He's forgetting Nicolae Ceaucescu and Robert Mugabe in that list.
The most significant was Hirohito being appointed a Stranger Knight.
That was hugely controversial at the time - it”s the highest honour available to a foreign leader and one of the few in the personal gift of the Monarch
So she came here before 1948, well before there was an EEC or Freedom of Movement. Either she lived here illegally - or sorted out her immigration status decades ago, in which case she'll pay nothing.
Yes just like the Windrush ones, there speaks a real Tory Dame.
I see that Tories actually realise how bad their evil policies are once they are personally affected , now that Nigel Evans has been beggared he has a damascene conversion and admits he was wrong to vote for the Tory policy. Poetic justice, if only more of them could be hoist by their own petards.
And yet when I point out on this forum that Tory policies are knowingly and egregiously punitive I get all kinds of stick. My problem isn't against the Tory Party or Tory members or supporters. It's only under Cameron and now May that the party started inflicting policies designed to punish the poor and the sick. Morally reprehensible disgusting inhuman actions which even their own MPs are starting to accept are wrong.
Good morning, everyone. I'm glad to see the cave rescuers honoured, and the other gongs given to emergency services personnel. Quite cheered me up! On topic, I fear Brexit is going to happen, although it will be on May's Deal, very much for the reasons Mr H gives. By the summer though problems will be developing, particularly around holiday travel and they will be loudly construed in part of the Press as Europes Revenge, which will sour the situation even more. I'm sure Cable will go, probably shortly after Brexit; it hasn't helped the LD's being behind the SNP in Parliamentary seats, but neither Cable nor the back office has covered itself with glory and a new leader...... not sure it will be Swinson, ....... will have to follow Jo Grimonds advice and 'march toward the sound of gunfire'! The LD's will continue to do well in local government elections though and just might do very well in May. Both the other two leaders will carry on, although under threat. TBH, I don't think there will be a GE; the function of the Conservative party is to 'keep our side in power', and somehow that is what they'll do, although a Private Members Bill to bring Norn Ireland into line with both rUK and the RoI on abortion might just pass and send the DUP into space.
Personally I'm hoping that I shall have an operation this year which will sort out my lumbar stenosis and in due course give me both legs again. I also hope that this time next year I shall be in a warmer climate.
The honours list is pathetic. Baubles and stupid names for mainly useless twats that need bribed or have confidence issues. They throw in a few sheeple nowadays to pretend it is anything other than a con for their chums to milk the system even more. What a shithole this country really has sunk to when you see the absolute wuckfits that get them.
I didn't even need to scroll up to see who had written that. Harsh, but not far off how most people feel about the honours system. Morning, Malc!
Despite the fact that David comes to radically different conclusions from me, I think this is a really good article. As David says, we share a lot of the analysis, but this coming year small changes could make big differences.
David comes from the viewpoint of someone who feels party loyalty strongly. I don't feel it at all, never having belonged to a party. In a year when party loyalty is unusually weak and when the challenges that the country faces cut across party lines, are passionately felt and cannot be ducked, will party loyalty win through (in which case David will be correct) or will there be a breakdown? The answer is far from obvious.
Thanks, and I agree that the level of uncertainty for 2019 is huge and early changes in what we might predict - and there are huge decisions to make (or not make) early on - could easily propel events down radically different paths.
I also agree on the main point of difference - that of party loyalty. The reason I take the view I do is that MPs are themselves generally party loyalists, for both emotional and practical reasons (my predictions would probably be very different if Britain had PR, but it doesn't). There will certainly be rebellions - and I predict a very big one on May's Deal - but that won't lead to a realignment.
Indeed, the chance of a realignment has markedly diminished this last month, with the scales finally falling from some former Corbyn supporters and his star on the wane. This means the moderates will see a chance of recapturing their party rather than needing to split from it. Of course, if there is a second election, if Labour loses again (quite possible if May can point to having delivered a managed Brexit while Labour is still struggling from the 'double betrayal' of (1) having voted with the Tories and (2) not backed Remain), then Corbyn's successor might also be from the left fringe - which then makes defections and a realignment a real possibility again. But that's a lot of 'if's.
But overall, I expect that inertia and the scale of the division between the parties to keep the fundamental structure the same, for now.
I am well aware that there is no time for a referendum without an extension to A50 - the EU haven't yet been asked if they will grant it. As for the question on such a referendum you'd have to look at the scenario in which such a Vote was called - and the only way I can see is to get May's deal through.
In that scenario the question would be simple - should the UK enact the May deal and leave the EU or should the UK reject the May deal and remain in the EU? A leave vote enacts May's deal, a remain vote revokes Article 50. The sweetener to the EU in granting an extension to A50 could be that the government would enact the result immediately.
As for no deal, it's dead. A majority of MPs will reject it which means choosing one of the alternatives - May's deal or revoke. They will not let the UK crash out.
Can I again point out that the wording of a referendum question is not up to MPs? It's a matter for the Electoral Commission, who are answerable to the courts. And I can foresee a 'Remain/Deal' referendum being subject to successful legal challenge on the basis that one of those options has already been rejected.
There are good reasons not to hold a second ref. I think you have added another reason
The newspaper headlines today are claiming that a hard Brexit would be only bad and not really bad. Is this the limits of the country's ambition for 2019? It is s**t but it could be worse.
Yes, it is (Sir John Pollyanna Redwood excepted). Even Hannan is reduced to whining about BBC drama rather than addressing the elephant in the room.
Agree with Mr Herdson, except for number 5, (though if it does come to pass the rest likely will too). I think the last thing the parties want is to face the electorate - they'll put it off as long as they can, ideally until 2022, so Labour MPs can dump Corbyn and Tory MPs May.
I largely agree with this analysis. However, the immediate alternative to Brexit is cancel Article 50, not hold a second referendum.
That is fundamentally anti-democratic. The decision to Leave was made in the referendum on 23/6/16 and ratified by Parliament in March 2017 followed by activation of A50.
If the deal is not ratified, the only valid option is "no deal". Parliament can't stop this without the co-operation of the government, because legislation would be required.
It will be presented as such. I would say it is more fundamentally undemocratic to knowingly implement a policy that damages the national interest. Democracy is about representing the interest of the people fundamentally and is not simply elections by rote. It takes a clear sighted and self confident politician to make that point. I can see no such politician, with the exception of Kenneth Clarke.
So she came here before 1948, well before there was an EEC or Freedom of Movement. Either she lived here illegally - or sorted out her immigration status decades ago, in which case she'll pay nothing.
Yes just like the Windrush ones, there speaks a real Tory Dame.
The Windrush disgrace started under Labour. And it was and is a disgrace.
I am well aware that there is no time for a referendum without an extension to A50 - the EU haven't yet been asked if they will grant it. As for the question on such a referendum you'd have to look at the scenario in which such a Vote was called - and the only way I can see is to get May's deal through.
In that scenario the question would be simple - should the UK enact the May deal and leave the EU or should the UK reject the May deal and remain in the EU? A leave vote enacts May's deal, a remain vote revokes Article 50. The sweetener to the EU in granting an extension to A50 could be that the government would enact the result immediately.
As for no deal, it's dead. A majority of MPs will reject it which means choosing one of the alternatives - May's deal or revoke. They will not let the UK crash out.
Can I again point out that the wording of a referendum question is not up to MPs? It's a matter for the Electoral Commission, who are answerable to the courts. And I can foresee a 'Remain/Deal' referendum being subject to successful legal challenge on the basis that one of those options has already been rejected.
Is that right? That doesn't seem reasonable at all. Surely parliament gets to say what the choices are and the commission decide the wording of the options? So that could be challenged but not the options?
I cannot say I feel comfortable with the courts telling parliament what options it can legislate for. You are able to revisit things previously rejected, it is not reasonable to rule it out. It's ridiculous, but not unreasonable.
I am well aware that there is no time for a referendum without an extension to A50 - the EU haven't yet been asked if they will grant it. As for the question on such a referendum you'd have to look at the scenario in which such a Vote was called - and the only way I can see is to get May's deal through.
In that scenario the question would be simple - should the UK enact the May deal and leave the EU or should the UK reject the May deal and remain in the EU? A leave vote enacts May's deal, a remain vote revokes Article 50. The sweetener to the EU in granting an extension to A50 could be that the government would enact the result immediately.
As for no deal, it's dead. A majority of MPs will reject it which means choosing one of the alternatives - May's deal or revoke. They will not let the UK crash out.
Can I again point out that the wording of a referendum question is not up to MPs? It's a matter for the Electoral Commission, who are answerable to the courts. And I can foresee a 'Remain/Deal' referendum being subject to successful legal challenge on the basis that one of those options has already been rejected.
The wording of a referendum UNDER CURRENT LEGISLATION is for the Electoral Commission.
But I can easily imagine MPs slipping in a clause that says "None of the provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 shall be applicable to this Referendum."
I see that Tories actually realise how bad their evil policies are once they are personally affected , now that Nigel Evans has been beggared he has a damascene conversion and admits he was wrong to vote for the Tory policy. Poetic justice, if only more of them could be hoist by their own petards.
It does suggest a way forward for Leave MPs in Leave constituencies.
Given that we have voted to leave the EU how do you think they should be treated?
(1) allowed to stay without registration (risk of future illegal immigration from EU and risk of “windrush” scenario in future
(2) administrative registration with automatic approval (you could argue the fee is a bit petty given that the registration is being required by the government)
(3) choose between U.K. and EU citizenship - unreasonable
(4) mass deportation
Given where we are (2) seems like the most reasonable route for the government to take. Have I missed an option or would you prefer another choice?
