Miss Mordaunt misthought she misheard what she missaid, but she definitely did not. OKAY?
She certainly has a way with words. From a recent speech she gave: "Our economy is innately international because it was based on ancient routes of international trade. Our modern infrastructures have continued this tradition in shipping, airlines, roads, British law and even time itself."
There you have it: Time was invented by the British.
Greenwich meantime is the standard.
Technically UTC is, rather than GMT but I'm not that pedantic. Though you'd have to be a very special kind of Tory to think that this gives British people dominion over time itself.
If the single/double summer time people have their way we wouldn't use GMT/UTC for any of the year, which would be an absurdity.
Wasn't there a fight between the Greenwich meridian and the (what else?) Paris meridian until the mid 1880s? (if memory serves)
Yes, there was a Prime Meridian through Paris until the international standard was settled on Greenwich. So it would look a bit absurd to no longer use it for our time.
It would be a bit like adopting the Royal family of another country, after your own had run out of heirs, and then deciding that you didn't like them, chopping one of their heads off and then inviting increasingly distant cousins from the Continent to take over and imposing that Royal family onto the country you borrowed the family from.
Only resolution to this crisis seems to be to oust May, say the backstop is dead and do they want to talk or not. If they don't we have a few months to prepare for no deal. If they do we can get a deal.
May has failed.
I honestly think they'd be overjoyed. If the Tories send her to the farm to be put down, a caretaker leader (say David Davis) could do a deal with Corbyn, transition quickly to EEA+CU, and then have all the time in the world to negotiate Canada Plus Infinity.
It really isn't THAT hard. But it can't happen until somebody shoots May.
EEA+CU indefinitely is exactly what May is heading towards now anyway
Please. May doesn't have any idea where she is heading. But shortly, to the unemployment line. The wheels are coming off - I think the Cabinet will step in next week.
One can hope - and not before time. Time for a Brexit PM.
whatever happens, nothing will change the arithmetic within the house of commons. The only thing that will do that is a general election.
The question is, what will the position of either of the main parties be on Brexit? Labour's constructive ambiguity won't wash a second time, especially at the sharp end of Brexit. While the Tory party's position could be anything depending on who is leader and whatever their position is, it won't alter the divisions within the party.
Labour can never out-Brexit the Tories. Their choice would be between swinging toward Remain or trying to stay balanced upon the fence.
The latter. It's cynical as all hell, but if they can pull it off for just one more election they win.
If the election is all about Brexit, called after a collapse in the government's attempts to achieve the impossible, sitting on the fence is unlikely to wash.
Only resolution to this crisis seems to be to oust May, say the backstop is dead and do they want to talk or not. If they don't we have a few months to prepare for no deal. If they do we can get a deal.
May has failed.
I honestly think they'd be overjoyed. If the Tories send her to the farm to be put down, a caretaker leader (say David Davis) could do a deal with Corbyn, transition quickly to EEA+CU, and then have all the time in the world to negotiate Canada Plus Infinity.
It really isn't THAT hard. But it can't happen until somebody shoots May.
EEA+CU indefinitely is exactly what May is heading towards now anyway
Please. May doesn't have any idea where she is heading. But shortly, to the unemployment line. The wheels are coming off - I think the Cabinet will step in next week.
One can hope - and not before time. Time for a Brexit PM.
whatever happens, nothing will change the arithmetic within the house of commons. The only thing that will do that is a general election.
The question is, what will the position of either of the main parties be on Brexit? Labour's constructive ambiguity won't wash a second time, especially at the sharp end of Brexit. While the Tory party's position could be anything depending on who is leader and whatever their position is, it won't alter the divisions within the party.
Labour can never out-Brexit the Tories. Their choice would be between swinging toward Remain or trying to stay balanced upon the fence.
The latter. It's cynical as all hell, but if they can pull it off for just one more election they win.
If the election is all about Brexit, called after a collapse in the government's attempts to achieve the impossible, sitting on the fence is unlikely to wash.
You'd think so, but if the Tories are split, as I think they would be, it has a chance.
Only resolution to this crisis seems to be to oust May, say the backstop is dead and do they want to talk or not. If they don't we have a few months to prepare for no deal. If they do we can get a deal.
May has failed.
I honestly think they'd be overjoyed. If the Tories send her to the farm to be put down, a caretaker leader (say David Davis) could do a deal with Corbyn, transition quickly to EEA+CU, and then have all the time in the world to negotiate Canada Plus Infinity.
It really isn't THAT hard. But it can't happen until somebody shoots May.
EEA+CU indefinitely is exactly what May is heading towards now anyway
Please. May doesn't have any idea where she is heading. But shortly, to the unemployment line. The wheels are coming off - I think the Cabinet will step in next week.
One can hope - and not before time. Time for a Brexit PM.
whatever happens, nothing will change the arithmetic within the house of commons. The only thing that will do that is a general election.
The question is, what will the position of either of the main parties be on Brexit? Labour's constructive ambiguity won't wash a second time, especially at the sharp end of Brexit. While the Tory party's position could be anything depending on who is leader and whatever their position is, it won't alter the divisions within the party.
Labour can never out-Brexit the Tories. Their choice would be between swinging toward Remain or trying to stay balanced upon the fence.
With their current leadership anything is possible. If they went into a snap election trying to sit on the fence like they did last time they would be ripped to shreds. The problem is that they haven't had a clear and decided policy yet (never trust a politician or party with x tests it's just an excuse not to do something).
Only resolution to this crisis seems to be to oust May, say the backstop is dead and do they want to talk or not. If they don't we have a few months to prepare for no deal. If they do we can get a deal.
May has failed.
I honestly think they'd be overjoyed. If the Tories send her to the farm to be put down, a caretaker leader (say David Davis) could do a deal with Corbyn, transition quickly to EEA+CU, and then have all the time in the world to negotiate Canada Plus Infinity.
It really isn't THAT hard. But it can't happen until somebody shoots May.
EEA+CU indefinitely is exactly what May is heading towards now anyway
Please. May doesn't have any idea where she is heading. But shortly, to the unemployment line. The wheels are coming off - I think the Cabinet will step in next week.
One can hope - and not before time. Time for a Brexit PM.
whatever happens, nothing will change the arithmetic within the house of commons. The only thing that will do that is a general election.
The question is, what will the position of either of the main parties be on Brexit? Labour's constructive ambiguity won't wash a second time, especially at the sharp end of Brexit. While the Tory party's position could be anything depending on who is leader and whatever their position is, it won't alter the divisions within the party.
Labour can never out-Brexit the Tories. Their choice would be between swinging toward Remain or trying to stay balanced upon the fence.
With their current leadership anything is possible. If they went into a snap election trying to sit on the fence like they did last time they would be ripped to shreds. The problem is that they haven't had a clear and decided policy yet (never trust a politician or party with x tests it's just an excuse not to do something).
If they have to make a decision I have no doubt it will be remain. The hope would be the Tories would be in enough disarray and that opinion generally has swung enough to remain to make that viable.
Only resolution to this crisis seems to be to oust May, say the backstop is dead and do they want to talk or not. If they don't we have a few months to prepare for no deal. If they do we can get a deal.
May has failed.
I honestly think they'd be overjoyed. If the Tories send her to the farm to be put down, a caretaker leader (say David Davis) could do a deal with Corbyn, transition quickly to EEA+CU, and then have all the time in the world to negotiate Canada Plus Infinity.
It really isn't THAT hard. But it can't happen until somebody shoots May.
EEA+CU indefinitely is exactly what May is heading towards now anyway
Please. May doesn't have any idea where she is heading. But shortly, to the unemployment line. The wheels are coming off - I think the Cabinet will step in next week.
One can hope - and not before time. Time for a Brexit PM.
whatever happens, nothing will change the arithmetic within the house of commons. The only thing that will do that is a general election.
The question is, what will the position of either of the main parties be on Brexit? Labour's constructive ambiguity won't wash a second time, especially at the sharp end of Brexit. While the Tory party's position could be anything depending on who is leader and whatever their position is, it won't alter the divisions within the party.
Labour can never out-Brexit the Tories. Their choice would be between swinging toward Remain or trying to stay balanced upon the fence.
With their current leadership anything is possible. If they went into a snap election trying to sit on the fence like they did last time they would be ripped to shreds. The problem is that they haven't had a clear and decided policy yet (never trust a politician or party with x tests it's just an excuse not to do something).
If they have to make a decision I have no doubt it will be remain. The hope would be the Tories would be in enough disarray and that opinion generally has swung enough to remain to make that viable.
I doubt it'd happen with JC in charge. he wants to leave the EU to get rid of the state aid rules
Only resolution to this crisis seems to be to oust May, say the backstop is dead and do they want to talk or not. If they don't we have a few months to prepare for no deal. If they do we can get a deal.
May has failed.
I honestly think they'd be overjoyed. If the Tories send her to the farm to be put down, a caretaker leader (say David Davis) could do a deal with Corbyn, transition quickly to EEA+CU, and then have all the time in the world to negotiate Canada Plus Infinity.
It really isn't THAT hard. But it can't happen until somebody shoots May.
EEA+CU indefinitely is exactly what May is heading towards now anyway
Please. May doesn't have any idea where she is heading. But shortly, to the unemployment line. The wheels are coming off - I think the Cabinet will step in next week.
One can hope - and not before time. Time for a Brexit PM.
whatever happens, nothing will change the arithmetic within the house of commons. The only thing that will do that is a general election.
The question is, what will the position of either of the main parties be on Brexit? Labour's constructive ambiguity won't wash a second time, especially at the sharp end of Brexit. While the Tory party's position could be anything depending on who is leader and whatever their position is, it won't alter the divisions within the party.
Labour can never out-Brexit the Tories. Their choice would be between swinging toward Remain or trying to stay balanced upon the fence.
With their current leadership anything is possible. If they went into a snap election trying to sit on the fence like they did last time they would be ripped to shreds. The problem is that they haven't had a clear and decided policy yet (never trust a politician or party with x tests it's just an excuse not to do something).
If they have to make a decision I have no doubt it will be remain. The hope would be the Tories would be in enough disarray and that opinion generally has swung enough to remain to make that viable.
I doubt it'd happen with JC in charge. he wants to leave the EU to get rid of the state aid rules
He wants to do many things. He has grown more flexible in his time as leader, as the Labour position on Brexit shows. I think if he believes he could get into power if Labour go full remain he would do it now, despite his historic reluctance.
Only resolution to this crisis seems to be to oust May, say the backstop is dead and do they want to talk or not. If they don't we have a few months to prepare for no deal. If they do we can get a deal.
May has failed.
I honestly think they'd be overjoyed. If the Tories send her to the farm to be put down, a caretaker leader (say David Davis) could do a deal with Corbyn, transition quickly to EEA+CU, and then have all the time in the world to negotiate Canada Plus Infinity.
