What a load of nonsense, EU people do queue jump, perfectly legally, but they do that. Why are we so scared of speaking the truth.
Er. Cos if it is perfectly legal it isn't queue jumping? It is following the lawful process.
So far as I'm aware, queue jumping in normal life isn't illegal either, it just tends to make those being 'jumped', who were part of the queue (if judged in chronological order), annoyed. So legality is surely beside the point.
But there is literally no queue for EU migrants at present.
What rubbish, how can you queue jump when you are following the legal process. They take their rightful place based on the laws implemented by the Tories.
Why does queue jumping have to imply illegality?
Queue jumping is definitely in the "not right" section of the British mind.
I think the PM was right to apologise, and I'll leave this point now in case I turn into the ghost of @Scott_P.
What a load of nonsense, EU people do queue jump, perfectly legally, but they do that. Why are we so scared of speaking the truth.
Er. Cos if it is perfectly legal it isn't queue jumping? It is following the lawful process.
So far as I'm aware, queue jumping in normal life isn't illegal either, it just tends to make those being 'jumped', who were part of the queue (if judged in chronological order), annoyed. So legality is surely beside the point.
But there is literally no queue for EU migrants at present.
What rubbish, how can you queue jump when you are following the legal process. They take their rightful place based on the laws implemented by the Tories.
Why does queue jumping have to imply illegality?
Queue jumping is definitely in the "not right" section of the British mind.
I think the PM was right to apologise, and I'll leave this point now in case I turn into the ghost of @Scott_P.
There are plenty of queues in terms of immigration. EU citizens are exempt from all of them. Why should they be?
I see Edward Leigh has raised the question of abrogation... not immediately dismissed by May.
Could this be the comfort blanket the wobbly Tory Brexiters need?
This is what the ERG is being so stupid about. Obviously May can't talk about it, but once outside the EU we will be a sovereign country able to join and leave any agreement we want to. Give it ten years and if the constraints of a customs agreement are too much, make a push to leave then. At some point you need to bank all the wins you have had so far.
Quite. “Irish Free State” as I have said many times is the analogy. In fifteen years our patterns of trade will shift regardless (as the rest of the world grows if nothing else), leaving the CU will become easier over time as things evolve.
Get out and time is your friend ERG, if you are reading this. The endless salami slicing of the past forty years will work the other way.
I see Edward Leigh has raised the question of abrogation... not immediately dismissed by May.
Could this be the comfort blanket the wobbly Tory Brexiters need?
This is what the ERG is being so stupid about. Obviously May can't talk about it, but once outside the EU we will be a sovereign country able to join and leave any agreement we want to. Give it ten years and if the constraints of a customs agreement are too much, make a push to leave then. At some point you need to bank all the wins you have had so far.
Quite. “Irish Free State” as I have said many times is the analogy. In fifteen years our patterns of trade will shift regardless (as the rest of the world grows if nothing else), leaving the CU will become easier over time as things evolve.
Get out and time is your friend ERG, if you are reading this. The endless salami slicing of the past forty years will work the other way.
A question, on which I have no settled view, is what is the minimum size of defeat of the deal that would allow Theresa May to continue to press its merits on a dubious House? If it goes down by less than 20, clearly she is still fighting. If it goes down by more than 100, could she keep arguing for it (and if so how)?
On current numbers as advertised by the various interested groups, it looks like it will lose by well over 100.
Won't a lot depend not just on the final vote, but on the amendments? In fact, the passing (or not) of amendments are likely to change how MPs vote on the final division - for example, if a referendum has been ruled out or mandated.
Edit: Similarly, Labour say they are going to try to amend the bill to rule out 'no deal'. I've no idea how they could do this, but if they were successful, Leavers might prefer to back the deal rather than trash it in the hope of no deal.
The only amendment that could achieve that is "That this house believes this deal, even if rejected that this bill passes into law on 29th March 2018" (sorry I'm not completely au fait with the flowery language)
Surely even that wouldn't suffice since all amendments fail if the bill fails. In order for any amendments to become law, the bill they're amending must become law.
If a wrecking amendment is passed saying (e.g.) “this deal may not be accepted, and the government is instructed to return for further negotiations; but in the event of no deal being reached by 31 Jan the government must seek to revoke A50” that would work - the government would have to whip to vote the bill down at that stage, but logically those who voted for the amendment would then vote the amended bill into law.
Not sure whether the speaker would allow the amendment though.
I don't think that will work to repeal The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.
Does it need to repeal that act? It could amend it if needed but I had assumed that a revocation would be a new act or executive action. Probably the latter.
There is some argument over that. IMHO, it would take the repeal of the legislation, before the PM could then ask the EU to accept the revocation of A50.
I see Edward Leigh has raised the question of abrogation... not immediately dismissed by May.
Could this be the comfort blanket the wobbly Tory Brexiters need?
This is what the ERG is being so stupid about. Obviously May can't talk about it, but once outside the EU we will be a sovereign country able to join and leave any agreement we want to. Give it ten years and if the constraints of a customs agreement are too much, make a push to leave then. At some point you need to bank all the wins you have had so far.
Quite. “Irish Free State” as I have said many times is the analogy. In fifteen years our patterns of trade will shift regardless (as the rest of the world grows if nothing else), leaving the CU will become easier over time as things evolve.
Get out and time is your friend ERG, if you are reading this. The endless salami slicing of the past forty years will work the other way.
May's deal without the backstop would be fine, and would easily pass in the HoC. Even with the backstop it would be ok if we could trust the EU to commit to technological solutions at the border. The trouble is, we can't trust them, as Macron and Sánchez have already demonstrated. A mechanism for building trust, or at least compliance in good faith is needed. What about making the €42b payment, or at least a large part of it, contingent on EU agreement to a technological solution at the border?
A question, on which I have no settled view, is what is the minimum size of defeat of the deal that would allow Theresa May to continue to press its merits on a dubious House? If it goes down by less than 20, clearly she is still fighting. If it goes down by more than 100, could she keep arguing for it (and if so how)?
On current numbers as advertised by the various interested groups, it looks like it will lose by well over 100.
Won't a lot depend not just on the final vote, but on the amendments? In fact, the passing (or not) of amendments are likely to change how MPs vote on the final division - for example, if a referendum has been ruled out or mandated.
Edit: Similarly, Labour say they are going to try to amend the bill to rule out 'no deal'. I've no idea how they could do this, but if they were successful, Leavers might prefer to back the deal rather than trash it in the hope of no deal.
The only amendment that could achieve that is "That this house believes this deal, even if rejected that this bill passes into law on 29th March 2018" (sorry I'm not completely au fait with the flowery language)
Surely even that wouldn't suffice since all amendments fail if the bill fails. In order for any amendments to become law, the bill they're amending must become law.
