Maybe this will drive the Brexiteers to vote for the deal next week, on the basis that it is the only way to achieve Brexit. Otherwise there is probably a majority for a new referendum which they don’t want and which would be difficult for May to ignore if such a vote was passed.
That would be the worst possible outcome - voting for a deal which ignores trade, makes us a rule taker, and has no way out of the backstop. Even as a Leaver, I would prefer no Brexit or a second referendum to May’s deal.
As a remainer I would prefer May’s deal to no deal Brexit. And at least we would leave and have respected the referendum.
You certainly have. The fact that you are inconsolably bent out shape about the fact that Remain lost the referendum is evident from every comment you make. That is why your default position is always to resort to insults.
If you'd been on PB for longer than five minutes, you might realise that I'm not exactly immune to making criticism of the EU (but also praising it at times as well). In fact, if you read today's threads you'll see I'd criticised the likes of Juncker and the EU earlier on.
You are someone who claims the likes of Ken Clarke obeys orders from the EU. That's plainly ridiculous.
I want what is best for the UK. I hope you'd want that as well - if you're from the UK, that is. This country is being hurt in many ways by the mess that we find ourselves in, and if I'm 'inconsolably bent out shape' about anything, it's about how idealogues are willing to see disaster overcome this country just to get their twisted, sick vision.
Since you've not been on here long, I think we should leave; in fact after the referendum I said we should have an organised no-deal, as there was f'all chance of coming to an agreement internally, yet alone externally. I was right. It's too late for that, so now I'm in favour of May's deal. I've argued against a referendum as it would solve nothing.
So you're wrong.
So you say about Clarke, but as on the last thread, you can’t point to any instance of him voting against the implementation of any EU directive.
I am really not interested in your self publicity. I simply treat your comments on their individual (lack of) merit. What is the best interests of the U.K. is a highly subjective matter because it involves what you profess yourself to abhor - projection.
Did you ask me to?
Clarke is a decent man, and he's his own man. It's a shame you traduce him and many other remain MPs. I may not agree with them on many things, but to suggest they obey the orders of the EU is crass and stupid.
Maybe this will drive the Brexiteers to vote for the deal next week, on the basis that it is the only way to achieve Brexit. Otherwise there is probably a majority for a new referendum which they don’t want and which would be difficult for May to ignore if such a vote was passed.
That would be the worst possible outcome - voting for a deal which ignores trade, makes us a rule taker, and has no way out of the backstop. Even as a Leaver, I would prefer no Brexit or a second referendum to May’s deal.
A50 does not allow trade talks to begin until we have left the EU so are a third party asking for a trade agreement.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
I just don't see May pivoting to anything other than Brexit - on a no deal basis if all else fails.
Imagine: for two and a half years all she has done is Brexit. Her government has achieved nothing else. It will be remembered for nothing else. She has gone to endless meetings and read zillions of bits of paper. She has made lots of speeches in and out of Parliament.
Imagine if at the end of all that she cannot get Brexit through. Two and a half years utterly wasted with absolutely nothing to show for it. What humiliation for her. Her sole legacy will then have been failing to implement Brexit and losing a majority. How could she bear it?
I just think psychologically she would find it impossible to change course. The only possible way is if there is a Parliamentary vote which forces her to do something else so that she can say that she is implementing the will of Parliament. There is a small chance of that.
But otherwise it will be immensely hard for her I suspect. And she is so stubborn and seemingly lacking in mental or psychological flexibility or the ability to make a U-turn look like her own decision that I just cannot see how she will do it.
I hope I am wrong, though.
I can see that, but there's a non zero chance some Tories will do what their logic suggests they must and bring down her government if she goes for no deal, so it feels more like a question of if she pivots to a referendum do the no dealers bring her down over that instead.
In the end, Leave and Remain Conservatives have that choice to make. Is their hatred/love for the EU so great that they're willing to put Corbyn into office.
The obvious thing for her to do is to revoke Article 50 - on the basis that Parliament has been unable to come to a settled view on Brexit - then resign and let someone else take the matter forward. That new leader can go for a GE or a new referendum or, novel idea this, take the time to work out how to Brexit in a sensible way and then, if they really want to, put this to the voters at a GE. The least harmful thing to do at the moment is to preserve the status quo.
I don't think a PM who has already said she won't fight the next GE and who has failed to pass their most important piece of legislation should, in all honour, take Britain out on a no deal basis. Brexit is for life - or a bloody long time - not just for Xmas. It should only be done by a PM who is in command of Parliament, which May isn't.
So because Parliament is filled with MPs who oppose what the people voted for, we should just abandon Brexit and pretend it all never happened? What price democracy?
(And I know that's poor Latin, but I can't be arsed to be perfect all the time)
A friend of mine earlier today compared MPs to Tiberius Gracchus, vetoing everything out of petulance until they get their way.
He added drily that perhaps they should reflect on what happened to Gracchus...
If I get time I'm going to do a history lesson for PBers this Sunday.
The endless showing off on here over knowledge of ancient history is almost - but not quite - as nauseating as the falsely modest Fen Poly / Cowley Tech schtick.
Personally I don't know why you let yourself get so annoyed by such things, it's like getting mad at a meme rather than just ignoring it. You have to also be self aware enough to know that complaining about people's personal tics is at least as annoying as any annoying tics.
Hopefully pointing out people pointing out people's tics is ok though, for my sake.
Someone has to do it - know that you do so on behalf of others
(And I know that's poor Latin, but I can't be arsed to be perfect all the time)
A friend of mine earlier today compared MPs to Tiberius Gracchus, vetoing everything out of petulance until they get their way.
He added drily that perhaps they should reflect on what happened to Gracchus...
If I get time I'm going to do a history lesson for PBers this Sunday.
The endless showing off on here over knowledge of ancient history is almost - but not quite - as nauseating as the falsely modest Fen Poly / Cowley Tech schtick.
Sofie Hagen is working on a new show that had a section taking the mick out of Oxbridge graduates that you might appreciate.
Personally I like the references to history.
Would this be a bad time to point out that in the best classical usage obliviscor takes a genitive, rather than an accusative?
Unfortunately my knowledge of Latin extends not one micron beyond http://translate.google.com and so the time is uniformly good and bad for such an observation.
Just saying you should technically be OblitusSumMei, a phrase that actually appears in Terence's charming play, The Eunuch
No, I'm not making this stuff up! At least it takes the mind off Brexit...
You certainly have. The fact that you are inconsolably bent out shape about the fact that Remain lost the referendum is evident from every comment you make. That is why your default position is always to resort to insults.
If you'd been on PB for longer than five minutes, you might realise that I'm not exactly immune to making criticism of the EU (but also praising it at times as well). In fact, if you read today's threads you'll see I'd criticised the likes of Juncker and the EU earlier on.
You are someone who claims the likes of Ken Clarke obeys orders from the EU. That's plainly ridiculous.
I want what is best for the UK. I hope you'd want that as well - if you're from the UK, that is. This country is being hurt in many ways by the mess that we find ourselves in, and if I'm 'inconsolably bent out shape' about anything, it's about how idealogues are willing to see disaster overcome this country just to get their twisted, sick vision.
