Mr. Recidivist, given precedent, a referendum would have to be held first (unless a party won over 50% of the vote in an election, which seems unlikely).
Mr. Ace, maybe. That's fairly old, but he doesn't seem in ill health or doddery.
F1: still no more markets. It's rather odd.
No referendum is necessary. We joined without a referendum first time. And there has already been an election, 1983, where a party included leaving the EU as part of its programme without any mention of a referendum. Also I can't be the only person who has come to the conclusion that holding any referendum on anything is a bad idea. I think you might find referendums are off the agenda for a generation.
There is no chance that rejoining with a referendum will fly politically.
You simply don't want one because you fear you'd lose it.
It wouldn't fly either here or on the continent. In order to get 27 nations to unanimously take us back after all the disruption of Brexit we'd need to demonstrate we were serious about joining and that would require a referendum.
More than being serious they'd need assurance we wouldn't change our minds again! Another reason why next time if we're on we will in on the Euro and everything else.
If I were this Government, though, I'd pass a law to make such a referendum a legal requirement (particularly since the 2011 European Union Act is now being repealed).
I can see a coalition of the left/soft-left trying to force that down our throats in Parliament, some time in the late 2020s by relying on some loaded opinion polls.
Passing such a law would be utterly redundant. No Parliament can bind its successors and any rejoining would need an Act to authorise rejoining. That Act could repeal your law if the government so chose to do so. It's also leaving on our statute book a hint that we're already thinking of rejoining rather than simply ending this with our exit.
The politics both in this country and on the continent would guarantee a referendum is required.
Important as Airbus and BMW stories are, I think the big thing was the "Where's Jeremy Corbyn" chants on the march yesterday. It only needs one of the main parties to come round to rejoining and to win an election on that policy and we are back in. There were obviously plenty of activists on the streets yesterday who will have worked that out.
It also explains why ultra-Remainers have such difficulty winning over mainstream Conservatives.
Whenever they hear "where's Jeremy Corbyn?" chanted on such a march it smears the pro-EU cause with socialism, and other leftist causes, leading them to steer well clear.
The socialist logic of Brexit breaks out rather too often among Tories.
One thing to note is that there hasn't been a Tory Speaker for a long time. Bercow is a Tory in name only, and can be discounted as having been Tory.
I don't think Labour would see that as fair if it is their turn, as it were.
How about they appoint a Labour MP who I'd LINO as a compromise?
The speaker does not alternate between the main parties. From 1928 to 1965 we had four successive Conservative speakers. In general, but not invariably, the speaker comes from the party that is in government at the time of their election. Betty Boothroyd and Bercow are both exceptions to that rule.
One thing to note is that there hasn't been a Tory Speaker for a long time. Bercow is a Tory in name only, and can be discounted as having been Tory.
I don't think Labour would see that as fair if it is their turn, as it were.
How about they appoint a Labour MP who I'd LINO as a compromise?
The speaker does not alternate between the main parties. From 1928 to 1965 we had four successive Conservative speakers. In general, but not invariably, the speaker comes from the party that is in government at the time of their election. Betty Boothroyd and Bercow are both exceptions to that rule.
That's why I said 'as it were'. I know there isn't actual turns, but they might feel they are due.
One thing to note is that there hasn't been a Tory Speaker for a long time. Bercow is a Tory in name only, and can be discounted as having been Tory.
I don't think Labour would see that as fair if it is their turn, as it were.
How about they appoint a Labour MP who I'd LINO as a compromise?
The speaker does not alternate between the main parties. From 1928 to 1965 we had four successive Conservative speakers. In general, but not invariably, the speaker comes from the party that is in government at the time of their election. Betty Boothroyd and Bercow are both exceptions to that rule.
Wasn’t Ming Campbell seriously suggested as Speaker at one point?
Interesting to see the BBC running a piece about Gove's effectiveness
Michael Gove. Just the mention of his name on comedy shows elicits guffaws and groans.
He's become a figure of hate among teachers, parents and children, and a figure of fun among voters as a whole.
Yet talk to people in and around Westminster and a completely different man emerges. Whether they agree or disagree with his policies, they are united in their judgement: Gove has been the most effective minister of recent years.
Most ministers, when they finally reach office, are surprised to find that when they pull on the levers of power very little happens. Gove seems to have learned how to fix the cogs and pulleys so that a tug at one end produces a tangible result at the other.
She hasn't got 20bn to give, not even magic money tree 20bn.
I'd say May will go before Bercow. It actually may be harder to shift a Speaker and Bercow seems determined to see Brexit through, and any potential successors can hardly be seen to be agitating too hard to get rid of him, while there are a half dozen Cabinet Ministers who make very little secret they will take May down as soon as they think they can.
On topic, an excellent article. There is, I'm afraid, rather a lot of bullying in politics.
It's usually by people who've never developed the full suite of people skills that'd be essential to any normal career in the private sector, but, instead, have had their adolescent tendencies buttressed by the immense egoism and sense of entitlement that success in the political sphere can often bring.
There’s a shedload of bullying in the private sector.
And it's up to the board and shareholders to deal with that. This is up to the government to deal with. The reason it's not us that the person charged with investigation of bullying is a bully himself. He needs to go.
