Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
Lock the doors, nobody gets out until they decide on something.
Attractive, if unworkable, idea.
People make awful decisions when tired. You would be better off choosing three at random from each party and sticking them around a well irrigated debating table in the Red Lion.
Once again my idea of death matches is completely rejected as an option. We'd find out who wants Brexit/Remain the most then. Boris would make a flashy entrance, flail unconvincingly then collapse after the first hit. Grieve would have to be forced into the ring, then spend the entire time trying to trick his combatant into disqualifying themselves, Corbyn and May would both stand stock still, absorb all blows and try to wear the other person down, Jeremy Hunt would cover himself in grease to try to ensure any blows slide off him, Vince Cable would hope to sneak through by being invisible, and so on.
I see Frank Field is proposing a series of indicative votes, an idea which I like.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
If there is a vote which gets a majority in Parliament the Government will have to accept it as Parliament is sovereign
Er... I don't think they would. Happy to stand corrected but given these would be indicative votes I don't think they would be binding on the Government (unless the Govt stated that in advance, I suppose).
May has already said as her Deal has not got through she will let Parliament come up with the alternative, if that alternative is a Remain v Deal referendum then she would have to reluctantly accept it though she would not propose it herself.
An indicative vote cannot on its own overturn Article 50 but if the Commons voted for a second referendum on Remain or the Deal as did the Lords and the Queen then signed that into law (constitutionally the Queen is Head of the Executive, May merely her Chief Minister in Parliament), as she almost certainly would, that is what would happen and the result of that referendum would then determine whether we Remained and Parliament revoked Article 50 or we left with the Deal
A new referendum is a decision to pass the buck.
Give the Commons a free vote, so they can take a decision.
The problem is there is no Commons majority for anything ie 326 MPs or more as far as I can see.
100-150 MPs back No Deal, 202 back the Deal, 300 odd at a push back Remain or BINO ie permanent Single Market and Customs Union (and the backstop would require both for NI at least).
However combine Remain/BINO backers and Deal backers and you get at least 500 MPs combined which would be more than enough for a majority for a Remain v Deal referendum to choose between the 2 as a last resort
The way I'd do it is to have a series of votes, eliminating the least popular one in turn. The winner is the last option standing. And If the winner is Remain, these MP's have to justify themselves to the voters. After all, they've spent weeks, solemnly quoting Burke.
The winner would only be EUref2 with a Remain option, there would not be a majority in Parliament for revoking Article 50 without another referendum first. Ultimately MPs want a cop out and to pass the buck back to the voters, preferably with a Remain v Deal option only so there is no risk of the voters making the 'wrong' choice again by voting for No Deal
I see Frank Field is proposing a series of indicative votes, an idea which I like.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
If there is a vote which gets a majority in Parliament the Government will have to accept it as Parliament is sovereign
Er... I don't think they would. Happy to stand corrected but given these would be indicative votes I don't think they would be binding on the Government (unless the Govt stated that in advance, I suppose).
May has already said as her Deal has not got through she will let Parliament come up with the alternative, if that alternative is a Remain v Deal referendum then she would have to reluctantly accept it though she would not propose it herself.
An indicative vote cannot on its own overturn Article 50 but if the Commons voted for a second referendum on Remain or the Deal as did the Lords and the Queen then signed that into law (constitutionally the Queen is Head of the Executive, May merely her Chief Minister in Parliament), as she almost certainly would, that is what would happen and the result of that referendum would then determine whether we Remained and Parliament revoked Article 50 or we left with the Deal
A new referendum is a decision to pass the buck.
Give the Commons a free vote, so they can take a decision.
Giving the Commons a free vote is an abdication of leadership and responsibility.
There are a couple of problems with David's idea, however superficially attractive it may appear.
If you are talking about Remaining in 'The' Customs Union then the immediate problem is the EU don't want it. They may put up with having the UK in the Customs Union on a temporary basis as part of the transition/backstop but the Customs Union is a defined by the EU treaties and in basic legal terms we cannot stay in permanently without being part of the EU. Why would they change their treaties and allow us what they regard as a great prize for no recompense?
Alternatively if you are talking about staying in 'A' customs union then it is a terrible idea. Turkey are in this position as part of their attempts to join the EU properly and it is an awful position to be in. Because they are not in the Single Market they are not party to EU free trade agreements and the result of this is that third countries are able to trade into Turkey tariff free whilst Turkey do not have the same reciprocal ability. It is for this reason they said that if the EU signed the FTA with the US they would be forced to pull out of the customs union with the EU.
I see Frank Field is proposing a series of indicative votes, an idea which I like.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
If there is a vote which gets a majority in Parliament the Government will have to accept it as Parliament is sovereign
Er... I don't think they would. Happy to stand corrected but given these would be indicative votes I don't think they would be binding on the Government (unless the Govt stated that in advance, I suppose).
May has already said as her Deal has not got through she will let Parliament come up with the alternative, if that alternative is a Remain v Deal referendum then she would have to reluctantly accept it though she would not propose it herself.
An indicative vote cannot on its own overturn Article 50 but if the Commons voted for a second referendum on Remain or the Deal as did the Lords and the Queen then signed that into law (constitutionally the Queen is Head of the Executive, May merely her Chief Minister in Parliament), as she almost certainly would, that is what would happen and the result of that referendum would then determine whether we Remained and Parliament revoked Article 50 or we left with the Deal
A new referendum is a decision to pass the buck.
Give the Commons a free vote, so they can take a decision.
The problem is there is no Commons majority for anything ie 326 MPs or more as far as I can see.
100-150 MPs back No Deal, 202 back the Deal, 300 odd at a push back Remain or BINO ie permanent Single Market and/or Customs Union for the whole UK.
However combine Remain/BINO backers and Deal backers and you get at least 500 MPs combined which would be more than enough for a majority for a Remain v Deal referendum to choose between the 2 as a last resort
All fair analysis HYUFD, but what I would say is that a series of indicative votes would flush out sure fire losers. Then, MPs might coalesce around a ‘good enough’ option. I think it might be a catalyst for gainful compromise.
@IanB2 That's the nub of it. Nearly everyone including myself has fallen into this trap of " respecting " the referendum result like it's a Chelsea Pensioner or the Duchess of Cambridge. It's one dated and marginal election result wh8ch has already been partially discharged vua A50 invocation. It's had the entire bandwith of the UK government thrown at it as well as 10s of Billions of quid in direct and indirect costs. It's had more than it's fair share of respect already. We should be far more robust on this point.
I have repeatedly said that the "Will of the Nation" is actually the "will of 37%".
You can imagine the responses....
That such is true in any election, and that it is at least slightly more reasonable than the will of even less than that who claim they are the will of the nation?
34% did indeed vote Remain, but if Brexit goes bad the Leavers will be starting with 63% who do NOT support their position.
If Remain happened, life would continue as before and the 30% who could not be bothered to vote would probably still not be bothered. 63% "happy" and 37% "annoyed".
The arithmetic is worse for Leavers - that is just the way it is.
There are some absolutely absurd mental gymnastics on here trying to pretend that leave didn't win the referendum.
Try reading what I wrote and not what you think I wrote. I never said "Leave" did not win. I said that the will of 37% is NOT the will of the Nation.
You may also misunderstand my motives. I do not give a flying monkeys if we Brexit, but if we do then Leave does not have the arithmetic in its favour if the nation is upset.
Is that clear enough for you?
Yes I'm sure you don't care if we Brexit or not. That's why you are angrily adding non-voters to the remain percentage.
@IanB2 That's the nub of it. Nearly everyone including myself has fallen into this trap of " respecting " the referendum result like it's a Chelsea Pensioner or the Duchess of Cambridge. It's one dated and marginal election result wh8ch has already been partially discharged vua A50 invocation. It's had the entire bandwith of the UK government thrown at it as well as 10s of Billions of quid in direct and indirect costs. It's had more than it's fair share of respect already. We should be far more robust on this point.
I have repeatedly said that the "Will of the Nation" is actually the "will of 37%".
You can imagine the responses....
That such is true in any election, and that it is at least slightly more reasonable than the will of even less than that who claim they are the will of the nation?
34% did indeed vote Remain, but if Brexit goes bad the Leavers will be starting with 63% who do NOT support their position.
If Remain happened, life would continue as before and the 30% who could not be bothered to vote would probably still not be bothered. 63% "happy" and 37% "annoyed".
The arithmetic is worse for Leavers - that is just the way it is.
There are some absolutely absurd mental gymnastics on here trying to pretend that leave didn't win the referendum.
Matched by some on the other side who argue that leaving the EU is not really, really leaving the EU.
I see Frank Field is proposing a series of indicative votes, an idea which I like.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
If there is a vote which gets a majority in Parliament the Government will have to accept it as Parliament is sovereign
Er... I don't think they would. Happy to stand corrected but given these would be indicative votes I don't think they would be binding on the Government (unless the Govt stated that in advance, I suppose).
May has already said as her Deal has not got through she will let Parliament come up with the alternative, if that alternative is a Remain v Deal referendum then she would have to reluctantly accept it though she would not propose it herself.
An indicative vote cannot on its own overturn Article 50 but if the Commons voted for a second referendum on Remain or the Deal as did the Lords and the Queen then signed that into law (constitutionally the Queen is Head of the Executive, May merely her Chief Minister in Parliament), as she almost certainly would, that is what would happen and the result of that referendum would then determine whether we Remained and Parliament revoked Article 50 or we left with the Deal
A new referendum is a decision to pass the buck.
Give the Commons a free vote, so they can take a decision.
Would a referendum be one of the options they could decide on?
I see Frank Field is proposing a series of indicative votes, an idea which I like.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
If there is a vote which gets a majority in Parliament the Government will have to accept it as Parliament is sovereign
Er... I don't think they would. Happy to stand corrected but given these would be indicative votes I don't think they would be binding on the Government (unless the Govt stated that in advance, I suppose).
