What happens if turnout at a second referendum is much lower than before?
It's the result that matters. Did a GE become invalid because the turnout fell ?
Scotland 1979
That one worked well, it was a total fix and caused the hatred of Westminster and its Tory troughers.
Tory?
It was Labour that set the threshold. It was Labour that determined the threshold wasn't met so they'd take no further action. It was Labour the SNP decided they had no confidence in. It was Labour that lost power for a generation due to that vote.
??? Labour held the vast majority of MPs in Scotland throughout the 80s and 90s. I doubt the vote had any impact on their performance in England and Wales.
But it was Labour in charge of the 78 referendum.
Labour only lost the vote or no confidence in 79 by a solitary vote due to the SNP too.
Tories came to power in the election that happened due to the SNP.
"It is also the case that contribution-based Benefit was paid for 12 months - rather than the 6 months we see today. 16-18 year olds were able to claim as were students during vacations.If those changes were reversed, the headline figures would rise significantly. "
These people show up in the headline figures today. They are part of the 4.1%. That figure is not dependent on the eligibility for JSA/UC.
16 -18 year olds and students during vacation periods are not included.
Nor should they be they're students on holiday they're not unemployed.
If an employee takes 2 weeks vacation is he unemployed during those two weeks?
I am not arguing that point specifically - but the fact remains that in the mid-70s students were able to claim Unemployment Benefit! Moreover many students on holiday did make themselves available for work.
But the claimant count and the numbers unemployed are not the same thing!
Plus students can still make themselves available for work.
I understand that but they were formerly able to claim benefit - and many did so.
"It is also the case that contribution-based Benefit was paid for 12 months - rather than the 6 months we see today. 16-18 year olds were able to claim as were students during vacations.If those changes were reversed, the headline figures would rise significantly. "
These people show up in the headline figures today. They are part of the 4.1%. That figure is not dependent on the eligibility for JSA/UC.
16 -18 year olds and students during vacation periods are not included.
Nor should they be they're students on holiday they're not unemployed.
If an employee takes 2 weeks vacation is he unemployed during those two weeks?
I am not arguing that point specifically - but the fact remains that in the mid-70s students were able to claim Unemployment Benefit! Moreover many students on holiday did make themselves available for work.
I signed on in the summer after my first year at Uni in 1986. I worked the following summer (alongside a current member of the House of Lords!).
Some students used to take some sort of delight in turning up to sign on in their parents' BMW or Mercedes.
"It is also the case that contribution-based Benefit was paid for 12 months - rather than the 6 months we see today. 16-18 year olds were able to claim as were students during vacations.If those changes were reversed, the headline figures would rise significantly. "
These people show up in the headline figures today. They are part of the 4.1%. That figure is not dependent on the eligibility for JSA/UC.
16 -18 year olds and students during vacation periods are not included.
Nor should they be they're students on holiday they're not unemployed.
If an employee takes 2 weeks vacation is he unemployed during those two weeks?
I am not arguing that point specifically - but the fact remains that in the mid-70s students were able to claim Unemployment Benefit! Moreover many students on holiday did make themselves available for work.
But the claimant count and the numbers unemployed are not the same thing!
Plus students can still make themselves available for work.
I understand that but they were formerly able to claim benefit - and many did so.
Good that they can't now then. Now they can work if they want instead.
I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.
There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.
Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?
Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.
A second referendum with a Remain option vs Brexit package is the only way of squaring that democratic circle. Not trouble free of course, but the people are entitled to either change their minds, or to pull the lever labelled "F*** Business".
There will be no second referendum with a remain option. That is not how we do things. There might be one with types of leave.
"That is not how we do things" sounds very gammony!
But I'm sure that's not you.
Thats a bit classy. I didnt realise racial abuse had become acceptable on PB.
I believe the standard weasel words are "X is not a race" and/or "waay-cist!". Hence: "gammon is not a race, waaay-cist!" or some such. I assume somebody within the next week will use this excuse for Muslims, Europeans, or something.
Sophistry. There's a world of difference between leaving the EU properly and leaving whilst being enmeshed into its structures and operating as something akin to a protectorate, and both the politicians and the general public know perfectly well the difference.
I invite you to consider what would've happened if Yes had won 52:48 in 2014 and Scotland had left the UK a couple of years back, but simultaneously entered into a new association agreement. [detail snipped for brevity]
They would have gotten drunk for the week, celebrated their achievement, then gotten on with their lives. I don't think the association agreement would cause the uproar you assume.
More to the point, Leave does not have a majority in either house. If another referendum is put to the country, it will leave Parliament with a Remain option included in it. Leavers could huff and puff until they're red in the face but they don't have the votes to stop it.
The person with the most agency over all of this in the UK is Theresa May, and her moment of maximum power is the day when the text of the withdrawal agreement is finalised (probably with a very brief political declaration about a future relationship with an Association Agreement structure). If she has an ounce of political sense, she will announce a second referendum with an option to Remain on that day. There will be no possibility that parliament will stand in her way, and a VoNC within the Tory party would be pointless.
She can announce it if she likes, but it would be her last act as Conservative leader.
I'm getting to be quite sanguine about the prospect of 'no deal'. Yes, there are going to be some unpleasant consequences, but they'll disproportionally affect the places that voted to leave - so that's justice of a sort. But the greatest prize is that it's going to see the Tories out of power for a generation. i.e. We're talking 'Black Wednesday' to the power of 10.
One good thing will come of it at least then.
+ Witnessing Toby Young's reaction when Jeremy Corbyn walks into 10 Downing Street. Priceless ...
You think Corbyn and Abbot are capable of sorting out the economic mess that 'no deal' would mean?
It’s stopped raining, so track will be drying if not completely dry by the end of Qualifying. Mercedes and Ferrari will most likely fight it out as usual.
Who is David Whitley, and what actual arguments does he possess beyond insult? (Twitter is 99% mud-slinging and only 1% vaguely useful content anyway.)
I would be very surprised if there were an immediate outbreak of "riots" over a radical change in direction. Only increasing polarisation, extremism and the slow throttling to death of a reasonably tolerant, civilised society.
You cannot create a situation in which you give people a chance to say what they want, then ignore the answer because you don't like it, and expect this decision to be without consequence. Nor, incidentally, will arguing that the referendum question didn't say what *kind* of Leave there should be - and therefore it can be whatever is least unpalatable to the people who never wanted to go - suffice. There was a window of opportunity when the EEA might have been saleable to the electorate as a stepping stone to something new, but we are long past the point at which anyone will trust that proposal if the Government tries to sell it.
There must be trust that votes are meaningful, or else everything else falls.
When we leave the EU on 29th March 2019, the referendum mandate will have been honoured. Everything else is detail.
Sophistry. There's a world of difference between leaving the EU properly and leaving whilst being enmeshed into its structures and operating as something akin to a protectorate, and both the politicians and the general public know perfectly well the difference.
I invite you to consider what would've happened if Yes had won 52:48 in 2014 and Scotland had left the UK a couple of years back, but simultaneously entered into a new association agreement. This might have included, for arguments' sake, delegating external trade policy, the internal regulation of the British single market, monetary policy and territorial defence to a series of joint committees comprised entirely of English, Welsh and Northern Irish politicians, in exchange for the maintenance of an open border and seamless trade. The Union would have ended de jure but continued de facto in a less appealing form.
Your line of reasoning would insist that the referendum result had been fulfilled. The majority of Scots might not have been quite so sanguine about it.
They would probably have argued that it would be better to stay in the Union than accept those terms. Good example.
"It is also the case that contribution-based Benefit was paid for 12 months - rather than the 6 months we see today. 16-18 year olds were able to claim as were students during vacations.If those changes were reversed, the headline figures would rise significantly. "
These people show up in the headline figures today. They are part of the 4.1%. That figure is not dependent on the eligibility for JSA/UC.
16 -18 year olds and students during vacation periods are not included.
Nor should they be they're students on holiday they're not unemployed.
If an employee takes 2 weeks vacation is he unemployed during those two weeks?
I am not arguing that point specifically - but the fact remains that in the mid-70s students were able to claim Unemployment Benefit! Moreover many students on holiday did make themselves available for work.
