In order to revoke A50, you need a change of government.
No you do not. All you need is a letter to Brussels and the guts to send it
Well, you need the Conservative Party's voters and members to make an overnight conversion to being pro-EU. I would not rate the chances of that highly.
Or you need May to essentially betray her party. Which she can now do, since her party made her immune to challenge for a year.
She'd be out on her ear tomorrow if she proposed a Bill to revoke the 2017 legislation.
She could get it through the HoC and almost certainly the Lords, too. And she can't be No Confidenced by the party for another 11 months, so whatever the wrath of JRM and Bojo it would be as sounding brass or tinkling cymbal. Or a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing. (In the short term anyway!)
The 1922 could change their rules in 10 minutes. They could say no new challenge within 12 months - unless a 25% threshold is reached, rather than 15%.
In order to revoke A50, you need a change of government.
No you do not. All you need is a letter to Brussels and the guts to send it
Well, you need the Conservative Party's voters and members to make an overnight conversion to being pro-EU. I would not rate the chances of that highly.
Or you need May to essentially betray her party. Which she can now do, since her party made her immune to challenge for a year.
She'd be out on her ear tomorrow if she proposed a Bill to revoke the 2017 legislation.
She could get it through the HoC and almost certainly the Lords, too. And she can't be No Confidenced by the party for another 11 months, so whatever the wrath of JRM and Bojo it would be as sounding brass or tinkling cymbal. Or a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing. (In the short term anyway!)
To do that, she has to put herself at the head of a non-Conservative government. How likely do you think that is?
The arithmetic is straightforward. 70=75% of Tory voters, 85-90% of Tory members support Brexit.
We obsess about the ways in which Parliament can control / influence the end point of Brexit, be that revocation, delay, renegotiation, deal or crash out.
We do not spend anything like enough time in assessing the power of the EU (as a body or individual states) to control and guide the end result.
While our politicians run around like headless chickens (possibly an insult to headless chickens) preening themselves with their absent beaks, strutting their stuff with heartfelt statements of core beliefs that usually play well to the constituency they wish to appeal to, in the real world the power they have is subject to the agreement of the EU beyond the simple choices of agreeing the deal, revocation and crashing out.
There is no political position to bring us together, there is no referendum to heal the mess. Parliament should make a choice. That is what they are there for. We voted in 2015, knowing a referendum was on offer. We voted in 2016 in a referendum. We voted in 2017 with some details of Brexit plans. Non of those votes resulted in massive overwhelming majorities. It is the job of parliament to conclude Brexit in the way it feels is best for the country, and if they so wish in a way that reflects the peoples views.
Totally. And I think they will. There's time.
Let us not peak too early with the outrage.
Because if I'm wrong and we end up with the horror of a No Deal crash out or another Referendum we will need all the outrage we can get.
Keep the faith. We will have a deal. Or a referendum but much more likely a deal. The deal (for all intents and purposes).
A serious problem with revoking A50 is that it would almost certainly lead to the formation of Leaver terrorist cells. I'm not joking. Such has been the hyperbole from elements within the media and politics - ramping up what is essentially a change of trading policy to a kind of revolutionary assertion of democratic integrity - that many will feel justified in taking the law into their own hands.
You are right. The democratic legitimacy of our primary institutions will be damaged for 52% of the population. It only takes an incredibly small number of those to seek change by non democratic means.
The Brexit dream is now in tatters - relying on Ramsgate, of all places, to save the British economy. I can honestly see Theresa revoking. 'As the House won't accept the government's deal, and given the profound damage of No Deal, a responsible government is left with no alternative but to...' Theresa, with her wooden earnestness, is probably one of the few politicians able to pull it off.
No Deal Brexit Means Brexit.
No Deal Brexit means chaos.
Do you think that is sinking in over in Brussels yet?
Or in Dublin?
Yes - I think Brussels and Dublin got the message a while ago.
However, we are a sovereign nation and always have been so they are trying to work around the decisions we have made and avoid the worst of the impact from our self-immolation.
I suspect that what you and Mark really mean is "Why have Brussels and Dublin not abjectly capitulated to our every whim?". Well.... tough sh*t guys. The UK is not a world superpower. Other nations are not beating a path to our door and falling over themselves to offer whatever we want.
When do you think that might sink in over in Dorset and a certain spot in the Middle East?
Ken Clarke is not going to be any more successful in persuading Conservative to love the EU than Theresa May would be.
Is there a lazier MP in the House than Ken Clarke?
He was my step-father's MP. And effin' useless.
Really? He was a junior Minister, a Cabinet Minister and a very good Chancellor, all over many years. I've no idea what sort of a constituency MP he has been but his voters seem to like him. He is still in the House at an age when many have retired.
The Brexit dream is now in tatters - relying on Ramsgate, of all places, to save the British economy. I can honestly see Theresa revoking. 'As the House won't accept the government's deal, and given the profound damage of No Deal, a responsible government is left with no alternative but to...' Theresa, with her wooden earnestness, is probably one of the few politicians able to pull it off.
May’s only guiding principle is to end freedom of movement for UK and EU citizens. She will do whatever is necessary to achieve that.
The ironic thing is that while May wants to end FOM almost no-one in the Establishment wants actually to curb immigration -- just to look as if they might.
And yet the people do, or at least have greater control over it...
Which is a problem for the establishment, and is why we are where we are.
I think we could trade opinion polls on this matter either way until the cows come home on that.
Exactly - the two options aren't even consistently worded. By adding in 'can trade freely without tariffs or restrictions' you create a wholly different comparison and draw people to the second answer.
How about this alternative loading?
Do you think anyone should be able to just turn up in the UK from eastern Europe, get free housing, pay no council tax and get generous tax credits without having paid into the system first just by doing a part time unskilled job or would you prefer tariff free trade with Bulgaria and Slovakia?
It amounts to the same thing - because free movement and our benefits system allows the former under current rules!
Isn't the point of Mrs May's deal that you will get both controls on EU immigration and free trade in some form? Canada has a free trade deal with the EU - but no freedom of movement.
Also I expect most of the 31% who prioritise immigration controls even on those questions are probably Tory voters!
As we have seen so many times - ask the same question in a different way and people don't always give the same answer to pollsters.
A continued and baffling failure of the professional commentariat to massively overestimate Theresa May's political skill has been one of the hallmarks of Brexit commentary.
It should be no surprise that a big chunk of the mindless centrist chatterati still believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that May still has a plan, an ace up her sleeve, for getting people behind her.
She doesn't. Her deal is going to be rejected by a massive majority and then all hell is going to break loose.
What I expect to happen next is the Commons also voting down a second referendum, an application to defer Brexit and possibly revocation. Once it is established that there is no majority for any of them and that a no deal Brexit will happen it just might come back. At the moment May has not persuaded either the remainers or the ERG that they are going to lose. Her deal is, accordingly, relatively friendless.
David a no deal Brexit won't happen. It will be May's deal. If it is not that, then it will be a remain vs deal referendum.
Despite the morons advocating no deal or, laughingly, "managed no deal" - we will not have no deal.
Why Topping? No deal looks increasingly like the default option. Whilst the majority of MP's oppose it they lack the means to change the law which says we leave at the end of March.
I reluctantly support the PM's deal but it seems to me those whose 'least worst' option is No Deal have less to worry about than those whose 'Lest worst' option is a Soft Brexit.
A continued and baffling failure of the professional commentariat to massively overestimate Theresa May's political skill has been one of the hallmarks of Brexit commentary.
It should be no surprise that a big chunk of the mindless centrist chatterati still believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that May still has a plan, an ace up her sleeve, for getting people behind her.
She doesn't. Her deal is going to be rejected by a massive majority and then all hell is going to break loose.
What I expect to happen next is the Commons also voting down a second referendum, an application to defer Brexit and possibly revocation. Once it is established that there is no majority for any of them and that a no deal Brexit will happen it just might come back. At the moment May has not persuaded either the remainers or the ERG that they are going to lose. Her deal is, accordingly, relatively friendless.
David a no deal Brexit won't happen. It will be May's deal. If it is not that, then it will be a remain vs deal referendum.
Despite the morons advocating no deal or, laughingly, "managed no deal" - we will not have no deal.
I am not as confident of that as I was. Our leaders' incompetence is fairly profound and we could easily find ourselves there by mistake. But I hope you are right.
We obsess about the ways in which Parliament can control / influence the end point of Brexit, be that revocation, delay, renegotiation, deal or crash out.
We do not spend anything like enough time in assessing the power of the EU (as a body or individual states) to control and guide the end result.
While our politicians run around like headless chickens (possibly an insult to headless chickens) preening themselves with their absent beaks, strutting their stuff with heartfelt statements of core beliefs that usually play well to the constituency they wish to appeal to, in the real world the power they have is subject to the agreement of the EU beyond the simple choices of agreeing the deal, revocation and crashing out.
There is no political position to bring us together, there is no referendum to heal the mess. Parliament should make a choice. That is what they are there for. We voted in 2015, knowing a referendum was on offer. We voted in 2016 in a referendum. We voted in 2017 with some details of Brexit plans. Non of those votes resulted in massive overwhelming majorities. It is the job of parliament to conclude Brexit in the way it feels is best for the country, and if they so wish in a way that reflects the peoples views.
Totally. And I think they will. There's time.
Let us not peak too early with the outrage.
Because if I'm wrong and we end up with the horror of a No Deal crash out or another Referendum we will need all the outrage we can get.
Keep the faith. We will have a deal. Or a referendum but much more likely a deal. The deal (for all intents and purposes).
The majority of MPs are ultimately painting themselves into accepting May's Deal because they have mined all the world's reserves of hyperbole in saying how dire No Deal will be.....
In order to revoke A50, you need a change of government.
No you do not. All you need is a letter to Brussels and the guts to send it
Well, you need the Conservative Party's voters and members to make an overnight conversion to being pro-EU. I would not rate the chances of that highly.
Or you need May to essentially betray her party. Which she can now do, since her party made her immune to challenge for a year.
