Digby Jones encapsulates absolutely everything that is wrong about British business management. Why do we so often struggle in overseas markets? Because there are far too many Digby Jones's sitting on our company boards. https://twitter.com/Digbylj/status/1074683987338190848
I think British business does ok overseas compared to most countries.
And there's nothing wrong with being proud of our involvement in WW2.
There's a lot wrong with invoking, John Cleese-like, our times of war with our current allies. Plus it is illogical as many EU members would not only have liked to have charged the Jones family €7 but to have shot them through the head also.
See what a stupid line of discussion it is?
Oh yes but it's @Xenon so obvs that is about the right level.
The EU could quite easily decide not to charge 7 euros, they are doing it out of spite.
Obviously that's ok though according to you.
And they will probably drop the charge if it looks like it has an effect, as it might. Despite €7 being a fairly trivial amount in the context of a holiday, the inconvenience and the message it sends may well hit the weekend break market in particular.
I often find I have to pay a city tax when I go abroad to watch Arsenal. This sort of thing is not that much of an issue for your holiday maker. Might be a bit more of an issue for regular travellers.
Have you seen the Thomas Cook share price over the last 6 months. £1.20 to 30p.
Next summer isn't going to be a bumper year for Uk tourists heading for the EU.
Funnily enough I have just done a YouGov survey with lots of questions about travel and the impact of Brexit.
Voter ID does feel unnecessary. is there any evidence of widespread voter fraud outside of a few small cases? younger voters(single mothers), benefits claimants, students already do not vote in the same number as over 50s so this will divide society even further..
Any level of fraud in unacceptable. Why should it be harder to get a resident's parking permit or a library card that it is to vote?
"Any level of fraud in unacceptable."
If you really, truly believe that, are you prepared for the process that would have to be enacted to enable it?
When you know there is a risk of fraud - which there clearly is with our voting system as currently set up - it is perfectly reasonable to take steps to reduce the potential for fraud to as close to zero as you can manage. No system is perfectly secure. But a Voter ID system is not unreasonable - as is demonstrated by the fact that one operates in Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland has a past history of systematic impersonation. Britain really doesn't - the number of cases that turn up are trivial, and attempting to make it harder to vote is really more likely to be for other, less respectable reasons, as the article suggests. Just making the punishment for doing it more severe would surely suffice. If we are worried about improper voting, I'd rather see reduced availability of postal voting (where there really is a potential problem as there's obvious scope for family pressure).
Digby Jones encapsulates absolutely everything that is wrong about British business management. Why do we so often struggle in overseas markets? Because there are far too many Digby Jones's sitting on our company boards. https://twitter.com/Digbylj/status/1074683987338190848
I think British business does ok overseas compared to most countries.
And there's nothing wrong with being proud of our involvement in WW2.
There's a lot wrong with invoking, John Cleese-like, our times of war with our current allies. Plus it is illogical as many EU members would not only have liked to have charged the Jones family €7 but to have shot them through the head also.
See what a stupid line of discussion it is?
Oh yes but it's @Xenon so obvs that is about the right level.
The EU could quite easily decide not to charge 7 euros, they are doing it out of spite.
Obviously that's ok though according to you.
And they will probably drop the charge if it looks like it has an effect, as it might. Despite €7 being a fairly trivial amount in the context of a holiday, the inconvenience and the message it sends may well hit the weekend break market in particular.
I often find I have to pay a city tax when I go abroad to watch Arsenal. This sort of thing is not that much of an issue for your holiday maker. Might be a bit more of an issue for regular travellers.
Digby Jones encapsulates absolutely everything that is wrong about British business management. Why do we so often struggle in overseas markets? Because there are far too many Digby Jones's sitting on our company boards. https://twitter.com/Digbylj/status/1074683987338190848
I think British business does ok overseas compared to most countries.
And there's nothing wrong with being proud of our involvement in WW2.
There's a lot wrong with invoking, John Cleese-like, our times of war with our current allies. Plus it is illogical as many EU members would not only have liked to have charged the Jones family €7 but to have shot them through the head also.
See what a stupid line of discussion it is?
Oh yes but it's @Xenon so obvs that is about the right level.
The EU could quite easily decide not to charge 7 euros, they are doing it out of spite.
Obviously that's ok though according to you.
And they will probably drop the charge if it looks like it has an effect, as it might. Despite €7 being a fairly trivial amount in the context of a holiday, the inconvenience and the message it sends may well hit the weekend break market in particular.
I often find I have to pay a city tax when I go abroad to watch Arsenal. This sort of thing is not that much of an issue for your holiday maker. Might be a bit more of an issue for regular travellers.
Have you seen the Thomas Cook share price over the last 6 months. £1.20 to 30p.
Next summer isn't going to be a bumper year for Uk tourists heading for the EU.
Funnily enough I have just done a YouGov survey with lots of questions about travel and the impact of Brexit.
Unsurprising - after the high street, the organised travel industry is the next for a brickwall.
Digby Jones encapsulates absolutely everything that is wrong about British business management. Why do we so often struggle in overseas markets? Because there are far too many Digby Jones's sitting on our company boards. https://twitter.com/Digbylj/status/1074683987338190848
I think British business does ok overseas compared to most countries.
And there's nothing wrong with being proud of our involvement in WW2.
Chauvinism is rarely an attractive quality nor is seeking reflected glory.
They're not mini-deals as far as I can see, they are short-term, unilateral EU actions. They do not involve discussion or negotiation, they involve the EU doing stuff which it believes will mitigate difficulties for EU member states. These may or may not also benefit the UK, but the UK will have absolutely no control over them, except the ability to say no and to harm itself even more.
Precisely. And of course they won't cover things like meat or fish exports to the EU, which will collapse overnight in the case of no deal. The proposed measure on derivative contracts looks as though it is designed to give EU traders and companies up to nine months to exit their positions.
'Managed no deal' is a complete absurdity, a contradiction in terms. Still, it's a useful litmus test for voting in future Conservative leadership contests, as anyone who has proposed it can immediately be ruled out.
It is an oxymoron but like many an oxymoron it does actually mean something. Given no deal has come to mean going to WTO terms (a better phrase may be no grand deal etc) then a managed no deal is a deal that leads to WTO terms but includes minor deals on case by case issues - eg planes, air space, pet passports etc
Which is why you see that "no deal" can't ever be an option to be enshrined in law, either by parliament or the public.
Agreed 100%
Managed no deal OTOH while an oxymoron can be implemented by Parliament and is a more honest phrase than the cringeworthy alternative used of "world trade deal".
Digby Jones encapsulates absolutely everything that is wrong about British business management. Why do we so often struggle in overseas markets? Because there are far too many Digby Jones's sitting on our company boards. https://twitter.com/Digbylj/status/1074683987338190848
I think British business does ok overseas compared to most countries.
And there's nothing wrong with being proud of our involvement in WW2.
There's a lot wrong with invoking, John Cleese-like, our times of war with our current allies. Plus it is illogical as many EU members would not only have liked to have charged the Jones family €7 but to have shot them through the head also.
See what a stupid line of discussion it is?
Oh yes but it's @Xenon so obvs that is about the right level.
Citation needed on them being allies.
I see nothing ally like about how they have approached these negotiations. Hostile is more like it and if they want to treat us in a hostile manner trying to divide up our country then it takes two to tango.
Digby Jones encapsulates absolutely everything that is wrong about British business management. Why do we so often struggle in overseas markets? Because there are far too many Digby Jones's sitting on our company boards. https://twitter.com/Digbylj/status/1074683987338190848
I think British business does ok overseas compared to most countries.
And there's nothing wrong with being proud of our involvement in WW2.
There's a lot wrong with invoking, John Cleese-like, our times of war with our current allies. Plus it is illogical as many EU members would not only have liked to have charged the Jones family €7 but to have shot them through the head also.
See what a stupid line of discussion it is?
Oh yes but it's @Xenon so obvs that is about the right level.
Citation needed on them being allies.
I see nothing ally like about how they have approached these negotiations. Hostile is more like it and if they want to treat us in a hostile manner trying to divide up our country then it takes two to tango.
