That’s one of the better ideas I have heard amid a slurry of utter shite. Congratulations to these individuals for creative thinking while all around continue to bang their heads against walls.
That makes no sense. If all indicative votes on options for Brexit fail, you can’t randomly and arbitrarily reject 2 of them, which are both entirely consistent with the referendum result, in an arbitrary whim. That’s not representative democracy at all. It’s not even democracy. If they all fail, you have a general election and campaign for a new mandate, or no deal happens by passage of time.
Also, an "indicative vote" on no deal is like an indicative vote on the sun rising tomorrow. It's not like when they pulled this trick on Lords reform.
NIce article Alan - you do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Why on earth would the government decide now to "come clean" and tell us all about the pros and cons of immigration?
Also, would need to do some research on the "made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population". Is that really so?
MrT thanks
Im currently waging a ( losing ) campaign to offer a few divergences from Brexit. Since out there in the big world things go on and will eventually come back to bite us. The current introspection on UK problems doesnt really pick up how similar our issues are to lots of other countries. Somewhere along the line we need to get back a sense of perspective. Brexit has made Westminster as functional as Stormont.
That was completely predictable in advance and one of the huge drawbacks of Brexit. Wasting so much time on a second order issue was always a terrible idea.
The private sector must (on average) be getting real wage rises, as in the public sector we are continuing to get real terms wage cuts each year. Minus 2% for me.
shall we talk about pensions ?
One reason that I am keen to claim mine! If I take early retirement this year then I get CPI rises each year.
One of many reasons why retention of senior staff is so poor. The finances make it foolish to stay in the job.
I cashed mine in and kept working , suppose you will not have that option.
No, that is definitely an option. I just need to be off work for a month before restarting, with salary, pension and 13.5% payrise as no longer contributing employee superannuation. It would mean a lot of tax though unless i go to 3 days a week, which would put me in status quo for income, more or less.
You can stay working and drop out of the scheme, if it makes sense. When I left my last job which was on a pay freeze I worked out that it made sense to leave the pension scheme a few months before I left the job, as the benefit of the CPI uplift was greater than that of a few months' extra service.
That’s one of the better ideas I have heard amid a slurry of utter shite. Congratulations to these individuals for creative thinking while all around continue to bang their heads against walls.
Agree - that's the best idea I have heard so far as well. At least versus the other nightmare options.
The problem is that Mrs M and the government aren't really up for creative ways to approach the matter, as the only problem they can see is that MPs aren't supporting her deal.
NIce article Alan - you do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Why on earth would the government decide now to "come clean" and tell us all about the pros and cons of immigration?
Also, would need to do some research on the "made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population". Is that really so?
MrT thanks
Im currently waging a ( losing ) campaign to offer a few divergences from Brexit. Since out there in the big world things go on and will eventually come back to bite us. The current introspection on UK problems doesnt really pick up how similar our issues are to lots of other countries. Somewhere along the line we need to get back a sense of perspective. Brexit has made Westminster as functional as Stormont.
god help us but in particular - and this (sorry) relates to Norway plus and the suggested use of the emergency brake - did we make no effort to accommodate the influx of immigrants ie were our resources unable to cope?
NIce article Alan - you do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Why on earth would the government decide now to "come clean" and tell us all about the pros and cons of immigration?
Also, would need to do some research on the "made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population". Is that really so?
MrT thanks
Im currently waging a ( losing ) campaign to offer a few divergences from Brexit. Since out there in the big world things go on and will eventually come back to bite us. The current introspection on UK problems doesnt really pick up how similar our issues are to lots of other countries. Somewhere along the line we need to get back a sense of perspective. Brexit has made Westminster as functional as Stormont.
That was completely predictable in advance and one of the huge drawbacks of Brexit. Wasting so much time on a second order issue was always a terrible idea.
Of course Mr Meeks you are correct/ Im fully aware any non brexit items has a shelf life of about 2 minutes before we all go back to mass hysteria. But being a simple soul I always believe people should have a chance to do sometheing else. A break always helps restore a sense of reality. Ive sat out loads of Brexit threads and feel better for it. Leave Remain is as beneficial as SF - DUP. Still Ill keep trying.
NIce article Alan - you do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Why on earth would the government decide now to "come clean" and tell us all about the pros and cons of immigration?
Also, would need to do some research on the "made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population". Is that really so?
MrT thanks
Im currently waging a ( losing ) campaign to offer a few divergences from Brexit. Since out there in the big world things go on and will eventually come back to bite us. The current introspection on UK problems doesnt really pick up how similar our issues are to lots of other countries. Somewhere along the line we need to get back a sense of perspective. Brexit has made Westminster as functional as Stormont.
That was completely predictable in advance and one of the huge drawbacks of Brexit. Wasting so much time on a second order issue was always a terrible idea.
Of course Mr Meeks you are correct/ Im fully aware any non brexit items has a shelf life of about 2 minutes before we all go back to mass hysteria. But being a simple soul I always believe people should have a chance to do sometheing else. A break always helps restore a sense of reality. Ive sat out loads of Brexit threads and feel better for it. Leave Remain is as beneficial as SF - DUP. Still Ill keep trying.
That wasn't my point.
My point is that the enterprise you enthusiastically endorsed has led to exactly the inability to focus on anything else that you deprecate.
That’s one of the better ideas I have heard amid a slurry of utter shite. Congratulations to these individuals for creative thinking while all around continue to bang their heads against walls.
That makes no sense. If all indicative votes on options for Brexit fail, you can’t randomly and arbitrarily reject 2 of them, which are both entirely consistent with the referendum result, in an arbitrary whim. That’s not representative democracy at all. It’s not even democracy. If they all fail, you have a general election and campaign for a new mandate, or no deal happens by passage of time.
Allowing no deal by way of legislative deadlock, when it is an option rejected by the majority, isn't particularly democratic, either.
Edit I mean agree with the assertion that leaving in an orderly fashion is optional but leaving on 29th March isn't.
The duty to Brexit thing is a nice story. An alternative way of interpreting what she's doing is that she wants to carry on being PM for as long as possible, and everything else is she's doing is optimized for that.
Can anyone think of an objective reason to believe in the "duty" theory over the "wants to be PM" theory?
Yes - because she is fighting tooth and nail to get her deal agreed, and if it ever is the DUP will end her premiership. Her sense of duty may be misplaced or wrong, and she has taken pointless self preserving actions like pulling the MV, but passing the deal does not optimize her staying on as PM.
Or she thinks the DUP are bluffing. A dangerous game if so.
There's a strong anti-Parliament feeling developing at the moment. The Tory Party is more bothered with navel-gazing, the Labour Party is doing its best to derail everything for party advantage, and the SNP is in its usual stroppy teenager mode.
I think we need another set of MPs. And none of the current lot should be allowed to stand. Any new MPs we do elect should have strictly limited powers because they're abusing their current ones.
This feeling cuts across party loyalty and Brexit views. It would be interesting to see some polling on this. Or do I live in a very unusual area of the UK?
NIce article Alan - you do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Why on earth would the government decide now to "come clean" and tell us all about the pros and cons of immigration?
Also, would need to do some research on the "made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population". Is that really so?
MrT thanks
Im currently waging a ( losing ) campaign to offer a few divergences from Brexit. Since out there in the big world things go on and will eventually come back to bite us. The current introspection on UK problems doesnt really pick up how similar our issues are to lots of other countries. Somewhere along the line we need to get back a sense of perspective. Brexit has made Westminster as functional as Stormont.
god help us but in particular - and this (sorry) relates to Norway plus and the suggested use of the emergency brake - did we make no effort to accommodate the influx of immigrants ie were our resources unable to cope?
Well setting the social and cultural issues aside if we look at purely infrastructure we didnt build enoigh houses ( even before 2004 that was the cause ) or gear public infrastructure to accommodate 4 million extra people( overcrowded schools, roads unable to cope with traffic, NHS ) . The UK has always been bad at investing in infrastructure and the influx of 4 million more people simply stretched the sysytem to bursting point.
Anyone else here in either of the T May exit date or T May Exit date 2 markets ?
Yes and I've squandered most of my all green position messing about over the past few days with that no confidence vote. should have left well alone.
I was underwater by £70 at one point, but now have ~ £500 at around 1-11 on the May lasting out the year which I'm very happy with. It's been a toil this market !
Edit I mean agree with the assertion that leaving in an orderly fashion is optional but leaving on 29th March isn't.
The duty to Brexit thing is a nice story. An alternative way of interpreting what she's doing is that she wants to carry on being PM for as long as possible, and everything else is she's doing is optimized for that.
Can anyone think of an objective reason to believe in the "duty" theory over the "wants to be PM" theory?
Yes - because she is fighting tooth and nail to get her deal agreed, and if it ever is the DUP will end her premiership. Her sense of duty may be misplaced or wrong, and she has taken pointless self preserving actions like pulling the MV, but passing the deal does not optimize her staying on as PM.
Or she thinks the DUP are bluffing. A dangerous game if so.
If Ian Paisley senior was still with us...she would be in no doubt from the big man.
How on Earth does a couple of streets of fake building facades cost £90m? Are they relocating Eastenders to Mayfair?
Who the fuck cares? There are more important things to worry about in the world.
