Rewatching The Darkest Hour tonight. Where is the Attlee of our days?
The stupid tube scene totally ruins it for me.
Tbh I found that a lot less annoying on the TV than I did in the cinema. It’s a superb film and an unbelievable performance.
But I couldn’t stop reflecting on the role that Attlee played and the absolutely unequivocal support of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. To see the curs running Labour today so uninterested in the National interest today is so sad.
It was Labour who got Churchill the top job. Tories neither liked nor trusted the serial turncoat and rebel who'd spent the past decade attacking the Conservative government, and not just over rearmament.
Churchill was of course a Liberal for much of his career and while a great war leader his electoral record as Tory leader in peacetime was not great, he lost 2 general elections in 1945 and 1950 to Attlee and beat Attlee once in 1951.
If May is Chamberlain then is Hammond Halifax and given Corbyn's commitment to accept the Brexit vote is he Attlee to Boris' Churchill?
In which case now May has her Munich Deal is this 1939 with Boris taking over next year as PM on a No Deal 'no surrender to Brussels' ticket?
Somehow I think all Brexit comparisons to the Second World War enormously trivialise the horror of that conflict.
I am not saying Brexit is leading to a Third World War but many Brexiteers clearly see Britain standing alone against the EU juggernaut
Rewatching The Darkest Hour tonight. Where is the Attlee of our days?
The stupid tube scene totally ruins it for me.
Tbh I found that a lot less annoying on the TV than I did in the cinema. It’s a superb film and an unbelievable performance.
But I couldn’t stop reflecting on the role that Attlee played and the absolutely unequivocal support of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. To see the curs running Labour today so uninterested in the National interest today is so sad.
Leavers don’t get to define the national interest. The EU is not Nazi Germany and leaving the EU does not have to be done on the terms of committed Leavers (indeed, they can’t agree among themselves). Labour owe the government nothing in relation to Brexit.
It's difficult to say Labour are acting in the national interest when they can't agree with each other and have made a point of not adopting any single position for the last two years. Corbyn even says he doesn't know how he would vote in a second referendum.
I am struck by your loyalty but if there's a decades-long divided party that has caused this mess it's the Tory party that comes to mind. Corbyn said he didn't know what the options would be in a second referendum. Who does? Have you got a source for which option Theresa May believes is better for the country - her "Deal" or Remain? And what if as seems likely her Deal bites the dust? Which option would she favour in a choice between No Deal and Remain?
Halifax and Chamberlain were both treated unfairly in the film. There was never a serious plot to oust Churchill in the way suggested - though Halifax did consider resignation. Chamberlain was never firmly in the Halifax camp in that he never went beyond sitting on the fence before joining Attlee & Greenwood by coming out in full support of Churchill.
On the subject of Chamberlain, Robert Harris's Munich is a great book, and whilst obviously a fictionalised account of Chamberlain's peace efforts it did lead me to consider that he was probably just trying to do the best for the country in very difficult circumstances ahaed of the way.
He has probably been portayed unfairly harshly by many accounts.
Much as May is now, Chamberlain like May had an almost impossible hand to play
Mays problems are self inflicted, Chamberlains were anything but.
Declaring 'peace in our time' shortly before Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland was clearly an error even if he needed time to rearm. May also had to deal with the fact the EU would not give any Deal without guarantees for avoiding a hard border in Northern Ireland
The irony is that if Theresa May had been prepared to debate Corbyn last year she could have won a healthy majority, she may not have panicked into agreeing the EU's scheduling on day one (neutering 'the fight of the summer') or panicked into agreeing the backstop. The whole negotiation may have turned out differently.
If only, if only...
If only Cameron hadn't called such a ridiculous referendum, eh?
It is an appalling deal. It merely buys time at the cost of a considerably weaker negotiating position for the U.K. But the EU has already said it will not renegotiate it. If this deal fails, then the options are still no-deal Brexit, or no Brexit. The Government has no mandate for either, and nor does either option command a majority in Parliament. All roads seem now to lead to either a General Election, or a second referendum.
The irony is that if Theresa May had been prepared to debate Corbyn last year she could have won a healthy majority, she may not have panicked into agreeing the EU's scheduling on day one (neutering 'the fight of the summer') or panicked into agreeing the backstop. The whole negotiation may have turned out differently.
If only, if only...
If only Cameron hadn't called such a ridiculous referendum, eh?
The referendum was inevitable. If only Brown had honoured the manifesto and called it over Lisbon instead of on our membership.
Halifax and Chamberlain were both treated unfairly in the film. There was never a serious plot to oust Churchill in the way suggested - though Halifax did consider resignation. Chamberlain was never firmly in the Halifax camp in that he never went beyond sitting on the fence before joining Attlee & Greenwood by coming out in full support of Churchill.
Halifax also was kept on by Churchill as Foreign Secretary, and later as ambassador to the USA until the end of the war.
Ambassador to the USA was not a compliment, it was a way of getting him out of the way (see also Edward 8th as Governor of the Bahamas). IIRC Churchill was sympathetic to Chamberlain as a person but not as a politician, and thought his appeasement policy was a mistake and negotiations with the Reich pointless.
What's the point of a debate between May and Corbyn outside of the Commons unless they are campaigning either in a GE or a referendum? This seems like a desperate Tory attempt to use one of their few strong cards. What are people supposed to do after they've heard the debate? Vote on Twitter? Call their MP? Corbyn should say he rejects the politics of showmanship and that he is only willing to debate her outside of the House if she shows the courage to call a GE (or referendum, if that suits better, but probably a GE given Labour's positioning). In short, let the voters decide. How will she respond - by calling him frit?
Meanwhile, MPs who say they back a referendum number roughly
59 SNP 44 Lab 12 LibDem 8 Con total 123.
Erm..... 59 SNP MPs? Is that counted via the Rees Mogg abacus method?
I cannot see the point myself, particularly as it would be most likely to be after the Parliamentary vote, but would watch with popcorn.
May is a poor performer in these situations, and knows it.
If she wanted to do it before the vote it would literally have to be in about a week's time, maybe two tops, unless May's secret plan is to put off the vote as long as possible (which is in my view the only way she will win it first time round).
I can't see what the point would be of doing it after the vote. Win the vote and it's irrelevant, lose the vote and she'll be in a much weaker position, the whole thing will be getting out of control by that point. Corbyn will be asking why she's debating with him when she can't even carry her own party, what's the DUP doing, is the Government paralysed on Brexit, does it even have a working majority, what's plan B/C/D/Z, when's the GE, do we need another referendum, yadda yadda yadda. She could only do that if she was absolutely clear what her next steps would be regardless of how the debate went, else she'll just flounder.
But if she's debating Brexit on live TV with Corbyn post-meaningful vote loss I guess things will be getting pretty desperate anyway...
All sounds like a bit of a non-starter and just some vague cheap attempt to get it out in the news that May knows her deal quite well (well thank god for that...).
Rewatching The Darkest Hour tonight. Where is the Attlee of our days?
The stupid tube scene totally ruins it for me.
Tbh I found that a lot less annoying on the TV than I did in the cinema. It’s a superb film and an unbelievable performance.
But I couldn’t stop reflecting on the role that Attlee played and the absolutely unequivocal support of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. To see the curs running Labour today so uninterested in the National interest today is so sad.