She'd be out on her ear tomorrow if she proposed a Bill to revoke the 2017 legislation.
She could get it through the HoC and almost certainly the Lords, too. And she can't be No Confidenced by the party for another 11 months, so whatever the wrath of JRM and Bojo it would be as sounding brass or tinkling cymbal. Or a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing. (In the short term anyway!)
To do that, she has to put herself at the head of a non-Conservative government. How likely do you think that is?
The arithmetic is straightforward. 70=75% of Tory voters, 85-90% of Tory members support Brexit.
85 - 90% of Tory members, eh? That sounds like a large number. But, wait: how many Tory members are there? Is it even as much as 100,000?
A serious problem with revoking A50 is that it would almost certainly lead to the formation of Leaver terrorist cells. I'm not joking. Such has been the hyperbole from elements within the media and politics - ramping up what is essentially a change of trading policy to a kind of revolutionary assertion of democratic integrity - that many will feel justified in taking the law into their own hands.
You are right. The democratic legitimacy of our primary institutions will be damaged for 52% of the population. It only takes an incredibly small number of those to seek change by non democratic means.
Oh right - so we should do whatever a terrorist demand because they might blow us up?
Get a grip. On that basis, the IRA, the UVF, the INLA, the July 7th bombers etc should have been given everything they wanted.
The arithmetic is straightforward. 70=75% of Tory voters, 85-90% of Tory members support Brexit.
May could never be the PM of a GONU.
I agree. And, I doubt if Corbyn would tolerate a GONU either.
It only works if hundreds of Conservative and Labour MPs team up with the Lib Dems and SNP to form a GONU, against the will of most of their voters.
It's possible to imagine a counterfactual where, after the general election disaster, May realised Brexit was going to need bipartisan support, and brought Labour in throughout the process.
But that's not where we are, and unless anyone has a time machine, not where we can get to.
The arithmetic is straightforward. 70=75% of Tory voters, 85-90% of Tory members support Brexit.
May could never be the PM of a GONU.
I agree. And, I doubt if Corbyn would tolerate a GONU either.
It only works if hundreds of Conservative and Labour MPs team up with the Lib Dems and SNP to form a GONU, against the will of most of their voters.
It's possible to imagine a counterfactual where, after the general election disaster, May realised Brexit was going to need bipartisan support, and brought Labour in throughout the process.
But that's not where we are, and unless anyone has a time machine, not where we can get to.
It's not possible to imagine a counterfactual where Labour would have cooperated in such a scheme, though.
A continued and baffling failure of the professional commentariat to massively overestimate Theresa May's political skill has been one of the hallmarks of Brexit commentary.
It should be no surprise that a big chunk of the mindless centrist chatterati still believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that May still has a plan, an ace up her sleeve, for getting people behind her.
She doesn't. Her deal is going to be rejected by a massive majority and then all hell is going to break loose.
What I expect to happen next is the Commons also voting down a second referendum, an application to defer Brexit and possibly revocation. Once it is established that there is no majority for any of them and that a no deal Brexit will happen it just might come back. At the moment May has not persuaded either the remainers or the ERG that they are going to lose. Her deal is, accordingly, relatively friendless.
David a no deal Brexit won't happen. It will be May's deal. If it is not that, then it will be a remain vs deal referendum.
Despite the morons advocating no deal or, laughingly, "managed no deal" - we will not have no deal.
Why Topping? No deal looks increasingly like the default option. Whilst the majority of MP's oppose it they lack the means to change the law which says we leave at the end of March.
I reluctantly support the PM's deal but it seems to me those whose 'least worst' option is No Deal have less to worry about than those whose 'Lest worst' option is a Soft Brexit.
Because no government can allow there to be "no deal", whatever that means. Leaving having not signed the WA leaves the backstop as a live issue and one that the government can't afford to not have tied down. For all its many many ills (and, as it sounds from your username, you and I have been out on the streets for years and years on the Cons' behalf), at this particular time, this particular PM has appreciated that of all the issues that there cannot be compromise on it is the NI border that is driving the entire process.
The scary thing about no deal is that it maximises the ability of people (and MPs in particular) to blame others. As such it's probably irresistible.
Theresa will say, things would have been good if MPs had accepted the deal. Corbyn will say, things would have been good if the Tories had listened to us or called a GE ERG/Leavers/Boris will say, things would have been good if Theresa would have followed our advice, done Canada+++-++ Remainers/EU will say, things would have been good if we had no Brexit at all. Voters will say, things would have been good if the government/politicians had been competent.
The arithmetic is straightforward. 70=75% of Tory voters, 85-90% of Tory members support Brexit.
May could never be the PM of a GONU.
I agree. And, I doubt if Corbyn would tolerate a GONU either.
It only works if hundreds of Conservative and Labour MPs team up with the Lib Dems and SNP to form a GONU, against the will of most of their voters.
It's possible to imagine a counterfactual where, after the general election disaster, May realised Brexit was going to need bipartisan support, and brought Labour in throughout the process.
But that's not where we are, and unless anyone has a time machine, not where we can get to.
Brexit should always have been a national enterprise involving people from all the parties. But we are where we are.
In order to revoke A50, you need a change of government.
No you do not. All you need is a letter to Brussels and the guts to send it
Well, you need the Conservative Party's voters and members to make an overnight conversion to being pro-EU. I would not rate the chances of that highly.
Or you need May to essentially betray her party. Which she can now do, since her party made her immune to challenge for a year.
She'd be out on her ear tomorrow if she proposed a Bill to revoke the 2017 legislation.
She could get it through the HoC and almost certainly the Lords, too. And she can't be No Confidenced by the party for another 11 months, so whatever the wrath of JRM and Bojo it would be as sounding brass or tinkling cymbal. Or a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing. (In the short term anyway!)
To do that, she has to put herself at the head of a non-Conservative government. How likely do you think that is?
The arithmetic is straightforward. 70=75% of Tory voters, 85-90% of Tory members support Brexit.
85 - 90% of Tory members, eh? That sounds like a large number. But, wait: how many Tory members are there? Is it even as much as 100,000?
Probably rather more now, given how many have joined over the past year.
But, in any case, it's the voters that are the issue. 70-75% is 28-30% of the whole. Without them, the Conservative Party would go the way of the old Liberal party.
We obsess about the ways in which Parliament can control / influence the end point of Brexit, be that revocation, delay, renegotiation, deal or crash out.
We do not spend anything like enough time in assessing the power of the EU (as a body or individual states) to control and guide the end result.
While our politicians run around like headless chickens (possibly an insult to headless chickens) preening themselves with their absent beaks, strutting their stuff with heartfelt statements of core beliefs that usually play well to the constituency they wish to appeal to, in the real world the power they have is subject to the agreement of the EU beyond the simple choices of agreeing the deal, revocation and crashing out.
There is no political position to bring us together, there is no referendum to heal the mess. Parliament should make a choice. That is what they are there for. We voted in 2015, knowing a referendum was on offer. We voted in 2016 in a referendum. We voted in 2017 with some details of Brexit plans. Non of those votes resulted in massive overwhelming majorities. It is the job of parliament to conclude Brexit in the way it feels is best for the country, and if they so wish in a way that reflects the peoples views.
Totally. And I think they will. There's time.
Let us not peak too early with the outrage.
Because if I'm wrong and we end up with the horror of a No Deal crash out or another Referendum we will need all the outrage we can get.
Keep the faith. We will have a deal. Or a referendum but much more likely a deal. The deal (for all intents and purposes).
The majority of MPs are ultimately painting themselves into accepting May's Deal because they have mined all the world's reserves of hyperbole in saying how dire No Deal will be.....
Especially those who dismissed Project Fear I so vigorously.
Interesting piece. The one big thing you didn’t mention is that there’s a lot of aerodynamic regulation changes for 2019, which puts things up in the air more than in previous years.
On the odds for the drivers, I’d be laying Hamilton and Vettel, backing Gasly and Leclerc each way, then seeing how things pan out in the first few races.
I think the upside shock could be with Renault and Ricciardo, and the downside shock to RB - who are likely to have a fast but unreliable car piloted by a fast but unreliable driver.
A serious problem with revoking A50 is that it would almost certainly lead to the formation of Leaver terrorist cells. I'm not joking. Such has been the hyperbole from elements within the media and politics - ramping up what is essentially a change of trading policy to a kind of revolutionary assertion of democratic integrity - that many will feel justified in taking the law into their own hands.
You are right. The democratic legitimacy of our primary institutions will be damaged for 52% of the population. It only takes an incredibly small number of those to seek change by non democratic means.
Oh right - so we should do whatever a terrorist demand because they might blow us up?
Get a grip. On that basis, the IRA, the UVF, the INLA, the July 7th bombers etc should have been given everything they wanted.
Catch terrorists. Lock them up.
Isn't that the argument remainers and the EU have been using in terms of Northern Ireland. We cannot have customs controls between the Republic and NI - as existed for decades before the troubles - because the provisional IRA will rearm and start mass bombing campaigns across the British isles. That of course being the implied threat?
So its best to remain to ensure no IRA bombing campaigns?
The Brexit dream is now in tatters - relying on Ramsgate, of all places, to save the British economy. I can honestly see Theresa revoking. 'As the House won't accept the government's deal, and given the profound damage of No Deal, a responsible government is left with no alternative but to...' Theresa, with her wooden earnestness, is probably one of the few politicians able to pull it off.
May’s only guiding principle is to end freedom of movement for UK and EU citizens. She will do whatever is necessary to achieve that.
The ironic thing is that while May wants to end FOM almost no-one in the Establishment wants actually to curb immigration -- just to look as if they might.
And yet the people do, or at least have greater control over it...
Which is a problem for the establishment, and is why we are where we are.
I think we could trade opinion polls on this matter either way until the cows come home on that.
How about this alternative loading?
Do you think anyone should be able to just turn up in the UK from eastern Europe, get free housing, pay no council tax and get generous tax credits without having paid into the system first just by doing a part time unskilled job or would you prefer tariff free trade with Bulgaria and Slovakia?
