They should be saved more major constitutional issues only and only if there is real public demand for them and they are a manifesto commitment of the governing party otherwise we should lead legislating and policy making to the legislators we elect
The 2016 referendum fulfilled all of those criteria.
Arguably but the end result of just a 52% to 48% margin confirms my point that unless they are won by a big margin referendums resolve nothing
In practice, I think this question is less important than it might seem. The EU referendum clearly showed that even a relatively close victory in an advisory vote hands to the victors an almost unanswerable mandate. However, I favour making future referendums binding, for two reasons. A referendum result which may not be honoured is a democratic absurdity. Also, binding votes should encourage voters to take their votes more seriously than they otherwise might.
Why do you think people do not take them seriously?
I would think that referendums can be made binding, in effect, by legislating in the authorizing Act that the outcome will be enacted. So there is no issue potentially caused by non-binding referenda as a general principle that needs to be fixed other than drafting more carefully. Leaving open that you could hold other more advisory votes which might be appropriate sometimes.
TM is popular and the Country want her to negotiate Brexit
There is some movement to UKIP from the conservatives
There is little evidence of a move to remain
There is little appetite for a second referendum
But, more importantly, 2 in 3 Conservatives believe the impact of No Deal has been exaggerated. With those figures, what incentive is there for the ERG to back down? Unicorn, just get on with it and leave properly Brexit is alive and well in the country if not amongst many PBers and their associates.
There is a disturbing lack of realisation on this board that dropping out of the EU without a deal has a pretty severe impact on the UK's non-EU trade.
We have not replicated the Open Skies agreement with the US, nor the seven bilateral trade agreements, nor the Atlantic Council for dispute resolution. These are mostly technical and uncontroversial (except Open Skies). But with a distracted US administration and an incompetent DfIT, dropping out without a deal could have a major negative impact on the UK's exports to the US.
Likewise, we drop out of existing agreements with the EFTA countries, with South Korea and Canada. Worse, prior trading frameworks have been retired to be replaced by EU agreements, so we'd be starting from scratch in many cases.
In my video, I said that the UK's non-EU exports would be - in the short term - more negatively impacted than EU ones. That remains the case.
Liam Fox has bee unsurprisingly woeful and is responsible for a lot of why the nation is so unpreprared for leaving.
TM is popular and the Country want her to negotiate Brexit
There is some movement to UKIP from the conservatives
There is little evidence of a move to remain
There is little appetite for a second referendum
None of which is very encouraging. The country is too divided in too many ways. Christ, the gutless five in the Cabinet are still openly spitting in the face of collective responsibility right now. If a Cabinet cannot be united after two rounds of resignations to weed out the unwilling then the country has no chance.
TM is popular and the Country want her to negotiate Brexit
There is some movement to UKIP from the conservatives
There is little evidence of a move to remain
There is little appetite for a second referendum
But, more importantly, 2 in 3 Conservatives believe the impact of No Deal has been exaggerated. With those figures, what incentive is there for the ERG to back down? Unicorn, just get on with it and leave properly Brexit is alive and well in the country if not amongst many PBers and their associates.
And that is the result of Cameron and Osborne's project fear
I am of course in the 33% who do not think it has been exaggerated
I think referendums should be reserved for constitutional changes (so leaving the EU qualifies).
However there should be a bigger hurdle than a simple majority... either a 2/3rds majority of those voting or an absolute majority of the electorate. If people feel strongly enough about a change, they will vote for it.
TM is popular and the Country want her to negotiate Brexit
There is some movement to UKIP from the conservatives
There is little evidence of a move to remain
There is little appetite for a second referendum
But, more importantly, 2 in 3 Conservatives believe the impact of No Deal has been exaggerated. With those figures, what incentive is there for the ERG to back down? Unicorn, just get on with it and leave properly Brexit is alive and well in the country if not amongst many PBers and their associates.
And that is the result of Cameron and Osborne's project fear
I am of course in the 33% who do not think it has been exaggerated
Good evening, Richard: welcome back. In your absence @MarkSenior and @PlatoSaid have died. Mark died on 14 September 2017 and was memorialised by PB[1] and by BritainElects[2]. Plato, whose real name was Phillipa, died this year on a date not known to me: I assume PB's tribute will follow when her brother provides details.
Our extant members have also had tribulations: @Barnesian 's wife died on 23 September 2018 in Galway[3]
Our older members continue with age-related infirmities: @Big_G_NorthWales and others ( @bigjohnowls ? ) have been poorly, although @ydoethur continues to entertain his congregation with an eight-foot horn.
The rest continue to argue and bicker as normal, which is the proper course of PB.
If the party had rallied around the leader and put the national interest first - both things that once upon a time were core Conservative instincts - things might be very different.
If the party could agree what is "the national interest" the problem would not have arisen in the first place.
Well indeed. Though I do think if a party cannot agree on such a thing, and believe a significant part of it is acting against the national interest, it is farcical to pretend they can co-exist. Deal or no deal or Labour government deal (It'll probably be the latter), there can be no non-ridiculous means for the Tories in parliament to remain in the same political group. Going against the national interest is not something that can be counted as normal big tent politics.
Time to fight over who gets to keep the name Conservative and Unionist Party and who has to come up with a new one.
Good for them, it may even be full of cogent analysis and sound reasoning for why this is a bad deal. I hope it equally explains in such terms why a no deal will be absolutely fine.
They might also take the time to explain how ministers can openly undermine the PM and remain in office, but even they probably think that is nuts.
TM is popular and the Country want her to negotiate Brexit
There is some movement to UKIP from the conservatives
There is little evidence of a move to remain
There is little appetite for a second referendum
None of which is very encouraging. The country is too divided in too many ways. Christ, the gutless five in the Cabinet are still openly spitting in the face of collective responsibility right now. If a Cabinet cannot be united after two rounds of resignations to weed out the unwilling then the country has no chance.
They are not spitting in the face at all. Cabinet is meant to discuss these things. They are not saying we reject this bin it, they are saying that with their input and tweaks it could be better. They can present these to cabinet and then cabinet can discuss them and decide whether they are or not.
TM is popular and the Country want her to negotiate Brexit
There is some movement to UKIP from the conservatives
There is little evidence of a move to remain
There is little appetite for a second referendum
But, more importantly, 2 in 3 Conservatives believe the impact of No Deal has been exaggerated. With those figures, what incentive is there for the ERG to back down? Unicorn, just get on with it and leave properly Brexit is alive and well in the country if not amongst many PBers and their associates.
And that is the result of Cameron and Osborne's project fear
I am of course in the 33% who do not think it has been exaggerated
We are completely unprepared in the NHS for No Deal.
If the party had rallied around the leader and put the national interest first - both things that once upon a time were core Conservative instincts - things might be very different.
If the party could agree what is "the national interest" the problem would not have arisen in the first place.
