Theresa May has tried to bring xenophobia to a sovereignty fight. No wonder the backstop has screwed her up so royally.
The DUP, ERG don't care about FoM, but they care about that godforsaken backstop. A LOT.
Me too.
Only a xenophobic migration-obsessive could think that after a campaign about "take back control" it was a great, fantastic idea to outsource our regulations to the EU in the backstop after we've left. That's worse than what we started with! There's nothing taking back control about the backstop . . . nor should there be anything surprising to anyone with a modicum of sense that those leaver who prioritise sovereignty over xenophobia would find this deal abhorrent.
It's not as if she's spent the last two years laying the groundwork for this humiliation. Only only needs to think of two things combined. For months she was saying "no Prime Minister could agree to the backstop", before that she spent months saying "no deal is better than a bad deal".
She may be a compulsive liar but I'll take her almost at her word. The backstop is bad which is why he was pretending she wouldn't agree to it until she did. And no deal is better than a bad deal. End of story.
No deal would be brilliant. The sheer astonishment (and let's face it, disappointment in many quarters) that the sky hadn't fallen in would be palpable.
You’ve never been anywhere experiencing state failure, have you?
I feel really sorry for people who haven't accepted Brexit. The hope provided by May's incompetent negotiation is torture for them. They can't accept and move on. Someone on here actually said they had not been happy since the date of the ref.
May has proved truly unique in her ability to please none of the people, none of the time.
That's because (in my opinion) she's carrying out a deliberately disastrous Brexit in the hope of reversing it. Shit election and all. Actually an incredible act of self sacrifice (if you agree with her).
In which case she is a tactical genius and we underestimate her at our peril.
I think I'll go with the popular analysis here.
That said, she's still not as bad as Corbyn or Johnson.
I feel really sorry for people who haven't accepted Brexit. The hope provided by May's incompetent negotiation is torture for them. They can't accept and move on. Someone on here actually said they had not been happy since the date of the ref.
May has proved truly unique in her ability to please none of the people, none of the time.
That's because (in my opinion) she's carrying out a deliberately disastrous Brexit in the hope of reversing it. Shit election and all. Actually an incredible act of self sacrifice (if you agree with her).
In which case she is a tactical genius and we underestimate her at our peril.
If she were that, she wouldn't have taken on an impossible task. You can't reverse Brexit. For better or worse (I believe better) it really was done the minute the result came in. Conspiracies are hard. People are a great deal less simple and biddable than many on PB think.
Theresa May has tried to bring xenophobia to a sovereignty fight. No wonder the backstop has screwed her up so royally.
The DUP, ERG don't care about FoM, but they care about that godforsaken backstop. A LOT.
Me too.
Only a xenophobic migration-obsessive could think that after a campaign about "take back control" it was a great, fantastic idea to outsource our regulations to the EU in the backstop after we've left. That's worse than what we started with! There's nothing taking back control about the backstop . . . nor should there be anything surprising to anyone with a modicum of sense that those leaver who prioritise sovereignty over xenophobia would find this deal abhorrent.
It's not as if she's spent the last two years laying the groundwork for this humiliation. Only only needs to think of two things combined. For months she was saying "no Prime Minister could agree to the backstop", before that she spent months saying "no deal is better than a bad deal".
She may be a compulsive liar but I'll take her almost at her word. The backstop is bad which is why he was pretending she wouldn't agree to it until she did. And no deal is better than a bad deal. End of story.
No deal would be brilliant. The sheer astonishment (and let's face it, disappointment in many quarters) that the sky hadn't fallen in would be palpable.
For me no deal is still the last resort but yes the sky won't fall in. If the government had done a modicum of planning it would have been smooth sailing.
The ridiculous 'Project Fear' story this morning that it would cause six months of traffic mayhem was a case in point. That may be the case given we've done nothing to ameliorate it yet, but if it can be resolved in six months after the fact, why couldn't it have been resolved with over 30 months before it?
I think there's a tendency for outside observers in business, media etc. to assume that politicians are more competent, more compromising, more determined to avoid disaster than they are. In short, they always assume there's simply no way they'd let things come to this.
Theresa May has tried to bring xenophobia to a sovereignty fight. No wonder the backstop has screwed her up so royally.
The DUP, ERG don't care about FoM, but they care about that godforsaken backstop. A LOT.
Me too.
Only a xenophobic migration-obsessive could think that after a campaign about "take back control" it was a great, fantastic idea to outsource our regulations to the EU in the backstop after we've left. That's worse than what we started with! There's nothing taking back control about the backstop . . . nor should there be anything surprising to anyone with a modicum of sense that those leaver who prioritise sovereignty over xenophobia would find this deal abhorrent.
It's not as if she's spent the last two years laying the groundwork for this humiliation. Only only needs to think of two things combined. For months she was saying "no Prime Minister could agree to the backstop", before that she spent months saying "no deal is better than a bad deal".
She may be a compulsive liar but I'll take her almost at her word. The backstop is bad which is why he was pretending she wouldn't agree to it until she did. And no deal is better than a bad deal. End of story.
No deal would be brilliant. The sheer astonishment (and let's face it, disappointment in many quarters) that the sky hadn't fallen in would be palpable.
You’ve never been anywhere experiencing state failure, have you?
Theresa May has tried to bring xenophobia to a sovereignty fight. No wonder the backstop has screwed her up so royally.
The DUP, ERG don't care about FoM, but they care about that godforsaken backstop. A LOT.
Me too.
Only a xenophobic migration-obsessive could think that after a campaign about "take back control" it was a great, fantastic idea to outsource our regulations to the EU in the backstop after we've left. That's worse than what we started with! There's nothing taking back control about the backstop . . . nor should there be anything surprising to anyone with a modicum of sense that those leaver who prioritise sovereignty over xenophobia would find this deal abhorrent.
It's not as if she's spent the last two years laying the groundwork for this humiliation. Only only needs to think of two things combined. For months she was saying "no Prime Minister could agree to the backstop", before that she spent months saying "no deal is better than a bad deal".
She may be a compulsive liar but I'll take her almost at her word. The backstop is bad which is why he was pretending she wouldn't agree to it until she did. And no deal is better than a bad deal. End of story.
No deal would be brilliant. The sheer astonishment (and let's face it, disappointment in many quarters) that the sky hadn't fallen in would be palpable.
You’ve never been anywhere experiencing state failure, have you?
Ah, just beat me to it. Suggestion is DUP might be willing to vote to censure May; this would (unlike a formal VoNC under the FTPA) be non-binding, but would be remarkable if she survived it.
All this assumes firstly that the Deal is voted down, and secondly that she doesn't throw in the towel of her own accord first. And that there's actualy some substance to these rumours, of course.
If she does go then chances of a Hard Brexit go up another notch (which would please the DUP.) Office of PM likely to end up in hands of a more committed Brexiteer, in which case presumably no chance of reversing A50 without a political realignment?
I think there's a tendency for outside observers in business, media etc. to assume that politicians are more competent, more compromising, more determined to avoid disaster than they are. In short, they always assume there's simply no way they'd let things come to this.
SPOILERS: they let things come to this.
Certainly there is not a lot of compromising going on. But then that is a fault of the British political system ("winner takes all") whereas more grown up countries recognise that politics is like life, and no-one ever gets everything their own way.
Theresa May has tried to bring xenophobia to a sovereignty fight. No wonder the backstop has screwed her up so royally.
The DUP, ERG don't care about FoM, but they care about that godforsaken backstop. A LOT.
Me too.
Only a xenophobic migration-obsessive could think that after a campaign about "take back control" it was a great, fantastic idea to outsource our regulations to the EU in the backstop after we've left. That's worse than what we started with! There's nothing taking back control about the backstop . . . nor should there be anything surprising to anyone with a modicum of sense that those leaver who prioritise sovereignty over xenophobia would find this deal abhorrent.
It's not as if she's spent the last two years laying the groundwork for this humiliation. Only only needs to think of two things combined. For months she was saying "no Prime Minister could agree to the backstop", before that she spent months saying "no deal is better than a bad deal".
She may be a compulsive liar but I'll take her almost at her word. The backstop is bad which is why he was pretending she wouldn't agree to it until she did. And no deal is better than a bad deal. End of story.
No deal would be brilliant. The sheer astonishment (and let's face it, disappointment in many quarters) that the sky hadn't fallen in would be palpable.
For me no deal is still the last resort but yes the sky won't fall in. If the government had done a modicum of planning it would have been smooth sailing.
The ridiculous 'Project Fear' story this morning that it would cause six months of traffic mayhem was a case in point. That may be the case given we've done nothing to ameliorate it yet, but if it can be resolved in six months after the fact, why couldn't it have been resolved with over 30 months before it?
Traffic mayhem, chaos at the border, NHS patients dying, what's that called again? Oh yes, Monday.
