I'm not following live, but I'm reading the excerpts in the Guardian live blog. The speech doesn't seem anything very special in written form (and the bit about the couple in a damp flat just seemed bizarre - he doesn't seem to comprehend that not everyone could afford to buy).
Boris is demonstrating the secret of his success with women. Why half of the PB contributors sound like they would sleep with him this evening, if asked.
To be honest, I'd even sleep with Rees-Mogg before Boris....
Only slightly predictable....You just can’t fudge something like a customs union or regulatory barrier.
Arlene is quite right - this plan would place NI in a desperate position, unable potentially to freely trade with GB. Looks like May is taking orders from Robbins again. That always ends well.
What happened to ‘it is up to the EU to come back with proposals’? That was a decent approach. Planning the next set of concessions when yet again the EU have not moved at all is crazy.
Who knew the vicars daughter would be a disaster at poker...
I voted remain, and I understand all those calling for staying as close as possible. But the only way to negotiate was to come from No deal inwards to closer alignment. The government has its negotiating strategy all wrong. They could have been explicit with that strategy and put the pressure on the EU, and preparations could have been made for No deal as that was our initial stance.
I agree that May's idea of starting in the middle with a proposal that is predictably unacceptable to the EU has been a disaster. However, another approach might have been to start from the other side: BINO, and then negotiate concessions in return for our lack of representation, followed by a gradual drift away from the EU as more opt-outs and exceptions are agreed. While politically difficult, it would at least have achieved the aim of leaving the EU without unnecessarily damaging British industry.
May’s pre-negotiation red lines were the biggest mistake she made. And all for a good headline in the Daily Mail.
The main problem is that despite the logical position being a deal should take place, we are negotiating with 27 countries, and various EU vips like juncker verhofstadt. They are negotiating with Tory wets, loyalists and ERG, and DUP.
Boris is demonstrating the secret of his success with women. Why half of the PB contributors sound like they would sleep with him this evening, if asked.
I'm not following live, but I'm reading the excerpts in the Guardian live blog. The speech doesn't seem anything very special in written form (and the bit about the couple in a damp flat just seemed bizarre - he doesn't seem to comprehend that not everyone could afford to buy).
It's a bit scattergun but he has an agenda for the UK post Brexit. I really have not heard or seen much of that this week.
Boris is demonstrating the secret of his success with women. Why half of the PB contributors sound like they would sleep with him this evening, if asked.
Not my type. And is he not going just a tad bald?
Just what I was thinking - that foppish mop actually is morphing into a necessary combover.
Boris is demonstrating the secret of his success with women. Why half of the PB contributors sound like they would sleep with him this evening, if asked.
And it occurs to me that the authors of the Chequers proposal risk prosecution under the 14th century statute of praemunire, which says that no foreign court or government shall have jurisdiction in this country.
It would mean that UK business and industry – the entire UK economy - would be exposed perpetually to regulations that might have been expressly designed, at the behest of foreign competitors, to do them down.
It would mean that whatever the EU came up with, banning the sale of eggs by the dozen, banning diabetics from driving, banning vaping, whatever - and all of those have been at least considered by Brussels in the last few years - all of this nonsense we would have to implement with no ability to change or resist.
I'm pretty sure that this is what is known in diplomatic circles as 'bollocks'.
I'm not following live, but I'm reading the excerpts in the Guardian live blog. The speech doesn't seem anything very special in written form (and the bit about the couple in a damp flat just seemed bizarre - he doesn't seem to comprehend that not everyone could afford to buy).
It's a bit scattergun but he has an agenda for the UK post Brexit. I really have not heard or seen much of that this week.
Also he believes that the UK is successful and will be successful in the future. He is positive as opposed to all the negativity that we have heard from the Govt over the past 12 months.
I'm not following live, but I'm reading the excerpts in the Guardian live blog. The speech doesn't seem anything very special in written form (and the bit about the couple in a damp flat just seemed bizarre - he doesn't seem to comprehend that not everyone could afford to buy).
It's a bit scattergun but he has an agenda for the UK post Brexit. I really have not heard or seen much of that this week.
Also he believes that the UK is successful and will be successful in the future. He is positive as opposed to all the negativity that we have heard from the Govt over the past 12 months.
Johnson believes in Johnson. He absolutely does. Unfortunately, belief does not build economies, create jobs or put food on the table.
Though given May's customs union plan is basically identical to Corbyn's she should be able to get it past the Commons even without the DUP
Because Corbyn can't wait to be helpful
Although, as AlistairMeeks suggested, Corbyn passing a deal might actually make a new election more likely -- because the deal probably will include proposals that make the DUP furious.
It is indeed interesting. Now it could be that women are somehow inferior to the men - but there is little evidence that that is the case.
IMO it is much more down to fewer women going into physics, and barriers being put in their way when they do.
It should be noted that Marie Curie got Nobel awards twice, the physics jointly with her husband and one other person, and the chemistry award on her own. The reasons why she succeeded are multi-faceted, but a big part of it was that her chosen area of physics was very new and relatively unestablished.
The way the Nobel prize is awarded is also rather odd. The peace prize is by a different organisation AFAIAA, but things like the literature prize are very much open to interpretation by the relevant committee. The 'hard' sciences can be awarded to a maximum of three people, and they tend to be the ones at the very top of the research, who have tended to be men.
It should also be noted that there are some women who it can easily be argued 'deserved' a physics Nobel but did not get one: Jocelyn Bell Burnell being a classic example.
Jocelyn Bell was shabbily treated. So was Margaret Burbidge (who is still alive at 99!!)
Or Rosalind Franklin who discovered the key structures of DNA and explained them to Crick/Watson who ignored her, got it wrong. Although her work on DNA was key to understanding it, she got no recognition for it.
The story of German mathematician/physicist Emmy Noether is also quite an eye opener. She was one of just two women in a university of 986 students and was only allowed to audit classes rather than participate fully, and she required the permission of individual professors whose lectures she wished to attend. After she graduated and started teaching at the University of Göttingen, it was initially under great protest from the (male) faculty members and without pay. But she went on to make enormous contributions to maths and physics, and her eponymous theorem has been described as "one of the most important mathematical theorems ever proved in guiding the development of modern physics, possibly on a par with the Pythagorean theorem". Had she been male, there's a fair chance that a Nobel would have come her way.
