If Anna votes down the deal then she too is part of the problem, I hope she realises this.
Part of Mays problem is people are planning to vote it down while claiming it's not their fault they voted it down. Which is not quite the same thing as voting it down for good reasons, if which there are some.
It's also why, I suspect, plenty of Tories argued not to bring it to parliament at all, to avoid any responsibility, good or bad, for voting it down.
But Soubry at least is transparent that she is prepared to risk it all in pursuit of a goal of remain, so any arguments are in context to justifying that.
People like Soubry should never have voted to trigger A50, if they could not accept the result of the referendum.
And some did not. More should have if they were this opposed. Not saying thatwpukd be politically easy but if some managed it so could others.
They should have followed the example of Kenneth Clarke, and voted against the legislation.
Voting in favour of it, while agitating for a new referendum, is a bit despicable.
Ken Clarke has certainly been consistent throughout the whole process. Far more so than his fellow remain Tories or the now frankly loony ERG.
The sensible, grown-up way out would be for both sides to tear up Article 50 and begin a proper FTA negotiation while the UK remained inside the EU. That would enable proper No Deal planning and give much needed time and space.
I don’t actively support a second referendum, but I can’t see how else there can be any clarity on where to go from here. So what is the solution? There is no mandate from the country for no deal, there seems to be no mandate in Parliament for May’s deal, there’s no mandate anywhere for a referendum or to Remain. We need a solution.
The sensible, grown-up way out would be for both sides to tear up Article 50 and begin a proper FTA negotiation while the UK remained inside the EU. That would enable proper No Deal planning and give much needed time and space. Obviously, though, that won’t happen. So what will?
The deal passes in the HoC and we move on.
As my many posts on here have attested I am of the it must be in a manifesto before we have a second referendum view.
They have not failed to secure a deal. They've (we assume based on statements so far) failed to secure one which will get through the commons.
It's an important distinction
It really isn't. It might also not get through the EU process.
The deal is about secure as the job of Brexit secretary...
It is important because one is they've not even managed to give something to parliament to consider and the other is they have. Those are totally different. Given the crapness of the deal is but one factor in it failing- since people are also doing so to try to remain or get a GE- it is deeply churlish to pretend they've not even prepared a deal.
It's also just factually wrong.
The ability to pass a deal is a separate failure, related to thefailure to secure a good one. But they are not the same thing and it is just not true to say they are.
Yes this is assuming the EU side agree so there is something for parliament to consider.
There is no constitutional requirement for a referendum to be in a manifesto. The only manifesto in 2010 that had a commitment to a referendum on the alternative vote was Labour's. No one complained that referendum was in any way illegitimate.
I don’t actively support a second referendum, but I can’t see how else there can be any clarity on where to go from here. So what is the solution? There is no mandate from the country for no deal, there seems to be no mandate in Parliament for May’s deal, there’s no mandate anywhere for a referendum or to Remain. We need a solution.
The sensible, grown-up way out would be for both sides to tear up Article 50 and begin a proper FTA negotiation while the UK remained inside the EU. That would enable proper No Deal planning and give much needed time and space. Obviously, though, that won’t happen. So what will?
The deal passes in the HoC and we move on.
As my many posts on here have attested I am of the it must be in a manifesto before we have a second referendum view.
I agree: our iceberg-dodging PM will get her deal through the HoC. I know the current consensus is that that's unlikely, but what is the alternative? The alternatives are even less likely, eg. a second referendum (undemocratic) and "no deal" (stupid).
The ability to pass a deal is a separate failure, related to thefailure to secure a good one. But they are not the same thing and it is just not true to say they are.
Yes this is assuming the EU side agree so there is something for parliament to consider.
No
A deal that has not passed, or will not pass, is not a deal. An unsigned contract is not a deal.
They have not secured a deal, however you try and spin it.
I see that May has rowed back from her "no Brexit" threat. That leaves her deal or no deal. Since her deal may not pass in the Commons she should send Robbins and co back to the EU to negotiate a smooth exit pdq.
How much time does the commons have to get the Brexit legislation through. For instance in accounting the accounts might need to be finalised by 29th March for the timetable to fit with a parent co's timetable. But in practice it means the statements need to be done pretty much by the first week in February to have time for all the processes and matters relating to the audit.
I take it 29th March isn't the err actual date when everything needs to be finished by here, much like an audit...
I don’t actively support a second referendum, but I can’t see how else there can be any clarity on where to go from here. So what is the solution? There is no mandate from the country for no deal, there seems to be no mandate in Parliament for May’s deal, there’s no mandate anywhere for a referendum or to Remain. We need a solution.
The sensible, grown-up way out would be for both sides to tear up Article 50 and begin a proper FTA negotiation while the UK remained inside the EU. That would enable proper No Deal planning and give much needed time and space. Obviously, though, that won’t happen. So what will?
Unfortunately that cannot happen because the EU made clear it will not even start to negotiate any sort of FTA until we have agreed the Withdrawal Agreement and have actually left. There are pedants on both sides in this argument.
I see that May has rowed back from her "no Brexit" threat. That leaves her deal or no deal. Since her deal will not pass in the Commons she should send Robbins and co back to the EU to negotiate a smooth exit pdq.
We don't know what will happen if May's deal gets voted down. There could be another referendum, (on a question that is yet to be defined) or we may get a crash out Brexit, or Parliament might seek the EU's agreement to revoke A50.
Edit: Or perhaps a general election would be best. It could be run much more quickly than a referendum could be.
The way to deal with this, I think, is to put whatever Mrs May cobbles together in front of parliament where it presumably fails to pass. At this point pause, cancel the Article 50 notification, explain there is no mandate for any currently proposed Brexit outcome, set up a working group to come up with a solution.
Punt it into the long grass, basically.
Problematic? Yes, but better than allowing something you think bad to go by default.
There is no constitutional requirement for a referendum to be in a manifesto. The only manifesto in 2010 that had a commitment to a referendum on the alternative vote was Labour's. No one complained that referendum was in any way illegitimate.
But no one is offering one now. And the party most likely to is in opposition. So practically it will end up in a manifesto.
But there were plenty of people accurately pointing out the mistakes that were being made before they were even agreed. I mean people who genuinely wanted things to go well rather than hardline opponents on either side. It was obvious from the start that agreeing the EU scheduling was a ridiculous idea. If the UK had stood their ground on that and made a cogent argument even the EU would have seen it was daft. Agreeing the Irish backstop was another daft idea. Deciding to represent only the views of a tiny hardline minority of the electorate rather than having a Brexit for the widest number of people.
A moderate Brexit supporter would have been able to see these things - as did many on both sides of the referendum divide - and would have had a far better chance of selling a sensible compromise than someone who clearly did not understand or even want to understand why people voted Brexit.
I can well imagine May sat in meetings in Brussels saying ' look I am really sorry about this. I didn't vote for Brexit and have no idea why people did'. It may be a way to keep friends in the EU but it is no way to try and run a negotiation.
The best negotiating tactic is to be have triggered Article 50 until we had agreed replacements for the EU's existing arrangements - but sadly politics came first.
I think the government - and particularly Dr Liam Fox - was also staggered to discover that other (non-EU) countries saw this as an opportunity to get one over the UK. British Airways and Virgin are going to end up losing a ton of transatlantic Heathrow slots as that is the price that is being demanded by the US to get an aviation deal concluded before 1 May next year. Which sucks for those of us have to regularly cross the Atlantic, and who hate flying United or Delta.
Nevertheless, for the reasons articulated by @DavidL below, I think this deal is much better than a No Deal scenario. It respects the referendum result, as far as both leaving the political project that is the EU and ending Free Movement, while also minimising economic disruption.
How does the withdrawal agreement end free movement?
It removes us from the single market and allows us to set our own migration policy. The Political Document includes an aspiration to visa free travel but that is not part of the WA.
During the transition period the WA sets out things stay the same don’t they, except we lose our ability to influence decision-making? My reading of the WA is that, if the transition period is extended, we could have free movement until 2022. Is that wrong?
There is no constitutional requirement for a referendum to be in a manifesto. The only manifesto in 2010 that had a commitment to a referendum on the alternative vote was Labour's. No one complained that referendum was in any way illegitimate.
But no one is offering one now. And the party most likely to is in opposition. So practically it will end up in a manifesto.
There is no time for both a general election and a referendum. If a referendum is the only way through the current impasse, it will have to be done by the current Parliament.
F1: may be worth checking the 21 (each way) on Raikkonen for pole. (23 with boost).
His team is one of a very tight cluster of four, with Bottas and Verstappen a little bit faster. But Raikkonen's was set amongst the earliest, and he's pretty good around the circuit. I've backed it with a small sum, and set up a hedge on Ladbrokes Exchange at 3.
There is no constitutional requirement for a referendum to be in a manifesto. The only manifesto in 2010 that had a commitment to a referendum on the alternative vote was Labour's. No one complained that referendum was in any way illegitimate.
But no one is offering one now. And the party most likely to is in opposition. So practically it will end up in a manifesto.
There is no time for both a general election and a referendum. If a referendum is the only way through the current impasse, it will have to be done by the current Parliament.
No chance ! Well not "no chance" but very very little.