If a wrecking amendment is passed saying (e.g.) “this deal may not be accepted, and the government is instructed to return for further negotiations; but in the event of no deal being reached by 31 Jan the government must seek to revoke A50” that would work - the government would have to whip to vote the bill down at that stage, but logically those who voted for the amendment would then vote the amended bill into law.
Not sure whether the speaker would allow the amendment though.
I don't think that will work to repeal The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.
Does it need to repeal that act? It could amend it if needed but I had assumed that a revocation would be a new act or executive action. Probably the latter.
There is some argument over that. IMHO, it would take the repeal of the legislation, before the PM could then ask the EU to accept the revocation of A50.
On this point, when can we expect the ECJ decision?
I see Edward Leigh has raised the question of abrogation... not immediately dismissed by May.
Could this be the comfort blanket the wobbly Tory Brexiters need?
This is what the ERG is being so stupid about. Obviously May can't talk about it, but once outside the EU we will be a sovereign country able to join and leave any agreement we want to. Give it ten years and if the constraints of a customs agreement are too much, make a push to leave then. At some point you need to bank all the wins you have had so far.
So after we leave we will tell the EU we are going to abrogate the withdrawal agreement and then ask them for a favourable trade deal.
May's deal without the backstop would be fine, and would easily pass in the HoC. Even with the backstop it would be ok if we could trust the EU to commit to technological solutions at the border. The trouble is, we can't trust them, as Macron and Sánchez have already demonstrated. A mechanism for building trust, or at least compliance in good faith is needed. What about making the €42b payment, or at least a large part of it, contingent on EU agreement to a technological solution at the border?
We aren’t giving them the money for nothing. It is to effectively remain in the EU for another few years, and to pay for legal liabilities.
I see Edward Leigh has raised the question of abrogation... not immediately dismissed by May.
Could this be the comfort blanket the wobbly Tory Brexiters need?
This is what the ERG is being so stupid about. Obviously May can't talk about it, but once outside the EU we will be a sovereign country able to join and leave any agreement we want to. Give it ten years and if the constraints of a customs agreement are too much, make a push to leave then. At some point you need to bank all the wins you have had so far.
So after we leave we will tell the EU we are going to abrogate the withdrawal agreement and then ask them for a favourable trade deal.
What could possibly go wrong.
No. We sign both a withdrawal agreement and a trade deal. Then if either side dislikes it ten years down the line, they are free with withdraw from it. Just as the US or Canada can withdraw from NAFTA if they so please.
May's deal without the backstop would be fine, and would easily pass in the HoC. Even with the backstop it would be ok if we could trust the EU to commit to technological solutions at the border. The trouble is, we can't trust them, as Macron and Sánchez have already demonstrated. A mechanism for building trust, or at least compliance in good faith is needed. What about making the €42b payment, or at least a large part of it, contingent on EU agreement to a technological solution at the border?
You don't need to trust them. We have a mechanism for building trust. It is called a legally binding commitment to negotiate in good faith with the ability to refer to international arbitration.
What a load of nonsense, EU people do queue jump, perfectly legally, but they do that. Why are we so scared of speaking the truth.
Er. Cos if it is perfectly legal it isn't queue jumping? It is following the lawful process.
So far as I'm aware, queue jumping in normal life isn't illegal either, it just tends to make those being 'jumped', who were part of the queue (if judged in chronological order), annoyed. So legality is surely beside the point.
But there is literally no queue for EU migrants at present.
What rubbish, how can you queue jump when you are following the legal process. They take their rightful place based on the laws implemented by the Tories.
Why does queue jumping have to imply illegality?
Queue jumping is definitely in the "not right" section of the British mind.
I think the PM was right to apologise, and I'll leave this point now in case I turn into the ghost of @Scott_P.
There are plenty of queues in terms of immigration. EU citizens are exempt from all of them. Why should they be?
May's deal without the backstop would be fine, and would easily pass in the HoC. Even with the backstop it would be ok if we could trust the EU to commit to technological solutions at the border. The trouble is, we can't trust them, as Macron and Sánchez have already demonstrated. A mechanism for building trust, or at least compliance in good faith is needed. What about making the €42b payment, or at least a large part of it, contingent on EU agreement to a technological solution at the border?
We aren’t giving them the money for nothing. It is to effectively remain in the EU for another few years, and to pay for legal liabilities.
If that is so then make it an extra ex gratia payment.
A question, on which I have no settled view, is what is the minimum size of defeat of the deal that would allow Theresa May to continue to press its merits on a dubious House? If it goes down by less than 20, clearly she is still fighting. If it goes down by more than 100, could she keep arguing for it (and if so how)?
On current numbers as advertised by the various interested groups, it looks like it will lose by well over 100.
Won't a lot depend not just on the final vote, but on the amendments? In fact, the passing (or not) of amendments are likely to change how MPs vote on the final division - for example, if a referendum has been ruled out or mandated.
Edit: Similarly, Labour say they are going to try to amend the bill to rule out 'no deal'. I've no idea how they could do this, but if they were successful, Leavers might prefer to back the deal rather than trash it in the hope of no deal.
The only amendment that could achieve that is "That this house believes this deal, even if rejected that this bill passes into law on 29th March 2018" (sorry I'm not completely au fait with the flowery language)
Surely even that wouldn't suffice since all amendments fail if the bill fails. In order for any amendments to become law, the bill they're amending must become law.
If a wrecking amendment is passed saying (e.g.) “this deal may not be accepted, and the government is instructed to return for further negotiations; but in the event of no deal being reached by 31 Jan the government must seek to revoke A50” that would work - the government would have to whip to vote the bill down at that stage, but logically those who voted for the amendment would then vote the amended bill into law.
Not sure whether the speaker would allow the amendment though.
I don't think that will work to repeal The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.
Does it need to repeal that act? It could amend it if needed but I had assumed that a revocation would be a new act or executive action. Probably the latter.
There is some argument over that. IMHO, it would take the repeal of the legislation, before the PM could then ask the EU to accept the revocation of A50.
What happens if we repeal the legislation, ask the EU, then the EU say no...??
What a load of nonsense, EU people do queue jump, perfectly legally, but they do that. Why are we so scared of speaking the truth.
Er. Cos if it is perfectly legal it isn't queue jumping? It is following the lawful process.
So far as I'm aware, queue jumping in normal life isn't illegal either, it just tends to make those being 'jumped', who were part of the queue (if judged in chronological order), annoyed. So legality is surely beside the point.
But there is literally no queue for EU migrants at present.
What rubbish, how can you queue jump when you are following the legal process. They take their rightful place based on the laws implemented by the Tories.
Why does queue jumping have to imply illegality?
Queue jumping is definitely in the "not right" section of the British mind.
I think the PM was right to apologise, and I'll leave this point now in case I turn into the ghost of @Scott_P.
