I think revoking A50 would hit the Conservatives' vote share hard.
Yes, I think so too. The only route beyond the WA for May is No Deal and to hope the impacts are minimal enough for most people not to be too worried.
Whether that's the only route for Conservative MPs is another question.
Deal or No Deal MPs combined have 339 MPs according to Rentoul today, above the 326 threshold needed for a majority, EUref2 with a Remain option has just 300 MPs. That leaves Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal referendum as a last resort for May
Deal or Remain MPs combined have 500 MPs according to Rentoul today, above the 326 threshold needed for a majority, EUref2 with a No Deal option has just 115 MPs. That leaves Leave with Deal v Remain referendum as a last resort for May
NFL need to change kick off rules as seems more unlikely to recover an onside kick than get mays deal through parliament.
The NFL are trying to get rid of the kick off. It's only because of the onside kick that they have not already done so. It seems to me that the formation changes to the onside kick were made so that everyone would say "oh, just get rid of the kick off as this is pointless."
Protection of the QBs has got silly this season too. Safety is important, but this is a contact sport. If you don't want to get hurt, go play tiddlywinks.
I want to see the kick off go the other way. If you boot it out the back, restart even further up the field and really force kickers to try and hit the 0-10 yard area.
As for QB protection, yes all the tackle but can’t end up with your weight on them is nonsense.
Agree on the kick off. Kick it out the back of the end zone and your opponent starts on the 30 yard line, and if you take a knee in the end zone, you start on the 10 yard line.
Do you think the NFL has a long-term future as America’s leading sport? I struggle to see it considering declining viewing audiences, growing numbers of parents who won’t let their sons play because of the brain damage issue, and demographic chance aiding the rise of football.
What sport will overtake it? Baseball is down the pan more than NFL & and YouTube generation are even more unlikely to be excited by a long game where nothing exciting happens for ages. NBA just doesn’t have the same level of constant excitement. Hockey is just as violent as NFL.
The reason nfl is some popular is provides constant excitement, virtually no blow out games and combined with ability to have ad breaks inserted seamlessly.
I’ve always liked NFL but this year I’ve been watching NFL redzone on Sky Sports and it is great - all key action across split screens
Redzone is the shit. Other sports need to copy it. I know sky have soccer Saturday but it just isn’t the same not being able to see the action.
Soccer Saturday is the same it just suits NFL better. The slow build up which can be boring when watching 1 game is actually good across multiple games
Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.
Even so, he considerably outperformed the UNS. If Kinnock had taken seats proportionate to his rise in votes, Major would have had a majority of 77, and it's not hard to imagine the history of his premiership might have been somewhat different. For a start, Maastricht would have been much easier to pass.
True, I think tactical voting was partly responsible for the majority of 21.
The press turned against the Tories in the end .
But which matters more now, the print media or the social media?
It depends on the demographics you want to communicate a message toward and gain votes from that specific group of people.
The older voters who historically have a higher propensity to vote are more likely to take information on board via print media. Obviously you will always find an exception to the rule but even today the printed media is highly influential with older voters. If the Sun, the Mail, the Telegraph and Express all withdraw their mainly supportive coverage like they did in the 1990s then the Tories will be in serious trouble. It is the drip-drip effect of news over years that can damage political parties.
Social media is an interesting development
Print media drop their circulations every year, theirs is a dwindling market and influence. Social media is consumer, rather than editor driven.
True but I think circulation underestimates newspaper influence given the volume of visitors to newspaper websites. I am particularly interested in the Daily Mails web presence as it has a very strong following.
I agree, the print media is not yet dead, but it certainly has a lot less influence than 20 years ago in the heyday of Blair and Mandleson.
I am not so sure that it is not as influential as a whole, look at Brexit, the Tory press delivered that as they laid the groundwork for the outcome. Blair and Mandelson had an obsession with the media because of Foot and more pertinently Kinnocks portrayal in the press. The internet has certainly fragmented and changed communication but the press is still very important and one should not underestimate it. Every evening Sky and the BBC have a press preview not a social media summary.
He doesn't present himself as wanting anything other than to replace the Tories. No one' s interested in his personal ambition but they are interested in what he might do. So far not a word that makes sense
OMG - surely this is the kind of crap that undermines Corbyn. The IRA stuff is too much for me but it was 20 years ago - this is right now and happens repeatedly.
So May can’t have another vote on her deal. No deal it is...
That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
Not sure about that Ben. This is from the article:
On repeat votes, Erskine May says: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”
Might be one for Mr Squeaker to adjudicate on. How he would love that!
Chuka Umunna told Sky’s Sophie Ridge this morning that he had checked with the House of Commons clerks who confirmed that the exact same meaningful vote cannot be held in the same session. Neither could a slightly re-worded version (as in one word being changed).
And yet Labour’s polling is remarkably resilient notwithstanding Corbyn’s marmite character. A loss of Tory support to the LibDems could still see Corbyn in power which would be a disastrous outcome.
Since when is Labour being down 6% from 2017 to just 34% today evidence of 'Labour's polling is remarkably resilient'?
There is no loss of Tory support to the LDs, the movement is from Labour to the LDs
Polls fluctuate over time and are often wrong. Treating the latest as gospel is unbelievably naive, particularly given what happened in the last election.
I didn’t say there was a loss of support. I said there could be. Given the number of Tory Remain MPs threatening to resign the whip and Grieve openly speculating about Brexit leading to a split in the Tory Party, I think your complacency is worryingly naive.
The vast majority of Tory voters either back Deal or No Deal in the polls, barely a handful back Remain now and want to reverse Brexit. The Tories are far more at risk of losing voters to UKIP by revoking Brexit than they are of losing voters to the LDs even in the event of No Deal.
The vast majority of Labour voters though back Remain and EUref2 so the longer Corbyn refuses to back EUref2 with a Remain option the more Labour is likely to continue to lose voters to the LDs
The parliamentary Tory Party is still heavily Remain oriented and many of those constituencies could easily be lost - Putney, Richmond, Winchester, Eastleigh etc
UKIP are a busted flush. They have gone from being a one trick pony on immigration to a one trick party obsessed with Islam.
The vast majority of Tory seats voted Leave, UKIP or a new Farage Party would revive quicker than Lazarus if the Tories revoked Brexit and Corbyn would be handed the next general election on a plate if large numbers of Tory Leavers moved to them.
Even of the Remain seats you mention the majority are Tory v LD marginals, not Tory v Labour
Personally I very much look forward, as that chap seems to be, when people who in dedicated fashion take the party line then have to argue the opposite when the leader changes position. We're all inconsistent, but the intensity of the switch from the most devoted is usually good for a laugh.
Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.
.
True, I think tactical voting was partly responsible for the majority of 21.
The press turned against the Tories in the end .
But which matters more now, the print media or the social media?
It depends on the demographics you want to communicate a message toward and gain votes from that specific group of people.
The older voters who historically have a higher propensity to vote are more likely to take information on board via print media. Obviously you will always find an exception to the rule but even today the printed media is highly influential with older voters. If the Sun, the Mail, the Telegraph and Express all withdraw their mainly supportive coverage like they did in the 1990s then the Tories will be in serious trouble. It is the drip-drip effect of news over years that can damage political parties.
Social media is an interesting development
Print media drop their circulations every year, theirs is a dwindling market and influence. Social media is consumer, rather than editor driven.
True but I think circulation underestimates newspaper influence given the volume of visitors to newspaper websites. I am particularly interested in the Daily Mails web presence as it has a very strong following.
I agree, the print media is not yet dead, but it certainly has a lot less influence than 20 years ago in the heyday of Blair and Mandleson.
I am not so sure that it is not as influential as a whole, look at Brexit, the Tory press delivered that as they laid the groundwork for the outcome. Blair and Mandelson had an obsession with the media because of Foot and more pertinently Kinnocks portrayal in the press. The internet has certainly fragmented and changed communication but the press is still very important and one should not underestimate it. Every evening Sky and the BBC have a press preview not a social media summary.
I think that with the relative decline of the print media the power of the BBC has increased, it dominates both the television news, and website media.
I think revoking A50 would hit the Conservatives' vote share hard.
Yes, I think so too. The only route beyond the WA for May is No Deal and to hope the impacts are minimal enough for most people not to be too worried.
Whether that's the only route for Conservative MPs is another question.
Deal or No Deal MPs combined have 339 MPs according to Rentoul today, above the 326 threshold needed for a majority, EUref2 with a Remain option has just 300 MPs. That leaves Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal referendum as a last resort for May
Deal or Remain MPs combined have 500 MPs according to Rentoul today, above the 326 threshold needed for a majority, EUref2 with a No Deal option has just 115 MPs. That leaves Leave with Deal v Remain referendum as a last resort for May
The vast majority of Deal backers are Tories and will not vote for a Remain v Deal referendum and May certainly will not allow that to go forward given a plurality of Tory voters and a majority of Tory members back No Deal it would be political suicide for the Tories to allow a referendum without a No Deal option.
OMG - surely this is the kind of crap that undermines Corbyn. The IRA stuff is too much for me but it was 20 years ago - this is right now and happens repeatedly.
It may undermine Corbyn if it came from a Labour member. But this is from a member of the Green Party. Not sure how such snipes from the Greens is supposed to undermine Corbyn.
So May can’t have another vote on her deal. No deal it is...
That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
Not sure about that Ben. This is from the article:
On repeat votes, Erskine May says: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”
Might be one for Mr Squeaker to adjudicate on. How he would love that!
Chuka Umunna told Sky’s Sophie Ridge this morning that he had checked with the House of Commons clerks who confirmed that the exact same meaningful vote cannot be held in the same session. Neither could a slightly re-worded version (as in one word being changed).
Only by parliamentary convention, it has no legal force if the executive decides otherwise
OMG - surely this is the kind of crap that undermines Corbyn. The IRA stuff is too much for me but it was 20 years ago - this is right now and happens repeatedly.
Oh no - taken in by a troll. It may help if I understood twitter.- tried to use it but just don’t get it.
This almost sounded like a reasonable reply until that classic last sentence. A master class in patronising tosh.
In actual fact you’ve nothing to base your Leave position on apart from windy garbage that “we” just don’t fit in.
We don’t have an optimal currency area. We don’t have a common legal system. We don’t have a unified demos. We have different global interests. That’s 4 for a start.
It makes a lot of sense to trade and cooperate with our European neighbours. The EU isn’t the right structure for us. In my view Cameron’s real failure (and Merkel) was that they were to able to develop a structure that could accommodate those different needs while preserving what is good about the set up.
May (and Merkel and Barnier)’s failure is they haven’t been able to focus on the bigger picture.
These are all question begging declarations, except the first which makes no sense given we are not in the Euro.
I agree with your points about the varyinf failures, but would have to say the fault lies largely with the U.K.
Well you rather offensively said that my leave position was based on “windy garbage”. I gave you four statements (or “declarations”) if you like on why we are a poor fit for the EU. I didn’t write a thesis on them each but they are all points that people debate - you’ve chosen to dismiss them simply because you don’t have an answer.
But I’m a charitable soul so will give you a second chance.
1. OCA - power inside the EU is structurally concentrated in the Eurozone (particularly the interplay with QMV). If we are not in the EZ we are not - and cannot be - “at the heart of Europe”. Read Otmar Issing’s work on OCAs - we are not one - so it makes no sense for us to join the EZ. I’d rather be a friendly neighbour than a junior partner.
