Good. I never much liked him anyway with his silly square head. His entire reputation rests on the fact that Tony Blair sacked him over twenty years ago.
Sorry, predicting that May will be able to spin a pile of poo is ignoring reality. The public won’t fall for it. Leavers won’t fall for it. If she backs down on Chequers there will be more resignations. There will be uproar and May will be in deep trouble. Labour will vote against and and probably the DUP as well.
ERG will not need many to vote it down.
Which is why, contrary to David's lead article, the chances of a second referendum are very high.
This is also the suggestion in the Matthew Parris article. The problem I have with this - apart from finding the Richard Nabavi logic about how MPs will behave generally convincing - is that I'm a bit hazy on how you get from everybody hating the hypothetical TMay-Barnier Deal to having a referendum on something. I mean, I get the grand narrative arc that a referendum is the only way to get out of the impasse, but who proposes it when, and who votes for it?
I think the most plausible scenario is that the cabinet makes the political calculation that they are better off preempting all of this by proposing a referendum before we get to the meaningful vote.
The people's vote campaign is building a crescendo, and by the time there is a withdrawal agreement on the table, if they've succeeded then there will be a broad consensus about the necessity of a further democratic mandate before proceeding.
The powers that be in the Tory party have seen a referendum on the EU split that party, foster division by having a blue on blue campaign and cost them 2 successful politicians. The peoples vote campaign want this repeated again. The Tory party powers that be will never (IMO) go near a referendum because it will be blue on blue again with Corbyn on holiday for the duration and T May and Tin Ear knowing it would be terminal for them.
Labour, 2018. Jess Phillips raises the issue of UC and foodbanks.
...And then gets a load of abuse from Corbynite nutjobs about not supporting her leader and stirring things up about anti-semitism. Check the replies on this.
If you start on the softs and there's an instant safety car, everyone else could switch to the softs. You then either follow suit but for hypers/ultras and have to make another stop, screwing yourself, or you stay out, everyone's right behind you with no stop to make, and you lose out when you have to make your single stop later.
The hypers are good for only half a dozen laps in the race, no other available tyre can make the remainder of the race distance so they’ll need two stops.
But if the safety car isn’t on the first lap or two, everyone else needs to stop after only half a dozen laps whereas you can continue for an SC pit window further into the race.
It’s a strategy, but likely a sub optimal one, as it necessarily involves sacrificing pace. Singapore can be something of a lottery, but the fastest cars on the circuit tend to win.
Where it would work is in gaining track position, say the Mercs start behind the Ferraris, they can get in front as the red cars stop, then hold them up. Singapore is like Monaco, track position is everything.
Dubai is like the Netherlands, very flat and low, and with lots of reclaimed land. There’s around 3-5m of flood defences. Difficult to see how a hurricane develops in the Gulf though, it’s not a big enough body of water to support the sort of storms seen in the USA and Philippines at the moment.
Good. I never much liked him anyway with his silly square head. His entire reputation rests on the fact that Tony Blair sacked him over twenty years ago.
TBF, that is a very good reason to like somebody. Your reason for disliking him, however, is to put it mildly rather odd.
Thy're an aggressive lot in the Wirral aren't they. First they ran one of he nastiest campaigns in recent election history to oust Esther Mcvey and then they turn on one of their own in Frank Field.
If you start on the softs and there's an instant safety car, everyone else could switch to the softs. You then either follow suit but for hypers/ultras and have to make another stop, screwing yourself, or you stay out, everyone's right behind you with no stop to make, and you lose out when you have to make your single stop later.
The hypers are good for only half a dozen laps in the race, no other available tyre can make the remainder of the race distance so they’ll need two stops.
But if the safety car isn’t on the first lap or two, everyone else needs to stop after only half a dozen laps whereas you can continue for an SC pit window further into the race.
It’s a strategy, but likely a sub optimal one, as it necessarily involves sacrificing pace. Singapore can be something of a lottery, but the fastest cars on the circuit tend to win.
Where it would work is in gaining track position, say the Mercs start behind the Ferraris, they can get in front as the red cars stop, then hold them up. Singapore is like Monaco, track position is everything.
Dubai is like the Netherlands, very flat and low, and with lots of reclaimed land. There’s around 3-5m of flood defences. Difficult to see how a hurricane develops in the Gulf though, it’s not a big enough body of water to support the sort of storms seen in the USA and Philippines at the moment.
The theory is that increased atmospheric energetics will make possible what has never before occurred. It’s only a theory, but it is advanced by the scientists who know most about tropical cyclones.
Thy're an aggressive lot in the Wirral aren't they. First they ran one of he nastiest campaigns in recent election history to oust Esther Mcvey and then they turn on one of their own in Frank Field.
Indee Mr Norm.
Edit - although to let it go would be an act of Mersey.
1. A deal, loosely based on Chequers, blanketed in plentiful fudge, is agreed between the UK government and the EU negotiating team (don't forget that it will still need approval by the EU parliament and by EU27 governments, BTW).
2. Theresa May and her ministers are all over the airwaves saying it's a good deal for Britain which will implement Brexit but protect the economy. There will also be a huge and very public sigh of relief from business and from independent economic commentators. The pound will rise. It will look like very good news indeed that there is a deal.
3. Meanwhile the ultras will be crying 'Betrayal!' as usual, but they will have a difficult calculation to make, because:
4. Labour will be saying it's a rotten deal, and they could have picked unicorns out of hats, and that they are minded to vote against it, and:
5. There will be an proposed amendment in parliament seeking to make the deal subject to a referendum.
6. The Leavers, and most of the Conservative Party generally, won't want that. Soft Remainers will want to get the deal agreed, and will be aware that once you go down the referendum bolthole you could end up with Brexit with No Deal. I think the likelihood is that the amendment will be rejected.
7. .. and that therefore the deal will be grudgingly approved, faute de mieux, with a stream of MPs saying that they don't like the deal but will reluctantly support it because either they want Brexit to happen to respect the referendum result and don't want a delay to Article 50, or because they don't want a chaotic No Deal.
Of course, there is plenty or room for all this to be dislodged by 'events'.
Won't happen because (1) there's no deal Deal on the table, Chequers or otherwise. The deal on the table is keeping most of what we already have for two years against a commitment to pay upwards of £40 billion and probably a Northern Ireland backstop. We also get a "political declaration on the future relationship". It's in the interest of both the UK and the EU to keep the political declaration as short and as vague as possible to avoid triggering a negative reaction.
I don’t get what Hammond is playing at. Everything he says seems to directly contradict the PM and the collective cabinet view.
Someone earlier in the thread mentioned Hammond in the same breath as Hunt and Javid as a likely candidate for next Tory leader. He doesn't have a cat's hell of a chance I'd suggest. His narrow minded accountants approach to politics exemplified by his attempted attack on the self employed in his ill fated 2017 Budget and his perceived deviousness on the EU exemplified by the above has put paid to that.
Agreed, he’s [Hammond's] got no chance. He may well end up third in the MPs’ ballot though, as the “remain candidate”. Two of Javid, Hunt and Gove are most likely to go to the members, depending on the timing of the contest.
The case for Hammond is that after Brexit, whichever way it goes, MPs will be looking for a safe pair of hands and a quiet life. Who better than the Chancellor who has restored growth, delivered record employment and who will by next year turn out to have been right about Brexit all along? MPs won't be looking to the ultras to pour petrol on the Brexit fire. Just as backbenchers voted for the grey John Major to calm things down after the poll tax threatened to tear the country in two, they will now turn to Philip Hammond.
"Brexit sources say they recognise London won’t be able to sign off on the Border guarantee as it currently stands, and Ireland will face economic “catastrophe” if the UK leaves the EU with no deal.
“If we carry on the way we’re going, we’ll have no transition, no deal, just economic catastrophe,” said one source."
What took them so effing long to see the blatantly obvious?
Varadkar is a bit of a grandstander and enjoyed the kudos of bashing the brits. He let it go on too long though and how he's on the back foot hoping nothing will go wrong.
If you start on the softs and there's an instant safety car, everyone else could switch to the softs. You then either follow suit but for hypers/ultras and have to make another stop, screwing yourself, or you stay out, everyone's right behind you with no stop to make, and you lose out when you have to make your single stop later.
The hypers are good for only half a dozen laps in the race, no other available tyre can make the remainder of the race distance so they’ll need two stops.
But if the safety car isn’t on the first lap or two, everyone else needs to stop after only half a dozen laps whereas you can continue for an SC pit window further into the race.
It’s a strategy, but likely a sub optimal one, as it necessarily involves sacrificing pace. Singapore can be something of a lottery, but the fastest cars on the circuit tend to win.
Where it would work is in gaining track position, say the Mercs start behind the Ferraris, they can get in front as the red cars stop, then hold them up. Singapore is like Monaco, track position is everything...
