If May comes back with no deal, she is not going to propose or allow a referendum. She ruled out a second referendum any number of times today. She will either say there is no possible deal and we have to live with it, or resign.
Given that you constantly traduce her on everything else, why do you take every statement she makes about this at face value?
At some point if you have no credibility you can't continue. She can fudge some red lines in a negotiation, but if you blatantly backtrack on a fundamental issue you can't continue.
And to be honest, I don't think May thinks a second referendum will solve anything at all - it will just unleash total chaos. Nobody will be able to agree the questions, Leave will boycott - people are not just going to say 'hey, great idea'. 45% of the country think we should No Deal according to HYUFD - why the hell are they going to support a second referendum?
The Tory MPs do not actually support a second ref as it would destroy them at the next election - especially if Remain won. It just doesn't make any sense to do it.
Great. That is one more vote to reject May's deal.
The most worrying feature today for May was the hardcore Remainers saying they won't support Chequers. So they vote down May's deal and then realise there is no majority for anything else and we get no deal. Fine by me.
Chequers was dead anyway as the EU rejected it.
Given Grieve is now another committed vote for EUref2 along with Rudd etc if No Deal and May's suggestion today she will leave it to Parliament to decide the next course if No Deal we could well be heading for EUref2 or at least staying in the single market
You need to advise TM that Chequers is dead, as she mentioned about half a dozen times today that she thought that it was still going to solve the NI border.
I know I get on well with Theresa generally depite her faults but I doubt I have that much influence
Great. That is one more vote to reject May's deal.
The most worrying feature today for May was the hardcore Remainers saying they won't support Chequers. So they vote down May's deal and then realise there is no majority for anything else and we get no deal. Fine by me.
Chequers was dead anyway as the EU rejected it.
Given Grieve is now another committed vote for EUref2 along with Rudd etc if No Deal and May's suggestion today she will leave it to Parliament to decide the next course if No Deal we could well be heading for EUref2 or at least staying in the single market
We see this the same way
If May comes back with no deal, she is not going to propose or allow a referendum. She ruled out a second referendum any number of times today. She will either say there is no possible deal and we have to live with it, or resign.
If her deal is voted down, she is highly likely to resign.
There is no mechanism by which the HoC can negotiate a deal. To pass legislation, they have to have Government support to even get it on the order paper. A second ref actually does not have anything like a majority in the Tory party, won't solve any problem and will get boycotted by Leave anyway - a Tory Government will not propose it. The only outcome that HoC might try to impose is Norway, but that still requires acceptance of the backstop, and there is not a majority to accept the backstop. The DUP will force a GE rather than accept that.
A far more likely outcome is May resigning, a Tory leaver taking over (say Raab) and the execution of no deal.
Why would Norway require acceptance of a backstop?
Because the UK can leave the EEA without the permission of the EU. Therefore, the Boles idea of using it as a 'lifeboat' will be the obvious concern - we can join and just leave two years later. The backstop is designed to avoid this circumstance so it will still be required by the EU.
Had we STFU and opted for Norway eighteen months ago, the concern would likely never have arisen. But of course that would have been ‘betraying the spirit of Brexit’.
The policy makers should just cancel Brexit. Those that foolishly supported Leave need to admit that they did not have the faintest idea of what they were talking about and they need to, albeit belatedly, apologise to the Nation.
Not a great fan of a second referendum - it will just deepen the massive divide already in the country.
Cancellation only hope....
Brexit = a calamity! Brexiteers = deluded fantasists!
Great. That is one more vote to reject May's deal.
The most worrying feature today for May was the hardcore Remainers saying they won't support Chequers. So they vote down May's deal and then realise there is no majority for anything else and we get no deal. Fine by me.
Chequers was dead anyway as the EU rejected it.
Given Grieve is now another committed vote for EUref2 along with Rudd etc if No Deal and May's suggestion today she will leave it to Parliament to decide the next course if No Deal we could well be heading for EUref2 or at least staying in the single market
We see this the same way
If May comes back with no deal, she is not going to propose or allow a referendum. She ruled out a second referendum any number of times today. She will either say there is no possible deal and we have to live with it, or resign.
If her deal is voted down, she is highly likely to resign.
There is no mechanism by which the HoC can negotiate a deal. To pass legislation, they have to have Government support to even get it on the order paper. A second ref actually does not have anything like a majority in the Tory party, won't solve any problem and will get boycotted by Leave anyway - a Tory Government will not propose it. The only outcome that HoC might try to impose is Norway, but that still requires acceptance of the backstop, and there is not a majority to accept the backstop. The DUP will force a GE rather than accept that.
A far more likely outcome is May resigning, a Tory leaver taking over (say Raab) and the execution of no deal.
You know, I do admire your fortitude for your cause, but TM stated in the HOC ( recorded in Hansard) that if she could not achieve a deal she would come back to the HOC and the HOC will decide.
If the HOC decide to put it to a referendum it will happen
My hope remains that TM gets a deal but you are one of only a few posters who see no deal as viable. I have said that I have an open mind and that open mind has been pursuaded by the arguments no deal is not sustainable
Great. That is one more vote to reject May's deal.
The most worrying feature today for May was the hardcore Remainers saying they won't support Chequers. So they vote down May's deal and then realise there is no majority for anything else and we get no deal. Fine by me.
Chequers was dead anyway as the EU rejected it.
Given Grieve is now another committed vote for EUref2 along with Rudd etc if No Deal and May's suggestion today she will leave it to Parliament to decide the next course if No Deal we could well be heading for EUref2 or at least staying in the single market
We see this the same way
If May comes back with no deal, she is not going to propose or allow a referendum. She ruled out a second referendum any number of times today. She will either say there is no possible deal and we have to live with it, or resign.
If her deal is voted down, she is highly likely to resign.
There is no mechanism by which the HoC can negotiate a deal. To pass legislation, they have to have Government support to even get it on the order paper. A second ref actually does not have anything like a majority in the Tory party, won't solve any problem and will get boycotted by Leave anyway - a Tory Government will not propose it. The only outcome that HoC might try to impose is Norway, but that still requires acceptance of the backstop, and there is not a majority to accept the backstop. The DUP will force a GE rather than accept that.
A far more likely outcome is May resigning, a Tory leaver taking over (say Raab) and the execution of no deal.
I think you underestimate the potential role of the Speaker.
Great. That is one more vote to reject May's deal.
The most worrying feature today for May was the hardcore Remainers saying they won't support Chequers. So they vote down May's deal and then realise there is no majority for anything else and we get no deal. Fine by me.
Chequers was dead anyway as the EU rejected it.
Given Grieve is now another committed vote for EUref2 along with Rudd etc if No Deal and May's suggestion today she will leave it to Parliament to decide the next course if No Deal we could well be heading for EUref2 or at least staying in the single market
We see this the same way
If May comes back with no deal, she is not going to propose or allow a referendum. She ruled out a second referendum any number of times today. She will either say there is no possible deal and we have to live with it, or resign.
If her deal is voted down, she is highly likely to resign.
There is no mechanism by which the HoC can negotiate a deal. To pass legislation, they have to have Government support to even get it on the order paper. A second ref actually does not have anything like a majority in the Tory party, won't solve any problem and will get boycotted by Leave anyway - a Tory Government will not propose it. The only outcome that HoC might try to impose is Norway, but that still requires acceptance of the backstop, and there is not a majority to accept the backstop. The DUP will force a GE rather than accept that.
A far more likely outcome is May resigning, a Tory leaver taking over (say Raab) and the execution of no deal.
You know, I do admire your fortitude for your cause, but TM stated in the HOC ( recorded in Hansard) that if she could not achieve a deal she would come back to the HOC and the HOC will decide.
If the HOC decide to put it to a referendum it will happen
My hope remains that TM gets a deal but you are one of only a few posters who see no deal as viable. I have said that I have an open mind and that open mind has been pursuaded by the arguments no deal is not sustainable
Mr G, I do not share your politics, but in any struggle I’d want people like you on my side. I hugely admire your spirit. People like you are what makes a country great.
Great. That is one more vote to reject May's deal.
The most worrying feature today for May was the hardcore Remainers saying they won't support Chequers. So they vote down May's deal and then realise there is no majority for anything else and we get no deal. Fine by me.
Chequers was dead anyway as the EU rejected it.
Given Grieve is now another committed vote for EUref2 along with Rudd etc if No Deal and May's suggestion today she will leave it to Parliament to decide the next course if No Deal we could well be heading for EUref2 or at least staying in the single market
We see this the same way
If May comes back with no deal, she is not going to propose or allow a referendum. She ruled out a second referendum any number of times today. She will either say there is no possible deal and we have to live with it, or resign.
If her deal is voted down, she is highly likely to resign.
There is no mechanism by which the HoC can negotiate a deal. To pass legislation, they have to have Government support to even get it on the order paper. A second ref actually does not have anything like a majority in the Tory party, won't solve any problem and will get boycotted by Leave anyway - a Tory Government will not propose it. The only outcome that HoC might try to impose is Norway, but that still requires acceptance of the backstop, and there is not a majority to accept the backstop. The DUP will force a GE rather than accept that.
A far more likely outcome is May resigning, a Tory leaver taking over (say Raab) and the execution of no deal.
Why would Norway require acceptance of a backstop?
Because the UK can leave the EEA without the permission of the EU. Therefore, the Boles idea of using it as a 'lifeboat' will be the obvious concern - we can join and just leave two years later. The backstop is designed to avoid this circumstance so it will still be required by the EU.
The biggest proponent of using the EEA as a stepping stone, Dr North was always clear that the EU would never accept it. He has always stated that we would have to force it by saying we have not legally left the EEA agreement whilst legally saying we have left the EU. He believed we had 2 to 3 years before the ECJ ruled we had left the EEA as well, but it meant we had 4 to 5 years to get everything in good legal order for leaving.
The policy makers should just cancel Brexit. Those that foolishly supported Leave need to admit that they did not have the faintest idea of what they were talking about and they need to, albeit belatedly, apologise to the Nation.
Not a great fan of a second referendum - it will just deepen the massive divide already in the country.
Cancellation only hope....
Brexit = a calamity! Brexiteers = deluded fantasists!
Perhaps you're afraid a second referendum would give people the opportunity to give the same "wrong" answer twice...
I do have moments where I hope there is a "people's" vote, because if said people decided to say F.U. to the E.U. a second time, the looks on remainers' faces would be truly priceless...
Shares in Manchester United have surged in New York amid reports Saudi Arabia's crown prince is considering a takeover of the club.
The Sun newspaper reported Mohammed bin Salman, currently battling claims his country has murdered a prominent journalist, was due to meet club co-owner and co-chair Avram Glazer in the kingdom.
It claimed the prince was interested in supporting the Saudi purchase of a major stake worth about £3bn or a full takeover.
Great. That is one more vote to reject May's deal.
The most worrying feature today for May was the hardcore Remainers saying they won't support Chequers. So they vote down May's deal and then realise there is no majority for anything else and we get no deal. Fine by me.
Chequers was dead anyway as the EU rejected it.
Given Grieve is now another committed vote for EUref2 along with Rudd etc if No Deal and May's suggestion today she will leave it to Parliament to decide the next course if No Deal we could well be heading for EUref2 or at least staying in the single market
We see this the same way
If May comes back with no deal, she is not going to propose or allow a referendum. She ruled out a second referendum any number of times today. She will either say there is no possible deal and we have to live with it, or resign.
If her deal is voted down, she is highly likely to resign.
