Bear in mind that in the 73 years since Attlee formed his government, the average PM tenure is about 5 years, so a 250/1 shot implies the sort of thing that happens less than once-a-millennium. Granted that there's much more flux at the moment and a change of PM is more likely that usual but I still think that 250/1 is more than fair.
On which note, I would have thought the 250/1 on the Lib Dems winning Most Seats at the next election represents value. There's a fair few steps needed but they're all more than possible.
Yes. In fact, I don't think there are all that many steps - though there are several scenarios through which it could .
Depends what you mean by the SNP doing'well'. I doubt they will poll better than circa 33% next time.
If we go to No Deal Scotland could be independent by next time
I am sure Westminster will have agreed to that!
The SNP will say it only requires the consent of the Scottish people
SNP can say what it likes but such an approach would cost them dearly..
Boy are you out of touch with opinion in Scotland.
You should see our timelines with our extensive family and friends in Scotland before pontificating on the Scots
An election any time soon would result in lost conservative seats and labour gone without trace
Not even the polls are suggesting that - and the SNP have consistently underperformed them for quite some time.
Given your network of reliable contacts, how did you explain the SNP losing 21 of its 56 seats in 2017?
Why not live in the past, though you southerners seem to all think you are Scottish experts. Keep dreaming. We saw your ilk today with Fatty Soames telling Ian Blackford to go home. Tories cannot help being nasty bas*****
I
I'm in Scotland, and I never hear about Brexit.
Really when the Scots media are full of it on a daily basis
That is also true in England & Wales - yet most people are not obsessed with Brexit.
You mean just like Spain was forced to agree to the demands of extremists in Catalonia? The Scottish Parliament only exists at all as a result of legislation passed by Westminster in 1997/98. Such legislation can be repealed if necessary. Certainly any unconstitutional action by the SNP would justify the suspension of Holyrood.
Lol, scratch a reactionary labourite, find a Rajoy style supporter of granny truncheoning and jailing opponents. Mind you, the left wing ones aren't much better.
Let’s not forget the other key difference between Catalonia and Scotland. Catalonia is a net contributor to the Spanish treasury.
Remind me, what was Scotland’s GERS deficit per the latest figures?
On the fourth day of Christmas my true love sent me
Four waiting Lorries, three customs officers, two portaloos and a riot in the city...
And for balance, just how will that be any different from across the Irish Sea, The Channel, and North Sea ports
The EU will be well and truely log jammed and if you think the French are having a go just now, just wait for 20 mile queus at Calais, and the Irish hgv blocked in Dun Laoghaire
All the kitties in the queues won’t be delivering goods in Germany and Italy
I think what TM should do is hold an indicative vote on each alternative (including No Deal) to the Deal before the final vote on the Deal. If and when they all fail (and probably by miles) to get a majority, the vote on the Deal then becomes a 'shit or get off the pot' affair. No, double apologies, that is both vulgar and not quite right. The vote becomes a choice that is no choice at all because all else has been ruled out. The deal must pass in those circumstances unless parliament is prepared to look ridiculous. The idea here, because there will be effectively no choice when the final decision is made, is to turn the meaningful vote into a meaningLESS vote. I hope that something like that can be engineered. This parliament are proving themselves undeserving of anything else.
This is clearly right. Enough Tory MPs believe a Corbyn government is less risky than No Deal Brexit. After the Deal is likely killed off, a new choice must be made, or the Government is VONC'd into a GE. No Deal isn't going to happen.
The chances of a referendum are, therefore, much higher than bookies allow?
I cannot see a referendum happening or legislation happening before March 29th.
Therefore there's one realistic option, revocation of Article 50.
I don't think an extension of Article 50 is an option because every country has a veto, and that could get messy.
I don't see why it should be messy. The EU can be prompt and sensible when it suits - see the swift ECJ judgement on revocation.
If HMG, via parliament, decides to go for a referendum, conference calls will be made to every EU capital, and Brussels, and it would be agreed in an afternoon. A50 will be extended as the Brits think again. The EU has absolutely nothing to lose, and a lot to gain (the UK humbled and returned to the fold, with all its money);
I think expecting Spain, Hungary, and Italy to play ball might be asking a lot.
The Withdrawal Agreement was voted under QMV, an extension to Article 50 would not, every country would have a veto.
But they cannot stop us revoking and whilst recovation would be the end of the withdrawal process there would be nothing to stop the government of the day invoking A50 again later.
Really when the Scots media are full of it on a daily basis
I don't read much media - I mean it's not discussed. I think people are genuinely bored, and waiting to see what happens. You can't be outraged every day, you'd develop ulcers.
I was just pondering the overall picture. I came up withe the following - actually to guide my betting, but wonder how much people might disagree.
Essentially three considerations - the actual wisdom of the thing - so basically utility, the perception (home and abroad), and the question marks over whether the government is playing by the rules.
May's deal - 80% sensible, slightly weak, doesn't damage constitution (NI excepted) No deal - 20% sensible, brave as brass, doesn't damage constitution Delay - 30% sensible, horribly weak, minor damage to constitution New vote - 50% sensible, quite weak, substantially damaging to constitution Revoke - 10% sensible, hopelessly weak, massively damaging to constitution
Now these are just my random thoughts. I'm sure everyone will disagree, but on the other hand I'm not so sure that everyone wouldn't essentially finish up with the same conclusion. May's deal is, on balance, the best option. (The NI issue is important though - we can't willy-nilly abandon bits of the realm. The DUP are right to point this out, but if that circle can be squared then there's no constitutional damage.)