It really isn't THAT hard. But it can't happen until somebody shoots May.
EEA+CU indefinitely is exactly what May is heading towards now anyway
Please. May doesn't have any idea where she is heading. But shortly, to the unemployment line. The wheels are coming off - I think the Cabinet will step in next week.
One can hope - and not before time. Time for a Brexit PM.
whatever happens, nothing will change the arithmetic within the house of commons. The only thing that will do that is a general election.
The question is, what will the position of either of the main parties be on Brexit? Labour's constructive ambiguity won't wash a second time, especially at the sharp end of Brexit. While the Tory party's position could be anything depending on who is leader and whatever their position is, it won't alter the divisions within the party.
Labour can never out-Brexit the Tories. Their choice would be between swinging toward Remain or trying to stay balanced upon the fence.
The latter. It's cynical as all hell, but if they can pull it off for just one more election they win.
The Cons can lose Brexit votes but win confidence votes. The party is united in not wanting an election.
There is a majority for no election : Con (with new leader) + DUP.
Election is the least likely outcome of the next 6 months.
Only resolution to this crisis seems to be to oust May, say the backstop is dead and do they want to talk or not. If they don't we have a few months to prepare for no deal. If they do we can get a deal.
May has failed.
I honestly think they'd be overjoyed. If the Tories send her to the farm to be put down, a caretaker leader (say David Davis) could do a deal with Corbyn, transition quickly to EEA+CU, and then have all the time in the world to negotiate Canada Plus Infinity.
It really isn't THAT hard. But it can't happen until somebody shoots May.
EEA+CU indefinitely is exactly what May is heading towards now anyway
Please. May doesn't have any idea where she is heading. But shortly, to the unemployment line. The wheels are coming off - I think the Cabinet will step in next week.
One can hope - and not before time. Time for a Brexit PM.
whatever happens, nothing will change the arithmetic within the house of commons. The only thing that will do that is a general election.
The question is, what will the position of either of the main parties be on Brexit? Labour's constructive ambiguity won't wash a second time, especially at the sharp end of Brexit. While the Tory party's position could be anything depending on who is leader and whatever their position is, it won't alter the divisions within the party.
Labour can never out-Brexit the Tories. Their choice would be between swinging toward Remain or trying to stay balanced upon the fence.
The latter. It's cynical as all hell, but if they can pull it off for just one more election they win.
The Cons can lose Brexit votes but win confidence votes. The party is united in not wanting an election.
There is a majority for no election : Con (with new leader) + DUP.
Election is the least likely outcome of the next 6 months.
I agree it is not likely (though elections officers I know are very worried they will have one at least by May next year), not least because I think the Tories know the only circumstances which lead to a new GE are very bad for them.
Only resolution to this crisis seems to be to oust May, say the backstop is dead and do they want to talk or not. If they don't we have a few months to prepare for no deal. If they do we can get a deal.
May has failed.
I honestly think they'd be overjoyed. If the Tories send her to the farm to be put down, a caretaker leader (say David Davis) could do a deal with Corbyn, transition quickly to EEA+CU, and then have all the time in the world to negotiate Canada Plus Infinity.
It really isn't THAT hard. But it can't happen until somebody shoots May.
EEA+CU indefinitely is exactly what May is heading towards now anyway
Please. May doesn't have any idea where she is heading. But shortly, to the unemployment line. The wheels are coming off - I think the Cabinet will step in next week.
One can hope - and not before time. Time for a Brexit PM.
whatever happens, nothing will change the arithmetic within the house of commons. The only thing that will do that is a general election.
The question is, what will the position of either of the main parties be on Brexit? Labour's constructive ambiguity won't wash a second time, especially at the sharp end of Brexit. While the Tory party's position could be anything depending on who is leader and whatever their position is, it won't alter the divisions within the party.
Labour can never out-Brexit the Tories. Their choice would be between swinging toward Remain or trying to stay balanced upon the fence.
The latter. It's cynical as all hell, but if they can pull it off for just one more election they win.
The Cons can lose Brexit votes but win confidence votes. The party is united in not wanting an election.
There is a majority for no election : Con (with new leader) + DUP.
Election is the least likely outcome of the next 6 months.
All it would take is for the DUP to abstain and you'd be very close to a defeat. could Ken Clarke (and one or two others) vote down a Tory Government to prevent a no deal brexit?
Only resolution to this crisis seems to be to oust May, say the backstop is dead and do they want to talk or not. If they don't we have a few months to prepare for no deal. If they do we can get a deal.
May has failed.
I honestly think they'd be overjoyed. If the Tories send her to the farm to be put down, a caretaker leader (say David Davis) could do a deal with Corbyn, transition quickly to EEA+CU, and then have all the time in the world to negotiate Canada Plus Infinity.
It really isn't THAT hard. But it can't happen until somebody shoots May.
EEA+CU indefinitely is exactly what May is heading towards now anyway
Please. May doesn't have any idea where she is heading. But shortly, to the unemployment line. The wheels are coming off - I think the Cabinet will step in next week.
One can hope - and not before time. Time for a Brexit PM.
whatever happens, nothing will change the arithmetic within the house of commons. The only thing that will do that is a general election.
The question is, what will the position of either of the main parties be on Brexit? Labour's constructive ambiguity won't wash a second time, especially at the sharp end of Brexit. While the Tory party's position could be anything depending on who is leader and whatever their position is, it won't alter the divisions within the party.
Labour can never out-Brexit the Tories. Their choice would be between swinging toward Remain or trying to stay balanced upon the fence.
The latter. It's cynical as all hell, but if they can pull it off for just one more election they win.
The Cons can lose Brexit votes but win confidence votes. The party is united in not wanting an election.
There is a majority for no election : Con (with new leader) + DUP.
Election is the least likely outcome of the next 6 months.
Only resolution to this crisis seems to be to oust May, say the backstop is dead and do they want to talk or not. If they don't we have a few months to prepare for no deal. If they do we can get a deal.
May has failed.
I honestly think they'd be overjoyed. If the Tories send her to the farm to be put down, a caretaker leader (say David Davis) could do a deal with Corbyn, transition quickly to EEA+CU, and then have all the time in the world to negotiate Canada Plus Infinity.
It really isn't THAT hard. But it can't happen until somebody shoots May.
EEA+CU indefinitely is exactly what May is heading towards now anyway
Please. May doesn't have any idea where she is heading. But shortly, to the unemployment line. The wheels are coming off - I think the Cabinet will step in next week.
One can hope - and not before time. Time for a Brexit PM.
whatever happens, nothing will change the arithmetic within the house of commons. The only thing that will do that is a general election.
The question is, what will the position of either of the main parties be on Brexit? Labour's constructive ambiguity won't wash a second time, especially at the sharp end of Brexit. While the Tory party's position could be anything depending on who is leader and whatever their position is, it won't alter the divisions within the party.
Labour can never out-Brexit the Tories. Their choice would be between swinging toward Remain or trying to stay balanced upon the fence.
The latter. It's cynical as all hell, but if they can pull it off for just one more election they win.
The Cons can lose Brexit votes but win confidence votes. The party is united in not wanting an election.
There is a majority for no election : Con (with new leader) + DUP.
Election is the least likely outcome of the next 6 months.
The Tories need 326 for a majority, Tories plus DUP come to 328.
It only needs a handful of anti No Deal Tory MP diehards, Soubry, Wollaston, Grieve, Clarke, Morgan, Bebb, Neil, Rudd etc to vote with the opposition and force a general election if May ousted in favour of a hardline No Deal leader and no EU ref2.
Not that there are enough Tory MPs to topple May anyway
Only resolution to this crisis seems to be to oust May, say the backstop is dead and do they want to talk or not. If they don't we have a few months to prepare for no deal. If they do we can get a deal.
May has failed.
I honestly think they'd be overjoyed. If the Tories send her to the farm to be put down, a caretaker leader (say David Davis) could do a deal with Corbyn, transition quickly to EEA+CU, and then have all the time in the world to negotiate Canada Plus Infinity.
It really isn't THAT hard. But it can't happen until somebody shoots May.
EEA+CU indefinitely is exactly what May is heading towards now anyway
Please. May doesn't have any idea where she is heading. But shortly, to the unemployment line. The wheels are coming off - I think the Cabinet will step in next week.
One can hope - and not before time. Time for a Brexit PM.
whatever happens, nothing will change the arithmetic within the house of commons. The only thing that will do that is a general election.
The question is, what will the position of either of the main parties be on Brexit? Labour's constructive ambiguity won't wash a second time, especially at the sharp end of Brexit. While the Tory party's position could be anything depending on who is leader and whatever their position is, it won't alter the divisions within the party.
Labour can never out-Brexit the Tories. Their choice would be between swinging toward Remain or trying to stay balanced upon the fence.
The latter. It's cynical as all hell, but if they can pull it off for just one more election they win.
The Cons can lose Brexit votes but win confidence votes. The party is united in not wanting an election.
There is a majority for no election : Con (with new leader) + DUP.
Election is the least likely outcome of the next 6 months.
The Tories need 326 for a majority, Tories plus DUP come to 328.
It only needs a handful of anti No Deal Tory MP diehards, Soubry, Wollaston, Grieve, Clarke, Morgan, Bebb, Neil, Rudd etc to vote with the opposition and force a general election if May ousted in favour of a hardline No Deal leader and no EU ref2.
Not that there are enough Tory MPs to topple May anyway
Only resolution to this crisis seems to be to oust May, say the backstop is dead and do they want to talk or not. If they don't we have a few months to prepare for no deal. If they do we can get a deal.
May has failed.
I honestly think they'd be overjoyed. If the Tories send her to the farm to be put down, a caretaker leader (say David Davis) could do a deal with Corbyn, transition quickly to EEA+CU, and then have all the time in the world to negotiate Canada Plus Infinity.
It really isn't THAT hard. But it can't happen until somebody shoots May.
EEA+CU indefinitely is exactly what May is heading towards now anyway
Please. May doesn't have any idea where she is heading. But shortly, to the unemployment line. The wheels are coming off - I think the Cabinet will step in next week.
One can hope - and not before time. Time for a Brexit PM.
whatever happens, nothing will change the arithmetic within the house of commons. The only thing that will do that is a general election.
The question is, what will the position of either of the main parties be on Brexit? Labour's constructive ambiguity won't wash a second time, especially at the sharp end of Brexit. While the Tory party's position could be anything depending on who is leader and whatever their position is, it won't alter the divisions within the party.
Labour can never out-Brexit the Tories. Their choice would be between swinging toward Remain or trying to stay balanced upon the fence.
The latter. It's cynical as all hell, but if they can pull it off for just one more election they win.
The Cons can lose Brexit votes but win confidence votes. The party is united in not wanting an election.
There is a majority for no election : Con (with new leader) + DUP.
Election is the least likely outcome of the next 6 months.
