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.
Simplistic. Politics is the art of the possible and it is possible that other things happen.
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. There is a school of thought that somehow Parliament can force the government to agree a deal with the EU, which is impossible. Likewise that Parliament can somehow revoke the A50 notice or call a referendum with the government opposed. Not happening.
If there’s a deal agreed, then the government will present it as a Bill in the usual way, and Parliament will vote either for or against the Bill.
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.
Simplistic. Politics is the art of the possible and it is possible that other things happen.
IMO if we get to next February with no deal looming parliament is likely to demand a second referendum.
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 ?
Another referendum would help
So another two would help more ? Perhaps 5 would totally solve it ?
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.
Simplistic. Politics is the art of the possible and it is possible that other things happen.
IMO if we get to next February with no deal looming parliament is likely to demand a second referendum.
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.
Simplistic. Politics is the art of the possible and it is possible that other things happen.
It is certainly possible, but the mechanisms and the final outcome would be extremely uncertain. Probably most likely is that the government would agree a series of mini-deals with the EU, limited in scope, to at least keep planes flying and food imports coming, whilst we worked out what to do next, from outside the EU. The only other alternative would be to agree an Article 50 extension with the EU, but on what terms and for how long is anyone's guess.
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 ?
Another referendum would help
So another two would help more ? Perhaps 5 would totally solve it ?
There will be n+1 referendums, where n is the number leave win.
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.
Simplistic. Politics is the art of the possible and it is possible that other things happen.
IMO if we get to next February with no deal looming parliament is likely to demand a second referendum.
On what?
Leave with no deal or remain I guess. They would be the only available options.
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. There is a school of thought that somehow Parliament can force the government to agree a deal with the EU, which is impossible. Likewise that Parliament can somehow revoke the A50 notice or call a referendum with the government opposed. Not happening.
If there’s a deal agreed, then the government will present it as a Bill in the usual way, and Parliament will vote either for or against the Bill.
One of the more interesting manifestations of these machinations is that possibly Chequers plus CU might get passed by the Government with opposition votes, over the top of the government backbenches.
I could see that working out like New Labour and the Iraq war. I don't think those backbenches would have to wait as long for their revenge.
I think Blind Brexit is the more likely outcome though.
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.
One thing that’s almost certain is that John Bercow is going to make an almighty arse of himself at some point in the next six months...
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.
Simplistic. Politics is the art of the possible and it is possible that other things happen.
It is certainly possible, but the mechanisms and the final outcome would be extremely uncertain. Probably most likely is that the government would agree a series of mini-deals with the EU, limited in scope, to at least keep planes flying and food imports coming, whilst we worked out what to do next, from outside the EU. The only other alternative would be to agree an Article 50 extension with the EU, but on what terms and for how long is anyone's guess.
An article 50 extension just requires the 28 leaders to agree to it and it's done. It's nuts to think that "a series of mini-deals" is more likely in the absence of the UK agreeing to the divorce terms.
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.
Simplistic. Politics is the art of the possible and it is possible that other things happen.
It is certainly possible, but the mechanisms and the final outcome would be extremely uncertain. Probably most likely is that the government would agree a series of mini-deals with the EU, limited in scope, to at least keep planes flying and food imports coming, whilst we worked out what to do next, from outside the EU. The only other alternative would be to agree an Article 50 extension with the EU, but on what terms and for how long is anyone's guess.
An article 50 extension just requires the 28 leaders to agree to it and it's done. It's nuts to think that "a series of mini-deals" is more likely in the absence of the UK agreeing to the divorce terms.
and the EU 27 are just going to roll over in unison and agree it are they ?
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. There is a school of thought that somehow Parliament can force the government to agree a deal with the EU, which is impossible. Likewise that Parliament can somehow revoke the A50 notice or call a referendum with the government opposed. Not happening.
If there’s a deal agreed, then the government will present it as a Bill in the usual way, and Parliament will vote either for or against the Bill.
One of the more interesting manifestations of these machinations is that possibly Chequers plus CU might get passed by the Government with opposition votes, over the top of the government backbenches.
