Hilary Benn on Marr confirms he will shift to back EUref2 if the PM does not move to propose permanent Customs Union membership
Is that Labour's official position, or just one of several?
Of course it is not. Labour are saying all kinds of different things and ignoring the outright rejection of a referendum by a large number of labour mps in leave areas, as expressed by Caroline Flint and Lisa Nandy yesterday
Whilst not ideal at this late stage when we need a decision, being open to different ideas and reflecting different opinions is preferable to the governments approach, which is stuck on a policy that was defeated by the biggest majority ever and will not happen. If only the government showed an ounce of imagination, intelligence and flexibility.
Except labour are not open to an agreement that allows us to do our own trade deals and in the main want to keep us in the EU, but of course Corbyn does not want that and is content for no deal as long as he does not get the blame
Remember - Labour doesn’t have to actively support No Deal for No Deal to become reality. It can say it opposes No Deal, do nothing and watch No Deal happen.
perhaps if you read the case you might have a more clear picture of the reasons for her being found guilty.. who knows why the jury took so long.. it might have been 11-1 and the 12th needed a lot time to consider their verdict,.. we just don't know. and taking a long time to decide, does not give any indication as to whether it was open and shut or not.
You may well be right, though I think there must have been at least two doubters to prevent a majority verdict (but legal experts here may know more). Certainly skimming the case it didn't sound good. But in general in non-political cases I'd wait for the process to complete before calling the defendant a criminal, and I think that nearly everyone (including my party, who clearly want to move on) has a political axe to grind here.
Once the verdict has come in, she is no longer the defendant but a convicted criminal and I think it perfectly OK to call her that. It is an accurate description of the legal position, after all.
It is absurd to wait until the appeals process is over. This can often take some time and people have often served part of their sentence. To refuse to call them criminals at that stage is a bit silly.
She is entitled to wait and see what the sentence is before deciding whether to step down as an MP. Whether that is wise or honourable given that her party has disowned her is another matter.
Expecting wisdom and honour from MPs these days is probably too much to hope for.
And if her conviction is quashed?
Then she is no longer a criminal. As you well know.
Convictions can be quashed many years after conviction. See the Birmingham 6 for instance. Or Stefan Kiszko. It would have been perfectly accurate to call them convicted criminals in the period while they were in prison. And pretty silly to refuse to do so on the basis that an appeal in the future might quash the conviction.
If you want to be 100% accurate, say that the person is a criminal who is currently appealing against their conviction. But let’s not pretend that someone who has been convicted is the same as someone who hasn’t been. One is a criminal. The other isn’t.
I don't disagree with that but it is not really the question.
Hilary Benn on Marr confirms he will shift to back EUref2 if the PM does not move to propose permanent Customs Union membership
Is that Labour's official position, or just one of several?
Of course it is not. Labour are saying all kinds of different things and ignoring the outright rejection of a referendum by a large number of labour mps in leave areas, as expressed by Caroline Flint and Lisa Nandy yesterday
Whilst not ideal at this late stage when we need a decision, being open to different ideas and reflecting different opinions is preferable to the governments approach, which is stuck on a policy that was defeated by the biggest majority ever and will not happen. If only the government showed an ounce of imagination, intelligence and flexibility.
If the government had shown an ounce of imagination, intelligence or flexibility at any point since June 2016 we wouldn’t be where we are now.
Hilary Benn on Marr confirms he will shift to back EUref2 if the PM does not move to propose permanent Customs Union membership
....thereby adding to the split within Labour on calling a second referendum.
Starmer too said he would campaign to stay in the EU in any EUref2 too
Interesting that after a quiet couple of weeks he has popped up strongly again. I assume with COrbyn having played his part in the Labour fence sitting in appearing to be content with us leaving, Starmer had to pop up to counter that with his nods and winks to Remain.
In the next few weeks there will be votes on permanent Customs Union membership and permanent Single Market membership, if those are both defeated in the Commons I expect virtually the entire Labour Parliamentary Party to shift to back EUref2 bar a handful of No Deal Leavers like Hoey leaving Corbyn isolated, if he does not move the Labour Party will move for him and vote for EUref2 in any Commons vote
Why can they not just do all of those tomorrow for heaven's sake?
Hilary Benn on Marr confirms he will shift to back EUref2 if the PM does not move to propose permanent Customs Union membership
Is that Labour's official position, or just one of several?
Of course it is not. Labour are saying all kinds of different things and ignoring the outright rejection of a referendum by a large number of labour mps in leave areas, as expressed by Caroline Flint and Lisa Nandy yesterday
Flint and Nandy are ignoring settled party policy, 90% of members, and 2/3 of party supporters.
Not just Flint and Nandy but many more, indeed sufficient with conservative mps, to ensure a referendum has nowhere near enough mps to pass it, a position recently confirmed by Chuka Umunna
Indeed David Lammy is so alarmed by this he is actively saying labour could split
On a slightly different topic have our MPs found their displacement activities for the current week yet or are they all going to bore us stupid telling us what they oppose about Brexit/remain all over again?
On the face of it, this finishes off TM's latest wheeze. I thought it would be odd if Ireland, having benefited from EU solidarity throughout the talks, suddenly signed a bilateral deal undermining the EU position. I can see them agreeing to some sort political declaration promising that they'll work together to ensure the backstop isn't needed, or the like, but I can't see the DUP saying, "Oh, well, if Dublin gives us a non-binding promise, that's good enough for us".
{puts on Mandy Rice-Davies voice} would say that at this stage, wouldn’t they?
All EU, DUP, Dublin, Brexiteers will consider anything creative at this stage.
Let’s not be hasty with this idea... 😉
Given the idea has zero chance of seeing light of day, then definitely be hasty. Unless Theresa May actually wants to leave in chaos but doesn't want to admit to it just yet.
I think she doesn't want to, but her party won't let her do anything else, so she is winding down the clock so she doesn't have to admit it.
May doesn’t have the first clue what to do and is simply thrashing about for anything to give the appearance of doing something. It is pathetic. She will simply run down the clock in the hope that this forces others to vote for the deal. And if they don’t she will take us out with No Deal and with some pathetically inept preparations for it. And will claim that she is fulfilling some mandate for which she ought to get a pat on the back, despite having lost her majority, suffered the worst defeat on a government bill ever, and utterly failed to get her Cabinet and party behind her. The woman is an incompetent menace.
May's overwhelming priority - her only one really - is to ensure the end of Freedom of Movement for UK and EU citizens.
Corbyn wants a Labour government.
No Deal works for both. That's why we will end up there.
Eerily quiet day so far. Not that much in the papers. A sense of bewilderment and fatigue about.
Dan Hodges in the Mail quotes two Tories - one ERG, one Tory loyalist - who seem to be stockpiling and expecting civil unrest. One talks about “loading his shotgun” in readiness.
Maybe I don’t get out much, but in this part of the Midlands civil unrest seems a very long way from happening. The vast majority of people - Remain or Leave - have better things to do than smash things up, or kill and injure those whose politics they do not share.
Do I really need to stockpile? I don have a gun. Am I screwed? Do Fortnums do Brexit hampers?
A friend of mine was a FAC in Bosnia. His observation was that once society fell apart it didn't matter how well armed you were; what was more important was being part of a larger group. Anybody on their own or a single family got robbed, raped and killed pretty quickly by larger groups. Get friendly with your neighbours!
I am an AA member, does that help?
The alcoholics will be first up against the wall.
I love the idea of Alcoholics Anonymous Relay Plus. They get you home if you pass out at night and get you started in the morning.
If the Brexit rapists and murderers come knocking on my door, they’ll find one on of those stickers that says I don’t deal with unsolicited callers. Should do the trick.
On the face of it, this finishes off TM's latest wheeze. I thought it would be odd if Ireland, having benefited from EU solidarity throughout the talks, suddenly signed a bilateral deal undermining the EU position. I can see them agreeing to some sort political declaration promising that they'll work together to ensure the backstop isn't needed, or the like, but I can't see the DUP saying, "Oh, well, if Dublin gives us a non-binding promise, that's good enough for us".
{puts on Mandy Rice-Davies voice} would say that at this stage, wouldn’t they?
All EU, DUP, Dublin, Brexiteers will consider anything creative at this stage.
Let’s not be hasty with this idea... 😉
Given the idea has zero chance of seeing light of day, then definitely be hasty. Unless Theresa May actually wants to leave in chaos but doesn't want to admit to it just yet.
I think she doesn't want to, but her party won't let her do anything else, so she is winding down the clock so she doesn't have to admit it.
May doesn’t have the first clue what to do and is simply thrashing about for anything to give the appearance of doing something. It is pathetic. She will simply run down the clock in the hope that this forces others to vote for the deal. And if they don’t she will take us out with No Deal and with some pathetically inept preparations for it. And will claim that she is fulfilling some mandate for which she ought to get a pat on the back, despite having lost her majority, suffered the worst defeat on a government bill ever, and utterly failed to get her Cabinet and party behind her. The woman is an incompetent menace.
No Deal works for both. That's why we will end up there.
Not just them. No deal works politically for a great many parties, institutions and individuals. Ireland and the EU are seemingly looking forward to it despite their protests, the LDs would love it (if Remain could not be had), so would the SNP, and many more.
perhaps if you read the case you might have a more clear picture of the reasons for her being found guilty.. who knows why the jury took so long.. it might have been 11-1 and the 12th needed a lot time to consider their verdict,.. we just don't know. and taking a long time to decide, does not give any indication as to whether it was open and shut or not.
You may well be right, though I think there must have been at least two doubters to prevent a majority verdict (but legal experts here may know more). Certainly skimming the case it didn't sound good. But in general in non-political cases I'd wait for the process to complete before calling the defendant a criminal, and I think that nearly everyone (including my party, who clearly want to move on) has a political axe to grind here.
Once the verdict has come in, she is no longer the defendant but a convicted criminal and I think it perfectly OK to call her that. It is an accurate description of the legal position, after all.
It is absurd to wait until the appeals process is over. This can often take some time and people have often served part of their sentence. To refuse to call them criminals at that stage is a bit silly.
She is entitled to wait and see what the sentence is before deciding whether to step down as an MP. Whether that is wise or honourable given that her party has disowned her is another matter.
Expecting wisdom and honour from MPs these days is probably too much to hope for.
And if her conviction is quashed?
Then she is no longer a criminal. As you well know.
Convictions can be quashed many years after conviction. See the Birmingham 6 for instance. Or Stefan Kiszko. It would have been perfectly accurate to call them convicted criminals in the period while they were in prison. And pretty silly to refuse to do so on the basis that an appeal in the future might quash the conviction.
If you want to be 100% accurate, say that the person is a criminal who is currently appealing against their conviction. But let’s not pretend that someone who has been convicted is the same as someone who hasn’t been. One is a criminal. The other isn’t.
I don't disagree with that but it is not really the question. The question is whether she should be ejected from the HoC whilst her appeal is pending. Despite her being insufferably annoying and convicted at first instance I rather think not.
Ejected: no.
Consider her position: should she remain as an MP even if her sentence is less than 12 months? Yes. She should consider her position and, were I her, in all honour I would resign.
Yes, but they don't vote as a bloc and as directed.
Nor do non-white ethnic voters. There was an Ealing by-election a few years ago where the Tories put up someone with backing from majority ethnic community leaders. They lost massively - I was a canvasser and remember a voter saying "I'll vote for the party I prefer, not just because someone who shares my grandfather's background tells me to".
I think that this is less true for recent immigrants. If you or I moved to Pakistan and had the chance to vote three months after you arrived, I can well imagine taking advice from a well-established English-born resident. But it wears off after people have been here for a while.
Hilary Benn on Marr confirms he will shift to back EUref2 if the PM does not move to propose permanent Customs Union membership
Is that Labour's official position, or just one of several?
Of course it is not. Labour are saying all kinds of different things and ignoring the outright rejection of a referendum by a large number of labour mps in leave areas, as expressed by Caroline Flint and Lisa Nandy yesterday
Whilst not ideal at this late stage when we need a decision, being open to different ideas and reflecting different opinions is preferable to the governments approach, which is stuck on a policy that was defeated by the biggest majority ever and will not happen. If only the government showed an ounce of imagination, intelligence and flexibility.
If the government had shown an ounce of imagination, intelligence or flexibility at any point since June 2016 we wouldn’t be where we are now.
The Deal is a tour de force of technical detail, of meticulous drafting and consistency with people's red lines.
In hindsight a big show of bravado and politics might have been better. We'd have a less workable deal, but we'd have one.
perhaps if you read the case you might have a more clear picture of the reasons for her being found guilty.. who knows why the jury took so long.. it might have been 11-1 and the 12th needed a lot time to consider their verdict,.. we just don't know. and taking a long time to decide, does not give any indication as to whether it was open and shut or not.
You may well be right, though I think there must have been at least two doubters to prevent a majority verdict (but legal experts here may know more). Certainly skimming the case it didn't sound good. But in general in non-political cases I'd wait for the process to complete before calling the defendant a criminal, and I think that nearly everyone (including my party, who clearly want to move on) has a political axe to grind here.
Once the verdict has come in, she is no longer the defendant but a convicted criminal and I think it perfectly OK to call her that. It is an accurate description of the legal position, after all.
It is absurd to wait until the appeals process is over. This can often take some time and people have often served part of their sentence. To refuse to call them criminals at that stage is a bit silly.
