NOTING that nothing in this Protocol prevents the United Kingdom from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom's internal market
Depending on your definition of "Border".
Northern Irish producers will be subject to SM rules that Northern English producers will not.
Sure, I'm struggling to think of how that might disadvantage Northern Ireland in practice though !
To be fair, if Richard Tyndall had been doing the negotiating we would not be in the mess we are in now. Unlike David Davis, Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson, Nadine Dorries and the rest of the Buccaneers he actually understands the issues because he's pent some time trying to understand them. The kind of Brexit he proposed would have united the country, done very little damage and allowed everyone to move on. Unfortunately, instead of tacking tot he centre when she took over May turned right. Article 50 was invoked, the red lines were drawn and thus the rest was always going to happen.
Richard Tyndall wants an open borders single market Brexit, not sure many working class Leavers would have been happy with that
The Brexit deal should always have been about what would get most support in the country, not what one set of Leave voters wanted.
Without that set of Leave voters Remain would have won
So what? We all have to live with the consequences of Brexit, not just working class Leave voters.
Yes and it was the consequences of their vote which got Leave to 52%
This is a rather illogical argument.
One could just as easily say it was the 42% of Leave voters who were happy with EEA status who pushed the Leave vote up to 52%. Without either side you would not have had Brexit. So that accepted you then have to proceed on what is likely to be the most acceptable deal to the widest number of people. Which clearly was not a hard Brexit nor necessarily one which ended FoM. Instead May chose to put the whole thing at risk by supporting a position which only had the support of perhaps 23% of the electorate and which bound us to decisions that would make Brexit immeasurably harder.
Even with your 42% (most of whom I expect wanted immigration controls too) that 42% is not 52% and that 42% for Leave would have meant Remain won.
Leave won on a prospectus of cutting immigration, something most voters actually support, certainly for lower skilled migration, that has to be respected as a result of the Leave vote.
NOTING that nothing in this Protocol prevents the United Kingdom from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom's internal market
Depending on your definition of "Border".
Northern Irish producers will be subject to SM rules that Northern English producers will not.
Sure, I'm struggling to think of how that might disadvantage Northern Ireland in practice though !
It is a founding principle of the single market that a producer that must comply with two sets of standards is at a disadvantage (Casis de Dijon and all that). However it is not clear that UK standards will diverge and if at all, certainly not by much. We are not going back to the policies of the pre-1972 era with Victorian restrictions on the milk content of butter or the size servings of bread.
Nope. Remain should not get another shot. Well, unless you think we should revisit the same question again every 2 years for ever more. Of course the EU and the Remainiacs only want to repeat the question until they win as you showed earlier. You really must hate this country that you would plunge it into such chaos.
On the other hand, remain is an obvious option in a referendum, and one that is wanted by a significant proportion of people (indeed, 48-odd% voted for it just two years ago). Not having it as an option could be seen as obviously undemocratic.
But as I've said before, I have doubts if the EU would really want us to remain given all the sh*t and trouble the Europhobes have caused them.
Also, I hate the idea of a three-way referendum, and cannot see it producing a result that would be conclusive.
And remain or leaver, that's what we need from another referendum: a definite conclusion, one way or the other.
When we have enacted the first referendum feel free to press for a rejoin. Until then you have no credibility.
Leave won the first referendum on a central lie - one that was pointed out at the time, and ignored. As such, it is essentially undeliverable - which is why we're in this mess now.
Continuing with something so fatally flawed could be seen as silly, if not insane given the damage it could do.
No they didn't. Much as you might wish it to be true it is still rubbish no matter how many times you might repeat it.
Why is it rubbish?
Because there was no central lie that won Brexit. It is just an excuse made up by Remainers who are desperate to find someway to overturn a democratic decision.
I was pointing out the lie before the referendum, so it was hardly in response to leave's win.
In fact, the lie is a major part of the reason I reluctantly voted for remain: it was clear that the two different visions of leave could not be reconciled, especially wrt major factors such as immigration.
The thing that unites those two visions, however, is the desire to choose one's own masters and make our own laws. Neither vision is possible within the EU. Out of it, we're free to make the case for the UK we'd like to live in, and have the elected government of the day carry that out.
NOTING that nothing in this Protocol prevents the United Kingdom from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom's internal market
Depending on your definition of "Border".
Northern Irish producers will be subject to SM rules that Northern English producers will not.
Sure, I'm struggling to think of how that might disadvantage Northern Ireland in practice though !
If English regulations are more competitive than SM ones then NI will be at a disadvantage.
Here's a question. Could Jezza get his sought-after GE sooner by passing May's Deal?
The DUP could well decide to withdraw their support at which point a VoNC would probably be lost.
It is not enough for the DUP to abstain in a VONC. They would need to vote with Labour for the opposition to win the vote. That is assuming there are no suicidal Tories out there.
To be fair, if Richard Tyndall had been doing the negotiating we would not be in the mess we are in now. Unlike David Davis, Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson, Nadine Dorries and the rest of the Buccaneers he actually understands the issues because he's pent some time trying to understand them. The kind of Brexit he proposed would have united the country, done very little damage and allowed everyone to move on. Unfortunately, instead of tacking tot he centre when she took over May turned right. Article 50 was invoked, the red lines were drawn and thus the rest was always going to happen.
Richard Tyndall wants an open borders single market Brexit, not sure many working class Leavers would have been happy with that
The Brexit deal should always have been about what would get most support in the country, not what one set of Leave voters wanted.
Without that set of Leave voters Remain would have won
So what? We all have to live with the consequences of Brexit, not just working class Leave voters.
Yes and it was the consequences of their vote which got Leave to 52%
This is a rather illogical argument.
