Years ago, I was betting on Strictly. It was early days for me so the bets were small. The last three (semi-final stage) were Lisa Snowdon, Rachel Stevens and Tom Chambers. I was very green on Snowdon, green on Stevens and red on Chambers.
Bit uncomfortable because Snowdon was the weakest dancer so I thought she was done for.
Then the scores came in from the judges and it was destined (because Snowdon and Stevens tied ahead of Chambers) that Chambers would be in the dance-off regardless of how the public voted, then would lose as his dance that night was clearly the weakest.
Huzzah, I thought.
And then the BBC decided to throw the rulebook out of the window and allowed all three to the final anyway. Impressed I was not. Chambers, BBC golden boy that he was, won.
And then Chambers show dance was by far the best of the three in the final. Absolute scenes.
The tied points for Snowdon and Stevens was actually completely academic - it just made the situation blatantly obvious. 3rd place on the judges vote would have ended up in the dance off regardless - either all 3 dancers would be in a 3 way tie after judge and audience vote (1st,2nd,3rd with the judges ending up 3rd,2nd,1st with the audience) or Tom and 2nd Place in judges vote would end up in the dance off, there was no way for Tom to beat both of them as the best he could get was 4 points and 4 points was guaranteed to be in the dance off.
What had actually screwed up the format was John Sergeant dropping out.
British cave diver considering legal action after 'pedo' attack by Elon Musk Vernon Unsworth ‘astonished and very angry’ after billionaire Tesla owner called him a ‘pedo’ in a baseless attack
Basically, some Remainers want a second referendum because they are bad losers. the same way some Leavers would want a second referendum if they had lost. Why pander to them?
The silly excuse that we need a second referendum because Parliament can't decide is irrelevant. They passed that responsibility on to the electorate and they decided. All Parliament have to do is to implement that decision. As Victor Bogdanor (the 'expert') said … the electorate have sovereignty.
Yes, Parliament didn't like the answer, but they passed the bill authorising it, and it was in the Government's manifesto.
Parliament has done its job, Article 50 was passed, and we are leaving.
British investigators believe the March 4 attack on the former spy, Sergei V. Skripal, and his daughter, Yulia, was most probably carried out by current or former agents of the service, known as the G.R.U., who were sent to his home in southern England, according to one British official, one American official and one former American official familiar with the inquiry, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence.
British officials are now closing in on identifying the individuals they believe carried out the operation, said the former American official. At the same time, investigators have not ruled out the possibility that another Russian intelligence agency, or a privatized spinoff, could be responsible.
The second referendum is not to seek answers just to negate the result of the first one which was flawed. The question should simply read. 'In the light of events should we set aside the results of the Referendum until we can think of a sensible question'
Time to abandon this Brexit nonsense once and for all. Even the Brexiteers can't remember why they voted for it.
I just heard Justine Greening asking for the referendum to be re-run but it soon became obvious that our experience has shown that there is no one word answer to any question that could be asked.
It's like setting the Sat Nav without putting in a destination. I think we owe Greening a vote of thanks for inadvertently showing us in the clearest possible terms that before you can seek an answer you have to be asked a meaningful question and there isn't one.
I FULLY support a second referendum.
The trouble is I am 99% confident that LEAVE will win it by an even bigger margin.
Remainers are noisier but Leavers are bigger in number.
What happens if that happens?
I think if you have a team of respected people heading the Remain campaign, and a team of Top Tories heading the Leave campaign (plus Farage, of course), the Remain campaign would win handsomely. Most people would vote against the Tory Toffs and Farage, wouldn`t they?
Josh Jones, 25, broke his left leg in two places and suffered a dislocated knee and facial injuries when he plunged 100ft in Kakadu National Park in Northern Territory.
Josh Jones, 25, broke his left leg in two places and suffered a dislocated knee and facial injuries when he plunged 100ft in Kakadu National Park in Northern Territory.
I’ve suffered worse injuries playing rugby or Christmas shopping in New York.
Incidentally, if anyone else is not flush but getting Game of Thrones DVDs, Amazon has the seventh series for just £8 or so. Bit odd, but there we are.
Time to abandon this Brexit nonsense once and for all. Even the Brexiteers can't remember why they voted for it.
I just heard Justine Greening asking for the referendum to be re-run but it soon became obvious that our experience has shown that there is no one word answer to any question that could be asked.
It's like setting the Sat Nav without putting in a destination. I think we owe Greening a vote of thanks for inadvertently showing us in the clearest possible terms that before you can seek an answer you have to be asked a meaningful question and there isn't one.
I FULLY support a second referendum.
The trouble is I am 99% confident that LEAVE will win it by an even bigger margin.
Remainers are noisier but Leavers are bigger in number.
What happens if that happens?
I think if you have a team of respected people heading the Remain campaign, and a team of Top Tories heading the Leave campaign (plus Farage, of course), the Remain campaign would win handsomely. Most people would vote against the Tory Toffs and Farage, wouldn`t they?
Being the penny-pinching sort, I try to always get free postage so often buy presents in small bundles or try to find stuff I'd probably buy anyway. Was a nice surprise.
All I need to do now is start making some money... on that note, there wasn't anything save the winner's market up on Ladbrokes for Hockenheim. Weather forecast seems likely to be dry.
Mr. Xenon, the supposition of the probable future will guide whether or not we get another referendum, I suspect.
If May or Remain types think her wretched proposal will fail they'll go for a second vote. After all, the alternative to possible 'hard Brexit' would be the certainty, so they have nothing to lose at that point.
What I don't understand is, since we're careening head first towards a full on constitutional crisis, why wait? Let's have the crisis today.
No, no, no... Not today, not yet. We must leave the Conservative Party a little bit longer to tear itself into pieces and then they can stew in their own juice.
We need to start wargaming the different outcomes.
May is dictated a BRINO fudge by Brussels, that leaves the UK a vassal state of EU rule takers. She presents it to Parliament. She doesn't have the votes. What next?
May refuses to budge any further, the EU runs down the clock. May tells Parliament we're going to crash out in March. What next?
The Brexiteers manage to amend May's bill which makes it impossible to negotiate with the EU in good faith, EU walks away. What next?
May falls victim to a putsch. What next?
It seems like EVERY POSSIBLE ROUTE leads to a massive constitutional crisis.
Mr. Xenon, the supposition of the probable future will guide whether or not we get another referendum, I suspect.
If May or Remain types think her wretched proposal will fail they'll go for a second vote. After all, the alternative to possible 'hard Brexit' would be the certainty, so they have nothing to lose at that point.
The only way of getting the best deal is by being prepared to walk away. We'd be more likely to avoid no deal if they at least plan for it.
They seem to be trying to remain by the back door whilst pretending otherwise.
Basically, some Remainers want a second referendum because they are bad losers.
No. It's not a game.
Most Remainers I know want Leave to be overturned not because they have some sort of 7-year old fixation on being on the winning side, but because they believe it will do colossal economic harm to the country, including themselves.
If Theresa May went Full Herod and embarked on a programme of killing the firstborn, I wouldn't oppose it because I was a "bad loser", I'd oppose it because I don't want my kid to be killed.
Those idiots in government need to start taking that possibility seriously now.
The government has clearly been trying to avoid no deal. Now, more preparation should have been done on the possibility of no deal, but it is not inherently unreasonable that they have been focused on gaining a deal.
But I don't really see how a deal is reached. Some Tories don't want one. Those that might don't seem to much like this proposed deal. Labour won't want a deal they didn't organise. Some remainers don't want a deal either.
With so many not wanting a deal, nevermind that the EU isn't about to take it either, it is not going to happen.
A shame, since I'm actually with the government on this one.
What I don't understand is, since we're careening head first towards a full on constitutional crisis, why wait? Let's have the crisis today.
