In my opinion, a hard Brexit or remaining in the EU are the two choices on the table. Chequers and its derivatives are all dead in the water.
It's obvious what the sane choice is!
Brexit=a calamity!
Brexiteers = xenophobes/little Englanders/thickos (delete as appropriate).
Good to have proof that the thickos aren't all Brexiteers.
In my opinion, playing hardball with the EU is the way to deliver a deal. A deal is still more likely than a No-deal Brexit. Preparing for No-deal brexit is one of the reasons.
Why will the EU deal?
- they still want our trade
- they still want access to the City of London finance
- they still want planes flying over Europe, they still want hospitals with medicines, they still want food in stores
- they still want our forty billion
- averting disaster is what Brussels does. The Euro is still going, after all.....
Cameron failed because the EU never for one minute thought he would back Leave. Good to see that mistake has (finally) been rectified with the Brexit talks. Now they know the stakes.
The ball is in the EU's court. Can I suggest you turn your frothing, spittle-flecked invective on from the Brexiteers and turn it on the EU - and get them to start compromising?
There were dissenting voices in 1975 who actually told the truth. A rag-taggle bunch of eccentrics widely disparaged by the media (what we now call the Establishment Elite).
Ted Heath was too enthusiastic about the EEC to lie - "yesterday's man", and so on.
Disowned then by the same people who now wear their superiority like a garland of honour, and who are wrong again.
May did attempt to set out a position prior to this, but was then told it was unacceptable as the EU would only accept something else. They have not budged from that position even to the extent of endorsing policies pioneered by the apartheid regime in South Africa.
They are of course within their rights to do this. They may even believe they are serving the interests of the EU by doing so (I think they're wrong, as I've made clear, but that wouldn't be surprising given the dogmatic and less than intelligent people involved).
However, they have by doing this wrecked any chance of nudging us into EEA - which I and I think most remainers could live with - and given the Brexiteers political cover for their failure, as well as making it almost inconceivable we will ever rejoin the EU. They have behaved arrogantly, complacently and with a total lack of responsibility and deserve all the opprobrium they will get if the consequences for the EU are as negative as I fear.
It's difficult to reconcile the idea that we knew exactly what we wanted but the nasty EU wouldn't even discuss these well-formed plans, with the fact that as recently as two days ago amendments were being voted on over the White Paper released only days prior to that.
The ball is in the EU's court. Can I suggest you turn your frothing, spittle-flecked invective on from the Brexiteers and turn it on the EU - and get them to start compromising?
Can I suggest that the EU is not going to change its position based on what murali writes on here?
Mr. Eagles, cheers. That's not a huge length of time.
Mr. Herdson, disagree. You might make that claim regarding Claudius but it was the Praetorians who proactively compelled Nerva to ditch his first choice and opt for Trajan as his new heir.
Basil II showed how a bodyguard could function with loyalty rather than self-interest when he created the Varangian Guard.
There was mostly peace for the first couple of centuries and then the Crisis of the Third Century occurred, fuelled in no small part to the donative (again dating back to the early emperors) and rule being based purely on military might.
It's a fair point you make on Roman allegedly antipathy to kings, but by this stage of republican corruption there were political dynasties aplenty.
Fair point re Nerva and Trajan but that was a relatively isolated incident in the first two centuries AD - and clearly a stop-gap situation that would inevitably be soon resolved and so created incentives for people to act to do so. In any case, as you say, there's no intrinsic reason why bodyguards couldn't serve with loyalty (or that loyalty and self-interest couldn't be spliced together).
I agree that the donative was an appalling system that created all the wrong incentives but again, not something that you can lay at the feet of Augustus or Tiberius - and was still a secondary (if reinforcing) factor to the inherent instability that occurred post cAD180.
Mr. F, bigger question is how would UKIP do at a General Election after a revocation of Article 50?
Not really, how many MPs did they get when they were on 13%?
It depends on your perspective. UKIP don't, by themselves, achieve anything. However, their existence cripples the Tories in the same way that the Grunes are damaging the SPD. Monopolies aren't just good for business.
Mr. F, bigger question is how would UKIP do at a General Election after a revocation of Article 50?
Not really, how many MPs did they get when they were on 13%?
It's anybody's guess what would happen in that situation.
I think it's pretty cleat that a definitive revocation of Article 50 can't happen without another referendum. An extension on the other hand is possible.
Mr. Eagles, cheers. That's not a huge length of time.
Mr. Herdson, disagree. You might make that claim regarding Claudius but it was the Praetorians who proactively compelled Nerva to ditch his first choice and opt for Trajan as his new heir.
Basil II showed how a bodyguard could function with loyalty rather than self-interest when he created the Varangian Guard.
There was mostly peace for the first couple of centuries and then the Crisis of the Third Century occurred, fuelled in no small part to the donative (again dating back to the early emperors) and rule being based purely on military might.
It's a fair point you make on Roman allegedly antipathy to kings, but by this stage of republican corruption there were political dynasties aplenty.
Fair point re Nerva and Trajan but that was a relatively isolated incident in the first two centuries AD - and clearly a stop-gap situation that would inevitably be soon resolved and so created incentives for people to act to do so. In any case, as you say, there's no intrinsic reason why bodyguards couldn't serve with loyalty (or that loyalty and self-interest couldn't be spliced together).
I agree that the donative was an appalling system that created all the wrong incentives but again, not something that you can lay at the feet of Augustus or Tiberius - and was still a secondary (if reinforcing) factor to the inherent instability that occurred post cAD180.
The Praetorians were disloyal from an early stage. They murdered Caligula and abandoned Nero (justifiably in my view) then murdered Galba.
Mr. F, bigger question is how would UKIP do at a General Election after a revocation of Article 50?
Not really, how many MPs did they get when they were on 13%?
It depends on your perspective. UKIP don't, by themselves, achieve anything. However, their existence cripples the Tories in the same way that the Grunes are damaging the SPD. Monopolies aren't just good for business.
And yet the only election since 1992 in which the Tories won a majority was the one in which UKIP won 13%.
It was always obvious that triggering A50 gave the EU the upper hand so I can understand the EU wanting to do it. The LSE article assumed that ecomonic chaos would be lessened by getting out as quickly as possible so that position seemed reasonable at the time.
We would have been better off if A50 was being triggered now, even with our rubbish negotiating paper. The pressure could have been kept up on the EU as they could not force us to trigger A50 but probably would have become more and more keen for us to do so. Perhaps we could have had some movement or concession from them?
In the end what we did was have no clue about what we wanted and then we fired the starting gun anyway.
However, they have by doing this wrecked any chance of nudging us into EEA - which I and I think most remainers could live with - and given the Brexiteers political cover for their failure, as well as making it almost inconceivable we will ever rejoin the EU. They have behaved arrogantly, complacently and with a total lack of responsibility and deserve all the opprobrium they will get if the consequences for the EU are as negative as I fear.
I could live with the EEA as an option, but I think that your comment about their behaviour is not wholly accurate. The damage from Brexit will be less to them than us and they need to act on behalf of the 27, not the 1.
Nobody wins from Brexit. That is why it is so stupid.
Mr. Herdson, must differ on the donative. Tell a classroom of schoolkids they get £10,000 each if their teacher dies and see what happens to the life expectancy of teachers.
Paying soldiers huge sums (which then had inflationary effects for the whole empire) upon the accession of a new emperor creates a massive incentive to force the issue.
May did attempt to set out a position prior to this, but was then told it was unacceptable as the EU would only accept something else. They have not budged from that position even to the extent of endorsing policies pioneered by the apartheid regime in South Africa.
They are of course within their rights to do this. They may even believe they are serving the interests of the EU by doing so (I think they're wrong, as I've made clear, but that wouldn't be surprising given the dogmatic and less than intelligent people involved).
However, they have by doing this wrecked any chance of nudging us into EEA - which I and I think most remainers could live with - and given the Brexiteers political cover for their failure, as well as making it almost inconceivable we will ever rejoin the EU. They have behaved arrogantly, complacently and with a total lack of responsibility and deserve all the opprobrium they will get if the consequences for the EU are as negative as I fear.
It's difficult to reconcile the idea that we knew exactly what we wanted but the nasty EU wouldn't even discuss these well-formed plans, with the fact that as recently as two days ago amendments were being voted on over the White Paper released only days prior to that.
I don't wish to speak for ydoethur, but his point is surely that both sides have competed, each in their different ways, in the measure of unreasonableness and foolishness ?
Mr. F, bigger question is how would UKIP do at a General Election after a revocation of Article 50?
Not really, how many MPs did they get when they were on 13%?
It depends on your perspective. UKIP don't, by themselves, achieve anything. However, their existence cripples the Tories in the same way that the Grunes are damaging the SPD. Monopolies aren't just good for business.
And yet the only election since 1992 in which the Tories won a majority was the one in which UKIP won 13%.
It's always contextual. Labour's polling is pretty solid now, compared to Miliband's rating. The Lib Dems are floating around in single digits (much as they were in '15). That said, I'm ahead of myself; it's going to depend on the polling trend. I doubt UKIP will become a force again, but I do think a good chunk of the Tory base is going to sit on its hands at the next GE.
I’d have thought both would have been more likely to be next UKIP leader than next Conservative leader.
If No Deal happens then surely UKIP is finished as there will be no point to them
I wouldn't be so sure, cockroaches can survive pretty much anything. There will still be room for a party that opposes any and all migration. I expect after Brexit migration will go up as the new rules will encourage the highly mobile and highly skilled to relocate to the UK.
After Brexit the highly mobile and highly skilled are going to be leaving Britain for countries that don’t put mindless barriers in their way. The immigrants will be at the other end of the scale. That will of course be good for UKIP.