She is entitled to wait and see what the sentence is before deciding whether to step down as an MP. Whether that is wise or honourable given that her party has disowned her is another matter.
Expecting wisdom and honour from MPs these days is probably too much to hope for.
And if her conviction is quashed?
Then she is no longer a criminal. As you well know.
Convictions can be quashed many years after conviction. See the Birmingham 6 for instance. Or Stefan Kiszko. It would have been perfectly accurate to call them convicted criminals in the period while they were in prison. And pretty silly to refuse to do so on the basis that an appeal in the future might quash the conviction.
If you want to be 100% accurate, say that the person is a criminal who is currently appealing against their conviction. But let’s not pretend that someone who has been convicted is the same as someone who hasn’t been. One is a criminal. The other isn’t.
I don't disagree with that but it is not really the question.
It was Dr Palmer's question.
Not really. He said: "The position will be odd, though, if she's forced out due to sentence and then wins her appeal." I agree.
Hilary Benn on Marr confirms he will shift to back EUref2 if the PM does not move to propose permanent Customs Union membership
Is that Labour's official position, or just one of several?
Of course it is not. Labour are saying all kinds of different things and ignoring the outright rejection of a referendum by a large number of labour mps in leave areas, as expressed by Caroline Flint and Lisa Nandy yesterday
Whilst not ideal at this late stage when we need a decision, being open to different ideas and reflecting different opinions is preferable to the governments approach, which is stuck on a policy that was defeated by the biggest majority ever and will not happen. If only the government showed an ounce of imagination, intelligence and flexibility.
If the government had shown an ounce of imagination, intelligence or flexibility at any point since June 2016 we wouldn’t be where we are now.
You are absolutely right. Trouble is we are here now and need to get out of it. Help!
perhaps if you read the case you might have a more clear picture of the reasons for her being found guilty.. who knows why the jury took so long.. it might have been 11-1 and the 12th needed a lot time to consider their verdict,.. we just don't know. and taking a long time to decide, does not give any indication as to whether it was open and shut or not.
You may well be right, though I think there must have been at least two doubters to prevent a majority verdict (but legal experts here may know more). Certainly skimming the case it didn't sound good. But in general in non-political cases I'd wait for the process to complete before calling the defendant a criminal, and I think that nearly everyone (including my party, who clearly want to move on) has a political axe to grind here.
Once the verdict has come in, she is no longer the defendant but a convicted criminal and I think it perfectly OK to call her that. It is an accurate description of the legal position, after all.
It is absurd to wait until the appeals process is over. This can often take some time and people have often served part of their sentence. To refuse to call them criminals at that stage is a bit silly.
She is entitled to wait and see what the sentence is before deciding whether to step down as an MP. Whether that is wise or honourable given that her party has disowned her is another matter.
Expecting wisdom and honour from MPs these days is probably too much to hope for.
And if her conviction is quashed?
Then she is no longer a criminal. As you well know.
Convictions can be quashed many years after conviction. See the Birmingham 6 for instance. Or Stefan Kiszko. It would have been perfectly accurate to call them convicted criminals in the period while they were in prison. And pretty silly to refuse to do so on the basis that an appeal in the future might quash the conviction.
If you want to be 100% accurate, say that the person is a criminal who is currently appealing against their conviction. But let’s not pretend that someone who has been convicted is the same as someone who hasn’t been. One is a criminal. The other isn’t.
I don't disagree with that but it is not really the question.
It was Dr Palmer's question.
Not really.
Yes, really "But in general in non-political cases I'd wait for the process to complete before calling the defendant a criminal"
non-political is mentioned, but the wider point of it being ok to call a criminal a criminal was there
Hilary Benn on Marr confirms he will shift to back EUref2 if the PM does not move to propose permanent Customs Union membership
Is that Labour's official position, or just one of several?
Of course it is not. Labour are saying all kinds of different things and ignoring the outright rejection of a referendum by a large number of labour mps in leave areas, as expressed by Caroline Flint and Lisa Nandy yesterday
Whilst not ideal at this late stage when we need a decision, being open to different ideas and reflecting different opinions is preferable to the governments approach, which is stuck on a policy that was defeated by the biggest majority ever and will not happen. If only the government showed an ounce of imagination, intelligence and flexibility.
Except labour are not open to an agreement that allows us to do our own trade deals and in the main want to keep us in the EU, but of course Corbyn does not want that and is content for no deal as long as he does not get the blame
Remember - Labour doesn’t have to actively support No Deal for No Deal to become reality. It can say it opposes No Deal, do nothing and watch No Deal happen.
Hilary Benn on Marr confirms he will shift to back EUref2 if the PM does not move to propose permanent Customs Union membership
....thereby adding to the split within Labour on calling a second referendum.
Starmer too said he would campaign to stay in the EU in any EUref2 too
Interesting that after a quiet couple of weeks he has popped up strongly again. I assume with COrbyn having played his part in the Labour fence sitting in appearing to be content with us leaving, Starmer had to pop up to counter that with his nods and winks to Remain.
In the next few weeks there will be votes on permanent Customs Union membership and permanent Single Market membership, if those are both defeated in the Commons I expect virtually the entire Labour Parliamentary Party to shift to back EUref2 bar a handful of No Deal Leavers like Hoey leaving Corbyn isolated, if he does not move the Labour Party will move for him and vote for EUref2 in any Commons vote
Why can they not just do all of those tomorrow for heaven's sake?
Absolutely. Tick tock. Its time to test the support for the possibilities by actual votes for or against, indicative or otherwise.
Yes, but they don't vote as a bloc and as directed.
Nor do non-white ethnic voters. There was an Ealing by-election a few years ago where the Tories put up someone with backing from majority ethnic community leaders. They lost massively - I was a canvasser and remember a voter saying "I'll vote for the party I prefer, not just because someone who shares my grandfather's background tells me to".
I think that this is less true for recent immigrants. If you or I moved to Pakistan and had the chance to vote three months after you arrived, I can well imagine taking advice from a well-established English-born resident. But it wears off after people have been here for a while.
Generally that may be true. But not always and not everywhere. If you haven’t, it’s worth reading the full judgment in the Tower Hamlets Lutfur Rahman case where exactly that sort of bloc vote was happening, not least because there were people who had lived here for 30 years and barely spoke English, and it was being abused. What was revealed in that case was quite shocking. Can we be confident that such behaviour is not still happening?
Once the verdict has come in, she is no longer the defendant but a convicted criminal and I think it perfectly OK to call her that. It is an accurate description of the legal position, after all.
It is absurd to wait until the appeals process is over. This can often take some time and people have often served part of their sentence. To refuse to call them criminals at that stage is a bit silly.
She is entitled to wait and see what the sentence is before deciding whether to step down as an MP. Whether that is wise or honourable given that her party has disowned her is another matter.
Expecting wisdom and honour from MPs these days is probably too much to hope for.
And if her conviction is quashed?
Then she is no longer a criminal. As you well know.
Convictions can be quashed many years after conviction. See the Birmingham 6 for instance. Or Stefan Kiszko. It would have been perfectly accurate to call them convicted criminals in the period while they were in prison. And pretty silly to refuse to do so on the basis that an appeal in the future might quash the conviction.
If you want to be 100% accurate, say that the person is a criminal who is currently appealing against their conviction. But let’s not pretend that someone who has been convicted is the same as someone who hasn’t been. One is a criminal. The other isn’t.
I don't disagree with that but it is not really the question. The question is whether she should be ejected from the HoC whilst her appeal is pending. Despite her being insufferably annoying and convicted at first instance I rather think not.
Ejected: no.
Consider her position: should she remain as an MP even if her sentence is less than 12 months? Yes. She should consider her position and, were I her, in all honour I would resign.
Of course you would and so would any honourable person. But does she have a choice in the matter? I think she does. And as future employment, whether as an MP or a solicitor, is looking highly problematic at the moment, she may well be tempted to hang on.
Well have fun today debating Brexit. Off to do something more productive like filling the bathtub with jam. If you do manage to crack it, which would be nice, could someone write a thread article so it’s easier to spot.
On the face of it, this finishes off TM's latest wheeze. I thought it would be odd if Ireland, having benefited from EU solidarity throughout the talks, suddenly signed a bilateral deal undermining the EU position. I can see them agreeing to some sort political declaration promising that they'll work together to ensure the backstop isn't needed, or the like, but I can't see the DUP saying, "Oh, well, if Dublin gives us a non-binding promise, that's good enough for us".
{puts on Mandy Rice-Davies voice} would say that at this stage, wouldn’t they?
All EU, DUP, Dublin, Brexiteers will consider anything creative at this stage.
Let’s not be hasty with this idea... 😉
Given the idea has zero chance of seeing light of day, then definitely be hasty. Unless Theresa May actually wants to leave in chaos but doesn't want to admit to it just yet.
I think she doesn't want to, but her party won't let her do anything else, so she is winding down the clock so she doesn't have to admit it.
May doesn’t have the first clue what to do and is simply thrashing about for anything to give the appearance of doing something. It is pathetic. She will simply run down the clock in the hope that this forces others to vote for the deal. And if they don’t she will take us out with No Deal and with some pathetically inept preparations for it. And will claim that she is fulfilling some mandate for which she ought to get a pat on the back, despite having lost her majority, suffered the worst defeat on a government bill ever, and utterly failed to get her Cabinet and party behind her. The woman is an incompetent menace.
No Deal works for both. That's why we will end up there.
Not just them. No deal works politically for a great many parties, institutions and individuals. Ireland and the EU are seemingly looking forward to it despite their protests, the LDs would love it (if Remain could not be had), so would the SNP, and many more.
The Irish and the EU believe - probably correctly - that contact with No Deal will leave the UK in an even weaker position than it is now. A No Deal Brexit does not end the need for a deal - not least because no other country will consider any kind of major engagement with us until our relationship with the EU is sorted out.
The idea the UK and Ireland could do a bi-lateral deal on the backstop is unbelievable. I hope TM does not talk of that tomorrow and invite incredulity
Once the verdict has come in, she is no longer the defendant but a convicted criminal and I think it perfectly OK to call her that. It is an accurate description of the legal position, after all.
It is absurd to wait until the appeals process is over. This can often take some time and people have often served part of their sentence. To refuse to call them criminals at that stage is a bit silly.
She is entitled to wait and see what the sentence is before deciding whether to step down as an MP. Whether that is wise or honourable given that her party has disowned her is another matter.
Expecting wisdom and honour from MPs these days is probably too much to hope for.
And if her conviction is quashed?
Then she is no longer a criminal. As you well know.
Convictions can be quashed many years after conviction. See the Birmingham 6 for instance. Or Stefan Kiszko. It would have been perfectly accurate to call them convicted criminals in the period while they were in prison. And pretty silly to refuse to do so on the basis that an appeal in the future might quash the conviction.
If you want to be 100% accurate, say that the person is a criminal who is currently appealing against their conviction. But let’s not pretend that someone who has been convicted is the same as someone who hasn’t been. One is a criminal. The other isn’t.
I don't disagree with that but it is not really the question. The question is whether she should be ejected from the HoC whilst her appeal is pending. Despite her being insufferably annoying and convicted at first instance I rather think not.
Ejected: no.
Consider her position: should she remain as an MP even if her sentence is less than 12 months? Yes. She should consider her position and, were I her, in all honour I would resign.
Of course you would and so would any honourable person. But does she have a choice in the matter? I think she does. And as future employment, whether as an MP or a solicitor, is looking highly problematic at the moment, she may well be tempted to hang on.
If she gets an 11 month sentence would she be allowed to give her brother a job whilst serving it? That would certainly help the family finances.
Once the verdict has come in, she is no longer the defendant but a convicted criminal and I think it perfectly OK to call her that. It is an accurate description of the legal position, after all.
It is absurd to wait until the appeals process is over. This can often take some time and people have often served part of their sentence. To refuse to call them criminals at that stage is a bit silly.
She is entitled to wait and see what the sentence is before deciding whether to step down as an MP. Whether that is wise or honourable given that her party has disowned her is another matter.
Expecting wisdom and honour from MPs these days is probably too much to hope for.
And if her conviction is quashed?
Then she is no longer a criminal. As you well know.
Convictions can be quashed many years after conviction. See the Birmingham 6 for instance. Or Stefan Kiszko. It would have been perfectly accurate to call them convicted criminals in the period while they were in prison. And pretty silly to refuse to do so on the basis that an appeal in the future might quash the conviction.
If you want to be 100% accurate, say that the person is a criminal who is currently appealing against their conviction. But let’s not pretend that someone who has been convicted is the same as someone who hasn’t been. One is a criminal. The other isn’t.
I don't disagree with that but it is not really the question. The question is whether she should be ejected from the HoC whilst her appeal is pending. Despite her being insufferably annoying and convicted at first instance I rather think not.
Ejected: no.
Consider her position: should she remain as an MP even if her sentence is less than 12 months? Yes. She should consider her position and, were I her, in all honour I would resign.
Of course you would and so would any honourable person. But does she have a choice in the matter? I think she does. And as future employment, whether as an MP or a solicitor, is looking highly problematic at the moment, she may well be tempted to hang on.
