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.
That would be the honourable thing to do. There" ain't" much honour in politics these days
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.
#metoo.
But the same applies to the hard remainer faction. They should be forced to choose between the deal and a no deal exit.
In fact there is the solution to the impasse. 2 votes (either in parliament or of the public or both).
Vote 1 on deal vs remain and only leavers take part.
Vote 2 on deal vs WTO and only remainers take part.
Leavers choose the deal in vote 1. Remainers choose the deal in vote 2.
Kaboom. The country is unified and we leave with the deal.
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.
#metoo.
But the same applies to the hard remainer faction. They should be forced to choose between the deal and a no deal exit.
In fact there is the solution to the impasse. 2 votes (either in parliament or of the public or both).
Vote 1 on deal vs remain and only leavers take part.
Vote 2 on deal vs WTO and only remainers take part.
Leavers choose the deal in vote 1. Remainers choose the deal in vote 2.
Kaboom. The country is unified and we leave with the deal.
You'd first need a vote to establish who is a Leaver and who is a Remainer.
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.
#metoo.
But the same applies to the hard remainer faction. They should be forced to choose between the deal and a no deal exit.
In fact there is the solution to the impasse. 2 votes (either in parliament or of the public or both).
Vote 1 on deal vs remain and only leavers take part.
Vote 2 on deal vs WTO and only remainers take part.
Leavers choose the deal in vote 1. Remainers choose the deal in vote 2.
Kaboom. The country is unified and we leave with the deal.
You'd first need a vote to establish who is a Leaver and who is a Remainer.
Parliament voted for a referendum. Parliament agreed to implement the result. Then they thought. No, this is the wrong thing to do?
No, they always thought it was, but they were frit to death to tell the electorate they didn't trust them.
That is the truth. They do feel they are superior beings. That isn't actually democracy. There is a term for it that I can't bring to mind.
Could someone on here help me out. Where a pre-selected group (selected by a political grouping) decide they should be the arbiters of everything because they consider themselves to be superior.
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.
#metoo.
But the same applies to the hard remainer faction. They should be forced to choose between the deal and a no deal exit.
In fact there is the solution to the impasse. 2 votes (either in parliament or of the public or both).
Vote 1 on deal vs remain and only leavers take part.
Vote 2 on deal vs WTO and only remainers take part.
Leavers choose the deal in vote 1. Remainers choose the deal in vote 2.
Kaboom. The country is unified and we leave with the deal.
You'd first need a vote to establish who is a Leaver and who is a Remainer.
we are all leavers now William.
Good point. That means kinabalu's idea can be simplified to Deal v Remain!
Parliament ... continued. Having received the wrong result, their cunning plan is ... lets faff around for a while, get everyone fed-up and then announce a re-run.
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.
#metoo.
But the same applies to the hard remainer faction. They should be forced to choose between the deal and a no deal exit.
In fact there is the solution to the impasse. 2 votes (either in parliament or of the public or both).
Vote 1 on deal vs remain and only leavers take part.
Vote 2 on deal vs WTO and only remainers take part.
Leavers choose the deal in vote 1. Remainers choose the deal in vote 2.
Kaboom. The country is unified and we leave with the deal.
You'd first need a vote to establish who is a Leaver and who is a Remainer.
we are all leavers now William.
Good point. That means kinabalu's idea can be simplified to Deal v Remain!
Simple free vote in parliament - May's deal or no deal.
Hold it tomorrow - if passes proceed, if not then we prepare for no deal until there is a call from Berlin.
Clearly the public supports an end to FoM and achieving this is a success of the deal and a reason to compromise other things. So it makes sense to want to make it clear.
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.
#metoo.
But the same applies to the hard remainer faction. They should be forced to choose between the deal and a no deal exit.
In fact there is the solution to the impasse. 2 votes (either in parliament or of the public or both).
Vote 1 on deal vs remain and only leavers take part.
Vote 2 on deal vs WTO and only remainers take part.
Leavers choose the deal in vote 1. Remainers choose the deal in vote 2.
Kaboom. The country is unified and we leave with the deal.
You'd first need a vote to establish who is a Leaver and who is a Remainer.
we are all leavers now William.
Good point. That means kinabalu's idea can be simplified to Deal v Remain!
Simple free vote in parliament - May's deal or no deal.
Hold it tomorrow - if passes proceed, if not then we prepare for no deal until there is a call from Berlin.
Great idea.... not. How to cause huge panic and uncertainty for 3.5 months (or likely more) in a nutshell.
1. No Deal (literally) Brexit. 2. The WA 3. Article 50 revocation.
The one with the least support gets eliminated.
The top two get voted on again until there is a majority in Parliament.
Or the top two get put to the people again.
I’m sure something about AV probably needs saying at this point.
Anyway just a thought.
I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
Parliament voted for a referendum. Parliament agreed to implement the result. Then they thought. No, this is the wrong thing to do?
No, they always thought it was, but they were frit to death to tell the electorate they didn't trust them.
That is the truth. They do feel they are superior beings. That isn't actually democracy. There is a term for it that I can't bring to mind.
Could someone on here help me out. Where a pre-selected group (selected by a political grouping) decide they should be the arbiters of everything because they consider themselves to be superior.
Representative democracy?
It's almost like our system of government is designed to unburden the electorate from complex decision making and leave that to professional politicians, and that our system of government, with a monarch and hereditary peers, doesn't believe in the rule by the wishes of the common man...
As the cut to get EMPs is 5%, only 6 lists would get seats: RN 24 seats (same as 2014) LREM/Modem 18 (+11 compared to the centrist Modem/UDI list in 2014) LR 11 (-9) FI 9 (+5) DLF 9 (+9) Greens 8 (+2) The socialists would lose their 13 seats
I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
To people who hoped Brexit would mean the EU would disappear, the idea of any kind of deal with the EU is repugnant because it symbolises the continuing dominance of the EU. They thought all the countries of Europe would suddenly rise up and decide to deal with us bilaterally instead. 'No Deal' is the last chance saloon for this fantasy.