There are plenty of queues in terms of immigration. EU citizens are exempt from all of them. Why should they be?
Er, because the arrangement is reciprocal?
We voted in 2016 to give up our FOM rights. No one in the country expected or expects that FOM would be ended only in one direction.
I see Edward Leigh has raised the question of abrogation... not immediately dismissed by May.
Could this be the comfort blanket the wobbly Tory Brexiters need?
This is what the ERG is being so stupid about. Obviously May can't talk about it, but once outside the EU we will be a sovereign country able to join and leave any agreement we want to. Give it ten years and if the constraints of a customs agreement are too much, make a push to leave then. At some point you need to bank all the wins you have had so far.
Quite. “Irish Free State” as I have said many times is the analogy. In fifteen years our patterns of trade will shift regardless (as the rest of the world grows if nothing else), leaving the CU will become easier over time as things evolve.
Get out and time is your friend ERG, if you are reading this. The endless salami slicing of the past forty years will work the other way.
The trouble is that they are idiots.
Many of them will never take Yes for an answer.
They are like a poker player who has had a run of winning hands and believes that will go on forever. Even if they get what they want it might be not what they want. A Hard Brexit with Corbyn in charge will open the immigration flood gates for example.
Have Theo and Theresa May ever been seen in the same room? He seemed to turn up just as her duff deal hit the fan and has talked about nothing else since.
Interesting question by Wera Hobhouse; if after 2020 a person travels from Berlin to Dublin, Dublin to Belfast and then to London were is the immigration border?
Interesting question by Wera Hobhouse; if after 2020 a person travels from Berlin to Dublin, Dublin to Belfast and then to London were is the immigration border?
Dublin. The Irish check all passports - even UK ones.
However, it completely confuses FoM with "Immigration Control" - only the thickest would follow that route - everyone else will fly to Stansted as a "Tourist" and simply overstay.....
What a load of nonsense, EU people do queue jump, perfectly legally, but they do that. Why are we so scared of speaking the truth.
Er. Cos if it is perfectly legal it isn't queue jumping? It is following the lawful process.
So far as I'm aware, queue jumping in normal life isn't illegal either, it just tends to make those being 'jumped', who were part of the queue (if judged in chronological order), annoyed. So legality is surely beside the point.
But there is literally no queue for EU migrants at present.
What rubbish, how can you queue jump when you are following the legal process. They take their rightful place based on the laws implemented by the Tories.
Why does queue jumping have to imply illegality?
Queue jumping is definitely in the "not right" section of the British mind.
I think the PM was right to apologise, and I'll leave this point now in case I turn into the ghost of @Scott_P.
There are plenty of queues in terms of immigration. EU citizens are exempt from all of them. Why should they be?
Er, because the arrangement is reciprocal?
We voted in 2016 to give up our FOM rights. No one in the country expected or expects that FOM would be ended only in one direction.
My apology, I assumed you were talking about the present arrangements; must have been confused by your use of the present tense.
Have Theo and Theresa May ever been seen in the same room? He seemed to turn up just as her duff deal hit the fan and has talked about nothing else since.
Because the absurd crap that was being written about it prompted me to not lurk any longer. At some point you need to step up to tether the debate to the reality.
May's deal without the backstop would be fine, and would easily pass in the HoC. Even with the backstop it would be ok if we could trust the EU to commit to technological solutions at the border. The trouble is, we can't trust them, as Macron and Sánchez have already demonstrated. A mechanism for building trust, or at least compliance in good faith is needed. What about making the €42b payment, or at least a large part of it, contingent on EU agreement to a technological solution at the border?
We aren’t giving them the money for nothing. It is to effectively remain in the EU for another few years, and to pay for legal liabilities.
A question, on which I have no settled view, is what is the minimum size of defeat of the deal that would allow Theresa May to continue to press its merits on a dubious House? If it goes down by less than 20, clearly she is still fighting. If it goes down by more than 100, could she keep arguing for it (and if so how)?
On current numbers as advertised by the various interested groups, it looks like it will lose by well over 100.
Won't a lot depend not just on the final vote, but on the amendments? In fact, the passing (or not) of amendments are likely to change how MPs vote on the final division - for example, if a referendum has been ruled out or mandated.
Edit: Similarly, Labour say they are going to try to amend the bill to rule out 'no deal'. I've no idea how they could do this, but if they were successful, Leavers might prefer to back the deal rather than trash it in the hope of no deal.
The only amendment that could achieve that is "That this house believes this deal, even if rejected that this bill passes into law on 29th March 2018" (sorry I'm not completely au fait with the flowery language)
Surely even that wouldn't suffice since all amendments fail if the bill fails. In order for any amendments to become law, the bill they're amending must become law.
Not sure whether the speaker would allow the amendment though.
I don't think that will work to repeal The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.
Does it need to repeal that act? It could amend it if needed but I had assumed that a revocation would be a new act or executive action. Probably the latter.
There is some argument over that. IMHO, it would take the repeal of the legislation, before the PM could then ask the EU to accept the revocation of A50.
What happens if we repeal the legislation, ask the EU, then the EU say no...??
That's what the Court case is about. But, if the Court were to rule that A50 cannot be unilaterally revoked, and EU refused to agree to our application to revoke it, then we'd be out on 29th March 2019, regardless.
Have Theo and Theresa May ever been seen in the same room? He seemed to turn up just as her duff deal hit the fan and has talked about nothing else since.
Interesting question by Wera Hobhouse; if after 2020 a person travels from Berlin to Dublin, Dublin to Belfast and then to London were is the immigration border?
Nowhere. The focus has all been on the NI border in terms of trade. There is no control of immigration without a hard border somewhere. If it isn't on the border, it has to be in the Irish Sea. Otherwise there is an end to FOM in law, but not in fact. Edit. Not sure how the border is at Dublin as @Carlotta suggests. Outsourcing our borders to a foreign state is a rather unique take on Taking Control?
Have Theo and Theresa May ever been seen in the same room? He seemed to turn up just as her duff deal hit the fan and has talked about nothing else since.
I dunno, feeling strongly about something may make you transition from lurker to poster.
What a load of nonsense, EU people do queue jump, perfectly legally, but they do that. Why are we so scared of speaking the truth.
Er. Cos if it is perfectly legal it isn't queue jumping? It is following the lawful process.
So far as I'm aware, queue jumping in normal life isn't illegal either, it just tends to make those being 'jumped', who were part of the queue (if judged in chronological order), annoyed. So legality is surely beside the point.
But there is literally no queue for EU migrants at present.
What rubbish, how can you queue jump when you are following the legal process. They take their rightful place based on the laws implemented by the Tories.
Why does queue jumping have to imply illegality?
Queue jumping is definitely in the "not right" section of the British mind.