Considering I'm taxed via the TV licence to pay for this garbage whether I watch it or not then I care.
Privatise the BBC and I couldn't give a hoot.
I loathe EastEnders, it’s awful, but I suspect it more than washes its face in terms of global syndication. Have you run the numbers? Or just another knee jerk anti BBC thing?
I suspect that they would have had far better global syndication returns if they had spent £90m on wildlife programming.
And it means that however shite the storylines and however low the ratings get, to justify the expenditure we can look forward to Eastenders gracing our screens for another 400 years.
NIce article Alan - you do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Why on earth would the government decide now to "come clean" and tell us all about the pros and cons of immigration?
Also, would need to do some research on the "made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population". Is that really so?
MrT thanks
Im currently waging a ( losing ) campaign to offer a few divergences from Brexit. Since out there in the big world things go on and will eventually come back to bite us. The current introspection on UK problems doesnt really pick up how similar our issues are to lots of other countries. Somewhere along the line we need to get back a sense of perspective. Brexit has made Westminster as functional as Stormont.
That was completely predictable in advance and one of the huge drawbacks of Brexit. Wasting so much time on a second order issue was always a terrible idea.
Time's only really being wasted because there is a significant number of MPs who haven't given up on the idea of overturning the result. These people won't be satisfied with any deal unless they think Remain is out of the question - at which point, of course, nearly all of them will accept any deal as preferable to no deal, and the deal in place at that point passes easily.
NIce article Alan - you do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Why on earth would the government decide now to "come clean" and tell us all about the pros and cons of immigration?
Also, would need to do some research on the "made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population". Is that really so?
MrT thanks
Im currently waging a ( losing ) campaign to offer a few divergences from Brexit. Since out there in the big world things go on and will eventually come back to bite us. The current introspection on UK problems doesnt really pick up how similar our issues are to lots of other countries. Somewhere along the line we need to get back a sense of perspective. Brexit has made Westminster as functional as Stormont.
That was completely predictable in advance and one of the huge drawbacks of Brexit. Wasting so much time on a second order issue was always a terrible idea.
Of course Mr Meeks you are correct/ Im fully aware any non brexit items has a shelf life of about 2 minutes before we all go back to mass hysteria. But being a simple soul I always believe people should have a chance to do sometheing else. A break always helps restore a sense of reality. Ive sat out loads of Brexit threads and feel better for it. Leave Remain is as beneficial as SF - DUP. Still Ill keep trying.
Lets face it - nothing meaningful re Brexit is going to happen until 5 to midnight on the 28th of March.
In the meantime events will consist of the Lamebot waddling to and from Brussels pretending something is happening whilst Jezza hides under his hammer and sickle duvet.
NIce article Alan - you do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Why on earth would the government decide now to "come clean" and tell us all about the pros and cons of immigration?
Also, would need to do some research on the "made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population". Is that really so?
MrT thanks
Im currently waging a ( losing ) campaign to offer a few divergences from Brexit. Since out there in the big world things go on and will eventually come back to bite us. The current introspection on UK problems doesnt really pick up how similar our issues are to lots of other countries. Somewhere along the line we need to get back a sense of perspective. Brexit has made Westminster as functional as Stormont.
god help us but in particular - and this (sorry) relates to Norway plus and the suggested use of the emergency brake - did we make no effort to accommodate the influx of immigrants ie were our resources unable to cope?
Well setting the social and cultural issues aside if we look at purely infrastructure we didnt build enoigh houses ( even before 2004 that was the cause ) or gear public infrastructure to accommodate 4 million extra people( overcrowded schools, roads unable to cope with traffic, NHS ) . The UK has always been bad at investing in infrastructure and the influx of 4 million more people simply stretched the sysytem to bursting point.
The lunacy since 1997 with roads is there has been this insane sort of philosophy that we better not build new roads because if we do people will drive on them.
NIce article Alan - you do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Why on earth would the government decide now to "come clean" and tell us all about the pros and cons of immigration?
Also, would need to do some research on the "made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population". Is that really so?
MrT thanks
Im currently waging a ( losing ) campaign to offer a few divergences from Brexit. Since out there in the big world things go on and will eventually come back to bite us. The current introspection on UK problems doesnt really pick up how similar our issues are to lots of other countries. Somewhere along the line we need to get back a sense of perspective. Brexit has made Westminster as functional as Stormont.
That was completely predictable in advance and one of the huge drawbacks of Brexit. Wasting so much time on a second order issue was always a terrible idea.
Of course Mr Meeks you are correct/ Im fully aware any non brexit items has a shelf life of about 2 minutes before we all go back to mass hysteria. But being a simple soul I always believe people should have a chance to do sometheing else. A break always helps restore a sense of reality. Ive sat out loads of Brexit threads and feel better for it. Leave Remain is as beneficial as SF - DUP. Still Ill keep trying.
That wasn't my point.
My point is that the enterprise you enthusiastically endorsed has led to exactly the inability to focus on anything else that you deprecate.
well since youre back to Brexit land so be it. Id say the same about you. Yadda the arguments havent progressed
But really I suspect you have liittle idea of what I actually think since you arre too trapped in your black and white world. Shame.
There's a strong anti-Parliament feeling developing at the moment. The Tory Party is more bothered with navel-gazing, the Labour Party is doing its best to derail everything for party advantage, and the SNP is in its usual stroppy teenager mode.
I think we need another set of MPs. And none of the current lot should be allowed to stand. Any new MPs we do elect should have strictly limited powers because they're abusing their current ones.
This feeling cuts across party loyalty and Brexit views. It would be interesting to see some polling on this. Or do I live in a very unusual area of the UK?
Yes and being secure for a year from no confidence votes and having said she will not lead the Tories at another general election May can focus on her legacy and getting her Deal through at all costs after a few tweaks, even threatening Eurosceptics with a Deal v Remain referendum if she has to
Heck of a risky strategy but this is going to escalate, as May cannot get what she wants without getting labour votes and while chaos leading to no deal default the ERG cannot confirm it without purposefully infighting more chaos.
If the Deal passes it will be with some Labour votes yes although not impossible DUP could back Corbyn in return for no backstop but permanent Customs Union and some Single Market for the whole UK
How on Earth does a couple of streets of fake building facades cost £90m? Are they relocating Eastenders to Mayfair?
I *guess* the problem is having to do it around existing filming schedules - ISTR (*) they had to do the rebuild in the same location as the 'original' sets.
Performing big upgrades whilst maintaining operations is difficult and can be very costly. As the railways have discovered ...
(*) It might have been Coronation Street ...
That would make sense, yes it’s going to be really expensive if they have to work three days at a time while leaving the set looking identical every time they finish.
Yes, I have bad memories of the WCML upgrade project, which managed to cause massive disturbance at the same time as running way late and way over budget. With hindsight they would have been much better having the guts to close it completely for a year and do all the works in one go.
ISTR Coronation St rebuilt their entire set at a new location, and as the area around the old Granada Studios became trendy they made a fortune selling it off.
Closing the whole line and getting the work done is what they usually do here in Denmark - last year one of the main commuter lines into Copenhagen was shut for months while they relaid all the track etc - busses laid on every 10 minutes or so - massive disruption but for a relatively short period - unlike no deal Brexit, massive disruption for a very very long period for no benefit.
It's what they eventually ended up doing on the WCML upgrade, after years of faffing around trying to do it at nights. Personally, I think they should have spent a year doing enabling works on the upgrade (the stuff they can do without effecting train services), and upgrading alternative routes, then shut the entire thing for six months. That would have caused less disruption than the many, many years of chaos that occurred.
Network Rail is just nearing the end of a £200 million upgrade to Derby station. It sounds as if it went well, and they did exactly that: reduced services for a few months during preparatory works, then entire closure for 80 days whilst they did the bulk of the work, and then slowly ramp up services as everything beds in.
Labour are conducting themselves very professionally in the commons. A good sign for what a Labour govt might be like
Yes. Corbyn is playing a blinder. Labour just need to wait it out now - The next election is in the bag and it will be with a majority as well.
Haha. Even "The Jezziah" doesn't write such ludicrously Cult-loyal posts as you. I never thought that Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf would be hired by Momentum Central Office, but now we have the proof.
Yes and being secure for a year from no confidence votes and having said she will not lead the Tories at another general election May can focus on her legacy and getting her Deal through at all costs after a few tweaks, even threatening Eurosceptics with a Deal v Remain referendum if she has to
Heck of a risky strategy but this is going to escalate, as May cannot get what she wants without getting labour votes and while chaos leading to no deal default the ERG cannot confirm it without purposefully infighting more chaos.
If the Deal passes it will be with some Labour votes yes although not impossible DUP could back Corbyn in return for no backstop but permanent Customs Union and some Single Market for the whole UK
Which would mean freedom of movement as these are indivisible for the EU.
NIce article Alan - you do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Why on earth would the government decide now to "come clean" and tell us all about the pros and cons of immigration?
Also, would need to do some research on the "made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population". Is that really so?
MrT thanks
Im currently waging a ( losing ) campaign to offer a few divergences from Brexit. Since out there in the big world things go on and will eventually come back to bite us. The current introspection on UK problems doesnt really pick up how similar our issues are to lots of other countries. Somewhere along the line we need to get back a sense of perspective. Brexit has made Westminster as functional as Stormont.