Even if that's true, do you not think it a bit sad and desperate to be expecting gratitude for something that happened over a hundred years ago?
'Managed no deal' is a complete absurdity, a contradiction in terms.
It is. And please accept my congratulations for avoiding a word which irritates me no end. Oxydontist or whatever it is. That one.
A no deal exit? No transition? No thank you.
Which means that the time has come to get behind the deal on the table. Theresa May and Olly Robbins have worked their socks off for it and it's none too shabby. It lets us leave the EU in an orderly fashion, then we can take our sweet time to negotiate a deep and special partnership that is a bit like still being in, but also if we're feeling bullish a clean break and an Irish border that is digital and imaginary rather than olde worlde and real. So let's ratify this Withdrawal Agreement and enter Brexitland! For all the talk on both sides there is no other way to see what it looks like.
They're not mini-deals as far as I can see, they are short-term, unilateral EU actions. They do not involve discussion or negotiation, they involve the EU doing stuff which it believes will mitigate difficulties for EU member states. These may or may not also benefit the UK, but the UK will have absolutely no control over them, except the ability to say no and to harm itself even more.
Precisely. And of course they won't cover things like meat or fish exports to the EU, which will collapse overnight in the case of no deal. The proposed measure on derivative contracts looks as though it is designed to give EU traders and companies up to nine months to exit their positions.
'Managed no deal' is a complete absurdity, a contradiction in terms. Still, it's a useful litmus test for voting in future Conservative leadership contests, as anyone who has proposed it can immediately be ruled out.
It is an oxymoron but like many an oxymoron it does actually mean something. Given no deal has come to mean going to WTO terms (a better phrase may be no grand deal etc) then a managed no deal is a deal that leads to WTO terms but includes minor deals on case by case issues - eg planes, air space, pet passports etc
Which is why you see that "no deal" can't ever be an option to be enshrined in law, either by parliament or the public.
Agreed 100%
Managed no deal OTOH while an oxymoron can be implemented by Parliament and is a more honest phrase than the cringeworthy alternative used of "world trade deal".
Yes but good luck with working through the detail on that one in any kind of sensible timescale.
paragraph 2052: airlines, the continued flying thereof paragraph 4243: bananas, curvature of
Voter ID does feel unnecessary. is there any evidence of widespread voter fraud outside of a few small cases? younger voters(single mothers), benefits claimants, students already do not vote in the same number as over 50s so this will divide society even further..
Any level of fraud in unacceptable. Why should it be harder to get a resident's parking permit or a library card that it is to vote?
"Any level of fraud in unacceptable."
If you really, truly believe that, are you prepared for the process that would have to be enacted to enable it?
When you know there is a risk of fraud - which there clearly is with our voting system as currently set up - it is perfectly reasonable to take steps to reduce the potential for fraud to as close to zero as you can manage. No system is perfectly secure. But a Voter ID system is not unreasonable - as is demonstrated by the fact that one operates in Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland has a past history of systematic impersonation. Britain really doesn't - the number of cases that turn up are trivial, and attempting to make it harder to vote is really more likely to be for other, less respectable reasons, as the article suggests.
Digby Jones encapsulates absolutely everything that is wrong about British business management. Why do we so often struggle in overseas markets? Because there are far too many Digby Jones's sitting on our company boards. https://twitter.com/Digbylj/status/1074683987338190848
I think British business does ok overseas compared to most countries.
And there's nothing wrong with being proud of our involvement in WW2.
Neither of these has the slightest bearing on the matter at hand. In particular the current performance of business when we are inside the EU doesn't tell us anything about the impact, or non-impact, of Brexit.
Jones's tweet is infantile and does him no credit.
"Overall, the voter identification requirements trialled in May 2018 worked well. Nearly everyone in the five pilot scheme areas who went to vote in their polling station was able to show identification without difficulty. The number of people who did not vote because they couldn’t show identification was very small."
I imagine it is mainly undesirable groups who will have their democratic rights blocked anyway, no need to kick up too much of a fuss about a small minority.
They'll all be in safe Labour seats anyway.....
I truly doubt any Westminster MP sits as an MP due to electoral fraud. The bigger problem is local elections. I can see a better case being made for implementing it there, where a handful of dodgy votes could risk the democratic process being bent all out of whack.
The South Yorkshire police commissioner vote was quite eyebrow raising with almost 80% of votes cast by postal ballot.
I would be interested to see the breakdown of votes per party of postal votes compared to voting in person.
In my long experience they lean Tory, as it's still the case that the penetration of PVs is highest amongst the elderly.
Digby Jones encapsulates absolutely everything that is wrong about British business management. Why do we so often struggle in overseas markets? Because there are far too many Digby Jones's sitting on our company boards. https://twitter.com/Digbylj/status/1074683987338190848
What a twat he probably wrote that sitting in his union jack underpants with land of hope and glory playing in the background.
You are going to have to explain to me why that makes him a twat.
a) you are being ironic in which case good post; or b) you are not being ironic in which case god help us.
Edit: apologies for not knowing which (I suspect a) ) but it's difficult to tell when @Xenon is at large.
It's quite tragic you think that you're being really witty and intelligent with these comments, when you actually come across as a complete bell end.
I need proof you are old enough to have access to the internet. Nothing in your entire posting history makes me think you aren't a seven yr old sitting in the back of your parents' car on your iPad.
You're on here every day acting like an immature fool whenever you disagree with anyone. Why?
I need a basic level of intelligence before I engage seriously.
Managed no deal OTOH while an oxymoron can be implemented by Parliament and is a more honest phrase than the cringeworthy alternative used of "world trade deal".
They're not mini-deals as far as I can see, they are short-term, unilateral EU actions. They do not involve discussion or negotiation, they involve the EU doing stuff which it believes will mitigate difficulties for EU member states. These may or may not also benefit the UK, but the UK will have absolutely no control over them, except the ability to say no and to harm itself even more.
Precisely. And of course they won't cover things like meat or fish exports to the EU, which will collapse overnight in the case of no deal. The proposed measure on derivative contracts looks as though it is designed to give EU traders and companies up to nine months to exit their positions.
'Managed no deal' is a complete absurdity, a contradiction in terms. Still, it's a useful litmus test for voting in future Conservative leadership contests, as anyone who has proposed it can immediately be ruled out.
It is an oxymoron but like many an oxymoron it does actually mean something. Given no deal has come to mean going to WTO terms (a better phrase may be no grand deal etc) then a managed no deal is a deal that leads to WTO terms but includes minor deals on case by case issues - eg planes, air space, pet passports etc
No, that's nonsense. The 'minor deals on a case by case basis' are exactly what the Withdrawal Agreement covers. If we want a managed transition to WTO terms then it's clear what we need to do: we sign the Withdrawal Agreement, and then we'll have the transition period during which we can renegotiate the political declaration (which as May's critics keep telling us is not legally binding). The EU would go along with that, apart from one problem: the Irish border issue might be insoluble in that scenario. Dunno how you get round that.
One thing I am wondering is whether the Withdrawal Agreement has any life after March 30th in the event of No Deal. There were a couple of suggestions in the Sir Ivan Rogers piece that seemed to say the EU might cleave to it.
IANAL, but I it occurs to me that, even if it still forms the basis of a post No Deal way out of chaos, that it will no longer be a Withdrawal Agreement as such and would need some non functional redrafting to reflect that. It also occurs that ratification done for the WA itself might not be applicable to a post-WA: it would be a different document to be ratified and the ratification process itself could be different
If this is the route May / the EU go down, I suspect we might languish for a couple of months waiting for the post WA to be in place.
Digby Jones encapsulates absolutely everything that is wrong about British business management. Why do we so often struggle in overseas markets? Because there are far too many Digby Jones's sitting on our company boards. https://twitter.com/Digbylj/status/1074683987338190848
What a twat he probably wrote that sitting in his union jack underpants with land of hope and glory playing in the background.
You are going to have to explain to me why that makes him a twat.
a) you are being ironic in which case good post; or b) you are not being ironic in which case god help us.
