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.
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.
You'd really need a change of government, rapid agreement on repealing the existing legislation on referenda, pushing through new emergency legislation with the backing of opposition parties, beating every legal challenge that would come their way, and then holding the campaign.
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.
Second referendum needs May's support, she is more likely to back Corbyn's official policy of permanent Customs Union to get a majority if her Deal cannot get through
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....
Anyone in the corporate sector who was inaccurate with their CV to the extent of Duncan-Smith would have been fired a long time ago. So would be unable to carry on spreading malignant lies while treated with some degree of respect.
That's not to mention Mogg's failed hostile takeover. And Johnson.
"ludicrous backstop" is the entire game, sweetheart.
What is your "realistic compromise"? That is doable now. Not in future fantasy-land?
Amazing how Brexiters are realising, Raab-like, how their country is constituted.
My solution would be we put in the future relationship agreement that there will be no hard border in Ireland and kick the can of how that will be achieved to the actual future relationship negotiations.
Too risky, and unworkable. Both sides would be tying their hands to a(n albeit) known unknown. Because if no agreement can be reached on the future trading relationship, then to have no hard border can't be guaranteed (if we go WTO, for example).
No it would be just the continuation of the status quo ante.
Already we can't guarantee in the future that there would be no hard border. Article 50 has existed since before we used it meaning that hypothetically there could be a future hard border.
It should be sufficient to commit that we don't want a hard border and work on solutions from there. Any transition period would have an open border and any end state agreement wouldn't be agreeable to both sides without an open border. So where does the risk of a hard border come from? Only it there is no deal. So is it worth going to no deal today to prevent a potential no deal tomorrow?
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.
What do you think there might be litigation about?
The franchise, the question, the role of the Electoral Commission, the designation of lead campaign groups? I'm sure other posters can think up other points that would be litigated.
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?)/
If they cannot organise a vote in 3+months they should not be running the country.
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....
Most shareholders are not prepared to destroy the company's profits as a consequence of rejecting the Deal on the table
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.
MD thinks Google Play should send you a copy of the Uber app on a 3.5" floppy.
Wow this is something. Ignoring the face that the wonderful Theresa deserves as much of the blame as anyone for the difficulty she now finds herself in (GE17?!), the analysis that the defeat of the HoC vote first time should result in a 2nd referendum is simply wishful thinking.
A close second ref would cause just as much havoc as the first. Worse case scenario: What if no deal won due to the public being pig sick of going to the polls every 5 minutes? Would all those who think ref 2 who is a magic cure all lay down and accept it? Probably not. If there was a remain vote I'd bet my bottom that would still be a sizeable minority who support leave. They would probably also take the view that the government has deliberately cocked up negotiations in order to ultimately remain in the EU. If that view was to become widespread it would lead to nothing good...
The difficulties of getting the deal through have been slapped in our faces several times a day because of the 24-hour news cycle. Taking a step back, it's not beyond the realm of possibility for may to get some minor assurances from the EU, whip her MPs hard, some lab rebels and some abstentions to win the day.
That's how I think it'll pass; on dup/erg abstentions 2nd time around. I might be wrong and my betting position will punish me accordingly. But surely better to get some variation of this deal through than the neverendum.
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
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...
No it's not. Our negotiators should understand simple ultimatum game theory.
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....
Speaking as someone who was recently put on garden leave to negotiate my exit package, I think it's even starker than that.
Her deal is already dead, widely denounced by all sides whose resolve is strengthening against it. I stead of being put on garden leave, May has been allowed to stay in role begging to keep her job and thus bringing the organisation (the Tory Party) into disrepute. So the analogy now is more like Gross Misconduct.
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party. Begging. Pleading. With her own MPs. And yet despite her actions bringing the party low the same MPs who refuse to back her administration refuse to do the honourable thing, the political thing and REMOVE her.
My pity for May (and it is pity and not anything else) is nothing compared to my contempt for Tory MP cowards.
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...
No it's not. Our negotiators should understand simple ultimatum game theory.
DD brought piss to a shit fight and the tone of the negotiations was set from the start.
"ludicrous backstop" is the entire game, sweetheart.
What is your "realistic compromise"? That is doable now. Not in future fantasy-land?
Amazing how Brexiters are realising, Raab-like, how their country is constituted.
My solution would be we put in the future relationship agreement that there will be no hard border in Ireland and kick the can of how that will be achieved to the actual future relationship negotiations.
Too risky, and unworkable. Both sides would be tying their hands to a(n albeit) known unknown. Because if no agreement can be reached on the future trading relationship, then to have no hard border can't be guaranteed (if we go WTO, for example).
No it would be just the continuation of the status quo ante.
Already we can't guarantee in the future that there would be no hard border. Article 50 has existed since before we used it meaning that hypothetically there could be a future hard border.
It should be sufficient to commit that we don't want a hard border and work on solutions from there. Any transition period would have an open border and any end state agreement wouldn't be agreeable to both sides without an open border. So where does the risk of a hard border come from? Only it there is no deal. So is it worth going to no deal today to prevent a potential no deal tomorrow?
No. Of course it's not and that's why the government cannot accept a no deal. You answer the question yourself - "where does the risk of a hard border come from? Only if there is no deal."
Starmer moving on an A50 extension. I don't think the substance of this is new but the rhetoric is. If the dam breaks on the sanctity of the scheduled Brexit Day then Labour and the Tory New Dealers can unite.
Remember that needs a vote of the EU27, and every country has a veto.
We await the ECJ ruling on that, but I would expect the ruling to be as you say.
Otherwise, any Member State that was unhappy could just give and rescind A50 notices at will.
One solution to that from the EU side is that if a country invokes A50, revokes it at the last moment, and invokes it again, they can simply re-present the Withdrawal Agreement made the last time around, tell them "take it or leave it" and pressure them to sign it immediately. After all, the 2 year period is a limit, not a requirement. If they don't sign it immediately, ignore them until the two year time limit is up.
"ludicrous backstop" is the entire game, sweetheart.
What is your "realistic compromise"? That is doable now. Not in future fantasy-land?
Amazing how Brexiters are realising, Raab-like, how their country is constituted.
My solution would be we put in the future relationship agreement that there will be no hard border in Ireland and kick the can of how that will be achieved to the actual future relationship negotiations.
Too risky, and unworkable. Both sides would be tying their hands to a(n albeit) known unknown. Because if no agreement can be reached on the future trading relationship, then to have no hard border can't be guaranteed (if we go WTO, for example).
No it would be just the continuation of the status quo ante.
Already we can't guarantee in the future that there would be no hard border. Article 50 has existed since before we used it meaning that hypothetically there could be a future hard border.
