"A second security alert is underway in Londonderry after a Royal Mail van was hijacked at gunpoint and abandoned.
Police are currently at the scene of a security alert in the Circular Road area of Londonderry, while another security alert is taking place less than a mile away on Southway."
All worth it to reinstate properly bendy bananas.
You really think this is Brexit related?
No, after over a decade of relative calm, the resurgence of violence and bombs in N. Ireland at the time of intense political discord between the UK and Ireland, and the potential re-introduction of the border, is a complete coincidence.
Non-sarcastic response: I do.
Because hijacking a Royal Mail van is all about a hard border in Ireland..... non-sarcastic eye-roll.
Much more likely to be about where the border between one drugs gang and another is.
48 hours after a bomb goes off outside a courthouse, and is linked to dissident republicans.
It might be a coincidence, but flat out denial that's it's a possibility because you support Brexit is truly worth of an eye-roll.
You think dissident republicans arrived with Brexit?
Eye-roll.....
There are no tanks in Baghdad.
There are no points in your comments.....
You should however consider applying to be a government press spokesman in the event that we do end up leaving with no deal. As Comical Mark you could keep us all entertained.
"A second security alert is underway in Londonderry after a Royal Mail van was hijacked at gunpoint and abandoned.
Police are currently at the scene of a security alert in the Circular Road area of Londonderry, while another security alert is taking place less than a mile away on Southway."
All worth it to reinstate properly bendy bananas.
You really think this is Brexit related?
No, after over a decade of relative calm, the resurgence of violence and bombs in N. Ireland at the time of intense political discord between the UK and Ireland, and the potential re-introduction of the border, is a complete coincidence.
Non-sarcastic response: I do.
Because hijacking a Royal Mail van is all about a hard border in Ireland..... non-sarcastic eye-roll.
Much more likely to be about where the border between one drugs gang and another is.
48 hours after a bomb goes off outside a courthouse, and is linked to dissident republicans.
It might be a coincidence, but flat out denial that's it's a possibility because you support Brexit is truly worth of an eye-roll.
The problem remainers have is that they can't be seen to be making the link between the two. It would give the impression that they were supporting terrorism.
Enabling, I'd say. Assuming you meant "leavers" there.
Startling quote from Tusk cited in the Guardian blog (from a forthcoming BBC documentary):
"I asked David Cameron, ‘Why did you decide on this referendum, this – it’s so dangerous, so even stupid, you know,’ and, he told me - and I was really amazed and even shocked - that the only reason was his own party, [He told me] he felt really safe, because he thought at the same time that there’s no risk of a referendum, because, his coalition partner, the Liberals, would block this idea of a referendum. But then, surprisingly, he won and there was no coalition partner. So paradoxically David Cameron became the real victim of his own victory."
Didn't we already know this?
What's worse is that the whole way Brexit has been handled by May since she became PM has been put the interests of the Tory party first.
All 17.4 million Tory voters?
She has not given the impression of recognising that the victory was 52:48 not 70:30 or 90:10. If circa 600,000 voters had voted Remain the victory would have been for Remain. That should have led to a serious attempt to find a solution that tried to overcome divisions not cement them.
Further her concern has been to appease the ERG and DUP, both of whom are unappeasable, pocket any concessions made to them and demand more. And now that we're facing a No Deal exit, the ERG and other Leavers are, contrary to what they said at the time, saying that No Deal is what the country voted for and it will all be fine. They have turned out to be liars.
As has May. Her idea of reaching out to others is to tell them that they have to agree with her.
Corbyn's idea of reaching out to others is to refuse to speak to them.
He's not the PM who's just had her sole piece of important legislation defeated by 230 votes and who is pretending that nothing has changed. I don't defend Corbyn. But she is the one whose approach, attitude, character, tactics and total lack of strategy and empathy is making a solution much much harder than it would otherwise be - and possibly impossible.
"A second security alert is underway in Londonderry after a Royal Mail van was hijacked at gunpoint and abandoned.
Police are currently at the scene of a security alert in the Circular Road area of Londonderry, while another security alert is taking place less than a mile away on Southway."
All worth it to reinstate properly bendy bananas.
You really think this is Brexit related?
No, after over a decade of relative calm, the resurgence of violence and bombs in N. Ireland at the time of intense political discord between the UK and Ireland, and the potential re-introduction of the border, is a complete coincidence.
Non-sarcastic response: I do.
Because hijacking a Royal Mail van is all about a hard border in Ireland..... non-sarcastic eye-roll.
Much more likely to be about where the border between one drugs gang and another is.
48 hours after a bomb goes off outside a courthouse, and is linked to dissident republicans.
It might be a coincidence, but flat out denial that's it's a possibility because you support Brexit is truly worth of an eye-roll.
You think dissident republicans arrived with Brexit?
Eye-roll.....
There are no tanks in Baghdad.
There are no points in your comments.....
You should however consider applying to be a government press spokesman in the event that we do end up leaving with no deal. As Comical Mark you could keep us all entertained.
Prime Minister, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability, and I want you to know that we are with you.....
"A second security alert is underway in Londonderry after a Royal Mail van was hijacked at gunpoint and abandoned.
Police are currently at the scene of a security alert in the Circular Road area of Londonderry, while another security alert is taking place less than a mile away on Southway."
All worth it to reinstate properly bendy bananas.
You really think this is Brexit related?
No, after over a decade of relative calm, the resurgence of violence and bombs in N. Ireland at the time of intense political discord between the UK and Ireland, and the potential re-introduction of the border, is a complete coincidence.
Non-sarcastic response: I do.
Because hijacking a Royal Mail van is all about a hard border in Ireland..... non-sarcastic eye-roll.