Edit: apologies for not knowing which (I suspect a) ) but it's difficult to tell when @Xenon is at large.
It's quite tragic you think that you're being really witty and intelligent with these comments, when you actually come across as a complete bell end.
I need proof you are old enough to have access to the internet. Nothing in your entire posting history makes me think you aren't a seven yr old sitting in the back of your parents' car on your iPad.
You're on here every day acting like an immature fool whenever you disagree with anyone. Why?
I need a basic level of intelligence before I engage seriously.
Digby Jones encapsulates absolutely everything that is wrong about British business management. Why do we so often struggle in overseas markets? Because there are far too many Digby Jones's sitting on our company boards. https://twitter.com/Digbylj/status/1074683987338190848
I think British business does ok overseas compared to most countries.
And there's nothing wrong with being proud of our involvement in WW2.
There's a lot wrong with invoking, John Cleese-like, our times of war with our current allies. Plus it is illogical as many EU members would not only have liked to have charged the Jones family €7 but to have shot them through the head also.
See what a stupid line of discussion it is?
Oh yes but it's @Xenon so obvs that is about the right level.
Citation needed on them being allies.
I see nothing ally like about how they have approached these negotiations. Hostile is more like it and if they want to treat us in a hostile manner trying to divide up our country then it takes two to tango.
Even if that's true, do you not think it a bit sad and desperate to be expecting gratitude for something that happened over a hundred years ago?
True but, to be fair, the same could be also be applied to the Irish on the other side of the coin. Much of their thinking is still influenced by their War of Independence view the "Brits" are out to get them.
Digby Jones encapsulates absolutely everything that is wrong about British business management. Why do we so often struggle in overseas markets? Because there are far too many Digby Jones's sitting on our company boards. https://twitter.com/Digbylj/status/1074683987338190848
I think British business does ok overseas compared to most countries.
And there's nothing wrong with being proud of our involvement in WW2.
Neither of these has the slightest bearing on the matter at hand. In particular the current performance of business when we are inside the EU doesn't tell us anything about the impact, or non-impact, of Brexit.
Jones's tweet is infantile and does him no credit.
Rees Mogg has made a fool of himself in recent days and has no credibility. He seems more in the Boris camp anyway which seems appropriate. Gove has no credibility left with either Remainers or Leavers. Javid and Hunt are straw men - all mouth and nothing else. Rudd and Lidlington are just EU apparatchiks and would just revoke A50 so they have no chance with the membership. Davis is too old so that leaves either Raab or Mordaunt as the only two credible choices.
The best bet of course would be someone outside Cabinet to come through untainted by the fiasco this Cabinet have made of Brexit but that seems highly unlikely based on history.
"leaves...Mordaunt as the only credible choice[s]."
bwahahahahahaha
haha
hahahahahahaha
ha
I think Mourdant has burned her bridges with a lot of the ERG / membership types by not resigning when others did.
What is Mogg up to? I am lost now. Are the ERG going to swing behind May's deal at last moment?
ERG want managed No Deal.
And the Tory Party would forever be responsible for the consequences.
If we lurch, despite Parliament wishing to avoid it, towards a “no deal”, with delusions it can be “managed” into a quick and dirty FTA, that will not end happily or quickly.
I [Ivan Rogers] am in no position to second guess those who have to try and model the macro effects of such a scenario. No developed country has left a trade bloc before, let alone in disorderly fashion, and let alone one which has become a lot more than a trade bloc.
But I do fully understand the legal realities. And because so-called “WTO rules” deliver precisely no continuity in multiple key sectors of the economy, we could expect disruption on a scale and of a length that no-one has experienced in the developed world in the last couple of generations.
Digby Jones encapsulates absolutely everything that is wrong about British business management. Why do we so often struggle in overseas markets? Because there are far too many Digby Jones's sitting on our company boards. https://twitter.com/Digbylj/status/1074683987338190848
I think British business does ok overseas compared to most countries.
And there's nothing wrong with being proud of our involvement in WW2.
There's a lot wrong with invoking, John Cleese-like, our times of war with our current allies. Plus it is illogical as many EU members would not only have liked to have charged the Jones family €7 but to have shot them through the head also.
See what a stupid line of discussion it is?
Oh yes but it's @Xenon so obvs that is about the right level.
The EU could quite easily decide not to charge 7 euros, they are doing it out of spite.
Obviously that's ok though according to you.
Imagine the Uk had invented this visa charge - Southham would be frothing about little Englanders and turning our back on the world.
Brexit is a battle between optimistic leavers and misanthrope remainers.
The EU is applying a charge to the nationals of all third countries, not just UK citizens. It is less than the US ESTA, it is about the same as the price of a Canadian one. It is much less than both my Chinese and Indian visas cost me. The idea that this is something the EU is vindictively doing to us is utterly absurd.
One thing I am wondering is whether the Withdrawal Agreement has any life after March 30th in the event of No Deal. There were a couple of suggestions in the Sir Ivan Rogers piece that seemed to say the EU might cleave to it.
IANAL, but I it occurs to me that, even if it still forms the basis of a post No Deal way out of chaos, that it will no longer be a Withdrawal Agreement as such and would need some non functional redrafting to reflect that. It also occurs that ratification done for the WA itself might not be applicable to a post-WA: it would be a different document to be ratified and the ratification process itself could be different
If this is the route May / the EU go down, I suspect we might languish for a couple of months waiting for the post WA to be in place.
Any legal thoughts on this?
We'd have to start again, the legal basis for it is Article 50, which would have fallen away. We'd then be a third country applying to the EU for favoured access to the Single Market, and would have to go through the whole shebang again from a different starting point. Meanwhile our economy would be in tatters.
It's unthinkable, it really is. No one even vaguely sane who has looked at the practicalities could countenance it, except perhaps Corbyn and McDonnell who relish economic collapse as the classic way to introduce communism.
The EU is applying a charge to the nationals of all third countries, not just UK citizens. It is less than the US ESTA, it is about the same as the price of a Canadian one. It is much less than both my Chinese and Indian visas cost me. The idea that this is something the EU is vindictively doing to us is utterly absurd.
It's a great example of the mindset which simultaneously encompasses wanting to be completely free of the EU whilst being indignant that the consequence is that we don't get special treatment.
Digby Jones encapsulates absolutely everything that is wrong about British business management. Why do we so often struggle in overseas markets? Because there are far too many Digby Jones's sitting on our company boards. https://twitter.com/Digbylj/status/1074683987338190848
I think British business does ok overseas compared to most countries.
And there's nothing wrong with being proud of our involvement in WW2.
There's a lot wrong with invoking, John Cleese-like, our times of war with our current allies. Plus it is illogical as many EU members would not only have liked to have charged the Jones family €7 but to have shot them through the head also.
See what a stupid line of discussion it is?
Oh yes but it's @Xenon so obvs that is about the right level.
The EU could quite easily decide not to charge 7 euros, they are doing it out of spite.
Obviously that's ok though according to you.
And they will probably drop the charge if it looks like it has an effect, as it might. Despite €7 being a fairly trivial amount in the context of a holiday, the inconvenience and the message it sends may well hit the weekend break market in particular.
I often find I have to pay a city tax when I go abroad to watch Arsenal. This sort of thing is not that much of an issue for your holiday maker. Might be a bit more of an issue for regular travellers.
I think it's valid for three years. The main problem would be remembering whether you need to reapply or not.
The headline assumes what it is trying to prove...
I mean, seriously? You don't have photo ID? Do you (a) get photo ID or, (b) start a court case?
If you think the court case is about one man not being able to vote I think you might have spectacularly missed the point...
Bizarre that the party of ID cards is so against voter ID at elections..
Corbyn has a long track record of trying to enforce ID cards of course...
One man isn't the party of course. As we saw yesterday.
Yes I'm still not sure how that quite swings around to not wanting voters blocked from voting being worthy of complaint or hypocritical.
Try and keep up with me here.
Labour (at the time) proposed giving people ID cards. It didn't happen.
