This strange idea permeates around some of the odder Leavers that anything that happens in London somehow doesn't count.
It's a weirder bubble that ignores the political atmosphere in what is by far Britain's largest and most prosperous city than any that takes place in it.
Personally Ive put you buying a house in Essex as a bigger event than Brexit.
When did Mr M say he was doing that? Anyway, nothing wrong with Essex, although he might find the Centre and North of the county more to his taste than parts at least of the South.
a while back OKC
and yes nothing wrong with Essex
That global warming can't solve...
Fenman, if your name is descriptive, I suggest you’d best be careful what you wish for!
There are deals May could get through Parliament, but she will not propose them because they would split the Conservative party and bring her time as PM to an end.
I do feel that the Remainers are not getting it. There is no deal of any type that could pass the HoC.
It is not about the deal, it is about the backstop. As I explained downthread, SM+CU is not a deal that can be offered under A50; therefore it will need a backstop as well and this would also be permanent in case the UK left later or if the UK could not agree to the terms of this deal, which does not currently exist for anyone.
There is no majority in the HoC for a permanent, NI-only backstop. I doubt even 100 MPs would vote for it. May would be well advised to simply call a straight vote on this issue to prove the point.
Until and unless this position changes, there are only two options. Leave with no deal, or abandon Brexit.
There is another option. If parliament accepts that the deal is non-negotiable with the EU but cannot accept it itself, then it can put that deal to the people against another option. Then, having obtained a specific mandate from the people, parliament can enact the chosen option, whether it's ratifying the deal or revoking article 50.
You mean ask the people to accept the NI backstop in a referendum? Possible but surely incredibly reckless for a Unionist party. I don't see the public approving it.
Personally, I think Parliament either fulfil the referendum result by leaving with no deal, or they should vote to withdraw A50. I don't think they have the guts to overturn Brexit.
I don't think there will be a referendum because nobody would be able to agree to hold it or what the question should be. But if it was "Remain because the only way to leave is cut off NI"; or Leave anyway, Leave would win by a mile.
You could just ask the people of Northern Ireland whether they were prepared to accept the backstop.
I suspect they would
but how are you going to get SF back to Stormont to get the ball rolling ?
The UK government can hold a refeendum in Northern Ireland. It doesn’t need Stormont to do it.
There are deals May could get through Parliament, but she will not propose them because they would split the Conservative party and bring her time as PM to an end.
I do feel that the Remainers are not getting it. There is no deal of any type that could pass the HoC.
It is not about the deal, it is about the backstop. As I explained downthread, SM+CU is not a deal that can be offered under A50; therefore it will need a backstop as well and this would also be permanent in case the UK left later or if the UK could not agree to the terms of this deal, which does not currently exist for anyone.
There is no majority in the HoC for a permanent, NI-only backstop. I doubt even 100 MPs would vote for it. May would be well advised to simply call a straight vote on this issue to prove the point.
Until and unless this position changes, there are only two options. Leave with no deal, or abandon Brexit.
Read William Hague in today’s Telegraph.
I did. He talks about joining EFTA. As I have mentioned:
1. We have to apply to join EFTA and EEA and this needs the EU's consent. 2. It is not possible to do this as part of A50 - not legal. 3. Barnier has been clear that EEA does not solve the NI border; it needs CU as well. That rules out ETFA. 4. So a totally new deal would be needed. That will need a backstop.
Not my fault Hague is an idiot. Over to you...
The law does not exist in a vacuum. That is especially the case with international law. What Hague is suggesting is a pause. If both sides want that a way will be found around any obstacles. And for both sides a pause is undoubtedly preferable to a no deal.
The current impasse is about an indefinite backstop. Do you think the EU will believe us when we say we want to forget that idea and instead move to a different temporary UK-wide relationship? Strip away the nice-sounding slogans and it's obvious why it's a non-starter.
I think the EU can see precisely what the issue is. If May finally tells the ERG and the DUP their game is up she will get a huge amount of support from the EU27.
That's naive. They won't agree a deal that can be blown up by PM Boris Johnson in 2019.
Leaving the single market will not lead to greater inward investment into the UK. Car companies will not build factories to service the UK market. It is not big enough to justify the cost.
as a rule of thumb a country can support its own car industry with a population hitting 50 m were well past that
car plants tend to be profitable at 250k units per annum
on current performance the UK could justify another 3-4 car plants quite easily, especially if HMG went fishing for them - automotive is one of the biggest holes in our BoP
The cars are already being sold here, though. Why build a factory when you already have the capacity to service what is a mature market from elsewhere?
you can say that about any product or service, but when youre a country with a massive BoP deficit and increasingly fewer means of covering it you may have to recognise you need to do more of your own stuff. And in this instance automotive is one of the biggest deficits weve got.
This is why Red Robbo was right in the 1980s and Mrs Thatcher was wrong about the car industry but that was all a long time ago. Starting from now, who will build these new plants here rather than in the cheaper parts of Europe? They offer cheap labour and fast, frictionless movement of cars and components within the EU.
And to hark back to yesterday's thread, even if we crash out of the EU, British drivers will still buy German cars. They might cost a bit more, that's all, but we'll still buy them. That is why Baron BMW is not on the phone to Chancellor Merkel.
modern manufacturing is capital intensive, labour is increasingly an irrelevance except for well trained highly skilled workers. People in the UK are stuck somewhere in the 1970s and fail to understand what is happening around them.
I( think you ll find BMW have been in touch with Mrs May quite a lot this year
This strange idea permeates around some of the odder Leavers that anything that happens in London somehow doesn't count.
It's a weirder bubble that ignores the political atmosphere in what is by far Britain's largest and most prosperous city than any that takes place in it.
Personally Ive put you buying a house in Essex as a bigger event than Brexit.
When did Mr M say he was doing that? Anyway, nothing wrong with Essex, although he might find the Centre and North of the county more to his taste than parts at least of the South.
a while back OKC
and yes nothing wrong with Essex
That global warming can't solve...
Fenman, if your name is descriptive, I suggest you’d best be careful what you wish for!
There are deals May could get through Parliament, but she will not propose them because they would split the Conservative party and bring her time as PM to an end.
I do feel that the Remainers are not getting it. There is no deal of any type that could pass the HoC.
It is not about the deal, it is about the backstop. As I explained downthread, SM+CU is not a deal that can be offered under A50; therefore it will need a backstop as well and this would also be permanent in case the UK left later or if the UK could not agree to the terms of this deal, which does not currently exist for anyone.
There is no majority in the HoC for a permanent, NI-only backstop. I doubt even 100 MPs would vote for it. May would be well advised to simply call a straight vote on this issue to prove the point.
