Second vote Remain wins Who governs? Who is leader of the opposition?
Corbyn governs in a minority government controlled by the LDs and SNP, Boris takes over as Leader of the Opposition on a platform of a third referendum
And the madness never ends...
I think this is where a 'No Deal' Brexit starts to look attractive. Horrible in the short term, but the only way to cut through the Gordian knot of the referendum aftermath. Personally, I would then hope for a humbled nation rejoining in a 10-20 year timeframe and (to answer the question posed by Chris Patten's in 2004) Britain will finally "join" the EU, with no more looking over our shoulder at the exit door...
But equally we might be a proud and sovereign nation by then, in sunny economic uplands, tucking into our delicious chlorine-washed chicken, and happily tugging our forelocks at Lord Rees-Mogg.
But at least *we'd know* - and it's that certainty that everyone is becoming increasingly desperate for.
Yes, I think that there is an argument that the Brexiteers have to be handed the rope to hang themselves with, or in the words of Lenin "The worse, the better". I have some sympathy with that view.
One of the Brexiteers weakest points is the whole "We'll be able to trade with the whole world", the EU never stopped us doing that.
There does seem to be a casual assumption among some Leavers that by having its own trade deals the UK will automatically be better off.
With the way British governments have functioned in recent years and the preference of posturing over proper preparation I really don't want trade treaties meddled with unless absolutely necessary.
There is zero chance that we'll be better off as a result of negotiating our own trade deals. In fact when (during the referendum campaign) Leavers first started going on about trade deals I assumed that it was a rather feeble attempt to cover up the fact that we're giving up the biggest set of trade deals on the planet in return for a chimera, which seemed fair enough if they were trying to mitigate one of the best arguments of the opposite side. I was gobsmacked to find that some of them actually seem to believe in the chimera.
Yes this "own trade deals" is one of the biggest nonsense of Brexit, and that's saying something. The Single Market does come with real issues of sovereignty because it affects how we live our lives. With trade agreements you just go for the best arrangement you can get. It doesn't matter who negotiated it.
On topic, while I agree with the conclusions of the header, I do take issue with the point that May has not sought to lead opinion rather than corral it to her advantage. More than anything else I am not sure what it is supposed to mean - her approach has not been popular and she therefore definitely sought to lead opinion rather than corral existing opinions. She has done so poorly, and unsuccessfully, but she came up with her own approach and tried it, that is at least attempting to lead opinion surely?
One of the Brexiteers weakest points is the whole "We'll be able to trade with the whole world", the EU never stopped us doing that.
There does seem to be a casual assumption among some Leavers that by having its own trade deals the UK will automatically be better off.
With the way British governments have functioned in recent years and the preference of posturing over proper preparation I really don't want trade treaties meddled with unless absolutely necessary.
There is zero chance that we'll be better off as a result of negotiating our own trade deals. In fact when (during the referendum campaign) Leavers first started going on about trade deals I assumed that it was a rather feeble attempt to cover up the fact that we're giving up the biggest trade deal on the planet in return for a chimera, which seemed fair enough if they were trying to mitigate one of the best arguments of the opposite side. I was gobsmacked to find that some of them actually seem to believe in the chimera.
I think we could get better trade deals on the basis that I doubt the EU ever put UK trade interests anywhere near the top of its priority list.
But they would have to be negotiated patiently and very carefully by people with knowledge and experience and willingness to do detailed work.
And I really doubt such people exist in Westminster or Whitehall.
We'd be better off with a negotiating team of your good self, Richard Tyndall and RCS.
Thanks for the kind thought, but there's a trade-off. Yes, we could prioritise UK-specific interests in a way in which the EU as a whole obviously can't and shouldn't, but against that we've got a much, much smaller market to offer to the other side, so a much weaker bargaining position. On balance I think we'll be very lucky to do as well on our own as we have done as part of the larger group.
However, even if we assume that we could do a lot better, there's still a big deficit to make up in terms of giving up on frictionless access to the EU27 economies, which represent a large chunk of our existing and potential markets. Plus it will take a long time to do any new deals.
How would PB-ers vote in a 2nd referendum? Would anyone change?
I confess I would be drawn to Remain. Reluctantly, and with a sad sense of leaving behind a vision of my country as a proud sovereign nation, with an unexampled history of invention, conquest, enterprise and bravery, but nonetheless a nation that in all true senses no longer exists. In retrospect, if we were going to Leave it needed to happen before we signed the EU Constitution and accepted Article 50. That was the key that turned the lock, and made leaving so painful it could never be successfully done - or done without horrific damage.
Of course we were promised a vote on that Constitution and Article 50, and we would have voted it down, and the crisis of Brexit would thus have been avoided with our pride intact (and the EU a better, more democratic place) but the political classes conspired to deny us this, and we are where are. Betrayed and jailed.
I would therefore vote quite selfishly and for London properly prices and for my own monetary gain: I would probably switch to Remain, and then go on a ten day Tanqueray bender to drown my utter shame and self loathing.
Your point on the European Comstiution is interesting.
I’m friends with the First Squire of England (there is actually someone with that title). He is an ardent anti-EU supporter who voted Remain because he believed the damage would be too great
Item: No deal means that no regulatory framework for UK-manufactured aerospace parts. That's bad. But no doubt the bosses of Airbus SE might rapidly draw to the attention of European politicians that the corollary of that is that Airbus can no longer produce any planes other than A320s - at least, not planes with wings - since the wings are made in the UK.
And in case you are wondering - it would take several years to move production.
I have discussed this before. Airbus have a factory in Spain that makes tailplanes (the horizontal bits on the tail), which could be expanded to make wings (the tech is the same).
At a push, 18 months to move production. It's not like the blueprints are a state secret and unless you're suggesting forcing your way into Broughton(?) and physically preventing the workers from making wings, production would continue until the new factory came onstream.
There is some major silliness about this. The Irish claim that they could lock down UK airspace was ludicrous, because the Irish airspace is jointly administered with the UK and some of the tech and centres are in the UK. Similarly the claim that only Britain can make European wings is silly: aviation production in different countries with assembly elsewhere has been a commonplace since the 1970's and the MRCA (later Tornado). From memory, the Typhoon left wing is made in Spain and the right wing in Italy. This isn't rocket science.
Had a very sobering - but interesting - conversation with one of my German friends this evening, who works for the German government, and who runs a network to help people repatriate back to the EU ahead of Brexit.
She says the feeling in the EU now is to do a deal ahead of March (and to offer TMay some wins to make it happen, albeit at the 11th hour after highly publicised brinkmanship), but with a transition period until Dec 31, 2020 (the day before the new EU budget is adopted).
The feeling is that EU wants the UK out as soon as possible, but they don't want a catastrophic collapse in supply chains, no medicines, etc. leading to anti-EU sentiment, with the risk that a humbled nation won't rejoin 10 or 20 years down the line (which is what I'm betting on).
At first glance this looks another classic EU 'kicking the can' job, but actually it gives companies who need to be manufacturing within the EU (to have the 'origin' label to comply with global trade laws) another 18 months to transfer as much manufacturing out of the UK as possible.
On the plus side, it's likely we'll wake up on March 30, and the world won't have ended. Everyone will breathe a sigh of relief. Life will carry on, anti-EU sentiment is kept to a minimum. However, there will then be a Groundhog Day countdown to the end of 2020.
Do not forget that firms on the continent also need to move to the UK to manufacture for the same reasons as you quote. The real question is which will be the larger flow?
Well, I dispute Bookseller's premise, in that I think it is not in anyone's interests for supply chains to be broken up.
However, if there was widespread repatriation of company supply chains it would work against us. Simply, in many sectors - such as automotive - we lack critical mass.
It's simply business. Automotive (for example) requires constant investment and R&D (and the move to electric is making this even more so). If post-Brexit tariffs add another 10-15% on baseline costs, car companies will simply 'wind down' UK production as models become obsolete. Jaguar Land Rover are a good example, quietly moving some manufacturing to Slovakia so that over the next 3-5 years, if things don't work out, all manufacturing can end up back in the EU. The government might intervene with assistance (we won't be tied by EU rules on this anymore) but I don't see any significant car manufacturing in the UK beyond 2030.
I do think there will be pockets of R&D expertise remaining though, and you may see one or two home-grown niche electric start-ups. So not all gloom and doom.
Oh, I saw about 3 mobility scooters whilst I was out today. Didn't see a single one in France. I have to say the drivers didn't look particularly disabled either. OK so they weren't looking particularly healthy either, but you shouldn't have a mobility scooter simply because you're 5'6 and 22 stone. It's just going to increase one's obesity. Has anyone properly looked into this ? It seems a real waste of the state's money, and doesn't help their owner's health one bit. Yes I realise some people do need them, I have a friend without feet for instance that has one. But they seem massively overused, particularly amongst the morbidly obese.
(Remember, the Government "no deal" contingency planning explicitly assumes deals on all the above...)
Nobody believes a word of it.
And remember, in the original campaign Cameron explicitly said he'd trigger A50 the very next morning after the leave vote - He said that thinking he'd put the fear of god into the population but actually most Leavers thought it sounded like a bloody good idea.
No Deal was always the assumed position for most of the Leave voters I know.
I agree with you that the dire warnings are not generally believed. But if they turn out to be accurate the sense of shock and crisis will be all the more serious.
And I think if we get to a no deal the EU, and France in particular, will make sure that reality is as close to the warnings as they can make it.
How are the French going to manage that without devastating their tourist, aerospace, car manufacturing, wine, and agricultural industries?
It’s good fun to speculate, but I think - as I have long said - that May will get a deal and history will remember her kindly for it. As you say upthread, her toying with the idea of No Brexit is clever as it should scare the Ergers. I think she’ll carry something like Chequers -CU through on the back of some Labour votes.
Yep - that's what I hope for too. Failure to reach a deal would be a very damning inditement of both parties. I also suspect many of the ERG fanatics will fall meekly 'more in sorrow than in anger' into line and back the government. If they had the numbers, Boris would be PM by now, begging for an Article 50 extension.
One of the Brexiteers weakest points is the whole "We'll be able to trade with the whole world", the EU never stopped us doing that.
There does seem to be a casual assumption among some Leavers that by having its own trade deals the UK will automatically be better off.
With the way British governments have functioned in recent years and the preference of posturing over proper preparation I really don't want trade treaties meddled with unless absolutely necessary.
There is zero chance that we'll be better off as a result of negotiating our own trade deals. In fact when (during the referendum campaign) Leavers first started going on about trade deals I assumed that it was a rather feeble attempt to cover up the fact that we're giving up the biggest trade deal on the planet in return for a chimera, which seemed fair enough if they were trying to mitigate one of the best arguments of the opposite side. I was gobsmacked to find that some of them actually seem to believe in the chimera.
I think we could get better trade deals on the basis that I doubt the EU ever put UK trade interests anywhere near the top of its priority list.
But they would have to be negotiated patiently and very carefully by people with knowledge and experience and willingness to do detailed work.
And I really doubt such people exist in Westminster or Whitehall.
We'd be better off with a negotiating team of your good self, Richard Tyndall and RCS.
Thanks for the kind thought, but there's a trade-off. Yes, we could prioritise UK-specific interests in a way in which the EU as a whole obviously can't and shouldn't, but against that we've got a much, much smaller market to offer to the other side, so a much weaker bargaining position. On balance I think we'll be very lucky to do as well on our own as we have done as part of the larger group.
However, even if we assume that we could do a lot better, there's still a big deficit to make up in terms of giving up on frictionless access to the EU27 economies, which represent a large chunk of our existing and potential markets. Plus it will take a long time to do any new deals.
You were right the first time. Size matters in trade negotiations. You have more negotiating power. Your market is more interesting to traders. Goods move freely across a wider area and are less constrained by rules of origin.
Had a very sobering - but interesting - conversation with one of my German friends this evening, who works for the German government, and who runs a network to help people repatriate back to the EU ahead of Brexit.
She says the feeling in the EU now is to do a deal ahead of March (and to offer TMay some wins to make it happen, albeit at the 11th hour after highly publicised brinkmanship), but with a transition period until Dec 31, 2020 (the day before the new EU budget is adopted).
The feeling is that EU wants the UK out as soon as possible, but they don't want a catastrophic collapse in supply chains, no medicines, etc. leading to anti-EU sentiment, with the risk that a humbled nation won't rejoin 10 or 20 years down the line (which is what I'm betting on).
At first glance this looks another classic EU 'kicking the can' job, but actually it gives companies who need to be manufacturing within the EU (to have the 'origin' label to comply with global trade laws) another 18 months to transfer as much manufacturing out of the UK as possible.
On the plus side, it's likely we'll wake up on March 30, and the world won't have ended. Everyone will breathe a sigh of relief. Life will carry on, anti-EU sentiment is kept to a minimum. However, there will then be a Groundhog Day countdown to the end of 2020.
Do not forget that firms on the continent also need to move to the UK to manufacture for the same reasons as you quote. The real question is which will be the larger flow?
Well, I dispute Bookseller's premise, in that I think it is not in anyone's interests for supply chains to be broken up.
However, if there was widespread repatriation of company supply chains it would work against us. Simply, in many sectors - such as automotive - we lack critical mass.
It's simply business. Automotive (for example) requires constant investment and R&D (and the move to electric is making this even more so). If post-Brexit tariffs add another 10-15% on baseline costs, car companies will simply 'wind down' UK production as models become obsolete. Jaguar Land Rover are a good example, quietly moving some manufacturing to Slovakia so that over the next 3-5 years, if things don't work out, all manufacturing can end up back in the EU. The government might intervene with assistance (we won't be tied by EU rules on this anymore) but I don't see any significant car manufacturing in the UK beyond 2030.
I do think there will be pockets of R&D expertise remaining though, and you may see one or two home-grown niche electric start-ups. So not all gloom and doom.
So tell us the %tage sales JLR make to the continental EU compared to the UK, USA, China, etc?
Item: No deal means that no regulatory framework for UK-manufactured aerospace parts. That's bad. But no doubt the bosses of Airbus SE might rapidly draw to the attention of European politicians that the corollary of that is that Airbus can no longer produce any planes other than A320s - at least, not planes with wings - since the wings are made in the UK.
And in case you are wondering - it would take several years to move production.
I have discussed this before. Airbus have a factory in Spain that makes tailplanes (the horizontal bits on the tail), which could be expanded to make wings (the tech is the same).
At a push, 18 months to move production. It's not like the blueprints are a state secret and unless you're suggesting forcing your way into Broughton(?) and physically preventing the workers from making wings, production would continue until the new factory came onstream.
There is some major silliness about this. The Irish claim that they could lock down UK airspace was ludicrous, because the Irish airspace is jointly administered with the UK and some of the tech and centres are in the UK. Similarly the claim that only Britain can make European wings is silly: aviation production in different countries with assembly elsewhere has been a commonplace since the 1970's and the MRCA (later Tornado). From memory, the Typhoon left wing is made in Spain and the right wing in Italy. This isn't rocket science.
Actually some of it is rocket science - carbon fibre manufacture is not at all straightforward. Also you don't seem to have understood the problem - it's the certification regime which (in a No Deal scenario) would prevent them using wings made in Broughton and Filton.
Sure, production could be moved, but it would take time. Even if we take your highly optimistic 18 month figure, are you seriously suggesting that Airbus could happily accept an 18-month period where they literally cannot produce a single aeroplane other than those A320s where the wings are made in China?
Item: No deal means that no regulatory framework for UK-manufactured aerospace parts. That's bad. But no doubt the bosses of Airbus SE might rapidly draw to the attention of European politicians that the corollary of that is that Airbus can no longer produce any planes other than A320s - at least, not planes with wings - since the wings are made in the UK.
And in case you are wondering - it would take several years to move production.
I have discussed this before. Airbus have a factory in Spain that makes tailplanes (the horizontal bits on the tail), which could be expanded to make wings (the tech is the same).
At a push, 18 months to move production. It's not like the blueprints are a state secret and unless you're suggesting forcing your way into Broughton(?) and physically preventing the workers from making wings, production would continue until the new factory came onstream.