I see that May has rowed back from her "no Brexit" threat. That leaves her deal or no deal. Since her deal will not pass in the Commons she should send Robbins and co back to the EU to negotiate a smooth exit pdq.
We don't know what will happen if May's deal gets voted down. There could be another referendum, (on a question that is yet to be defined) or we may get a crash out Brexit, or Parliament might seek the EU's agreement to revoke A50.
Avoiding a crash out unplanned, exit is the whole point.
During the transition period the WA sets out things stay the same don’t they, except we lose our ability to influence decision-making? My reading of the WA is that, if the transition period is extended, we could have free movement until 2022. Is that wrong?
But any sensible deal was always going to have a transition period because of the refusal by the EU to start talks on an FTA before we had left. I am not concerned about the transition period, only about the end result. It seems strange that so many people, having waited 45 years for this, are now wanting to throw it all away because it won't happen in the next 10 minutes.
During the transition period the WA sets out things stay the same don’t they, except we lose our ability to influence decision-making? My reading of the WA is that, if the transition period is extended, we could have free movement until 2022. Is that wrong?
But any sensible deal was always going to have a transition period because of the refusal by the EU to start talks on an FTA before we had left. I am not concerned about the transition period, only about the end result. It seems strange that so many people, having waited 45 years for this, are now wanting to throw it all away because it won't happen in the next 10 minutes.
Perhaps you just misunderstood their motivations...
I don’t actively support a second referendum, but I can’t see how else there can be any clarity on where to go from here. So what is the solution? There is no mandate from the country for no deal, there seems to be no mandate in Parliament for May’s deal, there’s no mandate anywhere for a referendum or to Remain. We need a solution.
The sensible, grown-up way out would be for both sides to tear up Article 50 and begin a proper FTA negotiation while the UK remained inside the EU. That would enable proper No Deal planning and give much needed time and space. Obviously, though, that won’t happen. So what will?
The deal passes in the HoC and we move on.
As my many posts on here have attested I am of the it must be in a manifesto before we have a second referendum view.
It even got me called a Leaver by Scott!
Yep, despite its general crapness the deal passing would be my preference, but it’s hard to see how it happens unless Labour changes its mind. Politically, that would be a very smart thing for Labour to do IMO if the choice does become May’s Deal or No Deal.
May's playing chicken with both the no dealers and the no brexiters The no dealers are playing chicken with May and the no brexiters The no brexiters are playing chicken with May and the no dealers.
Everybody's playing chicken and there's a mahoosive red bus coming down the road !
The key thing from the Ashcroft poll today is that equal numbers of Tory and Labour voters prefer May's Deal to No Deal 35% and 34% of voters overall. 35% of Tory voters prefer No Deal to May's Deal and 24% of Labour voters prefer No Deal to May's Deal and 27% of voters overall.
So while most Tory voters tend to back Leave still and oppose EUref2 and most Labour voters tend to back Remain and back EUref2 both parties voters are divided on whether they back the Deal or No Deal but because more Labour voters back the Deal than Tory voters back No Deal the Deal leads No Deal overall
There are no new circumstances that would justify a second referendum.
The only purpose of a second referendum (if it occurs) is to dig the Commons out of the hole it dug for itself.
Your second sentence refutes your first.
Headbanging Leavers have no right to drive the rest of us off a cliff without a further mandate. The only mandate they sought was to spunk money on the NHS and to be unpleasant to foreigners. They need more before they can follow through on their mad project.
If so, the Commons can revoke A50.
It's very doubtful that they can in theory and they also have no mandate to do that either.
If you don't have a mandate for any course of action, you normally stick with the status quo until you do. I suppose Article 50 running out could be deemed the status quo, but I don't think that's sensible.
Whether they can revoke A50 in practice depends on the EU, but so does every alternative outcome, including "No Deal", which seems to include deals according to promoters that have spent at least 30 seconds actually considering the option.
During the transition period the WA sets out things stay the same don’t they, except we lose our ability to influence decision-making? My reading of the WA is that, if the transition period is extended, we could have free movement until 2022. Is that wrong?
But any sensible deal was always going to have a transition period because of the refusal by the EU to start talks on an FTA before we had left. I am not concerned about the transition period, only about the end result. It seems strange that so many people, having waited 45 years for this, are now wanting to throw it all away because it won't happen in the next 10 minutes.
Perhaps you just misunderstood their motivations...
Given they are generally hard line lunatics I suspect you have a better handle on their motivations than I do.
I don’t actively support a second referendum, but I can’t see how else there can be any clarity on where to go from here. So what is the solution? There is no mandate from the country for no deal, there seems to be no mandate in Parliament for May’s deal, there’s no mandate anywhere for a referendum or to Remain. We need a solution.
The sensible, grown-up way out would be for both sides to tear up Article 50 and begin a proper FTA negotiation while the UK remained inside the EU. That would enable proper No Deal planning and give much needed time and space. Obviously, though, that won’t happen. So what will?
The deal passes in the HoC and we move on.
As my many posts on here have attested I am of the it must be in a manifesto before we have a second referendum view.
It even got me called a Leaver by Scott!
Yep, despite its general crapness the deal passing would be my preference, but it’s hard to see how it happens unless Labour changes its mind. Politically, that would be a very smart thing for Labour to do IMO if the choice does become May’s Deal or No Deal.
Saying that remaining is better than the Prime Minister's deal is not the same as saying we should remain.
Not eating anything is better than eating raw chicken. Doesn't mean that we should never eat anything or that eating chicken is a bad idea. We just need to cook the chicken properly before we eat it, just as we need to deal with Brexit properly . . . first step would be putting a Brexit optimist who sees Britain's Brexit opportunities in charge.
The key thing from the Ashcroft poll today is that equal numbers of Tory and Labour voters prefer May's Deal to No Deal 35% and 34% of voters overall. 35% of Tory voters prefer No Deal to May's Deal and 24% of Labour voters prefer No Deal to May's Deal and 27% of voters overall.
So while most Tory voters tend to back Leave still oppose EUref2 and most Labour voters tend to back Remainand back EUref2 but both parties voters are divided on whether they back the Deal or No Deal but because more Labour voters back the Deal than Tory voters back No Deal the Deal leads No Deal overall
I don’t actively support a second referendum, but I can’t see how else there can be any clarity on where to go from here. So what is the solution? There is no mandate from the country for no deal, there seems to be no mandate in Parliament for May’s deal, there’s no mandate anywhere for a referendum or to Remain. We need a solution.
The sensible, grown-up way out would be for both sides to tear up Article 50 and begin a proper FTA negotiation while the UK remained inside the EU. That would enable proper No Deal planning and give much needed time and space. Obviously, though, that won’t happen. So what will?
The deal passes in the HoC and we move on.
As my many posts on here have attested I am of the it must be in a manifesto before we have a second referendum view.
It even got me called a Leaver by Scott!
Yep, despite its general crapness the deal passing would be my preference, but it’s hard to see how it happens unless Labour changes its mind. Politically, that would be a very smart thing for Labour to do IMO if the choice does become May’s Deal or No Deal.
The DUP will get it through.
Seems about as likely as seeing Corbyn marching through the lobbies with Theresa May while singing the praises of Thatcher.
During the transition period the WA sets out things stay the same don’t they, except we lose our ability to influence decision-making? My reading of the WA is that, if the transition period is extended, we could have free movement until 2022. Is that wrong?
But any sensible deal was always going to have a transition period because of the refusal by the EU to start talks on an FTA before we had left. I am not concerned about the transition period, only about the end result. It seems strange that so many people, having waited 45 years for this, are now wanting to throw it all away because it won't happen in the next 10 minutes.
Yep, it puzzles me. But that’s extremists for you. They are incapable of understanding, let alone accepting, compromise.
The key thing from the Ashcroft poll today is that equal numbers of Tory and Labour voters prefer May's Deal to No Deal 35% and 34% of voters overall. 35% of Tory voters prefer No Deal to May's Deal and 24% of Labour voters prefer No Deal to May's Deal and 27% of voters overall.
So while most Tory voters tend to back Leave still and oppose EUref2 and most Labour voters tend to back Remain and back EUref2 both parties voters are divided on whether they back the Deal or No Deal but because more Labour voters back the Deal than Tory voters back No Deal the Deal leads No Deal overall
The key message from that, other than the fact that Lord Ashcroft's polls don't have a stellar record, is that the country is confused and hasn't settled upon any outcome.
I have been somewhat under the weather of late and struggling to keep up with all the twists and turns of this but I must confess that the position of Raab and seemingly others that May's deal is worse than remaining confounds me completely.
It is true that May's deal is a soft Brexit; that it gives the EU far more say over our future laws and regulations than many would like and that it contains the infamous backstop which potentially gives the EU even more power and say over the laws of NI. It also leaves us rather more beholden to them in respect of a future FTA than I would like. This is all unfortunate and regrettable but a fairly inevitable consequence of the incompetence with which the negotiations have been conducted. Some of it was always inevitable regardless standing the comparative strength of the parties.
OTOH it gets us out of the political mechanisms of the EU, it provides a necessary transitional period, it keeps the disruption to trade to a minimum, it makes it clear that it will be our decision whether we wish to keep free movement once that transitional period is over, it gets us out of the CAP, it largely leaves the decision about whether we remain in the CFP at the end of the transitional period down to us, it prevents the EU from seeking to impose any laws on us outwith the scope of the SM and even there we are simply being asked to accept that if we choose to pass laws incompatible with the SM that we are accepting the consequences of that.
