As others are pointing out, the scary "headline" figures put forward by Carney are all smoke and mirrors. The endgame of Project Fear - to scare people into accepting May's sub-optimal Deal, is unravelling and as the truth comes out, two things will happen.
First, the preparations for No Deal will ramp up considerably and second, a lot of the scare stories about water shortages, medical supplies and the rest will be comprehensively debunked and ridiculed and people will start asking how we could have been as stupid as to believe this nonsense again.
Make people scared enough and they'll sign away their very souls for a modicum of safety and security.
I think that the scare stories are overblown, but the reality of a No Deal Brexit would be disruptive. But, the problem is that the government cried wolf in 2016, and the wolf didn't appear.
But it did eventually.
Nope. Still the same people crying "Wolf!!" two years on. Still no wolf.
That's what happened in the fable......... until!!!!!!!
A No Deal that has not had years of pre-planning to mitigate its effects might indeed be the wolf. It's not been sighted yet, though.....
Couldn’t they combine the two? Watching Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn doing bush tucker challenges would break audience records. And give the public handy hints in preparation for no deal Brexit.
As others are pointing out, the scary "headline" figures put forward by Carney are all smoke and mirrors. The endgame of Project Fear - to scare people into accepting May's sub-optimal Deal, is unravelling and as the truth comes out, two things will happen.
First, the preparations for No Deal will ramp up considerably and second, a lot of the scare stories about water shortages, medical supplies and the rest will be comprehensively debunked and ridiculed and people will start asking how we could have been as stupid as to believe this nonsense again.
Make people scared enough and they'll sign away their very souls for a modicum of safety and security.
I think that the scare stories are overblown, but the reality of a No Deal Brexit would be disruptive. But, the problem is that the government cried wolf in 2016, and the wolf didn't appear.
But it did eventually.
Nope. Still the same people crying "Wolf!!" two years on. Still no wolf.
That's what happened in the fable......... until!!!!!!!
A No Deal that has not had years of pre-planning to mitigate its effects might indeed be the wolf. It's not been sighted yet, though.....
Repost as requested BJO 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.
Yes and unfortunately so did the EU, which is why her negotiation attempts were such a spectacular failure.
Very easy for the EU to reach that conclusion when we did no obvious, public planning for No Deal.
Cameron made it clear in his "renegotiation" that he would vote Remain come what may; the PM has made it clear in her "negotaiation" that she would never No Deal Brexit. Both have proven a calamitous miscalculation in dealing with the EU.
So when May said repeatedly in public that "no deal is better than a bad deal" she was simply appeasing the ERG and had no intention of carrying through the implied threat to leave without a deal?
As others are pointing out, the scary "headline" figures put forward by Carney are all smoke and mirrors. The endgame of Project Fear - to scare people into accepting May's sub-optimal Deal, is unravelling and as the truth comes out, two things will happen.
First, the preparations for No Deal will ramp up considerably and second, a lot of the scare stories about water shortages, medical supplies and the rest will be comprehensively debunked and ridiculed and people will start asking how we could have been as stupid as to believe this nonsense again.
Make people scared enough and they'll sign away their very souls for a modicum of safety and security.
I think that the scare stories are overblown, but the reality of a No Deal Brexit would be disruptive. But, the problem is that the government cried wolf in 2016, and the wolf didn't appear.
But it did eventually.
Nope. Still the same people crying "Wolf!!" two years on. Still no wolf.
That's what happened in the fable......... until!!!!!!!
A No Deal that has not had years of pre-planning to mitigate its effects might indeed be the wolf. It's not been sighted yet, though.....
If you give Mr Nissan years of pre-planning to mitigate the effects of No Deal, how do you think he will prepare?
Couldn’t they combine the two? Watching Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn doing bush tucker challenges would break audience records. And give the public handy hints in preparation for no deal Brexit.
The whole political class - including Barnier and Juncker - should be put on a diet of fish eyes and kangaroo anus until they reach a sensible divorce arrangment.
Couldn’t they combine the two? Watching Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn doing bush tucker challenges would break audience records. And give the public handy hints in preparation for no deal Brexit.
I really don't think any sane person wants to see either of them in their pants.
Repost as requested BJO 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.
Yes and unfortunately so did the EU, which is why her negotiation attempts were such a spectacular failure.
Very easy for the EU to reach that conclusion when we did no obvious, public planning for No Deal.
Cameron made it clear in his "renegotiation" that he would vote Remain come what may; the PM has made it clear in her "negotaiation" that she would never No Deal Brexit. Both have proven a calamitous miscalculation in dealing with the EU.
So when May said repeatedly in public that "no deal is better than a bad deal" she was simply appeasing the ERG and had no intention of carrying through the implied threat to leave without a deal?
Actions speak louder than words. I have some sympathy with her. The Japanese (just one example) were extremely unhappy about Brexit and the Hammond/May charm offensive (is that a tautology?) and comfort letters were necessary to stop a rush for the exits. To go around making soothing noises while simultaneously ordering Kent to be turned into the world's largest carpark might have been a cognitive dissonance too far.
Couldn’t they combine the two? Watching Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn doing bush tucker challenges would break audience records. And give the public handy hints in preparation for no deal Brexit.
The whole political class - including Barnier and Juncker - should be put on a diet of fish eyes and kangaroo anus until they reach a sensible divorce arrangment.
48 hours should do it....
I believe the College of Cardinals was once walled up in the Vatican to persuade them to get on with electing a Pope. Maybe that would work too.
Couldn’t they combine the two? Watching Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn doing bush tucker challenges would break audience records. And give the public handy hints in preparation for no deal Brexit.
As others are pointing out, the scary "headline" figures put forward by Carney are all smoke and mirrors. The endgame of Project Fear - to scare people into accepting May's sub-optimal Deal, is unravelling and as the truth comes out, two things will happen.
First, the preparations for No Deal will ramp up considerably and second, a lot of the scare stories about water shortages, medical supplies and the rest will be comprehensively debunked and ridiculed and people will start asking how we could have been as stupid as to believe this nonsense again.
Make people scared enough and they'll sign away their very souls for a modicum of safety and security.
I think that the scare stories are overblown, but the reality of a No Deal Brexit would be disruptive. But, the problem is that the government cried wolf in 2016, and the wolf didn't appear.
But it did eventually.
Nope. Still the same people crying "Wolf!!" two years on. Still no wolf.
That's what happened in the fable......... until!!!!!!!
A No Deal that has not had years of pre-planning to mitigate its effects might indeed be the wolf. It's not been sighted yet, though.....
Really?
Full employment, the deficit being reduced, house prices still buoyant, inflation under control, a lower pound helping exporters....none of that has changed between 2016 and now. Where's your wolf?
Non-EU net migration was at its highest since 2004, with 248,000 more non-EU citizens arriving than departing, the Office for National Statistics said.
Would we rather have EU migrants or non EU ones. And is this 'Taking back Control' of our borders.
There’s no quality control on Eu migration. Non Eu migration is there is.
It depends on what you mean by quality control. The net non-EU migration of 248 000 is not all for work visas, though increasing numbers of these are being issued to Asian, African and Middle Eastern arrivals. Quite a lot of cultural baggage with many of those.
I see net departures for the A8 countries, while net arrivals for A2 and the more longstanding members of the EU. One of the interesting nuggets in the figures is that there are 132 000 fewer EU citizens working in the UK, so while still some arrivals there are fewer workers. Presumably these are mostly family. Perhaps it is that drop in workers that is creating the need for so many non EU arrivals. Perhaps we cannot buck the markets, at least for employment.
Certainly the Tories plan to reduce the figures to "tens of thousands" has once again been shown to be a failure. Not surprising really, as May was in charge of it.
Just to pick up on @NickPalmer’s point, I’m not being defeatist and I do expect a resolution, though not a happy one. It’s tolerably clear that things are going to get quite a lot worse as a result of whatever resolution is achieved. Large numbers on all sides are going to feel unhappy and cheated. That is only going to make British politics yet more sulphurous.
A serious question. Is that necessarily a bad thing?
For too many years we have been ruled by a cosy consensus (much of which I happen to have agreed with) to the extent that anyone expressing alternative views is regarded as extremist or in need of 'stopping'. The only people this has really benefitted are the politicians themselves who have become more and more disdainful of real public opinion and have concentrated on superficial ways to mitigate it.