The ordering is roughly in my personal order of preference. I'd happily slot 'another deal' in at #2 if there was such a thing, but in reality there isn't, so it's just 'Delay'.
I think what TM should do is hold an indicative vote on each alternative (including No Deal) to the Deal before the final vote on the Deal. If and when they all fail (and probably by miles) to get a majority, the vote on the Deal then becomes a 'shit or get off the pot' affair. No, double apologies, that is both vulgar and not quite right. The vote becomes a choice that is no choice at all because all else has been ruled out. The deal must pass in those circumstances unless parliament is prepared to look ridiculous. The idea here, because there will be effectively no choice when the final decision is made, is to turn the meaningful vote into a meaningLESS vote. I hope that something like that can be engineered. This parliament are proving themselves undeserving of anything else.
That assumes our MPs will be rational. Events so far make me fear that's not the case.
This is clearly right. Enough Tory MPs believe a Corbyn government is less risky than No Deal Brexit. After the Deal is likely killed off, a new choice must be made, or the Government is VONC'd into a GE. No Deal isn't going to happen.
The chances of a referendum are, therefore, much higher than bookies allow?
I cannot see a referendum happening or legislation happening before March 29th.
Therefore there's one realistic option, revocation of Article 50.
I don't think an extension of Article 50 is an option because every country has a veto, and that could get messy.
I don't see why it should be messy. The EU can be prompt and sensible when it suits - see the swift ECJ judgement on revocation.
If HMG, via parliament, decides to go for a referendum, conference calls will be made to every EU capital, and Brussels, and it would be agreed in an afternoon. A50 will be extended as the Brits think again. The EU has absolutely nothing to lose, and a lot to gain (the UK humbled and returned to the fold, with all its money);
I think expecting Spain, Hungary, and Italy to play ball might be asking a lot.
The Withdrawal Agreement was voted under QMV, an extension to Article 50 would not, every country would have a veto.
Bear in mind that in the 73 years since Attlee formed his government, the average PM tenure is about 5 years, so a 250/1 shot implies the sort of thing that happens less than once-a-millennium. Granted that there's much more flux at the moment and a change of PM is more likely that usual but I still think that 250/1 is more than fair.
On which note, I would have thought the 250/1 on the Lib Dems winning Most Seats at the next election represents value. There's a fair few steps needed but they're all more than possible.
Yes. In fact, I don't think there are all that many steps - though there are several scenarios through which it could .
Depends what you mean by the SNP doing'well'. I doubt they will poll better than circa 33% next time.
If we go to No Deal Scotland could be independent by next time
I am sure Westminster will have agreed to that!
The SNP will say it only requires the consent of the Scottish people
SNP can say what it likes but such an approach would cost them dearly. For that reason, I would be happy to see them try that, but Nicola Sturgeon is not that stupid. Moreover , voters in Scotland are as sick to death of Brexit as the rest of the UK. Another constitutional wrangle over Independence is not something they would welcome.
Boy are you out of touch with opinion in Scotland.
You should see our timelines with our extensive family and friends in Scotland before pontificating on the Scots
An election any time soon would result in lost conservative seats and labour gone without trace
Not even the polls are suggesting that - and the SNP have consistently underperformed them for quite some time.
Given your network of reliable contacts, how did you explain the SNP losing 21 of its 56 seats in 2017?
Why not live in the past, though you southerners seem to all think you are Scottish experts. Keep dreaming. We saw your ilk today with Fatty Soames telling Ian Blackford to go home. Tories cannot help being nasty bas*****
I believe you have admitted to being of that ilk yourself in the past.
Bear in mind that in the 73 years since Attlee formed his government, the average PM tenure is about 5 years, so a 250/1 shot implies the sort of thing that happens less than once-a-millennium. Granted that there's much more flux at the moment and a change of PM is more likely that usual but I still think that 250/1 is more than fair.
On which note, I would have thought the 250/1 on the Lib Dems winning Most Seats at the next election represents value. There's a fair few steps needed but they're all more than possible.
Yes. In fact, I don't think there are all that many steps - though there are several scenarios through which it could .
Depends what you mean by the SNP doing'well'. I doubt they will poll better than circa 33% next time.
If we go to No Deal Scotland could be independent by next time
I am sure Westminster will have agreed to that!
The SNP will say it only requires the consent of the Scottish people
SNP can say what it likes but such an approach would cost them dearly..
Boy are you out of touch with opinion in Scotland.
You should see our timelines with our extensive family and friends in Scotland before pontificating on the Scots
An election any time soon would result in lost conservative seats and labour gone without trace
Not even the polls are suggesting that - and the SNP have consistently underperformed them for quite some time.
Given your network of reliable contacts, how did you explain the SNP losing 21 of its 56 seats in 2017?
Why not live in the past, though you southerners seem to all think you are Scottish experts. Keep dreaming. We saw your ilk today with Fatty Soames telling Ian Blackford to go home. Tories cannot help being nasty bas*****
I
I'm in Scotland, and I never hear about Brexit.
People are likely to be as sick to death of it there as elsewhere in the UK.
Especially given the majority voted to Remain
Scotland is part of the U.K. and it was a U.K. referendum.
