Here's an idea: why not wait for a full 2 hours and 12 minutes, and see what she has to say?
Because it's a betting site? This is the time to pick up the consequences of what's going on, before it becomes obvious to the political media (except Peston, obvs).
Here's an idea: why not wait for a full 2 hours and 12 minutes, and see what she has to say?
THREAD SUSPENDED. GO BACK TO YOUR SPREADSHEETS AND DO SOME WORK. WE WILL RECONVENE AT 15:30.
Yeah, I've got end-of-year bonuses to finalise.
Ooh, I hope I get a puppy.
We might be able to run to a picture of the PM signed by herself.
That'll fit in nicely on my tat shelf of ironic thingummies.
As the ex-Mr Amber Rudd once said, so acutely, the problem with watching stupid reality shows is that there is no button to press anywhere to show that you are doing so ironically.
The official "iron rule of megaprojects": Over time, over budget, over and over.
They're also inevitably oversold on the grounds of their benefits. Unfortunately, politicians love them because they look decisive, statesmanlike, transformative, and - best of all - they'll be long gone by the time they turn out to be over time, over budget, and oversold.
This doesn't mean you should never do a megaproject - just make sure you're realistic about the cost, time, and - especially - benefits against the cost and time. Always double or treble each of the costs and time, and halve the expected benefits, and you'll be in the ballpark of the real cost, time, and benefit.
......and in a year or two, when their actions have resulted in us staying in the EU, maybe some of them might even think: "We could have had 90% of what we wanted, but instead we gambled it all for 100% and got nothing."
A general election solves NOTHING there is no majority in the Commons for Corbyn's Brexit plus permanent Customs Union either
A general election could solve that problem!
So could a government of national unity that excludes the ERG rather than letting them have a third of the seats in the Cabinet as they do now. Sure, it would mean the end of the Tory party in its present form. If I were Corbyn I'd consider that a result.
The Tories did well in the 1930s out of a National Government as did the country. Personally it would have been my chosen vehicle in 2010 rather than the ConDem concoction. It would have nipped a lot of problems in the bud that we now face.
A GNU is only possible if Labour is willing to split, which it isn't.
(Edit - and, even more pertinently, there can't be a Government of National Unity if there isn't any unity).
Regardless of the topic - this is an utter failure by the PM.
48 letters must be in tonight - surely.
If we assume that she is heading back to Brussels to renegotiate the backstop, then she is only doing what the ERG told her to do. Why put in a letter now if you didn't do so when Mogg said to do so?
Agree. She can either deliver the goods - or resign.
ERG will just sit back, arms folded. And wait.
The likeliest outcome though is May expends her remaining political capital in Brussels (plus pledges a bunch of extra cash/concessions), shows it to Parliament with a flourish - and everyone goes "What the actual fuck is THAT?"
The chances of May getting a significant concession that changes enough minds to get a vote through Parliament must be tiny.
Here's an idea: why not wait for a full 2 hours and 12 minutes, and see what she has to say?
Because it's a betting site? This is the time to pick up the consequences of what's going on, before it becomes obvious to the political media (except Peston, obvs).
I'm not seeing much sober discussions of the probabilities
Here's an idea: why not wait for a full 2 hours and 12 minutes, and see what she has to say?
THREAD SUSPENDED. GO BACK TO YOUR SPREADSHEETS AND DO SOME WORK. WE WILL RECONVENE AT 15:30.
Yeah, I've got end-of-year bonuses to finalise.
Ooh, I hope I get a puppy.
We might be able to run to a picture of the PM signed by herself.
That'll fit in nicely on my tat shelf of ironic thingummies.
As the ex-Mr Amber Rudd once said, so acutely, the problem with watching stupid reality shows is that there is no button to press anywhere to show that you are doing so ironically.
I remember Johnny Speight said something similar about Alf Garnett. Of course, you as an educated liberal, are writing Alf dripping with irony and thinly-veiled contempt, but you also know that a chunk of your audience love him unironically for "sticking it to the darkies".
Never assume other people you meet are on the same irony level as you.
A general election solves NOTHING there is no majority in the Commons for Corbyn's Brexit plus permanent Customs Union either
A general election could solve that problem!
So could a government of national unity that excludes the ERG rather than letting them have a third of the seats in the Cabinet as they do now. Sure, it would mean the end of the Tory party in its present form. If I were Corbyn I'd consider that a result.
Speaking as a Liberal Leaver, I have virtually abandoned all hope of Leaving sans catastrophe, and if the alternative is a GE and a probable Corbyn government, I would rather have a 2nd referendum, and then I suspect I would vote, sadly and with some self hatred, for Remain.
This is coming down to realpolitik - and seriously nasty economic choices.
Economic consequences can always be mitigated to some extent at least. The damage to democracy and society will be far more serious and long lasting.
Here's an idea: why not wait for a full 2 hours and 12 minutes, and see what she has to say?
Because it's a betting site? This is the time to pick up the consequences of what's going on, before it becomes obvious to the political media (except Peston, obvs).
I'm not seeing much sober discussions of the probabilities
Here's an idea: why not wait for a full 2 hours and 12 minutes, and see what she has to say?
THREAD SUSPENDED. GO BACK TO YOUR SPREADSHEETS AND DO SOME WORK. WE WILL RECONVENE AT 15:30.
Yeah, I've got end-of-year bonuses to finalise.
Ooh, I hope I get a puppy.
We might be able to run to a picture of the PM signed by herself.
That'll fit in nicely on my tat shelf of ironic thingummies.
As the ex-Mr Amber Rudd once said, so acutely, the problem with watching stupid reality shows is that there is no button to press anywhere to show that you are doing so ironically.
