If T May had had a majority of say 100 after the election , would there have been enough Tories who were not Brexit loons (and consequently fewer Labour MP's) to see the deal thro?
I think that depends on who the 100 extra MPs were. The indications at the time was that they would have included a fair few wild eyed Brexiteers.
But she wouldn’t have needed the DUP. The cynic in me thinks that means there wouldn’t have been any suggestion of a Northern Irish back-stop so the whole thing would have been much easier to negotiate...
It's pretty hard to argue against the proposition that life is always harder if you have to deal with the DUP but they are not the party who was demanding a backstop. That was the EU on behalf of Eire. We should have told them to get lost of course.
And do what instead? The only option would have been No Deal, which any sensible person knows isn’t an option.
We are leaving the EU as the UK. That means that we will have a land border with the EU in NI as well as sea borders in Calais/Dover and the channel tunnel etc. There is absolutely no reason why one of these borders should be treated any differently from the others and May should never have accepted that it should be. But that mistake was made a year ago and is past praying for at the moment. All we can hope is that our ultimate trade deal with the EU makes it irrelevant.
The history of NI is every reason why the border in Ireland needs to be treated differently than the others.
Humphries on R4 finally clarifying that the BoE “forecasts” aren’t actually “forecasts” but “scenarios” for stress testing the banks - Carney “it’s not a forecast but what could go wrong if everything went wrong in a worst case scenario- not “the most likely scenario”. So if the banks are ready for the “worst case scenario” banks will be prepared for whatever happens.
I thought we did this a month ago. I can't believe that we are going through this again. Do remainers really want to have as little credibility as the ERG? How can they expect to have their concerns taken seriously if they persist with this dishonesty?
What dishonesty? The BoE clearly said they were scenarios, not forecasts. If right wing newspapers deliberately conflate the two and then claim its “Project Hysteria” that’s not the Bank’s fault.
I agree with the general points that Alastair is making, but it's a bit defeatist. A way forward will be found, let's make it the least bad.
FWIW my impression is that if we ask to withdraw A50 we will be allowed back on the same terms. This is the default position until we withdraw - they would need to make an actively hostile move to take the rebate away. I follow politics on the Continent closely and I'm convinced that they'll see a change of mind as so important (not least as it will conclusively establish the precedent that leaving is a crap idea) that their interest in setting up hurdles will be zero. It would be possible before any referendum to get agreement to that.
But we can't do it without some form of popular consent without really deep disillusion. That's why - and I know it's hard to separate from my usual Labour loyalism - McDonnell's 3-step process makes sense. First we need to reject the May deal, which would lock us semi-permanently into an associate status that nearly everyone dislikes. Second we need to deal with the question of whether an election is needed. I expect the Commons to vote "no" to that. Then we need a referendum that offers the only two realistic oiptions - proposing to remain and deciding to leave with a minimal No Deal. The latest poll shows a 10-point Remain lead on that basis and in the light of what's happened I suspect it would grow, but if people vote for hard Brexit, so be it - they're now quite well-informed.
On the general issue of referendums, I agree that they should only be offered if the Government sees both alternatives as defensible. Giving people a choice between placebo and poison on the assumption that they'll prefer the placebo is reckless.
The McDonnell plan does seem like the only sane and viable option at the moment.
What 'plan' ?
He's just talking about what he wishes (particularly from a political viewpoint). Sadly, that's what too many people are doing at the moment. This is what *I* want. And if I really, really screw my eyes up and cross my finger, it'll happen!
It's childish wish-listing without any idea of how to make their wishes come true. To give credit to Cameron, he did the hard work and got a renegotiation. And the same for May - she's done the legwork.
Everybody else just seems to have unicorn fart based dreams.
Indeed. As the EU have said it is this Deal or No Deal, they are not going to renegotiate but if this Deal fails simply prepare for No Deal.
In that case it is in Parliament's court, either we face 'the worst recession since the 1930s' as the Times in a No Deal scenario and potential economic apocalypse followed likely by a Corbyn premiership which combined could take decades to recover from or they will have to face, either by voting through May's Deal or by making further concessions to the EU, whether permanent Customs Union as Corbyn wants and/or permanent Single Market. EUref2 as Alistair Meeks states would be more complicated if conditions were attached to a Remain vote and return to the EU and ahould be seen as a last resort but probably still better than No Deal
What I find hard to believe about what Carney said yesterday isn't so much the scenarios, but what the Bank says it will do should they come to pass. He said that they'd put up interest rates to something like 5.5% to help keep inflation in check following a devaluation of the currency. I'm sorry, but I just don't believe they'd do that - just look what happened in 2016: Leave won, the pound fell and the Bank cut interest rates. I wouldn't be surprised if printed money to help prop up the housing market.
He didn’t. As the BoE documents explains and Carney just explained on R4, these are scenarios for everything going wrong simultaneously. In the event of a hard Brexit the bank has to balance supporting the economy with its inflation target - but the chances are the bank would cut rates and pump more money into the economy to seek to minimise any downturn.
I agree with the general points that Alastair is making, but it's a bit defeatist. A way forward will be found, let's make it the least bad.
FWIW my impression is that if we ask to withdraw A50 we will be allowed back on the same terms. This is the default position until we withdraw - they would need to make an actively hostile move to take the rebate away. I follow politics on the Continent closely and I'm convinced that they'll see a change of mind as so important (not least as it will conclusively establish the precedent that leaving is a crap idea) that their interest in setting up hurdles will be zero. It would be possible before any referendum to get agreement to that.
But we can't do it without some form of popular consent without really deep disillusion. That's why - and I know it's hard to separate from my usual Labour loyalism - McDonnell's 3-step process makes sense. First we need to reject the May deal, which would lock us semi-permanently into an associate status that nearly everyone dislikes. Second we need to deal with the question of whether an election is needed. I expect the Commons to vote "no" to that. Then we need a referendum that offers the only two realistic oiptions - proposing to remain and deciding to leave with a minimal No Deal. The latest poll shows a 10-point Remain lead on that basis and in the light of what's happened I suspect it would grow, but if people vote for hard Brexit, so be it - they're now quite well-informed.
On the general issue of referendums, I agree that they should only be offered if the Government sees both alternatives as defensible. Giving people a choice between placebo and poison on the assumption that they'll prefer the placebo is reckless.
Your third and fourth paragraphs sit unhappily adjacent.
If T May had had a majority of say 100 after the election , would there have been enough Tories who were not Brexit loons (and consequently fewer Labour MP's) to see the deal thro?
I think so, it's why she went for it - a reasonable majority was probably necessary for a relatively smooth passage.
If T May had had a majority of say 100 after the election , would there have been enough Tories who were not Brexit loons (and consequently fewer Labour MP's) to see the deal thro?
I think so, it's why she went for it - a reasonable majority was probably necessary for a relatively smooth passage.
Well, if TMay had won a 100 seat majority last June then there wouldn’t have been a meaningful vote in Parliament to approve the deal in the first place.
I agree with the general points that Alastair is making, but it's a bit defeatist. A way forward will be found, let's make it the least bad.
FWIW my impression is that if we ask to withdraw A50 we will be allowed back on the same terms. This is the default position until we withdraw - they would need to make an actively hostile move to take the rebate away. I follow politics on the Continent closely and I'm convinced that they'll see a change of mind as so important (not least as it will conclusively establish the precedent that leaving is a crap idea) that their interest in setting up hurdles will be zero. It would be possible before any referendum to get agreement to that.
But we can't do it without some form of popular consent without really deep disillusion. That's why - and I know it's hard to separate from my usual Labour loyalism - McDonnell's 3-step process makes sense. First we need to reject the May deal, which would lock us semi-permanently into an associate status that nearly everyone dislikes. Second we need to deal with the question of whether an election is needed. I expect the Commons to vote "no" to that. Then we need a referendum that offers the only two realistic oiptions - proposing to remain and deciding to leave with a minimal No Deal. The latest poll shows a 10-point Remain lead on that basis and in the light of what's happened I suspect it would grow, but if people vote for hard Brexit, so be it - they're now quite well-informed.
On the general issue of referendums, I agree that they should only be offered if the Government sees both alternatives as defensible. Giving people a choice between placebo and poison on the assumption that they'll prefer the placebo is reckless.
The McDonnell plan does seem like the only sane and viable option at the moment.
What 'plan' ?
He's just talking about what he wishes (particularly from a political viewpoint). Sadly, that's what too many people are doing at the moment. This is what *I* want. And if I really, really screw my eyes up and cross my finger, it'll happen!
Well indeed. It's fine to oppose the deal, a lot of people have strong reasons too, but given it's not all in our control so many alternatives rely on the kind of belief you mention.
We'll have to hope one of them is right otherwise we're in real trouble. More than now.
What I find hard to believe about what Carney said yesterday isn't so much the scenarios, but what the Bank says it will do should they come to pass. He said that they'd put up interest rates to something like 5.5% to help keep inflation in check following a devaluation of the currency. I'm sorry, but I just don't believe they'd do that - just look what happened in 2016: Leave won, the pound fell and the Bank cut interest rates. I wouldn't be surprised if printed money to help prop up the housing market.
Indeed. But just like with the punishment budget how our authorities act in practice is very different from the scenarios being pushed by those wanting to remain.
What Carney is doing in that case is saying suppose interest rates had to go up to 5.5% and this caused a certain level of default amongst mortgage and business borrowers would the banks remain financially secure? The answer is yes but the important thing is that he is not saying that would happen, just that our banks are that strong.
The level of willful ignorance about this shown, for example, by that absurd front page of the Indy is indicative of the quality of our discourse on this subject which is a war of hysteria and hyperbole from both sides.
If T May had had a majority of say 100 after the election , would there have been enough Tories who were not Brexit loons (and consequently fewer Labour MP's) to see the deal thro?
I think that depends on who the 100 extra MPs were. The indications at the time was that they would have included a fair few wild eyed Brexiteers.
But she wouldn’t have needed the DUP. The cynic in me thinks that means there wouldn’t have been any suggestion of a Northern Irish back-stop so the whole thing would have been much easier to negotiate...
