Mr NorthWales, re your comment some minutes goa about "blaming" the 52%; I don't mind blaming them. I am not a politician so I don't have to pretend I don't think they were stupid.. It doesn't mean they are stupid all the time, just on this particular occasion. It was an act of national stupidity. Just because it appeared democratic doesn't mean it is beyond reproach. It happens in lots of countries including the US with their vote for the Psycho-in-Chief.
Yes but respect is needed for both sides. Name calling gets us nowhere
Sorry but no respect is required for stupid decision making. Politicians have to pretend this, the rest of us might as well call it for what it is. If a person you knew took an unnecessary gamble with his/her family's future you would say they were an idiot, not that you should respect their decision, when it was clearly idiotic.
But, people who voted for Brexit don't consider it idiotic at all.
What's the "Liechtenstein Scenario"? This particular arcane wrinkle of Brexit seems to have passed me by.
It's a variant of Norway where we join the EEA and then say that because we have no space we need to implement residence permits.
Thanks. Things are now so fucked it's not even surprising that mad ideas like this are metastasising.
Joining the EEA can only happen after we leave the EU. The treaties are explicit EU members cannot be part of the EEA.
So we have to apply to go through EFTA and they have to meet and decide whether a big politically bi-polar country should be allowed to join their small club.
There is no route to these other "clubs" without leaving our existing one. We cannot transition into them.
I cant have two internet providers on one telephone line I have to leave TalkTalk to move to Plusnet. Somehow they manage to make a seemless transition.
What's the "Liechtenstein Scenario"? This particular arcane wrinkle of Brexit seems to have passed me by.
It's a variant of Norway where we join the EEA and then say that because we have no space we need to implement residence permits.
Thanks. Things are now so fucked it's not even surprising that mad ideas like this are metastasising.
Joining the EEA can only happen after we leave the EU. The treaties are explicit EU members cannot be part of the EEA.
So we have to apply to go through EFTA and they have to meet and decide whether a big politically bi-polar country should be allowed to join their small club.
There is no route to these other "clubs" without leaving our existing one. We cannot transition into them.
I cant have two internet providers on one telephone line I have to leave TalkTalk to move to Plusnet. Somehow they manage to make a seemless transition.
Your analogy does capture how some people seem to think of the process. We just sign up with a new geopolitical service provider and make a seamless transition from the EU to CANZUK.
What's the "Liechtenstein Scenario"? This particular arcane wrinkle of Brexit seems to have passed me by.
EEA but (big but) with FOM controls.
Essentially, I guess this was conceded to Liechtenstein because it's a row of banks with brass plate companies, a castle, and a ski lift, and not much else, so in the real world the inability to freely move there is going to affect tiny tiny numbers.
However, it does prove the four freedoms are divisible, if the EU decide they want to..........
The big worry for them is that if UK became a huge Liechtenstein in this respect (which would probably fly though the HoC) others would want the same.
Now to me the solution is - well give it to them then otherwise you are holding the Project together through fear not consent. And eventually that does not end well at all.
It's the a la carte option.
We never enforced the existing restrictions on free movement of labour within the EU....
Amber Rudd has said there are 40 conservative mps who would vote down Canada, about the same number as ERG who want it
And just adds to the mood music, Canada is dead
There is no chance that large numbers of Tory MPs would vote down Canada if it was the deal that May bought back. What could they possibly accomplish? There is no majority for anything else so they would be guaranteeing no deal instead. This is about the only scenario where I can see an early GE with the hardcore remainers kicked out and an election to allow the Tories approve Canada. A Canada deal would command majority support in the country assuming there have been no stupid concessions (eg backstops) going along with it.
Rudd is just desperate for attention.
The mood music over the last 24 hours has killed Canada
The thing about music is that you choose what to listen to as the mood takes you!
The issue that is 'killing' Canada is that May won't negotiate it, simply because it would require her to admit she was wrong about the necessity for a backstop. I completely believe that the EU will drop the backstop and accept CETA if the alternative is no deal. But if May keeps pushing Chequers, this is never going to be discussed.
No deal is looking like a virtual certainty at the moment. We can all come up with outlandish scenarios about how our preferred option might occur, but the reality is that neither side are actually even arguing over a deal that might happen - they are not even negotiating. Despite all the talk, nothing has happened for nine months and the most likely scenario is that nothing is going to happen now.
Raab, Gove, Hunt and Javid rejecting no deal today is significant
Yes it is. Because they said the alternative to Chequers should be Canada and not no deal. So why are you taking that as them killing Canada? They're pushing it up the agenda as the backstop for when Chequers has its plug pulled. They're going against May and saying "reject Chequers and the alternative is Canada" instead of "reject Chequers and we have no deal".
What's the "Liechtenstein Scenario"? This particular arcane wrinkle of Brexit seems to have passed me by.
It's a variant of Norway where we join the EEA and then say that because we have no space we need to implement residence permits.
Thanks. Things are now so fucked it's not even surprising that mad ideas like this are metastasising.
Joining the EEA can only happen after we leave the EU. The treaties are explicit EU members cannot be part of the EEA.
So we have to apply to go through EFTA and they have to meet and decide whether a big politically bi-polar country should be allowed to join their small club.
There is no route to these other "clubs" without leaving our existing one. We cannot transition into them.
I cant have two internet providers on one telephone line I have to leave TalkTalk to move to Plusnet. Somehow they manage to make a seemless transition.
Your analogy does capture how some people seem to think of the process. We just sign up with a new geopolitical service provider and make a seamless transition from the EU to CANZUK.
The process is whatever the will of the room wishes the process to be.
She's not an ignorant stupid bigot. She has a genuine and in many respects well-founded concern that (especially in some areas) there has been a rapid transformation of society which no-one voted for and no-one asked for. Now, it's true that voting to leave the EU won't help very much with that, but belittling the concerns and insulting those who have them isn't going to help either.
Its absolutely true that not everyone who voted Brexit did so because racist, nor that some don't have specific concerns. But my point about people's attitude to foreigners (albeit one I satirised) is that they are The Problem. Removing them is The Solution. Which is fine, except that it won't solve the problem that created so much migration in the first place - the increasingly sedentary British. I know that the cundrysoide wants rid of the foreigners who took our jobs. But the reason for foreigners in the first place was that nobody wanted the work, shoppers aren't prepared to pay the cost of paying higher wages on food prices, and the days of the ruddy cheeked farmer having the younger generation of plucky Brit gaily picking vegetables is long gone.
People want their town back? They're about to get it. They will be able to walk their kids round and point to the place where people used to live, point to the places where the factories used to be, point to the places where the farms used to be... As for Gillian Duffy, I grew up in Rochdale, so I am well acquainted by her type...
I suggest that Brits didn't want to work in the fields because (a) they aren't used to such hard work, and (b) it doesn't pay well enough.
This is similar to what has happened in the fields of the USA with Mexican and Central American illegals - there is a supply of cheap labour that keeps wages down and is a self perpetuating draw for economic migration - it also keeps food prices lower. I refer you to rcs's recent video on migration. The solution to stop this is to allow illegals to shop their employers (farmers not intermediaries) in return for right to remain. This would dry up the market for illegal workers at the cost of higher food prices.
What's the "Liechtenstein Scenario"? This particular arcane wrinkle of Brexit seems to have passed me by.
EEA but (big but) with FOM controls.
Essentially, I guess this was conceded to Liechtenstein because it's a row of banks with brass plate companies, a castle, and a ski lift, and not much else, so in the real world the inability to freely move there is going to affect tiny tiny numbers.
However, it does prove the four freedoms are divisible, if the EU decide they want to..........
The big worry for them is that if UK became a huge Liechtenstein in this respect (which would probably fly though the HoC) others would want the same.
Now to me the solution is - well give it to them then otherwise you are holding the Project together through fear not consent. And eventually that does not end well at all.
It's the a la carte option.
We never enforced the existing restrictions on free movement of labour within the EU....
Indeed, and we are probably back to contributory welfare systems and ID cards in that debate too.
"Our way of doing things" doesn't seem to gel very well with all of this. Now I'd be up for overhaul of welfare, and I'm coming round to ID cards (reluctantly), partially for this sort of thing.
However, my central point is the EU can go all fuzzy on their principles when they want to, and I genuinely fear that this drive to "ever closer union" is going to come across more and more resistance as people are going to want their consent to it explicitly (and I would argue repeatedly) requested.
The current state of affairs is largely down to politicians of all stripes since about 1992 railroading things through without getting express consent and drifting ever further away from the governed.