I think the PM was right to apologise, and I'll leave this point now in case I turn into the ghost of @Scott_P.
There are plenty of queues in terms of immigration. EU citizens are exempt from all of them. Why should they be?
Er, because the arrangement is reciprocal?
We voted in 2016 to give up our FOM rights. No one in the country expected or expects that FOM would be ended only in one direction.
My apology, I assumed you were talking about the present arrangements; must have been confused by your use of the present tense.
Without wishing to sound like May, I refer to my earlier answers downthread. EU citizens are currently jumping the queue in terms of immigration. This will be ended after Brexit, one of the reasons many migrants from non-EU countries voted for it.
May's deal without the backstop would be fine, and would easily pass in the HoC. Even with the backstop it would be ok if we could trust the EU to commit to technological solutions at the border. The trouble is, we can't trust them, as Macron and Sánchez have already demonstrated. A mechanism for building trust, or at least compliance in good faith is needed. What about making the €42b payment, or at least a large part of it, contingent on EU agreement to a technological solution at the border?
You don't need to trust them. We have a mechanism for building trust. It is called a legally binding commitment to negotiate in good faith with the ability to refer to international arbitration.
LOL, you mean get your pants down and assume the position UK
I see Edward Leigh has raised the question of abrogation... not immediately dismissed by May.
Could this be the comfort blanket the wobbly Tory Brexiters need?
This is what the ERG is being so stupid about. Obviously May can't talk about it, but once outside the EU we will be a sovereign country able to join and leave any agreement we want to. Give it ten years and if the constraints of a customs agreement are too much, make a push to leave then. At some point you need to bank all the wins you have had so far.
Quite. “Irish Free State” as I have said many times is the analogy. In fifteen years our patterns of trade will shift regardless (as the rest of the world grows if nothing else), leaving the CU will become easier over time as things evolve.
Get out and time is your friend ERG, if you are reading this. The endless salami slicing of the past forty years will work the other way.
The trouble is that they are idiots.
Many of them will never take Yes for an answer.
Or they think the deal is crap and leaves us wide open to get stitched up after we've left even more by the EU.
One big difficulty for the government is that if that estimate becomes widely accepted, MPs will be under no pressure to change their minds. What's the point?
If the gap were 50, MPs might feel the burden more keenly.
Interesting question by Wera Hobhouse; if after 2020 a person travels from Berlin to Dublin, Dublin to Belfast and then to London were is the immigration border?
Nowhere. The focus has all been on the NI border in terms of trade. There is no control of immigration without a hard border somewhere. If it isn't on the border, it has to be in the Irish Sea. Otherwise there is an end to FOM in law, but not in fact. Edit. Not sure how the border is at Dublin as @Carlotta suggests. Outsourcing our borders to a foreign state is a rather unique take on Taking Control?
What a load of nonsense, EU people do queue jump, perfectly legally, but they do that. Why are we so scared of speaking the truth.
Er. Cos if it is perfectly legal it isn't queue jumping? It is following the lawful process.
So far as I'm aware, queue jumping in normal life isn't illegal either, it just tends to make those being 'jumped', who were part of the queue (if judged in chronological order), annoyed. So legality is surely beside the point.
But there is literally no queue for EU migrants at present.
What rubbish, how can you queue jump when you are following the legal process. They take their rightful place based on the laws implemented by the Tories.
Why does queue jumping have to imply illegality?
Queue jumping is definitely in the "not right" section of the British mind.
I think the PM was right to apologise, and I'll leave this point now in case I turn into the ghost of @Scott_P.
There are plenty of queues in terms of immigration. EU citizens are exempt from all of them. Why should they be?
Er, because the arrangement is reciprocal?
We voted in 2016 to give up our FOM rights. No one in the country expected or expects that FOM would be ended only in one direction.
My apology, I assumed you were talking about the present arrangements; must have been confused by your use of the present tense.
Without wishing to sound like May, I refer to my earlier answers downthread. EU citizens are currently jumping the queue in terms of immigration. This will be ended after Brexit, one of the reasons many migrants from non-EU countries voted for it.
Well, indeed. I was answering your question: why should they be able to jump the queue?, by pointing out that we have agreed they can jump our queues because they have agreed we can jump their queues. It’s a reciprocal arrangement. Just as will happen in future free trade agreements except that I expect that, say, Australians will not be accused as jumping queues for some reason.
Mr. Meeks, I agree with that, but would add the minor consolation for the Government that such a hefty margin against them might make it easier for them to persuade others to abstain (or for that to happen naturally).
One area May's Government has been very strong is in whipping votes. But they do have a mountain to climb.
Interesting question by Wera Hobhouse; if after 2020 a person travels from Berlin to Dublin, Dublin to Belfast and then to London were is the immigration border?
Nowhere. The focus has all been on the NI border in terms of trade. There is no control of immigration without a hard border somewhere. If it isn't on the border, it has to be in the Irish Sea. Otherwise there is an end to FOM in law, but not in fact. Edit. Not sure how the border is at Dublin as @Carlotta suggests. Outsourcing our borders to a foreign state is a rather unique take on Taking Control?
We need to do as the Swiss have done as referred to by rcs1000 in one of his excellent videos. Immigration to the UK needs a demand side solution. The Swiss have open borders but stop illegal immigration dead using a very simple scheme - an illegal immigrant can walk into a police station and shop their employer without penalty. The illegal can then apply for legal status while the employer is arrested and heavily fined or more.
What a load of nonsense, EU people do queue jump, perfectly legally, but they do that. Why are we so scared of speaking the truth.
Er. Cos if it is perfectly legal it isn't queue jumping? It is following the lawful process.
Why does queue jumping have to imply illegality?
Queue jumping is definitely in the "not right" section of the British mind.
I think the PM was right to apologise, and I'll leave this point now in case I turn into the ghost of @Scott_P.
There are plenty of queues in terms of immigration. EU citizens are exempt from all of them. Why should they be?
Er, because the arrangement is reciprocal?
We voted in 2016 to give up our FOM rights. No one in the country expected or expects that FOM would be ended only in one direction.
My apology, I assumed you were talking about the present arrangements; must have been confused by your use of the present tense.
Without wishing to sound like May, I refer to my earlier answers downthread. EU citizens are currently jumping the queue in terms of immigration. This will be ended after Brexit, one of the reasons many migrants from non-EU countries voted for it.
Well, indeed. I was answering your question: why should they be able to jump the queue?, by pointing out that we have agreed they can jump our queues because they have agreed we can jump their queues. It’s a reciprocal arrangement. Just as will happen in future free trade agreements except that I expect that, say, Australians will not be accused as jumping queues for some reason.
There is no argument here. May was not saying EU citizens are jumping the queue individually, as if by illegality, she was saying the system allows them to effectively jump the queue, which it does and which is unfair on non-EU migrants.