Leavers don’t get to define the national interest. The EU is not Nazi Germany and leaving the EU does not have to be done on the terms of committed Leavers (indeed, they can’t agree among themselves). Labour owe the government nothing in relation to Brexit.
It's difficult to say Labour are acting in the national interest when they can't agree with each other and have made a point of not adopting any single position for the last two years. Corbyn even says he doesn't know how he would vote in a second referendum.
I am struck by your loyalty but if there's a decades-long divided party that has caused this mess it's the Tory party that comes to mind. Corbyn said he didn't know what the options would be in a second referendum. Who does? Have you got a source for which option Theresa May believes is better for the country - her "Deal" or Remain? And what if as seems likely her Deal bites the dust? Which option would she favour in a choice between No Deal and Remain?
I don't think anyone thinks the Conservative Party, in aggregate, is acting in the national interest right now. They have no more picked a side than Labour.
Whatever TM thinks about Deal v Remain in a free vote (turning the clock back to 2016) m I am 100% convinced that when she says she thinks this Deal is what the country needs right now, that is what she thinks.
Edit: I voted Remain, like TM. If there were a leave v remain referendum, I don't know how I'd vote. I personally don't want the UK to leave, taken in isolation, but I am gravely worried about the country if there were an establishment stitch up. Perhaps there is a route to remaining without one, but not one I've seen yet.
Jeremy Corbyn would probably win the debate and lose the politics as he showed his hand. He is doing much better not disclosing his views on Brexit with any clarity. But declining would also be embarrassing.
The idea is unusually good politics from Theresa May. Presumably it is someone else’s.
He should say he'll be glad to debate her on the hustings in a General Election - name the day!
He could say that. However, I don’t think most people want an election in the winter. I think Jeremy’s double-digit IQ would be revealed in a 1-on-1 debate. I do hope May proposes it.
As has already been pointed out, most of us thought that Clegg would easily handle Farage.
He did, in terms of facts and arguments. What he wasn`t really prepared for was Farage`s lack of manners.
It's an interesting and perhaps understudied encounter. Clegg was originally thought by the commentariat to have won the encounter, but the below-the-line commentators were vehemently pro-Farage and it is this view that has come into favour.
We used to have public arguments and experts tell us who won, now we have arguments and a large screaming crowd on Twitter and below-the-line declare the winner by force of shouting.
If I ever go into politics (you have my full permission to shoot me if I do) i will go armed with many thousands (millions?) of virtual personas and bots - you can buy or manufacture them - and shout down all opposition and before people know what has happened I will have won
Wonder how many of those pro-Farage commentators were logging in from a Russian basement somewhere and were subsequently banned.
What's the point of a debate between May and Corbyn outside of the Commons unless they are campaigning either in a GE or a referendum? This seems like a desperate Tory attempt to use one of their few strong cards. What are people supposed to do after they've heard the debate? Vote on Twitter? Call their MP? Corbyn should say he rejects the politics of showmanship and that he is only willing to debate her outside of the House if she shows the courage to call a GE (or referendum, if that suits better, but probably a GE given Labour's positioning). In short, let the voters decide. How will she respond - by calling him frit?
Meanwhile, MPs who say they back a referendum number roughly
59 SNP 44 Lab 12 LibDem 8 Con total 123.
The only reason to have a leaders Brexit debate is if there is to be a #peoplesvote.
Maybe this suggestion is just a move in that direction. There is not time to have it before the Commons vote, and little point as you say. The only reason to have it is if May's Deal has flopped, and another referendum is needed.
Halifax and Chamberlain were both treated unfairly in the film. There was never a serious plot to oust Churchill in the way suggested - though Halifax did consider resignation. Chamberlain was never firmly in the Halifax camp in that he never went beyond sitting on the fence before joining Attlee & Greenwood by coming out in full support of Churchill.
On the subject of Chamberlain, Robert Harris's Munich is a great book, and whilst obviously a fictionalised account of Chamberlain's peace efforts it did lead me to consider that he was probably just trying to do the best for the country in very difficult circumstances ahaed of the way.
He has probably been portayed unfairly harshly by many accounts.
Much as May is now, Chamberlain like May had an almost impossible hand to play
Mays problems are self inflicted, Chamberlains were anything but.
Declaring 'peace in our time' shortly before Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland was clearly an error even if he needed time to rearm. May also had to deal with the fact the EU would not give any Deal without guarantees for avoiding a hard border in Northern Ireland
May declared that 'No deal is better than a bad deal' have you forgotten that?
It was on Sky cinema Malcolm. My son, who didn’t see it at the cinema, loved it. For me, for all of Churchill’s brilliant speeches the “baddie” Halifax gets the best line of the film. When asked what just happened he replies: “ we have mobilised the English language and sent it off to war”.
Rewatching The Darkest Hour tonight. Where is the Attlee of our days?
The stupid tube scene totally ruins it for me.
Tbh I found that a lot less annoying on the TV than I did in the cinema. It’s a superb film and an unbelievable performance.
But I couldn’t stop reflecting on the role that Attlee played and the absolutely unequivocal support of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. To see the curs running Labour today so uninterested in the National interest today is so sad.
It was Labour who got Churchill the top job. Tories neither liked nor trusted the serial turncoat and rebel who'd spent the past decade attacking the Conservative government, and not just over rearmament.
Indeed and kept him in it too. Their determination to fight and defeat Hitler was absolutely unqualified. When people argue who are greatest PMs were and mention Attlee I remember his war record and nod.
Rewatching The Darkest Hour tonight. Where is the Attlee of our days?
The stupid tube scene totally ruins it for me.
Tbh I found that a lot less annoying on the TV than I did in the cinema. It’s a superb film and an unbelievable performance.
But I couldn’t stop reflecting on the role that Attlee played and the absolutely unequivocal support of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. To see the curs running Labour today so uninterested in the National interest today is so sad.
It was Labour who got Churchill the top job. Tories neither liked nor trusted the serial turncoat and rebel who'd spent the past decade attacking the Conservative government, and not just over rearmament.
Halifax was also acceptable to Labour.
More that Chamberlain was unacceptable. Without knowing chapter and verse (which you may) I'd not want to speculate on Labour's attitude to Halifax who was always an unlikely choice because he was, of course, in the House of Lords. Since Halifax himself recognised this effectively ruled him out, how seriously did Labour consider it?
Quite a few Labour people were initially more favourably disposed towards Halifax than to Churchill. Many shared the distrust of the latter that was widespread on the Tory benches at the time.
You are right. I have just checked Nicholas Shakespeare's Six Minutes in May, which reports that Attlee and Dalton initially preferred Halifax over Churchill. One thing often forgotten is these were not the only names in the frame.
Rewatching The Darkest Hour tonight. Where is the Attlee of our days?
The stupid tube scene totally ruins it for me.
Tbh I found that a lot less annoying on the TV than I did in the cinema. It’s a superb film and an unbelievable performance.
But I couldn’t stop reflecting on the role that Attlee played and the absolutely unequivocal support of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. To see the curs running Labour today so uninterested in the National interest today is so sad.
It was Labour who got Churchill the top job. Tories neither liked nor trusted the serial turncoat and rebel who'd spent the past decade attacking the Conservative government, and not just over rearmament.
Churchill was of course a Liberal for much of his career and while a great war leader his electoral record as Tory leader in peacetime was not great, he lost 2 general elections in 1945 and 1950 to Attlee and beat Attlee once in 1951.
