Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The HealthSec announces that medicines will be prioritised ove

13

Comments

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,849
    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_P said:
    As predicted by me.

    (And no doubt others.)

    Just revoke - for God's sake. We keep our existing membership terms.

    Then we should have a crowdfunding exercise on Facebook for the Tory party to have the intensive therapy it so badly needs.
    That 's an option.

    But, it means we stay in for as long as the EU exists, and get dragged into things we don't want.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 22,098
    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Drutt said:


    I still don't really understand why Labour doesn't simply abstain on the MV, allow the WA deal through, see the DUP turn puce and end the C&S agreement, and back themselves to force an election, win it and put through whatever long-term future arrangement with the EU they see fit.

    I used to think that too. I now see it differently. May is cornered and if Labour hold the line - just continue to oppose and not get dragged into a search for alternatives - they can force her to make the ultimate choice of no deal or revoke. Either of those should be sufficient to sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.

    But will Cooper spoil things?
    Revoke finishes the Conservatives. No Deal merely hurts them.
    Revoke helps the country. No Deal hurts the country.

    Note the difference.

    Honestly, you strike me as a decent Tory.

    But I am beginning to loathe the Tories for the way they are putting their interests above those of the country. And don't give me that "honouring the referendum" bullshit. The referendum was largely done to sort out a Tory party problem. If the Tories had genuinely wanted to address the concerns the country had with its membership of the EU and its effects here - and there were serious problems, many of which I sympathise with, a referendum was not the way to go about it.

    But now - the Tories should not drag us into No Deal because they lack the courage to call a halt to a disastrous set of negotiations and a policy which no-one can defend, other than by saying "a referendum made me do it" and which will weaken and harm a country the Tories claim to be patriotic about.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,928

    At the age of 54 I’m doing something I’ve never done before: staying in a hotel in London. It’s also the first hotel I’ve stayed in that supplies KitKats free of charge. What is not to like?

    Does it have a bath? Many have just showers these days, to my major annoyance.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    Andrew said:

    nielh said:


    The simple answer to this is to avoid no deal. It creates all sorts of problems, particularly with ports, Ireland etc. Surely it would be easier for the EU to just extend the Article 50 period.


    What does that achieve though? We just reach the same impasse in a few months: withdrawal agreement or no-deal.
    It doesn't matter, it just kicks the can down the road, which is what the EU do.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    kinabalu said:

    I agree. I think No Deal would win Labour the next election but Revoke would be more long term damaging for the Conservatives. Could be terminal.

    Revoke might be terminal for the headbangers.

    It would help the sane wing of the party.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,513
    dots said:


    And if it doesn’t work, where will you go, Screaming?

    I have never been a member of the Tory party. I have voted for them precisely 1.5 times out of 4 GEs and all the local and european elections between those GEs. I'll probably vote LD again, purely on the basis more parties in parliament is a good thing.
    AndyJS said:
    The pretence that things are set in stone when the EU says, when they are famously in favour of fudges elsewhere, is very weak. They don't want to back down on this, that's not unreasonable, but that our government was active in coming up with it doesn't change it now being the problem, and a problem the EU could choose to adjust if they wanted, or kick down the road 10 years or something. They don't want to that's fine, but its not been carved in rock by Moses and they are not convincing in pretending this, of everything, is immutable as if it is not a choice.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,513
    Scott_P said:
    Government wins vote! We don't see that very often thesedays.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited January 2019

    At the age of 54 I’m doing something I’ve never done before: staying in a hotel in London. It’s also the first hotel I’ve stayed in that supplies KitKats free of charge. What is not to like?

    I've only stayed at hotels when visiting London, although it's only about 3 or 4 times a year and usually a Travelodge or Holiday Inn.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 40,133
    kle4 said:

    The pretence that things are set in stone when the EU says, when they are famously in favour of fudges elsewhere, is very weak. They don't want to back down on this, that's not unreasonable, but that our government was active in coming up with it doesn't change it now being the problem, and a problem the EU could choose to adjust if they wanted, or kick down the road 10 years or something. They don't want to that's fine, but its not been carved in rock by Moses and they are not convincing in pretending this, of everything, is immutable as if it is not a choice.

    https://twitter.com/jillongovt/status/1090016854062653440
    https://twitter.com/jillongovt/status/1090017092420685826
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 16,573

    viewcode said:

    On Topic - not sure what’s so scary about food shortage. We should be able to live temporarily without lettuce tomatoes and soft fruits - all examples given today - and should obviously prioritise medicines.

    "not sure what’s so scary about food shortage"

    Pause.

    Backs away slowly.

    If the examples given are the lettuce tomatoes and soft fruits I don’t count it as a food shortage - it would be an inconvenience. If we run out of bread, potatoes etc then that would be more of a worry. I’m just saying I wasn’t convinced by the person on 5live. If I can’t eat something like green veg and apples then I am not very imaginative. I mean my local Tesco is pretty spotty on soft fruit and I just manage my diet without it. Last summer it was hard to get lettuce we just didn’t eat lettuce.
    But what if it escalates and we can't get Good Brie?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 38,537

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Scott_P said:
    Fifty percent of Tory voters favour No Deal.
    Depressing, but I think TSE might be right. The idiots will impasse their way to a damaging outcome opposed by a large majority of the population.
    More Tory voters favour Remain (22%) than May's Deal (20%).

    That goose is cooked.
    I just don’t think it is - whilst it is not the preferred option it is the most acceptable to the most people.
    But not MPs.

    The 2017 electorate did a magnificent job in giving us a Parliament utterly unable to construct a majority able to agree on which way to to halt the train before it hits the buffers.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 38,537

    viewcode said:

    On Topic - not sure what’s so scary about food shortage. We should be able to live temporarily without lettuce tomatoes and soft fruits - all examples given today - and should obviously prioritise medicines.

    "not sure what’s so scary about food shortage"

    Pause.

    Backs away slowly.

    If the examples given are the lettuce tomatoes and soft fruits I don’t count it as a food shortage - it would be an inconvenience. If we run out of bread, potatoes etc then that would be more of a worry. I’m just saying I wasn’t convinced by the person on 5live. If I can’t eat something like green veg and apples then I am not very imaginative. I mean my local Tesco is pretty spotty on soft fruit and I just manage my diet without it. Last summer it was hard to get lettuce we just didn’t eat lettuce.
    But what if it escalates and we can't get Good Brie?
    Hard cheese ?

  • Harris_TweedHarris_Tweed Posts: 1,280

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    nielh said:

    Sean_F said:

    Meds and food should be prioritised for Remainers.

    Leavers can go whistle, this shall be their Brexit dividend

    You need not worry. The brainlessness of the ERG makes it very likely that Brexit won't happen
    In my view, we are heading to no deal.
    I'm waiting for the outcome of tomorrow's amendments before I decide.
    I make it a 70/80 per cent chance we leave with No Deal.
    It's a tricky one. If it passes then the punters will assume No Deal is toast and the odds will get bigger. But an extension has to be granted, not just requested, and would the EU grant one? So should I still bet on No Deal even if the Cooper amendment passes?

    Aaargh. Betting. Not easy.
    Is it not the case that even if the Cooper amendment is passed the EU Withdrawal Bill must be repealed if no deal is to be averted? The Cooper amendment does not repeal the EU Withdrawal Bill.
    I don't know. I read the Cooper amendment and the bill it refers to last night. Then my brain melted due to the clotted Parliamentary prose. But I am happy to accept your assertion.
    Doesn’t the Withdrawal Act have a massive can-kicking clause in there, which allows a minister to take a pot of TippEx to the leaving date and change it? Presumably to avoid a snafu at 10pm on the 29th if someone screws up. Appreciate it would need repealing eventually, but setting an exit date of, what, 3019, should give them time..
    No because it has to be agreed by all 27 other members and they will want a time limit.
    I was referring to the domestic legislation which would need to be brought into line. Agree on the problems you outline with the EU27 (and I’m not dismissing the reputational risk attaching to The Minister who agreed to do it either!)
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 16,573
    dots said:

    viewcode said:

    On Topic - not sure what’s so scary about food shortage. We should be able to live temporarily without lettuce tomatoes and soft fruits - all examples given today - and should obviously prioritise medicines.

    "not sure what’s so scary about food shortage"

    Pause.

    Backs away slowly.

    If the examples given are the lettuce tomatoes and soft fruits I don’t count it as a food shortage - it would be an inconvenience. If we run out of bread, potatoes etc then that would be more of a worry. I’m just saying I wasn’t convinced by the person on 5live. If I can’t eat something like green veg and apples then I am not very imaginative. I mean my local Tesco is pretty spotty on soft fruit and I just manage my diet without it. Last summer it was hard to get lettuce we just didn’t eat lettuce.
    Tomatoe is a fruit.
    No, it's a spelling mistake.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,795
    edited January 2019
    kinabalu said:

    Drutt said:


    I still don't really understand why Labour doesn't simply abstain on the MV, allow the WA deal through, see the DUP turn puce and end the C&S agreement, and back themselves to force an election, win it and put through whatever long-term future arrangement with the EU they see fit.

    I used to think that too. I now see it differently. May is cornered and if Labour hold the line - just continue to oppose and not get dragged into a search for alternatives - they can force her to make the ultimate choice of no deal or revoke. Either of those should be sufficient to sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.

    But will Cooper spoil things?
    Revoke would split the right and perhaps even see a new Farage party overtake the Tories, certainly if it was not done without EUref2.

    No Deal though could equally see Labour Remainers move to the LDs if Corbyn did not vote for EUref2 with a Remain option, while the Tory vote largely stay a united with Leavers returning from UKIP offsetting any Remainers moving to the LDs.

    Under FPTP in the short term No Deal could even see Tory gains
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    HYUFD said:

    Under FPTP in the short term No Deal could even see Tory gains

    No
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,261
    dots said:

    viewcode said:

    On Topic - not sure what’s so scary about food shortage. We should be able to live temporarily without lettuce tomatoes and soft fruits - all examples given today - and should obviously prioritise medicines.

    "not sure what’s so scary about food shortage"

    Pause.

    Backs away slowly.

    If the examples given are the lettuce tomatoes and soft fruits I don’t count it as a food shortage - it would be an inconvenience. If we run out of bread, potatoes etc then that would be more of a worry. I’m just saying I wasn’t convinced by the person on 5live. If I can’t eat something like green veg and apples then I am not very imaginative. I mean my local Tesco is pretty spotty on soft fruit and I just manage my diet without it. Last summer it was hard to get lettuce we just didn’t eat lettuce.
    Tomatoe is a fruit.
    I go by the adage if it goes in a fruit salad it’s a fruit
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,513
    edited January 2019
    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Drutt said:


    I still don't really understand why Labour doesn't simply abstain on the MV, allow the WA deal through, see the DUP turn puce and end the C&S agreement, and back themselves to force an election, win it and put through whatever long-term future arrangement with the EU they see fit.

