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?
I hope your doubled standard deduction covers the cap on state and local tax deduction. We're sure to pay more tax this year than last and have been over-withholding[1] to hopefully cover it.
[1] "Withholding" is the US equivalent of PAYE, except that you decide (within limits) what the amount should be. Allow too much to be withheld, well at least you can get a refund when you file your taxes. Allow too little, and you may find yourself owing Uncle Sam $$$ when tax time comes, and if you owe him too much, he fines you more for the privilege!
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 ?
I googled 'esau pottage' and all I got was a medieval stew recipe.
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.
Although, even then, it might be nice for the UK government to decide exactly what it wants, because then at least the EU would have something concrete to reject.
Do you currently have any idea what May is asking for? Because I sure as shit don't think anyone else does.
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.
I think in practice the EU would be able to find a dollop of Eurofudge from the CAP fudge mountain to put SM+CU through.
No, the Catalans are Spanish. Just as the Scots and Welsh are British. Some Catalans do not regard themselves as Spanish, but that is different. In any case, Catalans are not subjected to indiscriminate police brutality.
I'm Welsh, not British.
I think many of our Scottish contributors would describe themselves emphatically as Scottish, not British.
It's not up to you to tell the Scottish and Welsh people what they are and what they are not. They can decide for themselves,
The Catalan have an independent history, culture, language. They are a distinct people. They have a right to self-deternination. They are not Spanish. It is not up to you to tell them what they are.
A state that carries out systematic brutality against a distinct minority is not a welcoming, tolerant state.
There is no systematic brutality in Catalonia, where around half the population consider themselves Spanish and half do not. All travel on Spanish passports and have Spanish citizenship.
Catalonia does not have an independent history. It has never been an independent country. It certainly has a distinct language - one it shares with Valencia, the Balearic Islands, parts of Murcia, Andorra and Rousillon in France. Catalonia is also home to many cultures. I lived there for five years and go back frequently. How long did you live there?
Wikipedia (yes I know!) says that The Principality of Catalonia was a medieval and early modern political entity or state in the northeastern Iberian Peninsula, and does on to indicate that Prince was also King of Aragon, although the two were separate.
It was part of the territory of the Crown of Aragon and when Aragon united with Castille in the late 15th century it became part of the Crown of Spain. It certainly had its own laws, privileges and customs until the early 18th century, but that was common across Spain (and many other parts of Europe back then). It was never an independent state. Even today, most Catalans - including many current separatists - would back a deal which saw Catalonia enjoy the status that the Basque country has. The tragedy (if that is the right word) is that this is exactly what was agreed with the Socialist government in Madrid around 10 years ago and then ratified in a referendum in Catalonia. That was then overturned by Spain's constitutional court and by the PP government that succeeded PSOE.
I thought the County of Barcelona (ie Catalonia) was independent until the dynastic unification with Aragon
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 ?
I googled 'esau pottage' and all I got was a medieval stew recipe.
Not one of Trump’s evangelicals, then. It’s a biblical reference.
For the record, I did not get a Trump tax cut. I got a Trump tax increase. Because I cannot offset all of my California property tax bill against income tax anymore, I will be paying quite a bit more tax
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.
I am afraid we are not going to agree.
The chaos unfolding requires Norway or remain
And I expect the HOC will influence the final countdown
I do respect your knowledge which is miles ahead of Boris or David Davies, (but with respect that is not difficult) but the brexiteer right in my party are not on my page. As an aside I actually welcome immigation from the EU under a sensible policy
For the record, I did not get a Trump tax cut. I got a Trump tax increase. Because I cannot offset all of my California property tax bill against income tax anymore, I will be paying quite a bit more tax
Are you eligible to vote in the 2020 Presidential election?
One more Dem voter in California and it is game on.
Had an interesting incident on my way to work this morning. Those of you who travel on the Waterloo and City line at Waterloo will know how the queues snake around during busy periods. This guy, fully booted and suited casually jumped the really long queue and refused to adhere to the requests of the TfL staff to get tot he back of the queue. The sheer arrogance of the guy astounded me - I went up to him suggesting what he had done was wrong and yes I did call him a "tall tw*t".
For my troubles I got a size 12 boot up my spine which made me collapse to the floor, bruises and all. A big shout-out to the couple of lovely ladies who helped me up. The guy nonchalantly carried on and boarded the train. I was going to leave the matter but the two ladies told me to report this to the Police (they had photos on their phone etc.). I got off at Bank and sneakily followed him to his workplace - with that knowledge I returned to Bank station and reported the incident to BTP. Luckily the ladies had also called in as witnesses to the event. Let's see what happens but definitely an interesting commute into work today!!
Hope you're not hurt & there's no lasting damage - and you press charges - sounds like a pretty straightforward common assault. The publicity will do him much more damage than any Magistrates fine. There will very likely be CCTV too.
You need to get in touch with the CCTV folk at Watterloo to ensure the incident is preserved and not scrubbed.
And you should get a copy of the images from the ladies and pass them to his employer.
He can try queue jumping at the Job Centre.....
Thanks Mark! I will. He does *seem* to have a very good job at one of the City Banks.
A criminal conviction would need to be disclosed to the FDA and is likely to get him fired
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?
I hope your doubled standard deduction covers the cap on state and local tax deduction. We're sure to pay more tax this year than last and have been over-withholding[1] to hopefully cover it.
[1] "Withholding" is the US equivalent of PAYE, except that you decide (within limits) what the amount should be. Allow too much to be withheld, well at least you can get a refund when you file your taxes. Allow too little, and you may find yourself owing Uncle Sam $$$ when tax time comes, and if you owe him too much, he fines you more for the privilege!
I live in Georgia. It's a fairly low tax state. Most people who don't live in high tax states are in favor of the state and local deduction cap. Taxes from low tax states go to help subsidize the huge deductions of high tax states.
I've lived in NY and NJ and begrudged the ridiculous taxes in both. Plus the climate is much better here. Where to live is your choice.
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.
For the record, I did not get a Trump tax cut. I got a Trump tax increase. Because I cannot offset all of my California property tax bill against income tax anymore, I will be paying quite a bit more tax
Are you eligible to vote in the 2020 Presidential election?
One more Dem voter in California and it is game on.
Unless Mrs rcs is American he needs to be a Green Card holder for five years before he can apply to naturalize. Only three years if married to a US citizen.
You can actually apply 90 days before the five/three year date, but currently citizenship applications in most places are taking up to a year to process.
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.
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 ?
I googled 'esau pottage' and all I got was a medieval stew recipe.
Not one of Trump’s evangelicals, then. It’s a biblical reference.
Most definitely not! Yes, I did get that it was a biblical reference.
Very constructive stuff and certainly not arrogant.
I would say that there is a large element of truth in that description.