She would make herself more employable if she resigned, honourably, admitted her mistakes, learnt from them than hanging on by her fingerprints. People do make stupid, even criminal, mistakes. It’s what you learn from your mistakes, how you respond that is the measure of you, that can earn you some small credit. Her initial reactions on that score are not encouraging, I have to say.
Once the verdict has come in, she is no longer the defendant but a convicted criminal and I think it perfectly OK to call her that. It is an accurate description of the legal position, after all.
It is absurd to wait until the appeals process is over. This can often take some time and people have often served part of their sentence. To refuse to call them criminals at that stage is a bit silly.
She is entitled to wait and see what the sentence is before deciding whether to step down as an MP. Whether that is wise or honourable given that her party has disowned her is another matter.
Expecting wisdom and honour from MPs these days is probably too much to hope for.
And if her conviction is quashed?
Then she is no longer a criminal. As you well know.
Convictions can be quashed many years after conviction. See the Birmingham 6 for instance. Or Stefan Kiszko. It would have been perfectly accurate to call them convicted criminals in the period while they were in prison. And pretty silly to refuse to do so on the basis that an appeal in the future might quash the conviction.
If you want to be 100% accurate, say that the person is a criminal who is currently appealing against their conviction. But let’s not pretend that someone who has been convicted is the same as someone who hasn’t been. One is a criminal. The other isn’t.
I don't disagree with that but it is not really the question. The question is whether she should be ejected from the HoC whilst her appeal is pending. Despite her being insufferably annoying and convicted at first instance I rather think not.
Ejected: no.
Consider her position: should she remain as an MP even if her sentence is less than 12 months? Yes. She should consider her position and, were I her, in all honour I would resign.
Of course you would and so would any honourable person. But does she have a choice in the matter? I think she does. And as future employment, whether as an MP or a solicitor, is looking highly problematic at the moment, she may well be tempted to hang on.
If she gets an 11 month sentence would she be allowed to give her brother a job whilst serving it? That would certainly help the family finances.
We are so screwed. Parliament has asked the government to compromise. Instead of compromising itself, the government has interpreted that request as demanding others (the EU) compromise. The governments deaf ear and leaden feet are stil there. In short despite the biggest defeat ever, nothing has changed.
It's not as illogical as it sounds. Parliament has told May that it will not pass the deal, so she is telling the EU that. She cannot concede anything further to the EU as parliament won't approve that either. What exactly is she supposed to do? She told them before she could offer no more and she wasn't bluffing.
This is why she has to bend on a referendum, because the EU won't reopen things, but parliament won't pass anything unless they are reopened.
She doesn't have to bend on anything. A referendum (of God-knows-what formulation) does not deliver Brexit by 29th March. The May Deal and No Deal both do.
She is the Prime Minister - and will take the consequences of which ever of these two outcomes we arrive at. No deal is not her preferred choice; but it delivers. She's losing her job soon anyway.
It's what happens when you give the biggest deal your company has ever landed to the board director working their notice. For incompetence.
Hilary Benn on Marr confirms he will shift to back EUref2 if the PM does not move to propose permanent Customs Union membership
Is that Labour's official position, or just one of several?
Of course it is not. Labour are saying all kinds of different things and ignoring the outright rejection of a referendum by a large number of labour mps in leave areas, as expressed by Caroline Flint and Lisa Nandy yesterday
Whilst not ideal at this late stage when we need a decision, being open to different ideas and reflecting different opinions is preferable to the governments approach, which is stuck on a policy that was defeated by the biggest majority ever and will not happen. If only the government showed an ounce of imagination, intelligence and flexibility.
If the government had shown an ounce of imagination, intelligence or flexibility at any point since June 2016 we wouldn’t be where we are now.
You are absolutely right. Trouble is we are here now and need to get out of it. Help!
Maybe we could ask our European neighbours to help us out. They seem to know what they’re about and quite effective and united and competent.
Yes, but they don't vote as a bloc and as directed.
Nor do non-white ethnic voters. There was an Ealing by-election a few years ago where the Tories put up someone with backing from majority ethnic community leaders. They lost massively - I was a canvasser and remember a voter saying "I'll vote for the party I prefer, not just because someone who shares my grandfather's background tells me to".
I think that this is less true for recent immigrants. If you or I moved to Pakistan and had the chance to vote three months after you arrived, I can well imagine taking advice from a well-established English-born resident. But it wears off after people have been here for a while.
Generally that may be true. But not always and not everywhere. If you haven’t, it’s worth reading the full judgment in the Tower Hamlets Lutfur Rahman case where exactly that sort of bloc vote was happening, not least because there were people who had lived here for 30 years and barely spoke English, and it was being abused. What was revealed in that case was quite shocking. Can we be confident that such behaviour is not still happening?
What was it Ed Milliband told the Sikh on the train? - who just so happened to be a tory councillor.
Then she is no longer a criminal. As you well know.
Convictions can be quashed many years after conviction. See the Birmingham 6 for instance. Or Stefan Kiszko. It would have been perfectly accurate to call them convicted criminals in the period while they were in prison. And pretty silly to refuse to do so on the basis that an appeal in the future might quash the conviction.
If you want to be 100% accurate, say that the person is a criminal who is currently appealing against their conviction. But let’s not pretend that someone who has been convicted is the same as someone who hasn’t been. One is a criminal. The other isn’t.
I don't disagree with that but it is not really the question. The question is whether she should be ejected from the HoC whilst her appeal is pending. Despite her being insufferably annoying and convicted at first instance I rather think not.
Ejected: no.
Consider her position: should she remain as an MP even if her sentence is less than 12 months? Yes. She should consider her position and, were I her, in all honour I would resign.
Of course you would and so would any honourable person. But does she have a choice in the matter? I think she does. And as future employment, whether as an MP or a solicitor, is looking highly problematic at the moment, she may well be tempted to hang on.
She would make herself more employable if she resigned, honourably, admitted her mistakes, learnt from them than hanging on by her fingerprints. People do make stupid, even criminal, mistakes. It’s what you learn from your mistakes, how you respond that is the measure of you, that can earn you some small credit. Her initial reactions on that score are not encouraging, I have to say.
If her conviction is confirmed she will be struck off. It's hard to have much sympathy in the circumstances but she will find new employment difficult.
Hilary Benn on Marr confirms he will shift to back EUref2 if the PM does not move to propose permanent Customs Union membership
Is that Labour's official position, or just one of several?
Of course it is not. Labour are saying all kinds of different things and ignoring the outright rejection of a referendum by a large number of labour mps in leave areas, as expressed by Caroline Flint and Lisa Nandy yesterday
Whilst not ideal at this late stage when we need a decision, being open to different ideas and reflecting different opinions is preferable to the governments approach, which is stuck on a policy that was defeated by the biggest majority ever and will not happen. If only the government showed an ounce of imagination, intelligence and flexibility.
Except labour are not open to an agreement that allows us to do our own trade deals and in the main want to keep us in the EU, but of course Corbyn does not want that and is content for no deal as long as he does not get the blame
Remember - Labour doesn’t have to actively support No Deal for No Deal to become reality. It can say it opposes No Deal, do nothing and watch No Deal happen.
On the face of it, this finishes off TM's latest wheeze. I thought it would be odd if Ireland, having benefited from EU solidarity throughout the talks, suddenly signed a bilateral deal undermining the EU position. I can see them agreeing to some sort political declaration promising that they'll work together to ensure the backstop isn't needed, or the like, but I can't see the DUP saying, "Oh, well, if Dublin gives us a non-binding promise, that's good enough for us".
{puts on Mandy Rice-Davies voice} would say that at this stage, wouldn’t they?
All EU, DUP, Dublin, Brexiteers will consider anything creative at this stage.
Let’s not be hasty with this idea... 😉
Given the idea has zero chance of seeing light of day, then definitely be hasty. Unless Theresa May actually wants to leave in chaos but doesn't want to admit to it just yet.
I think she doesn't want to, but her party won't let her do anything else, so she is winding down the clock so she doesn't have to admit it.
May doesn’t have the first clue what to do and is simply thrashing about for anything to give the appearance of doing something. It is pathetic. She will simply run down the clock in the hope that this forces others to vote for the deal. And if they don’t she will take us out with No Deal and with some pathetically inept preparations for it. And will claim that she is fulfilling some mandate for which she ought to get a pat on the back, despite having lost her majority, suffered the worst defeat on a government bill ever, and utterly failed to get her Cabinet and party behind her. The woman is an incompetent menace.
No Deal works for both. That's why we will end up there.
Not just them. No deal works politically for a great many parties, institutions and individuals. Ireland and the EU are seemingly looking forward to it despite their protests, the LDs would love it (if Remain could not be had), so would the SNP, and many more.
The Irish and the EU believe - probably correctly - that contact with No Deal will leave the UK in an even weaker position than it is now.
I know they do, and I think they are right about that, but given they claim to want a deal, and no deal (even with some level of relationship afterward) hits them too if less than it does us, they could have less obviously have thrown their lot in with the remain or nothing brigade.
Yes, but they don't vote as a bloc and as directed.
Nor do non-white ethnic voters. There was an Ealing by-election a few years ago where the Tories put up someone with backing from majority ethnic community leaders. They lost massively - I was a canvasser and remember a voter saying "I'll vote for the party I prefer, not just because someone who shares my grandfather's background tells me to".
I think that this is less true for recent immigrants. If you or I moved to Pakistan and had the chance to vote three months after you arrived, I can well imagine taking advice from a well-established English-born resident. But it wears off after people have been here for a while.
Hi Nick,
The situation in Ealing Southall is more complicated. There are multiple caste - based Gurdwara, each with their own block of voters. When a Labour hopeful wasn't selected as candidate for the parliamentary by election he defected to the Tories and took his Gurdwara with him.
Also look at the voting in the 2010 Labour leadership election - the lead for David Miliband in the constituency was out of line with the norm - the result of block voting.
On the face of it, this finishes off TM's latest wheeze. I thought it would be odd if Ireland, having benefited from EU solidarity throughout the talks, suddenly signed a bilateral deal undermining the EU position. I can see them agreeing to some sort political declaration promising that they'll work together to ensure the backstop isn't needed, or the like, but I can't see the DUP saying, "Oh, well, if Dublin gives us a non-binding promise, that's good enough for us".
{puts on Mandy Rice-Davies voice} would say that at this stage, wouldn’t they?
All EU, DUP, Dublin, Brexiteers will consider anything creative at this stage.
Let’s not be hasty with this idea... 😉
Given the idea has zero chance of seeing light of day, then definitely be hasty. Unless Theresa May actually wants to leave in chaos but doesn't want to admit to it just yet.
I think she doesn't want to, but her party won't let her do anything else, so she is winding down the clock so she doesn't have to admit it.
May menace.
No Deal works for both. That's why we will end up there.
Not just them. No deal works politically for a great many parties, institutions and individuals. Ireland and the EU are seemingly looking forward to it despite their protests, the LDs would love it (if Remain could not be had), so would the SNP, and many more.
The Irish and the EU believe - probably correctly - that contact with No Deal will leave the UK in an even weaker position than it is now.
I know they do, and I think they are right about that, but given they claim to want a deal, and no deal (even with some level of relationship afterward) hits them too if less than it does us, they could have less obviously have thrown their lot in with the remain or nothing brigade.
We are so screwed. Parliament has asked the government to compromise. Instead of compromising itself, the government has interpreted that request as demanding others (the EU) compromise. The governments deaf ear and leaden feet are stil there. In short despite the biggest defeat ever, nothing has changed.
It's not as illogical as it sounds. Parliament has told May that it will not pass the deal, so she is telling the EU that. She cannot concede anything further to the EU as parliament won't approve that either. What exactly is she supposed to do? She told them before she could offer no more and she wasn't bluffing.
This is why she has to bend on a referendum, because the EU won't reopen things, but parliament won't pass anything unless they are reopened.
She doesn't have to bend on anything. A referendum (of God-knows-what formulation) does not deliver Brexit by 29th March. The May Deal and No Deal both do.
She is the Prime Minister - and will take the consequences of which ever of these two outcomes we arrive at. No deal is not her preferred choice; but it delivers. She's losing her job soon anyway.
It's what happens when you give the biggest deal your company has ever landed to the board director working their notice. For incompetence.
I was really surprised in the ComRes poll today the opposition to a referendum and remaining in the EU and how 38% support no deal with only 36% opposed
I think the idea we keep the £39 billion and walk away chimes with many and they either could not care less about the consequences or more likely have no idea of the consequences
For this reason no deal will just lie there waiting for the paralysis to see it happen by default, sadly
Hilary Benn on Marr confirms he will shift to back EUref2 if the PM does not move to propose permanent Customs Union membership
....thereby adding to the split within Labour on calling a second referendum.
Starmer too said he would campaign to stay in the EU in any EUref2 too
Interesting that after a quiet couple of weeks he has popped up strongly again. I assume with COrbyn having played his part in the Labour fence sitting in appearing to be content with us leaving, Starmer had to pop up to counter that with his nods and winks to Remain.
In the next few weeks there will be votes on permanent Customs Union membership and permanent Single Market membership, if those are both defeated in the Commons I expect virtually the entire Labour Parliamentary Party to shift to back EUref2 bar a handful of No Deal Leavers like Hoey leaving Corbyn isolated, if he does not move the Labour Party will move for him and vote for EUref2 in any Commons vote
Why can they not just do all of those tomorrow for heaven's sake?