Much more likely to be about where the border between one drugs gang and another is.
48 hours after a bomb goes off outside a courthouse, and is linked to dissident republicans.
It might be a coincidence, but flat out denial that's it's a possibility because you support Brexit is truly worth of an eye-roll.
The problem remainers have is that they can't be seen to be making the link between the two. It would give the impression that they were supporting terrorism.
Enabling, I'd say. Assuming you meant "leavers" there.
No, I meant remainers.
Then you've lost me. How can noting that the prospect of leaving is stoking tensions, and that actually leaving (especially with a No Deal) would do so further, be interpreted as "supporting terrorism". It could be characterised as scaremongering, even irresponsible scaremongering, sure.
"A second security alert is underway in Londonderry after a Royal Mail van was hijacked at gunpoint and abandoned.
Police are currently at the scene of a security alert in the Circular Road area of Londonderry, while another security alert is taking place less than a mile away on Southway."
All worth it to reinstate properly bendy bananas.
You really think this is Brexit related?
No, after over a decade of relative calm, the resurgence of violence and bombs in N. Ireland at the time of intense political discord between the UK and Ireland, and the potential re-introduction of the border, is a complete coincidence.
Non-sarcastic response: I do.
Because hijacking a Royal Mail van is all about a hard border in Ireland..... non-sarcastic eye-roll.
Much more likely to be about where the border between one drugs gang and another is.
48 hours after a bomb goes off outside a courthouse, and is linked to dissident republicans.
It might be a coincidence, but flat out denial that's it's a possibility because you support Brexit is truly worth of an eye-roll.
The problem remainers have is that they can't be seen to be making the link between the two. It would give the impression that they were supporting terrorism.
Enabling, I'd say. Assuming you meant "leavers" there.
No, I meant remainers.
Then you've lost me. How can noting that the prospect of leaving is stoking tensions, and that actually leaving (especially with a No Deal) would do so further, be interpreted as "supporting terrorism". It could be characterised as scaremongering, even irresponsible scaremongering, sure.
Because connecting what's going on in Derry to Brexit gives the impression that remainers think the actions of these terrorists is justified.
"A second security alert is underway in Londonderry after a Royal Mail van was hijacked at gunpoint and abandoned.
Police are currently at the scene of a security alert in the Circular Road area of Londonderry, while another security alert is taking place less than a mile away on Southway."
All worth it to reinstate properly bendy bananas.
You really think this is Brexit related?
No, after over a decade of relative calm, the resurgence of violence and bombs in N. Ireland at the time of intense political discord between the UK and Ireland, and the potential re-introduction of the border, is a complete coincidence.
Non-sarcastic response: I do.
Because hijacking a Royal Mail van is all about a hard border in Ireland..... non-sarcastic eye-roll.
Much more likely to be about where the border between one drugs gang and another is.
48 hours after a bomb goes off outside a courthouse, and is linked to dissident republicans.
It might be a coincidence, but flat out denial that's it's a possibility because you support Brexit is truly worth of an eye-roll.
The problem remainers have is that they can't be seen to be making the link between the two. It would give the impression that they were supporting terrorism.
Enabling, I'd say. Assuming you meant "leavers" there.
No, I meant remainers.
Then you've lost me. How can noting that the prospect of leaving is stoking tensions, and that actually leaving (especially with a No Deal) would do so further, be interpreted as "supporting terrorism". It could be characterised as scaremongering, even irresponsible scaremongering, sure.
Because connecting what's going on in Derry to Brexit gives the impression that remainers think the actions of these terrorists is justified.
Understanding why something is happening does not mean one thinks it's justified.
I understand why the Charlie Hebdo staff were murdered. I do not think it was right, or justifiable in any way.
First we have the version Trump offered during the campaign and after, in which he repeatedly claimed that he had no business interests in Russia whatsoever. “I don’t know Putin, have no business whatsoever with Russia, have nothing to do with Russia,” he said during an October 2016 rally...
'She says she wants to provide "assurance to the House" that the government is now seeking advice from a "range" of voices independent of Parliament on what the next steps should be on the UK's future relationship with the EU.'
Sounds like May is going to start reading PB threads for advice...
'She says she wants to provide "assurance to the House" that the government is now seeking advice from a "range" of voices independent of Parliament on what the next steps should be on the UK's future relationship with the EU.'
Sounds like May is going to start reading PB threads for advice...
'She says she wants to provide "assurance to the House" that the government is now seeking advice from a "range" of voices independent of Parliament on what the next steps should be on the UK's future relationship with the EU.'
Sounds like May is going to start reading PB threads for advice...
Waves at Mrs May....just to say, ignore what all the haters say, Die Hard is definitely a Christmas movie, and there is a lot of concern on here that a No Deal Brexit might end up with us having to drink boxed wine, so could you please get it sorted. Thanks.
"A second security alert is underway in Londonderry after a Royal Mail van was hijacked at gunpoint and abandoned.
Police are currently at the scene of a security alert in the Circular Road area of Londonderry, while another security alert is taking place less than a mile away on Southway."
All worth it to reinstate properly bendy bananas.
You really think this is Brexit related?
No, after over a decade of relative calm, the resurgence of violence and bombs in N. Ireland at the time of intense political discord between the UK and Ireland, and the potential re-introduction of the border, is a complete coincidence.
Non-sarcastic response: I do.
Because hijacking a Royal Mail van is all about a hard border in Ireland..... non-sarcastic eye-roll.
Much more likely to be about where the border between one drugs gang and another is.
48 hours after a bomb goes off outside a courthouse, and is linked to dissident republicans.