I really don't think that you have to be a glass half full kind of guy or gal to recognise that this is a major step away from the EU, that it is consistent with the referendum result and that it also reflects the fact that the decision to leave was close. I can understand, even if I disagree, with those who say that no deal would be better, that we can make the mini deals to protect residents, transport links etc but we should not agree to any of this. I do not understand how anyone who apparently wanted to leave would say that they would rather stay as an alternative. Do they really think that there is a chance in hell that the UK would want to revisit this issue again for another 40 years? I mean, seriously?
You need to take the Blue specs off David, we are heading down the Swanee and Scotland is the first sacrifice. Pack it in remain and let Labour try to do a better job than the current asylum escapees are doing.
I don’t actively support a second referendum, but I can’t see how else there can be any clarity on where to go from here. So what is the solution? There is no mandate from the country for no deal, there seems to be no mandate in Parliament for May’s deal, there’s no mandate anywhere for a referendum or to Remain. We need a solution.
The sensible, grown-up way out would be for both sides to tear up Article 50 and begin a proper FTA negotiation while the UK remained inside the EU. That would enable proper No Deal planning and give much needed time and space. Obviously, though, that won’t happen. So what will?
The deal passes in the HoC and we move on.
As my many posts on here have attested I am of the it must be in a manifesto before we have a second referendum view.
It even got me called a Leaver by Scott!
Yep, despite its general crapness the deal passing would be my preference, but it’s hard to see how it happens unless Labour changes its mind. Politically, that would be a very smart thing for Labour to do IMO if the choice does become May’s Deal or No Deal.
The DUP will get it through.
Seems about as likely as seeing Corbyn marching through the lobbies with Theresa May while singing the praises of Thatcher.
The DUP, a party that thrives off of grievance politics has just been publicly betrayed by the Tories. The DUP are going to milk this grievance for all their sordid little lives are worth.
I don’t actively support a second referendum, but I can’t see how else there can be any clarity on where to go from here. So what is the solution? There is no mandate from the country for no deal, there seems to be no mandate in Parliament for May’s deal, there’s no mandate anywhere for a referendum or to Remain. We need a solution.
The sensible, grown-up way out would be for both sides to tear up Article 50 and begin a proper FTA negotiation while the UK remained inside the EU. That would enable proper No Deal planning and give much needed time and space. Obviously, though, that won’t happen. So what will?
The deal passes in the HoC and we move on.
As my many posts on here have attested I am of the it must be in a manifesto before we have a second referendum view.
I agree: our iceberg-dodging PM will get her deal through the HoC. I know the current consensus is that that's unlikely, but what is the alternative? The alternatives are even less likely, eg. a second referendum (undemocratic) and "no deal" (stupid).
I'm of the same view. The national interest demands it, and therefore we just have to hope that some of these puffed up student politicians must be bluffing. The £ dipped a little, suggesting growing pessimism, but I still think buying the £ is a great bet.
The key thing from the Ashcroft poll today is that equal numbers of Tory and Labour voters prefer May's Deal to No Deal 35% and 34% of voters overall. 35% of Tory voters prefer No Deal to May's Deal and 24% of Labour voters prefer No Deal to May's Deal and 27% of voters overall.
So while most Tory voters tend to back Leave still and oppose EUref2 and most Labour voters tend to back Remain and back EUref2 both parties voters are divided on whether they back the Deal or No Deal but because more Labour voters back the Deal than Tory voters back No Deal the Deal leads No Deal overall
The key message from that, other than the fact that Lord Ashcroft's polls don't have a stellar record, is that the country is confused and hasn't settled upon any outcome.
They have settled against one outcome in particular though, May's deal. Almost everyone seems to think it's worse than the alternatives.
During the transition period the WA sets out things stay the same don’t they, except we lose our ability to influence decision-making? My reading of the WA is that, if the transition period is extended, we could have free movement until 2022. Is that wrong?
But any sensible deal was always going to have a transition period because of the refusal by the EU to start talks on an FTA before we had left. I am not concerned about the transition period, only about the end result. It seems strange that so many people, having waited 45 years for this, are now wanting to throw it all away because it won't happen in the next 10 minutes.
Who's against the transition period?
The transition seems to have been accepted by everyone. What's not accepted is the Irish Backstop that kicks in after the transition. If we're transitioning from the status quo to something acceptable that's fine, the issue is we're transitioning into something unacceptable - that is where people draw the line.
If it wasn't for the backstop I don't think there'd be any difficulty getting this deal through Parliament. Which is quite reasonable because the backstop should never have been agreed - afterall even our own Prime Minister said no Prime Minister could ever agree it before proceeding to agree to it, doesn't mean that Parliament shouldn't hold her at her words.
I don’t actively support a second referendum, but I can’t see how else there can be any clarity on where to go from here. So what is the solution? There is no mandate from the country for no deal, there seems to be no mandate in Parliament for May’s deal, there’s no mandate anywhere for a referendum or to Remain. We need a solution.
The sensible, grown-up way out would be for both sides to tear up Article 50 and begin a proper FTA negotiation while the UK remained inside the EU. That would enable proper No Deal planning and give much needed time and space. Obviously, though, that won’t happen. So what will?
The deal passes in the HoC and we move on.
As my many posts on here have attested I am of the it must be in a manifesto before we have a second referendum view.
It even got me called a Leaver by Scott!
Yep, despite its general crapness the deal passing would be my preference, but it’s hard to see how it happens unless Labour changes its mind. Politically, that would be a very smart thing for Labour to do IMO if the choice does become May’s Deal or No Deal.
The DUP will get it through.
Seems about as likely as seeing Corbyn marching through the lobbies with Theresa May while singing the praises of Thatcher.
The DUP, a party that thrives off of grievance politics has just been publicly betrayed by the Tories. The DUP are going to milk this grievance for all their sordid little lives are worth.
It was suggested at the weekend that they haven't received any of the promised £££ for NI as it was to be routed through Stormont and the Assembly remains suspended. Is that right? In which case they must wonder whether they'll ever see any of that money.
I don’t actively support a second referendum, but I can’t see how else there can be any clarity on where to go from here. So what is the solution? There is no mandate from the country for no deal, there seems to be no mandate in Parliament for May’s deal, there’s no mandate anywhere for a referendum or to Remain. We need a solution.
The sensible, grown-up way out would be for both sides to tear up Article 50 and begin a proper FTA negotiation while the UK remained inside the EU. That would enable proper No Deal planning and give much needed time and space. Obviously, though, that won’t happen. So what will?
The deal passes in the HoC and we move on.
As my many posts on here have attested I am of the it must be in a manifesto before we have a second referendum view.
I agree: our iceberg-dodging PM will get her deal through the HoC. I know the current consensus is that that's unlikely, but what is the alternative? The alternatives are even less likely, eg. a second referendum (undemocratic) and "no deal" (stupid).
I'm of the same view. The national interest demands it, and therefore we just have to hope that some of these puffed up student politicians must be bluffing. The £ dipped a little, suggesting growing pessimism, but I still think buying the £ is a great bet.
Since the majority seems to agree May's deal will be worse for the UK than remaining, including May, how can anyone with a straight face claim to be acting in the national interest pushing a deal which you know is demonstrably worse than the status quo?
It's no wonder May is unable to convince a single person not on her payroll if that's the logic of her offer.
I don’t actively support a second referendum, but I can’t see how else there can be any clarity on where to go from here. So what is the solution? There is no mandate from the country for no deal, there seems to be no mandate in Parliament for May’s deal, there’s no mandate anywhere for a referendum or to Remain. We need a solution.
The sensible, grown-up way out would be for both sides to tear up Article 50 and begin a proper FTA negotiation while the UK remained inside the EU. That would enable proper No Deal planning and give much needed time and space. Obviously, though, that won’t happen. So what will?
The deal passes in the HoC and we move on.
As my many posts on here have attested I am of the it must be in a manifesto before we have a second referendum view.
It even got me called a Leaver by Scott!
Yep, despite its general crapness the deal passing would be my preference, but it’s hard to see how it happens unless Labour changes its mind. Politically, that would be a very smart thing for Labour to do IMO if the choice does become May’s Deal or No Deal.
The DUP will get it through.
Seems about as likely as seeing Corbyn marching through the lobbies with Theresa May while singing the praises of Thatcher.
The DUP, a party that thrives off of grievance politics has just been publicly betrayed by the Tories. The DUP are going to milk this grievance for all their sordid little lives are worth.
It was suggested at the weekend that they haven't received any of the promised £££ for NI as it was to be routed through Stormont and the Assembly remains suspended. Is that right? In which case they must wonder whether they'll ever see any of that money.
No someone else responded to show most of the money has been spent as most of it didn't require Stormont.
But there were plenty of people accurately pointing out the mistakes that were being made before they were even agreed. I mean people who genuinely wanted things to go well rather than hardline opponents on either side. It was obvious from the start that agreeing the EU scheduling was a ridiculous idea. If the UK had stood their ground on that and made a cogent argument even the EU would have seen it was daft. Agreeing the Irish backstop was another daft idea. Deciding to represent only the views of a tiny hardline minority of the electorate rather than having a Brexit for the widest number of people.