Good morning, everyone. I'm glad to see the cave rescuers honoured, and the other gongs given to emergency services personnel. Quite cheered me up! On topic, I fear Brexit is going to happen, although it will be on May's Deal, very much for the reasons Mr H gives. By the summer though problems will be developing, particularly around holiday travel and they will be loudly construed in part of the Press as Europes Revenge, which will sour the situation even more. I'm sure Cable will go, probably shortly after Brexit; it hasn't helped the LD's being behind the SNP in Parliamentary seats, but neither Cable nor the back office has covered itself with glory and a new leader...... not sure it will be Swinson, ....... will have to follow Jo Grimonds advice and 'march toward the sound of gunfire'! The LD's will continue to do well in local government elections though and just might do very well in May. Both the other two leaders will carry on, although under threat. TBH, I don't think there will be a GE; the function of the Conservative party is to 'keep our side in power', and somehow that is what they'll do, although a Private Members Bill to bring Norn Ireland into line with both rUK and the RoI on abortion might just pass and send the DUP into space.
Personally I'm hoping that I shall have an operation this year which will sort out my lumbar stenosis and in due course give me both legs again. I also hope that this time next year I shall be in a warmer climate.
The honours list is pathetic. Baubles and stupid names for mainly useless twats that need bribed or have confidence issues. They throw in a few sheeple nowadays to pretend it is anything other than a con for their chums to milk the system even more. What a shithole this country really has sunk to when you see the absolute wuckfits that get them.
I didn't even need to scroll up to see who had written that. Harsh, but not far off how most people feel about the honours system. Morning, Malc!
Agree with Mr Herdson, except for number 5, (though if it does come to pass the rest likely will too). I think the last thing the parties want is to face the electorate - they'll put it off as long as they can, ideally until 2022, so Labour MPs can dump Corbyn and Tory MPs May.
You dont think labour will try votes of no confidence? Or do you think various independents will save the government? As while I can see the theory of why labour might not want an election the Tories will want one less and labour know that.
So she came here before 1948, well before there was an EEC or Freedom of Movement. Either she lived here illegally - or sorted out her immigration status decades ago, in which case she'll pay nothing.
Yes just like the Windrush ones, there speaks a real Tory Dame.
The Windrush disgrace started under Labour. And it was and is a disgrace.
Which Amber Rudd should have resolved when she was Home Secretary.
(And not having resolved it, she should still be out of office. But then, she took a bullet for Theresa May not having resolved it when she was Home Secretary. For all those years when, it seemed, nothing was going wrong on her watch.....)
Despite the fact that David comes to radically different conclusions from me, I think this is a really good article. As David says, we share a lot of the analysis, but this coming year small changes could make big differences.
David comes from the viewpoint of someone who feels party loyalty strongly. I don't feel it at all, never having belonged to a party. In a year when party loyalty is unusually weak and when the challenges that the country faces cut across party lines, are passionately felt and cannot be ducked, will party loyalty win through (in which case David will be correct) or will there be a breakdown? The answer is far from obvious.
I think that you have to allow that David's projection requires Tory party loyalty, but Labour party disloyalty to pass May's Deal. Personally, I think Labour party solidarity on this is far more intact than Tory. Even centrists like Liz Kendall are voting with their leader against the Deal. David is viewing things through blue tinted spectacles.
I hope not. There was every reason for Labour to continue to oppose the government in December. Had I been an MP, I would probably have voted against the deal myself. I don't like the Irish Sea border backstop arrangement, I don't like the ongoing role of the ECJ, and I don't like the lack of an exit arrangement. I would have sent the PM back to Brussels with the Commons' votes ringing in her ears along those lines. Not that I'd expect the EU to do much about them but at the very least, I'd want those talks to be held.
But when push comes to shove, when no other options are available and the undemocratic Remain is removed, the catastrophic No Deal is removed, I would reluctantly vote for the Deal as the least-worst option. I think that when it comes to it, enough Labour and Tory MPs will come to that same conclusion too. Sure, the likes of the hardcore ERG and Corbyn will remain opposed but those who are instinctively practical politicians - and that remains a large portion of both main parties, because they *are* the parties of government - will see the reality of the situation.
I see that Tories actually realise how bad their evil policies are once they are personally affected , now that Nigel Evans has been beggared he has a damascene conversion and admits he was wrong to vote for the Tory policy. Poetic justice, if only more of them could be hoist by their own petards.
And yet when I point out on this forum that Tory policies are knowingly and egregiously punitive I get all kinds of stick. My problem isn't against the Tory Party or Tory members or supporters. It's only under Cameron and now May that the party started inflicting policies designed to punish the poor and the sick. Morally reprehensible disgusting inhuman actions which even their own MPs are starting to accept are wrong.
Totally agree and criminal that the party members slavishly support what are obviously evil policies. Too many fat and happy Tories believe they will never be affected and care not a jot about those at the bottom who get crapped on by the cretinous policies their party introduce.
Given that we have voted to leave the EU how do you think they should be treated?
(1) allowed to stay without registration (risk of future illegal immigration from EU and risk of “windrush” scenario in future
(2) administrative registration with automatic approval (you could argue the fee is a bit petty given that the registration is being required by the government)
(3) choose between U.K. and EU citizenship - unreasonable
(4) mass deportation
Given where we are (2) seems like the most reasonable route for the government to take. Have I missed an option or would you prefer another choice?
Easy fix: just provide that the fee isn't payable by anybody over the retirement age/65/60.
Yes, it does look as if my German sister in law, resident in UK for 30 years and mother of 3 UK citizens has to apply for residence, or risk being an illegal on 1 Jan 2021 even under the WA. I can see that it is going to be another Windrush as the Home Office has to successfully process 4000 applications per day over that period.
They could have simplified it considerably by exempting spouses of UK citizens automatically.
How do you do that in practice?
If they are not ported to a new category (ie settled status) then why/how should they be treated differently to any future EU spouse of a U.K. citizen?
Also (and obviously speaking generally not about your case) if you don’t have a new category how do you manage future separations/divorces?
He's forgetting Nicolae Ceaucescu and Robert Mugabe in that list.
The most significant was Hirohito being appointed a Stranger Knight.
That was hugely controversial at the time - it”s the highest honour available to a foreign leader and one of the few in the personal gift of the Monarch
Not unexpected though from the trougher of troughers, just what you would expect from royalty.
I am well aware that there is no time for a referendum without an extension to A50 - the EU haven't yet been asked if they will grant it. As for the question on such a referendum you'd have to look at the scenario in which such a Vote was called - and the only way I can see is to get May's deal through.
In that scenario the question would be simple - should the UK enact the May deal and leave the EU or should the UK reject the May deal and remain in the EU? A leave vote enacts May's deal, a remain vote revokes Article 50. The sweetener to the EU in granting an extension to A50 could be that the government would enact the result immediately.
As for no deal, it's dead. A majority of MPs will reject it which means choosing one of the alternatives - May's deal or revoke. They will not let the UK crash out.
MPs can’t revoke and they can’t instruct the government to introduce the necessary legislation. All they can do is replace the government with one that will.
The honours list does seem to contain many people previously honoured, now having their baubles upgraded. For instance, just one BBC page includes CBEs for: Gruffalo author Julia Donaldson MBE; stage actress Sophie Okonedo OBE; violinist Nicola Benedetti MBE; artists Tacita Dean OBE and Gillian Wearing OBE. Is this usual or has the honours committee simply run out of ideas?
The whole system needs scrapping. It is beyond anachronistic.
It's not really as many nations have forms of civic awards, they're just called different things and they don't tend to add prefixes or post nomial letters. It's also entirely harmless as gongs don't confer any power or privilege anymore.
You'd have a better argument with peerages since those actually include power. Since gongs don't I don't really understand why people get so upset. I wouldn't be surprised if we keep them even after the monarchy is abolished - systems can be improved, but as we have one for recognising service there's no need to tear it down for a new one.
I take your point. Peerages in that case, but perhaps the knighthoods could be renamed as something less anachronistic and snobbish (unless you are suggesting that those knighted will provide their own swords, horses and men-at-arms when the sovereign leads them into battle)
Very much the predictions I'd have expected from David Herdson who's long been hawkish on May's deal being the only credible option.
But the one think I'd like more detail on is what happens when th a Government declares no deal it's central planning assumption. Unless it's a bluff, I reckon that Gauke, Clark, Hammond, Rudd, etc quit the cabinet at that point, and the likes of Soubry, Wollaston, Boles quit the party. The markets go haywire, a company of the stature of Airbus announce that with regret they are implementing their contingency plan to leave the U.K. - how can the government survive all of that?
That would be one of the most significant moments of the whole process and I'm not sure the Government could survive that moment - but it's implied that it's not a big deal above. In the hard Brexiteer mindset anyway, but it could be riots on the streets stuff. How do you see that point being handled David?
I think the Party would more-or-less still hold together. The relevant point would be that the decision to make No Deal the planning assumption was a practical necessity, and that May's Deal remained on the table; were the government to plan for No Deal not as a working assumption but as a positive policy choice then yes, that would probably put the skids under the government as a whole.
Despite the fact that David comes to radically different conclusions from me, I think this is a really good article. As David says, we share a lot of the analysis, but this coming year small changes could make big differences.
David comes from the viewpoint of someone who feels party loyalty strongly. I don't feel it at all, never having belonged to a party. In a year when party loyalty is unusually weak and when the challenges that the country faces cut across party lines, are passionately felt and cannot be ducked, will party loyalty win through (in which case David will be correct) or will there be a breakdown? The answer is far from obvious.
