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
... and if they go foe No Deal they're finished (although individual MPs may not be).
But forget all that - Shaun Bailey did some horrible tweets or said something which might upset a few people 12 years ago! I
Now you know how Labour people feel when people dig up something Corbyn said X years ago. Karma, mate.
Not sure saying something about being taught by men is quite equivalent to being a terrorist sympathizer and having an irrational hatred of all things Israel.
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 ?
Ok so,
1. Yes, but the government and the EU will use best efforts to minimize the worst of the short term disruption. This will involve some agreements, a.k.a. deals.
2. It's not contempt, it's a realistic assessment of the public's knowledge and processing power.
My red line is that parliament should decide. Ratify or Revoke. I prefer Ratify but Revoke works for me too.
Just let's not have a No Deal crash out or another Referendum. Both of those are a dereliction of duty by MPs.
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.
No. My first option was straight Leave with the Deal v Leave with No Deal, my second option was Leave v Remain and if Leave wins Leave with the Deal or No Deal.
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
... and if they go foe No Deal they're finished (although individual MPs may not be).
No as the vast majority of Tory voters are now Leavers and most Leavers back No Deal. The biggest risk for the Tories is revoke Brexit not no Deal. Though the Deal is still best for them of all.
By contrast the biggest risk for Labour is refusing to back EUref2 with a Remain option
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...
But there was only expected a couple of buses, anything else was right wing propoganda,...
No as the vast majority of Tory voters are now Leavers and most Leavers back No Deal. The biggest risk for the Tories is revoke Brexit not no Deal. Though the Deal is still best for them of all.
That's true in the short term, but in the mid-term copping the blame for the catastrophe of leaving with no deal would risk keeping the party out of power for a decade or more.
But forget all that - Shaun Bailey did some horrible tweets or said something which might upset a few people 12 years ago! I
Now you know how Labour people feel when people dig up something Corbyn said X years ago. Karma, mate.
I don't disagree. Judge Khan on his record and Bailey on his promises - and whether the former has delivered on those promises. On fares Khan promised and didn't deliver - unless you accept that Londoners who buy travelcards aren't real Londoners!
The wider point though is worthy of debate - would young men without adult males at home benefit from having more adult male role models (teachers) at school in terms of exercising discipline and giving direction etc? Its certainly worthy of debate - rather than it being closed down by faux outrage.
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...
But there was only expected a couple of buses, anything else was right wing propoganda,...
Leave with No 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
Your 1st one is effectively the same as my 1st one.
Your 2nd one is a two stage affair and contains the exact same question as 2016. Cannot for both of these reasons envisage it being approved.
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
... and if they go foe No Deal they're finished (although individual MPs may not be).
I think it would be easier for the Conservative Party to survive No Deal than it would be to for them to survive revoking A.50.
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.
That's not how it works.
MFN rules only apply if there is no trade deal. They are a misnomer and really lowest common denominator rules. The EU could avoid a dispute by agreeing a deal with us that renders it moot but they don't want to do that. Well we don't want to agree to the backstop hence the impasse. Of the two available options agreeing a deal that renders it moot is a lot more reasonable than the undemocratic abomination of the backstop.
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 London mayoral election will be a non-event. The capital has moved so far to Labour demographically that Khan can't lose, short of being caught in bed with someone he shouldn't (and even then it would have to be child or animal).
What's surprising is how hard Labour and the Guardian have gone against Bailey (numerous Op-ed pieces and digging up old interviews/tweets). They are obviously concerned by the fact he's not a typical Tory - suprisingly IMO as he can't come close to winning.
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.
No as the vast majority of Tory voters are now Leavers and most Leavers back No Deal. The biggest risk for the Tories is revoke Brexit not no Deal. Though the Deal is still best for them of all.
That's true in the short term, but in the mid-term copping the blame for the catastrophe of leaving with no deal would risk keeping the party out of power for a decade or more.
If they revoke Brexit and get overtaken by a new populist right-wing party the Tories may never get back in power again, never mind being out of power for a decade.
After the Progressive Conservatives in Canada lost by a landslide in 1993 and were overtaken by the Reform Party the Right did not get back again for 13 years until 2006 and then only after Stephen Harper had merged the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance, the successor to the Reform Party, to form the Conservative Party of Canada
Mr. 16, it's especially weird given the tendency to see lower than 50% female participation in STEM fields or board rooms as some sign of sexism and inherently bad, whereas seeing low male rates in areas such as teaching (which, parents aside [where men also have far less custody], is the key area that provides children with role models in real life) as a bad thing is apparently a minority view.
As it happens, even in a perfect world I'd guess a minority of teachers would be male. But the way innocent men are treated if accused of anything puts a lot of them off, and understandably so.
No Deal will be Black Wednesday with knobs on. In fact, it doesn't even matter if the economic fallout isn't quite as bad as predicted - such will be the impression of gross and unforgivable incompetence that the public's desire for retribution will be boundless. It's perfectly understandable why Jezza is so keen on 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
... and if they go foe No Deal they're finished (although individual MPs may not be).
No as the vast majority of Tory voters are now Leavers and most Leavers back No Deal. The biggest risk for the Tories is revoke Brexit not no Deal. Though the Deal is still best for them of all.
By contrast the biggest risk for Labour is refusing to back EUref2 with a Remain option
The number of people who support No Deal now, and the number of people who would support it two months after it came about, if nothing but short-term micro-deals were put in place to mitigate it, is unlikely to be the same.
It's easy to support No Deal in opposition to something more concrete; it becomes a different matter when No Deal is itself a thing.
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 ?
Ok so,
1. Yes, but the government and the EU will use best efforts to minimize the worst of the short term disruption. This will involve some agreements, a.k.a. deals.
2. It's not contempt, it's a realistic assessment of the public's knowledge and processing power.
My red line is that parliament should decide. Ratify or Revoke. I prefer Ratify but Revoke works for me too.
Just let's not have a No Deal crash out or another Referendum. Both of those are a dereliction of duty by MPs.
No Deal being judged better than May's deal is not a dereliction of duty by MPs. The dereliction of duty was by Govt. two or more years ago, refusing to plan effectively for No Deal. The Govt's purpose was to blackmail MPs into not, in all conscience, being able to support No Deal. If No Deal is where we do end up, it will be an epic miscalculation.
