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.
Why is it so hard for the basic fact to be understood.
By 29th March we either agree a deal with EU or leave without a deal.
There is nothing that Parliament can do unilaterally to alter that (subject to legal challenges).
Listening to Mark Carney begs the question;'Why are we allowing the tail to wag the dog'.
This country has become a farce. The interesting parts which are ALL Remain should hive themselves off and leave the crap areas to organise themselves as they wish. We could start with London declaring UDI. A Monaco in the heart of England.
Stoke Hartlepool Preston Sunderland Boston Jaywick Northern Ireland ,,,,, Leave them to their own choices
........and if you're going to miss them hoot your horn.......
Monaco is the favoured hiding place for crooks, money launderers and financial scammers of all types. A place which if it appears anywhere in a deal is a bloody great red flag that something dodgy is going on. A place which has no use for integrity. And that is your preferred exemplar for London, is it?!?!
I’d take any of the other places you mention in a heartbeat over Monaco. Preston has the beautiful Forest of Bowland nearby. Northern Ireland has glorious countrysideand a wonderful arts scene. The North East has great beaches and countryside etc etc.
Monaco is full of vulgar materialists like Mr and Mrs Green.
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.
Why is it so hard for the basic fact to be understood.
By 29th March we either agree a deal with EU or leave without a deal.
There is nothing that Parliament can do unilaterally to alter that (subject to legal challenges).
Well, that isn’t true. Parliament can instruct the executive to ask to extend or rescind Article 50.
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.
I utterly disagree with you on that, and think that you, as an ardent Brexiteer - aren't looking at it realistically.
A multi-lateral organisation needs to be able to make decisions, and outside parties to those decisions need to know those decisions will be implemented. That has to be done at some level, and cannot be done by negotiating individually with each individual member state.
The EU negotiating a deal with Cameron, then tearing it up, would be disastrous to the EU for many reasons. They'll be seen as utterly untrustworthy. Which is, I guess, the angle you're approaching it from ...
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.
They'll probably realise when France (Oh and they do have this facility already as my car took a while to come back to the UK after breaking down) implements customs checks on everything and declares "Le Touquet" null and void. I expect the Dutch, being more reasonable than the French will give a week's grace but then start insisting on origin papers and whatnot for British containers passing through Rotterdam which they won't have.
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.
Why is it so hard for the basic fact to be understood.
By 29th March we either agree a deal with EU or leave without a deal.
There is nothing that Parliament can do unilaterally to alter that (subject to legal challenges).
Well, that isn’t true. Parliament can instruct the executive to ask to extend or rescind Article 50.
'to ask' implies agreement / permission is required.
Therefore Parliament can not unilaterally alter the binary options of accept a deal or leave with no deal.
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.
I utterly disagree with you on that, and think that you, as an ardent Brexiteer - aren't looking at it realistically.
A multi-lateral organisation needs to be able to make decisions, and outside parties to those decisions need to know those decisions will be implemented. That has to be done at some level, and cannot be done by negotiating individually with each individual member state.
The EU negotiating a deal with Cameron, then tearing it up, would be disastrous to the EU for many reasons. They'll be seen as utterly untrustworthy. Which is, I guess, the angle you're approaching it from ...
It wasn't 'the EU' negotiating a deal with Cameron. It was the European Council. That's but one aspect of the overall apparatus. I think we'll have to agree to disagree, though. It's water under the bridge.
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.
Why is it so hard for the basic fact to be understood.
By 29th March we either agree a deal with EU or leave without a deal.
There is nothing that Parliament can do unilaterally to alter that (subject to legal challenges).
Well, that isn’t true. Parliament can instruct the executive to ask to extend or rescind Article 50.
Which rescinding or extension may or may not even be possible. Even with the best will of the 27 (and when has that ever been on display to the UK?)
Lol, the Germans asking the French to give up their UNSC seat to the EU. That could have been Germany asking the UK...
Could they actually do that? And would it mean that the EU would only ever have one vote because no member states would be eligible for the non-permanent seats?
Unlike getting stuck in litigation, however, there is a very simple way to extricate ourselves from the Brexit mess. It simply requires MPs to ratify the deal on the table. It really is as simple as that, but unfortunately it doesn't look as though it's going to happen.
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.
OblitusSumMe's Rule of Referendums is that the question should always be between the status quo and an alternative that the Government recommends to the nation.
The Original Sin of the Brexit Referendum is that the government attempted to use a forced choice to coerce the British public into voting with the government. Much as I oppose Brexit in principle, we wouldn't be in nearly so much bother had Leaving been the policy of the government before the referendum vote.
We shouldn't repeat this mistake with a second referendum, although the question then is whether the status quo option is our current EU membership, or the No Deal that current legislation commits us to in the absence of a change.
Lol, the Germans asking the French to give up their UNSC seat to the EU. That could have been Germany asking the UK...
Could they actually do that? And would it mean that the EU would only ever have one vote because no member states would be eligible for the non-permanent seats?
The composition of the security council is hardwired into the UN so in practice it’s not possible without a completely new world order.
Lol, the Germans asking the French to give up their UNSC seat to the EU. That could have been Germany asking the UK...
Could they actually do that? And would it mean that the EU would only ever have one vote because no member states would be eligible for the non-permanent seats?
Just to be provocative, which will last longest, UN or EU? You could add NATO to that comparison, or possibly OPEC?
Lol, the Germans asking the French to give up their UNSC seat to the EU. That could have been Germany asking the UK...
Could they actually do that? And would it mean that the EU would only ever have one vote because no member states would be eligible for the non-permanent seats?
The composition of the security council is hardwired into the UN so in practice it’s not possible without a completely new world order.
That's what I thought. A very odd suggestion by the Germans.
Mr. Max, mildly surprised that's happened so soon.
Perhaps a consequence of the EU army, and the future of a single EU defence policy to sit alongside the foreign high panjandrum?
I care naught for the EU army, bar it risks pissing off the US if they don't mind their Ps & Qs with regard to C3I, but it's the call for QMV on foreign policy that's more worrying. The next accession treaty (early 20s? Can't recall the exact date) will be very interesting.
The country will never accept the consequences of a "No deal". How Brexit dies is still up for grabs - Norway +, 2nd Referendum etc.
Brexit does not die with Norway and it is becoming a likely end point. No deal was finally buried yesterday thankfully
A referendum is a very complex issue with many unanswered questions including whether the EU would let us remain on the same terms, A50 extension cannot happen too much because of the EU elections in May, and how the wording is resolved
Listening to Mark Carney begs the question;'Why are we allowing the tail to wag the dog'.