It should be sufficient to commit that we don't want a hard border and work on solutions from there. Any transition period would have an open border and any end state agreement wouldn't be agreeable to both sides without an open border. So where does the risk of a hard border come from? Only it there is no deal. So is it worth going to no deal today to prevent a potential no deal tomorrow?
No. Of course it's not and that's why the government cannot accept a no deal. You answer the question yourself - "where does the risk of a hard border come from? Only if there is no deal."
So logically if Ireland want to avoid the hard border then they need a deal. Which means compromise on the unacceptable backstop.
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).
Were you to read the link I posted, you would find that point is addressed.
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....
Speaking as someone who was recently put on garden leave to negotiate my exit package, I think it's even starker than that.
Her deal is already dead, widely denounced by all sides whose resolve is strengthening against it. I stead of being put on garden leave, May has been allowed to stay in role begging to keep her job and thus bringing the organisation (the Tory Party) into disrepute. So the analogy now is more like Gross Misconduct.
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party. Begging. Pleading. With her own MPs. And yet despite her actions bringing the party low the same MPs who refuse to back her administration refuse to do the honourable thing, the political thing and REMOVE her.
My pity for May (and it is pity and not anything else) is nothing compared to my contempt for Tory MP cowards.
It is not the best possible deal it is the best deal possible.
It threads a tortuous path through the various competing interests.
Her mistake is not this deal. Under the circumstances it is quite a feat of negotiation and balance.
Her mistake was not to have formed a "coalition of the willing" at the very beginning of the process, set up this committee of enquiry, that board of assessment, including all parties, Labour included. Might still have failed, of course, but might also have ended up with EFTA/EEA and an announcement that FoM was something that people would have to lump.
But that ship has sailed, obvs.
Listening to Boles (who I am four figures green on for next party leader, btw) waffle on about the "emergency brake" with Norway plus on the radio was an embarrassment (for him).
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.
MD thinks Google Play should send you a copy of the Uber app on a 3.5" floppy.
When he buys things from them, he sends them a postal order presumably.
If we really wanted to annoy France (and Macron), which obviously we do, we should rescind article 50 and then veto everything until the EU is forced to reform CAP.
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.
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.
Second referendum needs May's support, she is more likely to back Corbyn's official policy of permanent Customs Union to get a majority if her Deal cannot get through
She wont be PM for long if she proposes a permanent CU.
Clean brexit now shaping up to be the best option - take the responsibility of trade and commerce away from May and the civil service and put it in the hands of private sector procurement managers - they will provide the required expiditing skills to get goods in where required.
Once again relying on the public sector ends in an epic fail.
"ludicrous backstop" is the entire game, sweetheart.
What is your "realistic compromise"? That is doable now. Not in future fantasy-land?
Amazing how Brexiters are realising, Raab-like, how their country is constituted.
My solution would be we put in the future relationship agreement that there will be no hard border in Ireland and kick the can of how that will be achieved to the actual future relationship negotiations.
Too risky, and unworkable. Both sides would be tying their hands to a(n albeit) known unknown. Because if no agreement can be reached on the future trading relationship, then to have no hard border can't be guaranteed (if we go WTO, for example).
No it would be just the continuation of the status quo ante.
Already we can't guarantee in the future that there would be no hard border. Article 50 has existed since before we used it meaning that hypothetically there could be a future hard border.
It should be sufficient to commit that we don't want a hard border and work on solutions from there. Any transition period would have an open border and any end state agreement wouldn't be agreeable to both sides without an open border. So where does the risk of a hard border come from? Only it there is no deal. So is it worth going to no deal today to prevent a potential no deal tomorrow?
No. Of course it's not and that's why the government cannot accept a no deal. You answer the question yourself - "where does the risk of a hard border come from? Only if there is no deal."
So logically if Ireland want to avoid the hard border then they need a deal. Which means compromise on the unacceptable backstop.
Logically...logically....ha haha hahahahaha.
But I digress.
No. Logically Ireland understands, as does the EU, and Ollie and Tezza, that the UK cannot go down any path which may result in a hard border in NI. And hence the backstop because if there is no deal there is the backstop.
Of course a deal may render a backstop moot but one is still needed. And everyone (apart from Brexiter armchair general Canada Plus advocates) knows that there is simply no other option.
Listening to Boles (who I am four figures green on for next party leader, btw) waffle on about the "emergency brake" with Norway plus on the radio was an embarrassment (for him).
The 'evolution' of his plan from its starting point of:
- Junk the withdrawal agreement - Join EFTA but legislate to leave it before the next election - Enjoy Canada Plus utopia
To it's current version of:
- Ratify the withdrawal agreement in full - Aim to join EFTA permanently - Add a permanent customs union with the EU
Has been spectacular. The desperation of parts of the Conservative party to find a face saving way out of this is palpable. It won't work.
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.
MD thinks Google Play should send you a copy of the Uber app on a 3.5" floppy.
When he buys things from them, he sends them a postal order presumably.
I do remember in recent history calling Foyles Bookshop and the answerphone said if there were any queries to write to Foyles Bookshop, Charing Cross Road, etc...etc...
The Guardian has some interesting figures on Pub closures. I link to it just because it's striking how often recent Labour campaign videos have featured rows of empty shops.Trumpian cultural conservativism about the decline of small towns is definitely part of their strategy to get to 326.
The Guardian has some interesting figures on Pub closures. I link to it just because it's striking how often recent Labour campaign videos have featured rows of empty shops.Trumpian cultural conservativism about the decline of small towns is definitely part of their strategy to get to 326.
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.
Judicial review on the grounds they haven’t done a disability impact assessment of the legislation.
Or we could go with the lack of a community consultation.
Very interesting analysis of voting in US mid-terms this time. It fits very well with what I was sensing before the elections - a continual shifting of party affiliations coupled with Trump driving the Never Trumpers into voting Democrat.
It was blindingly obvious that Trump was losing suburban women and you could sense he was also losing what we used to call the "Establishment" GOP. I really do wonder if the damage to the GOP brand is such that the latter will now never come back. In many ways, the GOP's only hope of regaining them is if the Dems really do shift significantly further to the left. Which they may do ...
The jury has failed to reach a verdict in the trial of Fiona Onasanya.
Retrial ?
Imagine her vote now blocks May's deal..
Amazing that a verdict cannot be found ,
Almost an unlimited list of cynical views I can imagine as to why some of the jury couldn't find her guilty..
Oh dear. You really stoop lower every day.
Given that someone stated that she was in the village (with the camera) with her car and by herself 10 minutes before the alleged incident - you do wonder what other evidence was stated that moved things the other way...
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.
If we're just going to WTO terms anyway, then what are we giving them £39bn for exactly? It was sold to the electorate as part of our leverage to get a decent trade deal.
