Interesting perspective from Brazil - the people who voted for the right wing populist are the better educated, better off, younger, not the 'old, thick & poor' commonly perceived to be behind 'populism':
Yes, the Brazilian electorate is different to the UK one. Who knew?
Many have lazily assumed that the factors behind "the rise of populism" share common features (Trump, Brexit) - interesting (to some of us, at any rate) to see alternatives.
Trump voters were also wealthier. College voted whites voted Republican.
Interesting perspective from Brazil - the people who voted for the right wing populist are the better educated, better off, younger, not the 'old, thick & poor' commonly perceived to be behind 'populism':
Brazil is a very different case to any of the ones we're more familiar with. The chasm between rich and poor is a significant factor (PT now draw their main support only from the poorest areas of the country). And it's the endemic corruption of the last 20 years, corroding trust in all the main parties - PT particularly - that is the factor driving support for Bolsonaro.
May will have called a general election a month or two after November if she fails to get a mandate for her deal, that new Parliament will then either give her a mandate for her deal or will see Corbyn as PM. If Corbyn is PM and cannot swiftly agree a new majority the new Labour + SNP majority as their conferences made clear would vote for EUref2 with the LDs which Remain would win rather than No Deal Brexit.
You fail to realise it is not Remainers who are dicing with Death it is diehard Brexiteers, if you fail to get any sort of Deal through in November then Brexit may well not happen at all.
The idea the likes of Soubry and Wollaston and Rudd and Grieve and Ken Clarke etc will vote for a Davis coronation and No Deal Brexit is laughable, if has no proposals to agree the backstop they will vote with Labour for a general election or EUref2 rather than No Deal
Nobody has to vote for No Deal.
The only way there will be a GE is if the DUP no confidence the Government. Which is looking more likely than any of your fantasies.
We are not talking about diehard Brexit. We are talking about a Conservative and Unionist Party PM trying to undermine the Union. Even Ruth Davidson is threatening to resign if she does this.
I notice you still have not answered the question as to whether you agree with this....much easier to just avoid the point I suppose.
Oh they do, Parliament has to accept it, which they will not.
If Tory Remainers like Rudd and Soubry and Wollaston and Clarke vote to no confidence the Government over No Deal, which is likely, there would be a GE regardless of what the DUP does.
We are talking actually about fanatics like you prepared to do anything in your desire for a No Deal Brexit, something we know Ruth Davidson is absolutely opposed to as the biggest beneficiary would be Nicola Sturgeon and Sinn Fein and the biggest loser the Union and the British economy
If one part of the UK was in the CU and another not, isn’t that entirely the kind of classic British fudge that we used to be able to play to our advantage. Isn’t it potentially beneficial being able to straddle two worlds, picking and choosing which one to play in on a case by case basis?
Not if it threatens the integrity of the UK. Which it would.
Brexit threatens the integrity of the UK. Already sentiment in Northern Ireland for a United Ireland has gone from very small to nearly half and within striking distance of winning a border poll. The NI backstop as as guarantee of a soft border is supported by the majority of Northern Irish. The DUP are in a minority. The DUP IMO made a catastrophic mistake from their interest by going all in on Brexit. The status quo is their friend. I guess they found the prospect of a hard land border too appealing to pass up.
There has always been a decent 'Union with the RoI’ vote. Demographics were always going to suggest it could rise, too.
If one part of the UK was in the CU and another not, isn’t that entirely the kind of classic British fudge that we used to be able to play to our advantage. Isn’t it potentially beneficial being able to straddle two worlds, picking and choosing which one to play in on a case by case basis?
Not if it threatens the integrity of the UK. Which it would.
Brexit threatens the integrity of the UK. Already sentiment in Northern Ireland for a United Ireland has gone from very small to nearly half and within striking distance of winning a border poll. The NI backstop as as guarantee of a soft border is supported by the majority of Northern Irish. The DUP are in a minority. The DUP IMO made a catastrophic mistake from their interest by going all in on Brexit. The status quo is their friend. I guess they found the prospect of a hard land border too appealing to pass up.
Yep - Northern Ireland and/or Scotland only cease to be part of the UK if voters in Northern Ireland and Scotland want that. The EU has no say and still doesn’t. It’s right-wing English nationalist Tories and a bigoted minority of hardline Ulster Scots who are the real threat to the UK’s territorial integrity.
Interesting perspective from Brazil - the people who voted for the right wing populist are the better educated, better off, younger, not the 'old, thick & poor' commonly perceived to be behind 'populism':
'You might wonder why reasonable people can't reach an agreement on what we should do next. The answer is that they know there is no way Brexit can be implimented without inflicting enormous damage on our country'
I paraphrase from Dominic Grieve.
Could be worse. If Blair had been PM we would have had to go through a phase when we had a Brexit Czar.
If Blair was still PM we wouldn't have been in this particular mess as he wasn't as stupid as to have a referendum in the first place, and if he had been forced to have one, would have been damn sure that he would have won it.
Blair and Brown would have put a threshold on any vote.
TBH if we’d had a threshold.... say minimum 60% for a change........ the madder Leavers would be trying for another one. Look at Scotland!
You trying to say that anyone wanting independence for Scotland is mad. We had a fixed referendum in Scotland the first time, when they counted the dead as No's. No democracy for Scotland in UK is the norm.
No, Malc, of course not. I’m saying that the Nationalists in Scotland aren’t giving up and in their determination they can be compared with people like Boris. Sad perhaps, but in politics the line between determination and fanaticism can be narrow.
Anyway, how were the dead counted as nos? Do you mean that it had to be whatever percentage of the electoral register? If so, how old was that register?
The original one in the 70's they counted the full population on the register as you say and anyone not voting or who had died in interim was counted as NO. It was a fix. Westminster have form on this sort of stuff, only difference here is that as England has majority of voters they can vote them out, we have no such luck.
How old was the register?
Who knows it was 40 years ago, still counting all NON voters and the dead as NO is a fix in anybody's book.
The difficulty from the very beginning has been how to find an arrangement that simultaneously worked with the EU, satisfied the Conservative party and was capable of commanding a majority in the Commons. One way of looking at the last 28 months of Brexit torture is as a protracted and painful education in the impossibility of finding a satisfactory solution to this conundrum. Another way of looking at the last 28 months is as a long and expensive education for Britain that any deal is going to be suboptimal, because there is no deal with the EU that is better than the terms we currently enjoy as members. Any number of cabinet resignations are not going to change that.
It still seems to me improbable that any Conservative MP would vote with the opposition in a way that might trigger a snap general election that could put Jeremy Corbyn into Number 10. But some of them are so addled with Brexsteria that I would no longer bet my house on it.
How can someone who is a political editor for a major network be so stupid?
The UK charges EU CET on non-EU imports. Once out of the customs union, we can set whatever tariffs we like, including zero across the board, as long as the same tariffs applies to all MFN nations.
There is NO WTO schedule of tariffs.
We do have our WTO schedule of tariffs. The key point is, absent a preferential trade agreement we need to charge the same to the EU as to everyone else. If we keep tariffs on third country imports, we need to do the same for the EU. Alternatively we remove them for everyone and expose our companies to full competition. In that case our exports to the EU and third countries will get the highest tariffs because no-one has any incentive to agree a PTA with us. They have already got what they want from us without any concessions. And don't expect other countries to roll over their EU trade deals for the UK, just to be nice.
We don't have a WTO schedule yet, we are just using the EUs CET. We can change this whenever as long as we do it for everyone.
Yes, if we no deal we should drop tariffs for everyone. Tariffs are a tax on the consumer, not the importer. They make us less well off. UK industry does not need tariff protection - 80% of the economy is services and tariffs on imports of goods that are actually made in the UK are low anyway; lower than common currency fluctuations which don't seem to cause huge problems. High CET tariffs are generally on goods produced in France and Germany.
By going for unilateral free trade for a period we can avoid any issues at the border and use the time to arrange continuation FTAs in return for services access, which is actually what is of value to the UK. We don't have the same economy as the EU and we don't need tariffs when we are focussed on services.
Your comment that exports to the EU and third countries will 'get the highest tariffs' is of course incorrect. Just as for us, all these people have to charge the UK the same as they charge everyone else under WTO rules. If we can negotiate an FTA great, if not, we can just use the Brexit Bill savings to cut taxes for exporters to make up for it. No state aid rules anymore!
What that question is really asking is: "With hindsight, did you expect the UK Prime Minister to put up such an abject performance when negotiating the terms of the UK's exit from the EU?"
We are where we are because voters were promised an undeliverable Brexit. May’s absurd triggering of A50 and ridiculous red lines compounded that, but the essential truth is that contrary to the claims of the Buccaneering Brexiteers it is impossible to have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downsides.
It would be perfectly possible if the UK had started off with a robust negotiating position rather than throwing concessions away like a jellyfish. In the 2017 election Labour as well as the Conservatives promised to negotiate for a very different outcome than the BINO outcome which May has sought. As for the supposed benefits of EU membership, all the features commonly cited are those of mutual interest and as such easily achievable by reciprocal agreement. For example mutual agreements on health treatment, or cross border cooperation on policing. That just leaves us with the costs then.
How do you have seamless,cross-border, just in time supply chains without some form of customs union? How do British citizens retain their current rights to live, work and settle in EU member states without reciprocity?
I was not aware that unrestrained EU migration into the UK was a benefit that the UK was seeking to preserve in negotiations.