It's pretty hard to argue against the proposition that life is always harder if you have to deal with the DUP but they are not the party who was demanding a backstop. That was the EU on behalf of Eire. We should have told them to get lost of course.
And do what instead? The only option would have been No Deal, which any sensible person knows isn’t an option.
We are leaving the EU as the UK. That means that we will have a land border with the EU in NI as well as sea borders in Calais/Dover and the channel tunnel etc. There is absolutely no reason why one of these borders should be treated any differently from the others and May should never have accepted that it should be. But that mistake was made a year ago and is past praying for at the moment. All we can hope is that our ultimate trade deal with the EU makes it irrelevant.
The history of NI is every reason why the border in Ireland needs to be treated differently than the others.
It's a false hope that shows no understanding of how much people loathe the EU for a wide variety of reasons, but it's proving even more poisonous than the campaign itself.
Except some of the people who voted Leave don't hate the EU, they hate other things they blame the EU for (right or wrong)
Without the EU to blame, that venom will be directed internally on UK politicians.
A Brexit that doesn't deliver for Hartlepool, Great Yarmouth and Port Talbot seems on the cards. Instead it looks like another lost decade of austerity for them. I struggle to find much sympathy.
May's Brexit ends free movement but keeps us in the Customs Union as the backstop, it is the likes of Hannah who hate it less so Hartelppol and Great Yarmouth, hence May's still high poll rating
Every time I hear a northern Irish politician on the media, I find myself wondering why we want to keep it.
The dear place loves to test us.
More seriously I sometimes wonder if anybody there really wants to remain in The UK. Loyalists usually seem pretty darn angry at the government too frankly.
Sounds British to me.
If they complain about the weather and queue properly as well they should probably qualify for a passport...
Reuters reporting a deal on transatlantic air travel which maintains existing open skies arrangements for the UK. That's a big win for the government and reduces the chances of travel disruption after brexit by a significant degree.
I agree with the general points that Alastair is making, but it's a bit defeatist. A way forward will be found, let's make it the least bad.
FWIW my impression is that if we ask to withdraw A50 we will be allowed back on the same terms. This is the default position until we withdraw - they would need to make an actively hostile move to take the rebate away. I follow politics on the Continent closely and I'm convinced that they'll see a change of mind as so important (not least as it will conclusively establish the precedent that leaving is a crap idea) that their interest in setting up hurdles will be zero. It would be possible before any referendum to get agreement to that.
But we can't do it without some form of popular consent without really deep disillusion. That's why - and I know it's hard to separate from my usual Labour loyalism - McDonnell's 3-step process makes sense. First we need to reject the May deal, which would lock us semi-permanently into an associate status that nearly everyone dislikes. Second we need to deal with the question of whether an election is needed. I expect the Commons to vote "no" to that. Then we need a referendum that offers the only two realistic oiptions - proposing to remain and deciding to leave with a minimal No Deal. The latest poll shows a 10-point Remain lead on that basis and in the light of what's happened I suspect it would grow, but if people vote for hard Brexit, so be it - they're now quite well-informed.
On the general issue of referendums, I agree that they should only be offered if the Government sees both alternatives as defensible. Giving people a choice between placebo and poison on the assumption that they'll prefer the placebo is reckless.
Remain beats No Deal by 10% with Survation but only beats the Deal by single figures with Survation head to head. The Deal should be an option
Humphries on R4 finally clarifying that the BoE “forecasts” aren’t actually “forecasts” but “scenarios” for stress testing the banks - Carney “it’s not a forecast but what could go wrong if everything went wrong in a worst case scenario- not “the most likely scenario”. So if the banks are ready for the “worst case scenario” banks will be prepared for whatever happens.
I thought we did this a month ago. I can't believe that we are going through this again. Do remainers really want to have as little credibility as the ERG? How can they expect to have their concerns taken seriously if they persist with this dishonesty?
They have moral right on their side so it's ok to do so. Same reason they can make blithe assumptions about how we avoid no deal and how there are no consequences to remaining, things leave was rightly criticised for with it's own promises,because...because it's ok when they do it
What I find hard to believe about what Carney said yesterday isn't so much the scenarios, but what the Bank says it will do should they come to pass. He said that they'd put up interest rates to something like 5.5% to help keep inflation in check following a devaluation of the currency. I'm sorry, but I just don't believe they'd do that - just look what happened in 2016: Leave won, the pound fell and the Bank cut interest rates. I wouldn't be surprised if printed money to help prop up the housing market.
He didn’t. As the BoE documents explains and Carney just explained on R4, these are scenarios for everything going wrong simultaneously. In the event of a hard Brexit the bank has to balance supporting the economy with its inflation target - but the chances are the bank would cut rates and pump more money into the economy to seek to minimise any downturn.
So why did he say interest rates would rise to 5.5% in this scenario (I know he said it as I heard him say it on the news!)?
Every time I hear a northern Irish politician on the media, I find myself wondering why we want to keep it.
The dear place loves to test us.
More seriously I sometimes wonder if anybody there really wants to remain in The UK. Loyalists usually seem pretty darn angry at the government too frankly.
Sounds British to me.
If they complain about the weather and queue properly they should probably qualify for a passport...
My wife was looking around for Christmas bargains on black Friday and found that some sites had set up a virtual queue before you could get on and make an order. It sounded frightfully British!
What I find hard to believe about what Carney said yesterday isn't so much the scenarios, but what the Bank says it will do should they come to pass. He said that they'd put up interest rates to something like 5.5% to help keep inflation in check following a devaluation of the currency. I'm sorry, but I just don't believe they'd do that - just look what happened in 2016: Leave won, the pound fell and the Bank cut interest rates. I wouldn't be surprised if printed money to help prop up the housing market.
He didn’t. As the BoE documents explains and Carney just explained on R4, these are scenarios for everything going wrong simultaneously. In the event of a hard Brexit the bank has to balance supporting the economy with its inflation target - but the chances are the bank would cut rates and pump more money into the economy to seek to minimise any downturn.
So why did he say interest rates would rise to 5.5% in this scenario (I know he said it as I heard him say it on the news!)?
Because it was a “worst case scenario” and not a “forecast”?
I agree with the general points that Alastair is making, but it's a bit defeatist. A way forward will be found, let's make it the least bad.
FWIW my impression is that if we ask to withdraw A50 we will be allowed back on the same terms. This is the default position until we withdraw - they would need to make an actively hostile move to take the rebate away. I follow politics on the Continent closely and I'm convinced that they'll see a change of mind as so important (not least as it will conclusively establish the precedent that leaving is a crap idea) that their interest in setting up hurdles will be zero. It would be possible before any referendum to get agreement to that.
But we can't do it without some form of popular consent without really deep disillusion. That's why - and I know it's hard to separate from my usual Labour loyalism - McDonnell's 3-step process makes sense. First we need to reject the May deal, which would lock us semi-permanently into an associate status that nearly everyone dislikes. Second we need to deal with the question of whether an election is needed. I expect the Commons to vote "no" to that. Then we need a referendum that offers the only two realistic oiptions - proposing to remain and deciding to leave with a minimal No Deal. The latest poll shows a 10-point Remain lead on that basis and in the light of what's happened I suspect it would grow, but if people vote for hard Brexit, so be it - they're now quite well-informed.
On the general issue of referendums, I agree that they should only be offered if the Government sees both alternatives as defensible. Giving people a choice between placebo and poison on the assumption that they'll prefer the placebo is reckless.
Remain beats No Deal by 10% with Survation but only beats the Deal by single figures with Survation head to head. The Deal should be an option
Nope. A deal rejected by a circa 150 majority in the commons as unacceptable has no justification for being included. They're going to go back to the people, probably, because they don't know what to do. But they will be clear what they don't think should be done.
And politically who wants it. If May is gone no party will argue for the deal in a campaign. If she is there she and some loyalists will but everybody else including masses of Tories won't. If it somehow won labour and others would look like they went against the public and they wont want to risk that.
Humphries on R4 finally clarifying that the BoE “forecasts” aren’t actually “forecasts” but “scenarios” for stress testing the banks - Carney “it’s not a forecast but what could go wrong if everything went wrong in a worst case scenario- not “the most likely scenario”. So if the banks are ready for the “worst case scenario” banks will be prepared for whatever happens.
I thought we did this a month ago. I can't believe that we are going through this again. Do remainers really want to have as little credibility as the ERG? How can they expect to have their concerns taken seriously if they persist with this dishonesty?
They have moral right on their side so it's ok to do so. Same reason they can make blithe assumptions about how we avoid no deal and how there are no consequences to remaining, things leave was rightly criticised for with it's own promises,because...because it's ok when they do it
The sad truth of both Brexit and Trump is that lying works. It is a lesson that has been too well learned and it is a greater concern for our future than Brexit, possibly even greater than Robert's concern about our excess consumption.
I agree with the general points that Alastair is making, but it's a bit defeatist. A way forward will be found, let's make it the least bad.
FWIW my impression is that if we ask to withdraw A50 we will be allowed back on the same terms. This is the default position until we withdraw - they would need to make an actively hostile move to take the rebate away. I follow politics on the Continent closely and I'm convinced that they'll see a change of mind as so important (not least as it will conclusively establish the precedent that leaving is a crap idea) that their interest in setting up hurdles will be zero. It would be possible before any referendum to get agreement to that.
But we can't do it without some form of popular consent without really deep disillusion. That's why - and I know it's hard to separate from my usual Labour loyalism - McDonnell's 3-step process makes sense. First we need to reject the May deal, which would lock us semi-permanently into an associate status that nearly everyone dislikes. Second we need to deal with the question of whether an election is needed. I expect the Commons to vote "no" to that. Then we need a referendum that offers the only two realistic oiptions - proposing to remain and deciding to leave with a minimal No Deal. The latest poll shows a 10-point Remain lead on that basis and in the light of what's happened I suspect it would grow, but if people vote for hard Brexit, so be it - they're now quite well-informed.
On the general issue of referendums, I agree that they should only be offered if the Government sees both alternatives as defensible. Giving people a choice between placebo and poison on the assumption that they'll prefer the placebo is reckless.