I think that you have to allow that David's projection requires Tory party loyalty, but Labour party disloyalty to pass May's Deal. Personally, I think Labour party solidarity on this is far more intact than Tory. Even centrists like Liz Kendall are voting with their leader against the Deal. David is viewing things through blue tinted spectacles.
I hope not. There was every reason for Labour to continue to oppose the government in December. Had I been an MP, I would probably have voted against the deal myself. I don't like the Irish Sea border backstop arrangement, I don't like the ongoing role of the ECJ, and I don't like the lack of an exit arrangement. I would have sent the PM back to Brussels with the Commons' votes ringing in her ears along those lines. Not that I'd expect the EU to do much about them but at the very least, I'd want those talks to be held.
But when push comes to shove, when no other options are available and the undemocratic Remain is removed, the catastrophic No Deal is removed, I would reluctantly vote for the Deal as the least-worst option. I think that when it comes to it, enough Labour and Tory MPs will come to that same conclusion too. Sure, the likes of the hardcore ERG and Corbyn will remain opposed but those who are instinctively practical politicians - and that remains a large portion of both main parties, because they *are* the parties of government - will see the reality of the situation.
Remain will not be removed as an option. Even now people are pretending to support a theoretical future leave but that we need to revoke a50 for now, a very transparent suggestion, and around half of mps are desperate for it. How many would rather no deal than give up the remain dream? A lot more than admit it. I see no basis for your assumption that usually practical politicians are still being practical.
It's a moral mission now for no dealers and continuity remainers. They are driving things and no risks are too great when on a moral mission. You can see it in their language.
I see that Tories actually realise how bad their evil policies are once they are personally affected , now that Nigel Evans has been beggared he has a damascene conversion and admits he was wrong to vote for the Tory policy. Poetic justice, if only more of them could be hoist by their own petards.
I see that Tories actually realise how bad their evil policies are once they are personally affected , now that Nigel Evans has been beggared he has a damascene conversion and admits he was wrong to vote for the Tory policy. Poetic justice, if only more of them could be hoist by their own petards.
And yet when I point out on this forum that Tory policies are knowingly and egregiously punitive I get all kinds of stick. My problem isn't against the Tory Party or Tory members or supporters. It's only under Cameron and now May that the party started inflicting policies designed to punish the poor and the sick. Morally reprehensible disgusting inhuman actions which even their own MPs are starting to accept are wrong.
Cameron was of course a very poor 'Leader' he wanted the title and the glory that went with it, but he rarely led on anything. May evidently come from a Tory tradition of blaming the 'undeserving poor'..... going right back to the Victorians.......
Commentators on here have posted about the Coalition was a time of 'good government'; as a long time Lib and LD voter I feel rather ashamed of some of the policies it introduced, the Legal Air 'reform' which Nigel Evans being but one of them.
The honours list does seem to contain many people previously honoured, now having their baubles upgraded. For instance, just one BBC page includes CBEs for: Gruffalo author Julia Donaldson MBE; stage actress Sophie Okonedo OBE; violinist Nicola Benedetti MBE; artists Tacita Dean OBE and Gillian Wearing OBE. Is this usual or has the honours committee simply run out of ideas?
The whole system needs scrapping. It is beyond anachronistic.
It's not really as many nations have forms of civic awards, they're just called different things and they don't tend to add prefixes or post nomial letters. It's also entirely harmless as gongs don't confer any power or privilege anymore.
You'd have a better argument with peerages since those actually include power. Since gongs don't I don't really understand why people get so upset. I wouldn't be surprised if we keep them even after the monarchy is abolished - systems can be improved, but as we have one for recognising service there's no need to tear it down for a new one.
I take your point. Peerages in that case, but perhaps the knighthoods could be renamed as something less anachronistic and snobbish (unless you are suggesting that those knighted will provide their own swords, horses and men-at-arms when the sovereign leads them into battle)
Should be made to sit on their swords.
I would struggle to call anyone by their title. I'd just give them a nod and an "Alright, mate?"
I am well aware that there is no time for a referendum without an extension to A50 - the EU haven't yet been asked if they will grant it. As for the question on such a referendum you'd have to look at the scenario in which such a Vote was called - and the only way I can see is to get May's deal through.
In that scenario the question would be simple - should the UK enact the May deal and leave the EU or should the UK reject the May deal and remain in the EU? A leave vote enacts May's deal, a remain vote revokes Article 50. The sweetener to the EU in granting an extension to A50 could be that the government would enact the result immediately.
As for no deal, it's dead. A majority of MPs will reject it which means choosing one of the alternatives - May's deal or revoke. They will not let the UK crash out.
Can I again point out that the wording of a referendum question is not up to MPs? It's a matter for the Electoral Commission, who are answerable to the courts. And I can foresee a 'Remain/Deal' referendum being subject to successful legal challenge on the basis that one of those options has already been rejected.
Not so.
The political content is not up to the Electoral Commission. (They couldn't insist "No Deal" is on the ballot paper for instance).
The Electoral Commission merely checks that the referendum question presents the options clearly, simply and neutrally. So it should: • be easy to understand • be to the point • be unambiguous • avoid encouraging voters to consider one response more favourably than another • avoid misleading voters
Yes, it does look as if my German sister in law, resident in UK for 30 years and mother of 3 UK citizens has to apply for residence, or risk being an illegal on 1 Jan 2021 even under the WA. I can see that it is going to be another Windrush as the Home Office has to successfully process 4000 applications per day over that period.
They could have simplified it considerably by exempting spouses of UK citizens automatically.
How do you do that in practice?
If they are not ported to a new category (ie settled status) then why/how should they be treated differently to any future EU spouse of a U.K. citizen?
Also (and obviously speaking generally not about your case) if you don’t have a new category how do you manage future separations/divorces?
Yes, there are quite a few problems from removing the rights from people who have quite legitimately used those rights over the years. It is not only economically that we are entwined with our continental neighbours but also a meshwork of personal connections.
The honours list does seem to contain many people previously honoured, now having their baubles upgraded. For instance, just one BBC page includes CBEs for: Gruffalo author Julia Donaldson MBE; stage actress Sophie Okonedo OBE; violinist Nicola Benedetti MBE; artists Tacita Dean OBE and Gillian Wearing OBE. Is this usual or has the honours committee simply run out of ideas?
The whole system needs scrapping. It is beyond anachronistic.
It's not really as many nations have forms of civic awards, they're just called different things and they don't tend to add prefixes or post nomial letters. It's also entirely harmless as gongs don't confer any power or privilege anymore.
You'd have a better argument with peerages since those actually include power. Since gongs don't I don't really understand why people get so upset. I wouldn't be surprised if we keep them even after the monarchy is abolished - systems can be improved, but as we have one for recognising service there's no need to tear it down for a new one.
I take your point. Peerages in that case, but perhaps the knighthoods could be renamed as something less anachronistic and snobbish (unless you are suggesting that those knighted will provide their own swords, horses and men-at-arms when the sovereign leads them into battle)
Maybe, but personally I think it's just a case of terminology evolving so its unnecessary. Same reason I think if we go to an elected upper chamber they should still be called lords. Already it no longer means a hereditary title, might as well just have it mean a member if that house.
Gradually significant change while pretending nothing has changed is very British after all.
The honours list does seem to contain many people previously honoured, now having their baubles upgraded. For instance, just one BBC page includes CBEs for: Gruffalo author Julia Donaldson MBE; stage actress Sophie Okonedo OBE; violinist Nicola Benedetti MBE; artists Tacita Dean OBE and Gillian Wearing OBE. Is this usual or has the honours committee simply run out of ideas?
The whole system needs scrapping. It is beyond anachronistic.
It's not really as many nations have forms of civic awards, they're just called different things and they don't tend to add prefixes or post nomial letters. It's also entirely harmless as gongs don't confer any power or privilege anymore.
You'd have a better argument with peerages since those actually include power. Since gongs don't I don't really understand why people get so upset. I wouldn't be surprised if we keep them even after the monarchy is abolished - systems can be improved, but as we have one for recognising service there's no need to tear it down for a new one.
I take your point. Peerages in that case, but perhaps the knighthoods could be renamed as something less anachronistic and snobbish (unless you are suggesting that those knighted will provide their own swords, horses and men-at-arms when the sovereign leads them into battle)
Should be made to sit on their swords.
I would struggle to call anyone by their title. I'd just give them a nod and an "Alright, mate?"
The honours list does seem to contain many people previously honoured, now having their baubles upgraded. For instance, just one BBC page includes CBEs for: Gruffalo author Julia Donaldson MBE; stage actress Sophie Okonedo OBE; violinist Nicola Benedetti MBE; artists Tacita Dean OBE and Gillian Wearing OBE. Is this usual or has the honours committee simply run out of ideas?
The whole system needs scrapping. It is beyond anachronistic.
It's not really as many nations have forms of civic awards, they're just called different things and they don't tend to add prefixes or post nomial letters. It's also entirely harmless as gongs don't confer any power or privilege anymore.
You'd have a better argument with peerages since those actually include power. Since gongs don't I don't really understand why people get so upset. I wouldn't be surprised if we keep them even after the monarchy is abolished - systems can be improved, but as we have one for recognising service there's no need to tear it down for a new one.
I take your point. Peerages in that case, but perhaps the knighthoods could be renamed as something less anachronistic and snobbish (unless you are suggesting that those knighted will provide their own swords, horses and men-at-arms when the sovereign leads them into battle)
Should be made to sit on their swords.
I would struggle to call anyone by their title. I'd just give them a nod and an "Alright, mate?"
