Government has accepted the Cooper amendment to the finance bill. Government all but certain to lose the vote; effectively depriving the government of supply in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
I am quite pleased and suspect TM will be content with that decision
No smoke without fire and all that, and the smoke that's rising is that May has already decided to seek an Article 50 extension when the meaningful vote dies.
The big unknown is how the Council will respond? They're very unlikely to grant us an extension if we're just gonna end up back here in three months, six months, whatever.
May will need to put something significant offer on the table to get the extension.
If it is, auto-ticketing at 72mph seems rather harsh.
It's been doing the rounds for a year or more with the same wording. There's some truth to it, which is that in some cases the speed cameras in variable speed limit sections are only switched on when VSL is in force, and have over time been changed to trigger even when no VSL (i.e. 70mph limit applying). Generally thought to trigger at >80mph though.
The other points seem out of line with normal policy and as far as I know aren't backed up by current guidance issued to magistrates etc.
Interesting thread. For my money, we could do far worse then remembering Palmerston's dictum that Richard paraphrased. If memory serves, the actual quote also said 'and no perpetual enemies', which is as worth remembering as not having any permanent allies. This statement, though it was made during a time of greater influence, actually still holds true, perhaps even more, when we're not the biggest fish in the pond.
Given his opposition to Irish independence, he might be shocked by the recent reversal of fortunes.
I think he'd be quite apalled by a great many things, this was a man who could hold the floor of the Commons for 3 hours. He would see decline in every area. I wouldn't see him being shocked though, he was essentially a pragmatist. He did pick fights, but only very winnable ones. In terms of power, Britain was already passed its peak in his time.
Government has accepted the Cooper amendment to the finance bill. Government all but certain to lose the vote; effectively depriving the government of supply in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
I am quite pleased and suspect TM will be content with that decision
No smoke without fire and all that, and the smoke that's rising is that May has already decided to seek an Article 50 extension when the meaningful vote dies.
The big unknown is how the Council will respond? They're very unlikely to grant us an extension if we're just gonna end up back here in three months, six months, whatever.
May will need to put something significant offer on the table to get the extension.
Maybe but you do tend to make definitive statement when IMHO may be prudent
So together we all agree no hard border...and will then require a hard border because we cannot accept their demands (well I can, but the Commons won't).
I hope we're getting closer to everyone just admitting it is no deal or remain at least, and that the actions of the various parties only really make sense if that has been the goal all along.
I see La Soubry is milking her mobbing to the utmost
What a nasty comment. Just shows how being pro-Brexit makes you potty.
Curious why this is getting so much attention when it happens at every single Tory Party Conference without fuss.
Duh, that's because Tories are scum, and deserve to be spat on.
Whereas Tory MP Soubry is ... ?
I'd be amazed if this is the first time Soubry has been called a name by a protestor.
If you do a bit of a search of the internet there are some pretty ugly scenes from this crowd. I did a search via a post on here much earlier that took me to a twitter account with video of a black man being seriously harassed by the same people. A posting on that account identified a number of the individuals. I looked up one of them and he was a member of Britain First and the picture clearly showed it was the same person. I think it is fair to say their treatment of Soubry was (for them) the mild end of their behaviour. We are not at the name calling level, although I find it bizarre they called her a fascist.
I don't doubt these protestors are deplorable as are there actions and being subject to them is upsetting. Those who act like this and encourage this are inexcusable.
What makes me get a wry smile is why when similar or identical actions are orchestrated or encouraged by the likes of John McDonnell or Owen Jones then the victims are Tory scum who deserved it, but when the same actions are done by Britain First scum then action must be taken.
Whether orchestrated by Owen Jones/John McDonnell or Britain First this behaviour is disgusting. I'd like to see as much uproar next time the far left act like this.
Hi Philip - My comment wasn't in response to you (although my actions on tacking it to your post implies otherwise - sorry. I should have done a fresh post). It was a general point of highlighting that these aren't the run of the mill abusive demonstrators. Re the comparisons I agree incitement is unacceptable regardless of right and left, although Britain First go way, way past that point.
Re J McD I find what he sometimes says unacceptable particularly the hanging bit. Don't know what OJ has said. It is all unacceptable but there are degrees.
Government has accepted the Cooper amendment to the finance bill. Government all but certain to lose the vote; effectively depriving the government of supply in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Probability of UK leaving EU on 29 March is now down to 36% on Betfair. Brexit is sliding away.
Not surprisingly. Immediately after losing the Meaningful Vote is now clear that May will seek to extend Article 50 for a "pause for reflection" in the UK.
Brexiteers are going to lose their fucking minds, it's gonna be amazing.
That would be the same May who ended her Marr interview on Sunday by stating that we would be leaving on 29 March.
Probability of UK leaving EU on 29 March is now down to 36% on Betfair. Brexit is sliding away.
But the probability of No Brexit at all is still down at 27%.
I think what is gaining traction (betting wise) is that some sort of deal is ratified but too late to be implemented by 29/3. So a short extension is requested and granted.
Government has accepted the Cooper amendment to the finance bill. Government all but certain to lose the vote; effectively depriving the government of supply in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
I am quite pleased and suspect TM will be content with that decision
As I have been saying, no deal isn't going to happen. Extension or Revocation is more likely.
Government has accepted the Cooper amendment to the finance bill. Government all but certain to lose the vote; effectively depriving the government of supply in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Probability of UK leaving EU on 29 March is now down to 36% on Betfair. Brexit is sliding away.
Not surprisingly. Immediately after losing the Meaningful Vote is now clear that May will seek to extend Article 50 for a "pause for reflection" in the UK.
Brexiteers are going to lose their fucking minds, it's gonna be amazing.
Probability of UK leaving EU on 29 March is now down to 36% on Betfair. Brexit is sliding away.
But the probability of No Brexit at all is still down at 27%.
I think what is gaining traction (betting wise) is that some sort of deal is ratified but too late to be implemented by 29/3. So a short extension is requested and granted.
I expect sometime in the next few weeks ERG will see Brexit slipping away and will have a decision to make. Accept TM WDA or lose Brexit for a very long time
Whilst I agree with the thrust of Ms Cyclefree's article, I don't think her initial paragraph is right. There was no way that the UK could have joined at the start. Quite apart from anything else, in 1958 (two years before Macmillan's landmark 'winds of change' speech) we didn't have imperial pretensions, we had imperial possessions and a huge network of imperial and ex-imperial links. The whole nation was oriented in trade and outlook across the seas, something which persisted into the mid-sixties (I'm just old enough to remember it!). It would have been impossible to put ourselves into the heart of the new continental European project in 1958, let alone in 1952 when the project really started with the European Coal and Steel Community.
Hmm - France still had imperial possessions in 1952. It didn't stop them. Also, if we had joined while still having those possessions, maybe the sort of European organisation that was created might have been different in a way which might well have suited Britain better.