Personally I think it is about time the whole political system had a massive shake up for the good of our democracy.
As others are pointing out, the scary "headline" figures put forward by Carney are all smoke and mirrors. The endgame of Project Fear - to scare people into accepting May's sub-optimal Deal, is unravelling and as the truth comes out, two things will happen.
First, the preparations for No Deal will ramp up considerably and second, a lot of the scare stories about water shortages, medical supplies and the rest will be comprehensively debunked and ridiculed and people will start asking how we could have been as stupid as to believe this nonsense again.
Make people scared enough and they'll sign away their very souls for a modicum of safety and security.
I think that the scare stories are overblown, but the reality of a No Deal Brexit would be disruptive. But, the problem is that the government cried wolf in 2016, and the wolf didn't appear.
But it did eventually.
Nope. Still the same people crying "Wolf!!" two years on. Still no wolf.
That's what happened in the fable......... until!!!!!!!
A No Deal that has not had years of pre-planning to mitigate its effects might indeed be the wolf. It's not been sighted yet, though.....
If you give Mr Nissan years of pre-planning to mitigate the effects of No Deal, how do you think he will prepare?
Fair point. Let's just rip off the bandage and Mr Nissan will get used to our new reality quickly.
Like ripping off a bandage, the fear is always worse than reality.
Couldn’t they combine the two? Watching Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn doing bush tucker challenges would break audience records. And give the public handy hints in preparation for no deal Brexit.
The whole political class - including Barnier and Juncker - should be put on a diet of fish eyes and kangaroo anus until they reach a sensible divorce arrangment.
48 hours should do it....
How would Juncker cope with no booze in the jungle....
As others are pointing out, the scary "headline" figures put forward by Carney are all smoke and mirrors. The endgame of Project Fear - to scare people into accepting May's sub-optimal Deal, is unravelling and as the truth comes out, two things will happen.
First, the preparations for No Deal will ramp up considerably and second, a lot of the scare stories about water shortages, medical supplies and the rest will be comprehensively debunked and ridiculed and people will start asking how we could have been as stupid as to believe this nonsense again.
Make people scared enough and they'll sign away their very souls for a modicum of safety and security.
I think that the scare stories are overblown, but the reality of a No Deal Brexit would be disruptive. But, the problem is that the government cried wolf in 2016, and the wolf didn't appear.
But it did eventually.
Nope. Still the same people crying "Wolf!!" two years on. Still no wolf.
That's what happened in the fable......... until!!!!!!!
A No Deal that has not had years of pre-planning to mitigate its effects might indeed be the wolf. It's not been sighted yet, though.....
If you give Mr Nissan years of pre-planning to mitigate the effects of No Deal, how do you think he will prepare?
Fair point. Let's just rip off the bandage and Mr Nissan will get used to our new reality quickly.
Like ripping off a bandage, the fear is always worse than reality.
While I think the 2030 economic effects will be neutral to slightly negative (per NIESR et al), let's not kid ourselves; we won't have much of an automotive sector, nor Airbus. From a macro economic pov, it's fine; tax revenue is tax revenue. But if we're outside the single market, then the incentive for manufacturers is simply to invest in their continental plants. I'm not aware of any manufacturer (outside the niche luxury sector) being exclusively based in the UK.
Couldn’t they combine the two? Watching Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn doing bush tucker challenges would break audience records. And give the public handy hints in preparation for no deal Brexit.
The whole political class - including Barnier and Juncker - should be put on a diet of fish eyes and kangaroo anus until they reach a sensible divorce arrangment.
48 hours should do it....
How would Juncker cope with no booze in the jungle....
Couldn’t they combine the two? Watching Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn doing bush tucker challenges would break audience records. And give the public handy hints in preparation for no deal Brexit.
The whole political class - including Barnier and Juncker - should be put on a diet of fish eyes and kangaroo anus until they reach a sensible divorce arrangment.
48 hours should do it....
The Withdrawal agreement is the divorce agreement but it is the Trade agreement about our future relationship which is yet to be defined and not yet drafted.
I think when the vote fails, May tells parliament she'll go and ask for changes at the EUCO event. Obviously they won't come, but it'll keep the DUP and ERG at bay for a few days. The 48 letters probably come in when she fails to get anything at EUCO.
As others are pointing out, the scary "headline" figures put forward by Carney are all smoke and mirrors. The endgame of Project Fear - to scare people into accepting May's sub-optimal Deal, is unravelling and as the truth comes out, two things will happen.
First, the preparations for No Deal will ramp up considerably and second, a lot of the scare stories about water shortages, medical supplies and the rest will be comprehensively debunked and ridiculed and people will start asking how we could have been as stupid as to believe this nonsense again.
Make people scared enough and they'll sign away their very souls for a modicum of safety and security.
I think that the scare stories are overblown, but the reality of a No Deal Brexit would be disruptive. But, the problem is that the government cried wolf in 2016, and the wolf didn't appear.
But it did eventually.
Nope. Still the same people crying "Wolf!!" two years on. Still no wolf.
That's what happened in the fable......... until!!!!!!!
A No Deal that has not had years of pre-planning to mitigate its effects might indeed be the wolf. It's not been sighted yet, though.....
If you give Mr Nissan years of pre-planning to mitigate the effects of No Deal, how do you think he will prepare?
Account for an extra dozen hours in their just in time supply chain.
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.
Time for robotic pontification is over.
Look, I don't say a better deal couldn't have been negotiated but your view of what is a better deal will not match mine, which will not match grabcoque's, which will not match GIN's etc. etc.
What is it about this deal that is so terrible from your perspective?
The Backstop that we need EU permission to leave.
Pah - we could abrogate if we really felt is had become an issue the EU weren't playing ball on.
Anyway, doesn't the backstop give us free cake... Customs Union access with no contributions? Can't see the EU letting us stay there for very long tbh.
We can have our cake but not eat it.
Very frustrating.
In what sense can we not eat it?
We remain in the customs union for ever and can not sign trade deals/
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:
“The text meets the U.S. objectives of a smooth transition in the transatlantic aviation market post-Brexit and increased market access for U.S. carriers,” the official said.
Repost as requested BJO 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.
Yes and unfortunately so did the EU, which is why her negotiation attempts were such a spectacular failure.
Very easy for the EU to reach that conclusion when we did no obvious, public planning for No Deal.
Cameron made it clear in his "renegotiation" that he would vote Remain come what may; the PM has made it clear in her "negotaiation" that she would never No Deal Brexit. Both have proven a calamitous miscalculation in dealing with the EU.
So when May said repeatedly in public that "no deal is better than a bad deal" she was simply appeasing the ERG and had no intention of carrying through the implied threat to leave without a deal?
Actions speak louder than words. I have some sympathy with her. The Japanese (just one example) were extremely unhappy about Brexit and the Hammond/May charm offensive (is that a tautology?) and comfort letters were necessary to stop a rush for the exits. To go around making soothing noises while simultaneously ordering Kent to be turned into the world's largest carpark might have been a cognitive dissonance too far.
In which case it was stupid to threaten the EU with no deal. "Do as I say or I will blow my brains out" is not a very convincing negotiating strategy.
Couldn’t they combine the two? Watching Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn doing bush tucker challenges would break audience records. And give the public handy hints in preparation for no deal Brexit.
The whole political class - including Barnier and Juncker - should be put on a diet of fish eyes and kangaroo anus until they reach a sensible divorce arrangment.
48 hours should do it....
The Withdrawal agreement is the divorce agreement but it is the Trade agreement about our future relationship which is yet to be defined and not yet drafted.
But that current withdrawal agreement is proving as unpalatable as a wombat's cock. With a side of wichetty grubs.
As I said below, I don't think anyone will want May within a hundred miles of the trade agreement negotiations.
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
There will be a referendum, but it won't be on "May's deal".
Why not?
You think Parliament will pass either "No Deal" or "Remain" resolutions?
And if they do, what's the point of a referendum?
Those resolutions won't get tabled. Only the "Deal" resolution will, and it will be defeated.
Why not? The government could to determine 'the will of the House' - 'No Deal' would lose more heavily than the Deal, and 'Remain' would do best - and if Remain won Parliament would be in a right old pickle.
But I expect all 3 to lose, so if Parliament can't decide (which they should) all three should go forward - and the Deal will win - after more wasted months of uncertainty, lost business and lost jobs.
