@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?
Taking Back Control seems a little problematic!
It would be absurd to have a further referendum without Remain as an option. This is the most popular choice, and quite a few Leavers have expressed a preference for it over May's deal.
Why should you get to have two bites of the cherry? You had your chance in 2016 and lost. The choice now is between leaving with May's Deal and Leaving with No Deal.
Leave has had its chance. It blew it.
Nope. Remain has led this country ever since the referendum.
Yes, I admit it, we engineered Gove, Boris and Leadsome's ineptitude in the leadership election. Mwahahaha.
Theresa May has denied claims from DUP leader Arlene Foster that she has "given up" trying to secure a better Brexit deal for Northern Ireland. Mrs Foster said the PM's trip to promote the deal to businesses in Wales and Northern Ireland was a "waste of time" as Parliament would not back it.
The only thing in question is the size of the defeat in parliament.
The deeper concern is, put simply, what failing to leave would mean for our democracy. Yes, leaving the EU could be a mistake, a big serious tragic mistake but it's the will of the people and the people have a right to be wrong and an equal right to take responsibility for and bear the consequences of their actions.
I disagree.
1) Is it wiser to allow something untoward to occur and then try and patch it up as best you can?
or ...
2) Is it wiser to stop a course of action leading to problems before it happens?
Most people would say (2). Given the choice of (say) losing a leg to gangrene and then hammering on a peg-leg, most people would prefer penicillan and to keep the original leg.
This "It is the unchangable will of the people no matter how damaging it is" stuff is, frankly, nonsense. All democracy entails is asking.
Asking if the previous decision still stands is still a democratic thing to do. Asking before it is a disaster is a sensible thing to do.
Given that I am one of the few on here who could choose to have an Irish Passport (from both father's and mother's sides) if I wanted I would hazard I know more about Irish history than most on here.
I also know that there are far too many people including yourself using the fear of a return to the troubles as a means of trying o push your own personal agendas.
For the record, unlike some self serving cowards, I would not take up the Irish passport under any circumstances. I consider myself English and would not abandon this country no matter what happens.
Delighted to hear it, but not relevant to the price of fish; happy as I'm sure we English folk might be at the news.
And I am not using the fear of a return to the troubles as a means of pushing my personal agenda unless that personal agenda is a disinclination to have widespread sectarian and inter-communal violence on an enormous scale within the UK. If so, then yes, that is my personal agenda.
But that is irrelevant. Because it turns out that not only does it happen to be my personal agenda, but it is also the position of the UK government. As we have seen with the WA. I mean I've no idea whether the Troubles reached Ancaster but everywhere they did reach they were horrific and loathed and their disappearance a source of joy and happiness and the fact that the UK government has shown it is adamant that they can't return is in my mind a tick in the thank god column.
I see the Prime Minister going round trying to drum up support for her Deal and my assumption is she will be hoping people will lobby their MPs to get them to support the Deal but is that how our democracy works?
It's certainly not how people work. So far, pretty much every single attempt to badger and barrack MPs into supporting her has simply steeled the opposition against her.
But that's nothing as to how badly wasting vast amounts of cash on millions of pamphlets to go over their heads and lie to their constituents will go down.
The absurdity of May's position, (going over the heads of Parliament to the people, but not actually asking the people because that is undemocratic) and her total failure to grasp how people who are not she think, is compounding opposition to the deal by the day.
Perhaps the soundest advice Gavin Barwell could give May is "STOP DIGGING".
She is past the point of no return, and needs to be seen to continue digging. If this all goes pear shaped there will be a reckoning and as PM she can't afford to be seen to have given up before the end.
The deeper concern is, put simply, what failing to leave would mean for our democracy. Yes, leaving the EU could be a mistake, a big serious tragic mistake but it's the will of the people and the people have a right to be wrong and an equal right to take responsibility for and bear the consequences of their actions.
This is a noble sentiment, but I fear is at odds with reality.
It's true that we voted for Brexit, but we voted for a Brexit that would mean £350m a week for the NHS, and the easiest trade deal in history.
If we end up with Brexit that means we run out of clean water, your fellow citizens are not going to be relaxed about it. "Well, we have to take responsibility for and bear the consequences of our actions."
They are going to riot.
It is incumbent upon the Government to try and avoid that outcome
Is it me or has Boris seriously tacked to the right in the last few years ?
I don't know, have you seriously tacked to the right in the last few years?😉
Depends how I feel when I get out of bed in the morning. I was very anti-EU when the Greek stuff was hitting the fan but I voted to remain and would probably hold my nose to do so again in a 2nd ref.
I quite see where you are coming from. THe EU is far from perfect and the Greek horror was perhaps the worst example of the uncaring blunderbuss approach it can take. But the UK leaving will not change that, and we can expect to be on the receiving end when it comes to the negotiation of the ongoing trade relationship. Better I think to be more committed members and try to change it from within. After all, the UK was very successful in promoting both the single market and the expansion of the EU into Eastern Europe. We need to have the courage of our convictions and not just hide away in a corner in the naive belief that leaving will make all the problems go away. It will take many years to rebuild our standing with our European neighbours but the sooner we begin the better.
I think the best thing would be for MPs to vote the deal through though. A superior plan than another divisive referendum.
Then if the RoI/EU want to prevent it they should agree a stellar free trade agreement with us. Otherwise, so be it. If they can't be arsed to give us what we need then the feeling is mutual.
They probably will agree a stellar free trade agreement. But that is not the point at issue. The point at issue is the WA. The WA is designed to give, ok let's think of a good word for it, shall we say "backstop", just in case there are bumps in the road towards that stellar free trade agreement. Because if there are any bumps or delays, there cannot in the interim be the danger that events will lead to a hard border in NI.
But the backstop is unacceptable and also not part of the status quo ante. The existing backstop is an immediate hard border as of 11pm 29th March. The status quo is there is a hard border in 4 months time. That's already the interim position today.
Or they can sign a deal with no backstop. They're no worse off than they are now and get 2 more years guarantee of no hard border.
I'm ok with either choice they make. I'm not ok with the backstop.
Huh? There is a two year transition period before anything changes?
Yes if they agree a deal it will postpone any risks of a hard border from 4 months from now until 25 months from now. That seems like a positive move to me for them but if they'd rather go immediately to the hard border in March so be it. That will be their choice.
@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?
Taking Back Control seems a little problematic!
It would be absurd to have a further referendum without Remain as an option. This is the most popular choice, and quite a few Leavers have expressed a preference for it over May's deal.
Why should you get to have two bites of the cherry? You had your chance in 2016 and lost. The choice now is between leaving with May's Deal and Leaving with No Deal.
Leave has had its chance. It blew it.
Nope. Remain has led this country ever since the referendum.
Yes, I admit it, we engineered Gove, Boris and Leadsome's ineptitude in the leadership election. Mwahahaha.
1) Is it wiser to allow something untoward to occur and then try and patch it up as best you can?
or ...
2) Is it wiser to stop a course of action leading to problems before it happens?
Most people would say (2). Given the choice of (say) losing a leg to gangrene and then hammering on a peg-leg, most people would prefer penicillan and to keep the original leg.
This "It is the unchangable will of the people no matter how damaging it is" stuff is, frankly, nonsense. All democracy entails is asking.
Asking if the previous decision still stands is still a democratic thing to do. Asking before it is a disaster is a sensible thing to do.
Given that I am one of the few on here who could choose to have an Irish Passport (from both father's and mother's sides) if I wanted I would hazard I know more about Irish history than most on here.
I also know that there are far too many people including yourself using the fear of a return to the troubles as a means of trying o push your own personal agendas.
For the record, unlike some self serving cowards, I would not take up the Irish passport under any circumstances. I consider myself English and would not abandon this country no matter what happens.
