I've never applied for one so don't know what they are like but ...
If you move home you will fill in lots of documents If you move to a different area of the country you will fill in lots of documents If you move job you will fill in lots of documents If your kids move school you will fill in lots of documents
So what is so terrible about filling in another document if you move to another country ?
Yep just popping over to France, what's the number of that solicitor that specialises in visa applications?
Like that, you mean?
Perhaps you can link to where it says we will need a visa to 'pop over to France'.
Can all those Brexiters who voted Leave please stop talking about Brexiters in the third person as if they bear no responsibility for what is happening. Those in charge now, those in charge once and now gone, those who voted for it. All the same. No of course you didn't realise it would turn out like this and hoped for EEA/EFTA/Norway Plus/Canada Plus Plus whatever the fuck.
This absolute shithow is all your fault.
So please enough of the "they".
There's a difference between Leavers and Brexiteers.
As there is a difference between Remainers and EverCloserUnioners.
Nah. The ballot paper was the ballot paper.
And we could Leave or Remain.
But Leaving does not satisfy those who want to create libertarian pirate island while Remaining would not have satisfied those who wanted to create United States of Europe.
Those who voted Leave, whatever colour horn they wanted the unicorn to have (h/t @rcs1000 ) are responsible. If they didn't realise it would turn out like this then it's worse than I thought. As for Remainers? Who cares, we lost.
The remainers signed up to all the stuff we can't get out of.
Oh god have you managed to sneak a phone into the classroom while you're doing lost time during playtime?
The remainers and the leavers voted in the government which signed up to all the stuff we can't are just about to get out of.
You want to give all the blame to leavers with the mess in leaving, but share out the blame for signing up to this stuff equally between the two groups (even though the leavers were opposed the whole time).
Yeah it's me who is the school kid.
It's democracy, sweetheart. I'm simply saying that this democratic decision is a mind-bogglingly idiotic one and those who voted for it likely to be mind-boggling idiots. You, for example.
A rabid EU supporter not being a fan of democracy.
A Labour frontbencher told BuzzFeed News that if the party shifts its position they do suspect some of its MPs will vote for May’s deal — and that it will likely be those moderates in Brexit-voting seats.
“People who are natural allies of Chuka [Umunna],” the MP said, “they’re keeping their heads down. They don’t really feel inclined to support Jeremy, but they don’t want Chuka and [what] others are suggesting, which is basically a public vote and Remain.
“For them, for someone like Gloria De Piero or Ruth Smeeth in Stoke it’s a death sentence for them. It’s not good if Labour comes out that way... They will be thinking: ‘Shit, that’s really bad for me come a general election,’ which could well be possible.”
As for what happens next, the frontbencher said, it is impossible to predict. A Corbyn minority government, a general election, and a renegotiated Labour Brexit in which the UK remains part of the customs union are all, in their mind, possible outcomes.
Can all those Brexiters who voted Leave please stop talking about Brexiters in the third person as if they bear no responsibility for what is happening. Those in charge now, those in charge once and now gone, those who voted for it. All the same. No of course you didn't realise it would turn out like this and hoped for EEA/EFTA/Norway Plus/Canada Plus Plus whatever the fuck.
This absolute shithow is all your fault.
So please enough of the "they".
There's a difference between Leavers and Brexiteers.
As there is a difference between Remainers and EverCloserUnioners.
Nah. The ballot paper was the ballot paper.
And we could Leave or Remain.
But Leaving does not satisfy those who want to create libertarian pirate island while Remaining would not have satisfied those who wanted to create United States of Europe.
Those who voted Leave, whatever colour horn they wanted the unicorn to have (h/t @rcs1000 ) are responsible. If they didn't realise it would turn out like this then it's worse than I thought. As for Remainers? Who cares, we lost.
The remainers signed up to all the stuff we can't get out of.
Oh god have you managed to sneak a phone into the classroom while you're doing lost time during playtime?
The remainers and the leavers voted in the government which signed up to all the stuff we can't are just about to get out of.
You want to give all the blame to leavers with the mess in leaving, but share out the blame for signing up to this stuff equally between the two groups (even though the leavers were opposed the whole time).
Yeah it's me who is the school kid.
It's democracy, sweetheart. I'm simply saying that this democratic decision is a mind-bogglingly idiotic one and those who voted for it likely to be mind-boggling idiots. You, for example.
A rabid EU supporter not being a fan of democracy.
Hold the front page.
Plus unable to comprehend simple English. I am a fan of democracy. I am not a fan of mind-bogglingly idiotic idiots fucking up the country but hey, I realise that that's all part of it.
Mr. Topping, it's a Remainer who 'negotiated' a deal so good the EU love it, Labour oppose it, and both pro-EU and EU-sceptical Conservatives detest it.
If someone's offered a choice between ham or cheese in their sandwiches and opts for ham, only to find the bread contains stones and the ham is green, I'd be inclined to blame the person who made the sandwich rather than the person who made the order.
Castigating those sinners who cast their votes in a heretical manner, denouncing them and demanding they recant, is not necessarily going to persuade them of your perspective.
You seem a generally sensible sort of chap Mr Dancer. I am intrigued to know what basis anyone has for believing that the EU would have concluded a better deal with us if Johnson or Mogg had been at the helm?
I can accept the idea that a hardliner would have committed us to No Deal early on but that in itself would have created almighty ructions in the UK and it could be argued that that is what the 2017 GE rejected.
However leaving aside the "let's strop off" option ,I can see nothing that indicates that the result of the negotiations would have produced a better deal whoever had been in charge.
It just seems to be a convenient get out for some to claim we would have got a good deal with a leaver in charge, almost as though it absolves them of any responsibility for the mess are now in.
That seems to be the general expectation. In which case my question stands - why on earth is the government pressing ahead with a proposal that everyone involved knows is heading for a humiliating defeat?
Because perhaps they think the vote will be closer than what Labour MPs think?
How many Tory MPs are now publicly committed to vote against the deal? It must be close to 100.
And how many opposition MPs are publicly committed to vote in favour? It must be close to 0.
Exactly, closer than 150
But if 100 Tories vote against and no opposition MPs vote in favour the majority would be about 190.
I'd be surprised if any Labour MPs vote in favour - why risk the opprobrium of your party members and colleagues for a deal which is already a lost cause? If the vote looked close it might be different.
No real downside to Downing St briefing a 150 vote defeat. Markets can price in the risk, MPs can price in the consequences and as December 11th approaches any evidence the margin will be lower can be spun as momentum. It's about expectation management.
Mr. Topping, it's a Remainer who 'negotiated' a deal so good the EU love it, Labour oppose it, and both pro-EU and EU-sceptical Conservatives detest it.
If someone's offered a choice between ham or cheese in their sandwiches and opts for ham, only to find the bread contains stones and the ham is green, I'd be inclined to blame the person who made the sandwich rather than the person who made the order.
Castigating those sinners who cast their votes in a heretical manner, denouncing them and demanding they recant, is not necessarily going to persuade them of your perspective.
Just wait for the shit sandwich you get presented with as an alternative, Mr.D.
In any event, have you forgotten your Dr. Seuss ?
...If you will let me be I will try them You will see Say! I like green eggs and ham! I do!! I like them, Sam-I-am! And I would eat them in a boat! And I would eat them with a goat... And I will eat them in the rain And in the dark. And on a train And in a car. And in a tree They are so good, so good, you see!...
Sam-I-am is indeed a very good comparison to Theresa May's sales technique here.
As to why she would go into a vote facing a defeat of 150:
(1) I don't think it will be 150 in the end, unless the Tory party is so locked into anti-deal groupthink that they've not noticed the country is edging towards acceptance, not just on PB, but in the approval ratings and polls.
(2) TM needs to know the scale of the defeat, as it very much informs what she does next. 50-60, here's Sindyref2; 100+, best choice of referendum, GE, oh, here's a fully worked up Norway plus option provisionally blessed by the Council.
Essentially, TM is solving a simultaneous equation with 3 variables (internal Con, parliament, EU). If she doesn't know what the parliamentary equation even is, that will be a massive hindrance to further progress.
They’re arguing it needs unanimous approval by the council so can’t be purely unilateral.
The EU will surely try to stop an extension if they can if they believe its only purpose is to try to renegotiate the deal or prepare for No Deal. It is unclear if the decision is in their hands but if it is I suspect they will only agree to if the purpose is to hold a second referendum. Another thing it may have bee wiser to find out for certain before we pressed the go button.