I could see that working out like New Labour and the Iraq war. I don't think those backbenches would have to wait as long for their revenge.
I think Blind Brexit is the more likely outcome though.
Mrs May wouldn’t last five minutes if she tried to pull that stunt. The CU is possibly the only absolute red line for a very large number of Tory MPs.
An article 50 extension just requires the 28 leaders to agree to it and it's done. It's nuts to think that "a series of mini-deals" is more likely in the absence of the UK agreeing to the divorce terms.
You don't think that the EU27 would have some interest in what the time bought by such an Article 50 extension would be used for, and by whom?
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.
You do not really have to look too hard to see that that Professor who was on the news the other day appears to be either a sexist or very badly informed. There are many examples of women who would have been better known if the "system" had allowed it.
Bear in mind that until the late 19th Century, women were chattels belonging to their husband. When she married, everything she owned became his and she had no rights to her own property or person.
An article 50 extension just requires the 28 leaders to agree to it and it's done. It's nuts to think that "a series of mini-deals" is more likely in the absence of the UK agreeing to the divorce terms.
You don't think that the EU27 would have some interest in what such an Article 50 extension would be used for, and by whom?
Of course they would. And the UK would accept their conditions.
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.
Simplistic. Politics is the art of the possible and it is possible that other things happen.
It is certainly possible, but the mechanisms and the final outcome would be extremely uncertain. Probably most likely is that the government would agree a series of mini-deals with the EU, limited in scope, to at least keep planes flying and food imports coming, whilst we worked out what to do next, from outside the EU. The only other alternative would be to agree an Article 50 extension with the EU, but on what terms and for how long is anyone's guess.
An article 50 extension just requires the 28 leaders to agree to it and it's done. It's nuts to think that "a series of mini-deals" is more likely in the absence of the UK agreeing to the divorce terms.
Yes but you have to consider that the EU wants everything neatly tied up so we don't have to elect any more MEPs. The European Parliament has already divvied up our seats and if we have to elect new MEPs for a short period it'll ruin their plans and may result in an anomaly once we actually have left.
An article 50 extension just requires the 28 leaders to agree to it and it's done. It's nuts to think that "a series of mini-deals" is more likely in the absence of the UK agreeing to the divorce terms.
You don't think that the EU27 would have some interest in what such an Article 50 extension would be used for, and by whom?
Of course they would. And the UK would accept their conditions.
The UK government can only accept conditions which it can accept. It can't, for example, guarantee that a referendum would go any particular way, nor that Labour - interested mainly in disruption - would play ball, nor that its own backbenchers would be content to support anything agreed.
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. There is a school of thought that somehow Parliament can force the government to agree a deal with the EU, which is impossible. Likewise that Parliament can somehow revoke the A50 notice or call a referendum with the government opposed. Not happening.
If there’s a deal agreed, then the government will present it as a Bill in the usual way, and Parliament will vote either for or against the Bill.
One of the more interesting manifestations of these machinations is that possibly Chequers plus CU might get passed by the Government with opposition votes, over the top of the government backbenches.
I could see that working out like New Labour and the Iraq war. I don't think those backbenches would have to wait as long for their revenge.
I think Blind Brexit is the more likely outcome though.
Labour unlikely to vote for any May deal IMO. Leadership hopes to force general election and many MPs hope to force new referendum. Both have an interest in chaos as they think it will lead to their preferred outcome. And if it doesn't it can blamed on the Tories. And Labour members will be outraged if MPs help keep May in power. So I think she can rely only on a handful of the usual suspects - Hoey, Stringer etc.
Yes because the BBC is known throughout the country for its support for the Tories.
Maybe it is maybe it isn't but it really rankles when state-owned BBC news reporters give state-owned RT a hard time for being the "state broadcaster" and thus assuming and making it clear to their listeners that RT is therefore biased.
So another two would help more ? Perhaps 5 would totally solve it ?