Well indeed. Though I do think if a party cannot agree on such a thing, and believe a significant part of it is acting against the national interest, it is farcical to pretend they can co-exist. Deal or no deal or Labour government deal (It'll probably be the latter), there can be no non-ridiculous means for the Tories in parliament to remain in the same political group. Going against the national interest is not something that can be counted as normal big tent politics.
Time to fight over who gets to keep the name Conservative and Unionist Party and who has to come up with a new one.
It'll be one Conservative and one Unionist at this rate. Assuming there is any Union left to be in favour of, that is.
TM is popular and the Country want her to negotiate Brexit
There is some movement to UKIP from the conservatives
There is little evidence of a move to remain
There is little appetite for a second referendum
None of which is very encouraging. The country is too divided in too many ways. Christ, the gutless five in the Cabinet are still openly spitting in the face of collective responsibility right now. If a Cabinet cannot be united after two rounds of resignations to weed out the unwilling then the country has no chance.
They are not spitting in the face at all. Cabinet is meant to discuss these things. They are not saying we reject this bin it, they are saying that with their input and tweaks it could be better. They can present these to cabinet and then cabinet can discuss them and decide whether they are or not.
The PM's position is that the deal cannot be tweaked. Indeed, that is the basis of her rebuttals to Labour that the deal can be renegotiated. Cabinet was supposed to already have made its decision to back the deal, you don't pretend to make that decision that keep on trying to change in. So you are wrong - once a decision has been taken Cabinet is not supposed to discuss changing things, when the PM's position is that changing it is not possible. Many bodies in fact have a rule meaning you cannot just immediately reverse a decision you have just made without jumping through various hurdles. You are acting like they hadn't been stated to publicly back the deal as it was, but that was what was stated and they did not quit to say otherwise.
Clearly they cannot support the deal and should have quit like Raab. They are pathetic and are ruining even the slight hopes anyone had of convincing the waverers, since they are confirming they think the PM is a liar about the deal being the only option.
There are good reasons to oppose the deal. There are good reasons, perhaps, to argue to revise the deal if you can. There are not good reasons for staying on, in essence pretending you support the deal, then publicly saying otherwise.
TM is popular and the Country want her to negotiate Brexit
There is some movement to UKIP from the conservatives
There is little evidence of a move to remain
There is little appetite for a second referendum
But, more importantly, 2 in 3 Conservatives believe the impact of No Deal has been exaggerated. With those figures, what incentive is there for the ERG to back down? Unicorn, just get on with it and leave properly Brexit is alive and well in the country if not amongst many PBers and their associates.
And that is the result of Cameron and Osborne's project fear
I am of course in the 33% who do not think it has been exaggerated
It is the result of the quasi-messianic belief that the EU is the source of all our ills. A belief which successive Conservative leaders have pandered to and bargained with.
TM is popular and the Country want her to negotiate Brexit
There is some movement to UKIP from the conservatives
There is little evidence of a move to remain
There is little appetite for a second referendum
But, more importantly, 2 in 3 Conservatives believe the impact of No Deal has been exaggerated. With those figures, what incentive is there for the ERG to back down? Unicorn, just get on with it and leave properly Brexit is alive and well in the country if not amongst many PBers and their associates.
And that is the result of Cameron and Osborne's project fear
I am of course in the 33% who do not think it has been exaggerated
If the party had rallied around the leader and put the national interest first - both things that once upon a time were core Conservative instincts - things might be very different.
If the party could agree what is "the national interest" the problem would not have arisen in the first place.
Well indeed. Though I do think if a party cannot agree on such a thing, and believe a significant part of it is acting against the national interest, it is farcical to pretend they can co-exist. Deal or no deal or Labour government deal (It'll probably be the latter), there can be no non-ridiculous means for the Tories in parliament to remain in the same political group. Going against the national interest is not something that can be counted as normal big tent politics.
Time to fight over who gets to keep the name Conservative and Unionist Party and who has to come up with a new one.
It'll be one Conservative and one Unionist at this rate. Assuming there is any Union left to be in favour of, that is.
Well they can be in favour of it in a hypothetical sense.
But in fact I've just solved the whole issue - everyone can just say they support the deal in parliament, then spend the next few years claiming they don't actually support major parts of it, apparently that is totally cool and not ridiculous.
Tory party disunity on the scale we've seen recently had to produce this eventually. Looks like the next GE is lost. On these sort of swings JRM's seat could be in danger so it's not all bad but what a ridiculous shambles in the grand cause of impoverishing and probably splitting a country.
He has a 10,000 majority and Labour requires a 9.5% swing to win the seat. Tonight's poll from Opinium implies a swing of just 2.7%.
TM is popular and the Country want her to negotiate Brexit
There is some movement to UKIP from the conservatives
There is little evidence of a move to remain
There is little appetite for a second referendum
None of which is very encouraging. The country is too divided in too many ways. Christ, the gutless five in the Cabinet are still openly spitting in the face of collective responsibility right now. If a Cabinet cannot be united after two rounds of resignations to weed out the unwilling then the country has no chance.
They are not spitting in the face at all. Cabinet is meant to discuss these things. They are not saying we reject this bin it, they are saying that with their input and tweaks it could be better. They can present these to cabinet and then cabinet can discuss them and decide whether they are or not.
The PM's position is that the deal cannot be tweaked. Indeed, that is the basis of her rebuttals to Labour that the deal can be renegotiated. Cabinet was supposed to already have made its decision to back the deal, you don't pretend to make that decision that keep on trying to change in. So you are wrong - once a decision has been taken Cabinet is not supposed to discuss changing things, when the PM's position is that changing it is not possible. Many bodies in fact have a rule meaning you cannot just immediately reverse a decision you have just made without jumping through various hurdles. You are acting like they hadn't been stated to publicly back the deal as it was, but that was what was stated and they did not quit to say otherwise.
Clearly they cannot support the deal and should have quit like Raab. They are pathetic and are ruining even the slight hopes anyone had of convincing the waverers, since they are confirming they think the PM is a liar about the deal being the only option.
The Cabinet meeting where serious reservations were raised was before the deal was released to the MP's. This then resulted in serious doubts that the deal will pass Parliament. The situation changed from this deal will pass to it is clear it will really struggle. The budget was approved by Cabinet then there was a revolt over FOBTS. The Cabinet discussed again and changed it.
TM is popular and the Country want her to negotiate Brexit
There is some movement to UKIP from the conservatives
There is little evidence of a move to remain
There is little appetite for a second referendum
None of which is very encouraging. The country is too divided in too many ways. Christ, the gutless five in the Cabinet are still openly spitting in the face of collective responsibility right now. If a Cabinet cannot be united after two rounds of resignations to weed out the unwilling then the country has no chance.
They are not spitting in the face at all. Cabinet is meant to discuss these things. They are not saying we reject this bin it, they are saying that with their input and tweaks it could be better. They can present these to cabinet and then cabinet can discuss them and decide whether they are or not.