Delighted to hear it, but not relevant to the price of fish; happy as I'm sure we English folk might be at the news.
And I am not using the fear of a return to the troubles as a means of pushing my personal agenda unless that personal agenda is a disinclination to have widespread sectarian and inter-communal violence on an enormous scale within the UK. If so, then yes, that is my personal agenda.
But that is irrelevant. Because it turns out that not only does it happen to be my personal agenda, but it is also the position of the UK government. As we have seen with the WA. I mean I've no idea whether the Troubles reached Ancaster but everywhere they did reach they were horrific and loathed and their disappearance a source of joy and happiness and the fact that the UK government has shown it is adamant that they can't return is in my mind a tick in the thank god column.
@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?
Taking Back Control seems a little problematic!
It would be absurd to have a further referendum without Remain as an option. This is the most popular choice, and quite a few Leavers have expressed a preference for it over May's deal.
Why should you get to have two bites of the cherry? You had your chance in 2016 and lost. The choice now is between leaving with May's Deal and Leaving with No Deal.
Leave has had its chance. It blew it.
Nope. Remain has led this country ever since the referendum.
Is it me or has Boris seriously tacked to the right in the last few years ?
I don't know, have you seriously tacked to the right in the last few years?😉
Depends how I feel when I get out of bed in the morning. I was very anti-EU when the Greek stuff was hitting the fan but I voted to remain and would probably hold my nose to do so again in a 2nd ref.
I quite see where you are coming from. THe EU is far from perfect and the Greek horror was perhaps the worst example of the uncaring blunderbuss approach it can take. But the UK leaving will not change that, and we can expect to be on the receiving end when it comes to the negotiation of the ongoing trade relationship. Better I think to be more committed members and try to change it from within. After all, the UK was very successful in promoting both the single market and the expansion of the EU into Eastern Europe. We need to have the courage of our convictions and not just hide away in a corner in the naive belief that leaving will make all the problems go away. It will take many years to rebuild our standing with our European neighbours but the sooner we begin the better.
I think the best thing would be for MPs to vote the deal through though. A superior plan than another divisive referendum.
The deeper concern is, put simply, what failing to leave would mean for our democracy. Yes, leaving the EU could be a mistake, a big serious tragic mistake but it's the will of the people and the people have a right to be wrong and an equal right to take responsibility for and bear the consequences of their actions.
I disagree.
1) Is it wiser to allow something untoward to occur and then try and patch it up as best you can?
or ...
2) Is it wiser to stop a course of action leading to problems before it happens?
Most people would say (2). Given the choice of (say) losing a leg to gangrene and then hammering on a peg-leg, most people would prefer penicillan and to keep the original leg.
This "It is the unchangable will of the people no matter how damaging it is" stuff is, frankly, nonsense. All democracy entails is asking.
Asking if the previous decision still stands is still a democratic thing to do. Asking before it is a disaster is a sensible thing to do.
Am I the only one who cringes every time I hear talk of "the will of the people"?
That phrase has appalling historical echoes, as anyone who has studied the 1930s could tell us.
@david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
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 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.
The problem with this is that a significant number of people don't believe what you're saying. 30% in fact.
They think no deal won't be as bad as everyone says because they heard similar scare stories about not joining the Euro, the ERM or the vote to leave itself. Or even if they do then they think it is worth it in the long run to be free. So they want to take the chance.
You can't discount their views just because you disagree with them.
30% may back No Deal as first choice, 70% don't, that is the key point.
Even head to head with Remain 55% oppose No Deal which is the same total as defeated the Scottish independence vote in 2014
Given that I am one of the few on here who could choose to have an Irish Passport (from both father's and mother's sides) if I wanted I would hazard I know more about Irish history than most on here.
I also know that there are far too many people including yourself using the fear of a return to the troubles as a means of trying o push your own personal agendas.
For the record, unlike some self serving cowards, I would not take up the Irish passport under any circumstances. I consider myself English and would not abandon this country no matter what happens.
Delighted to hear it, but not relevant to the price of fish; happy as I'm sure we English folk might be at the news.
And I am not using the fear of a return to the troubles as a means of pushing my personal agenda unless that personal agenda is a disinclination to have widespread sectarian and inter-communal violence on an enormous scale within the UK. If so, then yes, that is my personal agenda.
But that is irrelevant. Because it turns out that not only does it happen to be my personal agenda, but it is also the position of the UK government. As we have seen with the WA. I mean I've no idea whether the Troubles reached Ancaster but everywhere they did reach they were horrific and loathed and their disappearance a source of joy and happiness and the fact that the UK government has shown it is adamant that they can't return is in my mind a tick in the thank god column.
Good rant. But utterly meaningless.
Naive to say the least. It is the entire point of the withdrawal agreement. It is the very crux of why all the brex-o-loons are so angry (I was going to say up in arms but 93% of them would shit themselves if they actually had to be up in arms); it's what the entire Brexit commentariat is discussing; it is what these pages and pages of discussion on PB are about. And I believe you know it. But that's fine I'm happy to leave it there.
We won. How is that blowing it? The question was should we Remain in or Leave the EU. Leave won. The form of leaving is what is now up for debate. Remaining should not be an option.
Leave won the referendum and the leading Leavers then failed to produce a coherent meaning for Brexit. It has been bicker, bicker, yammer, yammer and 40 shades of Brexit. The whole thing is a shambles.
It seems clear that the country (or at least the politicians) need to pause and consider the whole thing.
Brexit, as dreamt of, is no implementable, so it is not unreasonable to reconsider Remain and I know that shoots your fox and you are unhappy about that, but as a nation we need to consider it.
If only a Leaver had been leading it, then this criticism might be more accurate.
I have never expected accuracy from Beverley.
It is alright, I expect only Brexit fantasies from yourself.
For what it's worth, I don't think that Leave's greatest failure after the referendum was failing to take charge of the negotiations. I think Leave's greatest failure was not to attempt to address the concerns of many Remain voters and seek to forge a consensus. You can't blame Theresa May for that because all the worst culprits were all the most prominent Leavers.
What that means is that wherever Brexit goes from here, it will remain controversial and divide the nation for years to come.
May was the one who decided that ending Freedom of Movement was the be all and end all of Brexit. It was she who failed to forge a consensus. Indeed given that she was directing the whole process from the day she was elected, she was the only one who could forge that consensus.
And to be honest what sensible person would want to forge a consensus or reach out to you considering you spend all day ranting about racists and xenophobes like a stuck record.
Replacing May is pointless, there is no better Deal on offer from the EU
I'm beginning to think that, however many times you say this, nobody is going to believe you.
But you realise, of course, even if that were true, removing May now would still be beneficial anyway, because it would lance much of the poison that she has built up around the debate, and would end the failing upwards that has marked May's botched handling of the negotiations.
Replacing May is pointless, there is no better Deal on offer from the EU, as Juncker has made clear it is this Deal or No Deal.
If May goes the only viable alternative would be Boris on a No Deal ticket or Corbyn on a ticket of permanent Customs Union membership
Has Boris actually advocated No Deal? Surely even he wouldn't plunge us into that madness. I assume he'll initiate some sham negotiations with the EU again before presenting us with the Boris Deal, which will be all but indistinguishable from the current one.
We won. How is that blowing it? The question was should we Remain in or Leave the EU. Leave won. The form of leaving is what is now up for debate. Remaining should not be an option.
Leave won the referendum and the leading Leavers then failed to produce a coherent meaning for Brexit. It has been bicker, bicker, yammer, yammer and 40 shades of Brexit. The whole thing is a shambles.
It seems clear that the country (or at least the politicians) need to pause and consider the whole thing.