There was a tough but rewarding book about a decade ago called Chosen People tracing the cultural and political attempts to take that mantle from the Jews to the Brits (eg the Coronation, Zadok etc) and then by the Founding Fathers to seize it for America
I would like to congratulate the people of Greenland. While the US's tariff schedule clocks in at over 2,000 pages, and the EU's is 1,800, Greenland appears to have the shortest schedule (for any country with its own tariffs).
For the record, I did not get a Trump tax cut. I got a Trump tax increase. Because I cannot offset all of my California property tax bill against income tax anymore, I will be paying quite a bit more tax
Are you eligible to vote in the 2020 Presidential election?
One more Dem voter in California and it is game on.
Yes - I've been eligible since 1987. Living in CA is your choice. Several states have no state income tax at all.
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.
Had an interesting incident on my way to work this morning. Those of you who travel on the Waterloo and City line at Waterloo will know how the queues snake around during busy periods. This guy, fully booted and suited casually jumped the really long queue and refused to adhere to the requests of the TfL staff to get tot he back of the queue. The sheer arrogance of the guy astounded me - I went up to him suggesting what he had done was wrong and yes I did call him a "tall tw*t".
For my troubles I got a size 12 boot up my spine which made me collapse to the floor, bruises and all. A big shout-out to the couple of lovely ladies who helped me up. The guy nonchalantly carried on and boarded the train. I was going to leave the matter but the two ladies told me to report this to the Police (they had photos on their phone etc.). I got off at Bank and sneakily followed him to his workplace - with that knowledge I returned to Bank station and reported the incident to BTP. Luckily the ladies had also called in as witnesses to the event. Let's see what happens but definitely an interesting commute into work today!!
Hope you're not hurt & there's no lasting damage - and you press charges - sounds like a pretty straightforward common assault. The publicity will do him much more damage than any Magistrates fine. There will very likely be CCTV too.
You need to get in touch with the CCTV folk at Watterloo to ensure the incident is preserved and not scrubbed.
And you should get a copy of the images from the ladies and pass them to his employer.
He can try queue jumping at the Job Centre.....
Thanks Mark! I will. He does *seem* to have a very good job at one of the City Banks.
A criminal conviction would need to be disclosed to the FDA and is likely to get him fired
The US FDA really does get everywhere doesn't it...
I would like to congratulate the people of Greenland. While the US's tariff schedule clocks in at over 2,000 pages, and the EU's is 1,800, Greenland appears to have the shortest schedule (for any country with its own tariffs).
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?
I hope your doubled standard deduction covers the cap on state and local tax deduction. We're sure to pay more tax this year than last and have been over-withholding[1] to hopefully cover it.
[1] "Withholding" is the US equivalent of PAYE, except that you decide (within limits) what the amount should be. Allow too much to be withheld, well at least you can get a refund when you file your taxes. Allow too little, and you may find yourself owing Uncle Sam $$$ when tax time comes, and if you owe him too much, he fines you more for the privilege!
I live in Georgia. It's a fairly low tax state. Most people who don't live in high tax states are in favor of the state and local deduction cap. Taxes from low tax states go to help subsidize the huge deductions of high tax states.
You do know that it's the "high-tax" states like NY that pay more into the federal system than they get out of it. We subsidize you.
Is there anyone betting on the Brazilian elections? If so be careful, a scandal just broke out here and Bolsonaro may be blocked from the presidential elections.
Is there anyone betting on the Brazilian elections? If so be careful, a scandal just broke out here and Bolsonaro may be blocked from the presidential elections.
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?
I hope your doubled standard deduction covers the cap on state and local tax deduction. We're sure to pay more tax this year than last and have been over-withholding[1] to hopefully cover it.
[1] "Withholding" is the US equivalent of PAYE, except that you decide (within limits) what the amount should be. Allow too much to be withheld, well at least you can get a refund when you file your taxes. Allow too little, and you may find yourself owing Uncle Sam $$$ when tax time comes, and if you owe him too much, he fines you more for the privilege!
I live in Georgia. It's a fairly low tax state. Most people who don't live in high tax states are in favor of the state and local deduction cap. Taxes from low tax states go to help subsidize the huge deductions of high tax states.
You do know that it's the "high-tax" states like NY that pay more into the federal system than they get out of it. We subsidize you.
Evening Alastair. Didn't recognise your new avatar...
Is there anyone betting on the Brazilian elections? If so be careful, a scandal just broke out here and Bolsonaro may be blocked from the presidential elections.
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?
Is there anyone betting on the Brazilian elections? If so be careful, a scandal just broke out here and Bolsonaro may be blocked from the presidential elections.
Truly? What a chaotic time they have been having.
I'm from Brazil, things are pretty tense now.
Yes, I was thinking a phrase that referred to cats and pigeons.
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.
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?
Brazil's far-Right election front-runner was accused of setting up a 'criminal network' with big businesses to spread fake news through Whatsapp.
Brazilian media reported that well-heeled supporters of Jair Bolsonaro paid for messaging by third-party agencies, each paying up to 12 million reais ($3.26 million) to spread tens of thousands of attack ads.
Leftist opponent Fernando Haddad, who trails by 18 points, denounced the practice revealed by newspaper Folha de S.Paulo, accusing Mr Bolsonaro of flouting campaign laws by creating "a veritable criminal organisation with businessmen who are using undeclared money to pay for false messages on WhatsApp".
Is there anyone betting on the Brazilian elections? If so be careful, a scandal just broke out here and Bolsonaro may be blocked from the presidential elections.
Truly? What a chaotic time they have been having.
I'm from Brazil, things are pretty tense now.
Yes, I was thinking a phrase that referred to cats and pigeons.
Well, the newspaper Folha de São Paulo revealed that businessman payed companies to spread fake news in favour of Bolsonaro in WhatsApp. Our electoral laws forbid companies donation which is interpreted as abuse of power and by law can be impeached. PT, PDT and other parties already announced they are going to the Electoral Court to question the election. It remains to be seen what will done, if anything will be done. Here is the link in Portuguese: https://noticias.uol.com.br/politica/eleicoes/2018/noticias/2018/10/18/advogados-risco-cassacao-bolsonaro-disparos-whatsapp.htm
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?
I hope your doubled standard deduction covers the cap on state and local tax deduction. We're sure to pay more tax this year than last and have been over-withholding[1] to hopefully cover it.
[1] "Withholding" is the US equivalent of PAYE, except that you decide (within limits) what the amount should be. Allow too much to be withheld, well at least you can get a refund when you file your taxes. Allow too little, and you may find yourself owing Uncle Sam $$$ when tax time comes, and if you owe him too much, he fines you more for the privilege!
I live in Georgia. It's a fairly low tax state. Most people who don't live in high tax states are in favor of the state and local deduction cap. Taxes from low tax states go to help subsidize the huge deductions of high tax states.
You do know that it's the "high-tax" states like NY that pay more into the federal system than they get out of it. We subsidize you.
