I think under (2) there'd be massive pressure for her to step down immediately and to try to elect a successor by consensus.
I see that too. May resigns as PM, but does not immediately resign as Tory leader.
A caretaker emerges from the Men In Gray Suits to be Prime Minister for the next few months whilst the Tories figure out how to stop Boris Johnson from winning a leadership election.
The caretaker PM would need to be somebody who has no intention of taking part in the forthcoming leadership contest.
Might I suggest a peer of the realm?
Many have suggested that Baron Hague of Richmond fits the bill rather nicely.
Prime Minister Questions would be entertaining whilst he holds the post.
As a peer of the realm, he'd have to take questions at the bar of the house, which would merely add to the spectacle.
If the UK wants to revoke A50 sounds like it will first of all have to negotiate a bilateral revocation agreement with the commission and then submit it to the Council for unanimous approval.
TBH, that's not as onerous as it sounds, because I think the Union will be delighted if we decide to stay and won't try to scare us off by loading up the agreement with unreasonable demands.
However, I do think it would almost certainly contain a requirement that the UK be disbarred from invoking A50 again for a reasonably long time.
I don't see how that is possible but it will certainly include the UK losing its rebate. Which means it will cost us £350mn a week to remain.
It is already costing us £500m a week to leave. Some figures put it at as much as £2bn a week....
That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.
So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
Nothing's ever forever. Was there an A50 equivalent for the Irish or Scottish Acts of Union?
I don’t believe so.
And yet Scotland got a referendum on independence four years ago, and most of Ireland gained actual independence almost 100 years ago.
I don’t doubt we would have negotiated an amicable relationship with them in the event of independence. It’s the EU and their indivisible four freedoms (that came from on high) which is the complicating factor in all this.
It's only a complicating factor if you don't really want to divorce.
And yet, here we have a marriage between people who really don't want to live together, but are being forced to because the lawyers have been so inept....?
If the UK wants to revoke A50 sounds like it will first of all have to negotiate a bilateral revocation agreement with the commission and then submit it to the Council for unanimous approval.
TBH, that's not as onerous as it sounds, because I think the Union will be delighted if we decide to stay and won't try to scare us off by loading up the agreement with unreasonable demands.
However, I do think it would almost certainly contain a requirement that the UK be disbarred from invoking A50 again for a reasonably long time.
I don't see how that is possible but it will certainly include the UK losing its rebate. Which means it will cost us £350mn a week to remain.
Just wondering..... is that red bus still in storage?
Didn't it painted blue and get used by Tezzie last year in her pre-election warehouse tour?
That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.
So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
Nothing's ever forever. Was there an A50 equivalent for the Irish or Scottish Acts of Union?
I don’t believe so.
And yet Scotland got a referendum on independence four years ago, and most of Ireland gained actual independence almost 100 years ago.
I don’t doubt we would have negotiated an amicable relationship with them in the event of independence. It’s the EU and their indivisible four freedoms (that came from on high) which is the complicating factor in all this.
It's only a complicating factor if you don't really want to divorce.
And yet, here we have a marriage between people who really don't want to live together, but are being forced to because the lawyers have been so inept....?
That will end well. Probably featuring an axe.
I'm sure Remainers and Brexiteers will find a better way to settle their differences and live together in harmony.
Cold, gloomy, wet. Where's this Mediterranean climate I was promised?
In despairing news, my elastic band remains obscured, hidden in a subtle realm that no human eye can pierce.
May I suggest that, whilst walking your dog, you follow where the local postman/woman goes? You should be able to pick up a reasonable number of elastic bands if you keep your eyes on the ground.
That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.
So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
They could only be political conditions. Amending the treaties isn't in the Council's power.
How did Cameron’s guarantees get enacted then? It wasn’t through treaty change.
It was mostly political fudge. For example the opt out from ever closer union just reflects the existing legal position in the treaties.
Ah, so they were worthless guarantees after all?
See grabcocque's answer.
Just did, thanks! Sounds a lot more solid than fudge
Isn't that the current viewpoint. That all the EU27 need to agree to it.
The importance of this if true is we cannot unilaterally revoke A50 so deal or no deal are the choices. Dramatic if so
It was always dependent on the EU27 saying ok. Now wether or no they do or would is another matter.
Makes it a lot more complicated for remainers
They would need all 27 to agree and the terms of agreement
You have overlooked the important "unless ECJ says otherwise" part.
Indeed
Having said that, I think the noise music seems to be that the ECJ will fudge it an leave it to the Council to decide (or say revocation needs the approval of both parties the UK govt and the EU Council).
In which case, it probably does make Remain more tricky. Which in turn might just possibly sway a lot of Remainer MPs to May's Deal?
Coincidentally there's a Council meeting a few days after the meaningful vote. May could get a clear statement from them then...
When is the PM's Meaningless Vote? They mentioned yestereday on the radio that a date had been set, but then I could find no further reference to it.
11th December
Then again on the 12th, 13th, 14th, etc. until passed.
There's a lot of potential for the wish to be the father of the thought here. A quick reminder on what Article 50(3) says:
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
"Shall cease to apply". There's not much wriggle room there. There's no 'unless they later decide otherwise' or 'unless we all call it off'. The only riders are about altering the exit day - but not about annulling the process.