I've never applied for one so don't know what they are like but ...
If you move home you will fill in lots of documents If you move to a different area of the country you will fill in lots of documents If you move job you will fill in lots of documents If your kids move school you will fill in lots of documents
So what is so terrible about filling in another document if you move to another country ?
Yep just popping over to France, what's the number of that solicitor that specialises in visa applications?
Like that, you mean?
Perhaps you can link to where it says we will need a visa to 'pop over to France'.
You seriously thought the EU would demand visas of UK visitors like those from Bangladesh and Chad while admitting citizens of Argentina and Brazil visa-free?
That seems to be the general expectation. In which case my question stands - why on earth is the government pressing ahead with a proposal that everyone involved knows is heading for a humiliating defeat?
Because perhaps they think the vote will be closer than what Labour MPs think?
How many Tory MPs are now publicly committed to vote against the deal? It must be close to 100.
And how many opposition MPs are publicly committed to vote in favour? It must be close to 0.
Exactly, closer than 150
But if 100 Tories vote against and no opposition MPs vote in favour the majority would be about 190.
I'd be surprised if any Labour MPs vote in favour - why risk the opprobrium of your party members and colleagues for a deal which is already a lost cause? If the vote looked close it might be different.
" why risk the opprobrium of your party members and colleagues for a deal which is already a lost cause?"
Because it's the right thing to do. Country before party.
I've never applied for one so don't know what they are like but ...
If you move home you will fill in lots of documents If you move to a different area of the country you will fill in lots of documents If you move job you will fill in lots of documents If your kids move school you will fill in lots of documents
So what is so terrible about filling in another document if you move to another country ?
Freedom of movement means that you can, at a mere whim, move the family at will, zap, Tuesday we're in France, shit it's raining, let's go work in Spain, god, too hot, ciao Italy. Who has time for additional paperwork?
It's not that easy now by a long way. In Spain to get residence you must be working or over 65 or have private health cover.
I note Fabian Picardo absolubtely ripped the BBC to shreds this morning on their complete failure to present the Gibraltar situation accurately. Certainly a politician living in the real world.
Picardo's `real world' is about the size of a municipal park in a UK metropolitan borough....., I dont blame him for fighting.hard to be heard...look what the Conservatives did to Hong Kong's voters when faced with a neighbour who wanted it back who had big trading potential....Gib folk should be fearful of vague Tory promises.
OMG not HK now.
Hong Kong (ex the Island, for the details people) was on a lease which expired. The UK honoured that contract.
All the Conservatives did to Hong Kong's voters was to comply with their international treaty obligations.
I thought you'd say that.....HK island was never covered under the Treaty......only the New Territories were part of the treaty.....FACT the Island and subjects were transferred against their will by M Thatcher's govt
I've never applied for one so don't know what they are like but ...
If you move home you will fill in lots of documents If you move to a different area of the country you will fill in lots of documents If you move job you will fill in lots of documents If your kids move school you will fill in lots of documents
So what is so terrible about filling in another document if you move to another country ?
Takes a long time, and is generally a pain in the bum.
Also it adds uncertainty to anything you try to do. For example, if you want to get a job, the employer doesn't know how long the visa will take, so they're strongly incentivized to prefer another candidate from a mutually open country, as they can be sure they'll be able to start straight away (or whenever is scheduled).
And this is the best case, where there are no restrictions over your eligibility. In practice you may need to wedge the job you do into some different, sub-optimal form so that it fits in one of the boxes the bureaucracy understands.
Hi Edmund
sorry for missing your question last night about the EC recommendations for a referendum. I went to bed.
This is the best summary I have seen of the practical consequences of the EC guidelines.
It is from the Constitution Unit at UCL. It says that even if the 6 month recommendation is ignored the shortest time between a decision to hold a referendum and the actual date is around 24 weeks. And even that puts the whole process at risk of being called into disrepute.
I've never applied for one so don't know what they are like but ...
If you move home you will fill in lots of documents If you move to a different area of the country you will fill in lots of documents If you move job you will fill in lots of documents If your kids move school you will fill in lots of documents
So what is so terrible about filling in another document if you move to another country ?
Yep just popping over to France, what's the number of that solicitor that specialises in visa applications?
Like that, you mean?
Perhaps you can link to where it says we will need a visa to 'pop over to France'.
You seriously thought the EU would demand visas of UK visitors like those from Bangladesh and Chad while admitting citizens of Argentina and Brazil visa-free?
Time for a lie down in a darkened room I suspect.
Of course I didn't Carlotta. But it's all in play. Look at citizens' reciprocal rights. We thought this was something that could be outside the deal structure. But no, it could not have been. A bit like our young friend @Xenon who only wants a bit of a deal which he or she (or it) thinks will be easy to negotiate even as we have No Deal.
Can all those Brexiters who voted Leave please stop talking about Brexiters in the third person as if they bear no responsibility for what is happening. Those in charge now, those in charge once and now gone, those who voted for it. All the same. No of course you didn't realise it would turn out like this and hoped for EEA/EFTA/Norway Plus/Canada Plus Plus whatever the fuck.
This absolute shithow is all your fault.
So please enough of the "they".
There's a difference between Leavers and Brexiteers.
As there is a difference between Remainers and EverCloserUnioners.
Nah. The ballot paper was the ballot paper.
And we could Leave or Remain.
But Leaving does not satisfy those who want to create libertarian pirate island while Remaining would not have satisfied those who wanted to create United States of Europe.
Those who voted Leave, whatever colour horn they wanted the unicorn to have (h/t @rcs1000 ) are responsible. If they didn't realise it would turn out like this then it's worse than I thought. As for Remainers? Who cares, we lost.
The remainers signed up to all the stuff we can't get out of.
Oh god have you managed to sneak a phone into the classroom while you're doing lost time during playtime?
The remainers and the leavers voted in the government which signed up to all the stuff we can't are just about to get out of.
You want to give all the blame to leavers with the mess in leaving, but share out the blame for signing up to this stuff equally between the two groups (even though the leavers were opposed the whole time).
Yeah it's me who is the school kid.
It's democracy, sweetheart. I'm simply saying that this democratic decision is a mind-bogglingly idiotic one and those who voted for it likely to be mind-boggling idiots. You, for example.
A rabid EU supporter not being a fan of democracy.
Hold the front page.
Democracy occasionally produces sub-optimal results. Anyone who thinks the Athenians nailed it needs to re-read Thucydides. But it's a feature not a bug. People should be free to vote for untrammeled Corbynism if they wish, not have to follow some thin, technocratic economic gruel doled out by sensible civil servants.
The big problem the rebels have is that they cannot congregate around any alternative. Some (say) they want minor more Brexity alterations; others want to scrap the whole thing. And on the other side, Labour pretend that they can get a 'better' deal, whilst others think scrapping it will mean another referendum, or even remain.
In the meantime, the one real and probable alternative to this deal is crashing out. That might not be the case if they could coalesce around a single alternative, but they cannot. This means whatever is put to parliament will probably fail.
It's a mess, and it's time MPs started acting like adults, look down into the abyss, and decide not to jump in. This deal is the only alternative to that jump.
Killer fact. In the event of no-deal Brexit, the loss of access to Irn-Bru supplies will bring Johnny Foreigner snivelling back to the negotiating table.
I note Fabian Picardo absolubtely ripped the BBC to shreds this morning on their complete failure to present the Gibraltar situation accurately. Certainly a politician living in the real world.
Picardo's `real world' is about the size of a municipal park in a UK metropolitan borough....., I dont blame him for fighting.hard to be heard...look what the Conservatives did to Hong Kong's voters when faced with a neighbour who wanted it back who had big trading potential....Gib folk should be fearful of vague Tory promises.
OMG not HK now.
Hong Kong (ex the Island, for the details people) was on a lease which expired. The UK honoured that contract.
All the Conservatives did to Hong Kong's voters was to comply with their international treaty obligations.
I thought you'd say that.....HK island was never covered under the Treaty......only the New Territories were part of the treaty.....FACT the Island and subjects were transferred against their will by M Thatcher's govt
We've had this discussion before on PB, but it was a while back. I don't think the islands were viable on their own.