Brexit, as dreamt of, is no implementable, so it is not unreasonable to reconsider Remain and I know that shoots your fox and you are unhappy about that, but as a nation we need to consider it.
If only a Leaver had been leading it, then this criticism might be more accurate.
I have never expected accuracy from Beverley.
It is alright, I expect only Brexit fantasies from yourself.
Funny seeing as I am the one who has been happy with the compromises and you are the extremist loon who refuses to accept the democratic result.
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?
Nobody in the EU is proposing we join the Euro but even if they did if No Deal was the alternative we would still ultimately likely end up permanently in the single market and customs union even if not the full EU
@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.
That is simply not true. There is nothing legally that prevents us having a hard border between Northern and Southern Ireland. That just the way the EU and May have tried to limit the discussion. If we have no deal there will be a hard border (if someone chooses to impose one)
Nothing except Section 10 (2) (b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
10 Continuation of North-South co-operation and the prevention of new border arrangements
(2) Nothing in section 8, 9 or 23(1) or (6) of this Act authorises regulations which —
(b) create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.
For what it's worth, I don't think that Leave's greatest failure after the referendum was failing to take charge of the negotiations. I think Leave's greatest failure was not to attempt to address the concerns of many Remain voters and seek to forge a consensus. You can't blame Theresa May for that because all the worst culprits were all the most prominent Leavers.
What that means is that wherever Brexit goes from here, it will remain controversial and divide the nation for years to come.
May was the one who decided that ending Freedom of Movement was the be all and end all of Brexit. It was she who failed to forge a consensus. Indeed given that she was directing the whole process from the day she was elected, she was the only one who could forge that consensus.
And to be honest what sensible person would want to forge a consensus or reach out to you considering you spend all day ranting about racists and xenophobes like a stuck record.
You don't have to reach out to me if you don't want to. But writing off 48% of the population, as Leavers did, was nuts.
PS The way in which the Brexit negotiations have played out has rather justified my point. The referendum was fought on an anti-immigration prospectus and implemented accordingly. All Leavers' present difficulties stem from the pandering to xenophobia that so many of them enthusiastically fell in behind.
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?
Nobody in the EU is proposing we join the Euro but even if we did if No Deal was the alternative we would still ultimately end up permanently in the single market and customs union even if not the full EU
Hardly anyone actually wants us to leave the single market. The fact that we're headed that way anyway is another testament to May's power to please none of the people, none of the time.
For what it's worth, I don't think that Leave's greatest failure after the referendum was failing to take charge of the negotiations. I think Leave's greatest failure was not to attempt to address the concerns of many Remain voters and seek to forge a consensus. You can't blame Theresa May for that because all the worst culprits were all the most prominent Leavers.
What that means is that wherever Brexit goes from here, it will remain controversial and divide the nation for years to come.
May was the one who decided that ending Freedom of Movement was the be all and end all of Brexit.
@david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
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 it's more likely to pass with that option than without it.
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.
The problem with this is that a significant number of people don't believe what you're saying. 30% in fact.
They think no deal won't be as bad as everyone says because they heard similar scare stories about not joining the Euro, the ERM or the vote to leave itself. Or even if they do then they think it is worth it in the long run to be free. So they want to take the chance.
You can't discount their views just because you disagree with them.
30% may back No Deal as first choice, 70% don't, that is the key point.
Even head to head with Remain 55% oppose No Deal which is the same total as defeated the Scottish independence vote in 2014
A majority is opposed to any of the three options. So I guess by your logic we're going to have a referendum with no options on it whatsoever.
Hardly anyone actually wants us to leave the single market. The fact that we're headed that way anyway is another testament to May's power to please none of the people, none of the time.
For what it's worth, I don't think that Leave's greatest failure after the referendum was failing to take charge of the negotiations. I think Leave's greatest failure was not to attempt to address the concerns of many Remain voters and seek to forge a consensus. You can't blame Theresa May for that because all the worst culprits were all the most prominent Leavers.
What that means is that wherever Brexit goes from here, it will remain controversial and divide the nation for years to come.
May was the one who decided that ending Freedom of Movement was the be all and end all of Brexit. It was she who failed to forge a consensus. Indeed given that she was directing the whole process from the day she was elected, she was the only one who could forge that consensus.
And to be honest what sensible person would want to forge a consensus or reach out to you considering you spend all day ranting about racists and xenophobes like a stuck record.
You don't have to reach out to me if you don't want to. But writing off 48% of the population, as Leavers did, was nuts.
PS The way in which the Brexit negotiations have played out has rather justified my point. The referendum was fought on an anti-immigration prospectus and implemented accordingly. All Leavers' present difficulties stem from the pandering to xenophobia that so many of them enthusiastically fell in behind.
Nope. You are as bad as May. The referendum was fought on a wide range of issues and the polling has shown that immigration was not even the most salient of them in the minds of Leave voters.
You wish to portray it as being all about immigration because that suits your own personal bigotries. But it is far removed from reality. If it were not there would be much more support for May's Deal which does indeed (unfortunately) end free movement.
For what it's worth, I don't think that Leave's greatest failure after the referendum was failing to take charge of the negotiations. I think Leave's greatest failure was not to attempt to address the concerns of many Remain voters and seek to forge a consensus. You can't blame Theresa May for that because all the worst culprits were all the most prominent Leavers.
What that means is that wherever Brexit goes from here, it will remain controversial and divide the nation for years to come.
May was the one who decided that ending Freedom of Movement was the be all and end all of Brexit.
@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.
That is simply not true. There is nothing legally that prevents us having a hard border between Northern and Southern Ireland. That just the way the EU and May have tried to limit the discussion. If we have no deal there will be a hard border (if someone chooses to impose one)
Nothing except Section 10 (2) (b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
10 Continuation of North-South co-operation and the prevention of new border arrangements
(2) Nothing in section 8, 9 or 23(1) or (6) of this Act authorises regulations which —
(b) create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.
So we don't put up border posts, fine. Job done. If they choose to, their choice.
For what it's worth, I don't think that Leave's greatest failure after the referendum was failing to take charge of the negotiations. I think Leave's greatest failure was not to attempt to address the concerns of many Remain voters and seek to forge a consensus. You can't blame Theresa May for that because all the worst culprits were all the most prominent Leavers.
What that means is that wherever Brexit goes from here, it will remain controversial and divide the nation for years to come.
May was the one who decided that ending Freedom of Movement was the be all and end all of Brexit. It was she who failed to forge a consensus. Indeed given that she was directing the whole process from the day she was elected, she was the only one who could forge that consensus.
And to be honest what sensible person would want to forge a consensus or reach out to you considering you spend all day ranting about racists and xenophobes like a stuck record.
You don't have to reach out to me if you don't want to. But writing off 48% of the population, as Leavers did, was nuts.
PS The way in which the Brexit negotiations have played out has rather justified my point. The referendum was fought on an anti-immigration prospectus and implemented accordingly. All Leavers' present difficulties stem from the pandering to xenophobia that so many of them enthusiastically fell in behind.
Nope. You are as bad as May. The referendum was fought on a wide range of issues and the polling has shown that immigration was not even the most salient of them in the minds of Leave voters.
You wish to portray it as being all about immigration because that suits your own personal bigotries. But it is far removed from reality. If it were not there would be much more support for May's Deal which does indeed (unfortunately) end free movement.
So the pollsters that had immigration as the top issue are wrong? Can you post some links.
This is a noble sentiment, but I fear is at odds with reality.
It's true that we voted for Brexit, but we voted for a Brexit that would mean £350m a week for the NHS, and the easiest trade deal in history.
If we end up with Brexit that means we run out of clean water, your fellow citizens are not going to be relaxed about it. "Well, we have to take responsibility for and bear the consequences of our actions."
They are going to riot.