Ah, just beat me to it. Suggestion is DUP might be willing to vote to censure May; this would (unlike a formal VoNC under the FTPA) be non-binding, but would be remarkable if she survived it.
All this assumes firstly that the Deal is voted down, and secondly that she doesn't throw in the towel of her own accord first. And that there's actualy some substance to these rumours, of course.
If she does go then chances of a Hard Brexit go up another notch (which would please the DUP.) Office of PM likely to end up in hands of a more committed Brexiteer, in which case presumably no chance of reversing A50 without a political realignment?
A VoNC can be reversed under the FTPA. If the DUP voted May's government but held out an olive branch for if she was replaced then she would be out PDQ rather than drawing up a manifesto. 14 days is a long time in an urgent hurry to get a replacement in place.
I think there's a tendency for outside observers in business, media etc. to assume that politicians are more competent, more compromising, more determined to avoid disaster than they are. In short, they always assume there's simply no way they'd let things come to this.
SPOILERS: they let things come to this.
Certainly there is not a lot of compromising going on. But then that is a fault of the British political system ("winner takes all") whereas more grown up countries recognise that politics is like life, and no-one ever gets everything their own way.
Name one person/party getting everything their own way right now with Brexit.
Compromises in Britain still occur, the fact that Ken Clarke and JRM are in the same party is testament to that.
Hash browns, mushrooms and sausages with scrambled eggs and brown toast.
I normally execrate mindless adoption of American culture (prom, high school, stretch limos, pick-up trucks, the absolute arse they've made of Halloween) but it has to be said that hash browns are absolutely lovely and a fine way to start the day.
PB.com is not the real world. It's barely in the solar system. At least after Brexit/Remain, we can get back to arguing about who's got the most BA platinum airmiles or something.
What are platinum airmiles? (I need to buff up my man of the people credentials)
I think they're called Avios now.
#liberalelite
Avios are for the little people who don't get invitation only platinum airmiles.
Goodness me, I wouldn't fly British Airways if you paid me. If I wanted to be badgered by a bunch of horsey Susans I'd work in retail in Kensington.
There were some ladies on my train a while back
I mean I know it's Essex, but these were lively girls and very full on (read that as polite for fecking annoying)
Turns out they were a gaggle of BA stewardesses ......
Ah, just beat me to it. Suggestion is DUP might be willing to vote to censure May; this would (unlike a formal VoNC under the FTPA) be non-binding, but would be remarkable if she survived it.
All this assumes firstly that the Deal is voted down, and secondly that she doesn't throw in the towel of her own accord first. And that there's actualy some substance to these rumours, of course.
If she does go then chances of a Hard Brexit go up another notch (which would please the DUP.) Office of PM likely to end up in hands of a more committed Brexiteer, in which case presumably no chance of reversing A50 without a political realignment?
A VoNC can be reversed under the FTPA. If the DUP voted May's government but held out an olive branch for if she was replaced then she would be out PDQ rather than drawing up a manifesto. 14 days is a long time in an urgent hurry to get a replacement in place.
Well, again *if* there's any substance to this report then the DUP could try that eventually if she won't budge, but trying to take her out without resorting to games of chicken under the rules of the FTPA makes sense. It's also a means of last resort if the Tory MPs somehow manage to produce a leadership run-off between two Remainers.
Theresa May has tried to bring xenophobia to a sovereignty fight. No wonder the backstop has screwed her up so royally.
The DUP, ERG don't care about FoM, but they care about that godforsaken backstop. A LOT.
Me too.
Only a xenophobic migration-obsessive could think that after a campaign about "take back control" it was a great, fantastic idea to outsource our regulations to the EU in the backstop after we've left. That's worse than what we started with! There's nothing taking back control about the backstop . . . nor should there be anything surprising to anyone with a modicum of sense that those leaver who prioritise sovereignty over xenophobia would find this deal abhorrent.
It's not as if she's spent the last two years laying the groundwork for this humiliation. Only only needs to think of two things combined. For months she was saying "no Prime Minister could agree to the backstop", before that she spent months saying "no deal is better than a bad deal".
She may be a compulsive liar but I'll take her almost at her word. The backstop is bad which is why he was pretending she wouldn't agree to it until she did. And no deal is better than a bad deal. End of story.
No deal would be brilliant. The sheer astonishment (and let's face it, disappointment in many quarters) that the sky hadn't fallen in would be palpable.
For me no deal is still the last resort but yes the sky won't fall in. If the government had done a modicum of planning it would have been smooth sailing.
The ridiculous 'Project Fear' story this morning that it would cause six months of traffic mayhem was a case in point. That may be the case given we've done nothing to ameliorate it yet, but if it can be resolved in six months after the fact, why couldn't it have been resolved with over 30 months before it?
The letter written was different to the reporting, the letter stated 6 months of disruption, which is not six months of Kent being a parking lot. All the Govt has to do is work out the new capacity of Dover with the new customs procedures and if that is x% of current capacity just reduce the number of ferries and trains to that level. Then say priorities are drugs, perishable food and then JIT goods (there are none of these). We do not need any cut flowers or non perishable goods through Dover, they can use the container ports. It really is a dumb Govt that thinks it can get away with Project Fear MK II and threaten it's own Citizens with fake drug shortages.
I feel really sorry for people who haven't accepted Brexit. The hope provided by May's incompetent negotiation is torture for them. They can't accept and move on. Someone on here actually said they had not been happy since the date of the ref.
May has proved truly unique in her ability to please none of the people, none of the time.
That's because (in my opinion) she's carrying out a deliberately disastrous Brexit in the hope of reversing it. Shit election and all. Actually an incredible act of self sacrifice (if you agree with her).
More conspiracy theories ! May is simply not very good and couldn’t deliver the Vote Leave fantasy without crashing the economy . She tried to come up with a fudge which kept what she thought was the only red line people cared about on freedom of movement .
Ah, just beat me to it. Suggestion is DUP might be willing to vote to censure May; this would (unlike a formal VoNC under the FTPA) be non-binding, but would be remarkable if she survived it.
Censure her? For what? Not bringing back a deal that parliament felt it could support, the parliament that is bitterly divided on any possible outcome?
Ah, just beat me to it. Suggestion is DUP might be willing to vote to censure May; this would (unlike a formal VoNC under the FTPA) be non-binding, but would be remarkable if she survived it.
All this assumes firstly that the Deal is voted down, and secondly that she doesn't throw in the towel of her own accord first. And that there's actualy some substance to these rumours, of course.
If she does go then chances of a Hard Brexit go up another notch (which would please the DUP.) Office of PM likely to end up in hands of a more committed Brexiteer, in which case presumably no chance of reversing A50 without a political realignment?
A VoNC can be reversed under the FTPA. If the DUP voted May's government but held out an olive branch for if she was replaced then she would be out PDQ rather than drawing up a manifesto. 14 days is a long time in an urgent hurry to get a replacement in place.
Well, again *if* there's any substance to this report then the DUP could try that eventually if she won't budge, but trying to take her out without resorting to games of chicken under the rules of the FTPA makes sense. It's also a means of last resort if the Tory MPs somehow manage to produce a leadership run-off between two Remainers.
Theresa May has tried to bring xenophobia to a sovereignty fight. No wonder the backstop has screwed her up so royally.
The DUP, ERG don't care about FoM, but they care about that godforsaken backstop. A LOT.
Me too.
Only a xenophobic migration-obsessive could think that after a campaign about "take back control" it was a great, fantastic idea to outsource our regulations to the EU in the backstop after we've left. That's worse than what we started with! There's nothing taking back control about the backstop . . . nor should there be anything surprising to anyone with a modicum of sense that those leaver who prioritise sovereignty over xenophobia would find this deal abhorrent.
It's not as if she's spent the last two years laying the groundwork for this humiliation. Only only needs to think of two things combined. For months she was saying "no Prime Minister could agree to the backstop", before that she spent months saying "no deal is better than a bad deal".
She may be a compulsive liar but I'll take her almost at her word. The backstop is bad which is why he was pretending she wouldn't agree to it until she did. And no deal is better than a bad deal. End of story.
No deal would be brilliant. The sheer astonishment (and let's face it, disappointment in many quarters) that the sky hadn't fallen in would be palpable.
You’ve never been anywhere experiencing state failure, have you?
State failure?
That's a keeper
Have you been near State failure then William?
Anyone who's been to France has, by the look of it.
It was only yesterday I was wondering on here how tommy Robinson supported himself. Quite a lot of conjecture in the article, but £60k a year from rebel media not a bad gig for starters.
That is actually an incredibly positive headline if it is a genuine reflection of what Cabinet ministers are saying - it presumes she both will not quit when her deal is voted down and will not be removed by the party either, and that she will be given the chance to try to secure better terms from Brussels.
