So is today going to be the day that Parliament redeems itself, or are we going to hear endless discussions about what people don’t want followed by a failure to agree on anything?
I think we know the answer to that.
The ERG will say No. Sarah Wollaston will demand a second referendum. Corbyn will demand a magical Brexit. The government will be defeated on a procedural amendment, which kicks the can down the road.
That sounds about right.
Dr Wollaston completely lost it yesterday, saying that the WA could never be amended, despite it being massively voted down last week - including by herself - and therefore dead in its current form.
Some of the ERG types also lost it, it seems there’s a few diehards who will only agree to no deal.
Corbyn I still can’t work out. At some point he’s either going to have to come off the fence, or be held responsible in the eyes of his supporters for perpetuating no deal.
Um, saying it cannot be amended is listening to the PM for the last 4 months. The deal is dead in its current form,Yes, but it's its only form.
The EU keep saying that it’s up to the UK to say what they want next.
The Brady Amendment does just that, it tells the EU that a deal with no backstop is acceptable to us. Then it would be up to the EU to discuss and get back to us. Most importantly it’s making it clear that the problem is with the WA itself, not with the political statement around it. Fiddling with that document isn’t going to change the minds of anyone.
Dare I suggest that if the discussion was moving towards closer EU integration, Dr Wollaston would be all for it.
I think it wrong to assume Biden is not running. Harris has made a good start, but she’s adopted a whole set of policies, which could either be a smart move to tie up the progressive wing of the party, or prove an early hostage to fortune and open a gao for a centrist ‘uniter’ (despite her current efforts to present herself as such).
The four freedoms must be inextricably linked according to the EU, but that is a political decision. That is the issue we ought to be concentrating on.
Just as Brexiteers whine that Remoaners should "embrace the opportunities of Brexit", so Brexiteers should realise the four freedoms are a key benefit of the EU, not an "issue"
I understand that Leave voters were unhappy about immigration, and unscrupulous charlatans campaigned on the basis that leaving the EU would fix it, but running out of food and medicine will not help those voters (or solve the immigration concerns)
Telling people over and over that they benefit from freedom of movement when their own experience clearly taught them otherwise isn't just the reason why remain lost, it's the reason why project fear simply didn't stick then, and still isn't sticking now.
People believe what they can see with their own eyes. And what they see is the fact that they can't get a doctor's appointment for weeks, their schools are full of children who don't speak English as a first language, people from eastern eurpoe are crowding four, eight, twelve to a house - and so on and so forth. Ignore the macro effect of immigration on GDP or the tax take or anything so abstract, they do not feel that they, personally, have benefited.
And yet remainers keep on parroting the same tired lines. Freedom of movement is good! You benefit from it! Yes, you can go and work in Spain/Italy/Germany now! Etc. When what most people want, in these lean times, is a government that concentrates on fixing the problems at home and makes their sh*tty lives marginally better.
Freedom of movement increases competition for jobs, state services and housing at the lowest rungs of society and remainers' utter inability to acknowledge this leads people to doubt them on everything else.
Why did areas with few immigrants vote more heavily Leave than areas with more?
Or...areas with most immigrants voted more heavily to Remain. Why might that be?
Presumably because the benefits of free movement were clear and obvious in those areas. Only UK citizens were eligible to vote in the referendum so please don’t insinuate it was the immigrants themselves
So you're saying UK citizens can't originally be immigrants?
I see the solution to the backstop is supposed to be an online document dated 12 December 2019 [sic]. I followed the link, but it's 59 pages.
Is there any reason to suppose that the EU is suddenly going to cave in and agree to something that isn't even new but was proposed nearly 7 weeks ago?
Is it a good sign that Theresa May says she needs more time to consider something that was proposed nearly 7 weeks ago?
Has any journalist bothered asking May whether she believes the EU will limit the backstop, and if so why she's been saying the opposite for the post t few months?
The four freedoms must be inextricably linked according to the EU, but that is a political decision. That is the issue we ought to be concentrating on.
Just as Brexiteers whine that Remoaners should "embrace the opportunities of Brexit", so Brexiteers should realise the four freedoms are a key benefit of the EU, not an "issue"
I understand that Leave voters were unhappy about immigration, and unscrupulous charlatans campaigned on the basis that leaving the EU would fix it, but running out of food and medicine will not help those voters (or solve the immigration concerns)
Telling people over and over that they benefit from freedom of movement when their own experience clearly taught them otherwise isn't just the reason why remain lost, it's the reason why project fear simply didn't stick then, and still isn't sticking now.
People believe what they can see with their own eyes. And what they see is the fact that they can't get a doctor's appointment for weeks, their schools are full of children who don't speak English as a first language, people from eastern eurpoe are crowding four, eight, twelve to a house - and so on and so forth. Ignore the macro effect of immigration on GDP or the tax take or anything so abstract, they do not feel that they, personally, have benefited.
And yet remainers keep on parroting the same tired lines. Freedom of movement is good! You benefit from it! Yes, you can go and work in Spain/Italy/Germany now! Etc. When what most people want, in these lean times, is a government that concentrates on fixing the problems at home and makes their sh*tty lives marginally better.
Freedom of movement increases competition for jobs, state services and housing at the lowest rungs of society and remainers' utter inability to acknowledge this leads people to doubt them on everything else.
Why did areas with few immigrants vote more heavily Leave than areas with more?
