I don’t think he’s quite right - my reading is that the EU will also be satisfied if the para 49 backstop commitment to ‘full alignment’ is met by the U.K. agreeing to maintain SM/CU alignment in a way which doesn’t seek to divide the four freedoms or take the benefits of market access without the corresponding obligations. So that means financial contributions and continued freedom of movement and will probably have a snappy name like ‘Norway Super Plus’. Or perhaps ‘Not Leaving’.
Or perhaps, "Brexit Not Settled".
I really thought it would be impossible to get anybody fired up about re-opening the 2019 Brexit settlement. Well, May looks set to do the impossible....
Rather like Osborne with austerity, the Tories need to redefine Brexit as a journey rather than a destination. Then they can fight future elections claiming that it’s too risky to elect Labour, because the job is only half done, and Labour will throw away all the progress that has been made. Brexit: a present continuous verb, not a noun.
Great idea, and it could work. But I think the Tories are losing their ability to set the agenda.
Only me!
People who attended People's Vote Rally 2018 = 700,000 People who voted Leave in 2016 = 17,400,000
People who post nonsensical comparisons = 1
Surely "People who post nonsensical comparisons = fish cushions"?
I’ve just been trying to summarise today’s statement for a client newsletter and reached roughly the same conclusion, but still wonder if I’m missing something. Did May really say that her ‘improved offer’ was to keep the UK in partial alignment with NI, but that it could only be temporary and there could be no barriers between the UK and NI? Because that doesn’t seem to offer anything new at all to meet the concerns raised the EU.
Her modus operandi is to say whatever is needed to satisfy the current audience, and kick any awkward decisions down the road. I imagine she will agree a plausible scenario with the EU on how the backstop will end, everyone will solemnly confirm that they don't want it to go on indefinitely, and Parliament will let it through. Then we can spend the next few years peacefully debating whether the necessary conditions have been met.
Agreed re TMPM’s MO but today’s proposal doesn’t seem to meet any of the criteria for a functional backstop, even if you ignore the temporary/indefinite language games. It’s almost like she has gone back to believing the the EU have no television, internet or Hansard.
I don’t think he’s quite right - my reading is that the EU will also be satisfied if the para 49 backstop commitment to ‘full alignment’ is met by the U.K. agreeing to maintain SM/CU alignment in a way which doesn’t seek to divide the four freedoms or take the benefits of market access without the corresponding obligations. So that means financial contributions and continued freedom of movement and will probably have a snappy name like ‘Norway Super Plus’. Or perhaps ‘Not Leaving’.
Or perhaps, "Brexit Not Settled".
I really thought it would be impossible to get anybody fired up about re-opening the 2019 Brexit settlement. Well, May looks set to do the impossible....
Rather like Osborne with austerity, the Tories need to redefine Brexit as a journey rather than a destination. Then they can fight future elections claiming that it’s too risky to elect Labour, because the job is only half done, and Labour will throw away all the progress that has been made. Brexit: a present continuous verb, not a noun.
Great idea, and it could work. But I think the Tories are losing their ability to set the agenda.
Only me!
People who attended People's Vote Rally 2018 = 700,000 People who voted Leave in 2016 = 17,400,000
Come come Mr Prassanan. You are supposed to be a scientist. The two cases are not comparable.
I don’t think he’s quite right - my reading is that the EU will also be satisfied if the para 49 backstop commitment to ‘full alignment’ is met by the U.K. agreeing to maintain SM/CU alignment in a way which doesn’t seek to divide the four freedoms or take the benefits of market access without the corresponding obligations. So that means financial contributions and continued freedom of movement and will probably have a snappy name like ‘Norway Super Plus’. Or perhaps ‘Not Leaving’.
Or perhaps, "Brexit Not Settled".
I really thought it would be impossible to get anybody fired up about re-opening the 2019 Brexit settlement. Well, May looks set to do the impossible....
Rather like Osborne with austerity, the Tories need to redefine Brexit as a journey rather than a destination. Then they can fight future elections claiming that it’s too risky to elect Labour, because the job is only half done, and Labour will throw away all the progress that has been made. Brexit: a present continuous verb, not a noun.
Great idea, and it could work. But I think the Tories are losing their ability to set the agenda.
Only me!
People who attended People's Vote Rally 2018 = 700,000 People who voted Leave in 2016 = 17,400,000
People who post nonsensical comparisons = 1
Surely "People who post nonsensical comparisons = fish cushions"?
So fish can't have cushions now? How are they to rest their weary fins? How would a fish chaise-longue work? They'll get fish cramp from the awkward pose.
Rather like Osborne with austerity, the Tories need to redefine Brexit as a journey rather than a destination. Then they can fight future elections claiming that it’s too risky to elect Labour, because the job is only half done, and Labour will throw away all the progress that has been made. Brexit: a present continuous verb, not a noun.
Great idea, and it could work. But I think the Tories are losing their ability to set the agenda.
The other problem is, and I'm going to channel my inner HYUFD here, the polls show most people are "tired" of Brexit and want it over and done with. The thought of this continuing into the next decade unresolved isn't going to be palatable even for those who have given My the benefit of the doubt thus far.
What do people think of the reports of large numbers of people turning up for early voting? Most commentators seem to think that is good for the Democrats, is that correct?
The conservative benches are typically empty for Brexit debates. You have a small huddle of Pro EU MPs and a bigger group of headbangers. The others stay away or if they do attend, have a worried distracted look.
Actually at the start of the debate the benches were quite full apart from the SNP but of course as time went on (over an hour) mps drifted away
Yes, and MPs can follow it over the screens, but it's not exactly a Show of Force by the ERG.
I used to tease the Tories on the European Affairs Select Committee that they consistently didn't bother to attend the subcommittee meetings examining in detail exactly the sort of EU legislation that they claimed to object to. But equally, I remember a meeting to discuss concerns about the Iraq war just before it started, chaired by the then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw. About a dozen MPs turned up, out of 650. "Evidently not an issue of much concern to colleagues," he said drily. The problem is that there's too much to do and if a meeting is merely discussing an issue without a vote, people don't attend.
I don’t think he’s quite right - my reading is that the EU will also be satisfied if the para 49 backstop commitment to ‘full alignment’ is met by the U.K. agreeing to maintain SM/CU alignment in a way which doesn’t seek to divide the four freedoms or take the benefits of market access without the corresponding obligations. So that means financial contributions and continued freedom of movement and will probably have a snappy name like ‘Norway Super Plus’. Or perhaps ‘Not Leaving’.
Or perhaps, "Brexit Not Settled".
I really thought it would be impossible to get anybody fired up about re-opening the 2019 Brexit settlement. Well, May looks set to do the impossible....
Rather like Osborne with austerity, the Tories need to redefine Brexit as a journey rather than a destination. Then they can fight future elections claiming that it’s too risky to elect Labour, because the job is only half done, and Labour will throw away all the progress that has been made. Brexit: a present continuous verb, not a noun.