Next week they are voting on Cooper and Grieve's proposal to force May to extend Article 50 if a Deal has not been agreed by mid February, first things first
Is it just me, or is this the day May started winning?
The bi lateral Ireland treaty seems to be inspired solution to backstop, DUP and brexiteers on board...
Others have said upthread that Ireland's membership of the Customs Union renders this impossible. I don't know if that's true or false but if it is true then no: it's just another fuckup by a Government that does not know enough about the world to construct a plan that works.
On the face of it, this finishes off TM's latest wheeze. I thought it would be odd if Ireland, having benefited from EU solidarity throughout the talks, suddenly signed a bilateral deal undermining the EU position. I can see them agreeing to some sort political declaration promising that they'll work together to ensure the backstop isn't needed, or the like, but I can't see the DUP saying, "Oh, well, if Dublin gives us a non-binding promise, that's good enough for us".
{puts on Mandy Rice-Davies voice} would say that at this stage, wouldn’t they?
All EU, DUP, Dublin, Brexiteers will consider anything creative at this stage.
Let’s not be hasty with this idea... 😉
Given the idea has zero chance of seeing light of day, then definitely be hasty. Unless Theresa May actually wants to leave in chaos but doesn't want to admit to it just yet.
I think she doesn't want to, but her party won't let her do anything else, so she is winding down the clock so she doesn't have to admit it.
May menace.
No Deal works for both. That's why we will end up there.
Not just them. No deal works politically for a great many parties, institutions and individuals. Ireland and the EU are seemingly looking forward to it despite their protests, the LDs would love it (if Remain could not be had), so would the SNP, and many more.
The Irish and the EU believe - probably correctly - that contact with No Deal will leave the UK in an even weaker position than it is now.
I know they do, and I think they are right about that, but given they claim to want a deal, and no deal (even with some level of relationship afterward) hits them too if less than it does us, they could have less obviously have thrown their lot in with the remain or nothing brigade.
They have a deal agreed with the UK government.
Yes, but they know now that it will not ever be agreed. They have chosen to make no further moves on their red lines. That may be reasonable, but it is their choice since they have considerably more flexibility than May does, and by refusing to do so they are knowingly making more likely that which they claim to want to avoid.
Like so many others, the EU are another who falsely claim not to want no deal.
Well have fun today debating Brexit. Off to do something more productive like filling the bathtub with jam. If you do manage to crack it, which would be nice, could someone write a thread article so it’s easier to spot.
Yes, but they don't vote as a bloc and as directed.
Nor do non-white ethnic voters. There was an Ealing by-election a few years ago where the Tories put up someone with backing from majority ethnic community leaders. They lost massively - I was a canvasser and remember a voter saying "I'll vote for the party I prefer, not just because someone who shares my grandfather's background tells me to".
I think that this is less true for recent immigrants. If you or I moved to Pakistan and had the chance to vote three months after you arrived, I can well imagine taking advice from a well-established English-born resident. But it wears off after people have been here for a while.
That depends, in Bradford West in 1997 the Tories got an astonishing 6.25% swing from Labour against a 10% national swing from the Tories to Labour due to Labour fielding a Sikh candidate, Marsha Singh while the Tory candidate, Mohammed Riaz, was Muslim like 37% of Bradford West voters
Well have fun today debating Brexit. Off to do something more productive like filling the bathtub with jam. If you do manage to crack it, which would be nice, could someone write a thread article so it’s easier to spot.
We are so screwed. Parliament has asked the government to compromise. Instead of compromising itself, the government has interpreted that request as demanding others (the EU) compromise. The governments deaf ear and leaden feet are stil there. In short despite the biggest defeat ever, nothing has changed.
It's not as illogical as it sounds. Parliament has told May that it will not pass the deal, so she is telling the EU that. She cannot concede anything further to the EU as parliament won't approve that either. What exactly is she supposed to do? She told them before she could offer no more and she wasn't bluffing.
This is why she has to bend on a referendum, because the EU won't reopen things, but parliament won't pass anything unless they are reopened.
She doesn't have to bend on anything. A referendum (of God-knows-what formulation) does not deliver Brexit by 29th March. The May Deal and No Deal both do.
She is the Prime Minister - and will take the consequences of which ever of these two outcomes we arrive at. No deal is not her preferred choice; but it delivers. She's losing her job soon anyway.
It's what happens when you give the biggest deal your company has ever landed to the board director working their notice. For incompetence.
I was really surprised in the ComRes poll today the opposition to a referendum and remaining in the EU and how 38% support no deal with only 36% opposed
I think the idea we keep the £39 billion and walk away chimes with many and they either could not care less about the consequences or more likely have no idea of the consequences
For this reason no deal will just lie there waiting for the paralysis to see it happen by default, sadly
G , they certainly seem stupid enough and pig headed enough to cut off their noses to spite their faces.
On the face of it, this finishes off TM's latest wheeze. I thought it would be odd if Ireland, having benefited from EU solidarity throughout the talks, suddenly signed a bilateral deal undermining the EU position. I can see them agreeing to some sort political declaration promising that they'll work together to ensure the backstop isn't needed, or the like, but I can't see the DUP saying, "Oh, well, if Dublin gives us a non-binding promise, that's good enough for us".
{puts on Mandy Rice-Davies voice} would say that at this stage, wouldn’t they?
All EU, DUP, Dublin, Brexiteers will consider anything creative at this stage.
Let’s not be hasty with this idea... 😉
Given the idea has zero chance of seeing light of day, then definitely be hasty. Unless Theresa May actually wants to leave in chaos but doesn't want to admit to it just yet.
I think she doesn't want to, but her party won't let her do anything else, so she is winding down the clock so she doesn't have to admit it.
A
No Deal works for both. That's why we will end up there.
Not just them. No deal works politically for a great many parties, institutions and individuals. Ireland and the EU are seemingly looking forward to it despite their protests, the LDs would love it (if Remain could not be had), so would the SNP, and many more.
The Irish and the EU believe - probably correctly - that contact with No Deal will leave the UK in an even weaker position than it is now.
I know they do, and I think they are right about that, but given they claim to want a deal, and no deal (even with some level of relationship afterward) hits them too if less than it does us, they could have less obviously have thrown their lot in with the remain or nothing brigade.
I don't think they have. The EU agreed the deal while the UK has so far rejected it. If we don't want No Deal nor THE Deal, by process of elimination we get to stay after all. The EU will be happy if we turn round and say we'll take the deal after all.
I don't disagree with that but it is not really the question. The question is whether she should be ejected from the HoC whilst her appeal is pending. Despite her being insufferably annoying and convicted at first instance I rather think not.
Ejected: no.
Consider her position: should she remain as an MP even if her sentence is less than 12 months? Yes. She should consider her position and, were I her, in all honour I would resign.
Of course you would and so would any honourable person. But does she have a choice in the matter? I think she does. And as future employment, whether as an MP or a solicitor, is looking highly problematic at the moment, she may well be tempted to hang on.
She would make herself more employable if she resigned, honourably, admitted her mistakes, learnt from them than hanging on by her fingerprints. People do make stupid, even criminal, mistakes. It’s what you learn from your mistakes, how you respond that is the measure of you, that can earn you some small credit. Her initial reactions on that score are not encouraging, I have to say.
If her conviction is confirmed she will be struck off. It's hard to have much sympathy in the circumstances but she will find new employment difficult.
There are quite enough third and second-rate lawyers around. She will have to try something else.
Bizarrely, the US is more forgiving. There was a general counsel in a major global bank a few years ago who was found to have done some insider dealing, had to pay a humungous fine, was disbarred for 5 years and then ended up years later as a partner in another law firm.
Or take the former CEO of a major bank here, one heavily involved in every scandal going, who was appointed to be in charge of an exchange, which has supervisory/regulatory functions, and has had to resign and been fined for insider dealing in the shares of his exchange. He is still chairman of an authorised investment firm in the UK.
Quite why the authorities thought such a man was fit to be in such a position is one of life’s mysteries. But bear this story in mind when you hear the authorities say that the City has been cleaned up, new procedures, blah, blah.....
We are so screwed. Parliament has asked the government to compromise. Instead of compromising itself, the government has interpreted that request as demanding others (the EU) compromise. The governments deaf ear and leaden feet are stil there. In short despite the biggest defeat ever, nothing has changed.
It's not as illogical as it sounds. Parliament has told May that it will not pass the deal, so she is telling the EU that. She cannot concede anything further to the EU as parliament won't approve that either. What exactly is she supposed to do? She told them before she could offer no more and she wasn't bluffing.
This is why she has to bend on a referendum, because the EU won't reopen things, but parliament won't pass anything unless they are reopened.
She doesn't have to bend on anything. A referendum (of God-knows-what formulation) does not deliver Brexit by 29th March. The May Deal and No Deal both do.
She is the Prime Minister - and will take the consequences of which ever of these two outcomes we arrive at. No deal is not her preferred choice; but it delivers. She's losing her job soon anyway.
It's what happens when you give the biggest deal your company has ever landed to the board director working their notice. For incompetence.
I was really surprised in the ComRes poll today the opposition to a referendum and remaining in the EU and how 38% support no deal with only 36% opposed
I think the idea we keep the £39 billion and walk away chimes with many and they either could not care less about the consequences or more likely have no idea of the consequences
For this reason no deal will just lie there waiting for the paralysis to see it happen by default, sadly
Too many see no deal as no change, sadly. There was an article in the Guardian comparing it to selling a car. If you don't get the right deal you walk away. And keep your car. This is many people's idea of a negotiation. It is an idea being encouraged by several news outlets and politicians.
"Imagine it is 28th March. The UK has managed to negotiate no variation to the May Deal - but confirm it is still on the table.
The Prime Minister will not revoke Article 50.
The EU will not extend the deadline.
Tomorrow we No Deal Brexit.
Do you want another vote today on May's Deal to prevent that?"
If you want my honest opinion it goes like this:
1) That might actually happen 2) The vote may actually be held 3) "Deal" would still lose, because the objections to it are atavistic and psychological, not economic
There is a subset of Leavers who genuinely hate the EU and will not contemplate any arrangement with it. There are enough of them to fuck things up. Combined with Jeremy's desire to invoke "No Deal" and blame the Conservatives for the damage, the "Deal" will lose again.
We are so screwed. Parliament has asked the government to compromise. Instead of compromising itself, the government has interpreted that request as demanding others (the EU) compromise. The governments deaf ear and leaden feet are stil there. In short despite the biggest defeat ever, nothing has changed.
It's not as illogical as it sounds. Parliament has told May that it will not pass the deal, so she is telling the EU that. She cannot concede anything further to the EU as parliament won't approve that either. What exactly is she supposed to do? She told them before she could offer no more and she wasn't bluffing.
This is why she has to bend on a referendum, because the EU won't reopen things, but parliament won't pass anything unless they are reopened.
She doesn't have to bend on anything. A referendum (of God-knows-what formulation) does not deliver Brexit by 29th March. The May Deal and No Deal both do.
She is the Prime Minister - and will take the consequences of which ever of these two outcomes we arrive at. No deal is not her preferred choice; but it delivers. She's losing her job soon anyway.
It's what happens when you give the biggest deal your company has ever landed to the board director working their notice. For incompetence.
I was really surprised in the ComRes poll today the opposition to a referendum and remaining in the EU and how 38% support no deal with only 36% opposed
I think the idea we keep the £39 billion and walk away chimes with many and they either could not care less about the consequences or more likely have no idea of the consequences
For this reason no deal will just lie there waiting for the paralysis to see it happen by default, sadly
Leave got 52%, it cannot win with 38%.
The same Comres poll had it 54% Remain 46% Leave overall, so Leave loses 8% of its committed vote with No Deal. Leave got over 50% with voters backing a Deal as well as No Dealers combined.
Overall voters want to extend Article 50 by 40% to 30% which has the most support.
One of two possibilities here: 1. Starmer is going freelance and so will soon either resign or be relieved of his responsibilities. 2. This is a major Labour concession that deserves to be taken very seriously by the government. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1086937831073873921
"Imagine it is 28th March. The UK has managed to negotiate no variation to the May Deal - but confirm it is still on the table.
The Prime Minister will not revoke Article 50.
The EU will not extend the deadline.
Tomorrow we No Deal Brexit.
Do you want another vote today on May's Deal to prevent that?"
If you want my honest opinion it goes like this:
1) That might actually happen 2) The vote may actually be held 3) "Deal" would still lose, because the objections to it are atavistic and psychological, not economic
There is a subset of Leavers who genuinely hate the EU and will not contemplate any arrangement with it. There are enough of them to fuck things up. Combined with Jeremy's desire to invoke "No Deal" and blame the Conservatives for the damage, the "Deal" will lose again.
Before they then switch to back EUref2 when the Deal will still be an option v Remain
We are so screwed. Parliament has asked the government to compromise. Instead of compromising itself, the government has interpreted that request as demanding others (the EU) compromise. The governments deaf ear and leaden feet are stil there. In short despite the biggest defeat ever, nothing has changed.
It's not as illogical as it sounds. Parliament has told May that it will not pass the deal, so she is telling the EU that. She cannot concede anything further to the EU as parliament won't approve that either. What exactly is she supposed to do? She told them before she could offer no more and she wasn't bluffing.