It amounts to the same thing - because free movement and our benefits system allows the former under current rules!
Isn't the point of Mrs May's deal that you will get both controls on EU immigration and free trade in some form? Canada has a free trade deal with the EU - but no freedom of movement.
Also I expect most of the 31% who prioritise immigration controls even on those questions are probably Tory voters!
As we have seen so many times - ask the same question in a different way and people don't always give the same answer to pollsters.
I don't expect ANYONE, whether from an EU country, Australia or the US or wherever to be able just to rock up and 'get free housing, pay no council tax and get generous tax credits without having paid into the system first'. Get a job first, which is what we have to do 'there', then after a few months a newcomer can have the same rights as a long-term resident. Which DON'T include free housing or no council tax, as IUI. Not sure about tax credits, TBH.
The scary thing about no deal is that it maximises the ability of people (and MPs in particular) to blame others. As such it's probably irresistible.
Theresa will say, things would have been good if MPs had accepted the deal. Corbyn will say, things would have been good if the Tories had listened to us or called a GE ERG/Leavers/Boris will say, things would have been good if Theresa would have followed our advice, done Canada+++-++ Remainers/EU will say, things would have been good if we had no Brexit at all. Voters will say, things would have been good if the government/politicians had been competent.
The scary thing about no deal is that it maximises the ability of people (and MPs in particular) to blame others. As such it's probably irresistible.
Theresa will say, things would have been good if MPs had accepted the deal. Corbyn will say, things would have been good if the Tories had listened to us or called a GE ERG/Leavers/Boris will say, things would have been good if Theresa would have followed our advice, done Canada+++-++ Remainers/EU will say, things would have been good if we had no Brexit at all. Voters will say, things would have been good if the government/politicians had been competent.
That's the risk. And why No Deal is so attractive to so many MPs.
A serious problem with revoking A50 is that it would almost certainly lead to the formation of Leaver terrorist cells. I'm not joking. Such has been the hyperbole from elements within the media and politics - ramping up what is essentially a change of trading policy to a kind of revolutionary assertion of democratic integrity - that many will feel justified in taking the law into their own hands.
You are right. The democratic legitimacy of our primary institutions will be damaged for 52% of the population. It only takes an incredibly small number of those to seek change by non democratic means.
Oh right - so we should do whatever a terrorist demand because they might blow us up?
Get a grip. On that basis, the IRA, the UVF, the INLA, the July 7th bombers etc should have been given everything they wanted.
Catch terrorists. Lock them up.
He’s not advocating them, neither am I (yet). The IRA became active because the democratic processes failed some people in NI, the grievance was real, and after been nurtured became something very ugly, long after the grievance had fallen away. It’s very hard to get it back in the box, and twenty years into ‘peace’ we still have bitterly divided communities.
If parliament cancels Brexit, you create a real grievance, it is not consequence free when parliament loses its authority.
I can understand the partisan reason for wanting as many Con MPs onside as possible but the numbers simply aren't there so May needs to reach out beyond.
You seem to have confused "reaching out" with "blackmail".
It's hardly blackmail when most Labour MPs voted to put themselves in this position. It's an inevitable consequence of the A50 process, which parliament effectively triggered.
A serious problem with revoking A50 is that it would almost certainly lead to the formation of Leaver terrorist cells. I'm not joking. Such has been the hyperbole from elements within the media and politics - ramping up what is essentially a change of trading policy to a kind of revolutionary assertion of democratic integrity - that many will feel justified in taking the law into their own hands.
You are right. The democratic legitimacy of our primary institutions will be damaged for 52% of the population. It only takes an incredibly small number of those to seek change by non democratic means.
Oh right - so we should do whatever a terrorist demand because they might blow us up?
Get a grip. On that basis, the IRA, the UVF, the INLA, the July 7th bombers etc should have been given everything they wanted.
Catch terrorists. Lock them up.
Isn't that the argument remainers and the EU have been using in terms of Northern Ireland. We cannot have customs controls between the Republic and NI - as existed for decades before the troubles - because the provisional IRA will rearm and start mass bombing campaigns across the British isles. That of course being the implied threat?
So its best to remain to ensure no IRA bombing campaigns?
Personally, I would not expect any credible terrorist organisation to emerge (there may be lone wolves).
More likely that a right wing populist party would emerge as the biggest party on the right.
The scary thing about no deal is that it maximises the ability of people (and MPs in particular) to blame others. As such it's probably irresistible.
Theresa will say, things would have been good if MPs had accepted the deal. Corbyn will say, things would have been good if the Tories had listened to us or called a GE ERG/Leavers/Boris will say, things would have been good if Theresa would have followed our advice, done Canada+++-++ Remainers/EU will say, things would have been good if we had no Brexit at all. Voters will say, things would have been good if the government/politicians had been competent.
That's the risk. And why No Deal is so attractive to so many MPs.
Why would it be ‘monkey business’? Parliament has three options open to it, none of which it is prepared to decide on. The country should therefore settle that choice.
2 main reasons:
1. One cannot put something called No Deal on a ballot paper as an active choice. It is not sufficiently definable and in its pure form would not be acceptable to parliament, i.e. if it 'won' it would not be implemented. Also the public cannot be expected to form a view on what the consequences of such a thing might be.
2. A two stage referendum and/or preferences lends itself to convoluted tactical voting. Overlaying this on top of the base situation (that the public have little clue about the EU in the first place) is a farce wrapped in farce. It would be an abuse of the British people. Sadistic, in fact. For all our sins we do not deserve that.
A serious problem with revoking A50 is that it would almost certainly lead to the formation of Leaver terrorist cells. I'm not joking. Such has been the hyperbole from elements within the media and politics - ramping up what is essentially a change of trading policy to a kind of revolutionary assertion of democratic integrity - that many will feel justified in taking the law into their own hands.
You are right. The democratic legitimacy of our primary institutions will be damaged for 52% of the population. It only takes an incredibly small number of those to seek change by non democratic means.
Oh right - so we should do whatever a terrorist demand because they might blow us up?
Get a grip. On that basis, the IRA, the UVF, the INLA, the July 7th bombers etc should have been given everything they wanted.
Catch terrorists. Lock them up.
Isn't that the argument remainers and the EU have been using in terms of Northern Ireland. We cannot have customs controls between the Republic and NI - as existed for decades before the troubles - because the provisional IRA will rearm and start mass bombing campaigns across the British isles. That of course being the implied threat?
So its best to remain to ensure no IRA bombing campaigns?
Personally, I would not expect any credible terrorist organisation to emerge (there may be lone wolves).
More likely that a right wing populist party would emerge as the biggest party on the right.
A serious problem with revoking A50 is that it would almost certainly lead to the formation of Leaver terrorist cells. I'm not joking. Such has been the hyperbole from elements within the media and politics - ramping up what is essentially a change of trading policy to a kind of revolutionary assertion of democratic integrity - that many will feel justified in taking the law into their own hands.
You are right. The democratic legitimacy of our primary institutions will be damaged for 52% of the population. It only takes an incredibly small number of those to seek change by non democratic means.
Oh right - so we should do whatever a terrorist demand because they might blow us up?
Get a grip. On that basis, the IRA, the UVF, the INLA, the July 7th bombers etc should have been given everything they wanted.
Catch terrorists. Lock them up.
Isn't that the argument remainers and the EU have been using in terms of Northern Ireland. We cannot have customs controls between the Republic and NI - as existed for decades before the troubles - because the provisional IRA will rearm and start mass bombing campaigns across the British isles. That of course being the implied threat?
So its best to remain to ensure no IRA bombing campaigns?
Personally, I would not expect any credible terrorist organisation to emerge (there may be lone wolves).
More likely that a right wing populist party would emerge as the biggest party on the right.
A serious problem with revoking A50 is that it would almost certainly lead to the formation of Leaver terrorist cells. I'm not joking. Such has been the hyperbole from elements within the media and politics - ramping up what is essentially a change of trading policy to a kind of revolutionary assertion of democratic integrity - that many will feel justified in taking the law into their own hands.
You are right. The democratic legitimacy of our primary institutions will be damaged for 52% of the population. It only takes an incredibly small number of those to seek change by non democratic means.
Oh right - so we should do whatever a terrorist demand because they might blow us up?
Get a grip. On that basis, the IRA, the UVF, the INLA, the July 7th bombers etc should have been given everything they wanted.
Catch terrorists. Lock them up.
Isn't that the argument remainers and the EU have been using in terms of Northern Ireland. We cannot have customs controls between the Republic and NI - as existed for decades before the troubles - because the provisional IRA will rearm and start mass bombing campaigns across the British isles. That of course being the implied threat?
So its best to remain to ensure no IRA bombing campaigns?
Personally, I would not expect any credible terrorist organisation to emerge (there may be lone wolves).
More likely that a right wing populist party would emerge as the biggest party on the right.
The arithmetic is straightforward. 70=75% of Tory voters, 85-90% of Tory members support Brexit.
May could never be the PM of a GONU.
I agree. And, I doubt if Corbyn would tolerate a GONU either.
It only works if hundreds of Conservative and Labour MPs team up with the Lib Dems and SNP to form a GONU, against the will of most of their voters.
It's possible to imagine a counterfactual where, after the general election disaster, May realised Brexit was going to need bipartisan support, and brought Labour in throughout the process.
But that's not where we are, and unless anyone has a time machine, not where we can get to.
No, it's not.
Labour has been led by Corbyn for the whole period since the referendum in June 2016. Corbyn won't even talk to the PM as a courtesy on the way through to the Lords for the Queen's Speech; there's no possibility that he would have been interested in the difficult nuts and bolts of securing a Brexit deal, particularly as he's chasing his own unicorns.
That's not to say that May couldn't have done more to invite Labour (and others) into the process but I really don't see that any of the other parties would have accepted any meaningful role.
(Note also that in June 2016, Corbyn was also fighting a leadership election and needed to emphasis his ideological purity and anti-Tory credentials).