Great idea, and it could work. But I think the Tories are losing their ability to set the agenda.
Only me!
People who attended People's Vote Rally 2018 = 700,000 People who voted Leave in 2016 = 17,400,000
Come come Mr Prassanan. You are supposed to be a scientist. The two cases are not comparable.
Come come Dr Prasannan. You derive as much pleasure from posting obscure references as I do...
I don’t think he’s quite right - my reading is that the EU will also be satisfied if the para 49 backstop commitment to ‘full alignment’ is met by the U.K. agreeing to maintain SM/CU alignment in a way which doesn’t seek to divide the four freedoms or take the benefits of market access without the corresponding obligations. So that means financial contributions and continued freedom of movement and will probably have a snappy name like ‘Norway Super Plus’. Or perhaps ‘Not Leaving’.
Or perhaps, "Brexit Not Settled".
I really thought it would be impossible to get anybody fired up about re-opening the 2019 Brexit settlement. Well, May looks set to do the impossible....
Rather like Osborne with austerity, the Tories need to redefine Brexit as a journey rather than a destination. Then they can fight future elections claiming that it’s too risky to elect Labour, because the job is only half done, and Labour will throw away all the progress that has been made. Brexit: a present continuous verb, not a noun.
Great idea, and it could work. But I think the Tories are losing their ability to set the agenda.
Only me!
People who attended People's Vote Rally 2018 = 700,000 People who voted Leave in 2016 = 17,400,000
Come come Dr Prasannan. You are supposed to be a scientist. The two cases are not comparable.
17,400,000 VOTES mean nothing to you, Mr Reccidivist?
The conservative benches are typically empty for Brexit debates. You have a small huddle of Pro EU MPs and a bigger group of headbangers. The others stay away or if they do attend, have a worried distracted look.
Actually at the start of the debate the benches were quite full apart from the SNP but of course as time went on (over an hour) mps drifted away
Yes, and MPs can follow it over the screens, but it's not exactly a Show of Force by the ERG.
I used to tease the Tories on the European Affairs Select Committee that they consistently didn't bother to attend the subcommittee meetings examining in detail exactly the sort of EU legislation that they claimed to object to. But equally, I remember a meeting to discuss concerns about the Iraq war just before it started, chaired by the then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw. About a dozen MPs turned up, out of 650. "Evidently not an issue of much concern to colleagues," he said drily. The problem is that there's too much to do and if a meeting is merely discussing an issue without a vote, people don't attend.
A week ago the Cox report on bullying in the House of Commons was published. And yesterday we read of an MP who talks about knifing the PM in a brutal way.
If proof were needed of what the Cox report said that MP’s words provided it. I hope he or she is unmasked soon so that the opprobrium they so richly deserve is unleashed on them.
Good to see MPs from all parties criticising such revolting language.
I’ve just been trying to summarise today’s statement for a client newsletter and reached roughly the same conclusion, but still wonder if I’m missing something. Did May really say that her ‘improved offer’ was to keep the UK in partial alignment with NI, but that it could only be temporary and there could be no barriers between the UK and NI? Because that doesn’t seem to offer anything new at all to meet the concerns raised the EU.
Her modus operandi is to say whatever is needed to satisfy the current audience, and kick any awkward decisions down the road. I imagine she will agree a plausible scenario with the EU on how the backstop will end, everyone will solemnly confirm that they don't want it to go on indefinitely, and Parliament will let it through. Then we can spend the next few years peacefully debating whether the necessary conditions have been met.
I think you may have got it in one Nick
Agreed. But it means she leaves a growing trail of aggrieved people who though she meant what she said. Grieve (the next temporary PM) is an important example.
Well that is a first. I haven't heard Grieve mentioned by anyone. He would have far too many mps against him. They may as well co-op Vince, well maybe not
If there is no deal and parliament wants to take control to prevent it, they first need a VONC in the government. The government falls and the LOTO has 14 days to show he can form a government with the confidence of the house - which he can't. Meanwhile the clock is ticking towards no deal. The polls indicate that neither party will get a majority in a GE and chaos faces us. In this circumstance I think it is possible that a cross-party group could command the confidence of the house if they a) made it clear that it was temporary, for say six months b) asked the EU for an extension of A50 for six months c) agreed to hold a referendum (leave or remain) within the six months with a commitment that this would be the final say on it for twenty years. NB Leave would mean no deal crash out. d) were led by someone who was competent, a parliamentarian, had the respect of the house and was without personal ambition.
TM said she will bring back her deal and it is upto the HOC to decide.
No deal is unacceptable and in those circumstances a second referendum becomes almost inevitable
Yet she has ruled it out and promised today that in all circumstances the UK will leave the EU on 29 March 2019. Unless you are saying she is lying....
My gut instinct is that the Dems are going to win big in the House.
I’m not sure if I should bet on my gut instinct:
Trump's base is obdurate, but has visibly shrunk. Outside of his base, there is an overwhelming desire to see the GOP lose the House. On the other hand, there is no strong love from swing voters for the Dems at the moment as they are more and more controlled by their left wing.
So I am expecting a blue wave in House elections, but a very much tighter race for the Senate, with the GOP probably, but not certainty, holding on by their fingertips.
I don’t think he’s quite right - my reading is that the EU will also be satisfied if the para 49 backstop commitment to ‘full alignment’ is met by the U.K. agreeing to maintain SM/CU alignment in a way which doesn’t seek to divide the four freedoms or take the benefits of market access without the corresponding obligations. So that means financial contributions and continued freedom of movement and will probably have a snappy name like ‘Norway Super Plus’. Or perhaps ‘Not Leaving’.
Or perhaps, "Brexit Not Settled".
I really thought it would be impossible to get anybody fired up about re-opening the 2019 Brexit settlement. Well, May looks set to do the impossible....
Rather like Osborne with austerity, the Tories need to redefine Brexit as a journey rather than a destination. Then they can fight future elections claiming that it’s too risky to elect Labour, because the job is only half done, and Labour will throw away all the progress that has been made. Brexit: a present continuous verb, not a noun.
Great idea, and it could work. But I think the Tories are losing their ability to set the agenda.
Only me!
People who attended People's Vote Rally 2018 = 700,000 People who voted Leave in 2016 = 17,400,000
Come come Dr Prasannan. You are supposed to be a scientist. The two cases are not comparable.
17,400,000 VOTES mean nothing to you, Mr Reccidivist?
Yes it does certainly mean something to me. But so does the number 634,751 - the number of votes that would have to change to get a different result. It's a big number, but smaller than the number who turned out last Saturday.
It helped that the ref played for Arsenal tonight. His first half performance was abject, and guess which team got the benefit of his numerous errors. Arsenal played some great stuff in the second half but the ref simply robbed Leicester.
Whatever politicians say, no-deal will lead to another vote. all it would take is for the DUP to abstain from a vote of confidence (which would happen). it would be as tight as 1979 but without the DUP (even if they abstain) the tories would lose. a defeat of the government by a no confidence motion will make the Tory vote share drop by enough for Labour to win (even if not outright).