    I used to think that too. I now see it differently. May is cornered and if Labour hold the line - just continue to oppose and not get dragged into a search for alternatives - they can force her to make the ultimate choice of no deal or revoke. Either of those should be sufficient to sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.

    But will Cooper spoil things?
    Under FPTP in the short term No Deal could even see Tory gains
    Presumably the reason for May's 'No deal by stealth' plan A2.0, wherein she asks the EU to do what she herself has said the EU won't do, knowing it will fail. But I would question the assumption.

    Well, Cooper is looking well placed, so seems like we're in for several more months of this before parliament sacks up.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,795
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Scott_P said:
    Fifty percent of Tory voters favour No Deal.
    Depressing, but I think TSE might be right. The idiots will impasse their way to a damaging outcome opposed by a large majority of the population.
    More Tory voters favour Remain (22%) than May's Deal (20%).

    That goose is cooked.
    Not true as May's Deal is both Remainers and No Dealers second preference.

    Just quoting the Yougov polling, squire.
    So was I
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 49,713
    Excellent header. This needs to be discussed.

    As I have said before my wife is totally reliant on serious levels of medication.

  • dotsdots Posts: 615
    Scott_P said:
    You were elected to stop socialists Boles, not talk them into bed. Just get on with what you were elected to do!
  • Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Drutt said:


    I still don't really understand why Labour doesn't simply abstain on the MV, allow the WA deal through, see the DUP turn puce and end the C&S agreement, and back themselves to force an election, win it and put through whatever long-term future arrangement with the EU they see fit.

    I used to think that too. I now see it differently. May is cornered and if Labour hold the line - just continue to oppose and not get dragged into a search for alternatives - they can force her to make the ultimate choice of no deal or revoke. Either of those should be sufficient to sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.

    But will Cooper spoil things?
    Revoke finishes the Conservatives. No Deal merely hurts them.
    Revoke helps the country. No Deal hurts the country.

    Note the difference.

    Honestly, you strike me as a decent Tory.

    But I am beginning to loathe the Tories for the way they are putting their interests above those of the country. And don't give me that "honouring the referendum" bullshit. The referendum was largely done to sort out a Tory party problem. If the Tories had genuinely wanted to address the concerns the country had with its membership of the EU and its effects here - and there were serious problems, many of which I sympathise with, a referendum was not the way to go about it.

    But now - the Tories should not drag us into No Deal because they lack the courage to call a halt to a disastrous set of negotiations and a policy which no-one can defend, other than by saying "a referendum made me do it" and which will weaken and harm a country the Tories claim to be patriotic about.
    Revoke in no way helps the country. That is simply a delusional position to take. You used to be a sensible poster but you have become one of the lunatic fringe these days.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Drutt said:


    I still don't really understand why Labour doesn't simply abstain on the MV, allow the WA deal through, see the DUP turn puce and end the C&S agreement, and back themselves to force an election, win it and put through whatever long-term future arrangement with the EU they see fit.

    I used to think that too. I now see it differently. May is cornered and if Labour hold the line - just continue to oppose and not get dragged into a search for alternatives - they can force her to make the ultimate choice of no deal or revoke. Either of those should be sufficient to sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.

    But will Cooper spoil things?
    Revoke finishes the Conservatives. No Deal merely hurts them.
    Revoke helps the country. No Deal hurts the country.

    Note the difference.

    Honestly, you strike me as a decent Tory.

    But I am beginning to loathe the Tories for the way they are putting their interests above those of the country. And don't give me that "honouring the referendum" bullshit. The referendum was largely done to sort out a Tory party problem. If the Tories had genuinely wanted to address the concerns the country had with its membership of the EU and its effects here - and there were serious problems, many of which I sympathise with, a referendum was not the way to go about it.

    But now - the Tories should not drag us into No Deal because they lack the courage to call a halt to a disastrous set of negotiations and a policy which no-one can defend, other than by saying "a referendum made me do it" and which will weaken and harm a country the Tories claim to be patriotic about.
    Yeah, but the main alternative is a party who want maximum chaos and destruction, in the belief that it will lead to socialism, despite the fact that this has been tried repeatedly for over 100 years and
    has never succeeded. So although the tories have many flaws, Brexit being one of many, enough people will still hold their noses and vote for them.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 40,133

    _Anazina_ said:

    Scott_P said:
    Good grief. There is no arguing with those numbers. Polls are to be taken with a large pinch of salt. But those are very large gaps.
    No they are not. There is a 5 point difference between Remain and Leave. That is no larger than many polls in the lead up to the referendum in 2016. Even on the day Yougov had it at 52%:48% for Remain.

    For better or worse almost nothing has changed.
    Two years ago, would 57% of Tory voters have said that Brexit makes them feel unhappy?

    image
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 38,537
    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_P said:
    As predicted by me.

    (And no doubt others.)

    Just revoke - for God's sake. We keep our existing membership terms.

    Then we should have a crowdfunding exercise on Facebook for the Tory party to have the intensive therapy it so badly needs.
    That 's an option.

    But, it means we stay in for as long as the EU exists, and get dragged into things we don't want.
    It means no such thing. The right to re-invoke A50 persists.

    Perhaps we might think about what we want as a result, next time.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,513

    _Anazina_ said:

    Scott_P said:
    Good grief. There is no arguing with those numbers. Polls are to be taken with a large pinch of salt. But those are very large gaps.
    No they are not. There is a 5 point difference between Remain and Leave. That is no larger than many polls in the lead up to the referendum in 2016. Even on the day Yougov had it at 52%:48% for Remain.

    For better or worse almost nothing has changed.
    Two years ago, would 57% of Tory voters have said that Brexit makes them feel unhappy?

    image
    Why is nauseous not one of the options?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,795
    edited January 2019

    _Anazina_ said:

    Scott_P said:
    Good grief. There is no arguing with those numbers. Polls are to be taken with a large pinch of salt. But those are very large gaps.
    No they are not. There is a 5 point difference between Remain and Leave. That is no larger than many polls in the lead up to the referendum in 2016. Even on the day Yougov had it at 52%:48% for Remain.

    For better or worse almost nothing has changed.
    Two years ago, would 57% of Tory voters have said that Brexit makes them feel unhappy?

    image
    They are unhappy as they think Brexit is not hard enough at the moment
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 20,353
    dots said:

    Scott_P said:
    You were elected to stop socialists Boles, not talk them into bed. Just get on with what you were elected to do!
    There's me thinking he was elected to help run the country, how stupid of me.
  • Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Drutt said:


    I still don't really understand why Labour doesn't simply abstain on the MV, allow the WA deal through, see the DUP turn puce and end the C&S agreement, and back themselves to force an election, win it and put through whatever long-term future arrangement with the EU they see fit.

    I used to think that too. I now see it differently. May is cornered and if Labour hold the line - just continue to oppose and not get dragged into a search for alternatives - they can force her to make the ultimate choice of no deal or revoke. Either of those should be sufficient to sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.

    But will Cooper spoil things?
    Revoke finishes the Conservatives. No Deal merely hurts them.
    The "and Unionist" part would be defunct soon after No Deal.
    All the options are painful now, but from a Conservative Party viewpoint, what will hurt most?

    Well, I'd say No Deal would have to be most painful. Revoke wouldn't be far behind, but would wear off in due course. A second Ref would probably be marginally better than Revoke though, wouldn't it? Buck-passing and all that.....

    But then I'm not a Conservative, so just saying.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 38,537

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Drutt said:


    I still don't really understand why Labour doesn't simply abstain on the MV, allow the WA deal through, see the DUP turn puce and end the C&S agreement, and back themselves to force an election, win it and put through whatever long-term future arrangement with the EU they see fit.

    I used to think that too. I now see it differently. May is cornered and if Labour hold the line - just continue to oppose and not get dragged into a search for alternatives - they can force her to make the ultimate choice of no deal or revoke. Either of those should be sufficient to sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.

    But will Cooper spoil things?
    Revoke finishes the Conservatives. No Deal merely hurts them.
    Revoke helps the country. No Deal hurts the country.

    Note the difference.

    Honestly, you strike me as a decent Tory.

    But I am beginning to loathe the Tories for the way they are putting their interests above those of the country. And don't give me that "honouring the referendum" bullshit. The referendum was largely done to sort out a Tory party problem. If the Tories had genuinely wanted to address the concerns the country had with its membership of the EU and its effects here - and there were serious problems, many of which I sympathise with, a referendum was not the way to go about it.

    But now - the Tories should not drag us into No Deal because they lack the courage to call a halt to a disastrous set of negotiations and a policy which no-one can defend, other than by saying "a referendum made me do it" and which will weaken and harm a country the Tories claim to be patriotic about.
    Revoke in no way helps the country. That is simply a delusional position to take. You used to be a sensible poster but you have become one of the lunatic fringe these days.
    Now you’re just being rude.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 49,713
    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Government wins vote! We don't see that very often thesedays.
    Any Z gen and millennials watching this Labour mess?

    Jezza isn't one of you kids.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,849
    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Drutt said:


    I still don't really understand why Labour doesn't simply abstain on the MV, allow the WA deal through, see the DUP turn puce and end the C&S agreement, and back themselves to force an election, win it and put through whatever long-term future arrangement with the EU they see fit.

    I used to think that too. I now see it differently. May is cornered and if Labour hold the line - just continue to oppose and not get dragged into a search for alternatives - they can force her to make the ultimate choice of no deal or revoke. Either of those should be sufficient to sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.

    But will Cooper spoil things?
    Revoke finishes the Conservatives. No Deal merely hurts them.
    Revoke helps the country. No Deal hurts the country.

    Note the difference.

    Honestly, you strike me as a decent Tory.

    But I am beginning to loathe the Tories for the way they are putting their interests above those of the country. And don't give me that "honouring the referendum" bullshit. The referendum was largely done to sort out a Tory party problem. If the Tories had genuinely wanted to address the concerns the country had with its membership of the EU and its effects here - and there were serious problems, many of which I sympathise with, a referendum was not the way to go about it.

    But now - the Tories should not drag us into No Deal because they lack the courage to call a halt to a disastrous set of negotiations and a policy which no-one can defend, other than by saying "a referendum made me do it" and which will weaken and harm a country the Tories claim to be patriotic about.
    No Deal hurts the country. And so does Revoke. The former does economic damage. The latter does political damage.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,795
    edited January 2019
    Scott_P said:

    HYUFD said:

    Under FPTP in the short term No Deal could even see Tory gains

    No
    Of course it could.