Is that why it's the high tax states that have huge pension funding liabilities, huge budget deficits compared to low tax states? You'd think that the extra tax income would help, but apparently not. I'm not going to argue about the tax caps. They are popular.If you live in a high tax state it's a self-inflicted wound.
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?
I hope your doubled standard deduction covers the cap on state and local tax deduction. We're sure to pay more tax this year than last and have been over-withholding[1] to hopefully cover it.
[1] "Withholding" is the US equivalent of PAYE, except that you decide (within limits) what the amount should be. Allow too much to be withheld, well at least you can get a refund when you file your taxes. Allow too little, and you may find yourself owing Uncle Sam $$$ when tax time comes, and if you owe him too much, he fines you more for the privilege!
I live in Georgia. It's a fairly low tax state. Most people who don't live in high tax states are in favor of the state and local deduction cap. Taxes from low tax states go to help subsidize the huge deductions of high tax states.
I've lived in NY and NJ and begrudged the ridiculous taxes in both. Plus the climate is much better here. Where to live is your choice.
Doesn't Georgia get a massive wodge of it's state budget from the Federal government?
On topic. Totally utterly completely categorically disagree. The thing with politics is what works spectacularly well one time can spectacularly fail another time. The word I use is fashion. When people are weary of that, all you are doing is giving both barrels to your own feet.
My advice to Warren, carry on being a little wanton, get yourself abused by Trump every single day if you possibly can.
Well, I'm still confused though of one thing I am certain - no Conservative MP would ever vote against a Conservative Government on a Vote of Confidence in the Commons (or even abstain). It would be the ultimate act of betrayal.
Voting against on a piece of legislation is rather different and while hardly encouraged, I suspect it's not a hanging offence.
Listening to May this afternoon, she sounded lost. All she had were the "straplines" of "intense work" - it's always "hard work" with her either for families or the civil servants - . and "getting the best deal for Britain", well, she would say that, wouldn't she?
Caught between the rock of "our precious Union" and the hard place of keeping the Government and the Conservative Party together, what else can she do except soldier on and a la Micawber, wait for something to turn up or the opportunity to kick the can further down the road?
Part of me wanted to shout at her to throw Northern Ireland under the bus but it's not called the Conservative & Unionist Party for no reason. Perhaps it's time to decide which of the two words matters more.
On the subject of the USA, today is the 50th anniversary of Bob Beamon's extraordinary long jump in the Mexico Olympics. Those of you old enough to remember it will know it was quite incredible at the time.
Well, I'm still confused though of one thing I am certain - no Conservative MP would ever vote against a Conservative Government on a Vote of Confidence in the Commons (or even abstain). It would be the ultimate act of betrayal.
Voting against on a piece of legislation is rather different and while hardly encouraged, I suspect it's not a hanging offence.
Listening to May this afternoon, she sounded lost. All she had were the "straplines" of "intense work" - it's always "hard work" with her either for families or the civil servants - . and "getting the best deal for Britain", well, she would say that, wouldn't she?
Caught between the rock of "our precious Union" and the hard place of keeping the Government and the Conservative Party together, what else can she do except soldier on and a la Micawber, wait for something to turn up or the opportunity to kick the can further down the road?
Part of me wanted to shout at her to throw Northern Ireland under the bus but it's not called the Conservative & Unionist Party for no reason. Perhaps it's time to decide which of the two words matters more.
On sheer numbers of the rest of the UK to worry about it is probably NI that gets thrown under the bus, and then the government gets brought down. That may be the price.
Is there anyone betting on the Brazilian elections? If so be careful, a scandal just broke out here and Bolsonaro may be blocked from the presidential elections.
Truly? What a chaotic time they have been having.
I'm from Brazil, things are pretty tense now.
Yes, I was thinking a phrase that referred to cats and pigeons.
Well, the newspaper Folha de São Paulo revealed that businessman payed companies to spread fake news in favour of Bolsonaro in WhatsApp. Our electoral laws forbid companies donation which is interpreted as abuse of power and by law can be impeached. PT, PDT and other parties already announced they are going to the Electoral Court to question the election. It remains to be seen what will done, if anything will be done. Here is the link in Portuguese: https://noticias.uol.com.br/politica/eleicoes/2018/noticias/2018/10/18/advogados-risco-cassacao-bolsonaro-disparos-whatsapp.htm
Any ideas at all if it means the second round goes ahead but he's disqualified, if someone else gets the slot, a total rerun?
Well, I'm still confused though of one thing I am certain - no Conservative MP would ever vote against a Conservative Government on a Vote of Confidence in the Commons (or even abstain). It would be the ultimate act of betrayal.
Voting against on a piece of legislation is rather different and while hardly encouraged, I suspect it's not a hanging offence.
Listening to May this afternoon, she sounded lost. All she had were the "straplines" of "intense work" - it's always "hard work" with her either for families or the civil servants - . and "getting the best deal for Britain", well, she would say that, wouldn't she?
Caught between the rock of "our precious Union" and the hard place of keeping the Government and the Conservative Party together, what else can she do except soldier on and a la Micawber, wait for something to turn up or the opportunity to kick the can further down the road?
Part of me wanted to shout at her to throw Northern Ireland under the bus but it's not called the Conservative & Unionist Party for no reason. Perhaps it's time to decide which of the two words matters more.
If May had been toppled in a coup and an unelected No Deal Brexiteer imposed as leader in their place all bets are off with diehard Remainer Tory MPs (though I expect May would survive any challenge anyway).
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.
They do provided SM +CU is agreed as the NI backstop and there is a majority in Parliament for that as long as it applies through the subsequent transition to the UK, which it will
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.
We gain control over CAP/CFP and we avoid No Deal which could lead to economic collapse and Scotland and NI leaving the UK
Well, I'm still confused though of one thing I am certain - no Conservative MP would ever vote against a Conservative Government on a Vote of Confidence in the Commons (or even abstain). It would be the ultimate act of betrayal.
Voting against on a piece of legislation is rather different and while hardly encouraged, I suspect it's not a hanging offence.
Listening to May this afternoon, she sounded lost. All she had were the "straplines" of "intense work" - it's always "hard work" with her either for families or the civil servants - . and "getting the best deal for Britain", well, she would say that, wouldn't she?
Caught between the rock of "our precious Union" and the hard place of keeping the Government and the Conservative Party together, what else can she do except soldier on and a la Micawber, wait for something to turn up or the opportunity to kick the can further down the road?
Part of me wanted to shout at her to throw Northern Ireland under the bus but it's not called the Conservative & Unionist Party for no reason. Perhaps it's time to decide which of the two words matters more.
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.
I am afraid we are not going to agree.