I don't see why the DUP would not back the government in the event of no deal, it is if a NI only backstop is agreed they will not back the Govt.
In the event of no deal it'd potentially be Grieve, Soubry and some others no confidence get the Govt.
Then Corbyn PM or EUref2 and Remain.
Hardline Brexiteers will have killed the chance of a FTA for GB beyond BINO by their refusal to compromise and will have nobody to blame but themselves
You are determined to miss the point.
The ERG have forced May to set out criteria today that the EU will never agree. Surely you can see that?
The ERG are not going to have to vote down May’s deal at this rate - she simply won’t get one.
The backstop is not the ERGs fault, nor their idea. But they have played it beautifully against her and she is now going to end up vetoing her own deal. She can’t backtrack on her latest ‘four point plan’ but nor can she deliver it. No need to get rid of her right now.
Firstly there was nothing May said today which prevents her agreeing a backstop with a break clause e.g. a technical solution is found to the Irish border.
Secondly May also refused to rule out a second EU referendum for the first time today if negotiations break down so as I said if the ERG push it too far they may end with No Brexit at all
Exactly what do you think May said today - do you have a quote? Because I heard her rule out a second referendum, a general election and an extension to article 50. She promised the UK would leave on time regardless of the circumstances.
But in the end, May is not going to be able to fudge. The ERG trap is closing - forced her to make commitments today that the EU will not accept and Cabinet forced her to obtain legal advice from Cox, who won’t be fooled, about whether the UK can leave the backstop unilaterally which is what she promised today,
I don’t think he’s quite right - my reading is that the EU will also be satisfied if the para 49 backstop commitment to ‘full alignment’ is met by the U.K. agreeing to maintain SM/CU alignment in a way which doesn’t seek to divide the four freedoms or take the benefits of market access without the corresponding obligations. So that means financial contributions and continued freedom of movement and will probably have a snappy name like ‘Norway Super Plus’. Or perhaps ‘Not Leaving’.
Or perhaps, "Brexit Not Settled".
I really thought it would be impossible to get anybody fired up about re-opening the 2019 Brexit settlement. Well, May looks set to do the impossible....
Rather like Osborne with austerity, the Tories need to redefine Brexit as a journey rather than a destination. Then they can fight future elections claiming that it’s too risky to elect Labour, because the job is only half done, and Labour will throw away all the progress that has been made. Brexit: a present continuous verb, not a noun.
Great idea, and it could work. But I think the Tories are losing their ability to set the agenda.
Only me!
People who attended People's Vote Rally 2018 = 700,000 People who voted Leave in 2016 = 17,400,000
Come come Dr Prasannan. You are supposed to be a scientist. The two cases are not comparable.
17,400,000 VOTES mean nothing to you, Mr Reccidivist?
My gut instinct is that the Dems are going to win big in the House.
I’m not sure if I should bet on my gut instinct:
Trump's base is obdurate, but has visibly shrunk. Outside of his base, there is an overwhelming desire to see the GOP lose the House. On the other hand, there is no strong love from swing voters for the Dems at the moment as they are more and more controlled by their left wing.
So I am expecting a blue wave in House elections, but a very much tighter race for the Senate, with the GOP probably, but not certainty, holding on by their fingertips.
Ok, I am going out on a limb here.
But I think the GOP/Trump party are about to get an absolute shellacking. Massive, angry Dem turnout.
I am on Dem Senate and I know it is mad, given BF rules on indies.
Nope, if we go to No Deal even Remain would be better than the economic damage and risk of the Union breaking up that would result from No Deal. Voters prefer Remain to No Deal 55% to 45%.
In any case most Northern Irish voters want to stay in the single market and customs union, it would be far better to agree the backstop (with a break if a technical solution is found to the Irish border) and work for a FTA for GB
Whatever politicians say, no-deal will lead to another vote. all it would take is for the DUP to abstain from a vote of confidence (which would happen). it would be as tight as 1979 but without the DUP (even if they abstain) the tories would lose. a defeat of the government by a no confidence motion will make the Tory vote share drop by enough for Labour to win (even if not outright).
I don't see why the DUP would not back the government in the event of no deal, it is if a NI only backstop is agreed they will not back the Govt.
In the event of no deal it'd potentially be Grieve, Soubry and some others no confidence get the Govt.
Then Corbyn PM or EUref2 and Remain.
Hardline Brexiteers will have killed the chance of a FTA for GB beyond BINO by their refusal to compromise and will have nobody to blame but themselves
You are determined to miss the point.
The ERG have forced May to set out criteria today that the EU will never agree. Surely you can see that?
The ERG are not going to have to vote down May’s deal at this rate - she simply won’t get one.
The backstop is not the ERGs fault, nor their idea. But they have played it beautifully against her and she is now going to end up vetoing her own deal. She can’t backtrack on her latest ‘four point plan’ but nor can she deliver it. No need to get rid of her right now.
You have no idea what the deal will be, as does anyone else, and your portrayal of ERG would do Comical Ali justice
They have shot themselves in the foot and been hit by a backlash that empowers TM
Wouldn’t you fall over if you were shot in the foot AND hit by a backlash at the same time?
Because punters don't know what to think after recent events?
One of those said Clinton had a 100% chance of winning, remember.
These are simulation models so I doubt if either of them had Clinton at 100% chance of winning. From memory, 538 had her at about 70%.
Both modelling companies have their reputations at stake so they are trying their best to use up-to-date data and follow reasonable and tested assumptions. They recognise the uncertainty and each give a wide spread. They are the best estimate available. If punters "don't know what to think" they shouldn't bet!
Given that Trumpton lost the popular vote by three million votes, it’s hardly surprising that many models gave it to Hillary. I’m not sure what the odds of a 3m PV win - EC loss are, but I suspect they are very long.
Not so long, TX is way less GOP than CA is Democrat but both are safe. It's the Dems running up the score in CA in particular that produces the disparity.
Yes, Trump actually led the popular vote until the California votes came in
California should split into two states and get two more senators and more EC votes.
Or 3 - NorCal, SoCal and Central Coast
You’d stand s good chance of (4 GOP and 2 Dem though)
What do people think of the reports of large numbers of people turning up for early voting? Most commentators seem to think that is good for the Democrats, is that correct?
Tim B here said the other day that the consensus among commentators is that they had no clue what was happening.
But early voting, like its cousin postal voting, is only useful because it means you don't forget to vote on the day. If you'd have voted anyway it doen't help to do it early.
I don't see why the DUP would not back the government in the event of no deal, it is if a NI only backstop is agreed they will not back the Govt.
In the event of no deal it'd potentially be Grieve, Soubry and some others no confidence get the Govt.
Then Corbyn PM or EUref2 and Remain.
Hardline Brexiteers will have killed the chance of a FTA for GB beyond BINO by their refusal to compromise and will have nobody to blame but themselves
You are determined to miss the point.
The ERG have forced May to set out criteria today that the EU will never agree. Surely you can see that?