And it occurs to me that the authors of the Chequers proposal risk prosecution under the 14th century statute of praemunire, which says that no foreign court or government shall have jurisdiction in this country.
It would mean that UK business and industry – the entire UK economy - would be exposed perpetually to regulations that might have been expressly designed, at the behest of foreign competitors, to do them down.
It would mean that whatever the EU came up with, banning the sale of eggs by the dozen, banning diabetics from driving, banning vaping, whatever - and all of those have been at least considered by Brussels in the last few years - all of this nonsense we would have to implement with no ability to change or resist.
I'm pretty sure that this is what is known in diplomatic circles as 'bollocks'.
It sounds like a Freeman of England kind of nonsense to stop paying council tax
This is actually a good speech from Boris. Annoyingly.
It really is. Needs to drop the pranks and become really serious.
Having heard Hunt and Javid he must be have a chance and I do not see how he can be kept out of the last two.
Please Boris just become serious, put away childish ways, and you may just get there
If even BigG says Boris made a good speech he must have knocked it out of the park!
Good speech, not out of the park
One speech does not a leader make, thank God
Isn't that pretty much how Cameron got the gig?
Fair comment, though in spite of his stupid decision to call a referendum, he did have leadership skills. Boris has none by almost all measures, combined with zero integrity and dignity. He is the Tory equivalent of an oddball somewhere between Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn
Boris is demonstrating the secret of his success with women. Why half of the PB contributors sound like they would sleep with him this evening, if asked.
And it occurs to me that the authors of the Chequers proposal risk prosecution under the 14th century statute of praemunire, which says that no foreign court or government shall have jurisdiction in this country.
It would mean that UK business and industry – the entire UK economy - would be exposed perpetually to regulations that might have been expressly designed, at the behest of foreign competitors, to do them down.
It would mean that whatever the EU came up with, banning the sale of eggs by the dozen, banning diabetics from driving, banning vaping, whatever - and all of those have been at least considered by Brussels in the last few years - all of this nonsense we would have to implement with no ability to change or resist.
I'm pretty sure that this is what is known in diplomatic circles as 'bollocks'.
It sounds like a Freeman of England kind of nonsense to stop paying council tax
Yes but it was the specific examples he gave which struck me as bollocks. I'm pretty sure none of those would be covered by the Chequers proposals - certainly not the driving and vaping ones. In other words, he's mischaracterising Chequers.
There were a few good things at the beginning, and talking about what should be talked about. Housing, pro-business- anti-crime, but when he got on to Brexit itself, it came a bit unstuck.
And it occurs to me that the authors of the Chequers proposal risk prosecution under the 14th century statute of praemunire, which says that no foreign court or government shall have jurisdiction in this country.
It would mean that UK business and industry – the entire UK economy - would be exposed perpetually to regulations that might have been expressly designed, at the behest of foreign competitors, to do them down.
It would mean that whatever the EU came up with, banning the sale of eggs by the dozen, banning diabetics from driving, banning vaping, whatever - and all of those have been at least considered by Brussels in the last few years - all of this nonsense we would have to implement with no ability to change or resist.
I'm pretty sure that this is what is known in diplomatic circles as 'bollocks'.
It sounds like a Freeman of England kind of nonsense to stop paying council tax
Yes but it was the specific examples he gave which struck me as bollocks. I'm pretty sure none of those would be covered by the Chequers proposals - certainly not the driving and vaping ones. In other words, he's mischaracterising Chequers.
He is full of shit, which plays well to those that are gullible, but it is one more reason why he is totally unfit for high office
He'll get his soundbites on the news, people will see pics of hundreds of people queuing just to get to get in to his speech... And the contrast will be made with the dreary speech and "polite" response Theresa May will receive tomorrow
The hierarchy of sneer from Remainers is most enlightening. The only thing lower on their ladder of virtue than Boris is a female protestant unionist.
Lucky for me I am not a protestant unionist then.
Besides us Remainers are allowed to sneer. The Leavers got exactly what they wanted and they have made a right mess of the whole thing. Boris, DD, Liam Fox, Rees-Mogg et al - all their simplistic platitudes that everything would be peachy in the sunlit uplands have turned out to be no more than fantasy.
Actually, sneering is too good for them. They deserve far stiffer criticism.
Lol - it remains a complete mystery why Remain lost a referendum with the odds hugely stacked up for them. I just can't for the life of me workout why the British public told them to F*** off.
Remain lost because it had one outcome to offer, Leave could be whatever your heart desired, with added £350million per week, no immigration and easy as pie.
On topic - this is the same reason I expect the labour left to perform worse than expected at the next election. Corbyn’s numbers sho he is currently all things to all people. It can’t last, and we already see the fall back in overall numbers and Corbyn’s personal rating. Whilst May is dull and manegerial, she is also also dull and managerial.
Like Corbyn, Johnson hopes and believes that May will deliver Brexit and that her Brexit will bomb. Both are probably right. Which one of them will benefit?
The hierarchy of sneer from Remainers is most enlightening. The only thing lower on their ladder of virtue than Boris is a female protestant unionist.
Besides us Remainers are allowed to sneer.
Indeed. But don't be surprised when you keep on losing referendums.
I wish other Leavers had your apparent confidence. But they seem frightened to hold any referendum on the Deal. They appear to want to freeze public opinion at the moment they were ahead with the non-specific promises, which is very understandable if they fear losing when they have to get specific; less so if they're confident they'd win when the specifics are presented.
There were a few good things at the beginning, and talking about what should be talked about. Housing, pro-business- anti-crime, but when he got on to Brexit itself, it came a bit unstuck.
Chequers is at least 'a' solution.
He seemed to lose momentum ( yes i know). He started very well but I doubt he will have bothered TM too much. If as reported only 20 mps turned up where were the ERG who boasted 80.
I havent listened to Five Live for ages. Jesus. A woman on saying that opposition to 'Jazz Hands' is a sign of white male privilege. She uses her daughters made up mental illness to justify it. FFS. She's now going on about cultural appropriation of the deaf language.
Do we still have access to that rocket to shoot people into space?
The hierarchy of sneer from Remainers is most enlightening. The only thing lower on their ladder of virtue than Boris is a female protestant unionist.