I think, rather, the fact of still having imperial possessions and all those links meant that we thought that, the messy business of stopping Germany making a nuisance of themselves again having been completed, we could revert to what we thought of as our proper place in the world, as an imperial power. We failed to realise - even though it had been obvious for a while - that the Empire was on its way out, that we needed to find a new role and that intervening in European affairs militarily, as needed - and as Britain had been doing for a couple of centuries - was no longer a sustainable way forward.
In short, it was precisely because we did not think about the future and what it might mean for us as a country that we stood back when others were forced to do some hard thinking about what sort of Europe there should be. We are making the same mistake now. The geopolitics are very different and alarming. But that is the subject of my next headers. So you will have to wait.
Government has accepted the Cooper amendment to the finance bill. Government all but certain to lose the vote; effectively depriving the government of supply in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
I am quite pleased and suspect TM will be content with that decision
As I have been saying, no deal isn't going to happen. Extension or Revocation is more likely.
Indications are all pointing to only two options, TM WDA or revoke/referendum
Someone asked me today in the light of the Anna Soubry incident "Why are extreme right wingers all Brexiteers and why are they so nasty?" As I thought about what seemed like a very naive question i realised there was no answer. I could have said there are just a lot of cu"ts around but it wouldn't have been adequate.
So together we all agree no hard border...and will then require a hard border because we cannot accept their demands (well I can, but the Commons won't).
I hope we're getting closer to everyone just admitting it is no deal or remain at least, and that the actions of the various parties only really make sense if that has been the goal all along.
If NI and Ireland are two countries then the idea that you can say 'no hard border' is nonsense. That's what being two countries is all about! The politicians in Ireland (all of it) really need to grow up. I will say that I think that the DUP are actually acting in a grown up fashion - which to honest boggles my bogglable bits.
The Good Friday agreement should not obstruct Brexit.
On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.
True enough. Too much push. Not enough pull.
But the Remainers, too, have not had much of a strategy either, one reason possibly that they failed to communicate a positive case for it. After all, if you don't know what you are selling, it's hard to be convincing when selling it.
So together we all agree no hard border...and will then require a hard border because we cannot accept their demands (well I can, but the Commons won't).
I hope we're getting closer to everyone just admitting it is no deal or remain at least, and that the actions of the various parties only really make sense if that has been the goal all along.
Except No Deal is only viable if the UK intends never to have any arrangement with the EU, ever, on anything at all. Which just isn't viable. Otherwise the UK is in the absurdly weak position of needing the EU to agree stuff on their whim, which they can switch off at any time of their choosing.
If you eliminate May's Deal and No Deal is unviable, you are left with Remain as the only option.
Government has accepted the Cooper amendment to the finance bill. Government all but certain to lose the vote; effectively depriving the government of supply in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Probability of UK leaving EU on 29 March is now down to 36% on Betfair. Brexit is sliding away.
Not surprisingly. Immediately after losing the Meaningful Vote is now clear that May will seek to extend Article 50 for a "pause for reflection" in the UK.
Brexiteers are going to lose their fucking minds, it's gonna be amazing.
That latter is rather a tardy observation.
And you are rather a fuckwit but don't let that stop you.
Probability of UK leaving EU on 29 March is now down to 36% on Betfair. Brexit is sliding away.
But the probability of No Brexit at all is still down at 27%.
I think what is gaining traction (betting wise) is that some sort of deal is ratified but too late to be implemented by 29/3. So a short extension is requested and granted.
To the 22nd May..the day before the Euro elections
Whilst I agree with the thrust of Ms Cyclefree's article, I don't think her initial paragraph is right. There was no way that the UK could have joined at the start. Quite apart from anything else, in 1958 (two years before Macmillan's landmark 'winds of change' speech) we didn't have imperial pretensions, we had imperial possessions and a huge network of imperial and ex-imperial links. The whole nation was oriented in trade and outlook across the seas, something which persisted into the mid-sixties (I'm just old enough to remember it!). It would have been impossible to put ourselves into the heart of the new continental European project in 1958, let alone in 1952 when the project really started with the European Coal and Steel Community.
Two thoughts occur when reading this. First, we maintained a significant military presence in Europe as part of NATO through the BAOR in West Germany. We had signed up to NATO and the principle of collective defence against the Warsaw Pact.
The second aspect was the psychological impact of Suez - militarily successful but in the end the economic power of the US and the UK's own financial weakness told. For all the power we thought we had, in the financial wargame we were very weak and Washington knew it and used money as a weapon.
The reality of life after Suez was we could no longer afford to be a global power and if we tried we could only do so with Washington's acquiescence. Going in economically with a recovering western Europe made sense then but while it was the financially right thing to do it wasn't a step the country found easy to make politically or culturally.
We had never been defeated, we had never been conquered, we had never seen enemy troops in our streets (apart from the Channel Islands) and we had never been humiliated. Suez was the worst national experience since the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown in 1783.
Agree with this.
We went into the EU because we felt we had to. Not because we really wanted to. And that ambivalence has bedevilled much of the relationship since.
Whilst I agree with the thrust of Ms Cyclefree's article, I don't think her initial paragraph is right. There was no way that the UK could have joined at the start. Quite apart from anything else, in 1958 (two years before Macmillan's landmark 'winds of change' speech) we didn't have imperial pretensions, we had imperial possessions and a huge network of imperial and ex-imperial links. The whole nation was oriented in trade and outlook across the seas, something which persisted into the mid-sixties (I'm just old enough to remember it!). It would have been impossible to put ourselves into the heart of the new continental European project in 1958, let alone in 1952 when the project really started with the European Coal and Steel Community.
Hmm - France still had imperial possessions in 1952. It didn't stop them. Also, if we had joined while still having those possessions, maybe the sort of European organisation that was created might have been different in a way which might well have suited Britain better.
I think, rather, the fact of still having imperial possessions and all those links meant that we thought that, the messy business of stopping Germany making a nuisance of themselves again having been completed, we could revert to what we thought of as our proper place in the world, as an imperial power. We failed to realise - even though it had been obvious for a while - that the Empire was on its way out, that we needed to find a new role and that intervening in European affairs militarily, as needed - and as Britain had been doing for a couple of centuries - was no longer a sustainable way forward.
In short, it was precisely because we did not think about the future and what it might mean for us as a country that we stood back when others were forced to do some hard thinking about what sort of Europe there should be. We are making the same mistake now. The geopolitics are very different and alarming. But that is the subject of my next headers. So you will have to wait.
You don't mention that it was advocated by the Liberal Party of the time.
Someone asked me today in the light of the Anna Soubry incident "Why are extreme right wingers all Brexiteers and why are they so nasty?" As I thought about what seemed like a very naive question i realised there was no answer. I could have said there are just a lot of cu"ts around but it wouldn't have been adequate.