I see how it might work - I just think it’s sub optimal. Whether it’s worth trying, given how slow Red Bull seem to be, is questionable. A conventional strategy ought to give Hamilton third at worst.
I don’t get what Hammond is playing at. Everything he says seems to directly contradict the PM and the collective cabinet view.
Someone earlier in the thread mentioned Hammond in the same breath as Hunt and Javid as a likely candidate for next Tory leader. He doesn't have a cat's hell of a chance I'd suggest. His narrow minded accountants approach to politics exemplified by his attempted attack on the self employed in his ill fated 2017 Budget and his perceived deviousness on the EU exemplified by the above has put paid to that.
Agreed, he’s got no chance. He may well end up third in the MPs’ ballot though, as the “remain candidate”. Two of Javid, Hunt and Gove are most likely to go to the members, depending on the timing of the contest.
The case for Hammond is that after Brexit, whichever way it goes, MPs will be looking for a safe pair of hands and a quiet life. Who better than the Chancellor who has restored growth, delivered record employment and who will by next year turn out to have been right about Brexit all along? MPs won't be looking to the ultras to pour petrol on the Brexit fire. Just as backbenchers voted for the grey John Major to calm things down after the poll tax threatened to tear the country in two, they will now turn to Philip Hammond.
It's possible, although I'm still far from convinced he will stand.
Don't you think though that his age and long service will count against him in any Major comparison? One of Major's priceless attributes compared to Heseltine and Hurd was that he was young, relatively new to the cabinet and therefore largely untainted by the excesses of Thatcherism. That couldn't be said of Hammond.
Why? Do they read PB and therefore understand the politics of this better than he does?
So, Mr Field you want to complain about your removal from this voluntary association?
(long ramble)
Yes, but do you accept that this voluntary association had rules and that by joining you agreed to accept those rules?
(long ramble)
Yes, but was one of these rules not that resigning the whip in the HoC once elected as a member of that voluntary association was incompatible with membership?
(very long ramble)
Thank you, Mr Field. I think I have the relevant points but I will need to spend quite a number of chargeable hours thinking about how to frame my advice. Good day!
Why? Do they read PB and therefore understand the politics of this better than he does?
So, Mr Field you want to complain about your removal from this voluntary association?
(long ramble)
Yes, but do you accept that this voluntary association had rules and that by joining you agreed to accept those rules?
(long ramble)
Yes, but was one of these rules not that resigning the whip in the HoC once elected as a member of that voluntary association was incompatible with membership?
(very long ramble)
Thank you, Mr Field. I think I have the relevant points but I will need to spend quite a number of chargeable hours thinking about how to frame my advice. Good day!
Mr L, really!
How could you betray a client's confidence in this way??!!!!
I don’t get what Hammond is playing at. Everything he says seems to directly contradict the PM and the collective cabinet view.
Someone earlier in the thread mentioned Hammond in the same breath as Hunt and Javid as a likely candidate for next Tory leader. He doesn't have a cat's hell of a chance I'd suggest. His narrow minded accountants approach to politics exemplified by his attempted attack on the self employed in his ill fated 2017 Budget and his perceived deviousness on the EU exemplified by the above has put paid to that.
Agreed, he’s got no chance. He may well end up third in the MPs’ ballot though, as the “remain candidate”. Two of Javid, Hunt and Gove are most likely to go to the members, depending on the timing of the contest.
The case for Hammond is that after Brexit, whichever way it goes, MPs will be looking for a safe pair of hands and a quiet life. Who better than the Chancellor who has restored growth, delivered record employment and who will by next year turn out to have been right about Brexit all along? MPs won't be looking to the ultras to pour petrol on the Brexit fire. Just as backbenchers voted for the grey John Major to calm things down after the poll tax threatened to tear the country in two, they will now turn to Philip Hammond.
It's possible, although I'm still far from convinced he will stand.
Don't you think though that his age and long service will count against him in any Major comparison? One of Major's priceless attributes compared to Heseltine and Hurd was that he was young, relatively new to the cabinet and therefore largely untainted by the excesses of Thatcherism. That couldn't be said of Hammond.
And, to be fair, after several years of May our need for spontaneous wit and repartee will have been fully sated.
1. A deal, loosely based on Chequers, blanketed in plentiful fudge, is agreed between the UK government and the EU negotiating team (don't forget that it will still need approval by the EU parliament and by EU27 governments, BTW).
2. Theresa May and her ministers are all over the airwaves saying it's a good deal for Britain which will implement Brexit but protect the economy. There will also be a huge and very public sigh of relief from business and from independent economic commentators. The pound will rise. It will look like very good news indeed that there is a deal.
3. Meanwhile the ultras will be crying 'Betrayal!' as usual, but they will have a difficult calculation to make, because:
4. Labour will be saying it's a rotten deal, and they could have picked unicorns out of hats, and that they are minded to vote against it, and:
5. There will be an proposed amendment in parliament seeking to make the deal subject to a referendum.
6. The Leavers, and most of the Conservative Party generally, won't want that. Soft Remainers will want to get the deal agreed, and will be aware that once you go down the referendum bolthole you could end up with Brexit with No Deal. I think the likelihood is that the amendment will be rejected.
7. .. and that therefore the deal will be grudgingly approved, faute de mieux, with a stream of MPs saying that they don't like the deal but will reluctantly support it because either they want Brexit to happen to respect the referendum result and don't want a delay to Article 50, or because they don't want a chaotic No Deal.
Of course, there is plenty or room for all this to be dislodged by 'events'.
Won't happen because (1) there's no deal Deal on the table, Chequers or otherwise. The deal on the table is keeping most of what we already have for two years against a commitment to pay upwards of £40 billion and probably a Northern Ireland backstop. We also get a "political declaration on the future relationship". It's in the interest of both the UK and the EU to keep the political declaration as short and as vague as possible to avoid triggering a negative reaction.
Actually "political declaration on the framework for the future relationship". A statement not on the relationship but the framework for the relationship. It's why the EU doesn't need to kill Chequers. Yet.
I saw this and initially thought what a f##king stupid thing, should be picking music based upon quality...but then I realized if this had been in place we would have been saved from droning crap of ColdPlay and Radiohead...now I am firmly on board....
Yet another article that doesn't understand the FTPA.
"Their only recourse would be to vote down the final deal, a highly risky move and one that the Prime Minister might head off by turning the matter into a parliamentary no-confidence vote. This means it would trigger a general election if she lost it – the stuff of nightmares for most Tories and the DUP."
Mr Williamson, who frequently defends Mr Corbyn on television and radio, endorsed the trendy utopian Left-wing philosophy ‘fully automated luxury communism,’ whereby jobs are abolished in a post-work robot society.
Yet another article that doesn't understand the FTPA.
"Their only recourse would be to vote down the final deal, a highly risky move and one that the Prime Minister might head off by turning the matter into a parliamentary no-confidence vote. This means it would trigger a general election if she lost it – the stuff of nightmares for most Tories and the DUP."
I know our political classes are not capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time but they really should find time to repeal the FTPA. It may have served some purpose in a Coalition government between 2 parties not used to trusting the other but it is now just a pain in the neck.
Sorry, predicting that May will be able to spin a pile of poo is ignoring reality. The public won’t fall for it. Leavers won’t fall for it. If she backs down on Chequers there will be more resignations. There will be uproar and May will be in deep trouble. Labour will vote against and and probably the DUP as well.
ERG will not need many to vote it down.
Which is why, contrary to David's lead article, the chances of a second referendum are very high.
This is also the suggestion in the Matthew Parris article. The problem I have with this - apart from finding the Richard Nabavi logic about how MPs will behave generally convincing - is that I'm a bit hazy on how you get from everybody hating the hypothetical TMay-Barnier Deal to having a referendum on something. I mean, I get the grand narrative arc that a referendum is the only way to get out of the impasse, but who proposes it when, and who votes for it?
I think the most plausible scenario is that the cabinet makes the political calculation that they are better off preempting all of this by proposing a referendum before we get to the meaningful vote.
The people's vote campaign is building a crescendo, and by the time there is a withdrawal agreement on the table, if they've succeeded then there will be a broad consensus about the necessity of a further democratic mandate before proceeding.
The powers that be in the Tory party have seen a referendum on the EU split that party, foster division by having a blue on blue campaign and cost them 2 successful politicians. The peoples vote campaign want this repeated again. The Tory party powers that be will never (IMO) go near a referendum because it will be blue on blue again with Corbyn on holiday for the duration and T May and Tin Ear knowing it would be terminal for them.
May won't make Cameron's mistake of fronting one side of the campaign. She can says the government has delivered the Brexit that people voted for but now it's up to the people to have the final say on whether to proceed or not.
This will provide a way for demoralised Brexiteers to get off the hook in a relatively face saving way. Instead of being blamed for everything that goes wrong for the next 20 years they either get a specific mandate for Brexit, or Brexit gets rejected and we move on.