It also makes little sense when you think about it. While I think few would disagree May has taken Brexit and her premiership as far as she is able and it will be time for someone else, the main reason a lot of people have given for needing to replace her is we need someone to go back to renegotiate better terms from Brussels and she has failed at that. But if they ask her to do it and Brussels still confirms there will be no changes, what reason to replace her then? If they think the EU will say no to May but yes to someone else, why would they not replace her immediately upon the vote failing?
Edit: Nevertheless, plenty is not making sense at the moment. Is this going to be the plan B? Have May stand up and say 'It is clear that the house finds the terms of the withdrawal agreement unacceptable, and that serious revisions are desired before any agreement can be signed. I have heard the comments from the debates in this house, and therefore I will communicate those views to the representatives of the European Union and return to this house one week from now to report on any developments and a vote'.
Good luck with that. She's gone 5 minutes after the vote.
I think there's a tendency for outside observers in business, media etc. to assume that politicians are more competent, more compromising, more determined to avoid disaster than they are. In short, they always assume there's simply no way they'd let things come to this.
SPOILERS: they let things come to this.
Certainly there is not a lot of compromising going on. But then that is a fault of the British political system ("winner takes all") whereas more grown up countries recognise that politics is like life, and no-one ever gets everything their own way.
Name one person/party getting everything their own way right now with Brexit.
Compromises in Britain still occur, the fact that Ken Clarke and JRM are in the same party is testament to that.
My point is that our politicians aren't used to the normal process of compromise that typifies politics in most countries. Instead we have gridlock. The coalition looks like a period of grown up government by comparison with post-2015.
The Clarke/wee smog point is seen by many as evidence that our current party system is broken, rather than working.
That is actually an incredibly positive headline if it is a genuine reflection of what Cabinet ministers are saying - it presumes she both will not quit when her deal is voted down and will not be removed by the party either, and that she will be given the chance to try to secure better terms from Brussels.
It also makes little sense when you think about it. While I think few would disagree May has taken Brexit and her premiership as far as she is able and it will be time for someone else, the main reason a lot of people have given for needing to replace her is we need someone to go back to renegotiate better terms from Brussels and she has failed at that. But if they ask her to do it and Brussels still confirms there will be no changes, what reason to replace her then? If they think the EU will say no to May but yes to someone else, why would they not replace her immediately upon the vote failing?
Could be a good negotiating strategy. Send May in, she gets rebuffed, cabinet sack her, send new person in with "last chance for deal punks,"
Theresa May has tried to bring xenophobia to a sovereignty fight. No wonder the backstop has screwed her up so royally.
The DUP, ERG don't care about FoM, but they care about that godforsaken backstop. A LOT.
Me too.
Only a xenophobic migration-obsessive could think that after a campaign about "take back control" it was a great, fantastic idea to outsource our regulations to the EU in the backstop after we've left. That's worse than what we started with! There's nothing taking back control about the backstop . . . nor should there be anything surprising to anyone with a modicum of sense that those leaver who prioritise sovereignty over xenophobia would find this deal abhorrent.
It's not as if she's spent the last two years laying the groundwork for this humiliation. Only only needs to think of two things combined. For months she was saying "no Prime Minister could agree to the backstop", before that she spent months saying "no deal is better than a bad deal".
She may be a compulsive liar but I'll take her almost at her word. The backstop is bad which is why he was pretending she wouldn't agree to it until she did. And no deal is better than a bad deal. End of story.
No deal would be brilliant. The sheer astonishment (and let's face it, disappointment in many quarters) that the sky hadn't fallen in would be palpable.
You’ve never been anywhere experiencing state failure, have you?
State failure?
That's a keeper
Have you been near State failure then William?
Anyone who's been to France has, by the look of it.
Theresa May has tried to bring xenophobia to a sovereignty fight. No wonder the backstop has screwed her up so royally.
The DUP, ERG don't care about FoM, but they care about that godforsaken backstop. A LOT.
Me too.
Only a xenophobic migration-obsessive could think that after a campaign about "take back control" it was a great, fantastic idea to outsource our regulations to the EU in the backstop after we've left. That's worse than what we started with! There's nothing taking back control about the backstop . . . nor should there be anything surprising to anyone with a modicum of sense that those leaver who prioritise sovereignty over xenophobia would find this deal abhorrent.
It's not as if she's spent the last two years laying the groundwork for this humiliation. Only only needs to think of two things combined. For months she was saying "no Prime Minister could agree to the backstop", before that she spent months saying "no deal is better than a bad deal".
She may be a compulsive liar but I'll take her almost at her word. The backstop is bad which is why he was pretending she wouldn't agree to it until she did. And no deal is better than a bad deal. End of story.
No deal would be brilliant. The sheer astonishment (and let's face it, disappointment in many quarters) that the sky hadn't fallen in would be palpable.
You’ve never been anywhere experiencing state failure, have you?
State failure?
That's a keeper
Have you been near State failure then William?
Anyone who's been to France has, by the look of it.
That is actually an incredibly positive headline if it is a genuine reflection of what Cabinet ministers are saying - it presumes she both will not quit when her deal is voted down and will not be removed by the party either, and that she will be given the chance to try to secure better terms from Brussels.
It also makes little sense when you think about it. While I think few would disagree May has taken Brexit and her premiership as far as she is able and it will be time for someone else, the main reason a lot of people have given for needing to replace her is we need someone to go back to renegotiate better terms from Brussels and she has failed at that. But if they ask her to do it and Brussels still confirms there will be no changes, what reason to replace her then? If they think the EU will say no to May but yes to someone else, why would they not replace her immediately upon the vote failing?
Could be a good negotiating strategy. Send May in, she gets rebuffed, cabinet sack her, send new person in with "last chance for deal punks,"
Why not just cut out the first stage? It's not like anyone has confidence May can secure additional concessions, she herself has said that is not possible. If she's right no one will succeed, but you might as well send someone who thinks it possible.
I still think they should send Corbyn. He says he can get a better deal, why not let him try. He surely believes Brexit is more important than mere party issues, therefore he would want to negotiate a good deal even if he does not get to be PM right away.
They know it’s a poisoned chalice until the UK leaves . May really should go out in a blaze of glory and stick the knife into the ERG who have made her life hell.
The perfect two fingered salute would be to revoke Article 50!
The basis of this antipathy has never been fully established but seems to be founded, in the first instance on misguided fealty to NATO and, in the second, to the exceptionalist view that no other European nation than the British can field an effective fighting force.
I disagree with this part. It's because the interests of Britain may be completely at odds with the other countries in Europe in future, so we need to keep an independent armed forces.
Yes Europe is peaceful now, but things can change very rapidly in ways we can't predict right now.
Fielding completely autonomous armed forces is utterly beyond the gift of any British government as the population would not support the level of spending required. Defence procurement has changed toward a focus on high end, technologically complex systems. The UK cannot go it alone.
Fucking thanks for all the kind comments. I do intend, management permitting, to write more headers in 2019.
That is actually an incredibly positive headline if it is a genuine reflection of what Cabinet ministers are saying - it presumes she both will not quit when her deal is voted down and will not be removed by the party either, and that she will be given the chance to try to secure better terms from Brussels.
It also makes little sense when you think about it. While I think few would disagree May has taken Brexit and her premiership as far as she is able and it will be time for someone else, the main reason a lot of people have given for needing to replace her is we need someone to go back to renegotiate better terms from Brussels and she has failed at that. But if they ask her to do it and Brussels still confirms there will be no changes, what reason to replace her then? If they think the EU will say no to May but yes to someone else, why would they not replace her immediately upon the vote failing?
Could be a good negotiating strategy. Send May in, she gets rebuffed, cabinet sack her, send new person in with "last chance for deal punks,"
Why not just cut out the first stage? It's not like anyone has confidence May can secure additional concessions, she herself has said that is not possible. If she's right no one will succeed, but you might as well send someone who thinks it possible.
I still think they should send Corbyn. He says he can get a better deal, why not let him try. He surely believes Brexit is more important than mere party issues, therefore he would want to negotiate a good deal even if he does not get to be PM right away.
On your last point I actually believe that the EU will insist that any new offer is agreed by both the PM and the LOTO before going public with it in future. Which if course means no deal, so they might as well just get straight to mini deals to keep the basics working.
They know it’s a poisoned chalice until the UK leaves
That really does seem to be the only explanation. Even her Cabinet oppose her and yet still she is in post. I bet even Corbyn doesn't really want to take over right now. I wouldn't be surprised if he and substantial numbers of Tories are just praying, 'Please, EU, give us one big further concession so we can vote through this thing, and May can go after it is signed'.
Still no sign what they'd concede to the EU in order to gain more in exchange, but hope springs eternal.
That is actually an incredibly positive headline if it is a genuine reflection of what Cabinet ministers are saying - it presumes she both will not quit when her deal is voted down and will not be removed by the party either, and that she will be given the chance to try to secure better terms from Brussels.