What voting system might Parliament agree for deciding by referendum? Realistic possibilities are five:
1. AV. 2. Leave - Yes or No, followed if "Yes" by round 2 asking Deal or No Deal. 3. Same as 2 but with conditional question on ballot. 4. Deal - Yes or No, followed if "No" by round 2 asking Remain or WTO. 5. Same as 4, but with conditional question on ballot.
I'm very opposed to the people's vote, on matters of several principles.
But, if there's to be a PV, and if May's deal has already been comprehensively rejected by Parliament, I don't see how or why Parliament would then go through the absurd spectacle of letting something that has been decisively rejected be suddenly resurrected by a referendum.
The first referendum showed the real dangers of a holding a referendum where Parliament doesn't believe one of the two outcomes is reasonable. Making the same mistake AGAIN would be unforgivable.
*IF* we have a PV, and I really hope we don't, it's imperative for the government and Parliament to be able to broadly accept any answer. And if it can't, then don't ask it.
It seems to me the only answer they would really want to broadly accept would be Remain. Which means under your criteria ( and I believe you are correct) the 2nd referendum is indeed a complete waste of time.
I agree with the above posters. It would be utterly bonkers for Parliament to call a referendum to endorse something they won't pass themselves. We could very easily end up in another stalemate and see calls start for a third referendum.
So if there is to be another referendum it would need two choices, Remain and a form of Leave that Parliament will support (but Lord knows what that might be).
Given the Parliament seems incapable of agreeing on a form of Leave that has a majority support, I don't see how a legitimate referendum could be called. It almost certainly end up as choice between Remain or Leave in name only.
Repost as requested BJO 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.
Yes and unfortunately so did the EU, which is why her negotiation attempts were such a spectacular failure.
Very easy for the EU to reach that conclusion when we did no obvious, public planning for No Deal.
Cameron made it clear in his "renegotiation" that he would vote Remain come what may; the PM has made it clear in her "negotaiation" that she would never No Deal Brexit. Both have proven a calamitous miscalculation in dealing with the EU.
So when May said repeatedly in public that "no deal is better than a bad deal" she was simply appeasing the ERG and had no intention of carrying through the implied threat to leave without a deal?
Actions speak louder than words. I have some sympathy with her. The Japanese (just one example) were extremely unhappy about Brexit and the Hammond/May charm offensive (is that a tautology?) and comfort letters were necessary to stop a rush for the exits. To go around making soothing noises while simultaneously ordering Kent to be turned into the world's largest carpark might have been a cognitive dissonance too far.
In which case it was stupid to threaten the EU with no deal. "Do as I say or I will blow my brains out" is not a very convincing negotiating strategy.
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
There will be a referendum, but it won't be on "May's deal".
Why not?
You think Parliament will pass either "No Deal" or "Remain" resolutions?
And if they do, what's the point of a referendum?
Those resolutions won't get tabled. Only the "Deal" resolution will, and it will be defeated.
Why not? The government could to determine 'the will of the House' - 'No Deal' would lose more heavily than the Deal, and 'Remain' would do best - and if Remain won Parliament would be in a right old pickle.
But I expect all 3 to lose, so if Parliament can't decide (which they should) all three should go forward - and the Deal will win - after more wasted months of uncertainty, lost business and lost jobs.
What voting system might Parliament agree for deciding by referendum? Realistic possibilities are five:
1. AV. 2. Leave - Yes or No, followed if "Yes" by round 2 asking Deal or No Deal. 3. Same as 2 but with conditional question on ballot. 4. Deal - Yes or No, followed if "No" by round 2 asking Remain or WTO. 5. Same as 4, but with conditional question on ballot.
Questions 2 & 3 have been asked and answered. I think it depends on what Parliament cannot agree. If none of deal, no deal or Remain can make it through Parliament get voters to rank the 3 in order of preference, with the lowest ranked's second preferences redistributed between the remaining two. The Deal will win. So MPs could save us a lot of time by voting it through...
Finally I’ve found a Labour candidate I can vote for.
LABOUR election candidate who referred to “benefits scum” in social media posts will be reinterviewed by the party.
Darlington woman Sue Morley was recently selected to represent the Eastbourne ward for Labour in the upcoming local elections.
In accordance with party disciplinary policies, she must now re-interview for the role after “alarming” social media posts came to light.
Facebook posts seen by The Northern Echo depict Ms Morley referring to a disabled person as “benefits scum” and referring to the area she hopes to represent as a “s***house” estate in a post about dog fouling in the area.
I'm not aware of any manufacturer (outside the niche luxury sector) being exclusively based in the UK.
There are some
Yes but they tend to be so small they are not worth discussing. :-). Maybe you can give me some examples so we can tell if you are serious?
Project Fear was overblown in timing but not direction. We along with most other manufacturers ignored the initial Brexit vote as we thought it would go away like Ireland. The problem is now even if we cancelled Article 50 real damage has already been done. Despite a major currency drop the economy has stalled.
Last week a major project we were a partner in was cancelled as the USA owners of our partner got cold feet and have vetoed all new product introductions to their UK plant. As a result all KY Jelly used in the UK will continue to be imported from Italy.
On the positive side my company has never been busier as competition in many sectors is falling off fast. The Europeans in certain areas have stopped supplying the UK as they see it too risky.
My largest concern is we are very dependent on Linde (Germany) to supply speciality chemicals from Holland and they refuse to guarantee supply in case of a hard Brexit. This would close my plant in a matter of weeks and there is no UK alternative.
I would love some of the Brexiters on this site to give more details of what they do and how they come up with their opinions. To me all I see is chaos and lots of late nights and stress.
I'm very opposed to the people's vote, on matters of several principles.
But, if there's to be a PV, and if May's deal has already been comprehensively rejected by Parliament, I don't see how or why Parliament would then go through the absurd spectacle of letting something that has been decisively rejected be suddenly resurrected by a referendum.
The first referendum showed the real dangers of a holding a referendum where Parliament doesn't believe one of the two outcomes is reasonable. Making the same mistake AGAIN would be unforgivable.
*IF* we have a PV, and I really hope we don't, it's imperative for the government and Parliament to be able to broadly accept any answer. And if it can't, then don't ask it.
It seems to me the only answer they would really want to broadly accept would be Remain. Which means under your criteria ( and I believe you are correct) the 2nd referendum is indeed a complete waste of time.
I agree with the above posters. It would be utterly bonkers for Parliament to call a referendum to endorse something they won't pass themselves. We could very easily end up in another stalemate and see calls start for a third referendum.
So if there is to be another referendum it would need two choices, Remain and a form of Leave that Parliament will support (but Lord knows what that might be).
Given the Parliament seems incapable of agreeing on a form of Leave that has a majority support, I don't see how a legitimate referendum could be called. It almost certainly end up as choice between Remain or Leave in name only.
And that question has already been asked and answered.
You have to think that BBC offered this timing just to piss on ITV's "Celebrity" chips.
Who the hell wants prime time weekend politics in the run-up to Christmas?
It will mean delaying Doctor Who and Strictly semi final results show.
Middle England will revolt.
According to the report I read, not so. The BBC were putting in a slot where there was going to be a documentary.
It is understood the BBC programme would be held on 9 December at 20:00 GMT in Birmingham, meaning it would replace David Attenborough's Dynasties on BBC One.
Still, I have about a million and one other things I would rather do. For starters, the best TV sports show on planet earth in on then, the hand egg Red Zone show. Tis the future of sports coverage.
You have to think that BBC offered this timing just to piss on ITV's "Celebrity" chips.
Who the hell wants prime time weekend politics in the run-up to Christmas?
It will mean delaying Doctor Who and Strictly semi final results show.
Middle England will revolt.
According to the report I read, no so. The BBC were putting in a slot where there was going to be a documentary.
It is understood the BBC programme would be held on 9 December at 20:00 GMT in Birmingham, meaning it would replace David Attenborough's Dynasties on BBC One.
You have to think that BBC offered this timing just to piss on ITV's "Celebrity" chips.
Who the hell wants prime time weekend politics in the run-up to Christmas?
It will mean delaying Doctor Who and Strictly semi final results show.
Middle England will revolt.