There is some major silliness about this. The Irish claim that they could lock down UK airspace was ludicrous, because the Irish airspace is jointly administered with the UK and some of the tech and centres are in the UK. Similarly the claim that only Britain can make European wings is silly: aviation production in different countries with assembly elsewhere has been a commonplace since the 1970's and the MRCA (later Tornado). From memory, the Typhoon left wing is made in Spain and the right wing in Italy. This isn't rocket science.
Actually some of it is rocket science - carbon fibre manufacture is not at all straightforward. Also you don't seem to have understood the problem - it's the certification regime which (in a No Deal scenario) would prevent them using wings made in Broughton and Filton.
Sure, production could be moved, but it would take time. Even if we take your highly optimistic 18 month figure, are you seriously suggesting that Airbus could happily accept an 18-month period where they literally cannot produce a single aeroplane other than those A320s where the wings are made in China?
10,000 parts are made by 3,000 UK firms in the Airbus UK supply chain. A320 wings made in China are second generation not third. No additions on the end of the wings - first gen. Vertical stabilisers - second gen. Big 45 deg scoops (made in South Korea, scoops only) - third gen.
Item: No deal means that no regulatory framework for UK-manufactured aerospace parts. That's bad. But no doubt the bosses of Airbus SE might rapidly draw to the attention of European politicians that the corollary of that is that Airbus can no longer produce any planes other than A320s - at least, not planes with wings - since the wings are made in the UK.
And in case you are wondering - it would take several years to move production.
I have discussed this before. Airbus have a factory in Spain that makes tailplanes (the horizontal bits on the tail), which could be expanded to make wings (the tech is the same).
At a push, 18 months to move production. It's not like the blueprints are a state secret and unless you're suggesting forcing your way into Broughton(?) and physically preventing the workers from making wings, production would continue until the new factory came onstream.
There is some major silliness about this. The Irish claim that they could lock down UK airspace was ludicrous, because the Irish airspace is jointly administered with the UK and some of the tech and centres are in the UK. Similarly the claim that only Britain can make European wings is silly: aviation production in different countries with assembly elsewhere has been a commonplace since the 1970's and the MRCA (later Tornado). From memory, the Typhoon left wing is made in Spain and the right wing in Italy. This isn't rocket science.
Actually some of it is rocket science - carbon fibre manufacture is not at all straightforward. Also you don't seem to have understood the problem - it's the certification regime which (in a No Deal scenario) would prevent them using wings made in Broughton and Filton.
Sure, production could be moved, but it would take time. Even if we take your highly optimistic 18 month figure, are you seriously suggesting that Airbus could happily accept an 18-month period where they literally cannot produce a single aeroplane other than those A320s where the wings are made in China?
Hence the transition agreement to Dec 31 2020. This is tailor-made for Airbus to move production, or first in the queue for a post-Brexit 'exemption' to allow continued manufacturing (there would have to be a legal agreement to allow Airbus to continue exporting under the 'EU-rest of world' trade agreements - the US and Boeing would be all over this otherwise) . And that will depend of how much the Government might sweeten the deal to entice them to stay.
(As I type this. it occurs to me that this could actually benefit the UK Government, because they could point to this (very visible) example to prove Brexit hasn't been the catastrophe everyone said it would.).
Oh, I saw about 3 mobility scooters whilst I was out today. Didn't see a single one in France. I have to say the drivers didn't look particularly disabled either. OK so they weren't looking particularly healthy either, but you shouldn't have a mobility scooter simply because you're 5'6 and 22 stone. It's just going to increase one's obesity. Has anyone properly looked into this ? It seems a real waste of the state's money, and doesn't help their owner's health one bit. Yes I realise some people do need them, I have a friend without feet for instance that has one. But they seem massively overused, particularly amongst the morbidly obese.
Indeed.
It doesn't help that many of the users think they can drive around as if they were one of Guderian's panzers.
Second vote Remain wins Who governs? Who is leader of the opposition?
Corbyn governs in a minority government controlled by the LDs and SNP, Boris takes over as Leader of the Opposition on a platform of a third referendum
And the madness never ends...
I think this is where a 'No Deal' Brexit starts to look attractive. Horrible in the short term, but the only way to cut through the Gordian knot of the referendum aftermath. Personally, I would then hope for a humbled nation rejoining in a 10-20 year timeframe and (to answer the question posed by Chris Patten's in 2004) Britain will finally "join" the EU, with no more looking over our shoulder at the exit door...
But equally we might be a proud and sovereign nation by then, in sunny economic uplands, tucking into our delicious chlorine-washed chicken, and happily tugging our forelocks at Lord Rees-Mogg.
But at least *we'd know* - and it's that certainty that everyone is becoming increasingly desperate for.
Except No Deal will not be accepted by the voters as the polling shows, would likely break up the UK and trash the economy.
As I said the only sustainable Brexit is a Norway or Canada style one
I agree, but the Maybot doesn't seem to want a Norway or Canada-style deal, despite these being on offer from the EU, unlike the Chequers proposals, which are dead in the water.
One of the Brexiteers weakest points is the whole "We'll be able to trade with the whole world", the EU never stopped us doing that.
There does seem to be a casual assumption among some Leavers that by having its own trade deals the UK will automatically be better off.
With the way British governments have functioned in recent years and the preference of posturing over proper preparation I really don't want trade treaties meddled with unless absolutely necessary.
There is zero chance that we'll be better off as a result of negotiating our own trade deals. In fact when (during the referendum campaign) Leavers first started going on about trade deals I assumed that it was a rather feeble attempt to cover up the fact that we're giving up the biggest trade deal on the planet in return for a chimera, which seemed fair enough if they were trying to mitigate one of the best arguments of the opposite side. I was gobsmacked to find that some of them actually seem to believe in the chimera.
I think we could get better trade deals on the basis that I doubt the EU ever put UK trade interests anywhere near the top of its priority list.
But they would have to be negotiated patiently and very carefully by people with knowledge and experience and willingness to do detailed work.
And I really doubt such people exist in Westminster or Whitehall.
We'd be better off with a negotiating team of your good self, Richard Tyndall and RCS.
Thanks for the kind thought, but there's a trade-off. Yes, we could prioritise UK-specific interests in a way in which the EU as a whole obviously can't and shouldn't, but against that we've got a much, much smaller market to offer to the other side, so a much weaker bargaining position. On balance I think we'll be very lucky to do as well on our own as we have done as part of the larger group.
However, even if we assume that we could do a lot better, there's still a big deficit to make up in terms of giving up on frictionless access to the EU27 economies, which represent a large chunk of our existing and potential markets. Plus it will take a long time to do any new deals.
Its certainly an area to be handled with the utmost care and responsibility.
And so baffles me when Leavers declare it to be the main issue for them.
If Brexit is brutal, this dancing is going to look dangerously complacent. Fiddling whilst Rome burns, Peace in our time complacent.
If it all comes crashing down it won't matter a jot that she struck too jolly a pose at conference.
Disagree. If it turns bad, May’s ode to joy at conference will become dynamite in the hands of her enemies. It’s her attacks on Boris and Corbyn that will be forgotten, as they detonate that dynamite under her and her cabinet.
Bit dramatic
The future for Britain is dramatic.
We have never been outside the EU we helped create. We created it to help protect us from 21st century global commerce. We underestimate the extent the British Economy has been rebuilt upon the foundation of the EUs CU.
Personally I think Boris or Corbyn as PM is dramatic. The volatility ahead could make that happen. And history shows us mistakes like that dancing is ruthlessly exploited by enemies when shown to people sufferering a recession, job losses, debt, home repossessions, government and council cuts etc etc etc
We continue to deindustrialise regardless of leave or remain, how do we manufacture TVs, cars, aircraft and sell them when our labour costs are eight times higher than competitors? Brexit can’t turn the clock back to a simpler time when we were all brothers and sisters, but it can turn the clock forward accelerating deindustrialisation to a rate that butchers what love and respect still remains in this country.
Nice piece from Mr Meeks, except for his egregious use of "people's vote". It is a grotesque phrase, worthy of some cheap dictatorship claiming it is a "people's republic". What is a people's vote anyway? How does it differ from a 2nd referendum? Was the first one was an animals' vote? Did only voles and weasels get a say?
Pff.
Nonetheless, I have to say that, following recent convos with lots
It clething less chaotic).
I reckon the chance of a 2nd ref must be about 50% now. We're at an impasse. I begin to see no other way out.
I wouldn't go that high. My guess would be maybe 10%, but we are heading for the crunch.
The Leavers best chance of avoiding it is Blind Brexit. After that a #peoplesvote cannot include Remain as an option.
Please call it a second referendum - it gives it more creditability
#peoplesvote is the hashtag, and the campaign has clearly been building in presence and probability over the year.
.
What a weak, weak defence of that silly, nonsensical and insulting branding.
And yet you are talking about it.
That is how advertising works, and the #peoplesvote has been working. We all recognise it.
I am glad you confirm you do not care that the branding is insulting and nonsensical, and only care about expanding the circulation of the message. Ruthless and unprincipled of you, but it is at least honest. It also, however, speaks to an attitude that if replicated by remain once more will see it lose.
Moreover, if the branding had been #second referendum we'd all have recognised it too, so that's another stupid defence of it. What it is is seen as more palatable to sell, which once again if you don't care about how silly acting as though other votes are not people's votes is, is ok as long as the reasoning is made clear. Tony Blair is more honest on this matter.
No one is saying that other votes were not peoples votes, just that we want another #peoplesvote.
That is what happens when you get government by referendum, in order to change the decision there needs to be another referendum. Rererendums begat each other and marginalise parliamentary democracy, but that ship sailed some time back.
A second referendum before we have left is an affront to the whole democratic process, but a general election in which the winning party promise to remain (or if left, take us back in) is entirely proper.
Item: No deal means that no regulatory framework for UK-manufactured aerospace parts. That's bad. But no doubt the bosses of Airbus SE might rapidly draw to the attention of European politicians that the corollary of that is that Airbus can no longer produce any planes other than A320s - at least, not planes with wings - since the wings are made in the UK.
And in case you are wondering - it would take several years to move production.
I have discussed this before. Airbus have a factory in Spain that makes tailplanes (the horizontal bits on the tail), which could be expanded to make wings (the tech is the same).
At a push, 18 months to move production. It's not like the blueprints are a state secret and unless you're suggesting forcing your way into Broughton(?) and physically preventing the workers from making wings, production would continue until the new factory came onstream.
There is some major silliness about this. The Irish claim that they could lock down UK airspace was ludicrous, because the Irish airspace is jointly administered with the UK and some of the tech and centres are in the UK. Similarly the claim that only Britain can make European wings is silly: aviation production in different countries with assembly elsewhere has been a commonplace since the 1970's and the MRCA (later Tornado). From memory, the Typhoon left wing is made in Spain and the right wing in Italy. This isn't rocket science.
Actually some of it is rocket science - carbon fibre manufacture is not at all straightforward. Also you don't seem to have understood the problem - it's the certification regime which (in a No Deal scenario) would prevent them using wings made in Broughton and Filton.
Sure, production could be moved, but it would take time. Even if we take your highly optimistic 18 month figure, are you seriously suggesting that Airbus could happily accept an 18-month period where they literally cannot produce a single aeroplane other than those A320s where the wings are made in China?
I know carbon fibre production is not straightforward. But I also know that in this specific case the issues are known and the problems solved. We're not talking about making new designs, we're talking about making the existing designs elsewhere, which speeds up the process.
I take your point about the certification, but I assume they have the capacity to move the assembled wings to the EU and get them certified there. It would seem a simple task and the EU is good at bypassing bureaucracy when it suits. So UK keeps making wings in the interim, the EU certifies them until the new Spanish wings come on stream.
Hence the transition agreement to Dec 31 2020. This is tailor-made for Airbus to move production, or first in the queue for a post-Brexit 'exemption' to allow continued manufacturing (there would have to be a legal agreement to allow Airbus to continue exporting under the 'EU-rest of world' trade agreements - the US and Boeing would be all over this otherwise) . And that will depend of how much the Government might sweeten the deal to entice them to stay.
(As I type this. it occurs to me that this could actually benefit the UK Government, because they could point to this (very visible) example to prove Brexit hasn't been the catastrophe everyone said it would.).
If there's No Deal there's no transition agreement. The effect on Airbus alone, quite apart from everything else (Maltese hoteliers, Spanish fruit and veg produces, French wine producers, etc etc), makes that unthinkable from the EU's point of view, as it is for us. That, in essence, is why I think there will be a deal, which will no doubt be a massive fudge.
Oh, I saw about 3 mobility scooters whilst I was out today. Didn't see a single one in France. I have to say the drivers didn't look particularly disabled either. OK so they weren't looking particularly healthy either, but you shouldn't have a mobility scooter simply because you're 5'6 and 22 stone. It's just going to increase one's obesity. Has anyone properly looked into this ? It seems a real waste of the state's money, and doesn't help their owner's health one bit. Yes I realise some people do need them, I have a friend without feet for instance that has one. But they seem massively overused, particularly amongst the morbidly obese.
There are some conditions, fibromyalgia springs to mind where they are needed without any obvious physical signs. However, they are so ubiquitous, I am becoming increasingly convinced they are being used by the terminally bone idle who can't be arsed to walk around a supermarket or a pedestrianised area. Not all of them are morbidly obese either. Invariably, they demand you get out of the way for them too. Rant over.
Nice piece from Mr Meeks, except for his egregious use
Pff.
Nonetheless, I have to say that, following recent convos with lots
It clething less chaotic).
I reckon the chance of a 2nd ref must be about 50% now. We're at an impasse. I begin to see no other way out.
I wouldn't go that high. My guess would be maybe 10%, but we are heading for the crunch.
The Leavers best chance of avoiding it is Blind Brexit. After that a #peoplesvote cannot include Remain as an option.
Please call it a second referendum - it gives it more creditability
#peoplesvote is the hashtag, and the campaign has clearly been building in presence and probability over the year.
.
What a weak, weak defence of that silly, nonsensical and insulting branding.
And yet you are talking about it.
That is how advertising works, and the #peoplesvote has been working. We all recognise it.
I am glad you confirm you do not care that the branding is insulting and nonsensical, and only care about expanding the circulation of the message. Ruthless and unprincipled of you, but it is at least honest. It also, however, speaks to an attitude that if replicated by remain once more will see it lose.
Moreover, if the branding had been #second referendum we'd all have recognised it too, so that's another stupid defence of it. What it is is seen as more palatable to sell, which once again if you don't care about how silly acting as though other votes are not people's votes is, is ok as long as the reasoning is made clear. Tony Blair is more honest on this matter.
No one is saying that other votes were not peoples votes, just that we want another #peoplesvote.
If that was true then there would be not reason not to have just called it a referendum in the first place - indeed, it would remove a source of confusion and mockery over its intentions. So it is not likely to be true - it would indeed be less ambiguous what was wanted if it was about a referendum. It is a clear marketing ploy, as you yourself have said it is about advertising, and the reason for it is very clear as well. Having been so praiseworthy over its advertising appeal I don't know why you would deny the reason for the branding change.
It’s not advertising. There was polling that showed people supported a People’s Vote but opposed a second referendum
Do not forget that firms on the continent also need to move to the UK to manufacture for the same reasons as you quote. The real question is which will be the larger flow?
Well, I dispute Bookseller's premise, in that I think it is not in anyone's interests for supply chains to be broken up.
However, if there was widespread repatriation of company supply chains it would work against us. Simply, in many sectors - such as automotive - we lack critical mass.
It's simply business. Automotive (for example) requires constant investment and R&D (and the move to electric is making this even more so). If post-Brexit tariffs add another 10-15% on baseline costs, car companies will simply 'wind down' UK production as models become obsolete. Jaguar Land Rover are a good example, quietly moving some manufacturing to Slovakia so that over the next 3-5 years, if things don't work out, all manufacturing can end up back in the EU. The government might intervene with assistance (we won't be tied by EU rules on this anymore) but I don't see any significant car manufacturing in the UK beyond 2030.
I do think there will be pockets of R&D expertise remaining though, and you may see one or two home-grown niche electric start-ups. So not all gloom and doom.
So tell us the %tage sales JLR make to the continental EU compared to the UK, USA, China, etc?
Sorry, that's my point. As new models come on-stream (and don't forget, automotive is going through a massive restructuring as everyone ditches the internal combustion engine) the decision will be made to manufacture within the EU. It won't happen overnight, but with a no deal the economics start to look powerful.