One could just as easily say it was the 42% of Leave voters who were happy with EEA status who pushed the Leave vote up to 52%. Without either side you would not have had Brexit. So that accepted you then have to proceed on what is likely to be the most acceptable deal to the widest number of people. Which clearly was not a hard Brexit nor necessarily one which ended FoM. Instead May chose to put the whole thing at risk by supporting a position which only had the support of perhaps 23% of the electorate and which bound us to decisions that would make Brexit immeasurably harder.
Even with your 42% (most of whom I expect wanted immigration controls too) that 42% is not 52% and that 42% for Leave would have meant Remain won.
Leave won on a prospectus of cutting immigration, something most voters actually support, certainly for lower skilled migration, that has to be respected as a result of the Leave vote.
Nope. Leave won on a wide ranging prospectus of which cutting immigration was, overall, a minority position. Your position is simply untenable because the whole of Brexit is being put at risk because of an issue supported by only 23% of those who voted.
To be fair, if Richard Tyndall had been doing the negotiating we would not be in the mess we are in now. Unlike David Davis, Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson, Nadine Dorries and the rest of the Buccaneers he actually understands the issues because he's pent some time trying to understand them. The kind of Brexit he proposed would have united the country, done very little damage and allowed everyone to move on. Unfortunately, instead of tacking tot he centre when she took over May turned right. Article 50 was invoked, the red lines were drawn and thus the rest was always going to happen.
Richard Tyndall wants an open borders single market Brexit, not sure many working class Leavers would have been happy with that
The Brexit deal should always have been about what would get most support in the country, not what one set of Leave voters wanted.
Without that set of Leave voters Remain would have won
So what? We all have to live with the consequences of Brexit, not just working class Leave voters.
Yes and it was the consequences of their vote which got Leave to 52%
This is a rather illogical argument.
One could just as easily say it was the er.
Even with your 42% (most of whom I expect wanted immigration controls too) that 42% is not 52% and that 42% for Leave would have meant Remain won.
Leave won on a prospectus of cutting immigration, something most voters actually support, certainly for lower skilled migration, that has to be respected as a result of the Leave vote.
Nope. Leave won on a wide ranging prospectus of which cutting immigration was, overall, a minority position. Your position is simply untenable because the whole of Brexit is being put at risk because of an issue supported by only 23% of those who voted.
Yup. Cutting immigration was a pivotal part of Leave getting over 50%.
My position is absolutely correct and the point is not to respect your fewer widget making regulations obsessed Brexit alone but all the reasons Leave won and that includes gaining greater control over immigration as May's Deal does
To be fair, if Richard Tyndall had been doing the negotiating we would not be in the mess we are in now. Unlike David Davis, Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson, Nadine Dorries and the rest of the Buccaneers he actually understands the issues because he's pent some time trying to understand them. The kind of Brexit he proposed would have united the country, done very little damage and allowed everyone to move on. Unfortunately, instead of tacking tot he centre when she took over May turned right. Article 50 was invoked, the red lines were drawn and thus the rest was always going to happen.
Richard Tyndall wants an open borders single market Brexit, not sure many working class Leavers would have been happy with that
The Brexit deal should always have been about what would get most support in the country, not what one set of Leave voters wanted.
Without that set of Leave voters Remain would have won
So what? We all have to live with the consequences of Brexit, not just working class Leave voters.
Yes and it was the consequences of their vote which got Leave to 52%
This is a rather illogical argument.
So that accepted you then have to proceed on what is likely to be the most acceptable deal to the widest number of people. Which clearly was not a hard Brexit nor necessarily one which ended FoM. Instead May chose to put the whole thing at risk by supporting a position which only had the support of perhaps 23% of the electorate and which bound us to decisions that would make Brexit immeasurably harder.
Even with your 42% (most of whom I expect wanted immigration controls too) that 42% is not 52% and that 42% for Leave would have meant Remain won.
Leave won on a prospectus of cutting immigration, something most voters actually support, certainly for lower skilled migration, that has to be respected as a result of the Leave vote.
Nope. Leave won on a wide ranging prospectus of which cutting immigration was, overall, a minority position. Your position is simply untenable because the whole of Brexit is being put at risk because of an issue supported by only 23% of those who voted.
Utter utter lying mendacious factually inaccurate bollocks which lacks the merest iota of veracity.
I will take the real polling over your word clouds any day. 45%. That is the % of Leave voters who preferred controlling immigration to free trade. Which is a whole 23% of the overall electorate. Factually accurate. I will leave the bollocks bit to you.
To be fair, if Richard Tyndall had been doing the negotiating we would not be in the mess we are in now. Unlike David Davis, Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson, Nadine Dorries and the rest of the Buccaneers he actually understands the issues because he's pent some time trying to understand them. The kind of Brexit he proposed would have united the country, done very little damage and allowed everyone to move on. Unfortunately, instead of tacking tot he centre when she took over May turned right. Article 50 was invoked, the red lines were drawn and thus the rest was always going to happen.
Richard Tyndall wants an open borders single market Brexit, not sure many working class Leavers would have been happy with that
The Brexit deal should always have been about what would get most support in the country, not what one set of Leave voters wanted.
Without that set of Leave voters Remain would have won
So what? We all have to live with the consequences of Brexit, not just working class Leave voters.
Yes and it was the consequences of their vote which got Leave to 52%
This is a rather illogical argument.
One could just as easily say it was the er.
Even with your 42% (most of whom I expect wanted immigration controls too) that 42% is not 52% and that 42% for Leave would have meant Remain won.
Leave won on a prospectus of cutting immigration, something most voters actually support, certainly for lower skilled migration, that has to be respected as a result of the Leave vote.
Nope. Leave won on a wide ranging prospectus of which cutting immigration was, overall, a minority position. Your position is simply untenable because the whole of Brexit is being put at risk because of an issue supported by only 23% of those who voted.
Yup. Cutting immigration was a pivotal part of Leave getting over 50%.
My position is absolutely correct and the point is not to respect your fewer widget making regulations obsessed Brexit alone but all the reasons Leave won and that includes gaining greater control over immigration as May's Deal does
And yet the polls prove you wrong. Its a bitch isn't it.