They need to be very careful. People are sick to the back teeth of all this crap already, but buggering up weekend TV, for an event that is irrelevant as only 650 odd people can actually vote on the deal, is looking mad.
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
There will be a referendum, but it won't be on "May's deal".
Why not?
You think Parliament will pass either "No Deal" or "Remain" resolutions?
And if they do, what's the point of a referendum?
Those resolutions won't get tabled. Only the "Deal" resolution will, and it will be defeated.
Why not? The government could to determine 'the will of the House' - 'No Deal' would lose more heavily than the Deal, and 'Remain' would do best - and if Remain won Parliament would be in a right old pickle.
But I expect all 3 to lose, so if Parliament can't decide (which they should) all three should go forward - and the Deal will win - after more wasted months of uncertainty, lost business and lost jobs.
What voting system might Parliament agree for deciding by referendum? Realistic possibilities are five:
1. AV. 2. Leave - Yes or No, followed if "Yes" by round 2 asking Deal or No Deal. 3. Same as 2 but with conditional question on ballot. 4. Deal - Yes or No, followed if "No" by round 2 asking Remain or WTO. 5. Same as 4, but with conditional question on ballot.
You miss out the most obvious and the only one that had not already been asked.
Deal or No Deal. It honours the first referendum because not leaving is not an option and it asks the public to decide the form of Brexit which is what everyone claims to have been complaining about.
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
There will be a referendum, but it won't be on "May's deal".
Why not?
You think Parliament will pass either "No Deal" or "Remain" resolutions?
And if they do, what's the point of a referendum?
Those resolutions won't get tabled. Only the "Deal" resolution will, and it will be defeated.
Why not? The government could to determine 'the will of the House' - 'No Deal' would lose more heavily than the Deal, and 'Remain' would do best - and if Remain won Parliament would be in a right old pickle.
But I expect all 3 to lose, so if Parliament can't decide (which they should) all three should go forward - and the Deal will win - after more wasted months of uncertainty, lost business and lost jobs.
What voting system might Parliament agree for deciding by referendum? Realistic possibilities are five:
1. AV. 2. Leave - Yes or No, followed if "Yes" by round 2 asking Deal or No Deal. 3. Same as 2 but with conditional question on ballot. 4. Deal - Yes or No, followed if "No" by round 2 asking Remain or WTO. 5. Same as 4, but with conditional question on ballot.
You miss out the most obvious and the only one that had not already been asked.
Deal or No Deal. It honours the first referendum because not leaving is not an option and it asks the public to decide the form of Brexit which is what everyone claims to have been complaining about.
If any Parliament offered the option of Deal or No Deal every MP would be against the wall when the inevitably revolution occurred...
I'm very opposed to the people's vote, on matters of several principles.
But, if there's to be a PV, and if May's deal has already been comprehensively rejected by Parliament, I don't see how or why Parliament would then go through the absurd spectacle of letting something that has been decisively rejected be suddenly resurrected by a referendum.
The first referendum showed the real dangers of a holding a referendum where Parliament doesn't believe one of the two outcomes is reasonable. Making the same mistake AGAIN would be unforgivable.
*IF* we have a PV, and I really hope we don't, it's imperative for the government and Parliament to be able to broadly accept any answer. And if it can't, then don't ask it.
It seems to me the only answer they would really want to broadly accept would be Remain. Which means under your criteria ( and I believe you are correct) the 2nd referendum is indeed a complete waste of time.
I agree with the above posters. It would be utterly bonkers for Parliament to call a referendum to endorse something they won't pass themselves. We could very easily end up in another stalemate and see calls start for a third referendum.
So if there is to be another referendum it would need two choices, Remain and a form of Leave that Parliament will support (but Lord knows what that might be).
Given the Parliament seems incapable of agreeing on a form of Leave that has a majority support, I don't see how a legitimate referendum could be called. It almost certainly end up as choice between Remain or Leave in name only.
And that question has already been asked and answered.
Parliament is sovereign and can ask any question in a #peoplesvote that it chooses.
As others are pointing out, the scary "headline" figures put forward by Carney are all smoke and mirrors. The endgame of Project Fear - to scare people into accepting May's sub-optimal Deal, is unravelling and as the truth comes out, two things will happen.
First, the preparations for No Deal will ramp up considerably and second, a lot of the scare stories about water shortages, medical supplies and the rest will be comprehensively debunked and ridiculed and people will start asking how we could have been as stupid as to believe this nonsense again.
Make people scared enough and they'll sign away their very souls for a modicum of safety and security.
I think that the scare stories are overblown, but the reality of a No Deal Brexit would be disruptive. But, the problem is that the government cried wolf in 2016, and the wolf didn't appear.
But it did eventually.
Nope. Still the same people crying "Wolf!!" two years on. Still no wolf.
That's what happened in the fable......... until!!!!!!!
A No Deal that has not had years of pre-planning to mitigate its effects might indeed be the wolf. It's not been sighted yet, though.....
You can book a hospital appointment ahead of cutting your arm off, that does not make it a good idea
Just listening to TMay facing the chairs of the select committees. Tough gig - can't say I envy her.
I heard some of that on the way down to the Court (where, by the way, the treacle proved not so sticky after all).
I thought it was abysmal. Every question had so many built in assumptions and hypotheses that it should have been relatively easy for Mrs May to explain why they did not apply and that she was being given false choices. But no, she was in full robot mode, rehashing parts of her previous statements, repeating previous answers verbatim to different questions, failing to address the actual questions asked and making it all sound even more complicated instead of simpler. She is awful at that kind of thing, utterly unpersuasive and I am, for present purposes, on her side.
Non-EU net migration was at its highest since 2004, with 248,000 more non-EU citizens arriving than departing, the Office for National Statistics said.
Would we rather have EU migrants or non EU ones. And is this 'Taking back Control' of our borders.
Yet over net migration still lower as EU net migration at its lowest since 2012
I'm very opposed to the people's vote, on matters of several principles.
But, if there's to be a PV, and if May's deal has already been comprehensively rejected by Parliament, I don't see how or why Parliament would then go through the absurd spectacle of letting something that has been decisively rejected be suddenly resurrected by a referendum.
The first referendum showed the real dangers of a holding a referendum where Parliament doesn't believe one of the two outcomes is reasonable. Making the same mistake AGAIN would be unforgivable.
*IF* we have a PV, and I really hope we don't, it's imperative for the government and Parliament to be able to broadly accept any answer. And if it can't, then don't ask it.
It seems to me the only answer they would really want to broadly accept would be Remain. Which means under your criteria ( and I believe you are correct) the 2nd referendum is indeed a complete waste of time.
I agree with the above posters. It would be utterly bonkers for Parliament to call a referendum to endorse something they won't pass themselves. We could very easily end up in another stalemate and see calls start for a third referendum.
So if there is to be another referendum it would need two choices, Remain and a form of Leave that Parliament will support (but Lord knows what that might be).
Given the Parliament seems incapable of agreeing on a form of Leave that has a majority support, I don't see how a legitimate referendum could be called. It almost certainly end up as choice between Remain or Leave in name only.
And that question has already been asked and answered.
Parliament is sovereign and can ask any question in a #peoplesvote that it chooses.
I don't think you get a veto.
Another one who scorns democracy. If they press ahead with this then vetoes will be the least of their worries.
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
There will be a referendum, but it won't be on "May's deal".
Why not?
You think Parliament will pass either "No Deal" or "Remain" resolutions?
And if they do, what's the point of a referendum?
Those resolutions won't get tabled. Only the "Deal" resolution will, and it will be defeated.
Why not? The government could to determine 'the will of the House' - 'No Deal' would lose more heavily than the Deal, and 'Remain' would do best - and if Remain won Parliament would be in a right old pickle.
But I expect all 3 to lose, so if Parliament can't decide (which they should) all three should go forward - and the Deal will win - after more wasted months of uncertainty, lost business and lost jobs.
What voting system might Parliament agree for deciding by referendum? Realistic possibilities are five:
1. AV. 2. Leave - Yes or No, followed if "Yes" by round 2 asking Deal or No Deal. 3. Same as 2 but with conditional question on ballot. 4. Deal - Yes or No, followed if "No" by round 2 asking Remain or WTO. 5. Same as 4, but with conditional question on ballot.
You miss out the most obvious and the only one that had not already been asked.