Since you've not been on here long, I think we should leave; in fact after the referendum I said we should have an organised no-deal, as there was f'all chance of coming to an agreement internally, yet alone externally. I was right. It's too late for that, so now I'm in favour of May's deal. I've argued against a referendum as it would solve nothing.
So you're wrong.
So you say about Clarke, but as on the last thread, you can’t point to any instance of him voting against the implementation of any EU directive.
I am really not interested in your self publicity. I simply treat your comments on their individual (lack of) merit. What is the best interests of the U.K. is a highly subjective matter because it involves what you profess yourself to abhor - projection.
Did you ask me to?
Clarke is a decent man, and he's his own man. It's a shame you traduce him and many other remain MPs. I may not agree with them on many things, but to suggest they obey the orders of the EU is crass and stupid.
Clarke is indeed a decent man. He is one of the very few genuine proponents of free market economics in Parliament. That doesn’t mean he is not content simply enacting EU directives without question as do most MPs most of the time.
Do the opinion pollsters ever do ratings on the speaker of the house? Could be interesting to see what the people think of Bercow after today.
It would be instructive to learn what proportion of the electorate actually knows who he is, and what proportion of that group has any opinion on his suitability for the office, one way or another.
If the Commons does force an EU referendum with a Remain option by a majority vote after rejecting her Deal at least May can blame it on them rather than proposing it herself which she will not do
Isn't that the position of just about every MP at the moment concerning Brexit? They want certain things to happen, but don't want to be seen voting for those things to happen?
This is why TMs deal will get through via abstentions, especially Labour ones. The safest outcome for JC and Labour MPs generally is for Brexit to happen, without crashing out, and without it being Labour's call. It gives them a chance, even if slim, of a GE by the route of the DUP assisting a VONC following a TM deal, and it enables Labour to develop a policy (!) with UK having technically left, and the referendum mandate discharged and something of a clean sheet; with the opportunity to blame the Tories for everything for the next 10 years. Labour's dream scenario.
I just don't see May pivoting to anything other than Brexit - on a no deal basis if all else fails.
Imagine: for two and a half years all she has done is Brexit. Her government has achieved nothing else. It will be remembered for nothing else. She has gone to endless meetings and read zillions of bits of paper. She has made lots of speeches in and out of Parliament.
Imagine if at the end of all that she cannot get Brexit through. Two and a half years utterly wasted with absolutely nothing to show for it. What humiliation for her. Her sole legacy will then have been failing to implement Brexit and losing a majority. How could she bear it?
I just think psychologically she would find it impossible to change course. The only possible way is if there is a Parliamentary vote which forces her to do something else so that she can say that she is implementing the will of Parliament. There is a small chance of that.
But otherwise it will be immensely hard for her I suspect. And she is so stubborn and seemingly lacking in mental or psychological flexibility or the ability to make a U-turn look like her own decision that I just cannot see how she will do it.
I hope I am wrong, though.
I can see that, but there's a non zero chance some Tories will do what their logic suggests they must and bring down her government if she goes for no deal, so it feels more like a question of if she pivots to a referendum do the no dealers bring her down over that instead.
In the end, Leave and Remain Conservatives have that choice to make. Is their hatred/love for the EU so great that they're willing to put Corbyn into office.
The obvious thing for her to do is to revoke Article 50 - on the basis that Parliament has been unable to come to a settled view on Brexit - then resign and let someone else take the matter forward. That new leader can go for a GE or a new referendum or, novel idea this, take the time to work out how to Brexit in a sensible way and then, if they really want to, put this to the voters at a GE. The least harmful thing to do at the moment is to preserve the status quo.
I don't think a PM who has already said she won't fight the next GE and who has failed to pass their most important piece of legislation should, in all honour, take Britain out on a no deal basis. Brexit is for life - or a bloody long time - not just for Xmas. It should only be done by a PM who is in command of Parliament, which May isn't.
So because Parliament is filled with MPs who oppose what the people voted for, we should just abandon Brexit and pretend it all never happened? What price democracy?
Or change the MPs by party members participating in candidate selection.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
Curiosity, sadness, amusement, fear, and laughter.
They just want us to get on with it I bet. Can’t see them agreeing to A50 extension unless there is a material change in our politics that makes other options possible.
Apart from anything else, Shakespeare. Wordsworth, Gibbon, Harvey, Isambard Brunel, Charlie Chaplin, Adrian Boult and Malcolm Sargent were all born in it, as was the greatest genius, organist,
I had no idea Pierre Cochereau was alive and well and posting to PB!
(Or I may admit Latry or Roth if resurrection is not an option.)
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
Simple garbage from you there JJ. I do not hate the EU. It is daft to 'hate' something that is simply a political construct. What you do is oppose it and then, if possible, leave it. I want us to leave the EU because it is good for us and, incidentally, good for them as well. EU membership has been and will continue to be very bad for the UK and leaving will help to heal the wounds we have inflicted on ourselves through our foolish adherence to it.
It will also allow the EU to develop as they wish without our obstructionism. I have often said on here how much I admire the founders of the EU - in particular Jean Monnet. I think he was wrong on many things but he was an admirable man with a dream. It is just one I do not share.
Hatred of the EU drips out of your every post. I can't recall you ever saying anything positive about it, and you argue vehemently (and often ridiculously) whenever anyone dares to suggest something positive.
I think it's fair to say you intensely dislike the EU; and am slightly surprised you pretend anything different.
Brexit is turning out to be a disaster. There is a possibility that this could end up being far worse for the country than continued membership of even an expanding EU under Cameron's terms. And the majority of the blame will be with ourselves, not the EU.
(And I know that's poor Latin, but I can't be arsed to be perfect all the time)
A friend of mine earlier today compared MPs to Tiberius Gracchus, vetoing everything out of petulance until they get their way.
He added drily that perhaps they should reflect on what happened to Gracchus...
If I get time I'm going to do a history lesson for PBers this Sunday.
The endless showing off on here over knowledge of ancient history is almost - but not quite - as nauseating as the falsely modest Fen Poly / Cowley Tech schtick.
If you don't learn from history you're destined to repeat the same mistakes.
Plus classical history has lots of sex and depravity, what's not to love?
I have nothing against the classics, merely the showing off
Look, if I cannot use my patchy knowledge of history to occasionally posture toward anonymous people on the internet I might begin to think my master's degree was a waste of money, and you wouldn't do that to me would you?
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
I'm sure they do, but nations shouldn't make decisions principally based on whether others think it is a good idea or not. The contempt of the EU for anyone not fully on board is one reason it is better for us and them that we do leave - why would they want a member with so many people who want something bonkers? Other than money, and they should be above just wanting our money.
I just don't see May pivoting to anything other than Brexit - on a no deal basis if all else fails.
Imagine: for two and a half years all she has done is Brexit. Her government has achieved nothing else. It will be remembered for nothing else. She has gone to endless meetings and read zillions of bits of paper. She has made lots of speeches in and out of Parliament.
