I hope Sporting Index have the balls to trade a market on how many MPs will vote against 'the deal' on 12 Dec or whenever it is. They have been very disappointing recently on politics.
The idea that her party will allow May to just keep asking them to vote again until they get the right answer is the sort of adorably comfortably delusion she's become famous for.
The idea that her party will allow May to just keep asking them to vote again until they get the right answer is the sort of adorably comfortably delusion she's become famous for.
If its voted down then May just says we prepare for no deal I think. Wonder how many MPs come out with "But but but I didn't mean it !" in that scenario.
Judging by the polling, lots of people favour No Deal.
The same polling that shows people think "no deal" means "status quo" ?
When Steve Barclay was interviewed this morning he said “no deal no Brexit” in a way that made it sound like a single option.
One of the many silly errors May has made is to hold out the prospect of victory to both of the forces against her. She has told hard leavers that they are risking no Brexit and she has told hard remainers that the are risking hard Brexit. So naturally both sets of opponents are encouraged in their determination to vote down the agreement as May has said publicly that their preferred outcome could win through if she is defeated.
If she set out her position in the event of defeat (presumably either a new referendum or a hard Brexit) she would have a better chance of forcing one group of her opponents into line.
The idea that her party will allow May to just keep asking them to vote again until they get the right answer is the sort of adorably comfortably delusion she's become famous for.
Well the markets will keep crashing each time a vote fails so it is possible wavered could fall into line.
The alternative is she proposes permanent Customs Union to win Labour votes or the DUP pull the plug and back a VONC and we have a general election.
Given over 200 Tory MPs back May's Deal out of 318 there are not the numbers to topple her
The idea that her party will allow May to just keep asking them to vote again until they get the right answer is the sort of adorably comfortably delusion she's become famous for.
If its voted down then May just says we prepare for no deal I think.
We will cut off our nose to spite our face and that will teach the EU.
I hope Sporting Index have the balls to trade a market on how many MPs will vote against 'the deal' on 12 Dec or whenever it is. They have been very disappointing recently on politics.
They had a very good set of markets on the US mid-terms. (Not all settled yet, but that's not their fault).
I mean real money hasn't existed for a long time. Fiat currency is just an idea. Whether it's represented electronically or printed on a bit of plastic, it's all just information.
There is a hilarious chapter in Gore Vidal's Lincoln where poor old Ab, (the real one, not the vampire killer) was trying to get his head around the idea that Chase could simply print more greenbacks to pay for the war whether there was enough gold to back them all or not. Funny money (and dodgy New York bankers) have indeed been around for a long time.
Good point! A bit like Ashley and Pasha on Strictly. They are so good that people obviously thought they didn't need to vote for them and hence they were in the dance off.
[This is the right forum for Strictly chat, right?]
Time we brought back real money with twelve pennies to the shilling and twenty shillings to the pound, get rid of all this foreign decimal stuff. Good old threepenny bits, sixpences and silver threepenny bits worth sixpence , half crowns , ten bob notes, fivers the size of an A4 sheet , those were the days.
The truth is, we don't know what kind of Parliamentary compromise is possible. Maybe none.
But since May hasn't bothered to try, we can't know until we force her hand. Once the deal goes down, everyone will have to reveal their hands and we'll know who has 2-7 offsuit and who's been sneakily sitting on some pocket rockets.
Everybody is bluffing. There is no winning hand in Parliament
Actually in Parliament nobody is bluffing. The numbers are there for all to see. The difficulty is that there are putatively three options. To get it resolved it needs to be boiled down to two.
OK, rule out No Deal. Surely no majority for it amongst any group involved, electorate, parliament or even Tory MPs.
Judging by the polling, lots of people favour No Deal.
No just 32% back No Deal with gold standard Survation, it is even less popular than the Poll Tax and we all know what happened after that
The idea that her party will allow May to just keep asking them to vote again until they get the right answer is the sort of adorably comfortably delusion she's become famous for.
If its voted down then May just says we prepare for no deal I think.
We will cut off our nose to spite our face and that will teach the EU.
Cutting off the nose to spite our face is voting down the deal.
Jeremy Corbyn will be an idiot if he accepts a TV debate on Theresa May's terms.
Here is what he should do: write an open reply to her offer. Record it as a video. Take the initiative. Keep mentioning the "British people". Make the following points.
Dear Mrs May
1) As your crumbling government tries to remain in office hanging by its fingernails, economic disaster looms - the likes of which haven't been seen before in most of our lifetimes. You are not governing in the national interest. You are messing the British people about. It's all very well to write to the British people in the newspapers, but what the British people need, and need now, is to be able to decide whether your government is fit to remain in office.
2) The prime minister is supposed to act in the national interest. Do it. Bring your draft withdrawal agreement to the Commons right now so that it can be voted down, as almost everyone predicts it will be. Then the country can move to the next stage.
3) That next stage is a general election.
4) Stop showing contempt for the British people. Let our debate be a debate with consequences. Let us set out our alternative visions in our manifestos. That will be difficult in your case given that your party is so divided, but at the present time the Tory party still undoubtedly exists. Although its leadership has ballsed up the Brexit process to the point where experts are predicting food shortages, medicine shortages, car parks on the motorways and mothballed airports, I presume the Tory party will still be showing its face to contest the next election. Put your money where your mouth is. Call a general election and then debate against me. Let the British people decide.
5) I will be happy to debate against the Tory leader - whether that is yourself, a caretaker leader, or whichever successor your party chooses - on TV or anywhere else. But I am not prepared to take part in the equivalent of a game show designed to distract from your delay in tabling your draft agreement in the House of Commons. I am not prepared to help you distract from your continuing failure to read the writing on the wall and to allow the British people to hold your government to account for the almost unparalleled incompetence it has shown since the result of the 2016 referendum. (... British people, British people, blah blah. Pick some appropriate music too.)
Time we brought back real money with twelve pennies to the shilling and twenty shillings to the pound, get rid of all this foreign decimal stuff. Good old threepenny bits, sixpences and silver threepenny bits worth sixpence , half crowns , ten bob notes, fivers the size of an A4 sheet , those were the days.
Certainly worked better in the dumpling than most the modern rubbish.
Good point! A bit like Ashley and Pasha on Strictly. They are so good that people obviously thought they didn't need to vote for them and hence they were in the dance off.
[This is the right forum for Strictly chat, right?]
Quite so. Lauren should have been in the dance off, the whole show is so biased *snips fifteen page rant*. Finally, Joe Suggs delenda est.
The truth is, we don't know what kind of Parliamentary compromise is possible. Maybe none.
But since May hasn't bothered to try, we can't know until we force her hand. Once the deal goes down, everyone will have to reveal their hands and we'll know who has 2-7 offsuit and who's been sneakily sitting on some pocket rockets.