The ERG are not going to have to vote down May’s deal at this rate - she simply won’t get one.
The backstop is not the ERGs fault, nor their idea. But they have played it beautifully against her and she is now going to end up vetoing her own deal. She can’t backtrack on her latest ‘four point plan’ but nor can she deliver it. No need to get rid of her right now.
Firstly there was nothing May said today which prevents her agreeing a backstop with a break clause e.g. a technical solution is found to the Iri it too far they may end with No Brexit at all
Exactly what do you think May said today - do you have a quote? Because I heard her rule out a second referendum, a general election and an extension to article 50. She promised the UK would leave on time regardless of the circumstances.
But in the end, May is not going to be able to fudge. The ERG trap is closing - forced her to make commitments today that the EU will not accept and Cabinet forced her to obtain legal advice from Cox, who won’t be fooled, about whether the UK can leave the backstop unilaterally which is what she promised today,
She will end up with no deal herself.
May herself said today she was only ruling out EUref2 "at this stage of the negotiations", so if negotiations break down anything is possible.
Anyone who thinks the ERG has any sort of trap is deluded, May will agree a backstop with a get out clause if a technical solution found to the Irish border, she will tell them vaguely what they want to hear but she is basically slowly boiling them until it is too late and she signs the deal with the EU at the end of the month.
I don’t think he’s quite right - my reading is that the EU will also be satisfied if the para 49 backstop commitment to ‘full alignment’ is met by the U.K. agreeing to maintain SM/CU alignment in a way which doesn’t seek to divide the four freedoms or take the benefits of market access without the corresponding obligations. So that means financial contributions and continued freedom of movement and will probably have a snappy name like ‘Norway Super Plus’. Or perhaps ‘Not Leaving’.
Or perhaps, "Brexit Not Settled".
I really thought it would be impossible to get anybody fired up about re-opening the 2019 Brexit settlement. Well, May looks set to do the impossible....
Rather like Osborne with austerity, the Tories need to redefine Brexit as a journey rather than a destination. Then they can fight future elections claiming that it’s too risky to elect Labour, because the job is only half done, and Labour will throw away all the progress that has been made. Brexit: a present continuous verb, not a noun.
Great idea, and it could work. But I think the Tories are losing their ability to set the agenda.
Only me!
People who attended People's Vote Rally 2018 = 700,000 People who voted Leave in 2016 = 17,400,000
Come come Dr Prasannan. You are supposed to be a scientist. The two cases are not comparable.
17,400,000 VOTES mean nothing to you, Mr Reccidivist?
Yes it does certainly mean something to me. But so does the number 634,751 - the number of votes that would have to change to get a different result. It's a big number, but smaller than the number who turned out last Saturday.
I was talking today to a guy who didn't vote in the referendum.
I asked him if there was a second vote what would he do
Sit it out he says
Amusingly he was going through the pros and cons of the EU
He had some serious cons
His two main pros -
He likes to travel (except he mainly travels further afield than Europe)
He has friends in Europe - when asked why he couldn't still be friends he thought about it and said, well - I guess I still could.
Post-Brexit England will be filled with golden sunshine and healthy people leaning on country stiles gazing over fields of barley and corn and downing well-earned ales served by buxom barmaids wanting a roll in the hay after their shift in the tavern.
No one will get ill or work in a lab. There are no foreigners in sight.....
I’ve just been trying to summarise today’s statement for a client newsletter and reached roughly the same conclusion, but still wonder if I’m missing something. Did May really say that her ‘improved offer’ was to keep the UK in partial alignment with NI, but that it could only be temporary and there could be no barriers between the UK and NI? Because that doesn’t seem to offer anything new at all to meet the concerns raised the EU.
Her modus operandi is to say whatever is needed to satisfy the current audience, and et.
I think you may have got it in one Nick
Agreed. But it means she leaves a growing trail of aggrieved people who though she meant what she said. Grieve (the next temporary PM) is an important example.
Well that is a first. I haven't heard Grieve mentioned by anyone. He would have far too many mps against him. They may as well co-op Vince, well maybe not
If there is no deal and parliament wants to take control to prevent it, they first need a VONC in the government. The government falls and the LOTO has 14 days to show he can form a government with the confidence of the house - which he can't. Meanwhile the clock is ticking towards no deal. The polls indicate that neither party will get a majority in a GE and chaos faces us. In this circumstance I think it is possible that a cross-party group could command the confidence of the house if they a) made it clear that it was temporary, for say six months b) asked the EU for an extension of A50 for six months c) agreed to hold a referendum (leave or remain) within the six months with a commitment that this would be the final say on it for twenty years. NB Leave would mean no deal crash out. d) were led by someone who was competent, a parliamentarian, had the respect of the house and was without personal ambition.
TM said she will bring back her deal and it is upto the HOC to decide.
No deal is unacceptable and in those circumstances a second referendum becomes almost inevitable
Yet she has ruled it out and promised today that in all circumstances the UK will leave the EU on 29 March 2019. Unless you are saying she is lying....
I don't use lying or idiots. It is not my way. And no deal will not happen
If I were a conspiracy theorist I would be looking for Russian tourists who had recently visited Honduras. The refugee march towards the US is fortuitously timed for the mid-terms for Trump.
If they want to avoid Hard Brexit they should tell the EU to stop trying to annex Northern Ireland...
Voters in Northern Ireland want to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union, since when was giving voters what they want annexation? Especially as it still allows for a FTA for GB with the EU
If I were a conspiracy theorist I would be looking for Russian tourists who had recently visited Honduras. The refugee march towards the US is fortuitously timed for the mid-terms for Trump.
If stopping refugees is the be all and end all for you I would imagine you were 99% certain to be voting Republican in the midterms anyway. If the Democrats win it will be because of healthcare, the need for a check on Trump etc controlling immigration is already factored in for Trump and the GOP.
Though the issue could boost Hispanic turnout for Democrats
What do people think of the reports of large numbers of people turning up for early voting? Most commentators seem to think that is good for the Democrats, is that correct?
Tim B here said the other day that the consensus among commentators is that they had no clue what was happening.
But early voting, like its cousin postal voting, is only useful because it means you don't forget to vote on the day. If you'd have voted anyway it doen't help to do it early.
I've seen a lot of "this means something" but very little explanation of why it does so.
I really thought it would be impossible to get anybody fired up about re-opening the 2019 Brexit settlement. Well, May looks set to do the impossible....
Rather like Osborne with austerity, the Tories need to redefine Brexit as a journey rather than a destination. Then they can fight future elections claiming that it’s too risky to elect Labour, because the job is only half done, and Labour will throw away all the progress that has been made. Brexit: a present continuous verb, not a noun.
Great idea, and it could work. But I think the Tories are losing their ability to set the agenda.
Only me!
People who attended People's Vote Rally 2018 = 700,000 People who voted Leave in 2016 = 17,400,000
Come come Dr Prasannan. You are supposed to be a scientist. The two cases are not comparable.