Besides us Remainers are allowed to sneer.
Indeed. But don't be surprised when you keep on losing referendums.
I wish other Leavers had your apparent confidence. But they seem frightened to hold any referendum on the Deal. They appear to want to freeze public opinion at the moment they were ahead with the non-specific promises, which is very understandable if they fear losing when they have to get specific; less so if they're confident they'd win when the specifics are presented.
Leave would win again by more.
But it wouldn't help sneering remainaholics accept the result or move on gracefully. If anything it would reopen and widen the divide. Turnout would be down too.
Like Corbyn, Johnson hopes and believes that May will deliver Brexit and that her Brexit will bomb. Both are probably right. Which one of them will benefit?
He knows it will bomb. He has always known it would bomb, which is why he was so shocked when Leave won. Brexit is an idiots charter and Boris, for whatever else he is, is not an idiot. Since the ref he has been lying through his teeth by pretending he agrees with the ERG. Even his own family didn't believe him. He has zero integrity, and anyone that follows this shallow charlatan is a gullible fool.
He'll get his soundbites on the news, people will see pics of hundreds of people queuing just to get to get in to his speech... And the contrast will be made with the dreary speech and "polite" response Theresa May will receive tomorrow
Job done.
At first I was really impressed but after a while he seemed to almost lose interest.
There may well be news soundbites but I doubt it will be remembered as a huge success for him.
The hierarchy of sneer from Remainers is most enlightening. The only thing lower on their ladder of virtue than Boris is a female protestant unionist.
Besides us Remainers are allowed to sneer.
Indeed. But don't be surprised when you keep on losing referendums.
I wish other Leavers had your apparent confidence. But they seem frightened to hold any referendum on the Deal. They appear to want to freeze public opinion at the moment they were ahead with the non-specific promises, which is very understandable if they fear losing when they have to get specific; less so if they're confident they'd win when the specifics are presented.
We already know the country wants Brexit, we had a vote on that. If we need another vote to decide how we leave then fair enough, but you're still relying on some inept politicians to execute the people's decision.
The hierarchy of sneer from Remainers is most enlightening. The only thing lower on their ladder of virtue than Boris is a female protestant unionist.
Besides us Remainers are allowed to sneer.
Indeed. But don't be surprised when you keep on losing referendums.
I wish other Leavers had your apparent confidence. But they seem frightened to hold any referendum on the Deal. They appear to want to freeze public opinion at the moment they were ahead with the non-specific promises, which is very understandable if they fear losing when they have to get specific; less so if they're confident they'd win when the specifics are presented.
the only point in having a second referendum is if there is a substantive revision our current membership terms
Boris' problem is that we've seen him as Foreign Secretary. He ducked resigning on a matter of principle by flying away to hide in Afghanistan, then felt compelled to follow Davis' lead and resign over Chequers.
It was a speech characteristic of the man, undisciplined, good in parts, more than a tad shapeless, constantly distracting itself with irrelevancies. But the key message of "chuck Chequers" , accept WTO terms, leave the SM and the CU, do not accept EU law as UK law once we have left, was clear and loud.
Over to May now. Can she paint a vision on what her government is about and a deal on Brexit that she can sell? Vision really isn't her strong point. My guess, FWIW, is that she is also going to steer towards the mini-deals to avoid disruption but will make it clear that unless the EU reconsider their position there will be no deal.
Two months ago I put the risk of a no deal at maybe 5%. It just seemed such a no brainer. Right now I would put it nearer 40%.
Boris' problem is that we've seen him as Foreign Secretary. He ducked resigning on a matter of principle by flying away to hide in Afghanistan, then felt compelled to follow Davis' lead and resign over Chequers.
Over on the speccie coffehouse, Steerpike has the photo's of the audiences for the speeches. Sajid - three rows deep, Jeremy Wright - you can play spot the attendees, Hunt - not a lot more. The fringe meetings are buzzing apparently. The attendees are giving the Cabinet a very strong message here, will they listen and learn.
It was a speech characteristic of the man, undisciplined, good in parts, more than a tad shapeless, constantly distracting itself with irrelevancies. But the key message of "chuck Chequers" , accept WTO terms, leave the SM and the CU, do not accept EU law as UK law once we have left, was clear and loud.
Over to May now. Can she paint a vision on what her government is about and a deal on Brexit that she can sell? Vision really isn't her strong point. My guess, FWIW, is that she is also going to steer towards the mini-deals to avoid disruption but will make it clear that unless the EU reconsider their position there will be no deal.
Two months ago I put the risk of a no deal at maybe 5%. It just seemed such a no brainer. Right now I would put it nearer 40%.
Where do you think the numbers in Parliament supporting "No Deal" come from?
It was a speech characteristic of the man, undisciplined, good in parts, more than a tad shapeless, constantly distracting itself with irrelevancies. But the key message of "chuck Chequers" , accept WTO terms, leave the SM and the CU, do not accept EU law as UK law once we have left, was clear and loud.
Over to May now. Can she paint a vision on what her government is about and a deal on Brexit that she can sell? Vision really isn't her strong point. My guess, FWIW, is that she is also going to steer towards the mini-deals to avoid disruption but will make it clear that unless the EU reconsider their position there will be no deal.
Two months ago I put the risk of a no deal at maybe 5%. It just seemed such a no brainer. Right now I would put it nearer 40%.
Where do you think the numbers in Parliament supporting "No Deal" come from?
Labour, the LibDems, the SNP and the ERG, of course.
Over on the speccie coffehouse, Steerpike has the photo's of the audiences for the speeches. Sajid - three rows deep, Jeremy Wright - you can play spot the attendees, Hunt - not a lot more. The fringe meetings are buzzing apparently. The attendees are giving the Cabinet a very strong message here, will they listen and learn.
Seeing how few people in what isn't a massive hall, they could probably just hold their conference at JRM house.
Over on the speccie coffehouse, Steerpike has the photo's of the audiences for the speeches. Sajid - three rows deep, Jeremy Wright - you can play spot the attendees, Hunt - not a lot more. The fringe meetings are buzzing apparently. The attendees are giving the Cabinet a very strong message here, will they listen and learn.