Remain beats No Deal by 10% with Survation but only beats the Deal by single figures with Survation head to head. The Deal should be an option
When “second preferences” are included “Deal” beats “Remain”, with “no deal” coming last.
Pete North is irritating, abusive and worst of all actively campaigned to leave the EU. Frustratingly though, he is very well informed. This thread covers some areas I am very familiar with and know to be accurate.
Interesting that he makes the point that the "queues at Dover" scenario is wrong, because it is more likely under no deal that we wont be able to export much at all and hence Dover will be eerily quiet.
Yet the government is buying all those portaloos...
That's why - and I know it's hard to separate from my usual Labour loyalism - McDonnell's 3-step process makes sense... Then we need a referendum that offers the only two realistic oiptions - proposing to remain and deciding to leave with a minimal No Deal.
Rights and wrongs aside, is the view that the (presumably Commons-defeated) Deal wouldn't be a realistic option so you'd have to pit No Deal against Remain McDonnell's position or yours or both?
"Stoke Hartlepool Preston Sunderland Boston Jaywick Northern Ireland ,,,,, Leave them to their own choices."
You little tinker, in your little enclave, you don't realise that's exactly what they want, along with great swathes of the North and Wales. Add in the Jocks too, despite them having a majority of Remainers.
It may come as a shock to you, but London is generally seen as a hive of pretentious do-nothing luvvies with an inflated opinion of themselves, ludicrous house prices and riddled with knife crime. And when it comes to the Yorkies' view of the capital …
But I know you're only 'aving a giraffe, as you say.in Nice.
What I find hard to believe about what Carney said yesterday isn't so much the scenarios, but what the Bank says it will do should they come to pass. He said that they'd put up interest rates to something like 5.5% to help keep inflation in check following a devaluation of the currency. I'm sorry, but I just don't believe they'd do that - just look what happened in 2016: Leave won, the pound fell and the Bank cut interest rates. I wouldn't be surprised if printed money to help prop up the housing market.
He didn’t. As the BoE documents explains and Carney just explained on R4, these are scenarios for everything going wrong simultaneously. In the event of a hard Brexit the bank has to balance supporting the economy with its inflation target - but the chances are the bank would cut rates and pump more money into the economy to seek to minimise any downturn.
So why did he say interest rates would rise to 5.5% in this scenario (I know he said it as I heard him say it on the news!)?
Because it was a “worst case scenario” and not a “forecast”?
Okay, so what I was questioning was what he said they'd do in that scenario. I just don't believe it. House prices come first.
The picture above Alastair's article will probably be the most long lasting of all those taken during this national debacle. It epitomises Brexit almost as comprehensively as Dorothea Lange's 'Migrant mother' does the US depression
And if the referendum had been held, we'd have had two campaigns (as we had in 2016), with one holding a worthless piece of paper, and the other claiming they were the one true Brexit, with the polling about immigration and other matters backing them up.
We'd be in exactly the position we are now. The document would have been as useless as Chamberlain's piece of paper.
Not exactly.
We would have had 2 campaigns, but the paper would be official.
If Leave won, only the things on the paper would be the basis of the next steps.
The Faragists might have got the vote over the line again, but unless "end FoM immediately" was on the paper it wouldn't be the negotiating red line
I see a lot of these re-runs of the referendum don't include Leave as an option. Perhaps that's where Cammo went wrong, he should have only included varieties of Remain in the original one.
If T May had had a majority of say 100 after the election , would there have been enough Tories who were not Brexit loons (and consequently fewer Labour MP's) to see the deal thro?
I think that depends on who the 100 extra MPs were. The indications at the time was that they would have included a fair few wild eyed Brexiteers.
But she wouldn’t have needed the DUP. The cynic in me thinks that means there wouldn’t have been any suggestion of a Northern Irish back-stop so the whole thing would have been much easier to negotiate...
It's pretty hard to argue against the proposition that life is always harder if you have to deal with the DUP but they are not the party who was demanding a backstop. That was the EU on behalf of Eire. We should have told them to get lost of course.
And do what instead? The only option would have been No Deal, which any sensible person knows isn’t an option.
We are leaving the EU as the UK. That means that we will have a land border with the EU in NI as well as sea borders in Calais/Dover and the channel tunnel etc. There is absolutely no reason why one of these borders should be treated any differently from the others and May should never have accepted that it should be. But that mistake was made a year ago and is past praying for at the moment. All we can hope is that our ultimate trade deal with the EU makes it irrelevant.
For a supposedly intelligent bloke "There is absolutely no reason why one of these borders should be treated any differently from the others" is a remarkably moronic comment. Why don't you listen to the rest of the Today prog, being broadcast from Ulster University, and edjamucate yourself a bit.
I see a lot of these re-runs of the referendum don't include Leave as an option. Perhaps that's where Cammo went wrong, he should have only included varieties of Remain in the original one.
A referendum on joining the Euro and Schengen? Now we're talking!
"Stoke Hartlepool Preston Sunderland Boston Jaywick Northern Ireland ,,,,, Leave them to their own choices."
You little tinker, in your little enclave, you don't realise that's exactly what they want, along with great swathes of the North and Wales. Add in the Jocks too, despite them having a majority of Remainers.
It may come as a shock to you, but London is generally seen as a hive of pretentious do-nothing luvvies with an inflated opinion of themselves, ludicrous house prices and riddled with knife crime. And when it comes to the Yorkies' view of the capital …
But I know you're only 'aving a giraffe, as you say.in Nice.
I thought you were from Liverpool? They're one of the good guys.
(PS If you are there's a very good exhibition called 'connections' I think at the Tate on the Waterfront which I visited last week)
What I find hard to believe about what Carney said yesterday isn't so much the scenarios, but what the Bank says it will do should they come to pass. He said that they'd put up interest rates to something like 5.5% to help keep inflation in check following a devaluation of the currency. I'm sorry, but I just don't believe they'd do that - just look what happened in 2016: Leave won, the pound fell and the Bank cut interest rates. I wouldn't be surprised if printed money to help prop up the housing market.
He didn’t. As the BoE documents explains and Carney just explained on R4, these are scenarios for everything going wrong simultaneously. In the event of a hard Brexit the bank has to balance supporting the economy with its inflation target - but the chances are the bank would cut rates and pump more money into the economy to seek to minimise any downturn.
So why did he say interest rates would rise to 5.5% in this scenario (I know he said it as I heard him say it on the news!)?
Because it was a “worst case scenario” and not a “forecast”?
Okay, so what I was questioning was what he said they'd do in that scenario. I just don't believe it. House prices come first.
House prices didn’t come first in September 1992.
Although I concede that wasn’t done by an independent Bank of England.
It's plain to see the EU's only interest in the UK is our budget contributions & access to our markets & fish.
They completely disrespect the UK as can be seen over the last 2 years since the vote.
Why any sane person wants to be in the same gang as them is beyond me. And based upon their future integration plans, eu army etc they will only get worse.
Reuters reporting a deal on transatlantic air travel which maintains existing open skies arrangements for the UK. That's a big win for the government and reduces the chances of travel disruption after brexit by a significant degree.
Interesting story, and good news. But if anything, the reason to click on the link is the awesomely beautiful photo:
A nice picture indeed, and a reminder that in negotiations with the United States, we are the smaller player, and the one making concessions. Let us hope we remembered to make all these deals contingent on our actually leaving the EU.
I agree with the general points that Alastair is making, but it's a bit defeatist. A way forward will be found, let's make it the least bad.
FWIW my impression is that if we ask to withdraw A50 we will be allowed back on the same terms. This is the default position until we withdraw - they would need to make an actively hostile move to take the rebate away. I follow politics on the Continent closely and I'm convinced that they'll see a change of mind as so important (not least as it will conclusively establish the precedent that leaving is a crap idea) that their interest in setting up hurdles will be zero. It would be possible before any referendum to get agreement to that.
But we can't do it without some form of popular consent without really deep disillusion. That's why - and I know it's hard to separate from my usual Labour loyalism - McDonnell's 3-step process makes sense.
On the general issue of referendums, I agree that they should only be offered if the Government sees both alternatives as defensible. Giving people a choice between placebo and poison on the assumption that they'll prefer the placebo is reckless.
Remain beats No Deal by 10% with Survation but only beats the Deal by single figures with Survation head to head. The Deal should be an option
Nope. A deal rejected by a circa 150 majority in the commons as unacceptable has no justification for being included. They're going to go back to the people, probably, because they don't know what to do. But they will be clear what they don't think should be done.
And politically who wants it. If May is gone no party will argue for the deal in a campaign. If she is there she and some loyalists will but everybody else including masses of Tories won't. If it somehow won labour and others would look like they went against the public and they wont want to risk that.
If they had a vote on leaving with no deal in the HoC what do you think that would lose by? Your logic fails.
The reason the deal is getting battered is because it is nobody’s first choice option in a world where the MPs think they have a chance of their first choice option coming to pass (ignore the cr*p from those who claim they prefer remain to it or vice verse - those who genuinely believe that are a handful).
Also many opposing the deal claim it is because they want a different deal. Where does that fit in?
That's why - and I know it's hard to separate from my usual Labour loyalism - McDonnell's 3-step process makes sense... Then we need a referendum that offers the only two realistic oiptions - proposing to remain and deciding to leave with a minimal No Deal.
Rights and wrongs aside, is the view that the (presumably Commons-defeated) Deal wouldn't be a realistic option so you'd have to pit No Deal against Remain McDonnell's position or yours or both?
Yes, although it would be worth a visit by May to Brussels to get their agreement that (a) Remain means Remain on current terms and (b) No Deal means no major deal but basic trade,aviation etc. would keep running on reasonable terms. I think they'd agree with both, and May could reasonably get a bit of credit for that, so nobody would necessarily feel totally screwed by the outcome.
Reuters reporting a deal on transatlantic air travel which maintains existing open skies arrangements for the UK. That's a big win for the government and reduces the chances of travel disruption after brexit by a significant degree.