Indeed. The header yesterday mentioned waiting until conference season, but why? We're heading for either a referendum (on something, but that;s another complication) or no deal. May is the only one trying for a deal, hopeless though it may well be, she doesn't have enough support to make it happen. In which case why is the confrontation that would occur when that doesn't happen being delayed. The suggestion was it was so more MPs would get behind ousting May as the poll numbers plummet, but that's a lame excuse.
The big problem May had this year was equivocating, putting off a fight. Now the harder leavers are doing the same thing, albeit more for tactical reasons. We know they want no deal, we know May doesn't have the support for her deal, so just bloody well get on with it already, and have the crisis now.
Mr. Xenon, the supposition of the probable future will guide whether or not we get another referendum, I suspect.
If May or Remain types think her wretched proposal will fail they'll go for a second vote. After all, the alternative to possible 'hard Brexit' would be the certainty, so they have nothing to lose at that point.
The only way of getting the best deal is by being prepared to walk away. We'd be more likely to avoid no deal if they at least plan for it.
They seem to be trying to remain by the back door whilst pretending otherwise.
We're not prepared to walk away. Never have been, never will be. The EU27 has had our number since day one.
Meaning no deal. There's no time to start from scratch. This pretense that were it not for May there would have been a great negotiation is simply a farce at this point - if it has been so wrong, from the very beginning as some indicate it, it makes the failure to act until after the Chequers deal even stupider.
The government hasn't done enough preparation for no deal and its too late to try something else, when there was a very easy way to ensure preparation for no deal -act before now.
Mr. Xenon, the supposition of the probable future will guide whether or not we get another referendum, I suspect.
If May or Remain types think her wretched proposal will fail they'll go for a second vote. After all, the alternative to possible 'hard Brexit' would be the certainty, so they have nothing to lose at that point.
The only way of getting the best deal is by being prepared to walk away. We'd be more likely to avoid no deal if they at least plan for it.
They seem to be trying to remain by the back door whilst pretending otherwise.
We're not prepared to walk away. Never have been, never will be. The EU27 has had our number since day one.
Except plenty of Tories are prepared to walk away, in fact that is all they are willing to do. Some remainers are prepared to as well, particularly those suggesting a referendum which has no deal as an option, since they are playing a high risk game.
The EU have not had our number on that in fact- they think because it is likely to be very bad that the UK won't walk away. And May clearly won't. But it won't be up to May, and it seems pretty clear that the Tories do not have the support or willpower to pay the political price for making a deal, whether that deal is good or bad. If the EU think it is impossible we will walk away they are just plain wrong - it could happen, and right now is the most likely outcome.
Mr. Xenon, the supposition of the probable future will guide whether or not we get another referendum, I suspect.
If May or Remain types think her wretched proposal will fail they'll go for a second vote. After all, the alternative to possible 'hard Brexit' would be the certainty, so they have nothing to lose at that point.
The only way of getting the best deal is by being prepared to walk away. We'd be more likely to avoid no deal if they at least plan for it.
They seem to be trying to remain by the back door whilst pretending otherwise.
We're not prepared to walk away. Never have been, never will be. The EU27 has had our number since day one.
Except plenty of Tories are prepared to walk away, in fact that is all they are willing to do. Some remainers are prepared to as well, particularly those suggesting a referendum which has no deal as an option, since they are playing a high risk game.
The EU have not had our number on that in fact- they think because it is likely to be very bad that the UK won't walk away. And May clearly won't. But it won't be up to May, and it seems pretty clear that the Tories do not have the support or willpower to pay the political price for making a deal, whether that deal is good or bad. If the EU think it is impossible we will walk away they are just plain wrong - it could happen, and right now is the most likely outcome.
The EU27 don't want the UK to plummet over the cliff edge. And they're prepared to throw us a lifeline, but you can bet your life than the concessions the EU will extract for that lifeline will be BRUTAL.
And it's clear they will certainly allow us to plummet to our doom if it means protecting the integrity of the four freedoms from cake.
Basically, some Remainers want a second referendum because they are bad losers.
No. It's not a game.
Most Remainers I know want Leave to be overturned not because they have some sort of 7-year old fixation on being on the winning side, but because they believe it will do colossal economic harm to the country, including themselves..
That part isn't a game. But backing or facilitating a no deal because it is likely to have even more severe consequences and so make rejoining more likely, or forestall it all together, very much is a game. It's a bet that this time the public will back down, or that somehow in the chaos of government collapse remain occurs before the severe economic consequences.
It's not the same game being played as those only concerned with Tory party fortunes based on polls 1 year into a government, but it is a game.
Mr. Xenon, the supposition of the probable future will guide whether or not we get another referendum, I suspect.
If May or Remain types think her wretched proposal will fail they'll go for a second vote. After all, the alternative to possible 'hard Brexit' would be the certainty, so they have nothing to lose at that point.
The only way of getting the best deal is by being prepared to walk away. We'd be more likely to avoid no deal if they at least plan for it.
They seem to be trying to remain by the back door whilst pretending otherwise.
We're not prepared to walk away. Never have been, never will be. The EU27 has had our number since day one.
Except plenty of Tories are prepared to walk away, in fact that is all they are willing to do. Some remainers are prepared to as well, particularly those suggesting a referendum which has no deal as an option, since they are playing a high risk game.
The EU have not had our number on that in fact- they think because it is likely to be very bad that the UK won't walk away. And May clearly won't. But it won't be up to May, and it seems pretty clear that the Tories do not have the support or willpower to pay the political price for making a deal, whether that deal is good or bad. If the EU think it is impossible we will walk away they are just plain wrong - it could happen, and right now is the most likely outcome.
Whether people wish No Deal or not is almost beside the point. If No Deal can be agreed, No Deal is what will happen.
EU net migration has hit a four-year low as more European citizens leave the UK and fewer arrive in the wake of the vote for Brexit, new statistics show.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said estimated net long-term migration to the UK from the EU was 101,000 in 2017, which is the lowest level since the year ending March 2013.
EU net migration has continued to add to the UK population, with around 101,000 more EU citizens coming to the UK than leaving, the figures show.
Mr. Xenon, the supposition of the probable future will guide whether or not we get another referendum, I suspect.
If May or Remain types think her wretched proposal will fail they'll go for a second vote. After all, the alternative to possible 'hard Brexit' would be the certainty, so they have nothing to lose at that point.
The only way of getting the best deal is by being prepared to walk away. We'd be more likely to avoid no deal if they at least plan for it.
They seem to be trying to remain by the back door whilst pretending otherwise.
We're not prepared to walk away. Never have been, never will be. The EU27 has had our number since day one.
Except plenty of Tories are prepared to walk away, in fact that is all they are willing to do. Some remainers are prepared to as well, particularly those suggesting a referendum which has no deal as an option, since they are playing a high risk game.
The EU have not had our number on that in fact- they think because it is likely to be very bad that the UK won't walk away. And May clearly won't. But it won't be up to May, and it seems pretty clear that the Tories do not have the support or willpower to pay the political price for making a deal, whether that deal is good or bad. If the EU think it is impossible we will walk away they are just plain wrong - it could happen, and right now is the most likely outcome.
The EU27 don't want the UK to plummet over the cliff edge. And they're prepared to throw us a lifeline, but you can bet your life than the concessions the EU will extract for that lifeline will be BRUTAL.
And it's clear they will certainly allow us to plummet to our doom if it means protecting the integrity of the four freedoms from cake.
Yes, but my point was that you said we are not prepared to walk away an the EU know that, but that is incorrect, since the side who want to walk away are winning right now, the EU would be wrong to think we won't. An alliance of hard leavers and the more game playing remainers, for different reasons, want to plummet over the cliff, or at risk us plummeting over the cliff. And if you prance about next to a cliff edge you can fall off whether you mean to or not.
EU net migration has hit a four-year low as more European citizens leave the UK and fewer arrive in the wake of the vote for Brexit, new statistics show.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said estimated net long-term migration to the UK from the EU was 101,000 in 2017, which is the lowest level since the year ending March 2013.