Less likely than an alien invasion?
...carrying proof that we didn’t land on the moon?
Only resolution to this crisis seems to be to oust May, say the backstop is dead and do they want to talk or not. If they don't we have a few months to prepare for no deal. If they do we can get a deal.
May has failed.
I honestly think they'd be overjoyed. If the Tories send her to the farm to be put down, a caretaker leader (say David Davis) could do a deal with Corbyn, transition quickly to EEA+CU, and then have all the time in the world to negotiate Canada Plus Infinity.
It really isn't THAT hard. But it can't happen until somebody shoots May.
EEA+CU indefinitely is exactly what May is heading towards now anyway
Please. May doesn't have any idea where she is heading. But shortly, to the unemployment line. The wheels are coming off - I think the Cabinet will step in next week.
Only 120 Tory MPs out of over 300 even voted Leave, May got 60% of Tory MPs backing her in 2016 in the 2nd round of the Tory leadership vote against the ERG backed Leadsom and Gove
She is toast. Over and over again, EU leaders are expressing disbelief that she is still talking about Chequers. The Cabinet can see that she has no ability to get an acceptable deal and no ability to lead in the event of no deal. They will move on her soon. She will never be allowed to go to another EU summit.
No she is not. You are delusional. Only 120 Tory MPs out of over 300 voted Leave, most Tory MPs voted Remain.
May is moving towards a SM plus CU backstop for NI it is just the GB position she needs a vague agreement on and the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period are agreed
And once the transition period expires with no trade deal ?
Toasted May all round - with the Con GE chances on top.
The transition period would just be extended further though at least if May were ousted at the end of 2021 Unionist parties would hopefully have won a Unionist majority in May 2021
Only resolution to this crisis seems to be to oust May, say the backstop is dead and do they want to talk or not. If they don't we have a few months to prepare for no deal. If they do we can get a deal.
May has failed.
I honestly think they'd be overjoyed. If the Tories send her to the farm to be put down, a caretaker leader (say David Davis) could do a deal with Corbyn, transition quickly to EEA+CU, and then have all the time in the world to negotiate Canada Plus Infinity.
It really isn't THAT hard. But it can't happen until somebody shoots May.
EEA+CU indefinitely is exactly what May is heading towards now anyway
Please. May doesn't have any idea where she is heading. But shortly, to the unemployment line. The wheels are coming off - I think the Cabinet will step in next week.
One can hope - and not before time. Time for a Brexit PM.
whatever happens, nothing will change the arithmetic within the house of commons. The only thing that will do that is a general election.
The question is, what will the position of either of the main parties be on Brexit? Labour's constructive ambiguity won't wash a second time, especially at the sharp end of Brexit. While the Tory party's position could be anything depending on who is leader and whatever their position is, it won't alter the divisions within the party.
Labour can never out-Brexit the Tories. Their choice would be between swinging toward Remain or trying to stay balanced upon the fence.
The latter. It's cynical as all hell, but if they can pull it off for just one more election they win.
The Cons can lose Brexit votes but win confidence votes. The party is united in not wanting an election.
There is a majority for no election : Con (with new leader) + DUP.
Election is the least likely outcome of the next 6 months.
The Tories need 326 for a majority, Tories plus DUP come to 328.
It only needs a handful of anti No Deal Tory MP diehards, Soubry, Wollaston, Grieve, Clarke, Morgan, Bebb, Neil, Rudd etc to vote with the opposition and force a general election if May ousted in favour of a hardline No Deal leader and no EU ref2.
Not that there are enough Tory MPs to topple May anyway
I expect her to resign if she can't get a deal or if her deal is voted down. she'd bound by her sense of duty and wouldn't be able to continue if she can't do what she thinks is in the best interests of the country.
Very constructive stuff and certainly not arrogant.
I would say that there is a large element of truth in that description.
We're all entitled to our opinions. Accusations of national arrogance as far I can tell seem to be along the lines of those irregular verbs - it only ever applies to others (this also applies for when people apply it to their own nation and never others).
It is worth remembering that the remainers on here like myself are generally coming at this debate with the point of view that the EU is a genuine point of political debate. So if we can make a good enough case we can win over leavers, or at least reduce their enthusiasm. The leavers likewise advance arguments to try and make it clear that their way is the better one. There's enough common ground for the discussion to continue for some considerable time.
I have similar exchanges with my friends and older members of my family. But when I talk to my children, it isn't like that at all. They don't regard the EU as something that you choose to leave. It is simply the way it is and the way it must be. They don't understand why anyone would want to leave, and are deeply suspicious of anyone who does. It is so far removed from their worldview you might as well be talking about sending small boys back up chimneys or re-establishing the empire.
It is worth remembering this. It isn't just a possibility that we will be rejoining. It is an absolute inevitability.
I expect Trump thinks he's an "alpha male". But he wouldn't last five minutes when alpha males had their uses, expendability mainly (from alpha to omega?). The fact that he has gotten this far doesn't say much about US(A) voters. Enoch Powell, in his ponderous way, used to imbalance people, perhaps by somehow putting them on the defensive. OGH might be right about Hickenlooper.
Only resolution to this crisis seems to be to oust May, say the backstop is dead and do they want to talk or not. If they don't we have a few months to prepare for no deal. If they do we can get a deal.
May has failed.
I honestly think they'd be overjoyed. If the Tories send her to the farm to be ebody shoots May.
EEA+CU indefinitely is exactly what May is heading towards now anyway
Please. May doesn't have any idea where she is heading. But shortly, to the unemployment line. The wheels are coming off - I think the Cabinet will step in next week.
One can hope - and not before time. Time for a Brexit PM.
whatever happens, nothing will change the arithmetic within the house of commons. The only thing that will do that is a general election.
The question is, what will the position of either of the main parties be on Brexit? Labour's constructive ambiguity won't wash a second time, especially at the sharp end of Brexit. While the Tory party's position could be anything depending on who is leader and whatever their position is, it won't alter the divisions within the party.
Labour can never out-Brexit the Tories. Their choice would be between swinging toward Remain or trying to stay balanced upon the fence.
The latter. It's cynical as all hell, but if they can pull it off for just one more election they win.
The Cons can lose Brexit votes but win confidence votes. The party is united in not wanting an election.
There is a majority for no election : Con (with new leader) + DUP.
Election is the least likely outcome of the next 6 months.
The Tories need 326 for a majority, Tories plus DUP come to 328.
It only needs a handful of anti No Deal Tory MP diehards, Soubry, Wollaston, Grieve, Clarke, Morgan, Bebb, Neil, Rudd etc to vote with the opposition and force a general election if May ousted in favour of a hardline No Deal leader and no EU ref2.
Not that there are enough Tory MPs to topple May anyway
I expect her to resign if she can't get a deal or if her deal is voted down. she'd bound by her sense of duty and wouldn't be able to continue if she can't do what she thinks is in the best interests of the country.
Nope, May has already said she would stay PM if No Deal just refer to Parliament before deciding what to do next
Much more appalled I guess that we would ever join an organisation like the EU.
WC was prime minister when the founding 6 set up the ECSC which we refused to join. I can't see that it'd not been his position.
No it was Attlee who was PM at the time the treaty was signed.
I stand corrected. He certainly didn't try to join it when he became PM though. It was supposedly suez (according to wikipedia (so it must be true)) that changed the british government policy towards europe
It is worth remembering that the remainers on here like myself are generally coming at this debate with the point of view that the EU is a genuine point of political debate. So if we can make a good enough case we can win over leavers, or at least reduce their enthusiasm. The leavers likewise advance arguments to try and make it clear that their way is the better one. There's enough common ground for the discussion to continue for some considerable time.
I have similar exchanges with my friends and older members of my family. But when I talk to my children, it isn't like that at all. They don't regard the EU as something that you choose to leave. It is simply the way it is and the way it must be. They don't understand why anyone would want to leave, and are deeply suspicious of anyone who does. It is so far removed from their worldview you might as well be talking about sending small boys back up chimneys or re-establishing the empire.
It is worth remembering this. It isn't just a possibility that we will be rejoining. It is an absolute inevitability.
Incorrect.
People change their minds plus their worldviews evolve. While "today's youth" may find being out of the EU an alien concept that is because it is all they have ever known. Soon that will change. Once it does it ceases to be alien and becomes normalised. Brexit isn't going to be scary it will be life as we know it.
The longer we are out of the EU the more the wounds and scars from Brexit will heal. The more alien being a part of the EU will seem. Tomorrow's youth will find our former membership as relatable as Empire etc
Ask a Canadian if they wish to be an American. That will be the future for Brits. We will find being a European (Union citizen) as alien a concept as Canadians find being called Americans. We are Europe's Canada with the Republic of Ireland playing the role of Alaska.
Nope, May has already said she would stay PM if No Deal just refer to Parliament before deciding what to do next
and David Cameron said the same before the referendum. there'd be too much pressure to exit she'd go. if the HoC voted to send her back to negotiate more she'd say it's time for someone else to have a go.
Much more appalled I guess that we would ever join an organisation like the EU.
WC was prime minister when the founding 6 set up the ECSC which we refused to join. I can't see that it'd not been his position.
No it was Attlee who was PM at the time the treaty was signed.
I stand corrected. He certainly didn't try to join it when he became PM though. It was supposedly suez (according to wikipedia (so it must be true)) that changed the british government policy towards europe
Whether true or not, that was certainly the prevailing view. You can find it in Heath's autobiography, for a fairly important start.
Culturally, it's a constant point of reference in the Le Carre spy novels - Bill Haydon turns full traitor after realising, due to Suez, that the British are an irrelevance and he must choose the Americans or the Soviets.
Only resolution to this crisis seems to be to oust May, say the backstop is dead and do they want to talk or not. If they don't we have a few months to prepare for no deal. If they do we can get a deal.
May has failed.
I honestly think they'd be overjoyed. If the Tories send her to the farm to be put down, a caretaker leader (say David Davis) could do a deal with Corbyn, transition quickly to EEA+CU, and then have all the time in the world to negotiate Canada Plus Infinity.
It really isn't THAT hard. But it can't happen until somebody shoots May.
EEA+CU indefinitely is exactly what May is heading towards now anyway
Please. May doesn't have any idea where she is heading. But shortly, to the unemployment line. The wheels are coming off - I think the Cabinet will step in next week.
One can hope - and not before time. Time for a Brexit PM.
whatever happens, nothing will change the arithmetic within the house of commons. The only thing that will do that is a general election.
The question is, what will the position of either of the main parties be on Brexit? Labour's constructive ambiguity won't wash a second time, especially at the sharp end of Brexit. While the Tory party's position could be anything depending on who is leader and whatever their position is, it won't alter the divisions within the party.
Labour can never out-Brexit the Tories. Their choice would be between swinging toward Remain or trying to stay balanced upon the fence.