That was completely predictable in advance and one of the huge drawbacks of Brexit. Wasting so much time on a second order issue was always a terrible idea.
Of course Mr Meeks you are correct/ Im fully aware any non brexit items has a shelf life of about 2 minutes before we all go back to mass hysteria. But being a simple soul I always believe people should have a chance to do sometheing else. A break always helps restore a sense of reality. Ive sat out loads of Brexit threads and feel better for it. Leave Remain is as beneficial as SF - DUP. Still Ill keep trying.
That wasn't my point.
My point is that the enterprise you enthusiastically endorsed has led to exactly the inability to focus on anything else that you deprecate.
well since youre back to Brexit land so be it. Id say the same about you. Yadda the arguments havent progressed
But really I suspect you have liittle idea of what I actually think since you arre too trapped in your black and white world. Shame.
I know you like Brexit. I know that Brexit has led to the country's attention having been diverted for years from other topics.
Your views on other subjects will not alter that pair of related observations.
Yes and being secure for a year from no confidence votes and having said she will not lead the Tories at another general election May can focus on her legacy and getting her Deal through at all costs after a few tweaks, even threatening Eurosceptics with a Deal v Remain referendum if she has to
Heck of a risky strategy but this is going to escalate, as May cannot get what she wants without getting labour votes and while chaos leading to no deal default the ERG cannot confirm it without purposefully infighting more chaos.
If the Deal passes it will be with some Labour votes yes although not impossible DUP could back Corbyn in return for no backstop but permanent Customs Union and some Single Market for the whole UK
Which would mean freedom of movement as these are indivisible for the EU.
McDonnell urged May to commit to permanent Customs Union and some Single Market to avoid the backstop on Today
Would remaining in the single market for goods for the remainder of the UK in the event of the backstop obviate the DUP concerns (and perhaps even some Labour) since there would be no regulatory barrier required then ?
HYUFD makes a good point down thread when he said that TMay now has little to lose by threatening the headbangers with a second referendum. Why shouldn't she? The fact that she has ruled herself out of another GE, and she cannot be challenged for another year paradoxically puts her in a very strong position to do this.
How on Earth does a couple of streets of fake building facades cost £90m? Are they relocating Eastenders to Mayfair?
Who the fuck cares? There are more important things to worry about in the world.
Considering I'm taxed via the TV licence to pay for this garbage whether I watch it or not then I care.
Privatise the BBC and I couldn't give a hoot.
I loathe EastEnders, it’s awful, but I suspect it more than washes its face in terms of global syndication. Have you run the numbers? Or just another knee jerk anti BBC thing?
I suspect that they would have had far better global syndication returns if they had spent £90m on wildlife programming.
And it means that however shite the storylines and however low the ratings get, to justify the expenditure we can look forward to Eastenders gracing our screens for another 400 years.
"gracing" isn't the word I would use, "polluting" is nearer the mark
That’s one of the better ideas I have heard amid a slurry of utter shite. Congratulations to these individuals for creative thinking while all around continue to bang their heads against walls.
That makes no sense. If all indicative votes on options for Brexit fail, you can’t randomly and arbitrarily reject 2 of them, which are both entirely consistent with the referendum result, in an arbitrary whim. That’s not representative democracy at all. It’s not even democracy. If they all fail, you have a general election and campaign for a new mandate, or no deal happens by passage of time.
Allowing no deal by way of legislative deadlock, when it is an option rejected by the majority, isn't particularly democratic, either.
Yes and being secure for a year from no confidence votes and having said she will not lead the Tories at another general election May can focus on her legacy and getting her Deal through at all costs after a few tweaks, even threatening Eurosceptics with a Deal v Remain referendum if she has to
Heck of a risky strategy but this is going to escalate, as May cannot get what she wants without getting labour votes and while chaos leading to no deal default the ERG cannot confirm it without purposefully infighting more chaos.
If the Deal passes it will be with some Labour votes yes although not impossible DUP could back Corbyn in return for no backstop but permanent Customs Union and some Single Market for the whole UK
Which would mean freedom of movement as these are indivisible for the EU.
Good luck with that at the election Jezza.
That seems to be Labour's policy now yes
What are the upsides of this policy - apart from no MEPs ?
NIce article Alan - you do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Why on earth would the government decide now to "come clean" and tell us all about the pros and cons of immigration?
Also, would need to do some research on the "made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population". Is that really so?
MrT thanks
Im currently waging a ( losing ) campaign to offer a few divergences from Brexit. Since out there in the big world things go on and will eventually come back to bite us. The current introspection on UK problems doesnt really pick up how similar our issues are to lots of other countries. Somewhere along the line we need to get back a sense of perspective. Brexit has made Westminster as functional as Stormont.
god help us but in particular - and this (sorry) relates to Norway plus and the suggested use of the emergency brake - did we make no effort to accommodate the influx of immigrants ie were our resources unable to cope?
Well setting the social and cultural issues aside if we look at purely infrastructure we didnt build enoigh houses ( even before 2004 that was the cause ) or gear public infrastructure to accommodate 4 million extra people( overcrowded schools, roads unable to cope with traffic, NHS ) . The UK has always been bad at investing in infrastructure and the influx of 4 million more people simply stretched the sysytem to bursting point.
Just to pick one completely incorrect point out of that list, there are fewer pupils in secondary schools this year than there were in 2006.
There's a strong anti-Parliament feeling developing at the moment. The Tory Party is more bothered with navel-gazing, the Labour Party is doing its best to derail everything for party advantage, and the SNP is in its usual stroppy teenager mode.
I think we need another set of MPs. And none of the current lot should be allowed to stand. Any new MPs we do elect should have strictly limited powers because they're abusing their current ones.
This feeling cuts across party loyalty and Brexit views. It would be interesting to see some polling on this. Or do I live in a very unusual area of the UK?
I think if you had polled on that question at any point in the last 30 years you'd have got a fairly strong majority in favour.
Yes and being secure for a year from no confidence votes and having said she will not lead the Tories at another general election May can focus on her legacy and getting her Deal through at all costs after a few tweaks, even threatening Eurosceptics with a Deal v Remain referendum if she has to
Heck of a risky strategy but this is going to escalate, as May cannot get what she wants without getting labour votes and while chaos leading to no deal default the ERG cannot confirm it without purposefully infighting more chaos.
If the Deal passes it will be with some Labour votes yes although not impossible DUP could back Corbyn in return for no backstop but permanent Customs Union and some Single Market for the whole UK
Which would mean freedom of movement as these are indivisible for the EU.
Good luck with that at the election Jezza.
That seems to be Labour's policy now yes
What are the upsides of this policy - apart from no MEPs ?
Membership of the EU and the fee but no input.
McDonnell isn't that stupid.
A Brexit of sorts and freedom for the Labour Party to execute its agenda.
NIce article Alan - you do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Why on earth would the government decide now to "come clean" and tell us all about the pros and cons of immigration?
Also, would need to do some research on the "made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population". Is that really so?
MrT thanks
Im currently waging a ( losing ) campaign to offer a few divergences from Brexit. Since out there in the big world things go on and will eventually come back to bite us. The current introspection on UK problems doesnt really pick up how similar our issues are to lots of other countries. Somewhere along the line we need to get back a sense of perspective. Brexit has made Westminster as functional as Stormont.
god help us but in particular - and this (sorry) relates to Norway plus and the suggested use of the emergency brake - did we make no effort to accommodate the influx of immigrants ie were our resources unable to cope?
Well setting the social and cultural issues aside if we look at purely infrastructure we didnt build enoigh houses ( even before 2004 that was the cause ) or gear public infrastructure to accommodate 4 million extra people( overcrowded schools, roads unable to cope with traffic, NHS ) . The UK has always been bad at investing in infrastructure and the influx of 4 million more people simply stretched the sysytem to bursting point.
Just to pick one completely incorrect point out of that list, there are fewer pupils in secondary schools this year than there were in 2006.
Since mass immigartion only got going in 2004 thats hardly a surprise. Shift your view to primary schools and its a different picture. Once settled people start having families or young couple bring their kids with them. Prior to 2004 the expectation was that school number would drop. Roll the bumbers on a few years and we will be looking at the secondary school overload you think wont happem.
Then add in the stresses from the mix. My daughter taught up until recently in a primary school in a deprived area of Oxford, In a class of thirty ish at least half were from overseas families and usually from severasl countries. There was no provision for the problems this engenders.
NIce article Alan - you do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Why on earth would the government decide now to "come clean" and tell us all about the pros and cons of immigration?
Also, would need to do some research on the "made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population". Is that really so?
MrT thanks
Im currently waging a ( losing ) campaign to offer a few divergences from Brexit. Since out there in the big world things go on and will eventually come back to bite us. The current introspection on UK problems doesnt really pick up how similar our issues are to lots of other countries. Somewhere along the line we need to get back a sense of perspective. Brexit has made Westminster as functional as Stormont.
god help us but in particular - and this (sorry) relates to Norway plus and the suggested use of the emergency brake - did we make no effort to accommodate the influx of immigrants ie were our resources unable to cope?