1. A deal, loosely based on Chequers, blanketed in plentiful fudge, is agreed between the UK government and the EU negotiating team (don't forget that it will still need approval by the EU parliament and by EU27 governments, BTW).
2. Theresa May and her ministers are all over the airwaves saying it's a good deal for Britain which will implement Brexit but protect the economy. There will also be a huge and very public sigh of relief from business and from independent economic commentators. The pound will rise. It will look like very good news indeed that there is a deal.
3. Meanwhile the ultras will be crying 'Betrayal!' as usual, but they will have a difficult calculation to make, because:
4. Labour will be saying it's a rotten deal, and they could have picked unicorns out of hats, and that they are minded to vote against it, and:
5. There will be an proposed amendment in parliament seeking to make the deal subject to a referendum.
6. The Leavers, and most of the Conservative Party generally, won't want that. Soft Remainers will want to get the deal agreed, and will be aware that once you go down the referendum bolthole you could end up with Brexit with No Deal. I think the likelihood is that the amendment will be rejected.
7. .. and that therefore the deal will be grudgingly approved, faute de mieux, with a stream of MPs saying that they don't like the deal but will reluctantly support it because either they want Brexit to happen to respect the referendum result and don't want a delay to Article 50, or because they don't want a chaotic No Deal.
Of course, there is plenty or room for all this to be dislodged by 'events'.
Won't happen because (1) there's no deal Deal on the table, Chequers or otherwise. The deal on the table is keeping most of what we already have for two years against a commitment to pay upwards of £40 billion and probably a Northern Ireland backstop. We also get a "political declaration on the future relationship". It's in the interest of both the UK and the EU to keep the political declaration as short and as vague as possible to avoid triggering a negative reaction.
Actually "political declaration on the framework for the future relationship". A statement not on the relationship but the framework for the relationship. It's why the EU doesn't need to kill Chequers. Yet.
My guess on what the political declaration says. It will be somewhat concrete about a Canada style free trade agreement as the base position, which will please the ERG. It will have warm words about both parties working together to develop a closer relationship. It will mention the British proposals as a discussion to take forward.
It won't answer any real questions about the future setup.It's not a plan.
"Brexit sources say they recognise London won’t be able to sign off on the Border guarantee as it currently stands, and Ireland will face economic “catastrophe” if the UK leaves the EU with no deal.
“If we carry on the way we’re going, we’ll have no transition, no deal, just economic catastrophe,” said one source."
What took them so effing long to see the blatantly obvious?
Well Varadkhar is very dim. But once again, I am not hearing anything about how the NI backstop will be resolved. They seem to still be saying they want the same thing. What if anything has actually changed?
The "Cojoined Twins" strategy. Varadkar gets his backstop deal in the WA keeping NI in the customs union but there is another agreement saying that only GB stays in the customs union as well concurrently to the first agreement.
That didn’t make sense the first time I heard it. It was dropped for a reason. It creates a legally binding NI backstop now with the PROMISE of the EU creating an all UK backstop later.
DUP will vote against. It breaches May’s red line as even if the EU deliver (and there is no way of ensuring this) the UK backstop is permament and the UK cannot exit the CU without EU permission. So no chance of pulling this off. It would be termed the ‘double suicide vest’.
Good. I never much liked him anyway with his silly square head. His entire reputation rests on the fact that Tony Blair sacked him over twenty years ago.
Here's Frank Field looking glum at being thrown out the Labour Party:
Sorry, predicting that May will be able to spin a pile of poo is ignoring reality. The public won’t fall for it. Leavers won’t fall for it. If she backs down on Chequers there will be more resignations. There will be uproar and May will be in deep trouble. Labour will vote against and and probably the DUP as well.
ERG will not need many to vote it down.
Which is why, contrary to David's lead article, the chances of a second referendum are very high.
This is also the suggestion in the Matthew Parris article. The problem I have with this - apart from finding the Richard Nabavi logic about how MPs will behave generally convincing - is that I'm a bit hazy on how you get from everybody hating the hypothetical TMay-Barnier Deal to having a referendum on something. I mean, I get the grand narrative arc that a referendum is the only way to get out of the impasse, but who proposes it when, and who votes for it?
I think the most plausible scenario is that the cabinet makes the political calculation that they are better off preempting all of this by proposing a referendum before we get to the meaningful vote.
The people's vote campaign is building a crescendo, and by the time there is a withdrawal agreement on the table, if they've succeeded then there will be a broad consensus about the necessity of a further democratic mandate before proceeding.
The powers that be in the Tory party have seen a referendum on the EU split that party, foster division by having a blue on blue campaign and cost them 2 successful politicians. The peoples vote campaign want this repeated again. The Tory party powers that be will never (IMO) go near a referendum because it will be blue on blue again with Corbyn on holiday for the duration and T May and Tin Ear knowing it would be terminal for them.
May won't make Cameron's mistake of fronting one side of the campaign. She can says the government has delivered the Brexit that people voted for but now it's up to the people to have the final say on whether to proceed or not.
This will provide a way for demoralised Brexiteers to get off the hook in a relatively face saving way. Instead of being blamed for everything that goes wrong for the next 20 years they either get a specific mandate for Brexit, or Brexit gets rejected and we move on.
THE UK seems to be doing remarkably well for a country laid low by Brexit fears. I'll take my chances on the next 20 years thanks.
Yet another article that doesn't understand the FTPA.
"Their only recourse would be to vote down the final deal, a highly risky move and one that the Prime Minister might head off by turning the matter into a parliamentary no-confidence vote. This means it would trigger a general election if she lost it – the stuff of nightmares for most Tories and the DUP."
I know our political classes are not capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time but they really should find time to repeal the FTPA. It may have served some purpose in a Coalition government between 2 parties not used to trusting the other but it is now just a pain in the neck.
Nah, the FTPA is great. Imagine if it didn't exist at this present time - Theresa would be issuing dark threats to the ERG every five minutes, threatening to go to the country if they didn't support that day's Brexit proposal. It would be mayhem.
Won't happen because (1) there's no deal Deal on the table, Chequers or otherwise. The deal on the table is keeping most of what we already have for two years against a commitment to pay upwards of £40 billion and probably a Northern Ireland backstop. We also get a "political declaration on the future relationship". It's in the interest of both the UK and the EU to keep the political declaration as short and as vague as possible to avoid triggering a negative reaction.
Actually "political declaration on the framework for the future relationship". A statement not on the relationship but the framework for the relationship. It's why the EU doesn't need to kill Chequers. Yet.
The Deal-lite is the easiest thing for Labour to oppose and the Leavers to defeat. The UK get nothing other than a transition but since none of the issues have been resolved then we just have two more years of May spinning her wheels, followed by no deal and the imposition of the backstop.
The issue is not that we have run out of time, it is that we cannot agree on a deal. The public will go beserk if May tries this - there is no support for paying the bill and not getting a trade agreement in return.
Won't happen because (1) there's no deal Deal on the table, Chequers or otherwise. The deal on the table is keeping most of what we already have for two years against a commitment to pay upwards of £40 billion and probably a Northern Ireland backstop. We also get a "political declaration on the future relationship". It's in the interest of both the UK and the EU to keep the political declaration as short and as vague as possible to avoid triggering a negative reaction.
Actually "political declaration on the framework for the future relationship". A statement not on the relationship but the framework for the relationship. It's why the EU doesn't need to kill Chequers. Yet.
My guess on what the political declaration says. It will be somewhat concrete about a Canada style free trade agreement as the base position, which will please the ERG. It will have warm words about both parties working together to develop a closer relationship. It will mention the British proposals as a discussion to take forward.
It won't answer any real questions about the future setup.It's not a plan.
Cannot happen. You cannot have CETA once you have agreed to the NI backstop - they are mutually exclusive (unless you plan to agree to separate NI from the UK regulatory regime and May cannot agree to the backstop as the DUP willl topple the Government).
What is much more likely in my view is that the EU are realising that CETA is the only way out. In which case the mood music that Big_G is getting so excited about may be in the exact other direction - ROI may be realising that Chequers is impossible but if they back down on the NI backstop then CETA is possible which will avoid no deal.
CETA, with a backstop to save the EUs face but which does not do anything, would keep the ERG happy and would pass Parliament.
I could see the path to a second referendum if a large majority of the public were desperate to prevent Brexit, but that it is nowhere near the case. A large minority are very annoyed about Brexit, but that's it.
Actually "political declaration on the framework for the future relationship". A statement not on the relationship but the framework for the relationship. It's why the EU doesn't need to kill Chequers. Yet.
My guess on what the political declaration says. It will be somewhat concrete about a Canada style free trade agreement as the base position, which will please the ERG. It will have warm words about both parties working together to develop a closer relationship. It will mention the British proposals as a discussion to take forward.
It won't answer any real questions about the future setup.It's not a plan.