Bear in mind that in the 73 years since Attlee formed his government, the average PM tenure is about 5 years, so a 250/1 shot implies the sort of that usual but I still think that 250/1 is more than fair.
On which note, I would have thought the 250/1 on the Lib Dems winning Most Seats at the next election represents value. There's a fair few steps needed but they're all more than possible.
Yes. In fact, I don't think there are all that many steps - though there are several scenarios through which it could the bargain.
(Near) certainties in British politics:
1) The DUP will never vote for that Deal 2) The SNP will do well whenever the next GE is held
Pretty much everything else is completely up in the air.
Depends what you mean by the SNP doing'well'. I doubt they will poll better than circa 33% next time.
If we go to No Deal Scotland could be independent by next time
I am sure Westminster will have agreed to that!
The fannies will have little option to not agree. They will not want to be up in court , every country has a right to self determination. You bawheid.
Away you deluded half witted moronic idiot, Scotland bears no comparison to Catalonia. Scotland is and always has been a country. Would we just love to see those halfwits try that. PS: you are so thick that you don't know the union has no written constitution , the liars in Westminster make it up.
Emotionally, and despite being British, I have always held a fondness for Scotland and have some sympathy for its desire for independence. But, objectively, surely the huge challenges that the UK has ran into in trying to plot a course to divorce from the EU underlines how problematic separating Scotland from the UK would be? If I were Sturgeon I'd be spending a few years working up a credible plan in some detail, including paying a few visits to the Czechs and Slovaks?
I doubt she will get that long , a referendum is expected before next election or they will have issues
Not at all. It is a perfectly legitimate view to hold. There is nothing extreme about suggesting that Devolution was a mistake , and any democrat should be able to understand that. It is an issue on which I always agreed with Tam Dalyell - - his 'slippery slope' argument.You - and others - may disagree with the suggestion that the Devolution Legislation ought to be repealed, but it is a perfectly valid viewpoint and one held by many voters within Scotland itself. I am not actually arguing for such a policy , but any attempt at UDI would merit a firm response by Westminster - Holyrood can be suspended in the way that Stormont was in Spring 1972.
The issue with post-1997 devolution, and more particularly with the decision of Parliament to accede to the Scottish Government's demands for an independence referendum, is that Westminster has chosen to redefine the nature of the United Kingdom. De jure this is still a unitary state; de facto it's just a collection of four associated communities. Having recognised a right of secession, Westminster has effectively declared that the Union is both temporary and dissoluble, and that its constituent parts can vote to up sticks and leave at any time if sufficient will exists. Under these circumstances, whilst Westminster theoretically has the right to suspend the Scottish Parliament, in practice such action is unthinkable: the Scottish Parliament is that body through which Scotland asserts its rights as a potentially sovereign state under the new constitutional settlement. And it's very hard to see how the Union can be recast as indivisible again, even if we were to enact a root and branch program of reform and give ourselves a federal constitution, endorsed by popular majorities in all four parts. Such a document would almost certainly need to include a right of secession in order to pass.
I won't indulge in speculation about either the immediate probability or the desirability of dissolution (there's not enough room in this post,) but if Brexit doesn't trigger it then, given that the Union has been defined as impermanent, the eventual likelihood of schism must be regarded as something close to 100%. It's probably not a matter of if the UK ends, but rather of when.
Evening all. I wonder if all this no deal planning will encourage Conservative remain leaning MPs to vote for a referendum rather than move them towards TMay’s deal as intended.
I rather fancy that the chances of A50 revocation have moved up a few notches today. Enough MPs might get the wind up if Mrs May's demonstration of controlled flight into terrain gets a bit too realistic.
I don’t think so. When May’s deal dies, we’re into a VNOC in the Gov which has to be prioritised. All the Remainers who want to get paid a lot of money for simply doing as Brussels tells them, then have a choice - show their true colours and help bring down the Gov, in which case we’re into a GE where most of them will lose their seats, or support May with no Plan B but no deal almost certain. They are in real mess which is no more than they deserve.
Your posts seem to display an element of panic as no deal disappears and even, as seems likely, brexit
You trot that out a lot when you have no argument. Still if it’s your equivalent of a baby’s comfort, knock yourself out continuing.
Let me say this. At my age no deal will not bother me personally. Only this year my wife and I accepted we will never fly again so that does not bother us. We will not travel to Europe either.
Over the last ten years we have travelled to all the corners of the planet, filled our bucket lists over several times, and are blessed with our own home and pension and security
But, I have a responsibility to fight for my families and my grandchildrens future and a country that is at ease with itself and its neighbours
Another day, another instalment of Project Fear and watch how frightened everyone gets as soon as the Army gets mentioned.
Calculated nonsense aimed at panicking frightened people into signing up to May's Deal. All she and her allies have now is fear and they are hoping a couple of weeks of this propaganda will do the job.
There's nothing that can't be arranged or sorted in plenty of time (and would have been if this group of dullards had considered the most elementary contingency planning).
No one is going to starve, run out of medicines or be stopped from going anywhere. A great man once said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Nowadays, the only weapon a bad politician has is fear.
Project Fear's predictions are obviously ridiculous.
It's an area where everyone is low-information. To understand all the consequences of 'no-deal' would be to understand the entirety of the UK economy, one of the most complex in the world. On that basis, it's easier just to fling poo like the primates we are.