No Deal will be Black Wednesday with knobs on. In fact, it doesn't even matter if the economic fallout isn't quite as bad as predicted - such will be the impression of gross and unforgivable incompetence that the public's desire for retribution will be boundless. It's perfectly understandable why Jezza is so keen on it.
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.
LOL. it costs us 40 billion, it gives us nothing and leaves the options of being rogered unbelievably on trade deal or stuck in limbo forever, have you been on this site in the last two years
No as the vast majority of Tory voters are now Leavers and most Leavers back No Deal. The biggest risk for the Tories is revoke Brexit not no Deal. Though the Deal is still best for them of all.
That's true in the short term, but in the mid-term copping the blame for the catastrophe of leaving with no deal would risk keeping the party out of power for a decade or more.
If they revoke Brexit and get overtaken by a new populist right-wing party the Tories may never get back in power again, never mind being out of power for a decade.
After the Progressive Conservatives in Canada lost by a landslide in 1993 and were overtaken by the Reform Party the Right did not get back again for 13 years until 2006 and then only after Stephen Harper had merged the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance, the successor to the Reform Party, to form the Conservative Party of Canada
I don't disagree, the only way forward is to agree the EU's deal. In all other scenarios we're stuffed, as is the country.
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 London mayoral election will be a non-event. The capital has moved so far to Labour demographically that Khan can't lose, short of being caught in bed with someone he shouldn't (and even then it would have to be child or animal).
What's surprising is how hard Labour and the Guardian have gone against Bailey (numerous Op-ed pieces and digging up old interviews/tweets). They are obviously concerned by the fact he's not a typical Tory - suprisingly IMO as he can't come close to winning.
The circling of the wagons by Guardian etc is rather odd. Khan is in no danger, Bailey has been shown in the past to be useless campaigner, and they are just letting Khan get away with his usual stuff which is to sound good but never deliver. He was the same as a minister.
It is amazing how he is going to get away with implementing the massive congestion charge expansion (by another name), with very little in the way of uproar.
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.
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
... and if they go foe No Deal they're finished (although individual MPs may not be).
I think it would be easier for the Conservative Party to survive No Deal than it would be to for them to survive revoking A.50.
On one hand yes. On the other hand I think there is a 20%+ chance that No Deal goes so badly that the Tories will be out of power forever...
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.
He doesn't sound like the laziest MP around.
IIRC, Clarke was one of two Tory MPs to serve as a minister throughout the 1979-97 government. He first joined the government under Heath and also served in the cabinet under Cameron 40 years later. I doubt there are many people whose government service spans such a long period of time. I also doubt that PMs would ask someone to keep serving if they weren't delivering.
No Deal will be Black Wednesday with knobs on. In fact, it doesn't even matter if the economic fallout isn't quite as bad as predicted - such will be the impression of gross and unforgivable incompetence that the public's desire for retribution will be boundless. It's perfectly understandable why Jezza is so keen on it.
Id settle for that then
Black Wednesday kick started the economy
The sole practical effect of Black Wednesday was lower interest rates. The folklore that's turned it into some kind of economic shock therapy is ridiculous.
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 Remain.
If the led party
... and if they go foe No Deal they're finished (although individual MPs may not be).
No as the vast majority of Tory voters are now Leavers and most Leavers back No Deal. The biggest risk for the Tories is revoke Brexit not no Deal. Though the Deal is still best for them of all.
By contrast the biggest risk for Labour is refusing to back EUref2 with a Remain option
The number of people who support No Deal now, and the number of people who would support it two months after it came about, if nothing but short-term micro-deals were put in place to mitigate it, is unlikely to be the same.
It's easy to support No Deal in opposition to something more concrete; it becomes a different matter when No Deal is itself a thing.
Yep, this is a pretty key point. We'll see how many people continue to support a No Deal when they are living through its consequences.
No Deal will be Black Wednesday with knobs on. In fact, it doesn't even matter if the economic fallout isn't quite as bad as predicted - such will be the impression of gross and unforgivable incompetence that the public's desire for retribution will be boundless. It's perfectly understandable why Jezza is so keen on it.
Not if the blame can be pinned on European intransigence.
Which Varadkar et al are setting up perfectly to be the pantomine villains.
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 d party
... and if they go foe No Deal they're finished (although individual MPs may not be).
No as the vast majority of Tory voters are now Leavers and most Leavers back No Deal. The biggest risk for the Tories is revoke Brexit not no Deal. Though the Deal is still best for them of all.
By contrast the biggest risk for Labour is refusing to back EUref2 with a Remain option
The number of people who support No Deal now, and the number of people who would support it two months after it came about, if nothing but short-term micro-deals were put in place to mitigate it, is unlikely to be the same.
It's easy to support No Deal in opposition to something more concrete; it becomes a different matter when No Deal is itself a thing.
Given the mass defections from the Tories to UKIP or a new Farage led party if the Tories revoke Brexit they may not even be second let alone leading the polls.
No Deal is obviously worse than the Deal but still keeps most of the Tory party together
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 ?
Ok so,
1. Yes, but the government and the EU will use best efforts to minimize the worst of the short term disruption. This will involve some agreements, a.k.a. deals.
2. It's not contempt, it's a realistic assessment of the public's knowledge and processing power.
My red line is that parliament should decide. Ratify or Revoke. I prefer Ratify but Revoke works for me too.
Just let's not have a No Deal crash out or another Referendum. Both of those are a dereliction of duty by MPs.
No Deal being judged better than May's deal is not a dereliction of duty by MPs. The dereliction of duty was by Govt. two or more years ago, refusing to plan effectively for No Deal. The Govt's purpose was to blackmail MPs into not, in all conscience, being able to support No Deal. If No Deal is where we do end up, it will be an epic miscalculation.
I think that is undeniable. And sending 80 odd lorries through Kent on 7th Jan 2019 to see how they get on is as good an example of this criminal neglect as we are likely to find until, well, tomorrow probably.
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
... and if they go foe No Deal they're finished (although individual MPs may not be).
I think it would be easier for the Conservative Party to survive No Deal than it would be to for them to survive revoking A.50.
On one hand yes. On the other hand I think there is a 20%+ chance that No Deal goes so badly that the Tories will be out of power forever...