The Conservatives are now trialling people having to show ID to vote. They have no proposals to give people ID cards.
Labour are opposed to people not being able to vote without ID.
This is a completely consistent position, the only potential inconsistency would be the Conservatives not being in favour of ID cards but demanding ID to vote. Labour wanting to give people ID cards, it not happening and being against ID needed for voting makes a lot of sense. Even if ID cards did happen they could make an argument for it but especially without.
And then obviously Corbyn himself and probably a fair majority of the party currently wouldn't want ID cards.
Apart from all that it makes perfect sense as a complaint....
Is it possible to have a postal vote and vote in person at the local polling station?
The headline assumes what it is trying to prove...
I mean, seriously? You don't have photo ID? Do you (a) get photo ID or, (b) start a court case?
If you think the court case is about one man not being able to vote I think you might have spectacularly missed the point...
Bizarre that the party of ID cards is so against voter ID at elections..
Corbyn has a long track record of trying to enforce ID cards of course...
One man isn't the party of course. As we saw yesterday.
Yes I'm still not sure how that quite swings around to not wanting voters blocked from voting being worthy of complaint or hypocritical.
Try and keep up with me here.
Labour (at the time) proposed giving people ID cards. It didn't happen.
The Conservatives are now trialling people having to show ID to vote. They have no proposals to give people ID cards.
Labour are opposed to people not being able to vote without ID.
This is a completely consistent position, the only potential inconsistency would be the Conservatives not being in favour of ID cards but demanding ID to vote. Labour wanting to give people ID cards, it not happening and being against ID needed for voting makes a lot of sense. Even if ID cards did happen they could make an argument for it but especially without.
And then obviously Corbyn himself and probably a fair majority of the party currently wouldn't want ID cards.
Apart from all that it makes perfect sense as a complaint....
Is it possible to have a postal vote and vote in person at the local polling station?
No
Although you can, I think, take your completed postal ballot paper to the polling station.
Digby Jones encapsulates absolutely everything that is wrong about British business management. Why do we so often struggle in overseas markets? Because there are far too many Digby Jones's sitting on our company boards. https://twitter.com/Digbylj/status/1074683987338190848
I am surprised anyone listens to Digby Jones given his business career. He is lucky to have avoided regulatory action against him, if not worse.
Digby Jones's great fortune in life is to have been constantly confused with John Harvey Jones, who was a genuinely smart and innovative business leader.
The headline assumes what it is trying to prove...
I mean, seriously? You don't have photo ID? Do you (a) get photo ID or, (b) start a court case?
If you think the court case is about one man not being able to vote I think you might have spectacularly missed the point...
Bizarre that the party of ID cards is so against voter ID at elections..
Corbyn has a long track record of trying to enforce ID cards of course...
One man isn't the party of course. As we saw yesterday.
Yes I'm still not sure how that quite swings around to not wanting voters blocked from voting being worthy of complaint or hypocritical.
Try and keep up with me here.
Labour (at the time) proposed giving people ID cards. It didn't happen.
The Conservatives are now trialling people having to show ID to vote. They have no proposals to give people ID cards.
Labour are opposed to people not being able to vote without ID.
This is a completely consistent position, the only potential inconsistency would be the Conservatives not being in favour of ID cards but demanding ID to vote. Labour wanting to give people ID cards, it not happening and being against ID needed for voting makes a lot of sense. Even if ID cards did happen they could make an argument for it but especially without.
And then obviously Corbyn himself and probably a fair majority of the party currently wouldn't want ID cards.
Apart from all that it makes perfect sense as a complaint....
Is it possible to have a postal vote and vote in person at the local polling station?
No
Although you can, I think, take your completed postal ballot paper to the polling station.
For the last decade or so, you can. Before that it had to be the town hall. If you have damaged it and can produce at least the part with the serial number, you can get a replacement. If you have lost it, you can't get another.
They're not mini-deals as far as I can see, they are short-term, unilateral EU actions. They do not involve discussion or negotiation, they involve the EU doing stuff which it believes will mitigate difficulties for EU member states. These may or may not also benefit the UK, but the UK will have absolutely no control over them, except the ability to say no and to harm itself even more.
Precisely. And of course they won't cover things like meat or fish exports to the EU, which will collapse overnight in the case of no deal. The proposed measure on derivative contracts looks as though it is designed to give EU traders and companies up to nine months to exit their positions.
'Managed no deal' is a complete absurdity, a contradiction in terms. Still, it's a useful litmus test for voting in future Conservative leadership contests, as anyone who has proposed it can immediately be ruled out.
It is an oxymoron but like many an oxymoron it does actually mean something. Given no deal has come to mean going to WTO terms (a better phrase may be no grand deal etc) then a managed no deal is a deal that leads to WTO terms but includes minor deals on case by case issues - eg planes, air space, pet passports etc
No, that's nonsense. The 'minor deals on a case by case basis' are exactly what the Withdrawal Agreement covers. If we want a managed transition to WTO terms then it's clear what we need to do: we sign the Withdrawal Agreement, and then we'll have the transition period during which we can renegotiate the political declaration (which as May's critics keep telling us is not legally binding). The EU would go along with that, apart from one problem: the Irish border issue might be insoluble in that scenario. Dunno how you get round that.
No that's nonsense. The withdrawal agreement is a comprehensive agreement that includes not just temporary agreements to cover ag airspace but also permanent legally binding agreements on Northern Ireland. We are signing an agreement in perpetuity like the Treaty of Nanking.
There is no fundamental law of physics or economics that says that we need to sign this specific withdrawal agreement or sign a permanent agreement on NI rather than less ambitious can kicking exercises.
The headline assumes what it is trying to prove...
I mean, seriously? You don't have photo ID? Do you (a) get photo ID or, (b) start a court case?
If you think the court case is about one man not being able to vote I think you might have spectacularly missed the point...
Bizarre that the party of ID cards is so against voter ID at elections..
Corbyn has a long track record of trying to enforce ID cards of course...
One man isn't the party of course. As we saw yesterday.
Yes I'm still not sure how that quite swings around to not wanting voters blocked from voting being worthy of complaint or hypocritical.
Try and keep up with me here.
Labour (at the time) proposed giving people ID cards. It didn't happen.
The Conservatives are now trialling people having to show ID to vote. They have no proposals to give people ID cards.
Labour are opposed to people not being able to vote without ID.
This is a completely consistent position, the only potential inconsistency would be the Conservatives not being in favour of ID cards but demanding ID to vote. Labour wanting to give people ID cards, it not happening and being against ID needed for voting makes a lot of sense. Even if ID cards did happen they could make an argument for it but especially without.
And then obviously Corbyn himself and probably a fair majority of the party currently wouldn't want ID cards.
Apart from all that it makes perfect sense as a complaint....
Is it possible to have a postal vote and vote in person at the local polling station?
No
Although you can, I think, take your completed postal ballot paper to the polling station.
For the last decade or so, you can. Before that it had to be the town hall. If you have damaged it and can produce at least the part with the serial number, you can get a replacement. If you have lost it, you can't get another.
p.s. And funnily enough it is becoming less uncommon - whether it is people who don't trust the post, or aren't sure whether they will be at home on polling day, I don't know, but in recent years I have seen a trickle of people arriving at polling stations carrying their postal votes.
One thing I am wondering is whether the Withdrawal Agreement has any life after March 30th in the event of No Deal. There were a couple of suggestions in the Sir Ivan Rogers piece that seemed to say the EU might cleave to it.
IANAL, but I it occurs to me that, even if it still forms the basis of a post No Deal way out of chaos, that it will no longer be a Withdrawal Agreement as such and would need some non functional redrafting to reflect that. It also occurs that ratification done for the WA itself might not be applicable to a post-WA: it would be a different document to be ratified and the ratification process itself could be different
If this is the route May / the EU go down, I suspect we might languish for a couple of months waiting for the post WA to be in place.
Any legal thoughts on this?
We'd have to start again, the legal basis for it is Article 50, which would have fallen away. We'd then be a third country applying to the EU for favoured access to the Single Market, and would have to go through the whole shebang again from a different starting point. Meanwhile our economy would be in tatters.