There is no mechanism by which the HoC can negotiate a deal. To pass legislation, they have to have Government support to even get it on the order paper. A second ref actually does not have anything like a majority in the Tory party, won't solve any problem and will get boycotted by Leave anyway - a Tory Government will not propose it. The only outcome that HoC might try to impose is Norway, but that still requires acceptance of the backstop, and there is not a majority to accept the backstop. The DUP will force a GE rather than accept that.
A far more likely outcome is May resigning, a Tory leaver taking over (say Raab) and the execution of no deal.
You know, I do admire your fortitude for your cause, but TM stated in the HOC ( recorded in Hansard) that if she could not achieve a deal she would come back to the HOC and the HOC will decide.
If the HOC decide to put it to a referendum it will happen
My hope remains that TM gets a deal but you are one of only a few posters who see no deal as viable. I have said that I have an open mind and that open mind has been pursuaded by the arguments no deal is not sustainable
Mr G, I do not share your politics, but in any struggle I’d want people like you on my side. I hugely admire your spirit. People like you are what makes a country great.
I’d prefer something a little closer. A silly extra point, perhaps.
You haven't lived until you've fielded at short leg to a batsman that's like pull or a fielded at silly mid off to a batsman that likes to bash spinners that way.
Great. That is one more vote to reject May's deal.
The most worrying feature today for May was the hardcore Remainers saying they won't support Chequers. So they vote down May's deal and then realise there is no majority for anything else and we get no deal. Fine by me.
Chequers was dead anyway as the EU rejected it.
Given Grieve is now another committed vote for EUref2 along with Rudd etc if No Deal and May's suggestion today she will leave it to Parliament to decide the next course if No Deal we could well be heading for EUref2 or at least staying in the single market
We see this the same way
If May comes back with no deal, she is not going to propose or allow a referendum. She ruled out a second referendum any number of times today. She will either say there is no possible deal and we have to live with it, or resign.
If her deal is voted down, she is highly likely to resign.
There is no mechanism by which the HoC can negotiate a deal. To pass legislation, they have to have Government support to even get it on the order paper. A second ref actually does not have anything like a majority in the Tory party, won't solve any problem and will get boycotted by Leave anyway - a Tory Government will not propose it. The only outcome that HoC might try to impose is Norway, but that still requires acceptance of the backstop, and there is not a majority to accept the backstop. The DUP will force a GE rather than accept that.
A far more likely outcome is May resigning, a Tory leaver taking over (say Raab) and the execution of no deal.
You know, I do admire your fortitude for your cause, but TM stated in the HOC ( recorded in Hansard) that if she could not achieve a deal she would come back to the HOC and the HOC will decide.
If the HOC decide to put it to a referendum it will happen
My hope remains that TM gets a deal but you are one of only a few posters who see no deal as viable. I have said that I have an open mind and that open mind has been pursuaded by the arguments no deal is not sustainable
Mr G, I do not share your politics, but in any struggle I’d want people like you on my side. I hugely admire your spirit. People like you are what makes a country great.
That is really nice of you. Thank you
Don’t get me wrong - your arguments annoy the hell out of me sometimes ;-)
Great. That is one more vote to reject May's deal.
The most worrying feature today for May was the hardcore Remainers saying they won't support Chequers. So they vote down May's deal and then realise there is no majority for anything else and we get no deal. Fine by me.
Chequers was dead anyway as the EU rejected it.
Given Grieve is now another committed vote for EUref2 along with Rudd etc if No Deal and May's suggestion today she will leave it to Parliament to decide the next course if No Deal we could well be heading for EUref2 or at least staying in the single market
We see this the same way
If May comes back with no deal, she is not going to propose or allow a referendum. She ruled out a second referendum any number of times today. She will either say there is no possible deal and we have to live with it, or resign.
If her deal is voted down, she is highly likely to resign.
There is no mechanism by which the HoC can negotiate a deal. To pass legislation, they have to have Government support to even get it on the order paper. A second ref actually does not have anything like a majority in the Tory party, won't solve any problem and will get boycotted by Leave anyway - a Tory Government will not propose it. The only outcome that HoC might try to impose is Norway, but that still requires acceptance of the backstop, and there is not a majority to accept the backstop. The DUP will force a GE rather than accept that.
A far more likely outcome is May resigning, a Tory leaver taking over (say Raab) and the execution of no deal.
May has made it quite clear today she will not resign if No Deal but let Parliament decide. May is still the reluctant Remainer she always was, she could not really give a toss about Brexit either way, she just wants to stay PM as long as possible.
We know about 40 Tory MPs will vote for EU ref2 over No Deal with Rudd having said she will join the likes of Wollaston and Grieve and Soubry etc if that is the case which would give it a majority in the Commons.
If Parliament votes for Norway which is also possible Norway would be the backstop and we would join EFTA under Norway terms, Parliament would be voting for Norway and staying in the Single Market, Boles may also hope that may ultimately turn into Canada+ but that is not what Parliament would be voting for
Great. That is one more vote to reject May's deal.
The most worrying feature today for May was the hardcore Remainers saying they won't support Chequers. So they vote down May's deal and then realise there is no majority for anything else and we get no deal. Fine by me.
Chequers was dead anyway as the EU rejected it.
Given Grieve is now another committed vote for EUref2 along with Rudd etc if No Deal and May's suggestion today she will leave it to Parliament to decide the next course if No Deal we could well be heading for EUref2 or at least staying in the single market
We see this the same way
If May comes back with no deal, she is not going to propose or allow a referendum. She ruled out a second referendum any number of times today. She will either say there is no possible deal and we have to live with it, or resign.
If her deal is voted down, she is highly likely to resign.
There is no mechanism by which the HoC can negotiate a deal. To pass legislation, they have to have Government support to even get it on the order paper. A second ref actually does not have anything like a majority in the Tory party, won't solve any problem and will get boycotted by Leave anyway - a Tory Government will not propose it. The only outcome that HoC might try to impose is Norway, but that still requires acceptance of the backstop, and there is not a majority to accept the backstop. The DUP will force a GE rather than accept that.
A far more likely outcome is May resigning, a Tory leaver taking over (say Raab) and the execution of no deal.
Why would Norway require acceptance of a backstop?
Because the UK can leave the EEA without the permission of the EU. Therefore, the Boles idea of using it as a 'lifeboat' will be the obvious concern - we can join and just leave two years later. The backstop is designed to avoid this circumstance so it will still be required by the EU.
I think Boles argues that if we leave the EU the EEA Agreement endures so long as we join EFTA. In theory the customs union does not come into it as it is not a part of the EEA. If true it would give us the whiphand over any future temporary customs union and a mechaism to bin the backstop.
Great. That is one more vote to reject May's deal.
The most worrying feature today for May was the hardcore Remainers saying they won't support Chequers. So they vote down May's deal and then realise there is no majority for anything else and we get no deal. Fine by me.
Chequers was dead anyway as the EU rejected it
We see this the same way
If May comes back with no deal, she is not going to propose or allow a referendum. She ruled out a second referendum any number of times today. She will either say there is no possible deal and we have to live with it, or resign.
If her deal is voted down, she is highly likely to resign.
There is no mechanism by which the HoC can negotiate a deal. To pass legislation, they have to have Government support to even get it on the order paper. A second ref actually does not have anything like a majority in the Tory party, won't solve any problem and will get boycotted by Leave anyway - a Tory Government will not propose it. The only outcome that HoC might try to impose is Norway, but that still requires acceptance of the backstop, and there is not a majority to accept the backstop. The DUP will force a GE rather than accept that.
A far more likely outcome is May resigning, a Tory leaver taking over (say Raab) and the execution of no deal.
You know, I do admire your fortitude for your cause, but TM stated in the HOC ( recorded in Hansard) that if she could not achieve a deal she would come back to the HOC and the HOC will decide.
If the HOC decide to put it to a referendum it will happen
My hope remains that TM gets a deal but you are one of only a few posters who see no deal as viable. I have said that I have an open mind and that open mind has been pursuaded by the arguments no deal is not sustainable
Mr G, I do not share your politics, but in any struggle I’d want people like you on my side. I hugely admire your spirit. People like you are what makes a country great.
That is really nice of you. Thank you
Don’t get me wrong - your arguments annoy the hell out of me sometimes ;-)
And so they should but it is right to argue your opinion with respect to other posters and without unnecessary language or arrogance
I think Boles argues that if we leave the EU the EEA Agreement endures so long as we join EFTA. In theory the customs union does not come into it as it is not a part of the EEA. If true it would give us the whiphand over any future temporary customs union.
It's completely half-baked, and being in EFTA would preclude a customs union anyway.
Great. That is one more vote to reject May's deal.
The most worrying feature today for May was the hardcore Remainers saying they won't support Chequers. So they vote down May's deal and then realise there is no majority for anything else and we get no deal. Fine by me.
Chequers was dead anyway as the EU rejected it
We see this the same way
If May comes back with no deal, she is not going to propose or allow a referendum. She ruled out a second referendum any number of times today. She will either say there is no possible deal and we have to live with it, or resign.
If her deal is voted down, she is highly likely to resign.
There is nowill not propose it. The only outcome that HoC might try to impose is Norway, but that still requires acceptance of the backstop, and there is not a majority to accept the backstop. The DUP will force a GE rather than accept that.
A far more likely outcome is May resigning, a Tory leaver taking over (say Raab) and the execution of no deal.
You know, I do admire your fortitude for your cause, but TM stated in the HOC ( recorded in Hansard) that if she could not achieve a deal she would come back to the HOC and the HOC will decide.
If the HOC decide to put it to a referendum it will happen
My hope remains that TM gets a deal but you are one of only a few posters who see no deal as viable. I have said that I have an open mind and that open mind has been pursuaded by the arguments no deal is not sustainable
Mr G, I do not share your politics, but in any struggle I’d want people like you on my side. I hugely admire your spirit. People like you are what makes a country great.
That is really nice of you. Thank you
Don’t get me wrong - your arguments annoy the hell out of me sometimes ;-)
And so they should but it is right to argue your opinion with respect to other posters and without unnecessary language or arrogance
I think Boles argues that if we leave the EU the EEA Agreement endures so long as we join EFTA. In theory the customs union does not come into it as it is not a part of the EEA. If true it would give us the whiphand over any future temporary customs union.
It's completely half-baked, and being in EFTA would preclude a customs union anyway.
Why?
If you are right then all the talk of EEA has been empty because you have to be in the EU or in EFTA to be a contracting party to the EEA.
I think Boles argues that if we leave the EU the EEA Agreement endures so long as we join EFTA. In theory the customs union does not come into it as it is not a part of the EEA. If true it would give us the whiphand over any future temporary customs union.
It's completely half-baked, and being in EFTA would preclude a customs union anyway.
Why?
If you are right then all the talk of EEA has been empty because you have to be in the EU or in EFTA to be a contracting party to the EEA.
A customs union means we apply the same external tariffs as the EU, but EFTA membership means we would be obliged to join their FTAs which would not be compatible with that.
Look at Article 56 in the EFTA treaty which deals with accession:
I think we should have a referendum on whether we should have another referendum.
We also need a separate referendum on the question that will be asked in the referendum itself...
The question is simple 'Do you wish to Remain and save the economy or do you want to destroy the UK, the economy, whilst doing Putin's bidding by voting Leave?'
Which side is the Conservative Party on? I think that makes a big difference. It did last time.
The policy makers should just cancel Brexit. Those that foolishly supported Leave need to admit that they did not have the faintest idea of what they were talking about and they need to, albeit belatedly, apologise to the Nation.