2. Common legal system? Umm... Napoleonic Code vs Common Law principles?
3. Unified Demos - more of a theoretical discussion but until the people of Europe truly vote on a pan-European basis there will be a democratic deficit and lack of accountability in the EU. That’s not acceptable in my view
4. Different global interests. For some reason Germany is much softer on Russia than we are. It might be to do with their dependence on Russian gas. I think they are wrong headed and short-termist but it’s up to them to decide what the right policy is for Germany. But there’s a different “right policy” for the U.K. because...umm... we have different interests.
NFL need to change kick off rules as seems more unlikely to recover an onside kick than get mays deal through parliament.
The NFL are trying to get rid of the kick off. It's only because of the onside kick that they have not already done so. It seems to me that the formation changes to the onside kick were made so that everyone would say "oh, just get rid of the kick off as this is pointless."
Protection of the QBs has got silly this season too. Safety is important, but this is a contact sport. If you don't want to get hurt, go play tiddlywinks.
I want to see the kick off go the other way. If you boot it out the back, restart even further up the field and really force kickers to try and hit the 0-10 yard area.
As for QB protection, yes all the tackle but can’t end up with your weight on them is nonsense.
Agree on the kick off. Kick it out the back of the end zone and your opponent starts on the 30 yard line, and if you take a knee in the end zone, you start on the 10 yard line.
Do you think the NFL has a long-term future as America’s leading sport? I struggle to see it considering declining viewing audiences, growing numbers of parents who won’t let their sons play because of the brain damage issue, and demographic chance aiding the rise of football.
What sport will overtake it? Baseball is down the pan more than NFL & and YouTube generation are even more unlikely to be excited by a long game where nothing exciting happens for ages. NBA just doesn’t have the same level of constant excitement. Hockey is just as violent as NFL.
The reason nfl is some popular is provides constant excitement, virtually no blow out games and combined with ability to have ad breaks inserted seamlessly.
I’ve always liked NFL but this year I’ve been watching NFL redzone on Sky Sports and it is great - all key action across split screens
Redzone is the shit. Other sports need to copy it. I know sky have soccer Saturday but it just isn’t the same not being able to see the action.
Soccer Saturday is often hillarious as the presenters try and describe what they’re not allowed to show.
Alternatively, walk into any bar in Expatsville at 3pm UK time on a Saturday, and see six screens showing six matches, all with Sky English commentary! There’s a rumour that Sky are going to press hard to be allowed to show the 3pm games from the next TV contract, given the huge amount of pirate steaming back to the UK from the foreign transmissions that goes on at the moment.
I think revoking A50 would hit the Conservatives' vote share hard.
Yes, I think so too. The only route beyond the WA for May is No Deal and to hope the impacts are minimal enough for most people not to be too worried.
Whether that's the only route for Conservative MPs is another question.
Deal or No Deal MPs combined have 339 MPs according to Rentoul today, above the 326 threshold needed for a majority, EUref2 with a Remain option has just 300 MPs. That leaves Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal referendum as a last resort for May
Deal or Remain MPs combined have 500 MPs according to Rentoul today, above the 326 threshold needed for a majority, EUref2 with a No Deal option has just 115 MPs. That leaves Leave with Deal v Remain referendum as a last resort for May
The vast majority of Deal backers are Tories and will not vote for a Remain v Deal referendum and May certainly will not allow that to go forward given a plurality of Tory voters and a majority of Tory members back No Deal it would be political suicide for the Tories to allow a referendum without a No Deal option.
The majority of Tory members may back No Deal but Mrs May doesn't, so she's got a problem with her members anyway. I doubt she cares much. She's not looking for their votes for the leadership.
She cares passionately about her Deal. If the only way to get it through parliament is to offer it with a second referendum , Deal or Remain, she would get it through as 500 MPs support Deal or Remain. The Tories are committing political suicide anyway unless she gets her Deal passed, and even then they're in trouble with the awkward squad.
So May can’t have another vote on her deal. No deal it is...
That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
Not sure about that Ben. This is from the article:
On repeat votes, Erskine May says: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”
Might be one for Mr Squeaker to adjudicate on. How he would love that!
Chuka Umunna told Sky’s Sophie Ridge this morning that he had checked with the House of Commons clerks who confirmed that the exact same meaningful vote cannot be held in the same session. Neither could a slightly re-worded version (as in one word being changed).
Mmmm. Ok fair enough, I could have got that wrong. I guess we will find out in the next few weeks (possibly).
1. OCA - power inside the EU is structurally concentrated in the Eurozone (particularly the interplay with QMV). If we are not in the EZ we are not - and cannot be - “at the heart of Europe”. Read Otmar Issing’s work on OCAs - we are not one - so it makes no sense for us to join the EZ. I’d rather be a friendly neighbour than a junior partner.
2. Common legal system? Umm... Napoleonic Code vs Common Law principles?
3. Unified Demos - more of a theoretical discussion but until the people of Europe truly vote on a pan-European basis there will be a democratic deficit and lack of accountability in the EU. That’s not acceptable in my view
4. Different global interests. For some reason Germany is much softer on Russia than we are. It might be to do with their dependence on Russian gas. I think they are wrong headed and short-termist but it’s up to them to decide what the right policy is for Germany. But there’s a different “right policy” for the U.K. because...umm... we have different interests.
1. Currency territories are always politically defined, not based on OCAs. Is the UK an OCA? There's no reason for us not to join the Eurozone.
2. So what? Both Canada and the US combine civil and common law in the same system.
3. There's no unified UK demos, so should we dissolve the UK?
4. That's opinion, not fact. The UK was the number one source of foreign investment in Russia last year.
On print v social media: social media is only really a delivery mechanism. Facebook isn’t generating content, and although its algorithms can shape what flies, it’s basically a popularity contest for stories and, longer-term, brands who can get the most likes/shares/clicks.
So the Mail (and Sky and the BBC and other big media providers) are powerful because they get traction among readers there. This transition has been far easier in an editorial sense - trusted brands remaining trusted in a new sphere - than it has been financially. That is, with the exception of the Mail, no-one’s worked out how to monetise it.
The problem is that some real bollocks-merchants (or “non-traditional media”, as I believe they prefer to be known), can easily muscle in with stuff which is nonsense but clickworthy. In itself, it’s not a bad thing, but the evidence is that consumers aren’t yet judging the relative strength of the political reporting in the Times versus a polemic by an intern on EvolvePolitics. There are some new media who’ve taken advantage (editorially if not financially) without racing to the bottom (HuffPost... maybe BuzzFeed, even some of Guido’s reporting as opposed to the comments). Where I think people *have* got the hang of it is that a comment from JRM or JC on twitter *is* just an opinion with all the baggage you’d expect.
And whatever those publishers’ successes, most of them have decent online platforms for their social accounts to link to: no-one’s actually just putting news on Facebook.
So, yes there’s a shift to digital; yes social is part of that; but big brands still dominate and people want a trusted guide. The tools are there for a democratisation of the media, but while the Mail’s front page isn’t as powerful as 20 years ago (even with the digital buzz it creates), it’s still a bigger influencer than JRM’s Twitter account.
So May can’t have another vote on her deal. No deal it is...
That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
Not sure about that Ben. This is from the article:
On repeat votes, Erskine May says: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”
Might be one for Mr Squeaker to adjudicate on. How he would love that!
Chuka Umunna told Sky’s Sophie Ridge this morning that he had checked with the House of Commons clerks who confirmed that the exact same meaningful vote cannot be held in the same session. Neither could a slightly re-worded version (as in one word being changed).
Only by parliamentary convention, it has no legal force if the executive decides otherwise
If the executive decides to ignore parliamentary convention, they are in danger of parliament taking back control by freezing all legislation and making the government impotent. It would be the nuclear option.
Anyone who believes the Never Brexit MPs can starve the government of funds in the event of no deal needs to follow Nikki da Costa on twitter. Royal assent for the finance bill is not required until May.
Strikes me that there is still nothing that can be done to stop Brexit happening - whatever happens - provided the Govt retains the confidence of the house.
So May can’t have another vote on her deal. No deal it is...
That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
Not sure about that Ben. This is from the article:
On repeat votes, Erskine May says: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”
Might be one for Mr Squeaker to adjudicate on. How he would love that!
Chuka Umunna told Sky’s Sophie Ridge this morning that he had checked with the House of Commons clerks who confirmed that the exact same meaningful vote cannot be held in the same session. Neither could a slightly re-worded version (as in one word being changed).
Only by parliamentary convention, it has no legal force if the executive decides otherwise
If the executive decides to ignore parliamentary convention, they are in danger of parliament taking back control by freezing all legislation and making the government impotent. It would be the nuclear option.
What legislation do you think needs to be passed before Brexit?
So May can’t have another vote on her deal. No deal it is...
That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
Not sure about that Ben. This is from the article:
On repeat votes, Erskine May says: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”
Might be one for Mr Squeaker to adjudicate on. How he would love that!
Chuka Umunna told Sky’s Sophie Ridge this morning that he had checked with the House of Commons clerks who confirmed that the exact same meaningful vote cannot be held in the same session. Neither could a slightly re-worded version (as in one word being changed).
Only by parliamentary convention, it has no legal force if the executive decides otherwise
If the executive decides to ignore parliamentary convention, they are in danger of parliament taking back control by freezing all legislation and making the government impotent. It would be the nuclear option.
By the sound of things Cooper et al plan to do that if the government tries for a No Deal option anyway, something has to give
I think revoking A50 would hit the Conservatives' vote share hard.
Yes, I think so too. The only route beyond the WA for May is No Deal and to hope the impacts are minimal enough for most people not to be too worried.
Whether that's the only route for Conservative MPs is another question.
Deal or No Deal MPs combined have 339 MPs according to Rentoul today, above the 326 threshold needed for a majority, EUref2 with a Remain option has just 300 MPs. That leaves Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal referendum as a last resort for May
Deal or Remain MPs combined have 500 MPs according to Rentoul today, above the 326 threshold needed for a majority, EUref2 with a No Deal option has just 115 MPs. That leaves Leave with Deal v Remain referendum as a last resort for May
The vast majority of Deal backers are Tories and will not vote for a Remain v Deal referendum and May certainly will not allow that to go forward given a plurality of Tory voters and a majority of Tory members back No Deal it would be political suicide for the Tories to allow a referendum without a No Deal option.
The majority of Tory members may back No Deal but Mrs May doesn't, so she's got a problem with her members anyway. I doubt she cares much. She's not looking for their votes for the leadership.
She cares passionately about her Deal. If the only way to get it through parliament is to offer it with a second referendum , Deal or Remain, she would get it through as 500 MPs support Deal or Remain. The Tories are committing political suicide anyway unless she gets her Deal passed, and even then they're in trouble with the awkward squad.
I think the only way a referendum gets through is with two questions/three answers. Any two outcomes on the ballot will have supporters of the third crying betrayal - probably noisily enough to block it. I don’t underestimate the problems such a vote would cause, but I’m not seeing any massively optimal outcomes here.
Richard, I'm fluent in French and German, which are two of the six languages I'm fluent in.
[Swaggering] That's nothing! I have GCSE A-grades in French and German
Strange that TSE should think that fluency in other languages means he actually knows what the people of those countries are thinking. I am also fluent in French and Norwegian but clearly the people I talk to on a daily basis are very different to those that TSE imagines in his fevered Europhile dreams.
I think revoking A50 would hit the Conservatives' vote share hard.
Yes, I think so too. The only route beyond the WA for May is No Deal and to hope the impacts are minimal enough for most people not to be too worried.
Whether that's the only route for Conservative MPs is another question.