The justification for staying in the EU always seems to be based on the model of a country as a business, where people are numbers on a balance sheet rather than individuals. If mass immigration of cheap labour from the EU wasn't a net positive for the country economically, it would never have been allowed. There is a reason no government ever makes it a manifesto pledge to increase immigration; it negatively affects poor people, and there are more poor voters than rich ones. As the main two parties both increased immigration no matter what, there was no way out, until the referendum... and now look at the panic from the establishment as they seek to overturn it.
For too long governments have been Asset strippers running the country for profit and dosing up the people they jettison with dole money to keep them subdued... Brexit and Corbyn are the resulting backlash, when will they learn?
The justification for staying in the EU always seems to be based on the model of a country as a business, where people are numbers on a balance sheet rather than individuals. If mass immigration of cheap labour from the EU wasn't a net positive for the country economically, it would never have been allowed. There is a reason no government ever makes it a manifesto pledge to increase immigration; it negatively affects poor people, and there are more poor voters than rich ones. As the main two parties both increased immigration no matter what, there was no way out, until the referendum... and now look at the panic from the establishment as they seek to overturn it.
For too long governments have been Asset strippers running the country for profit and dosing up the people they jettison with dole money to keep them subdued... Brexit and Corbyn are the resulting backlash, when will they learn?
...and we are meant to be moved by stories of middle class people who started a business selling Cupcakes in Highgate and now cant make such good profits because its more difficult to pay Eastern Europeans £6ph for 12 hour shifts. The horror! They might have to get a job themselves... "But Im a wealth creator!! Think of all the people I employ!!!" Oh the heart bleeds!
For too long governments have been Asset strippers running the country for profit and dosing up the people they jettison with dole money to keep them subdued... Brexit and Corbyn are the resulting backlash, when will they learn?
People voted for Brexit when we officially hit Full Employment.
Amber Rudd has said there are 40 conservative mps who would vote down Canada, about the same number as ERG who want it
And just adds to the mood music, Canada is dead
There is no chance that large numbers of Tory MPs would vote down Canada if it was the deal that May bought back. What could they possibly accomplish? There is no majority for anything else so they would be guaranteeing no deal instead. This is about the only scenario where I can see an early GE with the hardcore remainers kicked out and an election to allow the Tories approve Canada. A Canada deal would command majority support in the country assuming there have been no stupid concessions (eg backstops) going along with it.
Rudd is just desperate for attention.
The mood music over the last 24 hours has killed Canada
The thing about music is that you choose what to listen to as the mood takes you!
The issue that is 'killing' Canada is that May won't negotiate it, simply because it would require her to admit she was wrong about the necessity for a backstop. I completely believe that the EU will drop the backstop and accept CETA if the alternative is no deal. But if May keeps pushing Chequers, this is never going to be discussed.
No deal is looking like a virtual certainty at the moment. We can all come up with outlandish scenarios about how our preferred option might occur, but the reality is that neither side are actually even arguing over a deal that might happen - they are not even negotiating. Despite all the talk, nothing has happened for nine months and the most likely scenario is that nothing is going to happen now.
Raab, Gove, Hunt and Javid rejecting no deal today is significant
It is significant. They are telling her to negotiate CETA instead.
Amber Rudd has said there are 40 conservative mps who would vote down Canada, about the same number as ERG who want it
And just adds to the mood music, Canada is dead
There is no chance that large numbers of Tory MPs would vote down Canada if it was the deal that May bought back. What could they possibly accomplish? There is no majority for anything else so they would be guaranteeing no deal instead. This is about the only scenario where I can see an early GE with the hardcore remainers kicked out and an election to allow the Tories approve Canada. A Canada deal would command majority support in the country assuming there have been no stupid concessions (eg backstops) going along with it.
Rudd is just desperate for attention.
The mood music over the last 24 hours has killed Canada
The thing about music is that you choose what to listen to as the mood takes you!
The issue that is 'killing' Canada is that May won't negotiate it, simply because it would require her to admit she was wrong about the necessity for a backstop. I completely believe that the EU will drop the backstop and accept CETA if the alternative is no deal. But if May keeps pushing Chequers, this is never going to be discussed.
No deal is looking like a virtual certainty at the moment. We can all come up with outlandish scenarios about how our preferred option might occur, but the reality is that neither side are actually even arguing over a deal that might happen - they are not even negotiating. Despite all the talk, nothing has happened for nine months and the most likely scenario is that nothing is going to happen now.
Raab, Gove, Hunt and Javid rejecting no deal today is significant
It is significant. They are telling her to negotiate CETA instead.
Apparently not - too much opposition to CETA - will not get through the HOC
Amber Rudd has said there are 40 conservative mps who would vote down Canada, about the same number as ERG who want it
And just adds to the mood music, Canada is dead
There is no chance that large numbers of Tory MPs would vote down Canada if it was the deal that May bought back. What could they possibly accomplish? There is no majority for anything else so they would be guaranteeing no deal instead. This is about the only scenario where I can see an early GE with the hardcore remainers kicked out and an election to allow the Tories approve Canada. A Canada deal would command majority support in the country assuming there have been no stupid concessions (eg backstops) going along with it.
Rudd is just desperate for attention.
The mood music over the last 24 hours has killed Canada
The thing about music is that you choose what to listen to as the mood takes you!
The issue that is 'killing' Canada is that May won't negotiate it, simply because it would require her to admit she was wrong about the necessity for a backstop. I completely believe that the EU will drop the backstop and accept CETA if the alternative is no deal. But if May keeps pushing Chequers, this is never going to be discussed.
No deal is looking like a virtual certainty at the moment. We can all come up with outlandish scenarios about how our preferred option might occur, but the reality is that neither side are actually even arguing over a deal that might happen - they are not even negotiating. Despite all the talk, nothing has happened for nine months and the most likely scenario is that nothing is going to happen now.
Raab, Gove, Hunt and Javid rejecting no deal today is significant
It is significant. They are telling her to negotiate CETA instead.
What happened to the promised cabinet resignation if May didn't drop Chequers?
Amber Rudd has said there are 40 conservative mps who would vote down Canada, about the same number as ERG who want it
And just adds to the mood music, Canada is dead
There is no chance that large numbers of Tory MPs would vote down Canada if it was the deal that May bought back. What could they possibly accomplish? There is no majority for anything else so they would be guaranteeing no deal instead. This is about the only scenario where I can see an early GE with the hardcore remainers kicked out and an election to allow the Tories approve Canada. A Canada deal would command majority support in the country assuming there have been no stupid concessions (eg backstops) going along with it.
Rudd is just desperate for attention.
The mood music over the last 24 hours has killed Canada
The thing about music is that you choose what to listen to as the mood takes you!
The issue that is 'killing' Canada is that May won't negotiate it, simply because it would require her to admit she was wrong about the necessity for a backstop. I completely believe that the EU will drop the backstop and accept CETA if the alternative is no deal. But if May keeps pushing Chequers, this is never going to be discussed.
No deal is looking like a virtual certainty at the moment. We can all come up with outlandish scenarios about how our preferred option might occur, but the reality is that neither side are actually even arguing over a deal that might happen - they are not even negotiating. Despite all the talk, nothing has happened for nine months and the most likely scenario is that nothing is going to happen now.
Raab, Gove, Hunt and Javid rejecting no deal today is significant
It is significant. They are telling her to negotiate CETA instead.
What happened to the promised cabinet resignation if May didn't drop Chequers?
The cabinet are backing TM and there does seem to be a co-ordinated attack on Canada
DUP object
Amber Rudds group of 40 announce overnight they will vote it down
Amber Rudd seeks second referendum if no deal
No evidence to support any cabinet resignations over Chequers +
Today Raab, Gove, Hunt and Javid say they will prevent no deal
Just straws in the wind but looks like Canada is dead, assume because of its effect on manufacturing and the Irish border
What's the "Liechtenstein Scenario"? This particular arcane wrinkle of Brexit seems to have passed me by.
It's a variant of Norway where we join the EEA and then say that because we have no space we need to implement residence permits.
Thanks. Things are now so fucked it's not even surprising that mad ideas like this are metastasising.
Joining the EEA can only happen after we leave the EU. The treaties are explicit EU members cannot be part of the EEA.
So we have to apply to go through EFTA and they have to meet and decide whether a big politically bi-polar country should be allowed to join their small club.
There is no route to these other "clubs" without leaving our existing one. We cannot transition into them.
I cant have two internet providers on one telephone line I have to leave TalkTalk to move to Plusnet. Somehow they manage to make a seemless transition.