The chaos unfolding requires Norway or remain
And I expect the HOC will influence the final countdown
I do respect your knowledge which is miles ahead of Boris or David Davies, (but with respect that is not difficult) but the brexiteer right in my party are not on my page. As an aside I actually welcome immigation from the EU under a sensible policy
We are not arguing about whose outcome is right. What I am saying is that yours is technically no more achievable. Norway is not available - Barnier is on the record as saying that the UK must remain in the CU to sort NI. That rules out EEA/EFTA.
A SM+CU will take years to negotiate and ratify. It is not possible for it to be offered under A50. Any EU parliament could veto it.
So, we still need to agree to the backstop. I say that the NI only backstop will not pass Parliament. The chief whip seems to agree. Are you actually in favour of agreeing the potential separation of NI?
Is there anyone betting on the Brazilian elections? If so be careful, a scandal just broke out here and Bolsonaro may be blocked from the presidential elections.
Truly? What a chaotic time they have been having.
I'm from Brazil, things are pretty tense now.
Yes, I was thinking a phrase that referred to cats and pigeons.
Well, the newspaper Folha de São Paulo revealed that businessman payed companies to spread fake news in favour of Bolsonaro in WhatsApp. Our electoral laws forbid companies donation which is interpreted as abuse of power and by law can be impeached. PT, PDT and other parties already announced they are going to the Electoral Court to question the election. It remains to be seen what will done, if anything will be done. Here is the link in Portuguese: https://noticias.uol.com.br/politica/eleicoes/2018/noticias/2018/10/18/advogados-risco-cassacao-bolsonaro-disparos-whatsapp.htm
Any ideas at all if it means the second round goes ahead but he's disqualified, if someone else gets the slot, a total rerun?
In Brazil anything is possible, but we have four different scenarios right now: 1- another general election because it seems the scheme was similar in State and Congressual Elections, 2 - he's disqualified and Ciro Gomes (because he was third) runs against Haddad or 3 - nothing happens, but the judicial action asking for his impeachment stays in Electoral Court, meaning we can have a president impeached in two years time, 4 - nothing happens at all, it's Brazil.
If May had been toppled in a coup and an unelected No Deal Brexiteer imposed as leader in their place all bets are off with diehard Remainer Tory MPs (though I expect May would survive any challenge anyway).
If No Deal there may not be a Union left
The question is not whether Theresa may can command a majority within the Parliamentary Party but how much of a majority. John Major survived with 218 MPs supporting him (and supposedly would have quit if it had been below 215). IF May gets 210-220 MPs she has done enough to survive but could she continue with her authority so brutally diminished?
I'm not a Unionist in the way you and your Party are - the current arrangement may not survive a No Deal but that doesn't mean a new "Union" might not emerge.
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.
I am afraid we are not going to agree.
The chaos unfolding requires Norway or remain
And I expect the HOC will influence the final countdown
I do respect your knowledge which is miles ahead of Boris or David Davies, (but with respect that is not difficult) but the brexiteer right in my party are not on my page. As an aside I actually welcome immigation from the EU under a sensible policy
We are not arguing about whose outcome is right. What I am saying is that yours is technically no more achievable. Norway is not available - Barnier is on the record as saying that the UK must remain in the CU to sort NI. That rules out EEA/EFTA.
A SM+CU will take years to negotiate and ratify. It is not possible for it to be offered under A50. Any EU parliament could veto it.
So, we still need to agree to the backstop. I say that the NI only backstop will not pass Parliament. The chief whip seems to agree. Are you actually in favour of agreeing the potential separation of NI?
No I am not but I am past caring about who is right and wrong
I do not recognise my party and it saddens me
It is upto the HOC to deal with this.
Indeed I think TM has a poisoned chalice and I am not even too worried over her survival.
But I will fight against those ultras who do not represent me
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.
I think in practice the EU would be able to find a dollop of Eurofudge from the CAP fudge mountain to put SM+CU through.
SM+CU is quite obviously not allowed by A50. I have no faith in the ECJ; but they already ruled unfortunately on the fact that mixed competency trade agreements have to be ratified by all Parliaments so there is no way they can backtrack. It will take several years to agree and ratify and, as we have seen with CETA, there is always someone who will play games and refuse to agree it at the end. So the UK would offer the NI backstop in the full knowledge that it could be used.
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.
I am afraid we are not going to agree.
The chaos unfolding requires Norway or remain
And I expect the HOC will influence the final countdown
I do respect your knowledge which is miles ahead of Boris or David Davies, (but with respect that is not difficult) but the brexiteer right in my party are not on my page. As an aside I actually welcome immigation from the EU under a sensible policy
We are not arguing about whose outcome is right. What I am saying is that yours is technically no more achievable. Norway is not available - Barnier is on the record as saying that the UK must remain in the CU to sort NI. That rules out EEA/EFTA.
A SM+CU will take years to negotiate and ratify. It is not possible for it to be offered under A50. Any EU parliament could veto it.
So, we still need to agree to the backstop. I say that the NI only backstop will not pass Parliament. The chief whip seems to agree. Are you actually in favour of agreeing the potential separation of NI?
Most Lab MPs + the SNP + PC + the LDs + Lucas + at least 40 Tory MPs would vote for NI SM +CU backstop over No deal. Plus during the likely neverending transition period which will take us practically up to the 2022 GE the whole UK would be in the SM + CU anyway
If May had been toppled in a coup and an unelected No Deal Brexiteer imposed as leader in their place all bets are off with diehard Remainer Tory MPs (though I expect May would survive any challenge anyway).
If No Deal there may not be a Union left
The question is not whether Theresa may can command a majority within the Parliamentary Party but how much of a majority. John Major survived with 218 MPs supporting him (and supposedly would have quit if it had been below 215). IF May gets 210-220 MPs she has done enough to survive but could she continue with her authority so brutally diminished?
I'm not a Unionist in the way you and your Party are - the current arrangement may not survive a No Deal but that doesn't mean a new "Union" might not emerge.
If Scotland and NI left the UK there would by definition be no Union left, it would be England and Wales that remained as No Deal Brexit Britain
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.
I think in practice the EU would be able to find a dollop of Eurofudge from the CAP fudge mountain to put SM+CU through.
SM+CU is quite obviously not allowed by A50. I have no faith in the ECJ; but they already ruled unfortunately on the fact that mixed competency trade agreements have to be ratified by all Parliaments so there is no way they can backtrack. It will take several years to agree and ratify and, as we have seen with CETA, there is always someone who will play games and refuse to agree it at the end. So the UK would offer the NI backstop in the full knowledge that it could be used.
Those 40 Con MPs would be signing the death warrant of the party. That would be some choice to make.
If Scotland and NI left the UK there would by definition be no Union left, it would be England and Wales that Remained as No Deal Brexit Britain
There is the option of moving toward a more federal Britain, NOT, and I stress this, creating a new tier of Regional Parliaments or Assemblies but a proper devolution of powers to the County, District and Borough Councils reducing the influence of Westminster but that's anathema to both your Party and Labour.