Very very few would insist on it I'm sure. I'm naturally deferential so I struggle not to. I'm one of life's followers
Malcolm's right. Yesterday's news was dominated by 6 migrants landing at Dover. D-Day wouldn't have got that coverage. We're becoming second rate alarmingly quickly. Like this bloke says 'the best we can hope for is to be a nostalgic 1950's theme park somewhere in the atlantic'
Morning all. I agree with David’s central assertion that the Deal will be ratified, there being no alternative. It might be defeated first time, but TM has surely factored that in and is holding something back, perhaps a very sombre letter of assurance on the Backstop from Juncker & Co, which, combined with rising panic across the House about No Deal, will be just enough to swing it. She does not wish to reveal this now, because MPs would laugh and still vote against, timing is all. I’m not normally a fan of analogies in political punditry (better to simply say what you mean in plain and precise language) but in this case I feel it is genuinely useful to think of the Deal as a thoroughbred racehorse and Theresa May as Lester Piggott. She will play her mount late, in the frantic finish, as the post looms and the other contenders (Messrs Referendum, No Deal, No Brexit) tire and go backwards. And just as with Lester in his prime, it will be a privilege to behold, that dramatic final vote as Brexit squeaks home by a nostril.
I see that Tories actually realise how bad their evil policies are once they are personally affected , now that Nigel Evans has been beggared he has a damascene conversion and admits he was wrong to vote for the Tory policy. Poetic justice, if only more of them could be hoist by their own petards.
It does seem inequitable that a cleared defendant in a criminal case is not allowed to recover their costs. I could see the argument for capping it to “legal aid rates” (if there is such a tarrif, don’t know) and if they want a QC they pay the excess out of their own pocket but not reasonable to have nothing
The honours list does seem to contain many people previously honoured, now having their baubles upgraded. For instance, just one BBC page includes CBEs for: Gruffalo author Julia Donaldson MBE; stage actress Sophie Okonedo OBE; violinist Nicola Benedetti MBE; artists Tacita Dean OBE and Gillian Wearing OBE. Is this usual or has the honours committee simply run out of ideas?
The whole system needs scrapping. It is beyond anachronistic.
It's not really as many nations have forms of civic awards, they're just called different things and they don't tend to add prefixes or post nomial letters. It's also entirely harmless as gongs don't confer any power or privilege anymore.
You'd have a better argument with peerages since those actually include power. Since gongs don't I don't really understand why people get so upset. I wouldn't be surprised if we keep them even after the monarchy is abolished - systems can be improved, but as we have one for recognising service there's no need to tear it down for a new one.
I take your point. Peerages in that case, but perhaps the knighthoods could be renamed as something less anachronistic and snobbish (unless you are suggesting that those knighted will provide their own swords, horses and men-at-arms when the sovereign leads them into battle)
Should be made to sit on their swords.
"Swords"? The scottish ones would only have one sword - two would be an extravagance
The honours list does seem to contain many people previously honoured, now having their baubles upgraded. For instance, just one BBC page includes CBEs for: Gruffalo author Julia Donaldson MBE; stage actress Sophie Okonedo OBE; violinist Nicola Benedetti MBE; artists Tacita Dean OBE and Gillian Wearing OBE. Is this usual or has the honours committee simply run out of ideas?
The whole system needs scrapping. It is beyond anachronistic.
It's not really as many nations have forms of civic awards, they're just called different things and they don't tend to add prefixes or post nomial letters. It's also entirely harmless as gongs don't confer any power or privilege anymore.
You'd have a better argument with peerages since those actually include power. Since gongs don't I don't really understand why people get so upset. I wouldn't be surprised if we keep them even after the monarchy is abolished - systems can be improved, but as we have one for recognising service there's no need to tear it down for a new one.
I take your point. Peerages in that case, but perhaps the knighthoods could be renamed as something less anachronistic and snobbish (unless you are suggesting that those knighted will provide their own swords, horses and men-at-arms when the sovereign leads them into battle)
Should be made to sit on their swords.
I would struggle to call anyone by their title. I'd just give them a nod and an "Alright, mate?"
I also suspect many might think the title was being used ironically. We're good at that.
The honours list does seem to contain many people previously honoured, now having their baubles upgraded. For instance, just one BBC page includes CBEs for: Gruffalo author Julia Donaldson MBE; stage actress Sophie Okonedo OBE; violinist Nicola Benedetti MBE; artists Tacita Dean OBE and Gillian Wearing OBE. Is this usual or has the honours committee simply run out of ideas?
The whole system needs scrapping. It is beyond anachronistic.
It's not really as many nations have forms of civic awards, they're just called different things and they don't tend to add prefixes or post nomial letters. It's also entirely harmless as gongs don't confer any power or privilege anymore.
You'd have a better argument with peerages since those actually include power. Since gongs don't I don't really understand why people get so upset. I wouldn't be surprised if we keep them even after the monarchy is abolished - systems can be improved, but as we have one for recognising service there's no need to tear it down for a new one.
I take your point. Peerages in that case, but perhaps the knighthoods could be renamed as something less anachronistic and snobbish (unless you are suggesting that those knighted will provide their own swords, horses and men-at-arms when the sovereign leads them into battle)
Well we won’t be able to import fuel once we are at war with the EU...
I am well aware that there is no time for a referendum without an extension to A50 - the EU haven't yet been asked if they will grant it. As for the question on such a referendum you'd have to look at the scenario in which such a Vote was called - and the only way I can see is to get May's deal through.
In that scenario the question would be simple - should the UK enact the May deal and leave the EU or should the UK reject the May deal and remain in the EU? A leave vote enacts May's deal, a remain vote revokes Article 50. The sweetener to the EU in granting an extension to A50 could be that the government would enact the result immediately.
As for no deal, it's dead. A majority of MPs will reject it which means choosing one of the alternatives - May's deal or revoke. They will not let the UK crash out.
MPs can’t revoke and they can’t instruct the government to introduce the necessary legislation. All they can do is replace the government with one that will.
The Remoaners don't seem to understand this critical point.
Morning all. I agree with David’s central assertion that the Deal will be ratified, there being no alternative. It might be defeated first time, but TM has surely factored that in and is holding something back, perhaps a very sombre letter of assurance on the Backstop from Juncker & Co, which, combined with rising panic across the House about No Deal, will be just enough to swing it. She does not wish to reveal this now, because MPs would laugh and still vote against, timing is all. I’m not normally a fan of analogies in political punditry (better to simply say what you mean in plain and precise language) but in this case I feel it is genuinely useful to think of the Deal as a thoroughbred racehorse and Theresa May as Lester Piggott. She will play her mount late, in the frantic finish, as the post looms and the other contenders (Messrs Referendum, No Deal, No Brexit) tire and go backwards. And just as with Lester in his prime, it will be a privilege to behold, that dramatic final vote as Brexit squeaks home by a nostril.
Has there yet been a single MP publicly change their mind to support Deal?
I am well aware that there is no time for a referendum without an extension to A50 - the EU haven't yet been asked if they will grant it. As for the question on such a referendum you'd have to look at the scenario in which such a Vote was called - and the only way I can see is to get May's deal through.
In that scenario the question would be simple - should the UK enact the May deal and leave the EU or should the UK reject the May deal and remain in the EU? A leave vote enacts May's deal, a remain vote revokes Article 50. The sweetener to the EU in granting an extension to A50 could be that the government would enact the result immediately.
As for no deal, it's dead. A majority of MPs will reject it which means choosing one of the alternatives - May's deal or revoke. They will not let the UK crash out.
Can I again point out that the wording of a referendum question is not up to MPs? It's a matter for the Electoral Commission, who are answerable to the courts. And I can foresee a 'Remain/Deal' referendum being subject to successful legal challenge on the basis that one of those options has already been rejected.
Not so.
The political content is not up to the Electoral Commission. (They couldn't insist "No Deal" is on the ballot paper for instance).
The Electoral Commission merely checks that the referendum question presents the options clearly, simply and neutrally. So it should: • be easy to understand • be to the point • be unambiguous • avoid encouraging voters to consider one response more favourably than another • avoid misleading voters
Morning all. I agree with David’s central assertion that the Deal will be ratified, there being no alternative. It might be defeated first time, but TM has surely factored that in and is holding something back, perhaps a very sombre letter of assurance on the Backstop from Juncker & Co, which, combined with rising panic across the House about No Deal, will be just enough to swing it. She does not wish to reveal this now, because MPs would laugh and still vote against, timing is all. I’m not normally a fan of analogies in political punditry (better to simply say what you mean in plain and precise language) but in this case I feel it is genuinely useful to think of the Deal as a thoroughbred racehorse and Theresa May as Lester Piggott. She will play her mount late, in the frantic finish, as the post looms and the other contenders (Messrs Referendum, No Deal, No Brexit) tire and go backwards. And just as with Lester in his prime, it will be a privilege to behold, that dramatic final vote as Brexit squeaks home by a nostril.
Has there yet been a single MP publicly change their mind to support Deal?
No, but she doesn't need to win (first time), just do better than any alternative proposition.
I am well aware that there is no time for a referendum without an extension to A50 - the EU haven't yet been asked if they will grant it. As for the question on such a referendum you'd have to look at the scenario in which such a Vote was called - and the only way I can see is to get May's deal through.
In that scenario the question would be simple - should the UK enact the May deal and leave the EU or should the UK reject the May deal and remain in the EU? A leave vote enacts May's deal, a remain vote revokes Article 50. The sweetener to the EU in granting an extension to A50 could be that the government would enact the result immediately.
As for no deal, it's dead. A majority of MPs will reject it which means choosing one of the alternatives - May's deal or revoke. They will not let the UK crash out.
MPs can’t revoke and they can’t instruct the government to introduce the necessary legislation. All they can do is replace the government with one that will.