And why do Remainers worry more about their finances than Leavers?
On average, they're wealthier.
It does rather go against the idea that Leavers were voting from desperation so widely touted by reactionaries who have suddenly sprouted a social conscience.
Overall, the Remain vote was a bit more skewed towards the better off than the Leave vote, but certainly, a large minority of well off voters supported Leave, and a large minority of poor voters backed Remain.
If Harris is a black Hillary, she'll still win provided she manages to avoid insulting half the electorate and throwing resources at states she's guaranteed to win whilst denying them to contested states.
All a Dem candidate has to do is add a percentage point to the Dem vote in the Rustbelt without even taking anything from Trump and they win.
They may go backwards not forwards, after Gore won the popular vote in 2000 Democrats thought 2004 was locked on, Kerry ended up losing the popular vote and electoral college.
Picking another liberal elitist like Kerry is not going to win the Democrats the Electoral College against Trump
I wonder if anything major happened between 2000 and 2004?
The four freedoms must be inextricably linked according to the EU, but that is a political decision. That is the issue we ought to be concentrating on.
Just as Brexiteers whine that Remoaners should "embrace the opportunities of Brexit", so Brexiteers should realise the four freedoms are a key benefit of the EU, not an "issue"
I understand that Leave voters were unhappy about immigration, and unscrupulous charlatans campaigned on the basis that leaving the EU would fix it, but running out of food and medicine will not help those voters (or solve the immigration concerns)
Telling people over and over that they benefit from freedom of movement when their own experience clearly taught them otherwise isn't just the reason why remain lost, it's the reason why project fear simply didn't stick then, and still isn't sticking now.
People believe what they can see with their own eyes. And what they see is the fact that they can't get a doctor's appointment for weeks, their schools are full of children who don't speak English as a first language, people from eastern eurpoe are crowding four, eight, twelve to a house - and so on and so forth. Ignore the macro effect of immigration on GDP or the tax take or anything so abstract, they do not feel that they, personally, have benefited.
And yet remainers keep on parroting the same tired lines. Freedom of movement is good! You benefit from it! Yes, you can go and work in Spain/Italy/Germany now! Etc. When what most people want, in these lean times, is a government that concentrates on fixing the problems at home and makes their sh*tty lives marginally better.
Freedom of movement increases competition for jobs, state services and housing at the lowest rungs of society and remainers' utter inability to acknowledge this leads people to doubt them on everything else.
Why did areas with few immigrants vote more heavily Leave than areas with more?
And why do Remainers worry more about their finances than Leavers?
On average, they're meaner.
An acquaintance of mine does Deliveroo in a wealthy University town. At least, the West half of the town is wealthy & fat with EU money and voted strongly for Remain.
The eastern wards are poor and voted strongly for Leave.
It is striking that all his tips come from the Eastern half.
So many from the Remainer Western half, living in their million pound houses, can't be arsed to give a trip to a Deliveroo driver biking through the rain with their dinner.
There are your Remainers "worried about their finances".
The four freedoms must be inextricably linked according to the EU, but that is a political decision. That is the issue we ought to be concentrating on.
Just as Brexiteers whine that Remoaners should "embrace the opportunities of Brexit", so Brexiteers should realise the four freedoms are a key benefit of the EU, not an "issue"
I understand that Leave voters were unhappy about immigration, and unscrupulous charlatans campaigned on the basis that leaving the EU would fix it, but running out of food and medicine will not help those voters (or solve the immigration concerns)
Telling people over and over that they benefit from freedom of movement when their own experience clearly taught them otherwise isn't just the reason why remain lost, it's the reason why project fear simply didn't stick then, and still isn't sticking now.
People believe what they can see with their own eyes. And what they see is the fact that they can't get a doctor's appointment for weeks, their schools are full of children who don't speak English as a first language, people from eastern eurpoe are crowding four, eight, twelve to a house - and so on and so forth. Ignore the macro effect of immigration on GDP or the tax take or anything so abstract, they do not feel that they, personally, have benefited.
And yet remainers keep on parroting the same tired lines. Freedom of movement is good! You benefit from it! Yes, you can go and work in Spain/Italy/Germany now! Etc. When what most people want, in these lean times, is a government that concentrates on fixing the problems at home and makes their sh*tty lives marginally better.
Freedom of movement increases competition for jobs, state services and housing at the lowest rungs of society and remainers' utter inability to acknowledge this leads people to doubt them on everything else.
Why did areas with few immigrants vote more heavily Leave than areas with more?
And why do Remainers worry more about their finances than Leavers?
On average, they're wealthier.
It does rather go against the idea that Leavers were voting from desperation so widely touted by reactionaries who have suddenly sprouted a social conscience.
Overall, the Remain vote was a bit more skewed towards the better off than the Leave vote, but certainly, a large minority of well off voters supported Leave, and a large minority of poor voters backed Remain.
If Leave voters were purely as caricatured, they'd have got just 30% of the vote, not 52%.
The four freedoms must be inextricably linked according to the EU, but that is a political decision. That is the issue we ought to be concentrating on.
Just as Brexiteers whine that Remoaners should "embrace the opportunities of Brexit", so Brexiteers should realise the four freedoms are a key benefit of the EU, not an "issue"
I understand that Leave voters were unhappy about immigration, and unscrupulous charlatans campaigned on the basis that leaving the EU would fix it, but running out of food and medicine will not help those voters (or solve the immigration concerns)
Telling people over and over that they benefit from freedom of movement when their own experience clearly taught them otherwise isn't just the reason why remain lost, it's the reason why project fear simply didn't stick then, and still isn't sticking now.
