There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an pportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.
I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.
Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.
When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.
When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?
Ideally they shouldn't, but if parliament fails in its task there's not many other options. Voting again is problematic for many reasons, I'm certainly not a fan of the 'vote again and get it right this time you dummies' message that is implicit from some and explicit from others, but voting again is still a democratic exercise. It shouldn't be necessary, but parliament has proven inadequate..
If there is a further referendum it establishes that Parliament won't implement the result if the people get it wrong - in which case, why have a referendum?
Why indeed. There’s a good reason that we are a representative democracy and don’t ask people specific multifaceted questions which they have to answer in simplistic binary terms.
85% of votes at the last election were cast for parties who promised to implement the referendum result. Surely that's enough for them to get on with it?
The article fails to address the issue that it is not just the EC that has moved on but the world. For most of my life the barriers to free movement of people, goods and money have been coming down across the world. These barriers are starting to go back up again. My business is finding it harder to move money and goods around the world. The fight between China and USA is not going away anytime soon.
The UK over the last 30 years has built a global services powerhouse using the EC market while assisting Germany to build a global manufacturing powerhouse. There is a view that Germany got the better of the deal so we need a plan B.
I have been on this site for over 10 years on and off and believe I am the only owner of a SME manufacturer who posts regularly and this gives me a different perspective. I believe that a more balanced economy in which the UK produces more of its own consumption is good long term for the UK but I do not underestimate the challenge to get there.
Tte failure of most Brexiteers to acknowledge the complexity and scale of the project they propose is what scares me not the general plan. Last week I met with the only producer of glass vials in the UK. This may not seem important but every vaciinne dose requires a glass vial. Their capacity is a fraction of local demand. Most product is imported from Germany and the USA. The demand for locally sourced product is very strong with Brexit however even in the JV we are setting up it will take us a year to be able to supply existing contracts without taking on any new business. For the UK to become self sufficient may take 5 years.
Do we face a future with unemployed bankers, product shortages whilst we invest in capacity and frustrated youth who can no longer travel tte globe in the way they have become accustomed to?
Good post. I'll nitpick one point. It's not been 'free movement' of people, at least not on a global scale. It's been 'easy movement'. I doubt we'll return to the olden days, but easy movement is perfectly acceptable and works for the RoW.
Thank you and I agree the free movement of people is ultimately the most complex and difficult issue. This is why I worry our politicians have missed the point when they focus mostly on the other two.
Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.
When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.
When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?
Because, if it happens, Parliament will have been unable to agree on a method of effecting the previous referendum. I would back the deal if I were an MP since it effects Brexit in accordance with the mandate campaigned for. If as seems likely it is heavily defeated I would ask the public for their views as to next steps. This is a failure of the politicians but better to accept that than take irrevocable action without a suitable mandate.
In those circumstances, if the public is going to be asked for its guidance, it would be appropriate to check it remained of the same view as to the ultimate outcome. It would be truly anti-democratic to exclude an outcome that was polling twice as well as at least one of the options under consideration.
The most extreme Leavers are among those most upset by the idea of a second referendum. But if they aren’t prepared to take what’s on offer, they can’t expect either morally or practically to impose on the public a Brexit that was not campaigned for and which apparently does not command majority support in either Parliament or among the public.
I agree with all of that. If in Parliament I would vote for May's deal. If that is rejected I do not see how it is possible to exclude remain from any subsequent referendum. Possibly, if the CJEU said that we could not revoke Art 50 unilaterally and the EU said, stuff it, you're out, so it wasn't an option but not short of that.
Agreed. But if the CJEU said that we could not revoke Art 50 unilaterally and the EU said, stuff it, you're out, I suspect May's Deal would very quickly be voted through parliament upon being re-presented.
In any sane Parliament it would. This one, nothing can be taken for granted.
Well, it's hypothetical upon hypothetical... we will know in 16 hours if the ECJ will allow A50 revocation.
Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.
When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.
When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?
The 2016 Referendum was couched in very general terms - no specific deal or proposal was presented to the electorate.Having voted Leave myself , I see nothing unreasonable or undemocratic in going back to the people with the message ' We have made every effort to leave the EU as directed by the June 2016 Referendum. This is the best deal available to us. Do you still wish to proceed?'
That's not true though. May has utterly bungled the negotiations. And even now there is an option to leave: we just leave.
That option was not campaigned for and actively dismissed by Leave campaigners. The public did not vote for food shortages and disruptions to medical supplies. If Britain is to leave the EU with those risks, it needs a mandate first.
And there won't be food shortages and disruptions to medical supplies, so that's a moot point.
And your evidence for that assertion is based on... what exactly?
That I don't believe the EU will impose an economic blockade.
Of course they won't. But that won't stop widespread delays and shortages as new customs checks necessarily come into operation.
Another good article by Alanbrooke. I don't think I agree that the Euro is unsustainable - rather, its existence constrain policy options (in much the same way as the lack of a different Scottish currency contains the Scottish government). But if anything I think the article understates the centrifugal forces in the EU at the moment, with even nominally social democrat parties in Eastern Europe in reality as nationalist as anyone.
I agree the Euro is sustainable but not if the EU does not deeply integrate. For the Euro to survive it needs complete fiscal and political union in Europe with unified taxation and spending policies. It needs a country called Europe.
Something that, needless to say, I want no part of.
It will also require (for decades probably) a willing transfer of money from Germany to the poorer parts of the Eurozone. As that looks highly unlikely that zone is eventually going to fall apart.
I read that the US and UK transfer c.8% of GDP annually via state spending from rich areas to poor areas. The EU does about 0.5%. I don’t think UK taxpayers would accept increasing our contributions from £150m net a week to £1.5bn a week. Discuss
Now you see, the problem with the UK not being in the Eurozone is something that is not highlighted often enough when people talk about the costs and benefits of staying in.
Most of the EU states are in the Eurozone. If the currency is going to be made to work in the long term then they are going to need to give more power and authority to the centre. They will also, over time, need to make more and more common or co-ordinated decisions. They will caucus, and eventually the ability of countries to block core EU initiatives by qualified minority will become redundant. Then the ring of non-Euro states - including us - will find themselves effectively in a similar place to Norway by default. Yes, we'll also have our seats in the European Parliament (although whether or not non-Euro MEPs will be treated, either formally or informally, as second class remains to be seen,) but on the other hand we won't have the limited freedoms or additional protections enjoyed by the EFTA states.
In short, Britain will end up in exactly the position of powerlessness that today's Remain supporters claim as the key reason why we should reject any compromise Brexit deal such as that negotiated by Theresa May, and stay in the EU as a full member.
Given these circumstances, there are only two courses of action that make long-term sense for the country:
1. Accept that the days of the UK as a sovereign state are numbered, drop all our opt-outs and join the Euro. Then at least we would be a full participant in the project, and it should also solve the perfidious Albion problem at a stroke. We'd be locked in and we wouldn't be receiving any of the special perks that are resented. 2. Declare that the days of the UK as a sovereign state are not numbered, and make a clean break with the EU project rather than sit permanently in its outer orbit as a protectorate.
If people can't be persuaded to accept option 1 (and almost nobody in Britain, whichever side they were on in that accursed referendum, believes the Euro to be a success story,) then why not proceed directly to option 2? The longer we put off the inevitable, the more painful doing so becomes.
Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.
Another good article by Alanbrooke. I don't think I agree that the Euro is unsustainable - rather, its existence constrain policy options (in much the same way as the lack of a different Scottish currency contains the Scottish government). But if anything I think the article understates the centrifugal forces in the EU at the moment, with even nominally social democrat parties in Eastern Europe in reality as nationalist as anyone.
I agree the Euro is sustainable but not if the EU does not deeply integrate. For the Euro to survive it needs complete fiscal and political union in Europe with unified taxation and spending policies. It needs a country called Europe.
Something that, needless to say, I want no part of.
It will also require (for decades probably) a willing transfer of money from Germany to the poorer parts of the Eurozone. As that looks highly unlikely that zone is eventually going to fall apart.
I read that the US and UK transfer c.8% of GDP annually via state spending from rich areas to poor areas. The EU does about 0.5%. I don’t think UK taxpayers would accept increasing our contributions from £150m net a week to £1.5bn a week. Discuss
I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.
When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.
When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?
The 2016 Referendum was couched in very general terms - no specific deal or proposal was presented to the electorate.Having voted Leave myself , I see nothing unreasonable or undemocratic in going back to the people with the message ' We have made every effort to leave the EU as directed by the June 2016 Referendum. This is the best deal available to us. Do you still wish to proceed?'
That's not true though. May has utterly bungled the negotiations. And even now there is an option to leave: we just leave.
That option was not campaigned for and actively dismissed by Leave campaigners. The public did not vote for food shortages and disruptions to medical supplies. If Britain is to leave the EU with those risks, it needs a mandate first.
And there won't be food shortages and disruptions to medical supplies, so that's a moot point.
And your evidence for that assertion is based on... what exactly?
That I don't believe the EU will impose an economic blockade.
Of course they won't. But that won't stop widespread delays and shortages as new customs checks necessarily come into operation.
Now you see, the problem with the UK not being in the Eurozone is something that is not highlighted often enough when people talk about the costs and benefits of staying in.
Most of the EU states are in the Eurozone. If the currency is going to be made to work in the long term then they are going to need to give more power and authority to the centre. They will also, over time, need to make more and more common or co-ordinated decisions. They will caucus, and eventually the ability of countries to block core EU initiatives by qualified minority will become redundant. Then the ring of non-Euro states - including us - will find themselves effectively in a similar place to Norway by default. Yes, we'll also have our seats in the European Parliament (although whether or not non-Euro MEPs will be treated, either formally or informally, as second class remains to be seen,) but on the other hand we won't have the limited freedoms or additional protections enjoyed by the EFTA states.
In short, Britain will end up in exactly the position of powerlessness that today's Remain supporters claim as the key reason why we should reject any compromise Brexit deal such as that negotiated by Theresa May, and stay in the EU as a full member.