Until and unless this position changes, there are only two options. Leave with no deal, or abandon Brexit.
There is another option. If parliament accepts that the deal is non-negotiable with the EU but cannot accept it itself, then it can put that deal to the people against another option. Then, having obtained a specific mandate from the people, parliament can enact the chosen option, whether it's ratifying the deal or revoking article 50.
You mean ask the people to accept the NI backstop in a referendum? Possible but surely incredibly reckless for a Unionist party. I don't see the public approving it.
Personally, I think Parliament either fulfil the referendum result by leaving with no deal, or they should vote to withdraw A50. I don't think they have the guts to overturn Brexit.
I don't think there will be a referendum because nobody would be able to agree to hold it or what the question should be. But if it was "Remain because the only way to leave is cut off NI"; or Leave anyway, Leave would win by a mile.
You could just ask the people of Northern Ireland whether they were prepared to accept the backstop.
I suspect they would
but how are you going to get SF back to Stormont to get the ball rolling ?
The UK government can hold a refeendum in Northern Ireland. It doesn’t need Stormont to do it.
This strange idea permeates around some of the odder Leavers that anything that happens in London somehow doesn't count.
It's a weirder bubble that ignores the political atmosphere in what is by far Britain's largest and most prosperous city than any that takes place in it.
Personally Ive put you buying a house in Essex as a bigger event than Brexit.
When did Mr M say he was doing that? Anyway, nothing wrong with Essex, although he might find the Centre and North of the county more to his taste than parts at least of the South.
a while back OKC
and yes nothing wrong with Essex
That global warming can't solve...
Fenman, if your name is descriptive, I suggest you’d best be careful what you wish for!
There are deals May could get through Parliament, but she will not propose them because they would split the Conservative party and bring her time as PM to an end.
I do feel that the Remainers are not getting it. There is no deal of any type that could pass the HoC.
It is not about the deal, it is about the backstop. As I explained downthread, SM+CU is not a deal that can be offered under A50; therefore it will need a backstop as well and this would also be permanent in case the UK left later or if the UK could not agree to the terms of this deal, which does not currently exist for anyone.
There is no majority in the HoC for a permanent, NI-only backstop. I doubt even 100 MPs would vote for it. May would be well advised to simply call a straight vote on this issue to prove the point.
Until and unless this position changes, there are only two options. Leave with no deal, or abandon Brexit.
Read William Hague in today’s Telegraph.
I did. He talks about joining EFTA. As I have mentioned:
1. We have to apply to join EFTA and EEA and this needs the EU's consent. 2. It is not possible to do this as part of A50 - not legal. 3. Barnier has been clear that EEA does not solve the NI border; it needs CU as well. That rules out ETFA. 4. So a totally new deal would be needed. That will need a backstop.
Not my fault Hague is an idiot. Over to you...
The law does not exist in a vacuum. That is especially the case with international law. What Hague is suggesting is a pause. If both sides want that a way will be found around any obstacles. And for both sides a pause is undoubtedly preferable to a no deal.
The current impasse is about an indefinite backstop. Do you think the EU will believe us when we say we want to forget that idea and instead move to a different temporary UK-wide relationship? Strip away the nice-sounding slogans and it's obvious why it's a non-starter.
I think the EU can see precisely what the issue is. If May finally tells the ERG and the DUP their game is up she will get a huge amount of support from the EU27.
That's naive. They won't agree a deal that can be blown up by PM Boris Johnson in 2019.
Johnson couldn’t blow anything up without the approval of Parliament.
Leaving the single market will not lead to greater inward investment into the UK. Car companies will not build factories to service the UK market. It is not big enough to justify the cost.
as a rule of thumb a country can support its own car industry with a population hitting 50 m were well past that
car plants tend to be profitable at 250k units per annum
on current performance the UK could justify another 3-4 car plants quite easily, especially if HMG went fishing for them - automotive is one of the biggest holes in our BoP
The cars are already being sold here, though. Why build a factory when you already have the capacity to service what is a mature market from elsewhere?
you can say that about any product or service, but when youre a country with a massive BoP deficit and increasingly fewer means of covering it you may have to recognise you need to do more of your own stuff. And in this instance automotive is one of the biggest deficits weve got.
This is why Red Robbo was right in the 1980s and Mrs Thatcher was wrong about the car industry but that was all a long time ago. Starting from now, who will build these new plants here rather than in the cheaper parts of Europe? They offer cheap labour and fast, frictionless movement of cars and components within the EU.
And to hark back to yesterday's thread, even if we crash out of the EU, British drivers will still buy German cars. They might cost a bit more, that's all, but we'll still buy them. That is why Baron BMW is not on the phone to Chancellor Merkel.
modern manufacturing is capital intensive, labour is increasingly an irrelevance except for well trained highly skilled workers. People in the UK are stuck somewhere in the 1970s and fail to understand what is happening around them.
I( think you ll find BMW have been in touch with Mrs May quite a lot this year
Why would the UK government provide huge, ongoing subsidies to companies so they can build factories in the UK where all the work is done by robots?
There are deals May could get through Parliament, but she will not propose them because they would split the Conservative party and bring her time as PM to an end.
I do feel that the Remainers are not getting it. There is no deal of any type that could pass the HoC.
It is not about the deal, it is about the backstop. As I explained downthread, SM+CU is not a deal that can be offered under A50; therefore it will need a backstop as well and this would also be permanent in case the UK left later or if the UK could not agree to the terms of this deal, which does not currently exist for anyone.
There is no majority in the HoC for a permanent, NI-only backstop. I doubt even 100 MPs would vote for it. May would be well advised to simply call a straight vote on this issue to prove the point.
Until and unless this position changes, there are only two options. Leave with no deal, or abandon Brexit.
Read William Hague in today’s Telegraph.
I did. He talks about joining EFTA. As I have mentioned:
1. We have to apply to join EFTA and EEA and this needs the EU's consent. 2. It is not possible to do this as part of A50 - not legal. 3. Barnier has been clear that EEA does not solve the NI border; it needs CU as well. That rules out ETFA. 4. So a totally new deal would be needed. That will need a backstop.
Not my fault Hague is an idiot. Over to you...
The law does not exist in a vacuum. That is especially the case with international law. What Hague is suggesting is a pause. If both sides want that a way will be found around any obstacles. And for both sides a pause is undoubtedly preferable to a no deal.
The current impasse is about an indefinite backstop. Do you think the EU will believe us when we say we want to forget that idea and instead move to a different temporary UK-wide relationship? Strip away the nice-sounding slogans and it's obvious why it's a non-starter.
I think the EU can see precisely what the issue is. If May finally tells the ERG and the DUP their game is up she will get a huge amount of support from the EU27.