Mr. T, I wouldn't want someone like Boris or Mogg to be PM, to start with.
As Portillo said on This Week a little while ago, May's approach was to try and keep us as close to the EU as possible, and signing up to the demented backstop, placing more importance on maintaining a 'soft' Irish border than on avoiding a customs barrier within the UK itself.
Someone not enamoured with WTO but taking a more optimistic, less clingy, approach would've begun immediate preparations for no deal, just to mitigate the impact if it happened and to help negotiations. They would've sought to make the most of advantages of determining our own destiny through better regulation and taxation, as well as through new trade deals. Of course, I want the UK to remain on co-operative terms with some aspects of the EU (EURAtom, science collaboration etc) but most of those, frankly, should never have been consumed by the bureaucratic empire in the first place.
May's stance meant that we would never gain the main advantages of leaving, lock us into an arrangement we cannot leave, submits to the regulatory annexation of Northern Ireland, costs us £39bn in return for a non-legally binding text. She prevaricated at home and capitulated overseas.
Much of that was down to domestic weakness, largely self-inflicted, but also to her deliberate decision to try and stay close to the EU. In a binary choice, you cannot satisfy both sides. Her triangulating response, trying to stay close to the EU whilst leaving it, is a bit reminiscent of how immigration played out for Cameron et al.
Her result is to give us the disadvantages of leaving, and losing what perks there are to membership.
The big problem the rebels have is that they cannot congregate around any alternative. Some (say) they want minor more Brexity alterations; others want to scrap the whole thing. And on the other side, Labour pretend that they can get a 'better' deal, whilst others think scrapping it will mean another referendum, or even remain.
In the meantime, the one real and probable alternative to this deal is crashing out. That might not be the case if they could coalesce around a single alternative, but they cannot. This means whatever is put to parliament will probably fail.
It's a mess, and it's time MPs started acting like adults, look down into the abyss, and decide not to jump in. This deal is the only alternative to that jump.
The hard remainers, hard Brexiteers and Jeremy's unicorn Brexiteers can only see victory. Noone is contemplating defeat here.
I've never applied for one so don't know what they are like but ...
If you move home you will fill in lots of documents If you move to a different area of the country you will fill in lots of documents If you move job you will fill in lots of documents If your kids move school you will fill in lots of documents
So what is so terrible about filling in another document if you move to another country ?
Takes a long time, and is generally a pain in the bum.
Also it adds uncertainty to anything you try to do. For example, if you want to get a job, the employer doesn't know how long the visa will take, so they're strongly incentivized to prefer another candidate from a mutually open country, as they can be sure they'll be able to start straight away (or whenever is scheduled).
And this is the best case, where there are no restrictions over your eligibility. In practice you may need to wedge the job you do into some different, sub-optimal form so that it fits in one of the boxes the bureaucracy understands.
Hi Edmund
sorry for missing your question last night about the EC recommendations for a referendum. I went to bed.
This is the best summary I have seen of the practical consequences of the EC guidelines.
It is from the Constitution Unit at UCL. It says that even if the 6 month recommendation is ignored the shortest time between a decision to hold a referendum and the actual date is around 24 weeks. And even that puts the whole process at risk of being called into disrepute.
The Council of Europe expects two weeks to be given to voters to make up their minds. Greece held a referendum in eight days in 2015.
Something is going to break in the coming months. If a referendum becomes politically imperative, time is not going to be a bar.
Can all those Brexiters who voted Leave please stop talking about Brexiters in the third person as if they bear no responsibility for what is happening. Those in charge now, those in charge once and now gone, those who voted for it. All the same. No of course you didn't realise it would turn out like this and hoped for EEA/EFTA/Norway Plus/Canada Plus Plus whatever the fuck.
This absolute shithow is all your fault.
So please enough of the "they".
There's a difference between Leavers and Brexiteers.
As there is a difference between Remainers and EverCloserUnioners.
I seem to remember a point when Brexiteers on here were snivelling about the reluctance of everyone else to use the term 'Brexiteer' because it was so cool & swashbuckling & all that.
That seems to be the general expectation. In which case my question stands - why on earth is the government pressing ahead with a proposal that everyone involved knows is heading for a humiliating defeat?
Having struck the deal they must put it to Parliament and argue for it strenuously, if only to demonstrate to the EU that it won't fly.
But I don't expect the EU will renegotiate, either to remove the backstop or to go to an EFTA-type deal. Far better to leave Britain to its psychiatric crisis and deal with it when it has some idea what it actually wants as opposed to doesn't want.
May's approach has always been subtractive - a carcass - of whichboth sides have taken their pick until there are only the offal and gizzards left.
A bolder stance would have been that we are heading to WTO well prepared but we might be prepared to add on anything the EU can agree on as a bonus.
Can all those Brexiters who voted Leave please stop talking about Brexiters in the third person as if they bear no responsibility for what is happening. Those in charge now, those in charge once and now gone, those who voted for it. All the same. No of course you didn't realise it would turn out like this and hoped for EEA/EFTA/Norway Plus/Canada Plus Plus whatever the fuck.
This absolute shithow is all your fault.
So please enough of the "they".
Wait so everyone who voted for Tony Blair is a war criminal ?
People vote for a party often not even agreeing with some of the things in its manifesto, trying to say that a party voter becomes responsible for everything that party subsequently does in government is nonsense.
A binary referendum is totally different - if you voted to leave you are far more directly responsible for the consequences. I accept that believing what the Leave campaigns said might count as mitigating circumstances.
That seems to be the general expectation. In which case my question stands - why on earth is the government pressing ahead with a proposal that everyone involved knows is heading for a humiliating defeat?
Because perhaps they think the vote will be closer than what Labour MPs think?
How many Tory MPs are now publicly committed to vote against the deal? It must be close to 100.
And how many opposition MPs are publicly committed to vote in favour? It must be close to 0.
Exactly, closer than 150
But if 100 Tories vote against and no opposition MPs vote in favour the majority would be about 190.
I'd be surprised if any Labour MPs vote in favour - why risk the opprobrium of your party members and colleagues for a deal which is already a lost cause? If the vote looked close it might be different.
" why risk the opprobrium of your party members and colleagues for a deal which is already a lost cause?"
Because it's the right thing to do. Country before party.
This whole farrago results from the Tories putting party before country. The referendum was called in the interests of the Tory party, as was the 2017 election. Tories are in no position to appeal to their opponents on national interest grounds.
Anyway I guess most Labour MPs believe that the national interest lies in defeating the deal and going for a second referendum.
I note Fabian Picardo absolubtely ripped the BBC to shreds this morning on their complete failure to present the Gibraltar situation accurately. Certainly a politician living in the real world.
Picardo's `real world' is about the size of a municipal park in a UK metropolitan borough....., I dont blame him for fighting.hard to be heard...look what the Conservatives did to Hong Kong's voters when faced with a neighbour who wanted it back who had big trading potential....Gib folk should be fearful of vague Tory promises.
OMG not HK now.
Hong Kong (ex the Island, for the details people) was on a lease which expired. The UK honoured that contract.
All the Conservatives did to Hong Kong's voters was to comply with their international treaty obligations.
I thought you'd say that.....HK island was never covered under the Treaty......only the New Territories were part of the treaty.....FACT the Island and subjects were transferred against their will by M Thatcher's govt
We've had this discussion before on PB, but it was a while back. I don't think the islands were viable on their own.
No but as I said some weeks ago, the Gib and Cyprus British overseas territories (and NI) are very big elephants in the room.....this is the sort of thing that will add to Tory infighting for the next decade
I note Fabian Picardo absolubtely ripped the BBC to shreds this morning on their complete failure to present the Gibraltar situation accurately. Certainly a politician living in the real world.
Picardo's `real world' is about the size of a municipal park in a UK metropolitan borough....., I dont blame him for fighting.hard to be heard...look what the Conservatives did to Hong Kong's voters when faced with a neighbour who wanted it back who had big trading potential....Gib folk should be fearful of vague Tory promises.
OMG not HK now.
Hong Kong (ex the Island, for the details people) was on a lease which expired. The UK honoured that contract.
All the Conservatives did to Hong Kong's voters was to comply with their international treaty obligations.
I thought you'd say that.....HK island was never covered under the Treaty......only the New Territories were part of the treaty.....FACT the Island and subjects were transferred against their will by M Thatcher's govt
And how long do you suppose HK Island could have functioned while cut off from the mainland?