Some have gone already to countries in the EU which are already global and don't just bang on about becoming global (which is of course, little more than being anti-EU and anti-foreigner in most cases).
May did attempt to set out a position prior to this, but was then told it was unacceptable as the EU would only accept something else. They have not budged from that position even to the extent of endorsing policies pioneered by the apartheid regime in South Africa.
They are of course within their rights to do this. They may even believe they are serving the interests of the EU by doing so (I think they're wrong, as I've made clear, but that wouldn't be surprising given the dogmatic and less than intelligent people involved).
However, they have by doing this wrecked any chance of nudging us into EEA - which I and I think most remainers could live with - and given the Brexiteers political cover for their failure, as well as making it almost inconceivable we will ever rejoin the EU. They have behaved arrogantly, complacently and with a total lack of responsibility and deserve all the opprobrium they will get if the consequences for the EU are as negative as I fear.
It's difficult to reconcile the idea that we knew exactly what we wanted but the nasty EU wouldn't even discuss these well-formed plans, with the fact that as recently as two days ago amendments were being voted on over the White Paper released only days prior to that.
I don't wish to speak for ydoethur, but his point is surely that both sides have competed, each in their different ways, in the measure of unreasonableness and foolishness ?
If you dig around in PB of yore, you'll see that my two great doubts over Brexit were whether the economy could handle the change (or even the threat of the change) and the ability of our political classes to execute the withdrawal. Only the most partisan of commenters would argue that we've done a good job so far.
I’d have thought both would have been more likely to be next UKIP leader than next Conservative leader.
If No Deal happens then surely UKIP is finished as there will be no point to them
I wouldn't be so sure, cockroaches can survive pretty much anything. There will still be room for a party that opposes any and all migration. I expect after Brexit migration will go up as the new rules will encourage the highly mobile and highly skilled to relocate to the UK.
After Brexit the highly mobile and highly skilled are going to be leaving Britain for countries that don’t put mindless barriers in their way. The immigrants will be at the other end of the scale. That will of course be good for UKIP.
Some have gone already to countries in the EU which are already global and don't just bang on about become global (which is of course, little more than being anti-EU and anti-foreigner in most cases).
Yet we still have a net 100k more since last year. Express readers must be going mental.
May did attempt to set out a position prior to this, but was then told it was unacceptable as the EU would only accept something else. They have not budged from that position even to the extent of endorsing policies pioneered by the apartheid regime in South Africa.
They are of course within their rights to do this. They may even believe they are serving the interests of the EU by doing so (I think they're wrong, as I've made clear, but that wouldn't be surprising given the dogmatic and less than intelligent people involved).
However, they have by doing this wrecked any chance of nudging us into EEA - which I and I think most remainers could live with - and given the Brexiteers political cover for their failure, as well as making it almost inconceivable we will ever rejoin the EU. They have behaved arrogantly, complacently and with a total lack of responsibility and deserve all the opprobrium they will get if the consequences for the EU are as negative as I fear.
It's difficult to reconcile the idea that we knew exactly what we wanted but the nasty EU wouldn't even discuss these well-formed plans, with the fact that as recently as two days ago amendments were being voted on over the White Paper released only days prior to that.
I don't wish to speak for ydoethur, but his point is surely that both sides have competed, each in their different ways, in the measure of unreasonableness and foolishness ?
If you dig around in PB of yore, you'll see that my two great doubts over Brexit were whether the economy could handle the change (or even the threat of the change) and the ability of our political classes to execute the withdrawal. Only the most partisan of commenters would argue that we've done a good job so far.
I think you are right about the political class but the economy has carried on fairly robustly considering the uncertainty that the politicians have created. We are most certainly due for a recession, i thought brexit might tip us into one, but nothing of the sort.
May did attempt to set out a position prior to this, but was then told it was unacceptable as the EU would only accept something else. They have not budged from that position even to the extent of endorsing policies pioneered by the apartheid regime in South Africa.
They are of course within their rights to do this. They may even believe they are serving the interests of the EU by doing so (I think they're wrong, as I've made clear, but that wouldn't be surprising given the dogmatic and less than intelligent people involved).
However, they have by doing this wrecked any chance of nudging us into EEA - which I and I think most remainers could live with - and given the Brexiteers political cover for their failure, as well as making it almost inconceivable we will ever rejoin the EU. They have behaved arrogantly, complacently and with a total lack of responsibility and deserve all the opprobrium they will get if the consequences for the EU are as negative as I fear.
It's difficult to reconcile the idea that we knew exactly what we wanted but the nasty EU wouldn't even discuss these well-formed plans, with the fact that as recently as two days ago amendments were being voted on over the White Paper released only days prior to that.
I don't wish to speak for ydoethur, but his point is surely that both sides have competed, each in their different ways, in the measure of unreasonableness and foolishness ?
If you dig around in PB of yore, you'll see that my two great doubts over Brexit were whether the economy could handle the change (or even the threat of the change) and the ability of our political classes to execute the withdrawal. Only the most partisan of commenters would argue that we've done a good job so far.
In one of which you have been proved right, and the other of which you will almost certainly proved right.
But my point as Nigel ably summarised is that the EU have been just as intransigent, unrealistic and dishonest as our lot, and I think any poster would have to be pretty partisan to deny that.
If only we had adults with common sense and a willingness to actually talk, instead of Barnier, Juncker, Davis (now gone) and Boris (also now gone). It will be interesting to see in their absence how far May's own weaknesses were the problem.
How can anyone remotely contemplate Boris or JRM as leaders of a country? Seriously.
One has just spent two years proving how he handles High Office and the other has never held any High Office. Both appear to be masters of vacuous promises with little substance behind them.
I cannot think of any better way of catapulting Corbyn into No 10 than electing either of those two buffoons to PM.
At the minute, the only MP who looks like she has both a spine and working brain is Soubry and she has zero chance (if she even wants to be PM).
Hammond has quietly achieved victory behind the scenes. Not to be counted out.
Mr. F, bigger question is how would UKIP do at a General Election after a revocation of Article 50?
Not really, how many MPs did they get when they were on 13%?
It depends on your perspective. UKIP don't, by themselves, achieve anything. However, their existence cripples the Tories in the same way that the Grunes are damaging the SPD. Monopolies aren't just good for business.
And yet the only election since 1992 in which the Tories won a majority was the one in which UKIP won 13%.
Except Labour Leave supporters have since moved to Conservative but Conservatives still can't get a majority. Without ex Labour Leave supporters, Conservatives will do even worse.
The ball is in the EU's court. Can I suggest you turn your frothing, spittle-flecked invective on from the Brexiteers and turn it on the EU - and get them to start compromising?
Can I suggest that the EU is not going to change its position based on what murali writes on here?
Nor is Brexit going to be stopped by what you write on here....
The more I read about EEA membership the more I believe that it offers a liefboat if the current government approach hits the rocks. There appears to be some leeway in restricting migration with a more prescriptive set of rules and it returns control of fisheries and agriculture . Much reduced payments as well. It is a pre-configured trade agreement.
I believe May is trying to keep to a narrow path of compromise and get a bespoke agreement but the horrible state of the Commons may mean this cannot be delivered. If the majority in the commons take control and temporarily ignore party political advantage then an off the shelf deal would be needed. It could be for (say) 5 or ten years with review. I don't think any outcome wil silence this isssue for the foreseeable future!
Yet we still have a net 100k more since last year. Express readers must be going mental.
Given the sort of rubbish stories the Express publishes these days, a large proportion of its readers must be mental. I am just waiting for a "London Bus seen on Moon" type of story.
Is the Sunday Sport still going or has the Express taken over from it?
Mr. F, bigger question is how would UKIP do at a General Election after a revocation of Article 50?
Not really, how many MPs did they get when they were on 13%?
It depends on your perspective. UKIP don't, by themselves, achieve anything. However, their existence cripples the Tories in the same way that the Grunes are damaging the SPD. Monopolies aren't just good for business.
And yet the only election since 1992 in which the Tories won a majority was the one in which UKIP won 13%.
Also weren't we told that UKIP hurt Labour as much as if not more than the Tories?
Mr. F, bigger question is how would UKIP do at a General Election after a revocation of Article 50?
Not really, how many MPs did they get when they were on 13%?
It depends on your perspective. UKIP don't, by themselves, achieve anything. However, their existence cripples the Tories in the same way that the Grunes are damaging the SPD. Monopolies aren't just good for business.
And yet the only election since 1992 in which the Tories won a majority was the one in which UKIP won 13%.
Also weren't we told that UKIP hurt Labour as much as if not more than the Tories?
At the time yes, but that was before the realignment of voters that happened in 2017.
Yet we still have a net 100k more since last year. Express readers must be going mental.
Given the sort of rubbish stories the Express publishes these days, a large proportion of its readers must be mental. I am just waiting for a "London Bus seen on Moon" type of story.
Is the Sunday Sport still going or has the Express taken over from it?
I thought they had that with all the stuff on Diana?
Boris is now May's likely successor, the ConHome and Daily Mail comments have become much more favourable to him relative to May post Chequers Deal and he led with both Tory voters and All voters with Delta poll at the weekend as to who should succeed May. Javid is probably his main rival
I hope Dominic Raab just walks out of the negotiations at a very early stage if the EU continue with their current line and says there is absolutely no point in continuing and says No-Deal is the way forward. Then the EU27 leaders can decide if they want to contuinue with the current negotiating team.
There were dissenting voices in 1975 who actually told the truth. A rag-taggle bunch of eccentrics widely disparaged by the media (what we now call the Establishment Elite).
