Raab on Marr - Boris is not an ally and I support TM and will not be submitting a letter. Warfare in ERG
Raab is apparently backing Davis not Boris in the Express report. He also made clear he will vote against the Deal
I reckon Raab and Davis will cook up a deal where Davis is caretaker PM for a year or so and then hands over to Raab to take the Tories into 2022...
Whether Davis would actually stick to that after enjoying the trappings of being PM is interesting to ponder...
That is their plan, yes
How does that work then - some sort of Regency arranagement to avoid the necessary second leadership election?
Exactly that.
Imagine you are a Tory MP, Remain inclined but with a Leave electorate (and a strongly leave membership and crew of activists), you wished Theresa well in her dealings with Brussels. But this weekend, you are looking at a PM holed up in Downing Street, as part of her Cabinet she is too weak to sack knock lumps off her deal. A deal so compromised that it stands no chance of getting through the House, even if you annoy your electorate and membership and activists and vote for it. So no point dying in a ditch defending it. You doubt the deal will get much change, even if these Cabinet rebels get on a plane to Brussels with a copy marked up with yellow Post-it notes. But hey, it might just be a way out...in an ideal world, they magically produce something your party can rally round. As long as you can tell your voters "we can definitely leave on our say so".
You don't want an election, because going out on the doorsteps will be a horror show of abuse, both from Remainers and Leavers. You can't defend where we are, you can't defend the Prime Minister for having got you there. You don't know where we are headed. You have been put in place to deliver Brexit on a Manifesto that says you are out of the Customs Union, out of the Single Market. And if you lose that electon, Corbyn takes us on a trip to the worst bits of Venezuela's economy.
You can see Theresa May is a lost cause, needs to be taken out into the field, but you don't want to be the one to pull the trigger on the old nag. You secretly hope that somebody else will write the letters to do the dirty deed. Then, there can be change. But you don't know who the hell can be that change.
In that scenario, a "Davis now and see what happens afterwards" is probably looking one of the few outs....
Why is it any different in principle from having a constitution which limits the freedom of democratically elected governments to, say, take away or abuse peoples’ human rights?
The EU has sought to set minimum standards of governance which all members must abide by. That seems to me to be a good thing to prevent a cabal who do not believe in such things taking power and ruining a country. There have been some notable examples in Europe, after all.
Nope. It is a massive curtailment of democracy and eventually leads to violence. Once people know their votes are worthless they turn to other means.
What happens if a party stands on a manifesto of abolishing parliament?
Corbyn turns out to be the most cynical politician of them all.
Until the questions are set, Corbyn gave the most appropriate answer.
Having followed up the news item, I agree his comments were taken out of context and I was responding to those.
Nevertheless Corbyn's approach to Brexit remains highly cynical. He will just let disorder and inaction achieve what he wants - an exit - against the wishes of his party. He's dishonest in other respects - that wreath business for example. Meanwhile he and his supporters claim be is a breath of fresh air compared with other politicians.
One of his first objections was to the limit of state aid in the deal. Says it all really, this deal or remain puts him in a straightjacket
Indeed, while the ERG wants to use Brexit to become Singapore or Switzerland, Corbynites want to use Brexit to become Venezuela or Cuba
It is a terrible irony but seems the Tory ultra dream of fleeing the EU will simply have enabled the Far Left total control over our lives.
We are all going to pay the price of this madness.
The EU meant that limits were imposed on how far the far right or far left could go as we may soon discover post Brexit
This is genuinely one of the most disgusting arguments in favour of the EU - that it should be there to prevent a country pursuing their own internal economic policies. It is as insidious and wrong as those who argue we should Leave the EU because it is too right wing/left wing.
Are you really saying that your major complaint is the the EU stops you indulging in some fascism?
Labour is planning to force a Commons vote within weeks that would make it impossible for Britain to crash out of the European Union without a deal, as fears grow about a disastrous hard Brexit if parliament rejects Theresa May’s agreement.
What would the legislation say? It can't say take the deal, because it's about what happens if the deal is voted down, and it can't say take a different deal, because parliament can't mandate the EU to make and accept deals, and it probably can't mandate revoking Article 50, because that probably needs the other member states to agree. So what is it?
Yes. Glad to hear I am not the only one struggling with this. How to we legislate against No Deal? Only by either accepting a deal or Remaining prevents No Deal. We may as well propose a Bill that the Earth doesn't go around the Sun as of tomorrow.
Is it a mandate for sector specific arrangements? Possibly. But I don't think HMG would disagree.
Raab on Marr - Boris is not an ally and I support TM and will not be submitting a letter. Warfare in ERG
Raab is apparently backing Davis not Boris in the Express report. He also made clear he will vote against the Deal
I reckon Raab and Davis will cook up a deal where Davis is caretaker PM for a year or so and then hands over to Raab to take the Tories into 2022...
Whether Davis would actually stick to that after enjoying the trappings of being PM is interesting to ponder...
That is their plan, yes
How does that work then - some sort of Regency arranagement to avoid the necessary second leadership election?
Exactly that.
Imagine you are a Tory MP, Remain inclined but with a Leave electorate (and a strongly leave membership and crew of activists), you wished Theresa well in her dealings with Brussels. But this weekend, you are looking at a PM holed up in Downing Street, as part of her Cabinet she is too weak to sack knock lumps off her deal. A deal so compromised that it stands no chance of getting through the House, even if you annoy your electorate and membership and activists and vote for it. So no point dying in a ditch defending it. You doubt the deal will get much change, even if these Cabinet rebels get on a plane to Brussels with a copy marked up with yellow Post-it notes. But hey, it might just be a way out...in an ideal world, they magically produce something your party can rally round. As long as you can tell your voters "we can definitely leave on our say so".
You don't want an election, because going out on the doorsteps will be a horror show of abuse, both from Remainers and Leavers. You can't defend where we are, you can't defend the Prime Minister for having got you there. You don't know where we are headed. You have been put in place to deliver Brexit on a Manifesto that says you are out of the Customs Union, out of the Single Market. And if yoou lose that electon, Corbyn takes us on a trip to the worst bits of Venezuela's economy.
You can see Theresa May is a lost cause, needs to be taken out into the field, but you don't want to be the one to pull the trigger on the old nag. You secretly hope that somebody else will write the letters to do the dirty deed. Then, there can be change. But you don't know who the hell can be that change.
In that scenario, a "Davis now and see what happens afterwards" is probably looking one of the few outs....
A lot of words for no purpose. The "plan" was Davis as PM, to "make way" for Raab shortly afterwards (Raab not standing against Davis as part of the deal/plan).