I remember Johnny Speight said something similar about Alf Garnett. Of course, you as an educated liberal, are writing Alf dripping with irony and thinly-veiled contempt, but you also know that a chunk of your audience love him unironically for "sticking it to the darkies".
Never assume other people you meet are on the same irony level as you.
I always thought was particularly true of Al Murray's Pub Landlord.
Anyone want a wager that HS2 will be late and overbudget.
Hopefully, in the event of no deal Brexit, that will be binned.
Delayed, perhaps, but not binned. We'll come back to it in 20 or 30 years when capacity on the WMCL has run out and wonder "why didn't we start building it so that it was ready when we needed it?"
Personal note. At a dinner party last Saturday, I opined that May's deal was the best compromise we were likely to get and I admired her for sticking to her guns and trying to get it through despite the widespread opposition. "That's what makes the difference between leaders and people who just kick the can down the road in the hope that something will turn up. She may lose now but the respect she'll gain will pay dividends later." (Or less articulate words to that effect - it was quite a nice Merlot I was drinking.)
So I feel a little let down.
And was your view sympathised with? Of the deal, not the Merlot?
The official "iron rule of megaprojects": Over time, over budget, over and over.
They're also inevitably oversold on the grounds of their benefits. Unfortunately, politicians love them because they look decisive, statesmanlike, transformative, and - best of all - they'll be long gone by the time they turn out to be over time, over budget, and oversold.
This doesn't mean you should never do a megaproject - just make sure you're realistic about the cost, time, and - especially - benefits against the cost and time. Always double or treble each of the costs and time, and halve the expected benefits, and you'll be in the ballpark of the real cost, time, and benefit.
Crossrail makes total sense, and is badly needed: which is why this "indefinite delay" is so depresssing, and outrageous. Heads must roll etc etc
HS2 is an absolute nonsense, and must surely be cancelled.
Does indefinite delay not mean they don't have an end date which commands confidence ?
My mistake was not realising that the British people had already been jailed, and betrayed, by the wretched abomination that is Article 50 - written by a British civil servant, Lord Kerr, who openly admits it is designed to be so punishing and painful no sane nation would ever use it.
That's the Article 50 which first appears in the EU Constitution/Lisbon and on which both main parties promised us a vote, a vote we were then denied. We would of course have voted down Lisbon (meaning no A50) which is why the europhile elite never gave us a vote.
That's when the great betrayal of the British people took place, by people like you. I will spend the rest of my life despising europhiles, and maybe even physically assaulting them if I get the chance.
Nonetheless you won, when we signed Lisbon without a referendum. You guys successfully locked the British people into the EU, and made a sensible exit from the EU impossible, for your own nation.
Well done. You must be proud.
Enjoy the fruits of your victory: a nation bitterly divided, for a generation or more.
There was a sensible and realistic route to exit. It's just that Leavers and Remainers alike didn't want it.
STEP ONE: Negotiate an exit to EEA/EFTA. Not trivial, but very possible and should be achievable in less than two years. Exits CAP, CFP, most of the EU acquis, ECJ, reduces payments significantly. On the other hand, retains Freedom of Movement and some costs and reduces (but does not remove completely) influence over Single Market legislating.
At this point, the moment the agreement is signed, we're out and Article 50 is expired. We're a non-EU country and the only way back is through official accession.
STEP TWO: Decide where we want to end up. We can prepare (in slow time) for WTO rules, or negotiate a CETA-like agreement, or decide to stay put. Exiting the EEA Agreement can be done by giving twelve months notice. The power asymmetry with the EU is gone; there's no Article 50 timelimit.
However, the EEA countries might be concerned about us potentially just using them temporarily, so a competent negotiator would assure them that there's no chance of us going further and that they're sure we'll stay in the EEA for the forseeable future. At least until it's all signed.
Here's an idea: why not wait for a full 2 hours and 12 minutes, and see what she has to say?
Because it's a betting site? This is the time to pick up the consequences of what's going on, before it becomes obvious to the political media (except Peston, obvs).
So Erskine May says the right to move an order of the day belongs to the House at large not just member in charge, then says it must be taken on by another member in absence of the forementioned one.
i.e. if the goverment doesn't move an order of the day, another member may so move in the government's absence?
So it looks to me like the house CAN force the meaningful vote, simply by moving to resume the business of last week, if the Leader of the House so declines.
@david_herdson: Given your line on the impossibility of the second referendum is predicated on the government's control over house business, do the chinks in that control seen in the last week give you any pause for thought?
Personal note. At a dinner party last Saturday, I opined that May's deal was the best compromise we were likely to get and I admired her for sticking to her guns and trying to get it through despite the widespread opposition. "That's what makes the difference between leaders and people who just kick the can down the road in the hope that something will turn up. She may lose now but the respect she'll gain will pay dividends later." (Or less articulate words to that effect - it was quite a nice Merlot I was drinking.)
So I feel a little let down.
Indeed. She was going to lose but could in some respect hold her head high. No longer . Not deserving of respect.
I think it would be fair to say that most of us on here agree that the options as of this morning were
1 May's deal 2 No deal 3 Remain
May's deal is now dead. Nobody thinks Parliament will accept no deal, and now, thanks to the ECJ, MPs have a cast iron way of avoiding no deal by simply voting to revoke article 50. So Option 3 is the only one left on the table.
Remain was killed by the people on 23rd June 2016. Assuming the MPs realise who their boss is.
And leave was killed on 10 December 2018 (if not before).
No, it wasn't.
It was hobbled. It may creep over the line but it's far harder now.
Here's an idea: why not wait for a full 2 hours and 12 minutes, and see what she has to say?
THREAD SUSPENDED. GO BACK TO YOUR SPREADSHEETS AND DO SOME WORK. WE WILL RECONVENE AT 15:30.