An indicative vote cannot on its own overturn Article 50 but if the Commons voted for a second referendum on Remain or the Deal as did the Lords and the Queen then signed that into law (constitutionally the Queen is Head of the Executive, May merely her Chief Minister in Parliament), as she almost certainly would, that is what would happen and the result of that referendum would then determine whether we Remained and Parliament revoked Article 50 or we left with the Deal
A new referendum is a decision to pass the buck.
Give the Commons a free vote, so they can take a decision.
The problem is there is no Commons majority for anything ie 326 MPs or more as far as I can see.
100-150 MPs back No Deal, 202 back the Deal, 300 odd at a push back Remain or BINO ie permanent Single Market and Customs Union (and the backstop would require both for NI at least).
However combine Remain/BINO backers and Deal backers and you get at least 500 MPs combined which would be more than enough for a majority for a Remain v Deal referendum to choose between the 2 as a last resort
The way I'd do it is to have a series of votes, eliminating the least popular one in turn. The winner is the last option standing. And If the winner is Remain, these MP's have to justify themselves to the voters. After all, they've spent weeks, solemnly quoting Burke.
The winner would only be EUref2 with a Remain option, there would not be a majority in Parliament for revoking Article 50 without another referendum first. Ultimately MPs want a cop out and to pass the buck back to the voters, preferably with a Remain v Deal option only so there is no risk of the voters making the 'wrong' choice again by voting for No Deal
“....MPs want a cop out and to pass the buck...” - that, frankly is the entire problem. Britain has political class that is unworthy of the position they hold. Too many want to be paid and enjoy the benefits of office simply for doing as Brussels tells them.
We remain in the customs union until the moment all those better trade deals the Brexiteers promised us if we left are agreed and signed.
Liam Fox is on the case, there's nothing to be worried about eh?
That doesn’t solve the reason why the EU say they want the backstop. Moreover, you won’t get a single trade deal unless you control your own trade regs.
I see Frank Field is proposing a series of indicative votes, an idea which I like.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
If there is a vote which gets a majority in Parliament the Government will have to accept it as Parliament is sovereign
Er... I don't think they would. Happy to stand corrected but given these would be indicative votes I don't think they would be binding on the Government (unless the Govt stated that in advance, I suppose).
May has already said as her Deal has not got through she will let Parliament come up with the alternative, if that alternative is a Remain v Deal referendum then she would have to reluctantly accept it though she would not propose it herself.
An indicative vote cannot on its own overturn Article 50 but if the Commons voted for a second referendum on Remain or the Deal as did the Lords and the Queen then signed that into law (constitutionally the Queen is Head of the Executive, May merely her Chief Minister in Parliament), as she almost certainly would, that is what would happen and the result of that referendum would then determine whether we Remained and Parliament revoked Article 50 or we left with the Deal
A new referendum is a decision to pass the buck.
Give the Commons a free vote, so they can take a decision.
Would a referendum be one of the options they could decide on?
It ought not, because that 's a decision to avoid a decision. They insist that they are representatives, not delegates, so take them at their word.
@IanB2 That's the nub of it. Nearly everyone including myself has fallen into this trap of " respecting " the referendum result like it's a Chelsea Pensioner or the Duchess of Cambridge. It's one dated and marginal election result wh8ch has already been partially discharged vua A50 invocation. It's had the entire bandwith of the UK government thrown at it as well as 10s of Billions of quid in direct and indirect costs. It's had more than it's fair share of respect already. We should be far more robust on this point.
I have repeatedly said that the "Will of the Nation" is actually the "will of 37%".
You can imagine the responses....
That such is true in any election, and that it is at least slightly more reasonable than the will of even less than that who claim they are the will of the nation?
34% did indeed vote Remain, but if Brexit goes bad the Leavers will be starting with 63% who do NOT support their position.
If Remain happened, life would continue as before and the 30% who could not be bothered to vote would probably still not be bothered. 63% "happy" and 37% "annoyed".
The arithmetic is worse for Leavers - that is just the way it is.
There are some absolutely absurd mental gymnastics on here trying to pretend that leave didn't win the referendum.
Try reading what I wrote and not what you think I wrote. I never said "Leave" did not win. I said that the will of 37% is NOT the will of the Nation.
You may also misunderstand my motives. I do not give a flying monkeys if we Brexit, but if we do then Leave does not have the arithmetic in its favour if the nation is upset.
Is that clear enough for you?
Yes I'm sure you don't care if we Brexit or not. That's why you are angrily adding non-voters to the remain percentage.
I am not angrily doing anything. I'm Irish. I am in no matter what the UK does.
There are some seriously boring places high on that list. Frankfurt, Munich, Zurich. Good grief.
Like all lists it's just something to argue about, but for pleasant living Zurich is very high on my list, and I know someone who liked living in Frankfurt. The same person is now in Vienna and loves it to bits, though.
I see Frank Field is proposing a series of indicative votes, an idea which I like.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
If there is a vote which gets a majority in Parliament the Government will have to accept it as Parliament is sovereign
Er... I don't think they would. Happy to stand corrected but given these would be indicative votes I don't think they would be binding on the Government (unless the Govt stated that in advance, I suppose).
May has already said as her Deal has not got through she will let Parliament come up with the alternative, if that alternative is a Remain v Deal referendum then she would have to reluctantly accept it though she would not propose it herself.
An indicative vote cannot on its own overturn Article 50 but if the Commons voted for a second referendum on Remain or the Deal as did the Lords and the Queen then signed that into law (constitutionally the Queen is Head of the Executive, May merely her Chief Minister in Parliament), as she almost certainly would, that is what would happen and the result of that referendum would then determine whether we Remained and Parliament revoked Article 50 or we left with the Deal
A new referendum is a decision to pass the buck.
Give the Commons a free vote, so they can take a decision.
Giving the Commons a free vote is an abdication of leadership and responsibility.
I disagree. Heath gave one in 1971, on a critical EC vote.
There are some seriously boring places high on that list. Frankfurt, Munich, Zurich. Good grief.
Like all lists it's just something to argue about, but for pleasant living Zurich is very high on my list, and I know someone who liked living in Frankfurt. The same person is now in Vienna and loves it to bits, though.
There are some seriously boring places high on that list. Frankfurt, Munich, Zurich. Good grief.
Like all lists it's just something to argue about, but for pleasant living Zurich is very high on my list, and I know someone who liked living in Frankfurt. The same person is now in Vienna and loves it to bits, though.
It was an interesting list, but I thought it made some very strange assumptions. Hamburg is Germany's second city? Really? Won't Frankfurt and Bonn both have views on that? And who actually thinks Lyon is more significant than Marseilles, or a close rival to Paris?
Interesting article, but it requires a dramatic change of direction, which is just not TM's thing. I can see her living with indicative votes and having her hand forced, but not leading the charge.
Haven't provided any anecdata lately, so a report from my first canvass for the mighty Tory fortress of Godalming Binscombe (actually the 2nd closest ward in Tory-monopolised Waverley). Four of us did 10% of the ward today, and got an impression much like the polls - Lab and Con pretty close, lots of people disillusioned with the national scene. A small bonus for bothering to turn up - the first they've seen of any politicians for at least a year, apparently. I'm reasonably hopeful that it will yield to some serious effort, unless events in Westminster produce a tidal wave in some unexpected direction. The argument that it's unhealthy to have nearly all councillors from one party is falling on fertile ground.
How's the Anglo-German trade deal David Davis promised us?
Anything that involves David Davis isn't really admissible. I guess a parallel would be Prescott, although Davis seems more workshy than Prescott ever was.
I genuinely have no idea why anyone keeps him around the place.
There are quite a few other disappointing individuals in all this, but I think it would be gentlemanly of you if you excused everyone from having to answer for the shortcomings of Davis.
How's the Anglo-German trade deal David Davis promised us?
Anything that involves David Davis isn't really admissible. I guess a parallel would be Prescott, although Davis seems more workshy than Prescott ever was.
I genuinely have no idea why anyone keeps him around the place.
There are quite a few other disappointing individuals in all this, but I think it would be gentlemanly of you if you excused everyone from having to answer for the shortcomings of Davis.
There are some seriously boring places high on that list. Frankfurt, Munich, Zurich. Good grief.
Like all lists it's just something to argue about, but for pleasant living Zurich is very high on my list, and I know someone who liked living in Frankfurt. The same person is now in Vienna and loves it to bits, though.
It was an interesting list, but I thought it made some very strange assumptions. Hamburg is Germany's second city? Really? Won't Frankfurt and Bonn both have views on that? And who actually thinks Lyon is more significant than Marseilles, or a close rival to Paris?
I'm not sure either Istanbul or Naples are great to live in, but they are my favourite big European cities.
There are some seriously boring places high on that list. Frankfurt, Munich, Zurich. Good grief.
Like all lists it's just something to argue about, but for pleasant living Zurich is very high on my list, and I know someone who liked living in Frankfurt. The same person is now in Vienna and loves it to bits, though.
It was an interesting list, but I thought it made some very strange assumptions. Hamburg is Germany's second city? Really? Won't Frankfurt and Bonn both have views on that? And who actually thinks Lyon is more significant than Marseilles, or a close rival to Paris?
Bonn? It was chosen as the capital of West Germany precisely because it wasn’t a major city.
By population the ranking is Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Cologne, Frankfurt.
How's the Anglo-German trade deal David Davis promised us?
Anything that involves David Davis isn't really admissible. I guess a parallel would be Prescott, although Davis seems more workshy than Prescott ever was.
I genuinely have no idea why anyone keeps him around the place.
There are quite a few other disappointing individuals in all this, but I think it would be gentlemanly of you if you excused everyone from having to answer for the shortcomings of Davis.
Me a gentleman, with my reputation?
Pretty much anyone who posts here counts I think - unless they're a gentle-lady. But everyone here is remarkably civilised. As such I'm not sure that the loss of bandying of David Davis's name will trouble your soul - more a balm I'd have guessed. Although I guess we'll all have to look for another defining measure of the metric plank.
