I have a document in front of me that runs to 180 pages. It’s not that complicated. I appreciate that for the Twitter generation that is anathema but something’s life complicated. In short, the “wow” suggests that the Twitter writer isn’t very experienced in these things.
The last ref had a big turnout and both sides gunning to win. If one side sits out a referendum then it ceases to be an actual debate and would be very hard to sell to either remain or leave voters that the result has any worth.
You don't to sell the result to those that can't be arsed to turn up. That's the way it works.
Of course if we want to have a debate about the worth of a result, let's talk about lies, cheating and mysterious offshore funding, shall we?
...and also the fact that only a minority (37.5%) of the electorate felt strongly enough about leaving to vote for Brexit.
So what percentage felt strongly enough about remaining to vote???
34.7% IIRC. Under the terms of the referendum Leave won, no doubt.
Given the way the country is struggling to come to terms with the outcome, however, I still maintain that constitutional changes like this should require an absolute majority of the electorate to vote for them, to be passed.
I agree Benpointer and I’m Leave. It’s why the Europhiles needed a majority and preferably an absolute majority of the electorate to vote for Maastrict (and thus why they didn’t seek one).
The last ref had a big turnout and both sides gunning to win. If one side sits out a referendum then it ceases to be an actual debate and would be very hard to sell to either remain or leave voters that the result has any worth.
You don't to sell the result to those that can't be arsed to turn up. That's the way it works.
Of course if we want to have a debate about the worth of a result, let's talk about lies, cheating and mysterious offshore funding, shall we?
...and also the fact that only a minority (37.5%) of the electorate felt strongly enough about leaving to vote for Brexit.
So what percentage felt strongly enough about remaining to vote???
34.7% IIRC. Under the terms of the referendum Leave won, no doubt.
Given the way the country is struggling to come to terms with the outcome, however, I still maintain that constitutional changes like this should require an absolute majority of the electorate to vote for them, to be passed.
That's a really self-defeating proposal that'd be almost guaranteed to produce perverse and destructive outcomes. That system would make votes against the proposal of mere token value, so why bother?
An absolute majority of the electorate is in any case an absurdly high bar (although it sounds reasonable, which is part of its danger). Even the original EURef, in 1975, only achieved a 43-21 win for Remain of the overall electorate. On your rules, would Britain have been obliged to negotiate exit, despite 2:1 support for Remain, and a turnout similar in scale to a general election?
“Our views cannot be reconciled with Mr Gove’s. We are traditional Tories. We are just beginning to find our voice. We are the entrepreneurs of Britain, the wealth creators.
“Our party has left us, and like a jilted lover you Tories can be assured we will never ever come back to you again,” said Mr Hill.
“We will take our money, our intelligence, our energy, our dynamism, our organisational skills, our leadership skills and we will use them all against you. We are repulsed by your ideology and we reject everything you stand for.”
Mr. Hill is perhaps overrating his own importance.
"The suggestion is that Mrs May will put to the Commons the deal she gets at a late stage. Then MPs will be faced with agreeing the terms she manages to achieve or a no deal exit "
This would be playing party politics with the future of the country and would be totally unacceptable to the electorate and I would hope to most MPs regardless of party.
And the alternative is?
I imagine that is very much her aim. Plenty of MPs say now they would vote down a deal. Will they do so when they're staring down the barrel of the gun?
I have a document in front of me that runs to 180 pages. It’s not that complicated. I appreciate that for the Twitter generation that is anathema but something’s life complicated. In short, the “wow” suggests that the Twitter writer isn’t very experienced in these things.
I've seen agreements that run to thousands of pages, for this which albeit notstraightforward must surely be simpler than Brexit.
In America they use small pages, wider margins, more spacing and many many more words - so I imagine they can run to many thousands. Maybe the EU do the same.
The last ref had a big turnout and both sides gunning to win. If one side sits out a referendum then it ceases to be an actual debate and would be very hard to sell to either remain or leave voters that the result has any worth.
You don't to sell the result to those that can't be arsed to turn up. That's the way it works.
Of course if we want to have a debate about the worth of a result, let's talk about lies, cheating and mysterious offshore funding, shall we?
...and also the fact that only a minority (37.5%) of the electorate felt strongly enough about leaving to vote for Brexit.
So what percentage felt strongly enough about remaining to vote???
34.7% IIRC. Under the terms of the referendum Leave won, no doubt.
Given the way the country is struggling to come to terms with the outcome, however, I still maintain that constitutional changes like this should require an absolute majority of the electorate to vote for them, to be passed.
We are only in this poisition because there were no votes on the constitutional changes made over the last 40 years
I can safely say Labour won't be voting for any deal that May comes up with. The Tories have shown zero good will - in fact nothing but treachery for short-sighted immediate political gain - when it comes to working with other parties in recent years. I can easily see an extension to A50 being pleaded for by a once-again humiliated May. Corbyn does not want Brexit. Labour are remaining wisely in a Schrodingers state on Brexit until the moment to strike arises.
The EU will be happy to extend A50 indefinitely - they can run out the clock until the next election if necessary, by which time hundreds of thousands more leavers will have died and a similar number of remainers will have entered the electorate.
1. Corbyn very likely does want Brexit 2. The EU don't want our membership to last past the next EU Parliamentary election
Out of battles to fight over getting a bit more money from Bookies when the other side can show continual suicides due to those machines isn't the greatest idea.
Mind you it does change the topic from Brexit for 30 seconds...
It was a silly, silly move from a tin-earred Treasury.
It needs to be changed. Good on Crouch.
The thing is that it's an easy thing for an MP to rebel against - even under a 3 line whip. I can't vote for that in memory of "insert name of former constituent"
The £2 rebels are probably bolstered by MPs looking for something to put on their election leaflets. Not that there will be an election, you understand, but just in case; you can't be too careful.
The last ref had a big turnout and both sides gunning to win. If one side sits out a referendum then it ceases to be an actual debate and would be very hard to sell to either remain or leave voters that the result has any worth.
You don't to sell the result to those that can't be arsed to turn up. That's the way it works.
Of course if we want to have a debate about the worth of a result, let's talk about lies, cheating and mysterious offshore funding, shall we?
...and also the fact that only a minority (37.5%) of the electorate felt strongly enough about leaving to vote for Brexit.
So what percentage felt strongly enough about remaining to vote???
34.7% IIRC. Under the terms of the referendum Leave won, no doubt.
Given the way the country is struggling to come to terms with the outcome, however, I still maintain that constitutional changes like this should require an absolute majority of the electorate to vote for them, to be passed.
We are only in this poisition because there were no votes on the constitutional changes made over the last 40 years
The last ref had a big turnout and both sides gunning to win. If one side sits out a referendum then it ceases to be an actual debate and would be very hard to sell to either remain or leave voters that the result has any worth.
You don't to sell the result to those that can't be arsed to turn up. That's the way it works.
Of course if we want to have a debate about the worth of a result, let's talk about lies, cheating and mysterious offshore funding, shall we?
...and also the fact that only a minority (37.5%) of the electorate felt strongly enough about leaving to vote for Brexit.
So what percentage felt strongly enough about remaining to vote???
34.7% IIRC. Under the terms of the referendum Leave won, no doubt.
Given the way the country is struggling to come to terms with the outcome, however, I still maintain that constitutional changes like this should require an absolute majority of the electorate to vote for them, to be passed.
Seeing as we've passed Art 50 now, I think that's too high a bar for remain in a potential EU Ref 3.
"The suggestion is that Mrs May will put to the Commons the deal she gets at a late stage. Then MPs will be faced with agreeing the terms she manages to achieve or a no deal exit "
This would be playing party politics with the future of the country and would be totally unacceptable to the electorate and I would hope to most MPs regardless of party.
Haha. As if the Tories haven't been playing party politics with the future of the country since 2015!
Haha as if political parties don't play party politics with the future of the country - it's what they do.
There clearly continues to be some progress. Evidence the change in the debate in the last couple of weeks from the nature of the backstop itself to how we might exit from any such backstop.
Exiting a backstop is, as ever, dependent on delivering a transparent Irish border whilst ensuring neither the UK or EU breach WTO non-discrimination rules. The UK clearly cannot self certify on this, given the prospect oft it triggering an EU rule breach, but I hope the EU consider in good faith what independent mechanisms could be appropriate.
When I said the backstop exit was key last month, a few days before it started to get traction in the news, I got a flood of cynicism from leavers about the impossibility of EU good faith, like I was agreeing with them. To me, they are trying, not always successfully, to calibrate hard bargain and enough good faith to get something through, and I think a deal is still possible.
The test of the deal might be what Geoffrey Cox ultimately says, he seems to have been a constructive critic in actually driving improvement of the deal. If he is satisfied and campaigns as a key backer of the deal, that would be a massive boost to May and the prospects of a deal going through.