Yeah, I've got end-of-year bonuses to finalise.
Ooh, I hope I get a puppy.
We might be able to run to a picture of the PM signed by herself.
That'll fit in nicely on my tat shelf of ironic thingummies.
As the ex-Mr Amber Rudd once said, so acutely, the problem with watching stupid reality shows is that there is no button to press anywhere to show that you are doing so ironically.
I remember Johnny Speight said something similar about Alf Garnett. Of course, you as an educated liberal, are writing Alf dripping with irony and thinly-veiled contempt, but you also know that a chunk of your audience love him unironically for "sticking it to the darkies".
Never assume other people you meet are on the same irony level as you.
At least on internet chatrooms it's easy to discern irony.
My mistake was not realising that the British people had already been jailed, and betrayed, by the wretched abomination that is Article 50 - written by a British civil servant, Lord Kerr, who openly admits it is designed to be so punishing and painful no sane nation would ever use it.
That's the Article 50 which first appears in the EU Constitution/Lisbon and on which both main parties promised us a vote, a vote we were then denied. We would of course have voted down Lisbon (meaning no A50) which is why the europhile elite never gave us a vote.
That's when the great betrayal of the British people took place, by people like you. I will spend the rest of my life despising europhiles, and maybe even physically assaulting them if I get the chance.
Nonetheless you won, when we signed Lisbon without a referendum. You guys successfully locked the British people into the EU, and made a sensible exit from the EU impossible, for your own nation.
Well done. You must be proud.
Enjoy the fruits of your victory: a nation bitterly divided, for a generation or more.
There was a sensible and realistic route to exit. It's just that Leavers and Remainers alike didn't want it.
STEP ONE: Negotiate an exit to EEA/EFTA. Not trivial, but very possible and should be achievable in less than two years. Exits CAP, CFP, most of the EU acquis, ECJ, reduces payments significantly. On the other hand, retains Freedom of Movement and some costs and reduces (but does not remove completely) influence over Single Market legislating.
At this point, the moment the agreement is signed, we're out and Article 50 is expired. We're a non-EU country and the only way back is through official accession.
STEP TWO: Decide where we want to end up. We can prepare (in slow time) for WTO rules, or negotiate a CETA-like agreement, or decide to stay put. Exiting the EEA Agreement can be done by giving twelve months notice. The power asymmetry with the EU is gone; there's no Article 50 timelimit.
However, the EEA countries might be concerned about us potentially just using them temporarily, so a competent negotiator would assure them that there's no chance of us going further and that they're sure we'll stay in the EEA for the forseeable future. At least until it's all signed.
No chance of that now, of course.
That was achievable immediately after the referendum. Most remainers and many leavers would have accepted it.
Sky reporting that Govt will not bail out Crossrail. Saying Govt will only offer 300 - 400 million as a loan and that Londoners have to foot the whole bill. Mayor Kahn needs to find 1.4 billion and the loan repayments.
The Times, Guardian and Independent say she will postpone. The BBC say she is expected to. If she does then surely she will be forced out within days at most.
My mistake was not realising that the British people had already been jailed, and betrayed, by the wretched abomination that is Article 50 - written by a British civil servant, Lord Kerr, who openly admits it is designed to be so punishing and painful no sane nation would ever use it.
That's the Article 50 which first appears in the EU Constitution/Lisbon and on which both main parties promised us a vote, a vote we were then denied. We would of course have voted down Lisbon (meaning no A50) which is why the europhile elite never gave us a vote.
That's when the great betrayal of the British people took place, by people like you. I will spend the rest of my life despising europhiles, and maybe even physically assaulting them if I get the chance.
Nonetheless you won, when we signed Lisbon without a referendum. You guys successfully locked the British people into the EU, and made a sensible exit from the EU impossible, for your own nation.
Well done. You must be proud.
Enjoy the fruits of your victory: a nation bitterly divided, for a generation or more.
No chance of that now, of course.
We could remain, and then get our EEA-EFTA ducks in line within the EU. And then push the button again only when we know people, parliament and the EFTA are all on board this thing happening.
A general election solves NOTHING there is no majority in the Commons for Corbyn's Brexit plus permanent Customs Union either
A general election could solve that problem!
So could a government of national unity that excludes the ERG rather than letting them have a third of the seats in the Cabinet as they do now. Sure, it would mean the end of the Tory party in its present form. If I were Corbyn I'd consider that a result.
Speaking as a Liberal Leaver, I have virtually abandoned all hope of Leaving sans catastrophe, and if the alternative is a GE and a probable Corbyn government, I would rather have a 2nd referendum, and then I suspect I would vote, sadly and with some self hatred, for Remain.
This is coming down to realpolitik - and seriously nasty economic choices.
My mistake was not realising that the British people had already been jailed, and betrayed, by the wretched abomination that is Article 50 - written by a British civil servant, Lord Kerr, who openly admits it is designed to be so punishing and painful no sane nation would ever use it.
That's the Article 50 which first appears in the EU Constitution/Lisbon and on which both main parties promised us a vote, a vote we were then denied. We would of course have voted down Lisbon (meaning no A50) which is why the europhile elite never gave us a vote.
That's when the great betrayal of the British people took place, by people like you. I will spend the rest of my life despising europhiles, and maybe even physically assaulting them if I get the chance.
Nonetheless you won, when we signed Lisbon without a referendum. You guys successfully locked the British people into the EU, and made a sensible exit from the EU impossible, for your own nation.
Well done. You must be proud.
Enjoy the fruits of your victory: a nation bitterly divided, for a generation or more.
There was a sensible and realistic route to exit. It's just that Leavers and Remainers alike didn't want it.