In this case, the government has at least got something right: basing one of the industrial strategy pillars on batteries. If there is a log of momentum for government support for EV, this might persuade some manufacturers to stay. But they will probably just do R&D here, not manufacturing.
How would PB-ers vote in a 2nd referendum? Would anyone change?
I confess I would be drawn to Remain. Reluctantly, and with a sad sense of leaving behind a vision of my country as a proud sovereign nation, with an unexampled history of invention, conquest, enterprise and bravery, but nonetheless a nation that in all true senses no longer exists. In retrospect, if we were going to Leave it needed to happen before we signed the EU Constitution and accepted Article 50. That was the key that turned the lock, and made leaving so painful it could never be successfully done - or done without horrific damage.
Of course we were promised a vote on that Constitution and Article 50, and we would have voted it down, and the crisis of Brexit would thus have been avoided with our pride intact (and the EU a better, more democratic place) but the political classes conspired to deny us this, and we are where are. Betrayed and jailed.
I would therefore vote quite selfishly and for London properly prices and for my own monetary gain: I would probably switch to Remain, and then go on a ten day Tanqueray bender to drown my utter shame and self loathing.
I would vote Remain, again, but with far more certainty than last time. Last time I didn't really care that much and was pretty sanguine when the Leave vote came through, which I'm definitely not now.
That said, I think Leave would win a second referendum by a bigger margin than the first.
Yes, paradoxically, and despite my personal betrayal of my country (in a putative 2nd vote) I reckon Leave would have a VERY good chance of winning again, and maybe even winning big.
You. Yes you, and all those like you thinking the same are the biggest threat to Brexit. 2nd Ref only happens if enough leavers get cocky they can win. The error you are making is to misunderstand the role of campaign and knowledge in direct democracy. The next campaign will be vastly different. Without a magic money tree painted on the side of a bus leaves economic argument is thrashed in the first week of the next campaign, swiftly followed by idea trade deals are easy and curbing immigration easy after Brexit. Even the notion what sovereignty is will be viewed differently by voters as they go into the ballot box next time.
Also the fallacy that the rest of the EU member states were ever our friends and that we to the EU project represented nothing other than a £10 billion net annual contribution. There is and never was any common body politic. It was nothing more than a transactional relationship for them.
Nice piece from Mr Meeks, except for his egregious use
Pff.
Nonetheless, I have to say that, following recent convos with lots
It clething less chaotic).
I reckon the chance of a 2nd ref must be about 50% now. We're at an impasse. I begin to see no other way out.
I wouldn't go that high. My guess would be maybe 10%, but we are heading for the crunch.
The Leavers best chance of avoiding it is Blind Brexit. After that a #peoplesvote cannot include Remain as an option.
Please call it a second referendum - it gives it more creditability
#peoplesvote is the hashtag, and the campaign has clearly been building in presence and probability over the year.
.
What a weak, weak defence of that silly, nonsensical and insulting branding.
And yet you are talking about it.
That is how advertising works, and the #peoplesvote has been working. We all recognise it.
I am glad you confirm you do not care that the branding is insulting and nonsensical, and only care about expanding the circulation of the message. Ruthless and unprincipled of you, but it is at least honest. It also, however, speaks to an attitude that if replicated by remain once more will see it lose.
No one is saying that other votes were not peoples votes, just that we want another #peoplesvote.
If that was true then there would be not reason not to have just called it a referendum in the first place - indeed, it would remove a source of confusion and mockery over its intentions. So it is not likely to be true - it would indeed be less ambiguous what was wanted if it was about a referendum. It is a clear marketing ploy, as you yourself have said it is about advertising, and the reason for it is very clear as well. Having been so praiseworthy over its advertising appeal I don't know why you would deny the reason for the branding change.
It’s not advertising. There was polling that showed people supported a People’s Vote but opposed a second referendum
Dr Foxy referred to it as advertising. I think he is kidding himself, or sadly uncaring that the branding is a nonsense.
Oh, I saw about 3 mobility scooters whilst I was out today. Didn't see a single one in France. I have to say the drivers didn't look particularly disabled either. OK so they weren't looking particularly healthy either, but you shouldn't have a mobility scooter simply because you're 5'6 and 22 stone. It's just going to increase one's obesity. Has anyone properly looked into this ? It seems a real waste of the state's money, and doesn't help their owner's health one bit. Yes I realise some people do need them, I have a friend without feet for instance that has one. But they seem massively overused, particularly amongst the morbidly obese.
There are some conditions, fibromyalgia springs to mind where they are needed without any obvious physical signs. However, they are so ubiquitous, I am becoming increasingly convinced they are being used by the terminally bone idle who can't be arsed to walk around a supermarket or a pedestrianised area. Not all of them are morbidly obese either. Invariably, they demand you get out of the way for them too. Rant over.
Courtesy of urban dictionary
Fibromyalgia A disease developed by doctors as a diagnosis for Hypochondriacs. They often prescribe Lyrica - which is actually a placebo.
If you believe you suffer from this disease, look in your medicine cabinet. If you have anything other than Asprin you may want to consult your doctor. I hurt everywhere and I'm really sad for no reason. My fibromyalgia must be acting up.
Isn't the Treasury raking in a load more VAT on fuel because of the rising oil price ?
No, that's mostly a longstanding myth but about by anti-fuel duty campaigners. Because nearly everything is VAT-rated, people who are spending more VAT on fuel are spending less VAT on something else. The exceptions are (a) if they were previously splurging on e.g. books and children's clothes, but have suddenly cut back on them to buy petrol or (b) they're going deeper into debt. Both might be true at the margins but on the whole the effect of rising and falling fuel prices VAT-neutral.
Do not forget that firms on the continent also need to move to the UK to manufacture for the same reasons as you quote. The real question is which will be the larger flow?
Well, I dispute Bookseller's premise, in that I think it is not in anyone's interests for supply chains to be broken up.
However, if there was widespread repatriation of company supply chains it would work against us. Simply, in many sectors - such as automotive - we lack critical mass.
It's simply business. Automotive (for example) requires constant investment and R&D (and the move to electric is making this even more so). If post-Brexit tariffs add another 10-15% on baseline costs, car companies will simply 'wind down' UK production as models become obsolete. Jaguar Land Rover are a good example, quietly moving some manufacturing to Slovakia so that over the next 3-5 years, if things don't work out, all manufacturing can end up back in the EU. The government might intervene with assistance (we won't be tied by EU rules on this anymore) but I don't see any significant car manufacturing in the UK beyond 2030.
I do think there will be pockets of R&D expertise remaining though, and you may see one or two home-grown niche electric start-ups. So not all gloom and doom.
So tell us the %tage sales JLR make to the continental EU compared to the UK, USA, China, etc?
Sorry, that's my point. As new models come on-stream (and don't forget, automotive is going through a massive restructuring as everyone ditches the internal combustion engine) the decision will be made to manufacture within the EU. It won't happen overnight, but with a no deal the economics start to look powerful.
In this case, the government has at least got something right: basing one of the industrial strategy pillars on batteries. If there is a log of momentum for government support for EV, this might persuade some manufacturers to stay. But they will probably just do R&D here, not manufacturing.
You still have not answered why they would go through massive disruption for the business to move it to the EU from the UK with no gain?
Second vote Remain wins Who governs? Who is leader of the opposition?
Corbyn governs in a minority government controlled by the LDs and SNP, Boris takes over as Leader of the Opposition on a platform of a third referendum
And the madness never ends...
I think this is where a 'No Deal' Brexit starts to look attractive. Horrible in the short term, but the only way to cut through the Gordian knot of the referendum aftermath. Personally, I would then hope for a humbled nation rejoining in a 10-20 year timeframe and (to answer the question posed by Chris Patten's in 2004) Britain will finally "join" the EU, with no more looking over our shoulder at the exit door...
But equally we might be a proud and sovereign nation by then, in sunny economic uplands, tucking into our delicious chlorine-washed chicken, and happily tugging our forelocks at Lord Rees-Mogg.
But at least *we'd know* - and it's that certainty that everyone is becoming increasingly desperate for.
Except No Deal will not be accepted by the voters as the polling shows, would likely break up the UK and trash the economy.
As I said the only sustainable Brexit is a Norway or Canada style one
I agree, but the Maybot doesn't seem to want a Norway or Canada-style deal, despite these being on offer from the EU, unlike the Chequers proposals, which are dead in the water.
The Maybot as is clear is prepared to accept a transition period for as long as possible as long as it keeps her in Number 10
Do not forget that firms on the continent also need to move to the UK to manufacture for the same reasons as you quote. The real question is which will be the larger flow?
Well, I dispute Bookseller's premise, in that I think it is not in anyone's interests for supply chains to be broken up.
However, if there was widespread repatriation of company supply chains it would work against us. Simply, in many sectors - such as automotive - we lack critical mass.
It's simply business. Automotive (for example) requires constant investment and R&D (and the move to electric is making this even more so). If post-Brexit tariffs add another 10-15% on baseline costs, car companies will simply 'wind down' UK production as models become obsolete. Jaguar Land Rover are a good example, quietly moving some manufacturing to Slovakia so that over the next 3-5 years, if things don't work out, all manufacturing can end up back in the EU. The government might intervene with assistance (we won't be tied by EU rules on this anymore) but I don't see any significant car manufacturing in the UK beyond 2030.
I do think there will be pockets of R&D expertise remaining though, and you may see one or two home-grown niche electric start-ups. So not all gloom and doom.
So tell us the %tage sales JLR make to the continental EU compared to the UK, USA, China, etc?
Sorry, that's my point. As new models come on-stream (and don't forget, automotive is going through a massive restructuring as everyone ditches the internal combustion engine) the decision will be made to manufacture within the EU. It won't happen overnight, but with a no deal the economics start to look powerful.
In this case, the government has at least got something right: basing one of the industrial strategy pillars on batteries. If there is a log of momentum for government support for EV, this might persuade some manufacturers to stay. But they will probably just do R&D here, not manufacturing.
You still have not answered why they would go through massive disruption for the business to move it to the EU from the UK with no gain?
Brexit has the potential to be a massive disruption to the businesses or don't you understand that? Two car manufacturers are putting production on hold after the Brexit date. They would not do this unless they expected disruption from their suppliers. Companies are in it to make money not the politics.
Oh, I saw about 3 mobility scooters whilst I was out today. Didn't see a single one in France. I have to say the drivers didn't look particularly disabled either. OK so they weren't looking particularly healthy either, but you shouldn't have a mobility scooter simply because you're 5'6 and 22 stone. It's just going to increase one's obesity. Has anyone properly looked into this ? It seems a real waste of the state's money, and doesn't help their owner's health one bit. Yes I realise some people do need them, I have a friend without feet for instance that has one. But they seem massively overused, particularly amongst the morbidly obese.
There are some conditions, fibromyalgia springs to mind where they are needed without any obvious physical signs. However, they are so ubiquitous, I am becoming increasingly convinced they are being used by the terminally bone idle who can't be arsed to walk around a supermarket or a pedestrianised area. Not all of them are morbidly obese either. Invariably, they demand you get out of the way for them too. Rant over.
Courtesy of urban dictionary
Fibromyalgia A disease developed by doctors as a diagnosis for Hypochondriacs. They often prescribe Lyrica - which is actually a placebo.
If you believe you suffer from this disease, look in your medicine cabinet. If you have anything other than Asprin you may want to consult your doctor. I hurt everywhere and I'm really sad for no reason. My fibromyalgia must be acting up.
As someone who has suffered from depression, I can easily see how you get there. However, the best cure is to manage ones condition with better diet, exercise and lifestyle, if you want, as I do, to avoid zombifying medication. Unfortunately, it is impossible to tell someone who is depressed that. That said, giving them a fuck off monster metal motorised chair to play at Lewis Hamilton in Tesco seems a poor solution.
Do not forget that firms on the continent also need to move to the UK to manufacture for the same reasons as you quote. The real question is which will be the larger flow?
Well, I dispute Bookseller's premise, in that I think it is not in anyone's interests for supply chains to be broken up.
However, if there was widespread repatriation of company supply chains it would work against us. Simply, in many sectors - such as automotive - we lack critical mass.
It's simply business. Automotive (for example) requires constant investment and R&D (and the move to electric is making this even more so). If post-Brexit tariffs add another 10-15% on baseline costs, car companies will simply 'wind down' UK production as models become obsolete. Jaguar Land Rover are a good example, quietly moving some manufacturing to Slovakia so that over the next 3-5 years, if things don't work out, all manufacturing can end up back in the EU. The government might intervene with assistance (we won't be tied by EU rules on this anymore) but I don't see any significant car manufacturing in the UK beyond 2030.
I do think there will be pockets of R&D expertise remaining though, and you may see one or two home-grown niche electric start-ups. So not all gloom and doom.
So tell us the %tage sales JLR make to the continental EU compared to the UK, USA, China, etc?
Sorry, that's my point. As new models come on-stream (and don't forget, automotive is going through a massive restructuring as everyone ditches the internal combustion engine) the decision will be made to manufacture within the EU. It won't happen overnight, but with a no deal the economics start to look powerful.
In this case, the government has at least got something right: basing one of the industrial strategy pillars on batteries. If there is a log of momentum for government support for EV, this might persuade some manufacturers to stay. But they will probably just do R&D here, not manufacturing.
You still have not answered why they would go through massive disruption for the business to move it to the EU from the UK with no gain?
Brexit has the potential to be a massive disruption to the businesses or don't you understand that? Two car manufacturers are putting production on hold after the Brexit date. They would not do this unless they expected disruption from their suppliers. Companies are in it to make money not the politics.
They are just being very sensible about handling a short term problem, the transistion day. I am discussing the long term.
How would PB-ers vote in a 2nd referendum? Would anyone change?
I confess I would be drawn to Remain. Reluctantly, and with a sad sense of leaving behind a vision of my country as a proud sovereign nation, with an unexampled history of invention, conquest, enterprise and bravery, but nonetheless a nation that in all true senses no longer exists. In retrospect, if we were going to Leave it needed to happen before we signed the EU Constitution and accepted Article 50. That was the key that turned the lock, and made leaving so painful it could never be successfully done - or done without horrific damage.
I would therefore vote quite selfishly and for London properly prices and for my own monetary gain: I would probably switch to Remain, and then go on a ten day Tanqueray bender to drown my utter shame and self loathing.
I would vote Remain, again, but with far more certainty than last time. Last time I didn't really care that much and was pretty sanguine when the Leave vote came through, which I'm definitely not now.
That said, I think Leave would win a second referendum by a bigger margin than the first.
Yes, paradoxically, and despite my personal betrayal of my country (in a putative 2nd vote) I reckon Leave would have a VERY good chance of winning again, and maybe even winning big.
You. Yes you, and all those like you thinking the same are the biggest threat to Brexit. 2nd Ref only happens if enough leavers get cocky they can win. The error you are making is to misunderstand the role of campaign and knowledge in direct democracy. The next campaign will be vastly different. Without a magic money tree painted on the side of a bus leaves economic argument is thrashed in the first week of the next campaign, swiftly followed by idea trade deals are easy and curbing immigration easy after Brexit. Even the notion what sovereignty is will be viewed differently by voters as they go into the ballot box next time.
Except....today, Theresa May pointed out that the NHS would be getting a weekly increase of MORE than the amount on the side of the bus. Who is going to tell the NHS they can't have their Brexit bonus?
Me. I’ll tell you right now. We pay £9B net to the EU each year for membership, less than 1% of our GDP. NHS annually about £120B and rising due to demographics. There is no such thing as Brexit money bonus. It is fantasy. And when told to us, it is a lie. And when told to us by politicians, it’s a crime. And by the time we all vote second time, every voter will know it.
How would PB-ers vote in a 2nd referendum? Would anyone change?
I confess I would be drawn to Remain. Reluctantly, and with a sad sense of leaving behind a vision of my country as a proud sovereign nation, with an unexampled history of invention, conquest, enterprise and bravery, but nonetheless a nation that in all true senses no longer exists. In retrospect, if we were going to Leave it needed to happen before we signed the EU Constitution and accepted Article 50. That was the key that turned the lock, and made leaving so painful it could never be successfully done - or done without horrific damage.
