I expect the vote to be respected (though it is a terrible idea). Some recognition of the concerns of Remainers and some basic civility from Leavers rather than labelling them as traitors, saboteurs, quislings etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
Some recognition of the concerns of Leavers and some basic civility from Remainers rather than labelling them as xenophobes, racists, swivel-eyed, etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
Leavers want Brexit to work. It’s their job to persuade the unpersuaded. They decided they preferred to try to grind them into the ground. This has proved suboptimal.
In this grave hour, perhaps the most fateful in our history, I send to every household of my peoples, both at home and overseas, this message, spoken with the same depth of feeling for each one of you as if I were able to cross your threshold and speak to you myself.
For the second time, sorry, I mean the first time in the lives of most of us, we are at Brexit.
Over and over again, we have tried to find a peaceful way out of the differences between ourselves and those who are now running the European Union; but it has been in vain.
We have been forced into a Brexit, for we are called, with our DUP allies, to meet the challenge of a principle which, if it were to prevail, would be fatal to any civilized order in the world.
It is a principle which permits a Suprastate, in the selfish pursuit of power, to disregard its treaties and its solemn pledges, which sanctions the use of EU Diktats or threat of Diktats against the sovereignty and independence of other states.
Such a principle, stripped of all disguise, is surely the mere primitive doctrine that might is right, and if this principle were established through the world, the freedom of our own country and of the whole British Commonwealth of nations would be in danger.
But far more than this, the peoples of Europe would be kept in bondage of fear, and all hopes of settled peace and of the security, of justice and liberty, among nations, would be ended.
This is the ultimate issue which confronts us. For the sake of all that we ourselves hold dear, and of the world order and peace, it is unthinkable that we should refuse to meet the Brexit challenge.
It is to this high purpose that I now call my people at home, and my expats in the Costas, who will make our cause their own.
I ask them to stand calm and firm and united in this time of trial.
The task will be hard. There may be dark days ahead, and Brexit can no longer be confined to Tweets on social media, but we can only do the right as we see the right, and reverently commit our cause to Boris. If one and all we keep resolutely faithful to it, ready for whatever service or sacrifice it may demand, then with Boris's help, we shall prevail.
We are where we are primarily because voters were promised an impossible scenario: all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downsides. This was exacerbated by May’s triggering of A50 and her drawing of the red lines. But the bottom line is that the Leave we were told we would get - the one based on us holding all the negotiating cards and German car manufacturers demanding Merkel get a deal done asap - was a fantasy that no-one could deliver.
I disagree. She could have easily made most of the same speech but said that the starting point needed to be no deal, as this is where we would end up if negotiations failed, and it was taking a cautious and proper approach to plan for all eventualities. In fact she would have needed to be more civil towards the EU to indicate that she didn’t want to finish in that position.
That's essentially what she did say. The level of revisionism is astounding.
This is from Lancaster House:
While I am sure a positive agreement can be reached – I am equally clear that no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain.
Because we would still be able to trade with Europe. We would be free to strike trade deals across the world. And we would have the freedom to set the competitive tax rates and embrace the policies that would attract the world’s best companies and biggest investors to Britain. And – if we were excluded from accessing the single market – we would be free to change the basis of Britain’s economic model.
But for the EU, it would mean new barriers to trade with one of the biggest economies in the world. It would jeopardise investments in Britain by EU companies worth more than half a trillion pounds. It would mean a loss of access for European firms to the financial services of the City of London. It would risk exports from the EU to Britain worth around £290 billion every year. And it would disrupt the sophisticated and integrated supply chains upon which many EU companies rely.
Important sectors of the EU economy would also suffer. We are a crucial – profitable – export market for Europe’s automotive industry, as well as sectors including energy, food and drink, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and agriculture. These sectors employ millions of people around Europe. And I do not believe that the EU’s leaders will seriously tell German exporters, French farmers, Spanish fishermen, the young unemployed of the Eurozone, and millions of others, that they want to make them poorer, just to punish Britain and make a political point.
I've now lost track of what the ERG's problem actually is with Chequers.....
1. They say there are solutions for the border in NI that will meet the no hard border requirement. 2. Any backstop will only kick in for the length of time needed to implement a soft border. 3. The Future relationship document will be aspirational and not lock down the nature of the future trade deal. 4. A transition period would apply until end 2020.
If their assertions are honest then they can:
1. Allow the deal to progress, knowing that the backstop is moot, because they have a full border plan in their back pocket. If any new UK Internal barrier is a problem, they could even direct towards full UK SM adoption in the backstop! 2. They can move to replace TM in March next year and still have 21 months to steer to a Canada++ deal, which they still assert is a dead easy deal to reach.
For their purposes, they do not even need to have a time limited backstop, just a backstop conditional on their ready to go border being implemented, and they should be pressing simply to ensure the detail of that conditionality ensures an honest and unbiased verification of the border implementation when it is ready.
If, on the other hand, their assertions are rancidly dishonest, then I would expect them to be behaving more in the way that we now observe.
I think they argue that the EU will dismiss any border solution the UK presents, knowing that they can keep us in the CU.
Keeping us in the CU would be a tremendous result for the EU and their £100bn trade surplus with us...
Of course, remaining in the CU also keeps their kitty topped up - as they get a proportion of the revenues that the CET raises, too.
They get 80% of tariff revenue - I think it is something like 2.5bn per year.
But in relation to the first port by Pro_Rata, yes, the issue is that the EU will have no incentive whatsoever to agree any solution to the NI border once we are locked into the CU where they can control us.
So, Archer, it is not the fact or exact nature of the backstop that is problematic. It is the fear that the EU could hold us in the backstop indefinitely for political reasons.
Do you agree with me, then, that the mechanism for exiting the backstop is a key piece, and that the ERG should have been pushing for this element rather than rejecting the backstop as a whole?
.. The task will be hard. There may be dark days ahead, and Brexit can no longer be confined to Tweets on social media, but we can only do the right as we see the right, and reverently commit our cause to Boris. If one and all we keep resolutely faithful to it, ready for whatever service or sacrifice it may demand, then with Boris's help, we shall prevail.
May He bless and keep us all.
Personally I'm hoping for a few patriotic verses sung to the tune of ... 'Give Me Joy In My Heart' hymn being belted out by May at 3:30 today.
'It’s understood Meghan has had her three month scan, meaning she has just entered her second trimester.
That would mean a due date of April is likely, although she could of course be slightly early which could see her giving birth at the end of March. This means Harry and Meghan’s baby could easily fall on Brexit day, which is Friday 29 March 2019.'
We are where we are primarily because voters were promised an impossible scenario: all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downsides. This was exacerbated by May’s triggering of A50 and her drawing of the red lines. But the bottom line is that the Leave we were told we would get - the one based on us holding all the negotiating cards and German car manufacturers demanding Merkel get a deal done asap - was a fantasy that no-one could deliver.
Exactly.
Sums it up perfectly.
The electorate was told that it could make two plus two equal five merely by voting for it to be so. But reality has now dawned.
'It’s understood Meghan has had her three month scan, meaning she has just entered her second trimester.
That would mean a due date of April is likely, although she could of course be slightly early which could see her giving birth at the end of March. This means Harry and Meghan’s baby could easily fall on Brexit day, which is Friday 29 March 2019.'
'It’s understood Meghan has had her three month scan, meaning she has just entered her second trimester.
That would mean a due date of April is likely, although she could of course be slightly early which could see her giving birth at the end of March. This means Harry and Meghan’s baby could easily fall on Brexit day, which is Friday 29 March 2019.'
They wouldn’t call it Brexit, would they? Please!
Brexit Chequers Backstop Windsor has a certain ring to it.
But it will probably be Phil for a boy and Elizabeth for a girl.
I expect the vote to be respected (though it is a terrible idea). Some recognition of the concerns of Remainers and some basic civility from Leavers rather than labelling them as traitors, saboteurs, quislings etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
Some recognition of the concerns of Leavers and some basic civility from Remainers rather than labelling them as xenophobes, racists, swivel-eyed, etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
Leavers want Brexit to work. It’s their job to persuade the unpersuaded. They decided they preferred to try to grind them into the ground. This has proved suboptimal.