People believe what they can see with their own eyes. And what they see is the fact that they can't get a doctor's appointment for weeks, their schools are full of children who don't speak English as a first language, people from eastern eurpoe are crowding four, eight, twelve to a house - and so on and so forth. Ignore the macro effect of immigration on GDP or the tax take or anything so abstract, they do not feel that they, personally, have benefited.
And yet remainers keep on parroting the same tired lines. Freedom of movement is good! You benefit from it! Yes, you can go and work in Spain/Italy/Germany now! Etc. When what most people want, in these lean times, is a government that concentrates on fixing the problems at home and makes their sh*tty lives marginally better.
Freedom of movement increases competition for jobs, state services and housing at the lowest rungs of society and remainers' utter inability to acknowledge this leads people to doubt them on everything else.
Why did areas with few immigrants vote more heavily Leave than areas with more?
And why do Remainers worry more about their finances than Leavers?
On average, they're wealthier.
It does rather go against the idea that Leavers were voting from desperation so widely touted by reactionaries who have suddenly sprouted a social conscience.
If you’re a leave voting pensioner who’s paid off the mortgage and has a guaranteed income, why would you worry about your finances?
I think it wrong to assume Biden is not running. Harris has made a good start, but she’s adopted a whole set of policies, which could either be a smart move to tie up the progressive wing of the party, or prove an early hostage to fortune and open a gao for a centrist ‘uniter’ (despite her current efforts to present herself as such).
I still think he’s too old at 76, wil be 78 on Inauguration Day if elected.
But if he stands he probably wins the nomination. A genuine elder statesman whom Trump would struggle to deal with as an opponent.
Trump would secretly fear Biden far more than Harris I suspect, I can already see him calling her 'Beyonce without the talent'
Didn't Trump (draft dodger, due to heel problems ) once threaten Biden with physical violence? Although Biden too was declared unfit for service, due to childhood asthma.
If we're speculating on septuagenarian fisticuffs then Mueller could handle them both at the same time. That guy has seen some shit.
From Wiki: For his service in and during the Vietnam War, his military decorations and awards include: the Bronze Star Medal with Combat "V", Purple Heart Medal, two Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medals with Combat "V", Combat Action Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal with four service stars, Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross, Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, and Parachutist Badge.
The four freedoms must be inextricably linked according to the EU, but that is a political decision. That is the issue we ought to be concentrating on.
Just as Brexiteers whine that Remoaners should "embrace the opportunities of Brexit", so Brexiteers should realise the four freedoms are a key benefit of the EU, not an "issue"
I understand that Leave voters were unhappy about immigration, and unscrupulous charlatans campaigned on the basis that leaving the EU would fix it, but running out of food and medicine will not help those voters (or solve the immigration concerns)
Telling people over and over that they benefit from freedom of movement when their own experience clearly taught them otherwise isn't just the reason why remain lost, it's the reason why project fear simply didn't stick then, and still isn't sticking now.
People believe what they can see with their own eyes. And what they see is the fact that they can't get a doctor's appointment for weeks, their schools are full of children who don't speak English as a first language, people from eastern eurpoe are crowding four, eight, twelve to a house - and so on and so forth. Ignore the macro effect of immigration on GDP or the tax take or anything so abstract, they do not feel that they, personally, have benefited.
And yet remainers keep on parroting the same tired lines. Freedom of movement is good! You benefit from it! Yes, you can go and work in Spain/Italy/Germany now! Etc. When what most people want, in these lean times, is a government that concentrates on fixing the problems at home and makes their sh*tty lives marginally better.
Freedom of movement increases competition for jobs, state services and housing at the lowest rungs of society and remainers' utter inability to acknowledge this leads people to doubt them on everything else.
Why did areas with few immigrants vote more heavily Leave than areas with more?
And why do Remainers worry more about their finances than Leavers?
On average, they're wealthier.
It does rather go against the idea that Leavers were voting from desperation so widely touted by reactionaries who have suddenly sprouted a social conscience.
If you’re a leave voting pensioner who’s paid off the mortgage and has a guaranteed income, why would you worry about your finances?
You would if you had fully read and understood the contents of your pension - a lot have a maximum rate of annual increase...
The four freedoms must be inextricably linked according to the EU, but that is a political decision. That is the issue we ought to be concentrating on.
Just as Brexiteers whine that Remoaners should "embrace the opportunities of Brexit", so Brexiteers should realise the four freedoms are a key benefit of the EU, not an "issue"
I understand that Leave voters were unhappy about immigration, and unscrupulous charlatans campaigned on the basis that leaving the EU would fix it, but running out of food and medicine will not help those voters (or solve the immigration concerns)
Telling people over and over that they benefit from freedom of movement when their own experience clearly taught them otherwise isn't just the reason why remain lost, it's the reason why project fear simply didn't stick then, and still isn't sticking now.
People believe what they can see with their own eyes. And what they see is the fact that they can't get a doctor's appointment for weeks, their schools are full of children who don't speak English as a first language, people from eastern eurpoe are crowding four, eight, twelve to a house - and so on and so forth. Ignore the macro effect of immigration on GDP or the tax take or anything so abstract, they do not feel that they, personally, have benefited.