Given these circumstances, there are only two courses of action that make long-term sense for the country:
1. Accept that the days of the UK as a sovereign state are numbered, drop all our opt-outs and join the Euro. Then at least we would be a full participant in the project, and it should also solve the perfidious Albion problem at a stroke. We'd be locked in and we wouldn't be receiving any of the special perks that are resented. 2. Declare that the days of the UK as a sovereign state are not numbered, and make a clean break with the EU project rather than sit permanently in its outer orbit as a protectorate.
If people can't be persuaded to accept option 1 (and almost nobody in Britain, whichever side they were on in that accursed referendum, believes the Euro to be a success story,) then why not proceed directly to option 2? The longer we put off the inevitable, the more painful doing so becomes.
Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.
Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.
You do appreciate that as the metaphorical good ship Britain cuts its ties to the EU and drifts off into the wide blue ocean, significant chunks of it are going to detach themselves from Britain and row as quickly as possible back to the EU?
Possibly, but that's up to them, isn't it? If you're going to treat the UK in the manner that we do, i.e. as a voluntary association, then you have also to accept that, at some point, the members may develop irreconcilable differences and decide to go their separate ways - and have the right to do so. In fact, a union that is not defined as permanent and indissoluble is, by definition, bound to be temporary.
Brexit might be the cause of the dissolution of the UK, but that, in and of itself, is insufficient reason not to go ahead and do it, if enough of our people believe that the imperative to get out of the European Union outweighs that of holding the British Union together. Besides, as I just said our attitude to our country necessarily implies impermanence. The UK has been revealed through devolution to be a construct of transitory convenience to its members that can and will be dissolved eventually. It is just a matter of time.
The Sunday Times reports Deputy PM David Lidington and Justice Secretary David Gauke after talks with Labour MPs have concluded there is more support for EUref2 than a Norway-style deal if May's Deal fails.
Civil servants are now also openly wargaming two EU referendum questions as EUref2 becomes more likely. The first would be a straight choice between May's Deal and Remain, the second would see a Leave v Remain question and if Leave won a second question would ask them if they wanted to leave under the terms of May's Deal or under a No Deal departure on WTO terms.
17 Labour MPs also reportedly in talks about breaking away from the Labour Party if Corbyn fails to back EUref2
If Benn's amendment passes does the main vote actually go ahead at that point ?
It's hard to see how it could make sense for it to do so, but perhaps for reasons of parliamentary protocol it would have to.
On the numbers, Benn's amendment looks very likely to be passed, unless it is ruled out of order. It is a bit of a 'This House wants the government to genetically engineer a unicorn by tomorrow evening' amendment.
Edit: It would also have the effect of ruling out a Revoke vs Deal referendum. Perhaps for that reason I'm wrong, and it won't pass.
Why indeed. There’s a good reason that we are a representative democracy and don’t ask people specific multifaceted questions which they have to answer in simplistic binary terms.
And yet we ask the MPs - chosen by the people on grounds utterly divorced from any innate intelligence or expertise - to make these decisions for us when they are under additional influences based on personal advancement and party political pressure.
The Sunday Times reports Deputy PM David Lidington and Justice Secretary David Gauke after talks with Labour MPs have concluded there is more support for EUref2 than a Norway-style deal if May's Deal fails.
Civil servants are now also openly wargaming two EU referendum questions as EUref2 becomes more likely. The first would be a straight choice between May's Deal and Remain, the second would see a Leave v Remain question and if Leave won a second question would ask them if they wanted to leave under the terms of May's Deal or under a No Deal departure on WTO terms.
17 Labour MPs also reportedly in talks about breaking away from the Labour Party if Corbyn fails to back EUref2
I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.
When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.
When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?
The 2016 Referendum was couched in very general terms - no specific deal or proposal was presented to the electorate.Having voted Leave myself , I see nothing unreasonable or undemocratic in going back to the people with the message ' We have made every effort to leave the EU as directed by the June 2016 Referendum. This is the best deal available to us. Do you still wish to proceed?'
That's not true though. May has utterly bungled the negotiations. And even now there is an option to leave: we just leave.
I don't think it reasonable to interpret the 2016 Referendum result as indicating a willingness to leave regardless of the terms or circumstances. I certainly did not vote Leave on that basis , and always wanted - perhaps naively assumed - that the final agreed terms of departure would be given to the people in a Confirmatory Referendum.
'It was binding on that parliament and was expected to be politically binding on all future parliaments' is more or less what it says.
So, if we had a written constitution, presumably incorporating the results of binding referendums, 23.06.16 would just be the stuff of politicians' nightmares. We wouldn't actually have to deal with it. Phew, that's a relief...
Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.
Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.
Quite. The logic of some EU supporters on this point fails the Canada test. The Canadians are both economically dependent on their beast of a neighbour and vastly smaller (by population,) in the same way as we are on ours, yet they are very happy with their lot and have absolutely zero interest in the manifold benefits that throwing in the towel and becoming part of the US might provide. Nor do they feel the need to chain themselves to the US by a web of restrictive treaties, subject their legal system to its oversight, and farm out great chunks of their trade, employment and other policies to be written for them by Donald Trump.
YouGov today finds Boris Johnson has the highest number of voters thinking he would make a good PM on 22% of potential successors to May but still less than the PM who is on 30%. On a net rating though Javid does best on -18% to Johnson's -35%.
Full figures.
Good PM Bad PM Net Javid 15% 33% -18% Davis 15% 34% -19% Raab 9% 30% -21% Rudd 14% 37% -23% Johnson 22% 57% -35% Hunt 10% 46% -41% Gove 11% 52% -45%
Another good article by Alanbrooke. I don't think I agree that the Euro is unsustainable - rather, its existence constrain policy options (in much the same way as the lack of a different Scottish currency contains the Scottish government). But if anything I think the article understates the centrifugal forces in the EU at the moment, with even nominally social democrat parties in Eastern Europe in reality as nationalist as anyone.
I agree the Euro is sustainable but not if the EU does not deeply integrate. For the Euro to survive it needs complete fiscal and political union in Europe with unified taxation and spending policies. It needs a country called Europe.
Something that, needless to say, I want no part of.
It will also require (for decades probably) a willing transfer of money from Germany to the poorer parts of the Eurozone. As that looks highly unlikely that zone is eventually going to fall apart.
I read that the US and UK transfer c.8% of GDP annually via state spending from rich areas to poor areas. The EU does about 0.5%. I don’t think UK taxpayers would accept increasing our contributions from £150m net a week to £1.5bn a week. Discuss
We're not in the Eurozone.
It would make no difference. In a few short years the choice will be stark; either we join or we go through Brexit again. And you can be damn sure that the British authorities would have done absolutely nothing to make leaving more palatable than it is now. Indeed it would be even more difficult to get out.
Those are your choices in a few years if we stay - fully subsumed into the EU state or yet another vicious and even more costly fight to extricate ourselves.
The Sunday Times reports Deputy PM David Lidington and Justice Secretary David Gauke after talks with Labour MPs have concluded there is more support for EUref2 than a Norway-style deal if May's Deal fails.
Civil servants are now also openly wargaming two EU referendum questions as EUref2 becomes more likely. The first would be a straight choice between May's Deal and Remain, the second would see a Leave v Remain question and if Leave won a second question would ask them if they wanted to leave under the terms of May's Deal or under a No Deal departure on WTO terms.
17 Labour MPs also reportedly in talks about breaking away from the Labour Party if Corbyn fails to back EUref2
Now you see, the problem with the UK not being in the Eurozone is something that is not highlighted often enough when people talk about the costs and benefits of staying in.
we put off the inevitable, the more painful doing so becomes.
Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.
Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.
We're not the 51st state of the US. No point bringing straw men into the argument.
"May's deal" is not in any meaningful sense "taking control". In nearly three years, Brexit errs have not come up with a realistic plan "to take control". That's not because they are stupid people. It's because of the inherent contradiction of Brexit. As long as we want a close relationship with our European neighbours, and we don't have a viable alternative to that close relationship, it will be on the EU's terms. They own the system and aren't going to change the way they do things or give us a say that is superior to that of a member. We take the access and follow the rules but give up on the governance. The opposite of "taking control".
The Sunday Times reports Deputy PM David Lidington and Justice Secretary David Gauke after talks with Labour MPs have concluded there is more support for EUref2 than a Norway-style deal if May's Deal fails.
Civil servants are now also openly wargaming two EU referendum questions as EUref2 becomes more likely. The first would be a straight choice between May's Deal and Remain, the second would see a Leave v Remain question and if Leave won a second question would ask them if they wanted to leave under the terms of May's Deal or under a No Deal departure on WTO terms.
17 Labour MPs also reportedly in talks about breaking away from the Labour Party if Corbyn fails to back EUref2
Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.
Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.
Quite. The logic of some EU supporters on this point fails the Canada test. The Canadians are both economically dependent on their beast of a neighbour and vastly smaller (by population,) in the same way as we are on ours, yet they are very happy with their lot and have absolutely zero interest in the manifold benefits that throwing in the towel and becoming part of the US might provide. Nor do they feel the need to chain themselves to the US by a web of restrictive treaties, subject their legal system to its oversight, and farm out great chunks of their trade, employment and other policies to be written for them by Donald Trump.
Why can't we be another Canada?
Because as a nation we don’t like the idea of playing second fiddle to France and Germany.
BUT Labour becomes the Gov't if the deal................. passes.
The deal isn't going to pass. But if it did, then there would be a General Election. The DUP would bring down the Government and then vote against the installation of any alternative. Nobody would be able to win a vote of confidence, and we'd be off to the polls, presumably in late January.
Another good article by Alanbrooke. I don't think I agree that the Euro is unsustainable - rather, its existence constrain policy options (in much the same way as the lack of a different Scottish currency contains the Scottish government). But if anything I think the article understates the centrifugal forces in the EU at the moment, with even nominally social democrat parties in Eastern Europe in reality as nationalist as anyone.
I agree the Euro is sustainable but not if the EU does not deeply integrate. For the Euro to survive it needs complete fiscal and political union in Europe with unified taxation and spending policies. It needs a country called Europe.