The PM's position is that the deal cannot be tweaked. Indeed, that is the basis of her rebuttals to Labour that the deal can be renegotiated. Cabinet was supposed to already have made its decision to back the deal, you don't pretend to make that decision that keep on trying to change in. So you are wrong - once a decision has been taken Cabinet is not supposed to discuss changing things, when the PM's position is that changing it is not possible. Many bodies in fact have a rule meaning you cannot just immediately reverse a decision you have just made without jumping through various hurdles. You are acting like they hadn't been stated to publicly back the deal as it was, but that was what was stated and they did not quit to say otherwise.
Clearly they cannot support the deal and should have quit like Raab. They are pathetic and are ruining even the slight hopes anyone had of convincing the waverers, since they are confirming they think the PM is a liar about the deal being the only option.
There are good reasons to oppose the deal. There are good reasons, perhaps, to argue to revise the deal if you can. There are not good reasons for staying on, in essence pretending you support the deal, then publicly saying otherwise.
Indeed. Didn't Leadsom explicitly state she was not resigning, because she wanted to work against the deal from within Cabinet? That is not Cabinet government.
10. The Mandelson Pension Clause: The UK must promise never to tax former EU officials based here – such as Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock – on their E.U. pensions, or tax any current Brussels bureaucrats on their salaries. The EU and its employees are to be immune to our tax laws. (Article 104)
This provision of the agreement respects rights which individuals have acquired during 40 years of membership of the EU. It would not be appropriate for these rights to be summarily removed.
TM is popular and the Country want her to negotiate Brexit
There is some movement to UKIP from the conservatives
There is little evidence of a move to remain
There is little appetite for a second referendum
None of which is very encouraging. The country is too divided in too many ways. Christ, the gutless five in the Cabinet are still openly spitting in the face of collective responsibility right now. If a Cabinet cannot be united after two rounds of resignations to weed out the unwilling then the country has no chance.
They are not spitting in the face at all. Cabinet is meant to discuss these things. They are not saying we reject this bin it, they are saying that with their input and tweaks it could be better. They can present these to cabinet and then cabinet can discuss them and decide whether they are or not.
The PM's position is thaid not quit to say otherwise.
Clearly they cannot support the deal and should have quit like Raab. They are pathetic and are ruining even the slight hopes anyone had of convincing the waverers, since they are confirming they think the PM is a liar about the deal being the only option.
The Cabinet meeting where serious reservations were raised was before the deal was released to the MP's. This then resulted in serious doubts that the deal will pass Parliament. The situation changed from this deal will pass to it is clear it will really struggle. The budget was approved by Cabinet then there was a revolt over FOBTS. The Cabinet discussed again and changed it.
The difference is that changing the budget is entirely within the government's power, changing the deal is not, and the government position is that the EU won't change things.
If people believe otherwise they can quit government and try to change things at least. Maybe they are correct. Nothing in that means they should stay on and publicly oppose the PM they claim to support, when they clearly do not.
Why not appoint JRM as Brexit secretary, apparently opposing the deal is not a problem in government.
As for it not passing parliament, I'm sure it won't in its current form, but there's no point changing the deal if the EU won't accept it, there's no point passing something on our end if the EU won't on theirs. The PM says changing it means they won't. It is fine for people to say she is wrong. But not while in the Cabinet.
They should have sent in their letters and vote down May on Monday or whenever, then a new PM can try a new position.
TM is popular and the Country want her to negotiate Brexit
There is some movement to UKIP from the conservatives
There is little evidence of a move to remain
There is little appetite for a second referendum
None of which is very encouraging. The country is too divided in too many ways. Christ, the gutless five in the Cabinet are still openly spitting in the face of collective responsibility right now. If a Cabinet cannot be united after two rounds of resignations to weed out the unwilling then the country has no chance.
They are not spitting in the face at all. Cabinet is meant to discuss these things. They are not saying we reject this bin it, they are saying that with their input and tweaks it could be better. They can present these to cabinet and then cabinet can discuss them and decide whether they are or not.
The PM's position is that the deal cannot be tweaked. Indeed, that is the basis of her rebuttals to Labour that the deal can be renegotiated. Cabinet was supposed to already have made its decision to back the deal, you don't pretend to make that decision that keep on trying to change in. So you are wrong - once a decision has been taken Cabinet is not supposed to discuss changing things, when the PM's position is that changing it is not possible. Many bodies in fact have a rule meaning you cannot just immediately reverse a decision you have just made without jumping through various hurdles. You are acting like they hadn't been stated to publicly back the deal as it was, but that was what was stated and they did not quit to say otherwise.
Clearly they cannot support the deal and should have quit like Raab. They are pathetic and are ruining even the slight hopes anyone had of convincing the waverers, since they are confirming they think the PM is a liar about the deal being the only option.
There are good reasons to oppose the deal. There are good reasons, perhaps, to argue to revise the deal if you can. There are not good reasons for staying on, in essence pretending you support the deal, then publicly saying otherwise.
May should sack the five of them on Monday morning and find another five Amber Rudds to take their places. Shit or bust time for Tezzie.
TM is popular and the Country want her to negotiate Brexit
There is some movement to UKIP from the conservatives
There is little evidence of a move to remain
There is little appetite for a second referendum
None of which is very encouraging. The country is too divided in too many ways. Christ, the gutless five in the Cabinet are still openly spitting in the face of collective responsibility right now. If a Cabinet cannot be united after two rounds of resignations to weed out the unwilling then the country has no chance.
They are not spitting in the face at all. Cabinet is meant to discuss these things. They are not saying we reject this bin it, they are saying that with their input and tweaks it could be better. They can present these to cabinet and then cabinet can discuss them and decide whether they are or not.
The PM's position is that the deal cannot be tweaked. Indeed, that is the basis of her rebuttals to Labour that the deal can be renegotiated. Cabinet was supposed to already have made its decision to back the deal, you don't pretend to make that decision that keep on trying to change in. So you are wrong - once a decision has been taken Cabinet is not supposed to discuss changing things, when the PM's position is that changing it is not possible. Many bodies in fact have a rule meaning you cannot just immediately reverse a decision you have just made without jumping through various hurdles. You are acting like they hadn't been stated to publicly back the deal as it was, but that was what was stated and they did not quit to say otherwise.
Clearly they cannot support the deal and should have quit like Raab. They are pathetic and are ruining even the slight hopes anyone had of convincing the waverers, since they are confirming they think the PM is a liar about the deal being the only option.
There are good reasons to oppose the deal. There are good reasons, perhaps, to argue to revise the deal if you can. There are not good reasons for staying on, in essence pretending you support the deal, then publicly saying otherwise.
May should sack the five of them on Monday morning and find another five Amber Rudds to take their places. Shit or bust time for Tezzie.
10. The Mandelson Pension Clause: The UK must promise never to tax former EU officials based here – such as Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock – on their E.U. pensions, or tax any current Brussels bureaucrats on their salaries. The EU and its employees are to be immune to our tax laws. (Article 104)
This provision of the agreement respects rights which individuals have acquired during 40 years of membership of the EU. It would not be appropriate for these rights to be summarily removed.