No as they would still be the main party of the right, revoke Brexit and that may no longer be true
Given the mass defections from the Tories to UKIP or a new Farage led party if the Tories revoke Brexit they may not even be second let alone leading the polls.
No Deal is obviously worse than the Deal but still keeps most of the Tory party together
The number of people who support No Deal now, and the number of people who would support it two months after it came about, if nothing but short-term micro-deals were put in place to mitigate it, is unlikely to be the same.
It's easy to support No Deal in opposition to something more concrete; it becomes a different matter when No Deal is itself a thing.
Given the mass defections from the Tories to UKIP or a new Farage led party if the Tories revoke Brexit they may not even be second let alone leading the polls.
No Deal is obviously worse than the Deal but still keeps most of the Tory party together
It would reduce the Tory party to a rump of the mad and the bad. Irrelevance beyond the 1997 William Hague's wildest dreams.
No Deal will be Black Wednesday with knobs on. In fact, it doesn't even matter if the economic fallout isn't quite as bad as predicted - such will be the impression of gross and unforgivable incompetence that the public's desire for retribution will be boundless. It's perfectly understandable why Jezza is so keen on it.
Id settle for that then
Black Wednesday kick started the economy
The sole practical effect of Black Wednesday was lower interest rates. The folklore that's turned it into some kind of economic shock therapy is ridiculous.
It did result in fifteen years of uninterrupted economic growth, much of it pretty good.
No as the vast majority of Tory voters are now Leavers and most Leavers back No Deal. The biggest risk for the Tories is revoke Brexit not no Deal. Though the Deal is still best for them of all.
That's true in the short term, but in the mid-term copping the blame for the catastrophe of leaving with no deal would risk keeping the party out of power for a decade or more.
If they revoke Brexit and get overtaken by a new populist right-wing party the Tories may never get back in power again, never mind being out of power for a decade.
After the Progressive Conservatives in Canada lost by a landslide in 1993 and were overtaken by the Reform Party the Right did not get back again for 13 years until 2006 and then only after Stephen Harper had merged the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance, the successor to the Reform Party, to form the Conservative Party of Canada
I don't disagree, the only way forward is to agree the EU's deal. In all other scenarios we're stuffed, as is the country.
I agree we are just talking about degrees of how stuffed we are
Given the mass defections from the Tories to UKIP or a new Farage led party if the Tories revoke Brexit they may not even be second let alone leading the polls.
No Deal is obviously worse than the Deal but still keeps most of the Tory party together
You're changing your tune.
No I still back the Deal but No Deal for the Tories is better than revoking Brexit
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.
This is May, I think we know by now she'll cling on by her fingernails. Her entire cabinet could resign en masse and still she'll be saying Nothing Has Changed.
If May decides to betray her party, the only way you're getting rid of her is MPs resigning the whip en masse and nailing her in a Parliamentary VONC.
Or they change the rules for electing the new ayatollah of the tory party.
That's not an easy thing to do. 1922 has to propose new rules, then it has to be considered by the Party Board, then put out to a constitutional convention, and then when the new rules are agreed by the convention, put it to a vote of the party membership to agree the changes. Last time the Tories changed the rules around leadership elections it took them a couple of years.
To change the Party constitution, that's right. However, the Conservative Party Constitution only mandates that the MPs put a choice of candidates to the members, unless only one candidate is nominated (it doesn't even define a choice of two).
All the rules relating to the procedure by which the candidates put to the membership are chosen is held not under the difficult-to-amend constitution, but the very-easy-to-amend 1922 Committee document. This includes the rules for a No Confidence vote.
The polls show little sign of Tory voters switching to Labour but the same was true before the last election. Equally, the polls show little sign of a Labour revival in Scotland at the SNP’s expense.
That said, there are plenty of Tory held marginals at distinct risk - Hastings, Southampton Itchen, Plymouth Moor View, Crewe etc so it doesn’t take many votes to swing a lot of seats.
There are just too many big unanswered questions to dismiss a Corbyn win at this stage - whether the Tories have a new leader and if so, how effective will they be; whether Corbyn will campaign as effectively and come up with a vote winner, albeit unfunded, on tuition fees; whether the Tories will give Labour the free run on their policies they did last time; whether the Tories will hold together or split over Brexit etc
The bigger risk is that the Libs take seats off the Tories and we end up with a Corbyn in Sowning St heading up a Lib-Lab (and maybe SNP) Coalition.
The best defence against a Corbyn victory is for the Tories to get their act together whilst there is still time. No sign of that happening though.
The number of people who support No Deal now, and the number of people who would support it two months after it came about, if nothing but short-term micro-deals were put in place to mitigate it, is unlikely to be the same.
It's easy to support No Deal in opposition to something more concrete; it becomes a different matter when No Deal is itself a thing.
Given the mass defections from the Tories to UKIP or a new Farage led party if the Tories revoke Brexit they may not even be second let alone leading the polls.
No Deal is obviously worse than the Deal but still keeps most of the Tory party together
It would reduce the Tory party to a rump of the mad and the bad. Irrelevance beyond the 1997 William Hague's wildest dreams.
Hague still got 160 odd MPs, if they revoke Brexit the Tories risk matching the 2 MPs the Progressive Conservatives in Canada got in 1993
No Deal will be Black Wednesday with knobs on. In fact, it doesn't even matter if the economic fallout isn't quite as bad as predicted - such will be the impression of gross and unforgivable incompetence that the public's desire for retribution will be boundless. It's perfectly understandable why Jezza is so keen on it.
Not if the blame can be pinned on European intransigence.
Which Varadkar et al are setting up perfectly to be the pantomine villains.
Not a chance. Excusing our politicians their blunders and providing sympathy is not the British way.
No Deal will be Black Wednesday with knobs on. In fact, it doesn't even matter if the economic fallout isn't quite as bad as predicted - such will be the impression of gross and unforgivable incompetence that the public's desire for retribution will be boundless. It's perfectly understandable why Jezza is so keen on it.
Id settle for that then
Black Wednesday kick started the economy
The sole practical effect of Black Wednesday was lower interest rates. The folklore that's turned it into some kind of economic shock therapy is ridiculous.
It did result in fifteen years of uninterrupted economic growth, much of it pretty good.
You can't attribute that to Black Wednesday itself.
