned out to be quite as straightforward as they had aggressively asserted it would be before the referendum vote?
Only because the virulent remainers in the cabinet didn't allow any WTO exit planning. Though I put the blame on Davis for not resigning when the PM denied the planning.
I suspect the truth is that the Remainers didn't want to risk no deal, and the Brexiteers believed their own bullshit.
Yes that's probably right. Though if they had bought any single report from the City they would have been able to read the advice to prepare for a WTO exit "just in case".
There was no excuse not to prepare. Indeed, I suspect preparation would actually have made a deal easier to reach, because we'd have a plausible fallback position. . . .
The naïvity of May's negotiating position has been laughable. Trump would have advised her better than our mandarins.
Our mandarins did advise her correctly, but she got rid instead. We have no need of experts.
Ivan Rogers resignation letter is worth reading, as he seems quite prophetic now.
According to his own words Ivan Rogers thinks every PM who has not fully embraced the EU programme was wrong.
He was right in his resignation letter though. This in particular sticks out to me. Indeed it remains the problem 18 months later:
"My own view remains as it has always been. We do not yet know what the government will set as negotiating objectives for the UK's relationship with the EU after exit."
Which is a problem of this Government and particularly of May not of Brexit. Apart from the die hard fanatical Remoaners there are plenty of people on both sides of this debate on here and in the wider country who could see the likely problems and how they should be dealt with. May has almost gone out of her way to make the British involvement in this process as ham fisted as possible.
Now I accept I have detested May from long before she ever got close to No 10 but I doubt I am alone amongst both Remain and Leave voters in thinking that practically no one could have done a worse job than she has.
It is thanks to May we have settled citizens' rights and the exit bill reasonably and got through Phase 1 of the talks
I see that YouGov and Survation have provided polls to keep both Tory and Labour supporters happy today. Tories will love the YouGov one, and Corbyn supporters will love the Survation one.
Why would labour love Survation when it shows them behind despite the chaos in government
As if Labour have had a last good six months. It’s been disastrous for the government, but Labour have had a disaster class since January. Of course the polling showing them pretty much level pegging could be rubbish, I’m cautious about polls these days. But after the last six months, Corbyn supporters will take these figures.
But Corbyn supporters will not get Corbyn elected
History would say that since Labour are not well ahead mid-term against a government which has been in power for 8 years, they (Labour) are facing defeat at the next GE. But these days history is not a valuable guide.
Labour will take heart from last year's GE campaign and believe they will gain +10% on the Tories during the next capmpaign. The Conservatives will be confident they won't make the same campaign mistakes again (but not so confident that they're ready to push for an early GE).
In truth, neither party, nor any of us, knows; we'll all have to wait and see. And literally anything could happen during the next 4 years.
Agree but very much doubt Corbyn will be PM at anytime
There has to be a reasonable possibility that Corbyn will step down between now and 2022, e.g. for health reasons, given his age.
I have, several times, and am struggling to square it with your comment that: "According to his own words Ivan Rogers thinks every PM who has not fully embraced the EU programme was wrong." I can only conclude that you've made it up.
Not at all.
"I would characterise the Cameron renegotiation as the last of multiple attempts, dating back at least 25 years, to carve out and entrench a British exceptionalism within the EU. We already had – as I got endlessly reminded by EU colleagues – an entirely unique status within the EU. A unique opt-out from monetary union, an opt-out from Schengen, an ability largely to pick and choose which areas of judicial integration to join and which not, and so on.
Cameron sought further to entrench that exceptional status. He wanted a Europe of separate tiers, not multiple speeds. We were not on a slow train to the same destination to which others might be heading by Express. We were heading for – or at – a different final destination, and a flexible, effective EU should, in his view, have been able to accommodate radically different destinations with only certain core elements, legal rulebooks and mechanisms in common.
He had, unlike say, Tony Blair, for whom I also worked, no desire whatever to put Britain at the heart of all the European project."
I see that YouGov and Survation have provided polls to keep both Tory and Labour supporters happy today. Tories will love the YouGov one, and Corbyn supporters will love the Survation one.
Why would labour love Survation when it shows them behind despite the chaos in government
As if Labour have had a last good six months. It’s been disastrous for the government, but Labour have had a disaster class since January. Of course the polling showing them pretty much level pegging could be rubbish, I’m cautious about polls these days. But after the last six months, Corbyn supporters will take these figures.
But Corbyn supporters will not get Corbyn elected
History would say that since Labour are not well ahead mid-term against a government which has been in power for 8 years, they (Labour) are facing defeat at the next GE. But these days history is not a valuable guide.
Labour will take heart from last year's GE campaign and believe they will gain +10% on the Tories during the next capmpaign. The Conservatives will be confident they won't make the same campaign mistakes again (but not so confident that they're ready to push for an early GE).
In truth, neither party, nor any of us, knows; we'll all have to wait and see. And literally anything could happen during the next 4 years.
Agree but very much doubt Corbyn will be PM at anytime
There has to be a reasonable possibility that Corbyn will step down between now and 2022, e.g. for health reasons, given his age.
It is the last resort but the Country may well turn against the EU itself if it perceives it as being unreasonable. And no matter the polls absolutely no election please.
But in fairness how would you resolve it
On the assumption I'd been stupid enough and inept enough to have got myself to this point..
May has four options - one, agree to whatever the EU wants. On the not unreasonable assumption the EU only wants limited punishment, any deal is unlikely to be too adverse to the UK economy. The political price of what will be hailed as the greatest act of appeasement since Munich will be heavy but the world will keep turning.
Second, walk out now and irrevocably. Say no deal and no money and to hell with you. Electorally popular with many, we would then spend the next nine months frantically trying to prepare for the new reality of 30/3/19. We'd have to prepare for the worst and hope for the best possibly by agreeing FTAs (though hugely unfavourable in many other aspects) with the likes of Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Third, May could decide what deal she wants and challenge the Cabinet to back her or put up against her. Any Minister that doesn't agree is sacked and any Conservative MP voting against her deal is expelled from the party, no argument. If the Cabinet turn on her as they did Thatcher she can either fight or resign (her choice) but it will then be somebody else's problem. Her BINO deal would probably get enough support from Labour, SNP and the LDs to get through but her position would be analogous to that of Ramsey McDonald.
Fourth, carry on Micawber-like and hope "something will turn up". Nothing that has happened this week has diffused the tension and all she has done has kicked the can down the road once again. The problem is she is running out of both can and road.
All good and clear but do you think May is capable of making any decision ?
Con Brexiteers should've got rid of Theresa in the early hours of 9th June 2017.
Its clear that leaving her in place was a terrible decision.
One EU official was quoted the other day as saying May was the only sane option left in the Tory Party
I'm sure the EU are perfectly happy having Theresa in place to give in to their every demand and to be jumping at shadows the whole time. Bet they can't believe their luck...
We thought we couldn't find a worse negotiator than Cameron... And then we did!
Option 1 would be "surrender" to Juncker, Barnier and Verhofstadt who would effectively put the deal they want on the table and May agrees to everything so we stay in the SM (in name) and Freedom of Movement continues. It would be political suicide.
Option 3 is May proposing a BINO-type deal whereby we stay in something like but not exactly the SM and we go for something but not quite FoM. There'd be enough for her to argue it wouldn't be the pre 23/6/16 situation but most analysis would conclude it's not that much different.
May would then gamble there'd be enough Labour, SNP and LD votes to see the A50 agreement through the Commons and if there were, life would continue almost as though nothing had happened.
I have, several times, and am struggling to square it with your comment that: "According to his own words Ivan Rogers thinks every PM who has not fully embraced the EU programme was wrong." I can only conclude that you've made it up.
Not at all.
"I would characterise the Cameron renegotiation as the last of multiple attempts, dating back at least 25 years, to carve out and entrench a British exceptionalism within the EU. We already had – as I got endlessly reminded by EU colleagues – an entirely unique status within the EU. A unique opt-out from monetary union, an opt-out from Schengen, an ability largely to pick and choose which areas of judicial integration to join and which not, and so on.
Cameron sought further to entrench that exceptional status. He wanted a Europe of separate tiers, not multiple speeds. We were not on a slow train to the same destination to which others might be heading by Express. We were heading for – or at – a different final destination, and a flexible, effective EU should, in his view, have been able to accommodate radically different destinations with only certain core elements, legal rulebooks and mechanisms in common.
He had, unlike say, Tony Blair, for whom I also worked, no desire whatever to put Britain at the heart of all the European project."
I think he was merely making a statement of fact, in terms of attitude to Europe, rather than saying any faction was wrong.
What relationship does the EU actually want with us ?
'Cake and eat it', apparently, or some magic kingdom where unicorns prance over the Irish border but otherwise we are a third country.
One might view this as overcautious but I can see enough water between the EU and the Gov'ts position now to take my stake out of the 29th March 2019 bet, and I have done so (leaving the profit on Out).. I'm genuinely surprised by this latest move from Barnier, May got Davis' line about time limiting effectively legally nullified yesterday - and essentially prostrated the UK out in front of the EU giving them what they want on the 'backstop'. That this now won't apply to the whole of the UK creates a situation where the Gov't of the UK (Which has the DUP) simply can't agree to anything the EU would find acceptable.