It's unthinkable, it really is. No one even vaguely sane who has looked at the practicalities could countenance it, except perhaps Corbyn and McDonnell who relish economic collapse as the classic way to introduce communism.
I think you are massively overstating the impact but I certainly agree that it is not desirable and that May's deal, for all its deficiencies, is the only rational way forward.
The EU is applying a charge to the nationals of all third countries, not just UK citizens. It is less than the US ESTA, it is about the same as the price of a Canadian one. It is much less than both my Chinese and Indian visas cost me. The idea that this is something the EU is vindictively doing to us is utterly absurd.
It's a great example of the mindset which simultaneously encompasses wanting to be completely free of the EU whilst being indignant that the consequence is that we don't get special treatment.
Well the reverse is just as true. Those egging on the EU to give us no special treatment got massively outraged when it was suggested that the status of EU nationals here be used as a bargaining chip in negotiations.
One thing I am wondering is whether the Withdrawal Agreement has any life after March 30th in the event of No Deal.
Surely by definition "no deal" is the WA not coming into force?
Indeed but even in a no deal scenario talks will continue and a deal could be reached after. The EU would want the principles of the WA to form the basis of a future deal but there could be key changes depending upon how and why rejection occurs and the consequences of it.
One thing I am wondering is whether the Withdrawal Agreement has any life after March 30th in the event of No Deal.
Surely by definition "no deal" is the WA not coming into force?
Yes, but does he mean "could we sign it in a panic later"? I am not sure of the legal position, but in political terms if we were willing to pay and they were willing to consider it, I don't see why not?
@Richard_Nabavi If 'No deal' is unthinkable then surely the remainers in parliament will acquiesce to the deal seeing as we're definitely leaving on March 29th.....
One thing I am wondering is whether the Withdrawal Agreement has any life after March 30th in the event of No Deal.
Surely by definition "no deal" is the WA not coming into force?
Indeed but even in a no deal scenario talks will continue and a deal could be reached after. The EU would want the principles of the WA to form the basis of a future deal but there could be key changes depending upon how and why rejection occurs and the consequences of it.
They might also want their £39 billion. Although I'm not sure how much of that they could reasonably expect to get. An epic fail by the EU negotiators if they do lose much of it.
How is voting more than once in a GE ever acceptable?
It is hard to justify but I will try. You could find yourself on the electoral roll in 2 constituencies for some reason when a GE is taking place. You could vote according to your own preference in the first of them and then make your way to the second. Once there you could perhaps come across a person who wants to vote but is unable to (they are drunk, for example, or cannot get a babysitter, or both) and you ask them who they support. They tell you and you proceed to the polling station and vote that way, regardless of your own inclinations. That would seem to me to be an extension rather than a subversion of the democratic process. Maybe.
One thing I am wondering is whether the Withdrawal Agreement has any life after March 30th in the event of No Deal.
Surely by definition "no deal" is the WA not coming into force?
Indeed but even in a no deal scenario talks will continue and a deal could be reached after. The EU would want the principles of the WA to form the basis of a future deal but there could be key changes depending upon how and why rejection occurs and the consequences of it.
They might also want their £39 billion. Although I'm not sure how much of that they could reasonably expect to get. An epic fail by the EU negotiators if they do lose much of it.
Precisely.
If we hold firm they have £39bn reasons to come back to the negotiating table.
The Chinese only signed the injurious Treaty of Nanking because they were comprehensively defeated by war and were desperate to sue for peace.
The mindset of some like Mr Nabavi here and I think our own PM is that we desperately need to sue for peace too. Despite there being no war or defeat of anything except the concept of EU membership.
How is voting more than once in a GE ever acceptable?
It is hard to justify but I will try. You could find yourself on the electoral roll in 2 constituencies for some reason when a GE is taking place. You could vote according to your own preference in the first of them and then make your way to the second. Once there you could perhaps come across a person who wants to vote but is unable to (they are drunk, for example, or cannot get a babysitter, or both) and you ask them who they support. They tell you and you proceed to the polling station and vote that way, regardless of your own inclinations. That would seem to me to be an extension rather than a subversion of the democratic process. Maybe.
Get in touch with Labour and see if they would like your help refining their Brexit policy?
How is voting more than once in a GE ever acceptable?
It is hard to justify but I will try. You could find yourself on the electoral roll in 2 constituencies for some reason when a GE is taking place. You could vote according to your own preference in the first of them and then make your way to the second. Once there you could perhaps come across a person who wants to vote but is unable to (they are drunk, for example, or cannot get a babysitter, or both) and you ask them who they support. They tell you and you proceed to the polling station and vote that way, regardless of your own inclinations. That would seem to me to be an extension rather than a subversion of the democratic process. Maybe.
No that's illegal. That's no more justifiable than voting once at your own station, seeing a drunk (!) Then going back to your original station and voting again.
Does anyone else keep an eye on that long-range forecasts? Is @SouthamObserver only the pb.com correspondent for drought?
The Jan-Mar outlook from the Met Office is of a 30-35% probability that we will be in the coldest quintile, with a possible Sudden Stratospheric Warming (as we had last winter) around the end of the year.
Not the best weather for a snap general election or referendum.
No that's nonsense. The withdrawal agreement is a comprehensive agreement that includes not just temporary agreements to cover ag airspace but also permanent legally binding agreements on Northern Ireland. We are signing an agreement in perpetuity like the Treaty of Nanking.
There is no fundamental law of physics or economics that says that we need to sign this specific withdrawal agreement or sign a permanent agreement on NI rather than less ambitious can kicking exercises.
Of course there's no fundamental law that say we have to sign it. Nor is there any fundamental law which says that the EU has to agree to mini-deals or indeed anything else. They have made it very clear that they won't, and in any case there's no time.
Digby Jones's great fortune in life is to have been constantly confused with John Harvey Jones, who was a genuinely smart and innovative business leader.
Digby is a purveyor of that particular strand of British Bulldog sentiment that is at once aggressive and jingoistic but at the same time maudlin and misty-eyed.
He does it quite well but Tony Parsons is the gold standard.
'Managed no deal' is a complete absurdity, a contradiction in terms. Still, it's a useful litmus test for voting in future Conservative leadership contests, as anyone who has proposed it can immediately be ruled out.
What if you suspect they are merely proposing it to improve their chances of (eventually) winning the leadership?
@Richard_Nabavi If 'No deal' is unthinkable then surely the remainers in parliament will acquiesce to the deal seeing as we're definitely leaving on March 29th.....
They should, but that means convincing them that we are indeed definitely leaving on March 29th. As we now know, we don't have to, and it's entirely in our gift to revoke. Alternatively, and I think more realistically, we could ask for an extension.
One thing I am wondering is whether the Withdrawal Agreement has any life after March 30th in the event of No Deal. There were a couple of suggestions in the Sir Ivan Rogers piece that seemed to say the EU might cleave to it.
IANAL, but I it occurs to me that, even if it still forms the basis of a post No Deal way out of chaos, that it will no longer be a Withdrawal Agreement as such and would need some non functional redrafting to reflect that. It also occurs that ratification done for the WA itself might not be applicable to a post-WA: it would be a different document to be ratified and the ratification process itself could be different
If this is the route May / the EU go down, I suspect we might languish for a couple of months waiting for the post WA to be in place.
Any legal thoughts on this?
We'd have to start again, the legal basis for it is Article 50, which would have fallen away. We'd then be a third country applying to the EU for favoured access to the Single Market, and would have to go through the whole shebang again from a different starting point. Meanwhile our economy would be in tatters.
It's unthinkable, it really is. No one even vaguely sane who has looked at the practicalities could countenance it, except perhaps Corbyn and McDonnell who relish economic collapse as the classic way to introduce communism.
Interesting bit of spin, but we all know which party the no-dealers are in.
The EU is applying a charge to the nationals of all third countries, not just UK citizens. It is less than the US ESTA, it is about the same as the price of a Canadian one. It is much less than both my Chinese and Indian visas cost me. The idea that this is something the EU is vindictively doing to us is utterly absurd.