STEP ONE: Negotiate an exit to EEA/EFTA. Not trivial, but very possible and should be achievable in less than two years. Exits CAP, CFP, most of the EU acquis, ECJ, reduces payments significantly. On the other hand, retains Freedom of Movement and some costs and reduces (but does not remove completely) influence over Single Market legislating.
At this point, the moment the agreement is signed, we're out and Article 50 is expired. We're a non-EU country and the only way back is through official accession.
STEP TWO: Decide where we want to end up. We can prepare (in slow time) for WTO rules, or negotiate a CETA-like agreement, or decide to stay put. Exiting the EEA Agreement can be done by giving twelve months notice. The power asymmetry with the EU is gone; there's no Article 50 timelimit.
However, the EEA countries might be concerned about us potentially just using them temporarily, so a competent negotiator would assure them that there's no chance of us going further and that they're sure we'll stay in the EEA for the forseeable future. At least until it's all signed.
No chance of that now, of course.
The deal on the table is a sensible exit, but the leavers don't want it. They are so obsessed by the flock of birds apparently in the bush that the frozen turkey they had in their shopping bag has defrosted and flown off.
Sky reporting that Govt will not bail out Crossrail. Saying Govt will only offer 300 - 400 million as a loan and that Londoners have to foot the whole bill. Mayor Kahn needs to find 1.4 billion and the loan repayments.
The stealth massively expanded congestion charge is just about to get even bigger and more expensive...
My mistake was not realising that the British people had already been jailed, and betrayed, by the wretched abomination that is Article 50 - written by a British civil servant, Lord Kerr, who openly admits it is designed to be so punishing and painful no sane nation would ever use it.
That's the Article 50 which first appears in the EU Constitution/Lisbon and on which both main parties promised us a vote, a vote we were then denied. We would of course have voted down Lisbon (meaning no A50) which is why the europhile elite never gave us a vote.
That's when the great betrayal of the British people took place, by people like you. I will spend the rest of my life despising europhiles, and maybe even physically assaulting them if I get the chance.
Nonetheless you won, when we signed Lisbon without a referendum. You guys successfully locked the British people into the EU, and made a sensible exit from the EU impossible, for your own nation.
Well done. You must be proud.
Enjoy the fruits of your victory: a nation bitterly divided, for a generation or more.
There was a sensible and realistic route to exit. It's just that Leavers and Remainers alike didn't want it.
STEP ONE: Negotiate an exit to EEA/EFTA. Not trivial, but very possible and should be achievable in less than two years. Exits CAP, CFP, most of the EU acquis, ECJ, reduces payments significantly. On the other hand, retains Freedom of Movement and some costs and reduces (but does not remove completely) influence over Single Market legislating.
At this point, the moment the agreement is signed, we're out and Article 50 is expired. We're a non-EU country and the only way back is through official accession.
STEP TWO: Decide where we want to end up. We can prepare (in slow time) for WTO rules, or negotiate a CETA-like agreement, or decide to stay put. Exiting the EEA Agreement can be done by giving twelve months notice. The power asymmetry with the EU is gone; there's no Article 50 timelimit.
However, the EEA countries might be concerned about us potentially just using them temporarily, so a competent negotiator would assure them that there's no chance of us going further and that they're sure we'll stay in the EEA for the forseeable future. At least until it's all signed.
No chance of that now, of course.
That was never a possible route. For a start, our EU friends were adamant that we couldn't negotiate the future relationship until we'd signed a Withdrawal Agreement and actually left, so there was no option to negotiate an exit to EEA/EFTA until after leaving. And secondly, there was precisely zero chance of the EEA countries and the EU agreeing to an EEA route as a temporary staging post. What's in it for them? It would cause massive disruption, and then we'd want to bugger off anyway?
There is already great symbolism to that March 29th date. Away from Westminster one of the effects of revoking article 50 will be a disastrous night for Tory councillors in May 2019. It is only the threat of Corbyn that might just prevent the Tory party from disintegrating on the ground altogether. Is the Corbyn threat enough though - I'm not so sure.
Personal note. At a dinner party last Saturday, I opined that May's deal was the best compromise we were likely to get and I admired her for sticking to her guns and trying to get it through despite the widespread opposition. "That's what makes the difference between leaders and people who just kick the can down the road in the hope that something will turn up. She may lose now but the respect she'll gain will pay dividends later." (Or less articulate words to that effect - it was quite a nice Merlot I was drinking.)
So I feel a little let down.
Indeed. She was going to lose but could in some respect hold her head high. No longer . Not deserving of respect.
If it were me, I'd just give it my best shot, and then resign if it were voted down.
A general election solves NOTHING there is no majority in the Commons for Corbyn's Brexit plus permanent Customs Union either
A general election could solve that problem!
So could a government of national unity that excludes the ERG rather than letting them have a third of the seats in the Cabinet as they do now. Sure, it would mean the end of the Tory party in its present form. If I were Corbyn I'd consider that a result.
Speaking as a Liberal Leaver, I have virtually abandoned all hope of Leaving sans catastrophe, and if the alternative is a GE and a probable Corbyn government, I would rather have a 2nd referendum, and then I suspect I would vote, sadly and with some self hatred, for Remain.
This is coming down to realpolitik - and seriously nasty economic choices.
You dolt. It was obvious that this would happen. That you are surprised (are you surprised) is about the only thing that is mildly surprising but then you were never that sharp to start with, albeit you have a great literary turn of phrase.
Credit where it's due, he disguises his lack of sharpness by presenting a moving target.
She will survive the immediate VNOC in her leadership
I'm not so sure she will.
I think you are right. The new system makes it harder for her to survive. In voting against her, you do not have to choose any other candidate over her - that comes later. So, in a secret ballot, why should supposedly loyal cabinet ministers vote to support her if they fancy their own chances?