That's naive. They won't agree a deal that can be blown up by PM Boris Johnson in 2019.
Johnson couldn’t blow anything up without the approval of Parliament.
He could say that May messed up the negotiations and left us with this god-awful deal, win a majority and then do what he liked. (Hypothetically.)
There are deals May could get through Parliament, but she will not propose them because they would split the Conservative party and bring her time as PM to an end.
I do feel that the Remainers are not getting it. There is no deal of any type that could pass the HoC.
It is not about the deal, it is about the backstop. As I explained downthread, SM+CU is not a deal that can be offered under A50; therefore it will need a backstop as well and this would also be permanent in case the UK left later or if the UK could not agree to the terms of this deal, which does not currently exist for anyone.
There is no majority in the HoC for a permanent, NI-only backstop. I doubt even 100 MPs would vote for it. May would be well advised to simply call a straight vote on this issue to prove the point.
Until and unless this position changes, there are only two options. Leave with no deal, or abandon Brexit.
Read William Hague in today’s Telegraph.
I did. He talks about joining EFTA. As I have mentioned:
1. We have to apply to join EFTA and EEA and this needs the EU's consent. 2. It is not possible to do this as part of A50 - not legal. 3. Barnier has been clear that EEA does not solve the NI border; it needs CU as well. That rules out ETFA. 4. So a totally new deal would be needed. That will need a backstop.
Not my fault Hague is an idiot. Over to you...
The law does not exist in a vacuum. That is especially the case with international law. What Hague is suggesting is a pause. If both sides want that a way will be found around any obstacles. And for both sides a pause is undoubtedly preferable to a no deal.
The current impasse is about an indefinite backstop. Do you think the EU will believe us when we say we want to forget that idea and instead move to a different temporary UK-wide relationship? Strip away the nice-sounding slogans and it's obvious why it's a non-starter.
I think the EU can see precisely what the issue is. If May finally tells the ERG and the DUP their game is up she will get a huge amount of support from the EU27.
That's naive. They won't agree a deal that can be blown up by PM Boris Johnson in 2019.
Johnson couldn’t blow anything up without the approval of Parliament.
Leaving the single market will not lead to greater inward investment into the UK. Car companies will not build factories to service the UK market. It is not big enough to justify the cost.
as a rule of thumb a country can support its own car industry with a population hitting 50 m were well past that
car plants tend to be profitable at 250k units per annum
on current performance the UK could justify another 3-4 car plants quite easily, especially if HMG went fishing for them - automotive is one of the biggest holes in our BoP
The cars are already being sold here, though. Why build a factory when you already have the capacity to service what is a mature market from elsewhere?
you can say that about any product or service, but when youre a country with a massive BoP deficit and increasingly fewer means of covering it you may have to recognise you need to do more of your own stuff. And in this instance automotive is one of the biggest deficits weve got.
This is why Red Robbo was right in the 1980s and Mrs Thatcher was wrong about the car industry but that was all a long time ago. Starting from now, who will build these new plants here rather than in the cheaper parts of Europe? They offer cheap labour and fast, frictionless movement of cars and components within the EU.
And to hark back to yesterday's thread, even if we crash out of the EU, British drivers will still buy German cars. They might cost a bit more, that's all, but we'll still buy them. That is why Baron BMW is not on the phone to Chancellor Merkel.
modern manufacturing is capital intensive, labour is increasingly an irrelevance except for well trained highly skilled workers. People in the UK are stuck somewhere in the 1970s and fail to understand what is happening around them.
I( think you ll find BMW have been in touch with Mrs May quite a lot this year
Why would the UK government provide huge, ongoing subsidies to companies so they can build factories in the UK where all the work is done by robots?
There are deals May could get through Parliament, but she will not propose them because they would split the Conservative party and bring her time as PM to an end.
I do feel that the Remainers are not getting it. There is no deal of any type
There is no majority in the HoC for a permanent, NI-only backstop. I doubt even 100 MPs would vote for it. May would be well advised to simply call a straight vote on this issue to prove the point.
Until and unless this position changes, there are only two options. Leave with no deal, or abandon Brexit.
Read William Hague in today’s Telegraph.
I did. He talks about joining EFTA. As I have mentioned:
1. We have to apply to join EFTA and EEA and this needs the EU's consent. 2. It is not possible to do this as part of A50 - not legal. 3. Barnier has been clear that EEA does not solve the NI border; it needs CU as well. That rules out ETFA. 4. So a totally new deal would be needed. That will need a backstop.
Not my fault Hague is an idiot. Over to you...
The law does not exist in a vacuum. That is especially the case with international law. What Hague is suggesting is a pause. If both sides want that a way will be found around any obstacles. And for both sides a pause is undoubtedly preferable to a no deal.
The current impasse is about an indefinite backstop. Do you think the EU will believe us when we say we want to forget that idea and instead move to a different temporary UK-wide relationship? Strip away the nice-sounding slogans and it's obvious why it's a non-starter.
I think the EU can see precisely what the issue is. If May finally tells the ERG and the DUP their game is up she will get a huge amount of support from the EU27.
That's naive. They won't agree a deal that can be blown up by PM Boris Johnson in 2019.
Johnson couldn’t blow anything up without the approval of Parliament.
He could say that May messed up the negotiations and left us with this god-awful deal, win a majority and then do what he liked. (Hypothetically.)
Not if Parliament has voted for and PM May has signed a backstop for NI keeping it in the single market and customs union.
He could only do what he liked if a technical solution had been found for the Irish border thus ending the need for the backstop or if he agreed to a GB only FTA with the EU
There are deals May could get through Parliament, but she will not propose them because they would split the Conservative party and bring her time as PM to an end.
I do feel that the Remainers are not getting it. There is no deal of any type that could pass the HoC.
It is not about the deal, it is about the backstop. As I explained downthread, SM+CU is not a deal that can be offered under A50; therefore it will need a backstop as well and this would also be permanent in case the UK left later or if the UK could not agree to the terms of this deal, which does not currently exist for anyone.
There is no majority in the HoC for a permanent, NI-only backstop. I doubt even 100 MPs would vote for it. May would be well advised to simply call a straight vote on this issue to prove the point.
Until and unless this position changes, there are only two options. Leave with no deal, or abandon Brexit.
There are deals May could get through Parliament, but she will not propose them because they would split the Conservative party and bring her time as PM to an end.
I do feel that the Remainers are not getting it. There is no deal of any type that could pass the HoC.
It is not about the deal, it is about the backstop. As I explained downthread, SM+CU is not a deal that can be offered under A50; therefore it will need a backstop as well and this would also be permanent in case the UK left later or if the UK could not agree to the terms of this deal, which does not currently exist for anyone.