I've never applied for one so don't know what they are like but ...
If you move home you will fill in lots of documents If you move to a different area of the country you will fill in lots of documents If you move job you will fill in lots of documents If your kids move school you will fill in lots of documents
So what is so terrible about filling in another document if you move to another country ?
Takes a long time, and is generally a pain in the bum.
Also it adds uncertainty to anything you try to do. For example, if you want to get a job, the employer doesn't know how long the visa will take, so they're strongly incentivized to prefer another candidate from a mutually open country, as they can be sure they'll be able to start straight away (or whenever is scheduled).
And this is the best case, where there are no restrictions over your eligibility. In practice you may need to wedge the job you do into some different, sub-optimal form so that it fits in one of the boxes the bureaucracy understands.
Hi Edmund
sorry for missing your question last night about the EC recommendations for a referendum. I went to bed.
This is the best summary I have seen of the practical consequences of the EC guidelines.
It is from the Constitution Unit at UCL. It says that even if the 6 month recommendation is ignored the shortest time between a decision to hold a referendum and the actual date is around 24 weeks. And even that puts the whole process at risk of being called into disrepute.
Thanks, someone else posted the original quote from the Electoral Commission, which says that 6 months is "best practice", but stresses it's not a legal requirement. Obviously if you're dealing with an emergency situation you don't take as long as you would if you're kicking off a process that could just as well start any time. I think in practice the difference between what you'd do in an urgent case and what you'd do if you've got as long as you like is pretty enormous. For instance, taking 12 weeks to answer the question "is this question intelligible?" is classic no-particular-hurry bureaucracy, but if parliament told them to get it done in a week I don't think anyone would be complaining later that the referendum wasn't valid because they didn't spend long enough chewing it over.
Killer fact. In the event of no-deal Brexit, the loss of access to Irn-Bru supplies will bring Johnny Foreigner snivelling back to the negotiating table.
I've never applied for one so don't know what they are like but ...
If you move home you will fill in lots of documents If you move to a different area of the country you will fill in lots of documents If you move job you will fill in lots of documents If your kids move school you will fill in lots of documents
So what is so terrible about filling in another document if you move to another country ?
Takes a long time, and is generally a pain in the bum.
Also it adds uncertainty to anything you try to do. For example, if you want to get a job, the employer doesn't know how long the visa will take, so they're strongly incentivized to prefer another candidate from a mutually open country, as they can be sure they'll be able to start straight away (or whenever is scheduled).
And this is the best case, where there are no restrictions over your eligibility. In practice you may need to wedge the job you do into some different, sub-optimal form so that it fits in one of the boxes the bureaucracy understands.
Hi Edmund
sorry for missing your question last night about the EC recommendations for a referendum. I went to bed.
This is the best summary I have seen of the practical consequences of the EC guidelines.
It is from the Constitution Unit at UCL. It says that even if the 6 month recommendation is ignored the shortest time between a decision to hold a referendum and the actual date is around 24 weeks. And even that puts the whole process at risk of being called into disrepute.
The Council of Europe expects two weeks to be given to voters to make up their minds. Greece held a referendum in eight days in 2015.
Something is going to break in the coming months. If a referendum becomes politically imperative, time is not going to be a bar.
We are not Greece. I would fully expect a successful challenge all the way to the Supreme Court to a referendum that the Electoral Commission said did not meet its standards. And of course it would just be another example of the scorn that the political classes hold for democracy.
"Not only do you want to overturn a democratic vote but you want to use a fraudulent vote to do so."
I've never applied for one so don't know what they are like but ...
If you move home you will fill in lots of documents If you move to a different area of the country you will fill in lots of documents If you move job you will fill in lots of documents If your kids move school you will fill in lots of documents
So what is so terrible about filling in another document if you move to another country ?
Takes a long time, and is generally a pain in the bum.
Also it adds uncertainty to anything you try to do. For example, if you want to get a job, the employer doesn't know how long the visa will take, so they're strongly incentivized to prefer another candidate from a mutually open country, as they can be sure they'll be able to start straight away (or whenever is scheduled).
And this is the best case, where there are no restrictions over your eligibility. In practice you may need to wedge the job you do into some different, sub-optimal form so that it fits in one of the boxes the bureaucracy understands.
Hi Edmund
sorry for missing your question last night about the EC recommendations for a referendum. I went to bed.
This is the best summary I have seen of the practical consequences of the EC guidelines.
It is from the Constitution Unit at UCL. It says that even if the 6 month recommendation is ignored the shortest time between a decision to hold a referendum and the actual date is around 24 weeks. And even that puts the whole process at risk of being called into disrepute.
The Council of Europe expects two weeks to be given to voters to make up their minds. Greece held a referendum in eight days in 2015.
Something is going to break in the coming months. If a referendum becomes politically imperative, time is not going to be a bar.
If we're going by Greece then the question becomes "Do you accept the deal", the voters reject the deal and it is implemented anyway.
I note Fabian Picardo absolubtely ripped the BBC to shreds this morning on their complete failure to present the Gibraltar situation accurately. Certainly a politician living in the real world.
Picardo's `real world' is about the size of a municipal park in a UK metropolitan borough....., I dont blame him for fighting.hard to be heard...look what the Conservatives did to Hong Kong's voters when faced with a neighbour who wanted it back who had big trading potential....Gib folk should be fearful of vague Tory promises.
OMG not HK now.
Hong Kong (ex the Island, for the details people) was on a lease which expired. The UK honoured that contract.
All the Conservatives did to Hong Kong's voters was to comply with their international treaty obligations.
I thought you'd say that.....HK island was never covered under the Treaty......only the New Territories were part of the treaty.....FACT the Island and subjects were transferred against their will by M Thatcher's govt
We've had this discussion before on PB, but it was a while back. I don't think the islands were viable on their own.
Which is why it was incumbent on the UK Government to offer settlement in the UK to any HK citizen who wanted it.
I've never applied for one so don't know what they are like but ...
If you move home you will fill in lots of documents If you move to a different area of the country you will fill in lots of documents If you move job you will fill in lots of documents If your kids move school you will fill in lots of documents
So what is so terrible about filling in another document if you move to another country ?
Takes a long time, and is generally a pain in the bum.
Also it adds uncertainty to anything you try to do. For example, if you want to get a job, the employer doesn't know how long the visa will take, so they're strongly incentivized to prefer another candidate from a mutually open country, as they can be sure they'll be able to start straight away (or whenever is scheduled).
And this is the best case, where there are no restrictions over your eligibility. In practice you may need to wedge the job you do into some different, sub-optimal form so that it fits in one of the boxes the bureaucracy understands.
Hi Edmund
sorry for missing your question last night about the EC recommendations for a referendum. I went to bed.
This is the best summary I have seen of the practical consequences of the EC guidelines.
It is from the Constitution Unit at UCL. It says that even if the 6 month recommendation is ignored the shortest time between a decision to hold a referendum and the actual date is around 24 weeks. And even that puts the whole process at risk of being called into disrepute.
Thanks, someone else posted the original quote from the Electoral Commission, which says that 6 months is "best practice", but stresses it's not a legal requirement. Obviously if you're dealing with an emergency situation you don't take as long as you would if you're kicking off a process that could just as well start any time. I think in practice the difference between what you'd do in an urgent case and what you'd do if you've got as long as you like is pretty enormous. For instance, taking 12 weeks to answer the question "is this question intelligible?" is classic no-particular-hurry bureaucracy, but if parliament told them to get it done in a week I don't think anyone would be complaining later that the referendum wasn't valid because they didn't spend long enough chewing it over.
Before the FTPA the official timetable for a general election was three weeks from announcement to polling day. No doubt a referendum would need a bit longer, to register campaign groups etc, but it could certainly be done in much less than 6 months.
Thanks, someone else posted the original quote from the Electoral Commission, which says that 6 months is "best practice", but stresses it's not a legal requirement. Obviously if you're dealing with an emergency situation you don't take as long as you would if you're kicking off a process that could just as well start any time. I think in practice the difference between what you'd do in an urgent case and what you'd do if you've got as long as you like is pretty enormous. For instance, taking 12 weeks to answer the question "is this question intelligible?" is classic no-particular-hurry bureaucracy, but if parliament told them to get it done in a week I don't think anyone would be complaining later that the referendum wasn't valid because they didn't spend long enough chewing it over.