If that was the existing arrangement, it seems utterly reasonable to me. And an exceptionally cheap concession for us to make in the grand scheme of things.
10. The Mandelson Pension Clause: The UK must promise never to tax former EU officials based here – such as Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock – on their E.U. pensions, or tax any current Brussels bureaucrats on their salaries. The EU and its employees are to be immune to our tax laws. (Article 104)
This provision of the agreement respects rights which individuals have acquired during 40 years of membership of the EU. It would not be appropriate for these rights to be summarily removed.
Don't we do the same for other employees of international organisations such as NATO and the UN?
10. The Mandelson Pension Clause: The UK must promise never to tax former EU officials based here – such as Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock – on their E.U. pensions, or tax any current Brussels bureaucrats on their salaries. The EU and its employees are to be immune to our tax laws. (Article 104)
This provision of the agreement respects rights which individuals have acquired during 40 years of membership of the EU. It would not be appropriate for these rights to be summarily removed.
If that was the existing arrangement, it seems utterly reasonable to me. And an exceptionally cheap concession for us to make in the grand scheme of things.
Really? We're always told that leaving the EU means losing benefits of membership. Funny how these "benefits" are protected.
10. The Mandelson Pension Clause: The UK must promise never to tax former EU officials based here – such as Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock – on their E.U. pensions, or tax any current Brussels bureaucrats on their salaries. The EU and its employees are to be immune to our tax laws. (Article 104)
This provision of the agreement respects rights which individuals have acquired during 40 years of membership of the EU. It would not be appropriate for these rights to be summarily removed.
If that was the existing arrangement, it seems utterly reasonable to me. And an exceptionally cheap concession for us to make in the grand scheme of things.
I presume Mandelson and Kinnock make voluntary tax contributions anyway?
I have to say, those answers from No 10 don't fill me with confidence.
Be honest: number 18 ("Britain is granted the power to send a civil servant to Brussels to watch them pass stupid laws which will hurt our economy") was spectacularly dumb, in that it was a) worse than the alternative and b) Mr Pouty.
10. The Mandelson Pension Clause: The UK must promise never to tax former EU officials based here – such as Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock – on their E.U. pensions, or tax any current Brussels bureaucrats on their salaries. The EU and its employees are to be immune to our tax laws. (Article 104)
This provision of the agreement respects rights which individuals have acquired during 40 years of membership of the EU. It would not be appropriate for these rights to be summarily removed.
Don't we do the same for other employees of international organisations such as NATO and the UN?
Are we leaving those institutions? And what makes you think I approve of those arrangements?
May should sack the five of them on Monday morning and find another five Amber Rudds to take their places. Shit or bust time for Tezzie.
Her premiership is effectively already at an end. Even if she passed her deal somehow it would be at the cost of her parliamentary majority on anything else. It is not so much about stamping her authority on things, but about being clear where people stand.
Are they for her deal? Are they for a new deal? Are they for no deal? Are they for remain?
If you are not in the top one you have no place being in the Cabinet. If you are the second you are in good company, people from all over the chamber are in it, and the next Tory leader will probably be in it.
10. The Mandelson Pension Clause: The UK must promise never to tax former EU officials based here – such as Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock – on their E.U. pensions, or tax any current Brussels bureaucrats on their salaries. The EU and its employees are to be immune to our tax laws. (Article 104)
This provision of the agreement respects rights which individuals have acquired during 40 years of membership of the EU. It would not be appropriate for these rights to be summarily removed.
Don't we do the same for other employees of international organisations such as NATO and the UN?
10. The Mandelson Pension Clause: The UK must promise never to tax former EU officials based here – such as Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock – on their E.U. pensions, or tax any current Brussels bureaucrats on their salaries. The EU and its employees are to be immune to our tax laws. (Article 104)
This provision of the agreement respects rights which individuals have acquired during 40 years of membership of the EU. It would not be appropriate for these rights to be summarily removed.
If that was the existing arrangement, it seems utterly reasonable to me. And an exceptionally cheap concession for us to make in the grand scheme of things.
Agreed. Funny how both of the examples given are Labour. I assume no Tories or UKIP members ever took the EU shilling?
10. The Mandelson Pension Clause: The UK must promise never to tax former EU officials based here – such as Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock – on their E.U. pensions, or tax any current Brussels bureaucrats on their salaries. The EU and its employees are to be immune to our tax laws. (Article 104)
This provision of the agreement respects rights which individuals have acquired during 40 years of membership of the EU. It would not be appropriate for these rights to be summarily removed.
If that was the existing arrangement, it seems utterly reasonable to me. And an exceptionally cheap concession for us to make in the grand scheme of things.
Really? We're always told that leaving the EU means losing benefits of membership. Funny how these "benefits" are protected.
It affects a handful of people. No doubt HMG decided they had bigger fish to fry.
Indeed. Didn't Leadsom explicitly state she was not resigning, because she wanted to work against the deal from within Cabinet? That is not Cabinet government.
We're in a brand new era. Jeremy Corbyn should join the Cabinet, he also wants to negotiation a new deal after all, no need for a new election or even a new PM.
I have to say, those answers from No 10 don't fill me with confidence.
Be honest: number 18 ("Britain is granted the power to send a civil servant to Brussels to watch them pass stupid laws which will hurt our economy") was spectacularly dumb, in that it was a) worse than the alternative and b) Mr Pouty.
Plus I reall like the answer they gave to number 15 ("The UK is shut out of all EU networks and databases for security – yet no such provision exists to shut the EU out of ours"). That answer was "That is because access to UK networks and databases is up to us." You can hear the "duh" from here.
May should sack the five of them on Monday morning and find another five Amber Rudds to take their places. Shit or bust time for Tezzie.
Her premiership is effectively already at an end. Even if she passed her deal somehow it would be at the cost of her parliamentary majority on anything else. It is not so much about stamping her authority on things, but about being clear where people stand.
Are they for her deal? Are they for a new deal? Are they for no deal? Are they for remain?
If you are not in the top one you have no place being in the Cabinet. If you are the second you are in good company, people from all over the chamber are in it, and the next Tory leader will probably be in it.
But the EU is not in it and has made clear they never will be unless we make further concessions like permanent single market or customs union membership, otherwise rejecting this Deal means No Deal and quite possibly EUref2 leading to Remain
May should sack the five of them on Monday morning and find another five Amber Rudds to take their places. Shit or bust time for Tezzie.
Her premiership is effectively already at an end. Even if she passed her deal somehow it would be at the cost of her parliamentary majority on anything else. It is not so much about stamping her authority on things, but about being clear where people stand.
Are they for her deal? Are they for a new deal? Are they for no deal? Are they for remain?
If you are not in the top one you have no place being in the Cabinet. If you are the second you are in good company, people from all over the chamber are in it, and the next Tory leader will probably be in it.