Everybody is bluffing. There is no winning hand in Parliament
Actually in Parliament nobody is bluffing. The numbers are there for all to see. The difficulty is that there are putatively three options. To get it resolved it needs to be boiled down to two.
OK, rule out No Deal. Surely no majority for it amongst any group involved, electorate, parliament or even Tory MPs.
Judging by the polling, lots of people favour No Deal.
No just 32% back No Deal with gold standard Survation, it is even less popular than the Poll Tax and we all know what happened after that
32% is a lot of people. And, other polls put the number a good deal higher when it's a straight choice with Deal or Remain.
Time we brought back real money with twelve pennies to the shilling and twenty shillings to the pound, get rid of all this foreign decimal stuff. Good old threepenny bits, sixpences and silver threepenny bits worth sixpence , half crowns , ten bob notes, fivers the size of an A4 sheet , those were the days.
Certainly worked better in the dumpling than most the modern rubbish.
nothing to beat a clootie dumpling , searching about for the threepenny and sixpenny bits, or pennies if times were tough. My father made brilliant ones and they hung on the pulley for days.
The truth is, we don't know what kind of Parliamentary compromise is possible. Maybe none.
But since May hasn't bothered to try, we can't know until we force her hand. Once the deal goes down, everyone will have to reveal their hands and we'll know who has 2-7 offsuit and who's been sneakily sitting on some pocket rockets.
Everybody is bluffing. There is no winning hand in Parliament
Actually in Parliament nobody is bluffing. The numbers are there for all to see. The difficulty is that there are putatively three options. To get it resolved it needs to be boiled down to two.
OK, rule out No Deal. Surely no majority for it amongst any group involved, electorate, parliament or even Tory MPs.
Judging by the polling, lots of people favour No Deal.
No just 32% back No Deal with gold standard Survation, it is even less popular than the Poll Tax and we all know what happened after that
32% is a lot of people. And, other polls put the number a good deal higher when it's a straight choice with Deal or Remain.
32% is the same total Hague's Tories got in 2001 when they lost by a landslide.
Even head to head with Remain No Deal only gets to 45% with Yougov ie no higher than Yes got in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum.
No Dealers are basically the UK equivalent of cybernats ie the diehards not a majority of the country
The alternative is she proposes permanent Customs Union to win Labour votes or the DUP pull the plug and back a VONC and we have a general election.
She can't, the EU won't reopen the deal for that.
They might as permanent Customs Union is a further concession from the UK to the EU and a further weakening of Brexit and it largely resolves the backstop.
What is absolutely clear is the EU will not agree any other Deal for the UK without the backstop
I hope Sporting Index have the balls to trade a market on how many MPs will vote against 'the deal' on 12 Dec or whenever it is. They have been very disappointing recently on politics.
Time we brought back real money with twelve pennies to the shilling and twenty shillings to the pound, get rid of all this foreign decimal stuff. Good old threepenny bits, sixpences and silver threepenny bits worth sixpence , half crowns , ten bob notes, fivers the size of an A4 sheet , those were the days.
That's what some Leave voters (such as my neighbour) think they voted for in the referendum.
Note that "Leave" is native Germanic, "Remain" is continental and foreign Latinate. A proper pair with roots in the same language group would be Leave and Stay, or Remain and Depart.
Outside of the loonballs in 1914 everyone else is publicly stating very loudly that a World War is the last thing they want, and I think most of them mean it.
Sometimes the last thing everyone wants happens.
I'd say that in 1914 there was actually quite a large collective will towards war, probably aided by the tragic idea it would all be over by Christmas. At least no one is currently expecting this to be over any time soon.
"The quickest, easiest trade deal in history..."
Well, as it currently sits, the EU has until 11 pm, 29th March to come too some arrangement to salvage their export markets. So he might yet be right.....
The problem with the deal is that it gives the EU £39bn, a load of concessions and of course that backstop and in exchange we get....er...being "allowed" to leave and negotiate a future trade deal which will probably be crap as they seem to hate us now anyway.
It shows how much power and sovereignty has been given away to the EU by stealth over the last 40 years. if it is this difficult leaving now then imagine how hard it will be in another 20 years.
The idea that her party will allow May to just keep asking them to vote again until they get the right answer is the sort of adorably comfortably delusion she's become famous for.
If its voted down then May just says we prepare for no deal I think.
And gets immediately VONCed by her remainer colleagues.
Time we brought back real money with twelve pennies to the shilling and twenty shillings to the pound, get rid of all this foreign decimal stuff. Good old threepenny bits, sixpences and silver threepenny bits worth sixpence , half crowns , ten bob notes, fivers the size of an A4 sheet , those were the days.
That's what some Leave voters (such as my neighbour) think they voted for in the referendum.
Note that "Leave" is native Germanic, "Remain" is continental and foreign Latinate. A proper pair with roots in the same language group would be Leave and Stay, or Remain and Depart.
Outside of the loonballs in 1914 everyone else is publicly stating very loudly that a World War is the last thing they want, and I think most of them mean it.
Sometimes the last thing everyone wants happens.
I'd say that in 1914 there was actually quite a large collective will towards war, probably aided by the tragic idea it would all be over by Christmas. At least no one is currently expecting this to be over any time soon.
"The quickest, easiest trade deal in history..."
Well, as it currently sits, the EU has until 11 pm, 29th March to come too some arrangement to salvage their export markets. So he might yet be right.....
The idea that her party will allow May to just keep asking them to vote again until they get the right answer is the sort of adorably comfortably delusion she's become famous for.
And it rather undermines the case against a second referendum. If allowing MPs a second vote is such a great idea why does that not apply to the people?
The truth is, we don't know what kind of Parliamentary compromise is possible. Maybe none.
But since May hasn't bothered to try, we can't know until we force her hand. Once the deal goes down, everyone will have to reveal their hands and we'll know who has 2-7 offsuit and who's been sneakily sitting on some pocket rockets.
Everybody is bluffing. There is no winning hand in Parliament
Actually in Parliament nobody is bluffing. The numbers are there for all to see. The difficulty is that there are putatively three options. To get it resolved it needs to be boiled down to two.
OK, rule out No Deal. Surely no majority for it amongst any group involved, electorate, parliament or even Tory MPs.
Judging by the polling, lots of people favour No Deal.
No just 32% back No Deal with gold standard Survation, it is even less popular than the Poll Tax and we all know what happened after that
32% is a lot of people. And, other polls put the number a good deal higher when it's a straight choice with Deal or Remain.
32% is the same total Hague's Tories got in 2001 when they lost by a landslide.
Even head to head with Remain No Deal only gets to 45% with Yougov ie no higher than Yes got in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum.