It only looks seamless, but there is often some downtime, and every so often it is a complete shambles and people are left without internet for 5 to 10 days.
We still have to leave the EU and all our treaty agreements lapse as a result. Opportunistic countries might not agree to renew them except to our disadvantage (especially the USA) and EFTA is lukewarm on having a new member who (economically) outweighs all the other EFTA countries put together.
Amber Rudd has said there are 40 conservative mps who would vote down Canada, about the same number as ERG who want it
And just adds to the mood music, Canada is dead
There is no chance that large numbers of Tory MPs would vote down Canada if it was the deal that May bought back. What could they possibly accomplish? There is no majority for anything else so they would be guaranteeing no deal instead. This is about the only scenario where I can see an early GE with the hardcore remainers kicked out and an election to allow the Tories approve Canada. A Canada deal would command majority support in the country assuming there have been no stupid concessions (eg backstops) going along with it.
Rudd is just desperate for attention.
The mood music over the last 24 hours has killed Canada
The thing about music is that you choose what to listen to as the mood takes you!
The issue that is 'killing' Canada is that May won't negotiate it, simply because it would require her to admit she was wrong about the necessity for a backstop. I completely believe that the EU will drop the backstop and accept CETA if the alternative is no deal. But if May keeps pushing Chequers, this is never going to be discussed.
No deal is looking like a virtual certainty at the moment. We can all come up with outlandish scenarios about how our preferred option might occur, but the reality is that neither side are actually even arguing over a deal that might happen - they are not even negotiating. Despite all the talk, nothing has happened for nine months and the most likely scenario is that nothing is going to happen now.
Raab, Gove, Hunt and Javid rejecting no deal today is significant
It is significant. They are telling her to negotiate CETA instead.
What happened to the promised cabinet resignation if May didn't drop Chequers?
The cabinet are backing TM and there does seem to be a co-ordinated attack on Canada
DUP object
Amber Rudds group of 40 announce overnight they will vote it down
Amber Rudd seeks second referendum if no deal
No evidence to support any cabinet resignations over Chequers +
Today Raab, Gove, Hunt and Javid say they will prevent no deal
Just straws in the wind but looks like Canada is dead, assume because of its effect on manufacturing
It looks like EEA is the only option. Lets hope the EFTA states will have us. Also - EFTA is not in the Customs Union ..
Incidentally I think you aren't quite right on a couple of points. The principal objection to a Canada-style deal, other than as you say the Irish problem, is the supply-chain issue for the car and aerospace industries. Also the transition to EEA certainly couldn't be done quickly: it would require the unanimous formal consent of 31 countries, and a lot of negotiation over exact terms, payments etc. And there is zero chance that FoM could be fudged in an EEA scenario; it would be identical to remaining in the EU in that respect.
And in the end its all down to FOM. For a variety of reasons, cultural and economic, people have decided they want shut of the foreigners. If only anyone foreign would FUCK OFF then we could all have jobs selling things to the same foreigners. Not that the people want to do the jobs that the foreigners are doing, FUCK THAT, "I ain't picking fruit".
How we get there doesn't matter. What else might happen doesn't matter. Practical facts, evidence, sanity doesn't matter. We just want our country back. And woe betide any politician and any party who points out to the bigoted woman that she is an ignorant stupid bigot...
Mr NorthWales, re your comment some minutes goa about "blaming" the 52%; I don't mind blaming them. I am not a politician so I don't have to pretend I don't think they were stupid.. It doesn't mean they are stupid all the time, just on this particular occasion. It was an act of national stupidity. Just because it appeared democratic doesn't mean it is beyond reproach. It happens in lots of countries including the US with their vote for the Psycho-in-Chief.
Yes but respect is needed for both sides. Name calling gets us nowhere
Sorry but no respect is required for stupid decision making. Politicians have to pretend this, the rest of us might as well call it for what it is. If a person you knew took an unnecessary gamble with his/her family's future you would say they were an idiot, not that you should respect their decision, when it was clearly idiotic.
But, people who voted for Brexit don't consider it idiotic at all.
I rest my case
"People who disagree with me are idiotic" isn't a case.
Raab, Hunt, Gove etc are saying to back Canada over no deal. So would enough others if that is the deal reached.
If in the next couple of weeks it becomes clear that Chequers is dead but the EU will agree to Canada and May strikes a Canada deal would you oppose that and prefer no deal? Would the HOC?
The most significant news today is Raab, Gove, Hunt and Javid backing Canada as an alternative to no deal.
DORA 1914 and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 both completed all stages in a single day I believe.
Indeed. Parliament is sovereign (and always has been, as we know). It could hold a referendum next Friday were it so minded.
Not really. The problem is the wording rather than the timing and the debates on that will be extraordinary
The referendum was only advisory, it had no legal force. If there was a need Brexit could simply be stopped, parked, A50 suspended or withdrawn and the whole thing dealt with on a reasonable schedule.
Maybe if we (and Ireland) applied to join Canada as new provinces...
We could do a swap with Quebec if that's easier - they come out and join the EU while we go in with Canada. We (and Ireland) inherit CETA and NAFTA - easy! The new Canada solution
Amber Rudd has said there are 40 conservative mps who would vote down Canada, about the same number as ERG who want it
And just adds to the mood music, Canada is dead
There is no chance that large numbers of Tory MPs would vote down Canada if it was the deal that May bought back. What could they possibly accomplish?
Rudd is just desperate for attention.
The mood music over the last 24 hours has killed Canada
The thing about music is that you choose what to listen to as the mood takes you!
The issue that is 'killing' Canada is that May won't negotiate it, simply because it would require her to admit she was wrong about the necessity for a backstop. I completely believe that the EU will drop the backstop and accept CETA if the alternative is no deal. But if May keeps pushing Chequers, this is never going to be discussed.
No deal is looking like a virtual certainty at the moment. We can all come up with outlandish scenarios about how our preferred option might occur, but the reality is that neither side are actually even arguing over a deal that might happen - they are not even negotiating. Despite all the talk, nothing has happened for nine months and the most likely scenario is that nothing is going to happen now.
Raab, Gove, Hunt and Javid rejecting no deal today is significant
Yes it is. Because they said the alternative to Chequers should be Canada and not no deal. So why are you taking that as them killing Canada? They're pushing it up the agenda as the backstop for when Chequers has its plug pulled. They're going against May and saying "reject Chequers and the alternative is Canada" instead of "reject Chequers and we have no deal".
Raab, Hunt, Gove etc are saying to back Canada over no deal. So would enough others if that is the deal reached.
If in the next couple of weeks it becomes clear that Chequers is dead but the EU will agree to Canada and May strikes a Canada deal would you oppose that and prefer no deal? Would the HOC?
Sadly I think you are going to be very disappointed. If TM struck a Canada deal of course I would but you are not listening to the clear direction of travel
DORA 1914 and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 both completed all stages in a single day I believe.
Indeed. Parliament is sovereign (and always has been, as we know). It could hold a referendum next Friday were it so minded.
Not really. The problem is the wording rather than the timing and the debates on that will be extraordinary
The referendum was only advisory, it had no legal force. If there was a need Brexit could simply be stopped, parked, A50 suspended or withdrawn and the whole thing dealt with on a reasonable schedule.
Except didn't good old Gina Miller make sure it went through as an Act?
Amber Rudd has said there are 40 conservative mps who would vote down Canada, about the same number as ERG who want it
And just adds to the mood music, Canada is dead
There is no chance that large numbers of Tory MPs would vote down Canada if it was the deal that May bought back. What could they possibly accomplish?
Rudd is just desperate for attention.
The mood music over the last 24 hours has killed Canada
The thing about music is that you choose what to listen to as the mood takes you!
Th No deal is looking like a virtual certainty at the moment. We can all come up with outlandish scenarios about how our preferred option might occur, but the reality is that neither side are actually even arguing over a deal that might happen - they are not even negotiating. Despite all the talk, nothing has happened for nine months and the most likely scenario is that nothing is going to happen now.
Raab, Gove, Hunt and Javid rejecting no deal today is significant
Yes it is. Because they said the alternative to Chequers should be Canada and not no deal. So why are you taking that as them killing Canada? They're pushing it up the agenda as the backstop for when Chequers has its plug pulled. They're going against May and saying "reject Chequers and the alternative is Canada" instead of "reject Chequers and we have no deal".
Raab, Hunt, Gove etc are saying to back Canada over no deal. So would enough others if that is the deal reached.