Not a great fan of a second referendum - it will just deepen the massive divide already in the country.
Cancellation only hope....
Brexit = a calamity! Brexiteers = deluded fantasists!
Perhaps you're afraid a second referendum would give people the opportunity to give the same "wrong" answer twice...
I do have moments where I hope there is a "people's" vote, because if said people decided to say F.U. to the E.U. a second time, the looks on remainers' faces would be truly priceless...
The policy makers should just cancel Brexit. Those that foolishly supported Leave need to admit that they did not have the faintest idea of what they were talking about and they need to, albeit belatedly, apologise to the Nation.
Not a great fan of a second referendum - it will just deepen the massive divide already in the country.
Cancellation only hope....
Brexit = a calamity! Brexiteers = deluded fantasists!
So you think giving people a vote then cancelling it because you don't agree with the result is the way to go?
The policy makers should just cancel Brexit. Those that foolishly supported Leave need to admit that they did not have the faintest idea of what they were talking about and they need to, albeit belatedly, apologise to the Nation.
Not a great fan of a second referendum - it will just deepen the massive divide already in the country.
Cancellation only hope....
Brexit = a calamity! Brexiteers = deluded fantasists!
So you think giving people a vote then cancelling it because you don't agree with the result is the way to go?
I wonder why people despise the political class
Well, it's the only hope for this country. The Referendum was won on false and incomplete information with a dose of xenophobia layered on for good measure.
The alternative is the hardest of hard Brexits which will cripple this country for decades.
The choice is clear, a crippling Brexit or the cancellation of such madness.
Delia Smith to lead Saturday's 'People's Vote' March in London.
Gary Linekar, Dominic West, Lena Beasley, Michael Morpurgo, Tracey Ullman and Andy Serkis have recorded video messages of support. Armando Iannucci, Sir Patrick Stewart, Natascha McElhone and Jamie Carragher have sponsored coaches to the march.
Mrs Brown star Brendan O'Carroll has told marchers 'It could be the March of your lives.'
Bob Geldof is also involved and has promised to 'bring democracy to Parliament.'
I think Boles argues that if we leave the EU the EEA Agreement endures so long as we join EFTA. In theory the customs union does not come into it as it is not a part of the EEA. If true it would give us the whiphand over any future temporary customs union.
It's completely half-baked, and being in EFTA would preclude a customs union anyway.
Why?
If you are right then all the talk of EEA has been empty because you have to be in the EU or in EFTA to be a contracting party to the EEA.
A customs union means we apply the same external tariffs as the EU, but EFTA membership means we would be obliged to join their FTAs which would not be compatible with that.
Look at Article 56 in the EFTA treaty which deals with accession:
I think the whole EEA / Norway thing is not being thought through. It doesn't work. There are a few facts that need to be addressed:
1. We are only party to the EEA treaty in our capacity as members of the EU. 2. We would have to re-apply to join the EEA and this requires EU consent. 3. The ECJ does exactly what the EU Commission want - they are not going to rule that we can stay in the EEA despite some of the legal speculation from Dr North. 4. As noted above, EFTA members cannot be in the EU CU. 5. Barnier has already declared that EEA membership does not solve the NI 'problem' - we need to be in the CU as well. 6. Therefore, for an SM+CU outcome, the EU would have to create a 'new' protocol outside of EFTA - amazingly they can suddenly do something new if they want. 7. Because this outcome is completely controlled by the EU, Barnier will still insist on the NI backstop in case we choose to leave the SM later.
So, in summary, it doesn't get us anywhere unless MPs will suddenly accept the backstop. It will not work as a 'bridge' to CETA because of the backstop. 'Norway' is not available because it does not allow CU membership. And the House of Commons cannot simply elect to 'stay in the single market' or 'choose Norway'.
The only way this option works is to ask the EU to create an SM+CU treaty, with a backstop to make sure we can never leave. Given nobody will accept the backstop now, not sure why this helps at all.
Delia Smith to lead Saturday's 'People's Vote' March in London.
Gary Linekar, Dominic West, Lena Beasley, Michael Morpurgo, Tracey Ullman and Andy Serkis have recorded video messages of support. Armando Iannucci, Sir Patrick Stewart, Natascha McElhone and Jamie Carragher have sponsored coaches to the march.
Mrs Brown star Brendan O'Carroll has told marchers 'It could be the March of your lives.'
Bob Geldof is also involved and has promised to 'bring democracy to Parliament.'
If you had any doubt about which side you wanted to be on, just look at that list. I mean, Christ, enough.
I would want to be on the side of Andrea Leadsom, Esther McVey and Liam Fox, of course, who have done so much for motherhood, public welfare and international trade relations.
Still Delia Smith did produce some useful recipes and Bob Geldorf a couple of decent songs.
The policy makers should just cancel Brexit. Those that foolishly supported Leave need to admit that they did not have the faintest idea of what they were talking about and they need to, albeit belatedly, apologise to the Nation.
Not a great fan of a second referendum - it will just deepen the massive divide already in the country.
Cancellation only hope....
Brexit = a calamity! Brexiteers = deluded fantasists!
So you think giving people a vote then cancelling it because you don't agree with the result is the way to go?
I wonder why people despise the political class
Well, it's the only hope for this country. The Referendum was won on false and incomplete information with a dose of xenophobia layered on for good measure.
The alternative is the hardest of hard Brexits which will cripple this country for decades.
The choice is clear, a crippling Brexit or the cancellation of such madness.
Can you explain why you think leaving a trade block would have more effect on us than a total war?
The policy makers should just cancel Brexit. Those that foolishly supported Leave need to admit that they did not have the faintest idea of what they were talking about and they need to, albeit belatedly, apologise to the Nation.
Not a great fan of a second referendum - it will just deepen the massive divide already in the country.
Cancellation only hope....
Brexit = a calamity! Brexiteers = deluded fantasists!
So you think giving people a vote then cancelling it because you don't agree with the result is the way to go?
I wonder why people despise the political class
The problem is that the people voted for something that, whilst not itself (pace Anna Soubry) completely impossible, cannot be delivered without dire consequences without the utmost care, which murali's "policy makers" have conspicuously failed to apply.
So the country is reaching a point where it has to chose whether or not to obey a democratic mandate that will in practice cause catastrophic economic damage which might even prove fatal to the state as it is currently constituted.
What May ought to be saying right now, and maybe a better leader than her would say, is that it has proven impossible to agree a feasible Brexit with the EU and within the governing party and admit it is her fault. She should be offering to ask the LOTO to agree with her to trigger a new general election, and offer a "coupon" to candidates of all parties in order to present a National government slate which will seek to exit from the Brexit process.
I think Boles argues that if we leave the EU the EEA Agreement endures so long as we join EFTA. In theory the customs union does not come into it as it is not a part of the EEA. If true it would give us the whiphand over any future temporary customs union.
It's completely half-baked, and being in EFTA would preclude a customs union anyway.
Why?
If you are right then all the talk of EEA has been empty because you have to be in the EU or in EFTA to be a contracting party to the EEA.
A customs union means we apply the same external tariffs as the EU, but EFTA membership means we would be obliged to join their FTAs which would not be compatible with that.
Look at Article 56 in the EFTA treaty which deals with accession:
I think the whole EEA / Norway thing is not being thought through. It doesn't work. There are a few facts that need to be addressed:
1. We are only party to the EEA treaty in our capacity as members of the EU. 2. We would have to re-apply to join the EEA and this requires EU consent. 3. The ECJ does exactly what the EU Commission want - they are not going to rule that we can stay in the EEA despite some of the legal speculation from Dr North. 4. As noted above, EFTA members cannot be in the EU CU. 5. Barnier has already declared that EEA membership does not solve the NI 'problem' - we need to be in the CU as well. 6. Therefore, for an SM+CU outcome, the EU would have to create a 'new' protocol outside of EFTA - amazingly they can suddenly do something new if they want. 7. Because this outcome is completely controlled by the EU, Barnier will still insist on the NI backstop in case we choose to leave the SM later.
So, in summary, it doesn't get us anywhere unless MPs will suddenly accept the backstop. It will not work as a 'bridge' to CETA because of the backstop. 'Norway' is not available because it does not allow CU membership. And the House of Commons cannot simply elect to 'stay in the single market' or 'choose Norway'.
The only way this option works is to ask the EU to create an SM+CU treaty, with a backstop to make sure we can never leave. Given nobody will accept the backstop now, not sure why this helps at all.
If May comes back with no deal, she is not going to propose or allow a referendum. She ruled out a second referendum any number of times today. She will either say there is no possible deal and we have to live with it, or resign.
Given that you constantly traduce her on everything else, why do you take every statement she makes about this at face value?
I think Boles argues that if we leave the EU the EEA Agreement endures so long as we join EFTA. In theory the customs union does not come into it as it is not a part of the EEA. If true it would give us the whiphand over any future temporary customs union.
It's completely half-baked, and being in EFTA would preclude a customs union anyway.
Why?
If you are right then all the talk of EEA has been empty because you have to be in the EU or in EFTA to be a contracting party to the EEA.
A customs union means we apply the same external tariffs as the EU, but EFTA membership means we would be obliged to join their FTAs which would not be compatible with that.
Look at Article 56 in the EFTA treaty which deals with accession:
I think the whole EEA / Norway thing is not being thought through. It doesn't work. There are a few facts that need to be addressed:
1. We are only party to the EEA treaty in our capacity as members of the EU. 2. We would have to re-apply to join the EEA and this requires EU consent. 3. The ECJ does exactly what the EU Commission want - they are not going to rule that we can stay in the EEA despite some of the legal speculation from Dr North. 4. As noted above, EFTA members cannot be in the EU CU. 5. Barnier has already declared that EEA membership does not solve the NI 'problem' - we need to be in the CU as well. 6. Therefore, for an SM+CU outcome, the EU would have to create a 'new' protocol outside of EFTA - amazingly they can suddenly do something new if they want. 7. Because this outcome is completely controlled by the EU, Barnier will still insist on the NI backstop in case we choose to leave the SM later.
So, in summary, it doesn't get us anywhere unless MPs will suddenly accept the backstop. It will not work as a 'bridge' to CETA because of the backstop. 'Norway' is not available because it does not allow CU membership. And the House of Commons cannot simply elect to 'stay in the single market' or 'choose Norway'.
The only way this option works is to ask the EU to create an SM+CU treaty, with a backstop to make sure we can never leave. Given nobody will accept the backstop now, not sure why this helps at all.
I fully agree with all of that.
Satan says hello, and comments on the sudden heavy frost round his place.
I think Boles argues that if we leave the EU the EEA Agreement endures so long as we join EFTA. In theory the customs union does not come into it as it is not a part of the EEA. If true it would give us the whiphand over any future temporary customs union.
It's completely half-baked, and being in EFTA would preclude a customs union anyway.
Why?
If you are right then all the talk of EEA has been empty because you have to be in the EU or in EFTA to be a contracting party to the EEA.
A customs union means we apply the same external tariffs as the EU, but EFTA membership means we would be obliged to join their FTAs which would not be compatible with that.
Look at Article 56 in the EFTA treaty which deals with accession:
I think the whole EEA / Norway thing is not being thought through. It doesn't work. There are a few facts that need to be addressed:
1. We are only party to the EEA treaty in our capacity as members of the EU. 2. We would have to re-apply to join the EEA and this requires EU consent. 3. The ECJ does exactly what the EU Commission want - they are not going to rule that we can stay in the EEA despite some of the legal speculation from Dr North. 4. As noted above, EFTA members cannot be in the EU CU. 5. Barnier has already declared that EEA membership does not solve the NI 'problem' - we need to be in the CU as well. 6. Therefore, for an SM+CU outcome, the EU would have to create a 'new' protocol outside of EFTA - amazingly they can suddenly do something new if they want. 7. Because this outcome is completely controlled by the EU, Barnier will still insist on the NI backstop in case we choose to leave the SM later.