Barnier has only said the EU backstop proposal on CU can't apply to whole of the UK. He hasn't said anything about the actual negotiated relationship.
I suspect (depending on next Tuesday) it may be a CU/SM deal on goods and FTA on services with a fudge on FOM. May will have to be seen as kicking and screaming against this (she's a surprisingly good thespian) so I think you were wise to take your stake out of the 29th March 2019 bet.
Provided that it’s enough on FOM (work permits automatic with a job offer) that would be sufficient and not a bad outcome for the UK
It is the last resort but the Country may well turn against the EU itself if it perceives it as being unreasonable. And no matter the polls absolutely no election please.
But in fairness how would you resolve it
On the assumption I'd been stupid enough and inept enough to have got myself to this point..
May has four options - one, agree to whatever the EU wants. On the not unreasonable assumption the EU only wants limited punishment, any deal is unlikely to be too adverse to the UK economy. The political price of what will be hailed as the greatest act of appeasement since Munich will be heavy but the world will keep turning.
Second, walk out now and irrevocably. Say no deal and no money and to hell with you. Electorally popular with many, we would then spend the next nine months frantically trying to prepare for the new reality of 30/3/19. We'd have to prepare for the worst and hope for the best possibly by agreeing FTAs (though hugely unfavourable in many other aspects) with the likes of Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Third, May could decide what deal she wants and challenge the Cabinet to back her or put up against her. Any Minister that doesn't agree is sacked and any Conservative MP voting against her deal is expelled from the party, no argument. If the Cabinet turn on her as they did Thatcher she can either fight or resign (her choice) but it will then be somebody else's problem. Her BINO deal would probably get enough support from Labour, SNP and the LDs to get through but her position would be analogous to that of Ramsey McDonald.
Fourth, carry on Micawber-like and hope "something will turn up". Nothing that has happened this week has diffused the tension and all she has done has kicked the can down the road once again. The problem is she is running out of both can and road.
All good and clear but do you think May is capable of making any decision ?
The electorate decided to take away her decision making capability exactly a year ago.
It is the last resort but the Country may well turn against the EU itself if it perceives it as being unreasonable. And no matter the polls absolutely no election please.
But in fairness how would you resolve it
On the assumption I'd been stupid enough and inept enough to have got myself to this point..
May has four options - one, agree to whatever the EU wants. On the not unreasonable assumption the EU only wants limited punishment, any deal is unlikely to be too adverse to the UK economy. The political price of what will be hailed as the greatest act of appeasement since Munich will be heavy but the world will keep turning.
Second, walk out now and irrevocably. Say no deal and no money and to hell with you. Electorally popular with many, we would then spend the next nine months frantically trying to prepare for the new reality of 30/3/19. We'd have to prepare for the worst and hope for the best possibly by agreeing FTAs (though hugely unfavourable in many other aspects) with the likes of Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Third, May could decide what deal she wants and challenge the Cabinet to back her or put up against her. Any Minister that doesn't agree is sacked and any Conservative MP voting against her deal is expelled from the party, no argument. If the Cabinet turn on her as they did Thatcher she can either fight or resign (her choice) but it will then be somebody else's problem. Her BINO deal would probably get enough support from Labour, SNP and the LDs to get through but her position would be analogous to that of Ramsey McDonald.
Fourth, carry on Micawber-like and hope "something will turn up". Nothing that has happened this week has diffused the tension and all she has done has kicked the can down the road once again. The problem is she is running out of both can and road.
In effect your first and third options are the same. In both cases she will actually just have to agree with whatever the EU wants and in both cases she will destroy her party. Not I have no particular problem with that but the idea that she can defy both her cabinet and her MPs and survive long enough to actually get her plan through is not realistic.
Remember if she loses a vote of confidence by her own MPs she is barred from standing in any subsequent election.
Con Brexiteers should've got rid of Theresa in the early hours of 9th June 2017.
Its clear that leaving her in place was a terrible decision.
One EU official was quoted the other day as saying May was the only sane option left in the Tory Party
Speaking from the outside, the leavers, having won the battle of the Referendum, proceeded to lose the battle of the Conservative Party not by being out-thought by a superior tactical genius (no one would ever call Gavin Williamson that) but by shooting each other and then themselves in a display of ritual stupidcide.
Gove and Boris killed each other and Leadsom shot herself aiming presumably for both feet but missing by just under six feet.
I see that YouGov and Survation have provided polls to keep both Tory and Labour supporters happy today. Tories will love the YouGov one, and Corbyn supporters will love the Survation one.
Why would labour love Survation when it shows them behind despite the chaos in government
As if Labour have had a last good six months. It’s been disastrous for the government, but Labour have had a disaster class since January. Of course the polling showing them pretty much level pegging could be rubbish, I’m cautious about polls these days. But after the last six months, Corbyn supporters will take these figures.
But Corbyn supporters will not get Corbyn elected
History would say that since Labour are not well ahead mid-term against a government which has been in power for 8 years, they (Labour) are facing defeat at the next GE. But these days history is not a valuable guide.
Labour will take heart from last year's GE campaign and believe they will gain +10% on the Tories during the next capmpaign. The Conservatives will be confident they won't make the same campaign mistakes again (but not so confident that they're ready to push for an early GE).
In truth, neither party, nor any of us, knows; we'll all have to wait and see. And literally anything could happen during the next 4 years.
Agree but very much doubt Corbyn will be PM at anytime
There has to be a reasonable possibility that Corbyn will step down between now and 2022, e.g. for health reasons, given his age.
I have, several times, and am struggling to square it with your comment that: "According to his own words Ivan Rogers thinks every PM who has not fully embraced the EU programme was wrong." I can only conclude that you've made it up.
Not at all.
"I would characterise the Cameron renegotiation as the last of multiple attempts, dating back at least 25 years, to carve out and entrench a British exceptionalism within the EU. We already had – as I got endlessly reminded by EU colleagues – an entirely unique status within the EU. A unique opt-out from monetary union, an opt-out from Schengen, an ability largely to pick and choose which areas of judicial integration to join and which not, and so on.
Cameron sought further to entrench that exceptional status. He wanted a Europe of separate tiers, not multiple speeds. We were not on a slow train to the same destination to which others might be heading by Express. We were heading for – or at – a different final destination, and a flexible, effective EU should, in his view, have been able to accommodate radically different destinations with only certain core elements, legal rulebooks and mechanisms in common.
He had, unlike say, Tony Blair, for whom I also worked, no desire whatever to put Britain at the heart of all the European project."
I don't think many would dispute Rogers' assessment of the differrent approaches of Cameron and Blair. Stuggling to see where Rogers says either was right or wrong though. And he certainly doesn't "in his own words" say he thinks that "every PM who has not fully embraced the EU programme was wrong."
However, I am sure you will not explicitly agree you have made this up. This is likely to descend into one of those pointless PB arguments, so I am happy to accept your non-response as a tacit admission of defeat on this point.
Con Brexiteers should've got rid of Theresa in the early hours of 9th June 2017.
Its clear that leaving her in place was a terrible decision.
One EU official was quoted the other day as saying May was the only sane option left in the Tory Party
I'm sure the EU are perfectly happy having Theresa in place to give in to their every demand and to be jumping at shadows the whole time. Bet they can't believe their luck...
We thought we couldn't find a worse negotiator than Cameron... And then we did!
May has at least got through part of a negotiation with some change from what she started with
Con Brexiteers should've got rid of Theresa in the early hours of 9th June 2017.
Its clear that leaving her in place was a terrible decision.
One EU official was quoted the other day as saying May was the only sane option left in the Tory Party
I'm sure the EU are perfectly happy having Theresa in place to give in to their every demand and to be jumping at shadows the whole time. Bet they can't believe their luck...
We thought we couldn't find a worse negotiator than Cameron... And then we did!
May has at least got through part of a negotiation with some change from what she started with
Con Brexiteers should've got rid of Theresa in the early hours of 9th June 2017.
Its clear that leaving her in place was a terrible decision.
One EU official was quoted the other day as saying May was the only sane option left in the Tory Party
Speaking from the outside, the leavers, having won the battle of the Referendum, proceeded to lose the battle of the Conservative Party not by being out-thought by a superior tactical genius (no one would ever call Gavin Williamson that) but by shooting each other and then themselves in a display of ritual stupidcide.
Gove and Boris killed each other and Leadsom shot herself aiming presumably for both feet but missing by just under six feet.
Indeed and the idea Gove and Boris and Leadsom would have made more progress or indeed any progress at all in the negotiations with Juncker and Barnier is laughable, we may well already have crashed out towards WTO terms already!
Con Brexiteers should've got rid of Theresa in the early hours of 9th June 2017.
Its clear that leaving her in place was a terrible decision.
One EU official was quoted the other day as saying May was the only sane option left in the Tory Party
I'm sure the EU are perfectly happy having Theresa in place to give in to their every demand and to be jumping at shadows the whole time. Bet they can't believe their luck...