For good or ill, that is up to MPs. That’s why, with the meaningful vote decision to be made, this is such an issue. Keeping Bercow in place could well suit a lot of Tory MPs.
We have my 19 year old niece and her friend staying with us at Dura Ace Towers at the moment. This is what I have discovered about the politics of youth from this focus group of two young women (Both undergrads, one maths, one computer science.)
1. They get 100% of their news from social media. They never watch television or read newspapers.
2. They don't really understand the ins and outs of Brexit but think it's "stupid". My impression is they associate it with old people who live in places like Hull and think it of it as uncool as smoking cigarettes or having a caravan.
3. Corbyn was so 2016. He is "boring".
4. Neither of them intend to vote, ever, unless it's "something to do with animals". Animal rights or something, I dunno, they both fucking hate fox hunting and are convinced it's still legal.
5. They like Macron but not his wife.
6. They despise Trump and his wife.
7. I think the country might be utterly fucked.
As OKC points out, they will continue to grow up (the views of my own children, who are a handful of years older, have evolved somewhat since that age).
Presumably too young to vote in the Brexit referendum, and faced with two main parties which compete in incompetence and mendacity, their political attitudes are not entirely surprising.
Interesting to see the BBC running a piece about Gove's effectiveness
Michael Gove. Just the mention of his name on comedy shows elicits guffaws and groans.
He's become a figure of hate among teachers, parents and children, and a figure of fun among voters as a whole.
Yet talk to people in and around Westminster and a completely different man emerges. Whether they agree or disagree with his policies, they are united in their judgement: Gove has been the most effective minister of recent years.
Most ministers, when they finally reach office, are surprised to find that when they pull on the levers of power very little happens. Gove seems to have learned how to fix the cogs and pulleys so that a tug at one end produces a tangible result at the other.
If cartoonist Morten Morland knew his planes, he would have drawn a Beluga that carries the wings.....
It's a not-bad cartoon of a A350. But looking at the body-shape and the blue engine cowlings I think he started to draw a A380, realised he didn't need to draw all four engines, so just drew two instead.
Gove is an interesting case, but I’m not convinced his image will ever improve beyond the comedy circuit one with the public at large.
(Interesting to note that Bercow and Jezza have become a regular comedic targets, too.)
Satirists flock to Gove like the seagulls of Hartlepool to a regurgitated kebab. I honestly think any GE campaign with him as leader would be a disaster.
The most astonishing story, they employed a “safety driver” who was a felon on minimum wage and with minimal training, to watch over a self driving car that had a bunch of critical safety systems disabled that the driver didn’t know about, and the driver was watching TV on her phone rather than watching the road.
Can't answer your question but having looked at the video (not for the feint-hearted) I am not sure that the driver would have been able to save saved the pedestrian, even if her eyes had been on the road.
Gove is an interesting case, but I’m not convinced his image will ever improve beyond the comedy circuit one with the public at large.
(Interesting to note that Bercow and Jezza have become a regular comedic targets, too.)
Satirists flock to Gove like the seagulls of Hartlepool to a regurgitated kebab. I honestly think any GE campaign with him as leader would be a disaster.
I like Gove but having him as PM is not the right choice. Not a disaster, but he is much better in an ideas role. As TM has shown, being PM is all about management, at least for now
Taking positions against the party mainstream seems very survivable, particularly if the local party branch shares your positions, but she has been reported on multiple occasions to like the idea of a new centrist party, which I would guess is the bigger sin.
If cartoonist Morten Morland knew his planes, he would have drawn a Beluga that carries the wings.....
It's a not-bad cartoon of a A350. But looking at the body-shape and the blue engine cowlings I think he started to draw a A380, realised he didn't need to draw all four engines, so just drew two instead.
Not sure if they still do, but the Beluga used to actually have AIRBUS written on the fuselage.
If cartoonist Morten Morland knew his planes, he would have drawn a Beluga that carries the wings.....
It's a not-bad cartoon of a A350. But looking at the body-shape and the blue engine cowlings I think he started to draw a A380, realised he didn't need to draw all four engines, so just drew two instead.
On Airbus. There is very little they can do about Brexit in the short term. They have a big backlog of planes to deliver and only one factory that produces wings. They will have to produce those wings in Broughton come hell or high water. This doesn't mean Brexit is OK for Airbus. It's bad, and potentially very bad, for them. If they could, they would certainly move at least some production out of Wales. It's nonsensical to blame them for not getting behind Theresa May. They want the damage mitigated.
Like Alastair, I am a fan of Bercow, who has been willing to be bold and firm with Parliament and government in a way that stands out from many of his predecessors. It's a shame that his calling out of individual MPs who behave like kiddies in the chamber hasn't picked up more traction in the wider world.
That's actually part of his shtick I don't like so much. We always act like the public don't like how mps behave in the chamber but i don't think they care, and they like seeing the chaos and Bercow does too I suspect. He's a grandstander and with his clearly prepared put downs gives the impression of liking that he gets the opportunity to slap people down in theatrical fashion.
Yeah I could do without the theatrics. I agree with Alastair that he should go, and I worry that by staying on, he risks damaging the office.
