Organising International flights is amazingly anachronistic in this modern age. At its most basic level it involves the two countries a flight goes between organising a treaty for each and every flight. How bonkers is that right?
The EU ownership.
We won't be able to just keep using the current EU Open Skies Agreement as our airlines will no longer be EU owned. We will have to renegotiate our air access at some level.
This is probably a sillyver it? Ireland is not very large after all.
They could. There's two issues though.
1: What goes for Ireland goes for the rest of the EU too and that is a large continent. 2: We'd need to strike deals with USA etc to be able to fly over those nations and land planes there.
Thank you.
This has a touch of Lehmans about it to me. The US authorities allowed Lehmans to go bust because they thought it would teach that arrogant bank - and others - a lesson and probably because they felt that the consequences would be limited and contained. As we know the opposite happened. There was general panic in the financial markets and the authorities were close to losing complete control.
The EU may well feel that aehaviour is beyond reproach. Even those who are right can fall prey to hubris.
I really would not be as sanguine as the EU appears to be about the possibility of no deal or contingency ment.
The EU is planning seriously for a No Deal Brexit. That’s not being sanguine, it’s being realistic. It will be very bad news for everyone. The EU has made that clear, too. But the simple fact is that the effects will be worse for the UK. The EU’s big mistake is probably in believing that the nostalgists and profiteers angling for a No Deal on the UK side actually give a monkeys about the consequences of one.
They're planning for it but acting like they don't need to negotiate as we will give in. It's very high risk.
I agree. As I say, their big mistake is in not understanding that the immensely wealthy Leavers seeking a No Deal Brexit have no interest in mitigating its consequences.
This may be a naïve question, but what have flights to do with a free-trading organisation? Joining a European flight arrangement should be a separate issue totally. As was Euratom.
Yes, I know that the EEC changed into the EU, but doesn't this emphasise that the like Topsy, it just growed and growed. Surely these were add-ons? Why incorporate them into the very body of the organisation. It's almost as if it were a cunning plan to prevent an easy departure.
Ah, I think I've answered my own question.
It's like joining a gym, deciding to leave, and then discovering that they also are involved in setting and collecting your gas and electricity bills and they will cut you off if you do leave.
Organising International flights is amazingly anachronistic in this modern age. At its most basic level it involves the two countries a flight goes between organising a treaty for each and every flight. How bonkers is that right?
The EU has short circuited this with an open skies arrangement, a pooling and sharing of sovereignty if you will, to make the process far more friction free but there comes with it complicates rules about airline ownership.
We won't be able to just keep using the current EU Open Skies Agreement as our airlines will no longer be EU owned. We will have to renegotiate our air access at some level.
This is probably a silly question. But bear with me. Why can’t British planes fly around Irish airspace if they are denied the right to fly over it? Ireland is not very large after all.
They could. There's two issues though.
1: What goes for Ireland goes for the rest of the EU too and that is a large continent. 2: We'd need to strike deals with USA etc to be able to fly over those nations and land planes there.
I think , at the end of the day, copy and paste will be done. But do we have the bureaucratic infrastructure currently to do it ?
I wonder if a bill through Parliament literally copying EU Aviation into UK Aviation will suffice ? Some bureaucrat will have to sign thousands of pages though.
Common sense will rule the day at the end of the day so we can disregard this hysteria.
There is no guarantee of that. None. Brinkmanship on both sides and our own fractured political position are combining to lead to no deal. I see no evidence common sense will rule.
Say another last minute fudge is found the Gov and EU agree on - it won't get through parliament as the gov lacks the numbers and it's too late for fudge to work.
When do we get our first no deal warning letter from the government?
I’m looking forward to seeing how they balance between “sensible preparation for a No Deal” - as promoted by Brexiters, and “Project Fear Mk 2” as bemoaned by Brexiters.
If all some people have as arguments are quoting polls we are in serious trouble !!
I seem to recall the world was going to end on January 1st 2000 (there's a brilliant episode of Family Guy where the Y2K bug does happen). I wasn't convinced then and I'm not convinced March 29th 2019 will be any different from March 28th apart from being 24 hours later.
Essentially, Governments only have three key responsibilities: a) uphold the law b) defend the borders and c) ensure the efficient distribution of food and water. Whatever our individual qualms on the first two, nobody is seriously going to allow food shortages (which didn't happen in the 2000 lorry drivers blockade to any great extent) and it's in no one's interests to initiate economic dislocation in general by grounding planes.
I assume if there's no deal there's no transition period either - is that right ?
Better to be the party divided about policy than the party divided about racism.
Alternatively the Labour leadership have admitted they have a problem and are working out what to do about it, perhaps not particularly competently. The Tories deny they have a problem.
In the short term *this* is the antisemitism problem Labour has: an entirely pointless public row over part of the IHRA definition. It repels voters, splits the party and provides ammunition to opponents. In the longer term, and the root cause of the issue, Labour's problem with antisemitism is not that it has people who hate Jews -- the last leader was Jewish and when he was elected, pretty much 100 per cent of members' votes went to Jewish candidates, since he beat his brother. What Labour does have, however, is members who though not anti-Jewish are anti-Israel. Labour has chosen -- wrongly, and incredibly -- to indulge the latter by omitting a couple of the IHRA examples.
Maybe Labour is right and its amended version of the IHRA definition is better than the original -- but who cares? It is politically asinine. Adopt the whole IHRA version and let those who want to criticise Israel find better ways of doing so (or just tell them to shut the f up).
Exactly.
It’s not just about the IRHA definition, though is it?
It’s about the fact that Labour is imposing very different requirements on racism against Jews than it does for any sort of racism directed at other groups: blacks or Muslims.
It’s about the fact that Labour is looking for a way in which it can call Jews Nazis (why?) but is not looking for a way in which it can call blacks “niggers”.
It’s about Labour accepting the McPherson view that a racist act or insult is one if the victim perceives it to be so but is now saying that this does not apply to Jews. In their case someone can use the most insultingly anti-semitic language against them but it won’t be anti-semitic unless the perpetrator intended it to be antisemitic, thus giving the benefit of the doubt to the perpetrator not the victim, unlike with other groups, where only the victim’s perception matters.
It’s about double standards, Nick.
It’s about Labour treating Jews more unfavourably in how they are to be treated and spoken about to other groups.
If only there were a word to describe this.
If most Jews feel the same as Cyclefree , then Labour will lose Jewish votes. In 2017, there was a poll which found less than 15% of Jews would vote Labour. I am not sure how many that is in actual voting numbers. 25000 in the whole of the UK ?
This may be a naïve question, but what have flights to do with a free-trading organisation? Joining a European flight arrangement should be a separate issue totally. As was Euratom.
Yes, I know that the EEC changed into the EU, but doesn't this emphasise that the like Topsy, it just growed and growed. Surely these were add-ons? Why incorporate them into the very body of the organisation. It's almost as if it were a cunning plan to prevent an easy departure.
Ah, I think I've answered my own question.
It's like joining a gym, deciding to leave, and then discovering that they also are involved in setting and collecting your gas and electricity bills and they will cut you off if you do leave.
Organising International flights is amazingly anachronistic in this modern age. At its most basic level it involves the two countries a flight goes between organising a treaty for each and every flight. How bonkers is that right?
The EU has short circuited this with an open skies arrangement, a pooling and sharing of sovereignty if you will, to make the process far more friction free but there comes with it complicates rules about airline ownership.
We won't be able to just keep using the current EU Open Skies Agreement as our airlines will no longer be EU owned. We will have to renegotiate our air access at some level.
This is probably a silly question. But bear with me. Why can’t British planes fly around Irish airspace if they are denied the right to fly over it? Ireland is not very large after all.
It’s not about airspace. It’s about insurance.
Thank you. Again, this may be simplistic: but presumably this problem could be cured if the government were to act as insurer.
Organising International flights is amazingly anachronistic in this modern age. At its most basic level it involves the two countries a flight goes between organising a treaty for each and every flight. How bonkers is that right?
The EU has short circuited this with an open skies arrangement, a pooling and sharing of sovereignty if you will, to make the process far more friction free but there comes with it complicates rules about airline ownership.
We won't be able to just keep using the current EU Open Skies Agreement as our airlines will no longer be EU owned. We will have to renegotiate our air access at some level.
This is probably a silly question. But bear with me. Why can’t British planes fly around Irish airspace if they are denied the right to fly over it? Ireland is not very large after all.
They could. There's two issues though.
1: What goes for Ireland goes for the rest of the EU too and that is a large continent. 2: We'd need to strike deals with USA etc to be able to fly over those nations and land planes there.
Thank you.
This has a touch of Lehmans about it to me. The US authorities allowed Lehmans to go bust because they thought it would teach that arrogant bank - and others - a lesson and probably because they felt that the consequences would be limited and contained. As we know the opposite happened. There was general panic in the financial markets and the authorities were close to losing complete control.
The EU may well feel e US. Such a result would not be good for the EU either. It does not say much for an organisation if it cannot sensibly handle the departure of a member and, however much fault there is in the way Britain has handled this, the EU has given the impression of thinking - quite wrongly - that its own behaviour is beyond reproach. Even those who are right can fall prey to hubris.
I really would not be as sanguine as the EU appears to be about the possibility of no deal or contingency planning. The same applies in spades of course to the British government.
At worst, you'd have to ground every aircraft with British-made parts. Hopefully, some measure of common sense will prevail.
Only parts made after Brexit. The bigger issue would be planes serviced in the UK - that is all planes that are in the UK or will land in and then take off from the UK after we leave.
Depressing to read the comments in Daily Mail to a more than sensible article by Ruth Davidson. Who is she they demand. Well she happens to be the reason why the Tories are in power at Westminster amongst other things. The Hard Brexiters assume that everyone else will have common sense to compensate for their total lack of it.
My brother is dean of medicine at one of the top university hospitals in SE England. The planning done for Brexit by the NHS is a big fat zero. No stockpiling of drugs and supplies, no thoughts on how to keep key staff and no idea how to treat EC citizens walking through the door.
The Head of the NHS Simon Stevens actually confirmed the NHS has already begun to stockpile drugs and medicines this month. Most of our doctors and nurses who are not British now come from outside the EU anyway
If May's deal is so bad and it is so obvious a Boris like figure woukd be both popular and get a better deal to boot, there really is no excuse for the continued prevarication on a leadership challenge and wasted effort on the May deal.
In which case one wonders why Boris and co have not moved on May yet. Waiting for poll numbers to slip more? How very irresponsible, we have little time to waste and apparently they would be popular and effective, no reason to wait.
Unless they Really dont Have a plan and So dont want the job...
In which case they kind if back May, they just pretend thru don't. Actions over words
Perfect question for the man who knows it all: St. HYUFD.
As I have already said I back May to try and get a transition deal and trade agreement but Boris to lead the Tories at the next general election
Yes but why isn't Boris acting now? May is committed to getting a deal which Boris and tory members think is bad. Unless he actually supports her bad deal or no deal, he and others have no reason not to move now so a new leader can try to get a better deal.
Dominic Raab 14/1 to be next Toy leader. He looks more credible than Boris and JRM.
Though tied to Chequers hence he has also said we will not pay an exit bill with no trade deal today and has said we can leave without a deal to try and push his Eurosceptic credentials
If Tories were looking for an Eurosceptic with a semblance of competence, Raab will wipe the floor. Major always had a boring persona but was seen as competent.
Raab does not have a boring persona and already much better, at least, in what is seen by the public, than Davis.
Johnson will at the end suffer because of his lack of attention to detail.
At the end of the day though it is charisma not attention to detail which is most likely to win elections, otherwise May would have won a landslide at the last general election.
You need people like Raab with attention to detail in Cabinet but not necessarily as leader, as long as the leader has good advisers to help them with decision making
I think you’re mistakenly assuming that attention to detail is inversely proportionate to charisma: May demonstrates that the two can move in direct proportion.
Some combination of charisma, understanding of the salient points of technical issues based on detailed briefing, and the ability to make a decision are what a leader generally needs (I’m assuming that without the requisite political nous they wouldn’t have made it far enough to be in the running for leader). I don’t pretend to know the Tory party especially well, but it seems that their challenge right now is that they have a leader who scores low on all three measures, and most of the alternatives score between 1.5 and 2. Hunt and Javid probably do better than most of the alternatives but then the pure-Brexit shibboleth comes into play and narrows the field further.
Hunt as leader would lead to a 1997 style landslide Tory defeat against Corbyn on today's poll.
Javid to be fair to him needs more time to prove himself
I don’t see how any poll of that nature can tell you much more than the relative recognition of the potential candidates - so few people (even party members) are engaged enough in politics to have a developed view on anyone other than the few most high profile cabinet personalities.
I agree. As I say, their big mistake is in not understanding that the immensely wealthy Leavers seeking a No Deal Brexit have no interest in mitigating its consequences.
So the 46% of the people now supporting No Deal are 'immensely wealthy'? If the country is that rich it doesn't sound like there is much to worry about.
If May's deal is so bad and it is so obvious a Boris like figure woukd be both popular and get a better deal to boot, there really is no excuse for the continued prevarication on a leadership challenge and wasted effort on the May deal.
In which case one wonders why Boris and co have not moved on May yet. Waiting for poll numbers to slip more? How very irresponsible, we have little time to waste and apparently they would be popular and effective, no reason to wait.
Unless they Really dont Have a plan and So dont want the job...
In which case they kind if back May, they just pretend thru don't. Actions over words
Perfect question for the man who knows it all: St. HYUFD.
As I have already said I back May to try and get a transition deal and trade agreement but Boris to lead the Tories at the next general election
Yes but why isn't Boris acting now? May is committed to getting a deal which Boris and tory members think is bad. Unless he actually supports her bad deal or no deal, he and others have no reason not to move now so a new leader can try to get a better deal.
He wants the EU to reject the deal, effectively wield he knife. He can then reluctantly step in to pick up the pieces.
A lot of Labour’s support is anti-Tory, just as a lot of the Tory support is anti-Labour. It’s hard to see any LibDem revival nationally under any leader while England and much of Wales remains so polarised.
Yes, a little-noticed bit of that poll showing lots of hypothetical support for an hard Brexit right-party also showed relatively modest support for a hypothetical moderate centrist party. There are a lot of politically active people out there who see politics today as High Noon, socialist/Remain vs conservative/Leave, and who are not interested in anything in between. And people who aren't politically active are really only aware of the Tories squabbling plus a bit of Labour now and then - it's months since they noticed the LibDems saying anything at all.
IMO Vince needs to say something controversial which isn't about Brexit, just to get people to pay attention.