No Deal will be Black Wednesday with knobs on. In fact, it doesn't even matter if the economic fallout isn't quite as bad as predicted - such will be the impression of gross and unforgivable incompetence that the public's desire for retribution will be boundless. It's perfectly understandable why Jezza is so keen on it.
Not if the blame can be pinned on European intransigence.
Which Varadkar et al are setting up perfectly to be the pantomine villains.
Indeed. May can say no one could have done more to try and achieve a deal than she did (and that would be widely seen to be true). The Government line will be that a deal sadly proved impossible with the likes of Junkers (literally a pantomime villain made for the part) and the EU playing silly buggers at every turn and Britain being undermined by disloyal voices like Blair and Major at home urging the EU to play rough .
She would be like Chamberlain in Sept '39 ("You can imagine what a bitter blow this is to me...."). I think like him she will try to stay on.
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.
"She should have reached out across the aisles ages ago" sounds all very reasonable but in practice would not have worked.
The number of people who support No Deal now, and the number of people who would support it two months after it came about, if nothing but short-term micro-deals were put in place to mitigate it, is unlikely to be the same.
It's easy to support No Deal in opposition to something more concrete; it becomes a different matter when No Deal is itself a thing.
Given the mass defections from the Tories to UKIP or a new Farage led party if the Tories revoke Brexit they may not even be second let alone leading the polls.
No Deal is obviously worse than the Deal but still keeps most of the Tory party together
It would reduce the Tory party to a rump of the mad and the bad. Irrelevance beyond the 1997 William Hague's wildest dreams.
Hague still got 160 odd MPs, if they revoke Brexit the Tories risk matching the 2 MPs the Progressive Conservatives in Canada got in 1993
Why - if we go No Deal and it doesn't work I suspect the Remainer Home Counties will be returning 80+ Lib Dem MPs by itself...
The number of people who support No Deal now, and the number of people who would support it two months after it came about, if nothing but short-term micro-deals were put in place to mitigate it, is unlikely to be the same.
It's easy to support No Deal in opposition to something more concrete; it becomes a different matter when No Deal is itself a thing.
Given the mass defections from the Tories to UKIP or a new Farage led party if the Tories revoke Brexit they may not even be second let alone leading the polls.
No Deal is obviously worse than the Deal but still keeps most of the Tory party together
It would reduce the Tory party to a rump of the mad and the bad. Irrelevance beyond the 1997 William Hague's wildest dreams.
Hague still got 160 odd MPs, if they revoke Brexit the Tories risk matching the 2 MPs the Progressive Conservatives in Canada got in 1993
If they revoked Brexit *and* slung out the ERG then the Tories would become the de facto new centre party and would take votes from Corbyn's Labour.
The number of people who support No Deal now, and the number of people who would support it two months after it came about, if nothing but short-term micro-deals were put in place to mitigate it, is unlikely to be the same.
It's easy to support No Deal in opposition to something more concrete; it becomes a different matter when No Deal is itself a thing.
Given the mass defections from the Tories to UKIP or a new Farage led party if the Tories revoke Brexit they may not even be second let alone leading the polls.
No Deal is obviously worse than the Deal but still keeps most of the Tory party together
It would reduce the Tory party to a rump of the mad and the bad.
The polls show little sign of Tory voters switching to Labour but the same was true before the last election. Equally, the polls show little sign of a Labour revival in Scotland at the SNP’s expense.
That said, there are plenty of Tory held marginals at distinct risk - Hastings, Southampton Itchen, Plymouth Moor View, Crewe etc so it doesn’t take many votes to swing a lot of seats.
There are just too many big unanswered questions to dismiss a Corbyn win at this stage - whether the Tories have a new leader and if so, how effective will they be; whether Corbyn will campaign as effectively and come up with a vote winner, albeit unfunded, on tuition fees; whether the Tories will give Labour the free run on their policies they did last time; whether the Tories will hold together or split over Brexit etc
The best defence against a Corbyn victory is for the Tories to get their act together whilst there is still time. No sign of that happening though.
What does 'the Tories getting their act together' mean to you Andy? (Genuine question)
No Deal will be Black Wednesday with knobs on. In fact, it doesn't even matter if the economic fallout isn't quite as bad as predicted - such will be the impression of gross and unforgivable incompetence that the public's desire for retribution will be boundless. It's perfectly understandable why Jezza is so keen on it.
Bear in mind in the minds of most Eurosceptics 'Black' Wednesday was actually 'White' Wednesday and led to the massive improvement in public finances after the idiocy of ERM membership. Using that as an argument is hardly likely to win over many converts.
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...
But there was only expected a couple of buses, anything else was right wing propoganda,...
The Tories unanimously voted for EU enlargement.
Really? I feel I’m been hooked... but the conservatives had a three line whip against the treaty of nice, and the treaty of Lisbon was strongly opposed and David Cameron had a cast iron guarantee of a referendum if it didn’t come into place before the GE.
What's surprising is how hard Labour and the Guardian have gone against Bailey (numerous Op-ed pieces and digging up old interviews/tweets). They are obviously concerned by the fact he's not a typical Tory - suprisingly IMO as he can't come close to winning.
I'm not surprised by the Guardian doing it. It's good knockabout stuff - just plain entertaining news. It sells papers (or, these days, pageviews).
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.
That's not how it works.
MFN rules only apply if there is no trade deal. They are a misnomer and really lowest common denominator rules. The EU could avoid a dispute by agreeing a deal with us that renders it moot but they don't want to do that. Well we don't want to agree to the backstop hence the impasse. Of the two available options agreeing a deal that renders it moot is a lot more reasonable than the undemocratic abomination of the backstop.
You've never quite understood the difference between "a deal" and "a deal" have you?
Given the mass defections from the Tories to UKIP or a new Farage led party if the Tories revoke Brexit they may not even be second let alone leading the polls.
No Deal is obviously worse than the Deal but still keeps most of the Tory party together
You're changing your tune.
No I still back the Deal but No Deal for the Tories is better than revoking Brexit
Any chance some Tory MPs might consider what's best for the country?
The number of people who support No Deal now, and the number of people who would support it two months after it came about, if nothing but short-term micro-deals were put in place to mitigate it, is unlikely to be the same.