Actually die-hards on both sides feed off each other. Their special contempt is reserved for compromisers. You only have to see the vitriol aimed at Dan Hannan in the Telegraph by ultra Leavers or at Caroline Flint by Labour reversers.
I expect the vote to be respected (though it is a terrible idea). Some recognition of the concerns of Remainers and some basic civility from Leavers rather than labelling them as traitors, saboteurs, quislings etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
Some recognition of the concerns of Leavers and some basic civility from Remainers rather than labelling them as xenophobes, racists, swivel-eyed, etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
Leavers want Brexit to work. It’s their job to persuade the unpersuaded. They decided they preferred to try to grind them into the ground. This has proved suboptimal.
Actually die-hards on both sides feed off each other. Their special contempt is reserved for compromisers. You only have to see the vitriol aimed at Dan Hannan in the Telegraph by ultra Leavers or at Caroline Flint by Labour reversers.
Today's spat on GMB is a good illustration although Piers Morgan did vote remain.
To paraphrase 'Morgan - Why do you think we should we hold a people's vote because 100,000 people go on a protest march when you and Blair ignored the 1.7 million who marched against the war in Iraq. If you had listened to them and had a people's vote on that we wouldn't have started the war and 1 million people might not have died as a result. Response - But we had an elected PM!'
In cricket, and possibly betting news The Guardian reports that 'former Sri Lanka all-rounder Sanath Jayasuriya has been charged with two counts of breaching the International Cricket Council’s anti-corruption code, the governing body has announced.’ The charges relate to non-co-operation with an investigation.
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
My personal opinion on why it is such a balls up is that it is because it is being negotiated by people who think leaving is the wrong thing to do.
I think you are probably right, but they were not helped by the red lines which were put in place to appease those who thought that leaving was the right thing to do and that their version of leaving in particular was the one we should (have) pursue(d).
No FoM red line and a lot of problems go away. But of course the British public in polls have said they don't like foreigners, but this is where May should have lead not followed. She manifestly doesn't want to bring immigration down because she didn't do so when she was in charge of it, so she should have backed herself and said that FoM will be mitigated by all kinds of permissible restraints but that it is more important to leave the political structures of the EU which is how she interpreted the vote.
She did none of these things, thus infuriating leavers and remainers alike. Problem is, as the tweet above mentions, she is dealing with international treaties, not the Home Office, where no one cares from one fudge to another, not to say they don't notice them.
Opposing FoM is not the same as disliking foreigners
I expect the vote to be respected (though it is a terrible idea). Some recognition of the concerns of Remainers and some basic civility from Leavers rather than labelling them as traitors, saboteurs, quislings etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
Some recognition of the concerns of Leavers and some basic civility from Remainers rather than labelling them as xenophobes, racists, swivel-eyed, etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
Leavers want Brexit to work. It’s their job to persuade the unpersuaded. They decided they preferred to try to grind them into the ground. This has proved suboptimal.
Actually die-hards on both sides feed off each other. Their special contempt is reserved for compromisers. You only have to see the vitriol aimed at Dan Hannan in the Telegraph by ultra Leavers or at Caroline Flint by Labour reversers.
Dan Hannan is not a compromiser. He's advocating precisely the version of Brexit that he's always wanted (but disingenuously did not campaign for) and presenting that as a compromise. It's unsurprising he's been completely marginalised. His entire MO has been fraudulent.
I think you are confusing Leaver supporters and the headbanging Tory right and Daily Mail. Most people I have discussed it with on either side have been very polite about it.
I'm not confusing anything. Prominent Leave advocates and their news outlets have been and continue to be strikingly offensive to and contemptuous of anyone supporting Remain. They have offered nothing to Remain supporters to make them reconsider their opposition, the very opposite.
And now they wonder why people who they have sought to marginalise have chosen to act in a manner that they find unhelpful.
Like I said most Leave supporters have been surprised, and gracious in their views. Most remainers disappointed and firm in theirs. You are talking about politicians playing politics in a political system that is not all about Brexit. If Corbyn scrapes a one seat majority I am not expecting him to be trying to win around Tory voters - that’s politics.
This is precisely the confusion that Leave advocates labour under. Governments come and go. They need not have more than grudging acquiescence between elections because the opportunity to despatch them comes around regularly.
The referendum was supposed to set the course of the country for the long term. If that decision is going to stick, a consensus needs to be forged. Leave advocates have not even tried to forge such a consensus. At every stage they have sought to divide and marginalise, whipping themselves up into a frenzy and pursuing ever more extreme versions of Brexit that were never contemplated by even the most swivel-eyed before the vote.
The complete failure to build a consensus is perhaps unsurprising, given the xenophobic lies on which the Leave campaign was founded, but the failure even to try has sunk Brexit below the waterline even before Britain has left the EU.
Seems like it should be enough to run on a Pocahontas 2020 slogan.
Six to ten generations? Ten generations potentially goes back to the early 18th century - decades before the declaration of independence? That's could be as little as 2% Native American DNA.
Perhaps she should do 'Who do you think you are' and try and trace back who this person was - to find out whether they voluntarily participated in the process?
It might be more appropriate for her to run as Sitting Bull who led the resistance against US government policies.
I think you are confusing Leaver supporters and the headbanging Tory right and Daily Mail. Most people I have discussed it with on either side have been very polite about it.
I'm not confusing anything. Prominent Leave advocates and their news outlets have been and continue to be strikingly offensive to and contemptuous of anyone supporting Remain. They have offered nothing to Remain supporters to make them reconsider their opposition, the very opposite.
And now they wonder why people who they have sought to marginalise have chosen to act in a manner that they find unhelpful.
Like I said most Leave supporters have been surprised, and gracious in their views. Most remainers disappointed and firm in theirs. You are talking about politicians playing politics in a political system that is not all about Brexit. If Corbyn scrapes a one seat majority I am not expecting him to be trying to win around Tory voters - that’s politics.
This is precisely the confusion that Leave advocates labour under. Governments come and go. They need not have more than grudging acquiescence between elections because the opportunity to despatch them comes around regularly.
The referendum was supposed to set the course of the country for the long term. If that decision is going to stick, a consensus needs to be forged. Leave advocates have not even tried to forge such a consensus. At every stage they have sought to divide and marginalise, whipping themselves up into a frenzy and pursuing ever more extreme versions of Brexit that were never contemplated by even the most swivel-eyed before the vote.
The complete failure to build a consensus is perhaps unsurprising, given the xenophobic lies on which the Leave campaign was founded, but the failure even to try has sunk Brexit below the waterline even before Britain has left the EU.
To be fair, the problem also relates to the way the referendum was organised. The Scots and Welsh ‘Assembly’ referenda had minimum votes and minimal levels of acquiescence required. Had, say, a 60% or even 55% vote been required to overturn the status quo then all this might have been avoided.
If May goes then pile on #bridgen4pm at any odds. He's the hero we need but not the hero we deserve.
Geoffrey Cox QC the Attorney General would be better, by far the brightest in the Cabinet and probably the richest as well and a Leaver but not an insane one and a brilliant speaker as he showed at the Tory conference as May's warm up. He would slaughter Corbyn at PMQs
I've now lost track of what the ERG's problem actually is with Chequers.....
1. They say there are solutions for the border in NI that will meet the no hard border requirement. 2. Any backstop will only kick in for the length of time needed to implement a soft border. 3. The Future relationship document will be aspirational and not lock down the nature of the future trade deal. 4. A transition period would apply until end 2020.
If their assertions are honest then they can:
1. Allow the deal to progress, knowing that the backstop is moot, because they have a full border plan in their back pocket. If any new UK Internal barrier is a problem, they could even direct towards full UK SM adoption in the backstop! 2. They can move to replace TM in March next year and still have 21 months to steer to a Canada++ deal, which they still assert is a dead easy deal to reach.