Ted Heath was too enthusiastic about the EEC to lie - "yesterday's man", and so on.
Disowned then by the same people who now wear their superiority like a garland of honour, and who are wrong again.
The next referendum will be unlike 2016 and 1975.
In what sense? If you are hoping for anything other than a similar narrow result that could end up either way i feel you might be disappointed.
I hope Dominic Raab just walks out of the negotiations at a very early stage if the EU continue with their current line and says there is absolutely no point in continuing and says No-Deal is the way forward. Then the EU27 leaders can decide if they want to contuinue with the current negotiating team.
Yet we still have a net 100k more since last year. Express readers must be going mental.
Given the sort of rubbish stories the Express publishes these days, a large proportion of its readers must be mental. I am just waiting for a "London Bus seen on Moon" type of story.
Is the Sunday Sport still going or has the Express taken over from it?
I thought they had that with all the stuff on Diana?
Who knows? I do not really bother with the papers any more, but occasionally I come across links to newspaper stories that I click on .... and usually wish that I had not.
Mr. F, bigger question is how would UKIP do at a General Election after a revocation of Article 50?
Not really, how many MPs did they get when they were on 13%?
It depends on your perspective. UKIP don't, by themselves, achieve anything. However, their existence cripples the Tories in the same way that the Grunes are damaging the SPD. Monopolies aren't just good for business.
And yet the only election since 1992 in which the Tories won a majority was the one in which UKIP won 13%.
Almost a third of 2015 UKIP voters went for Corbyn in 2017 (plus Ed Miliband also lost more voters to the SNP and Greens or not voting than Corbyn did). Without ex UKIP voters and Tory and Labour Leave marginal seats all of which back Brexit and oppose free movement and want to leave the single market, then Corbyn has a near zero chance of an overall majority at the next general election
How can anyone remotely contemplate Boris or JRM as leaders of a country? Seriously.
One has just spent two years proving how he handles High Office and the other has never held any High Office. Both appear to be masters of vacuous promises with little substance behind them.
I cannot think of any better way of catapulting Corbyn into No 10 than electing either of those two buffoons to PM.
At the minute, the only MP who looks like she has both a spine and working brain is Soubry and she has zero chance (if she even wants to be PM).
Hammond has quietly achieved victory behind the scenes. Not to be counted out.
Yet we still have a net 100k more since last year. Express readers must be going mental.
Given the sort of rubbish stories the Express publishes these days, a large proportion of its readers must be mental. I am just waiting for a "London Bus seen on Moon" type of story.
Is the Sunday Sport still going or has the Express taken over from it?
What is the balance in the Tory MP electorate? A few rebels on either side tend to have distorted the debate.
I see the guess is that Tory MPs voted 176 remain, 141 leave, so I'll take that as a start point for putting a finger in the air:
Voted remain / Chequers sceptic / softer now (Inc remain now, 2nd referendummers, EEAers) - 40 (of whom a dozen and up are active rebellers) Voted remain / Chequers hopers / fall back softer - 80 Voted remain / Chequers hopers / fall back harder - 40 Voted remain / Chequers sceptic / harder now - 15 Voted Leave / Chequers sceptics / softer now - 5 Voted Leave / Chequers hopefuls / fall back softer - 15 Voted Leave / Chequers hopefuls / fall back harder - 30 Voted Leave / Chequers sceptics / harder now - 90 of whom, social liberals - 20 social conservatives - 70
Does that sound anywhere near the mark?
Isn't it a bit simpler than that? Want to leave 100% at any cost - 40 Want to remain 100% at any cost - 40 Want to keep their jobs so will watch the polls and see where the wind blows - 237
The more I read about EEA membership the more I believe that it offers a liefboat if the current government approach hits the rocks. There appears to be some leeway in restricting migration with a more prescriptive set of rules and it returns control of fisheries and agriculture . Much reduced payments as well. It is a pre-configured trade agreement.
I believe May is trying to keep to a narrow path of compromise and get a bespoke agreement but the horrible state of the Commons may mean this cannot be delivered. If the majority in the commons take control and temporarily ignore party political advantage then an off the shelf deal would be needed. It could be for (say) 5 or ten years with review. I don't think any outcome wil silence this isssue for the foreseeable future!
EEA membership was what i assumed we would get. Ruling it out immediately was one of May's first mistakes. Its just CommonMarket+
Which as I've repeatedly said is all we really wanted anyway. If May cant get an EU deal through brexit then put a second referendum for EEA or WTO/future trade agreements.
I hope Dominic Raab just walks out of the negotiations at a very early stage if the EU continue with their current line and says there is absolutely no point in continuing and says No-Deal is the way forward. Then the EU27 leaders can decide if they want to contuinue with the current negotiating team.
First thing he needs to row back on is Ireland....
What is the balance in the Tory MP electorate? A few rebels on either side tend to have distorted the debate.
I see the guess is that Tory MPs voted 176 remain, 141 leave, so I'll take that as a start point for putting a finger in the air:
Voted remain / Chequers sceptic / softer now (Inc remain now, 2nd referendummers, EEAers) - 40 (of whom a dozen and up are active rebellers) Voted remain / Chequers hopers / fall back softer - 80 Voted remain / Chequers hopers / fall back harder - 40 Voted remain / Chequers sceptic / harder now - 15 Voted Leave / Chequers sceptics / softer now - 5 Voted Leave / Chequers hopefuls / fall back softer - 15 Voted Leave / Chequers hopefuls / fall back harder - 30 Voted Leave / Chequers sceptics / harder now - 90 of whom, social liberals - 20 social conservatives - 70
Does that sound anywhere near the mark?
Isn't it a bit simpler than that? Want to leave 100% at any cost - 40 Want to remain 100% at any cost - 40 Want to keep their jobs so will watch the polls and see where the wind blows - 237
Is there any reason to think more than 13 want to remain at any cost?
What is the balance in the Tory MP electorate? A few rebels on either side tend to have distorted the debate.
I see the guess is that Tory MPs voted 176 remain, 141 leave, so I'll take that as a start point for putting a finger in the air:
Voted remain / Chequers sceptic / softer now (Inc remain now, 2nd referendummers, EEAers) - 40 (of whom a dozen and up are active rebellers) Voted remain / Chequers hopers / fall back softer - 80 Voted remain / Chequers hopers / fall back harder - 40 Voted remain / Chequers sceptic / harder now - 15 Voted Leave / Chequers sceptics / softer now - 5 Voted Leave / Chequers hopefuls / fall back softer - 15 Voted Leave / Chequers hopefuls / fall back harder - 30 Voted Leave / Chequers sceptics / harder now - 90 of whom, social liberals - 20 social conservatives - 70
Does that sound anywhere near the mark?
Isn't it a bit simpler than that? Want to leave 100% at any cost - 40 Want to remain 100% at any cost - 40 Want to keep their jobs so will watch the polls constituency members and see where the wind blows - 237
May did attempt to set out a position prior to this, but was then told it was unacceptable as the EU would only accept something else. They have not budged from that position even to the extent of endorsing policies pioneered by the apartheid regime in South Africa.
They are of course within their rights to do this. They may even believe they are serving the interests of the EU by doing so (I think they're wrong, as I've made clear, but that wouldn't be surprising given the dogmatic and less than intelligent people involved).
However, they have by doing this wrecked any chance of nudging us into EEA - which I and I think most remainers could live with - and given the Brexiteers political cover for their failure, as well as making it almost inconceivable we will ever rejoin the EU. They have behaved arrogantly, complacently and with a total lack of responsibility and deserve all the opprobrium they will get if the consequences for the EU are as negative as I fear.
It's difficult to reconcile the idea that we knew exactly what we wanted but the nasty EU wouldn't even discuss these well-formed plans, with the fact that as recently as two days ago amendments were being voted on over the White Paper released only days prior to that.
I don't wish to speak for ydoethur, but his point is surely that both sides have competed, each in their different ways, in the measure of unreasonableness and foolishness ?
If you dig around in PB of yore, you'll see that my two great doubts over Brexit were whether the economy could handle the change (or even the threat of the change) and the ability of our political classes to execute the withdrawal. Only the most partisan of commenters would argue that we've done a good job so far.
In one of which you have been proved right, and the other of which you will almost certainly proved right.
But my point as Nigel ably summarised is that the EU have been just as intransigent, unrealistic and dishonest as our lot, and I think any poster would have to be pretty partisan to deny that.
If only we had adults with common sense and a willingness to actually talk, instead of Barnier, Juncker, Davis (now gone) and Boris (also now gone). It will be interesting to see in their absence how far May's own weaknesses were the problem.
Do you think that was what May was doing with Merkle before the Chequers agreement?
The more I read about EEA membership the more I believe that it offers a liefboat if the current government approach hits the rocks. There appears to be some leeway in restricting migration with a more prescriptive set of rules and it returns control of fisheries and agriculture . Much reduced payments as well. It is a pre-configured trade agreement.
I believe May is trying to keep to a narrow path of compromise and get a bespoke agreement but the horrible state of the Commons may mean this cannot be delivered. If the majority in the commons take control and temporarily ignore party political advantage then an off the shelf deal would be needed. It could be for (say) 5 or ten years with review. I don't think any outcome wil silence this isssue for the foreseeable future!
EEA membership was what i assumed we would get. Ruling it out immediately was one of May's first mistakes. Its just CommonMarket+
Which as I've repeatedly said is all we really wanted anyway. If May cant get an EU deal through brexit then put a second referendum for EEA or WTO/future trade agreements.