It's easy to support No Deal in opposition to something more concrete; it becomes a different matter when No Deal is itself a thing.
Given the mass defections from the Tories to UKIP or a new Farage led party if the Tories revoke Brexit they may not even be second let alone leading the polls.
No Deal is obviously worse than the Deal but still keeps most of the Tory party together
It would reduce the Tory party to a rump of the mad and the bad. Irrelevance beyond the 1997 William Hague's wildest dreams.
Hague still got 160 odd MPs, if they revoke Brexit the Tories risk matching the 2 MPs the Progressive Conservatives in Canada got in 1993
If they revoked Brexit *and* slung out the ERG then the Tories would become the de facto new centre party and would take votes from Corbyn's Labour.
You have no understanding of the Conservative Party.
The number of people who support No Deal now, and the number of people who would support it two months after it came about, if nothing but short-term micro-deals were put in place to mitigate it, is unlikely to be the same.
It's easy to support No Deal in opposition to something more concrete; it becomes a different matter when No Deal is itself a thing.
Given the mass defections from the Tories to UKIP or a new Farage led party if the Tories revoke Brexit they may not even be second let alone leading the polls.
No Deal is obviously worse than the Deal but still keeps most of the Tory party together
It would reduce the Tory party to a rump of the mad and the bad. Irrelevance beyond the 1997 William Hague's wildest dreams.
Hague still got 160 odd MPs, if they revoke Brexit the Tories risk matching the 2 MPs the Progressive Conservatives in Canada got in 1993
If they revoked Brexit *and* slung out the ERG then the Tories would become the de facto new centre party and would take votes from Corbyn's Labour.
You have no understanding of the Conservative Party.
The Conservative party was "the European party", as Norman St John-Stevas called it, and will be again.
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.
That's not how it works.
MFN rules only apply if there is no trade deal. They are a misnomer and really lowest common denominator rules. The EU could avoid a dispute by agreeing a deal with us that renders it moot but they don't want to do that. Well we don't want to agree to the backstop hence the impasse. Of the two available options agreeing a deal that renders it moot is a lot more reasonable than the undemocratic abomination of the backstop.
You've never quite understood the difference between "a deal" and "a deal" have you?
No Deal will be Black Wednesday with knobs on. In fact, it doesn't even matter if the economic fallout isn't quite as bad as predicted - such will be the impression of gross and unforgivable incompetence that the public's desire for retribution will be boundless. It's perfectly understandable why Jezza is so keen on it.
Bear in mind in the minds of most Eurosceptics 'Black' Wednesday was actually 'White' Wednesday and led to the massive improvement in public finances after the idiocy of ERM membership. Using that as an argument is hardly likely to win over many converts.
But gentleman John received no gratitude for this supposed massive improvement, which is rather my point. The public's discernment of government incompetence and blundering trumps everything.
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.
No Deal will be Black Wednesday with knobs on. In fact, it doesn't even matter if the economic fallout isn't quite as bad as predicted - such will be the impression of gross and unforgivable incompetence that the public's desire for retribution will be boundless. It's perfectly understandable why Jezza is so keen on it.
Bear in mind in the minds of most Eurosceptics 'Black' Wednesday was actually 'White' Wednesday and led to the massive improvement in public finances after the idiocy of ERM membership. Using that as an argument is hardly likely to win over many converts.
But gentleman John received no gratitude for this supposed massive improvement, which is rather my point. The public's discernment of government incompetence and blundering trumps everything.
Oh I agree with you on that. Mind you since Major was the one who campaigned to take us into the ERM in the first place when he was Chancellor he can hardly claim much credit when he was then forced by circumstance to correct his own mistake.
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.
That's not how it works.
MFN rules only apply if there is no trade deal. They are a misnomer and really lowest common denominator rules. The EU could avoid a dispute by agreeing a deal with us that renders it moot but they don't want to do that. Well we don't want to agree to the backstop hence the impasse. Of the two available options agreeing a deal that renders it moot is a lot more reasonable than the undemocratic abomination of the backstop.
You've never quite understood the difference between "a deal" and "a deal" have you?
Is there a difference?
Well to some people there is. Some people think that although we don't want a deal, we will nevertheless be able to sign some agreements with the EU on the basics, just a few bits and bobs nothing too serious, etc.
ie a deal. Yet some people believe these things are completely different.
'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.
Also fun that Scotland has to pay for the English students debt as part of the Westminster robbery.
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.
That's not how it works.
MFN rules only apply if there is no trade deal. They are a misnomer and really lowest common denominator rules. The EU could avoid a dispute by agreeing a deal with us that renders it moot but they don't want to do that. Well we don't want to agree to the backstop hence the impasse. Of the two available options agreeing a deal that renders it moot is a lot more reasonable than the undemocratic abomination of the backstop.
You've never quite understood the difference between "a deal" and "a deal" have you?
Is there a difference?
Well to some people there is. Some people think that although we don't want a deal, we will nevertheless be able to sign some agreements with the EU on the basics, etc. ie a deal. Yet some people believe these things are completely different.
To them 'no deal' = a deal on 'our terms', not 'their terms'. The distinction mainly seems to be whether the government has been judged to be sufficiently confrontational.
Well deserved, as was Olivia Coleman's Best Actress for Queen Anne in The Favourite.
Oscars next? The Academy does love a dysfunctional Royal.....
A tip for Bohemian Rhapsody? 50/1 yesterday; 9/4 after the Golden Globes.
A good bet. I always thought Bohemian Rhapsody was a much better film than the latest incarnation of A Star is Born which I didn't think was even as good as the Barbara Streisand version. The UK critics didn't like Bohemian Rhapsody because it concentrated more on Freddy Mercury as a performer and not enough -in their opinion- on his lifestyle.
Indeed. We nearly didn't bother with Bohemeian Rhapsody because of the the meh reviews. We should know better by now, it is a great film.
Coleman is brilliant in The Favourite (as are Stone and Weisz) and yet the film overall is a bit of a disappointment imho - a grating soundtrack and overly 'arty' camera work.
Looking forward to Stan & Ollie.
I'm so glad you mentioned the soundtrack in the favourite. A movie which is great in parts and average in others, but I've never been so aware and negative toward the soundtrack in a film. Long long stretches of discordant irritating piano beats for no reason for a start.