Of course we were promised a vote on that Constitution and Article 50, and we would have voted it down, and the crisis of Brexit would thus have been avoided with our pride intact (and the EU a better, more democratic place) but the political classes conspired to deny us this, and we are where are. Betrayed and jailed.
I would therefore vote quite selfishly and for London properly prices and for my own monetary gain: I would probably switch to Remain, and then go on a ten day Tanqueray bender to drown my utter shame and self loathing.
I would vote Remain, again, but with far more certainty than last time. Last time I didn't really care that much and was pretty sanguine when the Leave vote came through, which I'm definitely not now.
That said, I think Leave would win a second referendum by a bigger margin than the first.
Yes, paradoxically, and despite my personal betrayal of my country (in a putative 2nd vote) I reckon Leave would have a VERY good chance of winning again, and maybe even winning big.
You. Yes you, and all those like you thinking the same are the biggest threat to Brexit. 2nd Ref only happens if enough leavers get cocky they can win. The error you are making is to misunderstand the role of campaign and knowledge in direct democracy. The next campaign will be vastly different. Without a magic money tree painted on the side of a bus leaves economic argument is thrashed in the first week of the next campaign, swiftly followed by idea trade deals are easy and curbing immigration easy after Brexit. Even the notion what sovereignty is will be viewed differently by voters as they go into the ballot box next time.
Also the fallacy that the rest of the EU member states were ever our friends and that we to the EU project represented nothing other than a £10 billion net annual contribution. There is and never was any common body politic. It was nothing more than a transactional relationship for them.
How would PB-ers vote in a 2nd referendum? Would anyone change?
I confess I would be drawn to Remain. Reluctantly, and with a sad sense of leaving behind a vision of my country as a proud sovereign nation, with an unexampled history of invention, conquest, enterprise and bravery, but nonetheless a nation that in all true senses no longer exists. In retrospect, if we were going to Leave it needed to happen before we signed the EU Constitution and accepted Article 50. That was the key that turned the lock, and made leaving so painful it could never be successfully done - or done without horrific damage.
Of course we were promised a vote on that Constitution and Article 50, and we would have voted it down, and the crisis of Brexit would thus have been avoided with our pride intact (and the EU a better, more democratic place) but the political classes conspired to deny us this, and we are where are. Betrayed and jailed.
I would therefore vote quite selfishly and for London properly prices and for my own monetary gain: I would probably switch to Remain, and then go on a ten day Tanqueray bender to drown my utter shame and self loathing.
I would vote Remain, again, but with far more certainty than last time. Last time I didn't really care that much and was pretty sanguine when the Leave vote came through, which I'm definitely not now.
That said, I think Leave would win a second referendum by a bigger margin than the first.
Yes, paradoxically, and despite my personal betrayal of my country (in a putative 2nd vote) I reckon Leave would have a VERY good chance of winning again, and maybe even winning big.
You. Yes you, and all those like you thinking the same are the biggest threat to Brexit. 2nd Ref only happens if enough leavers get cocky they can win. The error you are making is to misunderstand the role of campaign and knowledge in direct democracy. The next campaign will be vastly different. Without a magic money tree painted on the side of a bus leaves economic argument is thrashed in the first week of the next campaign, swiftly followed by idea trade deals are easy and curbing immigration easy after Brexit. Even the notion what sovereignty is will be viewed differently by voters as they go into the ballot box next time.
Also the fallacy that the rest of the EU member states were ever our friends and that we to the EU project represented nothing other than a £10 billion net annual contribution. There is and never was any common body politic. It was nothing more than a transactional relationship for them.
Isn't the Treasury raking in a load more VAT on fuel because of the rising oil price ?
No, that's mostly a longstanding myth but about by anti-fuel duty campaigners. Because nearly everything is VAT-rated, people who are spending more VAT on fuel are spending less VAT on something else. The exceptions are (a) if they were previously splurging on e.g. books and children's clothes, but have suddenly cut back on them to buy petrol or (b) they're going deeper into debt. Both might be true at the margins but on the whole the effect of rising and falling fuel prices VAT-neutral.
I see your point but people don't necessarily spend the extra money elsewhere.
A higher petrol price with consequently higher VAT doesn't reduce my spending it just means that there is a few quid less in my bank account.
Which might mean that there is less spending a few decades hence when I retire but I expect the Treasury would rather have the tax receipts now than then.
And there's plenty of other expenditure other than books which is non VAT rated - most housing costs for example or expenditure abroad when on holiday.
I would vote Remain, again, but with far more certainty than last time. Last time I didn't really care that much and was pretty sanguine when the Leave vote came through, which I'm definitely not now.
That said, I think Leave would win a second referendum by a bigger margin than the first.
Yes, paradoxically, and despite my personal betrayal of my country (in a putative 2nd vote) I reckon Leave would have a VERY good chance of winning again, and maybe even winning big.
You. Yes you, and all those like you thinking the same are the biggest threat to Brexit. 2nd Ref only happens if enough leavers get cocky they can win. The error you are making is to misunderstand the role of campaign and knowledge in direct democracy. The next campaign will be vastly different. Without a magic money tree painted on the side of a bus leaves economic argument is thrashed in the first week of the next campaign, swiftly followed by idea trade deals are easy and curbing immigration easy after Brexit. Even the notion what sovereignty is will be viewed differently by voters as they go into the ballot box next time.
Also the fallacy that the rest of the EU member states were ever our friends and that we to the EU project represented nothing other than a £10 billion net annual contribution. There is and never was any common body politic. It was nothing more than a transactional relationship for them.
People have friends. Peoples have interests.
Would you like me to edit your comment so it makes sense?
(Remember, the Government "no deal" contingency planning explicitly assumes deals on all the above...)
So with SecondVote we get ProjectFear2
How did that work out last time?
It only has to work a little better this time, and has more evidence of confusion, division and thus chaos to draw upon.
No. No again. Are ya listening? Simply no there will be no project fear next time. Completely unneeded and counter productive. Simply point out EU membership costs us 9B a year, which is less than 1% of government spending. With that 9B we buy access to an effective CU, no delays, no tariff and administration costs on British business and supply chain, but just as importantly, protection for our business and industry from being mauled by “trade deflection” (something you must expect the EU will be effective and merciless at once we are out of it), we even get to keep 25% of tarif revenue into EU via UK business. Some of that 9B has flowed back into poorest regions of the UK for infrastructure and lifelong reskilling to transform us as we fight against deindustrialization, but better than doing that ourselves it’s part of a pan Europe plan where at same time we are investing in developing EU markets for our businesses to exploit. With the yearly payment we also get cross-border policing, wider European security arrangements, joint scientific and research grants to our universities and business - if politicians can’t get out there and sell that 9B as VFM to British households, they shouldn’t be in the politics game to start with. Because, fundamentally without voters believing in Leaves Magic Money Tree riding to the rescue of government spending, Leaves economic argument falls apart in the first week of the campaign, with mountains of votes hoovered up by remain.
I would vote Remain, again, but with far more certainty than last time. Last time I didn't really care that much and was pretty sanguine when the Leave vote came through, which I'm definitely not now.
That said, I think Leave would win a second referendum by a bigger margin than the first.
Yes, paradoxically, and despite my personal betrayal of my country (in a putative 2nd vote) I reckon Leave would have a VERY good chance of winning again, and maybe even winning big.
You. Yes you, and all those like you thinking the same are the biggest threat to Brexit. 2nd Ref only happens if enough leavers get cocky they can win. The error you are making is to misunderstand the role of campaign and knowledge in direct democracy. The next campaign will be vastly different. Without a magic money tree painted on the side of a bus leaves economic argument is thrashed in the first week of the next campaign, swiftly followed by idea trade deals are easy and curbing immigration easy after Brexit. Even the notion what sovereignty is will be viewed differently by voters as they go into the ballot box next time.
Also the fallacy that the rest of the EU member states were ever our friends and that we to the EU project represented nothing other than a £10 billion net annual contribution. There is and never was any common body politic. It was nothing more than a transactional relationship for them.
People have friends. Peoples have interests.
Would you like me to edit your comment so it makes sense?
It makes perfect sense and it just a way of paraphrasing the quotation you also posted. It's the difference between pluralising the individual and pluralising the collective. The British people have interests, but individual British people have friends.
I would vote Remain, again, but with far more certainty than last time. Last time I didn't really care that much and was pretty sanguine when the Leave vote came through, which I'm definitely not now.
That said, I think Leave would win a second referendum by a bigger margin than the first.
Yes, paradoxically, and despite my personal betrayal of my country (in a putative 2nd vote) I reckon Leave would have a VERY good chance of winning again, and maybe even winning big.
You. Yes you, and all those like you thinking the same are the biggest threat to Brexit. 2nd Ref only happens if enough leavers get cocky they can win. The error you are making is to misunderstand the role of campaign and knowledge in direct democracy. The next campaign will be vastly different. Without a magic money tree painted on the side of a bus leaves economic argument is thrashed in the first week of the next campaign, swiftly followed by idea trade deals are easy and curbing immigration easy after Brexit. Even the notion what sovereignty is will be viewed differently by voters as they go into the ballot box next time.
Also the fallacy that the rest of the EU member states were ever our friends and that we to the EU project represented nothing other than a £10 billion net annual contribution. There is and never was any common body politic. It was nothing more than a transactional relationship for them.
People have friends. Peoples have interests.
Would you like me to edit your comment so it makes sense?
It made perfect sense to me. We are not put on this earth to take the easy option. We are not on this earth to turn our backs and walk away just because it’s diffuclt at times. We, Britain, have come to forget we are a big player in the EU. I like having Nigel Farage going over there are talking sense into them. I like having our PM and ministers going over there talking sense into them, shaping it, shaping multi speed Europe, coming in as ballast to ensure fairness when the Franco German axis gangs up on the Poles or Latins. Farage, Boris, and every brexiteer should regret the passing of that element too. We are not on this earth to turn our backs on shaping Europe. We are not on this earth to turn our backs on 1945.
(Remember, the Government "no deal" contingency planning explicitly assumes deals on all the above...)
So with SecondVote we get ProjectFear2
How did that work out last time?
It only has to work a little better this time, and has more evidence of confusion, division and thus chaos to draw upon.
No. No again. Are ya listening? Simply no there will be no project fear next time. Completely unneeded and counter productive. Simply point out EU membership costs us 9B a year, which is less than 1% of government spending. With that 9B we buy access to an effective CU, no delays, no tariff and administration costs on British business and supply chain, but just as importantly, protection for our business and industry from being mauled by “trade deflection” (something you must expect the EU will be effective and merciless at once we are out of it), we even get to keep 25% of tarif revenue into EU via UK business. Some of that 9B has flowed back into poorest regions of the UK for infrastructure and lifelong reskilling to transform us as we fight against deindustrialization, but better than doing that ourselves it’s part of a pan Europe plan where at same time we are investing in developing EU markets for our businesses to exploit. With the yearly payment we also get cross-border policing, wider European security arrangements, joint scientific and research grants to our universities and business - if politicians can’t get out there and sell that 9B as VFM to British households, they shouldn’t be in the politics game to start with. Because, fundamentally without voters believing in Leaves Magic Money Tree riding to the rescue of government spending, Leaves economic argument falls apart in the first week of the campaign, with mountains of votes hoovered up by remain.
Oh, I saw about 3 mobility scooters whilst I was out today. Didn't see a single one in France. I have to say the drivers didn't look particularly disabled either. OK so they weren't looking particularly healthy either, but you shouldn't have a mobility scooter simply because you're 5'6 and 22 stone. It's just going to increase one's obesity. Has anyone properly looked into this ? It seems a real waste of the state's money, and doesn't help their owner's health one bit. Yes I realise some people do need them, I have a friend without feet for instance that has one. But they seem massively overused, particularly amongst the morbidly obese.
There are some conditions, fibromyalgia springs to mind where they are needed without any obvious physical signs. However, they are so ubiquitous, I am becoming increasingly convinced they are being used by the terminally bone idle who can't be arsed to walk around a supermarket or a pedestrianised area. Not all of them are morbidly obese either. Invariably, they demand you get out of the way for them too. Rant over.
Courtesy of urban dictionary
Fibromyalgia A disease developed by doctors as a diagnosis for Hypochondriacs. They often prescribe Lyrica - which is actually a placebo.
If you believe you suffer from this disease, look in your medicine cabinet. If you have anything other than Asprin you may want to consult your doctor. I hurt everywhere and I'm really sad for no reason. My fibromyalgia must be acting up.
As someone who has suffered from depression, I can easily see how you get there. However, the best cure is to manage ones condition with better diet, exercise and lifestyle, if you want, as I do, to avoid zombifying medication. Unfortunately, it is impossible to tell someone who is depressed that. That said, giving them a fuck off monster metal motorised chair to play at Lewis Hamilton in Tesco seems a poor solution.
A cracking way of managing extremely mild cases of depression. In serious cases anti depressants can be lifesaving, and making misleading statements as to their efficacy and side effects is very dangerous and frankly stupid. I have a much wider experience than I'd like to have of tcas, ssris, snris and a couple of atypicals. They all have side effects but none of them can be called zombifying. Perhaps you're confusing them with anti psychotics?
Baker making a great point here. The ERG and DUP have told May over and over again that Chequers is unacceptable. Her solution? Propose more climb downs that make Chequers worse.
As May says “Nothing has changed.” She is dancing while continuing to pursue a deal that cannot be approved. That is not strength, it is delusion. And the cabinet sit around and let this happen? Good God.
The only deal May can make will be one that destroys all the red lines she has set out. When she does so, her credibility will be zero. No point blaming the Leavers for No Deal - that will be courtesy of Theresa May.
Baker making a great point here. The ERG and DUP have told May over and over again that Chequers is unacceptable. Her solution? Propose more climb downs that make Chequers worse.
As May says “Nothing has changed.” She is dancing while continuing to pursue a deal that cannot be approved. That is not strength, it is delusion. And the cabinet sit around and let this happen? Good God.
The only deal May can make will be one that destroys all the red lines she has set out. When she does so, her credibility will be zero. No point blaming the Leavers for No Deal - that will be courtesy of Theresa May.
The danger is that we get no Brexit at all. The Civil War ultimately led to the Restoration; perhaps history will rhyme.
How would PB-ers vote in a 2nd referendum? Would anyone change?
I confess I would be drawn to Remain. Reluctantly, and with a sad sense of leaving behind a vision of my country as a proud sovereign nation, with an unexampled history of invention, conquest, enterprise and bravery, but nonetheless a nation that in all true senses no longer exists. In retrospect, if we were going to Leave it needed to happen before we signed the EU Constitution and accepted Article 50. That was the key that turned the lock, and made leaving so painful it could never be successfully done - or done without horrific damage.
I would therefore vote quite selfishly and for London properly prices and for my own monetary gain: I would probably switch to Remain, and then go on a ten day Tanqueray bender to drown my utter shame and self loathing.
I would vote Remain, again, but with far more certainty than last time. Last time I didn't really care that much and was pretty sanguine when the Leave vote came through, which I'm definitely not now.
That said, I think Leave would win a second referendum by a bigger margin than the first.
Yes, paradoxically, and despite my personal betrayal of my country (in a putative 2nd vote) I reckon Leave would have a VERY good chance of winning again, and maybe even winning big.
You. Yes you, and all those like you thinking the same are the biggest threat to Brexit. 2nd Ref only happens if enough leavers get cocky they can win. The error you are making is to misunderstand the role of campaign and knowledge in direct democracy. The next campaign will be vastly different. Without a magic money tree painted on the side of a bus leaves economic argument is thrashed in the first week of the next campaign, swiftly followed by idea trade deals are easy and curbing immigration easy after Brexit. Even the notion what sovereignty is will be viewed differently by voters as they go into the ballot box next time.
Except....today, Theresa May pointed out that the NHS would be getting a weekly increase of MORE than the amount on the side of the bus. Who is going to tell the NHS they can't have their Brexit bonus?
Me. I’ll tell you right now. We pay £9B net to the EU each year for membership, less than 1% of our GDP. NHS annually about £120B and rising due to demographics. There is no such thing as Brexit money bonus. It is fantasy. And when told to us, it is a lie. And when told to us by politicians, it’s a crime. And by the time we all vote second time, every voter will know it.