Interesting story, and good news. But if anything, the reason to click on the link is the awesomely beautiful photo:
A nice picture indeed, and a reminder that in negotiations with the United States, we are the smaller player, and the one making concessions. Let us hope we remembered to make all these deals contingent on our actually leaving the EU.
There's no way we could sign it while being in the EU, so that's a given.
That's why - and I know it's hard to separate from my usual Labour loyalism - McDonnell's 3-step process makes sense... Then we need a referendum that offers the only two realistic oiptions - proposing to remain and deciding to leave with a minimal No Deal.
Rights and wrongs aside, is the view that the (presumably Commons-defeated) Deal wouldn't be a realistic option so you'd have to pit No Deal against Remain McDonnell's position or yours or both?
It doesn’t make sense that a Commons rejected deal can’t be included in a referendum (and this ignores the possibility of a referendum provision being attached to the vote). It is a clear option on the table with the EU having agreed it (unlike all the alternative “deals” floating about in people’s heads). If the people voted for it the Commons would pass it.
Humphries on R4 finally clarifying that the BoE “forecasts” aren’t actually “forecasts” but “scenarios” for stress testing the banks - Carney “it’s not a forecast but what could go wrong if everything went wrong in a worst case scenario- not “the most likely scenario”. So if the banks are ready for the “worst case scenario” banks will be prepared for whatever happens.
In betting terms, stress tests don't establish the value of the bet. They tell you if you could lose your house if it goes the wrong way. That calculation has some merit.
Having said that, Brexit was an atrocious value bet. Any upsides have to come from unknown unknowns. The known knowns and the known unknowns - the only sensible basis of an evaluation - are essentially all downside.
Reuters reporting a deal on transatlantic air travel which maintains existing open skies arrangements for the UK. That's a big win for the government and reduces the chances of travel disruption after brexit by a significant degree.
Interesting story, and good news. But if anything, the reason to click on the link is the awesomely beautiful photo:
A nice picture indeed, and a reminder that in negotiations with the United States, we are the smaller player, and the one making concessions. Let us hope we remembered to make all these deals contingent on our actually leaving the EU.
Does it have to pass the HoC? Presumably the ERG (and others) will argue it’s not good enough?
That's why - and I know it's hard to separate from my usual Labour loyalism - McDonnell's 3-step process makes sense... Then we need a referendum that offers the only two realistic oiptions - proposing to remain and deciding to leave with a minimal No Deal.
Rights and wrongs aside, is the view that the (presumably Commons-defeated) Deal wouldn't be a realistic option so you'd have to pit No Deal against Remain McDonnell's position or yours or both?
It doesn’t make sense that a Commons rejected deal can’t be included in a referendum (and this ignores the possibility of a referendum provision being attached to the vote). It is a clear option on the table with the EU having agreed it (unlike all the alternative “deals” floating about in people’s heads). If the people voted for it the Commons would pass it.
That's why TMay is trying to win approval from the country.
What I find hard to believe about what Carney said yesterday isn't so much the scenarios, but what the Bank says it will do should they come to pass. He said that they'd put up interest rates to something like 5.5% to help keep inflation in check following a devaluation of the currency. I'm sorry, but I just don't believe they'd do that - just look what happened in 2016: Leave won, the pound fell and the Bank cut interest rates. I wouldn't be surprised if printed money to help prop up the housing market.
He didn’t. As the BoE documents explains and Carney just explained on R4, these are scenarios for everything going wrong simultaneously. In the event of a hard Brexit the bank has to balance supporting the economy with its inflation target - but the chances are the bank would cut rates and pump more money into the economy to seek to minimise any downturn.
So why did he say interest rates would rise to 5.5% in this scenario (I know he said it as I heard him say it on the news!)?
Because it was a “worst case scenario” and not a “forecast”?
Okay, so what I was questioning was what he said they'd do in that scenario. I just don't believe it. House prices come first.
House prices didn’t come first in September 1992.
Although I concede that wasn’t done by an independent Bank of England.
I agree with the general points that Alastair is making, but it's a bit defeatist. A way forward will be found, let's make it the least bad.
FWIW my impression is that if we ask to withdraw A50 we will be allowed back on the same terms. This is the default position until we withdraw - they would need to make an actively hostile move to take the rebate away. I follow politics on the Continent closely and I'm convinced that they'll see a change of mind as so important (not least as it will conclusively establish the precedent that leaving is a crap idea) that their interest in setting up hurdles will be zero. It would be possible before any referendum to get agreement to that.
But we can't do it without some form of popular consent without really deep disillusion. That's why - and I know it's hard to separate from my usual Labour loyalism - McDonnell's 3-step process makes sense. First we need to reject the May deal, which would lock us semi-permanently into an associate status that nearly everyone dislikes. Second we need to deal with the question of whether an election is needed. I expect the Commons to vote "no" to that. Then we need a referendum that offers the only two realistic oiptions - proposing to remain and deciding to leave with a minimal No Deal. The latest poll shows a 10-point Remain lead on that basis and in the light of what's happened I suspect it would grow, but if people vote for hard Brexit, so be it - they're now quite well-informed.
On the general issue of referendums, I agree that they should only be offered if the Government sees both alternatives as defensible. Giving people a choice between placebo and poison on the assumption that they'll prefer the placebo is reckless.
Does "Minimal No Deal" exclude the Withdrawal Agreement as drafted? Because I don't see that as at all realistic.
That's why - and I know it's hard to separate from my usual Labour loyalism - McDonnell's 3-step process makes sense... Then we need a referendum that offers the only two realistic oiptions - proposing to remain and deciding to leave with a minimal No Deal.
Rights and wrongs aside, is the view that the (presumably Commons-defeated) Deal wouldn't be a realistic option so you'd have to pit No Deal against Remain McDonnell's position or yours or both?
It doesn’t make sense that a Commons rejected deal can’t be included in a referendum (and this ignores the possibility of a referendum provision being attached to the vote). It is a clear option on the table with the EU having agreed it (unlike all the alternative “deals” floating about in people’s heads). If the people voted for it the Commons would pass it.
That's also my feeling, but McDonnell's is more important, as he has more MPs than me.
I guess it has tactical benefits: Say the government and Remainist MPs cut a deal to make a referendum on The Deal vs Remain, as they may well. No-Deal advocates will be understandably miffed, and the Labour leadership can say, well *we* stood up for you.
The common thread in Labour's positions is that since all the options are terrible, they need to be careful not to advocate something that may actually happen.
That's why - and I know it's hard to separate from my usual Labour loyalism - McDonnell's 3-step process makes sense... Then we need a referendum that offers the only two realistic oiptions - proposing to remain and deciding to leave with a minimal No Deal.
Rights and wrongs aside, is the view that the (presumably Commons-defeated) Deal wouldn't be a realistic option so you'd have to pit No Deal against Remain McDonnell's position or yours or both?
It doesn’t make sense that a Commons rejected deal can’t be included in a referendum (and this ignores the possibility of a referendum provision being attached to the vote). It is a clear option on the table with the EU having agreed it (unlike all the alternative “deals” floating about in people’s heads). If the people voted for it the Commons would pass it.
That's why TMay is trying to win approval from the country.
Perhaps she should propose a referendum on the deal?
“Deal yes or no”. Consequences of “no” to be determined after...
I've had an L postcode and been perched on the edge of Liverpool for the last 25 years, but I was born and brought up in Boston. I hate to shatter your illusions, but even the posh Scousers think the same about London. By the time you get into Woolly-back country, it becomes unprintable.
That's why - and I know it's hard to separate from my usual Labour loyalism - McDonnell's 3-step process makes sense... Then we need a referendum that offers the only two realistic oiptions - proposing to remain and deciding to leave with a minimal No Deal.
Rights and wrongs aside, is the view that the (presumably Commons-defeated) Deal wouldn't be a realistic option so you'd have to pit No Deal against Remain McDonnell's position or yours or both?
It doesn’t make sense that a Commons rejected deal can’t be included in a referendum (and this ignores the possibility of a referendum provision being attached to the vote). It is a clear option on the table with the EU having agreed it (unlike all the alternative “deals” floating about in people’s heads). If the people voted for it the Commons would pass it.
That's why TMay is trying to win approval from the country.
Perhaps she should propose a referendum on the deal?
“Deal yes or no”. Consequences of “no” to be determined after...
Do you want to vote for my Deal or lose your job, your home and starve with No Deal? Sounds fair enough
All Brexits leave us economically worse off. All Brexits surrender leverage to other powers on large elements of our economy or even territory (NI). No Brexit makes us more democratic. No Brexit gives us more money for the NHS. No Brexit brings the fishing industry back. No Brexit increases our hard or soft power. No Brexit reduces our overreliance on consumption. No Brexit rebalances growth toward our badly lagging provinces. No Brexit tackles the issues of the 21st century: climate change; a multi-polar world; the rise of AI and the threat to jobs; growing wealth inequality; the threat of mass migration from Africa and the Middle East.
May’s deal is purely an exercise in damage limitation.
We all know this. The public knows this. That’s why there’s no strong support for it.
But no politician seems to have the spine, the balls, the heart, and the credibility to articulate these self-evident truths.
All Brexits leave us economically worse off. All Brexits surrender leverage to other powers on large elements of our economy or even territory (NI). No Brexit makes us more democratic. No Brexit gives us more money for the NHS. No Brexit brings the fishing industry back. No Brexit increases our hard or soft power. No Brexit reduces our overreliance on consumption. No Brexit rebalances growth toward our badly lagging provinces. No Brexit tackles the issues of the 21st century: climate change; a multi-polar world; the rise of AI and the threat to jobs; growing wealth inequality; the threat of mass migration from Africa and the Middle East.
May’s deal is purely an exercise in damage limitation.
We all know this. The public knows this. That’s why there’s no strong support for it.
But no politician seems to have the spine, the balls, the heart, and the credibility to articulate these self-evident truths.
Brexit allows us the theoretical ability to stop the foreigners coming in.
And if the referendum had been held, we'd have had two campaigns (as we had in 2016), with one holding a worthless piece of paper, and the other claiming they were the one true Brexit, with the polling about immigration and other matters backing them up.