How's the Anglo-German trade deal David Davis promised us?
Anything that involves David Davis isn't really admissible. I guess a parallel would be Prescott, although Davis seems more workshy than Prescott ever was.
I genuinely have no idea why anyone keeps him around the place.
There are quite a few other disappointing individuals in all this, but I think it would be gentlemanly of you if you excused everyone from having to answer for the shortcomings of Davis.
Me a gentleman, with my reputation?
Pretty much anyone who posts here counts I think - unless they're a gentle-lady. But everyone here is remarkably civilised. As such I'm not sure that the loss of bandying of David Davis's name will trouble your soul - more a balm I'd have guessed. Although I guess we'll all have to look for another defining measure of the metric plank.
I see Frank Field is proposing a series of indicative votes, an idea which I like.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
If there is a vote which gets a majority in Parliament the Government will have to accept it as Parliament is sovereign
Er... I don't think they would. Happy to stand corrected but given these would be indicative votes I don't think they would be binding on the Government (unless the Govt stated that in advance, I suppose).
A new referendum is a decision to pass the buck.
Give the Commons a free vote, so they can take a decision.
The problem is there is no Commons majority for anything ie 326 MPs or more as far as I can see.
100-150 MPs back No Deal, 202 back the Deal, 300 odd at a push back Remain or BINO ie permanent Single Market and Customs Union (and the backstop would require both for NI at least).
However combine Remain/BINO backers and Deal backers and you get at least 500 MPs combined which would be more than enough for a majority for a Remain v Deal referendum to choose between the 2 as a last resort
The way I'd do it is to have a series of votes, eliminating the least popular one in turn. The winner is the last option standing. And If the winner is Remain, these MP's have to justify themselves to the voters. After all, they've spent weeks, solemnly quoting Burke.
May I suggest an amendment to your excellent suggestion? I'm embarrassed to even suggest it, but things have got so entrenched along party lines and talk of traitors and betrayal, that I can see a 'free' vote being anything but. Where party loyalties have totally broken down and a decision is needed in the national interest, I think it would need to be a series of secret ballots as well. I feel dirty even saying that -as I believe MPs should be accountable to their electorates. But right now nothing is as important as a decision in the national interest so I think it should be on the table.
How's the Anglo-German trade deal David Davis promised us?
Anything that involves David Davis isn't really admissible. I guess a parallel would be Prescott, although Davis seems more workshy than Prescott ever was.
I genuinely have no idea why anyone keeps him around the place.
There are quite a few other disappointing individuals in all this, but I think it would be gentlemanly of you if you excused everyone from having to answer for the shortcomings of Davis.
Me a gentleman, with my reputation?
Pretty much anyone who posts here counts I think - unless they're a gentle-lady. But everyone here is remarkably civilised. As such I'm not sure that the loss of bandying of David Davis's name will trouble your soul - more a balm I'd have guessed. Although I guess we'll all have to look for another defining measure of the metric plank.
Ok I shall not mention the name of David Davis in relation to Brexit unless
1) We have sustained No Deal
2) He commits a further act of bellendry comparable to this^
There are some seriously boring places high on that list. Frankfurt, Munich, Zurich. Good grief.
Like all lists it's just something to argue about, but for pleasant living Zurich is very high on my list, and I know someone who liked living in Frankfurt. The same person is now in Vienna and loves it to bits, though.
It was an interesting list, but I thought it made some very strange assumptions. Hamburg is Germany's second city? Really? Won't Frankfurt and Bonn both have views on that? And who actually thinks Lyon is more significant than Marseilles, or a close rival to Paris?
Bonn? It was chosen as the capital of West Germany precisely because it wasn’t a major city.
By population the ranking is Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Cologne, Frankfurt.
But they can't be ranking by population or Marseilles not Lyon would be France's second city (and far from being a close rival to Paris, it isn't that much larger than Toulouse.)
And if they're using cultural or economic importance as the metric I just don't see how Frankfurt is behind Hamburg, while Bonn is still the second capital.
How's the Anglo-German trade deal David Davis promised us?
Anything that involves David Davis isn't really admissible. I guess a parallel would be Prescott, although Davis seems more workshy than Prescott ever was.
I genuinely have no idea why anyone keeps him around the place.
There are quite a few other disappointing individuals in all this, but I think it would be gentlemanly of you if you excused everyone from having to answer for the shortcomings of Davis.
Me a gentleman, with my reputation?
Pretty much anyone who posts here counts I think - unless they're a gentle-lady. But everyone here is remarkably civilised. As such I'm not sure that the loss of bandying of David Davis's name will trouble your soul - more a balm I'd have guessed. Although I guess we'll all have to look for another defining measure of the metric plank.
The metric Planck is 5.39 × 10−44 s
Happy to help
Yes but this is a much finer measure as it concern the David Davis work effort. Best to shift to a double-log scale I imagine.
There are some seriously boring places high on that list. Frankfurt, Munich, Zurich. Good grief.
Like all lists it's just something to argue about, but for pleasant living Zurich is very high on my list, and I know someone who liked living in Frankfurt. The same person is now in Vienna and loves it to bits, though.
It was an interesting list, but I thought it made some very strange assumptions. Hamburg is Germany's second city? Really? Won't Frankfurt and Bonn both have views on that? And who actually thinks Lyon is more significant than Marseilles, or a close rival to Paris?
London is far too low, and Lisbon is a major omission.
There are some seriously boring places high on that list. Frankfurt, Munich, Zurich. Good grief.
Like all lists it's just something to argue about, but for pleasant living Zurich is very high on my list, and I know someone who liked living in Frankfurt. The same person is now in Vienna and loves it to bits, though.
It was an interesting list, but I thought it made some very strange assumptions. Hamburg is Germany's second city? Really? Won't Frankfurt and Bonn both have views on that? And who actually thinks Lyon is more significant than Marseilles, or a close rival to Paris?
London is far too low, and Lisbon is a major omission.
The suspicion that name recognition is a key factor is a hard one to shake off.
There are some seriously boring places high on that list. Frankfurt, Munich, Zurich. Good grief.
Like all lists it's just something to argue about, but for pleasant living Zurich is very high on my list, and I know someone who liked living in Frankfurt. The same person is now in Vienna and loves it to bits, though.
It was an interesting list, but I thought it made some very strange assumptions. Hamburg is Germany's second city? Really? Won't Frankfurt and Bonn both have views on that? And who actually thinks Lyon is more significant than Marseilles, or a close rival to Paris?
Bonn? It was chosen as the capital of West Germany precisely because it wasn’t a major city.
By population the ranking is Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Cologne, Frankfurt.
But they can't be ranking by population or Marseilles not Lyon would be France's second city (and far from being a close rival to Paris, it isn't that much larger than Toulouse.)
And if they're using cultural or economic importance as the metric I just don't see how Frankfurt is behind Hamburg, while Bonn is still the second capital.
Bonn isn’t the capital of anything anymore. The state capital of North-Rhine Westphalia is Düsseldorf. All Frankfurt has going for it really is finance. I’d say Cologne, Munich and Hamburg were all more important culturally.
How's the Anglo-German trade deal David Davis promised us?
Anything that involves David Davis isn't really admissible. I guess a parallel would be Prescott, although Davis seems more workshy than Prescott ever was.
I genuinely have no idea why anyone keeps him around the place.
There are quite a few other disappointing individuals in all this, but I think it would be gentlemanly of you if you excused everyone from having to answer for the shortcomings of Davis.
Me a gentleman, with my reputation?
Pretty much anyone who posts here counts I think - unless they're a gentle-lady. But everyone here is remarkably civilised. As such I'm not sure that the loss of bandying of David Davis's name will trouble your soul - more a balm I'd have guessed. Although I guess we'll all have to look for another defining measure of the metric plank.
The metric Planck is 5.39 × 10−44 s
Happy to help
Yes but this is a much finer measure as it concern the David Davis work effort. Best to shift to a double-log scale I imagine.
There are some seriously boring places high on that list. Frankfurt, Munich, Zurich. Good grief.
Like all lists it's just something to argue about, but for pleasant living Zurich is very high on my list, and I know someone who liked living in Frankfurt. The same person is now in Vienna and loves it to bits, though.
It was an interesting list, but I thought it made some very strange assumptions. Hamburg is Germany's second city? Really? Won't Frankfurt and Bonn both have views on that? And who actually thinks Lyon is more significant than Marseilles, or a close rival to Paris?
London is far too low, and Lisbon is a major omission.
The suspicion that name recognition is a key factor is a hard one to shake off.
Edit - that said, I don't like London.
Its infinite variety is unmatched by any other city in Europe.
There are some seriously boring places high on that list. Frankfurt, Munich, Zurich. Good grief.
Like all lists it's just something to argue about, but for pleasant living Zurich is very high on my list, and I know someone who liked living in Frankfurt. The same person is now in Vienna and loves it to bits, though.
It was an interesting list, but I thought it made some very strange assumptions. Hamburg is Germany's second city? Really? Won't Frankfurt and Bonn both have views on that? And who actually thinks Lyon is more significant than Marseilles, or a close rival to Paris?
Bonn? It was chosen as the capital of West Germany precisely because it wasn’t a major city.
By population the ranking is Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Cologne, Frankfurt.
But they can't be ranking by population or Marseilles not Lyon would be France's second city (and far from being a close rival to Paris, it isn't that much larger than Toulouse.)
And if they're using cultural or economic importance as the metric I just don't see how Frankfurt is behind Hamburg, while Bonn is still the second capital.
Perhaps Marseilles just didn’t make the list? It’s notoriously scabby, after all. Lyon is traditionally France’s second city btw.
How's the Anglo-German trade deal David Davis promised us?
Anything that involves David Davis isn't really admissible. I guess a parallel would be Prescott, although Davis seems more workshy than Prescott ever was.
I genuinely have no idea why anyone keeps him around the place.