We thought we couldn't find a worse negotiator than Cameron... And then we did!
May has at least got through part of a negotiation with some change from what she started with
What change?
Agreement on citizens rights, the exit bill (lower than expected) and an initial at least agreement on Ireland enabling the move to FTA Talks starting
Lyuckily Scotland will have a referendum and get out of the UK at earliest opportunity.
That would be the Scotland which would see the SNP and Greens lose their majority at the next Holyrood elections according to today's YouGov? Or the Scotland which according to that same poll opposes a second indyref by a clear margin either before or after Brexit?
Can I just clarify your oft repeated but somewhat incoherent Indy ref II position? The SNP and Greens lose their majority at the next Holyrood elections so they can't hold a referendum?
So that means with a majority and legislation passed now they can have a referendum, and if they do get a majority at the next Holyrood elections, they can also hold a referendum? Have I got that right?
When Sturgeon pushed indyref2 at the last general election due to the UK's Brexit vote which Scotland did not vote for she got just 37% support for it and lost over a third of her seats, if she wants an indyref2 she needs a clear SNP and Green majority again at the next Holyrood elections on a clear manifesto commitment for that indyref in the Parliament.
Though constitutionally it is still up to Westminster to decide whether to grant any new indyref.
She didn't. She repeatedly said 2017 was not about Indyref, just like the SNP said that 2015 was not about Indyref.
2016 was about Indyref - it was in the manifesto, and as you can see the SNP are the Scottish government. And passed the legislation to have another IndyRef.
I don't understand why they need to stand again on another clear manifesto promise of IndyRef2 after doing it in 2016 and getting to form the government due to their being a pro-independence majority at Holyrood.
I have, several times, and am struggling to square it with your comment that: "According to his own words Ivan Rogers thinks every PM who has not fully embraced the EU programme was wrong." I can only conclude that you've made it up.
Not at all.
"I would characterise the Cameron renegotiation as the last of multiple attempts, dating back at least 25 years, to carve out and entrench a British exceptionalism within the EU. We already had – as I got endlessly reminded by EU colleagues – an entirely unique status within the EU. A unique opt-out from monetary union, an opt-out from Schengen, an ability largely to pick and choose which areas of judicial integration to join and which not, and so on.
Cameron sought further to entrench that exceptional status. He wanted a Europe of separate tiers, not multiple speeds. We were not on a slow train to the same destination to which others might be heading by Express. We were heading for – or at – a different final destination, and a flexible, effective EU should, in his view, have been able to accommodate radically different destinations with only certain core elements, legal rulebooks and mechanisms in common.
He had, unlike say, Tony Blair, for whom I also worked, no desire whatever to put Britain at the heart of all the European project."
I don't think many would dispute Rogers' assessment of the differrent approaches of Cameron and Blair. Stuggling to see where Rogers says either was right or wrong though. And he certainly doesn't "in his own words" say he thinks that "every PM who has not fully embraced the EU programme was wrong."
However, I am sure you will not explicitly agree you have made this up. This is likely to descend into one of those pointless PB arguments, so I am happy to accept your non-response as a tacit admission of defeat on this point.
Not in the least. It is clear what he meant from that section which is why I mentioned it both earlier in the week and now. The compare and contrast with Blair and the "multiple attempts, dating back at least 25 years, to carve out and entrench a British exceptionalism within the EU." both make clear his view of those not embracing the EU project.
Also at which point will HMG tell Barnier to get lost and walk away from the talks. Looks like this is the only thing that may bring the EU to it's senses.
How do you reach that conclusion? I'm assuming by "bring the EU to its senses" you mean "induce it to make more concessions to a point where an agreement can reasonably be reached."
Why assume that the British side has all its marbles whereas the EU27 side doesn't and that a British flounce threat can show the fuzzy-wuzzies how to behave sensibly?
You are sounding a bit like Trump when he says the best deal is always got by the side that's more willing to walk away. Trump went bankrupt several times, and being more willing to walk away than the other party is not always beneficial. For example there may be a lot of shared interests. Britain needs a deal more than the EU does.
The British government is utterly f*cked on the Irish question. The question was shelved in 1973 when Britain and the RoI joined the EU together. The RoI joining the eurozone while Britain stayed out was no big problem. Britain leaving the EU and customs union while the RoI stays in is an enormous one, and Boris Johnson is an idiot to think that an Oystercard type solution can govern trade between the two countries. To think that this guy is supposed to be running Britain's foreign affairs!
Johnson is a moron and a security risk (a good piece by Louis Staples in the Independent here), but I'll give him one thing: he is saying what many Tories really think, namely screw Ireland and screw whether there are "breakdowns" (meaning food shortages), because Brexit BrexitBrexit!
How much can Arlene Foster and friends put up with?
Con Brexiteers should've got rid of Theresa in the early hours of 9th June 2017.
Its clear that leaving her in place was a terrible decision.
One EU official was quoted the other day as saying May was the only sane option left in the Tory Party
Speaking from the outside, the leavers, having won the battle of the Referendum, proceeded to lose the battle of the Conservative Party not by being out-thought by a superior tactical genius (no one would ever call Gavin Williamson that) but by shooting each other and then themselves in a display of ritual stupidcide.
Gove and Boris killed each other and Leadsom shot herself aiming presumably for both feet but missing by just under six feet.
Indeed and the idea Gove and Boris and Leadsom would have made more progress or indeed any progress at all in the negotiations with Juncker and Barnier is laughable, we may well already have crashed out towards WTO terms already!
Compared with what we appear to be heading for that would certainly be progress.
He’s one of the few Conservative candidates for 2020 that might give Khan a big shock. He’s got a year or two to raise his profile in London, good luck to him.
Lyuckily Scotland will have a referendum and get out of the UK at earliest opportunity.
That would be the Scotland which would see the SNP and Greens lose their majority at the next Holyrood elections according to today's YouGov? Or the Scotland which according to that same poll opposes a second indyref by a clear margin either before or after Brexit?
Can I just clarify your oft repeated but somewhat incoherent Indy ref II position? The SNP and Greens lose their majority at the next Holyrood elections so they can't hold a referendum?
So that means with a majority and legislation passed now they can have a referendum, and if they do get a majority at the next Holyrood elections, they can also hold a referendum? Have I got that right?
When Sturgeon pushed indyref2 at the last general election due to the UK's Brexit vote which Scotland did not vote for she got just 37% support for it and lost over a third of her seats, if she wants an indyref2 she needs a clear SNP and Green majority again at the next Holyrood elections on a clear manifesto commitment for that indyref in the Parliament.
Though constitutionally it is still up to Westminster to decide whether to grant any new indyref.
She didn't. She repeatedly said 2017 was not about Indyref, just like the SNP said that 2015 was not about Indyref.
2016 was about Indyref - it was in the manifesto, and as you can see the SNP are the Scottish government. And passed the legislation to have another IndyRef.
I don't understand why they need to stand again on another clear manifesto promise of IndyRef2 after doing it in 2016 and getting to form the government due to their being a pro-independence majority at Holyrood.
In 2016 the SNP did not get elected on a clear commitment to an indyref2 in that parliament no, only in the case of a 'significant material change in Scotland's circumstances.'
At the general election she then argued Brexit was that change of circumstances, Scottish voters clearly decided it was not
Con Brexiteers should've got rid of Theresa in the early hours of 9th June 2017.
Its clear that leaving her in place was a terrible decision.
One EU official was quoted the other day as saying May was the only sane option left in the Tory Party
Speaking from the outside, the leavers, having won the battle of the Referendum, proceeded to lose the battle of the Conservative Party not by being out-thought by a superior tactical genius (no one would ever call Gavin Williamson that) but by shooting each other and then themselves in a display of ritual stupidcide.
Gove and Boris killed each other and Leadsom shot herself aiming presumably for both feet but missing by just under six feet.
Indeed and the idea Gove and Boris and Leadsom would have made more progress or indeed any progress at all in the negotiations with Juncker and Barnier is laughable, we may well already have crashed out towards WTO terms already!
Compared with what we appear to be heading for that would certainly be progress.
In your opinion but then you have no desire to get any deal with the EU at all it seems
Lyuckily Scotland will have a referendum and get out of the UK at earliest opportunity.
That would be the Scotland which would see the SNP and Greens lose their majority at the next Holyrood elections according to today's YouGov? Or the Scotland which according to that same poll opposes a second indyref by a clear margin either before or after Brexit?
Can I just clarify your oft repeated but somewhat incoherent Indy ref II position? The SNP and Greens lose their majority at the next Holyrood elections so they can't hold a referendum?
So that means with a majority and legislation passed now they can have a referendum, and if they do get a majority at the next Holyrood elections, they can also hold a referendum? Have I got that right?
When Sturgeon pushed indyref2 at the last general election due to the UK's Brexit vote which Scotland did not vote for she got just 37% support for it and lost over a third of her seats, if she wants an indyref2 she needs a clear SNP and Green majority again at the next Holyrood elections on a clear manifesto commitment for that indyref in the Parliament.