I signed on in the summer after my first year at Uni in 1986. I worked the following summer (alongside a current member of the House of Lords!).
Some students used to take some sort of delight in turning up to sign on in their parents' BMW or Mercedes.
I caught the bus.
That's interesting . My own experience was a decade earlier. A bit surprised that benefit was still being paid as late as 1986!
More to the point, Leave does not have a majority in either house. If another referendum is put to the country, it will leave Parliament with a Remain option included in it. Leavers could huff and puff until they're red in the face but they don't have the votes to stop it.
The person with the most agency over all of this in the UK is Theresa May, and her moment of maximum power is the day when the text of the withdrawal agreement is finalised (probably with a very brief political declaration about a future relationship with an Association Agreement structure). If she has an ounce of political sense, she will announce a second referendum with an option to Remain on that day. There will be no possibility that parliament will stand in her way, and a VoNC within the Tory party would be pointless.
She can announce it if she likes, but it would be her last act as Conservative leader.
You have two months of being softened up for it first. No Deal is going to get a hammering.
I'm getting to be quite sanguine about the prospect of 'no deal'. Yes, there are going to be some unpleasant consequences, but they'll disproportionally affect the places that voted to leave - so that's justice of a sort. But the greatest prize is that it's going to see the Tories out of power for a generation. i.e. We're talking 'Black Wednesday' to the power of 10.
One good thing will come of it at least then.
+ Witnessing Toby Young's reaction when Jeremy Corbyn walks into 10 Downing Street. Priceless ...
You think Corbyn and Abbot are capable of sorting out the economic mess that 'no deal' would mean?
I suggest a run on pound will be just the start.
Still totally worth it for the Toby Young reaction.
I'm getting to be quite sanguine about the prospect of 'no deal'. Yes, there are going to be some unpleasant consequences, but they'll disproportionally affect the places that voted to leave - so that's justice of a sort. But the greatest prize is that it's going to see the Tories out of power for a generation. i.e. We're talking 'Black Wednesday' to the power of 10.
One good thing will come of it at least then.
+ Witnessing Toby Young's reaction when Jeremy Corbyn walks into 10 Downing Street. Priceless ...
You think Corbyn and Abbot are capable of sorting out the economic mess that 'no deal' would mean?
I suggest a run on pound will be just the start.
Be honest. The Conservatives would be perfectly content with burning the economy to the ground if it caused the Europeans minor inconvenience. There are no longer grounds for saying Labour would be worse on the economy.
I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.
There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.
Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?
Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.
A second referendum with a Remain option vs Brexit package is the only way of squaring that democratic circle. Not trouble free of course, but the people are entitled to either change their minds, or to pull the lever labelled "F*** Business".
There will be no second referendum with a remain option. That is not how we do things. There might be one with types of leave.
"That is not how we do things" sounds very gammony!
But I'm sure that's not you.
Thats a bit classy. I didnt realise racial abuse had become acceptable on PB.
"Gammons" occupy a very low level in the New Left's Hierarchy of Oppression, only just above the Jews, and are therefore considered fair game for virtually everybody. It's the way things are now, alas.
I'm getting to be quite sanguine about the prospect of 'no deal'. Yes, there are going to be some unpleasant consequences, but they'll disproportionally affect the places that voted to leave - so that's justice of a sort. But the greatest prize is that it's going to see the Tories out of power for a generation. i.e. We're talking 'Black Wednesday' to the power of 10.
One good thing will come of it at least then.
+ Witnessing Toby Young's reaction when Jeremy Corbyn walks into 10 Downing Street. Priceless ...
You think Corbyn and Abbot are capable of sorting out the economic mess that 'no deal' would mean?
I suggest a run on pound will be just the start.
Still totally worth it for the Toby Young reaction.
And to hear the howls of anguish of all those in London who voted for Corbyn as they watch their properties go into negative equity.....
More to the point, Leave does not have a majority in either house. If another referendum is put to the country, it will leave Parliament with a Remain option included in it. Leavers could huff and puff until they're red in the face but they don't have the votes to stop it.
The person with the most agency over all of this in the UK is Theresa May, and her moment of maximum power is the day when the text of the withdrawal agreement is finalised (probably with a very brief political declaration about a future relationship with an Association Agreement structure). If she has an ounce of political sense, she will announce a second referendum with an option to Remain on that day. There will be no possibility that parliament will stand in her way, and a VoNC within the Tory party would be pointless.
She can announce it if she likes, but it would be her last act as Conservative leader.
You think? If she did that and remain won the subsequent referendum she'd be a hero. I think she'd finally get her hundred seat majority in the next election. I might even vote for her myself.
I'm getting to be quite sanguine about the prospect of 'no deal'. Yes, there are going to be some unpleasant consequences, but they'll disproportionally affect the places that voted to leave - so that's justice of a sort. But the greatest prize is that it's going to see the Tories out of power for a generation. i.e. We're talking 'Black Wednesday' to the power of 10.
One good thing will come of it at least then.
+ Witnessing Toby Young's reaction when Jeremy Corbyn walks into 10 Downing Street. Priceless ...
You think Corbyn and Abbot are capable of sorting out the economic mess that 'no deal' would mean?
I suggest a run on pound will be just the start.
Of course, they aren't. It's just that people will prefer a nice socialist economic chaos over a nasty tory economic chaos.
I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.
There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.
Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?
Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.
A second referendum with a Remain option vs Brexit package is the only way of squaring that democratic circle. Not trouble free of course, but the people are entitled to either change their minds, or to pull the lever labelled "F*** Business".
There will be no second referendum with a remain option. That is not how we do things. There might be one with types of leave.
"That is not how we do things" sounds very gammony!
But I'm sure that's not you.
Thats a bit classy. I didnt realise racial abuse had become acceptable on PB.
The gammon race! Your comment "That is not how we do things" conjures up a particular image of a red faced club member pontificating about dress code or something. H M Bateman type.
However, from your other sensible comments, and your name, I realise that it's not always you who is commenting.
I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.
There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still prthe politicians didn't want to honour.
Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.
A second referendum with a Remain option vs Brexit package is the only way of squaring that democratic circle. Not trouble free of course, but the people are entitled to either change their minds, or to pull the lever labelled "F*** Business".
There will be no second referendum with a remain option. That is not how we do things. There might be one with types of leave.
"That is not how we do things" sounds very gammony!
But I'm sure that's not you.
Thats a bit classy. I didnt realise racial abuse had become acceptable on PB.
I believe the standard weasel words are "X is not a race" and/or "waay-cist!". Hence: "gammon is not a race, waaay-cist!" or some such. I assume somebody within the next week will use this excuse for Muslims, Europeans, or something.
The only possible way the you could define the insult of 'gammon' as not racist is if you hold the marxist definition (and some do) that it isnt possible to be racist against white people because they hold power and privilege, and racism is about power.
Lets look at the insult. Its used to describe an older white person who's face is a bit pink usually due to some kind of blood pressure related issue, or just a feature of age. It can only apply to a white person as high blood pressure/ age do not appear as gammon like for other races. The insult attributes a set of negative values and opinions to someone based on holding this characteristic, and these assumed opinions are derived and ridiculed because that person has this characteristic.
I'm getting to be quite sanguine about the prospect of 'no deal'. Yes, there are going to be some unpleasant consequences, but they'll disproportionally affect the places that voted to leave - so that's justice of a sort. But the greatest prize is that it's going to see the Tories out of power for a generation. i.e. We're talking 'Black Wednesday' to the power of 10.
One good thing will come of it at least then.
+ Witnessing Toby Young's reaction when Jeremy Corbyn walks into 10 Downing Street. Priceless ...
You think Corbyn and Abbot are capable of sorting out the economic mess that 'no deal' would mean?
I suggest a run on pound will be just the start.
Of course, they aren't. It's just that people will prefer a nice socialist economic chaos over a nasty tory economic chaos.
At some point surely it will dawn on Corbyn and McD that there will no money for any of their projects if we crash out with no deal. At that point they will suddenly decide a 2nd referendum is needed.
"Gammons" occupy a very low level in the New Left's Hierarchy of Oppression, only just above the Jews, and are therefore considered fair game for virtually everybody. It's the way things are now, alas.