Clearly Boris won't rest until Theresa is ground into the sod. She should call his bluff: say she will implement the exact type of Brexit he desires and even name it 'Boris Brexit'. All he to do is submit his requirements in written form.
“Our views cannot be reconciled with Mr Gove’s. We are traditional Tories. We are just beginning to find our voice. We are the entrepreneurs of Britain, the wealth creators.
“Our party has left us, and like a jilted lover you Tories can be assured we will never ever come back to you again,” said Mr Hill.
“We will take our money, our intelligence, our energy, our dynamism, our organisational skills, our leadership skills and we will use them all against you. We are repulsed by your ideology and we reject everything you stand for.”
That must be the canvass return to end all canvass returns.
“Our views cannot be reconciled with Mr Gove’s. We are traditional Tories. We are just beginning to find our voice. We are the entrepreneurs of Britain, the wealth creators.
“Our party has left us, and like a jilted lover you Tories can be assured we will never ever come back to you again,” said Mr Hill.
“We will take our money, our intelligence, our energy, our dynamism, our organisational skills, our leadership skills and we will use them all against you. We are repulsed by your ideology and we reject everything you stand for.”
Mr. Hill is perhaps overrating his own importance.
He will not be the first person to be disappointed when the electorate does not share his anger.
Clearly Boris won't rest until Theresa is ground into the sod. She should call his bluff: say she will implement the exact type of Brexit he desires and even name it 'Boris Brexit'. All he to do is submit his requirements in written form.
“Our views cannot be reconciled with Mr Gove’s. We are traditional Tories. We are just beginning to find our voice. We are the entrepreneurs of Britain, the wealth creators.
“Our party has left us, and like a jilted lover you Tories can be assured we will never ever come back to you again,” said Mr Hill.
“We will take our money, our intelligence, our energy, our dynamism, our organisational skills, our leadership skills and we will use them all against you. We are repulsed by your ideology and we reject everything you stand for.”
That must be the canvass return to end all canvass returns.
I can safely say Labour won't be voting for any deal that May comes up with. The Tories have shown zero good will - in fact nothing but treachery for short-sighted immediate political gain - when it comes to working with other parties in recent years. I can easily see an extension to A50 being pleaded for by a once-again humiliated May. Corbyn does not want Brexit. Labour are remaining wisely in a Schrodingers state on Brexit until the moment to strike arises.
The EU will be happy to extend A50 indefinitely - they can run out the clock until the next election if necessary, by which time hundreds of thousands more leavers will have died and a similar number of remainers will have entered the electorate.
1. Corbyn very likely does want Brexit 2. The EU don't want our membership to last past the next EU Parliamentary election
But, on (1), his supporters really really want to believe he doesn’t.
"The suggestion is that Mrs May will put to the Commons the deal she gets at a late stage. Then MPs will be faced with agreeing the terms she manages to achieve or a no deal exit "
This would be playing party politics with the future of the country and would be totally unacceptable to the electorate and I would hope to most MPs regardless of party.
And the alternative is?
A 'People's Vote'. If May had got an agreement that a majority in the House of Commons favoured then it would have to be accepted. But it seems that the only way she can get it through is via blackmail, offering an alternative that nobody wants and everybody knows will damage the country.
I can safely say Labour won't be voting for any deal that May comes up with. The Tories have shown zero good will - in fact nothing but treachery for short-sighted immediate political gain - when it comes to working with other parties in recent years. I can easily see an extension to A50 being pleaded for by a once-again humiliated May. Corbyn does not want Brexit. Labour are remaining wisely in a Schrodingers state on Brexit until the moment to strike arises.
The EU will be happy to extend A50 indefinitely - they can run out the clock until the next election if necessary, by which time hundreds of thousands more leavers will have died and a similar number of remainers will have entered the electorate.
1. Corbyn very likely does want Brexit 2. The EU don't want our membership to last past the next EU Parliamentary election
But, on (1), his supporters really really want to believe he doesn’t.
At some stage if he is a normal* politician, he will listen to his supporters.
"The suggestion is that Mrs May will put to the Commons the deal she gets at a late stage. Then MPs will be faced with agreeing the terms she manages to achieve or a no deal exit "
This would be playing party politics with the future of the country and would be totally unacceptable to the electorate and I would hope to most MPs regardless of party.
And the alternative is?
A 'People's Vote'. If May had got an agreement that a majority in the House of Commons favoured then it would have to be accepted. But it seems that the only way she can get it through is via blackmail, offering an alternative that nobody wants and everybody knows will damage the country.
A referendum on May's deal Yes/No would amount to much the same thing.
The last ref had a big turnout and both sides gunning to win. If one side sits out a referendum then it ceases to be an actual debate and would be very hard to sell to either remain or leave voters that the result has any worth.
You don't to sell the result to those that can't be arsed to turn up. That's the way it works.
Of course if we want to have a debate about the worth of a result, let's talk about lies, cheating and mysterious offshore funding, shall we?
...and also the fact that only a minority (37.5%) of the electorate felt strongly enough about leaving to vote for Brexit.
So what percentage felt strongly enough about remaining to vote???
34.7% IIRC. Under the terms of the referendum Leave won, no doubt.
Given the way the country is struggling to come to terms with the outcome, however, I still maintain that constitutional changes like this should require an absolute majority of the electorate to vote for them, to be passed.
We are only in this poisition because there were no votes on the constitutional changes made over the last 40 years
Which is surely an argument for having a vote on whatever settlement is about to be offered this time ?
There clearly continues to be some progress. Evidence the change in the debate in the last couple of weeks from the nature of the backstop itself to how we might exit from any such backstop.
Exiting a backstop is, as ever, dependent on delivering a transparent Irish border whilst ensuring neither the UK or EU breach WTO non-discrimination rules. The UK clearly cannot self certify on this, given the prospect oft it triggering an EU rule breach, but I hope the EU consider in good faith what independent mechanisms could be appropriate.
When I said the backstop exit was key last month, a few days before it started to get traction in the news, I got a flood of cynicism from leavers about the impossibility of EU good faith, like I was agreeing with them. To me, they are trying, not always successfully, to calibrate hard bargain and enough good faith to get something through, and I think a deal is still possible.
The test of the deal might be what Geoffrey Cox ultimately says, he seems to have been a constructive critic in actually driving improvement of the deal. If he is satisfied and campaigns as a key backer of the deal, that would be a massive boost to May and the prospects of a deal going through.
"The suggestion is that Mrs May will put to the Commons the deal she gets at a late stage. Then MPs will be faced with agreeing the terms she manages to achieve or a no deal exit "
This would be playing party politics with the future of the country and would be totally unacceptable to the electorate and I would hope to most MPs regardless of party.
And the alternative is?
A 'People's Vote'. If May had got an agreement that a majority in the House of Commons favoured then it would have to be accepted. But it seems that the only way she can get it through is via blackmail, offering an alternative that nobody wants and everybody knows will damage the country.
This whole "everyone knows will damage the country" thing is problematic for me.
All political parties function on the premise that their opponents "damage the country" via one policy or another.
Brexit is not unique such as to override all the other policies which each side thinks will save or condemn the country. It also leads pretty much to "the elite" determining what is good for the country.
Brexit will play out as do other issues - wholly tribally politically. If Labour think they can gain advantage from one action or another they (should) take that action. The premise in this case is that Lab "wouldn't have started from there" and would have come up with, indeed still could come up with, a fantastic social care, education, defence, Brexit.
The last ref had a big turnout and both sides gunning to win. If one side sits out a referendum then it ceases to be an actual debate and would be very hard to sell to either remain or leave voters that the result has any worth.
You don't to sell the result to those that can't be arsed to turn up. That's the way it works.
Of course if we want to have a debate about the worth of a result, let's talk about lies, cheating and mysterious offshore funding, shall we?
You are the mouthpiece of conspiracies, but even for someone who spends all day trawling twitter for inane opinions you must admit a referendum where one side doesn't engage or campaign starts to look somewhat illegitimate. You cannot compare it with other votes where both sides campaigned and turned out because that is a completely different situation. If a second ref came about through perceived undemocratic methods then why should the public bother to vote if they don't have any faith in the process?
Clearly Boris won't rest until Theresa is ground into the sod. She should call his bluff: say she will implement the exact type of Brexit he desires and even name it 'Boris Brexit'. All he to do is submit his requirements in written form.
Which he then would. They will be unachieveable, and she won't achieve them. Boris would then blame her for failing to deliver. Doesn't sound like a plan to me.
And as to @Richard_Nabavi's contention that Lab would be voting with the ERG, that is absurd. Lab is the opposition; it would be the ERG that would be voting with the Opposition.
Err, the two aren't contradictory! In fact, I rather think the two are the same thing.
More generally, I see the whirligig of spin is turning in an amusing way. It used to be the loonier Brexiteers who assured us that if we voted to Leave, the EU would of course give us a good deal without any difficulty. Now it's those on the other side, who give us exactly the same assurance in respect of voting down any deal.