Though constitutionally it is still up to Westminster to decide whether to grant any new indyref.
She didn't. She repeatedly said 2017 was not about Indyref, just like the SNP said that 2015 was not about Indyref.
2016 was about Indyref - it was in the manifesto, and as you can see the SNP are the Scottish government. And passed the legislation to have another IndyRef.
I don't understand why they need to stand again on another clear manifesto promise of IndyRef2 after doing it in 2016 and getting to form the government due to their being a pro-independence majority at Holyrood.
In 2016 the SNP did not get elected on a clear commitment to an indyref2 in that parliament no, only in the case of a 'significant material change in Scotland's circumstances.'
At the general election she then argued Brexit was that change of circumstances, Scottish voters clearly decided it was not
You seem to be remembering a different, entriely fictional, general election campaign
Can you link to any speech by Sturgeon to that effect?
News paper headlines based on out of context quotes or statements by opposition politicians don't count.
Con Brexiteers should've got rid of Theresa in the early hours of 9th June 2017.
Its clear that leaving her in place was a terrible decision.
One EU official was quoted the other day as saying May was the only sane option left in the Tory Party
Speaking from the outside, the leavers, having won the battle of the Referendum, proceeded to lose the battle of the Conservative Party not by being out-thought by a superior tactical genius (no one would ever call Gavin Williamson that) but by shooting each other and then themselves in a display of ritual stupidcide.
Gove and Boris killed each other and Leadsom shot herself aiming presumably for both feet but missing by just under six feet.
Indeed and the idea Gove and Boris and Leadsom would have made more progress or indeed any progress at all in the negotiations with Juncker and Barnier is laughable, we may well already have crashed out towards WTO terms already!
Compared with what we appear to be heading for that would certainly be progress.
In your opinion but then you have no desire to get any deal with the EU at all it seems
Utter rubbish. I said both before and after the referendum that we should join EFTA and remain in the single market via the EEA. I even wrote articles on it for PB.
It is people like you and May who have wrecked things with your instance that migration is the be all and end all of Brexit. As it stands you have led us to a point where we will be far more tied to the EU than we would have been had we joined the EEA, hence the reason why we would be better off having a WTO Brexit.
Con Brexiteers should've got rid of Theresa in the early hours of 9th June 2017.
Its clear that leaving her in place was a terrible decision.
One EU official was quoted the other day as saying May was the only sane option left in the Tory Party
Speaking from the outside, the leavers, having won the battle of the Referendum, proceeded to lose the battle of the Conservative Party not by being out-thought by a superior tactical genius (no one would ever call Gavin Williamson that) but by shooting each other and then themselves in a display of ritual stupidcide.
Gove and Boris killed each other and Leadsom shot herself aiming presumably for both feet but missing by just under six feet.
Indeed and the idea Gove and Boris and Leadsom would have made more progress or indeed any progress at all in the negotiations with Juncker and Barnier is laughable, we may well already have crashed out towards WTO terms already!
Compared with what we appear to be heading for that would certainly be progress.
In your opinion but then you have no desire to get any deal with the EU at all it seems
Utter rubbish. I said both before and after the referendum that we should join EFTA and remain in the single market via the EEA. I even wrote articles on it for PB.
It is people like you and May who have wrecked things with your instance that migration is the be all and end all of Brexit. As it stands you have led us to a point where we will be far more tied to the EU than we would have been had we joined the EEA, hence the reason why we would be better off having a WTO Brexit.
How would you fudge the border issue given that the off-the-shelf EFTA/EEA deal precludes a customs union and doesn't include agriculture? Even your approach would require special status for Northern Ireland.
The main purpose EFTA/EEA serves in this debate now is to allow a certain category of Brexiteer to smugly wash their hands of the unfolding mess.
Con Brexiteers should've got rid of Theresa in the early hours of 9th June 2017.
Its clear that leaving her in place was a terrible decision.
One EU official was quoted the other day as saying May was the only sane option left in the Tory Party
Speaking from the outside, the leavers, having won the battle of the Referendum, proceeded to lose the battle of the Conservative Party not by being out-thought by a superior tactical genius (no one would ever call Gavin Williamson that) but by shooting each other and then themselves in a display of ritual stupidcide.
Gove and Boris killed each other and Leadsom shot herself aiming presumably for both feet but missing by just under six feet.
Indeed and the idea Gove and Boris and Leadsom would have made more progress or indeed any progress at all in the negotiations with Juncker and Barnier is laughable, we may well already have crashed out towards WTO terms already!
Compared with what we appear to be heading for that would certainly be progress.
In your opinion but then you have no desire to get any deal with the EU at all it seems
Utter rubbish. I said both before and after the referendum that we should join EFTA and remain in the single market via the EEA. I even wrote articles on it for PB.
It is people like you and May who have wrecked things with your instance that migration is the be all and end all of Brexit. As it stands you have led us to a point where we will be far more tied to the EU than we would have been had we joined the EEA, hence the reason why we would be better off having a WTO Brexit.
Which of course requires freedom of movement and thus betraying one of the main reasons for the Leave vote to end FOM and have tighter border controls.
It is people like you who spent an entire campaign arguing for Brexit using posters based on immigration controls and more money for the NHS etc and then as soon as you get the Leave vote you suddenly decide that the only reason for Brexit was to regain control of a few widget directives and we should basically stay in the EU in all but name anyway and the working class Leave voters who won you your Brexit majority will be all fine and dandy with that.
Then when you cannot get the BINO you want as May has decided to actually respect the real reasons for the Leave vote you throw your toys out of the pram and insist we must go straight to WTO terms and not even pass Go!
Con Brexiteers should've got rid of Theresa in the early hours of 9th June 2017.
Its clear that leaving her in place was a terrible decision.
One EU official was quoted the other day as saying May was the only sane option left in the Tory Party
Speaking from the outside, the leavers, having won the battle of the Referendum, proceeded to lose the battle of the Conservative Party not by being out-thought by a superior tactical genius (no one would ever call Gavin Williamson that) but by shooting each other and then themselves in a display of ritual stupidcide.
Gove and Boris killed each other and Leadsom shot herself aiming presumably for both feet but missing by just under six feet.
Indeed and the idea Gove and Boris and Leadsom would have made more progress or indeed any progress at all in the negotiations with Juncker and Barnier is laughable, we may well already have crashed out towards WTO terms already!
Compared with what we appear to be heading for that would certainly be progress.
In your opinion but then you have no desire to get any deal with the EU at all it seems
Utter rubbish. I said both before and after the referendum that we should join EFTA and remain in the single market via the EEA. I even wrote articles on it for PB.
It is people like you and May who have wrecked things with your instance that migration is the be all and end all of Brexit. As it stands you have led us to a point where we will be far more tied to the EU than we would have been had we joined the EEA, hence the reason why we would be better off having a WTO Brexit.
Which of course requires freedom of movement and thus betraying one of the main reasons for the Leave vote to end FOM and have tighter border controls.
It is people like you who spent an entire campaign arguing for Brexit using posters based on immigration and more money for the NHS etc and then as soon as you get the Leave voter you suddenly decide that the only reason for Brexit was to regain control of a few widget directives and we should basically stay in the EU in all but name anyway and the working class Leave voters who won you your Brexit majority will be all fine and dandy with that.
Then when you cannot get the BINO you want you throw your toys out of the pram and insist we must go straight to WTO terms and not even pass Go!
Lyuckily Scotland will have a referendum and get out of the UK at earliest opportunity.
That would be the Scotland which would see the SNP and Greens lose their majority at the next Holyrood elections according to today's YouGov? Or the Scotland which according to that same poll opposes a second indyref by a clear margin either before or after Brexit?
Can I just clarify your oft repeated but somewhat incoherent Indy ref II position? The SNP and Greens lose their majority at the next Holyrood elections so they can't hold a referendum?
So that means with a majority and legislation passed now they can have a referendum, and if they do get a majority at the next Holyrood elections, they can also hold a referendum? Have I got that right?
When Sturgeon pushed indyref2 at the last general election due to the UK's Brexit vote which Scotland did not vote for she got just 37% support for it and lost over a third of her seats, if she wants an indyref2 she needs a clear SNP and Green majority again at the next Holyrood elections on a clear manifesto commitment for that indyref in the Parliament.
Though constitutionally it is still up to Westminster to decide whether to grant any new indyref.
She didn't. She repeatedly said 2017 was not about Indyref, just like the SNP said that 2015 was not about Indyref.
2016 was about Indyref - it was in the manifesto, and as you can see the SNP are the Scottish government. And passed the legislation to have another IndyRef.
I don't understand why they need to stand again on another clear manifesto promise of IndyRef2 after doing it in 2016 and getting to form the government due to their being a pro-independence majority at Holyrood.
In 2016 the SNP did not get elected on a clear commitment to an indyref2 in that parliament no, only in the case of a 'significant material change in Scotland's circumstances.'