Based on that logic USA is also insufficiently integrated.
Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.
Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.
Quite. The logic of some EU supporters on this point fails the Canada test. The Canadians are both economically dependent on their beast of a neighbour and vastly smaller (by population,) in the same way as we are on ours, yet they are very happy with their lot and have absolutely zero interest in the manifold benefits that throwing in the towel and becoming part of the US might provide. Nor do they feel the need to chain themselves to the US by a web of restrictive treaties, subject their legal system to its oversight, and farm out great chunks of their trade, employment and other policies to be written for them by Donald Trump.
Why can't we be another Canada?
Because as a nation we don’t like the idea of playing second fiddle to France and Germany.
I think we're moving a bit beyond these archaic rivalries.
Either the EU eventually collapses, in which case the more distance we put between us and the Eurotanic as it sinks, the better. Or it thrives, in which case France and Germany, as sovereign states, eventually cease to exist.
The Sunday Times reports Deputy PM David Lidington and Justice Secretary David Gauke after talks with Labour MPs have concluded there is more support for EUref2 than a Norway-style deal if May's Deal fails.
Civil servants are now also openly wargaming two EU referendum questions as EUref2 becomes more likely. The first would be a straight choice between May's Deal and Remain, the second would see a Leave v Remain question and if Leave won a second question would ask them if they wanted to leave under the terms of May's Deal or under a No Deal departure on WTO terms.
17 Labour MPs also reportedly in talks about breaking away from the Labour Party if Corbyn fails to back EUref2
Now you see, the problem with the UK not being in the Eurozone is something that is not highlighted often enough when people talk about the costs and benefits of staying in.
we put off the inevitable, the more painful doing so becomes.
Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.
Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.
We're not the 51st state of the US. No point bringing straw men into the argument.
"May's deal" is not in any meaningful sense "taking control". In nearly three years, Brexit errs have not come up with a realistic plan "to take control". That's not because they are stupid people. It's because of the inherent contradiction of Brexit. As long as we want a close relationship with our European neighbours, and we don't have a viable alternative to that close relationship, it will be on the EU's terms. They own the system and aren't going to change the way they do things or give us a say that is superior to that of a member. We take the access and follow the rules but give up on the governance. The opposite of "taking control".
This garbage again. Yes Brexiteers have come up with workable plans. The trouble is to actually get those plans on the table they have to be in control and yet again it is pointing out that all the levers have been held by Remainers using a few Leave ministers as a smoke screen.
Now you can always come up with objections to these plans because in the end the only thing that really interests you is remaining. But that doesn't mean the plans are not valid or workable. Or at least would be if we had actually had people in charge who wanted to leave rather than wanting to just survive in office for as long as possible.
Another good article by Alanbrooke. I don't think I agree that the Euro is unsustainable - rather, its existence constrain policy options (in much the same way as the lack of a different Scottish currency contains the Scottish government). But if anything I think the article understates the centrifugal forces in the EU at the moment, with even nominally social democrat parties in Eastern Europe in reality as nationalist as anyone.
I agree the Euro is sustainable but not if the EU does not deeply integrate. For the Euro to survive it needs complete fiscal and political union in Europe with unified taxation and spending policies. It needs a country called Europe.
Based on that logic USA is also insufficiently integrated.
Only if you want to keep the Euro. Nothing sacrosanct about that especially when the Germans find out that the Greeks can’t actually repay their debt and that the Germans have been working hard just for Greeks to spend the money.
Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.
Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.
Quite. The logic of some EU supporters on this point fails the Canada test. The Canadians are both economically dependent on their beast of a neighbour and vastly smaller (by population,) in the same way as we are on ours, yet they are very happy with their lot and have absolutely zero interest in the manifold benefits that throwing in the towel and becoming part of the US might provide. Nor do they feel the need to chain themselves to the US by a web of restrictive treaties, subject their legal system to its oversight, and farm out great chunks of their trade, employment and other policies to be written for them by Donald Trump.
Why can't we be another Canada?
Because as a nation we don’t like the idea of playing second fiddle to France and Germany.
I think we're moving a bit beyond these archaic rivalries.
Either the EU eventually collapses, in which case the more distance we put between us and the Eurotanic as it sinks, the better. Or it thrives, in which case France and Germany, as sovereign states, eventually cease to exist.
No matter how successful and integrated the EU becomes, it will never look to us like a monolithic entity because we’re too close to it and see all of its nuances.
The Sunday Times reports Deputy PM David Lidington and Justice Secretary David Gauke after talks with Labour MPs have concluded there is more support for EUref2 than a Norway-style deal if May's Deal fails.
Civil servants are now also openly wargaming two EU referendum questions as EUref2 becomes more likely. The first would be a straight choice between May's Deal and Remain, the second would see a Leave v Remain question and if Leave won a second question would ask them if they wanted to leave under the terms of May's Deal or under a No Deal departure on WTO terms.
17 Labour MPs also reportedly in talks about breaking away from the Labour Party if Corbyn fails to back EUref2
We have already had the Remain versus leave referendum so we should go straight to May Deal or No Deal.
That may be the case but it seems Whitehall is only prepared for two questions both of which have Remain and Deal but only one of which has No Deal as an option and then only if Leave beats Remain on a first question. The establishment will only allow No Deal on the ballot through gritted teeth it seems
Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.
Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.
Quite. The logic of some EU supporters on this point fails the Canada test. The Canadians are both economically dependent on their beast of a neighbour and vastly smaller (by population,) in the same way as we are on ours, yet they are very happy with their lot and have absolutely zero interest in the manifold benefits that throwing in the towel and becoming part of the US might provide. Nor do they feel the need to chain themselves to the US by a web of restrictive treaties, subject their legal system to its oversight, and farm out great chunks of their trade, employment and other policies to be written for them by Donald Trump.
Why can't we be another Canada?
Because as a nation we don’t like the idea of playing second fiddle to France and Germany.
Well we have done that within the EU for the last 40 years. Why is it suddenly a problem now?
Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.
Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.
Quite. The logic of some EU supporters on this point fails the Canada test. The Canadians are both economically dependent on their beast of a neighbour and vastly smaller (by population,) in the same way as we are on ours, yet they are very happy with their lot and have absolutely zero interest in the manifold benefits that throwing in the towel and becoming part of the US might provide. Nor do they feel the need to chain themselves to the US by a web of restrictive treaties, subject their legal system to its oversight, and farm out great chunks of their trade, employment and other policies to be written for them by Donald Trump.
Why can't we be another Canada?
Because as a nation we don’t like the idea of playing second fiddle to France and Germany.
I think we're moving a bit beyond these archaic rivalries.
Either the EU eventually collapses, in which case the more distance we put between us and the Eurotanic as it sinks, the better. Or it thrives, in which case France and Germany, as sovereign states, eventually cease to exist.
Cease to exist in the same way as, say, California or New York or Texas have ceased to exist?
The Sunday Times reports Deputy PM David Lidington and Justice Secretary David Gauke after talks with Labour MPs have concluded there is more support for EUref2 than a Norway-style deal if May's Deal fails.
Civil servants are now also openly wargaming two EU referendum questions as EUref2 becomes more likely. The first would be a straight choice between May's Deal and Remain, the second would see a Leave v Remain question and if Leave won a second question would ask them if they wanted to leave under the terms of May's Deal or under a No Deal departure on WTO terms.
17 Labour MPs also reportedly in talks about breaking away from the Labour Party if Corbyn fails to back EUref2
The Sunday Times reports Deputy PM David Lidington and Justice Secretary David Gauke after talks with Labour MPs have concluded there is more support for EUref2 than a Norway-style deal if May's Deal fails.
Civil servants are now also openly wargaming two EU referendum questions as EUref2 becomes more likely. The first would be a straight choice between May's Deal and Remain, the second would see a Leave v Remain question and if Leave won a second question would ask them if they wanted to leave under the terms of May's Deal or under a No Deal departure on WTO terms.
17 Labour MPs also reportedly in talks about breaking away from the Labour Party if Corbyn fails to back EUref2
That may be the case but it seems Whitehall is only prepared for two questions both of which have Remain and Deal but only one of which has No Deal as an option and then only if Leave beats Remain on a first question. The establishment will only allow No Deal on the ballot through gritted teeth it seems
How the hell is No Deal going to get through Parliament if May's Deal can't? Does anyone actually believe that if we voted for it that it would happen?
The Sunday Times reports Deputy PM David Lidington and Justice Secretary David Gauke after talks with Labour MPs have concluded there is more support for EUref2 than a Norway-style deal if May's Deal fails.
Civil servants are now also openly wargaming two EU referendum questions as EUref2 becomes more likely. The first would be a straight choice between May's Deal and Remain, the second would see a Leave v Remain question and if Leave won a second question would ask them if they wanted to leave under the terms of May's Deal or under a No Deal departure on WTO terms.
17 Labour MPs also reportedly in talks about breaking away from the Labour Party if Corbyn fails to back EUref2
Case 1: May's Deal will have already been rejected by Parliament
Case 2: If we pick Leave then the two options are the rejected May's Deal and No Deal.
What's to stop Parliament blocking those outcomes? There's no majority for any of them.
Case 1: True but there is probably more support still for May's Deal in Parliament than for No Deal and those are the only 2 Leave options now short of outright BINO
Case 2: Correct.
I assume these questions have been based on Lidington's consultations with MPs and are therefore the only ones with a majority and also the only ones the Government will put forward
The Sunday Times reports Deputy PM David Lidington and Justice Secretary David Gauke after talks with Labour MPs have concluded there is more support for EUref2 than a Norway-style deal if May's Deal fails.
Civil servants are now also openly wargaming two EU referendum questions as EUref2 becomes more likely. The first would be a straight choice between May's Deal and Remain, the second would see a Leave v Remain question and if Leave won a second question would ask them if they wanted to leave under the terms of May's Deal or under a No Deal departure on WTO terms.
17 Labour MPs also reportedly in talks about breaking away from the Labour Party if Corbyn fails to back EUref2
Case 1: May's Deal will have already been rejected by Parliament
Case 2: If we pick Leave then the two options are the rejected May's Deal and No Deal.