No I am not but I am past caring about who is right and wrong
I do not recognise my party and it saddens me
It is upto the HOC to deal with this.
Indeed I think TM has a poisoned chalice and I am not even too worried over her survival.
But I will fight against those ultras who do not represent me
If May wants to put this to the HoC, she should do so now. Even if we disagree, I am sure that we both agree that the interests of the country should be put first and despite divisions on policy, there are certain things that are clearly not in the best interests of the country. Unplanned no deal, a forced humiliating climbdown and damage to business by increasing lack of clarity as we approach March surely qualify.
As it is clear that no deal is going to happen without a major UK climbdown on the backstop, I would be in favour of a decision now rather than waiting until Christmas or beyond. If we are going for no deal, then I am sure everyone agrees that we should be discussing with the EU how to best manage it and mitigate it - and for that time is critical. If she wants to know if the HoC will support the NI backstop, she can hold a vote now. If she won't do no deal and is going to ask for a EURef2 or Remain, again she can do that now.
Waiting is damaging the nation. Nothing is being achieved. If she wants to remain PM, now is the time to lead.
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.
I am afraid we are not going to agree.
The chaos unfolding requires Norway or remain
And I expect the HOC will influence the final countdown
I do respect your knowledge which is miles ahead of Boris or David Davies, (but with respect that is not difficult) but the brexiteer right in my party are not on my page. As an aside I actually welcome immigation from the EU under a sensible policy
We are not arguing about whose outcome is right. What I am saying is that yours is technically no more achievable. Norway is not available - Barnier is on the record as saying that the UK must remain in the CU to sort NI. That rules out EEA/EFTA.
A SM+CU will take years to negotiate and ratify. It is not possible for it to be offered under A50. Any EU parliament could veto it.
So, we still need to agree to the backstop. I say that the NI only backstop will not pass Parliament. The chief whip seems to agree. Are you actually in favour of agreeing the potential separation of NI?
No I am not but I am past caring about who is right and wrong
I do not recognise my party and it saddens me
It is upto the HOC to deal with this.
Indeed I think TM has a poisoned chalice and I am not even too worried over her survival.
But I will fight against those ultras who do not represent me
Kindest interpretation of TMs behaviour is that story of the condemned man who says "If you let me live, I will teach your horse to sing"; when faced with a choice of a super hard Brexit which will blow up the country, or compromises which will blow up UK politics, waffling on in the hope that a miracle occurs isn't that bad an idea. Trouble is that waffle can't be extended forever.
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.
I think in practice the EU would be able to find a dollop of Eurofudge from the CAP fudge mountain to put SM+CU through.
SM+CU is quite obviously not allowed by A50. I have no faith in the ECJ; but they already ruled unfortunately on the fact that mixed competency trade agreements have to be ratified by all Parliaments so there is no way they can backtrack. It will take several years to agree and ratify and, as we have seen with CETA, there is always someone who will play games and refuse to agree it at the end. So the UK would offer the NI backstop in the full knowledge that it could be used.
Those 40 Con MPs would be signing the death warrant of the party. That would be some choice to make.
No Deal could sign the death warrant of the country. I would rather the Tories be out for a decade or more than that which would be irreversible
No I am not but I am past caring about who is right and wrong
I do not recognise my party and it saddens me
It is upto the HOC to deal with this.
Indeed I think TM has a poisoned chalice and I am not even too worried over her survival.
But I will fight against those ultras who do not represent me
If May wants to put this to the HoC, she should do so now. Even if we disagree, I am sure that we both agree that the interests of the country should be put first and despite divisions on policy, there are certain things that are clearly not in the best interests of the country. Unplanned no deal, a forced humiliating climbdown and damage to business by increasing lack of clarity as we approach March surely qualify.
As it is clear that no deal is going to happen without a major UK climbdown on the backstop, I would be in favour of a decision now rather than waiting until Christmas or beyond. If we are going for no deal, then I am sure everyone agrees that we should be discussing with the EU how to best manage it and mitigate it - and for that time is critical. If she wants to know if the HoC will support the NI backstop, she can hold a vote now. If she won't do no deal and is going to ask for a EURef2 or Remain, again she can do that now.
Waiting is damaging the nation. Nothing is being achieved. If she wants to remain PM, now is the time to lead.
Nothing you or I say will change events now
We are on a path that will see the HOC exert it's role to protect our Country and that is fine by me
If Scotland and NI left the UK there would by definition be no Union left, it would be England and Wales that Remained as No Deal Brexit Britain
There is the option of moving toward a more federal Britain, NOT, and I stress this, creating a new tier of Regional Parliaments or Assemblies but a proper devolution of powers to the County, District and Borough Councils reducing the influence of Westminster but that's anathema to both your Party and Labour.
I would prefer an English Parliament but giving more powers to District and County Councils is an irrelevance in comparison to the future of the Union
I’m still perplexed by Theresa’s proposed EuroFudge. The situation is plainly ludicrous:
It is surely palpably impossible to have NI and rUK operating under the same rulebook but also leave the CU and maintain an open border. What is going to change in any implementation period, whether it be 5 months or 5 years, that will get round that? Answer: nothing. It’s not possible.
The answer seems to be A: crash out, hard border or B: membership of a CU, soft border. Essentially the hard and soft Brexit we’ve been banging on about since day 1.
I know that there’s not a majority in the Conservatives for either of those options but that’s fundamentally what’s on offer. They should do the decent thing, plump for one of the other and call a GE. At least Labour, as much as I dislike their leadership, have put a CU on the table so aren’t quite as delusional on the issue.
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.
While I have no respect for May as a politician, PM or negotiator she has bent over backwards to try and reach a compromise. She has given away virtually everything to try and prevent a hard border in Northern Ireland. That despite the fact the threat of a hard border is a hollow one. Both sides have already said that even in a no deal scenario there would be no hard border imposed so we're arguing over a phantom menace.
May has gone way beyond her mandate in order to reach a compromise but been spurned again and again. If avoiding a return to bombs was the EU's first priority they could have ensured there was a compromise reached. But she has been rebuffed because the "integrity" of their union comes before preventing bombs. Fine that's their choice. They're entitled to put the integrity of their union before preventing bombs.
So are we. It's time to say we will never sacrifice our union or break its integrity without that being the choice of our union's voters. We unilaterally won't impose a hard border, your choice if you do. We then exit and don't put up a border. Once they don't either we can move on to talking about the real issues and leave this one in the past where it belongs.
I’m still perplexed by Theresa’s proposed EuroFudge. The situation is plainly ludicrous:
It is surely palpably impossible to have NI and rUK operating under the same rulebook but also leave the CU and maintain an open border. What is going to change in any implementation period, whether it be 5 months or 5 years, that will get round that? Answer: nothing. It’s not possible.