I completely agree with him. I can only assume Raab took the job to raise his profile rather than investing in the type of deal on the table. Whether he realised at the time it was highly likely he’d flounce is difficult to tell, but it either makes him a) duplicitous or b) duplicitous and dumb.
He’s a bit slow. I’ve been making that suggestion for a while now. Where do I send my bill?
Having seen Nadine Dorries's latest block-headed contribution, and David Davis's Oklahoma project, not to mentoin Prime-minister-material Raab's geographical inability - I think being thick is a requirement for MPs
Labour is planning to force a Commons vote within weeks that would make it impossible for Britain to crash out of the European Union without a deal, as fears grow about a disastrous hard Brexit if parliament rejects Theresa May’s agreement.
What would the legislation say? It can't say take the deal, because it's about what happens if the deal is voted down, and it can't say take a different deal, because parliament can't mandate the EU to make and accept deals, and it probably can't mandate revoking Article 50, because that probably needs the other member states to agree. So what is it?
Yes. Glad to hear I am not the only one struggling with this. How to we legislate against No Deal? Only by either accepting a deal or Remaining prevents No Deal. We may as well propose a Bill that the Earth doesn't go around the Sun as of tomorrow.
Perhaps it's a great wheeze by Labour to allow them to vote against the deal whilst actually guaranteeing it happens?
eg. if we vote the deal down and nothing replaces it (Remain or alternative deal) by March 31st, then the deal automatically comes into effect
(it gives them a narrow window to force and win a General Election, and put an alternative deal into place)
Yes. Glad to hear I am not the only one struggling with this. How to we legislate against No Deal?
Amendment to the EU Withdrawal Act perhaps?
Speaking of which, we only have until 21/jan under that act to decide what to do next.
Fair enough. But that would need the EU to agree, so in one sense, it is covered by accepting a Deal (even if that is only a Deal to kick that can a bit more).
A lot of words for no purpose. The "plan" was Davis as PM, to "make way" for Raab shortly afterwards (Raab not standing against Davis as part of the deal/plan).
And the hypothetical Tory MP I'm envisioning is prepared to go along with that - for now. No guarantee that Raab gets the gig, mind...
He’s a bit slow. I’ve been making that suggestion for a while now. Where do I send my bill?
If May does that my votes will be for No Deal and, if I lose, then for Corbyn. I am pretty certain this clever little plan will ensure Corbyn is our next PM.
But the whole point of this is that you won’t get to vote for No Deal.
Yep apologies. But my point stands. Any vote that results in Remain means my next vote will be for Corbyn.
This is really why all Brexits need to be abandoned, via a democratic vote. As an ideology, Brexitry is ultimately backward, irrational, paranoid, revanchist, xenophobic.
Everyone is now complaining about the ERGers.
Yet it was the ERGers who won the referendum in the first place, and they did so with the same platform they continue to campaign on. It is no use being angry and surprised that it has led to trade missions to Oklahoma, “fuck business”, and ignorance about the precise location of Dover. That was all baked in right from the start.
There is no such thing as moderate, sensible Eurosceptism. Eurosceptism is a one way ticket to Nazi tweets and moonbattery.
A lot of words for no purpose. The "plan" was Davis as PM, to "make way" for Raab shortly afterwards (Raab not standing against Davis as part of the deal/plan).
And the hypothetical Tory MP I'm envisioning is prepared to go along with that - for now. No guarantee that Raab gets the gig, mind...
Yes, that's your plan. My comment was a response to the suggestion that Raab would back Davis rather than stand himself.
He’s a bit slow. I’ve been making that suggestion for a while now. Where do I send my bill?
If May does that my votes will be for No Deal and, if I lose, then for Corbyn. I am pretty certain this clever little plan will ensure Corbyn is our next PM.
But the whole point of this is that you won’t get to vote for No Deal.
Yep apologies. But my point stands. Any vote that results in Remain means my next vote will be for Corbyn.
As far as I am aware you were a UKIP voter pre Brexit and I don't think you voted for May's Tories in 2017 either anyway?
Were a GE to be held before March, I wonder if there's any mileage in a Coupon election, as in 1919? Or a number of Rejoin candidates vs known Brexiteers?
I assume all those Leavers that wanted Nick Clegg charged with treason for talking to the EU about Brexit have called for Davis and Paterson to be charged for something similar for talking to Oklahoma about a trade deal?
This is really why all Brexits need to be abandoned, via a democratic vote. As an ideology, Brexitry is ultimately backward, irrational, paranoid, revanchist, xenophobic.
Everyone is now complaining about the ERGers.
Yet it was the ERGers who won the referendum in the first place, and they did so with the same platform they continue to campaign on. It is no use being angry and surprised that it has led to trade missions to Oklahoma, “fuck business”, and ignorance about the precise location of Dover. That was all baked in right from the start.
There is no such thing as moderate, sensible Eurosceptism. Eurosceptism is a one way ticket to Nazi tweets and moonbattery.
Make Britain Sane Again. People’s Vote now.
That's not remotely true. There used to be a distinction drawn, with good reason, between Europhobes and Eurosceptics. There were various shades of the latter, but essentially it was about altering the direction of travel of the EU. That's not controversial. There should be nothing inexorable of the constituting of a European super state, and no single approach to what the European project sought to achieve.
The referendum destroyed the distinction because it made Euroscepticism no longer an acceptable position (even though a large amount of the Remain vote was probably just that - recharacterised as "reluctant remainers")
Labour is planning to force a Commons vote within weeks that would make it impossible for Britain to crash out of the European Union without a deal, as fears grow about a disastrous hard Brexit if parliament rejects Theresa May’s agreement.
What would the legislation say? It can't say take the deal, because it's about what happens if the deal is voted down, and it can't say take a different deal, because parliament can't mandate the EU to make and accept deals, and it probably can't mandate revoking Article 50, because that probably needs the other member states to agree. So what is it?
It can mandate the government to request an extension of Article 50 and hold a referendum on the deal versus remain during that extension to resolve the issue one way or the other. I think that could get a majority in the house. It would be a binding amendment to government legislation.
It can mandate the government to request an extension of Article 50 and hold a referendum on the deal versus remain during that extension to resolve the issue one way or the other. I think that could get a majority in the house. It would be a binding amendment to government legislation.
Slight issue with that interpretation. Labour official policy is to Brexit under a different deal.
So they'd be "legislating" for a referendum on two things, neither of which Labour could support.
Labour is planning to force a Commons vote within weeks that would make it impossible for Britain to crash out of the European Union without a deal, as fears grow about a disastrous hard Brexit if parliament rejects Theresa May’s agreement.