The more I read about EEA membership the more I believe that it offers a liefboat if the current government approach hits the rocks. There appears to be some leeway in restricting migration with a more prescriptive set of rules and it returns control of fisheries and agriculture . Much reduced payments as well. It is a pre-configured trade agreement.
I believe May is trying to keep to a narrow path of compromise and get a bespoke agreement but the horrible state of the Commons may mean this cannot be delivered. If the majority in the commons take control and temporarily ignore party political advantage then an off the shelf deal would be needed. It could be for (say) 5 or ten years with review. I don't think any outcome wil silence this isssue for the foreseeable future!
EEA membership was what i assumed we would get. Ruling it out immediately was one of May's first mistakes. Its just CommonMarket+
Which as I've repeatedly said is all we really wanted anyway. If May cant get an EU deal through brexit then put a second referendum for EEA or WTO/future trade agreements.
EEA solves a lot of the EU's problems except if you're worried about it free movement.
May viewed the Brexit vote through the prism of ending free movement first, second and third.
But then she's not prepared to countenance no deal so has conceded on free movement now anyway.
So we're going to if May stays in charge get a worse deal than the EEA and still have free movement.
The more I read about EEA membership the more I believe that it offers a liefboat if the current government approach hits the rocks. There appears to be some leeway in restricting migration with a more prescriptive set of rules and it returns control of fisheries and agriculture . Much reduced payments as well. It is a pre-configured trade agreement.
I believe May is trying to keep to a narrow path of compromise and get a bespoke agreement but the horrible state of the Commons may mean this cannot be delivered. If the majority in the commons take control and temporarily ignore party political advantage then an off the shelf deal would be needed. It could be for (say) 5 or ten years with review. I don't think any outcome wil silence this isssue for the foreseeable future!
EEA membership was what i assumed we would get. Ruling it out immediately was one of May's first mistakes. Its just CommonMarket+
Which as I've repeatedly said is all we really wanted anyway. If May cant get an EU deal through brexit then put a second referendum for EEA or WTO/future trade agreements.
Entirely agree and, as a bonus, we respect the 1975 referendum as well as the 2016 referendum.
The more I read about EEA membership the more I believe that it offers a liefboat if the current government approach hits the rocks. There appears to be some leeway in restricting migration with a more prescriptive set of rules and it returns control of fisheries and agriculture . Much reduced payments as well. It is a pre-configured trade agreement.
I believe May is trying to keep to a narrow path of compromise and get a bespoke agreement but the horrible state of the Commons may mean this cannot be delivered. If the majority in the commons take control and temporarily ignore party political advantage then an off the shelf deal would be needed. It could be for (say) 5 or ten years with review. I don't think any outcome wil silence this isssue for the foreseeable future!
EEA membership was what i assumed we would get. Ruling it out immediately was one of May's first mistakes. Its just CommonMarket+
Which as I've repeatedly said is all we really wanted anyway. If May cant get an EU deal through brexit then put a second referendum for EEA or WTO/future trade agreements.
The issue is that you can't have the EEA without free movement. For those of us not bothered by free movement it's not such a big deal, but it wouldn't satisfy the leave vote. Any trade deal with the EU that is going to stand the test of time needs to be negotiated from the outside. There really isn't any alternative, which means the government needs to get on with no deal/WTO exit planning to ensure that planes still fly and supermarkets don't run out of food (and radiotherapy still takes place, as per our earlier discussion). The problem is that there seems to be little to no evidence that anything like that is taking place.
What is the balance in the Tory MP electorate? A few rebels on either side tend to have distorted the debate.
I see the guess is that Tory MPs voted 176 remain, 141 leave, so I'll take that as a start point for putting a finger in the air:
Voted remain / Chequers sceptic / softer now (Inc remain now, 2nd referendummers, EEAers) - 40 (of whom a dozen and up are active rebellers) Voted remain / Chequers hopers / fall back softer - 80 Voted remain / Chequers hopers / fall back harder - 40 Voted remain / Chequers sceptic / harder now - 15 Voted Leave / Chequers sceptics / softer now - 5 Voted Leave / Chequers hopefuls / fall back softer - 15 Voted Leave / Chequers hopefuls / fall back harder - 30 Voted Leave / Chequers sceptics / harder now - 90 of whom, social liberals - 20 social conservatives - 70
Does that sound anywhere near the mark?
Isn't it a bit simpler than that? Want to leave 100% at any cost - 40 Want to remain 100% at any cost - 40 Want to keep their jobs so will watch the polls constituency members and see where the wind blows - 237
What is the balance in the Tory MP electorate? A few rebels on either side tend to have distorted the debate.
I see the guess is that Tory MPs voted 176 remain, 141 leave, so I'll take that as a start point for putting a finger in the air:
Voted remain / Chequers sceptic / softer now (Inc remain now, 2nd referendummers, EEAers) - 40 (of whom a dozen and up are active rebellers) Voted remain / Chequers hopers / fall back softer - 80 Voted remain / Chequers hopers / fall back harder - 40 Voted remain / Chequers sceptic / harder now - 15 Voted Leave / Chequers sceptics / softer now - 5 Voted Leave / Chequers hopefuls / fall back softer - 15 Voted Leave / Chequers hopefuls / fall back harder - 30 Voted Leave / Chequers sceptics / harder now - 90 of whom, social liberals - 20 social conservatives - 70
Does that sound anywhere near the mark?
Isn't it a bit simpler than that? Want to leave 100% at any cost - 40 Want to remain 100% at any cost - 40 Want to keep their jobs so will watch the polls and see where the wind blows - 237
Perhaps. Stick another 20 on Leave at any cost and I think you are there.
But, this being PB, the Nick Palmer philosophy of MPs motivations doesn't do much here to map out a VoNC or leadership election, so I've broken it down as far as I reasonably can.
What is the balance in the Tory MP electorate? A few rebels on either side tend to have distorted the debate.
I see the guess is that Tory MPs voted 176 remain, 141 leave, so I'll take that as a start point for putting a finger in the air:
Voted remain / Chequers sceptic / softer now (Inc remain now, 2nd referendummers, EEAers) - 40 (of whom a dozen and up are active rebellers) Voted remain / Chequers hopers / fall back softer - 80 Voted remain / Chequers hopers / fall back harder - 40 Voted remain / Chequers sceptic / harder now - 15 Voted Leave / Chequers sceptics / softer now - 5 Voted Leave / Chequers hopefuls / fall back softer - 15 Voted Leave / Chequers hopefuls / fall back harder - 30 Voted Leave / Chequers sceptics / harder now - 90 of whom, social liberals - 20 social conservatives - 70
Does that sound anywhere near the mark?
Isn't it a bit simpler than that? Want to leave 100% at any cost - 40 Want to remain 100% at any cost - 40 Want to keep their jobs so will watch the polls and see where the wind blows - 237
Is there any reason to think more than 13 want to remain at any cost?
It's probably not as high as 13. Some of those rebels would live with an EEA settlement. Four or five would fight on though.
The more I read about EEA membership the more I believe that it offers a liefboat if the current government approach hits the rocks. There appears to be some leeway in restricting migration with a more prescriptive set of rules and it returns control of fisheries and agriculture . Much reduced payments as well. It is a pre-configured trade agreement.
I believe May is trying to keep to a narrow path of compromise and get a bespoke agreement but the horrible state of the Commons may mean this cannot be delivered. If the majority in the commons take control and temporarily ignore party political advantage then an off the shelf deal would be needed. It could be for (say) 5 or ten years with review. I don't think any outcome wil silence this isssue for the foreseeable future!
EEA membership was what i assumed we would get. Ruling it out immediately was one of May's first mistakes. Its just CommonMarket+
Which as I've repeatedly said is all we really wanted anyway. If May cant get an EU deal through brexit then put a second referendum for EEA or WTO/future trade agreements.
Entirely agree and, as a bonus, we respect the 1975 referendum as well as the 2016 referendum.
Why do we have to respect the 1975 Referendum? I think it might just have been superceded by a subsequent vote. Or we'd still be respecting Prime Minister Harold Wilson.....
What is the balance in the Tory MP electorate? A few rebels on either side tend to have distorted the debate.
I see the guess is that Tory MPs voted 176 remain, 141 leave, so I'll take that as a start point for putting a finger in the air:
Voted remain / Chequers sceptic / softer now (Inc remain now, 2nd referendummers, EEAers) - 40 (of whom a dozen and up are active rebellers) Voted remain / Chequers hopers / fall back softer - 80 Voted remain / Chequers hopers / fall back harder - 40 Voted remain / Chequers sceptic / harder now - 15 Voted Leave / Chequers sceptics / softer now - 5 Voted Leave / Chequers hopefuls / fall back softer - 15 Voted Leave / Chequers hopefuls / fall back harder - 30 Voted Leave / Chequers sceptics / harder now - 90 of whom, social liberals - 20 social conservatives - 70
Does that sound anywhere near the mark?
Isn't it a bit simpler than that? Want to leave 100% at any cost - 40 Want to remain 100% at any cost - 40 Want to keep their jobs so will watch the polls and see where the wind blows - 237
Is there any reason to think more than 13 want to remain at any cost?
It's probably not as high as 13. Some of those rebels would live with an EEA settlement. Four or five would fight on though.
Clarke, Soubry and ... ?
Is there any Tory MP outside Nottingham that would fight on?
The more I read about EEA membership the more I believe that it offers a liefboat if the current government approach hits the rocks. There appears to be some leeway in restricting migration with a more prescriptive set of rules and it returns control of fisheries and agriculture . Much reduced payments as well. It is a pre-configured trade agreement.