The Remoaners don't seem to understand this critical point.
To be fair they can also threaten to bring down the government unless it does what Parliament wants.
Given that we have voted to leave the EU how do you think they should be treated?
(1) allowed to stay without registration (risk of future illegal immigration from EU and risk of “windrush” scenario in future
(2) administrative registration with automatic approval (you could argue the fee is a bit petty given that the registration is being required by the government)
(3) choose between U.K. and EU citizenship - unreasonable
(4) mass deportation
Given where we are (2) seems like the most reasonable route for the government to take. Have I missed an option or would you prefer another choice?
Easy fix: just provide that the fee isn't payable by anybody over the retirement age/65/60.
I’d just abolish the fee TBH. Not sure how much it will raise (max a couple of hundred million I suppose) so it’s just a one time cost of Brexit in my view.
Malcolm's right. Yesterday's news was dominated by 6 migrants landing at Dover. D-Day wouldn't have got that coverage. We're becoming second rate alarmingly quickly. Like this bloke says 'the best we can hope for is to be a nostalgic 1950's theme park somewhere in the atlantic'
*Illegal* immigrants landing at Dover, you mean. Is France so sh*t that even a Syrian/Pakistani/Moroccan doesnt want to live there? Or are there more nefarious reasons?
Morning all. I agree with David’s central assertion that the Deal will be ratified, there being no alternative. It might be defeated first time, but TM has surely factored that in and is holding something back, perhaps a very sombre letter of assurance on the Backstop from Juncker & Co, which, combined with rising panic across the House about No Deal, will be just enough to swing it. She does not wish to reveal this now, because MPs would laugh and still vote against, timing is all. I’m not normally a fan of analogies in political punditry (better to simply say what you mean in plain and precise language) but in this case I feel it is genuinely useful to think of the Deal as a thoroughbred racehorse and Theresa May as Lester Piggott. She will play her mount late, in the frantic finish, as the post looms and the other contenders (Messrs Referendum, No Deal, No Brexit) tire and go backwards. And just as with Lester in his prime, it will be a privilege to behold, that dramatic final vote as Brexit squeaks home by a nostril.
More like a spavined nag up against a crippled unicorn and a legless skunk.
The honours list does seem to contain many people previously honoured, now having their baubles upgraded. For instance, just one BBC page includes CBEs for: Gruffalo author Julia Donaldson MBE; stage actress Sophie Okonedo OBE; violinist Nicola Benedetti MBE; artists Tacita Dean OBE and Gillian Wearing OBE. Is this usual or has the honours committee simply run out of ideas?
The whole system needs scrapping. It is beyond anachronistic.
It's not really as many nations have forms of civic awards, they're just called different things and they don't tend to add prefixes or post nomial letters. It's also entirely harmless as gongs don't confer any power or privilege anymore.
You'd have a better argument with peerages since those actually include power. Since gongs don't I don't really understand why people get so upset. I wouldn't be surprised if we keep them even after the monarchy is abolished - systems can be improved, but as we have one for recognising service there's no need to tear it down for a new one.
I take your point. Peerages in that case, but perhaps the knighthoods could be renamed as something less anachronistic and snobbish (unless you are suggesting that those knighted will provide their own swords, horses and men-at-arms when the sovereign leads them into battle)
Well we won’t be able to import fuel once we are at war with the EU...
I see from today's news that they are intending to commandeer lots of ferries. Maybe some oil tankers too?
I see that Tories actually realise how bad their evil policies are once they are personally affected , now that Nigel Evans has been beggared he has a damascene conversion and admits he was wrong to vote for the Tory policy. Poetic justice, if only more of them could be hoist by their own petards.
It does seem inequitable that a cleared defendant in a criminal case is not allowed to recover their costs. I could see the argument for capping it to “legal aid rates” (if there is such a tarrif, don’t know) and if they want a QC they pay the excess out of their own pocket but not reasonable to have nothing
'Want' a QC or 'need' the expertise of a QC?
We are returning to the days of 'Justice, like the Ritz Hotel, is open to all!'
Morning all. I agree with David’s central assertion that the Deal will be ratified, there being no alternative. It might be defeated first time, but TM has surely factored that in and is holding something back, perhaps a very sombre letter of assurance on the Backstop from Juncker & Co, which, combined with rising panic across the House about No Deal, will be just enough to swing it. She does not wish to reveal this now, because MPs would laugh and still vote against, timing is all. I’m not normally a fan of analogies in political punditry (better to simply say what you mean in plain and precise language) but in this case I feel it is genuinely useful to think of the Deal as a thoroughbred racehorse and Theresa May as Lester Piggott. She will play her mount late, in the frantic finish, as the post looms and the other contenders (Messrs Referendum, No Deal, No Brexit) tire and go backwards. And just as with Lester in his prime, it will be a privilege to behold, that dramatic final vote as Brexit squeaks home by a nostril.
Has there yet been a single MP publicly change their mind to support Deal?
No, but she doesn't need to win (first time), just do better than any alternative proposition.
She needs to close a gap of roughly 200. Alternative propositions look likely to do better than that.
MPs can’t revoke and they can’t instruct the government to introduce the necessary legislation. All they can do is replace the government with one that will.
So minority Corbyn or the Grand X-Party Remainer Coalition. And given Corbyn won't do it ... whole thing really does seem like a long shot. (Although not per BF, interestingly.)
Yes, it does look as if my German sister in law, resident in UK for 30 years and mother of 3 UK citizens has to apply for residence, or risk being an illegal on 1 Jan 2021 even under the WA. I can see that it is going to be another Windrush as the Home Office has to successfully process 4000 applications per day over that period.
They could have simplified it considerably by exempting spouses of UK citizens automatically.
How do you do that in practice?
If they are not ported to a new category (ie settled status) then why/how should they be treated differently to any future EU spouse of a U.K. citizen?
Also (and obviously speaking generally not about your case) if you don’t have a new category how do you manage future separations/divorces?
Yes, there are quite a few problems from removing the rights from people who have quite legitimately used those rights over the years. It is not only economically that we are entwined with our continental neighbours but also a meshwork of personal connections.
No, there are not “quite a few problems”.
You create a new category (let’s call it “settled status”) and ask people to register for it free of charge
A bit of a hassle but not that much of a challenge
Given that we have voted to leave the EU how do you think they should be treated?
(1) allowed to stay without registration (risk of future illegal immigration from EU and risk of “windrush” scenario in future
(2) administrative registration with automatic approval (you could argue the fee is a bit petty given that the registration is being required by the government)
(3) choose between U.K. and EU citizenship - unreasonable
(4) mass deportation
Given where we are (2) seems like the most reasonable route for the government to take. Have I missed an option or would you prefer another choice?
I am not one of the blame remainers for everything brigade, but I can't help thinking that the £60 fee was slipped in by somebody who doesn't really believe in Brexit. It will raise a derisory amount of money but will ensure that people affected, many of whom will be British, will be motivated to complain about it. Another sack of coal on the Make Brexit Toxic steamer.
Given that we have voted to leave the EU how do you think they should be treated?
(1) allowed to stay without registration (risk of future illegal immigration from EU and risk of “windrush” scenario in future
(2) administrative registration with automatic approval (you could argue the fee is a bit petty given that the registration is being required by the government)
(3) choose between U.K. and EU citizenship - unreasonable
(4) mass deportation
Given where we are (2) seems like the most reasonable route for the government to take. Have I missed an option or would you prefer another choice?
Easy fix: just provide that the fee isn't payable by anybody over the retirement age/65/60.
I’d just abolish the fee TBH. Not sure how much it will raise (max a couple of hundred million I suppose) so it’s just a one time cost of Brexit in my view.
Well indeed. It probably represents the rounding error on the rounding error!
I am well aware that there is no time for a referendum without an extension to A50 - the EU haven't yet been asked if they will grant it. As for the question on such a referendum you'd have to look at the scenario in which such a Vote was called - and the only way I can see is to get May's deal through.
In that scenario the question would be simple - should the UK enact the May deal and leave the EU or should the UK reject the May deal and remain in the EU? A leave vote enacts May's deal, a remain vote revokes Article 50. The sweetener to the EU in granting an extension to A50 could be that the government would enact the result immediately.
As for no deal, it's dead. A majority of MPs will reject it which means choosing one of the alternatives - May's deal or revoke. They will not let the UK crash out.
Can I again point out that the wording of a referendum question is not up to MPs? It's a matter for the Electoral Commission, who are answerable to the courts. And I can foresee a 'Remain/Deal' referendum being subject to successful legal challenge on the basis that one of those options has already been rejected.
The second part is wrong. Legislation defines the propositions, the commission simply comes up with the wording.
Edit/ and there is no recourse to the courts, anyway, not least because in law the 2016 vote was merely advisory.
I am well aware that there is no time for a referendum without an extension to A50 - the EU haven't yet been asked if they will grant it. As for the question on such a referendum you'd have to look at the scenario in which such a Vote was called - and the only way I can see is to get May's deal through.
In that scenario the question would be simple - should the UK enact the May deal and leave the EU or should the UK reject the May deal and remain in the EU? A leave vote enacts May's deal, a remain vote revokes Article 50. The sweetener to the EU in granting an extension to A50 could be that the government would enact the result immediately.
As for no deal, it's dead. A majority of MPs will reject it which means choosing one of the alternatives - May's deal or revoke. They will not let the UK crash out.
Can I again point out that the wording of a referendum question is not up to MPs? It's a matter for the Electoral Commission, who are answerable to the courts. And I can foresee a 'Remain/Deal' referendum being subject to successful legal challenge on the basis that one of those options has already been rejected.
