Mrs May is a very courageous woman. As the ever more egocentric John Humphrys preened himself between patronising questions I started to get the feeling that she was far too good for her shitty party.
Then this evening I heard David Davis who had single handedly landed her in this mess slagging her off I couldn't believe it. She was to even too polite to ask the back-stabbing slimeball what he had been doing these last two years.
He was doing what she told him to do. Which turned out to be sit there as a smoke screen while she screwed the country over.
I think May and the EU negotiators might have missed a trick
Here goes - Make the transition period conclude 2 years after the signing of a FTA by agreement (Or earlier by mutual agreement). The backstop still needs to be in there, but the basic problem is the transition period is far too short a period to realistically negotiate a FTA.
Be fascinated to hear what the EU thinks of Mrs May's attempts to derogate from the backstop before it's even approved.
I think it is fascinating how so many MPs, left and right, are convinced if they legislate for something it will basically be able to impose that on the EU.
So let me get this straight. The government has in effect put down a wrecking amendment to their own bill?!
By disenfranchising NI and subjecting the people who live their to a life where they have to follow other people's laws and regulation without having a say in them? That was maybe acceptable in the 18th century.
Democracy means more to me. If NI wants to follow EU rules they can vote that way. If they want to diverge they must be allowed to do so unilaterally.
No one is disenfranchising NI. According to the poll @TSE cited they support the deal. It is one more of the very strange phenomena about NI that makes it such a "special" place. It comes with the territory and sensible people, especially those that live there who don't need your ill-informed and misguided support, realise it.
I don't believe in setting laws by opinion polls and even if they do back the deal they can firstly vote for it and secondly must have the right to unilaterally undo voting for it. .
Wait, what? Surely allowing a vote to change their mind and undo their first vote would be totally undemocratic...
At a future election? No its not, not after the first has been implemented.
If after we leave at a future election post-Brexit a party is elected seeking to undo Brexit then that would be fine by me.
Say, during the transition period? As we would, after all, have left at that point.q
As an aside, was Baldwin undemocratic in 1923? You know, when he decided to repudiate the previous Conservative manifesto and go for protectionism, and decided to call an election to get a mandate to do that?
Yes if an election was held during the transition and a party elected during the transition on a manifesto to undo Brexit that would be perfectly democratic.
1923: No because there was a General Election in-between. There has been no general election yet on an undo Brexit manifesto.
But they hadn't enacted their manifesto from 1922. In fact, they went to the polls deliberately in order to undo their previous mandate and obtain democratic legitimacy for the change in direction.
I think May and the EU negotiators might have missed a trick
Here goes - Make the transition period conclude 2 years after the signing of a FTA by agreement (Or earlier by mutual agreement). The backstop still needs to be in there, but the basic problem is the transition period is far too short a period to realistically negotiate a FTA.
Which must have been intentional. Different aspects of our relationship have different dates in the WA, and if the EU didn't see an advantage in keeping the transition short they'd not have done it (plus on our side enough people were already petrified transition would be endless).
Depends. If they don't like the arrangement they can change it. But it is likely that they too will realise the utility of the outsourcing.
Just like the government today could decide to put up a hard border in Northern Ireland. But it has decided not to do so.
No they can't change it, that's the point. It takes an agreement between the UK and EU to change it. The voters in NI are permanently disenfranchised with no say in either Brussels MEPs or Westminster MPs on who sets their laws.
So let the voters of Northern Ireland have a referendum on the backstop.
That'd have a modicum of democracy rather than foisting it upon them, but I don't believe even a referendum is sufficient to end democracy. This isn't the Weimar Republic. Hence why I suggested devolving it to Stormont. The voters of NI should be able to enter the backstop if they choose, or exit it if they choose. It must be their choice.
Mrs May is a very courageous woman. As the ever more egocentric John Humphrys preened himself between patronising questions I started to get the feeling that she was far too good for her shitty party.
Then this evening I heard David Davis who had single handedly landed her in this mess slagging her off I couldn't believe it. She was to even too polite to ask the back-stabbing slimeball what he had been doing these last two years.
He was doing what she told him to do. Which turned out to be sit there as a smoke screen while she screwed the country over.
You seriously think she sat down and thought 'How best can I screw over the country?'. Can we stop pretending she's malevolent. She's choosing the options she thinks are best, so at worst she's screwing us over because she's crap and doesn't know better.
Be fascinated to hear what the EU thinks of Mrs May's attempts to derogate from the backstop before it's even approved.
I think it is fascinating how so many MPs, left and right, are convinced if they legislate for something it will basically be able to impose that on the EU.
So let me get this straight. The government has in effect put down a wrecking amendment to their own bill?!
Yes. Also note: this amendment presupposes very strongly that Tory backbenchers are basically simpletons who won't be able to see that it very obviously changes NOTHING about the WA since a meaningful vote in Parliament cannot possibly bind an EU negotiator to any course of action.
I think somebody needs to get a ruling whether this amendment is in order or not, because I just don't see how it can be.
Mrs May is a very courageous woman. As the ever more egocentric John Humphrys preened himself between patronising questions I started to get the feeling that she was far too good for her shitty party.
Then this evening I heard David Davis who had single handedly landed her in this mess slagging her off I couldn't believe it. She was to even too polite to ask the back-stabbing slimeball what he had been doing these last two years.
He was doing what she told him to do. Which turned out to be sit there as a smoke screen while she screwed the country over.