EU net migration has continued to add to the UK population, with around 101,000 more EU citizens coming to the UK than leaving, the figures show.
Mr. Xenon, the supposition of the probable future will guide whether or not we get another referendum, I suspect.
If May or Remain types think her wretched proposal will fail they'll go for a second vote. After all, the alternative to possible 'hard Brexit' would be the certainty, so they have nothing to lose at that point.
The only way of getting the best deal is by being prepared to walk away. We'd be more likely to avoid no deal if they at least plan for it.
They seem to be trying to remain by the back door whilst pretending otherwise.
We're not prepared to walk away. Never have been, never will be. The EU27 has had our number since day one.
Except plenty of Tories are prepared to walk away, in fact that is all they are willing to do. Some remainers are prepared to as well, particularly those suggesting a referendum which has no deal as an option, since they are playing a high risk game.
The EU have not had our number on that in fact- they think because it is likely to be very bad that the UK won't walk away. And May clearly won't. But it won't be up to May, and it seems pretty clear that the Tories do not have the support or willpower to pay the political price for making a deal, whether that deal is good or bad. If the EU think it is impossible we will walk away they are just plain wrong - it could happen, and right now is the most likely outcome.
Whether people wish No Deal or not is almost beside the point. If No Deal can be agreed, No Deal is what will happen.
That's why it is most likely. Enough people want no deal to make any deal impossible, so it happens by default.
Basically, some Remainers want a second referendum because they are bad losers.
No. It's not a game.
Most Remainers I know want Leave to be overturned not because they have some sort of 7-year old fixation on being on the winning side, but because they believe it will do colossal economic harm to the country, including themselves..
That part isn't a game. But backing or facilitating a no deal because it is likely to have even more severe consequences and so make rejoining more likely, or forestall it all together, very much is a game. It's a bet that this time the public will back down, or that somehow in the chaos of government collapse remain occurs before the severe economic consequences.
It's not the same game being played as those only concerned with Tory party fortunes based on polls 1 year into a government, but it is a game.
In its way, it's like the game the Lib Dems played over the Lisbon Treaty Referendum. They wanted a Referendum on EU membership, not the Treaty, because they were confident the public would back EU membership.
We need to start wargaming the different outcomes.
May is dictated a BRINO fudge by Brussels, that leaves the UK a vassal state of EU rule takers. She presents it to Parliament. She doesn't have the votes. What next?
May refuses to budge any further, the EU runs down the clock. May tells Parliament we're going to crash out in March. What next?
The Brexiteers manage to amend May's bill which makes it impossible to negotiate with the EU in good faith, EU walks away. What next?
May falls victim to a putsch. What next?
It seems like EVERY POSSIBLE ROUTE leads to a massive constitutional crisis.
This is what happens when Parliament votes for a referendum that proposes a constitutional change they are opposed to because said Parliament is full of MPs too afraid of losing their seats to argue for what they believe in.
Not going to happen. Not when even plenty of remainers don't want BINO (either because the want full on remain or they believe that BINO is not proper Brexit).
We had best hope the predictions for no deal are even more wrong that the predictions about the initial brexit vote consequences. My gut says the chances are 70% no deal, 25% remain and 5% deal.
Those idiots in government need to start taking that possibility seriously now.
The government has clearly been trying to avoid no deal. Now, more preparation should have been done on the possibility of no deal, but it is not inherently unreasonable that they have been focused on gaining a deal.
But I don't really see how a deal is reached. Some Tories don't want one. Those that might don't seem to much like this proposed deal. Labour won't want a deal they didn't organise. Some remainers don't want a deal either.
With so many not wanting a deal, nevermind that the EU isn't about to take it either, it is not going to happen.
A shame, since I'm actually with the government on this one.
What I don't understand is, since we're careening head first towards a full on constitutional crisis, why wait? Let's have the crisis today.
Indeed. The header yesterday mentioned waiting until conference season, but why? We're heading for either a referendum (on something, but that;s another complication) or no deal. May is the only one trying for a deal, hopeless though it may well be, she doesn't have enough support to make it happen. In which case why is the confrontation that would occur when that doesn't happen being delayed. The suggestion was it was so more MPs would get behind ousting May as the poll numbers plummet, but that's a lame excuse.
The big problem May had this year was equivocating, putting off a fight. Now the harder leavers are doing the same thing, albeit more for tactical reasons. We know they want no deal, we know May doesn't have the support for her deal, so just bloody well get on with it already, and have the crisis now.
Be reasonable. The schools are out and people have holidays booked.
Meaning no deal. There's no time to start from scratch. This pretense that were it not for May there would have been a great negotiation is simply a farce at this point - if it has been so wrong, from the very beginning as some indicate it, it makes the failure to act until after the Chequers deal even stupider.
The government hasn't done enough preparation for no deal and its too late to try something else, when there was a very easy way to ensure preparation for no deal -act before now.
There's still months. You lock people in a room for weeks on end and tell them to thrash out a workable deal. Or the planes stop flying, the hospitals don't get drugs, etc etc - across the EU.
I had six weeks of that, doing a deal with Enron. If you thought the EU are difficult to negotiate against....
We need to start wargaming the different outcomes.
May is dictated a BRINO fudge by Brussels, that leaves the UK a vassal state of EU rule takers. She presents it to Parliament. She doesn't have the votes. What next?
May refuses to budge any further, the EU runs down the clock. May tells Parliament we're going to crash out in March. What next?
The Brexiteers manage to amend May's bill which makes it impossible to negotiate with the EU in good faith, EU walks away. What next?
May falls victim to a putsch. What next?
It seems like EVERY POSSIBLE ROUTE leads to a massive constitutional crisis.
Well, it's why I'm inclined to support May's route - it buys more time for the arguments on further divergence etc to happen. Sure, the crisis just continues, but the new reality will be parties arguing for maintaining the new status quo, seeking to restore the old order, or break away increasingly further as we move forward. It prevents a full scale breakdown and doesn't prevent any options we might have; after all, if May's deal goes through somehow, Corbyn won't feel committed to it should he come to power, so any May successor can keep it alive as an issue to.
But it at least avoids a haphazard exit which those who want no deal have allowed to occur as much as anyone else, since they refused to stop May even though I don't believe for a second after 2017 that they could not get the votes to do so.
Not going to happen. Not when even plenty of remainers don't want BINO (either because the want full on remain or they believe that BINO is not proper Brexit).
We had best hope the predictions for no deal are even more wrong that the predictions about the initial brexit vote consequences. My gut says the chances are 70% no deal, 25% remain and 5% deal.
If it’s 70% no deal I trust you are squirrelling away the tinned goods and rat traps.
We need to start wargaming the different outcomes.
May is dictated a BRINO fudge by Brussels, that leaves the UK a vassal state of EU rule takers. She presents it to Parliament. She doesn't have the votes. What next?
May refuses to budge any further, the EU runs down the clock. May tells Parliament we're going to crash out in March. What next?
The Brexiteers manage to amend May's bill which makes it impossible to negotiate with the EU in good faith, EU walks away. What next?
May falls victim to a putsch. What next?
It seems like EVERY POSSIBLE ROUTE leads to a massive constitutional crisis.
This is what happens when Parliament votes for a referendum that proposes a constitutional change they are opposed to because said Parliament is full of MPs too afraid of losing their seats to argue for what they believe in.
Go out in a blaze of glory - if Parliament (or the EU) rejects "Chequers" then Mrs May should call the whole thing off, restore the status quo and request a withdrawal of A50.
Meaning no deal. There's no time to start from scratch. This pretense that were it not for May there would have been a great negotiation is simply a farce at this point - if it has been so wrong, from the very beginning as some indicate it, it makes the failure to act until after the Chequers deal even stupider.
The government hasn't done enough preparation for no deal and its too late to try something else, when there was a very easy way to ensure preparation for no deal -act before now.