This country has become a farce. The interesting parts which are ALL Remain should hive themselves off and leave the crap areas to organise themselves as they wish. We could start with London declaring UDI. A Monaco in the heart of England.
Stoke Hartlepool Preston Sunderland Boston Jaywick Northern Ireland ,,,,, Leave them to their own choices
........and if you're going to miss them hoot your horn.......
Monaco is the favoured hiding place for crooks, money launderers and financial scammers of all types. A place which if it appears anywhere in a deal is a bloody great red flag that something dodgy is going on. A place which has no use for integrity. And that is your preferred exemplar for London, is it?!?!
I’d take any of the other places you mention in a heartbeat over Monaco. Preston has the beautiful Forest of Bowland nearby. Northern Ireland has glorious countrysideand a wonderful arts scene. The North East has great beaches and countryside etc etc.
Monaco is full of vulgar materialists like Mr and Mrs Green.
...and the cutest zoo you're ever likely to see. And Paula Radcliffe
(NB At the time of going to press still SIR Philip and LADY Green)
Lol, the Germans asking the French to give up their UNSC seat to the EU. That could have been Germany asking the UK...
Could they actually do that? And would it mean that the EU would only ever have one vote because no member states would be eligible for the non-permanent seats?
The composition of the security council is hardwired into the UN so in practice it’s not possible without a completely new world order.
It's subject to veto by the existing permanent members, plus the usual 66% vote by other members. Russia would veto it as a matter of course, but I don't think it's 'hardwired' in the way you allude.
Does this mean that 49k more Brits emigrated than returned home in the last year?
322,000 more people a year. More than the population of Nottingham.
Since we're not building the infrastructure of Nottingham every year perhaps this course of action is not the wisest in terms of improving the quality of life of people who are already here.
Does this mean that 49k more Brits emigrated than returned home in the last year?
322,000 more people a year. More than the population of Nottingham.
Since we're not building the infrastructure of Nottingham every year perhaps this course of action is not the wisest in terms of improving the quality of life of people who are already here.
No worries, no deal Brexit will turn the country into a lifeless, barren wasteland. Should be ideal for the next Mad Max shoot.
Unlike getting stuck in litigation, however, there is a very simple way to extricate ourselves from the Brexit mess. It simply requires MPs to ratify the deal on the table. It really is as simple as that, but unfortunately it doesn't look as though it's going to happen.
There do currently seem to be about 600 different versions of What We Should Do Next represented in the House of Commons. May's only hope of getting her deal through is if the penny finally drops that it really is Her Deal or No Deal. (A No Deal which is a self-fulfilling nightmare because she has made it so - by continually refused to make any meaningful preparation.)
Chasing down fantasies of second referendums saving the day are just that - fantasies. It is just running down the clock to WTO Brexit. Which, given the lack of preparation, will be at best uncomfortable and damaging, even if not falling into the Governor's Britian eating roots and berries scenarios.
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.
Why is it so hard for the basic fact to be understood.
By 29th March we either agree a deal with EU or leave without a deal.
There is nothing that Parliament can do unilaterally to alter that (subject to legal challenges).
Well, that isn’t true. Parliament can instruct the executive to ask to extend or rescind Article 50.
Which rescinding or extension may or may not even be possible. Even with the best will of the 27 (and when has that ever been on display to the UK?)
The UK asking to Remain would be the very best example the EU could have. Especially if it were after another vote.
Now some countries might wish to humiliate the UK even further. But I suspect most won’t and I expect that view to prevail.
The rebate might well be given up since it is not in a treaty but a new budget round is due anyway soon and there could well be a boost to the UK economy if the present uncertainty were removed.
I know there will be the usual cries about the euro and the EU army etc. But with Trump on one side (and I don’t see America becoming much more focused on Europe under a successor), Putin on the other and the Chinese, maybe a joint EU defence is a good thing?
And if Britain were to join the euro imagine how powerful that would make its financial sector and how powerful that would make Britain within the EU?
I am not a natural EU integrationist.
But the world has changed a lot in the last two years and the trends we are seeing now are ones which mean that we need to stop thinking that we can go back to a world where the post WW2 order was still alive and kicking. We need new thinking.
Brexit does not die with Norway and it is becoming a likely end point. No deal was finally buried yesterday thankfully
A referendum is a very complex issue with many unanswered questions including whether the EU would let us remain on the same terms, A50 extension cannot happen too much because of the EU elections in May, and how the wording is resolved
You said all this "No Deal is buried" guff before and now Carney has had to be wheeled out a second time to remind people of the Armageddon they will be facing if they don't accept the Blessed Theresa's Immaculate Deal.
The trouble is the impact of Fear lessens with time and as we saw yesterday Carney's scenarios soon unravel when presented with some alternative hypotheses.
What Carney has revealed is the sheer incompetence of a Government which has seemingly done nothing to prepare the country for the consequences of a No Deal and while most local authorities have been preparing it now appears the much-lauded private sector is dragging its feet (presumably waiting for some lead from Government).
As a result of our own ill-preparedness and weakness we will have no choice but to acquiesce to may's terrible Deal and go from there but at least one can only hope the Conservatives will one day be held electorally accountable for the inaction of the past couple of years.
Yesterday we sent you Stephen's blog piece which concluded that a rarely observed Condorcet Paradox was found in Theresa May's three Brexit outcomes.
Unfortunately, an error found its way into the text which meant that, in fact, May's Deal was a Condorcet Winner. We are very sorry for the mistake, and Stephen has re-written his piece to reflect the true meaning of the analysis.
To read Stephen's amended article, please visit the dedicated blogging page on the Deltapoll website, here.
So constructing a series of two-way contests from the preference orderings means that there is a majority for the Deal over No Deal and for the Deal over Remain. This means that May’s Agreement is what political scientists call the Condorcet winner.
Listening to Mark Carney begs the question;'Why are we allowing the tail to wag the dog'.
This country has become a farce. The interesting parts which are ALL Remain should hive themselves off and leave the crap areas to organise themselves as they wish. We could start with London declaring UDI. A Monaco in the heart of England.
Stoke Hartlepool Preston Sunderland Boston Jaywick Northern Ireland ,,,,, Leave them to their own choices
........and if you're going to miss them hoot your horn.......