17,400,000 VOTES mean nothing to you, Mr Reccidivist?
Yes it does certainly mean something to me. But so does the number 634,751 - the number of votes that would have to change to get a different result. It's a big number, but smaller than the number who turned out last Saturday.
I was talking today to a guy who didn't vote in the referendum.
I asked him if there was a second vote what would he do
Sit it out he says
Amusingly he was going through the pros and cons of the EU
He had some serious cons
His two main pros -
He likes to travel (except he mainly travels further afield than Europe)
He has friends in Europe - when asked why he couldn't still be friends he thought about it and said, well - I guess I still could.
Strangely he never mentioned financial Armageddon
Well I am not fussed by financial Armageddon either. None of us know what the effect of Brexit is going to be on the economy. Even if it is bad it won't feel that bad. Most spending is of money we don't have, on things we don't want, to impress people we don't like. If we are all down around 10% we'll be just the same relative to each other so won't notice it.
If I were a conspiracy theorist I would be looking for Russian tourists who had recently visited Honduras. The refugee march towards the US is fortuitously timed for the mid-terms for Trump.
Mexico is mostly peaceful and relatively prosperous compared to most Central American countries. Why are they so determined to enter the USA?
I don't see why the DUP would not back the government in the event of no deal, it is if a NI only backstop is agreed they will not back the Govt.
In the event of no deal it'd potentially be Grieve, Soubry and some others no confidence get the Govt.
Then Corbyn PM or EUref2 and Remain.
Hardline Brexiteers will have killed the chance of a FTA for GB beyond BINO by their refusal to compromise and will have nobody to blame but themselves
You are determined to miss the point.
The ERG have forced May to set out criteria today that the EU will never agree. Surely you can see that?
The ERG are not going to have to vote down May’s deal at this rate - she simply won’t get one.
The backstop is not the ERGs fault, nor their idea. But they have played it beautifully against her and she is now going to end up vetoing her own deal. She can’t backtrack on her latest ‘four point plan’ but nor can she deliver it. No need to get rid of her right now.
Firstly there was nothing May said today which prevents her agreeing a backstop with a break clause e.g. a technical solution is found to the Iri it too far they may end with No Brexit at all
Exactly what do you think May said today - do you have a quote? Because I heard her rule out a second referendum, a general election and an extension to article 50. She promised the UK would leave on time regardless of the circumstances.
But in the end, May is not going to be able to fudge. The ERG trap is closing - forced her to make commitments today that the EU will not accept and Cabinet forced her to obtain legal advice from Cox, who won’t be fooled, about whether the UK can leave the backstop unilaterally which is what she promised today,
She will end up with no deal herself.
May herself said today she was only ruling out EUref2 "at this stage of the negotiations", so if negotiations break down anything is possible.
Anyone who thinks the ERG has any sort of trap is deluded, May will agree a backstop with a get out clause if a technical solution found to the Irish border, she will tell them vaguely what they want to hear but she is basically slowly boiling them until it is too late and she signs the deal with the EU at the end of the month.
If I were a conspiracy theorist I would be looking for Russian tourists who had recently visited Honduras. The refugee march towards the US is fortuitously timed for the mid-terms for Trump.
Mexico is mostly peaceful and relatively prosperous compared to most Central American countries. Why are they so determined to enter the USA?
They are about to get a populist leftist friend of Corbyn inaugurated as their President next month?
If I were a conspiracy theorist I would be looking for Russian tourists who had recently visited Honduras. The refugee march towards the US is fortuitously timed for the mid-terms for Trump.
If stopping refugees is the be all and end all for you I would imagine you were 99% certain to be voting Republican in the midterms anyway
If you were motivated to vote. But there will be voters for whom it is one of a mix of concerns and if it is more prominent in the news then it is possible it will be more prominent in voters minds when they vote. It also distracts attention from issues that might be negative for the Republicans.
In some respects it was the direction of the media attention span - emails! - that made the difference in 2016. This helps with that too.
If I were a conspiracy theorist I would be looking for Russian tourists who had recently visited Honduras. The refugee march towards the US is fortuitously timed for the mid-terms for Trump.
If 2016 is a guide it will be 6-12 months later before we really know what the Russians (or maybe others) have done to interfere.
This is a big problem for democracies, you need to fight intelligence operations at a very high speed in the era of the internet.
I don't see why the DUP would not back the government in the event of no deal, it is if a NI only backstop is agreed they will not back the Govt.
In the event of no deal it'd potentially be Grieve, Soubry and some others no confidence get the Govt.
Then Corbyn PM or EUref2 and Remain.
Hardline Brexiteers will have killed the chance of a FTA for GB beyond BINO by their refusal to compromise and will have nobody to blame but themselves
You are determined to miss the point.
The ERG have forced May to set out criteria today that the EU will never agree. Surely you can see that?
The ERG are not going to have to vote down May’s deal at this rate - she simply won’t get one.
The backstop is not the ERGs fault, nor their idea. But they have played it beautifully against her and she is now going to end up vetoing her own deal. She can’t backtrack on her latest ‘four point plan’ but nor can she deliver it. No need to get rid of her right now.
Firstly there was nothing May said today which prevents her agreeing a backstop with a break clause e.g. a technical solution is found to the Iri it too far they may end with No Brexit at all
Exactly what do you think May said today - do you have a quote? Because I heard her rule out a second referendum, a general election and an extension to article 50. She promised the UK would leave on time regardless of the circumstances.
But in the end, May is not going to be able to fudge. The ERG trap is closing - forced her to make commitments today that the EU will not accept and Cabinet forced her to obtain legal advice from Cox, who won’t be fooled, about whether the UK can leave the backstop unilaterally which is what she promised today,
She will end up with no deal herself.
May herself said today she was only ruling out EUref2 "at this stage of the negotiations", so if negotiations break down anything is possible.
Anyone who thinks the ERG has any sort of trap is deluded, May will agree a backstop with a get out clause if a technical solution found to the Irish border, she will tell them vaguely what they want to hear but she is basically slowly boiling them until it is too late and she signs the deal with the EU at the end of the month.
Can you provide the complete question and answer?
That was a quote from the Parliamentary debate today
Post-Brexit England will be filled with golden sunshine and healthy people leaning on country stiles gazing over fields of barley and corn and downing well-earned ales served by buxom barmaids wanting a roll in the hay after their shift in the tavern.
No one will get ill or work in a lab. There are no foreigners in sight.....
Of course! There are no scientific research labs or universities in countries outside the EU!
I don’t think he’s quite right - my reading is that the EU will also be satisfied if the para 49 backstop commitment to ‘full alignment’ is met by the U.K. agreeing to maintain SM/CU alignment in a way which doesn’t seek to divide the four freedoms or take the benefits of market access without the corresponding obligations. So that means financial contributions and continued freedom of movement and will probably have a snappy name like ‘Norway Super Plus’. Or perhaps ‘Not Leaving’.
Or perhaps, "Brexit Not Settled".