There are quite a few other disappointing individuals in all this, but I think it would be gentlemanly of you if you excused everyone from having to answer for the shortcomings of Davis.
Me a gentleman, with my reputation?
Pretty much anyone who posts here counts I think - unless they're a gentle-lady. But everyone here is remarkably civilised. As such I'm not sure that the loss of bandying of David Davis's name will trouble your soul - more a balm I'd have guessed. Although I guess we'll all have to look for another defining measure of the metric plank.
Ok I shall not mention the name of David Davis in relation to Brexit unless
1) We have sustained No Deal
2) He commits a further act of bellendry comparable to this^
There are some seriously boring places high on that list. Frankfurt, Munich, Zurich. Good grief.
Like all lists it's just something to argue about, but for pleasant living Zurich is very high on my list, and I know someone who liked living in Frankfurt. The same person is now in Vienna and loves it to bits, though.
It was an interesting list, but I thought it made some very strange assumptions. Hamburg is Germany's second city? Really? Won't Frankfurt and Bonn both have views on that? And who actually thinks Lyon is more significant than Marseilles, or a close rival to Paris?
I'm not sure either Istanbul or Naples are great to live in, but they are my favourite big European cities.
FWIW I think they claim to be measuring liveability, but the commentaries are very touristy - it's great to have some nice buildings, but if you live there, how often do you look at them? Do Londoners regularly visit Westminster Abbey, say?
There are some seriously boring places high on that list. Frankfurt, Munich, Zurich. Good grief.
Like all lists it's just something to argue about, but for pleasant living Zurich is very high on my list, and I know someone who liked living in Frankfurt. The same person is now in Vienna and loves it to bits, though.
It was an interesting list, but I thought it made some very strange assumptions. Hamburg is Germany's second city? Really? Won't Frankfurt and Bonn both have views on that? And who actually thinks Lyon is more significant than Marseilles, or a close rival to Paris?
I'm not sure either Istanbul or Naples are great to live in, but they are my favourite big European cities.
FWIW I think they claim to be measuring liveability, but the commentaries are very touristy - it's great to have some nice buildings, but if you live there, how often do you look at them? Do Londoners regularly visit Westminster Abbey, say?
I see Frank Field is proposing a series of indicative votes, an idea which I like.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
If there is a vote which gets a majority in Parliament the Government will have to accept it as Parliament is sovereign
Er... I don't think they would. Happy to stand corrected but given these would be indicative votes I don't think they would be binding on the Government (unless the Govt stated that in advance, I suppose).
A new referendum is a decision to pass the buck.
Give the Commons a free vote, so they can take a decision.
The problem is there is no Commons majority for anything ie 326 MPs or more as far as I can see.
100-150 MPs back No Deal, 202 back the Deal, 300 odd at a push back Remain or BINO ie permanent Single Market and Customs Union (and the backstop would require both for NI at least).
However combine Remain/BINO backers and Deal backers and you get at least 500 MPs combined which would be more than enough for a majority for a Remain v Deal referendum to choose between the 2 as a last resort
The way I'd do it is to have a series of votes, eliminating the least popular one in turn. The winner is the last option standing. And If the winner is Remain, these MP's have to justify themselves to the voters. After all, they've spent weeks, solemnly quoting Burke.
May I suggest an amendment to your excellent suggestion? I'm embarrassed to even suggest it, but things have got so entrenched along party lines and talk of traitors and betrayal, that I can see a 'free' vote being anything but. Where party loyalties have totally broken down and a decision is needed in the national interest, I think it would need to be a series of secret ballots as well. I feel dirty even saying that -as I believe MPs should be accountable to their electorates. But right now nothing is as important as a decision in the national interest so I think it should be on the table.
Thanks, but I think that MP's really must be prepared to justify their actions. Otherwise, lots of them will lie.
@IanB2 That's the nub of it. Nearly everyone including myself has fallen into this trap of " respecting " the referendum result like it's a Chelsea Pensioner or the Duchess of Cambridge. It's one dated and marginal election result wh8ch has already been partially discharged vua A50 invocation. It's had the entire bandwith of the UK government thrown at it as well as 10s of Billions of quid in direct and indirect costs. It's had more than it's fair share of respect already. We should be far more robust on this point.
I have repeatedly said that the "Will of the Nation" is actually the "will of 37%".
You can imagine the responses....
That such is true in any election, and that it is at least slightly more reasonable than the will of even less than that who claim they are the will of the nation?
34% did indeed vote Remain, but if Brexit goes bad the Leavers will be starting with 63% who do NOT support their position.
If Remain happened, life would continue as before and the 30% who could not be bothered to vote would probably still not be bothered. 63% "happy" and 37% "annoyed".
The arithmetic is worse for Leavers - that is just the way it is.
There are some absolutely absurd mental gymnastics on here trying to pretend that leave didn't win the referendum.
Try reading what I wrote and not what you think I wrote. I never said "Leave" did not win. I said that the will of 37% is NOT the will of the Nation.
You may also misunderstand my motives. I do not give a flying monkeys if we Brexit, but if we do then Leave does not have the arithmetic in its favour if the nation is upset.
Is that clear enough for you?
Yes I'm sure you don't care if we Brexit or not. That's why you are angrily adding non-voters to the remain percentage.
I am not angrily doing anything. I'm Irish. I am in no matter what the UK does.
The clue is in the icon!
I grasp the tricolour. But what’s the significance of the ladies’ footwear?
I see Frank Field is proposing a series of indicative votes, an idea which I like.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
If there is a vote which gets a majority in Parliament the Government will have to accept it as Parliament is sovereign
Er... I don't think they would. Happy to stand corrected but given these would be indicative votes I don't think they would be binding on the Government (unless the Govt stated that in advance, I suppose).
A new referendum is a decision to pass the buck.
Give the Commons a free vote, so they can take a decision.
The problem is there is no Commons majority for anything ie 326 MPs or more as far as I can see.
100-150 MPs back No Deal, 202 back the Deal, 300 odd at a push back Remain or BINO ie permanent Single Market and Customs Union (and the backstop would require both for NI at least).
However combine Remain/BINO backers and Deal backers and you get at least 500 MPs combined which would be more than enough for a majority for a Remain v Deal referendum to choose between the 2 as a last resort
The way I'd do it is to have a series of votes, eliminating the least popular one in turn. The winner is the last option standing. And If the winner is Remain, these MP's have to justify themselves to the voters. After all, they've spent weeks, solemnly quoting Burke.
May I suggest an amendment to your excellent suggestion? I'm embarrassed to even suggest it, but things have got so entrenched along party lines and talk of traitors and betrayal, that I can see a 'free' vote being anything but. Where party loyalties have totally broken down and a decision is needed in the national interest, I think it would need to be a series of secret ballots as well. I feel dirty even saying that -as I believe MPs should be accountable to their electorates. But right now nothing is as important as a decision in the national interest so I think it should be on the table.
I think a secret ballot should be on the agenda too. No one seemed keen when I said so a week or so ago, but surely desperate times call for desperate measures. I'd then foresee:
1) >450 votes for remaining in the EU vs. 200 for leaving if the ballots are marked by pencil on plain paper or 2) ~400 vs. 250 if they're stamped and in theory identifiable by the Gestapo - so sorry, Tory Central Office - if they decide to hunt down 'traitors'.
There are some seriously boring places high on that list. Frankfurt, Munich, Zurich. Good grief.
Like all lists it's just something to argue about, but for pleasant living Zurich is very high on my list, and I know someone who liked living in Frankfurt. The same person is now in Vienna and loves it to bits, though.
It was an interesting list, but I thought it made some very strange assumptions. Hamburg is Germany's second city? Really? Won't Frankfurt and Bonn both have views on that? And who actually thinks Lyon is more significant than Marseilles, or a close rival to Paris?
I'm not sure either Istanbul or Naples are great to live in, but they are my favourite big European cities.
FWIW I think they claim to be measuring liveability, but the commentaries are very touristy - it's great to have some nice buildings, but if you live there, how often do you look at them? Do Londoners regularly visit Westminster Abbey, say?
I've never visited Westminster Abbey, though I walk past it every day - and the sight of it often lifts my spirits.
There are some seriously boring places high on that list. Frankfurt, Munich, Zurich. Good grief.
Like all lists it's just something to argue about, but for pleasant living Zurich is very high on my list, and I know someone who liked living in Frankfurt. The same person is now in Vienna and loves it to bits, though.
Vienna 1 is very beautiful, but the cigarette smoke in the bars and the limited food scene really undermines it as a city.
@IanB2 That's the nub of it. Nearly everyone including myself has fallen into this trap of " respecting " the referendum result like it's a Chelsea Pensioner or the Duchess of Cambridge. It's one dated and marginal election result wh8ch has already been partially discharged vua A50 invocation. It's had the entire bandwith of the UK government thrown at it as well as 10s of Billions of quid in direct and indirect costs. It's had more than it's fair share of respect already. We should be far more robust on this point.
I have repeatedly said that the "Will of the Nation" is actually the "will of 37%".
You can imagine the responses....
That such is true in any election, and that it is at least slightly more reasonable than the will of even less than that who claim they are the will of the nation?
34% did indeed vote Remain, but if Brexit goes bad the Leavers will be starting with 63% who do NOT support their position.
If Remain happened, life would continue as before and the 30% who could not be bothered to vote would probably still not be bothered. 63% "happy" and 37% "annoyed".
The arithmetic is worse for Leavers - that is just the way it is.
There are some absolutely absurd mental gymnastics on here trying to pretend that leave didn't win the referendum.
Try reading what I wrote and not what you think I wrote. I never said "Leave" did not win. I said that the will of 37% is NOT the will of the Nation.
You may also misunderstand my motives. I do not give a flying monkeys if we Brexit, but if we do then Leave does not have the arithmetic in its favour if the nation is upset.
Is that clear enough for you?
Yes I'm sure you don't care if we Brexit or not. That's why you are angrily adding non-voters to the remain percentage.