    If the Tories kept the 42% they got in 2017 (the majority of them Leavers) but Remainers split between Labour and the LDs as Corbyn refused to try and reverse Brexit and back EUref2 we could see Labour on say 27% and the LDs on 25% and a repeat of Thatcher's 1983 result.
  • dotsdots Posts: 615
    edited January 2019

    So the Brady amendment - the Irish backstop replaced by what he calls "alternative arrangements to avoid a hard border" - what does that actually mean?

    One of those horses with a big spiky thing on the front of its head
    You won’t get to see the goods till you put your votes in the jug.

    Bwaaa na naaaaa, bwaaa na naaaaa…
    Bwaaa na naaaaa, BWAA NA NAAAAA Na

    (these are where the leg kicks come in)
    Bomp ch ch, bomp ch ch, bomp ch ch, bomp ch ch…
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,092
    kinabalu said:

    Sean_F said:


    Revoke finishes the Conservatives. No Deal merely hurts them.

    I agree. I think No Deal would win Labour the next election but Revoke would be more long term damaging for the Conservatives. Could be terminal.
    I agree. I don't think I'd be going out on too much of a limb to say that a Con Maj and UK membership of the EU are mutually exclusive for the next generation.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,513
    Nigelb said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_P said:
    As predicted by me.

    (And no doubt others.)

    Just revoke - for God's sake. We keep our existing membership terms.

    Then we should have a crowdfunding exercise on Facebook for the Tory party to have the intensive therapy it so badly needs.
    That 's an option.

    But, it means we stay in for as long as the EU exists, and get dragged into things we don't want.
    It means no such thing. The right to re-invoke A50 persists.

    Perhaps we might think about what we want as a result, next time.
    There won't be a next time this generation. The ERG and co have seemingly agreed some prices are too high to pay to Brexit (not no deal chaos of course, but a backstop arrangement and some money). There has been no betrayal they can (truthfully) blame this on, though they will try.

    It's like I would say when Corbynistas would complain about the opposition he faced, that his job was to overcome that opposition. He did better at it than many ever expected. Hard leavers needed to overcome the continuity remainers and others, make common cause with those they needed to see it through. They chose to do otherwise. That's either very principled, or very stupid.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 22,098
    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_P said:
    As predicted by me.

    (And no doubt others.)

    Just revoke - for God's sake. We keep our existing membership terms.

    Then we should have a crowdfunding exercise on Facebook for the Tory party to have the intensive therapy it so badly needs.
    That 's an option.

    But, it means we stay in for as long as the EU exists, and get dragged into things we don't want.
    Not for those things where there is still a veto.

    But frankly I think that we need to rethink our whole attitude to Europe and have a strategy for the world as it is and is likely to become not the world as it was. Our thinking about Europe, about the EU, about the world is - and this has become painfully obvious in the last two years - rooted in the past, as if Brexit if the only thing needed for the world to be as it was in 1966.

    To take just one example: why - when the US is turning away from Europe and Russia is flexing its muscles - is an EU army or a common EU defence policy such a bad thing? It may be a very good thing, a much needed thing and something where we could shine and contribute. We really do need fresh thinking. As does the EU. And we could contribute to such fresh thinking.

    The old post-war world and settlement is changing and disappearing. We can be part of creating a new settlement, a new world or we can retreat and be irrelevant. For all the challenges and difficulties and annoyances of the former, I think - having seen how Brexit has been handled - I prefer the former.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 40,133

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Drutt said:


    I still don't really understand why Labour doesn't simply abstain on the MV, allow the WA deal through, see the DUP turn puce and end the C&S agreement, and back themselves to force an election, win it and put through whatever long-term future arrangement with the EU they see fit.

    I used to think that too. I now see it differently. May is cornered and if Labour hold the line - just continue to oppose and not get dragged into a search for alternatives - they can force her to make the ultimate choice of no deal or revoke. Either of those should be sufficient to sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.

    But will Cooper spoil things?
    Revoke finishes the Conservatives. No Deal merely hurts them.
    The "and Unionist" part would be defunct soon after No Deal.
    All the options are painful now, but from a Conservative Party viewpoint, what will hurt most?

    Well, I'd say No Deal would have to be most painful. Revoke wouldn't be far behind, but would wear off in due course. A second Ref would probably be marginally better than Revoke though, wouldn't it? Buck-passing and all that.....

    But then I'm not a Conservative, so just saying.
    I think the optimal way out from the Conservative perspective is a second referendum they can blame on Labour to pacify their base, which is then convincingly won by Remain.
  • Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Drutt said:


    I still don't really understand why Labour doesn't simply abstain on the MV, allow the WA deal through, see the DUP turn puce and end the C&S agreement, and back themselves to force an election, win it and put through whatever long-term future arrangement with the EU they see fit.

    I used to think that too. I now see it differently. May is cornered and if Labour hold the line - just continue to oppose and not get dragged into a search for alternatives - they can force her to make the ultimate choice of no deal or revoke. Either of those should be sufficient to sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.

    But will Cooper spoil things?
    Revoke finishes the Conservatives. No Deal merely hurts them.
    Revoke helps the country. No Deal hurts the country.

    Note the difference.

    Honestly, you strike me as a decent Tory.

    But I am beginning to loathe the Tories for the way they are putting their interests above those of the country. And don't give me that "honouring the referendum" bullshit. The referendum was largely done to sort out a Tory party problem. If the Tories had genuinely wanted to address the concerns the country had with its membership of the EU and its effects here - and there were serious problems, many of which I sympathise with, a referendum was not the way to go about it.

    But now - the Tories should not drag us into No Deal because they lack the courage to call a halt to a disastrous set of negotiations and a policy which no-one can defend, other than by saying "a referendum made me do it" and which will weaken and harm a country the Tories claim to be patriotic about.
    Revoke in no way helps the country. That is simply a delusional position to take. You used to be a sensible poster but you have become one of the lunatic fringe these days.
    Now you’re just being rude.
    No just honest.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,966


    All the options are painful now, but from a Conservative Party viewpoint, what will hurt most?

    Well, I'd say No Deal would have to be most painful. Revoke wouldn't be far behind, but would wear off in due course. A second Ref would probably be marginally better than Revoke though, wouldn't it? Buck-passing and all that.....

    Yup, especially if the Second Referendum looks like it was forced on them by parliament, rather than them taking a lead on it.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Drutt said:


    I still don't really understand why Labour doesn't simply abstain on the MV, allow the WA deal through, see the DUP turn puce and end the C&S agreement, and back themselves to force an election, win it and put through whatever long-term future arrangement with the EU they see fit.

    I used to think that too. I now see it differently. May is cornered and if Labour hold the line - just continue to oppose and not get dragged into a search for alternatives - they can force her to make the ultimate choice of no deal or revoke. Either of those should be sufficient to sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.

    But will Cooper spoil things?
    Revoke finishes the Conservatives. No Deal merely hurts them.
    Revoke helps the country. No Deal hurts the country.

    Note the difference.

    Honestly, you strike me as a decent Tory.

    But I am beginning to loathe the Tories for the way they are putting their interests above those of the country. And don't give me that "honouring the referendum" bullshit. The referendum was largely done to sort out a Tory party problem. If the Tories had genuinely wanted to address the concerns the country had with its membership of the EU and its effects here - and there were serious problems, many of which I sympathise with, a referendum was not the way to go about it.

    But now - the Tories should not drag us into No Deal because they lack the courage to call a halt to a disastrous set of negotiations and a policy which no-one can defend, other than by saying "a referendum made me do it" and which will weaken and harm a country the Tories claim to be patriotic about.
    Revoke in no way helps the country. That is simply a delusional position to take. You used to be a sensible poster but you have become one of the lunatic fringe these days.
    You have to choose between the political crisis associated with revoke, and the multiple problems, particularly economic, arising from no deal.

    I think cyclefree underestimates the political crisis, associated with revoke.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,795
    edited January 2019
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Drutt said:


    I still don't really understand why Labour doesn't simply abstain on the MV, allow the WA deal through, see the DUP turn puce and end the C&S agreement, and back themselves to force an election, win it and put through whatever long-term future arrangement with the EU they see fit.

    I used to think that too. I now see it differently. May is cornered and if Labour hold the line - just continue to oppose and not get dragged into a search for alternatives - they can force her to make the ultimate choice of no deal or revoke. Either of those should be sufficient to sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.

    But will Cooper spoil things?
    Under FPTP in the short term No Deal could even see Tory gains
    Presumably the reason for May's 'No deal by stealth' plan A2.0, wherein she asks the EU to do what she herself has said the EU won't do, knowing it will fail. But I would question the assumption.

    Well, Cooper is looking well placed, so seems like we're in for several more months of this before parliament sacks up.
    It relies on Labour Remainers defecting to the LDs of course.

    In the long term a Deal is still the best option for the Tories but Revoke and Remain is worse for the Tories than No Deal as it would split the Right whereas Brexit could split the left
  • nielh said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Drutt said:


    I still don't really understand why Labour doesn't simply abstain on the MV, allow the WA deal through, see the DUP turn puce and end the C&S agreement, and back themselves to force an election, win it and put through whatever long-term future arrangement with the EU they see fit.

    I used to think that too. I now see it differently. May is cornered and if Labour hold the line - just continue to oppose and not get dragged into a search for alternatives - they can force her to make the ultimate choice of no deal or revoke. Either of those should be sufficient to sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.

    But will Cooper spoil things?
    Revoke finishes the Conservatives. No Deal merely hurts them.
    Revoke helps the country. No Deal hurts the country.

    Note the difference.

    Honestly, you strike me as a decent Tory.

    But I am beginning to loathe the Tories for the way they are putting their interests above those of the country. And don't give me that "honouring the referendum" bullshit. The referendum was largely done to sort out a Tory party problem. If the Tories had genuinely wanted to address the concerns the country had with its membership of the EU and its effects here - and there were serious problems, many of which I sympathise with, a referendum was not the way to go about it.

    But now - the Tories should not drag us into No Deal because they lack the courage to call a halt to a disastrous set of negotiations and a policy which no-one can defend, other than by saying "a referendum made me do it" and which will weaken and harm a country the Tories claim to be patriotic about.
    Yeah, but the main alternative is a party who want maximum chaos and destruction, in the belief that it will lead to socialism, despite the fact that this has been tried repeatedly for over 100 years and
    has never succeeded. So although the tories have many flaws, Brexit being one of many, enough people will still hold their noses and vote for them.

    After Brexit, that 'Venezuela' shit is never going to wash again.
  • Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Drutt said:


    I still don't really understand why Labour doesn't simply abstain on the MV, allow the WA deal through, see the DUP turn puce and end the C&S agreement, and back themselves to force an election, win it and put through whatever long-term future arrangement with the EU they see fit.