Deal or No Deal MPs combined have 339 MPs according to Rentoul today, above the 326 threshold needed for a majority, EUref2 with a Remain option has just 300 MPs. That leaves Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal referendum as a last resort for May
Deal or Remain MPs combined have 500 MPs according to Rentoul today, above the 326 threshold needed for a majority, EUref2 with a No Deal option has just 115 MPs. That leaves Leave with Deal v Remain referendum as a last resort for May
The vast majority of Deal backers are Tories and will not vote for a Remain v Deal referendum and May certainly will not allow that to go forward given a plurality of Tory voters and a majority of Tory members back No Deal it would be political suicide for the Tories to allow a referendum without a No Deal option.
The majority of Tory members may back No Deal but Mrs May doesn't, so she's got a problem with her members anyway. I doubt she cares much. She's not looking for their votes for the leadership.
She cares passionately about her Deal. If the only way to get it through parliament is to offer it with a second referendum , Deal or Remain, she would get it through as 500 MPs support Deal or Remain. The Tories are committing political suicide anyway unless she gets her Deal passed, and even then they're in trouble with the awkward squad.
She will be looking though to keep Tory voters in the tent and she cannot afford to lose No Deal Tory voters to UKIP or a new Farage Party.
May also can read the polls, Deal tends to beat No Deal comfortably, however Deal only ties Remain at best. The best way to get the Deal to win any referendum is against a No Deal option ie either Deal v No Deal or Leave v Remain and if Leave wins then Leave with Deal v No Deal. Leave with Deal v Remain is the Deal's least likely way of winning.
Anyone who believes the Never Brexit MPs can starve the government of funds in the event of no deal needs to follow Nikki da Costa on twitter. Royal assent for the finance bill is not required until May.
Strikes me that there is still nothing that can be done to stop Brexit happening - whatever happens - provided the Govt retains the confidence of the house.
I don't think it will. If May holds firm at some point those who claim to want to stop no deal will have to take action if things like this finance matter don't work. The Tory remainers in particular will face a choice - they cannot pass the deal by themselves but they can bring down the gov. Is remaining worth that to them? Probably yes but so far they can pretend otherwise.
So May can’t have another vote on her deal. No deal it is...
That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
Not sure about that Ben. This is from the article:
On repeat votes, Erskine May says: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”
Might be one for Mr Squeaker to adjudicate on. How he would love that!
Chuka Umunna told Sky’s Sophie Ridge this morning that he had checked with the House of Commons clerks who confirmed that the exact same meaningful vote cannot be held in the same session. Neither could a slightly re-worded version (as in one word being changed).
Only by parliamentary convention, it has no legal force if the executive decides otherwise
If the executive decides to ignore parliamentary convention, they are in danger of parliament taking back control by freezing all legislation and making the government impotent. It would be the nuclear option.
By the sound of things Cooper et al plan to do that if the government tries for a No Deal option anyway, something has to give
If they try that, May is awkward enough to just close down all non-essential business until 30th March.
"OK Parliament, we have Brexited. Now - we have work to do..."
If it was Ken Clarke and Margaret Beckett I’d be more confident. It’s going to need some serious heft to pull sufficient numbers against the whip (and probably can’t be done without Vonc-ing TM anyway). Three months ago would probably have been sensible too, though I think the “this deal is all we have time for” may not be true if one’s talking about moving closer to the EU position.
I don’t understand why the PM didn’t take the opportunity when interviewed today, to close down any talk of a second referendum, making very clear that it’s her deal or no deal - and if her deal doesn’t pass next week then the no-deal preparations will go full steam ahead.
Right now she’s got two or maybe three groups of MPs who oppose her deal for opppsoite reasons, who together can block it. She’s got to get some of them back onside (or at least abstaining) by ruling out their preferred option and leaving them with a binary choice.
I’m still not sure that Corbyn doesn’t pull an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria and whip an abstention on the day of the vote under pressure from his own MPs. His reasoning would be that the deal vote going through forces a VoC in the government from the DUP.
So May can’t have another vote on her deal. No deal it is...
That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
Not sure about that Ben. This is from the article:
On repeat votes, Erskine May says: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”
Might be one for Mr Squeaker to adjudicate on. How he would love that!
Chuka Umunna told Sky’s Sophie Ridge this morning that he had checked with the House of Commons clerks who confirmed that the exact same meaningful vote cannot be held in the same session. Neither could a slightly re-worded version (as in one word being changed).
Only by parliamentary convention, it has no legal force if the executive decides otherwise
If the executive decides to ignore parliamentary convention, they are in danger of parliament taking back control by freezing all legislation and making the government impotent. It would be the nuclear option.
What legislation do you think needs to be passed before Brexit?
There are approximately 800 Statutory Instruments that have to be passed. Of these about 20-30% require the affirmative procedure. An SI laid under the affirmative procedure must be actively approved by both Houses of Parliament.
I don’t understand why the PM didn’t take the opportunity when interviewed today, to close down any talk of a second referendum, making very clear that it’s her deal or no deal - and if her deal doesn’t pass next week then the no-deal preparations will go full steam ahead.
Right now she’s got two or maybe three groups of MPs who oppose her deal for opppsoite reasons, who together can block it. She’s got to get some of them back onside (or at least abstaining) by ruling out their preferred option and leaving them with a binary choice.
I’m still not sure that Corbyn doesn’t pull an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria and whip an abstention on the day of the vote under pressure from his own MPs.
His Mps and members would not pressurise him to abstain. That would enable brexit and that is abhorrent to most of them.
For Corbyn the best answer politically at this point is oppose the Tories no matter what and castigate the gov for no deal problems. Yes it's no deal but the Tories get first share of the blame and his party would prioritise anger there. It also fits his instincts as an opposition.
So May can’t have another vote on her deal. No deal it is...
That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
Not sure about that Ben. This is from the article:
On repeat votes, Erskine May says: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”
Might be one for Mr Squeaker to adjudicate on. How he would love that!
Chuka Umunna told Sky’s Sophie Ridge this morning that he had checked with the House of Commons clerks who confirmed that the exact same meaningful vote cannot be held in the same session. Neither could a slightly re-worded version (as in one word being changed).
Only by parliamentary convention, it has no legal force if the executive decides otherwise
If the executive decides to ignore parliamentary convention, they are in danger of parliament taking back control by freezing all legislation and making the government impotent. It would be the nuclear option.
What legislation do you think needs to be passed before Brexit?
There are approximately 800 Statutory Instruments that have to be passed. Of these about 20-30% require the affirmative procedure. An SI laid under the affirmative procedure must be actively approved by both Houses of Parliament.
So May can’t have another vote on her deal. No deal it is...
That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
Not sure about that Ben. This is from the article:
On repeat votes, Erskine May says: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”
Might be one for Mr Squeaker to adjudicate on. How he would love that!
Chuka Umunna told Sky’s Sophie Ridge this morning that he had checked with the House of Commons clerks who confirmed that the exact same meaningful vote cannot be held in the same session. Neither could a slightly re-worded version (as in one word being changed).
Only by parliamentary convention, it has no legal force if the executive decides otherwise
If the executive decides to ignore parliamentary convention, they are in danger of parliament taking back control by freezing all legislation and making the government impotent. It would be the nuclear option.
What legislation do you think needs to be passed before Brexit?
There are approximately 800 Statutory Instruments that have to be passed. Of these about 20-30% require the affirmative procedure. An SI laid under the affirmative procedure must be actively approved by both Houses of Parliament.
Yes, if the deal is approved next week there’s still an awful lot to get done in Parliament before 29th March.
If it’s no-deal they’ll likely be siitting on Saturdays to get everything through that’s required. Hope MPs and Lords have understanding wives and husbands if this comes to pass.
So May can’t have another vote on her deal. No deal it is...
That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
Not sure about that Ben. This is from the article:
On repeat votes, Erskine May says: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”
Might be one for Mr Squeaker to adjudicate on. How he would love that!
Chuka Umunna told Sky’s Sophie Ridge this morning that he had checked with the House of Commons clerks who confirmed that the exact same meaningful vote cannot be held in the same session. Neither could a slightly re-worded version (as in one word being changed).
Only by parliamentary convention, it has no legal force if the executive decides otherwise
If the executive decides to ignore parliamentary convention, they are in danger of parliament taking back control by freezing all legislation and making the government impotent. It would be the nuclear option.
What legislation do you think needs to be passed before Brexit?
There are approximately 800 Statutory Instruments that have to be passed. Of these about 20-30% require the affirmative procedure. An SI laid under the affirmative procedure must be actively approved by both Houses of Parliament.
And yet preventing those passing won’t prevent Brexit...
If we are even more unprepared than now they believe we will revoke. It's very high risk, as all sides are going all or nothing and fuck the country if they fail.
I don’t understand why the PM didn’t take the opportunity when interviewed today, to close down any talk of a second referendum, making very clear that it’s her deal or no deal - and if her deal doesn’t pass next week then the no-deal preparations will go full steam ahead.
Right now she’s got two or maybe three groups of MPs who oppose her deal for opppsoite reasons, who together can block it. She’s got to get some of them back onside (or at least abstaining) by ruling out their preferred option and leaving them with a binary choice.
I’m still not sure that Corbyn doesn’t pull an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria and whip an abstention on the day of the vote under pressure from his own MPs. His reasoning would be that the deal vote going through forces a VoC in the government from the DUP.
You're right. She didn't close down any talk of a second referendum. She said Brexit was in danger if her deal wasn't passed and that we would then be in "uncharted waters". An interesting phrase. It sounds a bit like "all options would then be on the table".
I don’t understand why the PM didn’t take the opportunity when interviewed today, to close down any talk of a second referendum, making very clear that it’s her deal or no deal - and if her deal doesn’t pass next week then the no-deal preparations will go full steam ahead.
Right now she’s got two or maybe three groups of MPs who oppose her deal for opppsoite reasons, who together can block it. She’s got to get some of them back onside (or at least abstaining) by ruling out their preferred option and leaving them with a binary choice.
I’m still not sure that Corbyn doesn’t pull an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria and whip an abstention on the day of the vote under pressure from his own MPs.
His Mps and members would not pressurise him to abstain. That would enable brexit and that is abhorrent to most of them.
For Corbyn the best answer politically at this point is oppose the Tories no matter what and castigate the gov for no deal problems. Yes it's no deal but the Tories get first share of the blame and his party would prioritise anger there. It also fits his instincts as an opposition.
The reasoning would be that seeing the vote pass would result in a VoC from the DUP and a possible election.
It’s worth bearing in mind that the ‘meanignful’ vote isn’t the end of the legislative process, there’s an enabling Act required to formally ratify the deal as a Treaty, which needs to go through the usual process of primary legislation in order to leave under the deal. The EU Parliament also need to ratify it, all before 29th March.
Anything that might pass the commons and the EU adds something. Whether this would I don't know, the rushing into something last minute seems unwise, but frankly anything goes now.
Anything that might pass the commons and the EU adds something. Whether this would I don't know, the rushing into something last minute seems unwise, but frankly anything goes now.
It’s not a plan that avoids the need for a WA, though.
It isn’t an alternative to the WA. I’m still not convinced that enough MPs understand this..
So May can’t have another vote on her deal. No deal it is...
That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
Not sure about that Ben. This is from the article:
On repeat votes, Erskine May says: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”
Might be one for Mr Squeaker to adjudicate on. How he would love that!
Chuka Umunna told Sky’s Sophie Ridge this morning that he had checked with the House of Commons clerks who confirmed that the exact same meaningful vote cannot be held in the same session. Neither could a slightly re-worded version (as in one word being changed).