Given that the question itself would be the most important part of the referendum I suspect you are seriously wrong there. Any referendum not endorsed by the EC would be a disaster for whichever side won. Just saying we can ignore all the safeguards is a recipe for disaster. Politically it would be suicide.
This whole farrago results from the Tories putting party before country. The referendum was called in the interests of the Tory party, as was the 2017 election. Tories are in no position to appeal to their opponents on national interest grounds.
Anyway I guess most Labour MPs believe that the national interest lies in defeating the deal and going for a second referendum.
Actually, no. The Brexit issue was harmful to the Conservative Party, but it wasn't as though only traditional Conservative voters wanted Brexit: plenty of would-be Labour voters moved over to UKIP, and voted leave.
A referendum was required. There had been too many years' of people moaning and whinging about the EU, and we were not willing to deal with issues in our own remit as it was easier to blame the EU instead. If we had not had one in 2016, we would have had one within a few years, whoever was in power. It was inevitable.
Sadly for your last line, I cannot see a sane process or question for a second referendum that would deal with all the options, and also how to even get a second referendum.
*Anyone* wanting a second referendum are risking a very hard crash out. Some say they want a second referendum knowing that, others are deluded.
Jeremy "I suppose if I must lose voteshare I'd rather lose it to the LibDems than to UKIP" Corbyn continues his poor performance as Leader of the Opposition when the Tory government is crying out to be put out of its misery:
He probably thinks that's a good reframing but it isn't.
What you don't know is whether that is informed by private focus groups. If it is then the whole media/London bubble may be in for a shock.
If Labour focus grouped it then the Tories probably did. I'm not sure what you mean by the "media/London bubble". Those with influence at the BBC, Comcast, and the Murdoch and Rothermere press know their markets, and London is mainly Labour.
How stuff is reported on and commented on matters much more than what actually happens, even if millions watched it live. Most people don't make up their own opinions.
That seems to be inevitable and an unanswerable argument. Its barely worth asking the question. Supplementaries as to whether withdrawal requires unanimity or majority consent might be a little more interesting. FWIW the EU has already indicated that the cost of withdrawing the notice would be to pay all the monies spent on the negotiations and, possibly, to waive our rebate. No doubt remainers will think that is a price worth paying.
I note Fabian Picardo absolubtely ripped the BBC to shreds this morning on their complete failure to present the Gibraltar situation accurately. Certainly a politician living in the real world.
Picardo's `real world' is about the size of a municipal park in a UK metropolitan borough....., I dont blame him for fighting.hard to be heard...look what the Conservatives did to Hong Kong's voters when faced with a neighbour who wanted it back who had big trading potential....Gib folk should be fearful of vague Tory promises.
OMG not HK now.
Hong Kong (ex the Island, for the details people) was on a lease which expired. The UK honoured that contract.
All the Conservatives did to Hong Kong's voters was to comply with their international treaty obligations.
I thought you'd say that.....HK island was never covered under the Treaty......only the New Territories were part of the treaty.....FACT the Island and subjects were transferred against their will by M Thatcher's govt
FACT - they could have had sovereignty - but no water to drink - it all came from the New Territories. How long do you think that would have lasted?
The big problem the rebels have is that they cannot congregate around any alternative. Some (say) they want minor more Brexity alterations; others want to scrap the whole thing. And on the other side, Labour pretend that they can get a 'better' deal, whilst others think scrapping it will mean another referendum, or even remain.
In the meantime, the one real and probable alternative to this deal is crashing out. That might not be the case if they could coalesce around a single alternative, but they cannot. This means whatever is put to parliament will probably fail.
It's a mess, and it's time MPs started acting like adults, look down into the abyss, and decide not to jump in. This deal is the only alternative to that jump.
Half of parliament want salt in their porridge. The other half want sugar.
May has added a mixture of salt and sugar, expecting this to please everyone, and is now surprised when everyone spits it out.
I note Fabian Picardo absolubtely ripped the BBC to shreds this morning on their complete failure to present the Gibraltar situation accurately. Certainly a politician living in the real world.
Picardo's `real world' is about the size of a municipal park in a UK metropolitan borough....., I dont blame him for fighting.hard to be heard...look what the Conservatives did to Hong Kong's voters when faced with a neighbour who wanted it back who had big trading potential....Gib folk should be fearful of vague Tory promises.
OMG not HK now.
Hong Kong (ex the Island, for the details people) was on a lease which expired. The UK honoured that contract.
All the Conservatives did to Hong Kong's voters was to comply with their international treaty obligations.
I thought you'd say that.....HK island was never covered under the Treaty......only the New Territories were part of the treaty.....FACT the Island and subjects were transferred against their will by M Thatcher's govt
We've had this discussion before on PB, but it was a while back. I don't think the islands were viable on their own.
Which is why it was incumbent on the UK Government to offer settlement in the UK to any HK citizen who wanted it.
I remember the debate well, in wonder what the UK would have looked like 20 years on if say 50% of HK had decided to come and settle?.......(and been allowed)....immigration, the root of many rows in British politics that are then dressed up in other clothes. Decolonisation certainly raises difficult questions
I note Fabian Picardo absolubtely ripped the BBC to shreds this morning on their complete failure to present the Gibraltar situation accurately. Certainly a politician living in the real world.
Picardo's `real world' is about the size of a municipal park in a UK metropolitan borough....., I dont blame him for fighting.hard to be heard...look what the Conservatives did to Hong Kong's voters when faced with a neighbour who wanted it back who had big trading potential....Gib folk should be fearful of vague Tory promises.
OMG not HK now.
Hong Kong (ex the Island, for the details people) was on a lease which expired. The UK honoured that contract.
All the Conservatives did to Hong Kong's voters was to comply with their international treaty obligations.
I thought you'd say that.....HK island was never covered under the Treaty......only the New Territories were part of the treaty.....FACT the Island and subjects were transferred against their will by M Thatcher's govt
FACT - they could have had sovereignty - but no water to drink - it all came from the New Territories. How long do you think that would have lasted?
Can all those Brexiters who voted Leave please stop talking about Brexiters in the third person as if they bear no responsibility for what is happening. Those in charge now, those in charge once and now gone, those who voted for it. All the same. No of course you didn't realise it would turn out like this and hoped for EEA/EFTA/Norway Plus/Canada Plus Plus whatever the fuck.
This absolute shithow is all your fault.
So please enough of the "they".
Wait so everyone who voted for Tony Blair is a war criminal ?
Everyone who voted for Tony Blair is complicit in going to war in Iraq. And Sure Start. They voted for him, he did that. It's how it works.
Not sure it does. I voted against a Scottish Parliament and no one has ever sent me a cheque. Or an apology.
I note Fabian Picardo absolubtely ripped the BBC to shreds this morning on their complete failure to present the Gibraltar situation accurately. Certainly a politician living in the real world.
Picardo's `real world' is about the size of a municipal park in a UK metropolitan borough....., I dont blame him for fighting.hard to be heard...look what the Conservatives did to Hong Kong's voters when faced with a neighbour who wanted it back who had big trading potential....Gib folk should be fearful of vague Tory promises.
OMG not HK now.
Hong Kong (ex the Island, for the details people) was on a lease which expired. The UK honoured that contract.
All the Conservatives did to Hong Kong's voters was to comply with their international treaty obligations.
I thought you'd say that.....HK island was never covered under the Treaty......only the New Territories were part of the treaty.....FACT the Island and subjects were transferred against their will by M Thatcher's govt
We've had this discussion before on PB, but it was a while back. I don't think the islands were viable on their own.
Which is why it was incumbent on the UK Government to offer settlement in the UK to any HK citizen who wanted it.
I remember the debate well, in wonder what the UK would have looked like 20 years on if say 50% of HK had decided to come and settle?.......(and been allowed)....immigration, the root of many rows in British politics that are then dressed up in other clothes. Decolonisation certainly raises difficult questions
We did it with the Ugandan Indians in the 70s and they have hugely benefited the country.
Electoral Commission advice isn't binding but it judicable. Any haste gained in ignoring it would be more than lost as opponents fought cases all the way to the Supreme Court. Which means the primary legislation to hold a new referendum before 29/3/19 would also need to explicitly repeal bits of existing electoral law as well as sanctioning the new vote.