I'm glad the government is enacting its contingency plans. I will be fucking livid if they have to be carried out; it would be a political failure of the first magnitude.
What on earth goes on in someone's head who votes for something with a non-trivial probability of being a "political failure of the first magnitude"?
Doubtless I will always remain a mystery to you, dear old thing. Let's see what happens before we borrow trouble, eh?
We don't need to wait and see what happens. You have told us that you voted for something which could be a political failure of the first magnitude.
1) The DUP will never vote for that Deal 2) The SNP will do well whenever the next GE is held
Pretty much everything else is completely up in the air.
Depends what you mean by the SNP doing'well'. I doubt they will poll better than circa 33% next time.
If we go to No Deal Scotland could be independent by next time
I am sure Westminster will have agreed to that!
You mean just like Spain was forced to agree to the demands of extremists in Catalonia? The Scottish Parliament only exists at all as a result of legislation passed by Westminster in 1997/98. Such legislation can be repealed if necessary. Certainly any unconstitutional action by the SNP would justify the suspension of Holyrood.
You insult and patronise the Scots. How dare you - no wonder they are marching towards Independence
A comment such as yours would be incendiary if my friends and family read it
Not at all. It is a perfectly legitimate view to hold. There is nothing extreme about suggesting that Devolution was a mistake , and any democrat should be able to understand that. It is an issue on which I always agreed with Tam Dalyell - - his 'slippery slope' argument.You - and others - may disagree with the suggestion that the Devolution Legislation ought to be repealed, but it is a perfectly valid viewpoint and one held by many voters within Scotland itself. I am not actually arguing for such a policy , but any attempt at UDI would merit a firm response by Westminster - Holyrood can be suspended in the way that Stormont was in Spring 1972.
Arrogance and inflammatory nonsense
and link please for 'many Scots want Devolution repealed'
What is so outrageous about seeking to restore constitutional arrangements to how they existed for generations until twenty years ago?
Because real devolution - not just to Scotland and Wales but to the regions within Europe and to local government within the UK - is the critical missing piece that gets us from our currently over-centralised nation and suspicion of the EU toward a democracy that better connects with people in the localities where they live.
Another day, another instalment of Project Fear and watch how frightened everyone gets as soon as the Army gets mentioned.
Calculated nonsense aimed at panicking frightened people into signing up to May's Deal. All she and her allies have now is fear and they are hoping a couple of weeks of this propaganda will do the job.
There's nothing that can't be arranged or sorted in plenty of time (and would have been if this group of dullards had considered the most elementary contingency planning).
No one is going to starve, run out of medicines or be stopped from going anywhere. A great man once said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Nowadays, the only weapon a bad politician has is fear.
Project Fear's predictions are obviously ridiculous.
It's an area where everyone is low-information. To understand all the consequences of 'no-deal' would be to understand the entirety of the UK economy, one of the most complex in the world. On that basis, it's easier just to fling poo like the primates we are.
I'm glad the government is enacting its contingency plans. I will be fucking livid if they have to be carried out; it would be a political failure of the first magnitude.
What on earth goes on in someone's head who votes for something with a non-trivial probability of being a "political failure of the first magnitude"?
Doubtless I will always remain a mystery to you, dear old thing. Let's see what happens before we borrow trouble, eh?
We don't need to wait and see what happens. You have told us that you voted for something which could be a political failure of the first magnitude.
Absolutely bizarre.
You're at your worst when you try and score Internet points. I don't want to write treatises and couch and caveat my language on here. However, let me expand.
It will be a political failure of the first magnitude if we Brexit with no deal. Will it affect me? Not in the slightest. Does that make me sanguine? No. Would I vote for Brexit again. Yes. WIll you remain puzzled by me? Who knows.
I'm just intrigued at the thought process but if you say you will be untouched then it explains a lot. You are certainly in good company; I'm not sure many of the prominent Brexiters will be much affected personally. JRM springs to mind.
This is clearly right. Enough Tory MPs believe a Corbyn government is less risky than No Deal Brexit. After the Deal is likely killed off, a new choice must be made, or the Government is VONC'd into a GE. No Deal isn't going to happen.
The chances of a referendum are, therefore, much higher than bookies allow?
I cannot see a referendum happening or legislation happening before March 29th.
Therefore there's one realistic option, revocation of Article 50.
I don't think an extension of Article 50 is an option because every country has a veto, and that could get messy.
If the majority in Parliament really wants to put a stop to this process then revocation is the best option. Just so long as they vote for dissolution once the necessary legislative processes have been completed.
After taking such a bold move a reckoning will be needed, and a General Election is in keeping with our constitutional traditions in a way that referendums simply aren't. If the voters disagree with Parliament then they can install a Brexit majority in the next HoC; if they agree (or aren't sufficiently moved one way or another) then they can let the politicians responsible for revocation get away with it and keep their seats.
The country's and Parliament's positions on the EU urgently need to be brought back into sync if we're even to begin to move on. This is the means to do it.
One suggestion I've seen.
Have a referendum on having a referendum.
First have a referendum on a referendum.
Then have a referendum on what question to ask.
Then hold the actual referendum.
Then have a vote on whether to accept the result.
Any multiple option plebiscites to be conducted under AV.
The chances of a referendum are, therefore, much higher than bookies allow?
I cannot see a referendum happening or legislation happening before March 29th.
Therefore there's one realistic option, revocation of Article 50.