Davis is right. While the EU are pretending now this deal is the only way to get a transition that is a nonsense. All a transition is, is an extension of us continuing to pay them billions and follow their rules. If we reject this deal and a new PM goes to Brussels and says "time's up, this deal is dead but we need something new so here is £39bn pounds and we will follow your rules for the next 2 years now let's talk" then do you really think Brussels is going to say no?
Here's a question. Could Jezza get his sought-after GE sooner by passing May's Deal?
The DUP could well decide to withdraw their support at which point a VoNC would probably be lost.
Quite so. Hard for him to switch position though, since his pretext for a GE is so that he can renegotiate the deal because it so bad, plus a Labour government will just be better anyway. Harder to pitch 'we'll get a Labour government, but also this deal I said was terrible'.
It's a warning shot - I wonder if they wanted to bring the gov't down or calculated that it would just survive.
Not sure how it can be described as a warning shot. Abstention, sure. But voting against means they have gone against the agreement surely? Now, some will say it is with justification given May's proposed deal, but it would seem, the DUP have technically broken it first, since it is not as though parliament has approved May's deal, nor is it likely to.
So I assume they are better the Tories will be too distracted and divided to do anything about it, or take back the extra money since they would probably go down like a bucket of cold sick.
Davis is right. While the EU are pretending now this deal is the only way to get a transition that is a nonsense. All a transition is, is an extension of us continuing to pay them billions and follow their rules. If we reject this deal and a new PM goes to Brussels and says "time's up, this deal is dead but we need something new so here is £39bn pounds and we will follow your rules for the next 2 years now let's talk" then do you really think Brussels is going to say no?
Richard Tyndall wants an open borders single market Brexit, not sure many working class Leavers would have been happy with that
The Brexit deal should always have been about what would get most support in the country, not what one set of Leave voters wanted.
Without that set of Leave voters Remain would have won
So what? We all have to live with the consequences of Brexit, not just working class Leave voters.
Yes and it was the consequences of their vote which got Leave to 52%
This is a rather illogical argument.
So that accepted you then have to proceed on what is likely to be the most acceptable deal to the widest number of people. Which clearly was not a hard Brexit nor necessarily one which ended FoM. Instead May chose to put the whole thing at risk by supporting a position which only had the support of perhaps 23% of the electorate and which bound us to decisions that would make Brexit immeasurably harder.
Even with your 42% (most of whom I expect wanted immigration controls too) that 42% is not 52% and that 42% for Leave would have meant Remain won.
Leave won on a prospectus of cutting immigration, something most voters actually support, certainly for lower skilled migration, that has to be respected as a result of the Leave vote.
Nope. Leave won on a wide ranging prospectus of which cutting immigration was, overall, a minority position. Your position is simply untenable because the whole of Brexit is being put at risk because of an issue supported by only 23% of those who voted.
Utter utter lying mendacious factually inaccurate bollocks which lacks the merest iota of veracity.
You do realise that's a completely fictitious word cloud you've linked to?
(Hint - zoom in and take a look at the words round the edge - sovereignty for example appears quite a few times. Those edge words have just been added for effect.)
We dont have any actual policies and hey we may have fucked up Brexit but the alternative is Jezza.
Yep it'll be Corbyn, Corbyn, Corbyn 24/7
I doubt it will wash though. It was barely enough in 2017 afterall...
Once May either has this deal through or it is rejected then it is probably time for her to go. She's done more for this country than we deserve quite frankly, and deserves a good rest.
I’d sell the deal to the ERG by getting her to go in 2019 and getting a proper Leaver, like Gove, to lead the full FTA negotiations.
There is much to be said for ERG holding back and following the Fabricant line - wait until her deal has been voted down in Westminster. Then put the letters in, when she is self-evidently a failed PM.
The replacement-PM candidates can put in their pitch to MPs what they would do next.
If this deal doesn’t pass we won’t be Leaving, mate.
It’s sub-par and May’s cocked up, but we’ve got no choice. Eyes on the prize.
The sensible compromise is that the deal is passed, but May pays for it with her head. A Brexiteer then takes the helm, to turn the 14 pages of FTA flim-flam into a sensible deal. May can not trusted to deliver.
But why would the EU have any interest at all in doing a "sensible deal" after the WA?
They'll have us exactly where they've always wanted is - A neutered, diminished and impotent nation - You seriously think they'll take their foot off our throat when they have us where they want us?
They'll double down and go for the jugular even more.
If you start from the point of view that the EU is negotiating in bad faith, is explicitly malevolent towards us, and intent on subjugating and diminishing us, then surely there could never have been a Deal agreed with them that was ever remotely acceptable or in any way not malevolent and harmful?
In which case, May could not be at fault, and neither could the Remain team. No-one could have obtained an acceptable Deal if the other party had no intent in providing an acceptable Deal.
And a crash-out No Deal Brexit was inevitable from the day the referendum result came in, regardless of whatever Brexiteers promised before or since.
I was not aware. So it costs them nothing in monetary terms at least since it doesn't seem like the key players are keen to get back to things at the Assembly any time soon.
Looks like we're into a true minority Gov't now (At least once the Labour whips get their act together !) I think the DUP will still vote with the Tories on confidence matters though, just not much else. There aren't many true confidence votes under FTPA.
We dont have any actual policies and hey we may have fucked up Brexit but the alternative is Jezza.
Yep it'll be Corbyn, Corbyn, Corbyn 24/7
I doubt it will wash though. It was barely enough in 2017 afterall...
Once May either has this deal through or it is rejected then it is probably time for her to go. She's done more for this country than we deserve quite frankly, and deserves a good rest.
I’d sell the deal to the ERG by getting her to go in 2019 and getting a proper Leaver, like Gove, to lead the full FTA negotiations.
