There is no majority for the NI backstop. You keep ignoring that.
There's no majority for Chequers+backstops-all-the-way-down.
There might be a majority for the
Means FOM
Yes.
Though if we do go into transition, with or without a backstop on 29 March, a #peoplesvote becomes obselete. Those Remainers then are likely to back EEA, and likely to command a majority in the country.
FOM may well be the price of Brexit.
Except EEA/EFTA excludes the Customs Union and we would have to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union to avoid a hard border in Ireland
Which means a new mMPs will never, ever vote for it.
Which we would have given we are cotland voting to leave the UK
No vote is required for the no deal Brexit.
Who is going to propose SM and CU.
And how are they going to get around breaking up the Union to do so?
There will be a vote as May has made clear she will refer to Parliament even if No Deal.
All the evidence tonight is May is extendingion together
No, it won't pass. It turns us i
As Hannan says, Remaining is better than that. Or No Deal.
There has to be a strict time limit on this arrangement. Otherwise the Commons votes it down and it is No Deal (or another referendum).
There is no majority in the Commons for either accepting No Deal or for EUref2. There is a majority for kicking the issue into the long grass with SM and CU transition period and backstop
May will give a vague form of carefully crafted civil servant wordage about when a technical solution will be found for the Irish border without giving a specific date but SM and CU will be the backstop and the fate of the UK for years to come in an everlasting transition period
If this is where we end, then she will destroy the Tory party and say Hello to a Corbyn led Labour government. We will literally be run by Marxists.
I do not believe the Tory party will accept that. She will be overthrown.
We should have called Varadkar's bluff and offered him a united Ireland without a referendum. Then when he shat himself and said no, publicised that the Taoiseach of Ireland had turned down a chance for Irish unity. That would have been the end of the Irish border cobblers.
There is no majority for the NI backstop. You keep ignoring that.
There's no majority for Chequers+backstops-all-the-way-down.
There might be a majority for the UK to join the EEA+CU indefinitely though. There is a deal May could do with Labour and the SNP, if she wanted it.
Means FOM
Yes.
Though if we do go into transition, with or without a backstop on 29 March, a #peoplesvote becomes obselete. Those Remainers then are likely to back EEA, and likely to command a majority in the country.
FOM may well be the price of Brexit.
Except EEA/EFTA excludes the Customs Union and we would have to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union to avoid a hard border in Ireland
Which means a new mMPs will never, ever vote for it.
Which we would have given we are cotland voting to leave the UK
No vote is required for the no deal Brexit.
Who is going to propose SM and CU.
And how are they going to get around breaking up the Union to do so?
There will be a vote as May has made clear she will refer to Parliament even if No Deal.
All the evidence tonight is May is extending the transition period (which will be SM +CU anyway for as long as it lasts) for another year and that will likely end up being indefinite the way things are going with the SM +CU agreed as the backstop for NI, with May making a vague promise that ultimately there will be a technical solution to the border.
It would of course only be No Deal that breaks up the Union, quite possibly leading both Scotland and NI to vote for independence. Indefinite SM +CU limbo for the whole UK in an everlasting transition period will keep the Union together
No, it won't pass. It turns us into a perpetual colony, a feudal province, with no say in the rules, and having to take EU diktats without dissent. And we have no say in trade deals made in our name, and, yet, they will be using our economy as bait. Honest Brits (or English men and women) will not tolerate that. We could perhaps endure this for a year or two, but in perpetuity? Of course not. The Commons will reflect this sentiment.
As Hannan says, Remaining is better than that. Or No Deal.
There has to be a strict time limit on this arrangement. Otherwise the Commons votes it down and it is No Deal (or another referendum).
Of course there does. HYUFD is taking obsequious loyalty to a failed leader to the extreme.
That's where we are with landing on the moon, we could do it in a world of Morris minors, but in a world of Teslas we can't.
We could if we wanted. But we don't. We also lost any economies of scale.
Like steam trains. We could manufacture one today, but it would cost millions.
We did. 60163 Tornado cost about £3,000,000.