Regarding seamless supply chains, the answer is because we have them now for countries outside of the EU. The proportion of goods from outside the EU actually subject to physical checks at UK borders is in low single figures. What checks there are take place remotely.
If we are going to debate this further, then first let's try and agree some common ground. To start with, do you agree that the UK's huge trade deficit in goods with the EU is a unsustainable problem for the UK, and that the EU states have every reason to offer concessions in order not to put it in jeopardy?
All this UKIP talk is a red herring. The real problem causing gridlock isn't Brexit, it's the two main party leaders. They are essentially symbiotic - without the other, they'd be further behind their rivals than a child's scooter in a ten mile drag race against Lewis Hamilton's Mercedes.
The next election may well be won by whoever ditches their leader at the right moment. The advantage the Tories have is they can control that moment, whereas Corbyn holds his fate in his own hands.
In the meanwhile of course we're in a state of political paralysis not seen since the days of the egregious paedophile Lord Melbourne, but you can't win them all.
Not sure I agree. While we can't be sure yet, I suspect TMay is going to pull off a reasonable deal, and as per previous thread get it through HoC. Davis's desperate intervention is perhaps a measure that he knows it too. Given the circumstances, it would be a tremendous achievement, and should strengthen her position. For the first time, I'm beginning to think she'll lead the Tories to an outright victory at the next GE, whenever that is.
May has a lot of enemies now and will need to avoid repeating silly mistakes, any one could trigger a challenge. She is prone to mistakes.
She is indeed. But you have to admire her resilience.
True. I think that explains the Tories polling comparatively well. They would be mad to get rid of her. But doing mad things is sort of their thing.
I suspect that the Tory polling has a lot to do with the Opposition and non-Brexit issues being frozen out from day to day commentary. That would change during an election campaign as we saw last year.
2017 was a one off. No one thought Corbyn had a prayer (obviously inc May) and anyone with half a brain and no hard party allegiance, wouldn't want the ruling party to have so large a majority that it could pretty much get away with anything. May was kidded by this (until it was too late) and thought all she had to do was turn up (or not).
Quite a bit of wishful thinking there!. In the final 10 days of the 2017 campaign the polls narrowed significantly, and several - as some of us did point out at the time - were pointing to a serious possibility of a Hung Parliament.
May will have called a general election a month or two after November if she fails to get a mandate for her deal, that new Parliament will then either give her a mandate for her deal or will see Corbyn as PM. If Corbyn is PM and cannot swiftly agree a new majority the new Labour + SNP majority as their conferences made clear would vote for EUref2 with the LDs which Remain would win rather than No Deal Brexit.
You fail to realise it is not Remainers who are dicing with Death it is diehard Brexiteers, if you fail to get any sort of Deal through in November then Brexit may well not happen at all.
The idea the likes of Soubry and Wollaston and Rudd and Grieve and Ken Clarke etc will vote for a Davis coronation and No Deal Brexit is laughable, if has no proposals to agree the backstop they will vote with Labour for a general election or EUref2 rather than No Deal
Nobody has to vote for No Deal.
The only way there will be a GE is if the DUP no confidence the Government. Which is looking more likely than any of your fantasies.
We are not talking about diehard Brexit. We are talking about a Conservative and Unionist Party PM trying to undermine the Union. Even Ruth Davidson is threatening to resign if she does this.
I notice you still have not answered the question as to whether you agree with this....much easier to just avoid the point I suppose.
Oh they do, Parliament has to accept it, which they will not.
If Tory Remainers like Rudd and Soubry and Wollaston and Clarke vote to no confidence the Government over No Deal, which is likely, there would be a GE regardless of what the DUP does.
We are talking actually about fanatics like you prepared to do anything in your desire for a No Deal Brexit, something we know Ruth Davidson is absolutely opposed to as the biggest beneficiary would be Nicola Sturgeon and Sinn Fein and the biggest loser the Union and the British economy
Parliament does not have to accept No Deal. You should know this. If you don't, explain on what legal basis they have to accept it.
You seem to change your scenario every post. If you are now counting on Remainiacs to no confidence their own Government then fine. They will be kicked out of the Party. May would be removed as leader. A Leaver will campaign on finishing the job of Brexit and remainers would be pushed out of the Party. Of course, the chances of this happening are bugger all; much more likely the DUP kick out the Government. But the same result - a Leaver as Tory leader. May is never going to fight an election UNLESS she ends up recommending No Deal herself.
Interesting perspective from Brazil - the people who voted for the right wing populist are the better educated, better off, younger, not the 'old, thick & poor' commonly perceived to be behind 'populism':
Yes, the Brazilian electorate is different to the UK one. Who knew?
Their choice is a right wing demagogue, or a guy whose party leader is in prison for corruption.
Bolsanoro is the right wing candidate in Brazil, Hadad a Corbynite leftist
As I said below this is just not a comparable case. A lot of middle-class Brazilians while acknowledging that Bolsonaro is a misogynistic homophobe, think he's less likely to rob them than the other candidates - and also think he might do something to curb the appalling levels of violence. Let's hope so, but I'm not particularly optimistic.
The alpha posturing of some hard-line Brexiteers (verging on delight) about no deal is truly sad to see. And none of the public figures ever seem to want ownership or face the practicalities of leadership.
Best to have a second referendum then and flush out whether no deal really is what people want.
It would almost be amusing if it wasn't so dangerous.
And Heseltine had the explicit support of 41%, which rather proves my point. But that’s history (though some of us oldies remember it as yesterday).
Across both ballots, only about one-third of the Tories consistently supported him. Although his vote only dipped slightly on the second ballot, that hid substantial churn as a large chunk deserted him for Major or Hurd and a few were so misguided as to back him in the belief he would win.
Admittedly I think that's a better performance than Boris would put up. But most of his votes were because he wasn't Thatcher (who, ironically, won in 1975 largely because she wasn't Heath).
I have to go. Have a good day.
If I was making a prediction (rather than what I want) I would say that if May fails to get her Deal through Parliament she will call a general election before Christmas and it will be a repeat of February 1974, the Tories will likely win most votes (quite probably most seats too) and like Heath then a majority in England and Cable will hold the balance of power much as Thorpe did after the February 1974 election.
Talks between May and Cable will not progress as those with Heath and Thorpe did not then and Corbyn will end up PM of a minority government as Wilson did and Corbyn will then agree a Deal with the EU almost identical to the one May was proposing before we leave the EU next March.
May will then be toppled as Tory leader within a year and replaced by a Brexiteer, probably Boris, possibly Patel, Mogg or Cox much like Heath was toppled by Thatcher in early 1975
The last possible Thursday for a pre-Christmas election is 20th December which would require Parliament to be Dissolved on 15th November. Any election announcement would likely be a week earlier. How likely is that?
Plus the time needed to fix the requirements of the FTPA. How long did that take in 2016? Brings it back at least another week, doesn’t it?
Not really - the FTPA imposed the 5 week period between Dissolution and Polling Day - and the need for the Commons to vote in favour of an early election.
There will be. After we leave with No Deal and the EU's NI card is gone, they will agree CETA. Frankly, they would agree it now. They just can't believe their luck that May is stupid enough to lock the UK into a customs unions forever which allows the EU to control the UK economy and cement their huge trade surplus. I seen a number of reports that say they are astounded that May is being so supine. Not surprised.
What that question is really asking is: "With hindsight, did you expect the UK Prime Minister to put up such an abject performance when negotiating the terms of the UK's exit from the EU?"
We are where we are because voters were promised an undeliverable Brexit. May’s absurd triggering of A50 and ridiculous red lines compounded that, but the essential truth is that contrary to the claims of the Buccaneering Brexiteers it is impossible to have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downsides.
It would or cross border cooperation on policing. That just leaves us with the costs then.
How do you have seamless,cross-border, just in time supply chains without some form of customs union? How do British citizens retain their current rights to live, work and settle in EU member states without reciprocity?
I was not aware that unrestrained EU migration into the UK was a benefit that the UK was seeking to preserve in negotiations.
Regarding seamless supply chains, the answer is because we have them now for countries outside of the EU. The proportion of goods from outside the EU actually subject to physical checks at UK borders is in low single figures. What checks there are take place remotely.
If we are going to debate this further, then first let's try and agree some common ground. To start with, do you agree that the UK's huge trade deficit in goods with the EU is a unsustainable problem for the UK, and that the EU states have every reason to offer concessions in order not to put it in jeopardy?
We were promised all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downsides. The right to live work and settle in 27 European countries is a benefit we are going to lose precisely because you can’t have all the upsides without accepting the whole package.
I think what I’ve always thought: the UK is one market for the EU27. In the great scheme of things it’s not that important (except for the Irish), which is why - contrary to predictions - German car manufacturers and others have not been banging doors down demanding a deal. They see maintaining the integrity of the Single Market as being the overwhelming priority, just as they were always going to.
And Heseltine had the explicit support of 41%, which rather proves my point. But that’s history (though some of us oldies remember it as yesterday).
Across both ballots, only about one-third of the Tories consistently supported him. Although his vote only dipped slightly on the second ballot, that hid substantial churn as a large chunk deserted him for Major or Hurd and a few were so misguided as to back him in the belief he would win.
Admittedly I think that's a better performance than Boris would put up. But most of his votes were because he wasn't Thatcher (who, ironically, won in 1975 largely because she wasn't Heath).