There is much to be said for ERG holding back and following the Fabricant line - wait until her deal has been voted down in Westminster. Then put the letters in, when she is self-evidently a failed PM.
The replacement-PM candidates can put in their pitch to MPs what they would do next.
If this deal doesn’t pass we won’t be Leaving, mate.
It’s sub-par and May’s cocked up, but we’ve got no choice. Eyes on the prize.
The sensible compromise is that the deal is passed, but May pays for it with her head. A Brexiteer then takes the helm, to turn the 14 pages of FTA flim-flam into a sensible deal. May can not trusted to deliver.
But why would the EU have any interest at all in doing a "sensible deal" after the WA?
They'll have us exactly where they've always wanted is - A neutered, diminished and impotent nation - You seriously think they'll take their foot off our throat when they have us where they want us?
They'll double down and go for the jugular even more.
If you start from the point of view that the EU is negotiating in bad faith, is explicitly malevolent towards us, and intent on subjugating and diminishing us, then surely there could never have been a Deal agreed with them that was ever remotely acceptable or in any way not malevolent and harmful?
In which case, May could not be at fault, and neither could the Remain team. No-one could have obtained an acceptable Deal if the other party had no intent in providing an acceptable Deal.
And a crash-out No Deal Brexit was inevitable from the day the referendum result came in, regardless of whatever Brexiteers promised before or since.
So it should have been prepared for.
If you want peace prepare for war. The only way to get a good deal is to be serious when you say that no deal is better than a bad one.
Davis is right. While the EU are pretending now this deal is the only way to get a transition that is a nonsense. All a transition is, is an extension of us continuing to pay them billions and follow their rules. If we reject this deal and a new PM goes to Brussels and says "time's up, this deal is dead but we need something new so here is £39bn pounds and we will follow your rules for the next 2 years now let's talk" then do you really think Brussels is going to say no?
You do not seem to realise A50 requires us to leave at the end of march 19 with either wda or no deal and no transistion
To get an extention to A50 the EU have said they would agree for a second referendum or GE but not on the deal
The lack of detail orb knowledge by ERG has been evident from day one
Davis is right. While the EU are pretending now this deal is the only way to get a transition that is a nonsense. All a transition is, is an extension of us continuing to pay them billions and follow their rules. If we reject this deal and a new PM goes to Brussels and says "time's up, this deal is dead but we need something new so here is £39bn pounds and we will follow your rules for the next 2 years now let's talk" then do you really think Brussels is going to say no?
Given many objections seem to be around following EU rules during the years of transition how exactly does also agreeing to that resolve those objections? If people are arguing against the rules of the withdrawal agreement, then we cannot very well discuss what the rules of the withdrawal agreement will be during the withdrawal, surely?
"But they don't consider tonight's abstentions the end of the confidence and supply agreement - but relationship btw DUP and No 10 seems pretty bust - and with it, 10 votes not coming back for Brexit bill?"
I guess that keeps open the possibility DUP might vote with Govt in Confidence Vote - ie they increase the pressure but don't necessarily bring Govt down.
Davis is right. While the EU are pretending now this deal is the only way to get a transition that is a nonsense. All a transition is, is an extension of us continuing to pay them billions and follow their rules. If we reject this deal and a new PM goes to Brussels and says "time's up, this deal is dead but we need something new so here is £39bn pounds and we will follow your rules for the next 2 years now let's talk" then do you really think Brussels is going to say no?
Most of the £39b is payable over several decades. We’re not giving it to them in one lump. And I think they might want something a bit more legally binding than “we’ll follow your rules for a couple of years!”
That'd be the same Rasmussen that showed the Republicans with a 1% lead in the House generic poll just before the midterms would it?
Indeed! Sticking to their guns it seems - I guess it would be rather silly if they suddenly went from +1 to -10 like everyone else.
Electoral Vote today had an interesting analysis of why Rasmussen tends to favour the GOP: https://electoral-vote.com/#item-9 (third item in the "Monday Q&A")
To be fair, if Richard Tyndall had been doing the negotiating we would not be in the mess we are in now. Unlike David Davis, Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson, Nadine Dorries and the rest of the Buccaneers he actually understands the issues because he's pent some time trying to understand them. The kind of Brexit he proposed would have united the country, done very little damage and allowed everyone to move on. Unfortunately, instead of tacking tot he centre when she took over May turned right. Article 50 was invoked, the red lines were drawn and thus the rest was always going to happen.
Richard Tyndall wants an open borders single market Brexit, not sure many working class Leavers would have been happy with that
The Brexit deal should always have been about what would get most support in the country, not what one set of Leave voters wanted.
Without that set of Leave voters Remain would have won
So what? We all have to live with the consequences of Brexit, not just working class Leave voters.
Yes and it was the consequences of their vote which got Leave to 52%
This is a rather illogical argument.
One could just as easily say it was the er.
Even with your 42% (most of whom I expect wanted immigration controls too) that 42% is not 52% and that 42% for Leave would have meant Remain won.
Leave won on a prospectus of cutting immigration, something most voters actually support, certainly for lower skilled migration, that has to be respected as a result of the Leave vote.
Nope. Leave won on a wide ranging prospectus of which cutting immigration was, overall, a minority position. Your position is simply untenable because the whole of Brexit is being put at risk because of an issue supported by only 23% of those who voted.
Yup. Cutting immigration was a pivotal part of Leave getting over 50%.
My position is absolutely correct and the point is not to respect your fewer widget making regulations obsessed Brexit alone but all the reasons Leave won and that includes gaining greater control over immigration as May's Deal does
And yet the polls prove you wrong. Its a bitch isn't it.
I think when our PB colleagues are relying on randomly retweeted word clouds (word clouds!) to make their point, we have truly entered a whole new word of fake news on here.
Cons got 295 votes plus two tellers out of ~315 Lab 227 plus two tellers of ~258
At least 11 non paired Labourites. Where are they lol ?! I thought Labour wanted a GE !