A serious problem with revoking A50 is that it would almost certainly lead to the formation of Leaver terrorist cells. I'm not joking. Such has been the hyperbole from elements within the media and politics - ramping up what is essentially a change of trading policy to a kind of revolutionary assertion of democratic integrity - that many will feel justified in taking the law into their own hands.
You are right. The democratic legitimacy of our primary institutions will be damaged for 52% of the population. It only takes an incredibly small number of those to seek change by non democratic means.
Oh right - so we should do whatever a terrorist demand because they might blow us up?
Get a grip. On that basis, the IRA, the UVF, the INLA, the July 7th bombers etc should have been given everything they wanted.
Catch terrorists. Lock them up.
Isn't that the argument remainers and the EU have been using in terms of Northern Ireland. We cannot have customs controls between the Republic and NI - as existed for decades before the troubles - because the provisional IRA will rearm and start mass bombing campaigns across the British isles. That of course being the implied threat?
So its best to remain to ensure no IRA bombing campaigns?
Personally, I would not expect any credible terrorist organisation to emerge (there may be lone wolves).
More likely that a right wing populist party would emerge as the biggest party on the right.
UKIP? Nigel Farage picking up a rifle?
I expect UKIP are a busted flush. Probably it would comprise Farage, Banks, and ERG-supporting Conservatives.
The scary thing about no deal is that it maximises the ability of people (and MPs in particular) to blame others. As such it's probably irresistible.
Theresa will say, things would have been good if MPs had accepted the deal. Corbyn will say, things would have been good if the Tories had listened to us or called a GE ERG/Leavers/Boris will say, things would have been good if Theresa would have followed our advice, done Canada+++-++ Remainers/EU will say, things would have been good if we had no Brexit at all. Voters will say, things would have been good if the government/politicians had been competent.
That's the risk. And why No Deal is so attractive to so many MPs.
The Brexit dream is now in tatters - relying on Ramsgate, of all places, to save the British economy. I can honestly see Theresa revoking. 'As the House won't accept the government's deal, and given the profound damage of No Deal, a responsible government is left with no alternative but to...' Theresa, with her wooden earnestness, is probably one of the few politicians able to pull it off.
No Deal Brexit Means Brexit.
No Deal Brexit means chaos.
Do you think that is sinking in over in Brussels yet?
Or in Dublin?
Yes - I think Brussels and Dublin got the message a while ago.
However, we are a sovereign nation and always have been so they are trying to work around the decisions we have made and avoid the worst of the impact from our self-immolation.
I suspect that what you and Mark really mean is "Why have Brussels and Dublin not abjectly capitulated to our every whim?". Well.... tough sh*t guys. The UK is not a world superpower. Other nations are not beating a path to our door and falling over themselves to offer whatever we want.
When do you think that might sink in over in Dorset and a certain spot in the Middle East?
So, are Brussels and Dublin going to build a border across Ireland, or are they just going to pretend there’s one there?
If they’re just going to pretend it’s there, as I suspect is the case, why would the U.K. sign up to the deal containing the ‘backstop’?
The snag with the first of these is that if there's a "No" vote the problem is unresolved. And in fact probably the most reasonable option for resolving the problem has been taken off the table.
I don't know what the answer is.
I agree that is a flaw. And the flaw with the 2nd one is that it pretty much steers to Remain.
Nevertheless, all but these 2 formulations are IMO out of the question.
Conclusion? Surely not happening.
Revoke or Ratify. Parliament must decide. I think they will.
2. A two stage referendum and/or preferences lends itself to convoluted tactical voting.
If you did it in 2 rounds, with "what's brexit" first and "now you know what brexit is do you still want to do it" second, I think you're probably OK. I mean, you could tactically try to pick whichever of the brexits seemed most/least likely to win in the second round, but that's quite hard to call; You might think the softer Brexit (deal) would have a better chance, but the polling as it currently stands looks more like No Deal does better. So I think people would generally pick the one they preferred.
The downside of this approach is that there would be an almighty bunfight about funding restrictions and things, eg does the winning brexit version get twice as much money as Remain (because it ran in two rounds) or does it have to stretch the same amount of money over two elections, etc etc. And as you say if you put No Deal on the ballot and the voters voted for it, you end up with an even harder problem interpreting the the mandate than you did with the original Brexit vote.
The Brexit dream is now in tatters - relying on Ramsgate, of all places, to save the British economy. I can honestly see Theresa revoking. 'As the House won't accept the government's deal, and given the profound damage of No Deal, a responsible government is left with no alternative but to...' Theresa, with her wooden earnestness, is probably one of the few politicians able to pull it off.
No Deal Brexit Means Brexit.
No Deal Brexit means chaos.
Do you think that is sinking in over in Brussels yet?
Or in Dublin?
Yes - I think Brussels and Dublin got the message a while ago.
However, we are a sovereign nation and always have been so they are trying to work around the decisions we have made and avoid the worst of the impact from our self-immolation.
I suspect that what you and Mark really mean is "Why have Brussels and Dublin not abjectly capitulated to our every whim?". Well.... tough sh*t guys. The UK is not a world superpower. Other nations are not beating a path to our door and falling over themselves to offer whatever we want.
When do you think that might sink in over in Dorset and a certain spot in the Middle East?
So, are Brussels and Dublin going to build a border across Ireland, or are they just going to pretend there’s one there?
If they’re just going to pretend it’s there, as I suspect is the case, why would the U.K. sign up to the deal containing the ‘backstop’?
There already is a currency, VAT, income tax and corporation tax border.
Post Brexit it will be much the same - but no hard border under any option including no deal.
A referendum. I don't believe the EU will extend for a referendum offering No Deal. Just maybe May will go for a Deal v Remain referendum, but surely that would break the Tory party.
If there is to be another Referendum I can see just the 2 possible formulations:
The Government has negotiated a treaty under which the UK will leave the European Union. Should parliament now ratify that treaty? YES / NO
Or,
Should the UK leave the European Union under the treaty negotiated by the government or should the UK remain a member of the European Union? LEAVE / REMAIN
There will not IMO be any of this 2 stage or 3 option preference monkey business.
(Betting PS: The top one settles on Betfair as No 2nd Referendum since it is not IN/OUT)
No Leave with Deal or Leave with Deal or Leave v Remain and if Leave then Leave with the Deal or Leave with No Deal are both far more likely to lead to a Deal vote and thus more acceptable to May than your options and make clear the options unlike your first suggestion while No Dealers will never accept your second suggestion
The Brexit dream is now in tatters - relying on Ramsgate, of all places, to save the British economy. I can honestly see Theresa revoking. 'As the House won't accept the government's deal, and given the profound damage of No Deal, a responsible government is left with no alternative but to...' Theresa, with her wooden earnestness, is probably one of the few politicians able to pull it off.
No Deal Brexit Means Brexit.
No Deal Brexit means chaos.
Do you think that is sinking in over in Brussels yet?
Or in Dublin?
Yes - I think Brussels and Dublin got the message a while ago.
However, we are a sovereign nation and always have been so they are trying to work around the decisions we have made and avoid the worst of the impact from our self-immolation.
I suspect that what you and Mark really mean is "Why have Brussels and Dublin not abjectly capitulated to our every whim?". Well.... tough sh*t guys. The UK is not a world superpower. Other nations are not beating a path to our door and falling over themselves to offer whatever we want.
When do you think that might sink in over in Dorset and a certain spot in the Middle East?
So, are Brussels and Dublin going to build a border across Ireland, or are they just going to pretend there’s one there?
If they’re just going to pretend it’s there, as I suspect is the case, why would the U.K. sign up to the deal containing the ‘backstop’?
We will be under WTO rules as will the EU at that point. They will do whatever the rules mandate because (shock, horror) they follow the rules of the deals and agreements they have signed.
They are not offering a border as part of Brexit. If we (the sovereign UK) want to inflict another dose of violence on its own post-Brexit territority then that is our responsibility.
'I don't expect ANYONE, whether from an EU country, Australia or the US or wherever to be able just to rock up and 'get free housing, pay no council tax and get generous tax credits without having paid into the system first'. Get a job first, which is what we have to do 'there', then after a few months a newcomer can have the same rights as a long-term resident. Which DON'T include free housing or no council tax, as IUI. Not sure about tax credits, TBH.'
Perhaps but those are the rules if we keep freedom of movement - because applying different welfare and benefit policies to new arrivals compared to long term residents is deemed legally to impose an obstacle to freedom of movement.
As an example three English councils decided in 2013 to introduce council tax benefit changes which would mean you had to have lived locally for two years to get council tax benefit. This was ruled unlawful by our courts - one of the key grounds given was that it imposed an obstacle to free movement within the EU. One of those was Tendring - which soon after had a UKIP MP. Basically free movement gives you a legal right to go and claim welfare in another EU member state on the same basis as locals. Apparently British EU citizens relocating to Clacton could however have been treated worse than long term Frintonites or Clactonians - but not Slovakian or Bulgarians moving there.
'The requirement imposed an obstacle to freedom of movement within the EU. It was intrinsically likely to affect non-British EU citizens and ‘created an obstacle to freedom of movement by the differential imposition of tax’.'
Its the same nonsense that means young people from all over the EU get free student tuition in Scottish universities - unless of course they are English, Welsh or Northern Irish!
And its perhaps one of the reasons why many wanted FOM to end.
A continued and baffling failure of the professional commentariat to massively overestimate Theresa May's political skill has been one of the hallmarks of Brexit commentary.
It should be no surprise that a big chunk of the mindless centrist chatterati still believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that May still has a plan, an ace up her sleeve, for getting people behind her.
She doesn't. Her deal is going to be rejected by a massive majority and then all hell is going to break loose.
What I expect to happen next is the Commons also voting down a second referendum, an application to defer Brexit and possibly revocation. Once it is established that there is no majority for any of them and that a no deal Brexit will happen it just might come back. At the moment May has not persuaded either the remainers or the ERG that they are going to lose. Her deal is, accordingly, relatively friendless.
David a no deal Brexit won't happen. It will be May's deal. If it is not that, then it will be a remain vs deal referendum.