I hope they listen to some of Boris's points but I do not think it changes Brexit one bit
It was a speech characteristic of the man, undisciplined, good in parts, more than a tad shapeless, constantly distracting itself with irrelevancies. But the key message of "chuck Chequers" , accept WTO terms, leave the SM and the CU, do not accept EU law as UK law once we have left, was clear and loud.
Over to May now. Can she paint a vision on what her government is about and a deal on Brexit that she can sell? Vision really isn't her strong point. My guess, FWIW, is that she is also going to steer towards the mini-deals to avoid disruption but will make it clear that unless the EU reconsider their position there will be no deal.
Two months ago I put the risk of a no deal at maybe 5%. It just seemed such a no brainer. Right now I would put it nearer 40%.
Where do you think the numbers in Parliament supporting "No Deal" come from?
More to the point where do the numbers for 'a deal' come from
No Deal at the moment happens by default in March 2019.
And it occurs to me that the authors of the Chequers proposal risk prosecution under the 14th century statute of praemunire, which says that no foreign court or government shall have jurisdiction in this country.
It would mean that UK business and industry – the entire UK economy - would be exposed perpetually to regulations that might have been expressly designed, at the behest of foreign competitors, to do them down.
It would mean that whatever the EU came up with, banning the sale of eggs by the dozen, banning diabetics from driving, banning vaping, whatever - and all of those have been at least considered by Brussels in the last few years - all of this nonsense we would have to implement with no ability to change or resist.
I'm pretty sure that this is what is known in diplomatic circles as 'bollocks'.
It sounds like a Freeman of England kind of nonsense to stop paying council tax
It was a speech characteristic of the man, undisciplined, good in parts, more than a tad shapeless, constantly distracting itself with irrelevancies. But the key message of "chuck Chequers" , accept WTO terms, leave the SM and the CU, do not accept EU law as UK law once we have left, was clear and loud.
Over to May now. Can she paint a vision on what her government is about and a deal on Brexit that she can sell? Vision really isn't her strong point. My guess, FWIW, is that she is also going to steer towards the mini-deals to avoid disruption but will make it clear that unless the EU reconsider their position there will be no deal.
Two months ago I put the risk of a no deal at maybe 5%. It just seemed such a no brainer. Right now I would put it nearer 40%.
Where do you think the numbers in Parliament supporting "No Deal" come from?
More to the point where do the numbers for 'a deal' come from
No Deal at the moment happens by default in March 2019.
Yes that is the point. If parliament does nothing no deal happens by default. No deal can only be avoided by parliament voting positively FOR a deal.
It was a speech characteristic of the man, undisciplined, good in parts, more than a tad shapeless, constantly distracting itself with irrelevancies. But the key message of "chuck Chequers" , accept WTO terms, leave the SM and the CU, do not accept EU law as UK law once we have left, was clear and loud.
Over to May now. Can she paint a vision on what her government is about and a deal on Brexit that she can sell? Vision really isn't her strong point. My guess, FWIW, is that she is also going to steer towards the mini-deals to avoid disruption but will make it clear that unless the EU reconsider their position there will be no deal.
Two months ago I put the risk of a no deal at maybe 5%. It just seemed such a no brainer. Right now I would put it nearer 40%.
Where do you think the numbers in Parliament supporting "No Deal" come from?
More to the point where do the numbers for 'a deal' come from
No Deal at the moment happens by default in March 2019.
Yes that is the point. If parliament does nothing no deal happens by default. No deal can only be avoided by parliament voting positively FOR a deal.
Or by parliament voting to withdraw A50 or extend the A50 period (with EU agreement which looks likely to be forthcoming).
It was a speech characteristic of the man, undisciplined, good in parts, more than a tad shapeless, constantly distracting itself with irrelevancies. But the key message of "chuck Chequers" , accept WTO terms, leave the SM and the CU, do not accept EU law as UK law once we have left, was clear and loud.
Over to May now. Can she paint a vision on what her government is about and a deal on Brexit that she can sell? Vision really isn't her strong point. My guess, FWIW, is that she is also going to steer towards the mini-deals to avoid disruption but will make it clear that unless the EU reconsider their position there will be no deal.
Two months ago I put the risk of a no deal at maybe 5%. It just seemed such a no brainer. Right now I would put it nearer 40%.
Where do you think the numbers in Parliament supporting "No Deal" come from?
More to the point where do the numbers for 'a deal' come from
No Deal at the moment happens by default in March 2019.
But that's not true in reality (outside of hard Brexiteers' fantasies), is it?
In reality, Labour/LibDems/SNP will pass motions forbidding "No Deal", even if they vote against a specific deal - and will be assisted in the parliamentary processes for doing so by John Bercow.
It was a speech characteristic of the man, undisciplined, good in parts, more than a tad shapeless, constantly distracting itself with irrelevancies. But the key message of "chuck Chequers" , accept WTO terms, leave the SM and the CU, do not accept EU law as UK law once we have left, was clear and loud.
Over to May now. Can she paint a vision on what her government is about and a deal on Brexit that she can sell? Vision really isn't her strong point. My guess, FWIW, is that she is also going to steer towards the mini-deals to avoid disruption but will make it clear that unless the EU reconsider their position there will be no deal.
Two months ago I put the risk of a no deal at maybe 5%. It just seemed such a no brainer. Right now I would put it nearer 40%.
Where do you think the numbers in Parliament supporting "No Deal" come from?
Mainly from the Conservative party. If May comes back to the Commons and says "I've really tried and there is no deal on the table that I can recommend to the House", then no deal comes into play. If the deal on the table contains the NI backstop arrangements the DUP will be on side.
It was a speech characteristic of the man, undisciplined, good in parts, more than a tad shapeless, constantly distracting itself with irrelevancies. But the key message of "chuck Chequers" , accept WTO terms, leave the SM and the CU, do not accept EU law as UK law once we have left, was clear and loud.
Over to May now. Can she paint a vision on what her government is about and a deal on Brexit that she can sell? Vision really isn't her strong point. My guess, FWIW, is that she is also going to steer towards the mini-deals to avoid disruption but will make it clear that unless the EU reconsider their position there will be no deal.
Two months ago I put the risk of a no deal at maybe 5%. It just seemed such a no brainer. Right now I would put it nearer 40%.
Where do you think the numbers in Parliament supporting "No Deal" come from?
More to the point where do the numbers for 'a deal' come from
No Deal at the moment happens by default in March 2019.