For their purposes, they do not even need to have a time limited backstop, just a backstop conditional on their ready to go border being implemented, and they should be pressing simply to ensure the detail of that conditionality ensures an honest and unbiased verification of the border implementation when it is ready.
If, on the other hand, their assertions are rancidly dishonest, then I would expect them to be behaving more or less in the way that we now observe.
The issue is that it is the EU that decides if the “ready to go border” works - ie the UK has no say in the matter
'It’s understood Meghan has had her three month scan, meaning she has just entered her second trimester.
That would mean a due date of April is likely, although she could of course be slightly early which could see her giving birth at the end of March. This means Harry and Meghan’s baby could easily fall on Brexit day, which is Friday 29 March 2019.'
Congratulations to the Sussexes and the royal family will now have a mixed race baby
I think you are confusing Leaver supporters and the headbanging Tory right and Daily Mail. Most people I have discussed it with on either side have been very polite about it.
I'm not confusing anything. Prominent Leave advocates and their news outlets have been and continue to be strikingly offensive to and contemptuous of anyone supporting Remain. They have offered nothing to Remain supporters to make them reconsider their opposition, the very opposite.
And now they wonder why people who they have sought to marginalise have chosen to act in a manner that they find unhelpful.
Like I said most Leave supporters have been surprised, and gracious in their views. Most remainers disappointed and firm in theirs. You are talking about politicians playing politics in a political system that is not all about Brexit. If Corbyn scrapes a one seat majority I am not expecting him to be trying to win around Tory voters - that’s politics.
This is precisely the confusion that Leave advocates labour under. Governments come and go. They need not have more than grudging acquiescence between elections because the opportunity to despatch them comes around regularly.
The referendum was supposed to set the course of the country for the long term. If that decision is going to stick, a consensus needs to be forged. Leave advocates have not even tried to forge such a consensus. At every stage they have sought to divide and marginalise, whipping themselves up into a frenzy and pursuing ever more extreme versions of Brexit that were never contemplated by even the most swivel-eyed before the vote.
The complete failure to build a consensus is perhaps unsurprising, given the xenophobic lies on which the Leave campaign was founded, but the failure even to try has sunk Brexit below the waterline even before Britain has left the EU.
To be fair, the problem also relates to the way the referendum was organised. The Scots and Welsh ‘Assembly’ referenda had minimum votes and minimal levels of acquiescence required. Had, say, a 60% or even 55% vote been required to overturn the status quo then all this might have been avoided.
I think you are confusing Leaver supporters and the headbanging Tory right and Daily Mail. Most people I have discussed it with on either side have been very polite about it.
I'm not confusing anything. Prominent Leave advocates and their news outlets have been and continue to be strikingly offensive to and contemptuous of anyone supporting Remain. They have offered nothing to Remain supporters to make them reconsider their opposition, the very opposite.
And now they wonder why people who they have sought to marginalise have chosen to act in a manner that they find unhelpful.
Like I said most Leave supporters have been surprised, and gracious in their views. Most remainers disappointed and firm in theirs. You are talking about politicians playing politics in a political system that is not all about Brexit. If Corbyn scrapes a one seat majority I am not expecting him to be trying to win around Tory voters - that’s politics.
This is precisely the confusion that Leave advocates labour under. Governments come and go. They need not have more than grudging acquiescence between elections because the opportunity to despatch them comes around regularly.
The referendum was supposed to set the course of the country for the long term. If that decision is going to stick, a consensus needs to be forged. Leave advocates have not even tried to forge such a consensus. At every stage they have sought to divide and marginalise, whipping themselves up into a frenzy and pursuing ever more extreme versions of Brexit that were never contemplated by even the most swivel-eyed before the vote.
The complete failure to build a consensus is perhaps unsurprising, given the xenophobic lies on which the Leave campaign was founded, but the failure even to try has sunk Brexit below the waterline even before Britain has left the EU.
The course of the country pre referendum had for years been set by people who did not try to forge a consensus, and instead described people who didn't agree with it in pejorative terms such as "bigoted", "closet racist" and "loons"... and it turns out they didn't even have the backing of majority support for that course in any case!
Theresa May's weird rant over immigration at the Tory conference a few years ago coupled with her atrocious performance on this issue while at the Home Office should have provided the necessary warning signs. She thinks a successful Brexit is one where the FoM red line is not breached to the exclusion of everything else. Of course back in 2016 we had all those regular reports of sub Saharans etc flooding into southern Europe with the prospect that if we remained in the EU many of them will find their way into the UK. Time has now moved on.
To the extent I blame Leavers it is in their abject failure to provide a credible Leave contender to defeat May in the leadership election in 2016 leaving us with this dysfunctional situation at the top.
Dunno, ending FoM still seems like the main thing the voters are expecting, doesn't it? I know the Tory MPs who have been pushing for Brexit for all these years are mainly interested in the Libertarian Pirate Island angle, but there's no sign the voters are into that, and the Leave campaign wisely said as little as possible about it in the referendum.
The Libertarian Pirate Island angle is the smallest slither of a side issue.
If there hadn't been mass immigration from 2004 onwards, UKIP wouldn't have won the Euros or got 12% at a GE. FoM is the reason the referendum was called, and the reason Leave won. It is all it is about.
Whose fault is that? Blair for failing to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations
If May goes then pile on #bridgen4pm at any odds. He's the hero we need but not the hero we deserve.
Geoffrey Cox QC the Attorney General would be better, by far the brightest in the Cabinet and probably the richest as well and a Leaver but not an insane one and a brilliant speaker as he showed at the Tory conference as May's warm up. He would slaughter Corbyn at PMQs
Jeremy Hunt is the richest member of the cabinet by far.
Theresa May's weird rant over immigration at the Tory conference a few years ago coupled with her atrocious performance on this issue while at the Home Office should have provided the necessary warning signs. She thinks a successful Brexit is one where the FoM red line is not breached to the exclusion of everything else. Of course back in 2016 we had all those regular reports of sub Saharans etc flooding into southern Europe with the prospect that if we remained in the EU many of them will find their way into the UK. Time has now moved on.
To the extent I blame Leavers it is in their abject failure to provide a credible Leave contender to defeat May in the leadership election in 2016 leaving us with this dysfunctional situation at the top.
Dunno, ending FoM still seems like the main thing the voters are expecting, doesn't it? I know the Tory MPs who have been pushing for Brexit for all these years are mainly interested in the Libertarian Pirate Island angle, but there's no sign the voters are into that, and the Leave campaign wisely said as little as possible about it in the referendum.
The Libertarian Pirate Island angle is the smallest slither of a side issue.
If there hadn't been mass immigration from 2004 onwards, UKIP wouldn't have won the Euros or got 12% at a GE. FoM is the reason the referendum was called, and the reason Leave won. It is all it is about.
Whose fault is that? Blair for failing to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations
I expect the vote to be respected (though it is a terrible idea). Some recognition of the concerns of Remainers and some basic civility from Leavers rather than labelling them as traitors, saboteurs, quislings etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
Some recognition of the concerns of Leavers and some basic civility from Remainers rather than labelling them as xenophobes, racists, swivel-eyed, etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
Leavers want Brexit to work. It’s their job to persuade the unpersuaded. They decided they preferred to try to grind them into the ground. This has proved suboptimal.
Actually die-hards on both sides feed off each other. Their special contempt is reserved for compromisers. You only have to see the vitriol aimed at Dan Hannan in the Telegraph by ultra Leavers or at Caroline Flint by Labour reversers.
Dan Hannan is not a compromiser. He's advocating precisely the version of Brexit that he's always wanted (but disingenuously did not campaign for) and presenting that as a compromise. It's unsurprising he's been completely marginalised. His entire MO has been fraudulent.
Look, absolutely nobody is calling Daniel Hannan a busted flush who would have done better pursuing a career as a stage pixie than going into politics.
Meanwhile, who can come up with a word that means 'permanent backstop' that sounds like it means 'temporary backstop'?