We'd be in exactly the position we are now. The document would have been as useless as Chamberlain's piece of paper.
Not exactly.
We would have had 2 campaigns, but the paper would be official.
If Leave won, only the things on the paper would be the basis of the next steps.
The Faragists might have got the vote over the line again, but unless "end FoM immediately" was on the paper it wouldn't be the negotiating red line
Which makes the paper worthless. Brexit has been driven by the likes of Farage and UKIP, with a load of other people holding their noses to support them. Any leave that did not meet their requirements would not solve anything.
I agree with the general points that Alastair is making, but it's a bit defeatist. A way forward will be found, let's make it the least bad.
FWIW my impression is that if we ask to withdraw A50 we will be allowed back on the same terms. This is the default position until we withdraw - they would need to make an actively hostile move to take the rebate away. I follow politics on the Continent closely and I'm convinced that they'll see a change of mind as so important (not least as it will conclusively establish the precedent that leaving is a crap idea) that their interest in setting up hurdles will be zero. It would be possible before any referendum to get agreement to that.
But we can't do it without some form of popular consent without really deep disillusion. That's why - and I know it's hard to separate from my usual Labour loyalism - McDonnell's 3-step process makes sense. First we need to reject the May deal, which would lock us semi-permanently into an associate status that nearly everyone dislikes. Second we need to deal with the question of whether an election is needed. I expect the Commons to vote "no" to that. Then we need a referendum that offers the only two realistic oiptions - proposing to remain and deciding to leave with a minimal No Deal. The latest poll shows a 10-point Remain lead on that basis and in the light of what's happened I suspect it would grow, but if people vote for hard Brexit, so be it - they're now quite well-informed.
On the general issue of referendums, I agree that they should only be offered if the Government sees both alternatives as defensible. Giving people a choice between placebo and poison on the assumption that they'll prefer the placebo is reckless.
Remain beats No Deal by 10% with Survation but only beats the Deal by single figures with Survation head to head. The Deal should be an option
Nope. A deal rejected by a circa 150 majority in the commons as unacceptable has no justification for being included. They're going to go back to the people, probably, because they don't know what to do. But they will be clear what they don't think should be done.
And politically who wants it. If May is gone no party will argue for the deal in a campaign. If she is there she and some loyalists will but everybody else including masses of Tories won't. If it somehow won labour and others would look like they went against the public and they wont want to risk that.
Wrong. Over 200 Tory MPs back the Deal and it is the only compromise now between No Deal or EUref2 civil war or BINO Brexit which will divide us even more. I back the Deal and will demand it is an option if we are forced to EUref2
All Brexits leave us economically worse off. All Brexits surrender leverage to other powers on large elements of our economy or even territory (NI). No Brexit makes us more democratic. No Brexit gives us more money for the NHS. No Brexit brings the fishing industry back. No Brexit increases our hard or soft power. No Brexit reduces our overreliance on consumption. No Brexit rebalances growth toward our badly lagging provinces. No Brexit tackles the issues of the 21st century: climate change; a multi-polar world; the rise of AI and the threat to jobs; growing wealth inequality; the threat of mass migration from Africa and the Middle East.
May’s deal is purely an exercise in damage limitation.
We all know this. The public knows this. That’s why there’s no strong support for it.
But no politician seems to have the spine, the balls, the heart, and the credibility to articulate these self-evident truths.
Brexit allows us the theoretical ability to stop the foreigners coming in.
Is all that is relevant.
As any good Brexiteer will tell you, immigration has nothing to do with it and if only they’d given Cameron something on free movement we wouldn’t be doing it!
I agree with the general points that Alastair is making, but it's a bit defeatist. A way forward will be found, let's make it the least bad.
FWIW my impression is that if we ask to withdraw A50 we will be allowed back on the same terms. This is the default position until we withdraw - they would need to make an actively hostile move to take the rebate away. I follow politics on the Continent closely and I'm convinced that they'll see a change of mind as so important (not least as it will conclusively establish the precedent that leaving is a crap idea) that their interest in setting up hurdles will be zero. It would be possible before any referendum to get agreement to that.
But we can't do it without some form of popular consent without really deep disillusion. That's why - and I know it's hard to separate from my usual Labour loyalism - McDonnell's 3-step process makes sense. First we need to reject the May deal, which would lock us semi-permanently into an associate status that nearly everyone dislikes. Second we need to deal with the question of whether an election is needed. I expect the Commons to vote "no" to that. Then we need a referendum that offers the only two realistic oiptions - proposing to remain and deciding to leave with a minimal No Deal. The latest poll shows a 10-point Remain lead on that basis and in the light of what's happened I suspect it would grow, but if people vote for hard Brexit, so be it - they're now quite well-informed.
On the general issue of referendums, I agree that they should only be offered if the Government sees both alternatives as defensible. Giving people a choice between placebo and poison on the assumption that they'll prefer the placebo is reckless.
The McDonnell plan does seem like the only sane and viable option at the moment.
What 'plan' ?
He's just talking about what he wishes (particularly from a political viewpoint). Sadly, that's what too many people are doing at the moment. This is what *I* want. And if I really, really screw my eyes up and cross my finger, it'll happen!
Well indeed. It's fine to oppose the deal, a lot of people have strong reasons too, but given it's not all in our control so many alternatives rely on the kind of belief you mention.
We'll have to hope one of them is right otherwise we're in real trouble. More than now.
We're in this mess because a bunch of politicians wanted something really badly - believed in it - but weren't interested if it was, or was not, deliverable. You'd hope other politicians would look at their mistakes and learn from them.
But no. They just promise whatever they think will get them votes, regardless of whether it is deliverable, or the consequences of it being delivered.
That's why - and I know it's hard to separate from my usual Labour loyalism - McDonnell's 3-step process makes sense... Then we need a referendum that offers the only two realistic oiptions - proposing to remain and deciding to leave with a minimal No Deal.
Rights and wrongs aside, is the view that the (presumably Commons-defeated) Deal wouldn't be a realistic option so you'd have to pit No Deal against Remain McDonnell's position or yours or both?
It doesn’t make sense that a Commons rejected deal can’t be included in a referendum (and this ignores the possibility of a referendum provision being attached to the vote). It is a clear option on the table with the EU having agreed it (unlike all the alternative “deals” floating about in people’s heads). If the people voted for it the Commons would pass it.
That's why TMay is trying to win approval from the country.
Perhaps she should propose a referendum on the deal?
“Deal yes or no”. Consequences of “no” to be determined after...
Do you want to vote for my Deal or lose your job, your home and starve with No Deal? Sounds fair enough
Point being that this is the last referendum. If you vote “no” decision reverts to HoC. It will then be up to them to determine whether we leave with no deal, try to negotiate another deal, or ask to remain. Voting “yes” is the only guarantee that we leave. Voting no opens the door to remain but also to no deal.
And if the referendum had been held, we'd have had two campaigns (as we had in 2016), with one holding a worthless piece of paper, and the other claiming they were the one true Brexit, with the polling about immigration and other matters backing them up.
We'd be in exactly the position we are now. The document would have been as useless as Chamberlain's piece of paper.
Not exactly.
We would have had 2 campaigns, but the paper would be official.
If Leave won, only the things on the paper would be the basis of the next steps.
The Faragists might have got the vote over the line again, but unless "end FoM immediately" was on the paper it wouldn't be the negotiating red line
Which makes the paper worthless. Brexit has been driven by the likes of Farage and UKIP, with a load of other people holding their noses to support them. Any leave that did not meet their requirements would not solve anything.
As we're seeing with May's deal.
May's deal solves an upcoming potential economic crash whilst leaving the EU. That's it. That's all there really is to it. People can pontificate about vassalage or whatever but the clock is ticking and it's the only deal on the table.
@Alex expresses my thoughts on the matter better than I can this morning.
What people who are criticising the idea of Brexit are essentially saying is that yes the majority don't want to be in the EU, but we're got into a position that it's too difficult to get out of.
So you're just going to have to forget about leaving and be stuck in it forever against your wishes, whilst even more independence is lost and even more sovereignty is gradually transferred to the EU.
That's why - and I know it's hard to separate from my usual Labour loyalism - McDonnell's 3-step process makes sense... Then we need a referendum that offers the only two realistic oiptions - proposing to remain and deciding to leave with a minimal No Deal.
Rights and wrongs aside, is the view that the (presumably Commons-defeated) Deal wouldn't be a realistic option so you'd have to pit No Deal against Remain McDonnell's position or yours or both?
It doesn’t make sense that a Commons rejected deal can’t be included in a referendum (and this ignores the possibility of a referendum provision being attached to the vote). It is a clear option on the table with the EU having agreed it (unlike all the alternative “deals” floating about in people’s heads). If the people voted for it the Commons would pass it.
That's why TMay is trying to win approval from the country.
Perhaps she should propose a referendum on the deal?
“Deal yes or no”. Consequences of “no” to be determined after...
Do you want to vote for my Deal or lose your job, your home and starve with No Deal? Sounds fair enough
Point being that this is the last referendum. If you vote “no” decision reverts to HoC. It will then be up to them to determine whether we leave with no deal, try to negotiate another deal, or ask to remain. Voting “yes” is the only guarantee that we leave. Voting no opens the door to remain but also to no deal.
You make a good point. With a choice of losing your job your home your pension the NHS followed by slow death through starvation and disease the moronic Leavers might still go for it.
May's deal would be fine w/o the backstop. There are 5 days set aside for debate in the Commons, with scope for amendments. If the Commons does its job it can send her away with the backing of Parliament to climb out of the hole she has dug by confronting the EU with a deal-minus-backstop / no-deal choice.
May's deal would be fine w/o the backstop. There are 5 days set aside for debate in the Commons, with scope for amendments. If the Commons does its job it can send her away with the backing of Parliament to climb out of the hole she has dug by confronting the EU with a deal-minus-backstop / no-deal choice.
There is no deal minus the backstop. The backstop IS the deal.