The latter. It's cynical as all hell, but if they can pull it off for just one more election they win.
Election is the least likely outcome of the next 6 months.
The Tories need 326 for a majority, Tories plus DUP come to 328.
It only needs a handful of anti No Deal Tory MP diehards, Soubry, Wollaston, Grieve, Clarke, Morgan, Bebb, Neil, Rudd etc to vote with the opposition and force a general election if May ousted in favour of a hardline No Deal leader and no EU ref2.
Not that there are enough Tory MPs to topple May anyway
I expect her to resign if she can't get a deal or if her deal is voted down. she'd bound by her sense of duty and wouldn't be able to continue if she can't do what she thinks is in the best interests of the country.
Seems unlikely. Her "sense of duty" has been unerringly self-serving to date.
I expect her to resign if she can't get a deal or if her deal is voted down. she'd bound by her sense of duty and wouldn't be able to continue if she can't do what she thinks is in the best interests of the country.
Seems unlikely. Her "sense of duty" has been unerringly self-serving to date.
I don't think that holds up. It is not self serving to have taken on her own party and attempted a series of compromises with the EU which are very unpopular. If all she wanted was to shore up her position in her own party there are very different choices she could have made. Her sense of what constitutes her duty may well be wrong, but I do not get the impression she is making decisions purely to save her own skin here.
Miss Mordaunt misthought she misheard what she missaid, but she definitely did not. OKAY?
She certainly has a way with words. From a recent speech she gave: "Our economy is innately international because it was based on ancient routes of international trade. Our modern infrastructures have continued this tradition in shipping, airlines, roads, British law and even time itself."
There you have it: Time was invented by the British.
Greenwich meantime is the standard.
Technically UTC is, rather than GMT but I'm not that pedantic. Though you'd have to be a very special kind of Tory to think that this gives British people dominion over time itself.
If the single/double summer time people have their way we wouldn't use GMT/UTC for any of the year, which would be an absurdity.
Wasn't there a fight between the Greenwich meridian and the (what else?) Paris meridian until the mid 1880s? (if memory serves)
Yes, there was a Prime Meridian through Paris until the international standard was settled on Greenwich. So it would look a bit absurd to no longer use it for our time.
(Snip)
The Greenwich Meridian has actually been moved ... in the direction of Paris. Oh! The horror!
And if we're talking about British contributions to time, then we shouldn't forget railway time: probably the first occasion that differences in local time actually mattered within a country.
Nope, May has already said she would stay PM if No Deal just refer to Parliament before deciding what to do next
and David Cameron said the same before the referendum. there'd be too much pressure to exit she'd go. if the HoC voted to send her back to negotiate more she'd say it's time for someone else to have a go.
No she wouldn't, May is just as stubborn as Brown, even when he had led Labour to just 29% of the vote he was still trying to stay PM for a week after the election
I expect her to resign if she can't get a deal or if her deal is voted down. she'd bound by her sense of duty and wouldn't be able to continue if she can't do what she thinks is in the best interests of the country.
Seems unlikely. Her "sense of duty" has been unerringly self-serving to date.
I don't think that holds up. It is not self serving to have taken on her own party and attempted a series of compromises with the EU which are very unpopular. If all she wanted was to shore up her position in her own party there are very different choices she could have made. Her sense of what constitutes her duty may well be wrong, but I do not get the impression she is making decisions purely to save her own skin here.
That's not how I see her actions at all. Right now Leavers are pissy at her, but she started negotiations with complete appeasement towards them by taking all but the hardest Brexit off the table. What's happening now is she's being forced to row back. But if you take her sole motivation to be staying in Number 10 until they pry her hands from the door, everything she's done makes perfect sense. She refused to say what her Brexit plan was for a long time to avoid pissing anyone off. She did Trump-style "agree with whoever you last talked to" to get through votes. She's spent two years trying to square an unsquareable circle over the Irish border rather than tell anybody (Leavers, Remainers or the EU) that they can't have what they want, because she's terrified that any of those groups will try to remove her (in the EU's case, via no deal, which she wouldn't survive)
And that's not even getting to the election which was dominated by her paranoid, secretive attitude and a campaign designed more to shore up her power in the party than to win votes, or her refusal to leave after it was clear she wasn't up to the job
Only resolution to this crisis seems to be to oust May, say the backstop is dead and do they want to talk or not. If they don't we have a few months to prepare for no deal. If they do we can get a deal.
May has failed.
EEA+CU indefinitely is exactly what May is heading towards now anyway
Please. May doesn't have any idea where she is heading. But shortly, to the unemployment line. The wheels are coming off - I think the Cabinet will step in next week.
One can hope - and not before time. Time for a Brexit PM.
whatever happens, nothing will change the arithmetic within the house of commons. The only thing that will do that is a general election.
The question is, what will the position of either of the main parties be on Brexit? Labour's constructive ambiguity won't wash a second time, especially at the sharp end of Brexit. While the Tory party's position could be anything depending on who is leader and whatever their position is, it won't alter the divisions within the party.
Labour can never out-Brexit the Tories. Their choice would be between swinging toward Remain or trying to stay balanced upon the fence.
The latter. It's cynical as all hell, but if they can pull it off for just one more election they win.
The Cons can lose Brexit votes but win confidence votes. The party is united in not wanting an election.
There is a majority for no election : Con (with new leader) + DUP.
Election is the least likely outcome of the next 6 months.
The Tories need 326 for a majority, Tories plus DUP come to 328.
It only needs a handful of anti No Deal Tory MP diehards, Soubry, Wollaston, Grieve, Clarke, Morgan, Bebb, Neil, Rudd etc to vote with the opposition and force a general election if May ousted in favour of a hardline No Deal leader and no EU ref2.
Not that there are enough Tory MPs to topple May anyway
I expect her to resign if she can't get a deal or if her deal is voted down. she'd bound by her sense of duty and wouldn't be able to continue if she can't do what she thinks is in the best interests of the country.
Nope, May has already said she would stay PM if No Deal just refer to Parliament before deciding what to do next
Miss Mordaunt misthought she misheard what she missaid, but she definitely did not. OKAY?
She certainly has a way with words. From a recent speech she gave: "Our economy is innately international because it was based on ancient routes of international trade. Our modern infrastructures have continued this tradition in shipping, airlines, roads, British law and even time itself."
There you have it: Time was invented by the British.
Greenwich meantime is the standard.
Technically UTC is, rather than GMT but I'm not that pedantic. Though you'd have to be a very special kind of Tory to think that this gives British people dominion over time itself.
That's not how I see her actions at all. Right now Leavers are pissy at her, but she started negotiations with complete appeasement towards them by taking all but the hardest Brexit off the table. What's happening now is she's being forced to row back. But if you take her sole motivation to be staying in Number 10 until they pry her hands from the door, everything she's done makes perfect sense. She refused to say what her Brexit plan was for a long time to avoid pissing anyone off. She did Trump-style "agree with whoever you last talked to" to get through votes. She's spent two years trying to square an unsquareable circle over the Irish border rather than tell anybody (Leavers, Remainers or the EU) that they can't have what they want, because she's terrified that any of those groups will try to remove her (in the EU's case, via no deal, which she wouldn't survive)
And that's not even getting to the election which was dominated by her paranoid, secretive attitude and a campaign designed more to shore up her power in the party than to win votes, or her refusal to leave after it was clear she wasn't up to the job
I think she has left it far too late to get serious, she certainly did not do a good job, she put off a decision, but I do think she has in the latter part of this year at least attempted to do right by the country. I will give her credit for that, and given that I cannot believe she thinks she will be allowed to lead into the next election, whatever she might publicly say, I do not think it makes sense to believe she only cares about clinging on to the keys of No. 10.
Only resolution to this crisis seems to be to oust May, say the backstop is dead and do they want to talk or not. If they don't we have a few months to prepare for no deal. If they do we can get a deal.
May has failed.
EEA+CU indefinitely is exactly what May is heading towards now anyway
Please. May doesn't have any idea where she is heading. But shortly, to the unemployment line. The wheels are coming off - I think the Cabinet will step in next week.
One can hope - and not before time. Time for a Brexit PM.
whatever happens, nothing will change the arithmetic within the house of commons. The only thing that will do that is a general election.
The question is, what will the position of either of the main parties be on Brexit? Labour's constructive ambiguity won't wash a second time, especially at the sharp end of Brexit. While the Tory party's position could be anything depending on who is leader and whatever their position is, it won't alter the divisions within the party.
Labour can never out-Brexit the Tories. Their choice would be between swinging toward Remain or trying to stay balanced upon the fence.
The latter. It's cynical as all hell, but if they can pull it off for just one more election they win.
The Cons can lose Brexit votes but win confidence votes. The party is united in not wanting an election.
There is a majority for no election : Con (with new leader) + DUP.
Election is the least likely outcome of the next 6 months.
The Tories need 326 for a majority, Tories p May anyway
I expect her to resign if she can't get a deal or if her deal is voted down. she'd bound by her sense of duty and wouldn't be able to continue if she can't do what she thinks is in the best interests of the country.
Nope, May has already said she would stay PM if No Deal just refer to Parliament before deciding what to do next
Cameron had nowhere near the stubbornness of May and Brown, along with Heath (who also refused to quit as leader and had to be toppled by Thatcher a year after losing two general elections in 1974) they will do anything to stay in power
Cameron had nowhere near the stubbornness of May and Brown
it's nothing to do with stubbornness.
Cameron knew he didn't have the stomach to negotiate something that he fundamentally didn't believe in.
Brown had spent decades with the sole aim of being prime minister (though no idea what he'd do when he got the position).
May has said she's driven by her sense of duty. If that sense of duty said that it's someone else's turn she'd step down. The issue is, of course, that her sense of duty is also telling her that whatever happens Boris and Jacob shouldn't become prime minister.
Nope, May has already said she would stay PM if No Deal just refer to Parliament before deciding what to do next
Supposing Parliament's instructions were those in Arkell v Pressdram?
Unhelpful, but one must listen to the will of parliament.
As I posted yesterday, the EU Withdrawal Act does NOT allow for a meaningful vote in the event of no deal - the meaningful vote is only in the case of a deal.
In the case of no deal a Minister simply has to make a statement, and Parliament must vote in neutral terms that it has received this statement. 'Neutral terms' is Parliamentary language for a motion that cannot be amended. This is the law, by the way.
Parliament will not decide what happens in the event of no deal. It will be down the Government, and May will be long gone by then. But, for HYUFDs benefit, you might want to reflect that Cabinet will not allow the PM to seek to have the referendum reversed. The only realistic outcomes at that stage would be proceed with no deal, or seek an extension to A50.
Cameron had nowhere near the stubbornness of May and Brown
it's nothing to do with stubbornness.
Cameron knew he didn't have the stomach to negotiate something that he fundamentally didn't believe in.
Brown had spent decades with the sole aim of being prime minister (though no idea what he'd do when he got the position).