I really thought it would be impossible to get anybody fired up about re-opening the 2019 Brexit settlement. Well, May looks set to do the impossible....
Rather like Osborne with austerity, the Tories need to redefine Brexit as a journey rather than a destination. Then they can fight future elections claiming that it’s too risky to elect Labour, because the job is only half done, and Labour will throw away all the progress that has been made. Brexit: a present continuous verb, not a noun.
Great idea, and it could work. But I think the Tories are losing their ability to set the agenda.
Only me!
People who attended People's Vote Rally 2018 = 700,000 People who voted Leave in 2016 = 17,400,000
People who attended Leave Means Leave Rally 2018 = 1,200 People who voted Leave in 2016 = 17,400,000
People who attended People’s Vote Rally 2018 = 700,000 People who would vote for a people’s vote (extrapolated) = 10,150,000,000
Roger Gale - Is it not the case that talk of a second referendum at this crucial stage in the negotiations can only undermine the Prime Minister’s negotiating position? Will she carry on, ignore the siren voices and get the best deal she can for the people of this country?
Theresa May - I agree that it is important, at this stage of the negotiations, that the European Union is in no doubt that we will be leaving the European Union on 29 March next year and that we are negotiating our withdrawal agreement and our future relationship. My determination is to put the national interest first and get a good deal for the UK.
I don't see why the DUP would not back the government in the event of no deal, it is if a NI only backstop is agreed they will not back the Govt.
In the event of no deal it'd potentially be Grieve, Soubry and some others no confidence get the Govt.
Then Corbyn PM or EUref2 and Remain.
Hardline Brexiteers will have killed the chance of a FTA for GB beyond BINO by their refusal to compromise and will have nobody to blame but themselves
You are determined to miss the point.
The ERG have forced May to set out criteria today that the EU will never agree. Surely you can see that?
The ERG are not going to have to vote down May’s deal at this rate - she simply won’t get one.
The backstop is not the ERGs fault, nor their idea. But they have played it beautifully against her and she is now going to end up vetoing her own deal. She can’t backtrack on her latest ‘four point plan’ but nor can she deliver it. No need to get rid of her right now.
Firstly there was nothing May said today which prevents her agreeing a backstop with a break clause e.g. a technical solution is found to the Iri it too far they may end with No Brexit at all
Exactly what do you think Mal herself.
May herself said today she was only ruling out EUref2 "at this stage of the negotiations", so if negotiations break down anything is possible.
Anyone who thinks the ERG has any sort of trap is deluded, May will agree a backstop with a get out clause if a technical solution found to the Irish border, she will tell them vaguely what they want to hear but she is basically slowly boiling them until it is too late and she signs the deal with the EU at the end of the month.
Can you provide the complete question and answer?
It was also reported that May's advisers are working on the assumption she will stop No Deal in all circumstances yesterday in the papers, they are ready for the Deal with the EU, they are really working on a way around the ERG.
Never forget May voted Remain, she has no interest in No Deal as she knows she will be definitely be ousted sooner rather than later if that is the end result. She has every interest in stringing along the Brexit and free trade talks as long as possible as the longer they go on the longer she stays in No 10
Roger Gale - Is it not the case that talk of a second referendum at this crucial stage in the negotiations can only undermine the Prime Minister’s negotiating position? Will she carry on, ignore the siren voices and get the best deal she can for the people of this country?
Theresa May - I agree that it is important, at this stage of the negotiations, that the European Union is in no doubt that we will be leaving the European Union on 29 March next year and that we are negotiating our withdrawal agreement and our future relationship. My determination is to put the national interest first and get a good deal for the UK.
If I were a conspiracy theorist I would be looking for Russian tourists who had recently visited Honduras. The refugee march towards the US is fortuitously timed for the mid-terms for Trump.
If stopping refugees is the be all and end all for you I would imagine you were 99% certain to be voting Republican in the midterms anyway
If you were motivated to vote. But there will be voters for whom it is one of a mix of concerns and if it is more prominent in the news then it is possible it will be more prominent in voters minds when they vote. It also distracts attention from issues that might be negative for the Republicans.
In some respects it was the direction of the media attention span - emails! - that made the difference in 2016. This helps with that too.
Not really, Hillary was from the incumbent party in 2016 and the GOP Congress' approval ratings are even worse than hers.
It is Independents in the more prosperous suburbs who are moving to the Democrats and who will lose the House for the GOP, they are much more relaxed about immigration than the Trump base who are still in the GOP column anyway
"MPs should not criticise soldiers for being obese because many of them are overweight themselves, a defence minister has suggested.
Mark Lancaster was asked in the Commons about figures showing that there are 18,000 clinically obese members of the armed forces. A further 398 suffer from type 2 diabetes, 160 are on diet pills and 16 have had liposuction."
If I were a conspiracy theorist I would be looking for Russian tourists who had recently visited Honduras. The refugee march towards the US is fortuitously timed for the mid-terms for Trump.
Mexico is mostly peaceful and relatively prosperous compared to most Central American countries. Why are they so determined to enter the USA?
I don't know how the stats compare between the countries as a whole but I thought that Mexico City was notorious as one of the most violent cities in the world due to the drugs cartels.
Because punters don't know what to think after recent events?
One of those said Clinton had a 100% chance of winning, remember.
These are simulation models so I doubt if either of them had Clinton at 100% chance of winning. From memory, 538 had her at about 70%.
Both modelling companies have their reputations at stake so they are trying their best to use up-to-date data and follow reasonable and tested assumptions. They recognise the uncertainty and each give a wide spread. They are the best estimate available. If punters "don't know what to think" they shouldn't bet!
Given that Trumpton lost the popular vote by three million votes, it’s hardly surprising that many models gave it to Hillary. I’m not sure what the odds of a 3m PV win - EC loss are, but I suspect they are very long.
Not so long, TX is way less GOP than CA is Democrat but both are safe. It's the Dems running up the score in CA in particular that produces the disparity.
Yes, Trump actually led the popular vote until the California votes came in
California should split into two states and get two more senators and more EC votes.
Or 3 - NorCal, SoCal and Central Coast
You’d stand s good chance of (4 GOP and 2 Dem though)
Some rich chap who is always pushing the division of California in various ways had just such a proposal up for potential vote, but IIRC it ran into legal difficulties and he's since withdrawn it.
MPs should not criticise soldiers for being obese because many of them are overweight themselves, a defence minister has suggested.
That's sounds like a pretty stupid counter to make. While obesity is a problem many will face and deserves tackling, different jobs will have different reasonable levels of expected fitness. Was that the best he could come up with?
Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
Pretty uncontroversial I would say. If you feel the people need to confirm things, then they need all the options. Pretty obvious way for Remain to not be risked though - have MPs just do their jobs already.
Because punters don't know what to think after recent events?
One of those said Clinton had a 100% chance of winning, remember.
These are simulation models so I doubt if either of them had Clinton at 100% chance of winning. From memory, 538 had her at about 70%.