To be fair, the problem also relates to the way the referendum was organised. The Scots and Welsh ‘Assembly’ referenda had minimum votes and minimal levels of acquiescence required.
Not the ones in 1997. Only the ones in 1979.
Remember, the winning margin for Yes for the Welsh Assembly in 1997 was only 0.6%!
Theresa May's weird rant over immigration at the Tory conference a few years ago coupled with her atrocious performance on this issue while at the Home Office should have provided the necessary warning signs. She thinks a successful Brexit is one where the FoM red line is not breached to the exclusion of everything else. Of course back in 2016 we had all those regular reports of sub Saharans etc flooding into southern Europe with the prospect that if we remained in the EU many of them will find their way into the UK. Time has now moved on.
To the extent I blame Leavers it is in their abject failure to provide a credible Leave contender to defeat May in the leadership election in 2016 leaving us with this dysfunctional situation at the top.
Dunno, ending FoM still seems like the main thing the voters are expecting, doesn't it? I know the Tory MPs who have been pushing for Brexit for all these years are mainly interested in the Libertarian Pirate Island angle, but there's no sign the voters are into that, and the Leave campaign wisely said as little as possible about it in the referendum.
The Libertarian Pirate Island angle is the smallest slither of a side issue.
If there hadn't been mass immigration from 2004 onwards, UKIP wouldn't have won the Euros or got 12% at a GE. FoM is the reason the referendum was called, and the reason Leave won. It is all it is about.
Whose fault is that? Blair for failing to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations
There were more votes in it for Labour to allow mass immigration.
If May goes then pile on #bridgen4pm at any odds. He's the hero we need but not the hero we deserve.
Geoffrey Cox QC the Attorney General would be better, by far the brightest in the Cabinet and probably the richest as well and a Leaver but not an insane one and a brilliant speaker as he showed at the Tory conference as May's warm up. He would slaughter Corbyn at PMQs
He looks like a fucking Benjamin Netanyahu action figure.
A depressed looking flabby middle aged white man is not what the tories need.
Genius. Can't debate the big issue because reality will piss off too many Tory MPs and bring down May. But its definitely the EU's fault that we haven't reached an agreement yet.
I expect the vote to be respected (though it is a terrible idea). Some recognition of the concerns of Remainers and some basic civility from Leavers rather than labelling them as traitors, saboteurs, quislings etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
Some recognition of the concerns of Leavers and some basic civility from Remainers rather than labelling them as xenophobes, racists, swivel-eyed, etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
Leavers want Brexit to work. It’s their job to persuade the unpersuaded. They decided they preferred to try to grind them into the ground. This has proved suboptimal.
Actually die-hards on both sides feed off each other. Their special contempt is reserved for compromisers. You only have to see the vitriol aimed at Dan Hannan in the Telegraph by ultra Leavers or at Caroline Flint by Labour reversers.
Dan Hannan is not a compromiser. He's advocating precisely the version of Brexit that he's always wanted (but disingenuously did not campaign for) and presenting that as a compromise. It's unsurprising he's been completely marginalised. His entire MO has been fraudulent.
Look, absolutely nobody is calling Daniel Hannan a busted flush who would have done better pursuing a career as a stage pixie than going into politics.
Meanwhile, who can come up with a word that means 'permanent backstop' that sounds like it means 'temporary backstop'?
Do what they Lancashire CCC did, call their new stand 'The temporary permanent stand'.
It is temporary for when England play at Old Trafford and for T20 matches, but will be a permanent fixture for those matches.
Rather interested to observe that when Israel beat Scotland at football last week (not much of an achievement as everyone beats Scotland at football) three of their players were Arabs; so much for those who call Israel an "apartheid state".
'It’s understood Meghan has had her three month scan, meaning she has just entered her second trimester.
That would mean a due date of April is likely, although she could of course be slightly early which could see her giving birth at the end of March. This means Harry and Meghan’s baby could easily fall on Brexit day, which is Friday 29 March 2019.'
Congratulations to the Sussexes and the royal family will now have a mixed race baby
I expect the vote to be respected (though it is a terrible idea). Some recognition of the concerns of Remainers and some basic civility from Leavers rather than labelling them as traitors, saboteurs, quislings etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
Some recognition of the concerns of Leavers and some basic civility from Remainers rather than labelling them as xenophobes, racists, swivel-eyed, etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
Leavers want Brexit to work. It’s their job to persuade the unpersuaded. They decided they preferred to try to grind them into the ground. This has proved suboptimal.
Actually die-hards on both sides feed off each other. Their special contempt is reserved for compromisers. You only have to see the vitriol aimed at Dan Hannan in the Telegraph by ultra Leavers or at Caroline Flint by Labour reversers.
Dan Hannan is not a compromiser. He's advocating precisely the version of Brexit that he's always wanted (but disingenuously did not campaign for) and presenting that as a compromise. It's unsurprising he's been completely marginalised. His entire MO has been fraudulent.
Look, absolutely nobody is calling Daniel Hannan a busted flush who would have done better pursuing a career as a stage pixie than going into politics.
Meanwhile, who can come up with a word that means 'permanent backstop' that sounds like it means 'temporary backstop'?
Call it time-limited, just don't mention that it's the start time rather than the end time which is limited
Not if EUref2 before next March if No Deal and Remain wins
How do the timescales work for another referendum before March?
They don’t.
But this is another one of HYUFD’s hobby horses that he’ll go quiet on soon enough, like Hunt will never succeed May or Boris is nailed on to replace May.
No Deal has -33% approval with ICM and Remain beats No Deal 55% to 45% with Yougov. If it looks like No Deal in November there are 4 months to hold EUref2 before Brexit Day.
No Deal is unsustainable with such opposition, otherwise Parliament will vote for the Norway option ultimately
Opinion polls don’t have an impact on Parliamentary rules and procedures.
Plus your scenario requires the support of at least 150 Labour MPs.
They may prefer to topple the government and then deliver their own Brexit.
Yes and what would a Labour Brexit be? Stay in a Customs Union and stay in the Single Market in all but name
If May goes then pile on #bridgen4pm at any odds. He's the hero we need but not the hero we deserve.
Geoffrey Cox QC the Attorney General would be better, by far the brightest in the Cabinet and probably the richest as well and a Leaver but not an insane one and a brilliant speaker as he showed at the Tory conference as May's warm up. He would slaughter Corbyn at PMQs
He looks like a fucking Benjamin Netanyahu action figure.
A depressed looking flabby middle aged white man is not what the tories need.
At least Netanyahu is somewhat feared if loathed, better having a leader who is feared and loathed than pitied
If May goes then pile on #bridgen4pm at any odds. He's the hero we need but not the hero we deserve.
Geoffrey Cox QC the Attorney General would be better, by far the brightest in the Cabinet and probably the richest as well and a Leaver but not an insane one and a brilliant speaker as he showed at the Tory conference as May's warm up. He would slaughter Corbyn at PMQs
He looks like a fucking Benjamin Netanyahu action figure.
A depressed looking flabby middle aged white man is not what the tories need.
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
My personal opinion on why it is such a balls up is that it is because it is being negotiated by people who think leaving is the wrong thing to do.
I think you are probably right, but they were not helped by the red lines which were put in place to appease those who thought that leaving was the right thing to do and that their version of leaving in particular was the one we should (have) pursue(d).
No FoM red line and a lot of problems go away. But of course the British public in polls have said they don't like foreigners, but this is where May should have lead not followed. She manifestly doesn't want to bring immigration down because she didn't do so when she was in charge of it, so she should have backed herself and said that FoM will be mitigated by all kinds of permissible restraints but that it is more important to leave the political structures of the EU which is how she interpreted the vote.
She did none of these things, thus infuriating leavers and remainers alike. Problem is, as the tweet above mentions, she is dealing with international treaties, not the Home Office, where no one cares from one fudge to another, not to say they don't notice them.