This is why she has to bend on a referendum, because the EU won't reopen things, but parliament won't pass anything unless they are reopened.
She doesn't have to bend on anything. A referendum (of God-knows-what formulation) does not deliver Brexit by 29th March. The May Deal and No Deal both do.
She is the Prime Minister - and will take the consequences of which ever of these two outcomes we arrive at. No deal is not her preferred choice; but it delivers. She's losing her job soon anyway.
It's what happens when you give the biggest deal your company has ever landed to the board director working their notice. For incompetence.
I was really surprised in the ComRes poll today the opposition to a referendum and remaining in the EU and how 38% support no deal with only 36% opposed
I think the idea we keep the £39 billion and walk away chimes with many and they either could not care less about the consequences or more likely have no idea of the consequences
For this reason no deal will just lie there waiting for the paralysis to see it happen by default, sadly
G , they certainly seem stupid enough and pig headed enough to cut off their noses to spite their faces.
Morning Malc - it does seem as if no deal brexit is becoming more likely and I do not think that the calls across the EU for us to remain help. I am greatly saddened by the shear stupidity of all our politicians and also the poor grade competence of most of our journalists and tv presenters
One of two possibilities here: 1. Starmer is going freelance and so will soon either resign or be relieved of his responsibilities. 2. This is a major Labour concession that deserves to be taken very seriously by the government. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1086937831073873921
Given the EU has ruled out renegotiating the WA, it was already decided. It's been fairly clear this is what Labour have been getting at for a while.
However I don't disagree that it gives wide scope for a compromise. Some fairly wide wording for the Political Declaration and an election in May to see who takes it forward.
On the face of it, this finishes off TM's latest wheeze. I thought it would be odd if Ireland, having benefited from EU solidarity throughout the talks, suddenly signed a bilateral deal undermining the EU position. I can see them agreeing to some sort political declaration promising that they'll work together to ensure the backstop isn't needed, or the like, but I can't see the DUP saying, "Oh, well, if Dublin gives us a non-binding promise, that's good enough for us".
{puts on Mandy Rice-Davies voice} would say that at this stage, wouldn’t they?
All EU, DUP, Dublin, Brexiteers will consider anything creative at this stage.
Let’s not be hasty with this idea... 😉
Given the idea has zero chance of seeing light of day, then definitely be hasty. Unless Theresa May actually wants to leave in chaos but doesn't want to admit to it just yet.
I think she doesn't want to, but her party won't let her do anything else, so she is winding down the clock so she doesn't have to admit it.
A
No Deal works for both. That's why we will end up there.
Not just them. No deal works politically for a great many parties, institutions and individuals. Ireland and the EU are seemingly looking forward to it despite their protests, the LDs would love it (if Remain could not be had), so would the SNP, and many more.
The Irish and the EU believe - probably correctly - that contact with No Deal will leave the UK in an even weaker position than it is now.
I know they do, and I think they are right about that, but given they claim to want a deal, and no deal (even with some level of relationship afterward) hits them too if less than it does us, they could have less obviously have thrown their lot in with the remain or nothing brigade.
I don't think they have. The EU agreed the deal while the UK has so far rejected it. If we don't want No Deal nor THE Deal, by process of elimination we get to stay after all. The EU will be happy if we turn round and say we'll take the deal after all.
But the problem is no deal is default unless a deal is agreed or A50 is delayed or revoked. Inertia is the enemy of common sense
We are so screwed. Parliament has asked the government to compromise. Instead of compromising itself, the government has interpreted that request as demanding others (the EU) compromise. The governments deaf ear and leaden feet are stil there. In short despite the biggest defeat ever, nothing has changed.
It's not as illogical as it sounds. Parliament has told May that it will not pass the deal, so she is telling the EU that. She cannot concede anything further to the EU as parliament won't approve that either. What exactly is she supposed to do? She told them before she could offer no more and she wasn't bluffing.
This is why she has to bend on a referendum, because the EU won't reopen things, but parliament won't pass anything unless they are reopened.
She doesn't have to bend on anything. A referendum (of God-knows-what formulation) does not deliver Brexit by 29th March. The May Deal and No Deal both do.
She is the Prime Minister - and will take the consequences of which ever of these two outcomes we arrive at. No deal is not her preferred choice; but it delivers. She's losing her job soon anyway.
It's what happens when you give the biggest deal your company has ever landed to the board director working their notice. For incompetence.
I was really surprised in the ComRes poll today the opposition to a referendum and remaining in the EU and how 38% support no deal with only 36% opposed
I think the idea we keep the £39 billion and walk away chimes with many and they either could not care less about the consequences or more likely have no idea of the consequences
For this reason no deal will just lie there waiting for the paralysis to see it happen by default, sadly
G , they certainly seem stupid enough and pig headed enough to cut off their noses to spite their faces.
Morning Malc - it does seem as if no deal brexit is becoming more likely and I do not think that the calls across the EU for us to remain help. I am greatly saddened by the shear stupidity of all our politicians and also the poor grade competence of most of our journalists and tv presenters
Take solace in the fact that a no-deal Brexit does not mean a permament no-deal on anything. What it means is that the UK will negotiate with the EU from outside it. I suspect many of the agreements will be fairly quickly confirmed as they are not controversial.
One of two possibilities here: 1. Starmer is going freelance and so will soon either resign or be relieved of his responsibilities. 2. This is a major Labour concession that deserves to be taken very seriously by the government. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1086937831073873921
What took him so long? The EU has been saying this for months and months and months.
Anyway, it’s irrelevant what he thinks or says. Corbyn will let No Deal happen while saying the opposite. Tories get the blame if it all goes tits up. And when he becomes PM, he has a free hand.
BTW anyone thinking we won’t pay £39 billion and, very likely, more if there is No Deal needs their head examining. Every mini-deal we will need to do will involve the payment of money. And our bargaining position will be weaker than now.
We are so screwed. Parliament has asked the government to compromise. Instead of compromising itself, the government has interpreted that request as demanding others (the EU) compromise. The governments deaf ear and leaden feet are stil there. In short despite the biggest defeat ever, nothing has changed.
It's not as illogical as it sounds. Parliament has told May that it will not pass the deal, so she is telling the EU that. She cannot concede anything further to the EU as parliament won't approve that either. What exactly is she supposed to do? She told them before she could offer no more and she wasn't bluffing.
This is why she has to bend on a referendum, because the EU won't reopen things, but parliament won't pass anything unless they are reopened.
She doesn't have to bend on anything. A referendum (of God-knows-what formulation) does not deliver Brexit by 29th March. The May Deal and No Deal both do.
She is the Prime Minister - and will take the consequences of which ever of these two outcomes we arrive at. No deal is not her preferred choice; but it delivers. She's losing her job soon anyway.
It's what happens when you give the biggest deal your company has ever landed to the board director working their notice. For incompetence.
I was really surprised in the ComRes poll today the opposition to a referendum and remaining in the EU and how 38% support no deal with only 36% opposed
I think the idea we keep the £39 billion and walk away chimes with many and they either could not care less about the consequences or more likely have no idea of the consequences
For this reason no deal will just lie there waiting for the paralysis to see it happen by default, sadly
G , they certainly seem stupid enough and pig headed enough to cut off their noses to spite their faces.
Morning Malc - it does seem as if no deal brexit is becoming more likely and I do not think that the calls across the EU for us to remain help. I am greatly saddened by the shear stupidity of all our politicians and also the poor grade competence of most of our journalists and tv presenters
Only 100 to 150 MPs back No Deal, 300 MPs odd back Remain, 202 MPs back the Deal.
In my view a Remain v Deal referendum is more likely than No Deal and of course the Commons could well vote to force May to extend Article 50 if no Deal is agreed by mid February this week too based on Grieve and Cooper's proposals
One of two possibilities here: 1. Starmer is going freelance and so will soon either resign or be relieved of his responsibilities. 2. This is a major Labour concession that deserves to be taken very seriously by the government. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1086937831073873921
What took him so long? The EU has been saying this for months and months and months.
Anyway, it’s irrelevant what he thinks or says. Corbyn will let No Deal happen while saying the opposite. Tories get the blame if it all goes tits up. And when he becomes PM, he has a free hand.
BTW anyone thinking we won’t pay £39 billion and, very likely, more if there is No Deal needs their head examining. Every mini-deal we will need to do will involve the payment of money. And our bargaining position will be weaker than now.
If Corbyn lets No Deal happen without having endorsed EUref2 he will not escape damage, in fact given most Tory voters back Brexit but most Labour voters back EUref2 he could end up losing more voters net as Labour Remainers move to the LDs
We are so screwed. Parliament has asked the government to compromise. Instead of compromising itself, the government has interpreted that request as demanding others (the EU) compromise. The governments deaf ear and leaden feet are stil there. In short despite the biggest defeat ever, nothing has changed.
It's not as illogical as it sounds. Parliament has told May that it will not pass the deal, so she is telling the EU that. She cannot concede anything further to the EU as parliament won't approve that either. What exactly is she supposed to do? She told them before she could offer no more and she wasn't bluffing.
This is why she has to bend on a referendum, because the EU won't reopen things, but parliament won't pass anything unless they are reopened.
She doesn't have to bend on anything. A referendum (of God-knows-what formulation) does not deliver Brexit by 29th March. The May Deal and No Deal both do.
She is the Prime Minister - and will take the consequences of which ever of these two outcomes we arrive at. No deal is not her preferred choice; but it delivers. She's losing her job soon anyway.
It's what happens when you give the biggest deal your company has ever landed to the board director working their notice. For incompetence.
I was really surprised in the ComRes poll today the opposition to a referendum and remaining in the EU and how 38% support no deal with only 36% opposed
I think the idea we keep the £39 billion and walk away chimes with many and they either could not care less about the consequences or more likely have no idea of the consequences
For this reason no deal will just lie there waiting for the paralysis to see it happen by default, sadly
G , they certainly seem stupid enough and pig headed enough to cut off their noses to spite their faces.
Morning Malc - it does seem as if no deal brexit is becoming more likely and I do not think that the calls across the EU for us to remain help. I am greatly saddened by the shear stupidity of all our politicians and also the poor grade competence of most of our journalists and tv presenters
Take solace in the fact that a no-deal Brexit does not mean a permament no-deal on anything. What it means is that the UK will negotiate with the EU from outside it. I suspect many of the agreements will be fairly quickly confirmed as they are not controversial.
In the longer term it may work out but the short term shock could be very severe
"Imagine it is 28th March. The UK has managed to negotiate no variation to the May Deal - but confirm it is still on the table.
The Prime Minister will not revoke Article 50.
The EU will not extend the deadline.
Tomorrow we No Deal Brexit.
Do you want another vote today on May's Deal to prevent that?"
If you want my honest opinion it goes like this:
1) That might actually happen 2) The vote may actually be held 3) "Deal" would still lose, because the objections to it are atavistic and psychological, not economic
There is a subset of Leavers who genuinely hate the EU and will not contemplate any arrangement with it. There are enough of them to fuck things up. Combined with Jeremy's desire to invoke "No Deal" and blame the Conservatives for the damage, the "Deal" will lose again.
Before they then switch to back EUref2 when the Deal will still be an option v Remain
The plausibility of a referendum before March 29 is decreasing rapidly. An extension to A50 would make it easier, but I think May will not do that.
We are so screwed. Parliament has asked the government to compromise. Instead of compromising itself, the government has interpreted that request as demanding others (the EU) compromise. The governments deaf ear and leaden feet are stil there. In short despite the biggest defeat ever, nothing has changed.
It's not as illogical as it sounds. Parliament has told May that it will not pass the deal, so she is telling the EU that. She cannot concede anything further to the EU as parliament won't approve that either. What exactly is she supposed to do? She told them before she could offer no more and she wasn't bluffing.
This is why she has to bend on a referendum, because the EU won't reopen things, but parliament won't pass anything unless they are reopened.
She doesn't have to bend on anything. A referendum (of God-knows-what formulation) does not deliver Brexit by 29th March. The May Deal and No Deal both do.
She is the Prime Minister - and will take the consequences of which ever of these two outcomes we arrive at. No deal is not her preferred choice; but it delivers. She's losing her job soon anyway.
It's what happens when you give the biggest deal your company has ever landed to the board director working their notice. For incompetence.
I was really surprised in the ComRes poll today the opposition to a referendum and remaining in the EU and how 38% support no deal with only 36% opposed
I think the idea we keep the £39 billion and walk away chimes with many and they either could not care less about the consequences or more likely have no idea of the consequences
For this reason no deal will just lie there waiting for the paralysis to see it happen by default, sadly
G , they certainly seem stupid enough and pig headed enough to cut off their noses to spite their faces.
Morning Malc - it does seem as if no deal brexit is becoming more likely and I do not think that the calls across the EU for us to remain help. I am greatly saddened by the shear stupidity of all our politicians and also the poor grade competence of most of our journalists and tv presenters
Take solace in the fact that a no-deal Brexit does not mean a permament no-deal on anything. What it means is that the UK will negotiate with the EU from outside it. I suspect many of the agreements will be fairly quickly confirmed as they are not controversial.
One of two possibilities here: 1. Starmer is going freelance and so will soon either resign or be relieved of his responsibilities. 2. This is a major Labour concession that deserves to be taken very seriously by the government. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1086937831073873921
What took him so long? The EU has been saying this for months and months and months.