It was 292 not 295 Tories, but definitely some unforced errors from Labour here
The whips are amazing at present. Long may it continue
Julian Smith is held in very high regard or so I hear
Didn't I read a few days ago he was confident of getting the Deal through? Evidence of more ERG piss and wind?
We shall see, although I wonder if such a report was based around the two stage process some think will happen, where it is voted down once, other things tried and not approved, then voted on again. Because it isn't only the ERG regulars voting against, it is people like Raab, Johnson the minor, etc.
Time to chuck the pound shop Gordon Brown who threw away the majority, signed a deal with the DUP then betrayed the DUP into the sea.
The DUP aren't the ones who have terminated the deal, May has reneged on her commitments to them.
The DUP should read the deal before acting like a woman scorned.
Are Northern Ireland being subjugated to Single Market rules without having any MEPs or European Council votes etc to shape them?
No.
Even as the most ardent defender of the deal I have to admit that NI will be subjugated to single market rules for its goods without representation by MEPs.
"But they don't consider tonight's abstentions the end of the confidence and supply agreement - but relationship btw DUP and No 10 seems pretty bust - and with it, 10 votes not coming back for Brexit bill?"
I guess that keeps open the possibility DUP might vote with Govt in Confidence Vote - ie they increase the pressure but don't necessarily bring Govt down.
They probably think they can keep the government in limbo, but if they do that too much they may have no choice but to have an early GE.
Richard Tyndall wants an open borders single market Brexit, not sure many working class Leavers would have been happy with that
The Brexit deal should always have been about what would get most support in the country, not what one set of Leave voters wanted.
Without that set of Leave voters Remain would have won
So what? We all have to live with the consequences of Brexit, not just working class Leave voters.
Yes and it was the consequences of their vote which got Leave to 52%
This is a rather illogical argument.
So that accepted you then have to proceed on what is likely to be the most acceptable deal to the widest number of people. Which clearly was not a hard Brexit nor necessarily one which ended FoM. Instead May chose to put the whole thing at risk by supporting a position which only had the support of perhaps 23% of the electorate and which bound us to decisions that would make Brexit immeasurably harder.
Even with your 42% (most of whom I expect wanted immigration controls too) that 42% is not 52% and that 42% for Leave would have meant Remain won.
Leave won on a prospectus of cutting immigration, something most voters actually support, certainly for lower skilled migration, that has to be respected as a result of the Leave vote.
Nope. Leave won on a wide ranging prospectus of which cutting immigration was, overall, a minority position. Your position is simply untenable because the whole of Brexit is being put at risk because of an issue supported by only 23% of those who voted.
Utter utter lying mendacious factually inaccurate bollocks which lacks the merest iota of veracity.
You do realise that's a completely fictitious word cloud you've linked to?
(Hint - zoom in and take a look at the words round the edge - sovereignty for example appears quite a few times. Those edge words have just been added for effect.)
Perhaps the 'Utter utter lying mendacious factually inaccurate bollocks which lacks the merest iota of veracity.' was referring to the link and wordcloud itself! What an odd thing to do.
"But they don't consider tonight's abstentions the end of the confidence and supply agreement - but relationship btw DUP and No 10 seems pretty bust - and with it, 10 votes not coming back for Brexit bill?"
I guess that keeps open the possibility DUP might vote with Govt in Confidence Vote - ie they increase the pressure but don't necessarily bring Govt down.
Isn’t a key feature of confidence and supply support for, you know, budget votes? The clue is in the name.
"But they don't consider tonight's abstentions the end of the confidence and supply agreement - but relationship btw DUP and No 10 seems pretty bust - and with it, 10 votes not coming back for Brexit bill?"
I guess that keeps open the possibility DUP might vote with Govt in Confidence Vote - ie they increase the pressure but don't necessarily bring Govt down.
It's confidence without supply. An option explored here a while back. Obviously noone will notice if Labour can't organise themselves to actually defeat the Gov't on anything.
I doubt it will wash though. It was barely enough in 2017 afterall...
Once May either has this deal through or it is rejected then it is probably time for her to go. She's done more for this country than we deserve quite frankly, and deserves a good rest.
I’d sell the deal to the ERG by getting her to go in 2019 and getting a proper Leaver, like Gove, to lead the full FTA negotiations.
There is much to be said for ERG holding back and following the Fabricant line - wait until her deal has been voted down in Westminster. Then put the letters in, when she is self-evidently a failed PM.
The replacement-PM candidates can put in their pitch to MPs what they would do next.
If this deal doesn’t pass we won’t be Leaving, mate.
It’s sub-par and May’s cocked up, but we’ve got no choice. Eyes on the prize.
The sensible compromise is that the deal is passed, but May pays for it with her head. A Brexiteer then takes the helm, to turn the 14 pages of FTA flim-flam into a sensible deal. May can not trusted to deliver.
But why would the EU have any interest at all in doing a "sensible deal" after the WA?
They'll have us exactly where they've always wanted is - A neutered, diminished and impotent nation - You seriously think they'll take their foot off our throat when they have us where they want us?
They'll double down and go for the jugular even more.
If you start from the point of view that the EU is negotiating in bad faith, is explicitly malevolent towards us, and intent on subjugating and diminishing us, then surely there could never have been a Deal agreed with them that was ever remotely acceptable or in any way not malevolent and harmful?
In which case, May could not be at fault, and neither could the Remain team. No-one could have obtained an acceptable Deal if the other party had no intent in providing an acceptable Deal.
And a crash-out No Deal Brexit was inevitable from the day the referendum result came in, regardless of whatever Brexiteers promised before or since.
So it should have been prepared for.
If you want peace prepare for war. The only way to get a good deal is to be serious when you say that no deal is better than a bad one.
What, precisely, should have been done to prepare for it?