If May is Chamberlain then is Hammond Halifax and given Corbyn's commitment to accept the Brexit vote is he Attlee to Boris' Churchill?
In which case now May has her Munich Deal is this 1939 with Boris taking over next year as PM on a No Deal 'no surrender to Brussels' ticket?
Somehow I think all Brexit comparisons to the Second World War enormously trivialise the horror of that conflict.
I am not saying Brexit is leading to a Third World War but many Brexiteers clearly see Britain standing alone against the EU juggernaut...
...which makes negotiating a deal with it rather problematic...
Halifax and Chamberlain were both treated unfairly in the film. There was never a serious plot to oust Churchill in the way suggested - though Halifax did consider resignation. Chamberlain was never firmly in the Halifax camp in that he never went beyond sitting on the fence before joining Attlee & Greenwood by coming out in full support of Churchill.
On the subject of Chamberlain, Robert Harris's Munich is a great book, and whilst obviously a fictionalised account of Chamberlain's peace efforts it did lead me to consider that he was probably just trying to do the best for the country in very difficult circumstances ahaed of the way.
He has probably been portayed unfairly harshly by many accounts.
Much as May is now, Chamberlain like May had an almost impossible hand to play
Mays problems are self inflicted, Chamberlains were anything but.
Declaring 'peace in our time' shortly before Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland was clearly an error even if he needed time to rearm. May also had to deal with the fact the EU would not give any Deal without guarantees for avoiding a hard border in Northern Ireland
May declared that 'No deal is better than a bad deal' have you forgotten that?
May has declared a lot of things, including ruling out a general election before she called one
Jeremy Corbyn would probably win the debate and lose the politics as he showed his hand. He is doing much better not disclosing his views on Brexit with any clarity. But declining would also be embarrassing.
The idea is unusually good politics from Theresa May. Presumably it is someone else’s.
He should say he'll be glad to debate her on the hustings in a General Election - name the day!
He could say that. However, I don’t think most people want an election in the winter. I think Jeremy’s double-digit IQ would be revealed in a 1-on-1 debate. I do hope May proposes it.
As has already been pointed out, most of us thought that Clegg would easily handle Farage.
He did, in terms of facts and arguments. What he wasn`t really prepared for was Farage`s lack of manners.
It's an interesting and perhaps understudied encounter. Clegg was originally thought by the commentariat to have won the encounter, but the below-the-line commentators were vehemently pro-Farage and it is this view that has come into favour.
We used to have public arguments and experts tell us who won, now we have arguments and a large screaming crowd on Twitter and below-the-line declare the winner by force of shouting.
If I ever go into politics (you have my full permission to shoot me if I do) i will go armed with many thousands (millions?) of virtual personas and bots - you can buy or manufacture them - and shout down all opposition and before people know what has happened I will have won
Wonder how many of those pro-Farage commentators were logging in from a Russian basement somewhere and were subsequently banned.
You don't even have to do that. you can generate virtual automated personas with behavioral guidelines with no humans involved. It would be interesting to see how many you could generate: billions?.
I don't think we've really got to grips with this. We still think that, say, interference in the 2016 POTUS was the product of Russia (a state-level actor) and involved many millions of dollars. What happens if you can just download an app onto your laptop to generate entries, say, thousands of times a second? Has this already happened?
Rewatching The Darkest Hour tonight. Where is the Attlee of our days?
The stupid tube scene totally ruins it for me.
Tbh I found that a lot less annoying on the TV than I did in the cinema. It’s a superb film and an unbelievable performance.
But I couldn’t stop reflecting on the role that Attlee played and the absolutely unequivocal support of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. To see the curs running Labour today so uninterested in the National interest today is so sad.
It was Labour who got Churchill the top job. Tories neither liked nor trusted the serial turncoat and rebel who'd spent the past decade attacking the Conservative government, and not just over rearmament.
Churchill was of course a Liberal for much of his career and while a great war leader his electoral record as Tory leader in peacetime was not great, he lost 2 general elections in 1945 and 1950 to Attlee and beat Attlee once in 1951.
If May is Chamberlain then is Hammond Halifax and given Corbyn's commitment to accept the Brexit vote is he Attlee to Boris' Churchill?
In which case now May has her Munich Deal is this 1939 with Boris taking over next year as PM on a No Deal 'no surrender to Brussels' ticket?
Somehow I think all Brexit comparisons to the Second World War enormously trivialise the horror of that conflict.
I am not saying Brexit is leading to a Third World War but many Brexiteers clearly see Britain standing alone against the EU juggernaut...
...which makes negotiating a deal with it rather problematic...
It is an appalling deal. It merely buys time at the cost of a considerably weaker negotiating position for the U.K. But the EU has already said it will not renegotiate it. If this deal fails, then the options are still no-deal Brexit, or no Brexit. The Government has no mandate for either, and nor does either option command a majority in Parliament. All roads seem now to lead to either a General Election, or a second referendum.
The Government clearly does have a mandate for a No Deal Brexit. May was clear before the election that No Deal was better than a Bad Deal (her words not mine) and the original vote was just to leave - as Remainers love to keep reminding us - not what form leaving would take. The only thing she does not have a mandate for is Remaining.
Rewatching The Darkest Hour tonight. Where is the Attlee of our days?
The stupid tube scene totally ruins it for me.
Tbh I found that a lot less annoying on the TV than I did in the cinema. It’s a superb film and an unbelievable performance.
But I couldn’t stop reflecting on the role that Attlee played and the absolutely unequivocal support of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. To see the curs running Labour today so uninterested in the National interest today is so sad.
It was Labour who got Churchill the top job. Tories neither liked nor trusted the serial turncoat and rebel who'd spent the past decade attacking the Conservative government, and not just over rearmament.
Churchill was of course a Liberal for much of his career and while a great war leader his electoral record as Tory leader in peacetime was not great, he lost 2 general elections in 1945 and 1950 to Attlee and beat Attlee once in 1951.
If May is Chamberlain then is Hammond Halifax and given Corbyn's commitment to accept the Brexit vote is he Attlee to Boris' Churchill?
In which case now May has her Munich Deal is this 1939 with Boris taking over next year as PM on a No Deal 'no surrender to Brussels' ticket?
Somehow I think all Brexit comparisons to the Second World War enormously trivialise the horror of that conflict.
I am not saying Brexit is leading to a Third World War but many Brexiteers clearly see Britain standing alone against the EU juggernaut...
...which makes negotiating a deal with it rather problematic...
Hence most Leave voters now back No Deal
Which does have rather unfortunate side effects: cf @rcs1000 's video, which I'm sure he will supply us with a linky
Rewatching The Darkest Hour tonight. Where is the Attlee of our days?
The stupid tube scene totally ruins it for me.
Tbh I found that a lot less annoying on the TV than I did in the cinema. It’s a superb film and an unbelievable performance.
But I couldn’t stop reflecting on the role that Attlee played and the absolutely unequivocal support of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. To see the curs running Labour today so uninterested in the National interest today is so sad.
Leavers don’t get to define the national interest. The EU is not Nazi Germany and leaving the EU does not have to be done on the terms of committed Leavers (indeed, they can’t agree among themselves). Labour owe the government nothing in relation to Brexit.
Of course they owe the government nothing. But they owe the country their best judgment of what is in the national interest.
May's responses on the WA have been technically accurate, which is much better than her opponents (on both sides of the house). Sure, her political nous sometimes leaves something to be desired, but still - she should go for it.