The second part is wrong. Legislation defines the propositions, the commission simply comes up with the wording.
The first part might also be wrong if Parliament chose to do something different on this occasion (not that I expect that it would).
I see that Tories actually realise how bad their evil policies are once they are personally affected , now that Nigel Evans has been beggared he has a damascene conversion and admits he was wrong to vote for the Tory policy. Poetic justice, if only more of them could be hoist by their own petards.
It does seem inequitable that a cleared defendant in a criminal case is not allowed to recover their costs. I could see the argument for capping it to “legal aid rates” (if there is such a tarrif, don’t know) and if they want a QC they pay the excess out of their own pocket but not reasonable to have nothing
'Want' a QC or 'need' the expertise of a QC?
We are returning to the days of 'Justice, like the Ritz Hotel, is open to all!'
I suspect that in most criminal cases that truly need the expertise of a QC for more than a quick consult are those where the accused have the means (legitimate or not) to pay!
I see that Tories actually realise how bad their evil policies are once they are personally affected , now that Nigel Evans has been beggared he has a damascene conversion and admits he was wrong to vote for the Tory policy. Poetic justice, if only more of them could be hoist by their own petards.
It does seem inequitable that a cleared defendant in a criminal case is not allowed to recover their costs. I could see the argument for capping it to “legal aid rates” (if there is such a tarrif, don’t know) and if they want a QC they pay the excess out of their own pocket but not reasonable to have nothing
Evans complained that the police seemed 'over zealous'. Same with the chief constable whose cops held innocent drone owners in custody for 36 hours and while at it breached their rights to privacy
Given that we have voted to leave the EU how do you think they should be treated?
(1) allowed to stay without registration (risk of future illegal immigration from EU and risk of “windrush” scenario in future
(2) administrative registration with automatic approval (you could argue the fee is a bit petty given that the registration is being required by the government)
(3) choose between U.K. and EU citizenship - unreasonable
(4) mass deportation
Given where we are (2) seems like the most reasonable route for the government to take. Have I missed an option or would you prefer another choice?
I am not one of the blame remainers for everything brigade, but I can't help thinking that the £60 fee was slipped in by somebody who doesn't really believe in Brexit. It will raise a derisory amount of money but will ensure that people affected, many of whom will be British, will be motivated to complain about it. Another sack of coal on the Make Brexit Toxic steamer.
Nah it was just a monkey in the Treasury and none of the politicians thought about it from first principles so let it go through on the nod.
I am well aware that there is no time for a referendum without an extension to A50 - the EU haven't yet been asked if they will grant it. As for the question on such a referendum you'd have to look at the scenario in which such a Vote was called - and the only way I can see is to get May's deal through.
In that scenario the question would be simple - should the UK enact the May deal and leave the EU or should the UK reject the May deal and remain in the EU? A leave vote enacts May's deal, a remain vote revokes Article 50. The sweetener to the EU in granting an extension to A50 could be that the government would enact the result immediately.
As for no deal, it's dead. A majority of MPs will reject it which means choosing one of the alternatives - May's deal or revoke. They will not let the UK crash out.
Can I again point out that the wording of a referendum question is not up to MPs? It's a matter for the Electoral Commission, who are answerable to the courts. And I can foresee a 'Remain/Deal' referendum being subject to successful legal challenge on the basis that one of those options has already been rejected.
Not so.
The political content is not up to the Electoral Commission. (They couldn't insist "No Deal" is on the ballot paper for instance).
The Electoral Commission merely checks that the referendum question presents the options clearly, simply and neutrally. So it should: • be easy to understand • be to the point • be unambiguous • avoid encouraging voters to consider one response more favourably than another • avoid misleading voters
Your comment is naughty Leave was unambiguous when set against Remain, in the sense that "No Deal" is NOT unambiguous. Some people think"No Deal" means call the whole thing off. Leave meant leave the EU.
Morning all. I agree with David’s central assertion that the Deal will be ratified, there being no alternative. It might be defeated first time, but TM has surely factored that in and is holding something back, perhaps a very sombre letter of assurance on the Backstop from Juncker & Co, which, combined with rising panic across the House about No Deal, will be just enough to swing it. She does not wish to reveal this now, because MPs would laugh and still vote against, timing is all. I’m not normally a fan of analogies in political punditry (better to simply say what you mean in plain and precise language) but in this case I feel it is genuinely useful to think of the Deal as a thoroughbred racehorse and Theresa May as Lester Piggott. She will play her mount late, in the frantic finish, as the post looms and the other contenders (Messrs Referendum, No Deal, No Brexit) tire and go backwards. And just as with Lester in his prime, it will be a privilege to behold, that dramatic final vote as Brexit squeaks home by a nostril.
Has there yet been a single MP publicly change their mind to support Deal?
No, but she doesn't need to win (first time), just do better than any alternative proposition.
She needs to close a gap of roughly 200. Alternative propositions look likely to do better than that.
And it is for that reason more than any other than I tend toward thinking options other than the deal are on the cards, despite unclear paths in some cases. The gap is too large.
I see that Tories actually realise how bad their evil policies are once they are personally affected , now that Nigel Evans has been beggared he has a damascene conversion and admits he was wrong to vote for the Tory policy. Poetic justice, if only more of them could be hoist by their own petards.
It does seem inequitable that a cleared defendant in a criminal case is not allowed to recover their costs. I could see the argument for capping it to “legal aid rates” (if there is such a tarrif, don’t know) and if they want a QC they pay the excess out of their own pocket but not reasonable to have nothing
'Want' a QC or 'need' the expertise of a QC?
We are returning to the days of 'Justice, like the Ritz Hotel, is open to all!'
I suspect that in most criminal cases that truly need the expertise of a QC for more than a quick consult are those where the accused have the means (legitimate or not) to pay!
Given that we have voted to leave the EU how do you think they should be treated?
(1) allowed to stay without registration (risk of future illegal immigration from EU and risk of “windrush” scenario in future
(2) administrative registration with automatic approval (you could argue the fee is a bit petty given that the registration is being required by the government)
(3) choose between U.K. and EU citizenship - unreasonable
(4) mass deportation
Given where we are (2) seems like the most reasonable route for the government to take. Have I missed an option or would you prefer another choice?
I am not one of the blame remainers for everything brigade, but I can't help thinking that the £60 fee was slipped in by somebody who doesn't really believe in Brexit. It will raise a derisory amount of money but will ensure that people affected, many of whom will be British, will be motivated to complain about it. Another sack of coal on the Make Brexit Toxic steamer.
Nah it was just a monkey in the Treasury and none of the politicians thought about it from first principles so let it go through on the nod.
Very much the predictions I'd have expected from David Herdson who's long been hawkish on May's deal being the only credible option.
But the one think I'd like more detail on is what happens when th a Government declares no deal it's central planning assumption. Unless it's a bluff, I reckon that Gauke, Clark, Hammond, Rudd, etc quit the cabinet at that point, and the likes of Soubry, Wollaston, Boles quit the party. The markets go haywire, a company of the stature of Airbus announce that with regret they are implementing their contingency plan to leave the U.K. - how can the government survive all of that?
That would be one of the most significant moments of the whole process and I'm not sure the Government could survive that moment - but it's implied that it's not a big deal above. In the hard Brexiteer mindset anyway, but it could be riots on the streets stuff. How do you see that point being handled David?
I think the Party would more-or-less still hold together. The relevant point would be that the decision to make No Deal the planning assumption was a practical necessity, and that May's Deal remained on the table; were the government to plan for No Deal not as a working assumption but as a positive policy choice then yes, that would probably put the skids under the government as a whole.
The govt doesn't need to pivot, even on March 30th with post brexit ratification being (Still) the only option at that point ( Or the continuation of the post status quo of a no deal brexit)
Balderdash - you pay as much if not more to obtain residency in almost any EU country now. You so often argue cogently it's a shame that on this subject you are completely ott.
Given that we have voted to leave the EU how do you think they should be treated?
(1) allowed to stay without registration (risk of future illegal immigration from EU and risk of “windrush” scenario in future
(2) administrative registration with automatic approval (you could argue the fee is a bit petty given that the registration is being required by the government)
(3) choose between U.K. and EU citizenship - unreasonable
(4) mass deportation
Given where we are (2) seems like the most reasonable route for the government to take. Have I missed an option or would you prefer another choice?
Easy fix: just provide that the fee isn't payable by anybody over the retirement age/65/60.
Why on earth should comfortably off pensioners be exempt automatically?
Balderdash - you pay as much if not more to obtain residency in almost any EU country now. You so often argue cogently it's a shame that on this subject you are completely ott.
Your registration certificate should be issued immediately and cost no more than the price nationals pay for identity cards.
Has there yet been a single MP publicly change their mind to support Deal?
Not to my knowledge.
I think the trick for TM is to have the Deal considered as the default. So, rather than reject it and then go hunting for alternatives, you first look at the alternatives, see if one has support, and if not take the deal.
Given that the Deal (loathe it or dislike it) is there on the table and is the product of 2 years of best efforts negotiation between the UK government and the EU, I feel it has the right to be considered the default, i.e. if nothing else has support, it is what happens.
Still a shade of odds against at the bookies, however, that it does.
Balderdash - you pay as much if not more to obtain residency in almost any EU country now. You so often argue cogently it's a shame that on this subject you are completely ott.
Most will be dealt with electronically like ESTAs. They will flag up if data matchingbprives inconclusive.
Yes, it does look as if my German sister in law, resident in UK for 30 years and mother of 3 UK citizens has to apply for residence, or risk being an illegal on 1 Jan 2021 even under the WA. I can see that it is going to be another Windrush as the Home Office has to successfully process 4000 applications per day over that period.
