John Major is the most successful living Tory leader.
Not sure about that but in any case that's not saying much given he took Mrs Thatchers 100+ seat majority from 1987 and lost 40 seats in 1992, presided over the ERM disaster in which he threw Tory voting house-holders to the wolves in order to try and stay in the ERM and ultimately saw the Conservatives get their biggest pasting since the Duke of Wellington in the subsequent election...
Other than that I agree he's amazing.
It's really interesting how many people on the right's political views seem to have been formed during that period but based on New Labour's spin rather than the reality.
Unfortunately for "Sir John" whatever credibility he had dissolved into thin air at this moment
Given the total and abject humiliation he presided over I'm surprised he ever showed his face in public again... I'm not sure I'd have been able to.
But the even bigger mystery is why anyone in the media takes him remotely seriously after being so widely known as the biggest political failure in the lifetime of anyone alive, then or now?
And of course special mention for that waste of space Lord Heseltine who was equally responsible for his "asteroid wiping out all life as we know it" event as Anthony King described it...
The 1997 election loss (or, conversely, Blair's wi have lost in 1997. Blair would have lost in 1997, if leading the Conservatives. They were a tired toddler: they'd been in power too long, needed to go to bed for a sleep, but were arguing against it - and in the process made the sleep deeper and longer than need be the case.
Yeah but there's "losing"... And then there's 1997!
Even Ed got 232 MPs in 2015
Major got 336 MPs in 1992, the only Tory Leader to win a 4th successive term for the party since Lord Liverpool
But he got 165 MPs in 1997, the lowest number for either Tories or Labour since 1945.
No Tory leader would have won in 1997
Sir John Major is worth ten of today's Tories. A man of honour.
He got 30.7% of the vote, the lowest EVER vote for the Tory Party EVER!
John Major is the most successful living Tory leader.
Not sure about that but in any case that's not saying much given he took Mrs Thatchers 100+ seat majority from 1987 and lost 40 seats in 1992, presided over the ERM disaster in which he threw Tory voting house-holders to the wolves in order to try and stay in the ERM and ultimately saw the Conservatives get their biggest pasting since the Duke of Wellington in the subsequent election...
Other than that I agree he's amazing.
It's really interesting how many people on the right's political views seem to have been formed during that period but based on New Labour's spin rather than the reality.
Unfortunately for "Sir John" whatever credibility he had dissolved into thin air at this moment
Given the total and abject humiliation he presided over I'm surprised he ever showed his face in public again... I'm not sure I'd have been able to.
But the even bigger mystery is why anyone in the media takes him remotely seriously after being so widely known as the biggest political failure in the lifetime of anyone alive, then or now?
And of course special mention for that waste of space Lord Heseltine who was equally responsible for his "asteroid wiping out all life as we know it" event as Anthony King described it...
The 1997 election loss (or, conveed be the case.
Yeah but there's "losing"... And then there's 1997!
Even Ed got 232 MPs in 2015
Major got 336 MPs in 1992, the only Tory Leader to win a 4th successive term for the party since Lord Liverpool
But he got 165 MPs in 1997, the lowest number for either Tories or Labour since 1945.
No Tory leader would have won in 1997
Sir John Major is worth ten of today's Tories. A man of honour.
He put country before party
Admirable, but though I am not one who thinks any cost to Brexit is worth it, presumably a great many of even the hardest Brexiters believe they are putting country before party, hence their willing to go against their party leader pre, during and post referendum.
They may not have any country left by they time they have finished, certainly in the UK sense.
Dick Fuld). However situation was short andthe blowback from the ERM fallout was limited[1].
People forget the reason why we went in: it enabled a degree of fiscal prudence that squeezed out the larger inflation of the 80's. Unfortunately the solution became a problem in itself, hence the fallout.
Incidentally, if you traduce John Major for his lack of cope in a financial disaster, shouldn't you credit Gordon Brown for his behavior in 2008?
[1] Although arguably it laid the foundations for Brexit several years later...
(cut..) I'm not sure what we need to thank Gordon Brown for in 2008 - interest rates cuts were delivered by the now independent BoE. They, together with the fall in Sterling, did help stop the recession being even deeper.
It cured the problem, albeit temporary It could be applied by anybody It was easily comprehensible
In an emergency people freeze up: they fall back on reflexes, take refuge in blame, do things they know won't work because they can't think of anything else. Brown, for all his (considerable) faults, did not. Major did in 1992 and May is doing it right now.
What do you think the disadvantages might have been? (Lets do it once a month otherwise)
There were several big things: I thought it was fraudulent (I may be right) and would lead to a pulse of inflation (I think I was wrong in that, or at least premature). Also the moral hazard was intense: I disapproved of it then and even more now. Capitalism doesn't work if failures don't fail, it just becomes communism for billionaires. If it was up to me I wouldn't have done it, even with hindsight.
I am not sure investors in say RBS or HBOS will feel they have been protected from the banks failure. Nor should they have been of course.
If Brown and Darling had not stepped in the impact on the economy of one or two major retail banks failing would have been catastrophic for the country on a scale not seen since the war.
They just saved it up for later. How can you not see that? Imagine for a moment that you do see that! All of a sudden Osborne and Darling's actions make sense.
Tories locked in a which of their leaders is shittest competition. Once again, Tories muscle in on Labour territory.
Well, that's because you've established such as gold standard of unsuitability for high office that we can never match it.
Au contraire , the depths to which Cameron sank are unsurpassed. After an unpromising start, to destroy himself and fracture his country overnight is a unique achievement. An unforced error too tragic for Shakespeare.
John Major is the most successful living Tory leader.
Not sure about that but in any case that's not saying much given he took Mrs Thatchers 100+ seat majority from 1987 and lost 40 seats in 1992, presided over the ERM disaster in which he threw Tory voting house-holders to the wolves in order to try and stay in the ERM and ultimately saw the Conservatives get their biggest pasting since the Duke of Wellington in the subsequent election...
Other than that I agree he's amazing.
It's really interesting how many people on the right's political views seem to have been formed during that period but based on New Labour's spin rather than the reality.
Unfortunately for "Sir John" whatever credibility he had dissolved into thin air at this moment
Portillo would have done no better than Major in 1997, maybe worse. Taxi drivers were honking their horns when he lost Enfield Southgate.
Heseltine may have done slightly better but would still have lost
No one could have beaten Blair and his strong team. The country had been wanting to ditch the Tories for at least a decade, but very sensibly wasn't going to do so until there was a credible alternative. That's why Blair, Mandelson, Brown, Campbell and the others put so much hard work into making it clear that they could be trusted not to trash everything.
This is a lesson Labour would be well advised to heed, if they want to form the next government. They show little sign of heeding it.
They may not have any country left by they time they have finished, certainly in the UK sense.
It really could be Little England (and Wales)
My point was it is no good telling people to put country before party if they already think they are doing that, erroneously or not. If it is very wrong, and they cannot see that, there's no convincing them and others need to be sought for the particular measures to put the country first. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people theoretically opposed to no deal who I don't think really are opposed to it, since they put so many barriers in the way of preventing it as to make their protests they don't want it meaningless.
For Parliament to act there has to be a Bill. And the Bill has to be introduced.
AIUI Private members bills can be easily stopped unless introduced by HMLoyalOpposition (ie corbyn) . Government Bills can only be introduced by the Gov (ie May).
And that's it.
So regardless of the views of 'Parliament' unless may/corbyn introduce a bill there's nothing to vote on. The single known exception is the already legislated for 'Meaningful Vote'. Which is only yea/nay on the Deal Tmay brings back.
All the talk of a Sovereign Parliament stopping NoDeal, peoplesvotes etc falls down here : there is nothing to vote on.
This is quite correct. The assumptions about what Parliament will 'do' are a lot more complicated because ultimately you need a functioning Government which has to have a policy.
The 'meaningful vote' can possibly be amended, but it is nothing but an advisory position. As we see on PB all day, people propose things in terms of deal outcomes that can't actually happen (eg HYUFD and his magic transition to SM+CU) so how Parliament does anything but have a general whinge is beyond me.
Parliament can either reject or pass a deal presented to them. If the Government supported it, they could decide either to abandon Brexit or have another referendum, but this can't happen without Govt support because both require primary legislation. But the one thing they can't do is determine which deal outcome they might want.
If none of these happen, no deal will happen. It doesn't need any form of approval.
May will simply allow the likes of Grieve etc to put forward their own bills on Brexit which will likely lead to a vote on a SM+CU backstop for NI which will likely pass the Commons to get the transition period (in which the whole UK will stay in the SM + CU) and the Withdrawal Agreeement.
What will not happen is MPs allow No Deal to occur. Even after November's negotiations once May hands over to Parliament if those talks fail there will be over 4 months until Brexit day
Honestly. Private members cannot magically put forward bills that will pass in record time. Private members cannot even put up bills unless they win the ballot. The only Brexit bills that will be considered are those that are proposed by the Government. Try again.
May will ultimately put up a SM + CU backstop but only take it to the EU if Parliament votes it though which it likely will
May wouldn’t last 5 minutes as leader after proposing that. And back benches can’t take offers to Europe!
Your fantasy island politics about MPs taking the lead in negotiating fails to understand our constitution. And the Tory party.
Tories locked in a which of their leaders is shittest competition. Once again, Tories muscle in on Labour territory.
Well, that's because you've established such as gold standard of unsuitability for high office that we can never match it.
Au contraire , the depths to which Cameron sank are unsurpassed. After an unpromising start, to destroy himself and fracture his country overnight is a unique achievement. An unforced error too tragic for Shakespeare.
Cameron gave a referendum, he didn't make 52% of the people vote against him, he clearly didn't create a fracture he was broken by a fracture which existed.
Tories locked in a which of their leaders is shittest competition. Once again, Tories muscle in on Labour territory.
Well, that's because you've established such as gold standard of unsuitability for high office that we can never match it.
Au contraire , the depths to which Cameron sank are unsurpassed. After an unpromising start, to destroy himself and fracture his country overnight is a unique achievement. An unforced error too tragic for Shakespeare.
Poppycock. It's bizarre beyond belief to blame Cameron for the fact that voters, in the absence of any support for Remain from Labour, voted against what he was campaigning almost single-handedly for.
In effect it isn't, as the transition could well end up being permanent with an application for EFTA membership unless a technical solution is found to the Irish border that ends the backstop and enables a FTA.
In any case no vote needs to be held on the SM and CU for GB only for NI in the vote on the backstop as part of the Withdrawal Agreement.
You are still so confused. EFTA has absolutely nothing to do with this. We cannot join EFTA as being in a CU with the EU is not compatible with EFTA.
Confusion abounds.
The biggest HYUFD overnight Eastasia/Eurasia moment is surely that he has stopped talking about scrapping FOM, at all....
But the polls meanwhile say that the people overwhelmingly want to deal with EU immigration in the same way as ROW...
Eastern European migration has seen a net fall since the referendum anyway, I am not prepared to risk ending the Union and wreck the economy just over ending FOM (which Blair could have controlled through transition controls in 2004 within the EU) and for a few worthless FTAs
Ruth Davidson thinks the backstop risks ending the Union.
PB Tories, you are spoiling us with outcomes that will end the Union.
It is ironic that Theresa May may well achieve what Salmond couldn't manage.
Perhaps Scotland could fund a statue of her for Holyrood, like the Boll Weevil monument in Enterprise, Alabama.
He got 30.7% of the vote, the lowest EVER vote for the Tory Party EVER!
No he did not - the Tories inflicted that on themselves. I remember the sense of loathing and disgust that many felt for the conservatives at that point. The feeling was many that whole party was massively out of touch and had become arrogant.
Major was just daft enough to be leader at the time, but 1997 was inflicted by the party on itself.
In effect it isn't, as the transition could well end up being permanent with an application for EFTA membership unless a technical solution is found to the Irish border that ends the backstop and enables a FTA.
In any case no vote needs to be held on the SM and CU for GB only for NI in the vote on the backstop as part of the Withdrawal Agreement.