What would the legislation say? It can't say take the deal, because it's about what happens if the deal is voted down, and it can't say take a different deal, because parliament can't mandate the EU to make and accept deals, and it probably can't mandate revoking Article 50, because that probably needs the other member states to agree. So what is it?
It can mandate the government to request an extension of Article 50 and hold a referendum on the deal versus remain during that extension to resolve the issue one way or the other. I think that could get a majority in the house. It would be a binding amendment to government legislation.
But Corbyn needs to leave to get round the state aid laws.
There is no such thing as moderate, sensible Eurosceptism. Eurosceptism is a one way ticket to Nazi tweets and moonbattery.
Make Britain Sane Again. People’s Vote now.
Alan Sked is left-wing. He is certainly not ERG.
Alan Sked was a Liberal candidate in 1970, but left the LDs over their support for the EU. He joined and was expelled from the Bruges Group and founded the Anti Federalist League in 1991 which contested the 1992 general election and 1992 Newbury and Christchurch by elections and the AFL became UKIP shortly after with Sked as its leader until shortly after the 1997 general election. He also founded the centre left anti EU New Deal party in 2013, wound up in 2015
This is really why all Brexits need to be abandoned, via a democratic vote. As an ideology, Brexitry is ultimately backward, irrational, paranoid, revanchist, xenophobic.
Everyone is now complaining about the ERGers.
Yet it was the ERGers who won the referendum in the first place, and they did so with the same platform they continue to campaign on. It is no use being angry and surprised that it has led to trade missions to Oklahoma, “fuck business”, and ignorance about the precise location of Dover. That was all baked in right from the start.
There is no such thing as moderate, sensible Eurosceptism. Eurosceptism is a one way ticket to Nazi tweets and moonbattery.
Make Britain Sane Again. People’s Vote now.
I don’t think you can be quite so black and white about the concept of Brexit. There is a legitimate argument that the institution of the EU is profoundly undemocratic, inflexible, dogmatic and favours the interests of certain member states above others.
However, there’s then those who have a swivel-eyed hatred of the concept of integration, multilateralism (and with it, multiculturalism) and pan-European co-operation, largely motivated by an outdated concept of Imperial Britain. They hate any kind of deal with the EU because they profoundly don’t want anything to do with the EU or Europe. Those are the nutters in the equation.
This is really why all Brexits need to be abandoned, via a democratic vote. As an ideology, Brexitry is ultimately backward, irrational, paranoid, revanchist, xenophobic.
Everyone is now complaining about the ERGers.
Yet it was the ERGers who won the referendum in the first place, and they did so with the same platform they continue to campaign on. It is no use being angry and surprised that it has led to trade missions to Oklahoma, “fuck business”, and ignorance about the precise location of Dover. That was all baked in right from the start.
There is no such thing as moderate, sensible Eurosceptism. Eurosceptism is a one way ticket to Nazi tweets and moonbattery.
Raab on Marr - Boris is not an ally and I support TM and will not be submitting a letter. Warfare in ERG
More like fission in the Tory party. Are they bent on self-destruction ?
I could not care less if the Tories destroy themselves. Just so long as they don’t destroy the country with them.
Me too... But the prospect of PM Corbyn navigating the aftermath of Brexit leaves the second bit in doubt.
The way some Tories are behaving is to make the prospect of Corbyn in power more likely. That fills me with horror. I do not think his instincts are fundamentally liberal or democratic or in favour of freedom. But those Tories behaving like extremist self-indulgent ninnies are behaving like his useful idiots and will bring about what they claim to abhor. They are a disgrace to their party. They are not patriots and they are taking the voters for fools.
Based on both polls last night Corbyn will only be in power having his policies dictated by Sturgeon and Blackford as he will need the SNP for confidence and supply.
Based on Sturgeon's comments on Marr she will demand the UK stays in the single market and the customs union as the price of her support.
So we will move from having a PM being dictated to by Arlene Foster to a PM being dictated to by Nicola Sturgeon
But isn't it already Labour's position to stay in the customs union?
One of my favourite markets, next Conservative leader, is fascinatingly poised. All three of Dominic Raab, Sajid Javid and Boris Johnson were last matched at 8.2. Michael Gove is a hairsbreadth behind, last matched at 9.
One of my favourite markets, next Conservative leader, is fascinatingly poised. All three of Dominic Raab, Sajid Javid and Boris Johnson were last matched at 8.2. Michael Gove is a hairsbreadth behind, last matched at 9.
It can mandate the government to request an extension of Article 50 and hold a referendum on the deal versus remain during that extension to resolve the issue one way or the other. I think that could get a majority in the house. It would be a binding amendment to government legislation.
Slight issue with that interpretation. Labour official policy is to Brexit under a different deal.
So they'd be "legislating" for a referendum on two things, neither of which Labour could support.
Labour policy is to have a referendum (if absence of general election) and "all options are on the table."
One of my favourite markets, next Conservative leader, is fascinatingly poised. All three of Dominic Raab, Sajid Javid and Boris Johnson were last matched at 8.2. Michael Gove is a hairsbreadth behind, last matched at 9.
One of my favourite markets, next Conservative leader, is fascinatingly poised. All three of Dominic Raab, Sajid Javid and Boris Johnson were last matched at 8.2. Michael Gove is a hairsbreadth behind, last matched at 9.
One of my favourite markets, next Conservative leader, is fascinatingly poised. All three of Dominic Raab, Sajid Javid and Boris Johnson were last matched at 8.2. Michael Gove is a hairsbreadth behind, last matched at 9.
Alastair. I made the exact same observation at 11.30 a.m.
:-)
My book at present:
Most of the Usual suspects -£450 Most of the Less Obvious and Outsiders +£3650. (Includes Geoffrey Cox).
Labour is planning to force a Commons vote within weeks that would make it impossible for Britain to crash out of the European Union without a deal, as fears grow about a disastrous hard Brexit if parliament rejects Theresa May’s agreement.
What would the legislation say? It can't say take the deal, because it's about what happens if the deal is voted down, and it can't say take a different deal, because parliament can't mandate the EU to make and accept deals, and it probably can't mandate revoking Article 50, because that probably needs the other member states to agree. So what is it?
It can mandate the government to request an extension of Article 50 and hold a referendum on the deal versus remain during that extension to resolve the issue one way or the other. I think that could get a majority in the house. It would be a binding amendment to government legislation.
But Corbyn needs to leave to get round the state aid laws.
Labour is planning to force a Commons vote within weeks that would make it impossible for Britain to crash out of the European Union without a deal, as fears grow about a disastrous hard Brexit if parliament rejects Theresa May’s agreement.
What would the legislation say? It can't say take the deal, because it's about what happens if the deal is voted down, and it can't say take a different deal, because parliament can't mandate the EU to make and accept deals, and it probably can't mandate revoking Article 50, because that probably needs the other member states to agree. So what is it?