She will survive the immediate VNOC in her leadership
I'm not so sure she will.
I think you are right. The new system makes it harder for her to survive. In voting against her, you do not have to choose any other candidate over her - that comes later. So, in a secret ballot, why should supposedly loyal cabinet ministers vote to support her if they fancy their own chances?
And they were already leaking to the press their own ideas on what to do if the vote failed. Basically admitting they would vote against her as they have their own plans.
My mistake was not realising that the British people had already been jailed, and betrayed, by the wretched abomination that is Article 50 - written by a British civil servant, Lord Kerr, who openly admits it is designed to be so punishing and painful no sane nation would ever use it.
That's the Article 50 which first appears in the EU Constitution/Lisbon and on which both main parties promised us a vote, a vote we were then denied. We would of course have voted down Lisbon (meaning no A50) which is why the europhile elite never gave us a vote.
That's when the great betrayal of the British people took place, by people like you. I will spend the rest of my life despising europhiles, and maybe even physically assaulting them if I get the chance.
Nonetheless you won, when we signed Lisbon without a referendum. You guys successfully locked the British people into the EU, and made a sensible exit from the EU impossible, for your own nation.
Well done. You must be proud.
Enjoy the fruits of your victory: a nation bitterly divided, for a generation or more.
No chance of that now, of course.
We could remain, and then get our EEA-EFTA ducks in line within the EU. And then push the button again only when we know people, parliament and the EFTA are all on board this thing happening.
Parliament will never agree to pushing the button again. And if we remain no senior politician is going to revive the idea of Brexit for many, many years. Brexit is a curse, it has ruined the careers of all those who have crossed its path - Cameron, Osborne, Johnson, May, Davis and many more have fallen victim. As, ironically, has UKIP.
Here's an idea: why not wait for a full 2 hours and 12 minutes, and see what she has to say?
Because it's a betting site? This is the time to pick up the consequences of what's going on, before it becomes obvious to the political media (except Peston, obvs).
So Erskine May says the right to move an order of the day belongs to the House at large not just member in charge, then says it must be taken on by another member in absence of the forementioned one.
i.e. if the goverment doesn't move an order of the day, another member may so move in the government's absence?
So it looks to me like the house CAN force the meaningful vote, simply by moving to resume the business of last week, if the Leader of the House so declines.
@david_herdson: Given your line on the impossibility of the second referendum is predicated on the government's control over house business, do the chinks in that control seen in the last week give you any pause for thought?
There is also the question of who will control the government, of course.
The official "iron rule of megaprojects": Over time, over budget, over and over.
They're also inevitably oversold on the grounds of their benefits. Unfortunately, politicians love them because they look decisive, statesmanlike, transformative, and - best of all - they'll be long gone by the time they turn out to be over time, over budget, and oversold.
This doesn't mean you should never do a megaproject - just make sure you're realistic about the cost, time, and - especially - benefits against the cost and time. Always double or treble each of the costs and time, and halve the expected benefits, and you'll be in the ballpark of the real cost, time, and benefit.
Crossrail makes total sense, and is badly needed: which is why this "indefinite delay" is so depresssing, and outrageous. Heads must roll etc etc
HS2 is an absolute nonsense, and must surely be cancelled.
I happen to agree with Crossrail. And, to be honest, it's not doing badly at all on the pantheon of megaprojects.
Original estimate was £15.9 billion and 10 years. They then cut the budget to £14.8 billion (which was always going to be fiction; the costs for megaprojects don't go in that direction).
With the £590 million overspend last year and a further £1.7 billion estimate now (and we're late in the project stage), we're looking at just over £17 billion (7.5% above original estimates and 15% over the artificially reduced estimate) and a delay somewhere in excess of 1 year. I don't see it being delayed by more than, at most, an extra two years and maybe as little as an extra one year. That'd be 20% to 30% over time.
Annoying and embarrassing, but if you look at megaprojects (and if you want a big laugh at the expense of our ultra-efficient Teutonic cousins, check out the Berlin-Brandenburg Airport project), it's actually doing bloody well in comparison to most.
Sky reporting that Govt will not bail out Crossrail. Saying Govt will only offer 300 - 400 million as a loan and that Londoners have to foot the whole bill. Mayor Kahn needs to find 1.4 billion and the loan repayments.
Cancel HS2, give £1.4 billion to London to bail out Crossrail, and spend the rest Up North.
My mistake was not realising that the British people had already been jailed, and betrayed, by the wretched abomination that is Article 50 - written by a British civil servant, Lord Kerr, who openly admits it is designed to be so punishing and painful no sane nation would ever use it.
Well done. You must be proud.
Enjoy the fruits of your victory: a nation bitterly divided, for a generation or more.
There was a sensible and realistic route to exit. It's just that Leavers and Remainers alike didn't want it.
STEP ONE: Negotiate an exit to EEA/EFTA. Not trivial, but very possible and should be achievable in less than two years. Exits CAP, CFP, most of the EU acquis, ECJ, reduces payments significantly. On the other hand, retains Freedom of Movement and some costs and reduces (but does not remove completely) influence over Single Market legislating.
At this point, the moment the agreement is signed, we're out and Article 50 is expired. We're a non-EU country and the only way back is through official accession.
STEP TWO: Decide where we want to end up. We can prepare (in slow time) for WTO rules, or negotiate a CETA-like agreement, or decide to stay put. Exiting the EEA Agreement can be done by giving twelve months notice. The power asymmetry with the EU is gone; there's no Article 50 timelimit.
However, the EEA countries might be concerned about us potentially just using them temporarily, so a competent negotiator would assure them that there's no chance of us going further and that they're sure we'll stay in the EEA for the forseeable future. At least until it's all signed.
No chance of that now, of course.