But that's not true in reality (outside of hard Brexiteers' fantasies), is it?
In reality, Labour/LibDems/SNP will pass motions forbidding "No Deal", even if they vote against a specific deal - and will be assisted in the parliamentary processes for doing so by John Bercow.
If you think "No Deal" could really happen, you're basically saying that you think the likes of Anna Soubry and the other Tory Remainers will bottle it when it comes to the crunch, and would vote in favour of a "No Deal" Brexit.
I'm not scoffing at the chances of that - given the likes of Soubry and Grieve have been "all piss and wind" on Brexit matters in the past, I think it's entirely plausible they would cave into pressure from the Tory grassroots / bollocks Churchillian rhetoric about "standing up for our country". But there's zero chance of Labour MPs (bar a handful) approving "No Deal", and there's also zero chance of the government being able to effect Brexit in defiance of a Commons motion forbidding them from doing so without sparking the mother of all constitutional crises (and people are not appreciating the weapons John Bercow would have at his disposal in such a scenario).
The hierarchy of sneer from Remainers is most enlightening. The only thing lower on their ladder of virtue than Boris is a female protestant unionist.
Besides us Remainers are allowed to sneer.
Indeed. But don't be surprised when you keep on losing referendums.
I wish other Leavers had your apparent confidence. But they seem frightened to hold any referendum on the Deal. They appear to want to freeze public opinion at the moment they were ahead with the non-specific promises, which is very understandable if they fear losing when they have to get specific; less so if they're confident they'd win when the specifics are presented.
the only point in having a second referendum is if there is a substantive revision our current membership terms
Your application to join the Euro has been accepted.
It was a speech characteristic of the man, undisciplined, good in parts, more than a tad shapeless, constantly distracting itself with irrelevancies. But the key message of "chuck Chequers" , accept WTO terms, leave the SM and the CU, do not accept EU law as UK law once we have left, was clear and loud.
Over to May now. Can she paint a vision on what her government is about and a deal on Brexit that she can sell? Vision really isn't her strong point. My guess, FWIW, is that she is also going to steer towards the mini-deals to avoid disruption but will make it clear that unless the EU reconsider their position there will be no deal.
Two months ago I put the risk of a no deal at maybe 5%. It just seemed such a no brainer. Right now I would put it nearer 40%.
Where do you think the numbers in Parliament supporting "No Deal" come from?
More to the point where do the numbers for 'a deal' come from
No Deal at the moment happens by default in March 2019.
Yes that is the point. If parliament does nothing no deal happens by default. No deal can only be avoided by parliament voting positively FOR a deal.
Or by parliament voting to withdraw A50 or extend the A50 period (with EU agreement which looks likely to be forthcoming).
It was a speech characteristic of the man, undisciplined, good in parts, more than a tad shapeless, constantly distracting itself with irrelevancies. But the key message of "chuck Chequers" , accept WTO terms, leave the SM and the CU, do not accept EU law as UK law once we have left, was clear and loud.
Over to May now. Can she paint a vision on what her government is about and a deal on Brexit that she can sell? Vision really isn't her strong point. My guess, FWIW, is that she is also going to steer towards the mini-deals to avoid disruption but will make it clear that unless the EU reconsider their position there will be no deal.
Two months ago I put the risk of a no deal at maybe 5%. It just seemed such a no brainer. Right now I would put it nearer 40%.
Where do you think the numbers in Parliament supporting "No Deal" come from?
More to the point where do the numbers for 'a deal' come from
No Deal at the moment happens by default in March 2019.
But that's not true in reality (outside of hard Brexiteers' fantasies), is it?
In reality, Labour/LibDems/SNP will pass motions forbidding "No Deal", even if they vote against a specific deal - and will be assisted in the parliamentary processes for doing so by John Bercow.
Parliament cannot unilaterally forbid no deal. It would also need the consent of the EU.
Boris' problem is that we've seen him as Foreign Secretary. He ducked resigning on a matter of principle by flying away to hide in Afghanistan, then felt compelled to follow Davis' lead and resign over Chequers.
It was a speech characteristic of the man, undisciplined, good in parts, more than a tad shapeless, constantly distracting itself with irrelevancies. But the key message of "chuck Chequers" , accept WTO terms, leave the SM and the CU, do not accept EU law as UK law once we have left, was clear and loud.
Over to May now. Can she paint a vision on what her government is about and a deal on Brexit that she can sell? Vision really isn't her strong point. My guess, FWIW, is that she is also going to steer towards the mini-deals to avoid disruption but will make it clear that unless the EU reconsider their position there will be no deal.
Two months ago I put the risk of a no deal at maybe 5%. It just seemed such a no brainer. Right now I would put it nearer 40%.
Where do you think the numbers in Parliament supporting "No Deal" come from?
More to the point where do the numbers for 'a deal' come from
No Deal at the moment happens by default in March 2019.
Yes that is the point. If parliament does nothing no deal happens by default. No deal can only be avoided by parliament voting positively FOR a deal.
Or by parliament voting to withdraw A50 or extend the A50 period (with EU agreement which looks likely to be forthcoming).
Hasnt that just been kicked into touch?
Most of the mood music seems to have been positive from the EU side. U.K. government will obviously need to say it’s not an option until it suddenly is, rather like early general elections.
If you think "No Deal" could really happen, you're basically saying that you think the likes of Anna Soubry and the other Tory Remainers will bottle it when it comes to the crunch, and would vote in favour of a "No Deal" Brexit.
I'm not scoffing at the chances of that - given the likes of Soubry and Grieve have been "all piss and wind" on Brexit matters in the past, I think it's entirely plausible they would cave into pressure from the Tory grassroots / bollocks Churchillian rhetoric about "standing up for our country". But there's zero chance of Labour MPs (bar a handful) approving "No Deal", and there's also zero chance of the government being able to effect Brexit in defiance of a Commons motion forbidding them from doing so without sparking the mother of all constitutional crises (and people are not appreciating the weapons John Bercow would have at his disposal in such a scenario).
If opposition parties and Conservative rebels succeed in voting down any proposal that the government puts before the House, then No Deal it is.
If you think "No Deal" could really happen, you're basically saying that you think the likes of Anna Soubry and the other Tory Remainers will bottle it when it comes to the crunch, and would vote in favour of a "No Deal" Brexit.