Imagine if at the end of all that she cannot get Brexit through. Two and a half years utterly wasted with absolutely nothing to show for it. What humiliation for her. Her sole legacy will then have been failing to implement Brexit and losing a majority. How could she bear it?
I just think psychologically she would find it impossible to change course. The only possible way is if there is a Parliamentary vote which forces her to do something else so that she can say that she is implementing the will of Parliament. There is a small chance of that.
But otherwise it will be immensely hard for her I suspect. And she is so stubborn and seemingly lacking in mental or psychological flexibility or the ability to make a U-turn look like her own decision that I just cannot see how she will do it.
I hope I am wrong, though.
I can see that, but there's a non zero chance some Tories will do what their logic suggests they must and bring down her government if she goes for no deal, so it feels more like a question of if she pivots to a referendum do the no dealers bring her down over that instead.
In the end, Leave and Remain Conservatives have that choice to make. Is their hatred/love for the EU so great that they're willing to put Corbyn into office.
The obvious thing for her to do is to revoke Article 50 - on the basis that Parliament has been unable to come to a settled view on Brexit - then resign and let someone else take the matter forward. That new leader can go for a GE or a new referendum or, novel idea this, take the time to work out how to Brexit in a sensible way and then, if they really want to, put this to the voters at a GE. The least harmful thing to do at the moment is to preserve the status quo.
I don't think a PM who has already said she won't fight the next GE and who has failed to pass their most important piece of legislation should, in all honour, take Britain out on a no deal basis. Brexit is for life - or a bloody long time - not just for Xmas. It should only be done by a PM who is in command of Parliament, which May isn't.
So because Parliament is filled with MPs who oppose what the people voted for, we should just abandon Brexit and pretend it all never happened? What price democracy?
I just don't see May pivoting to anything other than Brexit - on a no deal basis if all else fails.
Imagine: for two and a half years all she has done is Brexit. Her government has achieved nothing else. It will be remembered for nothing else. She has gone to endless meetings and read zillions of bits of paper. She has made lots of speeches in and out of Parliament.
Imagine if at the end of all that she cannot get Brexit through. Two and a half years utterly wasted with absolutely nothing to show for it. What humiliation for her. Her sole legacy will then have been failing to implement Brexit and losing a majority. How could she bear it?
I just think psychologically she would find it impossible to change course. The only possible way is if there is a Parliamentary vote which forces her to do something else so that she can say that she is implementing the will of Parliament. There is a small chance of that.
But otherwise it will be immensely hard for her I suspect. And she is so stubborn and seemingly lacking in mental or psychological flexibility or the ability to make a U-turn look like her own decision that I just cannot see how she will do it.
I hope I am wrong, though.
I can see that, but there's a non zero chance some Tories will do what their logic suggests they must and bring down her government if she goes for no deal, so it feels more like a question of if she pivots to a referendum do the no dealers bring her down over that instead.
In the end, Leave and Remain Conservatives have that choice to make. Is their hatred/love for the EU so great that they're willing to put Corbyn into office.
The obvious thing for her to do is to revoke Article 50 - on the basis that Parliament has been unable to come to a settled view on Brexit - then resign and let someone else take the matter forward. That new leader can go for a GE or a new referendum or, novel idea this, take the time to work out how to Brexit in a sensible way and then, if they really want to, put this to the voters at a GE. The least harmful thing to do at the moment is to preserve the status quo.
I don't think a PM who has already said she won't fight the next GE and who has failed to pass their most important piece of legislation should, in all honour, take Britain out on a no deal basis. Brexit is for life - or a bloody long time - not just for Xmas. It should only be done by a PM who is in command of Parliament, which May isn't.
Remain is for life, too.
And, she can't revoke Brexit by fiat. She has to legislate, which means taking sides with the Opposition against Conservative voters.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
You certainly have. The fact that you are inconsolably bent out shape about the fact that Remain lost the referendum is evident from every comment you make. That is why your default position is always to resort to insults.
If you'd been on PB for longer than five minutes, you might realise that I'm not exactly immune to making criticism of the EU (but also praising it at times as well). In fact, if you read today's threads you'll see I'd criticised the likes of Juncker and the EU earlier on.
You are someone who claims the likes of Ken Clarke obeys orders from the EU. That's plainly ridiculous.
I want what is best for the UK. I hope you'd want that as well - if you're from the UK, that is. This country is being hurt in many ways by the mess that we find ourselves in, and if I'm 'inconsolably bent out shape' about anything, it's about how idealogues are willing to see disaster overcome this country just to get their twisted, sick vision.
Since you've not been on here long, I think we should leave; in fact after the referendum I said we should have an organised no-deal, as there was f'all chance of coming to an agreement internally, yet alone externally. I was right. It's too late for that, so now I'm in favour of May's deal. I've argued against a referendum as it would solve nothing.
So you're wrong.
So you say about Clarke, but as on the last thread, you can’t point to any instance of him voting against the implementation of any EU directive.
I am really not interested in your self publicity. I simply treat your comments on their individual (lack of) merit. What is the best interests of the U.K. is a highly subjective matter because it involves what you profess yourself to abhor - projection.
Did you ask me to?
Clarke is a decent man, and he's his own man. It's a shame you traduce him and many other remain MPs. I may not agree with them on many things, but to suggest they obey the orders of the EU is crass and stupid.
Clarke is indeed a decent man. He is one of the very few genuine proponents of free market economics in Parliament. That doesn’t mean he is not content simply enacting EU directives without question as do most MPs most of the time.
Yet you claimed he obeys the orders of the EU. That's ridiculous, and very loaded language.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
So if the deal does not pass there should be a referendum.
You certainly have. The fact that you are inconsolably bent out shape about the fact that Remain lost the referendum is evident from every comment you make. That is why your default position is always to resort to insults.
If you'd been on PB for longer than five minutes, you might realise that I'm not exactly immune to making criticism of the EU (but also praising it at times as well). In fact, if you read today's threads you'll see I'd criticised the likes of Juncker and the EU earlier on.
You are someone who claims the likes of Ken Clarke obeys orders from the EU. That's plainly ridiculous.
I want what is best for the UK. I hope you'd want that as well - if you're from the UK, that is. This country is being hurt in many ways by the mess that we find ourselves in, and if I'm 'inconsolably bent out shape' about anything, it's about how idealogues are willing to see disaster overcome this country just to get their twisted, sick vision.
Since you've not been on here long, I think we should leave; in fact after the referendum I said we should have an organised no-deal, as there was f'all chance of coming to an agreement internally, yet alone externally. I was right. It's too late for that, so now I'm in favour of May's deal. I've argued against a referendum as it would solve nothing.
So you're wrong.
So you say about Clarke, but as on the last thread, you can’t point to any instance of him voting against the implementation of any EU directive.
I am really not interested in your self publicity. I simply treat your comments on their individual (lack of) merit. What is the best interests of the U.K. is a highly subjective matter because it involves what you profess yourself to abhor - projection.
Did you ask me to?
Clarke is a decent man, and he's his own man. It's a shame you traduce him and many other remain MPs. I may not agree with them on many things, but to suggest they obey the orders of the EU is crass and stupid.