I think the key element of that is "extreme". Extreme left-wingers are often Brexiteers, and extreme anyones are quite often nasty, as they prioritise whatever they see as so crucially important that it has pushed them to an extreme as far more important than, you know, people.
Extreme either-siders can often require isolationism as part of their credo; Brexit would be a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for that. It also shouldn't be used to paint all Leave/Brexiteer types as either isolationist or extremist or nasty. There is a case that the Brexit vote has emboldened the isolationist/extremist/xenophobic types, though.
It also overlooks that I've seen a whole bunch of rather nasty people on the other side of the debate, including some very fervent FBPE-types.
This isn't to be a "whatabout..." post or a "let's look at both sides" post, but to emphasise that this sort of framing of the issue tends to emotively reach for a over-simplistic answer to an issue ("It's because they're Brexiteers and Brexiteers are baddies"). It's akin to the "Remainers are traitors" stance that's poisoned discussion from the other end.
I expect sometime in the next few weeks ERG will see Brexit slipping away and will have a decision to make. Accept TM WDA or lose Brexit for a very long time
That could well be.
I used to think that, then recently I changed my mind and more got to thinking that the No Deal was no bluff - that if she really could not get her deal passed then she would opt for that as being less bad (for her and her party) than reneging on the 2016 referendum.
At this current point in time, right here and now as we speak, I don't know what I think.
Government has accepted the Cooper amendment to the finance bill. Government all but certain to lose the vote; effectively depriving the government of supply in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Probability of UK leaving EU on 29 March is now down to 36% on Betfair. Brexit is sliding away.
Not surprisingly. Immediately after losing the Meaningful Vote is now clear that May will seek to extend Article 50 for a "pause for reflection" in the UK.
Brexiteers are going to lose their fucking minds, it's gonna be amazing.
That latter is rather a tardy observation.
And you are rather a fuckwit but don't let that stop you.
As I recall it was comments like that which led you, sensibly, to take a break from PB a while back.
Someone asked me today in the light of the Anna Soubry incident "Why are extreme right wingers all Brexiteers and why are they so nasty?" As I thought about what seemed like a very naive question i realised there was no answer. I could have said there are just a lot of cu"ts around but it wouldn't have been adequate.
I think the key element of that is "extreme". Extreme left-wingers are often Brexiteers, and extreme anyones are quite often nasty, as they prioritise whatever they see as so crucially important that it has pushed them to an extreme as far more important than, you know, people.
Extreme either-siders can often require isolationism as part of their credo; Brexit would be a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for that. It also shouldn't be used to paint all Leave/Brexiteer types as either isolationist or extremist or nasty. There is a case that the Brexit vote has emboldened the isolationist/extremist/xenophobic types, though.
It also overlooks that I've seen a whole bunch of rather nasty people on the other side of the debate, including some very fervent FBPE-types.
This isn't to be a "whatabout..." post or a "let's look at both sides" post, but to emphasise that this sort of framing of the issue tends to emotively reach for a over-simplistic answer to an issue ("It's because they're Brexiteers and Brexiteers are baddies"). It's akin to the "Remainers are traitors" stance that's poisoned discussion from the other end.
Don't forget that it's also a media and social media portrayal of reality. Those that the political class has deemed extreme (whose views are deemed a challenge to acceptable norms) must be portrayed as ghastly borderline insane people as a warning to the others. Not saying that there aren't real people happy to fill the role, but if they did not exist, they would have to be invented.
Government has accepted the Cooper amendment to the finance bill. Government all but certain to lose the vote; effectively depriving the government of supply in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Probability of UK leaving EU on 29 March is now down to 36% on Betfair. Brexit is sliding away.
Not surprisingly. Immediately after losing the Meaningful Vote is now clear that May will seek to extend Article 50 for a "pause for reflection" in the UK.
Brexiteers are going to lose their fucking minds, it's gonna be amazing.
That latter is rather a tardy observation.
And you are rather a fuckwit but don't let that stop you.
As I recall it was comments like that which led you, sensibly, to take a break from PB a while back.
Given your comment above, I'm not sure you're on very firm ground here.
So together we all agree no hard border...and will then require a hard border because we cannot accept their demands (well I can, but the Commons won't).
I hope we're getting closer to everyone just admitting it is no deal or remain at least, and that the actions of the various parties only really make sense if that has been the goal all along.
If NI and Ireland are two countries then the idea that you can say 'no hard border' is nonsense. That's what being two countries is all about! The politicians in Ireland (all of it) really need to grow up. I will say that I think that the DUP are actually acting in a grown up fashion - which to honest boggles my bogglable bits.
The Good Friday agreement should not obstruct Brexit.
You're missing the point that almost half of people in NI don't think NI are two countries and ignore the border as much as they can, including almost everyone who lives near the border.
You could say why should we care on the mainland about the Northern Irish? Brexit is FAR more important. I wouldn't say that is especially "grown up" however.
Whilst I agree with the thrust of Ms Cyclefree's article, I don't think her initial paragraph is right. There was no way that the UK could have joined at the start. Quite apart from anything else, in 1958 (two years before Macmillan's landmark 'winds of change' speech) we didn't have imperial pretensions, we had imperial possessions and a huge network of imperial and ex-imperial links. The whole nation was oriented in trade and outlook across the seas, something which persisted into the mid-sixties (I'm just old enough to remember it!). It would have been impossible to put ourselves into the heart of the new continental European project in 1958, let alone in 1952 when the project really started with the European Coal and Steel Community.
Two thoughts occur when reading this. First, we maintained a significant military presence in Europe as part of NATO through the BAOR in West Germany. We had signed up to NATO and the principle of collective defence against the Warsaw Pact.
The second aspect was the psychological impact of Suez - militarily successful but in the end the economic power of the US and the UK's own financial weakness told. For all the power we thought we had, in the financial wargame we were very weak and Washington knew it and used money as a weapon.
The reality of life after Suez was we could no longer afford to be a global power and if we tried we could only do so with Washington's acquiescence. Going in economically with a recovering western Europe made sense then but while it was the financially right thing to do it wasn't a step the country found easy to make politically or culturally.
We had never been defeated, we had never been conquered, we had never seen enemy troops in our streets (apart from the Channel Islands) and we had never been humiliated. Suez was the worst national experience since the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown in 1783.
Agree with this.
We went into the EU because we felt we had to. Not because we really wanted to. And that ambivalence has bedevilled much of the relationship since.
And it didn't work. The economy didn't pick up till Thatcher. And those reforms we could have done without the EEC.
I expect sometime in the next few weeks ERG will see Brexit slipping away and will have a decision to make. Accept TM WDA or lose Brexit for a very long time
That could well be.
I used to think that, then recently I changed my mind and more got to thinking that the No Deal was no bluff - that if she really could not get her deal passed then she would opt for that as being less bad (for her and her party) than reneging on the 2016 referendum.