May has said she's driven by her sense of duty. If that sense of duty said that it's someone else's turn she'd step down. The issue is, of course, that her sense of duty is also telling her that whatever happens Boris and Jacob shouldn't become prime minister.
Which again adds to her commitment to stay in post, especially as Corbyn is also an alternative
Cameron had nowhere near the stubbornness of May and Brown
it's nothing to do with stubbornness.
Cameron knew he didn't have the stomach to negotiate something that he fundamentally didn't believe in.
Brown had spent decades with the sole aim of being prime minister (though no idea what he'd do when he got the position).
May has said she's driven by her sense of duty. If that sense of duty said that it's someone else's turn she'd step down. The issue is, of course, that her sense of duty is also telling her that whatever happens Boris and Jacob shouldn't become prime minister.
It wasn't a lack of stomach on Dave's part.
He knew his authority was shot.
He knew he was facing a VONC if he didn't stand down, heck he was going to face a leadership contest even if Remain won 70% to 30%.
He didn't want the Tory party torn further asunder.
Plus it was an honour thing, he knew if you're the front man of a nation changing referendum campaign and you lose, honour demands you have to stand aside.
That's not how I see her actions at all. Right now Leavers are pissy at her, but she started negotiations with complete appeasement towards them by taking all but the hardest Brexit off the table. What's happening now is she's being forced to row back. But if you take her sole motivation to be staying in Number 10 until they pry her hands from the door, everything she's done makes perfect sense. She refused to say what her Brexit plan was for a long time to avoid pissing anyone off. She did Trump-style "agree with whoever you last talked to" to get through votes. She's spent two years trying to square an unsquareable circle over the Irish border rather than tell anybody (Leavers, Remainers or the EU) that they can't have what they want, because she's terrified that any of those groups will try to remove her (in the EU's case, via no deal, which she wouldn't survive)
And that's not even getting to the election which was dominated by her paranoid, secretive attitude and a campaign designed more to shore up her power in the party than to win votes, or her refusal to leave after it was clear she wasn't up to the job
I think she has left it far too late to get serious, she certainly did not do a good job, she put off a decision, but I do think she has in the latter part of this year at least attempted to do right by the country. I will give her credit for that, and given that I cannot believe she thinks she will be allowed to lead into the next election, whatever she might publicly say, I do not think it makes sense to believe she only cares about clinging on to the keys of No. 10.
What do you think she would have done differently in the past few months if my characterisation of her were accurate? As far as I can tell, the only real options are Norway, No Deal, or referendum 2, and it's not clear she'd survive any of those scenarios. Kicking the can down the road, on the other hand, perfectly fits with trying to stay in No 10 as long as possible.
Nope, May has already said she would stay PM if No Deal just refer to Parliament before deciding what to do next
Supposing Parliament's instructions were those in Arkell v Pressdram?
Unhelpful, but one must listen to the will of parliament.
As I posted yesterday, the EU Withdrawal Act does NOT allow for a meaningful vote in the event of no deal - the meaningful vote is only in the case of a deal.
In the case of no deal a Minister simply has to make a statement, and Parliament must vote in neutral terms that it has received this statement. 'Neutral terms' is Parliamentary language for a motion that cannot be amended. This is the law, by the way.
Parliament will not decide what happens in the event of no deal. It will be down the Government, and May will be long gone by then. But, for HYUFDs benefit, you might want to reflect that Cabinet will not allow the PM to seek to have the referendum reversed. The only realistic outcomes at that stage would be proceed with no deal, or seek an extension to A50.
Except May has said quite clearly Parliament will decide on 'the way forward' if No Deal, not in neutral terms for an unamended motion.
May will not be gone either, only 120 out of over 300 Tory MPs even voted Leave, most Tory MPs voted Remain, May will not be toppled.
We also know that MPs like Soubry, Wollaston, Rudd etc would all vote for EUref2 if No Deal giving it a majority in Parliament and may even go so far as to vote with the opposition for a general election in the unlikely event May was replaced by a No Deal hardliner without a commitment to a second EU referendum
That's not how I see her actions at all. Right now Leavers are pissy at her, but she started negotiations with complete appeasement towards them by taking all but the hardest Brexit off the table. What's happening now is she's being forced to row back. But if you take her sole motivation to be staying in Number 10 until they pry her hands from the door, everything she's done makes perfect sense. She refused to say what her Brexit plan was for a long time to avoid pissing anyone off. She did Trump-style "agree with whoever you last talked to" to get through votes. She's spent two years trying to square an unsquareable circle over the Irish border rather than tell anybody (Leavers, Remainers or the EU) that they can't have what they want, because she's terrified that any of those groups will try to remove her (in the EU's case, via no deal, which she wouldn't survive)
And that's not even getting to the election which was dominated by her paranoid, secretive attitude and a campaign designed more to shore up her power in the party than to win votes, or her refusal to leave after it was clear she wasn't up to the job
I think she has left it far too late to get serious, she certainly did not do a good job, she put off a decision, but I do think she has in the latter part of this year at least attempted to do right by the country. I will give her credit for that, and given that I cannot believe she thinks she will be allowed to lead into the next election, whatever she might publicly say, I do not think it makes sense to believe she only cares about clinging on to the keys of No. 10.
What do you think she would have done differently in the past few months if my characterisation of her were accurate? As far as I can tell, the only real options are Norway, No Deal, or referendum 2, and it's not clear she'd survive any of those scenarios. Kicking the can down the road, on the other hand, perfectly fits with trying to stay in No 10 as long as possible.
Given the ERG lot are larger than the remainer lot who rebel, and the rest appear to be willing to go with the flow, I think she would have switched position to something closer to their stance by now.
Much more appalled I guess that we would ever join an organisation like the EU.
WC was prime minister when the founding 6 set up the ECSC which we refused to join. I can't see that it'd not been his position.
Didn't WSC once propose a union with France?
He offered one in 1940.
That was to stop the French surrendering; after they had pledged never to make a separate peace with Germany but were then about to break their solemn commitment.
And after the war, it was Churchill that insisted that France be treated as one of the victors. Can you imagine the French doing the same if the roles had been reversed?
Someone yesterday was mocking a member of the public for declaring British exceptionalism. The British are exceptional - and the behaviour of the Europeans over Brexit just illuminates this statement. That is why the UK will be just fine after Brexit, and why the EU are desperate to avoid letting the UK leave cleanly - because deep in their hearts, they know it.
Just whn you think the Tories might be changing you get one appearing on Channel 4 News acting as a Saudi government spokesman. Fortunately I've forgotten his name but not that he went on an £8000 fact finding trip to the kingdom. I dont know why these miserable 'Friends of...." don't call a spade a spade and become friends of the Seychelles. They're beautiful this time of the year.
Nope, May has already said she would stay PM if No Deal just refer to Parliament before deciding what to do next
Supposing Parliament's instructions were those in Arkell v Pressdram?
Unhelpful, but one must listen to the will of parliament.
As I posted yesterday, the EU Withdrawal Act does NOT allow for a meaningful vote in the event of no deal - the meaningful vote is only in the case of a deal.
In the case of no deal a Minister simply has to make a statement, and Parliament must vote in neutral terms that it has received this statement. 'Neutral terms' is Parliamentary language for a motion that cannot be amended. This is the law, by the way.
Parliament will not decide what happens in the event of no deal. It will be down the Government, and May will be long gone by then. But, for HYUFDs benefit, you might want to reflect that Cabinet will not allow the PM to seek to have the referendum reversed. The only realistic outcomes at that stage would be proceed with no deal, or seek an extension to A50.
Except May has said quite clearly Parliament will decide on 'the way forward' if No Deal, not in neutral terms for an unamended motion.
May will not be gone either, only 120 out of over 300 Tory MPs even voted Leave, most Tory MPs voted Remain, May will not be toppled.
We also know that MPs like Soubry, Wollaston, Rudd etc would all vote for EUref2 if No Deal giving it a majority in Parliament and may even go so far as to vote with the opposition for a general election in the unlikely event May was replaced by a No Deal hardliner without a commitment to a second EU referendum
She didn't say that she would let them decide anything. That is just your imagination. She was simply referring to the discussions that she promised on the Minister's statement.
Anyway, it is not May's decision. The Cabinet will never agree to just throw the matter open to Parliament.
If rebels want to vote for a GE to avoid no deal, that would be fantastic. They will all be deselected, May will be gone and the Tories will win a majority promising to uphold the result of the referendum.
You should be able to tell from today's reaction that the tolerance for kicking the can down the road any further is gone.
That's not how I see her actions at all. Right now Leavers are pissy at her, but she started negotiations with complete appeasement towards them by taking all but the hardest Brexit off the table. What's happening now is she's being forced to row back. But if you take her sole motivation to be staying in Number 10 until they pry her hands from the door, everything she's done makes perfect sense. She refused to say what her Brexit plan was for a long time to avoid pissing anyone off. She did Trump-style "agree with whoever you last talked to" to get through votes. She's spent two years trying to square an unsquareable circle over the Irish border rather than tell anybody (Leavers, Remainers or the EU) that they can't have what they want, because she's terrified that any of those groups will try to remove her (in the EU's case, via no deal, which she wouldn't survive)
And that's not even getting to the election which was dominated by her paranoid, secretive attitude and a campaign designed more to shore up her power in the party than to win votes, or her refusal to leave after it was clear she wasn't up to the job
I think she has left it far too late to get serious, she certainly did not do a good job, she put off a decision, but I do think she has in the latter part of this year at least attempted to do right by the country. I will give her credit for that, and given that I cannot believe she thinks she will be allowed to lead into the next election, whatever she might publicly say, I do not think it makes sense to believe she only cares about clinging on to the keys of No. 10.
What do you think she would have done differently in the past few months if my characterisation of her were accurate? As far as I can tell, the only real options are Norway, No Deal, or referendum 2, and it's not clear she'd survive any of those scenarios. Kicking the can down the road, on the other hand, perfectly fits with trying to stay in No 10 as long as possible.
Given the ERG lot are larger than the remainer lot who rebel, and the rest appear to be willing to go with the flow, I think she would have switched position to something closer to their stance by now.
Do the ERG actually have a coherent stance? I think she believes that doing that would lead to No Deal. Plus I'm actually not convinced that remainers are more likely to fall in line, especially when you count the potential Labour rebels she may be able to sway.
Much more appalled I guess that we would ever join an organisation like the EU.
WC was prime minister when the founding 6 set up the ECSC which we refused to join. I can't see that it'd not been his position.
Didn't WSC once propose a union with France?
He offered one in 1940.
That was to stop the French surrendering; after they had pledged never to make a separate peace with Germany but were then about to break their solemn commitment.
And after the war, it was Churchill that insisted that France be treated as one of the victors. Can you imagine the French doing the same if the roles had been reversed?