Both modelling companies have their reputations at stake so they are trying their best to use up-to-date data and follow reasonable and tested assumptions. They recognise the uncertainty and each give a wide spread. They are the best estimate available. If punters "don't know what to think" they shouldn't bet!
Given that Trumpton lost the popular vote by three million votes, it’s hardly surprising that many models gave it to Hillary. I’m not sure what the odds of a 3m PV win - EC loss are, but I suspect they are very long.
Not so long, TX is way less GOP than CA is Democrat but both are safe. It's the Dems running up the score in CA in particular that produces the disparity.
Yes, Trump actually led the popular vote until the California votes came in
California should split into two states and get two more senators and more EC votes.
Or 3 - NorCal, SoCal and Central Coast
You’d stand s good chance of (4 GOP and 2 Dem though)
Some rich chap who is always pushing the division of California in various ways had just such a proposal up for potential vote, but IIRC it ran into legal difficulties and he's since withdrawn it.
That's right, and in any case it was very unpopular when polled. The States are very embedded into American identity. It would be like re-drawing the borders between England, Scotland and Wales for some administrative convenience. (Yes, I know that legally Monmouthshire was moved from England to Wales in the 70s, but it was already regarded by almost everyone as Welsh.)
Because punters don't know what to think after recent events?
One of those said Clinton had a 100% chance of winning, remember.
These are simulation models so I doubt if either of them had Clinton at 100% chance of winning. From memory, 538 had her at about 70%.
Both modelling companies have their reputations at stake so they are trying their best to use up-to-date data and follow reasonable and tested assumptions. They recognise the uncertainty and each give a wide spread. They are the best estimate available. If punters "don't know what to think" they shouldn't bet!
Given that Trumpton lost the popular vote by three million votes, it’s hardly surprising that many models gave it to Hillary. I’m not sure what the odds of a 3m PV win - EC loss are, but I suspect they are very long.
Not so long, TX is way less GOP than CA is Democrat but both are safe. It's the Dems running up the score in CA in particular that produces the disparity.
Yes, Trump actually led the popular vote until the California votes came in
California should split into two states and get two more senators and more EC votes.
Or 3 - NorCal, SoCal and Central Coast
You’d stand s good chance of (4 GOP and 2 Dem though)
Some rich chap who is always pushing the division of California in various ways had just such a proposal up for potential vote, but IIRC it ran into legal difficulties and he's since withdrawn it.
It was challenged in court on the basis that it was not an amendment to California's constitution, but a revision, and therefore the ballot initiative approach was not applicable. The judges on the CA Supreme Court want to consider the matter, so have told the state to remove the initiative from the ballot while they do.
If I were a conspiracy theorist I would be looking for Russian tourists who had recently visited Honduras. The refugee march towards the US is fortuitously timed for the mid-terms for Trump.
Mexico is mostly peaceful and relatively prosperous compared to most Central American countries. Why are they so determined to enter the USA?
Because compared to the USA Mexico is decidedly not peaceful or prosperous. Yes there is a certain degree of economic motivation, but the Central Americans don't want to stay in Mexico mostly because they are especially targetted for violence by the cartels and other criminal gangs.
It's worth noting that these "caravans" are not at all new, there was another one earlier this year and there have been others in previous years; they are caused by the Central Americans wanting to band together for safety. Trump has particularly latched on to them as being some new threat, but I understand the previous one just reached the US border, didn't get let in and dispersed.
Because punters don't know what to think after recent events?
One of those said Clinton had a 100% chance of winning, remember.
These are simulation models so I doubt if either of them had Clinton at 100% chance of winning. From memory, 538 had her at about 70%.
Both modelling companies have their reputations at stake so they are trying their best to use up-to-date data and follow reasonable and tested assumptions. They recognise the uncertainty and each give a wide spread. They are the best estimate available. If punters "don't know what to think" they shouldn't bet!
Given that Trumpton lost the popular vote by three million votes, it’s hardly surprising that many models gave it to Hillary. I’m not sure what the odds of a 3m PV win - EC loss are, but I suspect they are very long.
Not so long, TX is way less GOP than CA is Democrat but both are safe. It's the Dems running up the score in CA in particular that produces the disparity.
Yes, Trump actually led the popular vote until the California votes came in
California should split into two states and get two more senators and more EC votes.
Or 3 - NorCal, SoCal and Central Coast
You’d stand s good chance of (4 GOP and 2 Dem though)
Some rich chap who is always pushing the division of California in various ways had just such a proposal up for potential vote, but IIRC it ran into legal difficulties and he's since withdrawn it.
That's right, and in any case it was very unpopular when polled. The States are very embedded into American identity. It would be like re-drawing the borders between England, Scotland and Wales for some administrative convenience. (Yes, I know that legally Monmouthshire was moved from England to Wales in the 70s, but it was already regarded by almost everyone as Welsh.)
Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
Amber favouring another referendum rather than a general election... I'm sure the fact the majority in her constituency has dwindled to 346 has nothing to do with this...
Because punters don't know what to think after recent events?
One of those said Clinton had a 100% chance of winning, remember.
These are simulation models so I doubt if either of them had Clinton at 100% chance of winning. From memory, 538 had her at about 70%.
Both modelling companies have their reputations at stake so they are trying their best to use up-to-date data and follow reasonable and tested assumptions. They recognise the uncertainty and each give a wide spread. They are the best estimate available. If punters "don't know what to think" they shouldn't bet!
Given that Trumpton lost the popular vote by three million votes, it’s hardly surprising that many models gave it to Hillary. I’m not sure what the odds of a 3m PV win - EC loss are, but I suspect they are very long.
Not so long, TX is way less GOP than CA is Democrat but both are safe. It's the Dems running up the score in CA in particular that produces the disparity.
Yes, Trump actually led the popular vote until the California votes came in
California should split into two states and get two more senators and more EC votes.
Or 3 - NorCal, SoCal and Central Coast
You’d stand s good chance of (4 GOP and 2 Dem though)
Some rich chap who is always pushing the division of California in various ways had just such a proposal up for potential vote, but IIRC it ran into legal difficulties and he's since withdrawn it.
That's right, and in any case it was very unpopular when polled. The States are very embedded into American identity. It would be like re-drawing the borders between England, Scotland and Wales for some administrative convenience. (Yes, I know that legally Monmouthshire was moved from England to Wales in the 70s, but it was already regarded by almost everyone as Welsh.)
States have split before though. VA/WV, MA/ME
Yup, but the most recent of those was during the Civil War over 150 years ago, and the other, the last uncontroversial split, was nearly 200 years ago now!
Yup, but the most recent of those was during the Civil War over 150 years ago, and the other, the last uncontroversial split, was nearly 200 years ago now!
I am quite sure he would be referring to the person posting the message a cretin*, and while that is itself a poor thing to be doing and absolutely needless there is a danger in overdoing the criticism by suggesting he was calling the child a cretin, which looks a lot like deliberately misinterpreting things even more hostilely than deserved. See also comments of Corbyn seized upon, over egged, and thus being ineffective even when the comments deserved criticism.