Only by parliamentary convention, it has no legal force if the executive decides otherwise
If the executive decides to ignore parliamentary convention, they are in danger of parliament taking back control by freezing all legislation and making the government impotent. It would be the nuclear option.
By the sound of things Cooper et al plan to do that if the government tries for a No Deal option anyway, something has to give
While the the same question cannot be put on its own, is there anything to stop it being combined into another vote with a barely related issue?
E. G. This house believes that the practice of hunting snails with cats as a bloodsport is cruel and inhumane, and calls upon the government to a) bring forward legislation to effect a ban on this practice, and b) to ratify the European Union withdrawal agreement in order to prevent unnecessary disruption to ecological agreements regarding the keeping, breeding and welfare of snails.
I don’t understand why the PM didn’t take the opportunity when interviewed today, to close down any talk of a second referendum, making very clear that it’s her deal or no deal - and if her deal doesn’t pass next week then the no-deal preparations will go full steam ahead.
Right now she’s got two or maybe three groups of MPs who oppose her deal for opppsoite reasons, who together can block it. She’s got to get some of them back onside (or at least abstaining) by ruling out their preferred option and leaving them with a binary choice.
I’m still not sure that Corbyn doesn’t pull an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria and whip an abstention on the day of the vote under pressure from his own MPs.
His Mps and members would not pressurise him to abstain. That would enable brexit and that is abhorrent to most of them.
For Corbyn the best answer politically at this point is oppose the Tories no matter what and castigate the gov for no deal problems. Yes it's no deal but the Tories get first share of the blame and his party would prioritise anger there. It also fits his instincts as an opposition.
The reasoning would be that seeing the vote pass would result in a VoC from the DUP and a possible election.
Yes, and I think the best path for Corbyn in the start was the deal squeaked through thanks to some labour rebels. No deal avoided thus pleasing his party but brexit itself not their fault and they could continue to say all options including remain would have been an option under them.
But active labour support or abstention is too much for them. They cannot claim to want to renegotiate if they do that, they cannot claim to be willing to remain. That would possibly hit them in an election.
Which is Why Corbyn is still pushing the initial policy to keep all options open. Tory brexit must not be seen to be aided and since May is not showing her hand yet he will also delay.
I don’t understand why the PM didn’t take the opportunity when interviewed today, to close down any talk of a second referendum, making very clear that it’s her deal or no deal - and if her deal doesn’t pass next week then the no-deal preparations will go full steam ahead.
Right now she’s got two or maybe three groups of MPs who oppose her deal for opppsoite reasons, who together can block it. She’s got to get some of them back onside (or at least abstaining) by ruling out their preferred option and leaving them with a binary choice.
I’m still not sure that Corbyn doesn’t pull an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria and whip an abstention on the day of the vote under pressure from his own MPs.
His Mps and members would not pressurise him to abstain. That would enable brexit and that is abhorrent to most of them.
For Corbyn the best answer politically at this point is oppose the Tories no matter what and castigate the gov for no deal problems. Yes it's no deal but the Tories get first share of the blame and his party would prioritise anger there. It also fits his instincts as an opposition.
The reasoning would be that seeing the vote pass would result in a VoC from the DUP and a possible election.
It’s worth bearing in mind that the ‘meanignful’ vote isn’t the end of the legislative process, there’s an enabling Act required to formally ratify the deal as a Treaty, which needs to go through the usual process of primary legislation in order to leave under the deal. The EU Parliament also need to ratify it, all before 29th March.
So the ERG mob could support the WA and it passes and the deadline comes ever closer and then the ERG could suddenly withdraw their support for the primary legislation and leave May's deal high and dry with very little time left to do anything before 29th March and we could crash out.
So May can’t have another vote on her deal. No deal it is...
That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
Not sure about that Ben. This is from the article:
On repeat votes, Erskine May says: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”
Might be one for Mr Squeaker to adjudicate on. How he would love that!
Chuka Umunna told Sky’s Sophie Ridge this morning that he had checked with the House of Commons clerks who confirmed that the exact same meaningful vote cannot be held in the same session. Neither could a slightly re-worded version (as in one word being changed).
Only by parliamentary convention, it has no legal force if the executive decides otherwise
If the executive decides to ignore parliamentary convention, they are in danger of parliament taking back control by freezing all legislation and making the government impotent. It would be the nuclear option.
By the sound of things Cooper et al plan to do that if the government tries for a No Deal option anyway, something has to give
While the the same question cannot be put on its own, is there anything to stop it being combined into another vote with a barely related issue?
E. G. This house believes that the practice of hunting snails with cats as a bloodsport is cruel and inhumane, and calls upon the government to a) bring forward legislation to effect a ban on this practice, and b) to ratify the European Union withdrawal agreement in order to prevent unnecessary disruption to ecological agreements regarding the keeping, breeding and welfare of snails.
I think that's possible in some legislatures but not ours, though they can get creative about how related. Dr Palmer would know.
I don’t understand why the PM didn’t take the opportunity when interviewed today, to close down any talk of a second referendum, making very clear that it’s her deal or no deal - and if her deal doesn’t pass next week then the no-deal preparations will go full steam ahead.
Right now she’s got two or maybe three groups of MPs who oppose her deal for opppsoite reasons, who together can block it. She’s got to get some of them back onside (or at least abstaining) by ruling out their preferred option and leaving them with a binary choice.
I’m still not sure that Corbyn doesn’t pull an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria and whip an abstention on the day of the vote under pressure from his own MPs. His reasoning would be that the deal vote going through forces a VoC in the government from the DUP.
You're right. She didn't close down any talk of a second referendum. She said Brexit was in danger if her deal wasn't passed and that we would then be in "uncharted waters". An interesting phrase. It sounds a bit like "all options would then be on the table".
That’s what I don’t get. If all options are still on the table, then she’s going to lose the vote by 150-200 as everyone who doesn’t like the deal votes against it - whether they’d prefer to see a referendum, a revocation, a renegotiation or to leave with no deal. If that is the scale of the defeat she’ll be lucky if she’s not forced out by the Cabinet.
Given that her own party are 95% for either her deal or no deal, it would make sense for her to leave those as the two options, and start making it very clear (by way of announcements on funding, on Parliamentary timetabling etc) that voting down the deal leads to no-deal as the outcome.
I don’t understand why the PM didn’t take the opportunity when interviewed today, to close down any talk of a second referendum, making very clear that it’s her deal or no deal - and if her deal doesn’t pass next week then the no-deal preparations will go full steam ahead.
Right now she’s got two or maybe three groups of MPs who oppose her deal for opppsoite reasons, who together can block it. She’s got to get some of them back onside (or at least abstaining) by ruling out their preferred option and leaving them with a binary choice.
I’m still not sure that Corbyn doesn’t pull an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria and whip an abstention on the day of the vote under pressure from his own MPs. His reasoning would be that the deal vote going through forces a VoC in the government from the DUP.
You're right. She didn't close down any talk of a second referendum. She said Brexit was in danger if her deal wasn't passed and that we would then be in "uncharted waters". An interesting phrase. It sounds a bit like "all options would then be on the table".
Still trying to win over Brexiteers by intimating that brexit might be stopped perhaps. Futile, as they do not think we can/will revoke in time so are confident of some leave at least.
Anything that might pass the commons and the EU adds something. Whether this would I don't know, the rushing into something last minute seems unwise, but frankly anything goes now.
It won't, there are probably even fewer votes for Norway Plus than for EUref2 with a Remain option
So May can’t have another vote on her deal. No deal it is...
That is only a convention, there is no law stopping May proposing her Deal repeatedly
It's also only a convention that only applies to Bills; this is simply a motion, not a bill.
Not sure about that Ben. This is from the article:
On repeat votes, Erskine May says: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”
Might be one for Mr Squeaker to adjudicate on. How he would love that!
Chuka Umunna told Sky’s Sophie Ridge this morning that he had checked with the House of Commons clerks who confirmed that the exact same meaningful vote cannot be held in the same session. Neither could a slightly re-worded version (as in one word being changed).
Only by parliamentary convention, it has no legal force if the executive decides otherwise
If the executive decides to ignore parliamentary convention, they are in danger of parliament taking back control by freezing all legislation and making the government impotent. It would be the nuclear option.
By the sound of things Cooper et al plan to do that if the government tries for a No Deal option anyway, something has to give
While the the same question cannot be put on its own, is there anything to stop it being combined into another vote with a barely related issue?
E. G. This house believes that the practice of hunting snails with cats as a bloodsport is cruel and inhumane, and calls upon the government to a) bring forward legislation to effect a ban on this practice, and b) to ratify the European Union withdrawal agreement in order to prevent unnecessary disruption to ecological agreements regarding the keeping, breeding and welfare of snails.
If needed I expect May would try anything to sneak her Deal through the Commons
I don’t understand why the PM didn’t take the opportunity when interviewed today, to close down any talk of a second referendum, making very clear that it’s her deal or no deal - and if her deal doesn’t pass next week then the no-deal preparations will go full steam ahead.
Right now she’s got two or maybe three groups of MPs who oppose her deal for opppsoite reasons, who together can block it. She’s got to get some of them back onside (or at least abstaining) by ruling out their preferred option and leaving them with a binary choice.
I’m still not sure that Corbyn doesn’t pull an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria and whip an abstention on the day of the vote under pressure from his own MPs. His reasoning would be that the deal vote going through forces a VoC in the government from the DUP.
You're right. She didn't close down any talk of a second referendum. She said Brexit was in danger if her deal wasn't passed and that we would then be in "uncharted waters". An interesting phrase. It sounds a bit like "all options would then be on the table".
That’s what I don’t get. If all options are still on the table, then she’s going to lose the vote by 150-200 as everyone who doesn’t like the deal votes against it - whether they’d prefer to see a referendum, a revocation, a renegotiation or to leave with no deal. If that is the scale of the defeat she’ll be lucky if she’s not forced out by the Cabinet.
Given that her own party are 95% for either her deal or no deal, it would make sense for her to leave those as the two options, and start making it very clear (by way of announcements on funding, on Parliamentary timetabling etc) that voting down the deal leads to no-deal as the outcome.
Given the vast majority of Tory voters now back the Deal or No Deal and barely any back Remain those are the only 2 options May will consider.
The Cabinet can of course say what they want, having won the confidence of Tory MPs May cannot be challenged again until December and cannot be forced out by the Cabinet unless she decides to go of her own accord so she will just persist with the Deal until Brexit Day if necessary, then short of a Deal v No Deal referendum, if the Commons still refuses to back it then she will take us to No Deal
1. I aware of what an optimal currency area is. I do not support U.K. membership of the Eurozone. Very few do. While Britain being out of the EZ creates a new power dynamic, on balance I think Britain ought to grasp the opportunity to lead a new cadre of countries inside the EU but outside the Eurozone. Indeed, I would argue this is also in the EU’s interests also. So, simply saying “optimal currency area” is not enough but I will also be charitable and assume you mean that QMV allows the Eurozone bloc to outvote the U.K. on critical issues like financial regulation and that this is unacceptable.
2. I am also aware of the difference between common law and civil law. However, you don’t explain why the fact we have two different legal traditions is such a problem. England also has a different legal tradition to Scotland, but (and legal scholars, tell me otherwise) we’ve somehow survived since 1707.
3. The fact there is no unified demos means what exactly? That the EU Parliament lacks legitimacy? In fact, it is the Council which holds ultimate power within the EU - which is the way member states want it, by the way. The Parliament acts as a scrutinising body. You should think harder about what your more democratic EU would imply in relationship to national sovereignty.
