Then he has more faith than I do. If I thought it could win I would be sympathetic to No Deal - certainly I would chose it over Remain any day. I just don't think there is too much opposition in Parliament to make it certain of winning and that in trying to do so they will lose everything.
No Deal, No Transition (NDNT) has the potential to cause serious economic dislocation, which will then be followed by a Jeremy Corbyn government. Of course, viewed from half a century away, this will all be a mere blip.
But that will be little comfort to those who lose their jobs and their homes.
And that the country took a path backed by only a minority of its citizens* - and a fair number of those will similarly feel that they were misled by the politicians - will further poison political debate.
Yes, yes, we will get out the other side. But that won't make it any more pleasant an experience.
* By which I am referring to NDNT, not to Leave in general
I think after TM loses the MV she will be NC by her mp’s and if BJ makes it to the ballot the membership will choose him as next leader and we will leave with no deal and I think we will make a success of it much to the dismay of remainers and the EU
Then he has more faith than I do. If I thought it could win I would be sympathetic to No Deal - certainly I would chose it over Remain any day. I just don't think there is too much opposition in Parliament to make it certain of winning and that in trying to do so they will lose everything.
Boris has said that the first thing he will ask for is a six month extension.
But - for a second - I'd like to know what the concrete moves the UK government you think would be the first priorities in a No Deal, No Transition world.
Labour has sparked a fresh anti-Semitism furore as a chilling move to silence victims from speaking out is exposed by The Mail on Sunday.
Party bosses have warned any activist who publicly accuses another member of anti-Jewish prejudice risks being disciplined and any formal complaints they have made could be dropped.
Anyone complaining is ordered by the party’s Complaints Team to ‘ensure you keep all information relating to your complaint private and do not share it with third parties or the media (including social media).’
Labour has sparked a fresh anti-Semitism furore as a chilling move to silence victims from speaking out is exposed by The Mail on Sunday.
Party bosses have warned any activist who publicly accuses another member of anti-Jewish prejudice risks being disciplined and any formal complaints they have made could be dropped.
Anyone complaining is ordered by the party’s Complaints Team to ‘ensure you keep all information relating to your complaint private and do not share it with third parties or the media (including social media).’
Does this rule apply only to complaints of antisemitism or to all complaints, and the Mail is throwing a dead cat on the table to distract from Brexit?
The middle 75% of the public would be happy with the deal. It is only those that want the UK to be driven by a total war style of politics that oppose it.
Pretty much, yes. But MPs aren't going to vote to give the population a chance to vote for the deal after they have voted against it themselves. Politics is a*se about t*ts enough already, with the prime minister talking about giving the people what they voted for while hinting between the lines that it's a crock compared to what would be best for them, namely Remain.
If there is a 3-way vote, Remain is likely to win whether its FPTP or AV. Remain is likely to be on 40-45%, and No Deal is likely to come second. If it's run on AV lines, redistribution of the "for the Deal" votes will push Remain over the 50% threshold.
Any Brexit-supporting MP who doesn't back TM's Deal on 11/12/18 is in effect shooting themselves in the foot, because any 2nd referendum will abort Brexit.
May will ensure it is a three way referendum held by AV if necessary, she could even had a No Deal v Deal first question, winner faces Remain in the second question
I reckon any second referendum will be a win for Leave.
@HYUFD - The second possibility you mention would be a strange choice indeed. Why ask the questions in that order, rather than ask 1) Remain or Leave? and 2), If Leave wins, do you favour Deal or No Deal? Doing it the way you describe would be even more game-showy than the whole "Deal or No Deal" frame already is.
What kind of probability would you give to a 3-way referendum happening?
No idea why the church is dying in the Western world.....it seems some think that being gay is like choosing to wear a pair of Yeeyzs.
Gay people should not join Catholic clergy, Pope Francis says...No room for ‘fashionable’ homosexuality and gay priests should be ‘impeccably responsible’ or leave
Labour has sparked a fresh anti-Semitism furore as a chilling move to silence victims from speaking out is exposed by The Mail on Sunday.
Party bosses have warned any activist who publicly accuses another member of anti-Jewish prejudice risks being disciplined and any formal complaints they have made could be dropped.
Anyone complaining is ordered by the party’s Complaints Team to ‘ensure you keep all information relating to your complaint private and do not share it with third parties or the media (including social media).’
Does this rule apply only to complaints of antisemitism or to all complaints, and the Mail is throwing a dead cat on the table to distract from Brexit?
