Can’t be bothered to google it. Did he become frustrated at his open marriage also?
Well..
'An alternative theory is that he succumbed to internal bleeding after heavy drinking, possibly a condition called esophageal varices, where dilated veins in the lower part of the esophagus rupture leading to death by hemorrhage.'
I’m only a few years older than your wife, and 22 is a millennial so she’s in ‘my generation’. I don’t know how old you thought I was, lol. 18-24 year olds voted for Corbyn a year ago, so it turns out you don’t know much about your wife’s generation at all. They also voted for Remain as well, so they are traitors by your assertions as well.
Someone aged 22 would be Gen-Z - The generation after the Milennials.
Gen-Z is generally regarded to be the children on Gen-X and they're born from the mid-1990's to mid-2000's (although there is no clearly defined end date for Gen-Z yet)
So a 22 year old would be born around 1996 making them very early Gen-Z.
Someone 22 isn’t necessarily born in 1996, it depends on birthday - it can be someone born in either 1995/96 - and SeanT’s just said his wife is born in 1995.
Gen Z doesn’t have a determined start date, let alone a determined end state. The earliest start dates are mainly placed at 1996, but others - such a as Pew Research - place the start date at 1997/8. Some place it at 2000. It’s very rare that it gets placed at 1995 - which is when SeanT’s wife is born.
I think she's just on the Millennial/Gen-Z cusp + Her house is in Pluto with a trine in Sagittarius...
Anyway, tonight was a great result for England, so hopefully we can do well against Panamana and not have too many worries going into the last game against Belgium. Given how many of the big sides have struggled so far, I think England can be pretty happy with that result and performance.
It was poor and rather funny with the penalty and I doubt it heralds and all conquering England march to the final
Indeed but at least depression is delayed by a few more days.
They will get through the group but that is when they wlll be tested
Probably. Still at least we didn't withdraw, eh?
No and it seems to be going well which is no bad thing bearing in mind the longer term view of Russia rejoining the G8 (one of the few things I agree with Trump on)
Maybe someone could do a thread header on the relationship (if any) between the World Cup and domestic politics? Wasn't Wilson supposed to have got a boost from 1966?
If England exceed expectations will it help TMay? Or would an unprecidented early German exit do for Merkel?
It was poor and rather funny with the penalty and I doubt it heralds and all conquering England march to the final
Indeed but at least depression is delayed by a few more days.
They will get through the group but that is when they wlll be tested
Probably. Still at least we didn't withdraw, eh?
No and it seems to be going well which is no bad thing bearing in mind the longer term view of Russia rejoining the G8 (one of the few things I agree with Trump on)
You've changed your tone from the immediate post-Salisbury days!
Maybe someone could do a thread header on the relationship (if any) between the World Cup and domestic politics? Wasn't Wilson supposed to have got a boost from 1966?
If England exceed expectations will it help TMay? Or would an unprecidented early German exit do for Merkel?
I think the World Cup was after the 1966 election. It is a myth IIRC! The GE was in March, the world cup was afterwards.
Maybe someone could do a thread header on the relationship (if any) between the World Cup and domestic politics? Wasn't Wilson supposed to have got a boost from 1966?
If England exceed expectations will it help TMay? Or would an unprecidented early German exit do for Merkel?
The 1966 UK general election was held on last day of March... With the World Cup not until the Summer so don't think there was much effect there.
However some commentators believe England's exit from the 1970 world cup might have helped cause Wilson's "shock" defeat to Heath.
Looking forward to Mr Meek’s piece tomorrow about how Harry Kane’s late goal means Scottish Independence is inevitable.
No! Harry Kane scored twice DESPITE Brexit
It may have escaped your notice Sunil old bean but we haven't Brexited yet. (Nor is there much prospect of it completing before the next WC the way things are going.)
The Sailsbury Convention predates the removal of most hereditaries in 1999. Some folk have argued it hasn't applied since then. It certainly doesn't apply to a government who not only doesn't have a majority but actually lost it's majority when it sought one for it's Brexit plan.
May can't use the Parliament Act as she set up the current session as a Two Year one after she lost her majority. She could create a new session by prorouging but that would drag the Queen into it. ( She the Harper case in Canada ).
As for mass peer creation that would drag the Queen into it too. The 1910 precident is HM shouldn't do it without a second General Election. But it was losing a GE seeking a Brexit mandate that got May into this mess. And since 1910 we have the FTPA which means May can't call one on her own anyway.
The truth is the Lords is in quite a strong position to insist on minor amendements to the Withdrawal Bill. And if we are being honest Grieve 2 is minor. It's just being magnified by the Culture War prism of Brexit.
Anyway, tonight was a great result for England, so hopefully we can do well against Panamana and not have too many worries going into the last game against Belgium. Given how many of the big sides have struggled so far, I think England can be pretty happy with that result and performance.
Maybe someone could do a thread header on the relationship (if any) between the World Cup and domestic politics? Wasn't Wilson supposed to have got a boost from 1966?
If England exceed expectations will it help TMay? Or would an unprecidented early German exit do for Merkel?
Merkel and her Grand Coalition with the SPD to be dumped for tough on immigration Seehoffer propped up by the AfD and FDP after Germany crash out and May wins a 100 seat landslide after England triumph at the World Cup would certainly change the Brexit scene by the late autumn
It was poor and rather funny with the penalty and I doubt it heralds and all conquering England march to the final
Indeed but at least depression is delayed by a few more days.
They will get through the group but that is when they wlll be tested
Probably. Still at least we didn't withdraw, eh?
No and it seems to be going well which is no bad thing bearing in mind the longer term view of Russia rejoining the G8 (one of the few things I agree with Trump on)
You've changed your tone from the immediate post-Salisbury days!
Not really - long term isolation of Russia is in no one's interest and someday Putin will be history and a new course will begin in Russia. I have enjoyed my three visits to Russia over the years commencing in 1989 for our silver anniversary and hold no animosity to the peoples of Russia
Maybe someone could do a thread header on the relationship (if any) between the World Cup and domestic politics? Wasn't Wilson supposed to have got a boost from 1966?
If England exceed expectations will it help TMay? Or would an unprecidented early German exit do for Merkel?
The 1966 UK general election was held on last day of March... With the World Cup not until the Summer so don't think there was much effect there.
However some commentators believe England's exit from the 1970 world cup might have helped cause Wilson's "shock" defeat to Heath.
Ah right - that sounds more likely. Thanks. That 1970 QF was a truly traumatic match - it broke my 10 year old heart.
Anyway, tonight was a great result for England, so hopefully we can do well against Panamana and not have too many worries going into the last game against Belgium. Given how many of the big sides have struggled so far, I think England can be pretty happy with that result and performance.
Is Panamana where the Muppets live?
"Panamana, do do be doobie......"
Panamana is a little known Bananarama tribute band
Just think, if England hadn't been defeated in the 1970 World Cup we might not be leaving the EU now... As Heath might never have become PM in the 1970 UK General Election and so we might never have joined the EEC in the first place...
Anyway, tonight was a great result for England, so hopefully we can do well against Panamana and not have too many worries going into the last game against Belgium. Given how many of the big sides have struggled so far, I think England can be pretty happy with that result and performance.
Is Panamana where the Muppets live?
"Panamana, do do be doobie......"
LOL, I had to google that to get the reference. That’s what happens when I don’t proof read a post - you get Panamana, instead of Panama!
Maybe someone could do a thread header on the relationship (if any) between the World Cup and domestic politics? Wasn't Wilson supposed to have got a boost from 1966?
If England exceed expectations will it help TMay? Or would an unprecidented early German exit do for Merkel?
Merkel and her Grand Coalition with the SPD to be dumped for tough on immigration Seehoffer propped up by the AfD and FDP after Germany crash out and May wins a 100 seat landslide after England triumph at the World Cup would certainly change the Brexit scene by the late autumn
Well if that all happens we'll have to have a parade of unicorns up the Mall to celebrate.
Prince Harry supports Brexit, "It's just something we have to try".
That's Harry Kane and Harry Windsor.
Possibly the two most popular men in the Kingdom,
Eat crow, you europedophile losers.
He's gonna be disappointed then when we end up with BINO
It’s according to Thomas Markle - this is what Markle said:
TM: It was just a loose conversation about something we have to try. There was no real commitment to it. PM: Do you think he was in favour of it? TM: I think he was open to the experiment. I mean, if it’s true (that’s a big if), it’s not really a massive Pro Brexit stance. Reminds me a lot of The Sun’s claim the Queen supported Brexit a few years earlier.
Indeed. It's about as reliable and worthwhile as any of SeanT's rants.
Most of the country are now open to Brexit as they have accepted the result and just want to get on with it. It doesn't mean Harry has turned into Jacob Rees Mogg.
Given the Royal family's obvious links to the Anglosphere and the Commonwealth it's inevitable they have had conflicted loyalties since 1973 when we essentially turned our back on the latter for Brussels. Whether Prince William or George eventually become Kings of Jamaica, Australia, NZ and Canada of course is harder to say.
lol - The Royal family changed their name around the time of the 1st World War because the existing name was too Germanic! The Royal Family, whilst it is true has become more British in its appearance in recent generations has an ancestry that has its roots in Europe. Indeed, I would say only the Hapsburg challenge the British for having their blood in other European royal bloodlines. Just think of Russia, Germany, Spain all of which have links back to Queen Victoria.
I don't deny the historic links - but their regular all expenses paid trips to the Caribbean, Australia, Canada, NZ and various beautiful Pacific islands probably trump the fact they are descended from the House of Saxe Coburg!
Prince Harry supports Brexit, "It's just something we have to try".
That's Harry Kane and Harry Windsor.
Possibly the two most popular men in the Kingdom,
Eat crow, you europedophile losers.
He's gonna be disappointed then when we end up with BINO
It’s according to Thomas Markle - this is what Markle said:
TM: It was just a loose conversation about something we have to try. There was no real commitment to it. PM: Do you think he was in favour of it? TM: I think he was open to the experiment. I mean, if it’s true (that’s a big if), it’s not really a massive Pro Brexit stance. Reminds me a lot of The Sun’s claim the Queen supported Brexit a few years earlier.