The most astonishing story, they employed a “safety driver” who was a felon on minimum wage and with minimal training, to watch over a self driving car that had a bunch of critical safety systems disabled that the driver didn’t know about, and the driver was watching TV on her phone rather than watching the road.
Can't answer your question but having looked at the video (not for the feint-hearted) I am not sure that the driver would have been able to save saved the pedestrian, even if her eyes had been on the road.
Human eyes are a *lot* better than cameras in low light situations, and there’s a lot of evidence online that the camera view from the accident car that’s been made available is considerably darkened, compared to what people can actually see at the junction in question.
At the factory gates, David Lawless, 34, was just clocking off the morning shift as a Beluga aircraft took off, heading for the company’s headquarters in Toulouse, France.
He said the news came as a shock and there had been a mixed reaction from his colleagues. “A lot of people are brushing it off and saying it won’t happen, it’s just talk, but the reality is companies are folding before Brexit has even happened. I don’t know what is going to happen here,” said Lawless. “We just need to try and stick together and hope that the government will fight for us.”
Lawless voted leave in the EU referendum but said he did not regret his decision.“I was in two minds. I wanted to leave but obviously a lot of people were asking questions before about if we were to leave, how it would affect us,” he said.
“People were saying it would never affect us here because it’s too big a company. I’m still happy I voted for it but I thought we had more of a hold and a footing here in Broughton.”
Business doesn’t have the right to issue threats. It’s entirely reasonable to tell them where to go
Yep a good environment for us all.
Better than an environment where the rich and powerful (be they companies, unions or individuals) can attempt to override the government
A touch over dramatic.
Companies have a duty to their shareholders and are legitimately lobbying for what they believe is in their shareholders' best interest.
Yes and I wonder which state is a major shareholder of Airbus. As I said yesterday this is the French government trying to get wing production back to France or some kind of subsidy or investment guarantees from the British government. If you look at it through the shareholder lens then there is only one conclusion.
Business doesn’t have the right to issue threats. It’s entirely reasonable to tell them where to go
We have free speech in this country.
Businesses do have the right to issue threats. It's entirely reasonable to tell them where to go.
The fact that many of these businesses have cried wolf many times before doesn't help their credibility. So far we've had we'll leave if you leave the ERM/don't join the Euro/rule out joining the Euro/leave the EU ... now its don't get the deal we want.
Business doesn’t have the right to issue threats. It’s entirely reasonable to tell them where to go
Yep a good environment for us all.
Better than an environment where the rich and powerful (be they companies, unions or individuals) can attempt to override the government
A touch over dramatic.
Companies have a duty to their shareholders and are legitimately lobbying for what they believe is in their shareholders' best interest.
Yes and I wonder which state is a major shareholder of Airbus. As I said yesterday this is the French government trying to get wing production back to France or some kind of subsidy or investment guarantees from the British government. If you look at it through the shareholder lens then there is only one conclusion.
Maybe so. But then we shouldn't act as though we have a God given right to make Airbus behave as we want them to.
If cartoonist Morten Morland knew his planes, he would have drawn a Beluga that carries the wings.....
It's a not-bad cartoon of a A350.
I was distinctly underwhelmed by my first outing on a 350 - I was expecting great things having just endured a 787 - but would find it difficult to tell the difference. The 380 is still easily the best plane in the sky.....
Perhaps if you issued a list of people you believe have the right to issue threats, we would know what to think. Unfortunately people speak without asking your permission first.
At the factory gates, David Lawless, 34, was just clocking off the morning shift as a Beluga aircraft took off, heading for the company’s headquarters in Toulouse, France.
He said the news came as a shock and there had been a mixed reaction from his colleagues. “A lot of people are brushing it off and saying it won’t happen, it’s just talk, but the reality is companies are folding before Brexit has even happened. I don’t know what is going to happen here,” said Lawless. “We just need to try and stick together and hope that the government will fight for us.”
Lawless voted leave in the EU referendum but said he did not regret his decision.“I was in two minds. I wanted to leave but obviously a lot of people were asking questions before about if we were to leave, how it would affect us,” he said.
“People were saying it would never affect us here because it’s too big a company. I’m still happy I voted for it but I thought we had more of a hold and a footing here in Broughton.”
So if you polled this guy you'd get no change. He would still vote leave. But I can't imagine his motivation to turn out and vote is unaffected.
At the factory gates, David Lawless, 34, was just clocking off the morning shift as a Beluga aircraft took off, heading for the company’s headquarters in Toulouse, France.
He said the news came as a shock and there had been a mixed reaction from his colleagues. “A lot of people are brushing it off and saying it won’t happen, it’s just talk, but the reality is companies are folding before Brexit has even happened. I don’t know what is going to happen here,” said Lawless. “We just need to try and stick together and hope that the government will fight for us.”
Lawless voted leave in the EU referendum but said he did not regret his decision.“I was in two minds. I wanted to leave but obviously a lot of people were asking questions before about if we were to leave, how it would affect us,” he said.
“People were saying it would never affect us here because it’s too big a company. I’m still happy I voted for it but I thought we had more of a hold and a footing here in Broughton.”