They are below not above. Lowest gammon denominater.
I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.
There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.
Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?
Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.
A second referendum with a Remain option vs Brexit package is the only way of squaring that democratic circle. Not trouble free of course, but the people are entitled to either change their minds, or to pull the lever labelled "F*** Business".
There will be no second referendum with a remain option. That is not how we do things. There might be one with types of leave.
"That is not how we do things" sounds very gammony!
But I'm sure that's not you.
Thats a bit classy. I didnt realise racial abuse had become acceptable on PB.
"Gammons" occupy a very low level in the New Left's Hierarchy of Oppression, only just above the Jews, and are therefore considered fair game for virtually everybody. It's the way things are now, alas.
I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.
There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still prthe politicians didn't want to honour.
Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.
A second referendum with a Remain option vs Brexit package is the only way of squaring that democratic circle. Not trouble free of course, but the people are entitled to either change their minds, or to pull the lever labelled "F*** Business".
There will be no second referendum with a remain option. That is not how we do things. There might be one with types of leave.
"That is not how we do things" sounds very gammony!
But I'm sure that's not you.
Thats a bit classy. I didnt realise racial abuse had become acceptable on PB.
I believe the standard weasel words are "X is not a race" and/or "waay-cist!". Hence: "gammon is not a race, waaay-cist!" or some such. I assume somebody within the next week will use this excuse for Muslims, Europeans, or something.
The only possible way the you could define the insult of 'gammon' as not racist is if you hold the marxist definition (and some do) that it isnt possible to be racist against white people because they hold power and privilege, and racism is about power.
Lets look at the insult. Its used to describe an older white person who's face is a bit pink usually due to some kind of blood pressure related issue, or just a feature of age. It can only apply to a white person as high blood pressure/ age do not appear as gammon like for other races. The insult attributes a set of negative values and opinions to someone based on holding this characteristic, and these assumed opinions are derived and ridiculed because that person has this characteristic.
I'm getting to be quite sanguine about the prospect of 'no deal'. Yes, there are going to be some unpleasant consequences, but they'll disproportionally affect the places that voted to leave - so that's justice of a sort. But the greatest prize is that it's going to see the Tories out of power for a generation. i.e. We're talking 'Black Wednesday' to the power of 10.
One good thing will come of it at least then.
+ Witnessing Toby Young's reaction when Jeremy Corbyn walks into 10 Downing Street. Priceless ...
You think Corbyn and Abbot are capable of sorting out the economic mess that 'no deal' would mean?
I suggest a run on pound will be just the start.
Still totally worth it for the Toby Young reaction.
And to hear the howls of anguish of all those in London who voted for Corbyn as they watch their properties go into negative equity.....
...don't forget the bills popping into their letterboxes for garden tax as well!
I'm getting to be quite sanguine about the prospect of 'no deal'. Yes, there are going to be some unpleasant consequences, but they'll disproportionally affect the places that voted to leave - so that's justice of a sort. But the greatest prize is that it's going to see the Tories out of power for a generation. i.e. We're talking 'Black Wednesday' to the power of 10.
One good thing will come of it at least then.
+ Witnessing Toby Young's reaction when Jeremy Corbyn walks into 10 Downing Street. Priceless ...
You think Corbyn and Abbot are capable of sorting out the economic mess that 'no deal' would mean?
I suggest a run on pound will be just the start.
Still totally worth it for the Toby Young reaction.
And to hear the howls of anguish of all those in London who voted for Corbyn as they watch their properties go into negative equity.....
They’ll be nearly as loud as the howls from the London twentysomethings suddenly being asked for 50% deposits and finding getting on the housing ladder more difficult than ever.
I'm getting to be quite sanguine about the prospect of 'no deal'. Yes, there are going to be some unpleasant consequences, but they'll disproportionally affect the places that voted to leave - so that's justice of a sort. But the greatest prize is that it's going to see the Tories out of power for a generation. i.e. We're talking 'Black Wednesday' to the power of 10.
One good thing will come of it at least then.
+ Witnessing Toby Young's reaction when Jeremy Corbyn walks into 10 Downing Street. Priceless ...
You think Corbyn and Abbot are capable of sorting out the economic mess that 'no deal' would mean?
I suggest a run on pound will be just the start.
Be honest. The Conservatives would be perfectly content with burning the economy to the ground if it caused the Europeans minor inconvenience. There are no longer grounds for saying Labour would be worse on the economy.
I'm getting to be quite sanguine about the prospect of 'no deal'. Yes, there are going to be some unpleasant consequences, but they'll disproportionally affect the places that voted to leave - so that's justice of a sort. But the greatest prize is that it's going to see the Tories out of power for a generation. i.e. We're talking 'Black Wednesday' to the power of 10.
One good thing will come of it at least then.
+ Witnessing Toby Young's reaction when Jeremy Corbyn walks into 10 Downing Street. Priceless ...
You think Corbyn and Abbot are capable of sorting out the economic mess that 'no deal' would mean?
I suggest a run on pound will be just the start.
Of course, they aren't. It's just that people will prefer a nice socialist economic chaos over a nasty tory economic chaos.
You mean by that the people with no savings or on very low incomes. 'Equality of being broke' is the very essence of socialism
I'm getting to be quite sanguine about the prospect of 'no deal'. Yes, there are going to be some unpleasant consequences, but they'll disproportionally affect the places that voted to leave - so that's justice of a sort. But the greatest prize is that it's going to see the Tories out of power for a generation. i.e. We're talking 'Black Wednesday' to the power of 10.
One good thing will come of it at least then.
+ Witnessing Toby Young's reaction when Jeremy Corbyn walks into 10 Downing Street. Priceless ...
You think Corbyn and Abbot are capable of sorting out the economic mess that 'no deal' would mean?
I suggest a run on pound will be just the start.
Be honest. The Conservatives would be perfectly content with burning the economy to the ground if it caused the Europeans minor inconvenience. There are no longer grounds for saying Labour would be worse on the economy.
I'm getting to be quite sanguine about the prospect of 'no deal'. Yes, there are going to be some unpleasant consequences, but they'll disproportionally affect the places that voted to leave - so that's justice of a sort. But the greatest prize is that it's going to see the Tories out of power for a generation. i.e. We're talking 'Black Wednesday' to the power of 10.
One good thing will come of it at least then.
+ Witnessing Toby Young's reaction when Jeremy Corbyn walks into 10 Downing Street. Priceless ...
You think Corbyn and Abbot are capable of sorting out the economic mess that 'no deal' would mean?
I suggest a run on pound will be just the start.
Of course, they aren't. It's just that people will prefer a nice socialist economic chaos over a nasty tory economic chaos.
At some point surely it will dawn on Corbyn and McD that there will no money for any of their projects if we crash out with no deal. At that point they will suddenly decide a 2nd referendum is needed.
This seems unlikely. They'll bleed the rich until they've all run away, soak the middle class until they've all emigrated as well (or are completely impoverished and have nothing more to give,) and finally they'll print whatever they need until hyperinflation renders the money too worthless to buy anything.
It's called the Venezuela model, and it's an ideal way to eliminate inequality by the simple expedient of making everybody equally destitute as quickly as possible.
I'm getting to be quite sanguine about the prospect of 'no deal'. Yes, there are going to be some unpleasant consequences, but they'll disproportionally affect the places that voted to leave - so that's justice of a sort. But the greatest prize is that it's going to see the Tories out of power for a generation. i.e. We're talking 'Black Wednesday' to the power of 10.
One good thing will come of it at least then.
+ Witnessing Toby Young's reaction when Jeremy Corbyn walks into 10 Downing Street. Priceless ...
You think Corbyn and Abbot are capable of sorting out the economic mess that 'no deal' would mean?
I suggest a run on pound will be just the start.
Of course, they aren't. It's just that people will prefer a nice socialist economic chaos over a nasty tory economic chaos.
At some point surely it will dawn on Corbyn and McD that there will no money for any of their projects if we crash out with no deal. At that point they will suddenly decide a 2nd referendum is needed.