Indeed. It's about as reliable and worthwhile as any of SeanT's rants.
Most of the country are now open to Brexit as they have accepted the result and just want to get on with it. It doesn't mean Harry has turned into Jacob Rees Mogg.
Given the Royal family's obvious links to the Anglosphere and the Commonwealth it's inevitable they have had conflicted loyalties since 1973 when we essentially turned our back on the latter for Brussels. Whether Prince William or George eventually become Kings of Jamaica, Australia, NZ and Canada of course is harder to say.
lol - The Royal family changed their name around the time of the 1st World War because the existing name was too Germanic! The Royal Family, whilst it is true has become more British in its appearance in recent generations has an ancestry that has its roots in Europe. Indeed, I would say only the Hapsburg challenge the British for having their blood in other European royal bloodlines. Just think of Russia, Germany, Spain all of which have links back to Queen Victoria.
I don't deny the historic links - but their regular all expenses paid trips to the Caribbean, Australia, Canada, NZ and various beautiful Pacific islands probably trump the fact they are descended from the House of Saxe Coburg!
Prince Phillip's line has the better House name. House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg
Maybe someone could do a thread header on the relationship (if any) between the World Cup and domestic politics? Wasn't Wilson supposed to have got a boost from 1966?
If England exceed expectations will it help TMay? Or would an unprecidented early German exit do for Merkel?
Merkel and her Grand Coalition with the SPD to be dumped for tough on immigration Seehoffer propped up by the AfD and FDP after Germany crash out and May wins a 100 seat landslide after England triumph at the World Cup would certainly change the Brexit scene by the late autumn
Well if that all happens we'll have to have a parade of unicorns up the Mall to celebrate.
Maybe someone could do a thread header on the relationship (if any) between the World Cup and domestic politics? Wasn't Wilson supposed to have got a boost from 1966?
If England exceed expectations will it help TMay? Or would an unprecidented early German exit do for Merkel?
Merkel and her Grand Coalition with the SPD to be dumped for tough on immigration Seehoffer propped up by the AfD and FDP after Germany crash out and May wins a 100 seat landslide after England triumph at the World Cup would certainly change the Brexit scene by the late autumn
Well if that all happens we'll have to have a parade of unicorns up the Mall to celebrate.
I really do not see how Grieve can in all good conscience continue to push his line. He is an intelligent man, he knows the law, he knows how our constitution works, he knows how Parliament works.
He knows that it is not for Parliament to negotiate with any external body. He knows that it is for the Government to do that. There is no possible mechanism for Parliament to engage in any negotiation with the EU or to set the ground rules for any such negotiation.
All it can do it for yes or no and then the Government has to act accordingly.
Continuing to push this ridiculous notion of parliamentary oversight of or involvement in negotiations with the EU (or anyone else) is just utterly bizarre.
It flies in the face of the legal realities - and I am sure he knows that.
Maybe someone could do a thread header on the relationship (if any) between the World Cup and domestic politics? Wasn't Wilson supposed to have got a boost from 1966?
If England exceed expectations will it help TMay? Or would an unprecidented early German exit do for Merkel?
Merkel and her Grand Coalition with the SPD to be dumped for tough on immigration Seehoffer propped up by the AfD and FDP after Germany crash out and May wins a 100 seat landslide after England triumph at the World Cup would certainly change the Brexit scene by the late autumn
Well if that all happens we'll have to have a parade of unicorns up the Mall to celebrate.
My grand daughter would be pleased, bless her
Always good to have a humour and with that I bid you, and all posters, a pleasant and restful night.
Prince Harry supports Brexit, "It's just something we have to try".
That's Harry Kane and Harry Windsor.
Possibly the two most popular men in the Kingdom,
Eat crow, you europedophile losers.
He's gonna be disappointed then when we end up with BINO
It’s according to Thomas Markle - this is what Markle said:
TM: It was just a loose conversation about something we have to try. There was no real commitment to it. PM: Do you think he was in favour of it? TM: I think he was open to the experiment. I mean, if it’s true (that’s a big if), it’s not really a massive Pro Brexit stance. Reminds me a lot of The Sun’s claim the Queen supported Brexit a few years earlier.
Indeed. It's about as reliable and worthwhile as any of SeanT's rants.
Given the Royal family's obvious links to the Anglosphere and the Commonwealth it's inevitable they have had conflicted loyalties since 1973 when we essentially turned our back on the latter for Brussels. Whether Prince William or George eventually become Kings of Jamaica, Australia, NZ and Canada of course is harder to say.
lol - The Royal family changed their name around the time of the 1st World War because the existing name was too Germanic! The Royal Family, whilst it is true has become more British in its appearance in recent generations has an ancestry that has its roots in Europe. Indeed, I would say only the Hapsburg challenge the British for having their blood in other European royal bloodlines. Just think of Russia, Germany, Spain all of which have links back to Queen Victoria.
I don't deny the historic links - but their regular all expenses paid trips to the Australia, Canada, NZ and various beautiful Pacific islands, probably trump the fact they are descended from the House of Saxe Coburg!
I think they have to go to these places you mention to stay relevant in the Countries you list.
The problem with fashioning policy in this way is that it is just a reflection of the past, not of the future. Australia, Canada, NZ and various beautiful Pacific islands economic interests are NOT with Britain in the future. Australia and NZ will be trying to forge ever closer links with China and other economies in South East Asia, where as Canada will be looking South, to the USA and Mexico with the caveat of post Trump!
I think the major flaw in Brexit is that it ignores the fact our nearest economic neighbour is Europe. Whilst some areas may look more dynamic, the logistics of trade may be made impractical by distance.
@SeanT Most agencies don’t see millennials ending at 1994-95, 1994 is in fact an especially rare end date. 1996 is a more frequent end date. Wiki ironically backs that up - the millennials page shows only two agencies ending it at 1994, and another two ending it at 1995 (even one of those is 1995/96). Many others use 1996, 1997, 1998 and 2000 as the start date - see here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials
18-35 pretty much covers millennials, mostly so I don’t know why you’re using that time frame to cover for Gen Z. 18-24 year olds voted to Remain by 73%, so you’re splitting hairs by asserting that the generation is massively different in perspective because it wasn’t an extra 7 points more for Remain. Ironically it was split 60:40 for 25-34 year olds, so much more eurosceptic 18-24 year olds, yet that same group of voters swung significantly to Corbyn last year, so the measurement of using EU ref as a gage is a bit flawed.
I’m someone who knows both millennials and Zers as friends/family and so far there aren’t any major political differences. Especially since those who are the earliest Zers are apart of the most Pro Corbyn age group. A lot of the pro Jordan Peterson crew on YouTube HATE those like Corbyn.
Prince Harry supports Brexit, "It's just something we have to try".
That's Harry Kane and Harry Windsor.
Possibly the two most popular men in the Kingdom,
Eat crow, you europedophile losers.
He's gonna be disappointed then when we end up with BINO
It’s according to Thomas Markle - this is as any of SeanT's rants.
Given the Royal family's obvious links to the Anglosphere and the Commonwealth it's inevitable they have had conflicted loyalties since 1973 when we essentially turned our back on the latter for Brussels. Whether Prince William or George eventually become Kings of Jamaica, Australia, NZ and Canada of course is harder to say.
lol - Theia.
I don't deny the historic links - but their regular all expenses paid trips to the Australia, Canada, NZ and various beautiful Pacific islands, probably trump the fact they are descended from the House of Saxe Coburg!
I think they have to go to these places you mention to stay relevant in the Countries you list.
The problem with fashioning policy in this way is that it is just a reflection of the past, not of the future. Australia, Canada, NZ and various beautiful Pacific islands economic interests are NOT with Britain in the future. Australia and NZ will be trying to forge ever closer links with China and other economies in South East Asia, where as Canada will be looking South, to the USA and Mexico with the caveat of post Trump!
I think the major flaw in Brexit is that it ignores the fact our nearest economic neighbour is Europe. Whilst some areas may look more dynamic, the logistics of trade may be made impractical by distance.
Except most Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians (outside Quebec) are descended from or have relatives in the British isles. In the Trump era Canadians probably feel closer to the British than they do to the Americans and Australia and NZ are both concerned about migration from South Asia even if they want to trade with Asia much as Brexit was motivated by concerns about migrants from Eastern and Southern Europe even though we wanted to trade with Europe.
Just think, if England hadn't been defeated in the 1970 World Cup we might not be leaving the EU now... As Heath might never have become PM in the 1970 UK General Election and so we might never have joined the EEC in the first place...
I think we would . Harold Wilson was already negotiating to gain entry following De Gaulle's resignation in 1969.
I really do not see how Grieve can in all good conscience continue to push his line. He is an intelligent man, he knows the law, he knows how our constitution works, he knows how Parliament works.
He knows that it is not for Parliament to negotiate with any external body. He knows that it is for the Government to do that. There is no possible mechanism for Parliament to engage in any negotiation with the EU or to set the ground rules for any such negotiation.
All it can do it for yes or no and then the Government has to act accordingly.
Continuing to push this ridiculous notion of parliamentary oversight of or involvement in negotiations with the EU (or anyone else) is just utterly bizarre.
It flies in the face of the legal realities - and I am sure he knows that.
Yes but forget the legal realities, if Parliament doesn't take control then we may actual Brexit for real and not in name only. We might leave the single market like all sides in the debate pre-referendum said we would if we voted to leave and Grieve knows better than us.
The Sailsbury Convention predates the removal of most hereditaries in 1999. Some folk have argued it hasn't applied since then. It certainly doesn't apply to a government who not only doesn't have a majority but actually lost it's majority when it sought one for it's Brexit plan.
May can't use the Parliament Act as she set up the current session as a Two Year one after she lost her majority. She could create a new session by prorouging but that would drag the Queen into it. ( She the Harper case in Canada ).
As for mass peer creation that would drag the Queen into it too. The 1910 precident is HM shouldn't do it without a second General Election. But it was losing a GE seeking a Brexit mandate that got May into this mess. And since 1910 we have the FTPA which means May can't call one on her own anyway.