Any argument that a long extension is the equivalent of annulment, so therefore annulment is implicitly allowed on the same terms as an extension, runs against the commitments on both sides contained in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Article, that the departing state intends to withdraw and should be negotiating to that end. I don't think it's at all a foregone conclusion that the Court will rule that it's revocable, no matter what the politicians might prefer.
That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.
So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
Nothing's ever forever. Was there an A50 equivalent for the Irish or Scottish Acts of Union?
I don’t believe so.
And yet Scotland got a referendum on independence four years ago, and most of Ireland gained actual independence almost 100 years ago.
I don’t doubt we would have negotiated an amicable relationship with them in the event of independence. It’s the EU and their indivisible four freedoms (that came from on high) which is the complicating factor in all this.
It's only a complicating factor if you don't really want to divorce.
And yet, here we have a marriage between people who really don't want to live together, but are being forced to because the lawyers have been so inept....?
That will end well. Probably featuring an axe.
I'm sure Remainers and Brexiteers will find a better way to settle their differences and live together in harmony.
@david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
Cold, gloomy, wet. Where's this Mediterranean climate I was promised?
In despairing news, my elastic band remains obscured, hidden in a subtle realm that no human eye can pierce.
May I suggest that, whilst walking your dog, you follow where the local postman/woman goes? You should be able to pick up a reasonable number of elastic bands if you keep your eyes on the ground.
Cold, gloomy, wet. Where's this Mediterranean climate I was promised?
In despairing news, my elastic band remains obscured, hidden in a subtle realm that no human eye can pierce.
May I suggest that, whilst walking your dog, you follow where the local postman/woman goes? You should be able to pick up a reasonable number of elastic bands if you keep your eyes on the ground.
@david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
His argument (and mine) is that the referendum will be Deal/Remain.
@david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
Cold, gloomy, wet. Where's this Mediterranean climate I was promised?
In despairing news, my elastic band remains obscured, hidden in a subtle realm that no human eye can pierce.
It's November Mr D. We're still going to have some traditional ones for a while.
On BBC East yesterday there was a suggestion that Cambridge could become a seaside city as a rsult of global warming.
I remember hearing that around 1990 when the whole scam... I mean theory began.
Dramatic sea level rise was one of the very first things we heard about... Nearly 30 years on and I've got to say not very much has happened?
The Norfolk coast is not doing well.
OK but that's a bit different to Cambridge On Sea?
It is coming GIN, slowly but surely. Yesterday the barstewards said England would be 5 degrees warmer and Scotland would get more snow and rain. It is an unjust world , we lose out even on global warming.
Isn't that the current viewpoint. That all the EU27 need to agree to it.
The importance of this if true is we cannot unilaterally revoke A50 so deal or no deal are the choices. Dramatic if so
It was always dependent on the EU27 saying ok. Now wether or no they do or would is another matter.
Makes it a lot more complicated for remainers
They would need all 27 to agree and the terms of agreement
You have overlooked the important "unless ECJ says otherwise" part.
Indeed
Having said that, I think the noise music seems to be that the ECJ will fudge it an leave it to the Council to decide (or say revocation needs the approval of both parties the UK govt and the EU Council).
In which case, it probably does make Remain more tricky. Which in turn might just possibly sway a lot of Remainer MPs to May's Deal?
Coincidentally there's a Council meeting a few days after the meaningful vote. May could get a clear statement from them then...
When is the PM's Meaningless Vote? They mentioned yestereday on the radio that a date had been set, but then I could find no further reference to it.
11th December
Then again on the 12th, 13th, 14th, etc. until passed.
Noooooooooooooo.....................
On the first day of Christmas, Theresa gave to me A European Withdrawal Treaty
On the second day of Christmas, Theresa gave to me The same European withdrawal Treaty
She deserves to go too. Her deal is the apotheosis of Project Fear and she has been grossly negligent in failing to prepare for no deal and for totally neglecting domestic policy. Sadly however, her legacy will not be Brexit. Her legacy will be a Corbyn Gov. The Tory Party will be tainted for many years to come by both her failure and their failure to remove her soon enough to limit the damage she could cause.
Has anybody picked up on the Manafort-Assange story?
Apparently there were half a dozen meetings between the two in the Ecuadorian Embassy .
No wonder he's staying in the embassy. Certainly more comfortable than a supermax.
None of Assange's options seem to be good ones
Clearly the embassy is a better option than a US Supermax though. I think he'd have walked before now if the only consequence was say three years at HMP (I have no idea what the likely punishment would be for his bail skipping)
Cold, gloomy, wet. Where's this Mediterranean climate I was promised?
In despairing news, my elastic band remains obscured, hidden in a subtle realm that no human eye can pierce.
It's November Mr D. We're still going to have some traditional ones for a while.
On BBC East yesterday there was a suggestion that Cambridge could become a seaside city as a rsult of global warming.
I remember hearing that around 1990 when the whole scam... I mean theory began.
Dramatic sea level rise was one of the very first things we heard about... Nearly 30 years on and I've got to say not very much has happened?
One of the problems that the climate change scientists have is that their predictions of the impact of rising temperatures on the environment have proven extremely hit-and-miss. And those misses are easy to use by those sceptical of current predictive aspects of the science.
It's probably rather like economics in that respect - it's a lot easier to explain what happened in the past than to predict the future on the basis of changes too complex to be fully understood.