The agreement is ingenious in the sense that she can claim with technical accuracy that we will end free movement, even if free movement never actually ends. The EU have been clear that the four freedoms are still indivisible when it comes to the future relationship.
Which is why we will have a Canada style deal
There's no time to implement a Canada style deal before the transition runs out. It points to a Norway style deal with some clever obfuscation of what it really means.
The Deal does end free movement for GB after the transition period, the Customs Union does not require free movement and the backstop will see GB stay in the Customs Union not the single market, though some elements of the single market will apply to NI
Staying in the (or rather 'a') customs union but not the single market is a genuinely dumb idea. It puts us in the same boat as Turkey which is pretty disastrous for trade.
It is pretty much the basis of the Deal and getting trade deals dictated to us from China and the USA is not what most Leave voters were voting for
You do understand that if the Customs arrangements are on the same basis as Turkey's - 'a' customs union rather than 'the' Customs Union it will allow any country with an FTA with the EU to sell into the UK tariff free without us having reciprocal rights? Basically every one of the EU free trade deals will be a one way street in favour of the third countries.
Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
Both @RochdalePioneers and I have floated that. It would be in keeping with her character, to see her duty as having come to an end then.
Accepting a career ending in abject failure is hard for all politicians. Whilst there’s hope they stay on. This one has an element of danger about it, that coupled with Mays tunnel vision suggests her resignation is not odds on
Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.
Rewatching The Darkest Hour tonight. Where is the Attlee of our days?
The stupid tube scene totally ruins it for me.
Tbh I found that a lot less annoying on the TV than I did in the cinema. It’s a superb film and an unbelievable performance.
But I couldn’t stop reflecting on the role that Attlee played and the absolutely unequivocal support of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. To see the curs running Labour today so uninterested in the National interest today is so sad.
Shame then that Churchill called Atlee "A modest man with much to be modest about "
And a sheep in sheep’s clothing, quoted in the film. Didn’t stop him doing his duty though. Or the British people voting for him in 1945.
Rewatching The Darkest Hour tonight. Where is the Attlee of our days?
The stupid tube scene totally ruins it for me.
Tbh I found that a lot less annoying on the TV than I did in the cinema. It’s a superb film and an unbelievable performance.
But I couldn’t stop reflecting on the role that Attlee played and the absolutely unequivocal support of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. To see the curs running Labour today so uninterested in the National interest today is so sad.
Leavers don’t get to define the national interest. The EU is not Nazi Germany and leaving the EU does not have to be done on the terms of committed Leavers (indeed, they can’t agree among themselves). Labour owe the government nothing in relation to Brexit.
Of course they owe the government nothing. But they owe the country their best judgment of what is in the national interest.
They clearly believe that a change of government and A50 extension so that the Deal can be renegotiated by Starmer is in the national interest.
Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
I suppose it's possible but she's been so stubborn up until now I'd be amazed.
I think in her head she's decided she can truthfully say she won't offer a second referendum, right up until the point she loses a meaningful vote - so I'd bet she would be more likely to try that route and cling on a bit longer. Especially if it involves trying to get the public to back her deal and seeing that through, rather than just resigning on the principle that she can't go any further.
Assuming she loses the vote as seems likely, the future paths depends essentially on how much she loses it by.
Lose it narrowly and she'll try another vote in the HOC on some imagined "tweaks" to the deal and/or some individual bribery, lose it by 40-50 it'll probably end up being her proposing another referendum in some form, lose it by 80+ and things will probably end up being no longer in her control any more anyway. That's my guess anyway.
Halifax and Chamberlain were both treated unfairly in the film. There was never a serious plot to oust Churchill in the way suggested - though Halifax did consider resignation. Chamberlain was never firmly in the Halifax camp in that he never went beyond sitting on the fence before joining Attlee & Greenwood by coming out in full support of Churchill.
On the subject of Chamberlain, Robert Harris's Munich is a great book, and whilst obviously a fictionalised account of Chamberlain's peace efforts it did lead me to consider that he was probably just trying to do the best for the country in very difficult circumstances ahaed of the way.
He has probably been portayed unfairly harshly by many accounts.
Much as May is now, Chamberlain like May had an almost impossible hand to play
Mays problems are self inflicted, Chamberlains were anything but.
Declaring 'peace in our time' shortly before Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland was clearly an error even if he needed time to rearm. May also had to deal with the fact the EU would not give any Deal without guarantees for avoiding a hard border in Northern Ireland
May declared that 'No deal is better than a bad deal' have you forgotten that?
May has declared a lot of things, including ruling out a general election before she called one
Rewatching The Darkest Hour tonight. Where is the Attlee of our days?
The stupid tube scene totally ruins it for me.
Tbh I found that a lot less annoying on the TV than I did in the cinema. It’s a superb film and an unbelievable performance.
But I couldn’t stop reflecting on the role that Attlee played and the absolutely unequivocal support of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. To see the curs running Labour today so uninterested in the National interest today is so sad.
Leavers don’t get to define the national interest. The EU is not Nazi Germany and leaving the EU does not have to be done on the terms of committed Leavers (indeed, they can’t agree among themselves). Labour owe the government nothing in relation to Brexit.
Of course they owe the government nothing. But they owe the country their best judgment of what is in the national interest.
Be honest. Their "best judgment of what is in the national interest" is not something you'd want to trust your life to...
Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
Both @RochdalePioneers and I have floated that. It would be in keeping with her character, to see her duty as having come to an end then.
Accepting a career ending in abject failure is hard for all politicians. Whilst there’s hope they stay on. This one has an element of danger about it, that coupled with Mays tunnel vision suggests her resignation is not odds on
Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.
She should have done that months ago. But its what needs to be done.
Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.
She should have done that months ago. But its what needs to be done.
In that scenario she might have a chance of bringing the opposing factions within her party together, and also the DUP of course.
Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.
She should have done that months ago. But its what needs to be done.
If she does resign in the next month of so, what do you see happeneng next? Genuine question.
May should just cut straight to the people’s vote, blame the ERG/Labour, say Parliament broken and get on with it. Three options deal, no deal, no Brexit, av ranked vote. Stop fucking about.
May's responses on the WA have been technically accurate, which is much better than her opponents (on both sides of the house). Sure, her political nous sometimes leaves something to be desired, but still - she should go for it.
The agreement is ingenious in the sense that she can claim with technical accuracy that we will end free movement, even if free movement never actually ends. The EU have been clear that the four freedoms are still indivisible when it comes to the future relationship.
Which is why we will have a Canada style deal
There's no time to implement a Canada style deal before the transition runs out. It points to a Norway style deal with some clever obfuscation of what it really means.
The Deal does end free movement for GB after the transition period, the Customs Union does not require free movement and the backstop will see GB stay in the Customs Union not the single market, though some elements of the single market will apply to NI
Staying in the (or rather 'a') customs union but not the single market is a genuinely dumb idea. It puts us in the same boat as Turkey which is pretty disastrous for trade.
It is pretty much the basis of the Deal and getting trade deals dictated to us from China and the USA is not what most Leave voters were voting for
You do understand that if the Customs arrangements are on the same basis as Turkey's - 'a' customs union rather than 'the' Customs Union it will allow any country with an FTA with the EU to sell into the UK tariff free without us having reciprocal rights? Basically every one of the EU free trade deals will be a one way street in favour of the third countries.