Clarke is indeed a decent man. He is one of the very few genuine proponents of free market economics in Parliament. That doesn’t mean he is not content simply enacting EU directives without question as do most MPs most of the time.
Yet you claimed he obeys the orders of the EU. That's ridiculous, and very loaded language.
Hardly. You still haven’t found any factual basis of contradiction - just meaningless and unsubstantiated assertion.
(And I know that's poor Latin, but I can't be arsed to be perfect all the time)
A friend of mine earlier today compared MPs to Tiberius Gracchus, vetoing everything out of petulance until they get their way.
He added drily that perhaps they should reflect on what happened to Gracchus...
If I get time I'm going to do a history lesson for PBers this Sunday.
The endless showing off on here over knowledge of ancient history is almost - but not quite - as nauseating as the falsely modest Fen Poly / Cowley Tech schtick.
Just so. Asinus asinum fricat - one donkey jerks off another - as we Latin scholars might put it.
(And I know that's poor Latin, but I can't be arsed to be perfect all the time)
A friend of mine earlier today compared MPs to Tiberius Gracchus, vetoing everything out of petulance until they get their way.
He added drily that perhaps they should reflect on what happened to Gracchus...
If I get time I'm going to do a history lesson for PBers this Sunday.
The endless showing off on here over knowledge of ancient history is almost - but not quite - as nauseating as the falsely modest Fen Poly / Cowley Tech schtick.
Just so. Asinus asinum fricat - one donkey jerks off another - as we Latin scholars might put it.
QED
infectum est victor in buccellatum - to the victor the wet biscuit, as we mentally impoverished Russell Group alumni might say.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
Curiosity, sadness, amusement, fear, and laughter.
You wonder whether given their own major internal troubles they have any time to spare us a thought, bluntly.
They do.
Their fear/curiosity is to do with if another country or countries following the UK's lead.
What would really blow the doors off would be if a Eurozone country would vote/decided to Leave.
Doesn't look like they have much to fear there, frankly, I think they worry overmuch.
No other member state is likely to want to leave.
About 10 might though. If you read a headline 'EU to be 26' then it wouldn't totally amaze you, and you wouldn't immediately be able to pin down the leaver.
The EU has closed ranks now - one day a few tales of the nonsense and intrigue that are undoubtedly happening right now will emerge. I doubt that the Italians are being sufficiently amusing to make it a bestseller.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
Curiosity, sadness, amusement, fear, and laughter.
You wonder whether given their own major internal troubles they have any time to spare us a thought, bluntly.
They do.
Their fear/curiosity is to do with if another country or countries following the UK's lead.
What would really blow the doors off would be if a Eurozone country would vote/decided to Leave.
Not impossible if Italy eventually falls into the Grecian debt vortex, but unlikely in the short-to-medium term unless the Eurozone collapses, one would've thought. The common currency is a gilded cage for most of the members, leaving only a small group of non-Euro states: a handful of central European and Balkan countries that benefit financially from the disbursement of EU funds, and a couple of don't-rock-the-boat Nordics.
Of course, in the longer term then other factors come into play. What happens if some members move further in the direction of Russian-style managed democracy, or if radical populist parties continue to grow in strength, challenging the federalist majority in the European Parliament and winning control of more member state governments? Your guess is as good as mine.
I just don't see May pivoting to anything other than Brexit - on a no deal basis if all else fails.
Imagine: for two and a half years all she has done is Brexit. Her government has achieved nothing else. It will be remembered for nothing else. She has gone to endless meetings and read zillions of bits of paper. She has made lots of speeches in and out of Parliament.
Imagine if at the end of all that she cannot get Brexit through. Two and a half years utterly wasted with absolutely nothing to show for it. What humiliation for her. Her sole legacy will then have been failing to implement Brexit and losing a majority. How could she bear it?
I just think psychologically she would find it impossible to change course. The only possible way is if there is a Parliamentary vote which forces her to do something else so that she can say that she is implementing the will of Parliament. There is a small chance of that.
But otherwise it will be immensely hard for her I suspect. And she is so stubborn and seemingly lacking in mental or psychological flexibility or the ability to make a U-turn look like her own decision that I just cannot see how she will do it.
I hope I am wrong, though.
I think Mrs May is stuck in a loop.
She wants to
1) Honour the referendum result and Leave the EU
2) Avoid No Deal, she doesn't want lack of meds and foods that will ruin the lives of so many.
Now she's not sure what should take priority, 1 or 2?
There may be many consequences from No Deal but lack of meds and food has already been shown to be utter rubbish.
The pressure on Corbyn from his party right now must be to pivot to a referendum and remain.
That's what most Labour members have probably been wanting since they picked themselves up off the floor the day after the referendum. Has Corbyn moved one micron in their direction? No.
I'm sure they do, but nations shouldn't make decisions principally based on whether others think it is a good idea or not. The contempt of the EU for anyone not fully on board is one reason it is better for us and them that we do leave - why would they want a member with so many people who want something bonkers? Other than money, and they should be above just wanting our money.
From their perspective, there are many reasons, including:
*) We are a large economy, and even outside the Euro our presence helps things (and it can help us as well - witness London's success as a financial centre). *) We have tremendous soft power around the world. *) Our presence could - if we played it well - act as a third party anchor between the two big powers of France and Germany. *) It's better to have us relieving ourselves outside the tent, then outside in. *) An EU with the UK inside is larger, more powerful, and has more influence.
There are others, and many will doubtless disagree with these. But it's not just all about money.
And yes, we are disruptive. More importantly, our absence from the Euro (hurrah!) is problematic for those who want to further integration. There is also a certain embarrassment that one of their members wants to leave.
My own view is that, regardless of how Brexit turns out, significant anti-EU voices will continue to grow in other EU countries. And external players are only a tiny part of it: the main reason is that it is so easy for politicians and others to blame the EU for everything, including their own mistakes.
And the tragedy of Brexit for the EU is that they haven't learnt the lesson. The morning after the referendum, Juncker et al should have resigned - the loss was their failure as much as remain's. It's clear they're not listening, and that might be disastrous for them in the long term.
Simple garbage from you there JJ. I do not hate the EU. It is daft to 'hate' something that is simply a political construct. What you do is oppose it and then, if possible, leave it. I want us to leave the EU because it is good for us and, incidentally, good for them as well. EU membership has been and will continue to be very bad for the UK and leaving will help to heal the wounds we have inflicted on ourselves through our foolish adherence to it.
It will also allow the EU to develop as they wish without our obstructionism. I have often said on here how much I admire the founders of the EU - in particular Jean Monnet. I think he was wrong on many things but he was an admirable man with a dream. It is just one I do not share.
Hatred of the EU drips out of your every post. I can't recall you ever saying anything positive about it, and you argue vehemently (and often ridiculously) whenever anyone dares to suggest something positive.
I think it's fair to say you intensely dislike the EU; and am slightly surprised you pretend anything different.
Brexit is turning out to be a disaster. There is a possibility that this could end up being far worse for the country than continued membership of even an expanding EU under Cameron's terms. And the majority of the blame will be with ourselves, not the EU.