So by your account he was either entirely complicit, or entirely bone from the neck up.
Be fascinated to hear what the EU thinks of Mrs May's attempts to derogate from the backstop before it's even approved.
I think it is fascinating how so many MPs, left and right, are convinced if they legislate for something it will basically be able to impose that on the EU.
So let me get this straight. The government has in effect put down a wrecking amendment to their own bill?!
Yes. Also note: this amendment presupposes very strongly that Tory backbenchers are basically simpletons who won't be able to see that it very obviously changes NOTHING about the WA since a meaningful vote in Parliament cannot possibly bind an EU negotiator to any course of action.
I think somebody needs to get a ruling whether this amendment is in order or not, because I just don't see how it can be.
Well after Hilary Benn’s Amendment was ruled in order, I guess anything goes...
What's hilarious about the goverment's amendment is, having realised that the backstop is a disaster, and being unwilling or unable to negiotiate it away, they now want the house to simpy vote to pretend that it does not exist.
Have we not been told that in reality no one will be putting up a hard border anyway, so in that case maybe MPs pretending the backstop is not there is the right way to go? Pass the deal, then just pretend there's no backstop even if no deal is agree later.
I mean, the government isn't thinking more than an hour ahead, right? At some point somebody from the EU is going to see this amendment, get on the phone to May, and remind her that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and that therefore maybe trying to remove the backstop without telling the EU isn't actually so great an idea, yeah?
As you say they are thinking an hour ahead, no more. Since the deal is not going to pass anyway the best bet to avoid a referendum or GE vote in the short term is to try to negotiate something else, or something like this.
It doesn't work pat the short term, but that's all they are focusing on right now.
Be fascinated to hear what the EU thinks of Mrs May's attempts to derogate from the backstop before it's even approved.
I think it is fascinating how so many MPs, left and right, are convinced if they legislate for something it will basically be able to impose that on the EU.
So let me get this straight. The government has in effect put down a wrecking amendment to their own bill?!
Yes. Also note: this amendment presupposes very strongly that Tory backbenchers are basically simpletons who won't be able to see that it very obviously changes NOTHING about the WA since a meaningful vote in Parliament cannot possibly bind an EU negotiator to any course of action.
I think somebody needs to get a ruling whether this amendment is in order or not, because I just don't see how it can be.
Well after Hilary Benn’s Amendment was ruled in order, I guess anything goes...
Hillary Benn's amendment at least bound the House to behave a certain way. How could it possibly be in order for an amendment to try to bind the EU?
Mrs May is a very courageous woman. As the ever more egocentric John Humphrys preened himself between patronising questions I started to get the feeling that she was far too good for her shitty party.
Then this evening I heard David Davis who had single handedly landed her in this mess slagging her off I couldn't believe it. She was to even too polite to ask the back-stabbing slimeball what he had been doing these last two years.
He was doing what she told him to do. Which turned out to be sit there as a smoke screen while she screwed the country over.
You seriously think she sat down and thought 'How best can I screw over the country?'. Can we stop pretending she's malevolent. She's choosing the options she thinks are best, so at worst she's screwing us over because she's crap and doesn't know better.
Having watched her as Home Secretary I genuinely do believe she is that malevolent yes.
Be fascinated to hear what the EU thinks of Mrs May's attempts to derogate from the backstop before it's even approved.
I think it is fascinating how so many MPs, left and right, are convinced if they legislate for something it will basically be able to impose that on the EU.
So let me get this straight. The government has in effect put down a wrecking amendment to their own bill?!
Yes. Also note: this amendment presupposes very strongly that Tory backbenchers are basically simpletons who won't be able to see that it very obviously changes NOTHING about the WA since a meaningful vote in Parliament cannot possibly bind an EU negotiator to any course of action.
I think somebody needs to get a ruling whether this amendment is in order or not, because I just don't see how it can be.
Well after Hilary Benn’s Amendment was ruled in order, I guess anything goes...
I cannot quite conceive of how some things are not considered wrecking amendments on this. Presumably Bercow allows anything that might cause difficulty? (he is the sort to hold a grudge)
Mrs May is a very courageous woman. As the ever more egocentric John Humphrys preened himself between patronising questions I started to get the feeling that she was far too good for her shitty party.
Then this evening I heard David Davis who had single handedly landed her in this mess slagging her off I couldn't believe it. She was to even too polite to ask the back-stabbing slimeball what he had been doing these last two years.
He was doing what she told him to do. Which turned out to be sit there as a smoke screen while she screwed the country over.
You seriously think she sat down and thought 'How best can I screw over the country?'. Can we stop pretending she's malevolent. She's choosing the options she thinks are best, so at worst she's screwing us over because she's crap and doesn't know better.
Having watched her as Home Secretary I genuinely do believe she is that malevolent yes.
Ok, she's malevolent. Why, in that malevolence, doe she want to screw the UK over? What does it gain her?
Be fascinated to hear what the EU thinks of Mrs May's attempts to derogate from the backstop before it's even approved.
I think it is fascinating how so many MPs, left and right, are convinced if they legislate for something it will basically be able to impose that on the EU.
So let me get this straight. The government has in effect put down a wrecking amendment to their own bill?!
Yes. Also note: this amendment presupposes very strongly that Tory backbenchers are basically simpletons who won't be able to see that it very obviously changes NOTHING about the WA since a meaningful vote in Parliament cannot possibly bind an EU negotiator to any course of action.