Corbyn and McD aren't bothered in the slightest about making the sums add up. They'll just pledge whatever spending they feel like and if they ever get in power then raising funds will be an issue for then. Not before.
Thats fine, if those kind of things are acceptable now. Applying a collective set of opinions and values of those opinions based on a racial characteristic. I understood that was something polite company tried to move away from.
The EU's 'negotiating stance' is to reject everything that isn't perfect for it and try to impose a customs barrier within a nation-state which won't even be a member of the EU any more. It's completely unacceptable.
Just because we want to leave doesn't validate the EU acting, collectively, like an absolute dick.
The important thing for us to realise in all of this is that there was *never* any prospect of the EU offering anything other than exactly what the European Commission wants, i.e. either EEA plus EUCU, or nothing. This, I freely admit, is a mistake I have made myself in the past, and nowadays I try to check myself whenever I'm tempted to accuse the EU of being intransigent. It isn't.
The EU consists of a collection of member states that are unable to agree on almost anything of importance, save for the fact that all bar one of them wants to stay put. For now, anyway. It's not that such an incoherent rabble is unwilling to offer flexibility, so much as it's unable to do so.
Without the ability to decide on any significant change for themselves (just look at the slow death of Macron's proposals for Eurozone reform, for example,) the Commission is in sole charge of the negotiations, and its one and only priority is the survival of the Project at all costs. Concerns about anything as peripheral as people being slaughtered in terrorist atrocities are irrelevant to this calculus.
Yeah, you are spot on. If Leaver campaign did make an mistake, it was thinking that the Council runs the EU and that they would end up negotiating with people who had at least some interest in the mutual economic outcome. But the Commission is always in charge, the idea that Merkel actually has any real control over anything is a joke.
It is analogous to the UK having the civil service and no ministers, and the Cabinet just meets a few times a year to check in on what is happening. There is no way to control the Commission when the Council is not permanent.
But, of course, this realisation just provides further justification for voting Leave.
The mistake here is that many EU governments are very interested in what happens in the Commission and EP, and have actively involved their MEP's in their own government planning and decision making. Unfortunately the only part of the UK government taking any interest was our civil service. There is a joke that the Commission produces a one page discussion document, the French immediately file it away and ignore it, the Germans distribute copies round the Landers and generally ignore it, while the British civil service take it, puff it out to 500 pages and make sure it is passed into law with only minimal government oversight.
The variant which you describe could not and would not have been offered under any circumstances. The Commission is utilising the Irish border as an excuse to try to manoeuvre the UK into accepting the terms that it prefers - i.e. EEA+CU - but that's all that ever would have been acceptable to it anyway.
Whatever terms we leave on will have little bearing on the eventual fate of the EU. As things stand, the failure to structure the Euro system properly is what will most likely finish it off.
Oh, I know that the Irish border is being used as an excuse, have been saying it for a year. I am just saying that if the EU were smart they would have looked at Brexit and said ‘there is a huge risk here that the UK leave our orbit completely and then are successful and if that happens everyone will leave as well, so the better option is to offer them EEA now with a concession on FOM and that close off the issue.’ I think it would have worked at the time, before all the bitterness and bullying. But they are far too stupid and proud and obsessed with their own creation to ever think of it.
I suspect the EU will carry on, but as a hollowed out hulk after the next major crisis - either the Euro or Target 2 or Eastern Europe or something. As long as the UK is as far away as possible, that is their problem.
"Gammons" occupy a very low level in the New Left's Hierarchy of Oppression, only just above the Jews, and are therefore considered fair game for virtually everybody. It's the way things are now, alas.
They are below not above. Lowest gammon denominater.
The highest gammon numerator is the club president.
The problem for May is that Tory support is not only pro Brexit it is probably now swinging pro No Deal, if PB is any bellwether.
Only Big G is now sticking up for Chequers.
Meanwhile, it feels like the EU smell blood. One presumes the EU want a deal, but there is a chance they do not, all the better to crush us completely.
"Gammons" occupy a very low level in the New Left's Hierarchy of Oppression, only just above the Jews, and are therefore considered fair game for virtually everybody. It's the way things are now, alas.
They are below not above. Lowest gammon denominater.
The highest gammon numerator is the club president.
I'm getting to be quite sanguine about the prospect of 'no deal'. Yes, there are going to be some unpleasant consequences, but they'll disproportionally affect the places that voted to leave - so that's justice of a sort. But the greatest prize is that it's going to see the Tories out of power for a generation. i.e. We're talking 'Black Wednesday' to the power of 10.
One good thing will come of it at least then.
+ Witnessing Toby Young's reaction when Jeremy Corbyn walks into 10 Downing Street. Priceless ...
You think Corbyn and Abbot are capable of sorting out the economic mess that 'no deal' would mean?
I suggest a run on pound will be just the start.
Of course, they aren't. It's just that people will prefer a nice socialist economic chaos over a nasty tory economic chaos.
At some point surely it will dawn on Corbyn and McD that there will no money for any of their projects if we crash out with no deal. At that point they will suddenly decide a 2nd referendum is needed.
They are looking for an excuse to unleash their peoples QE. Crash out is the ideal excuse, "we are going to print a trillion quid to protect you from the nasty tory crash out."
The problem for May is that Tory support is not only pro Brexit it is probably now swinging pro No Deal, if PB is any bellwether.
Only Big G is now sticking up for Chequers.
Meanwhile, it feels like the EU smell blood. One presumes the EU want a deal, but there is a chance they do not, all the better to crush us completely.
"crush us completely"? Better Europeans than Juncker have tried and failed.....
The problem for May is that Tory support is not only pro Brexit it is probably now swinging pro No Deal, if PB is any bellwether.
Only Big G is now sticking up for Chequers.
Meanwhile, it feels like the EU smell blood. One presumes the EU want a deal, but there is a chance they do not, all the better to crush us completely.
The question is do the member countries want a deal?
"Gammons" occupy a very low level in the New Left's Hierarchy of Oppression, only just above the Jews, and are therefore considered fair game for virtually everybody. It's the way things are now, alas.
They are below not above. Lowest gammon denominater.
The highest gammon numerator is the club president.
The problem for May is that Tory support is not only pro Brexit it is probably now swinging pro No Deal, if PB is any bellwether.
Only Big G is now sticking up for Chequers.
Meanwhile, it feels like the EU smell blood. One presumes the EU want a deal, but there is a chance they do not, all the better to crush us completely.
What a curious attitude for an organisation with supposedly noble aims. Crushing us does not benefit them either, so it would be purely vindictive. I happen to think better of them, which is why I think no deal is an accidental outcome from them presuming we will capitulate even more, but not realising politically it is not viable.
"Gammons" occupy a very low level in the New Left's Hierarchy of Oppression, only just above the Jews, and are therefore considered fair game for virtually everybody. It's the way things are now, alas.
They are below not above. Lowest gammon denominater.
The highest gammon numerator is the club president.
Club Song: Fanfare for the Gammon Man
I want to live like Gammon people, I want to do whatever Gammon people do, I want to sleep with Gammon people, I want to sleep with Gammon people, Like you.
Well what else could I do I said "I'll see what I can do."
I'm getting to be quite sanguine about the prospect of 'no deal'. Yes, there are going to be some unpleasant consequences, but they'll disproportionally affect the places that voted to leave - so that's justice of a sort. But the greatest prize is that it's going to see the Tories out of power for a generation. i.e. We're talking 'Black Wednesday' to the power of 10.
One good thing will come of it at least then.
+ Witnessing Toby Young's reaction when Jeremy Corbyn walks into 10 Downing Street. Priceless ...
You think Corbyn and Abbot are capable of sorting out the economic mess that 'no deal' would mean?
I suggest a run on pound will be just the start.
I don't think they are, but they are pretty likely to be the ones who have to try if we have an early election.
I'm getting to be quite sanguine about the prospect of 'no deal'. Yes, there are going to be some unpleasant consequences, but they'll disproportionally affect the places that voted to leave - so that's justice of a sort. But the greatest prize is that it's going to see the Tories out of power for a generation. i.e. We're talking 'Black Wednesday' to the power of 10.
One good thing will come of it at least then.