Clearly you are incapable - or more likely are just too lazy - to actually read what is written here then. I have often written in defence of the founders of the EU, of the ECJ (when people claim it is a political court) and in favour of Brexit as a means of helping the EU achieve their aims without us blocking everything
But of course you are just too blinkered to see any of that. You are so wedded to the idea of British membership of the EU that you are incapable of seeing Brexit in any other terms than hatred. I do pity you for your lack of comprehension.
The pressure on Corbyn from his party right now must be to pivot to a referendum and remain.
That's what most Labour members have probably been wanting since they picked themselves up off the floor the day after the referendum. Has Corbyn moved one micron in their direction? No.
Seems to me that Corbyn's attutudes froze around the 1990s say, or perhaps earlier. As a lefty I have found his lack of support for "Remain" and his foggy view of Labour anti-Semitism impossible to live with.
You certainly have. The fact that you are inconsolably bent out shape about the fact that Remain lost the referendum is evident from every comment you make. That is why your default position is always to resort to insults.
If you'd been on PB for longer than five minutes, you might realise that I'm not exactly immune to making criticism of the EU (but also praising it at times as well). In fact, if you read today's threads you'll see I'd criticised the likes of Juncker and the EU earlier on.
You are someone who claims the likes of Ken Clarke obeys orders from the EU. That's plainly ridiculous.
I want what is best for the UK. I hope you'd want that as well - if you're from the UK, that is. This country is being hurt in many ways by the mess that we find ourselves in, and if I'm 'inconsolably bent out shape' about anything, it's about how idealogues are willing to see disaster overcome this country just to get their twisted, sick vision.
Since you've not been on here long, I think we should leave; in fact after the referendum I said we should have an organised no-deal, as there was f'all chance of coming to an agreement internally, yet alone externally. I was right. It's too late for that, so now I'm in favour of May's deal. I've argued against a referendum as it would solve nothing.
So you're wrong.
So you say about Clarke, but as on the last thread, you can’t point to any instance of him voting against the implementation of any EU directive.
I am really not interested in your self publicity. I simply treat your comments on their individual (lack of) merit. What is the best interests of the U.K. is a highly subjective matter because it involves what you profess yourself to abhor - projection.
Did you ask me to?
Clarke is a decent man, and he's his own man. It's a shame you traduce him and many other remain MPs. I may not agree with them on many things, but to suggest they obey the orders of the EU is crass and stupid.
Clarke is indeed a decent man. He is one of the very few genuine proponents of free market economics in Parliament. That doesn’t mean he is not content simply enacting EU directives without question as do most MPs most of the time.
Yet you claimed he obeys the orders of the EU. That's ridiculous, and very loaded language.
Hardly. You still haven’t found any factual basis of contradiction - just meaningless and unsubstantiated assertion.
I have come to the realisation that JJ only ever sees what he wants to see on these pages.
I just don't see May pivoting to anything other than Brexit - on a no deal basis if all else fails.
Imagine: for two and a half years all she has done is Brexit. Her government has achieved nothing else. It will be remembered for nothing else. She has gone to endless meetings and read zillions of bits of paper. She has made lots of speeches in and out of Parliament.
Imagine if at the end of all that she cannot get Brexit through. Two and a half years utterly wasted with absolutely nothing to show for it. What humiliation for her. Her sole legacy will then have been failing to implement Brexit and losing a majority. How could she bear it?
I just think psychologically she would find it impossible to change course. The only possible way is if there is a Parliamentary vote which forces her to do something else so that she can say that she is implementing the will of Parliament. There is a small chance of that.
But otherwise it will be immensely hard for her I suspect. And she is so stubborn and seemingly lacking in mental or psychological flexibility or the ability to make a U-turn look like her own decision that I just cannot see how she will do it.
I hope I am wrong, though.
I think Mrs May is stuck in a loop.
She wants to
1) Honour the referendum result and Leave the EU
2) Avoid No Deal, she doesn't want lack of meds and foods that will ruin the lives of so many.
Now she's not sure what should take priority, 1 or 2?
There may be many consequences from No Deal but lack of meds and food has already been shown to be utter rubbish.
I fear you are too complacent. It won't be the big things that become problematic; it'll be the little things that few people, if any, have thought of and which are not sexy enough to garner the attention they require, yet can have big impacts.
These little things can be easy to solve if there are adults on all sides acting rationally and talking politely. As the Galileo mess shows (what the f are the EU thinking?), there are precious few adults on either side.
One of the biggest mismatches of all time. I couldn’t be bothered to watch it. Is there any point playing the second leg?
Yes, as a supporter of a 2nd Division team these are the nights you support for, as well as the play offs, they are brill as well, Wemberleyyyy. A premier league team coming to your home ground, they are big nights for us non-glory hunters.
I just don't see May pivoting to anything other than Brexit - on a no deal basis if all else fails.
Imagine: for two and a half years all she has done is Brexit. Her government has achieved nothing else. It will be remembered for nothing else. She has gone to endless meetings and read zillions of bits of paper. She has made lots of speeches in and out of Parliament.
Imagine if at the end of all that she cannot get Brexit through. Two and a half years utterly wasted with absolutely nothing to show for it. What humiliation for her. Her sole legacy will then have been failing to implement Brexit and losing a majority. How could she bear it?
I just think psychologically she would find it impossible to change course. The only possible way is if there is a Parliamentary vote which forces her to do something else so that she can say that she is implementing the will of Parliament. There is a small chance of that.
But otherwise it will be immensely hard for her I suspect. And she is so stubborn and seemingly lacking in mental or psychological flexibility or the ability to make a U-turn look like her own decision that I just cannot see how she will do it.
I hope I am wrong, though.
I think Mrs May is stuck in a loop.
She wants to
1) Honour the referendum result and Leave the EU
2) Avoid No Deal, she doesn't want lack of meds and foods that will ruin the lives of so many.
Now she's not sure what should take priority, 1 or 2?
There may be many consequences from No Deal but lack of meds and food has already been shown to be utter rubbish.
I accept Robert Smithson's analysis. No Deal would be a pain in the arse. But food and medicine shortages are fanciful.
The pressure on Corbyn from his party right now must be to pivot to a referendum and remain.
That's what most Labour members have probably been wanting since they picked themselves up off the floor the day after the referendum. Has Corbyn moved one micron in their direction? No.
Nor will Labour act to the point of actually being responsible for an outcome of any sort. It is one luxury of opposition. Suppose Labour becomes saddled with responsibility for the UK remaining despite the referendum result, the electoral outcome of that is entirely unforeseeable. It could be catastrophic and disastrous, with a renewed UKIP doing to them in England what the SNP did to them in Scotland. It is not a risk worth taking; and for JC as a life long leaver, doubly so. This calculation will become significant in the next few weeks.
That's what most Labour members have probably been wanting since they picked themselves up off the floor the day after the referendum. Has Corbyn moved one micron in their direction? No.
Indeed.
Calling for an extension is probably a sensible political move for him to square the circle though.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
So if the deal does not pass there should be a referendum.
Well actually since parliament seems pretty clear it does not want no deal, if the deal does not pass there should just be a revocation, since why ask the people to possibly approve options parliament thinks are totally unacceptable, but they surely do not have the balls for that. If they are unacceptable they are unacceptable even if the public votes for them.