Cannot happen. You cannot have CETA once you have agreed to the NI backstop - they are mutually exclusive (unless you plan to agree to separate NI from the UK regulatory regime and May cannot agree to the backstop as the DUP willl topple the Government).
What is much more likely in my view is that the EU are realising that CETA is the only way out. In which case the mood music that Big_G is getting so excited about may be in the exact other direction - ROI may be realising that Chequers is impossible but if they back down on the NI backstop then CETA is possible which will avoid no deal.
CETA, with a backstop to save the EUs face but which does not do anything, would keep the ERG happy and would pass Parliament.
I think I disagree with you about an NI backstop being incompatible with a Canada style FTA. It's moot however because this kind of FTA takes ten years and may not happen at all. Once they have got the Withdrawal Agreement, time is on the EU's side. It's in their interests I suggest to drag out the negotiations. Never actually stop them because they.want to keep the UK engaged.
Sorry, predicting that May will be able to spin a pile of poo is ignoring reality. The public won’t fall for it. Leavers won’t fall for it. If she backs down on Chequers there will be more resignations. There will be uproar and May will be in deep trouble. Labour will vote against and and probably the DUP as well.
ERG will not need many to vote it down.
Which is why, contrary to David's lead article, the chances of a second referendum are very high.
This is also the suggestion in the Matthew Parris article. The problem I have with this - apart from finding the Richard Nabavi logic about how MPs will behave generally convincing - is that I'm a bit hazy on how you get from everybody hating the hypothetical TMay-Barnier Deal to having a referendum on something. I mean, I get the grand narrative arc that a referendum is the only way to get out of the impasse, but who proposes it when, and who votes for it?
I think the most plausible scenario is that the cabinet makes the political calculation that they are better off preempting all of this by proposing a referendum before we get to the meaningful vote.
The people's vote campaign is building a crescendo, and by the time there is a withdrawal agreement on the table, if they've succeeded then there will be a broad consensus about the necessity of a further democratic mandate before proceeding.
The Peoples' Vote campaign preaches to the converted, those who have always been utterly opposed to Brexit. It has no effect on the rest.
Sorry, predicting that May will be able to spin a pile of poo is ignoring reality. The public won’t fall for it. Leavers won’t fall for it. If she backs down on Chequers there will be more resignations. There will be uproar and May will be in deep trouble. Labour will vote against and and probably the DUP as well.
ERG will not need many to vote it down.
Which is why, contrary to David's lead article, the chances of a second referendum are very high.
This is also the suggestion in the Matthew Parris article. The problem I have with this - apart from finding the Richard Nabavi logic about how MPs will behave generally convincing - is that I'm a bit hazy on how you get from everybody hating the hypothetical TMay-Barnier Deal to having a referendum on something. I mean, I get the grand narrative arc that a referendum is the only way to get out of the impasse, but who proposes it when, and who votes for it?
I think the most plausible scenario is that the cabinet makes the political calculation that they are better off preempting all of this by proposing a referendum before we get to the meaningful vote.
The people's vote campaign is building a crescendo, and by the time there is a withdrawal agreement on the table, if they've succeeded then there will be a broad consensus about the necessity of a further democratic mandate before proceeding.
The Peoples' Vote campaign preaches to the converted, those who have always been utterly opposed to Brexit. It has no effect on the rest.
Sorry, predicting that May will be able to spin a pile of poo is ignoring reality. The public won’t fall for it. Leavers won’t fall for it. If she backs down on Chequers there will be more resignations. There will be uproar and May will be in deep trouble. Labour will vote against and and probably the DUP as well.
ERG will not need many to vote it down.
Which is why, contrary to David's lead article, the chances of a second referendum are very high.
This is also the suggestion in the Matthew Parris article. The problem I have with this - apart from finding the Richard Nabavi logic about how MPs will behave generally convincing - is that I'm a bit hazy on how you get from everybody hating the hypothetical TMay-Barnier Deal to having a referendum on something. I mean, I get the grand narrative arc that a referendum is the only way to get out of the impasse, but who proposes it when, and who votes for it?
I think the most plausible scenario is that the cabinet makes the political calculation that they are better off preempting all of this by proposing a referendum before we get to the meaningful vote.
The people's vote campaign is building a crescendo, and by the time there is a withdrawal agreement on the table, if they've succeeded then there will be a broad consensus about the necessity of a further democratic mandate before proceeding.
The Peoples' Vote campaign preaches to the converted, those who have always been utterly opposed to Brexit. It has no effect on the rest.
That's an oversimplification. If the right people follow this path it's sufficient to make a second referendum inevitable:
- Back Remain in 2016 - Accept result and support Brexit - Decide we need a new mandate or to rethink
The most notable such person lives in Downing Street.
Actually "political declaration on the framework for the future relationship". A statement not on the relationship but the framework for the relationship. It's why the EU doesn't need to kill Chequers. Yet.
My guess on what the political declaration says. It will be somewhat concrete about a Canada style free trade agreement as the base position, which will please the ERG. It will have warm words about both parties working together to develop a closer relationship. It will mention the British proposals as a discussion to take forward.
It won't answer any real questions about the future setup.It's not a plan.
Cannot happen. You cannot have CETA once you have agreed to the NI backstop - they are mutually exclusive (unless you plan to agree to separate NI from the UK regulatory regime and May cannot agree to the backstop as the DUP willl topple the Government).
What is much more likely in my view is that the EU are realising that CETA is the only way out. In which case the mood music that Big_G is getting so excited about may be in the exact other direction - ROI may be realising that Chequers is impossible but if they back down on the NI backstop then CETA is possible which will avoid no deal.
CETA, with a backstop to save the EUs face but which does not do anything, would keep the ERG happy and would pass Parliament.
I think I disagree with you about an NI backstop being incompatible with a Canada style FTA. It's moot however because this kind of FTA takes ten years and may not happen at all. Once they have got the Withdrawal Agreement, time is on the EU's side. It's in their interests I suggest to drag out the negotiations. Never actually stop them because they.want to keep the UK engaged.
1. NI only backstop means the end of the Government - DUP would vote them out. Why do you think we are still stuck? May would sell off NI in a second if she had a majority. 2. So assuming backstop is all-UK, CETA can never be achieved because the UK would be stuck in the CU forever. If the EU were going to accept the UK in an FTA with a soft border in Ireland there would be no need for a backstop. 3. A provisional CETA could be agreed in less than twelve months. All the issues that cause trade agreements to be delayed do not exist here. There are no tariffs and no quotas required on either side. The text already exists. It is not hard. 4. Labour and the ERG will be easily be able to vote down a deal that gives up the money and a backstop and provides no outcome on trade. At least Chequers was an outcome. Deal-lite is a facre.
What I see is the EU realising that CETA is the only option and all of a sudden Ireland are going to get shafted. Oh well.
Yet another article that doesn't understand the FTPA.
"Their only recourse would be to vote down the final deal, a highly risky move and one that the Prime Minister might head off by turning the matter into a parliamentary no-confidence vote. This means it would trigger a general election if she lost it – the stuff of nightmares for most Tories and the DUP."
All this talk of a People's vote gaining traction. It might do in the London bubble, but...
I interact with some of the most Remain people going for work and their reaction is always the same, sigh, mutter about idiot leavers, but just need to bloody get on and sort out some sort of deal. Certainly no interest in another vote which will lead to even more years of this.
Then, I was at a comedy event the other night, comic tried a Brexit gag, massive groan from the crowd (excluding one guy who went wild clapping), and comic quickly twigged that everybody is just sick of it.
I feel a People's Vote would get the Brenda from Bristol reaction.
Sorry, predicting that May will be able to spin a pile of poo is ignoring reality. The public won’t fall for it. Leavers won’t fall for it. If she backs down on Chequers there will be more resignations. There will be uproar and May will be in deep trouble. Labour will vote against and and probably the DUP as well.
ERG will not need many to vote it down.
Which is why, contrary to David's lead article, the chances of a second referendum are very high.
This is also the suggestion in the Matthew Parris article. The problem I have with this - apart from finding the Richard Nabavi logic about how MPs will behave generally convincing - is that I'm a bit hazy on how you get from everybody hating the hypothetical TMay-Barnier Deal to having a referendum on something. I mean, I get the grand narrative arc that a referendum is the only way to get out of the impasse, but who proposes it when, and who votes for it?
I think the most plausible scenario is that the cabinet makes the political calculation that they are better off preempting all of this by proposing a referendum before we get to the meaningful vote.
The people's vote campaign is building a crescendo, and by the time there is a withdrawal agreement on the table, if they've succeeded then there will be a broad consensus about the necessity of a further democratic mandate before proceeding.
The Peoples' Vote campaign preaches to the converted, those who have always been utterly opposed to Brexit. It has no effect on the rest.
That's an oversimplification. If the right people follow this path it's sufficient to make a second referendum inevitable:
- Back Remain in 2016 - Accept result and support Brexit - Decide we need a new mandate or to rethink
The most notable such person lives in Downing Street.