I can safely say Labour won't be voting for any deal that May comes up with. The Tories have shown zero good will - in fact nothing but treachery for short-sighted immediate political gain - when it comes to working with other parties in recent years. I can easily see an extension to A50 being pleaded for by a once-again humiliated May. Corbyn does not want Brexit. Labour are remaining wisely in a Schrodingers state on Brexit until the moment to strike arises.
The EU will be happy to extend A50 indefinitely - they can run out the clock until the next election if necessary, by which time hundreds of thousands more leavers will have died and a similar number of remainers will have entered the electorate.
1. Corbyn very likely does want Brexit 2. The EU don't want our membership to last past the next EU Parliamentary election
But, on (1), his supporters really really want to believe he doesn’t.
At some stage if he is a normal* politician, he will listen to his supporters.
*I know
He will listen to John McDonnell as he did on Trident and NATO. McDonnell is the pragmatist and pulls the strings.
I don't believe the Kama Sutra has a position on Brexit?
The Kama Sutra's position on Brexit is immaterial while it is not in government. Same as Labour's, for all Guido's froth about Labour ambiguity and uncertainty.
Clearly Boris won't rest until Theresa is ground into the sod. She should call his bluff: say she will implement the exact type of Brexit he desires and even name it 'Boris Brexit'. All he to do is submit his requirements in written form.
Which he then would. They will be unachieveable, and she won't achieve them. Boris would then blame her for failing to deliver. Doesn't sound like a plan to me.
The only concrete thing he seems to have said on what his magic plan is, is scrap the backstop.
Which obviously the EU wouldn't agree to.
He hasn't a clue.
He doesn't care he hasn't a clue.
His sole goal now is to get his name away from whatever happens and blame everyone else for messing up the cake and unicorn factory.
Say we were at an absolutely critical point (not too far from the truth). A decision is made by everyone in parliament (inc. the Lords) that they will pass anything wrt Brexit that is agreed by a small cross-party group. Their decision will be final.
May is recused.
You have: Farage Davis Boris Hoey Corbyn Starmer Adonis Cable Sturgeon
And to add a little PB sanity, William Glenn and Casino Royale.
A decision is seen as agreed if all bar one are in agreement - i.e. near unanimity.
They get locked in a little room, are allowed to ask experts in (Gove excepted) for advice or projections. They are not allowed out until an agreement is made.
I reckon they'd be unable to come to an agreement. And that's the problem: there is no agreement to be had within the UK, yet alone one that would satisfy the EU.
"The suggestion is that Mrs May will put to the Commons the deal she gets at a late stage. Then MPs will be faced with agreeing the terms she manages to achieve or a no deal exit "
This would be playing party politics with the future of the country and would be totally unacceptable to the electorate and I would hope to most MPs regardless of party.
And the alternative is?
A 'People's Vote'. If May had got an agreement that a majority in the House of Commons favoured then it would have to be accepted. But it seems that the only way she can get it through is via blackmail, offering an alternative that nobody wants and everybody knows will damage the country.
A people's vote - as you term it - cannot be legislated for and delivered so late in the process. It would, in any case, almost certainly reject any deal agreed in favour of one of the outer options of Remain or No Deal, unless one of those options was excluded, which of itself would be the most almighty gerrymander of the options.
Were the vote to go for Remain, probably 30%+ of the voting electorate would be extremely angry, to the extent that there would be a realignment of the Right, that either resulted in UKIP replacing a broken Tory Party, or (much more likely), the Tory Party being wholly captured but the Kipper fringe. That turmoil would probably precipitate (or follow) a Corbyn government but would find its own time unless the centre could get its act together, which won't be possible while the LDs are becoming just as obsessed by Europe, only from the other side.
On the other hand, were the vote to go for No Deal, that really does mean that no deal becomes possible until the politicians' hands are freed by a significant change in public opinion, which of itself will only be possible by events forcing it. That isn't a nice prospect either.
Of all the unicorns being chased in the Brexit process, the idea of a nice, clean people's vote referendum putting the thing to bed is one of the silliest.
“Our views cannot be reconciled with Mr Gove’s. We are traditional Tories. We are just beginning to find our voice. We are the entrepreneurs of Britain, the wealth creators.
“Our party has left us, and like a jilted lover you Tories can be assured we will never ever come back to you again,” said Mr Hill.
“We will take our money, our intelligence, our energy, our dynamism, our organisational skills, our leadership skills and we will use them all against you. We are repulsed by your ideology and we reject everything you stand for.”
See also the fisher folk.
Still, I'm sure a few cuddly photo shoots with Ruth and some more all-too-transient lines in the sand will sort it.
Say we were at an absolutely critical point (not too far from the truth). A decision is made by everyone in parliament (inc. the Lords) that they will pass anything wrt Brexit that is agreed by a small cross-party group. Their decision will be final.
May is recused.
You have: Farage Davis Boris Hoey Corbyn Starmer Adonis Cable Sturgeon
And to add a little PB sanity, William Glenn and Casino Royale.
A decision is seen as agreed if all bar one are in agreement - i.e. near unanimity.
They get locked in a little room, are allowed to ask experts in (Gove excepted) for advice or projections. They are not allowed out until an agreement is made.
I reckon they'd be unable to come to an agreement. And that's the problem: there is no agreement to be had within the UK, yet alone one that would satisfy the EU.
We're screwed.
For all his tub thumping, Casino is capable of compromise and has suggested as much. It's the Mortimer tendency you'd want to avoid in that room – extremist ideologues with a kind face.
Just for information, I’ve just had this from Priti Patel
'I continue to stand up for Brexit because I do not believe that the Government’s plan for our post-Brexit relationship with the EU – the Chequers proposals – fully respects the Referendum result.
Both the Chequers proposals and the plans put forward by the EU keep too many of our laws under the control of Brussels and would allow the European Commission and their unaccountable and unelected officials and institutions to continue to dictate how our country should be run and a cost to UK taxpayers. This attempt to undermine our democracy and fail to deliver Brexit is wrong. The EU has already made it clear that they reject the Chequers proposals and want to exercise more control over our country.
This is why I am standing up for Brexit and am calling for the Government and Parliament to respect the Referendum result. Britain has a bright future free from the EU.’
Wonder if she’ll carry her opposition through to voting against ‘The Deal’, as put forward by her party leader.
Say we were at an absolutely critical point (not too far from the truth). A decision is made by everyone in parliament (inc. the Lords) that they will pass anything wrt Brexit that is agreed by a small cross-party group. Their decision will be final.
May is recused.
You have: Farage Davis Boris Hoey Corbyn Starmer Adonis Cable Sturgeon
And to add a little PB sanity, William Glenn and Casino Royale.
A decision is seen as agreed if all bar one are in agreement - i.e. near unanimity.
They get locked in a little room, are allowed to ask experts in (Gove excepted) for advice or projections. They are not allowed out until an agreement is made.
I reckon they'd be unable to come to an agreement. And that's the problem: there is no agreement to be had within the UK, yet alone one that would satisfy the EU.
We're screwed.
For all his tub thumping, Casino is capable of compromise and has suggested as much. It's the Mortimer tendency you'd want to avoid in that room – extremist ideologues with a kind face.
You can't let 9 white middle class middle to late aged citizens impose their will on the nation. Where is the diversity?
The last ref had a big turnout and both sides gunning to win. If one side sits out a referendum then it ceases to be an actual debate and would be very hard to sell to either remain or leave voters that the result has any worth.
You don't to sell the result to those that can't be arsed to turn up. That's the way it works.
Of course if we want to have a debate about the worth of a result, let's talk about lies, cheating and mysterious offshore funding, shall we?
...and also the fact that only a minority (37.5%) of the electorate felt strongly enough about leaving to vote for Brexit.
So what percentage felt strongly enough about remaining to vote???
34.7% IIRC. Under the terms of the referendum Leave won, no doubt.
Given the way the country is struggling to come to terms with the outcome, however, I still maintain that constitutional changes like this should require an absolute majority of the electorate to vote for them, to be passed.
We are only in this poisition because there were no votes on the constitutional changes made over the last 40 years
Which is surely an argument for having a vote on whatever settlement is about to be offered this time ?
Well it is an argument Nigel because you are deploying it. The problem is difficult to articulate but is about consistency, good faith, credibility. Some Remainers seek another vote because they hope it will prevent leaving which is an outcome they don’t want. I have no idea whether they are right in that. But those same Remainers did not believe such a test was required when imposing EC/EU policy outcomes they did want. Indeed they made sure no such test was applied. By Benpointer’s argument (Remain I think) such constitutional change requires a majority, indeed an absolute majority of the electorate not just of the vote. I agree. It is just that what we now call Remainers weren’t saying that when the obvious arguments for a referendum were being made at the time of Maastrict. Then anyone asking for a “People’s Vote” was a swivel eyed loon or bastard or whatever the insult of the day was.