There is no majority in the HoC for a permanent, NI-only backstop. I doubt even 100 MPs would vote for it. May would be well advised to simply call a straight vote on this issue to prove the point.
Until and unless this position changes, there are only two options. Leave with no deal, or abandon Brexit.
Read William Hague in today’s Telegraph.
I did. He talks about joining EFTA. As I have mentioned:
1. We have to apply to join EFTA and EEA and this needs the EU's consent. 2. It is not possible to do this as part of A50 - not legal. 3. Barnier has been clear that EEA does not solve the NI border; it needs CU as well. That rules out ETFA. 4. So a totally new deal would be needed. That will need a backstop.
Not my fault Hague is an idiot. Over to you...
The law does not exist in a vacuum. That is especially the case with international law. What Hague is suggesting is a pause. If both sides want that a way will be found around any obstacles. And for both sides a pause is undoubtedly preferable to a no deal.
The current impasse is about an indefinite backstop. Do you think the EU will believe us when we say we want to forget that idea and instead move to a different temporary UK-wide relationship? Strip away the nice-sounding slogans and it's obvious why it's a non-starter.
I think the EU can see precisely what the issue is. If May finally tells the ERG and the DUP their game is up she will get a huge amount of support from the EU27.
Leaving the single market will not lead to greater inward investment into the UK. Car companies will not build factories to service the UK market. It is not big enough to justify the cost.
as a rule of thumb a country can support its own car industry with a population hitting 50 m were well past that
car plants tend to be profitable at 250k units per annum
on current performance the UK could justify another 3-4 car plants quite easily, especially if HMG went fishing for them - automotive is one of the biggest holes in our BoP
The cars are already being sold here, though. Why build a factory when you already have the capacity to service what is a mature market from elsewhere?
you can say that about any product or service, but when youre a country with a massive BoP deficit and increasingly fewer means of covering it you may have to recognise you need to do more of your own stuff. And in this instance automotive is one of the biggest deficits weve got.
This is why Red Robbo was right in the 1980s and Mrs Thatcher was wrong about the car industry but that was all a long time ago. Starting from now, who will build these new plants here rather than in the cheaper parts of Europe? They offer cheap labour and fast, frictionless movement of cars and components within the EU.
And to hark back to yesterday's thread, even if we crash out of the EU, British drivers will still buy German cars. They might cost a bit more, that's all, but we'll still buy them. That is why Baron BMW is not on the phone to Chancellor Merkel.
modern manufacturing is capital intensive, labour is increasingly an irrelevance except for well trained highly skilled workers. People in the UK are stuck somewhere in the 1970s and fail to understand what is happening around them.
I( think you ll find BMW have been in touch with Mrs May quite a lot this year
Why would the UK government provide huge, ongoing subsidies to companies so they can build factories in the UK where all the work is done by robots?
One of the major problems of post Brexit Britain will be that the people in charge will be free marketeers, but the people who voted Leave being more protectionist and mercantilist. Combine that with continuing resentment from Remainers and I cannot see a Buccaneering Brexit government surviving long.
It may well be daft, but the demand for protectionism and state support of industry will be there.
Seems Labour have gone full GOP in their defence of Kavanaugh Bercow.
Amazing how rapidly the party has shed its mantle as "champion of the workers, the oppressed, and the minorities".
Haven't heard a thing from the LDs on the bullying claims. Which sums up their complete failure as an organisation to seize the initiative, any initiative, from the main parties.
The party of Lord Rennard? That paragon of virtue around women.......
Leaving the single market will not lead to greater inward investment into the UK. Car companies will not build factories to service the UK market. It is not big enough to justify the cost.
as a rule of thumb a country can support its own car industry with a population hitting 50 m were well past that
car plants tend to be profitable at 250k units per annum
on current performance the UK could justify another 3-4 car plants quite easily, especially if HMG went fishing for them - automotive is one of the biggest holes in our BoP
The cars are already being sold here, though. Why build a factory when you already have the capacity to service what is a mature market from elsewhere?
you can say that about any product or service, but when youre a country with a massive BoP deficit and increasingly fewer means of covering it you may have to recognise you need to do more of your own stuff. And in this instance automotive is one of the biggest deficits weve got.
This is why Red Robbo was right in the 1980s and Mrs Thatcher was wrong about the car industry but that was all a long time ago. Starting from now, who will build these new plants here rather than in the cheaper parts of Europe? They offer cheap labour and fast, frictionless movement of cars and components within the EU.
And to hark back to yesterday's thread, even if we crash out of the EU, British drivers will still buy German cars. They might cost a bit more, that's all, but we'll still buy them. That is why Baron BMW is not on the phone to Chancellor Merkel.
modern manufacturing is capital intensive, labour is increasingly an irrelevance except for well trained highly skilled workers. People in the UK are stuck somewhere in the 1970s and fail to understand what is happening around them.
I( think you ll find BMW have been in touch with Mrs May quite a lot this year
Why would the UK government provide huge, ongoing subsidies to companies so they can build factories in the UK where all the work is done by robots?
One of the major problems of post Brexit Britain will be that the people in charge will be free marketeers, but the people who voted Leave being more protectionist and mercantilist. Combine that with continuing resentment from Remainers and I cannot see a Buccaneering Brexit government surviving long.
It may well be daft, but the demand for protectionism and state support of industry will be there.
you mean much as every other country in the world does ?
Many countries together are greater than one. That was the argument for Europe all along and it is the reason why Brexit is failing; why it was always going to fail.
There are deals May could get through Parliament, but she will not propose them because they would split the Conservative party and bring her time as PM to an end.
I do feel that the Remainers are not getting it. There is no deal of any type that could pass the HoC.
It is not about the deal, it is about the backstop. As I explained downthread, SM+CU is not a deal that can be offered under A50; therefore it will need a backstop as well and this would also be permanent in case the UK left later or if the UK could not agree to the terms of this deal, which does not currently exist for anyone.
There is no majority in the HoC for a permanent, NI-only backstop. I doubt even 100 MPs would vote for it. May would be well advised to simply call a straight vote on this issue to prove the point.
Until and unless this position changes, there are only two options. Leave with no deal, or abandon Brexit.
Read William Hague in today’s Telegraph.
I did. He talks about joining EFTA. As I have mentioned:
1. We have to apply to join EFTA and EEA and this needs the EU's consent. 2. It is not possible to do this as part of A50 - not legal. 3. Barnier has been clear that EEA does not solve the NI border; it needs CU as well. That rules out ETFA. 4. So a totally new deal would be needed. That will need a backstop.
Not my fault Hague is an idiot. Over to you...