What's to stop Parliament blocking those outcomes? There's no majority for any of them.
Hence a compromise with all options which parliament doesn't like but makes all think their path would win. It's a gamble. One I'd rather they not take, but time for remainers and no dealers to see if they are indeed the will of the people.
Another good article by Alanbrooke. I don't think I agree that the Euro is unsustainable - rather, its existence constrain policy options (in much the same way as the lack of a different Scottish currency contains the Scottish government). But if anything I think the article understates the centrifugal forces in the EU at the moment, with even nominally social democrat parties in Eastern Europe in reality as nationalist as anyone.
I agree the Euro is sustainable but not if the EU does not deeply integrate. For the Euro to survive it needs complete fiscal and political union in Europe with unified taxation and spending policies. It needs a country called Europe.
Based on that logic USA is also insufficiently integrated.
Nope. The USA is indeed a single country - in case you missed it - with an overarching system of federal taxation and federal laws.
Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.
Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.
Quite. The logic of some EU supporters on this point fails the Canada test. The Canadians are both economically dependent on their beast of a neighbour and vastly smaller (by population,) in the same way as we are on ours, yet they are very happy with their lot and have absolutely zero interest in the manifold benefits that throwing in the towel and becoming part of the US might provide. Nor do they feel the need to chain themselves to the US by a web of restrictive treaties, subject their legal system to its oversight, and farm out great chunks of their trade, employment and other policies to be written for them by Donald Trump.
Why can't we be another Canada?
Because as a nation we don’t like the idea of playing second fiddle to France and Germany.
Well we have done that within the EU for the last 40 years. Why is it suddenly a problem now?
UK foreign policy has always been towards a disunited Europe. We fought countless wars to prevent the emergence of European hegemonic powers. It seems that we haven't really changed that much.
The EU is simpy the latest in a long line of prospective Euro-hegemons we want to ruin.
Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.
Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.
Quite. The logic of some EU supporters on this point fails the Canada test. The Canadians are both economically dependent on their beast of a neighbour and vastly smaller (by population,) in the same way as we are on ours, yet they are very happy with their lot and have absolutely zero interest in the manifold benefits that throwing in the towel and becoming part of the US might provide. Nor do they feel the need to chain themselves to the US by a web of restrictive treaties, subject their legal system to its oversight, and farm out great chunks of their trade, employment and other policies to be written for them by Donald Trump.
Why can't we be another Canada?
Because as a nation we don’t like the idea of playing second fiddle to France and Germany.
Well we have done that within the EU for the last 40 years. Why is it suddenly a problem now?
UK foreign policy has always been towards a disunited Europe. We fought countless wars to prevent the emergence of European hegemonic powers. It seems that we haven't really changed that much.
The EU is simpy the latest in a long line of prospective Euro-hegemons we want to ruin.
That was when Europe ran the world and so a United Europe would rival us.
Quite frankly Europe is just not that important anymore. It doesn't matter if the Eurozone unites it will still be a minor player compared to the USA and China.
Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.
Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.
Quite. The logic of some EU supporters on this point fails the Canada test. The Canadians are both economically dependent on their beast of a neighbour and vastly smaller (by population,) in the same way as we are on ours, yet they are very happy with their lot and have absolutely zero interest in the manifold benefits that throwing in the towel and becoming part of the US might provide. Nor do they feel the need to chain themselves to the US by a web of restrictive treaties, subject their legal system to its oversight, and farm out great chunks of their trade, employment and other policies to be written for them by Donald Trump.
Why can't we be another Canada?
Because as a nation we don’t like the idea of playing second fiddle to France and Germany.
Well we have done that within the EU for the last 40 years. Why is it suddenly a problem now?
UK foreign policy has always been towards a disunited Europe. We fought countless wars to prevent the emergence of European hegemonic powers. It seems that we haven't really changed that much.
The EU is simpy the latest in a long line of prospective Euro-hegemons we want to ruin.
With the shift to QMV, we've lost any ability to ruin it from the inside
That may be the case but it seems Whitehall is only prepared for two questions both of which have Remain and Deal but only one of which has No Deal as an option and then only if Leave beats Remain on a first question. The establishment will only allow No Deal on the ballot through gritted teeth it seems
How the hell is No Deal going to get through Parliament if May's Deal can't? Does anyone actually believe that if we voted for it that it would happen?
Only if the authorising act for a referendum made it binding. Otherwise, no. As we've been told over and over, leaving is insane (and no deal leaving even more so), and if that is indeed so what lunatic remainer would allow no deal to take place just because the people voted for it twice?
If parliament won't risk no deal it shouldn't ask the people to potentially choose it. It has already technically risked it as a default but is stepping back from that.
If Benn's amendment passes does the main vote actually go ahead at that point ?
It's hard to see how it could make sense for it to do so, but perhaps for reasons of parliamentary protocol it would have to.
On the numbers, Benn's amendment looks very likely to be passed, unless it is ruled out of order. It is a bit of a 'This House wants the government to genetically engineer a unicorn by tomorrow evening' amendment.
You'd think, on balance, Mr Speaker should rule the Benn amendment out of order and not select it, but the opportunity for his ego to be at the centre of Parliamentary theatrics means he won't.
That may be the case but it seems Whitehall is only prepared for two questions both of which have Remain and Deal but only one of which has No Deal as an option and then only if Leave beats Remain on a first question. The establishment will only allow No Deal on the ballot through gritted teeth it seems
How the hell is No Deal going to get through Parliament if May's Deal can't? Does anyone actually believe that if we voted for it that it would happen?
On that basis then Remain v Deal is more likely ie the first question civil servants are preparing for
Hence a compromise with all options which parliament doesn't like but makes all think their path would win. It's a gamble. One I'd rather they not take, but time for remainers and no dealers to see if they are indeed the will of the people.
I simply can not see how Parliament would pass legislation to enable a deal we are told they will reject by a huge margin next week, and No Deal is that times ten. If there is to be a second referendum the options have to be things Parliament will pass, not things they've rejected, or swear they will block in any circumstance.
I've little doubt that if either of those referendums are carried out, and we vote Leave where the options are May's Deal or No Deal, then we will be heading straight to a third referendum.
Hence a compromise with all options which parliament doesn't like but makes all think their path would win. It's a gamble. One I'd rather they not take, but time for remainers and no dealers to see if they are indeed the will of the people.
I simply can not see how Parliament would pass legislation to enable a deal we are told they will reject by a huge margin next week, and No Deal is that times ten. If there is to be a second referendum the options have to be things Parliament will pass, not things they've rejected, or swear they will block in any circumstance.
I've little doubt that if either of those referendums are carried out, and we vote Leave where the options are May's Deal or No Deal, then we will be heading straight to a third referendum.
I agree it would be a farce for no deal or May's deal to be included, but I'm operating on the basis that a majority of the Commons clearly wants to remain, but is too scared to do so without further democratic cover. Ergo it has to be remain up in a vote against something.
Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.
Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.
Quite. The logic of some EU supporters on this point fails the Canada test. The Canadians are both economically dependent on their beast of part of the US might provide. Nor do they feel the need to chain themselves to the US by a web of restrictive treaties, subject their legal system to its oversight, and farm out great chunks of their trade, employment and other policies to be written for them by Donald Trump.
Why can't we be another Canada?
Because as a nation we don’t like the idea of playing second fiddle to France and Germany.
Well we have done that within the EU for the last 40 years. Why is it suddenly a problem now?
Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.
Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.
Quite. The logic of some EU supporters on this point fails the Canada test. The Canadians are both economically dependent on their beast to the US by a web of restrictive treaties, subject their legal system to its oversight, and farm out great chunks of their trade, employment and other policies to be written for them by Donald Trump.
Why can't we be another Canada?
Because as a nation we don’t like the idea of playing second fiddle to France and Germany.
Well we have done that within the EU for the last 40 years. Why is it suddenly a problem now?
It became a problem because we allowed ourselves to be marginalised by staying out of the Euro, hence Brexit.
Hence a compromise with all options which parliament doesn't like but makes all think their path would win. It's a gamble. One I'd rather they not take, but time for remainers and no dealers to see if they are indeed the will of the people.
I simply can not see how Parliament would pass legislation to enable a deal we are told they will reject by a huge margin next week, and No Deal is that times ten. If there is to be a second referendum the options have to be things Parliament will pass, not things they've rejected, or swear they will block in any circumstance.
I've little doubt that if either of those referendums are carried out, and we vote Leave where the options are May's Deal or No Deal, then we will be heading straight to a third referendum.
Mostly, it's May's final play. After Tuesday, May only has one opportunity to save her deal, and that's get it approved in a referendum. The difficutly for May is that her party will depose her long before she has a chance to bring forward a referendum bill.
Hence a compromise with all options which parliament doesn't like but makes all think their path would win. It's a gamble. One I'd rather they not take, but time for remainers and no dealers to see if they are indeed the will of the people.
I simply can not see how Parliament would pass legislation to enable a deal we are told they will reject by a huge margin next week, and No Deal is that times ten. If there is to be a second referendum the options have to be things Parliament will pass, not things they've rejected, or swear they will block in any circumstance.
I've little doubt that if either of those referendums are carried out, and we vote Leave where the options are May's Deal or No Deal, then we will be heading straight to a third referendum.
Mostly, it's May's final play. After Tuesday, May only has one opportunity to save her deal, and that's get it approved in a referendum. The difficutly for May is that her party will depose her long before she has a chance to bring forward a referendum bill.
They still believe in a negotiation. May surviving or not the first action will be to beg Brussels for some further concessions. Only if that fails will the Tories start as a whole start accepting the idea of a second referendum, though how they might fall on the question and options I am less sure about.
I agree it would be a farce for no deal or May's deal to be included, but I'm operating on the basis that a majority of the Commons clearly wants to remain, but is too scared to do so without further democratic cover. Ergo it has to be remain up in a vote against something.
I think you are correct, they want cover for a climb-down, anything else will be another wrong result.