The trouble is that the 'new deal' group is actually two distinct groups - those that want something less BINO and those that want something more BINO. A more BINO deal would probably get through the commons on Labour votes, but is May prepared to send Starmer to Brussels to reopen negotiations?
General comment: When making mathematical models it's useful to consider limiting cases. Here these cases might be something like having everyone fitted with a brain chip that averages the response of everyone at all times (like an ant colony?) or, on the other hand a dictatorship or chaos. The odd referendum falls somewhere between. The hard part, of course, is the making of a model relevant to the behaviour of people.
Mildly encouraged to see them pushing back like this.
Well, they have to go through the motions. If people are going to vote against they should have the other side put to them at least.
I hope that when PM Raab or PM Corbyn attempt to negotiate a new deal that they have the success they think they will have and I wish them all them every success in that for all our sakes.
There is a disturbing lack of realisation on this board that dropping out of the EU without a deal has a pretty severe impact on the UK's non-EU trade.
We have not replicated the Open Skies agreement with the US, nor the seven bilateral trade agreements, nor the Atlantic Council for dispute resolution. These are mostly technical and uncontroversial (except Open Skies). But with a distracted US administration and an incompetent DfIT, dropping out without a deal could have a major negative impact on the UK's exports to the US.
Likewise, we drop out of existing agreements with the EFTA countries, with South Korea and Canada. Worse, prior trading frameworks have been retired to be replaced by EU agreements, so we'd be starting from scratch in many cases.
In my video, I said that the UK's non-EU exports would be - in the short term - more negatively impacted than EU ones. That remains the case.
I suspect the lack of realisation stems from the fact that most of those advocating that course of action don't expect to be personally inconvenienced by it
Indeed. Didn't Leadsom explicitly state she was not resigning, because she wanted to work against the deal from within Cabinet? That is not Cabinet government.
We're in a brand new era. Jeremy Corbyn should join the Cabinet, he also wants to negotiation a new deal after all, no need for a new election or even a new PM.
Well, why not? He could work against UC, privatisation and the free market from within the Cabinet, rather than resign.
Oh, let's keep it going. Number 6 ("Any disputes under the Agreement will be decided by EU law only") was met with "No. Disputes under the agreement are decided by an arbitration panel"
Number 8 ("We obey EU laws on VAT, with no chance of losing the tampon tax even if we agree a better deal in December 2020 because we hereby agree to obey other EU VAT rules for **five years** after the transition period.") was met with "This is about...goods sold before the end of the transition period. It has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the VAT regime in the UK after the end of transition."
May should sack the five of them on Monday morning and find another five Amber Rudds to take their places. Shit or bust time for Tezzie.
Her premiership is effectively already at an end. Even if she passed her deal somehow it would be at the cost of her parliamentary majority on anything else. It is not so much about stamping her authority on things, but about being clear where people stand.
Are they for her deal? Are they for a new deal? Are they for no deal? Are they for remain?
If you are not in the top one you have no place being in the Cabinet. If you are the second you are in good company, people from all over the chamber are in it, and the next Tory leader will probably be in it.
The trouble is that the 'new deal' group is actually two distinct groups - those that want something less BINO and those that want something more BINO. A more BINO deal would probably get through the commons on Labour votes, but is May prepared to send Starmer to Brussels to reopen negotiations?
I agree that is the problem, but it is where we stand and it is why this deal will fail. The difficulty will be can the next Tory leader come up with a coherent position to carry more of (though not all) of their party, and can they then get the EU to agree to that, and then can enough Labour rebels back that.
Tory party disunity on the scale we've seen recently had to produce this eventually. Looks like the next GE is lost. On these sort of swings JRM's seat could be in danger so it's not all bad but what a ridiculous shambles in the grand cause of impoverishing and probably splitting a country.
He has a 10,000 majority and Labour requires a 9.5% swing to win the seat. Tonight's poll from Opinium implies a swing of just 2.7%.
Indeed both tonight's Opinium and Comres polls would not even see Corbyn win a majority let alone a landslide, though he would still be PM.
May should sack the five of them on Monday morning and find another five Amber Rudds to take their places. Shit or bust time for Tezzie.
Her premiership is effectively already at an end. Even if she passed her deal somehow it would be at the cost of her parliamentary majority on anything else. It is not so much about stamping her authority on things, but about being clear where people stand.
Are they for her deal? Are they for a new deal? Are they for no deal? Are they for remain?
If you are not in the top one you have no place being in the Cabinet. If you are the second you are in good company, people from all over the chamber are in it, and the next Tory leader will probably be in it.
Yes. The time for the pretend collegiate approach is over. It served its purpose to lull the Leavers for 2.5y. Obviously there is still a place for Mr 'Judas Goat' Fox.
10. The Mandelson Pension Clause: The UK must promise never to tax former EU officials based here – such as Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock – on their E.U. pensions, or tax any current Brussels bureaucrats on their salaries. The EU and its employees are to be immune to our tax laws. (Article 104)
This provision of the agreement respects rights which individuals have acquired during 40 years of membership of the EU. It would not be appropriate for these rights to be summarily removed.
If that was the existing arrangement, it seems utterly reasonable to me. And an exceptionally cheap concession for us to make in the grand scheme of things.
Really? We're always told that leaving the EU means losing benefits of membership. Funny how these "benefits" are protected.
Yes, it really does seem reasonable.
And you're willing to see the country burn over that sort of trifle?
Number 28 ("28. The UK is bound by EU state aid laws until future agreement – even in the event of an agreement, this must wait four years to be valid.") was met with "No, this is not right....This provision is about state aid...law before the end of the implementation period. It has absolutely nothing to do with state aid law applying in the UK afterwards."
May should sack the five of them on Monday morning and find another five Amber Rudds to take their places. Shit or bust time for Tezzie.
Her premiership is effectively already at an end. Even if she passed her deal somehow it would be at the cost of her parliamentary majority on anything else. It is not so much about stamping her authority on things, but about being clear where people stand.
Are they for her deal? Are they for a new deal? Are they for no deal? Are they for remain?
If you are not in the top one you have no place being in the Cabinet. If you are the second you are in good company, people from all over the chamber are in it, and the next Tory leader will probably be in it.
Yes. The time for the pretend collegiate approach is over. It served its purpose to lull the Leavers for 2.5y. Obviously there is still a place for Mr 'Judas Goat' Fox.
To be clear, I don't disrespect those who genuinely want no deal or think that a new deal can be negotiated. Perhaps there are room for tweaks. But I cannot respect those who believe that and serve under someone whose stated policy is that there are no rooms for tweaks, not when they have a route to pursue the option they want - quit, new leader, new approach.
In short, Steerpike (a inhouse name for various Spectator writers) cannot distinguish between deals done before the end of transition (when EU law will apply), and deals done after the end of the transition (when they won't).
10. The Mandelson Pension Clause: The UK must promise never to tax former EU officials based here – such as Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock – on their E.U. pensions, or tax any current Brussels bureaucrats on their salaries. The EU and its employees are to be immune to our tax laws. (Article 104)
This provision of the agreement respects rights which individuals have acquired during 40 years of membership of the EU. It would not be appropriate for these rights to be summarily removed.