There's still months. You lock people in a room for weeks on end and tell them to thrash out a workable deal. Or the planes stop flying, the hospitals don't get drugs, etc etc - across the EU.
I had six weeks of that, doing a deal with Enron. If you thought the EU are difficult to negotiate against....
Except that the reason May took this long to decide what to do was because parliament is hopelessly divided on this issue. There won't be months to agree anything, because a new leader will take some amount of time, and any new leader will have to content with the same hopelessly divided parliament. Why will the party suddenly come together over a no deal plan when they haven't under the May plan? Sure no deal is more popular than her proposed deal, but there won't be unity.
So there's even less time than you think. It's a symptom of, again, people acting like May is the only problem here when there is a reason why May has gone down the route she has. Even if the route she has gone down is wrong, there was a reason she did it, and those reasons impact what anyone else could do as well.
No, if the May plan is dead, and it appears to be, it's time to no deal or remain, and to stop pretending other options are plausible.
Is there really insufficient numbers in the HoC for the Chequers shit sandwich? Surely the vast majority of MPs will vote for it out of sheer fear of what might come to pass otherwise?
Not going to happen. Not when even plenty of remainers don't want BINO (either because the want full on remain or they believe that BINO is not proper Brexit).
We had best hope the predictions for no deal are even more wrong that the predictions about the initial brexit vote consequences. My gut says the chances are 70% no deal, 25% remain and 5% deal.
If it’s 70% no deal I trust you are squirrelling away the tinned goods and rat traps.
I don't know how bad a no deal truly would be. But I don't see many political routes to avoid a no deal scenario, and those that exist are not as likely as the clock running out.
We need to start wargaming the different outcomes.
May is dictated a BRINO fudge by Brussels, that leaves the UK a vassal state of EU rule takers. She presents it to Parliament. She doesn't have the votes. What next?
May refuses to budge any further, the EU runs down the clock. May tells Parliament we're going to crash out in March. What next?
The Brexiteers manage to amend May's bill which makes it impossible to negotiate with the EU in good faith, EU walks away. What next?
May falls victim to a putsch. What next?
It seems like EVERY POSSIBLE ROUTE leads to a massive constitutional crisis.
This is what happens when Parliament votes for a referendum that proposes a constitutional change they are opposed to because said Parliament is full of MPs too afraid of losing their seats to argue for what they believe in.
Go out in a blaze of glory - if Parliament (or the EU) rejects "Chequers" then Mrs May should call the whole thing off, restore the status quo and request a withdrawal of A50.
Executive decision. No need for referenda.
Can she do that? An Act of Parliament was required to authorise the government to activate A50, did it give the government the right to withdraw it too? That seems unlikely given the A50 case had both sides, Miller and the government, agree that A50 was irrevocable. Now, that may or may not be correct when push comes to shove, but given both sides said it was, surely the Act did not bother to say the government had such power, particularly as the chance of withdrawing it is not something the gov would have wanted contemplated as a possibility.
We need to start wargaming the different outcomes.
May is dictated a BRINO fudge by Brussels, that leaves the UK a vassal state of EU rule takers. She presents it to Parliament. She doesn't have the votes. What next?
May refuses to budge any further, the EU runs down the clock. May tells Parliament we're going to crash out in March. What next?
The Brexiteers manage to amend May's bill which makes it impossible to negotiate with the EU in good faith, EU walks away. What next?
May falls victim to a putsch. What next?
It seems like EVERY POSSIBLE ROUTE leads to a massive constitutional crisis.
This is what happens when Parliament votes for a referendum that proposes a constitutional change they are opposed to because said Parliament is full of MPs too afraid of losing their seats to argue for what they believe in.
Go out in a blaze of glory - if Parliament (or the EU) rejects "Chequers" then Mrs May should call the whole thing off, restore the status quo and request a withdrawal of A50.
Executive decision. No need for referenda.
It would have the merit of honesty. The public can then decide whether to elect MPs who would act differently.
Yes - I think the talk about constitutional crisis and impasse underestimate the ability of all concerned - May, the Cabinet, Labour, the EU, the Remainer rebels, the ERG - to fudge.
1. I don't expect the Government to lose any votes this week. 2. Parliament will then vanish for months (the European Parliament already has). 3. May and the EU will haggle away and produce an EEA in all but name with a non-binding agreement to discuss further how Britain will evolve to being more separate in due course. 4. A few more people will resign. Lots of people will make indignant speeches. 5. It will get through. Next March, we'll formally leave, with little practical change. 6. Talks on possible further steps will continue indefinitely. If and when there's a Tory leadership context, candidates will wax lyrical on how they'll handle the continuing talks, but that won't actually lead to anything very remarkable.
The public will divide into Indignant Leavers (20%), Revengeful Remainers (20%), and "Oh well let's move on as best we can" (60%).
A bit cynical, but IMO much more likely than a fully-fledged crisis. A multiple referendum is I think a possibility, but not the most likely outcome.
Is there really insufficient numbers in the HoC for the Chequers shit sandwich? Surely the vast majority of MPs will vote for it out of sheer fear of what might come to pass otherwise?
Well we need to know:
How will the opposition be whipped to vote How will the opposition actually vote Will the amendments be incorporated How many of the ERG will rebel How many (If any) Tory remainers will rebel Will the DUP amendment be incorporated - I'd say that'd guarantee them onboard.
Incorporating all the amendments solves the HoC maths issue but then gives May a problem when negotiating with europe.
So does she adopt all the amendments then give them all back when she meets Barnier and co ? I'd suggest that's her most likely course of action
Is there really insufficient numbers in the HoC for the Chequers shit sandwich? Surely the vast majority of MPs will vote for it out of sheer fear of what might come to pass otherwise?
1) They don't all fear it 2) Even if they fear it, they may not have the political will to do anything about it
Labour aren't going to back it. They know that if the government collapses they will benefit, whether they deserve it or not. Some might rebel I suppose.
The Tories will get plenty to back it I am sure. But equally there seem to be dozens, mostly leavers and some remainers, who will not. There are not enough others to see it through.
It's a game. Labour are betting they will benefit from the government chaos, no deal leavers are betting that lack of decision leads to their preferred option by default, hardcore remainers are hoping that in all this fear a referendum to allow remain comes out of it, and all are either hoping for no deal, or accepting it as a risk to get the thing they actually want (Lab government or remain for example).
We need to start wargaming the different outcomes.
May is dictated a BRINO fudge by Brussels, that leaves the UK a vassal state of EU rule takers. She presents it to Parliament. She doesn't have the votes. What next?
May refuses to budge any further, the EU runs down the clock. May tells Parliament we're going to crash out in March. What next?
The Brexiteers manage to amend May's bill which makes it impossible to negotiate with the EU in good faith, EU walks away. What next?
May falls victim to a putsch. What next?
It seems like EVERY POSSIBLE ROUTE leads to a massive constitutional crisis.
This is what happens when Parliament votes for a referendum that proposes a constitutional change they are opposed to because said Parliament is full of MPs too afraid of losing their seats to argue for what they believe in.
Go out in a blaze of glory - if Parliament (or the EU) rejects "Chequers" then Mrs May should call the whole thing off, restore the status quo and request a withdrawal of A50.
Executive decision. No need for referenda.
It would have the merit of honesty. The public can then decide whether to elect MPs who would act differently.
Indeed. Few people liked Maggie, but even her enemies respected her.
Showing some spine might do Mrs May no harm at all.
Mr. Xenon, the supposition of the probable future will guide whether or not we get another referendum, I suspect.
If May or Remain types think her wretched proposal will fail they'll go for a second vote. After all, the alternative to possible 'hard Brexit' would be the certainty, so they have nothing to lose at that point.
The only way of getting the best deal is by being prepared to walk away. We'd be more likely to avoid no deal if they at least plan for it.
They seem to be trying to remain by the back door whilst pretending otherwise.
We're not prepared to walk away. Never have been, never will be. The EU27 has had our number since day one.