It's a great example of the mindset which simultaneously encompasses wanting to be completely free of the EU whilst being indignant that the consequence is that we don't get special treatment.
Well the reverse is just as true. Those egging on the EU to give us no special treatment got massively outraged when it was suggested that the status of EU nationals here be used as a bargaining chip in negotiations.
I agree. Another good example is the EU wanting special favours from us on security cooperation.
Jeremy Hunt the most senior hard Brexiteer of them all ! Who'd have thunk it. The cabinet knows full well parliament overall has a desperation to remain in the EU.
@Richard_Nabavi If 'No deal' is unthinkable then surely the remainers in parliament will acquiesce to the deal seeing as we're definitely leaving on March 29th.....
That is the May plan, and is why Remainers want the vote on the deal asap, so that they can then have a vote on holding a referendum once the deal loses the meaningful vote.
Are there many printed copies of the Withdrawal Agreement that could be used to start fires. Brr.
And there's nothing wrong with being proud of our involvement in WW2.
Unless you jumped out of a Higgins boat at Omaha beach or similar you've got nothing of which to be proud.
Hmmmm. I think you over-egg the pudding.
My granddad was in a reserved occupation. With a wife and two young children at home, he volunteered to join the Navy, where he was in the DEMS scheme. Later on, he was posted ashore on a certain hillside behind Portsmouth so he could best use his maths ability. Family legend has it that he was heavily involved with the D-Day planning, and could not go home for a few days in the run-up to the invasion. I have never verified this, though.
I don't take a *personal* pride in what he did, but I do take pride in the sacrifices he made to serve his country. He placed himself at risk at sea to serve, when he did not need to. I don't think of myself as being in any way a better person because of my connections with him, but I do feel pride in what *he* did.
That is the May plan, and is why Remainers want the vote on the deal asap, so that they can then have a vote on holding a referendum once the deal loses the meaningful vote.
The Government will make plenty of time for that.... "tommorow"...
'Managed no deal' is a complete absurdity, a contradiction in terms. Still, it's a useful litmus test for voting in future Conservative leadership contests, as anyone who has proposed it can immediately be ruled out.
What if you suspect they are merely proposing it to improve their chances of (eventually) winning the leadership?
Oh, I'm all in favour of subterfuge and jostling to get political advantage. After all, that's exactly the quality required to be a good leader. So I wouldn't mind if they propose it purely as a cynical exercise, as long as they don't believe it and avoid doing anything which might lead to No Deal. Therefore Jeremy Hunt (who actually chose his words very carefully) might still be on my possibles list. Penny Mordaunt, on the other hand, is I fear sincere,
Jeremy Hunt the most senior hard Brexiteer of them all ! Who'd have thunk it. The cabinet knows full well parliament overall has a desperation to remain in the EU.
I think you mean “the cabinet know full well that if they want to succeed May they need to pander to the party members”.
'Managed no deal' is a complete absurdity, a contradiction in terms. Still, it's a useful litmus test for voting in future Conservative leadership contests, as anyone who has proposed it can immediately be ruled out.
What if you suspect they are merely proposing it to improve their chances of (eventually) winning the leadership?
How is pretending to be deluded to impress other fools any better than simply being deluded yourself?
Jeremy Hunt the most senior hard Brexiteer of them all ! Who'd have thunk it. The cabinet knows full well parliament overall has a desperation to remain in the EU.
I think you mean “the cabinet know full well that if they want to succeed May they need to pander to the party members”.
Plus a bit of posturing to try to persuade our EU friends to be a bit more accommodating, which is reasonable enough if a bit optimistic.
No that's nonsense. The withdrawal agreement is a comprehensive agreement that includes not just temporary agreements to cover ag airspace but also permanent legally binding agreements on Northern Ireland. We are signing an agreement in perpetuity like the Treaty of Nanking.
There is no fundamental law of physics or economics that says that we need to sign this specific withdrawal agreement or sign a permanent agreement on NI rather than less ambitious can kicking exercises.
Of course there's no fundamental law that say we have to sign it. Nor is there any fundamental law which says that the EU has to agree to mini-deals or indeed anything else. They have made it very clear that they won't, and in any case there's no time.
There is time. You cherrypick the parts of the agreement that are mutually agreeable and agree them. The EU will not like that but oh well. We need to make it clear that we do not like and will NEVER agree to the backstop and they have three choices. They can agree to remove the backstop and replace it with a temporary rather than permanent bodge, they can agree mini deals, or we crash out.
Get in touch with Labour and see if they would like your help refining their Brexit policy?
Well you know my feelings. They should at the very last minute cut a deal to let the WA pass in return for a GE asap after exit day. And their position at that GE should be that they will negotiate a 'Workers FTA' as opposed to the Tories' confused intentions.
No that's nonsense. The withdrawal agreement is a comprehensive agreement that includes not just temporary agreements to cover ag airspace but also permanent legally binding agreements on Northern Ireland. We are signing an agreement in perpetuity like the Treaty of Nanking.
There is no fundamental law of physics or economics that says that we need to sign this specific withdrawal agreement or sign a permanent agreement on NI rather than less ambitious can kicking exercises.
Of course there's no fundamental law that say we have to sign it. Nor is there any fundamental law which says that the EU has to agree to mini-deals or indeed anything else. They have made it very clear that they won't, and in any case there's no time.
There is time. You cherrypick the parts of the agreement that are mutually agreeable and agree them. The EU will not like that but oh well. We need to make it clear that we do not like and will NEVER agree to the backstop and they have three choices. They can agree to remove the backstop and replace it with a temporary rather than permanent bodge, they can agree mini deals, or we crash out.
Well, I'm relaxed now about 'No deal'. I know I've had no part in voting for it or whatnot so I'm not blaming myself if it all goes wrong I suspect it might actually be a superior move long term than May's agreement even if there is some short term pain.
No that's nonsense. The withdrawal agreement is a comprehensive agreement that includes not just temporary agreements to cover ag airspace but also permanent legally binding agreements on Northern Ireland. We are signing an agreement in perpetuity like the Treaty of Nanking.
There is no fundamental law of physics or economics that says that we need to sign this specific withdrawal agreement or sign a permanent agreement on NI rather than less ambitious can kicking exercises.
Of course there's no fundamental law that say we have to sign it. Nor is there any fundamental law which says that the EU has to agree to mini-deals or indeed anything else. They have made it very clear that they won't, and in any case there's no time.
There is time. You cherrypick the parts of the agreement that are mutually agreeable and agree them. The EU will not like that but oh well. We need to make it clear that we do not like and will NEVER agree to the backstop and they have three choices. They can agree to remove the backstop and replace it with a temporary rather than permanent bodge, they can agree mini deals, or we crash out.
Why would the EU do it if they don't like it?
Because they view the alternative (a total crash out) as worse.
If they are brave they will take it outside cabinet to try and build a cross-party reaction in Parliament. If they stay in government it won't reflect well on them.
No that's nonsense. The withdrawal agreement is a comprehensive agreement that includes not just temporary agreements to cover ag airspace but also permanent legally binding agreements on Northern Ireland. We are signing an agreement in perpetuity like the Treaty of Nanking.
There is no fundamental law of physics or economics that says that we need to sign this specific withdrawal agreement or sign a permanent agreement on NI rather than less ambitious can kicking exercises.
Of course there's no fundamental law that say we have to sign it. Nor is there any fundamental law which says that the EU has to agree to mini-deals or indeed anything else. They have made it very clear that they won't, and in any case there's no time.
There is time. You cherrypick the parts of the agreement that are mutually agreeable and agree them. The EU will not like that but oh well. We need to make it clear that we do not like and will NEVER agree to the backstop and they have three choices. They can agree to remove the backstop and replace it with a temporary rather than permanent bodge, they can agree mini deals, or we crash out.
Why would the EU do it if they don't like it?
Because they view the alternative (a total crash out) as worse.
Why? Negotiations would continue after a crash out, the only difference is they'd have us over a barrel.