Well then, get on with it and sort out a Brexit that will not wreck everything. So far the choices are Remain or Drive-off-the-cliff and Leavers do not want seem to want take responsibility for either.
So instead of telling us how awful and dreadful we are for not accepting the outcome, can you actually get round to telling us what the outcome actually is?
At the minute, the whole thing looks like a bl**dy great shambles. Why should I accept a shambles?
Yes because the BBC is known throughout the country for its support for the Tories.
Maybe it is maybe it isn't but it really rankles when state-owned BBC news reporters give state-owned RT a hard time for being the "state broadcaster" and thus assuming and making it clear to their listeners that RT is therefore biased.
Yes because the BBC is known throughout the country for its support for the Tories.
Maybe it is maybe it isn't but it really rankles when state-owned BBC news reporters give state-owned RT a hard time for being the "state broadcaster" and thus assuming and making it clear to their listeners that RT is therefore biased.
Well on reflection I think that the Grand Old Duke of Uxbridge will have a job getting his men to march to the top of the hill again. If he doesn't move now I think he's finished. And if he doesn't have the supporters to trigger a leadership election, what was the point?
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
The gorvernment is obliged - due to treaty commitments - to recognise the rulings of hundreds of foreign courts, ISDS tribunals and other dispute recognition bodies.
We would be unable to be members of the International Telecoms Union, for instance.
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
The gorvernment is obliged - due to treaty commitments - to recognise the rulings of hundreds of foreign courts, ISDS tribunals and other dispute recognition bodies.
We would be unable to be members of the International Telecoms Union, for instance.
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.
One thing that’s almost certain is that John Bercow is going to make an almighty arse of himself at some point in the next six months...
Perhaps so, but he still has the ability to make things incredibly difficult for the government if they try to just ignore Brexit motions passed by Parliament.
Yes because the BBC is known throughout the country for its support for the Tories.
Maybe it is maybe it isn't but it really rankles when state-owned BBC news reporters give state-owned RT a hard time for being the "state broadcaster" and thus assuming and making it clear to their listeners that RT is therefore biased.
Of course RT is biased.
I have no idea whether it is or isn't. All the journalists I've heard from it (being interviewed usually on the Today prog) have seemed eminently unbiased but what do I know? The issue is that it is rich for one state-owned broadcaster to castigate another state-owned broadcaster for being state-owned and for implying that any state-owned broadcaster by definition will be biased.
So another two would help more ? Perhaps 5 would totally solve it ?
Well then, get on with it and sort out a Brexit that will not wreck everything. So far the choices are Remain or Drive-off-the-cliff and Leavers do not want seem to want take responsibility for either.
So instead of telling us how awful and dreadful we are for not accepting the outcome, can you actually get round to telling us what the outcome actually is?
At the minute, the whole thing looks like a bl**dy great shambles. Why should I accept a shambles?
Yes because the BBC is known throughout the country for its support for the Tories.
Maybe it is maybe it isn't but it really rankles when state-owned BBC news reporters give state-owned RT a hard time for being the "state broadcaster" and thus assuming and making it clear to their listeners that RT is therefore biased.
Of course RT is biased.
I have no idea whether it is or isn't. All the journalists I've heard from it (being interviewed usually on the Today prog) have seemed eminently unbiased but what do I know? The issue is that it is rich for one state-owned broadcaster to castigate another state-owned broadcaster for being state-owned and for implying that any state-owned broadcaster by definition will be biased.
Yes because the BBC is known throughout the country for its support for the Tories.
Maybe it is maybe it isn't but it really rankles when state-owned BBC news reporters give state-owned RT a hard time for being the "state broadcaster" and thus assuming and making it clear to their listeners that RT is therefore biased.
Of course RT is biased.
I have no idea whether it is or isn't. All the journalists I've heard from it (being interviewed usually on the Today prog) have seemed eminently unbiased but what do I know? The issue is that it is rich for one state-owned broadcaster to castigate another state-owned broadcaster for being state-owned and for implying that any state-owned broadcaster by definition will be biased.
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 ?