It can mandate the government to request an extension of Article 50 and hold a referendum on the deal versus remain during that extension to resolve the issue one way or the other. I think that could get a majority in the house. It would be a binding amendment to government legislation.
But Corbyn needs to leave to get round the state aid laws.
But Corbyn needs to win power first and McDonnell is the pragmatist. The state aid laws are not a complete blocker to Labour's plans.
Were a GE to be held before March, I wonder if there's any mileage in a Coupon election, as in 1919? Or a number of Rejoin candidates vs known Brexiteers?
There was not a General Election in 1919!
Ah yes, apologies. Dec 1918, called straight after the Armistice.
One of my favourite markets, next Conservative leader, is fascinatingly poised. All three of Dominic Raab, Sajid Javid and Boris Johnson were last matched at 8.2. Michael Gove is a hairsbreadth behind, last matched at 9.
Alastair. I made the exact same observation at 11.30 a.m.
:-)
My book at present:
Most of the Usual suspects -£450 Most of the Less Obvious and Outsiders +£3650. (Includes Geoffrey Cox).
Oh sorry. My book on this market alone (which in reality I run in conjunction with the next Prime Minister market) is as follows:
Raab +180 Javid +280 Boris +69 (wa-hay) Gove +227
Boris is my worst result on this market (in reality if Jacob Rees-Mogg were to become next Prime Minister that would be far worse for me as things stand).
Par for me is +280, but with quite a few variations up and down (mostly up). Best result for me is David Lidington +7,000
I'm currently in a bit of a holding position, to be honest.
McD is in this week's Newstatesman, in his new role as sensible provincial bank manager, making the case for no tax rises for working people. Beefing up his defence of not changing tory tax personal allowances for example.
Only the top 5% will pay more under Corbyn's government. He spells out the reality that to win, they must reach out to people and not scare them including middling types like school heads and senior police. A "universalist" policy he calls it.
Talk about pragmatism. Could have been written by New Labour to be honest.
I think he closes his eyes and sees that tax bombshell advert just waiting for them.
One of my favourite markets, next Conservative leader, is fascinatingly poised. All three of Dominic Raab, Sajid Javid and Boris Johnson were last matched at 8.2. Michael Gove is a hairsbreadth behind, last matched at 9.
Alastair. I made the exact same observation at 11.30 a.m.
:-)
My book at present:
Most of the Usual suspects -£450 Most of the Less Obvious and Outsiders +£3650. (Includes Geoffrey Cox).
Oh sorry. My book on this market alone (which in reality I run in conjunction with the next Prime Minister market) is as follows:
Raab +180 Javid +280 Boris +69 (wa-hay) Gove +227
Boris is my worst result on this market (in reality if Jacob Rees-Mogg were to become next Prime Minister that would be far worse for me as things stand).
Par for me is +280, but with quite a few variations up and down (mostly up). Best result for me is David Lidington +7,000
I'm currently in a bit of a holding position, to be honest.
Likewise. I am green on all the likely names, except Mogg, Leadsome and Liddington.
Very green on Hunt and, rather bizarrely - but you never know, William Hague.
Were a GE to be held before March, I wonder if there's any mileage in a Coupon election, as in 1919? Or a number of Rejoin candidates vs known Brexiteers?
There was not a General Election in 1919!
Ah yes, apologies. Dec 1918, called straight after the Armistice.
To be really picky, the decision to call it was actually made before the Armistice, which is why it was fought as a Coalition not as a partisan campaign.
Although Parliament was indeed dissolved in the immediate aftermath of the Armistice, that was a coincidence.
McD is in this week's Newstatesman, in his new role as sensible provincial bank manager, making the case for no tax rises for working people. Beefing up his defence of not changing tory tax personal allowances for example.
Only the top 5% will pay more under Corbyn's government. He spells out the reality that to win, they must reach out to people and not scare them including middling types like school heads and senior police. A "universalist" policy he calls it.
Talk about pragmatism. Could have been written by New Labour to be honest.
I think he closes his eyes and sees that tax bombshell advert just waiting for them.
I don't share his politics, but I find him quite an impressive operator. I suspect that this is phase one of a plan which will make a lot more sense when we get to the next general election.
Hmm. I didn't really appreciate how nasty Brillo's tweet about Carole Cadwalladr was. I assumed that the 'Cat Woman' bit was a reference to the Batman character, but he was actually suggesting she was a childless old spinster who shouldn't be taken seriously. Dark.
One of my favourite markets, next Conservative leader, is fascinatingly poised. All three of Dominic Raab, Sajid Javid and Boris Johnson were last matched at 8.2. Michael Gove is a hairsbreadth behind, last matched at 9.
Alastair. I made the exact same observation at 11.30 a.m.
:-)
My book at present:
Most of the Usual suspects -£450 Most of the Less Obvious and Outsiders +£3650. (Includes Geoffrey Cox).
Oh sorry. My book on this market alone (which in reality I run in conjunction with the next Prime Minister market) is as follows:
Raab +180 Javid +280 Boris +69 (wa-hay) Gove +227
Boris is my worst result on this market (in reality if Jacob Rees-Mogg were to become next Prime Minister that would be far worse for me as things stand).
Par for me is +280, but with quite a few variations up and down (mostly up). Best result for me is David Lidington +7,000
I'm currently in a bit of a holding position, to be honest.
That looks a nice book. Likewise for rottenborough. My best result is Ken Clarke! +£10k.
Hmm. I didn't really appreciate how nasty Brillo's tweet about Carole Cadwalladr was. I assumed that the 'Cat Woman' bit was a reference to the Batman character, but he was actually suggesting she was a childless old spinster who shouldn't be taken seriously. Dark.
Yes. The Brexiters have been trying to smear and malign Carole since day one. Even some of the outriders on here have gone along with it.
Re "the lack of a unilateral exit route from the backstop", what is to stop us from unilaterally disregarding the back-stop at some point?
Admittedly we would screw over our future relationship with the EU for many years to come, but no more so than we would in the event of No Deal.
Nothing. And what doesn't seem to have occurred to them is we could do that at the time of our choosing and with preparations in place. At the moment we're stuck in the Article 50 nonsense which was clearly designed to stop countries leaving.
More pertinently - why would we want to? If the final arrangements mirror the withdrawal agreement, we'll have got pretty well all we want and with a very few exceptions rid of the bureaucracy and political crap that nobody (with admittedly dazzling exceptions) was mad keen on. If Cameron had put this deal or no deal forward, he would have waltzed through the referendum.
There is no such thing as moderate, sensible Eurosceptism. Eurosceptism is a one way ticket to Nazi tweets and moonbattery.