The law does not exist in a vacuum. That is especially the case with international law. What Hague is suggesting is a pause. If both sides want that a way will be found around any obstacles. And for both sides a pause is undoubtedly preferable to a no deal.
The current impasse is about an indefinite backstop. Do you think the EU will believe us when we say we want to forget that idea and instead move to a different temporary UK-wide relationship? Strip away the nice-sounding slogans and it's obvious why it's a non-starter.
I think the EU can see precisely what the issue is. If May finally tells the ERG and the DUP their game is up she will get a huge amount of support from the EU27.
That's naive. They won't agree a deal that can be blown up by PM Boris Johnson in 2019.
Johnson couldn’t blow anything up without the approval of Parliament.
Leaving the single market will not lead to greater inward investment into the UK. Car companies will not build factories to service the UK market. It is not big enough to justify the cost.
as a rule of thumb a country can support
The cars are already being sold here, though. Why build a factory when you already have the capacity to service what is a mature market from elsewhere?
you can say that about any product or service, but when youre a country with a massive BoP deficit and increasingly fewer means of covering it you may have to recognise you need to do more of your own stuff. And in this instance automotive is one of the biggest deficits weve got.
This is why Red Robbo was right in the 1980s and Mrs Thatcher was wrong about the car industry but that was all a long time ago. Starting from now, who will build these new plants here rather than in the cheaper parts of Europe? They offer cheap labour and fast, frictionless movement of cars and components within the EU.
And to hark back to yesterday's thread, even if we crash out of the EU, British drivers will still buy German cars. They might cost a bit more, that's all, but we'll still buy them. That is why Baron BMW is not on the phone to Chancellor Merkel.
modern manufacturing is capital intensive, labour is increasingly an irrelevance except for well trained highly skilled workers. People in the UK are stuck somewhere in the 1970s and fail to understand what is happening around them.
I( think you ll find BMW have been in touch with Mrs May quite a lot this year
Why would
One of the major problems of post Brexit Britain will be that the people in charge will be free marketeers, but the people who voted Leave being more protectionist and mercantilist. Combine that with continuing resentment from Remainers and I cannot see a Buccaneering Brexit government surviving long.
It may well be daft, but the demand for protectionism and state support of industry will be there.
you much as every other country in the world does ?
Yes, that will be one of many protectionist arguments.
With the WTO on the rocks, itcould be an interesting time for world trade.
On the bright side, the decrease in world trade and use of import substitution will probably be good for the environment.
This strange idea permeates around some of the odder Leavers that anything that happens in London somehow doesn't count.
It's a weirder bubble that ignores the political atmosphere in what is by far Britain's largest and most prosperous city than any that takes place in it.
Personally Ive put you buying a house in Essex as a bigger event than Brexit.
When did Mr M say he was doing that? Anyway, nothing wrong with Essex, although he might find the Centre and North of the county more to his taste than parts at least of the South.
a while back OKC
and yes nothing wrong with Essex
That global warming can't solve...
Fenman, if your name is descriptive, I suggest you’d best be careful what you wish for!
Fenman has webbed feet and gills.
Cambridgeshire, not Norfolk then!
Definitely Cambridgeshire. I only have five toes per foot.
Leaving the single market will not lead to greater inward investment into the UK. Car companies will not build factories to service the UK market. It is not big enough to justify the cost.
as a rule of thumb a country can support
The cars are already being sold here, though. Why build a factory when you already have the capacity to service what is a mature market from elsewhere?
you can say that about any product or service, but when youre a country with a massive BoP deficit and increasingly fewer means of covering it you may have to recognise you need to do more of your own stuff. And in this instance automotive is one of the biggest deficits weve got.
This is why Red Robbo was right in the 19 Merkel.
modern manufacturing is capital intensive, labour is increasingly an irrelevance except for well trained highly skilled workers. People in the UK are stuck somewhere in the 1970s and fail to understand what is happening around them.
I( think you ll find BMW have been in touch with Mrs May quite a lot this year
Why would
One of the major problems of post Brexit Britain will be that of industry will be there.
you much as every other country in the world does ?
Yes, that will be one of many protectionist arguments.
With the WTO on the rocks, itcould be an interesting time for world trade.
On the bright side, the decrease in world trade and use of import substitution will probably be good for the environment.
yes its about time we started looking after our own mess. Just loading products out to China were we cant see them doesnt cut pollution. Eventually it turms up on our doorstep.
This looks significant. I have been wondering how the Brexiters were going to extricate themselves from the sticky situation they have got themselves into. Nick Timothy seems to be adopting gradual disengagement. It will be interesting to see if they can realign slowly enough that few people notice.
Over on conhome, Stewart Jackson has a piece detailing all the shenanigans and infighting that has been going on. He has an axe to grind but it is illuminating as to May's tactics and depth of division over the deal.
Over on conhome, Stewart Jackson has a piece detailing all the shenanigans and infighting that has been going on. He has an axe to grind but it is illuminating as to May's tactics and depth of division over the deal.
I'm afraid I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of his mouth. One of the rotten apples in the party who deserved to, lose his seat at the last GE.
Who/Whom, My Enemy's Enemy is my friend, and He May be a Son of Bitch, but he's our Son of a Bitch matter far more in politics than issues of principle.
This looks significant. I have been wondering how the Brexiters were going to extricate themselves from the sticky situation they have got themselves into. Nick Timothy seems to be adopting gradual disengagement. It will be interesting to see if they can realign slowly enough that few people notice.
If both the EU and UK agreed to work towards that, even over 7 years with a firm deadline, then I’d agree to it.
It’s the fact I think the permanence of the backstop will override any incentive or reason to do that (making it perpetual because it suits the EU for it to be so) that’s the issue here.
Strong day for Sterling. Perhaps a deal is closer than we are being led to believe.
Yes - I wondered about this - the surge can't be solely down to the wage figures.
Percentage chance of a No Deal seems to be falling, too.
Hard not to wonder just a little if we're not witnessing that traditional EU deal making system in full swing. If so I'd expect nothing definite before the early hours of a December morn! Richard Nabavi has not posted in a while so I cannot believe things are quite as serious as some on here are suggesting.
What is surprising, when you think about it, is that all this bullying and dump Bercow thing actually blows up when TMay and Mcvey are so deeply in the excrement. Pure chance, dear boy, pure chance... .
Who/Whom, My Enemy's Enemy is my friend, and He May be a Son of Bitch, but he's our Son of a Bitch matter far more in politics than issues of principle.
Lots of spin around Bercow; is bad news being buried? I'd have thought if Labour were playing politics, they'd want a new Speaker from the blue side to reduce Theresa May's majority by one.