Say we were at an absolutely critical point (not too far from the truth). A decision is made by everyone in parliament (inc. the Lords) that they will pass anything wrt Brexit that is agreed by a small cross-party group. Their decision will be final.
May is recused.
You have: Farage Davis Boris Hoey Corbyn Starmer Adonis Cable Sturgeon
And to add a little PB sanity, William Glenn and Casino Royale.
A decision is seen as agreed if all bar one are in agreement - i.e. near unanimity.
They get locked in a little room, are allowed to ask experts in (Gove excepted) for advice or projections. They are not allowed out until an agreement is made.
I reckon they'd be unable to come to an agreement. And that's the problem: there is no agreement to be had within the UK, yet alone one that would satisfy the EU.
We're screwed.
For all his tub thumping, Casino is capable of compromise and has suggested as much. It's the Mortimer tendency you'd want to avoid in that room – extremist ideologues with a kind face.
You can't let 9 white middle class middle to late aged citizens impose their will on the nation. Where is the diversity?
You're making an unimpeachable case for me to be Brexit Secretary or maybe even PM.
Say we were at an absolutely critical point (not too far from the truth). A decision is made by everyone in parliament (inc. the Lords) that they will pass anything wrt Brexit that is agreed by a small cross-party group. Their decision will be final.
May is recused.
You have: Farage Davis Boris Hoey Corbyn Starmer Adonis Cable Sturgeon
And to add a little PB sanity, William Glenn and Casino Royale.
A decision is seen as agreed if all bar one are in agreement - i.e. near unanimity.
They get locked in a little room, are allowed to ask experts in (Gove excepted) for advice or projections. They are not allowed out until an agreement is made.
I reckon they'd be unable to come to an agreement. And that's the problem: there is no agreement to be had within the UK, yet alone one that would satisfy the EU.
We're screwed.
You wouldn't get that lot to agree in that way on anything, never mind Brexit.
I think there is a possible deal that can get through parliament and the EU. It involves TM (effectively) ditching her red line on the customs union and probably also losing some of the regulatory freedoms that her Brexiteers promise they wouldn't use anyway.
There clearly continues to be some progress. Evidence the change in the debate in the last couple of weeks from the nature of the backstop itself to how we might exit from any such backstop.
Exiting a backstop is, as ever, dependent on delivering a transparent Irish border whilst ensuring neither the UK or EU breach WTO non-discrimination rules. The UK clearly cannot self certify on this, given the prospect oft it triggering an EU rule breach, but I hope the EU consider in good faith what independent mechanisms could be appropriate.
When I said the backstop exit was key last month, a few days before it started to get traction in the news, I got a flood of cynicism from leavers about the impossibility of EU good faith, like I was agreeing with them. To me, they are trying, not always successfully, to calibrate hard bargain and enough good faith to get something through, and I think a deal is still possible.
The test of the deal might be what Geoffrey Cox ultimately says, he seems to have been a constructive critic in actually driving improvement of the deal. If he is satisfied and campaigns as a key backer of the deal, that would be a massive boost to May and the prospects of a deal going through.
That's a legal view that I imagine would not pass the impartiality test even of a Brexit minded AG. You cannot discuss the backstop without acknowledging that its purpose is to prevent breaches of legal treaty commitments given elsewhere by the EU and UK. Thus, if the UK want a unilateral withdrawal mechanism, and all things need to be possible, I'm sure the EU could acceed to a mechanism whereby the UK could unilaterally withdraw from the backstop on condition that they also withdraw from the WTO.
If there is to be a deal to which the Cabinet and potentially parliament can agree, it cannot include the backstop proposals which the EU are currently insisting on. It would indeed be unthinkable for the UK to sign up to something which we can't legally ever leave, and which binds us to accept any regulation the EU ever dreams up, in perpetuity.
So the EU must back down, or there's no deal. I think it really is as simple as that. It's completely barmy - the backstop seems to have become the foreblock, forcing an outcome neither side wants - but that's how it looks. Quite why the EU has got itself in the position of forcing damage to its own economies, forcing border controls in Ireland, and depriving itself of £38bn, and all for something which is supposed never to be implemented anyway, will be an interesting study for future historians.
Say we were at an absolutely critical point (not too far from the truth). A decision is made by everyone in parliament (inc. the Lords) that they will pass anything wrt Brexit that is agreed by a small cross-party group. Their decision will be final.
May is recused.
You have: Farage Davis Boris Hoey Corbyn Starmer Adonis Cable Sturgeon
And to add a little PB sanity, William Glenn and Casino Royale.
A decision is seen as agreed if all bar one are in agreement - i.e. near unanimity.
They get locked in a little room, are allowed to ask experts in (Gove excepted) for advice or projections. They are not allowed out until an agreement is made.
I reckon they'd be unable to come to an agreement. And that's the problem: there is no agreement to be had within the UK, yet alone one that would satisfy the EU.
We're screwed.
You wouldn't get that lot to agree in that way on anything, never mind Brexit.
I think there is a possible deal that can get through parliament and the EU. It involves TM (effectively) ditching her red line on the customs union and probably also losing some of the regulatory freedoms that her Brexiteers promise they wouldn't use anyway.
What red line on the customs union? Chequers was a customs union and it was/is the EU that didn't want it. Her red line is Irish Sea border, or rather ERG's is.
Of course, as many have pointed out previously on here, her idiotic red lines at the very beginning of this process are responsible for 98.3084% of the problems we currently face.
Say we were at an absolutely critical point (not too far from the truth). A decision is made by everyone in parliament (inc. the Lords) that they will pass anything wrt Brexit that is agreed by a small cross-party group. Their decision will be final.
May is recused.
You have: Farage Davis Boris Hoey Corbyn Starmer Adonis Cable Sturgeon
And to add a little PB sanity, William Glenn and Casino Royale.
A decision is seen as agreed if all bar one are in agreement - i.e. near unanimity.
They get locked in a little room, are allowed to ask experts in (Gove excepted) for advice or projections. They are not allowed out until an agreement is made.
I reckon they'd be unable to come to an agreement. And that's the problem: there is no agreement to be had within the UK, yet alone one that would satisfy the EU.
We're screwed.
You wouldn't get that lot to agree in that way on anything, never mind Brexit.
I think there is a possible deal that can get through parliament and the EU. It involves TM (effectively) ditching her red line on the customs union and probably also losing some of the regulatory freedoms that her Brexiteers promise they wouldn't use anyway.
I agree that that deal could probably get through parliament, and probably the European Council and Parliament. The question is whether May could put it to parliament without being No Confidenced by her MPs.
Just for information, I’ve just had this from Priti Patel
'I continue to stand up for Brexit because I do not believe that the Government’s plan for our post-Brexit relationship with the EU – the Chequers proposals – fully respects the Referendum result.
Both the Chequers proposals and the plans put forward by the EU keep too many of our laws under the control of Brussels and would allow the European Commission and their unaccountable and unelected officials and institutions to continue to dictate how our country should be run and a cost to UK taxpayers. This attempt to undermine our democracy and fail to deliver Brexit is wrong. The EU has already made it clear that they reject the Chequers proposals and want to exercise more control over our country.
This is why I am standing up for Brexit and am calling for the Government and Parliament to respect the Referendum result. Britain has a bright future free from the EU.’
Wonder if she’ll carry her opposition through to voting against ‘The Deal’, as put forward by her party leader.
If there is to be a deal to which the Cabinet and potentially parliament can agree, it cannot include the backstop proposals which the EU are currently insisting on. It would indeed be unthinkable for the UK to sign up to something which we can't legally ever leave, and which binds us to accept any regulation the EU ever dreams up, in perpetuity.
So the EU must back down, or there's no deal. I think it really is as simple as that. It's completely barmy - the backstop seems to have become the foreblock, forcing an outcome neigher side wants - but that's how it looks. Quite why the EU has got itself in the position of forcing damage to its own economies, forcing border controls in Ireland, and depriving itself of £38bn, and all for something which is supposed never to be implemented anyway, will be an interesting study for future historians.
There will be a large number of History PhD’s obtained from studies of British politics in 2010 -2020 (Or possibly 2030)! Possibly Psychology and/or Psychiatry as well.
You wouldn't get that lot to agree in that way on anything, never mind Brexit.
I think there is a possible deal that can get through parliament and the EU. It involves TM (effectively) ditching her red line on the customs union and probably also losing some of the regulatory freedoms that her Brexiteers promise they wouldn't use anyway.
I agree that that deal could probably get through parliament, and probably the European Council and Parliament. The question is whether May could put it to parliament without being No Confidenced by her MPs.
I reckon there would be a VONC, but she would win. Might prove fatal to her leadership prospects post-Brexit, but she knew this was a tough gig going in.
No deal probably worse for her leadership, so might as well get on with the climbdown.