4. Of course different countries have different interests? So what? The EU is a mechanism designed precisely to negotiate those differences across Europe. Talking darkly of German pro-Russianism (which seems to be on the wane along with it’s main standard bearer the SDP) doesn’t mean anything in isolation unless you can prove somehow that our own policy to Russia is somehow weakened. I see absolutely no evidence of that. I’m any case, 90% of non-trade foreign policy falls outside the EU’s remit.
In sum, your points would be more valid if we were on the verge of dissolving the U.K. for absorption into a new national entity: ie the bogeyman of Eurosceptic fantasy.
But having heard about this bogeyman since the Major years, it’s time to accept that it ain’t real.
I don’t understand why the PM didn’t take the opportunity when interviewed today, to close down any talk of a second referendum, making very clear that it’s her deal or no deal - and if her deal doesn’t pass next week then the no-deal preparations will go full steam ahead.
Right now she’s got two or maybe three groups of MPs who oppose her deal for opppsoite reasons, who together can block it. She’s got to get some of them back onside (or at least abstaining) by ruling out their preferred option and leaving them with a binary choice.
I’m still not sure that Corbyn doesn’t pull an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria and whip an abstention on the day of the vote under pressure from his own MPs.
His Mps and members would not pressurise him to abstain. That would enable brexit and that is abhorrent to most of them.
For Corbyn the best answer politically at this point is oppose the Tories no matter what and castigate the gov for no deal problems. Yes it's no deal but the Tories get first share of the blame and his party would prioritise anger there. It also fits his instincts as an opposition.
The reasoning would be that seeing the vote pass would result in a VoC from the DUP and a possible election.
It’s worth bearing in mind that the ‘meanignful’ vote isn’t the end of the legislative process, there’s an enabling Act required to formally ratify the deal as a Treaty, which needs to go through the usual process of primary legislation in order to leave under the deal. The EU Parliament also need to ratify it, all before 29th March.
So the ERG mob could support the WA and it passes and the deadline comes ever closer and then the ERG could suddenly withdraw their support for the primary legislation and leave May's deal high and dry with very little time left to do anything before 29th March and we could crash out.
That is plausible, yes.
If it’s deal or no-deal there’s a shitload (apologies for the technical term) of Acts and Statutary Instruments required to avoid having legislative gaps on the day we leave, and this process can’t start until everyone’s agreed the text of the Treaty.
It’s quite possible that a group of Parliamentarians in either House could disrupt this process by talking things out, calling points of order, bringing forward wrecking amendments and even voting down the final legislation. In extremis it might be that a workaround needs to be found for the rule that the same bill can’t be introduced again in the same session of Parliament - which probably means getting HMQ involved. It could get very messy indeed.
1. I aware of what an optimal currency area is. I do not support U.K. membership of the Eurozone. Very few do. While Britain being out of the EZ creates a new power dynamic, on balance I think Britain ought to grasp the opportunity to lead a new cadre of countries inside the EU but outside the Eurozone. Indeed, I would argue this is also in the EU’s interests also. So, simply saying “optimal currency area” is not enough but I will also be charitable and assume you mean that QMV allows the Eurozone bloc to outvote the U.K. on critical issues like financial regulation and that this is unacceptable.
2. I am also aware of the difference between common law and civil law. However, you don’t explain why the fact we have two different legal traditions is such a problem. England also has a different legal tradition to Scotland, but (and legal scholars, tell me otherwise) we’ve somehow survived since 1707.
3. The fact there is no unified demos means what exactly? That the EU Parliament lacks legitimacy? In fact, it is the Council which holds ultimate power within the EU - which is the way member states want it, by the way. The Parliament acts as a scrutinising body. You should think harder about what your more democratic EU would imply in relationship to national sovereignty.
4. Of course different countries have different interests? So what? The EU is a mechanism designed precisely to negotiate those differences across Europe. Talking darkly of German pro-Russianism (which seems to be on the wane along with it’s main standard bearer the SDP) doesn’t mean anything in isolation unless you can prove somehow that our own policy to Russia is somehow weakened. I see absolutely no evidence of that. I’m any case, 90% of non-trade foreign policy falls outside the EU’s remit.
In sum, your points would be more valid if we were on the verge of dissolving the U.K. for absorption into a new national entity: ie the bogeyman of Eurosceptic fantasy.
But having heard about this bogeyman since the Major years, it’s time to accept that it ain’t real.
You are the frog sitting in the pan of water unaware that it is already heading towards boiling point.
Everything that has happened since we joined the EEC has been moving towards the ultimate aim of a single European state. It is written right there in the treaties and has been declared as an explicit aim by successive honest European politicians (unlike the dishonest UK ones) repeatedly over the last 60 years. Just because it takes time and occasionally suffers setbacks does not mean it is not still the ultimate goal. Indeed some on here like William welcome it. Much as I disagree with him on many points he is far more honest than those Europhiles who try to pretend it is not the goal.
I don’t understand why the PM didn’t take the opportunity when interviewed today, to close down any talk of a second referendum, making very clear that it’s her deal or no deal - and if her deal doesn’t pass next week then the no-deal preparations will go full steam ahead.
Right now she’s got two or maybe three groups of MPs who oppose her deal for opppsoite reasons, who together can block it. She’s got to get some of them back onside (or at least abstaining) by ruling out their preferred option and leaving them with a binary choice.
I’m still not sure that Corbyn doesn’t pull an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria and whip an abstention on the day of the vote under pressure from his own MPs. His reasoning would be that the deal vote going through forces a VoC in the government from the DUP.
You're right. She didn't close down any talk of a second referendum. She said Brexit was in danger if her deal wasn't passed and that we would then be in "uncharted waters". An interesting phrase. It sounds a bit like "all options would then be on the table".
I noted this too.
In fact, my takeaway was that while she was strongly against a second ref it would be out of her hands if Parliamentary reality made it the only path.
I also thought - and this may be my wishful thinking - that No Deal was absolutely her worst scenario. When invited to reiterate that it would be better than a Bad Deal I though that she wriggled a bit.
Also two other stories of note on that front page - one is that the high street retailers are under serious pressures, the other is perhaps the biggest British manufacturing success story of the past decade, McLaren sales up 44% year-on-year to nearly 5,000 cars with an average price of around £250k.
I don’t understand why the PM didn’t take the opportunity when interviewed today, to close down any talk of a second referendum, making very clear that it’s her deal or no deal - and if her deal doesn’t pass next week then the no-deal preparations will go full steam ahead.
Right now she’s got two or maybe three groups of MPs who oppose her deal for opppsoite reasons, who together can block it. She’s got to get some of them back onside (or at least abstaining) by ruling out their preferred option and leaving them with a binary choice.
I’m still not sure that Corbyn doesn’t pull an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria and whip an abstention on the day of the vote under pressure from his own MPs. His reasoning would be that the deal vote going through forces a VoC in the government from the DUP.
You're right. She didn't close down any talk of a second referendum. She said Brexit was in danger if her deal wasn't passed and that we would then be in "uncharted waters". An interesting phrase. It sounds a bit like "all options would then be on the table".
No Deal Brexit is unchartered waters.......
(EDIT or uncharted waters, for those who didn't get my ferry-related gag)
E. G. This house believes that the practice of hunting snails with cats as a bloodsport is cruel and inhumane, and calls upon the government to a) bring forward legislation to effect a ban on this practice, and b) to ratify the European Union withdrawal agreement in order to prevent unnecessary disruption to ecological agreements regarding the keeping, breeding and welfare of snails.
I think that's possible in some legislatures but not ours, though they can get creative about how related. Dr Palmer would know.
Lol, entertaining example. I'm not honestly sure. kle4 is I think correct that a motion which addresses a bunch of different subjects at once would be ruled out of order, and I think the Government would need to stay serious to avoid MPs voting no merely in protest at not being taken seriously. It's probably not beyond the wit of man to find a new way to put the motion that would get Bercow's reluctant acceptance, but I'm pretty sure he'd rule it out of order to be put 30 times as Government sources have suggested. One option would be to make it an explicit vote of confidence with a General Election if it failed - that would bring most Tories into line, but probably not the DUP.
Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.
In the end voters may just not be willing to hand over the keys of No 10 to Corbyn as they were not to Kinnock and even if Corbyn does become PM it will almost certainly only be due to SNP support and without an overall majority
It isn't actually - because Yougov provide GB figures. In 1992 Labour polled 35.2% in GB under Kinnock.
I don’t understand why the PM didn’t take the opportunity when interviewed today, to close down any talk of a second referendum, making very clear that it’s her deal or no deal - and if her deal doesn’t pass next week then the no-deal preparations will go full steam ahead.
Right now she’s got two or maybe three groups of MPs who oppose her deal for opppsoite reasons, who together can block it. She’s got to get some of them back onside (or at least abstaining) by ruling out their preferred option and leaving them with a binary choice.
I’m still not sure that Corbyn doesn’t pull an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria and whip an abstention on the day of the vote under pressure from his own MPs. His reasoning would be that the deal vote going through forces a VoC in the government from the DUP.
You're right. She didn't close down any talk of a second referendum. She said Brexit was in danger if her deal wasn't passed and that we would then be in "uncharted waters". An interesting phrase. It sounds a bit like "all options would then be on the table".
I also thought - and this may be my wishful thinking - that No Deal was absolutely her worst scenario. When invited to reiterate that it would be better than a Bad Deal I though that she wriggled a bit.
I don’t think she wriggled. Indeed I recall she did reiterate it, and added that hers was a good deal.
Anyone who believes the Never Brexit MPs can starve the government of funds in the event of no deal needs to follow Nikki da Costa on twitter. Royal assent for the finance bill is not required until May.
Strikes me that there is still nothing that can be done to stop Brexit happening - whatever happens - provided the Govt retains the confidence of the house.
E. G. This house believes that the practice of hunting snails with cats as a bloodsport is cruel and inhumane, and calls upon the government to a) bring forward legislation to effect a ban on this practice, and b) to ratify the European Union withdrawal agreement in order to prevent unnecessary disruption to ecological agreements regarding the keeping, breeding and welfare of snails.
I think that's possible in some legislatures but not ours, though they can get creative about how related. Dr Palmer would know.
One option would be to make it an explicit vote of confidence with a General Election if it failed - that would bring most Tories into line, but probably not the DUP.
I thought that under the FTPA, to trigger a possible GE a specific motion with particular wording had to be passed to vote no confidence in the Government, and that such a motion couldn’t be tacked on to something else. Happy to be corrected though.
1. OCA - power inside the EU is structurally concentrated in the Eurozone (particularly the interplay with QMV). If we are not in the EZ we are not - and cannot be - “at the heart of Europe”. Read Otmar Issing’s work on OCAs - we are not one - so it makes no sense for us to join the EZ. I’d rather be a friendly neighbour than a junior partner.
2. Common legal system? Umm... Napoleonic Code vs Common Law principles?
3. Unified Demos - more of a theoretical discussion but until the people of Europe truly vote on a pan-European basis there will be a democratic deficit and lack of accountability in the EU. That’s not acceptable in my view
4. Different global interests. For some reason Germany is much softer on Russia than we are. It might be to do with their dependence on Russian gas. I think they are wrong headed and short-termist but it’s up to them to decide what the right policy is for Germany. But there’s a different “right policy” for the U.K. because...umm... we have different interests.
1. Currency territories are always politically defined, not based on OCAs. Is the UK an OCA? There's no reason for us not to join the Eurozone.