One big difficulty for the government is that if that estimate becomes widely accepted, MPs will be under no pressure to change their minds. What's the point?
If the gap were 50, MPs might feel the burden more keenly.
One big difficulty for the government is that if that estimate becomes widely accepted, MPs will be under no pressure to change their minds. What's the point?
If the gap were 50, MPs might feel the burden more keenly.
While the precise number in that estimate may be new, the general sentiment that it would be that big a loss is not, so I think that ship has sailed - and is presumably the reason why potential waverers have in fact firmed up their own opposition (albeit for contradictory reasons) - there is no reason for anyone who is not an absolutely firm loyalist or absolutely ok with the deal to vote for it, and the latter option is a pretty small number.
I wonder what three-line whips are envisaged for the week beginning 16th December?
That caught my eye too......"Deal Vote 2"?
What would be the point of that? The biggest reason people on left and right have given for rejecting the deal is that a better deal is needed and that whatever the EU might say we can get a better deal. That will remain just as true (or not) in a second vote as it would on the first.
What are people going to say? I think a better deal is possible, but I'm giving up on that after a week because the EU still say no?
The idea people ideologically or partisanly opposed to the deal will change their tune seems to be along the same wishful thinking lines as assuming mass Labour rebels/abstentions and a lot more Tory backbenchers backing it. The exact opposite has happened, I see no reason the same would not apply to those thinking the same deal will get a better hearing in a second vote.
Interesting question by Wera Hobhouse; if after 2020 a person travels from Berlin to Dublin, Dublin to Belfast and then to London were is the immigration border?
Nowhere. The focus has all been on the NI border in terms of trade. There is no control of immigration without a hard border somewhere. If it isn't on the border, it has to be in the Irish Sea. Otherwise there is an end to FOM in law, but not in fact. Edit. Not sure how the border is at Dublin as @Carlotta suggests. Outsourcing our borders to a foreign state is a rather unique take on Taking Control?
The US does it in Ireland.
So. Are you suggesting UK border officials at Dublin Airport turning people away who have FOM into Ireland? The US can, because you cannot enter by road.
Interesting question by Wera Hobhouse; if after 2020 a person travels from Berlin to Dublin, Dublin to Belfast and then to London were is the immigration border?
There is no control of immigration without a hard border somewhere.
You are confusing FoM (the right to take up employment and access services and benefits) with "Immigration Control" - and even if you demanded visas from all visitors - it wouldn't stop people overstaying their visas.
I see Edward Leigh has raised the question of abrogation... not immediately dismissed by May.
Could this be the comfort blanket the wobbly Tory Brexiters need?
This is what the ERG is being so stupid about. Obviously May can't talk about it, but once outside the EU we will be a sovereign country able to join and leave any agreement we want to. Give it ten years and if the constraints of a customs agreement are too much, make a push to leave then. At some point you need to bank all the wins you have had so far.
Quite. “Irish Free State” as I have said many times is the analogy. In fifteen years our patterns of trade will shift regardless (as the rest of the world grows if nothing else), leaving the CU will become easier over time as things evolve.
Get out and time is your friend ERG, if you are reading this. The endless salami slicing of the past forty years will work the other way.
The trouble is that they are idiots.
Many of them will never take Yes for an answer.
Or they think the deal is crap and leaves us wide open to get stitched up after we've left even more by the EU.
Or without us being in the EU their lives would be pointless
One big difficulty for the government is that if that estimate becomes widely accepted, MPs will be under no pressure to change their minds. What's the point?
If the gap were 50, MPs might feel the burden more keenly.
Also like the GE take it for granted and abstain
No. MPs voting records are published. GE voters are not recorded. Lots of people will be watching their MPs. No place to hide.
Also what happens if the 48 names reaches the point over the next few days?? Can May do any of this if she's facing a leadership challenge?
Seems like acceptance has been reached that it is best to wait until the deal is utterly, utterly crushed before replacing her, so it would seem odd to put in a letter before then , frankly.
Have Theo and Theresa May ever been seen in the same room? He seemed to turn up just as her duff deal hit the fan and has talked about nothing else since.
Because the absurd crap that was being written about it prompted me to not lurk any longer. At some point you need to step up to tether the debate to the reality.
If the deal is defeated by something like 170, does the brains trust think:
1) Theresa May will continue in her job? 2) The deal might yet be resuscitated?
The EU won't renegotiate the WA. What various people are pushing as a Plan B is to rewrite the PD to point to a Norway Plus outcome and then pass it with Labour votes. I can't see that working.
Leaving aside the moral rights and wrongs of Russia doing this, what is the maritime law regarding free passage through national and international waters, yet alone contested waters?
Presumably a country can say: "No vessels to travel through my waters in this area," but what are the potential repercussions? And how much martial force can they use? What happens if the waters are contested?
If the deal is defeated by something like 170, does the brains trust think:
1) Theresa May will continue in her job? 2) The deal might yet be resuscitated?
The EU won't renegotiate the WA. What various people are pushing as a Plan B is to rewrite the PD to point to a Norway Plus outcome and then pass it with Labour votes. I can't see that working.
I didn't ask that question because I agree with you that the EU isn't going to do any substantial renegotiating. It is just a fata morgana being chased by delirious sailors on HMS Brexit.
If the deal is defeated by something like 170, does the brains trust think:
1) Theresa May will continue in her job? 2) The deal might yet be resuscitated?
The EU won't renegotiate the WA. What various people are pushing as a Plan B is to rewrite the PD to point to a Norway Plus outcome and then pass it with Labour votes. I can't see that working.
Only remaining works for you William and that is fair enough
However, the path to remain would be the most divisive referendum in our history and I fear full of hate and anger on all sides with an uncertain result
If the deal is defeated by something like 170, does the brains trust think:
1) Theresa May will continue in her job? 2) The deal might yet be resuscitated?
1) and 2) No. It would be too severe a defeat to make any consideration of it plausible. After so decisively throwing it out the Commons won't return to it, and there would be no point including it in a referendum as it would have been so publicly trashed as terrible. And while May has justifiably not quit while her deal is still theoretically able to pass, given she cannot tweak its contents even if it were possible, a new leader would have to try that.
If the deal is defeated by something like 170, does the brains trust think:
1) Theresa May will continue in her job? 2) The deal might yet be resuscitated?
The EU won't renegotiate the WA. What various people are pushing as a Plan B is to rewrite the PD to point to a Norway Plus outcome and then pass it with Labour votes. I can't see that working.
No I can't see it either. There is no guarantee that Norway Plus (plus what? Sweden?) could get through. If the deal goes down by a convincing margin then the pressure for a second referendum will become immense and I would expect that to be the eventual outcome.
Have Theo and Theresa May ever been seen in the same room? He seemed to turn up just as her duff deal hit the fan and has talked about nothing else since.