Pete North is irritating, abusive and worst of all actively campaigned to leave the EU. Frustratingly though, he is very well informed. This thread covers some areas I am very familiar with and know to be accurate.
Interesting that he makes the point that the "queues at Dover" scenario is wrong, because it is more likely under no deal that we wont be able to export much at all and hence Dover will be eerily quiet.
Yet the government is buying all those portaloos...
For the Oxfam and War on Want volunteers who will be bringing the EU food parcels for us...
I've had an L postcode and been perched on the edge of Liverpool for the last 25 years, but I was born and brought up in Boston. I hate to shatter your illusions, but even the posh Scousers think the same about London. By the time you get into Woolly-back country, it becomes unprintable.
I thought 'posh Scousers' were something the hamberger stalls sold on match days.
And if the referendum had been held, we'd have had two campaigns (as we had in 2016), with one holding a worthless piece of paper, and the other claiming they were the one true Brexit, with the polling about immigration and other matters backing them up.
We'd be in exactly the position we are now. The document would have been as useless as Chamberlain's piece of paper.
Not exactly.
We would have had 2 campaigns, but the paper would be official.
If Leave won, only the things on the paper would be the basis of the next steps.
The Faragists might have got the vote over the line again, but unless "end FoM immediately" was on the paper it wouldn't be the negotiating red line
Which makes the paper worthless. Brexit has been driven by the likes of Farage and UKIP, with a load of other people holding their noses to support them. Any leave that did not meet their requirements would not solve anything.
As we're seeing with May's deal.
May's deal solves an upcoming potential economic crash whilst leaving the EU. That's it. That's all there really is to it. People can pontificate about vassalage or whatever but the clock is ticking and it's the only deal on the table.
@Alex expresses my thoughts on the matter better than I can this morning.
Yep, agree with that. Yet the deal would never have got anywhere near the first referendum .
That's why - and I know it's hard to separate from my usual Labour loyalism - McDonnell's 3-step process makes sense... Then we need a referendum that offers the only two realistic oiptions - proposing to remain and deciding to leave with a minimal No Deal.
Rights and wrongs aside, is the view that the (presumably Commons-defeated) Deal wouldn't be a realistic option so you'd have to pit No Deal against Remain McDonnell's position or yours or both?
It doesn’t make sense that a Commons rejected deal can’t be included in a referendum (and this ignores the possibility of a referendum provision being attached to the vote). It is a clear option on the table with the EU having agreed it (unlike all the alternative “deals” floating about in people’s heads). If the people voted for it the Commons would pass it.
Why would the commons vote to have a referendum which includes an option they rejected?
And if the referendum had been held, we'd have had two campaigns (as we had in 2016), with one holding a worthless piece of paper, and the other claiming they were the one true Brexit, with the polling about immigration and other matters backing them up.
We'd be in exactly the position we are now. The document would have been as useless as Chamberlain's piece of paper.
Not exactly.
We would have had 2 campaigns, but the paper would be official.
If Leave won, only the things on the paper would be the basis of the next steps.
The Faragists might have got the vote over the line again, but unless "end FoM immediately" was on the paper it wouldn't be the negotiating red line
Which makes the paper worthless. Brexit has been driven by the likes of Farage and UKIP, with a load of other people holding their noses to support them. Any leave that did not meet their requirements would not solve anything.
As we're seeing with May's deal.
May's deal solves an upcoming potential economic crash whilst leaving the EU. That's it. That's all there really is to it. People can pontificate about vassalage or whatever but the clock is ticking and it's the only deal on the table.
@Alex expresses my thoughts on the matter better than I can this morning.
Yep, agree with that. Yet the deal would never have got anywhere near the first referendum .
Cameron's deal looks brilliant in hindsight.
Cameron's deal wasn't backed by a treaty and therefore not worth a bucket of cold piss.
I've had an L postcode and been perched on the edge of Liverpool for the last 25 years, but I was born and brought up in Boston. I hate to shatter your illusions, but even the posh Scousers think the same about London. By the time you get into Woolly-back country, it becomes unprintable.
I thought 'posh Scousers' were something the hamberger stalls sold on match days.
I'd assume they're people who live in Blundellsands and send their children to Merchant Taylors.
And if the referendum had been held, we'd have had two campaigns (as we had in 2016), with one holding a worthless piece of paper, and the other claiming they were the one true Brexit, with the polling about immigration and other matters backing them up.
We'd be in exactly the position we are now. The document would have been as useless as Chamberlain's piece of paper.
Not exactly.
We would have had 2 campaigns, but the paper would be official.
If Leave won, only the things on the paper would be the basis of the next steps.
The Faragists might have got the vote over the line again, but unless "end FoM immediately" was on the paper it wouldn't be the negotiating red line
Which makes the paper worthless. Brexit has been driven by the likes of Farage and UKIP, with a load of other people holding their noses to support them. Any leave that did not meet their requirements would not solve anything.
As we're seeing with May's deal.
May's deal solves an upcoming potential economic crash whilst leaving the EU. That's it. That's all there really is to it. People can pontificate about vassalage or whatever but the clock is ticking and it's the only deal on the table.
@Alex expresses my thoughts on the matter better than I can this morning.
Yep, agree with that. Yet the deal would never have got anywhere near the first referendum .
Cameron's deal looks brilliant in hindsight.
Cameron's deal wasn't backed by a treaty and therefore not worth a bucket of cold piss.
It had been agreed. There's no way the EU would have backed out of it.
That's why - and I know it's hard to separate from my usual Labour loyalism - McDonnell's 3-step process makes sense... Then we need a referendum that offers the only two realistic oiptions - proposing to remain and deciding to leave with a minimal No Deal.
Rights and wrongs aside, is the view that the (presumably Commons-defeated) Deal wouldn't be a realistic option so you'd have to pit No Deal against Remain McDonnell's position or yours or both?
It doesn’t make sense that a Commons rejected deal can’t be included in a referendum (and this ignores the possibility of a referendum provision being attached to the vote). It is a clear option on the table with the EU having agreed it (unlike all the alternative “deals” floating about in people’s heads). If the people voted for it the Commons would pass it.
That's why TMay is trying to win approval from the country.
Perhaps she should propose a referendum on the deal?
“Deal yes or no”. Consequences of “no” to be determined after...
Do you want to vote for my Deal or lose your job, your home and starve with No Deal? Sounds fair enough
Point being that this is the last referendum. If you vote “no” decision reverts to HoC. It will then be up to them to determine whether we leave with no deal, try to negotiate another deal, or ask to remain. Voting “yes” is the only guarantee that we leave. Voting no opens the door to remain but also to no deal.
You make a good point. With a choice of losing your job your home your pension the NHS followed by slow death through starvation and disease the moronic Leavers might still go for it.
Maybe better not take the chance.....
Exactly. After losing their jobs after the leave result in the referendum and not joining the Euro it would be crazy for all this to happen again.
May's deal would be fine w/o the backstop. There are 5 days set aside for debate in the Commons, with scope for amendments. If the Commons does its job it can send her away with the backing of Parliament to climb out of the hole she has dug by confronting the EU with a deal-minus-backstop / no-deal choice.
There is no deal minus the backstop. The backstop IS the deal.
If there's no movement from the EU then it is no deal.
And if the referendum had been held, we'd have had two campaigns (as we had in 2016), with one holding a worthless piece of paper, and the other claiming they were the one true Brexit, with the polling about immigration and other matters backing them up.
We'd be in exactly the position we are now. The document would have been as useless as Chamberlain's piece of paper.
Not exactly.
We would have had 2 campaigns, but the paper would be official.
If Leave won, only the things on the paper would be the basis of the next steps.
The Faragists might have got the vote over the line again, but unless "end FoM immediately" was on the paper it wouldn't be the negotiating red line
Which makes the paper worthless. Brexit has been driven by the likes of Farage and UKIP, with a load of other people holding their noses to support them. Any leave that did not meet their requirements would not solve anything.
As we're seeing with May's deal.
May's deal solves an upcoming potential economic crash whilst leaving the EU. That's it. That's all there really is to it. People can pontificate about vassalage or whatever but the clock is ticking and it's the only deal on the table.
@Alex expresses my thoughts on the matter better than I can this morning.
No. May's deal, aka the Withdrawal Agreement, covers settlement of dues, settled citizens and the Irish backstop and a two year extension. That's it. Everything else is up for negotiation. The WA is effectively fixed however.
Do law firm partners really recommend business management books? The more bsd corporate partners perhap, not the brighter ones. I’d recommend Richard Susskind for living proof of the theory that some shit will stick if you throw enough. The lesson for trainees from Susskind is always look to the future and if you make enough predictions and shout loudly enough then some of them will be correct. There may be an analogy to politics there.
Law firm managing partners love a business management book.
In my experience most law firm partners are bloody awful managers of people. You don’t need a management book to be a good manager. You do need some emotional intelligence, an interest in the people who work for you and an understanding that the measure of your success is how well your people do.
I agree with the general points that Alastair is making, but it's a bit defeatist. A way forward will be found, let's make it the least bad.
FWIW my impression is that if we ask to withdraw A50 we will be allowed back on the same terms. This is the default position until we withdraw - they would need to make an actively hostile move to take the rebate away. I follow politics on the Continent closely and I'm convinced that they'll see a change of mind as so important (not least as it will conclusively establish the precedent that leaving is a crap idea) that their interest in setting up hurdles will be zero. It would be possible before any referendum to get agreement to that.
But we can't do it without some form of popular consent without really deep disillusion. That's why - and I know it's hard to separate from my usual Labour loyalism - McDonnell's 3-step process makes sense. First we need to reject the May deal, which would lock us semi-permanently into an associate status that nearly everyone dislikes. Second we need to deal with the question of whether an election is needed. I expect the Commons to vote "no" to that. Then we need a referendum that offers the only two realistic oiptions - proposing to remain and deciding to leave with a minimal No Deal. The latest poll shows a 10-point Remain lead on that basis and in the light of what's happened I suspect it would grow, but if people vote for hard Brexit, so be it - they're now quite well-informed.