No Deal will be Black Wednesday with knobs on. In fact, it doesn't even matter if the economic fallout isn't quite as bad as predicted - such will be the impression of gross and unforgivable incompetence that the public's desire for retribution will be boundless. It's perfectly understandable why Jezza is so keen on it.
Not if the blame can be pinned on European intransigence.
Which Varadkar et al are setting up perfectly to be the pantomine villains.
Tories are the villains, fingers cannot be pointed elsewhere , they have made a complete mess of it. Only people that will benefit will be their chums getting all the juicy government contracts.
The number of people who support No Deal now, and the number of people who would support it two months after it came about, if nothing but short-term micro-deals were put in place to mitigate it, is unlikely to be the same.
It's easy to support No Deal in opposition to something more concrete; it becomes a different matter when No Deal is itself a thing.
Given the mass defections from the Tories to UKIP or a new Farage led party if the Tories revoke Brexit they may not even be second let alone leading the polls.
No Deal is obviously worse than the Deal but still keeps most of the Tory party together
It would reduce the Tory party to a rump of the mad and the bad. Irrelevance beyond the 1997 William Hague's wildest dreams.
Hague still got 160 odd MPs, if they revoke Brexit the Tories risk matching the 2 MPs the Progressive Conservatives in Canada got in 1993
If they revoked Brexit *and* slung out the ERG then the Tories would become the de facto new centre party and would take votes from Corbyn's Labour.
You have no understanding of the Conservative Party.
The Conservative party was "the European party", as Norman St John-Stevas called it, and will be again.
Norman St John-Stevas had a pair of Queen Victoria's bloomers framed on his study wall. A man of decidedly acquired tastes. The idea that the Conservative party has any future as a pro EU grouping is for the birds.
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 d party
... and if they go foe No Deal they're finished (although individual MPs may not be).
No as the vast majority of Tory voters are now Leavers and most Leavers back No Deal. The biggest risk for the Tories is revoke Brexit not no Deal. Though the Deal is still best for them of all.
By contrast the biggest risk for Labour is refusing to back EUref2 with a Remain option
The number of people who support No Deal now, and the number of people who would support it two months after it came about, if nothing but short-term micro-deals were put in place to mitigate it, is unlikely to be the same.
It's easy to support No Deal in opposition to something more concrete; it becomes a different matter when No Deal is itself a thing.
Given the mass defections from the Tories to UKIP or a new Farage led party if the Tories revoke Brexit they may not even be second let alone leading the polls.
No Deal is obviously worse than the Deal but still keeps most of the Tory party together
So does the deal, ultimately.
If May were to revoke A50, then there would be a real risk of a split because that goes so completely against the referendum result and current Tory support / membership. But if the deal itself is backed? Sure, some MPs and members will be unhappy but overall, May's deal brings Britain out of the EU. After that point, were into the kind of political nerd-arguments that turned voters off. There might be a brief uptick in UKIP support but I don't think there'd be a sufficient sense of betrayal or easy story to sell to make a viable Eurosceptic movement capable of overtaking the Tories on the right.
I think this is spot on unless there's a black swan.
As things stand, there's no way for Labour to go up from here: Corbyn is merrily trashing his appeal to centrist-Remainers and showing no sign of winning over former Tory voters.
But who knows what will happen after March 29th. If the whole of Kent becomes one big Operation Stack, or the newspapers find just one child death in hospital as a result of medicine shortages, all bets are off.
Corbyn can switch position at the last minute and still be rewarded. Those flirting with LD support would really put the Tories back in?
The number of people who support No Deal now, and the number of people who would support it two months after it came about, if nothing but short-term micro-deals were put in place to mitigate it, is unlikely to be the same.
It's easy to support No Deal in opposition to something more concrete; it becomes a different matter when No Deal is itself a thing.
Given the mass defections from the Tories to UKIP or a new Farage led party if the Tories revoke Brexit they may not even be second let alone leading the polls.
No Deal is obviously worse than the Deal but still keeps most of the Tory party together
It would reduce the Tory party to a rump of the mad and the bad. Irrelevance beyond the 1997 William Hague's wildest dreams.
Hague still got 160 odd MPs, if they revoke Brexit the Tories risk matching the 2 MPs the Progressive Conservatives in Canada got in 1993
If they revoked Brexit *and* slung out the ERG then the Tories would become the de facto new centre party and would take votes from Corbyn's Labour.
You have no understanding of the Conservative Party.
The Conservative party was "the European party", as Norman St John-Stevas called it, and will be again.
Norman St John-Stevas had a pair of Queen Victoria's bloomers framed on his study wall. A man of decidedly acquired tastes. The idea that the Conservative party has any future as a pro EU grouping is for the birds.
Any party aspiring to government will need to be pro-EU after this. The Conservatives could of course choose to embrace an alternative future.
I think this is spot on unless there's a black swan.
As things stand, there's no way for Labour to go up from here: Corbyn is merrily trashing his appeal to centrist-Remainers and showing no sign of winning over former Tory voters.
But who knows what will happen after March 29th. If the whole of Kent becomes one big Operation Stack, or the newspapers find just one child death in hospital as a result of medicine shortages, all bets are off.
Which means we're in a situation where Labour NEED Brexit to happen to get a majority.
Maybe Magic Grandpa isn't so stupid after all.
Morning all,
There has been plenty of speculation and anonymous quotes from 'sources' to the effect that Jezza's closest aides think a massively messy Brexit, owned by the Tories, and the resulting chaos, is the perfect opportunity for them to win.
Indeed. Neither party are acting in the national interest.
Too busy thinking about leadership plans and elections.
On topic, Labour may well be hoping for internecine recriminations within the Conservative party on a scale not previously seen. The chances of that look pretty decent to me.
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.
Which is funny as they are also risking brexit entirely.
Well deserved, as was Olivia Coleman's Best Actress for Queen Anne in The Favourite.
Oscars next? The Academy does love a dysfunctional Royal.....
A tip for Bohemian Rhapsody? 50/1 yesterday; 9/4 after the Golden Globes.
A good bet. I always thought Bohemian Rhapsody was a much better film than the latest incarnation of A Star is Born which I didn't think was even as good as the Barbara Streisand version. The UK critics didn't like Bohemian Rhapsody because it concentrated more on Freddy Mercury as a performer and not enough -in their opinion- on his lifestyle.