38% would vote for a new right wing pro Brexit party, 33% for a new anti Brexit Party and concerningly 24% for a hard right anti Islam anti immigration English nationalist party.
As well as reports of Cable looking to establish a new centrist party today's Sunday Times also reports allies of Farage are seeking to raise £10 million for a new pro hard Brexit Party and Steve Bannon is seeking to raise £1 million to start a new far right alternative to Momentum
Banks was reported as definitely about to launch the latter, well over a year ago now
Banks was focused on the middle option, a new revived UKIP essentially.
The last option would basically be a new political party built around Tommy Robinson and the English Defence League
Bannon is already working on plans. Pan-european set-up called The Movement:
Yes Bannon is using his experience getting Trump elected working with the nationalist right in Europe like Front National, Lega Nord, the AfD and the Swedish Democrats
This may be a naïve question, but what have flights to do with a free-trading organisation? Joining a European flight arrangement should be a separate issue totally. As was Euratom.
.
Ah, I think I've answered my own question.
It's like joining a gym, deciding to leave, and then discovering that they also are involved in setting and collecting your gas and electricity bills and they will cut you off if you do leave.
Organising International flights is amazingly anachronistic in this modern age. At its most basic level it involves the two countries a flight goes between organising a treaty for each and every flight. How bonkers is that right?
The EU has short circuited this with an open skies arrangement, a pooling and sharing of sovereignty if you will, to make the process far more friction free but there comes with it complicates rules about airline ownership.
We won't be able to just keep using the current EU Open Skies Agreement as our airlines will no longer be EU owned. We will have to renegotiate our air access at some level.
This is probably a silly question. But bear with me. Why can’t British planes fly around Irish airspace if they are denied the right to fly over it? Ireland is not very large after all.
They could. There's two issues though.
1: What goes for Ireland goes for the rest of the EU too and that is a large continent. 2: We'd need to strike deals with USA etc to be able to fly over those nations and land planes there.
I think , at the end of the day, copy and paste will be done. But do we have the bureaucratic infrastructure currently to do it ?
I wonder if a bill through Parliament literally copying EU Aviation into UK Aviation will suffice ? Some bureaucrat will have to sign thousands of pages though.
Common sense will rule the day at the end of the day so we can disregard this hysteria.
There is no guarantee of that. None. Brinkmanship on both sides and our own fractured political position are combining to lead to no deal. I see no evidence common sense will rule.
Say another last minute fudge is found the Gov and EU agree on - it won't get through parliament as the gov lacks the numbers and it's too late for fudge to work.
Logically, there is an inescapable position emerging. Either another GE or another Brexit vote.
I cannot see how this conundrum can be solved other than by a decisive vote one way or another.
Of course, even after that we could end up in the same yellow stuff.
Better to be the party divided about policy than the party divided about racism.
Alternatively the Labour leadership have admitted they have a problem and are working out what to do about it, perhaps not particularly competently. The Tories deny they have a problem.
In the short term *this* is the antisemitism problem Labour has: an entirely pointless public row over part of the IHRA definition. It repels voters, splits the party and provides ammunition to opponents. In the longer term, and the root cause of the issue, Labour's problem with antisemitism is not that it has people who hate Jews -- the last leader was Jewish and when he was elected, pretty much 100 per cent of members' votes went to Jewish candidates, since he beat his brother. What Labour does have, however, is members who though not anti-Jewish are anti-Israel. Labour has chosen -- wrongly, and incredibly -- to indulge the latter by omitting a couple of the IHRA examples.
Maybe Labour is right and its amended version of the IHRA definition is better than the original -- but who cares? It is politically asinine. Adopt the whole IHRA version and let those who want to criticise Israel find better ways of doing so (or just tell them to shut the f up).
Exactly.
It’s not just about the IRHA definition, though is it?
It’s about the fact that Labour is imposing very different requirements on racism against Jews than it does for any sort of racism directed at other groups: blacks or Muslims.
It’s about the fact that Labour is looking for a way in which it can call Jews Nazis (why?) but is not looking for a way in which it can call blacks “niggers”.
It’s about Labour accepting the McPherson view that a racist act or insult is one if the victim perceives it to be so but is now saying that this does not apply to Jews. In their case someone can use the most insultingly anti-semitic language against them but it won’t be anti-semitic unless the perpetrator intended it to be antisemitic, thus giving the benefit of the doubt to the perpetrator not the victim, unlike with other groups, where only the victim’s perception matters.
It’s about double standards, Nick.
It’s about Labour treating Jews more unfavourably in how they are to be treated and spoken about to other groups.
This may be a naïve question, but what have flights to do with a free-trading organisation? Joining a European flight arrangement should be a separate issue totally. As was Euratom.
Yes, I know that the EEC changed into the EU, but doesn't this emphasise that the like Topsy, it just growed and growed. Surely these were add-ons? Why incorporate them into the very body of the organisation. It's almost as if it were a cunning plan to prevent an easy departure.
Ah, I think I've answered my own question.
It's like joining a gym, deciding to leave, and then discovering that they also are involved in setting and collecting your gas and electricity bills and they will cut you off if you do leave.
Organising International flights is amazingly anachronistic in this modern age. At its most basic level it involves the two countries a flight goes between organising a treaty for each and every flight. How bonkers is that right?
The EU has short circuited this with an open skies arrangement, a pooling and sharing of sovereignty if you will, to make the process far more friction free but there comes with it complicates rules about airline ownership.
We won't be able to just keep using the current EU Open Skies Agreement as our airlines will no longer be EU owned. We will have to renegotiate our air access at some level.
This is probably a silly question. But bear with me. Why can’t British planes fly around Irish airspace if they are denied the right to fly over it? Ireland is not very large after all.
It’s not about airspace. It’s about insurance.
Thank you. Again, this may be simplistic: but presumably this problem could be cured if the government were to act as insurer.
That’s an interesting idea. I am not sure of the detail, but it would presumably mean that it would have to hold a certain amount of money specifically to cover its potential liabilities and employ people to run the business, set premiums etc.
If May's deal is so bad and it is so obvious a Boris like figure woukd be both popular and get a better deal to boot, there really is no excuse for the continued prevarication on a leadership challenge and wasted effort on the May deal.
In which case one wonders why Boris and co have not moved on May yet. Waiting for poll numbers to slip more? How very irresponsible, we have little time to waste and apparently they would be popular and effective, no reason to wait.
Unless they Really dont Have a plan and So dont want the job...
In which case they kind if back May, they just pretend thru don't. Actions over words
Perfect question for the man who knows it all: St. HYUFD.
As I have already said I back May to try and get a transition deal and trade agreement but Boris to lead the Tories at the next general election
Yes but why isn't Boris acting now? May is committed to getting a deal which Boris and tory members think is bad. Unless he actually supports her bad deal or no deal, he and others have no reason not to move now so a new leader can try to get a better deal.
We will be lucky to get a deal at all even with the Chequers Deal based on Barnier's comments but at least May deserves the chance to try.
In any case she would likely survive a no confidence vote now, in 18 months probably not
A lot of Labour’s support is anti-Tory, just as a lot of the Tory support is anti-Labour. It’s hard to see any LibDem revival nationally under any leader while England and much of Wales remains so polarised.
Yes, a little-noticed bit of that poll showing lots of hypothetical support for an hard Brexit right-party also showed relatively modest support for a hypothetical moderate centrist party. There are a lot of politically active people out there who see politics today as High Noon, socialist/Remain vs conservative/Leave, and who are not interested in anything in between. And people who aren't politically active are really only aware of the Tories squabbling plus a bit of Labour now and then - it's months since they noticed the LibDems saying anything at all.
IMO Vince needs to say something controversial which isn't about Brexit, just to get people to pay attention.
38% would vote for a new right wing pro Brexit party, 33% for a new anti Brexit Party and concerningly 24% for a hard right anti Islam anti immigration English nationalist party.
As well as reports of Cable looking to establish a new centrist party today's Sunday Times also reports allies of Farage are seeking to raise £10 million for a new pro hard Brexit Party and Steve Bannon is seeking to raise £1 million to start a new far right alternative to Momentum
Banks was reported as definitely about to launch the latter, well over a year ago now
Banks was focused on the middle option, a new revived UKIP essentially.
The last option would basically be a new political party built around Tommy Robinson and the English Defence League
Bannon is already working on plans. Pan-european set-up called The Movement:
This is surely the most interesting news of the weekend.
It is now fair I think to call Bannon and his fellow travellers - including Farage - fascists.
They promote nationalism, populism, and protectionism, and displays of power (all this Putin and Jordan Peterson worship), and are against liberalism, immigration (and often immigrants), and the judiciary.
I use the term carefully. I do not wish to make WW2 comparisons. Fascists are not Nazis, and note that for now Bannon wishes to exclude “ethno-populists” from his funding, although the distinction will be difficult to make in certain countries.
But, like the 1930s, it is time to pick sides.
Sadly for principled Brexiters (there are one or two), their cause has been hijacked by the fascists. This doesn’t make Brexit wrong per se but should give one cause to think.
I agree. As I say, their big mistake is in not understanding that the immensely wealthy Leavers seeking a No Deal Brexit have no interest in mitigating its consequences.
So the 46% of the people now supporting No Deal are 'immensely wealthy'? If the country is that rich it doesn't sound like there is much to worry about.
As I said last night, I’d be interested to know what voters believe a No Deal Brexit actually entails. What do you think it means?
Depressing to read the comments in Daily Mail to a more than sensible article by Ruth Davidson. Who is she they demand. Well she happens to be the reason why the Tories are in power at Westminster amongst other things. The Hard Brexiters assume that everyone else will have common sense to compensate for their total lack of it.
My brother is dean of medicine at one of the top university hospitals in SE England. The planning done for Brexit by the NHS is a big fat zero. No stockpiling of drugs and supplies, no thoughts on how to keep key staff and no idea how to treat EC citizens walking through the door.
The Head of the NHS Simon Stevens actually confirmed the NHS has already begun to stockpile drugs and medicines this month. Most of our doctors and nurses who are not British now come from outside the EU anyway
This may be a naïve question, but what have flights to do with a free-trading organisation? Joining a European flight arrangement should nd they will cut you off if you do leave.
Organising International flights is amazingly anachronistic in this modern age. At its most basic level it involves the two countries a flight goes between organising a treaty for each and every flight. How bonkers is that right?
The EU has short circuited this with an open skies arrangement, a pooling and sharing of sovereignty if you will, to make the process far more friction free but there comes with it complicates rules about airline ownership.
We won't be able to just keep using the current EU Open Skies Agreement as our airlines will no longer be EU owned. We will have to renegotiate our air access at some level.
This is probably a silly question. But bear with me. Why can’t British planes fly around Irish airspace if they are denied the right to fly over it? Ireland is not very large after all.
c to be able to fly over those nations and land planes there.
I think , at the end of the day, copy and paste will be done. But do we have the bureaucratic infrastructure currently to do it ?
I wonder if a bill through Parliament literally copying EU Aviation into UK Aviation will suffice ? Some bureaucrat will have to sign thousands of pages though.
Common sense will rule the day at the end of the day so we can disregard this hysteria.
There is no guarantee of that. None. Brinkmanship on both sides and our own fractured political position are combining to lead to no deal. I see no evidence common sense will rule.
Say another last minute fudge is found the Gov and EU agree on - it won't get through parliament as the gov lacks the numbers and it's too late for fudge to work.
Logically, there is an inescapable position emerging. Either another GE or another Brexit vote.
I cannot see how this conundrum can be solved other than by a decisive vote one way or another.
Of course, even after that we could end up in the same yellow stuff.
There will be no decisive vote even with another general election or referendum.
54% Remain 46% No Deal Brexit with Yougov today is even tighter than the 2014 Scottish independence referendum result and almost as close as the 2016 EU referendum result (not forgetting Yougov underestimated Leave then) and not a decisive vote.
Corbyn leading May by 1% and tied with Boris with Yougov today is not a decisive result either
There is no guarantee of that. None. Brinkmanship on both sides and our own fractured political position are combining to lead to no deal. I see no evidence common sense will rule.
Say another last minute fudge is found the Gov and EU agree on - it won't get through parliament as the gov lacks the numbers and it's too late for fudge to work.
The government has had the numbers to win most key votes and actually I think it's too early for fudge to work.
At the moment people are wanting what they view as an ideal solution, too many people are digging in and demanding everything how they want it. As we approach a crunch it will concentrate minds on what actually matters and what can be compromised on and that is when fudge will occur.
What's critical to roll over (medicines, flights, transport) and what can fall by the wayside.
It's only at the last moment such a fudge will be possible.
1: What goes for Ireland goes for the rest of the EU too and that is a large continent. 2: We'd need to strike deals with USA etc to be able to fly over those nations and land planes there.
Thank you.
This has a touch of Lehmans about it to me. The US authorities allowed Lehmans to go bust because they thought it would teach that arrogant bank - and others - a lesson and probably because they felt that the consequences would be limited and contained. As we know the opposite happened. There was general panic in the financial markets and the authorities were close to losing complete control.
The EU may well feel that a crash out by the UK with planes and ferries grounded, shortages etc will teach the UK (and other EU states - Hungary, Poland?) a lesson and that a humiliated UK will then be forced into a deal. But there must be a real risk that it could lead to panic instead - on the financial markets, in tourism, in industries, and locations immediately and directly affected (on both sides of the Channel) and involving other countries eg the US. Such a result would not be good for the EU either. It does not say much for an organisation if it cannot sensibly handle the departure of a member and, however much fault there is in the way Britain has handled this, the EU has given the impression of thinking - quite wrongly - that its own behaviour is beyond reproach. Even those who are right can fall prey to hubris.
I really would not be as sanguine as the EU appears to be about the possibility of no deal or contingency planning. The same applies in spades of course to the British government.
The EU is planning seriously for a No Deal Brexit. That’s not being sanguine, it’s being realistic. It will be very bad news for everyone. The EU has made that clear, too. But the simple fact is that the effects will be worse for the UK. The EU’s big mistake is probably in believing that the nostalgists and profiteers angling for a No Deal on the UK side actually give a monkeys about the consequences of one.
I’m sure they are planning seriously. But events. Banks had planned for something like a Lehmans bankruptcy and at the granular level contracts were closed out without much difficulty. That did not stop the wider consequences which were not anticipated. (See also Northern Rock.) I think the EU and Britain could be making the same mistake.
We will be lucky to get a deal at all even with the Chequers Deal based on Barnier's comments but at least May deserves the chance to try.
In any case she would survive a no confidence vote now, in 18 months probably not
By which point it's too late for him to get the oh so better deal he will no doubt claim he could have gotten (same as Corbyn).