If that was the existing arrangement, it seems utterly reasonable to me. And an exceptionally cheap concession for us to make in the grand scheme of things.
Really? We're always told that leaving the EU means losing benefits of membership. Funny how these "benefits" are protected.
Yes, it really does seem reasonable.
And you're willing to see the country burn over that sort of trifle?
I admit that I have much bigger reservations about this - namely that we won't actually leave the single market, CAP, CFP, FoM etc in 2020 - but I admit that it is galling to see the likes of Kinnock (yes, and Tories and Kippers) to keep dodging tax.
The country will stop blaming the ills of the country on the EU and start blaming Leavers.
What a time to be alive.
It will blame both.
I think you will find our Remain Government is going to own an awful lot of this. They've made themselves powerless visavis the EU with this Deal. That is going to cost and keep on costing until they are history.
The country will stop blaming the ills of the country on the EU and start blaming Leavers.
What a time to be alive.
It will blame both.
I think you will find our Remain Government is going to own an awful lot of this. They've made themselves powerless visavis the EU with this Deal. That is going to cost and keep on costing until they are history.
10. The Mandelson Pension Clause: The UK must promise never to tax former EU officials based here – such as Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock – on their E.U. pensions, or tax any current Brussels bureaucrats on their salaries. The EU and its employees are to be immune to our tax laws. (Article 104)
This provision of the agreement respects rights which individuals have acquired during 40 years of membership of the EU. It would not be appropriate for these rights to be summarily removed.
If that was the existing arrangement, it seems utterly reasonable to me. And an exceptionally cheap concession for us to make in the grand scheme of things.
Really? We're always told that leaving the EU means losing benefits of membership. Funny how these "benefits" are protected.
Yes, it really does seem reasonable.
And you're willing to see the country burn over that sort of trifle?
I admit that I have much bigger reservations about this - namely that we won't actually leave the single market, CAP, CFP, FoM etc in 2020 - but I admit that it is galling to see the likes of Kinnock (yes, and Tories and Kippers) to keep dodging tax.
Ah, so pensions rights should depend on whether *you* personally like someone or not.
Tory party disunity on the scale we've seen recently had to produce this eventually. Looks like the next GE is lost. On these sort of swings JRM's seat could be in danger so it's not all bad but what a ridiculous shambles in the grand cause of impoverishing and probably splitting a country.
He has a 10,000 majority and Labour requires a 9.5% swing to win the seat. Tonight's poll from Opinium implies a swing of just 2.7%.
Indeed both tonight's Opinium and Comres polls would not even see Corbyn win a majority let alone a landslide, though he would still be PM.
Number 8 ("We obey EU laws on VAT, with no chance of losing the tampon tax even if we agree a better deal in December 2020 because we hereby agree to obey other EU VAT rules for **five years** after the transition period.") was met with "This is about...goods sold before the end of the transition period. It has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the VAT regime in the UK after the end of transition."
I don't have access to either the original Spectator article or the rebuttal, but from the examples so far on here the original article looks like it should have carried a fake news alert.
Tory party disunity on the scale we've seen recently had to produce this eventually. Looks like the next GE is lost. On these sort of swings JRM's seat could be in danger so it's not all bad but what a ridiculous shambles in the grand cause of impoverishing and probably splitting a country.
He has a 10,000 majority and Labour requires a 9.5% swing to win the seat. Tonight's poll from Opinium implies a swing of just 2.7%.
Indeed both tonight's Opinium and Comres polls would not even see Corbyn win a majority let alone a landslide, though he would still be PM.
As the house of lords report said the legal obligations are unclear and likely nowhere near £39B. The majority of which is for two years of transition which covers the current budget agreement.
No deal results in no transition and an open question as to whether we're liable for a budget spent when we're no longer members.
This is absolutely correct. The total we would be on the hook for would be between £5bn and £15bn, with the upper bound being our proportionate share of the EU's net liabilities. I suspect that the amount we would end up paying would be c. £5-7bn.
The country will stop blaming the ills of the country on the EU and start blaming Leavers.
What a time to be alive.
It will blame both.
I think you will find our Remain Government is going to own an awful lot of this. They've made themselves powerless visavis the EU with this Deal. That is going to cost and keep on costing until they are history.
Colonial collaborators never are.
No Deal will of course quite likely make Brexit history as it will lead to EUref2 and Remain, a Deal is the only way to sustain Brexit
Good evening, Richard: welcome back. In your absence...Our older members continue with age-related infirmities: @Big_G_NorthWales and others ( @bigjohnowls ? ) have been poorly, although @ydoethur continues to entertain his congregation with an eight-foot horn.
Actually I'm getting complaints about the overuse of my 8-foot horn. They say I'm pulling it out too often. They just don't understand that after a busy week's teaching a man needs to let himself go a bit and play around with his full swell.
I'm intrigued to learn that at 35 I'm one of the older members. I thought I was one of the younger ones...
Tory party disunity on the scale we've seen recently had to produce this eventually. Looks like the next GE is lost. On these sort of swings JRM's seat could be in danger so it's not all bad but what a ridiculous shambles in the grand cause of impoverishing and probably splitting a country.
He has a 10,000 majority and Labour requires a 9.5% swing to win the seat. Tonight's poll from Opinium implies a swing of just 2.7%.
Indeed both tonight's Opinium and Comres polls would not even see Corbyn win a majority let alone a landslide, though he would still be PM.
Not surprising — the Labour share is down in both polls compared to the GE.
Well little different really bit on both polls if Corbyn does become PM he will be having his policies dictated by Ian Blackford and the SNP on those numbers which means Scotland joins Northern Ireland in the Single Market and Customs Union along with of course Corbyn's permanent Customs Union for the UK which could well as a result become permanent Single Market membership too.
So if the ERG and DUP reject May's Deal they likely end up with BINO with PM Corbyn
Number 28 ("28. The UK is bound by EU state aid laws until future agreement – even in the event of an agreement, this must wait four years to be valid.") was met with "No, this is not right....This provision is about state aid...law before the end of the implementation period. It has absolutely nothing to do with state aid law applying in the UK afterwards."
There is no 'Implementation Period'. Mrsmay&olly Transitioned it to oblivion.
The country will stop blaming the ills of the country on the EU and start blaming Leavers.
What a time to be alive.
It will blame both.
I think you will find our Remain Government is going to own an awful lot of this. They've made themselves powerless visavis the EU with this Deal. That is going to cost and keep on costing until they are history.
Colonial collaborators never are.
No Deal will of course quite likely make Brexit history as it will lead to EUref2 and Remain, a Deal is the only way to sustain Brexit
And the irony is that even as a Remainer this deal is a significant improvement on Remain in many crucial ways.
But the Brexiteers seem to have lost sight of the ultimate goal - keeping out of a federal European state.