It is incumbent upon the Government to try and avoid that outcome
I'm obviously far from convinced the more apocalyptic scenarios represent any kind of reality - another Project Fear some might say.
Apart from rioting, the electorate might ask why the Government has made inadequate contingency provision for a No Deal? Again, being told there is no contingency is part of the Project Fear operation being perpetrated by May and her apologists. Local councils have been planning, the private sector has been planning so are we seriously to believe the Government has made no plans?
You wish to portray it as being all about immigration because that suits your own personal bigotries. But it is far removed from reality. If it were not there would be much more support for May's Deal which does indeed (unfortunately) end free movement.
One of the reasons why May is struggling to convince, I think, is because she believes that her Tory colleagues are just as excited by being nasty about immigrants as she is.
But they don't seem to be responding as she hoped. It must be baffling to her. "I DID THE IMMIGRANTS AND THEY ARE STILL SAYING NO?!"
May doesn't understand her leavers any more than she understands her remainers which is eff all.
Nothing except Section 10 (2) (b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
10 Continuation of North-South co-operation and the prevention of new border arrangements
(2) Nothing in section 8, 9 or 23(1) or (6) of this Act authorises regulations which —
(b) create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.
Apologies. It should have been obvious I was talking in terms of the legal position before May stupidly made it an issue last December.
Then if the RoI/EU want to prevent it they should agree a stellar free trade agreement with us. Otherwise, so be it. If they can't be arsed to give us what we need then the feeling is mutual.
They probably will agree a stellar free trade agreement. But that is not the point at issue. The point at issue is the WA. The WA is designed to give, ok let's think of a good word for it, shall we say "backstop", just in case there are bumps in the road towards that stellar free trade agreement. Because if there are any bumps or delays, there cannot in the interim be the danger that events will lead to a hard border in NI.
But the backstop is unacceptable and also not part of the status quo ante. The existing backstop is an immediate hard border as of 11pm 29th March. The status quo is there is a hard border in 4 months time. That's already the interim position today.
Or they can sign a deal with no backstop. They're no worse off than they are now and get 2 more years guarantee of no hard border.
I'm ok with either choice they make. I'm not ok with the backstop.
Huh? There is a two year transition period before anything changes?
Yes if they agree a deal it will postpone any risks of a hard border from 4 months from now until 25 months from now. That seems like a positive move to me for them but if they'd rather go immediately to the hard border in March so be it. That will be their choice.
They won't. We won't.
They won't agree a deal to avoid a hard border?
Ok I respect their decision. Disagree with it, but respect their right to make it.
You wish to portray it as being all about immigration because that suits your own personal bigotries. But it is far removed from reality. If it were not there would be much more support for May's Deal which does indeed (unfortunately) end free movement.
One of the reasons why May is struggling to convince, I think, is because she believes that her Tory colleagues are just as excited by being nasty about immigrants as she is.
But they don't seem to be responding as she hoped. It must be baffling to her. "I DID THE IMMIGRANTS AND THEY ARE STILL SAYING NO?!"
May doesn't understand her leavers any more than she understands her remainers which is eff all.
Then if the RoI/EU want to prevent it they should agree a stellar free trade agreement with us. Otherwise, so be it. If they can't be arsed to give us what we need then the feeling is mutual.
They probably will agree a stellar free trade agreement. But that is not the point at issue. The point at issue is the WA. The WA is designed to give, ok let's think of a good word for it, shall we say "backstop", just in case there are bumps in the road towards that stellar free trade agreement. Because if there are any bumps or delays, there cannot in the interim be the danger that events will lead to a hard border in NI.
But the backstop is unacceptable and also not part of the status quo ante. The existing backstop is an immediate hard border as of 11pm 29th March. The status quo is there is a hard border in 4 months time. That's already the interim position today.
Or they can sign a deal with no backstop. They're no worse off than they are now and get 2 more years guarantee of no hard border.
I'm ok with either choice they make. I'm not ok with the backstop.
Huh? There is a two year transition period before anything changes?
Yes if they agree a deal it will postpone any risks of a hard border from 4 months from now until 25 months from now. That seems like a positive move to me for them but if they'd rather go immediately to the hard border in March so be it. That will be their choice.
They won't. We won't.
They won't agree a deal to avoid a hard border?
Ok I respect their decision. Disagree with it, but respect their right to make it.
They just have agreed one. It's the UK parliament that has a problem with it.
Replacing May is pointless, there is no better Deal on offer from the EU
I'm beginning to think that, however many times you say this, nobody is going to believe you.
But you realise, of course, even if that were true, removing May now would still be beneficial anyway, because it would lance much of the poison that she has built up around the debate, and would end the failing upwards that has marked May's botched handling of the negotiations.
I could not care whether believers in fairy tales disagree, those are the facts. As Juncker has affirmed umpteen times it is this Deal or No Deal basta, finito.
Replacing May would achieve zilch, it is May and May alone who had finally got us a Deal and np alternative Tory leader polls any better than May.
As I said the only alternative to May's Deal is permanent Customs Union with PM Corbyn or No Deal with Boris. More likely the former after a general election if the DUP pull the plug with Boris taking over as leader of the opposition on a Brexit purity platform
For what it's worth, I don't think that Leave's greatest failure after the referendum was failing to take charge of the negotiations. I think Leave's greatest failure was not to attempt to address the concerns of many Remain voters and seek to forge a consensus. You can't blame Theresa May for that because all the worst culprits were all the most prominent Leavers.
What that means is that wherever Brexit goes from here, it will remain controversial and divide the nation for years to come.
May was the one who decided that ending Freedom of Movement was the be all and end all of Brexit. It was she who failed to forge a consensus. Indeed given that she was directing the whole process from the day she was elected, she was the only one who could forge that consensus.
And to be honest what sensible person would want to forge a consensus or reach out to you considering you spend all day ranting about racists and xenophobes like a stuck record.
You don't have to reach out to me if you don't want to. But writing off 48% of the population, as Leavers did, was nuts.
PS The way in which the Brexit negotiations have played out has rather justified my point. The referendum was fought on an anti-immigration prospectus and implemented accordingly. All Leavers' present difficulties stem from the pandering to xenophobia that so many of them enthusiastically fell in behind.
You have every right to disagree with the emphasis placed on ending FoM, but that isn’t the problem, is it? Staying in the EEA wouldn’t make the NI issue disappear.
Nothing except Section 10 (2) (b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
10 Continuation of North-South co-operation and the prevention of new border arrangements
(2) Nothing in section 8, 9 or 23(1) or (6) of this Act authorises regulations which —
(b) create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.
Apologies. It should have been obvious I was talking in terms of the legal position before May stupidly made it an issue last December.
Or that alternative reality where Brexit has been carried out as you wished.
You wish to portray it as being all about immigration because that suits your own personal bigotries. But it is far removed from reality. If it were not there would be much more support for May's Deal which does indeed (unfortunately) end free movement.
One of the reasons why May is struggling to convince, I think, is because she believes that her Tory colleagues are just as excited by being nasty about immigrants as she is.
But they don't seem to be responding as she hoped. It must be baffling to her. "I DID THE IMMIGRANTS AND THEY ARE STILL SAYING NO?!"
May doesn't understand her leavers any more than she understands her remainers which is eff all.
Leave would have lost without being nasty to immigrants, it was not fancy new trade Deals and becoming Europe's Singapore alone that got Leave over 50%
This is a noble sentiment, but I fear is at odds with reality.
It's true that we voted for Brexit, but we voted for a Brexit that would mean £350m a week for the NHS, and the easiest trade deal in history.
If we end up with Brexit that means we run out of clean water, your fellow citizens are not going to be relaxed about it. "Well, we have to take responsibility for and bear the consequences of our actions."
They are going to riot.