I have to go. Have a good day.
If I was making a prediction (rather than what I want) I would say that if May fails to get her Deal through Parliament she will call a general election before Christmas and it will be a repeat of February 1974, the Tories will likely win most votes (quite probably most seats too) and like Heath then a majority in England and Cable will hold the balance of power much as Thorpe did after the February 1974 election.
Talks between May and Cable will not progress as those with Heath and Thorpe did not then and Corbyn will end up PM of a minority government as Wilson did and Corbyn will then agree a Deal with the EU almost identical to the one May was proposing before we leave the EU next March.
May will then be toppled as Tory leader within a year and replaced by a Brexiteer, probably Boris, possibly Patel, Mogg or Cox much like Heath was toppled by Thatcher in early 1975
The last possible Thursday for a pre-Christmas election is 20th December which would require Parliament to be Dissolved on 15th November. Any election announcement would likely be a week earlier. How likely is that?
Pretty likely if May needs it, otherwise there will be a general election in January or February
Unlikely before second half of January - which itself would require a pre-Christmas Dissolution.
Forget what the wretched polls are saying now, if this Government were to collapse in utter disarray and a new election called, I would confidently predict a Labour government with a (very?) large overall majority. And then may the Lord have mercy on all our souls.
How long will it take to print and distribute ration books?
It's remarkable how so many nations globally manage to survive not being in a political union with their neighbours.
There are apparently no depths of scare mongering arch remainers will stoop to.
Remainers got a huge mental shock when they lost as it went against their entire Worldview. As with most people who experience mental trauma, they simply constructed a new reality that they could accept - one in which Brexit was basically impossible, people didn't really understand what they were doing and that soft Brexit would occur which basically would mean that nothing changed.
This is the reason Remainers react pathologically to the prospect of No Deal. It could prove, conclusively, that they have been wrong all along.
What that question is really asking is: "With hindsight, did you expect the UK Prime Minister to put up such an abject performance when negotiating the terms of the UK's exit from the EU?"
We are where we are because voters were promised an undeliverable Brexit. May’s absurd triggering of A50 and ridiculous red lines compounded that, but the essential truth is that contrary to the claims of the Buccaneering Brexiteers it is impossible to have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downsides.
You are signing up to the concept that Article 50 is a con - once in, you can never leave.
Which is exactly why we have to leave.
Of course we can leave. We are leaving. What we can’t do is leave on the terms the Buccaneering Brexiteers promised us.
For a good deal there has to be willingness on both sides.
It's an open secret the EU powers need to hurt us to encourage the others.
you seem to think that's a club worth staying in - a lot of people would disagree.
I also am amazed at the level of uninformed bilge about the consequences of Brexit that keep getting trotted out to scare people.
But hey, there is literally no positive reason to stay in the EU so what else can they do?
How long will it take to print and distribute ration books?
It's remarkable how so many nations globally manage to survive not being in a political union with their neighbours.
There are apparently no depths of scare mongering arch remainers will stoop to.
Remainers got a huge mental shock when they lost as it went against their entire Worldview. As with most people who experience mental trauma, they simply constructed a new reality that they could accept - one in which Brexit was basically impossible, people didn't really understand what they were doing and that soft Brexit would occur which basically would mean that nothing changed.
This is the reason Remainers react pathologically to the prospect of No Deal. It could prove, conclusively, that they have been wrong all along.
Actually most diehard Remainers welcome No Deal as it almost guarantees Brexit will be reversed sooner or later
May will have called a general election a month or two after November if she fails to get a mandate for her deal, that new Parliament will then either give her a mandate for her deal or will see Corbyn as PM. If Corbyn is PM and cannot swiftly agree a new majority the new Labour + SNP majority as their conferences made clear would vote for EUref2 with the LDs which Remain would win rather than No Deal Brexit.
You fail to realise it is not Remainers who are dicing with Death it is diehard Brexiteers, if you fail to get any sort of Deal through in November then Brexit may well not happen at all.
The idea the likes of Soubry and Wollaston and Rudd and Grieve and Ken Clarke etc will vote for a Davis coronation and No Deal Brexit is laughable, if has no proposals to agree the backstop they will vote with Labour for a general election or EUref2 rather than No Deal
Nobody has to vote for No Deal.
The only way there will be a GE is if the DUP no confidence the Government. Which is looking more likely than any of your fantasies.
We are not talking about diehard Brexit. We are talking about a Conservative and Unionist Party PM trying to undermine the Union. Even Ruth Davidson is threatening to resign if she does this.
I notice you still have not answered the question as to whether you agree with this....much easier to just avoid the point I suppose.
Oh they do, Parliament has to accept it, which they will not.
If Tory Remainers like Rudd and Soubry and Wollaston and Clarke vote to no confidence the Government over No Deal, which is likely, there would be a GE regardless of what the DUP does.
We are talking actually about fanatics like you prepared to do anything in your desire for a No Deal Brexit, something we know Ruth Davidson is absolutely opposed to as the biggest beneficiary would be Nicola Sturgeon and Sinn Fein and the biggest loser the Union and the British economy
I cannot see any Tory MPs supporting a No Confidence motion.
Forget what the wretched polls are saying now, if this Government were to collapse in utter disarray and a new election called, I would confidently predict a Labour government with a (very?) large overall majority. And then may the Lord have mercy on all our souls.
Nope, 40% is rock solid anti Corbyn. Indeed May has won over some LD and Lab 2017 voters to make up for any lost to UKIP.
If Corbyn gets in it will be propped up by the SNP and reliant on the LDs to get any legislation through, of course given the reports today of Labour MPs voting for May's deal Labour will be divided too.
Though whether he gets in by the backdoor or with a large majority a Corbyn government inevitably means either BINO or an EUref2 which cancels Brexit
How long will it take to print and distribute ration books?
It's remarkable how so many nations globally manage to survive not being in a political union with their neighbours.
There are apparently no depths of scare mongering arch remainers will stoop to.
Remainers got a huge mental shock when they lost as it went against their entire Worldview. As with most people who experience mental trauma, they simply constructed a new reality that they could accept - one in which Brexit was basically impossible, people didn't really understand what they were doing and that soft Brexit would occur which basically would mean that nothing changed.
This is the reason Remainers react pathologically to the prospect of No Deal. It could prove, conclusively, that they have been wrong all along.
Actually most diehard Remainers welcome No Deal as it almost guarantees Brexit will be reversed sooner or later
Forget what the wretched polls are saying now, if this Government were to collapse in utter disarray and a new election called, I would confidently predict a Labour government with a (very?) large overall majority. And then may the Lord have mercy on all our souls.
This idea that the electorate would return a divided, shambolic Conservative party engaged in vicious internecine warfare to majority government is "interesting"......
Barnier will not accept EEA+CU without a backstop either. Otherwise we can just leave the EEA later. We have no ability to join the EEA without Barnier's consent. So another plot to derail Brexit falls apart.
How long will it take to print and distribute ration books?
It's remarkable how so many nations globally manage to survive not being in a political union with their neighbours.
There are apparently no depths of scare mongering arch remainers will stoop to.
Remainers got a huge mental shock when they lost as it went against their entire Worldview. As with most people who experience mental trauma, they simply constructed a new reality that they could accept - one in which Brexit was basically impossible, people didn't really understand what they were doing and that soft Brexit would occur which basically would mean that nothing changed.
This is the reason Remainers react pathologically to the prospect of No Deal. It could prove, conclusively, that they have been wrong all along.
Actually most diehard Remainers welcome No Deal as it almost guarantees Brexit will be reversed sooner or later
A completely logical position, but I hope there aren't many real people who actually hold it. Putting your country through the mill to prove a point is a bit psychopathic.
I'm hoping for the softest of Brexits to minimise short term damage and disruption and to make rejoining as easy as possible. I am confident the benefits of EU membership can be sold without having to trash our place to make the point.
For a good deal there has to be willingness on both sides.
It's an open secret the EU powers need to hurt us to encourage the others.
you seem to think that's a club worth staying in - a lot of people would disagree.
The aim of the 27, perfectly legitimately, whether or not it is wisely, has been to maximise leverage during the withdrawal process and tee up a trade negotiation after our exit where the clock and the cliff edge can again be used to maximise concessions from London. Now, of course, 2 years too late, some politicians, recognising that the revolution has misfired, sobered by an exit process far more ghastly than they once imagined, and appreciating that where you pitch up in a lengthy transition was a question – THE question - they should have thought much harder about, talk of seeking to spend several years in an EEA type transition chamber – “as Norway” – before graduating to a Canadian style FTA relationship at the end of the protracted transition. This is the “Norway then Canada” model one now hears so much about. But, even leaving aside the legal objections, which I will not rehearse, there is now no earthly reason for either the EU27 or the EEA to agree such a deal. The ancien regime, after all, has no good reason to provide the finest transitional feather bed for the revolutionaries who want to leave it. Its own best interests are served by offering the bread and water of the 21 month voiceless ruletaking transition which is now on offer.
This was obvious before the vote. In fact, it was said before the vote, and dismissed as Project Fear.
It's amazing that Brexiteers are now claiming that the fact we are getting a worse deal than we had is a good reason for us getting a worse deal than we had...
How long will it take to print and distribute ration books?
It's remarkable how so many nations globally manage to survive not being in a political union with their neighbours.
There are apparently no depths of scare mongering arch remainers will stoop to.