Monaco is the favoured hiding place for crooks, money launderers and financial scammers of all types. A place which if it appears anywhere in a deal is a bloody great red flag that something dodgy is going on. A place which has no use for integrity. And that is your preferred exemplar for London, is it?!?!
I’d take any of the other places you mention in a heartbeat over Monaco. Preston has the beautiful Forest of Bowland nearby. Northern Ireland has glorious countrysideand a wonderful arts scene. The North East has great beaches and countryside etc etc.
Monaco is full of vulgar materialists like Mr and Mrs Green.
My now wife and I had a very good time as students in Sunderland, albeit many years ago, and before I met her I went around for a while a very attractive girl from Hartlepool about whom I occasionally still wonder.........
Listening to Mark Carney begs the question;'Why are we allowing the tail to wag the dog'.
This country has become a farce. The interesting parts which are ALL Remain should hive themselves off and leave the crap areas to organise themselves as they wish. We could start with London declaring UDI. A Monaco in the heart of England.
Stoke Hartlepool Preston Sunderland Boston Jaywick Northern Ireland ,,,,, Leave them to their own choices
........and if you're going to miss them hoot your horn.......
Monaco is the favoured hiding place for crooks, money launderers and financial scammers of all types. A place which if it appears anywhere in a deal is a bloody great red flag that something dodgy is going on. A place which has no use for integrity. And that is your preferred exemplar for London, is it?!?!
I’d take any of the other places you mention in a heartbeat over Monaco. Preston has the beautiful Forest of Bowland nearby. Northern Ireland has glorious countrysideand a wonderful arts scene. The North East has great beaches and countryside etc etc.
Monaco is full of vulgar materialists like Mr and Mrs Green.
...and the cutest zoo you're ever likely to see. And Paula Radcliffe
(NB At the time of going to press still SIR Philip and LADY Green)
Titles like that do not make one a gentleman or lady. And nothing I have seen of their behaviour or spending habits suggest to me that they are anything other than really quite vulgar common people, of a type who have been far too much feted in our society for far too long.
I know there will be the usual cries about the euro and the EU army etc. But with Trump on one side (and I don’t see America becoming much more focused on Europe under a successor), Putin on the other and the Chinese, maybe a joint EU defence is a good thing?
And if Britain were to join the euro imagine how powerful that would make its financial sector and how powerful that would make Britain within the EU?
I am not a natural EU integrationist.
But the world has changed a lot in the last two years and the trends we are seeing now are ones which mean that we need to stop thinking that we can go back to a world where the post WW2 order was still alive and kicking. We need new thinking.
Does this mean that 49k more Brits emigrated than returned home in the last year?
322,000 more people a year. More than the population of Nottingham.
Since we're not building the infrastructure of Nottingham every year perhaps this course of action is not the wisest in terms of improving the quality of life of people who are already here.
No worries, no deal Brexit will turn the country into a lifeless, barren wasteland. Should be ideal for the next Mad Max shoot.
Listening to Mark Carney begs the question;'Why are we allowing the tail to wag the dog'.
This country has become a farce. The interesting parts which are ALL Remain should hive themselves off and leave the crap areas to organise themselves as they wish. We could start with London declaring UDI. A Monaco in the heart of England.
Stoke Hartlepool Preston Sunderland Boston Jaywick Northern Ireland ,,,,, Leave them to their own choices
........and if you're going to miss them hoot your horn.......
Monaco is the favoured hiding place for crooks, money launderers and financial scammers of all types. A place which if it appears anywhere in a deal is a bloody great red flag that something dodgy is going on. A place which has no use for integrity. And that is your preferred exemplar for London, is it?!?!
I’d take any of the other places you mention in a heartbeat over Monaco. Preston has the beautiful Forest of Bowland nearby. Northern Ireland has glorious countrysideand a wonderful arts scene. The North East has great beaches and countryside etc etc.
Monaco is full of vulgar materialists like Mr and Mrs Green.
My now wife and I had a very good time as students in Sunderland, albeit many years ago, and before I met her I went around for a while a very attractive girl from Hartlepool about whom I occasionally still wonder.........
My brother-in-law, a retired deputy-headmaster, went to university in Sunderland and loved it.
I do wonder if Foreign/Defence matters would be handled on that basis in the long term or whether there'd be a drive for a more cohesive government of the EU.
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
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.
No posting by Gardenwalker has ever born more than a passing resemblance to reality.
Almost every one of those points is opinion rather than fact and based solely on your own bias.
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
I know there will be the usual cries about the euro and the EU army etc. But with Trump on one side (and I don’t see America becoming much more focused on Europe under a successor), Putin on the other and the Chinese, maybe a joint EU defence is a good thing?
Which of the two operational German tanks is your favourite ?
Lol, the Germans asking the French to give up their UNSC seat to the EU. That could have been Germany asking the UK...
Could they actually do that? And would it mean that the EU would only ever have one vote because no member states would be eligible for the non-permanent seats?
Just to be provocative, which will last longest, UN or EU? You could add NATO to that comparison, or possibly OPEC?
Brexit does not die with Norway and it is becoming a likely end point. No deal was finally buried yesterday thankfully
A referendum is a very complex issue with many unanswered questions including whether the EU would let us remain on the same terms, A50 extension cannot happen too much because of the EU elections in May, and how the wording is resolved
You said all this "No Deal is buried" guff before and now Carney has had to be wheeled out a second time to remind people of the Armageddon they will be facing if they don't accept the Blessed Theresa's Immaculate Deal.
The trouble is the impact of Fear lessens with time and as we saw yesterday Carney's scenarios soon unravel when presented with some alternative hypotheses.
What Carney has revealed is the sheer incompetence of a Government which has seemingly done nothing to prepare the country for the consequences of a No Deal and while most local authorities have been preparing it now appears the much-lauded private sector is dragging its feet (presumably waiting for some lead from Government).
As a result of our own ill-preparedness and weakness we will have no choice but to acquiesce to may's terrible Deal and go from there but at least one can only hope the Conservatives will one day be held electorally accountable for the inaction of the past couple of years.
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
None of the German navy’s six submarines were operational at the end of last year, and only nine of a planned 15 frigates are in service.
None of the Luftwaffe’s 14 A400M transport aircraft were airworthy on several occasions last year, and replacement aircraft had to be chartered to bring serving troops home
The German tank battalion that is due to take command of the taskforce currently only has nine operational tanks out of a total of 48
Lol, the Germans asking the French to give up their UNSC seat to the EU. That could have been Germany asking the UK...