They could have simplified it considerably by exempting spouses of UK citizens automatically.
I have just learnt that the Spanish girlfriend of a relative is moving to Ibiza and he's going too. No reason other than the political climate for EU citizens feels different now. As someone who has a home in France it did make me wonder whether things might eventually turn sour the other way. I'm coming to the conclusion that nothing short of a full reversal of the referendum should be acceptable to the 16.5 million Remainers. Possession is 9/10th of the law and we shouldn't give up our membership without a much more prolonged fight than we've done so far.
The honours list does seem to contain many people previously honoured, now having their baubles upgraded. For instance, just one BBC page includes CBEs for: Gruffalo author Julia Donaldson MBE; stage actress Sophie Okonedo OBE; violinist Nicola Benedetti MBE; artists Tacita Dean OBE and Gillian Wearing OBE. Is this usual or has the honours committee simply run out of ideas?
The whole system needs scrapping. It is beyond anachronistic.
It's not really as many nations have forms of civic awards, they're just called different things and they don't tend to add prefixes or post nomial letters. It's also entirely harmless as gongs don't confer any power or privilege anymore.
You'd have a better argument with peerages since those actually include power. Since gongs don't I don't really understand why people get so upset. I wouldn't be surprised if we keep them even after the monarchy is abolished - systems can be improved, but as we have one for recognising service there's no need to tear it down for a new one.
I take your point. Peerages in that case, but perhaps the knighthoods could be renamed as something less anachronistic and snobbish (unless you are suggesting that those knighted will provide their own swords, horses and men-at-arms when the sovereign leads them into battle)
Should be made to sit on their swords.
I would struggle to call anyone by their title. I'd just give them a nod and an "Alright, mate?"
The only people with titles that I know are “Dr” so and so. I do use those if honestly earned with a PhD or if they are medics, particularly at school.
Has there yet been a single MP publicly change their mind to support Deal?
Not to my knowledge.
I think the trick for TM is to have the Deal considered as the default. So, rather than reject it and then go hunting for alternatives, you first look at the alternatives, see if one has support, and if not take the deal.
Given that the Deal (loathe it or dislike it) is there on the table and is the product of 2 years of best efforts negotiation between the UK government and the EU, I feel it has the right to be considered the default, i.e. if nothing else has support, it is what happens.
Still a shade of odds against at the bookies, however, that it does.
It might have the right to be considered default but MPs have been focusing on unicorn renegotiations and assumptions that saying they don't want no deal magically means other options become more likely to be passed. Not enough think it is the default, they just see opportunity for their preferred options, so even if theirs is rejected at first they too would say they will get it on the second attempt.
Given that we have voted to leave the EU how do you think they should be treated?
(1) allowed to stay without registration (risk of future illegal immigration from EU and risk of “windrush” scenario in future
(2) administrative registration with automatic approval (you could argue the fee is a bit petty given that the registration is being required by the government)
(3) choose between U.K. and EU citizenship - unreasonable
(4) mass deportation
Given where we are (2) seems like the most reasonable route for the government to take. Have I missed an option or would you prefer another choice?
Easy fix: just provide that the fee isn't payable by anybody over the retirement age/65/60.
Why on earth should comfortably off pensioners be exempt automatically?
Why not? We they get all the bungs! And we they Vote!
I see that Tories actually realise how bad their evil policies are once they are personally affected , now that Nigel Evans has been beggared he has a damascene conversion and admits he was wrong to vote for the Tory policy. Poetic justice, if only more of them could be hoist by their own petards.
It does seem inequitable that a cleared defendant in a criminal case is not allowed to recover their costs. I could see the argument for capping it to “legal aid rates” (if there is such a tarrif, don’t know) and if they want a QC they pay the excess out of their own pocket but not reasonable to have nothing
'Want' a QC or 'need' the expertise of a QC?
We are returning to the days of 'Justice, like the Ritz Hotel, is open to all!'
I suspect that in most criminal cases that truly need the expertise of a QC for more than a quick consult are those where the accused have the means (legitimate or not) to pay!
Hard cases/bad law?
If it’s uncapped then the incentive is for defendants to choose the most expensive counsel. All I’m suggesting is a fixed reimbursement hourly rate. If a QC is willing to work for that they can.
Add in judicial discretion to authorise additional cost coverage if appropriate.
Given that we have voted to leave the EU how do you think they should be treated?
(1) allowed to stay without registration (risk of future illegal immigration from EU and risk of “windrush” scenario in future
(2) administrative registration with automatic approval (you could argue the fee is a bit petty given that the registration is being required by the government)
(3) choose between U.K. and EU citizenship - unreasonable
(4) mass deportation
Given where we are (2) seems like the most reasonable route for the government to take. Have I missed an option or would you prefer another choice?
I am not one of the blame remainers for everything brigade, but I can't help thinking that the £60 fee was slipped in by somebody who doesn't really believe in Brexit. It will raise a derisory amount of money but will ensure that people affected, many of whom will be British, will be motivated to complain about it. Another sack of coal on the Make Brexit Toxic steamer.
Nah it was just a monkey in the Treasury and none of the politicians thought about it from first principles so let it go through on the nod.
Bit rude to Carney there Charles
Carney doesn’t work for the Treasury. But I know of one occasion he has simply lied outright to protect himself. Didn’t care that someone else ended up under a bus as a result.
Yes, it does look as if my German sister in law, resident in UK for 30 years and mother of 3 UK citizens has to apply for residence, or risk being an illegal on 1 Jan 2021 even under the WA. I can see that it is going to be another Windrush as the Home Office has to successfully process 4000 applications per day over that period.
They could have simplified it considerably by exempting spouses of UK citizens automatically.
I have just learnt that the Spanish girlfriend of a relative is moving to Ibiza and he's going too. No reason other than the political climate for EU citizens feels different now. As someone who has a home in France it did make me wonder whether things might eventually turn sour the other way. I'm coming to the conclusion that nothing short of a full reversal of the referendum should be acceptable to the 16.5 million Remainers. Possession is 9/10th of the law and we shouldn't give up our membership without a much more prolonged fight than we've done so far.
That's right. Every step of the Brexit process has to be contested.
This is why any non-bonkers government will do pretty much anything to avoid No Deal: All the people currently thumping their tubs demanding that they do it will be blaming the government's heartlessness and incompetence for all the actual consequences of No Deal.
Yes, it does look as if my German sister in law, resident in UK for 30 years and mother of 3 UK citizens has to apply for residence, or risk being an illegal on 1 Jan 2021 even under the WA. I can see that it is going to be another Windrush as the Home Office has to successfully process 4000 applications per day over that period.
They could have simplified it considerably by exempting spouses of UK citizens automatically.
It is utterly laughable that the EU fanatics like you and Meeks are now complaining about EU citizens having to do in Britain what they have had to do in practically every other EU country for decades.
It does show the hypocrisy and ignorance of Remoaners that they think this is somehow exceptional either inside or outside the EU.
Yes, it does look as if my German sister in law, resident in UK for 30 years and mother of 3 UK citizens has to apply for residence, or risk being an illegal on 1 Jan 2021 even under the WA. I can see that it is going to be another Windrush as the Home Office has to successfully process 4000 applications per day over that period.
They could have simplified it considerably by exempting spouses of UK citizens automatically.
. No reason other than the political climate for EU citizens feels different now.
That's a shame - and of course, "how they feel' is the appropriate metric for them.
But it shouldn't be read across into a broader picture - on many measures the UK remains among the more open and tolerant societies in Europe.
Balderdash - you pay as much if not more to obtain residency in almost any EU country now. You so often argue cogently it's a shame that on this subject you are completely ott.
Yes, it does look as if my German sister in law, resident in UK for 30 years and mother of 3 UK citizens has to apply for residence, or risk being an illegal on 1 Jan 2021 even under the WA. I can see that it is going to be another Windrush as the Home Office has to successfully process 4000 applications per day over that period.
They could have simplified it considerably by exempting spouses of UK citizens automatically.
It is utterly laughable that the EU fanatics like you and Meeks are now complaining about EU citizens having to do in Britain what they have had to do in practically every other EU country for decades.
It does show the hypocrisy and ignorance of Remoaners that they think this is somehow exceptional either inside or outside the EU.
You don’t change the rules retrospectively and especially not for the old and the vulnerable.
The honours list does seem to contain many people previously honoured, now having their baubles upgraded. For instance, just one BBC page includes CBEs for: Gruffalo author Julia Donaldson MBE; stage actress Sophie Okonedo OBE; violinist Nicola Benedetti MBE; artists Tacita Dean OBE and Gillian Wearing OBE. Is this usual or has the honours committee simply run out of ideas?
The whole system needs scrapping. It is beyond anachronistic.
It's not really as many nations have forms of civic awards, they're just called different things and they don't tend to add prefixes or post nomial letters. It's also entirely harmless as gongs don't confer any power or privilege anymore.
You'd have a better argument with peerages since those actually include power. Since gongs don't I don't really understand why people get so upset. I wouldn't be surprised if we keep them even after the monarchy is abolished - systems can be improved, but as we have one for recognising service there's no need to tear it down for a new one.
I take your point. Peerages in that case, but perhaps the knighthoods could be renamed as something less anachronistic and snobbish (unless you are suggesting that those knighted will provide their own swords, horses and men-at-arms when the sovereign leads them into battle)
Should be made to sit on their swords.
I would struggle to call anyone by their title. I'd just give them a nod and an "Alright, mate?"
The only people with titles that I know are “Dr” so and so. I do use those if honestly earned with a PhD or if they are medics, particularly at school.
