I think that was part of his rush. He was worried that would be sustained and ruin the chance of remain. Wrong call.
Yes, at that Feb 2016 meeting when Dave wanted to talk about Britain, the other Europeans wanted to talk about preventing a repetition of the summer of 2015.
Not only a very poorly timed referendum, but the worst possible time to talk about the British sausage.
Donald Tusk at G20 summit announced that if Parliament rejects the deal it will be no deal or no Brexit
He said the EU is prepared for every scenario if HOC rejects TM deal in an uncompromising speech
Tusk really should pay attention to the polls, because that kind of talk is going to push us ever closer to a remain/no-deal referendum and us crashing out without a deal.
May needs the EU27 to stop laying down threats that clearly aren't having any impact beyond further infuriating leavers into supporting no deal out of spite.
Not threats. If the deal is rejected then those are the other two options. Trump is simply pointing out facts to the wilfully deaf.
I think that was part of his rush. He was worried that would be sustained and ruin the chance of remain. Wrong call.
Yes, at that Feb 2016 meeting when Dave wanted to talk about Britain, the other Europeans wanted to talk about preventing a repetition of the summer of 2015.
Not only a very poorly timed referendum, but the worst possible time to talk about the British sausage.
You mean emulsified high fat offal tube? (watched Party Games last night!)
Voters are clearly getting fed up with Labour points scoring to try and get a general election rather than either focusing on getting a decent Brexit Deal and backing the government or committing to a second EU referendum like the LDs.
Hence the Tories and LDs are up at Labour's expense. Coupled with the Delta poll last night showing May's Deal clearly preferred to Remain or No Deal head to head it is encouraging for May
I don't think that is clear at all. It could easily be that the Tories represent both sides of the current debate.
If you are opposed to the deal then there are Tories like Davis, Johnson and that second-rater from the 18th century. If you back the deal then there is May and her loyalists. Labour doesn't get a look in.
The debate might change that, though its effect on public opinion will be quickly superseded by the vote itself.
There are different sides represented on the Labour backbenchers just Corbyn is opposed to Remain, the Deal and No Deal
Not really, they are virtually extinct. There is literally a handful of Brexit supporting Labour MPs. They are all aging and mostly facing deselection. In a party where 90% of the membership is now strongly Remain there is absolutely no chance of any openly Brexit supporting candidates being selected. Corbyn is a closet Brexiteer but he is not going to be around forever. In a few years the positions of the Lib Dems and Labour on the EU will be indistinguishable and the Labour leadership will be leading them.
Yet for now and the foreseeable future Corbyn remains in charge of Labour
I notice the Leavers seem to be terrified of having "Remain" on any second referendum - presumably in case it wins.
I am a Remainer. I am quite prepared to go for No-Deal / Remain on a ballot. If No-Deal wins then so be it and we Brexit.
What Leavers fail to grasp when they warn me about the risk of losing is that now we have a clear picture of what "No Deal" means. So, if the country decides that it still wants to Leave then even I will not argue against the result.
You are more honourable than many mps who do not admit the no deal risk. I'd prefer not to have a referendum and take that no deal risk, but if we have one no deal and remain need to be on it.
Magic flaking off Magic Grandpa. Less Dynamo, more Tommy Cooper......
Still a 1.5% swing from Labour to the Tories since the general election, enough for a May majority
The swing there is actually 1.3% - but factor in the recent Yougov 'house effect' and we are probably looking at little change. Most of last night's by elections showed small swings to Labour.
Mr. NorthWales, sounds like encouragement to strong Remainers.
Except several polls recently have suggested that given a forced choice between remain and no deal, the people will chose no deal.
It's no good Tusk threatening the UK with a punishment no deal with the intention of scaring us into acquiescence, if we end up voting for it because it's what people want, partly out of spite to the EU.
5% interest rates must have sounded like music to pensioner's ears from Carney too
Made me wish for no deal as well.
Is very unrewarding to be a good saver over this last decade.
I have a mortgage, and is why I really hope May's deal gets through. Don't make me and @HYUFD head down to London to protest for a "People's vote". I really really don't want to have to do that.