China is desperate to get to the moon but simply do not have the technology to do it. Look at NASAs Orion space craft, on their promotional videos they say they are not certain what the effects of the radiation from the Van Allen belts would have on the astronauts. Why don't they know, they sent astronauts through this radiation in the late 69s, early 70s and it apparently had no effect but now they are not sure? These NASA Orion videos are basically saying they have never left the earths orbit before and do not know what will happen. Type in "NASA admits repeatedly that we have never been to the moon" in google. It's a very short video. It's like NASA are wiping Apollo from their history.
NASA has been to the moon ... just no-one overly cared about radiation in the 60s/70s like they do now.
The men who came back from the moon had no ill effects at all from the radiation, therefore why would they worry about it or as they say " we don't know what effect the radiation will have " when they clearly do. There are a lot more videos of current astronauts talking as if Apollo never took place. One lady astronaut actually says that she hope within a few years that the technology will be developed that allows man to leave earth orbit , we left earth orbit in 1969 !
There is no majority for the NI backstop. You keep ignoring that.
There's no majority for Chequers+backstops-all-the-way-down.
There might be a majority for the UK to join the EEA+CU indefinitely though. There is a deal May could do with Labour and the SNP, if she wanted it.
Means FOM
Yes.
Though if we do go into transition, with or without a backstop on 29 March, a #peoplesvote becomes obselete. Those Remainers then are likely to back EEA, and likely to command a majority in the country.
FOM may well be the price of Brexit.
Except EEA/EFTA excludes the Customs Union and we would have to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union to avoid a hard border in Ireland
Which means a new mMPs will never, ever vote for it.
Which we would have given we are cotland voting to leave the UK
No vote is required for the no deal Brexit.
Who is going to propose SM and CU.
And how are they going to get around breaking up the Union to do so?
There will be a vote as May has made clear she will refer to Parliament even if No Deal.
All the evidence tonight is May is extending the transition period (which will be SM +CU anyway for as long as it lasts) for another year and that will likely end up being indefinite the way things are going with the SM +CU age Union together
No, it won't pass. It turns us into a perpetual colony, a feudal province, with no say in the rules, and having to take EU diktats without dissent. And we have no say in trade deals made in our name, and, yet, they will be using our economy as bait. Honest Brits (or English men and women) will not tolerate that. We could perhaps endure this for a year or two, but in perpetuity? Of course not. The Commons will reflect this sentiment.
As Hannan says, Remaining is better than that. Or No Deal.
There has to be a strict time limit on this arrangement. Otherwise the Commons votes it down and it is No Deal (or another referendum).
Of course there does. HYUFD is taking obsequious loyalty to a failed leader to the extreme.
Actually May is probably the only leader now avoiding a near civil war the Leave v Remain divide is so strong with the threat to the Union and economy of No Deal and the deep division that would come from EUref2. So she has come up with the fudge to end all fudges
That's where we are with landing on the moon, we could do it in a world of Morris minors, but in a world of Teslas we can't.
We could if we wanted. But we don't. We also lost any economies of scale.
Like steam trains. We could manufacture one today, but it would cost millions.
We did. 60163 Tornado cost about £3,000,000.
China is desperate to get to the moon but simply do not have the technology to do it. Look at NASAs Orion space craft, on their promotional videos they say they are not certain what the effects of the radiation from the Van Allen belts would have on the astronauts. Why don't they know, they sent astronauts through this radiation in the late 69s, early 70s and it apparently had no effect but now they are not sure? These NASA Orion videos are basically saying they have never left the earths orbit before and do not know what will happen. Type in "NASA admits repeatedly that we have never been to the moon" in google. It's a very short video. It's like NASA are wiping Apollo from their history.
NASA has been to the moon ... just no-one overly cared about radiation in the 60s/70s like they do now.
The men who came back from the moon had no ill effects at all from the radiation, therefore why would they worry about it or as they say " we don't know what effect the radiation will have " when they clearly do. There are a lot more videos of current astronauts talking as if Apollo never took place. One lady astronaut actually says that she hope within a few years that the technology will be developed that allows man to leave earth orbit , we left earth orbit in 1969 !
Unless they didn't get to the moon.....
I am of course just joking. But the earth is flat.
The only reason to extend the transition is if the British government has a realistic end game in sight. There’s no evidence that this is true. @archer101au is totally right; the backstop is the original sin that cannot be made good. The Commons will not pass a deal that could result in NI being economically annexed by the EU.
May should declare for no deal, or resign. We really need to stop mucking about.