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.
#metoo.
But the same applies to the hard remainer faction. They should be forced to choose between the deal and a no deal exit.
In fact there is the solution to the impasse. 2 votes (either in parliament or of the public or both).
Vote 1 on deal vs remain and only leavers take part.
Vote 2 on deal vs WTO and only remainers take part.
Leavers choose the deal in vote 1. Remainers choose the deal in vote 2.
Kaboom. The country is unified and we leave with the deal.
You'd first need a vote to establish who is a Leaver and who is a Remainer.
we are all leavers now William.
Good point. That means kinabalu's idea can be simplified to Deal v Remain!
Simple free vote in parliament - May's deal or no deal.
Hold it tomorrow - if passes proceed, if not then we prepare for no deal until there is a call from Berlin.
Great idea.... not. How to cause huge panic and uncertainty for 3.5 months (or likely more) in a nutshell.
Any corporate body exposed to imports/exports that hasn't been planning for the possibility of No Deal Brexit for at least a year really hasn't been paying attention....
1. No Deal (literally) Brexit. 2. The WA 3. Article 50 revocation.
The one with the least support gets eliminated.
The top two get voted on again until there is a majority in Parliament.
Or the top two get put to the people again.
I’m sure something about AV probably needs saying at this point.
Anyway just a thought.
I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
How's about cancel and invoke A50 again and work towards a WTO bare bones deal?
That is doable in two years and won't involve the destruction of the planet earth like an unprepared no deal.
Perfectly reasonable to have that in a referendum with the other 2 options.
Parliament voted for a referendum. Parliament agreed to implement the result. Then they thought. No, this is the wrong thing to do?
No, they always thought it was, but they were frit to death to tell the electorate they didn't trust them.
That is the truth. They do feel they are superior beings. That isn't actually democracy. There is a term for it that I can't bring to mind.
Could someone on here help me out. Where a pre-selected group (selected by a political grouping) decide they should be the arbiters of everything because they consider themselves to be superior.
Representative democracy?
It's almost like our system of government is designed to unburden the electorate from complex decision making and leave that to professional politicians, and that our system of government, with a monarch and hereditary peers, doesn't believe in the rule by the wishes of the common man...
Why did Parliament or the government at the time , not make the 2016 legally binding ?
You'd first need a vote to establish who is a Leaver and who is a Remainer.
No, because you can tell by the audio-visuals. Leavers will be either very posh and eccentric types or they will look and sound like oiks, Remainers will be the bland and boring everyone else with a sprinkling of overwrought zealots who at first might appear to be Leavers until you see that they have a beard.
1. No Deal (literally) Brexit. 2. The WA 3. Article 50 revocation.
The one with the least support gets eliminated.
The top two get voted on again until there is a majority in Parliament.
Or the top two get put to the people again.
I’m sure something about AV probably needs saying at this point.
Anyway just a thought.
I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
I am assuming that the No Deal option would be eliminated in Parliament and so it would not get on the ballot paper.
Personally, while I could live with May’s deal by comparison with No Deal it is still a rubbish deal.
We don’t know what we want to do as a country and our representatives are no better.
May is obsessed with FoM, having failed at reducing non-EU immigration, which is likely more of a concern to those worried about such things than FOM. She has made this the only key objective of her negotiations, stupidly in my view.
But if the WA does not pass, then Article 50 should be revoked. IMO.
It is incumbent on those who want to make a big irrevocable change to come up with a coherent workable plan that has the necessary support in Parliament and can be agreed with the EU. They haven’t. So we stay as we are.
Those who want change can go away, lick their wounds and do the hard thinking they have failed to do until now.
And now I must be off. It is clear and frosty and the hound is looking at me pleadingly.......
1. No Deal (literally) Brexit. 2. The WA 3. Article 50 revocation.
The one with the least support gets eliminated.
The top two get voted on again until there is a majority in Parliament.
Or the top two get put to the people again.
I’m sure something about AV probably needs saying at this point.
Anyway just a thought.
I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
Exactly. People are confusing 'no deal', with 'no arrangements', and Remainers are encouraging that lack of distinction, just as they traditionally like to confuse 'no trade deal' with Europe with 'no trade', or 'cutting us off'.
Once again, the Leave side is behind the punch in the game of giving names to things, with 'managed no deal' being a belated and somewhat modest attempt to convey that whilst we won't have the WA, we will of course leave in an organised fashion and prepare for eventualities. It is quite outrageous of anyone to suggest otherwise, but there we go.
1. No Deal (literally) Brexit. 2. The WA 3. Article 50 revocation.
The one with the least support gets eliminated.
The top two get voted on again until there is a majority in Parliament.
Or the top two get put to the people again.
I’m sure something about AV probably needs saying at this point.
Anyway just a thought.
I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
How's about cancel and invoke A50 again and work towards a WTO bare bones deal?
That is doable in two years and won't involve the destruction of the planet earth like an unprepared no deal.
Perfectly reasonable to have that in a referendum with the other 2 options.
No chance A50 is being invoked again by parliament.
Parliament voted for a referendum. Parliament agreed to implement the result. Then they thought. No, this is the wrong thing to do?
No, they always thought it was, but they were frit to death to tell the electorate they didn't trust them.
That is the truth. They do feel they are superior beings. That isn't actually democracy. There is a term for it that I can't bring to mind.
Could someone on here help me out. Where a pre-selected group (selected by a political grouping) decide they should be the arbiters of everything because they consider themselves to be superior.
Representative democracy?
It's almost like our system of government is designed to unburden the electorate from complex decision making and leave that to professional politicians, and that our system of government, with a monarch and hereditary peers, doesn't believe in the rule by the wishes of the common man...
To work, that depends on having elected representatives who are more intelligent than the common man, which is not a given.
Parliament voted for a referendum. Parliament agreed to implement the result. Then they thought. No, this is the wrong thing to do?
No, they always thought it was, but they were frit to death to tell the electorate they didn't trust them.
That is the truth. They do feel they are superior beings. That isn't actually democracy. There is a term for it that I can't bring to mind.
