-------------------- Quite. I guess their majority party will have influence, possibly decisively.
I was simplifying for young meeks
Which majority party would that be?
NI
There is no majority party in Northern Ireland. In the more proportional assembly election, the largest party commands just over a quarter of the vote.
But like all Brexiteers, facts are just an inconvenient impediment to the desired argument for you.
The majority party representing NI in the UK parliament is the DUP.
Ability to count up to 10 will suffice.
52:48 37:36
Must be hard to see your Brexit slipping away Shiney
NODEAL is IDEAL
Its the law..
No Deal leads to economic disaster and the potential breakup of the UK
They welcome the avoidance of a hard border but would still prefer Remain, if you insist on a hard border you will be paving the way for a United Ireland
Except for the fact the biggest cheerleaders for this deal are nationalists and the biggest opponents are unionists.
If you insist on an Irish Sea Border you will be paving the way for a United Ireland.
-------------------- Quite. I guess their majority party will have influence, possibly decisively.
I was simplifying for young meeks
Which majority party would that be?
NI
There is no majority party in Northern Ireland. In the more proportional assembly election, the largest party commands just over a quarter of the vote.
But like all Brexiteers, facts are just an inconvenient impediment to the desired argument for you.
The majority party representing NI in the UK parliament is the DUP.
Ability to count up to 10 will suffice.
52:48 37:36
Must be hard to see your Brexit slipping away Shiney
NODEAL is IDEAL
Its the law..
No Deal leads to economic disaster and the potential breakup of the UK
So could sun spots.
Care to furnish some proof?
Um, how could sunspots break up the UK? Did you mean solar flares?
I am assuming a selective poll on the incidence of sun spots drives everybody mad.
There may be other items of equal likelihood 'out there'.
Throughout this hair-tearing, spirit-squashing, nationally humiliating parade of cluelessness, there has been at least one Conservative politician who deserves respect.
It’s Theresa May.
Of course she’s made mistakes. Particularly in the first year of her premiership, when she set unrealistically high expectations of what the EU negotiations could achieve. But at least – apart from that strange little display after Salzburg, in which she seemed to imagine she was delivering the decisive monologue in a very bad film about the Second World War – Mrs May has acted with dignity, composure, and class.
Which is more than you can say for the crew of charlatans plotting to depose her.
They welcome the avoidance of a hard border but would still prefer Remain, if you insist on a hard border you will be paving the way for a United Ireland
Except for the fact the biggest cheerleaders for this deal are nationalists and the biggest opponents are unionists.
If you insist on an Irish Sea Border you will be paving the way for a United Ireland.
The Customs Union for the whole UK avoids the Sea border, it is a hard border in Ireland which will pave the way for a United Ireland
Some of the things in the original Spectator article - quite a few things - are simply inaccurate. Just because you want them to be true, doesn't make them so.
Some of the things in the original Spectator article - quite a few things - are simply inaccurate. Just because you want them to be true, doesn't make them so.
And the ones that are accurate?
Is it really acceptable that a 585p binding Treaty, declared to be unmodifable by its authors, should contain them?
-------------------- Quite. I guess their majority party will have influence, possibly decisively.
I was simplifying for young meeks
Which majority party would that be?
NI
There is no majority party in Northern Ireland. In the more proportional assembly election, the largest party commands just over a quarter of the vote.
But like all Brexiteers, facts are just an inconvenient impediment to the desired argument for you.
The majority party representing NI in the UK parliament is the DUP.
Ability to count up to 10 will suffice.
52:48 37:36
Must be hard to see your Brexit slipping away Shiney
NODEAL is IDEAL
Its the law..
No Deal leads to economic disaster and the potential breakup of the UK
Another one who should read Robert's posts on the subject.
By the way, can I just congratulate Justin Trudeau and his Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland for epic trolling of President Trump.
In the final days of the rebranding renegotiation of NAFTA, the Canadians refused to sign. President Trump was desperate for agreement ahead of the midterms, so he could boast of having renamed replaced NAFTA. And the Canadians weren't budging.
And then... they did... all the US had to do was to agree to protections for LBGT workers. Trump jumped at it. So desperate was he, that he agreed something that was a total anathema to his party, and the Christian Right.
Now, of course, he has to get this through Congress. Fortunately for him, it's now the Democrats in control.
Some of the things in the original Spectator article - quite a few things - are simply inaccurate. Just because you want them to be true, doesn't make them so.
And the ones that are accurate?
Is it really acceptable that a 585p binding Treaty, declared to be unmodifable by its authors, should contain them?
I don't think so. Do you?