I think somebody needs to get a ruling whether this amendment is in order or not, because I just don't see how it can be.
Well after Hilary Benn’s Amendment was ruled in order, I guess anything goes...
Hillary Benn's amendment at least bound the House to behave a certain way. How could it possibly be in order for an amendment to try to bind the EU?
Bercow probably wanted to sign his pen to Benn's nonsense amendment. It's a straight up wrecking amendment anyway.
I have to say that I do agree with Anne down thread (or upthread if you are strange and arrange your PB that way)
For all that it is causing a great deal of concern for me regarding Brexit, I am delighted to see at least some MPs standing on principle rather than simply toeing the party line. If more issues were decided on a free vote basis taking into account what is best for the country rather than based on what is best for the narrow interests of the party our politics would be far stronger and, I suggest, far more admired than it is at present.
By far the very worst argument for deciding one way or another in this debate is how good or bad it will be for the party.
I'm curious as to how many Noes May really thinks she could flip by promising a meaningless vote in 2022 that cannot and will not be binding on the EU?
By far the very worst argument for deciding one way or another in this debate is how good or bad it will be for the party.
That is certainly true. There are too many I suspect still doing that, both those voting for and against the deal among Tories and Labour, but it is absolutely right that people should not vote for something with which they fundamentally disagree, even if it brings down the government/sustains the government.
That being said, a little more assurance they were focused on realistic actions that might need to be taken if the current offer is rejected, rather than too many winging it on a hope and a prayer, would be nice.
What's hilarious about the goverment's amendment is, having realised that the backstop is a disaster, and being unwilling or unable to negiotiate it away, they now want the house to simpy vote to pretend that it does not exist.
Have we not been told that in reality no one will be putting up a hard border anyway, so in that case maybe MPs pretending the backstop is not there is the right way to go? Pass the deal, then just pretend there's no backstop even if no deal is agree later.
I mean, the government isn't thinking more than an hour ahead, right? At some point somebody from the EU is going to see this amendment, get on the phone to May, and remind her that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and that therefore maybe trying to remove the backstop without telling the EU isn't actually so great an idea, yeah?
As you say they are thinking an hour ahead, no more. Since the deal is not going to pass anyway the best bet to avoid a referendum or GE vote in the short term is to try to negotiate something else, or something like this.
It doesn't work pat the short term, but that's all they are focusing on right now.
Agreed. May should be scurrying around between Brussels and Dublin saying that the deal won't survive as is and if they want the deal then they need to back down on the backstop before the meaningful vote. Or else they can pick up the pieces with her successor.
But Channel 4 continue with theirs: probably between a social justice warrior from Hackney, a Tommy Robinson supporter who cannot string two coherent sentences together, a discredited politician (Mr T. Blair) and an amoeba who will just stay still in a glass of water.
My money would be on the amoeba ...
The amoeba can't make it as he has just been elected leader of the Labour Party in Wales.
In my experience Tory negativity about Labour is at least as strong. For whatever reason this doesn't drive them to vote tactically in such large numbers (although obviously it does happen, in seats like Clegg's for example.
Though I find that locally, Labour dislike the Tories, the Tories dislike Labour, but they both really hate the Lib Dems.
The Labour councillor for one stop down the train line, a self-described "centrist", is politically not that far from the Lib Dem councillor for where I live... but mein gott, the vitriol she pours on the Lib Dems on Twitter is a sight to behold. And the Tories are similar.
Which is all a bit bloody self-defeating given that the county is a hung council and one of them will, conceivably, need Lib Dem support to govern before too long, but there you go.
Who said anything about the manifesto? Leave were too disorganised to produce a manifesto, and therefore had several campaigns that promised anything to everyone.
And that's why leave are responsible for this mess, as what they - and you - promised was undeliverable.
Take responsibility.
Neither side produced a manifesto. How the government would have behaved after a Remain vote is a matter of pure conjecture. Without being handed the keys to power there is no way leavers can be held primarily responsible. The few leavers who bear clear responsibility are those Tory MPs who supported May's leadership bid (presumably in the hopes of landing a big job in government in some cases) and possibly Farage for deserting Brexit at a time where scrutiny of the government from an engaged UKIP might have been helpful.
Problem with any fiddling on the backstop, in addition to getting the EU to agree with it, is even if a few might be initially swayed the flaws in it will be immediately pointed out by dozens of others, firming up resistance.
By far the very worst argument for deciding one way or another in this debate is how good or bad it will be for the party.
That is certainly true. There are too many I suspect still doing that, both those voting for and against the deal among Tories and Labour, but it is absolutely right that people should not vote for something with which they fundamentally disagree, even if it brings down the government/sustains the government.
That being said, a little more assurance they were focused on realistic actions that might need to be taken if the current offer is rejected, rather than too many winging it on a hope and a prayer, would be nice.
I can't imagine why people are struggling to come together behind Mrs May.
I just can't explain it. We should all getting behind her and getting on with Brexit.
On topic, the referendum route looks like it gets her out of the treacle if her party doesn't ditch her for suggesting it. The situation is only partly of her own making, she's polling level with the opposition and the voters don't really seem to have it in for her particularly. I don't see any reason why she needs to resign.
There's also a good argument to make that this isn't the time to be creating a vacancy. The no-confidence process is very quick, while electing the next unlucky person is very slow. If you're going to do something the members are uncomfortable about, another MP stitch-up isn't a great look, and the MPs couldn't agree anyhow. And if the situation isn't impossible enough, running in a Tory leadership contest would involve making a bunch of promises, which potentially blocks any non-treacle-blocked paths before they even start.