But, there's no evidence that either she, or her party, support it. The Conservatives now own Brexit, and always will own Brexit.
Once you've adopted a contentious policy, there's no point in being half-hearted about it.
All this talk of a People's vote gaining traction. It might do in the London bubble, but...
I interact with some of the most Remain people going for work and their reaction is always the same, sigh, mutter about idiot leavers, but just need to bloody get on and sort out some sort of deal. Certainly no interest in another vote which will lead to even more years of this.
Then, I was at a comedy event the other night, comic tried a Brexit gag, massive groan from the crowd (excluding one guy who went wild clapping), and comic quickly twigged that everybody is just sick of it.
I feel a People's Vote would get the Brenda from Bristol reaction.
You have the right diagnosis but the wrong cure.
Going ahead with Brexit in March means even more years of this - at least two and probably longer. If people are sick of Brexit, the only answer is for them to vote Remain in massive numbers in a People's Vote so that we never hear of it again.
All this talk of a People's vote gaining traction. It might do in the London bubble, but...
I interact with some of the most Remain people going for work and their reaction is always the same, sigh, mutter about idiot leavers, but just need to bloody get on and sort out some sort of deal. Certainly no interest in another vote which will lead to even more years of this.
Then, I was at a comedy event the other night, comic tried a Brexit gag, massive groan from the crowd (excluding one guy who went wild clapping), and comic quickly twigged that everybody is just sick of it.
I feel a People's Vote would get the Brenda from Bristol reaction.
You have the right diagnosis but the wrong cure.
Going ahead with Brexit in March means even more years of this - at least two and probably longer. If people are sick of Brexit, the only answer is for them to vote Remain in massive numbers in a People's Vote so that we never hear of it again.
You might think that, but I am just giving you the anecdotal reactions I hear from people.
Sorry, predicting that May will be able to spin a pile of poo is ignoring reality. The public won’t fall for it. Leavers won’t fall for it. If she backs down on Chequers there will be more resignations. There will be uproar and May will be in deep trouble. Labour will vote against and and probably the DUP as well.
ERG will not need many to vote it down.
Which is why, contrary to David's lead article, the chances of a second referendum are very high.
This is also the suggestion in the Matthew Parris article. The problem I have with this - apart from finding the Richard Nabavi logic about how MPs will behave generally convincing - is that I'm a bit hazy on how you get from everybody hating the hypothetical TMay-Barnier Deal to having a referendum on something. I mean, I get the grand narrative arc that a referendum is the only way to get out of the impasse, but who proposes it when, and who votes for it?
I think the most plausible scenario is that the cabinet makes the political calculation that they are better off preempting all of this by proposing a referendum before we get to the meaningful vote.
The people's vote campaign is building a crescendo, and by the time there is a withdrawal agreement on the table, if they've succeeded then there will be a broad consensus about the necessity of a further democratic mandate before proceeding.
The Peoples' Vote campaign preaches to the converted, those who have always been utterly opposed to Brexit. It has no effect on the rest.
Not quite - it gives the Brexiteers cause to keep galloping, when the ground goes from soft to heavy.....
All this talk of a People's vote gaining traction. It might do in the London bubble, but...
I interact with some of the most Remain people going for work and their reaction is always the same, sigh, mutter about idiot leavers, but just need to bloody get on and sort out some sort of deal. Certainly no interest in another vote which will lead to even more years of this.
Then, I was at a comedy event the other night, comic tried a Brexit gag, massive groan from the crowd (excluding one guy who went wild clapping), and comic quickly twigged that everybody is just sick of it.
I feel a People's Vote would get the Brenda from Bristol reaction.
You have the right diagnosis but the wrong cure.
Going ahead with Brexit in March means even more years of this - at least two and probably longer. If people are sick of Brexit, the only answer is for them to vote Remain in massive numbers in a People's Vote so that we never hear of it again.
You might think that, but I am just giving you the anecdotal reactions I hear from people.
Then think of my comment as a prediction about their emotional reaction when the "some sort of deal" turns out to mean at least another few years of negotiations... People will just want to put a stop to the whole thing.
OT. Someone on Any Questions called Sherelle Jacobs. Perhaps the stupidest person I have heard on that program. She's a Brexiteer but apart from that does anyone know a reason she might be on the program. Someone she's sleeping with...someone owes her a favour?
1. NI only backstop means the end of the Government - DUP would vote them out. Why do you think we are still stuck? May would sell off NI in a second if she had a majority. 2. So assuming backstop is all-UK, CETA can never be achieved because the UK would be stuck in the CU forever. If the EU were going to accept the UK in an FTA with a soft border in Ireland there would be no need for a backstop. 3. A provisional CETA could be agreed in less than twelve months. All the issues that cause trade agreements to be delayed do not exist here. There are no tariffs and no quotas required on either side. The text already exists. It is not hard. 4. Labour and the ERG will be easily be able to vote down a deal that gives up the money and a backstop and provides no outcome on trade. At least Chequers was an outcome. Deal-lite is a facre.
What I see is the EU realising that CETA is the only option and all of a sudden Ireland are going to get shafted. Oh well.
I think you go wrong at stage 1. Whilst I agree with you that the NI backstop is a major blockage and should never have been agreed to, I think that what will happen is that it will be fudged out of existence. This only requires the Irish government to come to its senses, and see that the threat of kiboshing a deal in order to ensure there's a deal is, well, kinda Irish. They do seem to waking up to that obvious point, and Ireland has a hell of a lot to lose if the final outcome is much looser than Chequers. All that needs to happen is that the Irish say they are happy with the deal, and, voilà, no backstop problem.
OT. Someone on Any Questions called Sherelle Jacobs. Perhaps the stupidest person I have heard on that program. She's a Brexiteer but apart from that does anyone know a reason she might be on the program. Someone she's sleeping with...someone owes her a favour?
Well she is editor at the Telegraph and former Guardian columnist....so I am guessing they had her on because she has worked at serious newspapers. Given most panelists on QT / AQ, I thought stupidity was a prerequisite.
The pressure is increasing on Trump. His Twitter feed over the next week will be interesting.
Some good detail on the inexorability of Mueller’s approach in this article: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/14/manafort-plea-mueller-probe-825753 “So far, it’s as if Trump and his political operation practically don’t exist for them,” added Buell, who worked with Weissmann to prosecute the Enron case. “What is happening to Mueller’s targets is the same thing that has happened to hundreds of others, for years and years, when faced with experienced, talented, determined, and patient prosecutors and agents.”
“In those circumstances, federal criminal law wins almost every time,” he added. “These prosecutors knew that going in and they’ve kept their eyes on that ball."...
"The #peoplesvote campaign has several obstacles to get a parliamentary mandate, not least changing Labour party policy, then collapsing the May government, but these are worthwhile objectives in their own right."
You - as a so-called Lib Dem - would prefer a Labour anti-Semite as PM rather than May.
An anti-semitic party being one which this week backed the openly anti-semitic Hungarian government? No, that's OK, it's whether the party leader has over the years been too pally with Palestinians.
There are people with perfectly genuine concerns about anti-semitism who need to be listened to, and then there are people and media who use it selectively to criticise those they don't like.
We are at a point where both our leading parties are happy to provide succour to anti-Semites. It is awful and utterly depressing. I don’t know whether Tory expediency is worse than Labour conviction.
I doubt if the Conservative MEP's vote was cynical. Eurosceptics would naturally be unhappy at the idea of the EU imposing sanctions on a member State.
Completely off-topic. Someone mentioned "LBJ's first rule of politics" on an earlier thread. Now this guy is not an idiot and knows what he is talking about:
And this BBC piece claimsGeorge Osborne likes to quote Lyndon B Johnson's first rule of politics: It's "practitioners need to be able to count."
However, I can find no reference to LBJ having said this phrase, or one like it, or of it being called his "first rule of politics", or even of it being anyone else's "first rule of politics"...
Is this a misquote flying about, perhaps from the jaws of Georgie himself? I know it's true he's an American politics nut. Perhaps it's an obscure quote. Or perhaps my google-fu is failing me.
OT. Someone on Any Questions called Sherelle Jacobs. Perhaps the stupidest person I have heard on that program. She's a Brexiteer but apart from that does anyone know a reason she might be on the program. Someone she's sleeping with...someone owes her a favour?
She's a columnist with the Telegraph, formerly the Guardian. Apparently. Never actually read anything by her.
Completely off-topic. Someone mentioned "LBJ's first rule of politics" on an earlier thread. Now this guy is not an idiot and knows what he is talking about:
And this BBC piece claimsGeorge Osborne likes to quote Lyndon B Johnson's first rule of politics: It's "practitioners need to be able to count."
However, I can find no reference to LBJ having said this phrase, or one like it, or of it being called his "first rule of politics", or even of it being anyone else's "first rule of politics"...