Of course that could happen. The Abdication Act went through in 13.5hrs. We could invoke the Civil Contingencies Act. It's possible but us *likely*.
That a parliament where no party has a majority in either House and where the Lords has absolute veto ( Salisbury doesn't apply, no time to use the Parliament Act ) is going to pass a new referendum Act which explicitly lowers existing standards so it can happen before 29/3/19 ?
FWIW the EU has already indicated that the cost of withdrawing the notice would be to pay all the monies spent on the negotiations and, possibly, to waive our rebate. No doubt remainers will think that is a price worth paying.
That would seem reasonable enough - if you wanted to do it.....I expect its a pretty penny....
I note Fabian Picardo absolubtely ripped the BBC to shreds this morning on their complete failure to present the Gibraltar situation accurately. Certainly a politician living in the real world.
Picardo's `real world' is about the size of a municipal park in a UK metropolitan borough....., I dont blame him for fighting.hard to be heard...look what the Conservatives did to Hong Kong's voters when faced with a neighbour who wanted it back who had big trading potential....Gib folk should be fearful of vague Tory promises.
OMG not HK now.
Hong Kong (ex the Island, for the details people) was on a lease which expired. The UK honoured that contract.
All the Conservatives did to Hong Kong's voters was to comply with their international treaty obligations.
I thought you'd say that.....HK island was never covered under the Treaty......only the New Territories were part of the treaty.....FACT the Island and subjects were transferred against their will by M Thatcher's govt
FACT - they could have had sovereignty - but no water to drink - it all came from the New Territories. How long do you think that would have lasted?
We could have done a Berlin airdrop.
The Berlin airdrop was coal and food - it had its own water.
This whole farrago results from the Tories putting party before country. The referendum was called in the interests of the Tory party, as was the 2017 election. Tories are in no position to appeal to their opponents on national interest grounds.
Anyway I guess most Labour MPs believe that the national interest lies in defeating the deal and going for a second referendum.
Actually, no. The Brexit issue was harmful to the Conservative Party, but it wasn't as though only traditional Conservative voters wanted Brexit: plenty of would-be Labour voters moved over to UKIP, and voted leave.
A referendum was required. There had been too many years' of people moaning and whinging about the EU, and we were not willing to deal with issues in our own remit as it was easier to blame the EU instead. If we had not had one in 2016, we would have had one within a few years, whoever was in power. It was inevitable.
Sadly for your last line, I cannot see a sane process or question for a second referendum that would deal with all the options, and also how to even get a second referendum.
*Anyone* wanting a second referendum are risking a very hard crash out. Some say they want a second referendum knowing that, others are deluded.
If the 2nd referendum is between May's Deal and Remain then a hard crash out is impossible.
I note Fabian Picardo absolubtely ripped the BBC to shreds this morning on their complete failure to present the Gibraltar situation accurately. Certainly a politician living in the real world.
Picardo's `real world' is about the size of a municipal park in a UK metropolitan borough....., I dont blame him for fighting.hard to be heard...look what the Conservatives did to Hong Kong's voters when faced with a neighbour who wanted it back who had big trading potential....Gib folk should be fearful of vague Tory promises.
OMG not HK now.
Hong Kong (ex the Island, for the details people) was on a lease which expired. The UK honoured that contract.
All the Conservatives did to Hong Kong's voters was to comply with their international treaty obligations.
I thought you'd say that.....HK island was never covered under the Treaty......only the New Territories were part of the treaty.....FACT the Island and subjects were transferred against their will by M Thatcher's govt
FACT - they could have had sovereignty - but no water to drink - it all came from the New Territories. How long do you think that would have lasted?
We could have done a Berlin airdrop.
The Berlin airdrop was coal and food - it had its own water.
Presumably the party has procedures to amend its, er, procedures quickly if it needs to
The key documents are the 1922 Committee's Procedure for the Election of the Leader of the Conservative Party and Schedule 2 to the party's constitution.
First three paragraphs in the latter:
1. If the position of the Leader of the Party becomes vacant the Chairman of the 1922 Committee shall arrange for an election to begin as soon as practicable.
2. The Chairman of the 1922 Committee will be responsible for the conduct of all ballots specified in these rules and will settle all matters in relation thereto.
3. These rules are drawn up under the authority of the 1922 Committee, and any future changes which may be deemed necessary will be made by the 1922 Committee, as provided for in Schedule 2 of the Constitution of the Conservative Party (emphasis added, as also below).
Go to Schedule 2 of the constitution:
3. Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board.
Those are the aforementioned rules. There is no provision for how long the EC22 needs to take to change them. An afternoon should suffice.
The Tory party is in bad enough trouble as it is. They are not going to hit the bin because 10 candidates presented themselves and even after eight rounds the second-placed candidate stayed stubbornly in the race, and what with postal problems and hustings the ballot of the membership had to take until April. The new leader will probably be in within 10 days of Theresa May getting the push.
If they don't go out to the membership this time then I expect they will find virtually no ground game turnout for the locals or the next GE. The members won't stand for another coronation.
What if the alternative to a coronation is three months of a caretaker leader during times of almighty trouble? The members will still stamp their feet and demand a vote regardless, even if polls show that one of the last two candidates is far more popular than the other with both MPs and members? Perhaps if the Tories are in opposition this could be allowed to happen, but not if they're in office.
I think the complaining would go on forever. Tim Shipman's book All Out War made it quite clear that the wording was very important indeed. And that was a variation on "in" or "out" in a nice binary world, not "deal vs no deal vs remain", or perm any two from three maybe. Given there will be folk who wish to leave who will not countenance the deal as is, "deal vs remain" would challenged as invalid by someone, as would "deal v no deal".
One suspects our Learned friends would be busy as never before and I could see every conceivable procedure being used to filibuster, derail, sidetrack, and delay, from a variety of sources each armed with an agenda from extreme Remain, to extreme Leave and all points in between. Chuck in the Scots, Welsh, and N Ireland and I think we would all be settled in for a long ride.
That seems to be inevitable and an unanswerable argument. Its barely worth asking the question. Supplementaries as to whether withdrawal requires unanimity or majority consent might be a little more interesting. FWIW the EU has already indicated that the cost of withdrawing the notice would be to pay all the monies spent on the negotiations and, possibly, to waive our rebate. No doubt remainers will think that is a price worth paying.
It always has been an unanswerable argument. Of course, the addition of the word "irrevocable" in the initial drafting would have clarified. But it is hard to imagine, if they had given it a moment's thought, that they would have considered it a good idea that one party could keep doing the Article 50 hokey cokey.
This whole farrago results from the Tories putting party before country. The referendum was called in the interests of the Tory party, as was the 2017 election. Tories are in no position to appeal to their opponents on national interest grounds.
Anyway I guess most Labour MPs believe that the national interest lies in defeating the deal and going for a second referendum.
Actually, no. The Brexit issue was harmful to the Conservative Party, but it wasn't as though only traditional Conservative voters wanted Brexit: plenty of would-be Labour voters moved over to UKIP, and voted leave.
A referendum was required. There had been too many years' of people moaning and whinging about the EU, and we were not willing to deal with issues in our own remit as it was easier to blame the EU instead. If we had not had one in 2016, we would have had one within a few years, whoever was in power. It was inevitable.
Sadly for your last line, I cannot see a sane process or question for a second referendum that would deal with all the options, and also how to even get a second referendum.
*Anyone* wanting a second referendum are risking a very hard crash out. Some say they want a second referendum knowing that, others are deluded.
If the 2nd referendum is between May's Deal and Remain then a hard crash out is impossible.
Firstly, that presumes that the EU are willing to let us have the time to have such a referendum.
Secondly, your choices neglect the hard leavers, insane winnets as they may be. Their side won the referendum, and a second referendum that did not have that option would be easy to call undemocratic - and perhaps it would be. If anything, it's easier to argue that as leave won, it should be a choice between May's deal and a hard Brexit.
Even if remain were to win, a second referendum with those options would solve nothing and would just lead to yet more banging on about Europe.
A May's deal / remain referendum would not solve anything in the short and long terms. Sadly, neither would many of the other options.
She has a point. Did you know in recent years 28 people have been killed during police chases, two thirds have been innocent bystanders.
The police display shocking judgment in a lot of these cases.
It is a bit like a bad straight to VHS 1980's future sci-fy.