You are still so confused. EFTA has absolutely nothing to do with this. We cannot join EFTA as being in a CU with the EU is not compatible with EFTA.
Confusion abounds.
The biggest HYUFD overnight Eastasia/Eurasia moment is surely that he has stopped talking about scrapping FOM, at all....
But the polls meanwhile say that the people overwhelmingly want to deal with EU immigration in the same way as ROW...
Eastern European migration has seen a net fall since the referendum anyway, I am not prepared to risk ending the Union and wreck the economy just over ending FOM (which Blair could have controlled through transition controls in 2004 within the EU) and for a few worthless FTAs
Ruth Davidson thinks the backstop risks ending the Union.
PB Tories, you are spoiling us with outcomes that will end the Union.
It is ironic that Theresa May may well achieve what Salmond couldn't manage.
Perhaps Scotland could fund a statue of her for Holyrood, like the Boll Weevil monument in Enterprise, Alabama.
It will be the Brexiteers not May, May I think will still do all she can to avoid No Deal.
For Parliament to act there has to be a Bill. And the Bill has to be introduced.
AIUI Private members bills can be easily stopped unless introduced by HMLoyalOpposition (ie corbyn) . Government Bills can only be introduced by the Gov (ie May).
And that's it.
So regardless of the views of 'Parliament' unless may/corbyn introduce a bill there's nothing to vote on. The single known exception is the already legislated for 'Meaningful Vote'. Which is only yea/nay on the Deal Tmay brings back.
All the talk of a Sovereign Parliament stopping NoDeal, peoplesvotes etc falls down here : there is nothing to vote on.
This is quite correct. The assumptions about what Parliament will 'do' are a lot more complicated because ultimately you need a functioning Government which has to have a policy.
The 'meaningful vote' can possibly be amended, but it is nothing but an advisory position. As we see on PB all day, people propose things in terms of deal outcomes that can't actually happen (eg HYUFD and his magic transition to SM+CU) so how Parliament does anything but have a general whinge is beyond me.
Parliament can either reject or pass a deal presented to them. If the Government supported it, they could decide either to abandon Brexit or have another referendum, but this can't happen without Govt support because both require primary legislation. But the one thing they can't do is determine which deal outcome they might want.
If none of these happen, no deal will happen. It doesn't need any form of approval.
May will simply alloliament if those talks fail there will be over 4 months until Brexit day
Honestly. Private members cannot magically put forward bills that will pass in record time. Private members cannot even put up bills unless they win the ballot. The only Brexit bills that will be considered are those that are proposed by the Government. Try again.
May will ultimately put up a SM + CU backstop but only take it to the EU if Parliament votes it though which it likely will
May wouldn’t last 5 minutes as leader after proposing that. And back benches can’t take offers to Europe!
Your fantasy island politics about MPs taking the lead in negotiating fails to understand our constitution. And the Tory party.
The UK may not last 5 minutes without that.
Our constitution is based on Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament will vote for a SM+CU backstop over No Deal
John Major is the most successful living Tory leader.
Not sure about that but in any case that's not saying much given he took Mrs Thatchers 100+ seat majority from 1987 and lost 40 seats in 1992, presided over the ERM disaster in which he threw Tory voting house-holders to the wolves in order to try and stay in the ERM and ultimately saw the Conservatives get their biggest pasting since the Duke of Wellington in the subsequent election...
Other than that I agree he's amazing.
It's really interesting how many people on the right's political views seem to have been formed during that period but based on New Labour's spin rather than the reality.
(cut)
And of course special mention for that waste of space Lord Heseltine who was equally responsible for his "asteroid wiping out all life as we know it" event as Anthony King described it...
(cut) Thatcher would have lost in 1997. Cameron would have lost in 1997. Blair would have lost in 1997, if leading the Conservatives. They were a tired toddler: they'd been in power too long, needed to go to bed for a sleep, but were arguing against it - and in the process made the sleep deeper and longer than need be the case.
Yeah but there's "losing"... And then there's 1997!
Even Ed got 232 MPs in 2015
Major got 336 MPs in 1992, the only Tory Leader to win a 4th successive term for the party since Lord Liverpool
But he got 165 MPs in 1997, the lowest number for either Tories or Labour since 1945.
No Tory leader would have won in 1997
That's far from no Tory leader being able to win in 1997 with a lead up. Portillo perhaps?
The real factor at play was Blair.
Portillo would have done no better than Major in 1997, maybe worse. Taxi drivers were honking their horns when he lost Enfield Southgate.
Heseltine may have done slightly better but would still have lost
Yes. Portillo now though is someone I guess we'd all listen to. Major, a bit. Heseltine, not in a month of Sundays.
Chris Patton could perhaps have been a Tory leader too, and done well in your 1997 test.
For Parliament to act there has to be a Bill. And the Bill has to be introduced.
AIUI Private members bills can be easily stopped unless introduced by HMLoyalOpposition (ie corbyn) . Government Bills can only be introduced by the Gov (ie May).
And that's it.
So regardless of the views of 'Parliament' unless may/corbyn introduce a bill there's nothing to vote on. The single known exception is the already legislated for 'Meaningful Vote'. Which is only yea/nay on the Deal Tmay brings back.
All the talk of a Sovereign Parliament stopping NoDeal, peoplesvotes etc falls down here : there is nothing to vote on.
If none of these happen, no deal will happen. It doesn't need any form of approval.
May will simply allow the likes of Grieve etc to put forward their own bills on Brexit which will likely lead to a vote on a SM+CU backstop for NI which will likely pass the Commons to get the transition period (in which the whole UK will stay in the SM + CU) and the Withdrawal Agreeement.
What will not happen is MPs allow No Deal to occur. Even after November's negotiations once May hands over to Parliament if those talks fail there will be over 4 months until Brexit day
Honestly. Private members cannot magically put forward bills that will pass in record time. Private members cannot even put up bills unless they win the ballot. The only Brexit bills that will be considered are those that are proposed by the Government. Try again.
May will ultimately put up a SM + CU backstop but only take it to the EU if Parliament votes it though which it likely will
May wouldn’t last 5 minutes as leader after proposing that. And back benches can’t take offers to Europe!
Your fantasy island politics about MPs taking the lead in negotiating fails to understand our constitution. And the Tory party.
Why not? The story so far reveals that the Brexiteers are all push and no piss.
Tories locked in a which of their leaders is shittest competition. Once again, Tories muscle in on Labour territory.
Well, that's because you've established such as gold standard of unsuitability for high office that we can never match it.
Au contraire , the depths to which Cameron sank are unsurpassed. After an unpromising start, to destroy himself and fracture his country overnight is a unique achievement. An unforced error too tragic for Shakespeare.
Poppycock. It's bizarre beyond belief to blame Cameron for the fact that voters, in the absence of any support for Remain from Labour, voted against what he was campaigning almost single-handedly for.
Cameron is a total and abject failure. His ego led him to be negligent. To blame Labour for his own error is absurd. An error, let us never forget, devised solely to keep his right wing on board in 2015.
Portillo would have done no better than Major in 1997, maybe worse. Taxi drivers were honking their horns when he lost Enfield Southgate.
Heseltine may have done slightly better but would still have lost
No one could have beaten Blair and his strong team. The country had been wanting to ditch the Tories for at least a decade, but very sensibly wasn't going to do so until there was a credible alternative. That's why Blair, Mandelson, Brown, Campbell and the others put so much hard work into making it clear that they could be trusted not to trash everything.
This is a lesson Labour would be well advised to heed, if they want to form the next government. They show little sign of heeding it.
At the next election at this rate it will be a choice of 1997 Tories v 1983 Labour and maybe SDP too
The inevitable has happened - Elizabeth Warren's ridiculous native american claim has become a subject of ridicule. Sen. Orrin Hatch has tweeted a photo of him looking at his phone, with the description "1/1032 T. Rex, the rest - other dinosaurs".
When you don't even need to mention the object of the joke, the ridicule is complete.
It seems to me that there are politicians out there making sensible if incomplete noises. Some DUP chap on the C4 news last night was entirely sensible. If the DUP can do it we all can!
I know what you mean. I heard Sammy Wilson talking sense on R4 last week. Weird! A first time for everything I suppose....
Yeah but we have to listen.(and thanks for the name.) I like making sense, but as second best I like hearing sense. (Sounds very Northern, but I'm not)
Ahhh ... but I am very northern. I regard Scousers and Mancs as southerners
I was merely complimenting the Northern ability to make comments 'pithy'. I thought as a Southerner that I'd rather stumbled into that. I wrote very few words, and I made my point almost accidentally well. As you can tell from this windy explanation it isn't a theme
Tories locked in a which of their leaders is shittest competition. Once again, Tories muscle in on Labour territory.
Well, that's because you've established such as gold standard of unsuitability for high office that we can never match it.
Au contraire , the depths to which Cameron sank are unsurpassed. After an unpromising start, to destroy himself and fracture his country overnight is a unique achievement. An unforced error too tragic for Shakespeare.
Poppycock. It's bizarre beyond belief to blame Cameron for the fact that voters, in the absence of any support for Remain from Labour, voted against what he was campaigning almost single-handedly for.
If only there had been some way that poor, poor man could have avoided having a referendum. Alas such a thing was impossible!
Barnier open to extending Brexit transition by another year
In return, Theresa May must accept ‘two-tier’ backstop to avoid an Irish border
Michel Barnier has said he is open to the possibility of a one-year extension to Britain’s Brexit transition in return for Theresa May accepting a “two-tier” backstop to avoid a border in Northern Ireland, according to EU diplomats.
On the eve of a Brexit summit in Brussels on Wednesday night, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator told ministers from the 27 member states that Brussels was ready to propose fresh ideas to reach a deal by next month.
The plan, informally suggested to the UK in talks last week, involve including a one-year extension clause for the 21-month transition period, which ends in December 2020. This would grant more time to agree a new UK-EU trade relationship and avoid special arrangements for Northern Ireland.
Britain, however, objected to significant elements of the plan for Northern Ireland, effectively suspending talks until after the summit of EU leaders this week.
When Cameron left office, he had a majority in Parliament.
When Major left office, he had a rump of only 165 MPs!
Indeed.
'92 was a relatively successful campaign, but against a very, very weak (and over-confident) opposition, after a huge self-inflicted economic wound.
Imagine the Tories going to the polls in '92 having NOT ever bothered with the ERM and avoiding the subsequent crash out...
But the crash out from the ERM has since obscured the other big failure of Tory economic policy of the time, the run on the pound of 1985. That was certainly something I remembered well at the time. In the run up to the 1992 election the stability the ERM brought was probably a factor in the Tories' favour.
The inevitable has happened - Elizabeth Warren's ridiculous native american claim has become a subject of ridicule. Sen. Orrin Hatch has tweeted a photo of him looking at his phone, with the description "1/1032 T. Rex, the rest - other dinosaurs".
When you don't even need to mention the object of the joke, the ridicule is complete.
She has always said that her great, great grandmother was part Native American, and now confirmed genetically. Why is that a ridiculous claim?
John Major is the most successful living Tory leader.
Not sure about that but in any case that's not saying much given he took Mrs Thatchers 100+ seat majority from 1987 and lost 40 seats in 1992, presided over the ERM disaster in which he threw Tory voting house-holders to the wolves in order to try and stay in the ERM and ultimately saw the Conservatives get their biggest pasting since the Duke of Wellington in the subsequent election...
Other than that I agree he's amazing.
It's really interesting how many people on the right's political views seem to have been formed during that period but based on New Labour's spin rather than the reality.
(cut)
And of course special mention for that waste of space Lord Heseltine who was equally responsible for his "asteroid wiping out all life as we know it" event as Anthony King described it...
(cut) Thatcher would have lost in 1997. Cameron would have lost in 1997. Blair would have lost in 1997, if leading the Conservatives. They were a tired toddler: they'd been in power too long, needed to go to bed for a sleep, but were arguing against it - and in the process made the sleep deeper and longer than need be the case.
Yeah but there's "losing"... And then there's 1997!