And yet remainers keep on parroting the same tired lines. Freedom of movement is good! You benefit from it! Yes, you can go and work in Spain/Italy/Germany now! Etc. When what most people want, in these lean times, is a government that concentrates on fixing the problems at home and makes their sh*tty lives marginally better.
Freedom of movement increases competition for jobs, state services and housing at the lowest rungs of society and remainers' utter inability to acknowledge this leads people to doubt them on everything else.
Why did areas with few immigrants vote more heavily Leave than areas with more?
Or...areas with most immigrants voted more heavily to Remain. Why might that be?
Because people who live near immigrants know they aren't the blood sucking vampires the press make them out to be?
One of the most interesting pieces of British social attitudes research is that people think that things are worse in the rest of the country compared to their local area.
The four freedoms must be inextricably linked according to the EU, but that is a political decision. That is the issue we ought to be concentrating on.
Just as Brexiteers whine that Remoaners should "embrace the opportunities of Brexit", so Brexiteers should realise the four freedoms are a key benefit of the EU, not an "issue"
I understand that Leave voters were unhappy about immigration, and unscrupulous charlatans campaigned on the basis that leaving the EU would fix it, but running out of food and medicine will not help those voters (or solve the immigration concerns)
Telling people over and over that they benefit from freedom of movement when their own experience clearly taught them otherwise isn't just the reason why remain lost, it's the reason why project fear simply didn't stick then, and still isn't sticking now.
People believe what they can see with their own eyes. And what they see is the fact that they can't get a doctor's appointment for weeks, their schools are full of children who don't speak English as a first language, people from eastern eurpoe are crowding four, eight, twelve to a house - and so on and so forth. Ignore the macro effect of immigration on GDP or the tax take or anything so abstract, they do not feel that they, personally, have benefited.
And yet remainers keep on parroting the same tired lines. Freedom of movement is good! You benefit from it! Yes, you can go and work in Spain/Italy/Germany now! Etc. When what most people want, in these lean times, is a government that concentrates on fixing the problems at home and makes their sh*tty lives marginally better.
Freedom of movement increases competition for jobs, state services and housing at the lowest rungs of society and remainers' utter inability to acknowledge this leads people to doubt them on everything else.
Why did areas with few immigrants vote more heavily Leave than areas with more?
And why do Remainers worry more about their finances than Leavers?
On average, they're meaner.
An acquaintance of mine does Deliveroo in a wealthy University town. At least, the West half of the town is wealthy & fat with EU money and voted strongly for Remain.
The eastern wards are poor and voted strongly for Leave.
It is striking that all his tips come from the Eastern half.
So many from the Remainer Western half, living in their million pound houses, can't be arsed to give a trip to a Deliveroo driver biking through the rain with their dinner.
There are your Remainers "worried about their finances".
The four freedoms must be inextricably linked according to the EU, but that is a political decision. That is the issue we ought to be concentrating on.
Just as Brexiteers whine that Remoaners should "embrace the opportunities of Brexit", so Brexiteers should realise the four freedoms are a key benefit of the EU, not an "issue"
I understand that Leave voters were unhappy about immigration, and unscrupulous charlatans campaigned on the basis that leaving the EU would fix it, but running out of food and medicine will not help those voters (or solve the immigration concerns)
Telling people over and over that they benefit from freedom of movement when their own experience clearly taught them otherwise isn't just the reason why remain lost, it's the reason why project fear simply didn't stick then, and still isn't sticking now.
People believe what they can see with their own eyes. And what they see is the fact that they can't get a doctor's appointment for weeks, their schools are full of children who don't speak English as a first language, people from eastern eurpoe are crowding four, eight, twelve to a house - and so on and so forth. Ignore the macro effect of immigration on GDP or the tax take or anything so abstract, they do not feel that they, personally, have benefited.
And yet remainers keep on parroting the same tired lines. Freedom of movement is good! You benefit from it! Yes, you can go and work in Spain/Italy/Germany now! Etc. When what most people want, in these lean times, is a government that concentrates on fixing the problems at home and makes their sh*tty lives marginally better.
Freedom of movement increases competition for jobs, state services and housing at the lowest rungs of society and remainers' utter inability to acknowledge this leads people to doubt them on everything else.
Why did areas with few immigrants vote more heavily Leave than areas with more?
Or...areas with most immigrants voted more heavily to Remain. Why might that be?
Because people who live near immigrants know they aren't the blood sucking vampires the press make them out to be?
Careful. Everyone knows that blood-sucking vampires can hypnotise their victims.
The four freedoms must be inextricably linked according to the EU, but that is a political decision. That is the issue we ought to be concentrating on.
Just as Brexiteers whine that Remoaners should "embrace the opportunities of Brexit", so Brexiteers should realise the four freedoms are a key benefit of the EU, not an "issue"
I understand that Leave voters were unhappy about immigration, and unscrupulous charlatans campaigned on the basis that leaving the EU would fix it, but running out of food and medicine will not help those voters (or solve the immigration concerns)
Telling people over and over that they benefit from freedom of movement when their own experience clearly taught them otherwise isn't just the reason why remain lost, it's the reason why project fear simply didn't stick then, and still isn't sticking now.