At the general election she then argued Brexit was that change of circumstances, Scottish voters clearly decided it was not
You seem to be remembering a different, entriely fictional, general election campaign
Can you link to any speech by Sturgeon to that effect?
News paper headlines based on out of context quotes or statements by opposition politicians don't count.
If you are now arguing Sturgeon made no mention of Brexit or indyref2 at all in the run up to GE17 or disputing the March 2017 SNP vote at Holyrood arguing Brexit enabled an indyref2 vote then you are essentially denying there was any change in circumstances thus rendering the indyref2 argument completely redundant anyway
How would you fudge the border issue given that the off-the-shelf EFTA/EEA deal precludes a customs union and doesn't include agriculture? Even your approach would require special status for Northern Ireland.
The main purpose EFTA/EEA serves in this debate now is to allow a certain category of Brexiteer to smugly wash their hands of the unfolding mess.
Not at all. It is not just the EFTA/EEA issue. May has at every turn taken decisions designed to alienate and annoy the EU and also to undermine any coherent British position. She started this by refusing to unilaterally remove the issue of existing EU citizens from the table and instead trying to use them as a bargaining chip. She has made immigration the sole red line which has allowed the EU to simply walk all over her on any other issue and get her into the position where there is actually no solution that will satisfy both sides of the border.
In fact, given that being in a customs union with the EU and being in EFTA are mutually exclusive positions, she should never have agreed to the backstop on the simple basis that the only way it would work would be to abandon Brexit. This should have been made clear from the very start. As it is now the EU are asking for something that is not possible and that May cannot deliver. They have overplayed their hand but the blame does not lie primarily with them. It lies with May and her idiocy.
My view now is that WTO Brexit is inevitable. It still beats staying in but it is certainly not as good as it could have been had we negotiated in good faith.
Con Brexiteers should've got rid of Theresa in the early hours of 9th June 2017.
Its clear that leaving her in place was a terrible decision.
One EU official was quoted the other day as saying May was the only sane option left in the Tory Party
Speaking from the outside, the leavers, having won the battle of the Referendum, proceeded to lose the battle of the Conservative Party not by being out-thought by a superior tactical genius (no one would ever call Gavin Williamson that) but by shooting each other and then themselves in a display of ritual stupidcide.
Gove and Boris killed each other and Leadsom shot herself aiming presumably for both feet but missing by just under six feet.
Indeed and the idea Gove and Boris and Leadsom would have made more progress or indeed any progress at all in the negotiations with Juncker and Barnier is laughable, we may well already have crashed out towards WTO terms already!
Compared with what we appear to be heading for that would certainly be progress.
In your opinion but then you have no desire to get any deal with the EU at all it seems
Utter rubbish. I said both before and after the referendum that we should join EFTA and remain in the single market via the EEA. I even wrote articles on it for PB.
It is people like you and May who have wrecked things with your instance that migration is the be all and end all of Brexit. As it stands you have led us to a point where we will be far more tied to the EU than we would have been had we joined the EEA, hence the reason why we would be better off having a WTO Brexit.
Which of course requires freedom of movement and thus betraying one of the main reasons for the Leave vote to end FOM and have tighter border controls.
It is people like you who spent an entire campaign arguing for Brexit using posters based on immigration and more money for the NHS etc and then as soon as you get the Leave voter you suddenly decide that the only reason for Brexit was to regain control of a few widget directives and we should basically stay in the EU in all but name anyway and the working class Leave voters who won you your Brexit majority will be all fine and dandy with that.
Then when you cannot get the BINO you want you throw your toys out of the pram and insist we must go straight to WTO terms and not even pass Go!
Which of course requires freedom of movement and thus betraying one of the main reasons for the Leave vote to end FOM and have tighter border controls.
It is people like you who spent an entire campaign arguing for Brexit using posters based on immigration controls and more money for the NHS etc and then as soon as you get the Leave vote you suddenly decide that the only reason for Brexit was to regain control of a few widget directives and we should basically stay in the EU in all but name anyway and the working class Leave voters who won you your Brexit majority will be all fine and dandy with that.
Then when you cannot get the BINO you want as May has decided to actually respect the real reasons for the Leave vote you throw your toys out of the pram and insist we must go straight to WTO terms and not even pass Go!
Try to get your facts right. I strongly criticised both the bus and the posters as soon as they were used. I even argued long and hard on here about the idiocy of using £350 million when the real figure of £288 million would have served just as well. I argued for EEA both before and after the result and wrote articles about it for PB. I am one of the few on here from either side who has said I want to see more immigration not less. And I was doing so whilst you were voting to stay in the EU!
Given you were the one who voted Remain, to now claim that immigration is such a big thing is disingenuous at best.
An EEA Brexit would be perfect for me. Not least because I still have the £100 bet on it with Richard N. Meanwhile all you can do is whine about immigration.
Con Brexiteers should've got rid of Theresa in the early hours of 9th June 2017.
Its clear that leaving her in place was a terrible decision.
One EU official was quoted the other day as saying May was the only sane option left in the Tory Party
Speaking from the outside, the leavers, having won the battle of the Referendum, proceeded to lose the battle of the Conservative Party not by being out-thought byvin Williamson that) but by shooting each other and then themselves in a display of ritual stupidcide.
Gove and Boris killed each other and Leadsom shot herself aiming presumably for both feet but missing by just under six feet.
Indeed and the idea Gove and Boris and Leadsom would have made more progress or indeed any progress at all in the negotiations with Juncker and hable, we may well already have crashed out towards WTO terms already!
Compared with what we appear to be heading for that would certainly be progress.
In your opinion but then you have no desire to get any deal with the EU at all it seems
Utter rubbish. I said both before and after the referendum that we should join EFTA and remain in the single market via the EEA. I even wrote articles on it for PB.
It is people like you and May who have wrecked things with your instance that migration is the be all and end all of Brexit. As it stands you have led us to a point where we will be far more tied to the EU than we would have been had we joined the EEA, hence the reason why we would be better off having a WTO Brexit.
Which of course requires freedom of movement and thus betraying one of the main reasons for the Leave vote to end FOM and have tighter border controls.
It is people like you who spent an entire campaign arguing for Brexit using posters based on immigration and more money for the NHS etc and then as soon as you get the Leave voter you suddenly decide that the only reason for Brexit was to regain control of a few widget directives and we should basically stay in the EU in all but name anyway and the working class Leave voters who won you your Brexit majority will be all fine and dandy with that.
Then when you cannot get the BINO you want you throw your toys out of the pram and insist we must go straight to WTO terms and not even pass Go!
Which of course requires freedom of movement and thus betraying one of the main reasons for the Leave vote to end FOM and have tighter border controls.
It is people like you who spent an entire campaign arguing for Brexit using posters based on immigration controls and more money for the NHS etc and then as soon as you get the Leave vote you suddenly decide that the only reason for Brexit was to regain control of a few widget directives and we should basically stay in the EU in all but name anyway and the working class Leave voters who won you your Brexit majority will be all fine and dandy with that.
Then when you cannot get the BINO you want as May has decided to actually respect the real reasons for the Leave vote you throw your toys out of the pram and insist we must go straight to WTO terms and not even pass Go!
Try to get your facts right. I strongly criticised both the bus and the posters as soon as they were used. I even argued long and hard on here about the idiocy of using £350 million when the real figure of £288 million would have served just as well. I argued for EEA both before and after the result and wrote articles about it for PB. I am one of the few on here from either side who has said I want to see more immigration not less. And I was doing so whilst you were voting to stay in the EU!
Given you were the one who voted Remain, to now claim that immigration is such a big thing is disingenuous at best.
An EEA Brexit would be perfect for me. Not least because I still have the £100 bet on it with Richard N. Meanwhile all you can do is whine about immigration.
The DUP wants an open border between the RoI and NI and the same customs regime in NI as in GB. Face it: that means everyone carrying Oystercards Britain staying in the CU. The government don't want that.
Are we sure the DUP aren't going to vote "Aye" to the Lords' amendment next week?
Which of course requires freedom of movement and thus betraying one of the main reasons for the Leave vote to end FOM and have tighter border controls.
It is people like you who spent an entire campaign arguing for Brexit using posters based on immigration controls and more money for the NHS etc and then as soon as you get the Leave vote you suddenly decide that the only reason for Brexit was to regain control of a few widget directives and we should basically stay in the EU in all but name anyway and the working class Leave voters who won you your Brexit majority will be all fine and dandy with that.
Then when you cannot get the BINO you want as May has decided to actually respect the real reasons for the Leave vote you throw your toys out of the pram and insist we must go straight to WTO terms and not even pass Go!
Try to get your facts right. I strongly criticised both the bus and the posters as soon as they were used. I even argued long and hard on here about the idiocy of using £350 million when the real figure of £288 million would have served just as well. I argued for EEA both before and after the result and wrote articles about it for PB. I am one of the few on here from either side who has said I want to see more immigration not less. And I was doing so whilst you were voting to stay in the EU!
Given you were the one who voted Remain, to now claim that immigration is such a big thing is disingenuous at best.