Opposing FoM is not the same as disliking foreigners
I expect the vote to be respected (though it is a terrible idea). Some recognition of the concerns of Remainers and some basic civility from Leavers rather than labelling them as traitors, saboteurs, quislings etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
Some recognition of the concerns of Leavers and some basic civility from Remainers rather than labelling them as xenophobes, racists, swivel-eyed, etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
Leavers want Brexit to work. It’s their job to persuade the unpersuaded. They decided they preferred to try to grind them into the ground. This has proved suboptimal.
Actually die-hards on both sides feed off each other. Their special contempt is reserved for compromisers. You only have to see the vitriol aimed at Dan Hannan in the Telegraph by ultra Leavers or at Caroline Flint by Labour reversers.
Dan Hannan is not a compromiser. He's advocating precisely the version of Brexit that he's always wanted (but disingenuously did not campaign for) and presenting that as a compromise. It's unsurprising he's been completely marginalised. His entire MO has been fraudulent.
Look, absolutely nobody is calling Daniel Hannan a busted flush who would have done better pursuing a career as a stage pixie than going into politics.
Meanwhile, who can come up with a word that means 'permanent backstop' that sounds like it means 'temporary backstop'?
Do what they Lancashire CCC did, call their new stand 'The temporary permanent stand'.
It is temporary for when England play at Old Trafford and for T20 matches, but will be a permanent fixture for those matches.
I expect the vote to be respected (though it is a terrible idea). Some recognition of the concerns of Remainers and some basic civility from Leavers rather than labelling them as traitors, saboteurs, quislings etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
Some recognition of the concerns of Leavers and some basic civility from Remainers rather than labelling them as xenophobes, racists, swivel-eyed, etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
Leavers want Brexit to work. It’s their job to persuade the unpersuaded. They decided they preferred to try to grind them into the ground. This has proved suboptimal.
Actually die-hards on both sides feed off each other. Their special contempt is reserved for compromisers. You only have to see the vitriol aimed at Dan Hannan in the Telegraph by ultra Leavers or at Caroline Flint by Labour reversers.
Dan Hannan is not a compromiser. He's advocating precisely the version of Brexit that he's always wanted (but disingenuously did not campaign for) and presenting that as a compromise. It's unsurprising he's been completely marginalised. His entire MO has been fraudulent.
Look, absolutely nobody is calling Daniel Hannan a busted flush who would have done better pursuing a career as a stage pixie than going into politics.
Meanwhile, who can come up with a word that means 'permanent backstop' that sounds like it means 'temporary backstop'?
Call it time-limited, just don't mention that it's the start time rather than the end time which is limited
Good solution. You could beef it up by making it a guaranteed start time.
Genius. Can't debate the big issue because reality will piss off too many Tory MPs and bring down May. But its definitely the EU's fault that we haven't reached an agreement yet.
That backs up the idea that May’s focus has always been on the endgame.
I've now lost track of what the ERG's problem actually is with Chequers.....
1. They say there are solutions for the border in NI that will meet the no hard border requirement. 2. Any backstop will only kick in for the length of time needed to implement a soft border. 3. The Future relationship document will be aspirational and not lock down the nature of the future trade deal. 4. A transition period would apply until end 2020.
If their assertions are honest then they can:
1. Allow the deal to progress, knowing that the backstop is moot, because they have a full border plan in their back pocket. If any new UK Internal barrier is a problem, they could even direct towards full UK SM adoption in the backstop! 2. They can move to replace TM in March next year and still have 21 months to steer to a Canada++ deal, which they still assert is a dead easy deal to reach.
For their purposes, they do not even need to have a time limited backstop, just a backstop conditional on their ready to go border being implemented, and they should be pressing simply to ensure the detail of that conditionality ensures an honest and unbiased verification of the border implementation when it is ready.
If, on the other hand, their assertions are rancidly dishonest, then I would expect them to be behaving more in the way that we now observe.
I think they argue that the EU will dismiss any border solution the UK presents, knowing that they can keep us in the CU.
Keeping us in the CU would be a tremendous result for the EU and their £100bn trade surplus with us...
Of course, remaining in the CU also keeps their kitty topped up - as they get a proportion of the revenues that the CET raises, too.
They get 80% of tariff revenue - I think it is something like 2.5bn per year.
But in relation to the first port by Pro_Rata, yes, the issue is that the EU will have no incentive whatsoever to agree any solution to the NI border once we are locked into the CU where they can control us.
So, Archer, it is not the fact or exact nature of the backstop that is problematic. It is the fear that the EU could hold us in the backstop indefinitely for political reasons.
Do you agree with me, then, that the mechanism for exiting the backstop is a key piece, and that the ERG should have been pushing for this element rather than rejecting the backstop as a whole?
You start with rejection and grudging accept the mechanism when your counterparts offers it
Is that on the back of Shippers' story (or HYUFD's summary of it here) that had DD as one of four being mooted for the Michael Howard coronation role? It struck me as a puff piece for one of the others but I could not work out which one.
Theresa May's weird rant over immigration at the Tory conference a few years ago coupled with her atrocious performance on this issue while at the Home Office should have provided the necessary warning signs. She thinks a successful Brexit is one where the FoM red line is not breached to the exclusion of everything else. Of course back in 2016 we had all those regular reports of sub Saharans etc flooding into southern Europe with the prospect that if we remained in the EU many of them will find their way into the UK. Time has now moved on.
To the extent I blame Leavers it is in their abject failure to provide a credible Leave contender to defeat May in the leadership election in 2016 leaving us with this dysfunctional situation at the top.
Dunno, ending FoM still seems like the main thing the voters are expecting, doesn't it? I know the Tory MPs who have been pushing for Brexit for all these years are mainly interested in the Libertarian Pirate Island angle, but there's no sign the voters are into that, and the Leave campaign wisely said as little as possible about it in the referendum.
The Libertarian Pirate Island angle is the smallest slither of a side issue.
If there hadn't been mass immigration from 2004 onwards, UKIP wouldn't have won the Euros or got 12% at a GE. FoM is the reason the referendum was called, and the reason Leave won. It is all it is about.
Whose fault is that? Blair for failing to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations
There were more votes in it for Labour to allow mass immigration.
The big flaw in that argument is that EU citizens can’t vote in general elections.
If May goes then pile on #bridgen4pm at any odds. He's the hero we need but not the hero we deserve.
Geoffrey Cox QC the Attorney General would be better, by far the brightest in the Cabinet and probably the richest as well and a Leaver but not an insane one and a brilliant speaker as he showed at the Tory conference as May's warm up. He would slaughter Corbyn at PMQs
Jeremy Hunt is the richest member of the cabinet by far.
Does he earn £700 000 a year still like Cox? Hunt is getting camper by the day and he blew his chances with his conference 'EU prison' gaffe
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
My personal opinion on why it is such a balls up is that it is because it is being negotiated by people who think leaving is the wrong thing to do.
I think you are probably right, but they were not helped by the red lines which were put in place to appease those who thought that leaving was the right thing to do and that their version of leaving in particular was the one we should (have) pursue(d).
No FoM red line and a lot of problems go away. But of course the British public in polls have said they don't like foreigners, but this is where May should have lead not followed. She manifestly doesn't want to bring immigration down because she didn't do so when she was in charge of it, so she should have backed herself and said that FoM will be mitigated by all kinds of permissible restraints but that it is more important to leave the political structures of the EU which is how she interpreted the vote.
She did none of these things, thus infuriating leavers and remainers alike. Problem is, as the tweet above mentions, she is dealing with international treaties, not the Home Office, where no one cares from one fudge to another, not to say they don't notice them.
Opposing FoM is not the same as disliking foreigners
Though the overlap in that venn diagram is huge.
Thoroughly disagree. Concerns over FOM have always been high, but look at how many votes an overtly racist party gets in UK - 1-2% maximum.
'It’s understood Meghan has had her three month scan, meaning she has just entered her second trimester.
That would mean a due date of April is likely, although she could of course be slightly early which could see her giving birth at the end of March. This means Harry and Meghan’s baby could easily fall on Brexit day, which is Friday 29 March 2019.'