Because the absurd crap that was being written about it prompted me to not lurk any longer. At some point you need to step up to tether the debate to the reality.
And much welcomed, the more the merrier.
We will see whether he is a flash in the pan troll or a real poster if still here in a few months
I see Edward Leigh has raised the question of abrogation... not immediately dismissed by May.
Could this be the comfort blanket the wobbly Tory Brexiters need?
This is what the ERG is being so stupid about. Obviously May can't talk about it, but once outside the EU we will be a sovereign country able to join and leave any agreement we want to. Give it ten years and if the constraints of a customs agreement are too much, make a push to leave then. At some point you need to bank all the wins you have had so far.
Quite. “Irish Free State” as I have said many times is the analogy. In fifteen years our patterns of trade will shift regardless (as the rest of the world grows if nothing else), leaving the CU will become easier over time as things evolve.
Get out and time is your friend ERG, if you are reading this. The endless salami slicing of the past forty years will work the other way.
The trouble is that they are idiots.
I think it just as likely some may not be as outraged by the EU as they sometimes seem. Not to say they like it, but that while they dislike it they recognise their utopia is not going to happen, and they'd rather not put in the effort to increase Brexityness over time, and face an imperfect Brexit, and would instead prefer to remain and just moan about things. It's easier.
It's a thankless and pointless task, but at least she's trying (yes she asked for the job of PM, and is choosing not to quit, but given it is clearly going to fail she could have chosen to put less work in in the past few weeks).
If the deal is defeated by something like 170, does the brains trust think:
1) Theresa May will continue in her job? 2) The deal might yet be resuscitated?
I think May will carry on until voted out through a sense of duty. The deal would have to go to renegotiation and hope the EU is amenable to supporting a new narrative that suits her via cosmetic changes.
MPs relying on that are gambling though. If the French kick up a fuss it could lead to them being forced to opposed it again with the clock running out.
Interesting question by Wera Hobhouse; if after 2020 a person travels from Berlin to Dublin, Dublin to Belfast and then to London were is the immigration border?
There is no control of immigration without a hard border somewhere.
You are confusing FoM (the right to take up employment and access services and benefits) with "Immigration Control" - and even if you demanded visas from all visitors - it wouldn't stop people overstaying their visas.
No. I agree. Most will, as you say, fly in to the Mainland and overstay. However, if you fly to Dublin, as an EU citizen, catch a bus, or a train, to Belfast, then a ferry to Stranraer. Where is your passport checked?
So we can never have bilateral or multilateral agreements that cover people residing or working in one another’s territory because it would be “unfair” on the rest of the world. An interesting view.
One big difficulty for the government is that if that estimate becomes widely accepted, MPs will be under no pressure to change their minds. What's the point?
If the gap were 50, MPs might feel the burden more keenly.
Also like the GE take it for granted and abstain
No. MPs voting records are published. GE voters are not recorded. Lots of people will be watching their MPs. No place to hide.
Actually, GE voters are recorded, and published. It's just that very few people have any use for the data.
If the deal is defeated by something like 170, does the brains trust think:
1) Theresa May will continue in her job? 2) The deal might yet be resuscitated?
I think May will carry on until voted out through a sense of duty. The deal would have to go to renegotiation and hope the EU is amenable to supporting a new narrative that suits her via cosmetic changes.
MPs relying on that are gambling though. If the French kick up a fuss it could lead to them being forced to opposed it again with the clock running out.
If May does resign. God help us. We don't want the loons taking over the asylum.
If the deal is defeated by something like 170, does the brains trust think:
1) Theresa May will continue in her job? 2) The deal might yet be resuscitated?
The EU won't renegotiate the WA. What various people are pushing as a Plan B is to rewrite the PD to point to a Norway Plus outcome and then pass it with Labour votes. I can't see that working.
I didn't ask that question because I agree with you that the EU isn't going to do any substantial renegotiating. It is just a fata morgana being chased by delirious sailors on HMS Brexit.
Forget HMS Brexit, I fear many Brexiteers have not moved on since the days of HMS Pinafore (though that's probably a little too modern for JRM):
"A British tar is a soaring soul, As free as a mountain bird, His energetic fist should be ready to resist A dictatorial word. His nose should pant, and his lip should curl, His cheeks should flame and his brow should furl, His bosom should heave, and his heart should glow, And his fist be ever ready for a knock-down blow!
His eyes should flash with an inborn fire, His brow with scorn be wrung; He never should bow down to a domineering frown, Or the tang of a tyrant tongue!
His foot should stamp, and his throat should growl, His hair should twirl, and his face should scowl, His eyes should flash, and his breast protrude, And this should be his customary attitude."
Interesting question by Wera Hobhouse; if after 2020 a person travels from Berlin to Dublin, Dublin to Belfast and then to London were is the immigration border?
There is no control of immigration without a hard border somewhere.
You are confusing FoM (the right to take up employment and access services and benefits) with "Immigration Control" - and even if you demanded visas from all visitors - it wouldn't stop people overstaying their visas.
No. I agree. Most will, as you say, fly in to the Mainland and overstay. However, if you fly to Dublin, as an EU citizen, catch a bus, or a train, to Belfast, then a ferry to Stranraer. Where is your passport checked?
I told you before. Dublin. However its likely your Ferry or Plane operator will ask to see photo ID.
TM has been selling this deal like Blair, but without his talent. Unless she is going for a reluctant People’s Vote, she has been very badly advised.
I think she might be going for a reluctant peoples' vote, but even if she is not, how do you think she should have been selling the deal? She certainly lacks the talent that Blair had in selling things, but what could she have done differently to sell it, given her limited talent? Serious question, as she could have approached things differently, but I'm uncertain which would have worked better.
If the deal is defeated by something like 170, does the brains trust think:
1) Theresa May will continue in her job? 2) The deal might yet be resuscitated?
I think May will carry on until voted out through a sense of duty. The deal would have to go to renegotiation and hope the EU is amenable to supporting a new narrative that suits her via cosmetic changes.
MPs relying on that are gambling though. If the French kick up a fuss it could lead to them being forced to opposed it again with the clock running out.
If May does resign. God help us. We don't want the loons taking over the asylum.
We may not get a choice - since the deal won't pass and at present the alternatives are all promising a renegotiation the EU says won't happen, well, our potential PMs are very limited, be they Tory or Labour.
One big difficulty for the government is that if that estimate becomes widely accepted, MPs will be under no pressure to change their minds. What's the point?
If the gap were 50, MPs might feel the burden more keenly.
Also like the GE take it for granted and abstain
No. MPs voting records are published. GE voters are not recorded. Lots of people will be watching their MPs. No place to hide.
Actually, GE voters are recorded, and published. It's just that very few people have any use for the data.