+ Witnessing Toby Young's reaction when Jeremy Corbyn walks into 10 Downing Street. Priceless ...
You think Corbyn and Abbot are capable of sorting out the economic mess that 'no deal' would mean?
I suggest a run on pound will be just the start.
Of course, they aren't. It's just that people will prefer a nice socialist economic chaos over a nasty tory economic chaos.
At some point surely it will dawn on Corbyn and McD that there will no money for any of their projects if we crash out with no deal. At that point they will suddenly decide a 2nd referendum is needed.
This seems unlikely. They'll bleed the rich until they've all run away, soak the middle class until they've all emigrated as well (or are completely impoverished and have nothing more to give,) and finally they'll print whatever they need until hyperinflation renders the money too worthless to buy anything.
It's called the Venezuela model, and it's an ideal way to eliminate inequality by the simple expedient of making everybody equally destitute as quickly as possible.
Apart from the ruling socialist elite and their families and friends, who all seem to do very well out of the collapse.
More to the point, Leave does not have a majority in either house. If another referendum is put to the country, it will leave Parliament with a Remain option included in it. Leavers could huff and puff until they're red in the face but they don't have the votes to stop it.
The person with the most agency over all of this in the UK is Theresa May, and her moment of maximum power is the day when the text of the withdrawal agreement is finalised (probably with a very brief political declaration about a future relationship with an Association Agreement structure). If she has an ounce of political sense, she will announce a second referendum with an option to Remain on that day. There will be no possibility that parliament will stand in her way, and a VoNC within the Tory party would be pointless.
She can announce it if she likes, but it would be her last act as Conservative leader.
You have two months of being softened up for it first. No Deal is going to get a hammering.
Why will that work this time? It is a very lazy and high risk assumption that scare stories, true or not, will work on this occasion.
More to the point, Leave does not have a majority in either house. If another referendum is put to the country, it will leave Parliament with a Remain option included in it. Leavers could huff and puff until they're red in the face but they don't have the votes to stop it.
The person with the most agency over all of this in the UK is Theresa May, and her moment of maximum power is the day when the text of the withdrawal agreement is finalised (probably with a very brief political declaration about a future relationship with an Association Agreement structure). If she has an ounce of political sense, she will announce a second referendum with an option to Remain on that day. There will be no possibility that parliament will stand in her way, and a VoNC within the Tory party would be pointless.
She can announce it if she likes, but it would be her last act as Conservative leader.
You have two months of being softened up for it first. No Deal is going to get a hammering.
Why will that work this time? It is a very lazy and high risk assumption that scare stories, true or not, will work on this occasion.
The difference is that they won't be stories but hard facts. Not forecasts of doom, but precise statements of immediate practical consequences.
I am addressing Acorn's assertion that No Deal is the stability option that will avoid national humiliation. It absolutely isn't and absolutely won't. No Deal isn't agreement by another name. No deal means no arrangements except those agreed by the EU ad hoc, on a temporary basis, to its advantage and in return for the UK doing stuff it wants. For the UK it's the most humiliating outcome of them all and it's not even the end state. At some point there will be a deal on the EU's terms.
The Tories put interest rates to 20% and ran the country into a recession to show how European they were. No deal will be a walk in the park by comparison. Get your products re-certified in the EU, file paperwork at Customs and put up with a very small time delay and set up an agreement with an importer. Once the initial fuss dies down, I doubt anyone will notice.
The EU can’t impose anything on the UK after Brexit. I kmow this is heartbreaking for you, but it is just a fact. If they do anything stupid we can do exactly the same in reverse. The EU will just swallow WTO terms, pay their tariffs and start discussions on an FTA.
I'm getting to be quite sanguine about the prospect of 'no deal'. Yes, there are going to be some unpleasant consequences, but they'll disproportionally affect the places that voted to leave - so that's justice of a sort. But the greatest prize is that it's going to see the Tories out of power for a generation. i.e. We're talking 'Black Wednesday' to the power of 10.
One good thing will come of it at least then.
+ Witnessing Toby Young's reaction when Jeremy Corbyn walks into 10 Downing Street. Priceless ...
You think Corbyn and Abbot are capable of sorting out the economic mess that 'no deal' would mean?
I suggest a run on pound will be just the start.
Of course, they aren't. It's just that people will prefer a nice socialist economic chaos over a nasty tory economic chaos.
At some point surely it will dawn on Corbyn and McD that there will no money for any of their projects if we crash out with no deal. At that point they will suddenly decide a 2nd referendum is needed.
This seems unlikely. They'll bleed the rich until they've all run away, soak the middle class until they've all emigrated as well (or are completely impoverished and have nothing more to give,) and finally they'll print whatever they need until hyperinflation renders the money too worthless to buy anything.
It's called the Venezuela model, and it's an ideal way to eliminate inequality by the simple expedient of making everybody equally destitute as quickly as possible.
Apart from the ruling socialist elite and their families and friends, who all seem to do very well out of the collapse.
The Corbyn Cronies will be the ones who still have bog rolls.....
"Meanwhile, it feels like the EU smell blood. One presumes the EU want a deal, but there is a chance they do not, all the better to crush us completely."
Fortunately, I doubt they are that co-ordinated. What's the old saying … 'If they had brains, they'd be dangerous.'
Who is David Whitley, and what actual arguments does he possess beyond insult? (Twitter is 99% mud-slinging and only 1% vaguely useful content anyway.)
I would be very surprised if there were an immediate outbreak of "riots" over a radical change in direction. Only increasing polarisation, extremism and the slow throttling to death of a reasonably tolerant, civilised society.
You cannot create a situation in which you give people a chance to say what they want, then ignore the answer because you don't like it, and expect this decision to be without consequence. Nor, incidentally, will arguing that the referendum question didn't say what *kind* of Leave there should be - and therefore it can be whatever is least unpalatable to the people who never wanted to go - suffice. There was a window of opportunity when the EEA might have been saleable to the electorate as a stepping stone to something new, but we are long past the point at which anyone will trust that proposal if the Government tries to sell it.
There must be trust that votes are meaningful, or else everything else falls.
When we leave the EU on 29th March 2019, the referendum mandate will have been honoured. Everything else is detail.
Sophistry. There's a world of difference between leaving the EU properly and leaving whilst being enmeshed into its structures and operating as something akin to a protectorate, and both the politicians and the general public know perfectly well the difference.
I
There is a difference, but that doesn't make it sophistry, because it is still true. The question was very simple, any form of leaving meets that simple question. Your point about what kind of leave being significant is also true, and that's one reason BINO or something that doesn't deal with free movement for instance would be so problematic and not likely carry a great deal of support, but that is an argument as to why the outcome should be a particular kind in order to be supported, not an argument that any kind of leaving meets the mandate, because it would.
The problem for May is that Tory support is not only pro Brexit it is probably now swinging pro No Deal, if PB is any bellwether.
Only Big G is now sticking up for Chequers.
Meanwhile, it feels like the EU smell blood. One presumes the EU want a deal, but there is a chance they do not, all the better to crush us completely.
The question is do the member countries want a deal?
They don’t have much say - the Commission is in charge. The member states just parrot what they are told.
Thats fine, if those kind of things are acceptable now. Applying a collective set of opinions and values of those opinions based on a racial characteristic. I understood that was something polite company tried to move away from.
If you were arguing on grounds of politeness I genuinely would have agreed with you, as being rude about people's appearance is impolite and counter-productive.
But you were attempting to define "gammon" as a race. So I used the word "and?" to highlight that that attempt had painted you into a corner. Even if you had succeeded, there was nowhere we could go with it. Were you going to argue for protected status for gammons? A gammon safe space ("Skin Care? Nein Danke!")? Anti-discrimination legislation? A gammon superhero? What?
The Tories put interest rates to 20% and ran the country into a recession to show how European they were.
That's what's known as a lie.
Sorry, 15%. Makes all the difference. The recession was caused by Lawson shadowing the DM because he wanted to join the ERM and be a good European with his mate Geoffrey. At least he learned his lesson.
Somedays I don't know whether to laugh or cry. A well-funded American is trying to create a united Europe for the far-right. Because that worked out so well last time.