The ones that were accurate were not a problem and in some cases were actually desirable. An example of the latter was the one about "going to Brussels to see them make stupid laws to wreck our economy" or some such. Leaving aside the juvenalia for a moment (which should have been a red flag in itself!), the post in question is an "observer". Countries that join the EU are granted observer status before their joining day, so being granted observer status after one's departure day seems logical and better than the alternative (i.e. not seeing the laws being made). If the document had not granted observer status to the UK I would have regretted its absence. That Leavers see fit to describe this as a disadvantage is a cause for concern and reinforces my belief that there's an awful lot of duckspeaking going on.
Some of the things in the original Spectator article - quite a few things - are simply inaccurate. Just because you want them to be true, doesn't make them so.
And the ones that are accurate?
Is it really acceptable that a 585p binding Treaty, declared to be unmodifable by its authors, should contain them?
I don't think so. Do you?
The ones that were accurate were not a problem and in some cases were actually desirable. An example of the latter was the one about "going to Brussels to see them make stupid laws to wreck our economy" or some such. Leaving aside the juvenalia for a moment (which should have been a red flag in itself!), the post in question is an "observer". Countries that join the EU are granted observer status before their joining day, so being granted observer status after one's departure day seems logical and better than the alternative (i.e. not seeing the laws being made). If the document had not granted observer status to the UK I would have regretted its absence. That Leavers see fit to describe this as a disadvantage is a cause for concern and reinforces my belief that there's an awful lot of duckspeaking going on.
That may be true of the Howard coronation but the 2016 leadership election also took just a fortnight.
There was no vote
There was no vote apart from the vote of MPs, you mean? It is true that the party in the country did not vote, and I expect that will be true again. Even if it is not, it is hard to see why sending and receiving postal ballots would add six weeks to the contest. Six days, maybe.
The scheduled close of the 2016 Election was 9th September. Leadsom withdrew on 11th July.
Yes but that was because the 1922 had a fairly relaxed timetable over the summer parliamentary recess. The MP voting stage took two weeks, which could easily be condensed. Even if the party in the country were to be consulted, and I doubt it will be, there is no need for that part to take more than a week.
The MP voting stage can only be condensed if the rules are changed. The rules stipulate two votes a week on Tuesdays and Thursdays with the candidate gaining fewest votes knocked out after each round until there are only two candidates left. So, unless some candidates drop out voluntarily, how long it takes depends on how many candidates are nominated.
There is then a ballot of members, the rules for which are set by the party board in consultation with the executive committee of the 1922 Committee. If it goes to the members it is unrealistic to expect that ballot to take place in 1 or 2 weeks.
There have never been more than five candidates in previous contests. I should imagine the process of gathering nominations gives would-be candidates an inkling of whether it is worth throwing their hats into the ring.
Surely the question is whether - on the balance of probabilities - what the best option out of Leave Without A Deal, Remain and this Deal is. (Or perhaps, a ranking.)
I don't like the idea that Eurocrats pensions appear to be tax free. However, I also appreciate that British civil servants who were seconded to Brussels will have considered the tax free nature of the pensions as part of their package. (And I'm sure the same is true for those who take secondments to NATO or the UN.) Changing the terms after they've been agreed is not something I'm particularly keen on. But you know what: if it was a perfect deal, and Eurocrats kept their pensions (or lost them), then would I regard it as a big deal? Nope. It's minutiae. So, the target is not zero objections. The target is better than the alternatives.
If we leave the EU without a deal on March 29th, then our exports to South Korea, to Switzerland, to Canada, and to numerous other place not in the EU will suddenly be subject to subject to tariffs. Under the terms of the South Korea - EU FTA, UK financial services firms are currently able to hold banking licenses in South Korea. That will cease on 29 March without a deal.
This is not just about the UK and the EU's trading relationship. It is about the UK recreating the mesh of arrangements that the EU has created over 40 years. For the US alone, it is about replacing Open Skies, the Atlantic Council and the seven bilateral ageements covering trade and mutual standards recognition.
Currently, the UK is the location for European holding companies for thousands of multinationals. If we leave the EU's rules that exempt double taxation and withholding taxes, then it will dramatically complicate these companies operations. As a former CFO of a reasonably large multinational company, this is a very big deal. There's no way I would want to have my European holding entity in the UK because suddenly transfers between entities are subject to withholding taxes.
Given that the UK-EU relationship will be rewritten a dozen times in the next century - if the EU lasts that long - what in that agreement is sufficiently serious that you would choose No Deal over it?
Surely the question is whether - on the balance of probabilities - what the best option out of Leave Without A Deal, Remain and this Deal is. (Or perhaps, a ranking.)
snip
My point referred to the inaccuracies with MrsMay's proposed (and unmodifiable) Treaty. And yes the target is basically zero (inaccuracies) for me and I suspect a *LOT* of other people. Many of whom are tories and thus potentially influential with wavering MPs. I'm hopefully going have a polite word with one such marginal MP&pps tomorrow (now today)
As to your Q: We are where we are (thanks largely to MrsMay's decisions). And that precludes consideration of many choices. We go with what we've got.