Even Ed got 232 MPs in 2015
Major got 336 MPs in 1992, the only Tory Leader to win a 4th successive term for the party since Lord Liverpool
But he got 165 MPs in 1997, the lowest number for either Tories or Labour since 1945.
No Tory leader would have won in 1997
That's far from no Tory leader being able to win in 1997 with a lead up. Portillo perhaps?
The real factor at play was Blair.
Portillo would have done no better than Major in 1997, maybe worse. Taxi drivers were honking their horns when he lost Enfield Southgate.
Heseltine may have done slightly better but would still have lost
Yes. Portillo now though is someone I guess we'd all listen to. Major, a bit. Heseltine, not in a month of Sundays.
Chris Patton could perhaps have been a Tory leader too, and done well in your 1997 test.
Patten lost his seat in 1992 and was the last Governor of Hong Kong at the time of the 1997 election. He like Heseltine may have done a bit better but still lost
Cameron is a total and abject failure. His ego led him to be negligent. To blame Labour for his own error is absurd. An error, let us never forget, devised solely to keep his right wing on board in 2015.
If he's a 'total and abject failure' then so are all the sane Labour figures who couldn't even beat Corbyn of all people, and who therefore ensured that the Labour pro-Remain vote went AWOL. I really don't think you can blame Cameron either for that, or for not envisaging it would happen when he committed to the referendum - not that he had any choice on that, let's not forget.
Meanwhile, in the actual role of PM he was without doubt the best for half a century, bar the very special case of Maggie.
Not having access to the article, I cannot tell if the Torygraph has a take on Hammond's forecast. But does the fact that they've given it a front page spread indicate a softening of their hard-line Brexit stance?
Not my reading of it. Just reporting a story.
But Hammond is a disgrace. Firstly, he is wrong about the legal requirements of the Brexit bill and this has been subject to expert legal advice from people far more credible than the 'Treasury lawyers' that he is for some reason engaging to provide advice that is nothing to do with his department (clearly a DexEU matter). Secondly, he is talking about 'the UK losing in international arbitration' which completely ignores the fact that the UK is not subject to international arbitration on the EU treaties unless we decide to offer it; there is no jurisdiction where the EU can 'enforce' the bill.
Hammond, more than almost anyone except May, is responsible for the mess the Government is in now. He refused to plan for no deal and release the necessary funds, has constantly had the Treasury release bogus forecasts of doom and now he is lying about the bill. Should be fired but of course won't be; the end of his career cannot come soon enough.
The Treasury Solicitors' office provides the Government Legal Service.
Our constitution is based on Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament will vote for a SM+CU backstop over No Deal
And as I have been telling you all day, per the Guardian:
The chief whip, Julian Smith, told ministers that the prime minister would not get House of Commons approval for a backstop that could apply indefinitely.
Our constitution is based on Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament will vote for a SM+CU backstop over No Deal
And as I have been telling you all day, per the Guardian:
The chief whip, Julian Smith, told ministers that the prime minister would not get House of Commons approval for a backstop that could apply indefinitely.
It's almost like an inversion of the situation when Cameron was working on his deal. Many MPs will take any excuse to oppose it.
Cameron is a total and abject failure. His ego led him to be negligent. To blame Labour for his own error is absurd. An error, let us never forget, devised solely to keep his right wing on board in 2015.
If he's a 'total and abject failure' then so are all the sane Labour figures who couldn't even beat Corbyn of all people, and who therefore ensured that the Labour pro-Remain vote went AWOL. I really don't think you can blame Cameron either for that, or for not envisaging it would happen when he committed to the referendum - not that he had any choice on that, let's not forget.
Meanwhile, in the actual role of PM he was without doubt the best for half a century, bar the very special case of Maggie.
We're talking about 2015, right? The election where Labour was wiped out in Scotland in large part because of their wholehearted support for a Tory-led campaign in a referendum? Cameron couldn't envision that maybe, just maybe, they wouldn't be so enthusiastic to repeat the experience?
Our constitution is based on Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament will vote for a SM+CU backstop over No Deal
And as I have been telling you all day, per the Guardian:
The chief whip, Julian Smith, told ministers that the prime minister would not get House of Commons approval for a backstop that could apply indefinitely.
How does he know? Since when is he the whip for Labour and LD and SNP MPs who would likely all vote for a SM + CU backstop for NI (though the SNP will wish to ensure it applies longer term to the UK beyond the intended transition period). Add in 40 Tory MPs who would also vote for that over No Deal and there is your Commons majority even without the ERG and DUP
In effect it isn't, as the transition could well end up being permanent with an application for EFTA membership unless a technical solution is found to the Irish border that ends the backstop and enables a FTA.
In any case no vote needs to be held on the SM and CU for GB only for NI in the vote on the backstop as part of the Withdrawal Agreement.
You are still so confused. EFTA has absolutely nothing to do with this. We cannot join EFTA as being in a CU with the EU is not compatible with EFTA.
Confusion abounds.
The biggest HYUFD overnight Eastasia/Eurasia moment is surely that he has stopped talking about scrapping FOM, at all....
But the polls meanwhile say that the people overwhelmingly want to deal with EU immigration in the same way as ROW...
Eastern European migration has seen a net fall since the referendum anyway, I am not prepared to risk ending the Union and wreck the economy just over ending FOM (which Blair could have controlled through transition controls in 2004 within the EU) and for a few worthless FTAs
Ruth Davidson thinks the backstop risks ending the Union.
PB Tories, you are spoiling us with outcomes that will end the Union.
It is ironic that Theresa May may well achieve what Salmond couldn't manage.
Perhaps Scotland could fund a statue of her for Holyrood, like the Boll Weevil monument in Enterprise, Alabama.
Tories locked in a which of their leaders is shittest competition. Once again, Tories muscle in on Labour territory.
Well, that's because you've established such as gold standard of unsuitability for high office that we can never match it.
Au contraire , the depths to which Cameron sank are unsurpassed. After an unpromising start, to destroy himself and fracture his country overnight is a unique achievement. An unforced error too tragic for Shakespeare.
Poppycock. It's bizarre beyond belief to blame Cameron for the fact that voters, in the absence of any support for Remain from Labour, voted against what he was campaigning almost single-handedly for.
If only there had been some way that poor, poor man could have avoided having a referendum. Alas such a thing was impossible!
Yes, it was, actually, as the Commons votes on the European Union (Referendum) Bill 2013–14 showed.
Not having access to the article, I cannot tell if the Torygraph has a take on Hammond's forecast. But does the fact that they've given it a front page spread indicate a softening of their hard-line Brexit stance?
Not my reading of it. Just reporting a story.
But Hammond is a disgrace. Firstly, he is wrong about the legal requirements of the Brexit bill and this has been subject to expert legal advice from people far more credible than the 'Treasury lawyers' that he is for some reason engaging to provide advice that is nothing to do with his department (clearly a DexEU matter). Secondly, he is talking about 'the UK losing in international arbitration' which completely ignores the fact that the UK is not subject to international arbitration on the EU treaties unless we decide to offer it; there is no jurisdiction where the EU can 'enforce' the bill.
Hammond, more than almost anyone except May, is responsible for the mess the Government is in now. He refused to plan for no deal and release the necessary funds, has constantly had the Treasury release bogus forecasts of doom and now he is lying about the bill. Should be fired but of course won't be; the end of his career cannot come soon enough.
The Treasury Solicitors' office provides the Government Legal Service.
Quita apart from legal arbitration, not paying would not be a very good precedent for future treaties with anyone, and is probably needed even for the mini-deals that "No Deal" actually requires.
Not for the first time Hammond is the adult in the room.
Our constitution is based on Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament will vote for a SM+CU backstop over No Deal
And as I have been telling you all day, per the Guardian:
The chief whip, Julian Smith, told ministers that the prime minister would not get House of Commons approval for a backstop that could apply indefinitely.
How does he know? Since when is he the whip for Labour and LD and SNP MPs who would likely all vote for a SM + CU backstop for NI (though the SNP will wish to ensure it applies longer term to the UK). Add in 40 Tory MPs who would also vote for that and there is your Commons majority even without the ERG and DUP
Oh dear God.
He is the Chief Whip. It is his job.
If you were better at it, or closer to the pulse of the Commons than him, maybe you wouldn’t be Chief Whip.
Cameron is a total and abject failure. His ego led him to be negligent. To blame Labour for his own error is absurd. An error, let us never forget, devised solely to keep his right wing on board in 2015.
If he's a 'total and abject failure' then so are all the sane Labour figures who couldn't even beat Corbyn of all people, and who therefore ensured that the Labour pro-Remain vote went AWOL. I really don't think you can blame Cameron either for that, or for not envisaging it would happen when he committed to the referendum - not that he had any choice on that, let's not forget.
Meanwhile, in the actual role of PM he was without doubt the best for half a century, bar the very special case of Maggie.
His legacy is sheer poison. It is impossible to hold him with more contempt. As Paxman said, the worst PM since Lord North. Yes, I blame him for a referendum designed to bolster his right wing. He put himself and party before country. Unforgivable.
Not having access to the article, I cannot tell if the Torygraph has a take on Hammond's forecast. But does the fact that they've given it a front page spread indicate a softening of their hard-line Brexit stance?
Not my reading of it. Just reporting a story.
But Hammond is a disgrace. Firstly, he is wrong about the legal requirements of the Brexit bill and this has been subject to expert legal advice from people far more credible than the 'Treasury lawyers' that he is for some reason engaging to provide advice that is nothing to do with his department (clearly a DexEU matter). Secondly, he is talking about 'the UK losing in international arbitration' which completely ignores the fact that the UK is not subject to international arbitration on the EU treaties unless we decide to offer it; there is no jurisdiction where the EU can 'enforce' the bill.
Hammond, more than almost anyone except May, is responsible for the mess the Government is in now. He refused to plan for no deal and release the necessary funds, has constantly had the Treasury release bogus forecasts of doom and now he is lying about the bill. Should be fired but of course won't be; the end of his career cannot come soon enough.
The Treasury Solicitors' office provides the Government Legal Service.
Quita apart from legal arbitration, not paying would not be a very good precedent for future treaties with anyone, and is probably needed even for the mini-deals that "No Deal" actually requires.
No country is going to be fussed about squabbling over money in a situation where there is no legal certainty and no specific provision in the treaties, so the precedent is not a problem. The mini-deals point is rather stronger.
The inevitable has happened - Elizabeth Warren's ridiculous native american claim has become a subject of ridicule. Sen. Orrin Hatch has tweeted a photo of him looking at his phone, with the description "1/1032 T. Rex, the rest - other dinosaurs".
When you don't even need to mention the object of the joke, the ridicule is complete.
She has always said that her great, great grandmother was part Native American, and now confirmed genetically. Why is that a ridiculous claim?
I also fail to see why it’s such a big deal either way. Who cares?
Our constitution is based on Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament will vote for a SM+CU backstop over No Deal
And as I have been telling you all day, per the Guardian:
The chief whip, Julian Smith, told ministers that the prime minister would not get House of Commons approval for a backstop that could apply indefinitely.
How does he know? Since when is he the whip for Labour and LD and SNP MPs who would likely all vote for a SM + CU backstop for NI (though the SNP will wish to ensure it applies longer term to the UK). Add in 40 Tory MPs who would also vote for that and there is your Commons majority even without the ERG and DUP
Oh dear God.
He is the Chief Whip. It is his job.
If you were better at it, or closer to the pulse of the Commons than him, maybe you wouldn’t be Chief Whip.
He is not the Chief Whip for the Opposition parties, just because the ERG and DUP will vote against it does not mean the Commons as a whole will do.
The Commons will not vote for a No Deal that may end the Union and wrecks the economy
Cameron is a total and abject failure. His ego led him to be negligent. To blame Labour for his own error is absurd. An error, let us never forget, devised solely to keep his right wing on board in 2015.
If he's a 'total and abject failure' then so are all the sane Labour figures who couldn't even beat Corbyn of all people, and who therefore ensured that the Labour pro-Remain vote went AWOL. I really don't think you can blame Cameron either for that, or for not envisaging it would happen when he committed to the referendum - not that he had any choice on that, let's not forget.