Despite the morons advocating no deal or, laughingly, "managed no deal" - we will not have no deal.
Why Topping? No deal looks increasingly like the default option. Whilst the majority of MP's oppose it they lack the means to change the law which says we leave at the end of March.
I reluctantly support the PM's deal but it seems to me those whose 'least worst' option is No Deal have less to worry about than those whose 'Lest worst' option is a Soft Brexit.
Because no government can allow there to be "no deal", whatever that means. Leaving having not signed the WA leaves the backstop as a live issue and one that the government can't afford to not have tied down. For all its many many ills (and, as it sounds from your username, you and I have been out on the streets for years and years on the Cons' behalf), at this particular time, this particular PM has appreciated that of all the issues that there cannot be compromise on it is the NI border that is driving the entire process.
Yes like you part of the poor bloody infantry and despite her short comings I would turn out again tomorrow if we have to go to a GE (though not in bloody Luton South where HQ had us wasting our time in '17! ) She has more respect in the country than she is given credit for and if needs must I think we can make a fight of it.
Personally I think leaving without a signed WA (my take on No Deal) is more likely than you do because it is a) what happens if nothing else can be agreed and b) More players than not (i.e Corbyn, ERG, Hard core-Remainers) are sanguine about chancing another roll of the dice to see if their position can be improved.
Perhaps but those are the rules if we keep freedom of movement - because applying different welfare and benefit policies to new arrivals compared to long term residents is deemed legally to impose an obstacle to freedom of movement.
As an example three English councils decided in 2013 to introduce council tax benefit changes which would mean you had to have lived locally for two years to get council tax benefit. This was ruled unlawful by our courts - one of the key grounds given was that it imposed an obstacle to free movement within the EU. One of those was Tendring - which soon after had a UKIP MP. Basically free movement gives you a legal right to go and claim welfare in another EU member state on the same basis as locals. Apparently British EU citizens relocating to Clacton could however have been treated worse than long term Frintonites or Clactonians - but not Slovakian or Bulgarians moving there.
'The requirement imposed an obstacle to freedom of movement within the EU. It was intrinsically likely to affect non-British EU citizens and ‘created an obstacle to freedom of movement by the differential imposition of tax’.'
Its the same nonsense that means young people from all over the EU get free student tuition in Scottish universities - unless of course they are English, Welsh or Northern Irish!
And its perhaps one of the reasons why many wanted FOM to end.
Or we could have fixed our welfare system so that it had a contribution element which UK people could qualify for via 16-18 education - but that was too much for Blair, Brown and everyone else to fix.
In order to revoke A50, you need a change of government.
No you do not. All you need is a letter to Brussels and the guts to send it
Well, you need the Conservative Party's voters and members to make an overnight conversion to being pro-EU. I would not rate the chances of that highly.
Or you need May to essentially betray her party. Which she can now do, since her party made her immune to challenge for a year.
She'd be out on her ear tomorrow if she proposed a Bill to revoke the 2017 legislation.
She could get it through the HoC and almost certainly the Lords, too. And she can't be No Confidenced by the party for another 11 months, so whatever the wrath of JRM and Bojo it would be as sounding brass or tinkling cymbal. Or a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing. (In the short term anyway!)
To do that, she has to put herself at the head of a non-Conservative government. How likely do you think that is?
The arithmetic is straightforward. 70=75% of Tory voters, 85-90% of Tory members support Brexit.
85 - 90% of Tory members, eh? That sounds like a large number. But, wait: how many Tory members are there? Is it even as much as 100,000?
Probably rather more now, given how many have joined over the past year.
But, in any case, it's the voters that are the issue. 70-75% is 28-30% of the whole. Without them, the Conservative Party would go the way of the old Liberal party.
Indeed about 80 to 90% of Tory voters back No Deal or the Deal in most polls, a small fraction still back Remain.
If the Tories revoke Brexit they risk going the way of the Progressive Conservatives in Canada in 1993 or Forza Italia or Les Republicains and being overtaken by a new populist right-wing party whether UKIP or a new Farage led party
The Brexit dream is now in tatters - relying on Ramsgate, of all places, to save the British economy. I can honestly see Theresa revoking. 'As the House won't accept the government's deal, and given the profound damage of No Deal, a responsible government is left with no alternative but to...' Theresa, with her wooden earnestness, is probably one of the few politicians able to pull it off.
No Deal Brexit Means Brexit.
No Deal Brexit means chaos.
Do you think that is sinking in over in Brussels yet?
Or in Dublin?
Yes - I think Brussels and Dublin got the message a while ago.
However, we are a sovereign nation and always have been so they are trying to work around the decisions we have made and avoid the worst of the impact from our self-immolation.
I suspect that what you and Mark really mean is "Why have Brussels and Dublin not abjectly capitulated to our every whim?". Well.... tough sh*t guys. The UK is not a world superpower. Other nations are not beating a path to our door and falling over themselves to offer whatever we want.
When do you think that might sink in over in Dorset and a certain spot in the Middle East?
So, are Brussels and Dublin going to build a border across Ireland, or are they just going to pretend there’s one there?
If they’re just going to pretend it’s there, as I suspect is the case, why would the U.K. sign up to the deal containing the ‘backstop’?
We will be under WTO rules as will the EU at that point. They will do whatever the rules mandate because (shock, horror) they follow the rules of the deals and agreements they have signed.
They are not offering a border as part of Brexit. If we (the sovereign UK) want to inflict another dose of violence on its own post-Brexit territority then that is our responsibility.
So, are Dublin and Brussels building a physical border across Ireland if there’s no deal? Your answer suggests that yes they are obligated to.
Why would it be ‘monkey business’? Parliament has three options open to it, none of which it is prepared to decide on. The country should therefore settle that choice.
2 main reasons:
1. One cannot put something called No Deal on a ballot paper as an active choice. It is not sufficiently definable and in its pure form would not be acceptable to parliament, i.e. if it 'won' it would not be implemented. Also the public cannot be expected to form a view on what the consequences of such a thing might be.
2. A two stage referendum and/or preferences lends itself to convoluted tactical voting. Overlaying this on top of the base situation (that the public have little clue about the EU in the first place) is a farce wrapped in farce. It would be an abuse of the British people. Sadistic, in fact. For all our sins we do not deserve that.
1. I don't see why not, as it is what is going to happen now if Parliament does nothing.
2. This line of argument seems absurd on its face. If you have such contempt for the electorate's ability to make a decision of such consequence (particularly when Parliament has demonstrated it can't), why aren't we just revoking Article 50 anyway ?
The snag with the first of these is that if there's a "No" vote the problem is unresolved. And in fact probably the most reasonable option for resolving the problem has been taken off the table.
I don't know what the answer is.
I agree that is a flaw. And the flaw with the 2nd one is that it pretty much steers to Remain.
Nevertheless, all but these 2 formulations are IMO out of the question.
Conclusion? Surely not happening.
Revoke or Ratify. Parliament must decide. I think they will.
If it were to be No Deal, what do people think about the date of leaving? (1) Would the government go ahead with No Deal on the scheduled date, or would they ask for an extension to allow for planning? (2) If the government asked for an extension for No Deal planning, would the EU approve it?
The Brexit dream is now in tatters - relying on Ramsgate, of all places, to save the British economy. I can honestly see Theresa revoking. 'As the House won't accept the government's deal, and given the profound damage of No Deal, a responsible government is left with no alternative but to...' Theresa, with her wooden earnestness, is probably one of the few politicians able to pull it off.
No Deal Brexit Means Brexit.
No Deal Brexit means chaos.
Do you think that is sinking in over in Brussels yet?
Or in Dublin?
Yes - I think Brussels and Dublin got the message a while ago.
However, we are a sovereign nation and always have been so they are trying to work around the decisions we have made and avoid the worst of the impact from our self-immolation.
I suspect that what you and Mark really mean is "Why have Brussels and Dublin not abjectly capitulated to our every whim?". Well.... tough sh*t guys. The UK is not a world superpower. Other nations are not beating a path to our door and falling over themselves to offer whatever we want.
When do you think that might sink in over in Dorset and a certain spot in the Middle East?
So, are Brussels and Dublin going to build a border across Ireland, or are they just going to pretend there’s one there?
If they’re just going to pretend it’s there, as I suspect is the case, why would the U.K. sign up to the deal containing the ‘backstop’?
The backstop was always entirely unnecessary and is the only risk to a deal. There is no backstop under Article 50 or our status quo so why not just commit to wanting to avoid a hard border and deal with it in the future negotiations? The EU would retain the right not to agree any future relationship that doesn't avoid a hard border.
If there is no deal blame lies solely with Varadkar et al for demanding the utterly unreasonable.
Why would it be ‘monkey business’? Parliament has three options open to it, none of which it is prepared to decide on. The country should therefore settle that choice.
2 main reasons:
1. One cannot put something called No Deal on a ballot paper as an active choice. It is not sufficiently definable and in its pure form would not be acceptable to parliament, i.e. if it 'won' it would not be implemented. Also the public cannot be expected to form a view on what the consequences of such a thing might be.
2. A two stage referendum and/or preferences lends itself to convoluted tactical voting. Overlaying this on top of the base situation (that the public have little clue about the EU in the first place) is a farce wrapped in farce. It would be an abuse of the British people. Sadistic, in fact. For all our sins we do not deserve that.
1. I don't see why not, as it is what is going to happen now if Parliament does nothing.
2. This line of argument seems absurd on its face. If you have such contempt for the electorate's ability to make a decision of such consequence (particularly when Parliament has demonstrated it can't), why aren't we just revoking Article 50 anyway ?
Parliament doing nothing isn’t the same as a mandate *not* to do a deal with the EU where any kind of deal at all would become a betrayal.
The Brexit dream is now in tatters - relying on Ramsgate, of all places, to save the British economy. I can honestly see Theresa revoking. 'As the House won't accept the government's deal, and given the profound damage of No Deal, a responsible government is left with no alternative but to...' Theresa, with her wooden earnestness, is probably one of the few politicians able to pull it off.