It might be a coincidence, but flat out denial that's it's a possibility because you support Brexit is truly worth of an eye-roll.
The problem remainers have is that they can't be seen to be making the link between the two. It would give the impression that they were supporting terrorism.
Enabling, I'd say. Assuming you meant "leavers" there.
No, I meant remainers.
Then you've lost me. How can noting that the prospect of leaving is stoking tensions, and that actually leaving (especially with a No Deal) would do so further, be interpreted as "supporting terrorism". It could be characterised as scaremongering, even irresponsible scaremongering, sure.
Because connecting what's going on in Derry to Brexit gives the impression that remainers think the actions of these terrorists is justified.
Understanding why something is happening does not mean one thinks it's justified.
I understand why the Charlie Hebdo staff were murdered. I do not think it was right, or justifiable in any way.
What it comes down to is, do you think it's a good reason for opposing Brexit? Personally I think remainers would be better off focusing on other things.
'Jeremy Corbyn says Labour's position of seeking a new comprehensive customs union with the EU and a strong single market access agreement would be supported a majority of MPs.'
This is the bit that just doesn't seem to get through May's skull - the only way to get a majority in the House is to tack left, not to tack right to placate the ERG.
The main criticisms of Theresa May's position come down to people complaining that she continues to refuse to say that the impossible is possible. So, yes, nothing has changed, because the reality hasn't changed.
'Jeremy Corbyn says Labour's position of seeking a new comprehensive customs union with the EU and a strong single market access agreement would be supported a majority of MPs.'
This is the bit that just doesn't seem to get through May's skull - the only way to get a majority in the House is to tack left, not to tack right to placate the ERG.
So Plan B is Plan A+ (insert unspecified wish here). We now retire for 8 more days, to consider everything which has been already thought of. Then return for a day of MPs repeating the same points as before Christmas, and last week. Then a series of amendments, which will probably all fail. Repeat.
Given that nothing new was said. Why no voting tonight? We know the answer.
May would be dumb to rule out No Deal. It would be giving the remainer opposition in parliament a one way trade. Simply keep rejecting a deal and force a revocation or delay.
'Jeremy Corbyn says Labour's position of seeking a new comprehensive customs union with the EU and a strong single market access agreement would be supported a majority of MPs.'
This is the bit that just doesn't seem to get through May's skull - the only way to get a majority in the House is to tack left, not to tack right to placate the ERG.
It's understandable when you realise that May's only concern is the preservation of her career and the Tory party.
Maybe he will have a chance to vote for it in the next week
I think his reference to it in his closing remarks is effectively indicating that he will do so.
Which is what he wants you to think.
He's quite a cynic. Get 2nd referendum supporters to think he backs it while not actually doing so. Win/win.
Yes - his way with words is masterly. He would have made a good lawyer. Or fraudster. He makes people believe in what they want to believe and that he believes in them too, even though the words he uses never quite say what his audience think he said.
That's a very smart ad. My 66/1 bet is looking better
You've done very well, that looks a superb bet. But the question for those of us foolish enough to have ignored you is whether she is value at 4/1. I think she might be even now.
'Jeremy Corbyn says Labour's position of seeking a new comprehensive customs union with the EU and a strong single market access agreement would be supported a majority of MPs.'
This is the bit that just doesn't seem to get through May's skull - the only way to get a majority in the House is to tack left, not to tack right to placate the ERG.
It's understandable when you realise that May's only concern is the preservation of her career and the Tory party.
Nonsense, Corbyn's position is absurd. It would make zero difference to the backstop, and his own red lines would mean it would not be acceptable to the EU. In any case, if parliament ratifies the Withdrawal Agreement, there is nothing to stop the future trade agreement being changed to a closer relationship, if a future government doesn't mind ditching May's and Corbyn's red lines.
The main criticisms of Theresa May's position come down to people complaining that she continues to refuse to say that the impossible is possible. So, yes, nothing has changed, because the reality hasn't changed.
No. The main criticism of her position is that she appears not to realise that she has negotiated a deal which neither her party nor Parliament support.
So Plan B is Plan A+ (insert unspecified wish here). We now retire for 8 more days, to consider everything which has been already thought of. Then return for a day of MPs repeating the same points as before Christmas, and last week. Then a series of amendments, which will probably all fail. Repeat.
Given that nothing new was said. Why no voting tonight? We know the answer.
Plan C is yet another vote on WA in February.
Despair...
I share your despair and understand why you may want it voting on
However, it looks like there are going to many complex amendments that need to be laid and for mps to give due consideration to their voting.
There is some thought that a series of votes need to try to eliminate the options until one has majority support
The main criticisms of Theresa May's position come down to people complaining that she continues to refuse to say that the impossible is possible. So, yes, nothing has changed, because the reality hasn't changed.
The WA is predicated on May's red lines. The EU has made clear that were those to change a new deal could be negotiated. It is possible for her to change her red lines. But she won't.
'Jeremy Corbyn says Labour's position of seeking a new comprehensive customs union with the EU and a strong single market access agreement would be supported a majority of MPs.'
This is the bit that just doesn't seem to get through May's skull - the only way to get a majority in the House is to tack left, not to tack right to placate the ERG.
It's understandable when you realise that May's only concern is the preservation of her career and the Tory party.
I really don't think this is the case. I think she considers herself honour-bound to the referendum result and her interpretation of it (specifically no freedom of movement). She is going to keep trying to deliver that. I would then expect her to stand down in the summer.
Clearly she would rather rely on Conservative votes, but it's pretty apparent that a successful withdrawal agreement will require some degree of support from the Opposition benches as well, given there are some irreconcilables on the Tory benches (never mind the DUP).
