The problem with a second referendum is that it isn't going to happen for a vast number of reasons (not least because win or lose it would finish Theresa May and she knows it) but a noisy minority desperately want it to happen so they're convinced it will go ahead at some point.
A referendum between the deal and Remain would be one May couldn't lose if she did a Wilson during the campaign.
May would be toppled as leader in 5 minutes if she proposed a referendum between the deal and Remain, however most Tory MPs could live with a referendum between the deal and no deal
Of course they would - there is no deal on the table.
The only deal that can be in a referendum is a "temporary" "transition" ie time limited or indefinite maintenance of most of the status quo. That's because any final state will only be settled after Brexit. . Effectively the referendum choice will be between Brexit and no Brexit, where Brexit would be accompanied by an immediate and chaotic disruption of relationship or by a decision not to agree anything yet. In no circumstances will there be a deal for the referendum to decide on.
But what there can be, right up until the moment May delivers the kind of speech I outlined below, is real uncertainty about the prospect of No Deal. That's what will allow her to spin a bridge to nowhere as a win and to keep a firm grip on the domestic political situation.
If May made such a speech, she would immediately be challenged by her party.
And the challenge would take at least 24-48 hours to organise, by which time it would be clear that the momentum for a referendum was unstoppable and removing May would serve no purpose. Any recriminations would have to wait.
More like 2.4 to 4.8 minutes. If May even gave a hint that she was angling for EU ref 2 the MPs would have her on the chopping blocks within an hour.
A ministry led by Dominic Grieve? About as likely as Theresa May opening a Ministry of Silly Walks.
The idea that Theresa May and the cabinet would spring a referendum on the unsuspecting public is madness. Let’s not entertain it.
The deal will go to the Commons, Tory MPs will look at the benches opposite, hold their noses and vote for it. Letting Corbyn in is unthinkable.
I agree that the most likely outcome is that Tory MPs will vote for the deal (with the NI backstop provision and the trade deal (SM/CU) kicked into an extended transition period.) It is much the most likely outcome.
I think TMay will survive it to carry on the BINO negotiation until 2022, after which, who knows??
The problem with a second referendum is that it isn't going to happen for a vast number of reasons (not least because win or lose it would finish Theresa May and she knows it) but a noisy minority desperately want it to happen so they're convinced it will go ahead at some point.
A referendum between the deal and Remain would be one May couldn't lose if she did a Wilson during the campaign.
May would be toppled as leader in 5 minutes if she proposed a referendum between the deal and Remain, however most Tory MPs could live with a referendum between the deal and no deal
Of course they would - there is no deal on the table.
There is the Chequers Deal which is likely roughly want we end up with next March
Putting the latest Delta and Kantar figures into the EMA gives:
Con 289 (-29) Lab 283 (+21) LD 16 (+4) Grn 1 UKIP 0 SNP 40 (+5) PC 3 (-1) NI 18
Con still largest party but Labour creeping up and would form a minority government.
No GE anytime soon.
We need an up-to date Scottish poll.
A Scottish poll would make no difference given the SNP will prop up Labour.
What is most likely at the moment is when the next general election comes the Tories will be largest party but Corbyn PM propped up by the LDs and SNP. However that is a similar story to 2015 along with the fact UKIP are also up and we know what happened then
In that scenario Corbyn would struggle to get anything like a radical programme through (particularly if the PLP has not been completely purged). He'd be pushed towards another election on the basis of "give us a majority for radical change".
I wouldn't read too much into these Summer polls as the circumstances of the next election are unknown and unknowable. We can all think of various scenarios but just consider some of the "known unknowns": 1. Brexit status. 2. Leader of Tories. 3. Splits and conflict in major parties, even the possibility of a new centrist party launch. 4. State of the economy. 5. Parliamentary boundaries.
The only deal that can be in a referendum is a "temporary" "transition" ie time limited or indefinite maintenance of most of the status quo. That's because any final state will only be settled after Brexit. . Effectively the referendum choice will be between Brexit and no Brexit, where Brexit would be accompanied by an immediate and chaotic disruption of relationship or by a decision not to agree anything yet. In no circumstances will there be a deal for the referendum to decide on.
But what there can be, right up until the moment May delivers the kind of speech I outlined below, is real uncertainty about the prospect of No Deal. That's what will allow her to spin a bridge to nowhere as a win and to keep a firm grip on the domestic political situation.
If May made such a speech, she would immediately be challenged by her party.
And the challenge would take at least 24-48 hours to organise, by which time it would be clear that the momentum for a referendum was unstoppable and removing May would serve no purpose. Any recriminations would have to wait.
More like 2.4 to 4.8 minutes. If May even gave a hint that she was angling for EU ref 2 the MPs would have her on the chopping blocks within an hour.
With Gove on her side, a challenge won't get off the starting block.
The median time in a care home is about 6 months, but there is a considerable range as I recall.
Perhaps the biggest issue is the means test. If a care ISA was exempt from the means test then it could be quite attractive, if it just counts againt state support then it would be a non starter.
Thanks for the response, Doc.
MY father didn`t make it to 6 months but I met a resident who had been there seven years so as you say a huge variation.
Your comment about the means test is very interesting and I completely agree. It has to be part of the carrot to make any Care ISA plan attractive.
One considerable problem with social care costs looming in the next 15 years is going to be a substantial number of people requiring it who do not have meaningful assets or are net debtors. Given the size of mortgages and the number of people who can't afford a deposit in the first place, there is a looming issue that they simply won't be able to pay for care.
This may make a difference - then again it may not. I can't help but feel those people who can afford to pay into an ISA will be those who will be able to afford care anyway.
The only deal that can be in a referendum is a "temporary" "transition" ie time limited or indefinite maintenance of most of the status quo. That's because any final state will only be settled after Brexit. . Effectively the referendum choice will be between Brexit and no Brexit, where Brexit would be accompanied by an immediate and chaotic disruption of relationship or by a decision not to agree anything yet. In no circumstances will there be a deal for the referendum to decide on.
But what there can be, right up until the moment May delivers the kind of speech I outlined below, is real uncertainty about the prospect of No Deal. That's what will allow her to spin a bridge to nowhere as a win and to keep a firm grip on the domestic political situation.
If May made such a speech, she would immediately be challenged by her party.
And the challenge would take at least 24-48 hours to organise, by which time it would be clear that the momentum for a referendum was unstoppable and removing May would serve no purpose. Any recriminations would have to wait.
More like 2.4 to 4.8 minutes. If May even gave a hint that she was angling for EU ref 2 the MPs would have her on the chopping blocks within an hour.
With Gove on her side, a challenge won't get off the starting block.
Of course it would and Gove would never sign up to a referendum that puts remain back on the ballot paper. He'd be one of the plotters if she tried.
The only deal that can be in a referendum is a "temporary" "transition" ie time limited or indefinite maintenance of most of the status quo. That's because any final state will only be settled after Brexit. . Effectively the referendum choice will be between Brexit and no Brexit, where Brexit would be accompanied by an immediate and chaotic disruption of relationship or by a decision not to agree anything yet. In no circumstances will there be a deal for the referendum to decide on.
But what there can be, right up until the moment May delivers the kind of speech I outlined below, is real uncertainty about the prospect of No Deal. That's what will allow her to spin a bridge to nowhere as a win and to keep a firm grip on the domestic political situation.
If May made such a speech, she would immediately be challenged by her party.
And the challenge would take at least 24-48 hours to organise, by which time it would be clear that the momentum for a referendum was unstoppable and removing May would serve no purpose. Any recriminations would have to wait.
More like 2.4 to 4.8 minutes. If May even gave a hint that she was angling for EU ref 2 the MPs would have her on the chopping blocks within an hour.
With Gove on her side, a challenge won't get off the starting block.
He wouldn’t be on her side if another referendum is called.