No Deal Brexit Means Brexit.
No Deal Brexit means chaos.
Do you think that is sinking in over in Brussels yet?
Or in Dublin?
Yes - I think Brussels and Dublin got the message a while ago.
However, we are a sovereign nation and always have been so they are trying to work around the decisions we have made and avoid the worst of the impact from our self-immolation.
I suspect that what you and Mark really mean is "Why have Brussels and Dublin not abjectly capitulated to our every whim?". Well.... tough sh*t guys. The UK is not a world superpower. Other nations are not beating a path to our door and falling over themselves to offer whatever we want.
When do you think that might sink in over in Dorset and a certain spot in the Middle East?
So, are Brussels and Dublin going to build a border across Ireland, or are they just going to pretend there’s one there?
If they’re just going to pretend it’s there, as I suspect is the case, why would the U.K. sign up to the deal containing the ‘backstop’?
We will be under WTO rules as will the EU at that point. They will do whatever the rules mandate because (shock, horror) they follow the rules of the deals and agreements they have signed.
They are not offering a border as part of Brexit. If we (the sovereign UK) want to inflict another dose of violence on its own post-Brexit territority then that is our responsibility.
So, are Dublin and Brussels building a physical border across Ireland if there’s no deal? Your answer suggests that yes they are obligated to.
Based on polling, the government would be obligated to hold a border poll.
A continued and baffling failure of the professional commentariat to massively overestimate Theresa May's political skill has been one of the hallmarks of Brexit commentary.
It should be no surprise that a big chunk of the mindless centrist chatterati still believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that May still has a plan, an ace up her sleeve, for getting people behind her.
She doesn't. Her deal is going to be rejected by a massive majority and then all hell is going to break loose.
What I expect to happen next is the Commons also voting down a second referendum, an application to defer Brexit and possibly revocation. Once it is established that there is no majority for any of them and that a no deal Brexit will happen it just might come back. At the moment May has not persuaded either the remainers or the ERG that they are going to lose. Her deal is, accordingly, relatively friendless.
I still haven't worked out what's so terrible about the WA.
My concerns are the backstop which is an unacceptable intrusion into the domestic integrity of the UK and the obligations for a level playing field which may well require us to continue to apply EU mandated law that we did not approve of. In respect of the latter point I fear that the trade deal we end up with with the EU will favour them because the undertakings already given will mean we have a weak negotiating hand.
OTOH I am realistic enough to recognise that any FTA with a much larger partner such as the EU is going to favour them to some extent. The concessions that the EU have made which facilitate trade during the transitional period seem to me to be quite significant and would do much to eliminate any dislocation that might otherwise occur on our departure. The money issues need to be fixed and resolved and pretending that they all go away in a "no deal" scenario is just silly. I also fear that the terms of any FTA will be significantly less advantageous to us if we are seen to walk away from responsibilities that we have already acknowledged. For these reasons, although it is a long way from perfect, I back the deal.
This all seems more like an argument for remaining that taking the shit deal.
Any train of logic arrives at remaining
Whilst the law of the land arrives at No Deal Brexit.
Since when has Cummings ever been a friend of Davis?
They have hated each other since when IDS was leader
Yes, I seem to recall Cummings stating that both DD and IDS were a pair of duds - more interested in gossiping about Cherie Blair's flat than issues of national significance.
It's faux outrage, rather than real outrage, but I'm sure Khan will win, barring accidents.
We were promised no Londoners would pay a penny more in transport fares in 2020 than they do now - and those in zone 6 buying travelcards (the prices of which are set by the Mayor) are now paying more than £200 more as of 2 January compared to 2016. It only apparently applied to pay as you go and single fares - not travelcard seasons which most commuters buy. Londoners who buy travelcards are presumably not Londoners!
Crossrail was going to be on time and on budget.
Affordable housing starts are also well down on what was pledged.
But forget all that - Shaun Bailey did some horrible tweets or said something which might upset a few people 12 years ago! I wish Londoners could get a free pass like that!
Cos apparently suggesting young men at risk of failing at school or getting into crime might benefit from male role models - including perhaps male teachers - exercising some discipline is now misogynist.
The arithmetic is straightforward. 70=75% of Tory voters, 85-90% of Tory members support Brexit.
May could never be the PM of a GONU.
I agree. And, I doubt if Corbyn would tolerate a GONU either.
It only works if hundreds of Conservative and Labour MPs team up with the Lib Dems and SNP to form a GONU, against the will of most of their voters.
It's possible to imagine a counterfactual where, after the general election disaster, May realised Brexit was going to need bipartisan support, and brought Labour in throughout the process.
But that's not where we are, and unless anyone has a time machine, not where we can get to.
No, it's not.
Labour has been led by Corbyn for the whole period since the referendum in June 2016. Corbyn won't even talk to the PM as a courtesy on the way through to the Lords for the Queen's Speech; there's no possibility that he would have been interested in the difficult nuts and bolts of securing a Brexit deal, particularly as he's chasing his own unicorns.
That's not to say that May couldn't have done more to invite Labour (and others) into the process but I really don't see that any of the other parties would have accepted any meaningful role.
(Note also that in June 2016, Corbyn was also fighting a leadership election and needed to emphasis his ideological purity and anti-Tory credentials).
I agree that the Labour leadership would not have accepted a role in the process even if May had proposed one. But even so it would have put her on firmer ground if she had offered it and seen it rejected.
Two Labour MPs who might have been potential deal supporters, Gareth Snell and Ruth Smeeth, were interviewed on radio 4 yesterday and both said they had received absolutely no communication or request for support from the government before the debate in December. May apparently believed that all she had to do was announce the deal and everyone would fall into line, no effort was made to persuade doubters.
Extraordinary - someone of Mays experience should know that the personal approach is very important in politics and people hate to feel taken for granted, especially if you want them to go against their friends in their own party.
Perhaps but those are the rules if we keep freedom of movement - because applying different welfare and benefit policies to new arrivals compared to long term residents is deemed legally to impose an obstacle to freedom of movement.
As an example three English councils decided in 2013 to introduce council tax benefit changes which would mean you had to have lived locally for two years to get council tax benefit. This was ruled unlawful by our courts - one of the key grounds given was that it imposed an obstacle to free movement within the EU. One of those was Tendring - which soon after had a UKIP MP. Basically free movement gives you a legal right to go and claim welfare in another EU member state on the same basis as locals. Apparently British EU citizens relocating to Clacton could however have been treated worse than long term Frintonites or Clactonians - but not Slovakian or Bulgarians moving there.
'The requirement imposed an obstacle to freedom of movement within the EU. It was intrinsically likely to affect non-British EU citizens and ‘created an obstacle to freedom of movement by the differential imposition of tax’.'
Its the same nonsense that means young people from all over the EU get free student tuition in Scottish universities - unless of course they are English, Welsh or Northern Irish!
And its perhaps one of the reasons why many wanted FOM to end.
Or we could have fixed our welfare system so that it had a contribution element which UK people could qualify for via 16-18 education - but that was too much for Blair, Brown and everyone else to fix.
Matthew Parris said the other day that he thought it very possible that the Tory party - in its current form - would no longer exist in a year's time, that it was in a desperate state.
Not only are Tories making a Labour government more likely with their behaviour. They are making a Corbyn-led Labour government with an overall majority likely. They are, however, too stupid or obsessed with Brexit to realise this.
Do they need a majority? A minority Labour govt would perhaps be the best option for the country. It might force a Conservative implosion so they can "clean house", but it would hobble the more extreme Maoists.
The far left is not capable of compromise, so a minority Labour government would not last very long. I do agree, though, that it would be best for the country if the various Tory parties took some time out of office to work out whether their marriage is saveable.
We have no good options. We need to choose the least sh*t option.
Personally, I now think that revocation is the best option on offer. I know I will be shouted down as a whingeing Remoaner but so be it. I'm not. And I loathe the way people have been put into these categories. And I do worry a great deal about the effect of doing this on our democracy.
But the Brexiteers have been given nearly three years to come up with workable plans and have failed.
And we need the time and space as a country to work out what we really want and how to get there. Preserving the status quo - whatever its other difficulties and I really do not underestimate them - at least gives us that. If the country really wants to leave in future then it can learn the lessons from what has happened over the last few years.
What we really need to think about seriously is not the ins and outs of Brexit but what our European strategy should be - for the world as it is now and for what it is likely to be in future, something we have signally and dismally failed to do in the last few years, despite all the endless talking about the EU.
Edited: the only MP I have seen who has given any indication of understanding that this is what is needed has been Rory Stewart, as you can see in his interview with LBC's James O'Brien.
In order to revoke A50, you need a change of government.
Plus a vote in parliament to revoke A50. Not going to happen.
If it were to be No Deal, what do people think about the date of leaving? (1) Would the government go ahead with No Deal on the scheduled date, or would they ask for an extension to allow for planning? (2) If the government asked for an extension for No Deal planning, would the EU approve it?
IMO:
If the situation arose from a No to the referendum question, "should parliament ratify the government's deal?" the Brexit date would have been put back for a few weeks to give time for that referendum to take place.
The government would then implement the decision by leaving on the (new) due date and would use best efforts to minimize the worst of the short term disruption.
Perhaps but those are the rules1 if we keep freedom of movement - because applying different welfare and benefit policies to new arrivals compared to long term residents is deemed legally to impose an obstacle to freedom of movement.
As an example three English councils decided in 2013 to introduce council tax benefit changes which would mean you had to have lived locally for two years to get council tax benefit. This was ruled unlawful by our courts - one of the key grounds given was that it imposed an obstacle to free movement within the EU. One of those was Tendring - which soon after had a UKIP MP. Basically free movement gives you a legal right to go and claim welfare in another EU member state on the same basis as locals. Apparently British EU citizens relocating to Clacton could however have been treated worse than long term Frintonites or Clactonians - but not Slovakian or Bulgarians moving there.
'The requirement imposed an obstacle to freedom of movement within the EU. It was intrinsically likely to affect non-British EU citizens and ‘created an obstacle to freedom of movement by the differential imposition of tax’.'