2. So what? Both Canada and the US combine civil and common law in the same system.
3. There's no unified UK demos, so should we dissolve the UK?
4. That's opinion, not fact. The UK was the number one source of foreign investment in Russia last year.
1. Common currencies can be made to work outside of an OCA but only with the use of fiscal transfers (eg NY to Arkansas). As long as German voters don’t want to support Greece or Spain there is a serious structural flaw in the Eurozone. It would be worse if you added in the U.K. because of the different composition of our economy (eg assymptomatic impact of interest rate changes on consumer behaviour)
2. It’s fundamentally different. AFAIK in Canada and the US it’s only Quebec and Louisiana and it’s only state not federal law. I’m sure you personally would be ok with the U.K. system being a state level legal system with a Napoleonic Code based federal law but I don’t think many people have got there yet
3. Disagree - there is a UK demos.
4. The principle is accurate. Any example can be debated. But I suggest you read up on Nordstream 2.
You are the frog sitting in the pan of water unaware that it is already heading towards boiling point.
Everything that has happened since we joined the EEC has been moving towards the ultimate aim of a single European state. It is written right there in the treaties and has been declared as an explicit aim by successive honest European politicians (unlike the dishonest UK ones) repeatedly over the last 60 years. Just because it takes time and occasionally suffers setbacks does not mean it is not still the ultimate goal. Indeed some on here like William welcome it. Much as I disagree with him on many points he is far more honest than those Europhiles who try to pretend it is not the goal.
+1
Anybody with eyes can see that the direction of travel, of ever closer union, is inevitably towards a single European state. I also have much more respect for those who argue in favour of it, than those who dishonestly tell us that it won't ever happen.
In my opinion, it was the biggest lie of the entire referendum campaign. The only options on the ballot should have been "do you wish to leave the EU" or "do you wish to slowly become part of a federal superstate?" The status quo was never on the menu. It was one or the other and we made our choice.
Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.
In the end voters may just not be willing to hand over the keys of No 10 to Corbyn as they were not to Kinnock and even if Corbyn does become PM it will almost certainly only be due to SNP support and without an overall majority
It isn't actually - because Yougov provide GB figures. In 1992 Labour polled 35.2% in GB under Kinnock.
So Corbyn is now doing even worse than Kinnock did in 1992 then
You are the frog sitting in the pan of water unaware that it is already heading towards boiling point.
Everything that has happened since we joined the EEC has been moving towards the ultimate aim of a single European state. It is written right there in the treaties and has been declared as an explicit aim by successive honest European politicians (unlike the dishonest UK ones) repeatedly over the last 60 years. Just because it takes time and occasionally suffers setbacks does not mean it is not still the ultimate goal. Indeed some on here like William welcome it. Much as I disagree with him on many points he is far more honest than those Europhiles who try to pretend it is not the goal.
+1
Anybody with eyes can see that the direction of travel, of ever closer union, is inevitably towards a single European state. I also have much more respect for those who argue in favour of it, than those who dishonestly tell us that it won't ever happen.
In my opinion, it was the biggest lie of the entire referendum campaign. The only options on the ballot should have been "do you wish to leave the EU" or "do you wish to slowly become part of a federal superstate?" The status quo was never on the menu. It was one or the other and we made our choice.
Given that the EU is arguably already state-like in some respects, you need to be more precise about what you mean. How do you define crossing the rubicon? Which event will you be able to point to to say to @gardenwalker, "Aha! I was right!"
Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.
In the end voters may just not be willing to hand over the keys of No 10 to Corbyn as they were not to Kinnock and even if Corbyn does become PM it will almost certainly only be due to SNP support and without an overall majority
It isn't actually - because Yougov provide GB figures. In 1992 Labour polled 35.2% in GB under Kinnock.
So Corbyn is now doing even worse than Kinnock did in 1992 then
On the basis of a dodgy Bank Holiday poll conducted over 2 weeks. On the other hand, Kinnock trailed Major by 7.6% in 1992 - so on that basis Corbyn is performing better.
The only options on the ballot should have been "do you wish to leave the EU" or "do you wish to slowly become part of a federal superstate?"
Is it even possible to be a federation and a state at the same time? Or is the "super" in "superstate" a way of saying it's a layer above the state, ie another way to say "federation" again???
You are the frog sitting in the pan of water unaware that it is already heading towards boiling point.
Everything that has happened since we joined the EEC has been moving towards the ultimate aim of a single European state. It is written right there in the treaties and has been declared as an explicit aim by successive honest European politicians (unlike the dishonest UK ones) repeatedly over the last 60 years. Just because it takes time and occasionally suffers setbacks does not mean it is not still the ultimate goal. Indeed some on here like William welcome it. Much as I disagree with him on many points he is far more honest than those Europhiles who try to pretend it is not the goal.
+1
Anybody with eyes can see that the direction of travel, of ever closer union, is inevitably towards a single European state. I also have much more respect for those who argue in favour of it, than those who dishonestly tell us that it won't ever happen.
In my opinion, it was the biggest lie of the entire referendum campaign. The only options on the ballot should have been "do you wish to leave the EU" or "do you wish to slowly become part of a federal superstate?" The status quo was never on the menu. It was one or the other and we made our choice.
Given that the EU is arguably already state-like in some respects, you need to be more precise about what you mean. How do you define crossing the rubicon? Which event will you be able to point to to say to @gardenwalker, "Aha! I was right!"
A good question. You could argue that a country has the ability to control its own borders, something we lost with FoM. Or defend its own borders. Which we would lose if we became part of an EU army.
However I'd say that the biggest identifier of statehood is the ability to raise its own taxes and decide on how they are spent. Our inability to zero rate vat on domestic fuel was one of my major bugbears about the EU, why the bloody hell should they be able to tell us how to set our taxes?
The trouble is with the EU it has always been salami slice tactics. Very thin slices, so nobody even knows anything is being taken. But all those slices add up to a lot.
Excellent! I thought I was the only one! You should come round to our Secret Cabal of Zionist Imperialists, Mike. We meet on alternate Tuesdays in the bingo hall: we have gefilte fish. Bring lots of big felt-tip pens: revolutions don't finance certain themselves y'know, and Miriam won £200 last week!
However I'd say that the biggest identifier of statehood is the ability to raise its own taxes and decide on how they are spent. Our inability to zero rate vat on domestic fuel was one of my major bugbears about the EU, why the bloody hell should they be able to tell us how to set our taxes?
You're not going to like the WTO...
Countries mutually agree to give up freedom to set tax rates because they don't want to be undercut by each other.
You are the frog sitting in the pan of water unaware that it is already heading towards boiling point.
Everything that has happened since we joined the EEC has been moving towards the ultimate aim of a single European state. It is written right there in the treaties and has been declared as an explicit aim by successive honest European politicians (unlike the dishonest UK ones) repeatedly over the last 60 years. Just because it takes time and occasionally suffers setbacks does not mean it is not still the ultimate goal. Indeed some on here like William welcome it. Much as I disagree with him on many points he is far more honest than those Europhiles who try to pretend it is not the goal.
+1
Anybody with eyes can see that the direction of travel, of ever closer union, is inevitably towards a single European state. I also have much more respect for those who argue in favour of it, than those who dishonestly tell us that it won't ever happen.
In my opinion, it was the biggest lie of the entire referendum campaign. The only options on the ballot should have been "do you wish to leave the EU" or "do you wish to slowly become part of a federal superstate?" The status quo was never on the menu. It was one or the other and we made our choice.
Given that the EU is arguably already state-like in some respects, you need to be more precise about what you mean. How do you define crossing the rubicon? Which event will you be able to point to to say to @gardenwalker, "Aha! I was right!"
A good question. You could argue that a country has the ability to control its own borders, something we lost with FoM. Or defend its own borders. Which we would lose if we became part of an EU army.
Why does EU free movement represent a loss of control of our own borders but the CTA doesn't?
Why does EU defence represent a loss of the ability to defend our own borders but NATO membership doesn't?
You are the frog sitting in the pan of water unaware that it is already heading towards boiling point.
Everything that has happened since we joined the EEC has been moving towards the ultimate aim of a single European state. It is written right there in the treaties and has been declared as an explicit aim by successive honest European politicians (unlike the dishonest UK ones) repeatedly over the last 60 years. Just because it takes time and occasionally suffers setbacks does not mean it is not still the ultimate goal. Indeed some on here like William welcome it. Much as I disagree with him on many points he is far more honest than those Europhiles who try to pretend it is not the goal.
+1
Anybody with eyes can see that the direction of travel, of ever closer union, is inevitably towards a single European state. I also have much more respect for those who argue in favour of it, than those who dishonestly tell us that it won't ever happen.
In my opinion, it was the biggest lie of the entire referendum campaign. The only options on the ballot should have been "do you wish to leave the EU" or "do you wish to slowly become part of a federal superstate?" The status quo was never on the menu. It was one or the other and we made our choice.
Given that the EU is arguably already state-like in some respects, you need to be more precise about what you mean. How do you define crossing the rubicon? Which event will you be able to point to to say to @gardenwalker, "Aha! I was right!"
A good question. You could argue that a country has the ability to control its own borders, something we lost with FoM. Or defend its own borders. Which we would lose if we became part of an EU army.
Why does EU free movement represent a loss of control of our own borders but the CTA doesn't?
Why does EU defence represent a loss of the ability to defend our own borders but NATO membership doesn't?
The CTA is more analogous to Schengen, in that it is about the removal of internal border checks, not about the right to live and work.
You are the frog sitting in the pan of water unaware that it is already heading towards boiling point.
Everything that has happened since we joined the EEC has been moving towards the ultimate aim of a single European state. It is written right there in the treaties and has been declared as an explicit aim by successive honest European politicians (unlike the dishonest UK ones) repeatedly over the last 60 years. Just because it takes time and occasionally suffers setbacks does not mean it is not still the ultimate goal. Indeed some on here like William welcome it. Much as I disagree with him on many points he is far more honest than those Europhiles who try to pretend it is not the goal.
+1
Anybody with eyes can see that the direction of travel, of ever closer union, is inevitably towards a single European state. I also have much more respect for those who argue in favour of it, than those who dishonestly tell us that it won't ever happen.
In my opinion, it was the biggest lie of the entire referendum campaign. The only options on the ballot should have been "do you wish to leave the EU" or "do you wish to slowly become part of a federal superstate?" The status quo was never on the menu. It was one or the other and we made our choice.
Given that the EU is arguably already state-like in some respects, you need to be more precise about what you mean. How do you define crossing the rubicon? Which event will you be able to point to to say to @gardenwalker, "Aha! I was right!"
A good question. You could argue that a country has the ability to control its own borders, something we lost with FoM. Or defend its own borders. Which we would lose if we became part of an EU army.
Why does EU free movement represent a loss of control of our own borders but the CTA doesn't?
Why does EU defence represent a loss of the ability to defend our own borders but NATO membership doesn't?
The CTA is more analogous to Schengen, in that it is about the removal of internal border checks, not about the right to live and work.
It's both, but the provisions go beyond EU free movement since resident citizens also get the right to vote.
You are the frog sitting in the pan of water unaware that it is already heading towards boiling point.
Everything that has happened since we joined the EEC has been moving towards the ultimate aim of a single European state. It is written right there in the treaties and has been declared as an explicit aim by successive honest European politicians (unlike the dishonest UK ones) repeatedly over the last 60 years. Just because it takes time and occasionally suffers setbacks does not mean it is not still the ultimate goal. Indeed some on here like William welcome it. Much as I disagree with him on many points he is far more honest than those Europhiles who try to pretend it is not the goal.
+1
Anybody with eyes can see that the direction of travel, of ever closer union, is inevitably towards a single European state. I also have much more respect for those who argue in favour of it, than those who dishonestly tell us that it won't ever happen.