The only deal that can be in a referendum is a "temporary" "transition" ie time limited or indefinite maintenance of most of the status quo. That's because any final state will only be settled after Brexit. . Effectively the referendum choice will be between Brexit and no Brexit, where Brexit would be accompanied by an immediate and chaotic disruption of relationship or by a decision not to agree anything yet. In no circumstances will there be a deal for the referendum to decide on.
But what there can be, right up until the moment May delivers the kind of speech I outlined below, is real uncertainty about the prospect of No Deal. That's what will allow her to spin a bridge to nowhere as a win and to keep a firm grip on the domestic political situation.
If May made such a speech, she would immediately be challenged by her party.
And the challenge would take at least 24-48 hours to organise, by which time it would be clear that the momentum for a referendum was unstoppable and removing May would serve no purpose. Any recriminations would have to wait.
More like 2.4 to 4.8 minutes. If May even gave a hint that she was angling for EU ref 2 the MPs would have her on the chopping blocks within an hour.
With Gove on her side, a challenge won't get off the starting block.
Gove would back a Deal v No Deal referendum (and campaign for the Deal), Gove would oppose a Deal v Remain referendum given he campaigned to Leave
The only deal that can be in a referendum is a "temporary" "transition" ie time limited or indefinite maintenance of most of the status quo. That's because any final state will only be settled after Brexit. . Effectively the referendum choice will be between Brexit and no Brexit, where Brexit would be accompanied by an immediate and chaotic disruption of relationship or by a decision not to agree anything yet. In no circumstances will there be a deal for the referendum to decide on.
But what there can be, right up until the moment May delivers the kind of speech I outlined below, is real uncertainty about the prospect of No Deal. That's what will allow her to spin a bridge to nowhere as a win and to keep a firm grip on the domestic political situation.
If May made such a speech, she would immediately be challenged by her party.
And the challenge would take at least 24-48 hours to organise, by which time it would be clear that the momentum for a referendum was unstoppable and removing May would serve no purpose. Any recriminations would have to wait.
More like 2.4 to 4.8 minutes. If May even gave a hint that she was angling for EU ref 2 the MPs would have her on the chopping blocks within an hour.
With Gove on her side, a challenge won't get off the starting block.
She doesn't need to be challenged - only no-confidenced. Unlike Labour they can get rid of her without having any idea of who the replacement will be, as happened most recently in 2003.
If May's deal is rejected by Parliament, why the feck should it then be an option on the ballot in a referendum?
With the deal rejected the only remaining options are No Deal, Remain or A50 extension and try again.
Indeed. We either leave in chaos, we leave with the possibility of a deal later but let's not talk about it, or we don't leave. There won't be any other options.
The next year is like 1918. We have had a stalemate on the Western Front, but the plates have shifted and there needs to be a breakthrough by one side or the other. Suddenly movement becomes an essential, and collapse of morale can lead to capitulation. Or perhaps it is like Spring 1940 on the Maginot Line.
The Brexit deadline is 7 months away. Moving it could collapse the government. Cancelling Brexit could collapse the government, Chequers Minus could collapse the government, No Deal could collapse the government. A #peoplesvote is one way out of the impasse, but could collapse the government.
Transition to Nowhere Brexit may be survivable by the government, but only opens the door to the same options. Theresa has painted herself into a corner and is now painting her kitten heels and stockings.
Or to use the game show analogy: There are 3 doors, behind one is a car, behind the other two are goats. The Brexit referendum chose us a door. Monty Hall opens one of the others and shows us a car. Do we switch doors or stick with this goat or the other goat? We rejected the car already.
The only deal that can be in a referendum is a "temporary" "transition" ie time limited or indefinite maintenance of most of the status quo. That's because any final state will only be settled after Brexit. . Effectively the referendum choice will be between Brexit and no Brexit, where Brexit would be accompanied by an immediate and chaotic disruption of relationship or by a decision not to agree anything yet. In no circumstances will there be a deal for the referendum to decide on.
But what there can be, right up until the moment May delivers the kind of speech I outlined below, is real uncertainty about the prospect of No Deal. That's what will allow her to spin a bridge to nowhere as a win and to keep a firm grip on the domestic political situation.
If May made such a speech, she would immediately be challenged by her party.
And the challenge would take at least 24-48 hours to organise, by which time it would be clear that the momentum for a referendum was unstoppable and removing May would serve no purpose. Any recriminations would have to wait.
More like 2.4 to 4.8 minutes. If May even gave a hint that she was angling for EU ref 2 the MPs would have her on the chopping blocks within an hour.
With Gove on her side, a challenge won't get off the starting block.
He wouldn’t be on her side if another referendum is called.
No-one would...
It's funny when William tries to lecture actual members on how the party thinks and works.
The only deal that can be in a referendum is a "temporary" "transition" ie time limited or indefinite maintenance of most of the status quo. That's because any final state will only be settled after Brexit. . Effectively the referendum choice will be between Brexit and no Brexit, where Brexit would be accompanied by an immediate and chaotic disruption of relationship or by a decision not to agree anything yet. In no circumstances will there be a deal for the referendum to decide on.
But what there can be, right up until the moment May delivers the kind of speech I outlined below, is real uncertainty about the prospect of No Deal. That's what will allow her to spin a bridge to nowhere as a win and to keep a firm grip on the domestic political situation.
If May made such a speech, she would immediately be challenged by her party.
And the challenge would take at least 24-48 hours to organise, by which time it would be clear that the momentum for a referendum was unstoppable and removing May would serve no purpose. Any recriminations would have to wait.
More like 2.4 to 4.8 minutes. If May even gave a hint that she was angling for EU ref 2 the MPs would have her on the chopping blocks within an hour.
With Gove on her side, a challenge won't get off the starting block.
Of course it would and Gove would never sign up to a referendum that puts remain back on the ballot paper. He'd be one of the plotters if she tried.
Do you trust Gove? He's addicted to scheming, and the more complicated the plot, the more it appeals to him. What do you think he talks about on his holidays with Osborne watching Wagner?
Putting the latest Delta and Kantar figures into the EMA gives:
Con 289 (-29) Lab 283 (+21) LD 16 (+4) Grn 1 UKIP 0 SNP 40 (+5) PC 3 (-1) NI 18
Con still largest party but Labour creeping up and would form a minority government.
No GE anytime soon.
We need an up-to date Scottish poll.
A Scottish poll would make no difference given the SNP will prop up Labour.
What is most likely at the moment is when the next general election comes the Tories will be largest party but Corbyn PM propped up by the LDs and SNP. However that is a similar story to 2015 along with the fact UKIP are also up and we know what happened then
In that scenario Corbyn would struggle to get anything like a radical programme through (particularly if the PLP has not been completely purged). He'd be pushed towards another election on the basis of "give us a majority for radical change".
I wouldn't read too much into these Summer polls as the circumstances of the next election are unknown and unknowable. We can all think of various scenarios but just consider some of the "known unknowns": 1. Brexit status. 2. Leader of Tories. 3. Splits and conflict in major parties, even the possibility of a new centrist party launch. 4. State of the economy. 5. Parliamentary boundaries.
That's just some of 'em..
Wilson of course tried again in October 1974 and got a tiny majority after failing to get a majority in February 1974 and we all know what happened in 1979
The only deal that can be in a referendum is a "temporary" "transition" ie time limited or indefinite maintenance of most of the status quo. That's because any final state will only be settled after Brexit. . Effectively the referendum choice will be between Brexit and no Brexit, where Brexit would be accompanied by an immediate and chaotic disruption of relationship or by a decision not to agree anything yet. In no circumstances will there be a deal for the referendum to decide on.
But what there can be, right up until the moment May delivers the kind of speech I outlined below, is real uncertainty about the prospect of No Deal. That's what will allow her to spin a bridge to nowhere as a win and to keep a firm grip on the domestic political situation.
If May made such a speech, she would immediately be challenged by her party.
And the challenge would take at least 24-48 hours to organise, by which time it would be clear that the momentum for a referendum was unstoppable and removing May would serve no purpose. Any recriminations would have to wait.
More like 2.4 to 4.8 minutes. If May even gave a hint that she was angling for EU ref 2 the MPs would have her on the chopping blocks within an hour.