At this current point in time, right here and now as we speak, I don't know what I think.
I'm not sure I even know what I want.
TM whole aim has been to agree a Brexit that respects the vote but protects business and she achieves this in her WDA
I cannot think for one minute that TM will be a party to no deal but of course tactically she needs to let the HOC obstruct no deal, as has happened somewhat today, and in turn it moves Brexit to her deal or no Brexit without compromising her position
And as has been said that if no deal does happen TM can point to Yvette Cooper and others preventing her no deal planning
I do believe TM has reason to be quietly quite pleased today
Government has accepted the Cooper amendment to the finance bill. Government all but certain to lose the vote; effectively depriving the government of supply in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Probability of UK leaving EU on 29 March is now down to 36% on Betfair. Brexit is sliding away.
Not surprisingly. Immediately after losing the Meaningful Vote is now clear that May will seek to extend Article 50 for a "pause for reflection" in the UK.
Brexiteers are going to lose their fucking minds, it's gonna be amazing.
That latter is rather a tardy observation.
And you are rather a fuckwit but don't let that stop you.
As I recall it was comments like that which led you, sensibly, to take a break from PB a while back.
Given your comment above, I'm not sure you're on very firm ground here.
I suggest there is a difference between generic comments about leavers or remainers - which are common on the site - and us throwing personal abuse at each other, which does nothing to improve th site.
Government has accepted the Cooper amendment to the finance bill. Government all but certain to lose the vote; effectively depriving the government of supply in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Probability of UK leaving EU on 29 March is now down to 36% on Betfair. Brexit is sliding away.
Not surprisingly. Immediately after losing the Meaningful Vote is now clear that May will seek to extend Article 50 for a "pause for reflection" in the UK.
Brexiteers are going to lose their fucking minds, it's gonna be amazing.
That latter is rather a tardy observation.
And you are rather a fuckwit but don't let that stop you.
As I recall it was comments like that which led you, sensibly, to take a break from PB a while back.
Given your comment above, I'm not sure you're on very firm ground here.
I suggest there is a difference between generic comments about leavers or remainers - which are common on the site - and us throwing personal abuse at each other, which does nothing to improve th site.
Personally I don't see the distinction. If you want the debate to be less toxic, be less toxic.
Whilst I agree with the thrust of Ms Cyclefree's article, I don't think her initial paragraph is right. There was no way that the UK could have joined at the start. Quite apart from anything else, in 1958 (two years before Macmillan's landmark 'winds of change' speech) we didn't have imperial pretensions, we had imperial possessions and a huge network of imperial and ex-imperial links. The whole nation was oriented in trade and outlook across the seas, something which persisted into the mid-sixties (I'm just old enough to remember it!). It would have been impossible to put ourselves into the heart of the new continental European project in 1958, let alone in 1952 when the project really started with the European Coal and Steel Community.
Two thoughts occur when reading this. First, we maintained a significant military presence in Europe as part of NATO through the BAOR in West Germany. We had signed up to NATO and the principle of collective defence against the Warsaw Pact.
The second aspect was the psychological impact of Suez - militarily successful but in the end the economic power of the US and the UK's own financial weakness told. For all the power we thought we had, in the financial wargame we were very weak and Washington knew it and used money as a weapon.
The reality of life after Suez was we could no longer afford to be a global power and if we tried we could only do so with Washington's acquiescence. Going in economically with a recovering western Europe made sense then but while it was the financially right thing to do it wasn't a step the country found easy to make politically or culturally.
We had never been defeated, we had never been conquered, we had never seen enemy troops in our streets (apart from the Channel Islands) and we had never been humiliated. Suez was the worst national experience since the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown in 1783.
Agree with this.
We went into the EU because we felt we had to. Not because we really wanted to. And that ambivalence has bedevilled much of the relationship since.
And it didn't work. The economy didn't pick up till Thatcher. And those reforms we could have done without the EEC.
We hadn't fully transitioned into the EEC until Thatcher, and the political effect of membership was to rule out the Bennite alternative programme of retreating behind economic walls.
It's a huge blindspot of Eurosceptics to bemoan its political nature but ignore the political consequences that flow from that.
Whilst I agree with the thrust of Ms Cyclefree's article, I don't think her initial paragraph is right. There was no way that the UK could have joined at the start. Quite apart from anything else, in 1958 (two years before Macmillan's landmark 'winds of change' speech) we didn't have imperial pretensions, we had imperial possessions and a huge network of imperial and ex-imperial links. The whole nation was oriented in trade and outlook across the seas, something which persisted into the mid-sixties (I'm just old enough to remember it!). It would have been impossible to put ourselves into the heart of the new continental European project in 1958, let alone in 1952 when the project really started with the European Coal and Steel Community.
Hmm - France still had imperial possessions in 1952. It didn't stop them. Also, if we had joined while still having those possessions, maybe the sort of European organisation that was created might have been different in a way which might well have suited Britain better.
I think, rather, the fact of still having imperial possessions and all those links meant that we thought that, the messy business of stopping Germany making a nuisance of themselves again having been completed, we could revert to what we thought of as our proper place in the world, as an imperial power. We failed to realise - even though it had been obvious for a while - that the Empire was on its way out, that we needed to find a new role and that intervening in European affairs militarily, as needed - and as Britain had been doing for a couple of centuries - was no longer a sustainable way forward.
In short, it was precisely because we did not think about the future and what it might mean for us as a country that we stood back when others were forced to do some hard thinking about what sort of Europe there should be. We are making the same mistake now. The geopolitics are very different and alarming. But that is the subject of my next headers. So you will have to wait.
You don't mention that it was advocated by the Liberal Party of the time.
On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.
True enough. Too much push. Not enough pull.
But the Remainers, too, have not had much of a strategy either, one reason possibly that they failed to communicate a positive case for it. After all, if you don't know what you are selling, it's hard to be convincing when selling it.
Well Cameron’s deal was an embryonic form of one, however grievously mis-sold and mistimed.
I actually think he was right - the idea of the UK at the centre of a fully integrated European state is as fanciful as the Singapore in the North Sea dream of the stranger ERgers. We had allies for the proposition of a looser periphery, and the balance of argument was beginning to shift in our favour; that is unfortunately in the past, probably.
Someone asked me today in the light of the Anna Soubry incident "Why are extreme right wingers all Brexiteers and why are they so nasty?" As I thought about what seemed like a very naive question i realised there was no answer. I could have said there are just a lot of cu"ts around but it wouldn't have been adequate.
Prefixes like 'far' and 'extreme' often aren't that helpful because they denote a lot of variations on 'moderate' versions of left and right wing. I guess that extreme right wingers are either very nativist/protectionist/authoritarian which obviously means resisting any external 'interference' such as membership of the EU; or extreme economic liberals, which would mean seeing the EU's regulatory and social agenda as unacceptable. So being Brexiters makes sense.