It is incumbent upon the Government to try and avoid that outcome
I'm obviously far from convinced the more apocalyptic scenarios represent any kind of reality - another Project Fear some might say.
Apart from rioting, the electorate might ask why the Government has made inadequate contingency provision for a No Deal? Again, being told there is no contingency is part of the Project Fear operation being perpetrated by May and her apologists. Local councils have been planning, the private sector has been planning so are we seriously to believe the Government has made no plans?
A large organisation I work with has had contingency plans for years, and is putting the necessary IT in place for no-deal before the March date with proper oversight. Yes it costs money but is a reasonable precaution, and all change costs money. Do they want to do it? No, Will they? Yes. No drama here.
I could not care whether believers in fairy tales disagree, those are the facts. As Juncker has affirmed umpteen times it is this Deal or No Deal basta, finito.
As much as I'd love to take the word of a corrupt alcoholic like Juncker at face value... I don't believe him.
Replacing May is pointless, there is no better Deal on offer from the EU
I'm beginning to think that, however many times you say this, nobody is going to believe you.
But you realise, of course, even if that were true, removing May now would still be beneficial anyway, because it would lance much of the poison that she has built up around the debate, and would end the failing upwards that has marked May's botched handling of the negotiations.
I could not care whether believers in fairy tales disagree, those are the facts. As Juncker has affirmed umpteen times it is this Deal or No Deal basta, finito.
Replacing May would achieve zilch, it is May and May alone who had finally got us a Deal and np alternative Tory leader polls any better than May.
As I said the only alternative to May's Deal is permanent Customs Union with PM Corbyn or No Deal with Boris. More likely the former after a general election if the DUP pull the plug with Boris taking over as leader of the opposition on a Brexit purity platform
Why should we believe Juncker?
Have you ever taken part in negotiations. Have you ever heard someone say "this is my final offer" only to get a better offer once you've rejected that so-called final offer?
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?
Nobody in the EU is proposing we join the Euro but even if we did if No Deal was the alternative we would still ultimately end up permanently in the single market and customs union even if not the full EU
Hardly anyone actually wants us to leave the single market. The fact that we're headed that way anyway is another testament to May's power to please none of the people, none of the time.
Rubbish. Most Leavers want to leave the single market as does the ERG as it requires free movement and EU regulations. Though most of the country still prefer EEA to No Deal
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?
Nobody in the EU is proposing we join the Euro but even if we did if No Deal was the alternative we would still ultimately end up permanently in the single market and customs union even if not the full EU
Hardly anyone actually wants us to leave the single market. The fact that we're headed that way anyway is another testament to May's power to please none of the people, none of the time.
Really? A whole industry has sprung up arguing that, despite their many utterances to the contrary, leaving the Single Market is precisely what Leave was advocating all along.
For what it's worth, I don't think that Leave's greatest failure after the referendum was failing to take charge of the negotiations. I think Leave's greatest failure was not to attempt to address the concerns of many Remain voters and seek to forge a consensus. You can't blame Theresa May for that because all the worst culprits were all the most prominent Leavers.
What that means is that wherever Brexit goes from here, it will remain controversial and divide the nation for years to come.
May was the one who decided that ending Freedom of Movement was the be all and end all of Brexit. It was she who failed to forge a consensus. Indeed given that she was directing the whole process from the day she was elected, she was the only one who could forge that consensus.
And to be honest what sensible person would want to forge a consensus or reach out to you considering you spend all day ranting about racists and xenophobes like a stuck record.
You don't have to reach out to me if you don't want to. But writing off 48% of the population, as Leavers did, was nuts.
PS The way in which the Brexit negotiations have played out has rather justified my point. The referendum was fought on an anti-immigration prospectus and implemented accordingly. All Leavers' present difficulties stem from the pandering to xenophobia that so many of them enthusiastically fell in behind.
Nope. You are as bad as May. The referendum was fought on a wide range of issues and the polling has shown that immigration was not even the most salient of them in the minds of Leave voters.
You wish to portray it as being all about immigration because that suits your own personal bigotries. But it is far removed from reality. If it were not there would be much more support for May's Deal which does indeed (unfortunately) end free movement.
So the pollsters that had immigration as the top issue are wrong? Can you post some links.
Taken on the day of the referendum. Immigration control was not the most important issue.
"Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.”
This is a noble sentiment, but I fear is at odds with reality.
It's true that we voted for Brexit, but we voted for a Brexit that would mean £350m a week for the NHS, and the easiest trade deal in history.
If we end up with Brexit that means we run out of clean water, your fellow citizens are not going to be relaxed about it. "Well, we have to take responsibility for and bear the consequences of our actions."
They are going to riot.
It is incumbent upon the Government to try and avoid that outcome
I'm obviously far from convinced the more apocalyptic scenarios represent any kind of reality - another Project Fear some might say.
Apart from rioting, the electorate might ask why the Government has made inadequate contingency provision for a No Deal? Again, being told there is no contingency is part of the Project Fear operation being perpetrated by May and her apologists. Local councils have been planning, the private sector has been planning so are we seriously to believe the Government has made no plans?
This was asked of our Senior Management Team.
We were apparently instructed not to make plans for No Deal within the Hospital sector. It would be a national concern that we could not mitigate.
So the DoH in charge. Well, when have they ever buggered anything up?
Replacing May is pointless, there is no better Deal on offer from the EU, as Juncker has made clear it is this Deal or No Deal.
If May goes the only viable alternative would be Boris on a No Deal ticket or Corbyn on a ticket of permanent Customs Union membership
Has Boris actually advocated No Deal? Surely even he wouldn't plunge us into that madness. I assume he'll initiate some sham negotiations with the EU again before presenting us with the Boris Deal, which will be all but indistinguishable from the current one.
Boris wants Canada Plus he can only get that for GB according to Barnier unless he prepares to abandon Northern Ireland he will have to.back No Deal as the EU are not offering anything else
Nope. Remain has led this country ever since the referendum.
Yes, I admit it, we engineered Gove, Boris and Leadsome's ineptitude in the leadership election. Mwahahaha.
And May's I assume.
You can see a pretty straight line from the attempts to understand the reasons for Leave, through Mansion House, to Chequers, to the deal we now have. She threw in a Remainers understanding of what avoiding economic self-harm meant, given that Leavers for the most part also felt they were avoiding that. She has attempted and has mostly delivered a highly complicated version of Brexit., that assessed the reasons and thus eschewed simpler off the shelf models. The tangle she accrued on the journey is what is dragging her down.
It was a rigid and quite technical paint by numbers understanding that drove her, not a big vision thing, but I do not equate all that to uselessness. It has served her a bit better over a 2 year timescale of grind than it did in the spontaneous sprint of an unplanned election campaign.
FoM may not have been on your agenda, I recall you were an EEAer all along, but it had to be seriously addressed in any meaningful delivery of Brexit.
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?
Nobody in the EU is proposing we join the Euro but even if we did if No Deal was the alternative we would still ultimately end up permanently in the single market and customs union even if not the full EU
Hardly anyone actually wants us to leave the single market. The fact that we're headed that way anyway is another testament to May's power to please none of the people, none of the time.
Rubbish. Most Leavers want to leave the single market as does the ERG as it requires free movement and EU regulations. Though most of the country still prefer EEA to No Deal
Are you doing that thing where you confuse the thoughts inside your head with reality again?
About 70%+ of people want to stay in the single market.
@david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
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 it's more likely to pass with that option than without it.
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 ill 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.
The problem with this is that a significant number of people don't believe what you're saying. 30% in fact.
They think no deal won't be as bad as everyone says because they heard similar scare stories about not joining the Euro, the ERM or the vote to leave itself. Or even if they do then they think it is worth it in the long run to be free. So they want to take the chance.