An EEA Brexit would be perfect for me. Not least because I still have the £100 bet on it with Richard N. Meanwhile all you can do is whine about immigration.
Con Brexiteers should've got rid of Theresa in the early hours of 9th June 2017.
Its clear that leaving her in place was a terrible decision.
One EU official was quoted the other day as saying May was the only sane option left in the Tory Party
Speaking from the outside, the leavers, having won the battle of the Referendum, proceeded to lose the battle of the Conservative Party not by being out-thought byvin Williamson that) but by shooting each other and then themselves in a display of ritual stupidcide.
Gove and Boris killed each other and Leadsom shot herself aiming presumably for both feet but missing by just under six feet.
Indeed and the idea Gove and Boris and Leadsom would have made more progress or indeed any progress at all in the negotiations with Juncker and hable, we may well already have crashed out towards WTO terms already!
Compared with what we appear to be heading for that would certainly be progress.
In your opinion but then you have no desire to get any deal with the EU at all it seems
Utter rubbish. I said both before and after the referendum that we should join EFTA and remain in the single market via the EEA. I even wrote articles on it for PB.
It is people like you and May who have wrecked things with your instance that migration is the be all and end all of Brexit. As it stands you have led us to a point where we will be far more tied to the EU than we would have been had we joined the EEA, hence the reason why we would be better off having a WTO Brexit.
Which of course requires freedom of movemn pass Go!
Which of course requires freedom of movement and thus betraying one of the main reasons for the Leave vote to end FOM and have tighter border controls.
It is people like you who spent an entire campaign arguing for Brexit using posters based on immigration controls and more money for the NHS etc and then as soon as you get the Leave vote you suddenly decide that the only reason for Brexit was to regain control of a few widget directives and we should basically stay in the EU in all but name anyway and the working class Leave voters who won you your Brexit majority will be all fine and dandy with that.
Then when you cannot get the BINO you want as May has decided to actually respect the real reasons for the Leave vote you throw your toys out of the pram and insist we must go straight to WTO terms and not even pass Go!
Try to get your facts right. I strongly criticised both the bus and the posters as soon as they were used. I even argued long and hard on here about the idiocy of using £350 million when the real figure of £288 million would have served just as well. I argued for EEA both before and after the result and wrote articles about it for PB. I am one of the few on here from either side who has said I want to see more immigration not less. And I was doing so whilst you were voting to stay in the EU!
Given you were the one who voted Remain, to now claim that immigration is such a big thing is disingenuous at best.
An EEA Brexit would be perfect for me. Not least because I still have the £100 bet on it with Richard N. Meanwhile all you can do is whine about immigration.
Which of course requires freedom of movement and thus betraying one of the main reasons for the Leave vote to end FOM and have tighter border controls.
It is people like you who spent an entire campaign arguing for Brexit using posters based on immigration controls and more money for the NHS etc and then as soon as you get the Leave vote you suddenly decide that the only reason for Brexit was to regain control of a few widget directives and we should basically stay in the EU in all but name anyway and the working class Leave voters who won you your Brexit majority will be all fine and dandy with that.
Then when you cannot get the BINO you want as May has decided to actually respect the real reasons for the Leave vote you throw your toys out of the pram and insist we must go straight to WTO terms and not even pass Go!
Try to get your facts right. I strongly criticised both the bus and the posters as soon as they were used. I even argued long and hard on here about the idiocy of using £350 million when the real figure of £288 million would have served just as well. I argued for EEA both before and after the result and wrote articles about it for PB. I am one of the few on here from either side who has said I want to see more immigration not less. And I was doing so whilst you were voting to stay in the EU!
Given you were the one who voted Remain, to now claim that immigration is such a big thing is disingenuous at best.
An EEA Brexit would be perfect for me. Not least because I still have the £100 bet on it with Richard N. Meanwhile all you can do is whine about immigration.
All well and good but had the Leave campaign had posters saying 'Vote Leave and we will ensure we get more immigration' and 'Vote Leave for not much extra cash for the NHS really all things considered' while you may have held the moral high ground I might be wrong but I don't think Leave would have been quite as likely to win
Perfectly encapsulates why so many could never vote Tory in a month of Sundays. Scratch the surface and I suspect more typical of Leaver's attitudes than most would acknowledge
Which of course requires freedom of movement and thus betraying one of the main reasons for the Leave vote to end FOM and have tighter border controls.
It is people like you who spent an entire campaign arguing for Brexit using posters based on immigration controls and more money for the NHS etc and then as soon as you get the Leave vote you suddenly decide that the only reason for Brexit was to regain control of a few widget directives and we should basically stay in the EU in all but name anyway and the working class Leave voters who won you your Brexit majority will be all fine and dandy with that.
Then when you cannot get the BINO you want as May has decided to actually respect the real reasons for the Leave vote you throw your toys out of the pram and insist we must go straight to WTO terms and not even pass Go!
Try to get your facts right. I strongly criticised both the bus and the posters as soon as they were used. I even argued long and hard on here about the idiocy of using £350 million when the real figure of £288 million would have served just as well. I argued for EEA both before and after the result and wrote articles about it for PB. I am one of the few on here from either side who has said I want to see more immigration not less. And I was doing so whilst you were voting to stay in the EU!
Given you were the one who voted Remain, to now claim that immigration is such a big thing is disingenuous at best.
An EEA Brexit would be perfect for me. Not least because I still have the £100 bet on it with Richard N. Meanwhile all you can do is whine about immigration.
Which of course requires freedom of movement and thus betraying one of the main reasons for the Leave vote to end FOM and have tighter border controls.
It is people like you who spent an entire campaign arguing for Brexit using posters based on immigration controls and more money for the NHS etc and then as soon as you get the Leave vote you suddenly decide that the only reason for Brexit was to regain control of a few widget directives and we should basically stay in the EU in all but name anyway and the working class Leave voters who won you your Brexit majority will be all fine and dandy with that.
Then when you cannot get the BINO you want as May has decided to actually respect the real reasons for the Leave vote you throw your toys out of the pram and insist we must go straight to WTO terms and not even pass Go!
Try to get your facts right. I strongly criticised both the bus and the posters as soon as they were used. I even argued long and hard on here about the idiocy of using £350 million when the real figure of £288 million would have served just as well. I argued for EEA both before and after the result and wrote articles about it for PB. I am one of the few on here from either side who has said I want to see more immigration not less. And I was doing so whilst you were voting to stay in the EU!
Given you were the one who voted Remain, to now claim that immigration is such a big thing is disingenuous at best.
An EEA Brexit would be perfect for me. Not least because I still have the £100 bet on it with Richard N. Meanwhile all you can do is whine about immigration.
Oh FFS, I'm all for collective decision making but how much do they still need to talk to each other about, when they still bicker about wording issues?
Which of course requires freedom of movement and thus betraying one of the main reasons for the Leave vote to end FOM and have tighter border controls.
It is people like you who spent an entire campaign arguing for Brexit using posters based on immigration controls and more money for the NHS etc and then as soon as you get the Leave vote you suddenly decide that the only reason for Brexit was to regain control of a few widget directives and we should basically stay in the EU in all but name anyway and the working class Leave voters who won you your Brexit majority will be all fine and dandy with that.
Then when you cannot get the BINO you want as May has decided to actually respect the real reasons for the Leave vote you throw your toys out of the pram and insist we must go straight to WTO terms and not even pass Go!
Try to get your facts right. I strongly criticised both the bus and the posters as soon as they were used. I even argued long and hard on here about the idiocy of using £350 million when the real figure of £288 million would have served just as well. I argued for EEA both before and after the result and wrote articles about it for PB. I am one of the few on here from either side who has said I want to see more immigration not less. And I was doing so whilst you were voting to stay in the EU!
Given you were the one who voted Remain, to now claim that immigration is such a big thing is disingenuous at best.
An EEA Brexit would be perfect for me. Not least because I still have the £100 bet on it with Richard N. Meanwhile all you can do is whine about immigration.
He was not the one hitching his coattails to the vile, xenophobic campaign while expounding his inviolate motives the while.
I have a pretty low opinion of May, but she is right that the immigration issue was the decisive aspect of the Leave campaign.
Any Brexit solution that fails to recognise that will be considered to have failed. Few people either know or care about the differences in tariffs, and those that do are mostly happy with the current ones.
Which of course requires freedom of movement and thus betraying one of the main reasons for the Leave vote to end FOM and have tighter border controls.
It is people like you who spent an entire campaign arguing for Brexit using posters based on immigration controls and more money for the NHS etc and then as soon as you get the Leave vote you suddenly decide that the only reason for Brexit was to regain control of a few widget directives and we should basically stay in the EU in all but name anyway and the working class Leave voters who won you your Brexit majority will be all fine and dandy with that.
Then when you cannot get the BINO you want as May has decided to actually respect the real reasons for the Leave vote you throw your toys out of the pram and insist we must go straight to WTO terms and not even pass Go!