Is this a misquote flying about, perhaps from the jaws of Georgie himself? I know it's true he's an American politics nut. Perhaps it's an obscure quote. Or perhaps my google-fu is failing me.
Dunno, but LBJ said some other very good stuff:
"Fuck your parliament and your constitution. America is an elephant. Cyprus is a flea. Greece is a flea. If these two fleas continue itching the elephant, they may just get whacked good ... We pay a lot of good American dollars to the Greeks, Mr. Ambassador. If your Prime Minister gives me talk about democracy, parliament and constitution, he, his parliament and his constitution may not last long ..." Comment to the Greek ambassador to Washington, Alexander Matsas, over the Cyprus issue in June 1964. As quoted in I Should Have Died (1977) by Philip Deane, pp. 113-114.
and
"[Gerald] Ford's economics are the worst thing that's happened to this country since pantyhose ruined finger-fucking."
All this talk of a People's vote gaining traction. It might do in the London bubble, but...
I interact with some of the most Remain people going for work and their reaction is always the same, sigh, mutter about idiot leavers, but just need to bloody get on and sort out some sort of deal. Certainly no interest in another vote which will lead to even more years of this.
Then, I was at a comedy event the other night, comic tried a Brexit gag, massive groan from the crowd (excluding one guy who went wild clapping), and comic quickly twigged that everybody is just sick of it.
I feel a People's Vote would get the Brenda from Bristol reaction.
You have the right diagnosis but the wrong cure.
Going ahead with Brexit in March means even more years of this - at least two and probably longer. If people are sick of Brexit, the only answer is for them to vote Remain in massive numbers in a People's Vote so that we never hear of it again.
I'm encountering quite a bit of "they should give us another vote, this isn't working out" sentiment in my apolitical circles in Surrey (poker and the like). I don't get the impression that Remainder or Leavers are changing much, but the apathetic majority are wavering between "oh, get it over with" and "oi, this isn't a good idea".
All this talk of a People's vote gaining traction. It might do in the London bubble, but...
I interact with some of the most Remain people going for work and their reaction is always the same, sigh, mutter about idiot leavers, but just need to bloody get on and sort out some sort of deal. Certainly no interest in another vote which will lead to even more years of this.
Then, I was at a comedy event the other night, comic tried a Brexit gag, massive groan from the crowd (excluding one guy who went wild clapping), and comic quickly twigged that everybody is just sick of it.
I feel a People's Vote would get the Brenda from Bristol reaction.
You have the right diagnosis but the wrong cure.
Going ahead with Brexit in March means even more years of this - at least two and probably longer. If people are sick of Brexit, the only answer is for them to vote Remain in massive numbers in a People's Vote so that we never hear of it again.
I'm encountering quite a bit of "they should give us another vote, this isn't working out" sentiment in my apolitical circles in Surrey (poker and the like). I don't get the impression that Remainder or Leavers are changing much, but the apathetic majority are wavering between "oh, get it over with" and "oi, this isn't a good idea".
Right, and the key inflection point will be when the "oh, get it over with" crowd realise that it will be anything but over if we go ahead as planned next March.
Completely off-topic. Someone mentioned "LBJ's first rule of politics" on an earlier thread. Now this guy is not an idiot and knows what he is talking about:
And this BBC piece claimsGeorge Osborne likes to quote Lyndon B Johnson's first rule of politics: It's "practitioners need to be able to count."
However, I can find no reference to LBJ having said this phrase, or one like it, or of it being called his "first rule of politics", or even of it being anyone else's "first rule of politics"...
Is this a misquote flying about, perhaps from the jaws of Georgie himself? I know it's true he's an American politics nut. Perhaps it's an obscure quote. Or perhaps my google-fu is failing me.
Dunno, but LBJ said some other very good stuff:
"Fuck your parliament and your constitution. America is an elephant. Cyprus is a flea. Greece is a flea. If these two fleas continue itching the elephant, they may just get whacked good ... We pay a lot of good American dollars to the Greeks, Mr. Ambassador. If your Prime Minister gives me talk about democracy, parliament and constitution, he, his parliament and his constitution may not last long ..." Comment to the Greek ambassador to Washington, Alexander Matsas, over the Cyprus issue in June 1964. As quoted in I Should Have Died (1977) by Philip Deane, pp. 113-114.
and
"[Gerald] Ford's economics are the worst thing that's happened to this country since pantyhose ruined finger-fucking."
Completely off-topic. Someone mentioned "LBJ's first rule of politics" on an earlier thread. Now this guy is not an idiot and knows what he is talking about:
And this BBC piece claimsGeorge Osborne likes to quote Lyndon B Johnson's first rule of politics: It's "practitioners need to be able to count."
However, I can find no reference to LBJ having said this phrase, or one like it, or of it being called his "first rule of politics", or even of it being anyone else's "first rule of politics"...
Is this a misquote flying about, perhaps from the jaws of Georgie himself? I know it's true he's an American politics nut. Perhaps it's an obscure quote. Or perhaps my google-fu is failing me.
Dunno, but LBJ said some other very good stuff:
"Fuck your parliament and your constitution. America is an elephant. Cyprus is a flea. Greece is a flea. If these two fleas continue itching the elephant, they may just get whacked good ... We pay a lot of good American dollars to the Greeks, Mr. Ambassador. If your Prime Minister gives me talk about democracy, parliament and constitution, he, his parliament and his constitution may not last long ..." Comment to the Greek ambassador to Washington, Alexander Matsas, over the Cyprus issue in June 1964. As quoted in I Should Have Died (1977) by Philip Deane, pp. 113-114.
and
"[Gerald] Ford's economics are the worst thing that's happened to this country since pantyhose ruined finger-fucking."
All this talk of a People's vote gaining traction. It might do in the London bubble, but...
I interact with some of the most Remain people going for work and their reaction is always the same, sigh, mutter about idiot leavers, but just need to bloody get on and sort out some sort of deal. Certainly no interest in another vote which will lead to even more years of this.
Then, I was at a comedy event the other night, comic tried a Brexit gag, massive groan from the crowd (excluding one guy who went wild clapping), and comic quickly twigged that everybody is just sick of it.
I feel a People's Vote would get the Brenda from Bristol reaction.
You have the right diagnosis but the wrong cure.
Going ahead with Brexit in March means even more years of this - at least two and probably longer. If people are sick of Brexit, the only answer is for them to vote Remain in massive numbers in a People's Vote so that we never hear of it again.
You might think that, but I am just giving you the anecdotal reactions I hear from people.
Then think of my comment as a prediction about their emotional reaction when the "some sort of deal" turns out to mean at least another few years of negotiations... People will just want to put a stop to the whole thing.
Floyd Mayweather has said he will come out of retirement to fight Manny Pacquiao in a rematch later this year.
Got a big tax bill to pay?
It'll be dire, worse than the Key Stage Initiative vs Paul match.
Absolutely, I doubt either are able to reproduce anywhere near their best even for a round or two, but especially Pacquiao is a shadow of his former self. Its all a bit sad when you see these great boxers refusing to call it a day.
Wasn't that joke of a boxing match the biggest PPV (in terms of individual buys) in years?
Floyd Mayweather has said he will come out of retirement to fight Manny Pacquiao in a rematch later this year.
Got a big tax bill to pay?
Who’s gonna pay the PPV to watch two men in their 40s sparring with each other, with no belt on the line? It’s hardly George Foreman’s comeback.
More idiots than you think will, like they did for Mayweather vs Mcgregor...
Weren’t they all the millions of MMA/UFC fans though?
Two old men a decade and a half past their best isn’t really a spectacle.
Yes I am sure a significant proportion of the buys were fans of McGregor. Was the easiest money I have made betting in many a year...
It is especially sad to see this announced on the same day as GGG vs Canelo, which is a real deal fight. Just hoping the blind woman who judged the first match is no where near this fight.
Floyd Mayweather has said he will come out of retirement to fight Manny Pacquiao in a rematch later this year.
Got a big tax bill to pay?
Who’s gonna pay the PPV to watch two men in their 40s sparring with each other, with no belt on the line? It’s hardly George Foreman’s comeback.
More idiots than you think will, like they did for Mayweather vs Mcgregor...
Weren’t they all the millions of MMA/UFC fans though?
Two old men a decade and a half past their best isn’t really a spectacle.
Yes I am sure a significant proportion of the buys were fans of McGregor. Was the easiest money I have made betting in many a year...
It is especially sad to see this announced on the same day as GGG vs Canelo, which is a real deal fight. Just hoping the blind woman who judged the first match is no where near this fight.
Yes, that’s a proper title fight worth paying for.
The McGregor fight was very easy money indeed, all his fans backing him blindly at a sport he’d never competed in before. It was like putting a motorbike rider in an F1 qualifying session.
Documents uncovered by investigative journalists have provided the first public evidence that the suspects in the Salisbury novichok attack have formal ties to the Russian ministry of defence.