With Gove on her side, a challenge won't get off the starting block.
He wouldn’t be on her side if another referendum is called.
No-one would...
It's funny when William tries to lecture actual members on how the party thinks and works.
The Problem with WG is he is a EuroFederalist LD who thinks he is a Tory, with the possible exception of the Tories under Heath that is not the case
The only deal that can be in a referendum is a "temporary" "transition" ie time limited or indefinite maintenance of most of the status quo. That's because any final state will only be settled after Brexit. . Effectively the referendum choice will be between Brexit and no Brexit, where Brexit would be accompanied by an immediate and chaotic disruption of relationship or by a decision not to agree anything yet. In no circumstances will there be a deal for the referendum to decide on.
But what there can be, right up until the moment May delivers the kind of speech I outlined below, is real uncertainty about the prospect of No Deal. That's what will allow her to spin a bridge to nowhere as a win and to keep a firm grip on the domestic political situation.
If May made such a speech, she would immediately be challenged by her party.
And the challenge would take at least 24-48 hours to organise, by which time it would be clear that the momentum for a referendum was unstoppable and removing May would serve no purpose. Any recriminations would have to wait.
More like 2.4 to 4.8 minutes. If May even gave a hint that she was angling for EU ref 2 the MPs would have her on the chopping blocks within an hour.
With Gove on her side, a challenge won't get off the starting block.
Of course it would and Gove would never sign up to a referendum that puts remain back on the ballot paper. He'd be one of the plotters if she tried.
Do you trust Gove? He's addicted to scheming, and the more complicated the plot, the more it appeals to him. What do you think he talks about on his holidays with Osborne watching Wagner?
The question you need to ask yourself is if you trust Gove. As I said, he'll be one of the plotters if May tries to push another referendum. You said it yourself, he's a natural born plotter and will betray May in a heartbeat.
The only deal that can be in a referendum is a "temporary" "transition" ie time limited or indefinite maintenance of most of the status quo. That's because any final state will only be settled after Brexit. . Effectively the referendum choice will be between Brexit and no Brexit, where Brexit would be accompanied by an immediate and chaotic disruption of relationship or by a decision not to agree anything yet. In no circumstances will there be a deal for the referendum to decide on.
But what there can be, right up until the moment May delivers the kind of speech I outlined below, is real uncertainty about the prospect of No Deal. That's what will allow her to spin a bridge to nowhere as a win and to keep a firm grip on the domestic political situation.
If May made such a speech, she would immediately be challenged by her party.
And the challenge would take at least 24-48 hours to organise, by which time it would be clear that the momentum for a referendum was unstoppable and removing May would serve no purpose. Any recriminations would have to wait.
More like 2.4 to 4.8 minutes. If May even gave a hint that she was angling for EU ref 2 the MPs would have her on the chopping blocks within an hour.
With Gove on her side, a challenge won't get off the starting block.
She doesn't need to be challenged - only no-confidenced. Unlike Labour they can get rid of her without having any idea of who the replacement will be, as happened most recently in 2003.
Yes I realise that but even if there's a confidence vote, major figures will have a choice of staying silent, openly supporting her, or saying she should go.
The only deal that can be in a referendum is a "temporary" "transition" ie time limited or indefinite maintenance of most of the status quo. That's because any final state will only be settled after Brexit. . Effectively the referendum choice will be between Brexit and no Brexit, where Brexit would be accompanied by an immediate and chaotic disruption of relationship or by a decision not to agree anything yet. In no circumstances will there be a deal for the referendum to decide on.
But what there can be, right up until the moment May delivers the kind of speech I outlined below, is real uncertainty about the prospect of No Deal. That's what will allow her to spin a bridge to nowhere as a win and to keep a firm grip on the domestic political situation.
If May made such a speech, she would immediately be challenged by her party.
And the challenge would take at least 24-48 hours to organise, by which time it would be clear that the momentum for a referendum was unstoppable and removing May would serve no purpose. Any recriminations would have to wait.
More like 2.4 to 4.8 minutes. If May even gave a hint that she was angling for EU ref 2 the MPs would have her on the chopping blocks within an hour.
With Gove on her side, a challenge won't get off the starting block.
He wouldn’t be on her side if another referendum is called.
No-one would...
It's funny when William tries to lecture actual members on how the party thinks and works.
Indeed. He doesn’t seem to grasp the party political dimension at all.
The only deal that can be in a referendum is a "temporary" "transition" ie time limited or indefinite maintenance of most of the status quo. That's because any final state will only be settled after Brexit. . Effectively the referendum choice will be between Brexit and no Brexit, where Brexit would be accompanied by an immediate and chaotic disruption of relationship or by a decision not to agree anything yet. In no circumstances will there be a deal for the referendum to decide on.
But what there can be, right up until the moment May delivers the kind of speech I outlined below, is real uncertainty about the prospect of No Deal. That's what will allow her to spin a bridge to nowhere as a win and to keep a firm grip on the domestic political situation.
If May made such a speech, she would immediately be challenged by her party.
And the challenge would take at least 24-48 hours to organise, by which time it would be clear that the momentum for a referendum was unstoppable and removing May would serve no purpose. Any recriminations would have to wait.
More like 2.4 to 4.8 minutes. If May even gave a hint that she was angling for EU ref 2 the MPs would have her on the chopping blocks within an hour.
With Gove on her side, a challenge won't get off the starting block.
She doesn't need to be challenged - only no-confidenced. Unlike Labour they can get rid of her without having any idea of who the replacement will be, as happened most recently in 2003.
Yes I realise that but even if there's a confidence vote, major figures will have a choice of staying silent, openly supporting her, or saying she should go.
Staying silent and stabbing the leader in the back. It's the Tory way.
The next year is like 1918. We have had a stalemate on the Western Front, but the plates have shifted and there needs to be a breakthrough by one side or the other. Suddenly movement becomes an essential, and collapse of morale can lead to capitulation. Or perhaps it is like Spring 1940 on the Maginot Line.
The Brexit deadline is 7 months away. Moving it could collapse the government. Cancelling Brexit could collapse the government, Chequers Minus could collapse the government, No Deal could collapse the government. A #peoplesvote is one way out of the impasse, but could collapse the government.
Transition to Nowhere Brexit may be survivable by the government, but only opens the door to the same options. Theresa has painted herself into a corner and is now painting her kitten heels and stockings.
Or to use the game show analogy: There are 3 doors, behind one is a car, behind the other two are goats. The Brexit referendum chose us a door. Monty Hall opens one of the others and shows us a car. Do we switch doors or stick with this goat or the other goat? We rejected the car already.
Nice analogy. You missed off that both goats on offer are already dead. But it will be our sovereign choice which dead goat we choose, free from those pesky car touting Europeans
The only deal that can be in a referendum is a "temporary" "transition" ie time limited or indefinite maintenance of most of the status quo. That's because any final state will only be settled after Brexit. . Effectively the referendum choice will be between Brexit and no Brexit, where Brexit would be accompanied by an immediate and chaotic disruption of relationship or by a decision not to agree anything yet. In no circumstances will there be a deal for the referendum to decide on.
But what there can be, right up until the moment May delivers the kind of speech I outlined below, is real uncertainty about the prospect of No Deal. That's what will allow her to spin a bridge to nowhere as a win and to keep a firm grip on the domestic political situation.
If May made such a speech, she would immediately be challenged by her party.
And the challenge would take at least 24-48 hours to organise, by which time it would be clear that the momentum for a referendum was unstoppable and removing May would serve no purpose. Any recriminations would have to wait.
More like 2.4 to 4.8 minutes. If May even gave a hint that she was angling for EU ref 2 the MPs would have her on the chopping blocks within an hour.
With Gove on her side, a challenge won't get off the starting block.
Of course it would and Gove would never sign up to a referendum that puts remain back on the ballot paper. He'd be one of the plotters if she tried.