Could someone on here help me out. Where a pre-selected group (selected by a political grouping) decide they should be the arbiters of everything because they consider themselves to be superior.
Representative democracy?
It's almost like our system of government is designed to unburden the electorate from complex decision making and leave that to professional politicians, and that our system of government, with a monarch and hereditary peers, doesn't believe in the rule by the wishes of the common man...
Why did Parliament or the government at the time , not make the 2016 legally binding ?
Coz Cameron and Osborne thought they'd win and politicians were complacent?
I'm not saying our parliamentary system is good, or even fit for purpose, or that our politicians are indeed intelligent elites, but for people to be surprised at it's clear elitism when it is "thwarting" something they care for is hilarious.
Cuts to social programmes, local government and other services is seen as being the adult in the room and making the hard decisions that the mooching common man wouldn't understand.
Thwarting "the will of the people" to make us a tax haven and to make rich people richer and poor people poorer; well, that elitism can't stand!
Our system of government is entirely designed in favour of elitism, from the boys club of the Eton / Oxbridge crowd, the civil service, the monarchy and the lords. It's awful. But now the right wing care about that, because their beloved Brexit.
Could someone on here help me out. Where a pre-selected group (selected by a political grouping) decide they should be the arbiters of everything because they consider themselves to be superior.
Parliament voted for a referendum. Parliament agreed to implement the result. Then they thought. No, this is the wrong thing to do?
No, they always thought it was, but they were frit to death to tell the electorate they didn't trust them.
That is the truth. They do feel they are superior beings. That isn't actually democracy. There is a term for it that I can't bring to mind.
Could someone on here help me out. Where a pre-selected group (selected by a political grouping) decide they should be the arbiters of everything because they consider themselves to be superior.
Representative democracy?
It's almost like our system of government is designed to unburden the electorate from complex decision making and leave that to professional politicians, and that our system of government, with a monarch and hereditary peers, doesn't believe in the rule by the wishes of the common man...
Why did Parliament or the government at the time , not make the 2016 legally binding ?
Because it was to vague to put down in legal terms.
1. No Deal (literally) Brexit. 2. The WA 3. Article 50 revocation.
The one with the least support gets eliminated.
The top two get voted on again until there is a majority in Parliament.
Or the top two get put to the people again.
I’m sure something about AV probably needs saying at this point.
Anyway just a thought.
I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
I am assuming that the No Deal option would be eliminated in Parliament and so it would not get on the ballot paper.
Personally, while I could live with May’s deal by comparison with No Deal it is still a rubbish deal.
We don’t know what we want to do as a country and our representatives are no better.
May is obsessed with FoM, having failed at reducing non-EU immigration, which is likely more of a concern to those worried about such things than FOM. She has made this the only key objective of her negotiations, stupidly in my view.
But if the WA does not pass, then Article 50 should be revoked. IMO.
It is incumbent on those who want to make a big irrevocable change to come up with a coherent workable plan that has the necessary support in Parliament and can be agreed with the EU. They haven’t. So we stay as we are.
Those who want change can go away, lick their wounds and do the hard thinking they have failed to do until now.
And now I must be off. It is clear and frosty and the hound is looking at me pleadingly.......
I do wonder how many people think "No Deal" means things remain exactly how they are. I suspect it is (as a minimum) 25% of the population...
At least he can sit back and laugh at himself AND Cameron's nonsense. In retrospect the country would probably have been far better off if Labour had won in 2015.
Miss Cyclefree, it's be legal to revoke Article 50 just in the Commons, but the political price of doing so without a referendum would be significant.
Edited extra bit: it'd*
Yes it would. I think though that price needs to be paid. There will be a political price to be paid if we crash out without a deal. That price may be even higher. Who knows? Do no harm is a good maxim. Revoking Art 50 while we can preserves the status quo. It does not close off the option of leaving in the future. Whereas crashing out is likely to have all sorts of unintended consequences and closes off options.
1. No Deal (literally) Brexit. 2. The WA 3. Article 50 revocation.
The one with the least support gets eliminated.
The top two get voted on again until there is a majority in Parliament.
Or the top two get put to the people again.
I’m sure something about AV probably needs saying at this point.
Anyway just a thought.
I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
How's about cancel and invoke A50 again and work towards a WTO bare bones deal?
That is doable in two years and won't involve the destruction of the planet earth like an unprepared no deal.
Perfectly reasonable to have that in a referendum with the other 2 options.
No chance A50 is being invoked again by parliament.
1. No Deal (literally) Brexit. 2. The WA 3. Article 50 revocation.
The one with the least support gets eliminated.
The top two get voted on again until there is a majority in Parliament.
Or the top two get put to the people again.
I’m sure something about AV probably needs saying at this point.
Anyway just a thought.
I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
How's about cancel and invoke A50 again and work towards a WTO bare bones deal?
That is doable in two years and won't involve the destruction of the planet earth like an unprepared no deal.
Perfectly reasonable to have that in a referendum with the other 2 options.
There are several issues with that approach, namely what does "work towards a WTO bare bones deal" actually look like? It means I would imagine spending a bucketload of cash on a bunch of measures which would be designed to keep us sort of where we are. Can you really see a government agreeing to do that? Lorry park in Kent, new customs officers, new airport and other port design and structures.
And this is of course aside from the h*rd b*rd*r issue which of course is unsolvable with current (and near future?) technology.
Miss Cyclefree, it's be legal to revoke Article 50 just in the Commons, but the political price of doing so without a referendum would be significant.
Edited extra bit: it'd*
Yes it would. I think though that price needs to be paid. There will be a political price to be paid if we crash out without a deal. That price may be even higher. Who knows? Do no harm is a good maxim. Revoking Art 50 while we can preserves the status quo. It does not close off the option of leaving in the future. Whereas crashing out is likely to have all sorts of unintended consequences and closes off options.
The best option is to pass the WA. It honours the result of the 2016 Referendum, without burning the economy.