Try to get your facts right. I strongly criticised both the bus and the posters as soon as they were used. I even argued long and hard on here about the idiocy of using £350 million when the real figure of £288 million would have served just as well. I argued for EEA both before and after the result and wrote articles about it for PB. I am one of the few on here from either side who has said I want to see more immigration not less. And I was doing so whilst you were voting to stay in the EU!
Given you were the one who voted Remain, to now claim that immigration is such a big thing is disingenuous at best.
An EEA Brexit would be perfect for me. Not least because I still have the £100 bet on it with Richard N. Meanwhile all you can do is whine about immigration.
He was not the one hitching his coattails to the vile, xenophobic campaign while expounding his inviolate motives the while.
I have a pretty low opinion of May, but she is right that the immigration issue was the decisive aspect of the Leave campaign.
Any Brexit solution that fails to recognise that will be considered to have failed. Few people either know or care about the differences in tariffs, and those that do are mostly happy with the current ones.
Not for Tyndall it wasn’t.
And so what if it was you are making the same mistake as many Leavers. Nothing on the ballot paper = all up for grabs.
Is this we should have invested in customs posts a bit of a red herring? Currently we have to inspect certain goods like food according to EU law and they state that 50% of all Chicken shipments from outside the EU must be checked and 25% of beef. But out of the EU we could decide that we check 2% or 5% or whatever amount of the imports we have the BIP's to check, at least initially. Then we all know there is no chance of Dover being upgraded, no space so I do not believe that UK businesses and EU businesses are stupid and will continue to send their lorries into a port that they have been told will be huge delays. So provide them with other ports, where is the capacity, Felixstowe is currently having a large upgrade ready early 2018 (how convenient), route the Dover traffic to Rotterdam if the cargo can handle a extra day in transit. They must be spare capacity at UK ports to take the Dover traffic. Then there is the new computer system, there are enough IT experts on here to say whether the current system for non-eu exports can be left running for current non-eu countries and the new system be used for the current EU countries when they become third countries to us. Bit of planning and 9 months should be doable.
And what if we choose to check none at all? We may well end up eating a bit more horse than we do at present but the chances of genuinely dangerous food coming from the EU are slight. What’s needed is the will. But that, sadly, is what is lacking.
Why should we have to gut our food safety standards to accommodate Brexit?
Because today we trust that food made in the EU is safe. We check none at the border. Why does EU food become unsafe after Brexit?
Con Brexiteers should've got rid of Theresa in the early hours of 9th June 2017.
Its clear that leaving her in place was a terrible decision.
One EU official was quoted the other day as saying May was the only sane option left in the Tory Party
proceeded to lose the battle of the Conservative Party not by being out-thought by a superior tactical genius (no one would ever call Gavin Williamson that) but by shooting each other and then themselves in a display of ritual stupidcide.
Gove and Boris killed each other and Leadsom shot herself aiming presumably for both feet but missing by just under six feet.
Indeed and the idea Gove and Boris and Leadsom would have made more progress or indeed any progress at all in the negotiations with Juncker and Barnier is laughable, we may well already have crashed out towards WTO terms already!
Compared with what we appear to be heading for that would certainly be progress.
In your opinion but then you have no desire to get any deal with the EU at all it seems
Utter rubbish. I said both before and after the referendum that we should join EFTA and remain in the single market via the EEA. I even wrote articles on it for PB.
It is people like you and May who have wrecked things with your instance that migration is the be all and end all of Brexit. As it stands you have led us to a point where we will be far more tied to the EU than we would have been had we joined the EEA, hence the reason why we would be better off having a WTO Brexit.
Which of course requires freedom of movement and thus betraying one of the main reasons for the Leave vote to end FOM and have tighter border controls.
It is people like you who spent an entire campaign arguing for Brexit using posters based on immigration controls and more money for the NHS etc and then as soon as you get the Leave vote you suddenly decide that the only reason for Brexit was to regain control of a few widget directives and we should basically stay in the EU in all but name anyway and the working class Leave voters who won you your Brexit majority will be all fine and dandy with that.
Then when you cannot get the BINO you want as May has decided to actually respect the real reasons for the Leave vote you throw your toys out of the pram and insist we must go straight to WTO terms and not even pass Go!
Take a bow. Calling the hypocrites for what they are. Those who travel on the shirt tails of racists are slightly worse than those who actually try to defend their prejudice.
Which of course requires freedom of movement and thus betraying one of the main reasons for the Leave vote to end FOM and have tighter border controls.
It is people like you who spent an entire campaign arguing for Brexit using posters based on immigration controls and more money for the NHS etc and then as soon as you get the Leave vote you suddenly decide that the only reason for Brexit was to regain control of a few widget directives and we should basically stay in the EU in all but name anyway and the working class Leave voters who won you your Brexit majority will be all fine and dandy with that.
Then when you cannot o!
Try to get your facts right. I strongly criticised both the bus and the posters as soon as they were used. I even argued long and hard on here about the idiocy of using £350 million when the real figure of £288 million would have served just as well. I argued for EEA both before and after the result and wrote articles about it for PB. I am one of the few on here from either side who has said I want to see more immigration not less. And I was doing so whilst you were voting to stay in the EU!
Given you were the one who voted Remain, to now claim that immigration is such a big thing is disingenuous at best.
An EEA Brexit would be perfect for me. Not least because I still have the £100 bet on it with Richard N. Meanwhile all you can do is whine about immigration.
He was not the one hitching his coattails to the vile, xenophobic campaign while expounding his inviolate motives the while.
I have a pretty low opinion of May, but she is right that the immigration issue was the decisive aspect of the Leave campaign.
Any Brexit solution that fails to recognise that will be considered to have failed. Few people either know or care about the differences in tariffs, and those that do are mostly happy with the current ones.
Not for Tyndall it wasn’t.
And so what if it was you are making the same mistake as many Leavers. Nothing on the ballot paper = all up for grabs.
I expect Brexit to fail on immigration too. Immigration is driven between disparities, and even a Brexit apocalypse that leaves us worse off is still appealing to the millions in Africa and the Middle East, and they will come. You cannot buck the market.
Con Brexiteers should've got rid of Theresa in the early hours of 9th June 2017.
Its clear that leaving her in place was a terrible decision.
One EU official was quoted the other day as saying May was the only sane option left in the Tory Party
proceeded to lose the battle of the Conservative Party not by being out-thought by a superior tactical genius (no one would ever call Gavin Williamson that) but by shooting each other and then themselves in a display of ritual stupidcide.
Gove and Boris killed each other and Leadsom shot herself aiming presumably for both feet but missing by just under six feet.
Indeed and the idea Gove and Boris and Leadsom would have made more progress or indeed any progress at all in the negotiations with Juncker and Barnier is laughable, we may well already have crashed out towards WTO terms already!
Compared with what we appear to be heading for that would certainly be progress.
In your opinion but then you have no desire to get any deal with the EU at all it seems
Utter rubbish. I said both before and after the referendum that we should join EFTA and remain in the single market via the EEA. I even wrote articles on it for PB.
It is people like you and May who have wrecked things with your instance that migration is the be all and end all of Brexit. As it stands you have led us to a point where we will be far more tied to the EU than we would have been had we joined the EEA, hence the reason why we would be better off having a WTO Brexit.
Which of course requires freedom of movement and thus betraying one of the main reasons for the Leave vote to end F not even pass Go!
Take a bow. Calling the hypocrites for what they are. Those who travel on the shirt tails of racists are slightly worse than those who actually try to defend their prejudice.
The Leave campaign made its bed, it now has to lie in it, the likes of Mogg, Bone, Hoey etc may be over zealous but at least they are actually trying to follow through on what they promised, BINO was never an option from the campaign Vote Leave and Leave.EU ran
There's been a lot of Brexit obituary writing of late, but be not downhearted. We can still cling to the view - though I admit this is harder to do by the day - that Theresa, Boris and the EU have actually agreed on miracle Brexit and the rest is just theatre, designed to keep the masses on tenterhooks until the moment of ecstasy-inducing revelation. Keep the faith!
Which of course requires freedom of movement and thus betraying one of the main reasons for the Leave vote to end FOM and have tighter border controls.
It is people like you who spent an entire campaign arguing for Brexit using posters based on immigration controls and more money for the NHS etc and then as soon as you get the Leave vote you suddenly decide that the only reason for Brexit was to regain control of a few widget directives and we should basically stay in the EU in all but name anyway and the working class Leave voters who won you your Brexit majority will be all fine and dandy with that.
Then when you cannot get the BINO you want as May has decided to actually respect the real reasons for the Leave vote you throw your toys out of the pram and insist we must go straight to WTO terms and not even pass Go!
Try to get your facts right. I strongly criticised both the bus and the posters as soon as they were used. I even argued long and hard on here about the idiocy of using £350 million when the real figure of £288 million would have served just as well. I argued for EEA both before and after the result and wrote articles about it for PB. I am one of the few on here from either side who has said I want to see more immigration not less. And I was doing so whilst you were voting to stay in the EU!
Given you were the one who voted Remain, to now claim that immigration is such a big thing is disingenuous at best.