On the general issue of referendums, I agree that they should only be offered if the Government sees both alternatives as defensible. Giving people a choice between placebo and poison on the assumption that they'll prefer the placebo is reckless.
I agree. If Parliament can’t or won’t decide then we will have to. The sooner the better.
May's deal would be fine w/o the backstop. There are 5 days set aside for debate in the Commons, with scope for amendments. If the Commons does its job it can send her away with the backing of Parliament to climb out of the hole she has dug by confronting the EU with a deal-minus-backstop / no-deal choice.
There is no deal minus the backstop. The backstop IS the deal.
If there's no movement from the EU then it is no deal.
But the commons doesn't want no deal, so why would they vote for a course of action which would inevitably lead there?
And if the referendum had been held, we'd have had two campaigns (as we had in 2016), with one holding a worthless piece of paper, and the other claiming they were the one true Brexit, with the polling about immigration and other matters backing them up.
We'd be in exactly the position we are now. The document would have been as useless as Chamberlain's piece of paper.
Not exactly.
We would have had 2 campaigns, but the paper would be official.
If Leave won, only the things on the paper would be the basis of the next steps.
The Faragists might have got the vote over the line again, but unless "end FoM immediately" was on the paper it wouldn't be the negotiating red line
Which makes the paper worthless. Brexit has been driven by the likes of Farage and UKIP, with a load of other people holding their noses to support them. Any leave that did not meet their requirements would not solve anything.
As we're seeing with May's deal.
May's deal solves an upcoming potential economic crash whilst leaving the EU. That's it. That's all there really is to it. People can pontificate about vassalage or whatever but the clock is ticking and it's the only deal on the table.
@Alex expresses my thoughts on the matter better than I can this morning.
Yep, agree with that. Yet the deal would never have got anywhere near the first referendum .
Cameron's deal looks brilliant in hindsight.
Cameron's deal wasn't backed by a treaty and therefore not worth a bucket of cold piss.
It had been agreed. There's no way the EU would have backed out of it.
The EU is a rules based organisation. 'It had been agreed' carries no weight whatsoever. It was a bunch of ephemeral politicians attempting to be helpful to one of their kind.
Mr. Stereotomy, the Commons might vote down May's deal in the hope of rescinding Article 50/having a second referendum, but the success of the former does not necessarily lead to the success of the latter.
All Brexits leave us economically worse off. All Brexits surrender leverage to other powers on large elements of our economy or even territory (NI). No Brexit makes us more democratic. No Brexit gives us more money for the NHS. No Brexit brings the fishing industry back. No Brexit increases our hard or soft power. No Brexit reduces our overreliance on consumption. No Brexit rebalances growth toward our badly lagging provinces. No Brexit tackles the issues of the 21st century: climate change; a multi-polar world; the rise of AI and the threat to jobs; growing wealth inequality; the threat of mass migration from Africa and the Middle East.
May’s deal is purely an exercise in damage limitation.
We all know this. The public knows this. That’s why there’s no strong support for it.
But no politician seems to have the spine, the balls, the heart, and the credibility to articulate these self-evident truths.
All Brexits leave us economically worse off. All Brexits surrender leverage to other powers on large elements of our economy or even territory (NI). No Brexit makes us more democratic. No Brexit gives us more money for the NHS. No Brexit brings the fishing industry back. No Brexit increases our hard or soft power. No Brexit reduces our overreliance on consumption. No Brexit rebalances growth toward our badly lagging provinces. No Brexit tackles the issues of the 21st century: climate change; a multi-polar world; the rise of AI and the threat to jobs; growing wealth inequality; the threat of mass migration from Africa and the Middle East.
May’s deal is purely an exercise in damage limitation.
We all know this. The public knows this. That’s why there’s no strong support for it.
But no politician seems to have the spine, the balls, the heart, and the credibility to articulate these self-evident truths.
Aren't there a few double negatives in there?
There is no Brexit that waters my petunias either. The whole post was mostly non-sequiturs and assertions. Still, it's the Internet and this is what passes for discourse les nos jours.
That's why - and I know it's hard to separate from my usual Labour loyalism - McDonnell's 3-step process makes sense... Then we need a referendum that offers the only two realistic oiptions - proposing to remain and deciding to leave with a minimal No Deal.
Rights and wrongs aside, is the view that the (presumably Commons-defeated) Deal wouldn't be a realistic option so you'd have to pit No Deal against Remain McDonnell's position or yours or both?
It doesn’t make sense that a Commons rejected deal can’t be included in a referendum (and this ignores the possibility of a referendum provision being attached to the vote). It is a clear option on the table with the EU having agreed it (unlike all the alternative “deals” floating about in people’s heads). If the people voted for it the Commons would pass it.
That's why TMay is trying to win approval from the country.
Perhaps she should propose a referendum on the deal?
“Deal yes or no”. Consequences of “no” to be determined after...
Do you want to vote for my Deal or lose your job, your home and starve with No Deal? Sounds fair enough
Point being that this is the last referendum. If you vote “no” decision reverts to HoC. It will then be up to them to determine whether we leave with no deal, try to negotiate another deal, or ask to remain. Voting “yes” is the only guarantee that we leave. Voting no opens the door to remain but also to no deal.
You make a good point. With a choice of losing your job your home your pension the NHS followed by slow death through starvation and disease the moronic Leavers might still go for it.
Maybe better not take the chance.....
Problem is comments like this appear to be from swivel eyed loons, which then motivates swivel eyed loons on the other side.
It would be good to not have swivel eyed loons on either side.
Mr. Stereotomy, the Commons might vote down May's deal in the hope of rescinding Article 50/having a second referendum, but the success of the former does not necessarily lead to the success of the latter.
Sure, but that's not (I believe) what geoffw was suggesting
And if the referendum had been held, we'd have had two campaigns (as we had in 2016), with one holding a worthless piece of paper, and the other claiming they were the one true Brexit, with the polling about immigration and other matters backing them up.
We'd be in exactly the position we are now. The document would have been as useless as Chamberlain's piece of paper.
Not exactly.
We would have had 2 campaigns, but the paper would be official.
If Leave won, only the things on the paper would be the basis of the next steps.
The Faragists might have got the vote over the line again, but unless "end FoM immediately" was on the paper it wouldn't be the negotiating red line
Which makes the paper worthless. Brexit has been driven by the likes of Farage and UKIP, with a load of other people holding their noses to support them. Any leave that did not meet their requirements would not solve anything.
As we're seeing with May's deal.
May's deal solves an upcoming potential economic crash whilst leaving the EU. That's it. That's all there really is to it. People can pontificate about vassalage or whatever but the clock is ticking and it's the only deal on the table.
@Alex expresses my thoughts on the matter better than I can this morning.
Yep, agree with that. Yet the deal would never have got anywhere near the first referendum .
Cameron's deal looks brilliant in hindsight.
Cameron's deal wasn't backed by a treaty and therefore not worth a bucket of cold piss.
It had been agreed. There's no way the EU would have backed out of it.
The EU is a rules based organisation. 'It had been agreed' carries no weight whatsoever. It was a bunch of ephemeral politicians attempting to be helpful to one of their kind.
Do you really think that the EU would have torn up the agreement? Really?
They'd be all too aware of the potential consequences, to the UK, to themselves, to other nations, to do that.
And if the referendum had been held, we'd have had two campaigns (as we had in 2016), with one holding a worthless piece of paper, and the other claiming they were the one true Brexit, with the polling about immigration and other matters backing them up.
We'd be in exactly the position we are now. The document would have been as useless as Chamberlain's piece of paper.
Not exactly.
We would have had 2 campaigns, but the paper would be official.
If Leave won, only the things on the paper would be the basis of the next steps.
The Faragists might have got the vote over the line again, but unless "end FoM immediately" was on the paper it wouldn't be the negotiating red line
Which makes the paper worthless. Brexit has been driven by the likes of Farage and UKIP, with a load of other people holding their noses to support them. Any leave that did not meet their requirements would not solve anything.
As we're seeing with May's deal.
May's deal solves an upcoming potential economic crash whilst leaving the EU. That's it. That's all there really is to it. People can pontificate about vassalage or whatever but the clock is ticking and it's the only deal on the table.
@Alex expresses my thoughts on the matter better than I can this morning.
Yep, agree with that. Yet the deal would never have got anywhere near the first referendum .
Cameron's deal looks brilliant in hindsight.
Cameron's deal wasn't backed by a treaty and therefore not worth a bucket of cold piss.
Which aspect of the deal were you concerned about not being watertight?
May's deal would be fine w/o the backstop. There are 5 days set aside for debate in the Commons, with scope for amendments. If the Commons does its job it can send her away with the backing of Parliament to climb out of the hole she has dug by confronting the EU with a deal-minus-backstop / no-deal choice.
There is no deal minus the backstop. The backstop IS the deal.
If there's no movement from the EU then it is no deal.
But the commons doesn't want no deal, so why would they vote for a course of action which would inevitably lead there?
** Bangs head on table **
Parliament has already voted for No Deal. That is what will inevitably happen on March 29th.
Unless the current deal - the only one on offer - is accepted. As it looks as if it won’t be, then No Deal it is.
If Parliament wants to remain in the EU then it will have to do something to bring that about.
Do law firm partners really recommend business management books? The more bsd corporate partners perhap, not the brighter ones. I’d recommend Richard Susskind for living proof of the theory that some shit will stick if you throw enough. The lesson for trainees from Susskind is always look to the future and if you make enough predictions and shout loudly enough then some of them will be correct. There may be an analogy to politics there.
Law firm managing partners love a business management book.
In my experience most law firm partners are bloody awful managers of people. You don’t need a management book to be a good manager. You do need some emotional intelligence, an interest in the people who work for you and an understanding that the measure of your success is how well your people do.
I agree with the general points that Alastair is making, but it's a bit defeatist. A way forward will be found, let's make it the least bad.
FWIW my impression is that if we ask to withdraw A50 we will be allowed back on the same terms. This is the default position until we withdraw - they would need to make an actively hostile move to take the rebate away. I follow politics on the Continent closely and I'm convinced that they'll see a change of mind as so important (not least as it will conclusively establish the precedent that leaving is a crap idea) that their interest in setting up hurdles will be zero. It would be possible before any referendum to get agreement to that.