The most likely outcome of a Tory leadership election tomorrow is that it would be Boris v Javid but if Javid joins Hunt in being prepared to back No Deal it would likely be Boris v Rudd.
Boris is not the long-standing favourite either, the favourite position has switched between Gove and Rudd and Raab and Davis and Mogg and back to Boris again. May was also the favourite in 2016
I am really struggling to understand this liking for Raab. For me, he has made a series of ignorant statements, he had a brief time at DexEU where he seems to have a very limited understanding of what was going on, when he found out he resigned in a somewhat incoherent way and I have yet to see him make an intelligent contribution since.
Is it just that he remains a blank canvas onto which people can paint their hopes or am I really missing something?
You’re not. He’s an empty suit.
"Raab attended Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, where he read Law, and won the Clive Parry Prize for International Law.
After graduating, he gained a master's degree at Jesus College, Cambridge.
Raab was initially a solicitor at Linklaters in London. He spent the summer of 1998 at Birzeit University near Ramallah where he worked for one of the principal Palestinian negotiators of the Oslo peace accords, assessing World Bank projects on the West Bank.
In 2000, Raab joined the Foreign Office, covering a range of briefs including leading a team at the British Embassy in The Hague, dedicated to bringing war criminals to justice. After returning to London, he advised on the Arab–Israeli conflict, the European Union, and Gibraltar."
He may be wrong on many things but he is hardly an empty suit. I actually went looking for evidence that he was another of these career politicians who had never done a proper job. Turns out to be far from the truth.
I know a fair amount about working for and with Linklaters. It does not change my view of him which is of someone who has all the right qualifications and looks good on paper but lacks some essential common-sense and actual achievements. He advised on the EU, did he? And yet had no idea about the importance of the Dover-Calais route. Hmm....
And which war criminals was he actually involved in bringing to justice? Or was he just attending meetings and writing papers for the Embassy about how this was a jolly good thing?
His CV looks impressive but I wonder how much actual substance there is to it. Because from his statements and behaviour since he became an MP and, certainly, since he was promoted, he has seemed woefully unprepared, uninformed and out of his depth
No that's nonsense. The withdrawal agreement is a comprehensive agreement that includes not just temporary agreements to cover ag airspace but also permanent legally binding agreements on Northern Ireland. We are signing an agreement in perpetuity like the Treaty of Nanking.
There is no fundamental law of physics or economics that says that we need to sign this specific withdrawal agreement or sign a permanent agreement on NI rather than less ambitious can kicking exercises.
Of course there's no fundamental law that say we have to sign it. Nor is there any fundamental law which says that the EU has to agree to mini-deals or indeed anything else. They have made it very clear that they won't, and in any case there's no time.
There is time. You cherrypick the parts of the agreement that are mutually agreeable and agree them. The EU will not like that but oh well. We need to make it clear that we do not like and will NEVER agree to the backstop and they have three choices. They can agree to remove the backstop and replace it with a temporary rather than permanent bodge, they can agree mini deals, or we crash out.
Why would the EU do it if they don't like it?
Because they view the alternative (a total crash out) as worse.
And the mutually agreeable bits aren't the problem anyhow, in principle at least - in practice it may be much easier to stay in an existing framework than to try to scrabble together a bespoke replacement in a hurry.
Well, I'm relaxed now about 'No deal'. I know I've had no part in voting for it or whatnot so I'm not blaming myself if it all goes wrong I suspect it might actually be a superior move long term than May's agreement even if there is some short term pain.
Another poster promoting short term pain. For others, of course.
There is time. You cherrypick the parts of the agreement that are mutually agreeable and agree them. The EU will not like that but oh well. We need to make it clear that we do not like and will NEVER agree to the backstop and they have three choices. They can agree to remove the backstop and replace it with a temporary rather than permanent bodge, they can agree mini deals, or we crash out.
How long do you think it would take to 'cherrypick the parts of the agreement that are mutually agreeable' and get them approved by 27 countries, even if they were willing in principle, which they're not?
On the backstop, it's a deal-breaker for them. You might not like it, I don't like it, but that's the position. No backstop, no deal, and that also means no mini-deals. I think there might still be a smidgen of room for a further 'clarification', but that is likely to be a bit of a fig-leaf to allow the DUP and other MPs a way out.
I am really struggling to understand this liking for Raab. For me, he has made a series of ignorant statements, he had a brief time at DexEU where he seems to have a very limited understanding of what was going on, when he found out he resigned in a somewhat incoherent way and I have yet to see him make an intelligent contribution since.
Is it just that he remains a blank canvas onto which people can paint their hopes or am I really missing something?
You’re not. He’s an empty suit.
"Raab attended Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, where he read Law, and won the Clive Parry Prize for International Law.
After graduating, he gained a master's degree at Jesus College, Cambridge.
Raab was initially a solicitor at Linklaters in London. He spent the summer of 1998 at Birzeit University near Ramallah where he worked for one of the principal Palestinian negotiators of the Oslo peace accords, assessing World Bank projects on the West Bank.
In 2000, Raab joined the Foreign Office, covering a range of briefs including leading a team at the British Embassy in The Hague, dedicated to bringing war criminals to justice. After returning to London, he advised on the Arab–Israeli conflict, the European Union, and Gibraltar."
He may be wrong on many things but he is hardly an empty suit. I actually went looking for evidence that he was another of these career politicians who had never done a proper job. Turns out to be far from the truth.
Maybe his skill set is just not suitable for politics. His contributions have been pretty pitiful to date.
I'm getting to the point where individuals are blurring. The country is being sent to economic disaster by an entire political class and generation.
'Managed no deal' is a complete absurdity, a contradiction in terms. Still, it's a useful litmus test for voting in future Conservative leadership contests, as anyone who has proposed it can immediately be ruled out.
What if you suspect they are merely proposing it to improve their chances of (eventually) winning the leadership?
Oh, I'm all in favour of subterfuge and jostling to get political advantage. After all, that's exactly the quality required to be a good leader. So I wouldn't mind if they propose it purely as a cynical exercise, as long as they don't believe it and avoid doing anything which might lead to No Deal. Therefore Jeremy Hunt (who actually chose his words very carefully) might still be on my possibles list. Penny Mordaunt, on the other hand, is I fear sincere,
Maybe Boris will try to outbid him, by proposing war against the EU.
If they are brave they will take it outside cabinet to try and build a cross-party reaction in Parliament. If they stay in government it won't reflect well on them.
Who were the "others" ?
Chances of a second referendum now tending to zero.
Well, I'm relaxed now about 'No deal'. I know I've had no part in voting for it or whatnot so I'm not blaming myself if it all goes wrong I suspect it might actually be a superior move long term than May's agreement even if there is some short term pain.
Clearly you don't work in any cross-border commercial operation, nor have clients on the continent, nor import nor export or source talent from across the EU, nor have any interest or concern for your fellow countrymen who do any or all of these things.
Maybe Boris will try to outbid him, by proposing war against the EU.
We could seize Calais back, and then we'd be able to sort out the no-deal customs arrangements at that end as well as the Dover end. Time for bold thinking!
Get in touch with Labour and see if they would like your help refining their Brexit policy?
Well you know my feelings. They should at the very last minute cut a deal to let the WA pass in return for a GE asap after exit day. And their position at that GE should be that they will negotiate a 'Workers FTA' as opposed to the Tories' confused intentions.
I was admiring your skills in producing convoluted arguments to jump through all those hoops and justify the impossible, which Labour might find useful, rather than thinking that you might actually have the answer?
No that's illegal. That's no more justifiable than voting once at your own station, seeing a drunk (!) Then going back to your original station and voting again.
I know it's illegal but I'm not so sure about unjustifiable. The net result is that somebody has been able to vote because of your efforts who otherwise would have been disenfranchized. It's a little like filling in a postal vote for an elderly relative who can't hold a pen due to very severe arthritis. Few would berate a person who did that. I certainly wouldn't. Indeed I would take a dim view of someone who refused such a task.