So, in summary, it doesn't get us anywhere unless MPs will suddenly accept the backstop. It will not work as a 'bridge' to CETA because of the backstop. 'Norway' is not available because it does not allow CU membership. And the House of Commons cannot simply elect to 'stay in the single market' or 'choose Norway'.
The only way this option works is to ask the EU to create an SM+CU treaty, with a backstop to make sure we can never leave. Given nobody will accept the backstop now, not sure why this helps at all.
I fully agree with all of that.
Satan says hello, and comments on the sudden heavy frost round his place.
About as likely as England being three goals up in Spain.
TBF Anna Soubry and May are saying the same thing. Only, Soubry is being honest while May is trying to play some weird Jedi mind trick on herself that she's not saying what she thinks she's saying.
Theresa May is backstopping her own power of thought.
Soubry's quote is imbecilic and repulsive. Clearly it is "possible" to leave the EU, otherwise - contra all the bollocks Remainers like Soubry have been spouting - the EU literally is a prison and the UK is in jail and we have no sovereignty or agency at all.
Of course we can leave the EU, we could even do it with minimal damage if we'd sensibly pursued EFTA membership from the start.
What is impossible is TMay's version of Brexit. Because she is an idiot who boxed herself in with red lines.
The red lines made an almost impossible task completely impossible. May's desire for a positive Daily Mail headline really has caused us a lot of trouble.
I think Boles argues that if we leave the EU the EEA Agreement endures so long as we join EFTA. In theory the customs union does not come into it as it is not a part of the EEA. If true it would give us the whiphand over any future temporary customs union.
It's completely half-baked, and being in EFTA would preclude a customs union anyway.
Why?
If you are right then all the talk of EEA has been empty because you have to be in the EU or in EFTA to be a contracting party to the EEA.
A customs union means we apply the same external tariffs as the EU, but EFTA membership means we would be obliged to join their FTAs which would not be compatible with that.
Look at Article 56 in the EFTA treaty which deals with accession:
I think the whole EEA / Norway thing is not being thought through. It doesn't work. There are a few facts that need to be addressed:
1. We are only party to the EEA treaty in our capacity as members of the EU. 2. We would have to re-apply to join the EEA and this requires EU consent. 3. The ECJ does exactly what the EU Commission want - they are not going to rule that we can stay in the EEA despite some of the legal speculation from Dr North. 4. As noted above, EFTA members cannot be in the EU CU. 5. Barnier has already declared that EEA membership does not solve the NI 'problem' - we need to be in the CU as well. 6. Therefore, for an SM+CU outcome, the EU would have to create a 'new' protocol outside of EFTA - amazingly they can suddenly do something new if they want. 7. Because this outcome is completely controlled by the EU, Barnier will still insist on the NI backstop in case we choose to leave the SM later.
So, in summary, it doesn't get us anywhere unless MPs will suddenly accept the backstop. It will not work as a 'bridge' to CETA because of the backstop. 'Norway' is not available because it does not allow CU membership. And the House of Commons cannot simply elect to 'stay in the single market' or 'choose Norway'.
The only way this option works is to ask the EU to create an SM+CU treaty, with a backstop to make sure we can never leave. Given nobody will accept the backstop now, not sure why this helps at all.
I fully agree with all of that.
Satan says hello, and comments on the sudden heavy frost round his place.
I suspect William is implying that given all the above, the only only rational option left is to Remain.
The policy makers should just cancel Brexit. Those that foolishly supported Leave need to admit that they did not have the faintest idea of what they were talking about and they need to, albeit belatedly, apologise to the Nation.
Not a great fan of a second referendum - it will just deepen the massive divide already in the country.
Cancellation only hope....
Brexit = a calamity! Brexiteers = deluded fantasists!
So you think giving people a vote then cancelling it because you don't agree with the result is the way to go?
I wonder why people despise the political class
Well, it's the only hope for this country. The Referendum was won on false and incomplete information with a dose of xenophobia layered on for good measure.
The alternative is the hardest of hard Brexits which will cripple this country for decades.
The choice is clear, a crippling Brexit or the cancellation of such madness.
Can you explain why you think leaving a trade block would have more effect on us than a total war?
I think the whole EEA / Norway thing is not being thought through. It doesn't work. There are a few facts that need to be addressed:
1. We are only party to the EEA treaty in our capacity as members of the EU. 2. We would have to re-apply to join the EEA and this requires EU consent. 3. The ECJ does exactly what the EU Commission want - they are not going to rule that we can stay in the EEA despite some of the legal speculation from Dr North. 4. As noted above, EFTA members cannot be in the EU CU. 5. Barnier has already declared that EEA membership does not solve the NI 'problem' - we need to be in the CU as well. 6. Therefore, for an SM+CU outcome, the EU would have to create a 'new' protocol outside of EFTA - amazingly they can suddenly do something new if they want. 7. Because this outcome is completely controlled by the EU, Barnier will still insist on the NI backstop in case we choose to leave the SM later.
So, in summary, it doesn't get us anywhere unless MPs will suddenly accept the backstop. It will not work as a 'bridge' to CETA because of the backstop. 'Norway' is not available because it does not allow CU membership. And the House of Commons cannot simply elect to 'stay in the single market' or 'choose Norway'.
The only way this option works is to ask the EU to create an SM+CU treaty, with a backstop to make sure we can never leave. Given nobody will accept the backstop now, not sure why this helps at all.
I fully agree with all of that.
Satan says hello, and comments on the sudden heavy frost round his place.
About as likely as England being three goals up in Spain.
Well, we can at least say that May has finally united both sides of the Brexit debate.
It's true that it's not quite the way she wanted, but it is a modest victory after the last three years.
The policy makers should just cancel Brexit. Those that foolishly supported Leave need to admit that they did not have the faintest idea of what they were talking about and they need to, albeit belatedly, apologise to the Nation.
Not a great fan of a second referendum - it will just deepen the massive divide already in the country.
Cancellation only hope....
Brexit = a calamity! Brexiteers = deluded fantasists!
So you think giving people a vote then cancelling it because you don't agree with the result is the way to go?
I wonder why people despise the political class
The problem is that the people voted for something that, whilst not itself (pace Anna Soubry) completely impossible, cannot be delivered without dire consequences without the utmost care, which murali's "policy makers" have conspicuously failed to apply.
So the country is reaching a point where it has to chose whether or not to obey a democratic mandate that will in practice cause catastrophic economic damage which might even prove fatal to the state as it is currently constituted.
What May ought to be saying right now, and maybe a better leader than her would say, is that it has proven impossible to agree a feasible Brexit with the EU and within the governing party and admit it is her fault. She should be offering to ask the LOTO to agree with her to trigger a new general election, and offer a "coupon" to candidates of all parties in order to present a National government slate which will seek to exit from the Brexit process.
You really want Prime Minister Nigel Farage don't you....
Telling the British people, here's a stitch up of the entire Westminster elite, offering you fuck all choice, is a sure fire way to get the voters mighty riled up.
I think Boles argues that if we leave the EU the EEA Agreement endures so long as we join EFTA. In theory the customs union does not come into it as it is not a part of the EEA. If true it would give us the whiphand over any future temporary customs union.
It's completely half-baked, and being in EFTA would preclude a customs union anyway.
Why?
If you are right then all the talk of EEA has been empty because you have to be in the EU or in EFTA to be a contracting party to the EEA.
A customs union means we apply the same external tariffs as the EU, but EFTA membership means we would be obliged to join their FTAs which would not be compatible with that.
Look at Article 56 in the EFTA treaty which deals with accession:
I think the whole EEA / Norway thing is not being thought through. It doesn't work. There are a few facts that need to be addressed: ter.
So, in summary, it doesn't get us anywhere unless MPs will suddenly accept the backstop. It will not work as a 'bridge' to CETA because of the backstop. 'Norway' is not available because it does not allow CU membership. And the House of Commons cannot simply elect to 'stay in the single market' or 'choose Norway'.
The only way this option works is to ask the EU to create an SM+CU treaty, with a backstop to make sure we can never leave. Given nobody will accept the backstop now, not sure why this helps at all.
I fully agree with all of that.
Still think you're gonna win our bet?
I forget the precise terms, I think it was "UK to have left the EU by end 2019" wasn't it? With "left" meaning no UK Commissioners, no UK MEPs voting, etc. If I've misremembered mea culpa.
I think you're closer to winning it than I ever expected, but I still expect to be £1000 better off.
Will that be a grand outcome from your point of view?
I think Boles argues that if we leave the EU the EEA Agreement endures so long as we join EFTA. In theory the customs union does not come into it as it is not a part of the EEA. If true it would give us the whiphand over any future temporary customs union.
It's completely half-baked, and being in EFTA would preclude a customs union anyway.
Why?
If you are right then all the talk of EEA has been empty because you have to be in the EU or in EFTA to be a contracting party to the EEA.
A customs union means we apply the same external tariffs as the EU, but EFTA membership means we would be obliged to join their FTAs which would not be compatible with that.
Look at Article 56 in the EFTA treaty which deals with accession:
I think the whole EEA / Norway thing is not being thought through. It doesn't work. There are a few facts that need to be addressed:
1. We are only party to the EEA treaty in our capacity as members of the EU. 2. We would have to re-apply to join the EEA and this requires EU consent. 3. The ECJ does exactly what the EU Commission want - they are not going to rule that we can stay in the EEA despite some of the legal speculation from Dr North. 4. As noted above, EFTA members cannot be in the EU CU. 5. Barnier has already declared that EEA membership does not solve the NI 'problem' - we need to be in the CU as well. 6. Therefore, for an SM+CU outcome, the EU would have to create a 'new' protocol outside of EFTA - amazingly they can suddenly do something new if they want. 7. Because this outcome is completely controlled by the EU, Barnier will still insist on the NI backstop in case we choose to leave the SM later.
So, in summary, it doesn't get us anywhere unless MPs will suddenly accept the backstop. It will not work as a 'bridge' to CETA because of the backstop. 'Norway' is not available because it does not allow CU membership. And the House of Commons cannot simply elect to 'stay in the single market' or 'choose Norway'.
The only way this option works is to ask the EU to create an SM+CU treaty, with a backstop to make sure we can never leave. Given nobody will accept the backstop now, not sure why this helps at all.
We are heading for SM+CU anyway or else Remain after EUref2, most Labour, LD and SNP MPs will vote for that and increasingly a growing number of Tories. There is a majority for SM+CU over No Deal in the Commons and the Lords beyond question
May has made it quite clear today she will not resign if No Deal but let Parliament decide. May is still the reluctant Remainer she always was, she could not really give a toss about Brexit either way, she just wants to stay PM as long as possible.
We know about 40 Tory MPs will vote for EU ref2 over No Deal with Rudd having said she will join the likes of Wollaston and Grieve and Soubry etc if that is the case which would give it a majority in the Commons.
If Parliament votes for Norway which is also possible Norway would be the backstop and we would join EFTA under Norway terms, Parliament would be voting for Norway and staying in the Single Market, Boles may also hope that may ultimately turn into Canada+ but that is not what Parliament would be voting for
Parliament cannot vote to join Norway - see my other post. We cannot solve the problem by joining EFTA.