You can't discount their views just because you disagree with them.
30% may back No Deal as first choice, 70% don't, that is the key point.
Even head to head with Remain 55% oppose No Deal which is the same total as defeated the Scottish independence vote in 2014
A majority is opposed to any of the three options. So I guess by your logic we're going to have a referendum with no options on it whatsoever.
Nothing except Section 10 (2) (b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
10 Continuation of North-South co-operation and the prevention of new border arrangements
(2) Nothing in section 8, 9 or 23(1) or (6) of this Act authorises regulations which —
(b) create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.
Apologies. It should have been obvious I was talking in terms of the legal position before May stupidly made it an issue last December.
Or that alternative reality where Brexit has been carried out as you wished.
Given that my particular Brexit was never the most popular that was never going to be an issue. As I said before, unlike most Remainers it seems, I understand the benefit and importance of compromise.
This time I think the market will be proved right as it moves further to thinking she'll be gone this year. If her deal were defeated moderately I could easily envisage her staying on, but this is going to up there in the all time massive, humiliating defeats, there's simply no way she stays on, particularly if a vote of no confidence is not held until after her defeat. It won't matter a jot if she is proven right that the EU won't renegotiate, so many MPs think otherwise and are consigning her deal to the most thumping defeat that is imaginable. You cannot come back from that.
Again, being told there is no contingency is part of the Project Fear operation being perpetrated by May and her apologists.
It's Michael Gove that said it.
When did he become a May apologist?
Maybe the same time he started listening to experts perhaps?
I must say dear stodge has become uncharacteristically lazy in declaring anything slightly positive or even neutral opinion on May's position as being done by an apologist, even when done by those with plenty a critical word about how May has handled all of this. Curious.
Replacing May is pointless, there is no better Deal on offer from the EU, as Juncker has made clear it is this Deal or No Deal.
If May goes the only viable alternative would be Boris on a No Deal ticket or Corbyn on a ticket of permanent Customs Union membership
Has Boris actually advocated No Deal? Surely even he wouldn't plunge us into that madness. I assume he'll initiate some sham negotiations with the EU again before presenting us with the Boris Deal, which will be all but indistinguishable from the current one.
Boris wants Canada Plus he can only get that for GB according to Barnier unless he prepares to abandon Northern Ireland he will have to.back No Deal as the EU are not offering anything else
Are you part of some mystical faith with Barnier as some sort of spokesman from God?
Barnier says we can only get that from GB. We tell Barnier to go jump. We then talk.
It's remarkable how people who say Brexit wouldn't have happened if Cameron had got concessions on free movement also say May was stupid for aiming for a Brexit that restricted free movement.
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?
Nobody in the EU is proposing we join the Euro but even if we did if No Deal was the alternative we would still ultimately end up permanently in the single market and customs union even if not the full EU
Hardly anyone actually wants us to leave the single market. The fact that we're headed that way anyway is another testament to May's power to please none of the people, none of the time.
Rubbish. Most Leavers want to leave the single market as does the ERG as it requires free movement and EU regulations. Though most of the country still prefer EEA to No Deal
Are you doing that thing where you confuse the thoughts inside your head with reality again?
About 70%+ of people want to stay in the single market.
So that still leaves 30% backing leaving the single market ie a majority of the 52% and of Leavers ( though I suspect it is higher than 30%).
It really is a pathetic sight Leavers washing their hands of the anti immigration rhetoric which was key to winning the referendum and pretending to be purer than pure
TBF if we had any doubts what letting a raging xenophobe with a long history of unpleasant anti-immigrant aggression put together a Brexit deal would look like, we know now.
Everything must get sacrificed on the altar of May's hatred of immigrants.
TBF if we had any doubts what letting a raging xenophobe with a long history of unpleasant anti-immigrant aggression put together a Brexit deal would look like, we know now.
Everything must get sacrificed on the altar of May's hatred of immigrants.
TBF if we had any doubts what letting a raging xenophobe with a long history of unpleasant anti-immigrant aggression put together a Brexit deal would look like, we know now.
Everything must get sacrificed on the altar of May's hatred of immigrants.
Replacing May is pointless, there is no better Deal on offer from the EU, as Juncker has made clear it is this Deal or No Deal.
If May goes the only viable alternative would be Boris on a No Deal ticket or Corbyn on a ticket of permanent Customs Union membership
Has Boris actually advocated No Deal? Surely even he wouldn't plunge us into that madness. I assume he'll initiate some sham negotiations with the EU again before presenting us with the Boris Deal, which will be all but indistinguishable from the current one.
Boris wants Canada Plus he can only get that for GB according to Barnier unless he prepares to abandon Northern Ireland he will have to.back No Deal as the EU are not offering anything else
Are you part of some mystical faith with Barnier as some sort of spokesman from God?
Barnier says we can only get that from GB. We tell Barnier to go jump. We then talk.
Barnier then says so off.
No Deal screws you more thsn us, bye bye. You are 16% of our exports we are 44% of yours.
As Juncker has said it is this Deal or No Deal. End of conversation
TBF if we had any doubts what letting a raging xenophobe with a long history of unpleasant anti-immigrant aggression put together a Brexit deal would look like, we know now.
Everything must get sacrificed on the altar of May's hatred of immigrants.
Including, mercifully, May herself.
May is a raging xenophobe now?
What do you mean "now"?
I'm just not sure I see the connection between being tough on illegal immigrants on being a "raging xenophobe".
Replacing May is pointless, there is no better Deal on offer from the EU, as Juncker has made clear it is this Deal or No Deal.
If May goes the only viable alternative would be Boris on a No Deal ticket or Corbyn on a ticket of permanent Customs Union membership
Has Boris actually advocated No Deal? Surely even he wouldn't plunge us into that madness. I assume he'll initiate some sham negotiations with the EU again before presenting us with the Boris Deal, which will be all but indistinguishable from the current one.
Boris wants Canada Plus he can only get that for GB according to Barnier unless he prepares to abandon Northern Ireland he will have to.back No Deal as the EU are not offering anything else
Are you part of some mystical faith with Barnier as some sort of spokesman from God?
Barnier says we can only get that from GB. We tell Barnier to go jump. We then talk.
Barnier then says so off.
No Deal screws you more thsn us, bye bye. You are 16% of our exports we are 44% of yours.
As Juncker has said it is this Deal or No Deal. End of conversation
We are 45% of Irish agricultural exports and 80% of their overall goods exports either go to the UK or over the UK land bridge.
2 years ago we decided to have our grocery order delivered weekly and as a consequence we cancelled our 50 years of the daily delivery of our pint of milk.
12 months ago we moved to Daily Mail on line, which is of course is an exact copy of the paper, available at 11.00 pm nightly and cancelled our daily delivery of over 50 years
We have just completed the purchase of the family xmas presents entirely on line and all delivered to our home, most of which with free delivery. We did not look in any shops at all.
We have decided in some cases to give cash rather than store vouchers involving a trip to an atm
We did go into the local children charity shop to buy our bi-lingual cards and of course to the post office, but only for stamps.
Not a good look for the high street but to be honest to us pair of oldies it is just so easy
I have some sympathy, being well past 3 score and 10. We (Mrs Cole!) still grocery shop, since she still hankers after going along the rows, finding something different, maybe a bargain. I'm the same at the local off-licence. We do buy parcels, but I use one which has samples for tasting!
We still buy papers once a week, but largely because of the exercise involved in walking for a total of 20 minutes to buy them. Not the DM, you'll not be surprised to learn!
There's something deep in Mrs Cole's psyche which impels her to hunt along the stalls at Christmas Fairs.
I can understand Mrs Cole's psyche and while xmas fairs where you pay £4.50 each (here in Llandudno) is not really exciting if you put the word 'sale' in front of my good lady wife's Scots instinct for a bargain kicks in !!!!!