Make Britain Sane Again. People’s Vote now.
Alan Sked is left-wing. He is certainly not ERG.
Is he? He was a Liberal, and a founder of UKIP. I would put him on the Libertarian wing. Not the Left.
Alan Sked was a founder of UKIP, but he left when it became a magnet for bigots.
I do not know his precise politics, but he certainly describes himself as left-wing. I would imagine his European policy is in the mould of Tony Crosland or Harold Wilson,centre-left Euroscepticism.
Why is it any different in principle from having a constitution which limits the freedom of democratically elected governments to, say, take away or abuse peoples’ human rights?
The EU has sought to set minimum standards of governance which all members must abide by. That seems to me to be a good thing to prevent a cabal who do not believe in such things taking power and ruining a country. There have been some notable examples in Europe, after all.
Nope. It is a massive curtailment of democracy and eventually leads to violence. Once people know their votes are worthless they turn to other means.
You really think that Constitutions are a curtailment of democracy and lead to violence?? Really??
There is no such thing as moderate, sensible Eurosceptism. Eurosceptism is a one way ticket to Nazi tweets and moonbattery.
Make Britain Sane Again. People’s Vote now.
Alan Sked is left-wing. He is certainly not ERG.
Is he? He was a Liberal, and a founder of UKIP. I would put him on the Libertarian wing. Not the Left.
Alan Sked was a founder of UKIP, but he left when it became a magnet for bigots.
I do not know his precise politics, but he certainly describes himself as left-wing. I would imagine his European policy is in the mould of Tony Crosland or Harold Wilson,centre-left Euroscepticism.
As above, it doesn’t matter what long-dead centrist Sked pretends to subscribe to, he’s gone full EU=Nazi tweet, which is the ultimate and inevitable direction of Brexitism.
One of my favourite markets, next Conservative leader, is fascinatingly poised. All three of Dominic Raab, Sajid Javid and Boris Johnson were last matched at 8.2. Michael Gove is a hairsbreadth behind, last matched at 9.
There is no such thing as moderate, sensible Eurosceptism. Eurosceptism is a one way ticket to Nazi tweets and moonbattery.
Make Britain Sane Again. People’s Vote now.
Alan Sked is left-wing. He is certainly not ERG.
Is he? He was a Liberal, and a founder of UKIP. I would put him on the Libertarian wing. Not the Left.
Alan Sked was a founder of UKIP, but he left when it became a magnet for bigots.
I do not know his precise politics, but he certainly describes himself as left-wing. I would imagine his European policy is in the mould of Tony Crosland or Harold Wilson,centre-left Euroscepticism.
As above, it doesn’t matter what long-dead centrist Sked pretends to subscribe to, he’s gone full EU=Nazi tweet, which is the ultimate and inevitable direction of Brexitism.
Why is it any different in principle from having a constitution which limits the freedom of democratically elected governments to, say, take away or abuse peoples’ human rights?
The EU has sought to set minimum standards of governance which all members must abide by. That seems to me to be a good thing to prevent a cabal who do not believe in such things taking power and ruining a country. There have been some notable examples in Europe, after all.
Nope. It is a massive curtailment of democracy and eventually leads to violence. Once people know their votes are worthless they turn to other means.
You really think that Constitutions are a curtailment of democracy and lead to violence?? Really??
Like the US Constitution, say?
Well, TBF, one interpretation of the Constitution (that it was a Union of sovereign states with a limited central government that shouldn't intervene in any but strictly defined matters) did lead to 630,000 deaths.
Hmm. I didn't really appreciate how nasty Brillo's tweet about Carole Cadwalladr was. I assumed that the 'Cat Woman' bit was a reference to the Batman character, but he was actually suggesting she was a childless old spinster who shouldn't be taken seriously. Dark.
He is a real nasty piece of work though and full of himself so not surprising
Labour is planning to force a Commons vote within weeks that would make it impossible for Britain to crash out of the European Union without a deal, as fears grow about a disastrous hard Brexit if parliament rejects Theresa May’s agreement.
What would the legislation say? It can't say take the deal, because it's about what happens if the deal is voted down, and it can't say take a different deal, because parliament can't mandate the EU to make and accept deals, and it probably can't mandate revoking Article 50, because that probably needs the other member states to agree. So what is it?
It can mandate the government to request an extension of Article 50 and hold a referendum on the deal versus remain during that extension to resolve the issue one way or the other. I think that could get a majority in the house. It would be a binding amendment to government legislation.
But Corbyn needs to leave to get round the state aid laws.
But Corbyn needs to win power first and McDonnell is the pragmatist. The state aid laws are not a complete blocker to Labour's plans.
McDonnell is a pragmatist about getting into power. I am not all sure he will be a pragmatist once he is in power. See his time at the GLC for instance.
Edited: it is only the last three sentences which are mine.
Isn't the pont that it was an MP who said he or she had written a letter then withdrawn it, but who had in fact done neither of those things?
Who do we know who makes rash promises that they can't keep, regrets them, wobbles and then caves in in the most incompetent imaginable way?
I'm sure we can all think of some candidates for this role :🤔
Saying you have submitted a letter when you have not is not a 'rash-promise' - it's a lie, plain and simple.
True, O Cophetua. How about this:
Who do we know who makes rash promises that they can't keeptells blatant lies, regrets them, wobbles and then caves in in claims something different in the most incompetent and dishonest way imaginable?🤔
Isn't the pont that it was an MP who said he or she had written a letter then withdrawn it, but who had in fact done neither of those things?
Sir Graham said one MP 'several years ago' - which implies Cameron not May could well have been PM at the time - claimed publicly to have submitted a letter but didn't. Yet that is now being taken as implying that is the case in this instance?
I do find the whole process very odd - that one person (and not even their Deputies) - knows how many letters have been submitted and where they are kept.
How are they (or can they be) submitted - by hand, email, signed for post, internal Commons mail? Where are they kept? Does Sir Graham acknowledge receipt by letter or email or text What happens if there is a miscommunication if the previous point does not apply What happens if the Chair of the 1922 Committee falls ill, is on holiday or even say has undiagnosed dementia and forgets where they are.
I sort of assumed one or more of his Deputies would be in the loop for this reason - it almost seems like the Tories have not actually moved on much from 1922 in terms of this process. All down to one person with no separate record?
Isn't the pont that it was an MP who said he or she had written a letter then withdrawn it, but who had in fact done neither of those things?
Sir Graham said one MP 'several years ago' - which implies Cameron not May could well have been PM at the time - claimed publicly to have submitted a letter but didn't. Yet that is now being taken as implying that is the case in this instance?