    I used to think that too. I now see it differently. May is cornered and if Labour hold the line - just continue to oppose and not get dragged into a search for alternatives - they can force her to make the ultimate choice of no deal or revoke. Either of those should be sufficient to sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.

    But will Cooper spoil things?
    Revoke finishes the Conservatives. No Deal merely hurts them.
    Revoke helps the country. No Deal hurts the country.

    Note the difference.

    Honestly, you strike me as a decent Tory.

    But I am beginning to loathe the Tories for the way they are putting their interests above those of the country. And don't give me that "honouring the referendum" bullshit. The referendum was largely done to sort out a Tory party problem. If the Tories had genuinely wanted to address the concerns the country had with its membership of the EU and its effects here - and there were serious problems, many of which I sympathise with, a referendum was not the way to go about it.

    But now - the Tories should not drag us into No Deal because they lack the courage to call a halt to a disastrous set of negotiations and a policy which no-one can defend, other than by saying "a referendum made me do it" and which will weaken and harm a country the Tories claim to be patriotic about.
    No Deal hurts the country. And so does Revoke. The former does economic damage. The latter does political damage.
    And I expect Conservatives would say that political damage leads to economic damage as a Corbyn government would follow Revoke.

    The City is likely to be hammered by both a Corbyn government and the EU after Revoke for those who give the City's well-being as a priority.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 22,098
    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Drutt said:


    I still don't really understand why Labour doesn't simply abstain on the MV, allow the WA deal through, see the DUP turn puce and end the C&S agreement, and back themselves to force an election, win it and put through whatever long-term future arrangement with the EU they see fit.

    I used to think that too. I now see it differently. May is cornered and if Labour hold the line - just continue to oppose and not get dragged into a search for alternatives - they can force her to make the ultimate choice of no deal or revoke. Either of those should be sufficient to sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.

    But will Cooper spoil things?
    Revoke finishes the Conservatives. No Deal merely hurts them.
    Revoke helps the country. No Deal hurts the country.

    Note the difference.

    Honestly, you strike me as a decent Tory.

    But I am beginning to loathe the Tories for the way they are putting their interests above those of the country. And don't give me that "honouring the referendum" bullshit. The referendum was largely done to sort out a Tory party problem. If the Tories had genuinely wanted to address the concerns the country had with its membership of the EU and its effects here - and there were serious problems, many of which I sympathise with, a referendum was not the way to go about it.

    But now - the Tories should not drag us into No Deal because they lack the courage to call a halt to a disastrous set of negotiations and a policy which no-one can defend, other than by saying "a referendum made me do it" and which will weaken and harm a country the Tories claim to be patriotic about.
    No Deal hurts the country. And so does Revoke. The former does economic damage. The latter does political damage.
    Economic damage will cause political damage. If people don't feel secure - about jobs, about food, about medicines, about law 'n' order - they won't give a shit about democracy, about their referendum vote. Order and security first - then democracy. That has been true in this country, if you look at our history.
  • dotsdots Posts: 615
    kle4 said:

    _Anazina_ said:

    Scott_P said:
    Good grief. There is no arguing with those numbers. Polls are to be taken with a large pinch of salt. But those are very large gaps.
    No they are not. There is a 5 point difference between Remain and Leave. That is no larger than many polls in the lead up to the referendum in 2016. Even on the day Yougov had it at 52%:48% for Remain.

    For better or worse almost nothing has changed.
    Two years ago, would 57% of Tory voters have said that Brexit makes them feel unhappy?

    image
    Why is nauseous not one of the options?
    YouGov sampled five students sat on a wall.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Drutt said:


    I still don't really understand why Labour doesn't simply abstain on the MV, allow the WA deal through, see the DUP turn puce and end the C&S agreement, and back themselves to force an election, win it and put through whatever long-term future arrangement with the EU they see fit.

    I used to think that too. I now see it differently. May is cornered and if Labour hold the line - just continue to oppose and not get dragged into a search for alternatives - they can force her to make the ultimate choice of no deal or revoke. Either of those should be sufficient to sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.

    But will Cooper spoil things?
    Revoke finishes the Conservatives. No Deal merely hurts them.
    Revoke helps the country. No Deal hurts the country.

    Note the difference.

    Honestly, you strike me as a decent Tory.

    But I am beginning to loathe the Tories for the way they are putting their interests above those of the country. And don't give me that "honouring the referendum" bullshit. The referendum was largely done to sort out a Tory party problem. If the Tories had genuinely wanted to address the concerns the country had with its membership of the EU and its effects here - and there were serious problems, many of which I sympathise with, a referendum was not the way to go about it.

    But now - the Tories should not drag us into No Deal because they lack the courage to call a halt to a disastrous set of negotiations and a policy which no-one can defend, other than by saying "a referendum made me do it" and which will weaken and harm a country the Tories claim to be patriotic about.
    Revoke in no way helps the country. That is simply a delusional position to take. You used to be a sensible poster but you have become one of the lunatic fringe these days.
    Yep,we had posters on here who banged on about democracy and the rule of law,fcuk the 52% is the cry.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    So according to the PB brain trust, revoke would lead to the destruction of the Tories by UKIP, AND a Corbyn government...

    Ummm
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,261
    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    On Topic - not sure what’s so scary about food shortage. We should be able to live temporarily without lettuce tomatoes and soft fruits - all examples given today - and should obviously prioritise medicines.

    "not sure what’s so scary about food shortage"

    Pause.

    Backs away slowly.

    If the examples given are the lettuce tomatoes and soft fruits I don’t count it as a food shortage - it would be an inconvenience. If we run out of bread, potatoes etc then that would be more of a worry. I’m just saying I wasn’t convinced by the person on 5live. If I can’t eat something like green veg and apples then I am not very imaginative. I mean my local Tesco is pretty spotty on soft fruit and I just manage my diet without it. Last summer it was hard to get lettuce we just didn’t eat lettuce.
    But what if it escalates and we can't get Good Brie?
    Hard cheese ?

    Genius - the talk of food shortages just sounds inconvenient at the moment. I understand the just in time model, but an industry spokesperson said they have been able to stock up long dated items but would not be able to do so with chilled goods coming from the EU.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,513
    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_P said:
    As predicted by me.

    (And no doubt others.)

    Just revoke - for God's sake. We keep our existing membership terms.

    Then we should have a crowdfunding exercise on Facebook for the Tory party to have the intensive therapy it so badly needs.
    That 's an option.

    But, it means we stay in for as long as the EU exists, and get dragged into things we don't want.
    Not for those things where there is still a veto.

    But frankly I think that we need to rethink our whole attitude to Europe and have a strategy for the world as it is and is likely to become not the world as it was. Our thinking about Europe, about the EU, about the world is - and this has become painfully obvious in the last two years - rooted in the past, as if Brexit if the only thing needed for the world to be as it was in 1966.

    To take just one example: why - when the US is turning away from Europe and Russia is flexing its muscles - is an EU army or a common EU defence policy such a bad thing? It may be a very good thing, a much needed thing and something where we could shine and contribute. We really do need fresh thinking. As does the EU. And we could contribute to such fresh thinking.

    The old post-war world and settlement is changing and disappearing. We can be part of creating a new settlement, a new world or we can retreat and be irrelevant. For all the challenges and difficulties and annoyances of the former, I think - having seen how Brexit has been handled - I prefer the former.
    However, the reality will probably be we end up remaining, bitter and sullen, while the EU as a whole lords it over us, knowing they can do anything they like and we won't have the balls to leave, while resenting our bitter attitude and marginalising us as much as they can get away with.

    It's our least worst option right now, but it's going to be a horrible sucking wound of mutual resentment that just festers on and on. And we can be confident of that because while in moments of desperation the fine rhetoric comes out, political leaders, UK and EU, retreat into nasty leaks, blame shifting and moaning all the time. They did before we voted leave, they will even more when we remain. First summit where it's stated we've some concerns about something? 'Sources in the German and French camps expressed frustration, saying that the UK had the chance to leave and did not take it, and they don't know what they want anymore'.

    It's going to be damage the EU for years to come.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 2,710
    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Drutt said:


    I still don't really understand why Labour doesn't simply abstain on the MV, allow the WA deal through, see the DUP turn puce and end the C&S agreement, and back themselves to force an election, win it and put through whatever long-term future arrangement with the EU they see fit.

    I used to think that too. I now see it differently. May is cornered and if Labour hold the line - just continue to oppose and not get dragged into a search for alternatives - they can force her to make the ultimate choice of no deal or revoke. Either of those should be sufficient to sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.

    But will Cooper spoil things?
    Revoke finishes the Conservatives. No Deal merely hurts them.
    Revoke helps the country. No Deal hurts the country.

    Note the difference.

    Honestly, you strike me as a decent Tory.

    But I am beginning to loathe the Tories for the way they are putting their interests above those of the country. And don't give me that "honouring the referendum" bullshit. The referendum was largely done to sort out a Tory party problem. If the Tories had genuinely wanted to address the concerns the country had with its membership of the EU and its effects here - and there were serious problems, many of which I sympathise with, a referendum was not the way to go about it.

    But now - the Tories should not drag us into No Deal because they lack the courage to call a halt to a disastrous set of negotiations and a policy which no-one can defend, other than by saying "a referendum made me do it" and which will weaken and harm a country the Tories claim to be patriotic about.
    No Deal hurts the country. And so does Revoke. The former does economic damage. The latter does political damage.
    Economic damage will cause political damage. If people don't feel secure - about jobs, about food, about medicines, about law 'n' order - they won't give a shit about democracy, about their referendum vote. Order and security first - then democracy. That has been true in this country, if you look at our history.
    Surprisingly totalitarian from you.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 40,133
    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_P said:
    As predicted by me.

    (And no doubt others.)

    Just revoke - for God's sake. We keep our existing membership terms.

    Then we should have a crowdfunding exercise on Facebook for the Tory party to have the intensive therapy it so badly needs.
    That 's an option.

    But, it means we stay in for as long as the EU exists, and get dragged into things we don't want.
    Not for those things where there is still a veto.

    But frankly I think that we need to rethink our whole attitude to Europe and have a strategy for the world as it is and is likely to become not the world as it was. Our thinking about Europe, about the EU, about the world is - and this has become painfully obvious in the last two years - rooted in the past, as if Brexit if the only thing needed for the world to be as it was in 1966.

    To take just one example: why - when the US is turning away from Europe and Russia is flexing its muscles - is an EU army or a common EU defence policy such a bad thing? It may be a very good thing, a much needed thing and something where we could shine and contribute. We really do need fresh thinking. As does the EU. And we could contribute to such fresh thinking.