I believe May is trying to keep to a narrow path of compromise and get a bespoke agreement but the horrible state of the Commons may mean this cannot be delivered. If the majority in the commons take control and temporarily ignore party political advantage then an off the shelf deal would be needed. It could be for (say) 5 or ten years with review. I don't think any outcome wil silence this isssue for the foreseeable future!
EEA membership was what i assumed we would get. Ruling it out immediately was one of May's first mistakes. Its just CommonMarket+
Which as I've repeatedly said is all we really wanted anyway. If May cant get an EU deal through brexit then put a second referendum for EEA or WTO/future trade agreements.
EEA solves a lot of the EU's problems except if you're worried about it free movement.
May viewed the Brexit vote through the prism of ending free movement first, second and third.
But then she's not prepared to countenance no deal so has conceded on free movement now anyway.
So we're going to if May stays in charge get a worse deal than the EEA and still have free movement.
Well done May!
Technically May is replacing freedom of movement with a mobility framework, if free movement has not ended by the next general election even Javid will walk and May will be gone to be replaced by either him or Boris
Mr. F, bigger question is how would UKIP do at a General Election after a revocation of Article 50?
Not really, how many MPs did they get when they were on 13%?
It depends on your perspective. UKIP don't, by themselves, achieve anything. However, their existence cripples the Tories in the same way that the Grunes are damaging the SPD. Monopolies aren't just good for business.
And yet the only election since 1992 in which the Tories won a majority was the one in which UKIP won 13%.
Almost a third of 2015 UKIP voters went for Corbyn in 2017 (plus Ed Miliband also lost more voters to the SNP and Greens or not voting than Corbyn did). Without ex UKIP voters and Tory and Labour Leave marginal seats all of which back Brexit and oppose free movement and want to leave the single market, then Corbyn has a near zero chance of an overall majority at the next general election
'Almost a third' of 2015 UKIP voters went for Corbyn in 2017
The more I read about EEA membership the more I believe that it offers a liefboat if the current government approach hits the rocks. There appears to be some leeway in restricting migration with a more prescriptive set of rules and it returns control of fisheries and agriculture . Much reduced payments as well. It is a pre-configured trade agreement.
I believe May is trying to keep to a narrow path of compromise and get a bespoke agreement but the horrible state of the Commons may mean this cannot be delivered. If the majority in the commons take control and temporarily ignore party political advantage then an off the shelf deal would be needed. It could be for (say) 5 or ten years with review. I don't think any outcome wil silence this isssue for the foreseeable future!
EEA membership was what i assumed we would get. Ruling it out immediately was one of May's first mistakes. Its just CommonMarket+
Which as I've repeatedly said is all we really wanted anyway. If May cant get an EU deal through brexit then put a second referendum for EEA or WTO/future trade agreements.
The issue is that you can't have the EEA without free movement. For those of us not bothered by free movement it's not such a big deal, but it wouldn't satisfy the leave vote. Any trade deal with the EU that is going to stand the test of time needs to be negotiated from the outside. There really isn't any alternative, which means the government needs to get on with no deal/WTO exit planning to ensure that planes still fly and supermarkets don't run out of food (and radiotherapy still takes place, as per our earlier discussion). The problem is that there seems to be little to no evidence that anything like that is taking place.
But she hasnt even made any effort. Much of the leave vote could be reasoned with with changes to how we manage our welfare state so we dont end up incentiveising low skilled workers who end up taking their living wage plus tax credits and sending them home while living six to a house.
The leave vote is quite nebulous. Those that are frothing at the mouth about white migrants from poland probably isnt that big a number to cancel out the benefits.
EEA membership will make our relationship much more amicable and create zero difficulties for industry... And also stop Mcdonell and Corbyn carry out state funded socialism.
The more I read about EEA membership the more I believe that it offers a liefboat if the current government approach hits the rocks. There appears to be some leeway in restricting migration with a more prescriptive set of rules and it returns control of fisheries and agriculture . Much reduced payments as well. It is a pre-configured trade agreement.
I believe May is trying to keep to a narrow path of compromise and get a bespoke agreement but the horrible state of the Commons may mean this cannot be delivered. If the majority in the commons take control and temporarily ignore party political advantage then an off the shelf deal would be needed. It could be for (say) 5 or ten years with review. I don't think any outcome wil silence this isssue for the foreseeable future!
EEA membership was what i assumed we would get. Ruling it out immediately was one of May's first mistakes. Its just CommonMarket+
Which as I've repeatedly said is all we really wanted anyway. If May cant get an EU deal through brexit then put a second referendum for EEA or WTO/future trade agreements.
EEA solves a lot of the EU's problems except if you're worried about it free movement.
May viewed the Brexit vote through the prism of ending free movement first, second and third.
But then she's not prepared to countenance no deal so has conceded on free movement now anyway.
So we're going to if May stays in charge get a worse deal than the EEA and still have free movement.
Well done May!
Technically May is replacing freedom of movement with a mobility framework, if free movement has not ended by the next general election even Javid will walk and May will be gone to be replaced by either him or Boris
A rose by any other name ...
... call it what you like May is keeping freedom of movement.
Mr. F, bigger question is how would UKIP do at a General Election after a revocation of Article 50?
Not really, how many MPs did they get when they were on 13%?
It depends on your perspective. UKIP don't, by themselves, achieve anything. However, their existence cripples the Tories in the same way that the Grunes are damaging the SPD. Monopolies aren't just good for business.
And yet the only election since 1992 in which the Tories won a majority was the one in which UKIP won 13%.
Almost a third of 2015 UKIP voters went for Corbyn in 2017 (plus Ed Miliband also lost more voters to the SNP and Greens or not voting than Corbyn did). Without ex UKIP voters and Tory and Labour Leave marginal seats all of which back Brexit and oppose free movement and want to leave the single market, then Corbyn has a near zero chance of an overall majority at the next general election
'Almost a third' of 2015 UKIP voters went for Corbyn in 2017
Nowhere near I think.
No the figures support that e.g. Labour would not have gained seats like Vale of Clwyd and Peterborough from the Tories without 2015 UKIP voters switching to Labour in 2017.
Without ex UKIP and Labour Leave voters it is very difficult for Corbyn to become PM as most current Tory Remain voters won't touch Labour with a bargepole as long as Corbyn remains leader at the most they will go LD
What is the balance in the Tory MP electorate? A few rebels on either side tend to have distorted the debate.
I see the guess is that Tory MPs voted 176 remain, 141 leave, so I'll take that as a start point for putting a finger in the air:
Voted remain / Chequers sceptic / softer now (Inc remain now, 2nd referendummers, EEAers) - 40 (of whom a dozen and up are active rebellers) Voted remain / Chequers hopers / fall back softer - 80 Voted remain / Chequers hopers / fall back harder - 40 Voted remain / Chequers sceptic / harder now - 15 Voted Leave / Chequers sceptics / softer now - 5 Voted Leave / Chequers hopefuls / fall back softer - 15 Voted Leave / Chequers hopefuls / fall back harder - 30 Voted Leave / Chequers sceptics / harder now - 90 of whom, social liberals - 20 social conservatives - 70
Does that sound anywhere near the mark?
Isn't it a bit simpler than that? Want to leave 100% at any cost - 40 Want to remain 100% at any cost - 40 Want to keep their jobs so will watch the polls and see where the wind blows - 237
Is there any reason to think more than 13 want to remain at any cost?
It's probably not as high as 13. Some of those rebels would live with an EEA settlement. Four or five would fight on though.
Clarke, Soubry and ... ?
Is there any Tory MP outside Nottingham that would fight on?
Hard to know what Dr. Sarah Wollaston would do, given that she turned Remainer because the bus could never be delivered - and yet, now the bus has been delivered, she appears to be even more of an evangelical Remainer.....
Mr. F, bigger question is how would UKIP do at a General Election after a revocation of Article 50?
Not really, how many MPs did they get when they were on 13%?
It depends on your perspective. UKIP don't, by themselves, achieve anything. However, their existence cripples the Tories in the same way that the Grunes are damaging the SPD. Monopolies aren't just good for business.
And yet the only election since 1992 in which the Tories won a majority was the one in which UKIP won 13%.
Almost a third of 2015 UKIP voters went for Corbyn in 2017 (plus Ed Miliband also lost more voters to the SNP and Greens or not voting than Corbyn did). Without ex UKIP voters and Tory and Labour Leave marginal seats all of which back Brexit and oppose free movement and want to leave the single market, then Corbyn has a near zero chance of an overall majority at the next general election
'Almost a third' of 2015 UKIP voters went for Corbyn in 2017
Nowhere near I think.
Why would you say that. Many UKIP voters were ex-Labour and would never vote Tory.
What is the balance in the Tory MP electorate? A few rebels on either side tend to have distorted the debate.
I see the guess is that Tory MPs voted 176 remain, 141 leave, so I'll take that as a start point for putting a finger in the air:
Voted remain / Chequers sceptic / softer now (Inc remain now, 2nd referendummers, EEAers) - 40 (of whom a dozen and up are active rebellers) Voted remain / Chequers hopers / fall back softer - 80 Voted remain / Chequers hopers / fall back harder - 40 Voted remain / Chequers sceptic / harder now - 15 Voted Leave / Chequers sceptics / softer now - 5 Voted Leave / Chequers hopefuls / fall back softer - 15 Voted Leave / Chequers hopefuls / fall back harder - 30 Voted Leave / Chequers sceptics / harder now - 90 of whom, social liberals - 20 social conservatives - 70
Does that sound anywhere near the mark?
Isn't it a bit simpler than that? Want to leave 100% at any cost - 40 Want to remain 100% at any cost - 40 Want to keep their jobs so will watch the polls and see where the wind blows - 237
Is there any reason to think more than 13 want to remain at any cost?