Another referendum would help
So another two would help more ? Perhaps 5 would totally solve it ?
How would we have two, let alone five? In all seriousness, if the Brexit deal is put to the public and approved, we're out. There's no "Remain" left. Article 50 is complete and we're on the outside.
That's something I've always found a bit bizarre about the contention that Remain would just keep holding referendums until they win: if the referendum is on an agreed deal, that's it. We're not in the EU any more and any future referendum would have to be to rejoin (and I've seen plenty of Leavers say that they'd have no problem with pro-EU people calling for a referendum to rejoin in future).
Yes because the BBC is known throughout the country for its support for the Tories.
Did you watch much of ITV or Sky during the last election? It seemed fairly obvious to me that the tone of their coverage was more favourable* to Labour than the BBC's was.
* no doubt you would say "more biased towards Labour", I of course would say "less biased against Labour"!
Yes because the BBC is known throughout the country for its support for the Tories.
Maybe it is maybe it isn't but it really rankles when state-owned BBC news reporters give state-owned RT a hard time for being the "state broadcaster" and thus assuming and making it clear to their listeners that RT is therefore biased.
Of course RT is biased.
I have no idea whether it is or isn't. All the journalists I've heard from it (being interviewed usually on the Today prog) have seemed eminently unbiased but what do I know? The issue is that it is rich for one state-owned broadcaster to castigate another state-owned broadcaster for being state-owned and for implying that any state-owned broadcaster by definition will be biased.
RT is state controlled. The BBC is state owned.
That is the difference.
My state-owned broadcaster is state owned, his state-owned broadcaster is state controlled, you mean? Yes I'm sure it is. But let's bring a martian down to judge the two and RT might come out worse than the BBC but on the face of it they have pretty similar characteristics.
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).
Nor indeed that "the Council" is rarely responsible for social housing these days. Most Housing Association properties are superior to their private equivalents. Any problems with damp causing your children to be sick are far more likely to be the fault of a feckless private landlord.
He probably shouldn’t have said fuck the Tories then. Pass me the worlds smallest violin please.
Indeed. He's burned his bridges with the Tories.
I'm actually really surprised he's still in his job. Really if he'd got the courage of his convictions instead of bleating and whining he'd resign from C4 and start campaigning for Jezza like Paul Mason has done...
Yes because the BBC is known throughout the country for its support for the Tories.
Maybe it is maybe it isn't but it really rankles when state-owned BBC news reporters give state-owned RT a hard time for being the "state broadcaster" and thus assuming and making it clear to their listeners that RT is therefore biased.
Of course RT is biased.
I have no idea whether it is or isn't. All the journalists I've heard from it (being interviewed usually on the Today prog) have seemed eminently unbiased but what do I know? The issue is that it is rich for one state-owned broadcaster to castigate another state-owned broadcaster for being state-owned and for implying that any state-owned broadcaster by definition will be biased.
Are they unbiased when reporting on RT?
I'm pretty sure the BBC would fight you to the death to say that they were unbiased.
He probably shouldn’t have said fuck the Tories then. Pass me the worlds smallest violin please.
Indeed. He's burned his bridges with the Tories.
I'm actually really surprised he's still in his job. Really if he'd got the courage of his convictions instead of bleating and whining he'd resign from C4 and start campaigning for Jezza like Paul Mason has done...
Apparently the Jezzuits hate him because he framed Corbyn as an anti-Semite or something (no, me neither).
Yes because the BBC is known throughout the country for its support for the Tories.
Maybe it is maybe it isn't but it really rankles when state-owned BBC news reporters give state-owned RT a hard time for being the "state broadcaster" and thus assuming and making it clear to their listeners that RT is therefore biased.
Of course RT is biased.
I have no idea whether it is or isn't. All the journalists I've heard from it (being interviewed usually on the Today prog) have seemed eminently unbiased but what do I know? The issue is that it is rich for one state-owned broadcaster to castigate another state-owned broadcaster for being state-owned and for implying that any state-owned broadcaster by definition will be biased.
Are they unbiased when reporting on RT?