I'm not scoffing at the chances of that - given the likes of Soubry and Grieve have been "all piss and wind" on Brexit matters in the past, I think it's entirely plausible they would cave into pressure from the Tory grassroots / bollocks Churchillian rhetoric about "standing up for our country". But there's zero chance of Labour MPs (bar a handful) approving "No Deal", and there's also zero chance of the government being able to effect Brexit in defiance of a Commons motion forbidding them from doing so without sparking the mother of all constitutional crises (and people are not appreciating the weapons John Bercow would have at his disposal in such a scenario).
If opposition parties and Conservative rebels succeed in voting down any proposal that the government puts before the House, then No Deal it is.
I would think there would be a non-trivial probability of the PM going back to and subsequently accepting any old deal that the EU offered and not giving Parliament a vote on it. I can hear the description of the "new" deal as being completely different from whichever proposal was voted down and, given the critical circumstances, it would be impractical to offer Parliament another vote as their wishes would have already been noted and hence this new deal/piece of paper I have in front of me. Etc..
Edit: Constitutionally would that be possible? Who the **** knows!!!???
If you think "No Deal" could really happen, you're basically saying that you think the likes of Anna Soubry and the other Tory Remainers will bottle it when it comes to the crunch, and would vote in favour of a "No Deal" Brexit.
I'm not scoffing at the chances of that - given the likes of Soubry and Grieve have been "all piss and wind" on Brexit matters in the past, I think it's entirely plausible they would cave into pressure from the Tory grassroots / bollocks Churchillian rhetoric about "standing up for our country". But there's zero chance of Labour MPs (bar a handful) approving "No Deal", and there's also zero chance of the government being able to effect Brexit in defiance of a Commons motion forbidding them from doing so without sparking the mother of all constitutional crises (and people are not appreciating the weapons John Bercow would have at his disposal in such a scenario).
If opposition parties and Conservative rebels succeed in voting down any proposal that the government puts before the House, then No Deal it is.
And if Parliament votes to block a "No Deal" proposal? Do you honestly think the government would (or could) just defy Parliament in that way without a massive firestorm?
The hierarchy of sneer from Remainers is most enlightening. The only thing lower on their ladder of virtue than Boris is a female protestant unionist.
Besides us Remainers are allowed to sneer.
Indeed. But don't be surprised when you keep on losing referendums.
I wish other Leavers had your apparent confidence. But they seem frightened to hold any referendum on the Deal. They appear to want to freeze public opinion at the moment they were ahead with the non-specific promises, which is very understandable if they fear losing when they have to get specific; less so if they're confident they'd win when the specifics are presented.
Leave would win again by more.
But it wouldn't help sneering remainaholics accept the result or move on gracefully. If anything it would reopen and widen the divide. Turnout would be down too.
It would also be a huge waste of time and money.
So what is the point ?
If you say so. Personally, I think that's opinion rather than fact, and we could do with more facts involved. Another referendum would help - and it would help Leave if they won it. There could be no "This isn't the Brexit we voted for" from disillusioned Leave voters is it goes wrong. There could be no "They only won by lying" from Remain voters. The cost is trivial in comparison to the issue at stake (and the price of democracy), and - if, as you say, Leave is well ahead - then what's the downside to them?
The hierarchy of sneer from Remainers is most enlightening. The only thing lower on their ladder of virtue than Boris is a female protestant unionist.
Besides us Remainers are allowed to sneer.
Indeed. But don't be surprised when you keep on losing referendums.
I wish other Leavers had your apparent confidence. But they seem frightened to hold any referendum on the Deal. They appear to want to freeze public opinion at the moment they were ahead with the non-specific promises, which is very understandable if they fear losing when they have to get specific; less so if they're confident they'd win when the specifics are presented.
the only point in having a second referendum is if there is a substantive revision our current membership terms
Your application to join the Euro has been accepted.
What would be the result in that referendum with the Euro replacing the pound ? 70-30 stay out or higher ?
It was a speech characteristic of the man, undisciplined, good in parts, more than a tad shapeless, constantly distracting itself with irrelevancies. But the key message of "chuck Chequers" , accept WTO terms, leave the SM and the CU, do not accept EU law as UK law once we have left, was clear and loud.
Over to May now. Can she paint a vision on what her government is about and a deal on Brexit that she can sell? Vision really isn't her strong point. My guess, FWIW, is that she is also going to steer towards the mini-deals to avoid disruption but will make it clear that unless the EU reconsider their position there will be no deal.
Two months ago I put the risk of a no deal at maybe 5%. It just seemed such a no brainer. Right now I would put it nearer 40%.
Where do you think the numbers in Parliament supporting "No Deal" come from?
More to the point where do the numbers for 'a deal' come from
No Deal at the moment happens by default in March 2019.
But that's not true in reality (outside of hard Brexiteers' fantasies), is it?
In reality, Labour/LibDems/SNP will pass motions forbidding "No Deal", even if they vote against a specific deal - and will be assisted in the parliamentary processes for doing so by John Bercow.
Parliament cannot unilaterally forbid no deal. It would also need the consent of the EU.
It’d be like Parliament repealing the Australia Act. Meaningless.
The hierarchy of sneer from Remainers is most enlightening. The only thing lower on their ladder of virtue than Boris is a female protestant unionist.
Besides us Remainers are allowed to sneer.
Indeed. But don't be surprised when you keep on losing referendums.
I wish other Leavers had your apparent confidence. But they seem frightened to hold any referendum on the Deal. They appear to want to freeze public opinion at the moment they were ahead with the non-specific promises, which is very understandable if they fear losing when they have to get specific; less so if they're confident they'd win when the specifics are presented.
We already know the country wants Brexit, we had a vote on that. If we need another vote to decide how we leave then fair enough, but you're still relying on some inept politicians to execute the people's decision.
The country wanted Brexit - based on what was promised and/or threatened. But, then again, the country wanted a slim Tory majority, and the 2015 Tory manifesto. Didn't stop the people being asked again if they were sure in 2017, barely two years later and with most of said manifesto not yet delivered.
And the politicians we've got executing the decisions are the ones elected in said 2017 General Election. I've got some quibbles with how the electoral system works, to be fair - do you as well?