I was looking at hurricanes not long ago. The Atlantic hurricane seasons have become more violent in recent years (especially since 2000), which is what you'd expect from global warming - more storms, and more storms becoming violent. But what's happened in the Atlantic isn't typical of the global picture, where ACE has been broadly static over the last 50 years (obviously, there have been peaks and troughs but the trend line seems more-or-less flat). Why would that be? I don't know but it's not what the theories have predicted.
I think under (2) there'd be massive pressure for her to step down immediately and to try to elect a successor by consensus.
I see that too. May resigns as PM, but does not immediately resign as Tory leader.
A caretaker emerges from the Men In Gray Suits to be Prime Minister for the next few months whilst the Tories figure out how to stop Boris Johnson from winning a leadership election.
The caretaker PM would need to be somebody who has no intention of taking part in the forthcoming leadership contest.
That's one possibility but I was thinking more about a permanent leader being elected almost immediately. I think it would be hard for a temporary leader to bring the DUP back on board when he or she had no mandate to bind a successor, and no future in the job.
Cold, gloomy, wet. Where's this Mediterranean climate I was promised?
In despairing news, my elastic band remains obscured, hidden in a subtle realm that no human eye can pierce.
It's November Mr D. We're still going to have some traditional ones for a while.
On BBC East yesterday there was a suggestion that Cambridge could become a seaside city as a rsult of global warming.
I remember hearing that around 1990 when the whole scam... I mean theory began.
Dramatic sea level rise was one of the very first things we heard about... Nearly 30 years on and I've got to say not very much has happened?
One of the problems that the climate change scientists have is that their predictions of the impact of rising temperatures on the environment have proven extremely hit-and-miss. And those misses are easy to use by those sceptical of current predictive aspects of the science.
It's probably rather like economics in that respect - it's a lot easier to explain what happened in the past than to predict the future on the basis of changes too complex to be fully understood.
I was looking at hurricanes not long ago. The Atlantic hurricane seasons have become more violent in recent years (especially since 2000), which is what you'd expect from global warming - more storms, and more storms becoming violent. But what's happened in the Atlantic isn't typical of the global picture, where ACE has been broadly static over the last 50 years (obviously, there have been peaks and troughs but the trend line seems more-or-less flat). Why would that be? I don't know but it's not what the theories have predicted.
What is interesting is if the surface temperature of the north Atlantic rises by enough, there will be sufficient energy to carry remnant hurricanes across to the UK. Not sure our housing stock could cope with that.
France and Ireland better get ready for when Jezza becomes PM....
Why Colombia has taken in 1 million Venezuelans - Money so worthless, people turning bank notes into handbags! A months salary for a hot dog from a street vendor.
Guess bog rolls aren't a problem anymore, you just wipe your arse with bank notes as cheaper to do so.
"If the PM is serious about her deal – and if she’s serious about leading the country to better days ahead – she will need to head off Remain for good. That means not just spelling out the costs of Brexits she doesn’t like – or the price of no deal – but setting out the costs of going back cap in hand to the EU too."
Wow. I thought Theresa would struggle with her deal, but it sounds as if it's going down to a crushing, devastating, record defeat. Is it really that bad? Appears the MPs, the Tories in particular, are satisfying some kind of blood lust - tearing it to shreds like maniacs regardless of the consequences. Is some kind of euro-catharsis going on here? Perhaps we should just let them get it out of their systems and resume after Christmas.
Sea levels seem to be rising at 3.4 mm per year; or a metre every 300 years. I think this is extremely rapid in terms of geological timescale but very slow by human standards. Will sea levels be up by 70 metres in 21,000 years time ? Who knows. Plastic pollution is a more pressing concern with the sea right now.
I think under (2) there'd be massive pressure for her to step down immediately and to try to elect a successor by consensus.
I see that too. May resigns as PM, but does not immediately resign as Tory leader.
A caretaker emerges from the Men In Gray Suits to be Prime Minister for the next few months whilst the Tories figure out how to stop Boris Johnson from winning a leadership election.
The caretaker PM would need to be somebody who has no intention of taking part in the forthcoming leadership contest.
That's one possibility but I was thinking more about a permanent leader being elected almost immediately. I think it would be hard for a temporary leader to bring the DUP back on board when he or she had no mandate to bind a successor, and no future in the job.
Has anybody picked up on the Manafort-Assange story?
Apparently there were half a dozen meetings between the two in the Ecuadorian Embassy .
No wonder he's staying in the embassy. Certainly more comfortable than a supermax.
None of Assange's options seem to be good ones
Clearly the embassy is a better option than a US Supermax though. I think he'd have walked before now if the only consequence was say three years at HMP (I have no idea what the likely punishment would be for his bail skipping)
I think I'd prefer execution to spending the rest of my life in a supermax prison. OTOH, there's the type of supermax prison where gang members rape you every day; on the other, there's the type of supermax where you're given solitary confinement in a tiny concrete cell and never get to see daylight again.
Mr. Stjohn, the elastic band is both tangible and philosophical. It is truth incarnate. Whence hast it gone? I know not. Will I find it again? I know not.
All that is certain is that once there was an elastic band, and there may be again.
Half-on-topic: I wonder if the videogame equivalent of May's handling of the EU issue is Bethesda and Fallout 76...
Has anybody picked up on the Manafort-Assange story?
Apparently there were half a dozen meetings between the two in the Ecuadorian Embassy .
No wonder he's staying in the embassy. Certainly more comfortable than a supermax.