Could they actually do that? And would it mean that the EU would only ever have one vote because no member states would be eligible for the non-permanent seats?
Just to be provocative, which will last longest, UN or EU? You could add NATO to that comparison, or possibly OPEC?
Or the UK. Perhaps Shadsy could price it up.
Sadly, out of UN, EU, NATO, OPEC, and UK, I suspect the UK will be the first to go*.
(*Assuming we accept that if any of: NI, Scotland, Wales or England leave, then the UK is no more.)
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
She is hopeless.
Thankfully she will be gone soon
And then what Bigjohn?
And then we negotiate a better deal or we have an in out Referendum or a GE
We cannot carry on with this completely useless woman in charge.
She has spent 30 months to get to this load of crap.
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
She is hopeless.
Thankfully she will be gone soon
And then what Bigjohn?
Depends on her replacement. If it's Boris, God help us all.
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.
I don't think the EU would agree to that version of 'No Deal'. I think they would say what they've always said - the Withdrawal Agreement is just that, you have to sign it, but the subsequent long-term relationship is up for discussion. I don't think that would really get us any further, since the objections to May's deal, inasmuch as they are coherent at all, are principally to the Withdrawal Agreement.
Also, whilst I hesitate to contradict you on the likely Labour Party position, I don't think you are right that the party would support a Remain/No Deal referendum (Placebo vs Poison in your rather good analogy). How could they, given that they are making a big push on trying to rule out No Deal? I think the only version of a referendum that could get through parliament is Remain vs May's Deal, which would have the very good feature that both options would be clear. No prizes for guessing which I think would win in that scenario.
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
She is hopeless.
Thankfully she will be gone soon
I wouldn't bet on it
I think the one constant across the House is that NOBODY wants her in charge of the next stage of negotiating with the EU, whether that is the Trade deal or trying to rejig the current May/Robbins fiasco.
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
She is hopeless.
Thankfully she will be gone soon
And then what Bigjohn?
And then we negotiate a better deal or we have an in out Referendum or a GE
We cannot carry on with this completely useless woman in charge.
She has spent 30 months to get to this load of crap.
Seriously
But again, that's not a plan. It's scarcely even coherent thought.
I want this or this or this or this ... I know what I want, but I don't know how to get there, or what damage it'll do. I just want it. Or I'll scream and scream and scream.
BBC says Deutsche Bank in Frankfurt raded over money-laundering. 'Germany's public prosecutor alleged that two staff members have helped clients launder money from criminal activities.'
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
She is hopeless.
Thankfully she will be gone soon
I wouldn't bet on it
I think the one constant across the House is that NOBODY wants her in charge of the next stage of negotiating with the EU, whether that is the Trade deal or trying to rejig the current May/Robbins fiasco.
Do you think May realises this? She appears to have surrounded people who are not telling her she's heading for a galactic-scale shellacking, so they are presumably also not telling her she will be expected to leave when she does.
If (when?) May tries to pull a "nothing has changed" after the meaningful vote defeat, there's gonna be blood on the carpets, curtains, wallpaper, bedsheets and ceiling.
Going back to the Treasury forecasts yesterday, the problem with them is they are meaningless.
For the Chequers and modified Chequers scenarios they are literally rounding errors on the normal quarterly growth numbers
On the basic calculation without talking into account compounding
2.5% in 15 years time is 0.04% less growth per quarter 3.9% in 15 years time is 0.06% less growth per quarter.
These numbers are so small the media would normally never even report them to that degree of accuracy. And given that to get to the 15 year value they have had to compound the quarterly figures the actual numbers would be even smaller. It is the equivalent of a snowy week in January.
Of course with the No Deal scenario the number are a bit bigger but even the headline of 9.3% smaller in 15 years time the actual quarterly numbers are very small. I am not saying I want No Deal, just that these numbers from the Treasury are a large dollop of smoke and mirrors.
Since there have been noises off about the potential need for a government of national unity, what sort of candidates do we have floating around for who might make a good caretaker PM?
Mark Carney William Hague Ken Clarke Gary Lineker Joanne Rowling Mr Blobby James O'Brien Michel Barnier
Lol, the Germans asking the French to give up their UNSC seat to the EU. That could have been Germany asking the UK...
Could they actually do that? And would it mean that the EU would only ever have one vote because no member states would be eligible for the non-permanent seats?
Just to be provocative, which will last longest, UN or EU? You could add NATO to that comparison, or possibly OPEC?
Or the UK. Perhaps Shadsy could price it up.
Sadly, out of UN, EU, NATO, OPEC, and UK, I suspect the UK will be the first to go*.
(*Assuming we accept that if any of: NI, Scotland, Wales or England leave, then the UK is no more.)
The only two of those that would cause me sadness are the UN and NATO.
say 50,000 Doctors; 90,000 nurses; 40,000 students; 30,000 housewives; 50,000 students; 5,000 lathe operators. People could then see exactly who is coming into the country and might be more accepting of the figures.
The thing is, the narrative of the great Tory backbench revolt has reached critical mass by this point. It becomes easier and safer for waverers to join in the kicking rather than go out on a limb supporting a doomed deal and a doomed PM.
James Forsythe thinks May could go for (and win) a 3-question 2nd referendum:
I know that the idea of May proposing a second referendum seems outlandish—and I’m not suggesting that Number 10 are currently keen on the idea. But given that she can’t pivot to Norway having defined the referendum as being about free movement and that she doesn’t want either no deal or Remain, then what other options does she have? As Sherlock Holmes said, once you have eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Since there have been noises off about the potential need for a government of national unity, what sort of candidates do we have floating around for who might make a good caretaker PM?
Mark Carney William Hague Ken Clarke Gary Lineker Joanne Rowling Mr Blobby James O'Brien Michel Barnier
I'd go for Carney out of those. I reckon he could run a competent, albeit technocratic government.
Since there have been noises off about the potential need for a government of national unity, what sort of candidates do we have floating around for who might make a good caretaker PM?
Mark Carney William Hague Ken Clarke Gary Lineker Joanne Rowling Mr Blobby James O'Brien Michel Barnier
Kilroy-Silk. If he's still alive. Neil Hamilton. Baron Archer of Weston super Mare.
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
She is hopeless.
Thankfully she will be gone soon
And then what Bigjohn?
And then we negotiate a better deal or we have an in out Referendum or a GE
We cannot carry on with this completely useless woman in charge.
She has spent 30 months to get to this load of crap.