I have a feeling this extension will be the final straw and an announcement from Brady that he has 48 letters will be imminent.
What happens then, who know? Big G says she'll sail through but I'm not so sure... Especially if the Cabinet desert her...
Most Tory MPs voted Remain, 50% voted for May in the 1st round in 2016, 61% in the 2nd round, she will beat a no confidence vote and be safe for a year past Brexit and into the transition
I dont think this misplaced optimism will survive, whilst I get the argument that May represents a saftety net for a chunk of Tory MPs, without a vision (something TM has never been good at) the extension of the transition is a bigger test than Chequers.....all she seems to offer is more of the same - a bit like Brexit means Brexit, the real test lies in the rump of Tory MPs who are in the middle between ERG types and arch Remainers.
NASA has been to the moon ... just no-one overly cared about radiation in the 60s/70s like they do now.
Apparently heart problems are the big concern - the Apollo astronauts had an awful rate, something like 5x greater than would be expected (1 in 2 vs 1 in 10). That's from a relatively short flight too, imagine what longer duration spells up there would do.
Fortunately Elon, or more importantly Maezawa give no fucks (Probably along with a 'real' astronaut no longer live with NASA, say Scott Kelly). I think BFR will be up and around the moon before anything else, including SLS. The only thing that might stop them is a ban from Congress or something. Unfortunately I wouldn't entirely rule that out if they see HSF from US as entirely NASA's remit, which it is till now - that will change though.
Quick check. As many people have pointed out, some options (second referendum, Chequers) are implausible because of the lack of Parliamentary support, and that No Deal is quite likely because Parliament is incapable of making a decision. Fair enough.
But am I correct in thinking that an extension in the transition term from 2 to 3 years doesn't need Parliamentary approval? Or am I wrong?
The consequence of which is that I have come to the conclusion that almost nobody on here that comments on EFTA has even the slightest idea what's in the treaty.
The consequence of which is that I have come to the conclusion that almost nobody on here that comments on EFTA has even the slightest idea what's in the treaty.
You are Dr Michael Burry and I claim my five pounds.
Edit to add: Thnaks for the videos! Most enlightening.
I have a massive amount of respect for Dr Burry, so that comparison is a great compliment. £5 is in the post.
I love that scene where he is reading the MBS spreadsheets in The Big Short.
From the original Lewis Book he struck me as the most maverick of all the let’s short the housing market Mavericks.
MBS keeps a spreadsheet of the length of the bits he cuts off people?
The only reason to extend the transition is if the British government has a realistic end game in sight. There’s no evidence that this is true. @archer101au is totally right; the backstop is the original sin that cannot be made good. The Commons will not pass a deal that could result in NI being economically annexed by the EU.
May should declare for no deal, or resign. We really need to stop mucking about.
I have a feeling this extension will be the final straw and an announcement from Brady that he has 48 letters will be imminent.
What happens then, who know? Big G says she'll sail through but I'm not so sure... Especially if the Cabinet desert her...
Most Tory MPs voted Remain, 50% voted for May in the 1st round in 2016, 61% in the 2nd round, she will beat a no confidence vote and be safe for a year past Brexit and into the transition
I dont think this misplaced optimism will survive, whilst I get the argument that May represents a saftety net for a chunk of Tory MPs, without a vision (something TM has never been good at) the extension of the transition is a bigger test than Chequers.....all she seems to offer is more of the same - a bit like Brexit means Brexit, the real test lies in the rump of Tory MPs who are in the middle between ERG types and arch Remainers.
It is that Rump that will sustain her, as Thatcher said 'There is no alternative' other than No Deal threatening economic collapse and the breakup of the UK or a bitterly divisive EUref2.
The only reason to extend the transition is if the British government has a realistic end game in sight. There’s no evidence that this is true. @archer101au is totally right; the backstop is the original sin that cannot be made good. The Commons will not pass a deal that could result in NI being economically annexed by the EU.
May should declare for no deal, or resign. We really need to stop mucking about.
I have a feeling this extension will be the final straw and an announcement from Brady that he has 48 letters will be imminent.
What happens then, who know? Big G says she'll sail through but I'm not so sure... Especially if the Cabinet desert her...