That was never a possible route. For a start, our EU friends were adamant that we couldn't negotiate the future relationship until we'd signed a Withdrawal Agreement and actually left, so there was no option to negotiate an exit to EEA/EFTA until after leaving. And secondly, there was precisely zero chance of the EEA countries and the EU agreeing to an EEA route as a temporary staging post. What's in it for them? It would cause massive disruption, and then we#d want to bugger off anyway?
The great promoter of this Mr Flexit always said that we would have to force it by saying that we are members of EEA/EFTA already and we have only cancelled our EU membership not the other two. Then we would have a couple of years at most to move to an FTA, etc whilst the ECJ decided on whether we were members of EFTA/EEA or not.
There was some discussion initially about Article 192(From memory) before T May wrote her article 50 letter and as to whether that letter expressly stated we have left EEA/EFTA as well.
Sky reporting that Govt will not bail out Crossrail. Saying Govt will only offer 300 - 400 million as a loan and that Londoners have to foot the whole bill. Mayor Kahn needs to find 1.4 billion and the loan repayments.
Cancel HS2, give £1.4 billion to London to bail out Crossrail, and spend the rest Up North.
There's even less support up here for HS2 than the deal !
That was never a possible route. For a start, our EU friends were adamant that we couldn't negotiate the future relationship until we'd signed a Withdrawal Agreement and actually left, so there was no option to negotiate an exit to EEA/EFTA until after leaving. And secondly, there was precisely zero chance of the EEA countries and the EU agreeing to an EEA route as a temporary staging post. What's in it for them? It would cause massive disruption, and then we'd want to bugger off anyway?
What's in it for them is a smooth transition and minimal disruption to trade.
As for couldn't negotiate that's not really true. Barnier kept asking early on what we wanted from this but Tessie thought it was a great idea to try to negotiate something that wasn't an option and so he closed down future negotiations talks. But early on they were actually happening.
Had we said from the start "this is our destination, at least for now" from an 'off the shelf' option I think the EU would have been much more amenable to negotiating it.
The great promoter of this Mr Flexit always said that we would have to force it by saying that we are members of EEA/EFTA already and we have only cancelled our EU membership not the other two. Then we would have a couple of years at most to move to an FTA, etc whilst the ECJ decided on whether we were members of EFTA/EEA or not.
That was never a possible route. For a start, our EU friends were adamant that we couldn't negotiate the future relationship until we'd signed a Withdrawal Agreement and actually left, so there was no option to negotiate an exit to EEA/EFTA until after leaving. And secondly, there was precisely zero chance of the EEA countries and the EU agreeing to an EEA route as a temporary staging post. What's in it for them? It would cause massive disruption, and then we'd want to bugger off anyway?
What's in it for them is a smooth transition and minimal disruption to trade.
As for couldn't negotiate that's not really true. Barnier kept asking early on what we wanted from this but Tessie thought it was a great idea to try to negotiate something that wasn't an option and so he closed down future negotiations talks. But early on they were actually happening.
Had we said from the start "this is our destination, at least for now" from an 'off the shelf' option I think the EU would have been much more amenable to negotiating it.
If the final destination was EEA, yes I agree that it would have been easier to negotiate. But not as a temporary staging post, and in any case an EEA-style deal was ruled out by the two Leave campaigns.
That would have been a national scandal a few years ago. Now everyone just shrugs and forgets about it 5 minutes later.
I don't think we will forget about this, at least not in London (as it looks like we Londoners are gonna have to pony up the money). This is bad news for Sadiq Khan, as there are very serious questions being asked about when exactly he knew Crossrail was in trouble, and why didn't he say anything....
He could end up in court.
'Delayed indefinitely' is new. There's evidently some big issues with something; as the tunnels are complete, as are most of the stations, and they are running test trains, my guess is the very complex signalling systems. Probably wrong, though.
As you say, the question is when people knew that the project was in trouble.
Here's an idea: why not wait for a full 2 hours and 12 minutes, and see what she has to say?
Speculation is inevitable. And when someone looks this stupid what can one do other that postulate wildly about what is going on?
I'd like to hear what she could possibly say that could be a useful remedy.
I resign. Someone else can try.
Sure beats "nothing has changed".
She will say nothing has changed but I understand the backstop concerns and for that reason I will go back to the EU and they will be nice and write a three page addendum on page 586 of the WA which will clarify that the backstop remains as is but they will add some old bollocks which will sound vaguely conciliatory and which I will then hold a press conference about and proclaim victory and then I'll have the vote.
Regardless of the topic - this is an utter failure by the PM.
48 letters must be in tonight - surely.
If we assume that she is heading back to Brussels to renegotiate the backstop, then she is only doing what the ERG told her to do. Why put in a letter now if you didn't do so when Mogg said to do so?
Yes - the ERG would be as well waiting until she comes back with some feeble crumbs from the EU - then knife her.
I just do not think your comment is at all acceptable.
On the day I have lost my special business partner of 40 years and a family friend of 50 years it is out of order
If we think the EU has played hardball with May before, imagine the terrifying edifice of stony silence she's gonna get when she demands "concessions".
It doesn't matter if the government are forced to have a vote or not now - the narrative has already moved on to what concessions can May get from Brussels to get the agreement past a vote later in December or probably January.
If the vote has to go forward tomorrow, and it loses heavily, May can say 'we already knew of its unpopularity which is why we tried to stop the vote and waste all your time, I'm off to the summit to get something that better fits what you want'.
That was never a possible route. For a start, our EU friends were adamant that we couldn't negotiate the future relationship until we'd signed a Withdrawal Agreement and actually left, so there was no option to negotiate an exit to EEA/EFTA until after leaving. And secondly, there was precisely zero chance of the EEA countries and the EU agreeing to an EEA route as a temporary staging post. What's in it for them? It would cause massive disruption, and then we'd want to bugger off anyway?