Baker making a great point here. The ERG and DUP have told May over and over again that Chequers is unacceptable. Her solution? Propose more climb downs that make Chequers worse.
As May says “Nothing has changed.” She is dancing while continuing to pursue a deal that cannot be approved. That is not strength, it is delusion. And the cabinet sit around and let this happen? Good God.
The only deal May can make will be one that destroys all the red lines she has set out. When she does so, her credibility will be zero. No point blaming the Leavers for No Deal - that will be courtesy of Theresa May.
You're right that she'll have to end up erasing her remaining red lines. However, what I don't think you've shown is that such a deal can't be approved.
The ERG don't have a veto on what the government does. If they had the numbers for an alternative leader and an alternative plan they'd already have got rid of her.
The DUP have a veto on whether the government continues to exist, but it's not really clear they have a better option; If they blow it up they most likely end up with a new government that doesn't need them.
Both of these groups have a vote any final deal, but it's not clear whether it'll be a blocking minority; Quite plausibly she can get support from other parties. And I think it's too early to assume the ERG will vote against, whatever they say now; No deal may look less attractive to them when they're staring straight down the barrel of it, and if TMay ends up getting other MPs to support her the ERG have to swallow not only the deal, but also any concessions she had to make to get those extra votes.
Immigration is totally separate, it’s root cause is the demographic time bomb not EU membership.
What politicians are here for is to scope the bigger picture looking for cause and effect, and address causes. The current government is particularly shit at doing this. No I’m not bias, Blair and Browns governments of spin were even worse at scoping cause and effect. Immigration is fantastic example of complete non policy change for thirty years, and here’s why.
On Doorstep “too much immigration and that means no homes for the rest of us and creaking NHS”. So you bring forward policies to address that? Don’t be stupid. You will scope out a full influence diagram, realise other causes for lack of homes to be addressed, realise immigration is actually keeping NHS afloat these passed years, also realise the main cause of immigration is the demographic time bomb meaning government after government, regardless what they publicly state, are actually welcoming young working age tax payers into the country. Immigration at these levels is current default solution for dealing with demographic time bomb, there’s no addressing immigration until a different solution is first put in place for dealing with demographic time bomb. You’re not going to get the bigger picture from the doorstep. You are not going to get bigger picture without scoping it out looking for causes.
Cause of high immigration is the demographic time bomb, the lack of alternative solution so use of immigration.
We need advantages of leaving EU FOM of movement and control taken back, put into honest context of 1) what that actually means if we sign further trade deals with EU and other countries under global Britain, how much of that is just signed away again to replace what FOM gave British economy? 2) the extent governments for decades have been addicted to immigration, because these people are working age, pay taxes, and fill key vacancies in key sectors, immigration not forced on us by EU rules but has been embraced with open arms. 3) when we come out EU, the extent government must clash with what business wants to be able to exploit any control taken back.
To say there will be better control of immigration once out the EU is a lie without addressing the three points above.
This is yet another example how ref 2 will be a completely different campaign, and remain hover up votes lost last time over immigration.
So tell us the %tage sales JLR make to the continental EU compared to the UK, USA, China, etc?
Sorry, that's my point. As new models come on-stream (and don't forget, automotive is going through a massive restructuring as everyone ditches the internal combustion engine) the decision will be made to manufacture within the EU. It won't happen overnight, but with a no deal the economics start to look powerful.
In this case, the government has at least got something right: basing one of the industrial strategy pillars on batteries. If there is a log of momentum for government support for EV, this might persuade some manufacturers to stay. But they will probably just do R&D here, not manufacturing.
You still have not answered why they would go through massive disruption for the business to move it to the EU from the UK with no gain?
Brexit has the potential to be a massive disruption to the businesses or don't you understand that? Two car manufacturers are putting production on hold after the Brexit date. They would not do this unless they expected disruption from their suppliers. Companies are in it to make money not the politics.
They are just being very sensible about handling a short term problem, the transistion day. I am discussing the long term.
I don't think it likely there will be substantial barriers in automotive production (either on the components or the finished goods) between the UK and the EU.
However, it is worth remembering that while we are a very efficient assembler of cars, we have no meaningful indigenous production of aluminium, and our steel is barely competitive. As we have neither cheap energy (hydro or lignite), nor our own sources of iron ore or alumina, I don't see how that changes.
We also don't have enough local oil production to produce tyres. We have no automotive semi production capability. Our own cars get their engines and transmissions largely from abroad. Ditto airbags and other odds and sods of the automotive supply chain.
In the (extremely unlikely) situation where 15% tariffs were imposed between the EU and the UK on all goods, it is likely that automotive assembly would largely leave the UK, because it's easier to set up final assembly somewhere on the continent than it would be to create a diverse supply chain in the UK.
Baker making a great point here. The ERG and DUP have told May over and over again that Chequers is unacceptable. Her solution? Propose more climb downs that make Chequers worse.
As May says “Nothing has changed.” She is dancing while continuing to pursue a deal that cannot be approved. That is not strength, it is delusion. And the cabinet sit around and let this happen? Good God.
The only deal May can make will be one that destroys all the red lines she has set out. When she does so, her credibility will be zero. No point blaming the Leavers for No Deal - that will be courtesy of Theresa May.
You're right that she'll have to end up erasing her remaining red lines. However, what I don't think you've shown is that such a deal can't be approved.
The ERG don't have a veto on what the government does. If they had the numbers for an alternative leader and an alternative plan they'd already have got rid of her.
The DUP have a veto on whether the government continues to exist, but it's not really clear they have a better option; If they blow it up they most likely end up with a new government that doesn't need them.
Both of these groups have a vote any final deal, but it's not clear whether it'll be a blocking minority; Quite plausibly she can get support from other parties. And I think it's too early to assume the ERG will vote against, whatever they say now; No deal may look less attractive to them when they're staring straight down the barrel of it, and if TMay ends up getting other MPs to support her the ERG have to swallow not only the deal, but also any concessions she had to make to get those extra votes.
It's also a mistake to think of the ERG as a homogenous block.
That being said, I think that it is more than possible that a mixture of Conservative rebels, and Labour desire to see the government fall will result in Mrs May's deal being voted down.
However, as I've said before, were that to happen, a more likely scenario is in an extension to Article 50 rather than a No Deal Brexit in early 2019.
Immigration is totally separate, it’s root cause is the demographic time bomb not EU membership.
What politicians are here for is to scope the bigger picture looking for cause and effect, and address causes. The current government is particularly shit at doing this. No I’m not bias, Blair and Browns governments of spin were even worse at scoping cause and effect. Immigration is fantastic example of complete non policy change for thirty years, and here’s why.
On Doorstep “too much immigration and that means no homes for the rest of us and creaking NHS”. So you bring forward policies to address that? Don’t be stupid. You will scope out a full influence diagram, realise other causes for lack of homes to be addressed, realise immigration is actually keeping NHS afloat these passed years, also realise the main cause of immigration is the demographic time bomb meaning government after government, regardless what they publicly state, are actually welcoming young working age tax payers into the country. Immigration at these levels is current default solution for dealing with demographic time bomb, there’s no addressing immigration until a different solution is first put in place for dealing with demographic time bomb. You’re not going to get the bigger picture from the doorstep. You are not going to get bigger picture without scoping it out looking for causes.
Cause of high immigration is the demographic time bomb, the lack of alternative solution so use of immigration.
We need advantages of leaving EU FOM of movement and control taken back, put into honest context of 1) what that actually means if we sign further trade deals with EU and other countries under global Britain, how much of that is just signed away again to replace what FOM gave British economy? 2) the extent governments for decades have been addicted to immigration, because these people are working age, pay taxes, and fill key vacancies in key sectors, immigration not forced on us by EU rules but has been embraced with open arms. 3) when we come out EU, the extent government must clash with what business wants to be able to exploit any control taken back.
To say there will be better control of immigration once out the EU is a lie without addressing the three points above.
This is yet another example how ref 2 will be a completely different campaign, and remain hover up votes lost last time over immigration.
You can rant away to your heart's content but I suspect your tone would be counter productive.
You're right that she'll have to end up erasing her remaining red lines. However, what I don't think you've shown is that such a deal can't be approved.
The ERG don't have a veto on what the government does. If they had the numbers for an alternative leader and an alternative plan they'd already have got rid of her.
The DUP have a veto on whether the government continues to exist, but it's not really clear they have a better option; If they blow it up they most likely end up with a new government that doesn't need them.
Both of these groups have a vote any final deal, but it's not clear whether it'll be a blocking minority; Quite plausibly she can get support from other parties. And I think it's too early to assume the ERG will vote against, whatever they say now; No deal may look less attractive to them when they're staring straight down the barrel of it, and if TMay ends up getting other MPs to support her the ERG have to swallow not only the deal, but also any concessions she had to make to get those extra votes.
It's also a mistake to think of the ERG as a homogenous block.
That being said, I think that it is more than possible that a mixture of Conservative rebels, and Labour desire to see the government fall will result in Mrs May's deal being voted down.
However, as I've said before, were that to happen, a more likely scenario is in an extension to Article 50 rather than a No Deal Brexit in early 2019.
I think that Baker is right that at least 40 ERG people will vote against. Probably the DUP as well. And say 3-5 Labour MPs. So it seems to me that May will need around 45-50 votes from other parties to pass her deal - is that right? That is a lot of Labour rebels.
FWIW my view is that:
- The Deal will be so bad that the ERG will get greater numbers. I think there will be more resignations once it becomes clear that we can never leave the CU and have our own trade policy. - The DUP will happily no confidence the Govt if they cross the red lines. They have nothing to lose. They will get re-elected anyway and the much more likely outcome is that May resigns, the Tories get a new leader and the DUP agree to re-confidence the Govt. The Tories will have no reason to want a GE. The DUP will be in no worse position by taking the gamble if May is going to sell them out anyway. - I think an extension to A50 would be agreed by the Leavers if the existing deal was buried.
Baker making a great point here. The ERG and DUP have told May over and over again that Chequers is unacceptable. Her solution? Propose more climb downs that make Chequers worse.
As May says “Nothing has changed.” She is dancing while continuing to pursue a deal that cannot be approved. That is not strength, it is delusion. And the cabinet sit around and let this happen? Good God.
The only deal May can make will be one that destroys all the red lines she has set out. When she does so, her credibility will be zero. No point blaming the Leavers for No Deal - that will be courtesy of Theresa May.
The danger is that we get no Brexit at all. The Civil War ultimately led to the Restoration; perhaps history will rhyme.
Obviously this is the latest threat of the Remainers - give us the Brexit we want or you won't get it at all. It is a hollow and dishonest threat. The only people who can stop Brexit are the Government - the EU can't stop it. So really this threat is saying that although we promised to deliver Brexit, we were lying and we are only prepared to deliver it if the losers get to define the outcome. There is no actual prospect of this happening, or at least not one that does not involve the Tories in opposition for the next 20 years.
You're right that she'll have to end up erasing her remaining red lines. However, what I don't think you've shown is that such a deal can't be approved.
The ERG don't have a veto on what the government does. If they had the numbers for an alternative leader and an alternative plan they'd already have got rid of her.
The DUP have a veto on whether the government continues to exist, but it's not really clear they have a better option; If they blow it up they most likely end up with a new government that doesn't need them.
Both of these groups have a vote any final deal, but it's not clear whether it'll be a blocking minority; Quite plausibly she can get support from other parties. And I think it's too early to assume the ERG will vote against, whatever they say now; No deal may look less attractive to them when they're staring straight down the barrel of it, and if TMay ends up getting other MPs to support her the ERG have to swallow not only the deal, but also any concessions she had to make to get those extra votes.
It's also a mistake to think of the ERG as a homogenous block.
That being said, I think that it is more than possible that a mixture of Conservative rebels, and Labour desire to see the government fall will result in Mrs May's deal being voted down.
However, as I've said before, were that to happen, a more likely scenario is in an extension to Article 50 rather than a No Deal Brexit in early 2019.
I think that Baker is right that at least 40 ERG people will vote against. Probably the DUP as well. And say 3-5 Labour MPs. So it seems to me that May will need around 45-50 votes from other parties to pass her deal - is that right? That is a lot of Labour rebels.
FWIW my view is that:
- The Deal will be so bad that the ERG will get greater numbers. I think there will be more resignations once it becomes clear that we can never leave the CU and have our own trade policy. - The DUP will happily no confidence the Govt if they cross the red lines. They have nothing to lose. They will get re-elected anyway and the much more likely outcome is that May resigns, the Tories get a new leader and the DUP agree to re-confidence the Govt. The Tories will have no reason to want a GE. The DUP will be in no worse position by taking the gamble if May is going to sell them out anyway. - I think an extension to A50 would be agreed by the Leavers if the existing deal was buried.
It's also a mistake to think of the ERG as a homogenous block.
That being said, I think that it is more than possible that a mixture of Conservative rebels, and Labour desire to see the government fall will result in Mrs May's deal being voted down.
However, as I've said before, were that to happen, a more likely scenario is in an extension to Article 50 rather than a No Deal Brexit in early 2019.
I think that Baker is right that at least 40 ERG people will vote against. Probably the DUP as well. And say 3-5 Labour MPs. So it seems to me that May will need around 45-50 votes from other parties to pass her deal - is that right? That is a lot of Labour rebels.
FWIW my view is that:
- The Deal will be so bad that the ERG will get greater numbers. I think there will be more resignations once it becomes clear that we can never leave the CU and have our own trade policy. - The DUP will happily no confidence the Govt if they cross the red lines. They have nothing to lose. They will get re-elected anyway and the much more likely outcome is that May resigns, the Tories get a new leader and the DUP agree to re-confidence the Govt. The Tories will have no reason to want a GE. The DUP will be in no worse position by taking the gamble if May is going to sell them out anyway. - I think an extension to A50 would be agreed by the Leavers if the existing deal was buried.
OK. So you've had the ERG vote down the deal. The Conservative Party still needs a new leader who can command the confidence of the House of Commons, given they do not currently have a majority.
What if it's Hunt? Or Rudd?
What then?
Or what if 30 pro-EU rebels on the Conservative side say they can't accept Canada, and will vote against it (as will almost all the Labour Party).
I don't believe there is any form of Brexit that is acceptable to 326 MPs, and also to the Commission. I believe that any Conservative Leader would choose a General Election rather than walking into a No Deal / No Preparation Brexit.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: it is not the destination that is the most important thing, it is the orderliness of the journey.
I think that Baker is right that at least 40 ERG people will vote against. Probably the DUP as well. And say 3-5 Labour MPs. So it seems to me that May will need around 45-50 votes from other parties to pass her deal - is that right? That is a lot of Labour rebels.
FWIW my view is that:
- The Deal will be so bad that the ERG will get greater numbers. I think there will be more resignations once it becomes clear that we can never leave the CU and have our own trade policy. - The DUP will happily no confidence the Govt if they cross the red lines. They have nothing to lose. They will get re-elected anyway and the much more likely outcome is that May resigns, the Tories get a new leader and the DUP agree to re-confidence the Govt. The Tories will have no reason to want a GE. The DUP will be in no worse position by taking the gamble if May is going to sell them out anyway. - I think an extension to A50 would be agreed by the Leavers if the existing deal was buried.
OK. So you've had the ERG vote down the deal. The Conservative Party still needs a new leader who can command the confidence of the House of Commons, given they do not currently have a majority.
What if it's Hunt? Or Rudd?
What then?
Or what if 30 pro-EU rebels on the Conservative side say they can't accept Canada, and will vote against it (as will almost all the Labour Party).
I don't believe there is any form of Brexit that is acceptable to 326 MPs, and also to the Commission. I believe that any Conservative Leader would choose a General Election rather than walking into a No Deal / No Preparation Brexit.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: it is not the destination that is the most important thing, it is the orderliness of the journey.
Well that is where we disagree. No deal is a perfectly reasonable (but not optimal) outcome and if May (or whoever) cannot get approval for any type deal, then that is what needs to happen.
The UK voted to leave and leaving means giving A50 notice and leaving. If a deal can be done great, if not, we leave. A General Election changes nothing. On what platform could it be fought? Why would the conservatives call one? If they do it asking for a majority for a Chequers-lite sellout they will obviously lose. If the ask for a Norway deal, they will lose. They just need to do what they were elected to do. Leave.