If there is to be a deal to which the Cabinet and potentially parliament can agree, it cannot include the backstop proposals which the EU are currently insisting on. It would indeed be unthinkable for the UK to sign up to something which we can't legally ever leave, and which binds us to accept any regulation the EU ever dreams up, in perpetuity.
So the EU must back down, or there's no deal. I think it really is as simple as that. It's completely barmy - the backstop seems to have become the foreblock, forcing an outcome neither side wants - but that's how it looks. Quite why the EU has got itself in the position of forcing damage to its own economies, forcing border controls in Ireland, and depriving itself of £38bn, and all for something which is supposed never to be implemented anyway, will be an interesting study for future historians.
Well if it were that easy...
It remains my contention that the EU is aware that the mere possibility of there being a path towards having a hard border in NI will mean that the UK will cave. For reasons that are well-rehearsed on here but in short have the GFA and The Troubles as a starting point. Now, if Owen Paterson, or JRM were in charge would it be any different? Perhaps not. Because expert after civil servant after police chief after SPAD would explain why the UK cannot embark upon that path.
I really thought, naive fool that I was, that those very keen on Leaving had some sort of plan and that May, dull control freak that she was, would do the thorough due diligence on all our options before embarking on the negotiations.
I was wrong.
I see no sensible way out now other than to ask the voters again whether, in light of what we now know about the real options facing us - not the fantasies presented to us two and a half years ago - whether we want to go ahead or Remain and do so before 29 March.
None of this scrabbling around trying to get votes from this and that group of MPs on things no-one understands in a hole in a corner way and then giving us untrue or disingenuous explanations of what it all means.
1. Complete shambles. 2. Not knowing arse from elbow. 3. SNAFU 4. FUBAR 5. OH MY GOD.......!!!!
BREXIT, which in future will be useful shorthand for fuckups exceeding all others in scale and impact
Nah - Suez will continue to rate as 10 on the fuck-ups scale despite any subsequent ones actually being a bigger mess, because the scale is defined by media shorthand, not objective (or even subjective) reality. FWIW, I think that Iraq outscores Suez, and Brexit could well outscore either.
There's some absolutely batshit crazy comments underneath that IAG/Times article
Gayle Stephen
The Spanish government MUST do the British people a HUGE favour & tell IAG to **** OFF & GET LOST & I also hope Violeta Bulc does EXACTLY the same thing as she has already announced that any aviation agreement between Britain& the EU WOULD NOT be replaced in the event of a no-deal brexit. ALL
It is ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE & ESSENTIAL that we say a PERMANENT & FINAL goodbye to any & ALL travel to the EU, be it for holidays & business travel, & say hello to more staycations at home. It's ABOUT TIME we spent more of our holidays RIGHT HERE in our beautiful country so we can revive our own tourist industry by recreating the jobs that were lost over the years due to increased availability of flights to mainland Europe, & to improve the livelihoods of our tourist communities. The enthusiastic traveller would also have a more wonderful choice of non-EU destinations, all of which are FAR SAFER & FAR BETTER to visit than the EU.
ALL UK-EU FLIGHTS MUST COME TO A COMPLETE END AT ALL COSTS. WE MUST ALSO COMPLETELY WITHDRAW OUR MEMBERSHIP OF EUROCONTROL BECAUSE WE NEED TO TAKE BACK FULL CONTROL OF OUR OWN AIRSPACE & OUR GOVERNMENT MUST REGAIN FULL OWNERSHIP OF ALL OUR AIRPORTS.
IAG are absolutely INCORRECT when they claim an aviation agreement will be put in place, even in the event of a no-deal brexit. The EU have already made it clear that this WILL NOT HAPPEN UNDER ABSOLUTELY ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. In fact, the EU have EXPLICITLY ruled out even the most basic of aviation deals because they believe ANY such deal will put the integrity of their single market at the highest of risks.
ANY aviation deal with the EU will be the biggest EVER betrayal of the British electorate as even the most basic aviation deal will prevent our country becoming a bigger & better player in the global aviation market, prevent us from leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ & most of all, it will prevent us from leaving Eurocontrol. We MUST leave Eurocontrol regardless of the cost because we absolutely MUST regain our constitutional rights to decide who is/is not allowed to fly over our airspace & land at our airports. Once this fundamental right is regained, we will be fully free to sign brand new & better bilateral aviation agreements with whichever countries WE choose without the fear of being undermined & overruled by the EU & most of all by Eurocontrol.
I REALLY HOPE THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT REJECTS WILLIE WALSH & HIS IAG'S CALLS FOR HELP BECAUSE WHAT IAG PLAN TO DO IS BETRAY THE BRITISH PEOPLE. A UK-EU AVIATION DEAL, NO MATTER HOW BASIC, ABSOLUTELY CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN OR WE WILL BE TRAPPED IN THE EVIL EU FOREVER..
As part of the No Deal preparations the government should give us all a Steam code to download Rust. It's the perfect post-Brexit simulation: caving your neighbour's head in with a rock for a can of beans while wearing only an old No Parking sign over your cock and balls.
King Cole, then they'd be studying only half the relevant period, if that.
Maastricht and Lisbon, and the political climate around them, as well as broken promises, have helped lead us to the current situation.
All those carping about the impossibility or immense pain of leaving might ask why that is so. Why did our political class give away so much power? Why did they integrate us so much without ever consulting the electorate?
Suppose we end up remaining on practically identical terms (the rebate is almost certainly gone, but that aside). Every time there's a decision we oppose that is imposed upon us, the hint of treachery will linger in the air. Every time we're gouged for money, there'll be the memory we voted to end this.
Any positive decision we embrace and like will get no credit from sceptics because they'll claim we could have taken that ourselves. Every negative decision that is either against our national interest or against the electorate's preference will be seen as a triumph of the political class over the people, of unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy over a nation state that voted to leave and yet remained.
Economically there will be far less turbulence if we leave. Politically, I expect things to be bitter, seemingly simmer down, and gradually get worse and worse.
[Well, obviously, if you read that article I wrote yesterday].
People pretending staying in resolves this division are deluding themselves. The question is not whether we want division or unity, to leave or remain. It's what flavour of polarised bitterness you prefer.
Say we were at an absolutely critical point (not too far from the truth). A decision is made by everyone in parliament (inc. the Lords) that they will pass anything wrt Brexit that is agreed by a small cross-party group. Their decision will be final.
May is recused.
You have: Farage Davis Boris Hoey Corbyn Starmer Adonis Cable Sturgeon
And to add a little PB sanity, William Glenn and Casino Royale.
A decision is seen as agreed if all bar one are in agreement - i.e. near unanimity.
They get locked in a little room, are allowed to ask experts in (Gove excepted) for advice or projections. They are not allowed out until an agreement is made.
I reckon they'd be unable to come to an agreement. And that's the problem: there is no agreement to be had within the UK, yet alone one that would satisfy the EU.
We're screwed.
For all his tub thumping, Casino is capable of compromise and has suggested as much. It's the Mortimer tendency you'd want to avoid in that room – extremist ideologues with a kind face.
I agree: and there are one or two others who might compromise for the greater good (cue clip). But the problem is that we need a deal that these people would agree on: one they do not - and which somehow miraculously gets through parliament - will just lead to more arguments further down the line.
Brexiteers really are the biggest shits out there. They were warned pre-referendum that what they were offering was undeliverable, and they chose victory over common sense. We're living with the consequences.
Say we were at an absolutely critical point (not too far from the truth). A decision is made by everyone in parliament (inc. the Lords) that they will pass anything wrt Brexit that is agreed by a small cross-party group. Their decision will be final.
May is recused.
You have: Farage Davis Boris Hoey Corbyn Starmer Adonis Cable Sturgeon
And to add a little PB sanity, William Glenn and Casino Royale.
A decision is seen as agreed if all bar one are in agreement - i.e. near unanimity.
They get locked in a little room, are allowed to ask experts in (Gove excepted) for advice or projections. They are not allowed out until an agreement is made.
I reckon they'd be unable to come to an agreement. And that's the problem: there is no agreement to be had within the UK, yet alone one that would satisfy the EU.
We're screwed.
For all his tub thumping, Casino is capable of compromise and has suggested as much. It's the Mortimer tendency you'd want to avoid in that room – extremist ideologues with a kind face.
I agree: and there are one or two others who might compromise for the greater good (cue clip). But the problem is that we need a deal that these people would agree on: one they do not - and which somehow miraculously gets through parliament - will just lead to more arguments further down the line.
Brexiteers really are the biggest shits out there. They were warned pre-referendum that what they were offering was undeliverable, and they chose victory over common sense. We're living with the consequences.
Brexit was deliverable, albeit with many challenges.
What Brexit as defined and accepted by this government is undeliverable.
Say we were at an absolutely critical point (not too far from the truth). A decision is made by everyone in parliament (inc. the Lords) that they will pass anything wrt Brexit that is agreed by a small cross-party group. Their decision will be final.