But we can't do it without some form of popular consent without really deep disillusion. That's why - and I know it's hard to separate from my usual Labour loyalism - McDonnell's 3-step process makes sense. First we need to reject the May deal, which would lock us semi-permanently into an associate status that nearly everyone dislikes. Second we need to deal with the question of whether an election is needed. I expect the Commons to vote "no" to that. Then we need a referendum that offers the only two realistic oiptions - proposing to remain and deciding to leave with a minimal No Deal. The latest poll shows a 10-point Remain lead on that basis and in the light of what's happened I suspect it would grow, but if people vote for hard Brexit, so be it - they're now quite well-informed.
On the general issue of referendums, I agree that they should only be offered if the Government sees both alternatives as defensible. Giving people a choice between placebo and poison on the assumption that they'll prefer the placebo is reckless.
I agree. If Parliament can’t or won’t decide then we will have to. The sooner the better.
If Parliament can't or won't decide on the biggest issue for decades, then the current crop of politicians really are not fit for pupose..;;
May's deal would be fine w/o the backstop. There are 5 days set aside for debate in the Commons, with scope for amendments. If the Commons does its job it can send her away with the backing of Parliament to climb out of the hole she has dug by confronting the EU with a deal-minus-backstop / no-deal choice.
There is no deal minus the backstop. The backstop IS the deal.
If there's no movement from the EU then it is no deal.
But the commons doesn't want no deal, so why would they vote for a course of action which would inevitably lead there?
Atm it is all conjecture what might pass the Commons. It seems to be against both the WA and the No-deal, and it cannot revert to Remain. The 5 day debate should clarify which options are clear no-no's. If the lcd that is left is something other than no-deal we'll have to see.
And if the referendum had been held, we'd have had two campaigns (as we had in 2016), with one holding a worthless piece of paper, and the other claiming they were the one true Brexit, with the polling about immigration and other matters backing them up.
We'd be in exactly the position we are now. The document would have been as useless as Chamberlain's piece of paper.
Not exactly.
We would have had 2 campaigns, but the paper would be official.
If Leave won, only the things on the paper would be the basis of the next steps.
The Faragists might have got the vote over the line again, but unless "end FoM immediately" was on the paper it wouldn't be the negotiating red line
Which makes the paper worthless. Brexit has been driven by the likes of Farage and UKIP, with a load of other people holding their noses to support them. Any leave that did not meet their requirements would not solve anything.
As we're seeing with May's deal.
May's deal solves an upcoming potential economic crash whilst leaving the EU. That's it. That's all there really is to it. People can pontificate about vassalage or whatever but the clock is ticking and it's the only deal on the table.
@Alex expresses my thoughts on the matter better than I can this morning.
Yep, agree with that. Yet the deal would never have got anywhere near the first referendum .
Cameron's deal looks brilliant in hindsight.
Cameron's deal wasn't backed by a treaty and therefore not worth a bucket of cold piss.
It had been agreed. There's no way the EU would have backed out of it.
The EU is a rules based organisation. 'It had been agreed' carries no weight whatsoever. It was a bunch of ephemeral politicians attempting to be helpful to one of their kind.
Do you really think that the EU would have torn up the agreement? Really?
They'd be all too aware of the potential consequences, to the UK, to themselves, to other nations, to do that.
Of course they would. Or rather, the ECJ would. Even as an ardent Brexiteer, I am totally in agreement with that stance. You can't have a multi-lateral organisation where a bunch of politicos can cut side deals to ameliorate one member's domestic political woes - it really would be all over for the Project if that were the case.
Comments
He's just talking about what he wishes (particularly from a political viewpoint). Sadly, that's what too many people are doing at the moment. This is what *I* want. And if I really, really screw my eyes up and cross my finger, it'll happen!
It's childish wish-listing without any idea of how to make their wishes come true. To give credit to Cameron, he did the hard work and got a renegotiation. And the same for May - she's done the legwork.
Everybody else just seems to have unicorn fart based dreams.
In that case it is in Parliament's court, either we face 'the worst recession since the 1930s' as the Times in a No Deal scenario and potential economic apocalypse followed likely by a Corbyn premiership which combined could take decades to recover from or they will have to face, either by voting through May's Deal or by making further concessions to the EU, whether permanent Customs Union as Corbyn wants and/or permanent Single Market. EUref2 as Alistair Meeks states would be more complicated if conditions were attached to a Remain vote and return to the EU and ahould be seen as a last resort but probably still better than No Deal
We'll have to hope one of them is right otherwise we're in real trouble. More than now.
What Carney is doing in that case is saying suppose interest rates had to go up to 5.5% and this caused a certain level of default amongst mortgage and business borrowers would the banks remain financially secure? The answer is yes but the important thing is that he is not saying that would happen, just that our banks are that strong.
The level of willful ignorance about this shown, for example, by that absurd front page of the Indy is indicative of the quality of our discourse on this subject which is a war of hysteria and hyperbole from both sides.
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2018/11/daniel-hannan-i-really-want-to-support-the-prime-ministers-deal-but-i-cant-it-proposes-a-way-of-leaving-thats-exactly-the-wrong-way-round.html
If they complain about the weather and queue properly as well they should probably qualify for a passport...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46380153
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46377765
And politically who wants it. If May is gone no party will argue for the deal in a campaign. If she is there she and some loyalists will but everybody else including masses of Tories won't. If it somehow won labour and others would look like they went against the public and they wont want to risk that.
LOL! The establishment really are laying it on thick this week aren't they?
Yet the government is buying all those portaloos...
"Stoke Hartlepool Preston Sunderland Boston Jaywick Northern Ireland ,,,,, Leave them to their own choices."
You little tinker, in your little enclave, you don't realise that's exactly what they want, along with great swathes of the North and Wales. Add in the Jocks too, despite them having a majority of Remainers.
It may come as a shock to you, but London is generally seen as a hive of pretentious do-nothing luvvies with an inflated opinion of themselves, ludicrous house prices and riddled with knife crime. And when it comes to the Yorkies' view of the capital …
But I know you're only 'aving a giraffe, as you say.in Nice.
https://artblart.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/howard_greenberg_dorothea_lange_migrant_mother-web.jpg
https://twitter.com/PopulismUpdates/status/1067837237432246272
We would have had 2 campaigns, but the paper would be official.
If Leave won, only the things on the paper would be the basis of the next steps.
The Faragists might have got the vote over the line again, but unless "end FoM immediately" was on the paper it wouldn't be the negotiating red line
(PS If you are there's a very good exhibition called 'connections' I think at the Tate on the Waterfront which I visited last week)
Although I concede that wasn’t done by an independent Bank of England.
They completely disrespect the UK as can be seen over the last 2 years since the vote.
Why any sane person wants to be in the same gang as them is beyond me. And based upon their future integration plans, eu army etc they will only get worse.
The reason the deal is getting battered is because it is nobody’s first choice option in a world where the MPs think they have a chance of their first choice option coming to pass (ignore the cr*p from those who claim they prefer remain to it or vice verse - those who genuinely believe that are a handful).
Also many opposing the deal claim it is because they want a different deal. Where does that fit in?
https://www.bloomberg.com/energy
Having said that, Brexit was an atrocious value bet. Any upsides have to come from unknown unknowns. The known knowns and the known unknowns - the only sensible basis of an evaluation - are essentially all downside.
I guess it has tactical benefits: Say the government and Remainist MPs cut a deal to make a referendum on The Deal vs Remain, as they may well. No-Deal advocates will be understandably miffed, and the Labour leadership can say, well *we* stood up for you.
The common thread in Labour's positions is that since all the options are terrible, they need to be careful not to advocate something that may actually happen.
“Deal yes or no”. Consequences of “no” to be determined after...
I've had an L postcode and been perched on the edge of Liverpool for the last 25 years, but I was born and brought up in Boston. I hate to shatter your illusions, but even the posh Scousers think the same about London. By the time you get into Woolly-back country, it becomes unprintable.
All Brexits surrender leverage to other powers on large elements of our economy or even territory (NI).
No Brexit makes us more democratic.
No Brexit gives us more money for the NHS.
No Brexit brings the fishing industry back.
No Brexit increases our hard or soft power.
No Brexit reduces our overreliance on consumption.
No Brexit rebalances growth toward our badly lagging provinces.
No Brexit tackles the issues of the 21st century: climate change; a multi-polar world; the rise of AI and the threat to jobs; growing wealth inequality; the threat of mass migration from Africa and the Middle East.
May’s deal is purely an exercise in damage limitation.
We all know this.
The public knows this.
That’s why there’s no strong support for it.
But no politician seems to have the spine, the balls, the heart, and the credibility to articulate these self-evident truths.
Is all that is relevant.
As we're seeing with May's deal.
But no. They just promise whatever they think will get them votes, regardless of whether it is deliverable, or the consequences of it being delivered.
@Alex expresses my thoughts on the matter better than I can this morning.
So you're just going to have to forget about leaving and be stuck in it forever against your wishes, whilst even more independence is lost and even more sovereignty is gradually transferred to the EU.
Maybe better not take the chance.....
Cameron's deal looks brilliant in hindsight.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/november2018
Yet in the year to June 2018 the number of non-British people in work fell by 58 thousand (by country of birth) or 16 thousand (by nationality):
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/datasets/employmentbycountryofbirthandnationalityemp06
So who are the people still migrating to the UK and for what purpose are they doing so.
The country will never accept the consequences of a "No deal". How Brexit dies is still up for grabs - Norway +, 2nd Referendum etc.
It would be good to not have swivel eyed loons on either side.
They'd be all too aware of the potential consequences, to the UK, to themselves, to other nations, to do that.
Parliament has already voted for No Deal. That is what will inevitably happen on March 29th.
Unless the current deal - the only one on offer - is accepted. As it looks as if it won’t be, then No Deal it is.
If Parliament wants to remain in the EU then it will have to do something to bring that about.