The problem for May is that Tory support is not only pro Brexit it is probably now swinging pro No Deal, if PB is any bellwether.
Only Big G is now sticking up for Chequers.
Meanwhile, it feels like the EU smell blood. One presumes the EU want a deal, but there is a chance they do not, all the better to crush us completely.
The UK in it's own collective and electoral decision decided to leave the "club". Can anyone tell me of any instance that a member leaving a club demands that the club changes its rules to benefit the leaver? Just imagine a member leaving a golf club, but demanding that they are allowed to play when they want and get free drinks at the bar. The commission oops! sorry, committee would tell him to close the door on the way out. Byee.. .
The problem for May is that Tory support is not only pro Brexit it is probably now swinging pro No Deal, if PB is any bellwether.
Leavers have been on a long and strange ideological journey as they search for ever more extreme expressions of their obsession. They've gone from "nobody's talking about leaving the single market" to sending the BBMF Lancaster to drop Torpex on Dublin.
They are like online porn addicts who've progressed from a Google image search of Natasha Kaplinsky to searching the darkweb for a Mr Hands torrent in two years.
More to the point, Leave does not have a majority in either house. If another referendum is put to the country, it will leave Parliament with a Remain option included in it. Leavers could huff and puff until they're red in the face but they don't have the votes to stop it.
The person with the most agency over all of this in the UK is Theresa May, and her moment of maximum power is the day when the text of the withdrawal agreement is finalised (probably with a very brief political declaration about a future relationship with an Association Agreement structure). If she has an ounce of political sense, she will announce a second referendum with an option to Remain on that day. There will be no possibility that parliament will stand in her way, and a VoNC within the Tory party would be pointless.
She can announce it if she likes, but it would be her last act as Conservative leader.
You have two months of being softened up for it first. No Deal is going to get a hammering.
Why will that work this time? It is a very lazy and high risk assumption that scare stories, true or not, will work on this occasion.
The difference is that they won't be stories but hard facts. Not forecasts of doom, but precise statements of immediate practical consequences.
You have completely missed the point. Scare stories are not automatically exaggerations, they can be true or false, so their being true or not is not the most vital factor to consider, it is whether they will be believed by enough people, who then act accordingly. Last time, and on many occasions, it has not been effective, not by enough. If you feel the precision of the scare stories will make them more effective this time, ok, that's a theory, but it is still a very high risk approach and a major assumption.
They key is whether it will be effective with the people who matter most in agreeing to a deal - Tory MPs and members. The latter already don't back May's deal, and the latter barely seem to at best. And that's before the EU demands it get softened up even further. We know the ERG are not going to countenance a further softening, they want no deal so scare stories won't work there, and not all remainers care either for different reasons, so there is no certainty, and I would say no likelihood, that the tactic will work this time.
You say immediate consequences, but in fact it still won't be immediate if everything collapses in October. The only way a deal gets through, even before it is softened, is with cross party backing, and that isn't happening.
The problem for May is that Tory support is not only pro Brexit it is probably now swinging pro No Deal, if PB is any bellwether.
Only Big G is now sticking up for Chequers.
Meanwhile, it feels like the EU smell blood. One presumes the EU want a deal, but there is a chance they do not, all the better to crush us completely.
The question is do the member countries want a deal?
I'm sure they'd prefer one. But they show not a hint of being willing to soften the EU's position in order to achieve it, so their preference is pretty moot if the Commission has miscalculated how much more we can bend. Which is to say any amount at all, which May really cannot, but they either do not believe, or it simply crosses a red line for them.
The problem for May is that Tory support is not only pro Brexit it is probably now swinging pro No Deal, if PB is any bellwether.
Only Big G is now sticking up for Chequers.
Meanwhile, it feels like the EU smell blood. One presumes the EU want a deal, but there is a chance they do not, all the better to crush us completely.
The UK in it's own collective and electoral decision decided to leave the "club". Can anyone tell me of any instance that a member leaving a club demands that the club changes its rules to benefit the leaver? Just imagine a member leaving a golf club, but demanding that they are allowed to play when they want and get free drinks at the bar. The commission oops! sorry, committee would tell him to close the door on the way out. Byee.. .
It's a negotiation, that means we ask for things, they ask for things. When people make this argument that the EU has no wiggle room on what to offer because we have left the club it is an argument that negotiation was pointless from the beginning. In which case why were the EU even bothering with it?
What happens if turnout at a second referendum is much lower than before?
It's the result that matters. Did a GE become invalid because the turnout fell ?
Scotland 1979
That one worked well, it was a total fix and caused the hatred of Westminster and its Tory troughers.
Tory?
It was Labour that set the threshold. It was Labour that determined the threshold wasn't met so they'd take no further action. It was Labour the SNP decided they had no confidence in. It was Labour that lost power for a generation due to that vote.
They were just the dummies who could not get into the Tories, they were at least as Tory as the Tories where their own wallets were concerned at least.
You say immediate consequences, but in fact it still won't be immediate if everything collapses in October. The only way a deal gets through, even before it is softened, is with cross party backing, and that isn't happening.
When I say immediate consequences, I mean on Brexit day itself.
October will be the time when serious political decisions about which direction to go in need to be made, so the build up to that is the time to set out the consequences of No Deal precisely. That is not forecasts of the effect on GDP or whatever, but what it actually means in practice.
The problem for May is that Tory support is not only pro Brexit it is probably now swinging pro No Deal, if PB is any bellwether.
Only Big G is now sticking up for Chequers.
Meanwhile, it feels like the EU smell blood. One presumes the EU want a deal, but there is a chance they do not, all the better to crush us completely.
The question is do the member countries want a deal?
They don’t have much say - the Commission is in charge. The member states just parrot what they are told.
I disagree. Barnier has to go to the Council of Ministers to agree anything.
What happens if turnout at a second referendum is much lower than before?
It's the result that matters. Did a GE become invalid because the turnout fell ?
Scotland 1979
That one worked well, it was a total fix and caused the hatred of Westminster and its Tory troughers.
Tory?
It was Labour that set the threshold. It was Labour that determined the threshold wasn't met so they'd take no further action. It was Labour the SNP decided they had no confidence in. It was Labour that lost power for a generation due to that vote.
??? Labour held the vast majority of MPs in Scotland throughout the 80s and 90s. I doubt the vote had any impact on their performance in England and Wales.
But it was Labour in charge of the 78 referendum.
Labour only lost the vote or no confidence in 79 by a solitary vote due to the SNP too.
Tories came to power in the election that happened due to the SNP.
Down to downright lies now, how could a handful of SNP MP's put the Tories in , cut the porkies.
What happens if turnout at a second referendum is much lower than before?
It's the result that matters. Did a GE become invalid because the turnout fell ?
Scotland 1979
That one worked well, it was a total fix and caused the hatred of Westminster and its Tory troughers.
Tory?
It was Labour that set the threshold. It was Labour that determined the threshold wasn't met so they'd take no further action. It was Labour the SNP decided they had no confidence in. It was Labour that lost power for a generation due to that vote.
??? Labour held the vast majority of MPs in Scotland throughout the 80s and 90s. I doubt the vote had any impact on their performance in England and Wales.
But it was Labour in charge of the 78 referendum.
Labour only lost the vote or no confidence in 79 by a solitary vote due to the SNP too.
Tories came to power in the election that happened due to the SNP.
Down to downright lies now, how could a handful of SNP MP's put the Tories in , cut the porkies.
You say immediate consequences, but in fact it still won't be immediate if everything collapses in October. The only way a deal gets through, even before it is softened, is with cross party backing, and that isn't happening.
When I say immediate consequences, I mean on Brexit day itself.
October will be the time when serious political decisions about which direction to go in need to be made, so the build up to that is the time to set out the consequences of No Deal precisely. That is not forecasts of the effect on GDP or whatever, but what it actually means in practice.
And the no dealers won't care. The deal supporters among the Tories (and others probably) are diminishing even before the EU tries to get May to water it down further. Do you really believe a bunch of statements, even about dramatic practical considerations, will suddenly make Tory members, and therefore Tory MPs, suddenly decide on a fundamental change of direction when the EU is saying May's deal is not good enough and, reasonably or not, they want more?