Anyway, it’s irrelevant what he thinks or says. Corbyn will let No Deal happen while saying the opposite. Tories get the blame if it all goes tits up. And when he becomes PM, he has a free hand.
BTW anyone thinking we won’t pay £39 billion and, very likely, more if there is No Deal needs their head examining. Every mini-deal we will need to do will involve the payment of money. And our bargaining position will be weaker than now.
A lot of people may be missing the big story from this weekend: Labour is either making a significant and important concession or it will be looking for a new shadow Brexit secretary very shortly.
We are so screwed. Parliament has asked the government to compromise. Instead of compromising itself, the government has interpreted that request as demanding others (the EU) compromise. The governments deaf ear and leaden feet are stil there. In short despite the biggest defeat ever, nothing has changed.
It's not as illogical as it sounds. Parliament has told May that it will not pass the deal, so she is telling the EU that. She
This is why she has to bend on a referendum, because the EU won't reopen things, but parliament won't pass anything unless they are reopened.
She doesn't have to bend on anything. A referendum (of God-knows-what formulation) does not deliver Brexit by 29th March. The May Deal and No Deal both do.
She is the Prime Minister - and will take the consequences of which ever of these two outcomes we arrive at. No deal is not her preferred choice; but it delivers. She's losing her job soon anyway.
It's what happens when you give the biggest deal your company has ever landed to the board director working their notice. For incompetence.
I was really surprised in the ComRes poll today the opposition to a referendum and remaining in the EU and how 38% support no deal with only 36% opposed
I think the idea we keep the £39 billion and walk away chimes with many and they either could not care less about the consequences or more likely have no idea of the consequences
For this reason no deal will just lie there waiting for the paralysis to see it happen by default, sadly
G , they certainly seem stupid enough and pig headed enough to cut off their noses to spite their faces.
Morning Malc - it does seem as if no deal brexit is becoming more likely and I do not think that the calls across the EU for us to remain help. I am greatly saddened by the shear stupidity of all our politicians and also the poor grade competence of most of our journalists and tv presenters
Only 100 to 150 MPs back No Deal, 300 MPs odd back Remain, 202 MPs back the Deal.
In my view a Remain v Deal referendum is more likely than No Deal and of course the Commons could well vote to force May to extend Article 50 if no Deal is agreed by mid February this week too based on Grieve and Cooper's proposals
Maybe but there are other possibilities - we really are in a bad place as a country
Even my daughter in law in Canada is asking questions and she has normally, no interest in politics
The idea the UK and Ireland could do a bi-lateral deal on the backstop is unbelievable. I hope TM does not talk of that tomorrow and invite incredulity
Her credibility is already at absolute zero with everyone in the country except you and her faithful passepartout Amber Rudd. Even Arthur Askey has gone into hiding.
One of two possibilities here: 1. Starmer is going freelance and so will soon either resign or be relieved of his responsibilities. 2. This is a major Labour concession that deserves to be taken very seriously by the government. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1086937831073873921
What took him so long? The EU has been saying this for months and months and months.
Anyway, it’s irrelevant what he thinks or says. Corbyn will let No Deal happen while saying the opposite. Tories get the blame if it all goes tits up. And when he becomes PM, he has a free hand.
BTW anyone thinking we won’t pay £39 billion and, very likely, more if there is No Deal needs their head examining. Every mini-deal we will need to do will involve the payment of money. And our bargaining position will be weaker than now.
A lot of people may be missing the big story from this weekend: Labour is either making a significant and important concession or it will be looking for a new shadow Brexit secretary very shortly.
If Labour accept the backstop and May accepts the CU what is there left for the 2 main parties to argue about?
One of two possibilities here: 1. Starmer is going freelance and so will soon either resign or be relieved of his responsibilities. 2. This is a major Labour concession that deserves to be taken very seriously by the government. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1086937831073873921
What took him so long? The EU has been saying this for months and months and months.
Anyway, it’s irrelevant what he thinks or says. Corbyn will let No Deal happen while saying the opposite. Tories get the blame if it all goes tits up. And when he becomes PM, he has a free hand.
BTW anyone thinking we won’t pay £39 billion and, very likely, more if there is No Deal needs their head examining. Every mini-deal we will need to do will involve the payment of money. And our bargaining position will be weaker than now.
A lot of people may be missing the big story from this weekend: Labour is either making a significant and important concession or it will be looking for a new shadow Brexit secretary very shortly.
You understand the Labour party better than me. But is it really the shadow Brexit secretary who determines Labour policy on this?
Generally that may be true. But not always and not everywhere. If you haven’t, it’s worth reading the full judgment in the Tower Hamlets Lutfur Rahman case where exactly that sort of bloc vote was happening, not least because there were people who had lived here for 30 years and barely spoke English, and it was being abused. What was revealed in that case was quite shocking. Can we be confident that such behaviour is not still happening?
I agree the case was shocking, and there are places in Birmingham where I gather that factional loyalties on ethnic grounds are strong. I think it's deplorable, but also that it usually erodes over time, especially if people are encouraged out of their comfort zone. To take an example against myself, Anna Soubry successfully wooed a number of former Labour Sikh voters after 2010 by campaigning energetically against racists who'd targeted their temple (I did too, but she was then the MP so more prominent) and by encouraging a Sikh lady to stand for the council - quite a few who'd supported me before felt in 2015 that she'd worked harder than me at making them feel part of the community.
More generally it's an extreme case of the normal situation that people are influenced by the people they know, and most of us mingle most with people rather like ourselves. (That's why you get Remainers saying they know nobody who voted Leave, and vice versa.) I think the only legal line that can be drawn is where it gets to ballot-rigging and intimidation, as was clearly the case in Tower Hamlets. Where it's simply people choosing whose advice to take, you have just hope that they'll gradually take wider soundings.
One of two possibilities here: 1. Starmer is going freelance and so will soon either resign or be relieved of his responsibilities. 2. This is a major Labour concession that deserves to be taken very seriously by the government. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1086937831073873921
What took him so long? The EU has been saying this for months and months and months.
Anyway, it’s irrelevant what he thinks or says. Corbyn will let No Deal happen while saying the opposite. Tories get the blame if it all goes tits up. And when he becomes PM, he has a free hand.
BTW anyone thinking we won’t pay £39 billion and, very likely, more if there is No Deal needs their head examining. Every mini-deal we will need to do will involve the payment of money. And our bargaining position will be weaker than now.
A lot of people may be missing the big story from this weekend: Labour is either making a significant and important concession or it will be looking for a new shadow Brexit secretary very shortly.
You understand the Labour party better than me. But is it really the shadow Brexit secretary who determines Labour policy on this?
That is precisely my point. He does not. So if he is not talking about an agreed change of policy his position is not tenable.
One of two possibilities here: 1. Starmer is going freelance and so will soon either resign or be relieved of his responsibilities. 2. This is a major Labour concession that deserves to be taken very seriously by the government. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1086937831073873921
What took him so long? The EU has been saying this for months and months and months.
Anyway, it’s irrelevant what he thinks or says. Corbyn will let No Deal happen while saying the opposite. Tories get the blame if it all goes tits up. And when he becomes PM, he has a free hand.
BTW anyone thinking we won’t pay £39 billion and, very likely, more if there is No Deal needs their head examining. Every mini-deal we will need to do will involve the payment of money. And our bargaining position will be weaker than now.
A lot of people may be missing the big story from this weekend: Labour is either making a significant and important concession or it will be looking for a new shadow Brexit secretary very shortly.
If Labour accept the backstop and May accepts the CU what is there left for the 2 main parties to argue about?
Indeed. That's why I suspect that Starmer may be going freelance. Hope I'm wrong, though.
The idea the UK and Ireland could do a bi-lateral deal on the backstop is unbelievable. I hope TM does not talk of that tomorrow and invite incredulity
Her credibility is already at absolute zero with everyone in the country except you and her faithful passepartout Amber Rudd. Even Arthur Askey has gone into hiding.
TM has more support than you and many on here acknowledge but of course she has many faults including being stubborn but at this moment in time the public do not rate anyone better to deal with Brexit. 'Everyone in the Country' is simply not supported by the polling
One of two possibilities here: 1. Starmer is going freelance and so will soon either resign or be relieved of his responsibilities. 2. This is a major Labour concession that deserves to be taken very seriously by the government. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1086937831073873921
What took him so long? The EU has been saying this for months and months and months.
Anyway, it’s irrelevant what he thinks or says. Corbyn will let No Deal happen while saying the opposite. Tories get the blame if it all goes tits up. And when he becomes PM, he has a free hand.
BTW anyone thinking we won’t pay £39 billion and, very likely, more if there is No Deal needs their head examining. Every mini-deal we will need to do will involve the payment of money. And our bargaining position will be weaker than now.
A lot of people may be missing the big story from this weekend: Labour is either making a significant and important concession or it will be looking for a new shadow Brexit secretary very shortly.
You understand the Labour party better than me. But is it really the shadow Brexit secretary who determines Labour policy on this?
That is precisely my point. He does not. So if he is not talking about an agreed change of policy his position is not tenable.
Backstop? What backstop? Revoking Article 50 could just as easily become the backstop; indeed, it might do so this week thanks to some fancy footwork from the blue team.
"Imagine it is 28th March. The UK has managed to negotiate no variation to the May Deal - but confirm it is still on the table.
The Prime Minister will not revoke Article 50.
The EU will not extend the deadline.
Tomorrow we No Deal Brexit.
Do you want another vote today on May's Deal to prevent that?"
If you want my honest opinion it goes like this:
1) That might actually happen 2) The vote may actually be held 3) "Deal" would still lose, because the objections to it are atavistic and psychological, not economic
There is a subset of Leavers who genuinely hate the EU and will not contemplate any arrangement with it. There are enough of them to fuck things up. Combined with Jeremy's desire to invoke "No Deal" and blame the Conservatives for the damage, the "Deal" will lose again.
Before they then switch to back EUref2 when the Deal will still be an option v Remain
The plausibility of a referendum before March 29 is decreasing rapidly. An extension to A50 would make it easier, but I think May will not do that.
It will be taken out of her hands next week when Parliament likely votes to extend A50 if no Deal agreed by mid February, thus enabling the conditions for EUref2 with a Remain option if needed.
May is no longer in control of the Brexit process, Bercow and Grieve and Cooper are
One of two possibilities here: 1. Starmer is going freelance and so will soon either resign or be relieved of his responsibilities. 2. This is a major Labour concession that deserves to be taken very seriously by the government. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1086937831073873921
Starmer was very impressive on Marr. For the first time, I really understand the Labour approach on Brexit and support it. There are no grounds in what Starmer said for him to resign or be relieved of his post. I think it is consistent with what Corbyn has said though the emphasis is different.
Basically Starmer is saying there only two options left that could get majority support in parliament. No deal is not an option because it will be stopped by parliament if the government doesn't stop it first by coming up with a cross-party deal that has majority support plus A50 delay.
The two options are:
1. A deal which delivers (a very soft) Brexit with a customs union and close regulatory alignment that satisfies the backstop or 2. A people's vote.
He favours the first but feels it will come to the second because May is blocking the first with her red lines.
But the problem is no deal is default unless a deal is agreed or A50 is delayed or revoked. Inertia is the enemy of common sense
I agree with this.
The situation is so confused, and entrenched, that the path of least resistance leads to ND (which ironically would be read as 'Negligent Discharge' by anyone with a military bent).
If Grieve fails in his efforts then May needs to hold her nerve in terms of not ruling out ND and run the clock down. If she picks a side to move towards (i'd suggest softer rather than harder) then i'm convinced she will cobble together the numbers at the eleventh hour.
One of two possibilities here: 1. Starmer is going freelance and so will soon either resign or be relieved of his responsibilities. 2. This is a major Labour concession that deserves to be taken very seriously by the government. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1086937831073873921
What took him so long? The EU has been saying this for months and months and months.
Anyway, it’s irrelevant what he thinks or says. Corbyn will let No Deal happen while saying the opposite. Tories get the blame if it all goes tits up. And when he becomes PM, he has a free hand.
BTW anyone thinking we won’t pay £39 billion and, very likely, more if there is No Deal needs their head examining. Every mini-deal we will need to do will involve the payment of money. And our bargaining position will be weaker than now.
A lot of people may be missing the big story from this weekend: Labour is either making a significant and important concession or it will be looking for a new shadow Brexit secretary very shortly.
If Labour accept the backstop and May accepts the CU what is there left for the 2 main parties to argue about?
They'd find something, they are actively seeking reasons not to agree with one another. But that I think either of those shifts is happening. Clarifications will soon occur.
One of two possibilities here: 1. Starmer is going freelance and so will soon either resign or be relieved of his responsibilities. 2. This is a major Labour concession that deserves to be taken very seriously by the government. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1086937831073873921
What took him so long? The EU has been saying this for months and months and months.
Anyway, it’s irrelevant what he thinks or says. Corbyn will let No Deal happen while saying the opposite. Tories get the blame if it all goes tits up. And when he becomes PM, he has a free hand.
BTW anyone thinking we won’t pay £39 billion and, very likely, more if there is No Deal needs their head examining. Every mini-deal we will need to do will involve the payment of money. And our bargaining position will be weaker than now.
A lot of people may be missing the big story from this weekend: Labour is either making a significant and important concession or it will be looking for a new shadow Brexit secretary very shortly.