I am not angrily doing anything. I'm Irish. I am in no matter what the UK does.
The clue is in the icon!
I grasp the tricolour. But what’s the significance of the ladies’ footwear?
"For women, shoes are like crack cocaine" - Detective Green, Law & Order
There are some seriously boring places high on that list. Frankfurt, Munich, Zurich. Good grief.
Like all lists it's just something to argue about, but for pleasant living Zurich is very high on my list, and I know someone who liked living in Frankfurt. The same person is now in Vienna and loves it to bits, though.
It was an interesting list, but I thought it made some very strange assumptions. Hamburg is Germany's second city? Really? Won't Frankfurt and Bonn both have views on that? And who actually thinks Lyon is more significant than Marseilles, or a close rival to Paris?
I'm not sure either Istanbul or Naples are great to live in, but they are my favourite big European cities.
FWIW I think they claim to be measuring liveability, but the commentaries are very touristy - it's great to have some nice buildings, but if you live there, how often do you look at them? Do Londoners regularly visit Westminster Abbey, say?
Yes, if you're judging by quality of administration, Naples won't rank highly. If you're judging by excellent food and consumer goods, fascinating buildings and art, beautiful location and views, it would do.
Buy one excellent threader from David today and get one free.
A couple of challenges on this piece. Conformance on environmental and employment legislation (level playing field) is a minimum requirement of the EU for any agreement. It's in the Withdrawal Agreement - not the political statement - and according to the EU will be a requirement for any No Deal mini deals. The EU may allow the UK to freeze the legislation as at present. This is the case for the proposed WA, but not necessarily for the final state agreement which may require the UK to keep updating. Basically the UK will have to swallow this if it wants any arrangement with the EU.
To repeat another point, No Deal isn't an end state. It is simply the lack of any arrangement with the EU and third countries. All this stuff will still need to be sorted, but from a very dodgy place and no transition.
On the Trump piece, I think Mueller might cut through now. Your president apparently being an agent of a hostile foreign power, is an easily understood and appalling prospect.
@IanB2 That's the nub of it. Nearly everyone including myself has fallen into this trap of " respecting " the referendum result like it's a Chelsea Pensioner or the Duchess of Cambridge. It's one dated and marginal election result wh8ch has already been partially discharged vua A50 invocation. It's had the entire bandwith of the UK government thrown at it as well as 10s of Billions of quid in direct and indirect costs. It's had more than it's fair share of respect already. We should be far more robust on this point.
I have repeatedly said that the "Will of the Nation" is actually the "will of 37%".
You can imagine the responses....
That such is true in any election, and that it is at least slightly more reasonable than the will of even less than that who claim they are the will of the nation?
34% did indeed vote Remain, but if Brexit goes bad the Leavers will be starting with 63% who do NOT support their position.
If Remain happened, life would continue as before and the 30% who could not be bothered to vote would probably still not be bothered. 63% "happy" and 37% "annoyed".
The arithmetic is worse for Leavers - that is just the way it is.
There are some absolutely absurd mental gymnastics on here trying to pretend that leave didn't win the referendum.
@IanB2 That's the nub of it. Nearly everyone including myself has fallen into this trap of " respecting " the referendum result like it's a Chelsea Pensioner or the Duchess of Cambridge. It's one dated and marginal election result wh8ch has already been partially discharged vua A50 invocation. It's had the entire bandwith of the UK government thrown at it as well as 10s of Billions of quid in direct and indirect costs. It's had more than it's fair share of respect already. We should be far more robust on this point.
I have repeatedly said that the "Will of the Nation" is actually the "will of 37%".
You can imagine the responses....
That such is true in any election, and that it is at least slightly more reasonable than the will of even less than that who claim they are the will of the nation?
34% did indeed vote Remain, but if Brexit goes bad the Leavers will be starting with 63% who do NOT support their position.
If Remain happened, life would continue as before and the 30% who could not be bothered to vote would probably still not be bothered. 63% "happy" and 37% "annoyed".
The arithmetic is worse for Leavers - that is just the way it is.
There are some absolutely absurd mental gymnastics on here trying to pretend that leave didn't win the referendum.
Try reading what I wrote and not what you think I wrote. I never said "Leave" did not win. I said that the will of 37% is NOT the will of the Nation.
You may also misunderstand my motives. I do not give a flying monkeys if we Brexit, but if we do then Leave does not have the arithmetic in its favour if the nation is upset.
Is that clear enough for you?
Yes I'm sure you don't care if we Brexit or not. That's why you are angrily adding non-voters to the remain percentage.
I am not angrily doing anything. I'm Irish. I am in no matter what the UK does.
The clue is in the icon!
I grasp the tricolour. But what’s the significance of the ladies’ footwear?
"For women, shoes are like crack cocaine" - Detective Green, Law & Order
There are some seriously boring places high on that list. Frankfurt, Munich, Zurich. Good grief.
Like all lists it's just something to argue about, but for pleasant living Zurich is very high on my list, and I know someone who liked living in Frankfurt. The same person is now in Vienna and loves it to bits, though.
It was an interesting list, but I thought it made some very strange assumptions. Hamburg is Germany's second city? Really? Won't Frankfurt and Bonn both have views on that? And who actually thinks Lyon is more significant than Marseilles, or a close rival to Paris?
I'm not sure either Istanbul or Naples are great to live in, but they are my favourite big European cities.
FWIW I think they claim to be measuring liveability, but the commentaries are very touristy - it's great to have some nice buildings, but if you live there, how often do you look at them? Do Londoners regularly visit Westminster Abbey, say?
I've never visited Westminster Abbey, though I walk past it every day - and the sight of it often lifts my spirits.
Indeed. Being surrounded by such majesty is far preferable than encountering the tourists within.
Buy one excellent threader from David today and get one free.
A couple of challenges on this piece. Conformance on environmental and employment legislation (level playing field) is a minimum requirement of the EU for any agreement. It's in the Withdrawal Agreement - not the political statement - and according to the EU will be a requirement for any No Deal mini deals. The EU may allow the UK to freeze the legislation as at present. This is the case for the proposed WA, but not necessarily for the final state agreement which may require the UK to keep updating. Basically the UK will have to swallow this if it wants any arrangement with the EU.
To repeat another point, No Deal isn't an end state. It is simply the lack of any arrangement with the EU and third countries. All this stuff will still need to be sorted, but from a very dodgy place and no transition.
On the Trump piece, I think Mueller might cut through now. Your president apparently being an agent of a hostile foreign power, is an easily understood and appalling prospect.
And potentially puts Trump in breach of the 14th Amendment.
@IanB2 That's the nub of it. Nearly everyone including myself has fallen into this trap of " respecting " the referendum result like it's a Chelsea Pensioner or the Duchess of Cambridge. It's one dated and marginal election result wh8ch has already been partially discharged vua A50 invocation. It's had the entire bandwith of the UK government thrown at it as well as 10s of Billions of quid in direct and indirect costs. It's had more than it's fair share of respect already. We should be far more robust on this point.
I have repeatedly said that the "Will of the Nation" is actually the "will of 37%".
You can imagine the responses....
That such is true in any election, and that it is at least slightly more reasonable than the will of even less than that who claim they are the will of the nation?
34% did indeed vote Remain, but if Brexit goes bad the Leavers will be starting with 63% who do NOT support their position.
If Remain happened, life would continue as before and the 30% who could not be bothered to vote would probably still not be bothered. 63% "happy" and 37% "annoyed".
The arithmetic is worse for Leavers - that is just the way it is.
There are some absolutely absurd mental gymnastics on here trying to pretend that leave didn't win the referendum.
Try reading what I wrote and not what you think I wrote. I never said "Leave" did not win. I said that the will of 37% is NOT the will of the Nation.
You may also misunderstand my motives. I do not give a flying monkeys if we Brexit, but if we do then Leave does not have the arithmetic in its favour if the nation is upset.
Is that clear enough for you?
Yes I'm sure you don't care if we Brexit or not. That's why you are angrily adding non-voters to the remain percentage.
I am not angrily doing anything. I'm Irish. I am in no matter what the UK does.
The clue is in the icon!
I grasp the tricolour. But what’s the significance of the ladies’ footwear?
"For women, shoes are like crack cocaine" - Detective Green, Law & Order
Ah, I see. My wife would concur.
Plato was a great one for the Cuban Heel. She and I used to discuss shoes frequently.
There are some seriously boring places high on that list. Frankfurt, Munich, Zurich. Good grief.
Like all lists it's just something to argue about, but for pleasant living Zurich is very high on my list, and I know someone who liked living in Frankfurt. The same person is now in Vienna and loves it to bits, though.
It was an interesting list, but I thought it made some very strange assumptions. Hamburg is Germany's second city? Really? Won't Frankfurt and Bonn both have views on that? And who actually thinks Lyon is more significant than Marseilles, or a close rival to Paris?
Bonn? It was chosen as the capital of West Germany precisely because it wasn’t a major city.
By population the ranking is Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Cologne, Frankfurt.
But they can't be ranking by population or Marseilles not Lyon would be France's second city (and far from being a close rival to Paris, it isn't that much larger than Toulouse.)
And if they're using cultural or economic importance as the metric I just don't see how Frankfurt is behind Hamburg, while Bonn is still the second capital.
Bonn isn’t the capital of anything anymore. The state capital of North-Rhine Westphalia is Düsseldorf. All Frankfurt has going for it really is finance. I’d say Cologne, Munich and Hamburg were all more important culturally.
One third of the Federal government - six ministries and 8,000 civil servants - is based in Bonn!
I see Frank Field is proposing a series of indicative votes, an idea which I like.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
If there is a vote which gets a majority in Parliament the Government will have to accept it as Parliament is sovereign
Er... I don't think they would. Happy to stand corrected but given these would be indicative votes I don't think they would be binding on the Government (unless the Govt stated that in advance, I suppose).
A new referendum is a decision to pass the buck.
Give the Commons a free vote, so they can take a decision.