I don't think an extension of Article 50 is an option because every country has a veto, and that could get messy.
I don't see why it should be messy. The EU can be prompt and sensible when it suits - see the swift ECJ judgement on revocation.
If HMG, via parliament, decides to go for a referendum, conference calls will be made to every EU capital, and Brussels, and it would be agreed in an afternoon. A50 will be extended as the Brits think again. The EU has absolutely nothing to lose, and a lot to gain (the UK humbled and returned to the fold, with all its money);
One of the most under-commented aspects of Brexit is how it has made the EU more united and how they have responded more quickly, professionally and in a co-ordinated way to its challenge than has the single country that is attempting to leave. The exchanges where the EU has asked us what we want and the UK has lamely asked for an offer reflect badly on our country.
True, but that is surely just a function of the fact that so many countries have handed so much autonomous power to an unelected eurocracy in Brussels. In things like trade negotiations, this autonomy is a huge advantage, they have economies of scale, vast experience, and don't have to answer, directly, to any voter. As Brexit is, in essence, one huge trade negotiation, they have proved, predictably, to be much better than us. This is what they do all day, for us it is a sudden shock, a one-off.
The trouble is when you look at the EU states - i.e. the real people - they are in a right old mess. France is in a state of emergency, Italy is rebelling, Germany's economy is shrinking, the East is in open war with Brussels, Greece is basically dead, and yet Brussels sails imperiously on. It is not an advert for the EU, it is arguably the opposite.
Point of detail but "Germany's economy is shrinking"? Really? Do you have a link for that?
While I'm at it "Greece is dead"? Er... https://www.focus-economics.com/countries/greece "The labor market’s revival continued in August, with the unemployment rate hitting a new seven-year low. Retail sales also grew strongly in the month, which bodes well for private consumption in Q3. "
Bear in mind that in the 73 years since Attlee formed his government, the average PM tenure is about 5 years, so a 250/1 shot implies the sort of thing that happens less than once-a-millennium. Granted that there's much more flux at the moment and a change of PM is more likely that usual but I still think that 250/1 is more than fair.
On which note, I would have thought the 250/1 on the Lib Dems winning Most Seats at the next election represents value. There's a fair few steps needed but they're all more than possible.
Yes. In fact, I don't think there are all that many steps - though there are several scenarios through which it could .
Depends what you mean by the SNP doing'well'. I doubt they will poll better than circa 33% next time.
If we go to No Deal Scotland could be independent by next time
I am sure Westminster will have agreed to that!
The SNP will say it only requires the consent of the Scottish people
SNP can say what it likes but such an approach would cost them dearly. For that reason, I would be happy to see them try that, but Nicola Sturgeon is not that stupid. Moreover , voters in Scotland are as sick to death of Brexit as the rest of the UK. Another constitutional wrangle over Independence is not something they would welcome.
Boy are you out of touch with opinion in Scotland.
You should see our timelines with our extensive family and friends in Scotland before pontificating on the Scots
An election any time soon would result in lost conservative seats and labour gone without trace
Not even the polls are suggesting that - and the SNP have consistently underperformed them for quite some time.
Given your network of reliable contacts, how did you explain the SNP losing 21 of its 56 seats in 2017?
Why not live in the past, though you southerners seem to all think you are Scottish experts. Keep dreaming. We saw your ilk today with Fatty Soames telling Ian Blackford to go home. Tories cannot help being nasty bas*****
I believe you have admitted to being of that ilk yourself in the past.
Kill off these ilk and many of our problems would be solved.
Evening all. I wonder if all this no deal planning will encourage Conservative remain leaning MPs to vote for a referendum rather than move them towards TMay’s deal as intended.
I rather fancy that the chances of A50 revocation have moved up a few notches today. Enough MPs might get the wind up if Mrs May's demonstration of controlled flight into terrain gets a bit too realistic.
I don’t think so. When May’s deal dies, we’re into a VNOC in the Gov which has to be prioritised. All the Remainers who want to get paid a lot of money for simply doing as Brussels tells them, then have a choice - show their true colours and help bring down the Gov, in which case we’re into a GE where most of them will lose their seats, or support May with no Plan B but no deal almost certain. They are in real mess which is no more than they deserve.
Your posts seem to display an element of panic as no deal disappears and even, as seems likely, brexit
You trot that out a lot when you have no argument. Still if it’s your equivalent of a baby’s comfort, knock yourself out continuing.
Let me say this. At my age no deal will not bother me personally. Only this year my wife and I accepted we will never fly again so that does not bother us. We will not travel to Europe either.
Over the last ten years we have travelled to all the corners of the planet, filled our bucket lists over several times, and are blessed with our own home and pension and security
But, I have a responsibility to fight for my families and my grandchildrens future and a country that is at ease with itself and its neighbours
This is my argument explained politely to you
Fine, but that’s a totally different argument. We all have personal reasons for voting as we did. Mine are substantially the same as yours, except that I my wife and I will travel to Europe again. I simply came to a different conclusion and have seen no reason to change it - despite the best endeavours of politicians on both sides of the debate.
Yours are fine but no reason to trot out your habitual garbage about panic if the actual outcome. doesn’t go my way.
Evening all. I wonder if all this no deal planning will encourage Conservative remain leaning MPs to vote for a referendum rather than move them towards TMay’s deal as intended.