Just finished a meeting with one of my South American born staff who was in tears about how the UK immigration is treating her. The rules seem to be changing daily. Despite having a masters in engineering from Berlin, a British ex husband, a right to work in Schengen and a British daughter it is a fight to keep her working legally in the UK. To say the mood against the Government in business is hardening is an understatement.
Spoke last night with an old school friend who runs an electronic company in Manchester area. They are hiring 2 extra staff to look after all the extra paperwork they will need to fill in to sell to Europe. EC takes 50% of their goods. His view is that the manufacturing industry is being thrown under the bus. He has voted Tory for over 30 years and is now considering the Lib Dems.
The sad thing is that the Leavers have some very good arguments. Why should we pay money into an organisation that uses the money to gives grants to places like Spain to shift jobs out of the UK, that gives our fish to the Dutch and allows large MNCs to not pay UK taxes by bribing the Luxembourg Minister who then was made head of the EC.
There is a need to reset our relationship with the EU but the present plan is flawed.
Could someone on here help me out. Where a pre-selected group (selected by a political grouping) decide they should be the arbiters of everything because they consider themselves to be superior.
Which is why re-negotiating was never an option. Those in favour need to outline which advantages gained they would like to lose in return for the backstop being removed.
1. No Deal (literally) Brexit. 2. The WA 3. Article 50 revocation.
The one with the least support gets eliminated.
The top two get voted on again until there is a majority in Parliament.
Or the top two get put to the people again.
I’m sure something about AV probably needs saying at this point.
Anyway just a thought.
I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
I am assuming that the No Deal option would be eliminated in Parliament and so it would not get on the ballot paper.
Personally, while I could live with May’s deal by comparison with No Deal it is still a rubbish deal.
We don’t know what we want to do as a country and our representatives are no better.
May is obsessed with FoM, having failed at reducing non-EU immigration, which is likely more of a concern to those worried about such things than FOM. She has made this the only key objective of her negotiations, stupidly in my view.
But if the WA does not pass, then Article 50 should be revoked. IMO.
It is incumbent on those who want to make a big irrevocable change to come up with a coherent workable plan that has the necessary support in Parliament and can be agreed with the EU. They haven’t. So we stay as we are.
Those who want change can go away, lick their wounds and do the hard thinking they have failed to do until now.
And now I must be off. It is clear and frosty and the hound is looking at me pleadingly.......
I do wonder how many people think "No Deal" means things remain exactly how they are. I suspect it is (as a minimum) 25% of the population...
Which is why re-negotiating was never an option. Those in favour need to outline which advantages gained they would like to lose in return for the backstop being removed.
It won't be removed, but a legally binding "clarification" note on it might be possible. I have some ideas
i) Referendum in N Ireland to either join ROI or remain in backstop (Wouldn't pass DUP though) ii) Parliamentary lock from moving to transition through to backstop. (Needs change to WA though so probably not possible) iii) rUK remains in Single market for goods removing regulatory concerns via legally binding note. iv) Time limit of after say 10 years for i). That should be enough for a FTA.
I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
To people who hoped Brexit would mean the EU would disappear, the idea of any kind of deal with the EU is repugnant because it symbolises the continuing dominance of the EU. They thought all the countries of Europe would suddenly rise up and decide to deal with us bilaterally instead. 'No Deal' is the last chance saloon for this fantasy.
William, you make a profound mistake when you project your own world view on to others. I could not care less if the EU exists or not, I am merely delighted that my country will no longer be part of it.
Whilst I am in favour of tariff free trade, I am not in favour of trade deals with secret courts that appear to have been designed for large corporations to eviscerate national economies - this is as undemocratic as large supranational bureaucracies. So I was profoundly disturbed by TTIP and am quite pleased to be 'at the back' of any queue that may bring us something similar.
This is one reason why I feel it's wise to hold off entering any such arrangements though the pull to do so is strong on both sides. We need to be earning money in the world by offering products and services that the world wants, at the right prices. We don't need to be in some blob of other countries to do that.
I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
To people who hoped Brexit would mean the EU would disappear, the idea of any kind of deal with the EU is repugnant because it symbolises the continuing dominance of the EU. They thought all the countries of Europe would suddenly rise up and decide to deal with us bilaterally instead. 'No Deal' is the last chance saloon for this fantasy.
William, you make a profound mistake when you project your own world view on to others. I could not care less if the EU exists or not, I am merely delighted that my country will no longer be part of it.
Whilst I am in favour of tariff free trade, I am not in favour of trade deals with secret courts that appear to have been designed for large corporations to eviscerate national economies - this is as undemocratic as large supranational bureaucracies. So I was profoundly disturbed by TTIP and am quite pleased to be 'at the back' of any queue that may bring us something similar.
This is one reason why I feel it's wise to hold off entering any such arrangements though the pull to do so is strong on both sides. We need to be earning money in the world by offering products and services that the world wants, at the right prices. We don't need to be in some blob of other countries to do that.
Yeah all about Brexit.
Have you glanced at the UK trade deficit recently? "We need to be...offering products and services that the world wants..."
Except we don't, right at this moment, offer enough of them.
I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
To people who hoped Brexit would mean the EU would disappear, the idea of any kind of deal with the EU is repugnant because it symbolises the continuing dominance of the EU. They thought all the countries of Europe would suddenly rise up and decide to deal with us bilaterally instead. 'No Deal' is the last chance saloon for this fantasy.
William, you make a profound mistake when you project your own world view on to others. I could not care less if the EU exists or not, I am merely delighted that my country will no longer be part of it.
Do you view the Brexit deal as 'no longer being part of it'? If not then you prove my point.
This being the Home Secretary who failed to use all the options currently available within the EU to restrict immigration from EU countries?
Remaining and starting to use all the tools available to restrict FoM to the original intention of the EU might be a goer. I haven't heard any prominent remain advocates even start to go there. It's all #Peoplesvote / FBPE like some sort of drone hivemind on twitter.
1. No Deal (literally) Brexit. 2. The WA 3. Article 50 revocation.
The one with the least support gets eliminated.