As far as I can read it we stay in the Customs Union we are already in, not 'a' Customs Union, until the Irish border situation is resolved but GB leaves the EU and Single Market
Rewatching The Darkest Hour tonight. Where is the Attlee of our days?
The stupid tube scene totally ruins it for me.
Tbh I found that a lot less annoying on the TV than I did in the cinema. It’s a superb film and an unbelievable performance.
But I couldn’t stop reflecting on the role that Attlee played and the absolutely unequivocal support of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. To see the curs running Labour today so uninterested in the National interest today is so sad.
Leavers don’t get to define the national interest. The EU is not Nazi Germany and leaving the EU does not have to be done on the terms of committed Leavers (indeed, they can’t agree among themselves). Labour owe the government nothing in relation to Brexit.
Of course they owe the government nothing. But they owe the country their best judgment of what is in the national interest.
Yes, absolutely. If any of them actually believe that this deal is the best that can be managed in the public interest they should back it. I have no doubt most of them believing voting it down is in the public interest, and even if that is incorrect if it is their genuine believe that is ok, the same for Tory rebels. But any of them, from any side, who are allowing something other than the national interest to be the priority? It's pathetic.
May's responses on the WA have been technically accurate, which is much better than her opponents (on both sides of the house). Sure, her political nous sometimes leaves something to be desired, but still - she should go for it.
The agreement is ingenious in the sense that she can claim with technical accuracy that we will end free movement, even if free movement never actually ends. The EU have been clear that the four freedoms are still indivisible when it comes to the future relationship.
Which is why we will have a Canada style deal
There's no time to implement a Canada style deal before the transition runs out. It points to a Norway style deal with some clever obfuscation of what it really means.
If you think it outlines a Norway deal then you either haven't read it or you haven't understood it.
Rewatching The Darkest Hour tonight. Where is the Attlee of our days?
The stupid tube scene totally ruins it for me.
Tbh I found that a lot less annoying on the TV than I did in the cinema. It’s a superb film and an unbelievable performance.
But I couldn’t stop reflecting on the role that Attlee played and the absolutely unequivocal support of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. To see the curs running Labour today so uninterested in the National interest today is so sad.
Leavers don’t get to define the national interest. The EU is not Nazi Germany and leaving the EU does not have to be done on the terms of committed Leavers (indeed, they can’t agree among themselves). Labour owe the government nothing in relation to Brexit.
Of course they owe the government nothing. But they owe the country their best judgment of what is in the national interest.
Be honest. Their "best judgment of what is in the national interest" is not something you'd want to trust your life to...
Certainly not Corbyn who is not much short of a traitor in my eyes but there are many on the Labour benches who are very different.
May should just to the people’s vote, blame the ERG/Labour, say Parliament broken and get on with it. Three options deal, no deal, no Brexit, av ranked vote. Stop fucking about.
Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.
This is what Peter Foster in the Telegraph has written tonight. May tells them no chance deal goes through with the backstop in it.
Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.
She should have done that months ago. But its what needs to be done.
If she does resign in the next month of so, what do you see happeneng next? Genuine question.
I think her successor will go to Europe and say that he wants a deal but simply can't get the backstop through Parliament. Strip out the backstop and we have a deal. I think Europe will ultimately agree to that, with probably some face-saving alternative put in its place but nothing like the current backstop.
May's responses on the WA have been technically accurate, which is much better than her opponents (on both sides of the house). Sure, her political nous sometimes leaves something to be desired, but still - she should go for it.
The agreement is ingenious in the sense that she can claim with technical accuracy that we will end free movement, even if free movement never actually ends. The EU have been clear that the four freedoms are still indivisible when it comes to the future relationship.
Which is why we will have a Canada style deal
There's no time to implement a Canada style deal before the transition runs out. It points to a Norway style deal with some clever obfuscation of what it really means.
If you think it outlines a Norway deal then you either haven't read it or you haven't understood it.
I think you're seeing what you want to. It's a political Rorschach test.
So just catching up. The WA and political declaration are going to be signed off by the EU leaders tomorrow, is that right?
Then begins what currently seems a doomed battle to persuade the HoC to vote it through. Any idea when the HoC vote is likely to take place?
Yesterday william was suggesting it would be around Dec 10th or so. 2 more weeks of futile effort and an inevitable defeat, before they can at least attempt to do some other things.
Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.
She should have done that months ago. But its what needs to be done.
If she does resign in the next month of so, what do you see happeneng next? Genuine question.
I think her successor will go to Europe and say that he wants a deal but simply can't get the backstop through Parliament. Strip out the backstop and we have a deal. I think Europe will ultimately agree to that, with probably some face-saving alternative put in its place but nothing like the current backstop.
Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.
She should have done that months ago. But its what needs to be done.
If she does resign in the next month of so, what do you see happeneng next? Genuine question.
I think her successor will go to Europe and say that he wants a deal but simply can't get the backstop through Parliament. Strip out the backstop and we have a deal. I think Europe will ultimately agree to that, with probably some face-saving alternative put in its place but nothing like the current backstop.
The EU has made absolutely unequivocally clear it will not agree any deal without a backstop for Northern Ireland. End of story
Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.
She should have done that months ago. But its what needs to be done.
If she does resign in the next month of so, what do you see happeneng next? Genuine question.
I think her successor will go to Europe and say that he wants a deal but simply can't get the backstop through Parliament. Strip out the backstop and we have a deal. I think Europe will ultimately agree to that, with probably some face-saving alternative put in its place but nothing like the current backstop.
For over a year the Tories have been trying to claim that, yet the EU is stronger than ever on the subject.
It is not the EU that will collapse over No Deal, it is the Tory government and possibly the UK.
Rewatching The Darkest Hour tonight. Where is the Attlee of our days?
The stupid tube scene totally ruins it for me.
Tbh I found that a lot less annoying on the TV than I did in the cinema. It’s a superb film and an unbelievable performance.
But I couldn’t stop reflecting on the role that Attlee played and the absolutely unequivocal support of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. To see the curs running Labour today so uninterested in the National interest today is so sad.
Leavers don’t get to define the national interest. The EU is not Nazi Germany and leaving the EU does not have to be done on the terms of committed Leavers (indeed, they can’t agree among themselves). Labour owe the government nothing in relation to Brexit.
Of course they owe the government nothing. But they owe the country their best judgment of what is in the national interest.
Be honest. Their "best judgment of what is in the national interest" is not something you'd want to trust your life to...
Certainly not Corbyn who is not much short of a traitor in my eyes but there are many on the Labour benches who are very different.
I'm sure they are different but they each hold the opinion that a Labour government is best for the country and if achieving that requires the British people to go thru hardship and pain then they do not have a problem with that.
Rewatching The Darkest Hour tonight. Where is the Attlee of our days?
The stupid tube scene totally ruins it for me.
Tbh I found that a lot less annoying on the TV than I did in the cinema. It’s a superb film and an unbelievable performance.
But I couldn’t stop reflecting on the role that Attlee played and the absolutely unequivocal support of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. To see the curs running Labour today so uninterested in the National interest today is so sad.
Leavers don’t get to define the national interest. The EU is not Nazi Germany and leaving the EU does not have to be done on the terms of committed Leavers (indeed, they can’t agree among themselves). Labour owe the government nothing in relation to Brexit.
Of course they owe the government nothing. But they owe the country their best judgment of what is in the national interest.
They clearly believe that a change of government and A50 extension so that the Deal can be renegotiated by Starmer is in the national interest.