Someone needs to explain the obvious to our parliamentarians.
Some I expect know that, they are working to no brexit or no deal. But too many think Tusk and co are not telling the truth while simultaneously believing Tusk and co will be super accommodating. Problem is some present as the latter but are probably the former.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1068363730990350336 Theresa May reveals what she hopes to achieve with the debate: close down any compromise with Labour. Interesting strategy, which means she will need the votes of every one of her MPs and also of the DUP, who have said they will vote against and may actually prefer a soft Brexit if it keeps NI aligned with GB.
It's the mass prime time audience she wants; Corbyn is incidental.
Unlike American Presidents, she isn't able to go on TV to do an 'address to the nation'. I don't know whether she even has that right, or not, but it would be a precedent she couldn't set (outside wartime). If she does a lunchtime press conference it will be watched only by journalists and PB'ers and then filtered through the media and miss most ordinary people. No-one watches PPBs any more; indeed I haven't seen one myself since 2017. Offering a debate with Corbyn is the only way she gets herself an unedited showing on evening weekend TV.
So she has something to announce during the debate, and the audience isn't really the public, but MPs, and specifically her own MPs (edit/ or perhaps she really does think Labour's are less idiotic than hers). It will be something sufficiently dramatic to influence their vote, and need to be said publicly so they have nowhere to hide. Which can only be to spell out what the government will do, in the event that her deal is voted down, and it will be something her MPs won't like.
That simply is not true. Back in the 1960s &1970s it was normal practice for the PM to address the nation via a Ministerial Broadcast. Harold Wilson did so quite regularly in relation to economic issues - including Devaluation in November 1967 - and Rhodesia. Ted Heath did so in relation to the 1972 Miners' strike and the Three-Day week at the end of 1973. Eden did so in relation to Suez in late 1956. Opposition Leaders had the right of reply.
It's still an option on the BBC (interesting use of "may be required", too), but Corbyn and I suspect Cable and Sturgeon would want a go too. I think the last one was Blair on Iraq in 2003.
Magic flaking off Magic Grandpa. Less Dynamo, more Tommy Cooper......
Still a 1.5% swing from Labour to the Tories since the general election, enough for a May majority
The swing there is actually 1.3% - but factor in the recent Yougov 'house effect' and we are probably looking at little change. Most of last night's by elections showed small swings to Labour.
Instead of comparing Yougov's poll to the actual result, doesn't it make more sense to compare the poll with their last poll before the election? If you do that, you get a swing to Labour.
In the interests of, I dunno, being a massive psephology nerd, in true interests of transparency, I think we need a two preferential votes, and we'll use the Schulze method to find the Condorcet (or beatpath) winners.
Q1: Please rank the following outcomes in order of preference 1. Leave the EU with no deal 2. Leave the EU with the PM's deal 3. Leave the EU with PM's deal, but on every street corner we place an animatronic Jacob Rees Mogg that repeats the words "vassalage" endlessly until the backstop ends. London to be renamed West Belgium. 4. Leave the EU with a "Norway+" deal 5. Extend Article 50, re-open negotiations. Close down parliament. Hide behind the curtains until the EU forgets we exist. 6. Revoke article 50, remain in the EU on terms as similar as possible as what we have now except every family loses their free owl. 7. Leave the EU, then immediately sign a new accession treaty, waiving all opt-outs and agreeing to join the Euro and Schengen area. Michel Barnier to appear on all UK banknotes. 8. Have cake; do not eat 9. Eat cake; do not have 10. Neither have nor eat cake 11. Type 2 diabetes. 12. Invade France.
Q2: How many years must it be before we can again have another once-in-a-lifetime vote? 1. 0 2. 1 3. 1 and a bit 4. 2 5. 2-ish 6. 3 is a generation, right? 7. Okay five and that's my once-in-a-lifetime offer
The only cohort that actually wants this deal is Con remainers- which aligns with the only people in this place which supports the deal being Con remainers.
Interesting that May has stopped calling Con remainers "saboteurs" now they're the only people supporting her deal.
I'm a Leaver, and I support it.