I would say the immediate choices are: 1. "May's deal" 2. Pause A50 3. Crash out
The slightly longer timeframe options are: 1. Single Market + CU 2. Limbo extension while negotiating indefinitely 3. Member of the EU.
Referendum isn't a short term choice. You need to pause A50 first. May's Deal is a somewhat blind Brexit. It still needs to be negotiated. The subsequent state is 1 or 2 in the second list. No Deal is entirely possible but I think highly unlikely we stay there. 1, 2 or 3 are possible from the second list. I think we'll get fed up with llimbo and go for 1 instead.
If the EU “backed down” on the backstop then (even ignoring the mutual advantage of its existence because it prevents trade talks being poisoned by the belief that both sides are holding each other to ransom with the threat of nodeal crash out) the opponents of the backstop would find some interpretation that meant that the “backing down” was nothing of the sort.
On topic, the referendum route looks like it gets her out of the treacle if her party doesn't ditch her for suggesting it. The situation is only partly of her own making, she's polling level with the opposition and the voters don't really seem to have it in for her particularly. I don't see any reason why she needs to resign.
There's also a good argument to make that this isn't the time to be creating a vacancy. The no-confidence process is very quick, while electing the next unlucky person is very slow. If you're going to do something the members are uncomfortable about, another MP stitch-up isn't a great look, and the MPs couldn't agree anyhow. And if the situation isn't impossible enough, running in a Tory leadership contest would involve making a bunch of promises, which potentially blocks any non-treacle-blocked paths before they even start.
Plus why would the EU offer an extension when they don't even know what the next Tory leader might want to try, since they don't know who it would be?
Really they need an interim leader to try a new approach that they mostly agree on, on the understanding that once that new approach succeeds (or fails) they will stand down for a full contest which can go to the members. Problem is how do they agree to get behind an approach to allow them to agree someone as interim leader?
Even assuming they can change the rules to expedite the process, changing leader is a distraction. And yet with May's government in shambles and her policy dead, humiliated potentially in a near record breaking defeat, how can she possibly continue?
Something has to give. I do think May will be the one - she has stayed because she had a job to do, and she is waiting for the final confirmation on it being rejected. Once that is done, she has nothing more to do.
If the EU “backed down” on the backstop then (even ignoring the mutual advantage of its existence because it prevents trade talks being poisoned by the belief that both sides are holding each other to ransom with the threat of nodeal crash out) the opponents of the backstop would find some interpretation that meant that the “backing down” was nothing of the sort.
I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have
Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.
I've voted in six general elections and have yet to vote for the same party in consecutive general elections, although that's partly a function of changes in the parties putting up a candidate.
If the EU “backed down” on the backstop then (even ignoring the mutual advantage of its existence because it prevents trade talks being poisoned by the belief that both sides are holding each other to ransom with the threat of nodeal crash out) the opponents of the backstop would find some interpretation that meant that the “backing down” was nothing of the sort.
Don't be ridiculous it is an international treaty with legal consequences, which were all too horrificaly laid bare.
If the WA is amended then the new treaty will have new legal consequences. Its not unicorns people are objecting too, it is all-too-real gremlins and demons within the proposed WA.
I guess the rest of parliament is believing in six unicorns for breakfast so the Gov't might as well get in on the act by producing Fantasy island withdrawal agreement.
The ERG are basically nuts, but at least they are proposing things that are deliverable if unpalatable. Corbyn and co. are pretty much just making shit up at this point, it would be quite nice to here some official EU position on what Labour are saying.
Depends. If they don't like the arrangement they can change it. But it is likely that they too will realise the utility of the outsourcing.
Just like the government today could decide to put up a hard border in Northern Ireland. But it has decided not to do so.
No they can't change it, that's the point. It takes an agreement between the UK and EU to change it. The voters in NI are permanently disenfranchised with no say in either Brussels MEPs or Westminster MPs on who sets their laws.
So let the voters of Northern Ireland have a referendum on the backstop.
That'd have a modicum of democracy rather than foisting it upon them, but I don't believe even a referendum is sufficient to end democracy. This isn't the Weimar Republic. Hence why I suggested devolving it to Stormont. The voters of NI should be able to enter the backstop if they choose, or exit it if they choose. It must be their choice.
A majority in the Assembly (SF/SDLP/Alliance/Green) would probably support the backstop (were it sitting) but the DUP/UUP would block it via a petition of concern.
The ERG are basically nuts, but at least they are proposing things that are deliverable if unpalatable. Corbyn and co. are pretty much just making shit up at this point, it would be quite nice to here some official EU position on what Labour are saying.
That might give Starmer's game away - which is to justify voting against any deal that is proposed on the basis Labour can deliver the world, then 'reluctantly' back Remain in a referendum as they never got the chance to deliver this amazing proposal. Since we are assured the EU do want us to remain despite the problems (because we are a net contributor), even if they were inclined to comment on opposition proposals directly it might not be in their interests to do so.
The ERG are basically nuts, but at least they are proposing things that are deliverable if unpalatable. Corbyn and co. are pretty much just making shit up at this point, it would be quite nice to here some official EU position on what Labour are saying.
Arguably, there should be a referendum - but one after the Deal is signed and we're out and in the transition period.