Most Tory MPs voted Remain, 50% voted for May in the 1st round in 2016, 61% in the 2nd round, she will beat a no confidence vote and be safe for a year past Brexit and into the transition
I dont think this misplaced optimism will survive, whilst I get the argument that May represents a saftety net for a chunk of Tory MPs, without a vision (something TM has never been good at) the extension of the transition is a bigger test than Chequers.....all she seems to offer is more of the same - a bit like Brexit means Brexit, the real test lies in the rump of Tory MPs who are in the middle between ERG types and arch Remainers.
It is that Rump that will sustain her, as Thatcher said 'There is no alternative' other than No Deal threatening economic collapse and the breakup of the UK or a bitterly divisive EUref2.
So Zombie Brexit it is then under a Zombie PM
The problem then is of course a zombie Parliament . Nothing done till 2022 as there is no majority for owt. Maybe even no Budget
The consequence of which is that I have come to the conclusion that almost nobody on here that comments on EFTA has even the slightest idea what's in the treaty.
The consequence of which is that I have come to the conclusion that almost nobody on here that comments on EFTA has even the slightest idea what's in the treaty.
You are Dr Michael Burry and I claim my five pounds.
Edit to add: Thnaks for the videos! Most enlightening.
I have a massive amount of respect for Dr Burry, so that comparison is a great compliment. £5 is in the post.
I love that scene where he is reading the MBS spreadsheets in The Big Short.
From the original Lewis Book he struck me as the most maverick of all the let’s short the housing market Mavericks.
MBS keeps a spreadsheet of the length of the bits he cuts off people?
Jeez..,excel obsession much!
I reviewed a paper once of a surgeon who had done some research involving many severed limbs. The pictures were...unsettling. And yes, there was a spreadsheet.
Quick check. As many people have pointed out, some options (second referendum, Chequers) are implausible because of the lack of Parliamentary support, and that No Deal is quite likely because Parliament is incapable of making a decision. Fair enough.
But am I correct in thinking that an extension in the transition term from 2 to 3 years doesn't need Parliamentary approval? Or am I wrong?
I'm no expert (you're in the right place - ed.) but I presume it would be covered by the same meaninglessful vote the government intends to ram through without amendment submit to the House. Presumably somenutterone could lay an amendment altering the length of time of the transition, but if the government has already passed the 'deal' that's academic.
Quick check. As many people have pointed out, some options (second referendum, Chequers) are implausible because of the lack of Parliamentary support, and that No Deal is quite likely because Parliament is incapable of making a decision. Fair enough.
But am I correct in thinking that an extension in the transition term from 2 to 3 years doesn't need Parliamentary approval? Or am I wrong?
That's right at the EU end (UK PM + other member state heads of state can do it) but IIUC the EU Withdrawal Act fixes "exit day" as March, 29th, 2019, so if you didn't go back to parliament to extend it, the UK would still consider itself to have left.
So if parliament wouldn't amend it, you'd have a situation where the EU thought that the UK was still in the EU, but the UK thought it had left.
This could be the compromise that we've been looking for.
Quick check. As many people have pointed out, some options (second referendum, Chequers) are implausible because of the lack of Parliamentary support, and that No Deal is quite likely because Parliament is incapable of making a decision. Fair enough.
But am I correct in thinking that an extension in the transition term from 2 to 3 years doesn't need Parliamentary approval? Or am I wrong?
That's right at the EU end (UK PM + other member state heads of state can do it) but IIUC the EU Withdrawal Act fixes "exit day" as March, 29th, 2019, so if you didn't go back to parliament to extend it, the UK would still consider itself to have left.
So if parliament wouldn't amend it, you'd have a situation where the EU thought that the UK was still in the EU, but the UK thought it had left.
This could be the compromise that we've been looking for.
Sorry, you're asking about extending the transition, not the exit. I don't think parliament has agreed to anything about a transition, so it needs to be voted on as part of the (hypothetical) deal whether it's two years or three.
The only reason to extend the transition is if the British government has a realistic end game in sight. There’s no evidence that this is true. @archer101au is totally right; the backstop is the original sin that cannot be made good. The Commons will not pass a deal that could result in NI being economically annexed by the EU.
May should declare for no deal, or resign. We really need to stop mucking about.
I have a feeling this extension will be the final straw and an announcement from Brady that he has 48 letters will be imminent.