It's funny, you and Richard Nabavi are both reluctant dealers, and you both seem to support it for the same reasons, though approaching from two completely different angles.
It isn't actually a deal in the sense of determining the end state. People read into what they want. We're still in cake and eat it territory. The main negotiation is still to come. It could go any direction, but I suspect we will end up in the Vassal State.
I suspect that the final deal will look much like the WA, whether negotiated by May, Corbyn, Boris or Cooper. The same dynamics around customs, agriculture and Northern Ireland will continue to apply. I suspect that a fairly free movement of people will be included too, for all sorts of practical reasons.
But as we will be following the Euro-rules in many areas, and little reason to deviate from them in other areas, probably not much will change. We will still be able to gripe about unelected law makers, but at least it will be based in truth for once.
This looks likely. No-one will want negotiations to drag on for more years than necessary, particularly when Theresa May had promised them they were already done. Short(er) negotiations mean either minimal agreement or minimal change. The second is more likely than the first.
At some point we will have to face reality. We are not there yet, as the discussion around Theresa May's "deal" shows. Doing what we are told under a Vassal State isn't going to be agreeable and potential sanctions are likely to be heavy because the EU really doesn't trust us.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1068363730990350336 Theresa May reveals what she hopes to achieve with the debate: close down any compromise with Labour. Interesting strategy, which means she will need the votes of every one of her MPs and also of the DUP, who have said they will vote against and may actually prefer a soft Brexit if it keeps NI aligned with GB.
It's the mass prime time audience she wants; Corbyn is incidental.
She wants both. I think she's planning to humiliate him.
Given all he needs to do is quote her own former and even serving cabinet members on the deal, if that is her plan I would finally agree she is not seeing things clearly.
It's not PMQs. He'll be forced to defend his own position. Unless he finds a way to make it sound a lot more coherent, very soon, it'll be a problem for him.
To be sure it would not be without risks for him, which is why I doubt it will happen, but May needs to sell her deal and while she might expose flaws in his position, he has ample ammunition to weaken hers.
I notice the Leavers seem to be terrified of having "Remain" on any second referendum - presumably in case it wins.
I am a Remainer. I am quite prepared to go for No-Deal / Remain on a ballot. If No-Deal wins then so be it and we Brexit.
What Leavers fail to grasp when they warn me about the risk of losing is that now we have a clear picture of what "No Deal" means. So, if the country decides that it still wants to Leave then even I will not argue against the result.
You are more honourable than many mps who do not admit the no deal risk. I'd prefer not to have a referendum and take that no deal risk, but if we have one no deal and remain need to be on it.
I notice the Leavers seem to be terrified of having "Remain" on any second referendum - presumably in case it wins.
I am a Remainer. I am quite prepared to go for No-Deal / Remain on a ballot. If No-Deal wins then so be it and we Brexit.
What Leavers fail to grasp when they warn me about the risk of losing is that now we have a clear picture of what "No Deal" means. So, if the country decides that it still wants to Leave then even I will not argue against the result.
And why should another referendum be the last? Since you are setting the precedent that it is okay to have referendums on the same subject every 3 years I expect that if you win you will be okay with us having another one in 3 years time to reverse the decision again.
I notice the Leavers seem to be terrified of having "Remain" on any second referendum - presumably in case it wins.
I am a Remainer. I am quite prepared to go for No-Deal / Remain on a ballot. If No-Deal wins then so be it and we Brexit.
What Leavers fail to grasp when they warn me about the risk of losing is that now we have a clear picture of what "No Deal" means. So, if the country decides that it still wants to Leave then even I will not argue against the result.
Perhaps, but Remainers are also being dishonest about how they’d behave if it looked like Leave would win a 2nd vote (they’d demand the decision would be made by Parliament instead) and, if a further Leave vote was carried, they’d either challenge it or only stay quiet(ish) until they sensed they had another chance of winning via another political route.
I notice the Leavers seem to be terrified of having "Remain" on any second referendum - presumably in case it wins.
I am a Remainer. I am quite prepared to go for No-Deal / Remain on a ballot. If No-Deal wins then so be it and we Brexit.