Seriously
As you say it's taken 30 months to get this WA negotiated.
The idea that someone else (be they BoJo, Gove, Corbyn, McDonnell or Uncle Tom Cobley) could step in and magically negotiate a fresh deal with a pissed-off and intransigent EU, and that that new deal would magically command the support of the HoC is, frankly, beyond laughable.
Since there have been noises off about the potential need for a government of national unity, what sort of candidates do we have floating around for who might make a good caretaker PM?
Mark Carney William Hague Ken Clarke Gary Lineker Joanne Rowling Mr Blobby James O'Brien Michel Barnier
After all the talk of "deal and no deal" how about Noel Edmonds (when he's finished in the jungle) ?
James Forsythe thinks May could go for (and win) a 3-question 2nd referendum:
I know that the idea of May proposing a second referendum seems outlandish—and I’m not suggesting that Number 10 are currently keen on the idea. But given that she can’t pivot to Norway having defined the referendum as being about free movement and that she doesn’t want either no deal or Remain, then what other options does she have? As Sherlock Holmes said, once you have eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Really, for Leavers or Remainers, there's no sane alternative to what May has come up with. And absolutely no MP who voted to trigger A50 has any right to complain about the outcome.
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
She is hopeless.
Thankfully she will be gone soon
And then what Bigjohn?
And then we negotiate a better deal or we have an in out Referendum or a GE
We cannot carry on with this completely useless woman in charge.
She has spent 30 months to get to this load of crap.
Seriously
As you say it's taken 30 months to get this WA negotiated.
The idea that someone else (be they BoJo, Gove, Corbyn, McDonnell or Uncle Tom Cobley) could step in and magically negotiate a fresh deal with a pissed-off and intransigent EU, and that that new deal would magically command the support of the HoC is, frankly, beyond laughable.
I don't necessarily disagree with you but the point needs to be made that it is not a wholesale renegotiation that would be needed. The sticking point is the backstop which is a purely political matter with a lot fewer players needing to be placated.
I still don't think (from a Leave supporting point of view) it is worth the risk of rejecting the Deal with the possibility of Remain winning through, but if it does come to the point of going back top the EU and saying we want changes it is not really accurate to use the comparison of the previous negotiation which covered the whole range of issues rather than one specific, politically motivated, sticking point.
James Forsythe thinks May could go for (and win) a 3-question 2nd referendum:
I know that the idea of May proposing a second referendum seems outlandish—and I’m not suggesting that Number 10 are currently keen on the idea. But given that she can’t pivot to Norway having defined the referendum as being about free movement and that she doesn’t want either no deal or Remain, then what other options does she have? As Sherlock Holmes said, once you have eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
I think Theresa's going to try a three-way (her nationwide tour has the feel of a referendum campaign already) but I've got a feeling she'll run out of time to get it through Parliament, get the question sorted out with the electoral commission, deal with all he various legal challenges that will be coming the governments way, etc...
Since there have been noises off about the potential need for a government of national unity, what sort of candidates do we have floating around for who might make a good caretaker PM?
Mark Carney William Hague Ken Clarke Gary Lineker Joanne Rowling Mr Blobby James O'Brien Michel Barnier
Kilroy-Silk. If he's still alive. Neil Hamilton. Baron Archer of Weston super Mare.
Someone who the nation can unite around. It needs to be a national treasure.
Alan Titchmarsh. Julie Walters. That bloke off the Antiques Roadshow who does the Worcester porcelain.
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
She is hopeless.
Thankfully she will be gone soon
I wouldn't bet on it
I think the one constant across the House is that NOBODY wants her in charge of the next stage of negotiating with the EU, whether that is the Trade deal or trying to rejig the current May/Robbins fiasco.
There's something in that. I suspect if she does somehow manage to get the WA through, she might resign at that point (or say on March 29th) to allow a fresh face to lead the next stage.
How about this: she agrees with Labour that she will call a GE* for April in return for which they will abstain on the MV, allowing the WA to go through. As the same time she tells her own party she will step down and allow an orderly leadership election in January so a fresh leader is in place for the proposed GE.
(*I know FTPA is an issue but ways could be found etc.)
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
She is hopeless.
Thankfully she will be gone soon
And then what Bigjohn?
And then we negotiate a better deal or we have an in out Referendum or a GE
We cannot carry on with this completely useless woman in charge.
She has spent 30 months to get to this load of crap.
Seriously
As you say it's taken 30 months to get this WA negotiated.
The idea that someone else (be they BoJo, Gove, Corbyn, McDonnell or Uncle Tom Cobley) could step in and magically negotiate a fresh deal with a pissed-off and intransigent EU, and that that new deal would magically command the support of the HoC is, frankly, beyond laughable.
I think Gove might have negotiated an economically better deal, he'd have probably traded free movement for more control over the fisheries. Corbyn's would obviously be different. Boris' deal would have been the same as May's (he's lazy and so It would have been all Olly Robbins) except the backstop would be an NI only customs arrangement. Don't forget how Bob Crow used to walk all over him when it came to TFL deal time
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
She is hopeless.
Thankfully she will be gone soon
I wouldn't bet on it
I think the one constant across the House is that NOBODY wants her in charge of the next stage of negotiating with the EU, whether that is the Trade deal or trying to rejig the current May/Robbins fiasco.
You assume certain actions but the next move if the deal falls is for TM to decide. She could resign, face a vnoc from labour and/or the conservative mps, or may receive cabinet endorsement for her next move.
Interesting in the select committee today Yvette Cooper said to TM that they had known each other for 20 years and there is no way she would allow a no deal. Obviously TM continued to defend her deal but I expect a meeting to be called by TM after the vote with all party leaders to seek a way through the impasse. We know the SNP want Norway as would a large number of labour mps, indeed Stephen Kinnoch was promoting it on the Welsh news.
It is safer than a referendum that could be a disaster of epic portions making the last one look like a walk in the park
Really, for Leavers or Remainers, there's no sane alternative to what May has come up with. And absolutely no MP who voted to trigger A50 has any right to complain about the outcome.
Trying to stop MPs complaining about the consequence of their actions is about as fruitless as commanding back the tides, Mr F.
We're locked into one almighty hand of no-limit political hold'em at the moment. Nobody is showing the slightest inclination to fold, because apparently everyone believes they're on course for a strait flush (or like the ERG are simply too stupid and stubborn to realise they've already lost and to cash out).