The problem is there is no Commons majority for anything ie 326 MPs or more as far as I can see.
100-150 MPs back No Deal, 202 back the Dealequire both for NI at least).
However combine Remain/BINO backers and Deal backers and you get at least 500 MPs combined which would be more than enough for a majority for a Remain v Deal referendum to choose between the 2 as a last resort
The way I'd do it is to have a series of votes, eliminating the least popular one in turn. The winner is the last option standing. And If the winner is Remain, these MP's have to justify themselves to the voters. After all, they've spent weeks, solemnly quoting Burke.
May I suggest an amendment to your excellent suggestion? I'm embarrassed to even suggest it, but things have got so entrenched along party lines and talk of traitors and betrayal, that I can see a 'free' vote being anything but. Where party loyalties have totally broken down and a decision is needed in the national interest, I think it would need to be a series of secret ballots as well. I feel dirty even saying that -as I believe MPs should be accountable to their electorates. But right now nothing is as important as a decision in the national interest so I think it should be on the table.
I think a secret ballot should be on the agenda too. No one seemed keen when I said so a week or so ago, but surely desperate times call for desperate measures. I'd then foresee:
1) >450 votes for remaining in the EU vs. 200 for leaving if the ballots are marked by pencil on plain paper or 2) ~400 vs. 250 if they're stamped and in theory identifiable by the Gestapo - so sorry, Tory Central Office - if they decide to hunt down 'traitors'.
400 to 250 sounds about right, but lots of the 400 would deny it.
I think a secret ballot should be on the agenda too. No one seemed keen when I said so a week or so ago, but surely desperate times call for desperate measures. I'd then foresee:
1) >450 votes for remaining in the EU vs. 200 for leaving if the ballots are marked by pencil on plain paper or 2) ~400 vs. 250 if they're stamped and in theory identifiable by the Gestapo - so sorry, Tory Central Office - if they decide to hunt down 'traitors'.
In a secret ballot I bet you'd get DUP and ERG votes for revocation.
I think a secret ballot should be on the agenda too. No one seemed keen when I said so a week or so ago, but surely desperate times call for desperate measures. I'd then foresee:
1) >450 votes for remaining in the EU vs. 200 for leaving if the ballots are marked by pencil on plain paper or 2) ~400 vs. 250 if they're stamped and in theory identifiable by the Gestapo - so sorry, Tory Central Office - if they decide to hunt down 'traitors'.
In a secret ballot I bet you'd get DUP and ERG votes for revocation.
I agree.
However, I think you'd also get a few the other way too.
I see Frank Field is proposing a series of indicative votes, an idea which I like.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
If there is a vote which gets a majority in Parliament the Government will have to accept it as Parliament is sovereign
Er... I don't think they would. Happy to stand corrected but given these would be indicative votes I don't think they would be binding on the Government (unless the Govt stated that in advance, I suppose).
A new referendum is a decision to pass the buck.
Give the Commons a free vote, so they can take a decision.
The way I'd do it is to have a series of votes, eliminating the least popular one in turn. The winner is the last option standing. And If the winner is Remain, these MP's have to justify themselves to the voters. After all, they've spent weeks, solemnly quoting Burke.
May I suggest an amendment to your excellent suggestion? I'm embarrassed to even suggest it, but things have got so entrenched along party lines and talk of traitors and betrayal, that I can see a 'free' vote being anything but. Where party loyalties have totally broken down and a decision is needed in the national interest, I think it would need to be a series of secret ballots as well. I feel dirty even saying that -as I believe MPs should be accountable to their electorates. But right now nothing is as important as a decision in the national interest so I think it should be on the table.
I think a secret ballot should be on the agenda too. No one seemed keen when I said so a week or so ago, but surely desperate times call for desperate measures. I'd then foresee:
1) >450 votes for remaining in the EU vs. 200 for leaving if the ballots are marked by pencil on plain paper or 2) ~400 vs. 250 if they're stamped and in theory identifiable by the Gestapo - so sorry, Tory Central Office - if they decide to hunt down 'traitors'.
To be honest I cannot think of anything more dishonest
On a vote of such national importance every mp must be identified on the choice they make to be accountable to voters and their constituents
Trust in politicians is at an all time low and this would put the cap on it
The basic problem is that voters have instructed the politicians to leave the European Union and the politicians haven't found an acceptable way to do so. Unacceptable because those ways reduce trade and wealth and they remove the UK from the table where it negotiates its interests.
So do you go back to voters and say, do you want to go ahead anyway? Or do you go ahead anyway and to hell with the consequences because voters aren't aware of the issues anyway?
I see Frank Field is proposing a series of indicative votes, an idea which I like.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
If there is a vote which gets a majority in Parliament the Government will have to accept it as Parliament is sovereign
Er... I don't think they would. Happy to stand corrected but given these would be indicative votes I don't think they would be binding on the Government (unless the Govt stated that in advance, I suppose).
May has already said as her Deal has not got through she will let Parliament come up with the alternative, if that alternative is a Remain v Deal referendum then she would have to reluctantly accept it though she would not propose it herself.
An indicative vote cannot on its own overturn Article 50 but if the Commons voted for a second referendum on Remain or the Deal as did the Lords and the Queen then signed that into law (constitutionally the Queen is Head of the Executive, May merely her Chief Minister in Parliament), as she almost certainly would, that is what would happen and the result of that referendum would then determine whether we Remained and Parliament revoked Article 50 or we left with the Deal
A new referendum is a decision to pass the buck.
Give the Commons a free vote, so they can take a decision.
Would a referendum be one of the options they could decide on?
It ought not, because that 's a decision to avoid a decision. They insist that they are representatives, not delegates, so take them at their word.
I see Frank Field is proposing a series of indicative votes, an idea which I like.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
If there is a vote which gets a majority in Parliament the Government will have to accept it as Parliament is sovereign
Er... I don't think they would. Happy to stand corrected but given these would be indicative votes I don't think they would be binding on the Government (unless the Govt stated that in advance, I suppose).
May has already said as her Deal has not got through she will let Parliament come up with the alternative, if that alternative is a Remain v Deal referendum then she would have to reluctantly accept it though she would not propose it herself.
An indicative vote
A new referendum is a decision to pass the buck.
Give the Commons a free vote, so they can take a decision.
The problem is there is no Commons majority for anything ie 326 MPs or more as far as I can see.
100-150 MPs back No Deal, 202 back the Deal, 300 odd at a push back Remain or BINO ie permanent Single Market and Customs Union (and the backstop would require both for NI at least).
However combine Remain/BINO backers and Deal backers and you get at least 500 MPs combined which would be more than enough for a majority for a Remain v Deal referendum to choose between the 2 as a last resort
The way I'd do it is to have a series of votes, eliminating the least popular one in turn. The winner is the last option standing. And If the winner is Remain, these MP's have to justify themselves to the voters. After all, they've spent weeks, solemnly quoting Burke.
The winner would only be EUref2 with a Remain option, there would not be a majority in Parliament for revoking Article 50 without another referendum first. Ultimately MPs want a cop out and to pass the buck back to the voters, preferably with a Remain v Deal option only so there is no risk of the voters making the 'wrong' choice again by voting for No Deal
They want the voters to agree with them so they have permission to do what it is they've always wanted.
If they can't get that mechanism they'll probably do it anyway and worry about how to justify it after.
I see Frank Field is proposing a series of indicative votes, an idea which I like.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
If there is a vote which gets a majority in Parliament the Government will have to accept it as Parliament is sovereign
May I suggest an amendment to your excellent suggestion? I'm embarrassed to even suggest it, but things have got so entrenched along party lines and talk of traitors and betrayal, that I can see a 'free' vote being anything but. Where party loyalties have totally broken down and a decision is needed in the national interest, I think it would need to be a series of secret ballots as well. I feel dirty even saying that -as I believe MPs should be accountable to their electorates. But right now nothing is as important as a decision in the national interest so I think it should be on the table.
I think a secret ballot should be on the agenda too. No one seemed keen when I said so a week or so ago, but surely desperate times call for desperate measures. I'd then foresee:
1) >450 votes for remaining in the EU vs. 200 for leaving if the ballots are marked by pencil on plain paper or 2) ~400 vs. 250 if they're stamped and in theory identifiable by the Gestapo - so sorry, Tory Central Office - if they decide to hunt down 'traitors'.
To be honest I cannot think of anything more dishonest
On a vote of such national importance every mp must be identified on the choice they make to be accountable to voters and their constituents
Trust in politicians is at an all time low and this would put the cap on it
It cannot be allowed in a democracy
The with issue is open voting you end up with the Sir Joseph Porter approach to parliament:
I always voted at my party's call, And I never thought of thinking for myself at all.
He never thought of thinking for himself at all.
I thought so little, they rewarded me By making me the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!
I see Frank Field is proposing a series of indicative votes, an idea which I like.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
If there is a vote which gets a majority in Parliament the Government will have to accept it as Parliament is sovereign
Er... I don't think they would. Happy to stand corrected but given these would be indicative votes I don't think they would be binding on the Government (unless the Govt stated that in advance, I suppose).
May has already said as her Deal has not got through she will let Parliament come up with the alternative, if that alternative is a Remain v Deal referendum then she would have to reluctantly accept it though she would not propose it herself.
An indicative vote
A new referendum is a decision to pass the buck.
Give the Commons a free vote, so they can take a decision.
The problem is there is no Commons majority for anything ie 326 MPs or more as far as I can see.
100-150 MPs back No Deal, 202 back the Deal, 300 odd at a push back Remain or BINO ie permanent Single Market and Customs Union (and the backstop would require both for NI at least).
However combine Remain/BINO backers and Deal backers and you get at least 500 MPs combined which would be more than enough for a majority for a Remain v Deal referendum to choose between the 2 as a last resort
The way I'd do it is to have a series of votes, eliminating the least popular one in turn. The winner is the last option standing. And If the winner is Remain, these MP's have to justify themselves to the voters. After all, they've spent weeks, solemnly quoting Burke.