The truth is the Lords is in quite a strong position to insist on minor amendements to the Withdrawal Bill. And if we are being honest Grieve 2 is minor. It's just being magnified by the Culture War prism of Brexit.
May didn't lose the election, she's still in Downing Street. Just because she has less MPs than she started with doesn't mean she lost - Blair finished with less MPs in 2005 than he'd had in 2001 but did he lose to Howard?
Besides pro-leaving the EU parties got about 90% of all seats and just counting the Tories and DUP they got an absolute majority of seats.
@SeanT Most agencies don’t see millennials ending at 1994-95, 1994 is in fact an especially rare end date. 1996 is a more frequent end date. Wiki ironically backs that up - the millennials page shows only two agencies ending it at 1994, and another two ending it at 1995 (even one of those is 1995/96). Many others use 1996, 1997, 1998 and 2000 as the start date - see here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials
18-35 pretty much covers millennials, mostly so I don’t know why you’re using that time frame to cover for Gen Z. 18-24 year olds voted to Remain by 73%, so you’re splitting hairs by asserting that the generation is massively different in perspective because it wasn’t an extra 7 points more for Remain. Ironically it was split 60:40 for 25-34 year olds, so much more eurosceptic 18-24 year olds, yet that same group of voters swung significantly to Corbyn last year, so the measurement of using EU ref as a gage is a bit flawed.
I’m someone who knows both millennials and Zers as friends/family and so far there aren’t any major political differences. Especially since those who are the earliest Zers are apart of the most Pro Corbyn age group. A lot of the pro Jordan Peterson crew on YouTube HATE those like Corbyn.
I don't understand the point of trying to make these precise definitions in terms of what year someone was born and what category they're in. In the UK babyboomers only includes people born from around 1945 to around 1955, whereas in the USA it includes people born up to the early 1960s.
Happy with the result, thought we played quite well. We didn't give much away if Walker had been a bit more careful we could have kept a clean sheet without Pickford being seriously tested.
Could use a bit more going forward, did seem a bit better when Rashford came on for Sterling. Even as a United fan though I do think Sterling is a quality player, I'd like them both on but I can't see how to do that without losing Kane or changing the shape which is a no go.
Interested to see how the formation works for us, just interesting to see something a bit different. Keeping my expectations low so I can be pleasantly surprised.
Should probably mention some politics as well....
Legalise cannabis to keep it out of younger peoples hands and to stop the gateway effect. Cannabis doesn't automatically make you want to try harder drugs but most people think of it as fairly harmless, which it mostly is for adults in comparison to other recreational drugs, what it does do is introduce people to the idea of buying drugs off a dealer and normalises it.
LabourLive event, even the article on the RedRoar called it a success in some measures and they hate Corbyn. It didn't make money but that isn't really the point of the Labour party, what it did is get Corbyn doing what he was doing before the election, which did work, despite the fact only 'cultists' were going to watch him speak. The first event went well enough that they can go for it more confidently next time and learn from mistakes made. There was, probably rightly, some scepticism about whether they could pull it off or whether it would be a complete failure, whilst it wasn't an astounding success it didn't go badly so there will be more commitment to the idea next time.
Maybe it is partially because I tend to read negative media or because I keep my expectations fairly low (as with the football above) but I'm quite happy with the result of it.
Lastly, I don't imagine people born after 95 turn into crazy Muslim haters, I think that might be some hopeful projection on behalf of some of those baby boomers with strong views on Islam...
@Mortimer - you seem tremendously confident that the Government will win on Wednesday. Why? Do you think Grieve talking about bringing down the government will have brought some Tory rebels back? I worry it will reduce the number of Labour rebels.
I really do not see how Grieve can in all good conscience continue to push his line. He is an intelligent man, he knows the law, he knows how our constitution works, he knows how Parliament works.
He knows that it is not for Parliament to negotiate with any external body. He knows that it is for the Government to do that. There is no possible mechanism for Parliament to engage in any negotiation with the EU or to set the ground rules for any such negotiation.
All it can do it for yes or no and then the Government has to act accordingly.
Continuing to push this ridiculous notion of parliamentary oversight of or involvement in negotiations with the EU (or anyone else) is just utterly bizarre.
It flies in the face of the legal realities - and I am sure he knows that.
Yes but forget the legal realities, if Parliament doesn't take control then we may actual Brexit for real and not in name only. We might leave the single market like all sides in the debate pre-referendum said we would if we voted to leave and Grieve knows better than us.
The Commons has only just voted by a majority of around 200 to leave the single market so whether Parliament takes control or not it will not be soft Brexit it will just be a case of moving towards a FTA or WTO terms
@Mortimer - you seem tremendously confident that the Government will win on Wednesday. Why? Do you think Grieve talking about bringing down the government will have brought some Tory rebels back? I worry it will reduce the number of Labour rebels.
The partial amendment last week bought a few rebels off - it also makes Grieve look unreasonable, now.
There will be many Labour MPs who don’t want to bring this government down at the moment
I really do not see how Grieve can in all good conscience continue to push his line. He is an intelligent man, he knows the law, he knows how our constitution works, he knows how Parliament works.
He knows that it is not for Parliament to negotiate with any external body. He knows that it is for the Government to do that. There is no possible mechanism for Parliament to engage in any negotiation with the EU or to set the ground rules for any such negotiation.
All it can do it for yes or no and then the Government has to act accordingly.
Continuing to push this ridiculous notion of parliamentary oversight of or involvement in negotiations with the EU (or anyone else) is just utterly bizarre.
It flies in the face of the legal realities - and I am sure he knows that.
Yes but forget the legal realities, if Parliament doesn't take control then we may actual Brexit for real and not in name only. We might leave the single market like all sides in the debate pre-referendum said we would if we voted to leave and Grieve knows better than us.
The Commons has only just voted by a majority of around 200 to leave the single market so whether Parliament takes control or not it will not be soft Brexit it will just be a case of moving towards a FTA or WTO terms
Nothing is certain yet, if the EU refuses to agree to a FTA and it becomes a choice of WTO terms or BINO then there is absolutely no guarantee that Parliament will go for WTO.
@Mortimer - you seem tremendously confident that the Government will win on Wednesday. Why? Do you think Grieve talking about bringing down the government will have brought some Tory rebels back? I worry it will reduce the number of Labour rebels.
Grieve talking about bringing down the government made me think he thinks he doesn't have the numbers. If he was confident of winning the vote I don't think he'd use that language.
I really do not see how Grieve can in all good conscience continue to push his line. He is an intelligent man, he knows the law, he knows how our constitution works, he knows how Parliament works.
He knows that it is not for Parliament to negotiate with any external body. He knows that it is for the Government to do that. There is no possible mechanism for Parliament to engage in any negotiation with the EU or to set the ground rules for any such negotiation.
All it can do it for yes or no and then the Government has to act accordingly.
Continuing to push this ridiculous notion of parliamentary oversight of or involvement in negotiations with the EU (or anyone else) is just utterly bizarre.
It flies in the face of the legal realities - and I am sure he knows that.
Yes but forget the legal realities, if Parliament doesn't take control then we may actual Brexit for real and not in name only. We might leave the single market like all sides in the debate pre-referendum said we would if we voted to leave and Grieve knows better than us.
The Commons has only just voted by a majority of around 200 to leave the single market so whether Parliament takes control or not it will not be soft Brexit it will just be a case of moving towards a FTA or WTO terms
Nothing is certain yet, if the EU refuses to agree to a FTA and it becomes a choice of WTO terms or BINO then there is absolutely no guarantee that Parliament will go for WTO.
There will be no agreement on the long term relationship by the time the withdrawal agreement comes into effect so this will not be a decision we face this side of Brexit. The big stumbling block is getting the backstop through parliament.
@Mortimer - you seem tremendously confident that the Government will win on Wednesday. Why? Do you think Grieve talking about bringing down the government will have brought some Tory rebels back? I worry it will reduce the number of Labour rebels.
The partial amendment last week bought a few rebels off - it also makes Grieve look unreasonable, now.
There will be many Labour MPs who don’t want to bring this government down at the moment
Didn’t you predict the government would win the first time round?
I want you to be right... I’m just not sure you are
I really do not see how Grieve can in all good conscience continue to push his line. He is an intelligent man, he knows the law, he knows how our constitution works, he knows how Parliament works.
He knows that it is not for Parliament to negotiate with any external body. He knows that it is for the Government to do that. There is no possible mechanism for Parliament to engage in any negotiation with the EU or to set the ground rules for any such negotiation.
All it can do it for yes or no and then the Government has to act accordingly.
Continuing to push this ridiculous notion of parliamentary oversight of or involvement in negotiations with the EU (or anyone else) is just utterly bizarre.
It flies in the face of the legal realities - and I am sure he knows that.
Yes but forget the legal realities, if Parliament doesn't take control then we may actual Brexit for real and not in name only. We might leave the single market like all sides in the debate pre-referendum said we would if we voted to leave and Grieve knows better than us.
The Commons has only just voted by a majority of around 200 to leave the single market so whether Parliament takes control or not it will not be soft Brexit it will just be a case of moving towards a FTA or WTO terms
Nothing is certain yet, if the EU refuses to agree to a FTA and it becomes a choice of WTO terms or BINO then there is absolutely no guarantee that Parliament will go for WTO.
There is given the number of Labour rebels who voted to leave the single market as it requires freedom of movement which would be political suicide in their heavily Leave seats plus Corbyn refused to back the single market even if he did not vote against the EEA.
Of course there is near zero chance of a FTA by next March anyway given it took Canada 7 years to negotiate one with the EU, the best that can be hoped for is an exit deal on the exit bill, citizens' rights, the Irish border and a transition period
I really do not see how Grieve can in all good conscience continue to push his line. He is an intelligent man, he knows the law, he knows how our constitution works, he knows how Parliament works.
He knows that it is not for Parliament to negotiate with any external body. He knows that it is for the Government to do that. There is no possible mechanism for Parliament to engage in any negotiation with the EU or to set the ground rules for any such negotiation.
All it can do it for yes or no and then the Government has to act accordingly.