If the medics, start calling me 'Engineer' I'll start calling them 'Doctor'.
There is a difference between a job title and a bestowed title.
It might have the right to be considered default but MPs have been focusing on unicorn renegotiations and assumptions that saying they don't want no deal magically means other options become more likely to be passed. Not enough think it is the default, they just see opportunity for their preferred options, so even if theirs is rejected at first they too would say they will get it on the second attempt.
I agree. This is the nub of the matter. Everyone wants their preference to be the default position after everything else has gone down. I'm expecting May to prevail in this because she has the levers of government.
What would be interesting, however, is if the Deal goes down in Jan by a much bigger margin than a 2nd referendum amendment is defeated by.
Balderdash - you pay as much if not more to obtain residency in almost any EU country now. You so often argue cogently it's a shame that on this subject you are completely ott.
Yes, it does look as if my German sister in law, resident in UK for 30 years and mother of 3 UK citizens has to apply for residence, or risk being an illegal on 1 Jan 2021 even under the WA. I can see that it is going to be another Windrush as the Home Office has to successfully process 4000 applications per day over that period.
They could have simplified it considerably by exempting spouses of UK citizens automatically.
It is utterly laughable that the EU fanatics like you and Meeks are now complaining about EU citizens having to do in Britain what they have had to do in practically every other EU country for decades.
It does show the hypocrisy and ignorance of Remoaners that they think this is somehow exceptional either inside or outside the EU.
You don’t change the rules retrospectively and especially not for the old and the vulnerable.
Yes, it does look as if my German sister in law, resident in UK for 30 years and mother of 3 UK citizens has to apply for residence, or risk being an illegal on 1 Jan 2021 even under the WA. I can see that it is going to be another Windrush as the Home Office has to successfully process 4000 applications per day over that period.
They could have simplified it considerably by exempting spouses of UK citizens automatically.
I have just learnt that the Spanish girlfriend of a relative is moving to Ibiza and he's going too. No reason other than the political climate for EU citizens feels different now. As someone who has a home in France it did make me wonder whether things might eventually turn sour the other way. I'm coming to the conclusion that nothing short of a full reversal of the referendum should be acceptable to the 16.5 million Remainers. Possession is 9/10th of the law and we shouldn't give up our membership without a much more prolonged fight than we've done so far.
I do hope your relative will remember he has to register with the authorities if he wants to live in Spain for more than 3 months. He will also need to have proof that he can support himself and have his own medical insurance.
Nobody was suggesting it at the time of the referendum and to be honest if anyone other than Theresa May had become PM I suspect the status of EU nationals living in the UK would have been secured within the opening day of the negotiations?
Balderdash - you pay as much if not more to obtain residency in almost any EU country now. You so often argue cogently it's a shame that on this subject you are completely ott.
Yes, it does look as if my German sister in law, resident in UK for 30 years and mother of 3 UK citizens has to apply for residence, or risk being an illegal on 1 Jan 2021 even under the WA. I can see that it is going to be another Windrush as the Home Office has to successfully process 4000 applications per day over that period.
They could have simplified it considerably by exempting spouses of UK citizens automatically.
It is utterly laughable that the EU fanatics like you and Meeks are now complaining about EU citizens having to do in Britain what they have had to do in practically every other EU country for decades.
It does show the hypocrisy and ignorance of Remoaners that they think this is somehow exceptional either inside or outside the EU.
You don’t change the rules retrospectively and especially not for the old and the vulnerable.
Where are the rules changing retrospectively?
90 year olds have been able to live here for many years without having to apply for a hefty fee to remain.
I think David is closer to what will happen than Alastair overall, though I doubt there’ll be a general election.
The Labour leadership’s pro-Brexit positioning has definitely reduced the chances of a Labour split because it has significantly increased the chances of a relatively quick defeat of the far left inside the party. How the Tories reunite, though, is harder to call.
Comments
That was hugely controversial at the time - it”s the highest honour available to a foreign leader and one of the few in the personal gift of the Monarch
Morning, Malc!
I also agree on the main point of difference - that of party loyalty. The reason I take the view I do is that MPs are themselves generally party loyalists, for both emotional and practical reasons (my predictions would probably be very different if Britain had PR, but it doesn't). There will certainly be rebellions - and I predict a very big one on May's Deal - but that won't lead to a realignment.
Indeed, the chance of a realignment has markedly diminished this last month, with the scales finally falling from some former Corbyn supporters and his star on the wane. This means the moderates will see a chance of recapturing their party rather than needing to split from it. Of course, if there is a second election, if Labour loses again (quite possible if May can point to having delivered a managed Brexit while Labour is still struggling from the 'double betrayal' of (1) having voted with the Tories and (2) not backed Remain), then Corbyn's successor might also be from the left fringe - which then makes defections and a realignment a real possibility again. But that's a lot of 'if's.
But overall, I expect that inertia and the scale of the division between the parties to keep the fundamental structure the same, for now.
Even Hannan is reduced to whining about BBC drama rather than addressing the elephant in the room.
I cannot say I feel comfortable with the courts telling parliament what options it can legislate for. You are able to revisit things previously rejected, it is not reasonable to rule it out. It's ridiculous, but not unreasonable.
But I can easily imagine MPs slipping in a clause that says "None of the provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 shall be applicable to this Referendum."
(1) allowed to stay without registration (risk of future illegal immigration from EU and risk of “windrush” scenario in future
(2) administrative registration with automatic approval (you could argue the fee is a bit petty given that the registration is being required by the government)
(3) choose between U.K. and EU citizenship - unreasonable
(4) mass deportation
Given where we are (2) seems like the most reasonable route for the government to take. Have I missed an option or would you prefer another choice?
(And not having resolved it, she should still be out of office. But then, she took a bullet for Theresa May not having resolved it when she was Home Secretary. For all those years when, it seemed, nothing was going wrong on her watch.....)
But when push comes to shove, when no other options are available and the undemocratic Remain is removed, the catastrophic No Deal is removed, I would reluctantly vote for the Deal as the least-worst option. I think that when it comes to it, enough Labour and Tory MPs will come to that same conclusion too. Sure, the likes of the hardcore ERG and Corbyn will remain opposed but those who are instinctively practical politicians - and that remains a large portion of both main parties, because they *are* the parties of government - will see the reality of the situation.
If they are not ported to a new category (ie settled status) then why/how should they be treated differently to any future EU spouse of a U.K. citizen?
Also (and obviously speaking generally not about your case) if you don’t have a new category how do you manage future separations/divorces?
It's a moral mission now for no dealers and continuity remainers. They are driving things and no risks are too great when on a moral mission. You can see it in their language.
Commentators on here have posted about the Coalition was a time of 'good government'; as a long time Lib and LD voter I feel rather ashamed of some of the policies it introduced, the Legal Air 'reform' which Nigel Evans being but one of them.
The political content is not up to the Electoral Commission. (They couldn't insist "No Deal" is on the ballot paper for instance).
The Electoral Commission merely checks that the referendum question presents the options clearly, simply and neutrally. So it should:
• be easy to understand
• be to the point
• be unambiguous
• avoid encouraging voters to consider one response more favourably than another
• avoid misleading voters
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/82626/Referendum-Question-guidelines-final.pdf
Gradually significant change while pretending nothing has changed is very British after all.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-domaindev-st_emea&hsimp=yhs-st_emea&hspart=domaindev&p=Alexander+Betts+Ted+Talks#id=1&vid=819df4e10cee9197f1ad8a249619e223&action=click
https://twitter.com/Barristerblog/status/1078927381413482496
I mean Edward Leigh a member of the Privy Council ferfuxsake.
We are returning to the days of 'Justice, like the Ritz Hotel, is open to all!'
You create a new category (let’s call it “settled status”) and ask people to register for it free of charge
A bit of a hassle but not that much of a challenge
Edit/ and there is no recourse to the courts, anyway, not least because in law the 2016 vote was merely advisory.
https://twitter.com/Jonscoasting/status/1078953145760395264
But from the punter's point of view a win is a win.
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2018/12/britains-so-soppy-we-cant-even-fight-off-a-toy-helicopter.html
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/192093/GfK-Report-EU-Referendum-Question-Testing-2015-WEB.pdf
Your comment is naughty
https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/residence/documents-formalities/registering-residence/index_en.htm
Since the UK Passport fee (minimum) is £75.50 it appears we are fully aligned with EU practice:
https://www.gov.uk/passport-fees
I think the trick for TM is to have the Deal considered as the default. So, rather than reject it and then go hunting for alternatives, you first look at the alternatives, see if one has support, and if not take the deal.
Given that the Deal (loathe it or dislike it) is there on the table and is the product of 2 years of best efforts negotiation between the UK government and the EU, I feel it has the right to be considered the default, i.e. if nothing else has support, it is what happens.
Still a shade of odds against at the bookies, however, that it does.
They will flag up if data matchingbprives inconclusive.
Add in judicial discretion to authorise additional cost coverage if appropriate.
It does show the hypocrisy and ignorance of Remoaners that they think this is somehow exceptional either inside or outside the EU.
https://twitter.com/danieljhannan/status/705375753303683072?s=21
But it shouldn't be read across into a broader picture - on many measures the UK remains among the more open and tolerant societies in Europe.
There is a difference between a job title and a bestowed title.
What would be interesting, however, is if the Deal goes down in Jan by a much bigger margin than a 2nd referendum amendment is defeated by.
That would really fire up the PV campaign.
The Labour leadership’s pro-Brexit positioning has definitely reduced the chances of a Labour split because it has significantly increased the chances of a relatively quick defeat of the far left inside the party. How the Tories reunite, though, is harder to call.