Except plenty of Tories are prepared to walk away, in fact that is all they are willing to do. Some remainers are prepared to as well, particularly those suggesting a referendum which has no deal as an option, since they are playing a high risk game.
The EU have not had our number on that in fact- they think because it is likely to be very bad that the UK won't walk away. And May clearly won't. But it won't be up to May, and it seems pretty clear that the Tories do not have the support or willpower to pay the political price for making a deal, whether that deal is good or bad. If the EU think it is impossible we will walk away they are just plain wrong - it could happen, and right now is the most likely outcome.
Whether people wish No Deal or not is almost beside the point. If No Deal can be agreed, No Deal is what will happen.
That's why it is most likely. Enough people want no deal to make any deal impossible, so it happens by default.
I disagree (or perhaps more accurately, I agree with your prediction but not you reasoning).
It's not that there are enough people who want No Deal that is the problem. It's a serious problem but not an insurmountable one. The core of the problem is that there is no majority for any particular deal, once you move from the abstract to the specific - and without agreement for This Deal (and This Deal being the only one on the table), then the default becomes No Deal.
The other factor in play is similar to the (first?) referendum: that support for the deal will be much weaker than opposition to it. There'll be few who will be motivated to go out and spend hours campaigning for a compromise negotiation. By contrast there'll be plenty on both extremes (but particularly the UKIP one), who'll be highly energised against it.
Is there really insufficient numbers in the HoC for the Chequers shit sandwich? Surely the vast majority of MPs will vote for it out of sheer fear of what might come to pass otherwise?
1) They don't all fear it 2) Even if they fear it, they may not have the political will to do anything about it
Labour aren't going to back it. They know that if the government collapses they will benefit, whether they deserve it or not. Some might rebel I suppose.
The Tories will get plenty to back it I am sure. But equally there seem to be dozens, mostly leavers and some remainers, who will not. There are not enough others to see it through.
It's a game. Labour are betting they will benefit from the government chaos, no deal leavers are betting that lack of decision leads to their preferred option by default, hardcore remainers are hoping that in all this fear a referendum to allow remain comes out of it, and all are either hoping for no deal, or accepting it as a risk to get the thing they actually want (Lab government or remain for example).
As I have said for months, there is no Soft Brexit option that the EU will accept (May is about to find out this week) and there is no HoC majority for Soft Brexit (which people are now figuring out).
There would be a HoC majority for CETA. Tory remainers would not vote it down if the alternative is no deal (and it is in line with their manifesto), the DUP and Lab Leavers will support it.
May listened far too much to the siren voices that, just like the Remainers on PB, said that she had to go for Soft Brexit because it was all she could get through the Commons.
It was an error of judgement and now she will have to be replaced with someone who can do the CETA deal, or we get no deal.
Yes - I think the talk about constitutional crisis and impasse underestimate the ability of all concerned - May, the Cabinet, Labour, the EU, the Remainer rebels, the ERG - to fudge.
No, I don't think it does. May cannot fudge any further, she's on the brink already. The Cabinet are irrelevant, since they are presently backing May and everyone who isn't is out. Labour, sure, will fudge, but surely are not going to back May's deal when they will insist they could come up with a better one. The EU has red lines as well, and in any case the May proposal is pre fudged, she has no wiggle room to accept more fudge from them so their doing so is irrelevant. The remainer rebels, some of them at any rate, want a second referendum, they are now saying the deal is no good, and since the proposed deal cannot be substantively changed or fudged as May has no support for that, their position won't alter either. The ERG, or most of it, want no deal it seems. What changes could possibly induce them not to rebel and be seen as culpable in any deal?
I think we all know government and the EU are adept at a fudge, but I fear you are being overly optimistic about how much fudge people can take - the very reason we voted to leave the EU was because the people got too sick of the fudges, rightly or wrongly.
The ram has touched the wall for too many people, they are not turning back. We know this because after a year and more of pretending agreement was possible, the Cabinet finally split on this issue. If May, who has been fudging things between her factions for this long, finally had to make a call and they either backed her or got out, then it is time for everyone else to make a call too. And they have.
Go out in a blaze of glory - if Parliament (or the EU) rejects "Chequers" then Mrs May should call the whole thing off, restore the status quo and request a withdrawal of A50.
Executive decision. No need for referenda.
Can she do that? An Act of Parliament was required to authorise the government to activate A50, did it give the government the right to withdraw it too? That seems unlikely given the A50 case had both sides, Miller and the government, agree that A50 was irrevocable. Now, that may or may not be correct when push comes to shove, but given both sides said it was, surely the Act did not bother to say the government had such power, particularly as the chance of withdrawing it is not something the gov would have wanted contemplated as a possibility.
There seems to be a number of opinions as to whether A50 is revocable or not. In any case, triggering it makes a (potentially) major change to the UK's constitutional position, cancelling it merely maintains the existing arrangements so I do not see why that needs approval. Remember that the referendum was advisory, not binding so it, in itself, has no legality. It was nothing more than an oversized Opinion Poll which came out (near enough) as 1/3 Leave, 1/3 Remain and 1/3 Err... I dunno....
I disagree (or perhaps more accurately, I agree with your prediction but not you reasoning).
It's not that there are enough people who want No Deal that is the problem. It's a serious problem but not an insurmountable one. The core of the problem is that there is no majority for any particular deal, once you move from the abstract to the specific - and without agreement for This Deal (and This Deal being the only one on the table), then the default becomes No Deal.
The other factor in play is similar to the (first?) referendum: that support for the deal will be much weaker than opposition to it. There'll be few who will be motivated to go out and spend hours campaigning for a compromise negotiation. By contrast there'll be plenty on both extremes (but particularly the UKIP one), who'll be highly energised against it.
I don't think we are actually disagreeing on that, just having a different focus. There is no majority for any particular deal, because there are enough (even if not a majority) for no deal, if you follow.
Yes - I think the talk about constitutional crisis and impasse underestimate the ability of all concerned - May, the Cabinet, Labour, the EU, the Remainer rebels, the ERG - to fudge.
1. I don't expect the Government to lose any votes this week. 2. Parliament will then vanish for months (the European Parliament already has). 3. May and the EU will haggle away and produce an EEA in all but name with a non-binding agreement to discuss further how Britain will evolve to being more separate in due course. 4. A few more people will resign. Lots of people will make indignant speeches. 5. It will get through. Next March, we'll formally leave, with little practical change. 6. Talks on possible further steps will continue indefinitely. If and when there's a Tory leadership context, candidates will wax lyrical on how they'll handle the continuing talks, but that won't actually lead to anything very remarkable.
The public will divide into Indignant Leavers (20%), Revengeful Remainers (20%), and "Oh well let's move on as best we can" (60%).
A bit cynical, but IMO much more likely than a fully-fledged crisis. A multiple referendum is I think a possibility, but not the most likely outcome.
I think that's probably right, although there is undoubtedly a non-negligible danger of a crisis.
I also think that the final deal, if it is based on the PM's proposal, will be broadly accepted. For all the indignation of 'Brexit in name only' etc etc, it's actually a hell of a lot more than that - no right to FoM, no CAP, no CFP, very limited jurisdiction of the ECJ, no participation in 'ever closer union', and so on. Sure, we'll follow EU rules on goods, but that was obvious from way back before the referendum, and who cares?
It's a bosh-up, of course, with a rather cumbersome Customs arrangement, and the City will be damaged, but both of those are manageable problems (I'm reasonably confident that the City will find some replacement ways of making money).
The big questions are whether the EU will play ball, and whether the UK parliament will cut off its nose to spite its face.
Put voters back to their job of electing politicians.
The referendum was treated by a significant number of voters as a bit of protest thing to knock the govt and Cameron. I recall the interviews and petitions in the end of June 2016 calling for it to be stopped because people voted Leave as a protest against the govt. because they were certain Remain would win. The BBC even broadcast some of them admitting to doing it deliberately and then being shocked at the outcome.