It also makes little sense when you think about it. While I think few would disagree May has taken Brexit and her premiership as far as she is able and it will be time for someone else, the main reason a lot of people have given for needing to replace her is we need someone to go back to renegotiate better terms from Brussels and she has failed at that. But if they ask her to do it and Brussels still confirms there will be no changes, what reason to replace her then? If they think the EU will say no to May but yes to someone else, why would they not replace her immediately upon the vote failing?
Edit: Nevertheless, plenty is not making sense at the moment. Is this going to be the plan B? Have May stand up and say 'It is clear that the house finds the terms of the withdrawal agreement unacceptable, and that serious revisions are desired before any agreement can be signed. I have heard the comments from the debates in this house, and therefore I will communicate those views to the representatives of the European Union and return to this house one week from now to report on any developments and a vote'.
Good luck with that. She's gone 5 minutes after the vote.
Your edit beat me to it. If the deal is voted down heavily then May has run out of road. She has nothing left to offer. It's also in the interest of neither the Leave nor Remain leaning Tories to have her sat impotently in No 10 doing diddly squat as the clock runs down.
He claims it was serious, too, not a joke. Old enough to read is the key apparently.
I'm either too stupid to be head of politics at the University of Cambridge, or not stupid enough, and the world's mad enough I've got no idea which.
I would do this differently and give the vote to everyone, from birth, but to be exercised by proxy by the primary carer until the child writes a letter requesting control of their vote to the appropriate elections officer in their area. One person, one vote, proxy voting on behalf of those unable to vote themselves.
That is actually an incredibly positive headline if it is a genuine reflection of what Cabinet ministers are saying - it presumes she both will not quit when her deal is voted down and will not be removed by the party either, and that she will be given the chance to try to secure better terms from Brussels.
It also makes little sense when you think about it. While I think few would disagree May has taken Brexit and her premiership as far as she is able and it will be time for someone else, the main reason a lot of people have given for needing to replace her is we need someone to go back to renegotiate better terms from Brussels and she has failed at that. But if they ask her to do it and Brussels still confirms there will be no changes, what reason to replace her then? If they think the EU will say no to May but yes to someone else, why would they not replace her immediately upon the vote failing?
Could be a good negotiating strategy. Send May in, she gets rebuffed, cabinet sack her, send new person in with "last chance for deal punks,"
"Uh uh. I know what you're thinking. "Did they fire six PMs or only five?" Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself....."
Ah, Hillary Clinton. So incompetent a candidate she couldn't even beat Donald Trump.
That will ultimately be her epitaph.
Not the first female presidential candidate for a major party, or a Secretary of State, or a New York Senator, or the First Lady who bungled healthcare reform, but the person who lost to Donald Trump.
That is actually an incredibly positive headline if it is a genuine reflection of what Cabinet ministers are saying - it presumes she both will not quit when her deal is voted down and will not be removed by the party either, and that she will be given the chance to try to secure better terms from Brussels.
It also makes little sense when you think about it. While I think few would disagree May has taken Brexit and her premiership as far as she is able and it will be time for someone else, the main reason a lot of people have given for needing to replace her is we need someone to go back to renegotiate better terms from Brussels and she has failed at that. But if they ask her to do it and Brussels still confirms there will be no changes, what reason to replace her then? If they think the EU will say no to May but yes to someone else, why would they not replace her immediately upon the vote failing?
Edit: Nevertheless, plenty is not making sense at the moment. Is this going to be the plan B? Have May stand up and say 'It is clear that the house finds the terms of the withdrawal agreement unacceptable, and that serious revisions are desired before any agreement can be signed. I have heard the comments from the debates in this house, and therefore I will communicate those views to the representatives of the European Union and return to this house one week from now to report on any developments and a vote'.
Good luck with that. She's gone 5 minutes after the vote.
Your edit beat me to it. If the deal is voted down heavily then May has run out of road. She has nothing left to offer. It's also in the interest of neither the Leave nor Remain leaning Tories to have her sat impotently in No 10 doing diddly squat as the clock runs down.
Trouble is, the problem is finding a way through the impasse to build some sort of consensus, or at least majority position, in the Commons. Yet the Tories are very likely to choose someone even less suited to the task, plus of course the risk of further delay, uncertainty and market turmoil while they go about it.
I think there's a tendency for outside observers in business, media etc. to assume that politicians are more competent, more compromising, more determined to avoid disaster than they are. In short, they always assume there's simply no way they'd let things come to this.
SPOILERS: they let things come to this.
Certainly there is not a lot of compromising going on. But then that is a fault of the British political system ("winner takes all") whereas more grown up countries recognise that politics is like life, and no-one ever gets everything their own way.
Name one person/party getting everything their own way right now with Brexit.
Compromises in Britain still occur, the fact that Ken Clarke and JRM are in the same party is testament to that.
My point is that our politicians aren't used to the normal process of compromise that typifies politics in most countries. Instead we have gridlock. The coalition looks like a period of grown up government by comparison with post-2015.
The Clarke/wee smog point is seen by many as evidence that our current party system is broken, rather than working.
Our compromises are different and more clear to the voter. Our parties reach a compromise then put that to the electorate. Other nations the electorate just says what they want and then the compromise occurs too late after the vote. Both sides require compromise, I'd just rather the electorate have an informed opinion before they vote.
That is actually an incredibly positive headline if it is a genuine reflection of what Cabinet ministers are saying - it presumes she both will not quit when her deal is voted down and will not be removed by the party either, and that she will be given the chance to try to secure better terms from Brussels.
It also makes little sense when you think about it. While I think few would disagree May has taken Brexit and her premiership as far as she is able and it will be time for someone else, the main reason a lot of people have given for needing to replace her is we need someone to go back to renegotiate better terms from Brussels and she has failed at that. But if they ask her to do it and Brussels still confirms there will be no changes, what reason to replace her then? If they think the EU will say no to May but yes to someone else, why would they not replace her immediately upon the vote failing?
Edit: Nevertheless, plenty is not making sense at the moment. Is this going to be the plan B? Have May stand up and say 'It is clear that the house finds the terms of the withdrawal agreement unacceptable, and that serious revisions are desired before any agreement can be signed. I have heard the comments from the debates in this house, and therefore I will communicate those views to the representatives of the European Union and return to this house one week from now to report on any developments and a vote'.
Good luck with that. She's gone 5 minutes after the vote.
Your edit beat me to it. If the deal is voted down heavily then May has run out of road. She has nothing left to offer. It's also in the interest of neither the Leave nor Remain leaning Tories to have her sat impotently in No 10 doing diddly squat as the clock runs down.
Trouble is, the problem is finding a way through the impasse to build some sort of consensus, or at least majority position, in the Commons. Yet the Tories are very likely to choose someone even less suited to the task, plus of course the risk of further delay, uncertainty and market turmoil while they go about it.
We've had months of talk of delay and we're no further to a passable agreement. May has failed, she needs to go, anyone who is honest can see that. Just get on with it and then see where we are.
I think there's a tendency for outside observers in business, media etc. to assume that politicians are more competent, more compromising, more determined to avoid disaster than they are. In short, they always assume there's simply no way they'd let things come to this.
SPOILERS: they let things come to this.
Certainly there is not a lot of compromising going on. But then that is a fault of the British political system ("winner takes all") whereas more grown up countries recognise that politics is like life, and no-one ever gets everything their own way.
Name one person/party getting everything their own way right now with Brexit.
Compromises in Britain still occur, the fact that Ken Clarke and JRM are in the same party is testament to that.
My point is that our politicians aren't used to the normal process of compromise that typifies politics in most countries. Instead we have gridlock. The coalition looks like a period of grown up government by comparison with post-2015.
The Clarke/wee smog point is seen by many as evidence that our current party system is broken, rather than working.
Our compromises are different and more clear to the voter. Our parties reach a compromise then put that to the electorate. Other nations the electorate just says what they want and then the compromise occurs too late after the vote. Both sides require compromise, I'd just rather the electorate have an informed opinion before they vote.
I'd say it shows it is working and not broken.
I struggle to apply your theory to the current state of either major party.
That is actually an incredibly positive headline if it is a genuine reflection of what Cabinet ministers are saying - it presumes she both will not quit when her deal is voted down and will not be removed by the party either, and that she will be given the chance to try to secure better terms from Brussels.
It also makes little sense when you think about it. While I think few would disagree May has taken Brexit and her premiership as far as she is able and it will be time for someone else, the main reason a lot of people have given for needing to replace her is we need someone to go back to renegotiate better terms from Brussels and she has failed at that. But if they ask her to do it and Brussels still confirms there will be no changes, what reason to replace her then? If they think the EU will say no to May but yes to someone else, why would they not replace her immediately upon the vote failing?
Edit: Nevertheless, plenty is not making sense at the moment. Is this going to be the plan B? Have May stand up and say 'It is clear that the house finds the terms of the withdrawal agreement unacceptable, and that serious revisions are desired before any agreement can be signed. I have heard the comments from the debates in this house, and therefore I will communicate those views to the representatives of the European Union and return to this house one week from now to report on any developments and a vote'.