The Guardian has some interesting figures on Pub closures. I link to it just because it's striking how often recent Labour campaign videos have featured rows of empty shops.Trumpian cultural conservativism about the decline of small towns is definitely part of their strategy to get to 326.
I'm guessing there's a pretty strong correlation between areas with large/growing ethic minority populations and the closure of pubs, hence the article highlighting Birmingham, Luton, Rochdale etc.
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.
If we're just going to WTO terms anyway, then what are we giving them £39bn for exactly? It was sold to the electorate as part of our leverage to get a decent trade deal.
We are paying so that they gently remove the gun we've pointed at our heads.
The jury has failed to reach a verdict in the trial of Fiona Onasanya.
Retrial ?
Imagine her vote now blocks May's deal..
Amazing that a verdict cannot be found ,
Almost an unlimited list of cynical views I can imagine as to why some of the jury couldn't find her guilty..
Oh dear. You really stoop lower every day.
Given that someone stated that she was in the village (with the camera) with her car and by herself 10 minutes before the alleged incident - you do wonder what other evidence was stated that moved things the other way...
She wasn't actually on trial for the speeding offence, to be fair.
The jury has failed to reach a verdict in the trial of Fiona Onasanya.
Retrial ?
Imagine her vote now blocks May's deal..
Amazing that a verdict cannot be found ,
Almost an unlimited list of cynical views I can imagine as to why some of the jury couldn't find her guilty..
Oh dear. You really stoop lower every day.
Given that someone stated that she was in the village (with the camera) with her car and by herself 10 minutes before the alleged incident - you do wonder what other evidence was stated that moved things the other way...
The question asked of the Jury wasn't "Was she the speeding driver" - it was "did she deliberately act in order to prevent the natural course of justice" (or something similar). She is not on trial for a speeding offence - she is on trial for perverting the cause of justice - a much more serious allegation.
Clean brexit now shaping up to be the best option - take the responsibility of trade and commerce away from May and the civil service and put it in the hands of private sector procurement managers - they will provide the required expiditing skills to get goods in where required.
Once again relying on the public sector ends in an epic fail.
But it's the private sector procurement and logistics experts who have detailed how "clean Brexit" makes it impossible for them to "get goods in where required "
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.
If we're just going to WTO terms anyway, then what are we giving them £39bn for exactly? It was sold to the electorate as part of our leverage to get a decent trade deal.
We are paying so that they gently remove the gun we've pointed at our heads.
Perhaps explain what they are giving us in exchange for the money without using a metaphor.
That soon? Good news. I thought it would be in 3 months' time.
Actually, that might be total fake news...I thought I read that in the article linked, but can't see it now. Might just be totally imaging it while doing 27 other things.
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.
If we're just going to WTO terms anyway, then what are we giving them £39bn for exactly? It was sold to the electorate as part of our leverage to get a decent trade deal.
We are paying so that they gently remove the gun we've pointed at our heads.
Perhaps explain what they are giving us in exchange for the money without using a metaphor.
As I am starting to suspect that it's nothing.
We have one apple and the EU has one apple. We have given our apple to the EU.
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.
A check that is impossible in cash trades.
Cash is dead.
I'll wait until the kids doing 'Penny for the Guy' offer a contactless card reader to passing punters before declaring the end of cash!
"ludicrous backstop" is the entire game, sweetheart.
What is your "realistic compromise"? That is doable now. Not in future fantasy-land?
Amazing how Brexiters are realising, Raab-like, how their country is constituted.
My solution would be we put in the future relationship agreement that there will be no hard border in Ireland and kick the can of how that will be achieved to the actual future relationship negotiations.
Too risky, and unworkable. Both sides would be tying their hands to a(n albeit) known unknown. Because if no agreement can be reached on the future trading relationship, then to have no hard border can't be guaranteed (if we go WTO, for example).
No it would be just the continuation of the status quo ante.
Already we can't guarantee in the future that there would be no hard border. Article 50 has existed since before we used it meaning that hypothetically there could be a future hard border.
It should be sufficient to commit that we don't want a hard border and work on solutions from there. Any transition period would have an open border and any end state agreement wouldn't be agreeable to both sides without an open border. So where does the risk of a hard border come from? Only it there is no deal. So is it worth going to no deal today to prevent a potential no deal tomorrow?
No. Of course it's not and that's why the government cannot accept a no deal. You answer the question yourself - "where does the risk of a hard border come from? Only if there is no deal."
So logically if Ireland want to avoid the hard border then they need a deal. Which means compromise on the unacceptable backstop.
Logically...logically....ha haha hahahahaha.
But I digress.
No. Logically Ireland understands, as does the EU, and Ollie and Tezza, that the UK cannot go down any path which may result in a hard border in NI. And hence the backstop because if there is no deal there is the backstop.
Of course a deal may render a backstop moot but one is still needed. And everyone (apart from Brexiter armchair general Canada Plus advocates) knows that there is simply no other option.
Why is it needed if it is not a path we can go down? If it's not a path we can go down then the backstop is redundant since we won't go down it.
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.
If we're just going to WTO terms anyway, then what are we giving them £39bn for exactly? It was sold to the electorate as part of our leverage to get a decent trade deal.
We are paying so that they gently remove the gun we've pointed at our heads.
Perhaps explain what they are giving us in exchange for the money without using a metaphor.
As I am starting to suspect that it's nothing.
A transition period, for a starter, and 500+ pages of cooperation over lots of complex issues, plus a pretty good political agreement for the future relationship. Of course it's true that the latter is broad-brush and there's lots left to negotiate, but we are where we are. Don't blame me, I voted Remain. I also spent two years pointing out not only that the Leave campaign didn't seem to have a clue what alternative they were proposing, but also that they didn't seem even vaguely interested in the question.
I have recently been a victim of identity theft. I ring up to report it, explain the fraud that has taken place, institution confirms this, but when I ask could they give me so more details on the payment side of things i.e. any bank accounts linked to this etc, they tell me because I have "admitted" that it isn't me that actioned this, due to data protection, I am not allowed to know.
So I am left totally in the dark how else my identity might have been used to comprise me.
The Guardian has some interesting figures on Pub closures. I link to it just because it's striking how often recent Labour campaign videos have featured rows of empty shops.Trumpian cultural conservativism about the decline of small towns is definitely part of their strategy to get to 326.
The jury has failed to reach a verdict in the trial of Fiona Onasanya.
Retrial ?
Imagine her vote now blocks May's deal..
Amazing that a verdict cannot be found ,
Almost an unlimited list of cynical views I can imagine as to why some of the jury couldn't find her guilty..
Oh dear. You really stoop lower every day.
Given that someone stated that she was in the village (with the camera) with her car and by herself 10 minutes before the alleged incident - you do wonder what other evidence was stated that moved things the other way...