You understand the Labour party better than me. But is it really the shadow Brexit secretary who determines Labour policy on this?
That is precisely my point. He does not. So if he is not talking about an agreed change of policy his position is not tenable.
Backstop? What backstop? Revoking Article 50 could just as easily become the backstop; indeed, it might do so this week thanks to some fancy footwork from the blue team.
Revoking A50 is remaining. That has no HOC majority
We are so screwed. Parliament has asked the government to compromise. Instead of compromising itself, the government has interpreted that request as demanding others (the EU) compromise. The governments deaf ear and leaden feet are stil there. In short despite the biggest defeat ever, nothing has changed.
It's not as illogical as it sounds. Parliament has told May that it will not pass the deal, so she is telling the EU that. She
This is why she has to bend on a referendum, because the EU won't reopen things, but parliament won't pass anything unless they are reopened.
She doesn't have to bend on anything. A referendum (of God-knows-what formulation) does not deliver Brexit by 29th March. The May Deal and No Deal both do.
She is the Prime Minister - and will take the consequences of which ever of these two outcomes we arrive at. No deal is not her preferred choice; but it delivers. She's losing her job soon anyway.
It's what happens when you give the biggest deal your company has ever landed to the board director working their notice. For incompetence.
I was really surprised in the ComRes poll today the opposition to a referendum and remaining in the EU and how 38% support no deal with only 36% opposed
I think the idea we keep the £39 billion and walk away chimes with many and they either could not care less about the consequences or more likely have no idea of the consequences
For this reason no deal will just lie there waiting for the paralysis to see it happen by default, sadly
G , they certainly seem stupid enough and pig headed enough to cut off their noses to spite their faces.
Morning Malc - rs
Only 100 to 150 MPs back No Deal, 300 MPs odd back Remain, 202 MPs back the Deal.
In my view a Remain v Deal referendum is more likely than No Deal and of course the Commons could well vote to force May to extend Article 50 if no Deal is agreed by mid February this week too based on Grieve and Cooper's proposals
Maybe but there are other possibilities - we really are in a bad place as a country
Even my daughter in law in Canada is asking questions and she has normally, no interest in politics
There are a whole range of possibilities which will be voted on one by one in Parliament but that remains the likeliest option
No deal is not an option because it will be stopped by parliament if the government doesn't stop it first by coming up with a cross-party deal that has majority support plus A50 delay.
For what feels like the five millionth time:
Parliament does not have the authority to delay the implementation of Article 50 or avoid an exit without a deal. Only either the EU or a full revocation of A50 can do those things.
To reiterate, no deal is what happens unless positive action is taken to avoid it. As there isn't currently a majority for any positive course of action - possibly not even for revocation - it is now the likeliest outcome.
One of two possibilities here: 1. Starmer is going freelance and so will soon either resign or be relieved of his responsibilities. 2. This is a major Labour concession that deserves to be taken very seriously by the government. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1086937831073873921
What took him so long? The EU has been saying this for months and months and months.
Anyway, it’s irrelevant what he thinks or says. Corbyn will let No Deal happen while saying the opposite. Tories get the blame if it all goes tits up. And when he becomes PM, he has a free hand.
BTW anyone thinking we won’t pay £39 billion and, very likely, more if there is No Deal needs their head examining. Every mini-deal we will need to do will involve the payment of money. And our bargaining position will be weaker than now.
A lot of people may be missing the big story from this weekend: Labour is either making a significant and important concession or it will be looking for a new shadow Brexit secretary very shortly.
You understand the Labour party better than me. But is it really the shadow Brexit secretary who determines Labour policy on this?
That is precisely my point. He does not. So if he is not talking about an agreed change of policy his position is not tenable.
Backstop? What backstop? Revoking Article 50 could just as easily become the backstop; indeed, it might do so this week thanks to some fancy footwork from the blue team.
Revoking A50 is remaining. That has no HOC majority
No deal is not an option because it will be stopped by parliament if the government doesn't stop it first by coming up with a cross-party deal that has majority support plus A50 delay.
For what feels like the five millionth time:
Parliament does not have the authority to delay the implementation of Article 50 or avoid an exit without a deal. Only either the EU or a full revocation of A50 can do those things.
To reiterate, no deal is what happens unless positive action is taken to avoid it. As there isn't currently a majority for any positive course of action - possibly not even for revocation - it is now the likeliest outcome.
Not really true. If Parliament votes to delay A50 and then votes for EUref2 with a Remain option, if it votes for the former it is also highly likely to vote for the latter, then the EU will almost certainly extend A50 to allow for the possibility of Brexit being cancelled altogether and the UK voting to Remain in the EU after all and revoking A50.
Once the verdict has come in, she is no longer the defendant but a convicted criminal and I think it perfectly OK to call her that. It is an accurate description of the legal position, after all.
It is absurd to wait until the appeals process is over. This can often take some time and people have often served part of their sentence. To refuse to call them criminals at that stage is a bit silly.
She is entitled to wait and see what the sentence is before deciding whether to step down as an MP. Whether that is wise or honourable given that her party has disowned her is another matter.
Expecting wisdom and honour from MPs these days is probably too much to hope for.
And if her conviction is quashed?
Then she is no longer a criminal. As you well know.
Convictions can be quashed many years after conviction. See the Birmingham 6 for instance. Or Stefan Kiszko. It would have been perfectly accurate to call them convicted criminals in the period while they were in prison. And pretty silly to refuse to do so on the basis that an appeal in the future might quash the conviction.
If you want to be 100% accurate, say that the person is a criminal who is currently appealing against their conviction. But let’s not pretend that someone who has been convicted is the same as someone who hasn’t been. One is a criminal. The other isn’t.
I don't disagree with that but it is not really the question. The question is whether she should be ejected from the HoC whilst her appeal is pending. Despite her being insufferably annoying and convicted at first instance I rather think not.
Ejected: no.
Consider her position: should she remain as an MP even if her sentence is less than 12 months? Yes. She should consider her position and, were I her, in all honour I would resign.
Of course you would and so would any honourable person. But does she have a choice in the matter? I think she does. And as future employment, whether as an MP or a solicitor, is looking highly problematic at the moment, she may well be tempted to hang on.
Hang on a minute. She's a solicitor?
Surely that's an aggravating factor when in front of the sentencing judge convicted of perjury?
We are so screwed. Parliament has asked the government to compromise. Instead of compromising itself, the government has interpreted that request as demanding others (the EU) compromise. The governments deaf ear and leaden feet are stil there. In short despite the biggest defeat ever, nothing has changed.
It's not as illogical as it sounds. Parliament has told May that it will not pass the deal, so she is telling the EU that. She cannot concede anything further to the EU as parliament won't approve that either. What exactly is she supposed to do? She told them before she could offer no more and she wasn't bluffing.
This is why she has to bend on a referendum, because the EU won't reopen things, but parliament won't pass anything unless they are reopened.
She doesn't have to bend on anything. A referendum (of God-knows-what formulation) does not deliver Brexit by 29th March. The May Deal and No Deal both do.
She is the Prime Minister - and will take the consequences of which ever of these two outcomes we arrive at. No deal is not her preferred choice; but it delivers. She's losing her job soon anyway.
It's what happens when you give the biggest deal your company has ever landed to the board director working their notice. For incompetence.
I was really surprised in the ComRes poll today the opposition to a referendum and remaining in the EU and how 38% support no deal with only 36% opposed
I think the idea we keep the £39 billion and walk away chimes with many and they either could not care less about the consequences or more likely have no idea of the consequences
For this reason no deal will just lie there waiting for the paralysis to see it happen by default, sadly
Too many see no deal as no change, sadly. There was an article in the Guardian comparing it to selling a car. If you don't get the right deal you walk away. And keep your car. This is many people's idea of a negotiation. It is an idea being encouraged by several news outlets and politicians.
That is the majority of people's experience of negotiating , house , car , TV, etc. If you don't like deal you walk away and stay as you were with existing item. PS: plus Gove , Boris etc told them they could walk away here and have billions a week to spend on what they want. Is it surprising lots think it is a good idea.
One of two possibilities here: 1. Starmer is going freelance and so will soon either resign or be relieved of his responsibilities. 2. This is a major Labour concession that deserves to be taken very seriously by the government. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1086937831073873921
Starmer was very impressive on Marr. For the first time, I really understand the Labour approach on Brexit and support it. There are no grounds in what Starmer said for him to resign or be relieved of his post. I think it is consistent with what Corbyn has said though the emphasis is different.
Basically Starmer is saying there only two options left that could get majority support in parliament. No deal is not an option because it will be stopped by parliament if the government doesn't stop it first by coming up with a cross-party deal that has majority support plus A50 delay.
The two options are:
1. A deal which delivers (a very soft) Brexit with a customs union and close regulatory alignment that satisfies the backstop or 2. A people's vote.
He favours the first but feels it will come to the second because May is blocking the first with her red lines.
EDIT: I think Benn agrees with this too.
In the Commons last week - and a number of times before that - Corbyn has specifically criticised the backstop. For Starmer to say it is probably necessary is quite a departure from that. It could be that Labour now understands that there is no way the DUP will ever VONC May and so there is now no need to oppose the backstop.
"Imagine it is 28th March. The UK has managed to negotiate no variation to the May Deal - but confirm it is still on the table.
The Prime Minister will not revoke Article 50.
The EU will not extend the deadline.
Tomorrow we No Deal Brexit.
Do you want another vote today on May's Deal to prevent that?"
If you want my honest opinion it goes like this:
1) That might actually happen 2) The vote may actually be held 3) "Deal" would still lose, because the objections to it are atavistic and psychological, not economic
There is a subset of Leavers who genuinely hate the EU and will not contemplate any arrangement with it. There are enough of them to fuck things up. Combined with Jeremy's desire to invoke "No Deal" and blame the Conservatives for the damage, the "Deal" will lose again.
Before they then switch to back EUref2 when the Deal will still be an option v Remain
The plausibility of a referendum before March 29 is decreasing rapidly. An extension to A50 would make it easier, but I think May will not do that.
The plausibility of a referendum before March 29 is zero. An extension to A50 would make it easier, and I think May will be forced to do that.
We are so screwed. Parliament has asked the government to compromise. Instead of compromising itself, the government has interpreted that request as demanding others (the EU) compromise. The governments deaf ear and leaden feet are stil there. In short despite the biggest defeat ever, nothing has changed.
It's not as illogical as it sounds. Parliament has told May that it will not pass the deal, so she is telling the EU that. She cannot concede anything further to the EU as parliament won't approve that either. What exactly is she supposed to do? She told them before she could offer no more and she wasn't bluffing.
This is why she has to bend on a referendum, because the EU won't reopen things, but parliament won't pass anything unless they are reopened.
She doesn't have to bend on anything. A referendum (of God-knows-what formulation) does not deliver Brexit by 29th March. The May Deal and No Deal both do.
She is the Prime Minister - and will take the consequences of which ever of these two outcomes we arrive at. No deal is not her preferred choice; but it delivers. She's losing her job soon anyway.
It's what happens when you give the biggest deal your company has ever landed to the board director working their notice. For incompetence.
I was really surprised in the ComRes poll today the opposition to a referendum and remaining in the EU and how 38% support no deal with only 36% opposed
I think the idea we keep the £39 billion and walk away chimes with many and they either could not care less about the consequences or more likely have no idea of the consequences
For this reason no deal will just lie there waiting for the paralysis to see it happen by default, sadly
Leave got 52%, it cannot win with 38%.
The same Comres poll had it 54% Remain 46% Leave overall, so Leave loses 8% of its committed vote with No Deal. Leave got over 50% with voters backing a Deal as well as No Dealers combined.
Overall voters want to extend Article 50 by 40% to 30% which has the most support.
Extending Article 50 just gives us more of what we have gone through/are still going through this January.
Parliament needs to make a decision - and own it. Running off to the EU pleading for more time because we are too pathetic to get our shit together just gets the voters rolling their eyes....
It will be taken out of her hands next week when Parliament likely votes to extend A50 if no Deal agreed by mid February, thus enabling the conditions for EUref2 with a Remain option if needed.
May is no longer in control of the Brexit process, Bercow and Grieve and Cooper are
Is this a statement of fact?
It is a genuine question by the way because i'm reading conflicting opinions on the realities of what Grieve is attempting to do.
If you are correct, and he succeeds, then Brexit is finished.
And I find it hard to believe that a backbench nobody could single-handedly overturn a vote involving 30m+ people.
One of two possibilities here: 1. Starmer is going freelance and so will soon either resign or be relieved of his responsibilities. 2. This is a major Labour concession that deserves to be taken very seriously by the government. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1086937831073873921
Starmer was very impressive on Marr. For the first time, I really understand the Labour approach on Brexit and support it. There are no grounds in what Starmer said for him to resign or be relieved of his post. I think it is consistent with what Corbyn has said though the emphasis is different.
Basically Starmer is saying there only two options left that could get majority support in parliament. No deal is not an option because it will be stopped by parliament if the government doesn't stop it first by coming up with a cross-party deal that has majority support plus A50 delay.
The two options are:
1. A deal which delivers (a very soft) Brexit with a customs union and close regulatory alignment that satisfies the backstop or 2. A people's vote.
He favours the first but feels it will come to the second because May is blocking the first with her red lines.