Good luck with that. She's gone 5 minutes after the vote.
Your edit beat me to it. If the deal is voted down heavily then May has run out of road. She has nothing left to offer. It's also in the interest of neither the Leave nor Remain leaning Tories to have her sat impotently in No 10 doing diddly squat as the clock runs down.
Trouble is, the problem is finding a way through the impasse to build some sort of consensus, or at least majority position, in the Commons. Yet the Tories are very likely to choose someone even less suited to the task, plus of course the risk of further delay, uncertainty and market turmoil while they go about it.
The hung parliament does of course mean that the Tories can't unilaterally choose a new PM.
I am so sick of people saying that what they call Project Fear Mark 2 is ridiculous.
Is it?
Pretty much everything the Brexiteers have said or promised about Brexit has turned out to be bollocks on stilts, to put it mildly. Why should we believe them when they say that it'll all turn out fine, even though those who have real knowledge about ports and roads and importing/exporting etc are saying the opposite?
What has been missed is what Barnier said yesterday or the day before about what happens if the deal which has been reached is rejected by Parliament. He said that it would affect the trust which the EU would have in Britain, the trust necessary to make sure that No Deal does not turn into a disaster i.e. the trust necessary to make sure the basic necessities of life keep working, to make the mini-deals necessary, let alone to reach agreement on some future grown-up relationship.
What deeply annoys me is this assumption that even if Britain behaves like a spoilt toddler demanding and insisting on things which are not on offer, others will nonetheless seek to accommodate it, seek to alleviate the issues arising from a disorderly exit from the EU. Why should it? The EU has come up with a deal. It is not brilliant. But what did Brexiteers expect? The world - let alone the EU - does not owe Britain a living. The EU is not obliged to accommodate the fantasies of Brexiteers. Or of politicians who believe that they can get a better deal because there was a nicer atmosphere in the room. Industries are not obliged to be here. They are not obliged to provide jobs here. Other countries are not obliged to make things easy for us.
It might be wise of them to do so. But they are not obliged to do so. And they are certainly not going to do so for a country which turns its back on a deal which it has negotiated and which thinks a policy of "I want therefore I get" is somehow a sensible negotiation strategy. Or which thinks that insulting its neighbours or threatening them will get them onside.
It is no use saying that Brexit came about because people felt ignored by politicians, felt that they lost out and wanted their say and then embark on an uncertain and potentially risky course of action which is likely to harm the very people who believed the Brexit promises. Do MPs really think that if someone dies because of a shortage of medicines or if people lose their jobs because an employer relocates the people will be happy to accept those consequences because, hey, it was the Will of the People and they voted for it? Or will they blame the MPs who abdicated their responsibilities in favour of a cowardly and, frankly, frivolous hiding behind the skirts of the Will of the People?
We are a Parliamentary democracy - or so all those Brexiteers told us - not some Ruritanian country in the 1930's where the Will manifests itself as the ramblings of some ignorant but fluent chancer.
MPs need to live up to their responsibilities. If they think the course of action the country has embarked on is the wrong one, then they need to say so, to explain the limits of what is or is not achievable and what the consequences are, to speak truth to power and that includes speaking some hard truths to the British people about what is or is not achievable in the real world we live in now.
And the hard truth is that we cannot do exactly what we want or get all that we want. We have to earn our living and that involves making compromises with the rest of the world and our immediate neighbours in particular. Brexiteers seem utterly blind to this.
If Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally, we would be silly - if we reject the Deal on offer - not to consider this opportunity to climb back down from the window ledge we're currently standing on. And then do the hard fresh thinking that has been sorely needed for some time now about Britain's place in the world and Europe, specifically, soberly and seriously and thoughtfully.
Britain has generally been known for its pragmatism and practical approach to life - not its rigid faith in untested ideologies. Brexit seems to have been turned into such a faith. It is not very British.
That is actually an incredibly positive headline if it is a genuine reflection of what Cabinet ministers are saying - it presumes she both will not quit when her deal is voted down and will not be removed by the party either, and that she will be given the chance to try to secure better terms from Brussels.
It also makes little sense when you think about it. While I think few would disagree May has taken Brexit and her premiership as far as she is able and it will be time for someone else, the main reason a lot of people have given for needing to replace her is we need someone to go back to renegotiate better terms from Brussels and she has failed at that. But if they ask her to do it and Brussels still confirms there will be no changes, what reason to replace her then? If they think the EU will say no to May but yes to someone else, why would they not replace her immediately upon the vote failing?
Edit: Nevertheless, plenty is not making sense at the moment. Is this going to be the plan B? Have May stand up and say 'It is clear that the house finds the terms of the withdrawal agreement unacceptable, and that serious revisions are desired before any agreement can be signed. I have heard the comments from the debates in this house, and therefore I will communicate those views to the representatives of the European Union and return to this house one week from now to report on any developments and a vote'.
Good luck with that. She's gone 5 minutes after the vote.
Your edit beat me to it. If the deal is voted down heavily then May has run out of road. She has nothing left to offer. It's also in the interest of neither the Leave nor Remain leaning Tories to have her sat impotently in No 10 doing diddly squat as the clock runs down.
Trouble is, the problem is finding a way through the impasse to build some sort of consensus, or at least majority position, in the Commons. Yet the Tories are very likely to choose someone even less suited to the task, plus of course the risk of further delay, uncertainty and market turmoil while they go about it.
That is actually an incredibly positive headline if it is a genuine reflection of what Cabinet ministers are saying - it presumes she both will not quit when her deal is voted down and will not be removed by the party either, and that she will be given the chance to try to secure better terms from Brussels.
It also makes little sense when you think about it. While I think few would disagree May has taken Brexit and her premiership as far as she is able and it will be time for someone else, the main reason a lot of people have given for needing to replace her is we need someone to go back to renegotiate better terms from Brussels and she has failed at that. But if they ask her to do it and Brussels still confirms there will be no changes, what reason to replace her then? If they think the EU will say no to May but yes to someone else, why would they not replace her immediately upon the vote failing?
Edit: Nevertheless, plenty is not making sense at the moment. Is this going to be the plan B? Have May stand up and say 'It is clear that the house finds the terms of the withdrawal agreement unacceptable, and that serious revisions are desired before any agreement can be signed. I have heard the comments from the debates in this house, and therefore I will communicate those views to the representatives of the European Union and return to this house one week from now to report on any developments and a vote'.
Good luck with that. She's gone 5 minutes after the vote.
Your edit beat me to it. If the deal is voted down heavily then May has run out of road. She has nothing left to offer. It's also in the interest of neither the Leave nor Remain leaning Tories to have her sat impotently in No 10 doing diddly squat as the clock runs down.
Trouble is, the problem is finding a way through the impasse to build some sort of consensus, or at least majority position, in the Commons. Yet the Tories are very likely to choose someone even less suited to the task, plus of course the risk of further delay, uncertainty and market turmoil while they go about it.
Stepping back from the brink would be easier if Mps for leave and remain were not taking us to the brink in pursuit of their perfect outcomes.
Her current strategy is to tell Remainers that the consequence of rejecting her deal is no-deal and to tell Brexiters that the consequence is no-Brexit. Everyone gets their own bogeyman. But she does not seem to have realised that both sides can hear her when she says these things. So the Remainers listen to the part where she says there'll be no Brexit and the Brexiters listen to the part where she says there'll be no-deal. It's like someone having a WhatsApp conversation on Twitter.
Your edit beat me to it. If the deal is voted down heavily then May has run out of road. She has nothing left to offer. It's also in the interest of neither the Leave nor Remain leaning Tories to have her sat impotently in No 10 doing diddly squat as the clock runs down.
Trouble is, the problem is finding a way through the impasse to build some sort of consensus, or at least majority position, in the Commons. Yet the Tories are very likely to choose someone even less suited to the task, plus of course the risk of further delay, uncertainty and market turmoil while they go about it.
There isn't a majority to be found for anything in the Commons apart from Remain, but the cancellation of Brexit can only proceed if both the Conservative and Labour pro-EU factions actually split from their respective parties and build a National Government together. This would have to be co-ordinated: there's no point in the rebel Tories jumping ship without the Labour Europhiles doing so at the same time, because there is no chance of a large cohort of centre-right politicians using their votes to put Jeremy Corbyn into power.
The revocation of article 50 notification - assuming the ECJ rules in favour of our unilateral right to do this - and the repeal of the EU Withdrawal Act require both a Parliamentary majority and a willing Government to treat with the EU and grant the necessary space in the legislative timetable. A simple Parliamentary resolution in favour of either Remain or a second referendum would, in and of itself, have no legal effect.
Absent a major political realignment, the fall of May will almost certainly just lead to a continuation of the Conservative minority Government, only under the fresh leadership of a more committed Brexiteer, and with renewed support from the DUP. The clock will run down to zero and we'll leave the EU next March, in accordance with legislation, without a withdrawal agreement in place.