I highly doubt it is news to the spooks, but Craig Murray and the cult will really have to do some limbo dancing. I am sure Milne still thinks it is a setup by the British.
My guess is that the resultdecided one way or another, unlike the present mess.
Why would people who won a “once in a lifetime” first vote accept a second that went against them?
JM "If we come out, we are out, that's it. Its not politically credible to go back, we've reconsidered lets have another referendum"
PA " I will forgive no one who does not accept the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken whether it is by 1% or 20%"
NC "There will be some people who, like those Japanese soldiers who kept fighting the last war because no one had told them it had ended, in some pacific island, who carry on arguing and arguing... the rest of us will just move on, carry on with the rest of our lives"
Conversely Nigel Farage was gearing up for a fresh campaign on the referendum night when he thought Leave had lost.
Which would have been the equivalent of a referendum to rejoin once we had left.
Nobody is saying that people cannot campaign for that.
But that's not what the second referendum supporters want is it.
I see. So Leavers could run campaigns continuously till they won while Remain supporters had to shut up till Leave supporters determined they could speak again. I can see why that argument appeals to Leave supporters.
If Remain had won then the result would have been applied.
What the second referendum supporters want is for the result to be blocked..
Which is totally different.
The result is bein applies. The Leavers are making a complete balls-up of it.
The prime difference is that Leave currently want Remain’s silence while if Remain had won Leave would have wanted the right to be noisy. The commitment to the right to democratic dissent is tissue thin.
Before the vote, Remain campaigning politicians said there would be no second referendum, this is a once in a generation vote, it would not be politically credible to rerun the vote, people should just get on with their lives and accept it etc etc... but they are not sticking to that now.
On the other hand, it is blindingly obvious that the likes of UKIP/Farage would have continued campaigning to Leave had Remain won, and they never once said that wouldn't be the case
There is a fundamental difference between a campaign to Rejoin and a campaign to frustrate the implementation of the last the people voted
1. NI only backstop means the end of the Government - DUP would vote them out. Why do you think we are still stuck? May would sell off NI in a second if she had a majority. 2. So assuming backstop is all-UK, CETA can never be achieved because the UK would be stuck in the CU forever. If the EU were going to accept the UK in an FTA with a soft border in Ireland there would be no need for a backstop. 3. A provisional CETA could be agreed in less than twelve months. All the issues that cause trade agreements to be delayed do not exist here. There are no tariffs and no quotas required on either side. The text already exists. It is not hard. 4. Labour and the ERG will be easily be able to vote down a deal that gives up the money and a backstop and provides no outcome on trade. At least Chequers was an outcome. Deal-lite is a facre.
What I see is the EU realising that CETA is the only option and all of a sudden Ireland are going to get shafted. Oh well.
I think you go wrong at stage 1. Whilst I agree with you that the NI backstop is a major blockage and should never have been agreed to, I think that what will happen is that it will be fudged out of existence. This only requires the Irish government to come to its senses, and see that the threat of kiboshing a deal in order to ensure there's a deal is, well, kinda Irish. They do seem to waking up to that obvious point, and Ireland has a hell of a lot to lose if the final outcome is much looser than Chequers. All that needs to happen is that the Irish say they are happy with the deal, and, voilà, no backstop problem.
I disagree for a different reason. CETA won't happen for a decade or so and I'm doubtful it will happen at all. In the meantime we'll be on minimum change so the NI backstop never kicks in. The key as you allude to is getting the Withdrawal Agreement over the line. I suspect the backstop will be in there in some form. The fudge might be that the backstop is only initiated when the UK and EU make a new agreement. That won't be for years. In the meantime we're in transition so no backstop required.
Completely off-topic. Someone mentioned "LBJ's first rule of politics" on an earlier thread. Now this guy is not an idiot and knows what he is talking about:
And this BBC piece claimsGeorge Osborne likes to quote Lyndon B Johnson's first rule of politics: It's "practitioners need to be able to count."
However, I can find no reference to LBJ having said this phrase, or one like it, or of it being called his "first rule of politics", or even of it being anyone else's "first rule of politics"...
Is this a misquote flying about, perhaps from the jaws of Georgie himself? I know it's true he's an American politics nut. Perhaps it's an obscure quote. Or perhaps my google-fu is failing me.
Dunno, but LBJ said some other very good stuff...
and
"[Gerald] Ford's economics are the worst thing that's happened to this country since pantyhose ruined finger-fucking."
I don’t think it’s an LBJ quote at all, but rather a reference to Caro’s biographies, which Osborne knows well: https://hbr.org/2006/04/lessons-in-power-lyndon-johnson-revealed One key element was his utter realism, his ability to look facts—even very unpleasant facts—in the face and not let himself be deluded by wishful thinking. The political version of a businessman’s interest in balance sheets is vote counting. That means knowing how a vote on a controversial bill is going to go in the Senate so that you know whether or not to bring the bill to the floor. A lot of politicians delude themselves in counting votes—fool themselves. They’re overly optimistic. They hear what they want to hear; if some senator seems to be agreeing with them, they think he will vote with them in the crunch. Lyndon Johnson never fooled himself. When one of his staffers would come back and say he “thought” he knew which way a senator would vote on an issue, Johnson would say, “What good is thinking to me? Thinking isn’t good enough. Thinking is never good enough. I need to know.” When he was majority leader of the Senate, he was operating for many years with a bare one-vote majority, so every vote counted. And it was said Lyndon Johnson never lost a vote.
Before the vote, Remain campaigning politicians said there would be no second referendum, this is a once in a generation vote, it would not be politically credible to rerun the vote, people should just get on with their lives and accept it etc etc... but they are not sticking to that now.
On the other hand, it is blindingly obvious that the likes of UKIP/Farage would have continued campaigning to Leave had Remain won, and they never once said that wouldn't be the case
There is a fundamental difference between a campaign to Rejoin and a campaign to frustrate the implementation of the last the people voted
Well-behaved women seldom make history. Remain supporters are under no obligation to campaign according to rules that suit you. Leave supporters have given Remain supporters no reason to reconcile themselves to the last vote.
Completely off-topic. Someone mentioned "LBJ's first rule of politics" on an earlier thread. Now this guy is not an idiot and knows what he is talking about:
And this BBC piece claimsGeorge Osborne likes to quote Lyndon B Johnson's first rule of politics: It's "practitioners need to be able to count."
However, I can find no reference to LBJ having said this phrase, or one like it, or of it being called his "first rule of politics", or even of it being anyone else's "first rule of politics"...
Is this a misquote flying about, perhaps from the jaws of Georgie himself? I know it's true he's an American politics nut. Perhaps it's an obscure quote. Or perhaps my google-fu is failing me.
Dunno, but LBJ said some other very good stuff...
and
"[Gerald] Ford's economics are the worst thing that's happened to this country since pantyhose ruined finger-fucking."
I don’t think it’s an LBJ quote at all, but rather a reference to Caro’s biographies, which Osborne knows well: https://hbr.org/2006/04/lessons-in-power-lyndon-johnson-revealed One key element was his utter realism, his ability to look facts—even very unpleasant facts—in the face and not let himself be deluded by wishful thinking. The political version of a businessman’s interest in balance sheets is vote counting. That means knowing how a vote on a controversial bill is going to go in the Senate so that you know whether or not to bring the bill to the floor. A lot of politicians delude themselves in counting votes—fool themselves. They’re overly optimistic. They hear what they want to hear; if some senator seems to be agreeing with them, they think he will vote with them in the crunch. Lyndon Johnson never fooled himself. When one of his staffers would come back and say he “thought” he knew which way a senator would vote on an issue, Johnson would say, “What good is thinking to me? Thinking isn’t good enough. Thinking is never good enough. I need to know.” When he was majority leader of the Senate, he was operating for many years with a bare one-vote majority, so every vote counted. And it was said Lyndon Johnson never lost a vote.
Thanks. This seems quite likely to me - I can't see any evidence of the "quote" being a dictum of his, though there's no doubt part of his skill as an operator was his understanding of the principle espoused!
Thy're an aggressive lot in the Wirral aren't they. First they ran one of he nastiest campaigns in recent election history to oust Esther Mcvey and then they turn on one of their own in Frank Field.
Indee Mr Norm.
Edit - although to let it go would be an act of Mersey.
I think that’s probably the worst pun in the history of PB
Vestappen +Vettel into corner 1 will be interesting. But if Hamilton wins this he's almost home and hosed for the title, especially if anything happens to Vettel.
Comments
The peoples vote campaign want this repeated again.
The Tory party powers that be will never (IMO) go near a referendum because it will be blue on blue again with Corbyn on holiday for the duration and T May and Tin Ear knowing it would be terminal for them.