What happens then, who know? Big G says she'll sail through but I'm not so sure... Especially if the Cabinet desert her...
Most Tory MPs voted Remain, 50% voted for May in the 1st round in 2016, 61% in the 2nd round, she will beat a no confidence vote and be safe for a year past Brexit and into the transition
I dont think this misplaced optimism will survive, whilst I get the argument that May represents a saftety net for a chunk of Tory MPs, without a vision (something TM has never been good at) the extension of the transition is a bigger test than Chequers.....all she seems to offer is more of the same - a bit like Brexit means Brexit, the real test lies in the rump of Tory MPs who are in the middle between ERG types and arch Remainers.
It is that Rump that will sustain her, as Thatcher said 'There is no alternative' other than No Deal threatening economic collapse and the breakup of the UK or a bitterly divisive EUref2.
So Zombie Brexit it is then under a Zombie PM
Sail through the Vonc? Laughable. Then why don’t her own supporters hand the letters in see the threat off whilst victory is in the bag? She only got the gig because everyone else was killed off i Claudius fashion. She’s just not up to it. She can’t even give a conference speech without headlines for all the wrong reasons. She’s become an embarrassment to her party and the whole Nation. As soon as the letters are in, she’s toasted quicker than toasty McMuffinface in toastshire on toastmasday.
Point is, how does the next contestant do any better on the Brexit obstacle course? Not even Churchill could budge these EU project megalomaniacs hell bent on fucking us over. Like Macron put that crap out on this day by accident? Geez wake up and smell the coffee.
Quick check. As many people have pointed out, some options (second referendum, Chequers) are implausible because of the lack of Parliamentary support, and that No Deal is quite likely because Parliament is incapable of making a decision. Fair enough.
But am I correct in thinking that an extension in the transition term from 2 to 3 years doesn't need Parliamentary approval? Or am I wrong?
That's right at the EU end (UK PM + other member state heads of state can do it) but IIUC the EU Withdrawal Act fixes "exit day" as March, 29th, 2019, so if you didn't go back to parliament to extend it, the UK would still consider itself to have left.
So if parliament wouldn't amend it, you'd have a situation where the EU thought that the UK was still in the EU, but the UK thought it had left.
This could be the compromise that we've been looking for.
Sorry, you're asking about extending the transition, not the exit. I don't think parliament has agreed to anything about a transition, so it needs to be voted on as part of the (hypothetical) deal whether it's two years or three.
Quick check. As many people have pointed out, some options (second referendum, Chequers) are implausible because of the lack of Parliamentary support, and that No Deal is quite likely because Parliament is incapable of making a decision. Fair enough.
But am I correct in thinking that an extension in the transition term from 2 to 3 years doesn't need Parliamentary approval? Or am I wrong?
That's right at the EU end (UK PM + other member state heads of state can do it) but IIUC the EU Withdrawal Act fixes "exit day" as March, 29th, 2019, so if you didn't go back to parliament to extend it, the UK would still consider itself to have left.
So if parliament wouldn't amend it, you'd have a situation where the EU thought that the UK was still in the EU, but the UK thought it had left.
This could be the compromise that we've been looking for.
Sorry, you're asking about extending the transition, not the exit. I don't think parliament has agreed to anything about a transition, so it needs to be voted on as part of the (hypothetical) deal whether it's two years or three.
Oh OK, thank you.
But isn’t the transition there to prevent the 60 mile traffic jam throughout next April if we strike deal, Do you still have transition without deal? What are you transitioning to?
There's no solution to Northern Ireland whilst the DUP are in Government. In all probability that situation ends in 2022, whoever wins the GE (Their influence is only present 308-318 Tory MPs). Once they're out the way, Northern Ireland can be sold down the river or we rejoin perhaps if it is Labour/Corbyn + Lib Dems But not before.
Has there been much GB polling on an "Irish Sea Border"?
My hunch is that not only would people not object to it much, many (perhaps Leave voters especially) would think it eminent commonsense to have strong borders around an island, regardless of whether Northern Ireland is technically the same country.
DUP would not be happy, automatic General Election time, 2 months campaign till December date, not popular with anyone - Corbyn majority. If you think the dumbest of strategists in the CCHQ haven't worked that out already - only way that would happen is if TMay or her replacement (who could not guarantee that the DUP would support a C&S with the Tories anyway) goes for a Hari Kiri solution to get the Labour Party the blame for their mess.