The question asked of the Jury wasn't "Was she the speeding driver" - it was "did she deliberately act in order to prevent the natural course of justice" (or something similar). She is not on trial for a speeding offence - she is on trial for perverting the cause of justice - a much more serious allegation.
And considerably, and quite rightly, much harder to prove.
Why is it needed if it is not a path we can go down? If it's not a path we can go down then the backstop is redundant since we won't go down it.
The path we can't go down is the one wherein we may, by virtue of some quirk it wasn't supposed to happen this wasn't in the plan-type event, be forced to consider a hard border.
No deal and moving to WTO terms might be one of those situations. Although there is provision for the WTO not to mandate a border under MFN if it has security or other implications, it is not certain that they would utilise this exemption. If they did not, and another WTO member brought a disupute under MFN, then we would be left with no alternative but to build a border.
The jury has failed to reach a verdict in the trial of Fiona Onasanya.
Retrial ?
Imagine her vote now blocks May's deal..
Amazing that a verdict cannot be found ,
Almost an unlimited list of cynical views I can imagine as to why some of the jury couldn't find her guilty..
Oh dear. You really stoop lower every day.
Given that someone stated that she was in the village (with the camera) with her car and by herself 10 minutes before the alleged incident - you do wonder what other evidence was stated that moved things the other way...
The question asked of the Jury wasn't "Was she the speeding driver" - it was "did she deliberately act in order to prevent the natural course of justice" (or something similar). She is not on trial for a speeding offence - she is on trial for perverting the cause of justice - a much more serious allegation.
Indeed - and probably rather more difficult to prove beyond all reasonable doubt.
Clean brexit now shaping up to be the best option - take the responsibility of trade and commerce away from May and the civil service and put it in the hands of private sector procurement managers - they will provide the required expiditing skills to get goods in where required.
Once again relying on the public sector ends in an epic fail.
But it's the private sector procurement and logistics experts who have detailed how "clean Brexit" makes it impossible for them to "get goods in where required "
The paradoxes of a second referendum remain. We won't get a second referendum unless Brexit collapses and if Brexit collapses a second referendum won't be an immediate priority. Brexit will only collapse under the pressure of the A50 deadline and political failure. But by the time we get to the A50 deadline to precipitate a second referendum there won't be time for a second referendum.
I have recently been a victim of identity theft. I ring up to report it, explain the fraud that has taken place, institution confirms this, but when I ask could they give me so more details on the payment side of things i.e. any bank accounts linked to this etc, they tell me because I have "admitted" that it isn't me that actioned this, due to data protection, I am not allowed to know.
So I am left totally in the dark how else my identity might have been used to comprise me.
As long as it wasn't used to buy membership of alohateens.com.
The poll quoted above doesn't really justify anything. 2000 people remainers, leavers and don't carers were asked a question as to what they most remembered about the Leave campaign. It certainly doesn't mean only 4% were bothered about sovereignty. The cave-in over Gibraltar and Macron's fishing bluster has done enough to persuade me whatever the WA's merits it fails on the most important level in that it constrains our freedom of action and still leaves at the whim of the political machinations of our former EU partners.
I have recently been a victim of identity theft. I ring up to report it, explain the fraud that has taken place, institution confirms this, but when I ask could they give me so more details on the payment side of things i.e. any bank accounts linked to this etc, they tell me because I have "admitted" that it isn't me that actioned this, due to data protection, I am not allowed to know.
So I am left totally in the dark how else my identity might have been used to comprise me.
Contact the Information Commissioner. There is a "reasonable use" exemption. Preventing, or exposing, identity fraud really ought to fall under that. IANAL btw.
The paradoxes of a second referendum remain. We won't get a second referendum unless Brexit collapses and if Brexit collapses a second referendum won't be an immediate priority. Brexit will only collapse under the pressure of the A50 deadline and political failure. But by the time we get to the A50 deadline to precipitate a second referendum there won't be time for a second referendum.
A second referendum requires an extension to Article 50, and that requires the unanimous consent of the EU27. They would probably grant it if they thought there was a reasonably good chance of the referendum resolving things, although we can't be sure, and it's not unlikely that one or more of the countries would seek to use it as leverage (on Gibraltar or fish, for example, as has been suggested). And then there are all the issues about what the referendum options should be, and no guarantee that the referendum would produce the 'right' or indeed any clear result.
All in all, the whole thing is the biggest mess imaginable, and the only way out of the mess is the one which MPs seem very likely to reject.
The paradoxes of a second referendum remain. We won't get a second referendum unless Brexit collapses and if Brexit collapses a second referendum won't be an immediate priority. Brexit will only collapse under the pressure of the A50 deadline and political failure. But by the time we get to the A50 deadline to precipitate a second referendum there won't be time for a second referendum.
A second referendum requires an extension to Article 50, and that requires the unanimous consent of the EU27. They would probably grant it if they thought there was a reasonably good chance of the referendum resolving things, although we can't be sure, and it's not unlikely that one or more of the countries would seek to use it as leverage (on Gibraltar or fish, for example, as has been suggested). And then there are all the issues about what the referendum options should be, and no guarantee that the referendum would produce the 'right' or indeed any clear result.
All in all, the whole thing is the biggest mess imaginable, and the only way out of the mess is the one which MPs seem very likely to reject.
The paradoxes of a second referendum remain. We won't get a second referendum unless Brexit collapses and if Brexit collapses a second referendum won't be an immediate priority. Brexit will only collapse under the pressure of the A50 deadline and political failure. But by the time we get to the A50 deadline to precipitate a second referendum there won't be time for a second referendum.
A second referendum requires an extension to Article 50, and that requires the unanimous consent of the EU27. They would probably grant it if they thought there was a reasonably good chance of the referendum resolving things, although we can't be sure, and it's not unlikely that one or more of the countries would seek to use it as leverage (on Gibraltar or fish, for example, as has been suggested). And then there are all the issues about what the referendum options should be, and no guarantee that the referendum would produce the 'right' or indeed any clear result.
All in all, the whole thing is the biggest mess imaginable, and the only way out of the mess is the one which MPs seem very likely to reject.
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.
If we're just going to WTO terms anyway, then what are we giving them £39bn for exactly? It was sold to the electorate as part of our leverage to get a decent trade deal.
We are paying so that they gently remove the gun we've pointed at our heads.
Perhaps explain what they are giving us in exchange for the money without using a metaphor.
As I am starting to suspect that it's nothing.
A transition period, for a starter, and 500+ pages of cooperation over lots of complex issues, plus a pretty good political agreement for the future relationship. Of course it's true that the latter is broad-brush and there's lots left to negotiate, but we are where we are. Don't blame me, I voted Remain. I also spent two years pointing out not only that the Leave campaign didn't seem to have a clue what alternative they were proposing, but also that they didn't seem even vaguely interested in the question.