What's in it for them is a smooth transition and minimal disruption to trade.
As for couldn't negotiate that's not really true. Barnier kept asking early on what we wanted from this but Tessie thought it was a great idea to try to negotiate something that wasn't an option and so he closed down future negotiations talks. But early on they were actually happening.
Had we said from the start "this is our destination, at least for now" from an 'off the shelf' option I think the EU would have been much more amenable to negotiating it.
Can you elaborate on the rationale for your last para? It seems a tad fanciful from here.
Here's an idea: why not wait for a full 2 hours and 12 minutes, and see what she has to say?
Speculation is inevitable. And when someone looks this stupid what can one do other that postulate wildly about what is going on?
I'd like to hear what she could possibly say that could be a useful remedy.
I resign. Someone else can try.
Sure beats "nothing has changed".
She will say nothing has changed but I understand the backstop concerns and for that reason I will go back to the EU and they will be nice and write a three page addendum on page 586 of the WA which will clarify that the backstop remains as is but they will add some old bollocks which will sound vaguely conciliatory and which I will then hold a press conference about and proclaim victory and then I'll have the vote.
Probably that is right. To be fair, she would have a point, in that the backstop has been absurdly misrepresented. But it's too late, as with the 'Dementia tax' she has totally failed to grasp the narrative and has allowed her political enemies to get their dishonest framing in first, so it becomes widely believed.
That would have been a national scandal a few years ago. Now everyone just shrugs and forgets about it 5 minutes later.
I don't think we will forget about this, at least not in London (as it looks like we Londoners are gonna have to pony up the money). This is bad news for Sadiq Khan, as there are very serious questions being asked about when exactly he knew Crossrail was in trouble, and why didn't he say anything....
He could end up in court.
'Delayed indefinitely' is new. There's evidently some big issues with something; as the tunnels are complete, as are most of the stations, and they are running test trains, my guess is the very complex signalling systems. Probably wrong, though.
As you say, the question is when people knew that the project was in trouble.
At the risk of opening Pandora’s box, what’s so special about the signalling?
Personal note. At a dinner party last Saturday, I opined that May's deal was the best compromise we were likely to get and I admired her for sticking to her guns and trying to get it through despite the widespread opposition. "That's what makes the difference between leaders and people who just kick the can down the road in the hope that something will turn up. She may lose now but the respect she'll gain will pay dividends later." (Or less articulate words to that effect - it was quite a nice Merlot I was drinking.)
So I feel a little let down.
And was your view sympathised with? Of the deal, not the Merlot?
To be honest I don't really take much notice of other people's political opinions. I just assume everyone agrees with me.
If we think the EU has played hardball with May before, imagine the terrifying edifice of stony silence she's gonna get when she demands "concessions".
I can't see May demanding anything, much more like "pretty please"
That would have been a national scandal a few years ago. Now everyone just shrugs and forgets about it 5 minutes later.
I don't think we will forget about this, at least not in London (as it looks like we Londoners are gonna have to pony up the money). This is bad news for Sadiq Khan, as there are very serious questions being asked about when exactly he knew Crossrail was in trouble, and why didn't he say anything....
He could end up in court.
'Delayed indefinitely' is new. There's evidently some big issues with something; as the tunnels are complete, as are most of the stations, and they are running test trains, my guess is the very complex signalling systems. Probably wrong, though.
As you say, the question is when people knew that the project was in trouble.
The signalling in the Heathrow tunnels is still giving major problems, last I heard. Plus some of the stations are nowhere near ready.
Regardless of the topic - this is an utter failure by the PM.
48 letters must be in tonight - surely.
If we assume that she is heading back to Brussels to renegotiate the backstop, then she is only doing what the ERG told her to do. Why put in a letter now if you didn't do so when Mogg said to do so?
Yes - the ERG would be as well waiting until she comes back with some feeble crumbs from the EU - then knife her.
I just do not think your comment is at all acceptable.
On the day I have lost my special business partner of 40 years and a family friend of 50 years it is out of order
Typically decent of you Big G.
Condolences on what must be a day for a lot of reflection and reminiscing. Best wishes
That would have been a national scandal a few years ago. Now everyone just shrugs and forgets about it 5 minutes later.
I don't think we will forget about this, at least not in London (as it looks like we Londoners are gonna have to pony up the money). This is bad news for Sadiq Khan, as there are very serious questions being asked about when exactly he knew Crossrail was in trouble, and why didn't he say anything....
He could end up in court.
'Delayed indefinitely' is new. There's evidently some big issues with something; as the tunnels are complete, as are most of the stations, and they are running test trains, my guess is the very complex signalling systems. Probably wrong, though.
As you say, the question is when people knew that the project was in trouble.
The Guardian article mentions the signalling, but also says that test runs through the core have been cancelled. If the signalling is at issue, and there's no estimate of when it will be fixed, then that sounds as though they don't know how to fix it. It may never be fixed. This is potentially a monumental clusterfuck of the most epic of proportions.
That would have been a national scandal a few years ago. Now everyone just shrugs and forgets about it 5 minutes later.
I don't think we will forget about this, at least not in London (as it looks like we Londoners are gonna have to pony up the money). This is bad news for Sadiq Khan, as there are very serious questions being asked about when exactly he knew Crossrail was in trouble, and why didn't he say anything....
He could end up in court.
'Delayed indefinitely' is new. There's evidently some big issues with something; as the tunnels are complete, as are most of the stations, and they are running test trains, my guess is the very complex signalling systems. Probably wrong, though.
As you say, the question is when people knew that the project was in trouble.
At the risk of opening Pandora’s box, what’s so special about the signalling?
Different and new systems. In fact, it has three signalling systems.