Nope. Remain has led this country ever since the referendum.
Yes, I admit it, we engineered Gove, Boris and Leadsome's ineptitude in the leadership election. Mwahahaha.
And May's I assume.
You can see a pretty straight line from the attempts to understand the reasons for Leave, through Mansion House, to Chequers, to the deal we now have. She threw in a Remainers understanding of what avoiding economic self-harm meant, given that Leavers for the most part also felt they were avoiding that. She has attempted and has mostly delivered a highly complicated version of Brexit., that assessed the reasons and thus eschewed simpler off the shelf models. The tangle she accrued on the journey is what is dragging her down.
It was a rigid and quite technical paint by numbers understanding that drove her, not a big vision thing, but I do not equate all that to uselessness. It has served her a bit better over a 2 year timescale of grind than it did in the spontaneous sprint of an unplanned election campaign.
FoM may not have been on your agenda, I recall you were an EEAer all along, but it had to be seriously addressed in any meaningful delivery of Brexit.
I would argue it did not. Indeed I have argued that in an article on here straight after the referendum. As the more sensible people on both sides have said many times before the result could not and should not mean that 'winner takes all'.*
May could have and certainly should have negotiated a deal for as many people inn the country as possible. Alastair (dare I say it) is right in that there need to be a reaching out to the Remain camp. Where he is wrong in ascribing that failure to those who voted leave. Once they had done their bit they had almost no power to affect what form Leave would take. It was May who had complete control over that - or rather had control over what our negotiating position should be. There was absolutely no requirement for her to go for a complete end to FoM and to sacrifice so much else on that altar. She did so because she lacks any understanding of what drove the Leave vote - or what Remain voters would find acceptable as well.
*Of course it should also not mean 'winner gets nothing' which is what the 2nd referendum people are trying to enact.
TBF if we had any doubts what letting a raging xenophobe with a long history of unpleasant anti-immigrant aggression put together a Brexit deal would look like, we know now.
Everything must get sacrificed on the altar of May's hatred of immigrants.
Including, mercifully, May herself.
May is a raging xenophobe now?
What do you mean "now"?
I'm just not sure I see the connection between being tough on illegal immigrants on being a "raging xenophobe".
It's not just illegal immigrants she hates, is it? She hates legal immigrants too. EU citizens who come here to work. People who have lived and worked and contributed and raised families and have grandkids.
Remember that time as Home Sec when she proposed to force companies to "disclose" how many non-British workers they employed and a UKIP spokesman condemned her for being "too extreme"?
Remember that time Theresa May lied repeatedly about how a person couldn't be deported because they owned a cat?
Remember when in December 2016, the BBC reported that May wanted the children of immigrants to go to the bottom of the list for school places?
Mrs May was the only cabinet minister who insisted on blocking efforts to reassure EU citizens that they would be allowed to remain in the UK in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote.
And let's not forget the Windrush scandal that Theresa May oversaw. Doesn't matter if you're an immigrant who has lived here for three generations, as far as May is concerned you're an immigrant and therefore disposable scum.
Theresa May is a massive, massive xenophobe and an all-round nasty piece of work.
And once more for good luck:
I am DELIGHTED to see her suffer. I'm just sad that it'll be all over soon and we won't get to watch her suffer a great deal more.
Replacing May is pointless, there is no better Deal on offer from the EU
I'm beginning to think that, however many times you say this, nobody is going to believe you.
But you realise, of course, even if that were true, removing May now would still be beneficial anyway, because it would lance much of the poison that she has built up around the debate, and would end the failing upwards that has marked May's botched handling of the negotiations.
Anyone else think that the BBC and Sky are trolling Theresa May? The lead photos on their news apps and websites almost always seem to catch her with slightly awkward facial expressions at the moment.
This is a noble sentiment, but I fear is at odds with reality.
It's true that we voted for Brexit, but we voted for a Brexit that would mean £350m a week for the NHS, and the easiest trade deal in history.
If we end up with Brexit that means we run out of clean water, your fellow citizens are not going to be relaxed about it. "Well, we have to take responsibility for and bear the consequences of our actions."
They are going to riot.
It is incumbent upon the Government to try and avoid that outcome
I'm obviously far from convinced the more apocalyptic scenarios represent any kind of reality - another Project Fear some might say.
Apart from rioting, the electorate might ask why the Government has made inadequate contingency provision for a No Deal? Again, being told there is no contingency is part of the Project Fear operation being perpetrated by May and her apologists. Local councils have been planning, the private sector has been planning so are we seriously to believe the Government has made no plans?
This was asked of our Senior Management Team.
We were apparently instructed not to make plans for No Deal within the Hospital sector. It would be a national concern that we could not mitigate.
So the DoH in charge. Well, when have they ever buggered anything up?
Can anyone think of a case of an election or referendum called by somebody in anticipation of a particular result that didn't end up with the voters punishing the caller by going the other way? Is this a general rule. If so, if there is another referendum it might matter crucially who is seen to have contrived its calling. If the ERG trigger it, we'll stay. If the leavers have their fingers on it, then we'll vote out again.
It's only a theory - but I don't think we can trust polls.
TBF if we had any doubts what letting a raging xenophobe with a long history of unpleasant anti-immigrant aggression put together a Brexit deal would look like, we know now.
Everything must get sacrificed on the altar of May's hatred of immigrants.
Including, mercifully, May herself.
May is a raging xenophobe now?
What do you mean "now"?
I'm just not sure I see the connection between being tough on illegal immigrants on being a "raging xenophobe".
It's not just illegal immigrants she hates, is it? She hates legal immigrants too. EU citizens who come here to work. People who have lived and worked and contributed and raised families and have grandkids.
Remember that time as Home Sec when she proposed to force companies to "disclose" how many non-British workers they employed and a UKIP spokesman condemned her for being "too extreme"?
Remember that time Theresa May lied repeatedly about how a person couldn't be deported because they owned a cat?
Remember when in December 2016, the BBC reported that May wanted the children of immigrants to go to the bottom of the list for school places?
Mrs May was the only cabinet minister who insisted on blocking efforts to reassure EU citizens that they would be allowed to remain in the UK in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote.
And let's not forget the Windrush scandal that Theresa May oversaw. Doesn't matter if you're an immigrant who has lived here for three generations, as far as May is concerned you're an immigrant and therefore disposable scum.
Theresa May is a massive, massive xenophobe and an all-round nasty piece of work.
And once more for good luck:
I am DELIGHTED to see her suffer. I'm just sad that it'll be all over soon and we won't get to watch her suffer a great deal more.
The deeper concern is, put simply, what failing to leave would mean for our democracy. Yes, leaving the EU could be a mistake, a big serious tragic mistake but it's the will of the people and the people have a right to be wrong and an equal right to take responsibility for and bear the consequences of their actions.
This is a noble sentiment, but I fear is at odds with reality.
It's true that we voted for Brexit, but we voted for a Brexit that would mean £350m a week for the NHS, and the easiest trade deal in history.
If we end up with Brexit that means we run out of clean water, your fellow citizens are not going to be relaxed about it. "Well, we have to take responsibility for and bear the consequences of our actions."
They are going to riot.
It is incumbent upon the Government to try and avoid that outcome
Come on Scott - you are very good at cut and paste
Can you post all of your doomsday posts from the last 3 years in one place so we can all laugh at you - I mean them.
Comments
The only thing in question is the size of the defeat in parliament.
1) Is it wiser to allow something untoward to occur and then try and patch it up as best you can?
or ...
2) Is it wiser to stop a course of action leading to problems before it happens?
Most people would say (2). Given the choice of (say) losing a leg to gangrene and then hammering on a peg-leg, most people would prefer penicillan and to keep the original leg.