It's probably not as high as 13. Some of those rebels would live with an EEA settlement. Four or five would fight on though.
Behind rebellions there are always more sympathisers. If you look at the parallel posts on the EEA, it's hard to believe that underlying support in the whole, majority remain, MP base is just 13/317. Some will vote for the May plan and see what transpires, but it doesn't mean they are not, at heart, soft Brexiters or Chequers sceptics.
The more I read about EEA membership the more I believe that it offers a liefboat if the current government approach hits the rocks. There appears to be some leeway in restricting migration with a more prescriptive set of rules and it returns control of fisheries and agriculture . Much reduced payments as well. It is a pre-configured trade agreement.
I believe May is trying to keep to a narrow path of compromise and get a bespoke agreement but the horrible state of the Commons may mean this cannot be delivered. If the majority in the commons take control and temporarily ignore party political advantage then an off the shelf deal would be needed. It could be for (say) 5 or ten years with review. I don't think any outcome wil silence this isssue for the foreseeable future!
EEA membership was what i assumed we would get. Ruling it out immediately was one of May's first mistakes. Its just CommonMarket+
Which as I've repeatedly said is all we really wanted anyway. If May cant get an EU deal through brexit then put a second referendum for EEA or WTO/future trade agreements.
EEA solves a lot of the EU's problems except if you're worried about it free movement.
May viewed the Brexit vote through the prism of ending free movement first, second and third.
But then she's not prepared to countenance no deal so has conceded on free movement now anyway.
So we're going to if May stays in charge get a worse deal than the EEA and still have free movement.
Well done May!
Technically May is replacing freedom of movement with a mobility framework, if free movement has not ended by the next general election even Javid will walk and May will be gone to be replaced by either him or Boris
A rose by any other name ...
... call it what you like May is keeping freedom of movement.
No she is not as she made clear at the select committee this week full freedom of movement will end even if replaced by a form of work permit. If it does not end as I have said her leadership will be over
What is the balance in the Tory MP electorate? A few rebels on either side tend to have distorted the debate.
I see the guess is that Tory MPs voted 176 remain, 141 leave, so I'll take that as a start point for putting a finger in the air:
Voted remain / Chequers sceptic / softer now (Inc remain now, 2nd referendummers, EEAers) - 40 (of whom a dozen and up are active rebellers) Voted remain / Chequers hopers / fall back softer - 80 Voted remain / Chequers hopers / fall back harder - 40 Voted remain / Chequers sceptic / harder now - 15 Voted Leave / Chequers sceptics / softer now - 5 Voted Leave / Chequers hopefuls / fall back softer - 15 Voted Leave / Chequers hopefuls / fall back harder - 30 Voted Leave / Chequers sceptics / harder now - 90 of whom, social liberals - 20 social conservatives - 70
Does that sound anywhere near the mark?
Isn't it a bit simpler than that? Want to leave 100% at any cost - 40 Want to remain 100% at any cost - 40 Want to keep their jobs so will watch the polls and see where the wind blows - 237
Is there any reason to think more than 13 want to remain at any cost?
It's probably not as high as 13. Some of those rebels would live with an EEA settlement. Four or five would fight on though.
Behind rebellions there are always more sympathisers. If you look at the parallel posts on the EEA, it's hard to believe that underlying support in the whole, majority remain, MP base is just 13/317. Some will vote for the May plan and see what transpires, but it doesn't mean they are not, at heart, soft Brexiters or Chequers sceptics.
They may be sympathisers but they're not 100% at any cost ones. Nor is anyone saying its 13/317.
It's more like
Remain 100% at any cost - 13 Want their jobs - 244 Leave 100% at any cost - 60
Mr. F, bigger question is how would UKIP do at a General Election after a revocation of Article 50?
Not really, how many MPs did they get when they were on 13%?
It depends on your perspective. UKIP don't, by themselves, achieve anything. However, their existence cripples the Tories in the same way that the Grunes are damaging the SPD. Monopolies aren't just good for business.
And yet the only election since 1992 in which the Tories won a majority was the one in which UKIP won 13%.
Almost a third of 2015 UKIP voters went for Corbyn in 2017 (plus Ed Miliband also lost more voters to the SNP and Greens or not voting than Corbyn did). Without ex UKIP voters and Tory and Labour Leave marginal seats all of which back Brexit and oppose free movement and want to leave the single market, then Corbyn has a near zero chance of an overall majority at the next general election
'Almost a third' of 2015 UKIP voters went for Corbyn in 2017
Nowhere near I think.
Yeah, I think BES said it was more like 15-20% of 2015 UKIP voters went for Corbyn.
However, there's some evidence that Labour picked up a lot of 2017 wannabe UKIP voters - in seats where UKIP candidates didn't stand, Labour seemed to pick up the votes that "should" have gone UKIP just as much as the Tories did.
The more I read about EEA membership the more I believe that it offers a liefboat if the current government approach hits the rocks. There appears to be some leeway in restricting migration with a more prescriptive set of rules and it returns control of fisheries and agriculture . Much reduced payments as well. It is a pre-configured trade agreement.
I believe May is trying to keep to a narrow path of compromise and get a bespoke agreement but the horrible state of the Commons may mean this cannot be delivered. If the majority in the commons take control and temporarily ignore party political advantage then an off the shelf deal would be needed. It could be for (say) 5 or ten years with review. I don't think any outcome wil silence this isssue for the foreseeable future!
EEA membership was what i assumed we would get. Ruling it out immediately was one of May's first mistakes. Its just CommonMarket+
Which as I've repeatedly said is all we really wanted anyway. If May cant get an EU deal through brexit then put a second referendum for EEA or WTO/future trade agreements.
The issue is that you can't have the EEA without free movement. For those of us not bothered by free movement it's not such a big deal, but it wouldn't satisfy the leave vote. Any trade deal with the EU that is going to stand the test of time needs to be negotiated from the outside. There really isn't any alternative, which means the government needs to get on with no deal/WTO exit planning to ensure that planes still fly and supermarkets don't run out of food (and radiotherapy still takes place, as per our earlier discussion). The problem is that there seems to be little to no evidence that anything like that is taking place.
But she hasnt even made any effort. Much of the leave vote could be reasoned with with changes to how we manage our welfare state so we dont end up incentiveising low skilled workers who end up taking their living wage plus tax credits and sending them home while living six to a house.
The leave vote is quite nebulous. Those that are frothing at the mouth about white migrants from poland probably isnt that big a number to cancel out the benefits.
EEA membership will make our relationship much more amicable and create zero difficulties for industry... And also stop Mcdonell and Corbyn carry out state funded socialism.
Indeed Corbyn and McDonnell ate ideologically opposed to the single market ad they have made cleat8
Mr. F, bigger question is how would UKIP do at a General Election after a revocation of Article 50?
Not really, how many MPs did they get when they were on 13%?
It depends on your perspective. UKIP don't, by themselves, achieve anything. However, their existence cripples the Tories in the same way that the Grunes are damaging the SPD. Monopolies aren't just good for business.
And yet the only election since 1992 in which the Tories won a majority was the one in which UKIP won 13%.
Almost a third of 2015 UKIP voters went for Corbyn in 2017 (plus Ed Miliband also lost more voters to the SNP and Greens or not voting than Corbyn did). Without ex UKIP voters and Tory and Labour Leave marginal seats all of which back Brexit and oppose free movement and want to leave the single market, then Corbyn has a near zero chance of an overall majority at the next general election
'Almost a third' of 2015 UKIP voters went for Corbyn in 2017
Mr. F, bigger question is how would UKIP do at a General Election after a revocation of Article 50?
Not really, how many MPs did they get when they were on 13%?
It depends on your perspective. UKIP don't, by themselves, achieve anything. However, their existence cripples the Tories in the same way that the Grunes are damaging the SPD. Monopolies aren't just good for business.
And yet the only election since 1992 in which the Tories won a majority was the one in which UKIP won 13%.
Almost a third of 2015 UKIP voters went for Corbyn in 2017 (plus Ed Miliband also lost more voters to the SNP and Greens or not voting than Corbyn did). Without ex UKIP voters and Tory and Labour Leave marginal seats all of which back Brexit and oppose free movement and want to leave the single market, then Corbyn has a near zero chance of an overall majority at the next general election
'Almost a third' of 2015 UKIP voters went for Corbyn in 2017
"An Evening With Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson & Douglas Murray was billed as the Woodstock of live speaking and debate. Held at the O2 arena, which holds a capacity of 20,000, the Spectator claimed 8,000 people were in attendance. The audience was predominately white, male and relatively young."
"An Evening With Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson & Douglas Murray was billed as the Woodstock of live speaking and debate. Held at the O2 arena, which holds a capacity of 20,000, the Spectator claimed 8,000 people were in attendance. The audience was predominately white, male and relatively young."
"London saw the highest increase in knife crime offences in raw terms, with 2,643 extra offences in the last year - a 22 per cent increase. This surge of knife crime in the capital accounted for almost half of the total increases seen nationally. "
In one of which you have been proved right, and the other of which you will almost certainly proved right.
But my point as Nigel ably summarised is that the EU have been just as intransigent, unrealistic and dishonest as our lot, and I think any poster would have to be pretty partisan to deny that.
If only we had adults with common sense and a willingness to actually talk, instead of Barnier, Juncker, Davis (now gone) and Boris (also now gone). It will be interesting to see in their absence how far May's own weaknesses were the problem.
If our govt didn't go in to these negotiations understanding the mentality of the EU then more fool them (as indeed it has proved).