May is recused.
You have: Farage Davis Boris Hoey Corbyn Starmer Adonis Cable Sturgeon
And to add a little PB sanity, William Glenn and Casino Royale.
A decision is seen as agreed if all bar one are in agreement - i.e. near unanimity.
They get locked in a little room, are allowed to ask experts in (Gove excepted) for advice or projections. They are not allowed out until an agreement is made.
I reckon they'd be unable to come to an agreement. And that's the problem: there is no agreement to be had within the UK, yet alone one that would satisfy the EU.
We're screwed.
Although you might have more leeway in NI with that list.
Let's get real; any decision based on that group agreeing won't happen, but there doesn't seem to be anything credible that enough can unite around to make it work. I'm surprised there isn't more talk of the Boles 'EEA for now' plan. In a discussion thread full of many things that we might want but can't figure out a way to make them happen, this seems to be the one where the objections can be dealt with.
King Cole, then they'd be studying only half the relevant period, if that.
Maastricht and Lisbon, and the political climate around them, as well as broken promises, have helped lead us to the current situation.
All those carping about the impossibility or immense pain of leaving might ask why that is so. Why did our political class give away so much power? Why did they integrate us so much without ever consulting the electorate?
Suppose we end up remaining on practically identical terms (the rebate is almost certainly gone, but that aside). Every time there's a decision we oppose that is imposed upon us, the hint of treachery will linger in the air. Every time we're gouged for money, there'll be the memory we voted to end this.
Any positive decision we embrace and like will get no credit from sceptics because they'll claim we could have taken that ourselves. Every negative decision that is either against our national interest or against the electorate's preference will be seen as a triumph of the political class over the people, of unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy over a nation state that voted to leave and yet remained.
Economically there will be far less turbulence if we leave. Politically, I expect things to be bitter, seemingly simmer down, and gradually get worse and worse.
[Well, obviously, if you read that article I wrote yesterday].
People pretending staying in resolves this division are deluding themselves. The question is not whether we want division or unity, to leave or remain. It's what flavour of polarised bitterness you prefer.
You wanted to leave. You argued for leave. You voted to leave.
This is your mess. And your fellow leavers have shown themselves to be utterly clueless and incompetent. Your fellow travellers are the ones who have sown dissent, who have whinged and complained for decades.
It's a bit late for you to be complaining about divisions. Or do divisions only matter when they're against what you want?
There's some absolutely batshit crazy comments underneath that IAG/Times article
Gayle Stephen
The Spanish government MUST do the British people a HUGE favour & tell IAG to **** OFF & GET LOST & I also hope Violeta Bulc does EXACTLY the same thing as she has already announced that any aviation agreement between Britain& the EU WOULD NOT be replaced in the event of a no-deal brexit. ALL
It is ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE & ESSENTIAL that we say a PERMANENT & FINAL goodbye to any & ALL travel to the EU, be it for holidays & business travel, & say hello to more staycations at home. It's ABOUT TIME we spent more of our holidays RIGHT HERE in our beautiful country so we can revive our own tourist industry by recreating the jobs that were lost over the years due to increased availability of flights to mainland Europe, & to improve the livelihoods of our tourist communities. The enthusiastic traveller would also have a more wonderful choice of non-EU destinations, all of which are FAR SAFER & FAR BETTER to visit than the EU.
ALL UK-EU FLIGHTS MUST COME TO A COMPLETE END AT ALL COSTS. WE MUST ALSO COMPLETELY WITHDRAW OUR MEMBERSHIP OF EUROCONTROL BECAUSE WE NEED TO TAKE BACK FULL CONTROL OF OUR OWN AIRSPACE & OUR GOVERNMENT MUST REGAIN FULL OWNERSHIP OF ALL OUR AIRPORTS.
IAG are absolutely INCORRECT when they claim an aviation agreement will be put in place, even in the event of a no-deal brexit. The EU have already made it clear that this WILL NOT HAPPEN UNDER ABSOLUTELY ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. In fact, the EU have EXPLICITLY ruled out even the most basic of aviation deals because they believe ANY such deal will put the integrity of their single market at the highest of risks.
ANY aviation deal with the EU will be the biggest EVER betrayal of the British electorate as even the most basic aviation deal will prevent our country becoming a bigger & better player in the global aviation market, prevent us from leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ & most of all, it will prevent us from leaving Eurocontrol. We MUST leave Eurocontrol regardless of the cost because we absolutely MUST regain our constitutional rights to decide who is/is not allowed to fly over our airspace & land at our airports. Once this fundamental right is regained, we will be fully free to sign brand new & better bilateral aviation agreements with whichever countries WE choose without the fear of being undermined & overruled by the EU & most of all by Eurocontrol.
I REALLY HOPE THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT REJECTS WILLIE WALSH & HIS IAG'S CALLS FOR HELP BECAUSE WHAT IAG PLAN TO DO IS BETRAY THE BRITISH PEOPLE. A UK-EU AVIATION DEAL, NO MATTER HOW BASIC, ABSOLUTELY CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN OR WE WILL BE TRAPPED IN THE EVIL EU FOREVER..
"Just as long as the overflight of BOT POSTS from Ekaterinburg is unimpeded, you'll be fine, mwahahaha"
As part of the No Deal preparations the government should give us all a Steam code to download Rust. It's the perfect post-Brexit simulation: caving your neighbour's head in with a rock for a can of beans while wearing only an old No Parking sign over your cock and balls.
You are going to feel a bit foolish when those shelves stay just as full, the pharmacies stay fully stocked and the aeroplanes still fly on the 30th March. A true no deal, a no deal no deal could cause massive massive disruption. But it doesn’t take much for lots of bureaucratic agreements to roll over so this doesn’t happen.
Not that it won’t. But a true no deal no deal could tip the whole of Europe into recession.
Say we were at an absolutely critical point (not too far from the truth). A decision is made by everyone in parliament (inc. the Lords) that they will pass anything wrt Brexit that is agreed by a small cross-party group. Their decision will be final.
May is recused.
You have: Farage Davis Boris Hoey Corbyn Starmer Adonis Cable Sturgeon
And to add a little PB sanity, William Glenn and Casino Royale.
A decision is seen as agreed if all bar one are in agreement - i.e. near unanimity.
They get locked in a little room, are allowed to ask experts in (Gove excepted) for advice or projections. They are not allowed out until an agreement is made.
I reckon they'd be unable to come to an agreement. And that's the problem: there is no agreement to be had within the UK, yet alone one that would satisfy the EU.
We're screwed.
For all his tub thumping, Casino is capable of compromise and has suggested as much. It's the Mortimer tendency you'd want to avoid in that room – extremist ideologues with a kind face.
I agree: and there are one or two others who might compromise for the greater good (cue clip). But the problem is that we need a deal that these people would agree on: one they do not - and which somehow miraculously gets through parliament - will just lead to more arguments further down the line.
Brexiteers really are the biggest shits out there. They were warned pre-referendum that what they were offering was undeliverable, and they chose victory over common sense. We're living with the consequences.
Brexit was deliverable, albeit with many challenges.
What Brexit as defined and accepted by this government is undeliverable.
I don't think Brexit was deliverable; there were too many inconsistencies in the leave campaigns, and 'Brexit' meant too many different things to different people. And for many of those people, it was a deeply-held religion or a theology.
Leavers have to be very careful about using the line: "It'd all have been different and worked if only we'd been in charge."
Brexiteers really are the biggest shits out there. They were warned pre-referendum that what they were offering was undeliverable, and they chose victory over common sense. We're living with the consequences.
I disagree. Brexit is completely deliverable. 100%.
Say we were at an absolutely critical point (not too far from the truth). A decision is made by everyone in parliament (inc. the Lords) that they will pass anything wrt Brexit that is agreed by a small cross-party group. Their decision will be final.
May is recused.
You have: Farage Davis Boris Hoey Corbyn Starmer Adonis Cable Sturgeon
And to add a little PB sanity, William Glenn and Casino Royale.
A decision is seen as agreed if all bar one are in agreement - i.e. near unanimity.
They get locked in a little room, are allowed to ask experts in (Gove excepted) for advice or projections. They are not allowed out until an agreement is made.
I reckon they'd be unable to come to an agreement. And that's the problem: there is no agreement to be had within the UK, yet alone one that would satisfy the EU.
We're screwed.
For all his tub thumping, Casino is capable of compromise and has suggested as much. It's the Mortimer tendency you'd want to avoid in that room – extremist ideologues with a kind face.
I agree: and there are one or two others who might compromise for the greater good (cue clip). But the problem is that we need a deal that these people would agree on: one they do not - and which somehow miraculously gets through parliament - will just lead to more arguments further down the line.
Brexiteers really are the biggest shits out there. They were warned pre-referendum that what they were offering was undeliverable, and they chose victory over common sense. We're living with the consequences.