So the PM has been in "listening mode". She has heard all the concerns, considered them deeply, and decided they are all wrong, and she is absolutely right. Phew. What a relief.
That's a very smart ad. My 66/1 bet is looking better
You've done very well, that looks a superb bet. But the question for those of us foolish enough to have ignored you is whether she is value at 4/1. I think she might be even now.
My assessment is that winning the nomination is her great challenge, as the field is likely to be pretty crowded, with several half-decent runners.
If she wins the nomination, I think she would defeat Trumpton. But, because of the breadth of field in the nomination, I'd want 10-1 I think.
The WA is predicated on May's red lines. The EU has made clear that were those to change a new deal could be negotiated. It is possible for her to change her red lines. But she won't.
The WA is Citizens' rights, Money, No border in Ireland, Transition period.
How would any of that change if she adjusted her red lines?
What it comes down to is, do you think it's a good reason for opposing Brexit? Personally I think remainers would be better off focusing on other things.
Fair enough, you completely misunderstand the politics, culture, and history of the UK's relations with Ireland. And probably much else. As I keep on having to point out to such folk, that really ought to disqualify you from commenting on anything political and in particular anything about NI/the backstop. But as you are probably going to ignore such sound advice, I will have to repeat that any physical infrastructure on the NI border risks inviting a resurgence of the Troubles. A No Deal could lead to a challenge under WTO MFN which might lead to physical infrastructure on the NI border.
No UK Prime Minister would or could ever put the UK in such a position and hence the backstop is inviolable and will not change. It is not a reason to support or oppose Brexit. It is one factor (overlooked by those who shouldn't have) that is critical in determining the flavour of Brexit.
'Jeremy Corbyn says Labour's position of seeking a new comprehensive customs union with the EU and a strong single market access agreement would be supported a majority of MPs.'
This is the bit that just doesn't seem to get through May's skull - the only way to get a majority in the House is to tack left, not to tack right to placate the ERG.
It's understandable when you realise that May's only concern is the preservation of her career and the Tory party.
No. The main criticism of her position is that she appears not to realise that she has negotiated a deal which neither her party nor Parliament support.
And that is because they would not support any deal, for disparate reasons:
- The ERG won't support any deal, period. - Slightly less head-bangy Brexiteers won't support any deal which includes the backstop. - Labour won't support any deal negotiated by the Tories. - The SNP just want to make as much trouble as possible. - The LibDems and the Labour People's Voters won't support any deal unless there's a referendum (and who knows, maybe not even then?)
Theresa May is just stating the facts. This is the deal available. If MPs don't like it, they can revoke Article 50, or possibly delay if the EU agree. Otherwise we get crash-out with No Deal in 10 weeks' time. Ain't no other choices.
That's a very smart ad. My 66/1 bet is looking better
You've done very well, that looks a superb bet. But the question for those of us foolish enough to have ignored you is whether she is value at 4/1. I think she might be even now.
I'd be hesitant. My guess is that you'll get better odds sometime in the next few months.
(Though, like Mike, I already have a position, albeit not at quite such long odds.)
The main criticisms of Theresa May's position come down to people complaining that she continues to refuse to say that the impossible is possible. So, yes, nothing has changed, because the reality hasn't changed.
That this simple, self-evident truth needs to be repeated so often beggars belief. Fair enough to have to drill it into the thick skulls of MPs. But this is PB where we should know better.
That's a very smart ad. My 66/1 bet is looking better
You've done very well, that looks a superb bet. But the question for those of us foolish enough to have ignored you is whether she is value at 4/1. I think she might be even now.
My assessment is that winning the nomination is her great challenge, as the field is likely to be pretty crowded, with several half-decent runners.
If she wins the nomination, I think she would defeat Trumpton. But, because of the breadth of field in the nomination, I'd want 10-1 I think.
The main criticisms of Theresa May's position come down to people complaining that she continues to refuse to say that the impossible is possible. So, yes, nothing has changed, because the reality hasn't changed.
The WA is predicated on May's red lines. The EU has made clear that were those to change a new deal could be negotiated. It is possible for her to change her red lines. But she won't.
A new political declaration could be negotiated, not a new Withdrawal Agreement.
The WA is predicated on May's red lines. The EU has made clear that were those to change a new deal could be negotiated. It is possible for her to change her red lines. But she won't.
The WA is Citizens' rights, Money, No border in Ireland, Transition period.
How would any of that change if she adjusted her red lines?
Continued and permanent UK membership of the customs union removes the need for a backstop.
So the PM has been in "listening mode". She has heard all the concerns, considered them deeply, and decided they are all wrong, and she is absolutely right. Phew. What a relief.
This is a holding statement and the real debate and votes will be next week.
I do hope that amendments including a second referendum, customs union, no deal and revoke are laid and voted on
No. The main criticism of her position is that she appears not to realise that she has negotiated a deal which neither her party nor Parliament support.
And that is because they would not support any deal, for disparate reasons:
- The ERG won't support any deal, period. - Slightly less head-bangy Brexiteers won't support any deal which includes the backstop. - Labour won't support any deal negotiated by the Tories. - The SNP just want to make as much trouble as possible. - The LibDems and the Labour People's Voters won't support any deal unless there's a referendum (and who knows, maybe not even then?)
Theresa May is just stating the facts. This is the deal available. If MPs don't like it, they can revoke Article 50, or possibly delay if the EU agree. Otherwise we get crash-out with No Deal in 10 weeks' time. Ain't no other choices.
Yes. Unless the deal can be modified in a very short time.