The Sunday Times reports Deputy PM David Lidington and Justice Secretary David Gauke after talks with Labour MPs have concluded there is more support for EUref2 than a Norway-style deal if May's Deal fails.
Civil servants are now also openly wargaming two EU referendum questions as EUref2 becomes more likely. The first would be a straight choice between May's Deal and Remain, the second would see a Leave v Remain question and if Leave won a second question would ask them if they wanted to leave under the terms of May's Deal or under a No Deal departure on WTO terms.
17 Labour MPs also reportedly in talks about breaking away from the Labour Party if Corbyn fails to back EUref2
We have already had the Remain versus leave referendum so we should go straight to May Deal or No Deal.
I will repeat my post of earlier today - the last referendum did not offer remain it offered Cameron’s deal or leave.
So why did my ballot paper invite me to put a cross next to a statement saying 'Remain a member of the European Union'? And how would a new referendum ask the question differently if it means something different?
Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.
Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.
Quite. The logic of some EU supporters on this point fails the Canada test. The Canadians are both economically dependent on their beast of a neighbour and vastly smaller (by population,) in the same way as we are on ours, yet they are very happy with their lot and have absolutely zero interest in the manifold benefits that throwing in the towel and becoming part of the US might provide. Nor do they feel the need to chain themselves to the US by a web of restrictive treaties, subject their legal system to its oversight, and farm out great chunks of their trade, employment and other policies to be written for them by Donald Trump.
Why can't we be another Canada?
Because as a nation we don’t like the idea of playing second fiddle to France and Germany.
I think we're moving a bit beyond these archaic rivalries.
Either the EU eventually collapses, in which case the more distance we put between us and the Eurotanic as it sinks, the better. Or it thrives, in which case France and Germany, as sovereign states, eventually cease to exist.
Cease to exist in the same way as, say, California or New York or Texas have ceased to exist?
Yes, that's not a bad analogy.
Brexit is, at root, a philosophical dispute about whether we want to be a sovereign state, part of a federation, or a protectorate. Do we want to continue to exist as a separate entity (as Canada to Europe's US,) or do we want to be a medium-sized element of a larger union (as Europe's New York State?)
You could make a cogent argument for either. Personally, I prefer Canada. But I'd rather be New York State than Guam.
Beyond that, if we did end up as part of a European superstate then we shouldn't necessarily expect that it will make people settled. The history of such multinational entities is not happy. Look at the Soviet Union. Or Austria-Hungary. Or us.
Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.
Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.
Quite. The logic of some EU supporters on this point fails the Canada test. The Canadians are both economically dependent on their beast of a neighbour and vastly smaller (by population,) in the same way as we are on ours, yet they are very happy with their lot and have absolutely zero interest in the manifold benefits that throwing in the towel and becoming part of the US might provide. Nor do they feel the need to chain themselves to the US by a web of restrictive treaties, subject their legal system to its oversight, and farm out great chunks of their trade, employment and other policies to be written for them by Donald Trump.
Why can't we be another Canada?
Because as a nation we don’t like the idea of playing second fiddle to France and Germany.
Well we have done that within the EU for the last 40 years. Why is it suddenly a problem now?
UK foreign policy has always been towards a disunited Europe. We fought countless wars to prevent the emergence of European hegemonic powers. It seems that we haven't really changed that much.
The EU is simpy the latest in a long line of prospective Euro-hegemons we want to ruin.
Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm, Hitler....what Euro spoil-sports we are.
Hence a compromise with all options which parliament doesn't like but makes all think their path would win. It's a gamble. One I'd rather they not take, but time for remainers and no dealers to see if they are indeed the will of the people.
I simply can not see how Parliament would pass legislation to enable a deal we are told they will reject by a huge margin next week, and No Deal is that times ten. If there is to be a second referendum the options have to be things Parliament will pass, not things they've rejected, or swear they will block in any circumstance.
I've little doubt that if either of those referendums are carried out, and we vote Leave where the options are May's Deal or No Deal, then we will be heading straight to a third referendum.
Mostly, it's May's final play. After Tuesday, May only has one opportunity to save her deal, and that's get it approved in a referendum. The difficutly for May is that her party will depose her long before she has a chance to bring forward a referendum bill.
They still believe in a negotiation. May surviving or not the first action will be to beg Brussels for some further concessions. Only if that fails will the Tories start as a whole start accepting the idea of a second referendum, though how they might fall on the question and options I am less sure about.
Youve got until march and then we are out. There is no second referendum once we are out, to join the god awful deal we currently have. Any future deal would be even worse. Always the bill payer, no thanks.
Hence a compromise with all options which parliament doesn't like but makes all think their path would win. It's a gamble. One I'd rather they not take, but time for remainers and no dealers to see if they are indeed the will of the people.
I simply can not see how Parliament would pass legislation to enable a deal we are told they will reject by a huge margin next week, and No Deal is that times ten. If there is to be a second referendum the options have to be things Parliament will pass, not things they've rejected, or swear they will block in any circumstance.
I've little doubt that if either of those referendums are carried out, and we vote Leave where the options are May's Deal or No Deal, then we will be heading straight to a third referendum.
Mostly, it's May's final play. After Tuesday, May only has one opportunity to save her deal, and that's get it approved in a referendum. The difficutly for May is that her party will depose her long before she has a chance to bring forward a referendum bill.
They still believe in a negotiation. May surviving or not the first action will be to beg Brussels for some further concessions. Only if that fails will the Tories start as a whole start accepting the idea of a second referendum, though how they might fall on the question and options I am less sure about.
So, let me get this straight. What Cabinet wants is for May to go back to Brussels and tell them *she* rejects the deal *she* negotiated and *she* signed? And then demand the renegotiation *she* told us was impossible, and *she* got the EU to demand was also impossible?
Yeah, that sounds like a fruitful strategy alright. It definitely won't get *her* laughed out of the Europa Building.
Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.
Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.
Quite. The logic of some EU supporters on this point fails the Canada test. The Canadians are both economically dependent on their beast of a neighbour and vastly smaller (by population,) in the same way as we are on ours, yet they are very happy with their lot and have absolutely zero interest in the manifold benefits that throwing in the towel and becoming part of the US might provide. Nor do they feel the need to chain themselves to the US by a web of restrictive treaties, subject their legal system to its oversight, and farm out great chunks of their trade, employment and other policies to be written for them by Donald Trump.
Why can't we be another Canada?
We can be Canada if we are prepared to negotiate for years and take a significant hit to our living standards at the end of it. But we won't be. We're too invested in the European system for that. So we we will stay in the system because of our inability to come up with anything better. That inability is real, which is why we are in this mess.
It could be an interesting week in the football press. It's a big accusation made by Stirling and those that work for the Mail need to decide if they think he's right or not. If they think he's wrong, they need to say so. And if they think he's right, they need to quite their jobs. I get sick and tired of football writers saying "we don't have control over what the front of the paper does." Sorry, that just does not wash.
FWIW, I don't think Stirling gets anything that Rooney didn't. And I don't think his comparison of Foden to a player no one has heard of is particularly helpful. I think it's bad for football that kids who are nowhere near the first team are on £25,000 a week. Jadon Sancho and others deserve much credit for shunning the money to go abroad to play first team football.
Hence a compromise with all options which parliament doesn't like but makes all think their path would win. It's a gamble. One I'd rather they not take, but time for remainers and no dealers to see if they are indeed the will of the people.
I simply can not see how Parliament would pass legislation to enable a deal we are told they will reject by a huge margin next week, and No Deal is that times ten. If there is to be a second referendum the options have to be things Parliament will pass, not things they've rejected, or swear they will block in any circumstance.
I've little doubt that if either of those referendums are carried out, and we vote Leave where the options are May's Deal or No Deal, then we will be heading straight to a third referendum.
The only Leave options now are May's Deal or No Deal, short of BINO single market and customs union in which case we may as well Remain on current terms anyway.
Hence civil servants are preparing for a May Deal v Remain referendum or a Leave v Remain referendum with Deal or No Deal to be decided in a second question if Leave wins as even if MPs want to Remain they have to get that approved by referendum against Leave and those are the only Leave options on the table
Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.
Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.
Quite. The logic of some EU supporters on this point fails the Canada test. The Canadians are both economically dependent on their beast of part of the US might provide. Nor do they feel the need to chain themselves to the US by a web of restrictive treaties, subject their legal system to its oversight, and farm out great chunks of their trade, employment and other policies to be written for them by Donald Trump.
Why can't we be another Canada?
Because as a nation we don’t like the idea of playing second fiddle to France and Germany.
Well we have done that within the EU for the last 40 years. Why is it suddenly a problem now?
Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.
Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying o
SNIP
Because as a nation we don’t like the idea of playing second fiddle to France and Germany.
Well we have done that within the EU for the last 40 years. Why is it suddenly a problem now?
It became a problem because we allowed ourselves to be marginalised by staying out of the Euro, hence Brexit.
How do you think we would have got on in the Euro?
Every serious commentator reckons the 2008 crash would have been far worse for us if we had been in Euro.
The interest rate policy for eurozone was set to the benefit of Germany with disastrous results for other EU members - Do you think it would have been a positive for us?
The Sunday Times reports Deputy PM David Lidington and Justice Secretary David Gauke after talks with Labour MPs have concluded there is more support for EUref2 than a Norway-style deal if May's Deal fails.
Civil servants are now also openly wargaming two EU referendum questions as EUref2 becomes more likely. The first would be a straight choice between May's Deal and Remain, the second would see a Leave v Remain question and if Leave won a second question would ask them if they wanted to leave under the terms of May's Deal or under a No Deal departure on WTO terms.
17 Labour MPs also reportedly in talks about breaking away from the Labour Party if Corbyn fails to back EUref2
Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.
Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.
Quite. The logic of some EU supporters on this point fails the Canada test. The Canadians are both economically dependent on their beast of a neighbour and vastly smaller (by population,) in the same way as we are on ours, yet they are very happy with their lot and have absolutely zero interest in the manifold benefits that throwing in the towel and becoming part of the US might provide. Nor do they feel the need to chain themselves to the US by a web of restrictive treaties, subject their legal system to its oversight, and farm out great chunks of their trade, employment and other policies to be written for them by Donald Trump.