Remainers got a huge mental shock when they lost as it went against their entire Worldview. As with most people who experience mental trauma, they simply constructed a new reality that they could accept - one in which Brexit was basically impossible, people didn't really understand what they were doing and that soft Brexit would occur which basically would mean that nothing changed.
This is the reason Remainers react pathologically to the prospect of No Deal. It could prove, conclusively, that they have been wrong all along.
First mistake: treating 'Remainers' as if they were a homogenous group; just like 'Leavers' they come in many shades.
Still, it fits with your fantasy view of the world to assume all are arch-federalists, I guess.
Forget what the wretched polls are saying now, if this Government were to collapse in utter disarray and a new election called, I would confidently predict a Labour government with a (very?) large overall majority. And then may the Lord have mercy on all our souls.
This idea that the electorate would return a divided, shambolic Conservative party engaged in vicious internecine warfare to majority government is "interesting"......
If May was leader, I agree Labour would win a large majority. There is nothing the UK public will hate more than a weak leader asking for a mandate to do something they should have done already especially when her plan is hopeless.
If May was ditched, it would obviously depend on the new leader and their approach.
What that question is really asking is: "With hindsight, did you expect the UK Prime Minister to put up such an abject performance when negotiating the terms of the UK's exit from the EU?"
We are where we are because voters were promised an undeliverable Brexit. May’s absurd triggering of A50 and ridiculous red lines compounded that, but the essential truth is that contrary to the claims of the Buccaneering Brexiteers it is impossible to have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downsides.
You are signing up to the concept that Article 50 is a con - once in, you can never leave.
Which is exactly why we have to leave.
Of course we can leave. We are leaving. What we can’t do is leave on the terms the Buccaneering Brexiteers promised us.
For a good deal there has to be willingness on both sides.
It's an open secret the EU powers need to hurt us to encourage the others.
you seem to think that's a club worth staying in - a lot of people would disagree.
I also am amazed at the level of uninformed bilge about the consequences of Brexit that keep getting trotted out to scare people.
But hey, there is literally no positive reason to stay in the EU so what else can they do?
I do not view the EU in the way that you do. I see it as a flawed organisation, but one that on balance delivers more benefits than negatives. I see little practical upside in making ourselves poorer and less influential, but we have voted to do that so that is what will happen. It is the will of the people. My argument is with those denying the consequences of the choice made.
May will have called a general electl Brexit is laughable, if has no proposals to agree the backstop they will vote with Labour for a general election or EUref2 rather than No Deal
Nobody has to vote for No D Davidson is threatening to resign if she does this.
I notice you still have not answered the question as to whether you agree with this....much easier to just avoid the point I suppose.
Oh they do, Parliament has to accept it, which they will not.
If Tory Remainers like Rudd and Soubry and Wollaston and Clarke vote to no confidence the Government over No Deal, which is likely, there would be a GE regardless of what the DUP does.
We are talking actually about fanatics like you prepared to do anything in your desire for a No Deal Brexit, something we know Ruth Davidson is absolutely opposed to as the biggest beneficiary would be Nicola Sturgeon and Sinn Fein and the biggest loser the Union and the British economy
Parliament does not have to accept No Deal. You should know this. If you don't, explain on what legal basis they have to accept it.
You seem to change your scenario every post. If you are now counting on Remainiacs to no confidence their own Government then fine. They will be kicked out of the Party. May would be removed as leader. A Leaver will campaign on finishing the job of Brexit and remainers would be pushed out of the Party. Of course, the chances of this happening are bugger all; much more likely the DUP kick out the Government. But the same result - a Leaver as Tory leader. May is never going to fight an election UNLESS she ends up recommending No Deal herself.
Of course it does, if May does not get her Deal through in November Parliament still has four months until Brexit day.
What difference does it make if Remainiacs lose the whip if a hardline Brexiteer replaces May, they will still be MPs and will still no confidence the government and force a general election or vote for EUref2 rather than back a hardline Brexiteer coup and No Deal.
A Leaver as Tory Leader is irrelevant as Parliament has a comfortable majority of Remainers and soft Brexiteers
A lazy sunday morning and catching up on the thread I see in TM words 'nothing has changed'
Entrenched posters trying to change views to each other's cause, shouting, demanding other posters respond, passing views that are so definitive they are absurd in this climate.
My own view is I do not know TM's position. I am not privvy to the detail as is the case with everyone here, and I am not going to argue backwards and forwards when the sanest option is to wait for the detail from the Council meetings in the next few weeks.
On Saudi Arabia, if they have killed this journalist they need sanctions and co-ordinated world wide response.
However, Emily Thornberry's predicable response is to cancel all arm sales. When Marr pointed out that was a 60 billion contact and would lay waste to factories, workers and communities, mainly in Lancashire she muttered something to the effect that they would understand.
Even Trump who has lashed out at Saudi Arabia has said he will not curtail arm sales so labour would hand 60 billion of defence contracts to the US and France with no thought how they would ever recover these contracts or protect the communities who lose this work, especially in Lancashire.
Also compare and contrast labour's response to Saudi Arabia and Russia who actually used nerve agent on our soil killing an innocent woman
How long will it take to print and distribute ration books?
It's remarkable how so many nations globally manage to survive not being in a political union with their neighbours.
There are apparently no depths of scare mongering arch remainers will stoop to.
Remainers got a huge mental shock when they lost as it went against their entire Worldview. As with most people who experience mental trauma, they simply constructed a new reality that they could accept - one in which Brexit was basically impossible, people didn't really understand what they were doing and that soft Brexit would occur which basically would mean that nothing changed.
This is the reason Remainers react pathologically to the prospect of No Deal. It could prove, conclusively, that they have been wrong all along.
First mistake: treating 'Remainers' as if they were a homogenous group; just like 'Leavers' they come in many shades.
Still, it fits with your fantasy view of the world to assume all are arch-federalists, I guess.
I didn't say anything to suggest that all Remainers were arch-federalists. No idea where you got that from.
I just said that Remainers seem to have created a mental scaffold to explain to themselves why they lost, and why they never saw it coming. No Deal would destroy that scaffold. Should be fun.
This was always going to happen, because a chunk of Leave voters just vaguely assumed it would be a doddle and over by Christmas - these would be the first to fall when the Leave leadership's haplessness was exposed. The next chunk to go will be the Leavers who thought Brexit would be arduous but that the benefits would eventually outweigh the costs. It won't be long before they too defect to Remain. And then?
Forget what the wretched polls are saying now, if this Government were to collapse in utter disarray and a new election called, I would confidently predict a Labour government with a (very?) large overall majority. And then may the Lord have mercy on all our souls.
This idea that the electorate would return a divided, shambolic Conservative party engaged in vicious internecine warfare to majority government is "interesting"......
As opposed to a Labour party where most of its MPs have no confidenced its own leader and where many will have voted for a Deal.
I know the only Conservative Government acceptable to you is a diehard Brexit No Deal one but all the evidence is most voters would rather have May as PM than Corbyn or a diehard No Deal Brexiteer
May will have called a general election a month or two after November if she fails to get a mandate for her deal, that new Parliament will then either give her a mandate for her deal or will see Corbyn as PM. If Corbyn is PM and cannot swiftly agree a new majority the new Labour + SNP majority as their conferences made clear would vote for EUref2 with the LDs which Remain would win rather than No Deal Brexit.
You fail to realise it is not Remainers who are dicing with Death it is diehard Brexiteers, if you fail to get any sort of Deal through in November then Brexit may well not happen at all.
The idea the likes of Soubry and Wollaston and Rudd and Grieve and Ken Clarke etc will vote for a Davis coronation and No Deal Brexit is laughable, if has no proposals to agree the backstop they will vote with Labour for a general election or EUref2 rather than No Deal
Nobody has to vote for No Deal.
The only way there will be a GE is if the DUP no confidence the Government. Which is looking more likely than any of your fantasies.
We are not talking about diehard Brexit. We are talking about a Conservative and Unionist Party PM trying to undermine the Union. Even Ruth Davidson is threatening to resign if she does this.
I notice you still have not answered the question as to whether you agree with this....much easier to just avoid the point I suppose.
Oh they do, Parliament has to accept it, which they will not.
If Tory Remainers like Rudd and Soubry and Wollaston and Clarke vote to no confidence the Government over No Deal, which is likely, there would be a GE regardless of what the DUP does.
We are talking actually about fanatics like you prepared to do anything in your desire for a No Deal Brexit, something we know Ruth Davidson is absolutely opposed to as the biggest beneficiary would be Nicola Sturgeon and Sinn Fein and the biggest loser the Union and the British economy
I cannot see any Tory MPs supporting a No Confidence motion.
Soubry, Wollaston, Rudd, Clarke absolutely would if May was toppled in a hardline Brexiteer coup or hardline Brexiteers attempted to force through No Deal, for them country would come before party at that point, they are all fanatically anti hard Brexit and if they cannot force an EU referendum they would force a general election
A lazy sunday morning and catching up on the thread I see in TM words 'nothing has changed'
Entrenched posters trying to change views to each other's cause, shouting, demanding other posters respond, passing views that are so definitive they are absurd in this climate.
My own view is I do not know TM's position. I am not privvy to the detail as is the case with everyone here, and I am not going to argue backwards and forwards when the sanest option is to wait for the detail from the Council meetings in the next few weeks.
On Saudi Arabia, if they have killed this journalist they need sanctions and co-ordinated world wide response.