No Dealers are basically the UK equivalent of cybernats ie the diehards not a majority of the country
None of which refutes my argument that "lots of people favour No Deal.". It is quite possible that No Deal would win a referendum, starting from that base.
The idea that her party will allow May to just keep asking them to vote again until they get the right answer is the sort of adorably comfortably delusion she's become famous for.
Especially while constantly telling the general population that, no, they can't be trusted with voting again.
For bonus marks, use the phrase "politicians' vote" to rubbish a popular referendum, while at the same time asking the actual politicians in Westminster to take another vote.
For bonus marks, use the phrase "politicians' vote" to rubbish a popular referendum, while at the same time asking the actual politicians in Westminster to take another vote.
Well, those on the other side are using the phrase 'people's vote' to rubbish the previous people's vote, so it's a fair swap.
The idea that her party will allow May to just keep asking them to vote again until they get the right answer is the sort of adorably comfortably delusion she's become famous for.
Especially while constantly telling the general population that, no, they can't be trusted with voting again.
For bonus marks, use the phrase "politicians' vote" to rubbish a popular referendum, while at the same time asking the actual politicians in Westminster to take another vote.
How does one organise a referendum campaign in 117 days (not taking into account the Christmas holidays?)/
For bonus marks, use the phrase "politicians' vote" to rubbish a popular referendum, while at the same time asking the actual politicians in Westminster to take another vote.
Well, those on the other side are using the phrase 'people's vote' to rubbish the previous people's vote, so it's a fair swap.
None of which refutes my argument that "lots of people favour No Deal.". It is quite possible that No Deal would win a referendum, starting from that base.
As always, though, you need to distinguish 'no deal' from the very different 'orderly transition to WTO terms'. Many people don't seem to understand the difference, and some of those who do (or should) often seem deliberately to conflate them.
The idea that her party will allow May to just keep asking them to vote again until they get the right answer is the sort of adorably comfortably delusion she's become famous for.
Especially while constantly telling the general population that, no, they can't be trusted with voting again.
For bonus marks, use the phrase "politicians' vote" to rubbish a popular referendum, while at the same time asking the actual politicians in Westminster to take another vote.
How does one organise a referendum campaign in 117 days (not taking into account the Christmas holidays?)/
Competently.
Which I realise is a big ask for the UK government.
The idea that her party will allow May to just keep asking them to vote again until they get the right answer is the sort of adorably comfortably delusion she's become famous for.
Especially while constantly telling the general population that, no, they can't be trusted with voting again.
For bonus marks, use the phrase "politicians' vote" to rubbish a popular referendum, while at the same time asking the actual politicians in Westminster to take another vote.
How does one organise a referendum campaign in 117 days (not taking into account the Christmas holidays?)/
Er, no. That bird has flown. You are simply wrong.
Cash is:
• wasteful • environmentally unsound • prone to fraud and theft • inconvenient • dirty • heavy • expensive to administer
As for your very weak anecdote about the banks going down and cash saving the day, what percentage of the population carry enough cash with them to survive more than a few hours do you think?
Cash is going only one way, I'm afraid.
As for your equally bonkers post about video games, er no. PlayStation prices vary, often in line with what the market will bear, so it's very often possible to find great games for less than the physical second hand price.
Games on DVD just create ye more plastic and landfill. We need to get used to paying for services, not throwaway physical things that take up space and create rubbish.
None of which refutes my argument that "lots of people favour No Deal.". It is quite possible that No Deal would win a referendum, starting from that base.
A always, though, you need to distinguish 'no deal' from the very different 'orderly transition to WTO terms'. Many people don't seem to understand the difference, and some of those who do (or should) often seem deliberately to conflate them.
I don't think No Deal has ever truly meant no deal.
In truth it would mean a barrage of hundreds of ad hoc deals put together in a hurry with no proper consideration of what it all means.
It would be a good old fashioned Great British Shitshow.
For bonus marks, use the phrase "politicians' vote" to rubbish a popular referendum, while at the same time asking the actual politicians in Westminster to take another vote.
Well, those on the other side are using the phrase 'people's vote' to rubbish the previous people's vote, so it's a fair swap.
I vote we call it a plebs' plebiscite
I thought that was the last one; the proposed new one is supposed to be an altogether superior, Waitrose-style, version.
The idea that her party will allow May to just keep asking them to vote again until they get the right answer is the sort of adorably comfortably delusion she's become famous for.
Especially while constantly telling the general population that, no, they can't be trusted with voting again.
For bonus marks, use the phrase "politicians' vote" to rubbish a popular referendum, while at the same time asking the actual politicians in Westminster to take another vote.
How does one organise a referendum campaign in 117 days (not taking into account the Christmas holidays?)/
Competently.
Which I realise is a big ask for the UK government.
How long would the Electoral Commission take to agree the question to be asked, given that following he previous referendum result it could only be a choice between Leave options?
The idea that her party will allow May to just keep asking them to vote again until they get the right answer is the sort of adorably comfortably delusion she's become famous for.
Especially while constantly telling the general population that, no, they can't be trusted with voting again.
For bonus marks, use the phrase "politicians' vote" to rubbish a popular referendum, while at the same time asking the actual politicians in Westminster to take another vote.
How does one organise a referendum campaign in 117 days (not taking into account the Christmas holidays?)/
I'm not in favour of a second referendum, btw. But I take a very dim view of all the things people are confidently predicting are "impossible" right now.
The idea that her party will allow May to just keep asking them to vote again until they get the right answer is the sort of adorably comfortably delusion she's become famous for.
Especially while constantly telling the general population that, no, they can't be trusted with voting again.
For bonus marks, use the phrase "politicians' vote" to rubbish a popular referendum, while at the same time asking the actual politicians in Westminster to take another vote.
How does one organise a referendum campaign in 117 days (not taking into account the Christmas holidays?)/
Competently.
Which I realise is a big ask for the UK government.
1. Can Parliament agree on a question? 2. Can any legislation reach a Third Reading in time? 3. Will the Electoral Commission approve the question? 4.. Can lead campaign groups be registered in time with the Electoral Commission? 5. Having surmounted all those hurdles, is there time to run a campaign?
No, if Parliament wans to vote for the WA, or opt for No Deal, or apply to the EU for permission to cancel Brexit, Parliament will have to take that decision.
The idea that her party will allow May to just keep asking them to vote again until they get the right answer is the sort of adorably comfortably delusion she's become famous for.
Especially while constantly telling the general population that, no, they can't be trusted with voting again.
For bonus marks, use the phrase "politicians' vote" to rubbish a popular referendum, while at the same time asking the actual politicians in Westminster to take another vote.
How does one organise a referendum campaign in 117 days (not taking into account the Christmas holidays?)/
Greece managed it in two weeks.
Before the FTPA the formal timetable for general elections was 3 weeks. Polling day in February 1974 was exactly 3 weeks after the announcement of the election.