This looks significant. I have been wondering how the Brexiters were going to extricate themselves from the sticky situation they have got themselves into. Nick Timothy seems to be adopting gradual disengagement. It will be interesting to see if they can realign slowly enough that few people notice.
If both the EU and UK agreed to work towards that, even over 7 years with a firm deadline, then I’d agree to it.
It’s the fact I think the permanence of the backstop will override any incentive or reason to do that (making it perpetual because it suits the EU for it to be so) that’s the issue here.
It isn't only the EU that will find it convenient to make it perpetual. But this is just one, albeit a rather important one, of many mutually advantageous arrangements we have with the EU. Most of them have at least some fans on the UK side. Many are regarded as essential by people in the UK. Very few would be given up without a fight. You can have a lot of fights in 5 years. I'll be starting to campaign for a couple of things I would like to keep in place for example.
This is probably a stupid question, but what is stopping the government signing up to a "permanent" backstop now, but then backsliding on that a few years down the line if they wanted? What legal mechanism/recourse would the EU have to force the UK to keep to their side of the agreement?
Strong day for Sterling. Perhaps a deal is closer than we are being led to believe.
Raheem, or Pound?
Driven by wage inflation and more excellent numbers on employment. If it's true - it needs fact-checking - that 75% of new jobs are full time and youth unemployment is at its lowest level for donkey's years then the govt should really be making more of it. It's a hell of a good news story.
An anecdote (I know) but my sis-in-law, who has a chequered employment history and no qualifications, applied for three secretarial jobs in Sept and was offered all three!
This looks significant. I have been wondering how the Brexiters were going to extricate themselves from the sticky situation they have got themselves into. Nick Timothy seems to be adopting gradual disengagement. It will be interesting to see if they can realign slowly enough that few people notice.
If both the EU and UK agreed to work towards that, even over 7 years with a firm deadline, then I’d agree to it.
It’s the fact I think the permanence of the backstop will override any incentive or reason to do that (making it perpetual because it suits the EU for it to be so) that’s the issue here.
It isn't only the EU that will find it convenient to make it perpetual. But this is just one, albeit a rather important one, of many mutually advantageous arrangements we have with the EU. Most of them have at least some fans on the UK side. Many are regarded as essential by people in the UK. Very few would be given up without a fight. You can have a lot of fights in 5 years. I'll be starting to campaign for a couple of things I would like to keep in place for example.
Got it. You want us to go back in.
Thus you incentivise Brexiteers to push for the hardest possible Brexit as quickly as possible to spike your guns.
This is probably a stupid question, but what is stopping the government signing up to a "permanent" backstop now, but then backsliding on that a few years down the line if they wanted? What legal mechanism/recourse would the EU have to force the UK to keep to their side of the agreement?
Absolutely nothing. Normally it would be unwise as it would damage our reputation. But that ship is already out of port and looking for an albatross to shoot.
Who/Whom, My Enemy's Enemy is my friend, and He May be a Son of Bitch, but he's our Son of a Bitch matter far more in politics than issues of principle.
Lots of spin around Bercow; is bad news being buried? I'd have thought if Labour were playing politics, they'd want a new Speaker from the blue side to reduce Theresa May's majority by one.
Surely Bercow would resign and buckingham would go normal blue, so all level.
5 (or 7) cold winters will certainly winnow the ranks of the leavers. We could be in Corbyn's second term by then. Not many people will have too many fucks to give about trade deals with Timor-Leste.
This looks significant. I have been wondering how the Brexiters were going to extricate themselves from the sticky situation they have got themselves into. Nick Timothy seems to be adopting gradual disengagement. It will be interesting to see if they can realign slowly enough that few people notice.
Why this creepy obsession with dressing Theresa up as various effigies? That Wicker Man thing atop the cliffs of Dover was similarly disturbing. It puts too much pressure on Theresa. She's just an average politician who never has much luck. Trying to portray her as some kind of mythic superwoman raises expectations unfairly. The psychology of those doing it is also hard to explain. Presumably its roots lie in some sort of Maggie fetish.
This strange idea permeates around some of the odder Leavers that anything that happens in London somehow doesn't count.
It's a weirder bubble that ignores the political atmosphere in what is by far Britain's largest and most prosperous city than any that takes place in it.
Personally Ive put you buying a house in Essex as a bigger event than Brexit.
When did Mr M say he was doing that? Anyway, nothing wrong with Essex, although he might find the Centre and North of the county more to his taste than parts at least of the South.
a while back OKC
and yes nothing wrong with Essex
That global warming can't solve...
Fenman, if your name is descriptive, I suggest you’d best be careful what you wish for!
‘In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all- island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.’
Granted, NI remaining in full alignment with SM/CU is a sufficient subset of this commitment rather than the exact commitment, but has the UK actually offered to maintain full alignment with all rules unless and until another solution is agreed? NI-only or all-UK alignment seem to be the only ways for the UK to honour its commitment.
Not quite as bad as that "I stopped thinking I'd fall down the cracks in the pavement once I grew up, so there's hope for you Brexit voters yet" video, but still pretty poor.
5 (or 7) cold winters will certainly winnow the ranks of the leavers. We could be in Corbyn's second term by then. Not many people will have too many fucks to give about trade deals with Timor-Leste.
Yes but for every leaver that dies in a cold winter there's some young remain voters falling off a balcony while taking a selfie.There won't be any significant demographic change until long after Brexit.
This strange idea permeates around some of the odder Leavers that anything that happens in London somehow doesn't count.
It's a weirder bubble that ignores the political atmosphere in what is by far Britain's largest and most prosperous city than any that takes place in it.
Personally Ive put you buying a house in Essex as a bigger event than Brexit.
When did Mr M say he was doing that? Anyway, nothing wrong with Essex, although he might find the Centre and North of the county more to his taste than parts at least of the South.
a while back OKC
and yes nothing wrong with Essex
That global warming can't solve...
Fenman, if your name is descriptive, I suggest you’d best be careful what you wish for!
Fenman has webbed feet, and gills.
Yes, but how many toes on each foot?
Mr Fenman has already confirmed the normal number, as he hails from the genetically diverse side of the Norfolk/Cambridgeshire border.
I now it's playing the man not the ball, but I do have to point out that (despite[1] his large number of degrees), Mr Lilico is not bright. He once wrote a column saying that it would be cheaper to terraform Mars than combat climate change. It took a long time to point out that he was not just wrong, but obviously wrong. Some people[2] have difficulty handling very large numbers.
This is probably a stupid question, but what is stopping the government signing up to a "permanent" backstop now, but then backsliding on that a few years down the line if they wanted? What legal mechanism/recourse would the EU have to force the UK to keep to their side of the agreement?