Tory party disunity on the scale we've seen recently had to produce this eventually. Looks like the next GE is lost. On these sort of swings JRM's seat could be in danger so it's not all bad but what a ridiculous shambles in the grand cause of impoverishing and probably splitting a country.
He has a 10,000 majority and Labour requires a 9.5% swing to win the seat. Tonight's poll from Opinium implies a swing of just 2.7%.
Indeed both tonight's Opinium and Comres polls would not even see Corbyn win a majority let alone a landslide, though he would still be PM.
The country will stop blaming the ills of the country on the EU and start blaming Leavers.
What a time to be alive.
It will blame both.
I think you will find our Remain Government is going to own an awful lot of this. They've made themselves powerless visavis the EU with this Deal. That is going to cost and keep on costing until they are history.
Colonial collaborators never are.
No Deal will of course quite likely make Brexit history as it will lead to EUref2 and Remain, a Deal is the only way to sustain Brexit
And the irony is that even as a Remainer this deal is a significant improvement on Remain in many crucial ways.
But the Brexiteers seem to have lost sight of the ultimate goal - keeping out of a federal European state.
The unwillingness to compromise and desire for purity could ultimately rob them of the ultimate prize ie actually leaving the EU as they cannot carry the public with them towards Brexit without a Deal
The country will stop blaming the ills of the country on the EU and start blaming Leavers.
What a time to be alive.
It will blame both.
I think you will find our Remain Government is going to own an awful lot of this. They've made themselves powerless visavis the EU with this Deal. That is going to cost and keep on costing until they are history.
Colonial collaborators never are.
No Deal will of course quite likely make Brexit history as it will lead to EUref2 and Remain, a Deal is the only way to sustain Brexit
And the irony is that even as a Remainer this deal is a significant improvement on Remain in many crucial ways.
But the Brexiteers seem to have lost sight of the ultimate goal - keeping out of a federal European state.
The unwillingness to compromise and desire for purity could ultimately rob them of the ultimate prize ie actually leaving the EU as they cannot carry the public with them towards Brexit without a Deal
I shall not soon forgive them if they lose this rather promising associate membership and carry us into Schengen and the Euro.
Edit - and that goes for all parties, please note.
There is a disturbing lack of realisation on this board that dropping out of the EU without a deal has a pretty severe impact on the UK's non-EU trade.
Oh stop using merely financial concerns, young man. Don't you know that LEAVERs are motivated by higher principle, not mere money?[1]
[1] Believe it or not, this is a (rather harsh) summary of Matthew Goodwin's position...
Good evening, Richard: welcome back. In your absence...Our older members continue with age-related infirmities: @Big_G_NorthWales and others ( @bigjohnowls ? ) have been poorly, although @ydoethur continues to entertain his congregation with an eight-foot horn.
Actually I'm getting complaints about the overuse of my 8-foot horn. They say I'm pulling it out too often. They just don't understand that after a busy week's teaching a man needs to let himself go a bit and play around with his full swell.
I'm intrigued to learn that at 35 I'm one of the older members. I thought I was one of the younger ones...
I did not know your age. I guessed. It's not often younger men play with their organ in church. Pause. Well, the ones from the [REDACTED] church perhaps, but they're weird...
The country will stop blaming the ills of the country on the EU and start blaming Leavers.
What a time to be alive.
It will blame both.
I think you will find our Remain Government is going to own an awful lot of this. They've made themselves powerless visavis the EU with this Deal. That is going to cost and keep on costing until they are history.
So about 4 months then.
Well the alternative of a Brexit Gov seems unavailable, so its them or Corbo The Great.
There is a disturbing lack of realisation on this board that dropping out of the EU without a deal has a pretty severe impact on the UK's non-EU trade.
Oh stop using merely financial concerns, young man. Don't you know that LEAVERs are motivated by higher principle, not mere money?[1]
[1] Believe it or not, this is a (rather harsh) summary of Matthew Goodwin's position...
Though it helps if they are multi millionaires like Banks, Boris and Dyson and Mogg to make holding those higher principles a bit easier
The country will stop blaming the ills of the country on the EU and start blaming Leavers.
What a time to be alive.
It will blame both.
I think you will find our Remain Government is going to own an awful lot of this. They've made themselves powerless visavis the EU with this Deal. That is going to cost and keep on costing until they are history.
Colonial collaborators never are.
No Deal will of course quite likely make Brexit history as it will lead to EUref2 and Remain, a Deal is the only way to sustain Brexit
And the irony is that even as a Remainer this deal is a significant improvement on Remain in many crucial ways.
But the Brexiteers seem to have lost sight of the ultimate goal - keeping out of a federal European state.
The unwillingness to compromise and desire for purity could ultimately rob them of the ultimate prize ie actually leaving the EU as they cannot carry the public with them towards Brexit without a Deal
I shall not soon forgive them if they lose this rather promising associate membership and carry us into Schengen and the Euro.
Edit - and that goes for all parties, please note.
I doubt we will ever go into Schengen and the Euro, at most it will either be EUref2 and Remain on current terms before next March or return to the single market after next March but either way it will be on a closer relationship with the EU than under May's Deal ultimately if it is rejected
TM is popular and the Country want her to negotiate Brexit
There is some movement to UKIP from the conservatives
There is little evidence of a move to remain
There is little appetite for a second referendum
None of which is very encouraging. The country is too divided in too many ways. Christ, the gutless five in the Cabinet are still openly spitting in the face of collective responsibility right now. If a Cabinet cannot be united after two rounds of resignations to weed out the unwilling then the country has no chance.
They are not spitting in the face at all. Cabinet is meant to discuss these things. They are not saying we reject this bin it, they are saying that with their input and tweaks it could be better. They can present these to cabinet and then cabinet can discuss them and decide whether they are or not.
The PM's position is that the deal cannot be tweaked. Indeed, that is the basis of her rebuttals to Labour that the deal can be renegotiated. Cabinet was supposed to already have made its decision to back the deal, you don't pretend to make that decision that keep on trying to change in. So you are wrong - once a decision has been taken Cabinet is not supposed to discuss changing things, when the PM's position is that changing it is not possible. Many bodies in fact have a rule meaning you cannot just immediately reverse a decision you have just made without jumping through various hurdles. You are acting like they hadn't been stated to publicly back the deal as it was, but that was what was stated and they did not quit to say otherwise.
Clearly they cannot support the deal and should have quit like Raab. They are pathetic and are ruining even the slight hopes anyone had of convincing the waverers, since they are confirming they think the PM is a liar about the deal being the only option.
There are good reasons to oppose the deal. There are good reasons, perhaps, to argue to revise the deal if you can. There are not good reasons for staying on, in essence pretending you support the deal, then publicly saying otherwise.
May should sack the five of them on Monday morning and find another five Amber Rudds to take their places. Shit or bust time for Tezzie.
Nearly every single decision that TMay has made as Home Secretary and Prime Minister has proven to be problematic.
Many of them have been covered up, or attention diverted from, and now, besties or nearly besties put in position to cover her backside. What could possibly go wrong, this time?