Do you trust Gove? He's addicted to scheming, and the more complicated the plot, the more it appeals to him. What do you think he talks about on his holidays with Osborne watching Wagner?
The problem for me is or are the amounts involved - residential care in London and the SE costs £1000 per week so you're looking at saving over £50k to cover a year's costs and £250k for five years. That's a lot of money to save so naturally the primary appreciating capital asset (the property) has to go to cover what's required.
It's all very well the Government claiming a large pool of ISA cash already exists among the elderly but does everyone have £50k sitting around? No, what the shrewd elderly do is divest themselves of assets in order not to have pay too much (putting properties in trust to children or grandchildren as an example).
I have a frail parent and I and my siblings are discussing ways of caring. I can tell you straight that we can't do £1000 a week. We probably won't be able to do £1000 a month. And that's combined. The best idea Gordon Brown ever came up with was a National Care Service...
Sympathise when my mother passed, I had to look after my father. Having been to many of the "best" care homes available locally, to visit my mother's friends with her. On my honour I could never have lived with my conscious if he went into one. The over whelming stench of stale urine, the over worked and underpaid staff, about 99% of whom were not UK citizens who had in most cases, basic English language skills
The Care Packages were a life saver, and made his last years reasonably comfortable.
What is really scary to me, is that when my time comes, I will have to enjoy a very limited system.
And, when your time is coming to an end, no matter how much money you may have, or have not, if the carers are not there to look after you, wipe your backsides, make sure your catheters are in place and the bags emptied, the feeding tube into your stomach is kept clean, wash, clean and dress you daily, just think for a moment....
The only deal that can be in a referendum is a "temporary" "transition" ie time limited or indefinite maintenance of most of the status quo. That's because any final state will only be settled after Brexit. . Effectively the referendum choice will be between Brexit and no Brexit, where Brexit would be accompanied by an immediate and chaotic disruption of relationship or by a decision not to agree anything yet. In no circumstances will there be a deal for the referendum to decide on.
But what there can be, right up until the moment May delivers the kind of speech I outlined below, is real uncertainty about the prospect of No Deal. That's what will allow her to spin a bridge to nowhere as a win and to keep a firm grip on the domestic political situation.
If May made such a speech, she would immediately be challenged by her party.
And the challenge would take at least 24-48 hours to organise, by which time it would be clear that the momentum for a referendum was unstoppable and removing May would serve no purpose. Any recriminations would have to wait.
More like 2.4 to 4.8 minutes. If May even gave a hint that she was angling for EU ref 2 the MPs would have her on the chopping blocks within an hour.
With Gove on her side, a challenge won't get off the starting block.
He wouldn’t be on her side if another referendum is called.
No-one would...
It's funny when William tries to lecture actual members on how the party thinks and works.
Indeed. He doesn’t seem to grasp the party political dimension at all.
The only deal that can be in a referendum is a "temporary" "transition" ie time limited or indefinite maintenance of most of the status quo. That's because any final state will only be settled after Brexit. . Effectively the referendum choice will be between Brexit and no Brexit, where Brexit would be accompanied by an immediate and chaotic disruption of relationship or by a decision not to agree anything yet. In no circumstances will there be a deal for the referendum to decide on.
But what there can be, right up until the moment May delivers the kind of speech I outlined below, is real uncertainty about the prospect of No Deal. That's what will allow her to spin a bridge to nowhere as a win and to keep a firm grip on the domestic political situation.
If May made such a speech, she would immediately be challenged by her party.
And the challenge would take at least 24-48 hours to organise, by which time it would be clear that the momentum for a referendum was unstoppable and removing May would serve no purpose. Any recriminations would have to wait.
More like 2.4 to 4.8 minutes. If May even gave a hint that she was angling for EU ref 2 the MPs would have her on the chopping blocks within an hour.
With Gove on her side, a challenge won't get off the starting block.
He wouldn’t be on her side if another referendum is called.
No-one would...
It's funny when William tries to lecture actual members on how the party thinks and works.
Indeed. He doesn’t seem to grasp the party political dimension at all.
Putting the latest Delta and Kantar figures into the EMA gives:
Con 289 (-29) Lab 283 (+21) LD 16 (+4) Grn 1 UKIP 0 SNP 40 (+5) PC 3 (-1) NI 18
Con still largest party but Labour creeping up and would form a minority government.
No GE anytime soon.
We need an up-to date Scottish poll.
A Scottish poll would make no difference given the SNP will prop up Labour.
What is most likely at the moment is when the next general election comes the Tories will be largest party but Corbyn PM propped up by the LDs and SNP. However that is a similar story to 2015 along with the fact UKIP are also up and we know what happened then
Sounds reasonable. No party has more deserved to lose a General Election in living memory than this manifistation of the Tory Party
Wilson's Labour in 1970, Heath's Tories in Feb 1974, Callaghan's Labour in 1979, Major's Tories in 1997 and Brown's Labour in 2010 to name but a few governments that have deserved to lose more.
However if the Tories fail to win a majority at the next general election I expect most Tories could live with a Corbyn minority government propped up by the LDs and SNP and Greens and having to deal with the aftermath of Brexit or trying to reverse Brexit and implement Socialism (or diluted Socialism due to the lack of a Corbyn majority) with the Tories having opposition all to themselves.
It certainly beats a Corbyn majority government and would likely see big midterm protest vote swings to the Tories
The only deal that can be in a referendum is a "temporary" "transition" ie time limited or indefinite maintenance of most of the status quo. That's because any final state will only be settled after Brexit. . Effectively the referendum choice will be between Brexit and no Brexit, where Brexit would be accompanied by an immediate and chaotic disruption of relationship or by a decision not to agree anything yet. In no circumstances will there be a deal for the referendum to decide on.
But what there can be, right up until the moment May delivers the kind of speech I outlined below, is real uncertainty about the prospect of No Deal. That's what will allow her to spin a bridge to nowhere as a win and to keep a firm grip on the domestic political situation.
If May made such a speech, she would immediately be challenged by her party.
And the challenge would take at least 24-48 hours to organise, by which time it would be clear that the momentum for a referendum was unstoppable and removing May would serve no purpose. Any recriminations would have to wait.
More like 2.4 to 4.8 minutes. If May even gave a hint that she was angling for EU ref 2 the MPs would have her on the chopping blocks within an hour.
With Gove on her side, a challenge won't get off the starting block.
He wouldn’t be on her side if another referendum is called.
No-one would...
It's funny when William tries to lecture actual members on how the party thinks and works.
Indeed. He doesn’t seem to grasp the party political dimension at all.
You're making me think I should join the party.
It would be an eye opener for you.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall at a Tory members club when William starts his EU lover stuff. The oldies might start rioting!
The only deal that can be in a referendum is a "temporary" "transition" ie time limited or indefinite maintenance of most of the status quo. That's because any final state will only be settled after Brexit. . Effectively the referendum choice will be between Brexit and no Brexit, where Brexit would be accompanied by an immediate and chaotic disruption of relationship or by a decision not to agree anything yet. In no circumstances will there be a deal for the referendum to decide on.
But what there can be, right up until the moment May delivers the kind of speech I outlined below, is real uncertainty about the prospect of No Deal. That's what will allow her to spin a bridge to nowhere as a win and to keep a firm grip on the domestic political situation.
If May made such a speech, she would immediately be challenged by her party.
And the challenge would take at least 24-48 hours to organise, by which time it would be clear that the momentum for a referendum was unstoppable and removing May would serve no purpose. Any recriminations would have to wait.
More like 2.4 to 4.8 minutes. If May even gave a hint that she was angling for EU ref 2 the MPs would have her on the chopping blocks within an hour.
With Gove on her side, a challenge won't get off the starting block.
He wouldn’t be on her side if another referendum is called.
No-one would...
It's funny when William tries to lecture actual members on how the party thinks and works.
Indeed. He doesn’t seem to grasp the party political dimension at all.
You're making me think I should join the party.
It would be an eye opener for you.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall at a Tory members club when William starts his EU lover stuff. The oldies might start rioting!