A moderate Brexit supporter would have been able to see these things - as did many on both sides of the referendum divide - and would have had a far better chance of selling a sensible compromise than someone who clearly did not understand or even want to understand why people voted Brexit.
I can well imagine May sat in meetings in Brussels saying ' look I am really sorry about this. I didn't vote for Brexit and have no idea why people did'. It may be a way to keep friends in the EU but it is no way to try and run a negotiation.
The best negotiating tactic is to be extremely nice, while being very clearly prepared to walk away. We instead went for nasty but unprepared. We got everyone's back up in the EU at the beginning of the process, while doing exactly nothing to be ready for a situation where we left the EU without a deal. We probably shouldn't even have triggered Article 50 until we had agreed replacements for the EU's existing arrangements - but sadly politics came first.
I think the government - and particularly Dr Liam Fox - was also staggered to discover that other (non-EU) countries saw this as an opportunity to get one over the UK. British Airways and Virgin are going to end up losing a ton of transatlantic Heathrow slots as that is the price that is being demanded by the US to get an aviation deal concluded before 1 May next year. Which sucks for those of us have to regularly cross the Atlantic, and who hate flying United or Delta.
Nevertheless, for the reasons articulated by @DavidL below, I think this deal is much better than a No Deal scenario. It respects the referendum result, as far as both leaving the political project that is the EU and ending Free Movement, while also minimising economic disruption.
Have to disagree , only option left is to pack up their bags and Remain. Worst possible option is to sign up to this diabolical deal and I say that as someone who believes it will ensure Scottish Independence. Only a madwoman would sign up to it.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
But without the first we'd never have a deal to put to people in the first place.
I’ve had the democracy discussion with @Barnesian several times. We always come back to variations on the theme of the electorate don’t know what’s good for ‘em. Not a good look for those involved in politics since the 19th century.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill
He almost certainly never said that.
Churchill would not have recognised Democracy if it hit him in the face
I don’t actively support a second referendum, but I can’t see how else there can be any clarity on where to go from here. So what is the solution? There is no mandate from the country for no deal, there seems to be no mandate in Parliament for May’s deal, there’s no mandate anywhere for a referendum or to Remain. We need a solution.
The sensible, grown-up way out would be for both sides to tear up Article 50 and begin a proper FTA negotiation while the UK remained inside the EU. That would enable proper No Deal planning and give much needed time and space. Obviously, though, that won’t happen. So what will?
The deal passes in the HoC and we move on.
As my many posts on here have attested I am of the it must be in a manifesto before we have a second referendum view.
It even got me called a Leaver by Scott!
Yep, despite its general crapness the deal passing would be my preference, but it’s hard to see how it happens unless Labour changes its mind. Politically, that would be a very smart thing for Labour to do IMO if the choice does become May’s Deal or No Deal.
The DUP will get it through.
Seems about as likely as seeing Corbyn marching through the lobbies with Theresa May while singing the praises of Thatcher.
The DUP, a party that thrives off of grievance politics has just been publicly betrayed by the Tories. The DUP are going to milk this grievance for all their sordid little lives are worth.
It was suggested at the weekend that they haven't received any of the promised £££ for NI as it was to be routed through Stormont and the Assembly remains suspended. Is that right? In which case they must wonder whether they'll ever see any of that money.
No idea, but I very much doubt there's any amount of money will buy off the DUP now. The thrill they get from railing against BETRAYAL is... incomparable.
The fact that, in this case, the grievance is real and May really *did* betray them, will simply add to the deliciousness.
Revenge is a dish best served cold, and it's one of Arlene's favourite meals.
Saying that remaining is better than the Prime Minister's deal is not the same as saying we should remain.
Not eating anything is better than eating raw chicken. Doesn't mean that we should never eat anything or that eating chicken is a bad idea. We just need to cook the chicken properly before we eat it, just as we need to deal with Brexit properly . . . first step would be putting a Brexit optimist who sees Britain's Brexit opportunities in charge.
Silly analogy. Starving people will eat the raw chicken. Brexit nutheads are just trying to score a point. If the only choices they had were a quarter of a loaf or nothing, they'd take the bread.
I don’t actively support a second referendum, but I can’t see how else there can be any clarity on where to go from here. So what is the solution? There is no mandate from the country for no deal, there seems to be no mandate in Parliament for May’s deal, there’s no mandate anywhere for a referendum or to Remain. We need a solution.
The sensible, grown-up way out would be for both sides to tear up Article 50 and begin a proper FTA negotiation while the UK remained inside the EU. That would enable proper No Deal planning and give much needed time and space. Obviously, though, that won’t happen. So what will?
The deal passes in the HoC and we move on.
As my many posts on here have attested I am of the it must be in a manifesto before we have a second referendum view.
It even got me called a Leaver by Scott!
Yep, despite its general crapness the deal passing would be my preference, but it’s hard to see how it happens unless Labour changes its mind. Politically, that would be a very smart thing for Labour to do IMO if the choice does become May’s Deal or No Deal.
The DUP will get it through.
Seems about as likely as seeing Corbyn marching through the lobbies with Theresa May while singing the praises of Thatcher.
The DUP, a party that thrives off of grievance politics has just been publicly betrayed by the Tories. The DUP are going to milk this grievance for all their sordid little lives are worth.
It was suggested at the weekend that they haven't received any of the promised £££ for NI as it was to be routed through Stormont and the Assembly remains suspended. Is that right? In which case they must wonder whether they'll ever see any of that money.
No idea, but I very much doubt there's any amount of money will buy off the DUP now. The thrill they get from railing against BETRAYAL is... incomparable.
The fact that, in this case, the grievance is real and May really *did* betray them, will simply add to the deliciousness.
Revenge is a dish best served cold, and it's one of Arlene's favourite meals.
Fortunately the Irish are normally prepared to wait a few centuries.
If Anna votes down the deal then she too is part of the problem, I hope she realises this.
Part of Mays problem is people are planning to vote it down while claiming it's not their fault they voted it down. Which is not quite the same thing as voting it down for good reasons, if which there are some.
It's also why, I suspect, plenty of Tories argued not to bring it to parliament at all, to avoid any responsibility, good or bad, for voting it down.
But Soubry at least is transparent that she is prepared to risk it all in pursuit of a goal of remain, so any arguments are in context to justifying that.
People like Soubry should never have voted to trigger A50, if they could not accept the result of the referendum.
And some did not. More should have if they were this opposed. Not saying thatwpukd be politically easy but if some managed it so could others.
They should have followed the example of Kenneth Clarke, and voted against the legislation.
Voting in favour of it, while agitating for a new referendum, is a bit despicable.
Ken Clarke has certainly been consistent throughout the whole process. Far more so than his fellow remain Tories or the now frankly loony ERG.
Saying that remaining is better than the Prime Minister's deal is not the same as saying we should remain.
Not eating anything is better than eating raw chicken. Doesn't mean that we should never eat anything or that eating chicken is a bad idea. We just need to cook the chicken properly before we eat it, just as we need to deal with Brexit properly . . . first step would be putting a Brexit optimist who sees Britain's Brexit opportunities in charge.
Silly analogy. Starving people will eat the raw chicken. Brexit nutheads are just trying to score a point. If the only choices they had were a quarter of a loaf or nothing, they'd take the bread.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
Grr.. there was no option for that. Leave or remain. EFTAis leave. Modify our welfare state so it’s less atttractive and let’s get on with it.
Apply the controls on free movement that we currently have but do not use for some reason that would make the welfare state pull a non-factor
If Anna votes down the deal then she too is part of the problem, I hope she realises this.
Part of Mays problem is people are planning to vote it down while claiming it's not their fault they voted it down. Which is not quite the same thing as voting it down for good reasons, if which there are some.
It's also why, I suspect, plenty of Tories argued not to bring it to parliament at all, to avoid any responsibility, good or bad, for voting it down.
But Soubry at least is transparent that she is prepared to risk it all in pursuit of a goal of remain, so any arguments are in context to justifying that.
People like Soubry should never have voted to trigger A50, if they could not accept the result of the referendum.
And some did not. More should have if they were this opposed. Not saying thatwpukd be politically easy but if some managed it so could others.
They should have followed the example of Kenneth Clarke, and voted against the legislation.
Voting in favour of it, while agitating for a new referendum, is a bit despicable.
Ken Clarke has certainly been consistent throughout the whole process. Far more so than his fellow remain Tories or the now frankly loony ERG.
The only class act left in the Tory party.
Clarke coming out in support of the deal has probably flipped 50 Tory waverers to a firm no.
I don’t actively support a second referendum, but I can’t see how else there can be any clarity on where to go from here. So what is the solution? There is no mandate from the country for no deal, there seems to be no mandate in Parliament for May’s deal, there’s no mandate anywhere for a referendum or to Remain. We need a solution.
The sensible, grown-up way out would be for both sides to tear up Article 50 and begin a proper FTA negotiation while the UK remained inside the EU. That would enable proper No Deal planning and give much needed time and space. Obviously, though, that won’t happen. So what will?
The deal passes in the HoC and we move on.
As my many posts on here have attested I am of the it must be in a manifesto before we have a second referendum view.