Cooperation is something that benefits both parties, so you'd like to think we'd be able to negotiate that without being held to ransom. But apparently not.
But don't blame me I never wanted to sign up to all these crappy treaties with the EU.
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.
If we're just going to WTO terms anyway, then what are we giving them £39bn for exactly? It was sold to the electorate as part of our leverage to get a decent trade deal.
We are paying so that they gently remove the gun we've pointed at our heads.
Perhaps explain what they are giving us in exchange for the money without using a metaphor.
As I am starting to suspect that it's nothing.
A transition period, for a starter, and 500+ pages of cooperation over lots of complex issues, plus a pretty good political agreement for the future relationship. Of course it's true that the latter is broad-brush and there's lots left to negotiate, but we are where we are. Don't blame me, I voted Remain. I also spent two years pointing out not only that the Leave campaign didn't seem to have a clue what alternative they were proposing, but also that they didn't seem even vaguely interested in the question.
Cooperation is something that benefits both parties, so you'd like to think we'd be able to negotiate that without being held to ransom. But apparently not.
But don't blame me I never wanted to sign up to all these crappy treaties with the EU.
You should have voted UKIP then, shouldn't you, as all the democratically-elected governments chose to sign them.
The paradoxes of a second referendum remain. We won't get a second referendum unless Brexit collapses and if Brexit collapses a second referendum won't be an immediate priority. Brexit will only collapse under the pressure of the A50 deadline and political failure. But by the time we get to the A50 deadline to precipitate a second referendum there won't be time for a second referendum.
A second referendum requires an extension to Article 50, and that requires the unanimous consent of the EU27. They would probably grant it if they thought there was a reasonably good chance of the referendum resolving things, although we can't be sure, and it's not unlikely that one or more of the countries would seek to use it as leverage (on Gibraltar or fish, for example, as has been suggested). And then there are all the issues about what the referendum options should be, and no guarantee that the referendum would produce the 'right' or indeed any clear result.
All in all, the whole thing is the biggest mess imaginable, and the only way out of the mess is the one which MPs seem very likely to reject.
Remain?
Without another referendum ?
That really would be a democratic abomination.
I think we've already pretty comprehensively exhausted the idea that Parliament truly cares what the electorate think.
The paradoxes of a second referendum remain. We won't get a second referendum unless Brexit collapses and if Brexit collapses a second referendum won't be an immediate priority. Brexit will only collapse under the pressure of the A50 deadline and political failure. But by the time we get to the A50 deadline to precipitate a second referendum there won't be time for a second referendum.
A second referendum requires an extension to Article 50, and that requires the unanimous consent of the EU27. They would probably grant it if they thought there was a reasonably good chance of the referendum resolving things, although we can't be sure, and it's not unlikely that one or more of the countries would seek to use it as leverage (on Gibraltar or fish, for example, as has been suggested). And then there are all the issues about what the referendum options should be, and no guarantee that the referendum would produce the 'right' or indeed any clear result.
All in all, the whole thing is the biggest mess imaginable, and the only way out of the mess is the one which MPs seem very likely to reject.
I agree with your first three points. Your fourth point that we have to accept May's deal because May has blocked all the exits save that one then set the building on fire ... provokes a visceral rage I've never felt in my political life. I won't be alone.
On the original post I think that more money for the NHS stuck in people's minds because remain tried to use it against the leave campaign and has doubled down on that approach since the referendum.
Sovereignty arguments were central to the leave campaign but rather than engaging them remain chose to talk about the economy. This trend continues, but with greater apparent divergence in the extent to which various prominent leavers are willing to acknowledge a trade off and therefore in their positioning on the deal, etc.
I don't think the letters are going to come in, I reckon May resigns after her deal is comprehensively thrashed in parliament.
She won't be given an opportunity to invite Parliament to vote again. She might survive if she deftly pivots to whatever her plan B is.
If she tries to pull a Nothing Has Changed, the 48 letters will probably hit her on the arse before she makes it to the door.
May has no plan B, I think she will realise that whatever chance of anything like her deal getting through relies on her not being in place. She's staking everything on the deal being passed. She won't countenance "No deal" on her watch (When she genuinely believes in her plan), nor will she countenance a second referendum (Her party wouldn't let her anyway). Mind you she can surprise us.
But really parliament voting down the deal by the margin I think it might sees the tiniest bit of political capital she now has left completely disappear.
The paradoxes of a second referendum remain. We won't get a second referendum unless Brexit collapses and if Brexit collapses a second referendum won't be an immediate priority. Brexit will only collapse under the pressure of the A50 deadline and political failure. But by the time we get to the A50 deadline to precipitate a second referendum there won't be time for a second referendum.
A second referendum requires an extension to Article 50, and that requires the unanimous consent of the EU27. They would probably grant it if they thought there was a reasonably good chance of the referendum resolving things, although we can't be sure, and it's not unlikely that one or more of the countries would seek to use it as leverage (on Gibraltar or fish, for example, as has been suggested). And then there are all the issues about what the referendum options should be, and no guarantee that the referendum would produce the 'right' or indeed any clear result.
All in all, the whole thing is the biggest mess imaginable, and the only way out of the mess is the one which MPs seem very likely to reject.
Remain?
'Remain' as though nothing had happened isn't really an option, much though I would love it if it were (and could we please have Dave and George back at the same time, if we're putting the clock back, and have his renegotiation package as well?). It may well not be an option at all without the consent of the 27 (depending on the outcome of tomorrow's ECJ case). Negotiating to stay in the EU, hopefully on terms not much worse than we had before, would resolve things if the country were agreed that that was what it wanted to do, but it's not. So we're back to the referendum as a way of giving democratic legitimacy to cancelling the result of the people's vote. But that is a problem for the reasons I've already given.
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.
If we're just going to WTO terms anyway, then what are we giving them £39bn for exactly? It was sold to the electorate as part of our leverage to get a decent trade deal.
We are paying so that they gently remove the gun we've pointed at our heads.
Perhaps explain what they are giving us in exchange for the money without using a metaphor.
As I am starting to suspect that it's nothing.
A transition period, for a starter, and 500+ pages of cooperation over lots of complex issues, plus a pretty good political agreement for the future relationship. Of course it's true that the latter is broad-brush and there's lots left to negotiate, but we are where we are. Don't blame me, I voted Remain. I also spent two years pointing out not only that the Leave campaign didn't seem to have a clue what alternative they were proposing, but also that they didn't seem even vaguely interested in the question.
Cooperation is something that benefits both parties, so you'd like to think we'd be able to negotiate that without being held to ransom. But apparently not.