Probably difficult to find a suitable legal mechanism. In practice the discussion is happening because the EU has stuff we want, like maintaining access to their market free of tariff and non-tariff borders, keeping aeroplanes flying... and so on. The continuation of any deal that gave us those things would be contingent on our keeping to the agreement.
It means that if the UK got to a stage where its economy could stand leaving all deals with EU and function on a no deal basis (when the motorway-car park conversions are finished etc) then it probably could walk away from the backstop and the EU may not be able to do a lot about it.
Who/Whom, My Enemy's Enemy is my friend, and He May be a Son of Bitch, but he's our Son of a Bitch matter far more in politics than issues of principle.
Lots of spin around Bercow; is bad news being buried? I'd have thought if Labour were playing politics, they'd want a new Speaker from the blue side to reduce Theresa May's majority by one.
Surely Bercow would resign and buckingham would go normal blue, so all level.
All level after a few months but the government could fall in that time.
Who/Whom, My Enemy's Enemy is my friend, and He May be a Son of Bitch, but he's our Son of a Bitch matter far more in politics than issues of principle.
Lots of spin around Bercow; is bad news being buried? I'd have thought if Labour were playing politics, they'd want a new Speaker from the blue side to reduce Theresa May's majority by one.
Surely Bercow would resign and buckingham would go normal blue, so all level.
All level after a few months but the government could fall in that time.
Plus, Bercow doesn't necessarily have to resign as an MP (nor does he necessarily have to comply with the Tory whip)....
This strange idea permeates around some of the odder Leavers that anything that happens in London somehow doesn't count.
It's a weirder bubble that ignores the political atmosphere in what is by far Britain's largest and most prosperous city than any that takes place in it.
Personally Ive put you buying a house in Essex as a bigger event than Brexit.
When did Mr M say he was doing that? Anyway, nothing wrong with Essex, although he might find the Centre and North of the county more to his taste than parts at least of the South.
a while back OKC
and yes nothing wrong with Essex
That global warming can't solve...
Fenman, if your name is descriptive, I suggest you’d best be careful what you wish for!
Fenman has webbed feet, and gills.
Yes, but how many toes on each foot?
Mr Fenman has already confirmed the normal number, as he hails from the genetically diverse side of the Norfolk/Cambridgeshire border.
He was strangely quiet on the number of fingers.....
5 (or 7) cold winters will certainly winnow the ranks of the leavers. We could be in Corbyn's second term by then. Not many people will have too many fucks to give about trade deals with Timor-Leste.
Yes but for every leaver that dies in a cold winter there's some young remain voters falling off a balcony while taking a selfie.There won't be any significant demographic change until long after Brexit.
I’m sure there are some reinsurers who would be delighted to trade with you at a price consistent with that risk assessment.
5 (or 7) cold winters will certainly winnow the ranks of the leavers. We could be in Corbyn's second term by then. Not many people will have too many fucks to give about trade deals with Timor-Leste.
Yes but for every leaver that dies in a cold winter there's some young remain voters falling off a balcony while taking a selfie.There won't be any significant demographic change until long after Brexit.
The preponderance of old voters will continue for some while, but the post-97 baby boom (go on; guess the reason) will mean the gap will start to narrow around 2025.
Pus bear in mind the key demographic here is the 30ish-45ish age group, who were unusually for Corbyn in 2017GE.
This strange idea permeates around some of the odder Leavers that anything that happens in London somehow doesn't count.
It's a weirder bubble that ignores the political atmosphere in what is by far Britain's largest and most prosperous city than any that takes place in it.
Personally Ive put you buying a house in Essex as a bigger event than Brexit.
When did Mr M say he was doing that? Anyway, nothing wrong with Essex, although he might find the Centre and North of the county more to his taste than parts at least of the South.
a while back OKC
and yes nothing wrong with Essex
That global warming can't solve...
Fenman, if your name is descriptive, I suggest you’d best be careful what you wish for!
Fenman has webbed feet, and gills.
Yes, but how many toes on each foot?
Mr Fenman has already confirmed the normal number, as he hails from the genetically diverse side of the Norfolk/Cambridgeshire border.
He was strangely quiet on the number of fingers.....
5 (or 7) cold winters will certainly winnow the ranks of the leavers. We could be in Corbyn's second term by then. Not many people will have too many fucks to give about trade deals with Timor-Leste.
Yes but for every leaver that dies in a cold winter there's some young remain voters falling off a balcony while taking a selfie.There won't be any significant demographic change until long after Brexit.
The preponderance of old voters will continue for some while, but the post-97 baby boom (go on; guess the reason) will mean the gap will start to narrow around 2025.
Pus bear in mind the key demographic here is the 30ish-45ish age group, who were unusually for Corbyn in 2017GE.
5 (or 7) cold winters will certainly winnow the ranks of the leavers. We could be in Corbyn's second term by then. Not many people will have too many fucks to give about trade deals with Timor-Leste.
Yes but for every leaver that dies in a cold winter there's some young remain voters falling off a balcony while taking a selfie.There won't be any significant demographic change until long after Brexit.
The preponderance of old voters will continue for some while, but the post-97 baby boom (go on; guess the reason) will mean the gap will start to narrow around 2025.
Pus bear in mind the key demographic here is the 30ish-45ish age group, who were unusually for Corbyn in 2017GE.
Yup and suddenyl today none of the left-wingers here or anywhere else have anything to say about bullying and sexism in the workplace. Funny that.
wrong type of bullying
it's a reminder that it's all about getting one over. It's only bad when they do it, not us. And if we did something in our distant past (distant past can be a matter of months) then that's fine, because fundamentally we are good people on the side of angels and its probably not the whole story anyway.
Over on conhome, Stewart Jackson has a piece detailing all the shenanigans and infighting that has been going on. He has an axe to grind but it is illuminating as to May's tactics and depth of division over the deal.
This is the line with betting consequences:
"Should she return from Brussels this week with a deal which egregiously betrays the referendum result, the Prime Minister will surely be removed from office – not least because she has so wilfully refused to engage with those seeking to save her premiership by imploring her to pivot to a Canada-style free trade deal."
5 (or 7) cold winters will certainly winnow the ranks of the leavers. We could be in Corbyn's second term by then. Not many people will have too many fucks to give about trade deals with Timor-Leste.
Yes but for every leaver that dies in a cold winter there's some young remain voters falling off a balcony while taking a selfie.There won't be any significant demographic change until long after Brexit.
The mortality of the elderly is more significant from a public health perspective, and as wealthier and higher educated people live longer, disproportionately affecting Leave voters.
It does look like they're going to find some method of kicking it all into the long grass - all the apocalyptic stuff seems a little forced, just preparing the ground for a compromise already more or less reached.