Its the same nonsense that means young people from all over the EU get free student tuition in Scottish universities - unless of course they are English, Welsh or Northern Irish!
And its perhaps one of the reasons why many wanted FOM to end.
Or we could have fixed our welfare system so that it had a contribution element which UK people could qualify for via 16-18 education - but that was too much for Blair, Brown and everyone else to fix.
Quite.
Cameron could have come back and made the case. Probably something most tories are keen on anyway. Utterly useless.
The Brexit dream is now in tatters - relying on Ramsgate, of all places, to save the British economy. I can honestly see Theresa revoking. 'As the House won't accept the government's deal, and given the profound damage of No Deal, a responsible government is left with no alternative but to...' Theresa, with her wooden earnestness, is probably one of the few politicians able to pull it off.
No Deal Brexit Means Brexit.
No Deal Brexit means chaos.
Do you think that is sinking in over in Brussels yet?
Or in Dublin?
Yes - I think Brussels and Dublin got the message a while ago.
However, we are a sovereign nation and always have been so they are trying to work around the decisions we have made and avoid the worst of the impact from our self-immolation.
I suspect that what you and Mark really mean is "Why have Brussels and Dublin not abjectly capitulated to our every whim?". Well.... tough sh*t guys. The UK is not a world superpower. Other nations are not beating a path to our door and falling over themselves to offer whatever we want.
When do you think that might sink in over in Dorset and a certain spot in the Middle East?
So, are Brussels and Dublin going to build a border across Ireland, or are they just going to pretend there’s one there?
If they’re just going to pretend it’s there, as I suspect is the case, why would the U.K. sign up to the deal containing the ‘backstop’?
We will be under WTO rules as will the EU at that point. They will do whatever the rules mandate because (shock, horror) they follow the rules of the deals and agreements they have signed.
They are not offering a border as part of Brexit. If we (the sovereign UK) want to inflict another dose of violence on its own post-Brexit territority then that is our responsibility.
So, are Dublin and Brussels building a physical border across Ireland if there’s no deal? Your answer suggests that yes they are obligated to.
That’s not how it works.
They might not want to but might be obligated to under WTO MFN rules should a dispute be brought by another WTO member.
I’m sorry, I’m not one of those people who thinks we should be calling for a second referendum. I think that would just look like, the referendum was fought under rules we agreed to, a result was delivered, because we don’t like it we now want to replay it again – which will simply entrench a view that we’re some elite, who don’t want to pay any attention to the people.
Perhaps but those are the rules1 if we keep freedom of movement - because applying different welfare and benefit policies to new arrivals compared to long term residents is deemed legally to impose an obstacle to freedom of movement.
As an example three English councils decided in 2013 to introduce council tax benefit changes which would mean you had to have lived locally for two years to get council tax benefit. This was ruled unlawful by our courts - one of the key grounds given was that it imposed an obstacle to free movement within the EU. One of those was Tendring - which soon after had a UKIP MP. Basically free movement gives you a legal right to go and claim welfare in another EU member state on the same basis as locals. Apparently British EU citizens relocating to Clacton could however have been treated worse than long term Frintonites or Clactonians - but not Slovakian or Bulgarians moving there.
'The requirement imposed an obstacle to freedom of movement within the EU. It was intrinsically likely to affect non-British EU citizens and ‘created an obstacle to freedom of movement by the differential imposition of tax’.'
Its the same nonsense that means young people from all over the EU get free student tuition in Scottish universities - unless of course they are English, Welsh or Northern Irish!
And its perhaps one of the reasons why many wanted FOM to end.
Or we could have fixed our welfare system so that it had a contribution element which UK people could qualify for via 16-18 education - but that was too much for Blair, Brown and everyone else to fix.
Quite.
Cameron could have come back and made the case. Probably something most tories are keen on anyway. Utterly useless.
It's very hard for a Tory party to implement such a thing. Blair and Brown were the right people (Labour) to do it at the right time - everything could have been set up before the Eastern Europeans arrived...
Boris is still promising an 'all must have cake Brexit' ie a FTA with the EU and no backstop, he is not ideologically committed to No Deal unlike say Rees-Mogg, like Corbyn Boris is good at promising unicorns. He does however think No Deal is closer to Brexit than May's Deal
A continued and baffling failure of the professional commentariat to massively overestimate Theresa May's political skill has been one of the hallmarks of Brexit commentary.
It should be no surprise that a big chunk of the mindless centrist chatterati still believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that May still has a plan, an ace up her sleeve, for getting people behind her.
She doesn't. Her deal is going to be rejected by a massive majority and then all hell is going to break loose.
What I expect to happen next is the Commons also voting down a second referendum, an application to defer Brexit and possibly revocation. Once it is established that there is no majority for any of them and that a no deal Brexit will happen it just might come back. At the moment May has not persuaded either the remainers or the ERG that they are going to lose. Her deal is, accordingly, relatively friendless.
David a no deal Brexit won't happen. It will be May's deal. If it is not that, then it will be a remain vs deal referendum.
Despite the morons advocating no deal or, laughingly, "managed no deal" - we will not have no deal.
Why Topping? No deal looks increasingly like the default option. Whilst the majority of MP's oppose it they lack the means to change the law which says we leave at the end of March.
I reluctantly support the PM's deal but it seems to me those whose 'least worst' option is No Deal have less to worry about than those whose 'Lest worst' option is a Soft Brexit.
Because no government can allow there to be "no deal", whatever that means. Leaving having not signed the WA leaves the backstop as a live issue and one that the government can't afford to not havet this particular time, this particular PM has appreciated that of all the issues that there cannot be compromise on it is the NI border that is driving the entire process.
Yes like you part of the poor bloody infantry and despite her short comings I would turn out again tomorrow if we have to go to a GE (though not in bloody Luton South where HQ had us wasting our time in '17! ) She has more respect in the country than she is given credit for and if needs must I think we can make a fight of it.
Personally I think leaving without a signed WA (my take on No Deal) is more likely than you do because it is a) what happens if nothing else can be agreed and b) More players than not (i.e Corbyn, ERG, Hard core-Remainers) are sanguine about chancing another roll of the dice to see if their position can be improved.
All the logic points to leaving without a deal but it simply can’t happen. On account of NI.
A referendum. I don't believe the EU will extend for a referendum offering No Deal. Just maybe May will go for a Deal v Remain referendum, but surely that would break the Tory party.
If there is to be another Referendum I can see just the 2 possible formulations:
The Government has negotiated a treaty under which the UK will leave the European Union. Should parliament now ratify that treaty? YES / NO
Or,
Should the UK leave the European Union under the treaty negotiated by the government or should the UK remain a member of the European Union? LEAVE / REMAIN
There will not IMO be any of this 2 stage or 3 option preference monkey business.
(Betting PS: The top one settles on Betfair as No 2nd Referendum since it is not IN/OUT)
No Leave with Deal or Leave with Deal or Leave v Remain and if Leave then Leave with the Deal or Leave with No Deal are both far more likely to lead to a Deal vote and thus more acceptable to May than your options and make clear the options unlike your first suggestion while No Dealers will never accept your second suggestion
So basically if you wish to leave the EU but don't support May's deal - the position of most Tory voters and activists? - then you would have no option to vote for.
Yes - that either or option is going to play well for the Tories! If no deal isn't an option and is therefore is never rejected by voters then many simply won't see the referendum as legitimate.
Since when has Cummings ever been a friend of Davis?
They have hated each other since when IDS was leader
Yes, I seem to recall Cummings stating that both DD and IDS were a pair of duds - more interested in gossiping about Cherie Blair's flat than issues of national significance.
Cummings was then with the Tory 'modernisers' around Portillo along with Maude and Gove against the 'traditionalists' and social conservatives like IDS, Davis and Widdecombe
All the logic points to leaving without a deal but it simply can’t happen. On account of NI.
Given the way the EU Withdrawal Act prevents anything that would require new checks on the Irish border, leaving with no deal would probably necessitate the use of Henry VIII powers to implement the backstop unilaterally.
The Brexit dream is now in tatters - relying on Ramsgate, of all places, to save the British economy. I can honestly see Theresa revoking. 'As the House won't accept the government's deal, and given the profound damage of No Deal, a responsible government is left with no alternative but to...' Theresa, with her wooden earnestness, is probably one of the few politicians able to pull it off.
No Deal Brexit Means Brexit.
No Deal Brexit means chaos.
Do you think that is sinking in over in Brussels yet?
Or in Dublin?
Yes - I think Brussels and Dublin got the message a while ago.
However, we are a sovereign nation and always have been so they are trying to work around the decisions we have made and avoid the worst of the impact from our self-immolation.
I suspect that what you and Mark really mean is "Why have Brussels and Dublin not abjectly capitulated to our every whim?". Well.... tough sh*t guys. The UK is not a world superpower. Other nations are not beating a path to our door and falling over themselves to offer whatever we want.
When do you think that might sink in over in Dorset and a certain spot in the Middle East?
So, are Brussels and Dublin going to build a border across Ireland, or are they just going to pretend there’s one there?
If they’re just going to pretend it’s there, as I suspect is the case, why would the U.K. sign up to the deal containing the ‘backstop’?
We will be under WTO rules as will the EU at that point. They will do whatever the rules mandate because (shock, horror) they follow the rules of the deals and agreements they have signed.
They are not offering a border as part of Brexit. If we (the sovereign UK) want to inflict another dose of violence on its own post-Brexit territority then that is our responsibility.
So, are Dublin and Brussels building a physical border across Ireland if there’s no deal? Your answer suggests that yes they are obligated to.
That’s not how it works.
They might not want to but might be obligated to under WTO MFN rules should a dispute be brought by another WTO member.
Better to get that trade deal agreed quickly then. Or at least resurrect Enda Kenny’s plans for electronic border controls that Varadkar wanted nothing to do with.
Mr. Sandpit, it'd be fascinating to know how things would've gone if Kenny had remained, or if Varadkar hadn't junked the co-operation that had begun on an electronic border.