Well setting the social and cultural issues aside if we look at purely infrastructure we didnt build enoigh houses ( even before 2004 that was the cause ) or gear public infrastructure to accommodate 4 million extra people( overcrowded schools, roads unable to cope with traffic, NHS ) . The UK has always been bad at investing in infrastructure and the influx of 4 million more people simply stretched the sysytem to bursting point.
Just to pick one completely incorrect point out of that list, there are fewer pupils in secondary schools this year than there were in 2006.
Not that I doubt you, but do you have a source for that?
On topic, I think Merkel's position is being misrepresented. I doubt she is an internationalist at heart but she is an economic and domestic pragmatist.
She recognises the continuing strength of the German economy relies on the availability of cheap labour to maintain the Services and manufacturing sector. This supply also keeps wages down and costs down and stifles inflation.
She has calculated (perhaps erroneously) the economic benefits outweigh the social costs. Migrants who come into the country, work and pay taxes and therefore contribute to economic growth are to be welcomed and as long as the economic growth keeps being delivered which keeps other Germans prosperous, in work or able to afford pension provision and the other social welfare systems, everyone will or should be happy.
I suspect Blair, Brown and Cameron were of a similar mind. The problem will come when the global economy slows to an extent that we see the "good times" of cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and endlessly rising asset values come to an end (again). The last slowdown wasn't (surprisingly) one which impinged too severely on employment - the next one might.
The economic arguments for migration are strong and especially so in times of prosperity but there are social consequences to which Alanbrooke has alluded which mean the problems of migration outweigh any perceived or actual benefits.
HYUFD makes a good point down thread when he said that TMay now has little to lose by threatening the headbangers with a second referendum. Why shouldn't she? The fact that she has ruled herself out of another GE, and she cannot be challenged for another year paradoxically puts her in a very strong position to do this.
That's true but having said so many times that a second referendum is out of the question May would lose all her remaining shreds of credibility if she backtracked on that now. I think a second referendum is quite possible, but it will need to be forced on May by parliament, not the other way round.
Mr. Nick, might that 'force' simply be a crushing defeat for her deal?
"The British public have the right to determine their own destiny and if Parliament cannot agree a way forward we must refer it to the voters" or suchlike.
The only way parliament can truly take back control is for Grieve, Wollaston, Soubry and four others to vote to take down the Gov't if they think it is going to head to no deal and force a GE. I would think it'd be the end of their careers, but I wouldn't rule it out as a course of action completely for them given how strong their feelings are over preventing no deal with the EU.
HYUFD makes a good point down thread when he said that TMay now has little to lose by threatening the headbangers with a second referendum. Why shouldn't she? The fact that she has ruled herself out of another GE, and she cannot be challenged for another year paradoxically puts her in a very strong position to do this.
That's true but having said so many times that a second referendum is out of the question May would lose all her remaining shreds of credibility if she backtracked on that now. I think a second referendum is quite possible, but it will need to be forced on May by parliament, not the other way round.
Sadly or happily, Margaret Beckett made the very good point yesterday which was why would you (or Cons MPs) believe anything that May said about anything?
She has consistently been economic with the actualité changed her mind so why should she stop now?
And also, apols if this has been covered - what a day for me to be away yesterday - but what exactly was the commitment to not stand in the GE? All I heard was in relation to yesterday's vote ie it was about the VONC not to lead them into the next election?
Mr. Nick, might that 'force' simply be a crushing defeat for her deal?
"The British public have the right to determine their own destiny and if Parliament cannot agree a way forward we must refer it to the voters" or suchlike.
Yes it could be. I guess that if we get into February and there is still no deal the key players - I nominate Starmer, Bercow, Grieve as "key" - will engineer a parliamentary vote in favour of avoiding a crash out and, whilst this will not technically be legislation it will not be possible for the government in its enfeebled state to simply ignore it. It will have to come up with something and a second referendum will probably be the only option available at that point.
As to yesterday's events, my words of wisdom and erudition from 24 hours ago:
"My view has always been she needs a minimum of 200 MPs supporting her to continue in any credible form even if the rules say she wins with 158 or 160 or whatever.
I think tonight she'll get around 220-230 which will mean 80-90 MPs won't support her (some of those may abstain). There'll be a few hours of euphoria among the Conservative loyalists and then tomorrow morning the realisation will dawn nothing has changed except another option has been closed off."
So we have the 117 who actively opposed her last night and any number among the 200 who might support her but not her Deal and it's quite clear the Deal is a dead duck as it stands.
I wonder if she had a minimum level of support below which she would have resigned even if she had lost the vote - I'm sure we'll find out in some memoir some day.
As to this securing her in office, once again too many people on here forget how politics actually works. It wasn't the failure to win on the first ballot that did for Thatcher but the fact that her Cabinet told her a) many of them wouldn't support her on a second vote and b) resigning now would prevent a humiliating defeat.
That was then - it seems the likes of May and Corbyn care little for the personal angst of actual rejection and just carry on whatever.
In that regard, May can still be removed if the senior members of the Cabinet turn on her - it would be impossible for her to remain as Prime Minister if, for example, Hunt, Javid and Gove all went to her and told her to go. However, as all are potential competitors for the job that isn't going to happen until new alliances are formed.
Nothing has changed - the fundamental dilemma remains the same. If the Deal passes the Commons, the DUP will join the other Opposition parties and force a Vote of No Confidence in the House which will pass on the numbers. If the Deal doesn't pass, we head for either No Deal (exiting in as orderly a manner as possible in the time available) on 29/3/19 and all that may or may not flow from it or to a revocation of Article 50 which I can imagine will cause more than a few ructions in the Conservative Party even if it passes the Commons with Labour, LD and SNP support.
Reflecting on last nights vote of the 117 against there must have been quite a number who are opposed to the ERG but also do not want TM leading into the next election and that this was an opportunity to prevent it. In addition there must have been some hard remainers (Jo Johnson maybe) who saw it as an opportunity to elect a pro referendum successor to TM
Three groups, all with different motives, but many very opposed to ERG
As far as this pans out my instinct says that when the deal comes back, as it will (lets have xmas off) in January the HOC referendum supporters, which must be near a majority coalesce around an amendment to the meaningful vote so that it is approved, but subject to a referendum.
The advantage to this is that TM would only need to impliment the decision and apply for a short extension to A50 to permit the vote and for the result to be known before May 19 Euro elections
Maybe just too easy but it is a path to resolution, though it would be very divisive. However, everything is divisive at present
The cry of we need to build more houses has always had an elephant in the room, and that's . Immigration. Whether it's racist or not, this has to be faced. If your population has an extra 300,000 added every year, be they white, black or Martian, you need how many more houses? This is on top of any normal requirements.
Obviously there are other factors, but they often balance out. Less divorce, lower birthrate ... emigration.
The feeling I always get in Boston is that although there are cultural factors too, as has been said earlier, the immigrants tend to be young and have children (they tend to be Catholic). They go to school and increase the year-groups with children who have varying degrees of language proficiency. Many, if they have a second language, would use Russian. And this wasn't a few extra people here and there, it was a mass migration.
It could be worse, I suppose, they could be Cockneys.
NIce article Alan - you do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Why on earth would the government decide now to "come clean" and tell us all about the pros and cons of immigration?
Also, would need to do some research on the "made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population". Is that really so?
MrT thanks
Im currently waging a ( losing ) campaign to offer a few divergences from Brexit. Since out there in the big world things go on and will eventually come back to bite us. The current introspection on UK problems doesnt really pick up how similar our issues are to lots of other countries. Somewhere along the line we need to get back a sense of perspective. Brexit has made Westminster as functional as Stormont.
That was completely predictable in advance and one of the huge drawbacks of Brexit. Wasting so much time on a second order issue was always a terrible idea.
Of course Mr Meeks you are correct/ Im fully aware any non brexit items has a shelf life of about 2 minutes before we all go back to mass hysteria. But being a simple soul I always believe people should have a chance to do sometheing else. A break always helps restore a sense of reality. Ive sat out loads of Brexit threads and feel better for it. Leave Remain is as beneficial as SF - DUP. Still Ill keep trying.
Lets face it - nothing meaningful re Brexit is going to happen until 5 to midnight on the 28th of March.
In the meantime events will consist of the Lamebot waddling to and from Brussels pretending something is happening whilst Jezza hides under his hammer and sickle duvet.
By 5 to midnight on 28/3/19 we have been in No Deal land for 55 minutes. That is beyond the deadline.
HYUFD makes a good point down thread when he said that TMay now has little to lose by threatening the headbangers with a second referendum. Why shouldn't she? The fact that she has ruled herself out of another GE, and she cannot be challenged for another year paradoxically puts her in a very strong position to do this.
That's true but having said so many times that a second referendum is out of the question May would lose all her remaining shreds of credibility if she backtracked on that now. I think a second referendum is quite possible, but it will need to be forced on May by parliament, not the other way round.
This is true, but there's a whole "please don't throw me into the briar patch" vibe about it. I mean, TMay must know the likely outcome of everything she's been doing is to be "forced" into this position. But it conveniently it keeps her in office, marginalizes her opponents, and accomplishes either her personal policy preference (Remain) or a personal achievement (May-Barnier).
I'm not saying she always planned for this to happen, but if that had been her plan, what she'd do would be pretty much identical to what she's done to date.
NIce article Alan - you do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Why on earth would the government decide now to "come clean" and tell us all about the pros and cons of immigration?