If you think "No Deal" could really happen, you're basically saying that you think the likes of Anna Soubry and the other Tory Remainers will bottle it when it comes to the crunch, and would vote in favour of a "No Deal" Brexit.
I'm not scoffing at the chances of that - given the likes of Soubry and Grieve have been "all piss and wind" on Brexit matters in the past, I think it's entirely plausible they would cave into pressure from the Tory grassroots / bollocks Churchillian rhetoric about "standing up for our country". But there's zero chance of Labour MPs (bar a handful) approving "No Deal", and there's also zero chance of the government being able to effect Brexit in defiance of a Commons motion forbidding them from doing so without sparking the mother of all constitutional crises (and people are not appreciating the weapons John Bercow would have at his disposal in such a scenario).
If opposition parties and Conservative rebels succeed in voting down any proposal that the government puts before the House, then No Deal it is.
And if Parliament votes to block a "No Deal" proposal? Do you honestly think the government would (or could) just defy Parliament in that way without a massive firestorm?
Parliament has passed an Act to leave the EU in 2019. No Deal does not require any further vote.
If you think "No Deal" could really happen, you're basically saying that you think the likes of Anna Soubry and the other Tory Remainers will bottle it when it comes to the crunch, and would vote in favour of a "No Deal" Brexit.
I'm not scoffing at the chances of that - given the likes of Soubry and Grieve have been "all piss and wind" on Brexit matters in the past, I think it's entirely plausible they would cave into pressure from the Tory grassroots / bollocks Churchillian rhetoric about "standing up for our country". But there's zero chance of Labour MPs (bar a handful) approving "No Deal", and there's also zero chance of the government being able to effect Brexit in defiance of a Commons motion forbidding them from doing so without sparking the mother of all constitutional crises (and people are not appreciating the weapons John Bercow would have at his disposal in such a scenario).
If opposition parties and Conservative rebels succeed in voting down any proposal that the government puts before the House, then No Deal it is.
And if Parliament votes to block a "No Deal" proposal? Do you honestly think the government would (or could) just defy Parliament in that way without a massive firestorm?
What if parliment passed a motion saying 'the law of gravity doesn't apply in the UK'? or 'Donald Trump should resign'.
The hierarchy of sneer from Remainers is most enlightening. The only thing lower on their ladder of virtue than Boris is a female protestant unionist.
Besides us Remainers are allowed to sneer.
Indeed. But don't be surprised when you keep on losing referendums.
I wish other Leavers had your apparent confidence. But they seem frightened to hold any referendum on the Deal. They appear to want to freeze public opinion at the moment they were ahead with the non-specific promises, which is very understandable if they fear losing when they have to get specific; less so if they're confident they'd win when the specifics are presented.
the only point in having a second referendum is if there is a substantive revision our current membership terms
Or, of course, a substantive difference in the Brexit being delivered compared to that voted for.
If you think "No Deal" could really happen, you're basically saying that you think the likes of Anna Soubry and the other Tory Remainers will bottle it when it comes to the crunch, and would vote in favour of a "No Deal" Brexit.
I'm not scoffing at the chances of that - given the likes of Soubry and Grieve have been "all piss and wind" on Brexit matters in the past, I think it's entirely plausible they would cave into pressure from the Tory grassroots / bollocks Churchillian rhetoric about "standing up for our country". But there's zero chance of Labour MPs (bar a handful) approving "No Deal", and there's also zero chance of the government being able to effect Brexit in defiance of a Commons motion forbidding them from doing so without sparking the mother of all constitutional crises (and people are not appreciating the weapons John Bercow would have at his disposal in such a scenario).
If opposition parties and Conservative rebels succeed in voting down any proposal that the government puts before the House, then No Deal it is.
Indeed. If "No Deal" is to be avoided, then a specific Deal must be agreed. It's a binary choice: a Deal (agreed with the EU) passes Parliament, or it does not. If it does, we leave with a Deal. If it does not, we leave with No Deal. Parliament's only power to avoid No Deal is to approve a given Deal.
If you think "No Deal" could really happen, you're basically saying that you think the likes of Anna Soubry and the other Tory Remainers will bottle it when it comes to the crunch, and would vote in favour of a "No Deal" Brexit.
I'm not scoffing at the chances of that - given the likes of Soubry and Grieve have been "all piss and wind" on Brexit matters in the past, I think it's entirely plausible they would cave into pressure from the Tory grassroots / bollocks Churchillian rhetoric about "standing up for our country". But there's zero chance of Labour MPs (bar a handful) approving "No Deal", and there's also zero chance of the government being able to effect Brexit in defiance of a Commons motion forbidding them from doing so without sparking the mother of all constitutional crises (and people are not appreciating the weapons John Bercow would have at his disposal in such a scenario).
If opposition parties and Conservative rebels succeed in voting down any proposal that the government puts before the House, then No Deal it is.
And if Parliament votes to block a "No Deal" proposal? Do you honestly think the government would (or could) just defy Parliament in that way without a massive firestorm?
What if parliment passed a motion saying 'the law of gravity doesn't apply in the UK'? or 'Donald Trump should resign'.
If you think "No Deal" could really happen, you're basically saying that you think the likes of Anna Soubry and the other Tory Remainers will bottle it when it comes to the crunch, and would vote in favour of a "No Deal" Brexit.
I'm not scoffing at the chances of that - given the likes of Soubry and Grieve have been "all piss and wind" on Brexit matters in the past, I think it's entirely plausible they would cave into pressure from the Tory grassroots / bollocks Churchillian rhetoric about "standing up for our country". But there's zero chance of Labour MPs (bar a handful) approving "No Deal", and there's also zero chance of the government being able to effect Brexit in defiance of a Commons motion forbidding them from doing so without sparking the mother of all constitutional crises (and people are not appreciating the weapons John Bercow would have at his disposal in such a scenario).
If opposition parties and Conservative rebels succeed in voting down any proposal that the government puts before the House, then No Deal it is.
And if Parliament votes to block a "No Deal" proposal? Do you honestly think the government would (or could) just defy Parliament in that way without a massive firestorm?
Parliament has passed an Act to leave the EU in 2019. No Deal does not require any further vote.
It might not require a further vote, but there still would be a further vote, Labour and Remain MPs (and Bercow) would make sure of it.