That's a very smart ad. My 66/1 bet is looking better
You've done very well, that looks a superb bet. But the question for those of us foolish enough to have ignored you is whether she is value at 4/1. I think she might be even now.
My assessment is that winning the nomination is her great challenge, as the field is likely to be pretty crowded, with several half-decent runners.
If she wins the nomination, I think she would defeat Trumpton. But, because of the breadth of field in the nomination, I'd want 10-1 I think.
I'd be piling on again at 10/1...
I'd probably dive in at that price. She comes across very well and her name inspires, erm, calm!
If Tony Blair had had the guts he could have held a referendum in about 1998, at the height of his popularity, on both staying in the EU and adopting the Euro. The latter might have been defeated, but the former would have won easily at that point in time. And a mandate from 1998 would probably have been regarded by most people as still being in force in 2016 as opposed to one from 1975.
The main criticisms of Theresa May's position come down to people complaining that she continues to refuse to say that the impossible is possible. So, yes, nothing has changed, because the reality hasn't changed.
That this simple, self-evident truth needs to be repeated so often beggars belief. Fair enough to have to drill it into the thick skulls of MPs. But this is PB where we should know better.
She will not revoke A50, which would take No Deal off the table. If MPs do wish to revoke A50, then they can vote her out of office.
May has worked out that wih the backstop solved and the ERG on board she can win with a few Labour MPs to support it with workers' rights protected and to offset the ultra remainer Conservative MPs.
The main criticisms of Theresa May's position come down to people complaining that she continues to refuse to say that the impossible is possible. So, yes, nothing has changed, because the reality hasn't changed.
The WA is predicated on May's red lines. The EU has made clear that were those to change a new deal could be negotiated. It is possible for her to change her red lines. But she won't.
A new political declaration could be negotiated, not a new Withdrawal Agreement.
The WA is predicated on May's red lines. The EU has made clear that were those to change a new deal could be negotiated. It is possible for her to change her red lines. But she won't.
The WA is Citizens' rights, Money, No border in Ireland, Transition period.
How would any of that change if she adjusted her red lines?
Continued and permanent UK membership of the customs union removes the need for a backstop.
Only once it has been formally agreed and ratified by the EU27, and maybe not even then. And the EU won't formally negotiate until we've left. So, no, it doesn't remove the need for the backstop.
The WA is predicated on May's red lines. The EU has made clear that were those to change a new deal could be negotiated. It is possible for her to change her red lines. But she won't.
The WA is Citizens' rights, Money, No border in Ireland, Transition period.
How would any of that change if she adjusted her red lines?
Continued and permanent UK membership of the customs union removes the need for a backstop.
It does increasingly seem that May wants the HoC to dictate the way forward to her if this Guardian report of her exchange with Cooper is anything to go by:
Labour’s Yvette Cooper challenges May to hold votes on her red lines, such as staying out of the customs union.
May says there will be a debate next week, and MPs will be able to table amendments.
The WA is predicated on May's red lines. The EU has made clear that were those to change a new deal could be negotiated. It is possible for her to change her red lines. But she won't.
The WA is Citizens' rights, Money, No border in Ireland, Transition period.
How would any of that change if she adjusted her red lines?
Continued and permanent UK membership of the customs union removes the need for a backstop.
No it doesn't. What about regulations?
Please expand? I'm with Southam on this one - would be good know know where we are wrong.
The main criticisms of Theresa May's position come down to people complaining that she continues to refuse to say that the impossible is possible. So, yes, nothing has changed, because the reality hasn't changed.
That this simple, self-evident truth needs to be repeated so often beggars belief. Fair enough to have to drill it into the thick skulls of MPs. But this is PB where we should know better.
She will not revoke A50, which would take No Deal off the table. If MPs do wish to revoke A50, then they can vote her out of office.
Well I still think (ha haha hahahahaha) that the deal will get through. I mean it seems impossible. The DUP won't all of a sudden change their minds, and nor it seems and despite the appeals today, will a significant number of Lab MPs. Cons headbangers on both sides won't either.
And yet.
The deal is the only possible iteration of Brexit. There simple INA.
So the next few days and weeks will be nothing if not exciting. But we know the ending. The deal.
The WA is predicated on May's red lines. The EU has made clear that were those to change a new deal could be negotiated. It is possible for her to change her red lines. But she won't.
The WA is Citizens' rights, Money, No border in Ireland, Transition period.
How would any of that change if she adjusted her red lines?
Continued and permanent UK membership of the customs union removes the need for a backstop.
No it doesn't. What about regulations?
Please expand? I'm with Southam on this one - would be good know know where we are wrong.
The backstop ties Northern Ireland into both being in the same customs area AND the same Single Market regulations. Dealing with only one of those issues still leaves the other one.
I see IATA are loudly pointing out the thing that I was pointing out about the no-deal Brexit flights deal that has been signed. Fuck loads of flights will be cancelled.
The main criticisms of Theresa May's position come down to people complaining that she continues to refuse to say that the impossible is possible. So, yes, nothing has changed, because the reality hasn't changed.
That this simple, self-evident truth needs to be repeated so often beggars belief. Fair enough to have to drill it into the thick skulls of MPs. But this is PB where we should know better.
She will not revoke A50, which would take No Deal off the table. If MPs do wish to revoke A50, then they can vote her out of office.
Well I still think (ha haha hahahahaha) that the deal will get through. I mean it seems impossible. The DUP won't all of a sudden change their minds, and nor it seems and despite the appeals today, will a significant number of Lab MPs. Cons headbangers on both sides won't either.
And yet.
The deal is the only possible iteration of Brexit. There simple INA.
So the next few days and weeks will be nothing if not exciting. But we know the ending. The deal.