Someone yesterday was mocking a member of the public for declaring British exceptionalism. The British are exceptional - and the behaviour of the Europeans over Brexit just illuminates this statement. That is why the UK will be just fine after Brexit, and why the EU are desperate to avoid letting the UK leave cleanly - because deep in their hearts, they know it.
Global gdp is $80 trillion of which the USA, China and the EU now make up $48 trillion.
Just whn you think the Tories might be changing you get one appearing on Channel 4 News acting as a Saudi government spokesman. Fortunately I've forgotten his name but not that he went on an £8000 fact finding trip to the kingdom.
Nope, May has already said she would stay PM if No Deal just refer to Parliament before deciding what to do next
Supposing Parliament's instructions were those in Arkell v Pressdram?
Unhelpful, but one must listen to the will of parliament.
As I posted yesterday, the EU e would be proceed with no deal, or seek an extension to A50.
Except May has said quite clearly Parliament will decide on 'the way forward' if No Deal, not in neutral terms for an unamended motion.
May will not be gone either, only 120 out of over 300 Tory MPs even voted Leave, most Tory MPs voted Remain, May will not be toppled.
We also know that MPs like Soubry, Wollaston, Rudd etc would all vote for EUref2 if No Deal giving it a majority in Parliament and may even go so far as to vote with the opposition for a general election in the unlikely event May was replaced by a No Deal hardliner without a commitment to a second EU referendum
She didn't say that she would let them decide anything. That is just your imagination. She was simply referring to the discussions that she promised on the Minister's statement.
Anyway, it is not May's decision. The Cabinet will never agree to just throw the matter open to Parliament.
If rebels want to vote for a GE to avoid no deal, that would be fantastic. They will all be deselected, May will be gone and the Tories will win a majority promising to uphold the result of the referendum.
You should be able to tell from today's reaction that the tolerance for kicking the can down the road any further is gone.
A majority of the Cabinet are now former Remainers and a majority oppose No Deal. We know Hammond, Greg Clarke etc would be happy with staying permanently in the single market and customs union.
If there were an election tomorrow the LDs would hold the balance of power
Just whn you think the Tories might be changing you get one appearing on Channel 4 News acting as a Saudi government spokesman. Fortunately I've forgotten his name but not that he went on an £8000 fact finding trip to the kingdom.
Just whn you think the Tories might be changing you get one appearing on Channel 4 News acting as a Saudi government spokesman. Fortunately I've forgotten his name but not that he went on an £8000 fact finding trip to the kingdom.
Re Trump's bullying. If they don't already know so, it is to be hoped (and expected?) that once Trump loses the next election, politicians will know better than to resort to disparaging nicknames.
Trump has been a major celebrity in the US for over 25 years. His hyperbole, looseness with the facts, even his womanising - are well known to all That is why the "grabbing women by their...." etc exposes have had no effect. He's a flawed and imperfect human being, and the electorate were well aware of that when they elected him. It was all baked in.
They were also aware that he is a straight talker who says what he means, that he does what he says, and that he keeps his electoral promises. He is also NOT a politician.
Like him or hate him - and there is a significant degree of both - that's what got him elected in 2016. Whether it will work again in 2020 remains to be seen.
Regarding the nicknames, this also is not new. Calling candidate Bush 'low energy' was something he never recovered from. All his nicknames contain a kernel of truth. Crooked Hillary was a classic. L'il Marco, Lyin' Ted etc also hit home. Elizabeth Warren's claim of cherokee ancestry has been a source of mirth to many folks for a while. So calling her Pocahontas struck at the heart of her weakness. (Pocahontas was not a cherokee but the daughter of chief Powhatan, head of a group of tribes in the Tidewater of Virginia. She subsequently married an Englishman and is buried at Gravesend in Kent.). It was the one female indian name every American knew.
The nickname was only a mild irritant but for some reason (the Democrats obsession with identity politics perhaps?) she couldn't let it go or laugh it off. So she did this huge event of the TV promo, the man from Stanford doing the DNA test - the whole deal, and it has backfired spectacularly. From here on out, she will always be Pocahontas. Possibly not as fatally damaging as Chappaquiddick, but probably in the end mortal. - and all self-inflicted.
Er 'They were also aware that he is a straight talker who says what he means, that he does what he says, and that he keeps his electoral promises. ‘
You sure about that?
Taking into account my comments about hyperbole and looseness with the facts, yes. Compared to his predecessor who was named "liar of the year", by the of the most liberal newspapers in the country - wapo- absolutely.
When? Who by? As far as I’m concerned, while Obama didn’t do what he could have done, Trump isn’t fit to lick his boots.
Much more appalled I guess that we would ever join an organisation like the EU.
WC was prime minister when the founding 6 set up the ECSC which we refused to join. I can't see that it'd not been his position.
No it was Attlee who was PM at the time the treaty was signed.
I stand corrected. He certainly didn't try to join it when he became PM though. It was supposedly suez (according to wikipedia (so it must be true)) that changed the british government policy towards europe
Whether true or not, that was certainly the prevailing view. You can find it in Heath's autobiography, for a fairly important start.
Culturally, it's a constant point of reference in the Le Carre spy novels - Bill Haydon turns full traitor after realising, due to Suez, that the British are an irrelevance and he must choose the Americans or the Soviets.
Nick Boles is an impressive conservative MP. Just seen him on ch4 news. He is very convincing about going with the Norway option instead of May chequers deal. He has convinced me that seems the sensible way forward. Also he believes it would command a majority in the HOC. Hard to see why the government and May will not take his advice.
Re Trump's bullying. If they don't already know so, it is to be hoped (and expected?) that once Trump loses the next election, politicians will know better than to resort to disparaging nicknames.
Trump has been a major celebrity in the US for over 25 years. His hyperbole, looseness with the facts, even his womanising - are well known to all That is why the "grabbing women by their...." etc exposes have had no effect. He's a flawed and imperfect human being, and the electorate were well aware of that when they elected him. It was all baked in.
They were also aware that he is a straight talker who says what he means, that he does what he says, and that he keeps his electoral promises. He is also NOT a politician.
Like him or hate him - and there is a significant degree of both - that's what got him elected in 2016. Whether it will work again in 2020 remains to be seen.
Regarding the nicknames, this also is not new. Calling candidate Bush 'low energy' was something he never recovered from. All his nicknames contain a kernel of truthen's claim of cherokee ancestry has been a source of mirth to many folks for a while. So calling her Pocahontas struck at the heart of her weakness. (Pocahontas was not a cherokee but the daughter of chief Powhatan, head of a group of tribes in the Tidewater of Virginia. She subsequently married an Englishman and is buried at Gravesend in Kent.). It was the one female indian name every American knew.
The nickname was only a mild irritant but for some reason (the Democrats obsession with identity politics perhaps?) she couldn't let it go or laugh it off. So she did this huge event of the TV promo, the man from Stanford doing the DNA test - the whole deal, and it has backfired spectacularly. From here on out, she will always be Pocahontas. Possibly not as fatally damaging as Chappaquiddick, but probably in the end mortal. - and all self-inflicted.
Er 'They were also aware that he is a straight talker who says what he means, that he does what he says, and that he keeps his electoral promises. ‘
You sure about that?
Taking into account my comments about hyperbole and looseness with the facts, yes. Compared to his predecessor who was named "liar of the year", by the of the most liberal newspapers in the country - wapo- absolutely.
When? Who by? As far as I’m concerned, while Obama didn’t do what he could have done, Trump isn’t fit to lick his boots.
It was the Washington Post.
Hyperbole and looseness with the facts ? Yeah, like Al Capone was lax with his tax returns.
Just back from a late lunch, and they are saying on the radio that one of the 15 man Saudi hit team that went to Istanbul has died in a 'suspicious' car crash in Riyadh. They have name but I couldn't spell or pronounce it.
Saudi Arabia and Turkey are both bad actors, but they can't spin this out much longer without producing something meaningful.
It's quite a contrast between this and the subdued response to the 4 Americans killed in Benghazi.
Much more appalled I guess that we would ever join an organisation like the EU.
WC was prime minister when the founding 6 set up the ECSC which we refused to join. I can't see that it'd not been his position.
No it was Attlee who was PM at the time the treaty was signed.
I stand corrected. He certainly didn't try to join it when he became PM though. It was supposedly suez (according to wikipedia (so it must be true)) that changed the british government policy towards europe
Whether true or not, that was certainly the prevailing view. You can find it in Heath's autobiography, for a fairly important start.
Culturally, it's a constant point of reference in the Le Carre spy novels - Bill Haydon turns full traitor after realising, due to Suez, that the British are an irrelevance and he must choose the Americans or the Soviets.
Jeez, ydoethur ! Spoilers !!!
I got told off by an English teacher recently for revealing that in Harry's Tess of the d'Urbevilles, Tess becomes a murderess. I would have revealed the identity of the murderer in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd too, but they'd already finished that.
I doubled down by revealing that practically everyone dies at the end of Othello.
Trump has been a major celebrity in the US for over 25 years. His hyperbole, looseness with the facts, even his womanising - are well known to all That is why the "grabbing women by their...." etc exposes have had no effect. He's a flawed and imperfect human being, and the electorate were well aware of that when they elected him. It was all baked in.
They were also aware that he is a straight talker who says what he means, that he does what he says, and that he keeps his electoral promises. He is also NOT a politician.
Like him or hate him - and there is a significant degree of both - that's what got him elected in 2016. Whether it will work again in 2020 remains to be seen.
Regarding the nicknames, this also is not new. Calling candidate Bush 'low energy' was something he never recovered from. All his nicknames contain a kernel of truthen's claim of cherokee ancestry has been a source of mirth to many folks for a while. So calling her Pocahontas struck at the heart of her weakness. (Pocahontas was not a cherokee but the daughter of chief Powhatan, head of a group of tribes in the Tidewater of Virginia. She subsequently married an Englishman and is buried at Gravesend in Kent.). It was the one female indian name every American knew.
The nickname was only a mild irritant but for some reason (the Democrats obsession with identity politics perhaps?) she couldn't let it go or laugh it off. So she did this huge event of the TV promo, the man from Stanford doing the DNA test - the whole deal, and it has backfired spectacularly. From here on out, she will always be Pocahontas. Possibly not as fatally damaging as Chappaquiddick, but probably in the end mortal. - and all self-inflicted.
Er 'They were also aware that he is a straight talker who says what he means, that he does what he says, and that he keeps his electoral promises. ‘
You sure about that?
Taking into account my comments about hyperbole and looseness with the facts, yes. Compared to his predecessor who was named "liar of the year", by the of the most liberal newspapers in the country - wapo- absolutely.
When? Who by? As far as I’m concerned, while Obama didn’t do what he could have done, Trump isn’t fit to lick his boots.
It was the Washington Post.
Hyperbole and looseness with the facts ? Yeah, like Al Capone was lax with his tax returns.