None of Assange's options seem to be good ones
Clearly the embassy is a better option than a US Supermax though. I think he'd have walked before now if the only consequence was say three years at HMP (I have no idea what the likely punishment would be for his bail skipping)
I think I'd prefer execution to spending the rest of my life in a supermax prison. OTOH, there's the type of supermax prison where gang members rape you every day; on the other, there's the type of supermax where you're given solitary confinement in a tiny concrete cell and never get to see daylight again.
@david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
You're trying to get democratic legitimacy for a decision and then removing one of the options in case people vote for it.
I think under (2) there'd be massive pressure for her to step down immediately and to try to elect a successor by consensus.
I see that too. May resigns as PM, but does not immediately resign as Tory leader.
A caretaker emerges from the Men In Gray Suits to be Prime Minister for the next few months whilst the Tories figure out how to stop Boris Johnson from winning a leadership election.
The caretaker PM would need to be somebody who has no intention of taking part in the forthcoming leadership contest.
Might I suggest a peer of the realm?
Many have suggested that Baron Hague of Richmond fits the bill rather nicely.
Prime Minister Questions would be entertaining whilst he holds the post.
I think you could probably amend the Commons' standing orders to permit a given individual who was not an MP to address the House. I remember reading something along these lines in an article about the 1940 leadership question, which was discussing the potential problem of Halifax being in the Lords.
Ironic, though. If such a referendum occurred it would be because the Commons had rejected a deal. So the democratic options available would be one rejected by the electorate and one rejected by the Commons.
@david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
His argument (and mine) is that the referendum will be Deal/Remain.
That option will not fly and would not be accepted as democratically legitimate. If May put that forward, she certainly would face a vote of no confidence, and I expect would lose. Even if she didn't, opponents within the Commons could drag the legislation out for so long that it wasn't practical to implement.
Mr. Stjohn, the elastic band is both tangible and philosophical. It is truth incarnate. Whence hast it gone? I know not. Will I find it again? I know not.
All that is certain is that once there was an elastic band, and there may be again.
@david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
His argument (and mine) is that the referendum will be Deal/Remain.
That option will not fly and would not be accepted as democratically legitimate. If May put that forward, she certainly would face a vote of no confidence, and I expect would lose. Even if she didn't, opponents within the Commons could drag the legislation out for so long that it wasn't practical to implement.
May can just grind out the process until everyone accepts that those are the only two viable options, and the only way to decide between them is to put it to the public.
I think under (2) there'd be massive pressure for her to step down immediately and to try to elect a successor by consensus.
I see that too. May resigns as PM, but does not immediately resign as Tory leader.
A caretaker emerges from the Men In Gray Suits to be Prime Minister for the next few months whilst the Tories figure out how to stop Boris Johnson from winning a leadership election.
The caretaker PM would need to be somebody who has no intention of taking part in the forthcoming leadership contest.
Might I suggest a peer of the realm?
Many have suggested that Baron Hague of Richmond fits the bill rather nicely.
Prime Minister Questions would be entertaining whilst he holds the post.
I think you could probably amend the Commons' standing orders to permit a given individual who was not an MP to address the House. I remember reading something along these lines in an article about the 1940 leadership question, which was discussing the potential problem of Halifax being in the Lords.
@david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
His argument (and mine) is that the referendum will be Deal/Remain.
That option will not fly and would not be accepted as democratically legitimate. If May put that forward, she certainly would face a vote of no confidence, and I expect would lose. Even if she didn't, opponents within the Commons could drag the legislation out for so long that it wasn't practical to implement.
I don't see the legitimacy of putting the deal in a referendum if the HOC have defeated it by a significant majority, rejected it by belittling it, ridiculing it and telling us it is the worst deal ever.
After that how can it be a choice for the referendum?
Sea levels seem to be rising at 3.4 mm per year; or a metre every 300 years. I think this is extremely rapid in terms of geological timescale but very slow by human standards. Will sea levels be up by 70 metres in 21,000 years time ? Who knows. Plastic pollution is a more pressing concern with the sea right now.
@david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
You're trying to get democratic legitimacy for a decision and then removing one of the options in case people vote for it.
No I'm not. If it was up to we wouldn't be starting from here, and if it were up to me and we were starting from here I'd implement the PM's deal. However, it's not up to me - I'm considering what might happen, given the realities of the EU's position and the parliamentary arithmetic. I see no way in which a referendum with No Deal on the table could be passed by MPs. Do you? If so, who do you think will vote for it?
Cold, gloomy, wet. Where's this Mediterranean climate I was promised?
In despairing news, my elastic band remains obscured, hidden in a subtle realm that no human eye can pierce.
It's November Mr D. We're still going to have some traditional ones for a while.
On BBC East yesterday there was a suggestion that Cambridge could become a seaside city as a rsult of global warming.
I remember hearing that around 1990 when the whole scam... I mean theory began.
Dramatic sea level rise was one of the very first things we heard about... Nearly 30 years on and I've got to say not very much has happened?
One of the problems that the climate change scientists have is that their predictions of the impact of rising temperatures on the environment have proven extremely hit-and-miss. And those misses are easy to use by those sceptical of current predictive aspects of the science.
It's probably rather like economics in that respect - it's a lot easier to explain what happened in the past than to predict the future on the basis of changes too complex to be fully understood.
I was looking at hurricanes not long ago. The Atlantic hurricane seasons have become more violent in recent years (especially since 2000), which is what you'd expect from global warming - more storms, and more storms becoming violent. But what's happened in the Atlantic isn't typical of the global picture, where ACE has been broadly static over the last 50 years (obviously, there have been peaks and troughs but the trend line seems more-or-less flat). Why would that be? I don't know but it's not what the theories have predicted.