Brexit was deliverable, albeit with many challenges.
What Brexit as defined and accepted by this government is undeliverable.
Yep - Theresa May drew the red lines, no-one else.
Say we were at an absolutely critical point (not too far from the truth). A decision is made by everyone in parliament (inc. the Lords) that they will pass anything wrt Brexit that is agreed by a small cross-party group. Their decision will be final.
May is recused.
You have: Farage Davis Boris Hoey Corbyn Starmer Adonis Cable Sturgeon
And to add a little PB sanity, William Glenn and Casino Royale.
A decision is seen as agreed if all bar one are in agreement - i.e. near unanimity.
They get locked in a little room, are allowed to ask experts in (Gove excepted) for advice or projections. They are not allowed out until an agreement is made.
I reckon they'd be unable to come to an agreement. And that's the problem: there is no agreement to be had within the UK, yet alone one that would satisfy the EU.
We're screwed.
For all his tub thumping, Casino is capable of compromise and has suggested as much. It's the Mortimer tendency you'd want to avoid in that room – extremist ideologues with a kind face.
I agree: and there are one or two others who might compromise for the greater good (cue clip). But the problem is that we need a deal that these people would agree on: one they do not - and which somehow miraculously gets through parliament - will just lead to more arguments further down the line.
Brexiteers really are the biggest shits out there. They were warned pre-referendum that what they were offering was undeliverable, and they chose victory over common sense. We're living with the consequences.
Brexit was deliverable, albeit with many challenges.
What Brexit as defined and accepted by this government is undeliverable.
I don't think Brexit was deliverable; there were too many inconsistencies in the leave campaigns, and 'Brexit' meant too many different things to different people. And for many of those people, it was a deeply-held religion or a theology.
Leavers have to be very careful about using the line: "It'd all have been different and worked if only we'd been in charge."
Andrew Rawnsley has compared Brexiteers to Marxists in their quest for purity
Brexiteers really are the biggest shits out there. They were warned pre-referendum that what they were offering was undeliverable, and they chose victory over common sense. We're living with the consequences.
I disagree. Brexit is completely deliverable. 100%.
I am just not prepared to tolerate the price.
How is it deliverable when the campaigns promised incompatible things? The Brexit EEA'ers argued for is very different to the one Farage and his ilk wanted.
Say we were at an absolutely critical point (not too far from the truth). A decision is made by everyone in parliament (inc. the Lords) that they will pass anything wrt Brexit that is agreed by a small cross-party group. Their decision will be final.
May is recused.
You have: Farage Davis Boris Hoey Corbyn Starmer Adonis Cable Sturgeon
And to add a little PB sanity, William Glenn and Casino Royale.
A decision is seen as agreed if all bar one are in agreement - i.e. near unanimity.
They get locked in a little room, are allowed to ask experts in (Gove excepted) for advice or projections. They are not allowed out until an agreement is made.
I reckon they'd be unable to come to an agreement. And that's the problem: there is no agreement to be had within the UK, yet alone one that would satisfy the EU.
We're screwed.
For all his tub thumping, Casino is capable of compromise and has suggested as much. It's the Mortimer tendency you'd want to avoid in that room – extremist ideologues with a kind face.
I agree: and there are one or two others who might compromise for the greater good (cue clip). But the problem is that we need a deal that these people would agree on: one they do not - and which somehow miraculously gets through parliament - will just lead to more arguments further down the line.
Brexiteers really are the biggest shits out there. They were warned pre-referendum that what they were offering was undeliverable, and they chose victory over common sense. We're living with the consequences.
Brexit was deliverable, albeit with many challenges.
What Brexit as defined and accepted by this government is undeliverable.
Yup may’s red lines were contradictory. If you want membership of the single market you must accept free movement of labour. It’s part of the gig. If you want a free trade agreement outside the single market you can have a Canada type looser trade agreement, but that will mean services wont be as easy, trade will require customs checks.
If you want the first you need to be subject to the ECJ.
May wanted the first without subject to ecj and free movement. NI is just the hanger to put it all on. Lashings of fudge can often get around matters. But the trust has broken down. I guess they cannot trust us to stay in the single market and not try to undercut them in a way other members would not be able to.
Other businesses don’t wants a Poundland on their high street....
If there is to be a deal to which the Cabinet and potentially parliament can agree, it cannot include the backstop proposals which the EU are currently insisting on. It would indeed be unthinkable for the UK to sign up to something which we can't legally ever leave, and which binds us to accept any regulation the EU ever dreams up, in perpetuity.
So the EU must back down, or there's no deal. I think it really is as simple as that. It's completely barmy - the backstop seems to have become the foreblock, forcing an outcome neither side wants - but that's how it looks. Quite why the EU has got itself in the position of forcing damage to its own economies, forcing border controls in Ireland, and depriving itself of £38bn, and all for something which is supposed never to be implemented anyway, will be an interesting study for future historians.
Of course we can legally leave it. We’d just need to agree another deal with the EU.
Comments
An absolute majority of the electorate is in any case an absurdly high bar (although it sounds reasonable, which is part of its danger). Even the original EURef, in 1975, only achieved a 43-21 win for Remain of the overall electorate. On your rules, would Britain have been obliged to negotiate exit, despite 2:1 support for Remain, and a turnout similar in scale to a general election?
In America they use small pages, wider margins, more spacing and many many more words - so I imagine they can run to many thousands. Maybe the EU do the same.
2. The EU don't want our membership to last past the next EU Parliamentary election
Exiting a backstop is, as ever, dependent on delivering a transparent Irish border whilst ensuring neither the UK or EU breach WTO non-discrimination rules. The UK clearly cannot self certify on this, given the prospect oft it triggering an EU rule breach, but I hope the EU consider in good faith what independent mechanisms could be appropriate.
When I said the backstop exit was key last month, a few days before it started to get traction in the news, I got a flood of cynicism from leavers about the impossibility of EU good faith, like I was agreeing with them. To me, they are trying, not always successfully, to calibrate hard bargain and enough good faith to get something through, and I think a deal is still possible.
The test of the deal might be what Geoffrey Cox ultimately says, he seems to have been a constructive critic in actually driving improvement of the deal. If he is satisfied and campaigns as a key backer of the deal, that would be a massive boost to May and the prospects of a deal going through.
If May had got an agreement that a majority in the House of Commons favoured then it would have to be accepted. But it seems that the only way she can get it through is via blackmail, offering an alternative that nobody wants and everybody knows will damage the country.
*I know
All political parties function on the premise that their opponents "damage the country" via one policy or another.
Brexit is not unique such as to override all the other policies which each side thinks will save or condemn the country. It also leads pretty much to "the elite" determining what is good for the country.
Brexit will play out as do other issues - wholly tribally politically. If Labour think they can gain advantage from one action or another they (should) take that action. The premise in this case is that Lab "wouldn't have started from there" and would have come up with, indeed still could come up with, a fantastic
social care,education,defence, Brexit.1. Complete shambles.
2. Not knowing arse from elbow.
3. SNAFU
4. FUBAR
5. OH MY GOD.......!!!!
More generally, I see the whirligig of spin is turning in an amusing way. It used to be the loonier Brexiteers who assured us that if we voted to Leave, the EU would of course give us a good deal without any difficulty. Now it's those on the other side, who give us exactly the same assurance in respect of voting down any deal.
NAFU-omplete shamb-H MY GO-arse-BAR
https://twitter.com/amberdebotton/status/1061904660250935296
Which obviously the EU wouldn't agree to.
He hasn't a clue.
He doesn't care he hasn't a clue.
His sole goal now is to get his name away from whatever happens and blame everyone else for messing up the cake and unicorn factory.
Say we were at an absolutely critical point (not too far from the truth). A decision is made by everyone in parliament (inc. the Lords) that they will pass anything wrt Brexit that is agreed by a small cross-party group. Their decision will be final.
May is recused.
You have:
Farage
Davis
Boris
Hoey
Corbyn
Starmer
Adonis
Cable
Sturgeon
And to add a little PB sanity, William Glenn and Casino Royale.
A decision is seen as agreed if all bar one are in agreement - i.e. near unanimity.
They get locked in a little room, are allowed to ask experts in (Gove excepted) for advice or projections. They are not allowed out until an agreement is made.
I reckon they'd be unable to come to an agreement. And that's the problem: there is no agreement to be had within the UK, yet alone one that would satisfy the EU.
We're screwed.
Were the vote to go for Remain, probably 30%+ of the voting electorate would be extremely angry, to the extent that there would be a realignment of the Right, that either resulted in UKIP replacing a broken Tory Party, or (much more likely), the Tory Party being wholly captured but the Kipper fringe. That turmoil would probably precipitate (or follow) a Corbyn government but would find its own time unless the centre could get its act together, which won't be possible while the LDs are becoming just as obsessed by Europe, only from the other side.