In a sane world we could introduce ID cards as a way of getting us into Schengen. ID cards are a more effective security measure against terrorism and illegal immigration than passports.
The alternative is she proposes permanent Customs Union to win Labour votes or the DUP pull the plug and back a VONC and we have a general election.
She can't, the EU won't reopen the deal for that.
They might as permanent Customs Union is a further concession from the UK to the EU and a further weakening of Brexit and it largely resolves the backstop.
What is absolutely clear is the EU will not agree any other Deal for the UK without the backstop
But a No Deal leads to a hard border according to the EU.
The idea that her party will allow May to just keep asking them to vote again until they get the right answer is the sort of adorably comfortably delusion she's become famous for.
Especially while constantly telling the general population that, no, they can't be trusted with voting again.
For bonus marks, use the phrase "politicians' vote" to rubbish a popular referendum, while at the same time asking the actual politicians in Westminster to take another vote.
How does one organise a referendum campaign in 117 days (not taking into account the Christmas holidays?)/
Competently.
Which I realise is a big ask for the UK government.
1. Can Parliament agree on a question? 2. Can any legislation reach a Third Reading in time? 3. Will the Electoral Commission approve the question? 4.. Can lead campaign groups be registered in time with the Electoral Commission? 5. Having surmounted all those hurdles, is there time to run a campaign?
I think that could all be done within the week, given sufficient political will.
The idea that her party will allow May to just keep asking them to vote again until they get the right answer is the sort of adorably comfortably delusion she's become famous for.
Especially while constantly telling the general population that, no, they can't be trusted with voting again.
For bonus marks, use the phrase "politicians' vote" to rubbish a popular referendum, while at the same time asking the actual politicians in Westminster to take another vote.
How does one organise a referendum campaign in 117 days (not taking into account the Christmas holidays?)/
Competently.
Which I realise is a big ask for the UK government.
1. Can Parliament agree on a question? 2. Can any legislation reach a Third Reading in time? 3. Will the Electoral Commission approve the question? 4.. Can lead campaign groups be registered in time with the Electoral Commission? 5. Having surmounted all those hurdles, is there time to run a campaign?
No, if Parliament wans to vote for the WA, or opt for No Deal, or apply to the EU for permission to cancel Brexit, Parliament will have to take that decision.
Plenty of time. The EU would agree A50 extensiin for a #peoplesvote.
I enjoy Alastair`s articles, but this one has irritated me.
I voted Remain, but has always been clear to me that the main objective of the chief Brexiteers (Cummings, Elliot, Hannon, Johnson, Raab, Ree-Mogg etc) was to bring back sovereignty and forge new trade deals.
The NHS funding stunt has been magnified since the referendum and the Turkish immigration story was mainly a Farage initiative. Both of these stunts were , I believe, taken with a pinch of salt.
Immigration was, it is true, the most important issue for the mass of Brexit voters by a mile, but this was a response to immigration already happened (Eastern European) and the changing nature of our towns and cities rather than possible Turkish immigration.
What cannot be denied is that the victory of the main Brexiteers is being turned into a defeat by May by her deal which does not deliver the Brexit that they have (supposedly) won because it fails on sovereignty/trade deals.
May cannot claim to be respecting Brexit with a deal that Brexiteers hate and say is even worse than staying in the EU.
The idea that her party will allow May to just keep asking them to vote again until they get the right answer is the sort of adorably comfortably delusion she's become famous for.
Especially while constantly telling the general population that, no, they can't be trusted with voting again.
For bonus marks, use the phrase "politicians' vote" to rubbish a popular referendum, while at the same time asking the actual politicians in Westminster to take another vote.
How does one organise a referendum campaign in 117 days (not taking into account the Christmas holidays?)/
Greece managed it in two weeks.
Before the FTPA the formal timetable for general elections was 3 weeks. Polling day in February 1974 was exactly 3 weeks after the announcement of the election.
Sorry for shouting, but, really, read the effing thing. We are not Greece, and we're not Australia, and we have enshrined in existing law a framework for referendums which means that parliament can't simply call a referendum.
The alternative is she proposes permanent Customs Union to win Labour votes or the DUP pull the plug and back a VONC and we have a general election.
She can't, the EU won't reopen the deal for that.
They might as permanent Customs Union is a further concession from the UK to the EU and a further weakening of Brexit and it largely resolves the backstop.
What is absolutely clear is the EU will not agree any other Deal for the UK without the backstop
But a No Deal leads to a hard border according to the EU.
Well, we're not going to build a hard border.
I look forward to watching Barnier, Juncker and Varadkar getting down there with a white transit van full of 2x4 and doing their part to Build That Wall.
The idea that her party will allow May to just keep asking them to vote again until they get the right answer is the sort of adorably comfortably delusion she's become famous for.
Especially while constantly telling the general population that, no, they can't be trusted with voting again.
For bonus marks, use the phrase "politicians' vote" to rubbish a popular referendum, while at the same time asking the actual politicians in Westminster to take another vote.
How does one organise a referendum campaign in 117 days (not taking into account the Christmas holidays?)/
Greece managed it in two weeks.
Before the FTPA the formal timetable for general elections was 3 weeks. Polling day in February 1974 was exactly 3 weeks after the announcement of the election.
We aren't Greece. We have legislation governing the conduct of Referenda or elections, which must either be complied with or repealed. There would be endless litigation, even before any vote could be held.
Outside of the loonballs in 1914 everyone else is publicly stating very loudly that a World War is the last thing they want, and I think most of them mean it.
Sometimes the last thing everyone wants happens.
I'd say that in 1914 there was actually quite a large collective will towards war, probably aided by the tragic idea it would all be over by Christmas. At least no one is currently expecting this to be over any time soon.
"The quickest, easiest trade deal in history..."
I did say currently! I assume, perhaps wrongly, that Davis has put a stopper on all the quickest, easiest guff and is (to continue the WWI analogy) currently on the Somme fire step waiting to blow his whistle while saying plaintively 'it should have been over by Christmas'.
The idea that her party will allow May to just keep asking them to vote again until they get the right answer is the sort of adorably comfortably delusion she's become famous for.
Especially while constantly telling the general population that, no, they can't be trusted with voting again.
For bonus marks, use the phrase "politicians' vote" to rubbish a popular referendum, while at the same time asking the actual politicians in Westminster to take another vote.
How does one organise a referendum campaign in 117 days (not taking into account the Christmas holidays?)/
Competently.
Which I realise is a big ask for the UK government.
1. Can Parliament agree on a question? 2. Can any legislation reach a Third Reading in time? 3. Will the Electoral Commission approve the question? 4.. Can lead campaign groups be registered in time with the Electoral Commission? 5. Having surmounted all those hurdles, is there time to run a campaign?