The answer seems to be A: crash out, hard border or B: membership of a CU, soft border. Essentially the hard and soft Brexit we’ve been banging on about since day 1.
I know that there’s not a majority in the Conservatives for either of those options but that’s fundamentally what’s on offer. They should do the decent thing, plump for one of the other and call a GE. At least Labour, as much as I dislike their leadership, have put a CU on the table so aren’t quite as delusional on the issue.
And how is an election going to change anything. The mps in the HOC have got to step up to the plate and deal with this
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.
Except May won't be around.
She will do, the ERG hardliners are barely a third of the party
While I have no respect for May as a politician, PM or negotiator she has bent over backwards to try and reach a compromise. She has given away virtually everything to try and prevent a hard border in Northern Ireland. That despite the fact the threat of a hard border is a hollow one. Both sides have already said that even in a no deal scenario there would be no hard border imposed so we're arguing over a phantom menace.
May has gone way beyond her mandate in order to reach a compromise but been spurned again and again. If avoiding a return to bombs was the EU's first priority they could have ensured there was a compromise reached. But she has been rebuffed because the "integrity" of their union comes before preventing bombs. Fine that's their choice. They're entitled to put the integrity of their union before preventing bombs.
So are we. It's time to say we will never sacrifice our union or break its integrity without that being the choice of our union's voters. We unilaterally won't impose a hard border, your choice if you do. We then exit and don't put up a border. Once they don't either we can move on to talking about the real issues and leave this one in the past where it belongs.
Never mind No Border with customs checks, 56% of NI voters say they will vote for a united Ireland if NI leaves the single market and customs union, 52% of Scots with Survation say they will vote for independence if No Deal.
For the record, I did not get a Trump tax cut. I got a Trump tax increase. Because I cannot offset all of my California property tax bill against income tax anymore, I will be paying quite a bit more tax
The idea is that states which choose high taxes shouldn’t expect the federal government to share the political burden
If they want to make the case for high taxes good for them
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.
Except May won't be around.
We do not know - anything could happen. But TM is brexits last hope.
While I have no respect for May as a politician, PM or negotiator she has bent over backwards to try and reach a compromise. She has given away virtually everything to try and prevent a hard border in Northern Ireland. That despite the fact the threat of a hard border is a hollow one. Both sides have already said that even in a no deal scenario there would be no hard border imposed so we're arguing over a phantom menace.
May has gone way beyond her mandate in order to reach a compromise but been spurned again and again. If avoiding a return to bombs was the EU's first priority they could have ensured there was a compromise reached. But she has been rebuffed because the "integrity" of their union comes before preventing bombs. Fine that's their choice. They're entitled to put the integrity of their union before preventing bombs.
So are we. It's time to say we will never sacrifice our union or break its integrity without that being the choice of our union's voters. We unilaterally won't impose a hard border, your choice if you do. We then exit and don't put up a border. Once they don't either we can move on to talking about the real issues and leave this one in the past where it belongs.
Never mind No Border with customs checks, 56% of NI voters say they will vote for a united Ireland if NI leaves the single market and customs union, 52% of Scots with Survation say they will vote for independence if No Deal
Hypothetical polls are meaningless claptrap. Do you have any evidence that isn't from a meaningless hypothetical poll?
While I have no respect for May as a politician, PM or negotiator she has bent over backwards to try and reach a compromise. She has given away virtually everything to try and prevent a hard border in Northern Ireland. That despite the fact the threat of a hard border is a hollow one. Both sides have already said that even in a no deal scenario there would be no hard border imposed so we're arguing over a phantom menace.
May has gone way beyond her mandate in order to reach a compromise but been spurned again and again. If avoiding a return to bombs was the EU's first priority they could have ensured there was a compromise reached. But she has been rebuffed because the "integrity" of their union comes before preventing bombs. Fine that's their choice. They're entitled to put the integrity of their union before preventing bombs.
So are we. It's time to say we will never sacrifice our union or break its integrity without that being the choice of our union's voters. We unilaterally won't impose a hard border, your choice if you do. We then exit and don't put up a border. Once they don't either we can move on to talking about the real issues and leave this one in the past where it belongs.
Had an interesting incident on my way to work this morning. Those of you who travel on the Waterloo and City line at Waterloo will know how the queues snake around during busy periods. This guy, fully booted and suited casually jumped the really long queue and refused to adhere to the requests of the TfL staff to get tot he back of the queue. The sheer arrogance of the guy astounded me - I went up to him suggesting what he had done was wrong and yes I did call him a "tall tw*t".
For my troubles I got a size 12 boot up my spine which made me collapse to the floor, bruises and all. A big shout-out to the couple of lovely ladies who helped me up. The guy nonchalantly carried on and boarded the train. I was going to leave the matter but the two ladies told me to report this to the Police (they had photos on their phone etc.). I got off at Bank and sneakily followed him to his workplace - with that knowledge I returned to Bank station and reported the incident to BTP. Luckily the ladies had also called in as witnesses to the event. Let's see what happens but definitely an interesting commute into work today!!
Hope you're not hurt & there's no lasting damage - and you press charges - sounds like a pretty straightforward common assault. The publicity will do him much more damage than any Magistrates fine. There will very likely be CCTV too.
You need to get in touch with the CCTV folk at Watterloo to ensure the incident is preserved and not scrubbed.
And you should get a copy of the images from the ladies and pass them to his employer.
He can try queue jumping at the Job Centre.....
Thanks Mark! I will. He does *seem* to have a very good job at one of the City Banks.
A criminal conviction would need to be disclosed to the FDA and is likely to get him fired
The US FDA really does get everywhere doesn't it...
When your text autocorrects to FDA you are spending too much time on drugs
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.
Except May won't be around.
We do not know - anything could happen. But TM is brexits last hope.
Please explain. She's not respected by remainers, Brexiteers, European Heads of government, the Commission or anyone else that matters as far as I can tell.
The only reason she's still there at all is the power of inertia and the fact there's no agreed alternative.
While I have no respect for May as a politician, PM or negotiator she has bent over backwards to try and reach a compromise. She has given away virtually everything to try and prevent a hard border in Northern Ireland. That despite the fact the threat of a hard border is a hollow one. Both sides have already said that even in a no deal scenario there would be no hard border imposed so we're arguing over a phantom menace.
May has gone way beyond her mandate in order to reach a compromise but been spurned again and again. If avoiding a return to bombs was the EU's first priority they could have ensured there was a compromise reached. But she has been rebuffed because the "integrity" of their union comes before preventing bombs. Fine that's their choice. They're entitled to put the integrity of their union before preventing bombs.
So are we. It's time to say we will never sacrifice our union or break its integrity without that being the choice of our union's voters. We unilaterally won't impose a hard border, your choice if you do. We then exit and don't put up a border. Once they don't either we can move on to talking about the real issues and leave this one in the past where it belongs.