It even got me called a Leaver by Scott!
Yep, despite its general crapness the deal passing would be my preference, but it’s hard to see how it happens unless Labour changes its mind. Politically, that would be a very smart thing for Labour to do IMO if the choice does become May’s Deal or No Deal.
The DUP will get it through.
Seems about as likely as seeing Corbyn marching through the lobbies with Theresa May while singing the praises of Thatcher.
The DUP, a party that thrives off of grievance politics has just been publicly betrayed by the Tories. The DUP are going to milk this grievance for all their sordid little lives are worth.
If there are going to be 100 Tory rebels then they will get lost in the crowd.
Much better politics to actually vote for and then reap the rewards.
I don’t actively support a second referendum, but I can’t see how else there can be any clarity on where to go from here. So what is the solution? There is no mandate from the country for no deal, there seems to be no mandate in Parliament for May’s deal, there’s no mandate anywhere for a referendum or to Remain. We need a solution.
The sensible, grown-up way out would be for both sides to tear up Article 50 and begin a proper FTA negotiation while the UK remained inside the EU. That would enable proper No Deal planning and give much needed time and space. Obviously, though, that won’t happen. So what will?
The deal passes in the HoC and we move on.
As my many posts on here have attested I am of the it must be in a manifesto before we have a second referendum view.
I agree: our iceberg-dodging PM will get her deal through the HoC. I know the current consensus is that that's unlikely, but what is the alternative? The alternatives are even less likely, eg. a second referendum (undemocratic) and "no deal" (stupid).
I'm of the same view. The national interest demands it, and therefore we just have to hope that some of these puffed up student politicians must be bluffing. The £ dipped a little, suggesting growing pessimism, but I still think buying the £ is a great bet.
Since the majority seems to agree May's deal will be worse for the UK than remaining, including May, how can anyone with a straight face claim to be acting in the national interest pushing a deal which you know is demonstrably worse than the status quo?
It's no wonder May is unable to convince a single person not on her payroll if that's the logic of her offer.
ALL the Brexit options are worse than the status quo but May's deal is better than the rest of them, possibly excluding Norway for now, which doesn't seem to have caught anyone's imagination.
Saying that remaining is better than the Prime Minister's deal is not the same as saying we should remain.
Not eating anything is better than eating raw chicken. Doesn't mean that we should never eat anything or that eating chicken is a bad idea. We just need to cook the chicken properly before we eat it, just as we need to deal with Brexit properly . . . first step would be putting a Brexit optimist who sees Britain's Brexit opportunities in charge.
Silly analogy. Starving people will eat the raw chicken. Brexit nutheads are just trying to score a point. If the only choices they had were a quarter of a loaf or nothing, they'd take the bread.
I'm not starving, but I'd still like a nice piece of chicken, but could do without. I'm not dead set against remaining, but would like a well handled Brexit, but could do without.
We're not starving. We have options. Remaining would be a better option than May's deal but that says more about how bad May's deal is than how good remaining is.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
Grr.. there was no option for that. Leave or remain. EFTAis leave. Modify our welfare state so it’s less atttractive and let’s get on with it.
Apply the controls on free movement that we currently have but do not use for some reason that would make the welfare state pull a non-factor
The proportion of EU migrants who claim non-working benefits is very small. It's just a Daily Mail scare story under the old editor. Most are working; yes, they get tax credits, as do Brits in low paid jobs. Taking them away won't be popular.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
Grr.. there was no option for that. Leave or remain. EFTAis leave. Modify our welfare state so it’s less atttractive and let’s get on with it.
Apply the controls on free movement that we currently have but do not use for some reason that would make the welfare state pull a non-factor
The proportion of EU migrants who claim non-working benefits is very small. It's just a Daily Mail scare story under the old editor. Most are working; yes, they get tax credits, as do Brits in low paid jobs. Taking them away won't be popular.
Why should non-Brits get tax credits?
I have no problems supporting Brits who need support, but if someone wants to come to this country they should support themselves. I don't expect to go to another nation, get a low paid job and live off the nation I'd have moved to.
The ability to pass a deal is a separate failure, related to thefailure to secure a good one. But they are not the same thing and it is just not true to say they are.
Yes this is assuming the EU side agree so there is something for parliament to consider.
No
A deal that has not passed, or will not pass, is not a deal. An unsigned contract is not a deal.
They have not secured a deal, however you try and spin it.
You have the balls to say I'm spinning? You of all people, master spin merchant? Shameless doesn't begin to describe that lack of self awareness, it is laughable.
If i were to prepare a report for you it is not true to say that I did do so not even if it is so bad it must be rejected. If a deal is presented to the commons a deal was prepared and if the EU agree it was secured as viable by the other party.
You are pretending that not being able to commons approval is the same as the government basically doing nothing for two years and coming in with no deal for the commons to vote on.
This is not to say the government should not be criticised for only getting a crap deal. But your argument allows for no judging how crap they have been in terms of securing a bad deal or no deal.
You sound like a fool if you think that. I for one think if we're to condemn gov there is a difference between it failing to even negotiate at all and failing to do it well. How bad they have been needs assessing , not pretending things are either just good or bad with no strands of bad.
But then to someone who spins so much that is probably hard for you to grasp.
Saying that remaining is better than the Prime Minister's deal is not the same as saying we should remain.
Not eating anything is better than eating raw chicken. Doesn't mean that we should never eat anything or that eating chicken is a bad idea. We just need to cook the chicken properly before we eat it, just as we need to deal with Brexit properly . . . first step would be putting a Brexit optimist who sees Britain's Brexit opportunities in charge.
Silly analogy. Starving people will eat the raw chicken. Brexit nutheads are just trying to score a point. If the only choices they had were a quarter of a loaf or nothing, they'd take the bread.
I'm not starving, but I'd still like a nice piece of chicken, but could do without. I'm not dead set against remaining, but would like a well handled Brexit, but could do without.
We're not starving. We have options. Remaining would be a better option than May's deal but that says more about how bad May's deal is than how good remaining is.
No, really it doesn't. The status quo actually is the best position. Everything else is a step backward. May's deal is a smaller step than the alternatives.
If Anna votes down the deal then she too is part of the problem, I hope she realises this.
Part of Mays problem is people are planning to vote it down while claiming it's not their fault they voted it down. Which is not quite the same thing as voting it down for good reasons, if which there are some.
It's also why, I suspect, plenty of Tories argued not to bring it to parliament at all, to avoid any responsibility, good or bad, for voting it down.
But Soubry at least is transparent that she is prepared to risk it all in pursuit of a goal of remain, so any arguments are in context to justifying that.
People like Soubry should never have voted to trigger A50, if they could not accept the result of the referendum.
And some did not. More should have if they were this opposed. Not saying thatwpukd be politically easy but if some managed it so could others.
They should have followed the example of Kenneth Clarke, and voted against the legislation.
Voting in favour of it, while agitating for a new referendum, is a bit despicable.
Ken Clarke has certainly been consistent throughout the whole process. Far more so than his fellow remain Tories or the now frankly loony ERG.
The only class act left in the Tory party.
Clarke coming out in support of the deal has probably flipped 50 Tory waverers to a firm no.
I don’t actively support a second referendum, but I can’t see how else there can be any clarity on where to go from here. So what is the solution? There is no mandate from the country for no deal, there seems to be no mandate in Parliament for May’s deal, there’s no mandate anywhere for a referendum or to Remain. We need a solution.
The sensible, grown-up way out would be for both sides to tear up Article 50 and begin a proper FTA negotiation while the UK remained inside the EU. That would enable proper No Deal planning and give much needed time and space. Obviously, though, that won’t happen. So what will?
The deal passes in the HoC and we move on.
As my many posts on here have attested I am of the it must be in a manifesto before we have a second referendum view.
I agree: our iceberg-dodging PM will get her deal through the HoC. I know the current consensus is that that's unlikely, but what is the alternative? The alternatives are even less likely, eg. a second referendum (undemocratic) and "no deal" (stupid).
I'm of the same view. The national interest demands it, and therefore we just have to hope that some of these puffed up student politicians must be bluffing. The £ dipped a little, suggesting growing pessimism, but I still think buying the £ is a great bet.
Since the majority seems to agree May's deal will be worse for the UK than remaining, including May, how can anyone with a straight face claim to be acting in the national interest pushing a deal which you know is demonstrably worse than the status quo?
It's no wonder May is unable to convince a single person not on her payroll if that's the logic of her offer.
Because most of those claiming it will be worse than remaining are hoping that when it falls they will get a chance to push and win for their preferred option - Remain or No Deal. It is political calculation rather than an actual belief that Remain would be better that drives the No Deal Brexiteers. If they were given the choice between Remain or this deal with no prospect at all of a No Deal they would take this deal like a shot.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
Grr.. there was no option for that. Leave or remain. EFTAis leave. Modify our welfare state so it’s less atttractive and let’s get on with it.
Apply the controls on free movement that we currently have but do not use for some reason that would make the welfare state pull a non-factor
The proportion of EU migrants who claim non-working benefits is very small. It's just a Daily Mail scare story under the old editor. Most are working; yes, they get tax credits, as do Brits in low paid jobs. Taking them away won't be popular.