Indeed. We nearly didn't bother with Bohemeian Rhapsody because of the the meh reviews. We should know better by now, it is a great film.
Coleman is brilliant in The Favourite (as are Stone and Weisz) and yet the film overall is a bit of a disappointment imho - a grating soundtrack and overly 'arty' camera work.
Looking forward to Stan & Ollie.
I'm so glad you mentioned the soundtrack in the favourite. A movie which is great in parts and average in others, but I've never been so aware and negative toward the soundtrack in a film. Long long stretches of discordant irritating piano beats for no reason for a start.
Given the mass defections from the Tories to UKIP or a new Farage led party if the Tories revoke Brexit they may not even be second let alone leading the polls.
No Deal is obviously worse than the Deal but still keeps most of the Tory party together
You're changing your tune.
No I still back the Deal but No Deal for the Tories is better than revoking Brexit
And the similar calculation on Labour's side is that a filibustered No Deal is better than backing May's deal. And so we are where we are.
That the rest of us couldn't give much of a damn for the electoral prospects of either party is why I believe the electorate better able to make the choice of what happens next than is Parliament.
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.
There is no route to a Labour majority that does not include winning a minimum of 25 seats in Scotland. As things stand, Labour is on course to lose seats there. The chances of an overall Labour majority at the next GE are vanishingly small as things stand.
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 r 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.
You're not a whinging remoaner. Revocation is a reasonable option to take as a means to stop brexit. What it is not is a means to deliver a better brexit at some unspecified future point.
The number of people who support No Deal now, and the number of people who would support it two months after it came about, if nothing but short-term micro-deals were put in place to mitigate it, is unlikely to be the same.
It's easy to support No Deal in opposition to something more concrete; it becomes a different matter when No Deal is itself a thing.
Given the mass defections from the Tories to UKIP or a new Farage led party if the Tories revoke Brexit they may not even be second let alone leading the polls.
No Deal is obviously worse than the Deal but still keeps most of the Tory party together
It would reduce the Tory party to a rump of the mad and the bad. Irrelevance beyond the 1997 William Hague's wildest dreams.
Hague still got 160 odd MPs, if they revoke Brexit the Tories risk matching the 2 MPs the Progressive Conservatives in Canada got in 1993
If they revoked Brexit *and* slung out the ERG then the Tories would become the de facto new centre party and would take votes from Corbyn's Labour.
You have no understanding of the Conservative Party.
The Conservative party was "the European party", as Norman St John-Stevas called it, and will be again.
At the moment it's not entirely clear that the Conservative party will be.
But forget all that - Shaun Bailey did some horrible tweets or said something which might upset a few people 12 years ago! I
Now you know how Labour people feel when people dig up something Corbyn said X years ago. Karma, mate.
Past comments are only relevant if still indicative of current thinking and if a party would not accept the 'it was a long time ago' excuse from their opponents saying the same thing.
So usually it's not very important but party hacks pretend it's important. But it is at least possible.
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.
Lol.
"I am proud to announce increased funding for the NHS and Pirates of the Caribbean 6 in cinemas soon"
I wonder how things will look the day after we crash out. After seeing IDS on our screens looking annoyed ('Can we just wait to see if this disruption continues into the coming months, please.') all eyes will surely turn to Liam...
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
They are still thinking that the problem is with the political declaration, rather than with the withdrawal agreement itself.
More likely they know it's not but that's the only bit they might be able to change. Maybe it's enough of a fig leaf to give cover to a few, but enough are clear the problems are the legal text so i doubt it. Particularly since everyone knows it's a fig leaf.
Given the mass defections from the Tories to UKIP or a new Farage led party if the Tories revoke Brexit they may not even be second let alone leading the polls.
No Deal is obviously worse than the Deal but still keeps most of the Tory party together
You're changing your tune.
No I still back the Deal but No Deal for the Tories is better than revoking Brexit
Any chance some Tory MPs might consider what's best for the country?
All mps think they doing that. It's coincidence that it matches their political positions. It's why there's no point chiding labour or the Tories in that way.
Given the mass defections from the Tories to UKIP or a new Farage led party if the Tories revoke Brexit they may not even be second let alone leading the polls.
No Deal is obviously worse than the Deal but still keeps most of the Tory party together
You're changing your tune.
No I still back the Deal but No Deal for the Tories is better than revoking Brexit
Any chance some Tory MPs might consider what's best for the country?
A silly point - however misguided most MPs may be on a range of issues I have no doubt they all believe that their views are in the national interest. Even Jeremy Corbyn!
No Deal will be Black Wednesday with knobs on. In fact, it doesn't even matter if the economic fallout isn't quite as bad as predicted - such will be the impression of gross and unforgivable incompetence that the public's desire for retribution will be boundless. It's perfectly understandable why Jezza is so keen on it.
Not if the blame can be pinned on European intransigence.
Which Varadkar et al are setting up perfectly to be the pantomine villains.
Indeed. May can say no one could have done more to try and achieve a deal than she did (and that would be widely seen to be true). The Government line will be that a deal sadly proved impossible with the likes of Junkers (literally a pantomime villain made for the part) and the EU playing silly buggers at every turn and Britain being undermined by disloyal voices like Blair and Major at home urging the EU to play rough .
She would be like Chamberlain in Sept '39 ("You can imagine what a bitter blow this is to me...."). I think like him she will try to stay on.
This totally ignores the fact that she HAS achieved a deal and is recommending it to the House of Commons. It's her own party that doesn't like it.
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.
If it were a question on a Theoretical Politics exam paper this answer of a two stage multi option approach would get full marks and deservedly so.
But then one thinks about it really happening and (at least if one is me) one concludes that it is too clever by half.
And that is before I had even thought about the problem you describe in the 2nd para. Which, yes, I see what you mean.
I wonder how things will look the day after we crash out. After seeing IDS on our screens looking annoyed ('Can we just wait to see if this disruption continues into the coming months, please.') all eyes will surely turn to Liam...
JRM will be saying "Disruption what disruption? My nanny is still looking after the sprogs, my investments are all still safe in Dublin..."
I think this is spot on unless there's a black swan.
As things stand, there's no way for Labour to go up from here: Corbyn is merrily trashing his appeal to centrist-Remainers and showing no sign of winning over former Tory voters.