If in the next couple of weeks it becomes clear that Chequers is dead but the EU will agree to Canada and May strikes a Canada deal would you oppose that and prefer no deal? Would the HOC?
Sadly I think you are going to be very disappointed. If TM struck a Canada deal of course I would but you are not listening to the clear direction of travel
It looks like a Canada is a non-starter as the EU will insist on the Irish backstop. We would have the threaten NO DEAL seriously if we wanted to pursue it. I do not think NO DEAL is viable - if TM attempted it I think the cabinet would depose her.
DORA 1914 and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 both completed all stages in a single day I believe.
Indeed. Parliament is sovereign (and always has been, as we know). It could hold a referendum next Friday were it so minded.
Not really. The problem is the wording rather than the timing and the debates on that will be extraordinary
I suspect that if we are forced into an emergency referendum it will be either remain or no deal. So the wording of that will not be difficult. Parliament could put the wording of the question into the legislation.
Amber Rudd has said there are 40 conservative mps who would vote down Canada, about the same number as ERG who want it
And just adds to the mood music, Canada is dead
There is no chance that large numbers of Tory MPs would vote down Canada if it was the deal that May bought back. What could they possibly accomplish?
Rudd is just desperate for attention.
The mood music over the last 24 hours has killed Canada
The thing about music is that you choose what to listen to as the mood takes you!
Th No deal is looking like a virtual certainty at the moment. We can all come up with outlandish scenarios about how our preferred option might occur, but the reality is that neither side are actually even arguing over a deal that might happen - they are not even negotiating. Despite all the talk, nothing has happened for nine months and the most likely scenario is that nothing is going to happen now.
Raab, Gove, Hunt and Javid rejecting no deal today is significant
Yes it is. Because they said the alternative to Chequers should be Canada and not no deal. So why are you taking that as them killing Canada? They're pushing it up the agenda as the backstop for when Chequers has its plug pulled. They're going against May and saying "reject Chequers and the alternative is Canada" instead of "reject Chequers and we have no deal".
Raab, Hunt, Gove etc are saying to back Canada over no deal. So would enough others if that is the deal reached.
If in the next couple of weeks it becomes clear that Chequers is dead but the EU will agree to Canada and May strikes a Canada deal would you oppose that and prefer no deal? Would the HOC?
Sadly I think you are going to be very disappointed. If TM struck a Canada deal of course I would but you are not listening to the clear direction of travel
It looks like a Canada is a non-starter as the EU will insist on the Irish backstop. We would have the threaten NO DEAL seriously if we wanted to pursue it. I do not think NO DEAL is viable - if TM attempted it I think the cabinet would depose her.
DORA 1914 and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 both completed all stages in a single day I believe.
Indeed. Parliament is sovereign (and always has been, as we know). It could hold a referendum next Friday were it so minded.
Not really. The problem is the wording rather than the timing and the debates on that will be extraordinary
I suspect that if we are forced into an emergency referendum it will be either remain or no deal. So the wording of that will not be difficult. Parliament could put the wording of the question into the legislation.
DORA 1914 and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 both completed all stages in a single day I believe.
Indeed. Parliament is sovereign (and always has been, as we know). It could hold a referendum next Friday were it so minded.
Not really. The problem is the wording rather than the timing and the debates on that will be extraordinary
I suspect that if we are forced into an emergency referendum it will be either remain or no deal. So the wording of that will not be difficult. Parliament could put the wording of the question into the legislation.
The two most extreme options. I doubt it would come to that. In the event of stalemate I think the government would sue for EFTA / EEA - at least we could say we have left the EU/.
Anyway, we seem to have few options and all of them bad:
- Attempt a Canada-style deal. This would take many years (just look at how long CETA took, and that's still not fully operational), with an associated transition period of true BINO. Few in Parliament seem to want it, and the issues with Ireland/Northern Ireland/Irish Sea borders are real. - Transition to EEA. This could be done quickly and relatively easily (and painlessly) and there's possibly a majority in Parliament for it, but it's a hard sell to the public, especially with FoM (which may be overcomable with the Liechtenstein scenario). Possibly the least popular option with the public. - Multiple minimal deal Brexit ("controlled No Deal"): Massive queues at ports, significant issues with trade (including supply chain issues that would propagate throughout the domestic economy), very few preparations are really done, would cause serious issues that wouldn't be solved in the near term - No Deal ("crash out No Deal"). Really really bad, colossal queues at ports, serious damage to trade and domestic economy, few preparations really done, would cause huge issues that would take many years to resolve. - Remain after all. Now launching Leavers-1 to orbit, serious anger, loss of faith in democracy, minimal economic issues, political and social issues that led to the Brexit vote could be swept under the table.
Have I missed any?
Yes: Chequers. "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
Incidentally I think you aren't quite right on a couple of points. The principal objection to a Canada-style deal, other than as you say the Irish problem, is the supply-chain issue for the car and aerospace industries. Also the transition to EEA certainly couldn't be done quickly: it would require the unanimous formal consent of 31 countries, and a lot of negotiation over exact terms, payments etc. And there is zero chance that FoM could be fudged in an EEA scenario; it would be identical to remaining in the EU in that respect.
Chequers is dead; it's not an option. It's one of the impossible ones rejected; the rest are merely highly unpalatable. You're right with the Canada-style deal - it would indeed increase the supply-chain issues; it's less attractive as well as being difficult and prolonged. The EEA transition is relatively easy - there's an appropriate off-the-shelf agreement; it's just the ratification required (Payments are already made clear in it). You're right that it's not necessarily that quick to sign and get ratified, but it's orders of magnitude quicker than any alternative agreement other than controlled crash or uncontrolled crash.
Maybe if we (and Ireland) applied to join Canada as new provinces...
We could do a swap with Quebec if that's easier - they come out and join the EU while we go in with Canada. We (and Ireland) inherit CETA and NAFTA - easy! The new Canada solution
Haven't you heard? NAFTA is dead. It's going to be the USMC (US, Mexico, Canada) area in future. I dunno if Trump was making a heavy-handed hint that he'd send in the other USMC if Mexico and Canada won't play ball.
Sadly I think you are going to be very disappointed. If TM struck a Canada deal of course I would but you are not listening to the clear direction of travel
Raab, Hunt, Gove and Javid are setting the clear direction of travel but you have totally misunderstood them.
They haven't said no to no deal. They have said Canada over no deal.
DORA 1914 and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 both completed all stages in a single day I believe.
Indeed. Parliament is sovereign (and always has been, as we know). It could hold a referendum next Friday were it so minded.
Not really. The problem is the wording rather than the timing and the debates on that will be extraordinary
I suspect that if we are forced into an emergency referendum it will be either remain or no deal. So the wording of that will not be difficult. Parliament could put the wording of the question into the legislation.
The two most extreme options. I doubt it would come to that. In the event of stalemate I think the government would sue for EFTA / EEA - at least we could say we have left the EU/.
It's hard to see May being able to grovel to the EU for an EEA arrangement after all she has said - it would be personally and politically an abject humiliation. If it came to such an eventuality I think the whole Idea of Brexit would be brought into question and pressure would build for a complete reversal.
Sadly I think you are going to be very disappointed. If TM struck a Canada deal of course I would but you are not listening to the clear direction of travel
Raab, Hunt, Gove and Javid are setting the clear direction of travel but you have totally misunderstood them.
They haven't said no to no deal. They have said Canada over no deal.
Jeremy Hunt live on Sky has just said Chequers is not dead.
DORA 1914 and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 both completed all stages in a single day I believe.
Indeed. Parliament is sovereign (and always has been, as we know). It could hold a referendum next Friday were it so minded.
Not really. The problem is the wording rather than the timing and the debates on that will be extraordinary
I suspect that if we are forced into an emergency referendum it will be either remain or no deal. So the wording of that will not be difficult. Parliament could put the wording of the question into the legislation.
The two most extreme options. I doubt it would come to that. In the event of stalemate I think the government would sue for EFTA / EEA - at least we could say we have left the EU/.
It's hard to see May being able to grovel to the EU for an EEA arrangement after all she has said - it would be personally and politically an abject humiliation. If it came to such an eventuality I think the whole Idea of Brexit would be brought into question and pressure would build for a complete reversal.
An EEA fall back is fine, virtually no discontinuity for the economy.
DORA 1914 and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 both completed all stages in a single day I believe.
Indeed. Parliament is sovereign (and always has been, as we know). It could hold a referendum next Friday were it so minded.