I don’t actively support a second referendum, but I can’t see how else there can be any clarity on where to go from here. So what is the solution? There is no mandate from the country for no deal, there seems to be no mandate in Parliament for May’s deal, there’s no mandate anywhere for a referendum or to Remain. We need a solution.
The sensible, grown-up way out would be for both sides to tear up Article 50 and begin a proper FTA negotiation while the UK remained inside the EU. That would enable proper No Deal planning and give much needed time and space. Obviously, though, that won’t happen. So what will?
The deal passes in the HoC and we move on.
As my many posts on here have attested I am of the it must be in a manifesto before we have a second referendum view.
I agree: our iceberg-dodging PM will get her deal through the HoC. I know the current consensus is that that's unlikely, but what is the alternative? The alternatives are even less likely, eg. a second referendum (undemocratic) and "no deal" (stupid).
I'm of the same view. The national interest demands it, and therefore we just have to hope that some of these puffed up student politicians must be bluffing. The £ dipped a little, suggesting growing pessimism, but I still think buying the £ is a great bet.
Since the majority seems to agree May's deal will be worse for the UK than remaining, including May, how can anyone with a straight face claim to be acting in the national interest pushing a deal which you know is demonstrably worse than the status quo?
It's no wonder May is unable to convince a single person not on her payroll if that's the logic of her offer.
ALL the Brexit options are worse than the status quo but May's deal is better than the rest of them, possibly excluding Norway for now, which doesn't seem to have caught anyone's imagination.
Nick Boles has mentioned it. But Norway's deal is financially and control-wise worse than remain. It seems tenable because Norway is a very rich country with £1 trillion of oil money in the bank = ~£500,000 per household.
Where is the UK's N. Sea oil money? Er, don't ask, i.e. we spent it all.
During the transition period the WA sets out things stay the same don’t they, except we lose our ability to influence decision-making? My reading of the WA is that, if the transition period is extended, we could have free movement until 2022. Is that wrong?
But any sensible deal was always going to have a transition period because of the refusal by the EU to start talks on an FTA before we had left. I am not concerned about the transition period, only about the end result. It seems strange that so many people, having waited 45 years for this, are now wanting to throw it all away because it won't happen in the next 10 minutes.
Who's against the transition period?
The transition seems to have been accepted by everyone. What's not accepted is the Irish Backstop that kicks in after the transition. If we're transitioning from the status quo to something acceptable that's fine, the issue is we're transitioning into something unacceptable - that is where people draw the line.
If it wasn't for the backstop I don't think there'd be any difficulty getting this deal through Parliament. Which is quite reasonable because the backstop should never have been agreed - afterall even our own Prime Minister said no Prime Minister could ever agree it before proceeding to agree to it, doesn't mean that Parliament shouldn't hold her at her words.
I was answering SO who was claiming that the deal did not end freedom of movement.
Saying that remaining is better than the Prime Minister's deal is not the same as saying we should remain.
Not eating anything is better than eating raw chicken. Doesn't mean that we should never eat anything or that eating chicken is a bad idea. We just need to cook the chicken properly before we eat it, just as we need to deal with Brexit properly . . . first step would be putting a Brexit optimist who sees Britain's Brexit opportunities in charge.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill
He almost certainly never said that.
In its combination of acidity, condescension and contempt for parliament it sounds like the sort of thing Birkenhead might have said, but I've never come across it in any of his sayings. Certainly it wouldn't have been said by Churchill. Even Aneurin Bevan would be a more plausible candidate.
Saying that remaining is better than the Prime Minister's deal is not the same as saying we should remain.
Not eating anything is better than eating raw chicken. Doesn't mean that we should never eat anything or that eating chicken is a bad idea. We just need to cook the chicken properly before we eat it, just as we need to deal with Brexit properly . . . first step would be putting a Brexit optimist who sees Britain's Brexit opportunities in charge.
Silly analogy. Starving people will eat the raw chicken. Brexit nutheads are just trying to score a point. If the only choices they had were a quarter of a loaf or nothing, they'd take the bread.
I'm not starving, but I'd still like a nice piece of chicken, but could do without. I'm not dead set against remaining, but would like a well handled Brexit, but could do without.
We're not starving. We have options. Remaining would be a better option than May's deal but that says more about how bad May's deal is than how good remaining is.
No, really it doesn't. The status quo actually is the best position. Everything else is a step backward. May's deal is a smaller step than the alternatives.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill
He almost certainly never said that.
In its combination of acidity, condescension and contempt for parliament it sounds like the sort of thing Birkenhead might have said, but I've never come across it in any of his sayings. Certainly it wouldn't have been said by Churchill.
The idea that Churchill spent time on the doorsteps talking to "the average voter" seems not very likely to me.
During the transition period the WA sets out things stay the same don’t they, except we lose our ability to influence decision-making? My reading of the WA is that, if the transition period is extended, we could have free movement until 2022. Is that wrong?
But any sensible deal was always going to have a transition period because of the refusal by the EU to start talks on an FTA before we had left. I am not concerned about the transition period, only about the end result. It seems strange that so many people, having waited 45 years for this, are now wanting to throw it all away because it won't happen in the next 10 minutes.
Who's against the transition period?
The transition seems to have been accepted by everyone. What's not accepted is the Irish Backstop that kicks in after the transition. If we're transitioning from the status quo to something acceptable that's fine, the issue is we're transitioning into something unacceptable - that is where people draw the line.
If it wasn't for the backstop I don't think there'd be any difficulty getting this deal through Parliament. Which is quite reasonable because the backstop should never have been agreed - afterall even our own Prime Minister said no Prime Minister could ever agree it before proceeding to agree to it, doesn't mean that Parliament shouldn't hold her at her words.
I was answering SO who was claiming that the deal did not end freedom of movement.
I get that but I was referring to your remark "It seems strange that so many people, having waited 45 years for this, are now wanting to throw it all away because it won't happen in the next 10 minutes." I don't think anyone is opposing the deal simply because it has a transition, the big objections are to what we are transitioning to. That's not strange.
100th Tory backbencher that declares himself against the deal gets a letter from the queen.
It's still the case that 90 people saying they will do something isn't 90 people doing something. As we saw with the letter writing fiasco.
if even half do it's sunk. Heck, if a quarter do it it is sunk.
Will so many u turn quite so spectacularly on such an emotive issue? It's not plausible.
Actually its just as plausible that 90 u-turn than 30 do. If something is granted that lets them u-turn then all could do at once. EG a proper solution to the backstop. Don't see it happening though.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
Grr.. there was no option for that. Leave or remain. EFTAis leave. Modify our welfare state so it’s less atttractive and let’s get on with it.
Apply the controls on free movement that we currently have but do not use for some reason that would make the welfare state pull a non-factor
The proportion of EU migrants who claim non-working benefits is very small. It's just a Daily Mail scare story under the old editor. Most are working; yes, they get tax credits, as do Brits in low paid jobs. Taking them away won't be popular.
Got some data on that have you?
EU migrants comprise about 6% of the working age population, but the proportion of working age benefit claimants who are EU migrants is around 2%. So a significantly lower proportion. The proportion of families containing at least one EU migrant of those receiving tax credits is around 7%. Given that some of these will be mixed UK-EU families, the tax credit ratio isn't significantly out of line with the UK average.
I don’t actively support a second referendum, but I can’t see how else there can be any clarity on where to go from here. So what is the solution? There is no mandate from the country for no deal, there seems to be no mandate in Parliament for May’s deal, there’s no mandate anywhere for a referendum or to Remain. We need a solution.
The sensible, grown-up way out would be for both sides to tear up Article 50 and begin a proper FTA negotiation while the UK remained inside the EU. That would enable proper No Deal planning and give much needed time and space. Obviously, though, that won’t happen. So what will?
The deal passes in the HoC and we move on.
As my many posts on here have attested I am of the it must be in a manifesto before we have a second referendum view.
I agree: our iceberg-dodging PM will get her deal through the HoC. I know the current consensus is that that's unlikely, but what is the alternative? The alternatives are even less likely, eg. a second referendum (undemocratic) and "no deal" (stupid).
I'm of the same view. The national interest demands it, and therefore we just have to hope that some of these puffed up student politicians must be bluffing. The £ dipped a little, suggesting growing pessimism, but I still think buying the £ is a great bet.
Since the majority seems to agree May's deal will be worse for the UK than remaining, including May, how can anyone with a straight face claim to be acting in the national interest pushing a deal which you know is demonstrably worse than the status quo?
It's no wonder May is unable to convince a single person not on her payroll if that's the logic of her offer.
ALL the Brexit options are worse than the status quo but May's deal is better than the rest of them, possibly excluding Norway for now, which doesn't seem to have caught anyone's imagination.
Nick Boles has mentioned it. But Norway's deal is financially and control-wise worse than remain. It seems tenable because Norway is a very rich country with £1 trillion of oil money in the bank = ~£500,000 per household.
Where is the UK's N. Sea oil money? Er, don't ask, i.e. we spent it all.
Boles is utterly wrong. Per capita Norway pays far less than the UK does. And a significant proportion even of that is voluntary rather than due to legal requirements. The equivalent UK payment based on a per capita calculation would be about £2.9 billion a year.
100th Tory backbencher that declares himself against the deal gets a letter from the queen.