There's a perfectly viable alternative you just don't like it. There are multiple viable alternatives.
The main criticisms of Theresa May's position come down to people complaining that she continues to refuse to say that the impossible is possible. So, yes, nothing has changed, because the reality hasn't changed.
That this simple, self-evident truth needs to be repeated so often beggars belief. Fair enough to have to drill it into the thick skulls of MPs. But this is PB where we should know better.
She will not revoke A50, which would take No Deal off the table. If MPs do wish to revoke A50, then they can vote her out of office.
Well I still think (ha haha hahahahaha) that the deal will get through. I mean it seems impossible. The DUP won't all of a sudden change their minds, and nor it seems and despite the appeals today, will a significant number of Lab MPs. Cons headbangers on both sides won't either.
And yet.
The deal is the only possible iteration of Brexit. There simple INA.
So the next few days and weeks will be nothing if not exciting. But we know the ending. The deal.
I spoke with a couple of MPs last week - admittedly they are both loyal to the Government, but their instincts were that a deal will get through and we will leave on 29/3. Exactly how... not so sure...
The WA is predicated on May's red lines. The EU has made clear that were those to change a new deal could be negotiated. It is possible for her to change her red lines. But she won't.
The WA is Citizens' rights, Money, No border in Ireland, Transition period.
How would any of that change if she adjusted her red lines?
Continued and permanent UK membership of the customs union removes the need for a backstop.
Only once it has been formally agreed and ratified by the EU27, and maybe not even then. And the EU won't formally negotiate until we've left. So, no, it doesn't remove the need for the backstop.
This really shouldn't need repeating!
You are looking at it through the prism of the last two years in which May's red lines have defined the parameters of the way in which the EU have negotiated. As Barnier has made clear, changing the red lines changes the deal that can be done. The backstop is there because the UK government has made clear that it wants to leave the customs union.
The main criticisms of Theresa May's position come down to people complaining that she continues to refuse to say that the impossible is possible. So, yes, nothing has changed, because the reality hasn't changed.
That this simple, self-evident truth needs to be repeated so often beggars belief. Fair enough to have to drill it into the thick skulls of MPs. But this is PB where we should know better.
She will not revoke A50, which would take No Deal off the table. If MPs do wish to revoke A50, then they can vote her out of office.
Well I still think (ha haha hahahahaha) that the deal will get through. I mean it seems impossible. The DUP won't all of a sudden change their minds, and nor it seems and despite the appeals today, will a significant number of Lab MPs. Cons headbangers on both sides won't either.
And yet.
The deal is the only possible iteration of Brexit. There simple INA.
So the next few days and weeks will be nothing if not exciting. But we know the ending. The deal.
There's a perfectly viable alternative you just don't like it. There are multiple viable alternatives.
Maybe he will have a chance to vote for it in the next week
I think his reference to it in his closing remarks is effectively indicating that he will do so.
Which is what he wants you to think.
He's quite a cynic. Get 2nd referendum supporters to think he backs it while not actually doing so. Win/win.
Yes - his way with words is masterly. He would have made a good lawyer. Or fraudster. He makes people believe in what they want to believe and that he believes in them too, even though the words he uses never quite say what his audience think he said.
I think were he to ever become PM he will go down in history as one of politics' greatest frauds - and maybe even if he doesn't. The nitty gritty of his politics are just so far away from the 'more left than thou, the left is good, therefore he must be even more good' view that has become the myth of the man. And I say that as someone who is on the left, but can see how Corbyn/McDonnell are from an utterly different and very nasty tradition that will turn on the very people it claims to be for when people complain that their contradictory promises fail to materialise. It's where he differs from people like Tony Benn - who whatever you think of him had a fully formed version of socialism that accepted negatives as part of a trade-off for a supposed greater good. A reason why it's been much more successful than previous hard left efforts, but why the fall will be all the more precipitous, is that Corbynism doesn't. It's Ponzi socialism that banks any positives and denies any negatives. Hence why the man is so insanely relaxed about Brexit and his own nonsensical approach to it. Making a mess of it doesn't matter if your brand of socialism is a cure for all ills.
I see IATA are loudly pointing out the thing that I was pointing out about the no-deal Brexit flights deal that has been signed. Fuck loads of flights will be cancelled.
The main criticisms of Theresa May's position come down to people complaining that she continues to refuse to say that the impossible is possible. So, yes, nothing has changed, because the reality hasn't changed.
That this simple, self-evident truth needs to be repeated so often beggars belief. Fair enough to have to drill it into the thick skulls of MPs. But this is PB where we should know better.
She will not revoke A50, which would take No Deal off the table. If MPs do wish to revoke A50, then they can vote her out of office.
Well I still think (ha haha hahahahaha) that the deal will get through. I mean it seems impossible. The DUP won't all of a sudden change their minds, and nor it seems and despite the appeals today, will a significant number of Lab MPs. Cons headbangers on both sides won't either.
And yet.
The deal is the only possible iteration of Brexit. There simple INA.
So the next few days and weeks will be nothing if not exciting. But we know the ending. The deal.
I spoke with a couple of MPs last week - admittedly they are both loyal to the Government, but their instincts were that a deal will get through and we will leave on 29/3. Exactly how... not so sure...
It's certainly an interesting process but yes, the deal will go through because there are no other options.
(Waiting as @Philip_Thompson types out furiously his winning solution.)
It does increasingly seem that May wants the HoC to dictate the way forward to her if this Guardian report of her exchange with Cooper is anything to go by:
Labour’s Yvette Cooper challenges May to hold votes on her red lines, such as staying out of the customs union.
