Good evening Nick - did you read Caroline Flints article in the guardian today
No, I didn't, but after your prompt I have now - thanks.
Temperamentally I agree with it - jaw-jaw is better than war-war in moments of crisis. But I don't think we can negotiate on the basis of the May deal being unchangeable (including the future political agreement, i.e. the customs union etc.). If TM is serious about negotiating she needs to agree that all options that avoid No Deal will be explored.
To be honest that is her aim and I do not expect her to allow no deal in the end.
But right now, and for the next several weeks, it is the only real outcome to concentrate EU minds
If TM resigns in May after she manages to get her deal through with some compromise from the EU / Ireland to pacify DUP and ERG what’s to stop the next Tory leader (probably a leaver) from falling out with EU over future trade deal and cancelling WA and going WTO until EU come to table with a worthwhile offer
I think it is quite possible but not while the WDA is in force as it is an international treaty
But surely we can repeal WA if we think EU have not acted in good faith?
That is fleshing out more detail from JRM 's comments I reported from the mail this morning
I think he's starting to sniff out he might just be giving cover for the defeat of Brexit and is looking for a way out.
It's probably too little too late though. A combination of no backstop, no £39bn and May going is pretty unlikely, and I'm not sure he can could put all of the ERG back in its box even if he wanted to.
He said that if Brexit is threatened in any way he will back TM deal
Funny, he didn't believe it was threatened before, why does he believe it now? Nothing has changed other than the MV, but the outcome to that was not a change really, since we knew it would happen.
“I didn’t know it was under threat until I realised I’d nearly killed it.”
At least I think Paul had an excuse. Did he not tell the Romans he was on drugs?
...No deal isn't easily definable, let alone implementable...
On the contrary, it's very east to define. "To leave the European Union without a treaty signed and agreed by the UK Government and the European Council".
And if on the following day you sign a treaty to solve all the problems it creates, have you betrayed the will of the people?
The one thing that would betray the democratically expressed will of the people is not leaving the EU.
We're talking about 'no deal' as an explicit referendum option. When would a deal become a betrayal, given that we can't avoid dealing with the EU?
You keep trying to split this hair
“No deal” means leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement.
That’s all.
Of course are are likely to enter into other deals before and after. But those are narrower in scope.
Fundamentally what it means is no transition period, reducing the £39bn by 2 years of payments (initially it would be zero but I’m sure we’d agree to meet our liabilities), and no backstop.
Simply re-stating Labour policy really, that a second ref remains an option. Different emphasis from Corbyn, but that was also the case at Labour conference.
I haven’t yet seen all of Starmer speech to the Fabians, haven’t found it yet but in this age it must be on net somewhere. But of what I have seen, it’s unrepresentative headline to take from it, though predictable one for the media right now. Starmer speech and message actually v similar to the one Steve Bannon wrote for Bozzy Bear a few days ago.
Interesting the way post brexit battlefield is developing.
That is fleshing out more detail from JRM 's comments I reported from the mail this morning
I think he's starting to sniff out he might just be giving cover for the defeat of Brexit and is looking for a way out.
It's probably too little too late though. A combination of no backstop, no £39bn and May going is pretty unlikely, and I'm not sure he can could put all of the ERG back in its box even if he wanted to.
A ten year time limit on the backstop unless extended by an NI referendum might get there
Good evening Nick - did you read Caroline Flints article in the guardian today
No, I didn't, but after your prompt I have now - thanks.
Temperamentally I agree with it - jaw-jaw is better than war-war in moments of crisis. But I don't think we can negotiate on the basis of the May deal being unchangeable (including the future political agreement, i.e. the customs union etc.). If TM is serious about negotiating she needs to agree that all options that avoid No Deal will be explored.
To be honest that is her aim and I do not expect her to allow no deal in the end.
But right now, and for the next several weeks, it is the only real outcome to concentrate EU minds
If TM resigns in May after she manages to get her deal through with some compromise from the EU / Ireland to pacify DUP and ERG what’s to stop the next Tory leader (probably a leaver) from falling out with EU over future trade deal and cancelling WA and going WTO until EU come to table with a worthwhile offer
I think it is quite possible but not while the WDA is in force as it is an international treaty
But surely we can repeal WA if we think EU have not acted in good faith?
We can withdraw from any international treaty at any time - assuming we follow our own procedures. We cannot, however, withdraw without expecting some sort of push back/consequences.
But, as any ful knows, the Monarch (and by extension the Consort) never apologise.
I just wonder how much money she is getting for this 'exclusive'
I am puzzled by this. Prince Philip was pulling out from a side road into a main road, along which this car was driving. Whatever faults there may have been on his side, isn't it also likely that the car on the main road was driving too fast, given that it hit the Prince's car so strongly that it overturned (reportedly several times)? It could just as easily have been that this care could have killed the Prince.
Not saying that I know. But it must be a possibility.
But, as any ful knows, the Monarch (and by extension the Consort) never apologise.
I just wonder how much money she is getting for this 'exclusive'
What’s your point? The sycophancy surrounding Phil the Greek has been fairly sickening this week. Anything that can burst that particular bubble is surely to be welcomed?