Davis is right. While the EU are pretending now this deal is the only way to get a transition that is a nonsense. All a transition is, is an extension of us continuing to pay them billions and follow their rules. If we reject this deal and a new PM goes to Brussels and says "time's up, this deal is dead but we need something new so here is £39bn pounds and we will follow your rules for the next 2 years now let's talk" then do you really think Brussels is going to say no?
You do not seem to realise A50 requires us to leave at the end of march 19 with either wda or no deal and no transistion
To get an extention to A50 the EU have said they would agree for a second referendum or GE but not on the deal
The lack of detail orb knowledge by ERG has been evident from day one
I do realise that I'm saying a much more minimalist transition based withdrawal agreement that kicks certain decisions into the transition could be agreed. It's not what the EU wants so they will say no currently but if push comes to shove they're not going to jump over the cliffedge when a lifeline is available.
It still leaves them in a strong position as at the end of the transition we will still want a deal and still face a cliffedge if we haven't agreed one.
If a new PM is elected the EU will simply have to deal with that and move on.
Time to chuck the pound shop Gordon Brown who threw away the majority, signed a deal with the DUP then betrayed the DUP into the sea.
The DUP aren't the ones who have terminated the deal, May has reneged on her commitments to them.
The DUP should read the deal before acting like a woman scorned.
Are Northern Ireland being subjugated to Single Market rules without having any MEPs or European Council votes etc to shape them?
No.
Even as the most ardent defender of the deal I have to admit that NI will be subjugated to single market rules for its goods without representation by MEPs.
Or the beneficiary of them. Norway seems to be quite happy voluntarily paying a lot of money for the same “subjugation”. You takes your pick...
Time to chuck the pound shop Gordon Brown who threw away the majority, signed a deal with the DUP then betrayed the DUP into the sea.
The DUP aren't the ones who have terminated the deal, May has reneged on her commitments to them.
The DUP should read the deal before acting like a woman scorned.
Are Northern Ireland being subjugated to Single Market rules without having any MEPs or European Council votes etc to shape them?
No.
No they're not being subjugated to Single Market rules?
Or no they will have MEPs?
They aren't being subjugated.
So Single Market rules won't apply in Northern Ireland. Ok I change my mind then I'm fine with this. Let's start changing our rules as we see fit for the whole UK.
"But they don't consider tonight's abstentions the end of the confidence and supply agreement - but relationship btw DUP and No 10 seems pretty bust - and with it, 10 votes not coming back for Brexit bill?"
I guess that keeps open the possibility DUP might vote with Govt in Confidence Vote - ie they increase the pressure but don't necessarily bring Govt down.
Isn’t a key feature of confidence and supply support for, you know, budget votes? The clue is in the name.
We're redefining cabinet government at the moment as people claim policy announced by the PM and officially backed by the Cabinet is not government policy and people are still free to do as they will, so why not redefine confidence and supply support as well.
We dont have any actual policies and hey we may have fucked up Brexit but the alternative is Jezza.
Yep it'll be Corbyn, Corbyn, Corbyn 24/7
I doubt it will wash though. It was barely enough in 2017 afterall...
Once May either has this deal through or it is rejected then it is probably time for her to go. She's done more for this country than we deserve quite frankly, and deserves a good rest.
I’d sell the deal to the ERG by getting her to go in 2019 and getting a proper Leaver, like Gove, to lead the full FTA negotiations.
There is much to be said for ERG holding back and following the Fabricant line - wait until her deal has been voted down in Westminster. Then put the letters in, when she is self-evidently a failed PM.
The replacement-PM candidates can put in their pitch to MPs what they would do next.
If this deal doesn’t pass we won’t be Leaving, mate.
It’s sub-par and May’s cocked up, but we’ve got no choice. Eyes on the prize.
The sensible compromise is that the deal is passed, but May pays for it with her head. A Brexiteer then takes the helm, to turn the 14 pages of FTA flim-flam into a sensible deal. May can not trusted to deliver.
But why would the EU have any inhe jugular even more.
If you start from the point of view that the EU is negotiating in bad faith, is explicitly malevolent towards us, and intent on subjugating and diminishing us, then surely there could never have been a Deal agreed with them that was ever remotely acceptable or in any way not malevolent and harmful?
In which case, May could not be at fault, and neither could the Remain team. No-one could have obtained an acceptable Deal if the other party had no intent in providing an acceptable Deal.
And a crash-out No Deal Brexit was inevitable from the day the referendum result came in, regardless of whatever Brexiteers promised before or since.
So it should have been prepared for.
If you want peace prepare for war. The only way to get a good deal is to be serious when you say that no deal is better than a bad one.
The only way to ensure a good deal is to know that in a war you are likely to win and cause more damage to your opponent than they are to you in order to achieve it.
When just 16% of EU exports go to the UK but 44% of EU exports go to the UK that will be rather difficult
As far as I am aware , the Opposition can table a Vote of No Confidence as often as it sees fit. I recall Thatcher doing that to the Callaghan Government on a regular basis in the late 1970s. I don't think there are any rules which restrict the Opposition from trying again should its initial attempt not succeed.
Cons got 295 votes plus two tellers out of ~315 Lab 227 plus two tellers of ~258
At least 11 non paired Labourites. Where are they lol ?! I thought Labour wanted a GE !
It was 292 not 295 Tories, but definitely some unforced errors from Labour here
The whips are amazing at present. Long may it continue
Julian Smith is held in very high regard or so I hear
I thought he was held in contempt prior to the Summer recess on account of cheating.
It was a mistake, it wasn't anything like what Labour did in the 1970s.
Wasn't he have supposed to have asked people to break pairing arrangements, how does one do that by accident? And why would people doing worse in the past make something in the present ok?
"But they don't consider tonight's abstentions the end of the confidence and supply agreement - but relationship btw DUP and No 10 seems pretty bust - and with it, 10 votes not coming back for Brexit bill?"
I guess that keeps open the possibility DUP might vote with Govt in Confidence Vote - ie they increase the pressure but don't necessarily bring Govt down.