Go out in a blaze of glory - if Parliament (or the EU) rejects "Chequers" then Mrs May should call the whole thing off, restore the status quo and request a withdrawal of A50.
Executive decision. No need for referenda.
Can she do that? An Act of Parliament was required to authorise the government to activate A50, did it give the government the right to withdraw it too? That seems unlikely given the A50 case had both sides, Miller and the government, agree that A50 was irrevocable. Now, that may or may not be correct when push comes to shove, but given both sides said it was, surely the Act did not bother to say the government had such power, particularly as the chance of withdrawing it is not something the gov would have wanted contemplated as a possibility.
There seems to be a number of opinions as to whether A50 is revocable or not. In any case, triggering it makes a (potentially) major change to the UK's constitutional position, cancelling it merely maintains the existing arrangements so I do not see why that needs approval. Remember that the referendum was advisory, not binding so it, in itself, has no legality. It was nothing more than an oversized Opinion Poll which came out (near enough) as 1/3 Leave, 1/3 Remain and 1/3 Err... I dunno....
It may have been advisory at the time but it's a long long way past that with the various court cases and parliamentary bills. Cancelling it is not an option now.
We need to start wargaming the different outcomes.
May is dictated a BRINO fudge by Brussels, that leaves the UK a vassal state of EU rule takers. She presents it to Parliament. She doesn't have the votes. What next?
May refuses to budge any further, the EU runs down the clock. May tells Parliament we're going to crash out in March. What next?
The Brexiteers manage to amend May's bill which makes it impossible to negotiate with the EU in good faith, EU walks away. What next?
May falls victim to a putsch. What next?
It seems like EVERY POSSIBLE ROUTE leads to a massive constitutional crisis.
This is what happens when Parliament votes for a referendum that proposes a constitutional change they are opposed to because said Parliament is full of MPs too afraid of losing their seats to argue for what they believe in.
Go out in a blaze of glory - if Parliament (or the EU) rejects "Chequers" then Mrs May should call the whole thing off, restore the status quo and request a withdrawal of A50.
Executive decision. No need for referenda.
It would have the merit of honesty. The public can then decide whether to elect MPs who would act differently.
Indeed. Few people liked Maggie, but even her enemies respected her.
Showing some spine might do Mrs May no harm at all.
Too late for that. The image of her as weak and vacillating is set, you don't get to remake your image this far down, new actions just adjust the set image. More to the point, whether she shows spine or not she is in post at best because no one else wanted to take on the job right now (or they don't really believe what they are spouting about her plans being so bad), and showing some spine won't help. Spine is not her problem right now. The problem is she has no legs to support her, if the metaphor makes sense. She can try to stand tall, but she'll just fall over.
Go out in a blaze of glory - if Parliament (or the EU) rejects "Chequers" then Mrs May should call the whole thing off, restore the status quo and request a withdrawal of A50.
Executive decision. No need for referenda.
Can she do that? An Act of Parliament was required to authorise the government to activate A50, did it give the government the right to withdraw it too? That seems unlikely given the A50 case had both sides, Miller and the government, agree that A50 was irrevocable. Now, that may or may not be correct when push comes to shove, but given both sides said it was, surely the Act did not bother to say the government had such power, particularly as the chance of withdrawing it is not something the gov would have wanted contemplated as a possibility.
There seems to be a number of opinions as to whether A50 is revocable or not. In any case, triggering it makes a (potentially) major change to the UK's constitutional position, cancelling it merely maintains the existing arrangements so I do not see why that needs approval. Remember that the referendum was advisory, not binding so it, in itself, has no legality. It was nothing more than an oversized Opinion Poll which came out (near enough) as 1/3 Leave, 1/3 Remain and 1/3 Err... I dunno....
It may have been advisory at the time but it's a long long way past that with the various court cases and parliamentary bills. Cancelling it is not an option now.
Until it actually happens, cancellation is always an option
I remember the days when Leavers assured us all that ‘No Deal’ was just Project Fear.
If the Leavers had been allowed to run the show, we would have CETA Plus agreed by now.
The hard fact, which you don't have the courage to accept, is that it is people like you that will cause No Deal. You were so busy trying to undermine the referendum result that you pushed the Government into this mess trying to appease you all, and now you suddenly realise that the Remainer Soft Brexit idea was just a delusion, while the Leaver Hard Brexit CETA deal was always the only outcome that would honour the referendum and get through Parliament.
And the fun bit is that it is now so obvious that May was a Remainer all along that when this all goes pear shaped, the blame will fall on Remainers for creating this fiasco. Good luck with that second referendum.....
Go out in a blaze of glory - if Parliament (or the EU) rejects "Chequers" then Mrs May should call the whole thing off, restore the status quo and request a withdrawal of A50.
Executive decision. No need for referenda.
Can she do that? An Act of Parliament was required to authorise the government to activate A50, did it give the government the right to withdraw it too? That seems unlikely given the A50 case had both sides, Miller and the government, agree that A50 was irrevocable. Now, that may or may not be correct when push comes to shove, but given both sides said it was, surely the Act did not bother to say the government had such power, particularly as the chance of withdrawing it is not something the gov would have wanted contemplated as a possibility.
There seems to be a number of opinions as to whether A50 is revocable or not. In any case, triggering it makes a (potentially) major change to the UK's constitutional position, cancelling it merely maintains the existing arrangements so I do not see why that needs approval. Remember that the referendum was advisory, not binding so it, in itself, has no legality. It was nothing more than an oversized Opinion Poll which came out (near enough) as 1/3 Leave, 1/3 Remain and 1/3 Err... I dunno....
I know the referendum was advisory, that was another part of the A50 case, but since that case resolved around the government believing it already had the power to do something, and being told it did not and it had no Act specifically giving it that power, I suspect legal challenges would occur to suggest specific power to withdraw might be necessary depending on what the authorising Act actually said. The point about recovability was not whether it is, in fact, permissable (I tend to agree with the view that the EU would find a way to accept it, if it were so minded), but whether, because the UK did not want to give the impression it would ever revoke even were it possible, the Act was flexible enough to allow it.
Obviously I am not a constitutional law expert, but I suspect there'd be a legal drama before it was attempted.
What on earth does that statement mean? Are people saying they would vote for a charismatic figure without specifying what they want that person to stand for?
Most of the recent posts have debated internal Tory politics. Not UK parliamentary politics. Not the commission. Not the internal politics of 27 other governments. All of them will look at the official UK position and see something that (a) is cake that crosses the lines of preserving inviolate the four freedoms and (b) something the government can't agree on never mind parliament.
The idea that the May plan in any form is going to be implemented is yet more cakeism. Its a plan that the government hasn't agreed intact, that parliament won't agree, that the commission can't agree, and even if the planets align and get all those passed all it takes is one of the 27 to shoot it dead - and France, Spain, Ireland amongst others are lined up line a world cup penalty shootout ready for a kick.
Three options: 1 Revoke Article 50 2 EEA 3 Crash out
There is no reason why these can't be put as a referendum - one option to remain, two options to leave. And its going to have to be a referendum as this government is trapped in office and this parliament is trapped in session, all terrified by threats of angry voters who simultaneously demand option 3 whilst denying the nature of option 3. Politically we can't revoke A50 so that's not an option even at the death faced with falling off the cliff. Which leaves EEA (rejected by both ZombieMay and Jezbollah) and falling off the cliff which is a default not a choice but still gets talked about like we'd be in control.
Get your cupboards stocked boys and girls. The meteor which wipes out the Conservative Party is looming large in the window...
Yes - I think the talk about constitutional crisis and impasse underestimate the ability of all concerned - May, the Cabinet, Labour, the EU, the Remainer rebels, the ERG - to fudge.