Not really. The problem is the wording rather than the timing and the debates on that will be extraordinary
I suspect that if we are forced into an emergency referendum it will be either remain or no deal. So the wording of that will not be difficult. Parliament could put the wording of the question into the legislation.
The two most extreme options. I doubt it would come to that. In the event of stalemate I think the government would sue for EFTA / EEA - at least we could say we have left the EU/.
It's hard to see May being able to grovel to the EU for an EEA arrangement after all she has said - it would be personally and politically an abject humiliation. If it came to such an eventuality I think the whole Idea of Brexit would be brought into question and pressure would build for a complete reversal.
No it would open the splits further and merely bolster Brexiteers' view of the EU as malign (in that case).
Chequers is dead; it's not an option. It's one of the impossible ones rejected; the rest are merely highly unpalatable. You're right with the Canada-style deal - it would indeed increase the supply-chain issues; it's less attractive as well as being difficult and prolonged. The EEA transition is relatively easy - there's an appropriate off-the-shelf agreement; it's just the ratification required (Payments are already made clear in it). You're right that it's not necessarily that quick to sign and get ratified, but it's orders of magnitude quicker than any alternative agreement other than controlled crash or uncontrolled crash.
I don't think Chequers is dead in reality, although of course it won't be the exact set of proposals in the Chequers document; this is a negotiation (or set of negotiations with various parties).
In fact the whole debate is framed in over-binary terms: Chequers and Canada are not simple alternatives, but are points on a spectrum. If there is a deal, then I think the most likely outcome is something closer to Chequers than to any other proposal which has been mooted, for the reasons which Theresa May gave at the weekend.
DORA 1914 and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 both completed all stages in a single day I believe.
Indeed. Parliament is sovereign (and always has been, as we know). It could hold a referendum next Friday were it so minded.
Not really. The problem is the wording rather than the timing and the debates on that will be extraordinary
I suspect that if we are forced into an emergency referendum it will be either remain or no deal. So the wording of that will not be difficult. Parliament could put the wording of the question into the legislation.
The two most extreme options. I doubt it would come to that. In the event of stalemate I think the government would sue for EFTA / EEA - at least we could say we have left the EU/.
It's hard to see May being able to grovel to the EU for an EEA arrangement after all she has said - it would be personally and politically an abject humiliation. If it came to such an eventuality I think the whole Idea of Brexit would be brought into question and pressure would build for a complete reversal.
No it would open the splits further and merely bolster Brexiteers' view of the EU as malign (in that case).
The 40 or so ultra Brexiteers risk losing everything if they are not careful. They are a small group in the HOC
DORA 1914 and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 both completed all stages in a single day I believe.
Indeed. Parliament is sovereign (and always has been, as we know). It could hold a referendum next Friday were it so minded.
Not really. The problem is the wording rather than the timing and the debates on that will be extraordinary
I suspect that if we are forced into an emergency referendum it will be either remain or no deal. So the wording of that will not be difficult. Parliament could put the wording of the question into the legislation.
The two most extreme options. I doubt it would come to that. In the event of stalemate I think the government would sue for EFTA / EEA - at least we could say we have left the EU/.
It's hard to see May being able to grovel to the EU for an EEA arrangement after all she has said - it would be personally and politically an abject humiliation. If it came to such an eventuality I think the whole Idea of Brexit would be brought into question and pressure would build for a complete reversal.
No it would open the splits further and merely bolster Brexiteers' view of the EU as malign (in that case).
The 40 or so ultra Brexiteers risk losing everything if they are not careful. They are a small group in the HOC
Sadly I think you are going to be very disappointed. If TM struck a Canada deal of course I would but you are not listening to the clear direction of travel
Raab, Hunt, Gove and Javid are setting the clear direction of travel but you have totally misunderstood them.
They haven't said no to no deal. They have said Canada over no deal.
Jeremy Hunt live on Sky has just said Chequers is not dead.
You are in denial over Canada
He is in the Cabinet of course he has to say that.
Simultaneously though he is contradicting May's line that it is Chequers or no deal by saying we have a Plan B (Canada) over no deal. You are in denial.
Hunt has made it clear that it is Chequers or Canada. The EU have said no to Chequera so unless they recant then the only solution left is Canada
Anyway, we seem to have few options and all of them bad:
- Attempt a Canada-style deal. This would take many years (just look at how long CETA took, and that's still not fully operational), with an associated transition period of true BINO. Few in Parliament seem to want it, and the issues with Ireland/Northern Ireland/Irish Sea borders are real. - Transition to EEA. This could be done quickly and relatively easily (and painlessly) and there's possibly a majority in Parliament for it, but it's a hard sell to the public, especially with FoM (which may be overcomable with the Liechtenstein scenario). Possibly the least popular option with the public. - Multiple minimal deal Brexit ("controlled No Deal"): Massive queues at ports, significant issues with trade (including supply chain issues that would propagate throughout the domestic economy), very few preparations are really done, would cause serious issues that wouldn't be solved in the near term - No Deal ("crash out No Deal"). Really really bad, colossal queues at ports, serious damage to trade and domestic economy, few preparations really done, would cause huge issues that would take many years to resolve. - Remain after all. Now launching Leavers-1 to orbit, serious anger, loss of faith in democracy, minimal economic issues, political and social issues that led to the Brexit vote could be swept under the table.
Have I missed any?
terms, payments etc. And there is zero chance that FoM could be fudged in an EEA scenario; it would be identical to remaining in the EU in that respect.
Chequers is dead; it's not an option. It's one of the impossible ones rejected; the rest are merely highly unpalatable. You're right with the Canada-style deal - it would indeed increase the supply-chain issues; it's less attractive as well as being difficult and prolonged. The EEA transition is relatively easy - there's an appropriate off-the-shelf agreement; it's just the ratification required (Payments are already made clear in it). You're right that it's not necessarily that quick to sign and get ratified, but it's orders of magnitude quicker than any alternative agreement other than controlled crash or uncontrolled crash.
No food or fish in EEA. Why would Ireland, France, NL, DK, PL, It, ES or basically all of them accept that?
The issue is that there is no good reason for the Conservative Party to back a referendum.
I would argue this is the wrong question. The Conservative party is not in a position where it could advocate a referendum for positive advantage. If things continue, it will be soon be in a position where it *has* to advocate for a referendum its own, and the economy's survival.
EEA damages the Tory party hugely but might well be the least worst option for the country (certainly economically). Crash-out Brexit might be the only route the Conservative Party will let happen (all others will fall to infighting), and that could be the worst of all options both for the country and the Conservative Party (who will inevitably be blamed for all the downsides). Looks like a bad game theory exercise, all in all; shame it's got 64 million people being pulled along.
Sadly I think you are going to be very disappointed. If TM struck a Canada deal of course I would but you are not listening to the clear direction of travel
Raab, Hunt, Gove and Javid are setting the clear direction of travel but you have totally misunderstood them.
They haven't said no to no deal. They have said Canada over no deal.
Jeremy Hunt live on Sky has just said Chequers is not dead.
You are in denial over Canada
He is in the Cabinet of course he has to say that.
Simultaneously though he is contradicting May's line that it is Chequers or no deal by saying we have a Plan B (Canada) over no deal. You are in denial.
What are you talking about. He has in the last 20 minutes confirmed Chequers is the only deal in town live on Sky and Faisal Islam endorsed his view
You can watch his interview tonight on Sky at 9.30
DORA 1914 and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 both completed all stages in a single day I believe.
Indeed. Parliament is sovereign (and always has been, as we know). It could hold a referendum next Friday were it so minded.
Not really. The problem is the wording rather than the timing and the debates on that will be extraordinary
I suspect that if we are forced into an emergency referendum it will be either remain or no deal. So the wording of that will not be difficult. Parliament could put the wording of the question into the legislation.
The two most extreme options. I doubt it would come to that. In the event of stalemate I think the government would sue for EFTA / EEA - at least we could say we have left the EU/.
It's hard to see May being able to grovel to the EU for an EEA arrangement after all she has said - it would be personally and politically an abject humiliation. If it came to such an eventuality I think the whole Idea of Brexit would be brought into question and pressure would build for a complete reversal.
No it would open the splits further and merely bolster Brexiteers' view of the EU as malign (in that case).
The 40 or so ultra Brexiteers risk losing everything if they are not careful. They are a small group in the HOC
If they have any sense their vital goal should be to get over the line on 29/3/19.