What is interesting is if the surface temperature of the north Atlantic rises by enough, there will be sufficient energy to carry remnant hurricanes across to the UK. Not sure our housing stock could cope with that.
True. Ireland was hit by Ophelia last year and Spain by Leslie this year, both of which had only just gone post-tropical. It's quite possible that the UK could take a similar hit and, as you say, given a relatively small rise in temperatures, could still be a full hurricane at landfall.
Has anybody picked up on the Manafort-Assange story?
Apparently there were half a dozen meetings between the two in the Ecuadorian Embassy .
No wonder he's staying in the embassy. Certainly more comfortable than a supermax.
None of Assange's options seem to be good ones
Clearly the embassy is a better option than a US Supermax though. I think he'd have walked before now if the only consequence was say three years at HMP (I have no idea what the likely punishment would be for his bail skipping)
I think I'd prefer execution to spending the rest of my life in a supermax prison. OTOH, there's the type of supermax prison where gang members rape you every day; on the other, there's the type of supermax where you're given solitary confinement in a tiny concrete cell and never get to see daylight again.
Sea levels seem to be rising at 3.4 mm per year; or a metre every 300 years. I think this is extremely rapid in terms of geological timescale but very slow by human standards. Will sea levels be up by 70 metres in 21,000 years time ? Who knows. Plastic pollution is a more pressing concern with the sea right now.
They were over 100 metres lower 21,000 years ago.
3.35 mm/year looks well within the bounds of natural variation then.
@david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
Why would any Labour MP risk deselection to side with Theresa May's doomed deal? I think the crushing defeat numbers for her deal might actually be on the optimistic side.
I think under (2) there'd be massive pressure for her to step down immediately and to try to elect a successor by consensus.
I see that too. May resigns as PM, but does not immediately resign as Tory leader.
A caretaker emerges from the Men In Gray Suits to be Prime Minister for the next few months whilst the Tories figure out how to stop Boris Johnson from winning a leadership election.
The caretaker PM would need to be somebody who has no intention of taking part in the forthcoming leadership contest.
Might I suggest a peer of the realm?
Many have suggested that Baron Hague of Richmond fits the bill rather nicely.
Prime Minister Questions would be entertaining whilst he holds the post.
I think you could probably amend the Commons' standing orders to permit a given individual who was not an MP to address the House. I remember reading something along these lines in an article about the 1940 leadership question, which was discussing the potential problem of Halifax being in the Lords.
It must have come up with Carrngton, too.
Carrington always answered questions in the Lords, but IIRC he had a deputy, at cabinet level, who answered in the Commons.
@david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
You are looking at this backwards. What is realistic isn't what you or I would like to happen, or what should happen, or what respects the result of the first referendum (although this does give an opportunity for that, if people want it), but what can pass parliament whilst not depending on things the EU won't do.
Given that all the opposition parties, and a large chunk of the Conservative Party, are dead set against No Deal (and rightly so), it's not going to be a referendum option. Simple as that - 'should' doesn't come into it. After all, if they were happy with No Deal, we wouldn't need a referendum in the first place, we'd just fall into it. Of course we might fall into it, but not via a referendum.
@david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
You're trying to get democratic legitimacy for a decision and then removing one of the options in case people vote for it.
No I'm not. If it was up to we wouldn't be starting from here, and if it were up to me and we were starting from here I'd implement the PM's deal. However, it's not up to me - I'm considering what might happen, given the realities of the EU's position and the parliamentary arithmetic. I see no way in which a referendum with No Deal on the table could be passed by MPs. Do you? If so, who do you think will vote for it?
And it was explicit in the referendum process that it would be parliament that decided what the viable Leave option would be. If they decide that Theresa's deal is the only show in town, or failing that Remain, then who are we to argue?
@david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
You're trying to get democratic legitimacy for a decision and then removing one of the options in case people vote for it.
No I'm not. If it was up to we wouldn't be starting from here, and if it were up to me and we were starting from here I'd implement the PM's deal. However, it's not up to me - I'm considering what might happen, given the realities of the EU's position and the parliamentary arithmetic. I see no way in which a referendum with No Deal on the table could be passed by MPs. Do you? If so, who do you think will vote for it?
And it was explicit in the referendum process that it would be parliament who decided what the viable Leave option would be. If they decide that Theresa's deal is the only show in town, or failing that Remain, then who are we to argue?
I think that a lot of people would argue.
And, they'd go out and vote in the next round of EU elections.
@david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
You're trying to get democratic legitimacy for a decision and then removing one of the options in case people vote for it.
No I'm not. If it was up to we wouldn't be starting from here, and if it were up to me and we were starting from here I'd implement the PM's deal. However, it's not up to me - I'm considering what might happen, given the realities of the EU's position and the parliamentary arithmetic. I see no way in which a referendum with No Deal on the table could be passed by MPs. Do you? If so, who do you think will vote for it?
I think it's more likely to pass with that option than without it.
If you're not going to have it on there, then there is not really any point in having a referendum at all and just end up remaining.
30% of the electorate favour no deal over the other two options, even if you think it's completely mad and everyone is insane not to take May's dreadful deal, it's not up to you, enough people disagree to mean it has to be an option.
@david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
His argument (and mine) is that the referendum will be Deal/Remain.