Well, I'm relaxed now about 'No deal'. I know I've had no part in voting for it or whatnot so I'm not blaming myself if it all goes wrong I suspect it might actually be a superior move long term than May's agreement even if there is some short term pain.
If you voted Tory in 2015 or 2017 or for Leave in the referendum, then you had some part in voting for it.
Digby Jones encapsulates absolutely everything that is wrong about British business management. Why do we so often struggle in overseas markets? Because there are far too many Digby Jones's sitting on our company boards. https://twitter.com/Digbylj/status/1074683987338190848
I am surprised anyone listens to Digby Jones given his business career. He is lucky to have avoided regulatory action against him, if not worse.
Digby Jones's great fortune in life is to have been constantly confused with John Harvey Jones, who was a genuinely smart and innovative business leader.
If I were to repeat what I know about his business career on this forum, M’learned friends would be kept busy. Best to ignore his nonsense.
Well, I'm relaxed now about 'No deal'. I know I've had no part in voting for it or whatnot so I'm not blaming myself if it all goes wrong I suspect it might actually be a superior move long term than May's agreement even if there is some short term pain.
Clearly you don't work in any cross-border commercial operation, nor have clients on the continent, nor import nor export or source talent from across the EU, nor have any interest or concern for your fellow countrymen who do any or all of these things.
Well, I'm relaxed now about 'No deal'. I know I've had no part in voting for it or whatnot so I'm not blaming myself if it all goes wrong I suspect it might actually be a superior move long term than May's agreement even if there is some short term pain.
If you voted Tory in 2015 or 2017 or for Leave in the referendum, then you had some part in voting for it.
Well, I'm relaxed now about 'No deal'. I know I've had no part in voting for it or whatnot so I'm not blaming myself if it all goes wrong I suspect it might actually be a superior move long term than May's agreement even if there is some short term pain.
If you voted Tory in 2015 or 2017 or for Leave in the referendum, then you had some part in voting for it.
He voted Remain but has seemingly gone all weird and soft. Probably spent too much time on here, among the likes of Archer, Donny and TGOHF. They say crackpotism rubs off on others.
Digby Jones encapsulates absolutely everything that is wrong about British business management. Why do we so often struggle in overseas markets? Because there are far too many Digby Jones's sitting on our company boards. https://twitter.com/Digbylj/status/1074683987338190848
I am surprised anyone listens to Digby Jones given his business career. He is lucky to have avoided regulatory action against him, if not worse.
Digby Jones's great fortune in life is to have been constantly confused with John Harvey Jones, who was a genuinely smart and innovative business leader.
What exactly is it that you don't like about Digby Jones?
Well, I'm relaxed now about 'No deal'. I know I've had no part in voting for it or whatnot so I'm not blaming myself if it all goes wrong I suspect it might actually be a superior move long term than May's agreement even if there is some short term pain.
Clearly you don't work in any cross-border commercial operation, nor have clients on the continent, nor import nor export or source talent from across the EU, nor have any interest or concern for your fellow countrymen who do any or all of these things.
Comments
Managed no deal OTOH while an oxymoron can be implemented by Parliament and is a more honest phrase than the cringeworthy alternative used of "world trade deal".
A no deal exit? No transition? No thank you.
Which means that the time has come to get behind the deal on the table. Theresa May and Olly Robbins have worked their socks off for it and it's none too shabby. It lets us leave the EU in an orderly fashion, then we can take our sweet time to negotiate a deep and special partnership that is a bit like still being in, but also if we're feeling bullish a clean break and an Irish border that is digital and imaginary rather than olde worlde and real. So let's ratify this Withdrawal Agreement and enter Brexitland! For all the talk on both sides there is no other way to see what it looks like.
paragraph 2052: airlines, the continued flying thereof
paragraph 4243: bananas, curvature of
etc
Jones's tweet is infantile and does him no credit.
:-)
IANAL, but I it occurs to me that, even if it still forms the basis of a post No Deal way out of chaos, that it will no longer be a Withdrawal Agreement as such and would need some non functional redrafting to reflect that. It also occurs that ratification done for the WA itself might not be applicable to a post-WA: it would be a different document to be ratified and the ratification process itself could be different
If this is the route May / the EU go down, I suspect we might languish for a couple of months waiting for the post WA to be in place.
Any legal thoughts on this?
https://twitter.com/LukeSmithF1/status/1074970276092395521
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-domaindev-st_emea&hsimp=yhs-st_emea&hspart=domaindev&p=alf+garnet+talking+about+the+war#id=4&vid=f81b2f8d6ae8f73019f73d996dcff134&action=view
If we lurch, despite Parliament wishing to avoid it, towards a “no deal”, with delusions it can be “managed” into a quick and dirty FTA, that will not end happily or quickly.
I [Ivan Rogers] am in no position to second guess those who have to try and model the macro effects of such a scenario. No developed country has left a trade bloc before, let alone in disorderly fashion, and let alone one which has become a lot more than a trade bloc.
But I do fully understand the legal realities. And because so-called “WTO rules” deliver precisely no continuity in multiple key sectors of the economy, we could expect disruption on a scale and of a length that no-one has experienced in the developed world in the last couple of generations.
It's unthinkable, it really is. No one even vaguely sane who has looked at the practicalities could countenance it, except perhaps Corbyn and McDonnell who relish economic collapse as the classic way to introduce communism.
There is no fundamental law of physics or economics that says that we need to sign this specific withdrawal agreement or sign a permanent agreement on NI rather than less ambitious can kicking exercises.
If we hold firm they have £39bn reasons to come back to the negotiating table.
The Chinese only signed the injurious Treaty of Nanking because they were comprehensively defeated by war and were desperate to sue for peace.
The mindset of some like Mr Nabavi here and I think our own PM is that we desperately need to sue for peace too. Despite there being no war or defeat of anything except the concept of EU membership.
The Jan-Mar outlook from the Met Office is of a 30-35% probability that we will be in the coldest quintile, with a possible Sudden Stratospheric Warming (as we had last winter) around the end of the year.
Not the best weather for a snap general election or referendum.
My great uncle Chris hosed the remains of Bomber Command personnel out of the rear guns of Lancaster bombers after their missions over Europe.
That count?
He does it quite well but Tony Parsons is the gold standard.
The cabinet knows full well parliament overall has a desperation to remain in the EU.
Are there many printed copies of the Withdrawal Agreement that could be used to start fires. Brr.
My granddad was in a reserved occupation. With a wife and two young children at home, he volunteered to join the Navy, where he was in the DEMS scheme. Later on, he was posted ashore on a certain hillside behind Portsmouth so he could best use his maths ability. Family legend has it that he was heavily involved with the D-Day planning, and could not go home for a few days in the run-up to the invasion. I have never verified this, though.
I don't take a *personal* pride in what he did, but I do take pride in the sacrifices he made to serve his country. He placed himself at risk at sea to serve, when he did not need to. I don't think of myself as being in any way a better person because of my connections with him, but I do feel pride in what *he* did.
Jeremy Corbyn: Pop Quiz - what do you do?
I suspect it might actually be a superior move long term than May's agreement even if there is some short term pain.
Boris is not the long-standing favourite either, the favourite position has switched between Gove and Rudd and Raab and Davis and Mogg and back to Boris again. May was also the favourite in 2016
And which war criminals was he actually involved in bringing to justice? Or was he just attending meetings and writing papers for the Embassy about how this was a jolly good thing?
His CV looks impressive but I wonder how much actual substance there is to it. Because from his statements and behaviour since he became an MP and, certainly, since he was promoted, he has seemed woefully unprepared, uninformed and out of his depth
On the backstop, it's a deal-breaker for them. You might not like it, I don't like it, but that's the position. No backstop, no deal, and that also means no mini-deals. I think there might still be a smidgen of room for a further 'clarification', but that is likely to be a bit of a fig-leaf to allow the DUP and other MPs a way out.
There are very few exceptions imho.
This really shouldn't be surprising. When you negotiate with an economy 6x larger than yours, you don't get to dictate terms.
Chances of a second referendum now tending to zero.
No deal is an utter disaster.
* A deal for