Deal or No Deal. It honours the first referendum because not leaving is not an option and it asks the public to decide the form of Brexit which is what everyone claims to have been complaining about.
I fear that things have simply moved on from there.
My view is that it has to be AV on three options. Any less than that and you disenfranchise a lot of people and present legitimacy issues. However any attempt to two stage it, or to have a second round of some form actually doesn't make the options equivalent or provide a fair comparison.
However as I think Nick P stated way downthread, there needs to be a clear statement agreed with the EU about what remain means and what No Deal means. Are we remaining on same terms? What minimal or bare bones agreements would be kept in a no deal. It needs to be informed, and a is of our weakness is that we will even have to nehotiate with the Eu in order to hold a referendum ourselves. Article fifty has done nothing but surrender control sadly.
You have to think that BBC offered this timing just to piss on ITV's "Celebrity" chips.
Who the hell wants prime time weekend politics in the run-up to Christmas?
It will mean delaying Doctor Who and Strictly semi final results show.
Middle England will revolt.
They need to be very careful. People are sick to the back teeth of all this crap already, but buggering up weekend TV, for an event that is irrelevant as only 650 odd people can actually vote on the deal, is looking mad.
It is almost as if the government has half an eye on a spring general election. Maybe Jezza should flunk the Brexit debate to lull the PM into a false sense of security.
I'm very opposed to the people's vote, on matters of several principles.
But, if there's to be a PV, and if May's deal has already been comprehensively rejected by Parliament, I don't see how or why Parliament would then go through the absurd spectacle of letting something that has been decisively rejected be suddenly resurrected by a referendum.
The first referendum showed the real dangers of a holding a referendum where Parliament doesn't believe one of the two outcomes is reasonable. Making the same mistake AGAIN would be unforgivable.
*IF* we have a PV, and I really hope we don't, it's imperative for the government and Parliament to be able to broadly accept any answer. And if it can't, then don't ask it.
It seems to me the only answer they would really want to broadly accept would be Remain. Which means under your criteria ( and I believe you are correct) the 2nd referendum is indeed a complete waste of time.
I agree with the above posters. It would be utterly bonkers for Parliament to call a referendum to endorse something they won't pass themselves. We could very easily end up in another stalemate and see calls start for a third referendum.
So if there is to be another referendum it would need two choices, Remain and a form of Leave that Parliament will support (but Lord knows what that might be).
Given the Parliament seems incapable of agreeing on a form of Leave that has a majority support, I don't see how a legitimate referendum could be called. It almost certainly end up as choice between Remain or Leave in name only.
And that question has already been asked and answered.
Parliament is sovereign and can ask any question in a #peoplesvote that it chooses.
I don't think you get a veto.
Another one who scorns democracy. If they press ahead with this then vetoes will be the least of their worries.
No, we have a parliamentary democracy so they get to choose.
If you disapprove then you can vent your feelings at the next GE, as indeed shall I.
Just to pick up on @NickPalmer’s point, I’m not being defeatist and I do expect a resolution, though not a happy one. It’s tolerably clear that things are going to get quite a lot worse as a result of whatever resolution is achieved. Large numbers on all sides are going to feel unhappy and cheated. That is only going to make British politics yet more sulphurous.
A serious question. Is that necessarily a bad thing?
For too many years we have been ruled by a cosy consensus (much of which I happen to have agreed with) to the extent that anyone expressing alternative views is regarded as extremist or in need of 'stopping'. The only people this has really benefitted are the politicians themselves who have become more and more disdainful of real public opinion and have concentrated on superficial ways to mitigate it.
Personally I think it is about time the whole political system had a massive shake up for the good of our democracy.
I don't agree with you lightly, but I think you are probably right on that.
I'm very opposed to the people's vote, on matters of several principles.
But, if there's to be a PV, and if May's deal has already been comprehensively rejected by Parliament, I don't see how or why Parliament would then go through the absurd spectacle of letting something that has been decisively rejected be suddenly resurrected by a referendum.
The first referendum showed the real dangers of a holding a referendum where Parliament doesn't believe one of the two outcomes is reasonable. Making the same mistake AGAIN would be unforgivable.
*IF* we have a PV, and I really hope we don't, it's imperative for the government and Parliament to be able to broadly accept any answer. And if it can't, then don't ask it.
It seems to me the only answer they would really want to broadly accept would be Remain. Which means under your criteria ( and I believe you are correct) the 2nd referendum is indeed a complete waste of time.
I agree with the above posters. It would be utterly bonkers for Parliament to call a referendum to endorse something they won't pass themselves. We could very easily end up in another stalemate and see calls start for a third referendum.
So if there is to be another referendum it would need two choices, Remain and a form of Leave that Parliament will support (but Lord knows what that might be).
Given the Parliament seems incapable of agreeing on a form of Leave that has a majority support, I don't see how a legitimate referendum could be called. It almost certainly end up as choice between Remain or Leave in name only.
I agree with this and I'd much rather they were honest and say that we're going to have to remain because they can't agree a way to leave, than go through with another referendum charade.
Christchurch is of course the constituency of Christopher Chope, the elderly male MP who has enabled both upskirting[1] and FGM[2] for reasons which he claims convince but I disbelieve. Perhaps the inhabitants of that town should be less happy for a bit and focus on their MP.
Newbury's quite nice, to be honest. There are quite a few good bits along the M4 corridor but I can't help thinking Reading or Swindon are better.
Macclesfield is part of that posh Cheshire bit, all footballer's wives and pharma research. Very nice if you can afford to live there.
Royal Leamington Spa, like most old spa towns except Bath, is a bit dowdy and meh. Tunbridge Wells is exactly the same but it's on a slope.
Repost as requested BJO 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.
Yes and unfortunately so did the EU, which is why her negotiation attempts were such a spectacular failure.
Very easy for the EU to reach that conclusion when we did no obvious, public planning for No Deal.
Cameron made it clear in his "renegotiation" that he would vote Remain come what may; the PM has made it clear in her "negotaiation" that she would never No Deal Brexit. Both have proven a calamitous miscalculation in dealing with the EU.
So when May said repeatedly in public that "no deal is better than a bad deal" she was simply appeasing the ERG and had no intention of carrying through the implied threat to leave without a deal?
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
So we can probably rule out an EU invasion as one of the possible outcomes?
I'm very opposed to the people's vote, on matters of several principles.
But, if there's to be a PV, and if May's deal has already been comprehensively rejected by Parliament, I don't see how or why Parliament would then go through the absurd spectacle of letting something that has been decisively rejected be suddenly resurrected by a referendum.
The first referendum showed the real dangers of a holding a referendum where Parliament doesn't believe one of the two outcomes is reasonable. Making the same mistake AGAIN would be unforgivable.
*IF* we have a PV, and I really hope we don't, it's imperative for the government and Parliament to be able to broadly accept any answer. And if it can't, then don't ask it.
It seems to me the only answer they would really want to broadly accept would be Remain. Which means under your criteria ( and I believe you are correct) the 2nd referendum is indeed a complete waste of time.
I agree with the above posters. It would be utterly bonkers for Parliament to call a referendum to endorse something they won't pass themselves. We could very easily end up in another stalemate and see calls start for a third referendum.
So if there is to be another referendum it would need two choices, Remain and a form of Leave that Parliament will support (but Lord knows what that might be).
Given the Parliament seems incapable of agreeing on a form of Leave that has a majority support, I don't see how a legitimate referendum could be called. It almost certainly end up as choice between Remain or Leave in name only.
And that question has already been asked and answered.
Parliament is sovereign and can ask any question in a #peoplesvote that it chooses.
I don't think you get a veto.
Another one who scorns democracy. If they press ahead with this then vetoes will be the least of their worries.
Labour has sunk to new lows of cynicism. They are voting down the Brexit deal so they can then say we need to vote to stay in the EU because we can't agree a Brexit deal.
Most constituencies in the country are Leave. If Labour continue with this ploy May should call them on it. "Labour want to reject a deal that makes Brexit work because they want to blackmail you into staying in the EU. Really they just want mass immigration at all costs." Corbyn and Abbott have made enough statements about this over the years that could be trotted out if they try to deny.
I'm very opposed to the people's vote, on matters of several principles.
But, if there's to be a PV, and if May's deal has already been comprehensively rejected by Parliament, I don't see how or why Parliament would then go through the absurd spectacle of letting something that has been decisively rejected be suddenly resurrected by a referendum.