That option will not fly and would not be accepted as democratically legitimate. If May put that forward, she certainly would face a vote of no confidence, and I expect would lose. Even if she didn't, opponents within the Commons could drag the legislation out for so long that it wasn't practical to implement.
I don't see the legitimacy of putting the deal in a referendum if the HOC have defeated it by a significant majority, rejected it by belittling it, ridiculing it and telling us it is the worst deal ever.
After that how can it be a choice for the referendum?
It's the government's policy - and it's the government that would control the referendum legislation. It's also the only deal on the table. If you put the question to the people then you implicitly accept their greater legitimacy and, hence, their right to overrule parliament.
I might add that these are all reasons why whatever people might think in principle, the practical politics of delivering a Referendum Bill mean it won't happen.
@david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
You're trying to get democratic legitimacy for a decision and then removing one of the options in case people vote for it.
No I'm not. If it was up to we wouldn't be starting from here, and if it were up to me and we were starting from here I'd implement the PM's deal. However, it's not up to me - I'm considering what might happen, given the realities of the EU's position and the parliamentary arithmetic. I see no way in which a referendum with No Deal on the table could be passed by MPs. Do you? If so, who do you think will vote for it?
I think it's more likely to pass with that option than without it.
If you're not going to have it on there, then there is not really any point in having a referendum at all and just end up remaining.
30% of the electorate favour no deal over the other two options, even if you think it's completely mad and everyone is insane not to take May's dreadful deal, it's not up to you, enough people disagree to mean it has to be an option.
So you think Labour, the SNP and the LibDems, or a large chunk of them, would support a referendum with No Deal? Really?
@david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
@david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
You're trying to get democratic legitimacy for a decision and then removing one of the options in case people vote for it.
No I'm not. If it was up to we wouldn't be starting from here, and if it were up to me and we were starting from here I'd implement the PM's deal. However, it's not up to me - I'm considering what might happen, given the realities of the EU's position and the parliamentary arithmetic. I see no way in which a referendum with No Deal on the table could be passed by MPs. Do you? If so, who do you think will vote for it?
I think it's more likely to pass with that option than without it.
If you're not going to have it on there, then there is not really any point in having a referendum at all and just end up remaining.
30% of the electorate favour no deal over the other two options, even if you think it's completely mad and everyone is insane not to take May's dreadful deal, it's not up to you, enough people disagree to mean it has to be an option.
So you think Labour, the SNP and the LibDems, or a large chunk of them, would support a referendum with No Deal? Really?
They may not get a choice. Both the EC and legal challenges may make their MP's views moot.
@david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
Has anybody picked up on the Manafort-Assange story?
Apparently there were half a dozen meetings between the two in the Ecuadorian Embassy .
No wonder he's staying in the embassy. Certainly more comfortable than a supermax.
None of Assange's options seem to be good ones
Clearly the embassy is a better option than a US Supermax though. I think he'd have walked before now if the only consequence was say three years at HMP (I have no idea what the likely punishment would be for his bail skipping)
I think I'd prefer execution to spending the rest of my life in a supermax prison. OTOH, there's the type of supermax prison where gang members rape you every day; on the other, there's the type of supermax where you're given solitary confinement in a tiny concrete cell and never get to see daylight again.
What's Manafort's likely sentence ?
Probably around fifteen years, which would be tantamount to life at his age. There is no parole in the US federal system, but there is time off for good behaviour, but that would be unlikely to take more than a couple of years off.
@david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
Parliament is unable to decide between the two remaining options and therefore there will be one.
@david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
For the Leavers, "Remain" cannot be on the ballot paper because they are terrified that people will choose it and thus kill Brexit off.
@david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
You're trying to get democratic legitimacy for a decision and then removing one of the options in case people vote for it.
No I'm not. If it was up to we wouldn't be starting from here, and if it were up to me and we were starting from here I'd implement the PM's deal. However, it's not up to me - I'm considering what might happen, given the realities of the EU's position and the parliamentary arithmetic. I see no way in which a referendum with No Deal on the table could be passed by MPs. Do you? If so, who do you think will vote for it?
I think it's more likely to pass with that option than without it.
If you're not going to have it on there, then there is not really any point in having a referendum at all and just end up remaining.
30% of the electorate favour no deal over the other two options, even if you think it's completely mad and everyone is insane not to take May's dreadful deal, it's not up to you, enough people disagree to mean it has to be an option.
So you think Labour, the SNP and the LibDems, or a large chunk of them, would support a referendum with No Deal? Really?
If they have any sense of democracy then yes.
Do you think May will survive not putting it on there?
Even if you're correct, there's absolutely no point in doing it without the choice favoured by 30% of the population. You're basically ruling out a referendum completely without realising it.
May's deal is not going to pass, it's garbage. So by your own logic the only choice left is to remain as you think no acceptable referendum will pass the HoC.
@david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
His argument (and mine) is that the referendum will be Deal/Remain.
That option will not fly and would not be accepted as democratically legitimate. If May put that forward, she certainly would face a vote of no confidence, and I expect would lose. Even if she didn't, opponents within the Commons could drag the legislation out for so long that it wasn't practical to implement.
I don't see the legitimacy of putting the deal in a referendum if the HOC have defeated it by a significant majority, rejected it by belittling it, ridiculing it and telling us it is the worst deal ever.
After that how can it be a choice for the referendum?