I do find the whole process very odd - that one person (and not even their Deputies) - knows how many letters have been submitted and where they are kep.
How are they submitted - by hand, email, signed for post? Where are they kept? Does Sir Graham acknowledge receipt by letter or email or text What happens if there is a miscommunication if the previous point does not apply What happens if the Chair of the 1922 Committee falls ill or say has undiagnosed dementia and forgets where they are.
I sort of assumed one or more of his Deputies would be in the loop for this reason - it almost seems like the Tories have not actually moved on much from 1922 in terms of this process.
Isn't the pont that it was an MP who said he or she had written a letter then withdrawn it, but who had in fact done neither of those things?
Sir Graham said one MP 'several years ago' - which implies Cameron not May could well have been PM at the time - claimed publicly to have submitted a letter but didn't. Yet that is now being taken as implying that is the case in this instance?
I do find the whole process very odd - that one person (and not even their Deputies) - knows how many letters have been submitted and where they are kept.
How are they (or can they be) submitted - by hand, email, signed for post? Where are they kept? Does Sir Graham acknowledge receipt by letter or email or text What happens if there is a miscommunication if the previous point does not apply What happens if the Chair of the 1922 Committee falls ill, is on holiday or even say has undiagnosed dementia and forgets where they are.
I sort of assumed one or more of his Deputies would be in the loop for this reason - it almost seems like the Tories have not actually moved on much from 1922 in terms of this process. All down to one person with no separate record?
It does seem like the most antiquated system. I guess the thing is a) this happens rarely and b) when it does, normally the swell of discontent is so large you aren't worrying about if it is 47, 47.5 or 48 (or equivalent required amounts), it is more concern if you will pull your back out lifting the mail sack as there are so many letters.
Isn't the pont that it was an MP who said he or she had written a letter then withdrawn it, but who had in fact done neither of those things?
Sir Graham said one MP 'several years ago' - which implies Cameron not May could well have been PM at the time - claimed publicly to have submitted a letter but didn't. Yet that is now being taken as implying that is the case in this instance?
I do find the whole process very odd - that one person (and not even their Deputies) - knows how many letters have been submitted and where they are kept.
How are they (or can they be) submitted - by hand, email, signed for post, internal Commons mail? Where are they kept? Does Sir Graham acknowledge receipt by letter or email or text What happens if there is a miscommunication if the previous point does not apply What happens if the Chair of the 1922 Committee falls ill, is on holiday or even say has undiagnosed dementia and forgets where they are.
I sort of assumed one or more of his Deputies would be in the loop for this reason - it almost seems like the Tories have not actually moved on much from 1922 in terms of this process. All down to one person with no separate record?
In 1922 their treasurer had in fact embezzled many thousands of pounds from the party. Not deliberately, he just had dementia and kept paying money for the party into his own bank account. It took almost three years to unravel the mess.
Why is it any different in principle from having a constitution which limits the freedom of democratically elected governments to, say, take away or abuse peoples’ human rights?
The EU has sought to set minimum standards of governance which all members must abide by. That seems to me to be a good thing to prevent a cabal who do not believe in such things taking power and ruining a coubntry. There have been some notable examples in Europe, after all.
Nope. It is a massive curtailment of democracy and eventually leads to violence. Once people know their votes are worthless they turn to other means.
You really think that Constitutions are a curtailment of democracy and lead to violence?? Really??
Like the US Constitution, say?
Well, TBF, one interpretation of the Constitution (that it was a Union of sovereign states with a limited central government that shouldn't intervene in any but strictly defined matters) did lead to 630,000 deaths.
But arguably because one part did not want democracy rather than because it wanted it too much.
The point is that to argue that there should be no limits on what governments can do is a ludicrous position. To say that the people voted for it is not a complete answer. The people could vote for every man called Richard to be executed, for instance. That does not make it right. So we all accept that there should be some limits. Only those wanting untrammeled powers would say otherwise.
Isn't the pont that it was an MP who said he or she had written a letter then withdrawn it, but who had in fact done neither of those things?
Sir Graham said one MP 'several years ago' - which implies Cameron not May could well have been PM at the time - claimed publicly to have submitted a letter but didn't. Yet that is now being taken as implying that is the case in this instance?
I do find the whole process very odd - that one person (and not even their Deputies) - knows how many letters have been submitted and where they are kept.
How are they (or can they be) submitted - by hand, email, signed for post? Where are they kept? Does Sir Graham acknowledge receipt by letter or email or text What happens if there is a miscommunication if the previous point does not apply What happens if the Chair of the 1922 Committee falls ill, is on holiday or even say has undiagnosed dementia and forgets where they are.
I sort of assumed one or more of his Deputies would be in the loop for this reason - it almost seems like the Tories have not actually moved on much from 1922 in terms of this process. All down to one person with no separate record?
It does seem like the most antiquated system. I guess the thing is a) this happens rarely and b) when it does, normally the swell of discontent is so large you aren't worrying about if it is 47, 47.5 or 48 (or equivalent required amounts), it is more concern if you will pull your back out lifting the mail sack as there are so many letters.
47.5? Has Boris sent one of no confidence and one of confidence, or just one where he can't make his mind up?
Isn't the pont that it was an MP who said he or she had written a letter then withdrawn it, but who had in fact done neither of those things?
Sir Graham said one MP 'several years ago' - which implies Cameron not May could well have been PM at the time - claimed publicly to have submitted a letter but didn't. Yet that is now being taken as implying that is the case in this instance?
I do find the whole process very odd - that one person (and not even their Deputies) - knows how many letters have been submitted and where they are kept.
How are they (or can they be) submitted - by hand, email, signed for post? Where are they kept? Does Sir Graham acknowledge receipt by letter or email or text What happens if there is a miscommunication if the previous point does not apply What happens if the Chair of the 1922 Committee falls ill, is on holiday or even say has undiagnosed dementia and forgets where they are.
I sort of assumed one or more of his Deputies would be in the loop for this reason - it almost seems like the Tories have not actually moved on much from 1922 in terms of this process. All down to one person with no separate record?
It does seem like the most antiquated system. I guess the thing is a) this happens rarely and b) when it does, normally the swell of discontent is so large you aren't worrying about if it is 47, 47.5 or 48 (or equivalent required amounts), it is more concern if you will pull your back out lifting the mail sack as there are so many letters.
47.5? Has Boris sent one of no confidence and one of confidence, or just one where he can't make his mind up?
Its the equivalent of a hanging chad in Florida...
Why is it any different in principle from having a constitution which limits the freedom of democratically elected governments to, say, take away or abuse peoples’ human rights?