"In the 21st century, it takes a continent to build a plane"
Business doesn’t have the right to issue threats. It’s entirely reasonable to tell them where to go
Yep a good environment for us all.
Better than an environment where the rich and powerful (be they companies, unions or individuals) can attempt to override the government
A touch over dramatic.
Companies have a duty to their shareholders and are legitimately lobbying for what they believe is in their shareholders' best interest.
Yes and I wonder which state is a major shareholder of Airbus. As I said yesterday this is the French government trying to get wing production back to France or some kind of subsidy or investment guarantees from the British government. If you look at it through the shareholder lens then there is only one conclusion.
Maybe so. But then we shouldn't act as though we have a God given right to make Airbus behave as we want them to.
There is a very simple solution to the Airbus problem. If the EU do not agree a perfectly sensible reciprocal standards and certification system to cover aviation that allows parts to pass freely between the UK and the EU, then we should simply declare that Airbus models no longer meet UK standards and impound every Airbus at a UK airport on 1 April 2019. Suspect the standards agreement won't take long to negotiate after that.....
Business doesn’t have the right to issue threats. It’s entirely reasonable to tell them where to go
Yep a good environment for us all.
Better than an environment where the rich and powerful (be they companies, unions or individuals) can attempt to override the government
A touch over dramatic.
Companies have a duty to their shareholders and are legitimately lobbying for what they believe is in their shareholders' best interest.
Yes and I wonder which state is a major shareholder of Airbus. As I said yesterday this is the French government trying to get wing production back to France or some kind of subsidy or investment guarantees from the British government. If you look at it through the shareholder lens then there is only one conclusion.
I can't resist a narrative hook. What is the "one conclusion" of which you speak?
Important as Airbus and BMW stories are, I think the big thing was the "Where's Jeremy Corbyn" chants on the march yesterday. It only needs one of the main parties to come round to rejoining and to win an election on that policy and we are back in. There were obviously plenty of activists on the streets yesterday who will have worked that out.
It also explains why ultra-Remainers have such difficulty winning over mainstream Conservatives. Whenever they hear "where's Jeremy Corbyn?" chanted on such a march it smears the pro-EU cause with socialism, and other leftist causes, leading them to steer well clear.
The way I heard it, Mr Royale, was that those chants were criticising Corbyn not praising him. Even more significant, because the idea was so clearly expressed, was the attack on Corbyn by Tony Robinson. I don`t think the pro-EU cause was "smeared by socialism" at all.
Then they should lobby. Ask for the positive things they need and the benefits it will bring to society. Not threaten.
Government - No deal is better than a bad deal and we're not bluffing Business - We need a deal or we're leaving
Who is the one making a threat here?
Neither. The businesses' 'threats' would seem to me to be merely a form of lobbying and thus legitimate, even if it is believed to be over the top or just a poor tactical move to do it in that manner. The government is bluffing that they are not bluffing, which is a necessary part of negotiation.
There is a very simple solution to the Airbus problem. If the EU do not agree a perfectly sensible reciprocal standards and certification system to cover aviation that allows parts to pass freely between the UK and the EU, then we should simply declare that Airbus models no longer meet UK standards and impound every Airbus at a UK airport on 1 April 2019. Suspect the standards agreement won't take long to negotiate after that.....
That doesn't sound "very simple" or seem to be a "solution".
Perhaps if you issued a list of people you believe have the right to issue threats, we would know what to think. Unfortunately people speak without asking your permission first.
Business threats against Labour = legitimate concerns, against the Tories = scaremongering/project Fear.
There is a very simple solution to the Airbus problem. If the EU do not agree a perfectly sensible reciprocal standards and certification system to cover aviation that allows parts to pass freely between the UK and the EU, then we should simply declare that Airbus models no longer meet UK standards and impound every Airbus at a UK airport on 1 April 2019. Suspect the standards agreement won't take long to negotiate after that.....
Marvellous! We could also guarantee free trade deals with both China *and* the USA by declaring that iPhones made in China don't meet UK standards. They'd come running in no time.
Important as Airbus and BMW stories are, I think the big thing was the "Where's Jeremy Corbyn" chants on the march yesterday. It only needs one of the main parties to come round to rejoining and to win an election on that policy and we are back in. There were obviously plenty of activists on the streets yesterday who will have worked that out.
It also explains why ultra-Remainers have such difficulty winning over mainstream Conservatives. Whenever they hear "where's Jeremy Corbyn?" chanted on such a march it smears the pro-EU cause with socialism, and other leftist causes, leading them to steer well clear.
The way I heard it, Mr Royale, was that those chants were criticising Corbyn not praising him.
I thought that was Mr Royale's point - that they wanted Corbyn to be there, and were criticising that he wasn't. Ergo, they must have been mostly left wing, which makes getting the remainer side of Tories on board difficult?
Business doesn’t have the right to issue threats. It’s entirely reasonable to tell them where to go
Yep a good environment for us all.
Better than an environment where the rich and powerful (be they companies, unions or individuals) can attempt to override the government
A touch over dramatic.
Companies have a duty to their shareholders and are legitimately lobbying for what they believe is in their shareholders' best interest.