No, if Parliament wans to vote for the WA, or opt for No Deal, or apply to the EU for permission to cancel Brexit, Parliament will have to take that decision.
Plenty of time. The EU would agree A50 extensiin for a #peoplesvote.
The idea that her party will allow May to just keep asking them to vote again until they get the right answer is the sort of adorably comfortably delusion she's become famous for.
Especially while constantly telling the general population that, no, they can't be trusted with voting again.
For bonus marks, use the phrase "politicians' vote" to rubbish a popular referendum, while at the same time asking the actual politicians in Westminster to take another vote.
How does one organise a referendum campaign in 117 days (not taking into account the Christmas holidays?)/
Greece managed it in two weeks.
Before the FTPA the formal timetable for general elections was 3 weeks. Polling day in February 1974 was exactly 3 weeks after the announcement of the election.
Sorry for shouting, but, really, read the effing thing. We are not Greece, and we're not Australia, and we have enshrined in existing law a framework for referendums which means that parliament can't simply call a referendum.
Except, well, Parliament could simply pass emergency legislation bypassing the whole business. That bill could pass all three readings and get royal assent in a day (two if the Lords tries to prick up its ears at an inopportune moment).
The alternative is she proposes permanent Customs Union to win Labour votes or the DUP pull the plug and back a VONC and we have a general election.
She can't, the EU won't reopen the deal for that.
They might as permanent Customs Union is a further concession from the UK to the EU and a further weakening of Brexit and it largely resolves the backstop.
What is absolutely clear is the EU will not agree any other Deal for the UK without the backstop
But a No Deal leads to a hard border according to the EU.
On there definition if Northern Ireland is out of the Single Market and Customs Union then in the EU's view that is a hard border with the Republic
I enjoy Alastair`s articles, but this one has irritated me.
I voted Remain, but has always been clear to me that the main objective of the chief Brexiteers (Cummings, Elliot, Hannon, Johnson, Raab, Ree-Mogg etc) was to bring back sovereignty and forge new trade deals.
The NHS funding stunt has been magnified since the referendum and the Turkish immigration story was mainly a Farage initiative. Both of these stunts were , I believe, taken with a pinch of salt.
Immigration was, it is true, the most important issue for the mass of Brexit voters by a mile, but this was a response to immigration already happened (Eastern European) and the changing nature of our towns and cities rather than possible Turkish immigration.
What cannot be denied is that the victory of the main Brexiteers is being turned into a defeat by May by her deal which does not deliver the Brexit that they have (supposedly) won because it fails on sovereignty/trade deals.
May cannot claim to be respecting Brexit with a deal that Brexiteers hate and say is even worse than staying in the EU.
Some brexiteers. There are plenty willing to compromise, so yes, your assertion can be denied.
The truth is, we don't know what kind of Parliamentary compromise is possible. Maybe none.
But since May hasn't bothered to try, we can't know until we force her hand. Once the deal goes down, everyone will have to reveal their hands and we'll know who has 2-7 offsuit and who's been sneakily sitting on some pocket rockets.
Everybody is bluffing. There is no winning hand in Parliament
Actually in Parliament nobody is bluffing. The numbers are there for all to see. The difficulty is that there are putatively three options. To get it resolved it needs to be boiled down to two.
OK, rule out No Deal. Surely no majority for it amongst any group involved, electorate, parliament or even Tory MPs.
Judging by the polling, lots of people favour No Deal.
No just 32% back No Deal with gold standard Survation, it is even less popular than the Poll Tax and we all know what happened after that
32% is a lot of people. And, other polls put the number a good deal higher when it's a straight choice with Deal or Remain.
32% is the same total Hague's Tories got in 2001 when they lost by a landslide.
Even head to head with Remain No Deal only gets to 45% with Yougov ie no higher than Yes got in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum.
No Dealers are basically the UK equivalent of cybernats ie the diehards not a majority of the country
None of which refutes my argument that "lots of people favour No Deal.". It is quite possible that No Deal would win a referendum, starting from that base.
Lots of people is not most people, as I said No Dealers are the UK equivalent of cybernats
The truth is, we don't know what kind of Parliamentary compromise is possible. Maybe none.
But since May hasn't bothered to try, we can't know until we force her hand. Once the deal goes down, everyone will have to reveal their hands and we'll know who has 2-7 offsuit and who's been sneakily sitting on some pocket rockets.
That's a fundamental mis-understanding of how the EU are looking at this. There is no compromise, and there never will be. There is the deal, or there is no deal.
I mean, we don't know that. At the moment, we're being asked to trust the word of 27 politicians who do not have our best interests at heart.
Once May's deal goes down, only then will we see the EU's actual plan B, whatever it is.
(And please don't test our patience by implying the Commission hasn't been soft-pedalling a Plan B. Even if that Plan B is to order Ireland to start building a border fence.)
We also don't not know that. But clearly the principles of the EU are there in the 4 freedoms, and that IS absolute.
Of course the EU are saying "there is no alternative". You always *say* that. Doesn't mean it's true.
It looks as if it is going to be tested very soon and in the test many issues may become more apparent. TM will have to challenge the EU and they will have to respond
Indeed. The phony war is about to end. And I think it's literally impossible to adequately game what will happen when it does.
Agreed and thank you for a sensible discussion. I have received instructions from my nearly 16 year old granddaughter today that she wants some make up brushes for Xmas and we are talking mega bucks here, not B & Q black Friday £5 ones so am going to leave for now to research the best deal.
Talking of Black Friday and makeup, there was one heck of a queue outside one of the perfume shops so perhaps some expensive new pong or other is in vogue (or in Vogue). Sorry I can't be more precise.
Got my deal - Brand brush set she wanted got down from £100 to £69 and free delivery (not Amazon as an added bonus). Deal done but then my whole business career was negotiating deals. Maybe I could be seconded to no 10
She's a lucky girl. Is the present just from Grandpa or from Grannie as well? (My preferred spellings)
The idea that her party will allow May to just keep asking them to vote again until they get the right answer is the sort of adorably comfortably delusion she's become famous for.
Especially while constantly telling the general population that, no, they can't be trusted with voting again.
For bonus marks, use the phrase "politicians' vote" to rubbish a popular referendum, while at the same time asking the actual politicians in Westminster to take another vote.
How does one organise a referendum campaign in 117 days (not taking into account the Christmas holidays?)/
Greece managed it in two weeks.
Before the FTPA the formal timetable for general elections was 3 weeks. Polling day in February 1974 was exactly 3 weeks after the announcement of the election.
Sorry for shouting, but, really, read the effing thing. We are not Greece, and we're not Australia, and we have enshrined in existing law a framework for referendums which means that parliament can't simply call a referendum.