    The old post-war world and settlement is changing and disappearing. We can be part of creating a new settlement, a new world or we can retreat and be irrelevant. For all the challenges and difficulties and annoyances of the former, I think - having seen how Brexit has been handled - I prefer the former.
    However, the reality will probably be we end up remaining, bitter and sullen, while the EU as a whole lords it over us, knowing they can do anything they like and we won't have the balls to leave, while resenting our bitter attitude and marginalising us as much as they can get away with.
    If nothing else, the idea that the threat of leaving is what wins influence in the EU has been tested to destruction over the last two years. Germany isn't influential because other countries are afraid it will leave if it doesn't get its own way.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,513
    Scott_P said:
    Well, I suppose technically knowing someone has a plan C in the even plan B fails is better than no plan at all, but it still seems very unicorny. Do parliamentarians not get that cleverly worded amendments and procedural chicanery in the Commons are not worth much unless the EU are on board? That is, in fact, one of the few areas where the Remain crowd (the honest ones, not the 'by stealth' remainers) have the upper hand - they know the EU will accept their option.
  • dotsdots Posts: 615
    Scott_P said:
    Is it because the agreed rewriting of the backstop will be woven by globe spiders, and for that reason in a format unacceptable to the EU?

    Oh goodness. This thing is getting so silly.

    In the league of embarrassing nations its only Venezuela keeping us off the bottom right now, they might start getting serious before us too.
  • Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Drutt said:


    I still don't really understand why Labour doesn't simply abstain on the MV, allow the WA deal through, see the DUP turn puce and end the C&S agreement, and back themselves to force an election, win it and put through whatever long-term future arrangement with the EU they see fit.

    I used to think that too. I now see it differently. May is cornered and if Labour hold the line - just continue to oppose and not get dragged into a search for alternatives - they can force her to make the ultimate choice of no deal or revoke. Either of those should be sufficient to sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.

    But will Cooper spoil things?
    Revoke finishes the Conservatives. No Deal merely hurts them.
    Revoke helps the country. No Deal hurts the country.

    Note the difference.

    Honestly, you strike me as a decent Tory.

    But I am beginning to loathe the Tories for the way they are putting their interests above those of the country. And don't give me that "honouring the referendum" bullshit. The referendum was largely done to sort out a Tory party problem. If the Tories had genuinely wanted to address the concerns the country had with its membership of the EU and its effects here - and there were serious problems, many of which I sympathise with, a referendum was not the way to go about it.

    But now - the Tories should not drag us into No Deal because they lack the courage to call a halt to a disastrous set of negotiations and a policy which no-one can defend, other than by saying "a referendum made me do it" and which will weaken and harm a country the Tories claim to be patriotic about.
    No Deal hurts the country. And so does Revoke. The former does economic damage. The latter does political damage.
    And I expect Conservatives would say that political damage leads to economic damage as a Corbyn government would follow Revoke.

    The City is likely to be hammered by both a Corbyn government and the EU after Revoke for those who give the City's well-being as a priority.
    And the City, if that is one's main concern, would take what view of No Deal followed by a Corbyn Government (a perfectly possible sequence in my opinion.)?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 49,713
    Scott_P said:
    "You've all been very very naughty, and the tuck club is closed for the rest of the term".
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    That YouGov poll should terrify Leavers. The public think Leave is going to work out really badly. Not a single Remain voter from 2016 feels happy about Brexit. Leavers by more than 2:1 feel unhappy about Brexit too. By nearly 2:1 the public think Brexit will make life worse.

    Confident Leavers are a very noisy minority.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 22,098

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Drutt said:


    I used to think that too. I now see it differently. May is cornered and if Labour hold the line - just continue to oppose and not get dragged into a search for alternatives - they can force her to make the ultimate choice of no deal or revoke. Either of those should be sufficient to sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.

    But will Cooper spoil things?
    Revoke finishes the Conservatives. No Deal merely hurts them.
    Revoke helps the country. No Deal hurts the country.

    Note the difference.

    Honestly, you strike me as a decent Tory.

    But I am beginning to loathe the Tories for the way they are putting their interests above those of the country. And don't give me that "honouring the referendum" bullshit. The referendum was largely done to sort out a Tory party problem. If the Tories had genuinely wanted to address the concerns the country had with its membership of the EU and its effects here - and there were serious problems, many of which I sympathise with, a referendum was not the way to go about it.

    But now - the Tories should not drag us into No Deal because they lack the courage to call a halt to a disastrous set of negotiations and a policy which no-one can defend, other than by saying "a referendum made me do it" and which will weaken and harm a country the Tories claim to be patriotic about.
    Revoke in no way helps the country. That is simply a delusional position to take. You used to be a sensible poster but you have become one of the lunatic fringe these days.
    I wrote a thread header pointing out that there were no good options. This is the only one which does not depend on us getting the consent of others, including the hated (by some) EU.

    I have changed my mind - not because I have any great love for the EU, I don't; indeed, both in thread headers and comments below the line I have been one of its severest critics - but because, having seen the mess the government and Parliament are making of Brexit, I think this is the least worst option at the moment, because it preserves the status quo and because it gives the country a chance - if it is willing to take it - to think hard about what our strategy should be vis a vis Europe (and I wrote a thread header about that as well) and then take sensible steps to enact it.

    I prefer to think of myself as eccentric rather than lunatic. But who cares anyway. I'll say my piece and if others want to disagree, well it's a free country. :)
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,092
    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_P said:
    As predicted by me.

    (And no doubt others.)

    Just revoke - for God's sake. We keep our existing membership terms.

    Then we should have a crowdfunding exercise on Facebook for the Tory party to have the intensive therapy it so badly needs.
    That 's an option.

    But, it means we stay in for as long as the EU exists, and get dragged into things we don't want.
    Not for those things where there is still a veto.

    But frankly I think that we need to rethink our whole attitude to Europe and have a strategy for the world as it is and is likely to become not the world as it was. Our thinking about Europe, about the EU, about the world is - and this has become painfully obvious in the last two years - rooted in the past, as if Brexit if the only thing needed for the world to be as it was in 1966.

    To take just one example: why - when the US is turning away from Europe and Russia is flexing its muscles - is an EU army or a common EU defence policy such a bad thing? It may be a very good thing, a much needed thing and something where we could shine and contribute. We really do need fresh thinking. As does the EU. And we could contribute to such fresh thinking.

    The old post-war world and settlement is changing and disappearing. We can be part of creating a new settlement, a new world or we can retreat and be irrelevant. For all the challenges and difficulties and annoyances of the former, I think - having seen how Brexit has been handled - I prefer the former.
    "Listen, I'm sorry son, and yeah, I know we had the chance to leave the EU back in the late 2010s, and I know we took it and it was in our grasp, but then we were told the lettuce might run out for a few days and so we bottled it. So just saddle up and go to war for President Weyand like the other girls and boys, okay?"
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,513
    dots said:

    Scott_P said:
    Is it because the agreed rewriting of the backstop will be woven by globe spiders, and for that reason in a format unacceptable to the EU?

    Oh goodness. This thing is getting so silly.

    In the league of embarrassing nations its only Venezuela keeping us off the bottom right now, they might start getting serious before us too.
    If it makes you feel better Parliament has always been this way. In the 1650s they would dispute the provenance of a petition, argue about which committee it should be sent to, argue about the proper order to do things and engage in torturous debates on the extent of their powers and the precise meaning of wording in legal texts.

    Granted, being uncertain of the exact power of parliament was not an unreasonable thing to be confused about at the time.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,849
    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_P said:
    As predicted by me.

    (And no doubt others.)

    Just revoke - for God's sake. We keep our existing membership terms.

    Then we should have a crowdfunding exercise on Facebook for the Tory party to have the intensive therapy it so badly needs.
    That 's an option.

    But, it means we stay in for as long as the EU exists, and get dragged into things we don't want.
    Not for those things where there is still a veto.

    But frankly I think that we need to rethink our whole attitude to Europe and have a strategy for the world as it is and is likely to become not the world as it was. Our thinking about Europe, about the EU, about the world is - and this has become painfully obvious in the last two years - rooted in the past, as if Brexit if the only thing needed for the world to be as it was in 1966.

    To take just one example: why - when the US is turning away from Europe and Russia is flexing its muscles - is an EU army or a common EU defence policy such a bad thing? It may be a very good thing, a much needed thing and something where we could shine and contribute. We really do need fresh thinking. As does the EU. And we could contribute to such fresh thinking.

    The old post-war world and settlement is changing and disappearing. We can be part of creating a new settlement, a new world or we can retreat and be irrelevant. For all the challenges and difficulties and annoyances of the former, I think - having seen how Brexit has been handled - I prefer the former.
    We've seen that vetoes get whittled away over time. An EU army needs an EU government. That 's fine if you think an EU government is a good thing.

    But, in any case, I think I'll lose. The stupid divisions on my side contrast with the unity among my opponents. We've thrown out chance away.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    Drutt said:

    "Listen, I'm sorry son, and yeah, I know we had the chance to leave the EU back in the late 2010s, and I know we took it and it was in our grasp, but then we were told the lettuce might run out for a few days and so we bottled it. So just saddle up and go to war for President Weyand like the other girls and boys, okay?"

    Listen, I'm sorry son, and yeah, I know we had the chance to leave the EU back in the late 2010s, and I know we took it and we were told the lettuce might run out for a few days, but it turned out to be far worse than that and began our slide into a third world dictatorship and President Rees-Mogg has ruled with an iron fist ever since while the EU reformed and became the enormously successful trading zone it is today. I am sorry. We threw your future away in a moment of madness for the nostalgia of the past.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,513
    Scott_P said:
    It must work, it's a plan from the future if that 12 December 2019 date is any indication.

    Is it me, or are UK plans on the backstop getting even harder for the EU to agree even if they were inclined? A woolly timelimit possibly even a decade or more long seemed not hugely unreasonable if still not what the EU wants, but it's getting more extravagant now.

    I like that one disadvantage is 'other WA problems'.

    Not sure selling a 'frontstop', whatever the hell that is, will be easier than a backstop though.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 38,537

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Drutt said:


    I still don't really understand why Labour doesn't simply abstain on the MV, allow the WA deal through, see the DUP turn puce and end the C&S agreement, and back themselves to force an election, win it and put through whatever long-term future arrangement with the EU they see fit.

    I used to think that too. I now see it differently. May is cornered and if Labour hold the line - just continue to oppose and not get dragged into a search for alternatives - they can force her to make the ultimate choice of no deal or revoke. Either of those should be sufficient to sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.

    But will Cooper spoil things?
    Revoke finishes the Conservatives. No Deal merely hurts them.
    Revoke helps the country. No Deal hurts the country.

    Note the difference.

    Honestly, you strike me as a decent Tory.