This "It is the unchangable will of the people no matter how damaging it is" stuff is, frankly, nonsense. All democracy entails is asking.
Asking if the previous decision still stands is still a democratic thing to do. Asking before it is a disaster is a sensible thing to do.
And I am not using the fear of a return to the troubles as a means of pushing my personal agenda unless that personal agenda is a disinclination to have widespread sectarian and inter-communal violence on an enormous scale within the UK. If so, then yes, that is my personal agenda.
But that is irrelevant. Because it turns out that not only does it happen to be my personal agenda, but it is also the position of the UK government. As we have seen with the WA. I mean I've no idea whether the Troubles reached Ancaster but everywhere they did reach they were horrific and loathed and their disappearance a source of joy and happiness and the fact that the UK government has shown it is adamant that they can't return is in my mind a tick in the thank god column.
It's true that we voted for Brexit, but we voted for a Brexit that would mean £350m a week for the NHS, and the easiest trade deal in history.
If we end up with Brexit that means we run out of clean water, your fellow citizens are not going to be relaxed about it. "Well, we have to take responsibility for and bear the consequences of our actions."
They are going to riot.
It is incumbent upon the Government to try and avoid that outcome
Tezza's red lines were not written by a Remainer.
If May goes the only viable alternative would be Boris on a No Deal ticket or Corbyn on a ticket of permanent Customs Union membership
That phrase has appalling historical echoes, as anyone who has studied the 1930s could tell us.
Even head to head with Remain 55% oppose No Deal which is the same total as defeated the Scottish independence vote in 2014
And to be honest what sensible person would want to forge a consensus or reach out to you considering you spend all day ranting about racists and xenophobes like a stuck record.
But you realise, of course, even if that were true, removing May now would still be beneficial anyway, because it would lance much of the poison that she has built up around the debate, and would end the failing upwards that has marked May's botched handling of the negotiations.
10 Continuation of North-South co-operation and the prevention of new border arrangements
(2) Nothing in section 8, 9 or 23(1) or (6) of this Act authorises regulations which —
(b) create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.
PS The way in which the Brexit negotiations have played out has rather justified my point. The referendum was fought on an anti-immigration prospectus and implemented accordingly. All Leavers' present difficulties stem from the pandering to xenophobia that so many of them enthusiastically fell in behind.
https://twitter.com/vote_leave/status/738820603931688960
Ian Paisley Junior would make a pig puke
You wish to portray it as being all about immigration because that suits your own personal bigotries. But it is far removed from reality. If it were not there would be much more support for May's Deal which does indeed (unfortunately) end free movement.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/22/go-home-billboards-pulled
https://twitter.com/Daniel_Sugarman/status/1067467219670654977
Apart from rioting, the electorate might ask why the Government has made inadequate contingency provision for a No Deal? Again, being told there is no contingency is part of the Project Fear operation being perpetrated by May and her apologists. Local councils have been planning, the private sector has been planning so are we seriously to believe the Government has made no plans?
But they don't seem to be responding as she hoped. It must be baffling to her. "I DID THE IMMIGRANTS AND THEY ARE STILL SAYING NO?!"
May doesn't understand her leavers any more than she understands her remainers which is eff all.
Ok I respect their decision. Disagree with it, but respect their right to make it.
Replacing May would achieve zilch, it is May and May alone who had finally got us a Deal and np alternative Tory leader polls any better than May.
As I said the only alternative to May's Deal is permanent Customs Union with PM Corbyn or No Deal with Boris. More likely the former after a general election if the DUP pull the plug with Boris taking over as leader of the opposition on a Brexit purity platform
We will also stand ready to resume talks and open up the land bridge 80% of their good exports use as soon as they want to talk as equals.
Perhaps more importantly, neither do 75% of MPs.
Have you ever taken part in negotiations. Have you ever heard someone say "this is my final offer" only to get a better offer once you've rejected that so-called final offer?
When did he become a May apologist?
Maybe the same time he started listening to experts perhaps?
https://www.kingdomcomment.com/blog/anatomy-of-a-smear-dan-hannan
https://medium.com/@jamesforward/a-rebuttal-to-open-britain-vote-leave-never-promised-to-remain-in-the-single-market-85a0778c75a9
https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2016/09/daniel-hannan-repeat-after-me-single-market-membership-and-single-market-access-are-not-the-same-thing.html
Taken on the day of the referendum. Immigration control was not the most important issue.
"Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.”
We were apparently instructed not to make plans for No Deal within the Hospital sector. It would be a national concern that we could not mitigate.
So the DoH in charge. Well, when have they ever buggered anything up?
It was a rigid and quite technical paint by numbers understanding that drove her, not a big vision thing, but I do not equate all that to uselessness. It has served her a bit better over a 2 year timescale of grind than it did in the spontaneous sprint of an unplanned election campaign.
FoM may not have been on your agenda, I recall you were an EEAer all along, but it had to be seriously addressed in any meaningful delivery of Brexit.
About 70%+ of people want to stay in the single market.
Barnier says we can only get that from GB. We tell Barnier to go jump. We then talk.
It really is a pathetic sight Leavers washing their hands of the anti immigration rhetoric which was key to winning the referendum and pretending to be purer than pure
Everything must get sacrificed on the altar of May's hatred of immigrants.
Including, mercifully, May herself.
No Deal screws you more thsn us, bye bye. You are 16% of our exports we are 44% of yours.
As Juncker has said it is this Deal or No Deal. End of conversation
So yeah I call bluff.
May could have and certainly should have negotiated a deal for as many people inn the country as possible. Alastair (dare I say it) is right in that there need to be a reaching out to the Remain camp. Where he is wrong in ascribing that failure to those who voted leave. Once they had done their bit they had almost no power to affect what form Leave would take. It was May who had complete control over that - or rather had control over what our negotiating position should be. There was absolutely no requirement for her to go for a complete end to FoM and to sacrifice so much else on that altar. She did so because she lacks any understanding of what drove the Leave vote - or what Remain voters would find acceptable as well.
*Of course it should also not mean 'winner gets nothing' which is what the 2nd referendum people are trying to enact.
She hates legal immigrants too.
EU citizens who come here to work.
People who have lived and worked and contributed and raised families and have grandkids.
Remember that time as Home Sec when she proposed to force companies to "disclose" how many non-British workers they employed and a UKIP spokesman condemned her for being "too extreme"?
Remember that time Theresa May lied repeatedly about how a person couldn't be deported because they owned a cat?
Remember when in December 2016, the BBC reported that May wanted the children of immigrants to go to the bottom of the list for school places?
Mrs May was the only cabinet minister who insisted on blocking efforts to reassure EU citizens that they would be allowed to remain in the UK in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote.
And let's not forget the Windrush scandal that Theresa May oversaw. Doesn't matter if you're an immigrant who has lived here for three generations, as far as May is concerned you're an immigrant and therefore disposable scum.
Theresa May is a massive, massive xenophobe and an all-round nasty piece of work.
And once more for good luck:
I am DELIGHTED to see her suffer. I'm just sad that it'll be all over soon and we won't get to watch her suffer a great deal more.
What I failed to say before was:
I think we're heading towards a No Deal / Remain referendum, which will end up poisoning politics in this country for a generation.
A) Jeremy Corbyn
B ) Amber Rudd
It's only a theory - but I don't think we can trust polls.
Can you post all of your doomsday posts from the last 3 years in one place so we can all laugh at you - I mean them.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6434709/Fury-cyclist-thug-18-pulled-zombie-knife-AVOIDS-jail.html
No deal is better than a bad deal.
Is this sentence ambiguous? Discuss.
The moronic short-sighted stupidity of the ERG beggars belief. The useful idiots of Remain.