I know that you are obsessed with EUref2 but it will not ever happen. Tory MPs will not support it and therefore the Government will not propose it - the Tories are not going to reverse Brexit because it would destroy them. Without an Act of Parliament, the HoC can vote until it is blue in the face but it won't mean anything. MPs cannot create legislation without the Government support.
Can I be blunt - It's the backstop, stupid. Nothing to do with Chequers, Norway, CETA at the moment. There is no majority for the NI backstop in the HoC. The backstop applies to any deal, and May is not going to recommend we accept the NI backstop. Unless May can get the EU to back off, there is simply not going to be a deal and it doesn't help if the HoC want a different deal unless they vote for the backstop.
If MPs do go for the backstop the DUP will force a General Election. May can't win that.
IF May can get to a UK wide backstop with no regulatory border with NI (highly unlikely), then the various Brexit options come back into play.
My guess is that she will try to fudge a UK backstop with a regulatory border in the Irish Sea and the DUP will refuse and no confidence her. They have completely seen through this plot.
Ultimately, the only choice is going to be proceeding with No Deal.
The policy makers should just cancel Brexit. Those that foolishly supported Leave need to admit that they did not have the faintest idea of what they were talking about and they need to, albeit belatedly, apologise to the Nation.
Not a great fan of a second referendum - it will just deepen the massive divide already in the country.
Cancellation only hope....
Brexit = a calamity! Brexiteers = deluded fantasists!
So you think giving people a vote then cancelling it because you don't agree with the result is the way to go?
I wonder why people despise the political class
Well, it's the only hope for this country. The Referendum was won on false and incomplete information with a dose of xenophobia layered on for good measure.
The alternative is the hardest of hard Brexits which will cripple this country for decades.
The choice is clear, a crippling Brexit or the cancellation of such madness.
Can you explain why you think leaving a trade block would have more effect on us than a total war?
Total war???
Madness.
The last war didn’t cripple us for decades. I can’t think of a single modern historical event that did.
Describing the leaving of a trade block as crippling us for decades is utterly mad. The kind of hyperbole that causes sensible British people to laugh.
We are heading for SM+CU anyway or else Remain after EUref2, most Labour, LD and SNP MPs will vote for that and increasingly a growing number of Tories. There is a majority for SM+CU over No Deal in the Commons and the Lords beyond question
I think Boles argues that if we leave the EU the EEA Agreement endures so long as we join EFTA. In theory the customs union does not come into it as it is not a part of the EEA. If true it would give us the whiphand over any future temporary customs union.
It's completely half-baked, and being in EFTA would preclude a customs union anyway.
Why?
If you are right then all the talk of EEA has been empty because you have to be in the EU or in EFTA to be a contracting party to the EEA.
A customs union means we apply the same external tariffs as the EU, but EFTA membership means we would be obliged to join their FTAs which would not be compatible with that.
Look at Article 56 in the EFTA treaty which deals with accession:
I think the whole EEA / Norway thing is not being thought through. It doesn't work. There are a few facts that need to be addressed:
1. We are only party to the EEA treaty in our capacity as members of the EU. 2. We would have to re-apply to join the EEA and this requires EU consent. 3. The ECJ does exactly what the EU Commission want - they are not going to rule that we can stay in the EEA despite some of the legal speculation from Dr North. 4. As noted above, EFTA members cannot be in the EU CU. 5. Barnier has already declared that EEA membership does not solve the NI 'problem' - we need to be in the CU as well. 6. Therefore, for an SM+CU outcome, the EU would have to create a 'new' protocol outside of EFTA - amazingly they can suddenly do something new if they want. 7. Because this outcome is completely controlled by the EU, Barnier will still insist on the NI backstop in case we choose to leave the SM later.
So, in summary, it doesn't get us anywhere unless MPs will suddenly accept the backstop. It will not work as a 'bridge' to CETA because of the backstop. 'Norway' is not available because it does not allow CU membership. And the House of Commons cannot simply elect to 'stay in the single market' or 'choose Norway'.
The only way this option works is to ask the EU to create an SM+CU treaty, with a backstop to make sure we can never leave. Given nobody will accept the backstop now, not sure why this helps at all.
I fully agree with all of that.
If williamglenn and myself can agree on something, it is time to go to bed! Good night all.
May has made it quite clear today she will not resign if No Deal but let Parliament decide. May is still the reluctant Remainer she always was, she could not really give a toss about Brexit either way, she just wants to stay PM as long as possible.
We know about 40 Tory MPs will vote for EU ref2 over No Deal with Rudd having said she will join the likes of Wollaston and Grieve and Soubry etc if that is the case which would give it a majority in the Commons.
If Parliament votes for Norway which is also possible Norway would be the backstop and we would join EFTA under Norway terms, Parliament would be voting for Norway and staying in the Single Market, Boles may also hope that may ultimately turn into Canada+ but that is not what Parliament would be voting for
Parliament cannot vote to join Norway - see my other post. We cannot solve the problem by joining EFTA.
I know that you are obsessed with EUref2 proceeding with No Deal.
We can by staying in the SM and CU which there is also a majority for in Parliament over No Deal.
Actually Tory MPs like Rudd have said they will vote for EUref2 over No Deal, given the hung parliament that would likely be enough to give it a majority if No Deal was on the cards even if most Tories voted against EUref2 still. May has made quite clear the Government will allow MPs to decide the way forward if No Deal, the Government will then support whatever MPs decide.
Add in Labour, LD, SNP, Green and PC and Tory Remainer MPs like Soubry, Rudd, Grieve, Wollaston, Neil etc and there is a majority for a SM + CU backstop in the HOC regardless of DUP +ERG opposition. Again May has made clear today she will do what the HOC decides.
Once Parliament has voted it has voted, that is that, the DUP can try and force a general election, May will either get a majority or Labour forms a minority government and Labour + LDs + SNP comes to power backing SM + CU, either way the DUP is then irrelevant.
Ultimately No Deal has no chance of getting through the Commons or Lords, there will either be SM+CU or EUref2 and every poll has shown at least a 10% Remain lead over No Deal in the case of the latter
Delia Smith to lead Saturday's 'People's Vote' March in London.
Gary Linekar, Dominic West, Lena Beasley, Michael Morpurgo, Tracey Ullman and Andy Serkis have recorded video messages of support. Armando Iannucci, Sir Patrick Stewart, Natascha McElhone and Jamie Carragher have sponsored coaches to the march.
Mrs Brown star Brendan O'Carroll has told marchers 'It could be the March of your lives.'
Bob Geldof is also involved and has promised to 'bring democracy to Parliament.'
May has made it quite clear today she will not resign if No Deal but let Parliament decide. May is still the reluctant Remainer she always was, she could not really give a toss about Brexit either way, she just wants to stay PM as long as possible.
We know about 40 Tory MPs will vote for EU ref2 over No Deal with Rudd having said she will join the likes of Wollaston and Grieve and Soubry etc if that is the case which would give it a majority in the Commons.
If Parliament votes for Norway which is also possible Norway would be the backstop and we would join EFTA under Norway terms, Parliament would be voting for Norway and staying in the Single Market, Boles may also hope that may ultimately turn into Canada+ but that is not what Parliament would be voting for
Parliament cannot vote to join Norway - see my other post. We cannot solve the problem by joining EFTA.
I know that you are obsessed with EUref2 proceeding with No Deal.
We can by staying in the SM and CU which there is also a majority for in Parliament over No Deal.
Actually Tory MPs like Rudd have said they will vote for EUref2 over No Deal, given the hung parliament that would likely be enough to give it a majority if No Deal was on the cards even if most Tories voted against EUref2 still. May has made quite clear the Government will allow MPs to decide the way forward if No Deal, the Government will then support whatever MPs decide.
Add in Labour, LD, SNP, Green and PC and Tory Remainer MPs like Soubry, Rudd, Grieve, Wollaston, Neil etc and there is a majority for a SM + CU backstop in the HOC regardless of DUP +ERG opposition. Again May has made clear today she will do what the HOC decides.
Once Parliament has voted it has voted, that is that, the DUP can try and force a general election, May will either get a majority or Labour forms a minority government and Labour + LDs + SNP comes to power backing SM + CU, either way the DUP is then irrelevant.
Ultimately No Deal has no chance of getting through the Commons or Lords, there will either be SM+CU or EUref2 and every poll has shown at least a 10% Remain lead over No Deal in the case of the latter
I think Boles argues that if we leave the EU the EEA Agreement endures so long as we join EFTA. In theory the customs union does not come into it as it is not a part of the EEA. If true it would give us the whiphand over any future temporary customs union.
It's completely half-baked, and being in EFTA would preclude a customs union anyway.
Why?
If you are right then all the talk of EEA has been empty because you have to be in the EU or in EFTA to be a contracting party to the EEA.
A customs union means we apply the same external tariffs as the EU, but EFTA membership means we would be obliged to join their FTAs which would not be compatible with that.
Look at Article 56 in the EFTA treaty which deals with accession:
I think the whole EEA / Norway thing is not being thought through. It doesn't work. There are a few facts that need to be addressed:
1. We are only party to the EEA treaty in our capacity as members of the EU. 2. We would have to re-apply to join the
So, in summary, it doesn't get us anywhere unless MPs will suddenly accept the backstop. It will not work as a 'bridge' to CETA because of the backstop. 'Norway' is not available because it does not allow CU membership. And the House of Commons cannot simply elect to 'stay in the single market' or 'choose Norway'.
The only way this option works is to ask the EU to create an SM+CU treaty, with a backstop to make sure we can never leave. Given nobody will accept the backstop now, not sure why this helps at all.
I fully agree with all of that.
If williamglenn and myself can agree on something, it is time to go to bed! Good night all.
William Glenn is an EU Federalist who wants us to join the Eurozone, he wants the worst possible No Deal Brexit to try and force us to negotiate to rejoin the EU after Brexit having to give up all our opt outs on Schengen and the Euro, trust me gullible Brexiteers like you are exactly what an EUphile shark like William Glenn feeds on
The policy makers should just cancel Brexit. Those that foolishly supported Leave need to admit that they did not have the faintest idea of what they were talking about and they need to, albeit belatedly, apologise to the Nation.
Not a great fan of a second referendum - it will just deepen the massive divide already in the country.
Cancellation only hope....
Brexit = a calamity! Brexiteers = deluded fantasists!
So you think giving people a vote then cancelling it because you don't agree with the result is the way to go?
I wonder why people despise the political class
The problem is that the people voted for something that, whilst not itself (pace Anna Soubry) completely impossible, cannot be delivered without dire consequences without the utmost care, which murali's "policy makers" have conspicuously failed to apply.
So the country is reaching a point where it has to chose whether or not to obey a democratic mandate that will in practice cause catastrophic economic damage which might even prove fatal to the state as it is currently constituted.
What May ought to be saying right now, and maybe a better leader than her would say, is that it has proven impossible to agree a feasible Brexit with the EU and within the governing party and admit it is her fault. She should be offering to ask the LOTO to agree with her to trigger a new general election, and offer a "coupon" to candidates of all parties in order to present a National government slate which will seek to exit from the Brexit process.
You really want Prime Minister Nigel Farage don't you....
Telling the British people, here's a stitch up of the entire Westminster elite, offering you fuck all choice, is a sure fire way to get the voters mighty riled up.