After all, the WA is about a route, not a destination. We could then choose what destination we wanted after the transition. I see four practical destinations from there:
- EEA/EFTA (rendering the backstop unnecessary) - CETA-type deal, with backstop used unless or until either technological solutions or political change in NI render it unnecessary. - No Deal other than WTO rules and micro-deals - Rejoin (most practical from the transìtion as we'd still be aligned).
This would give clarity to the way forward - if we decide on "No Deal", we could have up to four years to actively prepare.
The ERG are basically nuts, but at least they are proposing things that are deliverable if unpalatable. Corbyn and co. are pretty much just making shit up at this point, it would be quite nice to here some official EU position on what Labour are saying.
Maybe May should appoint Corbyn as chief Brexit negotiator and send him off to Brussels to sort things in a couple of weeks?
The ERG are basically nuts, but at least they are proposing things that are deliverable if unpalatable. Corbyn and co. are pretty much just making shit up at this point, it would be quite nice to here some official EU position on what Labour are saying.
So unlimited immigration and the power to nationalise
Finding the next Prime minister feels to me a bit like that episode of Blackadder where they need a new Lord High Executioner. Who exactly wants the job?
Anecdote alert. I was in work today and talking to a colleague in her late 20s. She was very excited, not alas about Brexit but the news on the women's state pension. Her mother has been one of those affected on the wrong side of the divide. I pointed out that with people living longer the state pension became more expensive and so working longer was a way for us to stay solvent. However she blamed 'young people'. My thoughts exactly. Why don't they get out and protest about unfairnesses that affect them in the way pensioners do? That wasn't what she meant at all though. She feels young people need to get off their ars*s and work instead of claiming benefits. The financial problem of the 30 year retirement ought to go away then!
For me (I think!); I first voted in 1992): Conservative Labour Lib Dem Green Independent
Sometimes at the same visit to the polling station (e.g. locals, GE).
Basically, most parties available in my part of England aside from UKIP. And I am so glad I never soiled myself by associating myself via a vote with that party.
First voted in the mid-nineties
Have voted for:
Conservative UKIP Referendum Party Lib Dem SNP Green Nine Percent Growth Party Scottish Libertarian Party Independent
Would probably spoil my ballot if there were a general election before 29 March. Never done that before.
Arguably, there should be a referendum - but one after the Deal is signed and we're out and in the transition period.
After all, the WA is about a route, not a destination. We could then choose what destination we wanted after the transition. I see four practical destinations from there:
- EEA/EFTA (rendering the backstop unnecessary) - CETA-type deal, with backstop used unless or until either technological solutions or political change in NI render it unnecessary. - No Deal other than WTO rules and micro-deals - Rejoin (most practical from the transìtion as we'd still be aligned).
This would give clarity to the way forward - if we decide on "No Deal", we could have up to four years to actively prepare.
(It's probably completely impractical, but if May offered a post-Brexit-in-transition-period referendum like that, maybe - just maybe - it could get through. All sides (Remain, EEA, WTO and CETA get their personal preferences to be possible again, while enacting the complete referendum result)
The ERG are basically nuts, but at least they are proposing things that are deliverable if unpalatable. Corbyn and co. are pretty much just making shit up at this point, it would be quite nice to here some official EU position on what Labour are saying.
Maybe May should appoint Corbyn as chief Brexit negotiator and send him off to Brussels to sort things in a couple of weeks?
Absolutely. Tell him if he can come back with a better deal that passes parliament he can have his GE.
The ERG are basically nuts, but at least they are proposing things that are deliverable if unpalatable. Corbyn and co. are pretty much just making shit up at this point, it would be quite nice to here some official EU position on what Labour are saying.
That might give Starmer's game away - which is to justify voting against any deal that is proposed on the basis Labour can deliver the world, then 'reluctantly' back Remain in a referendum as they never got the chance to deliver this amazing proposal. Since we are assured the EU do want us to remain despite the problems (because we are a net contributor), even if they were inclined to comment on opposition proposals directly it might not be in their interests to do so.
It's always nice to see that my own cynical opinions are held by others.
For me (I think!); I first voted in 1992): Conservative Labour Lib Dem Green Independent
Sometimes at the same visit to the polling station (e.g. locals, GE).
Basically, most parties available in my part of England aside from UKIP. And I am so glad I never soiled myself by associating myself via a vote with that party.
First voted in the mid-nineties
Have voted for:
Conservative UKIP Referendum Party Lib Dem SNP Green Nine Percent Growth Party Scottish Libertarian Party Independent
Would probably spoil my ballot if there were a general election before 29 March. Never done that before.
Wow, quite the list. I feel very dull only having voted LD, Independent and Conservative since 2005.
The ERG are basically nuts, but at least they are proposing things that are deliverable if unpalatable. Corbyn and co. are pretty much just making shit up at this point, it would be quite nice to here some official EU position on what Labour are saying.
Maybe May should appoint Corbyn as chief Brexit negotiator and send him off to Brussels to sort things in a couple of weeks?
I believe that Labour delegations have meet Barnier and his team several times, presumably to float these ideas and get a feel for the likely response. Maybe Barnier has been too polite to them?
If the EU was as flexible as Labour would have us believe that they are WE WOULDN'T BE BLOODY LEAVING.
All I did was campaign for and vote Leave. I remain immensely proud of that fact Whatever happens in the short term we will Leave. It just depends if it is relatively painless now or extremely painful in a few years. I can also say I am pleased I did not vote for May - although in my particular constituency that made bugger al difference. I detested her long before Brexit came along and all she has done is confirm my worst opinions of her.