O that it was so easy
It's not easy. Doing the right thing often isn't easy. If it was easy May would have done it.
I’m still perplexed by Theresa’s proposed EuroFudge. The situation is plainly ludicrous:
It is surely palpably impossible to have NI and rUK operating under the same rulebook but also leave the CU and maintain an open border. What is going to change in any implementation period, whether it be 5 months or 5 years, that will get round that? Answer: nothing. It’s not possible.
The answer seems to be A: crash out, hard border or B: membership of a CU, soft border. Essentially the hard and soft Brexit we’ve been banging on about since day 1.
I know that there’s not a majority in the Conservatives for either of those options but that’s fundamentally what’s on offer. They should do the decent thing, plump for one of the other and call a GE. At least Labour, as much as I dislike their leadership, have put a CU on the table so aren’t quite as delusional on the issue.
And how is an election going to change anything. The mps in the HOC have got to step up to the plate and deal with this
I don’t support a second in-out referendum unless people vote for one. The difference is subtle but important. A second referendum without a GE has no mandate. If people put in a government that wants one, it’s a slightly more nuanced picture. I think a referendum without a GE authorising it opens a tremendously scary can of worms for our democracy. We do not need a stab in the back myth for the 21st century.
But I do think the issue should be thrown back to the people. Tezza’s gone to Brussels, she can’t get a fudgey Brexit, so what kind of Brexit do we want? Your chance to put in a government that can actually achieve one of the two options in the table. Or do we want to think again? It is not a perfect solution but nothing is perfect with Brexit. It is, however, the only one I can see that has some semblance of minimising the social fallout. Problem is, our politicians are creatures who have grown up telling the public they can have their cake and eat it. So I don’t expect this to come to pass.
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.
Except May won't be around.
We do not know - anything could happen. But TM is brexits last hope.
Please explain. She's not respected by remainers, Brexiteers, European Heads of government, the Commission or anyone else that matters as far as I can tell.
The only reason she's still there at all is the power of inertia and the fact there's no agreed alternative.
And neither is anyone else. Indeed you sum it up in your last sentence
If Scotland and NI left the UK there would by definition be no Union left, it would be England and Wales that Remained as No Deal Brexit Britain
There is the option of moving toward a more federal Britain, NOT, and I stress this, creating a new tier of Regional Parliaments or Assemblies but a proper devolution of powers to the County, District and Borough Councils reducing the influence of Westminster but that's anathema to both your Party and Labour.
The haphazard and inconsistent implementation of devolution at local levels that we have seen has been ridiculous according to people I know and trust who have studied it, while flexibility can be a good thing it should not be impossible to design some general rules which work pretty well.
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 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.
Except May won't be around.
We do not know - anything could happen. But TM is brexits last hope.
Please explain. She's not respected by remainers, Brexiteers, European Heads of government, the Commission or anyone else that matters as far as I can tell.
The only reason she's still there at all is the power of inertia and the fact there's no agreed alternative.
And neither is anyone else. Indeed you sum it up in your last sentence
Others are respected by some but not everyone. Hammond is respected by Remainers and some but not all Leavers. Gove is respected by Leavers and some but not all Remainers. Both and many other names too could make an actual freaking decision which could be respected by the Commission and other states Heads of Governments.
We need to bite the bullet. We can't have our cake and eat it too. That is the European's reddest of red lines and that May is still trying to achieve.
Make a choice, it is time. Who do we want to piss off? It's time to choose.
I’m still perplexed by Theresa’s proposed EuroFudge. The situation is plainly ludicrous:
It is surely palpably impossible to have NI and rUK operating under the same rulebook but also leave the CU and maintain an open border. What is going to change in any implementation period, whether it be 5 months or 5 years, that will get round that? Answer: nothing. It’s not possible.
The answer seems to be A: crash out, hard border or B: membership of a CU, soft border. Essentially the hard and soft Brexit we’ve been banging on about since day 1.
I know that there’s not a majority in the Conservatives for either of those options but that’s fundamentally what’s on offer. They should do the decent thing, plump for one of the other and call a GE. At least Labour, as much as I dislike their leadership, have put a CU on the table so aren’t quite as delusional on the issue.
And how is an election going to change anything. The mps in the HOC have got to step up to the plate and deal with this
I don’t support a second in-out referendum unless people vote for one. The difference is subtle but important. A second referendum without a GE has no mandate. If people put in a government that wants one, it’s a slightly more nuanced picture. I think a referendum without a GE authorising it opens a tremendously scary can of worms for our democracy. We do not need a stab in the back myth for the 21st century.
But I do think the issue should be thrown back to the people. Tezza’s gone to Brussels, she can’t get a fudgey Brexit, so what kind of Brexit do we want? Your chance to put in a government that can actually achieve one of the two options in the table. Or do we want to think again? It is not a perfect solution but nothing is perfect with Brexit. It is, however, the only one I can see that has some semblance of minimising the social fallout. Problem is, our politicians are creatures who have grown up telling the public they can have their cake and eat it. So I don’t expect this to come to pass.
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.
Except May won't be around.
We do not know - anything could happen. But TM is brexits last hope.
Please explain. She's not respected by remainers, Brexiteers, European Heads of government, the Commission or anyone else that matters as far as I can tell.
The only reason she's still there at all is the power of inertia and the fact there's no agreed alternative.
And neither is anyone else. Indeed you sum it up in your last sentence
Post of the year, right there. Just been chatting over drinks to a very senior businessman, Labour aligned. He said the same. May might be flawed, but she is less flawed than any possible alternative.
While I have no respect for May as a politician, PM or negotiator she has bent over backwards to try and reach a compromise. She has given away virtually everything to try and prevent a hard border in Northern Ireland. That despite the fact the threat of a hard border is a hollow one. Both sides have already said that even in a no deal scenario there would be no hard border imposed so we're arguing over a phantom menace.
May has gone way beyond her mandate in order to reach a compromise but been spurned again and again. If avoiding a return to bombs was the EU's first priority they could have ensured there was a compromise reached. But she has been rebuffed because the "integrity" of their union comes before preventing bombs. Fine that's their choice. They're entitled to put the integrity of their union before preventing bombs.
So are we. It's time to say we will never sacrifice our union or break its integrity without that being the choice of our union's voters. We unilaterally won't impose a hard border, your choice if you do. We then exit and don't put up a border. Once they don't either we can move on to talking about the real issues and leave this one in the past where it belongs.
Never mind No Border with customs checks, 56% of NI voters say they will vote for a united Ireland if NI leaves the single market and customs union, 52% of Scots with Survation say they will vote for independence if No Deal
Hypothetical polls are meaningless claptrap. Do you have any evidence that isn't from a meaningless hypothetical poll?