EEA damages the Tory party hugely but might well be the least worst option for the country (certainly economically). Crash-out Brexit might be the only route the Conservative Party will let happen (all others will fall to infighting), and that could be the worst of all options both for the country and the Conservative Party (who will inevitably be blamed for all the downsides). Looks like a bad game theory exercise, all in all; shame it's got 64 million people being pulled along.
The Tory party would much prefer a referendum, to crash-out Brexit, or a Corbyn victory, so in the game theory testing out of negative outcomes, that's the most likely.
DORA 1914 and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 both completed all stages in a single day I believe.
Indeed. Parliament is sovereign (and always has been, as we know). It could hold a referendum next Friday were it so minded.
Not really. The problem is the wording rather than the timing and the debates on that will be extraordinary
The referendum was only advisory, it had no legal force. If there was a need Brexit could simply be stopped, parked, A50 suspended or withdrawn and the whole thing dealt with on a reasonable schedule.
Except didn't good old Gina Miller make sure it went through as an Act?
No. She had a ruling that the Executive could not unilaterally request A50 without Parliament's approval.
If Parliament had either brains or a spine, they would not have let Mrs May do it without a plan in place first. The referendum is still advisory and what Parliament can grant, Parliament can revoke.
DORA 1914 and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 both completed all stages in a single day I believe.
Indeed. Parliament is sovereign (and always has been, as we know). It could hold a referendum next Friday were it so minded.
Not really. The problem is the wording rather than the timing and the debates on that will be extraordinary
I suspect that if we are forced into an emergency referendum it will be either remain or no deal. So the wording of that will not be difficult. Parliament could put the wording of the question into the legislation.
The two most extreme options. I doubt it would come to that. In the event of stalemate I think the government would sue for EFTA / EEA - at least we could say we have left the EU/.
It's hard to see May being able to grovel to the EU for an EEA arrangement after all she has said - it would be personally and politically an abject humiliation. If it came to such an eventuality I think the whole Idea of Brexit would be brought into question and pressure would build for a complete reversal.
No it would open the splits further and merely bolster Brexiteers' view of the EU as malign (in that case).
The 40 or so ultra Brexiteers risk losing everything if they are not careful. They are a small group in the HOC
I meant the voters.
I agree the voters will be livid one way or another
Anyway, we seem to have few options and all of them bad:
- Attempt a Canada-style deal. This would take many years (just look at how long CETA took, and that's still not fully operational), with an associated transition period of true BINO. Few in Parliament seem to want it, and the issues with Ireland/Northern Ireland/Irish Sea borders are real. - Transition to EEA. This could be done quickly and relatively easily (and painlessly) and there's possibly a majority in Parliament for it, but it's a hard sell to the public, especially with FoM (which may be overcomable with the Liechtenstein scenario). Possibly the least popular option with the public. - Multiple minimal deal Brexit ("controlled No Deal"): Massive queues at ports, significant issues with trade (including supply chain issues that would propagate throughout the domestic economy), very few preparations are really done, would cause serious issues that wouldn't be solved in the near term - No Deal ("crash out No Deal"). Really really bad, colossal queues at ports, serious damage to trade and domestic economy, few preparations really done, would cause huge issues that would take many years to resolve. - Remain after all. Now launching Leavers-1 to orbit, serious anger, loss of faith in democracy, minimal economic issues, political and social issues that led to the Brexit vote could be swept under the table.
Have I missed any?
terms, payments etc. And there is zero chance that FoM could be fudged in an EEA scenario; it would be identical to remaining in the EU in that respect.
Chequers is dead; it's not an option. It's one of the impossible ones rejected; the rest are merely highly unpalatable. You're right with the Canada-style deal - it would indeed increase the supply-chain issues; it's less attractive as well as being difficult and prolonged. The EEA transition is relatively easy - there's an appropriate off-the-shelf agreement; it's just the ratification required (Payments are already made clear in it). You're right that it's not necessarily that quick to sign and get ratified, but it's orders of magnitude quicker than any alternative agreement other than controlled crash or uncontrolled crash.
No food or fish in EEA. Why would Ireland, France, NL, DK, PL, It, ES or basically all of them accept that?
Minimum turmoil, minimum disruption, keeps us close to the orbit of the EU, already agreed as a standard Agreement, makes everyone's lives easier. They'd accept EEA, no question. The difficult bit is if we would accept it, and that's a big hurdle.
DORA 1914 and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 both completed all stages in a single day I believe.
Indeed. Parliament is sovereign (and always has been, as we know). It could hold a referendum next Friday were it so minded.
Not really. The problem is the wording rather than the timing and the debates on that will be extraordinary
I suspect that if we are forced into an emergency referendum it will be either remain or no deal. So the wording of that will not be difficult. Parliament could put the wording of the question into the legislation.
The two most extreme options. I doubt it would come to that. In the event of stalemate I think the government would sue for EFTA / EEA - at least we could say we have left the EU/.
It's hard to see May being able to grovel to the EU for an EEA arrangement after all she has said - it would be personally and politically an abject humiliation. If it came to such an eventuality I think the whole Idea of Brexit would be brought into question and pressure would build for a complete reversal.
No it would open the splits further and merely bolster Brexiteers' view of the EU as malign (in that case).
The 40 or so ultra Brexiteers risk losing everything if they are not careful. They are a small group in the HOC
Brexit is closer to collapse now than at any time since the referendum. And as no deal approaches the pressure will build. The odds are still that it will go ahead in some form, but the chances of a screeching u-turn on the part of the UK are growing.
DORA 1914 and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 both completed all stages in a single day I believe.
Indeed. Parliament is sovereign (and always has been, as we know). It could hold a referendum next Friday were it so minded.
Not really. The problem is the wording rather than the timing and the debates on that will be extraordinary
I suspect that if we are forced into an emergency referendum it will be either remain or no deal. So the wording of that will not be difficult. Parliament could put the wording of the question into the legislation.
The two most extreme options. I doubt it would come to that. In the event of stalemate I think the government would sue for EFTA / EEA - at least we could say we have left the EU/.
It's hard to see May being able to grovel to the EU for an EEA arrangement after all she has said - it would be personally and politically an abject humiliation. If it came to such an eventuality I think the whole Idea of Brexit would be brought into question and pressure would build for a complete reversal.
No it would open the splits further and merely bolster Brexiteers' view of the EU as malign (in that case).
The 40 or so ultra Brexiteers risk losing everything if they are not careful. They are a small group in the HOC
If they have any sense their vital goal should be to get over the line on 29/3/19.
DORA 1914 and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 both completed all stages in a single day I believe.
Indeed. Parliament is sovereign (and always has been, as we know). It could hold a referendum next Friday were it so minded.
Not really. The problem is the wording rather than the timing and the debates on that will be extraordinary
I suspect that if we are forced into an emergency referendum it will be either remain or no deal. So the wording of that will not be difficult. Parliament could put the wording of the question into the legislation.
The two most extreme options. I doubt it would come to that. In the event of stalemate I think the government would sue for EFTA / EEA - at least we could say we have left the EU/.
It's hard to see May being able to grovel to the EU for an EEA arrangement after all she has said - it would be personally and politically an abject humiliation. If it came to such an eventuality I think the whole Idea of Brexit would be brought into question and pressure would build for a complete reversal.
No it would open the splits further and merely bolster Brexiteers' view of the EU as malign (in that case).
The 40 or so ultra Brexiteers risk losing everything if they are not careful. They are a small group in the HOC
Brexit is closer to collapse now than at any time since the referendum. And as no deal approaches the pressure will build. The odds are still that it will go ahead in some form, but the chances of a screeching u-turn on the part of the UK are growing.
Sadly I think you are going to be very disappointed. If TM struck a Canada deal of course I would but you are not listening to the clear direction of travel
Raab, Hunt, Gove and Javid are setting the clear direction of travel but you have totally misunderstood them.
They haven't said no to no deal. They have said Canada over no deal.
Jeremy Hunt live on Sky has just said Chequers is not dead.
You are in denial over Canada
He is in the Cabinet of course he has to say that.
Simultaneously though he is contradicting May's line that it is Chequers or no deal by saying we have a Plan B (Canada) over no deal. You are in denial.
What are you talking about. He has in the last 20 minutes confirmed Chequers is the only deal in town live on Sky and Faisal Islam endorsed his view
You can watch his interview tonight on Sky at 9.30
DORA 1914 and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 both completed all stages in a single day I believe.
Indeed. Parliament is sovereign (and always has been, as we know). It could hold a referendum next Friday were it so minded.