As to 'why are they all nasty' - well, they might be, but really we're seeing the attention-seeking nasty ones, which doesn't tell us whether or not there are lots of nice ones who aren't busy harassing MPs.
So together we all agree no hard border...and will then require a hard border because we cannot accept their demands (well I can, but the Commons won't).
I hope we're getting closer to everyone just admitting it is no deal or remain at least, and that the actions of the various parties only really make sense if that has been the goal all along.
If NI and Ireland are two countries then the idea that you can say 'no hard border' is nonsense. That's what being two countries is all about! The politicians in Ireland (all of it) really need to grow up. I will say that I think that the DUP are actually acting in a grown up fashion - which to honest boggles my bogglable bits.
The Good Friday agreement should not obstruct Brexit.
You're missing the point that almost half of people in NI don't think NI are two countries and ignore the border as much as they can, including almost everyone who lives near the border.
You could say why should we care on the mainland about the Northern Irish? Brexit is FAR more important. I wouldn't say that is especially "grown up" however.
I see why you might think that, but I'm very much not missing the point in that. The NI want to be distinct, but part of a bigger whole. The Irish (S) people want to be distinct. The GF agreement said that aspects of their existence should be aligned. Unfortunately the GF agreement wasn't a constraint on everyone else in the UK. We choose to dis-align with Ireland, and we can certainly choose to do so.
(Any use of 'grown up' could be replaced by 'big picture' or 'overview' or something)
It all looks like a waste of time to me. Whining about how bad no deal is is not enough on its own, presumably they know that.
I truly, truly hope the Tories split very soon. It is for their own good, since they are made up of people who cannot countenance no deal (some of whom may even vote down the government if it tries it, and they should) and a very large group for whom no deal is everything they've ever wanted. That's a difference beyond the bounds of reasonable differences within a party, you cannot talk so approvingly or in horror respectively about no deal and then pretend you can all just get along once this issue is settled. It's pathetic.
Rather than the second worst posr-war strategic mistake of any British government not being to join the EEC in 1958 I in fact would argue it was leaving EFTA which we joined in 1960 for the EEC in 1973.
Our place in Europe was always going to be one mainly based on trade along with fellow EFTA nations like Norway and Switzerland not joining the Euro and moving towards a Federal Europe like the key EU states of France and Germany and Italy and the Benelux nations who were the founder movers of the EEC
While I deplore the individual and his actions, I find it deeply disturbing that intermediaries such as paypal get to decide who or what people get to spend their money on.
I know Paypal is a private company, but when they are effectively able to deplatform individuals whose views they disagree with it is a disturbing trend.
And why stop there? If Visa was taken over by a fervent prohibitionist, should they be able to cancel my credit card if I buy alcohol with it? I don't care to have my spending policed.
While I deplore the individual and his actions, I find it deeply disturbing that intermediaries such as paypal get to decide who or what people get to spend their money on.
I know Paypal is a private company, but when they are effectively able to deplatform individuals whose views they disagree with it is a disturbing trend.
And why stop there? If Visa was taken over by a fervent prohibitionist, should they be able to cancel my credit card if I buy alcohol with it? I don't care to have my spending policed.
Long term crypto is the only way forward.
Crypto is a busted flush and is in no way the future. It's just as worthless as fiat currency but at least fiat currency is backed by nation states.
Whilst I agree with the thrust of Ms Cyclefree's article, I don't think her initial paragraph is right. There was no way that the UK could have joined at the start. Quite apart from anything else, in 1958 (two years before Macmillan's landmark 'winds of change' speech) we didn't have imperial pretensions, we had imperial possessions and a huge network of imperial and ex-imperial links. The whole nation was oriented in trade and outlook across the seas, something which persisted into the mid-sixties (I'm just old enough to remember it!). It would have been impossible to put ourselves into the heart of the new continental European project in 1958, let alone in 1952 when the project really started with the European Coal and Steel Community.
Two thoughts occur when reading this. First, we maintained a significant military presence in Europe as part of NATO through the BAOR in West Germany. We had signed up to NATO and the principle of collective defence against the Warsaw Pact.
The second aspect was the psychological impact of Suez - militarily successful but in the end the economic power of the US and the UK's own financial weakness told. For all the power we thought we had, in the financial wargame we were very weak and Washington knew it and used money as a weapon.
The reality of life after Suez was we could no longer afford to be a global power and if we tried we could only do so with Washington's acquiescence.
And it didn't work. The economy didn't pick up till Thatcher. And those reforms we could have done without the EEC.
We hadn't fully transitioned into the EEC until Thatcher, and the political effect of membership was to rule out the Bennite alternative programme of retreating behind economic walls.
It's a huge blindspot of Eurosceptics to bemoan its political nature but ignore the political consequences that flow from that.
Tony Benn was in opposition. And wasn't leader. Ruling out a totally imagined scenario is hardly cause for rejoicing. But to address your wider point, I would hope I would still be against the EU even if I agreed with them most of the time, because the changes would not be rooted in public consent. And benign dictatorship is benign until it ceases to be benign.
I expect sometime in the next few weeks ERG will see Brexit slipping away and will have a decision to make. Accept TM WDA or lose Brexit for a very long time
That could well be.
I used to think that, then recently I changed my mind and more got to thinking that the No Deal was no bluff - that if she really could not get her deal passed then she would opt for that as being less bad (for her and her party) than reneging on the 2016 referendum.
At this current point in time, right here and now as we speak, I don't know what I think.
I'm not sure I even know what I want.
TM whole aim has been to agree a Brexit that respects the vote but protects business and she achieves this in her WDA
I cannot think for one minute that TM will be a party to no deal but of course tactically she needs to let the HOC obstruct no deal, as has happened somewhat today, and in turn it moves Brexit to her deal or no Brexit without compromising her position
And as has been said that if no deal does happen TM can point to Yvette Cooper and others preventing her no deal planning
I do believe TM has reason to be quietly quite pleased today
Perhaps, but it is far from clear that we will not still stumble into a no deal Brexit through badly calculated bluffs from both May and Corbyn.
With sufficient time, a cross party coalition of the centre might have developed to ensure no deal would not happen, but given the constraints of time, parliamentary numbers, and government control of the legislative process, it is on a wing and a prayer.
It is good news for TM deal and I expect she is pleased by this development
Yes, we could soon see a situation where at least some ultra Brexiteers accept that they could throw the whole thing away here.
May needs to start whispers that she might call a 2nd Ref vote.
It is happening right now and even at this early stage no deal is on life support, even if the government wins the vote at 7.00pm leaving TM WDA or remain
It all looks like a waste of time to me. Whining about how bad no deal is is not enough on its own, presumably they know that.