So no, I don't think that I, nor anyone who voted Leave, has anything at all to be sorry about.
Actually, you do. You are totally one-eyed on the EU, that they cannot do any good - and that is fair enough. You admit to having spent decades in that mindset. But in the process you forget that this involved real people. As an example:
"It just depends if it is relatively painless now or extremely painful in a few years"
This says it all: that pain may not effect you (or you may not care), but it will hurt others. It may hurt my son. Or your daughter. One of the infuriating things pre-referendum was Brexiteers putting their wet dreams ahead of the consequences of those dreams. All cfor some vague and nebulous 'advantage'.
And now you warn in guarded tones about violence if leaves' impossible dreams are unfulfilled (which, due to the way it occurred, is inevitable. That violence too will affect people.
As ever both sides have their lie dreams. Our children we likely live more comfortably and for longer than we do regardless of Brexit.
The ERG are basically nuts, but at least they are proposing things that are deliverable if unpalatable. Corbyn and co. are pretty much just making shit up at this point, it would be quite nice to here some official EU position on what Labour are saying.
That might give Starmer's game away - which is to justify voting against any deal that is proposed on the basis Labour can deliver the world, then 'reluctantly' back Remain in a referendum as they never got the chance to deliver this amazing proposal. Since we are assured the EU do want us to remain despite the problems (because we are a net contributor), even if they were inclined to comment on opposition proposals directly it might not be in their interests to do so.
Labour's insistence on renegotiating the deal is a major, major strategic mistake on their part.
It's a shame Dominic Grieve is such an ardent remainer, he'd have been a very good choice for Brexit secretary. Grieve and Alpha zero working together could have probably outwitted Barnier.
The ERG are basically nuts, but at least they are proposing things that are deliverable if unpalatable. Corbyn and co. are pretty much just making shit up at this point, it would be quite nice to here some official EU position on what Labour are saying.
That might give Starmer's game away - which is to justify voting against any deal that is proposed on the basis Labour can deliver the world, then 'reluctantly' back Remain in a referendum as they never got the chance to deliver this amazing proposal. Since we are assured the EU do want us to remain despite the problems (because we are a net contributor), even if they were inclined to comment on opposition proposals directly it might not be in their interests to do so.
Labour's insistence on renegotiating the deal is a major, major strategic mistake on their part.
Not at all - it demonstrates their sincerity to deliver Brexit, and when they do not get a chance to deliver proper Brexit, it justifies why they then switch to a referendum, in which they back remain (officially or otherwise). They weren't against brexit, just this brexit, and look at how many Tories agree it was a terrible Brexit.
I don't think it's especially nonsense. Rather less than May's so called deal, in fact
TM has a deal agreed by the EU 27
Labour are talking nonsense
May has.a deal which essentially implements the EU's original withdrawal requirements against a temporary extension of the status quo and a commitment to negotiate further. It absolutely isn't an end state agreement, although May dishonestly pretends it is.
I don't think it's especially nonsense. Rather less than May's so called deal, in fact
TM has a deal agreed by the EU 27
Labour are talking nonsense
May has.a deal which essentially implements the EU's original withdrawal requirements against a temporary extension of the status quo and a commitment to negotiate further. It absolutely isn't an end state agreement, although May dishonestly pretends it is.
I don't think it's especially nonsense. Rather less than May's so called deal, in fact
TM has a deal agreed by the EU 27
Labour are talking nonsense
May has.a deal which essentially implements the EU's original withdrawal requirements against a temporary extension of the status quo and a commitment to negotiate further. It absolutely isn't an end state agreement, although May dishonestly pretends it is.
I don't think it's especially nonsense. Rather less than May's so called deal, in fact
TM has a deal agreed by the EU 27
Labour are talking nonsense
But not agreed by her party, Parliament or the people of the UK. Which is a slight problem.
She may be the only UK politician that ever achieves a Brexit deal signed and delivered by Euope
I'm fairly certain that capitulating endlessly to the EU is the easy bit. As May has discovered.
That may be so, but parliament insisting on various things and not getting the EU to agree to it would be just as pointless as getting the EU to agree but having parliament dismiss it.
I don't think it's especially nonsense. Rather less than May's so called deal, in fact
TM has a deal agreed by the EU 27
Labour are talking nonsense
May has.a deal which essentially implements the EU's original withdrawal requirements against a temporary extension of the status quo and a commitment to negotiate further. It absolutely isn't an end state agreement, although May dishonestly pretends it is.
It is Brexit
Just not the Brexit she promised or anyone wants.
Plenty of people want it, they just happen to be in a minority. There's no need to pretend no one is willing to accept this brexit.
I don't think it's especially nonsense. Rather less than May's so called deal, in fact
TM has a deal agreed by the EU 27
Labour are talking nonsense
May has.a deal which essentially implements the EU's original withdrawal requirements against a temporary extension of the status quo and a commitment to negotiate further. It absolutely isn't an end state agreement, although May dishonestly pretends it is.
It is Brexit
Just not the Brexit she promised or anyone wants.
Plenty of people want it, they just happen to be in a minority. There's no need to pretend no one is willing to accept this brexit.
The ERG are basically nuts, but at least they are proposing things that are deliverable if unpalatable. Corbyn and co. are pretty much just making shit up at this point, it would be quite nice to here some official EU position on what Labour are saying.