I am OK with that.
Except that is not an option according to the EU. There are 3 options: no deal, May’s deal and Remain. I think Starmer wants 3 , whatever the cost.
May's responses on the WA have been technically accurate, which is much better than her opponents (on both sides of the house). Sure, her political nous sometimes leaves something to be desired, but still - she should go for it.
The agreement is ingenious in the sense that she can claim with technical accuracy that we will end free movement, even if free movement never actually ends. The EU have been clear that the four freedoms are still indivisible when it comes to the future relationship.
Which is why we will have a Canada style deal
There's no time to implement a Canada style deal before the transition runs out. It points to a Norway style deal with some clever obfuscation of what it really means.
The Deal does end free movement for GB after the transition period, the Customs Union does not require free movement and the backstop will see GB stay in the Customs Union not the single market, though some elements of the single market will apply to NI
Staying in the (or rather 'a') customs union but not the single market is a genuinely dumb idea. It puts us in the same boat as Turkey which is pretty disastrous for trade.
It is pretty much the basis of the Deal and getting trade deals dictated to us from China and the USA is not what most Leave voters were voting for
You do understand that if the Customs arrangements are on the same basis as Turkey's - 'a' customs union rather than 'the' Customs Union it will allow any country with an FTA with the EU to sell into the UK tariff free without us having reciprocal rights? Basically every one of the EU free trade deals will be a one way street in favour of the third countries.
As far as I can read it we stay in the Customs Union we are already in, not 'a' Customs Union, until the Irish border situation is resolved but GB leaves the EU and Single Market
I agree it appears to read that way. My hesitation is that it is very clear under the original Treaty of Rome and the 1992 Maastricht Treaty establishing the EU that membership of the Customs Union is only open to members of the EU. This treaty does not appear to amend that so it is unclear what sort of Customs Union we are establishing. Is the effect the same as an EU member or Turkey?
Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.
This is what Peter Foster in the Telegraph has written tonight. May tells them no chance deal goes through with the backstop in it.
May's responses on the WA have been technically accurate, which is much better than her opponents (on both sides of the house). Sure, her political nous sometimes leaves something to be desired, but still - she should go for it.
The agreement is ingenious in the sense that she can claim with technical accuracy that we will end free movement, even if free movement never actually ends. The EU have been clear that the four freedoms are still indivisible when it comes to the future relationship.
Which is why we will have a Canada style deal
There's no time to implement a Canada style deal before the transition runs out. It points to a Norway style deal with some clever obfuscation of what it really means.
If you think it outlines a Norway deal then you either haven't read it or you haven't understood it.
I think you're seeing what you want to. It's a political Rorschach test.
No, I've read it. For example, it's explicit in ending free movement, recognising the UK will have regulatory autonomy in services and digital, doesn't mention allude to single market membership or payments for it, and is clear in both sides looking to find a technological solution to future border and customs control. That's very different to Norway.
There's a delicious irony in your first sentence, which won't be lost on posters on here.
Whereas, dicking around waiting for Labour to try deliver a doomed "better deal" - built on the bones of a million dead unicorns - is what exactly, Keir?
Rewatching The Darkest Hour tonight. Where is the Attlee of our days?
The stupid tube scene totally ruins it for me.
Tbh I found that a lot less annoying on the TV than I did in the cinema. It’s a superb film and an unbelievable performance.
But I couldn’t stop reflecting on the role that Attlee played and the absolutely unequivocal support of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. To see the curs running Labour today so uninterested in the National interest today is so sad.
Leavers don’t get to define the national interest. The EU is not Nazi Germany and leaving the EU does not have to be done on the terms of committed Leavers (indeed, they can’t agree among themselves). Labour owe the government nothing in relation to Brexit.
Of course they owe the government nothing. But they owe the country their best judgment of what is in the national interest.
They clearly believe that a change of government and A50 extension so that the Deal can be renegotiated by Starmer is in the national interest.
I am OK with that.
Except that is not an option according to the EU. There are 3 options: no deal, May’s deal and Remain. I think Starmer wants 3 , whatever the cost.
I hope Foxy is correct they think their position of renegotiate is the best one, even though they are frankly acting no different to the original leave campaign in promising it will be easy just because, but I worry many of them are in the third option you list, in that they don't think that is true but are risking everything for Remain. Their insistence there is no no deal risk is simply incorrect, even though most of us hope and expect it can indeed be avoided it is still a risk and, again, it is acting like that leave campaign to insist it is no issue.
They will have to hope the EU really are not being honest about other deals being possible. And hope that the EU will be much more accommodating. While Labour can be more flexible than the Tory rebels (who literally want something to benefit the UK more with nothing else given to the EU in exchange) that is not easy.
Starmer has marshaled them well though. And given it has no chance of passing as is if there are even 6 Labour MPs who vote for it, even if more do think it reasonable, I will be stunned. DavidHerdson picked up on the 2017 result not going as well for the Tories as expected, and I think he is right about the government losing by well over a hundred.
May's responses on the WA have been technically accurate, which is much better than her opponents (on both sides of the house). Sure, her political nous sometimes leaves something to be desired, but still - she should go for it.
The agreement is ingenious in the sense that she can claim with technical accuracy that we will end free movement, even if free movement never actually ends. The EU have been clear that the four freedoms are still indivisible when it comes to the future relationship.
Which is why we will have a Canada style deal
With an Irish backstop border in the Irish Sea...
Charles means for the FP, so the risk is not a border in the Irish sea but on the island itself.
There is still hope that, in a few years, a technological solution is vailable. I know Charles thinks so.
The way through the impasse is to write into the WA an obligation for the EU and UK to make a join application to the WTO for a ruling that they can treat the Irish border differently to other borders because of the legacy issues
Normally a way through is supposed to at least pay lip service to the other side's concerns.
A WTO ruling would permit a soft border in Ireland.
Or do you mean the EU isn’t actually worried about the GFA?
Rewatching The Darkest Hour tonight. Where is the Attlee of our days?
The stupid tube scene totally ruins it for me.
Tbh I found that a lot less annoying on the TV than I did in the cinema. It’s a superb film and an unbelievable performance.
But I couldn’t stop reflecting on the role that Attlee played and the absolutely unequivocal support of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. To see the curs running Labour today so uninterested in the National interest today is so sad.
Leavers don’t get to define the national interest. The EU is not Nazi Germany and leaving the EU does not have to be done on the terms of committed Leavers (indeed, they can’t agree among themselves). Labour owe the government nothing in relation to Brexit.
Of course they owe the government nothing. But they owe the country their best judgment of what is in the national interest.
They clearly believe that a change of government and A50 extension so that the Deal can be renegotiated by Starmer is in the national interest.
I am OK with that.
Except that is not an option according to the EU. There are 3 options: no deal, May’s deal and Remain. I think Starmer wants 3 , whatever the cost.
Yes, after a token negotiating attempt Starmer would say that too, and put it to a #Peoplesvote.
May's responses on the WA have been technically accurate, which is much better than her opponents (on both sides of the house). Sure, her political nous sometimes leaves something to be desired, but still - she should go for it.
The agreement is ingenious in the sense that she can claim with technical accuracy that we will end free movement, even if free movement never actually ends. The EU have been clear that the four freedoms are still indivisible when it comes to the future relationship.
Which is why we will have a Canada style deal
There's no time to implement a Canada style deal before the transition runs out. It points to a Norway style deal with some clever obfuscation of what it really means.