1. I don't expect the Government to lose any votes this week. 2. Parliament will then vanish for months (the European Parliament already has). 3. May and the EU will haggle away and produce an EEA in all but name with a non-binding agreement to discuss further how Britain will evolve to being more separate in due course. 4. A few more people will resign. Lots of people will make indignant speeches. 5. It will get through. Next March, we'll formally leave, with little practical change. 6. Talks on possible further steps will continue indefinitely. If and when there's a Tory leadership context, candidates will wax lyrical on how they'll handle the continuing talks, but that won't actually lead to anything very remarkable.
The public will divide into Indignant Leavers (20%), Revengeful Remainers (20%), and "Oh well let's move on as best we can" (60%).
A bit cynical, but IMO much more likely than a fully-fledged crisis. A multiple referendum is I think a possibility, but not the most likely outcome.
I think that's probably right, although there is undoubtedly a non-negligible danger of a crisis.
I also think that the final deal, if it is based on the PM's proposal, will be broadly accepted. For all the indignation of 'Brexit in name only' etc etc, it's actually a hell of a lot more than that - no right to FoM, no CAP, no CFP, very limited jurisdiction of the ECJ, no participation in 'ever closer union', and so on. Sure, we'll follow EU rules on goods, but that was obvious from way back before the referendum, and who cares?
It's a bosh-up, of course, with a rather cumbersome Customs arrangement, and the City will be damaged, but both of those are manageable problems (I'm reasonably confident that the City will find some replacement ways of making money).
The big questions are whether the EU will play ball, and whether the UK parliament will cut off its nose to spite its face.
+1 I've often disagreed with you Richard, but I think you (and Nick) are spot on with this.
For all her faults, May might go down in history as having steered the least worst course through this.
I remember the days when Leavers assured us all that ‘No Deal’ was just Project Fear.
If the Leavers had been allowed to run the show, we would have CETA Plus agreed by now.
The hard fact, which you don't have the courage to accept, is that it is people like you that will cause No Deal. You were so busy trying to undermine the referendum result that you pushed the Government into this mess trying to appease you all, and now you suddenly realise that the Remainer Soft Brexit idea was just a delusion, while the Leaver Hard Brexit CETA deal was always the only outcome that would honour the referendum and get through Parliament.
And the fun bit is that it is now so obvious that May was a Remainer all along that when this all goes pear shaped, the blame will fall on Remainers for creating this fiasco. Good luck with that second referendum.....
Oh, okay, so what Leavers meant to say during the referendum was "No Deal is just project fear... unless of course there are some Remainers in government or the civil service, but there's no way that's going to happen, right guys? Haha", and they just forgot the second part?
Comments
The tied points for Snowdon and Stevens was actually completely academic - it just made the situation blatantly obvious. 3rd place on the judges vote would have ended up in the dance off regardless - either all 3 dancers would be in a 3 way tie after judge and audience vote (1st,2nd,3rd with the judges ending up 3rd,2nd,1st with the audience) or Tom and 2nd Place in judges vote would end up in the dance off, there was no way for Tom to beat both of them as the best he could get was 4 points and 4 points was guaranteed to be in the dance off.
What had actually screwed up the format was John Sergeant dropping out.
The silly excuse that we need a second referendum because Parliament can't decide is irrelevant. They passed that responsibility on to the electorate and they decided. All Parliament have to do is to implement that decision. As Victor Bogdanor (the 'expert') said … the electorate have sovereignty.
Yes, Parliament didn't like the answer, but they passed the bill authorising it, and it was in the Government's manifesto.
Parliament has done its job, Article 50 was passed, and we are leaving.
Labour antisemitism code could breach Equality Act
Legal advice prepared by law lecturer states party has ignored Macpherson principle
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/16/labour-antisemitism-code-could-breach-equality-act
British investigators believe the March 4 attack on the former spy, Sergei V. Skripal, and his daughter, Yulia, was most probably carried out by current or former agents of the service, known as the G.R.U., who were sent to his home in southern England, according to one British official, one American official and one former American official familiar with the inquiry, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence.
British officials are now closing in on identifying the individuals they believe carried out the operation, said the former American official. At the same time, investigators have not ruled out the possibility that another Russian intelligence agency, or a privatized spinoff, could be responsible.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/world/europe/uk-skripal-russia-novichok.html
Weirdly, if the EU just accepted May's wretched proposal it might be trickier.
A second referendum is perhaps not the likeliest outcome, but is certainly credible. Backed it a while ago around 6. Only a tiny sum, mind.
"Yes I know that deep down I’m very shallow."
I joined that club at birth.
As they did last time.
Josh Jones, 25, broke his left leg in two places and suffered a dislocated knee and facial injuries when he plunged 100ft in Kakadu National Park in Northern Territory.
https://twitter.com/cathynewman/status/1018812107289235461
https://twitter.com/Jim_Edwards/status/1018764064363773952
2. Start negotiations from scratch.
Clear as day, between the lines.
Edited extra bit: *criticisms of
"Amazon has the seventh series for just £8 or so. Bit odd, but there we are."
Ta.
Being the penny-pinching sort, I try to always get free postage so often buy presents in small bundles or try to find stuff I'd probably buy anyway. Was a nice surprise.
All I need to do now is start making some money... on that note, there wasn't anything save the winner's market up on Ladbrokes for Hockenheim. Weather forecast seems likely to be dry.
Those idiots in government need to start taking that possibility seriously now.
If May or Remain types think her wretched proposal will fail they'll go for a second vote. After all, the alternative to possible 'hard Brexit' would be the certainty, so they have nothing to lose at that point.
May is dictated a BRINO fudge by Brussels, that leaves the UK a vassal state of EU rule takers. She presents it to Parliament. She doesn't have the votes. What next?
May refuses to budge any further, the EU runs down the clock. May tells Parliament we're going to crash out in March. What next?
The Brexiteers manage to amend May's bill which makes it impossible to negotiate with the EU in good faith, EU walks away. What next?
May falls victim to a putsch. What next?
It seems like EVERY POSSIBLE ROUTE leads to a massive constitutional crisis.
They seem to be trying to remain by the back door whilst pretending otherwise.
Most Remainers I know want Leave to be overturned not because they have some sort of 7-year old fixation on being on the winning side, but because they believe it will do colossal economic harm to the country, including themselves.
If Theresa May went Full Herod and embarked on a programme of killing the firstborn, I wouldn't oppose it because I was a "bad loser", I'd oppose it because I don't want my kid to be killed.
But I don't really see how a deal is reached. Some Tories don't want one. Those that might don't seem to much like this proposed deal. Labour won't want a deal they didn't organise. Some remainers don't want a deal either.
With so many not wanting a deal, nevermind that the EU isn't about to take it either, it is not going to happen.
A shame, since I'm actually with the government on this one. Indeed. The header yesterday mentioned waiting until conference season, but why? We're heading for either a referendum (on something, but that;s another complication) or no deal. May is the only one trying for a deal, hopeless though it may well be, she doesn't have enough support to make it happen. In which case why is the confrontation that would occur when that doesn't happen being delayed. The suggestion was it was so more MPs would get behind ousting May as the poll numbers plummet, but that's a lame excuse.
The big problem May had this year was equivocating, putting off a fight. Now the harder leavers are doing the same thing, albeit more for tactical reasons. We know they want no deal, we know May doesn't have the support for her deal, so just bloody well get on with it already, and have the crisis now.
Herod was a rather heroic figure in his earlier years, according to Josephus' account of the Jewish War.
Anyway, I must be off.
The government hasn't done enough preparation for no deal and its too late to try something else, when there was a very easy way to ensure preparation for no deal -act before now.
The EU have not had our number on that in fact- they think because it is likely to be very bad that the UK won't walk away. And May clearly won't. But it won't be up to May, and it seems pretty clear that the Tories do not have the support or willpower to pay the political price for making a deal, whether that deal is good or bad. If the EU think it is impossible we will walk away they are just plain wrong - it could happen, and right now is the most likely outcome.