It's the government's policy - and it's the government that would control the referendum legislation. It's also the only deal on the table. If you put the question to the people then you implicitly accept their greater legitimacy and, hence, their right to overrule parliament.
I might add that these are all reasons why whatever people might think in principle, the practical politics of delivering a Referendum Bill mean it won't happen.
So then, we stay deadlocked until we fall off the cliff? That is your answer?
Do you think May will survive not putting it on there?
Even if you're correct, there's absolutely no point in doing it without the choice favoured by 30% of the population. You're basically ruling out a referendum completely without realising it.
May's deal is not going to pass, it's garbage. So by your own logic the only choice left is to remain as you think no acceptable referendum will pass the HoC.
You are arguing by what you think opposition MPs should do. I'm arguing by what they will do (and say they will do).
Sea levels seem to be rising at 3.4 mm per year; or a metre every 300 years. I think this is extremely rapid in terms of geological timescale but very slow by human standards. Will sea levels be up by 70 metres in 21,000 years time ? Who knows. Plastic pollution is a more pressing concern with the sea right now.
They were over 100 metres lower 21,000 years ago.
3.35 mm/year looks well within the bounds of natural variation then.
Although the bulk of the sea level rise since the Ice Age occurred in three big pulses around 14,000, 11,000 and 8,000 years ago.
@david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
You are looking at this backwards. What is realistic isn't what you or I would like to happen, or what should happen, or what respects the result of the first referendum (although this does give an opportunity for that, if people want it), but what can pass parliament whilst not depending on things the EU won't do.
Given that all the opposition parties, and a large chunk of the Conservative Party, are dead set against No Deal (and rightly so), it's not going to be a referendum option. Simple as that - 'should' doesn't come into it. After all, if they were happy with No Deal, we wouldn't need a referendum in the first place, we'd just fall into it. Of course we might fall into it, but not via a referendum.
Nope what is realistic is what the courts decide when these decisions are challenged - all the way to the supreme court. And what the public are willing to accept. In neither of these cases are your personal preferences likely to be part of he final decision - at least not if you want this matter in any way settled. Basically telling 17 million people they were wrong and so they don't get to choose again is a surefire way to cause real chaos in this country.
And you can be equally sure that is how we will be portraying these decisions if they come to pass.
Cold, gloomy, wet. Where's this Mediterranean climate I was promised?
In despairing news, my elastic band remains obscured, hidden in a subtle realm that no human eye can pierce.
It's November Mr D. We're still going to have some traditional ones for a while.
On BBC East yesterday there was a suggestion that Cambridge could become a seaside city as a rsult of global warming.
I remember hearing that around 1990 when the whole scam... I mean theory began.
Dramatic sea level rise was one of the very first things we heard about... Nearly 30 years on and I've got to say not very much has happened?
But this time they really really mean it. Unless we do X (where x is something I just happen to coindentally think is a good thing and would support it with or without climate change) in Y years (Where Y would be a very useful period of time for a funding grant to last).
@david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
Why not ?
I'm beginning to bore myself here!!
It can't be on the ballot paper because the UK can't be in a position whereby events might lead to a hard border in Northern Ireland. It is why there has been all this kerfuffle over May's deal and the backstop, in case you hadn't noticed. The whole 600-odd page WA really just boils down to the backstop plus some waffle here and there.
NI is driving the whole of our Brexit process and no deal is an option which is intolerable for the UK and hence it can't be left to the people to decide.
@david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
You're trying to get democratic legitimacy for a decision and then removing one of the options in case people vote for it.
No I'm not. If it was up to we wouldn't be starting from here, and if it were up to me and we were starting from here I'd implement the PM's deal. However, it's not up to me - I'm considering what might happen, given the realities of the EU's position and the parliamentary arithmetic. I see no way in which a referendum with No Deal on the table could be passed by MPs. Do you? If so, who do you think will vote for it?
I think it's more likely to pass with that option than without it.
If you're not going to have it on there, then there is not really any point in having a referendum at all and just end up remaining.
30% of the electorate favour no deal over the other two options, even if you think it's completely mad and everyone is insane not to take May's dreadful deal, it's not up to you, enough people disagree to mean it has to be an option.
So you think Labour, the SNP and the LibDems, or a large chunk of them, would support a referendum with No Deal? Really?
If they have any sense of democracy then yes.
Do you think May will survive not putting it on there?
Even if you're correct, there's absolutely no point in doing it without the choice favoured by 30% of the population. You're basically ruling out a referendum completely without realising it.
May's deal is not going to pass, it's garbage. So by your own logic the only choice left is to remain as you think no acceptable referendum will pass the HoC.
We're in a bus heading directly towards a cliff. It's not undemocratic for the driver to ask the passengers to choose whether to swerve left or right and deny them the option of continuing straight ahead.
@david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
You're trying to get democratic legitimacy for a decision and then removing one of the options in case people vote for it.
No I'm not. If it was up to we wouldn't be starting from here, and if it were up to me and we were starting from here I'd implement the PM's deal. However, it's not up to me - I'm considering what might happen, given the realities of the EU's position and the parliamentary arithmetic. I see no way in which a referendum with No Deal on the table could be passed by MPs. Do you? If so, who do you think will vote for it?
And it was explicit in the referendum process that it would be parliament who decided what the viable Leave option would be. If they decide that Theresa's deal is the only show in town, or failing that Remain, then who are we to argue?
I think that a lot of people would argue.