Not really. The problem is the wording rather than the timing and the debates on that will be extraordinary
I suspect that if we are forced into an emergency referendum it will be either remain or no deal. So the wording of that will not be difficult. Parliament could put the wording of the question into the legislation.
The two most extreme options. I doubt it would come to that. In the event of stalemate I think the government would sue for EFTA / EEA - at least we could say we have left the EU/.
It's hard to see May being able to grovel to the EU for an EEA arrangement after all she has said - it would be personally and politically an abject humiliation. If it came to such an eventuality I think the whole Idea of Brexit would be brought into question and pressure would build for a complete reversal.
No it would open the splits further and merely bolster Brexiteers' view of the EU as malign (in that case).
The 40 or so ultra Brexiteers risk losing everything if they are not careful. They are a small group in the HOC
I meant the voters.
I agree the voters will be livid one way or another
It does point rather towards another referendum. Either way, get the voters to dip their hands in the blood. No arguing over "this isn't the Brexit we voted for".
But the Conservative voters (who are most motivated to leave) don't want to risk leaving at all, so they'll want an exit with no further vote right up until things turn to ratshit, at which point, they'll turn on the Tories faster than you can say "hang on, what?", and blame them for everything.
May has a number of options, all of them terrible.
Sadly I think you are going to be very disappointed. If TM struck a Canada deal of course I would but you are not listening to the clear direction of travel
Raab, Hunt, Gove and Javid are setting the clear direction of travel but you have totally misunderstood them.
They haven't said no to no deal. They have said Canada over no deal.
Jeremy Hunt live on Sky has just said Chequers is not dead.
You are in denial over Canada
He is in the Cabinet of course he has to say that.
Simultaneously though he is contradicting May's line that it is Chequers or no deal by saying we have a Plan B (Canada) over no deal. You are in denial.
What are you talking about. He has in the last 20 minutes confirmed Chequers is the only deal in town live on Sky and Faisal Islam endorsed his view
You can watch his interview tonight on Sky at 9.30
He has to say that. But Chequers is dead, as everyone except TM knows. Of course people in the cabinet are discussing what is to be done next. If May can't face reality, one of them may have to do it.
DORA 1914 and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 both completed all stages in a single day I believe.
Indeed. Parliament is sovereign (and always has been, as we know). It could hold a referendum next Friday were it so minded.
Not really. The problem is the wording rather than the timing and the debates on that will be extraordinary
The referendum was only advisory, it had no legal force. If there was a need Brexit could simply be stopped, parked, A50 suspended or withdrawn and the whole thing dealt with on a reasonable schedule.
Except didn't good old Gina Miller make sure it went through as an Act?
No. She had a ruling that the Executive could not unilaterally request A50 without Parliament's approval.
If Parliament had either brains or a spine, they would not have let Mrs May do it without a plan in place first. The referendum is still advisory and what Parliament can grant, Parliament can revoke.
Yes. It could even repeal any Act that had made it non advisory, so to speak.
However, at that point we really are off to the races.
I wanted some of PP's evens on Kavanaugh not to be appointed. I was only thinking of a tenner, turns out they've capped me to £2.50. It's at evens not 10/1!!!
Sadly I think you are going to be very disappointed. If TM struck a Canada deal of course I would but you are not listening to the clear direction of travel
Raab, Hunt, Gove and Javid are setting the clear direction of travel but you have totally misunderstood them.
They haven't said no to no deal. They have said Canada over no deal.
Jeremy Hunt live on Sky has just said Chequers is not dead.
You are in denial over Canada
He is in the Cabinet of course he has to say that.
Simultaneously though he is contradicting May's line that it is Chequers or no deal by saying we have a Plan B (Canada) over no deal. You are in denial.
What are you talking about. He has in the last 20 minutes confirmed Chequers is the only deal in town live on Sky and Faisal Islam endorsed his view
You can watch his interview tonight on Sky at 9.30
DORA 1914 and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 both completed all stages in a single day I believe.
Indeed. Parliament is sovereign (and always has been, as we know). It could hold a referendum next Friday were it so minded.
Not really. The problem is the wording rather than the timing and the debates on that will be extraordinary
I suspect that if we are forced into an emergency referendum it will be either remain or no deal. So the wording of that will not be difficult. Parliament could put the wording of the question into the legislation.
The two most extreme options. I doubt it would come to that. In the event of stalemate I think the government would sue for EFTA / EEA - at least we could say we have left the EU/.
It's hard to see May being able to grovel to the EU for an EEA arrangement after all she has said - it would be personally and politically an abject humiliation. If it came to such an eventuality I think the whole Idea of Brexit would be brought into question and pressure would build for a complete reversal.
No it would open the splits further and merely bolster Brexiteers' view of the EU as malign (in that case).
The 40 or so ultra Brexiteers risk losing everything if they are not careful. They are a small group in the HOC
I meant the voters.
I agree the voters will be livid one way or another
It does point rather towards another referendum. Either way, get the voters to dip their hands in the blood. No arguing over "this isn't the Brexit we voted for".
But the Conservative voters (who are most motivated to leave) don't want to risk leaving at all, so they'll want an exit with no further vote right up until things turn to ratshit, at which point, they'll turn on the Tories faster than you can say "hang on, what?", and blame them for everything.
May has a number of options, all of them terrible.
I wondered where the SNP deep down sits in all of this.
I'm sure they are quite happy making noises about revoking A50 through Parliament, but have they actually called for a second referendum?
And do they really want to set that precedent? Genuine question, I don't know.
It looks like a Canada is a non-starter as the EU will insist on the Irish backstop. We would have the threaten NO DEAL seriously if we wanted to pursue it. I do not think NO DEAL is viable - if TM attempted it I think the cabinet would depose her.
You are assuming that whatever happens at the end of March 2019 stays as a done deal (or done No Deal) for the foreseeable future. In practice, were the EU to continue with their current ridiculous/punitive/masochistic negotiating stance to the extend that we had to enter into Brexit without any formal overriding agreement, I would expect two things to happen:
(a) At the point of Brexit there would immediately be in place a series of limited non-trading agreements covering things of mutual benefit to both EU and UK citizens, agreed at the last minute to avoid the ridiculous and utterly avoidable No Deal spectres now being dangled before us daily (e.g. so that EU flights to the UK were not grounded on 29th March, so that UK police forces did continue to assist EU police forces, so that EU visitors could continue to be treated on the NHS etc etc)
(b) Given that the EU does not wish to curtail trade between the UK and EU, in order that its nations can continue to sell to the UK twice as many goods as we sell to them, by around May 2019 something very close to the arrangements with Canada would be put in place, with the UK's territorial integrity also remaining in place.
What it requires though is for the UK to hold its nerve in order to get there. That I am not so sure about, at least as long as May is PM.
Raab, Gove, Hunt and Javid rejecting no deal today is significant
Yes it is. Because they said the alternative to Chequers should be Canada and not no deal. So why are you taking that as them killing Canada? They're pushing it up the agenda as the backstop for when Chequers has its plug pulled. They're going against May and saying "reject Chequers and the alternative is Canada" instead of "reject Chequers and we have no deal".
Raab, Hunt, Gove etc are saying to back Canada over no deal. So would enough others if that is the deal reached.
If in the next couple of weeks it becomes clear that Chequers is dead but the EU will agree to Canada and May strikes a Canada deal would you oppose that and prefer no deal? Would the HOC?
Sadly I think you are going to be very disappointed. If TM struck a Canada deal of course I would but you are not listening to the clear direction of travel
It looks like a Canada is a non-starter as the EU will insist on the Irish backstop. We would have the threaten NO DEAL seriously if we wanted to pursue it. I do not think NO DEAL is viable - if TM attempted it I think the cabinet would depose her.
If the EU insist on the Irish backstop, no deal is possible. Once they agree to relax the backstop, Canada becomes obvious and the EU would only want to do this. This is why nothing has changed since Salzberg - the backstop is the problem because it can never be agreed.
The EU still believe that May will climb down on the backstop. On balance I think she will and her plan will be voted down in Parliament as a result.
Sadly I think you are going to be very disappointed. If TM struck a Canada deal of course I would but you are not listening to the clear direction of travel
Raab, Hunt, Gove and Javid are setting the clear direction of travel but you have totally misunderstood them.
They haven't said no to no deal. They have said Canada over no deal.
Jeremy Hunt live on Sky has just said Chequers is not dead.
You are in denial over Canada
He is in the Cabinet of course he has to say that.
Simultaneously though he is contradicting May's line that it is Chequers or no deal by saying we have a Plan B (Canada) over no deal. You are in denial.