Quick check. As many people have pointed out, some options (second referendum, Chequers) are implausible because of the lack of Parliamentary support, and that No Deal is quite likely because Parliament is incapable of making a decision. Fair enough.
But am I correct in thinking that an extension in the transition term from 2 to 3 years doesn't need Parliamentary approval? Or am I wrong?
That's right at the EU end (UK PM + other member state heads of state can do it) but IIUC the EU Withdrawal Act fixes "exit day" as March, 29th, 2019, so if you didn't go back to parliament to extend it, the UK would still consider itself to have left.
So if parliament wouldn't amend it, you'd have a situation where the EU thought that the UK was still in the EU, but the UK thought it had left.
This could be the compromise that we've been looking for.
Sorry, you're asking about extending the transition, not the exit. I don't think parliament has agreed to anything about a transition, so it needs to be voted on as part of the (hypothetical) deal whether it's two years or three.
What are you transitioning to?
an undertaking of great advantage but no-one to know what it is!!
The sort of thread header that makes PB great again
Gets thumbs up from me. But how can it not when most of it is so similar to what I have posted on your site over the last two months...
At some point Brexit will get settled, and tackling the demographic time bomb becomes the great show in town. What isn’t going to do harm is getting ideas out there, and, as your video does, explore for and against.
More babies. And you will pay less tax if you have them. What occurred to me, what are we calling tax? Free TV license? Tax free tampons. Petrol vouchers? I like the idea.
Something else leapt out viewing your most productive age for earnings chart, the impact of deindustrialisation. Where workers lose a good paying job, such as downsizing car plant, don’t find equivalent employment, knock around on welfare between jobs. Similar chart on tail off, but this time not age driving it.
Governments of all colour have thrown immigration at the demographic time bomb for decades now, why is it a secret? Is there anyone who doesn’t believe this? Well yes, those who refuse to believe it because the impact this fact has on the immigration policy they have promised the voters!
Which brings a neatly to say, Demographic time bomb matters most to the Tories, and Tory policies. If a party wishes to be low tax party in the decades to come, the cost of the demographic time bomb will murder that ambition. So there is need for manifestos to be creative and bold.
“Electors shouldn’t reward those ignorant of the challenges ahead, or dishonest enough to downplay them”
Totally agree with the statement, but million £ question is how to achieve it. The answer isn’t just governments putting something into action, it’s a political class who need to break their habit of shortermism. it’s all parties who need to be responsible especially when opposition.
A failure to impose policy, you come to own the default situation, ironically considering what happened in last general election, this Tory government owns a default today that does resemble a Dementia Tax, of the most unprogressive kind. TV adverts offering equity release options to cover care costs, that’s only available if you have equity to release. But in the last Tory Manifesto was a policy that would have done something about the current unfair dementia tax, clear policy for a state-backed equity release scheme to fund social care budget. Criminally the opposition parties went big attacking this policy, wrongly calling it Dementia tax, when if they were grown up about politics they would have their own version of the same state-backed equity release scheme to fund social care, in their manifestos too!
What’s it going to take, some sort of Royal Commission or Beveridge Report to get everyone on the same page?
1) She's an idiot/exhausted/given up caring and has no idea what she's proposed, why, and who it will enrage. 2) She knows that this will achieve nothing, but it's something to say, and kicking the can down the road is all she has left, however little sense it makes. 3) This is a ploy to force her party to VONC her, so she can win it, then capitulate totally to the EU before Christmas. 4) The EU is toying with her, and at this point she's too weak and terrified to even bother arguing 5) We're in the Full Retard timeline
My money is on two. I don't doubt she is frustrated enough to not mind if there is a VONC, but I don't think she'd deliberately provoke on for the reason she could not be sure how badly she would provoke all the other MPs to the point she would not win it.
I still think there's a strategy of sorts, but a kind of strategy that a tactician thinks up. It's to
1. Persuade everyone that No Deal would be a catastrophe. Plan lorry parks on motorways, urge the NHS to stockpile medicine, ruminate about food shortages.
2. Keep talking doggedly and earn respect for trying. Explore numerous avenues and make it known you've tried but sadly they don't work.