The hierarchy of sneer from Remainers is most enlightening. The only thing lower on their ladder of virtue than Boris is a female protestant unionist.
Besides us Remainers are allowed to sneer.
Indeed. But don't be surprised when you keep on losing referendums.
I wish other Leavers had your apparent confidence. But they seem frightened to hold any referendum on the Deal. They appear to want to freeze public opinion at the moment they were ahead with the non-specific promises, which is very understandable if they fear losing when they have to get specific; less so if they're confident they'd win when the specifics are presented.
the only point in having a second referendum is if there is a substantive revision our current membership terms
Or, of course, a substantive difference in the Brexit being delivered compared to that voted for.
that's not possible. There was no definitive out position, nor a definitive stay position. The question was simply Leave or Remain and the nation voted Leave.
You can say it was ill thought through or badly drafted legisaltion but the majority of people who passed that legislation are still in place and theres no reason to thinbk theyll do the job any better than the last time.
If you think "No Deal" could really happen, you're basically saying that you think the likes of Anna Soubry and the other Tory Remainers will bottle it when it comes to the crunch, and would vote in favour of a "No Deal" Brexit.
I'm not scoffing at the chances of that - given the likes of Soubry and Grieve have been "all piss and wind" on Brexit matters in the past, I think it's entirely plausible they would cave into pressure from the Tory grassroots / bollocks Churchillian rhetoric about "standing up for our country". But there's zero chance of Labour MPs (bar a handful) approving "No Deal", and there's also zero chance of the government being able to effect Brexit in defiance of a Commons motion forbidding them from doing so without sparking the mother of all constitutional crises (and people are not appreciating the weapons John Bercow would have at his disposal in such a scenario).
If opposition parties and Conservative rebels succeed in voting down any proposal that the government puts before the House, then No Deal it is.
And if Parliament votes to block a "No Deal" proposal? Do you honestly think the government would (or could) just defy Parliament in that way without a massive firestorm?
What if parliment passed a motion saying 'the law of gravity doesn't apply in the UK'? or 'Donald Trump should resign'.
Parliment can't control what it can't control.
Donald Trump resigning is not an option that's open to us; remaining in the EU or extending the negotiations is, even Macron has said that.
Comments
DavidL prefers hairy men
It would mean that UK business and industry – the entire UK economy - would be exposed perpetually to regulations that might have been expressly designed, at the behest of foreign competitors, to do them down.
It would mean that whatever the EU came up with, banning the sale of eggs by the dozen, banning diabetics from driving, banning vaping, whatever - and all of those have been at least considered by Brussels in the last few years - all of this nonsense we would have to implement with no ability to change or resist.
I'm pretty sure that this is what is known in diplomatic circles as 'bollocks'.
https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1047087488412594177
Hunt and Javid underwhelmed, Boris ok, but maybe this prolongs TM term in office as no obvious successor
Chequers is at least 'a' solution.
Job done.
But they seem frightened to hold any referendum on the Deal. They appear to want to freeze public opinion at the moment they were ahead with the non-specific promises, which is very understandable if they fear losing when they have to get specific; less so if they're confident they'd win when the specifics are presented.
Do we still have access to that rocket to shoot people into space?
But it wouldn't help sneering remainaholics accept the result or move on gracefully. If anything it would reopen and widen the divide. Turnout would be down too.
It would also be a huge waste of time and money.
So what is the point ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/sports-personality/45712150
The BBC Sports Personality of the Year 2018 contenders will be revealed on the night of the show for the first time.
There may well be news soundbites but I doubt it will be remembered as a huge success for him.
Why only 20 mps with him - seems strange
He can be entertaining. Like a clown.
Alternative is JRM but he's just too Popish.
Over to May now. Can she paint a vision on what her government is about and a deal on Brexit that she can sell? Vision really isn't her strong point. My guess, FWIW, is that she is also going to steer towards the mini-deals to avoid disruption but will make it clear that unless the EU reconsider their position there will be no deal.
Two months ago I put the risk of a no deal at maybe 5%. It just seemed such a no brainer. Right now I would put it nearer 40%.
The attendees are giving the Cabinet a very strong message here, will they listen and learn.
No Deal at the moment happens by default in March 2019.
In reality, Labour/LibDems/SNP will pass motions forbidding "No Deal", even if they vote against a specific deal - and will be assisted in the parliamentary processes for doing so by John Bercow.
Still, this a beast that May unleashed, in her infinite incompetence. She will reap the whirlwind of having borne it.
I'm not scoffing at the chances of that - given the likes of Soubry and Grieve have been "all piss and wind" on Brexit matters in the past, I think it's entirely plausible they would cave into pressure from the Tory grassroots / bollocks Churchillian rhetoric about "standing up for our country". But there's zero chance of Labour MPs (bar a handful) approving "No Deal", and there's also zero chance of the government being able to effect Brexit in defiance of a Commons motion forbidding them from doing so without sparking the mother of all constitutional crises (and people are not appreciating the weapons John Bercow would have at his disposal in such a scenario).
Great joke about Andy Streets, and initial signalling of serious intent lasting around 10 minutes notwithstanding, it was fucking useless. As is he.
Don't mention it.
Edit: Constitutionally would that be possible? Who the **** knows!!!???
Personally, I think that's opinion rather than fact, and we could do with more facts involved. Another referendum would help - and it would help Leave if they won it. There could be no "This isn't the Brexit we voted for" from disillusioned Leave voters is it goes wrong. There could be no "They only won by lying" from Remain voters.
The cost is trivial in comparison to the issue at stake (and the price of democracy), and - if, as you say, Leave is well ahead - then what's the downside to them?
But, then again, the country wanted a slim Tory majority, and the 2015 Tory manifesto. Didn't stop the people being asked again if they were sure in 2017, barely two years later and with most of said manifesto not yet delivered.
And the politicians we've got executing the decisions are the ones elected in said 2017 General Election. I've got some quibbles with how the electoral system works, to be fair - do you as well?
Parliment can't control what it can't control.
If it does, we leave with a Deal.
If it does not, we leave with No Deal.
Parliament's only power to avoid No Deal is to approve a given Deal.
You can say it was ill thought through or badly drafted legisaltion but the majority of people who passed that legislation are still in place and theres no reason to thinbk theyll do the job any better than the last time.