It is from consistent polls, I will never accept No Deal which could lead to Scotland and NI leaving the UK and which even English voters prefer Remain to in the polls under any circumstances whatsoever without the endorsement of an EUref2 or a general election.
If it went to No Deal even I might go on 'the People's Vote' March and I know a number of other Tory members who would too
Comments
[1] "Withholding" is the US equivalent of PAYE, except that you decide (within limits) what the amount should be. Allow too much to be withheld, well at least you can get a refund when you file your taxes. Allow too little, and you may find yourself owing Uncle Sam $$$ when tax time comes, and if you owe him too much, he fines you more for the privilege!
Do you currently have any idea what May is asking for? Because I sure as shit don't think anyone else does.
It’s a biblical reference.
The chaos unfolding requires Norway or remain
And I expect the HOC will influence the final countdown
I do respect your knowledge which is miles ahead of Boris or David Davies, (but with respect that is not difficult) but the brexiteer right in my party are not on my page. As an aside I actually welcome immigation from the EU under a sensible policy
One more Dem voter in California and it is game on.
Perhaps a moment’s reflection might have caused him to think about how helpful this is.
I've lived in NY and NJ and begrudged the ridiculous taxes in both. Plus the climate is much better here. Where to live is your choice.
https://m.facebook.com/1498276767163730/posts/2189927274665339/
You can actually apply 90 days before the five/three year date, but currently citizenship applications in most places are taking up to a year to process.
The full list is here:
https://int.aka.gl/en/Tax-Greenland/Import-customs-duties
They’ve basically said they’ll vote down any deal.
I'll get my dressing gown.
Good night.
Brazilian media reported that well-heeled supporters of Jair Bolsonaro paid for messaging by third-party agencies, each paying up to 12 million reais ($3.26 million) to spread tens of thousands of attack ads.
Leftist opponent Fernando Haddad, who trails by 18 points, denounced the practice revealed by newspaper Folha de S.Paulo, accusing Mr Bolsonaro of flouting campaign laws by creating "a veritable criminal organisation with businessmen who are using undeclared money to pay for false messages on WhatsApp".
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/18/jair-bolsonaro-accused-creating-criminal-network-spread-fake/
Don't most people just wait for the Russians to do it for free?
My advice to Warren, carry on being a little wanton, get yourself abused by Trump every single day if you possibly can.
Well, I'm still confused though of one thing I am certain - no Conservative MP would ever vote against a Conservative Government on a Vote of Confidence in the Commons (or even abstain). It would be the ultimate act of betrayal.
Voting against on a piece of legislation is rather different and while hardly encouraged, I suspect it's not a hanging offence.
Listening to May this afternoon, she sounded lost. All she had were the "straplines" of "intense work" - it's always "hard work" with her either for families or the civil servants - . and "getting the best deal for Britain", well, she would say that, wouldn't she?
Caught between the rock of "our precious Union" and the hard place of keeping the Government and the Conservative Party together, what else can she do except soldier on and a la Micawber, wait for something to turn up or the opportunity to kick the can further down the road?
Part of me wanted to shout at her to throw Northern Ireland under the bus but it's not called the Conservative & Unionist Party for no reason. Perhaps it's time to decide which of the two words matters more.
If No Deal there may not be a Union left
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2018/10/18/bounce-trump-approval-surges-to-47-percent-in-new-poll-n2529768
A SM+CU will take years to negotiate and ratify. It is not possible for it to be offered under A50. Any EU parliament could veto it.
So, we still need to agree to the backstop. I say that the NI only backstop will not pass Parliament. The chief whip seems to agree. Are you actually in favour of agreeing the potential separation of NI?
I'm not a Unionist in the way you and your Party are - the current arrangement may not survive a No Deal but that doesn't mean a new "Union" might not emerge.
I do not recognise my party and it saddens me
It is upto the HOC to deal with this.
Indeed I think TM has a poisoned chalice and I am not even too worried over her survival.
But I will fight against those ultras who do not represent me
As it is clear that no deal is going to happen without a major UK climbdown on the backstop, I would be in favour of a decision now rather than waiting until Christmas or beyond. If we are going for no deal, then I am sure everyone agrees that we should be discussing with the EU how to best manage it and mitigate it - and for that time is critical. If she wants to know if the HoC will support the NI backstop, she can hold a vote now. If she won't do no deal and is going to ask for a EURef2 or Remain, again she can do that now.
Waiting is damaging the nation. Nothing is being achieved. If she wants to remain PM, now is the time to lead.
Florida seemed to be floating away from the Dems, like Nevada.
Winning Tennessee is obviously fantasy land.
We are on a path that will see the HOC exert it's role to protect our Country and that is fine by me
Quite
It is surely palpably impossible to have NI and rUK operating under the same rulebook but also leave the CU and maintain an open border. What is going to change in any implementation period, whether it be 5 months or 5 years, that will get round that? Answer: nothing. It’s not possible.
The answer seems to be A: crash out, hard border or B: membership of a CU, soft border. Essentially the hard and soft Brexit we’ve been banging on about since day 1.
I know that there’s not a majority in the Conservatives for either of those options but that’s fundamentally what’s on offer. They should do the decent thing, plump for one of the other and call a GE. At least Labour, as much as I dislike their leadership, have put a CU on the table so aren’t quite as delusional on the issue.
May has gone way beyond her mandate in order to reach a compromise but been spurned again and again. If avoiding a return to bombs was the EU's first priority they could have ensured there was a compromise reached. But she has been rebuffed because the "integrity" of their union comes before preventing bombs. Fine that's their choice. They're entitled to put the integrity of their union before preventing bombs.
So are we. It's time to say we will never sacrifice our union or break its integrity without that being the choice of our union's voters. We unilaterally won't impose a hard border, your choice if you do. We then exit and don't put up a border. Once they don't either we can move on to talking about the real issues and leave this one in the past where it belongs.
It is No Deal which could sacrifice the Union
If they want to make the case for high taxes good for them
The only reason she's still there at all is the power of inertia and the fact there's no agreed alternative.
But I do think the issue should be thrown back to the people. Tezza’s gone to Brussels, she can’t get a fudgey Brexit, so what kind of Brexit do we want? Your chance to put in a government that can actually achieve one of the two options in the table. Or do we want to think again? It is not a perfect solution but nothing is perfect with Brexit. It is, however, the only one I can see that has some semblance of minimising the social fallout. Problem is, our politicians are creatures who have grown up telling the public they can have their cake and eat it. So I don’t expect this to come to pass.
Whom to believe, him or you?
We need to bite the bullet. We can't have our cake and eat it too. That is the European's reddest of red lines and that May is still trying to achieve.
Make a choice, it is time. Who do we want to piss off? It's time to choose.
https://news.sky.com/story/eu-summit-no-breakthrough-but-new-brexit-headache-for-theresa-may-11528986
If it went to No Deal even I might go on 'the People's Vote' March and I know a number of other Tory members who would too