We are a Parliamentary democracy - or so all those Brexiteers told us - not some Ruritanian country in the 1930's where the Will manifests itself as the ramblings of some ignorant but fluent chancer.
MPs need to live up to their responsibilities. If they think the course of action the country has embarked on is the wrong one, then they need to say so, to explain the limits of what is or is not achievable and what the consequences are, to speak truth to power and that includes speaking some hard truths to the British people about what is or is not achievable in the real world we live in now.
And the hard truth is that we cannot do exactly what we want or get all that we want. We have to earn our living and that involves making compromises with the rest of the world and our immediate neighbours in particular. Brexiteers seem utterly blind to this.
If Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally, we would be silly - if we reject the Deal on offer - not to consider this opportunity to climb back down from the window ledge we're currently standing on. And then do the hard fresh thinking that has been sorely needed for some time now about Britain's place in the world and Europe, specifically, soberly and seriously and thoughtfully.
Britain has generally been known for its pragmatism and practical approach to life - not its rigid faith in untested ideologies. Brexit seems to have been turned into such a faith. It is not very British.
He claims it was serious, too, not a joke. Old enough to read is the key apparently.
I'm either too stupid to be head of politics at the University of Cambridge, or not stupid enough, and the world's mad enough I've got no idea which.
I would do this differently and give the vote to everyone, from birth, but to be exercised by proxy by the primary carer until the child writes a letter requesting control of their vote to the appropriate elections officer in their area. One person, one vote, proxy voting on behalf of those unable to vote themselves.
I think there's a tendency for outside observers in business, media etc. to assume that politicians are more competent, more compromising, more determined to avoid disaster than they are. In short, they always assume there's simply no way they'd let things come to this.
SPOILERS: they let things come to this.
Certainly there is not a lot of compromising going on. But then that is a fault of the British political system ("winner takes all") whereas more grown up countries recognise that politics is like life, and no-one ever gets everything their own way.
Name one person/party getting everything their own way right now with Brexit.
Compromises in Britain still occur, the fact that Ken Clarke and JRM are in the same party is testament to that.
My point is that our politicians aren't used to the normal process of compromise that typifies politics in most countries. Instead we have gridlock. The coalition looks like a period of grown up government by comparison with post-2015.
The Clarke/wee smog point is seen by many as evidence that our current party system is broken, rather than working.
Our compromises are different and more clear to the voter. Our parties reach a compromise then put that to the electorate. Other nations the electorate just says what they want and then the compromise occurs too late after the vote. Both sides require compromise, I'd just rather the electorate have an informed opinion before they vote.
I'd say it shows it is working and not broken.
I struggle to apply your theory to the current state of either major party.
It applies to Labour.
The leadership says "we are OK with being antisemitic Marxists" The rest of the party says "we are not OK with being led by an antisemitic Marxist" The party membership votes and keeps the antisemitic Marxist. The rest of the party compromises its principles and says "we're actually OK with antisemitism and Marxism now".
Your edit beat me to it. If the deal is voted down heavily then May has run out of road. She has nothing left to offer. It's also in the interest of neither the Leave nor Remain leaning Tories to have her sat impotently in No 10 doing diddly squat as the clock runs down.
Trouble is, the problem is finding a way through the impasse to build some sort of consensus, or at least majority position, in the Commons. Yet the Tories are very likely to choose someone even less suited to the task, plus of course the risk of further delay, uncertainty and market turmoil while they go about it.
There isn't a majority to be found for anything in the Commons apart from Remain, but the cancellation of Brexit can only proceed if both the Conservative and Labour pro-EU factions actually split from their respective parties and build a National Government together. This would have to be co-ordinated: there's no point in the rebel Tories jumping ship without the Labour Europhiles doing so at the same time, because there is no chance of a large cohort of centre-right politicians using their votes to put Jeremy Corbyn into power.
The revocation of article 50 notification - assuming the ECJ rules in favour of our unilateral right to do this - and the repeal of the EU Withdrawal Act require both a Parliamentary majority and a willing Government to treat with the EU and grant the necessary space in the legislative timetable. A simple Parliamentary resolution in favour of either Remain or a second referendum would, in and of itself, have no legal effect.
Absent a major political realignment, the fall of May will almost certainly just lead to a continuation of the Conservative minority Government, only under the fresh leadership of a more committed Brexiteer, and with renewed support from the DUP. The clock will run down to zero and we'll leave the EU next March, in accordance with legislation, without a withdrawal agreement in place.
Since that is clearly the last thing most of Parliament wants, they had better find a way of keeping her in place, then. Or man (person) up to the task, as you say.
I'm not actuallyvernment nor Corbyn actually want.
And certainly a referendum is not in the gift of the government, it still requires some big changes in position, but there are plausible reasons the government, or a government might consider a referendum.
Big difference is, I think May cares deeply, she needs her Brexit deal to cement her anti-immigrant vindictiveness, Corbyn really isn't that bothered.
I agree he's not that bothered. I'm always puzzled by thought-readers here who are convinced that on this one issue he's lying when he says he'sallies on the Continent than there used to be. I've had that confirmed by others who know him well, and it also matches his "7 out of 10" comment. But people who've never met him think they know better.
That said, as you say, he's not that fussed, and he thinks close association would be OK too. Nor does he feel strongly about the idea of a referendum - it's a second-order issue for him, and if McDonnell (who is keen, and has just contradicted Len McCluskey on it) and the party want it, fine.
Leaving and no longer being subject to EU rules on state aid etc would make it much easier for him and McDonnell to implement their programme. Surely that would have a big impact on his preference?
I think the idea that the EU would prevent the nationalisation of rail and privatised utilities is a massive exaggeration of the EU's neoliberal tendencies. The utilities are state-owned in almost every other EU country, it's not a concern. Now, state-owned industries are not exempt from EU competition law, but I don't think unfair competition with other EU countries have ever been part of the plan.
I don't see EU competition law being a serious threat to the Corbyn programme.
IIRC the EU does not forbid state ownership per se, but does have some strict rules about when it's permissible to take a privatized asset back into public ownership. The railways would be relatively easy though as they are franchises which could simply revert to the public sector as they end, are given up or are forfeited for cause - as of course is the case with the LNER franchise. Corbyn could simply decline to ever re-let it.
If it functions with a subsidy, it’s state aid. If state aid is fine, but the aid has to be part of a procurement contract open across the single market.
A Corbyn government could set up a train operating company, and it can bid to run a franchise like any other, but the state aid will not be the basis for the public train operating company. It will be an aid available to all bidders.
The EU sees the uk as a model for a competitive rail market place.
They know it’s a poisoned chalice until the UK leaves
That really does seem to be the only explanation. Even her Cabinet oppose her and yet still she is in post. I bet even Corbyn doesn't really want to take over right now. I wouldn't be surprised if he and substantial numbers of Tories are just praying, 'Please, EU, give us one big further concession so we can vote through this thing, and May can go after it is signed'.
Still no sign what they'd concede to the EU in order to gain more in exchange, but hope springs eternal.
The EU have already moved on ! Unless the UK red lines change then there will be no concessions on the WA.
The future partnership might get tweaked but the backstops going nowhere . Even if May does go that doesn’t change the Commons . Some Leavers think replace her with a true believer and everything would be fine . If a new PM comes in and pushes for no deal the Tories will completely implode and by the time business start upping sticks and the pound crashes they will be forced to revoke Article 50 .
We are a Parliamentary democracy - or so all those Brexiteers told us - not some Ruritanian country in the 1930's where the Will manifests itself as the ramblings of some ignorant but fluent chancer.
MPs need to live up to their responsibilities. If they think the course of action the country has embarked on is the wrong one, then they need to say so, to explain the limits of what is or is not achievable and what the consequences are, to speak truth to power and that includes speaking some hard truths to the British people about what is or is not achievable in the real world we live in now.
And the hard truth is that we cannot do exactly what we want or get all that we want. We have to earn our living and that involves making compromises with the rest of the world and our immediate neighbours in particular. Brexiteers seem utterly blind to this.
If Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally, we would be silly - if we reject the Deal on offer - not to consider this opportunity to climb back down from the window ledge we're currently standing on. And then do the hard fresh thinking that has been sorely needed for some time now about Britain's place in the world and Europe, specifically, soberly and seriously and thoughtfully.
Britain has generally been known for its pragmatism and practical approach to life - not its rigid faith in untested ideologies. Brexit seems to have been turned into such a faith. It is not very British.
+1000
If parliament just exercised its right to revoke article 50 and bury Brexit, the wrath would be extraordinary, you are lighting a touch paper that could take decades to put out.
Can I just say, any politician saying Brexit will mean "people will die through lack of medicines" is utterly odious when that politician is either a) too poor at their job to organise the supply of vital medicines with two years warning or - infinitely worse - b) refuses to organise that supply of vital supplies in time so that they can say "but people will die..."