Except, well, Parliament could simply pass emergency legislation bypassing the whole business. That bill could pass all three readings and get royal assent in a day (two if the Lords tries to prick up its ears at an inopportune moment).
In theory. In practice, any attempt to hold a second referendum will generate a Parliamentary battle.
I hope Sporting Index have the balls to trade a market on how many MPs will vote against 'the deal' on 12 Dec or whenever it is. They have been very disappointing recently on politics.
What's the over/under? I reckon it's around...
Tories Ayes: 230 Tories Noes: 120
Labour Ayes: 3 Labour Noes: 254
SNP ayes: 0 SNP noes: 35
Lib Dem ayes: 1 Lib Dem noes: 11
DUP ayes: 0 DUP noes: 10
430 Noes v 234 Ayes.
Anyone in the private sector who had spent two and a half years negotiating a corporate deal to then have it rejected 430 to 234 by the shareholders would be on gardening leave by teatime, as they sorted out their exit package....
Er, no. That bird has flown. You are simply wrong.
Cash is:
• wasteful • environmentally unsound • prone to fraud and theft • inconvenient • dirty • heavy • expensive to administer
As for your very weak anecdote about the banks going down and cash saving the day, what percentage of the population carry enough cash with them to survive more than a few hours do you think?
Cash is going only one way, I'm afraid.
As for your equally bonkers post about video games, er no. PlayStation prices vary, often in line with what the market will bear, so it's very often possible to find great games for less than the physical second hand price.
Games on DVD just create ye more plastic and landfill. We need to get used to paying for services, not throwaway physical things that take up space and create rubbish.
Your third bullet point is clearly wrong. Electronic systems are equally prone to fraud and theft. In fact it is more likely to result in a higher amount being stolen because (generally) people only hold a 'survivable' amount of cash in person whilst a fraudster getting into your bank account electronically could steal the whole lot.
In a sane world we could introduce ID cards as a way of getting us into Schengen. ID cards are a more effective security measure against terrorism and illegal immigration than passports.
Tbh I am not really sure how passports or ID cards would have prevented any of the terrorism we've seen in the past few years or even decades. Illegal immigration seems a bit of a stretch too, come to that. ID cards really seem like a solution in search of a problem, and most of the problems they might solve have been introduced by recent governments anyway, presumably to soften us up for ID cards.
The idea that her party will allow May to just keep asking them to vote again until they get the right answer is the sort of adorably comfortably delusion she's become famous for.
Especially while constantly telling the general population that, no, they can't be trusted with voting again.
For bonus marks, use the phrase "politicians' vote" to rubbish a popular referendum, while at the same time asking the actual politicians in Westminster to take another vote.
How does one organise a referendum campaign in 117 days (not taking into account the Christmas holidays?)/
Greece managed it in two weeks.
Before the FTPA the formal timetable for general elections was 3 weeks. Polling day in February 1974 was exactly 3 weeks after the announcement of the election.
We aren't Greece. We have legislation governing the conduct of Referenda or elections, which must either be complied with or repealed. There would be endless litigation, even before any vote could be held.
I suppose that a new referendum would require an act of Parliament but if there was a substantial majority in favour of one passing such an act would not be difficult. If Parliament prescribed a shorter timetable than the current legislation allows for this is perfectly possible and I doubt the courts would interfere.
The idea that her party will allow May to just keep asking them to vote again until they get the right answer is the sort of adorably comfortably delusion she's become famous for.
Especially while constantly telling the general population that, no, they can't be trusted with voting again.
For bonus marks, use the phrase "politicians' vote" to rubbish a popular referendum, while at the same time asking the actual politicians in Westminster to take another vote.
How does one organise a referendum campaign in 117 days (not taking into account the Christmas holidays?)/
Greece managed it in two weeks.
Before the FTPA the formal timetable for general elections was 3 weeks. Polling day in February 1974 was exactly 3 weeks after the announcement of the election.
Sorry for shouting, but, really, read the effing thing. We are not Greece, and we're not Australia, and we have enshrined in existing law a framework for referendums which means that parliament can't simply call a referendum.
Except, well, Parliament could simply pass emergency legislation bypassing the whole business. That bill could pass all three readings and get royal assent in a day (two if the Lords tries to prick up its ears at an inopportune moment).
In theory. In practice, any attempt to hold a second referendum will generate a Parliamentary battle.
Oh yes. Unless Labour suddenly develop an enthusiasm for a People's Vote, is difficult to see any movement in this direction at all.
Er, no. That bird has flown. You are simply wrong.
Cash is:
• wasteful • environmentally unsound • prone to fraud and theft • inconvenient • dirty • heavy • expensive to administer
As for your very weak anecdote about the banks going down and cash saving the day, what percentage of the population carry enough cash with them to survive more than a few hours do you think?
Cash is going only one way, I'm afraid.
As for your equally bonkers post about video games, er no. PlayStation prices vary, often in line with what the market will bear, so it's very often possible to find great games for less than the physical second hand price.
Games on DVD just create ye more plastic and landfill. We need to get used to paying for services, not throwaway physical things that take up space and create rubbish.
Your third bullet point is clearly wrong. Electronic systems are equally prone to fraud and theft. In fact it is more likely to result in a higher amount being stolen because (generally) people only hold a 'survivable' amount of cash in person whilst a fraudster getting into your bank account electronically could steal the whole lot.
Next time you hear of gangsters paying for services via BACS let me know.
The idea that her party will allow May to just keep asking them to vote again until they get the right answer is the sort of adorably comfortably delusion she's become famous for.
Especially while constantly telling the general population that, no, they can't be trusted with voting again.
For bonus marks, use the phrase "politicians' vote" to rubbish a popular referendum, while at the same time asking the actual politicians in Westminster to take another vote.
How does one organise a referendum campaign in 117 days (not taking into account the Christmas holidays?)/
Greece managed it in two weeks.
Before the FTPA the formal timetable for general elections was 3 weeks. Polling day in February 1974 was exactly 3 weeks after the announcement of the election.
Sorry for shouting, but, really, read the effing thing. We are not Greece, and we're not Australia, and we have enshrined in existing law a framework for referendums which means that parliament can't simply call a referendum.
Except, well, Parliament could simply pass emergency legislation bypassing the whole business. That bill could pass all three readings and get royal assent in a day (two if the Lords tries to prick up its ears at an inopportune moment).
Oh yeah, laws passed that quickly are sure to be of great quality, and not subject to legal challenges at all....
The idea that her party will allow May to just keep asking them to vote again until they get the right answer is the sort of adorably comfortably delusion she's become famous for.
Especially while constantly telling the general population that, no, they can't be trusted with voting again.
For bonus marks, use the phrase "politicians' vote" to rubbish a popular referendum, while at the same time asking the actual politicians in Westminster to take another vote.