Yes and I wonder which state is a major shareholder of Airbus. As I said yesterday this is the French government trying to get wing production back to France or some kind of subsidy or investment guarantees from the British government. If you look at it through the shareholder lens then there is only one conclusion.
Maybe so. But then we shouldn't act as though we have a God given right to make Airbus behave as we want them to.
There is a very simple solution to the Airbus problem. If the EU do not agree a perfectly sensible reciprocal standards and certification system to cover aviation that allows parts to pass freely between the UK and the EU, then we should simply declare that Airbus models no longer meet UK standards and impound every Airbus at a UK airport on 1 April 2019. Suspect the standards agreement won't take long to negotiate after that.....
The amazing thing is that your description is the current EU proposal in the event of no deal.
Business doesn’t have the right to issue threats. It’s entirely reasonable to tell them where to go
Yep a good environment for us all.
Better than an environment where the rich and powerful (be they companies, unions or individuals) can attempt to override the government
A touch over dramatic.
Companies have a duty to their shareholders and are legitimately lobbying for what they believe is in their shareholders' best interest.
So EADS is completely independent of, and not influenced by, the French and German governments? Together with Spain I think they still own 30%.
Even so, there is a a difference between lobbying and threatening
A matter of perspective. Surely threatening is just aggressive lobbying? It might not be the best approach, but I don't see why they cannot do it if they want.
He says this might be sellable to Tory Brexiters if Mrs May could persuade the EU to let Britain restrict free movement of people — a big factor in the 2016 referendum — in exchange for accepting a less favourable deal for the lucrative services sector. While Mr Hammond insists Britain could secure a trade deal covering financial services, the Bank of England believes the City could flourish outside the EU’s regulatory orbit.
Mr Barnier has also said that splitting up the single market and the “four freedoms” — free movement of goods, services, capital and labour — is unacceptable.
If cartoonist Morten Morland knew his planes, he would have drawn a Beluga that carries the wings.....
It's a not-bad cartoon of a A350.
I was distinctly underwhelmed by my first outing on a 350 - I was expecting great things having just endured a 787 - but would find it difficult to tell the difference. The 380 is still easily the best plane in the sky.....
My brother-in-law flies it often and tells me so. I am well jell...
That's not going to happen in the Conservative Party for the foreseeable future and it will never happen under lifelong Eurosceptic Corbyn either. If Corbyn goes then maybe.
The stupid old fucker is 70. 2022 (assuming May's Ship of Fools stays off the rocks that long) will be his last GE, win or lose.
Perhaps if you issued a list of people you believe have the right to issue threats, we would know what to think. Unfortunately people speak without asking your permission first.
No individual or organisation can threaten the elected government
Important as Airbus and BMW stories are, I think the big thing was the "Where's Jeremy Corbyn" chants on the march yesterday. It only needs one of the main parties to come round to rejoining and to win an election on that policy and we are back in. There were obviously plenty of activists on the streets yesterday who will have worked that out.
It also explains why ultra-Remainers have such difficulty winning over mainstream Conservatives. Whenever they hear "where's Jeremy Corbyn?" chanted on such a march it smears the pro-EU cause with socialism, and other leftist causes, leading them to steer well clear.
The way I heard it, Mr Royale, was that those chants were criticising Corbyn not praising him. Even more significant, because the idea was so clearly expressed, was the attack on Corbyn by Tony Robinson. I don`t think the pro-EU cause was "smeared by socialism" at all.
There is a very simple solution to the Airbus problem. If the EU do not agree a perfectly sensible reciprocal standards and certification system to cover aviation that allows parts to pass freely between the UK and the EU, then we should simply declare that Airbus models no longer meet UK standards and impound every Airbus at a UK airport on 1 April 2019. Suspect the standards agreement won't take long to negotiate after that.....
Marvellous! We could also guarantee free trade deals with both China *and* the USA by declaring that iPhones made in China don't meet UK standards. They'd come running in no time.
I didn’t hear you criticise your beloved EU when they made the threat to stop British planes flying
Mr. Recidivist, given precedent, a referendum would have to be held first (unless a party won over 50% of the vote in an election, which seems unlikely).
Mr. Ace, maybe. That's fairly old, but he doesn't seem in ill health or doddery.
F1: still no more markets. It's rather odd.
No referendum is necessary. We joined without a referendum first time. And there has already been an election, 1983, where a party included leaving the EU as part of its programme without any mention of a referendum. Also I can't be the only person who has come to the conclusion that holding any referendum on anything is a bad idea. I think you might find referendums are off the agenda for a generation.
They might well be and legally are not required but politically it might be difficult to rejoin without one. As we all know not everyone who votes for a party agrees with all its proposals, even big ones, and even other rejoining parties might barely get over 50%.
It could be done, but it'd be very bold. I feel like the manifesto woukd need to be clear rejoining would be done without a referendum.
Mr. Recidivist, given precedent, a referendum would have to be held first (unless a party won over 50% of the vote in an election, which seems unlikely).
Mr. Ace, maybe. That's fairly old, but he doesn't seem in ill health or doddery.
F1: still no more markets. It's rather odd.