Continuing to push this ridiculous notion of parliamentary oversight of or involvement in negotiations with the EU (or anyone else) is just utterly bizarre.
It flies in the face of the legal realities - and I am sure he knows that.
Yes but forget the legal realities, if Parliament doesn't take control then we may actual Brexit for real and not in name only. We might leave the single market like all sides in the debate pre-referendum said we would if we voted to leave and Grieve knows better than us.
The Commons has only just voted by a majority of around 200 to leave the single market so whether Parliament takes control or not it will not be soft Brexit it will just be a case of moving towards a FTA or WTO terms
Nothing is certain yet, if the EU refuses to agree to a FTA and it becomes a choice of WTO terms or BINO then there is absolutely no guarantee that Parliament will go for WTO.
There will be no agreement on the long term relationship by the time the withdrawal agreement comes into effect so this will not be a decision we face this side of Brexit. The big stumbling block is getting the backstop through parliament.
What makes you think a withdrawal agreement where we pay the EU 40bn, agree a backstop and get no agreement on trade will make it through the HoC. Labour are almost certain to oppose as they will not want to take any responsibility for a Tory deal. I am not sure the DUP will support. It would require only a handful of Brexiteers to vote against to reject it. Don't you think that there are at least 10 hardcore leavers who will vote against?
Perhaps May realises that this is the real risk, not the pointless discussion about a meaningful vote. The vote she has to have will be meaningful enough.
I really do not see how Grieve can in all good conscience continue to push his line. He is an intelligent man, he knows the law, he knows how our constitution works, he knows how Parliament works.
He knows that it is not for Parliament to negotiate with any external body. He knows that it is for the Government to do that. There is no possible mechanism for Parliament to engage in any negotiation with the EU or to set the ground rules for any such negotiation.
All it can do it for yes or no and then the Government has to act accordingly.
Continuing to push this ridiculous notion of parliamentary oversight of or involvement in negotiations with the EU (or anyone else) is just utterly bizarre.
It flies in the face of the legal realities - and I am sure he knows that.
Yes but forget the legal realities, if Parliament doesn't take control then we may actual Brexit for real and not in name only. We might leave the single market like all sides in the debate pre-referendum said we would if we voted to leave and Grieve knows better than us.
The Commons has only just voted by a majority of around 200 to leave the single market so whether Parliament takes control or not it will not be soft Brexit it will just be a case of moving towards a FTA or WTO terms
Nothing is certain yet, if the EU refuses to agree to a FTA and it becomes a choice of WTO terms or BINO then there is absolutely no guarantee that Parliament will go for WTO.
There is given the number of Labour rebels who opposed the single market as it requires freedom of movement which would be political suicide in their heavily Leave seats plus of course Corbyn refused to back the single market even if he did not vote against the EEA.
Of course there is near zero chance of a FTA by next March anyway given it took Canada 7 years to negotiate one with the EU, the best that can be hoped for is an exit deal on the exit bill, citizens' rights, the Irish border and a transition period
YOUR supreme leader promised us that this would never happen. NO transition to nowhere. NO money without a trade deal. NO backstop without knowing the final customs arrangement.
@Mortimer - you seem tremendously confident that the Government will win on Wednesday. Why? Do you think Grieve talking about bringing down the government will have brought some Tory rebels back? I worry it will reduce the number of Labour rebels.
The partial amendment last week bought a few rebels off - it also makes Grieve look unreasonable, now.
There will be many Labour MPs who don’t want to bring this government down at the moment
Didn’t you predict the government would win the first time round?
I want you to be right... I’m just not sure you are
What makes you think a withdrawal agreement where we pay the EU 40bn, agree a backstop and get no agreement on trade will make it through the HoC. Labour are almost certain to oppose as they will not want to take any responsibility for a Tory deal. I am not sure the DUP will support. It would require only a handful of Brexiteers to vote against to reject it. Don't you think that there are at least 10 hardcore leavers who will vote against?
Perhaps May realises that this is the real risk, not the pointless discussion about a meaningful vote. The vote she has to have will be meaningful enough.
There's still every reason to believe Brexit won't happen. It's just a question of the precise choreography by which it's stopped. I've recently come to think that an extension of Article 50 is becoming more likely and this will be the precursor to the whole thing unravelling.
What makes you think a withdrawal agreement where we pay the EU 40bn, agree a backstop and get no agreement on trade will make it through the HoC. Labour are almost certain to oppose as they will not want to take any responsibility for a Tory deal. I am not sure the DUP will support. It would require only a handful of Brexiteers to vote against to reject it. Don't you think that there are at least 10 hardcore leavers who will vote against?
Perhaps May realises that this is the real risk, not the pointless discussion about a meaningful vote. The vote she has to have will be meaningful enough.
There's still every reason to believe Brexit won't happen. It's just a question of the precise choreography by which it's stopped. I've recently come to think that an extension of Article 50 is becoming more likely and this will be the precursor to the whole thing unravelling.
No Tory leader would survive if we have not left the EU by next April and Corbyn also backs Brexit too anyway
I really do not see how Grieve can in all good conscience continue to push his line. He is an intelligent man, he knows the law, he knows how our constitution works, he knows how Parliament works.
He knows that it is not for Parliament to negotiate with any external body. He knows that it is for the Government to do that. There is no possible mechanism for Parliament to engage in any negotiation with the EU or to set the ground rules for any such negotiation.
All it can do it for yes or no and then the Government has to act accordingly.
Continuing to push this ridiculous notion of parliamentary oversight of or involvement in negotiations with the EU (or anyone else) is just utterly bizarre.
It flies in the face of the legal realities - and I am sure he knows that.
Yes but forget the legal realities, if Parliament doesn't take control then we may actual Brexit for real and not in name only. We might leave the single market like all sides in the debate pre-referendum said we would if we voted to leave and Grieve knows better than us.
The Commons has only just voted by a majority of around 200 to leave the single market so whether Parliament takes control or not it will not be soft Brexit it will just be a case of moving towards a FTA or WTO terms
Nothing is certain yet, if the EU refuses to agree to a FTA and it becomes a choice of WTO terms or BINO then there is absolutely no guarantee that Parliament will go for WTO.
There is given the number of Labour rebels who opposed the single market as it requires freedom of movement which would be political suicide in their heavily Leave seats plus of course Corbyn refused to back the single market even if he did not vote against the EEA.
Of course there is near zero chance of a FTA by next March anyway given it took Canada 7 years to negotiate one with the EU, the best that can be hoped for is an exit deal on the exit bill, citizens' rights, the Irish border and a transition period
YOUR supreme leader promised us that this would never happen. NO transition to nowhere. NO money without a trade deal. NO backstop without knowing the final customs arrangement.
No, No, No!
Exploratory FTA talks have now begun after the completion of the Phase 1 stage in December
What makes you think a withdrawal agreement where we pay the EU 40bn, agree a backstop and get no agreement on trade will make it through the HoC. Labour are almost certain to oppose as they will not want to take any responsibility for a Tory deal. I am not sure the DUP will support. It would require only a handful of Brexiteers to vote against to reject it. Don't you think that there are at least 10 hardcore leavers who will vote against?
Perhaps May realises that this is the real risk, not the pointless discussion about a meaningful vote. The vote she has to have will be meaningful enough.
There's still every reason to believe Brexit won't happen. It's just a question of the precise choreography by which it's stopped. I've recently come to think that an extension of Article 50 is becoming more likely and this will be the precursor to the whole thing unravelling.
"We choose not to leave the EU. We choose not to leave the EU in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
What makes you think a withdrawal agreement where we pay the EU 40bn, agree a backstop and get no agreement on trade will make it through the HoC. Labour are almost certain to oppose as they will not want to take any responsibility for a Tory deal. I am not sure the DUP will support. It would require only a handful of Brexiteers to vote against to reject it. Don't you think that there are at least 10 hardcore leavers who will vote against?
Perhaps May realises that this is the real risk, not the pointless discussion about a meaningful vote. The vote she has to have will be meaningful enough.
There's still every reason to believe Brexit won't happen. It's just a question of the precise choreography by which it's stopped. I've recently come to think that an extension of Article 50 is becoming more likely and this will be the precursor to the whole thing unravelling.
I think that the level of integration with the EU is too great for Brexit to be completed. I think the Brexit advocates know this and I doubt the sincerity of some politicians seeing it to the bitter end. The nefarious Boris Johnson will no doubt flounce at some point and blame his erstwhile Brexit proponents for not executing the will of the people. I actually wonder if it would have been better if Johnson had been the Sec. of State for Brexit as he would have owned the failure.
What makes you think a withdrawal agreement where we pay the EU 40bn, agree a backstop and get no agreement on trade will make it through the HoC. Labour are almost certain to oppose as they will not want to take any responsibility for a Tory deal. I am not sure the DUP will support. It would require only a handful of Brexiteers to vote against to reject it. Don't you think that there are at least 10 hardcore leavers who will vote against?
Perhaps May realises that this is the real risk, not the pointless discussion about a meaningful vote. The vote she has to have will be meaningful enough.
There's still every reason to believe Brexit won't happen. It's just a question of the precise choreography by which it's stopped. I've recently come to think that an extension of Article 50 is becoming more likely and this will be the precursor to the whole thing unravelling.
"We choose not to leave the EU. We choose not to leave the EU in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
What makes you think a withdrawal agreement where we pay the EU 40bn, agree a backstop and get no agreement on trade will make it through the HoC. Labour are almost certain to oppose as they will not want to take any responsibility for a Tory deal. I am not sure the DUP will support. It would require only a handful of Brexiteers to vote against to reject it. Don't you think that there are at least 10 hardcore leavers who will vote against?
Perhaps May realises that this is the real risk, not the pointless discussion about a meaningful vote. The vote she has to have will be meaningful enough.
There's still every reason to believe Brexit won't happen. It's just a question of the precise choreography by which it's stopped. I've recently come to think that an extension of Article 50 is becoming more likely and this will be the precursor to the whole thing unravelling.