I don't really care about the EU, that said. I care that we didn't have a plan but we did have a few cards (A50 untriggered). We continued not to have a plan but then surrendered those few cards we had.
In a totally inappropriate, only vaguely relevant, Godwin-esque analogy, look at the Gulf War. We boasted that we had decapitated the Iraqi regime and then were outraged and surprised when the MO of our enemies became that of actually to decapitate us in turn.
Mr. F, bigger question is how would UKIP do at a General Election after a revocation of Article 50?
Not really, how many MPs did they get when they were on 13%?
It depends on your perspective. UKIP don't, by themselves, achieve anything. However, their existence cripples the Tories in the same way that the Grunes are damaging the SPD. Monopolies aren't just good for business.
And yet the only election since 1992 in which the Tories won a majority was the one in which UKIP won 13%.
Almost a third of 2015 UKIP voters went for Corbyn in 2017 (plus Ed Miliband also lost more voters to the SNP and Greens or not voting than Corbyn did). Without ex UKIP voters and Tory and Labour Leave marginal seats all of which back Brexit and oppose free movement and want to leave the single market, then Corbyn has a near zero chance of an overall majority at the next general election
'Almost a third' of 2015 UKIP voters went for Corbyn in 2017
If Corbyn "can't appeal to Tory voters", how come he picked up 11% of the 2015 Tory vote....
And if he's shown he can make such deep inroads into the Tory vote before, why are some people so convinced he can't make further inroads into it....
I'm more than convinced of the potential of it happening.
You don't need to persuade me.
Labour's retail offer at the last election was attractive and he can do that again. Who cares if it is pie in the sky and economically ruinous, voters like policies with strong cake retention principles.
Never: 53% In next 5 years: 21% In next 6-10 years: 13% In more than 10 years: 13%
Field work: 06/07/18-7/07/18 Sample size: 1,000"
Poland another nation that will not be part of the Eurozone and a full Federal EU
Poland's accession treaty requires it to join the Eurozone. The EU is a rules based organisation, as many tell us. Only Denmark (and the erstwhile UK before it became a deserted wasteland) has/had an opt out.
"An Evening With Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson & Douglas Murray was billed as the Woodstock of live speaking and debate. Held at the O2 arena, which holds a capacity of 20,000, the Spectator claimed 8,000 people were in attendance. The audience was predominately white, male and relatively young."
And we've learnt how to organise. Identity Politics has come home. The tyranny of the minority through IP is quite possibly going through its death throws.
The EU are signing a free trade deal with Japan, which amazingly doesn't involve freedom of movement or any of the other crap that they are insisting with us.
They hate us and want to destroy us.
It's going to be really painful to leave thanks to the EU acting like it is, but thankfully we'll be out and can rebuild on our own terms.
Have Japan signed up to things like Euroatom?
No, but it begs the question as to why we are bothering with that stuff.
Because people could literally die if it isn’t sorted
Or, how about we replicate the functions of Euratom with Britatom. You know, actual exit planning.
But that costs money and paperwork, something you said would be reduced thanks to Brexit.
Plus do we have the capability and resources to replicate Euratom. The experts have their doubts.
Plus I assume that EurAtom and Britatom would have a mutual recognition, joint standards, etc....
Possibly and then we’ve got to sort out a dispute resolution mechanism.
CJEU anyone?
If so we might as well stay in Euratom.
We might as well stay in Euratom anyway. If that means having to concede FoM for nuclear physicists, I think most of the population could live with that.
Mr. Herdson, must differ on the donative. Tell a classroom of schoolkids they get £10,000 each if their teacher dies and see what happens to the life expectancy of teachers.
Paying soldiers huge sums (which then had inflationary effects for the whole empire) upon the accession of a new emperor creates a massive incentive to force the issue.
In one of which you have been proved right, and the other of which you will almost certainly proved right.
But my point as Nigel ably summarised is that the EU have been just as intransigent, unrealistic and dishonest as our lot, and I think any poster would have to be pretty partisan to deny that.
If only we had adults with common sense and a willingness to actually talk, instead of Barnier, Juncker, Davis (now gone) and Boris (also now gone). It will be interesting to see in their absence how far May's own weaknesses were the problem.
If our govt didn't go in to these negotiations understanding the mentality of the EU then more fool them (as indeed it has proved)...
Which is fairly extraordinary considering (for example) that David Davis has known Barnier for two decades.
The more I read about EEA membership the more I believe that it offers a liefboat if the current government approach hits the rocks. There appears to be some leeway in restricting migration with a more prescriptive set of rules and it returns control of fisheries and agriculture . Much reduced payments as well. It is a pre-configured trade agreement.
I believe May is trying to keep to a narrow path of compromise and get a bespoke agreement but the horrible state of the Commons may mean this cannot be delivered. If the majority in the commons take control and temporarily ignore party political advantage then an off the shelf deal would be needed. It could be for (say) 5 or ten years with review. I don't think any outcome wil silence this isssue for the foreseeable future!
EEA membership was what i assumed we would get. Ruling it out immediately was one of May's first mistakes. Its just CommonMarket+
Which as I've repeatedly said is all we really wanted anyway. If May cant get an EU deal through brexit then put a second referendum for EEA or WTO/future trade agreements.
Entirely agree and, as a bonus, we respect the 1975 referendum as well as the 2016 referendum.
Why do we have to respect the 1975 Referendum? I think it might just have been superceded by a subsequent vote. Or we'd still be respecting Prime Minister Harold Wilson.....
In one of which you have been proved right, and the other of which you will almost certainly proved right.
But my point as Nigel ably summarised is that the EU have been just as intransigent, unrealistic and dishonest as our lot, and I think any poster would have to be pretty partisan to deny that.
If only we had adults with common sense and a willingness to actually talk, instead of Barnier, Juncker, Davis (now gone) and Boris (also now gone). It will be interesting to see in their absence how far May's own weaknesses were the problem.
If our govt didn't go in to these negotiations understanding the mentality of the EU then more fool them (as indeed it has proved)...
Which is fairly extraordinary considering (for example) that David Davis has known Barnier for two decades.
It is no surprise, David Davis is thick as pigshit and full of himself.
Mr. F, bigger question is how would UKIP do at a General Election after a revocation of Article 50?
Not really, how many MPs did they get when they were on 13%?
It depends on your perspective. UKIP don't, by themselves, achieve anything. However, their existence cripples the Tories in the same way that the Grunes are damaging the SPD. Monopolies aren't just good for business.
And yet the only election since 1992 in which the Tories won a majority was the one in which UKIP won 13%.
Almost a third of 2015 UKIP voters went for Corbyn in 2017 (plus Ed Miliband also lost more voters to the SNP and Greens or not voting than Corbyn did). Without ex UKIP voters and Tory and Labour Leave marginal seats all of which back Brexit and oppose free movement and want to leave the single market, then Corbyn has a near zero chance of an overall majority at the next general election
'Almost a third' of 2015 UKIP voters went for Corbyn in 2017
If Corbyn "can't appeal to Tory voters", how come he picked up 11% of the 2015 Tory vote....
And if he's shown he can make such deep inroads into the Tory vote before, why are some people so convinced he can't make further inroads into it....
Corbyn made almost no net gain from 2015 Tory voters in 2017, indeed the latest Yougov has the Tories making a tiny net gain from Labour on 2017 (probably 2015 Tory Remainers who voted Labour in 2017) but easily beaten by more Tories moving to UKIP
Sun Bets, the online bookmaker set up by Rupert Murdoch's News UK and Australian giant Tabcorp, has ceased trading after just two years in business.
A message on the firm's website on Thursday told customers they should withdraw their funds immediately, although account holders were reassured by email that their funds were safe.
Never: 53% In next 5 years: 21% In next 6-10 years: 13% In more than 10 years: 13%
Field work: 06/07/18-7/07/18 Sample size: 1,000"
Poland another nation that will not be part of the Eurozone and a full Federal EU
Poland's accession treaty requires it to join the Eurozone. The EU is a rules based organisation, as many tell us. Only Denmark (and the erstwhile UK before it became a deserted wasteland) has/had an opt out.
In reality though if the EU ever pushed the point Sweden would likely vote to leave the EU rather than adopt the Euro and join EFTA instead, quite possibly Poland too
Never: 53% In next 5 years: 21% In next 6-10 years: 13% In more than 10 years: 13%
Field work: 06/07/18-7/07/18 Sample size: 1,000"
Poland another nation that will not be part of the Eurozone and a full Federal EU
Poland's accession treaty requires it to join the Eurozone. The EU is a rules based organisation, as many tell us. Only Denmark (and the erstwhile UK before it became a deserted wasteland) has/had an opt out.
Sweden is also supposed to join the Eurozone - it was an EU member for six years before the Euro was introduced and 18 years since the Euro began it still hasn't joined. If they don't enforce this requirement on Sweden why would they do so on Poland?
The EU picks and chooses what obligations it follows - and I expect the ECB has enough problems with managing existing members like Italy and Greece without forcing others to join.
I see the guess is that Tory MPs voted 176 remain, 141 leave, so I'll take that as a start point for putting a finger in the air:
Voted remain / Chequers sceptic / softer now (Inc remain now, 2nd referendummers, EEAers) - 40 (of whom a dozen and up are active rebellers) Voted remain / Chequers hopers / fall back softer - 80 Voted remain / Chequers hopers / fall back harder - 40 Voted remain / Chequers sceptic / harder now - 15 Voted Leave / Chequers sceptics / softer now - 5 Voted Leave / Chequers hopefuls / fall back softer - 15 Voted Leave / Chequers hopefuls / fall back harder - 30 Voted Leave / Chequers sceptics / harder now - 90 of whom, social liberals - 20 social conservatives - 70
Does that sound anywhere near the mark?