The Deal does end free movement for GB after the transition period, the Customs Union does not require free movement and the backstop will see GB stay in the Customs Union not the single market, though some elements of the single market will apply to NI
Staying in the (or rather 'a') customs union but not the single market is a genuinely dumb idea. It puts us in the same boat as Turkey which is pretty disastrous for trade.
It is pretty much the basis of the Deal and getting trade deals dictated to us from China and the USA is not what most Leave voters were voting for
You do understand that if the Customs arrangements are on the same basis as Turkey's - 'a' customs union rather than 'the' Customs Union it will allow any country with an FTA with the EU to sell into the UK tariff free without us having reciprocal rights? Basically every one of the EU free trade deals will be a one way street in favour of the third countries.
As far as I can read it we stay in the Customs Union we are already in, not 'a' Customs Union, until the Irish border situation is resolved but GB leaves the EU and Single Market
I agree it appears to read that way. My hesitation is that it is very clear under the original Treaty of Rome and the 1992 Maastricht Treaty establishing the EU that membership of the Customs Union is only open to members of the EU. This treaty does not appear to amend that so it is unclear what sort of Customs Union we are establishing. Is the effect the same as an EU member or Turkey?
That I believe is the 'big concession' Barnier said he was giving the UK on Customs Union membership
Rewatching The Darkest Hour tonight. Where is the Attlee of our days?
The stupid tube scene totally ruins it for me.
Tbh I found that a lot less annoying on the TV than I did in the cinema. It’s a superb film and an unbelievable performance.
But I couldn’t stop reflecting on the role that Attlee played and the absolutely unequivocal support of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. To see the curs running Labour today so uninterested in the National interest today is so sad.
Shame then that Churchill called Atlee "A modest man with much to be modest about "
And a sheep in sheep’s clothing, quoted in the film. Didn’t stop him doing his duty though. Or the British people voting for him in 1945.
Churchill always got the rhetoric bang on, though, didn't he?
He was, of his time, the Matt of the written word.
May's responses on the WA have been technically accurate, which is much better than her opponents (on both sides of the house). Sure, her political nous sometimes leaves something to be desired, but still - she should go for it.
The agreement is ingenious in the sense that she can claim with technical accuracy that we will end free movement, even if free movement never actually ends. The EU have been clear that the four freedoms are still indivisible when it comes to the future relationship.
Which is why we will have a Canada style deal
There's no time to implement a Canada style deal before the transition runs out. It points to a Norway style deal with some clever obfuscation of what it really means.
If you think it outlines a Norway deal then you either haven't read it or you haven't understood it.
I think you're seeing what you want to. It's a political Rorschach test.
No, I've read it. For example, it's explicit in ending free movement, recognising the UK will have regulatory autonomy in services and digital, doesn't mention allude to single market membership or payments for it, and is clear in both sides looking to find a technological solution to future border and customs control. That's very different to Norway.
There's a delicious irony in your first sentence, which won't be lost on posters on here.
Yes, the UK gains the ability to agree autonomously to full alignment in services and digital, and to implement a mobility framework autonomously that replicates free movement.
Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.
This is what Peter Foster in the Telegraph has written tonight. May tells them no chance deal goes through with the backstop in it.
May should just cut straight to the people’s vote, blame the ERG/Labour, say Parliament broken and get on with it. Three options deal, no deal, no Brexit, av ranked vote. Stop fucking about.
I did wonder about whether May could bypass Parliament and arrange a referendum via orders-in-council or the Civil Contingencies Act, but I think it's doubtful. Any solution has to go thru Parliament and since Parliament is chock ful of shits she can't. So we are fucked...
Whereas, dicking around waiting for Labour to try deliver a doomed "better deal" - built on the bones of a million dead unicorns - is what exactly, Keir?
Doesn't Keir Starmer have some interesting decisions behind him when he was head of the CPS>?
May's responses on the WA have been technically accurate, which is much better than her opponents (on both sides of the house). Sure, her political nous sometimes leaves something to be desired, but still - she should go for it.
The .
Which is why we will have a Canada style deal
There's no time to implement a Canada style deal before the transition runs out. It points to a Norway style deal with some clever obfuscation of what it really means.
The Deal
Staying in the (or rather 'a') customs union but not the single market is a genuinely dumb idea. It puts us in the same boat as Turkey which is pretty disastrous for trade.
It is pretty much the basis of the Deal and getting trade deals dictated to us from China and the USA is not what most Leave voters were voting for
You do understand that if the Customs arrangements are on the same basis as Turkey's - 'a' customs union rather than 'the' Customs Union it will allow any country with an FTA with the EU to sell into the UK tariff free without us having reciprocal rights? Basically every one of the EU free trade deals will be a one way street in favour of the third countries.
As far as I can read it we stay in the Customs Union we are already in, not 'a' Customs Union, until the Irish border situation is resolved but GB leaves the EU and Single Market
I agree it appears to read that way. My hesitation is that it is very clear under the original Treaty of Rome and the 1992 Maastricht Treaty establishing the EU that membership of the Customs Union is only open to members of the EU. This treaty does not appear to amend that so it is unclear what sort of Customs Union we are establishing. Is the effect the same as an EU member or Turkey?
That I believe is the 'big concession' Barnier said he was giving the UK on Customs Union membership
I'm relaxed about it as the backstop is in neither side's interests, there's a good faith clause in the Withdrawal Agreement to supersede it as soon as possible with independent arbitration, and technological solutions are explicitly referenced in the political declaration.
I honestly don't know what the ERG are making such a fuss over.
It is an appalling deal. It merely buys time at the cost of a considerably weaker negotiating position for the U.K. But the EU has already said it will not renegotiate it. If this deal fails, then the options are still no-deal Brexit, or no Brexit. The Government has no mandate for either, and nor does either option command a majority in Parliament. All roads seem now to lead to either a General Election, or a second referendum.
The Government clearly does have a mandate for a No Deal Brexit. May was clear before the election that No Deal was better than a Bad Deal (her words not mine) and the original vote was just to leave - as Remainers love to keep reminding us - not what form leaving would take. The only thing she does not have a mandate for is Remaining.
The government has a mandate for a No Deal Brexit. It has a mandate for whatever Brexit it chooses to deliver. But it doesn't mean No Deal Brexit will be acceptable. In fact the chaos and damage of a No Deal Brexit is almost certainly unacceptable to all but a minority of Leave diehards. Remember Brexit was carried on a tiny margin on the promise that there would be no cost. No Deal is very unlikely to be a tenable line for more than a couple of weeks.
Since the referendum I have been trying to work out whether the British will accept vassalage as the only realistic Brexit outcome. In particular would leavers accept abdicating significant decision-making to a foreign body when the justification for Brexit is that it gives us back our control? It appears not. Which means we are now out of road. Something has to give.
Rewatching The Darkest Hour tonight. Where is the Attlee of our days?
The stupid tube scene totally ruins it for me.
Tbh I found that a lot less annoying on the TV than I did in the cinema. It’s a superb film and an unbelievable performance.
But I couldn’t stop reflecting on the role that Attlee played and the absolutely unequivocal support of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. To see the curs running Labour today so uninterested in the National interest today is so sad.
Leavers don’t get to define the national interest. The EU is not Nazi Germany and leaving the EU does not have to be done on the terms of committed Leavers (indeed, they can’t agree among themselves). Labour owe the government nothing in relation to Brexit.