Also, would need to do some research on the "made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population". Is that really so?
MrT thanks
Im currently waging a ( losing ) campaign to offer a few divergences from Brexit. Since out there in the big world things go on and will eventually come back to bite us. The current introspection on UK problems doesnt really pick up how similar our issues are to lots of other countries. Somewhere along the line we need to get back a sense of perspective. Brexit has made Westminster as functional as Stormont.
That was completely predictable in advance and one of the huge drawbacks of Brexit. Wasting so much time on a second order issue was always a terrible idea.
Of course Mr Meeks you are correct/ Im fully aware any non brexit items has a shelf life of about 2 minutes before we all go back to mass hysteria. But being a simple soul I always believe people should have a chance to do sometheing else. A break always helps restore a sense of reality. Ive sat out loads of Brexit threads and feel better for it. Leave Remain is as beneficial as SF - DUP. Still Ill keep trying.
Lets face it - nothing meaningful re Brexit is going to happen until 5 to midnight on the 28th of March.
In the meantime events will consist of the Lamebot waddling to and from Brussels pretending something is happening whilst Jezza hides under his hammer and sickle duvet.
By 5 to midnight on 28/3/19 we have been in No Deal land for 55 minutes. That is beyond the deadline.
We leave at 23.00 hours UK time to fit with midnight in Brussels.
Mr. Nick, might that 'force' simply be a crushing defeat for her deal?
"The British public have the right to determine their own destiny and if Parliament cannot agree a way forward we must refer it to the voters" or suchlike.
Doesn't solve anything. If it is between remain and the deal then the ERG would bring down the government.
If it is between remain, the deal and no deal (with no preparation) then they wouldn't implement no deal even if voted for.
EdM would probably have been an ok PM in retrospect. I doubt his time will come again thought as Labour will go even further left with their next leader. Corbyn is a just a gateway drug.
How on Earth does a couple of streets of fake building facades cost £90m? Are they relocating Eastenders to Mayfair?
Who the fuck cares? There are more important things to worry about in the world.
Considering I'm taxed via the TV licence to pay for this garbage whether I watch it or not then I care.
Privatise the BBC and I couldn't give a hoot.
I loathe EastEnders, it’s awful, but I suspect it more than washes its face in terms of global syndication. Have you run the numbers? Or just another knee jerk anti BBC thing?
No I've not ran the numbers and it isn't knee jerk the reason the National Audit Office is involved in the first place is because the BBC is a public body spending our money.
Netflix costs us roughly a third per month of the BBC and provides far greater value for money.
If the BBC doesn't want public scrutiny there is a simple solution. Otherwise if you're going to rely upon taxes levied at a threat of prosecution if you don't pay them everything should be visible.
It would've been better for the Conservatives, as a party, if they'd not won a majority and Cameron had 'reluctantly' bargained away the referendum in a second coalition deal.
Mind you, Corbyn becoming Labour leader was due to a combination of Miliband's changes to the way leaders got elected and the Labour MPs failing to understand their own bloody rules.
Anyone else here in either of the T May exit date or T May Exit date 2 markets ?
Yes and I've squandered most of my all green position messing about over the past few days with that no confidence vote. should have left well alone.
I was underwater by £70 at one point, but now have ~ £500 at around 1-11 on the May lasting out the year which I'm very happy with. It's been a toil this market !
I got completely caught out by the VONC. As soon as I heard I piled on her leaving before the end of the year thinking odds would move in my favour. They actually drifted out as everyone thought she would win the VoNC. 15 quid to the good, but it was 75 a couple of days ago...
It would've been better for the Conservatives, as a party, if they'd not won a majority and Cameron had 'reluctantly' bargained away the referendum in a second coalition deal.
Mind you, Corbyn becoming Labour leader was due to a combination of Miliband's changes to the way leaders got elected and the Labour MPs failing to understand their own bloody rules.
Corbyn becoming leader was more to do with the other candidates completely losing touch with what the membership wanted. He'd probably have won under the 2010 leadership rules as well if he'd got enough support to be nominated (edit: to add - the threshold was actually lower under the 2010 rules also).
Miliband Jr is genuinely funny chap IRL. I met him years ago when he was a junior minister and nobody had ever heard of him. Top bloke, great company – we enjoyed several pints at a charity bash he was promoting.
NIce article Alan - you do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Why on earth would the government decide now to "come clean" and tell us all about the pros and cons of immigration?
Also, would need to do some research on the "made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population". Is that really so?
MrT thanks
Im currently waging a ( losing ) campaign to offer a few divergences from Brexit. Since out there in the big world things go on and will eventually come back to bite us. The current introspection on UK problems doesnt really pick up how similar our issues are to lots of other countries. Somewhere along the line we need to get back a sense of perspective. Brexit has made Westminster as functional as Stormont.
That was completely predictable in advance and one of the huge drawbacks of Brexit. Wasting so much time on a second order issue was always a terrible idea.
Time's only really being wasted because there is a significant number of MPs who haven't given up on the idea of overturning the result. These people won't be satisfied with any deal unless they think Remain is out of the question - at which point, of course, nearly all of them will accept any deal as preferable to no deal, and the deal in place at that point passes easily.
Remain will only come about via a second vote so would be perfectly legitimate in that scenario as people will have been shown to have changed their minds, as they are perfectly entitled to do
The EU has frankly allowed the Eastern states to adopt a ludicrous position.
Countries like Hungary or Romania or the Baltic states value freedom of movement for their own citizens.
This has caused widespread emigration of the young, the able and the gifted. In some cases, such as the Baltic states, it has even led to the populations of these countries to fall, despite a desire by many people outside Europe to come to Europe.
Yet these states, which are in desperate need of more people, are the most vocal in opposing the immigration of others outside the EU.
For every Lithuanian who moves out of Lithuania, an immigrant who wishes to resettle in the EU should be moved to Lithuania.
If Lithuania can support a population of just under 4 million, and its present population is now 2.8 million, then it is immoral of Lithuania to deny the rights of others from less fortunate parts of the world to settle in Lithuania.
Freedom of movement for your citizens should also mean that -- if your citizens move to Germany or the UK -- they can be replenished by immigrants from elsewhere.
You are being disingenuous. Lithuania would, I’m willing to guess, have no objections to having people from Northumbria or Naples move there. They do not want immigrants from the Middle East being dumped on them, largely because they want to avoid the sorts of social tensions, problems and terrorism which other countries with significant Muslim minorities have had. And this is not, frankly, an unreasonable view.
“The complacent liberal viewpoint is that such divisions are essentially transient; embodied in the banality of the slogan that “there is more that unites us than divides us”. No doubt most people in the ethnic and cultural majority, used to imposing their norms on others, genuinely believe this to be true. The politeness of immigrants can lead others to believe that their adoption of majority behaviours in public means that the newcomers have abandoned belief in their own traditions; some people mistakenly think this is what integration means.
But the truth is that there are sincerely held differences in multicultural societies that we need to acknowledge. Not all traditions share the same view about the place of women in society; there is a reason why Muslim women are significantly less economically active than any other demographic. White people in London, New York, Oxford, Cambridge and Los Angeles have a progressive and tolerant attitude towards homosexuality – but a visit to any of the burgeoning immigrant-supported megachurches in the UK will make it evident that these attitudes aren’t shared by their black or Asian neighbours, who are turbo-charging the revival of fundamentalist Christian faith in our cities.”
Miliband Jr is genuinely funny chap IRL. I met him years ago when he was a junior minister and nobody had ever heard of him. Top bloke, great company – we enjoyed several pints at a charity bash he was promoting.
He just never seeemd to merge how he was seen IRL and IP(olitical)L. His political persona was that of a dork.
NIce article Alan - you do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Why on earth would the government decide now to "come clean" and tell us all about the pros and cons of immigration?
Also, would need to do some research on the "made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population". Is that really so?
MrT thanks
Im currently waging a ( losing ) campaign to offer a few divergences from Brexit. Since out there in the big world things go on and will eventually come back to bite us. The current introspection on UK problems doesnt really pick up how similar our issues are to lots of other countries. Somewhere along the line we need to get back a sense of perspective. Brexit has made Westminster as functional as Stormont.
That was completely predictable in advance and one of the huge drawbacks of Brexit. Wasting so much time on a second order issue was always a terrible idea.
Time's only really being wasted because there is a significant number of MPs who haven't given up on the idea of overturning the result. These people won't be satisfied with any deal unless they think Remain is out of the question - at which point, of course, nearly all of them will accept any deal as preferable to no deal, and the deal in place at that point passes easily.
Remain will only come about via a second vote so would be perfectly legitimate in that scenario as people will have been shown to have changed their minds, as they are perfectly entitled to do
It is not "perfectly legitimate" to say "you got it wrong, vote again".
NIce article Alan - you do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Why on earth would the government decide now to "come clean" and tell us all about the pros and cons of immigration?
Also, would need to do some research on the "made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population". Is that really so?
MrT thanks
Im currently waging a ( losing ) campaign to offer a few divergences from Brexit. Since out there in the big world things go on and will eventually come back to bite us. The current introspection on UK problems doesnt really pick up how similar our issues are to lots of other countries. Somewhere along the line we need to get back a sense of perspective. Brexit has made Westminster as functional as Stormont.