I find that explanation incredibly unconvincing. If her deal is terrible, as claimed, then no she shouldn't get the chance to try it just because. I agree it unlikely to happen anyway given Barnier's comments, but what if, remarkably, it does get agreed? Will Boris and co then back it in parliament despite saying it was terrible, not really Brexit at all? What a ludicrous position to be in when they could have done something about it, as they are and were saying they have better ideas.
And as for May surviving a vote of no confidence now, perhaps, perhaps not. But if they think May is leading us down a terrible path, they should make the attempt. Otherwise when, a year from now, and let's say her terrible deal is agreed and she is making way for someone else, when Boris stands up and says he did everything he could to stop the horrible deal and is the only person who can be trusted to take us forward, I will call him what he would be - a liar.
Being too cowardly to make a move for fear of losing means for one his idea is not as popular as he will later pretend it is, but it also means he is prioritising his chance to become PM over the most vital political issue this country has faced in a long time.
Or, the alternative, he doesn't actually think May's idea is that bad, should it succeed. Otherwise he would not dare risk it.
This may be a naïve question, but what have flights to do with a free-trading organisation? Joining a European flight arrangement should nd they will cut you off if you do leave.
The EU has short circuited this with an open skies arrangement, a pooling and sharing of sovereignty if you will, to make the process far more friction free but there comes with it complicates rules about airline ownership.
We won't be able to just keep using the current EU Open Skies Agreement as our airlines will no longer be EU owned. We will have to renegotiate our air access at some level.
This is probably a silly question. But bear with me. Why can’t British planes fly around Irish airspace if they are denied the right to fly over it? Ireland is not very large after all.
c to be able to fly over those nations and land planes there.
I think , at the end of the day, copy and paste will be done. But do we have the bureaucratic infrastructure currently to do it ?
I wonder if a bill through Parliament literally copying EU Aviation into UK Aviation will suffice ? Some bureaucrat will have to sign thousands of pages though.
Common sense will rule the day at the end of the day so we can disregard this hysteria.
There is no guarantee of that. None. Brinkmanship on both sides and our own fractured political position are combining to lead to no deal. I see no evidence common sense will rule.
Say another last minute fudge is found the Gov and EU agree on - it won't get through parliament as the gov lacks the numbers and it's too late for fudge to work.
Logically, there is an inescapable position emerging. Either another GE or another Brexit vote.
I cannot see how this conundrum can be solved other than by a decisive vote one way or another.
Of course, even after that we could end up in the same yellow stuff.
There will be no decisive vote even with another general election or referendum.
54% Remain 46% No Deal Brexit with yougov today is even tighter than the 2014 independence referendum result and not a devisive vote.
Corbyn leading May by 1% and tied with Boris with Yougov today is not a decisive result either
Currently, the "poll" is hypothetical. A campaign will have lots more information on what will actually happen. The 2016 referendum was based on just an "idea".
Edmund calls it correctly below. The EU is a multilateral body and as such largely exists for convenience. So you don't have to scrabble around for conflicting, hard to reach one off deals. As we leave the EU therefore we are embracing inconvenience. Parties, not just European states, used to the convenience won't be putting much effort into dealing with us.
Planes will continue to fly. Under a No Deal scenario the arrangements will I suspect be effectively charter flights. Passengers won't be able transfer at Heathrow on one ticket, which will kill Heathrow as a transit hub and seriously impact British Airways. The sponsoring governments for Air France, KLM and Lufthansa as well as Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt airports, won't mind a bit.
The interesting part is "No deal" was looking unlikely until recently. Now it seems far more possible with the rhetoric over planes, cash, Irish border having been stepped up or "set out". We will get to see if rcs1000 prediction was correct
Sadly, I must agree this won't shift many votes, and isn't getting a huge amount of media coverage.
Mr. 43, the alternative to what Raab is saying would be nuts. Imagine we got no deal at all, including transition. Why, then, would it make any sense to throw £39bn at the EU?
Do you normally not settle your debts?
Not when the other guy can't produce an agreement in writing that I owe them any money, no.
An interesting view on carrying out business. I assume you don't get much follow on business in your line of work and spend quite a bit of time in court.
Dominic Raab 14/1 to be next Toy leader. He looks more credible than Boris and JRM.
Though tied to Chequers hence he has also said we will not pay an exit bill with no trade deal today and has said we can leave without a deal to try and push his Eurosceptic credentials
If Tories were looking for an Eurosceptic with a semblance of competence, Raab will wipe the floor. Major always had a boring persona but was seen as competent.
Raab does not have a boring persona and already much better, at least, in what is seen by the public, than Davis.
Johnson will at the end suffer because of his lack of attention to detail.
At the end of the day though it is charisma not attention to detail which is most likely to win elections, otherwise May would have won a landslide at the last general election.
You need people like Raab with attention to detail in Cabinet but not necessarily as leader, as long as the leader has good advisers to help them with decision making
I think you’re mistakenly assuming that attention to detail is inversely proportionate to charisma: May demonstrates that the two can move in direct proportion.
Some atives score between 1.5 and 2. Hunt and Javid probably do better than most of the alternatives but then the pure-Brexit shibboleth comes into play and narrows the field further.
Hunt as leader would lead to a 1997 style landslide Tory defeat against Corbyn on today's poll.
Javid to be fair to him needs more time to prove himself
I don’t see how any poll of that nature can tell you much more than the relative recognition of the potential candidates - so few people (even party members) are engaged enough in politics to have a developed view on anyone other than the few most high profile cabinet personalities.
Oh for goodness sake Hunt has been Health Secretary for almost a decade and is Foreign Secretary, he is one of the most high profile Tories and cabinet personalities there is. Same goes for Gove and Boris.
Javid is the only one named who can possibly hide behind the 'name recognition' argument given he has only just got a high profile Cabinet job
1: What goes for Ireland goes for the rest of the EU too and that is a large continent. 2: We'd need to strike deals with USA etc to be able to fly over those nations and land planes there.
Thank you.
This has a touch of Lehmans about it to me. The US authorities allowed Lehmans to go bust because they thought it would teach that arrogant bank - and others - a lesson and probably because they felt that the consequences would be limited and contained. As we know the opposite happened. There was general panic in the financial markets and the authorities were close to losing complete control.
The EU may well feel that a crash out by the UK with planes and ferries grounded, shortages etc will teach the Britain has handled this, the EU has given the impression of thinking - quite wrongly - that its own behaviour is beyond reproach. Even those who are right can fall prey to hubris.
I really would not be as sanguine as the EU appears to be about the possibility of no deal or contingency planning. The same applies in spades of course to the British government.
The EU is planning seriously for a No Deal Brexit. That’s not being sanguine, it’s being realistic. It will be very bad news for everyone. The EU has made that clear, too. But the simple fact is that the effects will be worse for the UK. The EU’s big mistake is probably in believing that the nostalgists and profiteers angling for a No Deal on the UK side actually give a monkeys about the consequences of one.
I’m sure they are planning seriously. But events. Banks had planned for something like a Lehmans bankruptcy and at the granular level contracts were closed out without much difficulty. That did not stop the wider consequences which were not anticipated. (See also Northern Rock.) I think the EU and Britain could be making the same mistake.
Yep, the consequences of a No Deal will be far-reaching and incredibly damaging. There is no doubt about that. This is why it is so attractive to certain kinds of investor, of course.
This may be a naïve question, but what have flights to do with a free-trading organisation? Joining a European flight arrangement should be a separate issue totally. As was Euratom.
.
Ah, I think I've answered my own question.
It's like joining a gym, deciding to leave, and then discovering that they also are involved in setting and collecting your gas and electricity bills and they will cut you off if you do leave.
Organising International flig
This is probably a silly question. But bear with me. Why can’t British planes fly around Irish airspace if they are denied the right to fly over it? Ireland is not very large after all.
They could. There's two issues though.
1: What goes for Ireland goes for the rest of the EU too and that is a large continent. 2: We'd need to strike deals with USA etc to be able to fly over those nations and land planes there.
I think , at the end of the day, copy and paste will be done. But do we have the bureaucratic infrastructure currently to do it ?
I wonder if a bill through Parliament literally copying EU Aviation into UK Aviation will suffice ? Some bureaucrat will have to sign thousands of pages though.
Common sense will rule the day at the end of the day so we can disregard this hysteria.
There is no guarantee of that. None. Brinkmanship on both sides and our own fractured political position are combining to lead to no deal. I see no evidence common sense will rule.
Say another last minute fudge is found the Gov and EU agree on - it won't get through parliament as the gov lacks the numbers and it's too late for fudge to work.
Logically, there is an inescapable position emerging. Either another GE or another Brexit vote.
I cannot see how this conundrum can be solved other than by a decisive vote one way or another.
Of course, even after that we could end up in the same yellow stuff.
That is our conundrum. Which option is least disruptive economically, politically, socially etc? Sadly, different options disrupt different things, so it's not much of a solution.
The anti-semitism thing is stupid politics. The Labour Party has an issue with a small number of entryist headbangers whose hatred of Israel spills over into base antisemitic tropes. These headbangers are all Corbyn "supporters" so when the party tries to take action they scream about Blairite plots and purges.
The obvious thing to do would be accept the IHRA definition in full without exceptions and vigourously police it. Tory Jewish groups would bleat for political effect but would lose their easy target. But to do so causes Corbyn's team a problem - very vocal supporters are the ones upset at the party's support for the state of Israel, and to conceed now would be to lose to Blairites.
And so we have the current lunacy. A perceived victory against Blairites is more important that being electable - headbangers don't see the point in winning unless the Blair scurge has been eradicated.
If all some people have as arguments are quoting polls we are in serious trouble !!
I seem to recall the world was going to end on January 1st 2000 (there's a brilliant episode of Family Guy where the Y2K bug does happen). I wasn't convinced then and I'm not convinced March 29th 2019 will be any different from March 28th apart from being 24 hours later.
Essentially, Governments only have three key responsibilities: a) uphold the law b) defend the borders and c) ensure the efficient distribution of food and water. Whatever our individual qualms on the first two, nobody is seriously going to allow food shortages (which didn't happen in the 2000 lorry drivers blockade to any great extent) and it's in no one's interests to initiate economic dislocation in general by grounding planes.
I assume if there's no deal there's no transition period either - is that right ?
I'm told the nearest the UK has come to having a crisis in food distribution was centred around the Buncefield fuel depot fire in 2005.
The interesting part is "No deal" was looking unlikely until recently. Now it seems far more possible with the rhetoric over planes, cash, Irish border having been stepped up or "set out". We will get to see if rcs1000 prediction was correct
I think No Deal is a real likelihood. But it isn't a viable end state. I suspect it would only last a week or so before the ultimate humiliation. It is to avoid the last that wiser heads are looking for solutions.
If May's deal is so bad and it is so obvious a Boris like figure woukd be both popular and get a better deal to boot, there really is no excuse for the continued prevarication on a leadership challenge and wasted effort on the May deal.
In which case one wonders why Boris and co have not moved on May yet. Waiting for poll numbers to slip more? How very irresponsible, we have little time to waste and apparently they would be popular and effective, no reason to wait.
Unless they Really dont Have a plan and So dont want the job...
In which case they kind if back May, they just pretend thru don't. Actions over words
Perfect question for the man who knows it all: St. HYUFD.
As I have already said I back May to try and get a transition deal and trade agreement but Boris to lead the Tories at the next general election
Yes but why isn't Boris acting now? May is committed to getting a deal which Boris and tory members think is bad. Unless he actually supports her bad deal or no deal, he and others have no reason not to move now so a new leader can try to get a better deal.
He wants the EU to reject the deal, effectively wield he knife. He can then reluctantly step in to pick up the pieces.
Yes, quite probably, and quite unconvincingly too. We will see how meaningful his beliefs on the terrible nature of the deal truly was if, and it is an unlikely if to be fair, the EU don't reject the deal(I don't see how they don't, given the comments they've already made, a statement accepting most of it but not 20% for instance is till knifing it given May's lack of wiggle room). Because from his comments he must, and so must others, refuse to back May on it. Otherwise he didn't really mean what he said.
A lot of Labour’s support is anti-Tory, just as a lot of the Tory support is anti-Labour. It’s hard to see any LibDem revival nationally under any leader while England and much of Wales remains so polarised.
Yes, a little-noticed bit of that poll showing lots of hypothetical support for an hard Brexit right-party also showed relatively modest support for a hypothetical moderate centrist party. There are a lot of politically active people out there who see politics today as High Noon, socialist/Remain vs conservative/Leave, and who are not interested in anything in between. And people who aren't politically active are really only aware of the Tories squabbling plus a bit of Labour now and then - it's months since they noticed the LibDems saying anything at all.
IMO Vince needs to say something controversial which isn't about Brexit, just to get people to pay attention.
38% would vote for a new right wing pro Brexit party, 33% for a new anti Brexit Party and concerningly 24% for a hard right anti Islam anti immigration English nationalist party.
As well as reports of Cable looking to establish a new centrist party today's Sunday Times also reports allies of Farage are seeking to raise £10 million for a new pro hard Brexit Party and Steve Bannon is seeking to raise £1 million to start a new far right alternative to Momentum
Banks was reported as definitely about to launch the latter, well over a year ago now
Banks was focused on the middle option, a new revived UKIP essentially.
The last option would basically be a new political party built around Tommy Robinson and the English Defence League
Bannon is already working on plans. Pan-european set-up called The Movement:
Yes Bannon is using his experience getting Trump elected working with the nationalist right in Europe like Front National, Lega Nord, the AfD and the Swedish Democrats
Bloody foreigners! Coming over here putting our own hard-working far Rightists out of jobs.
Depressing to read the comments in Daily Mail to a more than sensible article by Ruth Davidson. Who is she they demand. Well she happens to be the reason why the Tories are in power at Westminster amongst other things. The Hard Brexiters assume that everyone else will have common sense to compensate for their total lack of it.
My brother is dean of medicine at one of the top university hospitals in SE England. The planning done for Brexit by the NHS is a big fat zero. No stockpiling of drugs and supplies, no thoughts on how to keep key staff and no idea how to treat EC citizens walking through the door.
The Head of the NHS Simon Stevens actually confirmed the NHS has already begun to stockpile drugs and medicines this month. Most of our doctors and nurses who are not British now come from outside the EU anyway
This may be a naïve question, but what have flights to do with a free-trading organisation? Joining a European flight arrangement should be a separate issue totally. As was Euratom.
Yes, I know that the EEC changed into the EU, but doesn't this emphasise that the like Topsy, it just growed and growed. Surely these were add-ons? Why incorporate them into the very body of the organisation. It's almost as if it were a cunning plan to prevent an easy departure.
Ah, I think I've answered my own question.