I rather fancy that the chances of A50 revocation have moved up a few notches today. Enough MPs might get the wind up if Mrs May's demonstration of controlled flight into terrain gets a bit too realistic.
I don’t think so. When May’s deal dies, we’re into a VNOC in the Gov which has to be prioritised. All the Remainers who want to get paid a lot of money for simply doing as Brussels tells them, then have a choice - show their true colours and help bring down the Gov, in which case we’re into a GE where most of them will lose their seats, or support May with no Plan B but no deal almost certain. They are in real mess which is no more than they deserve.
Your posts seem to display an element of panic as no deal disappears and even, as seems likely, brexit
You trot that out a lot when you have no argument. Still if it’s your equivalent of a baby’s comfort, knock yourself out continuing.
Let me say this. At my age no deal will not bother me personally. Only this year my wife and I accepted we will never fly again so that does not bother us. We will not travel to Europe either.
Over the last ten years we have travelled to all the corners of the planet, filled our bucket lists over several times, and are blessed with our own home and pension and security
But, I have a responsibility to fight for my families and my grandchildrens future and a country that is at ease with itself and its neighbours
If, effectively the half of our Army which isn't overseas for one reason or another is engaged on coping with No Deal, isn't that a good moment for the Spanish to try to take over Gibraltar?
The chances of a referendum are, therefore, much higher than bookies allow?
I cannot see a referendum happening or legislation happening before March 29th.
Therefore there's one realistic option, revocation of Article 50.
I don't think an extension of Article 50 is an option because every country has a veto, and that could get messy.
I don't see why it should be messy. The EU can be prompt and sensible when it suits - see the swift ECJ judgement on revocation.
If HMG, via parliament, decides to go for a referendum, conference calls will be made to every EU capital, and Brussels, and it would be agreed in an afternoon. A50 will be extended as the Brits think again. The EU has absolutely nothing to lose, and a lot to gain (the UK humbled and returned to the fold, with all its money);
One of the most under-commented aspects of Brexit is how it has made the EU more united and how they have responded more quickly, professionally and in a co-ordinated way to its challenge than has the single country that is attempting to leave. The exchanges where the EU has asked us what we want and the UK has lamely asked for an offer reflect badly on our country.
True, but that is surely just a function of the fact that so many countries have handed so much autonomous power to an unelected eurocracy in Brussels. In things like trade negotiations, this autonomy is a huge advantage, they have economies of scale, vast experience, and don't have to answer, directly, to any voter. As Brexit is, in essence, one huge trade negotiation, they have proved, predictably, to be much better than us. This is what they do all day, for us it is a sudden shock, a one-off.
The trouble is when you look at the EU states - i.e. the real people - they are in a right old mess. France is in a state of emergency, Italy is rebelling, Germany's economy is shrinking, the East is in open war with Brussels, Greece is basically dead, and yet Brussels sails imperiously on. It is not an advert for the EU, it is arguably the opposite.
Point of detail but "Germany's economy is shrinking"? Really? Do you have a link for that?
While I'm at it "Greece is dead"? Er... https://www.focus-economics.com/countries/greece "The labor market’s revival continued in August, with the unemployment rate hitting a new seven-year low. Retail sales also grew strongly in the month, which bodes well for private consumption in Q3. "
The chances of a referendum are, therefore, much higher than bookies allow?
I cannot see a referendum happening or legislation happening before March 29th.
Therefore there's one realistic option, revocation of Article 50.
I don't think an extension of Article 50 is an option because every country has a veto, and that could get messy.
I don't see why it should be messy. The EU can be prompt and sensible when it suits - see the swift ECJ judgement on revocation.
One of the most under-commented aspects of Brexit is how it has made the EU more united and how they have responded more quickly, professionally and in a co-ordinated way to its challenge than has the single country that is attempting to leave. The exchanges where the EU has asked us what we want and the UK has lamely asked for an offer reflect badly on our country.
True, but that is surely just a function of the fact that so many countries have handed so much autonomous power to an unelected eurocracy in Brussels. In things like trade negotiations, this autonomy is a huge advantage, they have economies of scale, vast experience, and don't have to answer, directly, to any voter. As Brexit is, in essence, one huge trade negotiation, they have proved, predictably, to be much better than us. This is what they do all day, for us it is a sudden shock, a one-off.
The trouble is when you look at the EU states - i.e. the real people - they are in a right old mess. France is in a state of emergency, Italy is rebelling, Germany's economy is shrinking, the East is in open war with Brussels, Greece is basically dead, and yet Brussels sails imperiously on. It is not an advert for the EU, it is arguably the opposite.
Point of detail but "Germany's economy is shrinking"? Really? Do you have a link for that?
While I'm at it "Greece is dead"? Er... https://www.focus-economics.com/countries/greece "The labor market’s revival continued in August, with the unemployment rate hitting a new seven-year low. Retail sales also grew strongly in the month, which bodes well for private consumption in Q3. "
If, effectively the half of our Army which isn't overseas for one reason or another is engaged on coping with No Deal, isn't that a good moment for the Spanish to try to take over Gibraltar?
You don't think that it would be slightly unwise of the EU to actually start a physical war at a moment when trade's disrupted anyway and we're all mad at them, plus all our politicians are looking for a Thatcher moment?
I mean, you can't see how that might go just a tiny bit wrong?
If, effectively the half of our Army which isn't overseas for one reason or another is engaged on coping with No Deal, isn't that a good moment for the Spanish to try to take over Gibraltar?