And, they'd go out and vote in the next round of EU elections.
And in the local and national UK elections. Now personally I don't care one jot about the Tory party but Richard N's clever little wheeze makes it certain it will cease to exist in its current form, if at all.
Comments
On BBC East yesterday there was a suggestion that Cambridge could become a seaside city as a rsult of global warming.
That will end well. Probably featuring an axe.
Apparently there were half a dozen meetings between the two in the Ecuadorian Embassy .
Good afternoon, everyone.
Dramatic sea level rise was one of the very first things we heard about... Nearly 30 years on and I've got to say not very much has happened?
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
"Shall cease to apply". There's not much wriggle room there. There's no 'unless they later decide otherwise' or 'unless we all call it off'. The only riders are about altering the exit day - but not about annulling the process.
Any argument that a long extension is the equivalent of annulment, so therefore annulment is implicitly allowed on the same terms as an extension, runs against the commitments on both sides contained in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Article, that the departing state intends to withdraw and should be negotiating to that end. I don't think it's at all a foregone conclusion that the Court will rule that it's revocable, no matter what the politicians might prefer.
Slowly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:Evolution-of-GMSL-time-series-from-six-different-groups’.jpg
That was him.
Humanity will be slave to an insect nation by 2125, is my prediction.
Sound advice. To be honest, must've claimed dozens from mailmen (or personpersons as Trudeau might say) over the years.
Then burn it!
A European Withdrawal Treaty
On the second day of Christmas, Theresa gave to me
The same European withdrawal Treaty
Repeat
It's probably rather like economics in that respect - it's a lot easier to explain what happened in the past than to predict the future on the basis of changes too complex to be fully understood.
I was looking at hurricanes not long ago. The Atlantic hurricane seasons have become more violent in recent years (especially since 2000), which is what you'd expect from global warming - more storms, and more storms becoming violent. But what's happened in the Atlantic isn't typical of the global picture, where ACE has been broadly static over the last 50 years (obviously, there have been peaks and troughs but the trend line seems more-or-less flat). Why would that be? I don't know but it's not what the theories have predicted.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6434127/Farage-appear-Fox-News-hours-Trumps-Brexit-outburst.html
If Farage had been talking about the UK forest raking, we all know what The Donald would have been tweeting about.
Why Colombia has taken in 1 million Venezuelans - Money so worthless, people turning bank notes into handbags! A months salary for a hot dog from a street vendor.
Guess bog rolls aren't a problem anymore, you just wipe your arse with bank notes as cheaper to do so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU0RqwweuWY
"If the PM is serious about her deal – and if she’s serious about leading the country to better days ahead – she will need to head off Remain for good. That means not just spelling out the costs of Brexits she doesn’t like – or the price of no deal – but setting out the costs of going back cap in hand to the EU too."
I think this is extremely rapid in terms of geological timescale but very slow by human standards.
Will sea levels be up by 70 metres in 21,000 years time ? Who knows. Plastic pollution is a more pressing concern with the sea right now.
All that is certain is that once there was an elastic band, and there may be again.
Half-on-topic: I wonder if the videogame equivalent of May's handling of the EU issue is Bethesda and Fallout 76...
Ironic, though. If such a referendum occurred it would be because the Commons had rejected a deal. So the democratic options available would be one rejected by the electorate and one rejected by the Commons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfN4Fl2FNKY
After that how can it be a choice for the referendum?
Q1: Do you want the UK to Leave/Remain?
If Remain wins, we remain. If Leave wins:
Q2: Do you want the UK to leave with May's deal/with no deal?
Mr. Mark, I do not believe Kate Bush to be involved with the Elastic Enigma.
1. Do you want to Remain,
2. No really, do you want to Remain?
Given that all the opposition parties, and a large chunk of the Conservative Party, are dead set against No Deal (and rightly so), it's not going to be a referendum option. Simple as that - 'should' doesn't come into it. After all, if they were happy with No Deal, we wouldn't need a referendum in the first place, we'd just fall into it. Of course we might fall into it, but not via a referendum.
And, they'd go out and vote in the next round of EU elections.
If you're not going to have it on there, then there is not really any point in having a referendum at all and just end up remaining.
30% of the electorate favour no deal over the other two options, even if you think it's completely mad and everyone is insane not to take May's dreadful deal, it's not up to you, enough people disagree to mean it has to be an option.
I might add that these are all reasons why whatever people might think in principle, the practical politics of delivering a Referendum Bill mean it won't happen.
Do you think May will survive not putting it on there?
Even if you're correct, there's absolutely no point in doing it without the choice favoured by 30% of the population. You're basically ruling out a referendum completely without realising it.
May's deal is not going to pass, it's garbage. So by your own logic the only choice left is to remain as you think no acceptable referendum will pass the HoC.
And you can be equally sure that is how we will be portraying these decisions if they come to pass.
But this time they really really mean it. Unless we do X (where x is something I just happen to coindentally think is a good thing and would support it with or without climate change) in Y years
(Where Y would be a very useful period of time for a funding grant to last).
It can't be on the ballot paper because the UK can't be in a position whereby events might lead to a hard border in Northern Ireland. It is why there has been all this kerfuffle over May's deal and the backstop, in case you hadn't noticed. The whole 600-odd page WA really just boils down to the backstop plus some waffle here and there.
NI is driving the whole of our Brexit process and no deal is an option which is intolerable for the UK and hence it can't be left to the people to decide.