What are you talking about. He has in the last 20 minutes confirmed Chequers is the only deal in town live on Sky and Faisal Islam endorsed his view
You can watch his interview tonight on Sky at 9.30
He has to say that. But Chequers is dead, as everyone except TM knows. Of course people in the cabinet are discussing what is to be done next. If May can't face reality, one of them may have to do it.
I am so sorry Archer as I know it means a lot to you but Canada is gone
Indeed. Parliament is sovereign (and always has been, as we know). It could hold a referendum next Friday were it so minded.
Not really. The problem is the wording rather than the timing and the debates on that will be extraordinary
I suspect that if we are forced into an emergency referendum it will be either remain or no deal. So the wording of that will not be difficult. Parliament could put the wording of the question into the legislation.
The two most extreme options. I doubt it would come to that. In the event of stalemate I think the government would sue for EFTA / EEA - at least we could say we have left the EU/.
It's hard to see May being able to grovel to the EU for an EEA arrangement after all she has said - it would be personally and politically an abject humiliation. If it came to such an eventuality I think the whole Idea of Brexit would be brought into question and pressure would build for a complete reversal.
No it would open the splits further and merely bolster Brexiteers' view of the EU as malign (in that case).
The 40 or so ultra Brexiteers risk losing everything if they are not careful. They are a small group in the HOC
I meant the voters.
I agree the voters will be livid one way or another
It does point rather towards another referendum. Either way, get the voters to dip their hands in the blood. No arguing over "this isn't the Brexit we voted for".
But the Conservative voters (who are most motivated to leave) don't want to risk leaving at all, so they'll want an exit with no further vote right up until things turn to ratshit, at which point, they'll turn on the Tories faster than you can say "hang on, what?", and blame them for everything.
May has a number of options, all of them terrible.
I wondered where the SNP deep down sits in all of this.
I'm sure they are quite happy making noises about revoking A50 through Parliament, but have they actually called for a second referendum?
And do they really want to set that precedent? Genuine question, I don't know.
Their stance is a bit equivocal. They're not calling for one, but have said they "wouldn't stand in the way" of one.
Comments
https://voxeu.org/article/impact-immigration-barriers-native-workers
Areas with previous heavier reliance on immigrant workers actually had slower wage growth than those with lighter on no previous reliance.
"Our way of doing things" doesn't seem to gel very well with all of this. Now I'd be up for overhaul of welfare, and I'm coming round to ID cards (reluctantly), partially for this sort of thing.
However, my central point is the EU can go all fuzzy on their principles when they want to, and I genuinely fear that this drive to "ever closer union" is going to come across more and more resistance as people are going to want their consent to it explicitly (and I would argue repeatedly) requested.
The current state of affairs is largely down to politicians of all stripes since about 1992 railroading things through without getting express consent and drifting ever further away from the governed.
For too long governments have been Asset strippers running the country for profit and dosing up the people they jettison with dole money to keep them subdued... Brexit and Corbyn are the resulting backlash, when will they learn?
https://services.parliament.uk/Bills/2015-16/europeanunionreferendum/stages.html
When does the Conservative Party Circus kick off?
The issue is that there is no good reason for the Conservative Party to back a referendum.
DUP object
Amber Rudds group of 40 announce overnight they will vote it down
Amber Rudd seeks second referendum if no deal
No evidence to support any cabinet resignations over Chequers +
Today Raab, Gove, Hunt and Javid say they will prevent no deal
Just straws in the wind but looks like Canada is dead, assume because of its effect on manufacturing and the Irish border
We still have to leave the EU and all our treaty agreements lapse as a result. Opportunistic countries might not agree to renew them except to our disadvantage (especially the USA) and EFTA is lukewarm on having a new member who (economically) outweighs all the other EFTA countries put together.
If in the next couple of weeks it becomes clear that Chequers is dead but the EU will agree to Canada and May strikes a Canada deal would you oppose that and prefer no deal? Would the HOC?
The most significant news today is Raab, Gove, Hunt and Javid backing Canada as an alternative to no deal.
We could do a swap with Quebec if that's easier - they come out and join the EU while we go in with Canada. We (and Ireland) inherit CETA and NAFTA - easy! The new Canada solution
If not, then there is no useful purpose to another Referendum at the moment.
Contrasting him with the other Jeremy is no contest
1. Is there a good reason for the Conservative Party to support a referendum?
2. Could a referendum - if desired - be quickly implemented?
The answer to 1 is no. And if the government tried it, then - as you mention - it would face many procedural obstacles.
But if the answer to 1 were yes, and I can't really foresee circumstances where it would be, then I think it could be got through very quickly.
You're right with the Canada-style deal - it would indeed increase the supply-chain issues; it's less attractive as well as being difficult and prolonged.
The EEA transition is relatively easy - there's an appropriate off-the-shelf agreement; it's just the ratification required (Payments are already made clear in it). You're right that it's not necessarily that quick to sign and get ratified, but it's orders of magnitude quicker than any alternative agreement other than controlled crash or uncontrolled crash.
He said that TM stood up for Britain - calm heads to prevail and Chequers is the basis of agreement but negotiation will continue.
Hopes we do not end up with no deal, but we would prosper anyway, but asks the EU not to put it under threat
He also said do not underestimate TM
Faisal Islam very complimentary on the interview and that Chequers is clearly not dead and he did refer to JH's warning not to underestimate TM
They haven't said no to no deal. They have said Canada over no deal.
You are in denial over Canada
In fact the whole debate is framed in over-binary terms: Chequers and Canada are not simple alternatives, but are points on a spectrum. If there is a deal, then I think the most likely outcome is something closer to Chequers than to any other proposal which has been mooted, for the reasons which Theresa May gave at the weekend.
Simultaneously though he is contradicting May's line that it is Chequers or no deal by saying we have a Plan B (Canada) over no deal. You are in denial.
Hunt has made it clear that it is Chequers or Canada. The EU have said no to Chequera so unless they recant then the only solution left is Canada
Crash-out Brexit might be the only route the Conservative Party will let happen (all others will fall to infighting), and that could be the worst of all options both for the country and the Conservative Party (who will inevitably be blamed for all the downsides). Looks like a bad game theory exercise, all in all; shame it's got 64 million people being pulled along.
You can watch his interview tonight on Sky at 9.30
If Parliament had either brains or a spine, they would not have let Mrs May do it without a plan in place first. The referendum is still advisory and what Parliament can grant, Parliament can revoke.
They'd accept EEA, no question.
The difficult bit is if we would accept it, and that's a big hurdle.
And while we're on the subject, at what point do we deem people who have been living abroad foreigners? Two generations? Two years?
Think this will be big news on boadcast channels tonight and tomorrow.
Doubt Brexit will feature at all
Of course there is none.
He has to say that Chequers is the only deal but he can't make the EU agres to it. Privately the cabinet are breaking ranks with May.
May is insisting it is Chequers or no deal.
Cabinet are insisting it is Chequers or Canada.
If the the EU stand their ground and reject Chequers again then what should be our Plan B?
May's plan no deal or Hunt, Give, Javid and Raab saying Canada?
But the Conservative voters (who are most motivated to leave) don't want to risk leaving at all, so they'll want an exit with no further vote right up until things turn to ratshit, at which point, they'll turn on the Tories faster than you can say "hang on, what?", and blame them for everything.
May has a number of options, all of them terrible.
However, at that point we really are off to the races.
Why vote?
I'm sure they are quite happy making noises about revoking A50 through Parliament, but have they actually called for a second referendum?
And do they really want to set that precedent? Genuine question, I don't know.
(a) At the point of Brexit there would immediately be in place a series of limited non-trading agreements covering things of mutual benefit to both EU and UK citizens, agreed at the last minute to avoid the ridiculous and utterly avoidable No Deal spectres now being dangled before us daily (e.g. so that EU flights to the UK were not grounded on 29th March, so that UK police forces did continue to assist EU police forces, so that EU visitors could continue to be treated on the NHS etc etc)
(b) Given that the EU does not wish to curtail trade between the UK and EU, in order that its nations can continue to sell to the UK twice as many goods as we sell to them, by around May 2019 something very close to the arrangements with Canada would be put in place, with the UK's territorial integrity also remaining in place.
What it requires though is for the UK to hold its nerve in order to get there. That I am not so sure about, at least as long as May is PM.
The EU still believe that May will climb down on the backstop. On balance I think she will and her plan will be voted down in Parliament as a result.
https://twitter.com/OsitaNwanevu/status/1045323579506786304