If parliament just exercised its right to revoke article 50 and bury Brexit, the wrath would be extraordinary, you are lighting a touch paper that could take decades to put out.
Maybe.
Maybe not.
The committed Brexiteers in Parliament were so outraged they couldn't muster 48 letters.
UKIP fulminated for years to win no seats.
If Brexit was cancelled tomorrow the loudest noise would be a collective sigh of relief.
If there are going to be riots, would you rather they were food riots?
We are a Parliamentary democracy - or so all those Brexiteers told us - not some Ruritanian country in the 1930's where the Will manifests itself as the ramblings of some ignorant but fluent chancer.
MPs need to live up to their responsibilities. If they think the course of action the country has embarked on is the wrong one, then they need to say so, to explain the limits of what is or is not achievable and what the consequences are, to speak truth to power and that includes speaking some hard truths to the British people about what is or is not achievable in the real world we live in now.
And the hard truth is that we cannot do exactly what we want or get all that we want. We have to earn our living and that involves making compromises with the rest of the world and our immediate neighbours in particular. Brexiteers seem utterly blind to this.
If Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally, we would be silly - if we reject the Deal on offer - not to consider this opportunity to climb back down from the window ledge we're currently standing on. And then do the hard fresh thinking that has been sorely needed for some time now about Britain's place in the world and Europe, specifically, soberly and seriously and thoughtfully.
Britain has generally been known for its pragmatism and practical approach to life - not its rigid faith in untested ideologies. Brexit seems to have been turned into such a faith. It is not very British.
+1000
If parliament just exercised its right to revoke article 50 and bury Brexit, the wrath would be extraordinary, you are lighting a touch paper that could take decades to put out.
Nico's scenario downthread is the more likely route to that end - there needs to be a crisis of sufficient magnitude to justify the action.
Stepping back from the brink would be easier if Mps for leave and remain were not taking us to the brink in pursuit of their perfect outcomes.
Her current strategy is to tell Remainers that the consequence of rejecting her deal is no-deal and to tell Brexiters that the consequence is no-Brexit. Everyone gets their own bogeyman. But she does not seem to have realised that both sides can hear her when she says these things. So the Remainers listen to the part where she says there'll be no Brexit and the Brexiters listen to the part where she says there'll be no-deal. It's like someone having a WhatsApp conversation on Twitter.
Your edit beat me to it. If the deal is voted down heavily then May has run out of road. She has nothing left to offer. It's also in the interest of neither the Leave nor Remain leaning Tories to have her sat impotently in No 10 doing diddly squat as the clock runs down.
Trouble is, the problem is finding a way through the impasse to build some sort of consensus, or at least majority position, in the Commons. Yet the Tories are very likely to choose someone even less suited to the task, plus of course the risk of further delay, uncertainty and market turmoil while they go about it.
There isn't a majority to be found for anything in the Commons apart from Remain, but the cancellation of Brexit can only proceed if both the Conservative and Labour pro-EU factions actually split from their respective parties and build a National Government together. This would have to be co-ordinated: there's no point in the rebel Tories jumping ship without the Labour Europhiles doing so at the same time, because Remain or a second referendum would, in and of itself, have no legal effect.
Absent a major political realignment, the fall of May will almost certainly just lead to a continuation of the Conservative minority Government, only under the fresh leadership of a more committed Brexiteer, nt in place.
Since that is clearly the last thing most of Parliament wants, they had better find a way of keeping her in place, then. Or man (person) up to the task, as you say.
It's almost funny that may is clearly done but also that removing her doesn't actually fix anything (unless the EU are lying or a lot easier to push around than we think) because the issues mostly exist with ir without her.
We are a Parliamentary democracy - or so all those Brexiteers told us - not some Ruritanian country in the 1930's where the Will manifests itself as the ramblings of some ignorant but fluent chancer.
MPs need to live up to their responsibilities. If they think the course of action the country has embarked on is the wrong one, then they need to say so, to explain the limits of what is or is not achievable and what the consequences are, to speak truth to power and that includes speaking some hard truths to the British people about what is or is not achievable in the real world we live in now.
And the hard truth is that we cannot do exactly what we want or get all that we want. We have to earn our living and that involves making compromises with the rest of the world and our immediate neighbours in particular. Brexiteers seem utterly blind to this.
If Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally, we would be silly - if we reject the Deal on offer - not to consider this opportunity to climb back down from the window ledge we're currently standing on. And then do the hard fresh thinking that has been sorely needed for some time now about Britain's place in the world and Europe, specifically, soberly and seriously and thoughtfully.
Britain has generally been known for its pragmatism and practical approach to life - not its rigid faith in untested ideologies. Brexit seems to have been turned into such a faith. It is not very British.
This is why I think MP's might well end up ultimately voting for the deal, despite their pronouncements to the contrary. The only other realistic option is to revoke article 50.
If parliament just exercised its right to revoke article 50 and bury Brexit, the wrath would be extraordinary, you are lighting a touch paper that could take decades to put out.
Maybe.
Maybe not.
The committed Brexiteers in Parliament were so outraged they couldn't muster 48 letters.
UKIP fulminated for years to win no seats.
If Brexit was cancelled tomorrow the loudest noise would be a collective sigh of relief.
If there are going to be riots, would you rather they were food riots?
Can I just say, any politician saying Brexit will mean "people will die through lack of medicines" is utterly odious when that politician is either a) too poor at their job to organise the supply of vital medicines with two years warning or - infinitely worse - b) refuses to organise that supply of vital supplies in time so that they can say "but people will die..."
They deserve eternal contempt.
According to the press they are trying to stockpile medicines as we speak. But it's not a great position to be in. Remember it was the Tories that told us babies would die if we voted using AV.
IRish backstop: just for the sake of saying it, my opinion is that the big error (from both sides) on the backstop is to effectively define it in terms of a solution rather than a problem. What should have happened is that both sides should have worked hard on a mutually acceptable definition of the problem that the backstop was designed to resolve.
The withdrawal agreement solution (customs union) would have then been included as a solution to the problem but not THE solution. As long as an alternative solution was worked on and proven to be workable (adjudicated upon as necessary by an agreed independent third part) the U.K. would not be tied into the existing solution, only the commitment.(to resolve the problem, as defined)
It's amazing that Labour have actually managed to come up with a Brexit policy that makes the likes of BoJo and JRM look sensible. I'd almost like to see them have to do some negotiating with Barnier.
Can I just say, any politician saying Brexit will mean "people will die through lack of medicines" is utterly odious when that politician is either a) too poor at their job to organise the supply of vital medicines with two years warning or - infinitely worse - b) refuses to organise that supply of vital supplies in time so that they can say "but people will die..."
They deserve eternal contempt.
According to the press they are trying to stockpile medicines as we speak. But it's not a great position to be in. Remember it was the Tories that told us babies would die if we voted using AV.
Can I just say, any politician saying Brexit will mean "people will die through lack of medicines" is utterly odious when that politician is either a) too poor at their job to organise the supply of vital medicines with two years warning or - infinitely worse - b) refuses to organise that supply of vital supplies in time so that they can say "but people will die..."
They deserve eternal contempt.
According to the press they are trying to stockpile medicines as we speak. But it's not a great position to be in. Remember it was the Tories that told us babies would die if we voted using AV.
No, that was Dan Hodges.
It was one of the official no campaign ads, largely financed by the Tory party
Can I just say, any politician saying Brexit will mean "people will die through lack of medicines" is utterly odious when that politician is either a) too poor at their job to organise the supply of vital medicines with two years warning or - infinitely worse - b) refuses to organise that supply of vital supplies in time so that they can say "but people will die..."
They deserve eternal contempt.
According to the press they are trying to stockpile medicines as we speak. But it's not a great position to be in. Remember it was the Tories that told us babies would die if we voted using AV.
We already stockpile 6 to 8 weeks of medicine because a factory can burn down, contaminants may get in, French customs goes on strike, etc, etc.
Comments
That said, she's still not as bad as Corbyn or Johnson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBryGe1USG0
The ridiculous 'Project Fear' story this morning that it would cause six months of traffic mayhem was a case in point. That may be the case given we've done nothing to ameliorate it yet, but if it can be resolved in six months after the fact, why couldn't it have been resolved with over 30 months before it?
SPOILERS: they let things come to this.
That's a keeper
Have you been near State failure then William?
All this assumes firstly that the Deal is voted down, and secondly that she doesn't throw in the towel of her own accord first. And that there's actualy some substance to these rumours, of course.
If she does go then chances of a Hard Brexit go up another notch (which would please the DUP.) Office of PM likely to end up in hands of a more committed Brexiteer, in which case presumably no chance of reversing A50 without a political realignment?
Compromises in Britain still occur, the fact that Ken Clarke and JRM are in the same party is testament to that.