I'll have a think about the rest of your post - must be off now.
Surely the question is whether - on the balance of probabilities - what the best option out of Leave Without A Deal, Remain and this Deal is. (Or perhaps, a ranking.)
snip
My point referred to the inaccuracies with MrsMay's proposed (and unmodifiable) Treaty. And yes the target is basically zero (inaccuracies) for me and I suspect a *LOT* of other people. Many of whom are tories and thus potentially influential with wavering MPs. I'm hopefully going have a polite word with one such marginal MP&pps tomorrow (now today)
As to your Q: We are where we are (thanks largely to MrsMay's decisions). And that precludes consideration of many choices. We go with what we've got.
I'll have a think about the rest of your post - must be off now.
---------------
Ok I've thought i bit more: your last q is easy: 1) Sovereignty. 2)Immigration control. Both are, in practice, fully incompatible with any form of EU membership. Nodeal isn't just ideal, its necessary.
Comments
If you insist on an Irish Sea Border you will be paving the way for a United Ireland.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/the-brexit-deal-40-rebuttals-to-mr-steerpikes-40-horrors/
I am assuming a selective poll on the incidence of sun spots drives everybody mad.
There may be other items of equal likelihood 'out there'.
See my interlocutor for details..
Throughout this hair-tearing, spirit-squashing, nationally humiliating parade of cluelessness, there has been at least one Conservative politician who deserves respect.
It’s Theresa May.
Of course she’s made mistakes. Particularly in the first year of her premiership, when she set unrealistically high expectations of what the EU negotiations could achieve. But at least – apart from that strange little display after Salzburg, in which she seemed to imagine she was delivering the decisive monologue in a very bad film about the Second World War – Mrs May has acted with dignity, composure, and class.
Which is more than you can say for the crew of charlatans plotting to depose her.
https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/1063713556615581696
Is it really acceptable that a 585p binding Treaty, declared to be unmodifable by its authors, should contain them?
I don't think so. Do you?
In the final days of the rebranding renegotiation of NAFTA, the Canadians refused to sign. President Trump was desperate for agreement ahead of the midterms, so he could boast of having renamed replaced NAFTA. And the Canadians weren't budging.
And then... they did... all the US had to do was to agree to protections for LBGT workers. Trump jumped at it. So desperate was he, that he agreed something that was a total anathema to his party, and the Christian Right.
Now, of course, he has to get this through Congress. Fortunately for him, it's now the Democrats in control.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/16/house-conservatives-lgbt-protection-trade-pact-977288
39 left.
Your target is zero.
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN01366 (and download the report)
and Wikipedia give details of previous contests.
Surely the question is whether - on the balance of probabilities - what the best option out of Leave Without A Deal, Remain and this Deal is. (Or perhaps, a ranking.)
I don't like the idea that Eurocrats pensions appear to be tax free. However, I also appreciate that British civil servants who were seconded to Brussels will have considered the tax free nature of the pensions as part of their package. (And I'm sure the same is true for those who take secondments to NATO or the UN.) Changing the terms after they've been agreed is not something I'm particularly keen on. But you know what: if it was a perfect deal, and Eurocrats kept their pensions (or lost them), then would I regard it as a big deal? Nope. It's minutiae. So, the target is not zero objections. The target is better than the alternatives.
If we leave the EU without a deal on March 29th, then our exports to South Korea, to Switzerland, to Canada, and to numerous other place not in the EU will suddenly be subject to subject to tariffs. Under the terms of the South Korea - EU FTA, UK financial services firms are currently able to hold banking licenses in South Korea. That will cease on 29 March without a deal.
This is not just about the UK and the EU's trading relationship. It is about the UK recreating the mesh of arrangements that the EU has created over 40 years. For the US alone, it is about replacing Open Skies, the Atlantic Council and the seven bilateral ageements covering trade and mutual standards recognition.
Currently, the UK is the location for European holding companies for thousands of multinationals. If we leave the EU's rules that exempt double taxation and withholding taxes, then it will dramatically complicate these companies operations. As a former CFO of a reasonably large multinational company, this is a very big deal. There's no way I would want to have my European holding entity in the UK because suddenly transfers between entities are subject to withholding taxes.
Given that the UK-EU relationship will be rewritten a dozen times in the next century - if the EU lasts that long - what in that agreement is sufficiently serious that you would choose No Deal over it?
As to your Q: We are where we are (thanks largely to MrsMay's decisions). And that precludes consideration of many choices. We go with what we've got.
I'll have a think about the rest of your post - must be off now.
Ok I've thought i bit more: your last q is easy: 1) Sovereignty. 2)Immigration control. Both are, in practice, fully incompatible with any form of EU membership. Nodeal isn't just ideal, its necessary.
https://twitter.com/fodonnell23/status/1063910028179111936