No referendum is necessary. We joined without a referendum first time. And there has already been an election, 1983, where a party included leaving the EU as part of its programme without any mention of a referendum. Also I can't be the only person who has come to the conclusion that holding any referendum on anything is a bad idea. I think you might find referendums are off the agenda for a generation.
They might well be and legally are not required but politically it might be difficult to rejoin without one. As we all know not everyone who votes for a party agrees with all its proposals, even big ones, and even other rejoining parties might barely get over 50%.
It could be done, but it'd be very bold. I feel like the manifesto woukd need to be clear rejoining would be done without a referendum.
At the time of Labour's 1983 Manifesto commitment to leave the EEC, we already had the precedents of the 1975 Referendum and the 1979 Devolution Referendums held in Scotland & Wales.
Perhaps if you issued a list of people you believe have the right to issue threats, we would know what to think. Unfortunately people speak without asking your permission first.
No individual or organisation can threaten the elected government
That depends on what constitutes a threat in your eyes. Is 'If you carry out policy X you will be sorry' a threat? Is 'I will move my business/not vote for you if you carry out policy Y' a threat? Is 'I know you have a popular mandate for policy X, but it is a big mistake and you need to change tack' a threat?
Mr. Recidivist, given precedent, a referendum would have to be held first (unless a party won over 50% of the vote in an election, which seems unlikely).
Mr. Ace, maybe. That's fairly old, but he doesn't seem in ill health or doddery.
F1: still no more markets. It's rather odd.
No referendum is necessary. We joined without a referendum first time. And there has already been an election, 1983, where a party included leaving the EU as part of its programme without any mention of a referendum. Also I can't be the only person who has come to the conclusion that holding any referendum on anything is a bad idea. I think you might find referendums are off the agenda for a generation.
They might well be and legally are not required but politically it might be difficult to rejoin without one. As we all know not everyone who votes for a party agrees with all its proposals, even big ones, and even other rejoining parties might barely get over 50%.
It could be done, but it'd be very bold. I feel like the manifesto woukd need to be clear rejoining would be done without a referendum.
Mr. Recidivist, given precedent, a referendum would have to be held first (unless a party won over 50% of the vote in an election, which seems unlikely).
Mr. Ace, maybe. That's fairly old, but he doesn't seem in ill health or doddery.
F1: still no more markets. It's rather odd.
No referendum is necessary. We joined without a referendum first time. And there has already been an election, 1983, where a party included leaving the EU as part of its programme without any mention of a referendum. Also I can't be the only person who has come to the conclusion that holding any referendum on anything is a bad idea. I think you might find referendums are off the agenda for a generation.
They might well be and legally are not required but politically it might be difficult to rejoin without one. As we all know not everyone who votes for a party agrees with all its proposals, even big ones, and even other rejoining parties might barely get over 50%.
It could be done, but it'd be very bold. I feel like the manifesto woukd need to be clear rejoining would be done without a referendum.
At the time of Labour's 1983 Manifesto commitment to leave the EEC, we already had the precedents of the 1975 Referendum and the 1979 Devolution Referendums held in Scotland & Wales.
I know you love precedents, but they are simply not binding and surely that's the point of them when new precedents are established over time. I don't see this precedent being ignored, however.
Business doesn’t have the right to issue threats. It’s entirely reasonable to tell them where to go
Yep a good environment for us all.
Better than an environment where the rich and powerful (be they companies, unions or individuals) can attempt to override the government
A touch over dramatic.
Companies have a duty to their shareholders and are legitimately lobbying for what they believe is in their shareholders' best interest.
Yes and I wonder which state is a major shareholder of Airbus. As I said yesterday this is the French government trying to get wing production back to France or some kind of subsidy or investment guarantees from the British government. If you look at it through the shareholder lens then there is only one conclusion.
Maybe so. But then we shouldn't act as though we have a God given right to make Airbus behave as we want them to.
I didn't say otherwise, in fact I said yesterday that Airbus UK would be stupid not to use their French ownership as leverage to get subsidies out of the UK. It makes sense from their point of view, even if it makes no friends for them among the political classes.
Mr Barnier has also said that splitting up the single market and the “four freedoms” — free movement of goods, services, capital and labour — is unacceptable.
In fairness to Mr Barnier, the EU have been pretty unequivocal on this point from the start IIRC. If we wrangled a deal which even looked like they had bent on that point I'd think he'd become persona non grata pretty quick, so surely a no goer?
Perhaps if you issued a list of people you believe have the right to issue threats, we would know what to think. Unfortunately people speak without asking your permission first.
No individual or organisation can threaten the elected government
That depends on what constitutes a threat in your eyes. Is 'If you carry out policy X you will be sorry' a threat? Is 'I will move my business/not vote for you if you carry out policy Y' a threat? Is 'I know you have a popular mandate for policy X, but it is a big mistake and you need to change tack' a threat?
Perhaps if you issued a list of people you believe have the right to issue threats, we would know what to think. Unfortunately people speak without asking your permission first.
No individual or organisation can threaten the elected government
One man's threat is another man's warning.
We are leaving the EU. If we leave without a deal or with a Canada-style FTA, it is not a threat to say that it will put current pan-EU, just-in-time supply lines in peril and make it less cost-effective to base manufacturing facilities reliant on them in the UK. It is a statement of fact.