People believe what they can see with their own eyes. And what they see is the fact that they can't get a doctor's appointment for weeks, their schools are full of children who don't speak English as a first language, people from eastern eurpoe are crowding four, eight, twelve to a house - and so on and so forth. Ignore the macro effect of immigration on GDP or the tax take or anything so abstract, they do not feel that they, personally, have benefited.
And yet remainers keep on parroting the same tired lines. Freedom of movement is good! You benefit from it! Yes, you can go and work in Spain/Italy/Germany now! Etc. When what most people want, in these lean times, is a government that concentrates on fixing the problems at home and makes their sh*tty lives marginally better.
Freedom of movement increases competition for jobs, state services and housing at the lowest rungs of society and remainers' utter inability to acknowledge this leads people to doubt them on everything else.
Why did areas with few immigrants vote more heavily Leave than areas with more?
Or...areas with most immigrants voted more heavily to Remain. Why might that be?
Because people who live near immigrants know they aren't the blood sucking vampires the press make them out to be?
One of the most interesting pieces of British social attitudes research is that people think that things are worse in the rest of the country compared to their local area.
People are predisposed to believe bad news. For example, people believe violent crime is far more prevalent than it is.
Reposting this morning's oppo FPT. Great call by Mike getting on at such good odds but I wonder if the Dems wouldn't be better picking someone who sounds less like they want to kill all the puppies.
The Brady Amendment does just that, it tells the EU that a deal with no backstop is acceptable to us.
Possibly the time for May to mention that to the EU was when she was negotiating the WA not after she'd agreed to it.
Very much so. TM and the negotiators should have thought about the domestic passing of the deal much earlier, especially when she kept saying that no deal was better than a bad one.
But we are where we are, the deal is dead and not enough preparation has been made for no deal - so anything that moves the debate forwards is a good thing right now!
Of course, in practice the MPs are going to let themselves down again by not agreeing to anything and talking only about what they don’t want, rather than what they do.
The four freedoms must be inextricably linked according to the EU, but that is a political decision. That is the issue we ought to be concentrating on.
Just as Brexiteers whine that Remoaners should "embrace the opportunities of Brexit", so Brexiteers should realise the four freedoms are a key benefit of the EU, not an "issue"
I understand that Leave voters were unhappy about immigration, and unscrupulous charlatans campaigned on the basis that leaving the EU would fix it, but running out of food and medicine will not help those voters (or solve the immigration concerns)
Telling people over and over that they benefit from freedom of movement when their own
People believe what they can see with their own eyes. And what they see is the fact that they can't get a doctor's appointment for weeks, their schools are full of children who don't speak English as a first language, people from eastern eurpoe are crowding four, eight, twelve to a house - and so on and so forth. Ignore the macro effect of immigration on GDP or the tax take or anything so abstract, they do not feel that they, personally, have benefited.
And yet remainers keep on parroting the same tired lines. Freedom of movement is good! You benefit from it! Yes, you can go and work in Spain/Italy/Germany now! Etc. When what most people want, in these lean times, is a government that concentrates on fixing the problems at home and makes their sh*tty lives marginally better.
Freedom of movement increases competition for jobs, state services and housing at the lowest rungs of society and remainers' utter inability to acknowledge this leads people to doubt them on everything else.
Why did areas with few immigrants vote more heavily Leave than areas with more?
And why do Remainers worry more about their finances than Leavers?
On average, they're meaner.
An acquaintance of mine does Deliveroo in a wealthy University town. At least, the West half of the town is wealthy & fat with EU money and voted strongly for Remain.
The eastern wards are poor and voted strongly for Leave.
It is striking that all his tips come from the Eastern half.
So many from the Remainer Western half, living in their million pound houses, can't be arsed to give a trip to a Deliveroo driver biking through the rain with their dinner.
There are your Remainers "worried about their finances".
Yep, that proves it!!
It's not really a Leave/Remain point, and there are plenty of exceptions either way, but it tends to be the case that the rich are less generous than the poor.
If Harris is a black Hillary, she'll still win provided she manages to avoid insulting half the electorate and throwing resources at states she's guaranteed to win whilst denying them to contested states.
All a Dem candidate has to do is add a percentage point to the Dem vote in the Rustbelt without even taking anything from Trump and they win.
They may go backwards not forwards, after Gore won the popular vote in 2000 Democrats thought 2004 was locked on, Kerry ended up losing the popular vote and electoral college.
Picking another liberal elitist like Kerry is not going to win the Democrats the Electoral College against Trump
I wonder if anything major happened between 2000 and 2004?
For a time, 2001-09-11 was seen as a pivotal date in history that clearly marked a before and after, but I wonder now whether the credit crunch has proved to be more fundamental.
Is it possible that even the more sensible politicians are simply out of their depth on the technical legal aspects of Brexit, so that groups of MPs privately thrashing each other with olive branches are doomed to failure if they don't have adequate expert support on the finer points? I mean the kind of support politicians normally need in drafting legislation that actually makes sense.
They don't care. Better to go down to defeat than make a single concession.
If the Brady amendment fails tonight and the Cooper, Grieve, Spelman and Benn amendments pass then Parliament will have taken control of the Brexit process and the prospect of hard Brexit will then be remote
The four freedoms must be inextricably linked according to the EU, but that is a political decision. That is the issue we ought to be concentrating on.