No Tory leader would survive if we have not left the EU by next April and Corbyn also backs Brexit too anyway
What makes you think a withdrawal agreement where we pay the EU 40bn, agree a backstop and get no agreement on trade will make it through the HoC. Labour are almost certain to oppose as they will not want to take any responsibility for a Tory deal. I am not sure the DUP will support. It would require only a handful of Brexiteers to vote against to reject it. Don't you think that there are at least 10 hardcore leavers who will vote against?
Perhaps May realises that this is the real risk, not the pointless discussion about a meaningful vote. The vote she has to have will be meaningful enough.
There's still every reason to believe Brexit won't happen. It's just a question of the precise choreography by which it's stopped. I've recently come to think that an extension of Article 50 is becoming more likely and this will be the precursor to the whole thing unravelling.
I think that the level of integration with the EU is too great for Brexit to be completed. I think the Brexit advocates know this and I doubt the sincerity of some politicians seeing it to the bitter end. The nefarious Boris Johnson will no doubt flounce at some point and blame his erstwhile Brexit proponents for not executing the will of the people. I actually wonder if it would have been better if Johnson had been the Sec. of State for Brexit as he would have owned the failure.
BJ is definitely waiting for his moment, I sense he is distancing himself very quietly and slowly from the govt, is TM's 2 year point a trigger as the Tory conference is not that far behind? if a leadership contest is to take place, pre Conference is the time in my opinion.
BJ at DEXEU would have been too big a gamble for TM, the Party and the country only just swallowed naming him Foreign Secretary and for some it is still a bad taste
I really do not see how Grieve can in all good conscience continue to push his line. He is an intelligent man, he knows the law, he knows how our constitution works, he knows how Parliament works.
He knows that it is not for Parliament to negotiate with any external body. He knows that it is for the Government to do that. There is no possible mechanism for Parliament to engage in any negotiation with the EU or to set the ground rules for any such negotiation.
All it can do it for yes or no and then the Government has to act accordingly.
Continuing to push this ridiculous notion of parliamentary oversight of or involvement in negotiations with the EU (or anyone else) is just utterly bizarre.
It flies in the face of the legal realities - and I am sure he knows that.
Yes but forget the legal realities, if Parliament doesn't take control then we may actual Brexit for real and not in name only. We might leave the single market like all sides in the debate pre-referendum said we would if we voted to leave and Grieve knows better than us.
The Commons has only just voted by a majority of around 200 to leave the single market so whether Parliament takes control or not it will not be soft Brexit it will just be a case of moving towards a FTA or WTO terms
Nothing is certain yet, if the EU refuses to agree to a FTA and it becomes a choice of WTO terms or BINO then there is absolutely no guarantee that Parliament will go for WTO.
There is given the number of Labour rebels who opposed the single market as it requires freedom of movement which would be political suicide in their heavily Leave seats plus of course Corbyn refused to back the single market even if he did not vote against the EEA.
Of course there is near zero chance of a FTA by next March anyway given it took Canada 7 years to negotiate one with the EU, the best that can be hoped for is an exit deal on the exit bill, citizens' rights, the Irish border and a transition period
YOUR supreme leader promised us that this would never happen. NO transition to nowhere. NO money without a trade deal. NO backstop without knowing the final customs arrangement.
No, No, No!
Exploratory FTA talks have now begun after the completion of the Phase 1 stage in December
So are you in favour of signing a withdrawal agreement without having the future framework agreed or not? Because you earlier post seemed to suggest you were happy to do so.
I really do not see how Grieve can in all good conscience continue to push his line. He is an intelligent man, he knows the law, he knows how our constitution works, he knows how Parliament works.
He knows that it is not for Parliament to negotiate with any external body. He knows that it is for the Government to do that. There is no possible mechanism for Parliament to engage in any negotiation with the EU or to set the ground rules for any such negotiation.
All it can do it for yes or no and then the Government has to act accordingly.
Continuing to push this ridiculous notion of parliamentary oversight of or involvement in negotiations with the EU (or anyone else) is just utterly bizarre.
It flies in the face of the legal realities - and I am sure he knows that.
Yes but forget the legal realities, if Parliament doesn't take control then we may actual Brexit for real and not in name only. We might leave the single market like all sides in the debate pre-referendum said we would if we voted to leave and Grieve knows better than us.
The Commons has only just voted by a majority of around 200 to leave the single market so whether Parliament takes control or not it will not be soft Brexit it will just be a case of moving towards a FTA or WTO terms
Nothing is certain yet, if the EU refuses to agree to a FTA and it becomes a choice of WTO terms or BINO then there is absolutely no guarantee that Parliament will go for WTO.
There is given the number of Labour rebels who opposed the single market as it requires freedom of movement which would be political suicide in their heavily Leave seats plus of course Corbyn refused to back the single market even if he did not vote against the EEA.
Of course there is near zero chance of a FTA by next March anyway given it took Canada 7 years to negotiate one with the EU, the best that can be hoped for is an exit deal on the exit bill, citizens' rights, the Irish border and a transition period
YOUR supreme leader promised us that this would never happen. NO transition to nowhere. NO money without a trade deal. NO backstop without knowing the final customs arrangement.
No, No, No!
Exploratory FTA talks have now begun after the completion of the Phase 1 stage in December
So are you in favour of signing a withdrawal agreement without having the future framework agreed or not? Because you earlier post seemed to suggest you were happy to do so.
Of course, as I said a FTA will take 7 years to complete based on Canada
Yes but forget the legal realities, if Parliament doesn't take control then we may actual Brexit for real and not in name only. We might leave the single market like all sides in the debate pre-referendum said we would if we voted to leave and Grieve knows better than us.
The Commons has only just voted by a majority of around 200 to leave the single market so whether Parliament takes control or not it will not be soft Brexit it will just be a case of moving towards a FTA or WTO terms
Nothing is certain yet, if the EU refuses to agree to a FTA and it becomes a choice of WTO terms or BINO then there is absolutely no guarantee that Parliament will go for WTO.
There is given the number of Labour rebels who opposed the single market as it requires freedom of movement which would be political suicide in their heavily Leave seats plus of course Corbyn refused to back the single market even if he did not vote against the EEA.
Of course there is near zero chance of a FTA by next March anyway given it took Canada 7 years to negotiate one with the EU, the best that can be hoped for is an exit deal on the exit bill, citizens' rights, the Irish border and a transition period
YOUR supreme leader promised us that this would never happen. NO transition to nowhere. NO money without a trade deal. NO backstop without knowing the final customs arrangement.
No, No, No!
Exploratory FTA talks have now begun after the completion of the Phase 1 stage in December
So are you in favour of signing a withdrawal agreement without having the future framework agreed or not? Because you earlier post seemed to suggest you were happy to do so.
Of course, as I said a FTA will take 7 years to complete based on Canada
Good to see you Tories selling out, and Theresa's red lines all meaningless.
So why did Theresa write to her own MPs only a week ago promising that she would never agree to the backstop unless the future customs framework is agreed?
Yes but forget the legal realities, if Parliament doesn't take control then we may actual Brexit for real and not in name only. We might leave the single market like all sides in the debate pre-referendum said we would if we voted to leave and Grieve knows better than us.
The Commons has only just voted by a majority of around 200 to leave the single market so whether Parliament takes control or not it will not be soft Brexit it will just be a case of moving towards a FTA or WTO terms
Nothing is certain yet, if the EU refuses to agree to a FTA and it becomes a choice of WTO terms or BINO then there is absolutely no guarantee that Parliament will go for WTO.
There is given the number of Labour rebels who opposed the single market as it requires freedom of movement which would be political suicide in their heavily Leave seats plus of course Corbyn refused to back the single market even if he did not vote against the EEA.
Of course there is near zero chance of a FTA by next March anyway given it took Canada 7 years to negotiate one with the EU, the best that can be hoped for is an exit deal on the exit bill, citizens' rights, the Irish border and a transition period
YOUR supreme leader promised us that this would never happen. NO transition to nowhere. NO money without a trade deal. NO backstop without knowing the final customs arrangement.
No, No, No!
Exploratory FTA talks have now begun after the completion of the Phase 1 stage in December
So are you in favour of signing a withdrawal agreement without having the future framework agreed or not? Because you earlier post seemed to suggest you were happy to do so.
Of course, as I said a FTA will take 7 years to complete based on Canada
Good to see you Tories selling out, and Theresa's red lines all meaningless.
So why did Theresa write to her own MPs only a week ago promising that she would never agree to the backstop unless the future customs framework is agreed?
How can that be the case? The EU are refusing to negotiate the future arrangement until the no deal scenario is agreed. Barmy, but that’s where we are.
Yes but forget the legal realities, if Parliament doesn't take control then we may actual Brexit for real and not in name only. We might leave the single market like all sides in the debate pre-referendum said we would if we voted to leave and Grieve knows better than us.
The Commons has only just voted by a majority of around 200 to leave the single market so whether Parliament takes control or not it will not be soft Brexit it will just be a case of moving towards a FTA or WTO terms
Nothing is certain yet, if the EU refuses to agree to a FTA and it becomes a choice of WTO terms or BINO then there is absolutely no guarantee that Parliament will go for WTO.
There is given the number of Labour rebels who opposed the single market as it requires freedom of movement which would be political suicide in their heavily Leave seats plus of course Corbyn refused to back the single market even if he did not vote against the EEA.
Of course there is near zero chance of a FTA by next March anyway given it took Canada 7 years to negotiate one with the EU, the best that can be hoped for is an exit deal on the exit bill, citizens' rights, the Irish border and a transition period
YOUR supreme leader promised us that this would never happen. NO transition to nowhere. NO money without a trade deal. NO backstop without knowing the final customs arrangement.
No, No, No!
Exploratory FTA talks have now begun after the completion of the Phase 1 stage in December
So are you in favour of signing a withdrawal agreement without having the future framework agreed or not? Because you earlier post seemed to suggest you were happy to do so.
Of course, as I said a FTA will take 7 years to complete based on Canada
Good to see you Tories selling out, and Theresa's red lines all meaningless.
So why did Theresa write to her own MPs only a week ago promising that she would never agree to the backstop unless the future customs framework is agreed?
How can that be the case? The EU are refusing to negotiate the future arrangement until the no deal scenario is agreed. Barmy, but that’s where we are.