I'm pretty sure the BBC would fight you to the death to say that they were unbiased.
I was talking about the RT journalists, sorry. May appear unbiased when being interviewed on R4, but is that still true when they are on RT.
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).
Fetch the smelling salts !!
Twice in a day I find myself agreeing with Richard N.
I also read Boris's speech on the Spectator website. He witters on about home ownership but the situation today is wholly different from 1979-80.
Many people who rent want to rent - to assume they all want to buy their properties is foolish. Second, most of the rental property is now owned by private landlords. Osborne and Hammond have already tried to squeeze out the BTL market by reducing the tax benefits but it remains a strong sector in parts of London and elsewhere.
In any case, short of outlawing the multiple ownership of property and that doesn't sound very Conservative, the problem is really the supply of land set against the demand for houses and that's where Government efforts need to be focused.
Johnson remains trapped in some neo-Thatcherite mindset fighting the conflicts of a bygone decade without relevance to the present let alone the future.
Yes because the BBC is known throughout the country for its support for the Tories.
Maybe it is maybe it isn't but it really rankles when state-owned BBC news reporters give state-owned RT a hard time for being the "state broadcaster" and thus assuming and making it clear to their listeners that RT is therefore biased.
Of course RT is biased.
I have no idea whether it is or isn't. All the journalists I've heard from it (being interviewed usually on the Today prog) have seemed eminently unbiased but what do I know? The issue is that it is rich for one state-owned broadcaster to castigate another state-owned broadcaster for being state-owned and for implying that any state-owned broadcaster by definition will be biased.
RT is state controlled. The BBC is state owned.
That is the difference.
My state-owned broadcaster is state owned, his state-owned broadcaster is state controlled, you mean? Yes I'm sure it is. But let's bring a martian down to judge the two and RT might come out worse than the BBC but on the face of it they have pretty similar characteristics.
I think the aforementioned Martian would notice that the BBC has a duty to be impartial, and by-and-large is so, whilst Putin is to RT as Yoffy was to Fingermouse.
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).
Fetch the smelling salts !!
Twice in a day I find myself agreeing with Richard N.
I also read Boris's speech on the Spectator website. He witters on about home ownership but the situation today is wholly different from 1979-80.
Many people who rent want to rent - to assume they all want to buy their properties is foolish. Second, most of the rental property is now owned by private landlords. Osborne and Hammond have already tried to squeeze out the BTL market by reducing the tax benefits but it remains a strong sector in parts of London and elsewhere.
In any case, short of outlawing the multiple ownership of property and that doesn't sound very Conservative, the problem is really the supply of land set against the demand for houses and that's where Government efforts need to be focused.
Johnson remains trapped in some neo-Thatcherite mindset fighting the conflicts of a bygone decade without relevance to the present let alone the future.
A small minority are choosing to live in rented accommodation.
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).
Fetch the smelling salts !!
Twice in a day I find myself agreeing with Richard N.
I also read Boris's speech on the Spectator website. He witters on about home ownership but the situation today is wholly different from 1979-80.
Many people who rent want to rent - to assume they all want to buy their properties is foolish. Second, most of the rental property is now owned by private landlords. Osborne and Hammond have already tried to squeeze out the BTL market by reducing the tax benefits but it remains a strong sector in parts of London and elsewhere.
In any case, short of outlawing the multiple ownership of property and that doesn't sound very Conservative, the problem is really the supply of land set against the demand for houses and that's where Government efforts need to be focused.
Johnson remains trapped in some neo-Thatcherite mindset fighting the conflicts of a bygone decade without relevance to the present let alone the future.
Well, extending the Right to Buy to private tenants at an equally knockdown price could be a way forward.... It would certainly drive up home ownership. Can't see any downside myself...
Yes because the BBC is known throughout the country for its support for the Tories.
Maybe it is maybe it isn't but it really rankles when state-owned BBC news reporters give state-owned RT a hard time for being the "state broadcaster" and thus assuming and making it clear to their listeners that RT is therefore biased.