May has promised that if she can't get a deal agreed that we will leave with No Deal and that the country can cope and that the Government has made the necessary preparations. So why would this not be the outcome if she cannot get a deal approved? Surely you are not claiming she is a liar?
May's 'grand bargain' is apparently a whole UK-wide backstop where we remain in the CU until BOTH the UK and EU agree that solutions have been developed which 'solve' the NI border.
Therefore, we will not be able to leave the CU without EU permission. This will be a binding international treaty. The EU of course will never agree to any NI border solution. Instead, we will give up the money and spend two years pointlessly deliberating 'Chequers' knowing that the EU will never agree. After the two years is up, the EU will activate the backstop. The UK will be told that there will be no trade deal for the rest of GB because staying in the backstop is cherry picking (we will be in the CU and SM with no FOM) so they will say any deal need to go back to EEA/CU which is what they always wanted.
Once she agrees a permanent backstop, Brexit cannot happen. That is why she promised in writing to her MPs that the backstop would be 'strictly time limited' - another promise she is about to break.
Trump administration halts visas for same-sex partners of diplomats, UN employees
The “rationale” is that this is to bring it into line with the rule on heterosexual couples - completely ignoring the fact that gay marriage is available in very much a minority of countries..unlike heterosexual marriage.
Trump administration halts visas for same-sex partners of diplomats, UN employees
The “rationale” is that this is to bring it into line with the rule on heterosexual couples - completely ignoring the fact that gay marriage is available in very much a minority of countries..unlike heterosexual marriage.
There are many -- and John Bolton is perhaps the poster child -- who regard the UN and all transnational bodies as an affront to American sovereignty. It is likely this is the main cause rather than aversion to gay relationships. It is of a piece with similar moves or noises against Unesco, the WTO, and the ICC.
How would PB-ers vote in a 2nd referendum? Would anyone change?
I confess I would be drawn to Remain. Reluctantly, and with a sad sense of leaving behind a vision of my country as a proud sovereign nation, with an unexampled history of invention, conquest, enterprise and bravery, but nonetheless a nation that in all true senses no longer exists. In retrospect, if we were going to Leave it needed to happen before we signed the EU Constitution and accepted Article 50. That was the key that turned the lock, and made leaving so painful it could never be successfully done - or done without horrific damage.
Of course we were promised a vote on that Constitution and Article 50, and we would have voted it down, and the crisis of Brexit would thus have been avoided with our pride intact (and the EU a better, more democratic place) but the political classes conspired to deny us this, and we are where are. Betrayed and jailed.
I would therefore vote quite selfishly and for London properly prices and for my own monetary gain: I would probably switch to Remain, and then go on a ten day Tanqueray bender to drown my utter shame and self loathing.
Is there a deal that May can get through the commons?
Yes. No Deal, which doesn't require a further commons vote.
This is one reason why despite the very real likelihood of disaster No Deal has always been the likeliest outcome.
Or last minute deal
The point is a last minute Deal might well not get through the Commons. Labour, and especially Corbyn, are sufficiently short-sighted and stupid to back no deal for partisan advantage without fully understanding the consequences.
If it goes to the last minute, back no deal.
Really, really not. Even if you think Corbyn and McDonnell would have a private preference for a No Deal/Rock-Hard Brexit (I don't think they do, but I accept there's enough in their past voting records on Europe matters to make an argument for it), they have enough political sense to know they can't have their fingerprints on it. They will 100% vote to block a No Deal Brexit.
I am irresistibly reminded of General Melchett.
Amusing. How's your prediction of Labour falling to 25% in the polls going?
In case you've forgotten, they hit 23% at one point.
How would PB-ers vote in a 2nd referendum? Would anyone change?
I confess I would be drawn to Remain. Reluctantly, and with a sad sense of leaving behind a vision of my country as a proud sovereign nation, with an unexampled history of invention, conquest, enterprise and bravery, but nonetheless a nation that in all true senses no longer exists. In retrospect, if we were going to Leave it needed to happen before we signed the EU Constitution and accepted Article 50. That was the key that turned the lock, and made leaving so painful it could never be successfully done - or done without horrific damage.
Of course we were promised a vote on that Constitution and Article 50, and we would have voted it down, and the crisis of Brexit would thus have been avoided with our pride intact (and the EU a better, more democratic place) but the political classes conspired to deny us this, and we are where are. Betrayed and jailed.
I would therefore vote quite selfishly and for London properly prices and for my own monetary gain: I would probably switch to Remain, and then go on a ten day Tanqueray bender to drown my utter shame and self loathing.
Leave like last time.
On second thoughts, there should be a general election rather than a referendum.
How would PB-ers vote in a 2nd referendum? Would anyone change?
I confess I would be drawn to Remain. Reluctantly, and with a sad sense of leaving behind a vision of my country as a proud sovereign nation, with an unexampled history of invention, conquest, enterprise and bravery, but nonetheless a nation that in all true senses no longer exists. In retrospect, if we were going to Leave it needed to happen before we signed the EU Constitution and accepted Article 50. That was the key that turned the lock, and made leaving so painful it could never be successfully done - or done without horrific damage.
Of course we were promised a vote on that Constitution and Article 50, and we would have voted it down, and the crisis of Brexit would thus have been avoided with our pride intact (and the EU a better, more democratic place) but the political classes conspired to deny us this, and we are where are. Betrayed and jailed.
I would therefore vote quite selfishly and for London properly prices and for my own monetary gain: I would probably switch to Remain, and then go on a ten day Tanqueray bender to drown my utter shame and self loathing.
Leave like last time.
As Tony Blair deprived me of my vote, last time I supported Remain. Were a vote to happen (which I very much doubt) this time I’d support Leave - because it’s now about a lot more than EU membership - but things like whether large chunks of the population who’ve been left behind by their wiser more sophisticated betters still have a stake in the U.K. as a democracy. To me that’s very much more important than EU membership. They may indeed have “got it wrong” last time - but that’s their absolute right.
In 1983, I was one of Brett Kavanaugh’s freshman roommates at Yale University. About two weeks ago I came forward to lend my support to my friend Deborah Ramirez, who says Brett sexually assaulted her at a party in a dorm suite. I did this because I believe Debbie.
Now the FBI is investigating this incident. I am willing to speak with them about my experiences at Yale with both Debbie and Brett. I would tell them this: Brett Kavanaugh stood up under oath and lied about his drinking and about the meaning of words in his yearbook. He did so baldly, without hesitation or reservation. In his words and his behavior, Judge Kavanaugh has shown contempt for the truth, for the process, for the rule of law, and for accountability. His willingness to lie to avoid embarrassment throws doubt on his denials about the larger questions of sexual assault. In contrast, I cannot remember ever having a reason to distrust anything, large or small, that I have heard from Debbie....
How would PB-ers vote in a 2nd referendum? Would anyone change?
I confess I would be drawn to Remain. Reluctantly, and with a sad sense of leaving behind a vision of my country as a proud sovereign nation, with an unexampled history of invention, conquest, enterprise and bravery, but nonetheless a nation that in all true senses no longer exists. In retrospect, if we were going to Leave it needed to happen before we signed the EU Constitution and accepted Article 50. That was the key that turned the lock, and made leaving so painful it could never be successfully done - or done without horrific damage.
Of course we were promised a vote on that Constitution and Article 50, and we would have voted it down, and the crisis of Brexit would thus have been avoided with our pride intact (and the EU a better, more democratic place) but the political classes conspired to deny us this, and we are where are. Betrayed and jailed.
I would therefore vote quite selfishly and for London properly prices and for my own monetary gain: I would probably switch to Remain, and then go on a ten day Tanqueray bender to drown my utter shame and self loathing.
Leave like last time.
On second thoughts, there should be a general election rather than a referendum.
In what way would that settle the question of how we proceed, though ? Setting aside the fact that the election would be about many issues, not one, neither of the major parties is offering any coherent Brexit solution, and only a second referendum could offer a remain option, anyway.
Not to mention that whoever replaces Kavanaugh as the nominee might be better or worse, depending who it is and how you view these things.
Kavanaugh has shortened during the night and is now priced at 1/8 (implying 89% certain) to be confirmed, 7/2 not to be.
It is extremely hard to imagine a nominee who would make a worse judge than Kavanaugh, following his behaviour at the committee hearing.
I suspect we’ll never know what happened three and a half decades ago - but that performance was very damaging - I can’t imagine the other Supreme Court Justices are looking forward to serving with him.
Not to mention that whoever replaces Kavanaugh as the nominee might be better or worse, depending who it is and how you view these things.
Kavanaugh has shortened during the night and is now priced at 1/8 (implying 89% certain) to be confirmed, 7/2 not to be.
It is extremely hard to imagine a nominee who would make a worse judge than Kavanaugh, following his behaviour at the committee hearing.
I suspect we’ll never know what happened three and a half decades ago - but that performance was very damaging - I can’t imagine the other Supreme Court Justices are looking forward to serving with him.
Where did I read, as I’m certain I did, that present colleagues of Kavanaugh 'barely recognised the person before the committee’; he is, apparently, normally much more ‘judicial’ than that. Whether or not he prefers good looking young women as ‘clerks’.
Do not forget that firms on the continent also need to move to the UK to manufacture for the same reasons as you quote. The real question is which will be the larger flow?
Well, I dispute Bookseller's premise, in that I think it is not in anyone's interests for supply chains to be broken up.
However, if there was widespread repatriation of company supply chains it would work against us. Simply, in many sectors - such as automotive - we lack critical mass.
It's simply business. Automotive (for example) requires constant investment and R&D (and the move to electric is making this even more so). If post-Brexit tariffs add another 10-15% on baseline costs, car companies will simply 'wind down' UK production as models become obsolete. Jaguar Land Rover are a good example, quietly moving some manufacturing to Slovakia so that over the next 3-5 years, if things don't work out, all manufacturing can end up back in the EU. The government might intervene with assistance (we won't be tied by EU rules on this anymore) but I don't see any significant car manufacturing in the UK beyond 2030.
I do think there will be pockets of R&D expertise remaining though, and you may see one or two home-grown niche electric start-ups. So not all gloom and doom.
So tell us the %tage sales JLR make to the continental EU compared to the UK, USA, China, etc?
Sorry, that's my point. As new models come on-stream (and don't forget, automotive is going through a massive restructuring as everyone ditches the internal combustion engine) the decision will be made to manufacture within the EU. It won't happen overnight, but with a no deal the economics start to look powerful.
In this case, the government has at least got something right: basing one of the industrial strategy pillars on batteries. If there is a log of momentum for government support for EV, this might persuade some manufacturers to stay. But they will probably just do R&D here, not manufacturing.
You still have not answered why they would go through massive disruption for the business to move it to the EU from the UK with no gain?
Sorry, I've not done a very good job in explaining this have I. Right, here goes.
They will make more money.
Businesses re-engineer their supply chains all the time. They have to, to stay competitive. They will not up sticks on March 30, but they may make rapid strategic changes in the face of significant tariffs which are (de facto) drags on their business. HMG might intervene in the form of subsidies of course, and this may offset the profit hits.
Leavers who are convinced they would win with an increased majority also seem strangely adamant that to have such a vote would be the end of democracy...
Curious?
Well this is almost the only thing leavers are right on if you ask me. Another referendum does devalue the first. It ceases to be THE referendum. It becomes just another referendum. Unless they win it really big with an increased turn out it opens up all manner of arguments. "Okay you won but the lower turnout shows people aren't really interested." "You won but only just and the trend is against you."
And given that the referendum result is just about the only argument they still have you can see why they want to keep it as it is.
Well this is almost the only thing leavers are right on if you ask me. Another referendum does devalue the first. It ceases to be THE referendum. It becomes just another referendum.
Baker making a great point here. The ERG and DUP have told May over and over again that Chequers is unacceptable. Her solution? Propose more climb downs that make Chequers worse.
As May says “Nothing has changed.” She is dancing while continuing to pursue a deal that cannot be approved. That is not strength, it is delusion. And the cabinet sit around and let this happen? Good God.
The only deal May can make will be one that destroys all the red lines she has set out. When she does so, her credibility will be zero. No point blaming the Leavers for No Deal - that will be courtesy of Theresa May.
You're right that she'll have to end up erasing her remaining red lines. However, what I don't think you've shown is that such a deal can't be approved.
The ERG don't have a veto on what the government does. If they had the numbers for an alternative leader and an alternative plan they'd already have got rid of her.
The DUP have a veto on whether the government continues to exist, but it's not really clear they have a better option; If they blow it up they most likely end up with a new government that doesn't need them.
Both of these groups have a vote any final deal, but it's not clear whether it'll be a blocking minority; Quite plausibly she can get support from other parties. And I think it's too early to assume the ERG will vote against, whatever they say now; No deal may look less attractive to them when they're staring straight down the barrel of it, and if TMay ends up getting other MPs to support her the ERG have to swallow not only the deal, but also any concessions she had to make to get those extra votes.
I think this correct. However the government doesn't need to get parliamentary agreement on an actual final arrangement. It needs to get enough agreement to get through to the next stage and avoid a chaotic exit. That should be easier, even if it's still far from certain.
What are we then if, paralysed by fear, we meekly give up? How do we look our grandparents and parents in the eye given the sacrifices they made? The anger of many will destroy our society if we do. We will not go back to how we were - the genie of the extremes will be unleashed and there will be blood. Can you not sense the edge of violence stirring? I fear it. Deeply.
Ummm, that's the problem...
Our grandparents and parents who lived though the boom times have voted away the future of their kids and grandkids.
They are lucky the anger has not been expressed anywhere other than the ballot box so far
Membership of the EU does not define the future of our country. We do.
The EU is unarguably a flawed political project. Many UK governments tried to reform it from within but failed. Cameron's negotiation showed that the core EU just don't care. They don't see a problem.
The EU has a level of decision making that you and I cannot change through elections. The clear lesson from history is that such a position never ends well for the people. Just look at Greece and the evil levels of unemployment and misery. The rules of the club are more important than people's lives. Eventually the EU will not be held together by love but by force. I truly fear it is Yugoslavia writ large, and the kindling is dry.
I don't know what the spark will be to light that fire, but it could be he demographic drag discussed in Robert Smithson's last video, plus the trend for increased illegal immigration to Europe from Africa as that continent gets richer. The richer countries of the north will not want to pay to support the poorer Mediterranean ones cope with these pressures, and that will trigger the break.
So it could be that we look back on Brexit and are grateful.
When you boil it down it translates to our fear and nervousness around transiting to a new status quo, and just how hard it is to do that after 40 years of intermeshing with the EU.
A fully independent UK, which would be based on creative industries, services and very high end specialist manufacturing, is completely feasible and we’d be well off. Yes, the EU is about five times larger economically. But the UK is still a very big and significant market that wants to trade and I like (and want) the trading and regulatory flexibility independence would give us.
I see Brexit as a strategic long-term decision that will undoubtedly be the right one over 20-30 years. What I don’t know is whether it’s politically sustainable over the next 10 years, given how divisive it’s been.
Baker making a great point here. The ERG and DUP have told May over and over again that Chequers is unacceptable. Her solution? Propose more climb downs that make Chequers worse.
As May says “Nothing has changed.” She is dancing while continuing to pursue a deal that cannot be approved. That is not strength, it is delusion. And the cabinet sit around and let this happen? Good God.
The only deal May can make will be one that destroys all the red lines she has set out. When she does so, her credibility will be zero. No point blaming the Leavers for No Deal - that will be courtesy of Theresa May.
You're right that she'll have to end up erasing her remaining red lines. However, what I don't think you've shown is that such a deal can't be approved.
The ERG don't have a veto on what the government does. If they had the numbers for an alternative leader and an alternative plan they'd already have got rid of her.
The DUP have a veto on whether the government continues to exist, but it's not really clear they have a better option; If they blow it up they most likely end up with a new government that doesn't need them.
Both of these groups have a vote any final deal, but it's not clear whether it'll be a blocking minority; Quite plausibly she can get support from other parties. And I think it's too early to assume the ERG will vote against, whatever they say now; No deal may look less attractive to them when they're staring straight down the barrel of it, and if TMay ends up getting other MPs to support her the ERG have to swallow not only the deal, but also any concessions she had to make to get those extra votes.