Meanwhile, in the actual role of PM he was without doubt the best for half a century, bar the very special case of Maggie.
His legacy is sheer poison. It is impossible to hold him with more contempt. As Paxman said, the worst PM since Lord North. Yes, I blame him for a referendum designed to bolster his right wing. He put himself and party before country. Unforgivable.
It wasn't a mistake that came out of the blue either. He made a strategic decision to appease the extreme Eurosceptics throughout his leadership, and they ended up consuming him.
Not having access to the article, I cannot tell if the Torygraph has a take on Hammond's forecast. But does the fact that they've given it a front page spread indicate a softening of their hard-line Brexit stance?
Not my reading of it. Just reporting a story.
But Hammond is a disgrace. Firstly, he is wrong about the legal requirements of the Brexit bill and this has been subject to expert legal advice from people far more credible than the 'Treasury lawyers' that he is for some reason engaging to provide advice that is nothing to do with his department (clearly a DexEU matter). Secondly, he is talking about 'the UK losing in international arbitration' which completely ignores the fact that the UK is not subject to international arbitration on the EU treaties unless we decide to offer it; there is no jurisdiction where the EU can 'enforce' the bill.
Hammond, more than almost anyone except May, is responsible for the mess the Government is in now. He refused to plan for no deal and release the necessary funds, has constantly had the Treasury release bogus forecasts of doom and now he is lying about the bill. Should be fired but of course won't be; the end of his career cannot come soon enough.
The Treasury Solicitors' office provides the Government Legal Service.
Quita apart from legal arbitration, not paying would not be a very good precedent for future treaties with anyone, and is probably needed even for the mini-deals that "No Deal" actually requires.
Not for the first time Hammond is the adult in the room.
Juncker has said that in the event of a No Deal Brexit, he’d be open to specific “lifeboat” deals to keep the planes flying etc. However, you can bet your bottom euro that even those would be contingent on Britiain paying what it owed.
Portillo would have done no better than Major in 1997, maybe worse. Taxi drivers were honking their horns when he lost Enfield Southgate.
Heseltine may have done slightly better but would still have lost
This is a lesson Conservatives would be well advised to heed, if they want to form the next government. They show little sign of heeding it.
Fixed it for you.
I hope the little fox used as your avatar is living though I fear it is not. Having recently been to a castle near Aberdeen filled to the brim with stuffed domestic pets I think I recognise the signs. I can find you a nice Helmut Newton nude of a model called fox if you like
Cameron is a total and abject failure. His ego led him to be negligent. To blame Labour for his own error is absurd. An error, let us never forget, devised solely to keep his right wing on board in 2015.
If he's a 'total and abject failure' then so are all the sane Labour figures who couldn't even beat Corbyn of all people, and who therefore ensured that the Labour pro-Remain vote went AWOL. I really don't think you can blame Cameron either for that, or for not envisaging it would happen when he committed to the referendum - not that he had any choice on that, let's not forget.
Meanwhile, in the actual role of PM he was without doubt the best for half a century, bar the very special case of Maggie.
His legacy is sheer poison. It is impossible to hold him with more contempt. As Paxman said, the worst PM since Lord North. Yes, I blame him for a referendum designed to bolster his right wing. He put himself and party before country. Unforgivable.
Pretty much. He's on course to cost the country as much as Thatcher's mismanagement too, if not more. But he did speak well.
Cameron is a total and abject failure. His ego led him to be negligent. To blame Labour for his own error is absurd. An error, let us never forget, devised solely to keep his right wing on board in 2015.
If he's a 'total and abject failure' then so are all the sane Labour figures who couldn't even beat Corbyn of all people, and who therefore ensured that the Labour pro-Remain vote went AWOL. I really don't think you can blame Cameron either for that, or for not envisaging it would happen when he committed to the referendum - not that he had any choice on that, let's not forget.
Meanwhile, in the actual role of PM he was without doubt the best for half a century, bar the very special case of Maggie.
His legacy is sheer poison. It is impossible to hold him with more contempt. As Paxman said, the worst PM since Lord North. Yes, I blame him for a referendum designed to bolster his right wing. He put himself and party before country. Unforgivable.
Poppycock again. He was trying to put an end to the poison. Unfortunately he didn't succeed - but that (let us never forget) was the choice of the British public, who sadly didn't heed him. It's a bit rich to blame him for being right, as you see it.
Cameron is a total and abject failure. His ego led him to be negligent. To blame Labour for his own error is absurd. An error, let us never forget, devised solely to keep his right wing on board in 2015.
If he's a 'total and abject failure' then so are all the sane Labour figures who couldn't even beat Corbyn of all people, and who therefore ensured that the Labour pro-Remain vote went AWOL. I really don't think you can blame Cameron either for that, or for not envisaging it would happen when he committed to the referendum - not that he had any choice on that, let's not forget.
Meanwhile, in the actual role of PM he was without doubt the best for half a century, bar the very special case of Maggie.
His legacy is sheer poison. It is impossible to hold him with more contempt. As Paxman said, the worst PM since Lord North. Yes, I blame him for a referendum designed to bolster his right wing. He put himself and party before country. Unforgivable.
It wasn't a mistake that came out of the blue either. He made a strategic decision to appease the extreme Eurosceptics throughout his leadership, and they ended up consuming him.
Our constitution is based on Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament will vote for a SM+CU backstop over No Deal
And as I have been telling you all day, per the Guardian:
The chief whip, Julian Smith, told ministers that the prime minister would not get House of Commons approval for a backstop that could apply indefinitely.
How does he know? Since when is he the whip for Labour and LD and SNP MPs who would likely all vote for a SM + CU backstop for NI (though the SNP will wish to ensure it applies longer term to the UK beyond the intended transition period). Add in 40 Tory MPs who would also vote for that over No Deal and there is your Commons majority even without the ERG and DUP
"who would likely all vote for"
You do keep saying this guff. Subjects (in parliament) for votes are provided by the Gov(TMay) and Opposition(Corbo the Great). Neither will accede to your wishes.
I think it proves that he panics under pressure, a characteristic he shares with many other people (see Dick Fuld). However situation was short andthe blowback from the ERM fallout was limited[1].
Incidentally, if you traduce John Major for his lack of cope in a financial disaster, shouldn't you credit Gordon Brown for his behavior in 2008?
[1] Although arguably it laid the foundations for Brexit several years later...
The economic blowback from leaving the ERM was positive - interest rates were dramatically cut and a competitive exchange rate was reached - but the political blowback was severe and crippled the Conservative economic reputation.
Ironically one of the reasons of the inflation of the late 1980s was Nigel Lawson's 'shadowing the DM' policy. The same Nigel Lawson who now supports leaving the EU.
I'm not sure what we need to thank Gordon Brown for in 2008 - interest rates cuts were delivered by the now independent BoE. They, together with the fall in Sterling, did help stop the recession being even deeper.
It cured the problem, albeit temporary It could be applied by anybody It was easily comprehensible
In an emergency people freeze up: they fall back on reflexes, take refuge in blame, do things they know won't work because they can't think of anything else. Brown, for all his (considerable) faults, did not. Major did in 1992 and May is doing it right now.
What do you think the disadvantages might have been? (Lets do it once a month otherwise)
There were several big things: I thought it was fraudulent (I may be right) and would lead to a pulse of inflation (I think I was wrong in that, or at least premature). Also the moral hazard was intense: I disapproved of it then and even more now. Capitalism doesn't work if failures don't fail, it just becomes communism for billionaires. If it was up to me I wouldn't have done it, even with hindsight.
Good answer!
I agree with 'fraudulent',
I don't understand why immediate inflationary run-away didn't result. (My best guess is that Economists don't understand Economics)
Fails? : Me too.
There has been immediate run-away asset price inflation. Just cos it’s not RPI doesn’t mean it’s not destructive of people’s life chances
Cameron is a total and abject failure. His ego led him to be negligent. To blame Labour for his own error is absurd. An error, let us never forget, devised solely to keep his right wing on board in 2015.
If he's a 'total and abject failure' then so are all the sane Labour figures who couldn't even beat Corbyn of all people, and who therefore ensured that the Labour pro-Remain vote went AWOL. I really don't think you can blame Cameron either for that, or for not envisaging it would happen when he committed to the referendum - not that he had any choice on that, let's not forget.
Meanwhile, in the actual role of PM he was without doubt the best for half a century, bar the very special case of Maggie.
His legacy is sheer poison. It is impossible to hold him with more contempt. As Paxman said, the worst PM since Lord North. Yes, I blame him for a referendum designed to bolster his right wing. He put himself and party before country. Unforgivable.
Poppycock again. He was trying to put an end to the poison. Unfortunately he didn't succeed - but that (let us never forget) was the choice of the British public, who sadly didn't heed him. It's a bit rich to blame him for being right, as you see it.
You are a lost cause. Blind. He played dice with the nation for his own gain and lost.
Our constitution is based on Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament will vote for a SM+CU backstop over No Deal
And as I have been telling you all day, per the Guardian:
The chief whip, Julian Smith, told ministers that the prime minister would not get House of Commons approval for a backstop that could apply indefinitely.
How does he know? Since when is he the whip for Labour and LD and SNP MPs who would likely all vote for a SM + CU backstop for NI (though the SNP will wish to ensure it applies longer term to the UK). Add in 40 Tory MPs who would also vote for that and there is your Commons majority even without the ERG and DUP
Oh dear God.
He is the Chief Whip. It is his job.
If you were better at it, or closer to the pulse of the Commons than him, maybe you wouldn’t be Chief Whip.
He is not the Chief Whip for the Opposition parties, just because the ERG and DUP will vote against it does not mean the Commons as a whole will do.
The Commons will not vote for a No Deal that may end the Union and wrecks the economy
I really hope you’re right, but I’m beginning to feel that events are running out of anyone’s control. This has the whiff of February 1917 about it.
I think it proves that he panics under pressure, a characteristic he shares with many other people (see Dick Fuld). However situation was short andthe blowback from the ERM fallout was limited[1].
Incidentally, if you traduce John Major for his lack of cope in a financial disaster, shouldn't you credit Gordon Brown for his behavior in 2008?
[1] Although arguably it laid the foundations for Brexit several years later...
It cured the problem, albeit temporary It could be applied by anybody It was easily comprehensible
In an emergency people freeze up: they fall back on reflexes, take refuge in blame, do things they know won't work because they can't think of anything else. Brown, for all his (considerable) faults, did not. Major did in 1992 and May is doing it right now.
What do you think the disadvantages might have been? (Lets do it once a month otherwise)
There were several big things: I thought it was fraudulent (I may be right) and would lead to a pulse of inflation (I think I was wrong in that, or at least premature). Also the moral hazard was intense: I disapproved of it then and even more now. Capitalism doesn't work if failures don't fail, it just becomes communism for billionaires. If it was up to me I wouldn't have done it, even with hindsight.
Good answer!
I agree with 'fraudulent',
I don't understand why immediate inflationary run-away didn't result. (My best guess is that Economists don't understand Economics)
Fails? : Me too.
There has been immediate run-away asset price inflation. Just cos it’s not RPI doesn’t mean it’s not destructive of people’s life chances
Not having access to the article, I cannot tell if the Torygraph has a take on Hammond's forecast. But does the fact that they've given it a front page spread indicate a softening of their hard-line Brexit stance?
Not my reading of it. Just reporting a story.
But Hammond is a disgrace. Firstly, he is wrong about the legal requirements of the Brexit bill and this has been subject to expert legal advice from people far more credible than the 'Treasury lawyers' that he is for some reason engaging to provide advice that is nothing to do with his department (clearly a DexEU matter). Secondly, he is talking about 'the UK losing in international arbitration' which completely ignores the fact that the UK is not subject to international arbitration on the EU treaties unless we decide to offer it; there is no jurisdiction where the EU can 'enforce' the bill.
Hammond, more than almost anyone except May, is responsible for the mess the Government is in now. He refused to plan for no deal and release the necessary funds, has constantly had the Treasury release bogus forecasts of doom and now he is lying about the bill. Should be fired but of course won't be; the end of his career cannot come soon enough.