Well, May's letter to her MPs last week was very clear. She can't be lying to her own MPs, surely.....
What makes you think a withdrawal agreement where we pay the EU 40bn, agree a backstop and get no agreement on trade will make it through the HoC. Labour are almost certain to oppose as they will not want to take any responsibility for a Tory deal. I am not sure the DUP will support. It would require only a handful of Brexiteers to vote against to reject it. Don't you think that there are at least 10 hardcore leavers who will vote against?
Perhaps May realises that this is the real risk, not the pointless discussion about a meaningful vote. The vote she has to have will be meaningful enough.
There's still every reason to believe Brexit won't happen. It's just a question of the precise choreography by which it's stopped. I've recently come to think that an extension of Article 50 is becoming more likely and this will be the precursor to the whole thing unravelling.
I think that the level of integration with the EU is too great for Brexit to be completed. I think the Brexit advocates know this and I doubt the sincerity of some politicians seeing it to the bitter end. The nefarious Boris Johnson will no doubt flounce at some point and blame his erstwhile Brexit proponents for not executing the will of the people. I actually wonder if it would have been better if Johnson had been the Sec. of State for Brexit as he would have owned the failure.
Well, you can definitely do it without anything blowing up particularly, the problem is that the only way to do that is to keep following all the same rules as now, only with no say in how they're changed, which everyone would agree was totally stupid and pointless.
But it would follow the letter of the referendum result without destroying the economy, so maybe that's what TMay is planning to do...
""There has been an unacceptable deterioration in quality at one firm, KPMG," the FRC said in a statement. "50% of KPMG's FTSE 350 audits required more than just limited improvements, compared to 35% in the previous year.""
Just think, if England hadn't been defeated in the 1970 World Cup we might not be leaving the EU now... As Heath might never have become PM in the 1970 UK General Election and so we might never have joined the EEC in the first place...
I think we would . Harold Wilson was already negotiating to gain entry following De Gaulle's resignation in 1969.
It is really hard to see how the UK could have stayed out. The mistake was not getting in at the beginning.
Just think, if England hadn't been defeated in the 1970 World Cup we might not be leaving the EU now... As Heath might never have become PM in the 1970 UK General Election and so we might never have joined the EEC in the first place...
I think we would . Harold Wilson was already negotiating to gain entry following De Gaulle's resignation in 1969.
It is really hard to see how the UK could have stayed out. The mistake was not getting in at the beginning.
But perhaps more bizarrely, he short sold (i.e. bet on the price going lower) of a shipping firm just before its Russia ties were revealed. Now, I don't want to suggest that the Commerce Secretary was privy to inside information: but what the f*ck was he doing shorting shares anyway? This wasn't a case of "Hey, I'm buying blue chip US companies for my portfolio", it was a case of the Commerce Secretary making a personal bet against a company's share price.
But perhaps more bizarrely, he short sold (i.e. bet on the price going lower) of a shipping firm just before its Russia ties were revealed. Now, I don't want to suggest that the Commerce Secretary was privy to inside information: but what the f*ck was he doing shorting shares anyway? This wasn't a case of "Hey, I'm buying blue chip US companies for my portfolio", it was a case of the Commerce Secretary making a personal bet against a company's share price.
Just think, if England hadn't been defeated in the 1970 World Cup we might not be leaving the EU now... As Heath might never have become PM in the 1970 UK General Election and so we might never have joined the EEC in the first place...
I think we would . Harold Wilson was already negotiating to gain entry following De Gaulle's resignation in 1969.
It is really hard to see how the UK could have stayed out. The mistake was not getting in at the beginning.
The mistake was joining.
A mistake was not stopping the moves to federalism in the late 1980s and, if the writing really was on the wall, not carving out the UK as an associate to the EU in Maastricht, rather than a full member of it.
What makes you think a withdrawal agreement where we pay the EU 40bn, agree a backstop and get no agreement on trade will make it through the HoC. Labour are almost certain to oppose as they will not want to take any responsibility for a Tory deal. I am not sure the DUP will support. It would require only a handful of Brexiteers to vote against to reject it. Don't you think that there are at least 10 hardcore leavers who will vote against?
Perhaps May realises that this is the real risk, not the pointless discussion about a meaningful vote. The vote she has to have will be meaningful enough.
There's still every reason to believe Brexit won't happen. It's just a question of the precise choreography by which it's stopped. I've recently come to think that an extension of Article 50 is becoming more likely and this will be the precursor to the whole thing unravelling.
I think that the level of integration with the EU is too great for Brexit to be completed. I think the Brexit advocates know this and I doubt the sincerity of some politicians seeing it to the bitter end. The nefarious Boris Johnson will no doubt flounce at some point and blame his erstwhile Brexit proponents for not executing the will of the people. I actually wonder if it would have been better if Johnson had been the Sec. of State for Brexit as he would have owned the failure.
Well, you can definitely do it without anything blowing up particularly, the problem is that the only way to do that is to keep following all the same rules as now, only with no say in how they're changed, which everyone would agree was totally stupid and pointless.
But it would follow the letter of the referendum result without destroying the economy, so maybe that's what TMay is planning to do...
FWIW I think TMay was fairly sincere in her Lancaster House and Florence speeches but has neither the leadership or negotiation skills or parliamentary numbers to deliver on it.
I wonder whether the Lords defeat wasn't encouraged by the hubristic decision of May to claim that the NHS extra spending was explained on the side of Boris's Red Bus?
Question - are the EU going to grant us a tranaition deal to a fantasy FTA based on things we want they've already rejected? Haven't they already made clear that for a tranaition deal you have tk have something in place to transition to?
Our options are going to be beg the commission to extend A50. Or crash out. Apparently having triggered a thing which clearly states we leave in 2 years it is now a shock that leave means leave whether we are ready or not
Just think, if England hadn't been defeated in the 1970 World Cup we might not be leaving the EU now... As Heath might never have become PM in the 1970 UK General Election and so we might never have joined the EEC in the first place...
I think we would . Harold Wilson was already negotiating to gain entry following De Gaulle's resignation in 1969.
It is really hard to see how the UK could have stayed out. The mistake was not getting in at the beginning.
The mistake was joining.
Had it not been for De Gaulle’s we would have been ‘in’ a long while before. There was quite a lot of pro-Common Market feeling in the late 60’s. Opposition came from the Left, as I recall.
I remember as a young man, calling, at a professional conference, for 'patience, De Gaulle would not be around for ever’ and getting a round of applause for it. IIRC the subject was the European.... well West European in those days.... management of medicines.
The Sailsbury Convention predates the removal of most hereditaries in 1999. Some folk have argued it hasn't applied since then. It certainly doesn't apply to a government who not only doesn't have a majority but actually lost it's majority when it sought one for it's Brexit plan.
May can't use the Parliament Act as she set up the current session as a Two Year one after she lost her majority. She could create a new session by prorouging but that would drag the Queen into it. ( She the Harper case in Canada ).
As for mass peer creation that would drag the Queen into it too. The 1910 precident is HM shouldn't do it without a second General Election. But it was losing a GE seeking a Brexit mandate that got May into this mess. And since 1910 we have the FTPA which means May can't call one on her own anyway.
The truth is the Lords is in quite a strong position to insist on minor amendements to the Withdrawal Bill. And if we are being honest Grieve 2 is minor. It's just being magnified by the Culture War prism of Brexit.
May didn't lose the election, she's still in Downing Street. Just because she has less MPs than she started with doesn't mean she lost - Blair finished with less MPs in 2005 than he'd had in 2001 but did he lose to Howard?
Besides pro-leaving the EU parties got about 90% of all seats and just counting the Tories and DUP they got an absolute majority of seats.
It’s not about that. It’s about the fact it gives the opposition and Brexit opponents an excuse to wreck the legislation.
Just think, if England hadn't been defeated in the 1970 World Cup we might not be leaving the EU now... As Heath might never have become PM in the 1970 UK General Election and so we might never have joined the EEC in the first place...
I think we would . Harold Wilson was already negotiating to gain entry following De Gaulle's resignation in 1969.
It is really hard to see how the UK could have stayed out. The mistake was not getting in at the beginning.
The mistake was joining.
A mistake was not stopping the moves to federalism in the late 1980s and, if the writing really was on the wall, not carving out the UK as an associate to the EU in Maastricht, rather than a full member of it.
I suspect that it started to go wrong, especially for the UK, when the East European countries were admitted as full members instead of as ‘associates’ while their economies got up to speed.
Prince Harry supports Brexit, "It's just something we have to try".
That's Harry Kane and Harry Windsor.
Possibly the two most popular men in the Kingdom,
Eat crow, you europedophile losers.
He's gonna be disappointed then when we end up with BINO
It’s according to Thomas Markle - this is what Markle said:
TM: It was just a loose conversation about something we have to try. There was no real commitment to it. PM: Do you think he was in favour of it? TM: I think he was open to the experiment. I mean, if it’s true (that’s a big if), it’s not really a massive Pro Brexit stance. Reminds me a lot of The Sun’s claim the Queen supported Brexit a few years earlier.
Indeed. It's about as reliable and worthwhile as any of SeanT's rants.
Given .
lol -.
I don't deny the historic links - but their regular all expenses paid trips to the Australia, Canada, NZ and various beautiful Pacific islands, probably trump the fact they are descended from the House of Saxe Coburg!
I think they have to go to these places you mention to stay relevant in the Countries you list.
The problem with fashioning policy in this way is that it is just a reflection of the past, not of the future. Australia, Canada, NZ and various beautiful Pacific islands economic interests are NOT with Britain in the future. Australia and NZ will be trying to forge ever closer links with China and other economies in South East Asia, where as Canada will be looking South, to the USA and Mexico with the caveat of post Trump!
I think the major flaw in Brexit is that it ignores the fact our nearest economic neighbour is Europe. Whilst some areas may look more dynamic, the logistics of trade may be made impractical by distance.
People keep saying this, but it’s bollocks. There’s a far greater British diaspora in NZ, Australia and Canada, and both nations have or are looking to conclude free trade deals with both the UK and EU.
Further, our security and military cooperation is growing and - as the world economy and geopolitics globalises - that will become ever more important.