That might give Starmer's game away - which is to justify voting against any deal that is proposed on the basis Labour can deliver the world, then 'reluctantly' back Remain in a referendum as they never got the chance to deliver this amazing proposal. Since we are assured the EU do want us to remain despite the problems (because we are a net contributor), even if they were inclined to comment on opposition proposals directly it might not be in their interests to do so.
Labour's insistence on renegotiating the deal is a major, major strategic mistake on their part.
Not at all - it demonstrates their sincerity to deliver Brexit, and when they do not get a chance to deliver proper Brexit, it justifies why they then switch to a referendum, in which they back remain (officially or otherwise). They weren't against brexit, just this brexit, and look at how many Tories agree it was a terrible Brexit.
They are against every Brexit, putting forward six mutually exclusive tests. It is a lie of the highest order.
I don't think it's especially nonsense. Rather less than May's so called deal, in fact
TM has a deal agreed by the EU 27
Labour are talking nonsense
But not agreed by her party, Parliament or the people of the UK. Which is a slight problem.
Because Remainers are voting it down because they can not tolerate any Brexit and are willing to plunge the UK into a crash rather than respect the democratic vote.
The ERG are basically nuts, but at least they are proposing things that are deliverable if unpalatable. Corbyn and co. are pretty much just making shit up at this point, it would be quite nice to here some official EU position on what Labour are saying.
That might give Starmer's game away - which is to justify voting against any deal that is proposed on the basis Labour can deliver the world, then 'reluctantly' back Remain in a referendum as they never got the chance to deliver this amazing proposal. Since we are assured the EU do want us to remain despite the problems (because we are a net contributor), even if they were inclined to comment on opposition proposals directly it might not be in their interests to do so.
Labour's insistence on renegotiating the deal is a major, major strategic mistake on their part.
Not at all - it demonstrates their sincerity to deliver Brexit, and when they do not get a chance to deliver proper Brexit, it justifies why they then switch to a referendum, in which they back remain (officially or otherwise). They weren't against brexit, just this brexit, and look at how many Tories agree it was a terrible Brexit.
They are against every Brexit, putting forward six mutually exclusive tests. It is a lie of the highest order.
Maybe so, but the key is whether they can claim to have sincerely tried to deliver Brexit - they've got the remain vote sewn up, and while it is a smaller part of their vote they'd want to retain the brexit vote, including some Tories who might believe Labour could have delivered something better than May.
I don't think it's especially nonsense. Rather less than May's so called deal, in fact
TM has a deal agreed by the EU 27
Labour are talking nonsense
But not agreed by her party, Parliament or the people of the UK. Which is a slight problem.
Because Remainers are voting it down because they can not tolerate any Brexit and are willing to plunge the UK into a crash rather than respect the democratic vote.
As you well know they are not the only ones voting it down.
For me (I think!); I first voted in 1992): Conservative Labour Lib Dem Green Independent
Sometimes at the same visit to the polling station (e.g. locals, GE).
Basically, most parties available in my part of England aside from UKIP. And I am so glad I never soiled myself by associating myself via a vote with that party.
First voted in the mid-nineties
Have voted for:
Conservative UKIP Referendum Party Lib Dem SNP Green Nine Percent Growth Party Scottish Libertarian Party Independent
Would probably spoil my ballot if there were a general election before 29 March. Never done that before.
Wow, quite the list. I feel very dull only having voted LD, Independent and Conservative since 2005.
Wait, 'Nine Percent Growth Party'?
My first election was 1987. I missed the 83 election by 1 month.
I voted
Conservative (Thatcher) Conservative (Major) Referendum Party Conservative (A local vote for Pat Mercer) UKIP UKIP UKIP Spoilt Paper ( I refused to vote for May or UKIP and there was no one else worth supporting)
I don't think it's especially nonsense. Rather less than May's so called deal, in fact
Outside the EU, in the customs union with "say" in trade deals ?
Lol.
Indeed. But don't expect that with "May's deal" either. At least Labour are discussing a viable end state. May's deal is just cake.
It's not a viable end state. Full single market access with immigration controls? Outside the EU but with meaningful input on trade deals? It is pixie dust and unicorns.
But the Remain media covers for them, because it has long given up any sense of being about journalistic integrity or impartiality.
For me (I think!); I first voted in 1992): Conservative Labour Lib Dem Green Independent
Sometimes at the same visit to the polling station (e.g. locals, GE).
Basically, most parties available in my part of England aside from UKIP. And I am so glad I never soiled myself by associating myself via a vote with that party.
First voted in the mid-nineties
Have voted for:
Conservative UKIP Referendum Party Lib Dem SNP Green Nine Percent Growth Party Scottish Libertarian Party Independent
Would probably spoil my ballot if there were a general election before 29 March. Never done that before.
Wow, quite the list. I feel very dull only having voted LD, Independent and Conservative since 2005.
Wait, 'Nine Percent Growth Party'?
My first election was 1987. I missed the 83 election by 1 month.
I voted
Conservative (Thatcher) Conservative (Major) Referendum Party Conservative (A local vote for Pat Mercer) UKIP UKIP UKIP Spoilt Paper ( I refused to vote for May or UKIP and there was no one else worth supporting)
Comments
Here goes - Make the transition period conclude 2 years after the signing of a FTA by agreement (Or earlier by mutual agreement). The backstop still needs to be in there, but the basic problem is the transition period is far too short a period to realistically negotiate a FTA.
I think somebody needs to get a ruling whether this amendment is in order or not, because I just don't see how it can be.