I'll say I'm worried sick about what the French and Germans will do when we can't keep an eye on them in Brussels.
The only deal that can be in a referendum is a "temporary" "transition" ie time limited or indefinite maintenance of most of the status quo. That's because any final state will only be settled after Brexit. . Effectively the referendum choice will be between Brexit and no Brexit, where Brexit would be accompanied by an immediate and chaotic disruption of relationship or by a decision not to agree anything yet. In no circumstances will there be a deal for the referendum to decide on.
But what there can be, right up until the moment May delivers the kind of speech I outlined below, is real uncertainty about the prospect of No Deal. That's what will allow her to spin a bridge to nowhere as a win and to keep a firm grip on the domestic political situation.
If May made such a speech, she would immediately be challenged by her party.
And the challenge would take at least 24-48 hours to organise, by which time it would be clear that the momentum for a referendum was unstoppable and removing May would serve no purpose. Any recriminations would have to wait.
More like 2.4 to 4.8 minutes. If May even gave a hint that she was angling for EU ref 2 the MPs would have her on the chopping blocks within an hour.
With Gove on her side, a challenge won't get off the starting block.
He wouldn’t be on her side if another referendum is called.
No-one would...
It's funny when William tries to lecture actual members on how the party thinks and works.
Indeed. He doesn’t seem to grasp the party political dimension at all.
You're making me think I should join the party.
It would be an eye opener for you.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall at a Tory members club when William starts his EU lover stuff. The oldies might start rioting!
One of my guilty pleasures is hearing someone talk guff and be pulled up on it within an association meeting, often by someone who designed the system/worked in the industry/knew the person in question. The laughter of the room is bellyful!
The only deal that can be in a referendum is a "temporary" "transition" ie time limited or indefinite maintenance of most of the status quo. That's because any final state will only be settled after Brexit. . Effectively the referendum choice will be between Brexit and no Brexit, where Brexit would be accompanied by an immediate and chaotic disruption of relationship or by a decision not to agree anything yet. In no circumstances will there be a deal for the referendum to decide on.
But what there can be, right up until the moment May delivers the kind of speech I outlined below, is real uncertainty about the prospect of No Deal. That's what will allow her to spin a bridge to nowhere as a win and to keep a firm grip on the domestic political situation.
If May made such a speech, she would immediately be challenged by her party.
And the challenge would take at least 24-48 hours to organise, by which time it would be clear that the momentum for a referendum was unstoppable and removing May would serve no purpose. Any recriminations would have to wait.
More like 2.4 to 4.8 minutes. If May even gave a hint that she was angling for EU ref 2 the MPs would have her on the chopping blocks within an hour.
With Gove on her side, a challenge won't get off the starting block.
He wouldn’t be on her side if another referendum is called.
No-one would...
It's funny when William tries to lecture actual members on how the party thinks and works.
Indeed. He doesn’t seem to grasp the party political dimension at all.
You're making me think I should join the party.
It would be an eye opener for you.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall at a Tory members club when William starts his EU lover stuff. The oldies might start rioting!
I'll say I'm worried sick about what the French and Germans will do when we can't keep an eye on them in Brussels.
We still will, the EU seem to have just realised that the intelligence services have been targeting them since the leave vote.
The only deal that can be in a referendum is a "temporary" "transition" ie time limited or indefinite maintenance of most of the status quo. That's because any final state will only be settled after Brexit. . Effectively the referendum choice will be between Brexit and no Brexit, where Brexit would be accompanied by an immediate and chaotic disruption of relationship or by a decision not to agree anything yet. In no circumstances will there be a deal for the referendum to decide on.
But what there can be, right up until the moment May delivers the kind of speech I outlined below, is real uncertainty about the prospect of No Deal. That's what will allow her to spin a bridge to nowhere as a win and to keep a firm grip on the domestic political situation.
If May made such a speech, she would immediately be challenged by her party.
And the challenge would take at least 24-48 hours to organise, by which time it would be clear that the momentum for a referendum was unstoppable and removing May would serve no purpose. Any recriminations would have to wait.
More like 2.4 to 4.8 minutes. If May even gave a hint that she was angling for EU ref 2 the MPs would have her on the chopping blocks within an hour.
With Gove on her side, a challenge won't get off the starting block.
He wouldn’t be on her side if another referendum is called.
No-one would...
It's funny when William tries to lecture actual members on how the party thinks and works.
Indeed. He doesn’t seem to grasp the party political dimension at all.
You're making me think I should join the party.
It would be an eye opener for you.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall at a Tory members club when William starts his EU lover stuff. The oldies might start rioting!
I'll say I'm worried sick about what the French and Germans will do when we can't keep an eye on them in Brussels.
We still will, the EU seem to have just realised that the intelligence services have been targeting them since the leave vote.
Naivety doesn’t even start to describe that article.
The problem for me is or are the amounts involved - residential care in London and the SE costs £1000 per week so you're looking at saving over £50k to cover a year's costs and £250k for five years. That's a lot of money to save so naturally the primary appreciating capital asset (the property) has to go to cover what's required.
It's all very well the Government claiming a large pool of ISA cash already exists among the elderly but does everyone have £50k sitting around? No, what the shrewd elderly do is divest themselves of assets in order not to have pay too much (putting properties in trust to children or grandchildren as an example).
I have a frail parent and I and my siblings are discussing ways of caring. I can tell you straight that we can't do £1000 a week. We probably won't be able to do £1000 a month. And that's combined. The best idea Gordon Brown ever came up with was a National Care Service...
Sympathise when my mother passed, I had to look after my father. Having been to many of the "best" care homes available locally, to visit my mother's friends with her. On my honour I could never have lived with my conscious if he went into one. The over whelming stench of stale urine, the over worked and underpaid staff, about 99% of whom were not UK citizens who had in most cases, basic English language skills
The Care Packages were a life saver, and made his last years reasonably comfortable.
What is really scary to me, is that when my time comes, I will have to enjoy a very limited system.
And, when your time is coming to an end, no matter how much money you may have, or have not, if the carers are not there to look after you, wipe your backsides, make sure your catheters are in place and the bags emptied, the feeding tube into your stomach is kept clean, wash, clean and dress you daily, just think for a moment....
My sister spent her last two years with terminal cervical cancer in a nursing home and received excellent attention with staff who seemed content in their work. It cost £77,000 paid by the Wales NHS on their continuing care programme.
Now that cost is for one person for 2 years. Imagine the real cost of care for the elderly and a figure of 30 billion a year across the UK could be about right.
Now, someone needs to come up with an answer where does all that money come from
There is no detail in that article of the conditions the EU would demand to remain which is key to any peoples vote discussion if indeed there ever is such a discussion
Revoking Article 50 would be a sovereign decision by the UK and would leave us with the pre-Cameron's deal status under the treaties.
Not sure as it is a two way revoke and the EU could put conditions in place
No they couldn't, if the PM requested the return of A50 letter, the according to the author of the procedure, it would be granted with, as we hadn't left, the status quo exists. If, after we leave, on March 30th, 2019, it becomes a different ballgame
There is no detail in that article of the conditions the EU would demand to remain which is key to any peoples vote discussion if indeed there ever is such a discussion
Revoking Article 50 would be a sovereign decision by the UK and would leave us with the pre-Cameron's deal status under the treaties.
Not sure as it is a two way revoke and the EU could put conditions in place
No they couldn't, if the PM requested the return of A50 letter, the according to the author of the procedure, it would be granted with, as we hadn't left, the status quo exists. If, after we leave, on March 30th, 2019, it becomes a different ballgame
You do realise that law isn’t adjudicated by the author, right?
There is no detail in that article of the conditions the EU would demand to remain which is key to any peoples vote discussion if indeed there ever is such a discussion
Revoking Article 50 would be a sovereign decision by the UK and would leave us with the pre-Cameron's deal status under the treaties.