The pressure on Corbyn from his party right now must be to pivot to a referendum and remain.
He has done very well to resist it to date, he has done so with more vigour than I had expected. It means if he should do such a pivot he cannot credibly be accused as having abandoned Brexit at the first opportunity.
I just don't see May pivoting to anything other than Brexit - on a no deal basis if all else fails.
Imagine: for two and a half years all she has done is Brexit. Her government has achieved nothing else. It will be remembered for nothing else. She has gone to endless meetings and read zillions of bits of paper. She has made lots of speeches in and out of Parliament.
Imagine if at the end of all that she cannot get Brexit through. Two and a half years utterly wasted with absolutely nothing to show for it. What humiliation for her. Her sole legacy will then have been failing to implement Brexit and losing a majority. How could she bear it?
I just think psychologically she would find it impossible to change course. The only possible way is if there is a Parliamentary vote which forces her to do something else so that she can say that she is implementing the will of Parliament. There is a small chance of that.
But otherwise it will be immensely hard for her I suspect. And she is so stubborn and seemingly lacking in mental or psychological flexibility or the ability to make a U-turn look like her own decision that I just cannot see how she will do it.
I hope I am wrong, though.
I think Mrs May is stuck in a loop.
She wants to
1) Honour the referendum result and Leave the EU
2) Avoid No Deal, she doesn't want lack of meds and foods that will ruin the lives of so many.
Now she's not sure what should take priority, 1 or 2?
There may be many consequences from No Deal but lack of meds and food has already been shown to be utter rubbish.
I accept Robert Smithson's analysis. No Deal would be a pain in the arse. But food and medicine shortages are fanciful.
It's because those concerns might cut through, whereas withholding tax, licencing and non-tarriff barriers really wouldn't.
That's what most Labour members have probably been wanting since they picked themselves up off the floor the day after the referendum. Has Corbyn moved one micron in their direction? No.
Indeed.
Calling for an extension is probably a sensible political move for him to square the circle though.
Yes, it would be necessary both for a referendum and his mythical unicorn renegotiation, so proposing it does not lock him down.
The pressure on Corbyn from his party right now must be to pivot to a referendum and remain.
That's what most Labour members have probably been wanting since they picked themselves up off the floor the day after the referendum. Has Corbyn moved one micron in their direction? No.
Seems to me that Corbyn's attutudes froze around the 1990s say. As a lefty I have found his lack of support for "Remain" and his foggy view of Labour anti-Semitism impossible to live with.
Corbyn's opposition to the EU is entirely consistent with traditional Left thinking. I would imagine that he would have little trouble borrowing many of the objections that Peter Shore and Tony Benn had to the Common Market in the 70s and recycling them today, if he were minded to do so.
The problem that he has is that the Left has moved on whereas his positions haven't - leaving him in the company of only a small fraction of his Parliamentary party and a handful of the more radical trades unions on this issue. Most of his supporters, especially the younger ones, have this completely opposite view of the EU as a paragon of virtue: upholder of workers' rights, internationalism in general, and open borders in particular.
This leaves two questions: how many Labour members are willing to forgive Jeremy for his sins on Europe, because they support him on most other issues? And how many of Labour's voters feel likewise?
My guess is that few members will desert if Brexit proceeds without him doing a lot more to stop it. Voters *might* not be so forgiving, but then again if Brexit does actually happen then how many of them will desert to other parties or sit on their hands out of rage, and how many will resolve to put the sordid business behind them and vote Labour anyway, to get everything else out of Corbyn that they still want - and believe only he can deliver?
Not that I expect any vote to be so close, but the gov had better hope that Bercow never has to rule on a tie if they expect him to follow precedent about how the Speaker should respond in such a situation.
He's not wrong. People can blame the fact a remain voter was in charge (not that hardliners objected to that initially, when she appeared more hard than soft) and has delivered a bad deal all they like, with perhaps some justification at that. But the direction of travel albeit not the fine details of the destination was set quite some time ago and they did not act to stop it then, or could not, and if they do not want an imperfect brexit (accepting that not all of them necessarily are demanding the purist brexit, but that this one is too imperfect) that's fine, but in which case they should seek to remain as well should no deal be thwarted. They cannot demand colleagues back an imperfect brexit in the form of no deal brexit when they also won't accept an imperfect brexit in the form of the deal brexit.
I don't think it will be long after the MV when we see a prominent brexiteer come out for remain.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
So if the deal does not pass there should be a referendum.
Well actually since parliament seems pretty clear it does not want no deal, if the deal does not pass there should just be a revocation, since why ask the people to possibly approve options parliament thinks are totally unacceptable, but they surely do not have the balls for that. If they are unacceptable they are unacceptable even if the public votes for them.
The pressure on Corbyn from his party right now must be to pivot to a referendum and remain.
He has done very well to resist it to date, he has done so with more vigour than I had expected. It means if he should do such a pivot he cannot credibly be accused as having abandoned Brexit at the first opportunity.
Agreed. Parliament can't ask the public to endorse an agreement it 's just rejected by 2/1.
If I had a vote I think I'd probably go for May's deal now. All the bullsh*t at Westminster over the past couple of days and looking at all the "characters" from Bercow down who are plotting against her it's made me think her deal might not be that bad after all.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
So if the deal does not pass there should be a referendum.
Well actually since parliament seems pretty clear it does not want no deal, if the deal does not pass there should just be a revocation, since why ask the people to possibly approve options parliament thinks are totally unacceptable, but they surely do not have the balls for that. If they are unacceptable they are unacceptable even if the public votes for them.
The pressure on Corbyn from his party right now must be to pivot to a referendum and remain.
He has done very well to resist it to date, he has done so with more vigour than I had expected. It means if he should do such a pivot he cannot credibly be accused as having abandoned Brexit at the first opportunity.
Agreed. Parliament can't ask the public to endorse an agreement it 's just rejected by 2/1.
It will certainly be a one sided campaign if it is deal vs remain. Almost all of Labour, LDs, SNP, PC and a proportion of Tories for remain and...a similar proportion of Tories for the deal and no one else? Plus business, academia and media for remain, on the whole. Sure, institutional advantages couldn't stop leave last time, but the enthusiasm level would be down and no cross party backing where even leave had a mixture.
Not taking much part - Corbyn, giving a free pass to his members so he can later say he personally did not try to stop brexit. Angry Tories, formerly deal supporting tories who were only doing so out of party loyalty. UKIP
Which have the most long term impacts as a result of short term thinking? 3 or 4 perhaps. The first two just look to be embarrassing, but not actually changing anything.
In the USA we are up to 5 Senate republicans who would now say they would vote for the House bill to fund the government. That's enough to pass but McConnell won't bring it to a vote.
In the USA we are up to 5 Senate republicans who would now say they would vote for the House bill to fund the government. That's enough to pass but McConnell won't bring it to a vote.
Can't the President veto it? So it would take 60 to pass (to override veto and to override filibuster).
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
So if the deal does not pass there should be a referendum.