It's confidence without supply. An option explored here a while back. Obviously noone will notice if Labour can't organise themselves to actually defeat the Gov't on anything.
Does loss on an overall finance bill vote (not an amendment) constitute a VONC under The Worst Piece of Legislation of The Past Decade aka the crazy FTPA?
The sooner someone actually gets round to repealing that constitutional monstrosity, the better.
The DUP seem quite happy Northern Ireland being subjugated by the Northern Ireland office as the moment. Don’t seem too fussed about making their own decisions. And let’s not get started on the voters favouring Sinn Fein...
Time to chuck the pound shop Gordon Brown who threw away the majority, signed a deal with the DUP then betrayed the DUP into the sea.
The DUP aren't the ones who have terminated the deal, May has reneged on her commitments to them.
The DUP should read the deal before acting like a woman scorned.
Are Northern Ireland being subjugated to Single Market rules without having any MEPs or European Council votes etc to shape them?
No.
Even as the most ardent defender of the deal I have to admit that NI will be subjugated to single market rules for its goods without representation by MEPs.
Or the beneficiary of them. Norway seems to be quite happy voluntarily paying a lot of money for the same “subjugation”. You takes your pick...
That's Norway's choice, ratified by Norway and Norway can unilaterally end the arrangement when they want.
When did Northern Ireland choose to be subjugated to foreign rules differing from the rest of the UK's, when did Northern Ireland ratify that choice and how can they unilaterally get out of it?
I have no problem with them being subject to rules they've chosen unilaterally to follow and unilaterally can choose to stop following. But to be forced to follow rules, without your consent is subjugation.
"But they don't consider tonight's abstentions the end of the confidence and supply agreement - but relationship btw DUP and No 10 seems pretty bust - and with it, 10 votes not coming back for Brexit bill?"
I guess that keeps open the possibility DUP might vote with Govt in Confidence Vote - ie they increase the pressure but don't necessarily bring Govt down.
It's confidence without supply. An option explored here a while back. Obviously noone will notice if Labour can't organise themselves to actually defeat the Gov't on anything.
Does loss on an overall finance bill vote (not an amendment) constitute a VONC under The Worst Piece of Legislation of The Past Decade aka the crazy FTPA?
The sooner someone actually gets round to repealing that constitutional monstrosity, the better.
To be fair failure to pass a budget has always constituted an effective vote of confidence.
Davis is right. While the EU are pretending now this deal is the only way to get a transition that is a nonsense. All a transition is, is an extension of us continuing to pay them billions and follow their rules. If we reject this deal and a new PM goes to Brussels and says "time's up, this deal is dead but we need something new so here is £39bn pounds and we will follow your rules for the next 2 years now let's talk" then do you really think Brussels is going to say no?
You do not seem to realise A50 requires us to leave at the end of march 19 with either wda or no deal and no transistion
To get an extention to A50 the EU have said they would agree for a second referendum or GE but not on the deal
The lack of detail orb knowledge by ERG has been evident from day one
I do realise that I'm saying a much more minimalist transition based withdrawal agreement that kicks certain decisions into the transition could be agreed. It's not what the EU wants so they will say no currently but if push comes to shove they're not going to jump over the cliffedge when a lifeline is available.
It still leaves them in a strong position as at the end of the transition we will still want a deal and still face a cliffedge if we haven't agreed one.
If a new PM is elected the EU will simply have to deal with that and move on.
I do this with respect but you are so naive if you think the EU are going to open the deal
That'd be the same Rasmussen that showed the Republicans with a 1% lead in the House generic poll just before the midterms would it?
Indeed! Sticking to their guns it seems - I guess it would be rather silly if they suddenly went from +1 to -10 like everyone else.
Electoral Vote today had an interesting analysis of why Rasmussen tends to favour the GOP: https://electoral-vote.com/#item-9 (third item in the "Monday Q&A")
Thanks - had not come across the electoral-vote site before - it has some interesting articles.
"But they don't consider tonight's abstentions the end of the confidence and supply agreement - but relationship btw DUP and No 10 seems pretty bust - and with it, 10 votes not coming back for Brexit bill?"
I guess that keeps open the possibility DUP might vote with Govt in Confidence Vote - ie they increase the pressure but don't necessarily bring Govt down.
It's confidence without supply. An option explored here a while back. Obviously noone will notice if Labour can't organise themselves to actually defeat the Gov't on anything.
Does loss on an overall finance bill vote (not an amendment) constitute a VONC under The Worst Piece of Legislation of The Past Decade aka the crazy FTPA?
The sooner someone actually gets round to repealing that constitutional monstrosity, the better.
To be fair failure to pass a budget has always constituted an effective vote of confidence.
I realised I wasn’t being clear in that post, I meant does it still constitute a VONC.
Time to chuck the pound shop Gordon Brown who threw away the majority, signed a deal with the DUP then betrayed the DUP into the sea.
The DUP aren't the ones who have terminated the deal, May has reneged on her commitments to them.
The DUP should read the deal before acting like a woman scorned.
Are Northern Ireland being subjugated to Single Market rules without having any MEPs or European Council votes etc to shape them?
No.
Even as the most ardent defender of the deal I have to admit that NI will be subjugated to single market rules for its goods without representation by MEPs.
Or the beneficiary of them. Norway seems to be quite happy voluntarily paying a lot of money for the same “subjugation”. You takes your pick...
Personally I can't see the issue with it, but it was obviously a red line for the DUP.
Cons got 295 votes plus two tellers out of ~315 Lab 227 plus two tellers of ~258
At least 11 non paired Labourites. Where are they lol ?! I thought Labour wanted a GE !
It was 292 not 295 Tories, but definitely some unforced errors from Labour here
The whips are amazing at present. Long may it continue
Julian Smith is held in very high regard or so I hear
I thought he was held in contempt prior to the Summer recess on account of cheating.