Hammond is not preparing for No Deal as May is not really either, she intends to give Parliament a SM +CU backstop for NI vote if No Deal and if they vote for as is likely that will be the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement she signs with the EU to get the transition period in which the whole UK will stay in the SM + CU
I’m really impressed you know with such certainty what the PM intends to do
Cameron is a total and abject failure. His ego led him to be negligent. To blame Labour for his own error is absurd. An error, let us never forget, devised solely to keep his right wing on board in 2015.
If he's a 'total and abject failure' then so are all the sane Labour figures who couldn't even beat Corbyn of all people, and who therefore ensured that the Labour pro-Remain vote went AWOL. I really don't think you can blame Cameron either for that, or for not envisaging it would happen when he committed to the referendum - not that he had any choice on that, let's not forget.
Meanwhile, in the actual role of PM he was without doubt the best for half a century, bar the very special case of Maggie.
His legacy is sheer poison. It is impossible to hold him with more contempt. As Paxman said, the worst PM since Lord North. Yes, I blame him for a referendum designed to bolster his right wing. He put himself and party before country. Unforgivable.
It wasn't a mistake that came out of the blue either. He made a strategic decision to appease the extreme Eurosceptics throughout his leadership, and they ended up consuming him.
More poppycock. He stalled for a decade.
Why did the Conservatives leave the EPP? Why is David Campbell Bannerman in the Conservative party? Why did he let people advocate Brexit from within the cabinet even during the coalition years?
Not having access to the article, I cannot tell if the Torygraph has a take on Hammond's forecast. But does the fact that they've given it a front page spread indicate a softening of their hard-line Brexit stance?
Not my reading of it. Just reporting a story.
But Hammond is a disgrace. Firstly, he is wrong about the legal requirements of the Brexit bill and this has been subject to expert legal advice from people far more credible than the 'Treasury lawyers' that he is for some reason engaging to provide advice that is nothing to do with his department (clearly a DexEU matter). Secondly, he is talking about 'the UK losing in international arbitration' which completely ignores the fact that the UK is not subject to international arbitration on the EU treaties unless we decide to offer it; there is no jurisdiction where the EU can 'enforce' the bill.
Hammond, more than almost anyone except May, is responsible for the mess the Government is in now. He refused to plan for no deal and release the necessary funds, has constantly had the Treasury release bogus forecasts of doom and now he is lying about the bill. Should be fired but of course won't be; the end of his career cannot come soon enough.
Hammond is not preparing for No Deal as May is not really either, she intends to give Parliament a SM +CU backstop for NI vote if No Deal and if they vote for as is likely that will be the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement she signs with the EU to get the transition period in which the whole UK will stay in the SM + CU
I’m really impressed you know with such certainty what the PM intends to do
I’m not sure she knows herself!
HYUFD knows more than the Chief Whip, dontcha know
Cameron is a total and abject failure. His ego led him to be negligent. To blame Labour for his own error is absurd. An error, let us never forget, devised solely to keep his right wing on board in 2015.
If he's a 'total and abject failure' then so are all the sane Labour figures who couldn't even beat Corbyn of all people, and who therefore ensured that the Labour pro-Remain vote went AWOL. I really don't think you can blame Cameron either for that, or for not envisaging it would happen when he committed to the referendum - not that he had any choice on that, let's not forget.
Meanwhile, in the actual role of PM he was without doubt the best for half a century, bar the very special case of Maggie.
Supporting an EU referendum was a perfectly sensible idea if you wanted to leave the EU, or if you weren't particularly bothered whether we stayed in the EU or not. But supporting one was a ridiculously stupid idea for someone who thought EU membership was essential, as Cameron apparently believed.
And I would argue it was one of the factors which caused the referendum to be lost, in that it really undermined his credibility as a messenger for Remain (did you not see any of the vox-pops at the time with people saying things like "if he really believed this stuff he's saying about how bad Brexit would be, he wouldn't have run the risk of a referendum in the first place"?).
Portillo would have done no better than Major in 1997, maybe worse. Taxi drivers were honking their horns when he lost Enfield Southgate.
Heseltine may have done slightly better but would still have lost
This is a lesson Conservatives would be well advised to heed, if they want to form the next government. They show little sign of heeding it.
Fixed it for you.
I hope the little fox used as your avatar is living though I fear it is not. Having recently been to a castle near Aberdeen filled to the brim with stuffed domestic pets I think I recognise the signs. I can find you a nice Helmut Newton nude of a model called fox if you like
It is the stuffed fox that is found in the loo at the excellent but idiosyncratic John's House Restaurant in Mountsorrel, Leics:
Not having access to the article, I cannot tell if the Torygraph has a take on Hammond's forecast. But does the fact that they've given it a front page spread indicate a softening of their hard-line Brexit stance?
Not my reading of it. Just reporting a story.
But Hammond is a disgrace. Firstly, he is wrong about the legal requirements of the Brexit bill and this has been subject to expert legal advice from people far more credible than the 'Treasury lawyers' that he is for some reason engaging to provide advice that is nothing to do with his department (clearly a DexEU matter). Secondly, he is talking about 'the UK losing in international arbitration' which completely ignores the fact that the UK is not subject to international arbitration on the EU treaties unless we decide to offer it; there is no jurisdiction where the EU can 'enforce' the bill.
Hammond, more than almost anyone except May, is responsible for the mess the Government is in now. He refused to plan for no deal and release the necessary funds, has constantly had the Treasury release bogus forecasts of doom and now he is lying about the bill. Should be fired but of course won't be; the end of his career cannot come soon enough.
Hammond is not preparing for No Deal as May is not really either, she intends to give Parliament a SM +CU backstop for NI vote if No Deal and if they vote for as is likely that will be the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement she signs with the EU to get the transition period in which the whole UK will stay in the SM + CU
I’m really impressed you know with such certainty what the PM intends to do
I’m not sure she knows herself!
Asked by Tory MP Heidi Allen what options other than a second referendum would be available if no deal is voted down in the chamber, Mrs May replied: “If it were the case that at the end of the negotiation process actually it was a no deal, then actually that would come back to this House and then we would see what position this House would take in the circumstances.”
The disgusting story of Khashoggi and the behaviour of the Saudis makes it ever more vital that we free ourselves from dependence on Saudi (and Russian) oil and gas. It is Britain's (and the world's) self interest that we go full steam ahead with fracking, nuclear power, wind, wave and solar power, and with technological innovation. Every unit of energy that we create ourselves means less money for these barbarians
Cameron is a total and abject failure. His ego led him to be negligent. To blame Labour for his own error is absurd. An error, let us never forget, devised solely to keep his right wing on board in 2015.
If he's a 'total and abject failure' then so are all the sane Labour figures who couldn't even beat Corbyn of all people, and who therefore ensured that the Labour pro-Remain vote went AWOL. I really don't think you can blame Cameron either for that, or for not envisaging it would happen when he committed to the referendum - not that he had any choice on that, let's not forget.
Meanwhile, in the actual role of PM he was without doubt the best for half a century, bar the very special case of Maggie.
His legacy is sheer poison. It is impossible to hold him with more contempt. As Paxman said, the worst PM since Lord North. Yes, I blame him for a referendum designed to bolster his right wing. He put himself and party before country. Unforgivable.
Poppycock again. He was trying to put an end to the poison. Unfortunately he didn't succeed - but that (let us never forget) was the choice of the British public, who sadly didn't heed him. It's a bit rich to blame him for being right, as you see it.
You are a lost cause. Blind. He played dice with the nation for his own gain and lost.
His own gain? Really? That is just bonkers, sorry.
This is quite correct. The assumptions about what Parliament will 'do' are a lot more complicated because ultimately you need a functioning Government which has to have a policy.
The 'meaningful vote' can possibly be amended, but it is nothing but an advisory position. As we see on PB all day, people propose things in terms of deal outcomes that can't actually happen (eg HYUFD and his magic transition to SM+CU) so how Parliament does anything but have a general whinge is beyond me.
Parliament can either reject or pass a deal presented to them. If the Government supported it, they could decide either to abandon Brexit or have another referendum, but this can't happen without Govt support because both require primary legislation. But the one thing they can't do is determine which deal outcome they might want.
If none of these happen, no deal will happen. It doesn't need any form of approval.
May will simply alloliament if those talks fail there will be over 4 months until Brexit day
Honestly. Private members cannot magically put forward bills that will pass in record time. Private members cannot even put up bills unless they win the ballot. The only Brexit bills that will be considered are those that are proposed by the Government. Try again.
May will ultimately put up a SM + CU backstop but only take it to the EU if Parliament votes it though which it likely will
May wouldn’t last 5 minutes as leader after proposing that. And back benches can’t take offers to Europe!
Your fantasy island politics about MPs taking the lead in negotiating fails to understand our constitution. And the Tory party.
The UK may not last 5 minutes without that.
Our constitution is based on Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament will vote for a SM+CU backstop over No Deal
Parliamentary Sovereignty doesn’t mean what you think it means
It is the *Executive* through the Royal Prerogative that exercises the rights of the Crown; ie it is the Crown-in-Parliament (rather than the Crown) which is Sovereign
It is pretty grisly... But I'm not sure how it's any worse than what Russia did on UK soil (and that ended up killing a British citizen) and we haven't "cut ties" with Russia - Though things are quite "frosty"
Our constitution is based on Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament will vote for a SM+CU backstop over No Deal
And as I have been telling you all day, per the Guardian:
The chief whip, Julian Smith, told ministers that the prime minister would not get House of Commons approval for a backstop that could apply indefinitely.
How does he know? Since when is he the whip for Labour and LD and SNP MPs who would likely all vote for a SM + CU backstop for NI (though the SNP will wish to ensure it applies longer term to the UK). Add in 40 Tory MPs who would also vote for that and there is your Commons majority even without the ERG and DUP
Oh dear God.
He is the Chief Whip. It is his job.
If you were better at it, or closer to the pulse of the Commons than him, maybe you wouldn’t be Chief Whip.
He is not the Chief Whip for the Opposition parties, just because the ERG and DUP will vote against it does not mean the Commons as a whole will do.
The Commons will not vote for a No Deal that may end the Union and wrecks the economy
I really hope you’re right, but I’m beginning to feel that events are running out of anyone’s control. This has the whiff of February 1917 about it.
There is no majority in the Cabinet, in the Commons, in the Lords or in the country for No Deal whatever fanatics like Mortimer and Archer may believe.
This is quite correct. The assumptions about what Parliament will 'do' are a lot more complicated because ultimately you need a functioning Government which has to have a policy.
The 'meaningful vote' can possibly be amended, but it is nothing but an advisory position. As we see on PB all day, people propose things in terms of deal outcomes that can't actually happen (eg HYUFD and his magic transition to SM+CU) so how Parliament does anything but have a general whinge is beyond me.
Parliament can either reject or pass a deal presented to them. If the Government supported it, they could decide either to abandon Brexit or have another referendum, but this can't happen without Govt support because both require primary legislation. But the one thing they can't do is determine which deal outcome they might want.
If none of these happen, no deal will happen. It doesn't need any form of approval.
May will simply alloliament if those talks fail there will be over 4 months until Brexit day
Honestly. Private members cannot magically put forward bills that will pass in record time. Private members cannot even put up bills unless they win the ballot. The only Brexit bills that will be considered are those that are proposed by the Government. Try again.
May will ultimately put up a SM + CU backstop but only take it to the EU if Parliament votes it though which it likely will
May wouldn’t last 5 minutes as leader after proposing that. And back benches can’t take offers to Europe!
Your fantasy island politics about MPs taking the lead in negotiating fails to understand our constitution. And the Tory party.
The UK may not last 5 minutes without that.
Our constitution is based on Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament will vote for a SM+CU backstop over No Deal
Parliamentary Sovereignty doesn’t mean what you think it means
It is the *Executive* through the Royal Prerogative that exercises the rights of the Crown; ie it is the Crown-in-Parliament (rather than the Crown) which is Sovereign
Cameron is a total and abject failure. His ego led him to be negligent. To blame Labour for his own error is absurd. An error, let us never forget, devised solely to keep his right wing on board in 2015.