    But I am beginning to loathe the Tories for the way they are putting their interests above those of the country. And don't give me that "honouring the referendum" bullshit. The referendum was largely done to sort out a Tory party problem. If the Tories had genuinely wanted to address the concerns the country had with its membership of the EU and its effects here - and there were serious problems, many of which I sympathise with, a referendum was not the way to go about it.

    But now - the Tories should not drag us into No Deal because they lack the courage to call a halt to a disastrous set of negotiations and a policy which no-one can defend, other than by saying "a referendum made me do it" and which will weaken and harm a country the Tories claim to be patriotic about.
    Revoke in no way helps the country. That is simply a delusional position to take. You used to be a sensible poster but you have become one of the lunatic fringe these days.
    Now you’re just being rude.
    No just honest.
    I will eschew expressing any further opinion on your maunderings.

  • Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Drutt said:


    I still don't really understand why Labour doesn't simply abstain on the MV, allow the WA deal through, see the DUP turn puce and end the C&S agreement, and back themselves to force an election, win it and put through whatever long-term future arrangement with the EU they see fit.

    I used to think that too. I now see it differently. May is cornered and if Labour hold the line - just continue to oppose and not get dragged into a search for alternatives - they can force her to make the ultimate choice of no deal or revoke. Either of those should be sufficient to sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.

    But will Cooper spoil things?
    Revoke finishes the Conservatives. No Deal merely hurts them.
    Revoke helps the country. No Deal hurts the country.

    Note the difference.

    Honestly, you strike me as a decent Tory.

    But I am beginning to loathe the Tories for the way they are putting their interests above those of the country. And don't give me that "honouring the referendum" bullshit. The referendum was largely done to sort out a Tory party problem. If the Tories had genuinely wanted to address the concerns the country had with its membership of the EU and its effects here - and there were serious problems, many of which I sympathise with, a referendum was not the way to go about it.

    But now - the Tories should not drag us into No Deal because they lack the courage to call a halt to a disastrous set of negotiations and a policy which no-one can defend, other than by saying "a referendum made me do it" and which will weaken and harm a country the Tories claim to be patriotic about.
    No Deal hurts the country. And so does Revoke. The former does economic damage. The latter does political damage.
    And I expect Conservatives would say that political damage leads to economic damage as a Corbyn government would follow Revoke.

    The City is likely to be hammered by both a Corbyn government and the EU after Revoke for those who give the City's well-being as a priority.
    And the City, if that is one's main concern, would take what view of No Deal followed by a Corbyn Government (a perfectly possible sequence in my opinion.)?
    The City wouldn't like that scenario either and it is indeed perfectly possible as you say.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,513

    That YouGov poll should terrify Leavers. The public think Leave is going to work out really badly. Not a single Remain voter from 2016 feels happy about Brexit. Leavers by more than 2:1 feel unhappy about Brexit too. By nearly 2:1 the public think Brexit will make life worse.

    Confident Leavers are a very noisy minority.

    Leavers are either already spooked, or unspookable at this point.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 22,098
    kyf_100 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Drutt said:


    Revoke helps the country. No Deal hurts the country.

    Note the difference.

    Honestly, you strike me as a decent Tory.

    But I am beginning to loathe the Tories for the way they are putting their interests above those of the country. And don't give me that "honouring the referendum" bullshit. The referendum was largely done to sort out a Tory party problem. If the Tories had genuinely wanted to address the concerns the country had with its membership of the EU and its effects here - and there were serious problems, many of which I sympathise with, a referendum was not the way to go about it.

    But now - the Tories should not drag us into No Deal because they lack the courage to call a halt to a disastrous set of negotiations and a policy which no-one can defend, other than by saying "a referendum made me do it" and which will weaken and harm a country the Tories claim to be patriotic about.
    No Deal hurts the country. And so does Revoke. The former does economic damage. The latter does political damage.
    Economic damage will cause political damage. If people don't feel secure - about jobs, about food, about medicines, about law 'n' order - they won't give a shit about democracy, about their referendum vote. Order and security first - then democracy. That has been true in this country, if you look at our history.
    Surprisingly totalitarian from you.
    It's not totalitarian. It's an observation from history. And from current events. See Iraq, for instance. It was actually derived something said by Paddy Ashdown, following his stint as supremo in Bosnia, following the civil war there.

    See this from an interview in 2002:

    "My main slogan in the first address I gave, the one I adhere to is: first justice, then jobs through reform. The reason is very simple; the creation of peace does not rest on democracy in the first place, as we thought, but rather on justice. Until you create the rule of law, you cannot create the security of the people, security of democracy and the economy, security of investments and all that follows that. We first made that mistake here, and then once again in Kosovo, because we did not establish the rule of law immediately."

    If a chaotic Brexit threatens security, the economy, people's jobs etc then those people will not thank politicians for telling them that they did it because of their votes. That's my point.
  • kyf_100 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Drutt said:


    I still don't really understand why Labour doesn't simply abstain on the MV, allow the WA deal through, see the DUP turn puce and end the C&S agreement, and back themselves to force an election, win it and put through whatever long-term future arrangement with the EU they see fit.

    I used to think that too. I now see it differently. May is cornered and if Labour hold the line - just continue to oppose and not get dragged into a search for alternatives - they can force her to make the ultimate choice of no deal or revoke. Either of those should be sufficient to sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.

    But will Cooper spoil things?
    Revoke finishes the Conservatives. No Deal merely hurts them.
    Revoke helps the country. No Deal hurts the country.

    Note the difference.

    Honestly, you strike me as a decent Tory.

    But I am beginning to loathe the Tories for the way they are putting their interests above those of the country. And don't give me that "honouring the referendum" bullshit. The referendum was largely done to sort out a Tory party problem. If the Tories had genuinely wanted to address the concerns the country had with its membership of the EU and its effects here - and there were serious problems, many of which I sympathise with, a referendum was not the way to go about it.

    But now - the Tories should not drag us into No Deal because they lack the courage to call a halt to a disastrous set of negotiations and a policy which no-one can defend, other than by saying "a referendum made me do it" and which will weaken and harm a country the Tories claim to be patriotic about.
    No Deal hurts the country. And so does Revoke. The former does economic damage. The latter does political damage.
    Economic damage will cause political damage. If people don't feel secure - about jobs, about food, about medicines, about law 'n' order - they won't give a shit about democracy, about their referendum vote. Order and security first - then democracy. That has been true in this country, if you look at our history.
    Surprisingly totalitarian from you.
    Very Metternich! Freedom springs from order, not the other way round. In this case, I think it is right.

    I really don't know how bad No Deal would be, nobody does, but I've a feeling 'pretty nasty' could be an understatement.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/Peston/status/1090021403032805376

    Well, I suppose technically knowing someone has a plan C in the even plan B fails is better than no plan at all, but it still seems very unicorny. Do parliamentarians not get that cleverly worded amendments and procedural chicanery in the Commons are not worth much unless the EU are on board? That is, in fact, one of the few areas where the Remain crowd (the honest ones, not the 'by stealth' remainers) have the upper hand - they know the EU will accept their option.
    Plan C is (presumably) more typex over the "B" in Plan B which was typexed from Plan A, but apart from that one letter change is otherwise identical.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,849

    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Drutt said:


    I still don't really understand why Labour doesn't simply abstain on the MV, allow the WA deal through, see the DUP turn puce and end the C&S agreement, and back themselves to force an election, win it and put through whatever long-term future arrangement with the EU they see fit.

    I used to think that too. I now see it differently. May is cornered and if Labour hold the line - just continue to oppose and not get dragged into a search for alternatives - they can force her to make the ultimate choice of no deal or revoke. Either of those should be sufficient to sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.

    But will Cooper spoil things?
    Revoke finishes the Conservatives. No Deal merely hurts them.
    Revoke helps the country. No Deal hurts the country.

    Note the difference.

    Honestly, you strike me as a decent Tory.

    But I am beginning to loathe the Tories for the way they are putting their interests above those of the country. And don't give me that "honouring the referendum" bullshit. The referendum was largely done to sort out a Tory party problem. If the Tories had genuinely wanted to address the concerns the country had with its membership of the EU and its effects here - and there were serious problems, many of which I sympathise with, a referendum was not the way to go about it.

    But now - the Tories should not drag us into No Deal because they lack the courage to call a halt to a disastrous set of negotiations and a policy which no-one can defend, other than by saying "a referendum made me do it" and which will weaken and harm a country the Tories claim to be patriotic about.
    No Deal hurts the country. And so does Revoke. The former does economic damage. The latter does political damage.
    And I expect Conservatives would say that political damage leads to economic damage as a Corbyn government would follow Revoke.

    The City is likely to be hammered by both a Corbyn government and the EU after Revoke for those who give the City's well-being as a priority.
    And the City, if that is one's main concern, would take what view of No Deal followed by a Corbyn Government (a perfectly possible sequence in my opinion.)?
    I think it's more likely we get Remain, followed by a Corbyn government.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 22,098

    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Drutt said:


    I still don't really understand why Labour doesn't simply abstain on the MV, allow the WA deal through, see the DUP turn puce and end the C&S agreement, and back themselves to force an election, win it and put through whatever long-term future arrangement with the EU they see fit.

    I used to think that too. I now see it differently. May is cornered and if Labour hold the line - just continue to oppose and not get dragged into a search for alternatives - they can force her to make the ultimate choice of no deal or revoke. Either of those should be sufficient to sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.

    But will Cooper spoil things?
    Revoke finishes the Conservatives. No Deal merely hurts them.
    Revoke helps the country. No Deal hurts the country.

    Note the difference.

    Honestly, you strike me as a decent Tory.

    But I am beginning to loathe the Tories for the way they are putting their interests above those of the country. And don't give me that "honouring the referendum" bullshit. The referendum was largely done to sort out a Tory party problem. If the Tories had genuinely wanted to address the concerns the country had with its membership of the EU and its effects here - and there were serious problems, many of which I sympathise with, a referendum was not the way to go about it.

    But now - the Tories should not drag us into No Deal because they lack the courage to call a halt to a disastrous set of negotiations and a policy which no-one can defend, other than by saying "a referendum made me do it" and which will weaken and harm a country the Tories claim to be patriotic about.
    No Deal hurts the country. And so does Revoke. The former does economic damage. The latter does political damage.
    And I expect Conservatives would say that political damage leads to economic damage as a Corbyn government would follow Revoke.

    The City is likely to be hammered by both a Corbyn government and the EU after Revoke for those who give the City's well-being as a priority.
    And the City, if that is one's main concern, would take what view of No Deal followed by a Corbyn Government (a perfectly possible sequence in my opinion.)?
    The City wouldn't like that scenario either and it is indeed perfectly possible as you say.
    The City will be much less hammered, even by a Corbyn government, if it is still in the Single Market.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,513
    Yes, but the hope is to actually find a plan both will accept, I'm not sure sticking to a plan already rejected or proposing new options also rejected is a gesture of good faith on either the EU or our part.