Since there have been noises off about the potential need for a government of national unity, what sort of candidates do we have floating around for who might make a good caretaker PM?
Mark Carney William Hague Ken Clarke Gary Lineker Joanne Rowling Mr Blobby James O'Brien Michel Barnier
James Forsythe thinks May could go for (and win) a 3-question 2nd referendum:
I know that the idea of May proposing a second referendum seems outlandish—and I’m not suggesting that Number 10 are currently keen on the idea. But given that she can’t pivot to Norway having defined the referendum as being about free movement and that she doesn’t want either no deal or Remain, then what other options does she have? As Sherlock Holmes said, once you have eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
When support grows for a controversial change, usually it gets expressed in an increased vote for a party that promises it. That is exactly what didn't happen in Britain. We had the remarkable position that the party that came FIRST in an EU election never managed to get more than two MPs - and in general elections they only ever won a single seat, on one occasion only.
Has such a disparity ever occurred in any other EU member state?
The UKIP voteshare graphs show that FPTP is not the only reason.
The other reason is that people have learnt not to be open about their xenophobia, because xenophobia is widely viewed as dirty. That is strange, since dirtiness and smelliness are generally speaking two of the characteristics that xenophobes ascribe to those who belong to the groups they dislike, believing that they themselves are as clean as whistles and smell as fresh as daisies, but that is how it is in their minds. That's why so many Leave voters had such big smiles on their faces when Leave won the referendum, including many who didn't know the difference between the European Commission and the European Parliament and who couldn't REALLY care less whether cucumbers were straight or curved, given that they always slice them into thin discs anyway. Nor do most of them know qualified majority voting from their own bumcracks. What they care about most is immigration, especially by groups that behind closed doors they call them by names that are much more emotive than most people will ever hear a politician refer to them. The referendum result was the return of the repressed.
For all the wonk chat, the essential choice in the coming referendum will again be between the Germanic "Leave" and the Romance "Remain". In Trumpian terms, "reality" versus "snowflakes". Leave will probably at least double their 2016 majority of 3.78%.
Stories about dinghies to Dover and bullying in Huddersfield are very powerful.
James Forsythe thinks May could go for (and win) a 3-question 2nd referendum:
I know that the idea of May proposing a second referendum seems outlandish—and I’m not suggesting that Number 10 are currently keen on the idea. But given that she can’t pivot to Norway having defined the referendum as being about free movement and that she doesn’t want either no deal or Remain, then what other options does she have? As Sherlock Holmes said, once you have eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
James Forsythe thinks May could go for (and win) a 3-question 2nd referendum:
I know that the idea of May proposing a second referendum seems outlandish—and I’m not suggesting that Number 10 are currently keen on the idea. But given that she can’t pivot to Norway having defined the referendum as being about free movement and that she doesn’t want either no deal or Remain, then what other options does she have? As Sherlock Holmes said, once you have eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
If Mrs May's solution is voted down in parliament it would be a novel idea to go over the heads of MPs and put it to the country through a referendum
Mrs May is not a dictator (yet) so she has to get Parliamentary approval to have a three-way.
Then she has to get the electoral commission to come up with the question. At the point they come up with the question you can expect various legal challenges by those unhappy with the question.
Then there has to be a campaign lasting several weeks.
Realistically if we're not in a referendum campaign in January then time will have run out.
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
She is hopeless.
Thankfully she will be gone soon
I wouldn't bet on it
People here have!
When the vote comes in much closer than anyone is expecting, her fortunes will turn around.
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
She is hopeless.
Thankfully she will be gone soon
And then what Bigjohn?
And then we negotiate a better deal or we have an in out Referendum or a GE
We cannot carry on with this completely useless woman in charge.
She has spent 30 months to get to this load of crap.
Seriously
As you say it's taken 30 months to get this WA negotiated.
The idea that someone else (be they BoJo, Gove, Corbyn, McDonnell or Uncle Tom Cobley) could step in and magically negotiate a fresh deal with a pissed-off and intransigent EU, and that that new deal would magically command the support of the HoC is, frankly, beyond laughable.
I think Gove might have negotiated an economically better deal, he'd have probably traded free movement for more control over the fisheries. Corbyn's would obviously be different. Boris' deal would have been the same as May's (he's lazy and so It would have been all Olly Robbins) except the backstop would be an NI only customs arrangement. Don't forget how Bob Crow used to walk all over him when it came to TFL deal time
And, David Davis wouldn't understand what he'd negotiated, but he'd resign anyway.
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.
She is hopeless.
Thankfully she will be gone soon
And then what Bigjohn?
And then we negotiate a better deal or we have an in out Referendum or a GE
We cannot carry on with this completely useless woman in charge.
She has spent 30 months to get to this load of crap.
Seriously
As you say it's taken 30 months to get this WA negotiated.
The idea that someone else (be they BoJo, Gove, Corbyn, McDonnell or Uncle Tom Cobley) could step in and magically negotiate a fresh deal with a pissed-off and intransigent EU, and that that new deal would magically command the support of the HoC is, frankly, beyond laughable.
You are ruling out a better deal OK I don't
If not we either have a No Deal/ Remain Referendum or a GE
TM has spent 30 months pleasing nobody.
Sooner she goes the better.
We need to get on.
She has wasted 85% of the time available to get a terrible deal.
James Forsythe thinks May could go for (and win) a 3-question 2nd referendum:
I know that the idea of May proposing a second referendum seems outlandish—and I’m not suggesting that Number 10 are currently keen on the idea. But given that she can’t pivot to Norway having defined the referendum as being about free movement and that she doesn’t want either no deal or Remain, then what other options does she have? As Sherlock Holmes said, once you have eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
If Mrs May's solution is voted down in parliament it would be a novel idea to go over the heads of MPs and put it to the country through a referendum
It'd be displacement activity. What would be the point of asking the people to back a deal that Parliament had rejected? It would look foolish and absurd, and raise lots of very awkward constitutional questions. And the electoral commission would have none of it.
James Forsythe thinks May could go for (and win) a 3-question 2nd referendum:
I know that the idea of May proposing a second referendum seems outlandish—and I’m not suggesting that Number 10 are currently keen on the idea. But given that she can’t pivot to Norway having defined the referendum as being about free movement and that she doesn’t want either no deal or Remain, then what other options does she have? As Sherlock Holmes said, once you have eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Comments
By 29th March we either agree a deal with EU or leave without a deal.
There is nothing that Parliament can do unilaterally to alter that (subject to legal challenges).