"The year is 2018, law and order has broken down in the UK following political and economic turmoil, Schwarzenegger is a maverick enforcer who delivers swift justice by running down criminals on the streets of London using his futuristic Ford Focus."
She has a point. Did you know in recent years 28 people have been killed during police chases, two thirds have been innocent bystanders.
The police display shocking judgment in a lot of these cases.
I have to agree with you. I started to watch those videos thinking it would be fun; what I saw the police doing in a couple of the cases was insanely dangerous.
Sadly though, it's hard to see what to do. The criminals know the rules, and know the limits they place on the police. Therefore all they have to do is go outside those limits.
I can't see anything except remain from here. They've made such a balls up of negotiations that there doesn't seem to be any other choice.
Unfortunately none of the options are great.
The option which does least damage to the economy - but most damage to democracy is Remain. ("You Plebs can be ignored").
The option which is pretty meh to the economy and ok-ish to democracy is the deal. (No one likes it much, but the country is still split)
Crash out Brexit does most damage to the economy and significant damage to democracy ("winner takes all Leave")
What damage does winner takes all do to democracy? That's simply democracy when we are faced with a binary choice, especially one where we were told by both sides leaving meant leaving the SM and CU before the vote.
Dianne Abbott is absolutely right. " Tactical contact " exists within a clear legal frame work. The idea any democracy let alone a common law one would go further and introduce a blanket indemnity for police officers to ram citizens with cars is absurd. It's the stuff of literal dictatorship.
I can't see anything except remain from here. They've made such a balls up of negotiations that there doesn't seem to be any other choice.
Unfortunately none of the options are great.
The option which does least damage to the economy - but most damage to democracy is Remain. ("You Plebs can be ignored").
The option which is pretty meh to the economy and ok-ish to democracy is the deal. (No one likes it much, but the country is still split)
Crash out Brexit does most damage to the economy and significant damage to democracy ("winner takes all Leave")
They already ignored the promised referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and the French and Dutch politicians ignored the results of theirs.
If the EU doesn't start demanding extra stuff I can see us just remaining as if nothing had happened. If they do then it will be no deal Brexit (or a bare bones deal cobbled together in 5 minutes).
Is there a solution here? Put the ERG on mopeds with amendments in their hands. Line them up at Trafalgar square outside the national gallery. If they manage to get down Whitehall to Westminster they can have their hard Brexit.
We could station sandpeople on the Top of the treasury and show the whole thing UKTVBronze.
I can't see anything except remain from here. They've made such a balls up of negotiations that there doesn't seem to be any other choice.
Unfortunately none of the options are great.
The option which does least damage to the economy - but most damage to democracy is Remain. ("You Plebs can be ignored").
The option which is pretty meh to the economy and ok-ish to democracy is the deal. (No one likes it much, but the country is still split)
Crash out Brexit does most damage to the economy and significant damage to democracy ("winner takes all Leave")
What damage does winner takes all do to democracy? That's simply democracy when we are faced with a binary choice, especially one where we were told by both sides leaving meant leaving the SM and CU before the vote.
It damages democracy that those in favour of Leaving said this wouldn’t happen because we held all the cards etc.
I can't see anything except remain from here. They've made such a balls up of negotiations that there doesn't seem to be any other choice.
Unfortunately none of the options are great.
The option which does least damage to the economy - but most damage to democracy is Remain. ("You Plebs can be ignored").
The option which is pretty meh to the economy and ok-ish to democracy is the deal. (No one likes it much, but the country is still split)
Crash out Brexit does most damage to the economy and significant damage to democracy ("winner takes all Leave")
What damage does winner takes all do to democracy? That's simply democracy when we are faced with a binary choice, especially one where we were told by both sides leaving meant leaving the SM and CU before the vote.
It damages democracy that those in favour of Leaving said this wouldn’t happen because we held all the cards etc.
The voters hate being lied to.
We did hold the cards but remainer May chucked away our aces.
I think the complaining would go on forever. Tim Shipman's book All Out War made it quite clear that the wording was very important indeed. And that was a variation on "in" or "out" in a nice binary world, not "deal vs no deal vs remain", or perm any two from three maybe. Given there will be folk who wish to leave who will not countenance the deal as is, "deal vs remain" would challenged as invalid by someone, as would "deal v no deal".
One suspects our Learned friends would be busy as never before and I could see every conceivable procedure being used to filibuster, derail, sidetrack, and delay, from a variety of sources each armed with an agenda from extreme Remain, to extreme Leave and all points in between. Chuck in the Scots, Welsh, and N Ireland and I think we would all be settled in for a long ride.
Clearly the complaining will go on forever, there's no way around that. The Leave side weren't going to suddenly disarm when they thought they'd lost the first referendum, and the Remain side obviously aren't giving up when they actually did. And the populism that Leave is based on is centred around outrage and saying the game is rigged, so there's no way you're going to end up with them *not* being outraged and saying the game was rigged. They're saying this already, because they're not getting the particular kind of Brexit they want. But I don't think it's worth optimizing to avoid this, because there's no possible way to avoid it.
I take your point about the legal challenges, though.
I can't see anything except remain from here. They've made such a balls up of negotiations that there doesn't seem to be any other choice.
Unfortunately none of the options are great.
The option which does least damage to the economy - but most damage to democracy is Remain. ("You Plebs can be ignored").
The option which is pretty meh to the economy and ok-ish to democracy is the deal. (No one likes it much, but the country is still split)
Crash out Brexit does most damage to the economy and significant damage to democracy ("winner takes all Leave")
What damage does winner takes all do to democracy? That's simply democracy when we are faced with a binary choice, especially one where we were told by both sides leaving meant leaving the SM and CU before the vote.
It damages democracy that those in favour of Leaving said this wouldn’t happen because we held all the cards etc.
The voters hate being lied to.
We did hold the cards but remainer May chucked away our aces.
Mr. Eagles, on a ban: how would that work? Congestion charge cameras being used to identify said vehicles entering/leaving the congestion zone and police deployed to track down and confiscate those who break the law?
I wonder what impact it would have on deliveries of goods and mail.
I tend to take Mr. Flashman's (deceased) part, and would add that assumptions of it being an easy crime will only lead to it happening more frequently. Of course, your proposal, if workable, would decrease that but also hit legitimate enterprise.
I can't see anything except remain from here. They've made such a balls up of negotiations that there doesn't seem to be any other choice.
Unfortunately none of the options are great.
The option which does least damage to the economy - but most damage to democracy is Remain. ("You Plebs can be ignored").
The option which is pretty meh to the economy and ok-ish to democracy is the deal. (No one likes it much, but the country is still split)
Crash out Brexit does most damage to the economy and significant damage to democracy ("winner takes all Leave")
What damage does winner takes all do to democracy? That's simply democracy when we are faced with a binary choice, especially one where we were told by both sides leaving meant leaving the SM and CU before the vote.
It damages democracy that those in favour of Leaving said this wouldn’t happen because we held all the cards etc.
The voters hate being lied to.
We did hold the cards but remainer May chucked away our aces.
Comments
Hold the front page.
A Labour frontbencher told BuzzFeed News that if the party shifts its position they do suspect some of its MPs will vote for May’s deal — and that it will likely be those moderates in Brexit-voting seats.
“People who are natural allies of Chuka [Umunna],” the MP said, “they’re keeping their heads down. They don’t really feel inclined to support Jeremy, but they don’t want Chuka and [what] others are suggesting, which is basically a public vote and Remain.
“For them, for someone like Gloria De Piero or Ruth Smeeth in Stoke it’s a death sentence for them. It’s not good if Labour comes out that way... They will be thinking: ‘Shit, that’s really bad for me come a general election,’ which could well be possible.”
As for what happens next, the frontbencher said, it is impossible to predict. A Corbyn minority government, a general election, and a renegotiated Labour Brexit in which the UK remains part of the customs union are all, in their mind, possible outcomes.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahalothman/labour-brexit-inside-story?bftwuk&utm_term=4ldqpgm#4ldqpgm
As MRaf Craig said at the time, "Six better fuzes and we would have lost."
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/10/13/coming-back-to-eu-can-a50-be-revoked/
As you can see, this is one of the arguments which influenced my thinking (see the antepenultimate paragraph).
https://twitter.com/mehreenkhn/status/1067347141906087936?s=21
I can accept the idea that a hardliner would have committed us to No Deal early on but that in itself would have created almighty ructions in the UK and it could be argued that that is what the 2017 GE rejected.