*) The central section runs under Communications Based Train Control (CBTC) moving block signalling . I know f'all about this. *) The western section runs ETCS level 2. *) The eastern section runs bog-standard TPWS/AWS.
That would have been a national scandal a few years ago. Now everyone just shrugs and forgets about it 5 minutes later.
I don't think we will forget about this, at least not in London (as it looks like we Londoners are gonna have to pony up the money). This is bad news for Sadiq Khan, as there are very serious questions being asked about when exactly he knew Crossrail was in trouble, and why didn't he say anything....
He could end up in court.
'Delayed indefinitely' is new. There's evidently some big issues with something; as the tunnels are complete, as are most of the stations, and they are running test trains, my guess is the very complex signalling systems. Probably wrong, though.
As you say, the question is when people knew that the project was in trouble.
At the risk of opening Pandora’s box, what’s so special about the signalling?
Comments
They're also inevitably oversold on the grounds of their benefits. Unfortunately, politicians love them because they look decisive, statesmanlike, transformative, and - best of all - they'll be long gone by the time they turn out to be over time, over budget, and oversold.
This doesn't mean you should never do a megaproject - just make sure you're realistic about the cost, time, and - especially - benefits against the cost and time. Always double or treble each of the costs and time, and halve the expected benefits, and you'll be in the ballpark of the real cost, time, and benefit.
......and in a year or two, when their actions have resulted in us staying in the EU, maybe some of them might even think: "We could have had 90% of what we wanted, but instead we gambled it all for 100% and got nothing."
(Edit - and, even more pertinently, there can't be a Government of National Unity if there isn't any unity).
Never assume other people you meet are on the same irony level as you.
In The Loop
Like Crossrail.
STEP ONE: Negotiate an exit to EEA/EFTA. Not trivial, but very possible and should be achievable in less than two years. Exits CAP, CFP, most of the EU acquis, ECJ, reduces payments significantly. On the other hand, retains Freedom of Movement and some costs and reduces (but does not remove completely) influence over Single Market legislating.
At this point, the moment the agreement is signed, we're out and Article 50 is expired. We're a non-EU country and the only way back is through official accession.
STEP TWO: Decide where we want to end up. We can prepare (in slow time) for WTO rules, or negotiate a CETA-like agreement, or decide to stay put. Exiting the EEA Agreement can be done by giving twelve months notice. The power asymmetry with the EU is gone; there's no Article 50 timelimit.
However, the EEA countries might be concerned about us potentially just using them temporarily, so a competent negotiator would assure them that there's no chance of us going further and that they're sure we'll stay in the EEA for the forseeable future. At least until it's all signed.
No chance of that now, of course.
Then came along May with her "red lines".
Praise all lawyers as Shakespeare meant to say.
It reminds one of the classic line from an apocryphal reference - "his men would follow him anywhere, if only out of a sense of morbid curiosity'...
https://twitter.com/gabyhinsliff/status/1072128305900503042
https://twitter.com/gabyhinsliff/status/1072129379961053185
https://twitter.com/Laura_K_Hughes/status/1072126467134423041
Original estimate was £15.9 billion and 10 years. They then cut the budget to £14.8 billion (which was always going to be fiction; the costs for megaprojects don't go in that direction).
With the £590 million overspend last year and a further £1.7 billion estimate now (and we're late in the project stage), we're looking at just over £17 billion (7.5% above original estimates and 15% over the artificially reduced estimate) and a delay somewhere in excess of 1 year. I don't see it being delayed by more than, at most, an extra two years and maybe as little as an extra one year. That'd be 20% to 30% over time.
Annoying and embarrassing, but if you look at megaprojects (and if you want a big laugh at the expense of our ultra-efficient Teutonic cousins, check out the Berlin-Brandenburg Airport project), it's actually doing bloody well in comparison to most.
There was some discussion initially about Article 192(From memory) before T May wrote her article 50 letter and as to whether that letter expressly stated we have left EEA/EFTA as well.
https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1072130466453602306
As for couldn't negotiate that's not really true. Barnier kept asking early on what we wanted from this but Tessie thought it was a great idea to try to negotiate something that wasn't an option and so he closed down future negotiations talks. But early on they were actually happening.
Had we said from the start "this is our destination, at least for now" from an 'off the shelf' option I think the EU would have been much more amenable to negotiating it.
As you say, the question is when people knew that the project was in trouble.
https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1072129977351659521
On the day I have lost my special business partner of 40 years and a family friend of 50 years it is out of order
If the vote has to go forward tomorrow, and it loses heavily, May can say 'we already knew of its unpopularity which is why we tried to stop the vote and waste all your time, I'm off to the summit to get something that better fits what you want'.
https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/1072104199691923456
John Rentoul
Verified account @JohnRentoul
Approx. No-deal Brexit: 124 MPs. PM's deal: 215 MPs. Referendum (ie, Remain): 300. With NDB as default if they can't decide
The problem in a nutshell
So she wants a legally-binding backstop to the backstop, to prevent the backstop acting as a backstop.
BREXIT, ladies and gentlemen.
Condolences on what must be a day for a lot of reflection and reminiscing. Best wishes
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1072133163936301056
*) The central section runs under Communications Based Train Control (CBTC) moving block signalling . I know f'all about this.
*) The western section runs ETCS level 2.
*) The eastern section runs bog-standard TPWS/AWS.
Both CBTC and ETCS are relatively new and untried in the UK. The latter is, I think, only used on the Cambrian line in Wales and has had various problems, such as :
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Railway-safety-and-crime/raib-to-investigate-cambrian-line-ertms-failure
https://www.railengineer.uk/2016/01/08/signalling-crossrail/
I daresay an illustrious PBer may (or may not) be able to say more ...