You don't think that it would be slightly unwise of the EU to actually start a physical war at a moment when trade's disrupted anyway and we're all mad at them, plus all our politicians are looking for a Thatcher moment?
I mean, you can't see how that might go just a tiny bit wrong?
This is clearly right. Enough Tory MPs believe a Corbyn government is less risky than No Deal Brexit. After the Deal is likely killed off, a new choice must be made, or the Government is VONC'd into a GE. No Deal isn't going to happen.
The chances of a referendum are, therefore, much higher than bookies allow?
I cannot see a referendum happening or legislation happening before March 29th.
Therefore there's one realistic option, revocation of Article 50.
I don't think an extension of Article 50 is an option because every country has a veto, and that could get messy.
I don't see why it should be messy. The EU can be prompt and sensible when it suits - see the swift ECJ judgement on revocation.
If HMG, via parliament, decides to go for a referendum, conference calls will be made to every EU capital, and Brussels, and it would be agreed in an afternoon. A50 will be extended as the Brits think again. The EU has absolutely nothing to lose, and a lot to gain (the UK humbled and returned to the fold, with all its money);
I think expecting Spain, Hungary, and Italy to play ball might be asking a lot.
The Withdrawal Agreement was voted under QMV, an extension to Article 50 would not, every country would have a veto.
But they cannot stop us revoking
The countries can't. The ECJ can.
They have made their judgement, here it is:
"Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State — for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that Member State and the European Union has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU, possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, has not expired — to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end."
Kill off these ilk and many of our problems would be solved.
That's almost as bad as Justin's comments on hoping Theresa May becomes blind or Jeremy Corbyn gets blown up.
I mean ilk generically, not anyone in particular. Besides, has anyone actually ever seen one of these ilk? They always seem to be in the shadows behind everything that is bad.
Another day, another instalment of Project Fear and watch how frightened everyone gets as soon as the Army gets mentioned.
Calculated nonsense aimed at panicking frightened people into signing up to May's Deal. All she and her allies have now is fear and they are hoping a couple of weeks of this propaganda will do the job.
There's nothing that can't be arranged or sorted in plenty of time (and would have been if this group of dullards had considered the most elementary contingency planning).
No one is going to starve, run out of medicines or be stopped from going anywhere. A great man once said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Nowadays, the only weapon a bad politician has is fear.
Project Fear's predictions are obviously ridiculous.
It's an area where everyone is low-information. To understand all the consequences of 'no-deal' would be to understand the entirety of the UK economy, one of the most complex in the world. On that basis, it's easier just to fling poo like the primates we are.
I'm glad the government is enacting its contingency plans. I will be fucking livid if they have to be carried out; it would be a political failure of the first magnitude.
What on earth goes on in someone's head who votes for something with a non-trivial probability of being a "political failure of the first magnitude"?
Doubtless I will always remain a mystery to you, dear old thing. Let's see what happens before we borrow trouble, eh?
We don't need to wait and see what happens. You have told us that you voted for something which could be a political failure of the first magnitude.
Absolutely bizarre.
You're at your worst when you try and score Internet points. I don't want to write treatises and couch and caveat my language on here. However, let me expand.
It will be a political failure of the first magnitude if we Brexit with no deal. Will it affect me? Not in the slightest. Does that make me sanguine? No. Would I vote for Brexit again. Yes. WIll you remain puzzled by me? Who knows.
I'm just intrigued at the thought process but if you say you will be untouched then it explains a lot. You are certainly in good company; I'm not sure many of the prominent Brexiters will be much affected personally. JRM springs to mind.
I'm in my late 50s. It'd be a bit sad if I hadn't achieved some measure of financial security, though obvs not in JRM's class.
This is clearly right. Enough Tory MPs believe a Corbyn government is less risky than No Deal Brexit. After the Deal is likely killed off, a new choice must be made, or the Government is VONC'd into a GE. No Deal isn't going to happen.
The chances of a referendum are, therefore, much higher than bookies allow?
I cannot see a referendum happening or legislation happening before March 29th.
Therefore there's one realistic option, revocation of Article 50.
I don't think an extension of Article 50 is an option because every country has a veto, and that could get messy.
I don't see why it should be messy. The EU can be prompt and sensible when it suits - see the swift ECJ judgement on revocation.
If HMG, via parliament, decides to go for a referendum, conference calls will be made to every EU capital, and Brussels, and it would be agreed in an afternoon. A50 will be extended as the Brits think again. The EU has absolutely nothing to lose, and a lot to gain (the UK humbled and returned to the fold, with all its money);
I think expecting Spain, Hungary, and Italy to play ball might be asking a lot.
The Withdrawal Agreement was voted under QMV, an extension to Article 50 would not, every country would have a veto.
But they cannot stop us revoking
The countries can't. The ECJ can.
They have made their judgement, here it is:
"Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State — for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that Member State and the European Union has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU, possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, has not expired — to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end."
Yes, and who judges if it is "unequivocal and unconditional"? The ECJ.
You mean just like Spain was forced to agree to the demands of extremists in Catalonia? The Scottish Parliament only exists at all as a result of legislation passed by Westminster in 1997/98. Such legislation can be repealed if necessary. Certainly any unconstitutional action by the SNP would justify the suspension of Holyrood.