But don't blame me I never wanted to sign up to all these crappy treaties with the EU.
You should have voted UKIP then, shouldn't you, as all the democratically-elected governments chose to sign them.
Yes voted in after promising a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in their manifestos and then ignoring them when in power.
And yes with hindsight people voting for UKIP would have helped avoid this mess.
The paradoxes of a second referendum remain. We won't get a second referendum unless Brexit collapses and if Brexit collapses a second referendum won't be an immediate priority. Brexit will only collapse under the pressure of the A50 deadline and political failure. But by the time we get to the A50 deadline to precipitate a second referendum there won't be time for a second referendum.
A second referendum requires an extension to Article 50, and that requires the unanimous consent of the EU27. They would probably grant it if they thought there was a reasonably good chance of the referendum resolving things, although we can't be sure, and it's not unlikely that one or more of the countries would seek to use it as leverage (on Gibraltar or fish, for example, as has been suggested). And then there are all the issues about what the referendum options should be, and no guarantee that the referendum would produce the 'right' or indeed any clear result.
All in all, the whole thing is the biggest mess imaginable, and the only way out of the mess is the one which MPs seem very likely to reject.
I agree with your first three points. Your fourth point that we have to accept May's deal because May has blocked all the exits save that one then set the building on fire ... provokes a visceral rage I've never felt in my political life. I won't be alone.
May has spent two years pouring abuse and ordure over those who believe in the EU, an open society, or just generally not being a dick to immigrants.
The paradoxes of a second referendum remain. We won't get a second referendum unless Brexit collapses and if Brexit collapses a second referendum won't be an immediate priority. Brexit will only collapse under the pressure of the A50 deadline and political failure. But by the time we get to the A50 deadline to precipitate a second referendum there won't be time for a second referendum.
A second referendum requires an extension to Article 50, and that requires the unanimous consent of the EU27. They would probably grant it if they thought there was a reasonably good chance of the referendum resolving things, although we can't be sure, and it's not unlikely that one or more of the countries would seek to use it as leverage (on Gibraltar or fish, for example, as has been suggested). And then there are all the issues about what the referendum options should be, and no guarantee that the referendum would produce the 'right' or indeed any clear result.
All in all, the whole thing is the biggest mess imaginable, and the only way out of the mess is the one which MPs seem very likely to reject.
I agree with your first three points. Your fourth point that we have to accept May's deal because May has blocked all the exits save that one then set the building on fire ... provokes a visceral rage I've never felt in my political life. I won't be alone.
It's not Mrs May that has blocked all the exits, it's the EU negotiating position. I don't recommend rage, but if you want to indulge I suggest you rant in that direction.
Edited: Regardless of who has blocked the exits, surely you leave the burning building by the only one available ?
The paradoxes of a second referendum remain. We won't get a second referendum unless Brexit collapses and if Brexit collapses a second referendum won't be an immediate priority. Brexit will only collapse under the pressure of the A50 deadline and political failure. But by the time we get to the A50 deadline to precipitate a second referendum there won't be time for a second referendum.
A second referendum requires an extension to Article 50, and that requires the unanimous consent of the EU27. They would probably grant it if they thought there was a reasonably good chance of the referendum resolving things, although we can't be sure, and it's not unlikely that one or more of the countries would seek to use it as leverage (on Gibraltar or fish, for example, as has been suggested). And then there are all the issues about what the referendum options should be, and no guarantee that the referendum would produce the 'right' or indeed any clear result.
All in all, the whole thing is the biggest mess imaginable, and the only way out of the mess is the one which MPs seem very likely to reject.
I agree with your first three points. Your fourth point that we have to accept May's deal because May has blocked all the exits save that one then set the building on fire ... provokes a visceral rage I've never felt in my political life. I won't be alone.
It's not Mrs May that has blocked all the other exits, it's the EU negotiating position. I don't recommend rage, but if you want to indulge I suggest you rant in that direction.
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.
If we're just going to WTO terms anyway, then what are we giving them £39bn for exactly? It was sold to the electorate as part of our leverage to get a decent trade deal.
We are paying so that they gently remove the gun we've pointed at our heads.
Perhaps explain what they are giving us in exchange for the money without using a metaphor.
As I am starting to suspect that it's nothing.
The payment is mainly for the two years of orderly transition :
The UK’s Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) set out detailed estimates of what the UK would pay in its Economic and Fiscal Outlook report, published alongside the Chancellor’s Spring Statement. That set out a total bill of €41.4bn (£37.1bn), extending out to 2064 as pension liabilities fall due.
But it also makes clear that around half consist of payments the UK will make during the transition phase. The OBR estimates net payments under the financial settlement of €18.5bn (£16.4bn) in 2019 and 2020, during the transition, followed by net payments of €7.6bn in 2021, €5.8bn (2022) €3.1bn (2023) and €1.7bn (2024) before falling away to €0.2bn in 2028. The liabilities, net of assets, that then remain to be paid amount to a total of €2.7bn over the period 2021–45....
The paradoxes of a second referendum remain. We won't get a second referendum unless Brexit collapses and if Brexit collapses a second referendum won't be an immediate priority. Brexit will only collapse under the pressure of the A50 deadline and political failure. But by the time we get to the A50 deadline to precipitate a second referendum there won't be time for a second referendum.
A second referendum requires an extension to Article 50, and that requires the unanimous consent of the EU27. They would probably grant it if they thought there was a reasonably good chance of the referendum resolving things, although we can't be sure, and it's not unlikely that one or more of the countries would seek to use it as leverage (on Gibraltar or fish, for example, as has been suggested). And then there are all the issues about what the referendum options should be, and no guarantee that the referendum would produce the 'right' or indeed any clear result.
All in all, the whole thing is the biggest mess imaginable, and the only way out of the mess is the one which MPs seem very likely to reject.
I agree with your first three points. Your fourth point that we have to accept May's deal because May has blocked all the exits save that one then set the building on fire ... provokes a visceral rage I've never felt in my political life. I won't be alone.
It's not Mrs May that has blocked all the other exits, it's the EU negotiating position. I don't recommend rage, but if you want to indulge I suggest you rant in that direction.
Um, May was the one that poured petrol over the building in the first place.
The paradoxes of a second referendum remain. We won't get a second referendum unless Brexit collapses and if Brexit collapses a second referendum won't be an immediate priority. Brexit will only collapse under the pressure of the A50 deadline and political failure. But by the time we get to the A50 deadline to precipitate a second referendum there won't be time for a second referendum.
A second referendum requires an extension to Article 50, and that requires the unanimous consent of the EU27. They would probably grant it if they thought there was a reasonably good chance of the referendum resolving things, although we can't be sure, and it's not unlikely that one or more of the countries would seek to use it as leverage (on Gibraltar or fish, for example, as has been suggested). And then there are all the issues about what the referendum options should be, and no guarantee that the referendum would produce the 'right' or indeed any clear result.