You may be right. I’m just trying to say that the country deserves to be told the truth: the political classes have failed to deliver a workable Brexit. The only possible Brexit is an utterly chaotic one. You can have that or you can Remain. If the country wants to elect Farage to implement chaos Brexit, so be it. But I don’t expect there will be a United Kingdom a decade from now if it does.
The policy makers should just cancel Brexit. Those that foolishly supported Leave need to admit that they did not have the faintest idea of what they were talking about and they need to, albeit belatedly, apologise to the Nation.
Not a great fan of a second referendum - it will just deepen the massive divide already in the country.
Cancellation only hope....
Brexit = a calamity! Brexiteers = deluded fantasists!
So you think giving people a vote then cancelling it because you don't agree with the result is the way to go?
I wonder why people despise the political class
Well, it's the only hope for this country. The Referendum was won on false and incomplete information with a dose of xenophobia layered on for good measure.
The alternative is the hardest of hard Brexits which will cripple this country for decades.
The choice is clear, a crippling Brexit or the cancellation of such madness.
Can you explain why you think leaving a trade block would have more effect on us than a total war?
Total war???
Madness.
The last war didn’t cripple us for decades. I can’t think of a single modern historical event that did.
Describing the leaving of a trade block as crippling us for decades is utterly mad. The kind of hyperbole that causes sensible British people to laugh.
Claiming Brexit to be not quite as bad as total war, while true, is hardly an endorsement. Remember we voted for this nonsense whereas invasion in 1939 was forced on us. I'm not laughing.
Does anyone else have a problem viewing linked Twitter posts on this forum? Just started doing this to me.
I think Boles argues that if we leave the EU the EEA Agreement endures so long as we join EFTA. In theory the customs union does not come into it as it is not a part of the EEA. If true it would give us the whiphand over any future temporary customs union.
It's completely half-baked, and being in EFTA would preclude a customs union anyway.
Why?
If you are right then all the talk of EEA has been empty because you have to be in the EU or in EFTA to be a contracting party to the EEA.
A customs union means we apply the same external tariffs as the EU, but EFTA membership means we would be obliged to join their FTAs which would not be compatible with that.
Look at Article 56 in the EFTA treaty which deals with accession:
I think the whole EEA / Norway thing is not being thought through. It doesn't work. There are a few facts that need to be addressed: ter.
So, in summary, it doesn't get us anywhere unless MPs will suddenly accept the backstop. It will not work as a 'bridge' to CETA because of the backstop. 'Norway' is not available because it does not allow CU membership. And the House of Commons cannot simply elect to 'stay in the single market' or 'choose Norway'.
The only way this option works is to ask the EU to create an SM+CU treaty, with a backstop to make sure we can never leave. Given nobody will accept the backstop now, not sure why this helps at all.
I fully agree with all of that.
Still think you're gonna win our bet?
I forget the precise terms, I think it was "UK to have left the EU by end 2019" wasn't it? With "left" meaning no UK Commissioners, no UK MEPs voting, etc. If I've misremembered mea culpa.
I think you're closer to winning it than I ever expected, but I still expect to be £1000 better off.
Yes I’m the most confident I’ve been at the moment. The can kicking is frustrating but it feels like we’re getting very close to the denouement.
Delia Smith to lead Saturday's 'People's Vote' March in London.
Gary Linekar, Dominic West, Lena Beasley, Michael Morpurgo, Tracey Ullman and Andy Serkis have recorded video messages of support. Armando Iannucci, Sir Patrick Stewart, Natascha McElhone and Jamie Carragher have sponsored coaches to the march.
Mrs Brown star Brendan O'Carroll has told marchers 'It could be the March of your lives.'
Bob Geldof is also involved and has promised to 'bring democracy to Parliament.'
Delia Smith to lead Saturday's 'People's Vote' March in London.
Gary Linekar, Dominic West, Lena Beasley, Michael Morpurgo, Tracey Ullman and Andy Serkis have recorded video messages of support. Armando Iannucci, Sir Patrick Stewart, Natascha McElhone and Jamie Carragher have sponsored coaches to the march.
Mrs Brown star Brendan O'Carroll has told marchers 'It could be the March of your lives.'
Bob Geldof is also involved and has promised to 'bring democracy to Parliament.'
May has made it quite clear today she will not resign if No Deal but let Parliament decide. May is still the reluctant Remainer she always was, she could not really give a toss about Brexit either way, she just wants to stay PM as long as possible.
We know about 40 Tory MPs will vote for EU ref2 over No Deal with Rudd having said she will join the likes of Wollaston and Grieve and Soubry etc if that is the case which would give it a majority in the Commons.
If Parliament votes for Norway which is also possible Norway would be the backstop and we would join EFTA under Norway terms, Parliament would be voting for Norway and staying in the Single Market, Boles may also hope that may ultimately turn into Canada+ but that is not what Parliament would be voting for
Parliament cannot vote to join Norway - see my other post. We cannot solve the problem by joining EFTA.
I know that you are obsessed with EUref2 proceeding with No Deal.
We can by staying in the SM and CU which there is also a majority for in Parliament over No Deal.
Actually Tory MPs like Rudd have said they will vote for EUref2 over No Deal, given the hung parliament that would likely be enough to give it a majority if No Deal was on the cards even if most Tories voted against EUref2 still. May has made quite clear the Government will allow MPs to decide the way forward if No Deal, the Government will then support whatever MPs decide.
Add in Labour, LD, SNP, Green and PC and Tory Remainer MPs like Soubry, Rudd, Grieve, Wollaston, Neil etc and there is a majority for a SM + CU backstop in the HOC regardless of DUP +ERG opposition. Again May has made clear today she will do what the HOC decides.
Once Parliament has voted it has voted, that is that, the DUP can try and force a general election, May will either get a majority or Labour forms a minority government and Labour + LDs + SNP comes to power backing SM + CU, either way the DUP is then irrelevant.
Ultimately No Deal has no chance of getting through the Commons or Lords, there will either be SM+CU or EUref2 and every poll has shown at least a 10% Remain lead over No Deal in the case of the latter
youre flapping
Despite the HoC having voted against the Customs Union five times, HYUFD is certain that a poll indicates that it is CERTAIN that we’ll be either in it, or Remain.
Because a default position which doesn’t need to get through Parliament won’t get through Parliament...
The policy makers should just cancel Brexit. Those that foolishly supported Leave need to admit that they did not have the faintest idea of what they were talking about and they need to, albeit belatedly, apologise to the Nation.
Not a great fan of a second referendum - it will just deepen the massive divide already in the country.
Cancellation only hope....
Brexit = a calamity! Brexiteers = deluded fantasists!
So you think giving people a vote then cancelling it because you don't agree with the result is the way to go?
I wonder why people despise the political class
Well, it's the only hope for this country. The Referendum was won on false and incomplete information with a dose of xenophobia layered on for good measure.
The alternative is the hardest of hard Brexits which will cripple this country for decades.
The choice is clear, a crippling Brexit or the cancellation of such madness.
Can you explain why you think leaving a trade block would have more effect on us than a total war?
Total war???
Madness.
The last war didn’t cripple us for decades. I can’t think of a single modern historical event that did.
Describing the leaving of a trade block as crippling us for decades is utterly mad. The kind of hyperbole that causes sensible British people to laugh.
Claiming Brexit to be not quite as bad as total war, while true, is hardly an endorsement. Remember we voted for this nonsense whereas invasion in 1939 was forced on us. I'm not laughing.
Does anyone else have a problem viewing linked Twitter posts on this forum? Just started doing this to me.
Invasion wasnt forced on us we declared war on Germany
The policy makers should just cancel Brexit. Those that foolishly supported Leave need to admit that they did not have the faintest idea of what they were talking about and they need to, albeit belatedly, apologise to the Nation.
Not a great fan of a second referendum - it will just deepen the massive divide already in the country.
Cancellation only hope....
Brexit = a calamity! Brexiteers = deluded fantasists!
So you think giving people a vote then cancelling it because you don't agree with the result is the way to go?
I wonder why people despise the political class
Well, it's the only hope for this country. The Referendum was won on false and incomplete information with a dose of xenophobia layered on for good measure.
The alternative is the hardest of hard Brexits which will cripple this country for decades.
The choice is clear, a crippling Brexit or the cancellation of such madness.
Can you explain why you think leaving a trade block would have more effect on us than a total war?
Total war???
Madness.
The last war didn’t cripple us for decades. I can’t think of a single modern historical event that did.
Describing the leaving of a trade block as crippling us for decades is utterly mad. The kind of hyperbole that causes sensible British people to laugh.
Claiming Brexit to be not quite as bad as total war, while true, is hardly an endorsement. Remember we voted for this nonsense whereas invasion in 1939 was forced on us. I'm not laughing.
Does anyone else have a problem viewing linked Twitter posts on this forum? Just started doing this to me.
I’m saying that nothing results in being crippled for decades.
Not ‘not quite as bad’, ‘nothing whatsoever like’....and nowhere near as bad as the hyperbolic, sweary s_murali suggests
We are heading for SM+CU anyway or else Remain after EUref2, most Labour, LD and SNP MPs will vote for that and increasingly a growing number of Tories. There is a majority for SM+CU over No Deal in the Commons and the Lords beyond question
May has made it quite clear today she will not resign if No Deal but let Parliament decide. May is still the reluctant Remainer she always was, she could not really give a toss about Brexit either way, she just wants to stay PM as long as possible.
We know about 40 Tory MPs will vote for EU ref2 over No Deal with Rudd having said she will join the likes of Wollaston and Grieve and Soubry etc if that is the case which would give it a majority in the Commons.
If Parliament votes for Norway which is also possible Norway would be the backstop and we would join EFTA under Norway terms, Parliament would be voting for Norway and staying in the Single Market, Boles may also hope that may ultimately turn into Canada+ but that is not what Parliament would be voting for
Parliament cannot vote to join Norway - see my other post. We cannot solve the problem by joining EFTA.
I know that you are obsessed with EUref2 proceeding with No Deal.
We can by staying in the SM and CU which there is also a majority for in Parliament over No Deal.
Actually Tory MPs like Rudd have said they will vote for EUref2 over No Deal, given the hung parliament that would likely be enough to give it a majority if No Deal was on the cards even if most Tories voted against EUref2 still. May has made quite clear the Government will allow MPs to decide the way forward if No Deal, the Government will then support whatever MPs decide.
Add in Labour, LD, SNP, Green and PC and Tory Remainer MPs like Soubry, Rudd, Grieve, Wollaston, Neil etc and there is a majority for a SM + CU backstop in the HOC regardless of DUP +ERG opposition. Again May has made clear today she will do what the HOC decides.
Once Parliament has voted it has voted, that is that, the DUP can try and force a general election, May will either get a majority or Labour forms a minority government and Labour + LDs + SNP comes to power backing SM + CU, either way the DUP is then irrelevant.
Ultimately No Deal has no chance of getting through the Commons or Lords, there will either be SM+CU or EUref2 and every poll has shown at least a 10% Remain lead over No Deal in the case of the latter
youre flapping
Despite the HoC having voted against the Customs Union five times, HYUFD is certain that a poll indicates that it is CERTAIN that we’ll be either in it, or Remain.
Because a default position which doesn’t need to get through Parliament won’t get through Parliament...
Okaaaay.
The House of Commons voted to leave the Customs Union in the summer by just SIX votes, given the alternative to not staying in the Customs Union would be No Deal that can be easily overturned
He's got a point tho. If TMay can't get any deal through, will the Commons simply accept No Deal? I find that hard to believe.