The EU has sought to set minimum standards of governance which all members must abide by. That seems to me to be a good thing to prevent a cabal who do not believe in such things taking power and ruining a coubntry. There have been some notable examples in Europe, after all.
Nope. It is a massive curtailment of democracy and eventually leads to violence. Once people know their votes are worthless they turn to other means.
You really think that Constitutions are a curtailment of democracy and lead to violence?? Really??
Like the US Constitution, say?
Well, TBF, one interpretation of the Constitution (that it was a Union of sovereign states with a limited central government that shouldn't intervene in any but strictly defined matters) did lead to 630,000 deaths.
But arguably because one part did not want democracy rather than because it wanted it too much.
The point is that to argue that there should be no limits on what governments can do is a ludicrous position. To say that the people voted for it is not a complete answer. The people could vote for every man called Richard to be executed, for instance. That does not make it right. So we all accept that there should be some limits. Only those wanting untrammeled powers would say otherwise.
I'm teaching a lesson on Monday about rights and justice. With your permission can I steal that one about Richards?
All these people going on about the "unilateral right to exit the backstop". Do they even understand what the backstop is? Are they confusing it with the transition period? There is no point to the backstop if one side can unilaterally exit it! Whether you disagree with the backstop is another issue, but it's obvious that the EU isn't going to agree to a unilateral right to exit it! Any "renegotiation" sought on that basis is never going to happen.
The impetus to exit the backstop depends on it being a state of affairs that ultimately suits neither side and gives them an incentive to develop the trade deal as an alternative. And that is what it does. Contrary to what is claimed, the EU are not going to want the backstop as a permanent solution. It effectively gives the UK tariff free access to the European market without any of the financial or other obligations associated with it. The flip side is that we have no say over the rules of that market. So good from a trade side, bad from an "influence" side.
No a good solution for either, which is what the backstop should be.
Isn't the pont that it was an MP who said he or she had written a letter then withdrawn it, but who had in fact done neither of those things?
Sir Graham said one MP 'several years ago' - which implies Cameron not May could well have been PM at the time - claimed publicly to have submitted a letter but didn't. Yet that is now being taken as implying that is the case in this instance?
I do find the whole process very odd - that one person (and not even their Deputies) - knows how many letters have been submitted and where they are kept.
How are they (or can they be) submitted - by hand, email, signed for post? Where are they kept? Does Sir Graham acknowledge receipt by letter or email or text What happens if there is a miscommunication if the previous point does not apply What happens if the Chair of the 1922 Committee falls ill, is on holiday or even say has undiagnosed dementia and forgets where they are.
I sort of assumed one or more of his Deputies would be in the loop for this reason - it almost seems like the Tories have not actually moved on much from 1922 in terms of this process. All down to one person with no separate record?
It does seem like the most antiquated system. I guess the thing is a) this happens rarely and b) when it does, normally the swell of discontent is so large you aren't worrying about if it is 47, 47.5 or 48 (or equivalent required amounts), it is more concern if you will pull your back out lifting the mail sack as there are so many letters.
47.5? Has Boris sent one of no confidence and one of confidence, or just one where he can't make his mind up?
Its the equivalent of a hanging chad in Florida...
Isn't the pont that it was an MP who said he or she had written a letter then withdrawn it, but who had in fact done neither of those things?
Sir Graham said one MP 'several years ago' - which implies Cameron not May could well have been PM at the time - claimed publicly to have submitted a letter but didn't. Yet that is now being taken as implying that is the case in this instance?
I do find the whole process very odd - that one person (and not even their Deputies) - knows how many letters have been submitted and where they are kept.
How are they (or can they be) submitted - by hand, email, signed for post, internal Commons mail? Where are they kept? Does Sir Graham acknowledge receipt by letter or email or text What happens if there is a miscommunication if the previous point does not apply What happens if the Chair of the 1922 Committee falls ill, is on holiday or even say has undiagnosed dementia and forgets where they are.
I sort of assumed one or more of his Deputies would be in the loop for this reason - it almost seems like the Tories have not actually moved on much from 1922 in terms of this process. All down to one person with no separate record?
It's not beyond the wit of man for somebody to check if they are acknowledged to have a letter in, and resubmit if the answer is in the negative.
Hmm. I didn't really appreciate how nasty Brillo's tweet about Carole Cadwalladr was. I assumed that the 'Cat Woman' bit was a reference to the Batman character, but he was actually suggesting she was a childless old spinster who shouldn't be taken seriously. Dark.
They have really been doing a number on her. It was a few news cycles ago, but they had her on the Daily Politics or some such show. Isabelle Oakshott was on as well. They managed to completely prevent Cadwalladr making her points though she battled on pluckily. (I was drive to Google to find out what she had been proposing.) A few days later there were stories going around on social media that she had been reduced to tears by the . Having watched the programme I found that highly unlikely.
I have no way of independently checking the facts behind the story she has put into the public domain. But the way she is being personally attacked makes me inclined to believe it.
Comments
Imagine you are a Tory MP, Remain inclined but with a Leave electorate (and a strongly leave membership and crew of activists), you wished Theresa well in her dealings with Brussels. But this weekend, you are looking at a PM holed up in Downing Street, as part of her Cabinet she is too weak to sack knock lumps off her deal. A deal so compromised that it stands no chance of getting through the House, even if you annoy your electorate and membership and activists and vote for it. So no point dying in a ditch defending it. You doubt the deal will get much change, even if these Cabinet rebels get on a plane to Brussels with a copy marked up with yellow Post-it notes. But hey, it might just be a way out...in an ideal world, they magically produce something your party can rally round. As long as you can tell your voters "we can definitely leave on our say so".
You don't want an election, because going out on the doorsteps will be a horror show of abuse, both from Remainers and Leavers. You can't defend where we are, you can't defend the Prime Minister for having got you there. You don't know where we are headed. You have been put in place to deliver Brexit on a Manifesto that says you are out of the Customs Union, out of the Single Market. And if you lose that electon, Corbyn takes us on a trip to the worst bits of Venezuela's economy.
You can see Theresa May is a lost cause, needs to be taken out into the field, but you don't want to be the one to pull the trigger on the old nag. You secretly hope that somebody else will write the letters to do the dirty deed. Then, there can be change. But you don't know who the hell can be that change.
In that scenario, a "Davis now and see what happens afterwards" is probably looking one of the few outs....
Speaking of which, we only have until 21/jan under that act to decide what to do next.
eg. if we vote the deal down and nothing replaces it (Remain or alternative deal) by March 31st, then the deal automatically comes into effect
(it gives them a narrow window to force and win a General Election, and put an alternative deal into place)
[edit: unfuck html]
"I have legislated to ensure a balanced budget"
etc etc
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1064127425402101762?s=20
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1064127630415458305?s=20
Everyone is now complaining about the ERGers.