The top two get voted on again until there is a majority in Parliament.
Or the top two get put to the people again.
I’m sure something about AV probably needs saying at this point.
Anyway just a thought.
I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
Exactly. People are confusing 'no deal', with 'no arrangements', and Remainers are encouraging that lack of distinction, just as they traditionally like to confuse 'no trade deal' with Europe with 'no trade', or 'cutting us off'.
Once again, the Leave side is behind the punch in the game of giving names to things, with 'managed no deal' being a belated and somewhat modest attempt to convey that whilst we won't have the WA, we will of course leave in an organised fashion and prepare for eventualities....
The evidence for that is sketchy, to say the least. 'Of course' is what might accurately be termed begging the question.
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.
#metoo.
But the same applies to the hard remainer faction. They should be forced to choose between the deal and a no deal exit.
In fact there is the solution to the impasse. 2 votes (either in parliament or of the public or both).
Vote 1 on deal vs remain and only leavers take part.
Vote 2 on deal vs WTO and only remainers take part.
Leavers choose the deal in vote 1. Remainers choose the deal in vote 2.
Kaboom. The country is unified and we leave with the deal.
You'd first need a vote to establish who is a Leaver and who is a Remainer.
we are all leavers now William.
Good point. That means kinabalu's idea can be simplified to Deal v Remain!
Simple free vote in parliament - May's deal or no deal.
Hold it tomorrow - if passes proceed, if not then we prepare for no deal until there is a call from Berlin.
Great idea.... not. How to cause huge panic and uncertainty for 3.5 months (or likely more) in a nutshell.
Better than losing a vote, a PM and holding a GE 6 weeks before a crash out.
This being the Home Secretary who failed to use all the options currently available within the EU to restrict immigration from EU countries?
Remaining and starting to use all the tools available to restrict FoM to the original intention of the EU might be a goer. I haven't heard any prominent remain advocates even start to go there. It's all #Peoplesvote / FBPE like some sort of drone hivemind on twitter.
What actually are they? If she added that to "The Deal" as an addendum (just to the British people, mind), then that would box in the loons even further (although being loons it might make no difference).
This being the Home Secretary who failed to use all the options currently available within the EU to restrict immigration from EU countries?
Remaining and starting to use all the tools available to restrict FoM to the original intention of the EU might be a goer. I haven't heard any prominent remain advocates even start to go there. It's all #Peoplesvote / FBPE like some sort of drone hivemind on twitter.
No one mentions it which is perplexing. Especially not Leavers who like to paint Britain as a victim who is powerless.
This being the Home Secretary who failed to use all the options currently available within the EU to restrict immigration from EU countries?
Remaining and starting to use all the tools available to restrict FoM to the original intention of the EU might be a goer. I haven't heard any prominent remain advocates even start to go there. It's all #Peoplesvote / FBPE like some sort of drone hivemind on twitter.
What actually are they? If she added that to "The Deal" as an addendum (just to the British people, mind), then that would box in the loons even further (although being loons it might make no difference).
1. No Deal (literally) Brexit. 2. The WA 3. Article 50 revocation.
The one with the least support gets eliminated.
The top two get voted on again until there is a majority in Parliament.
Or the top two get put to the people again.
I’m sure something about AV probably needs saying at this point.
Anyway just a thought.
I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
How's about cancel and invoke A50 again and work towards a WTO bare bones deal?
That is doable in two years and won't involve the destruction of the planet earth like an unprepared no deal.
Perfectly reasonable to have that in a referendum with the other 2 options.
There are several issues with that approach, namely what does "work towards a WTO bare bones deal" actually look like? It means I would imagine spending a bucketload of cash on a bunch of measures which would be designed to keep us sort of where we are. Can you really see a government agreeing to do that? Lorry park in Kent, new customs officers, new airport and other port design and structures.
And this is of course aside from the h*rd b*rd*r issue which of course is unsolvable with current (and near future?) technology.
Well how much money? It's probably only going to be a few months worth of contributions to the EU anyway.
Well the border question is more difficult. Perhaps we need to accept that to leave the EU meaningfully we'll need to have a hard border or some other compromise with Ireland in time. I don't think this is the end of the world as some are claiming.
1. No Deal (literally) Brexit. 2. The WA 3. Article 50 revocation.
The one with the least support gets eliminated.
The top two get voted on again until there is a majority in Parliament.
Or the top two get put to the people again.
I’m sure something about AV probably needs saying at this point.
Anyway just a thought.
I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
How's about cancel and invoke A50 again and work towards a WTO bare bones deal?
That is doable in two years and won't involve the destruction of the planet earth like an unprepared no deal.
Perfectly reasonable to have that in a referendum with the other 2 options.
There are several issues with that approach, namely what does "work towards a WTO bare bones deal" actually look like? It means I would imagine spending a bucketload of cash on a bunch of measures which would be designed to keep us sort of where we are. Can you really see a government agreeing to do that? Lorry park in Kent, new customs officers, new airport and other port design and structures.
And this is of course aside from the h*rd b*rd*r issue which of course is unsolvable with current (and near future?) technology.
Well how much money? It's probably only going to be a few months worth of contributions to the EU anyway.
Well the border question is more difficult. Perhaps we need to accept that to leave the EU meaningfully we'll need to have a hard border or some other compromise with Ireland in time. I don't think this is the end of the world as some are claiming.
1) It would be difficult to justify any number of billions of pounds on "preparations" for something people had told us wouldn't be needed; and 2) "we'll need to have a hard border" illustrates, I'm afraid, your lack of understanding of modern day British politics.
This being the Home Secretary who failed to use all the options currently available within the EU to restrict immigration from EU countries?
Remaining and starting to use all the tools available to restrict FoM to the original intention of the EU might be a goer. I haven't heard any prominent remain advocates even start to go there. It's all #Peoplesvote / FBPE like some sort of drone hivemind on twitter.
No one mentions it which is perplexing. Especially not Leavers who like to paint Britain as a victim who is powerless.