Lol, scratch a reactionary labourite, find a Rajoy style supporter of granny truncheoning and jailing opponents. Mind you, the left wing ones aren't much better.
Let’s not forget the other key difference between Catalonia and Scotland. Catalonia is a net contributor to the Spanish treasury.
Remind me, what was Scotland’s GERS deficit per the latest figures?
The Yoons - What a blessing it is for Scotland to be under the fiscal and economic stewardship of the UK.
Also the Yoons - Indy Scotland would be Greece on the North Sea, it's a basket case.
Kill off these ilk and many of our problems would be solved.
That's almost as bad as Justin's comments on hoping Theresa May becomes blind or Jeremy Corbyn gets blown up.
I mean ilk generically, not anyone in particular. Besides, has anyone actually ever seen one of these ilk? They always seem to be in the shadows behind everything that is bad.
In a sense, that's worse. Instead of advocating murder, you're advocating genocide.
Kill off these ilk and many of our problems would be solved.
That's almost as bad as Justin's comments on hoping Theresa May becomes blind or Jeremy Corbyn gets blown up.
With respect I never suggested that at all. Tony Blair is the only UK leader to deserve such a fate were it to befall him - though I would prefer to see him put on trial at The Hague following the example of Milosevic.
Kill off these ilk and many of our problems would be solved.
That's almost as bad as Justin's comments on hoping Theresa May becomes blind or Jeremy Corbyn gets blown up.
With respect I never suggested that at all. Tony Blair is the only UK leader to deserve such a fate were it to befall him - though I would prefer to see him put on trial at The Hague following the example of Milosevic.
Which one are you referring to? You've admitted the Second on the last thread and the first - I remember that vividly.
The FTPA means parliament can vote down a government without triggering a general election, and put in place a new PM within 14 days who can request an A50 extension.
Except Corbyn seems to like Brexit. He certainly is not putting any obstacles in its way
I studied revolutions for a term at university; Corbyn has been interested in them for a lifetime and surely knows the key point that the established order only collapses after a serious crisis affecting the wellbeing of ordinary citizens (normally the middle classes, rather than the peasants as you might think).
Revolutions occur not when the peasants starve but when the lawyers do.
Comments
Remind me, what was Scotland’s GERS deficit per the latest figures?
I don't read much media - I mean it's not discussed. I think people are genuinely bored, and waiting to see what happens. You can't be outraged every day, you'd develop ulcers.
Essentially three considerations - the actual wisdom of the thing - so basically utility, the perception (home and abroad), and the question marks over whether the government is playing by the rules.
May's deal - 80% sensible, slightly weak, doesn't damage constitution (NI excepted)
No deal - 20% sensible, brave as brass, doesn't damage constitution
Delay - 30% sensible, horribly weak, minor damage to constitution
New vote - 50% sensible, quite weak, substantially damaging to constitution
Revoke - 10% sensible, hopelessly weak, massively damaging to constitution
Now these are just my random thoughts. I'm sure everyone will disagree, but on the other hand I'm not so sure that everyone wouldn't essentially finish up with the same conclusion. May's deal is, on balance, the best option. (The NI issue is important though - we can't willy-nilly abandon bits of the realm. The DUP are right to point this out, but if that circle can be squared then there's no constitutional damage.)
The ordering is roughly in my personal order of preference. I'd happily slot 'another deal' in at #2 if there was such a thing, but in reality there isn't, so it's just 'Delay'.
Abuse is, as always, next door
I won't indulge in speculation about either the immediate probability or the desirability of dissolution (there's not enough room in this post,) but if Brexit doesn't trigger it then, given that the Union has been defined as impermanent, the eventual likelihood of schism must be regarded as something close to 100%. It's probably not a matter of if the UK ends, but rather of when.
Over the last ten years we have travelled to all the corners of the planet, filled our bucket lists over several times, and are blessed with our own home and pension and security
But, I have a responsibility to fight for my families and my grandchildrens future and a country that is at ease with itself and its neighbours
This is my argument explained politely to you
Then have a referendum on what question to ask.
Then hold the actual referendum.
Then have a vote on whether to accept the result.
Any multiple option plebiscites to be conducted under AV.
Will @TSE's keyboard be able to take the strain?
While I'm at it "Greece is dead"? Er...
https://www.focus-economics.com/countries/greece
"The labor market’s revival continued in August, with the unemployment rate hitting a new seven-year low. Retail sales also grew strongly in the month, which bodes well for private consumption in Q3. "
Yours are fine but no reason to trot out your habitual garbage about panic if the actual outcome. doesn’t go my way.
More than in the last few years, it would seem.
https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/gdp-growth
https://www.ft.com/content/866f601e-02a3-11e9-99df-6183d3002ee1
Germany's economy shrank in Q3.
http://www.oecd.org/eco/outlook/greece-economic-forecast-summary.htm
Greek incomes should recover to 2011 levels sometime in the late 2020s, but it's no longer a complete basket case.
I mean, you can't see how that might go just a tiny bit wrong?
NEW THREAD
"Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State — for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that Member State and the European Union has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU, possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, has not expired — to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end."
:-)
Ok I will rephrase.
Unless parliament are prepared to look SO ridiculous that every time an MP ventures out in public, people point at them and laugh.
Also the Yoons - Indy Scotland would be Greece on the North Sea, it's a basket case.
Something's gotta give.
Lie to yourself if you must. Don't lie to me.