An EEA Brexit would be perfect for me. Not least because I still have the £100 bet on it with Richard N. Meanwhile all you can do is whine about immigration.
He was not the one hitching his coattails to the vile, xenophobic campaign while expounding his inviolate motives the while.
You hitch wagons to things, or ride on peoples' coattails (difficult though the latter is to visualise), and those are not just picky points, they go to the heart of what you are trying to do. If person A votes the same way as person B he does not *merely for that reason* condone, support or acquiesce in any word or action of person B. To say that he does is to smear by association, and the use of twattish and garbled metaphors does nothing to hide the fact. I managed to vote Remain despite a firm conviction that the most vocal proponents of the Remain cause were lying wazzocks and their arguments mainly arsegravy, and I see no reason to disbelieve that the same does not apply to any given Leave voter who has given no other evidence of xenophobic beliefs or attitudes.
Comments
May has four options - one, agree to whatever the EU wants. On the not unreasonable assumption the EU only wants limited punishment, any deal is unlikely to be too adverse to the UK economy. The political price of what will be hailed as the greatest act of appeasement since Munich will be heavy but the world will keep turning.
Second, walk out now and irrevocably. Say no deal and no money and to hell with you. Electorally popular with many, we would then spend the next nine months frantically trying to prepare for the new reality of 30/3/19. We'd have to prepare for the worst and hope for the best possibly by agreeing FTAs (though hugely unfavourable in many other aspects) with the likes of Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Third, May could decide what deal she wants and challenge the Cabinet to back her or put up against her. Any Minister that doesn't agree is sacked and any Conservative MP voting against her deal is expelled from the party, no argument. If the Cabinet turn on her as they did Thatcher she can either fight or resign (her choice) but it will then be somebody else's problem. Her BINO deal would probably get enough support from Labour, SNP and the LDs to get through but her position would be analogous to that of Ramsey McDonald.
Fourth, carry on Micawber-like and hope "something will turn up". Nothing that has happened this week has diffused the tension and all she has done has kicked the can down the road once again. The problem is she is running out of both can and road.
Labour will take heart from last year's GE campaign and believe they will gain +10% on the Tories during the next capmpaign. The Conservatives will be confident they won't make the same campaign mistakes again (but not so confident that they're ready to push for an early GE).
In truth, neither party, nor any of us, knows; we'll all have to wait and see. And literally anything could happen during the next 4 years.
Now I accept I have detested May from long before she ever got close to No 10 but I doubt I am alone amongst both Remain and Leave voters in thinking that practically no one could have done a worse job than she has.
'What do you think about Brexit?'
'What's Brexit?'
'Does that mean we will lose all our cheese?'
Fair summary, but how does 1 differ from 3?
But doing some quick poll averaging (with requisite warnings) gives:
Dec Lab +1.7%
Jan Lab +1.4%
Feb Con +0.3%
Mar Con +0.6%
Apr Con +1.6%
May / Jun Con +2.6%
So a definite slow but steady swing over the last half year.
Its clear that leaving her in place was a terrible decision.
I’m glad I’m not the only PBer enjoying this guilty pleasure
"I would characterise the Cameron renegotiation as the last of multiple attempts, dating back at least 25 years, to carve out and entrench a British exceptionalism within the EU.
We already had – as I got endlessly reminded by EU colleagues – an entirely unique status within the EU. A unique opt-out from monetary union, an opt-out from Schengen, an ability largely to pick and choose which areas of judicial integration to join and which not, and so on.
Cameron sought further to entrench that exceptional status. He wanted a Europe of separate tiers, not multiple speeds. We were not on a slow train to the same destination to which others might be heading by Express. We were heading for – or at – a different final destination, and a flexible, effective EU should, in his view, have been able to accommodate radically different destinations with only certain core elements, legal rulebooks and mechanisms in common.
He had, unlike say, Tony Blair, for whom I also worked, no desire whatever to put Britain at the heart of all the European project."
We thought we couldn't find a worse negotiator than Cameron... And then we did!
We don’t know that. In the alternative universe they got rid, PM Boris could have gone to war with President Trump and we could be eating cockroaches.
Option 3 is May proposing a BINO-type deal whereby we stay in something like but not exactly the SM and we go for something but not quite FoM. There'd be enough for her to argue it wouldn't be the pre 23/6/16 situation but most analysis would conclude it's not that much different.
May would then gamble there'd be enough Labour, SNP and LD votes to see the A50 agreement through the Commons and if there were, life would continue almost as though nothing had happened.
Remember if she loses a vote of confidence by her own MPs she is barred from standing in any subsequent election.
Gove and Boris killed each other and Leadsom shot herself aiming presumably for both feet but missing by just under six feet.
However, I am sure you will not explicitly agree you have made this up. This is likely to descend into one of those pointless PB arguments, so I am happy to accept your non-response as a tacit admission of defeat on this point.
2016 was about Indyref - it was in the manifesto, and as you can see the SNP are the Scottish government. And passed the legislation to have another IndyRef.
I don't understand why they need to stand again on another clear manifesto promise of IndyRef2 after doing it in 2016 and getting to form the government due to their being a pro-independence majority at Holyrood.
Why assume that the British side has all its marbles whereas the EU27 side doesn't and that a British flounce threat can show the fuzzy-wuzzies how to behave sensibly?
You are sounding a bit like Trump when he says the best deal is always got by the side that's more willing to walk away. Trump went bankrupt several times, and being more willing to walk away than the other party is not always beneficial. For example there may be a lot of shared interests. Britain needs a deal more than the EU does.
The British government is utterly f*cked on the Irish question. The question was shelved in 1973 when Britain and the RoI joined the EU together. The RoI joining the eurozone while Britain stayed out was no big problem. Britain leaving the EU and customs union while the RoI stays in is an enormous one, and Boris Johnson is an idiot to think that an Oystercard type solution can govern trade between the two countries. To think that this guy is supposed to be running Britain's foreign affairs!
Johnson is a moron and a security risk (a good piece by Louis Staples in the Independent here), but I'll give him one thing: he is saying what many Tories really think, namely screw Ireland and screw whether there are "breakdowns" (meaning food shortages), because Brexit Brexit Brexit!
How much can Arlene Foster and friends put up with?
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/872797587413360640
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrZB5n0tNAI
At the general election she then argued Brexit was that change of circumstances, Scottish voters clearly decided it was not
Sounds like they are joining the EU.
"I find it pretty insulting that, in the words of Margaret Thatcher, nations we either rescued or defeated should now be telling us what to do."
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1005083610095996929
Presumably to serve left over shit sandwhiches...
Can you link to any speech by Sturgeon to that effect?
News paper headlines based on out of context quotes or statements by opposition politicians don't count.
Edit: on 5Star
It is people like you and May who have wrecked things with your instance that migration is the be all and end all of Brexit. As it stands you have led us to a point where we will be far more tied to the EU than we would have been had we joined the EEA, hence the reason why we would be better off having a WTO Brexit.
The main purpose EFTA/EEA serves in this debate now is to allow a certain category of Brexiteer to smugly wash their hands of the unfolding mess.
It is people like you who spent an entire campaign arguing for Brexit using posters based on immigration controls and more money for the NHS etc and then as soon as you get the Leave vote you suddenly decide that the only reason for Brexit was to regain control of a few widget directives and we should basically stay in the EU in all but name anyway and the working class Leave voters who won you your Brexit majority will be all fine and dandy with that.
Then when you cannot get the BINO you want as May has decided to actually respect the real reasons for the Leave vote you throw your toys out of the pram and insist we must go straight to WTO terms and not even pass Go!
HaS @AlastairMeeks possessed your soul, @HYUFD?
In fact, given that being in a customs union with the EU and being in EFTA are mutually exclusive positions, she should never have agreed to the backstop on the simple basis that the only way it would work would be to abandon Brexit. This should have been made clear from the very start. As it is now the EU are asking for something that is not possible and that May cannot deliver. They have overplayed their hand but the blame does not lie primarily with them. It lies with May and her idiocy.
My view now is that WTO Brexit is inevitable. It still beats staying in but it is certainly not as good as it could have been had we negotiated in good faith.
Given you were the one who voted Remain, to now claim that immigration is such a big thing is disingenuous at best.
An EEA Brexit would be perfect for me. Not least because I still have the £100 bet on it with Richard N. Meanwhile all you can do is whine about immigration.
https://twitter.com/how_apt/status/986917713942667264?s=19
Are we sure the DUP aren't going to vote "Aye" to the Lords' amendment next week?
It is IMO not the only issue but it is the main one, according to the polls.
He was not the one hitching his coattails to the vile, xenophobic campaign while expounding his inviolate motives the while.
Oh FFS, I'm all for collective decision making but how much do they still need to talk to each other about, when they still bicker about wording issues? I thought the whole point of that paper was to make sure everyone was ready all times?
Any Brexit solution that fails to recognise that will be considered to have failed. Few people either know or care about the differences in tariffs, and those that do are mostly happy with the current ones.
And so what if it was you are making the same mistake as many Leavers. Nothing on the ballot paper = all up for grabs.