Not sure as it is a two way revoke and the EU could put conditions in place
No they couldn't, if the PM requested the return of A50 letter, the according to the author of the procedure, it would be granted with, as we hadn't left, the status quo exists. If, after we leave, on March 30th, 2019, it becomes a different ballgame
The Author has been questioned over the veracity of his opinion and it is not certain. May need an ECJ ruling. I thought that was common knowledge
There is no detail in that article of the conditions the EU would demand to remain which is key to any peoples vote discussion if indeed there ever is such a discussion
Revoking Article 50 would be a sovereign decision by the UK and would leave us with the pre-Cameron's deal status under the treaties.
Not sure as it is a two way revoke and the EU could put conditions in place
No they couldn't, if the PM requested the return of A50 letter, the according to the author of the procedure, it would be granted with, as we hadn't left, the status quo exists. If, after we leave, on March 30th, 2019, it becomes a different ballgame
The Author has been questioned over the veracity of his opinion and it is not certain. May need an ECJ ruling. I thought that was common knowledge
The former head of the European Council legal service thinks it's clear cut.
There is no detail in that article of the conditions the EU would demand to remain which is key to any peoples vote discussion if indeed there ever is such a discussion
Revoking Article 50 would be a sovereign decision by the UK and would leave us with the pre-Cameron's deal status under the treaties.
Not sure as it is a two way revoke and the EU could put conditions in place
No they couldn't, if the PM requested the return of A50 letter, the according to the author of the procedure, it would be granted with, as we hadn't left, the status quo exists. If, after we leave, on March 30th, 2019, it becomes a different ballgame
The Author has been questioned over the veracity of his opinion and it is not certain. May need an ECJ ruling. I thought that was common knowledge
The former head of the European Council legal service thinks it's clear cut.
This blog is a brains trust of political knowledge but no one can give me a pathway to a peoples vote or how the questions are agreed and how long a campaign would be
Can somebody provide a thought through answer or is a peoples vote a pipe dream for remainers
I don't know the answer to that question, but I am trying to find out by asking my questions above, namely:
* What is the last date on which a referendum can be announced? * What is the last date on which a deal can be signed? * Can article 50 be revoked?
If we are past the date for a referendum to be held in time, then the answer is simple; there will not be one. If we are past the date for a deal to be signed and ratified, than any referendum cannot have a "Deal" option on it. If Article 50 cannot be revoked, then any referendum cannot have a "Remain" option on it.
If we are not past those deadlines and Article 50 can be revoked, then a Remain vs Deal vs No Deal referendum is still possible If we are not past those deadlines and Article 50 cannot be revoked, then a Deal vs No Deal referendum is still possible If we are past those deadlines then a referendum is not possible.
Lacking further information that is the best answer I can give you.
With or without the approval of the rest of the EU? They can agree an extension right up to the wire, and they can also agree to cancel the exit if Britain asks for it (in the worst case by hacking it with an indefinite extension and fixing it next time there's a treaty, but in practice probably no need for that).
I don't think it's clear whether they'd agree an extension for a Deal vs No Deal referendum,but they certainly would for a Deal vs No Brexit one. The next question is how long it takes parliament to legislate for one, which depends a lot on who supports and opposes it.
There is no detail in that article of the conditions the EU would demand to remain which is key to any peoples vote discussion if indeed there ever is such a discussion
Revoking Article 50 would be a sovereign decision by the UK and would leave us with the pre-Cameron's deal status under the treaties.
Not sure as it is a two way revoke and the EU could put conditions in place
No they couldn't, if the PM requested the return of A50 letter, the according to the author of the procedure, it would be granted with, as we hadn't left, the status quo exists. If, after we leave, on March 30th, 2019, it becomes a different ballgame
The Author has been questioned over the veracity of his opinion and it is not certain. May need an ECJ ruling. I thought that was common knowledge
The former head of the European Council legal service thinks it's clear cut.
No, but as I said, it is unequivocal under Article 50 that the Council has the power to extend the Article 50 period, so even if the ECJ decided that notification couldn't be revoked, it wouldn't matter because they could just extend Article 50 until such time as there could be a treaty modification or whatever it took to tidy up our status.
A pro-EU Labour peer and former cabinet minister has said the party is “finished” if it contests another election promising to back Brexit, as a new poll suggested the party’s support depends heavily on remain voters who could switch their allegiance to the Lib Dems.
Andrew Adonis, a former transport minister and a vocal critic on Britain’s departure from the EU, said the party could not be seen as an “accomplice to Brexit” should a snap election take place before March 2019.
A YouGov poll of more than 4,900 people, released to the Guardian on Sunday, put the Conservatives ahead of Labour by four points in a snap election should the latter adopt an anti-Brexit position, and ahead by nine points if Labour were to pledge to follow through with leaving the EU.
The Lib Dems would gain 10 points from Labour backing Brexit, lifting them to two points behind Labour.
(FWIW I think the main conclusion which should be drawn is that Labour's current tightrope walk is, in cynical party-political terms, as good as they can get. But is it sustainable?)
No, but as I said, it is unequivocal under Article 50 that the Council has the power to extend the Article 50 period, so even if the ECJ decided that notification couldn't be revoked, it wouldn't matter because they could just extend Article 50 until such time as there could be a treaty modification or whatever it took to tidy up our status.
It's not the Council, it's the 27 states unanimously. Who can predict what price some of them might ask for?
A pro-EU Labour peer and former cabinet minister has said the party is “finished” if it contests another election promising to back Brexit, as a new poll suggested the party’s support depends heavily on remain voters who could switch their allegiance to the Lib Dems.
Andrew Adonis, a former transport minister and a vocal critic on Britain’s departure from the EU, said the party could not be seen as an “accomplice to Brexit” should a snap election take place before March 2019.
A YouGov poll of more than 4,900 people, released to the Guardian on Sunday, put the Conservatives ahead of Labour by four points in a snap election should the latter adopt an anti-Brexit position, and ahead by nine points if Labour were to pledge to follow through with leaving the EU.
The Lib Dems would gain 10 points from Labour backing Brexit, lifting them to two points behind Labour.
(FWIW I think the main conclusion which should be drawn is that Labour's current tightrope walk is, in cynical party-political terms, as good as they can get. But is it sustainable?)
No, but as I said, it is unequivocal under Article 50 that the Council has the power to extend the Article 50 period, so even if the ECJ decided that notification couldn't be revoked, it wouldn't matter because they could just extend Article 50 until such time as there could be a treaty modification or whatever it took to tidy up our status.
It's not the Council, it's the 27 states unanimously. Who can predict what price some of them might ask for?
"The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
It's the Council. Yes it requires unanimity, but only the leaders need to be consulted.
Many have made attempts to answer the questions I posed over a peoples vote and how it could come about and I thank them for their attempts.
However, so far I have not seen a clear pathway without various caveats or assumptions but to be fair there is no obvious resolution to either Brexit or the peoples vote.
We will need to see how this all pans out but at present I think TM will get a deal and sufficient mps will pass it as anything else is just far too risky
No, but as I said, it is unequivocal under Article 50 that the Council has the power to extend the Article 50 period, so even if the ECJ decided that notification couldn't be revoked, it wouldn't matter because they could just extend Article 50 until such time as there could be a treaty modification or whatever it took to tidy up our status.
It's not the Council, it's the 27 states unanimously. Who can predict what price some of them might ask for?
"The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
It's the Council. Yes it requires unanimity, but only the leaders need to be consulted.
Sorry, yes, you are right - but it's the unanimity which is the key hurdle.
Many have made attempts to answer the questions I posed over a peoples vote and how it could come about and I thank them for their attempts.
However, so far I have not seen a clear pathway without various caveats or assumptions but to be fair there is no obvious resolution to either Brexit or the peoples vote.
We will need to see how this all pans out but at present I think TM will get a deal and sufficient mps will pass it as anything else is just far too risky
There isn't a clear path. The mechanics would be exceptionally difficult, not least because it's almost impossible to get them in the right order.
And jihadis have indeed used cars (and lorries and vans) and knives to kill people on the streets of Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark and Spain in recent - very recent - years.