Well actually since parliament seems pretty clear it does not want no deal, if the deal does not pass there should just be a revocation, since why ask the people to possibly approve options parliament thinks are totally unacceptable, but they surely do not have the balls for that. If they are unacceptable they are unacceptable even if the public votes for them.
The pressure on Corbyn from his party right now must be to pivot to a referendum and remain.
He has done very well to resist it to date, he has done so with more vigour than I had expected. It means if he should do such a pivot he cannot credibly be accused as having abandoned Brexit at the first opportunity.
Agreed. Parliament can't ask the public to endorse an agreement it 's just rejected by 2/1.
If the majority in Parliament can't stomach anything but Remain then they should certainly vote for revocation under their own authority, but it's unlikely that they will do so. The political barriers are too high and the risk to their own careers far too grave.
If neither Theresa May nor the Hard Brexiteers will budge, then revocation can only realistically come about through schism - certainly in the Conservative Party and probably in the Labour Party as well, leading to a short-lived National Government followed by a completely unpredictable General Election in unprecedented and highly volatile political circumstances.
It's why so many MPs keep banging on about a second referendum. They only want one outcome, but they also want to wash their hands of the direct responsibility for bringing it about by throwing the decision back at the people. Of course, this would almost certainly fail to produce an outcome sufficiently clear-cut to resolve the issue, and would probably make matters worse.
Which have the most long term impacts as a result of short term thinking? 3 or 4 perhaps. The first two just look to be embarrassing, but not actually changing anything.
The sectoral analyses were a tipping point for me.
It confirmed that Davis didn't have a fecking clue.
Ironically my own firm, like many in the sector, had done ongoing sectoral analyses on Brexit for years.
Ours started in early 2016 and really kicked up a gear when Vote Leave said we would leave the single market and customs union, we moved up a notch when Mrs May announced her red lines at Lancaster House in early 2017.
Agreed. Parliament can't ask the public to endorse an agreement it 's just rejected by 2/1.
Why not? They gave it a vote so it could endorse Brexit, and they opposed that by more than 2/1.
They allowed the public to indicate generically it wanted leave, but as they have been arguing that does not mean they personally can allow certain types of leave despite the 2016 vote and subsequent triggering of A50 making real the possibility of the very hardest of hard brexits. Having specifically ruled out the deal and no deal despite the vote and triggering meaning both are implicitly acceptable, it would be a farce to pretend they are acceptable in a public vote. Would a public vote make the deal not eternal vassalage to the EU and so it can be voted for? Would it make it not terrible for all the reasons remainers are using to say no to it?
It's the most likely option to be included with a remain option, but it is pretty silly nevertheless.
"I think leave (of some kind) is a mistake but I accept the people might choose otherwise" is subtly different to "I think this leave is the worst thing since unsliced bread and would destroy this country...but I will still totally vote for it if you tell me to".
They could justify it, though I doubt they will have to as remain would win, but I don't find it very convincing.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
So if the deal does not pass there should be a referendum.
Well actually since parliament seems pretty clear it does not want no deal, if the deal does not pass there should just be a revocation, since why ask the people to possibly approve options parliament thinks are totally unacceptable, but they surely do not have the balls for that. If they are unacceptable they are unacceptable even if the public votes for them.
I would say there's a potential for a cross party deal. Second referendumers will pass the Deal subject to it being agreed in a second referendum where the alternative is Remain. This has the advantage of being definitive. The two options are immediately implementable
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
So if the deal does not pass there should be a referendum.
Well actually since parliament seems pretty clear it does not want no deal, if the deal does not pass there should just be a revocation, since why ask the people to possibly approve options parliament thinks are totally unacceptable, but they surely do not have the balls for that. If they are unacceptable they are unacceptable even if the public votes for them.
I would say there's a potential for a cross party deal. Second referendumers will pass the Deal subject to it being agreed in a second referendum where the alternative is Remain. This has the advantage of being definitive. The two options are immediately implementable
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
The lady from the National Butterfly Center on the US-Mexico border has just won 2019 with her interview to ITN. Texan ecological law means that, to protect the species, Trumpton has to put a gate in his wall. “So these dangerous hombres that the president talks about will no longer have to bribe border guards. They will just have to come join the National Butterfly Center.”
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
So if the deal does not pass there should be a referendum.
Well actually since parliament seems pretty clear it does not want no deal, if the deal does not pass there should just be a revocation, since why ask the people to possibly approve options parliament thinks are totally unacceptable, but they surely do not have the balls for that. If they are unacceptable they are unacceptable even if the public votes for them.
I would say there's a potential for a cross party deal. Second referendumers will pass the Deal subject to it being agreed in a second referendum where the alternative is Remain. This has the advantage of being definitive. The two options are immediately implementable
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
I don't think it's likely to happen but it is a middle road in a very messy situation.
Which have the most long term impacts as a result of short term thinking? 3 or 4 perhaps. The first two just look to be embarrassing, but not actually changing anything.
The sectoral analyses were a tipping point for me.
It confirmed that Davis didn't have a fecking clue.
Ironically my own firm, like many in the sector, had done ongoing sectoral analyses on Brexit for years.
Ours started in early 2016 and really kicked up a gear when Vote Leave said we would leave the single market and customs union, we moved up a notch when Mrs May announced her red lines at Lancaster House in early 2017.
Did vote leave say we would be leaving single market and customs union?
Which have the most long term impacts as a result of short term thinking? 3 or 4 perhaps. The first two just look to be embarrassing, but not actually changing anything.
The sectoral analyses were a tipping point for me.
It confirmed that Davis didn't have a fecking clue.
Ironically my own firm, like many in the sector, had done ongoing sectoral analyses on Brexit for years.
Ours started in early 2016 and really kicked up a gear when Vote Leave said we would leave the single market and customs union, we moved up a notch when Mrs May announced her red lines at Lancaster House in early 2017.
Did vote leave say we would be leaving single market and customs union?
Sadly, the way things are going, that's exactly what I expect to happen.
I despair at the short sightedness of some on my side.
I just don't see what it 's meant to achieve. Most MP's will not be converted to a No Deal Brexit, if May's deal is voted down. Most want to repeal Brexit.
Hmm, couple of straws in the wind from some esteemed PBers ( @Casino_Royale@GIN1138) tonight.
I wonder if this is being mirrored among Tory MPs - the realisation that "No Deal" will simply not be allowed to happen might mean that the vote on May's deal will be much closer than expected?
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
So if the deal does not pass there should be a referendum.
Well actually since parliament seems pretty clear it does not want no deal, if the deal does not pass there should just be a revocation, since why ask the people to possibly approve options parliament thinks are totally unacceptable, but they surely do not have the balls for that. If they are unacceptable they are unacceptable even if the public votes for them.
The pressure on Corbyn from his party right now must be to pivot to a referendum and remain.
He has done very well to resist it to date, he has done so with more vigour than I had expected. It means if he should do such a pivot he cannot credibly be accused as having abandoned Brexit at the first opportunity.
Agreed. Parliament can't ask the public to endorse an agreement it 's just rejected by 2/1.