I think you are kidding yourself if you think Tory members and a proportion of no dealer MPs (who would be needed to get anything through) will be swayed by that. It's still statements on what will happen, it won't be seen to be happening, even if more solid that a GDP prediction.
The problem for May is that Tory support is not only pro Brexit it is probably now swinging pro No Deal, if PB is any bellwether.
Only Big G is now sticking up for Chequers.
Meanwhile, it feels like the EU smell blood. One presumes the EU want a deal, but there is a chance they do not, all the better to crush us completely.
The question is do the member countries want a deal?
They don’t have much say - the Commission is in charge. The member states just parrot what they are told.
I disagree. Barnier has to go to the Council of Ministers to agree anything.
And there is much sign that, however much they would prefer a deal, they are willing to tell Barnier to dial it back a notch?
The problem for May is that Tory support is not only pro Brexit it is probably now swinging pro No Deal, if PB is any bellwether.
Only Big G is now sticking up for Chequers.
Meanwhile, it feels like the EU smell blood. One presumes the EU want a deal, but there is a chance they do not, all the better to crush us completely.
The question is do the member countries want a deal?
I'm sure they'd prefer one. But they show not a hint of being willing to soften the EU's position in order to achieve it, so their preference is pretty moot if the Commission has miscalculated how much more we can bend. Which is to say any amount at all, which May really cannot, but they either do not believe, or it simply crosses a red line for them.
The European Council i.e heads of state, set the position Barnier took. He can not move in any substantial way from that. If the Heads of State change their opinion Barnier can move. Barnier spends most of his time when public negotiations are not in progress visiting member state governments.
Bradley Wiggins being very testy on Tour de France coverage at the moment. Claiming all sorts about Damien Collins.
I am stunned. Good thing the guilty never get testy about being called out as much as the innocent.
I am not idea what you are suggesting....all I know is according to Wiggins, MPs use parliamentary privilege to spread lies and it is all an establishment setup. All that was missing was an Alex Jones style rant about the deep state.
Anyhoo, it is a fine day, I have a bit of a day off, and I think I should be outside. I have recommended "The Rise and Fall of the British Nation: A Twentieth-Century History" by David Edgerton (ISBN-10: 1846147751, ISBN-13: 978-1846147753), and I also note that Ian Kershaw has a sequel to "To Hell and Back" coming out; it's called "Roller-Coaster: Europe, 1950-2017" (ISBN-10: 0241187168, ISBN-13: 978-0241187166) and it's out on Aug 30th. Have fun.
Bradley Wiggins being very testy on Tour de France coverage at the moment. Claiming all sorts about Damien Collins.
I am stunned. Good thing the guilty never get testy about being called out as much as the innocent.
I am not idea what you are suggesting....all I know is according to Wiggins, MPs use parliamentary privilege to spread lies and it is all an establishment setup. All that was missing was an Alex Jones style rant about the deep state.
Ah yes, the establishment set up. The establishment love taking down beloved sporting icons...for some reason I guess. Probably jealousy.
The problem for May is that Tory support is not only pro Brexit it is probably now swinging pro No Deal, if PB is any bellwether.
Only Big G is now sticking up for Chequers.
Meanwhile, it feels like the EU smell blood. One presumes the EU want a deal, but there is a chance they do not, all the better to crush us completely.
The question is do the member countries want a deal?
I'm sure they'd prefer one. But they show not a hint of being willing to soften the EU's position in order to achieve it, so their preference is pretty moot if the Commission has miscalculated how much more we can bend. Which is to say any amount at all, which May really cannot, but they either do not believe, or it simply crosses a red line for them.
The European Council i.e heads of state, set the position Barnier took. He can not move in any substantial way from that. If the Heads of State change their opinion Barnier can move. Barnier spends most of his time when public negotiations are not in progress visiting member state governments.
And since they set his direction, why would they change it now? Barnier, and they, clearly still believe we will capitulate further, no matter that May has said she can't.
The problem for May is that Tory support is not only pro Brexit it is probably now swinging pro No Deal, if PB is any bellwether.
Only Big G is now sticking up for Chequers.
Meanwhile, it feels like the EU smell blood. One presumes the EU want a deal, but there is a chance they do not, all the better to crush us completely.
The question is do the member countries want a deal?
I'm sure they'd prefer one. But they show not a hint of being willing to soften the EU's position in order to achieve it, so their preference is pretty moot if the Commission has miscalculated how much more we can bend. Which is to say any amount at all, which May really cannot, but they either do not believe, or it simply crosses a red line for them.
The European Council i.e heads of state, set the position Barnier took. He can not move in any substantial way from that. If the Heads of State change their opinion Barnier can move. Barnier spends most of his time when public negotiations are not in progress visiting member state governments.
This is nonsense. The EU Commission drafted their own negotiating guidelines. They showed them to the Council and said ‘approve this’ and they did after less than 5 minutes of discussion.
Barnier is visiting member states to remind them to stay in line.
Bradley Wiggins being very testy on Tour de France coverage at the moment. Claiming all sorts about Damien Collins.
I am stunned. Good thing the guilty never get testy about being called out as much as the innocent.
I am not idea what you are suggesting....all I know is according to Wiggins, MPs use parliamentary privilege to spread lies and it is all an establishment setup. All that was missing was an Alex Jones style rant about the deep state.
Sir Bradley Wiggins, CBE is getting worked up about the establishment? Posbwas.
The problem for May is that Tory support is not only pro Brexit it is probably now swinging pro No Deal, if PB is any bellwether.
Only Big G is now sticking up for Chequers.
Meanwhile, it feels like the EU smell blood. One presumes the EU want a deal, but there is a chance they do not, all the better to crush us completely.
The question is do the member countries want a deal?
I'm sure they'd prefer one. But they show not a hint of being willing to soften the EU's position in order to achieve it, so their preference is pretty moot if the Commission has miscalculated how much more we can bend. Which is to say any amount at all, which May really cannot, but they either do not believe, or it simply crosses a red line for them.
The European Council i.e heads of state, set the position Barnier took. He can not move in any substantial way from that. If the Heads of State change their opinion Barnier can move. Barnier spends most of his time when public negotiations are not in progress visiting member state governments.
This is nonsense. The EU Commission drafted their own negotiating guidelines. They showed them to the Council and said ‘approve this’ and they did after less than 5 minutes of discussion.
Barnier is visiting member states to remind them to stay in line.
Lewis Hamilton trying to push his car to the pit lane after it broke down in Q1. He’s qualified 14th but will probably start a little higher up due to penalties elsewhere.
The problem for May is that Tory support is not only pro Brexit it is probably now swinging pro No Deal, if PB is any bellwether.
Only Big G is now sticking up for Chequers.
Meanwhile, it feels like the EU smell blood. One presumes the EU want a deal, but there is a chance they do not, all the better to crush us completely.
The UK in it's own collective and electoral decision decided to leave the "club". Can anyone tell me of any instance that a member leaving a club demands that the club changes its rules to benefit the leaver? Just imagine a member leaving a golf club, but demanding that they are allowed to play when they want and get free drinks at the bar. The commission oops! sorry, committee would tell him to close the door on the way out. Byee.. .
It's a negotiation, that means we ask for things, they ask for things. When people make this argument that the EU has no wiggle room on what to offer because we have left the club it is an argument that negotiation was pointless from the beginning. In which case why were the EU even bothering with it?
Instead of demanding the impossible, maybe it would have been wiser asking what was possible. Ah! But that wouldn't have made good headlines would it? Just imagine the headers in the Mail and Torygraph "Tories abase themselves before Barnier" Instead, we have this:
Bradley Wiggins being very testy on Tour de France coverage at the moment. Claiming all sorts about Damien Collins.
I am stunned. Good thing the guilty never get testy about being called out as much as the innocent.
I am not idea what you are suggesting....all I know is according to Wiggins, MPs use parliamentary privilege to spread lies and it is all an establishment setup. All that was missing was an Alex Jones style rant about the deep state.
Lewis Hamilton trying to push his car to the pit lane after it broke down in Q1. He’s qualified 14th but will probably start a little higher up due to penalties elsewhere.