It's like joining a gym, deciding to leave, and then discovering that they also are involved in setting and collecting your gas and electricity bills and they will cut you off if you do leave.
Organising International flights is amazingly anachronistic in this modern age. At its most basic level it involves the two countries a flight goes between organising a treaty for each and every flight. How bonkers is that right?
The EU has short circuited this with an open skies arrangement, a pooling and sharing of sovereignty if you will, to make the process far more friction free but there comes with it complicates rules about airline ownership.
We won't be able to just keep using the current EU Open Skies Agreement as our airlines will no longer be EU owned. We will have to renegotiate our air access at some level.
This is probably a silly question. But bear with me. Why can’t British planes fly around Irish airspace if they are denied the right to fly over it? Ireland is not very large after all.
It’s not about airspace. It’s about insurance.
Thank you. Again, this may be simplistic: but presumably this problem could be cured if the government were to act as insurer.
Possibly, but the regulatory and operational infrastructure to do that (in order to prevent low quality operators dumping risk onto the UK government, just to suggest one problem) would presumably be just as complex as developing a framework to act as successor to EASA membership.
I may be being simplistic as well, but I don’t think that the issue is the intractability of the problem, it’s the UK’s bizarre attitude which involves wishing to take back control of its own laws/rules (including air travel) but then refusing to take any steps towards developing those rules, preferring instead to complain that it’s unfair to be excluded from the rules of the organisation it’s leaving. Maybe I’m missing something: is the UK prohibited from developing an alternative successor framework whilst still a member of the EU?
Dominic Raab 14/1 to be next Toy leader. He looks more credible than Boris and JRM.
Though tied to Chequers hence he has also said we will not pay an exit bill with no trade deal today and has said we can leave without a deal to try and push his Eurosceptic credentials
If Tories were looking for an Eurosceptic with a semblance of competence, Raab will wipe the floor. Major always had a boring persona but was seen as competent.
Raab does not have a boring persona and already much better, at least, in what is seen by the public, than Davis.
Johnson will at the end suffer because of his lack of attention to detail.
At the end of the day though it is charisma not attention to detail which is most likely to win elections, otherwise May would have won a landslide at the last general election.
You need people like Raab with attention to detail in Cabinet but not necessarily as leader, as long as the leader has good advisers to help them with decision making
I think you’re mistakenly assuming that attention to detail is inversely proportionate to charisma: May demonstrates that the two can move in direct proportion.
Some combinationurther.
Hunt as leader would lead to a 1997 style landslide Tory defeat against Corbyn on today's poll.
Javid to be fair to him needs more time to prove himself
I don’t see how any poll of that nature can tell you much more than the relative recognition of the potential candidates - so few people (even party members) are engaged enough in politics to have a developed view on anyone other than the few most high profile cabinet personalities.
Indeed so. You probably get one chance as a new leader to reinvent your image, because for many people it will be their first impression, and others it is still a new impression since you were operating in a far different capacity when people knew you before. It's not irrelevant that Boris still garners plenty of support and the others not, but I don't think it is definitive. I'd think Boris would win if he got to the final 2, but who is to say what one of the others might be able to do in a campaign, and that being the case any GE implications are less clear too. It is worth taking a gamble sometimes.
Oh for goodness sake Hunt has been Health Secretary for almost a decade and is Foreign Secretary, he is one of the most high profile Tories and cabinet personalities there is. Same goes for Gove and Boris.
Javid is the only one named who can possibly hide behind the 'name recognition' argument given he has only just got a high profile Cabinet job
So they're associated with what they've done. If you think the Tories aren't good with the NHS then you're anti-Hunt.
If any of them become PM then that takes precedent over what happens before. Just as Brown and May had major ratings changes after become PM.
If all some people have as arguments are quoting polls we are in serious trouble !!
I seem to recall the world was going to end on January 1st 2000 (there's a brilliant episode of Family Guy where the Y2K bug does happen). I wasn't convinced then and I'm not convinced March 29th 2019 will be any different from March 28th apart from being 24 hours later.
Essentially, Governments only have three key responsibilities: a) uphold the law b) defend the borders and c) ensure the efficient distribution of food and water. Whatever our individual qualms on the first two, nobody is seriously going to allow food shortages (which didn't happen in the 2000 lorry drivers blockade to any great extent) and it's in no one's interests to initiate economic dislocation in general by grounding planes.
I assume if there's no deal there's no transition period either - is that right ?
I'm told the nearest the UK has come to having a crisis in food distribution was centred around the Buncefield fuel depot fire in 2005.
Nah, it was when we had those floods a few years back and we ran out of ginger nut biscuits
We will be lucky to get a deal at all even with the Chequers Deal based on Barnier's comments but at least May deserves the chance to try.
In any case she would survive a no confidence vote now, in 18 months probably not
By which point it's too late for him to get the oh so better deal he will no doubt claim he could have gotten (same as Corbyn).
I find that explanation incredibly unconvincing. If her deal is terrible, as claimed, then no she shouldn't get the chance to try it just because. I agree it unlikely to happen anyway given Barnier's comments, but what if, remarkably, it does get agreed? Will Boris and co then back it in parliament despite saying it was terrible, not really Brexit at all? What a ludicrous position to be in when they could have done something about it, as they are and were saying they have better ideas.
And as for May surviving a vote of no confidence now, perhaps, perhaps not. But if they think May is leading us down a terrible path, they should make the attempt. Otherwise when, a year from now, and let's say her terrible deal is agreed and she is making way for someone else, when Boris stands up and says he did everything he could to stop the horrible deal and is the only person who can be trusted to take us forward, I will call him what he would be - a liar.
Being too cowardly to make a move for fear of losing means for one his idea is not as popular as he will later pretend it is, but it also means he is prioritising his chance to become PM over the most vital political issue this country has faced in a long time.
Or, the alternative, he doesn't actually think May's idea is that bad, should it succeed. Otherwise he would not dare risk it.
Boris is not Heseltine, he cannot make a direct challenge to May as Heseltine could to Thatcher as the rules have changed for the Tory leadership. It is up to enough Tory MPs to sign for a no confidence vote and then vote down May.
Boris has done his bit by resigning but it needs 48 Tory MPs asking for a no confidence vote to get one and 50%+1 of Tory MPs voting against May in that no confidence vote for May to be ousted
This may be a naïve question, but what have flights to do with a free-trading organisation? Joining a European flight arrangement should nd they will cut you off if you do leave.
The EU has short circuited this with an open skies arrangement, a pooling and sharing of sovereignty if you will, to make the process far more friction free but there comes with it complicates rules about airline ownership.
We won't be able to just keep using the current EU Open Skies Agreement as our airlines will no longer be EU owned. We will have to renegotiate our air access at some level.
This is probably a silly question. But bear with me. Why can’t British planes fly around Irish airspace if they are denied the right to fly over it? Ireland is not very large after all.
c to be able to fly over those nations and land planes there.
I think , at the end of the day, copy and paste will be done. But do we have the bureaucratic infrastructure currently to do it ?
I wonder if a bill through Parliament literally copying EU Aviation into UK Aviation will suffice ? Some bureaucrat will have to sign thousands of pages though.
Common sense will rule the day at the end of the day so we can disregard this hysteria.
There is no guarantee of that. None. Brinkmanship on both sides and our own fractured political position are combining to lead to no deal. I see no evidence common sense will rule.
Say another last minute fudge is found the Gov and EU agree on - it won't get through parliament as the gov lacks the numbers and it's too late for fudge to work.
Logically, there is an inescapable position emerging. Either another GE or another Brexit vote.
I cannot see how this conundrum can be solved other than by a decisive vote one way or another.
Of course, even after that we could end up in the same yellow stuff.
There will be no decisive vote even with another general election or referendum.
54% Remain 46% No Deal Brexit with yougov today is even tighter than the 2014 independence referendum result and not a devisive vote.
Corbyn leading May by 1% and tied with Boris with Yougov today is not a decisive result either
Currently, the "poll" is hypothetical. A campaign will have lots more information on what will actually happen. The 2016 referendum was based on just an "idea".
The anti-semitism thing is stupid politics. The Labour Party has an issue with a small number of entryist headbangers whose hatred of Israel spills over into base antisemitic tropes. These headbangers are all Corbyn "supporters" so when the party tries to take action they scream about Blairite plots and purges.
The obvious thing to do would be accept the IHRA definition in full without exceptions and vigourously police it. Tory Jewish groups would bleat for political effect but would lose their easy target. But to do so causes Corbyn's team a problem - very vocal supporters are the ones upset at the party's support for the state of Israel, and to conceed now would be to lose to Blairites.
And so we have the current lunacy. A perceived victory against Blairites is more important that being electable - headbangers don't see the point in winning unless the Blair scurge has been eradicated.
It does seem the kind of poor politics you can only get away with when you have an iron grip on the party and everyone is distracted by wider concerns, but still poor politics all the same.
I appreciate these things can be fiendishly complicated, but why are the people who estimate these things so bloody useless at estimating*? I know politicians love building things, but such a massive increase in costs just seems unjustifiable.
*Apparently it is possible to estimate things correctly, there was that tunnel in Switzerland last year completed on time and on budge I seem to recall.
A lot of Labour’s support is anti-Tory, just as a lot of the Tory support is anti-Labour. It’s hard to see any LibDem revival nationally under any leader while England and much of Wales remains so polarised.
Yes, a little-noticed bit of that poll showing lots of hypothetical support for an hard Brexit right-party also showed relatively modest support for a hypothetical moderate centrist party. There are a lot of politically active people out there who see politics today as High Noon, socialist/Remain vs conservative/Leave, and who are not interested in anything in between. And people who aren't politically active are really only aware of the Tories squabbling plus a bit of Labour now and then - it's months since they noticed the LibDems saying anything at all.
IMO Vince needs to say something controversial which isn't about Brexit, just to get people to pay attention.
38% would vote for a new right wing pro Brexit party, 33% for a new anti Brexit Party and concerningly 24% for a hard right anti Islam anti immigration English nationalist party.
As well as reports of Cable looking to establish a new centrist party today's Sunday Times also reports allies of Farage are seeking to raise £10 million for a new pro hard Brexit Party and Steve Bannon is seeking to raise £1 million to start a new far right alternative to Momentum
Banks was reported as definitely about to launch the latter, well over a year ago now
Banks was focused on the middle option, a new revived UKIP essentially.
The last option would basically be a new political party built around Tommy Robinson and the English Defence League
Bannon is already working on plans. Pan-european set-up called The Movement:
Yes Bannon is using his experience getting Trump elected working with the nationalist right in Europe like Front National, Lega Nord, the AfD and the Swedish Democrats
Bloody foreigners! Coming over here putting our own hard-working far Rightists out of jobs.
Bannon is working with Tommy Robinson's supporters
We will be lucky to get a deal at all even with the Chequers Deal based on Barnier's comments but at least May deserves the chance to try.
In any case she would survive a no confidence vote now, in 18 months probably not
By which point it's too late for him to get the oh so better deal he will no doubt claim he could have gotten (same as Corbyn).
I find that explanation incredibly unconvincing. If her deal is terrible, as claimed, then no she shouldn't get the chance to try it just because. I agree it unlikely to happen anyway given Barnier's comments, but what if, remarkably, it does get agreed? Will Boris and co then back it in parliament despite saying it was terrible, not really Brexit at all? What a ludicrous position to be in when they could have done something about it, as they are and were saying they have better ideas.
And as for May surviving a vote of no confidence now, perhaps, perhaps not. But if they think May is leading us down a terrible path, they should make the attempt. Otherwise when, a year from now, and let's say her terrible deal is agreed and she is making way for someone else, when Boris stands up and says he did everything he could to stop the horrible deal and is the only person who can be trusted to take us forward, I will call him what he would be - a liar.
Being too cowardly to make a move for fear of losing means for one his idea is not as popular as he will later pretend it is, but it also means he is prioritising his chance to become PM over the most vital political issue this country has faced in a long time.
Or, the alternative, he doesn't actually think May's idea is that bad, should it succeed. Otherwise he would not dare risk it.
Boris is not Heseltine, he cannot make a direct challenge to May as Heseltine could to Thatcher as the rules have changed for the Tory leadership. It is up to enough Tory MPs to sign for a no confidence vote and then vote down May.
Boris has done his bit by resigning but it needs 48 Tory MPs asking for a no confidence vote to get one and 50%+1 of Tory MPs voting against May in that no confidence vote for May to be ousted
He could have asked MPs to no confidence her in his resignation speech. Instead, he and other senior Leavers clearly think it's too early to do this now. Pretending otherwise is an utterly transparent bit of misdirection
Depressing to read the comments in Daily Mail to a more than sensible article by Ruth Davidson. Who is she they demand. Well she happens to be the reason why the Tories are in power at Westminster amongst other things. The Hard Brexiters assume that everyone else will have common sense to compensate for their total lack of it.
My brother is dean of medicine at one of the top university hospitals in SE England. The planning done for Brexit by the NHS is a big fat zero. No stockpiling of drugs and supplies, no thoughts on how to keep key staff and no idea how to treat EC citizens walking through the door.
The Head of the NHS Simon Stevens actually confirmed the NHS has already begun to stockpile drugs and medicines this month. Most of our doctors and nurses who are not British now come from outside the EU anyway
Do they have the money to stockpile [ in addition to normal levels ] say an extra 3 months of medicine ? Easier said than done.
There is rhetoric and what is actually happening on the ground. What I see from the ground level is no stockpiling and no planning. The NHS will survive but capability will be reduced.
The USA healthcare system kills 80,000 people a year through nosocomial infections alone versus 32,000 deaths from guns and 33,000 from road traffic accidents.
A year ago I stated that BSI was moving its regulatory oversight to Holland. This was shot down on this website. That statement is now reality. I guess that people will believe what they want to hear.
It’s not just about the IRHA definition, though is it?
It’s about the fact that Labour is imposing very different requirements on racism against Jews than it does for any sort of racism directed at other groups: blacks or Muslims.
It’s about the fact that Labour is looking for a way in which it can call Jews Nazis (why?) but is not looking for a way in which it can call blacks “niggers”.
It’s about Labour accepting the McPherson view that a racist act or insult is one if the victim perceives it to be so but is now saying that this does not apply to Jews. In their case someone can use the most insultingly anti-semitic language against them but it won’t be anti-semitic unless the perpetrator intended it to be antisemitic, thus giving the benefit of the doubt to the perpetrator not the victim, unlike with other groups, where only the victim’s perception matters.
It’s about double standards, Nick.
It’s about Labour treating Jews more unfavourably in how they are to be treated and spoken about to other groups.