May says there will be a debate next week, and MPs will be able to table amendments.
It's the perfect cover I suppose. She gets progress without owning in.
Maybe he will have a chance to vote for it in the next week
I think his reference to it in his closing remarks is effectively indicating that he will do so.
Which is what he wants you to think.
He's quite a cynic. Get 2nd referendum supporters to think he backs it while not actually doing so. Win/win.
Yes - his way with words is masterly. He would have made a good lawyer. Or fraudster. He makes people believe in what they want to believe and that he believes in them too, even though the words he uses never quite say what his audience think he said.
I think were he to ever become PM he will go down in history as one of politics' greatest frauds - and maybe even if he doesn't. The nitty gritty of his politics are just so far away from the 'more left than thou, the left is good, therefore he must be even more good' view that has become the myth of the man. And I say that as someone who is on the left, but can see how Corbyn/McDonnell are from an utterly different and very nasty tradition that will turn on the very people it claims to be for when people complain that their contradictory promises fail to materialise. It's where he differs from people like Tony Benn - who whatever you think of him had a fully formed version of socialism that accepted negatives as part of a trade-off for a supposed greater good. A reason why it's been much more successful than previous hard left efforts, but why the fall will be all the more precipitous, is that Corbynism doesn't. It's Ponzi socialism that banks any positives and denies any negatives. Hence why the man is so insanely relaxed about Brexit and his own nonsensical approach to it. Making a mess of it doesn't matter if your brand of socialism is a cure for all ills.
The main criticisms of Theresa May's position come down to people complaining that she continues to refuse to say that the impossible is possible. So, yes, nothing has changed, because the reality hasn't changed.
The WA is predicated on May's red lines. The EU has made clear that were those to change a new deal could be negotiated. It is possible for her to change her red lines. But she won't.
A new political declaration could be negotiated, not a new Withdrawal Agreement.
That might get err Lucy Powell, Stephen Kinnock and Robert Halfon on board I think if it is Norway+ed.
The main criticisms of Theresa May's position come down to people complaining that she continues to refuse to say that the impossible is possible. So, yes, nothing has changed, because the reality hasn't changed.
That this simple, self-evident truth needs to be repeated so often beggars belief. Fair enough to have to drill it into the thick skulls of MPs. But this is PB where we should know better.
She will not revoke A50, which would take No Deal off the table. If MPs do wish to revoke A50, then they can vote her out of office.
Well I still think (ha haha hahahahaha) that the deal will get through. I mean it seems impossible. The DUP won't all of a sudden change their minds, and nor it seems and despite the appeals today, will a significant number of Lab MPs. Cons headbangers on both sides won't either.
And yet.
The deal is the only possible iteration of Brexit. There simple INA.
So the next few days and weeks will be nothing if not exciting. But we know the ending. The deal.
There's a perfectly viable alternative you just don't like it. There are multiple viable alternatives.
Such as?
1. The EU blinks and amends the deal. They have said they won't but so have MPs said they won't accept this deal so it there is to be a deal it may be them that blink.
2. The clock ticks down and we exit automatically in accordance with the 2 year provisions of A50.
You are looking at it through the prism of the last two years in which May's red lines have defined the parameters of the way in which the EU have negotiated. As Barnier has made clear, changing the red lines changes the deal that can be done. The backstop is there because the UK government has made clear that it wants to leave the customs union.
I am looking at it through the prism of what the EU has said again and again and again, most recently today:
Nonsense, Corbyn's position is absurd. It would make zero difference to the backstop, and his own red lines would mean it would not be acceptable to the EU. In any case, if parliament ratifies the Withdrawal Agreement, there is nothing to stop the future trade agreement being changed to a closer relationship, if a future government doesn't mind ditching May's and Corbyn's red lines.
As I read it the Withdrawal Agreement (because of the Backstop) steers to a very soft Brexit - i.e. membership of the Customs Union and a very close alignment with the Single Market. Which is pretty much Labour's stated position.
Mrs May's aspiration (as sketched out in the Political Declaration) to be out of both the CU and the SM is actually incompatible with the Withdrawal Agreement - unless one assumes that a technological solution to the Irish border will be feasible.
So, oddly enough, if we define 'the deal' as being the WA plus the PD taken together, we conclude that Mrs May's deal does not allow the implementation of Mrs May's deal, but it does smooth the way for Labour's deal.
The WA is predicated on May's red lines. The EU has made clear that were those to change a new deal could be negotiated. It is possible for her to change her red lines. But she won't.
The WA is Citizens' rights, Money, No border in Ireland, Transition period.
How would any of that change if she adjusted her red lines?
Continued and permanent UK membership of the customs union removes the need for a backstop.
Only once it has been formally agreed and ratified by the EU27, and maybe not even then. And the EU won't formally negotiate until we've left. So, no, it doesn't remove the need for the backstop.
This really shouldn't need repeating!
You are looking at it through the prism of the last two years in which May's red lines have defined the parameters of the way in which the EU have negotiated. As Barnier has made clear, changing the red lines changes the deal that can be done. The backstop is there because the UK government has made clear that it wants to leave the customs union.
...Because May has decided that Leaving the EU also has to mean not being in a CU. But that's just her interpretation (admittedly shared by the ERG but not all the 52% wanted out of the CU.)
If Tony Blair had had the guts he could have held a referendum in about 1998, at the height of his popularity, on both staying in the EU and adopting the Euro. The latter might have been defeated, but the former would have won easily at that point in time. And a mandate from 1998 would probably have been regarded by most people as still being in force in 2016 as opposed to one from 1975.