Enjoying your tax cut ?
Of course I'm enjoying my tax cut - like every other American taxpayer my personal allowance doubled, and the rates went down, which means I will pay several thousand dollars less tax this year. What's your point?
Culturally, it's a constant point of reference in the Le Carre spy novels - Bill Haydon turns full traitor after realising, due to Suez, that the British are an irrelevance and he must choose the Americans or the Soviets.
I think the British assumption was that the US would - reluctantly - back them up. Britain and the US were allies, and we had sent troops to Korea. And keeping the Suez Canal open was in the interests of the US.
But we misread the situation. America basically slapped us down, hard. It was an object lesson that countries have interests rather than friends. And America's friendship - like all relationships between countries - was predicated on shared interests. When the interests didn't align, the friendship was not sufficient.
Much more appalled I guess that we would ever join an organisation like the EU.
WC was prime minister when the founding 6 set up the ECSC which we refused to join. I can't see that it'd not been his position.
No it was Attlee who was PM at the time the treaty was signed.
I stand corrected. He certainly didn't try to join it when he became PM though. It was supposedly suez (according to wikipedia (so it must be true)) that changed the british government policy towards europe
Whether true or not, that was certainly the prevailing view. You can find it in Heath's autobiography, for a fairly important start.
Culturally, it's a constant point of reference in the Le Carre spy novels - Bill Haydon turns full traitor after realising, due to Suez, that the British are an irrelevance and he must choose the Americans or the Soviets.
Jeez, ydoethur ! Spoilers !!!
I got told off by an English teacher recently for revealing that in Harry's Tess of the d'Urbevilles, Tess becomes a murderess. I would have revealed the identity of the murderer in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd too, but they'd already finished that.
I doubled down by revealing that practically everyone dies at the end of Othello.
Nick Boles is an impressive conservative MP. He is very convincing about going with the Norway option instead of May chequers deal. He has convinced me that seems the sensible way forward. Also he believes it would command a majority in the HOC. Hard to see why the government and May will not take his advice.
He has me on board - need TM to move and there would be a good majority
Culturally, it's a constant point of reference in the Le Carre spy novels - Bill Haydon turns full traitor after realising, due to Suez, that the British are an irrelevance and he must choose the Americans or the Soviets.
I think the British assumption was that the US would - reluctantly - back them up. Britain and the US were allies, and we had sent troops to Korea. And keeping the Suez Canal open was in the interests of the US.
But we misread the situation. America basically slapped us down, hard. It was an object lesson that countries have interests rather than friends. And America's friendship - like all relationships between countries - was predicated on shared interests. When the interests didn't align, the friendship was not sufficient.
I thought the lesson from Suez was 'never fight on the same side as the French and expect to win'.
Nick Boles is an impressive conservative MP. Just seen him on ch4 news. He is very convincing about going with the Norway option instead of May chequers deal. He has convinced me that seems the sensible way forward. Also he believes it would command a majority in the HOC. Hard to see why the government and May will not take his advice.
As it requires the Customs Union too for Barnier to agree it as the NI backstop and the DUP will require that to apply to the whole UK
Much more appalled I guess that we would ever join an organisation like the EU.
WC was prime minister when the founding 6 set up the ECSC which we refused to join. I can't see that it'd not been his position.
No it was Attlee who was PM at the time the treaty was signed.
I stand corrected. He certainly didn't try to join it when he became PM though. It was supposedly suez (according to wikipedia (so it must be true)) that changed the british government policy towards europe
Whether true or not, that was certainly the prevailing view. You can find it in Heath's autobiography, for a fairly important start.
Culturally, it's a constant point of reference in the Le Carre spy novels - Bill Haydon turns full traitor after realising, due to Suez, that the British are an irrelevance and he must choose the Americans or the Soviets.
Jeez, ydoethur ! Spoilers !!!
I got told off by an English teacher recently for revealing that in Harry's Tess of the d'Urbevilles, Tess becomes a murderess. I would have revealed the identity of the murderer in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd too, but they'd already finished that.
I doubled down by revealing that practically everyone dies at the end of Othello.
- or pretty much every Wagner opera.
Or that Columbo spends most of the movie talking to the guilty person ....
Nick Boles is an impressive conservative MP. He is very convincing about going with the Norway option instead of May chequers deal. He has convinced me that seems the sensible way forward. Also he believes it would command a majority in the HOC. Hard to see why the government and May will not take his advice.
He has me on board - need TM to move and there would be a good majority
I sense there's a Gove for PM sub-text. But yes, if that's what it takes to get the bloody thing settled, count me in too.
Nick Boles is an impressive conservative MP. He is very convincing about going with the Norway option instead of May chequers deal. He has convinced me that seems the sensible way forward. Also he believes it would command a majority in the HOC. Hard to see why the government and May will not take his advice.
He has me on board - need TM to move and there would be a good majority
I sense there's a Gove for PM sub-text. But yes, if that's what it takes to get the bloody thing settled, count me in too.
Maybe we can all act as a unifying group behind a sensible compromise. Not sure we would win round Archer or Gin
Nick Boles is an impressive conservative MP. Just seen him on ch4 news. He is very convincing about going with the Norway option instead of May chequers deal. He has convinced me that seems the sensible way forward. Also he believes it would command a majority in the HOC. Hard to see why the government and May will not take his advice.
As it requires the Customs Union too for Barnier to agree it as the NI backstop and the DUP will require that to apply to the whole UK
As far as I understand, EEA members like Norway can't belong to The CU. Norway has a customs border with Sweden.
It needs further adjustment to solve the 'Irish problem', like maybe A CU.
Much more appalled I guess that we would ever join an organisation like the EU.
WC was prime minister when the founding 6 set up the ECSC which we refused to join. I can't see that it'd not been his position.
No it was Attlee who was PM at the time the treaty was signed.
I stand corrected. He certainly didn't try to join it when he became PM though. It was supposedly suez (according to wikipedia (so it must be true)) that changed the british government policy towards europe
Whether true or not, that was certainly the prevailing view. You can find it in Heath's autobiography, for a fairly important start.
Culturally, it's a constant point of reference in the Le Carre spy novels - Bill Haydon turns full traitor after realising, due to Suez, that the British are an irrelevance and he must choose the Americans or the Soviets.
Jeez, ydoethur ! Spoilers !!!
I got told off by an English teacher recently for revealing that in Harry's Tess of the d'Urbevilles, Tess becomes a murderess. I would have revealed the identity of the murderer in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd too, but they'd already finished that.
I doubled down by revealing that practically everyone dies at the end of Othello.
- or pretty much every Wagner opera.
Or that Columbo spends most of the movie talking to the guilty person ....
and smoking that same cigar and wearing that same raincoat.
Much more appalled I guess that we would ever join an organisation like the EU.
WC was prime minister when the founding 6 set up the ECSC which we refused to join. I can't see that it'd not been his position.
No it was Attlee who was PM at the time the treaty was signed.
I stand corrected. He certainly didn't try to join it when he became PM though. It was supposedly suez (according to wikipedia (so it must be true)) that changed the british government policy towards europe
Whether true or not, that was certainly the prevailing view. You can find it in Heath's autobiography, for a fairly important start.
Culturally, it's a constant point of reference in the Le Carre spy novels - Bill Haydon turns full traitor after realising, due to Suez, that the British are an irrelevance and he must choose the Americans or the Soviets.
Jeez, ydoethur ! Spoilers !!!
I got told off by an English teacher recently for revealing that in Harry's Tess of the d'Urbevilles, Tess becomes a murderess. I would have revealed the identity of the murderer in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd too, but they'd already finished that.
I doubled down by revealing that practically everyone dies at the end of Othello.
God, I hated that book. The letter under the carpet thing was just sadistic.
Much more appalled I guess that we would ever join an organisation like the EU.
WC was prime minister when the founding 6 set up the ECSC which we refused to join. I can't see that it'd not been his position.
No it was Attlee who was PM at the time the treaty was signed.
I stand corrected. He certainly didn't try to join it when he became PM though. It was supposedly suez (according to wikipedia (so it must be true)) that changed the british government policy towards europe
Whether true or not, that was certainly the prevailing view. You can find it in Heath's autobiography, for a fairly important start.
Culturally, it's a constant point of reference in the Le Carre spy novels - Bill Haydon turns full traitor after realising, due to Suez, that the British are an irrelevance and he must choose the Americans or the Soviets.
Jeez, ydoethur ! Spoilers !!!
I got told off by an English teacher recently for revealing that in Harry's Tess of the d'Urbevilles, Tess becomes a murderess. I would have revealed the identity of the murderer in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd too, but they'd already finished that.
I doubled down by revealing that practically everyone dies at the end of Othello.
- or pretty much every Wagner opera.
Or that Columbo spends most of the movie talking to the guilty person ....
and smoking that same cigar and wearing that same raincoat.
Nick Boles is an impressive conservative MP. Just seen him on ch4 news. He is very convincing about going with the Norway option instead of May chequers deal. He has convinced me that seems the sensible way forward. Also he believes it would command a majority in the HOC. Hard to see why the government and May will not take his advice.
As it requires the Customs Union too for Barnier to agree it as the NI backstop and the DUP will require that to apply to the whole UK
I would have thought the EU would jump at Norway + CU. Minimum economic disruption for anyone plus they lose the biggest fly in the EU ointment. Win-win for them.
But from our PoV, what's the point of leaving the EU then? About the only thing it gives us is leaving the CAP/CFP but we lose EU project funding and any say in rule-making.
Trump has been a major celebrity in the US for over 25 years. His hyperbole, looseness with the facts, even his womanising - are well known to all That is why the "grabbing women by their...." etc exposes have had no effect. He's a flawed and imperfect human being, and the electorate were well aware of that when they elected him. It was all baked in.
They were also aware that he is a straight talker who says what he means, that he does what he says, and that he keeps his electoral promises. He is also NOT a politician.
Like him or hate him - and there is a significant degree of both - that's what got him elected in 2016. Whether it will work again in 2020 remains to be seen.
Regarding the nicknames, this also is not new. Calling candidate Bush 'low energy' was something he never recovered from.
The nickname was only a mild irritant but for some reason (the Democrats obsession with identity politics perhaps?) she couldn't let it go or laugh it off. So she did this huge event of the TV promo, the man from Stanford doing the DNA test - the whole deal, and it has backfired spectacularly. From here on out, she will always be Pocahontas. Possibly not as fatally damaging as Chappaquiddick, but probably in the end mortal. - and all self-inflicted.
Er 'They were also aware that he is a straight talker who says what he means, that he does what he says, and that he keeps his electoral promises. ‘
You sure about that?
Taking into account my comments about hyperbole and looseness with the facts, yes. Compared to his predecessor who was named "liar of the year", by the of the most liberal newspapers in the country - wapo- absolutely.