They should be saved more major constitutional issues only and only if there is real public demand for them and they are a manifesto commitment of the governing party otherwise we should lead legislating and policy making to the legislators we elect
The 2016 referendum fulfilled all of those criteria.
Arguably but the end result of just a 52% to 48% margin confirms my point that unless they are won by a big margin referendums resolve nothing
Depends what you mean by resolving something. If the government is to be taken at its word and we leave, then the referendum will eventually be seen to have resolved some things (although in anything but a clear-cut manner if we do so through this deal). However, it won't have engendered the degree of acceptance from the losing side which leads to them dropping all of those things as issues for a good while.
Clearly they cannot support the deal and should have quit like Raab. They are pathetic and are ruining even the slight hopes anyone had of convincing the waverers, since they are confirming they think the PM is a liar about the deal being the only option.
There are good reasons to oppose the deal. There are good reasons, perhaps, to argue to revise the deal if you can. There are not good reasons for staying on, in essence pretending you support the deal, then publicly saying otherwise.
They are damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they leave they will be accused of flouncing and lose all opportunity to influence cabinet going forward unless May is toppled. If they stay in to influence policy, then they will be hit with your line of criticism.
Will they quit if they don't get their way? If they are prepared to quit, then it perhaps makes sense to try to make the most of whatever leverage they have first.
Comments
Why do you think people do not take them seriously?
I would think that referendums can be made binding, in effect, by legislating in the authorizing Act that the outcome will be enacted. So there is no issue potentially caused by non-binding referenda as a general principle that needs to be fixed other than drafting more carefully. Leaving open that you could hold other more advisory votes which might be appropriate sometimes.
With those figures, what incentive is there for the ERG to back down?
Unicorn, just get on with it and leave properly Brexit is alive and well in the country if not amongst many PBers and their associates.
I am of course in the 33% who do not think it has been exaggerated
I think referendums should be reserved for constitutional changes (so leaving the EU qualifies).
However there should be a bigger hurdle than a simple majority... either a 2/3rds majority of those voting or an absolute majority of the electorate. If people feel strongly enough about a change, they will vote for it.
Good evening, Richard: welcome back. In your absence @MarkSenior and @PlatoSaid have died. Mark died on 14 September 2017 and was memorialised by PB[1] and by BritainElects[2]. Plato, whose real name was Phillipa, died this year on a date not known to me: I assume PB's tribute will follow when her brother provides details.
Our extant members have also had tribulations: @Barnesian 's wife died on 23 September 2018 in Galway[3]
Our older members continue with age-related infirmities: @Big_G_NorthWales and others ( @bigjohnowls ? ) have been poorly, although @ydoethur continues to entertain his congregation with an eight-foot horn.
The rest continue to argue and bicker as normal, which is the proper course of PB.
[1] http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/09/25/remembering-mark-senior-poster-on-pb-2004-2017/
[2] https://britainelects.com/2017/09/27/previews-28-sep-2017/
[3] https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/comment/2076111/#Comment_2076111
Time to fight over who gets to keep the name Conservative and Unionist Party and who has to come up with a new one.
They might also take the time to explain how ministers can openly undermine the PM and remain in office, but even they probably think that is nuts.
It will be a mess.
Clearly they cannot support the deal and should have quit like Raab. They are pathetic and are ruining even the slight hopes anyone had of convincing the waverers, since they are confirming they think the PM is a liar about the deal being the only option.
There are good reasons to oppose the deal. There are good reasons, perhaps, to argue to revise the deal if you can. There are not good reasons for staying on, in essence pretending you support the deal, then publicly saying otherwise.
A belief which successive Conservative leaders have pandered to and bargained with.
But in fact I've just solved the whole issue - everyone can just say they support the deal in parliament, then spend the next few years claiming they don't actually support major parts of it, apparently that is totally cool and not ridiculous.
That is not Cabinet government.
10. The Mandelson Pension Clause: The UK must promise never to tax former EU officials based here – such as Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock – on their E.U. pensions, or tax any current Brussels bureaucrats on their salaries. The EU and its employees are to be immune to our tax laws. (Article 104)
This provision of the agreement respects rights which individuals have acquired during 40 years of membership of the EU. It would not be appropriate for these rights to be summarily removed.
The original 40 Horrors certainly got No10's interest..
Coming to an election near you shortly..
chortle
If people believe otherwise they can quit government and try to change things at least. Maybe they are correct. Nothing in that means they should stay on and publicly oppose the PM they claim to support, when they clearly do not.
Why not appoint JRM as Brexit secretary, apparently opposing the deal is not a problem in government.
As for it not passing parliament, I'm sure it won't in its current form, but there's no point changing the deal if the EU won't accept it, there's no point passing something on our end if the EU won't on theirs. The PM says changing it means they won't. It is fine for people to say she is wrong. But not while in the Cabinet.
They should have sent in their letters and vote down May on Monday or whenever, then a new PM can try a new position.
The country will stop blaming the ills of the country on the EU and start blaming Leavers.
What a time to be alive.
Are they for her deal?
Are they for a new deal?
Are they for no deal?
Are they for remain?
If you are not in the top one you have no place being in the Cabinet. If you are the second you are in good company, people from all over the chamber are in it, and the next Tory leader will probably be in it.
Nope. There is no Treaty committment.
And certainly not one ajudicated by the ECJ.
When making mathematical models it's useful to consider limiting cases. Here these cases might be something like having everyone fitted with a brain chip that averages the response of everyone at all times (like an ant colony?) or, on the other hand a dictatorship or chaos. The odd referendum falls somewhere between.
The hard part, of course, is the making of a model relevant to the behaviour of people.
I hope that when PM Raab or PM Corbyn attempt to negotiate a new deal that they have the success they think they will have and I wish them all them every success in that for all our sakes.
But then, May thought that too.
Maybe. But it does not look remotely easy.
Opinium gives
Con 275
Lab 294
LD 15
SNP 44
Comres gives
Con 267
Lab 300
LD 19
SNP 42
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.py?CON=36&LAB=40&LIB=9&UKIP=7&Green=3&NewLAB=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVUKIP=&TVGreen=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2017
And you're willing to see the country burn over that sort of trifle?
Colonial collaborators never are.
Cool.
I'm intrigued to learn that at 35 I'm one of the older members. I thought I was one of the younger ones...
So if the ERG and DUP reject May's Deal they likely end up with BINO with PM Corbyn
But the Brexiteers seem to have lost sight of the ultimate goal - keeping out of a federal European state.
Edit - and that goes for all parties, please note.
NEW THREAD
[1] Believe it or not, this is a (rather harsh) summary of Matthew Goodwin's position...
Many of them have been covered up, or attention diverted from, and now, besties or nearly besties put in position to cover her backside. What could possibly go wrong, this time?
Will they quit if they don't get their way? If they are prepared to quit, then it perhaps makes sense to try to make the most of whatever leverage they have first.