1. No-deal Brexit
2. Remain
3. Tezzie's BINO
I guess that's what the Remainers want me to do.
And it's clear they will certainly allow us to plummet to our doom if it means protecting the integrity of the four freedoms from cake.
It's not the same game being played as those only concerned with Tory party fortunes based on polls 1 year into a government, but it is a game.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said estimated net long-term migration to the UK from the EU was 101,000 in 2017, which is the lowest level since the year ending March 2013.
EU net migration has continued to add to the UK population, with around 101,000 more EU citizens coming to the UK than leaving, the figures show.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/eu-migration-uk-levels-brexit-workers-right-stay-home-office-visas-a8449126.html
Be careful what you ask for.
We had best hope the predictions for no deal are even more wrong that the predictions about the initial brexit vote consequences. My gut says the chances are 70% no deal, 25% remain and 5% deal.
https://twitter.com/Andrew_ComRes/status/1018821762279182336
I had six weeks of that, doing a deal with Enron. If you thought the EU are difficult to negotiate against....
But it at least avoids a haphazard exit which those who want no deal have allowed to occur as much as anyone else, since they refused to stop May even though I don't believe for a second after 2017 that they could not get the votes to do so.
It's a brilliant, fascinating book and important reading.
Executive decision. No need for referenda.
So there's even less time than you think. It's a symptom of, again, people acting like May is the only problem here when there is a reason why May has gone down the route she has. Even if the route she has gone down is wrong, there was a reason she did it, and those reasons impact what anyone else could do as well.
No, if the May plan is dead, and it appears to be, it's time to no deal or remain, and to stop pretending other options are plausible.
I remember the days when Leavers assured us all that ‘No Deal’ was just Project Fear.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/11/11/sir-robert-peel-the-ghost-that-haunts-theresa-may/
1. I don't expect the Government to lose any votes this week.
2. Parliament will then vanish for months (the European Parliament already has).
3. May and the EU will haggle away and produce an EEA in all but name with a non-binding agreement to discuss further how Britain will evolve to being more separate in due course.
4. A few more people will resign. Lots of people will make indignant speeches.
5. It will get through. Next March, we'll formally leave, with little practical change.
6. Talks on possible further steps will continue indefinitely. If and when there's a Tory leadership context, candidates will wax lyrical on how they'll handle the continuing talks, but that won't actually lead to anything very remarkable.
The public will divide into Indignant Leavers (20%), Revengeful Remainers (20%), and "Oh well let's move on as best we can" (60%).
A bit cynical, but IMO much more likely than a fully-fledged crisis. A multiple referendum is I think a possibility, but not the most likely outcome.
How will the opposition be whipped to vote
How will the opposition actually vote
Will the amendments be incorporated
How many of the ERG will rebel
How many (If any) Tory remainers will rebel
Will the DUP amendment be incorporated - I'd say that'd guarantee them onboard.
Incorporating all the amendments solves the HoC maths issue but then gives May a problem when negotiating with europe.
So does she adopt all the amendments then give them all back when she meets Barnier and co ?
I'd suggest that's her most likely course of action
2) Even if they fear it, they may not have the political will to do anything about it
Labour aren't going to back it. They know that if the government collapses they will benefit, whether they deserve it or not. Some might rebel I suppose.
The Tories will get plenty to back it I am sure. But equally there seem to be dozens, mostly leavers and some remainers, who will not. There are not enough others to see it through.
It's a game. Labour are betting they will benefit from the government chaos, no deal leavers are betting that lack of decision leads to their preferred option by default, hardcore remainers are hoping that in all this fear a referendum to allow remain comes out of it, and all are either hoping for no deal, or accepting it as a risk to get the thing they actually want (Lab government or remain for example).
Showing some spine might do Mrs May no harm at all.
It's not that there are enough people who want No Deal that is the problem. It's a serious problem but not an insurmountable one. The core of the problem is that there is no majority for any particular deal, once you move from the abstract to the specific - and without agreement for This Deal (and This Deal being the only one on the table), then the default becomes No Deal.
The other factor in play is similar to the (first?) referendum: that support for the deal will be much weaker than opposition to it. There'll be few who will be motivated to go out and spend hours campaigning for a compromise negotiation. By contrast there'll be plenty on both extremes (but particularly the UKIP one), who'll be highly energised against it.
There would be a HoC majority for CETA. Tory remainers would not vote it down if the alternative is no deal (and it is in line with their manifesto), the DUP and Lab Leavers will support it.
May listened far too much to the siren voices that, just like the Remainers on PB, said that she had to go for Soft Brexit because it was all she could get through the Commons.
It was an error of judgement and now she will have to be replaced with someone who can do the CETA deal, or we get no deal.
I think we all know government and the EU are adept at a fudge, but I fear you are being overly optimistic about how much fudge people can take - the very reason we voted to leave the EU was because the people got too sick of the fudges, rightly or wrongly.
The ram has touched the wall for too many people, they are not turning back. We know this because after a year and more of pretending agreement was possible, the Cabinet finally split on this issue. If May, who has been fudging things between her factions for this long, finally had to make a call and they either backed her or got out, then it is time for everyone else to make a call too. And they have.
"Executive decision. No need for referenda."
Or voters.
I also think that the final deal, if it is based on the PM's proposal, will be broadly accepted. For all the indignation of 'Brexit in name only' etc etc, it's actually a hell of a lot more than that - no right to FoM, no CAP, no CFP, very limited jurisdiction of the ECJ, no participation in 'ever closer union', and so on. Sure, we'll follow EU rules on goods, but that was obvious from way back before the referendum, and who cares?
It's a bosh-up, of course, with a rather cumbersome Customs arrangement, and the City will be damaged, but both of those are manageable problems (I'm reasonably confident that the City will find some replacement ways of making money).
The big questions are whether the EU will play ball, and whether the UK parliament will cut off its nose to spite its face.
https://institute.global/news/the-inbetweener-brexit
The referendum was treated by a significant number of voters as a bit of protest thing to knock the govt and Cameron. I recall the interviews and petitions in the end of June 2016 calling for it to be stopped because people voted Leave as a protest against the govt. because they were certain Remain would win. The BBC even broadcast some of them admitting to doing it deliberately and then being shocked at the outcome.
https://twitter.com/nadinedorries/status/1018775142527324160?s=21
The hard fact, which you don't have the courage to accept, is that it is people like you that will cause No Deal. You were so busy trying to undermine the referendum result that you pushed the Government into this mess trying to appease you all, and now you suddenly realise that the Remainer Soft Brexit idea was just a delusion, while the Leaver Hard Brexit CETA deal was always the only outcome that would honour the referendum and get through Parliament.
And the fun bit is that it is now so obvious that May was a Remainer all along that when this all goes pear shaped, the blame will fall on Remainers for creating this fiasco. Good luck with that second referendum.....
Obviously I am not a constitutional law expert, but I suspect there'd be a legal drama before it was attempted.
The idea that the May plan in any form is going to be implemented is yet more cakeism. Its a plan that the government hasn't agreed intact, that parliament won't agree, that the commission can't agree, and even if the planets align and get all those passed all it takes is one of the 27 to shoot it dead - and France, Spain, Ireland amongst others are lined up line a world cup penalty shootout ready for a kick.
Three options:
1 Revoke Article 50
2 EEA
3 Crash out
There is no reason why these can't be put as a referendum - one option to remain, two options to leave. And its going to have to be a referendum as this government is trapped in office and this parliament is trapped in session, all terrified by threats of angry voters who simultaneously demand option 3 whilst denying the nature of option 3. Politically we can't revoke A50 so that's not an option even at the death faced with falling off the cliff. Which leaves EEA (rejected by both ZombieMay and Jezbollah) and falling off the cliff which is a default not a choice but still gets talked about like we'd be in control.
Get your cupboards stocked boys and girls. The meteor which wipes out the Conservative Party is looming large in the window...
For all her faults, May might go down in history as having steered the least worst course through this.