Perhaps if you issued a list of people you believe have the right to issue threats, we would know what to think. Unfortunately people speak without asking your permission first.
No individual or organisation can threaten the elected government
You've been living in America too long, I think. In Britain individuals and organisations threaten the government about once every five seconds.
If cartoonist Morten Morland knew his planes, he would have drawn a Beluga that carries the wings.....
It's a not-bad cartoon of a A350.
I was distinctly underwhelmed by my first outing on a 350 - I was expecting great things having just endured a 787 - but would find it difficult to tell the difference. The 380 is still easily the best plane in the sky.....
My brother-in-law flies it often and tells me so. I am well jell...
If you have a choice between similarly priced itineraries - take the one with the 380 - easily the best plane in the sky - especially in the cheap seats!
Perhaps if you issued a list of people you believe have the right to issue threats, we would know what to think. Unfortunately people speak without asking your permission first.
No individual or organisation can threaten the elected government
That depends on what constitutes a threat in your eyes. Is 'If you carry out policy X you will be sorry' a threat? Is 'I will move my business/not vote for you if you carry out policy Y' a threat? Is 'I know you have a popular mandate for policy X, but it is a big mistake and you need to change tack' a threat?
It’s doing it in public that’s inappropriate
Attempting to galvanize public pressure in addition to the comments they've no doubt made in private already? Doesn't seem that unreasonable to me, particularly if their comments have been falling on deaf ears.
Business doesn’t have the right to issue threats. It’s entirely reasonable to tell them where to go
Yep a good environment for us all.
Better than an environment where the rich and powerful (be they companies, unions or individuals) can attempt to override the government
A touch over dramatic.
Companies have a duty to their shareholders and are legitimately lobbying for what they believe is in their shareholders' best interest.
Yes and I wonder which state is a major shareholder of Airbus. As I said yesterday this is the French government trying to get wing production back to France or some kind of subsidy or investment guarantees from the British government. If you look at it through the shareholder lens then there is only one conclusion.
Maybe so. But then we shouldn't act as though we have a God given right to make Airbus behave as we want them to.
There is a very simple solution to the Airbus problem. If the EU do not agree a perfectly sensible reciprocal standards and certification system to cover aviation that allows parts to pass freely between the UK and the EU, then we should simply declare that Airbus models no longer meet UK standards and impound every Airbus at a UK airport on 1 April 2019. Suspect the standards agreement won't take long to negotiate after that.....
Perhaps if you issued a list of people you believe have the right to issue threats, we would know what to think. Unfortunately people speak without asking your permission first.
No individual or organisation can threaten the elected government
Perhaps if you issued a list of people you believe have the right to issue threats, we would know what to think. Unfortunately people speak without asking your permission first.
No individual or organisation can threaten the elected government
That depends on what constitutes a threat in your eyes. Is 'If you carry out policy X you will be sorry' a threat? Is 'I will move my business/not vote for you if you carry out policy Y' a threat? Is 'I know you have a popular mandate for policy X, but it is a big mistake and you need to change tack' a threat?
Mr Barnier has also said that splitting up the single market and the “four freedoms” — free movement of goods, services, capital and labour — is unacceptable.
In fairness to Mr Barnier, the EU have been pretty unequivocal on this point from the start IIRC. If we wrangled a deal which even looked like they had bent on that point I'd think he'd become persona non grata pretty quick, so surely a no goer?
Quite. Which, given the continuing importance of uncontrolled immigration (see yesterday’s Delta Poll) means the government should have been preparing for a WTO BREXIT from the start.
The British public has few red lines. Uncontrolled Immigration is one of them
Perhaps if you issued a list of people you believe have the right to issue threats, we would know what to think. Unfortunately people speak without asking your permission first.
No individual or organisation can threaten the elected government
That depends on what constitutes a threat in your eyes. Is 'If you carry out policy X you will be sorry' a threat? Is 'I will move my business/not vote for you if you carry out policy Y' a threat? Is 'I know you have a popular mandate for policy X, but it is a big mistake and you need to change tack' a threat?
It’s doing it in public that’s inappropriate
Crush the dissidents!
Sounds like exhausting work, frankly, I think I'll pass.
If cartoonist Morten Morland knew his planes, he would have drawn a Beluga that carries the wings.....
It's a not-bad cartoon of a A350.
I was distinctly underwhelmed by my first outing on a 350 - I was expecting great things having just endured a 787 - but would find it difficult to tell the difference. The 380 is still easily the best plane in the sky.....
My brother-in-law flies it often and tells me so. I am well jell...
If you have a choice between similarly priced itineraries - take the one with the 380 - easily the best plane in the sky - especially in the cheap seats!
But of course EU trucks would roam freely over British roads!
You think?
Speaking to BI this week, Hookham said the UK would also be compelled to reduce the number of permits to European lorries entering the country, resulting in a serious disruption to the flow of goods which Britain depends upon for food and the bulk of its trade.
Perhaps if you issued a list of people you believe have the right to issue threats, we would know what to think. Unfortunately people speak without asking your permission first.