I think this correct. However the government doesn't need to get parliamentary agreement on an actual final arrangement. It needs to get enough agreement to get through to the next stage and avoid a chaotic exit. That should be easier, even if it's still far from certain.
The Govt has to get Parliament to pass the withdrawal agreement because it is a treaty - it needs primary legislation. If it can't pass this by 31 March there is no deal.
You're right that she'll have to end up erasing her remaining red lines. However, what I don't think you've shown is that such a deal can't be approved.
The ERG don't have a veto on what the government does. If they had the numbers for an alternative leader and an alternative plan they'd already have got rid of her.
The DUP have a veto on whether the government continues to exist, but it's not really clear they have a better option; If they blow it up they most likely end up with a new government that doesn't need them.
Both of these groups have a vote any final deal, but it's not clear whether it'll be a blocking minority; Quite plausibly she can get support from other parties. And I think it's too early to assume the ERG will vote against, whatever they say now; No deal may look less attractive to them when they're staring straight down the barrel of it, and if TMay ends up getting other MPs to support her the ERG have to swallow not only the deal, but also any concessions she had to make to get those extra votes.
It's also a mistake to think of the ERG as a homogenous block.
That being said, I think that it is more than possible that a mixture of Conservative rebels, and Labour desire to see the government fall will result in Mrs May's deal being voted down.
However, as I've said before, were that to happen, a more likely scenario is in an extension to Article 50 rather than a No Deal Brexit in early 2019.
I think that Baker is right that at least 40 ERG people will vote against. Probably the DUP as well. And say 3-5 Labour MPs. So it seems to me that May will need around 45-50 votes from other parties to pass her deal - is that right? That is a lot of Labour rebels.
FWIW my view is that:
- The Deal will be so bad that the ERG will get greater numbers. I think there will be more resignations once it becomes clear that we can never leave the CU and have our own trade policy. - The DUP will happily no confidence the Govt if they cross the red lines. They have nothing to lose. They will get re-elected anyway and the much more likely outcome is that May resigns, the Tories get a new leader and the DUP agree to re-confidence the Govt. The Tories will have no reason to want a GE. The DUP will be in no worse position by taking the gamble if May is going to sell them out anyway. - I think an extension to A50 would be agreed by the Leavers if the existing deal was buried.
48 Labour MPs rebelled to vote for single market and customs union in a pointless vote. Far more would do so if it was that or no deal. Then add on some of the SNP and Lib Dems. There is a majority in parliament for a soft Brexit/BINO. But as you say, it might be the end of TM.
What are we then if, paralysed by fear, we meekly give up? How do we look our grandparents and parents in the eye given the sacrifices they made? The anger of many will destroy our society if we do. We will not go back to how we were - the genie of the extremes will be unleashed and there will be blood. Can you not sense the edge of violence stirring? I fear it. Deeply.
Ummm, that's the problem...
Our grandparents and parents who lived though the boom times have voted away the future of their kids and grandkids.
They are lucky the anger has not been expressed anywhere other than the ballot box so far
Membership of the EU does not define the future of our country. We do.
The EU is unarguably a flawed political project. Many UK governments tried to reform it from within but failed. Cameron's negotiation showed that the core EU just don't care. They don't see a problem.
The EU has a level of decision making that you and I cannot change through elections. The clear lesson from history is that such a position never ends well for the people. Just look at Greece and the evil levels of unemployment and misery. The rules of the club are more important than people's lives. Eventually the EU will not be held together by love but by force. I truly fear it is Yugoslavia writ large, and the kindling is dry.
I don't know what the spark will be to light that fire, but it could be he demographic drag discussed in Robert Smithson's last video, plus the trend for increased illegal immigration to Europe from Africa as that continent gets richer. The richer countries of the north will not want to pay to support the poorer Mediterranean ones cope with these pressures, and that will trigger the break.
So it could be that we look back on Brexit and are grateful.
When you boil it down it translates to our fear and nervousness around transiting to a new status quo, and just how hard it is to do that after 40 years of intermeshing with the EU.
A fully independent UK, which would be based on creative industries, services and very high end specialist manufacturing, is completely feasible and we’d be well off. Yes, the EU is about five times larger economically. But the UK is still a very big and significant market that wants to trade and I like (and want) the trading and regulatory flexibility independence would give us.
I see Brexit as a strategic long-term decision that will undoubtedly be the right one over 20-30 years. What I don’t know is whether it’s politically sustainable over the next 10 years, given how divisive it’s been.
It will crumble under pressure from a downturn that affected the UK disproportionately, if there were to be one.
Oh, I saw about 3 mobility scooters whilst I was out today. Didn't see a single one in France. I have to say the drivers didn't look particularly disabled either. OK so they weren't looking particularly healthy either, but you shouldn't have a mobility scooter simply because you're 5'6 and 22 stone. It's just going to increase one's obesity. Has anyone properly looked into this ? It seems a real waste of the state's money, and doesn't help their owner's health one bit. Yes I realise some people do need them, I have a friend without feet for instance that has one. But they seem massively overused, particularly amongst the morbidly obese.
Baker making a great point here. The ERG and DUP have told May over and over again that Chequers is unacceptable. Her solution? Propose more climb downs that make Chequers worse.
As May says “Nothing has changed.” She is dancing while continuing to pursue a deal that cannot be approved. That is not strength, it is delusion. And the cabinet sit around and let this happen? Good God.
The only deal May can make will be one that destroys all the red lines she has set out. When she does so, her credibility will be zero. No point blaming the Leavers for No Deal - that will be courtesy of Theresa May.
The danger is that we get no Brexit at all. The Civil War ultimately led to the Restoration; perhaps history will rhyme.
Whilst that’s true, it also led to a constitutional monarchy rather than an absolutist one.
So the closest parallel would be a looser form of rejoining or an associate membership that recognising the UK’s political concerns.
I see no evidence that the EU is capable of exhibiting that level of maturity.
think this correct. However the government doesn't need to get parliamentary agreement on an actual final arrangement. It needs to get enough agreement to get through to the next stage and avoid a chaotic exit. That should be easier, even if it's still far from certain.
Interesting, I didn't know that. What/when do they need parliament to agree on specifically?
Oh, I saw about 3 mobility scooters whilst I was out today. Didn't see a single one in France. I have to say the drivers didn't look particularly disabled either. OK so they weren't looking particularly healthy either, but you shouldn't have a mobility scooter simply because you're 5'6 and 22 stone. It's just going to increase one's obesity. Has anyone properly looked into this ? It seems a real waste of the state's money, and doesn't help their owner's health one bit. Yes I realise some people do need them, I have a friend without feet for instance that has one. But they seem massively overused, particularly amongst the morbidly obese.
That’s also been my observation.
The interesting thing is that not only are they often used as weapons on the pavements, the driver of said vehicle more than not gets out of it and walks into the shop.
What are we then if, paralysed by fear, we meekly give up? How do we look our grandparents and parents in the eye given the sacrifices they made? The anger of many will destroy our society if we do. We will not go back to how we were - the genie of the extremes will be unleashed and there will be blood. Can you not sense the edge of violence stirring? I fear it. Deeply.
Ummm, that's the problem... r
Membership of the EU does not define the future of our country. We do.
The EU is unarguably a flawed political project. Many UK governments tried to reform it from within but failed. Cameron's negotiation showed that the core EU just don't care. They don't see a problem.
The EU has a level of decision making that you and I cannot change through elections. The clear lesson from history is that such a position never ends well for the people. Just look at Greece and the evil levels of unemployment and misery. The rules of the club are more important than people's lives. Eventually the EU will not be held together by love but by force. I truly fear it is Yugoslavia writ large, and the kindling is dry.
I don't know what the spark will be to light that fire, but it could be he demographic drag discussed in Robert Smithson's last video, plus the trend for increased illegal immigration to Europe from Africa as that continent gets richer. The richer countries of the north will not want to pay to support the poorer Mediterranean ones cope with these pressures, and that will trigger the break.
So it could be that we look back on Brexit and are grateful.
When you boil it down it translates to our fear and nervousness around transiting to a new status quo, and just how hard it is to do that after 40 years of intermeshing with the EU.
A fully independent UK, which would be based on creative industries, services and very high end specialist manufacturing, is completely feasible and we’d be well off. Yes, the EU is about five times larger economically. But the UK is still a very big and significant market that wants to trade and I like (and want) the trading and regulatory flexibility independence would give us.
I see Brexit as a strategic long-term decision that will undoubtedly be the right one over 20-30 years. What I don’t know is whether it’s politically sustainable over the next 10 years, given how divisive it’s been.
What advantages does being outside the EU bring for the creative industries, services and high end manufacturing? I can see very really and tangible benefits to all three from a larger home market, more co-ordinated regulations and a more stable macro-economic environment - all of which the EU has delivered.
Baker making a great point here. The ERG and DUP have told May over and over again that Chequers is unacceptable. Her solution? Propose more climb downs that make Chequers worse.
As May says “Nothing has changed.” She is dancing while continuing to pursue a deal that cannot be approved. That is not strength, it is delusion. And the cabinet sit around and let this happen? Good God.
The only deal May can make will be one that destroys all the red lines she has set out. When she does so, her credibility will be zero. No point blaming the Leavers for No Deal - that will be courtesy of Theresa May.
You're right that she'll have to end up erasing her remaining red lines. However, what I don't think you've shown is that such a deal can't be approved.
The ERG don't have a veto on what the government does. If they had the numbers for an alternative leader and an alternative plan they'd already have got rid of her.
The DUP have a veto on whether the government continues to exist, but it's not really clear they have a better option; If they blow it up they most likely end up with a new government that doesn't need them.
Both of these groups have a vote any final deal, but it's not clear whether it'll be a blocking minority; Quite plausibly she can get support from other parties. And I think it's too early to assume the ERG will vote against, whatever they say now; No deal may look less attractive to them when they're staring straight down the barrel of it, and if TMay ends up getting other MPs to support her the ERG have to swallow not only the deal, but also any concessions she had to make to get those extra votes.
I think this correct. However the government doesn't need to get parliamentary agreement on an actual final arrangement. It needs to get enough agreement to get through to the next stage and avoid a chaotic exit. That should be easier, even if it's still far from certain.
The Govt has to get Parliament to pass the withdrawal agreement because it is a treaty - it needs primary legislation. If it can't pass this by 31 March there is no deal.
No, treaties are ratified by being laid before Parliament which then has 14 days to veto the ratification. Legislation is often required in order to execute the UK’s obligations under a treaty but that depends on what’s in the treaty.
Oh, I saw about 3 mobility scooters whilst I was out today. Didn't see a single one in France. I have to say the drivers didn't look particularly disabled either. OK so they weren't looking particularly healthy either, but you shouldn't have a mobility scooter simply because you're 5'6 and 22 stone. It's just going to increase one's obesity. Has anyone properly looked into this ? It seems a real waste of the state's money, and doesn't help their owner's health one bit. Yes I realise some people do need them, I have a friend without feet for instance that has one. But they seem massively overused, particularly amongst the morbidly obese.
That’s also been my observation.
I’m about 5’6”, and while I’m perhaps a bit ‘tubby’ I’m developing problems with my lower spine which, as it affects my legs, makes walking difficult, so I’ve been wondering when I’m going to need a scooter. Not going to ‘The State’ though; if I do decide I need one, our local pharmacy sells them. As I used to, when I ran a pharmacy, nearly 40 years ago
Whoever advised Theresa May to strut her stuff on stage yesterday deserves a biscuit.
She’s all over the front pages this morning, looking al human and stuff.
We've mentioned on pb before that the Number 10 operation has become more professional recently, with the humanisation of Theresa May seen here and earlier in Africa, and also in its offensives against rivals -- so we see every initiative from Boris is now shot down the same day, for instance -- and in PMQs, although once Corbyn forces the Prime Minister off-script she still struggles until she can shoehorn in the carefully honed soundbite in answer to the final question.
It might be worth a thread if anyone has inside knowledge.
What are we then if, paralysed by fear, we meekly give up? How do we look our grandparents and parents in the eye given the sacrifices they made? The anger of many will destroy our society if we do. We will not go back to how we were - the genie of the extremes will be unleashed and there will be blood. Can you not sense the edge of violence stirring? I fear it. Deeply.
Ummm, that's the problem... r
Membership of the EU does not define the future of our country. We do.
The EU is unarguably a flawed political project. Many UK governments tried to reform it from within but failed. Cameron's negotiation showed that the core EU just don't care. They don't see a problem.
The EU has.
When you boil it down it translates to our fear and nervousness around transiting to a new status quo, and just how hard it is to do that after 40 years of intermeshing with the EU.
A fully independent UK, which would be based on creative industries, services and very high end specialist manufacturing, is completely feasible and we’d be well off. Yes, the EU is about five times larger economically. But the UK is still a very big and significant market that wants to trade and I like (and want) the trading and regulatory flexibility independence would give us.
I see Brexit as a strategic long-term decision that will undoubtedly be the right one over 20-30 years. What I don’t know is whether it’s politically sustainable over the next 10 years, given how divisive it’s been.
What advantages does being outside the EU bring for the creative industries, services and high end manufacturing? I can see very really and tangible benefits to all three from a larger home market, more co-ordinated regulations and a more stable macro-economic environment - all of which the EU has delivered.
We can adopt much more flexible and timely regulation of those services industries, and adapt/change them quickly to respond to global trends as we see fit. There are a variety of procurement, trade and certification regulations I’d amend too.
The UK has a big comparative advantage in services.
Oh, I saw about 3 mobility scooters whilst I was out today. Didn't see a single one in France. I have to say the drivers didn't look particularly disabled either. OK so they weren't looking particularly healthy either, but you shouldn't have a mobility scooter simply because you're 5'6 and 22 stone. It's just going to increase one's obesity. Has anyone properly looked into this ? It seems a real waste of the state's money, and doesn't help their owner's health one bit. Yes I realise some people do need them, I have a friend without feet for instance that has one. But they seem massively overused, particularly amongst the morbidly obese.
That’s also been my observation.
The interesting thing is that not only are they often used as weapons on the pavements, the driver of said vehicle more than not gets out of it and walks into the shop.
Indeed! They look like they’re attempting to mitigate just one of the symptoms whilst totally ignoring the cause, to me.
think this correct. However the government doesn't need to get parliamentary agreement on an actual final arrangement. It needs to get enough agreement to get through to the next stage and avoid a chaotic exit. That should be easier, even if it's still far from certain.
Interesting, I didn't know that. What/when do they need parliament to agree on specifically?
It's the withdrawal agreement only. So, reciprocal citizen rights, the money and the Irish border backstop. The final trade deal to be negotiated during transition.
This actually makes Labour's six tests pretty irrelevant and probably allows them to back the government to take us out of the EU and into transition. This then punts the cliff-edge to the end of 2020, but since the EU will have a backstop for Ireland already agreed they'd probably be happy to do mini-deals on aviation, etc, and it's only [only!] manufacturing industry that would be at risk.
Baker making a great point here. The ERG and DUP have told May over and over again that Chequers is unacceptable. Her solution? Propose more climb downs that make Chequers worse.
As May says “Nothing has changed.” She is dancing while continuing to pursue a deal that cannot be approved. That is not strength, it is delusion. And the cabinet sit around and let this happen? Good God.
The only deal May can make will be one that destroys all the red lines she has set out. When she does so, her credibility will be zero. No point blaming the Leavers for No Deal - that will be courtesy of Theresa May.
You're right that she'll have to end up erasing her remaining red lines. However, what I don't think you've shown is that such a deal can't be approved.
The ERG don't have a veto on what the government does. If they had the numbers for an alternative leader and an alternative plan they'd already have got rid of her.
The DUP have a veto on whether the government continues to exist, but it's not really clear they have a better option; If they blow it up they most likely end up with a new government that doesn't need them.
Both of these groups have a vote any final deal, but it's not clear whether it'll be a blocking minority; Quite plausibly she can get support from other parties. And I think it's too early to assume the ERG will vote against, whatever they say now; No deal may look less attractive to them when they're staring straight down the barrel of it, and if TMay ends up getting other MPs to support her the ERG have to swallow not only the deal, but also any concessions she had to make to get those extra votes.