He makes some interesting points but skates over three issues:-
1. Why does Labour feel the need not to adopt the definition and examples in full like every other organisation? The examples are not rules after all.
2. The examples which are left out include the sort of language which was criticised in the Chakrabati report so Labour are resiling from what they agreed to then. Again, why?
3. The issue of motive. The examples left out are the sorts of things which a number of Labour members have been accused of. So it looks awfully like Labour are changing the rules in order to get people off the hook. In short, they are giving themselves permission to do precisely that which has caused so many people (not just Jews) offence and revulsion.
Finally, this article does not deal with my other points: the very different standards which Labour are applying to Jews by comparison to other minority groups facing abuse.
Ultimately, Labour under Corbyn are in favour of political anti-semitism, against Jewish nationalism and don’t care whether this leads them to indulge in traditional anti-semitism. This article is quite interesting on this topic - http://hurryupharry.org/2018/07/18/understanding-labour-and-antisemitism/
Oh for goodness sake Hunt has been Health Secretary for almost a decade and is Foreign Secretary, he is one of the most high profile Tories and cabinet personalities there is. Same goes for Gove and Boris.
Javid is the only one named who can possibly hide behind the 'name recognition' argument given he has only just got a high profile Cabinet job
So they're associated with what they've done. If you think the Tories aren't good with the NHS then you're anti-Hunt.
If any of them become PM then that takes precedent over what happens before. Just as Brown and May had major ratings changes after become PM.
Labour did better under Brown in hypothetical polls from 2005 to 2007 than under Blair. Cameron did best in hypothetical polls in the 2005 Tory leadership election against Labour.
May led polling after the EU referendum on who should succeed Cameron as PM
We will be lucky to get a deal at all even with the Chequers Deal based on Barnier's comments but at least May deserves the chance to try.
In any case she would survive a no confidence vote now, in 18 months probably not
By which point it's too late for him to get the oh so better deal he will no doubt claim he could have gotterisk it.
Boris is not Heseltine, he cannot make a direct challenge to May as Heseltine could to Thatcher as the rules have changed for the Tory leadership. It is up to enough Tory MPs to sign for a no confidence vote and then vote down May.
Boris has done his bit by resigning but it needs 48 Tory MPs asking for a no confidence vote to get one and 50%+1 of Tory MPs voting against May in that no confidence vote for May to be ousted
I know the rules. I don't believe for one minute that 48 letters could not be rustled up, when we have been told several dozen are already in. You're telling me if Boris said he was sending in a letter they couldn't get to 48, even though he and his alternate ideas are nowmuch more popular in the party than May's plan, and the people on board with opposing May's deal is over 48?
That's an excuse for him not to seek to challenge her, pretending the procedural requirements are beyond him, or that he has no influence on it (like saying 'We cannot go on like this, this deal cannot be risked even if the EU agree to it - I am submitting my letter and call on others to do the same so we can ensure Brexit is delivered').
The number of people against the deal, or generally unhappy, is clearly enough to provoke a contest - that one could happen at any time has been used as a threat to May for months. It is not in the slightest bit convincing to rely on that as the reason Boris has not, you know, actually backed up his words on the terribleness of the deal by trying to do something about it.
Does he believe in delivering Brexit or not? He says it is not to late to deliver it, a proper delivery too, and yet he's content to let May try and get it?
Balderdash and piffle. He's either relying on the EU saying no (probably a good chance) or he doesn't actually mind if it is agreed.
Oh for goodness sake Hunt has been Health Secretary for almost a decade and is Foreign Secretary, he is one of the most high profile Tories and cabinet personalities there is. Same goes for Gove and Boris.
Javid is the only one named who can possibly hide behind the 'name recognition' argument given he has only just got a high profile Cabinet job
So they're associated with what they've done. If you think the Tories aren't good with the NHS then you're anti-Hunt.
If any of them become PM then that takes precedent over what happens before. Just as Brown and May had major ratings changes after become PM.
Labour did better under Brown in hypothetical polls from 2005 to 2007 than under Blair.
May led polling after the EU referendum on who should succeed Cameron as PM
Brown lost his election to Cameron.
May lost her majority to Corbyn.
So I think we can safely disregard polls as no more than a snapshot and certainly not reliable.
Dominic Raab 14/1 to be next Toy leader. He looks more credible than Boris and JRM.
But not hard to do, Mr Booth. Is he on manoeuvres already?
Dominic Raab's father was a refugee from the Nazis. I wonder what effect (if any) it would have o .the Labour anti semitism row if he became PM or leader of the Tories.
We will be lucky to get a deal at all even with the Chequers Deal based on Barnier's comments but at least May deserves the chance to try.
In any case she would survive a no confidence vote now, in 18 months probably not
By which point it's too late for him to get the oh so better deal he will no doubt claim he could have gotterisk it.
Boris is not Heseltine, he cannot make a direct challenge to May as Heseltine could to Thatcher as the rules have changed for the Tory leadership. It is up to enough Tory MPs to sign for a no confidence vote and then vote down May.
Boris has done his bit by resigning but it needs 48 Tory MPs asking for a no confidence vote to get one and 50%+1 of Tory MPs voting against May in that no confidence vote for May to be ousted
I know the rules. I don't believe for one minute that 48 letters could not be rustled up, when we have been told several dozen are already in. You're telling me if Boris said he was sending in a letter they couldn't get to 48, even though he and his alternate ideas are not much more popular in the party than May's plan, and the people on board with opposing May's deal is over 48?
That's an excuse for him not to seek to challenge her, pretending the procedural requirements are beyond him, or that he has no influence on it (like saying 'We cannot go on like this - I am submitting my letter and call on others to do the same').
The number of people against the deal, or generally unhappy, is clearly enough to provoke a contest - that one could happen at any time has been used as a threat to May for months. It is not in the slightest bit convincing to rely on that as the reason Boris has not, you know, actually backed up his words on the terribleness of the deal by trying to do something about it.
Boris would not be on the ballot paper it would just be confidence in May or No Confidence and at the moment there are not the votes for No Confidence and if Leavers challenge May and lose Tory leadership rules mean she cannot be challenged for a year which keeps her in post guaranteed until next July and past the Brexit due date
It will be the Row of the Summer again. Another summer, another DexEu minister, same row.
Except this summer, the EU knows exactly how much money it is pissing up a wall if we walk with no deal.
It also sets the dangerous precedet that members can walk away paying nothing to Brussels. You'd think they might want to avoid that....
Try getting even a minimal deal on keeping planes flying in circumstances where the UK walks away from commitments it has made. All this ridiculous posturing does is make the subsequent climbdown look even more pathetic.
Varadkar threatened to shut down Irish airspace last week..
This is surely the most interesting news of the weekend.
It is now fair I think to call Bannon and his fellow travellers - including Farage - fascists.
They promote nationalism, populism, and protectionism, and displays of power (all this Putin and Jordan Peterson worship), and are against liberalism, immigration (and often immigrants), and the judiciary.
I use the term carefully. I do not wish to make WW2 comparisons. Fascists are not Nazis, and note that for now Bannon wishes to exclude “ethno-populists” from his funding, although the distinction will be difficult to make in certain countries.
But, like the 1930s, it is time to pick sides.
Sadly for principled Brexiters (there are one or two), their cause has been hijacked by the fascists. This doesn’t make Brexit wrong per se but should give one cause to think.
"I use this term carefully"
Proceeds to conflate Jordan Peterson, a psychologist and self-help book writer, with Vladimir Putin, a kleptocrat who has likely ordered extrajudicial killings in his own country and on British soil.
Uh, ok.
To some people anyone further right than a wet Tory is automatically a fascist. Anyone who believes in the traditional family unit? Fascist. Against open borders? Fascist. Protectionist? Fascist. Brexit? Fascist!
Stop. Calling. Everyone. You. Disagree. With. A. Fascist.
Depressing to read the comments in Daily Mail to a more than sensible article by Ruth Davidson. Who is she they demand. Well she happens to be the reason why the Tories are in power at Westminster amongst other things. The Hard Brexiters assume that everyone else will have common sense to compensate for their total lack of it.
My brother is dean of medicine at one of the top university hospitals in SE England. The planning done for Brexit by the NHS is a big fat zero. No stockpiling of drugs and supplies, no thoughts on how to keep key staff and no idea how to treat EC citizens walking through the door.
The Head of the NHS Simon Stevens actually confirmed the NHS has already begun to stockpile drugs and medicines this month. Most of our doctors and nurses who are not British now come from outside the EU anyway
Do they have the money to stockpile [ in addition to normal levels ] say an extra 3 months of medicine ? Easier said than done.
There is rhetoric and what is actually happening on the ground. What I see from the ground level is no stockpiling and no planning. The NHS will survive but capability will be reduced.
The USA healthcare system kills 80,000 people a year through nosocomial infections alone versus 32,000 deaths from guns and 33,000 from road traffic accidents.
A year ago I stated that BSI was moving its regulatory oversight to Holland. This was shot down on this website. That statement is now reality. I guess that people will believe what they want to hear.
How do you know? Do you have overview of everything the NHS is doing all over the country? Of course not. Just yet more diehard Remainer whinging. You demand preparations for No Deal Brexit and then when you are told there are preparations by the Head of the NHS deny they are occurring anyway.
It will be the Row of the Summer again. Another summer, another DexEu minister, same row.
Except this summer, the EU knows exactly how much money it is pissing up a wall if we walk with no deal.
It also sets the dangerous precedet that members can walk away paying nothing to Brussels. You'd think they might want to avoid that....
Try getting even a minimal deal on keeping planes flying in circumstances where the UK walks away from commitments it has made. All this ridiculous posturing does is make the subsequent climbdown look even more pathetic.
Varadkar threatened to shut down Irish airspace last week..
Fake bollox news
A literal quote. He even conflated it with waters which have sod all to do with Open Skies.
Not to mention the RAF guarantees the security of Irish airspace.
Not this shit again. No, it doesn't.
The UK QRA operational area specifically excludes the air space of the RoI.
This is what I wrote the last time somebody trotted out this blatant untruth:
British forces do not provide "QRA" for the Republic of Ireland as a) UK QRA is controlled by NATO (specifically ACCS) of which RoI are not members and b) The Irish constitution specifically prohibits that sort of foreign military activity on Irish territory. That's not to say that some sort of extraordinary help could not be theoretically requested in a highly improbably 911-on-the-Liffey scenario.
On all of my carrier deployments we were specifically forbidden from flying within 10km of Irish airspace. Such was the sensitivity to UK mil traffic...
From what I read on here I thought we secured most of the world projecting our power across the globe. Why 200 Admirals if we no longer rule the waves
We will be lucky to get a deal at all even with the Chequers Deal based on Barnier's comments but at least May deserves the chance to try.
In any case she would survive a no confidence vote now, in 18 months probably not
By which point it's too late for him to get the oh so better deal he will no doubt claim he could have gotterisk it.
Boris is not HThatcher as the rules have changed for the Tory leadership. It is up to enough Tory MPs to sign for a no confidence vote and then vote down May.
Boris ed
I know .
Boris would not be on the ballot paper it would just be confidence in May or No Confidence and at the moment there are not the votes for No Confidence and if Leavers challenge May and lose Tory leadership rules mean she cannot be challenged for a year which keeps her in post guaranteed until next July and past the Brexit due date
You are deliberately missing the point. I know he is not on the ballot paper. But if these people think May's leadership is terrible they need to challenge her and bring her down. If they fail they can decide whether they can, after all, back her deal, however unhappily. If they succeed, then Boris and co can fight it out for the leadership with very clear visions of what they want - eg no deal, a better deal etc.
That they might not succeed in a vote of no confidence is no excuse for not trying if they actually believe May's plan is bad. Ok, they can hope the EU shoot it down. But apparently they are content for it to go ahead since they won't prevent her from trying to get it agreed, other than bitching about it.
You've had a good try at it, but the best you've managed to come up with as to why Boris and co have no tried backing up their words on how bad May's deal is is 'They might not win' and 'oh it is not up to them to send in letters' which does not speak well of them in anyway, and makes your claims that MPs will act based of polling very suspect - if you are so confident MPs will be driven by polling saying the deal is bad, UKIP are rising and Boris is the only one who can save them, why are they not acting on it? Why will they act on that polling later, but not now?
Ultimately this is boiling down to claims May's deal is bad and the alternatives are super popular, and that the MPs will bear this in mind when they get their next leader, and yet you claim Boris and co lack the numbers to challenge May, and definitely the numbers to beat her. In which case why they confidence he will win later, and why do Boris and co pretend they don't support the deal when they won't act to stop it even in protest (resigning is a protest, but is not an action to prevent it)?
This is surely the most interesting news of the weekend.
It is now fair I think to call Bannon and his fellow travellers - including Farage - fascists.
They promote nationalism, populism, and protectionism, and displays of power (all this Putin and Jordan Peterson worship), and are against liberalism, immigration (and often immigrants), and the judiciary.
I use the term carefully. I do not wish to make WW2 comparisons. Fascists are not Nazis, and note that for now Bannon wishes to exclude “ethno-populists” from his funding, although the distinction will be difficult to make in certain countries.
But, like the 1930s, it is time to pick sides.
Sadly for principled Brexiters (there are one or two), their cause has been hijacked by the fascists. This doesn’t make Brexit wrong per se but should give one cause to think.
"I use this term carefully"
Proceeds to conflate Jordan Peterson, a psychologist and self-help book writer, with Vladimir Putin, a kleptocrat who has likely ordered extrajudicial killings in his own country and on British soil.
Uh, ok.
To some people anyone further right than a wet Tory is automatically a fascist. Anyone who believes in the traditional family unit? Fascist. Against open borders? Fascist. Protectionist? Fascist. Brexit? Fascist!
Stop. Calling. Everyone. You. Disagree. With. A. Fascist.
24% of the country then are Fascists already, given that is the number who told Yougov today they would vote for a hard right anti immigration and anti Islam nationalist party
A quick flick through the posts....is there anyone other than HYUFD who is excited by the prospect of PM Boris? Very unusual to have (almost) unanimity from the PB Tories .
A lot of Labour’s support is anti-Tory, just as a lot of the Tory support is anti-Labour. It’s hard to see any LibDem revival nationally under any leader while England and much of Wales remains so polarised.
Yes, a little-noticed bit of that poll showing lots of hypothetical support for an hard Brexit right-party also showed relatively modest support for a hypothetical moderate centrist party. There are a lot of politically active people out there who see politics today as High Noon, socialist/Remain vs conservative/Leave, and who are not interested in anything in between. And people who aren't politically active are really only aware of the Tories squabbling plus a bit of Labour now and then - it's months since they noticed the LibDems saying anything at all.