But who knows what will happen after March 29th. If the whole of Kent becomes one big Operation Stack, or the newspapers find just one child death in hospital as a result of medicine shortages, all bets are off.
Which means we're in a situation where Labour NEED Brexit to happen to get a majority.
Maybe Magic Grandpa isn't so stupid after all.
Morning all,
There has been plenty of speculation and anonymous quotes from 'sources' to the effect that Jezza's closest aides think a massively messy Brexit, owned by the Tories, and the resulting chaos, is the perfect opportunity for them to win.
Indeed. Neither party are acting in the national interest.
Too busy thinking about leadership plans and elections.
Instances where politicians have acted in the national interest over Party interest are as rare as unicorn shit.
Comments
1. Yes, but the government and the EU will use best efforts to minimize the worst of the short term disruption. This will involve some agreements, a.k.a. deals.
2. It's not contempt, it's a realistic assessment of the public's knowledge and processing power.
My red line is that parliament should decide. Ratify or Revoke. I prefer Ratify but Revoke works for me too.
Just let's not have a No Deal crash out or another Referendum. Both of those are a dereliction of duty by MPs.
No Dealers have an option on both questions
By contrast the biggest risk for Labour is refusing to back EUref2 with a Remain option
The wider point though is worthy of debate - would young men without adult males at home benefit from having more adult male role models (teachers) at school in terms of exercising discipline and giving direction etc? Its certainly worthy of debate - rather than it being closed down by faux outrage.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1082254837553733632
Perhaps May should just leave People's Vote and Leave means Leave to fight to the death and then pick up the pieces with her Deal?
Your 2nd one is a two stage affair and contains the exact same question as 2016. Cannot for both of these reasons envisage it being approved.
Dublin is top spot for financial businesses moving activity because of Brexit
a total of 27 firms have moved, Frankfurt and Paris are behind Dublin
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/dublin-remains-top-brexodus-location-ahead-of-frankfurt-and-paris-ey-says-1.3750021
MFN rules only apply if there is no trade deal. They are a misnomer and really lowest common denominator rules. The EU could avoid a dispute by agreeing a deal with us that renders it moot but they don't want to do that. Well we don't want to agree to the backstop hence the impasse. Of the two available options agreeing a deal that renders it moot is a lot more reasonable than the undemocratic abomination of the backstop.
What's surprising is how hard Labour and the Guardian have gone against Bailey (numerous Op-ed pieces and digging up old interviews/tweets). They are obviously concerned by the fact he's not a typical Tory - suprisingly IMO as he can't come close to winning.
After the Progressive Conservatives in Canada lost by a landslide in 1993 and were overtaken by the Reform Party the Right did not get back again for 13 years until 2006 and then only after Stephen Harper had merged the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance, the successor to the Reform Party, to form the Conservative Party of Canada
As it happens, even in a perfect world I'd guess a minority of teachers would be male. But the way innocent men are treated if accused of anything puts a lot of them off, and understandably so.
It's easy to support No Deal in opposition to something more concrete; it becomes a different matter when No Deal is itself a thing.
Black Wednesday kick started the economy
It is amazing how he is going to get away with implementing the massive congestion charge expansion (by another name), with very little in the way of uproar.
Which Varadkar et al are setting up perfectly to be the pantomine villains.
Must... have... Crossrail...
No Deal is obviously worse than the Deal but still keeps most of the Tory party together
All the rules relating to the procedure by which the candidates put to the membership are chosen is held not under the difficult-to-amend constitution, but the very-easy-to-amend 1922 Committee document. This includes the rules for a No Confidence vote.
That said, there are plenty of Tory held marginals at distinct risk - Hastings, Southampton Itchen, Plymouth Moor View, Crewe etc so it doesn’t take many votes to swing a lot of seats.
There are just too many big unanswered questions to dismiss a Corbyn win at this stage - whether the Tories have a new leader and if so, how effective will they be; whether Corbyn will campaign as effectively and come up with a vote winner, albeit unfunded, on tuition fees; whether the Tories will give Labour the free run on their policies they did last time; whether the Tories will hold together or split over Brexit etc
The bigger risk is that the Libs take seats off the Tories and we end up with a Corbyn in Sowning St heading up a Lib-Lab (and maybe SNP) Coalition.
The best defence against a Corbyn victory is for the Tories to get their act together whilst there is still time. No sign of that happening though.
She would be like Chamberlain in Sept '39 ("You can imagine what a bitter blow this is to me...."). I think like him she will try to stay on.
"She should have reached out across the aisles ages ago" sounds all very reasonable but in practice would not have worked.
Another unicorn.
Edit. @notme2 beat me to it!
Maybe Spanish and Greece ?
Revoking Article 50 would lose the Conservatives Leavers by the truckload, and Remainers are mostly Labour anyway and would remain so.
Any chance some Tory MPs might consider what's best for the country?
He’s probably right, though.
ie a deal. Yet some people believe these things are completely different.
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.
Also fun that Scotland has to pay for the English students debt as part of the Westminster robbery.
If May were to revoke A50, then there would be a real risk of a split because that goes so completely against the referendum result and current Tory support / membership. But if the deal itself is backed? Sure, some MPs and members will be unhappy but overall, May's deal brings Britain out of the EU. After that point, were into the kind of political nerd-arguments that turned voters off. There might be a brief uptick in UKIP support but I don't think there'd be a sufficient sense of betrayal or easy story to sell to make a viable Eurosceptic movement capable of overtaking the Tories on the right.
Someone said that after brexit the best we could turn ourselves into a 1950's theme park in the Atlantic.
Well why not? It looks like we might be good at it.
And so we are where we are.
That the rest of us couldn't give much of a damn for the electoral prospects of either party is why I believe the electorate better able to make the choice of what happens next than is Parliament.
Anything at all.
So usually it's not very important but party hacks pretend it's important. But it is at least possible.
"I am proud to announce increased funding for the NHS and Pirates of the Caribbean 6 in cinemas soon"
She'll probably be lucky to still be PM in ten days nevermind ten years.
But then one thinks about it really happening and (at least if one is me) one concludes that it is too clever by half.
And that is before I had even thought about the problem you describe in the 2nd para. Which, yes, I see what you mean.