Why can't we be another Canada?
Because as a nation we don’t like the idea of playing second fiddle to France and Germany.
Well we have done that within the EU for the last 40 years. Why is it suddenly a problem now?
UK foreign policy has always been towards a disunited Europe. We fought countless wars to prevent the emergence of European hegemonic powers. It seems that we haven't really changed that much.
The EU is simpy the latest in a long line of prospective Euro-hegemons we want to ruin.
Absolutely. Our Leave agenda will be to destroy the EU. European nations know, or at least believe, that. Their negotiating position reflects that mistrust.
Hence a compromise with all options which parliament doesn't like but makes all think their path would win. It's a gamble. One I'd rather they not take, but time for remainers and no dealers to see if they are indeed the will of the people.
I simply can not see how Parliament would pass legislation to enable a deal we are told they will reject by a huge margin next week, and No Deal is that times ten. If there is to be a second referendum the options have to be things Parliament will pass, not things they've rejected, or swear they will block in any circumstance.
I've little doubt that if either of those referendums are carried out, and we vote Leave where the options are May's Deal or No Deal, then we will be heading straight to a third referendum.
Mostly, it's May's final play. After Tuesday, May only has one opportunity to save her deal, and that's get it approved in a referendum. The difficutly for May is that her party will depose her long before she has a chance to bring forward a referendum bill.
They still believe in a negotiation. May surviving or not the first action will be to beg Brussels for some further concessions. Only if that fails will the Tories start as a whole start accepting the idea of a second referendum, though how they might fall on the question and options I am less sure about.
So, let me get this straight. What Cabinet wants is for May to go back to Brussels and tell them *she* rejects the deal *she* negotiated and *she* signed? And then demand the renegotiation *she* told us was impossible, and *she* got the EU to demand was also impossible?
Yeah, that sounds like a fruitful strategy alright. It definitely won't get *her* laughed out of the Europa Building.
That people are believing in unicorns is well established. I see no reason May should continue even if she does not resign, but that is the only action she can take if she does not quit or get sacked, and as you point out it is pretty stupid, though she won't be saying she rejects it, she will be saying the Parliament has rejected it and in keeping with the wishes of the House of Commons she is seeking further concessions.
That she does not believe that is possible, and the is very likely to say 'We've told you over and over you can have x or y but not z, and it is up to you to find solutions not us' is neither here nor there as far as what the next step will be - Labour and the Tories both believe renegotiation will occur. The Tories by virtue of being in government will get first crack at renegotiating, and then first shot at proposing something else if that fails.
Hence a compromise with all options which parliament doesn't like but makes all think their path would win. It's a gamble. One I'd rather they not take, but time for remainers and no dealers to see if they are indeed the will of the people.
I simply can not see how Parliament would pass legislation to enable a deal we are told they will reject by a huge margin next week, and No Deal is that times ten. If there is to be a second referendum the options have to be things Parliament will pass, not things they've rejected, or swear they will block in any circumstance.
I've little doubt that if either of those referendums are carried out, and we vote Leave where the options are May's Deal or No Deal, then we will be heading straight to a third referendum.
Mostly, it's May's final play. After Tuesday, May only has one opportunity to save her deal, and that's get it approved in a referendum. The difficutly for May is that her party will depose her long before she has a chance to bring forward a referendum bill.
They still believe in a negotiation. May surviving or not the first action will be to beg Brussels for some further concessions. Only if that fails will the Tories start as a whole start accepting the idea of a second referendum, though how they might fall on the question and options I am less sure about.
So, let me get this straight. What Cabinet wants is for May to go back to Brussels and tell them *she* rejects the deal *she* negotiated and *she* signed? And then demand the renegotiation *she* told us was impossible, and *she* got the EU to demand was also impossible?
Yeah, that sounds like a fruitful strategy alright. It definitely won't get *her* laughed out of the Europa Building.
She wouldn't have rejected it, Parliament would have.
Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.
Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.
Quite. The logic of some EU supporters on this point fails the Canada test. The Canadians are both economically dependent on their beast of a neighbour and vastly smaller (by population,) in the same way as we are on ours, yet they are very happy with their lot and have absolutely zero interest in the manifold benefits that throwing in the towel and becoming part of the US might provide. Nor do they feel the need to chain themselves to the US by a web of restrictive treaties, subject their legal system to its oversight, and farm out great chunks of their trade, employment and other policies to be written for them by Donald Trump.
Why can't we be another Canada?
We can be Canada if we are prepared to negotiate for years and take a significant hit to our living standards at the end of it. But we won't be. We're too invested in the European system for that. So we we will stay in the system because of our inability to come up with anything better. That inability is real, which is why we are in this mess.
I don't think it's so much a matter of inability as unwillingness. Not being part of the European Union is not an insoluble conundrum. It's just that the collection of mostly lazy, duplicitous or stupid individuals that constitute our Parliament don't want to try. That's why we are in this mess.
Hence a compromise with all options which parliament doesn't like but makes all think their path would win. It's a gamble. One I'd rather they not take, but time for remainers and no dealers to see if they are indeed the will of the people.
I simply can not see how Parliament would pass legislation to enable a deal we are told they will reject by a huge margin next week, and No Deal is that times ten. If there is to be a second referendum the options have to be things Parliament will pass, not things they've rejected, or swear they will block in any circumstance.
I've little doubt that if either of those referendums are carried out, and we vote Leave where the options are May's Deal or No Deal, then we will be heading straight to a third referendum.
Mostly, it's May's final play. After Tuesday, May only has one opportunity to save her deal, and that's get it approved in a referendum. The difficutly for May is that her party will depose her long before she has a chance to bring forward a referendum bill.
They still believe in a negotiation. May surviving or not the first action will be to beg Brussels for some further concessions. Only if that fails will the Tories start as a whole start accepting the idea of a second referendum, though how they might fall on the question and options I am less sure about.
So, let me get this straight. What Cabinet wants is for May to go back to Brussels and tell them *she* rejects the deal *she* negotiated and *she* signed? And then demand the renegotiation *she* told us was impossible, and *she* got the EU to demand was also impossible?
Yeah, that sounds like a fruitful strategy alright. It definitely won't get *her* laughed out of the Europa Building.
She wouldn't have rejected it, Parliament would have.
And since she has no idea what Parliament will and will not accept, given how much the deal will be voted down by, she might as well bring along Corbyn, Cable and the SNP so the EU negotiators can tell them all 'It's this deal or you beg for an off the shelf option'.
The Sunday Times reports Deputy PM David Lidington and Justice Secretary David Gauke after talks with Labour MPs have concluded there is more support for EUref2 than a Norway-style deal if May's Deal fails.
Civil servants are now also openly wargaming two EU referendum questions as EUref2 becomes more likely. The first would be a straight choice between May's Deal and Remain, the second would see a Leave v Remain question and if Leave won a second question would ask them if they wanted to leave under the terms of May's Deal or under a No Deal departure on WTO terms.
17 Labour MPs also reportedly in talks about breaking away from the Labour Party if Corbyn fails to back EUref2
We have already had the Remain versus leave referendum so we should go straight to May Deal or No Deal.
I will repeat my post of earlier today - the last referendum did not offer remain it offered Cameron’s deal or leave.
So why did my ballot paper invite me to put a cross next to a statement saying 'Remain a member of the European Union'? And how would a new referendum ask the question differently if it means something different?
It was remain in the EU taking int account the renegotiation Cameron signed. That's now off the table.
Hence a compromise with all options which parliament doesn't like but makes all think their path would win. It's a gamble. One I'd rather they not take, but time for remainers and no dealers to see if they are indeed the will of the people.
I simply can not see how Parliament would pass legislation to enable a deal we are told they will reject by a huge margin next week, and No Deal is that times ten. If there is to be a second referendum the options have to be things Parliament will pass, not things they've rejected, or swear they will block in any circumstance.
I've little doubt that if either of those referendums are carried out, and we vote Leave where the options are May's Deal or No Deal, then we will be heading straight to a third referendum.
Mostly, it's May's final play. After Tuesday, May only has one opportunity to save her deal, and that's get it approved in a referendum. The difficutly for May is that her party will depose her long before she has a chance to bring forward a referendum bill.
They still believe in a negotiation. May surviving or not the first action will be to beg Brussels for some further concessions. Only if that fails will the Tories start as a whole start accepting the idea of a second referendum, though how they might fall on the question and options I am less sure about.
Youve got until march and then we are out. There is no second referendum once we are out, to join the god awful deal we currently have. Any future deal would be even worse. Always the bill payer, no thanks.
It looks increasingly likely based on today's news if May's Deal is not passed in the next fortnight, which is unlikely barring a huge EU concession on the backstop, we will be heading to the polls again for EUref2 in February or early March. The EU have already said they could extend Article 50 if there is an EUref2 with a Remain option
There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an pportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.
I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.
Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
I don't t that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.
When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.
When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?
The 2016 Referendum was couched in very general terms - no specific deal or proposal was presented to the electorate.Having voted Leave myself , I see nothing unreasonable or undemocratic in going back to the people with the message ' We have made every effort to leave the EU as directed by the June 2016 Referendum. This is the best deal available to us. Do you still wish to proceed?'
That's not true though. May has utterly bungled the negotiations. And even now there is an option to leave: we just leave.
That option was not campaigned for and actively dismissed by Leave campaigners. The public did not vote for food shortages and disruptions to medical supplies. If Britain is to leave the EU with those risks, it needs a mandate first.
It has an absolute mandate to leave the EU, on any terms that the Gvt and parliament decide. We will and we must leave the EU in march.
Hence a compromise with all options which parliament doesn't like but makes all think their path would win. It's a gamble. One I'd rather they not take, but time for remainers and no dealers to see if they are indeed the will of the people.
I simply can not see how Parliament would pass legislation to enable a deal we are told they will reject by a huge margin next week, and No Deal is that times ten. If there is to be a second referendum the options have to be things Parliament will pass, not things they've rejected, or swear they will block in any circumstance.