If he's a 'total and abject failure' then so are all the sane Labour figures who couldn't even beat Corbyn of all people, and who therefore ensured that the Labour pro-Remain vote went AWOL. I really don't think you can blame Cameron either for that, or for not envisaging it would happen when he committed to the referendum - not that he had any choice on that, let's not forget.
Meanwhile, in the actual role of PM he was without doubt the best for half a century, bar the very special case of Maggie.
His legacy is sheer poison. It is impossible to hold him with more contempt. As Paxman said, the worst PM since Lord North. Yes, I blame him for a referendum designed to bolster his right wing. He put himself and party before country. Unforgivable.
It wasn't a mistake that came out of the blue either. He made a strategic decision to appease the extreme Eurosceptics throughout his leadership, and they ended up consuming him.
More poppycock. He stalled for a decade.
Why did the Conservatives leave the EPP?
Poland's largest party, Law & Justice is also in the ACRE grouping, alongside the Tories.
Not having access to the article, I cannot tell if the Torygraph has a take on Hammond's forecast. But does the fact that they've given it a front page spread indicate a softening of their hard-line Brexit stance?
Not my reading of it. Just reporting a story.
But Hammond is a disgrace. Firstly, he is wrong about the legal requirements of the Brexit bill and this has been subject to expert legal advice from people far more credible than the 'Treasury lawyers' that he is for some reason engaging to provide advice that is nothing to do with his department (clearly a DexEU matter). Secondly, he is talking about 'the UK losing in international arbitration' which completely ignores the fact that the UK is not subject to international arbitration on the EU treaties unless we decide to offer it; there is no jurisdiction where the EU can 'enforce' the bill.
Hammond, more than almost anyone except May, is responsible for the mess the Government is in now. He refused to plan for no deal and release the necessary funds, has constantly had the Treasury release bogus forecasts of doom and now he is lying about the bill. Should be fired but of course won't be; the end of his career cannot come soon enough.
The Treasury Solicitors' office provides the Government Legal Service.
Quita apart from legal arbitration, not paying would not be a very good precedent for future treaties with anyone, and is probably needed even for the mini-deals that "No Deal" actually requires.
Not for the first time Hammond is the adult in the room.
Juncker has said that in the event of a No Deal Brexit, he’d be open to specific “lifeboat” deals to keep the planes flying etc. However, you can bet your bottom euro that even those would be contingent on Britiain paying what it owed.
Of course!
Which is what we should be doing now. Say we can't and won't agree to the Irish backstop so lets talk about the real issues - planes, medicine, bills etc
The EU has billions of reasons to keep planes flying. But some people think the threat of planes not flying is useful to compel us into accepting the unacceptable elsewhere.
Our constitution is based on Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament will vote for a SM+CU backstop over No Deal
And as I have been telling you all day, per the Guardian:
The chief whip, Julian Smith, told ministers that the prime minister would not get House of Commons approval for a backstop that could apply indefinitely.
How does he know? Since when is he the whip for Labour and LD and SNP MPs who would likely all vote for a SM + CU backstop for NI (though the SNP will wish to ensure it applies longer term to the UK). Add in 40 Tory MPs who would also vote for that and there is your Commons majority even without the ERG and DUP
Oh dear God.
He is the Chief Whip. It is his job.
If you were better at it, or closer to the pulse of the Commons than him, maybe you wouldn’t be Chief Whip.
He is not the Chief Whip for the Opposition parties, just because the ERG and DUP will vote against it does not mean the Commons as a whole will do.
The Commons will not vote for a No Deal that may end the Union and wrecks the economy
I really hope you’re right, but I’m beginning to feel that events are running out of anyone’s control. This has the whiff of February 1917 about it.
There is no majority in the Cabinet, in the Commons, in the Lords or in the country for No Deal whatever fanatics like Mortimer and Archer may believe.
No Deal is not sustainable in the long term
I don’t want no deal.
But I, like the HoC, the HoL and the country find the division of our country unacceptable. That is what the backstop does.
Supporting an EU referendum was a perfectly sensible idea if you wanted to leave the EU, or if you weren't particularly bothered whether we stayed in the EU or not. But supporting one was a ridiculously stupid idea for someone who thought EU membership was essential, as Cameron apparently believed.
It was a perfectly sensible idea for a politician who (a) had no choice, and (b) on excellent grounds believed that the referendum would give a strong Remain majority, thereby putting an end to the poison.
Unfortunately it didn't work out like that, for multiple reasons, the most important of which was that Labour went AWOL under Corbyn and Seumas Milne - a totally unpredictable contingency.
Still, the decision to Leave wasn't Cameron's. Quite the opposite, in fact - he (unlike his critics on this) was working his socks off to get the Remain vote out.
Not having access to the article, I cannot tell if the Torygraph has a take on Hammond's forecast. But does the fact that they've given it a front page spread indicate a softening of their hard-line Brexit stance?
Not my reading of it. Just reporting a story.
But Hammond is a disgrace. Firstly, he is wrong about the legal requirements of the Brexit bill and this has been subject to expert legal advice from people far more credible than the 'Treasury lawyers' that he is for some reason engaging to provide advice that is nothing to do with his department (clearly a DexEU matter). Secondly, he is talking about 'the UK losing in international arbitration' which completely ignores the fact that the UK is not subject to international arbitration on the EU treaties unless we decide to offer it; there is no jurisdiction where the EU can 'enforce' the bill.
Hammond, more than almost anyone except May, is responsible for the mess the Government is in now. He refused to plan for no deal and release the necessary funds, has constantly had the Treasury release bogus forecasts of doom and now he is lying about the bill. Should be fired but of course won't be; the end of his career cannot come soon enough.
Hammond is not preparing for No Deal as May is not really either, she intends to give Parliament a SM +CU backstop for NI vote if No Deal and if they vote for as is likely that will be the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement she signs with the EU to get the transition period in which the whole UK will stay in the SM + CU
I’m really impressed you know with such certainty what the PM intends to do
I’m not sure she knows herself!
Asked by Tory MP Heidi Allen what options other than a second referendum would be available if no deal is voted down in the chamber, Mrs May replied: “If it were the case that at the end of the negotiation process actually it was a no deal, then actually that would come back to this House and then we would see what position this House would take in the circumstances.”
Our constitution is based on Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament will vote for a SM+CU backstop over No Deal
And as I have been telling you all day, per the Guardian:
The chief whip, Julian Smith, told ministers that the prime minister would not get House of Commons approval for a backstop that could apply indefinitely.
How does he know? Since when is he the whip for Labour and LD and SNP MPs who would likely all vote for a SM + CU backstop for NI (though the SNP will wish to ensure it applies longer term to the UK). Add in 40 Tory MPs who would also vote for that and there is your Commons majority even without the ERG and DUP
Oh dear God.
He is the Chief Whip. It is his job.
If you were better at it, or closer to the pulse of the Commons than him, maybe you wouldn’t be Chief Whip.
He is not the Chief Whip for the Opposition parties, just because the ERG and DUP will vote against it does not mean the Commons as a whole will do.
The Commons will not vote for a No Deal that may end the Union and wrecks the economy
I really hope you’re right, but I’m beginning to feel that events are running out of anyone’s control. This has the whiff of February 1917 about it.
There is no majority in the Cabinet, in the Commons, in the Lords or in the country for No Deal whatever fanatics like Mortimer and Archer may believe.
No Deal is not sustainable in the long term
I don’t want no deal.
But I, like the HoC, the HoL and the country find the division of our country unacceptable. That is what the backstop does.
Indeed no deal isn't first choice, but its better than some alternatives. Like the proposed deal.
So, is tomorrow finally the day when the Brexit dream dies?
The EU, having had their warning shot across the bow so roundly ignored by May, feel that they have nothing further to gain from her, pick up their ball and jumpers for goalposts, and head home for tea to await No Deal Brexit?
I think one way or another the EU will put an end to this farce. They'll call it a "pause" or a "period of reflection". But we all know what it will be, it will be the EU 27 walking out of negotiations and letting the whole UK try to sleep in the bed the Tories have shat in.
It was a perfectly sensible idea for a politician who (a) had no choice, and (b) on excellent grounds believed that the referendum would give a strong Remain majority, thereby putting an end to the poison.
This is quite correct. The assumptions about what Parliament will 'do' are a lot more complicated because ultimately you need a functioning Government which has to have a policy.
The 'meaningful vote' can possibly be amended, but it is nothing but an advisory position. As we see on PB all day, people propose things in terms of deal outcomes that can't actually happen (eg HYUFD and his magic transition to SM+CU) so how Parliament does anything but have a general whinge is beyond me.
Parliament can either reject or pass a deal presented to them. If the Government supported it, they could decide either to abandon Brexit or have another referendum, but this can't happen without Govt support because both require primary legislation. But the one thing they can't do is determine which deal outcome they might want.
If none of these happen, no deal will happen. It doesn't need any form of approval.
May will simply alloliament if those talks fail there will be over 4 months until Brexit day
Honestly. Private members cannot magically put forward bills that will pass in record time. Private members cannot even put up bills unless they win the ballot. The only Brexit bills that will be considered are those that are proposed by the Government. Try again.
May will ultimately put up a SM + CU backstop but only take it to the EU if Parliament votes it though which it likely will
May wouldn’t last 5 minutes as leader after proposing that. And back benches can’t take offers to Europe!
Your fantasy island politics about MPs taking the lead in negotiating fails to understand our constitution. And the Tory party.
The UK may not last 5 minutes without that.
Our constitution is based on Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament will vote for a SM+CU backstop over No Deal
Parliamentary Sovereignty doesn’t mean what you think it means
It is the *Executive* through the Royal Prerogative that exercises the rights of the Crown; ie it is the Crown-in-Parliament (rather than the Crown) which is Sovereign
This should be pinned to every thread.
Er, why? So young fogeys like you can luxuriate over highfalutin monarchistic semantics?
This is quite correct. The assumptions about what Parliament will 'do' are a lot more complicated because ultimately you need a functioning Government which has to have a policy.
The 'meaningful vote' can possibly be amended, but it is nothing but an advisory position. As we see on PB all day, people propose things in terms of deal outcomes that can't actually happen (eg HYUFD and his magic transition to SM+CU) so how Parliament does anything but have a general whinge is beyond me.
Parliament can either reject or pass a deal presented to them. If the Government supported it, they could decide either to abandon Brexit or have another referendum, but this can't happen without Govt support because both require primary legislation. But the one thing they can't do is determine which deal outcome they might want.
If none of these happen, no deal will happen. It doesn't need any form of approval.
May will simply alloliament if those talks fail there will be over 4 months until Brexit day
Honestly. Private members cannot magically put forward bills that will pass in record time. Private members cannot even put up bills unless they win the ballot. The only Brexit bills that will be considered are those that are proposed by the Government. Try again.
May will ultimately put up a SM + CU backstop but only take it to the EU if Parliament votes it though which it likely will
May wouldn’t last 5 minutes as leader after proposing that. And back benches can’t take offers to Europe!
Your fantasy island politics about MPs taking the lead in negotiating fails to understand our constitution. And the Tory party.
The UK may not last 5 minutes without that.
Our constitution is based on Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament will vote for a SM+CU backstop over No Deal
Parliamentary Sovereignty doesn’t mean what you think it means
It is the *Executive* through the Royal Prerogative that exercises the rights of the Crown; ie it is the Crown-in-Parliament (rather than the Crown) which is Sovereign
This should be pinned to every thread.
It would save me having to correct people every so often!
Our constitution is based on Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament will vote for a SM+CU backstop over No Deal
And as I have been telling you all day, per the Guardian:
The chief whip, Julian Smith, told ministers that the prime minister would not get House of Commons approval for a backstop that could apply indefinitely.
How does he know? Since when is he the whip for Labour and LD and SNP MPs who would likely all vote for a SM + CU backstop for NI (though the SNP will wish to ensure it applies longer term to the UK). Add in 40 Tory MPs who would also vote for that and there is your Commons majority even without the ERG and DUP
Oh dear God.