EDIT: I think Benn agrees with this too.
I agree Starmer was impressive on Marr. He has been very good these past two years regarding Brexit, and how Labour deals with it.
One of two possibilities here: 1. Starmer is going freelance and so will soon either resign or be relieved of his responsibilities. 2. This is a major Labour concession that deserves to be taken very seriously by the government. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1086937831073873921
Starmer was very impressive on Marr. For the first time, I really understand the Labour approach on Brexit and support it. There are no grounds in what Starmer said for him to resign or be relieved of his post. I think it is consistent with what Corbyn has said though the emphasis is different.
Basically Starmer is saying there only two options left that could get majority support in parliament. No deal is not an option because it will be stopped by parliament if the government doesn't stop it first by coming up with a cross-party deal that has majority support plus A50 delay.
The two options are:
1. A deal which delivers (a very soft) Brexit with a customs union and close regulatory alignment that satisfies the backstop or 2. A people's vote.
He favours the first but feels it will come to the second because May is blocking the first with her red lines.
EDIT: I think Benn agrees with this too.
Starmer is ignoring the fact there are very many labour mps implacably opposed to a second referendum as made public by Flint and Nandy yesterday so it does not have a HOC majority. David Lammy in full panic mode this morning saying it will split the labour party
One of two possibilities here: 1. Starmer is going freelance and so will soon either resign or be relieved of his responsibilities. 2. This is a major Labour concession that deserves to be taken very seriously by the government. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1086937831073873921
What took him so long? The EU has been saying this for months and months and months.
Anyway, it’s irrelevant what he thinks or says. Corbyn will let No Deal happen while saying the opposite. Tories get the blame if it all goes tits up. And when he becomes PM, he has a free hand.
BTW anyone thinking we won’t pay £39 billion and, very likely, more if there is No Deal needs their head examining. Every mini-deal we will need to do will involve the payment of money. And our bargaining position will be weaker than now.
A lot of people may be missing the big story from this weekend: Labour is either making a significant and important concession or it will be looking for a new shadow Brexit secretary very shortly.
You understand the Labour party better than me. But is it really the shadow Brexit secretary who determines Labour policy on this?
That is precisely my point. He does not. So if he is not talking about an agreed change of policy his position is not tenable.
Backstop? What backstop? Revoking Article 50 could just as easily become the backstop; indeed, it might do so this week thanks to some fancy footwork from the blue team.
Revoking A50 is remaining. That has no HOC majority
Nothing has a majority, hence the need for a backstop. Even if in a few days, the backstop becomes staying in for a bit longer.
We are so screwed. Parliament has asked the government to compromise. Instead of compromising itself, the government has interpreted that request as demanding others (the EU) compromise. The governments deaf ear and leaden feet are stil there. In short despite the biggest defeat ever, nothing has changed.
It's not as illogical as it sounds. Parliament has told May that it will not pass the deal, so she is telling the EU that. She cannot concede anything further to the EU as parliament won't approve that either. What exactly is she supposed to do? She told them before she could offer no more and she wasn't bluffing.
This is why she has to bend on a referendum, because the EU won't reopen things, but parliament won't pass anything unless they are reopened.
She doesn't have to bend on anything. A referendum (of God-knows-what formulation) does not deliver Brexit by 29th March. The May Deal and No Deal both do.
She is the Prime Minister - and will take the consequences of which ever of these two outcomes we arrive at. No deal is not her preferred choice; but it delivers. She's losing her job soon anyway.
It's what happens when you give the biggest deal your company has ever landed to the board director working their notice. For incompetence.
I was really surprised in the ComRes poll today the opposition to a referendum and remaining in the EU and how 38% support no deal with only 36% opposed
I think the idea we keep the £39 billion and walk away chimes with many and they either could not care less about the consequences or more likely have no idea of the consequences
For this reason no deal will just lie there waiting for the paralysis to see it happen by default, sadly
Leave got 52%, it cannot win with 38%.
The same Comres poll had it 54% Remain 46% Leave overall, so Leave loses 8% of its committed vote with No Deal. Leave got over 50% with voters backing a Deal as well as No Dealers combined.
Overall voters want to extend Article 50 by 40% to 30% which has the most support.
Voting 40% to 30% to extend Article 50 is voting to kick the can down the road and equivalent to Don't Know. Any poll which doesn't force out a decision is a non poll.
We are so screwed. Parliament has asked the government to compromise. Instead of compromising itself, the government has interpreted that request as demanding others (the EU) compromise. The governments deaf ear and leaden feet are stil there. In short despite the biggest defeat ever, nothing has changed.
It's not as illogical as it sounds. Parliament has told May that it will not pass the deal, so she is telling the EU that. She cannot concede anything further to the EU as parliament won't approve that either. What exactly is she supposed to do? She told them before she could offer no more and she wasn't bluffing.
This is why she has to bend on a referendum, because the EU won't reopen things, but parliament won't pass anything unless they are reopened.
She doesn't have to bend on anything. A referendum (of God-knows-what formulation) does not deliver Brexit by 29th March. The May Deal and No Deal both do.
She is the Prime Minister - and will take the consequences of which ever of these two outcomes we arrive at. No deal is not her preferred choice; but it delivers. She's losing her job soon anyway.
It's what happens when you give the biggest deal your company has ever landed to the board director working their notice. For incompetence.
I was really surprised in the ComRes poll today the opposition to a referendum and remaining in the EU and how 38% support no deal with only 36% opposed
I think the idea we keep the £39 billion and walk away chimes with many and they either could not care less about the consequences or more likely have no idea of the consequences
For this reason no deal will just lie there waiting for the paralysis to see it happen by default, sadly
Leave got 52%, it cannot win with 38%.
The same Comres poll had it 54% Remain 46% Leave overall, so Leave loses 8% of its committed vote with No Deal. Leave got over 50% with voters backing a Deal as well as No Dealers combined.
Overall voters want to extend Article 50 by 40% to 30% which has the most support.
Extending Article 50 just gives us more of what we have gone through/are still going through this January.
Parliament needs to make a decision - and own it. Running off to the EU pleading for more time because we are too pathetic to get our shit together just gets the voters rolling their eyes....
Extending Article 50 is merely a means to an end ie an EUref2 Remain v Deal referendum, if Parliament votes to extend Article 50 this week I think that is where we likely end up.
Comments
Indeed David Lammy is so alarmed by this he is actively saying labour could split
Corbyn wants a Labour government.
No Deal works for both. That's why we will end up there.
Consider her position: should she remain as an MP even if her sentence is less than 12 months? Yes. She should consider her position and, were I her, in all honour I would resign.
I think that this is less true for recent immigrants. If you or I moved to Pakistan and had the chance to vote three months after you arrived, I can well imagine taking advice from a well-established English-born resident. But it wears off after people have been here for a while.
In hindsight a big show of bravado and politics might have been better. We'd have a less workable deal, but we'd have one.
"But in general in non-political cases I'd wait for the process to complete before calling the defendant a criminal"
non-political is mentioned, but the wider point of it being ok to call a criminal a criminal was there
She is the Prime Minister - and will take the consequences of which ever of these two outcomes we arrive at. No deal is not her preferred choice; but it delivers. She's losing her job soon anyway.
It's what happens when you give the biggest deal your company has ever landed to the board director working their notice. For incompetence.
Maybe we could ask our European neighbours to help us out. They seem to know what they’re about and quite effective and united and competent.
The situation in Ealing Southall is more complicated. There are multiple caste - based Gurdwara, each with their own block of voters. When a Labour hopeful wasn't selected as candidate for the parliamentary by election he defected to the Tories and took his Gurdwara with him.
Also look at the voting in the 2010 Labour leadership election - the lead for David Miliband in the constituency was out of line with the norm - the result of block voting.
I think the idea we keep the £39 billion and walk away chimes with many and they either could not care less about the consequences or more likely have no idea of the consequences
For this reason no deal will just lie there waiting for the paralysis to see it happen by default, sadly
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46936405
Of course in 2015 Labour lost a number of seats like Vale of Clwyd due to UKIP
"Imagine it is 28th March. The UK has managed to negotiate no variation to the May Deal - but confirm it is still on the table.
The Prime Minister will not revoke Article 50.
The EU will not extend the deadline.
Tomorrow we No Deal Brexit.
Do you want another vote today on May's Deal to prevent that?"
Like so many others, the EU are another who falsely claim not to want no deal.
https://www.tiptree.com/index.php/products/cocktail-conserves.html
https://www.tiptree.com/index.php/products/fruit-gin-liqueur.html
Just the ticket for Brexit threads in the bath. Take that, Herr Juncker and Monsieur Barnier.
Bizarrely, the US is more forgiving. There was a general counsel in a major global bank a few years ago who was found to have done some insider dealing, had to pay a humungous fine, was disbarred for 5 years and then ended up years later as a partner in another law firm.
Or take the former CEO of a major bank here, one heavily involved in every scandal going, who was appointed to be in charge of an exchange, which has supervisory/regulatory functions, and has had to resign and been fined for insider dealing in the shares of his exchange. He is still chairman of an authorised investment firm in the UK.
Quite why the authorities thought such a man was fit to be in such a position is one of life’s mysteries. But bear this story in mind when you hear the authorities say that the City has been cleaned up, new procedures, blah, blah.....
It is an idea being encouraged by several news outlets and politicians.
1) That might actually happen
2) The vote may actually be held
3) "Deal" would still lose, because the objections to it are atavistic and psychological, not economic
There is a subset of Leavers who genuinely hate the EU and will not contemplate any arrangement with it. There are enough of them to fuck things up. Combined with Jeremy's desire to invoke "No Deal" and blame the Conservatives for the damage, the "Deal" will lose again.
The same Comres poll had it 54% Remain 46% Leave overall, so Leave loses 8% of its committed vote with No Deal. Leave got over 50% with voters backing a Deal as well as No Dealers combined.
Overall voters want to extend Article 50 by 40% to 30% which has the most support.
https://www.comresglobal.com/polls/sunday-mirror-voting-intention-and-brexit-poll-january-2019/
1. Starmer is going freelance and so will soon either resign or be relieved of his responsibilities.
2. This is a major Labour concession that deserves to be taken very seriously by the government.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1086937831073873921
However I don't disagree that it gives wide scope for a compromise. Some fairly wide wording for the Political Declaration and an election in May to see who takes it forward.
Anyway, it’s irrelevant what he thinks or says. Corbyn will let No Deal happen while saying the opposite. Tories get the blame if it all goes tits up. And when he becomes PM, he has a free hand.
BTW anyone thinking we won’t pay £39 billion and, very likely, more if there is No Deal needs their head examining. Every mini-deal we will need to do will involve the payment of money. And our bargaining position will be weaker than now.
In my view a Remain v Deal referendum is more likely than No Deal and of course the Commons could well vote to force May to extend Article 50 if no Deal is agreed by mid February this week too based on Grieve and Cooper's proposals
Even my daughter in law in Canada is asking questions and she has normally, no interest in politics
https://twitter.com/JPonpolitics/status/1086954644239273984
More generally it's an extreme case of the normal situation that people are influenced by the people they know, and most of us mingle most with people rather like ourselves. (That's why you get Remainers saying they know nobody who voted Leave, and vice versa.) I think the only legal line that can be drawn is where it gets to ballot-rigging and intimidation, as was clearly the case in Tower Hamlets. Where it's simply people choosing whose advice to take, you have just hope that they'll gradually take wider soundings.
May is no longer in control of the Brexit process, Bercow and Grieve and Cooper are
Basically Starmer is saying there only two options left that could get majority support in parliament. No deal is not an option because it will be stopped by parliament if the government doesn't stop it first by coming up with a cross-party deal that has majority support plus A50 delay.
The two options are:
1. A deal which delivers (a very soft) Brexit with a customs union and close regulatory alignment that satisfies the backstop or
2. A people's vote.
He favours the first but feels it will come to the second because May is blocking the first with her red lines.
EDIT: I think Benn agrees with this too.
The situation is so confused, and entrenched, that the path of least resistance leads to ND (which ironically would be read as 'Negligent Discharge' by anyone with a military bent).
If Grieve fails in his efforts then May needs to hold her nerve in terms of not ruling out ND and run the clock down. If she picks a side to move towards (i'd suggest softer rather than harder) then i'm convinced she will cobble together the numbers at the eleventh hour.
Parliament does not have the authority to delay the implementation of Article 50 or avoid an exit without a deal. Only either the EU or a full revocation of A50 can do those things.
To reiterate, no deal is what happens unless positive action is taken to avoid it. As there isn't currently a majority for any positive course of action - possibly not even for revocation - it is now the likeliest outcome.
Surely that's an aggravating factor when in front of the sentencing judge convicted of perjury?
PS: plus Gove , Boris etc told them they could walk away here and have billions a week to spend on what they want.
Is it surprising lots think it is a good idea.
Parliament needs to make a decision - and own it. Running off to the EU pleading for more time because we are too pathetic to get our shit together just gets the voters rolling their eyes....
It is a genuine question by the way because i'm reading conflicting opinions on the realities of what Grieve is attempting to do.
If you are correct, and he succeeds, then Brexit is finished.
And I find it hard to believe that a backbench nobody could single-handedly overturn a vote involving 30m+ people.
He has been very good these past two years regarding Brexit, and how Labour deals with it.