All political parties buy this data, it's a valuable campaigning tool. If, for example, an elector is shown never to vote campaigners know not to spend too much time on them and pay more attention to, say, people who are supportive of your party but have a patchy voting record. It informs both canvassing and GOTV work on polling day.
TM has been selling this deal like Blair, but without his talent. Unless she is going for a reluctant People’s Vote, she has been very badly advised.
I think she might be going for a reluctant peoples' vote, but even if she is not, how do you think she should have been selling the deal? She certainly lacks the talent that Blair had in selling things, but what could she have done differently to sell it, given her limited talent? Serious question, as she could have approached things differently, but I'm uncertain which would have worked better.
Made a decision sooner, started tackling it sooner, setting out her stall sooner. The shape of her deal has been clear since Chequers (which makes Raab et al resigning more inexplicable to me) but what has she done to argue her cause between Chequers and last week?
Blair like it or not spent about a year laying the groundwork for the Iraq War, arguing why it would be justified before it happened. May has been reluctant to make a decision then once made acts like there is suddenly no alternative.
If there was no alternative what took her so long to get there?
TM has been selling this deal like Blair, but without his talent. Unless she is going for a reluctant People’s Vote, she has been very badly advised.
I think she might be going for a reluctant peoples' vote, but even if she is not, how do you think she should have been selling the deal? She certainly lacks the talent that Blair had in selling things, but what could she have done differently to sell it, given her limited talent? Serious question, as she could have approached things differently, but I'm uncertain which would have worked better.
First, she needs to decide who’s votes she is trying to win , Labour votes or Brexit Tories. You cannot win them all. So get off the fence. She should have forced the Tory VONC last week on her terms, win and then essentially ignored the ERG and persuade Labour votes.
One big difficulty for the government is that if that estimate becomes widely accepted, MPs will be under no pressure to change their minds. What's the point?
If the gap were 50, MPs might feel the burden more keenly.
Also like the GE take it for granted and abstain
No. MPs voting records are published. GE voters are not recorded. Lots of people will be watching their MPs. No place to hide.
Actually, GE voters are recorded, and published. It's just that very few people have any use for the data.
All political parties buy this data, it's a valuable campaigning tool. If, for example, an elector is shown never to vote campaigners know not to spend too much time on them and pay more attention to, say, people who are supportive of your party but have a patchy voting record. It informs both canvassing and GOTV work on polling day.
Exactly right. Yet the public is wholly ignorant that whether they have voted or not is a matter of public record. It always used to amuse me when people came with casework and claimed to have voted for me last time, or on the doorstep said the same, and I could see from the record that they hadn't voted at all.
Are there any leavers enthusiastic about this deal? The fact so many remainers are says a lot about how much this is a betrayal. Remainers cheering on this deal says about as much as if McDonnell was cheering on a Tory budget.
With all due respect, that's a terrible reason not to back the deal.
Dislike it for the backstop - although I think that's overrated because the real issue is a political one in Northern Ireland - but not because a substantial minority of our opponents like it.
TM has been selling this deal like Blair, but without his talent. Unless she is going for a reluctant People’s Vote, she has been very badly advised.
I think she might be going for a reluctant peoples' vote, but even if she is not, how do you think she should have been selling the deal? She certainly lacks the talent that Blair had in selling things, but what could she have done differently to sell it, given her limited talent? Serious question, as she could have approached things differently, but I'm uncertain which would have worked better.
First, she needs to decide who’s votes she is trying to win , Labour votes or Brexit Tories. You cannot win them all. So get off the fence. She should have forced the Tory VONC last week on her terms, win and then essentially ignored the ERG and persuade Labour votes.
It is all so easy when you do not actually have the responsibility
TM has been selling this deal like Blair, but without his talent. Unless she is going for a reluctant People’s Vote, she has been very badly advised.
I think she might be going for a reluctant peoples' vote, but even if she is not, how do you think she should have been selling the deal? She certainly lacks the talent that Blair had in selling things, but what could she have done differently to sell it, given her limited talent? Serious question, as she could have approached things differently, but I'm uncertain which would have worked better.
Made a decision sooner, started tackling it sooner, setting out her stall sooner. ..
If there was no alternative what took her so long to get there?
Hard to argue with those points. I'd back her now, and the task was very difficult, but she has been the architect of her own misfortunes to a large extent.
TM has been selling this deal like Blair, but without his talent. Unless she is going for a reluctant People’s Vote, she has been very badly advised.
I think she might be going for a reluctant peoples' vote, but even if she is not, how do you think she should have been selling the deal? She certainly lacks the talent that Blair had in selling things, but what could she have done differently to sell it, given her limited talent? Serious question, as she could have approached things differently, but I'm uncertain which would have worked better.
First, she needs to decide who’s votes she is trying to win , Labour votes or Brexit Tories. You cannot win them all. So get off the fence. She should have forced the Tory VONC last week on her terms, win and then essentially ignored the ERG and persuade Labour votes.
My only current explanation for what she doing is that she is trying to win the public’s vote, not her NPs. And is therefore going for a People’s Vote.
Interesting question by Wera Hobhouse; if after 2020 a person travels from Berlin to Dublin, Dublin to Belfast and then to London were is the immigration border?
There is no control of immigration without a hard border somewhere.
You are confusing FoM (the right to take up employment and access services and benefits) with "Immigration Control" - and even if you demanded visas from all visitors - it wouldn't stop people overstaying their visas.
No. I agree. Most will, as you say, fly in to the Mainland and overstay. However, if you fly to Dublin, as an EU citizen, catch a bus, or a train, to Belfast, then a ferry to Stranraer. Where is your passport checked?
In reality, certainly when I have come back from NI or ROI to GB, there are usually plain clothes blokes standing around just observing in a “not passport checking really, just looking hard” sort of a way. It’s unofficial because otherwise Arlene et al would go loopy but the ability to control who passes through the sausage machine of a very limited number of ports has always been too great.
I’m sure if we suddenly had a surge of “Iranian migrants” catching the ferry from Larne to Stranraer it would be picked up on pdq.
TM has been selling this deal like Blair, but without his talent. Unless she is going for a reluctant People’s Vote, she has been very badly advised.
I think she might be going for a reluctant peoples' vote, but even if she is not, how do you think she should have been selling the deal? She certainly lacks the talent that Blair had in selling things, but what could she have done differently to sell it, given her limited talent? Serious question, as she could have approached things differently, but I'm uncertain which would have worked better.
Made a decision sooner, started tackling it sooner, setting out her stall sooner. The shape of her deal has been clear since Chequers (which makes Raab et al resigning more inexplicable to me) but what has she done to argue her cause between Chequers and last week?
Blair like it or not spent about a year laying the groundwork for the Iraq War, arguing why it would be justified before it happened. May has been reluctant to make a decision then once made acts like there is suddenly no alternative.