It's still the case that 90 people saying they will do something isn't 90 people doing something. As we saw with the letter writing fiasco.
if even half do it's sunk. Heck, if a quarter do it it is sunk.
Will so many u turn quite so spectacularly on such an emotive issue? It's not plausible.
I mean, maybe if May had some kind of momentum, there'd be some hope. But in as far as there's much movement at all, it seems to be:
Tory backbenches opposed and happy to say so Tory payroll vote refusing to support it publicly at all People's Vote getting more and more cocky by the day Brexit Buccaneers realizing no brexit is better than a bad deal.
The Cabinet brexiteers seem to have locked themselves into a panic room. Their silence is *deafening*.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
Grr.. there was no option for that. Leave or remain. EFTAis leave. Modify our welfare state so it’s less atttractive and let’s get on with it.
Apply the controls on free movement that we currently have but do not use for some reason that would make the welfare state pull a non-factor
The proportion of EU migrants who claim non-working benefits is very small. It's just a Daily Mail scare story under the old editor. Most are working; yes, they get tax credits, as do Brits in low paid jobs. Taking them away won't be popular.
Got some data on that have you?
EU migrants comprise about 6% of the working age population, but the proportion of benefit claimants who are EU migrants is around 2%. So a significantly lower proportion. The proportion of families containing at least one EU migrant of those receiving tax credits is around 7%. Given that some of these will be mixed UK-EU families, the tax credit ratio isn't significantly out of line with the UK average.
It should be out of line with the UK average. Welfare should be there for Brits because we need to support our own, but migrants should be able to support themselves. Our welfare system is there to help our own, not help the world.
Yesterday was 55th anniversary of JFK assassination.Just been watching a 45 minute History Channel programme on Youtube - made in 2003 - which points the finger very firmly at LBJ.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
Grr.. there was no option for that. Leave or remain. EFTAis leave. Modify our welfare state so it’s less atttractive and let’s get on with it.
Apply the controls on free movement that we currently have but do not use for some reason that would make the welfare state pull a non-factor
The proportion of EU migrants who claim non-working benefits is very small. It's just a Daily Mail scare story under the old editor. Most are working; yes, they get tax credits, as do Brits in low paid jobs. Taking them away won't be popular.
Got some data on that have you?
EU migrants comprise about 6% of the working age population, but the proportion of working age benefit claimants who are EU migrants is around 2%. So a significantly lower proportion. The proportion of families containing at least one EU migrant of those receiving tax credits is around 7%. Given that some of these will be mixed UK-EU families, the tax credit ratio isn't significantly out of line with the UK average.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill
He almost certainly never said that.
In its combination of acidity, condescension and contempt for parliament it sounds like the sort of thing Birkenhead might have said, but I've never come across it in any of his sayings. Certainly it wouldn't have been said by Churchill.
The idea that Churchill spent time on the doorsteps talking to "the average voter" seems not very likely to me.
Not in his later years, perhaps. In his early years in Oldham and Manchester North West he was quite an assiduous campaigner. It seems to have faded after 1908 when he sat for Dundee as an emergency replacement seat following his by-election defeat and couldn't get to it very often.
Although the most incompetent constituency MP from that point of view was probably Austen Chamberlain.
Nick Boles has mentioned it. But Norway's deal is financially and control-wise worse than remain. It seems tenable because Norway is a very rich country with £1 trillion of oil money in the bank = ~£500,000 per household.
Where is the UK's N. Sea oil money? Er, don't ask, i.e. we spent it all.
Boles is utterly wrong. Per capita Norway pays far less than the UK does. And a significant proportion even of that is voluntary rather than due to legal requirements. The equivalent UK payment based on a per capita calculation would be about £2.9 billion a year.
@rural_voter wasn't clear, Boles is backing Norway not opposing it. No idea where rural_voter's ideas regarding finances come from, Norway's deal is clearly superior financially than remaining.
Yesterday was 55th anniversary of JFK assassination.Just been watching a 45 minute History Channel programme on Youtube - made in 2003 - which points the finger very firmly at LBJ.
I have sometimes wondered why the History Channel have never hired David Irving to make a documentary on Nazi Germany. It would if anything be a very slight improvement on their usual level of documentary, which is saying quite something.
During the transition period the WA sets out things stay the same don’t they, except we lose our ability to influence decision-making? My reading of the WA is that, if the transition period is extended, we could have free movement until 2022. Is that wrong?
But any sensible deal was always going to have a transition period because of the refusal by the EU to start talks on an FTA before we had left. I am not concerned about the transition period, only about the end result. It seems strange that so many people, having waited 45 years for this, are now wanting to throw it all away because it won't happen in the next 10 minutes.
Who's against the transition period?
The transition seems to have been accepted by everyone. What's not accepted is the Irish Backstop that kicks in after the transition. If we're transitioning from the status quo to something acceptable that's fine, the issue is we're transitioning into something unacceptable - that is where people draw the line.
If it wasn't for the backstop I don't think there'd be any difficulty getting this deal through Parliament. Which is quite reasonable because the backstop should never have been agreed - afterall even our own Prime Minister said no Prime Minister could ever agree it before proceeding to agree to it, doesn't mean that Parliament shouldn't hold her at her words.
I was answering SO who was claiming that the deal did not end freedom of movement.
I get that but I was referring to your remark "It seems strange that so many people, having waited 45 years for this, are now wanting to throw it all away because it won't happen in the next 10 minutes." I don't think anyone is opposing the deal simply because it has a transition, the big objections are to what we are transitioning to. That's not strange.
Given you said yesterday you had not read the deal I am not sure you can make such a statement.
Yesterday was 55th anniversary of JFK assassination.Just been watching a 45 minute History Channel programme on Youtube - made in 2003 - which points the finger very firmly at LBJ.
I have sometimes wondered why the History Channel have never hired David Irving to make a documentary on Nazi Germany. It would if anything be a very slight improvement on their usual level of documentary, which is saying quite something.
If it was on the History Channel that should mean one of two things:
1) He was killed by aliens 2) He was killed by Hitler
Nick Boles has mentioned it. But Norway's deal is financially and control-wise worse than remain. It seems tenable because Norway is a very rich country with £1 trillion of oil money in the bank = ~£500,000 per household.
Where is the UK's N. Sea oil money? Er, don't ask, i.e. we spent it all.
Boles is utterly wrong. Per capita Norway pays far less than the UK does. And a significant proportion even of that is voluntary rather than due to legal requirements. The equivalent UK payment based on a per capita calculation would be about £2.9 billion a year.
@rural_voter wasn't clear, Boles is backing Norway not opposing it. No idea where rural_voter's ideas regarding finances come from, Norway's deal is clearly superior financially than remaining.
Ah thanks. As I you say the Norway financial cost is miles better than ours.
Yesterday was 55th anniversary of JFK assassination.Just been watching a 45 minute History Channel programme on Youtube - made in 2003 - which points the finger very firmly at LBJ.
55 years! Feels like yesterday. Everyone who was around at the time knows exactly where they were and what they were doing when they heard the news.
The ability to pass a deal is a separate failure, related to thefailure to secure a good one. But they are not the same thing and it is just not true to say they are.
Yes this is assuming the EU side agree so there is something for parliament to consider.
No
A deal that has not passed, or will not pass, is not a deal. An unsigned contract is not a deal.
They have not secured a deal, however you try and spin it.
You have the balls to say I'm spinning? You of all people, master spin merchant? Shameless doesn't begin to describe that lack of self awareness, it is laughable.
If i were to prepare a report for you it is not true to say that I did do so not even if it is so bad it must be rejected. If a deal is presented to the commons a deal was prepared and if the EU agree it was secured as viable by the other party.
You are pretending that not being able to commons approval is the same as the government basically doing nothing for two years and coming in with no deal for the commons to vote on.
This is not to say the government should not be criticised for only getting a crap deal. But your argument allows for no judging how crap they have been in terms of securing a bad deal or no deal.
You sound like a fool if you think that. I for one think if we're to condemn gov there is a difference between it failing to even negotiate at all and failing to do it well. How bad they have been needs assessing , not pretending things are either just good or bad with no strands of bad.
But then to someone who spins so much that is probably hard for you to grasp.
This isn't the same point Scott was making, but what the government did for the last year was ask for the same thing over and over again then say "well, never mind then". That's not technically doing nothing, but "negotiating" seems like a generous description too.
During the transition period the WA sets out things stay the same don’t they, except we lose our ability to influence decision-making? My reading of the WA is that, if the transition period is extended, we could have free movement until 2022. Is that wrong?
But any sensible deal was always going to have a transition period because of the refusal by the EU to start talks on an FTA before we had left. I am not concerned about the transition period, only about the end result. It seems strange that so many people, having waited 45 years for this, are now wanting to throw it all away because it won't happen in the next 10 minutes.
Who's against the transition period?
The transition seems to have been accepted by everyone. What's not accepted is the Irish Backstop that kicks in after the transition. If we're transitioning from the status quo to something acceptable that's fine, the issue is we're transitioning into something unacceptable - that is where people draw the line.
If it wasn't for the backstop I don't think there'd be any difficulty getting this deal through Parliament. Which is quite reasonable because the backstop should never have been agreed - afterall even our own Prime Minister said no Prime Minister could ever agree it before proceeding to agree to it, doesn't mean that Parliament shouldn't hold her at her words.