What Leavers fail to grasp when they warn me about the risk of losing is that now we have a clear picture of what "No Deal" means. So, if the country decides that it still wants to Leave then even I will not argue against the result.
Heh. Bring on a second referendum. Remainers are like Bourbons (not the biscuits, they're delicious).
Magic flaking off Magic Grandpa. Less Dynamo, more Tommy Cooper......
Still a 1.5% swing from Labour to the Tories since the general election, enough for a May majority
The swing there is actually 1.3% - but factor in the recent Yougov 'house effect' and we are probably looking at little change. Most of last night's by elections showed small swings to Labour.
Instead of comparing Yougov's poll to the actual result, doesn't it make more sense to compare the poll with their last poll before the election? If you do that, you get a swing to Labour.
The Yougov sample is now based on the 2017 general election result
Tusk needs to clarify what the "no Brexit" option means.
If he's offering us the status quo and no buggering about with the rebate, opt outs etc, I'd bite his hand off right now...
He is not offering us anything. It is not in his gift. Brexit is a UK/EU matter.
Let's put it this way. Tusk is the president of the council. He doesn't even have a vote. But he prepares agenda, chairs meetings, schedules votes, and talks with the leaders regularly.
He will know (or have a good idea) what the cost of remain would be.
I think that was part of his rush. He was worried that would be sustained and ruin the chance of remain. Wrong call.
Yes, at that Feb 2016 meeting when Dave wanted to talk about Britain, the other Europeans wanted to talk about preventing a repetition of the summer of 2015.
Not only a very poorly timed referendum, but the worst possible time to talk about the British sausage.
You mean emulsified high fat offal tube? (watched Party Games last night!)
Mr. NorthWales, sounds like encouragement to strong Remainers.
Except several polls recently have suggested that given a forced choice between remain and no deal, the people will chose no deal.
It's no good Tusk threatening the UK with a punishment no deal with the intention of scaring us into acquiescence, if we end up voting for it because it's what people want, partly out of spite to the EU.
5% interest rates must have sounded like music to pensioner's ears from Carney too
Made me wish for no deal as well.
Is very unrewarding to be a good saver over this last decade.
I have a mortgage, and is why I really hope May's deal gets through. Don't make me and @HYUFD head down to London to protest for a "People's vote". I really really don't want to have to do that.
I have fixed both of mine recently to cover NO deal an big interest rate increases
Comments
Not only a very poorly timed referendum, but the worst possible time to talk about the British sausage.
If he's offering us the status quo and no buggering about with the rebate, opt outs etc, I'd bite his hand off right now...
It’s easy to look clever (or silly) in hindsight but there was little reason to think anything would be gained by delaying in 2016.
Q1: Please rank the following outcomes in order of preference
1. Leave the EU with no deal
2. Leave the EU with the PM's deal
3. Leave the EU with PM's deal, but on every street corner we place an animatronic Jacob Rees Mogg that repeats the words "vassalage" endlessly until the backstop ends. London to be renamed West Belgium.
4. Leave the EU with a "Norway+" deal
5. Extend Article 50, re-open negotiations. Close down parliament. Hide behind the curtains until the EU forgets we exist.
6. Revoke article 50, remain in the EU on terms as similar as possible as what we have now except every family loses their free owl.
7. Leave the EU, then immediately sign a new accession treaty, waiving all opt-outs and agreeing to join the Euro and Schengen area. Michel Barnier to appear on all UK banknotes.
8. Have cake; do not eat
9. Eat cake; do not have
10. Neither have nor eat cake
11. Type 2 diabetes.
12. Invade France.
Q2: How many years must it be before we can again have another once-in-a-lifetime vote?
1. 0
2. 1
3. 1 and a bit
4. 2
5. 2-ish
6. 3 is a generation, right?
7. Okay five and that's my once-in-a-lifetime offer
At some point we will have to face reality. We are not there yet, as the discussion around Theresa May's "deal" shows. Doing what we are told under a Vassal State isn't going to be agreeable and potential sanctions are likely to be heavy because the EU really doesn't trust us.
NEW THREAD
He will know (or have a good idea) what the cost of remain would be.