That was completely predictable in advance and one of the huge drawbacks of Brexit. Wasting so much time on a second order issue was always a terrible idea.
Time's only really being wasted because there is a significant number of MPs who haven't given up on the idea of overturning the result. These people won't be satisfied with any deal unless they think Remain is out of the question - at which point, of course, nearly all of them will accept any deal as preferable to no deal, and the deal in place at that point passes easily.
Remain will only come about via a second vote so would be perfectly legitimate in that scenario as people will have been shown to have changed their minds, as they are perfectly entitled to do
It is not "perfectly legitimate" to say "you got it wrong, vote again".
I'd be more sympathetic to the 'People's vote' cause if May had been unable to reach a deal with the EU. As is I regard it as pretty much parliament's solemn sworn duty to pass, de minimus, the legislation necessary to enact it seeing as there was an overwhelming vote to trigger Art 50. I think this is how May sees it too.
NIce article Alan - you do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Why on earth would the government decide now to "come clean" and tell us all about the pros and cons of immigration?
Also, would need to do some research on the "made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population". Is that really so?
MrT thanks
Im currently waging a ( losing ) campaign to offer a few divergences from Brexit. Since out there in the big world things go on and will eventually come back to bite us. The current introspection on UK problems doesnt really pick up how similar our issues are to lots of other countries. Somewhere along the line we need to get back a sense of perspective. Brexit has made Westminster as functional as Stormont.
That was completely predictable in advance and one of the huge drawbacks of Brexit. Wasting so much time on a second order issue was always a terrible idea.
Time's only really being wasted because there is a significant number of MPs who haven't given up on the idea of overturning the result. These people won't be satisfied with any deal unless they think Remain is out of the question - at which point, of course, nearly all of them will accept any deal as preferable to no deal, and the deal in place at that point passes easily.
Remain will only come about via a second vote so would be perfectly legitimate in that scenario as people will have been shown to have changed their minds, as they are perfectly entitled to do
It is not "perfectly legitimate" to say "you got it wrong, vote again".
A second vote would be more a case of "we got it wrong, vote again".
NIce article Alan - you do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Why on earth would the government decide now to "come clean" and tell us all about the pros and cons of immigration?
Also, would need to do some research on the "made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population". Is that really so?
MrT thanks
Im currently waging a ( losing ) campaign to offer a few divergences from Brexit. Since out there in the big world things go on and will eventually come back to bite us. The current introspection on UK problems doesnt really pick up how similar our issues are to lots of other countries. Somewhere along the line we need to get back a sense of perspective. Brexit has made Westminster as functional as Stormont.
That was completely predictable in advance and one of the huge drawbacks of Brexit. Wasting so much time on a second order issue was always a terrible idea.
Time's only really being wasted because there is a significant number of MPs who haven't given up on the idea of overturning the result. These people won't be satisfied with any deal unless they think Remain is out of the question - at which point, of course, nearly all of them will accept any deal as preferable to no deal, and the deal in place at that point passes easily.
Remain will only come about via a second vote so would be perfectly legitimate in that scenario as people will have been shown to have changed their minds, as they are perfectly entitled to do
It is not "perfectly legitimate" to say "you got it wrong, vote again".
Why on earth not? The Conservative Party did wrt Mrs May.
NIce article Alan - you do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Why on earth would the government decide now to "come clean" and tell us all about the pros and cons of immigration?
Also, would need to do some research on the "made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population". Is that really so?
MrT thanks
Im currently waging a ( losing ) campaign to offer a few divergences from Brexit. Since out there in the big world things go on and will eventually come back to bite us. The current introspection on UK problems doesnt really pick up how similar our issues are to lots of other countries. Somewhere along the line we need to get back a sense of perspective. Brexit has made Westminster as functional as Stormont.
That was completely predictable in advance and one of the huge drawbacks of Brexit. Wasting so much time on a second order issue was always a terrible idea.
Time's only really being wasted because there is a significant number of MPs who haven't given up on the idea of overturning the result. These people won't be satisfied with any deal unless they think Remain is out of the question - at which point, of course, nearly all of them will accept any deal as preferable to no deal, and the deal in place at that point passes easily.
Remain will only come about via a second vote so would be perfectly legitimate in that scenario as people will have been shown to have changed their minds, as they are perfectly entitled to do
It is not "perfectly legitimate" to say "you got it wrong, vote again".
A second vote would be more a case of "we got it wrong, vote again".
With May's perfectly reasonable deal on the table it is extremely clearly a case of keep voting till the correct answer I'm afraid.
NIce article Alan - you do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Why on earth would the government decide now to "come clean" and tell us all about the pros and cons of immigration?
Also, would need to do some research on the "made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population". Is that really so?
MrT thanks
Im currently waging a ( losing ) campaign to offer a few divergences from Brexit. Since out there in the big world things go on and will eventually come back to bite us. The current introspection on UK problems doesnt really pick up how similar our issues are to lots of other countries. Somewhere along the line we need to get back a sense of perspective. Brexit has made Westminster as functional as Stormont.
That was completely predictable in advance and one of the huge drawbacks of Brexit. Wasting so much time on a second order issue was always a terrible idea.
Time's only really being wasted because there is a significant number of MPs who haven't given up on the idea of overturning the result. These people won't be satisfied with any deal unless they think Remain is out of the question - at which point, of course, nearly all of them will accept any deal as preferable to no deal, and the deal in place at that point passes easily.
Remain will only come about via a second vote so would be perfectly legitimate in that scenario as people will have been shown to have changed their minds, as they are perfectly entitled to do
It is not "perfectly legitimate" to say "you got it wrong, vote again".
A second vote would be more a case of "we got it wrong, vote again".
The EU has frankly allowed the Eastern states to adopt a ludicrous position.
Countries like Hungary or Romania or the Baltic states value freedom of movement for their own citizens.
Freedom of movement for your citizens should also mean that -- if your citizens move to Germany or the UK -- they can be replenished by immigrants from elsewhere.
You are being disingenuous. Lithuania would, I’m willing to guess, have no objections to having people from Northumbria or Naples move there. They do not want immigrants from the Middle East being dumped on them, largely because they want to avoid the sorts of social tensions, problems and terrorism which other countries with significant Muslim minorities have had. And this is not, frankly, an unreasonable view.
“The complacent liberal viewpoint is that such divisions are essentially transient; embodied in the banality of the slogan that “there is more that unites us than divides us”. No doubt most people in the ethnic and cultural majority, used to imposing their norms on others, genuinely believe this to be true. The politeness of immigrants can lead others to believe that their adoption of majority behaviours in public means that the newcomers have abandoned belief in their own traditions; some people mistakenly think this is what integration means.
But the truth is that there are sincerely held differences in multicultural societies that we need to acknowledge. Not all traditions share the same view about the place of women in society; there is a reason why Muslim women are significantly less economically active than any other demographic. White people in London, New York, Oxford, Cambridge and Los Angeles have a progressive and tolerant attitude towards homosexuality – but a visit to any of the burgeoning immigrant-supported megachurches in the UK will make it evident that these attitudes aren’t shared by their black or Asian neighbours, who are turbo-charging the revival of fundamentalist Christian faith in our cities.”
My issue is with the choice of word: 'wishes'. In my youth I wished for all manner of things that I couldn't have. 'Wishes' butter no parsnips. Nobody has a 'right to immigrate' to the country of their choice unless they have desirable skills (or family rights and so on). In this I side with Eastern Europeans, despite their dodgy positions on LGBT rights.
NIce article Alan - you do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Why on earth would the government decide now to "come clean" and tell us all about the pros and cons of immigration?
Also, would need to do some research on the "made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population". Is that really so?
MrT thanks
Im currently waging a ( losing ) campaign to offer a few divergences from Brexit. Since out there in the big world things go on and will eventually come back to bite us. The current introspection on UK problems doesnt really pick up how similar our issues are to lots of other countries. Somewhere along the line we need to get back a sense of perspective. Brexit has made Westminster as functional as Stormont.
That was completely predictable in advance and one of the huge drawbacks of Brexit. Wasting so much time on a second order issue was always a terrible idea.
Time's only really being wasted because there is a significant number of MPs who haven't given up on the idea of overturning the result. These people won't be satisfied with any deal unless they think Remain is out of the question - at which point, of course, nearly all of them will accept any deal as preferable to no deal, and the deal in place at that point passes easily.
Remain will only come about via a second vote so would be perfectly legitimate in that scenario as people will have been shown to have changed their minds, as they are perfectly entitled to do
It is not "perfectly legitimate" to say "you got it wrong, vote again".
A second vote would be more a case of "we got it wrong, vote again".
With May's perfectly reasonable deal on the table it is extremely clearly a case of keep voting till the correct answer I'm afraid.
Given that Brexiteers are rejecting May's perfectly reasonable deal, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to make a forced choice between May's deal and no Brexit.
Surely if "The Party" has endorsed May's view of the world, thus making The Party the one designed and lead by Mrs May, then if A N Other Cons MP doesn't like it shouldn't that MP resign.
NIce article Alan - you do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Why on earth would the government decide now to "come clean" and tell us all about the pros and cons of immigration?
Also, would need to do some research on the "made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population". Is that really so?