IMO Vince needs to say something controversial which isn't about Brexit, just to get people to pay attention.
38% would vote for a new right wing pro Brexit party, 33% for a new anti Brexit Party and concerningly 24% for a hard right anti Islam anti immigration English nationalist party.
As well as reports of Cable looking to establish a new centrist party today's Sunday Times also reports allies of Farage are seeking to raise £10 million for a new pro hard Brexit Party and Steve Bannon is seeking to raise £1 million to start a new far right alternative to Momentum
Banks was reported as definitely about to launch the latter, well over a year ago now
Banks was focused on the middle option, a new revived UKIP essentially.
The last option would basically be a new political party built around Tommy Robinson and the English Defence League
Bannon is already working on plans. Pan-european set-up called The Movement:
Yes Bannon is using his experience getting Trump elected working with the nationalist right in Europe like Front National, Lega Nord, the AfD and the Swedish Democrats
Bloody foreigners! Coming over here putting our own hard-working far Rightists out of jobs.
Bannon is working with Tommy Robinson's supporters
Looking forward to seeing him in George Square. Those boys need all the numbers they can get.
He makes some interesting points but skates over three issues:-
1. Why does Labour feel the need not to adopt the definition and examples in full like every other organisation? The examples are not rules after all.
2. The examples which are left out include the sort of language which was criticised in the Chakrabati report so Labour are resiling from what they agreed to then. Again, why?
3. The issue of motive. The examples left out are the sorts of things which a number of Labour members have been accused of. So it looks awfully like Labour are changing the rules in order to get people off the hook. In short, they are giving themselves permission to do precisely that which has caused so many people (not just Jews) offence and revulsion.
Finally, this article does not deal with my other points: the very different standards which Labour are applying to Jews by comparison to other minority groups facing abuse.
Ultimately, Labour under Corbyn are in favour of political anti-semitism, against Jewish nationalism and don’t care whether this leads them to indulge in traditional anti-semitism. This article is quite interesting on this topic - http://hurryupharry.org/2018/07/18/understanding-labour-and-antisemitism/
Thanks for the reply . Much appreciated.
Where I live and work , never come across, anti-Semitism.
We will be lucky to get a deal at all even with the Chequers Deal based on Barnier's comments but at least May deserves the chance to try.
In any case she would survive a no confidence vote now, in 18 months probably not
By which point it's too late for him to get the oh so better deal he will no doubt claim he could have gotten (same as Corbyn).
I find that explanation incredibly unconvincing. If her deal is terrible, as claimed, then no she shouldn't get the chance to try it just because. I agree it unlikely to happen anyway given Barnier's comments, but what if, remarkably, it does get agreed? Will Boris and co then back it in parliament despite saying it was terrible, not really Brexit at all? What a ludicrous position to be in when they could have done something about it, as they are and were saying they have better ideas.
And as for May surviving a vote of no confidence now, perhaps, perhaps not. But if they think May is leading us down a terrible path, they should make the attempt. Otherwise when, a year from now, and let's say her terrible deal is agreed and she is making way for someone else, when Boris stands up and says he did everything he could to stop the horrible deal and is the only person who can be trusted to take us forward, I will call him what he would be - a liar.
Being too cowardly to make a move for fear of losing means for one his idea is not as popular as he will later pretend it is, but it also means he is prioritising his chance to become PM over the most vital political issue this country has faced in a long time.
Or, the alternative, he doesn't actually think May's idea is that bad, should it succeed. Otherwise he would not dare risk it.
We're still looking at solutions in isolation. Yes, May's proposal is bad, apart from being unrealistic. Thing is, all the Brexit alternatives are worse. People won't accept they voted Leave to make Britain poorer, more unstable, with fewer prospects and no influence over things that matter to us. Hence the denial. It would be better if the degradation happened to us rather than us actually voting for it. Then we could face up to the challenge and deal with it.
Am I correct that if the UK reneges on the £39bn [ which after all is to be paid until 2064 - so not in one or five years ], the "transitional" deal was also agreed at the same time ? So why should we assume that that is secure.
The point is that nothing is secure yet. If the EU fails to give us a transitional deal (as they're threatening) then its worth reminding them we leave not owing a penny in that instance.
£39bn can fund a lot of unilateral transitionary planning if it becomes necessary.
The £39bn [ €43bn ] is to be paid until 2064. €1.28 trillion is the budget for the EU 2021-2027.
Oh, yes, I can see they will die without the £39bn.
If we go WTO, how much in duties will the EU countries get from UK exports ?
I imagine a lot less than we will get from them unless some miracle happens and we start selling them stuff.
Oh for goodness sake Hunt has been Health Secretary for almost a decade and is Foreign Secretary, he is one of the most high profile Tories and cabinet personalities there is. Same goes for Gove and Boris.
Javid is the only one named who can possibly hide behind the 'name recognition' argument given he has only just got a high profile Cabinet job
So they're associated with what they've done. If you think the Tories aren't good with the NHS then you're anti-Hunt.
If any of them become PM then that takes precedent over what happens before. Just as Brown and May had major ratings changes after become PM.
Labour did better under Brown in hypothetical polls from 2005 to 2007 than under Blair.
May led polling after the EU referendum on who should succeed Cameron as PM
Brown lost his election to Cameron.
May lost her majority to Corbyn.
So I think we can safely disregard polls as no more than a snapshot and certainly not reliable.
Bullshit.
Brown may well have won a 2007 general election or done better against Howard in 2005 than Blair. There were no head to heads for May and Leadsom against Labour.
Cameron did better against Labour in head to head polls than Davis and Fox in 2005 and matched Clarke. Cameron won most seats in 2010 and a majority in 2015.
Clarke polled better against Labour than Hague or IDS or Howard in 1997, 2001 and 2003. Hague and Howard both lost to Blair.
Blair polled best of Labour contenders in 1994. Blair won 3 general elections.
David Miliband polled better than Ed Miliband in 2010, Ed Miliband won but lost in 2015.
Major matched Heseltine in beating Kinnock in 1990 in head to heads and Thatcher lost to Kinnock. Major won in 1992
Serious question re Bannon and his ilk - why do they care so much about nationalist organisations and movements in other countries? I've never quite gotten it.
This is surely the most interesting news of the weekend.
It is now fair I think to call Bannon and his fellow travellers - including Farage - fascists.
They promote nationalism, populism, and protectionism, and displays of power (all this Putin and Jordan Peterson worship), and are against liberalism, immigration (and often immigrants), and the judiciary.
I use the term carefully. I do not wish to make WW2 comparisons. Fascists are not Nazis, and note that for now Bannon wishes to exclude “ethno-populists” from his funding, although the distinction will be difficult to make in certain countries.
But, like the 1930s, it is time to pick sides.
Sadly for principled Brexiters (there are one or two), their cause has been hijacked by the fascists. This doesn’t make Brexit wrong per se but should give one cause to think.
"I use this term carefully"
Proceeds to conflate Jordan Peterson, a psychologist and self-help book writer, with Vladimir Putin, a kleptocrat who has likely ordered extrajudicial killings in his own country and on British soil.
Uh, ok.
To some people anyone further right than a wet Tory is automatically a fascist. Anyone who believes in the traditional family unit? Fascist. Against open borders? Fascist. Protectionist? Fascist. Brexit? Fascist!
Stop. Calling. Everyone. You. Disagree. With. A. Fascist.
What I can not understand is why these people can not see in the UK, a party that seems to have a problem with a small section of society, want to nationalise key industries and have a leadership cult of a "strong" leader. All three are traits of a Fascist Party.
I do wonder how much of the current political debate centres around acts of vengeance? The 2017 election was called by some the revenge of the remainers. Now I think that is a little creative licence but when one looks at the debate within parties at the moment it does feel a bit like that. Is one reason John Major and Ken Clarke cannot be reconciled to hard Brexit because of their own experience of the 'headbangers' in the 1990s? That they cannot bear for these people to now get their way. Are many unreconcilable Brexiters not driven by a desire for revenge against those who betrayed them by lying about the true nature of the European project (stay in the common market) and transformed the country through mass immigration without asking anyone? The obsession with 'Blairites' in the Labour party sometimes seems less about the need for new policies than a desire for retribution against those who 'hijacked' the left and ruined it.
Ruins is a good word. If that is where people feel they are and there is no real hope for the future - do many of the Brexiteers/Corbynites really believe in sunny uplands on the way? I'm not convinced but if the future is so depressing you can at least settle a few old scores.
This is surely the most interesting news of the weekend.
It is now fair I think to call Bannon and his fellow travellers - including Farage - fascists.
They promote nationalism, populism, and protectionism, and displays of power (all this Putin and Jordan Peterson worship), and are against liberalism, immigration (and often immigrants), and the judiciary.
I use the term carefully. I do not wish to make WW2 comparisons. Fascists are not Nazis, and note that for now Bannon wishes to exclude “ethno-populists” from his funding, although the distinction will be difficult to make in certain countries.
But, like the 1930s, it is time to pick sides.
Sadly for principled Brexiters (there are one or two), their cause has been hijacked by the fascists. This doesn’t make Brexit wrong per se but should give one cause to think.
The Fascist/Nazi distinction is required for Bannon as he's a self proclaimed admirer of Mussolini, and he's smart enough to know that any Nazi connection is death to being taken seriously (for the moment anyway).
Oh for goodness sake Hunt has been Health Secretary for almost a decade and is Foreign Secretary, he is one of the most high profile Tories and cabinet personalities there is. Same goes for Gove and Boris.
Javid is the only one named who can possibly hide behind the 'name recognition' argument given he has only just got a high profile Cabinet job
So they're associated with what they've done. If you think the Tories aren't good with the NHS then you're anti-Hunt.
If any of them become PM then that takes precedent over what happens before. Just as Brown and May had major ratings changes after become PM.
Labour did better under Brown in hypothetical polls from 2005 to 2007 than under Blair.
May led polling after the EU referendum on who should succeed Cameron as PM
Brown lost his election to Cameron.
May lost her majority to Corbyn.
So I think we can safely disregard polls as no more than a snapshot and certainly not reliable.
Bullshit.
Brown may well have won a 2007 general election or done better against Howard in 2005 than Blair. There were no head to heads for May and Leadsom against Labour.
Cameron did better against Labour in head to head polls than Davis and Fox in 2005 and matched Clarke. Cameron won most seats in 2010 and a majority in 2015.
Clarke polled better agaibst Labour than Hague or IDS or Howard in 1997, 2001 and 2003. Hague and Howard both lost to Blair.
Blair polled best of Labour contenders in 1994. Blair won 3 general elections.
Major matched Heseltine in beating Kinnock in 1990 in head to heads and Thatcher lost to Kinnock. Major won in 1992
So we cannot disregard polls, except polls showing Boris is popular and May's deal is not, since those ones won't lead to any action as it won't lead to a VONC, which she would win anyway, but Boris would still definitely save the Tories at a GE off the same polling. Got it.
A quick flick through the posts....is there anyone other than HYUFD who is excited by the prospect of PM Boris? Very unusual to have (almost) unanimity from the PB Tories .
Yes, SeanT, Archer, Gin, Another Richard were all pro Boris last night as are the polls.
Just there are hardly any PB Tories on PB this morning and those who are are amost all liberal soft Brexiteers or were Remainers
Dominic Raab 14/1 to be next Toy leader. He looks more credible than Boris and JRM.
Though tied to Chequers hence he has also said we will not pay an exit bill with no trade deal today and has said we can leave without a deal to try and push his Eurosceptic credentials
If Tories were looking for an Eurosceptic with a semblance of competence, Raab will wipe the floor. Major always had a boring persona but was seen as competent.
Raab does not have a boring persona and already much better, at least, in what is seen by the public, than Davis.
Johnson will at the end suffer because of his lack of attention to detail.
At the end of the day though it is charisma not attention to detail which is most likely to win elections, otherwise May would have won a landslide at the last general election.
You need people like Raab with attention to detail in Cabinet but not necessarily as leader, as long as the leader has good advisers to help them with decision making
I think you’re mistakenly assuming that attention to detail is inversely proportionate to charisma: May demonstrates that the two can move in direct proportion.
Some atives score between 1.5 and 2. Hunt and Javid probably do better than most of the alternatives but then the pure-Brexit shibboleth comes into play and narrows the field further.
Hunt as leader would lead to a 1997 style landslide Tory defeat against Corbyn on today's poll.
Javid to be fair to him needs more time to prove himself
I don’t see how any poll of that nature can tell you much more than the relative recognition of the potential candidates - so few people (even party members) are engaged enough in politics to have a developed view on anyone other than the few most high profile cabinet personalities.
Oh for goodness sake Hunt has been Health Secretary for almost a decade and is Foreign Secretary, he is one of the most high profile Tories and cabinet personalities there is. Same goes for Gove and Boris.
Javid is the only one named who can possibly hide behind the 'name recognition' argument given he has only just got a high profile Cabinet job
Yet Hunt is almost invisible, I bet most people would not be able to name him or pick him out from a photo. Javid is a useless pipsqueak who has no chance.
We will be lucky to get a deal at all even with the Chequers Deal based on Barnier's comments but at least May deserves the chance to try.
In any case she would survive a no confidence vote now, in 18 months probably not
By which point it's too late for him to get the oh so better deal he will no doubt claim he could have gotterisk it.
Boris is not HThatcher as the rules have changed for the Tory s ed
I know .
Boris would not be on the ballot paper it would just be confidenceue date
You are deliberately missing the point. I know he is not on the ballot paper. But if these people think May's leadership is terrible they need to challenge her and bring her down. If they fail they can decide whether they can, after all, back her deal, however unhappily. If they succeed, then Boris and co can fight it out for the leadership with very clear visions of what they want - eg no deal, a better deal etc.
That they might not succeed in a vote of no confidence is no excuse for not trying if they actually believe May's plan is bad. Ok, they can hope the EU shoot it down. But apparently they are content for it to go ahead since they won't prevent her from trying to get it agreed, other than bitching about it.
You've had a good try at it, but the best you've managed to come up with as to why Boris and co have no tried backing up their words on how bad May's deal is is 'They might not win' and 'oh it is not up to them to send in letters' which does not speak well of them in anyway, and makes your claims that MPs will act based of polling very suspect - if you are so confident MPs will be driven by polling saying the deal is bad, UKIP are rising and Boris is the only one who can save them, why are they not acting on it? Why will they act on that polling later, but not now?
Ultimately this is boiling down to claims May's deal is bad and the alternatives are super popular, and that the MPs will bear this in mind when they get their next leader, and yet you claim Boris and co lack the numbers to challenge May, and definitely the numbers to beat her. In which case why they confidence he will win later, and why do Boris and co pretend they don't support the deal when they won't act to stop it even in protest (resigning is a protest, but is not an action to prevent it)?