Congratulations to the Sussexes and the royal family will now have a mixed race baby
Nothing wrong with redheads.
What are the odds on the baby being called Brexitina!
If May goes then pile on #bridgen4pm at any odds. He's the hero we need but not the hero we deserve.
Geoffrey Cox QC the Attorney General would be better, by far the brightest in the Cabinet and probably the richest as well and a Leaver but not an insane one and a brilliant speaker as he showed at the Tory conference as May's warm up. He would slaughter Corbyn at PMQs
Rather interested to observe that when Israel beat Scotland at football last week (not much of an achievement as everyone beats Scotland at football) three of their players were Arabs; so much for those who call Israel an "apartheid state".
If May goes then pile on #bridgen4pm at any odds. He's the hero we need but not the hero we deserve.
Geoffrey Cox QC the Attorney General would be better, by far the brightest in the Cabinet and probably the richest as well and a Leaver but not an insane one and a brilliant speaker as he showed at the Tory conference as May's warm up. He would slaughter Corbyn at PMQs
Genius. Can't debate the big issue because reality will piss off too many Tory MPs and bring down May. But its definitely the EU's fault that we haven't reached an agreement yet.
Leaving the details aside, it also shows that there has been a high degree of collusion between May and Barnier. Good news for grown ups who want things sorted out sensibly. Sensational news for conspirophobes looking for a stab in the back narrative.
Rather interested to observe that when Israel beat Scotland at football last week (not much of an achievement as everyone beats Scotland at football) three of their players were Arabs; so much for those who call Israel an "apartheid state".
There used to be 3 or 4 Arabs in the Scotland team but Dundee United are in a bad place at the moment.
If May goes then pile on #bridgen4pm at any odds. He's the hero we need but not the hero we deserve.
Geoffrey Cox QC the Attorney General would be better, by far the brightest in the Cabinet and probably the richest as well and a Leaver but not an insane one and a brilliant speaker as he showed at the Tory conference as May's warm up. He would slaughter Corbyn at PMQs
Jeremy Hunt is the richest member of the cabinet by far.
Does he earn £700 000 a year still like Cox? Hunt is getting camper by the day and he blew his chances with his conference 'EU prison' gaffe
Cox will have given up earning £700k a year to become AG.
I expect the vote to be respected (though it is a terrible idea). Some recognition of the concerns of Remainers and some basic civility from Leavers rather than labelling them as traitors, saboteurs, quislings etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
Some recognition of the concerns of Leavers and some basic civility from Remainers rather than labelling them as xenophobes, racists, swivel-eyed, etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
Leavers want Brexit to work. It’s their job to persuade the unpersuaded. They decided they preferred to try to grind them into the ground. This has proved suboptimal.
Actually die-hards on both sides feed off each other. Their special contempt is reserved for compromisers. You only have to see the vitriol aimed at Dan Hannan in the Telegraph by ultra Leavers or at Caroline Flint by Labour reversers.
Dan Hannan is not a compromiser. He's advocating precisely the version of Brexit that he's always wanted (but disingenuously did not campaign for) and presenting that as a compromise. It's unsurprising he's been completely marginalised. His entire MO has been fraudulent.
Look, absolutely nobody is calling Daniel Hannan a busted flush who would have done better pursuing a career as a stage pixie than going into politics.
Meanwhile, who can come up with a word that means 'permanent backstop' that sounds like it means 'temporary backstop'?
Consensual backstop
(Meaning it only ends by mutual consent but sounds like it only continues by mutual consent)
If May goes then pile on #bridgen4pm at any odds. He's the hero we need but not the hero we deserve.
Geoffrey Cox QC the Attorney General would be better, by far the brightest in the Cabinet and probably the richest as well and a Leaver but not an insane one and a brilliant speaker as he showed at the Tory conference as May's warm up. He would slaughter Corbyn at PMQs
He looks like a fucking Benjamin Netanyahu action figure.
A depressed looking flabby middle aged white man is not what the tories need.
The Cod Churchill that Cox delivers so well enthralls Cod Churchillians, but Cod Churchill is not going to make the entirely self-inflicted realities of a No Deal any more enticing.
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
My personal opinion on why it is such a balls up is that it is because it is being negotiated by people who think leaving is the wrong thing to do.
I think you are probably right, but they were not helped by the red lines which were put in place to appease those who thought that leaving was the right thing to do and that their version of leaving in particular was the one we should (have) pursue(d).
No FoM red line and a lot of problems go away. But of course the British public in polls have said they don't like foreigners, but this is where May should have lead not followed. She manifestly doesn't want to bring immigration down because she didn't do so when she was in charge of it, so she should have backed herself and said that FoM will be mitigated by all kinds of permissible restraints but that it is more important to leave the political structures of the EU which is how she interpreted the vote.
She did none of these things, thus infuriating leavers and remainers alike. Problem is, as the tweet above mentions, she is dealing with international treaties, not the Home Office, where no one cares from one fudge to another, not to say they don't notice them.
Opposing FoM is not the same as disliking foreigners
Though the overlap in that venn diagram is huge.
Thoroughly disagree. Concerns over FOM have always been high, but look at how many votes an overtly racist party gets in UK - 1-2% maximum.
Both Tories and UKIP campaigned on massive reductions in immigration, rather cheekily considering Mrs May completely failed to do so as Home Secretary. We all know that anti-immigration feeling was the big driver of the Leave vote.
Incidentally, it was you who used the term racism, I merely pointed out that those opposing FOM dislike foreigners.
It's a great pity that, because of other news, the report on bullying at the House of Commons and the authorities' lamentable failure to deal with it will get overlooked. It deserves far more attention than it is likely to get. Today, anyway.
So - what are the odds TMay announces that there will be a No Deal Brexit, that we are preparing a host of micro-deals to try to minimise the impacts, and ends by throwing it over to the EU and saying something along the lines that it'll hurt them as well and it's in their power to stop all this.
Theresa May's weird rant over immigration at the Tory conference a few years ago coupled with her atrocious performance on this issue while at the Home Office should have provided the necessary warning signs. She thinks a successful Brexit is one where the FoM red line is not breached to the exclusion of everything else. Of course back in 2016 we had all those regular reports of sub Saharans etc flooding into southern Europe with the prospect that if we remained in the EU many of them will find their way into the UK. Time has now moved on.
To the extent I blame Leavers it is in their abject failure to provide a credible Leave contender to defeat May in the leadership election in 2016 leaving us with this dysfunctional situation at the top.
Dunno, ending FoM still seems like the main thing the voters are expecting, doesn't it? I know the Tory MPs who have been pushing for Brexit for all these years are mainly interested in the Libertarian Pirate Island angle, but there's no sign the voters are into that, and the Leave campaign wisely said as little as possible about it in the referendum.
The Libertarian Pirate Island angle is the smallest slither of a side issue.
If there hadn't been mass immigration from 2004 onwards, UKIP wouldn't have won the Euros or got 12% at a GE. FoM is the reason the referendum was called, and the reason Leave won. It is all it is about.
Whose fault is that? Blair for failing to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 unlike most EU nations
There were more votes in it for Labour to allow mass immigration.
The big flaw in that argument is that EU citizens can’t vote in general elections.
But they can become British citizens, marry British citizens and procreate British citizens. They can also vote in local elections which gives parties the power base for success at general elections, and become Party members.
If May goes then pile on #bridgen4pm at any odds. He's the hero we need but not the hero we deserve.
Geoffrey Cox QC the Attorney General would be better, by far the brightest in the Cabinet and probably the richest as well and a Leaver but not an insane one and a brilliant speaker as he showed at the Tory conference as May's warm up. He would slaughter Corbyn at PMQs
Jeremy Hunt is the richest member of the cabinet by far.
Does he earn £700 000 a year still like Cox? Hunt is getting camper by the day and he blew his chances with his conference 'EU prison' gaffe
Cox will have taken a pay cut to become AG. And one good conference speech as Theresa May's warm-up man does not make him the next leader.