However, Emily Thornberry's predicable response is to cancel all arm sales. When Marr pointed out that was a 60 billion contact and would lay waste to factories, workers and communities, mainly in Lancashire she muttered something to the effect that they would understand.
Even Trump who has lashed out at Saudi Arabia has said he will not curtail arm sales so labour would hand 60 billion of defence contracts to the US and France with no thought how they would ever recover these contracts or protect the communities who lose this work, especially in Lancashire.
Also compare and contrast labour's response to Saudi Arabia and Russia who actually used nerve agent on our soil killing an innocent woman
Good morning! Always good to see you.
On Saudi Arabia you are quite right. Other nations do bad things all the time. We need a proportional response. France of course would be delighted to take over any contracts that we were daft enough to walk away from.
Barnier will not accept EEA+CU without a backstop either. Otherwise we can just leave the EEA later. We have no ability to join the EEA without Barnier's consent. So another plot to derail Brexit falls apart.
EEA+CU even you have said is Barnier's backstop, so yet again your fanaticism ignores reality
This was always going to happen, because a chunk of Leave voters just vaguely assumed it would be a doddle and over by Christmas - these would be the first to fall when the Leave leadership's haplessness was exposed. The next chunk to go will be the Leavers who thought Brexit would be arduous but that the benefits would eventually outweigh the costs. It won't be long before they too defect to Remain. And then?
It's still a question of difference between thinking it was a mistake and thinking a switch to remain is now the best course of action even with leave having been a mistake. Plenty of people thought the decision was wrong from the start but did not think it should be reversed. More may think that now, but it is not a simple question of right and wrong. Not all who think it was wrong are 'defecting' to remain.
May will have called a general election a month or two after November if she fails to get a mandate for her deal, that new Parliament will then either give her a mandate for her deal or will see Corbyn as PM. If Corbyn is PM and cannot swiftly agree a new majority the new Labour + SNP majority as their conferences made clear would vote for EUref2 with the LDs which Remain would win rather than No Deal Brexit.
You fail to realise it is not Remainers who are dicing with Death it is diehard Brexiteers, if you fail to get any sort of Deal through in November then Brexit may well not happen at all.
The idea the likes of Soubry and Wollaston and Rudd and Grieve and Ken Clarke etc will vote for a Davis coronation and No Deal Brexit is laughable, if has no proposals to agree the backstop they will vote with Labour for a general election or EUref2 rather than No Deal
Nobody has to vote for No Deal.
The only way there will be a GE is if the DUP no confidence the Government. Which is looking more likely than any of your fantasies.
We are not talking about diehard Brexit. We are talking about a Conservative and Unionist Party PM trying to undermine the Union. Even Ruth Davidson is threatening to resign if she does this.
I notice you still have not answered the question as to whether you agree with this....much easier to just avoid the point I suppose.
Oh they do, Parliament has to accept it, which they will not.
If Tory Remainers like Rudd and Soubry and Wollaston and Clarke vote to no confidence the Government over No Deal, which is likely, there would be a GE regardless of what the DUP does.
We are talking actually about fanatics like you prepared to do anything in your desire for a No Deal Brexit, something we know Ruth Davidson is absolutely opposed to as the biggest beneficiary would be Nicola Sturgeon and Sinn Fein and the biggest loser the Union and the British economy
I cannot see any Tory MPs supporting a No Confidence motion.
Soubry, Wollaston, Rudd, Clarke absolutely would if May was toppled in a hardline Brexiteer coup or hardline Brexiteers attempted to force through No Deal, for them country would come before party at that point, they are all fanatically anti hard Brexit and if they cannot force an EU referendum they would force a general election
So be it. They wouldn't be standing for the Tories in that General Election if they did that.
It staggers me that some are nodding along to the idea of kowtowing to the regulatory annexation of the UK, with a customs border being imposed within our own country.
It's demented. It's indefensible.
We'll see what happens. Sadly, my prediction of capitulation from May seems to be coming true, as does the earlier (think I made it the day of the result) forecast that we'd end up with a terrible deal negotiated that was worse than either leaving or remaining, a deliberately atrocious capitulation that would serve Remain well should a second referendum be held.
Come come Mr Dancer. You are interested in history. Ulster is not just another bit of the UK. It is one where a very large minority wouldn't chose to remain in the UK. We simply can't treat it as if it was Basingstoke.
The DUP held Basingstoke’s parliamentary seat for a while...
May will have called a general election a month or two after November if she fails to get a mandate for her deal, that new Parliament will then either give her a mandate for her deal or will see Corbyn as PM. If Corbyn is PM and cannot swiftly agree a new majority the new Labour + SNP majority as their conferences made clear would vote for EUref2 with the LDs which Remain would win rather than No Deal Brexit.
You fail to realise it is not Remainers who are dicing with Death it is diehard Brexiteers, if you fail to get any sort of Deal through in November then Brexit may well not happen at all.
The idea the likes of Soubry and Wollaston and Rudd and Grieve and Ken Clarke etc will vote for a Davis coronation and No Deal Brexit is laughable, if has no proposals to agree the backstop they will vote with Labour for a general election or EUref2 rather than No Deal
Nobody has to vote for No Deal.
The only way there will be a GE is if the DUP no confidence the Government. Which is looking more likely than any of your fantasies.
We are not talking about diehard Brexit. We are talking about a Conservative and Unionist Party PM trying to undermine the Union. Even Ruth Davidson is threatening to resign if she does this.
I notice you still have not answered the question as to whether you agree with this....much easier to just avoid the point I suppose.
Oh they do, Parliament has to accept itnd Sinn Fein and the biggest loser the Union and the British economy
I cannot see any Tory MPs supporting a No Confidence motion.
Soubry, Wollaston, Rudd, Clarke absolutely would if May was toppled in a hardline Brexiteer coup or hardline Brexiteers attempted to force through No Deal, for them country would come before party at that point, they are all fanatically anti hard Brexit and if they cannot force an EU referendum they would force a general election
So be it. They wouldn't be standing for the Tories in that General Election if they did that.
So what? By then we would have the general election in which hardline Brexiteers can seek their mandate for No Deal Brexit, most likely ending up with Corbyn as PM propped up by the LDs and SNP and agreeing a SM +CU relationship with the EU in all but name or even EUref2
Almost anything could be claimed to undermine the UK Union.
It's pretty clear that despite what a lot of people are saying, very few people actually want a deal, since they are so firm in rejecting so many options. Or perhaps instead, it is a case that despite what most of us here think the vast majority of MPs really do believe no deal is better than a bad deal, since so few people are willing to accept a bad deal.
Therefore, they must not think no deal is that bad.
OK I have had a fair amount of fun this morning. So let me suggest a solution that might work (won't be accepted by the EU, but their position won't be accepted by the UK, so...)
- No backstop, just the ability for the EU to extend the transition period (solves the above problem). - EU have to legally commit that the end game is that a technological solution is developed that allows a soft border at the NI/ROI land border. Therefore CETA is negotiated on this basis. - WTO supervise the scoping and developing of such a technological solution. If they say it is not ready (defined as a system consistent with WTO legal requirements) EU can extend the transition period a year at a time. If the WTO are satisfied, the transition will end. - After (say) two extensions, the deal drops away and UK will leave on no deal at that time. There can't be a permanent backstop, just a path to a solution.
On this basis I think the UK could agree to pay the Brexit bill in full subject to the EU remaining in compliance with the process for developing the technological solution. After four years, the bill would pretty much be paid anyway.
It staggers me that some are nodding along to the idea of kowtowing to the regulatory annexation of the UK, with a customs border being imposed within our own country.
It's demented. It's indefensible.
We'll see what happens. Sadly, my prediction of capitulation from May seems to be coming true, as does the earlier (think I made it the day of the result) forecast that we'd end up with a terrible deal negotiated that was worse than either leaving or remaining, a deliberately atrocious capitulation that would serve Remain well should a second referendum be held.
Come come Mr Dancer. You are interested in history. Ulster is not just another bit of the UK. It is one where a very large minority wouldn't chose to remain in the UK. We simply can't treat it as if it was Basingstoke.
The DUP held Basingstoke’s parliamentary seat for a while...
Barnier will not accept EEA+CU without a backstop either. Otherwise we can just leave the EEA later. We have no ability to join the EEA without Barnier's consent. So another plot to derail Brexit falls apart.
EEA+CU even you have said is Barnier's backstop, so yet again your fanaticism ignores reality
Yes, but it would have to be permanent. Since EEA+CU would not be permanent, he would have no backstop. It is really no different than the transition period - at the end there would be no solution. So he will insist on the backstop in case the UK leaves the EEA+CU, which given this is the whole point of the plan is obviously likely.
Forget what the wretched polls are saying now, if this Government were to collapse in utter disarray and a new election called, I would confidently predict a Labour government with a (very?) large overall majority. And then may the Lord have mercy on all our souls.
This idea that the electorate would return a divided, shambolic Conservative party engaged in vicious internecine warfare to majority government is "interesting"......
I know the only Conservative Government acceptable to you is a diehard Brexit No Deal one but all the evidence is most voters would rather have May as PM than Corbyn or a diehard No Deal Brexiteer
What ever gave you that bizarre notion? I think Mrs May is trying to get the least worst deal possible among a host of mutually exclusive red lines.