As if May does go then Boris is clearly the only option at the moment who can beat Corbyn.
If May gets a deal from the EU which gives her everything she wanted who knows she may get a boost but at the moment all the evidence is neither the EU nor the public are great fans of the Chequers Deal
A quick flick through the posts....is there anyone other than HYUFD who is excited by the prospect of PM Boris? Very unusual to have (almost) unanimity from the PB Tories .
Tory wannabes, get thee a man that looks at you like HYUFD looks at Boris.
Better to be the party divided about policy than the party divided about racism.
Alternatively the Labour leadership have admitted they have a problem and are working out what to do about it, perhaps not particularly competently. The Tories deny they have a problem.
In the short term *this* is the antisemitism problem Labour has: an entirely pointless public row over part of the IHRA definition. It repels voters, splits the party and provides ammunition to opponents. In the longer term, and the root cause of the issue, Labour's problem with antisemitism is not that it has people who hate Jews -- the last leader was Jewish and when he was elected, pretty much 100 per cent of members' votes went to Jewish candidates, since he beat his brother. What Labour does have, however, is members who though not anti-Jewish are anti-Israel. Labour has chosen -- wrongly, and incredibly -- to indulge the latter by omitting a couple of the IHRA examples.
Maybe Labour is right and its amended version of the IHRA definition is better than the original -- but who cares? It is politically asinine. Adopt the whole IHRA version and let those who want to criticise Israel find better ways of doing so (or just tell them to shut the f up).
Exactly.
An excellent post from DJ but as you often point out Corbyn's strength is his authenticity. Even a serious sceptic like me is beginning to buy into the idea that he is an idealist who sticks to his guns.
Israel will never be a popular cause for lefties because it is and will continue to be ruled by an extreme right wing government. The noise is being made by an insignificant number of people with an agenda and Corbyn will win more support than he'll lose by standing up to them. Even if they're in his own party
Dominic Raab 14/1 to be next Toy leader. He looks more credible than Boris and JRM.
Though tied to Chequers hence he has also said we will not pay an exit bill with no trade deal today and has said we can leave without a deal to try and push his Eurosceptic credentials
If Tories were looking for an Eurosceptic with a semblance of competence, Raab will wipe the floor. Major always had a boring persona but was seen as competent.
Raab does not have a boring persona and already much better, at least, in what is seen by the public, than Davis.
Johnson will at the end suffer because of his lack of attention to detail.
At the end of the day though it is charisma not attention to detail which is most likely to win elections, otherwise May would have won a landslide at the last general election.
You need people like Raab with attention to detail in Cabinet but not necessarily as leader, as long as the leader has good advisers to help them with decision making
I think you’re mistakenly assuming that attention to detail is inversely proportionate to charisma: May demonstrates that the two can move in direct proportion.
Some atives score between 1.5 and 2. Hunt and Javid probably do better than most of the alternatives but then the pure-Brexit shibboleth comes into play and narrows the field further.
Hunt as leader would lead to a 1997 style landslide Tory defeat against Corbyn on today's poll.
Javid to be fair to him needs more time to prove himself
I don’t see how any poll of that nature can tell you much more than the relative recognition of the potential candidates - so few people (even party members) are engaged enough in politics to have a developed view on anyone other than the few most high profile cabinet personalities.
Oh for goodness sake Hunt has been Health Secretary for almost a decade and is Foreign Secretary, he is one of the most high profile Tories and cabinet personalities there is. Same goes for Gove and Boris.
Javid is the only one named who can possibly hide behind the 'name recognition' argument given he has only just got a high profile Cabinet job
Yet Hunt is almost invisible, I bet most people would not be able to name him or pick him out from a photo. Javid is a useless pipsqueak who has no chance.
Hunt has a net negative rating of -63% with Yougov
Dominic Raab 14/1 to be next Toy leader. He looks more credible than Boris and JRM.
Though tied to Chequers hence he has also said we will not pay an exit bill with no trade deal today and has said we can leave without a deal to try and push his Eurosceptic credentials
At the end of the day though it is charisma not attention to detail which is most likely to win elections, otherwise May would have won a landslide at the last general election.
You need people like Raab with attention to detail in Cabinet but not necessarily as leader, as long as the leader has good advisers to help them with decision making
I think you’re mistakenly assuming that attention to detail is inversely proportionate to charisma: May demonstrates that the two can move in direct proportion.
Some atives score between 1.5 and 2. Hunt and Javid probably do better than most of the alternatives but then the pure-Brexit shibboleth comes into play and narrows the field further.
Hunt as leader would lead to a 1997 style landslide Tory defeat against Corbyn on today's poll.
Javid to be fair to him needs more time to prove himself
I don’t see how any poll of that nature can tell you much more than the relative recognition of the potential candidates - so few people (even party members) are engaged enough in politics to have a developed view on anyone other than the few most high profile cabinet personalities.
Oh for goodness sake Hunt has been Health Secretary for almost a decade and is Foreign Secretary, he is one of the most high profile Tories and cabinet personalities there is. Same goes for Gove and Boris.
Javid is the only one named who can possibly hide behind the 'name recognition' argument given he has only just got a high profile Cabinet job
Yet Hunt is almost invisible, I bet most people would not be able to name him or pick him out from a photo. Javid is a useless pipsqueak who has no chance.
Hunt has a net negative rating of -63% with Yougov
Oh for goodness sake Hunt has been Health Secretary for almost a decade and is Foreign Secretary, he is one of the most high profile Tories and cabinet personalities there is. Same goes for Gove and Boris.
Javid is the only one named who can possibly hide behind the 'name recognition' argument given he has only just got a high profile Cabinet job
So they're associated with what they've done. If you think the Tories aren't good with the NHS then you're anti-Hunt.
If any of them become PM then that takes precedent over what happens before. Just as Brown and May had major ratings changes after become PM.
Labour did better under Brown in hypothetical polls from 2005 to 2007 than under Blair.
May led polling after the EU referendum on who should succeed Cameron as PM
Brown lost his election to Cameron.
May lost her majority to Corbyn.
So I think we can safely disregard polls as no more than a snapshot and certainly not reliable.
Bullshit.
Brown may well have won a 2007 general election or done better against Howard in 2005 than Blair. There were no head to heads for May and Leadsom against Labour.
Cameron did better against Labour in head to head polls than Davis and Fox in 2005 and matched Clarke. Cameron won most seats in 2010 and a majority in 2015.
Clarke polled better agaibst Labour than Hague or IDS or Howard in 1997, 2001 and 2003. Hague and Howard both lost to Blair.
Blair polled best of Labour contenders in 1994. Blair won 3 general elections.
Major matched Heseltine in beating Kinnock in 1990 in head to heads and Thatcher lost to Kinnock. Major won in 1992
So we cannot disregard polls, except polls showing Boris is popular and May's deal is not, since those ones won't lead to any action as it won't lead to a VONC, which she would win anyway, but Boris would still definitely save the Tories at a GE off the same polling. Got it.
Given there is only a 1% difference between May and Boris now and only May has any chance of a deal with the EU and even that is unlikely on anything bar a bare transition period as I said May stays for now.
But Boris is now the clear favourite to lead the Tories at the next general election
A quick flick through the posts....is there anyone other than HYUFD who is excited by the prospect of PM Boris? Very unusual to have (almost) unanimity from the PB Tories .
Tory wannabes, get thee a man that looks at you like HYUFD looks at Boris.
Dominic Raab 14/1 to be next Toy leader. He looks more credible than Boris and JRM.
Though tied to Chequers hence he has also said we will not pay an exit bill with no trade deal today and has said we can leave without a deal to try and push his Eurosceptic credentials
At the end of the day though it is charisma not attention to detail which is most likely to win elections, otherwise May would have won a landslide at the last general election.
You need people like Raab with attention to detail in Cabinet but not necessarily as leader, as long as the leader has good advisers to help them with decision making
I think you’re mistakenly assuming that attention to detail is inversely proportionate to charisma: May demonstrates that the two can move in direct proportion.
Some atives score between 1.5 and 2. Hunt and Javid probably do better than most of the alternatives but then the pure-Brexit shibboleth comes into play and narrows the field further.
Hunt as leader would lead to a 1997 style landslide Tory defeat against Corbyn on today's poll.
Javid to be fair to him needs more time to prove himself
I don’t see how any poll of that nature can tell you much more than the relative recognition of the potential candidates - so few people (even party members) are engaged enough in politics to have a developed view on anyone other than the few most high profile cabinet personalities.
Oh for goodness sake Hunt has been Health Secretary for almost a decade and is Foreign Secretary, he is one of the most high profile Tories and cabinet personalities there is. Same goes for Gove and Boris.
Javid is the only one named who can possibly hide behind the 'name recognition' argument given he has only just got a high profile Cabinet job
Yet Hunt is almost invisible, I bet most people would not be able to name him or pick him out from a photo. Javid is a useless pipsqueak who has no chance.
Hunt has a net negative rating of -63% with Yougov
If all some people have as arguments are quoting polls we are in serious trouble !!
I seem to recall the world was going to end on January 1st 2000 (there's a brilliant episode of Family Guy where the Y2K bug does happen). I wasn't convinced then and I'm not convinced March 29th 2019 will be any different from March 28th apart from being 24 hours later.
That's because thousands of people put in millions of man hours over multiple years to ensure it didn't happen.
That you think it was all floof is testament to the the hard work people put in.
This is surely the most interesting news of the weekend.
It is now fair I think to call Bannon and his fellow travellers - including Farage - fascists.
They promote nationalism, populism, and protectionism, and displays of power (all this Putin and Jordan Peterson worship), and are against liberalism, immigration (and often immigrants), and the judiciary.
I use the term carefully. I do not wish to make WW2 comparisons. Fascists are not Nazis, and note that for now Bannon wishes to exclude “ethno-populists” from his funding, although the distinction will be difficult to make in certain countries.
But, like the 1930s, it is time to pick sides.
Sadly for principled Brexiters (there are one or two), their cause has been hijacked by the fascists. This doesn’t make Brexit wrong per se but should give one cause to think.
"I use this term carefully"
Proceeds to conflate Jordan Peterson, a psychologist and self-help book writer, with Vladimir Putin, a kleptocrat who has likely ordered extrajudicial killings in his own country and on British soil.
Uh, ok.
To some people anyone further right than a wet Tory is automatically a fascist. Anyone who believes in the traditional family unit? Fascist. Against open borders? Fascist. Protectionist? Fascist. Brexit? Fascist!
Stop. Calling. Everyone. You. Disagree. With. A. Fascist.
What I can not understand is why these people can not see in the UK, a party that seems to have a problem with a small section of society, want to nationalise key industries and have a leadership cult of a "strong" leader. All three are traits of a Fascist Party.
What about a Party where policy is dictated by the leadership without any members' input, relies heavily on wealthy backers for its funding, places the flag front and centre of all its literature and meetings and falls back on "patriotism" as a default argument when all else fails? See what a silly comparison you make.
Dominic Raab 14/1 to be next Toy leader. He looks more credible than Boris and JRM.
Though tied to Chequers hence he has also said we will not pay an exit bill with no trade deal today and has said we can leave without a deal to try and push his Eurosceptic credentials
At the end of the day though it is charisma not attention to detail which is most likely to win elections, otherwise May would have won a landslide at the last general election.
You need people like Raab with attention to detail in Cabinet but not necessarily as leader, as long as the leader has good advisers to help them with decision making
I think you’re mistakenly assuming that attention to detail is inversely proportionate to charisma: May demonstrates that the two can move in direct proportion.
Some atives score between 1.5 and 2. Hunt and Javid probably do better than most of the alternatives but then the pure-Brexit shibboleth comes into play and narrows the field further.
Hunt as leader would lead to a 1997 style landslide Tory defeat against Corbyn on today's poll.
Javid to be fair to him needs more time to prove himself
I don’t see how any poll of that nature can tell you much more than the relative recognition of the potential candidates - so few people (even party members) are engaged enough in politics to have a developed view on anyone other than the few most high profile cabinet personalities.
Oh for goodness sake Hunt has been Health Secretary for almost a decade and is Foreign Secretary, he is one of the most high profile Tories and cabinet personalities there is. Same goes for Gove and Boris.
Javid is the only one named who can possibly hide behind the 'name recognition' argument given he has only just got a high profile Cabinet job
Yet Hunt is almost invisible, I bet most people would not be able to name him or pick him out from a photo. Javid is a useless pipsqueak who has no chance.
Hunt has a net negative rating of -63% with Yougov
We will be lucky to get a deal at all even with the Chequers Deal based on Barnier's comments but at least May deserves the chance to try.
In any case she would survive a no confidence vote now, in 18 months probably not
By which point it's too late for him to get the oh so better deal he will no doubt claim he could have gotterisk it.
Boris is not HThatcher as the rules have changed for the Tory s ed
I know .
Boris would not be on the ballot paper it would just be confidenceue date
If they fail they can decide whether they can, after all, back her deal, however unhappily. If they succeed, then Boris and co can fight it out for the leadership with very clear visions of what they want - eg no deal, a better deal etc.
That they might not succeed in a vote of no confidence is no excuse for not trying if they actually believe May's plan is bad. Ok, they can hope the EU shoot it down. But apparently they are content for it to go ahead since they won't prevent her from trying to get it agreed, other than bitching about it.
You've had a good try at it, but the best you've managed to come up with as to why Boris and co have no tried backing up their words on how bad May's deal is is 'They might not win' and 'oh it is not up to them to send in letters' which does not speak well of them in anyway, and makes your claims that MPs will act based of polling very suspect - if you are so confident MPs will be driven by polling saying the deal is bad, UKIP are rising and Boris is the only one who can save them, why are they not acting on it? Why will they act on that polling later, but not now?
Ultimately this is boiling down to claims May's deal is bad and the alternatives are super popular, and that the MPs will bear this in mind when they get their next leader, and yet you claim Boris and co lack the numbers to challenge May, and definitely the numbers to beat her. In which case why they confidence he will win later, and why do Boris and co pretend they don't support the deal when they won't act to stop it even in protest (resigning is a protest, but is not an action to prevent it)?
As if May does go then Boris is clearly the only option at the moment who can beat Corbyn.
If May gets a deal from the EU which gives her everything she wanted who knows she may get a boost but at the moment all the evidence is neither the EU nor the public are great fans of the Chequers Deal
Resolutely not answering the question because HYUFD has no answer. He also shifts his loyalty with the seasons. May could do no wrong, now fragrance comes out of Boris' arse.
This is surely the most interesting news of the weekend.