MrT thanks
Im currently waging a ( losing ) campaign to offer a few divergences from Brexit. Since out there in the big world things go on and will eventually come back to bite us. The current introspection on UK problems doesnt really pick up how similar our issues are to lots of other countries. Somewhere along the line we need to get back a sense of perspective. Brexit has made Westminster as functional as Stormont.
That was completely predictable in advance and one of the huge drawbacks of Brexit. Wasting so much time on a second order issue was always a terrible idea.
Time's only really being wasted because there is a significant number of MPs who haven't given up on the idea of overturning the result. These people won't be satisfied with any deal unless they think Remain is out of the question - at which point, of course, nearly all of them will accept any deal as preferable to no deal, and the deal in place at that point passes easily.
Remain will only come about via a second vote so would be perfectly legitimate in that scenario as people will have been shown to have changed their minds, as they are perfectly entitled to do
It is not "perfectly legitimate" to say "you got it wrong, vote again".
A second vote would be more a case of "we got it wrong, vote again".
With May's perfectly reasonable deal on the table it is extremely clearly a case of keep voting till the correct answer I'm afraid.
Given that Brexiteers are rejecting May's perfectly reasonable deal, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to make a forced choice between May's deal and no Brexit.
@Pro_Rata did a vote flip chart, I think even if you flip all the Tory hard Brexiters in favour of the vote it still wouldn't have passed. The marginal MP for passing the deal is still a remainer.
The pulling of the vote was interesting, coming after the Grieve amendment. The Government 'taking back control' I believe.
I think it had more to do with leadership plotting. If TSE's right there was a very advanced plot to overthrow May and pivot to Norway Plus. She probably saw pulling the vote as a way to head it off.
It is not "perfectly legitimate" to say "you got it wrong, vote again".
It's perfectly legitimate to say "you're so fucking thick you didn't really understand what you were voting for so have another think about it".
No, it's not. If someone is SFT they didn't understand what they were voting on, it's logically inconsistent to ask them to think again - an action that they're by definition incapable of.
The correct response would be "you're SFT you didn't really understand what you were voting for so we - the educated and enlightened ones - will decide it for you".
Surely if "The Party" has endorsed May's view of the world, thus making The Party the one designed and lead by Mrs May, then if A N Other Cons MP doesn't like it shouldn't that MP resign.
I think there's ample evidence that Dominic isn't necessarily the shiniest pot in the sink.
Surely if "The Party" has endorsed May's view of the world, thus making The Party the one designed and lead by Mrs May, then if A N Other Cons MP doesn't like it shouldn't that MP resign.
It is not "perfectly legitimate" to say "you got it wrong, vote again".
It's perfectly legitimate to say "you're so fucking thick you didn't really understand what you were voting for so have another think about it".
No, it's not. If someone is SFT they didn't understand what they were voting on, it's logically inconsistent to ask them to think again - an action that they're by definition incapable of.
The correct response would be "you're SFT you didn't really understand what you were voting for so we - the educated and enlightened ones - will decide it for you".
Given that Brexiteers are rejecting May's perfectly reasonable deal, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to make a forced choice between May's deal and no Brexit.
@Pro_Rata did a vote flip chart, I think even if you flip all the Tory hard Brexiters in favour of the vote it still wouldn't have passed. The marginal MP for passing the deal is still a remainer.
That's simply because most MPs are notionally Remainers. In circumstances where the whole Tory party were behind the deal and the DUP opposed, it would be much harder for Labour to maintain discipline when whipping their MPs to vote against something seen as a good deal to implement the referendum result.
NIce article Alan - you do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Why on earth would the government decide now to "come clean" and tell us all about the pros and cons of immigration?
Also, would need to do some research on the "made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population". Is that really so?
MrT thanks
Im currently waging a ( losing ) campaign to offer a few divergences from Brexit. Since out there in the big world things go on and will eventually come back to bite us. The current introspection on UK problems doesnt really pick up how similar our issues are to lots of other countries. Somewhere along the line we need to get back a sense of perspective. Brexit has made Westminster as functional as Stormont.
That was completely predictable in advance and one of the huge drawbacks of Brexit. Wasting so much time on a second order issue was always a terrible idea.
Time's only really being wasted because there is a significant number of MPs who haven't given up on the idea of overturning the result. These people won't be satisfied with any deal unless they think Remain is out of the question - at which point, of course, nearly all of them will accept any deal as preferable to no deal, and the deal in place at that point passes easily.
Remain will only come about via a second vote so would be perfectly legitimate in that scenario as people will have been shown to have changed their minds, as they are perfectly entitled to do
It is not "perfectly legitimate" to say "you got it wrong, vote again".
I'd be more sympathetic to the 'People's vote' cause if May had been unable to reach a deal with the EU. As is I regard it as pretty much parliament's solemn sworn duty to pass, de minimus, the legislation necessary to enact it seeing as there was an overwhelming vote to trigger Art 50. I think this is how May sees it too.
Maybe so. But we are a Parliamentary democracy not a one-woman government. If Parliament won’t vote for it, what then?
It’s either No Deal or another referendum or revocation of Article 50.
The first is what happens if nothing is done. The second is uncertain and requires the EU to agree to an extension of Article 50. The last is entirely within our power.
It’s all very well MPs saying that they don’t want No Deal but it’s what they bloody voted for when they enacted the EU Withdrawal Act. So it will happen unless they do something else.
The ERG may have lost the battle to defenestrate Mrs May but they may well win the war and get their beloved No Deal exit.
It is not "perfectly legitimate" to say "you got it wrong, vote again".
It's perfectly legitimate to say "you're so fucking thick you didn't really understand what you were voting for so have another think about it".
No, it's not. If someone is SFT they didn't understand what they were voting on, it's logically inconsistent to ask them to think again - an action that they're by definition incapable of.
The correct response would be "you're SFT you didn't really understand what you were voting for so we - the educated and enlightened ones - will decide it for you".
Trouble is, if you define MPs as being 'educated and enlightened', they can't decide either. Actually they could but the leaders of the two largest groupings won't let them.
NIce article Alan - you do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Why on earth would the government decide now to "come clean" and tell us all about the pros and cons of immigration?
Also, would need to do some research on the "made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population". Is that really so?
MrT thanks
Im currently waging a ( losing ) campaign to offer a few divergences from Brexit. Since out there in the big world things go on and will eventually come back to bite us. The current introspection on UK problems doesnt really pick up how similar our issues are to lots of other countries. Somewhere along the line we need to get back a sense of perspective. Brexit has made Westminster as functional as Stormont.
That was completely predictable in advance and one of the huge drawbacks of Brexit. Wasting so much time on a second order issue was always a terrible idea.
Time's only really being wasted because there is a significant number of MPs who haven't given up on the idea of overturning the result. These people won't be satisfied with any deal unless they think Remain is out of the question - at which point, of course, nearly all of them will accept any deal as preferable to no deal, and the deal in place at that point passes easily.
Remain will only come about via a second vote so would be perfectly legitimate in that scenario as people will have been shown to have changed their minds, as they are perfectly entitled to do
It is not "perfectly legitimate" to say "you got it wrong, vote again".
How about "David Cameron got it wrong, the massive over-educated bellend, vote again"?
Having a referendum on something you have no concrete proposal for, have made no preparations for, and think is a terrible idea, is stupid. Designing a process where you don't even get to check you want to do it once you know what it is is extra-stupid.
If he'd proposed a two-stage process ahead of the first referendum, I don't think you'd be complaining about it. Am I right?
Since we now have some Brexit enthusiasts saying what they're getting is worse than remaining, I don't see why everyone should be locked into the process dreamed up by Britain's most useless prime minister who, despite saying he wouldn't, immediately pissed off and left some other poor sod to deal with the consequences.
Given that Brexiteers are rejecting May's perfectly reasonable deal, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to make a forced choice between May's deal and no Brexit.
@Pro_Rata did a vote flip chart, I think even if you flip all the Tory hard Brexiters in favour of the vote it still wouldn't have passed. The marginal MP for passing the deal is still a remainer.
That's simply because most MPs are notionally Remainers. In circumstances where the whole Tory party were behind the deal and the DUP opposed, it would be much harder for Labour to maintain discipline when whipping their MPs to vote against something seen as a good deal to implement the referendum result.
More Labour MPs should be like Caroline Flint and have the courage of their convictions to disregard Momentum bullies . I'll actively consider voting for John Mann if he does similiar.
NIce article Alan - you do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Why on earth would the government decide now to "come clean" and tell us all about the pros and cons of immigration?
Also, would need to do some research on the "made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population". Is that really so?
MrT thanks
Im currently waging a ( losing ) campaign to offer a few divergences from Brexit. Since out there in the big world things go on and will eventually come back to bite us. The current introspection on UK problems doesnt really pick up how similar our issues are to lots of other countries. Somewhere along the line we need to get back a sense of perspective. Brexit has made Westminster as functional as Stormont.
That was completely predictable in advance and one of the huge drawbacks of Brexit. Wasting so much time on a second order issue was always a terrible idea.
Time's only really being wasted because there is a significant number of MPs who haven't given up on the idea of overturning the result. These people won't be satisfied with any deal unless they think Remain is out of the question - at which point, of course, nearly all of them will accept any deal as preferable to no deal, and the deal in place at that point passes easily.