No individual or organisation can threaten the elected government
That depends on what constitutes a threat in your eyes. Is 'If you carry out policy X you will be sorry' a threat? Is 'I will move my business/not vote for you if you carry out policy Y' a threat? Is 'I know you have a popular mandate for policy X, but it is a big mistake and you need to change tack' a threat?
It’s doing it in public that’s inappropriate
Crush the dissidents!
Sounds like exhausting work, frankly, I think I'll pass.
Comments
The politics both in this country and on the continent would guarantee a referendum is required.
It has been said so many times before but "Is it now really the end days for Theresa?" Give me £20billion or I'll bring you down: Defence Secretary’s astonishing threat to Theresa May http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5878221/Give-20billion-Ill-bring-Defence-Secretarys-astonishing-threat-PM.html
Michael Gove. Just the mention of his name on comedy shows elicits guffaws and groans.
He's become a figure of hate among teachers, parents and children, and a figure of fun among voters as a whole.
Yet talk to people in and around Westminster and a completely different man emerges. Whether they agree or disagree with his policies, they are united in their judgement: Gove has been the most effective minister of recent years.
Most ministers, when they finally reach office, are surprised to find that when they pull on the levers of power very little happens. Gove seems to have learned how to fix the cogs and pulleys so that a tug at one end produces a tangible result at the other.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44565750
I'd say May will go before Bercow. It actually may be harder to shift a Speaker and Bercow seems determined to see Brexit through, and any potential successors can hardly be seen to be agitating too hard to get rid of him, while there are a half dozen Cabinet Ministers who make very little secret they will take May down as soon as they think they can.
Presumably too young to vote in the Brexit referendum, and faced with two main parties which compete in incompetence and mendacity, their political attitudes are not entirely surprising.
You might be right about 7.
My wallet is shouting, 'Run Hunt, Run...'
(Interesting to note that Bercow and Jezza have become a regular comedic targets, too.)
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/06/france-pre-race-2018.html
Still no idea about the weather though, could be anything from bone dry to a thunderstorm!
This kind of speculation is the product of an engaged, political wonk-inclined betting man, such as Alistair. And thank god for him.
But in the real (politik) world, as we saw with Grieve's gang last week, such mooted dramatic events rarely transpire.
If it's dry, we may have three tedious races in a row.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FKiDUmESDE
https://order-order.com/2018/06/23/soubrys-constituency-association-chairman-canvassing-support/
Anyway, I must be off.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1010809141235994624
Two? Or one.
ttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WnYrM9AqUjc
Companies have a duty to their shareholders and are legitimately lobbying for what they believe is in their shareholders' best interest.
Then they should lobby. Ask for the positive things they need and the benefits it will bring to society. Not threaten.
Don’t yours?
At the factory gates, David Lawless, 34, was just clocking off the morning shift as a Beluga aircraft took off, heading for the company’s headquarters in Toulouse, France.
He said the news came as a shock and there had been a mixed reaction from his colleagues. “A lot of people are brushing it off and saying it won’t happen, it’s just talk, but the reality is companies are folding before Brexit has even happened. I don’t know what is going to happen here,” said Lawless. “We just need to try and stick together and hope that the government will fight for us.”
Lawless voted leave in the EU referendum but said he did not regret his decision.“I was in two minds. I wanted to leave but obviously a lot of people were asking questions before about if we were to leave, how it would affect us,” he said.
“People were saying it would never affect us here because it’s too big a company. I’m still happy I voted for it but I thought we had more of a hold and a footing here in Broughton.”
Businesses do have the right to issue threats. It's entirely reasonable to tell them where to go.
The fact that many of these businesses have cried wolf many times before doesn't help their credibility. So far we've had we'll leave if you leave the ERM/don't join the Euro/rule out joining the Euro/leave the EU ... now its don't get the deal we want.
The tank is emptying drip by drip.
"In the 21st century, it takes a continent to build a plane"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/24/tide-turning-brexit-will-of-people-boris-johnson
Business - We need a deal or we're leaving
Who is the one making a threat here?
Even so, there is a a difference between lobbying and threatening
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/legislation/brexit-notice-to-stakeholders-aviation-safety.pdf
Discussion on pilot forum:
https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/607757-ec-notice-brexit-issued-licenses-certificates-invalid.html
And I know this government has gone through a lot of Cabinet ministers, but can we please save another reshuffle until May is ousted in 4-9 months?
Edit: And really, is it even worth listening to anonymous 'top Tories'?
Though this remark is a bit twattish
said to have told military chiefs: “I can make her and I can break her.”
Mr Barnier has also said that splitting up the single market and the “four freedoms” — free movement of goods, services, capital and labour — is unacceptable.
And who will take over at ten to nine this evening?
We are leaving the EU. If we leave without a deal or with a Canada-style FTA, it is not a threat to say that it will put current pan-EU, just-in-time supply lines in peril and make it less cost-effective to base manufacturing facilities reliant on them in the UK. It is a statement of fact.
But time to enjoy some sun.
Switzerland pair Granit Xhaka and Xherdan Shaqiri face two-match bans for their goal celebrations in their side's World Cup victory over Serbia.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44592846
The British public has few red lines. Uncontrolled Immigration is one of them
And Ireland’s “Land Bridge” would shut down overnight.....
You think?