I've little doubt that if either of those referendums are carried out, and we vote Leave where the options are May's Deal or No Deal, then we will be heading straight to a third referendum.
Mostly, it's May's final play. After Tuesday, May only has one opportunity to save her deal, and that's get it approved in a referendum. The difficutly for May is that her party will depose her long before she has a chance to bring forward a referendum bill.
They still believe in a negotiation. May surviving or not the first action will be to beg Brussels for some further concessions. Only if that fails will the Tories start as a whole start accepting the idea of a second referendum, though how they might fall on the question and options I am less sure about.
So, let me get this straight. What Cabinet wants is for May to go back to Brussels and tell them *she* rejects the deal *she* negotiated and *she* signed? And then demand the renegotiation *she* told us was impossible, and *she* got the EU to demand was also impossible?
Yeah, that sounds like a fruitful strategy alright. It definitely won't get *her* laughed out of the Europa Building.
She wouldn't have rejected it, Parliament would have.
"Sure, it's my fault this deal just suffered a galactic-scale shellacking in Parliament, which is why you should totally let me try again!"
I think the EU should take the WA off the table.
"Since the UK Parliament has rejected the WA by a large enough margin that it's clear the UK will never accept any withdrawal agreement that the EU offers in good faith, so do we formally withdraw our offer."
The only Leave options now are May's Deal or No Deal, short of BINO single market and customs union in which case we may as well Remain on current terms anyway.
Hence civil servants are preparing for a May Deal v Remain referendum or a Leave v Remain referendum with Deal or No Deal to be decided in a second question if Leave wins as even if MPs want to Remain they have to get that approved by referendum against Leave and those are the only Leave options on the table
I undestand the point you are making about how the civil service can only prepare for those forms of Leave, but I don't see how Parliament can honour those outcomes when they are about to reject May's Deal next week, and many, many people have made it abundantly clear that No Deal will be blocked.
It would be more honest for Parliament to simply pull the plug on the whole process, rather than to hold a farcical referendum where only the right answer will honoured.
Hence a compromise with all options which parliament doesn't like but makes all think their path would win. It's a gamble. One I'd rather they not take, but time for remainers and no dealers to see if they are indeed the will of the people.
I simply can not see how Parliament would pass legislation to enable a deal we are told they will reject by a huge margin next week, and No Deal is that times ten. If there is to be a second referendum the options have to be things Parliament will pass, not things they've rejected, or swear they will block in any circumstance.
I've little doubt that if either of those referendums are carried out, and we vote Leave where the options are May's Deal or No Deal, then we will be heading straight to a third referendum.
Mostly, it's May's final play. After Tuesday, May only has one opportunity to save her deal, and that's get it approved in a referendum. The difficutly for May is that her party will depose her long before she has a chance to bring forward a referendum bill.
They still believe in a negotiation. May surviving or not the first action will be to beg Brussels for some further concessions. Only if that fails will the Tories start as a whole start accepting the idea of a second referendum, though how they might fall on the question and options I am less sure about.
So, let me get this straight. What Cabinet wants is for May to go back to Brussels and tell them *she* rejects the deal *she* negotiated and *she* signed? And then demand the renegotiation *she* told us was impossible, and *she* got the EU to demand was also impossible?
Yeah, that sounds like a fruitful strategy alright. It definitely won't get *her* laughed out of the Europa Building.
She wouldn't have rejected it, Parliament would have.
And since she has no idea what Parliament will and will not accept, given how much the deal will be voted down by, she might as well bring along Corbyn, Cable and the SNP so the EU negotiators can tell them all 'It's this deal or you beg for an off the shelf option'.
I think she'd have some ideas of what would make it more palatable.
Hence a compromise with all options which parliament doesn't like but makes all think their path would win. It's a gamble. One I'd rather they not take, but time for remainers and no dealers to see if they are indeed the will of the people.
I simply can not see how Parliament would pass legislation to enable a deal we are told they will reject by a huge margin next week, and No Deal is that times ten. If there is to be a second referendum the options have to be things Parliament will pass, not things they've rejected, or swear they will block in any circumstance.
I've little doubt that if either of those referendums are carried out, and we vote Leave where the options are May's Deal or No Deal, then we will be heading straight to a third referendum.
Mostly, it's May's final play. After Tuesday, May only has one opportunity to save her deal, and that's get it approved in a referendum. The difficutly for May is that her party will depose her long before she has a chance to bring forward a referendum bill.
They still believe in a negotiation. May surviving or not the first action will be to beg Brussels for some further concessions. Only if that fails will the Tories start as a whole start accepting the idea of a second referendum, though how they might fall on the question and options I am less sure about.
Youve got until march and then we are out. There is no second referendum once we are out, to join the god awful deal we currently have. Any future deal would be even worse. Always the bill payer, no thanks.
It looks increasingly likely based on today's news if May's Deal is not passed in the next fortnight, which is unlikely barring a huge EU concession on the backstop, we will be heading to the polls again for EUref2 in February or early March. The EU have already said they could extend Article 50 if there is an EUref2 with a Remain option
Now you see, the problem with the UK not being in the Eurozone is something that is not highlighted often enough when people talk about the costs and benefits of staying in.
we put off the inevitable, the more painful doing so becomes.
Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.
Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.
We're not the 51st state of the US. No point bringing straw men into the argument.
"May's deal" is not in any meaningful sense "taking control". In nearly three years, Brexit errs have not come up with a realistic plan "to take control". That's not because they are stupid people. It's because of the inherent contradiction of Brexit. As long as we want a close relationship with our European neighbours, and we don't have a viable alternative to that close relationship, it will be on the EU's terms. They own the system and aren't going to change the way they do things or give us a say that is superior to that of a member. We take the access and follow the rules but give up on the governance. The opposite of "taking control".
This garbage again. Yes Brexiteers have come up with workable plans. The trouble is to actually get those plans on the table they have to be in control and yet again it is pointing out that all the levers have been held by Remainers using a few Leave ministers as a smoke screen.
Now you can always come up with objections to these plans because in the end the only thing that really interests you is remaining. But that doesn't mean the plans are not valid or workable. Or at least would be if we had actually had people in charge who wanted to leave rather than wanting to just survive in office for as long as possible.
No my interest in Brexit lies entirely in how that contradiction gets resolved.. Something has to give.
MPs must reject the PM's wretched deal and deliver a proper Brexit, or face a political disaster
And if it can't deliver a 'proper' Brexit (more ill defined rubbish), what then?
‘Proper Brexit’ is up there with ‘Brexit means Brexit’ in its utter vacuity.
And given the number of times we are told that MPs ‘must’ do things, most of which are contradictory, it’s little wonder they can’t agree on a course of action.
It could be an interesting week in the football press. It's a big accusation made by Stirling and those that work for the Mail need to decide if they think he's right or not. If they think he's wrong, they need to say so. And if they think he's right, they need to quite their jobs. I get sick and tired of football writers saying "we don't have control over what the front of the paper does." Sorry, that just does not wash.
FWIW, I don't think Stirling gets anything that Rooney didn't. And I don't think his comparison of Foden to a player no one has heard of is particularly helpful. I think it's bad for football that kids who are nowhere near the first team are on £25,000 a week. Jadon Sancho and others deserve much credit for shunning the money to go abroad to play first team football.
Stirling does seem to get a lot of nasty attention that others do not, but on the other hand there are any number of prominent ethnic minority players who don't receive anything like it, or are outright adored by fans and not abused by opposition fans. I don't quite know why he seems to be such a lightning rod.
MPs must reject the PM's wretched deal and deliver a proper Brexit, or face a political disaster
And if it can't deliver a 'proper' Brexit (more ill defined rubbish), what then?
‘Proper Brexit’ is up there with ‘Brexit means Brexit’ in its utter vacuity.
And given the number of times we are told that MPs ‘must’ do things, most of which are contradictory, it’s little wonder they can’t agree on a course of action.
Well quite. Some are saying that get rid of the backstop and the deal is approvable, if hardly ideal, others are saying it is rotten to its core, and assuming Labour do actually still intend to Brexit they think the deal is not soft enough in certain areas, there's no consensus on what is proper or not.
Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.
Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.
Quite. The logic of some EU supporters on this point fails the Canada test. The Canadians are both economically dependent on their beast of a neighbour and vastly smaller (by population,) in the same way as we are on ours, yet they are very happy with their lot and have absolutely zero interest in the manifold benefits that throwing in the towel and becoming part of the US might provide. Nor do they feel the need to chain themselves to the US by a web of restrictive treaties, subject their legal system to its oversight, and farm out great chunks of their trade, employment and other policies to be written for them by Donald Trump.
Why can't we be another Canada?
We can be Canada if we are prepared to negotiate for years and take a significant hit to our living standards at the end of it. But we won't be. We're too invested in the European system for that. So we we will stay in the system because of our inability to come up with anything better. That inability is real, which is why we are in this mess.
I don't think it's so much a matter of inability as unwillingness. Not being part of the European Union is not an insoluble conundrum. It's just that the collection of mostly lazy, duplicitous or stupid individuals that constitute our Parliament don't want to try. That's why we are in this mess.
Granted there is a lack of decent leadership, but given the electorate is every bit as confused and divided as Parliament, it seems a bit harsh to award them the exclusive blame. And also futile.
MPs must reject the PM's wretched deal and deliver a proper Brexit, or face a political disaster
And if it can't deliver a 'proper' Brexit (more ill defined rubbish), what then?
‘Proper Brexit’ is up there with ‘Brexit means Brexit’ in its utter vacuity.
And given the number of times we are told that MPs ‘must’ do things, most of which are contradictory, it’s little wonder they can’t agree on a course of action.
Hence a compromise with all options which parliament doesn't like but makes all think their path would win. It's a gamble. One I'd rather they not take, but time for remainers and no dealers to see if they are indeed the will of the people.
I simply can not see how Parliament would pass legislation to enable a deal we are told they will reject by a huge margin next week, and No Deal is that times ten. If there is to be a second referendum the options have to be things Parliament will pass, not things they've rejected, or swear they will block in any circumstance.