All in all, the whole thing is the biggest mess imaginable, and the only way out of the mess is the one which MPs seem very likely to reject.
I agree with your first three points. Your fourth point that we have to accept May's deal because May has blocked all the exits save that one then set the building on fire ... provokes a visceral rage I've never felt in my political life. I won't be alone.
It's not Mrs May that has blocked all the other exits, it's the EU negotiating position. I don't recommend rage, but if you want to indulge I suggest you rant in that direction.
Um, May was the one that poured petrol over the building in the first place.
Even if you think that do you remain in the building to be burnt alive ?
The paradoxes of a second referendum remain. We won't get a second referendum unless Brexit collapses and if Brexit collapses a second referendum won't be an immediate priority. Brexit will only collapse under the pressure of the A50 deadline and political failure. But by the time we get to the A50 deadline to precipitate a second referendum there won't be time for a second referendum.
A second referendum requires an extension to Article 50, and that requires the unanimous consent of the EU27. They would probably grant it if they thought there was a reasonably good chance of the referendum resolving things, although we can't be sure, and it's not unlikely that one or more of the countries would seek to use it as leverage (on Gibraltar or fish, for example, as has been suggested). And then there are all the issues about what the referendum options should be, and no guarantee that the referendum would produce the 'right' or indeed any clear result.
All in all, the whole thing is the biggest mess imaginable, and the only way out of the mess is the one which MPs seem very likely to reject.
I agree with your first three points. Your fourth point that we have to accept May's deal because May has blocked all the exits save that one then set the building on fire ... provokes a visceral rage I've never felt in my political life. I won't be alone.
It's not Mrs May that has blocked all the other exits, it's the EU negotiating position. I don't recommend rage, but if you want to indulge I suggest you rant in that direction.
Um, May was the one that poured petrol over the building in the first place.
You can accuse her of many things, and some of the accusations would be justified, but blaming her for the referendum result and the Leave and Remain campaigns is a bit of a stretch.
The paradoxes of a second referendum remain. We won't get a second referendum unless Brexit collapses and if Brexit collapses a second referendum won't be an immediate priority. Brexit will only collapse under the pressure of the A50 deadline and political failure. But by the time we get to the A50 deadline to precipitate a second referendum there won't be time for a second referendum.
A second referendum requires an extension to Article 50, and that requires the unanimous consent of the EU27. They would probably grant it if they thought there was a reasonably good chance of the referendum resolving things, although we can't be sure, and it's not unlikely that one or more of the countries would seek to use it as leverage (on Gibraltar or fish, for example, as has been suggested). And then there are all the issues about what the referendum options should be, and no guarantee that the referendum would produce the 'right' or indeed any clear result.
All in all, the whole thing is the biggest mess imaginable, and the only way out of the mess is the one which MPs seem very likely to reject.
I agree with your first three points. Your fourth point that we have to accept May's deal because May has blocked all the exits save that one then set the building on fire ... provokes a visceral rage I've never felt in my political life. I won't be alone.
It's not Mrs May that has blocked all the other exits, it's the EU negotiating position. I don't recommend rage, but if you want to indulge I suggest you rant in that direction.
Um, May was the one that poured petrol over the building in the first place.
Um, no, it was the Brexiteers who cheerfully sprayed petrol on the building when the demanded a referendum.
The paradoxes of a second referendum remain. We won't get a second referendum unless Brexit collapses and if Brexit collapses a second referendum won't be an immediate priority. Brexit will only collapse under the pressure of the A50 deadline and political failure. But by the time we get to the A50 deadline to precipitate a second referendum there won't be time for a second referendum.
A second referendum requires an extension to Article 50, and that requires the unanimous consent of the EU27. They would probably grant it if they thought there was a reasonably good chance of the referendum resolving things, although we can't be sure, and it's not unlikely that one or more of the countries would seek to use it as leverage (on Gibraltar or fish, for example, as has been suggested). And then there are all the issues about what the referendum options should be, and no guarantee that the referendum would produce the 'right' or indeed any clear result.
All in all, the whole thing is the biggest mess imaginable, and the only way out of the mess is the one which MPs seem very likely to reject.
I agree with your first three points. Your fourth point that we have to accept May's deal because May has blocked all the exits save that one then set the building on fire ... provokes a visceral rage I've never felt in my political life. I won't be alone.
It's not Mrs May that has blocked all the other exits, it's the EU negotiating position. I don't recommend rage, but if you want to indulge I suggest you rant in that direction.
Um, May was the one that poured petrol over the building in the first place.
You can accuse her of many things, and some of the accusations would be justified, but blaming her for the referendum result and the Leave and Remain campaigns is a bit of a stretch.
No, I blame her for invoking Article 50.
She set fire to the building without even bothering to check if it had any working fire suppression systems.
The paradoxes of a second referendum remain. We won't get a second referendum unless Brexit collapses and if Brexit collapses a second referendum won't be an immediate priority. Brexit will only collapse under the pressure of the A50 deadline and political failure. But by the time we get to the A50 deadline to precipitate a second referendum there won't be time for a second referendum.
A second referendum requires an extension to Article 50, and that requires the unanimous consent of the EU27. They would probably grant it if they thought there was a reasonably good chance of the referendum resolving things, although we can't be sure, and it's not unlikely that one or more of the countries would seek to use it as leverage (on Gibraltar or fish, for example, as has been suggested). And then there are all the issues about what the referendum options should be, and no guarantee that the referendum would produce the 'right' or indeed any clear result.
All in all, the whole thing is the biggest mess imaginable, and the only way out of the mess is the one which MPs seem very likely to reject.
I agree with your first three points. Your fourth point that we have to accept May's deal because May has blocked all the exits save that one then set the building on fire ... provokes a visceral rage I've never felt in my political life. I won't be alone.
It's not Mrs May that has blocked all the other exits, it's the EU negotiating position. I don't recommend rage, but if you want to indulge I suggest you rant in that direction.
Um, May was the one that poured petrol over the building in the first place.
You can accuse her of many things, and some of the accusations would be justified, but blaming her for the referendum result and the Leave and Remain campaigns is a bit of a stretch.
No, I blame her for invoking Article 50.
She set fire to the building without even bothering to check if it had any working fire suppression systems.
Spoilers: it did not.
She stalled for nine months. I really don't see how any PM could not have invoked Article 50 given the referendum result.
Comments
Good luck with all that.
That's not to mention Mogg's failed hostile takeover. And Johnson.
Already we can't guarantee in the future that there would be no hard border. Article 50 has existed since before we used it meaning that hypothetically there could be a future hard border.