Just as Brexiteers whine that Remoaners should "embrace the opportunities of Brexit", so Brexiteers should realise the four freedoms are a key benefit of the EU, not an "issue"
I understand that Leave voters were unhappy about immigration, and unscrupulous charlatans campaigned on the basis that leaving the EU would fix it, but running out of food and medicine will not help those voters (or solve the immigration concerns)
Telling people over and over that they benefit from freedom of movement when their own experience clearly taught them otherwise isn't just the reason why remain lost, it's the reason why project fear simply didn't stick then, and still isn't sticking now.
People believe what they can see with their own eyes. And what they see is the fact that they can't get a doctor's appointment for weeks, their schools are full of children who don't speak English as a first language, people from eastern eurpoe are crowding four, eight, twelve to a house - and so on and so forth. Ignore the macro effect of immigration on GDP or the tax take or anything so abstract, they do not feel that they, personally, have benefited.
And yet remainers keep on parroting the same tired lines. Freedom of movement is good! You benefit from it! Yes, you can go and work in Spain/Italy/Germany now! Etc. When what most people want, in these lean times, is a government that concentrates on fixing the problems at home and makes their sh*tty lives marginally better.
Freedom of movement increases competition for jobs, state services and housing at the lowest rungs of society and remainers' utter inability to acknowledge this leads people to doubt them on everything else.
Is that why Remain got majorities in places where there are high levels of EU migration and Leave piled up the votes in areas where there are much lower levels?
A platform of anti-immigration is not necessarily a rational one. Voting leave will do nothing to lessen immigration from the Indian sub continent, but that doesn't mean there isn't a correlation between areas voting leave and those of significant Asian population.
'Freedom of movement increases competition for jobs, state services and housing at the lowest rungs of society and remainers' utter inability to acknowledge this leads people to doubt them on everything else'
Why did areas with few immigrants vote more heavily Leave than areas with more?
So you're saying UK citizens can't originally be immigrants'
The premise is wrong anyway. It wasn't just UK citizens who could vote in the referendum - Irish and Commonwealth citizens could vote too as they can in all general elections.
The closeness of the vote in some less well off London boroughs with compartively low white British populations like Newham, Redbridge and Hounslow suggest quite a few BME voters/Commonwealth nationals (e.g. from the Indian sub continent) in those boroughs must have voted leave. Why - possibly because they weren't keen on freedom of movement either with eastern Europeans getting preferential immigration rights to the UK over their families and relatives (the opposite being the case before we joined the EEC)!
And those areas are also hit perhaps more than most by competition for housing and services. Yes - quite a few BME voters even in London backed leave!
If Harris is a black Hillary, she'll still win provided she manages to avoid insulting half the electorate and throwing resources at states she's guaranteed to win whilst denying them to contested states.
All a Dem candidate has to do is add a percentage point to the Dem vote in the Rustbelt without even taking anything from Trump and they win.
They may go backwards not forwards, after Gore won the popular vote in 2000 Democrats thought 2004 was locked on, Kerry ended up losing the popular vote and electoral college.
Picking another liberal elitist like Kerry is not going to win the Democrats the Electoral College against Trump
I wonder if anything major happened between 2000 and 2004?
Any boost Bush got from 9/11 and toppling the Taliban and removing Al Qaeda from Afghanistan soon faded after the Iraq War and by 2004 his approval rating was barely 50%, a better candidate could have beaten Bush
Mr. F, I have vague memories of learning that when I was studying psychology. I think it was said the poor give small amounts but which are large relative to their disposable income. The rich give large amounts, and those in the middle don't give much.
Generalisations, of course, and there'll be exceptions aplenty. Does remind me a bit of the parable of the woman giving two coppers and the rich man giving a talent, and the difference between dedication and contribution.
The four freedoms must be inextricably linked according to the EU, but that is a political decision. That is the issue we ought to be concentrating on.
Just as Brexiteers whine that Remoaners should "embrace the opportunities of Brexit", so Brexiteers should realise the four freedoms are a key benefit of the EU, not an "issue"
I understand that Leave voters were unhappy about immigration, and unscrupulous charlatans campaigned on the basis that leaving the EU would fix it, but running out of food and medicine will not help those voters (or solve the immigration concerns)
Telling people over and over that they benefit from freedom of movement when their own experience clearly taught them otherwise isn't just the reason why remain lost, it's the reason why project fear simply didn't stick then, and still isn't sticking now.
People believe what they can see with their own eyes. And what they see is the fact that they can't get a doctor's appointment for weeks, their schools are full of children who don't speak English as a first language, people from eastern eurpoe are crowding four, eight, twelve to a house - and so on and so forth. Ignore the macro effect of immigration on GDP or the tax take or anything so abstract, they do not feel that they, personally, have benefited.
And yet remainers keep on parroting the same tired lines. Freedom of movement is good! You benefit from it! Yes, you can go and work in Spain/Italy/Germany now! Etc. When what most people want, in these lean times, is a government that concentrates on fixing the problems at home and makes their sh*tty lives marginally better.
Freedom of movement increases competition for jobs, state services and housing at the lowest rungs of society and remainers' utter inability to acknowledge this leads people to doubt them on everything else.
Is that why Remain got majorities in places where there are high levels of EU migration and Leave piled up the votes in areas where there are much lower levels?
A platform of anti-immigration is not necessarily a rational one. Voting leave will do nothing to lessen immigration from the Indian sub continent, but that doesn't mean there isn't a correlation between areas voting leave and those of significant Asian population.