They will kick up an almighty fuss and a parliamentary consensus might emerge which would be hard to resist (or the Tories accept the game is up and go for a GE)
I imagine 400MPs would prefer EFTA, say, to No Deal, no matter what the legal difficulties.
A 2nd referendum would be less popular, but would probably command a majority (if the alternative was No Deal)
Parliament would go for a second referendum. It could never agree on what deal to accept (EEA? Norway? EFTA? Canada? Ruritania? Utopia? etc etc etc) - it would throw the problem back to the voters.
The policy makers should just cancel Brexit. Those that foolishly supported Leave need to admit that they did not have the faintest idea of what they were talking about and they need to, albeit belatedly, apologise to the Nation.
Not a great fan of a second referendum - it will just deepen the massive divide already in the country.
Cancellation only hope....
Brexit = a calamity! Brexiteers = deluded fantasists!
So you think giving people a vote then cancelling it because you don't agree with the result is the way to go?
I wonder why people despise the political class
Well, it's the only hope for this country. The Referendum was won on false and incomplete information with a dose of xenophobia layered on for good measure.
The alternative is the hardest of hard Brexits which will cripple this country for decades.
The choice is clear, a crippling Brexit or the cancellation of such madness.
Can you explain why you think leaving a trade block would have more effect on us than a total war?
Total war???
Madness.
The last war didn’t cripple us for decades. I can’t think of a single modern historical event that did.
Describing the leaving of a trade block as crippling us for decades is utterly mad. The kind of hyperbole that causes sensible British people to laugh.
Claiming Brexit to be not quite as bad as total war, while true, is hardly an endorsement. Remember we voted for this nonsense whereas invasion in 1939 was forced on us. I'm not laughing.
Does anyone else have a problem viewing linked Twitter posts on this forum? Just started doing this to me.
Yes Been like it for a week
Have flaged it up but in the absence of an explanation the only way round is by viewing on vanilla forums
May has made it quite clear today she will not resign if No Deal but let Parliament decide. May is still the reluctant Remainer she always was, she could not really give a toss about Brexit either way, she just wants to stay PM as long as possible.
We know about 40 Tory MPs will vote for EU ref2 over No
If Parliament votes for Norway which is also possible Norway would be the backstop and we would join EFTA under Norway terms, Parliament would be voting for Norway and staying in the Single Market, Boles may also hope that may ultimately turn into Canada+ but that is not what Parliament would be voting for
Parliament cannot vote to join Norway - see my other post. We cannot solve the problem by joining EFTA.
I know that you are obsessed with EUref2 proceeding with No Deal.
We can by staying in the SM and CU which there is also a majority for in Parliament over No Deal.
Actually Tory MPs like Rudd have said they will vote for EUref2 over No Deal, given the hung parliament that would likely be enough to give it a majority if No Deal was on the cards even if most Tories voted against EUref2 still. May has made quite clear the Government will allow MPs to decide the way forward if No Deal, the Government will then support whatever MPs decide.
Add in Labour, LD, SNP, Green and PC and Tory Remainer MPs like Soubry, Rudd, Grieve, Wollaston, Neil etc and there is a majority for a SM + CU backstop in the HOC regardless of DUP +ERG opposition. Again May has made clear today she will do what the HOC decides.
Once Parliament has voted it has voted, that is that, the DUP can try and force a general election, May will either get a majority or Labour forms a minority government and Labour + LDs + SNP comes to power backing SM + CU, either way the DUP is then irrelevant.
Ultimately No Deal has no chance of getting through the Commons or Lords, there will either be SM+CU or EUref2 and every poll has shown at least a 10% Remain lead over No Deal in the case of the latter
youre flapping
Despite the HoC having voted against the Customs Union five times, HYUFD is certain that a poll indicates that it is CERTAIN that we’ll be either in it, or Remain.
Because a default position which doesn’t need to get through Parliament won’t get through Parliament...
Okaaaay.
The House of Commons voted to leave the Customs Union in the summer by just SIX votes, given the alternative to not staying in the Customs Union would be No Deal that can be easily overturned
May has made it quite clear today she will not resign if No Deal but let Parliament decide. May is still the reluctant Remainer she always was, she could not really give a toss about Brexit either way, she just wants to stay PM as long as possible.
We know about 40 Tory MPs will vote for EU ref2 over No Deal with Rudd having said she will join the likes of Wollaston and Grieve and Soubry etc if that is the case which would give it a majority in the Commons.
If Parliament votes for Norway which is also possible Norway would be the backstop and we would join EFTA under Norway terms, Parliament would be voting for Norway and staying in the Single Market, Boles may also hope that may ultimately turn into Canada+ but that is not what Parliament would be voting for
Parliament cannot vote to join Norway - see my other post. We cannot solve the problem by joining EFTA.
I know that you are obsessed with EUref2 proceeding with No Deal.
We can by staying in the SM and CU which there is also a majority for in Parliament over No Deal.
Actually Tory MPs like Rudd have said they will vote for EUref2 over No Deal, given the hung parliament that would likely be enough to give it a majority if No Deal was on the cards even if most Tories voted against EUref2 still. May has made quite clear the Government will allow MPs to decide the way forward if No Deal, the Government will then support whatever MPs decide.
ll has shown at least a 10% Remain lead over No Deal in the case of the latter
youre flapping
He's got a point tho. If TMay can't get any deal through, will the Commons simply accept No Deal? I find that hard to believe.
They will kick up an almighty fuss and a parliamentary consensus might emerge which would be hard to resist (or the Tories accept the game is up and go for a GE)
I imagine 400MPs would prefer EFTA, say, to No Deal, no matter what the legal difficulties.
A 2nd referendum would be less popular, but would probably command a majority (if the alternative was No Deal)
Exactly, the only way to get No Deal would have been a Tory landslide at the last general election with most new Tory MPs being ERG linked, instead we got a hung parliament with a clear SM + CU majority
The policy makers should just cancel Brexit. Those that foolishly supported Leave need to admit that they did not have the faintest idea of what they were talking about and they need to, albeit belatedly, apologise to the Nation.
Not a great fan of a second referendum - it will just deepen the massive divide already in the country.
Cancellation only hope....
Brexit = a calamity! Brexiteers = deluded fantasists!
So you think giving people a vote then cancelling it because you don't agree with the result is the way to go?
I wonder why people despise the political class
Well, it's the only hope for this country. The Referendum was won on false and incomplete information with a dose of xenophobia layered on for good measure.
The alternative is the hardest of hard Brexits which will cripple this country for decades.
The choice is clear, a crippling Brexit or the cancellation of such madness.
Can you explain why you think leaving a trade block would have more effect on us than a total war?
Total war???
Madness.
The last war didn’t cripple us for decades. I can’t think of a single modern historical event that did.
Describing the leaving of a trade block as crippling us for decades is utterly mad. The kind of hyperbole that causes sensible British people to laugh.
Claiming Brexit to be not quite as bad as total war, while true, is hardly an endorsement. Remember we voted for this nonsense whereas invasion in 1939 was forced on us. I'm not laughing.
Does anyone else have a problem viewing linked Twitter posts on this forum? Just started doing this to me.
Yes Been like it for a week
Have flaged it up but in the absence of an explanation the only way round is by viewing on vanilla forums
Does it just show the link for you?
I find that twitter posts show as twitter posts for the first hour or so, but older show as links posts.
He's got a point tho. If TMay can't get any deal through, will the Commons simply accept No Deal? I find that hard to believe.
They will kick up an almighty fuss and a parliamentary consensus might emerge which would be hard to resist (or the Tories accept the game is up and go for a GE)
I imagine 400MPs would prefer EFTA, say, to No Deal, no matter what the legal difficulties.
A 2nd referendum would be less popular, but would probably command a majority (if the alternative was No Deal)
Parliament would go for a second referendum. It could never agree on what deal to accept (EEA? Norway? EFTA? Canada? Ruritania? Utopia? etc etc etc) - it would throw the problem back to the voters.
I think that sounds right. The Commons can of course do what it likes, but some competing democratic mandate will be wanted I think.
Those who want a deal will be very annoyed, the EU is pretty keen on no deal it seems.
The EU has always been very keen on a deal that left us significantly worse off or stopped us leaving. That is why they have been so duplicitous and intransigent all the way through. That is also why the negotiations were left to Juncker and Barnier rather than individuals who could pass for sane, competent, honest and sober in a reasonably clear light.
They have now realised the second goal is unattainable, therefore they are revving up the first one.
The risks inherent in No Deal are considerable for the EU, but as it's not about sense but about politics now they don't care any more.
Delia Smith to lead Saturday's 'People's Vote' March in London.
Gary Linekar, Dominic West, Lena Beasley, Michael Morpurgo, Tracey Ullman and Andy Serkis have recorded video messages of support. Armando Iannucci, Sir Patrick Stewart, Natascha McElhone and Jamie Carragher have sponsored coaches to the march.
Mrs Brown star Brendan O'Carroll has told marchers 'It could be the March of your lives.'
Bob Geldof is also involved and has promised to 'bring democracy to Parliament.'
Multi-millionaire luvvies telling the the riff-raff they voted the wrong way and need to have another go and this time they'd better get it right...
The Remain campaign really has learned nothing from their defeat in 2016 have they?
No. I recall that both campaigns in 2016 were pretty bad, for different reasons, but while all of those people, many of whom I respect plenty, are certainly within their rights to do what they are, I very much get the idea that if Remain eventually happens it will be in spite of not because of their efforts, indeed it is almost certainly because of cocks up by Leave, since what precisely, is convincing about a bunch of people who were almost all deeply for remain anyway coming out so much for remain now?
There's only one reason why no deal wins out over remain. The party can wear no deal and blame it on the EU, lose in 2022 and let Labour deal with the mess, dump the leadership and come back in 2027. With remain we've got no one to blame and we're betraying our own voters, there's no way back for us with remain, not for at least three cycles.
If it was a remain backed by our party I'd be tempted to vote for Jez just to give our party the right royal kicking they would deserve. I'm certain I'm not alone with that sentiment.
The policy makers should just cancel Brexit. Those that foolishly supported Leave need to admit that they did not have the faintest idea of what they were talking about and they need to, albeit belatedly, apologise to the Nation.
Not a great fan of a second referendum - it will just deepen the massive divide already in the country.
Cancellation only hope....
Brexit = a calamity! Brexiteers = deluded fantasists!
So you think giving people a vote then cancelling it because you don't agree with the result is the way to go?
I wonder why people despise the political class
Well, it's the only hope for this country. The Referendum was won on false and incomplete information with a dose of xenophobia layered on for good measure.
The alternative is the hardest of hard Brexits which will cripple this country for decades.
The choice is clear, a crippling Brexit or the cancellation of such madness.
Can you explain why you think leaving a trade block would have more effect on us than a total war?
Total war???
Madness.
The last war didn’t cripple us for decades. I can’t think of a single modern historical event that did.
Describing the leaving of a trade block as crippling us for decades is utterly mad. The kind of hyperbole that causes sensible British people to laugh.
Claiming Brexit to be not quite as bad as total war, while true, is hardly an endorsement. Remember we voted for this nonsense whereas invasion in 1939 was forced on us. I'm not laughing.
Does anyone else have a problem viewing linked Twitter posts on this forum? Just started doing this to me.
Yes Been like it for a week
Have flaged it up but in the absence of an explanation the only way round is by viewing on vanilla forums
Does it just show the link for you?
I find that twitter posts show as twitter posts for the first hour or so, but older show as links posts.