The winner would only be EUref2 with a Remain option, there would not be a majority in Parliament for revoking Article 50 without another referendum first. Ultimately MPs want a cop out and to pass the buck back to the voters, preferably with a Remain v Deal option only so there is no risk of the voters making the 'wrong' choice again by voting for No Deal
They want the voters to agree with them so they have permission to do what it is they've always wanted.
If they can't get that mechanism they'll probably do it anyway and worry about how to justify it after.
@IanB2 That's the nub of it. Nearly everyone including myself has fallen into this trap of " respecting " the referendum result like it's a Chelsea Pensioner or the Duchess of Cambridge. It's one dated and marginal election result wh8ch has already been partially discharged vua A50 invocation. It's had the entire bandwith of the UK government thrown at it as well as 10s of Billions of quid in direct and indirect costs. It's had more than it's fair share of respect already. We should be far more robust on this point.
I have repeatedly said that the "Will of the Nation" is actually the "will of 37%".
You can imagine the responses....
That such is true in any election, and that it is at least slightly more reasonable than the will of even less than that who claim they are the will of the nation?
34% did indeed vote Remain, but if Brexit goes bad the Leavers will be starting with 63% who do NOT support their position.
If Remain happened, life would continue as before and the 30% who could not be bothered to vote would probably still not be bothered. 63% "happy" and 37% "annoyed".
The arithmetic is worse for Leavers - that is just the way it is.
I don't think one can assume that non-voters should be added to one side or another.
You can if you want to provide justification for a course of action you're going to take anyway.
And how is Madrid in any sense livable for 3 months of the summer with 40deg highs?
Rekjyavik must be none too great for 3 months of the winter come to that.
It isn't the list I would go for. I like Budapest because of its lively culture scene but it is very corrupt and crime ridden, which are supposedly two of the main criteria.
Madrid earns its place because of its cafe and club culture, which are second to none. Not really my thing but the place to go if it is.
I see Frank Field is proposing a series of indicative votes, an idea which I like.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
If there is a vote which gets a majority in Parliament the Government will have to accept it as Parliament is sovereign
Er... I don't think they would. Happy to stand corrected but given these would be indicative votes I don't think they would be binding on the Government (unless the Govt stated that in advance, I suppose).
A new referendum is a decision to pass the buck.
Give the Commons a free vote, so they can take a decision.
The way I'd do it is to have a series of votes, eliminating the least popular one in turn. The winner is the last option standing. And If the winner is Remain, these MP's have to justify themselves to the voters. After all, they've spent weeks, solemnly quoting Burke.
Ma accountable to their electorates. But right now nothing is as important as a decision in the national interest so I think it should be on the table.
I think a secret ballot should be on the agenda too. No one seemed keen when I said so a week or so ago, but surely desperate times call for desperate measures. I'd then foresee:
1) >450 votes for remaining in the EU vs. 200 for leaving if the ballots are marked by pencil on plain paper or 2) ~400 vs. 250 if they're stamped and in theory identifiable by the Gestapo - so sorry, Tory Central Office - if they decide to hunt down 'traitors'.
To be honest I cannot think of anything more dishonest
On a vote of such national importance every mp must be identified on the choice they make to be accountable to voters and their constituents
Trust in politicians is at an all time low and this would put the cap on it
It cannot be allowed in a democracy
In principle I'm with you. But there is a hell of a lot of healing needed in our politics and nation. And not allowing the blaming of individuals for what's happened may be an important step of that.
In our council group - I know the scale doesn't compare - we've done this twice in 8 years on really contentious issues and we found it helped us move on, on both occasions.
Fortunately and for all the vitriol they are enduring currently, MPs are taking a more considered approach. It seems half the country will agree to anything "to get it sorted" but this is our political and economic future.
I've little time for the bored, the tired and those with the attention span of a gnat - this is important, it should be debated and above all we need to get it right.
In any case, "Brexit" won't disappear after March 29th however much people may hope expect or want it to vanish.
The basic problem is that voters have instructed the politicians to leave the European Union and the politicians haven't found an acceptable way to do so. Unacceptable because those ways reduce trade and wealth and they remove the UK from the table where it negotiates its interests.
So do you go back to voters and say, do you want to go ahead anyway? Or do you go ahead anyway and to hell with the consequences because voters aren't aware of the issues anyway?
Sadly for the referendum supporters Caroline Flint's article in the Guardian sinks any hope it would pass the HOC. Seems there as many labour mps against as for and add in the majority of conservatives and DUP it is clear that when Chuka Umunna said last week they do not have the numbers he was speaking with his knowlege of how it is dividing his party in two
I see Frank Field is proposing a series of indicative votes, an idea which I like.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
If there is a vote which gets a majority in Parliament the Government will have to accept it as Parliament is sovereign
Er... I don't think they would. Happy to stand corrected but given these would be indicative votes I don't think they would be binding on the Government (unless the Govt stated that in advance, I suppose).
A new referendum is a decision to pass the buck.
Give the Commons a free vote, so they can take a decision.
The
Ma accountable to their electorates. But right now nothing is as important as a decision in the national interest so I think it should be on the table.
I think a secret ballot should be on the agenda too. No one seemed keen when I said so a week or so ago, but surely desperate times call for desperate measures. I'd then foresee:
1) >450 votes for remaining in the EU vs. 200 for leaving if the ballots are marked by pencil on plain paper or 2) ~400 vs. 250 if they're stamped and in theory identifiable by the Gestapo - so sorry, Tory Central Office - if they decide to hunt down 'traitors'.
To be honest I cannot think of anything more dishonest
On a vote of such national importance every mp must be identified on the choice they make to be accountable to voters and their constituents
Trust in politicians is at an all time low and this would put the cap on it
It cannot be allowed in a democracy
In principle I'm with you. But there is a hell of a lot of healing needed in our politics and nation. And not allowing the blaming of individuals for what's happened may be an important step of that.
In our council group - I know the scale doesn't compare - we've done this twice in 8 years on really contentious issues and we found it helped us move on, on both occasions.
MPs have to be made of stern enough stuff to be accountable for their actions. Whatever the outcome they would all be hounded to reveal which way they had voted, and the public would not be able to move on from that. Being an MP is not meant to be easy, a private vote because they might face some rancour is a preposterous idea.
I've little time for the bored, the tired and those with the attention span of a gnat - this is important, it should be debated and above all we need to get it right..
It's not a bad point, but perpetually generating possible options instead of making a decision, whilst up against a rapidly-contracting deadline, is not a good way to proceed.
There are some seriously boring places high on that list. Frankfurt, Munich, Zurich. Good grief.
Like all lists it's just something to argue about, but for pleasant living Zurich is very high on my list, and I know someone who liked living in Frankfurt. The same person is now in Vienna and loves it to bits, though.
It was an interesting list, but I thought it made some very strange assumptions. Hamburg is Germany's second city? Really? Won't Frankfurt and Bonn both have views on that? And who actually thinks Lyon is more significant than Marseilles, or a close rival to Paris?
Bonn? It was chosen as the capital of West Germany precisely because it wasn’t a major city.
By population the ranking is Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Cologne, Frankfurt.
But they can't be ranking by population or Marseilles not Lyon would be France's second city (and far from being a close rival to Paris, it isn't that much larger than Toulouse.)
And if they're using cultural or economic importance as the metric I just don't see how Frankfurt is behind Hamburg, while Bonn is still the second capital.
Bonn isn’t the capital of anything anymore. The state capital of North-Rhine Westphalia is Düsseldorf. All Frankfurt has going for it really is finance. I’d say Cologne, Munich and Hamburg were all more important culturally.
Frankfurt has a good set of museums. Not as good as Berlin or Munich however. I like German cities, particularly Cologne.
The basic problem is that voters have instructed the politicians to leave the European Union and the politicians haven't found an acceptable way to do so. Unacceptable because those ways reduce trade and wealth and they remove the UK from the table where it negotiates its interests.
So do you go back to voters and say, do you want to go ahead anyway? Or do you go ahead anyway and to hell with the consequences because voters aren't aware of the issues anyway?
Sadly for the referendum supporters Caroline Flint's article in the Guardian sinks any hope it would pass the HOC. Seems there as many labour mps against as for and add in the majority of conservatives and DUP it is clear that when Chuka Umunna said last week they do not have the numbers he was speaking with his knowlege of how it is dividing his party in two
You've put the kiss of life on it now... expect to see May announce it as plan B on Monday
I've little time for the bored, the tired and those with the attention span of a gnat - this is important, it should be debated and above all we need to get it right..
It's not a bad point, but perpetually generating possible options instead of making a decision, whilst up against a rapidly-contracting deadline, is not a good way to proceed.
Hence the ticking clock. And why an extension is not needed, because they've had enough time to consider all that they want, and they just need to formally pick what they want.
The basic problem is that voters have instructed the politicians to leave the European Union and the politicians haven't found an acceptable way to do so. Unacceptable because those ways reduce trade and wealth and they remove the UK from the table where it negotiates its interests.
So do you go back to voters and say, do you want to go ahead anyway? Or do you go ahead anyway and to hell with the consequences because voters aren't aware of the issues anyway?
Sadly for the referendum supporters Caroline Flint's article in the Guardian sinks any hope it would pass the HOC. Seems there as many labour mps against as for and add in the majority of conservatives and DUP it is clear that when Chuka Umunna said last week they do not have the numbers he was speaking with his knowlege of how it is dividing his party in two
You've put the kiss of life on it now... expect to see May announce it as plan B on Monday
I was surprised at the strength of feeling against a referendum in leave voting labour mps seats. I have said for months there were 18 labour mps against but it seems there are many more
Worst of both worlds. No consensus on Brexit has formed but the shift against Brexit is nowhere near big enough to stop it. The biggest policy decision the country has taken in 50 + years is a zombie.