This is madness. I assumed it was some ERG nonsense.
It doesn't work pat the short term, but that's all they are focusing on right now.
I mean this is dumb even by May's standards. This gon be good.
For all that it is causing a great deal of concern for me regarding Brexit, I am delighted to see at least some MPs standing on principle rather than simply toeing the party line. If more issues were decided on a free vote basis taking into account what is best for the country rather than based on what is best for the narrow interests of the party our politics would be far stronger and, I suggest, far more admired than it is at present.
By far the very worst argument for deciding one way or another in this debate is how good or bad it will be for the party.
Long live the revolution!!!
If it's meaningful, the EU won't have it.
Either way it's desperate stuff from May.
That being said, a little more assurance they were focused on realistic actions that might need to be taken if the current offer is rejected, rather than too many winging it on a hope and a prayer, would be nice.
The Labour councillor for one stop down the train line, a self-described "centrist", is politically not that far from the Lib Dem councillor for where I live... but mein gott, the vitriol she pours on the Lib Dems on Twitter is a sight to behold. And the Tories are similar.
Which is all a bit bloody self-defeating given that the county is a hung council and one of them will, conceivably, need Lib Dem support to govern before too long, but there you go.
Nothing dodgy here.
I just can't explain it. We should all getting behind her and getting on with Brexit.
There's also a good argument to make that this isn't the time to be creating a vacancy. The no-confidence process is very quick, while electing the next unlucky person is very slow. If you're going to do something the members are uncomfortable about, another MP stitch-up isn't a great look, and the MPs couldn't agree anyhow. And if the situation isn't impossible enough, running in a Tory leadership contest would involve making a bunch of promises, which potentially blocks any non-treacle-blocked paths before they even start.
1. "May's deal"
2. Pause A50
3. Crash out
The slightly longer timeframe options are:
1. Single Market + CU
2. Limbo extension while negotiating indefinitely
3. Member of the EU.
Referendum isn't a short term choice. You need to pause A50 first.
May's Deal is a somewhat blind Brexit. It still needs to be negotiated. The subsequent state is 1 or 2 in the second list.
No Deal is entirely possible but I think highly unlikely we stay there. 1, 2 or 3 are possible from the second list.
I think we'll get fed up with llimbo and go for 1 instead.
Really they need an interim leader to try a new approach that they mostly agree on, on the understanding that once that new approach succeeds (or fails) they will stand down for a full contest which can go to the members. Problem is how do they agree to get behind an approach to allow them to agree someone as interim leader?
Even assuming they can change the rules to expedite the process, changing leader is a distraction. And yet with May's government in shambles and her policy dead, humiliated potentially in a near record breaking defeat, how can she possibly continue?
Something has to give. I do think May will be the one - she has stayed because she had a job to do, and she is waiting for the final confirmation on it being rejected. Once that is done, she has nothing more to do.
https://twitter.com/johnharris1969/status/1070780832682573824
If the WA is amended then the new treaty will have new legal consequences. Its not unicorns people are objecting too, it is all-too-real gremlins and demons within the proposed WA.
Shouldn’t the “academic” be in quote marks?
Lol.
Stick him in a room with Barnier and see how long this nonsense lasts.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6469037/Give-children-young-SIX-vote-tackle-age-bias-society-says-Cambridge-professor.html
https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1069266177975828480
After all, the WA is about a route, not a destination. We could then choose what destination we wanted after the transition. I see four practical destinations from there:
- EEA/EFTA (rendering the backstop unnecessary)
- CETA-type deal, with backstop used unless or until either technological solutions or political change in NI render it unnecessary.
- No Deal other than WTO rules and micro-deals
- Rejoin (most practical from the transìtion as we'd still be aligned).
This would give clarity to the way forward - if we decide on "No Deal", we could have up to four years to actively prepare.
Well, you can't say we haven't been warned
Anecdote alert. I was in work today and talking to a colleague in her late 20s. She was very excited, not alas about Brexit but the news on the women's state pension. Her mother has been one of those affected on the wrong side of the divide. I pointed out that with people living longer the state pension became more expensive and so working longer was a way for us to stay solvent. However she blamed 'young people'. My thoughts exactly. Why don't they get out and protest about unfairnesses that affect them in the way pensioners do? That wasn't what she meant at all though. She feels young people need to get off their ars*s and work instead of claiming benefits. The financial problem of the 30 year retirement ought to go away then!
Have voted for:
Conservative
UKIP
Referendum Party
Lib Dem
SNP
Green
Nine Percent Growth Party
Scottish Libertarian Party
Independent
Would probably spoil my ballot if there were a general election before 29 March. Never done that before.
Labour are talking nonsense
Wait, 'Nine Percent Growth Party'?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/12/06/deepminds-alphazero-now-showing-human-like-intuition-creativity/
Thought they were talking about May for a second.....
If the EU was as flexible as Labour would have us believe that they are WE WOULDN'T BE BLOODY LEAVING.
https://twitter.com/pamfoundation/status/1070338993282301954
Grieve and Alpha zero working together could have probably outwitted Barnier.
I voted
Conservative (Thatcher)
Conservative (Major)
Referendum Party
Conservative (A local vote for Pat Mercer)
UKIP
UKIP
UKIP
Spoilt Paper ( I refused to vote for May or UKIP and there was no one else worth supporting)
But the Remain media covers for them, because it has long given up any sense of being about journalistic integrity or impartiality.