Forget what the wretched polls are saying now, if this Government were to collapse in utter disarray and a new election called, I would confidently predict a Labour government with a (very?) large overall majority. And then may the Lord have mercy on all our souls.
This idea that the electorate would return a divided, shambolic Conservative party engaged in vicious internecine warfare to majority government is "interesting"......
I know the only Conservative Government acceptable to you is a diehard Brexit No Deal one but all the evidence is most voters would rather have May as PM than Corbyn or a diehard No Deal Brexiteer
What ever gave you that bizarre notion? I think Mrs May is trying to get the least worst deal possible among a host of mutually exclusive red lines.
I note you've gone very quiet on Boris....
As has Boris for some reason. Preparing his next move?
What does the last even mean? Any change would result in a different relationship to what currently exists.
Would make more sense if it was "Leads to Northern Ireland “having a different relationship with the UK... beyond what current exists”
It's incoherently written certainly. What it really is is confirmation that the foundation of the SCon miracle is largely based on LOL, fundy Unionism, Ruth in bed with Arlene as it were.
Forget what the wretched polls are saying now, if this Government were to collapse in utter disarray and a new election called, I would confidently predict a Labour government with a (very?) large overall majority. And then may the Lord have mercy on all our souls.
It won't be that bad. I have complete trust in the power of the deep state to constrain the worst excesses of the Corbyn project. They will be lying to and subverting him from day one. Let's hope so anyway...
To answer our Australian poster’s insistent query, I have very little interest in the form of Brexit. It has to curb immigration and provide more money to the NHS because that is what Leave sought a mandate for. Beyond that I would prefer something stable that gives the country time to lick the deep wounds that have been unnecessarily inflicted by the crazed Leave zealots. Since that isn’t possible in practice, it’s all a rather niche question.
It does not matter what type of Brexit you want or Archer wants it matters what type of Brexit the voters want.
According to ICM in order of favourability the type of Brexit voters want is
1. Ooh I like that nice young chap that’s PM 2. Mountains are pretty 3. Board games are good when it rains 4. Eff you, you stinking, stupid Leave voters 5. Can’t be good. Any sensible person can do a deal surely?
A lazy sunday morning and catching up on the thread I see in TM words 'nothing has changed'
Entrenched posters trying to change views to each other's cause, shouting, demanding other posters respond, passing views that are so definitive they are absurd in this climate.
My own view is I do not know TM's position. I am not privvy to the detail as is the case with everyone here, and I am not going to argue backwards and forwards when the sanest option is to wait for the detail from the Council meetings in the next few weeks.
On Saudi Arabia, if they have killed this journalist they need sanctions and co-ordinated world wide response.
However, Emily Thornberry's predicable response is to cancel all arm sales. When Marr pointed out that was a 60 billion contact and would lay waste to factories, workers and communities, mainly in Lancashire she muttered something to the effect that they would understand.
Even Trump who has lashed out at Saudi Arabia has said he will not curtail arm sales so labour would hand 60 billion of defence contracts to the US and France with no thought how they would ever recover these contracts or protect the communities who lose this work, especially in Lancashire.
Also compare and contrast labour's response to Saudi Arabia and Russia who actually used nerve agent on our soil killing an innocent woman
Good morning! Always good to see you.
On Saudi Arabia you are quite right. Other nations do bad things all the time. We need a proportional response. France of course would be delighted to take over any contracts that we were daft enough to walk away from.
UK is always happy to sell bombs and guns to dictatorships and despots
A lazy sunday morning and catching up on the thread I see in TM words 'nothing has changed'
Entrenched posters trying to change views to each other's cause, shouting, demanding other posters respond, passing views that are so definitive they are absurd in this climate.
My own view is I do not know TM's position. I am not privvy to the detail as is the case with everyone here, and I am not going to argue backwards and forwards when the sanest option is to wait for the detail from the Council meetings in the next few weeks.
On Saudi Arabia, if they have killed this journalist they need sanctions and co-ordinated world wide response.
However, Emily Thornberry's predicable response is to cancel all arm sales. When Marr pointed out that was a 60 billion contact and would lay waste to factories, workers and communities, mainly in Lancashire she muttered something to the effect that they would understand.
Even Trump who has lashed out at Saudi Arabia has said he will not curtail arm sales so labour would hand 60 billion of defence contracts to the US and France with no thought how they would ever recover these contracts or protect the communities who lose this work, especially in Lancashire.
Also compare and contrast labour's response to Saudi Arabia and Russia who actually used nerve agent on our soil killing an innocent woman
Good morning! Always good to see you.
On Saudi Arabia you are quite right. Other nations do bad things all the time. We need a proportional response. France of course would be delighted to take over any contracts that we were daft enough to walk away from.
UK is always happy to sell bombs and guns to dictatorships and despots
Yes, but only to make loads of money, so it is all ok. We don't want it for a mess of pottage.
On Marr Emily Thornberry says the government is playing 'catch up' even to Donald Trump in condemning Saudi Arabia after the death of Jamal Khashoggi.
Says no more arms should be sold to Saudi Arabia, the red carpet must not be rolled out for the Saudi royals either
I would say three cheers to that were it not for the fact this is very much not the approach the Labour leadership took in response to Russia and the Skripal poisoning.
Surely she should be asking for us to continue having a diplomatic relationship with the Saudis, that the evidence should be shared with the Saudis so that they can assess it, that we should be cautious before doing what the Americans are doing etc etc......
Forget what the wretched polls are saying now, if this Government were to collapse in utter disarray and a new election called, I would confidently predict a Labour government with a (very?) large overall majority. And then may the Lord have mercy on all our souls.
This idea that the electorate would return a divided, shambolic Conservative party engaged in vicious internecine warfare to majority government is "interesting"......
I know the only Conservative Government acceptable to you is a diehard Brexit No Deal one but all the evidence is most voters would rather have May as PM than Corbyn or a diehard No Deal Brexiteer
What ever gave you that bizarre notion? I think Mrs May is trying to get the least worst deal possible among a host of mutually exclusive red lines.
I note you've gone very quiet on Boris....
Dear young HYUFD has implacable, immutable, and unyielding opinions which he holds with a tenacious ferocity until he suddenly shifts to another set of implacable, immutable and unyielding......
He is rarely correct but all credit to the tenacious ferocity.
Forget what the wretched polls are saying now, if this Government were to collapse in utter disarray and a new election called, I would confidently predict a Labour government with a (very?) large overall majority. And then may the Lord have mercy on all our souls.
To answer our Australian poster’s insistent query, I have very little interest in the form of Brexit. It has to curb immigration and provide more money to the NHS because that is what Leave sought a mandate for. Beyond that I would prefer something stable that gives the country time to lick the deep wounds that have been unnecessarily inflicted by the crazed Leave zealots. Since that isn’t possible in practice, it’s all a rather niche question.
It does not matter what type of Brexit you want or Archer wants it matters what type of Brexit the voters want.
According to ICM in order of favourability the type of Brexit voters want is
1. Ooh I like that nice young chap that’s PM 2. Mountains are pretty 3. Board games are good when it rains 4. Eff you, you stinking, stupid Leave voters 5. Can’t be good. Any sensible person can do a deal surely?
What HYUFD failed to mention is that on an AV basis the last three were Canada 48%; SM+CU 29%; No Deal 23%.
No Deal was eliminated producing 65% for Canada. But if Canada was not available, it seems pretty likely looking at these numbers that No Deal would end up the leader.
Forget what the wretched polls are saying now, if this Government were to collapse in utter disarray and a new election called, I would confidently predict a Labour government with a (very?) large overall majority. And then may the Lord have mercy on all our souls.
It won't be that bad. I have complete trust in the power of the deep state to constrain the worst excesses of the Corbyn project. They will be lying to and subverting him from day one. Let's hope so anyway...
Interesting perspective from Brazil - the people who voted for the right wing populist are the better educated, better off, younger, not the 'old, thick & poor' commonly perceived to be behind 'populism':
Yes, the Brazilian electorate is different to the UK one. Who knew?
Their choice is a right wing demagogue, or a guy whose party leader is in prison for corruption.
Bolsanoro is the right wing candidate in Brazil, Hadad a Corbynite leftist
As I said below this is just not a comparable case. A lot of middle-class Brazilians while acknowledging that Bolsonaro is a misogynistic homophobe, think he's less likely to rob them than the other candidates - and also think he might do something to curb the appalling levels of violence. Let's hope so, but I'm not particularly optimistic.
I agree. Yes. It’s nice to see a social Conservative get a strong result. But the deep hue to this change of government does owe much to the rancid corruption of the ruling liberal left.
this is the important bit. Now the vaquero has taken the good lady Brazilia doggy fashion, calling out her sisters name, how long can he ride this kicking mule before he is thrown off?
Forget what the wretched polls are saying now, if this Government were to collapse in utter disarray and a new election called, I would confidently predict a Labour government with a (very?) large overall majority. And then may the Lord have mercy on all our souls.
It won't be that bad. I have complete trust in the power of the deep state to constrain the worst excesses of the Corbyn project. They will be lying to and subverting him from day one. Let's hope so anyway...
To answer our Australian poster’s insistent query, I have very little interest in the form of Brexit. It has to curb immigration and provide more money to the NHS because that is what Leave sought a mandate for. Beyond that I would prefer something stable that gives the country time to lick the deep wounds that have been unnecessarily inflicted by the crazed Leave zealots. Since that isn’t possible in practice, it’s all a rather niche question.