I truly, truly hope the Tories split very soon. It is for their own good, since they are made up of people who cannot countenance no deal (some of whom may even vote down the government if it tries it, and they should) and a very large group for whom no deal is everything they've ever wanted. That's a difference beyond the bounds of reasonable differences within a party, you cannot talk so approvingly or in horror respectively about no deal and then pretend you can all just get along once this issue is settled. It's pathetic.
If so Labour must surely split soon after, inner city Labour Remainers demanding EUref2 with a Remain option are miles apart from working class Labour Leave voters in old industrial towns
Then we have no choice but to remain if the deal is voted down.
Perhaps the "extension" playbook is to carry on "leaving the EU" indefinitely until nobody cares anymore and then we can officially revoke.
I don't object to people thinking we should remain if parliament rejects any form of deal, but I do think a lot of the no deal whiners are deliberately ignoring that is the inevitable end state of their actions. It also undermines the argument for a referendum considerably, since no deal is apparently unacceptable, and they are going to reject the deal that is on offer as unacceptable, outcomes so bad that surely they cannot risk letting the public approve them.
If no deal and the deal are both unacceptable to parliament, there is no need or point to involving the public again, and I hope they are brave enough to say so when the deal is voted down. A referendum at that point is pointless.
On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.
That is both rather true by definition and also meaningless. Brexit is by definition simply exiting the EU. It is a negative. Why people want to exit though may be completely different things.
Philosophically if you compare the EU to the Church of Rome (Catholicism) then lump together all non-Catholics you could also say that there is no coherence about what they want.
Some people are protestant (and they're far from homogenous too), some are Muslim (ditto), some are Hindu, Jewish or Buddhist. Some are athiest and others are simply agnostic.
Just because non-Catholics are not homogenous in what they believe doesn't mean we should take our ecclesiastical beliefs from Rome.
While I deplore the individual and his actions, I find it deeply disturbing that intermediaries such as paypal get to decide who or what people get to spend their money on.
I know Paypal is a private company, but when they are effectively able to deplatform individuals whose views they disagree with it is a disturbing trend.
And why stop there? If Visa was taken over by a fervent prohibitionist, should they be able to cancel my credit card if I buy alcohol with it? I don't care to have my spending policed.
Long term crypto is the only way forward.
Crypto is a busted flush and is in no way the future. It's just as worthless as fiat currency but at least fiat currency is backed by nation states.
Yes, people said that through the last three bust cycles too.
The whole point of crypto is that it *isn't* backed - or controlled - by nation states. That is not a bug, it is a feature.
It all looks like a waste of time to me. Whining about how bad no deal is is not enough on its own, presumably they know that.
I truly, truly hope the Tories split very soon. It is for their own good, since they are made up of people who cannot countenance no deal (some of whom may even vote down the government if it tries it, and they should) and a very large group for whom no deal is everything they've ever wanted. That's a difference beyond the bounds of reasonable differences within a party, you cannot talk so approvingly or in horror respectively about no deal and then pretend you can all just get along once this issue is settled. It's pathetic.
If so Labour must surely split soon after, inner city Labour Remainers demanding EUref2 are miles apart from working class Labour Leave voters in old industrial towns
Problem is whoever splits first probably ensures the other will hold together no matter what, to take advantage.
I expect sometime in the next few weeks ERG will see Brexit slipping away and will have a decision to make. Accept TM WDA or lose Brexit for a very long time
That could well be.
I used to think that, then recently I changed my mind and more got to thinking that the No Deal was no bluff - that if she really could not get her deal passed then she would opt for that as being less bad (for her and her party) than reneging on the 2016 referendum.
At this current point in time, right here and now as we speak, I don't know what I think.
I'm not sure I even know what I want.
TM whole aim has been to agree a Brexit that respects the vote but protects business and she achieves this in her WDA
I cannot think for one minute that TM will be a party to no deal but of course tactically she needs to let the HOC obstruct no deal, as has happened somewhat today, and in turn it moves Brexit to her deal or no Brexit without compromising her position
And as has been said that if no deal does happen TM can point to Yvette Cooper and others preventing her no deal planning
I do believe TM has reason to be quietly quite pleased today
Perhaps, but it is far from clear that we will not still stumble into a no deal Brexit through badly calculated bluffs from both May and Corbyn.
With sufficient time, a cross party coalition of the centre might have developed to ensure no deal would not happen, but given the constraints of time, parliamentary numbers, and government control of the legislative process, it is on a wing and a prayer.
Well, I certainly don't trust Corbyn on this. At least some of his aides welcome the chaos of no deal as they believe it will usher in the socialist paradise they seek. It's another form of unicorn hunting to be honest.
While I deplore the individual and his actions, I find it deeply disturbing that intermediaries such as paypal get to decide who or what people get to spend their money on.
I know Paypal is a private company, but when they are effectively able to deplatform individuals whose views they disagree with it is a disturbing trend.
And why stop there? If Visa was taken over by a fervent prohibitionist, should they be able to cancel my credit card if I buy alcohol with it? I don't care to have my spending policed.
Long term crypto is the only way forward.
Crypto is a busted flush and is in no way the future. It's just as worthless as fiat currency but at least fiat currency is backed by nation states.
Yes, people said that through the last three bust cycles too.
The whole point of crypto is that it *isn't* backed - or controlled - by nation states. That is not a bug, it is a feature.
It's a bug as far as I'm concerned. Nation states are on the whole democratic, crypto is essentially controlled by those early adopters who hoard it.
It all looks like a waste of time to me. Whining about how bad no deal is is not enough on its own, presumably they know that.
I truly, truly hope the Tories split very soon. It is for their own good, since they are made up of people who cannot countenance no deal (some of whom may even vote down the government if it tries it, and they should) and a very large group for whom no deal is everything they've ever wanted. That's a difference beyond the bounds of reasonable differences within a party, you cannot talk so approvingly or in horror respectively about no deal and then pretend you can all just get along once this issue is settled. It's pathetic.
Except that they can't split, because the electoral system encourages broad church political parties - otherwise known as miserable marriages of convenience.
If we had PR then the Tories wouldn't even be the first party to collapse - they'd be knocked over and trampled by stampeding Labourites rushing towards the solicitors' offices.
It all looks like a waste of time to me. Whining about how bad no deal is is not enough on its own, presumably they know that.
I truly, truly hope the Tories split very soon. It is for their own good, since they are made up of people who cannot countenance no deal (some of whom may even vote down the government if it tries it, and they should) and a very large group for whom no deal is everything they've ever wanted. That's a difference beyond the bounds of reasonable differences within a party, you cannot talk so approvingly or in horror respectively about no deal and then pretend you can all just get along once this issue is settled. It's pathetic.
If so Labour must surely split soon after, inner city Labour Remainers demanding EUref2 are miles apart from working class Labour Leave voters in old industrial towns
Problem is whoever splits first probably ensures the other will hold together no matter what, to take advantage.