I think this correct. However the government doesn't need to get parliamentary agreement on an actual final arrangement. It needs to get enough agreement to get through to the next stage and avoid a chaotic exit. That should be easier, even if it's still far from certain.
The Govt has to get Parliament to pass the withdrawal agreement because it is a treaty - it needs primary legislation. If it can't pass this by 31 March there is no deal.
True. Sensible Leavers - there are some - will want a deal. MPs who think Brexit a huge mistake - almost all Labour MPs and most Conservative ones privately - will be appalled by the prospect of looming chaos.
What are we then if, paralysed by fear, we meekly give up? How do we look our grandparents and parents in the eye given the sacrifices they made? The anger of many will destroy our society if we do. We will not go back to how we were - the genie of the extremes will be unleashed and there will be blood. Can you not sense the edge of violence stirring? I fear it. Deeply.
Ummm, that's the problem...
Our grandparents and parents who lived though the boom times have voted away the future of their kids and grandkids.
They are lucky the anger has not been expressed anywhere other than the ballot box so far
Membership of the EU does not define the future of our country. We do.
The EU is unarguably a flawed political project.
So it could be that we look back on Brexit and are grateful.
When you boil it down it translates to our fear and nervousness around transiting to a new status quo, and just how hard it is to do that after 40 years of intermeshing with the EU.
A fully independent UK, which would be based on creative industries, services and very high end specialist manufacturing, is completely feasible and we’d be well off. Yes, the EU is about five times larger economically. But the UK is still a very big and significant market that wants to trade and I like (and want) the trading and regulatory flexibility independence would give us.
I see Brexit as a strategic long-term decision that will undoubtedly be the right one over 20-30 years. What I don’t know is whether it’s politically sustainable over the next 10 years, given how divisive it’s been.
It will crumble under pressure from a downturn that affected the UK disproportionately, if there were to be one.
Then again, it might not.
Paradoxically, there’s an argument to say that the more bitter and divisive getting out proves to be the less likely we’ll be to ever go back in.
Apart from the fanatics, most normal people will want to let sleeping dogs lie and won’t want to reopen that pandora’s box all over again.
Comments
Good night all.
However, even if we assume that we could do a lot better, there's still a big deficit to make up in terms of giving up on frictionless access to the EU27 economies, which represent a large chunk of our existing and potential markets. Plus it will take a long time to do any new deals.
I’m friends with the First Squire of England (there is actually someone with that title). He is an ardent anti-EU supporter who voted Remain because he believed the damage would be too great
At a push, 18 months to move production. It's not like the blueprints are a state secret and unless you're suggesting forcing your way into Broughton(?) and physically preventing the workers from making wings, production would continue until the new factory came onstream.
There is some major silliness about this. The Irish claim that they could lock down UK airspace was ludicrous, because the Irish airspace is jointly administered with the UK and some of the tech and centres are in the UK. Similarly the claim that only Britain can make European wings is silly: aviation production in different countries with assembly elsewhere has been a commonplace since the 1970's and the MRCA (later Tornado). From memory, the Typhoon left wing is made in Spain and the right wing in Italy. This isn't rocket science.
I do think there will be pockets of R&D expertise remaining though, and you may see one or two home-grown niche electric start-ups. So not all gloom and doom.
Has anyone properly looked into this ? It seems a real waste of the state's money, and doesn't help their owner's health one bit.
Yes I realise some people do need them, I have a friend without feet for instance that has one. But they seem massively overused, particularly amongst the morbidly obese.
Sure, production could be moved, but it would take time. Even if we take your highly optimistic 18 month figure, are you seriously suggesting that Airbus could happily accept an 18-month period where they literally cannot produce a single aeroplane other than those A320s where the wings are made in China?
The attitude of the EU is there for all to see.
Why stay?
A320 wings made in China are second generation not third. No additions on the end of the wings - first gen. Vertical stabilisers - second gen. Big 45 deg scoops (made in South Korea, scoops only) - third gen.
(As I type this. it occurs to me that this could actually benefit the UK Government, because they could point to this (very visible) example to prove Brexit hasn't been the catastrophe everyone said it would.).
It doesn't help that many of the users think they can drive around as if they were one of Guderian's panzers.
And so baffles me when Leavers declare it to be the main issue for them.
We have never been outside the EU we helped create. We created it to help protect us from 21st century global commerce. We underestimate the extent the British Economy has been rebuilt upon the foundation of the EUs CU.
Personally I think Boris or Corbyn as PM is dramatic. The volatility ahead could make that happen. And history shows us mistakes like that dancing is ruthlessly exploited by enemies when shown to people sufferering a recession, job losses, debt, home repossessions, government and council cuts etc etc etc
We continue to deindustrialise regardless of leave or remain, how do we manufacture TVs, cars, aircraft and sell them when our labour costs are eight times higher than competitors? Brexit can’t turn the clock back to a simpler time when we were all brothers and sisters, but it can turn the clock forward accelerating deindustrialisation to a rate that butchers what love and respect still remains in this country.
I take your point about the certification, but I assume they have the capacity to move the assembled wings to the EU and get them certified there. It would seem a simple task and the EU is good at bypassing bureaucracy when it suits. So UK keeps making wings in the interim, the EU certifies them until the new Spanish wings come on stream.
In this case, the government has at least got something right: basing one of the industrial strategy pillars on batteries. If there is a log of momentum for government support for EV, this might persuade some manufacturers to stay. But they will probably just do R&D here, not manufacturing.
Also the fallacy that the rest of the EU member states were ever our friends and that we to the EU project represented nothing other than a £10 billion net annual contribution. There is and never was any common body politic. It was nothing more than a transactional relationship for them.
Fibromyalgia
A disease developed by doctors as a diagnosis for Hypochondriacs. They often prescribe Lyrica - which is actually a placebo.
If you believe you suffer from this disease, look in your medicine cabinet. If you have anything other than Asprin you may want to consult your doctor.
I hurt everywhere and I'm really sad for no reason. My fibromyalgia must be acting up.
A higher petrol price with consequently higher VAT doesn't reduce my spending it just means that there is a few quid less in my bank account.
Which might mean that there is less spending a few decades hence when I retire but I expect the Treasury would rather have the tax receipts now than then.
And there's plenty of other expenditure other than books which is non VAT rated - most housing costs for example or expenditure abroad when on holiday.
Some of that 9B has flowed back into poorest regions of the UK for infrastructure and lifelong reskilling to transform us as we fight against deindustrialization, but better than doing that ourselves it’s part of a pan Europe plan where at same time we are investing in developing EU markets for our businesses to exploit. With the yearly payment we also get cross-border policing, wider European security arrangements, joint scientific and research grants to our universities and business - if politicians can’t get out there and sell that 9B as VFM to British households, they shouldn’t be in the politics game to start with. Because, fundamentally without voters believing in Leaves Magic Money Tree riding to the rescue of government spending, Leaves economic argument falls apart in the first week of the campaign, with mountains of votes hoovered up by remain.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/sheffield-school-fight_uk_5baa6e9ce4b0f143d10dfe10
As May says “Nothing has changed.” She is dancing while continuing to pursue a deal that cannot be approved. That is not strength, it is delusion. And the cabinet sit around and let this happen? Good God.
The only deal May can make will be one that destroys all the red lines she has set out. When she does so, her credibility will be zero. No point blaming the Leavers for No Deal - that will be courtesy of Theresa May.
The ERG don't have a veto on what the government does. If they had the numbers for an alternative leader and an alternative plan they'd already have got rid of her.
The DUP have a veto on whether the government continues to exist, but it's not really clear they have a better option; If they blow it up they most likely end up with a new government that doesn't need them.
Both of these groups have a vote any final deal, but it's not clear whether it'll be a blocking minority; Quite plausibly she can get support from other parties. And I think it's too early to assume the ERG will vote against, whatever they say now; No deal may look less attractive to them when they're staring straight down the barrel of it, and if TMay ends up getting other MPs to support her the ERG have to swallow not only the deal, but also any concessions she had to make to get those extra votes.
What politicians are here for is to scope the bigger picture looking for cause and effect, and address causes. The current government is particularly shit at doing this. No I’m not bias, Blair and Browns governments of spin were even worse at scoping cause and effect. Immigration is fantastic example of complete non policy change for thirty years, and here’s why.
On Doorstep “too much immigration and that means no homes for the rest of us and creaking NHS”. So you bring forward policies to address that? Don’t be stupid. You will scope out a full influence diagram, realise other causes for lack of homes to be addressed, realise immigration is actually keeping NHS afloat these passed years, also realise the main cause of immigration is the demographic time bomb meaning government after government, regardless what they publicly state, are actually welcoming young working age tax payers into the country. Immigration at these levels is current default solution for dealing with demographic time bomb, there’s no addressing immigration until a different solution is first put in place for dealing with demographic time bomb. You’re not going to get the bigger picture from the doorstep. You are not going to get bigger picture without scoping it out looking for causes.
Cause of high immigration is the demographic time bomb, the lack of alternative solution so use of immigration.
We need advantages of leaving EU FOM of movement and control taken back, put into honest context of
1) what that actually means if we sign further trade deals with EU and other countries under global Britain, how much of that is just signed away again to replace what FOM gave British economy?
2) the extent governments for decades have been addicted to immigration, because these people are working age, pay taxes, and fill key vacancies in key sectors, immigration not forced on us by EU rules but has been embraced with open arms.
3) when we come out EU, the extent government must clash with what business wants to be able to exploit any control taken back.
To say there will be better control of immigration once out the EU is a lie without addressing the three points above.
This is yet another example how ref 2 will be a completely different campaign, and remain hover up votes lost last time over immigration.
However, it is worth remembering that while we are a very efficient assembler of cars, we have no meaningful indigenous production of aluminium, and our steel is barely competitive. As we have neither cheap energy (hydro or lignite), nor our own sources of iron ore or alumina, I don't see how that changes.
We also don't have enough local oil production to produce tyres. We have no automotive semi production capability. Our own cars get their engines and transmissions largely from abroad. Ditto airbags and other odds and sods of the automotive supply chain.
In the (extremely unlikely) situation where 15% tariffs were imposed between the EU and the UK on all goods, it is likely that automotive assembly would largely leave the UK, because it's easier to set up final assembly somewhere on the continent than it would be to create a diverse supply chain in the UK.
That being said, I think that it is more than possible that a mixture of Conservative rebels, and Labour desire to see the government fall will result in Mrs May's deal being voted down.
However, as I've said before, were that to happen, a more likely scenario is in an extension to Article 50 rather than a No Deal Brexit in early 2019.
FWIW my view is that:
- The Deal will be so bad that the ERG will get greater numbers. I think there will be more resignations once it becomes clear that we can never leave the CU and have our own trade policy.
- The DUP will happily no confidence the Govt if they cross the red lines. They have nothing to lose. They will get re-elected anyway and the much more likely outcome is that May resigns, the Tories get a new leader and the DUP agree to re-confidence the Govt. The Tories will have no reason to want a GE. The DUP will be in no worse position by taking the gamble if May is going to sell them out anyway.
- I think an extension to A50 would be agreed by the Leavers if the existing deal was buried.
How do you think they will manage that?
What if it's Hunt? Or Rudd?
What then?
Or what if 30 pro-EU rebels on the Conservative side say they can't accept Canada, and will vote against it (as will almost all the Labour Party).
I don't believe there is any form of Brexit that is acceptable to 326 MPs, and also to the Commission. I believe that any Conservative Leader would choose a General Election rather than walking into a No Deal / No Preparation Brexit.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: it is not the destination that is the most important thing, it is the orderliness of the journey.
The UK voted to leave and leaving means giving A50 notice and leaving. If a deal can be done great, if not, we leave. A General Election changes nothing. On what platform could it be fought? Why would the conservatives call one? If they do it asking for a majority for a Chequers-lite sellout they will obviously lose. If the ask for a Norway deal, they will lose. They just need to do what they were elected to do. Leave.
May has promised that if she can't get a deal agreed that we will leave with No Deal and that the country can cope and that the Government has made the necessary preparations. So why would this not be the outcome if she cannot get a deal approved? Surely you are not claiming she is a liar?
Therefore, we will not be able to leave the CU without EU permission. This will be a binding international treaty. The EU of course will never agree to any NI border solution. Instead, we will give up the money and spend two years pointlessly deliberating 'Chequers' knowing that the EU will never agree. After the two years is up, the EU will activate the backstop. The UK will be told that there will be no trade deal for the rest of GB because staying in the backstop is cherry picking (we will be in the CU and SM with no FOM) so they will say any deal need to go back to EEA/CU which is what they always wanted.
Once she agrees a permanent backstop, Brexit cannot happen. That is why she promised in writing to her MPs that the backstop would be 'strictly time limited' - another promise she is about to break.
Trump administration halts visas for same-sex partners of diplomats, UN employees
The “rationale” is that this is to bring it into line with the rule on heterosexual couples - completely ignoring the fact that gay marriage is available in very much a minority of countries..unlike heterosexual marriage.
https://usat.ly/2y9puls
Kavanaugh has shortened during the night and is now priced at 1/8 (implying 89% certain) to be confirmed, 7/2 not to be.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-college-roommate-jamie-roche.html
In 1983, I was one of Brett Kavanaugh’s freshman roommates at Yale University. About two weeks ago I came forward to lend my support to my friend Deborah Ramirez, who says Brett sexually assaulted her at a party in a dorm suite. I did this because I believe Debbie.
Now the FBI is investigating this incident. I am willing to speak with them about my experiences at Yale with both Debbie and Brett. I would tell them this: Brett Kavanaugh stood up under oath and lied about his drinking and about the meaning of words in his yearbook. He did so baldly, without hesitation or reservation. In his words and his behavior, Judge Kavanaugh has shown contempt for the truth, for the process, for the rule of law, and for accountability. His willingness to lie to avoid embarrassment throws doubt on his denials about the larger questions of sexual assault. In contrast, I cannot remember ever having a reason to distrust anything, large or small, that I have heard from Debbie....
Setting aside the fact that the election would be about many issues, not one, neither of the major parties is offering any coherent Brexit solution, and only a second referendum could offer a remain option, anyway.
Whether or not he prefers good looking young women as ‘clerks’.
They will make more money.
Businesses re-engineer their supply chains all the time. They have to, to stay competitive. They will not up sticks on March 30, but they may make rapid strategic changes in the face of significant tariffs which are (de facto) drags on their business. HMG might intervene in the form of subsidies of course, and this may offset the profit hits.
And given that the referendum result is just about the only argument they still have you can see why they want to keep it as it is.
https://twitter.com/ctrlcreep/status/1043249516974096384
A fully independent UK, which would be based on creative industries, services and very high end specialist manufacturing, is completely feasible and we’d be well off. Yes, the EU is about five times larger economically. But the UK is still a very big and significant market that wants to trade and I like (and want) the trading and regulatory flexibility independence would give us.
I see Brexit as a strategic long-term decision that will undoubtedly be the right one over 20-30 years. What I don’t know is whether it’s politically sustainable over the next 10 years, given how divisive it’s been.
She’s all over the front pages this morning, looking al human and stuff.
So the closest parallel would be a looser form of rejoining or an associate membership that recognising the UK’s political concerns.
I see no evidence that the EU is capable of exhibiting that level of maturity.
Not going to ‘The State’ though; if I do decide I need one, our local pharmacy sells them. As I used to, when I ran a pharmacy, nearly 40 years ago
It might be worth a thread if anyone has inside knowledge.
The UK has a big comparative advantage in services.
‘Why didn’t I dance?’
This actually makes Labour's six tests pretty irrelevant and probably allows them to back the government to take us out of the EU and into transition. This then punts the cliff-edge to the end of 2020, but since the EU will have a backstop for Ireland already agreed they'd probably be happy to do mini-deals on aviation, etc, and it's only [only!] manufacturing industry that would be at risk.
F1: annoyingly, the forecast has improved significantly, so those long shot bets remain eminently unlikely. A shame, but there we are.
I was a bit surprised to see that qualifying apparently starts at 7am. Would've thought it'd be earlier.
Paradoxically, there’s an argument to say that the more bitter and divisive getting out proves to be the less likely we’ll be to ever go back in.
Apart from the fanatics, most normal people will want to let sleeping dogs lie and won’t want to reopen that pandora’s box all over again.