In my opinion, it was the biggest lie of the entire referendum campaign. The only options on the ballot should have been "do you wish to leave the EU" or "do you wish to slowly become part of a federal superstate?" The status quo was never on the menu. It was one or the other and we made our choice.
Given that the EU is arguably already state-like in some respects, you need to be more precise about what you mean. How do you define crossing the rubicon? Which event will you be able to point to to say to @gardenwalker, "Aha! I was right!"
A good question. You could argue that a country has the ability to control its own borders, something we lost with FoM. Or defend its own borders. Which we would lose if we became part of an EU army.
Why does EU free movement represent a loss of control of our own borders but the CTA doesn't?
Why does EU defence represent a loss of the ability to defend our own borders but NATO membership doesn't?
The CTA is more analogous to Schengen, in that it is about the removal of internal border checks, not about the right to live and work.
,Remind me again: which "internal" borders are eliminated by the CTA?...
You are the frog sitting in the pan of water unaware that it is already heading towards boiling point.
Everything that has happened since we joined the EEC has been moving towards the ultimate aim of a single European state. It is written right there in the treaties and has been declared as an explicit aim by successive honest European politicians (unlike the dishonest UK ones) repeatedly over the last 60 years. Just because it takes time and occasionally suffers setbacks does not mean it is not still the ultimate goal. Indeed some on here like William welcome it. Much as I disagree with him on many points he is far more honest than those Europhiles who try to pretend it is not the goal.
+1
Anybody with eyes can see that the direction of travel, of ever closer union, is inevitably towards a single European state. I also have much more respect for those who argue in favour of it, than those who dishonestly tell us that it won't ever happen.
In my opinion, it was the biggest lie of the entire referendum campaign. The only options on the ballot should have been "do you wish to leave the EU" or "do you wish to slowly become part of a federal superstate?" The status quo was never on the menu. It was one or the other and we made our choice.
Given that the EU is arguably already state-like in some respects, you need to be more precise about what you mean. How do you define crossing the rubicon? Which event will you be able to point to to say to @gardenwalker, "Aha! I was right!"
A good question. You could argue that a country has the ability to control its own borders, something we lost with FoM. Or defend its own borders. Which we would lose if we became part of an EU army.
Why does EU free movement represent a loss of control of our own borders but the CTA doesn't?
Why does EU defence represent a loss of the ability to defend our own borders but NATO membership doesn't?
The CTA is more analogous to Schengen, in that it is about the removal of internal border checks, not about the right to live and work.
It's both, but the provisions go beyond EU free movement since resident citizens also get the right to vote.
The CTA is distinct from the uk legislation which defines Irish citizens as non alien.
Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.
In the end voters may just not be willing to hand over the keys of No 10 to Corbyn as they were not to Kinnock and even if Corbyn does become PM it will almost certainly only be due to SNP support and without an overall majority
It isn't actually - because Yougov provide GB figures. In 1992 Labour polled 35.2% in GB under Kinnock.
So Corbyn is now doing even worse than Kinnock did in 1992 then
Depends which poll you pick to believe and which ones you ignore. On a lot of them he is doing better than any Labour leader for decades outside of Blair and then even one of Blairs wins.
You are the frog sitting in the pan of water unaware that it is already heading towards boiling point.
Everything that has happened since we joined the EEC has been moving towards the ultimate aim of a single European state. It is written right there in the treaties and has been declared as an explicit aim by successive honest European politicians (unlike the dishonest UK ones) repeatedly over the last 60 years. Just because it takes time and occasionally suffers setbacks does not mean it is not still the ultimate goal. Indeed some on here like William welcome it. Much as I disagree with him on many points he is far more honest than those Europhiles who try to pretend it is not the goal.
+1
Anybody with eyes can see that the direction of travel, of ever closer union, is inevitably towards a single European state. I also have much more respect for those who argue in favour of it, than those who dishonestly tell us that it won't ever happen.
In my opinion, it was the biggest lie of the entire referendum campaign. The only options on the ballot should have been "do you wish to leave the EU" or "do you wish to slowly become part of a federal superstate?" The status quo was never on the menu. It was one or the other and we made our choice.
Given that the EU is arguably already state-like in some respects, you need to be more precise about what you mean. How do you define crossing the rubicon? Which event will you be able to point to to say to @gardenwalker, "Aha! I was right!"
A good question. You could argue that a country has the ability to control its own borders, something we lost with FoM. Or defend its own borders. Which we would lose if we became part of an EU army.
Why does EU free movement represent a loss of control of our own borders but the CTA doesn't?
Why does EU defence represent a loss of the ability to defend our own borders but NATO membership doesn't?
Salami tactics. NATO isn't telling us whether or not we can zero rate VAT on fuel, nor placing limits our immigration policy. It is a clearly defined organisation that does a job in a specific area of competency, one we could withdraw from at any time. The EU just grabs more and more power for itself. Over time that power grab has been so great we are only now seeing how difficult it is to get out of.
Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.
In the end voters may just not be willing to hand over the keys of No 10 to Corbyn as they were not to Kinnock and even if Corbyn does become PM it will almost certainly only be due to SNP support and without an overall majority
It isn't actually - because Yougov provide GB figures. In 1992 Labour polled 35.2% in GB under Kinnock.
So Corbyn is now doing even worse than Kinnock did in 1992 then
On the basis of a dodgy Bank Holiday poll conducted over 2 weeks. On the other hand, Kinnock trailed Major by 7.6% in 1992 - so on that basis Corbyn is performing better.
Don’t holiday polls normally go against the Tories? I suppose Corbyn is doing well amongst the ABC1 types
You are the frog sitting in the pan of water unaware that it is already heading towards boiling point.
Everything that has happened since we joined the EEC has been moving towards the ultimate aim of a single European state. It is written right there in the treaties and has been declared as an explicit aim by successive honest European politicians (unlike the dishonest UK ones) repeatedly over the last 60 years. Just because it takes time and occasionally suffers setbacks does not mean it is not still the ultimate goal. Indeed some on here like William welcome it. Much as I disagree with him on many points he is far more honest than those Europhiles who try to pretend it is not the goal.
+1
Anybody with eyes can see that the direction of travel, of ever closer union, is inevitably towards a single European state. I also have much more respect for those who argue in favour of it, than those who dishonestly tell us that it won't ever happen.
In my opinion, it was the biggest lie of the entire referendum campaign. The only options on the ballot should have been "do you wish to leave the EU" or "do you wish to slowly become part of a federal superstate?" The status quo was never on the menu. It was one or the other and we made our choice.
Given that the EU is arguably already state-like in some respects, you need to be more precise about what you mean. How do you define crossing the rubicon? Which event will you be able to point to to say to @gardenwalker, "Aha! I was right!"
A good question. You could argue that a country has the ability to control its own borders, something we lost with FoM. Or defend its own borders. Which we would lose if we became part of an EU army.
Why does EU free movement represent a loss of control of our own borders but the CTA doesn't?
Why does EU defence represent a loss of the ability to defend our own borders but NATO membership doesn't?
The CTA is more analogous to Schengen, in that it is about the removal of internal border checks, not about the right to live and work.
,Remind me again: which "internal" borders are eliminated by the CTA?...
Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.
In the end voters may just not be willing to hand over the keys of No 10 to Corbyn as they were not to Kinnock and even if Corbyn does become PM it will almost certainly only be due to SNP support and without an overall majority
It isn't actually - because Yougov provide GB figures. In 1992 Labour polled 35.2% in GB under Kinnock.
So Corbyn is now doing even worse than Kinnock did in 1992 then
Depends which poll you pick to believe and which ones you ignore. On a lot of them he is doing better than any Labour leader for decades
You are the frog sitting in the pan of water unaware that it is already heading towards boiling point.
Everything that has happened since we joined the EEC has been moving towards the ultimate aim of a single European state. It is written right there in the treaties and has been declared as an explicit aim by successive honest European politicians (unlike the dishonest UK ones) repeatedly over the last 60 years. Just because it takes time and occasionally suffers setbacks does not mean it is not still the ultimate goal. Indeed some on here like William welcome it. Much as I disagree with him on many points he is far more honest than those Europhiles who try to pretend it is not the goal.
+1
Anybody with eyes can see that the direction of travel, of ever closer union, is inevitably towards a single European state. I also have much more respect for those who argue in favour of it, than those who dishonestly tell us that it won't ever happen.
In my opinion, it was the biggest lie of the entire referendum campaign. The only options on the ballot should have been "do you wish to leave the EU" or "do you wish to slowly become part of a federal superstate?" The status quo was never on the menu. It was one or the other and we made our choice.
Given that the EU is arguably already state-like in some respects, you need to be more precise about what you mean. How do you define crossing the rubicon? Which event will you be able to point to to say to @gardenwalker, "Aha! I was right!"
A good question. You could argue that a country has the ability to control its own borders, something we lost with FoM. Or defend its own borders. Which we would lose if we became part of an EU army.
Why does EU free movement represent a loss of control of our own borders but the CTA doesn't?
Why does EU defence represent a loss of the ability to defend our own borders but NATO membership doesn't?
Salami tactics. NATO isn't telling us whether or not we can zero rate VAT on fuel, nor placing limits our immigration policy. It is a clearly defined organisation that does a job in a specific area of competency, one we could withdraw from at any time. The EU just grabs more and more power for itself. Over time that power grab has been so great we are only now seeing how difficult it is to get out of.
What does "itself" mean in the context of the EU? Would you talk in similar terms about Westminster?
Labour's poll rating today is 34% ie exactly matching the score Kinnock got in 1992 when, like Corbyn, he also expected to become PM on his second attempt.
In the end voters may just not be willing to hand over the keys of No 10 to Corbyn as they were not to Kinnock and even if Corbyn does become PM it will almost certainly only be due to SNP support and without an overall majority
It isn't actually - because Yougov provide GB figures. In 1992 Labour polled 35.2% in GB under Kinnock.
So Corbyn is now doing even worse than Kinnock did in 1992 then
Depends which poll you pick to believe and which ones you ignore. On a lot of them he is doing better than any Labour leader for decades
Salami tactics. NATO isn't telling us whether or not we can zero rate VAT on fuel, nor placing limits our immigration policy. It is a clearly defined organisation that does a job in a specific area of competency, one we could withdraw from at any time. The EU just grabs more and more power for itself. Over time that power grab has been so great we are only now seeing how difficult it is to get out of.
All organisations tend to centralisation over time, unless there is some is some extenuating factor. Look at the Federal Government rather than the States in the US. Look at UK central government versus councils.
The real, genuine point of power is money. Is the centre reliant on the willingness of its parts to send money? Or is the centre the source of money for the regions?
Salami tactics. NATO isn't telling us whether or not we can zero rate VAT on fuel, nor placing limits our immigration policy. It is a clearly defined organisation that does a job in a specific area of competency, one we could withdraw from at any time. The EU just grabs more and more power for itself. Over time that power grab has been so great we are only now seeing how difficult it is to get out of.
All organisations tend to centralisation over time, unless there is some is some extenuating factor. Look at the Federal Government rather than the States in the US. Look at UK central government versus councils.
The real, genuine point of power is money. Is the centre reliant on the willingness of its parts to send money? Or is the centre the source of money for the regions?
It’s also important not to confuse state organisations with society itself.
Comments
https://twitter.com/YorkshireLad_87/status/1082015119729717249
https://twitter.com/YorkshireLad_87/status/1082035564210204672
Even of the Remain seats you mention the majority are Tory v LD marginals, not Tory v Labour
But I’m a charitable soul so will give you a second chance.