Of course they owe the government nothing. But they owe the country their best judgment of what is in the national interest.
They clearly believe that a change of government and A50 extension so that the Deal can be renegotiated by Starmer is in the national interest.
I am OK with that.
Except that is not an option according to the EU. There are 3 options: no deal, May’s deal and Remain. I think Starmer wants 3 , whatever the cost.
I hope Foxy is correct they think their position of renegotiate is the best one, even though they are frankly acting no different to the original leave campaign in promising it will be easy just because, but I worry many of them are in the third option you list, in that they don't think that is true but are risking everything for Remain. Their insistence there is no no deal risk is simply incorrect, even though most of us hope and expect it can indeed be avoided it is still a risk and, again, it is acting like that leave campaign to insist it is no issue.
The latest Survation poll gives Labour 285 seats to the Tories 288.
It would be a delicious irony if Corbyn forces a VONC which succeeds thanks to the DUP and ends up PM after that result following a general election, behind the Tories but in power having to navigate Brexit himself and holding together the SNP who want permanent single market membership, his own commitment to permanent customs union only and Labour Leavers who want out of both and Labour Remainers who want EUref2.
Even if May loses power I expect she would enjoy a rather large dose of schadenfreude at that!
Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.
She should have done that months ago. But its what needs to be done.
If she does resign in the next month of so, what do you see happeneng next? Genuine question.
I think her successor will go to Europe and say that he wants a deal but simply can't get the backstop through Parliament. Strip out the backstop and we have a deal. I think Europe will ultimately agree to that, with probably some face-saving alternative put in its place but nothing like the current backstop.
Which of course is exactly what May should be saying, not her successor.
As I said this morning, go to Brussels, score through the Backstop clause, sign it with that excluded, come home. Problem belong Brussels.....
May should just cut straight to the people’s vote, blame the ERG/Labour, say Parliament broken and get on with it. Three options deal, no deal, no Brexit, av ranked vote. Stop fucking about.
I did wonder about whether May could bypass Parliament and arrange a referendum via orders-in-council or the Civil Contingencies Act, but I think it's doubtful. Any solution has to go thru Parliament and since Parliament is chock ful of shits she can't. So we are fucked...
She is more likely to get a referendum through parliament than her deal.
Comments
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c7/DownInTheTubestationFront.jpg
If only Cameron hadn't called such a ridiculous referendum, eh?
It is an appalling deal. It merely buys time at the cost of a considerably weaker negotiating position for the U.K. But the EU has already said it will not renegotiate it. If this deal fails, then the options are still no-deal Brexit, or no Brexit. The Government has no mandate for either, and nor does either option command a majority in Parliament. All roads seem now to lead to either a General Election, or a second referendum.
35 last time I looked.
I can't see what the point would be of doing it after the vote. Win the vote and it's irrelevant, lose the vote and she'll be in a much weaker position, the whole thing will be getting out of control by that point. Corbyn will be asking why she's debating with him when she can't even carry her own party, what's the DUP doing, is the Government paralysed on Brexit, does it even have a working majority, what's plan B/C/D/Z, when's the GE, do we need another referendum, yadda yadda yadda. She could only do that if she was absolutely clear what her next steps would be regardless of how the debate went, else she'll just flounder.
But if she's debating Brexit on live TV with Corbyn post-meaningful vote loss I guess things will be getting pretty desperate anyway...
All sounds like a bit of a non-starter and just some vague cheap attempt to get it out in the news that May knows her deal quite well (well thank god for that...).
Whatever TM thinks about Deal v Remain in a free vote (turning the clock back to 2016) m I am 100% convinced that when she says she thinks this Deal is what the country needs right now, that is what she thinks.
Edit: I voted Remain, like TM. If there were a leave v remain referendum, I don't know how I'd vote. I personally don't want the UK to leave, taken in isolation, but I am gravely worried about the country if there were an establishment stitch up. Perhaps there is a route to remaining without one, but not one I've seen yet.
Then begins what currently seems a doomed battle to persuade the HoC to vote it through. Any idea when the HoC vote is likely to take place?
Maybe this suggestion is just a move in that direction. There is not time to have it before the Commons vote, and little point as you say. The only reason to have it is if May's Deal has flopped, and another referendum is needed.
I don't think we've really got to grips with this. We still think that, say, interference in the 2016 POTUS was the product of Russia (a state-level actor) and involved many millions of dollars. What happens if you can just download an app onto your laptop to generate entries, say, thousands of times a second? Has this already happened?
No-one likes Ashley.
It also provides more of a get out for opposition (internal and external) to support it the second time.
And a sheep in sheep’s clothing, quoted in the film. Didn’t stop him doing his duty though. Or the British people voting for him in 1945.
I am OK with that.
I think in her head she's decided she can truthfully say she won't offer a second referendum, right up until the point she loses a meaningful vote - so I'd bet she would be more likely to try that route and cling on a bit longer. Especially if it involves trying to get the public to back her deal and seeing that through, rather than just resigning on the principle that she can't go any further.
Assuming she loses the vote as seems likely, the future paths depends essentially on how much she loses it by.
Lose it narrowly and she'll try another vote in the HOC on some imagined "tweaks" to the deal and/or some individual bribery, lose it by 40-50 it'll probably end up being her proposing another referendum in some form, lose it by 80+ and things will probably end up being no longer in her control any more anyway. That's my guess anyway.
....and No Deal sails happily along.
It is not the EU that will collapse over No Deal, it is the Tory government and possibly the UK.
Except that is not an option according to the EU. There are 3 options: no deal, May’s deal and
Remain. I think Starmer wants 3 , whatever the cost.
She completely avoided answering the question - which I thought might well imply she would resign.
There's a delicious irony in your first sentence, which won't be lost on posters on here.
They will have to hope the EU really are not being honest about other deals being possible. And hope that the EU will be much more accommodating. While Labour can be more flexible than the Tory rebels (who literally want something to benefit the UK more with nothing else given to the EU in exchange) that is not easy.
Starmer has marshaled them well though. And given it has no chance of passing as is if there are even 6 Labour MPs who vote for it, even if more do think it reasonable, I will be stunned. DavidHerdson picked up on the 2017 result not going as well for the Tories as expected, and I think he is right about the government losing by well over a hundred.
Or do you mean the EU isn’t actually worried about the GFA?
I am OK with that too
He was, of his time, the Matt of the written word.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/24/eu-will-do-parliament-rejects-theresa-mays-brexit-deal/
I honestly don't know what the ERG are making such a fuss over.
Since the referendum I have been trying to work out whether the British will accept vassalage as the only realistic Brexit outcome. In particular would leavers accept abdicating significant decision-making to a foreign body when the justification for Brexit is that it gives us back our control? It appears not. Which means we are now out of road. Something has to give.
It would be a delicious irony if Corbyn forces a VONC which succeeds thanks to the DUP and ends up PM after that result following a general election, behind the Tories but in power having to navigate Brexit himself and holding together the SNP who want permanent single market membership, his own commitment to permanent customs union only and Labour Leavers who want out of both and Labour Remainers who want EUref2.
Even if May loses power I expect she would enjoy a rather large dose of schadenfreude at that!
As I said this morning, go to Brussels, score through the Backstop clause, sign it with that excluded, come home. Problem belong Brussels.....
Their decision if we have Hard Brexit.