It does not matter what type of Brexit you want or Archer wants it matters what type of Brexit the voters want.
According to ICM in order of favourability the type of Brexit voters want is
1. Ooh I like that nice young chap that’s PM 2. Mountains are pretty 3. Board games are good when it rains 4. Eff you, you stinking, stupid Leave voters 5. Can’t be good. Any sensible person can do a deal surely?
Worth reading the linked article. Although the 'label' "Chequers" is not popular - the contents of Chequers are - a compromise for both Leave & Remain voters. So if the government dropped the name and called it the 'Enhanced Canada Deal', or something, it might work.
The issue with 'Canada' is it has two mutually exclusive red lines - as it stands, the EU only want to offer it to GB, while the UK, unsurprisingly, insists it should apply to the UK.
The difficulty from the very beginning has been how to find an arrangement that simultaneously worked with the EU, satisfied the Conservative party and was capable of commanding a majority in the Commons. One way of looking at the last 28 months of Brexit torture is as a protracted and painful education in the impossibility of finding a satisfactory solution to this conundrum. Another way of looking at the last 28 months is as a long and expensive education for Britain that any deal is going to be suboptimal, because there is no deal with the EU that is better than the terms we currently enjoy as members. Any number of cabinet resignations are not going to change that.
It still seems to me improbable that any Conservative MP would vote with the opposition in a way that might trigger a snap general election that could put Jeremy Corbyn into Number 10. But some of them are so addled with Brexsteria that I would no longer bet my house on it.
I would imagine they will just not vote and abstain..
This is a very valid point. But it is worse than that. Due to the way Target 2 works, the debt is not just from the Italian Govt to the German Govt. There is a corresponding liability from the German Govt to the German Commercial Banks. So if it becomes clear that this money can't be paid, German banks are insolvent; it is not just an intergovernmental debt.
This is a very valid point. But it is worse than that. Due to the way Target 2 works, the debt is not just from the Italian Govt to the German Govt. There is a corresponding liability from the German Govt to the German Commercial Banks. So if it becomes clear that this money can't be paid, German banks are insolvent; it is not just an intergovernmental debt.
I think rcs did a video on target 2, but I still didn't understand it. But you see tweets like that and it does worry a great deal.
The difficulty from the very beginning has been how to find an arrangement that simultaneously worked with the EU, satisfied the Conservative party and was capable of commanding a majority in the Commons. One way of looking at the last 28 months of Brexit torture is as a protracted and painful education in the impossibility of finding a satisfactory solution to this conundrum. Another way of looking at the last 28 months is as a long and expensive education for Britain that any deal is going to be suboptimal, because there is no deal with the EU that is better than the terms we currently enjoy as members. Any number of cabinet resignations are not going to change that.
It still seems to me improbable that any Conservative MP would vote with the opposition in a way that might trigger a snap general election that could put Jeremy Corbyn into Number 10. But some of them are so addled with Brexsteria that I would no longer bet my house on it.
I would imagine they will just not vote and abstain..
If enough of them do that there would still be a general election anyway
I do find the incessant to-ing and fro-ing over various options and what some unnamed Cabinet Minister may or may not have said or threatened very tiresome. And pointless.
Isn't the reality that the EU will come up with a proposed withdrawal deal and present it to us on a take it or leave it basis? And if we leave it, it will be No Deal (which has been my working assumption for some time now) for which we are woefully unprepared.
On NI, maybe I am being simplistic but bear me out. If the proposal is that NI is in a different regulatory regime to deal with the hard border issue, might one solution to this be a NI referendum on whether they are happy with this? If they are then this neatly resolves the consent issue under the GFA as well. We are assuming that the DUP position represents the views of all in NI which may well be mistaken.
Or am I missing something?
My personal view is that we should have a second referendum before the end of March: either on The Deal vs Remain or No Deal vs Remain.
Voting for Leave in principle - which is what the British did in 2016 - is one thing. But it is not undemocratic to ask them to confirm that they do want to Leave once we know the terms on which we are doing so.
Barnier will not accept EEA+CU without a backstop either. Otherwise we can just leave the EEA later. We have no ability to join the EEA without Barnier's consent. So another plot to derail Brexit falls apart.
EEA+CU even you have said is Barnier's backstop, so yet again your fanaticism ignores reality
Yes, but it would have to be permanent. Since EEA+CU would not be permanent, he would have no backstop. It is really no different than the transition period - at the end there would be no solution. So he will insist on the backstop in case the UK leaves the EEA+CU, which given this is the whole point of the plan is obviously likely.
If No Deal is the alternative it will be permanent
The difficulty from the very beginning has been how to find an arrangement that simultaneously worked with the EU, satisfied the Conservative party and was capable of commanding a majority in the Commons. One way of looking at the last 28 months of Brexit torture is as a protracted and painful education in the impossibility of finding a satisfactory solution to this conundrum. Another way of looking at the last 28 months is as a long and expensive education for Britain that any deal is going to be suboptimal, because there is no deal with the EU that is better than the terms we currently enjoy as members. Any number of cabinet resignations are not going to change that.
It still seems to me improbable that any Conservative MP would vote with the opposition in a way that might trigger a snap general election that could put Jeremy Corbyn into Number 10. But some of them are so addled with Brexsteria that I would no longer bet my house on it.
I would imagine they will just not vote and abstain..
Abstaining on this issue would be an absurdity. If the they a Brexit deal/no deal is so terrible they should vote against even if it leads to Corbyn.
May will have called a general election a month or two after November if she fails to get a mandate for her deal, that new Parliament will then either give her a mandate for her deal or will see Corbyn as PM. If Corbyn is PM and cannot swiftly agree a new majority the new Labour + SNP majority as their conferences made clear would vote for EUref2 with the LDs which Remain would win rather than No Deal Brexit.
You fail to realise it is not Remainers who are dicing with Death it is diehard Brexiteers, if you fail to get any sort of Deal through in November then Brexit may well not happen at all.
The idea the likes of Soubry and Wollaston and Rudd and Grieve and Ken Clarke etc will vote for a Davis coronation and No Deal Brexit is laughable, if has no proposals to agree the backstop they will vote with Labour for a general election or EUref2 rather than No Deal
Nobody has to vote for No Deal.
The only way there will be a GE is if the DUP no confidence the Government. Which is looking more likely than any of your fantasies.
We are not talking about diehard Brexit. We are talking about a Conservative and Unionist Party PM trying to undermine the Union. Even Ruth Davidson is threatening to resign if she does this.
I notice you still have not answered the question as to whether you agree with this....much easier to just avoid the point I suppose.
Oh they do, Parliament has to accept it, which they will not.
If Tory Remainers like Rudd and Soubry and Wollaston and Clarke vote to no confidence the Government over No Deal, which is likely, there would be a GE regardless of what the DUP does.
We are talking actually about fanatics like you prepared to do anything in your desire for a No Deal Brexit, something we know Ruth Davidson is absolutely opposed to as the biggest beneficiary would be Nicola Sturgeon and Sinn Fein and the biggest loser the Union and the British economy
I cannot see any Tory MPs supporting a No Confidence motion.
Soubry, Wollaston, Rudd, Clarke absolutely would if May was toppled in a hardline Brexiteer coup or hardline Brexiteers attempted to force through No Deal, for them country would come before party at that point, they are all fanatically anti hard Brexit and if they cannot force an EU referendum they would force a general election
If they forced a general election, they would not be Tory candidates at that election.
Hard to believe those two useless attention seeking halfwits, who would miss them an invisible MSP and a numpty MP, both nobodies promoted well above their competence level. PS: AS she said, given their total lack of principles they will not be resigning any time soon, unfortunately.
I do find the incessant to-ing and fro-ing over various options and what some unnamed Cabinet Minister may or may not have said or threatened very tiresome. And pointless.
Isn't the reality that the EU will come up with a proposed withdrawal deal and present it to us on a take it or leave it basis? And if we leave it, it will be No Deal (which has been my working assumption for some time now) for which we are woefully unprepared.
On NI, maybe I am being simplistic but bear me out. If the proposal is that NI is in a different regulatory regime to deal with the hard border issue, might one solution to this be a NI referendum on whether they are happy with this? If they are then this neatly resolves the consent issue under the GFA as well. We are assuming that the DUP position represents the views of all in NI which may well be mistaken.
Or am I missing something?
Only that part of the problem is the government's survival depends on the DUP, so they have likely been so reluctant to upset them, but as you say the DUP are not 100% of the voice in NI, and even if a resolution leads to the DUP no longer backing the government, well, that may need to be done.
The unattributed comments from senior people is as tiresome as moderate Labour Mps hand wringing about Corbyn every few months.
Comments
If Tory Remainers like Rudd and Soubry and Wollaston and Clarke vote to no confidence the Government over No Deal, which is likely, there would be a GE regardless of what the DUP does.
We are talking actually about fanatics like you prepared to do anything in your desire for a No Deal Brexit, something we know Ruth Davidson is absolutely opposed to as the biggest beneficiary would be Nicola Sturgeon and Sinn Fein and the biggest loser the Union and the British economy
Yes, if we no deal we should drop tariffs for everyone. Tariffs are a tax on the consumer, not the importer. They make us less well off. UK industry does not need tariff protection - 80% of the economy is services and tariffs on imports of goods that are actually made in the UK are low anyway; lower than common currency fluctuations which don't seem to cause huge problems. High CET tariffs are generally on goods produced in France and Germany.