I’d take any of the other places you mention in a heartbeat over Monaco. Preston has the beautiful Forest of Bowland nearby. Northern Ireland has glorious countrysideand a wonderful arts scene. The North East has great beaches and countryside etc etc.
Monaco is full of vulgar materialists like Mr and Mrs Green.
A multi-lateral organisation needs to be able to make decisions, and outside parties to those decisions need to know those decisions will be implemented. That has to be done at some level, and cannot be done by negotiating individually with each individual member state.
The EU negotiating a deal with Cameron, then tearing it up, would be disastrous to the EU for many reasons. They'll be seen as utterly untrustworthy. Which is, I guess, the angle you're approaching it from ...
I expect the Dutch, being more reasonable than the French will give a week's grace but then start insisting on origin papers and whatnot for British containers passing through Rotterdam which they won't have.
Therefore Parliament can not unilaterally alter the binary options of accept a deal or leave with no deal.
Unlike getting stuck in litigation, however, there is a very simple way to extricate ourselves from the Brexit mess. It simply requires MPs to ratify the deal on the table. It really is as simple as that, but unfortunately it doesn't look as though it's going to happen.
Perhaps a consequence of the EU army, and the future of a single EU defence policy to sit alongside the foreign high panjandrum?
The Original Sin of the Brexit Referendum is that the government attempted to use a forced choice to coerce the British public into voting with the government. Much as I oppose Brexit in principle, we wouldn't be in nearly so much bother had Leaving been the policy of the government before the referendum vote.
We shouldn't repeat this mistake with a second referendum, although the question then is whether the status quo option is our current EU membership, or the No Deal that current legislation commits us to in the absence of a change.
Total net migration = 273k
EU net migration = 74k
nonEU net migration = 248k
EU + nonEU = 322k
(figures from https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-immigration/uk-sees-net-migration-of-273000-in-year-to-june-driven-by-non-eu-arrivals-idUKKCN1NY13V?il=0 )
Does this mean that 49k more Brits emigrated than returned home in the last year?
You could add NATO to that comparison, or possibly OPEC?
A referendum is a very complex issue with many unanswered questions including whether the EU would let us remain on the same terms, A50 extension cannot happen too much because of the EU elections in May, and how the wording is resolved
(NB At the time of going to press still SIR Philip and LADY Green)
Since we're not building the infrastructure of Nottingham every year perhaps this course of action is not the wisest in terms of improving the quality of life of people who are already here.
Chasing down fantasies of second referendums saving the day are just that - fantasies. It is just running down the clock to WTO Brexit. Which, given the lack of preparation, will be at best uncomfortable and damaging, even if not falling into the Governor's Britian eating roots and berries scenarios.
Now some countries might wish to humiliate the UK even further. But I suspect most won’t and I expect that view to prevail.
The rebate might well be given up since it is not in a treaty but a new budget round is due anyway soon and there could well be a boost to the UK economy if the present uncertainty were removed.
I know there will be the usual cries about the euro and the EU army etc. But with Trump on one side (and I don’t see America becoming much more focused on Europe under a successor), Putin on the other and the Chinese, maybe a joint EU defence is a good thing?
And if Britain were to join the euro imagine how powerful that would make its financial sector and how powerful that would make Britain within the EU?
I am not a natural EU integrationist.
But the world has changed a lot in the last two years and the trends we are seeing now are ones which mean that we need to stop thinking that we can go back to a world where the post WW2 order was still alive and kicking. We need new thinking.
The trouble is the impact of Fear lessens with time and as we saw yesterday Carney's scenarios soon unravel when presented with some alternative hypotheses.
What Carney has revealed is the sheer incompetence of a Government which has seemingly done nothing to prepare the country for the consequences of a No Deal and while most local authorities have been preparing it now appears the much-lauded private sector is dragging its feet (presumably waiting for some lead from Government).
As a result of our own ill-preparedness and weakness we will have no choice but to acquiesce to may's terrible Deal and go from there but at least one can only hope the Conservatives will one day be held electorally accountable for the inaction of the past couple of years.
Yesterday we sent you Stephen's blog piece which concluded that a rarely observed Condorcet Paradox was found in Theresa May's three Brexit outcomes.
Unfortunately, an error found its way into the text which meant that, in fact, May's Deal was a Condorcet Winner. We are very sorry for the mistake, and Stephen has re-written his piece to reflect the true meaning of the analysis.
To read Stephen's amended article, please visit the dedicated blogging page on the Deltapoll website, here.
http://www.deltapoll.co.uk/steve-fisher-condorcet
So constructing a series of two-way contests from the preference orderings means that there is a majority for the Deal over No Deal and for the Deal over Remain. This means that May’s Agreement is what political scientists call the Condorcet winner.
Will the Politicians take note.....?
There are two ways of reading that sentence.
The racist snakes.
I do wonder if Foreign/Defence matters would be handled on that basis in the long term or whether there'd be a drive for a more cohesive government of the EU.
And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
Almost every one of those points is opinion rather than fact and based solely on your own bias.
LEGA-ENF: 34% (+28)
M5S-EFDD: 25% (+4)
PD-S&D: 18% (-23)
She is hopeless.
Thankfully she will be gone soon
Approval ratings (PM+party leaders)
Salvini (LEGA-ENF): 48%
Conte (*-*): 43%
Di Maio (M5S-EFDD): 37%
Quite a slip for Di Maio, seems Salvini is the only one close to 50% now.
None of the German navy’s six submarines were operational at the end of last year, and only nine of a planned 15 frigates are in service.
None of the Luftwaffe’s 14 A400M transport aircraft were airworthy on several occasions last year, and replacement aircraft had to be chartered to bring serving troops home
The German tank battalion that is due to take command of the taskforce currently only has nine operational tanks out of a total of 48
(*Assuming we accept that if any of: NI, Scotland, Wales or England leave, then the UK is no more.)
We cannot carry on with this completely useless woman in charge.
She has spent 30 months to get to this load of crap.
Seriously
Also, whilst I hesitate to contradict you on the likely Labour Party position, I don't think you are right that the party would support a Remain/No Deal referendum (Placebo vs Poison in your rather good analogy). How could they, given that they are making a big push on trying to rule out No Deal? I think the only version of a referendum that could get through parliament is Remain vs May's Deal, which would have the very good feature that both options would be clear. No prizes for guessing which I think would win in that scenario.