It's the fact David Cameron didn't even bother to start looking at this stuff before calling an EU referendum which is most perplexing of all. His entire attitude toward immigration was completely contradictory in word and practice.
Miss Cyclefree, it's be legal to revoke Article 50 just in the Commons, but the political price of doing so without a referendum would be significant.
Edited extra bit: it'd*
Yes it would. I think though that price needs to be paid. There will be a political price to be paid if we crash out without a deal. That price may be even higher. Who knows? Do no harm is a good maxim. Revoking Art 50 while we can preserves the status quo. It does not close off the option of leaving in the future. Whereas crashing out is likely to have all sorts of unintended consequences and closes off options.
The best option is to pass the WA. It honours the result of the 2016 Referendum, without burning the economy.
It honour’s May’s interpretation of the result of the 2016 referendum. But she has failed to bring anyone else along with her...... so an alternative needs to be found.
The best option is to pass the WA. It honours the result of the 2016 Referendum, without burning the economy.
Such an unexciting sentiment. But no matter, the plain prosiac truth seldom thrills.
Of course the WA should be ratified. It is the logical consequence of the 2016 referendum. The only reason it is being held up is that we have a hung parliament which delivers inordinate influence to plotters and special pleaders and minority factions.
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.
I disagree. Sadly, you have ended up not far from the position of Trump.
The population of Lithuania is 2.8 million. The population of Bangladesh is 167 million.
The land area of Bangladesh is about twice the land area of Lithuania.
It is hard to conclude from these figures anything other than that Bangladesh is very, very overcrowded, and Lithuania is very, very under crowded.
So, what is the Cyclefree solution for Bangladesh? It seems to be that the Bangladeshis must stay put in a very, very overcrowded part of the world.
I think it is perfectly reasonable for Bangladeshis to want to migrate to under-crowded parts of the world.
Particularly as some of the most under-crowded parts of the world (the US, Canada, Australia) have only recently been occupied by (largely white) people who moved from elsewhere (much as many Bangladeshis would like 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.
I disagree. Sadly, you have ended up not far from the position of Trump.
The population of Lithuania is 2.8 million. The population of Bangladesh is 167 million.
The land area of Bangladesh is about twice the land area of Lithuania.
It is hard to conclude from these figures anything other than that Bangladesh is very, very overcrowded, and Lithuania is very, very under crowded.
So, what is the Cyclefree solution for Bangladesh? It seems to be that the Bangladeshis must stay put in a very, very overcrowded part of the world.
I think it is perfectly reasonable for Bangladeshis to want to migrate to under-crowded parts of the world.
Particularly as some of the most under-crowded parts of the world (the US, Canada, Australia) have only recently been occupied by (largely white) people who moved from elsewhere (much as many Bangladeshis would like to do).
That sounds like pretty hard luck on the Lithuanians (who have suffered more than their share of bad luck).
Sean_F wrote “That sounds like pretty hard luck on the Lithuanians (who have suffered more than their share of bad luck).”
But, the Lithuanians don’t want to live in Lithuania -- their population is declining.
There are empty houses & schools in Lithuania (that is the practical consequence of a declining population).
There are people who need houses.
If there were Lithuanians ready to live in the empty houses, well and good. But there aren’t. Why can’t the houses be use to populate non-Lithuanians?
I am not of course picking on Lithuania. Ultimately, if a country’s population is actually declining, and the global population is rising, then the country with the decline population must accept the consequences of failing to hold on to their own population. One of them is that they should accept more immigration.
Sean_F wrote “That sounds like pretty hard luck on the Lithuanians (who have suffered more than their share of bad luck).”
But, the Lithuanians don’t want to live in Lithuania -- their population is declining.
There are empty houses & schools in Lithuania (that is the practical consequence of a declining population).
There are people who need houses.
If there were Lithuanians ready to live in the empty houses, well and good. But there aren’t. Why can’t the houses be use to populate non-Lithuanians?
I am not of course picking on Lithuania. Ultimately, if a country’s population is actually declining, and the global population is rising, then the country with the decline population must accept the consequences of failing to hold on to their own population. One of them is that they should accept more immigration.
I take the view that it's up to the Lithuanians to determine who they wish to come to their country.
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?
Not if the second stage would have had status-quo Remain in it, no, because that renders the first stage meaningless as a bit of a "free hit".
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.
If you mean Davis and Raab, that is incorrect - May and Robbins froze them out of the negotiations.
Sean_F wrote “That sounds like pretty hard luck on the Lithuanians (who have suffered more than their share of bad luck).”
But, the Lithuanians don’t want to live in Lithuania -- their population is declining.
There are empty houses & schools in Lithuania (that is the practical consequence of a declining population).
There are people who need houses.
If there were Lithuanians ready to live in the empty houses, well and good. But there aren’t. Why can’t the houses be use to populate non-Lithuanians?
I am not of course picking on Lithuania. Ultimately, if a country’s population is actually declining, and the global population is rising, then the country with the decline population must accept the consequences of failing to hold on to their own population. One of them is that they should accept more immigration.
I take the view that it's up to the Lithuanians to determine who they wish to come to their country.
Was it up to the native Americans to decide who came to their country?
Was it up to the native Africans to decide who came to South Africa?
No, white Europeans moved to underpopulated parts of the world.
Sean_F wrote “That sounds like pretty hard luck on the Lithuanians (who have suffered more than their share of bad luck).”
But, the Lithuanians don’t want to live in Lithuania -- their population is declining.
There are empty houses & schools in Lithuania (that is the practical consequence of a declining population).
There are people who need houses.
If there were Lithuanians ready to live in the empty houses, well and good. But there aren’t. Why can’t the houses be use to populate non-Lithuanians?
I am not of course picking on Lithuania. Ultimately, if a country’s population is actually declining, and the global population is rising, then the country with the decline population must accept the consequences of failing to hold on to their own population. One of them is that they should accept more immigration.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that Bangladeshis want to live in Lithuania?
I don't think people are attracted to underpopulated (certainly in terms of people per sq km terms) places.