Europe is not the future, and the trade proximity argument is a tired and out of date one disproven by even the most cursory look at trade pattern trends.
People keep saying this, but it’s bollocks. There’s a far greater British diaspora in NZ, Australia and Canada, and both nations have or are looking to conclude free trade deals with both the UK and EU.
Further, our security and military cooperation is growing and - as the world economy and geopolitics globalises - that will become ever more important.
Europe is not the future, and the trade proximity argument is a tired and out of date one disproven by even the most cursory look at trade pattern trends.
While Europe - thanks to demographics if nothing else - is not going to be driving export growth for the UK going forward, proximity does matter. There are no automotive supply chains that involve stuff going between Australia and the UK, because the cost of carrying inventory is too high. The EU is on our doorstep, and will likely be larger than the EU, China, the US or our former Empire, as a market for the foreseeable future.
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
But perhaps more bizarrely, he short sold (i.e. bet on the price going lower) of a shipping firm just before its Russia ties were revealed. Now, I don't want to suggest that the Commerce Secretary was privy to inside information: but what the f*ck was he doing shorting shares anyway? This wasn't a case of "Hey, I'm buying blue chip US companies for my portfolio", it was a case of the Commerce Secretary making a personal bet against a company's share price.
The US answer to the Marconi scandal?
Will be lost in the noise, I think. Which is a measure of how low US politics has sunk.
Just think, if England hadn't been defeated in the 1970 World Cup we might not be leaving the EU now... As Heath might never have become PM in the 1970 UK General Election and so we might never have joined the EEC in the first place...
I think we would . Harold Wilson was already negotiating to gain entry following De Gaulle's resignation in 1969.
It is really hard to see how the UK could have stayed out. The mistake was not getting in at the beginning.
The mistake was joining.
A mistake was not stopping the moves to federalism in the late 1980s and, if the writing really was on the wall, not carving out the UK as an associate to the EU in Maastricht, rather than a full member of it.
But that is to ask for perfection. The reality is that all governments, however good, make missteps and have limitations of what they can achieve. If there was a true blunder, it was the repeated denying of a referendum on Lisbon, despite similar votes in Europe, and pledges from various leaders. Both Europhiles and Europhobes ought to be able to agree on that one.
But perhaps more bizarrely, he short sold (i.e. bet on the price going lower) of a shipping firm just before its Russia ties were revealed. Now, I don't want to suggest that the Commerce Secretary was privy to inside information: but what the f*ck was he doing shorting shares anyway? This wasn't a case of "Hey, I'm buying blue chip US companies for my portfolio", it was a case of the Commerce Secretary making a personal bet against a company's share price.
People keep saying this, but it’s bollocks. There’s a far greater British diaspora in NZ, Australia and Canada, and both nations have or are looking to conclude free trade deals with both the UK and EU.
Further, our security and military cooperation is growing and - as the world economy and geopolitics globalises - that will become ever more important.
Europe is not the future, and the trade proximity argument is a tired and out of date one disproven by even the most cursory look at trade pattern trends.
While Europe - thanks to demographics if nothing else - is not going to be driving export growth for the UK going forward, proximity does matter. There are no automotive supply chains that involve stuff going between Australia and the UK, because the cost of carrying inventory is too high. The EU is on our doorstep, and will likely be larger than the EU, China, the US or our former Empire, as a market for the foreseeable future.
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
For heavy machinery and manufacture it probably makes a difference but that is a small part of the economy. It is largely irrelevant for services. I am not arguing its irrelevant but I am arguing against the claim it’s decisive.
The vast majority of global growth in future will come from outside the EU. I expect our economy and trading patterns to increasingly reflect that over time as, arguably, they already are with EU trade being already outnumbered by non-EU trade (although the way the europhiles try and get around that one is to count the non-EU trade contingent upon EU trade deals and good shipped through Rotterdam).
Just think, if England hadn't been defeated in the 1970 World Cup we might not be leaving the EU now... As Heath might never have become PM in the 1970 UK General Election and so we might never have joined the EEC in the first place...
I think we would . Harold Wilson was already negotiating to gain entry following De Gaulle's resignation in 1969.
It is really hard to see how the UK could have stayed out. The mistake was not getting in at the beginning.
The mistake was joining.
A mistake was not stopping the moves to federalism in the late 1980s and, if the writing really was on the wall, not carving out the UK as an associate to the EU in Maastricht, rather than a full member of it.
I suspect that it started to go wrong, especially for the UK, when the East European countries were admitted as full members instead of as ‘associates’ while their economies got up to speed.
For the mass of votes against, yes. But it’s no coincidence that both UKIP and the eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party both had their roots in the late 1980s.
If I had to pick a particular year, I’d pick 1988.
I'm not surprised their Lordships decided to give this particular one another try given what went down in the Commons last week.
For all the outrage some will have at this. if the Commons do indeed accept it this time, which seems to be at least possible, then parliament's will will have been done, in unorthodox fashion. If it is the will of the Commons to say no to this then they will say no again. If it they say yes, then the will of the Commons will have changed.
The questions are if the Commons rebels will take on the government this time, and if they don't (or it is not enough) how much more will the Lords push it?
And presumably if the Commons say “yes” that is their final and settled will and can’t be challenged. Seems a little unbalanced.
I’m having lunch with Hailsham on Sunday (it’s his golden wedding anniversary), that’s going to be fun
HHAHAHAHAHAH Good to see lots of depressed Remoaners on here tonight, hoping England would lose and we'd all collapse and accept a 2nd referendum, policed by Belgians with watercannons outside the voting booths.
Heh.
Cry God for Harry, Brexit and St George, you treacherous europhile wankers.
+1
Stop being a fucking twat. I have been following England - win or lose - for 35 years.
As I said before, ignore him. Some on this site have been calling Remainers ‘traitors’ now for sometime so this is unsurprising in some respects. I guess behaviour such as what we’ve seen tonight provides yet explanation as why so many of my generation don’t have a good image of the Conservative Party.
Nah - much simpler. Some luck @MaxPB actually believe it when they call you a “traitor”.
@seant is having fun, yanking your chain and probably drunk. Or maybe all three. Enjoy his hyperbole for what it is - until @seant insults you, you’ve not graduated to being a full member of PB..
Of course, the EU are making it difficult to leave. That was one of my reasons for wanting to leave. It's in their own interests for the EU to do so. One of the few things Bojo got right was to warn of a 'punishment beating' - a slight exaggeration only.
It is a crisis for the EU too and allowing loose deadlines gives them even more scope to be awkward.
Look upon this as a contract we signed for a mobile phone or broadband. The contract has been changed without consultation (not with the voters anyway) and the bank (the government of Blair and Major) went along with it by paying on direct debit all the changes. We've now ordered the bank to stop it, and they're finding it awkward.
People keep saying this, but it’s bollocks. There’s a far greater British diaspora in NZ, Australia and Canada, and both nations have or are looking to conclude free trade deals with both the UK and EU.
Further, our security and military cooperation is growing and - as the world economy and geopolitics globalises - that will become ever more important.
Europe is not the future, and the trade proximity argument is a tired and out of date one disproven by even the most cursory look at trade pattern trends.
While Europe - thanks to demographics if nothing else - is not going to be driving export growth for the UK going forward, proximity does matter. There are no automotive supply chains that involve stuff going between Australia and the UK, because the cost of carrying inventory is too high. The EU is on our doorstep, and will likely be larger than the EU, China, the US or our former Empire, as a market for the foreseeable future.
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
For heavy machinery and manufacture it probably makes a difference but that is a small part of the economy. It is largely irrelevant for services. I am not arguing its irrelevant but I am arguing against the claim it’s decisive.
The vast majority of global growth in future will come from outside the EU. I expect our economy and trading patterns to increasingly reflect that over time as, arguably, they already are with EU trade being already outnumbered by non-EU trade (although the way the europhiles try and get around that one is to count the non-EU trade contingent upon EU trade deals and good shipped through Rotterdam).
So what services jobs do you expect to replace the high-wage manufacturing jobs that will be lost as a result of a bad Brexit deal? Who do you expect us to negotiate services-based FTAs with that will make up for the trading benefis we lose once we leave?
Obviously trade will grow faster with developing economies rather than developed ones. But it will take decades, if not centuries, for it to be supplanted as our biggest export destination.
HHAHAHAHAHAH Good to see lots of depressed Remoaners on here tonight, hoping England would lose and we'd all collapse and accept a 2nd referendum, policed by Belgians with watercannons outside the voting booths.
Heh.
Cry God for Harry, Brexit and St George, you treacherous europhile wankers.
+1
Stop being a fucking twat. I have been following England - win or lose - for 35 years.
As I said before, ignore him. Some on this site have been calling Remainers ‘traitors’ now for sometime so this is unsurprising in some respects. I guess behaviour such as what we’ve seen tonight provides yet explanation as why so many of my generation don’t have a good image of the Conservative Party.
Nah - much simpler. Some luck @MaxPB actually believe it when they call you a “traitor”.
@seant is having fun, yanking your chain and probably drunk. Or maybe all three. Enjoy his hyperbole for what it is - until @seant insults you, you’ve not graduated to being a full member of PB..
SeanT is the doddery old man in the corner, half senile, wittering on about his excellent life and how you young' uns have got it all wrong. All whilst whiffing slightly of goat and pee.
People keep saying this, but it’s bollocks. There’s a far greater British diaspora in NZ, Australia and Canada, and both nations have or are looking to conclude free trade deals with both the UK and EU.
Further, our security and military cooperation is growing and - as the world economy and geopolitics globalises - that will become ever more important.
Europe is not the future, and the trade proximity argument is a tired and out of date one disproven by even the most cursory look at trade pattern trends.
While Europe - thanks to demographics if nothing else - is not going to be driving export growth for the UK going forward, proximity does matter. There are no automotive supply chains that involve stuff going between Australia and the UK, because the cost of carrying inventory is too high. The EU is on our doorstep, and will likely be larger than the EU, China, the US or our former Empire, as a market for the foreseeable future.