On the other hand, were the vote to go for No Deal, that really does mean that no deal becomes possible until the politicians' hands are freed by a significant change in public opinion, which of itself will only be possible by events forcing it. That isn't a nice prospect either.
Of all the unicorns being chased in the Brexit process, the idea of a nice, clean people's vote referendum putting the thing to bed is one of the silliest.
Still, I'm sure a few cuddly photo shoots with Ruth and some more all-too-transient lines in the sand will sort it.
'I continue to stand up for Brexit because I do not believe that the Government’s plan for our post-Brexit relationship with the EU – the Chequers proposals – fully respects the Referendum result.
Both the Chequers proposals and the plans put forward by the EU keep too many of our laws under the control of Brussels and would allow the European Commission and their unaccountable and unelected officials and institutions to continue to dictate how our country should be run and a cost to UK taxpayers. This attempt to undermine our democracy and fail to deliver Brexit is wrong. The EU has already made it clear that they reject the Chequers proposals and want to exercise more control over our country.
This is why I am standing up for Brexit and am calling for the Government and Parliament to respect the Referendum result. Britain has a bright future free from the EU.’
Wonder if she’ll carry her opposition through to voting against ‘The Deal’, as put forward by her party leader.
I think there is a possible deal that can get through parliament and the EU. It involves TM (effectively) ditching her red line on the customs union and probably also losing some of the regulatory freedoms that her Brexiteers promise they wouldn't use anyway.
So the EU must back down, or there's no deal. I think it really is as simple as that. It's completely barmy - the backstop seems to have become the foreblock, forcing an outcome neither side wants - but that's how it looks. Quite why the EU has got itself in the position of forcing damage to its own economies, forcing border controls in Ireland, and depriving itself of £38bn, and all for something which is supposed never to be implemented anyway, will be an interesting study for future historians.
Of course, as many have pointed out previously on here, her idiotic red lines at the very beginning of this process are responsible for 98.3084% of the problems we currently face.
When in doubt & despair, call the EU Nazis/commies/fascists instead of doing the hard graft of working out even a half arsed solution to the problem.
Better go and earn some more. Those dried pulses and pasta won't pay for themselves, you know.
Possibly Psychology and/or Psychiatry as well.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0711aaec-e5e4-11e8-b4e6-5632a3a9d8ab
https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/1061879073310433280?s=21
No deal probably worse for her leadership, so might as well get on with the climbdown.
Ghastly airline, the pineapple on the pizza of airlines.
It remains my contention that the EU is aware that the mere possibility of there being a path towards having a hard border in NI will mean that the UK will cave. For reasons that are well-rehearsed on here but in short have the GFA and The Troubles as a starting point. Now, if Owen Paterson, or JRM were in charge would it be any different? Perhaps not. Because expert after civil servant after police chief after SPAD would explain why the UK cannot embark upon that path.
It is exquisite and exquisitely insoluble.
I was wrong.
I see no sensible way out now other than to ask the voters again whether, in light of what we now know about the real options facing us - not the fantasies presented to us two and a half years ago - whether we want to go ahead or Remain and do so before 29 March.
None of this scrabbling around trying to get votes from this and that group of MPs on things no-one understands in a hole in a corner way and then giving us untrue or disingenuous explanations of what it all means.
Gayle Stephen
The Spanish government MUST do the British people a HUGE favour & tell IAG to **** OFF & GET LOST & I also hope Violeta Bulc does EXACTLY the same thing as she has already announced that any aviation agreement between Britain& the EU WOULD NOT be replaced in the event of a no-deal brexit. ALL
It is ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE & ESSENTIAL that we say a PERMANENT & FINAL goodbye to any & ALL travel to the EU, be it for holidays & business travel, & say hello to more staycations at home. It's ABOUT TIME we spent more of our holidays RIGHT HERE in our beautiful country so we can revive our own tourist industry by recreating the jobs that were lost over the years due to increased availability of flights to mainland Europe, & to improve the livelihoods of our tourist communities. The enthusiastic traveller would also have a more wonderful choice of non-EU destinations, all of which are FAR SAFER & FAR BETTER to visit than the EU.
ALL UK-EU FLIGHTS MUST COME TO A COMPLETE END AT ALL COSTS. WE MUST ALSO COMPLETELY WITHDRAW OUR MEMBERSHIP OF EUROCONTROL BECAUSE WE NEED TO TAKE BACK FULL CONTROL OF OUR OWN AIRSPACE & OUR GOVERNMENT MUST REGAIN FULL OWNERSHIP OF ALL OUR AIRPORTS.
IAG are absolutely INCORRECT when they claim an aviation agreement will be put in place, even in the event of a no-deal brexit. The EU have already made it clear that this WILL NOT HAPPEN UNDER ABSOLUTELY ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. In fact, the EU have EXPLICITLY ruled out even the most basic of aviation deals because they believe ANY such deal will put the integrity of their single market at the highest of risks.
ANY aviation deal with the EU will be the biggest EVER betrayal of the British electorate as even the most basic aviation deal will prevent our country becoming a bigger & better player in the global aviation market, prevent us from leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ & most of all, it will prevent us from leaving Eurocontrol. We MUST leave Eurocontrol regardless of the cost because we absolutely MUST regain our constitutional rights to decide who is/is not allowed to fly over our airspace & land at our airports. Once this fundamental right is regained, we will be fully free to sign brand new & better bilateral aviation agreements with whichever countries WE choose without the fear of being undermined & overruled by the EU & most of all by Eurocontrol.
I REALLY HOPE THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT REJECTS WILLIE WALSH & HIS IAG'S CALLS FOR HELP BECAUSE WHAT IAG PLAN TO DO IS BETRAY THE BRITISH PEOPLE. A UK-EU AVIATION DEAL, NO MATTER HOW BASIC, ABSOLUTELY CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN OR WE WILL BE TRAPPED IN THE EVIL EU FOREVER..
https://twitter.com/MBRoberts4004/status/1061942745265266688
but not in this trumpist brexit world...
Maastricht and Lisbon, and the political climate around them, as well as broken promises, have helped lead us to the current situation.
All those carping about the impossibility or immense pain of leaving might ask why that is so. Why did our political class give away so much power? Why did they integrate us so much without ever consulting the electorate?
Suppose we end up remaining on practically identical terms (the rebate is almost certainly gone, but that aside). Every time there's a decision we oppose that is imposed upon us, the hint of treachery will linger in the air. Every time we're gouged for money, there'll be the memory we voted to end this.
Any positive decision we embrace and like will get no credit from sceptics because they'll claim we could have taken that ourselves. Every negative decision that is either against our national interest or against the electorate's preference will be seen as a triumph of the political class over the people, of unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy over a nation state that voted to leave and yet remained.
Economically there will be far less turbulence if we leave. Politically, I expect things to be bitter, seemingly simmer down, and gradually get worse and worse.
[Well, obviously, if you read that article I wrote yesterday].
People pretending staying in resolves this division are deluding themselves. The question is not whether we want division or unity, to leave or remain. It's what flavour of polarised bitterness you prefer.
Brexiteers really are the biggest shits out there. They were warned pre-referendum that what they were offering was undeliverable, and they chose victory over common sense. We're living with the consequences.
What Brexit as defined and accepted by this government is undeliverable.
Let's get real; any decision based on that group agreeing won't happen, but there doesn't seem to be anything credible that enough can unite around to make it work. I'm surprised there isn't more talk of the Boles 'EEA for now' plan. In a discussion thread full of many things that we might want but can't figure out a way to make them happen, this seems to be the one where the objections can be dealt with.
This is your mess. And your fellow leavers have shown themselves to be utterly clueless and incompetent. Your fellow travellers are the ones who have sown dissent, who have whinged and complained for decades.
It's a bit late for you to be complaining about divisions. Or do divisions only matter when they're against what you want?
They don't charge you an extortionate amount for a shit service.
You are going to feel a bit foolish when those shelves stay just as full, the pharmacies stay fully stocked and the aeroplanes still fly on the 30th March. A true no deal, a no deal no deal could cause massive massive disruption. But it doesn’t take much for lots of bureaucratic agreements to roll over so this doesn’t happen.
Not that it won’t. But a true no deal no deal could tip the whole of Europe into recession.
Leavers have to be very careful about using the line: "It'd all have been different and worked if only we'd been in charge."
I am just not prepared to tolerate the price.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/11/bad-brexit-will-not-be-as-terrible-as-suez-it-will-be-far-worse
If you want the first you need to be subject to the ECJ.
May wanted the first without subject to ecj and free movement. NI is just the hanger to put it all on. Lashings of fudge can often get around matters. But the trust has broken down. I guess they cannot trust us to stay in the single market and not try to undercut them in a way other members would not be able to.
Other businesses don’t wants a Poundland on their high street....
One of my favourite films.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-46178930
I would have thought Easy jet and Ryanair were more at risk