Yet it was the ERGers who won the referendum in the first place, and they did so with the same platform they continue to campaign on. It is no use being angry and surprised that it has led to trade missions to Oklahoma, “fuck business”, and ignorance about the precise location of Dover. That was all baked in right from the start.
There is no such thing as moderate, sensible Eurosceptism. Eurosceptism is a one way ticket to Nazi tweets and moonbattery.
Make Britain Sane Again. People’s Vote now.
BBC says that makes it 25 publicly-declared letters. Of course, we know from Brady that "many" of those are lying.
The referendum destroyed the distinction because it made Euroscepticism no longer an acceptable position (even though a large amount of the Remain vote was probably just that - recharacterised as "reluctant remainers")
It can mandate the government to request an extension of Article 50 and hold a referendum on the deal versus remain during that extension to resolve the issue one way or the other. I think that could get a majority in the house. It would be a binding amendment to government legislation.
So they'd be "legislating" for a referendum on two things, neither of which Labour could support.
It can mandate the government to request an extension of Article 50 and hold a referendum on the deal versus remain during that extension to resolve the issue one way or the other. I think that could get a majority in the house. It would be a binding amendment to government legislation.
But Corbyn needs to leave to get round the state aid laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Sked
* to be clear, I am joking.
However, there’s then those who have a swivel-eyed hatred of the concept of integration, multilateralism (and with it, multiculturalism) and pan-European co-operation, largely motivated by an outdated concept of Imperial Britain. They hate any kind of deal with the EU because they profoundly don’t want anything to do with the EU or Europe. Those are the nutters in the equation.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1064132081649950720
The increasing bill is partly due to the Mayor giving pay rises to staff, including to workers who were already earning over £100,000.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/18/sadiq-khan-criticised-60-per-cent-rise-staff-costs-city-hall/
For the
manyfew ...A leader that hasn't read the agreement but knows he could do better
A leader who doesn't know which way he would vote in a second referendum.......
Of course he just doesn't want to say he would vote leave
The irony is they need to leave the EU to allow their bat shit crazy plans
If they enact those plans those of you screaming about how bad a no deal brexit deal would be will really see what economic meltdown looks like.
Sorry Theresa.....
:-)
My book at present:
Most of the Usual suspects -£450
Most of the Less Obvious and Outsiders +£3650. (Includes Geoffrey Cox).
But Corbyn needs to leave to get round the state aid laws.
But Corbyn needs to win power first and McDonnell is the pragmatist. The state aid laws are not a complete blocker to Labour's plans.
Time for a brew and a chat then.
Raab +180
Javid +280
Boris +69 (wa-hay)
Gove +227
Boris is my worst result on this market (in reality if Jacob Rees-Mogg were to become next Prime Minister that would be far worse for me as things stand).
Par for me is +280, but with quite a few variations up and down (mostly up).
Best result for me is David Lidington +7,000
I'm currently in a bit of a holding position, to be honest.
Only the top 5% will pay more under Corbyn's government. He spells out the reality that to win, they must reach out to people and not scare them including middling types like school heads and senior police. A "universalist" policy he calls it.
Talk about pragmatism. Could have been written by New Labour to be honest.
I think he closes his eyes and sees that tax bombshell advert just waiting for them.
Very green on Hunt and, rather bizarrely - but you never know, William Hague.
Parliament would have to vote on any referendum and on the question to be asked.
Would it get a majority?
Although Parliament was indeed dissolved in the immediate aftermath of the Armistice, that was a coincidence.
Re "the lack of a unilateral exit route from the backstop", what is to stop us from unilaterally disregarding the back-stop at some point?
Admittedly we would screw over our future relationship with the EU for many years to come, but no more so than we would in the event of No Deal.
A vote to stay or to leave* with May's deal.
(*leave means leave)
?
How about 'to stay, or sign May's deal?'
That might be easier, I gather even most of the ERG figure which way up to hold a pen at the second go (although there are rumours about Long-Bailey).
Brexit is nasty, among its other sins.
More pertinently - why would we want to? If the final arrangements mirror the withdrawal agreement, we'll have got pretty well all we want and with a very few exceptions rid of the bureaucracy and political crap that nobody (with admittedly dazzling exceptions) was mad keen on. If Cameron had put this deal or no deal forward, he would have waltzed through the referendum.
I'm sure we can all think of some candidates for this role :🤔
I do not know his precise politics, but he certainly describes himself as left-wing. I would imagine his European policy is in the mould of Tony Crosland or Harold Wilson,centre-left Euroscepticism.
Like the US Constitution, say?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/28/we-need-eurosceptic-party-centre-left
But Corbyn needs to win power first and McDonnell is the pragmatist. The state aid laws are not a complete blocker to Labour's plans.
McDonnell is a pragmatist about getting into power. I am not all sure he will be a pragmatist once he is in power. See his time at the GLC for instance.
Edited: it is only the last three sentences which are mine.
Who do we know who
makes rash promises that they can't keeptells blatant lies, regrets them, wobbles and thencaves in inclaims something different in the most incompetent and dishonest way imaginable?🤔Shameful.
(Although I would be wary of signalling any vices to Boris.)
I do find the whole process very odd - that one person (and not even their Deputies) - knows how many letters have been submitted and where they are kept.
How are they (or can they be) submitted - by hand, email, signed for post, internal Commons mail?
Where are they kept?
Does Sir Graham acknowledge receipt by letter or email or text
What happens if there is a miscommunication if the previous point does not apply
What happens if the Chair of the 1922 Committee falls ill, is on holiday or even say has undiagnosed dementia and forgets where they are.
I sort of assumed one or more of his Deputies would be in the loop for this reason - it almost seems like the Tories have not actually moved on much from 1922 in terms of this process. All down to one person with no separate record?
The point is that to argue that there should be no limits on what governments can do is a ludicrous position. To say that the people voted for it is not a complete answer. The people could vote for every man called Richard to be executed, for instance. That does not make it right. So we all accept that there should be some limits. Only those wanting untrammeled powers would say otherwise.
The impetus to exit the backstop depends on it being a state of affairs that ultimately suits neither side and gives them an incentive to develop the trade deal as an alternative. And that is what it does. Contrary to what is claimed, the EU are not going to want the backstop as a permanent solution. It effectively gives the UK tariff free access to the European market without any of the financial or other obligations associated with it. The flip side is that we have no say over the rules of that market. So good from a trade side, bad from an "influence" side.
No a good solution for either, which is what the backstop should be.
I have no way of independently checking the facts behind the story she has put into the public domain. But the way she is being personally attacked makes me inclined to believe it.