But, as any ful knows, the Monarch (and by extension the Consort) never apologise.
I just wonder how much money she is getting for this 'exclusive'
What’s your point? The sycophancy surrounding Phil the Greek has been fairly sickening this week. Anything that can burst that particular bubble is surely to be welcomed?
I honestly have zero idea who was at fault for the accident, as such I find the rush to blame him, or absolve him, utterly baffling.
Good evening Nick - did you read Caroline Flints article in the guardian today
No, I didn't, but after your prompt I have now - thanks.
Temperamentally I agree with it - jaw-jaw is better than war-war in moments of crisis. But I don't think we can negotiate on the basis of the May deal being unchangeable (including the future political agreement, i.e. the customs union etc.). If TM is serious about negotiating she needs to agree that all options that avoid No Deal will be explored.
I haven’t read her piece but your point about negotiation is spot on. I was speaking to a work friend, a client, last week. I said, “In what sort of negotiation do you go in point-blank refusing to give any ground?” Negotiation is about give and take. Some concession is almost always necessary to get a deal.
At the moment she can’t sell the deal to her principals. In a normal negotiation the EU would give ground
But, as any ful knows, the Monarch (and by extension the Consort) never apologise.
I just wonder how much money she is getting for this 'exclusive'
I am puzzled by this. Prince Philip was pulling out from a side road into a main road, along which this car was driving. Whatever faults there may have been on his side, isn't it also likely that the car on the main road was driving too fast, given that it hit the Prince's car so strongly that it overturned (reportedly several times)? It could just as easily have been that this care could have killed the Prince.
Not saying that I know. But it must be a possibility.
It's the responsibility of the person pulling onto the major road to ensure that it's safe to do so. The crash was his fault.
But, as any ful knows, the Monarch (and by extension the Consort) never apologise.
I just wonder how much money she is getting for this 'exclusive'
What’s your point? The sycophancy surrounding Phil the Greek has been fairly sickening this week. Anything that can burst that particular bubble is surely to be welcomed?
I honestly have zero idea who was at fault for the accident, as such I find the rush to blame him, or absolve him, utterly baffling.
Indeed. It’s impossible to know from the details that have been released.
Simply re-stating Labour policy really, that a second ref remains an option. Different emphasis from Corbyn, but that was also the case at Labour conference.
I haven’t yet seen all of Starmer speech to the Fabians, haven’t found it yet but in this age it must be on net somewhere. But of what I have seen, it’s unrepresentative headline to take from it, though predictable one for the media right now. Starmer speech and message actually v similar to the one Steve Bannon wrote for Bozzy Bear a few days ago.
Interesting the way post brexit battlefield is developing.
But, as any ful knows, the Monarch (and by extension the Consort) never apologise.
I just wonder how much money she is getting for this 'exclusive'
I am puzzled by this. Prince Philip was pulling out from a side road into a main road, along which this car was driving. Whatever faults there may have been on his side, isn't it also likely that the car on the main road was driving too fast, given that it hit the Prince's car so strongly that it overturned (reportedly several times)? It could just as easily have been that this care could have killed the Prince.
Not saying that I know. But it must be a possibility.
It's the responsibility of the person pulling onto the major road to ensure that it's safe to do so. The crash was his fault.
That’s true. But the woman in the Kia could also have been speeding. It’s not entirely clear. But, I’m glad we have moved on from the sycophancy surrounding Phil earlier this week.
But, as any ful knows, the Monarch (and by extension the Consort) never apologise.
I just wonder how much money she is getting for this 'exclusive'
What’s your point? The sycophancy surrounding Phil the Greek has been fairly sickening this week. Anything that can burst that particular bubble is surely to be welcomed?
I think it is fairly clear what my point is
People who are paid for their 'story' are not always reliable.
But, as any ful knows, the Monarch (and by extension the Consort) never apologise.
I just wonder how much money she is getting for this 'exclusive'
What’s your point? The sycophancy surrounding Phil the Greek has been fairly sickening this week. Anything that can burst that particular bubble is surely to be welcomed?
I think it is fairly clear what my point is
People who are paid for their 'story' are not always reliable.
I did notice when Grieve was on Newsnight in the week he seemed less sure of himself than usual.
When they kept trying to pin him down on stopping "No Deal" and Parliament forcing a second referendum he seemed to be coming out with a load waffle but little substance...
Even the 3% Labour leads with Opinium and Survation and Kantar, the best polls for Labour, still would see Corbyn well short of the 6 to 7% lead he needs for a Labour overall majority. If Corbyn did become PM therefore he would be reliant on the SNP which would likely result in permanent Customs Union and Single Market BINO for the UK while the Tories elected a No Dealer like Boris or Raab as Leader of the Opposition
...No deal isn't easily definable, let alone implementable...
On the contrary, it's very east to define. "To leave the European Union without a treaty signed and agreed by the UK Government and the European Council".
And if on the following day you sign a treaty to solve all the problems it creates, have you betrayed the will of the people?