Do we know how Asians voted?
We know that overall about a third of ethnic minority voters supported Leave. The proportions varied hugely by constituency.
If Harris is a black Hillary, she'll still win provided she manages to avoid insulting half the electorate and throwing resources at states she's guaranteed to win whilst denying them to contested states.
All a Dem candidate has to do is add a percentage point to the Dem vote in the Rustbelt without even taking anything from Trump and they win.
They may go backwards not forwards, after Gore won the popular vote in 2000 Democrats thought 2004 was locked on, Kerry ended up losing the popular vote and electoral college.
Picking another liberal elitist like Kerry is not going to win the Democrats the Electoral College against Trump
I wonder if anything major happened between 2000 and 2004?
Any boost Bush got from 9/11 and toppling the Taliban soon faded after the Iraq War and by 2004 his approval rating was barely 50%, a better candidate could have beaten Bush
If there's a US/Afghani/Taliban deal soon (as has been suggested) will not that be a big win for Trump? Or at least claimed as such?
I think it wrong to assume Biden is not running. Harris has made a good start, but she’s adopted a whole set of policies, which could either be a smart move to tie up the progressive wing of the party, or prove an early hostage to fortune and open a gao for a centrist ‘uniter’ (despite her current efforts to present herself as such).
If Harris is a black Hillary, she'll still win provided she manages to avoid insulting half the electorate and throwing resources at states she's guaranteed to win whilst denying them to contested states.
All a Dem candidate has to do is add a percentage point to the Dem vote in the Rustbelt without even taking anything from Trump and they win.
They may go backwards not forwards, after Gore won the popular vote in 2000 Democrats thought 2004 was locked on, Kerry ended up losing the popular vote and electoral college.
Picking another liberal elitist like Kerry is not going to win the Democrats the Electoral College against Trump
I wonder if anything major happened between 2000 and 2004?
For a time, 2001-09-11 was seen as a pivotal date in history that clearly marked a before and after, but I wonder now whether the credit crunch has proved to be more fundamental.
Sort of related... After we had some Supertramp puns the other day, I was idly mulling over what would more likely be seen by history as the Crime of the Century: the Twin Towers, or Putin's Russia subverting the democratic process of the USA to deliver Trump......?
I think it wrong to assume Biden is not running. Harris has made a good start, but she’s adopted a whole set of policies, which could either be a smart move to tie up the progressive wing of the party, or prove an early hostage to fortune and open a gao for a centrist ‘uniter’ (despite her current efforts to present herself as such).
As I observed looking at the closeness of the vote in London boroughs with large Asian populations like Newham, Redbridge and Hounslow quite a few voters from the Asian community must have voted leave. Cos perhaps they aren't so keen on freedom of movement either - as Eastern Europeans get preferential immigration rights over their relatives and also face the impact of the pressures on housing and local services and schools. Not most Asians - but quite a few must have voted leave.
Cos it isn't just the stereotype of 'old white people' who aren't entirely keen on EU freedom of movement!
The four freedoms must be inextricably linked according to the EU, but that is a political decision. That is the issue we ought to be concentrating on.
Just as Brexiteers whine that Remoaners should "embrace the opportunities of Brexit", so Brexiteers should realise the four freedoms are a key benefit of the EU, not an "issue"
I understand that Leave voters were unhappy about immigration, and unscrupulous charlatans campaigned on the basis that leaving the EU would fix it, but running out of food and medicine will not help those voters (or solve the immigration concerns)
Telling people over and over that they benefit from freedom of movement when their own experience clearly taught them otherwise isn't just the reason why remain lost, it's the reason why project fear simply didn't stick then, and still isn't sticking now.
People believe what they can see with their own eyes. And what they see is the fact that they can't get a doctor's appointment for weeks, their schools are full of children who don't speak English as a first language, people from eastern eurpoe are crowding four, eight, twelve to a house - and so on and so forth. Ignore the macro effect of immigration on GDP or the tax take or anything so abstract, they do not feel that they, personally, have benefited.
And yet remainers keep on parroting the same tired lines. Freedom of movement is good! You benefit from it! Yes, you can go and work in Spain/Italy/Germany now! Etc. When what most people want, in these lean times, is a government that concentrates on fixing the problems at home and makes their sh*tty lives marginally better.
Freedom of movement increases competition for jobs, state services and housing at the lowest rungs of society and remainers' utter inability to acknowledge this leads people to doubt them on everything else.
Why did areas with few immigrants vote more heavily Leave than areas with more?
And why do Remainers worry more about their finances than Leavers?
On average, they're wealthier.
Most I know seem to be dismissive of nations, religions and culture, unless its chic overseas culture, uninterested in democratic principles, and very interested in the size of their wallet.
Last night I read a report that even if Cooper's amendment passes, or indeed no deal, the legislation needed to delay or stop no deal is virtually out of time and no deal will happen anyway
If this is the case it is a collective failure by all mps and each and every one should be thrown out of their seats
So is today going to be the day that Parliament redeems itself, or are we going to hear endless discussions about what people don’t want followed by a failure to agree on anything?
I think we know the answer to that.
The ERG will say No. Sarah Wollaston will demand a second referendum. Corbyn will demand a magical Brexit. The government will be defeated on a procedural amendment, which kicks the can down the road.
That sounds about right.