If there was no alternative what took her so long to get there?
May has always taken decision with a small coterie of advisers and then sprung them on everybody else when it was too late to change anything. The dementia tax being a prime example. She seems unable to see why this technique cannot possibly work with something as controversial as Brexit. Even cabinet ministers do not seem willing to defend her positions with any conviction. And her "argument" is no more than repeating that she is right and it's in the national interest. She speaks in a monotone with all the oratorical power of the shipping forecast and often seems unconvinced by her own arguments.
What a load of nonsense, EU people do queue jump, perfectly legally, but they do that. Why are we so scared of speaking the truth.
At the airport there are technically four (or in some cases five) queues, excluding those who who use technical solutions:
There is UK/EU/EEA/Switzerland.
There is airline crew.
There is people with right to Remain in the UK, but not one of the above passports.
There is "other", i.e. people with visas - or visa waivers - from outside UK/EU/EEA/Switzerland.
And the fifth possibility is a "Fast Track" for people who have travelled First Class.
In Los Angles, there are about a dozen queues: US and Canadians, People with Green Cards, People on Certain Types of Visas, People on Visa Waivers, Global Entry, air crew, etc...
TM has been selling this deal like Blair, but without his talent. Unless she is going for a reluctant People’s Vote, she has been very badly advised.
I think she might be going for a reluctant peoples' vote, but even if she is not, how do you think she should have been selling the deal? She certainly lacks the talent that Blair had in selling things, but what could she have done differently to sell it, given her limited talent? Serious question, as she could have approached things differently, but I'm uncertain which would have worked better.
First, she needs to decide who’s votes she is trying to win , Labour votes or Brexit Tories. You cannot win them all. So get off the fence. She should have forced the Tory VONC last week on her terms, win and then essentially ignored the ERG and persuade Labour votes.
My only current explanation for what she doing is that she is trying to win the public’s vote, not her NPs. And is therefore going for a People’s Vote.
She has apparently rejected a "peoples vote" 27 times in her Commons sojourns of the last week.
TM has been selling this deal like Blair, but without his talent. Unless she is going for a reluctant People’s Vote, she has been very badly advised.
I think she might be going for a reluctant peoples' vote, but even if she is not, how do you think she should have been selling the deal? She certainly lacks the talent that Blair had in selling things, but what could she have done differently to sell it, given her limited talent? Serious question, as she could have approached things differently, but I'm uncertain which would have worked better.
First, she needs to decide who’s votes she is trying to win , Labour votes or Brexit Tories. You cannot win them all. So get off the fence. She should have forced the Tory VONC last week on her terms, win and then essentially ignored the ERG and persuade Labour votes.
It is all so easy when you do not actually have the responsibility
Yup. She has played a difficult hand badly by retreating into a no 10 bunker. She spent her time talking to the EU and forgot to bring the country with her.
You’re right, an outside perspective would have been helpful to her.
Comments
I think the PM was right to apologise, and I'll leave this point now in case I turn into the ghost of @Scott_P.
Get out and time is your friend ERG, if you are reading this. The endless salami slicing of the past forty years will work the other way.
What could possibly go wrong.
However, it completely confuses FoM with "Immigration Control" - only the thickest would follow that route - everyone else will fly to Stansted as a "Tourist" and simply overstay.....
No wonder Dunt stopped listening.
Otherwise there is an end to FOM in law, but not in fact.
Edit. Not sure how the border is at Dublin as @Carlotta suggests. Outsourcing our borders to a foreign state is a rather unique take on Taking Control?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/26/how-will-your-mp-vote-on-theresa-mays-brexit-deal
If the gap were 50, MPs might feel the burden more keenly.
https://twitter.com/AlexKokcharov/status/1066667417114460161
One area May's Government has been very strong is in whipping votes. But they do have a mountain to climb.
What are people going to say? I think a better deal is possible, but I'm giving up on that after a week because the EU still say no?
The idea people ideologically or partisanly opposed to the deal will change their tune seems to be along the same wishful thinking lines as assuming mass Labour rebels/abstentions and a lot more Tory backbenchers backing it. The exact opposite has happened, I see no reason the same would not apply to those thinking the same deal will get a better hearing in a second vote.
1) Theresa May will continue in her job?
2) The deal might yet be resuscitated?
The US can, because you cannot enter by road.
Looks as if everyone is defending their entrenched position so deadlock confirmed
Has Ken Clarke spoken in the debate
Presumably a country can say: "No vessels to travel through my waters in this area," but what are the potential repercussions? And how much martial force can they use? What happens if the waters are contested?
However, the path to remain would be the most divisive referendum in our history and I fear full of hate and anger on all sides with an uncertain result
MPs relying on that are gambling though. If the French kick up a fuss it could lead to them being forced to opposed it again with the clock running out.
So we can never have bilateral or multilateral agreements that cover people residing or working in one another’s territory because it would be “unfair” on the rest of the world. An interesting view.
"A British tar is a soaring soul,
As free as a mountain bird,
His energetic fist should be ready to resist
A dictatorial word.
His nose should pant,
and his lip should curl,
His cheeks should flame
and his brow should furl,
His bosom should heave,
and his heart should glow,
And his fist be ever ready for a knock-down blow!
His eyes should flash with an inborn fire,
His brow with scorn be wrung;
He never should bow down to a domineering frown,
Or the tang of a tyrant tongue!
His foot should stamp,
and his throat should growl,
His hair should twirl,
and his face should scowl,
His eyes should flash,
and his breast protrude,
And this should be his customary attitude."
It'd explain the gammon.
May is toast. Before Christmas.
What problem are you trying to solve?
And no-one else got a look in.....
He'd get closer to consensus in the Commons at least.
Indeed it is no means certain he would win a GE
Blair like it or not spent about a year laying the groundwork for the Iraq War, arguing why it would be justified before it happened. May has been reluctant to make a decision then once made acts like there is suddenly no alternative.
If there was no alternative what took her so long to get there?
Anyway, I must be off.
Dislike it for the backstop - although I think that's overrated because the real issue is a political one in Northern Ireland - but not because a substantial minority of our opponents like it.
I’m sure if we suddenly had a surge of “Iranian migrants” catching the ferry from Larne to Stranraer it would be picked up on pdq.
There is UK/EU/EEA/Switzerland.
There is airline crew.
There is people with right to Remain in the UK, but not one of the above passports.
There is "other", i.e. people with visas - or visa waivers - from outside UK/EU/EEA/Switzerland.
And the fifth possibility is a "Fast Track" for people who have travelled First Class.
In Los Angles, there are about a dozen queues: US and Canadians, People with Green Cards, People on Certain Types of Visas, People on Visa Waivers, Global Entry, air crew, etc...
You’re right, an outside perspective would have been helpful to her.