I was answering SO who was claiming that the deal did not end freedom of movement.
I get that but I was referring to your remark "It seems strange that so many people, having waited 45 years for this, are now wanting to throw it all away because it won't happen in the next 10 minutes." I don't think anyone is opposing the deal simply because it has a transition, the big objections are to what we are transitioning to. That's not strange.
Given you said yesterday you had not read the deal I am not sure you can make such a statement.
Have you read all 585 pages of the deal? Kudos to you if you have.
I'm informed, I've read plenty of news articles, comments from here and more about the deal. That ought to be sufficient to be informed enough to discuss it here.
However the statement I made wasn't even about the deal it was about why people are opposing it. You don't need to read the deal to make such a statement, you need to listen to the reasons people say they are opposing the deal. The backstop or other end-state issues are far more quoted as the reason why the deal is opposed than the transition.
Nobody here has read the deal. Anyone who claims they have is a liar.
Even if I were minded to, I'm not an international trade lawyer, I'm not even qualified to read the pre-amble.
You don't need to read something to know it's bad, BTW. I've not read Mein Kampf, L. Ron Hubbard or the UKIP manifesto but that doesn't mean I can't state with absolute certainty that they are BAD.
Yesterday was 55th anniversary of JFK assassination.Just been watching a 45 minute History Channel programme on Youtube - made in 2003 - which points the finger very firmly at LBJ.
55 years! Feels like yesterday. Everyone who was around at the time knows exactly where they were and what they were doing when they heard the news.
There were two really important deaths on the 22/11/63. The world lost two of its greatest and most significant figures, still known and revered by millions today.
Aldous Huxley died second, I believe, a short while after C S Lewis (allowing for the time difference).
Apparently there was some sleazy drunken whoring politician who got shot as well, but that's obviously much less important.
Yesterday was 55th anniversary of JFK assassination.Just been watching a 45 minute History Channel programme on Youtube - made in 2003 - which points the finger very firmly at LBJ.
I have sometimes wondered why the History Channel have never hired David Irving to make a documentary on Nazi Germany. It would if anything be a very slight improvement on their usual level of documentary, which is saying quite something.
You're clearly not too impressed! It was very interesting , and appeared to draw on a wide range of sources. A key point made was that LBJ was close to being outed in respect of earlier corruption and that not only would he be dropped from the Democrat ticket in 1964 but faced the prospect of jail with Bobby Kennedy as Attorney General. LBJ already controlled Texas and on becoming President was able to control the cover-up.
Yesterday was 55th anniversary of JFK assassination.Just been watching a 45 minute History Channel programme on Youtube - made in 2003 - which points the finger very firmly at LBJ.
55 years! Feels like yesterday. Everyone who was around at the time knows exactly where they were and what they were doing when they heard the news.
Indeed so. I remember the news being announced on the BBC Tonight programme at about 7.30 that Friday evening by an unknown announcer standing in for his senior colleagues who were attending a reception elsewhere.
Comments
If it passes then the way is clear.
If not - May should resign as she has failed at her KPI and the Cons/DUP choose a new leader and give them a chance to find a way through.
Doesn't need to be any more complicated than that - it's the usual way of things.
As my many posts on here have attested I am of the it must be in a manifesto before we have a second referendum view.
It even got me called a Leaver by Scott!
It's also just factually wrong.
The ability to pass a deal is a separate failure, related to thefailure to secure a good one. But they are not the same thing and it is just not true to say they are.
Yes this is assuming the EU side agree so there is something for parliament to consider.
A deal that has not passed, or will not pass, is not a deal. An unsigned contract is not a deal.
They have not secured a deal, however you try and spin it.
But in practice it means the statements need to be done pretty much by the first week in February to have time for all the processes and matters relating to the audit.
I take it 29th March isn't the err actual date when everything needs to be finished by here, much like an audit...
Edit: Or perhaps a general election would be best. It could be run much more quickly than a referendum could be.
Punt it into the long grass, basically.
Problematic? Yes, but better than allowing something you think bad to go by default.
I don't expect this to happen by the way.
His team is one of a very tight cluster of four, with Bottas and Verstappen a little bit faster. But Raikkonen's was set amongst the earliest, and he's pretty good around the circuit. I've backed it with a small sum, and set up a hedge on Ladbrokes Exchange at 3.
Well not "no chance" but very very little.
crash outunplanned, exit is the whole point.The no dealers are playing chicken with May and the no brexiters
The no brexiters are playing chicken with May and the no dealers.
Everybody's playing chicken and there's a mahoosive red bus coming down the road !
Someone, or possibly everyone might get run over.
So while most Tory voters tend to back Leave still and oppose EUref2 and most Labour voters tend to back Remain and back EUref2 both parties voters are divided on whether they back the Deal or No Deal but because more Labour voters back the Deal than Tory voters back No Deal the Deal leads No Deal overall
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/
Whether they can revoke A50 in practice depends on the EU, but so does every alternative outcome, including "No Deal", which seems to include deals according to promoters that have spent at least 30 seconds actually considering the option.
Very courageous.
Not eating anything is better than eating raw chicken. Doesn't mean that we should never eat anything or that eating chicken is a bad idea. We just need to cook the chicken properly before we eat it, just as we need to deal with Brexit properly . . . first step would be putting a Brexit optimist who sees Britain's Brexit opportunities in charge.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/here-are-all-the-tory-mps-who-have-indicated-so-far-that
John Baron gets the lucky number 90.
100th Tory backbencher that declares himself against the deal gets a letter from the queen.
The transition seems to have been accepted by everyone. What's not accepted is the Irish Backstop that kicks in after the transition. If we're transitioning from the status quo to something acceptable that's fine, the issue is we're transitioning into something unacceptable - that is where people draw the line.
If it wasn't for the backstop I don't think there'd be any difficulty getting this deal through Parliament. Which is quite reasonable because the backstop should never have been agreed - afterall even our own Prime Minister said no Prime Minister could ever agree it before proceeding to agree to it, doesn't mean that Parliament shouldn't hold her at her words.
It's no wonder May is unable to convince a single person not on her payroll if that's the logic of her offer.
The fact that, in this case, the grievance is real and May really *did* betray them, will simply add to the deliciousness.
Revenge is a dish best served cold, and it's one of Arlene's favourite meals.
Much better politics to actually vote for and then reap the rewards.
I'm not dead set against remaining, but would like a well handled Brexit, but could do without.
We're not starving. We have options. Remaining would be a better option than May's deal but that says more about how bad May's deal is than how good remaining is.
But she wants to do her duty so goes for a 52:48 deal satisfying no-one.
I have no problems supporting Brits who need support, but if someone wants to come to this country they should support themselves. I don't expect to go to another nation, get a low paid job and live off the nation I'd have moved to.
You of all people, master spin merchant? Shameless doesn't begin to describe that lack of self awareness, it is laughable.
If i were to prepare a report for you it is not true to say that I did do so not even if it is so bad it must be rejected. If a deal is presented to the commons a deal was prepared and if the EU agree it was secured as viable by the other party.
You are pretending that not being able to commons approval is the same as the government basically doing nothing for two years and coming in with no deal for the commons to vote on.
This is not to say the government should not be criticised for only getting a crap deal. But your argument allows for no judging how crap they have been in terms of securing a bad deal or no deal.
You sound like a fool if you think that. I for one think if we're to condemn gov there is a difference between it failing to even negotiate at all and failing to do it well. How bad they have been needs assessing , not pretending things are either just good or bad with no strands of bad.
But then to someone who spins so much that is probably hard for you to grasp.
Where is the UK's N. Sea oil money? Er, don't ask, i.e. we spent it all.
I mean sure, May's deal is a bad deal, but that's by accident because May is useless. What we need is a deal that's bad *on purpose*
Will so many u turn quite so spectacularly on such an emotive issue? It's not plausible.
Tory backbenches opposed and happy to say so
Tory payroll vote refusing to support it publicly at all
People's Vote getting more and more cocky by the day
Brexit Buccaneers realizing no brexit is better than a bad deal.
The Cabinet brexiteers seem to have locked themselves into a panic room. Their silence is *deafening*.
Although the most incompetent constituency MP from that point of view was probably Austen Chamberlain.
1) He was killed by aliens
2) He was killed by Hitler
I'm informed, I've read plenty of news articles, comments from here and more about the deal. That ought to be sufficient to be informed enough to discuss it here.
However the statement I made wasn't even about the deal it was about why people are opposing it. You don't need to read the deal to make such a statement, you need to listen to the reasons people say they are opposing the deal. The backstop or other end-state issues are far more quoted as the reason why the deal is opposed than the transition.
Even if I were minded to, I'm not an international trade lawyer, I'm not even qualified to read the pre-amble.
You don't need to read something to know it's bad, BTW. I've not read Mein Kampf, L. Ron Hubbard or the UKIP manifesto but that doesn't mean I can't state with absolute certainty that they are BAD.
Aldous Huxley died second, I believe, a short while after C S Lewis (allowing for the time difference).
Apparently there was some sleazy drunken whoring politician who got shot as well, but that's obviously much less important.
Just saying.
Not that hard, really.
And it wasn't that hard to read either. Much less opaque than most of the stuff I read for my doctorate.