Not necessarily, especially if a new centre party emerges for Labour and Tory Remainers free of Labour Corbynistas and Tory No Dealers
On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.
That is both rather true by definition and also meaningless. Brexit is by definition simply exiting the EU. It is a negative. Why people want to exit though may be completely different things.
Philosophically if you compare the EU to the Church of Rome (Catholicism) then lump together all non-Catholics you could also say that there is no coherence about what they want.
Some people are protestant (and they're far from homogenous too), some are Muslim (ditto), some are Hindu, Jewish or Buddhist. Some are athiest and others are simply agnostic.
Just because non-Catholics are not homogenous in what they believe doesn't mean we should take our ecclesiastical beliefs from Rome.
It all looks like a waste of time to me. Whining about how bad no deal is is not enough on its own, presumably they know that.
I truly, truly hope the Tories split very soon. It is for their own good, since they are made up of people who cannot countenance no deal (some of whom may even vote down the government if it tries it, and they should) and a very large group for whom no deal is everything they've ever wanted. That's a difference beyond the bounds of reasonable differences within a party, you cannot talk so approvingly or in horror respectively about no deal and then pretend you can all just get along once this issue is settled. It's pathetic.
If so Labour must surely split soon after, inner city Labour Remainers demanding EUref2 are miles apart from working class Labour Leave voters in old industrial towns
Problem is whoever splits first probably ensures the other will hold together no matter what, to take advantage.
I think Labour will split regardless as if we leave the EU, the membership will force rejoin into future manifesto or support a different party entirely.
I think the only way Labour could hold together their left coalition after Brexit, and by not promising rejoin, is by promising PR followed by another election.
While I deplore the individual and his actions, I find it deeply disturbing that intermediaries such as paypal get to decide who or what people get to spend their money on.
I know Paypal is a private company, but when they are effectively able to deplatform individuals whose views they disagree with it is a disturbing trend.
And why stop there? If Visa was taken over by a fervent prohibitionist, should they be able to cancel my credit card if I buy alcohol with it? I don't care to have my spending policed.
Long term crypto is the only way forward.
They aren’t policing anyone’s expenditure. They are policing political fundraising using their infrastructure, which is a quite different thing.
Whilst I agree with the thrust of Ms Cyclefree's article, I don't think her initial paragraph is right. There was no way that the UK could have joined at the start. Quite apart from anything else, in 1958 (two years before Macmillan's landmark 'winds of change' speech) we didn't have imperial pretensions, we had imperial possessions and a huge network of imperial and ex-imperial links. The whole nation was oriented in trade and outlook across the seas, something which persisted into the mid-sixties (I'm just old enough to remember it!). It would have been impossible to put ourselves into the heart of the new continental European project in 1958, let alone in 1952 when the project really started with the European Coal and Steel Community.
Hmm - France still had imperial possessions in 1952. It didn't stop them. Also, if we had joined while still having those possessions, maybe the sort of European organisation that was created might have been different in a way which might well have suited Britain better.
I think, rather, the fact of still having imperial possessions and all those links meant that we thought that, the messy business of stopping Germany making a nuisance of themselves again having been completed, we could revert to what we thought of as our proper place in the world, as an imperial power. We failed to realise - even though it had been obvious for a while - that the Empire was on its way out, that we needed to find a new role and that intervening in European affairs militarily, as needed - and as Britain had been doing for a couple of centuries - was no longer a sustainable way forward.
In short, it was precisely because we did not think about the future and what it might mean for us as a country that we stood back when others were forced to do some hard thinking about what sort of Europe there should be. We are making the same mistake now. The geopolitics are very different and alarming. But that is the subject of my next headers. So you will have to wait.
You don't mention that it was advocated by the Liberal Party of the time.
I didn't know that. Thank you.
In 1950 the Liberals pushed for membership of the Coal and Steel community at its foundation, but the Labour government flatly refused to consider it. Back then Labour was the more anti-European party.
We hadn't fully transitioned into the EEC until Thatcher, and the political effect of membership was to rule out the Bennite alternative programme of retreating behind economic walls.
It's a huge blindspot of Eurosceptics to bemoan its political nature but ignore the political consequences that flow from that.
Tony Benn was in opposition. And wasn't leader. Ruling out a totally imagined scenario is hardly cause for rejoicing. But to address your wider point, I would hope I would still be against the EU even if I agreed with them most of the time, because the changes would not be rooted in public consent. And benign dictatorship is benign until it ceases to be benign.
It's not a question of being under a benign dictatorship but of structural effects anchoring domestic politics. It's the line between the constitutional and the political.
Sir Oliver Letwin - “we will not allow a No Deal exit at the end of March” and this amendment shows the Government... “for 5 years I was in charge of the resilience of this country...preparation for no Deal wasn’t done... we can not impose on our country a risk of severe impacts”
Which 5 years? Brexit hasn't been happening for 5 years. And that sounds like gross incompetence on his own part.
On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.
True enough. Too much push. Not enough pull.
But the Remainers, too, have not had much of a strategy either, one reason possibly that they failed to communicate a positive case for it. After all, if you don't know what you are selling, it's hard to be convincing when selling it.
Well Cameron’s deal was an embryonic form of one, however grievously mis-sold and mistimed.
I actually think he was right - the idea of the UK at the centre of a fully integrated European state is as fanciful as the Singapore in the North Sea dream of the stranger ERgers. We had allies for the proposition of a looser periphery, and the balance of argument was beginning to shift in our favour; that is unfortunately in the past, probably.
Yes, it was - or had the potential to be. I think one of its faults was that it was sold to the rest of the EU as a special favour to Britain rather than as part of a more strategic longer-term thinking about how the EU could develop with a eurozone and countries outside it. There didn't seem to be anything in it for the other 27.
Ditto re FOM. There was an interesting article in the Sunday Times this week about depopulation in Latvia and concerns they - and other Eastern European countries - have about what FOM means for them and their futures. (Our very own @Stodge has raised the same issues on here in the past.) They want this looked at but it is unlikely to be now once Britain is out.
Of course in Britain Cameron's deal was presented as something which largely benefited the financial sector and had absolutely nothing in it for, say, people in Chorley. It was too quick, too short-term and, to my mind, lacked any long-term strategy to it.
We cannot keep on just making it up as we go along.
Comments
Guidelines rule out autoticketing for 72mph or court summonses let alone "instant bans" at 90mph.
Pretty sure an "instant ban and possible court summons" is an impossibility too. Only a court can issue a ban I believe.
The big unknown is how the Council will respond? They're very unlikely to grant us an extension if we're just gonna end up back here in three months, six months, whatever.
May will need to put something significant offer on the table to get the extension.
The other points seem out of line with normal policy and as far as I know aren't backed up by current guidance issued to magistrates etc.