Hunt looks shabby and needs to nip down Savile Row sharpish if his legion of backers are to collect.
I expect the vote to be respected (though it is a terrible idea). Some recognition of the concerns of Remainers and some basic civility from Leavers rather than labelling them as traitors, saboteurs, quislings etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
Some recognition of the concerns of Leavers and some basic civility from Remainers rather than labelling them as xenophobes, racists, swivel-eyed, etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
Leavers want Brexit to work. It’s their job to persuade the unpersuaded. They decided they preferred to try to grind them into the ground. This has proved suboptimal.
Actually die-hards on both sides feed off each other. Their special contempt is reserved for compromisers. You only have to see the vitriol aimed at Dan Hannan in the Telegraph by ultra Leavers or at Caroline Flint by Labour reversers.
Dan Hannan is not a compromiser. He's advocating precisely the version of Brexit that he's always wanted (but disingenuously did not campaign for) and presenting that as a compromise. It's unsurprising he's been completely marginalised. His entire MO has been fraudulent.
Look, absolutely nobody is calling Daniel Hannan a busted flush who would have done better pursuing a career as a stage pixie than going into politics.
Meanwhile, who can come up with a word that means 'permanent backstop' that sounds like it means 'temporary backstop'?
"Contingent".
The whole thing is a red herring. There's a simple solution to this one that should be acceptable to everyone and I'm sure better minds than mine will have spotted this immediately.
I expect the vote to be respected (though it is a terrible idea). Some recognition of the concerns of Remainers and some basic civility from Leavers rather than labelling them as traitors, saboteurs, quislings etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
Some recognition of the concerns of Leavers and some basic civility from Remainers rather than labelling them as xenophobes, racists, swivel-eyed, etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
Leavers want Brexit to work. It’s their job to persuade the unpersuaded. They decided they preferred to try to grind them into the ground. This has proved suboptimal.
Actually die-hards on both sides feed off each other. Their special contempt is reserved for compromisers. You only have to see the vitriol aimed at Dan Hannan in the Telegraph by ultra Leavers or at Caroline Flint by Labour reversers.
Dan Hannan is not a compromiser. He's advocating precisely the version of Brexit that he's always wanted (but disingenuously did not campaign for) and presenting that as a compromise. It's unsurprising he's been completely marginalised. His entire MO has been fraudulent.
Your reply (as an ultra Remainer) rather illustrates my point though as that is exactly the criticism the Leave ultras make of him in the DT. Perhaps a better example would be Chris Booker, a Leaver before many Leavers were out of their nappies, now berated by ultras as a Remainer in disguise because of his support for the Norway option..
If May goes then pile on #bridgen4pm at any odds. He's the hero we need but not the hero we deserve.
Geoffrey Cox QC the Attorney General would be better, by far the brightest in the Cabinet and probably the richest as well and a Leaver but not an insane one and a brilliant speaker as he showed at the Tory conference as May's warm up. He would slaughter Corbyn at PMQs
Jeremy Hunt is the richest member of the cabinet by far.
Does he earn £700 000 a year still like Cox? Hunt is getting camper by the day and he blew his chances with his conference 'EU prison' gaffe
Cox will have taken a pay cut to become AG. And one good conference speech as Theresa May's warm-up man does not make him the next leader.
Hunt looks shabby and needs to nip down Savile Row sharpish if his legion of backers are to collect.
I agree with the latter point. For a rich man his suits look shapeless.
If May goes then pile on #bridgen4pm at any odds. He's the hero we need but not the hero we deserve.
Geoffrey Cox QC the Attorney General would be better, by far the brightest in the Cabinet and probably the richest as well and a Leaver but not an insane one and a brilliant speaker as he showed at the Tory conference as May's warm up. He would slaughter Corbyn at PMQs
He looks like a fucking Benjamin Netanyahu action figure.
A depressed looking flabby middle aged white man is not what the tories need.
The Cod Churchill that Cox delivers so well enthralls Cod Churchillians, but Cod Churchill is not going to make the entirely self-inflicted realities of a No Deal any more enticing.
He should be deselected on the basis of the comb-over alone.
If May goes then pile on #bridgen4pm at any odds. He's the hero we need but not the hero we deserve.
Geoffrey Cox QC the Attorney General would be better, by far the brightest in the Cabinet and probably the richest as well and a Leaver but not an insane one and a brilliant speaker as he showed at the Tory conference as May's warm up. He would slaughter Corbyn at PMQs
On him at 150/1.
I think that's well worth the odds. He voted Leave I think also. I've put on a fiver at 129/1 on betfair just now.
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
My personal opinion on why it is such a balls up is that it is because it is being negotiated by people who think leaving is the wrong thing to do.
I think you are probably right, but they were not helped by the red lines which were put in place to appease those who thought that leaving was the right thing to do and that their version of leaving in particular was the one we should (have) pursue(d).
No FoM red line and a lot of problems go away. But of course the British public in polls have said they don't like foreigners, but this is where May should have lead not followed. She manifestly doesn't want to bring immigration down because she didn't do so when she was in charge of it, so she should have backed herself and said that FoM will be mitigated by all kinds of permissible restraints but that it is more important to leave the political structures of the EU which is how she interpreted the vote.
She did none of these things, thus infuriating leavers and remainers alike. Problem is, as the tweet above mentions, she is dealing with international treaties, not the Home Office, where no one cares from one fudge to another, not to say they don't notice them.
Opposing FoM is not the same as disliking foreigners
Though the overlap in that venn diagram is huge.
Data?
I’m sure there is some overlap but the U.K. is the most tolerant EU country
Moreover as someone posted up thread there is a clear majority (60%+?) support for treating EU immigration like immigration from other parts of the world
I expect the vote to be respected (though it is a terrible idea). Some recognition of the concerns of Remainers and some basic civility from Leavers rather than labelling them as traitors, saboteurs, quislings etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
Some recognition of the concerns of Leavers and some basic civility from Remainers rather than labelling them as xenophobes, racists, swivel-eyed, etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
Leavers want Brexit to work. It’s their job to persuade the unpersuaded. They decided they preferred to try to grind them into the ground. This has proved suboptimal.
Actually die-hards on both sides feed off each other. Their special contempt is reserved for compromisers. You only have to see the vitriol aimed at Dan Hannan in the Telegraph by ultra Leavers or at Caroline Flint by Labour reversers.
Dan Hannan is not a compromiser. He's advocating precisely the version of Brexit that he's always wanted (but disingenuously did not campaign for) and presenting that as a compromise. It's unsurprising he's been completely marginalised. His entire MO has been fraudulent.
Your reply (as an ultra Remainer) rather illustrates my point though as that is exactly the criticism the Leave ultras make of him in the DT. Perhaps a better example would be Chris Booker, a Leaver before many Leavers were out of their nappies, now berated by ultras as a Remainer in disguise because his support for the Norway option..
My reply is entirely factual. He's presenting as a compromise the version of Brexit he has always sought. This is a matter of record.
I expect the vote to be respected (though it is a terrible idea). Some recognition of the concerns of Remainers and some basic civility from Leavers rather than labelling them as traitors, saboteurs, quislings etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
Some recognition of the concerns of Leavers and some basic civility from Remainers rather than labelling them as xenophobes, racists, swivel-eyed, etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
Leavers want Brexit to work. It’s their job to persuade the unpersuaded. They decided they preferred to try to grind them into the ground. This has proved suboptimal.
Actually die-hards on both sides feed off each other. Their special contempt is reserved for compromisers. You only have to see the vitriol aimed at Dan Hannan in the Telegraph by ultra Leavers or at Caroline Flint by Labour reversers.
Dan Hannan is not a compromiser. He's advocating precisely the version of Brexit that he's always wanted (but disingenuously did not campaign for) and presenting that as a compromise. It's unsurprising he's been completely marginalised. His entire MO has been fraudulent.