Come on, we've all done it - you are delivering a speech and instead of reading from your prepared script you accidentally start reading what is written on the side of a bus going past outside the window.
Mr. 16, ironically, a May Deal versus Remain referendum would see an option rejected by the Commons versus an option rejected by the electorate.
Yes we voted to Leave so we should just be deciding on the method of leaving ie Leave with the Deal v Leave with No Deal and there are also more supporters for Deal or No Deal in the Commons combined than for EUref2 with a Remain option
Comments
That 25% would be reached in another 10 minutes.
The arithmetic is straightforward. 70=75% of Tory voters, 85-90% of Tory members support Brexit.
However, we are a sovereign nation and always have been so they are trying to work around the decisions we have made and avoid the worst of the impact from our self-immolation.
I suspect that what you and Mark really mean is "Why have Brussels and Dublin not abjectly capitulated to our every whim?". Well.... tough sh*t guys. The UK is not a world superpower. Other nations are not beating a path to our door and falling over themselves to offer whatever we want.
When do you think that might sink in over in Dorset and a certain spot in the Middle East?
He doesn't sound like the laziest MP around.
How about this alternative loading?
Do you think anyone should be able to just turn up in the UK from eastern Europe, get free housing, pay no council tax and get generous tax credits without having paid into the system first just by doing a part time unskilled job or would you prefer tariff free trade with Bulgaria and Slovakia?
It amounts to the same thing - because free movement and our benefits system allows the former under current rules!
Isn't the point of Mrs May's deal that you will get both controls on EU immigration and free trade in some form? Canada has a free trade deal with the EU - but no freedom of movement.
Also I expect most of the 31% who prioritise immigration controls even on those questions are probably Tory voters!
As we have seen so many times - ask the same question in a different way and people don't always give the same answer to pollsters.
I reluctantly support the PM's deal but it seems to me those whose 'least worst' option is No Deal have less to worry about than those whose 'Lest worst' option is a Soft Brexit.
It only works if hundreds of Conservative and Labour MPs team up with the Lib Dems and SNP to form a GONU, against the will of most of their voters.
Get a grip. On that basis, the IRA, the UVF, the INLA, the July 7th bombers etc should have been given everything they wanted.
Catch terrorists. Lock them up.
But that's not where we are, and unless anyone has a time machine, not where we can get to.
Parliament should invite some European leader to come rule us as our current leaders aren’t up to the job.
#GloriousRevolutionNow
Theresa will say, things would have been good if MPs had accepted the deal.
Corbyn will say, things would have been good if the Tories had listened to us or called a GE
ERG/Leavers/Boris will say, things would have been good if Theresa would have followed our advice, done Canada+++-++
Remainers/EU will say, things would have been good if we had no Brexit at all.
Voters will say, things would have been good if the government/politicians had been competent.
But, in any case, it's the voters that are the issue. 70-75% is 28-30% of the whole. Without them, the Conservative Party would go the way of the old Liberal party.
On the odds for the drivers, I’d be laying Hamilton and Vettel, backing Gasly and Leclerc each way, then seeing how things pan out in the first few races.
I think the upside shock could be with Renault and Ricciardo, and the downside shock to RB - who are likely to have a fast but unreliable car piloted by a fast but unreliable driver.
So its best to remain to ensure no IRA bombing campaigns?
Not sure about tax credits, TBH.
If parliament cancels Brexit, you create a real grievance, it is not consequence free when parliament loses its authority.
La Reyne le veult still triggers me.
W E L C O M E
T O
B R E X I T L A N D
TBH this entire ridiculous exercise is an uproarious romp of pure, unrefined Grayling
https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1082146978308476928
More likely that a right wing populist party would emerge as the biggest party on the right.
1. One cannot put something called No Deal on a ballot paper as an active choice. It is not sufficiently definable and in its pure form would not be acceptable to parliament, i.e. if it 'won' it would not be implemented. Also the public cannot be expected to form a view on what the consequences of such a thing might be.
2. A two stage referendum and/or preferences lends itself to convoluted tactical voting. Overlaying this on top of the base situation (that the public have little clue about the EU in the first place) is a farce wrapped in farce. It would be an abuse of the British people. Sadistic, in fact. For all our sins we do not deserve that.
Not sure the aerodynamic changes will make all that much difference, to be honest. That's the mood music, anyway. We'll see.
Labour has been led by Corbyn for the whole period since the referendum in June 2016. Corbyn won't even talk to the PM as a courtesy on the way through to the Lords for the Queen's Speech; there's no possibility that he would have been interested in the difficult nuts and bolts of securing a Brexit deal, particularly as he's chasing his own unicorns.
That's not to say that May couldn't have done more to invite Labour (and others) into the process but I really don't see that any of the other parties would have accepted any meaningful role.
(Note also that in June 2016, Corbyn was also fighting a leadership election and needed to emphasis his ideological purity and anti-Tory credentials).
If they’re just going to pretend it’s there, as I suspect is the case, why would the U.K. sign up to the deal containing the ‘backstop’?
https://twitter.com/andrewstoneman/status/1081534516462796800?s=21
They have hated each other since when IDS was leader
Nevertheless, all but these 2 formulations are IMO out of the question.
Conclusion? Surely not happening.
Revoke or Ratify. Parliament must decide. I think they will.
He did resign as an MP but a People's vote reinstated him.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/07/shaun-bailey-accused-of-worst-kind-of-casual-sexism-and-misogyny-2007-interview-abortion
The downside of this approach is that there would be an almighty bunfight about funding restrictions and things, eg does the winning brexit version get twice as much money as Remain (because it ran in two rounds) or does it have to stretch the same amount of money over two elections, etc etc. And as you say if you put No Deal on the ballot and the voters voted for it, you end up with an even harder problem interpreting the the mandate than you did with the original Brexit vote.
There already is a currency, VAT, income tax and corporation tax border.
Post Brexit it will be much the same - but no hard border under any option including no deal.
They are not offering a border as part of Brexit. If we (the sovereign UK) want to inflict another dose of violence on its own post-Brexit territority then that is our responsibility.
Not sure about tax credits, TBH.'
Perhaps but those are the rules if we keep freedom of movement - because applying different welfare and benefit policies to new arrivals compared to long term residents is deemed legally to impose an obstacle to freedom of movement.
As an example three English councils decided in 2013 to introduce council tax benefit changes which would mean you had to have lived locally for two years to get council tax benefit. This was ruled unlawful by our courts - one of the key grounds given was that it imposed an obstacle to free movement within the EU. One of those was Tendring - which soon after had a UKIP MP. Basically free movement gives you a legal right to go and claim welfare in another EU member state on the same basis as locals. Apparently British EU citizens relocating to Clacton could however have been treated worse than long term Frintonites or Clactonians - but not Slovakian or Bulgarians moving there.
http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/ctr-minimum-residency-rule
'The requirement imposed an obstacle to freedom of movement within the EU. It was intrinsically likely to affect non-British EU citizens and ‘created an obstacle to freedom of movement by the differential imposition of tax’.'
Its the same nonsense that means young people from all over the EU get free student tuition in Scottish universities - unless of course they are English, Welsh or Northern Irish!
And its perhaps one of the reasons why many wanted FOM to end.
Personally I think leaving without a signed WA (my take on No Deal) is more likely than you do because it is
a) what happens if nothing else can be agreed and
b) More players than not (i.e Corbyn, ERG, Hard core-Remainers) are sanguine about chancing another roll of the dice to see if their position can be improved.
If the Tories revoke Brexit they risk going the way of the Progressive Conservatives in Canada in 1993 or Forza Italia or Les Republicains and being overtaken by a new populist right-wing party whether UKIP or a new Farage led party
2. This line of argument seems absurd on its face.
If you have such contempt for the electorate's ability to make a decision of such consequence (particularly when Parliament has demonstrated it can't), why aren't we just revoking Article 50 anyway ?
(1) Would the government go ahead with No Deal on the scheduled date, or would they ask for an extension to allow for planning?
(2) If the government asked for an extension for No Deal planning, would the EU approve it?
If there is no deal blame lies solely with Varadkar et al for demanding the utterly unreasonable.
Crossrail was going to be on time and on budget.
Affordable housing starts are also well down on what was pledged.
But forget all that - Shaun Bailey did some horrible tweets or said something which might upset a few people 12 years ago! I wish Londoners could get a free pass like that!
Cos apparently suggesting young men at risk of failing at school or getting into crime might benefit from male role models - including perhaps male teachers - exercising some discipline is now misogynist.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tube-fares-row-sadiq-khan-blasted-by-commuters-over-broken-promises-a3267136.html
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/so-sadiq-khan-where-are-all-those-new-homes-you-promised-a3926326.html
Two Labour MPs who might have been potential deal supporters, Gareth Snell and Ruth Smeeth, were interviewed on radio 4 yesterday and both said they had received absolutely no communication or request for support from the government before the debate in December. May apparently believed that all she had to do was announce the deal and everyone would fall into line, no effort was made to persuade doubters.
Extraordinary - someone of Mays experience should know that the personal approach is very important in politics and people hate to feel taken for granted, especially if you want them to go against their friends in their own party.
If the situation arose from a No to the referendum question, "should parliament ratify the government's deal?" the Brexit date would have been put back for a few weeks to give time for that referendum to take place.
The government would then implement the decision by leaving on the (new) due date and would use best efforts to minimize the worst of the short term disruption.
They might not want to but might be obligated to under WTO MFN rules should a dispute be brought by another WTO member.
I’m sorry, I’m not one of those people who thinks we should be calling for a second referendum. I think that would just look like, the referendum was fought under rules we agreed to, a result was delivered, because we don’t like it we now want to replay it again – which will simply entrench a view that we’re some elite, who don’t want to pay any attention to the people.
- Chuka Umunna, 2016.
https://order-order.com/2019/01/07/chuka-slams-second-referendum/
Yes - that either or option is going to play well for the Tories! If no deal isn't an option and is therefore is never rejected by voters then many simply won't see the referendum as legitimate.
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1082190483621842944