The one thing that would betray the democratically expressed will of the people is not leaving the EU.
We're talking about 'no deal' as an explicit referendum option. When would a deal become a betrayal, given that we can't avoid dealing with the EU?
You keep trying to split this hair
“No deal” means leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement.
That’s all.
Of course are are likely to enter into other deals before and after. But those are narrower in scope.
Fundamentally what it means is no transition period, reducing the £39bn by 2 years of payments (initially it would be zero but I’m sure we’d agree to meet our liabilities), and no backstop.
Technically this may be true, but we all know that if the government then made a post-departure agreement with the rest of the EU that included payments to meet liabilities the No Deal voters would scream blue murder.
It's the same problem as Brexit: There's a narrow reading of the result that could be satisfied by a huge range of possible choices, but there are also a load of expectations that, should you fail to meet them, will make people who voted for it think they were robbed. Worse, these are partly set by the campaign for that option, and parliament has no control over what they'll say, and they're optimized to sound attractive, not be workable and practical.
The upshot is that there is no possible outcome that the people currently advocating No Deal won't consider a traitrous betrayal.
1) if a motion for an early general election is agreed either by at least two-thirds of the whole House or without division; or 2) if a motion of no confidence is passed and no alternative government is confirmed by the Commons within 14 days.
I don't think that 1) will apply, too many MPs will be regarded as 'traitors' in Leave areas to risk having an election. With regards to 2) The Government would have to agree to this - and then suppose the Remain-supporting MPs say that they can form a Government . . .
OT. For anyone with Netflix. 'Personal Shopper'. I'd avoided it at the cinema because Kristen Stewart is unwatchable particularly when she is starring but a friend prevailed on me. Set largely in Paris it's stylish and watchable and most extraordinary of all Kristen Stewart is a revelation.
But, as any ful knows, the Monarch (and by extension the Consort) never apologise.
I just wonder how much money she is getting for this 'exclusive'
I am puzzled by this. Prince Philip was pulling out from a side road into a main road, along which this car was driving. Whatever faults there may have been on his side, isn't it also likely that the car on the main road was driving too fast, given that it hit the Prince's car so strongly that it overturned (reportedly several times)? It could just as easily have been that this care could have killed the Prince.
Not saying that I know. But it must be a possibility.
It's the responsibility of the person pulling onto the major road to ensure that it's safe to do so. The crash was his fault.
You cannot know that without knowing all the circumstances. If the car on the main road was speeding - or accelerated - then there may have been contributory negligence. It takes some force to hit a car - and a Land Rover is a pretty strong car, much stronger and taller than a Kia - so hard that it overturns several times.
That is fleshing out more detail from JRM 's comments I reported from the mail this morning
I think he's starting to sniff out he might just be giving cover for the defeat of Brexit and is looking for a way out.
It's probably too little too late though. A combination of no backstop, no £39bn and May going is pretty unlikely, and I'm not sure he can could put all of the ERG back in its box even if he wanted to.
A ten year time limit on the backstop unless extended by an NI referendum might get there
I think that is an eminently sensible suggestion
Albeit one that the DUP will hate. (Although many DUP voters would take a different view.)
Comments
At least I think Paul had an excuse. Did he not tell the Romans he was on drugs?
“No deal” means leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement.
That’s all.
Of course are are likely to enter into other deals before and after. But those are narrower in scope.
Fundamentally what it means is no transition period, reducing the £39bn by 2 years of payments (initially it would be zero but I’m sure we’d agree to meet our liabilities), and no backstop.
The way it sounded on the news was he was almost pleading to make it so
Not saying that I know. But it must be a possibility.
But Quentin Letts beat me to it
“There she stood, dimpled and husky, a lemon puff made flesh, the reincarnation of Hattie Jacques.”
Especially if it’s going to annoy Brenda 😈
People who are paid for their 'story' are not always reliable.
Still not getting your point.
It's the same problem as Brexit: There's a narrow reading of the result that could be satisfied by a huge range of possible choices, but there are also a load of expectations that, should you fail to meet them, will make people who voted for it think they were robbed. Worse, these are partly set by the campaign for that option, and parliament has no control over what they'll say, and they're optimized to sound attractive, not be workable and practical.
The upshot is that there is no possible outcome that the people currently advocating No Deal won't consider a traitrous betrayal.
We haven't been an absolute monarch and people have had rights that restrict the monarchs freedom of action for nearly a thousand years now.
1) if a motion for an early general election is agreed either by at least two-thirds of the whole House or without division; or
2) if a motion of no confidence is passed and no alternative government is confirmed by the Commons within 14 days.
I don't think that 1) will apply, too many MPs will be regarded as 'traitors' in Leave areas to risk having an election. With regards to 2) The Government would have to agree to this - and then suppose the Remain-supporting MPs say that they can form a Government . . .
Albeit one that the DUP will hate. (Although many DUP voters would take a different view.)
Friends say he could exercise right to remain in Commons chair in face of threat to withhold peerage over alleged Brexit ‘bias’"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/19/john-bercow-remain-speaker-brexit-bias