How does one organise a referendum campaign in 117 days (not taking into account the Christmas holidays?)/
Greece managed it in two weeks.
Before the FTPA the formal timetable for general elections was 3 weeks. Polling day in February 1974 was exactly 3 weeks after the announcement of the election.
We aren't Greece. We have legislation governing the conduct of Referenda or elections, which must either be complied with or repealed. There would be endless litigation, even before any vote could be held.
I suppose that a new referendum would require an act of Parliament but if there was a substantial majority in favour of one passing such an act would not be difficult. If Parliament prescribed a shorter timetable than the current legislation allows for this is perfectly possible and I doubt the courts would interfere.
The difficulty would be to agree on the purpose of a new referendum (ie; the question/s) and I think that would take a great deal of time to resolve (and just imagine what the House of Lords might to do it).
The idea that her party will allow May to just keep asking them to vote again until they get the right answer is the sort of adorably comfortably delusion she's become famous for.
Especially while constantly telling the general population that, no, they can't be trusted with voting again.
For bonus marks, use the phrase "politicians' vote" to rubbish a popular referendum, while at the same time asking the actual politicians in Westminster to take another vote.
How does one organise a referendum campaign in 117 days (not taking into account the Christmas holidays?)/
Greece managed it in two weeks.
Before the FTPA the formal timetable for general elections was 3 weeks. Polling day in February 1974 was exactly 3 weeks after the announcement of the election.
Sorry for shouting, but, really, read the effing thing. We are not Greece, and we're not Australia, and we have enshrined in existing law a framework for referendums which means that parliament can't simply call a referendum.
Except, well, Parliament could simply pass emergency legislation bypassing the whole business. That bill could pass all three readings and get royal assent in a day (two if the Lords tries to prick up its ears at an inopportune moment).
In theory. In practice, any attempt to hold a second referendum will generate a Parliamentary battle.
If Labour swing behind it there would be a substantial majority in favour. I think at least 100 Tories and all the minor parties, probably including the DUP, would also support it if the alternative is no deal.
More from the Japanese cybersecurity minister, who now admits he is unclear about the whole concept of cybersecurity, giving the lie to claims that he was just very careful indeed....
The idea that her party will allow May to just keep asking them to vote again until they get the right answer is the sort of adorably comfortably delusion she's become famous for.
Especially while constantly telling the general population that, no, they can't be trusted with voting again.
For bonus marks, use the phrase "politicians' vote" to rubbish a popular referendum, while at the same time asking the actual politicians in Westminster to take another vote.
How does one organise a referendum campaign in 117 days (not taking into account the Christmas holidays?)/
Greece managed it in two weeks.
Before the FTPA the formal timetable for general elections was 3 weeks. Polling day in February 1974 was exactly 3 weeks after the announcement of the election.
Sorry for shouting, but, really, read the effing thing. We are not Greece, and we're not Australia, and we have enshrined in existing law a framework for referendums which means that parliament can't simply call a referendum.
Except, well, Parliament could simply pass emergency legislation bypassing the whole business. That bill could pass all three readings and get royal assent in a day (two if the Lords tries to prick up its ears at an inopportune moment).
In theory. In practice, any attempt to hold a second referendum will generate a Parliamentary battle.
If Labour swing behind it there would be a substantial majority in favour. I think at least 100 Tories and all the minor parties, probably including the DUP, would also support it if the alternative is no deal.
That's a big if. I can imagine Labour supporting it only as a very, VERY last resort. They'll try every other possible way to crash the government first.
This is amusing though. Run under a stoat? Is that an expression I have missed all these years or did Sean make it up? Either way I shall be using whenever I can.
Er, no. That bird has flown. You are simply wrong.
Cash is:
• wasteful • environmentally unsound • prone to fraud and theft • inconvenient • dirty • heavy • expensive to administer
As for your very weak anecdote about the banks going down and cash saving the day, what percentage of the population carry enough cash with them to survive more than a few hours do you think?
Cash is going only one way, I'm afraid.
As for your equally bonkers post about video games, er no. PlayStation prices vary, often in line with what the market will bear, so it's very often possible to find great games for less than the physical second hand price.
Games on DVD just create ye more plastic and landfill. We need to get used to paying for services, not throwaway physical things that take up space and create rubbish.
Your third bullet point is clearly wrong. Electronic systems are equally prone to fraud and theft. In fact it is more likely to result in a higher amount being stolen because (generally) people only hold a 'survivable' amount of cash in person whilst a fraudster getting into your bank account electronically could steal the whole lot.
Next time you hear of gangsters paying for services via BACS let me know.
Actually the amount of BACS fraud is legion. This is why there is a new name check safeguard being implemented next year.
Everything she writes assumes the recipient is a fucking idiot who can't see what she's doing.
Maybe she could list all the compromises she has made? And all the compromises the EU has made? Side by side. That would be a good way to judge the deal, PM...
The idea that her party will allow May to just keep asking them to vote again until they get the right answer is the sort of adorably comfortably delusion she's become famous for.
Especially while constantly telling the general population that, no, they can't be trusted with voting again.
For bonus marks, use the phrase "politicians' vote" to rubbish a popular referendum, while at the same time asking the actual politicians in Westminster to take another vote.
How does one organise a referendum campaign in 117 days (not taking into account the Christmas holidays?)/
Greece managed it in two weeks.
Before the FTPA the formal timetable for general elections was 3 weeks. Polling day in February 1974 was exactly 3 weeks after the announcement of the election.
We aren't Greece. We have legislation governing the conduct of Referenda or elections, which must either be complied with or repealed. There would be endless litigation, even before any vote could be held.
There would be no issue in this scenario of what the government could or could not do without the say-so of Parliament. If Parliament decides to hold a referendum in 2 weeks' time then the referendum will happen. Ditto a general election. Clerks can work out what sections of what prior statutes, such as the FTPA, get repealed. What do you think there might be litigation about?
The opposition needs to take the frame from the prime minister and the government, and they don't seem to be doing it.
Comments
If May is still in charge it will be the latter.
If she set out her position in the event of defeat (presumably either a new referendum or a hard Brexit) she would have a better chance of forcing one group of her opponents into line.
The alternative is she proposes permanent Customs Union to win Labour votes or the DUP pull the plug and back a VONC and we have a general election.
Given over 200 Tory MPs back May's Deal out of 318 there are not the numbers to topple her
[This is the right forum for Strictly chat, right?]
Here is what he should do: write an open reply to her offer. Record it as a video. Take the initiative. Keep mentioning the "British people". Make the following points.
Dear Mrs May
1) As your crumbling government tries to remain in office hanging by its fingernails, economic disaster looms - the likes of which haven't been seen before in most of our lifetimes. You are not governing in the national interest. You are messing the British people about. It's all very well to write to the British people in the newspapers, but what the British people need, and need now, is to be able to decide whether your government is fit to remain in office.