I want this or this or this or this ... I know what I want, but I don't know how to get there, or what damage it'll do. I just want it. Or I'll scream and scream and scream.
It's exactly what's got us into this mess.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46384417
Hmm. Tip of the iceberg?
If (when?) May tries to pull a "nothing has changed" after the meaningful vote defeat, there's gonna be blood on the carpets, curtains, wallpaper, bedsheets and ceiling.
For the Chequers and modified Chequers scenarios they are literally rounding errors on the normal quarterly growth numbers
On the basic calculation without talking into account compounding
2.5% in 15 years time is 0.04% less growth per quarter
3.9% in 15 years time is 0.06% less growth per quarter.
These numbers are so small the media would normally never even report them to that degree of accuracy. And given that to get to the 15 year value they have had to compound the quarterly figures the actual numbers would be even smaller. It is the equivalent of a snowy week in January.
Of course with the No Deal scenario the number are a bit bigger but even the headline of 9.3% smaller in 15 years time the actual quarterly numbers are very small. I am not saying I want No Deal, just that these numbers from the Treasury are a large dollop of smoke and mirrors.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/11/over-100-conservative-mps-will-rebel-over-mays-deal-are-we-being-played.html
Mark Carney
William Hague
Ken Clarke
Gary Lineker
Joanne Rowling
Mr Blobby
James O'Brien
Michel Barnier
say 50,000 Doctors; 90,000 nurses; 40,000 students; 30,000 housewives; 50,000 students; 5,000 lathe operators. People could then see exactly who is coming into the country and might be more accepting of the figures.
I know that the idea of May proposing a second referendum seems outlandish—and I’m not suggesting that Number 10 are currently keen on the idea. But given that she can’t pivot to Norway having defined the referendum as being about free movement and that she doesn’t want either no deal or Remain, then what other options does she have? As Sherlock Holmes said, once you have eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/why-theresa-may-might-end-up-embracing-a-second-referendum/
Neil Hamilton.
Baron Archer of Weston super Mare.
The idea that someone else (be they BoJo, Gove, Corbyn, McDonnell or Uncle Tom Cobley) could step in and magically negotiate a fresh deal with a pissed-off and intransigent EU, and that that new deal would magically command the support of the HoC is, frankly, beyond laughable.
After all the talk of "deal and no deal" how about Noel Edmonds (when he's finished in the jungle) ?
There are two questions at play here:
1) Do you wish to continue the process of leaving the EU, or halt it?
2) If we continue, on what basis do we want to leave? PM's deal/(Norway+)/No Deal
Really, for Leavers or Remainers, there's no sane alternative to what May has come up with. And absolutely no MP who voted to trigger A50 has any right to complain about the outcome.
I still don't think (from a Leave supporting point of view) it is worth the risk of rejecting the Deal with the possibility of Remain winning through, but if it does come to the point of going back top the EU and saying we want changes it is not really accurate to use the comparison of the previous negotiation which covered the whole range of issues rather than one specific, politically motivated, sticking point.
Once we get to January basically times up!
Alan Titchmarsh. Julie Walters. That bloke off the Antiques Roadshow who does the Worcester porcelain.
Or the cartoonist Matt.
There's something in that. I suspect if she does somehow manage to get the WA through, she might resign at that point (or say on March 29th) to allow a fresh face to lead the next stage.
How about this: she agrees with Labour that she will call a GE* for April in return for which they will abstain on the MV, allowing the WA to go through. As the same time she tells her own party she will step down and allow an orderly leadership election in January so a fresh leader is in place for the proposed GE.
(*I know FTPA is an issue but ways could be found etc.)
Corbyn's would obviously be different.
Boris' deal would have been the same as May's (he's lazy and so It would have been all Olly Robbins) except the backstop would be an NI only customs arrangement. Don't forget how Bob Crow used to walk all over him when it came to TFL deal time
Interesting in the select committee today Yvette Cooper said to TM that they had known each other for 20 years and there is no way she would allow a no deal. Obviously TM continued to defend her deal but I expect a meeting to be called by TM after the vote with all party leaders to seek a way through the impasse. We know the SNP want Norway as would a large number of labour mps, indeed Stephen Kinnoch was promoting it on the Welsh news.
It is safer than a referendum that could be a disaster of epic portions making the last one look like a walk in the park
https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1068084108046278656
We're locked into one almighty hand of no-limit political hold'em at the moment. Nobody is showing the slightest inclination to fold, because apparently everyone believes they're on course for a strait flush (or like the ERG are simply too stupid and stubborn to realise they've already lost and to cash out).
11th December is when the hand gets called.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1068095952467181569
How about a People's vote to decide between ITV at 7pm versus BBC at 8pm?
(That thing being access to our territorial fishing waters)
Has such a disparity ever occurred in any other EU member state?
The UKIP voteshare graphs show that FPTP is not the only reason.
The other reason is that people have learnt not to be open about their xenophobia, because xenophobia is widely viewed as dirty. That is strange, since dirtiness and smelliness are generally speaking two of the characteristics that xenophobes ascribe to those who belong to the groups they dislike, believing that they themselves are as clean as whistles and smell as fresh as daisies, but that is how it is in their minds. That's why so many Leave voters had such big smiles on their faces when Leave won the referendum, including many who didn't know the difference between the European Commission and the European Parliament and who couldn't REALLY care less whether cucumbers were straight or curved, given that they always slice them into thin discs anyway. Nor do most of them know qualified majority voting from their own bumcracks. What they care about most is immigration, especially by groups that behind closed doors they call them by names that are much more emotive than most people will ever hear a politician refer to them. The referendum result was the return of the repressed.
For all the wonk chat, the essential choice in the coming referendum will again be between the Germanic "Leave" and the Romance "Remain". In Trumpian terms, "reality" versus "snowflakes". Leave will probably at least double their 2016 majority of 3.78%.
Stories about dinghies to Dover and bullying in Huddersfield are very powerful.
Then she has to get the electoral commission to come up with the question. At the point they come up with the question you can expect various legal challenges by those unhappy with the question.
Then there has to be a campaign lasting several weeks.
Realistically if we're not in a referendum campaign in January then time will have run out.
I can't see it myself...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzNWjqtQDXM
"Poroshenko urges Nato to send ships"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46381166
If not we either have a No Deal/ Remain Referendum or a GE
TM has spent 30 months pleasing nobody.
Sooner she goes the better.
We need to get on.
She has wasted 85% of the time available to get a terrible deal.
Time for robotic pontification is over.