Isn't it a bit simpler than that? Want to leave 100%... - 40 Want to remain 100%... - 40 Want to keep their jobs so will watch the polls.... - 237
Is there any reason to think more than 13 want to remain at any cost?
It's probably not as high as 13. Some of those rebels would live with an EEA settlement. Four or five would fight on though.
Behind rebellions there are always more sympathisers. If you look at the parallel posts on the EEA, it's hard to believe that underlying support in the whole, majority remain, MP base is just 13/317. Some will vote for the May plan and see what transpires, but it doesn't mean they are not, at heart, soft Brexiters or Chequers sceptics.
They may be sympathisers but they're not 100% at any cost ones. Nor is anyone saying its 13/317.
It's more like
Remain 100% at any cost - 13 Want their jobs - 244 Leave 100% at any cost - 60
I didn't frame my first group as at any cost remainers, because that group is not likely to put up one of their own in a leadership election, despite the low bar to entry. If one did stand, Greening would be my likely guess.
I'll accept the lower number by your definition, and yet argue my 40 soft Brexit minded Chequers sceptics, plus the 80 Chequers hopefuls are more relevant. Phil Hammond sits in one of these two groups, and they form his natural support base. It means he could go decently far in the MPs rounds, although 'the membership won't wear it' will come into play.
But if it's not Hammond, then the ability to pitch soft to these 120 MPs, without being too overt, may be a benefit and deliver one of the candidates to the members.
If MPs are looking to their own prospects, which do they fear more - the howls of betrayal or the howls as the voters face the reality of hard Brexit?
Comments
In my opinion, playing hardball with the EU is the way to deliver a deal. A deal is still more likely than a No-deal Brexit. Preparing for No-deal brexit is one of the reasons.
Why will the EU deal?
- they still want our trade
- they still want access to the City of London finance
- they still want planes flying over Europe, they still want hospitals with medicines, they still want food in stores
- they still want our forty billion
- averting disaster is what Brussels does. The Euro is still going, after all.....
Cameron failed because the EU never for one minute thought he would back Leave. Good to see that mistake has (finally) been rectified with the Brexit talks. Now they know the stakes.
The ball is in the EU's court. Can I suggest you turn your frothing, spittle-flecked invective on from the Brexiteers and turn it on the EU - and get them to start compromising?
I agree that the donative was an appalling system that created all the wrong incentives but again, not something that you can lay at the feet of Augustus or Tiberius - and was still a secondary (if reinforcing) factor to the inherent instability that occurred post cAD180.
We would have been better off if A50 was being triggered now, even with our rubbish negotiating paper. The pressure could have been kept up on the EU as they could not force us to trigger A50 but probably would have become more and more keen for us to do so. Perhaps we could have had some movement or concession from them?
In the end what we did was have no clue about what we wanted and then we fired the starting gun anyway.
Madness! I could live with the EEA as an option, but I think that your comment about their behaviour is not wholly accurate. The damage from Brexit will be less to them than us and they need to act on behalf of the 27, not the 1.
Nobody wins from Brexit. That is why it is so stupid.
Paying soldiers huge sums (which then had inflationary effects for the whole empire) upon the accession of a new emperor creates a massive incentive to force the issue.
The EU will collapse to being a Franco-Spanish arrangement at this rate.
I see the guess is that Tory MPs voted 176 remain, 141 leave, so I'll take that as a start point for putting a finger in the air:
Voted remain / Chequers sceptic / softer now (Inc remain now, 2nd referendummers, EEAers) - 40 (of whom a dozen and up are active rebellers)
Voted remain / Chequers hopers / fall back softer - 80
Voted remain / Chequers hopers / fall back harder - 40
Voted remain / Chequers sceptic / harder now - 15
Voted Leave / Chequers sceptics / softer now - 5
Voted Leave / Chequers hopefuls / fall back softer - 15
Voted Leave / Chequers hopefuls / fall back harder - 30
Voted Leave / Chequers sceptics / harder now - 90
of whom, social liberals - 20
social conservatives - 70
Does that sound anywhere near the mark?
Or I'm supposed to reply in code with something like:
The curious fox sidles along the alley in Spring time only.
But my point as Nigel ably summarised is that the EU have been just as intransigent, unrealistic and dishonest as our lot, and I think any poster would have to be pretty partisan to deny that.
If only we had adults with common sense and a willingness to actually talk, instead of Barnier, Juncker, Davis (now gone) and Boris (also now gone). It will be interesting to see in their absence how far May's own weaknesses were the problem.
I believe May is trying to keep to a narrow path of compromise and get a bespoke agreement but the horrible state of the Commons may mean this cannot be delivered. If the majority in the commons take control and temporarily ignore party political advantage then an off the shelf deal would be needed. It could be for (say) 5 or ten years with review. I don't think any outcome wil silence this isssue for the foreseeable future!
Is the Sunday Sport still going or has the Express taken over from it?
Want to leave 100% at any cost - 40
Want to remain 100% at any cost - 40
Want to keep their jobs so will watch the polls and see where the wind blows - 237
Which as I've repeatedly said is all we really wanted anyway. If May cant get an EU deal through brexit then put a second referendum for EEA or WTO/future trade agreements.
@EuropeElects
Poland, Kantar poll:
When should Poland join the Eurozone?
Never: 53%
In next 5 years: 21%
In next 6-10 years: 13%
In more than 10 years: 13%
Field work: 06/07/18-7/07/18
Sample size: 1,000"
May viewed the Brexit vote through the prism of ending free movement first, second and third.
But then she's not prepared to countenance no deal so has conceded on free movement now anyway.
So we're going to if May stays in charge get a worse deal than the EEA and still have free movement.
Well done May!
But, this being PB, the Nick Palmer philosophy of MPs motivations doesn't do much here to map out a VoNC or leadership election, so I've broken it down as far as I reasonably can.
Is there any Tory MP outside Nottingham that would fight on?
Nowhere near I think.
The leave vote is quite nebulous. Those that are frothing at the mouth about white migrants from poland probably isnt that big a number to cancel out the benefits.
EEA membership will make our relationship much more amicable and create zero difficulties for industry... And also stop Mcdonell and Corbyn carry out state funded socialism.
... call it what you like May is keeping freedom of movement.
Without ex UKIP and Labour Leave voters it is very difficult for Corbyn to become PM as most current Tory Remain voters won't touch Labour with a bargepole as long as Corbyn remains leader at the most they will go LD
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-ratifies-cptpp-trade-deal-to-become-3rd-nation-to-do-so-after-mexico-and-japan
It's more like
Remain 100% at any cost - 13
Want their jobs - 244
Leave 100% at any cost - 60
However, there's some evidence that Labour picked up a lot of 2017 wannabe UKIP voters - in seats where UKIP candidates didn't stand, Labour seemed to pick up the votes that "should" have gone UKIP just as much as the Tories did.
64% voted Tory and 16% voted Labour.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/kug7qzc4lh/InternalResults_170615_VoteSwitchers_W.pdf
And if he's shown he can make such deep inroads into the Tory vote before, why are some people so convinced he can't make further inroads into it....
"An Evening With Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson & Douglas Murray was billed as the Woodstock of live speaking and debate. Held at the O2 arena, which holds a capacity of 20,000, the Spectator claimed 8,000 people were in attendance. The audience was predominately white, male and relatively young."
https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/sam-harris-jordan-peterson-douglas-murray-o2-2018
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/07/19/knife-crime-murder-robbery-vehicletheft-have-soared-past-year/
"London saw the highest increase in knife crime offences in raw terms, with 2,643 extra offences in the last year - a 22 per cent increase. This surge of knife crime in the capital accounted for almost half of the total increases seen nationally. "
I don't really care about the EU, that said. I care that we didn't have a plan but we did have a few cards (A50 untriggered). We continued not to have a plan but then surrendered those few cards we had.
In a totally inappropriate, only vaguely relevant, Godwin-esque analogy, look at the Gulf War. We boasted that we had decapitated the Iraqi regime and then were outraged and surprised when the MO of our enemies became that of actually to decapitate us in turn.
You don't need to persuade me.
Labour's retail offer at the last election was attractive and he can do that again. Who cares if it is pie in the sky and economically ruinous, voters like policies with strong cake retention principles.
Sun Bets, the online bookmaker set up by Rupert Murdoch's News UK and Australian giant Tabcorp, has ceased trading after just two years in business.
A message on the firm's website on Thursday told customers they should withdraw their funds immediately, although account holders were reassured by email that their funds were safe.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/latest/sun-bets-ceases-trading-as-partner-tabcorp-exits-agreement/339480
@Admin -- the links in the pb side-panel should probably be removed as well.
The EU picks and chooses what obligations it follows - and I expect the ECB has enough problems with managing existing members like Italy and Greece without forcing others to join.
https://twitter.com/GreensladeR/status/1019917866898948096
I didn't frame my first group as at any cost remainers, because that group is not likely to put up one of their own in a leadership election, despite the low bar to entry. If one did stand, Greening would be my likely guess.
I'll accept the lower number by your definition, and yet argue my 40 soft Brexit minded Chequers sceptics, plus the 80 Chequers hopefuls are more relevant. Phil Hammond sits in one of these two groups, and they form his natural support base. It means he could go decently far in the MPs rounds, although 'the membership won't wear it' will come into play.
But if it's not Hammond, then the ability to pitch soft to these 120 MPs, without being too overt, may be a benefit and deliver one of the candidates to the members.
If MPs are looking to their own prospects, which do they fear more - the howls of betrayal or the howls as the voters face the reality of hard Brexit?