A pro-EU Labour peer and former cabinet minister has said the party is “finished” if it contests another election promising to back Brexit, as a new poll suggested the party’s support depends heavily on remain voters who could switch their allegiance to the Lib Dems.
Andrew Adonis, a former transport minister and a vocal critic on Britain’s departure from the EU, said the party could not be seen as an “accomplice to Brexit” should a snap election take place before March 2019.
A YouGov poll of more than 4,900 people, released to the Guardian on Sunday, put the Conservatives ahead of Labour by four points in a snap election should the latter adopt an anti-Brexit position, and ahead by nine points if Labour were to pledge to follow through with leaving the EU.
The Lib Dems would gain 10 points from Labour backing Brexit, lifting them to two points behind Labour.
(FWIW I think the main conclusion which should be drawn is that Labour's current tightrope walk is, in cynical party-political terms, as good as they can get. But is it sustainable?)
Is it sustainable? There's a risk it isn't, but I think they should be ok - at the end of the day if it does manage to get through it will all be the Tories' fault, and while plenty might be annoyed Corbyn did not push harder for remain, just as they were during the referendum, at the end of the day if you want to punish someone for Brexit the government takes the hit, even if Labour have hardly thrown more than the occasional spanner in the works. In theory it could hit them, but if people prioritized it that way the LDs would have surged ages ago.
It's a pretty weak story all told, reliant (not unreasonably) on most people not knowing that Adonis never stops saying such things. Yes there's a poll too, but even so.
While all this stuff should still be noted, they might as well just circulate it to political blogs and leave it at that, it doesn't seem like any regular people care one jot.
Many have made attempts to answer the questions I posed over a peoples vote and how it could come about and I thank them for their attempts.
However, so far I have not seen a clear pathway without various caveats or assumptions but to be fair there is no obvious resolution to either Brexit or the peoples vote.
We will need to see how this all pans out but at present I think TM will get a deal and sufficient mps will pass it as anything else is just far too risky
There isn't a clear path. The mechanics would be exceptionally difficult, not least because it's almost impossible to get them in the right order.
So two basic scenarios.
One is that TMay agrees the final deal, which necessarily involves having all 27 in the same room, and right at the end says "I'd like to hold a referendum whether Britain wants do to this but I'd need you to agree an extension while we hold it." Procedurally I think this is simple - they'd say "ffs but yes", and the tricky part is whether she can get it through parliament and keep her job.
The other is that there may not be the votes for her deal but the LibDems+SNP+Centrist-Dad-Labour-Extremists will back her in exchange for a re-referendum, which would involve all kinds of parliamentary shenanigans while simultaneously doing crisis negotiations with the EU27, and would result in some very long threads.
There is no detail in that article of the conditions the EU would demand to remain which is key to any peoples vote discussion if indeed there ever is such a discussion
Revoking Article 50 would be a sovereign decision by the UK and would leave us with the pre-Cameron's deal status under the treaties.
Not sure as it is a two way revoke and the EU could put conditions in place
No they couldn't, if the PM requested the return of A50 letter, the according to the author of the procedure, it would be granted with, as we hadn't left, the status quo exists. If, after we leave, on March 30th, 2019, it becomes a different ballgame
The Author has been questioned over the veracity of his opinion and it is not certain. May need an ECJ ruling. I thought that was common knowledge
The former head of the European Council legal service thinks it's clear cut.
And governments also think it clear cut whenever they face a legal challenge, and yet sometimes they lose in the courts. X person has opinion on legal issue Y is interesting, and may well be right, but it is just silly to think an opinion, from anyone, is definitive.
Many have made attempts to answer the questions I posed over a peoples vote and how it could come about and I thank them for their attempts.
However, so far I have not seen a clear pathway without various caveats or assumptions but to be fair there is no obvious resolution to either Brexit or the peoples vote.
We will need to see how this all pans out but at present I think TM will get a deal and sufficient mps will pass it as anything else is just far too risky
There isn't a clear path. The mechanics would be exceptionally difficult, not least because it's almost impossible to get them in the right order.
The other is that there may not be the votes for her deal but the LibDems+SNP+Centrist-Dad-Labour-Extremists will back her in exchange for a re-referendum, which would involve all kinds of parliamentary shenanigans while simultaneously doing crisis negotiations with the EU27, and would result in some very long threads.
I think that is the most plausible scenario, and what will be attempted. I think it is a very risky strategy.
The other is that there may not be the votes for her deal but the LibDems+SNP+Centrist-Dad-Labour-Extremists will back her in exchange for a re-referendum, which would involve all kinds of parliamentary shenanigans while simultaneously doing crisis negotiations with the EU27, and would result in some very long threads.
I think the SNP could be the tricky one there if the perception grows that somehow engineering a Remain outcome would be a backdoor way of shutting down the IndyRef2 discussion.
There is no detail in that article of the conditions the EU would demand to remain which is key to any peoples vote discussion if indeed there ever is such a discussion
Revoking Article 50 would be a sovereign decision by the UK and would leave us with the pre-Cameron's deal status under the treaties.
Not sure as it is a two way revoke and the EU could put conditions in place
No they couldn't, if the PM requested the return of A50 letter, the according to the author of the procedure, it would be granted with, as we hadn't left, the status quo exists. If, after we leave, on March 30th, 2019, it becomes a different ballgame
The Author has been questioned over the veracity of his opinion and it is not certain. May need an ECJ ruling. I thought that was common knowledge
The former head of the European Council legal service thinks it's clear cut.
And governments also think it clear cut whenever they face a legal challenge, and yet sometimes they lose in the courts. X person has opinion on legal issue Y is interesting, and may well be right, but it is just silly to think an opinion, from anyone, is definitive.
Sure, but given that there's a way to work around it even if he's wrong, in practice the only thing that counts is that you can get the other 27 leaders to say yes.
Many have made attempts to answer the questions I posed over a peoples vote and how it could come about and I thank them for their attempts.
However, so far I have not seen a clear pathway without various caveats or assumptions but to be fair there is no obvious resolution to either Brexit or the peoples vote.
We will need to see how this all pans out but at present I think TM will get a deal and sufficient mps will pass it as anything else is just far too risky
There isn't a clear path. The mechanics would be exceptionally difficult, not least because it's almost impossible to get them in the right order.
The other is that there may not be the votes for her deal but the LibDems+SNP+Centrist-Dad-Labour-Extremists will back her in exchange for a re-referendum, which would involve all kinds of parliamentary shenanigans while simultaneously doing crisis negotiations with the EU27, and would result in some very long threads.
I think that is the most plausible scenario, and what will be attempted. I think it is a very risky strategy.
I think the prospect of scenario 2 is partly what increases the attraction of scenario 1 for the Conservatives. It allows them to "take back control" and preempt everyone else's parliamentary games and agendas.
While personally I see the merits of another vote, complicated and imperfect though it may be, I refuse to refer to it by that People's vote bollocks. It's petty, insulting and pathetic given the reported motivation behind the rebrand.
While personally I see the merits of another vote, complicated and imperfect though it may be, I refuse to refer to it by that People's vote bollocks. It's petty, insulting and pathetic given the reported motivation behind the rebrand.
While personally I see the merits of another vote, complicated and imperfect though it may be, I refuse to refer to it by that People's vote bollocks. It's petty, insulting and pathetic given the reported motivation behind the rebrand.
Fair play to him on that. In fairness, there is a point to treating people like idiots as it works on us a lot more than we would like to think, but being a peripheral figure now perhaps he at least realises there's no point being clever with the language to confuse people as to your intentions on this.
While personally I see the merits of another vote, complicated and imperfect though it may be, I refuse to refer to it by that People's vote bollocks. It's petty, insulting and pathetic given the reported motivation behind the rebrand.
Fair play to him on that. In fairness, there is a point to treating people like idiots as it works on us a lot more than we would like to think, but being a peripheral figure now perhaps he at least realises there's no point being clever with the language to confuse people as to your intentions on this.