Sean_F wrote “That sounds like pretty hard luck on the Lithuanians (who have suffered more than their share of bad luck).”
But, the Lithuanians don’t want to live in Lithuania -- their population is declining.
There are empty houses & schools in Lithuania (that is the practical consequence of a declining population).
There are people who need houses.
If there were Lithuanians ready to live in the empty houses, well and good. But there aren’t. Why can’t the houses be use to populate non-Lithuanians?
I am not of course picking on Lithuania. Ultimately, if a country’s population is actually declining, and the global population is rising, then the country with the decline population must accept the consequences of failing to hold on to their own population. One of them is that they should accept more immigration.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that Bangladeshis want to live in Lithuania?
I don't think people are attracted to underpopulated (certainly in terms of people per sq km terms) places.
I suspect many Bangladeshis would jump at the chance of migrating to underpopulated parts of the world (US, Canada, Australia & Eastern Europe).
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.
I disagree. Sadly, you have ended up not far from the position of Trump.
The population of Lithuania is 2.8 million. The population of Bangladesh is 167 million.
The land area of Bangladesh is about twice the land area of Lithuania.
It is hard to conclude from these figures anything other than that Bangladesh is very, very overcrowded, and Lithuania is very, very under crowded.
So, what is the Cyclefree solution for Bangladesh? It seems to be that the Bangladeshis must stay put in a very, very overcrowded part of the world.
I think it is perfectly reasonable for Bangladeshis to want to migrate to under-crowded parts of the world.
Particularly as some of the most under-crowded parts of the world (the US, Canada, Australia) have only recently been occupied by (largely white) people who moved from elsewhere (much as many Bangladeshis would like to do).
The movement of white people to Africa is I think described as colonialism and is generally seen as not a good thing because of the effects it had on the places where it was tried, not least because it was often unwanted by those who were living there already.
You are proposing a form of reverse colonialism whereby Bangladeshis come to parts of Europe regardless of the wishes of the local inhabitants. I don’t agree. I think the wishes of the local inhabitants take priority over the desires of Bangladeshis or anyone else. If individual Bagladeshis want to move then they should have to show the country they want to move to that they bring something of value and won’t cause problems.
The reason a lot of countries don’t want people from some parts of the world is that they have taken the view, based on quite a lot of evidence from countries around them, that some groups don’t bring a lot of value and do bring a lot of problems. Forcing social problems on them against their wishes is a recipe for disaster. You would do better to address the reasons why a country like Bangladesh is such a mess.
Comments
https://twitter.com/conradhackett/status/1072974027625508865
But the same applies to the hard remainer faction. They should be forced to choose between the deal and a no deal exit.
In fact there is the solution to the impasse. 2 votes (either in parliament or of the public or both).
Vote 1 on deal vs remain and only leavers take part.
Vote 2 on deal vs WTO and only remainers take part.
Leavers choose the deal in vote 1. Remainers choose the deal in vote 2.
Kaboom. The country is unified and we leave with the deal.
Against May 117
Right?
notDavid Davis and I claim my...No, they always thought it was, but they were frit to death to tell the electorate they didn't trust them.
That is the truth. They do feel they are superior beings. That isn't actually democracy. There is a term for it that I can't bring to mind.
Could someone on here help me out. Where a pre-selected group (selected by a political grouping) decide they should be the arbiters of everything because they consider themselves to be superior.
Hold it tomorrow - if passes proceed, if not then we prepare for no deal until there is a call from Berlin.
Clearly the public supports an end to FoM and achieving this is a success of the deal and a reason to compromise other things. So it makes sense to want to make it clear.
Votes in Parliament next week on 3 options:-
1. No Deal (literally) Brexit.
2. The WA
3. Article 50 revocation.
The one with the least support gets eliminated.
The top two get voted on again until there is a majority in Parliament.
Or the top two get put to the people again.
I’m sure something about AV probably needs saying at this point.
Anyway just a thought.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
It's almost like our system of government is designed to unburden the electorate from complex decision making and leave that to professional politicians, and that our system of government, with a monarch and hereditary peers, doesn't believe in the rule by the wishes of the common man...
RN (Le Pen) 24 (+2)
LREM/Modem (Macron + Bayrou) 18 (-1)
LR (non-macronist right) 11(-2)
FI (Melenchon - far left) 9 (-1)
DLF (Dupont-Aignan - eurospectic right) 8 (+2)
Verts (Green) 8 (+1)
PS (socialist) 4.5 (-1.5)
Generations (Left - Hamon) 3.5 (+1)
UDI (macronist centre-right) 3 (-1)
Communist 2.5 (-0.5)
Resistons (Lassalle - defence rural areas) 2.5 (+0.5)
Patriotes (far-right) 1
UPR (far-right) 0.5 (-0.5)
Others 4.5
As the cut to get EMPs is 5%, only 6 lists would get seats:
RN 24 seats (same as 2014)
LREM/Modem 18 (+11 compared to the centrist Modem/UDI list in 2014)
LR 11 (-9)
FI 9 (+5)
DLF 9 (+9)
Greens 8 (+2)
The socialists would lose their 13 seats
dynamics of the current situation.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/13/may-eu-second-referendum-brexit
Edited extra bit: it'd*
That has always meant no real deal is possible. Any alteration can only be for a short and temporary fix.
To secure their place in the last 16 of the European champions league.
I hope their ground is ready for the knock out stages.
That is doable in two years and won't involve the destruction of the planet earth like an unprepared no deal.
Perfectly reasonable to have that in a referendum with the other 2 options.
Personally, while I could live with May’s deal by comparison with No Deal it is still a rubbish deal.
We don’t know what we want to do as a country and our representatives are no better.
May is obsessed with FoM, having failed at reducing non-EU immigration, which is likely more of a concern to those worried about such things than FOM. She has made this the only key objective of her negotiations, stupidly in my view.
But if the WA does not pass, then Article 50 should be revoked. IMO.
It is incumbent on those who want to make a big irrevocable change to come up with a coherent workable plan that has the necessary support in Parliament and can be agreed with the EU. They haven’t. So we stay as we are.