Look, absolutely nobody is calling Daniel Hannan a busted flush who would have done better pursuing a career as a stage pixie than going into politics.
Meanwhile, who can come up with a word that means 'permanent backstop' that sounds like it means 'temporary backstop'?
Consensual backstop
(Meaning it only ends by mutual consent but sounds like it only continues by mutual consent)
Very good. I wouldn't actually be surprised if they actually use that. We'll never know if they got from you sadly.
I don't want to make any over-confident predictions, but I'm about 98% confident that May's statement this afternoon will be her saying, in fluent Russian, that she's a KGB agent whose mission was to undermine the UK by doing the worst possible job of the Brexit negotiations. Tories still won't VONC her in case they end up with Boris.
If May goes then pile on #bridgen4pm at any odds. He's the hero we need but not the hero we deserve.
Geoffrey Cox QC the Attorney General would be better, by far the brightest in the Cabinet and probably the richest as well and a Leaver but not an insane one and a brilliant speaker as he showed at the Tory conference as May's warm up. He would slaughter Corbyn at PMQs
Jeremy Hunt is the richest member of the cabinet by far.
Does he earn £700 000 a year still like Cox? Hunt is getting camper by the day and he blew his chances with his conference 'EU prison' gaffe
Comments
"Fuck off. Please, just fuck off."
Very gracious.
One might as well quote Mr. Smithson and assume all gamblers here get 50/1 winning tips all the time.
Because you were claiming that Leavers were all complicit in violence against migrants, following the Referendum result.
Very gracious.
In this grave hour, perhaps the most fateful in our history, I send to every household of my peoples, both at home and overseas, this message, spoken with the same depth of feeling for each one of you as if I were able to cross your threshold and speak to you myself.
For the second time, sorry, I mean the first time in the lives of most of us, we are at Brexit.
Over and over again, we have tried to find a peaceful way out of the differences between ourselves and those who are now running the European Union; but it has been in vain.
We have been forced into a Brexit, for we are called, with our DUP allies, to meet the challenge of a principle which, if it were to prevail, would be fatal to any civilized order in the world.
It is a principle which permits a Suprastate, in the selfish pursuit of power, to disregard its treaties and its solemn pledges, which sanctions the use of EU Diktats or threat of Diktats against the sovereignty and independence of other states.
Such a principle, stripped of all disguise, is surely the mere primitive doctrine that might is right, and if this principle were established through the world, the freedom of our own country and of the whole British Commonwealth of nations would be in danger.
But far more than this, the peoples of Europe would be kept in bondage of fear, and all hopes of settled peace and of the security, of justice and liberty, among nations, would be ended.
This is the ultimate issue which confronts us. For the sake of all that we ourselves hold dear, and of the world order and peace, it is unthinkable that we should refuse to meet the Brexit challenge.
It is to this high purpose that I now call my people at home, and my expats in the Costas, who will make our cause their own.
I ask them to stand calm and firm and united in this time of trial.
The task will be hard. There may be dark days ahead, and Brexit can no longer be confined to Tweets on social media, but we can only do the right as we see the right, and reverently commit our cause to Boris. If one and all we keep resolutely faithful to it, ready for whatever service or sacrifice it may demand, then with Boris's help, we shall prevail.
May He bless and keep us all.
This is from Lancaster House:
While I am sure a positive agreement can be reached – I am equally clear that no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain.
Because we would still be able to trade with Europe. We would be free to strike trade deals across the world. And we would have the freedom to set the competitive tax rates and embrace the policies that would attract the world’s best companies and biggest investors to Britain. And – if we were excluded from accessing the single market – we would be free to change the basis of Britain’s economic model.
But for the EU, it would mean new barriers to trade with one of the biggest economies in the world. It would jeopardise investments in Britain by EU companies worth more than half a trillion pounds. It would mean a loss of access for European firms to the financial services of the City of London. It would risk exports from the EU to Britain worth around £290 billion every year. And it would disrupt the sophisticated and integrated supply chains upon which many EU companies rely.
Important sectors of the EU economy would also suffer. We are a crucial – profitable – export market for Europe’s automotive industry, as well as sectors including energy, food and drink, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and agriculture. These sectors employ millions of people around Europe. And I do not believe that the EU’s leaders will seriously tell German exporters, French farmers, Spanish fishermen, the young unemployed of the Eurozone, and millions of others, that they want to make them poorer, just to punish Britain and make a political point.
Do you agree with me, then, that the mechanism for exiting the backstop is a key piece, and that the ERG should have been pushing for this element rather than rejecting the backstop as a whole?
https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/15/when-is-meghan-markles-due-date-as-the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex-reveal-royal-baby-news-8038702/
'It’s understood Meghan has had her three month scan, meaning she has just entered her second trimester.
That would mean a due date of April is likely, although she could of course be slightly early which could see her giving birth at the end of March. This means Harry and Meghan’s baby could easily fall on Brexit day, which is Friday 29 March 2019.'
Sums it up perfectly.
The electorate was told that it could make two plus two equal five merely by voting for it to be so. But reality has now dawned.
https://twitter.com/TomMcTague/status/1051787678633680896
But it will probably be Phil for a boy and Elizabeth for a girl.
To paraphrase 'Morgan - Why do you think we should we hold a people's vote because 100,000 people go on a protest march when you and Blair ignored the 1.7 million who marched against the war in Iraq. If you had listened to them and had a people's vote on that we wouldn't have started the war and 1 million people might not have died as a result. Response - But we had an elected PM!'
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/showbiz-tv/hot-tv/736476/Good-Morning-Britain-Piers-Morgan-Alistair-Campbell-Brexit-Susanna-Reid-Charlotte-Hawkins
https://www.thedailybeast.com/elizabeth-warren-releases-native-american-dna-test-results
Seems like it should be enough to run on a Pocahontas 2020 slogan.
https://twitter.com/CommonsLeader/status/1051794863841300486
The referendum was supposed to set the course of the country for the long term. If that decision is going to stick, a consensus needs to be forged. Leave advocates have not even tried to forge such a consensus. At every stage they have sought to divide and marginalise, whipping themselves up into a frenzy and pursuing ever more extreme versions of Brexit that were never contemplated by even the most swivel-eyed before the vote.
The complete failure to build a consensus is perhaps unsurprising, given the xenophobic lies on which the Leave campaign was founded, but the failure even to try has sunk Brexit below the waterline even before Britain has left the EU.
Perhaps she should do 'Who do you think you are' and try and trace back who this person was - to find out whether they voluntarily participated in the process?
It might be more appropriate for her to run as Sitting Bull who led the resistance against US government policies.
Meanwhile, who can come up with a word that means 'permanent backstop' that sounds like it means 'temporary backstop'?
Remember, the winning margin for Yes for the Welsh Assembly in 1997 was only 0.6%!
A depressed looking flabby middle aged white man is not what the tories need.
Genius. Can't debate the big issue because reality will piss off too many Tory MPs and bring down May. But its definitely the EU's fault that we haven't reached an agreement yet.
It is temporary for when England play at Old Trafford and for T20 matches, but will be a permanent fixture for those matches.
Being gracious is not the same as being supine
(also ageist and "fattist"!)
(Meaning it only ends by mutual consent but sounds like it only continues by mutual consent)
Incidentally, it was you who used the term racism, I merely pointed out that those opposing FOM dislike foreigners.
Hunt looks shabby and needs to nip down Savile Row sharpish if his legion of backers are to collect.
The whole thing is a red herring. There's a simple solution to this one that should be acceptable to everyone and I'm sure better minds than mine will have spotted this immediately.
Anyway, must be off. I do wonder just how many minutes late May will be for her own announcement. I'm going with a conservative guess of seven.
I've put on a fiver at 129/1 on betfair just now.
I’m sure there is some overlap but the U.K. is the most tolerant EU country
Moreover as someone posted up thread there is a clear majority (60%+?) support for treating EU immigration like immigration from other parts of the world
Life is full of gray shading
https://twitter.com/irnbru/status/1051772309743251456