He is the Chief Whip. It is his job.
If you were better at it, or closer to the pulse of the Commons than him, maybe you wouldn’t be Chief Whip.
He is not the Chief Whip for the Opposition parties, just because the ERG and DUP will vote against it does not mean the Commons as a whole will do.
The Commons will not vote for a No Deal that may end the Union and wrecks the economy
I really hope you’re right, but I’m beginning to feel that events are running out of anyone’s control. This has the whiff of February 1917 about it.
There is no majority in the Cabinet, in the Commons, in the Lords or in the country for No Deal whatever fanatics like Mortimer and Archer may believe.
No Deal is not sustainable in the long term
I don’t want no deal.
But I, like the HoC, the HoL and the country find the division of our country unacceptable. That is what the backstop does.
The backstop ensures NI stays in the SM and CU exactly as polling shows most NI voters want.
Without a backstop there is No Deal and that wrecks the economy and may well lead Scotland and NI to leave the UK
This is quite correct. The assumptions about what Parliament will 'do' are a lot more complicated because ultimately you need a functioning Government which has to have a policy.
The 'meaningful vote' can possibly be amended, but it is nothing but an advisory position. As we see on PB all day, people propose things in terms of deal outcomes that can't actually happen (eg HYUFD and his magic transition to SM+CU) so how Parliament does anything but have a general whinge is beyond me.
Parliament can either reject or pass a deal presented to them. If the Government supported it, they could decide either to abandon Brexit or have another referendum, but this can't happen without Govt support because both require primary legislation. But the one thing they can't do is determine which deal outcome they might want.
If none of these happen, no deal will happen. It doesn't need any form of approval.
May will simply alloliament if those talks fail there will be over 4 months until Brexit day
Honestly. Private members cannot magically put forward bills that will pass in record time. Private members cannot even put up bills unless they win the ballot. The only Brexit bills that will be considered are those that are proposed by the Government. Try again.
May will ultimately put up a SM + CU backstop but only take it to the EU if Parliament votes it though which it likely will
May wouldn’t last 5 minutes as leader after proposing that. And back benches can’t take offers to Europe!
Your fantasy island politics about MPs taking the lead in negotiating fails to understand our constitution. And the Tory party.
The UK may not last 5 minutes without that.
Our constitution is based on Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament will vote for a SM+CU backstop over No Deal
Parliamentary Sovereignty doesn’t mean what you think it means
It is the *Executive* through the Royal Prerogative that exercises the rights of the Crown; ie it is the Crown-in-Parliament (rather than the Crown) which is Sovereign
This should be pinned to every thread.
Er, why? So young fogeys like you can luxuriate over highfalutin monarchistic semantics?
Nope, so people (largely Remainers) don’t confuse it for what they want it to mean.
Not having access to the article, I cannot tell if the Torygraph has a take on Hammond's forecast. But does the fact that they've given it a front page spread indicate a softening of their hard-line Brexit stance?
Not my reading of it. Just reporting a story.
But Hammond is a disgrace. Firstly, he is wrong about the legal requirements of the Brexit bill and this has been subject to expert legal advice from people far more credible than the 'Treasury lawyers' that he is for some reason engaging to provide advice that is nothing to do with his department (clearly a DexEU matter). Secondly, he is talking about 'the UK losing in international arbitration' which completely ignores the fact that the UK is not subject to international arbitration on the EU treaties unless we decide to offer it; there is no jurisdiction where the EU can 'enforce' the bill.
Hammond, more than almost anyone except May, is responsible for the mess the Government is in now. He refused to plan for no deal and release the necessary funds, has constantly had the Treasury release bogus forecasts of doom and now he is lying about the bill. Should be fired but of course won't be; the end of his career cannot come soon enough.
Hammond is not preparing for No Deal as May is not really either, she intends to give Parliament a SM +CU backstop for NI vote if No Deal and if they vote for as is likely that will be the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement she signs with the EU to get the transition period in which the whole UK will stay in the SM + CU
I’m really impressed you know with such certainty what the PM intends to do
I’m not sure she knows herself!
Asked by Tory MP Heidi Allen what options other than a second referendum would be available if no deal is voted down in the chamber, Mrs May replied: “If it were the case that at the end of the negotiation process actually it was a no deal, then actually that would come back to this House and then we would see what position this House would take in the circumstances.”
That’s a fair and sensible answer by May. As Mike was saying earlier, she might be flawed but at least she is at least considering the country’s welfare, unlike extremists of Mortimer and Archer’s ilk.
This is quite correct. The assumptions about what Parliament will 'do' are a lot more complicated because ultimately you need a functioning Government which has to have a policy.
The 'meaningful vote' can possibly be amended, but it is nothing but an advisory position. As we see on PB all day, people propose things in terms of deal outcomes that can't actually happen (eg HYUFD and his magic transition to SM+CU) so how Parliament does anything but have a general whinge is beyond me.
Parliament can either reject or pass a deal presented to them. If the Government supported it, they could decide either to abandon Brexit or have another referendum, but this can't happen without Govt support because both require primary legislation. But the one thing they can't do is determine which deal outcome they might want.
If none of these happen, no deal will happen. It doesn't need any form of approval.
May will simply alloliament if those talks fail there will be over 4 months until Brexit day
Honestly. Private members cannot magically put forward bills that will pass in record time. Private members cannot even put up bills unless they win the ballot. The only Brexit bills that will be considered are those that are proposed by the Government. Try again.
May will ultimately put up a SM + CU backstop but only take it to the EU if Parliament votes it though which it likely will
May wouldn’t last 5 minutes as leader after proposing that. And back benches can’t take offers to Europe!
Your fantasy island politics about MPs taking the lead in negotiating fails to understand our constitution. And the Tory party.
The UK may not last 5 minutes without that.
Our constitution is based on Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament will vote for a SM+CU backstop over No Deal
Parliamentary Sovereignty doesn’t mean what you think it means
It is the *Executive* through the Royal Prerogative that exercises the rights of the Crown; ie it is the Crown-in-Parliament (rather than the Crown) which is Sovereign
This should be pinned to every thread.
Er, why? So young fogeys like you can luxuriate over highfalutin monarchistic semantics?
No - so that people don’t make important betting decisions based on wrong assumptions (eg that parliamentary sovereignty means the legislature can usurp the rights of the executive)
This is quite correct. The assumptions about what Parliament will 'do' are a lot more complicated because ultimately you need a functioning Government which has to have a policy.
The 'meaningful vote' can possibly be amended, but it is nothing but an advisory position. As we see on PB all day, people propose things in terms of deal outcomes that can't actually happen (eg HYUFD and his magic transition to SM+CU) so how Parliament does anything but have a general whinge is beyond me.
Parliament can either reject or pass a deal presented to them. If the Government supported it, they could decide either to abandon Brexit or have another referendum, but this can't happen without Govt support because both require primary legislation. But the one thing they can't do is determine which deal outcome they might want.
If none of these happen, no deal will happen. It doesn't need any form of approval.
May will simply alloliament if those talks fail there will be over 4 months until Brexit day
Honestly. Private members cannot magically put forward bills that will pass in record time. Private members cannot even put up bills unless they win the ballot. The only Brexit bills that will be considered are those that are proposed by the Government. Try again.
May will ultimately put up a SM + CU backstop but only take it to the EU if Parliament votes it though which it likely will
May wouldn’t last 5 minutes as leader after proposing that. And back benches can’t take offers to Europe!
Your fantasy island politics about MPs taking the lead in negotiating fails to understand our constitution. And the Tory party.
The UK may not last 5 minutes without that.
Our constitution is based on Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament will vote for a SM+CU backstop over No Deal
Parliamentary Sovereignty doesn’t mean what you think it means
It is the *Executive* through the Royal Prerogative that exercises the rights of the Crown; ie it is the Crown-in-Parliament (rather than the Crown) which is Sovereign
Be as patronising as ever but if the Head of the Executive ie Theresa May lets Parliament decide whether or not to accept a backstop or No Deal that is what will happen
Not having access to the article, I cannot tell if the Torygraph has a take on Hammond's forecast. But does the fact that they've given it a front page spread indicate a softening of their hard-line Brexit stance?
Not my reading of it. Just reporting a story.
But Hammond is a disgrace. Firstly, he is wrong about the legal requirements of the Brexit bill and this has been subject to expert legal advice from people far more credible than the 'Treasury lawyers' that he is for some reason engaging to provide advice that is nothing to do with his department (clearly a DexEU matter). Secondly, he is talking about 'the UK losing in international arbitration' which completely ignores the fact that the UK is not subject to international arbitration on the EU treaties unless we decide to offer it; there is no jurisdiction where the EU can 'enforce' the bill.
Hammond, more than almost anyone except May, is responsible for the mess the Government is in now. He refused to plan for no deal and release the necessary funds, has constantly had the Treasury release bogus forecasts of doom and now he is lying about the bill. Should be fired but of course won't be; the end of his career cannot come soon enough.
Hammond is not preparing for No Deal as May is not really either, she intends to give Parliament a SM +CU backstop for NI vote if No Deal and if they vote for as is likely that will be the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement she signs with the EU to get the transition period in which the whole UK will stay in the SM + CU
I’m really impressed you know with such certainty what the PM intends to do
I’m not sure she knows herself!
Asked by Tory MP Heidi Allen what options other than a second referendum would be available if no deal is voted down in the chamber, Mrs May replied: “If it were the case that at the end of the negotiation process actually it was a no deal, then actually that would come back to this House and then we would see what position this House would take in the circumstances.”
Indeed no deal isn't first choice, but its better than some alternatives. Like the proposed deal.
I'm still trying to figure out if there's a *single person* May has actually genuinely convinced her terrible, terrible deal is better than the alternatives.
Possibly Richard Nabavi, but even then I get the sneaking suspicion he's doing it more out of a polite pity for the hopelessness of May's plight than the slightest regard for anything she has to say.
Our constitution is based on Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament will vote for a SM+CU backstop over No Deal
And as I have been telling you all day, per the Guardian:
The chief whip, Julian Smith, told ministers that the prime minister would not get House of Commons approval for a backstop that could apply indefinitely.
How does he know? Since when is he the whip for Labour and LD and SNP MPs who would likely all vote for a SM + CU backstop for NI (though the SNP will wish to ensure it applies longer term to the UK). Add in 40 Tory MPs who would also vote for that and there is your Commons majority even without the ERG and DUP
Oh dear God.
He is the Chief Whip. It is his job.
If you were better at it, or closer to the pulse of the Commons than him, maybe you wouldn’t be Chief Whip.
He is not the Chief Whip for the Opposition parties, just because the ERG and DUP will vote against it does not mean the Commons as a whole will do.
The Commons will not vote for a No Deal that may end the Union and wrecks the economy
I really hope you’re right, but I’m beginning to feel that events are running out of anyone’s control. This has the whiff of February 1917 about it.
There is no majority in the Cabinet, in the Commons, in the Lords or in the country for No Deal whatever fanatics like Mortimer and Archer may believe.
No Deal is not sustainable in the long term
I don’t want no deal.
But I, like the HoC, the HoL and the country find the division of our country unacceptable. That is what the backstop does.
The backstop ensures NI stays in the SM and CU exactly as polling shows most NI voters want.
Without a backstop there is No Deal and that wrecks the economy and may well lead Scotland and NI to leave the UK
Supporting the Backstop ensures the current minority Gov loses its (DUP supplied) majority. Perhaps this has passed you by?
It is pretty grisly... But I'm not sure how it's any worse than what Russia did on UK soil (and that ended up killing a British citizen) and we haven't "cut ties" with Russia - Though things are quite "frosty"
This is quite correct. The assumptions about what Parliament will 'do' are a lot more complicated because ultimately you need a functioning Government which has to have a policy.
The 'meaningful vote' can possibly be amended, but it is nothing but an advisory position. As we see on PB all day, people propose things in terms of deal outcomes that can't actually happen (eg HYUFD and his magic transition to SM+CU) so how Parliament does anything but have a general whinge is beyond me.