I've little doubt that if either of those referendums are carried out, and we vote Leave where the options are May's Deal or No Deal, then we will be heading straight to a third referendum.
Mostly, it's May's final play. After Tuesday, May only has one opportunity to save her deal, and that's get it approved in a referendum. The difficutly for May is that her party will depose her long before she has a chance to bring forward a referendum bill.
They still believe in a negotiation. May surviving or not the first action will be to beg Brussels for some further concessions. Only if that fails will the Tories start as a whole start accepting the idea of a second referendum, though how they might fall on the question and options I am less sure about.
So, let me get this straight. What Cabinet wants is for May to go back to Brussels and tell them *she* rejects the deal *she* negotiated and *she* signed? And then demand the renegotiation *she* told us was impossible, and *she* got the EU to demand was also impossible?
Yeah, that sounds like a fruitful strategy alright. It definitely won't get *her* laughed out of the Europa Building.
She wouldn't have rejected it, Parliament would have.
And since she has no idea what Parliament will and will not accept, given how much the deal will be voted down by, she might as well bring along Corbyn, Cable and the SNP so the EU negotiators can tell them all 'It's this deal or you beg for an off the shelf option'.
I think she'd have some ideas of what would make it more palatable.
Yes, but why take her word for it when you can speak to the people you know are needed to see it through (particularly Corbyn and the DUP)?
Hence a compromise with all options which parliament doesn't like but makes all think their path would win. It's a gamble. One I'd rather they not take, but time for remainers and no dealers to see if they are indeed the will of the people.
I simply can not see how Parliament would pass legislation to enable a deal we are told they will reject by a huge margin next week, and No Deal is that times ten. If there is to be a second referendum the options have to be things Parliament will pass, not things they've rejected, or swear they will block in any circumstance.
I've little doubt that if either of those referendums are carried out, and we vote Leave where the options are May's Deal or No Deal, then we will be heading straight to a third referendum.
Mostly, it's May's final play. After Tuesday, May only has one opportunity to save her deal, and that's get it approved in a referendum. The difficutly for May is that her party will depose her long before she has a chance to bring forward a referendum bill.
They still believe in a negotiation. May surviving or not the first action will be to beg Brussels for some further concessions. Only if that fails will the Tories start as a whole start accepting the idea of a second referendum, though how they might fall on the question and options I am less sure about.
Youve got until march and then we are out. There is no second referendum once we are out, to join the god awful deal we currently have. Any future deal would be even worse. Always the bill payer, no thanks.
It looks increasingly likely based on today's news if May's Deal is not passed in the next fortnight, which is unlikely barring a huge EU concession on the backstop, we will be heading to the polls again for EUref2 in February or early March. The EU have already said they could extend Article 50 if there is an EUref2 with a Remain option
Nope. They dont get a second spin of the coin.
They do if that is what Parliament decides, as looks increasingly likely.
Comments
Brexit might be the cause of the dissolution of the UK, but that, in and of itself, is insufficient reason not to go ahead and do it, if enough of our people believe that the imperative to get out of the European Union outweighs that of holding the British Union together. Besides, as I just said our attitude to our country necessarily implies impermanence. The UK has been revealed through devolution to be a construct of transitory convenience to its members that can and will be dissolved eventually. It is just a matter of time.
https://news.sky.com/story/jeremy-corbyn-could-be-prime-minister-in-days-if-brexit-deal-rejected-labour-says-11576164
Civil servants are now also openly wargaming two EU referendum questions as EUref2 becomes more likely. The first would be a straight choice between May's Deal and Remain, the second would see a Leave v Remain question and if Leave won a second question would ask them if they wanted to leave under the terms of May's Deal or under a No Deal departure on WTO terms.
17 Labour MPs also reportedly in talks about breaking away from the Labour Party if Corbyn fails to back EUref2
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/theresa-may-to-handbag-brussels-in-frantic-bid-to-save-brexit-deal-bbcq7n5kl
On the numbers, Benn's amendment looks very likely to be passed, unless it is ruled out of order. It is a bit of a 'This House wants the government to genetically engineer a unicorn by tomorrow evening' amendment.
Edit: It would also have the effect of ruling out a Revoke vs Deal referendum. Perhaps for that reason I'm wrong, and it won't pass.
Please explain why that is somehow better?
a) keep their Shadow Cabinet of illiterate/innumerate placeholders or
b) have a shit-fight as all the careerist politicos who walked from Corbyn try to clamber back aboard the gravy train of Government?
'It was binding on that parliament and was expected to be politically binding on all future parliaments' is more or less what it says.
So, if we had a written constitution, presumably incorporating the results of binding referendums, 23.06.16 would just be the stuff of politicians' nightmares. We wouldn't actually have to deal with it. Phew, that's a relief...
"Backstop"
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/872/cpsprodpb/102DE/production/_104707266_theresamay.jpg
Why can't we be another Canada?
Full figures.
Good PM Bad PM Net
Javid 15% 33% -18%
Davis 15% 34% -19%
Raab 9% 30% -21%
Rudd 14% 37% -23%
Johnson 22% 57% -35%
Hunt 10% 46% -41%
Gove 11% 52% -45%
May 30% 58% -28%
Corbyn 24% 61% -35%
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/who-do-the-public-support-for-next-pm-none-of-them-t6xmcpf62
Those are your choices in a few years if we stay - fully subsumed into the EU state or yet another vicious and even more costly fight to extricate ourselves.
Case 1: May's Deal will have already been rejected by Parliament
Case 2: If we pick Leave then the two options are the rejected May's Deal and No Deal.
What's to stop Parliament blocking those outcomes? There's no majority for any of them.
"May's deal" is not in any meaningful sense "taking control". In nearly three years, Brexit errs have not come up with a realistic plan "to take control". That's not because they are stupid people. It's because of the inherent contradiction of Brexit. As long as we want a close relationship with our European neighbours, and we don't have a viable alternative to that close relationship, it will be on the EU's terms. They own the system and aren't going to change the way they do things or give us a say that is superior to that of a member. We take the access and follow the rules but give up on the governance. The opposite of "taking control".
Either the EU eventually collapses, in which case the more distance we put between us and the Eurotanic as it sinks, the better. Or it thrives, in which case France and Germany, as sovereign states, eventually cease to exist.
Now you can always come up with objections to these plans because in the end the only thing that really interests you is remaining. But that doesn't mean the plans are not valid or workable. Or at least would be if we had actually had people in charge who wanted to leave rather than wanting to just survive in office for as long as possible.
Agreed
https://www.joe.ie/sport/raheem-sterling-speaks-abuse-chelsea-game-651027
Case 2: Correct.
I assume these questions have been based on Lidington's consultations with MPs and are therefore the only ones with a majority and also the only ones the Government will put forward
The EU is simpy the latest in a long line of prospective Euro-hegemons we want to ruin.
Quite frankly Europe is just not that important anymore. It doesn't matter if the Eurozone unites it will still be a minor player compared to the USA and China.
If parliament won't risk no deal it shouldn't ask the people to potentially choose it. It has already technically risked it as a default but is stepping back from that.
I've little doubt that if either of those referendums are carried out, and we vote Leave where the options are May's Deal or No Deal, then we will be heading straight to a third referendum.
Brexit is, at root, a philosophical dispute about whether we want to be a sovereign state, part of a federation, or a protectorate. Do we want to continue to exist as a separate entity (as Canada to Europe's US,) or do we want to be a medium-sized element of a larger union (as Europe's New York State?)
You could make a cogent argument for either. Personally, I prefer Canada. But I'd rather be New York State than Guam.
Beyond that, if we did end up as part of a European superstate then we shouldn't necessarily expect that it will make people settled. The history of such multinational entities is not happy. Look at the Soviet Union. Or Austria-Hungary. Or us.
4 and 4.5 respectively.
And if it can't deliver a 'proper' Brexit (more ill defined rubbish), what then?
Yeah, that sounds like a fruitful strategy alright. It definitely won't get *her* laughed out of the Europa Building.
FWIW, I don't think Stirling gets anything that Rooney didn't. And I don't think his comparison of Foden to a player no one has heard of is particularly helpful. I think it's bad for football that kids who are nowhere near the first team are on £25,000 a week. Jadon Sancho and others deserve much credit for shunning the money to go abroad to play first team football.
Hence civil servants are preparing for a May Deal v Remain referendum or a Leave v Remain referendum with Deal or No Deal to be decided in a second question if Leave wins as even if MPs want to Remain they have to get that approved by referendum against Leave and those are the only Leave options on the table
That she does not believe that is possible, and the is very likely to say 'We've told you over and over you can have x or y but not z, and it is up to you to find solutions not us' is neither here nor there as far as what the next step will be - Labour and the Tories both believe renegotiation will occur. The Tories by virtue of being in government will get first crack at renegotiating, and then first shot at proposing something else if that fails.
a) get Labour on board
b) get the Tory remainers on board
c) Hold together that coalition long enough without her party VONCing her
Imagibe May trying to do that with a referendum with a "no deal" option.
It has an absolute mandate to leave the EU, on any terms that the Gvt and parliament decide. We will and we must leave the EU in march.
I think the EU should take the WA off the table.
"Since the UK Parliament has rejected the WA by a large enough margin that it's clear the UK will never accept any withdrawal agreement that the EU offers in good faith, so do we formally withdraw our offer."
It would be more honest for Parliament to simply pull the plug on the whole process, rather than to hold a farcical referendum where only the right answer will honoured.
Though of course No Deal voters would not be happy
And given the number of times we are told that MPs ‘must’ do things, most of which are contradictory, it’s little wonder they can’t agree on a course of action.
And also futile.
It really is as simple as that.
If leaving was going to be such a disaster it should never have been offered. It was
Cameron should not have told us leaving would have an affect, but wouldn't be a disaster - he did.
May should never have stood there time after time and said Brexit means brexit and offer her red lines (which she promptly ignored) - but she did.
The Government should have planned for other eventualities than frictionless trade - but they didn't
Remind me (other than to stop Corbyn) why anyone should vote for that deceitful shambles?