However leaving aside the "let's strop off" option ,I can see nothing that indicates that the result of the negotiations would have produced a better deal whoever had been in charge.
It just seems to be a convenient get out for some to claim we would have got a good deal with a leaver in charge, almost as though it absolves them of any responsibility for the mess are now in.
I'd be surprised if any Labour MPs vote in favour - why risk the opprobrium of your party members and colleagues for a deal which is already a lost cause? If the vote looked close it might be different.
As to why she would go into a vote facing a defeat of 150:
(1) I don't think it will be 150 in the end, unless the Tory party is so locked into anti-deal groupthink that they've not noticed the country is edging towards acceptance, not just on PB, but in the approval ratings and polls.
(2) TM needs to know the scale of the defeat, as it very much informs what she does next. 50-60, here's Sindyref2; 100+, best choice of referendum, GE, oh, here's a fully worked up Norway plus option provisionally blessed by the Council.
Essentially, TM is solving a simultaneous equation with 3 variables (internal Con, parliament, EU). If she doesn't know what the parliamentary equation even is, that will be a massive hindrance to further progress.
3 - 6 months for their decision !
The EU will surely try to stop an extension if they can if they believe its only purpose is to try to renegotiate the deal or prepare for No Deal. It is unclear if the decision is in their hands but if it is I suspect they will only agree to if the purpose is to hold a second referendum. Another thing it may have bee wiser to find out for certain before we pressed the go button.
Time for a lie down in a darkened room I suspect.
Because it's the right thing to do. Country before party.
sorry for missing your question last night about the EC recommendations for a referendum. I went to bed.
This is the best summary I have seen of the practical consequences of the EC guidelines.
https://constitution-unit.com/2018/08/30/how-long-would-it-take-to-hold-a-second-referendum-on-brexit/
It is from the Constitution Unit at UCL. It says that even if the 6 month recommendation is ignored the shortest time between a decision to hold a referendum and the actual date is around 24 weeks. And even that puts the whole process at risk of being called into disrepute.
In the meantime, the one real and probable alternative to this deal is crashing out. That might not be the case if they could coalesce around a single alternative, but they cannot. This means whatever is put to parliament will probably fail.
It's a mess, and it's time MPs started acting like adults, look down into the abyss, and decide not to jump in. This deal is the only alternative to that jump.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/manufacturingandproductionindustry/articles/ukmanufacturerssalesafocusonthebeveragesindustry/2018-11-27
As Portillo said on This Week a little while ago, May's approach was to try and keep us as close to the EU as possible, and signing up to the demented backstop, placing more importance on maintaining a 'soft' Irish border than on avoiding a customs barrier within the UK itself.
Someone not enamoured with WTO but taking a more optimistic, less clingy, approach would've begun immediate preparations for no deal, just to mitigate the impact if it happened and to help negotiations. They would've sought to make the most of advantages of determining our own destiny through better regulation and taxation, as well as through new trade deals. Of course, I want the UK to remain on co-operative terms with some aspects of the EU (EURAtom, science collaboration etc) but most of those, frankly, should never have been consumed by the bureaucratic empire in the first place.
May's stance meant that we would never gain the main advantages of leaving, lock us into an arrangement we cannot leave, submits to the regulatory annexation of Northern Ireland, costs us £39bn in return for a non-legally binding text. She prevaricated at home and capitulated overseas.
Much of that was down to domestic weakness, largely self-inflicted, but also to her deliberate decision to try and stay close to the EU. In a binary choice, you cannot satisfy both sides. Her triangulating response, trying to stay close to the EU whilst leaving it, is a bit reminiscent of how immigration played out for Cameron et al.
Her result is to give us the disadvantages of leaving, and losing what perks there are to membership.
Something is going to break in the coming months. If a referendum becomes politically imperative, time is not going to be a bar.
Ok it was mainly SeanT, but still.
A binary referendum is totally different - if you voted to leave you are far more directly responsible for the consequences. I accept that believing what the Leave campaigns said might count as mitigating circumstances.
Anyway I guess most Labour MPs believe that the national interest lies in defeating the deal and going for a second referendum.
https://twitter.com/xtophercook/status/1067361713463484416
"Not only do you want to overturn a democratic vote but you want to use a fraudulent vote to do so."
That would be a powerful message.
A referendum was required. There had been too many years' of people moaning and whinging about the EU, and we were not willing to deal with issues in our own remit as it was easier to blame the EU instead. If we had not had one in 2016, we would have had one within a few years, whoever was in power. It was inevitable.
Sadly for your last line, I cannot see a sane process or question for a second referendum that would deal with all the options, and also how to even get a second referendum.
*Anyone* wanting a second referendum are risking a very hard crash out. Some say they want a second referendum knowing that, others are deluded.
How stuff is reported on and commented on matters much more than what actually happens, even if millions watched it live. Most people don't make up their own opinions.
May has added a mixture of salt and sugar, expecting this to please everyone, and is now surprised when everyone spits it out.
Of course that could happen. The Abdication Act went through in 13.5hrs. We could invoke the Civil Contingencies Act. It's possible but us *likely*.
That a parliament where no party has a majority in either House and where the Lords has absolute veto ( Salisbury doesn't apply, no time to use the Parliament Act ) is going to pass a new referendum Act which explicitly lowers existing standards so it can happen before 29/3/19 ?
https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1067359292238544896
@edmundintokyo
I think the complaining would go on forever. Tim Shipman's book All Out War made it quite clear that the wording was very important indeed. And that was a variation on "in" or "out" in a nice binary world, not "deal vs no deal vs remain", or perm any two from three maybe. Given there will be folk who wish to leave who will not countenance the deal as is, "deal vs remain" would challenged as invalid by someone, as would "deal v no deal".
One suspects our Learned friends would be busy as never before and I could see every conceivable procedure being used to filibuster, derail, sidetrack, and delay, from a variety of sources each armed with an agenda from extreme Remain, to extreme Leave and all points in between. Chuck in the Scots, Welsh, and N Ireland and I think we would all be settled in for a long ride.
Unfortunately none of the options are great.
The option which does least damage to the economy - but most damage to democracy is Remain. ("You Plebs can be ignored").
The option which is pretty meh to the economy and ok-ish to democracy is the deal. (No one likes it much, but the country is still split)
Crash out Brexit does most damage to the economy and significant damage to democracy ("winner takes all Leave")
The police display shocking judgment in a lot of these cases.
Secondly, your choices neglect the hard leavers, insane winnets as they may be. Their side won the referendum, and a second referendum that did not have that option would be easy to call undemocratic - and perhaps it would be. If anything, it's easier to argue that as leave won, it should be a choice between May's deal and a hard Brexit.
Even if remain were to win, a second referendum with those options would solve nothing and would just lead to yet more banging on about Europe.
A May's deal / remain referendum would not solve anything in the short and long terms. Sadly, neither would many of the other options.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/10/18/the-brexiteers-junckers-fifth-columnists/
"The year is 2018, law and order has broken down in the UK following political and economic turmoil, Schwarzenegger is a maverick enforcer who delivers swift justice by running down criminals on the streets of London using his futuristic Ford Focus."
Sadly though, it's hard to see what to do. The criminals know the rules, and know the limits they place on the police. Therefore all they have to do is go outside those limits.
Sacrificing the former to silence the latter is not a good deal.
If we crash out, it will be a disaster and we will still bang on about whose fault it was until we all die.
If the EU doesn't start demanding extra stuff I can see us just remaining as if nothing had happened. If they do then it will be no deal Brexit (or a bare bones deal cobbled together in 5 minutes).
We could station sandpeople on the Top of the treasury and show the whole thing UKTVBronze.
The voters hate being lied to.
I take your point about the legal challenges, though.
I wonder what impact it would have on deliveries of goods and mail.
I tend to take Mr. Flashman's (deceased) part, and would add that assumptions of it being an easy crime will only lead to it happening more frequently. Of course, your proposal, if workable, would decrease that but also hit legitimate enterprise.
Of course not, they'll blame the Remain PM who didn't truly believe
Remaining will turbocharge Brexit with a nasty dollop of populism.
I worry more about our democracy than our economy.