*should he confirm he meant the child I'll withdraw that
If the biggest rise is in the unaffiliated, that doesn't sound good to me for the Republicans.
Of course, it could be Trump's base turning out, especially those who had given up voting but came out for him in 2016, and I'm sure some of it is. But I'd wager its more the Dems getting out their supporters and independents who usually sit the midterms out.
Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much better knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much better knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
That is the key problem with a second referendum. It has to be fair and independently decided on the wording, margins, etc
I am quite sure he would be referring to the person posting the message a cretin*, and while that is itself a poor thing to be doing and absolutely needless there is a danger in overdoing the criticism by suggesting he was calling the child a cretin, which looks a lot like deliberately misinterpreting things even more hostilely than deserved. See also comments of Corbyn seized upon, over egged, and thus being ineffective even when the comments deserved criticism.
*should he confirm he meant the child I'll withdraw that
However, simply calling people who disagree with you cretins is ill-mannered and unbecoming. What's worse is it is entirely ineffective. It is the politics of the playground. And not Secondary School. Sorry not directed at kle...
Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much better knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.
Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much better knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.
Kicking the can for long enough for everyone to get sick of it is no mean feat.
Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much better knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
That is the key problem with a second referendum. It has to be fair and independently decided on the wording, margins, etc
That's why I think a straight repeat would be the least contentious.
I don't know how the stats compare between the countries as a whole but I thought that Mexico City was notorious as one of the most violent cities in the world due to the drugs cartels.
Mexico gets a lot of focus because it has a high population, so the overall number of murders is large. However, in terms of murder rates per 100k population: Mexico 19ish, Venezuela/Honduras 56ish, El Salvador 83.
The latter three are the highest in the world. For comparison the USA is 5.5ish, and Western Europe is around 1
Comments
I meant it’s not coloured by what I want to happen.
I used to tease the Tories on the European Affairs Select Committee that they consistently didn't bother to attend the subcommittee meetings examining in detail exactly the sort of EU legislation that they claimed to object to. But equally, I remember a meeting to discuss concerns about the Iraq war just before it started, chaired by the then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw. About a dozen MPs turned up, out of 650. "Evidently not an issue of much concern to colleagues," he said drily. The problem is that there's too much to do and if a meeting is merely discussing an issue without a vote, people don't attend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUOimokeY7s
If proof were needed of what the Cox report said that MP’s words provided it. I hope he or she is unmasked soon so that the opprobrium they so richly deserve is unleashed on them.
Good to see MPs from all parties criticising such revolting language.
https://twitter.com/Coral/status/1054475070888964099
This is what happens when you sack the manager...
So I am expecting a blue wave in House elections, but a very much tighter race for the Senate, with the GOP probably, but not certainty, holding on by their fingertips.
Or Can-way Island?
A-?A—/B+++
Which I think meant about A—
Exactly what do you think May said today - do you have a quote? Because I heard her rule out a second referendum, a general election and an extension to article 50. She promised the UK would leave on time regardless of the circumstances.
But in the end, May is not going to be able to fudge. The ERG trap is closing - forced her to make commitments today that the EU will not accept and Cabinet forced her to obtain legal advice from Cox, who won’t be fooled, about whether the UK can leave the backstop unilaterally which is what she promised today,
She will end up with no deal herself.
But I think the GOP/Trump party are about to get an absolute shellacking. Massive, angry Dem turnout.
I am on Dem Senate and I know it is mad, given BF rules on indies.
What the hell...
You’d stand s good chance of (4 GOP and 2 Dem though)
But early voting, like its cousin postal voting, is only useful because it means you don't forget to vote on the day. If you'd have voted anyway it doen't help to do it early.
https://twitter.com/ftwestminster/status/1054479023340961792
Oh, wait.
Anyone who thinks the ERG has any sort of trap is deluded, May will agree a backstop with a get out clause if a technical solution found to the Irish border, she will tell them vaguely what they want to hear but she is basically slowly boiling them until it is too late and she signs the deal with the EU at the end of the month.
I asked him if there was a second vote what would he do
Sit it out he says
Amusingly he was going through the pros and cons of the EU
He had some serious cons
His two main pros -
He likes to travel (except he mainly travels further afield than Europe)
He has friends in Europe - when asked why he couldn't still be friends he thought about it and said, well - I guess I still could.
Strangely he never mentioned financial Armageddon
No one will get ill or work in a lab. There are no foreigners in sight.....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-44162470
Though the issue could boost Hispanic turnout for Democrats
My problem with Brexit is it is just so negative.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-44677829
In some respects it was the direction of the media attention span - emails! - that made the difference in 2016. This helps with that too.
This is a big problem for democracies, you need to fight intelligence operations at a very high speed in the era of the internet.
People who voted Leave in 2016 = 17,400,000
People who attended People’s Vote Rally 2018 = 700,000
People who would vote for a people’s vote (extrapolated) = 10,150,000,000
Theresa May - I agree that it is important, at this stage of the negotiations, that the European Union is in no doubt that we will be leaving the European Union on 29 March next year and that we are negotiating our withdrawal agreement and our future relationship. My determination is to put the national interest first and get a good deal for the UK.
They are becoming friendless
Never forget May voted Remain, she has no interest in No Deal as she knows she will be definitely be ousted sooner rather than later if that is the end result. She has every interest in stringing along the Brexit and free trade talks as long as possible as the longer they go on the longer she stays in No 10
It is Independents in the more prosperous suburbs who are moving to the Democrats and who will lose the House for the GOP, they are much more relaxed about immigration than the Trump base who are still in the GOP column anyway
"MPs should not criticise soldiers for being obese because many of them are overweight themselves, a defence minister has suggested.
Mark Lancaster was asked in the Commons about figures showing that there are 18,000 clinically obese members of the armed forces. A further 398 suffer from type 2 diabetes, 160 are on diet pills and 16 have had liposuction."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/10/22/mps-not-entitled-criticise-obese-soldiers-many-overweight-minister/
Peacock suggests Boris not ERG.
I would say that your chances of seeng a second referendum are growing
Least votes knocked out and then keep going with more referendums until last 2 .
Should be done in a year.
It's worth noting that these "caravans" are not at all new, there was another one earlier this year and there have been others in previous years; they are caused by the Central Americans wanting to band together for safety. Trump has particularly latched on to them as being some new threat, but I understand the previous one just reached the US border, didn't get let in and dispersed.
He’s right.
https://twitter.com/BowTiePolitics/status/1054488734157234177
If the biggest rise is in the unaffiliated, that doesn't sound good to me for the Republicans.
*should he confirm he meant the child I'll withdraw that
knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
It is the politics of the playground. And not Secondary School.
Sorry not directed at kle...
The latter three are the highest in the world. For comparison the USA is 5.5ish, and Western Europe is around 1
The reference to the child is sick.
These people involved in this abusive lanuage need to be taken to task and if a parliamentarian thrown out