I hope we're getting closer to everyone just admitting it is no deal or remain at least, and that the actions of the various parties only really make sense if that has been the goal all along.
Re J McD I find what he sometimes says unacceptable particularly the hanging bit. Don't know what OJ has said. It is all unacceptable but there are degrees.
Her word is her bond. My arse.
I think what is gaining traction (betting wise) is that some sort of deal is ratified but too late to be implemented by 29/3. So a short extension is requested and granted.
I think, rather, the fact of still having imperial possessions and all those links meant that we thought that, the messy business of stopping Germany making a nuisance of themselves again having been completed, we could revert to what we thought of as our proper place in the world, as an imperial power. We failed to realise - even though it had been obvious for a while - that the Empire was on its way out, that we needed to find a new role and that intervening in European affairs militarily, as needed - and as Britain had been doing for a couple of centuries - was no longer a sustainable way forward.
In short, it was precisely because we did not think about the future and what it might mean for us as a country that we stood back when others were forced to do some hard thinking about what sort of Europe there should be. We are making the same mistake now. The geopolitics are very different and alarming. But that is the subject of my next headers. So you will have to wait.
The Good Friday agreement should not obstruct Brexit.
True enough. Too much push. Not enough pull.
But the Remainers, too, have not had much of a strategy either, one reason possibly that they failed to communicate a positive case for it. After all, if you don't know what you are selling, it's hard to be convincing when selling it.
If you eliminate May's Deal and No Deal is unviable, you are left with Remain as the only option.
We went into the EU because we felt we had to. Not because we really wanted to. And that ambivalence has bedevilled much of the relationship since.
Extreme either-siders can often require isolationism as part of their credo; Brexit would be a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for that. It also shouldn't be used to paint all Leave/Brexiteer types as either isolationist or extremist or nasty. There is a case that the Brexit vote has emboldened the isolationist/extremist/xenophobic types, though.
It also overlooks that I've seen a whole bunch of rather nasty people on the other side of the debate, including some very fervent FBPE-types.
This isn't to be a "whatabout..." post or a "let's look at both sides" post, but to emphasise that this sort of framing of the issue tends to emotively reach for a over-simplistic answer to an issue ("It's because they're Brexiteers and Brexiteers are baddies"). It's akin to the "Remainers are traitors" stance that's poisoned discussion from the other end.
I used to think that, then recently I changed my mind and more got to thinking that the No Deal was no bluff - that if she really could not get her deal passed then she would opt for that as being less bad (for her and her party) than reneging on the 2016 referendum.
At this current point in time, right here and now as we speak, I don't know what I think.
I'm not sure I even know what I want.
As I recall it was comments like that which led you, sensibly, to take a break from PB a while back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall
You could say why should we care on the mainland about the Northern Irish? Brexit is FAR more important. I wouldn't say that is especially "grown up" however.
I cannot think for one minute that TM will be a party to no deal but of course tactically she needs to let the HOC obstruct no deal, as has happened somewhat today, and in turn it moves Brexit to her deal or no Brexit without compromising her position
And as has been said that if no deal does happen TM can point to Yvette Cooper and others preventing her no deal planning
I do believe TM has reason to be quietly quite pleased today
Or as Peter Hitchens would say more politely
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2018/12/britains-so-soppy-we-cant-even-fight-off-a-toy-helicopter.html
It's a huge blindspot of Eurosceptics to bemoan its political nature but ignore the political consequences that flow from that.
Which is more likely to be the May way than a 2nd vote.
Voting against on a finance bill ought to be a deselection issue.
I actually think he was right - the idea of the UK at the centre of a fully integrated European state is as fanciful as the Singapore in the North Sea dream of the stranger ERgers. We had allies for the proposition of a looser periphery, and the balance of argument was beginning to shift in our favour; that is unfortunately in the past, probably.
As to 'why are they all nasty' - well, they might be, but really we're seeing the attention-seeking nasty ones, which doesn't tell us whether or not there are lots of nice ones who aren't busy harassing MPs.
(Any use of 'grown up' could be replaced by 'big picture' or 'overview' or something)
I truly, truly hope the Tories split very soon. It is for their own good, since they are made up of people who cannot countenance no deal (some of whom may even vote down the government if it tries it, and they should) and a very large group for whom no deal is everything they've ever wanted. That's a difference beyond the bounds of reasonable differences within a party, you cannot talk so approvingly or in horror respectively about no deal and then pretend you can all just get along once this issue is settled. It's pathetic.
Our place in Europe was always going to be one mainly based on trade along with fellow EFTA nations like Norway and Switzerland not joining the Euro and moving towards a Federal Europe like the key EU states of France and Germany and Italy and the Benelux nations who were the founder movers of the EEC
I know Paypal is a private company, but when they are effectively able to deplatform individuals whose views they disagree with it is a disturbing trend.
And why stop there? If Visa was taken over by a fervent prohibitionist, should they be able to cancel my credit card if I buy alcohol with it? I don't care to have my spending policed.
Long term crypto is the only way forward.
May needs to start whispers that she might call a 2nd Ref vote.
Death of the Tory Party, right there, Oliver.
With sufficient time, a cross party coalition of the centre might have developed to ensure no deal would not happen, but given the constraints of time, parliamentary numbers, and government control of the legislative process, it is on a wing and a prayer.
If no deal and the deal are both unacceptable to parliament, there is no need or point to involving the public again, and I hope they are brave enough to say so when the deal is voted down. A referendum at that point is pointless.
Philosophically if you compare the EU to the Church of Rome (Catholicism) then lump together all non-Catholics you could also say that there is no coherence about what they want.
Some people are protestant (and they're far from homogenous too), some are Muslim (ditto), some are Hindu, Jewish or Buddhist. Some are athiest and others are simply agnostic.
Just because non-Catholics are not homogenous in what they believe doesn't mean we should take our ecclesiastical beliefs from Rome.
The whole point of crypto is that it *isn't* backed - or controlled - by nation states. That is not a bug, it is a feature.
If we had PR then the Tories wouldn't even be the first party to collapse - they'd be knocked over and trampled by stampeding Labourites rushing towards the solicitors' offices.
Second time lucky?
I think the only way Labour could hold together their left coalition after Brexit, and by not promising rejoin, is by promising PR followed by another election.
Which 5 years? Brexit hasn't been happening for 5 years. And that sounds like gross incompetence on his own part.
Ditto re FOM. There was an interesting article in the Sunday Times this week about depopulation in Latvia and concerns they - and other Eastern European countries - have about what FOM means for them and their futures. (Our very own @Stodge has raised the same issues on here in the past.) They want this looked at but it is unlikely to be now once Britain is out.
Of course in Britain Cameron's deal was presented as something which largely benefited the financial sector and had absolutely nothing in it for, say, people in Chorley. It was too quick, too short-term and, to my mind, lacked any long-term strategy to it.
We cannot keep on just making it up as we go along.