...And then gets a load of abuse from Corbynite nutjobs about not supporting her leader and stirring things up about anti-semitism. Check the replies on this.
https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1040583808427417600
Dubai is like the Netherlands, very flat and low, and with lots of reclaimed land. There’s around 3-5m of flood defences. Difficult to see how a hurricane develops in the Gulf though, it’s not a big enough body of water to support the sort of storms seen in the USA and Philippines at the moment.
Betting postF1: decided to back the 2.1 on a Ferrari 1-2 in qualifying. Pre-qualifying ramble will be up in a few minutes.
Edit - although to let it go would be an act of Mersey.
The Ferrari does look to have the legs.
Whether it’s worth trying, given how slow Red Bull seem to be, is questionable. A conventional strategy ought to give Hamilton third at worst.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/09/singapore-pre-qualifying-2018.html
Don't you think though that his age and long service will count against him in any Major comparison? One of Major's priceless attributes compared to Heseltine and Hurd was that he was young, relatively new to the cabinet and therefore largely untainted by the excesses of Thatcherism. That couldn't be said of Hammond.
In any event, Singapore is the one race on which I never bet.
(long ramble)
Yes, but do you accept that this voluntary association had rules and that by joining you agreed to accept those rules?
(long ramble)
Yes, but was one of these rules not that resigning the whip in the HoC once elected as a member of that voluntary association was incompatible with membership?
(very long ramble)
Thank you, Mr Field. I think I have the relevant points but I will need to spend quite a number of chargeable hours thinking about how to frame my advice. Good day!
How could you betray a client's confidence in this way??!!!!
I saw this and initially thought what a f##king stupid thing, should be picking music based upon quality...but then I realized if this had been in place we would have been saved from droning crap of ColdPlay and Radiohead...now I am firmly on board....
"Their only recourse would be to vote down the final deal, a highly risky move and one that the Prime Minister might head off by turning the matter into a parliamentary no-confidence vote. This means it would trigger a general election if she lost it – the stuff of nightmares for most Tories and the DUP."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/09/14/mps-fatally-distracted-chequers-closer-no-deal-brexit-anyone/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6169995/Corbyn-ally-tells-British-workers-launch-luxury-Communist-revolution.html
And people take this guy seriously...
This will provide a way for demoralised Brexiteers to get off the hook in a relatively face saving way. Instead of being blamed for everything that goes wrong for the next 20 years they either get a specific mandate for Brexit, or Brexit gets rejected and we move on.
It won't answer any real questions about the future setup.It's not a plan.
DUP will vote against. It breaches May’s red line as even if the EU deliver (and there is no way of ensuring this) the UK backstop is permament and the UK cannot exit the CU without EU permission. So no chance of pulling this off. It would be termed the ‘double suicide vest’.
http://www.reddwarf.co.uk/features/history/evolution-of-krytens-costumes/kryten-14l.jpg
Oh dear...given Jack wouldn't work with a Tory if they were the last person on earth, we know who is being referred to.
Jack will be the latest to have the hounds released on her...how dare she raise the issue of antisemitism.
It won't answer any real questions about the future setup.It's not a plan.
Cannot happen. You cannot have CETA once you have agreed to the NI backstop - they are mutually exclusive (unless you plan to agree to separate NI from the UK regulatory regime and May cannot agree to the backstop as the DUP willl topple the Government).
What is much more likely in my view is that the EU are realising that CETA is the only way out. In which case the mood music that Big_G is getting so excited about may be in the exact other direction - ROI may be realising that Chequers is impossible but if they back down on the NI backstop then CETA is possible which will avoid no deal.
CETA, with a backstop to save the EUs face but which does not do anything, would keep the ERG happy and would pass Parliament.
- Back Remain in 2016
- Accept result and support Brexit
- Decide we need a new mandate or to rethink
The most notable such person lives in Downing Street.
2. So assuming backstop is all-UK, CETA can never be achieved because the UK would be stuck in the CU forever. If the EU were going to accept the UK in an FTA with a soft border in Ireland there would be no need for a backstop.
3. A provisional CETA could be agreed in less than twelve months. All the issues that cause trade agreements to be delayed do not exist here. There are no tariffs and no quotas required on either side. The text already exists. It is not hard.
4. Labour and the ERG will be easily be able to vote down a deal that gives up the money and a backstop and provides no outcome on trade. At least Chequers was an outcome. Deal-lite is a facre.
What I see is the EU realising that CETA is the only option and all of a sudden Ireland are going to get shafted. Oh well.
I interact with some of the most Remain people going for work and their reaction is always the same, sigh, mutter about idiot leavers, but just need to bloody get on and sort out some sort of deal. Certainly no interest in another vote which will lead to even more years of this.
Then, I was at a comedy event the other night, comic tried a Brexit gag, massive groan from the crowd (excluding one guy who went wild clapping), and comic quickly twigged that everybody is just sick of it.
I feel a People's Vote would get the Brenda from Bristol reaction.
Once you've adopted a contentious policy, there's no point in being half-hearted about it.
Going ahead with Brexit in March means even more years of this - at least two and probably longer. If people are sick of Brexit, the only answer is for them to vote Remain in massive numbers in a People's Vote so that we never hear of it again.
Some good detail on the inexorability of Mueller’s approach in this article:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/14/manafort-plea-mueller-probe-825753
“So far, it’s as if Trump and his political operation practically don’t exist for them,” added Buell, who worked with Weissmann to prosecute the Enron case. “What is happening to Mueller’s targets is the same thing that has happened to hundreds of others, for years and years, when faced with experienced, talented, determined, and patient prosecutors and agents.”
“In those circumstances, federal criminal law wins almost every time,” he added. “These prosecutors knew that going in and they’ve kept their eyes on that ball."...
https://twitter.com/philipjcowley/status/591875678628352001?lang=en
And this BBC piece claims George Osborne likes to quote Lyndon B Johnson's first rule of politics: It's "practitioners need to be able to count."
However, I can find no reference to LBJ having said this phrase, or one like it, or of it being called his "first rule of politics", or even of it being anyone else's "first rule of politics"...
Is this a misquote flying about, perhaps from the jaws of Georgie himself? I know it's true he's an American politics nut. Perhaps it's an obscure quote. Or perhaps my google-fu is failing me.
"Fuck your parliament and your constitution. America is an elephant. Cyprus is a flea. Greece is a flea. If these two fleas continue itching the elephant, they may just get whacked good ... We pay a lot of good American dollars to the Greeks, Mr. Ambassador. If your Prime Minister gives me talk about democracy, parliament and constitution, he, his parliament and his constitution may not last long ..."
Comment to the Greek ambassador to Washington, Alexander Matsas, over the Cyprus issue in June 1964. As quoted in I Should Have Died (1977) by Philip Deane, pp. 113-114.
and
"[Gerald] Ford's economics are the worst thing that's happened to this country since pantyhose ruined finger-fucking."
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson
Half joking. I think.
Got a big tax bill to pay?
Wasn't that joke of a boxing match the biggest PPV (in terms of individual buys) in years?
Two old men a decade and a half past their best isn’t really a spectacle.
It is especially sad to see this announced on the same day as GGG vs Canelo, which is a real deal fight. Just hoping the blind woman who judged the first match is no where near this fight.
The McGregor fight was very easy money indeed, all his fans backing him blindly at a sport he’d never competed in before. It was like putting a motorbike rider in an F1 qualifying session.
Documents uncovered by investigative journalists have provided the first public evidence that the suspects in the Salisbury novichok attack have formal ties to the Russian ministry of defence.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/15/documents-show-novichok-salisbury-suspects-alexander-petrov-ruslan-boshirov-links-defence
I highly doubt it is news to the spooks, but Craig Murray and the cult will really have to do some limbo dancing. I am sure Milne still thinks it is a setup by the British.
https://hbr.org/2006/04/lessons-in-power-lyndon-johnson-revealed
One key element was his utter realism, his ability to look facts—even very unpleasant facts—in the face and not let himself be deluded by wishful thinking. The political version of a businessman’s interest in balance sheets is vote counting. That means knowing how a vote on a controversial bill is going to go in the Senate so that you know whether or not to bring the bill to the floor. A lot of politicians delude themselves in counting votes—fool themselves. They’re overly optimistic. They hear what they want to hear; if some senator seems to be agreeing with them, they think he will vote with them in the crunch. Lyndon Johnson never fooled himself. When one of his staffers would come back and say he “thought” he knew which way a senator would vote on an issue, Johnson would say, “What good is thinking to me? Thinking isn’t good enough. Thinking is never good enough. I need to know.” When he was majority leader of the Senate, he was operating for many years with a bare one-vote majority, so every vote counted. And it was said Lyndon Johnson never lost a vote.
Explains Merc/Red Bull, but not Merc/Ferrari or the three quarters of a second on his teammate.
That was a monster lap.
Did I say I’ve got a fiver on him at 4.5 to win tomorrow?
Mr. Sandpit, you were entirely right on the Ferrari 1-2 bet.
Astounded they're the third fastest team.