Of course RT is biased.
I have no idea whether it is or isn't. All the journalists I've heard from it (being interviewed usually on the Today prog) have seemed eminently unbiased but what do I know? The issue is that it is rich for one state-owned broadcaster to castigate another state-owned broadcaster for being state-owned and for implying that any state-owned broadcaster by definition will be biased.
RT is state controlled. The BBC is state owned.
That is the difference.
My state-owned broadcaster is state owned, his state-owned broadcaster is state controlled, you mean? Yes I'm sure it is. But let's bring a martian down to judge the two and RT might come out worse than the BBC but on the face of it they have pretty similar characteristics.
I think the aforementioned Martian would notice that the BBC has a duty to be impartial, and by-and-large is so, whilst Putin is to RT as Yoffy was to Fingermouse.
I think my point is, being proven on here, is that we Brits rush to defend "our" state-owned broadcaster while being quick to criticise other countries'. "Duty to be impartial" well of course it does and I'm not saying it's not.
That figure varies sharply across the country. In Newham 45% of people live in private rented accommodation. I can appreciate in other areas the figure will be much lower.
Renting enables people to live in areas in which they would not be able to afford to live if they had to buy.
I'd also argue nearly 6 million households isn't a "small minority".
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).
Fetch the smelling salts !!
Twice in a day I find myself agreeing with Richard N.
I also read Boris's speech on the Spectator website. He witters on about home ownership but the situation today is wholly different from 1979-80.
Many people who rent want to rent - to assume they all want to buy their properties is foolish. Second, most of the rental property is now owned by private landlords. Osborne and Hammond have already tried to squeeze out the BTL market by reducing the tax benefits but it remains a strong sector in parts of London and elsewhere.
In any case, short of outlawing the multiple ownership of property and that doesn't sound very Conservative, the problem is really the supply of land set against the demand for houses and that's where Government efforts need to be focused.
Johnson remains trapped in some neo-Thatcherite mindset fighting the conflicts of a bygone decade without relevance to the present let alone the future.
Well, extending the Right to Buy to private tenants at an equally knockdown price could be a way forward.... It would certainly drive up home ownership. Can't see any downside myself...
The downside of that policy would be a lot of empty housing and reduced labour mobility. The market has changed a lot, many landlords are renting out their own home while they work somewhere else on a short term contract, because the costs of moving (mainly stamp duty and mortgage fees) make it prohibitive to move every few years as used to be the case.
Yes because the BBC is known throughout the country for its support for the Tories.
Maybe it is maybe it isn't but it really rankles when state-owned BBC news reporters give state-owned RT a hard time for being the "state broadcaster" and thus assuming and making it clear to their listeners that RT is therefore biased.
@TOPPING - I saw your earlier response to the proposed EU cultural goods import restrictions.
Needless to say, it’s more complicated than you indicate, a bureaucratic minefield, and entirely heavy handed. Current proposals would require importers to ascertain the potted history of items which have enjoyed pretty much free movement since the year of publication. It’s farcical.
And it isn’t the cost that I object too - but the imposition into an art industry that the EU understands little. It is a real world example of why staying in the customs union is a non sensible choice for a third country like us.
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).
Fetch the smelling salts !!
Twice in a day I find myself agreeing with Richard N.
I also read Boris's speech on the Spectator website. He witters on about home ownership but the situation today is wholly different from 1979-80.
Many people who rent want to rent - to assume they all want to buy their properties is foolish. Second, most of the rental property is now owned by private landlords. Osborne and Hammond have already tried to squeeze out the BTL market by reducing the tax benefits but it remains a strong sector in parts of London and elsewhere.
In any case, short of outlawing the multiple ownership of property and that doesn't sound very Conservative, the problem is really the supply of land set against the demand for houses and that's where Government efforts need to be focused.
Johnson remains trapped in some neo-Thatcherite mindset fighting the conflicts of a bygone decade without relevance to the present let alone the future.
Well, extending the Right to Buy to private tenants at an equally knockdown price could be a way forward.... It would certainly drive up home ownership. Can't see any downside myself...