Remain will only come about via a second vote so would be perfectly legitimate in that scenario as people will have been shown to have changed their minds, as they are perfectly entitled to do
It is not "perfectly legitimate" to say "you got it wrong, vote again".
A second vote would be more a case of "we got it wrong, vote again".
With May's perfectly reasonable deal on the table it is extremely clearly a case of keep voting till the correct answer I'm afraid.
Given that Brexiteers are rejecting May's perfectly reasonable deal, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to make a forced choice between May's deal and no Brexit.
.... and bear in mind two leading Brexiteers helped negotiate it.
Comments
My point is that the enterprise you enthusiastically endorsed has led to exactly the inability to focus on anything else that you deprecate.
I think we need another set of MPs. And none of the current lot should be allowed to stand. Any new MPs we do elect should have strictly limited powers because they're abusing their current ones.
This feeling cuts across party loyalty and Brexit views. It would be interesting to see some polling on this. Or do I live in a very unusual area of the UK?
And it means that however shite the storylines and however low the ratings get, to justify the expenditure we can look forward to Eastenders gracing our screens for another 400 years.
In the meantime events will consist of the Lamebot waddling to and from Brussels pretending something is happening whilst Jezza hides under his hammer and sickle duvet.
But really I suspect you have liittle idea of what I actually think since you arre too trapped in your black and white world. Shame.
Network Rail is just nearing the end of a £200 million upgrade to Derby station. It sounds as if it went well, and they did exactly that: reduced services for a few months during preparatory works, then entire closure for 80 days whilst they did the bulk of the work, and then slowly ramp up services as everything beds in.
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/our-routes/lne-and-em/midland-main-line-improvement-programme/derby-resignalling-project/
Good luck with that at the election Jezza.
Your views on other subjects will not alter that pair of related observations.
Membership of the EU and the fee but no input.
McDonnell isn't that stupid.
Cynical, moi?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33094304
Then add in the stresses from the mix. My daughter taught up until recently in a primary school in a deprived area of Oxford, In a class of thirty ish at least half were from overseas families and usually from severasl countries. There was no provision for the problems this engenders.
The worst of hard and no brexit combined lol
On topic, I think Merkel's position is being misrepresented. I doubt she is an internationalist at heart but she is an economic and domestic pragmatist.
She recognises the continuing strength of the German economy relies on the availability of cheap labour to maintain the Services and manufacturing sector. This supply also keeps wages down and costs down and stifles inflation.
She has calculated (perhaps erroneously) the economic benefits outweigh the social costs. Migrants who come into the country, work and pay taxes and therefore contribute to economic growth are to be welcomed and as long as the economic growth keeps being delivered which keeps other Germans prosperous, in work or able to afford pension provision and the other social welfare systems, everyone will or should be happy.
I suspect Blair, Brown and Cameron were of a similar mind. The problem will come when the global economy slows to an extent that we see the "good times" of cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and endlessly rising asset values come to an end (again). The last slowdown wasn't (surprisingly) one which impinged too severely on employment - the next one might.
The economic arguments for migration are strong and especially so in times of prosperity but there are social consequences to which Alanbrooke has alluded which mean the problems of migration outweigh any perceived or actual benefits.
"The British public have the right to determine their own destiny and if Parliament cannot agree a way forward we must refer it to the voters" or suchlike.
She has consistently
been economic with the actualitéchanged her mind so why should she stop now?And also, apols if this has been covered - what a day for me to be away yesterday - but what exactly was the commitment to not stand in the GE? All I heard was in relation to yesterday's vote ie it was about the VONC not to lead them into the next election?
"My view has always been she needs a minimum of 200 MPs supporting her to continue in any credible form even if the rules say she wins with 158 or 160 or whatever.
I think tonight she'll get around 220-230 which will mean 80-90 MPs won't support her (some of those may abstain). There'll be a few hours of euphoria among the Conservative loyalists and then tomorrow morning the realisation will dawn nothing has changed except another option has been closed off."
So we have the 117 who actively opposed her last night and any number among the 200 who might support her but not her Deal and it's quite clear the Deal is a dead duck as it stands.
I wonder if she had a minimum level of support below which she would have resigned even if she had lost the vote - I'm sure we'll find out in some memoir some day.
As to this securing her in office, once again too many people on here forget how politics actually works. It wasn't the failure to win on the first ballot that did for Thatcher but the fact that her Cabinet told her a) many of them wouldn't support her on a second vote and b) resigning now would prevent a humiliating defeat.
That was then - it seems the likes of May and Corbyn care little for the personal angst of actual rejection and just carry on whatever.
In that regard, May can still be removed if the senior members of the Cabinet turn on her - it would be impossible for her to remain as Prime Minister if, for example, Hunt, Javid and Gove all went to her and told her to go. However, as all are potential competitors for the job that isn't going to happen until new alliances are formed.
Nothing has changed - the fundamental dilemma remains the same. If the Deal passes the Commons, the DUP will join the other Opposition parties and force a Vote of No Confidence in the House which will pass on the numbers. If the Deal doesn't pass, we head for either No Deal (exiting in as orderly a manner as possible in the time available) on 29/3/19 and all that may or may not flow from it or to a revocation of Article 50 which I can imagine will cause more than a few ructions in the Conservative Party even if it passes the Commons with Labour, LD and SNP support.
Three groups, all with different motives, but many very opposed to ERG
As far as this pans out my instinct says that when the deal comes back, as it will (lets have xmas off) in January the HOC referendum supporters, which must be near a majority coalesce around an amendment to the meaningful vote so that it is approved, but subject to a referendum.
The advantage to this is that TM would only need to impliment the decision and apply for a short extension to A50 to permit the vote and for the result to be known before May 19 Euro elections
Maybe just too easy but it is a path to resolution, though it would be very divisive. However, everything is divisive at present
Obviously there are other factors, but they often balance out. Less divorce, lower birthrate ... emigration.
The feeling I always get in Boston is that although there are cultural factors too, as has been said earlier, the immigrants tend to be young and have children (they tend to be Catholic). They go to school and increase the year-groups with children who have varying degrees of language proficiency. Many, if they have a second language, would use Russian. And this wasn't a few extra people here and there, it was a mass migration.
It could be worse, I suppose, they could be Cockneys.
I'm not saying she always planned for this to happen, but if that had been her plan, what she'd do would be pretty much identical to what she's done to date.
If it is between remain, the deal and no deal (with no preparation) then they wouldn't implement no deal even if voted for.
Netflix costs us roughly a third per month of the BBC and provides far greater value for money.
If the BBC doesn't want public scrutiny there is a simple solution. Otherwise if you're going to rely upon taxes levied at a threat of prosecution if you don't pay them everything should be visible.
It would've been better for the Conservatives, as a party, if they'd not won a majority and Cameron had 'reluctantly' bargained away the referendum in a second coalition deal.
Mind you, Corbyn becoming Labour leader was due to a combination of Miliband's changes to the way leaders got elected and the Labour MPs failing to understand their own bloody rules.
See also this article by Trevor Phillips - https://unherd.com/2018/12/why-we-cant-ignore-the-challenges-of-immigration/
“The complacent liberal viewpoint is that such divisions are essentially transient; embodied in the banality of the slogan that “there is more that unites us than divides us”. No doubt most people in the ethnic and cultural majority, used to imposing their norms on others, genuinely believe this to be true. The politeness of immigrants can lead others to believe that their adoption of majority behaviours in public means that the newcomers have abandoned belief in their own traditions; some people mistakenly think this is what integration means.
But the truth is that there are sincerely held differences in multicultural societies that we need to acknowledge. Not all traditions share the same view about the place of women in society; there is a reason why Muslim women are significantly less economically active than any other demographic. White people in London, New York, Oxford, Cambridge and Los Angeles have a progressive and tolerant attitude towards homosexuality – but a visit to any of the burgeoning immigrant-supported megachurches in the UK will make it evident that these attitudes aren’t shared by their black or Asian neighbours, who are turbo-charging the revival of fundamentalist Christian faith in our cities.”
I think this is how May sees it too.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1073166091856330752
https://twitter.com/HTScotPol/status/1073167026246615041
The correct response would be "you're SFT you didn't really understand what you were voting for so we - the educated and enlightened ones - will decide it for you".
It’s either No Deal or another referendum or revocation of Article 50.
The first is what happens if nothing is done. The second is uncertain and requires the EU to agree to an extension of Article 50. The last is entirely within our power.
It’s all very well MPs saying that they don’t want No Deal but it’s what they bloody voted for when they enacted the EU Withdrawal Act. So it will happen unless they do something else.
The ERG may have lost the battle to defenestrate Mrs May but they may well win the war and get their beloved No Deal exit.
Actually they could but the leaders of the two largest groupings won't let them.
Having a referendum on something you have no concrete proposal for, have made no preparations for, and think is a terrible idea, is stupid. Designing a process where you don't even get to check you want to do it once you know what it is is extra-stupid.
If he'd proposed a two-stage process ahead of the first referendum, I don't think you'd be complaining about it. Am I right?
Since we now have some Brexit enthusiasts saying what they're getting is worse than remaining, I don't see why everyone should be locked into the process dreamed up by Britain's most useless prime minister who, despite saying he wouldn't, immediately pissed off and left some other poor sod to deal with the consequences.