    It's like Jonathan said, this is about shifting blame. The government hopes that it looks like they are trying to make it work, and therefore it is not its fault.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Drutt said:


    I still don't really understand why Labour doesn't simply abstain on the MV, allow the WA deal through, see the DUP turn puce and end the C&S agreement, and back themselves to force an election, win it and put through whatever long-term future arrangement with the EU they see fit.

    I used to think that too. I now see it differently. May is cornered and if Labour hold the line - just continue to oppose and not get dragged into a search for alternatives - they can force her to make the ultimate choice of no deal or revoke. Either of those should be sufficient to sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.

    But will Cooper spoil things?
    Revoke finishes the Conservatives. No Deal merely hurts them.
    Revoke helps the country. No Deal hurts the country.

    Note the difference.

    Honestly, you strike me as a decent Tory.

    But I am beginning to loathe the Tories for the way they are putting their interests above those of the country. And don't give me that "honouring the referendum" bullshit. The referendum was largely done to sort out a Tory party problem. If the Tories had genuinely wanted to address the concerns the country had with its membership of the EU and its effects here - and there were serious problems, many of which I sympathise with, a referendum was not the way to go about it.

    But now - the Tories should not drag us into No Deal because they lack the courage to call a halt to a disastrous set of negotiations and a policy which no-one can defend, other than by saying "a referendum made me do it" and which will weaken and harm a country the Tories claim to be patriotic about.
    Revoke in no way helps the country. That is simply a delusional position to take. You used to be a sensible poster but you have become one of the lunatic fringe these days.
    You mean that she disagrees with your mania and obsession? More like a badge of honour...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,513

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/Peston/status/1090021403032805376

    Well, I suppose technically knowing someone has a plan C in the even plan B fails is better than no plan at all, but it still seems very unicorny. Do parliamentarians not get that cleverly worded amendments and procedural chicanery in the Commons are not worth much unless the EU are on board? That is, in fact, one of the few areas where the Remain crowd (the honest ones, not the 'by stealth' remainers) have the upper hand - they know the EU will accept their option.
    Plan C is (presumably) more typex over the "B" in Plan B which was typexed from Plan A, but apart from that one letter change is otherwise identical.
    Actually did we ever even get to Plan B?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    kyf_100 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:



    Revoke finishes the Conservatives. No Deal merely hurts them.

    Revoke helps the country. No Deal hurts the country.

    Note the difference.

    Honestly, you strike me as a decent Tory.

    But I am beginning to loathe the Tories for the way they are putting their interests above those of the country. And don't give me that "honouring the referendum" bullshit. The referendum was largely done to sort out a Tory party problem. If the Tories had genuinely wanted to address the concerns the country had with its membership of the EU and its effects here - and there were serious problems, many of which I sympathise with, a referendum was not the way to go about it.

    But now - the Tories should not drag us into No Deal because they lack the courage to call a halt to a disastrous set of negotiations and a policy which no-one can defend, other than by saying "a referendum made me do it" and which will weaken and harm a country the Tories claim to be patriotic about.
    No Deal hurts the country. And so does Revoke. The former does economic damage. The latter does political damage.
    Economic damage will cause political damage. If people don't feel secure - about jobs, about food, about medicines, about law 'n' order - they won't give a shit about democracy, about their referendum vote. Order and security first - then democracy. That has been true in this country, if you look at our history.
    Surprisingly totalitarian from you.
    Very Metternich! Freedom springs from order, not the other way round. In this case, I think it is right.

    I really don't know how bad No Deal would be, nobody does, but I've a feeling 'pretty nasty' could be an understatement.
    There was a huge tell today. Never mind the supermarkets, among the signatories to that letter were KFC and MacDonalds. Much of their customer base will be typical Leavers. But they felt the need to warn that no deal Brexit would be bad for food supply. They wouldn't be doing that if they thought they could muddle through.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Drutt said:


    I still don't really understand why Labour doesn't simply abstain on the MV, allow the WA deal through, see the DUP turn puce and end the C&S agreement, and back themselves to force an election, win it and put through whatever long-term future arrangement with the EU they see fit.

    I used to think that too. I now see it differently. May is cornered and if Labour hold the line - just continue to oppose and not get dragged into a search for alternatives - they can force her to make the ultimate choice of no deal or revoke. Either of those should be sufficient to sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.

    But will Cooper spoil things?
    Revoke finishes the Conservatives. No Deal merely hurts them.
    Revoke helps the country. No Deal hurts the country.

    Note the difference.

    Honestly, you strike me as a decent Tory.

    But I am beginning to loathe the Tories for the way they are putting their interests above those of the country. And don't give me that "honouring the referendum" bullshit. The referendum was largely done to sort out a Tory party problem. If the Tories had genuinely wanted to address the concerns the country had with its membership of the EU and its effects here - and there were serious problems, many of which I sympathise with, a referendum was not the way to go about it.

    But now - the Tories should not drag us into No Deal because they lack the courage to call a halt to a disastrous set of negotiations and a policy which no-one can defend, other than by saying "a referendum made me do it" and which will weaken and harm a country the Tories claim to be patriotic about.
    No Deal hurts the country. And so does Revoke. The former does economic damage. The latter does political damage.
    And I expect Conservatives would say that political damage leads to economic damage as a Corbyn government would follow Revoke.

    The City is likely to be hammered by both a Corbyn government and the EU after Revoke for those who give the City's well-being as a priority.
    And the City, if that is one's main concern, would take what view of No Deal followed by a Corbyn Government (a perfectly possible sequence in my opinion.)?
    The City wouldn't like that scenario either and it is indeed perfectly possible as you say.
    The City will be much less hammered, even by a Corbyn government, if it is still in the Single Market.
    That depends upon how much the EU wishes to hammer it.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 18,659
    dots said:

    Scott_P said:
    You were elected to stop socialists Boles, not talk them into bed. Just get on with what you were elected to do!
    She is not a Socialist
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 22,098
    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:
    That 's an option.

    But, it means we stay in for as long as the EU exists, and get dragged into things we don't want.
    Not for those things where there is still a veto.

    But frankly I think that we need to rethink our whole attitude to Europe and have a strategy for the world as it is and is likely to become not the world as it was. Our thinking about Europe, about the EU, about the world is - and this has become painfully obvious in the last two years - rooted in the past, as if Brexit if the only thing needed for the world to be as it was in 1966.

    To take just one example: why - when the US is turning away from Europe and Russia is flexing its muscles - is an EU army or a common EU defence policy such a bad thing? It may be a very good thing, a much needed thing and something where we could shine and contribute. We really do need fresh thinking. As does the EU. And we could contribute to such fresh thinking.

    The old post-war world and settlement is changing and disappearing. We can be part of creating a new settlement, a new world or we can retreat and be irrelevant. For all the challenges and difficulties and annoyances of the former, I think - having seen how Brexit has been handled - I prefer the former.
    However, the reality will probably be we end up remaining, bitter and sullen, while the EU as a whole lords it over us, knowing they can do anything they like and we won't have the balls to leave, while resenting our bitter attitude and marginalising us as much as they can get away with.

    It's our least worst option right now, but it's going to be a horrible sucking wound of mutual resentment that just festers on and on. And we can be confident of that because while in moments of desperation the fine rhetoric comes out, political leaders, UK and EU, retreat into nasty leaks, blame shifting and moaning all the time. They did before we voted leave, they will even more when we remain. First summit where it's stated we've some concerns about something? 'Sources in the German and French camps expressed frustration, saying that the UK had the chance to leave and did not take it, and they don't know what they want anymore'.

    It's going to be damage the EU for years to come.

    As I wrote: there are no good options. At this stage it's about choosing the least harmful option.

    Then we think about the future. And try to imagine something different to repeating the mistakes of the past.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/Peston/status/1090021403032805376

    Well, I suppose technically knowing someone has a plan C in the even plan B fails is better than no plan at all, but it still seems very unicorny. Do parliamentarians not get that cleverly worded amendments and procedural chicanery in the Commons are not worth much unless the EU are on board? That is, in fact, one of the few areas where the Remain crowd (the honest ones, not the 'by stealth' remainers) have the upper hand - they know the EU will accept their option.
    Plan C is (presumably) more typex over the "B" in Plan B which was typexed from Plan A, but apart from that one letter change is otherwise identical.
    Actually did we ever even get to Plan B?
    It is hard to tell, I think tomorrow is Plan B (re-vote on Plan A again and hope for victory)
  • theProletheProle Posts: 637

    Jonathan said:

    Cameron really screwed up.

    Amazing now to think of the years & years of the PB Tories defending every particle of his being (I seem to recall at one point Plato (RIP) said she'd marry him in a flash). Fair play to those still loyal.
    I'm still loyal.

    When I was told he was about to resign, it still feels like a kick in the gonads.
    Me too. I always had a personal and political empathy with Cameron, and still do.

    I was just very disappointed he didn’t follow through on his European policy.
    Me too. I always thought he was a pretty decent PM, but he got Europe wrong, and that was the big one. Tonite's excellent programme confirmed to me that the problem was always an internal Tory Party one, and that the Leadership's mistake was to try and appease the Eurosceptics.

    Hasn't really worked out very well for us has it? And by Us, I mean everybody, not just Tories.
    Well, we did discover that a bit over half of the country's votes were fairly Eurosceptic - it turns out a dislike of the EU exists in other places than obscure bits of the Tory party.

    I think Cameron was bowing to the inevitable. The country had had enough of the EU, the pressure for a vote was only ever going to increase until someone held a vote.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 40,133
    Ambivalence about unification is fading away in the Republic of Ireland.

    https://twitter.com/oconnellhugh/status/1090021993137745931
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    kle4 said:

    That YouGov poll should terrify Leavers. The public think Leave is going to work out really badly. Not a single Remain voter from 2016 feels happy about Brexit. Leavers by more than 2:1 feel unhappy about Brexit too. By nearly 2:1 the public think Brexit will make life worse.

    Confident Leavers are a very noisy minority.

    Leavers are either already spooked, or unspookable at this point.
    Amen
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,849
    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:
    That 's an option.

    But, it means we stay in for as long as the EU exists, and get dragged into things we don't want.
    Not for those things where there is still a veto.

    But frankly I think that we need to rethink our whole attitude to Europe and have a strategy for the world as it is and is likely to become not the world as it was. Our thinking about Europe, about the EU, about the world is - and this has become painfully obvious in the last two years - rooted in the past, as if Brexit if the only thing needed for the world to be as it was in 1966.