When? Who by? As far as I’m concerned, while Obama didn’t do what he could have done, Trump isn’t fit to lick his boots.
It was the Washington Post.
Hyperbole and looseness with the facts ? Yeah, like Al Capone was lax with his tax returns.
Enjoying your tax cut ?
Of course I'm enjoying my tax cut - like every other American taxpayer my personal allowance doubled, and the rates went down, which means I will pay several thousand dollars less tax this year. What's your point?
You’re familiar with the story of Esau, and the mess of pottage ?
Nick Boles is an impressive conservative MP. Just seen him on ch4 news. He is very convincing about going with the Norway option instead of May chequers deal. He has convinced me that seems the sensible way forward. Also he believes it would command a majority in the HOC. Hard to see why the government and May will not take his advice.
As it requires the Customs Union too for Barnier to agree it as the NI backstop and the DUP will require that to apply to the whole UK
I would have thought the EU would jump at Norway + CU. Minimum economic disruption for anyone plus they lose the biggest fly in the EU ointment. Win-win for them.
But from our PoV, what's the point of leaving the EU then? About the only thing it gives us is leaving the CAP/CFP but we lose EU project funding and any say in rule-making.
SM+CU cannot be offered by the EU under A50. It is a completely new trade deal requiring full negotiation and ratification. In the meantime the EU will insist on the backstop. The backstop is not acceptable because any EU Parliament could veto the trade deal later.
Neither Norway (not available anyway) or SM+CU solve the issue that May has created for herself.
Nick Boles is an impressive conservative MP. Just seen him on ch4 news. He is very convincing about going with the Norway option instead of May chequers deal. He has convinced me that seems the sensible way forward. Also he believes it would command a majority in the HOC. Hard to see why the government and May will not take his advice.
As it requires the Customs Union too for Barnier to agree it as the NI backstop and the DUP will require that to apply to the whole UK
I would have thought the EU would jump at Norway + CU. Minimum economic disruption for anyone plus they lose the biggest fly in the EU ointment. Win-win for them.
But from our PoV, what's the point of leaving the EU then? About the only thing it gives us is leaving the CAP/CFP but we lose EU project funding and any say in rule-making.
The EEA doesn't lose "all say in rule making" though. It's only May's uniquely terrible ersatz EEA that enters us into a state of potentially perpetual vassallage.
Nick Boles is an impressive conservative MP. He is very convincing about going with the Norway option instead of May chequers deal. He has convinced me that seems the sensible way forward. Also he believes it would command a majority in the HOC. Hard to see why the government and May will not take his advice.
He has me on board - need TM to move and there would be a good majority
I sense there's a Gove for PM sub-text. But yes, if that's what it takes to get the bloody thing settled, count me in too.
Maybe we can all act as a unifying group behind a sensible compromise. Not sure we would win round Archer or Gin
I have explained why this option will not be offered by the EU. If you want to debate the details fine; but there is not much to be gained just talking about a middle ground without explaining what it is or addressing the problems when they are pointed out.
The backstop cannot pass Parliament and every trade deal is going to require acceptance of the backstop. As I keep saying, the current problem is not caused by hard Brexiteers.
Comments
It would be a bit like adopting the Royal family of another country, after your own had run out of heirs, and then deciding that you didn't like them, chopping one of their heads off and then inviting increasingly distant cousins from the Continent to take over and imposing that Royal family onto the country you borrowed the family from.
What country could possibly be that absurd?
Better to get some of what you want than nothing.
There is a majority for no election : Con (with new leader) + DUP.
Election is the least likely outcome of the next 6 months.
It only needs a handful of anti No Deal Tory MP diehards, Soubry, Wollaston, Grieve, Clarke, Morgan, Bebb, Neil, Rudd etc to vote with the opposition and force a general election if May ousted in favour of a hardline No Deal leader and no EU ref2.
Not that there are enough Tory MPs to topple May anyway
In a video message for the People’s Vote march through London on Saturday
I expect his contributions will be widely dismissed because of his geographical location....
Back to remedial parly maths for you!
The fact that he has gotten this far doesn't say much about US(A) voters.
Enoch Powell, in his ponderous way, used to imbalance people, perhaps by somehow putting them on the defensive.
OGH might be right about Hickenlooper.
People change their minds plus their worldviews evolve. While "today's youth" may find being out of the EU an alien concept that is because it is all they have ever known. Soon that will change. Once it does it ceases to be alien and becomes normalised. Brexit isn't going to be scary it will be life as we know it.
The longer we are out of the EU the more the wounds and scars from Brexit will heal. The more alien being a part of the EU will seem. Tomorrow's youth will find our former membership as relatable as Empire etc
Ask a Canadian if they wish to be an American. That will be the future for Brits. We will find being a European (Union citizen) as alien a concept as Canadians find being called Americans. We are Europe's Canada with the Republic of Ireland playing the role of Alaska.
Culturally, it's a constant point of reference in the Le Carre spy novels - Bill Haydon turns full traitor after realising, due to Suez, that the British are an irrelevance and he must choose the Americans or the Soviets.
I don't think that holds up. It is not self serving to have taken on her own party and attempted a series of compromises with the EU which are very unpopular. If all she wanted was to shore up her position in her own party there are very different choices she could have made. Her sense of what constitutes her duty may well be wrong, but I do not get the impression she is making decisions purely to save her own skin here.
http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/mathematics/science-why-greenwich-prime-meridian-moved-03123.html
And if we're talking about British contributions to time, then we shouldn't forget railway time: probably the first occasion that differences in local time actually mattered within a country.
https://twitter.com/andrealeadsom/status/1052978755071877120?s=21
That's not how I see her actions at all. Right now Leavers are pissy at her, but she started negotiations with complete appeasement towards them by taking all but the hardest Brexit off the table. What's happening now is she's being forced to row back. But if you take her sole motivation to be staying in Number 10 until they pry her hands from the door, everything she's done makes perfect sense. She refused to say what her Brexit plan was for a long time to avoid pissing anyone off. She did Trump-style "agree with whoever you last talked to" to get through votes. She's spent two years trying to square an unsquareable circle over the Irish border rather than tell anybody (Leavers, Remainers or the EU) that they can't have what they want, because she's terrified that any of those groups will try to remove her (in the EU's case, via no deal, which she wouldn't survive)
And that's not even getting to the election which was dominated by her paranoid, secretive attitude and a campaign designed more to shore up her power in the party than to win votes, or her refusal to leave after it was clear she wasn't up to the job
If she's opposed to it that will cause TSE some bad moments...
If Stalin can align him with a vile mass murdering racist like Churchill to defeat the Nazis then I can align myself with Leadsom on this.
Cameron knew he didn't have the stomach to negotiate something that he fundamentally didn't believe in.
Brown had spent decades with the sole aim of being prime minister (though no idea what he'd do when he got the position).
May has said she's driven by her sense of duty. If that sense of duty said that it's someone else's turn she'd step down. The issue is, of course, that her sense of duty is also telling her that whatever happens Boris and Jacob shouldn't become prime minister.
Time to go for needledick Don.
In the case of no deal a Minister simply has to make a statement, and Parliament must vote in neutral terms that it has received this statement. 'Neutral terms' is Parliamentary language for a motion that cannot be amended. This is the law, by the way.
Parliament will not decide what happens in the event of no deal. It will be down the Government, and May will be long gone by then. But, for HYUFDs benefit, you might want to reflect that Cabinet will not allow the PM to seek to have the referendum reversed. The only realistic outcomes at that stage would be proceed with no deal, or seek an extension to A50.
He knew his authority was shot.
He knew he was facing a VONC if he didn't stand down, heck he was going to face a leadership contest even if Remain won 70% to 30%.
He didn't want the Tory party torn further asunder.
Plus it was an honour thing, he knew if you're the front man of a nation changing referendum campaign and you lose, honour demands you have to stand aside.
May will not be gone either, only 120 out of over 300 Tory MPs even voted Leave, most Tory MPs voted Remain, May will not be toppled.
We also know that MPs like Soubry, Wollaston, Rudd etc would all vote for EUref2 if No Deal giving it a majority in Parliament and may even go so far as to vote with the opposition for a general election in the unlikely event May was replaced by a No Deal hardliner without a commitment to a second EU referendum
Edit - of course, they could remind him he was a Democrat, but that didn't work on Ronald Reagan.
And after the war, it was Churchill that insisted that France be treated as one of the victors. Can you imagine the French doing the same if the roles had been reversed?
Someone yesterday was mocking a member of the public for declaring British exceptionalism. The British are exceptional - and the behaviour of the Europeans over Brexit just illuminates this statement. That is why the UK will be just fine after Brexit, and why the EU are desperate to avoid letting the UK leave cleanly - because deep in their hearts, they know it.
Anyway, it is not May's decision. The Cabinet will never agree to just throw the matter open to Parliament.
If rebels want to vote for a GE to avoid no deal, that would be fantastic. They will all be deselected, May will be gone and the Tories will win a majority promising to uphold the result of the referendum.
You should be able to tell from today's reaction that the tolerance for kicking the can down the road any further is gone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
44% of UK exports go to the EU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom
https://order-order.com/2018/10/18/dozen-tories-took-850000-junkets-riyadh-last-year/
If there were an election tomorrow the LDs would hold the balance of power
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-penis-looks-like-toad-from-mario-kart-says-stormy-daniels
Spoilers !!!
Just seen him on ch4 news.
He is very convincing about going with the Norway option instead of May chequers deal.
He has convinced me that seems the sensible way forward.
Also he believes it would command a majority in the HOC.
Hard to see why the government and May will not take his advice.
Yeah, like Al Capone was lax with his tax returns.
Enjoying your tax cut ?
Saudi Arabia and Turkey are both bad actors, but they can't spin this out much longer without producing something meaningful.
It's quite a contrast between this and the subdued response to the 4 Americans killed in Benghazi.
Why did you have to share that?
WHY?
I regularly play Mario based games with my boys and I don't want to be thinking about that.
I doubled down by revealing that practically everyone dies at the end of Othello.
But we misread the situation. America basically slapped us down, hard. It was an object lesson that countries have interests rather than friends. And America's friendship - like all relationships between countries - was predicated on shared interests. When the interests didn't align, the friendship was not sufficient.
Norway has a customs border with Sweden.
It needs further adjustment to solve the 'Irish problem', like maybe A CU.
The letter under the carpet thing was just sadistic.
Othello ?? Deaths ????
Damn, you did it again !
But from our PoV, what's the point of leaving the EU then? About the only thing it gives us is leaving the CAP/CFP but we lose EU project funding and any say in rule-making.
Neither Norway (not available anyway) or SM+CU solve the issue that May has created for herself.
Because May is a world class dundertwat.
The backstop cannot pass Parliament and every trade deal is going to require acceptance of the backstop. As I keep saying, the current problem is not caused by hard Brexiteers.