It is now fair I think to call Bannon and his fellow travellers - including Farage - fascists.
They promote nationalism, populism, and protectionism, and displays of power (all this Putin and Jordan Peterson worship), and are against liberalism, immigration (and often immigrants), and the judiciary.
I use the term carefully. I do not wish to make WW2 comparisons. Fascists are not Nazis, and note that for now Bannon wishes to exclude “ethno-populists” from his funding, although the distinction will be difficult to make in certain countries.
But, like the 1930s, it is time to pick sides.
Sadly for principled Brexiters (there are one or two), their cause has been hijacked by the fascists. This doesn’t make Brexit wrong per se but should give one cause to think.
"I use this term carefully"
Proceeds to conflate Jordan Peterson, a psychologist and self-help book writer, with Vladimir Putin, a kleptocrat who has likely ordered extrajudicial killings in his own country and on British soil.
Uh, ok.
To some people anyone further right than a wet Tory is automatically a fascist. Anyone who believes in the traditional family unit? Fascist. Against open borders? Fascist. Protectionist? Fascist. Brexit? Fascist!
Stop. Calling. Everyone. You. Disagree. With. A. Fascist.
24% of the country then are Fascists already, given that is the number who told Yougov today they would vote for a hard right anti immigration and anti Islam nationalist party
Indeed, and I reckon 98% of that 24% would be very happy with a sensible right wing government that was serious about capping immigration and ensuring we only take people with valuable skills (doctors yes, big issue sellers no). When governments don't listen to their people, they end up drifting towards the extreme fringes.
A quick flick through the posts....is there anyone other than HYUFD who is excited by the prospect of PM Boris? Very unusual to have (almost) unanimity from the PB Tories .
Tory wannabes, get thee a man that looks at you like HYUFD looks at Boris.
I have 16,000 reasons to look at Jeremy Hunt in the same way HYUFD looks at Boris.
Comments
Say another last minute fudge is found the Gov and EU agree on - it won't get through parliament as the gov lacks the numbers and it's too late for fudge to work.
I’m looking forward to seeing how they balance between “sensible preparation for a No Deal” - as promoted by Brexiters, and “Project Fear Mk 2” as bemoaned by Brexiters.
I seem to recall the world was going to end on January 1st 2000 (there's a brilliant episode of Family Guy where the Y2K bug does happen). I wasn't convinced then and I'm not convinced March 29th 2019 will be any different from March 28th apart from being 24 hours later.
Essentially, Governments only have three key responsibilities: a) uphold the law b) defend the borders and c) ensure the efficient distribution of food and water. Whatever our individual qualms on the first two, nobody is seriously going to allow food shortages (which didn't happen in the 2000 lorry drivers blockade to any great extent) and it's in no one's interests to initiate economic dislocation in general by grounding planes.
I assume if there's no deal there's no transition period either - is that right ?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/01/nhs-preparing-for-disruption-to-supplies-from-no-deal-brexit
I cannot see how this conundrum can be solved other than by a decisive vote one way or another.
Of course, even after that we could end up in the same yellow stuff.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/20/labour-code-of-conduct-not-antisemitic
In any case she would likely survive a no confidence vote now, in 18 months probably not
It is now fair I think to call Bannon and his fellow travellers - including Farage - fascists.
They promote nationalism, populism, and protectionism, and displays of power (all this Putin and Jordan Peterson worship), and are against liberalism, immigration (and often immigrants), and the judiciary.
I use the term carefully. I do not wish to make WW2 comparisons. Fascists are not Nazis, and note that for now Bannon wishes to exclude “ethno-populists” from his funding, although the distinction will be difficult to make in certain countries.
But, like the 1930s, it is time to pick sides.
Sadly for principled Brexiters (there are one or two), their cause has been hijacked by the fascists. This doesn’t make Brexit wrong per se but should give one cause to think.
https://twitter.com/olivercooper/status/1020968044443721730?s=21
54% Remain 46% No Deal Brexit with Yougov today is even tighter than the 2014 Scottish independence referendum result and almost as close as the 2016 EU referendum result (not forgetting Yougov underestimated Leave then) and not a decisive vote.
Corbyn leading May by 1% and tied with Boris with Yougov today is not a decisive result either
At the moment people are wanting what they view as an ideal solution, too many people are digging in and demanding everything how they want it. As we approach a crunch it will concentrate minds on what actually matters and what can be compromised on and that is when fudge will occur.
What's critical to roll over (medicines, flights, transport) and what can fall by the wayside.
It's only at the last moment such a fudge will be possible.
I find that explanation incredibly unconvincing. If her deal is terrible, as claimed, then no she shouldn't get the chance to try it just because. I agree it unlikely to happen anyway given Barnier's comments, but what if, remarkably, it does get agreed? Will Boris and co then back it in parliament despite saying it was terrible, not really Brexit at all? What a ludicrous position to be in when they could have done something about it, as they are and were saying they have better ideas.
And as for May surviving a vote of no confidence now, perhaps, perhaps not. But if they think May is leading us down a terrible path, they should make the attempt. Otherwise when, a year from now, and let's say her terrible deal is agreed and she is making way for someone else, when Boris stands up and says he did everything he could to stop the horrible deal and is the only person who can be trusted to take us forward, I will call him what he would be - a liar.
Being too cowardly to make a move for fear of losing means for one his idea is not as popular as he will later pretend it is, but it also means he is prioritising his chance to become PM over the most vital political issue this country has faced in a long time.
Or, the alternative, he doesn't actually think May's idea is that bad, should it succeed. Otherwise he would not dare risk it.
Planes will continue to fly. Under a No Deal scenario the arrangements will I suspect be effectively charter flights. Passengers won't be able transfer at Heathrow on one ticket, which will kill Heathrow as a transit hub and seriously impact British Airways. The sponsoring governments for Air France, KLM and Lufthansa as well as Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt airports, won't mind a bit.
We will get to see if rcs1000 prediction was correct
Javid is the only one named who can possibly hide behind the 'name recognition' argument given he has only just got a high profile Cabinet job
The obvious thing to do would be accept the IHRA definition in full without exceptions and vigourously police it. Tory Jewish groups would bleat for political effect but would lose their easy target. But to do so causes Corbyn's team a problem - very vocal supporters are the ones upset at the party's support for the state of Israel, and to conceed now would be to lose to Blairites.
And so we have the current lunacy. A perceived victory against Blairites is more important that being electable - headbangers don't see the point in winning unless the Blair scurge has been eradicated.
So if new capacity has to be installed, whether the train is fast or not-so-fast, many infrastructural costs will be the same.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sajid-javid-jeremy-corbyn-holocaust-denier-twitter-backlash-a8457706.html
Sajid javid getting carried away on twitter.
I may be being simplistic as well, but I don’t think that the issue is the intractability of the problem, it’s the UK’s bizarre attitude which involves wishing to take back control of its own laws/rules (including air travel) but then refusing to take any steps towards developing those rules, preferring instead to complain that it’s unfair to be excluded from the rules of the organisation it’s leaving. Maybe I’m missing something: is the UK prohibited from developing an alternative successor framework whilst still a member of the EU?
If any of them become PM then that takes precedent over what happens before. Just as Brown and May had major ratings changes after become PM.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/emergency-biscuits-flown-into-uk-due-to-national-shortage-a6927561.html
It was a difficult time for me.
Boris has done his bit by resigning but it needs 48 Tory MPs asking for a no confidence vote to get one and 50%+1 of Tory MPs voting against May in that no confidence vote for May to be ousted
*Apparently it is possible to estimate things correctly, there was that tunnel in Switzerland last year completed on time and on budge I seem to recall.
The USA healthcare system kills 80,000 people a year through nosocomial infections alone versus 32,000 deaths from guns and 33,000 from road traffic accidents.
A year ago I stated that BSI was moving its regulatory oversight to Holland. This was shot down on this website. That statement is now reality. I guess that people will believe what they want to hear.
1. Why does Labour feel the need not to adopt the definition and examples in full like every other organisation? The examples are not rules after all.
2. The examples which are left out include the sort of language which was criticised in the Chakrabati report so Labour are resiling from what they agreed to then. Again, why?
3. The issue of motive. The examples left out are the sorts of things which a number of Labour members have been accused of. So it looks awfully like Labour are changing the rules in order to get people off the hook. In short, they are giving themselves permission to do precisely that which has caused so many people (not just Jews) offence and revulsion.
Finally, this article does not deal with my other points: the very different standards which Labour are applying to Jews by comparison to other minority groups facing abuse.
Ultimately, Labour under Corbyn are in favour of political anti-semitism, against Jewish nationalism and don’t care whether this leads them to indulge in traditional anti-semitism. This article is quite interesting on this topic - http://hurryupharry.org/2018/07/18/understanding-labour-and-antisemitism/
May led polling after the EU referendum on who should succeed Cameron as PM
That's an excuse for him not to seek to challenge her, pretending the procedural requirements are beyond him, or that he has no influence on it (like saying 'We cannot go on like this, this deal cannot be risked even if the EU agree to it - I am submitting my letter and call on others to do the same so we can ensure Brexit is delivered').
The number of people against the deal, or generally unhappy, is clearly enough to provoke a contest - that one could happen at any time has been used as a threat to May for months. It is not in the slightest bit convincing to rely on that as the reason Boris has not, you know, actually backed up his words on the terribleness of the deal by trying to do something about it.
Does he believe in delivering Brexit or not? He says it is not to late to deliver it, a proper delivery too, and yet he's content to let May try and get it?
Balderdash and piffle. He's either relying on the EU saying no (probably a good chance) or he doesn't actually mind if it is agreed.
May lost her majority to Corbyn.
So I think we can safely disregard polls as no more than a snapshot and certainly not reliable.
Proceeds to conflate Jordan Peterson, a psychologist and self-help book writer, with Vladimir Putin, a kleptocrat who has likely ordered extrajudicial killings in his own country and on British soil.
Uh, ok.
To some people anyone further right than a wet Tory is automatically a fascist. Anyone who believes in the traditional family unit? Fascist. Against open borders? Fascist. Protectionist? Fascist. Brexit? Fascist!
Stop. Calling. Everyone. You. Disagree. With. A. Fascist.
That they might not succeed in a vote of no confidence is no excuse for not trying if they actually believe May's plan is bad. Ok, they can hope the EU shoot it down. But apparently they are content for it to go ahead since they won't prevent her from trying to get it agreed, other than bitching about it.
You've had a good try at it, but the best you've managed to come up with as to why Boris and co have no tried backing up their words on how bad May's deal is is 'They might not win' and 'oh it is not up to them to send in letters' which does not speak well of them in anyway, and makes your claims that MPs will act based of polling very suspect - if you are so confident MPs will be driven by polling saying the deal is bad, UKIP are rising and Boris is the only one who can save them, why are they not acting on it? Why will they act on that polling later, but not now?
Ultimately this is boiling down to claims May's deal is bad and the alternatives are super popular, and that the MPs will bear this in mind when they get their next leader, and yet you claim Boris and co lack the numbers to challenge May, and definitely the numbers to beat her. In which case why they confidence he will win later, and why do Boris and co pretend they don't support the deal when they won't act to stop it even in protest (resigning is a protest, but is not an action to prevent it)?
https://twitter.com/ScottishSun/status/1020622062992453632
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/20/labour-code-of-conduct-not-antisemitic
He makes some interesting points but skates over three issues:-
1. Why does Labour feel the need not to adopt the definition and examples in full like every other organisation? The examples are not rules after all.
2. The examples which are left out include the sort of language which was criticised in the Chakrabati report so Labour are resiling from what they agreed to then. Again, why?
3. The issue of motive. The examples left out are the sorts of things which a number of Labour members have been accused of. So it looks awfully like Labour are changing the rules in order to get people off the hook. In short, they are giving themselves permission to do precisely that which has caused so many people (not just Jews) offence and revulsion.
Finally, this article does not deal with my other points: the very different standards which Labour are applying to Jews by comparison to other minority groups facing abuse.
Ultimately, Labour under Corbyn are in favour of political anti-semitism, against Jewish nationalism and don’t care whether this leads them to indulge in traditional anti-semitism. This article is quite interesting on this topic - http://hurryupharry.org/2018/07/18/understanding-labour-and-antisemitism/
Thanks for the reply .
Much appreciated.
Where I live and work , never come across, anti-Semitism.
York has had a terrible history.
http://www.historyofyork.org.uk/themes/norman/the-1190-massacre
Ok he’s a polling expert and his firm works on the exit poll but still.
https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1020950442262573058?s=21
Brown may well have won a 2007 general election or done better against Howard in 2005 than Blair. There were no head to heads for May and Leadsom against Labour.
Cameron did better against Labour in head to head polls than Davis and Fox in 2005 and matched Clarke. Cameron won most seats in 2010 and a majority in 2015.
Clarke polled better against Labour than Hague or IDS or Howard in 1997, 2001 and 2003. Hague and Howard both lost to Blair.
Blair polled best of Labour contenders in 1994. Blair won 3 general elections.
David Miliband polled better than Ed Miliband in 2010, Ed Miliband won but lost in 2015.
Major matched Heseltine in beating Kinnock in 1990 in head to heads and Thatcher lost to Kinnock. Major won in 1992
But must be off so will read any answers later.
Ruins is a good word. If that is where people feel they are and there is no real hope for the future - do many of the Brexiteers/Corbynites really believe in sunny uplands on the way? I'm not convinced but if the future is so depressing you can at least settle a few old scores.
https://twitter.com/los_fisher/status/1020947108365467648?s=21
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1020926457504321536
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5978715/Diane-Abbott-drops-complaint-against-Mail-Sunday-accidental-visit-Commons-gents.html
Labour is up only 2 to 3% relative to Boris but the Tory vote is down 8 to 9% relative to Boris
Just there are hardly any PB Tories on PB this morning and those who are are amost all liberal soft Brexiteers or were Remainers
If May gets a deal from the EU which gives her everything she wanted who knows she may get a boost but at the moment all the evidence is neither the EU nor the public are great fans of the Chequers Deal
https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1020981364798181378?s=21
Israel will never be a popular cause for lefties because it is and will continue to be ruled by an extreme right wing government. The noise is being made by an insignificant number of people with an agenda and Corbyn will win more support than he'll lose by standing up to them. Even if they're in his own party
https://yougov.co.uk/opi/browse/Jeremy_Hunt
But Boris is now the clear favourite to lead the Tories at the next general election
Funny isn't it how any poll good for your favoured candidate is accepted but anyone which is bad is down to 'name recognition'
That you think it was all floof is testament to the the hard work people put in.
See what a silly comparison you make.
If nobody recognised you you would have a net approval rating of 0% not -63%