The first referendum showed the real dangers of a holding a referendum where Parliament doesn't believe one of the two outcomes is reasonable. Making the same mistake AGAIN would be unforgivable.
*IF* we have a PV, and I really hope we don't, it's imperative for the government and Parliament to be able to broadly accept any answer. And if it can't, then don't ask it.
It seems to me the only answer they would really want to broadly accept would be Remain. Which means under your criteria ( and I believe you are correct) the 2nd referendum is indeed a complete waste of time.
I agree with the above posters. It would be utterly bonkers for Parliament to call a referendum to endorse something they won't pass themselves. We could very easily end up in another stalemate and see calls start for a third referendum.
So if there is to be another referendum it would need two choices, Remain and a form of Leave that Parliament will support (but Lord knows what that might be).
Given the Parliament seems incapable of agreeing on a form of Leave that has a majority support, I don't see how a legitimate referendum could be called. It almost certainly end up as choice between Remain or Leave in name only.
And that question has already been asked and answered.
Parliament is sovereign and can ask any question in a #peoplesvote that it chooses.
I don't think you get a veto.
Another one who scorns democracy. If they press ahead with this then vetoes will be the least of their worries.
If any Parliament offered the option of Deal or No Deal every MP would be against the wall when the inevitably revolution occurred...
Rubbish. Why should Remain get two chances (or more if we give the "wrong" answer again.)
Be assured that is the message that will be on every doorstep.
"They think you are too stupid to understand so they want you to vote again" "You didn't vote the right way last time so they will keep asking you until you do what they want"
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
There will be a referendum, but it won't be on "May's deal".
Why not?
You think Parliament will pass either "No Deal" or "Remain" resolutions?
And if they do, what's the point of a referendum?
Those resolutions won't get tabled. Only the "Deal" resolution will, and it will be defeated.
Why not? The government could to determine 'the will of the House' - 'No Deal' would lose more heavily than the Deal, and 'Remain' would do best - and if Remain won Parliament would be in a right old pickle.
But I expect all 3 to lose, so if Parliament can't decide (which they should) all three should go forward - and the Deal will win - after more wasted months of uncertainty, lost business and lost jobs.
What voting system might Parliament agree for deciding by referendum? Realistic possibilities are five:
1. AV. 2. Leave - Yes or No, followed if "Yes" by round 2 asking Deal or No Deal. 3. Same as 2 but with conditional question on ballot. 4. Deal - Yes or No, followed if "No" by round 2 asking Remain or WTO. 5. Same as 4, but with conditional question on ballot.
You miss out the most obvious and the only one that had not already been asked.
Deal or No Deal. It honours the first referendum because not leaving is not an option and it asks the public to decide the form of Brexit which is what everyone claims to have been complaining about.
If the electorate is to be directly consulted again, why should they not have the opportunity to change their mind ? The restricted choice you suggest would be parliament effectively taking half the decision for them.
Either parliament deals with the matter and signs off on May's deal, or Norway, or the crashout - or it delegates the decision back to the electorate. Trying to make half the decision would be absurd.
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
So we can probably rule out an EU invasion as one of the possible outcomes?
They'll probably insist we allow them to use our tanks and planes in the invasion, while the remainers will be cheering them on.
I'm very opposed to the people's vote, on matters of several principles.
But, if there's to be a PV, and if May's deal has already been comprehensively rejected by Parliament, I don't see how or why Parliament would then go through the absurd spectacle of letting something that has been decisively rejected be suddenly resurrected by a referendum.
The first referendum showed the real dangers of a holding a referendum where Parliament doesn't believe one of the two outcomes is reasonable. Making the same mistake AGAIN would be unforgivable.
*IF* we have a PV, and I really hope we don't, it's imperative for the government and Parliament to be able to broadly accept any answer. And if it can't, then don't ask it.
It seems to me the only answer they would really want to broadly accept would be Remain. Which means under your criteria ( and I believe you are correct) the 2nd referendum is indeed a complete waste of time.
I agree with the above posters. It would be utterly bonkers for Parliament to call a referendum to endorse something they won't pass themselves. We could very easily end up in another stalemate and see calls start for a third referendum.
So if there is to be another referendum it would need two choices, Remain and a form of Leave that Parliament will support (but Lord knows what that might be).
Given the Parliament seems incapable of agreeing on a form of Leave that has a majority support, I don't see how a legitimate referendum could be called. It almost certainly end up as choice between Remain or Leave in name only.
And that question has already been asked and answered.
Parliament is sovereign and can ask any question in a #peoplesvote that it chooses.
I don't think you get a veto.
Another one who scorns democracy. If they press ahead with this then vetoes will be the least of their worries.
No, we have a parliamentary democracy so they get to choose.
If you disapprove then you can vent your feelings at the next GE, as indeed shall I.
Our parliamentary democracy had a general election where a government won on a clear mandate for the British people to decide our EU membership. Every household in the country got a briefing from the government stating explicitly their choice would be implemented. Anyone that believes in this democracy must respect that.
I'm very opposed to the people's vote, on matters of several principles.
But, if there's to be a PV, and if May's deal has already been comprehensively rejected by Parliament, I don't see how or why Parliament would then go through the absurd spectacle of letting something that has been decisively rejected be suddenly resurrected by a referendum.
The first referendum showed the real dangers of a holding a referendum where Parliament doesn't believe one of the two outcomes is reasonable. Making the same mistake AGAIN would be unforgivable.
*IF* we have a PV, and I really hope we don't, it's imperative for the government and Parliament to be able to broadly accept any answer. And if it can't, then don't ask it.
It seems to me the only answer they would really want to broadly accept would be Remain. Which means under your criteria ( and I believe you are correct) the 2nd referendum is indeed a complete waste of time.
I agree with the above posters. It would be utterly bonkers for Parliament to call a referendum to endorse something they won't pass themselves. We could very easily end up in another stalemate and see calls start for a third referendum.
So if there is to be another referendum it would need two choices, Remain and a form of Leave that Parliament will support (but Lord knows what that might be).
Given the Parliament seems incapable of agreeing on a form of Leave that has a majority support, I don't see how a legitimate referendum could be called. It almost certainly end up as choice between Remain or Leave in name only.
And that question has already been asked and answered.
Parliament is sovereign and can ask any question in a #peoplesvote that it chooses.
I don't think you get a veto.
Another one who scorns democracy. If they press ahead with this then vetoes will be the least of their worries.
No, we have a parliamentary democracy so they get to choose.
If you disapprove then you can vent your feelings at the next GE, as indeed shall I.
Our parliamentary democracy had a general election where a government won on a clear mandate for the British people to decide our EU membership. Every household in the country got a briefing from the government stating explicitly their choice would be implemented. Anyone that believes in this democracy must respect that.
Repost as requested BJO 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.
Yes and unfortunately so did the EU, which is why her negotiation attempts were such a spectacular failure.
Very easy for the EU to reach that conclusion when we did no obvious, public planning for No Deal.
Cameron made it clear in his "renegotiation" that he would vote Remain come what may; the PM has made it clear in her "negotaiation" that she would never No Deal Brexit. Both have proven a calamitous miscalculation in dealing with the EU.
So when May said repeatedly in public that "no deal is better than a bad deal" she was simply appeasing the ERG and had no intention of carrying through the implied threat to leave without a deal?
I'm very opposed to the people's vote, on matters of several principles.
But, if there's to be a PV, and if May's deal has already been comprehensively rejected by Parliament, I don't see how or why Parliament would then go through the absurd spectacle of letting something that has been decisively rejected be suddenly resurrected by a referendum.
The first referendum showed the real dangers of a holding a referendum where Parliament doesn't believe one of the two outcomes is reasonable. Making the same mistake AGAIN would be unforgivable.
*IF* we have a PV, and I really hope we don't, it's imperative for the government and Parliament to be able to broadly accept any answer. And if it can't, then don't ask it.
It seems to me the only answer they would really want to broadly accept would be Remain. Which means under your criteria ( and I believe you are correct) the 2nd referendum is indeed a complete waste of time.
I agree with the above posters. It would be utterly bonkers for Parliament to call a referendum to endorse something they won't pass themselves. We could very easily end up in another stalemate and see calls start for a third referendum.