Mercedes would be better off putting a whole bunch of new engine parts in there and start at the back of the grid with Riccardo now.
The problem for May is that Tory support is not only pro Brexit it is probably now swinging pro No Deal, if PB is any bellwether.
Only Big G is now sticking up for Chequers.
Meanwhile, it feels like the EU smell blood. One presumes the EU want a deal, but there is a chance they do not, all the better to crush us completely.
The UK in it's own collective and electoral decision decided to leave the "club". Can anyone tell me of any instance that a member leaving a club demands that the club changes its rules to benefit the leaver? Just imagine a member leaving a golf club, but demanding that they are allowed to play when they want and get free drinks at the bar. The commission oops! sorry, committee would tell him to close the door on the way out. Byee.. .
It's a negotiation, that means we ask for things, they ask for things. When people make this argument that the EU has no wiggle room on what to offer because we have left the club it is an argument that negotiation was pointless from the beginning. In which case why were the EU even bothering with it?
Instead of demanding the impossible, maybe it would have been wiser asking what was possible. Ah! But that wouldn't have made good headlines would it? Just imagine the headers in the Mail and Torygraph "Tories abase themselves before Barnier" Instead, we have this:
The demands we have made may well have been unreasonable (certainly May's should not have taken this long to prepare, given everyone assumed that the EU would say they were unacceptable). But the club analogy, sadly like all analogy, never quite captures everything since it suggests the EU cannot make any concessions, when the whole point of a negotiation is they can - just not necessarily the ones we want them to, and not as many as they will ask of us.
Lewis Hamilton trying to push his car to the pit lane after it broke down in Q1. He’s qualified 14th but will probably start a little higher up due to penalties elsewhere.
Mercedes would be better off putting a whole bunch of new engine parts in there and start at the back of the grid with Riccardo now.
I did think that, but he’s only on his second engine so wouldn’t get any additional penalties for using the third. Ricciardo has taken a fourth engine, one more than allowed, which is why he’s got all the penalties.
"Meanwhile, it feels like the EU smell blood. One presumes the EU want a deal, but there is a chance they do not, all the better to crush us completely."
Fortunately, I doubt they are that co-ordinated. What's the old saying … 'If they had brains, they'd be dangerous.'
On the side of bus and in leave campaign ads was the have cake eat cake deal for Britain, leavers all over debates saying it’s easy to get a deal becuase it’s in EU countries economic interest to get a deal, only yesterday Fox on screens explaining how no deal bad for EU countries like handing free billions £ to Britain. And Fox and Davis and Boris and Mogg and all leavers absolutely right, if what drives this is purely business and commercial interest there is an excellent win win deal to be had.
Bottom line is, politically We are only allowed the sort of deal that puts off other member states leaving. If that means pain and blood for Business in EU states, the EU will take that provided Britain is such a bloody mess from Brexit to deter other states leaving. That politics was always going to win out over business, becuase the decision taken by the British people was not purely on business and commerce, there was a political dimension to the referendum vote, a dialogue from the British voter to the lords and masters of the EU superstate. That is why, regardless what is in interest of EU workers and business, a political fist into the soft fleshy face of Britain is certain to define Brexit for generations to come.
It doesn’t end with Brexit. EU competing aggressively with us starts with Brexit.
Comments
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/07/germany-pre-qualifying-2018.html
Some students used to take some sort of delight in turning up to sign on in their parents' BMW or Mercedes.
I caught the bus.
[welcome to PB, btw]
I suggest a run on pound will be just the start.
However, from your other sensible comments, and your name, I realise that it's not always you who is commenting.
Lets look at the insult. Its used to describe an older white person who's face is a bit pink usually due to some kind of blood pressure related issue, or just a feature of age. It can only apply to a white person as high blood pressure/ age do not appear as gammon like for other races. The insult attributes a set of negative values and opinions to someone based on holding this characteristic, and these assumed opinions are derived and ridiculed because that person has this characteristic.
It's called the Venezuela model, and it's an ideal way to eliminate inequality by the simple expedient of making everybody equally destitute as quickly as possible.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-bannons-plan-to-hijack-europe-for-the-far-right
"And?"
Thats fine, if those kind of things are acceptable now. Applying a collective set of opinions and values of those opinions based on a racial characteristic. I understood that was something polite company tried to move away from.
I suspect the EU will carry on, but as a hollowed out hulk after the next major crisis - either the Euro or Target 2 or Eastern Europe or something. As long as the UK is as far away as possible, that is their problem.
Only Big G is now sticking up for Chequers.
Meanwhile, it feels like the EU smell blood. One presumes the EU want a deal, but there is a chance they do not, all the better to crush us completely.
I want to do whatever Gammon people do,
I want to sleep with Gammon people,
I want to sleep with Gammon people,
Like you.
Well what else could I do
I said "I'll see what I can do."
The EU can’t impose anything on the UK after Brexit. I kmow this is heartbreaking for you, but it is just a fact. If they do anything stupid we can do exactly the same in reverse. The EU will just swallow WTO terms, pay their tariffs and start discussions on an FTA.
"Meanwhile, it feels like the EU smell blood. One presumes the EU want a deal, but there is a chance they do not, all the better to crush us completely."
Fortunately, I doubt they are that co-ordinated. What's the old saying … 'If they had brains, they'd be dangerous.'
But you were attempting to define "gammon" as a race. So I used the word "and?" to highlight that that attempt had painted you into a corner. Even if you had succeeded, there was nowhere we could go with it. Were you going to argue for protected status for gammons? A gammon safe space ("Skin Care? Nein Danke!")? Anti-discrimination legislation? A gammon superhero? What?
Hence my reaction.
They are like online porn addicts who've progressed from a Google image search of Natasha Kaplinsky to searching the darkweb for a Mr Hands torrent in two years.
They key is whether it will be effective with the people who matter most in agreeing to a deal - Tory MPs and members. The latter already don't back May's deal, and the latter barely seem to at best. And that's before the EU demands it get softened up even further. We know the ERG are not going to countenance a further softening, they want no deal so scare stories won't work there, and not all remainers care either for different reasons, so there is no certainty, and I would say no likelihood, that the tactic will work this time.
You say immediate consequences, but in fact it still won't be immediate if everything collapses in October. The only way a deal gets through, even before it is softened, is with cross party backing, and that isn't happening.
https://medium.com/@alastair.meeks/dad-59e09b8ec9a2
October will be the time when serious political decisions about which direction to go in need to be made, so the build up to that is the time to set out the consequences of No Deal precisely. That is not forecasts of the effect on GDP or whatever, but what it actually means in practice.
Makers of the Swiss chocolate bar, Toblerone, are to scrap its latest incarnation which saw wide gaps between its distinctive triangular chunks.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44910195
I think you are kidding yourself if you think Tory members and a proportion of no dealer MPs (who would be needed to get anything through) will be swayed by that. It's still statements on what will happen, it won't be seen to be happening, even if more solid that a GDP prediction.
Barnier spends most of his time when public negotiations are not in progress visiting member state governments.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rise-Fall-British-Nation-Twentieth-Century/dp/1846147751
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Roller-Coaster-Europe-1950-2017-Ian-Kershaw/dp/0241187168
But it would be hard to top an Alex Jones rant. And since they set his direction, why would they change it now? Barnier, and they, clearly still believe we will capitulate further, no matter that May has said she can't.
Barnier is visiting member states to remind them to stay in line.
He’s qualified 14th but will probably start a little higher up due to penalties elsewhere.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-brexit-michel-barnier-brexit-a8456806.html?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1532110058
Bottom line is, politically We are only allowed the sort of deal that puts off other member states leaving. If that means pain and blood for Business in EU states, the EU will take that provided Britain is such a bloody mess from Brexit to deter other states leaving. That politics was always going to win out over business, becuase the decision taken by the British people was not purely on business and commerce, there was a political dimension to the referendum vote, a dialogue from the British voter to the lords and masters of the EU superstate. That is why, regardless what is in interest of EU workers and business, a political fist into the soft fleshy face of Britain is certain to define Brexit for generations to come.
It doesn’t end with Brexit. EU competing aggressively with us starts with Brexit.
The answer is hatred of freedom.