By going for unilateral free trade for a period we can avoid any issues at the border and use the time to arrange continuation FTAs in return for services access, which is actually what is of value to the UK. We don't have the same economy as the EU and we don't need tariffs when we are focussed on services.
Your comment that exports to the EU and third countries will 'get the highest tariffs' is of course incorrect. Just as for us, all these people have to charge the UK the same as they charge everyone else under WTO rules. If we can negotiate an FTA great, if not, we can just use the Brexit Bill savings to cut taxes for exporters to make up for it. No state aid rules anymore!
Regarding seamless supply chains, the answer is because we have them now for countries outside of the EU. The proportion of goods from outside the EU actually subject to physical checks at UK borders is in low single figures. What checks there are take place remotely.
If we are going to debate this further, then first let's try and agree some common ground. To start with, do you agree that the UK's huge trade deficit in goods with the EU is a unsustainable problem for the UK, and that the EU states have every reason to offer concessions in order not to put it in jeopardy?
Pity they were all Old Maids
You seem to change your scenario every post. If you are now counting on Remainiacs to no confidence their own Government then fine. They will be kicked out of the Party. May would be removed as leader. A Leaver will campaign on finishing the job of Brexit and remainers would be pushed out of the Party. Of course, the chances of this happening are bugger all; much more likely the DUP kick out the Government. But the same result - a Leaver as Tory leader. May is never going to fight an election UNLESS she ends up recommending No Deal herself.
Best to have a second referendum then and flush out whether no deal really is what people want.
It would almost be amusing if it wasn't so dangerous.
I think what I’ve always thought: the UK is one market for the EU27. In the great scheme of things it’s not that important (except for the Irish), which is why - contrary to predictions - German car manufacturers and others have not been banging doors down demanding a deal. They see maintaining the integrity of the Single Market as being the overwhelming priority, just as they were always going to.
This is the reason Remainers react pathologically to the prospect of No Deal. It could prove, conclusively, that they have been wrong all along.
It's an open secret the EU powers need to hurt us to encourage the others.
you seem to think that's a club worth staying in - a lot of people would disagree.
I also am amazed at the level of uninformed bilge about the consequences of Brexit that keep getting trotted out to scare people.
But hey, there is literally no positive reason to stay in the EU so what else can they do?
Meanwhile in Germany the Bavaria goes to the polls in what might determine Mrs Merkels longevity.
If Corbyn gets in it will be propped up by the SNP and reliant on the LDs to get any legislation through, of course given the reports today of Labour MPs voting for May's deal Labour will be divided too.
Though whether he gets in by the backdoor or with a large majority a Corbyn government inevitably means either BINO or an EUref2 which cancels Brexit
I'm hoping for the softest of Brexits to minimise short term damage and disruption and to make rejoining as easy as possible. I am confident the benefits of EU membership can be sold without having to trash our place to make the point.
Now, of course, 2 years too late, some politicians, recognising that the revolution has misfired, sobered by an exit process far more ghastly than they once imagined, and appreciating that where you pitch up in a lengthy transition was a question – THE question - they should have thought much harder about, talk of seeking to spend several years in an EEA type transition chamber – “as Norway” – before graduating to a Canadian style FTA relationship at the end of the protracted transition.
This is the “Norway then Canada” model one now hears so much about.
But, even leaving aside the legal objections, which I will not rehearse, there is now no earthly reason for either the EU27 or the EEA to agree such a deal. The ancien regime, after all, has no good reason to provide the finest transitional feather bed for the revolutionaries who want to leave it.
Its own best interests are served by offering the bread and water of the 21 month voiceless ruletaking transition which is now on offer.
https://share.trin.cam.ac.uk/sites/public/Comms/Rogers_brexit_as_revolution.pdf
This was obvious before the vote. In fact, it was said before the vote, and dismissed as Project Fear.
It's amazing that Brexiteers are now claiming that the fact we are getting a worse deal than we had is a good reason for us getting a worse deal than we had...
Still, it fits with your fantasy view of the world to assume all are arch-federalists, I guess.
If May was ditched, it would obviously depend on the new leader and their approach.
What difference does it make if Remainiacs lose the whip if a hardline Brexiteer replaces May, they will still be MPs and will still no confidence the government and force a general election or vote for EUref2 rather than back a hardline Brexiteer coup and No Deal.
A Leaver as Tory Leader is irrelevant as Parliament has a comfortable majority of Remainers and soft Brexiteers
Entrenched posters trying to change views to each other's cause, shouting, demanding other posters respond, passing views that are so definitive they are absurd in this climate.
My own view is I do not know TM's position. I am not privvy to the detail as is the case with everyone here, and I am not going to argue backwards and forwards when the sanest option is to wait for the detail from the Council meetings in the next few weeks.
On Saudi Arabia, if they have killed this journalist they need sanctions and co-ordinated world wide response.
However, Emily Thornberry's predicable response is to cancel all arm sales. When Marr pointed out that was a 60 billion contact and would lay waste to factories, workers and communities, mainly in Lancashire she muttered something to the effect that they would understand.
Even Trump who has lashed out at Saudi Arabia has said he will not curtail arm sales so labour would hand 60 billion of defence contracts to the US and France with no thought how they would ever recover these contracts or protect the communities who lose this work, especially in Lancashire.
Also compare and contrast labour's response to Saudi Arabia and Russia who actually used nerve agent on our soil killing an innocent woman
I just said that Remainers seem to have created a mental scaffold to explain to themselves why they lost, and why they never saw it coming. No Deal would destroy that scaffold. Should be fun.
I know the only Conservative Government acceptable to you is a diehard Brexit No Deal one but all the evidence is most voters would rather have May as PM than Corbyn or a diehard No Deal Brexiteer
On Saudi Arabia you are quite right. Other nations do bad things all the time. We need a proportional response. France of course would be delighted to take over any contracts that we were daft enough to walk away from.
Would make more sense if it was "Leads to Northern Ireland “having a different relationship with the UK... beyond what current exists”
It's pretty clear that despite what a lot of people are saying, very few people actually want a deal, since they are so firm in rejecting so many options. Or perhaps instead, it is a case that despite what most of us here think the vast majority of MPs really do believe no deal is better than a bad deal, since so few people are willing to accept a bad deal.
Therefore, they must not think no deal is that bad.
OK I have had a fair amount of fun this morning. So let me suggest a solution that might work (won't be accepted by the EU, but their position won't be accepted by the UK, so...)
- No backstop, just the ability for the EU to extend the transition period (solves the above problem).
- EU have to legally commit that the end game is that a technological solution is developed that allows a soft border at the NI/ROI land border. Therefore CETA is negotiated on this basis.
- WTO supervise the scoping and developing of such a technological solution. If they say it is not ready (defined as a system consistent with WTO legal requirements) EU can extend the transition period a year at a time. If the WTO are satisfied, the transition will end.
- After (say) two extensions, the deal drops away and UK will leave on no deal at that time. There can't be a permanent backstop, just a path to a solution.
On this basis I think the UK could agree to pay the Brexit bill in full subject to the EU remaining in compliance with the process for developing the technological solution. After four years, the bill would pretty much be paid anyway.
Does this sound reasonable?
I note you've gone very quiet on Boris....
What it really is is confirmation that the foundation of the SCon miracle is largely based on LOL, fundy Unionism, Ruth in bed with Arlene as it were.
2. Mountains are pretty
3. Board games are good when it rains
4. Eff you, you stinking, stupid Leave voters
5. Can’t be good. Any sensible person can do a deal surely?
https://www.facebook.com/143272075714717/posts/2247204668654770/
Surely she should be asking for us to continue having a diplomatic relationship with the Saudis, that the evidence should be shared with the Saudis so that they can assess it, that we should be cautious before doing what the Americans are doing etc etc......
He is rarely correct but all credit to the tenacious ferocity.
I agree. And said as much yesterday.
https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1051432166540922880?s=19
No Deal was eliminated producing 65% for Canada. But if Canada was not available, it seems pretty likely looking at these numbers that No Deal would end up the leader.
this is the important bit. Now the vaquero has taken the good lady Brazilia doggy fashion, calling out her sisters name, how long can he ride this kicking mule before he is thrown off?
The issue with 'Canada' is it has two mutually exclusive red lines - as it stands, the EU only want to offer it to GB, while the UK, unsurprisingly, insists it should apply to the UK.
Isn't the reality that the EU will come up with a proposed withdrawal deal and present it to us on a take it or leave it basis? And if we leave it, it will be No Deal (which has been my working assumption for some time now) for which we are woefully unprepared.
On NI, maybe I am being simplistic but bear me out. If the proposal is that NI is in a different regulatory regime to deal with the hard border issue, might one solution to this be a NI referendum on whether they are happy with this? If they are then this neatly resolves the consent issue under the GFA as well. We are assuming that the DUP position represents the views of all in NI which may well be mistaken.
Or am I missing something?
My personal view is that we should have a second referendum before the end of March: either on The Deal vs Remain or No Deal vs Remain.
Voting for Leave in principle - which is what the British did in 2016 - is one thing. But it is not undemocratic to ask them to confirm that they do want to Leave once we know the terms on which we are doing so.
PS: AS she said, given their total lack of principles they will not be resigning any time soon, unfortunately.
The unattributed comments from senior people is as tiresome as moderate Labour Mps hand wringing about Corbyn every few months.