3. Insist there will only be two choices: No Deal and whatever is agreed. Firmly rule out any kind of amendments.
4. At the very last moment, agree customs union with an unspecific but solemn, 28-nation commitment to move on from it as soon as possible.
It'll probably work, in my opinion, and result in something rather like membership though with less influence, indefinitely.
Indeed. But then aren't both sides of the divide justified in asking what was the bloody point?
Sure. But then most people were never that interested. They still aren't! Ask them what to do, and they give an opinion - "Er, Leave, I suppose, might be better." That doesn't make them particularly wedded to the idea. I'd think we have maybe 20% of thre population who are really engaged in all this, and everyone else ids only vaguely paying attention and just hopes it'll be sorted.
Giving up Ulster without even a referendum is never going to happen. The revulsion at the thought crosses the Leave/Remain divide; it’s only our hopeless PM and the moronically ignorant Karen Brady who think otherwise.
Not really sure that's true. There was a poll of Leavers which showed that even a return to violence in the province was worth Brexit, and I doubt if Remainers are that much more engaged. Plenty of people probably spend their entire lives barely giving Northern Ireland a thought.
I'm not speaking for myself. I don't think Irish union should happen without majority consent in the province. But I think we're in a minority who really care one way or the other.
Comments
I am of course just joking. But the earth is flat.
But am I correct in thinking that an extension in the transition term from 2 to 3 years doesn't need Parliamentary approval? Or am I wrong?
Jeez..,excel obsession much!
So Zombie Brexit it is then under a Zombie PM
Pause.
Aaaaaaaaaaaargh!
So if parliament wouldn't amend it, you'd have a situation where the EU thought that the UK was still in the EU, but the UK thought it had left.
This could be the compromise that we've been looking for.
Point is, how does the next contestant do any better on the Brexit obstacle course? Not even Churchill could budge these EU project megalomaniacs hell bent on fucking us over. Like Macron put that crap out on this day by accident? Geez wake up and smell the coffee.
Do you still have transition without deal? What are you transitioning to?
The sort of thread header that makes PB great again
Gets thumbs up from me. But how can it not when most of it is so similar to what I have posted on your site over the last two months...
At some point Brexit will get settled, and tackling the demographic time bomb becomes the great show in town. What isn’t going to do harm is getting ideas out there, and, as your video does, explore for and against.
More babies. And you will pay less tax if you have them. What occurred to me, what are we calling tax? Free TV license? Tax free tampons. Petrol vouchers? I like the idea.
Something else leapt out viewing your most productive age for earnings chart, the impact of deindustrialisation. Where workers lose a good paying job, such as downsizing car plant, don’t find equivalent employment, knock around on welfare between jobs. Similar chart on tail off, but this time not age driving it.
Governments of all colour have thrown immigration at the demographic time bomb for decades now, why is it a secret? Is there anyone who doesn’t believe this? Well yes, those who refuse to believe it because the impact this fact has on the immigration policy they have promised the voters!
Which brings a neatly to say, Demographic time bomb matters most to the Tories, and Tory policies. If a party wishes to be low tax party in the decades to come, the cost of the demographic time bomb will murder that ambition. So there is need for manifestos to be creative and bold.
“Electors shouldn’t reward those ignorant of the challenges ahead, or dishonest enough to downplay them”
Totally agree with the statement, but million £ question is how to achieve it. The answer isn’t just governments putting something into action, it’s a political class who need to break their habit of shortermism. it’s all parties who need to be responsible especially when opposition.
A failure to impose policy, you come to own the default situation, ironically considering what happened in last general election, this Tory government owns a default today that does resemble a Dementia Tax, of the most unprogressive kind. TV adverts offering equity release options to cover care costs, that’s only available if you have equity to release. But in the last Tory Manifesto was a policy that would have done something about the current unfair dementia tax, clear policy for a state-backed equity release scheme to fund social care budget. Criminally the opposition parties went big attacking this policy, wrongly calling it Dementia tax, when if they were grown up about politics they would have their own version of the same state-backed equity release scheme to fund social care, in their manifestos too!
What’s it going to take, some sort of Royal Commission or Beveridge Report to get everyone on the same page?
I'm not speaking for myself. I don't think Irish union should happen without majority consent in the province. But I think we're in a minority who really care one way or the other.