The downside of that policy would be a lot of empty housing. The market has changed a lot, many landlords are renting out their own home while they work somewhere else on a short term contract, because the costs of moving (mainly stamp duty and mortgage fees) make it prohibitive to move every few years as used to be the case.
I was being facetious. And backing up Stodges point that Boris' solutions to housing are straight from the 80's. A world where it is the straight jacket of an all-powerful Council preventing home ownership, rather than the obvious fact that it is that houses are too expensive and deposits too high.
Yes because the BBC is known throughout the country for its support for the Tories.
Maybe it is maybe it isn't but it really rankles when state-owned BBC news reporters give state-owned RT a hard time for being the "state broadcaster" and thus assuming and making it clear to their listeners that RT is therefore biased.
@TOPPING - I saw your earlier response to the proposed EU cultural goods import restrictions.
Needless to say, it’s more complicated than you indicate, a bureaucratic minefield, and entirely heavy handed. Current proposals would require importers to ascertain the potted history of items which have enjoyed pretty much free movement since the year of publication. It’s farcical.
And it isn’t the cost that I object too - but the imposition into an art industry that the EU understands little. It is a real world example of why staying in the customs union is a non sensible choice for a third country like us.
Yes I understand that that "statement" is likey to be a bane. I also understand that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. However, I can also see that the issue of terrorist fundraising is one that unites all EU countries and, although this particular measure sounds heavy-handed, in order to combat it effectively probably requires concerted action.
I would be very interested to know who were the main drivers behind the act.
Yes because the BBC is known throughout the country for its support for the Tories.
Maybe it is maybe it isn't but it really rankles when state-owned BBC news reporters give state-owned RT a hard time for being the "state broadcaster" and thus assuming and making it clear to their listeners that RT is therefore biased.
@TOPPING - I saw your earlier response to the proposed EU cultural goods import restrictions.
Needless to say, it’s more complicated than you indicate, a bureaucratic minefield, and entirely heavy handed. Current proposals would require importers to ascertain the potted history of items which have enjoyed pretty much free movement since the year of publication. It’s farcical.
And it isn’t the cost that I object too - but the imposition into an art industry that the EU understands little. It is a real world example of why staying in the customs union is a non sensible choice for a third country like us.
Yes I understand that that "statement" is likey to be a bane. I also understand that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. However, I can also see that the issue of terrorist fundraising is one that unites all EU countries and, although this particular measure sounds heavy-handed, in order to combat it effectively probably requires concerted action.
I would be very interested to know who were the main drivers behind the act.
As soon as someone explains to me why a book printed in England, France or the US earlier than 1767 should be presumed involved in terrorist financing, I could be swayed.
But committee meetings ascertained nothing; and indeed the representative from Interpol offered basically nothing.
It would be more than a bane. It would kill London as a centre of the world antique market.
Mr. Mortimer, that kind of idiotic failure to understand the real world or the consequences of their actions led to EU dickishness over VAT (which had the exact opposite result to their hopes) and seems to be leading their online meme/copyright stupidity.
Mr. Mortimer, that kind of idiotic failure to understand the real world or the consequences of their actions led to EU dickishness over VAT (which had the exact opposite result to their hopes) and seems to be leading their online meme/copyright stupidity.
Yes because the BBC is known throughout the country for its support for the Tories.
Maybe it is maybe it isn't but it really rankles when state-owned BBC news reporters give state-owned RT a hard time for being the "state broadcaster" and thus assuming and making it clear to their listeners that RT is therefore biased.
Of course RT is biased.
I have no idea whether it is or isn't. All the journalists I've heard from it (being interviewed usually on the Today prog) have seemed eminently unbiased but what do I know? The issue is that it is rich for one state-owned broadcaster to castigate another state-owned broadcaster for being state-owned and for implying that any state-owned broadcaster by definition will be biased.
RT is state controlled. The BBC is state owned.
That is the difference.