    To take just one example: why - when the US is turning away from Europe and Russia is flexing its muscles - is an EU army or a common EU defence policy such a bad thing? It may be a very good thing, a much needed thing and something where we could shine and contribute. We really do need fresh thinking. As does the EU. And we could contribute to such fresh thinking.

    The old post-war world and settlement is changing and disappearing. We can be part of creating a new settlement, a new world or we can retreat and be irrelevant. For all the challenges and difficulties and annoyances of the former, I think - having seen how Brexit has been handled - I prefer the former.
    However, the reality will probably be we end up remaining, bitter and sullen, while the EU as a whole lords it over us, knowing they can do anything they like and we won't have the balls to leave, while resenting our bitter attitude and marginalising us as much as they can get away with.

    It's our least worst option right now, but it's going to be a horrible sucking wound of mutual resentment that just festers on and on. And we can be confident of that because while in moments of desperation the fine rhetoric comes out, political leaders, UK and EU, retreat into nasty leaks, blame shifting and moaning all the time. They did before we voted leave, they will even more when we remain. First summit where it's stated we've some concerns about something? 'Sources in the German and French camps expressed frustration, saying that the UK had the chance to leave and did not take it, and they don't know what they want anymore'.

    It's going to be damage the EU for years to come.

    As I wrote: there are no good options. At this stage it's about choosing the least harmful option.

    Then we think about the future. And try to imagine something different to repeating the mistakes of the past.
    Don't worry. You won.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 22,098
    nielh said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Drutt said:


    I still don't really understand why Labour doesn't simply abstain on the MV, allow the WA deal through, see the DUP turn puce and end the C&S agreement, and back themselves to force an election, win it and put through whatever long-term future arrangement with the EU they see fit.

    I used to think that too. I now see it differently. May is cornered and if Labour hold the line - just continue to oppose and not get dragged into a search for alternatives - they can force her to make the ultimate choice of no deal or revoke. Either of those should be sufficient to sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.

    But will Cooper spoil things?
    Revoke finishes the Conservatives. No Deal merely hurts them.
    Revoke helps the country. No Deal hurts the country.

    Note the difference.

    Honestly, you strike me as a decent Tory.

    But I am beginning to loathe the Tories for the way they are putting their interests above those of the country. And don't give me that "honouring the referendum" bullshit. The referendum was largely done to sort out a Tory party problem. If the Tories had genuinely wanted to address the concerns the country had with its membership of the EU and its effects here - and there were serious problems, many of which I sympathise with, a referendum was not the way to go about it.

    But now - the Tories should not drag us into No Deal because they lack the courage to call a halt to a disastrous set of negotiations and a policy which no-one can defend, other than by saying "a referendum made me do it" and which will weaken and harm a country the Tories claim to be patriotic about.
    Revoke in no way helps the country. That is simply a delusional position to take. You used to be a sensible poster but you have become one of the lunatic fringe these days.
    You have to choose between the political crisis associated with revoke, and the multiple problems, particularly economic, arising from no deal.

    I think cyclefree underestimates the political crisis, associated with revoke.
    I don't. I identified this as a very big problem in the thread header I wrote. I think though people underestimate the political and economic crisis that would be associated with a chaotic Brexit with no deal and with having a very much worse deal forced on us by the EU thereafter.

    I am not a diehard Remainer. But I am appalled by the absolutely appalling mess the government has made of Brexit.

    We face a choice between unpalatable options. I have said this repeatedly. So since I am repeating myself, I will sign off for the night.

  • dotsdots Posts: 615
    HYUFD said:

    dots said:

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    kle4 said:

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1089997071669751818
    That's Cooper' amendment's passed then, isn't it? Making May's plans immaterial?

    Not necessarily - there's quite a few Labour MPs (Caroline Flint being one) who have said they won't be voting for it, and all the Tory MPs who spent weeks talking about how they were committed to avoiding No Deal are (predictably) bottling out of actually following through when it matters.

    problems with Coopers amendment.

    1) There is some truth the cliff edge facing both parties and the ticking clock could lead to a climb down, and a better deal, but if commons supports Coopers amendment Britain stops waving it’s guns, instantly our negotiating strength is neutralised. It doesn’t stop no deal brexit, just kicks it down the road, it’s not a solution taking us closer to resolution, it’s can kicking leaving us nowhere.

    2) Coopers amendment cannot deliver on its promise. It’s not in the power of UK either government or parliament to create an extension, merely ask the EU to grant one with a case we are actually doing something constructive with the time. Which is What?

    3). If a lot of Labour MPs see it like this and rebel a whip (if indeed Labour leadership are whipping support for it, hard to believe they are that dumb to invite the two strong attacks 1 & 2 above from government party against them) then it dangerously fragments a previously solid PLP weakening the party whip.
    In my view the Benn amendment, which allows Parliament to vote on No Deal, May's Deal, renegotiating May's Deal and EUref2 and the Grieve amendment, enabling Parliament to propose Brexit options are more significant than the Cooper amendment as they allow Parliament to take control, extending Article 50 is merely can kicking though provides more time for alternatives to be fobsidered
    Fobsidered? Are you in dictionary corner?

    Whipless Tuesday would have been nice. Free votes on across the board positions, everything, no deals, revokes, refs, norway minus Canada plus. But nah! It’s going to be tribal party politics food fight, and result in the worst kind of impression to the electorate and watching world.

    By handing Cooper the whip Corbyn had blown Tuesday already, the Tory side will rip her wrong headed amendment to pieces.
  • kjohnwkjohnw Posts: 1,456
    does the vague "alternative arrangements" wording in the Graham Brady amendment give TM the leeway and licence to agree to a permanent CU to circumnavigate the backstop, which would betray the very reason we don't want the backstop in the first place
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,513
    theProle said:

    Jonathan said:

    Cameron really screwed up.

    Amazing now to think of the years & years of the PB Tories defending every particle of his being (I seem to recall at one point Plato (RIP) said she'd marry him in a flash). Fair play to those still loyal.
    I'm still loyal.

    When I was told he was about to resign, it still feels like a kick in the gonads.
    Me too. I always had a personal and political empathy with Cameron, and still do.

    I was just very disappointed he didn’t follow through on his European policy.
    Me too. I always thought he was a pretty decent PM, but he got Europe wrong, and that was the big one. Tonite's excellent programme confirmed to me that the problem was always an internal Tory Party one, and that the Leadership's mistake was to try and appease the Eurosceptics.

    Hasn't really worked out very well for us has it? And by Us, I mean everybody, not just Tories.
    Well, we did discover that a bit over half of the country's votes were fairly Eurosceptic - it turns out a dislike of the EU exists in other places than obscure bits of the Tory party.

    I think Cameron was bowing to the inevitable. The country had had enough of the EU, the pressure for a vote was only ever going to increase until someone held a vote.
    Indeed. People are fooling themselves if the think all this angst was created by the vote, clearly it was there, and we need to sort our shit out, one way or another. This is the very dark and messy time where we attempt to do that, and it is not pretty, but an outcome is needed.

    Pleasant dreams - I hope people have an actual plan for when Cooper wins tomorrow, because on its own its hardly a resolution.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,513
    edited January 2019
    https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1090028238016000000
    Members of same party able to be in a room together. Christ. That's the bar for success now?
  • dotsdots Posts: 615
    edited January 2019

    dots said:

    Scott_P said:
    You were elected to stop socialists Boles, not talk them into bed. Just get on with what you were elected to do!
    She is not a Socialist
    Labels.

    Corner of the painting.

    Socialist in Bolshevik and Fascist eyes. Thrown with Luxembourg into the river, down the cellar with the Cheka
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,513
    Oh, I didn't realise that with the gov supporting the Brady amendment the Murrison version had been withdrawn. Be pretty funny if Bercow didn't select it then!
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,261

    kyf_100 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:



    Revoke finishes the Conservatives. No Deal merely hurts them.

    Revoke helps the country. No Deal hurts the country.

    Note the difference.

    Honestly, you strike me as a decent Tory.

    .
    No Deal hurts the country. And so does Revoke. The former does economic damage. The latter does political damage.
    Economic damage will cause political damage. If people don't feel secure - about jobs, about food, about medicines, about law 'n' order - they won't give a shit about democracy, about their referendum vote. Order and security first - then democracy. That has been true in this country, if you look at our history.
    Surprisingly totalitarian from you.
    Very Metternich! Freedom springs from order, not the other way round. In this case, I think it is right.

    I really don't know how bad No Deal would be, nobody does, but I've a feeling 'pretty nasty' could be an understatement.
    There was a huge tell today. Never mind the supermarkets, among the signatories to that letter were KFC and MacDonalds. Much of their customer base will be typical Leavers. But they felt the need to warn that no deal Brexit would be bad for food supply. They wouldn't be doing that if they thought they could muddle through.
    Not sure how you conclude about McDonalds and KFC. Are all leavers old people in rural England ruing the future for their grandchildren? I’ve been in a few KFCs and McDonalds. If I have seen them full it is students or shoppers in town and city centres. They are no more likely to be leavers than anyone else, but obviously you don’t like KFC or McDonalds or leavers so they must be equally bad.

    I’m not sure if you have had many Big Macs - not sure much of the menu would be ruined by less salad
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,261
    kle4 said:

    https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1090028238016000000
    Members of same party able to be in a room together. Christ. That's the bar for success now?

    Quite literally for a Government to succeed then yes
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 2,710
    Cyclefree said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:



    No Deal hurts the country. And so does Revoke. The former does economic damage. The latter does political damage.

    Economic damage will cause political damage. If people don't feel secure - about jobs, about food, about medicines, about law 'n' order - they won't give a shit about democracy, about their referendum vote. Order and security first - then democracy. That has been true in this country, if you look at our history.
    Surprisingly totalitarian from you.
    It's not totalitarian. It's an observation from history. And from current events. See Iraq, for instance. It was actually derived something said by Paddy Ashdown, following his stint as supremo in Bosnia, following the civil war there.

    See this from an interview in 2002:

    "My main slogan in the first address I gave, the one I adhere to is: first justice, then jobs through reform. The reason is very simple; the creation of peace does not rest on democracy in the first place, as we thought, but rather on justice. Until you create the rule of law, you cannot create the security of the people, security of democracy and the economy, security of investments and all that follows that. We first made that mistake here, and then once again in Kosovo, because we did not establish the rule of law immediately."

    If a chaotic Brexit threatens security, the economy, people's jobs etc then those people will not thank politicians for telling them that they did it because of their votes. That's my point.
    But your argument is for revoke, when we have the instruments of a general election or a second referendum at our disposal. Neither are ideal, but at least the decision would be handed back to the public. Revoke simply tells 17.4m people that their vote doesn't count. A raspberry in the face of democracy. "Order and security" arrived at by discarding democracy turns Parliament into little more than a junta.
This discussion has been closed.