It was a mistake, it wasn't anything like what Labour did in the 1970s.
Wasn't he have supposed to have asked people to break pairing arrangements, how does one do that by accident? And why would people doing worse in the past make something in the present ok?
He said it was a genuine mistake, in the 1970s the Labour whips were handing out wigs and disguises so Labour MPs could vote twice.
Sent Tory and Labour MPs out on visits overseas, then made the Labour MPs stay and call the vote once the Tory MPs were airborne.
My favourite, told a Commons policeman that a Tory MP was in fact a male prostitute who was engaged in cottaging just outside the Commons so said MP would miss a vote.
To be fair, if Richard Tyndall had been doing the negotiating we would not be in the mess we are in now. Unlike David Davis, Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson, Nadine Dorries and the rest of the Buccaneers he actually understands the issues because he's pent some time trying to understand them. The kind of Brexit he proposed would have united the country, done very little damage and allowed everyone to move on. Unfortunately, instead of tacking tot he centre when she took over May turned right. Article 50 was invoked, the red lines were drawn and thus the rest was always going to happen.
Richard Tyndall wants an open borders single market Brexit, not sure many working class Leavers would have been happy with that
The Brexit deal should always have been about what would get most support in the country, not what one set of Leave voters wanted.
Without that set of Leave voters Remain would have won
So what? We all have to live with the consequences of Brexit, not just working class Leave voters.
Yes and it was the consequences of their vote which got Leave to 52%
This is a rather illogical argument.
One could just as easily say it was the er.
Even with your 42% (most of tion, that has to be respected as a result of the Leave vote.
Nope. Leave won on a wide ranging prospectus of which cutting immigration was, overall, a minority position. Your position is simply untenable because the whole of Brexit is being put at risk because of an issue supported by only 23% of those who voted.
Yup. Cutting immigration was a pivotal part of Leave getting over 50%.
My position is absolutely correct and the point is not to respect your fewer widget making regulations obsessed Brexit alone but all the reasons Leave won and that includes gaining greater control over immigration as May's Deal does
And yet the polls prove you wrong. Its a bitch isn't it.
Wrong. Even your absurd 42% figure is not a majority.
The chance for the UK to 'regain control over immigration and its own borders' was the second biggest reason given for voting Leave
Comments
https://twitter.com/gordonrayner/status/1064617150751621126
Apparently the DUP voted against whereas they will abstain, so gov't majority slightly stronger elsewhere
The DUP could well decide to withdraw their support at which point a VoNC would probably be lost.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1064616725348564992
Leave won on a prospectus of cutting immigration, something most voters actually support, certainly for lower skilled migration, that has to be respected as a result of the Leave vote.
The DUP aren't the ones who have terminated the deal, May has reneged on her commitments to them.
Lab 227 plus two tellers of ~258
The Tories can stare down the DUP. The very fact they thought a warning was necessary demonstrates their weakness.
My position is absolutely correct and the point is not to respect your fewer widget making regulations obsessed Brexit alone but all the reasons Leave won and that includes gaining greater control over immigration as May's Deal does
https://g8fip1kplyr33r3krz5b97d1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/wordcloud_leave-1024x575.png
https://twitter.com/vote_leave/status/733713725383966720
So I assume they are better the Tories will be too distracted and divided to do anything about it, or take back the extra money since they would probably go down like a bucket of cold sick.
(Hint - zoom in and take a look at the words round the edge - sovereignty for example appears quite a few times. Those edge words have just been added for effect.)
In which case, May could not be at fault, and neither could the Remain team. No-one could have obtained an acceptable Deal if the other party had no intent in providing an acceptable Deal.
And a crash-out No Deal Brexit was inevitable from the day the referendum result came in, regardless of whatever Brexiteers promised before or since.
I think the DUP will still vote with the Tories on confidence matters though, just not much else. There aren't many true confidence votes under FTPA.
If you want peace prepare for war. The only way to get a good deal is to be serious when you say that no deal is better than a bad one.
Or no they will have MEPs?
To get an extention to A50 the EU have said they would agree for a second referendum or GE but not on the deal
The lack of detail orb knowledge by ERG has been evident from day one
"But they don't consider tonight's abstentions the end of the confidence and supply agreement - but relationship btw DUP and No 10 seems pretty bust - and with it, 10 votes not coming back for Brexit bill?"
I guess that keeps open the possibility DUP might vote with Govt in Confidence Vote - ie they increase the pressure but don't necessarily bring Govt down.
It still leaves them in a strong position as at the end of the transition we will still want a deal and still face a cliffedge if we haven't agreed one.
If a new PM is elected the EU will simply have to deal with that and move on.
Unlike the terminally stupid Leavers who condemned the agreement before they had read it I like to fully source my expansions.
*Which is effectively The Reverend Ian Paisley said when Mrs Thatcher civilised Scotland and Northern Ireland by decriminalising homosexuality.
When just 16% of EU exports go to the UK but 44% of EU exports go to the UK that will be rather difficult
The sooner someone actually gets round to repealing that constitutional monstrosity, the better.
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1064627855831826432
When did Northern Ireland choose to be subjugated to foreign rules differing from the rest of the UK's, when did Northern Ireland ratify that choice and how can they unilaterally get out of it?
I have no problem with them being subject to rules they've chosen unilaterally to follow and unilaterally can choose to stop following. But to be forced to follow rules, without your consent is subjugation.
In the words of Dexy's Midnight Runners - Come On Arlene...
Sent Tory and Labour MPs out on visits overseas, then made the Labour MPs stay and call the vote once the Tory MPs were airborne.
My favourite, told a Commons policeman that a Tory MP was in fact a male prostitute who was engaged in cottaging just outside the Commons so said MP would miss a vote.
The chance for the UK to 'regain control over immigration and its own borders' was the second biggest reason given for voting Leave
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
Clever move as TM moves towards this deal or no brexit