So if there is to be another referendum it would need two choices, Remain and a form of Leave that Parliament will support (but Lord knows what that might be).
Given the Parliament seems incapable of agreeing on a form of Leave that has a majority support, I don't see how a legitimate referendum could be called. It almost certainly end up as choice between Remain or Leave in name only.
And that question has already been asked and answered.
Parliament is sovereign and can ask any question in a #peoplesvote that it chooses.
I don't think you get a veto.
Another one who scorns democracy. If they press ahead with this then vetoes will be the least of their worries.
What should be the greatest of their worries?
A massive increase in support for extremist parties along with a collapse in the vote generally. What is the point in voting at all if your vote is going to be ignored. The moderates will opt for the latter whilst the extremists will opt for the former. But whichever way they do it the decision will be fatal for democracy.
What exactly is the point of a TV debate if we're not going to get to vote on the outcome?
It just seems completely pointless, unless May is going to call for a referendum (which might be her plan).
If she did, it might move some Leaver rebels into line (vote for this deal, or its EU ref2) but it would also harden the resolve of others. And she’d still lose.
If any Parliament offered the option of Deal or No Deal every MP would be against the wall when the inevitably revolution occurred...
Rubbish. Why should Remain get two chances (or more if we give the "wrong" answer again.)
Be assured that is the message that will be on every doorstep.
"They think you are too stupid to understand so they want you to vote again" "You didn't vote the right way last time so they will keep asking you until you do what they want"
And "Who actually governs the UK - MPs, or you, the voters?"
I'm very opposed to the people's vote, on matters of several principles.
But, if there's to be a PV, and if May's deal has already been comprehensively rejected by Parliament, I don't see how or why Parliament would then go through the absurd spectacle of letting something that has been decisively rejected be suddenly resurrected by a referendum.
The first referendum showed the real dangers of a holding a referendum where Parliament doesn't believe one of the two outcomes is reasonable. Making the same mistake AGAIN would be unforgivable.
*IF* we have a PV, and I really hope we don't, it's imperative for the government and Parliament to be able to broadly accept any answer. And if it can't, then don't ask it.
It seems to me the only answer they would really want to broadly accept would be Remain. Which means under your criteria ( and I believe you are correct) the 2nd referendum is indeed a complete waste of time.
I agree with the above posters. It would be utterly bonkers for Parliament to call a referendum to endorse something they won't pass themselves. We could very easily end up in another stalemate and see calls start for a third referendum.
So if there is to be another referendum it would need two choices, Remain and a form of Leave that Parliament will support (but Lord knows what that might be).
Given the Parliament seems incapable of agreeing on a form of Leave that has a majority support, I don't see how a legitimate referendum could be called. It almost certainly end up as choice between Remain or Leave in name only.
And that question has already been asked and answered.
Parliament is sovereign and can ask any question in a #peoplesvote that it chooses.
I don't think you get a veto.
Another one who scorns democracy. If they press ahead with this then vetoes will be the least of their worries.
No, we have a parliamentary democracy so they get to choose.
If you disapprove then you can vent your feelings at the next GE, as indeed shall I.
Parliament voted to give the choice to the people. They chose. Parliament voted to accept that choice and trigger A50.
If Parliament then decides to scorn that choice then they have nothing but contempt for the people and are unfit for purpose.
In that instance your Parliamentary democracy is dead.
I'm very opposed to the people's vote, on matters of several principles.
But, if there's to be a PV, and if May's deal has already been comprehensively rejected by Parliament, I don't see how or why Parliament would then go through the absurd spectacle of letting something that has been decisively rejected be suddenly resurrected by a referendum.
The first referendum showed the real dangers of a holding a referendum where Parliament doesn't believe one of the two outcomes is reasonable. Making the same mistake AGAIN would be unforgivable.
*IF* we have a PV, and I really hope we don't, it's imperative for the government and Parliament to be able to broadly accept any answer. And if it can't, then don't ask it.
It seems to me the only answer they would really want to broadly accept would be Remain. Which means under your criteria ( and I believe you are correct) the 2nd referendum is indeed a complete waste of time.
I agree with the above posters. It would be utterly bonkers for Parliament to call a referendum to endorse something they won't pass themselves. We could very easily end up in another stalemate and see calls start for a third referendum.
So if there is to be another referendum it would need two choices, Remain and a form of Leave that Parliament will support (but Lord knows what that might be).
Given the Parliament seems incapable of agreeing on a form of Leave that has a majority support, I don't see how a legitimate referendum could be called. It almost certainly end up as choice between Remain or Leave in name only.
And that question has already been asked and answered.
Parliament is sovereign and can ask any question in a #peoplesvote that it chooses.
I don't think you get a veto.
Another one who scorns democracy. If they press ahead with this then vetoes will be the least of their worries.
No, we have a parliamentary democracy so they get to choose.
If you disapprove then you can vent your feelings at the next GE, as indeed shall I.
Our parliamentary democracy had a general election where a government won on a clear mandate for the British people to decide our EU membership. Every household in the country got a briefing from the government stating explicitly their choice would be implemented. Anyone that believes in this democracy must respect that.
And the right of the self same electorate to change its mind.
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
It's a weird characteristic that I frequently observe: that of mocking your opponents for their failures. Remainers err greatly when they mock Jacob Rees-Mogg for his failure to count to 48, because it may stimulate him to gain more letters and exceed 48. Similarly I am surprised when British people mock the German armed services for being inadequate and undangerous. Would we prefer them to be adequate and dangerous?
If any Parliament offered the option of Deal or No Deal every MP would be against the wall when the inevitably revolution occurred...
Rubbish. Why should Remain get two chances (or more if we give the "wrong" answer again.)
Be assured that is the message that will be on every doorstep.
"They think you are too stupid to understand so they want you to vote again" "You didn't vote the right way last time so they will keep asking you until you do what they want"
And "Who actually governs the UK - MPs, or you, the voters?"
I thought the government governed the country, subject to being able to command the confidence of MPs. Did I miss a major constitutional change recently?
I'm not aware of any manufacturer (outside the niche luxury sector) being exclusively based in the UK.
There are some
Yes but they tend to be so small they are not worth discussing. :-). Maybe you can give me some examples so we can tell if you are serious?
Project Fear was overblown in timing but not direction. We along with most other manufacturers ignored the initial Brexit vote as we thought it would go away like Ireland. The problem is now even if we cancelled Article 50 real damage has already been done. Despite a major currency drop the economy has stalled.
Last week a major project we were a partner in was cancelled as the USA owners of our partner got cold feet and have vetoed all new product introductions to their UK plant. As a result all KY Jelly used in the UK will continue to be imported from Italy.
On the positive side my company has never been busier as competition in many sectors is falling off fast. The Europeans in certain areas have stopped supplying the UK as they see it too risky.
My largest concern is we are very dependent on Linde (Germany) to supply speciality chemicals from Holland and they refuse to guarantee supply in case of a hard Brexit. This would close my plant in a matter of weeks and there is no UK alternative.
I would love some of the Brexiters on this site to give more details of what they do and how they come up with their opinions. To me all I see is chaos and lots of late nights and stress.
Some of those who don't seem to mind if we make an unplanned exit in March without a deal may genuinely believe that it won't be too bad. However I suspect that is a very small proportion and the vast majority who are happy with crashing out don't expect to be personally inconvenienced, either because they are too well off or retired or both.
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
It's a weird characteristic that I frequently observe: that of mocking your opponents for their failures. Remainers err greatly when they mock Jacob Rees-Mogg for his failure to count to 48, because it may stimulate him to gain more letters and exceed 48. Similarly I am surprised when British people mock the German armed services for being inadequate and undangerous. Would we prefer them to be adequate and dangerous?
Why would we be more worried about German Armed forces than French ones. World War II is as much history as the Napoleonic wars now.
I am surprised when British people mock the German armed services for being inadequate and undangerous. Would we prefer them to be adequate and dangerous?
As a powerful ally between us and Russia, then yes, very much so.
If any Parliament offered the option of Deal or No Deal every MP would be against the wall when the inevitably revolution occurred...
Rubbish. Why should Remain get two chances (or more if we give the "wrong" answer again.)
Be assured that is the message that will be on every doorstep.