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
isnt that because Australia no longer has a car industry ?
here are lots of automotive supply chains which involve products moving between Europe, Japan, China and N America. Evidently localisation is always best which is why we should assist onshoring.
@Mortimer - you seem tremendously confident that the Government will win on Wednesday. Why? Do you think Grieve talking about bringing down the government will have brought some Tory rebels back? I worry it will reduce the number of Labour rebels.
The partial amendment last week bought a few rebels off - it also makes Grieve look unreasonable, now.
There will be many Labour MPs who don’t want to bring this government down at the moment
Grieve was played, he and the rebels will not make the same mistake twice.
Comments
'An alternative theory is that he succumbed to internal bleeding after heavy drinking, possibly a condition called esophageal varices, where dilated veins in the lower part of the esophagus rupture leading to death by hemorrhage.'
If England exceed expectations will it help TMay? Or would an unprecidented early German exit do for Merkel?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1966
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_FIFA_World_Cup
However some commentators believe England's exit from the 1970 world cup might have helped cause Wilson's "shock" defeat to Heath.
May can't use the Parliament Act as she set up the current session as a Two Year one after she lost her majority. She could create a new session by prorouging but that would drag the Queen into it. ( She the Harper case in Canada ).
As for mass peer creation that would drag the Queen into it too. The 1910 precident is HM shouldn't do it without a second General Election. But it was losing a GE seeking a Brexit mandate that got May into this mess. And since 1910 we have the FTPA which means May can't call one on her own anyway.
The truth is the Lords is in quite a strong position to insist on minor amendements to the Withdrawal Bill. And if we are being honest Grieve 2 is minor. It's just being magnified by the Culture War prism of Brexit.
"Panamana, do do be doobie......"
He knows that it is not for Parliament to negotiate with any external body. He knows that it is for the Government to do that. There is no possible mechanism for Parliament to engage in any negotiation with the EU or to set the ground rules for any such negotiation.
All it can do it for yes or no and then the Government has to act accordingly.
Continuing to push this ridiculous notion of parliamentary oversight of or involvement in negotiations with the EU (or anyone else) is just utterly bizarre.
It flies in the face of the legal realities - and I am sure he knows that.
Good night
The problem with fashioning policy in this way is that it is just a reflection of the past, not of the future. Australia, Canada, NZ and various beautiful Pacific islands economic interests are NOT with Britain in the future. Australia and NZ will be trying to forge ever closer links with China and other economies in South East Asia, where as Canada will be looking South, to the USA and Mexico with the caveat of post Trump!
I think the major flaw in Brexit is that it ignores the fact our nearest economic neighbour is Europe. Whilst some areas may look more dynamic, the logistics of trade may be made impractical by distance.
18-35 pretty much covers millennials, mostly so I don’t know why you’re using that time frame to cover for Gen Z. 18-24 year olds voted to Remain by 73%, so you’re splitting hairs by asserting that the generation is massively different in perspective because it wasn’t an extra 7 points more for Remain. Ironically it was split 60:40 for 25-34 year olds, so much more eurosceptic 18-24 year olds, yet that same group of voters swung significantly to Corbyn last year, so the measurement of using EU ref as a gage is a bit flawed.
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2016-eu-referendum
I’m someone who knows both millennials and Zers as friends/family and so far there aren’t any major political differences. Especially since those who are the earliest Zers are apart of the most Pro Corbyn age group. A lot of the pro Jordan Peterson crew on YouTube HATE those like Corbyn.
Union 29%
SPD 19%
AfD 16%
Left 12%
Greens 11%
FDP 8%
Others 5%
https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
Besides pro-leaving the EU parties got about 90% of all seats and just counting the Tories and DUP they got an absolute majority of seats.
Could use a bit more going forward, did seem a bit better when Rashford came on for Sterling. Even as a United fan though I do think Sterling is a quality player, I'd like them both on but I can't see how to do that without losing Kane or changing the shape which is a no go.
Interested to see how the formation works for us, just interesting to see something a bit different. Keeping my expectations low so I can be pleasantly surprised.
Should probably mention some politics as well....
Legalise cannabis to keep it out of younger peoples hands and to stop the gateway effect. Cannabis doesn't automatically make you want to try harder drugs but most people think of it as fairly harmless, which it mostly is for adults in comparison to other recreational drugs, what it does do is introduce people to the idea of buying drugs off a dealer and normalises it.
LabourLive event, even the article on the RedRoar called it a success in some measures and they hate Corbyn. It didn't make money but that isn't really the point of the Labour party, what it did is get Corbyn doing what he was doing before the election, which did work, despite the fact only 'cultists' were going to watch him speak. The first event went well enough that they can go for it more confidently next time and learn from mistakes made. There was, probably rightly, some scepticism about whether they could pull it off or whether it would be a complete failure, whilst it wasn't an astounding success it didn't go badly so there will be more commitment to the idea next time.
Maybe it is partially because I tend to read negative media or because I keep my expectations fairly low (as with the football above) but I'm quite happy with the result of it.
Lastly, I don't imagine people born after 95 turn into crazy Muslim haters, I think that might be some hopeful projection on behalf of some of those baby boomers with strong views on Islam...
There will be many Labour MPs who don’t want to bring this government down at the moment
People who cannot stop playing video games will now be able to get treatment on the NHS following the announcement on Monday."
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/world-health-organisation-says-addiction-to-computer-games-is-a-mental-health-problem-a3865841.html
I want you to be right... I’m just not sure you are
Of course there is near zero chance of a FTA by next March anyway given it took Canada 7 years to negotiate one with the EU, the best that can be hoped for is an exit deal on the exit bill, citizens' rights, the Irish border and a transition period
Perhaps May realises that this is the real risk, not the pointless discussion about a meaningful vote. The vote she has to have will be meaningful enough.
No, No, No!
Makes you proud to be British.
BJ at DEXEU would have been too big a gamble for TM, the Party and the country only just swallowed naming him Foreign Secretary and for some it is still a bad taste
So why did Theresa write to her own MPs only a week ago promising that she would never agree to the backstop unless the future customs framework is agreed?
But it would follow the letter of the referendum result without destroying the economy, so maybe that's what TMay is planning to do...
"KPMG's audit work unacceptable, says watchdog"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44526486
""There has been an unacceptable deterioration in quality at one firm, KPMG," the FRC said in a statement. "50% of KPMG's FTSE 350 audits required more than just limited improvements, compared to 35% in the previous year.""
It seems the auditers need auditing ...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44526156
It turns out that he failed to divest his assets, as he said he had.
But perhaps more bizarrely, he short sold (i.e. bet on the price going lower) of a shipping firm just before its Russia ties were revealed. Now, I don't want to suggest that the Commerce Secretary was privy to inside information: but what the f*ck was he doing shorting shares anyway? This wasn't a case of "Hey, I'm buying blue chip US companies for my portfolio", it was a case of the Commerce Secretary making a personal bet against a company's share price.
Our options are going to be beg the commission to extend A50. Or crash out. Apparently having triggered a thing which clearly states we leave in 2 years it is now a shock that leave means leave whether we are ready or not
I remember as a young man, calling, at a professional conference, for 'patience, De Gaulle would not be around for ever’ and getting a round of applause for it.
IIRC the subject was the European.... well West European in those days.... management of medicines.
Looks like the options are likely to be no deal, or retaining the costs of membership with few of the benefits. Both would cause ructions.
Further, our security and military cooperation is growing and - as the world economy and geopolitics globalises - that will become ever more important.
Europe is not the future, and the trade proximity argument is a tired and out of date one disproven by even the most cursory look at trade pattern trends.
That does not mean we should be in a political union with them, but it is foolish to pretend that our prosperity does not depend on a good trading relationship with them.
Which is a measure of how low US politics has sunk.
If there was a true blunder, it was the repeated denying of a referendum on Lisbon, despite similar votes in Europe, and pledges from various leaders. Both Europhiles and Europhobes ought to be able to agree on that one.
Ross served as secretary of commerce while maintaining stakes in companies co-owned by the Chinese government, a shipping firm tied to Vladimir Putin’s inner circle, a Cypriot bank reportedly caught up in the Robert Mueller investigation and a huge player in an industry Ross is now investigating. It’s hard to imagine a more radioactive portfolio for a cabinet member.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2018/06/18/lies-china-and-putin-solving-the-mystery-of-wilbur-ross-missing-fortune-trump-commerce-secretary-cabinet-conflicts-of-interest/
The vast majority of global growth in future will come from outside the EU. I expect our economy and trading patterns to increasingly reflect that over time as, arguably, they already are with EU trade being already outnumbered by non-EU trade (although the way the europhiles try and get around that one is to count the non-EU trade contingent upon EU trade deals and good shipped through Rotterdam).
"Addiction is defined as not having control over doing, taking or using something to the point where it could be harmful to you."
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-body/addiction-what-is-it/
If I had to pick a particular year, I’d pick 1988.
I’m having lunch with Hailsham on Sunday (it’s his golden wedding anniversary), that’s going to be fun
Mr. Palmer, one man's fudge is another man's departure in name only.
@seant is having fun, yanking your chain and probably drunk. Or maybe all three. Enjoy his hyperbole for what it is - until @seant insults you, you’ve not graduated to being a full member of PB..
Of course, the EU are making it difficult to leave. That was one of my reasons for wanting to leave. It's in their own interests for the EU to do so. One of the few things Bojo got right was to warn of a 'punishment beating' - a slight exaggeration only.
It is a crisis for the EU too and allowing loose deadlines gives them even more scope to be awkward.
Look upon this as a contract we signed for a mobile phone or broadband. The contract has been changed without consultation (not with the voters anyway) and the bank (the government of Blair and Major) went along with it by paying on direct debit all the changes. We've now ordered the bank to stop it, and they're finding it awkward.
Would you buckle under for that reason?
Obviously trade will grow faster with developing economies rather than developed ones. But it will take decades, if not centuries, for it to be supplanted as our biggest export destination.
Them’s the facts.
In fact, in a few years he'll be like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI-WRb2u4po
here are lots of automotive supply chains which involve products moving between Europe, Japan, China and N America. Evidently localisation is always best which is why we should assist onshoring.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kipjrg5O0A4