It will certainly be a one sided campaign if it is deal vs remain. Almost all of Labour, LDs, SNP, PC and a proportion of Tories for remain and...a similar proportion of Tories for the deal and no one else? Plus business, academia and media for remain, on the whole. Sure, institutional advantages couldn't stop leave last time, but the enthusiasm level would be down and no cross party backing where even leave had a mixture.
Not taking much part - Corbyn, giving a free pass to his members so he can later say he personally did not try to stop brexit. Angry Tories, formerly deal supporting tories who were only doing so out of party loyalty. UKIP
The government would campaign for its own deal, no?
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
Hmm, couple of straws in the wind from some esteemed PBers ( @Casino_Royale@GIN1138) tonight.
I wonder if this is being mirrored among Tory MPs - the realisation that "No Deal" will simply not be allowed to happen might mean that the vote on May's deal will be much closer than expected?
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
Comments
Clarke is a decent man, and he's his own man. It's a shame you traduce him and many other remain MPs. I may not agree with them on many things, but to suggest they obey the orders of the EU is crass and stupid.
Now we're proving it to the rest.
No, I'm not making this stuff up! At least it takes the mind off Brexit...
Their fear/curiosity is to do with if another country or countries following the UK's lead.
What would really blow the doors off would be if a Eurozone country would vote/decided to Leave.
Alius Rogerdarmus classic ...
(Or I may admit Latry or Roth if resurrection is not an option.)
I think it's fair to say you intensely dislike the EU; and am slightly surprised you pretend anything different.
Brexit is turning out to be a disaster. There is a possibility that this could end up being far worse for the country than continued membership of even an expanding EU under Cameron's terms. And the majority of the blame will be with ourselves, not the EU.
I doubt most of Joe Public even know who Jonny Bercow is, less so to the extent they could form a valid opinion of him.
And, she can't revoke Brexit by fiat. She has to legislate, which means taking sides with the Opposition against Conservative voters.
infectum est victor in buccellatum - to the victor the wet biscuit, as we mentally impoverished Russell Group alumni might say.
The EU has closed ranks now - one day a few tales of the nonsense and intrigue that are undoubtedly happening right now will emerge. I doubt that the Italians are being sufficiently amusing to make it a bestseller.
Of course, in the longer term then other factors come into play. What happens if some members move further in the direction of Russian-style managed democracy, or if radical populist parties continue to grow in strength, challenging the federalist majority in the European Parliament and winning control of more member state governments? Your guess is as good as mine.
*) We are a large economy, and even outside the Euro our presence helps things (and it can help us as well - witness London's success as a financial centre).
*) We have tremendous soft power around the world.
*) Our presence could - if we played it well - act as a third party anchor between the two big powers of France and Germany.
*) It's better to have us relieving ourselves outside the tent, then outside in.
*) An EU with the UK inside is larger, more powerful, and has more influence.
There are others, and many will doubtless disagree with these. But it's not just all about money.
And yes, we are disruptive. More importantly, our absence from the Euro (hurrah!) is problematic for those who want to further integration. There is also a certain embarrassment that one of their members wants to leave.
My own view is that, regardless of how Brexit turns out, significant anti-EU voices will continue to grow in other EU countries. And external players are only a tiny part of it: the main reason is that it is so easy for politicians and others to blame the EU for everything, including their own mistakes.
And the tragedy of Brexit for the EU is that they haven't learnt the lesson. The morning after the referendum, Juncker et al should have resigned - the loss was their failure as much as remain's. It's clear they're not listening, and that might be disastrous for them in the long term.
But of course you are just too blinkered to see any of that. You are so wedded to the idea of British membership of the EU that you are incapable of seeing Brexit in any other terms than hatred. I do pity you for your lack of comprehension.
These little things can be easy to solve if there are adults on all sides acting rationally and talking politely. As the Galileo mess shows (what the f are the EU thinking?), there are precious few adults on either side.
I'm going to bed before I say something to you I'll regret. Good night.
Nor will Labour act to the point of actually being responsible for an outcome of any sort. It is one luxury of opposition. Suppose Labour becomes saddled with responsibility for the UK remaining despite the referendum result, the electoral outcome of that is entirely unforeseeable. It could be catastrophic and disastrous, with a renewed UKIP doing to them in England what the SNP did to them in Scotland. It is not a risk worth taking; and for JC as a life long leaver, doubly so. This calculation will become significant in the next few weeks.
Calling for an extension is probably a sensible political move for him to square the circle though.
The problem that he has is that the Left has moved on whereas his positions haven't - leaving him in the company of only a small fraction of his Parliamentary party and a handful of the more radical trades unions on this issue. Most of his supporters, especially the younger ones, have this completely opposite view of the EU as a paragon of virtue: upholder of workers' rights, internationalism in general, and open borders in particular.
This leaves two questions: how many Labour members are willing to forgive Jeremy for his sins on Europe, because they support him on most other issues? And how many of Labour's voters feel likewise?
My guess is that few members will desert if Brexit proceeds without him doing a lot more to stop it. Voters *might* not be so forgiving, but then again if Brexit does actually happen then how many of them will desert to other parties or sit on their hands out of rage, and how many will resolve to put the sordid business behind them and vote Labour anyway, to get everything else out of Corbyn that they still want - and believe only he can deliver?
https://twitter.com/pm4eastren/status/1083116256935534592?s=21
I don't think it will be long after the MV when we see a prominent brexiteer come out for remain.
Not taking much part - Corbyn, giving a free pass to his members so he can later say he personally did not try to stop brexit. Angry Tories, formerly deal supporting tories who were only doing so out of party loyalty. UKIP
If neither Theresa May nor the Hard Brexiteers will budge, then revocation can only realistically come about through schism - certainly in the Conservative Party and probably in the Labour Party as well, leading to a short-lived National Government followed by a completely unpredictable General Election in unprecedented and highly volatile political circumstances.
It's why so many MPs keep banging on about a second referendum. They only want one outcome, but they also want to wash their hands of the direct responsibility for bringing it about by throwing the decision back at the people. Of course, this would almost certainly fail to produce an outcome sufficiently clear-cut to resolve the issue, and would probably make matters worse.
It confirmed that Davis didn't have a fecking clue.
Ironically my own firm, like many in the sector, had done ongoing sectoral analyses on Brexit for years.
Ours started in early 2016 and really kicked up a gear when Vote Leave said we would leave the single market and customs union, we moved up a notch when Mrs May announced her red lines at Lancaster House in early 2017.
It's the most likely option to be included with a remain option, but it is pretty silly nevertheless.
"I think leave (of some kind) is a mistake but I accept the people might choose otherwise" is subtly different to "I think this leave is the worst thing since unsliced bread and would destroy this country...but I will still totally vote for it if you tell me to".
They could justify it, though I doubt they will have to as remain would win, but I don't find it very convincing.
https://twitter.com/pm4eastren/status/1083118221551722497?s=21
https://twitter.com/gummerben/status/1083040066467962881?s=21
I despair at the short sightedness of some on my side.
I wonder if this is being mirrored among Tory MPs - the realisation that "No Deal" will simply not be allowed to happen might mean that the vote on May's deal will be much closer than expected?