I mean I know it's Essex, but these were lively girls and very full on (read that as polite for fecking annoying)
Turns out they were a gaggle of BA stewardesses ......
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/07/theresa-may-told-quit-cabinet-ministers-brexit-deal-falls-fails/
Get rid of already.
All the Govt has to do is work out the new capacity of Dover with the new customs procedures and if that is x% of current capacity just reduce the number of ferries and trains to that level. Then say priorities are drugs, perishable food and then JIT goods (there are none of these). We do not need any cut flowers or non perishable goods through Dover, they can use the container ports.
It really is a dumb Govt that thinks it can get away with Project Fear MK II and threaten it's own Citizens with fake drug shortages.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/07/tommy-robinson-global-support-brexit-march
It also makes little sense when you think about it. While I think few would disagree May has taken Brexit and her premiership as far as she is able and it will be time for someone else, the main reason a lot of people have given for needing to replace her is we need someone to go back to renegotiate better terms from Brussels and she has failed at that. But if they ask her to do it and Brussels still confirms there will be no changes, what reason to replace her then? If they think the EU will say no to May but yes to someone else, why would they not replace her immediately upon the vote failing?
Edit: Nevertheless, plenty is not making sense at the moment. Is this going to be the plan B? Have May stand up and say 'It is clear that the house finds the terms of the withdrawal agreement unacceptable, and that serious revisions are desired before any agreement can be signed. I have heard the comments from the debates in this house, and therefore I will communicate those views to the representatives of the European Union and return to this house one week from now to report on any developments and a vote'.
Good luck with that. She's gone 5 minutes after the vote.
The Clarke/wee smog point is seen by many as evidence that our current party system is broken, rather than working.
https://www.thejournal.ie/brexit-threat-food-shortages-ireland-4381228-Dec2018/
Dumb as a sack of hammers, that girl.
He claims it was serious, too, not a joke. Old enough to read is the key apparently.
I'm either too stupid to be head of politics at the University of Cambridge, or not stupid enough, and the world's mad enough I've got no idea which.
I still think they should send Corbyn. He says he can get a better deal, why not let him try. He surely believes Brexit is more important than mere party issues, therefore he would want to negotiate a good deal even if he does not get to be PM right away.
"Its not about fighting the EU we hate, but saving the UK we love."
They know it’s a poisoned chalice until the UK leaves . May really should go out in a blaze of glory and stick the knife into the ERG who have made her life hell.
The perfect two fingered salute would be to revoke Article 50!
Fucking thanks for all the kind comments. I do intend, management permitting, to write more headers in 2019.
Still no sign what they'd concede to the EU in order to gain more in exchange, but hope springs eternal.
"Uh uh. I know what you're thinking. "Did they fire six PMs or only five?" Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself....."
https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1071161636176711681
Not the first female presidential candidate for a major party, or a Secretary of State, or a New York Senator, or the First Lady who bungled healthcare reform, but the person who lost to Donald Trump.
It's a grim legacy.
I'd say it shows it is working and not broken.
PART ONE
I am so sick of people saying that what they call Project Fear Mark 2 is ridiculous.
Is it?
Pretty much everything the Brexiteers have said or promised about Brexit has turned out to be bollocks on stilts, to put it mildly. Why should we believe them when they say that it'll all turn out fine, even though those who have real knowledge about ports and roads and importing/exporting etc are saying the opposite?
What has been missed is what Barnier said yesterday or the day before about what happens if the deal which has been reached is rejected by Parliament. He said that it would affect the trust which the EU would have in Britain, the trust necessary to make sure that No Deal does not turn into a disaster i.e. the trust necessary to make sure the basic necessities of life keep working, to make the mini-deals necessary, let alone to reach agreement on some future grown-up relationship.
What deeply annoys me is this assumption that even if Britain behaves like a spoilt toddler demanding and insisting on things which are not on offer, others will nonetheless seek to accommodate it, seek to alleviate the issues arising from a disorderly exit from the EU. Why should it? The EU has come up with a deal. It is not brilliant. But what did Brexiteers expect? The world - let alone the EU - does not owe Britain a living. The EU is not obliged to accommodate the fantasies of Brexiteers. Or of politicians who believe that they can get a better deal because there was a nicer atmosphere in the room. Industries are not obliged to be here. They are not obliged to provide jobs here. Other countries are not obliged to make things easy for us.
It might be wise of them to do so. But they are not obliged to do so. And they are certainly not going to do so for a country which turns its back on a deal which it has negotiated and which thinks a policy of "I want therefore I get" is somehow a sensible negotiation strategy. Or which thinks that insulting its neighbours or threatening them will get them onside.
It is no use saying that Brexit came about because people felt ignored by politicians, felt that they lost out and wanted their say and then embark on an uncertain and potentially risky course of action which is likely to harm the very people who believed the Brexit promises. Do MPs really think that if someone dies because of a shortage of medicines or if people lose their jobs because an employer relocates the people will be happy to accept those consequences because, hey, it was the Will of the People and they voted for it? Or will they blame the MPs who abdicated their responsibilities in favour of a cowardly and, frankly, frivolous hiding behind the skirts of the Will of the People?
We are a Parliamentary democracy - or so all those Brexiteers told us - not some Ruritanian country in the 1930's where the Will manifests itself as the ramblings of some ignorant but fluent chancer.
MPs need to live up to their responsibilities. If they think the course of action the country has embarked on is the wrong one, then they need to say so, to explain the limits of what is or is not achievable and what the consequences are, to speak truth to power and that includes speaking some hard truths to the British people about what is or is not achievable in the real world we live in now.
And the hard truth is that we cannot do exactly what we want or get all that we want. We have to earn our living and that involves making compromises with the rest of the world and our immediate neighbours in particular. Brexiteers seem utterly blind to this.
If Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally, we would be silly - if we reject the Deal on offer - not to consider this opportunity to climb back down from the window ledge we're currently standing on. And then do the hard fresh thinking that has been sorely needed for some time now about Britain's place in the world and Europe, specifically, soberly and seriously and thoughtfully.
Britain has generally been known for its pragmatism and practical approach to life - not its rigid faith in untested ideologies. Brexit seems to have been turned into such a faith. It is not very British.
Or something like that.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/07/warnings-no-deal-ports-chaos-misleading-industry-boss-says/
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/12/07/week-in-review-all-may-s-faults-come-home-to-roost
The revocation of article 50 notification - assuming the ECJ rules in favour of our unilateral right to do this - and the repeal of the EU Withdrawal Act require both a Parliamentary majority and a willing Government to treat with the EU and grant the necessary space in the legislative timetable. A simple Parliamentary resolution in favour of either Remain or a second referendum would, in and of itself, have no legal effect.
Absent a major political realignment, the fall of May will almost certainly just lead to a continuation of the Conservative minority Government, only under the fresh leadership of a more committed Brexiteer, and with renewed support from the DUP. The clock will run down to zero and we'll leave the EU next March, in accordance with legislation, without a withdrawal agreement in place.
The leadership says "we are OK with being antisemitic Marxists"
The rest of the party says "we are not OK with being led by an antisemitic Marxist"
The party membership votes and keeps the antisemitic Marxist.
The rest of the party compromises its principles and says "we're actually OK with antisemitism and Marxism now".
A Corbyn government could set up a train operating company, and it can bid to run a franchise like any other, but the state aid will not be the basis for the public train operating company. It will be an aid available to all bidders.
The EU sees the uk as a model for a competitive rail market place.
The future partnership might get tweaked but the backstops going nowhere . Even if May does go that doesn’t change the Commons . Some Leavers think replace her with a true believer and everything would be fine . If a new PM comes in and pushes for no deal the Tories will completely implode and by the time business start upping sticks and the pound crashes they will be forced to revoke Article 50 .
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6472393/Jamaican-TUI-hotel-staff-create-bizarre-effigy-British-couples-dead-son-lager-hand.html
How on earth would anyone get the idea that this was a great idea....?
a) too poor at their job to organise the supply of vital medicines with two years warning or
- infinitely worse -
b) refuses to organise that supply of vital supplies in time so that they can say "but people will die..."
They deserve eternal contempt.
Maybe not.
The committed Brexiteers in Parliament were so outraged they couldn't muster 48 letters.
UKIP fulminated for years to win no seats.
If Brexit was cancelled tomorrow the loudest noise would be a collective sigh of relief.
If there are going to be riots, would you rather they were food riots?
The withdrawal agreement solution (customs union) would have then been included as a solution to the problem but not THE solution. As long as an alternative solution was worked on and proven to be workable (adjudicated upon as necessary by an agreed independent third part) the U.K. would not be tied into the existing solution, only the commitment.(to resolve the problem, as defined)
You think Brits are going to cheer food shortages?
Unless you think the EU would put up a blockade.
And if they would do that, why have we been negotiating with them?
https://twitter.com/GuitarMoog/status/1070859040660443136?s=20