There’s a reason why we’ve not had a referendum on eec/ec/eu treaties, it’s unlikely any would have passed. There’s never really been any clamour for European integration. Our membership was largely a common market. Even when, such as creating the single market, it was in our interests, and support of the UK gvt, I doubt it would pass.
The main criticisms of Theresa May's position come down to people complaining that she continues to refuse to say that the impossible is possible. So, yes, nothing has changed, because the reality hasn't changed.
That this simple, self-evident truth needs to be repeated so often beggars belief. Fair enough to have to drill it into the thick skulls of MPs. But this is PB where we should know better.
She will not revoke A50, which would take No Deal off the table. If MPs do wish to revoke A50, then they can vote her out of office.
Well I still think (ha haha hahahahaha) that the deal will get through. I mean it seems impossible. The DUP won't all of a sudden change their minds, and nor it seems and despite the appeals today, will a significant number of Lab MPs. Cons headbangers on both sides won't either.
And yet.
The deal is the only possible iteration of Brexit. There simple INA.
So the next few days and weeks will be nothing if not exciting. But we know the ending. The deal.
You vastly overestimate the willingness of hundreds of career politicians to put the good of the country first.
Comments
She is a lying hound. Up there with the “best”.
I understand why the Charlie Hebdo staff were murdered. I do not think it was right, or justifiable in any way.
Stop drinking the kool-ade.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1087374046805835776
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/21/trumps-corruption-keeps-getting-more-obvious/
With this statement by Giuliani (which, who knows, he might contradict by day’s end), we now have four different versions that the president and his representatives have told about his pursuit of a Moscow deal during the campaign.
First we have the version Trump offered during the campaign and after, in which he repeatedly claimed that he had no business interests in Russia whatsoever. “I don’t know Putin, have no business whatsoever with Russia, have nothing to do with Russia,” he said during an October 2016 rally...
Sounds like May is going to start reading PB threads for advice...
Maybe he will have a chance to vote for it in the next week
I just don't understand
He's quite a cynic. Get 2nd referendum supporters to think he backs it while not actually doing so. Win/win.
This is the bit that just doesn't seem to get through May's skull - the only way to get a majority in the House is to tack left, not to tack right to placate the ERG.
Given that nothing new was said. Why no voting tonight? We know the answer.
Plan C is yet another vote on WA in February.
Despair...
But the question for those of us foolish enough to have ignored you is whether she is value at 4/1. I think she might be even now.
Consider it an intervention.
No. The main criticism of her position is that she appears not to realise that she has negotiated a deal which neither her party nor Parliament support.
However, it looks like there are going to many complex amendments that need to be laid and for mps to give due consideration to their voting.
There is some thought that a series of votes need to try to eliminate the options until one has majority support
Clearly she would rather rely on Conservative votes, but it's pretty apparent that a successful withdrawal agreement will require some degree of support from the Opposition benches as well, given there are some irreconcilables on the Tory benches (never mind the DUP).
Phew. What a relief.
If she wins the nomination, I think she would defeat Trumpton. But, because of the breadth of field in the nomination, I'd want 10-1 I think.
How would any of that change if she adjusted her red lines?
No UK Prime Minister would or could ever put the UK in such a position and hence the backstop is inviolable and will not change. It is not a reason to support or oppose Brexit. It is one factor (overlooked by those who shouldn't have) that is critical in determining the flavour of Brexit.
- The ERG won't support any deal, period.
- Slightly less head-bangy Brexiteers won't support any deal which includes the backstop.
- Labour won't support any deal negotiated by the Tories.
- The SNP just want to make as much trouble as possible.
- The LibDems and the Labour People's Voters won't support any deal unless there's a referendum (and who knows, maybe not even then?)
Theresa May is just stating the facts. This is the deal available. If MPs don't like it, they can revoke Article 50, or possibly delay if the EU agree. Otherwise we get crash-out with No Deal in 10 weeks' time. Ain't no other choices.
(Though, like Mike, I already have a position, albeit not at quite such long odds.)
So when do any amendments get tabled or have I missed them?
I do hope that amendments including a second referendum, customs union, no deal and revoke are laid and voted on
But it is now 9 and a half weeks, not 10 weeks.
This really shouldn't need repeating!
Labour’s Yvette Cooper challenges May to hold votes on her red lines, such as staying out of the customs union.
May says there will be a debate next week, and MPs will be able to table amendments.
And yet.
The deal is the only possible iteration of Brexit. There simple INA.
So the next few days and weeks will be nothing if not exciting. But we know the ending. The deal.
https://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2019-01-15-01.aspx
Perhaps there will be fewer flights than there would have been - I'm not even sure how we would know.
(Waiting as @Philip_Thompson types out furiously his winning solution.)
2. The clock ticks down and we exit automatically in accordance with the 2 year provisions of A50.
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1087317148089892864
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1087317149159514113
Mrs May's aspiration (as sketched out in the Political Declaration) to be out of both the CU and the SM is actually incompatible with the Withdrawal Agreement - unless one assumes that a technological solution to the Irish border will be feasible.
So, oddly enough, if we define 'the deal' as being the WA plus the PD taken together, we conclude that Mrs May's deal does not allow the implementation of Mrs May's deal, but it does smooth the way for Labour's deal.
Alice through the mirror, or what.
...Because May has decided that Leaving the EU also has to mean not being in a CU. But that's just her interpretation (admittedly shared by the ERG but not all the 52% wanted out of the CU.)
There’s a reason why we’ve not had a referendum on eec/ec/eu treaties, it’s unlikely any would have passed. There’s never really been any clamour for European integration. Our membership was largely a common market. Even when, such as creating the single market, it was in our interests, and support of the UK gvt, I doubt it would pass.