Whether it is to all complaints, or just those of anti-Semitism, is irrelevant since Labour's handling of the latter has been ludicrously poor.
I am generally in favour of anonymity and public silence in such cases, particularly during the complaints process. However that can only be the case if the accuser can realistically have faith in the process: as we saw with the Lib Dems and Lord Rennard, if the system is stacked against the accuser, it can be right, and good, for them to speak out publicly.
Labour's handling of anti-Semitism accusations has been appalling, and the accusers cannot have much confidence in the system. For that reason, if they feel the process is not being followed, or the process is intrinsically designed to be unfair, they should have the right to speak out about it.
And sadly, that's where Labour find themselves today.
(If you read the article, the reaction to John Shaw's comments on FB don't appear to have been taken seriously enough IMO.)
If there is a 3-way vote, Remain is likely to win whether its FPTP or AV. Remain is likely to be on 40-45%, and No Deal is likely to come second. If it's run on AV lines, redistribution of the "for the Deal" votes will push Remain over the 50% threshold.
Any Brexit-supporting MP who doesn't back TM's Deal on 11/12/18 is in effect shooting themselves in the foot, because any 2nd referendum will abort Brexit.
May will ensure it is a three way referendum held by AV if necessary, she could even had a No Deal v Deal first question, winner faces Remain in the second question
I reckon any second referendum will be a win for Leave.
@HYUFD - The second possibility you mention would be a strange choice indeed. Why ask the questions in that order, rather than ask 1) Remain or Leave? and 2), If Leave wins, do you favour Deal or No Deal? Doing it the way you describe would be even more game-showy than the whole "Deal or No Deal" frame already is.
What kind of probability would you give to a 3-way referendum happening?
As Leave is too generic. There is a big difference between leaving with the Deal and Leaving with no Deal and May would ensure that is clear and as long as she is PM there will not be any referendum without the Deal being a choice, either 3-way or 2-way
Comments
But that will be little comfort to those who lose their jobs and their homes.
And that the country took a path backed by only a minority of its citizens* - and a fair number of those will similarly feel that they were misled by the politicians - will further poison political debate.
Yes, yes, we will get out the other side. But that won't make it any more pleasant an experience.
* By which I am referring to NDNT, not to Leave in general
But - for a second - I'd like to know what the concrete moves the UK government you think would be the first priorities in a No Deal, No Transition world.
US President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping have agreed to halt new trade tariffs for 90 days to allow for talks, the US says.
The two men met in Buenos Aires after the G20 summit for their first talks since a trade war erupted this year.
China says they agreed not to impose any new trade tariffs after 1 January.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-46413196
Party bosses have warned any activist who publicly accuses another member of anti-Jewish prejudice risks being disciplined and any formal complaints they have made could be dropped.
Anyone complaining is ordered by the party’s Complaints Team to ‘ensure you keep all information relating to your complaint private and do not share it with third parties or the media (including social media).’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6450885/Labour-spark-fresh-anti-Semitism-storm-amid-silence-victims-speaking-out.html
@HYUFD - The second possibility you mention would be a strange choice indeed. Why ask the questions in that order, rather than ask 1) Remain or Leave? and 2), If Leave wins, do you favour Deal or No Deal? Doing it the way you describe would be even more game-showy than the whole "Deal or No Deal" frame already is.
What kind of probability would you give to a 3-way referendum happening?
https://twitter.com/Syrian_Lion/status/1068936397384503297
Searching through twitter, the posted videos show generally disgraceful behaviour going way beyond "protesting".
Gay people should not join Catholic clergy, Pope Francis says...No room for ‘fashionable’ homosexuality and gay priests should be ‘impeccably responsible’ or leave
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/02/gay-people-should-not-join-catholic-clergy-pope-francis-says
I am generally in favour of anonymity and public silence in such cases, particularly during the complaints process. However that can only be the case if the accuser can realistically have faith in the process: as we saw with the Lib Dems and Lord Rennard, if the system is stacked against the accuser, it can be right, and good, for them to speak out publicly.
Labour's handling of anti-Semitism accusations has been appalling, and the accusers cannot have much confidence in the system. For that reason, if they feel the process is not being followed, or the process is intrinsically designed to be unfair, they should have the right to speak out about it.
And sadly, that's where Labour find themselves today.
(If you read the article, the reaction to John Shaw's comments on FB don't appear to have been taken seriously enough IMO.)