Those who want change can go away, lick their wounds and do the hard thinking they have failed to do until now.
And now I must be off. It is clear and frosty and the hound is looking at me pleadingly.......
All that we do is give some UN Rapporteur a stick with which to beat us.
Once again, the Leave side is behind the punch in the game of giving names to things, with 'managed no deal' being a belated and somewhat modest attempt to convey that whilst we won't have the WA, we will of course leave in an organised fashion and prepare for eventualities. It is quite outrageous of anyone to suggest otherwise, but there we go.
I'm not saying our parliamentary system is good, or even fit for purpose, or that our politicians are indeed intelligent elites, but for people to be surprised at it's clear elitism when it is "thwarting" something they care for is hilarious.
Cuts to social programmes, local government and other services is seen as being the adult in the room and making the hard decisions that the mooching common man wouldn't understand.
Thwarting "the will of the people" to make us a tax haven and to make rich people richer and poor people poorer; well, that elitism can't stand!
Our system of government is entirely designed in favour of elitism, from the boys club of the Eton / Oxbridge crowd, the civil service, the monarchy and the lords. It's awful. But now the right wing care about that, because their beloved Brexit.
I think Pochettino has done a great job.
Especially in esscence having no home games.
Real Madrid will be after him this summer I think.
At least he can sit back and laugh at himself AND Cameron's nonsense. In retrospect the country would probably have been far better off if Labour had won in 2015.
It's the only way I can see out of this mess.
And this is of course aside from the h*rd b*rd*r issue which of course is unsolvable with current (and near future?) technology.
Spoke last night with an old school friend who runs an electronic company in Manchester area. They are hiring 2 extra staff to look after all the extra paperwork they will need to fill in to sell to Europe. EC takes 50% of their goods. His view is that the manufacturing industry is being thrown under the bus. He has voted Tory for over 30 years and is now considering the Lib Dems.
The sad thing is that the Leavers have some very good arguments. Why should we pay money into an organisation that uses the money to gives grants to places like Spain to shift jobs out of the UK, that gives our fish to the Dutch and allows large MNCs to not pay UK taxes by bribing the Luxembourg Minister who then was made head of the EC.
There is a need to reset our relationship with the EU but the present plan is flawed.
https://twitter.com/josephmdurso/status/1073178985188732929
i) Referendum in N Ireland to either join ROI or remain in backstop (Wouldn't pass DUP though)
ii) Parliamentary lock from moving to transition through to backstop. (Needs change to WA though so probably not possible)
iii) rUK remains in Single market for goods removing regulatory concerns via legally binding note.
iv) Time limit of after say 10 years for i). That should be enough for a FTA.
Whilst I am in favour of tariff free trade, I am not in favour of trade deals with secret courts that appear to have been designed for large corporations to eviscerate national economies - this is as undemocratic as large supranational bureaucracies. So I was profoundly disturbed by TTIP and am quite pleased to be 'at the back' of any queue that may bring us something similar.
This is one reason why I feel it's wise to hold off entering any such arrangements though the pull to do so is strong on both sides. We need to be earning money in the world by offering products and services that the world wants, at the right prices. We don't need to be in some blob of other countries to do that.
Have you glanced at the UK trade deficit recently? "We need to be...offering products and services that the world wants..."
Except we don't, right at this moment, offer enough of them.
'Of course' is what might accurately be termed begging the question.
https://twitter.com/CornishSkipper/status/1028895253783347200
Well the border question is more difficult. Perhaps we need to accept that to leave the EU meaningfully we'll need to have a hard border or some other compromise with Ireland in time. I don't think this is the end of the world as some are claiming.
2) "we'll need to have a hard border" illustrates, I'm afraid, your lack of understanding of modern day British politics.
His entire attitude toward immigration was completely contradictory in word and practice.
Of course the WA should be ratified. It is the logical consequence of the 2016 referendum. The only reason it is being held up is that we have a hung parliament which delivers inordinate influence to plotters and special pleaders and minority factions.
The population of Lithuania is 2.8 million. The population of Bangladesh is 167 million.
The land area of Bangladesh is about twice the land area of Lithuania.
It is hard to conclude from these figures anything other than that Bangladesh is very, very overcrowded, and Lithuania is very, very under crowded.
So, what is the Cyclefree solution for Bangladesh? It seems to be that the Bangladeshis must stay put in a very, very overcrowded part of the world.
I think it is perfectly reasonable for Bangladeshis to want to migrate to under-crowded parts of the world.
Particularly as some of the most under-crowded parts of the world (the US, Canada, Australia) have only recently been occupied by (largely white) people who moved from elsewhere (much as many Bangladeshis would like to do).
But, the Lithuanians don’t want to live in Lithuania -- their population is declining.
There are empty houses & schools in Lithuania (that is the practical consequence of a declining population).
There are people who need houses.
If there were Lithuanians ready to live in the empty houses, well and good. But there aren’t. Why can’t the houses be use to populate non-Lithuanians?
I am not of course picking on Lithuania. Ultimately, if a country’s population is actually declining, and the global population is rising, then the country with the decline population must accept the consequences of failing to hold on to their own population. One of them is that they should accept more immigration.
Was it up to the native Africans to decide who came to South Africa?
No, white Europeans moved to underpopulated parts of the world.
I don't think people are attracted to underpopulated (certainly in terms of people per sq km terms) places.
You are proposing a form of reverse colonialism whereby Bangladeshis come to parts of Europe regardless of the wishes of the local inhabitants. I don’t agree. I think the wishes of the local inhabitants take priority over the desires of Bangladeshis or anyone else. If individual Bagladeshis want to move then they should have to show the country they want to move to that they bring something of value and won’t cause problems.
The reason a lot of countries don’t want people from some parts of the world is that they have taken the view, based on quite a lot of evidence from countries around them, that some groups don’t bring a lot of value and do bring a lot of problems. Forcing social problems on them against their wishes is a recipe for disaster. You would do better to address the reasons why a country like Bangladesh is such a mess.