Parliament can either reject or pass a deal presented to them. If the Government supported it, they could decide either to abandon Brexit or have another referendum, but this can't happen without Govt support because both require primary legislation. But the one thing they can't do is determine which deal outcome they might want.
If none of these happen, no deal will happen. It doesn't need any form of approval.
May will simply alloliament if those talks fail there will be over 4 months until Brexit day
Honestly. Private members cannot magically put forward bills that will pass in record time. Private members cannot even put up bills unless they win the ballot. The only Brexit bills that will be considered are those that are proposed by the Government. Try again.
May will ultimately put up a SM + CU backstop but only take it to the EU if Parliament votes it though which it likely will
May wouldn’t last 5 minutes as leader after proposing that. And back benches can’t take offers to Europe!
Your fantasy island politics about MPs taking the lead in negotiating fails to understand our constitution. And the Tory party.
The UK may not last 5 minutes without that.
Our constitution is based on Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament will vote for a SM+CU backstop over No Deal
Parliamentary Sovereignty doesn’t mean what you think it means
It is the *Executive* through the Royal Prerogative that exercises the rights of the Crown; ie it is the Crown-in-Parliament (rather than the Crown) which is Sovereign
Be as patronising as ever but if the Head of the Executive ie Theresa May lets Parliament decide whether or not to accept a backstop or No Deal that is what will happen
Remember when your Brave Boudiccia used say "No Deal" was better than a bad deal?
This is quite correct. The assumptions about what Parliament will 'do' are a lot more complicated because ultimately you need a functioning Government which has to have a policy.
The 'meaningful vote' can possibly be amended, but it is nothing but an advisory position. As we see on PB all day, people propose things in terms of deal outcomes that can't actually happen (eg HYUFD and his magic transition to SM+CU) so how Parliament does anything but have a general whinge is beyond me.
Parliament can either reject or pass a deal presented to them. If the Government supported it, they could decide either to abandon Brexit or have another referendum, but this can't happen without Govt support because both require primary legislation. But the one thing they can't do is determine which deal outcome they might want.
If none of these happen, no deal will happen. It doesn't need any form of approval.
May will simply alloliament if those talks fail there will be over 4 months until Brexit day
Honestly. Private members cannot magically put forward bills that will pass in record time. Private members cannot even put up bills unless they win the ballot. The only Brexit bills that will be considered are those that are proposed by the Government. Try again.
May will ultimately put up a SM + CU backstop but only take it to the EU if Parliament votes it though which it likely will
May wouldn’t last 5 minutes as leader after proposing that. And back benches can’t take offers to Europe!
Your fantasy island politics about MPs taking the lead in negotiating fails to understand our constitution. And the Tory party.
The UK may not last 5 minutes without that.
Our constitution is based on Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament will vote for a SM+CU backstop over No Deal
Parliamentary Sovereignty doesn’t mean what you think it means
It is the *Executive* through the Royal Prerogative that exercises the rights of the Crown; ie it is the Crown-in-Parliament (rather than the Crown) which is Sovereign
Be as patronising as ever but if the Head of the Executive ie Theresa May lets Parliament decide whether or not to accept a backstop or No Deal that is what will happen
If she proposes primary legislation yes, but she hasn’t suggested she will
This is quite correct. The assumptions about what Parliament will 'do' are a lot more complicated because ultimately you need a functioning Government which has to have a policy.
The 'meaningful vote' can possibly be amended, but it is nothing but an advisory position. As we see on PB all day, people propose things in terms of deal outcomes that can't actually happen (eg HYUFD and his magic transition to SM+CU) so how Parliament does anything but have a general whinge is beyond me.
Parliament can either reject or pass a deal presented to them. If the Government supported it, they could decide either to abandon Brexit or have another referendum, but this can't happen without Govt support because both require primary legislation. But the one thing they can't do is determine which deal outcome they might want.
If none of these happen, no deal will happen. It doesn't need any form of approval.
May will simply alloliament if those talks fail there will be over 4 months until Brexit day
Honestly. Private members cannot magically put forward bills that will pass in record time. Private members cannot even put up bills unless they win the ballot. The only Brexit bills that will be considered are those that are proposed by the Government. Try again.
May will ultimately put up a SM + CU backstop but only take it to the EU if Parliament votes it though which it likely will
May wouldn’t last 5 minutes as leader after proposing that. And back benches can’t take offers to Europe!
Your fantasy island politics about MPs taking the lead in negotiating fails to understand our constitution. And the Tory party.
The UK may not last 5 minutes without that.
Our constitution is based on Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament will vote for a SM+CU backstop over No Deal
Parliamentary Sovereignty doesn’t mean what you think it means
It is the *Executive* through the Royal Prerogative that exercises the rights of the Crown; ie it is the Crown-in-Parliament (rather than the Crown) which is Sovereign
Be as patronising as ever but if the Head of the Executive ie Theresa May lets Parliament decide whether or not to accept a backstop or No Deal that is what will happen
Remember when your Brave Boudiccia used say "No Deal" was better than a bad deal?
What a load of bullshit that turned out to be...
Thank goodness so otherwise there could be No UK left
This is quite correct. The assumptions about what Parliament will 'do' are a lot more complicated because ultimately you need a functioning Government which has to have a policy.
The 'meaningful vote' can possibly be amended, but it is nothing but an advisory position. As we see on PB all day, people propose things in terms of deal outcomes that can't actually happen (eg HYUFD and his magic transition to SM+CU) so how Parliament does anything but have a general whinge is beyond me.
Parliament can either reject or pass a deal presented to them. If the Government supported it, they could decide either to abandon Brexit or have another referendum, but this can't happen without Govt support because both require primary legislation. But the one thing they can't do is determine which deal outcome they might want.
If none of these happen, no deal will happen. It doesn't need any form of approval.
May will simply alloliament if those talks fail there will be over 4 months until Brexit day
Honestly. Private members cannot magically put forward bills that will pass in record time. Private members cannot even put up bills unless they win the ballot. The only Brexit bills that will be considered are those that are proposed by the Government. Try again.
May will ultimately put up a SM + CU backstop but only take it to the EU if Parliament votes it though which it likely will
May wouldn’t last 5 minutes as leader after proposing that. And back benches can’t take offers to Europe!
Your fantasy island politics about MPs taking the lead in negotiating fails to understand our constitution. And the Tory party.
The UK may not last 5 minutes without that.
Our constitution is based on Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament will vote for a SM+CU backstop over No Deal
Parliamentary Sovereignty doesn’t mean what you think it means
It is the *Executive* through the Royal Prerogative that exercises the rights of the Crown; ie it is the Crown-in-Parliament (rather than the Crown) which is Sovereign
This should be pinned to every thread.
Er, why? So young fogeys like you can luxuriate over highfalutin monarchistic semantics?
Supreme executive power springs from a mandate from the masses... as Dennis might say!
Supporting an EU referendum was a perfectly sensible idea if you wanted to leave the EU, or if you weren't particularly bothered whether we stayed in the EU or not. But supporting one was a ridiculously stupid idea for someone who thought EU membership was essential, as Cameron apparently believed.
It was a perfectly sensible idea for a politician who (a) had no choice, and (b) on excellent grounds believed that the referendum would give a strong Remain majority, thereby putting an end to the poison.
Unfortunately it didn't work out like that, for multiple reasons, the most important of which was that Labour went AWOL under Corbyn and Seumas Milne - a totally unpredictable contingency.
Still, the decision to Leave wasn't Cameron's. Quite the opposite, in fact - he (unlike his critics on this) was working his socks off to get the Remain vote out.
Um, if his calculation was that Labour would rescue him, then surely that's also a pretty damning indictment of (a) his leadership skills, since surely a PM should always back themselves to persuade the public and not rely on anyone else, and (b) his lack of judgement and foresight, since it was always unlikely Labour were going to be big cheerleaders for Remain even before Corbyn (I mean, Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper spent most of their leadership campaigns wittering on about people's "legitimate concerns" over immigration, so the idea they would've then immediately gone and spent months arguing for freedom of movement is for the birds).
Comments
It really could be Little England (and Wales)
Plus Major got 14 million votes in 1992, the highest number of votes ever for the Tory Party
This is a lesson Labour would be well advised to heed, if they want to form the next government. They show little sign of heeding it.
Your fantasy island politics about MPs taking the lead in negotiating fails to understand our constitution. And the Tory party.
Perhaps Scotland could fund a statue of her for Holyrood, like the Boll Weevil monument in Enterprise, Alabama.
Major was just daft enough to be leader at the time, but 1997 was inflicted by the party on itself.
Our constitution is based on Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament will vote for a SM+CU backstop over No Deal
Chris Patton could perhaps have been a Tory leader too, and done well in your 1997 test.
https://twitter.com/david_cameron/status/595112367358406656?s=21
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mcconnell-calls-for-cutting-government-programs-to-deal-with-disturbing-debt
... still, enjoy your tax cut.
Meanwhile, in the actual role of PM he was without doubt the best for half a century, bar the very special case of Maggie.
The chief whip, Julian Smith, told ministers that the prime minister would not get House of Commons approval for a backstop that could apply indefinitely.
Not for the first time Hammond is the adult in the room.
He is the Chief Whip. It is his job.
If you were better at it, or closer to the pulse of the Commons than him, maybe you wouldn’t be Chief Whip.
I'm not sure that tweet has aged terribly well...
The Commons will not vote for a No Deal that may end the Union and wrecks the economy
You do keep saying this guff. Subjects (in parliament) for votes are provided by the Gov(TMay) and Opposition(Corbo the Great). Neither will accede to your wishes.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6281303/Turkish-investigators-say-looking-toxic-materials-Khashoggi-murder-probe.html
I’m not sure she knows herself!
And I would argue it was one of the factors which caused the referendum to be lost, in that it really undermined his credibility as a messenger for Remain (did you not see any of the vox-pops at the time with people saying things like "if he really believed this stuff he's saying about how bad Brexit would be, he wouldn't have run the risk of a referendum in the first place"?).
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
http://www.johnshouse.co.uk
Read more at: https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-may-hints-that-mps-could-block-a-no-deal-brexit/
It is the *Executive* through the Royal Prerogative that exercises the rights of the Crown; ie it is the Crown-in-Parliament (rather than the Crown) which is Sovereign
No Deal is not sustainable in the long term
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_Conservatives_and_Reformists_in_Europe
Which is what we should be doing now. Say we can't and won't agree to the Irish backstop so lets talk about the real issues - planes, medicine, bills etc
The EU has billions of reasons to keep planes flying. But some people think the threat of planes not flying is useful to compel us into accepting the unacceptable elsewhere.
But I, like the HoC, the HoL and the country find the division of our country unacceptable. That is what the backstop does.
Unfortunately it didn't work out like that, for multiple reasons, the most important of which was that Labour went AWOL under Corbyn and Seumas Milne - a totally unpredictable contingency.
Still, the decision to Leave wasn't Cameron's. Quite the opposite, in fact - he (unlike his critics on this) was working his socks off to get the Remain vote out.
The EU, having had their warning shot across the bow so roundly ignored by May, feel that they have nothing further to gain from her, pick up their ball and jumpers for goalposts, and head home for tea to await No Deal Brexit?
I think one way or another the EU will put an end to this farce. They'll call it a "pause" or a "period of reflection". But we all know what it will be, it will be the EU 27 walking out of negotiations and letting the whole UK try to sleep in the bed the Tories have shat in.
I’m not sure there’s that much demand...
Without a backstop there is No Deal and that wrecks the economy and may well lead Scotland and NI to leave the UK
That’s a fair and sensible answer by May. As Mike was saying earlier, she might be flawed but at least she is at least considering the country’s welfare, unlike extremists of Mortimer and Archer’s ilk.
Possibly Richard Nabavi, but even then I get the sneaking suspicion he's doing it more out of a polite pity for the hopelessness of May's plight than the slightest regard for anything she has to say.
What a load of bullshit that turned out to be...
Although Veet might have its uses...
https://youtu.be/3vJxrf1r0ak
Charles is an aristocrat. He seems to think that crap actually matters.