The basic problem is that voters have instructed the politicians to leave the European Union and the politicians haven't found an acceptable way to do so. Unacceptable because those ways reduce trade and wealth and they remove the UK from the table where it negotiates its interests.
So do you go back to voters and say, do you want to go ahead anyway? Or do you go ahead anyway and to hell with the consequences because voters aren't aware of the issues anyway?
Sadly for the referendum supporters Caroline Flint's article in the Guardian sinks any hope it would pass the HOC. Seems there as many labour mps against as for and add in the majority of conservatives and DUP it is clear that when Chuka Umunna said last week they do not have the numbers he was speaking with his knowlege of how it is dividing his party in two
I have never been a huge fan of a second referendum. The question doesn't get more sensible for being asked twice. Nevertheless, I think there's a case to be made for May's Deal to be laid before the country and asked, this is the best we can do. Do you want to go ahead anyway?
The increasing impression I have is that having got themselves and the country in a right mess, our politicians haven't a clue how to get us out of it. Nobody else seems to either.
Perhaps it will be No Deal after all, purely by default.
There are some seriously boring places high on that list. Frankfurt, Munich, Zurich. Good grief.
Like all lists it's just something to argue about, but for pleasant living Zurich is very high on my list, and I know someone who liked living in Frankfurt. The same person is now in Vienna and loves it to bits, though.
It was an interesting list, but I thought it made some very strange assumptions. Hamburg is Germany's second city? Really? Won't Frankfurt and Bonn both have views on that? And who actually thinks Lyon is more significant than Marseilles, or a close rival to Paris?
I'm not sure either Istanbul or Naples are great to live in, but they are my favourite big European cities.
FWIW I think they claim to be measuring liveability, but the commentaries are very touristy - it's great to have some nice buildings, but if you live there, how often do you look at them? Do Londoners regularly visit Westminster Abbey, say?
Yes, if you're judging by quality of administration, Naples won't rank highly. If you're judging by excellent food and consumer goods, fascinating buildings and art, beautiful location and views, it would do.
Prague, Warsaw, Vienna and Ljubljana would be my choices. Budapest isn't bad either. Lyon is ok. I wouldn't touch Paris, Brussels, Frankfurt or Marseilles.
There seems a remarkable consensus that Germanic cities are boring. But Munich at a stretch.
Whilst I love visiting Switzerland I'm not sure I could live there. You could kill yourself on a Sunday in Geneva.
The basic problem is that voters have instructed the politicians to leave the European Union and the politicians haven't found an acceptable way to do so. Unacceptable because those ways reduce trade and wealth and they remove the UK from the table where it negotiates its interests.
So do you go back to voters and say, do you want to go ahead anyway? Or do you go ahead anyway and to hell with the consequences because voters aren't aware of the issues anyway?
Sadly for the referendum supporters Caroline Flint's article in the Guardian sinks any hope it would pass the HOC. Seems there as many labour mps against as for and add in the majority of conservatives and DUP it is clear that when Chuka Umunna said last week they do not have the numbers he was speaking with his knowlege of how it is dividing his party in two
Flint has been firmly in the Brexit camp since the referendum so her article doesn’t have much significance in judging the views of the wider Labour Party.
The basic problem is that voters have instructed the politicians to leave the European Union and the politicians haven't found an acceptable way to do so. Unacceptable because those ways reduce trade and wealth and they remove the UK from the table where it negotiates its interests.
So do you go back to voters and say, do you want to go ahead anyway? Or do you go ahead anyway and to hell with the consequences because voters aren't aware of the issues anyway?
Sadly for the referendum supporters Caroline Flint's article in the Guardian sinks any hope it would pass the HOC. Seems there as many labour mps against as for and add in the majority of conservatives and DUP it is clear that when Chuka Umunna said last week they do not have the numbers he was speaking with his knowlege of how it is dividing his party in two
You keep saying this Big G, it seems to give you some kind of satisfaction.
The truth is, indicative voting may demonstrate it the “least unfavourite” route out of this mess.
We can’t rule it out yet. I concede that it doesn’t seem to have the “big mo”, but neither does anything else. Customs Union seems still born, and Norway seems to be fizzling out as well.
Comments
If you are talking about Remaining in 'The' Customs Union then the immediate problem is the EU don't want it. They may put up with having the UK in the Customs Union on a temporary basis as part of the transition/backstop but the Customs Union is a defined by the EU treaties and in basic legal terms we cannot stay in permanently without being part of the EU. Why would they change their treaties and allow us what they regard as a great prize for no recompense?
Alternatively if you are talking about staying in 'A' customs union then it is a terrible idea. Turkey are in this position as part of their attempts to join the EU properly and it is an awful position to be in. Because they are not in the Single Market they are not party to EU free trade agreements and the result of this is that third countries are able to trade into Turkey tariff free whilst Turkey do not have the same reciprocal ability. It is for this reason they said that if the EU signed the FTA with the US they would be forced to pull out of the customs union with the EU.
I do think this is a complete non starter.
That doesn’t solve the reason why the EU say they want the backstop. Moreover, you won’t get a single trade deal unless you control your own trade regs.
The clue is in the icon!
"The UK has yet to finalise agreements to replace existing free trade deals the EU has with 40 big economies if there is a no-deal Brexit.
International Trade Secretary Liam Fox said he "hoped" they would but it depended on whether other countries were "willing to put the work in"."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46917999
But I love Paris!
https://www.politico.eu/article/david-davis-to-meet-bavarias-horst-seehofer/
Haven't provided any anecdata lately, so a report from my first canvass for the mighty Tory fortress of Godalming Binscombe (actually the 2nd closest ward in Tory-monopolised Waverley). Four of us did 10% of the ward today, and got an impression much like the polls - Lab and Con pretty close, lots of people disillusioned with the national scene. A small bonus for bothering to turn up - the first they've seen of any politicians for at least a year, apparently. I'm reasonably hopeful that it will yield to some serious effort, unless events in Westminster produce a tidal wave in some unexpected direction. The argument that it's unhealthy to have nearly all councillors from one party is falling on fertile ground.
I genuinely have no idea why anyone keeps him around the place.
There are quite a few other disappointing individuals in all this, but I think it would be gentlemanly of you if you excused everyone from having to answer for the shortcomings of Davis.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/17/german-industry-looking-abyss-brexit-fears-mount/
By population the ranking is Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Cologne, Frankfurt.
Happy to help
1) We have sustained No Deal
2) He commits a further act of bellendry comparable to this^
3) He lies or commits an act of hypocrisy
4) I see him eating a pizza with pineapple on it.
^ - https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/brexit/news/99971/david-davis-criticised-over-brexit-transition-period-gaffe
And if they're using cultural or economic importance as the metric I just don't see how Frankfurt is behind Hamburg, while Bonn is still the second capital.
Your constant is also the Max
Edit - that said, I don't like London.
It’s notoriously scabby, after all. Lyon is traditionally France’s second city btw.
I wonder if in a hundred years' time 'bellendry' will be a word. It has seemed very appropriate to much of our recent times.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1086699328704573441
1) >450 votes for remaining in the EU vs. 200 for leaving if the ballots are marked by pencil on plain paper
or
2) ~400 vs. 250 if they're stamped and in theory identifiable by the Gestapo - so sorry, Tory Central Office - if they decide to hunt down 'traitors'.
Vienna 1 is very beautiful, but the cigarette smoke in the bars and the limited food scene really undermines it as a city.
A couple of challenges on this piece. Conformance on environmental and employment legislation (level playing field) is a minimum requirement of the EU for any agreement. It's in the Withdrawal Agreement - not the political statement - and according to the EU will be a requirement for any No Deal mini deals. The EU may allow the UK to freeze the legislation as at present. This is the case for the proposed WA, but not necessarily for the final state agreement which may require the UK to keep updating. Basically the UK will have to swallow this if it wants any arrangement with the EU.
To repeat another point, No Deal isn't an end state. It is simply the lack of any arrangement with the EU and third countries. All this stuff will still need to be sorted, but from a very dodgy place and no transition.
On the Trump piece, I think Mueller might cut through now. Your president apparently being an agent of a hostile foreign power, is an easily understood and appalling prospect.
Indeed. Being surrounded by such majesty is far preferable than encountering the tourists within.
However, I think you'd also get a few the other way too.
On a vote of such national importance every mp must be identified on the choice they make to be accountable to voters and their constituents
Trust in politicians is at an all time low and this would put the cap on it
It cannot be allowed in a democracy
And how is Madrid in any sense livable for 3 months of the summer with 40deg highs?
Rekjyavik must be none too great for 3 months of the winter come to that.
So do you go back to voters and say, do you want to go ahead anyway? Or do you go ahead anyway and to hell with the consequences because voters aren't aware of the issues anyway?
If they can't get that mechanism they'll probably do it anyway and worry about how to justify it after.
I always voted at my party's call,
And I never thought of thinking for myself at all.
He never thought of thinking for himself at all.
I thought so little, they rewarded me
By making me the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!
Madrid earns its place because of its cafe and club culture, which are second to none. Not really my thing but the place to go if it is.
In our council group - I know the scale doesn't compare - we've done this twice in 8 years on really contentious issues and we found it helped us move on, on both occasions.
I've little time for the bored, the tired and those with the attention span of a gnat - this is important, it should be debated and above all we need to get it right.
In any case, "Brexit" won't disappear after March 29th however much people may hope expect or want it to vanish.
Edinburgh is a fabulous city and we enjoyed our time living there in the 1960's
Perhaps it will be No Deal after all, purely by default.
There seems a remarkable consensus that Germanic cities are boring. But Munich at a stretch.
Whilst I love visiting Switzerland I'm not sure I could live there. You could kill yourself on a Sunday in Geneva.
Really rather predictable
The truth is, indicative voting may demonstrate it the “least unfavourite” route out of this mess.
We can’t rule it out yet. I concede that it doesn’t seem to have the “big mo”, but neither does anything else. Customs Union seems still born, and Norway seems to be fizzling out as well.