Shows the link briefy and then its gone. Sometimes reappears if refreshed but not always
I think Boles argues that if we leave the EU the EEA Agreement endures so long as we join EFTA. In theory the customs union does not come into it as it is not a part of the EEA. If true it would give us the whiphand over any future temporary customs union.
It's completely half-baked, and being in EFTA would preclude a customs union anyway.
Why?
If you are right then all the talk of EEA has been empty because you have to be in the EU or in EFTA to be a contracting party to the EEA.
A customs union means we apply the same external tariffs as the EU, but EFTA membership means we would be obliged to join their FTAs which would not be compatible with that.
Look at Article 56 in the EFTA treaty which deals with accession:
I think the whole EEA / Norway thing is not being thought through. It doesn't work. There are a few facts that need to be addressed: ter.
So, in summary, it doesn't get us anywhere unless MPs will suddenly accept the backstop. It will not work as a 'bridge' to CETA because of the backstop. 'Norway' is not available because it does not allow CU membership. And the House of Commons cannot simply elect to 'stay in the single market' or 'choose Norway'.
The only way this option works is to ask the EU to create an SM+CU treaty, with a backstop to make sure we can never leave. Given nobody will accept the backstop now, not sure why this helps at all.
I fully agree with all of that.
Still think you're gonna win our bet?
I forget the precise terms, I think it was "UK to have left the EU by end 2019" wasn't it? With "left" meaning no UK Commissioners, no UK MEPs voting, etc. If I've misremembered mea culpa.
I think you're closer to winning it than I ever expected, but I still expect to be £1000 better off.
Yes I’m the most confident I’ve been at the moment. The can kicking is frustrating but it feels like we’re getting very close to the denouement.
Fair enough. I confess I am worried enough that I might lose that I am glad we reduced it from £10,000!
Nonetheless I think I will win. About 65-70% chance I think.
Incidentally (honest question) is my memory of the terms correct? I think we also appointed an adjudicator. Was it Peter the Punter, or someone else?
I think it was edmundintokyo. I remember the terms the same way you do but we can track down the posts if necessary.
There's only one reason why no deal wins out over remain. The party can wear no deal and blame it on the EU, lose in 2022 and let Labour deal with the mess, dump the leadership and come back in 2027. With remain we've got no one to blame and we're betraying our own voters, there's no way back for us with remain, not for at least three cycles.
If it was a remain backed by our party I'd be tempted to vote for Jez just to give our party the right royal kicking they would deserve. I'm certain I'm not alone with that sentiment.
He's got a point tho. If TMay can't get any deal through, will the Commons simply accept No Deal? I find that hard to believe.
They will kick up an almighty fuss and a parliamentary consensus might emerge which would be hard to resist (or the Tories accept the game is up and go for a GE)
I imagine 400MPs would prefer EFTA, say, to No Deal, no matter what the legal difficulties.
A 2nd referendum would be less popular, but would probably command a majority (if the alternative was No Deal)
Parliament would go for a second referendum. It could never agree on what deal to accept (EEA? Norway? EFTA? Canada? Ruritania? Utopia? etc etc etc) - it would throw the problem back to the voters.
I think that sounds right. The Commons can of course do what it likes, but some competing democratic mandate will be wanted I think.
It's looking more and more as though the final choice will be no deal or remain.
There won't be deal option because there won't be a deal.
Comments
And to be honest, I don't think May thinks a second referendum will solve anything at all - it will just unleash total chaos. Nobody will be able to agree the questions, Leave will boycott - people are not just going to say 'hey, great idea'. 45% of the country think we should No Deal according to HYUFD - why the hell are they going to support a second referendum?
The Tory MPs do not actually support a second ref as it would destroy them at the next election - especially if Remain won. It just doesn't make any sense to do it.
But of course that would have been ‘betraying the spirit of Brexit’.
Not a great fan of a second referendum - it will just deepen the massive divide already in the country.
Cancellation only hope....
Brexit = a calamity!
Brexiteers = deluded fantasists!
If the HOC decide to put it to a referendum it will happen
My hope remains that TM gets a deal but you are one of only a few posters who see no deal as viable. I have said that I have an open mind and that open mind has been pursuaded by the arguments no deal is not sustainable
I do have moments where I hope there is a "people's" vote, because if said people decided to say F.U. to the E.U. a second time, the looks on remainers' faces would be truly priceless...
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/552553.html
Quite a few people were caught off rebounds off my body and head...
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/theresa-may-keeps-calm-and-carries-on-but-dodges-the-tricky-issues/
We know about 40 Tory MPs will vote for EU ref2 over No Deal with Rudd having said she will join the likes of Wollaston and Grieve and Soubry etc if that is the case which would give it a majority in the Commons.
If Parliament votes for Norway which is also possible Norway would be the backstop and we would join EFTA under Norway terms, Parliament would be voting for Norway and staying in the Single Market, Boles may also hope that may ultimately turn into Canada+ but that is not what Parliament would be voting for
EU citizens should be treated the same as citizens from the rest of the world who come to the UK Support 65% Oppose 20%
Low skilled immigration should not generally be allowed except with limited exceptions such as seasonal agricultural work Support 52% Oppose 30%
Scrapping the current limit on the number of highly skilled migrants allowed to come to Britain each year Support 46% Oppose 31%
Requiring skilled migrants allowed to come to Britain for work to have a job offer worth at least £30 000 Support 46% Oppose 33%
Requiring tourists and business travellers from the EU to have a visa before visiting the UK Support 40% Oppose 42%
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2018/10/15/two-thirds-support-treating-eu-immigration/
If you are right then all the talk of EEA has been empty because you have to be in the EU or in EFTA to be a contracting party to the EEA.
Look at Article 56 in the EFTA treaty which deals with accession:
http://www.efta.int/sites/default/files/documents/legal-texts/efta-convention/Vaduz Convention Agreement.pdf
I wonder why people despise the political class
https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1051914589049409536
The alternative is the hardest of hard Brexits which will cripple this country for decades.
The choice is clear, a crippling Brexit or the cancellation of such madness.
That definitely overrides 17+m voters.
1. We are only party to the EEA treaty in our capacity as members of the EU.
2. We would have to re-apply to join the EEA and this requires EU consent.
3. The ECJ does exactly what the EU Commission want - they are not going to rule that we can stay in the EEA despite some of the legal speculation from Dr North.
4. As noted above, EFTA members cannot be in the EU CU.
5. Barnier has already declared that EEA membership does not solve the NI 'problem' - we need to be in the CU as well.
6. Therefore, for an SM+CU outcome, the EU would have to create a 'new' protocol outside of EFTA - amazingly they can suddenly do something new if they want.
7. Because this outcome is completely controlled by the EU, Barnier will still insist on the NI backstop in case we choose to leave the SM later.
So, in summary, it doesn't get us anywhere unless MPs will suddenly accept the backstop. It will not work as a 'bridge' to CETA because of the backstop. 'Norway' is not available because it does not allow CU membership. And the House of Commons cannot simply elect to 'stay in the single market' or 'choose Norway'.
The only way this option works is to ask the EU to create an SM+CU treaty, with a backstop to make sure we can never leave. Given nobody will accept the backstop now, not sure why this helps at all.
Still Delia Smith did produce some useful recipes and Bob Geldorf a couple of decent songs.
So the country is reaching a point where it has to chose whether or not to obey a democratic mandate that will in practice cause catastrophic economic damage which might even prove fatal to the state as it is currently constituted.
What May ought to be saying right now, and maybe a better leader than her would say, is that it has proven impossible to agree a feasible Brexit with the EU and within the governing party and admit it is her fault. She should be offering to ask the LOTO to agree with her to trigger a new general election, and offer a "coupon" to candidates of all parties in order to present a National government slate which will seek to exit from the Brexit process.
Going to be hell over Gib now though.....
Madness.
It's true that it's not quite the way she wanted, but it is a modest victory after the last three years.
Telling the British people, here's a stitch up of the entire Westminster elite, offering you fuck all choice, is a sure fire way to get the voters mighty riled up.
I'll get my coat...
😝
Edit - fifth slip, indeed. Any more and we'll be caught in the gully.
I know that you are obsessed with EUref2 but it will not ever happen. Tory MPs will not support it and therefore the Government will not propose it - the Tories are not going to reverse Brexit because it would destroy them. Without an Act of Parliament, the HoC can vote until it is blue in the face but it won't mean anything. MPs cannot create legislation without the Government support.
Can I be blunt - It's the backstop, stupid. Nothing to do with Chequers, Norway, CETA at the moment. There is no majority for the NI backstop in the HoC. The backstop applies to any deal, and May is not going to recommend we accept the NI backstop. Unless May can get the EU to back off, there is simply not going to be a deal and it doesn't help if the HoC want a different deal unless they vote for the backstop.
If MPs do go for the backstop the DUP will force a General Election. May can't win that.
IF May can get to a UK wide backstop with no regulatory border with NI (highly unlikely), then the various Brexit options come back into play.
My guess is that she will try to fudge a UK backstop with a regulatory border in the Irish Sea and the DUP will refuse and no confidence her. They have completely seen through this plot.
Ultimately, the only choice is going to be proceeding with No Deal.
Overall, the poll shows voters want to restrict low skilled migration but are happy with migrants with higher skills
Describing the leaving of a trade block as crippling us for decades is utterly mad. The kind of hyperbole that causes sensible British people to laugh.
Actually Tory MPs like Rudd have said they will vote for EUref2 over No Deal, given the hung parliament that would likely be enough to give it a majority if No Deal was on the cards even if most Tories voted against EUref2 still. May has made quite clear the Government will allow MPs to decide the way forward if No Deal, the Government will then support whatever MPs decide.
Add in Labour, LD, SNP, Green and PC and Tory Remainer MPs like Soubry, Rudd, Grieve, Wollaston, Neil etc and there is a majority for a SM + CU backstop in the HOC regardless of DUP +ERG opposition. Again May has made clear today she will do what the HOC decides.
Once Parliament has voted it has voted, that is that, the DUP can try and force a general election, May will either get a majority or Labour forms a minority government and Labour + LDs + SNP comes to power backing SM + CU, either way the DUP is then irrelevant.
Ultimately No Deal has no chance of getting through the Commons or Lords, there will either be SM+CU or EUref2 and every poll has shown at least a 10% Remain lead over No Deal in the case of the latter
Multi-millionaire luvvies telling the the riff-raff they voted the wrong way and need to have another go and this time they'd better get it right...
The Remain campaign really has learned nothing from their defeat in 2016 have they?
Does anyone else have a problem viewing linked Twitter posts on this forum? Just started doing this to me.
thats just so unfair
As if an investment banker would live in Islington.
Because a default position which doesn’t need to get through Parliament won’t get through Parliament...
Okaaaay.
As a good Muslim boy I know he doesn't let alcohol touch his lips, but has he foolishly experimented with another pineapple pizza?
Not ‘not quite as bad’, ‘nothing whatsoever like’....and nowhere near as bad as the hyperbolic, sweary s_murali suggests
I'm not going to check my blood sugar level for the next few days.
Have flaged it up but in the absence of an explanation the only way round is by viewing on vanilla forums
I find that twitter posts show as twitter posts for the first hour or so, but older show as links posts.
They have now realised the second goal is unattainable, therefore they are revving up the first one.
The risks inherent in No Deal are considerable for the EU, but as it's not about sense but about politics now they don't care any more.
Good night.
If it was a remain backed by our party I'd be tempted to vote for Jez just to give our party the right royal kicking they would deserve. I'm certain I'm not alone with that sentiment.
The Tory party won’t survive a Remain position.
There won't be deal option because there won't be a deal.