1. OCA - power inside the EU is structurally concentrated in the Eurozone (particularly the interplay with QMV). If we are not in the EZ we are not - and cannot be - “at the heart of Europe”. Read Otmar Issing’s work on OCAs - we are not one - so it makes no sense for us to join the EZ. I’d rather be a friendly neighbour than a junior partner.
2. Common legal system? Umm... Napoleonic Code vs Common Law principles?
3. Unified Demos - more of a theoretical discussion but until the people of Europe truly vote on a pan-European basis there will be a democratic deficit and lack of accountability in the EU. That’s not acceptable in my view
4. Different global interests. For some reason Germany is much softer on Russia than we are. It might be to do with their dependence on Russian gas. I think they are wrong headed and short-termist but it’s up to them to decide what the right policy is for Germany. But there’s a different “right policy” for the U.K. because...umm... we have different interests.
Alternatively, walk into any bar in Expatsville at 3pm UK time on a Saturday, and see six screens showing six matches, all with Sky English commentary! There’s a rumour that Sky are going to press hard to be allowed to show the 3pm games from the next TV contract, given the huge amount of pirate steaming back to the UK from the foreign transmissions that goes on at the moment.
She cares passionately about her Deal. If the only way to get it through parliament is to offer it with a second referendum , Deal or Remain, she would get it through as 500 MPs support Deal or Remain. The Tories are committing political suicide anyway unless she gets her Deal passed, and even then they're in trouble with the awkward squad.
2. So what? Both Canada and the US combine civil and common law in the same system.
3. There's no unified UK demos, so should we dissolve the UK?
4. That's opinion, not fact. The UK was the number one source of foreign investment in Russia last year.
So the Mail (and Sky and the BBC and other big media providers) are powerful because they get traction among readers there. This transition has been far easier in an editorial sense - trusted brands remaining trusted in a new sphere - than it has been financially. That is, with the exception of the Mail, no-one’s worked out how to monetise it.
The problem is that some real bollocks-merchants (or “non-traditional media”, as I believe they prefer to be known), can easily muscle in with stuff which is nonsense but clickworthy. In itself, it’s not a bad thing, but the evidence is that consumers aren’t yet judging the relative strength of the political reporting in the Times versus a polemic by an intern on EvolvePolitics. There are some new media who’ve taken advantage (editorially if not financially) without racing to the bottom (HuffPost... maybe BuzzFeed, even some of Guido’s reporting as opposed to the comments). Where I think people *have* got the hang of it is that a comment from JRM or JC on twitter *is* just an opinion with all the baggage you’d expect.
And whatever those publishers’ successes, most of them have decent online platforms for their social accounts to link to: no-one’s actually just putting news on Facebook.
So, yes there’s a shift to digital; yes social is part of that; but big brands still dominate and people want a trusted guide. The tools are there for a democratisation of the media, but while the Mail’s front page isn’t as powerful as 20 years ago (even with the digital buzz it creates), it’s still a bigger influencer than JRM’s Twitter account.
https://twitter.com/LucyMPowell/status/1082042275402784768
Strikes me that there is still nothing that can be done to stop Brexit happening - whatever happens - provided the Govt retains the confidence of the house.
May also can read the polls, Deal tends to beat No Deal comfortably, however Deal only ties Remain at best. The best way to get the Deal to win any referendum is against a No Deal option ie either Deal v No Deal or Leave v Remain and if Leave wins then Leave with Deal v No Deal. Leave with Deal v Remain is the Deal's least likely way of winning.
"OK Parliament, we have Brexited. Now - we have work to do..."
Right now she’s got two or maybe three groups of MPs who oppose her deal for opppsoite reasons, who together can block it. She’s got to get some of them back onside (or at least abstaining) by ruling out their preferred option and leaving them with a binary choice.
I’m still not sure that Corbyn doesn’t pull an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria and whip an abstention on the day of the vote under pressure from his own MPs. His reasoning would be that the deal vote going through forces a VoC in the government from the DUP.
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/procedure-committee/exiting-the-european-union-scrutiny-of-delegated-legislation/oral/82332.html
For Corbyn the best answer politically at this point is oppose the Tories no matter what and castigate the gov for no deal problems. Yes it's no deal but the Tories get first share of the blame and his party would prioritise anger there. It also fits his instincts as an opposition.
If it’s no-deal they’ll likely be siitting on Saturdays to get everything through that’s required. Hope MPs and Lords have understanding wives and husbands if this comes to pass.
It’s worth bearing in mind that the ‘meanignful’ vote isn’t the end of the legislative process, there’s an enabling Act required to formally ratify the deal as a Treaty, which needs to go through the usual process of primary legislation in order to leave under the deal. The EU Parliament also need to ratify it, all before 29th March.
It isn’t an alternative to the WA. I’m still not convinced that enough MPs understand this..
E. G. This house believes that the practice of hunting snails with cats as a bloodsport is cruel and inhumane, and calls upon the government to a) bring forward legislation to effect a ban on this practice, and b) to ratify the European Union withdrawal agreement in order to prevent unnecessary disruption to ecological agreements regarding the keeping, breeding and welfare of snails.
But active labour support or abstention is too much for them. They cannot claim to want to renegotiate if they do that, they cannot claim to be willing to remain. That would possibly hit them in an election.
Which is Why Corbyn is still pushing the initial policy to keep all options open. Tory brexit must not be seen to be aided and since May is not showing her hand yet he will also delay.
Given that her own party are 95% for either her deal or no deal, it would make sense for her to leave those as the two options, and start making it very clear (by way of announcements on funding, on Parliamentary timetabling etc) that voting down the deal leads to no-deal as the outcome.
The Cabinet can of course say what they want, having won the confidence of Tory MPs May cannot be challenged again until December and cannot be forced out by the Cabinet unless she decides to go of her own accord so she will just persist with the Deal until Brexit Day if necessary, then short of a Deal v No Deal referendum, if the Commons still refuses to back it then she will take us to No Deal
Thankyou.
1.
I aware of what an optimal currency area is. I do not support U.K. membership of the Eurozone. Very few do. While Britain being out of the EZ creates a new power dynamic, on balance I think Britain ought to grasp the opportunity to lead a new cadre of countries inside the EU but outside the Eurozone. Indeed, I would argue this is also in the EU’s interests also. So, simply saying “optimal currency area” is not enough but I will also be charitable and assume you mean that QMV allows the Eurozone bloc to outvote the U.K. on critical issues like financial regulation and that this is unacceptable.
2. I am also aware of the difference between common law and civil law. However, you don’t explain why the fact we have two different legal traditions is such a problem. England also has a different legal tradition to Scotland, but (and legal scholars, tell me otherwise) we’ve somehow survived since 1707.
3. The fact there is no unified demos means what exactly? That the EU Parliament lacks legitimacy? In fact, it is the Council which holds ultimate power within the EU - which is the way member states want it, by the way. The Parliament acts as a scrutinising body. You should think harder about what your more democratic EU would imply in relationship to national sovereignty.
4. Of course different countries have different interests? So what? The EU is a mechanism designed precisely to negotiate those differences across Europe. Talking darkly of German pro-Russianism (which seems to be on the wane along with it’s main standard bearer the SDP) doesn’t mean anything in isolation unless you can prove somehow that our own policy to Russia is somehow weakened. I see absolutely no evidence of that. I’m any case, 90% of non-trade foreign policy falls outside the EU’s remit.
In sum, your points would be more valid if we were on the verge of dissolving the U.K. for absorption into a new national entity: ie the bogeyman of Eurosceptic fantasy.
But having heard about this bogeyman since the Major years, it’s time to accept that it ain’t real.
If it’s deal or no-deal there’s a shitload (apologies for the technical term) of Acts and Statutary Instruments required to avoid having legislative gaps on the day we leave, and this process can’t start until everyone’s agreed the text of the Treaty.
It’s quite possible that a group of Parliamentarians in either House could disrupt this process by talking things out, calling points of order, bringing forward wrecking amendments and even voting down the final legislation. In extremis it might be that a workaround needs to be found for the rule that the same bill can’t be introduced again in the same session of Parliament - which probably means getting HMQ involved. It could get very messy indeed.
Everything that has happened since we joined the EEC has been moving towards the ultimate aim of a single European state. It is written right there in the treaties and has been declared as an explicit aim by successive honest European politicians (unlike the dishonest UK ones) repeatedly over the last 60 years. Just because it takes time and occasionally suffers setbacks does not mean it is not still the ultimate goal. Indeed some on here like William welcome it. Much as I disagree with him on many points he is far more honest than those Europhiles who try to pretend it is not the goal.
However, without the government on their side they can not change the law that parliament has already laid down - that we leave on March 29th.
In fact, my takeaway was that while she was strongly against a second ref it would be out of her hands if Parliamentary reality made it the only path.
I also thought - and this may be my wishful thinking - that No Deal was absolutely her worst scenario. When invited to reiterate that it would be better than a Bad Deal I though that she wriggled a bit.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1082040686218825728
Also two other stories of note on that front page - one is that the high street retailers are under serious pressures, the other is perhaps the biggest British manufacturing success story of the past decade, McLaren sales up 44% year-on-year to nearly 5,000 cars with an average price of around £250k.
(EDIT or uncharted waters, for those who didn't get my ferry-related gag)
https://twitter.com/commonslibrary/status/1068476917228232705
2. It’s fundamentally different. AFAIK in Canada and the US it’s only Quebec and Louisiana and it’s only state not federal law. I’m sure you personally would be ok with the U.K. system being a state level legal system with a Napoleonic Code based federal law but I don’t think many people have got there yet
3. Disagree - there is a UK demos.
4. The principle is accurate. Any example can be debated. But I suggest you read up on Nordstream 2.
Anybody with eyes can see that the direction of travel, of ever closer union, is inevitably towards a single European state. I also have much more respect for those who argue in favour of it, than those who dishonestly tell us that it won't ever happen.
In my opinion, it was the biggest lie of the entire referendum campaign. The only options on the ballot should have been "do you wish to leave the EU" or "do you wish to slowly become part of a federal superstate?" The status quo was never on the menu. It was one or the other and we made our choice.
However I'd say that the biggest identifier of statehood is the ability to raise its own taxes and decide on how they are spent. Our inability to zero rate vat on domestic fuel was one of my major bugbears about the EU, why the bloody hell should they be able to tell us how to set our taxes?
The trouble is with the EU it has always been salami slice tactics. Very thin slices, so nobody even knows anything is being taken. But all those slices add up to a lot.
Countries mutually agree to give up freedom to set tax rates because they don't want to be undercut by each other.
Why does EU defence represent a loss of the ability to defend our own borders but NATO membership doesn't?
"Downing Street insists new compromises can be won from Europe to ensure passage of PM’s plan"
Er, what happened to "you have to vote for this because it's the only deal we'll get"?
Pretty much all of the ones which are above 35.2%, which is most of them.
Although 'outside of Blair and then even one of Blairs wins.' which I originally wrote and you cut still applies to the statement.
Looking at it outside of YouGov there is only a single poll below 35.2% since the election in 2017.
More than 200 MPs from different political parties have signed a letter to Theresa May, urging her to rule out a no-deal Brexit.
The MPs - including both Leave and Remain supporters - have been invited to meet the prime minister on Tuesday.
Tory ex-cabinet minister Dame Caroline Spelman, who organised the letter with Labour MP Jack Dromey, said a no-deal Brexit would cause job losses.
The real, genuine point of power is money. Is the centre reliant on the willingness of its parts to send money? Or is the centre the source of money for the regions?