"They think you are too stupid to understand so they want you to vote again" "You didn't vote the right way last time so they will keep asking you until you do what they want"
You said there would be violence if the result went the wrong way. I merely highlight that the violence will be aimed in 1 particular direction (probably regardless of the result) if MP's fail to do the one thing they are supposed to do in a Parliamentary democracy...
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
So we can probably rule out an EU invasion as one of the possible outcomes?
They'll probably insist we allow them to use our tanks and planes in the invasion, while the remainers will be cheering them on.
It's a weird characteristic that I frequently observe: that of mocking your opponents for their failures. Remainers err greatly when they mock Jacob Rees-Mogg for his failure to count to 48, because it may stimulate him to gain more letters and exceed 48. Similarly I am surprised when British people mock the German armed services for being inadequate and undangerous. Would we prefer them to be adequate and dangerous?
I made this point several times. The humiliation of the ERG hasn't made them any less dangerous to May's deal. In fact everything the government has said or done since the deal was announced has done nothing but further enrage the ERG and steel their determination to vote against her.
Given the position she's in, continuing to antagonise them is... very courageous.
Comments
Best wishes.
48 hours should do it....
Do you REALLY think they're going to be doing that Corbyn?
I see net departures for the A8 countries, while net arrivals for A2 and the more longstanding members of the EU. One of the interesting nuggets in the figures is that there are 132 000 fewer EU citizens working in the UK, so while still some arrivals there are fewer workers. Presumably these are mostly family. Perhaps it is that drop in workers that is creating the need for so many non EU arrivals. Perhaps we cannot buck the markets, at least for employment.
Certainly the Tories plan to reduce the figures to "tens of thousands" has once again been shown to be a failure. Not surprising really, as May was in charge of it.
For too many years we have been ruled by a cosy consensus (much of which I happen to have agreed with) to the extent that anyone expressing alternative views is regarded as extremist or in need of 'stopping'. The only people this has really benefitted are the politicians themselves who have become more and more disdainful of real public opinion and have concentrated on superficial ways to mitigate it.
Personally I think it is about time the whole political system had a massive shake up for the good of our democracy.
Like ripping off a bandage, the fear is always worse than reality.
OK, 24 hours should do it.
The 48 letters probably come in when she fails to get anything at EUCO.
As I said below, I don't think anyone will want May within a hundred miles of the trade agreement negotiations.
1. AV.
2. Leave - Yes or No, followed if "Yes" by round 2 asking Deal or No Deal.
3. Same as 2 but with conditional question on ballot.
4. Deal - Yes or No, followed if "No" by round 2 asking Remain or WTO.
5. Same as 4, but with conditional question on ballot.
So if there is to be another referendum it would need two choices, Remain and a form of Leave that Parliament will support (but Lord knows what that might be).
Given the Parliament seems incapable of agreeing on a form of Leave that has a majority support, I don't see how a legitimate referendum could be called. It almost certainly end up as choice between Remain or Leave in name only.
Unders looking attractive at any price.
Quite a story:
Samuel Little: US serial killer 'admits 90 murders'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46384197
LABOUR election candidate who referred to “benefits scum” in social media posts will be reinterviewed by the party.
Darlington woman Sue Morley was recently selected to represent the Eastbourne ward for Labour in the upcoming local elections.
In accordance with party disciplinary policies, she must now re-interview for the role after “alarming” social media posts came to light.
Facebook posts seen by The Northern Echo depict Ms Morley referring to a disabled person as “benefits scum” and referring to the area she hopes to represent as a “s***house” estate in a post about dog fouling in the area.
https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/uk_today_homepage/17262133.benefits-scum-darlington-labour-candidate-to-be-quizzed-over-social-media-posts/
Project Fear was overblown in timing but not direction. We along with most other manufacturers ignored the initial Brexit vote as we thought it would go away like Ireland. The problem is now even if we cancelled Article 50 real damage has already been done. Despite a major currency drop the economy has stalled.
Last week a major project we were a partner in was cancelled as the USA owners of our partner got cold feet and have vetoed all new product introductions to their UK plant. As a result all KY Jelly used in the UK will continue to be imported from Italy.
On the positive side my company has never been busier as competition in many sectors is falling off fast. The Europeans in certain areas have stopped supplying the UK as they see it too risky.
My largest concern is we are very dependent on Linde (Germany) to supply speciality chemicals from Holland and they refuse to guarantee supply in case of a hard Brexit. This would close my plant in a matter of weeks and there is no UK alternative.
I would love some of the Brexiters on this site to give more details of what they do and how they come up with their opinions. To me all I see is chaos and lots of late nights and stress.
Who the hell wants prime time weekend politics in the run-up to Christmas?
Middle England will revolt.
Is Mike on holiday?
It is understood the BBC programme would be held on 9 December at 20:00 GMT in Birmingham, meaning it would replace David Attenborough's Dynasties on BBC One.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46386737
Still, I have about a million and one other things I would rather do. For starters, the best TV sports show on planet earth in on then, the hand egg Red Zone show. Tis the future of sports coverage.
Deal or No Deal. It honours the first referendum because not leaving is not an option and it asks the public to decide the form of Brexit which is what everyone claims to have been complaining about.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/twilight_of_the_taj
I don't think you get a veto.
It just seems completely pointless, unless May is going to call for a referendum (which might be her plan).
I thought it was abysmal. Every question had so many built in assumptions and hypotheses that it should have been relatively easy for Mrs May to explain why they did not apply and that she was being given false choices. But no, she was in full robot mode, rehashing parts of her previous statements, repeating previous answers verbatim to different questions, failing to address the actual questions asked and making it all sound even more complicated instead of simpler. She is awful at that kind of thing, utterly unpersuasive and I am, for present purposes, on her side.
I’ve got a romantic 5 day break booked from Feb 14th.
I’m in Canada from the 19th of March until the 4th of April.
And I’ve got a wedding on June 15th.
So you can guarantee it is going to clash with one of those.
My view is that it has to be AV on three options. Any less than that and you disenfranchise a lot of people and present legitimacy issues. However any attempt to two stage it, or to have a second round of some form actually doesn't make the options equivalent or provide a fair comparison.
However as I think Nick P stated way downthread, there needs to be a clear statement agreed with the EU about what remain means and what No Deal means. Are we remaining on same terms? What minimal or bare bones agreements would be kept in a no deal. It needs to be informed, and a is of our weakness is that we will even have to nehotiate with the Eu in order to hold a referendum ourselves. Article fifty has done nothing but surrender control sadly.
If you disapprove then you can vent your feelings at the next GE, as indeed shall I.
But they'll probably do it anyway.
Newbury's quite nice, to be honest. There are quite a few good bits along the M4 corridor but I can't help thinking Reading or Swindon are better.
Macclesfield is part of that posh Cheshire bit, all footballer's wives and pharma research. Very nice if you can afford to live there.
Royal Leamington Spa, like most old spa towns except Bath, is a bit dowdy and meh. Tunbridge Wells is exactly the same but it's on a slope.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/15/tory-mp-christopher-chope-blocks-progress-of-upskirting-bill
[2] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6429219/Sir-Christopher-Chope-blocks-Private-Members-Bill-FGM-doing-upskirting.html
"We want a debate!"
"OK, here you go"
"No. NOT THAT ONE!!!"
"We want to control our borders"
"OK, here you go"
"No. NOT THAT ONE!!!"
Repeat to fade...
Most constituencies in the country are Leave. If Labour continue with this ploy May should call them on it. "Labour want to reject a deal that makes Brexit work because they want to blackmail you into staying in the EU. Really they just want mass immigration at all costs." Corbyn and Abbott have made enough statements about this over the years that could be trotted out if they try to deny.
Be assured that is the message that will be on every doorstep.
"They think you are too stupid to understand so they want you to vote again"
"You didn't vote the right way last time so they will keep asking you until you do what they want"
Either parliament deals with the matter and signs off on May's deal, or Norway, or the crashout - or it delegates the decision back to the electorate.
Trying to make half the decision would be absurd.
(*Actually we just want to see Nicola and Arlene grind Jezza and Tezza into dust.)
On balance, she shouldn’t do it.
Parliament voted to accept that choice and trigger A50.
If Parliament then decides to scorn that choice then they have nothing but contempt for the people and are unfit for purpose.
In that instance your Parliamentary democracy is dead.
Given the position she's in, continuing to antagonise them is... very courageous.