2) The prime minister is supposed to act in the national interest. Do it. Bring your draft withdrawal agreement to the Commons right now so that it can be voted down, as almost everyone predicts it will be. Then the country can move to the next stage.
3) That next stage is a general election.
4) Stop showing contempt for the British people. Let our debate be a debate with consequences. Let us set out our alternative visions in our manifestos. That will be difficult in your case given that your party is so divided, but at the present time the Tory party still undoubtedly exists. Although its leadership has ballsed up the Brexit process to the point where experts are predicting food shortages, medicine shortages, car parks on the motorways and mothballed airports, I presume the Tory party will still be showing its face to contest the next election. Put your money where your mouth is. Call a general election and then debate against me. Let the British people decide.
5) I will be happy to debate against the Tory leader - whether that is yourself, a caretaker leader, or whichever successor your party chooses - on TV or anywhere else. But I am not prepared to take part in the equivalent of a game show designed to distract from your delay in tabling your draft agreement in the House of Commons. I am not prepared to help you distract from your continuing failure to read the writing on the wall and to allow the British people to hold your government to account for the almost unparalleled incompetence it has shown since the result of the 2016 referendum. (... British people, British people, blah blah. Pick some appropriate music too.)
Yours sincerely,
Jeremy Corbyn
For clarity: 4% difference by 2030
Even head to head with Remain No Deal only gets to 45% with Yougov ie no higher than Yes got in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum.
No Dealers are basically the UK equivalent of cybernats ie the diehards not a majority of the country
What is absolutely clear is the EU will not agree any other Deal for the UK without the backstop
Tories Ayes: 230
Tories Noes: 120
Labour Ayes: 3
Labour Noes: 254
SNP ayes: 0
SNP noes: 35
Lib Dem ayes: 1
Lib Dem noes: 11
DUP ayes: 0
DUP noes: 10
Note that "Leave" is native Germanic, "Remain" is continental and foreign Latinate. A proper pair with roots in the same language group would be Leave and Stay, or Remain and Depart.
It shows how much power and sovereignty has been given away to the EU by stealth over the last 40 years. if it is this difficult leaving now then imagine how hard it will be in another 20 years.
Odds are quite surprising given conventional wisdom that there is no chance of vote passing.
Market still illiquid but looks as if it will settle with Yes around 3 and No 1.5.
For bonus marks, use the phrase "politicians' vote" to rubbish a popular referendum, while at the same time asking the actual politicians in Westminster to take another vote.
Which I realise is a big ask for the UK government.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/publications/tabs/unit-publications/The_Mechanics_of_a_Further_Referendum_on_Brexit
Cash is:
• wasteful
• environmentally unsound
• prone to fraud and theft
• inconvenient
• dirty
• heavy
• expensive to administer
As for your very weak anecdote about the banks going down and cash saving the day, what percentage of the population carry enough cash with them to survive more than a few hours do you think?
Cash is going only one way, I'm afraid.
As for your equally bonkers post about video games, er no. PlayStation prices vary, often in line with what the market will bear, so it's very often possible to find great games for less than the physical second hand price.
Games on DVD just create ye more plastic and landfill. We need to get used to paying for services, not throwaway physical things that take up space and create rubbish.
In truth it would mean a barrage of hundreds of ad hoc deals put together in a hurry with no proper consideration of what it all means.
It would be a good old fashioned Great British Shitshow.
How long would the Electoral Commission take to agree the question to be asked, given that following he previous referendum result it could only be a choice between Leave options?
I'm not in favour of a second referendum, btw. But I take a very dim view of all the things people are confidently predicting are "impossible" right now.
2. Can any legislation reach a Third Reading in time?
3. Will the Electoral Commission approve the question?
4.. Can lead campaign groups be registered in time with the Electoral Commission?
5. Having surmounted all those hurdles, is there time to run a campaign?
No, if Parliament wans to vote for the WA, or opt for No Deal, or apply to the EU for permission to cancel Brexit, Parliament will have to take that decision.
Before the FTPA the formal timetable for general elections was 3 weeks. Polling day in February 1974 was exactly 3 weeks after the announcement of the election.
It's at 12:31
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/nov/26/brexit-may-commons-statement-economy-would-be-4-smaller-after-10-years-under-mays-brexit-plan-says-report-politics-live
In a sane world we could introduce ID cards as a way of getting us into Schengen. ID cards are a more effective security measure against terrorism and illegal immigration than passports.
Which, of course, there wouldn't be.
I voted Remain, but has always been clear to me that the main objective of the chief Brexiteers (Cummings, Elliot, Hannon, Johnson, Raab, Ree-Mogg etc) was to bring back sovereignty and forge new trade deals.
The NHS funding stunt has been magnified since the referendum and the Turkish immigration story was mainly a Farage initiative. Both of these stunts were , I believe, taken with a pinch of salt.
Immigration was, it is true, the most important issue for the mass of Brexit voters by a mile, but this was a response to immigration already happened (Eastern European) and the changing nature of our towns and cities rather than possible Turkish immigration.
What cannot be denied is that the victory of the main Brexiteers is being turned into a defeat by May by her deal which does not deliver the Brexit that they have (supposedly) won because it fails on sovereignty/trade deals.
May cannot claim to be respecting Brexit with a deal that Brexiteers hate and say is even worse than staying in the EU.
Here it is again:
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/publications/tabs/unit-publications/The_Mechanics_of_a_Further_Referendum_on_Brexit
Sorry for shouting, but, really, read the effing thing. We are not Greece, and we're not Australia, and we have enshrined in existing law a framework for referendums which means that parliament can't simply call a referendum.
I look forward to watching Barnier, Juncker and Varadkar getting down there with a white transit van full of 2x4 and doing their part to Build That Wall.
Who would have ever thought it.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1066988609532764160
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1067003529813008384
https://twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/1067034051696046080
There are plenty willing to compromise, so yes, your assertion can be denied.
Lots of people is not most people, as I said No Dealers are the UK equivalent of cybernats
Anyone in the private sector who had spent two and a half years negotiating a corporate deal to then have it rejected 430 to 234 by the shareholders would be on gardening leave by teatime, as they sorted out their exit package....
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/11/23/national/politics-diplomacy/japan-cybersecurity-minister-doesnt-use-computers-says-hes-not-familiar-cybersecurity/
“My biggest job (as Cabinet minister) is to read out written replies (prepared by bureaucrats) without making any mistakes,” he said.
During the meeting, however, there were times when Sakurada failed to read such documents correctly...
We should recruit him as Brexit minister.
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/1066724355470749696
The opposition needs to take the frame from the prime minister and the government, and they don't seem to be doing it.