It should be sufficient to commit that we don't want a hard border and work on solutions from there. Any transition period would have an open border and any end state agreement wouldn't be agreeable to both sides without an open border. So where does the risk of a hard border come from? Only it there is no deal. So is it worth going to no deal today to prevent a potential no deal tomorrow?
A close second ref would cause just as much havoc as the first. Worse case scenario: What if no deal won due to the public being pig sick of going to the polls every 5 minutes? Would all those who think ref 2 who is a magic cure all lay down and accept it? Probably not. If there was a remain vote I'd bet my bottom that would still be a sizeable minority who support leave. They would probably also take the view that the government has deliberately cocked up negotiations in order to ultimately remain in the EU. If that view was to become widespread it would lead to nothing good...
The difficulties of getting the deal through have been slapped in our faces several times a day because of the 24-hour news cycle. Taking a step back, it's not beyond the realm of possibility for may to get some minor assurances from the EU, whip her MPs hard, some lab rebels and some abstentions to win the day.
That's how I think it'll pass; on dup/erg abstentions 2nd time around. I might be wrong and my betting position will punish me accordingly. But surely better to get some variation of this deal through than the neverendum.
Her deal is already dead, widely denounced by all sides whose resolve is strengthening against it. I stead of being put on garden leave, May has been allowed to stay in role begging to keep her job and thus bringing the organisation (the Tory Party) into disrepute. So the analogy now is more like Gross Misconduct.
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party. Begging. Pleading. With her own MPs. And yet despite her actions bringing the party low the same MPs who refuse to back her administration refuse to do the honourable thing, the political thing and REMOVE her.
My pity for May (and it is pity and not anything else) is nothing compared to my contempt for Tory MP cowards.
If they don't sign it immediately, ignore them until the two year time limit is up.
Imagine her vote now blocks May's deal..
It threads a tortuous path through the various competing interests.
Her mistake is not this deal. Under the circumstances it is quite a feat of negotiation and balance.
Her mistake was not to have formed a "coalition of the willing" at the very beginning of the process, set up this committee of enquiry, that board of assessment, including all parties, Labour included. Might still have failed, of course, but might also have ended up with EFTA/EEA and an announcement that FoM was something that people would have to lump.
But that ship has sailed, obvs.
Listening to Boles (who I am four figures green on for next party leader, btw) waffle on about the "emergency brake" with Norway plus on the radio was an embarrassment (for him).
Cash is dead.
Clean brexit now shaping up to be the best option - take the responsibility of trade and commerce away from May and the civil service and put it in the hands of private sector procurement managers - they will provide the required expiditing skills to get goods in where required.
Once again relying on the public sector ends in an epic fail.
But I digress.
No. Logically Ireland understands, as does the EU, and Ollie and Tezza, that the UK cannot go down any path which may result in a hard border in NI. And hence the backstop because if there is no deal there is the backstop.
Of course a deal may render a backstop moot but one is still needed. And everyone (apart from Brexiter armchair general Canada Plus advocates) knows that there is simply no other option.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-46316184
You have got to be having a giraffe.
- Junk the withdrawal agreement
- Join EFTA but legislate to leave it before the next election
- Enjoy Canada Plus utopia
To it's current version of:
- Ratify the withdrawal agreement in full
- Aim to join EFTA permanently
- Add a permanent customs union with the EU
Has been spectacular. The desperation of parts of the Conservative party to find a face saving way out of this is palpable. It won't work.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/26/uk-pub-closures-financial-crisis-birmingham-ons-figures
Or we could go with the lack of a community consultation.
It was blindingly obvious that Trump was losing suburban women and you could sense he was also losing what we used to call the "Establishment" GOP. I really do wonder if the damage to the GOP brand is such that the latter will now never come back. In many ways, the GOP's only hope of regaining them is if the Dems really do shift significantly further to the left. Which they may do ...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/never-trump-republicans-went-democrat-2018-are-they-gone-good-n938516
As I am starting to suspect that it's nothing.
I have recently been a victim of identity theft. I ring up to report it, explain the fraud that has taken place, institution confirms this, but when I ask could they give me so more details on the payment side of things i.e. any bank accounts linked to this etc, they tell me because I have "admitted" that it isn't me that actioned this, due to data protection, I am not allowed to know.
So I am left totally in the dark how else my identity might have been used to comprise me.
Interesting.
No deal and moving to WTO terms might be one of those situations. Although there is provision for the WTO not to mandate a border under MFN if it has security or other implications, it is not certain that they would utilise this exemption. If they did not, and another WTO member brought a disupute under MFN, then we would be left with no alternative but to build a border.
That path.
All in all, the whole thing is the biggest mess imaginable, and the only way out of the mess is the one which MPs seem very likely to reject.
https://twitter.com/MichaelPKleiman/status/1067051772676517891
That really would be a democratic abomination.
But don't blame me I never wanted to sign up to all these crappy treaties with the EU.
If she tries to pull a Nothing Has Changed, the 48 letters will probably hit her on the arse before she makes it to the door.
Sovereignty arguments were central to the leave campaign but rather than engaging them remain chose to talk about the economy. This trend continues, but with greater apparent divergence in the extent to which various prominent leavers are willing to acknowledge a trade off and therefore in their positioning on the deal, etc.
She's staking everything on the deal being passed. She won't countenance "No deal" on her watch (When she genuinely believes in her plan), nor will she countenance a second referendum (Her party wouldn't let her anyway). Mind you she can surprise us.
But really parliament voting down the deal by the margin I think it might sees the tiniest bit of political capital she now has left completely disappear.
And yes with hindsight people voting for UKIP would have helped avoid this mess.
https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1066973585963651072
Now she wants those people to back her?
They will NEVER get behind her.
Regardless of who has blocked the exits, surely you leave the burning building by the only one available ?
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/eu-divorce-bill
The deal in December did not contain an exact figure, though at the time, UK officials estimated a potential bill of £35–39 billion (bn).
The UK’s Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) set out detailed estimates of what the UK would pay in its Economic and Fiscal Outlook report, published alongside the Chancellor’s Spring Statement. That set out a total bill of €41.4bn (£37.1bn), extending out to 2064 as pension liabilities fall due.
But it also makes clear that around half consist of payments the UK will make during the transition phase. The OBR estimates net payments under the financial settlement of €18.5bn (£16.4bn) in 2019 and 2020, during the transition, followed by net payments of €7.6bn in 2021, €5.8bn (2022) €3.1bn (2023) and €1.7bn (2024) before falling away to €0.2bn in 2028. The liabilities, net of assets, that then remain to be paid amount to a total of €2.7bn over the period 2021–45....
She set fire to the building without even bothering to check if it had any working fire suppression systems.
Spoilers: it did not.