5 (or 7) cold winters will certainly winnow the ranks of the leavers. We could be in Corbyn's second term by then. Not many people will have too many fucks to give about trade deals with Timor-Leste.
Yes but for every leaver that dies in a cold winter there's some young remain voters falling off a balcony while taking a selfie.There won't be any significant demographic change until long after Brexit.
The preponderance of old voters will continue for some while, but the post-97 baby boom (go on; guess the reason) will mean the gap will start to narrow around 2025.
Pus bear in mind the key demographic here is the 30ish-45ish age group, who were unusually for Corbyn in 2017GE.
Over on conhome, Stewart Jackson has a piece detailing all the shenanigans and infighting that has been going on. He has an axe to grind but it is illuminating as to May's tactics and depth of division over the deal.
This is the line with betting consequences:
"Should she return from Brussels this week with a deal which egregiously betrays the referendum result, the Prime Minister will surely be removed from office – not least because she has so wilfully refused to engage with those seeking to save her premiership by imploring her to pivot to a Canada-style free trade deal."
How do those who will remove her from office identify the point where they have been betrayed egregiously enough to actually try and remove her? That point may only be reached when a deal is signed and sealed, and then it’s too late for it to achieve anything.
I was once on my way to attend something billed as an extraordinary management meeting. Colleague A asked why it was extraordinary, at which point Colleague B (a former manager) promptly replied "one where they take a decision".
I now it's playing the man not the ball, but I do have to point out that (despite[1] his large number of degrees), Mr Lilico is not bright. He once wrote a column saying that it would be cheaper to terraform Mars than combat climate change. It took a long time to point out that he was not just wrong, but obviously wrong. Some people[2] have difficulty handling very large numbers.
[1] Because of? [2] Most people?
Playing devil's advocate: is he 'obviously wrong' ?
The cost of mitigating, yet alone combating, climate change will be many hundreds of billions; there may also be recurring costs as well; not just one-offs. We may well be talking of multiple trillions.
Whereas the costs of terraforming Mars will be massive, but some techniques (e.g. asteroid/comet movement) may be relatively 'cheap' (for a wide enough definition of 'cheap'). Since the tech isn't there, it's hard to know. Then again, much of the tech isn't there to 'combat' climate change, either.
Since the costs of combating climate change are uncertain, and the costs of terraforming Mars even more uncertain, yet both are very large numbers, I cannot see how he is 'obviously wrong'.
On the other hand, the costs of *not* combating climate change and the wider environment (both direct and obvious, such as rising sea levels, and indirect, such as health effects of a poor environment), should also be on the ledger, countering the costs of combatting climate change. There is no obvious counter in terraforming Mars.
It seems to the thing nowadays to make a totally false assertion and then denounce those with other opinions or actual facts as liars. And then for people to post these false assertions and libels without comment as the presumed truth.
On the other hand, the costs of *not* combating climate change and the wider environment (both direct and obvious, such as rising sea levels, and indirect, such as health effects of a poor environment), should also be on the ledger, countering the costs of combatting climate change. There is no obvious counter in terraforming Mars.
Article IX of the outer space treaty says "Hi".
The counter to terraforming Mars is that it might not be possible, or probably is, but won't be on any human lifetime timescale.
Comments
I( think you ll find BMW have been in touch with Mrs May quite a lot this year
EDIT: I win.
He could only do what he liked if a technical solution had been found for the Irish border thus ending the need for the backstop or if he agreed to a GB only FTA with the EU
It may well be daft, but the demand for protectionism and state support of industry will be there.
With the WTO on the rocks, itcould be an interesting time for world trade.
On the bright side, the decrease in world trade and use of import substitution will probably be good for the environment.
https://twitter.com/FDAGenSec/status/1052140158718480385
As Carlotta pointed out its a bit too quiet
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1052126323790016512
It’s the fact I think the permanence of the backstop will override any incentive or reason to do that (making it perpetual because it suits the EU for it to be so) that’s the issue here.
https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1052165696459874311
An anecdote (I know) but my sis-in-law, who has a chequered employment history and no qualifications, applied for three secretarial jobs in Sept and was offered all three!
Thus you incentivise Brexiteers to push for the hardest possible Brexit as quickly as possible to spike your guns.
Granted, NI remaining in full alignment with SM/CU is a sufficient subset of this commitment rather than the exact commitment, but has the UK actually offered to maintain full alignment with all rules unless and until another solution is agreed? NI-only or all-UK alignment seem to be the only ways for the UK to honour its commitment.
[1] Because of?
[2] Most people?
It means that if the UK got to a stage where its economy could stand leaving all deals with EU and function on a no deal basis (when the motorway-car park conversions are finished etc) then it probably could walk away from the backstop and the EU may not be able to do a lot about it.
This is beyond parody now.
Pus bear in mind the key demographic here is the 30ish-45ish age group, who were unusually for Corbyn in 2017GE.
Is this a new constitutional arrangement?
Pathetic.
"Should she return from Brussels this week with a deal which egregiously betrays the referendum result, the Prime Minister will surely be removed from office – not least because she has so wilfully refused to engage with those seeking to save her premiership by imploring her to pivot to a Canada-style free trade deal."
https://qz.com/1413866/more-than-250-people-have-died-while-taking-selfies/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
The mortality of the elderly is more significant from a public health perspective, and as wealthier and higher educated people live longer, disproportionately affecting Leave voters.
It does look like they're going to find some method of kicking it all into the long grass - all the apocalyptic stuff seems a little forced, just preparing the ground for a compromise already more or less reached.
But on the other hand, all the more reason to take early retirement next year, as I get CPI then.
https://www.change.org/p/bank-of-england-margaret-thatcher-for-the-face-of-the-new-50-note
The cost of mitigating, yet alone combating, climate change will be many hundreds of billions; there may also be recurring costs as well; not just one-offs. We may well be talking of multiple trillions.
Whereas the costs of terraforming Mars will be massive, but some techniques (e.g. asteroid/comet movement) may be relatively 'cheap' (for a wide enough definition of 'cheap'). Since the tech isn't there, it's hard to know. Then again, much of the tech isn't there to 'combat' climate change, either.
Since the costs of combating climate change are uncertain, and the costs of terraforming Mars even more uncertain, yet both are very large numbers, I cannot see how he is 'obviously wrong'.
On the other hand, the costs of *not* combating climate change and the wider environment (both direct and obvious, such as rising sea levels, and indirect, such as health effects of a poor environment), should also be on the ledger, countering the costs of combatting climate change. There is no obvious counter in terraforming Mars.
The counter to terraforming Mars is that it might not be possible, or probably is, but won't be on any human lifetime timescale.