While personally I see the merits of another vote, complicated and imperfect though it may be, I refuse to refer to it by that People's vote bollocks. It's petty, insulting and pathetic given the reported motivation behind the rebrand.
Fair play to him on that. In fairness, there is a point to treating people like idiots as it works on us a lot more than we would like to think, but being a peripheral figure now perhaps he at least realises there's no point being clever with the language to confuse people as to your intentions on this.
It's a Remainers Vote. A Whingers Vote.
A Losers Vote.
Well the odds of one are increasing if the Tories cannot get their deal through parliament on their own, and that seems very implausible given the public pronouncements of many (never mind the difficulties even getting a deal to parliament in the first place), so I don't know about you but I'll still vote in it if it happens.
While personally I see the merits of another vote, complicated and imperfect though it may be, I refuse to refer to it by that People's vote bollocks. It's petty, insulting and pathetic given the reported motivation behind the rebrand.
Fair play to him on that. In fairness, there is a point to treating people like idiots as it works on us a lot more than we would like to think, but being a peripheral figure now perhaps he at least realises there's no point being clever with the language to confuse people as to your intentions on this.
While personally I see the merits of another vote, complicated and imperfect though it may be, I refuse to refer to it by that People's vote bollocks. It's petty, insulting and pathetic given the reported motivation behind the rebrand.
Fair play to him on that. In fairness, there is a point to treating people like idiots as it works on us a lot more than we would like to think, but being a peripheral figure now perhaps he at least realises there's no point being clever with the language to confuse people as to your intentions on this.
It's a Remainers Vote. A Whingers Vote.
A Losers Vote.
The line it is drawn The curse it is cast The slow one now Will later be fast As the present now Will later be past And Brexit is Rapidly fadin' And the first one now Will later be last For the times they are a-changin'
This blog is a brains trust of political knowledge but no one can give me a pathway to a peoples vote or how the questions are agreed and how long a campaign would be
Can somebody provide a thought through answer or is a peoples vote a pipe dream for remainers
The other is that there may not be the votes for her deal but the LibDems+SNP+Centrist-Dad-Labour-Extremists will back her in exchange for a re-referendum, which would involve all kinds of parliamentary shenanigans while simultaneously doing crisis negotiations with the EU27, and would result in some very long threads.
I think the SNP could be the tricky one there if the perception grows that somehow engineering a Remain outcome would be a backdoor way of shutting down the IndyRef2 discussion.
The SNP are in deep internal trouble, a very large number of their members are actively campaigning for iRef2. Unfortunately, Sturgeon and Murrell are well aware that the chances of being granted one by Westminster is zilch, while the internal polling will be indicating a 60/40% No result. If the SNP lose iRef2, then it will be 20 or 30 years before another one - then what would be the point of the SNP in the meantime. Never mind, Sturgeon and Murrell still have their wee bit But'n'Ben hideaway in Portugal to console themselves with, and well away from any potential lynching from unhappy supporters.
And jihadis have indeed used cars (and lorries and vans) and knives to kill people on the streets of Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark and Spain in recent - very recent - years.
Comments
I think TMay will survive it to carry on the BINO negotiation until 2022, after which, who knows??
With the deal rejected the only remaining options are No Deal, Remain or A50 extension and try again.
I wouldn't read too much into these Summer polls as the circumstances of the next election are unknown and unknowable. We can all think of various scenarios but just consider some of the "known unknowns":
1. Brexit status.
2. Leader of Tories.
3. Splits and conflict in major parties, even the possibility of a new centrist party launch.
4. State of the economy.
5. Parliamentary boundaries.
That's just some of 'em..
This may make a difference - then again it may not. I can't help but feel those people who can afford to pay into an ISA will be those who will be able to afford care anyway.
No-one would...
The Brexit deadline is 7 months away. Moving it could collapse the government. Cancelling Brexit could collapse the government, Chequers Minus could collapse the government, No Deal could collapse the government. A #peoplesvote is one way out of the impasse, but could collapse the government.
Transition to Nowhere Brexit may be survivable by the government, but only opens the door to the same options. Theresa has painted herself into a corner and is now painting her kitten heels and stockings.
Or to use the game show analogy: There are 3 doors, behind one is a car, behind the other two are goats. The Brexit referendum chose us a door. Monty Hall opens one of the others and shows us a car. Do we switch doors or stick with this goat or the other goat? We rejected the car already.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/19/exclusive-jeremy-corbyn-attended-conference-qatar-hamas-military/
The Care Packages were a life saver, and made his last years reasonably comfortable.
What is really scary to me, is that when my time comes, I will have to enjoy a very limited system.
And, when your time is coming to an end, no matter how much money you may have, or have not, if the carers are not there to look after you, wipe your backsides, make sure your catheters are in place and the bags emptied, the feeding tube into your stomach is kept clean, wash, clean and dress you daily, just think for a moment....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6075531/Pictures-supplies-piles-cash-needed-buy-Venezuela.html
Now that cost is for one person for 2 years. Imagine the real cost of care for the elderly and a figure of 30 billion a year across the UK could be about right.
Now, someone needs to come up with an answer where does all that money come from
https://twitter.com/piris_jc/status/962804123719651334
I don't think it's clear whether they'd agree an extension for a Deal vs No Deal referendum,but they certainly would for a Deal vs No Brexit one. The next question is how long it takes parliament to legislate for one, which depends a lot on who supports and opposes it.
A pro-EU Labour peer and former cabinet minister has said the party is “finished” if it contests another election promising to back Brexit, as a new poll suggested the party’s support depends heavily on remain voters who could switch their allegiance to the Lib Dems.
Andrew Adonis, a former transport minister and a vocal critic on Britain’s departure from the EU, said the party could not be seen as an “accomplice to Brexit” should a snap election take place before March 2019.
A YouGov poll of more than 4,900 people, released to the Guardian on Sunday, put the Conservatives ahead of Labour by four points in a snap election should the latter adopt an anti-Brexit position, and ahead by nine points if Labour were to pledge to follow through with leaving the EU.
The Lib Dems would gain 10 points from Labour backing Brexit, lifting them to two points behind Labour.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/19/labour-finished-if-it-backs-brexit-in-a-snap-election-says-adonis
(FWIW I think the main conclusion which should be drawn is that Labour's current tightrope walk is, in cynical party-political terms, as good as they can get. But is it sustainable?)
It's the Council. Yes it requires unanimity, but only the leaders need to be consulted.
However, so far I have not seen a clear pathway without various caveats or assumptions but to be fair there is no obvious resolution to either Brexit or the peoples vote.
We will need to see how this all pans out but at present I think TM will get a deal and sufficient mps will pass it as anything else is just far too risky
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/08/truth-isnt-truth-rudy-giuliani-puts-trumps-problems-with-facts-into-words.html
Funny sort of debate or peace, that.
It's a pretty weak story all told, reliant (not unreasonably) on most people not knowing that Adonis never stops saying such things. Yes there's a poll too, but even so. While all this stuff should still be noted, they might as well just circulate it to political blogs and leave it at that, it doesn't seem like any regular people care one jot.
One is that TMay agrees the final deal, which necessarily involves having all 27 in the same room, and right at the end says "I'd like to hold a referendum whether Britain wants do to this but I'd need you to agree an extension while we hold it." Procedurally I think this is simple - they'd say "ffs but yes", and the tricky part is whether she can get it through parliament and keep her job.
The other is that there may not be the votes for her deal but the LibDems+SNP+Centrist-Dad-Labour-Extremists will back her in exchange for a re-referendum, which would involve all kinds of parliamentary shenanigans while simultaneously doing crisis negotiations with the EU27, and would result in some very long threads.
https://twitter.com/Change_Britain/status/1029266370716815362
Have a restful rest one and all
Good night
A Losers Vote.
President Donald Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, has raised eyebrows by claiming that "truth isn't truth" during a television interview.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45241838
In fairness as Dr Henry Jones Jr noted people do make a distinction between truth and the facts.
No one on here I hasten to add.
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
And Brexit is
Rapidly fadin'
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'