My state-owned broadcaster is state owned, his state-owned broadcaster is state controlled, you mean? Yes I'm sure it is. But let's bring a martian down to judge the two and RT might come out worse than the BBC but on the face of it they have pretty similar characteristics.
That's hilariously silly. Criticisms of BBC bias come from internal BBC bias of their staff, not from the fact they're somehow being told what to say by the state. RT is often told what line to follow by the state - it is the state's mouthpiece.
Comments
If there’s a deal agreed, then the government will present it as a Bill in the usual way, and Parliament will vote either for or against the Bill.
I could see that working out like New Labour and the Iraq war. I don't think those backbenches would have to wait as long for their revenge.
I think Blind Brexit is the more likely outcome though.
Bear in mind that until the late 19th Century, women were chattels belonging to their husband. When she married, everything she owned became his and she had no rights to her own property or person.
https://twitter.com/sarahwollaston/status/1046754276687654913?s=19
So instead of telling us how awful and dreadful we are for not accepting the outcome, can you actually get round to telling us what the outcome actually is?
At the minute, the whole thing looks like a bl**dy great shambles. Why should I accept a shambles?
We would be unable to be members of the International Telecoms Union, for instance.
Well there you go.
The BBC is state owned.
That is the difference.
That's something I've always found a bit bizarre about the contention that Remain would just keep holding referendums until they win: if the referendum is on an agreed deal, that's it. We're not in the EU any more and any future referendum would have to be to rejoin (and I've seen plenty of Leavers say that they'd have no problem with pro-EU people calling for a referendum to rejoin in future).
* no doubt you would say "more biased towards Labour", I of course would say "less biased against Labour"!
Why does number 10 think that the BBC is an easy ride?
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1047111006982496259
I'm actually really surprised he's still in his job. Really if he'd got the courage of his convictions instead of bleating and whining he'd resign from C4 and start campaigning for Jezza like Paul Mason has done...
Twice in a day I find myself agreeing with Richard N.
I also read Boris's speech on the Spectator website. He witters on about home ownership but the situation today is wholly different from 1979-80.
Many people who rent want to rent - to assume they all want to buy their properties is foolish. Second, most of the rental property is now owned by private landlords. Osborne and Hammond have already tried to squeeze out the BTL market by reducing the tax benefits but it remains a strong sector in parts of London and elsewhere.
In any case, short of outlawing the multiple ownership of property and that doesn't sound very Conservative, the problem is really the supply of land set against the demand for houses and that's where Government efforts need to be focused.
Johnson remains trapped in some neo-Thatcherite mindset fighting the conflicts of a bygone decade without relevance to the present let alone the future.
Soft-headed idiot. Go and work for the Guardian.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/money/2017/jun/12/one-in-four-households-in-britain-will-rent-privately-by-end-of-2021-says-report
It would certainly drive up home ownership.
Can't see any downside myself...
Renting enables people to live in areas in which they would not be able to afford to live if they had to buy.
I'd also argue nearly 6 million households isn't a "small minority".
The market has changed a lot, many landlords are renting out their own home while they work somewhere else on a short term contract, because the costs of moving (mainly stamp duty and mortgage fees) make it prohibitive to move every few years as used to be the case.
There will also be more alternatives
Needless to say, it’s more complicated than you indicate, a bureaucratic minefield, and entirely heavy handed. Current proposals would require importers to ascertain the potted history of items which have enjoyed pretty much free movement since the year of publication. It’s farcical.
And it isn’t the cost that I object too - but the imposition into an art industry that the EU understands little. It is a real world example of why staying in the customs union is a non sensible choice for a third country like us.
A world where it is the straight jacket of an all-powerful Council preventing home ownership, rather than the obvious fact that it is that houses are too expensive and deposits too high.
I would be very interested to know who were the main drivers behind the act.
But committee meetings ascertained nothing; and indeed the representative from Interpol offered basically nothing.
It would be more than a bane. It would kill London as a centre of the world antique market.
NEW THREAD
Besides, being a journalist in Russia is rather dangerous:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia
It's surprising how many of those were anti-Putin.