Dr Wollaston completely lost it yesterday, saying that the WA could never be amended, despite it being massively voted down last week - including by herself - and therefore dead in its current form.
Some of the ERG types also lost it, it seems there’s a few diehards who will only agree to no deal.
Corbyn I still can’t work out. At some point he’s either going to have to come off the fence, or be held responsible in the eyes of his supporters for perpetuating no deal.
I loved the comment from one journalist about the ERG. " If you changed water into wine for them, they'd complain about the vintage."
Agreed. Dr Wollaston is like the ERG though, too.
Regardless of where the tent was placed, she'd place herself just outside of it, so she could piss into it.
Funnily enough, whilst I vehemently disagree with him, Ken Clarke at least demonstrates a level of integrity and honesty in his politics many of his fellow travellers do not.
An acquaintance of mine does Deliveroo in a wealthy University town. At least, the West half of the town is wealthy & fat with EU money and voted strongly for Remain.
The eastern wards are poor and voted strongly for Leave.
It is striking that all his tips come from the Eastern half.
So many from the Remainer Western half, living in their million pound houses, can't be arsed to give a trip to a Deliveroo driver biking through the rain with their dinner.
There are your Remainers "worried about their finances".
Yep, that proves it!!
Well, the data does exist, and (if one could get it), it would be an interesting calculation to do.
Where do Deliveroo drivers earn their trips? And are those wards correlated with any political party, or with Remain or Leave? Are e.g., SNP voters more generous than Tory voters ?
Why don't you propose your own idea of correlating Meanness with Political Viewpoint, if you like?
Oh, I am sorry. My mistake. You're Southam. You just bellyache.
The argument for political union is dead. The reason why remainiacs have been banging on about economics all this time is because the vast majority of the British public has zero interest in "More Europe". Even most Remain voters don't want more power to Brussels. It is simply going in a direction we don't want to go and the antagonism is only going to grow the longer we stay.
The refrain of "if only we got more involved" is perhaps the most delusional thing to come from the referendum. Okay perhaps not most, but up there. It's not happening, in any of our lifetimes at least.
More to the point what on earth makes you think an institution built on post-war ideology, one that is terribly, terribly flawed, is the right vehicle to lead us into the 21st century? The EU is an institution rooted in the past, even older than 1966! The EU is not interested in fresh thinking, the only thing it knows is "More Europe" and our decades of membership had **** all effect on that. All it produced was a political class ever more subservient to the federalist desires of the Franco-German partnership, which poisoned our politics.
And yet in all the years we have been members I have never found the EU to be anything other than convenient and useful. Common regulations have saved me a ton of paperwork. It's nice being able to cross borders without a passport - can't think why we insist on not joining in with that. I can buy and sell freely. My daughter was able to settle in Berlin without any hassle. And the Euro has stabilised currency values - which is a real benefit.
Not sure what your issue with it is.
Common regulations are very useful, so long as they make sense and aren't pointless red tape or claptrap not rooted in scientific evidence (for which the EU has form.) The free traversal of borders under Schengen is very useful for EU citizens; unfortunately it's also very useful for illegal migrants. Point conceded on the single market, though not on the protectionist common external tariff - and we can't have one without the other. We can go and live and work freely elsewhere in Europe, but unfortunately people come in the opposite direction at several times the rate and the country (which is not very large and suffers from a steadily worsening housing supply problem) hasn't coped well with this. The Euro is a disaster, for the debtor states at the very least.
One can make valid arguments for both staying put and leaving, but simply extolling the manifest perfection of the EU won't wash.
Even the Economist, this week, described the Euro as "a disaster" which is like the Pope becoming an atheist.
The Brady Amendment does just that, it tells the EU that a deal with no backstop is acceptable to us.
Possibly the time for May to mention that to the EU was when she was negotiating the WA not after she'd agreed to it.
Very much so. TM and the negotiators should have thought about the domestic passing of the deal much earlier, especially when she kept saying that no deal was better than a bad one.
But we are where we are, the deal is dead and not enough preparation has been made for no deal - so anything that moves the debate forwards is a good thing right now!
Of course, in practice the MPs are going to let themselves down again by not agreeing to anything and talking only about what they don’t want, rather than what they do.
I seem to recall that the hard Leavers were busy telling everyone that May couldn't have Parliament debate the negotiations before they were completed because it would give away our negotiating strategy.
An acquaintance of mine does Deliveroo in a wealthy University town. At least, the West half of the town is wealthy & fat with EU money and voted strongly for Remain.
The eastern wards are poor and voted strongly for Leave.
It is striking that all his tips come from the Eastern half.
So many from the Remainer Western half, living in their million pound houses, can't be arsed to give a trip to a Deliveroo driver biking through the rain with their dinner.
There are your Remainers "worried about their finances".
Yep, that proves it!!
Well, the data does exist, and (if one could get it), it would be an interesting calculation to do.
Where do Deliveroo drivers earn their trips? And are those wards correlated with any political party, or with Remain or Leave? Are e.g., SNP voters more generous than Tory voters ?
Why don't you propose your own idea of correlating Meanness with Political Viewpoint, if you like?
Oh, I am sorry. My mistake. You're Southam. You just bellyache.
The four freedoms must be inextricably linked according to the EU, but that is a political decision. That is the issue we ought to be concentrating on.
Just as Brexiteers whine that Remoaners should "embrace the opportunities of Brexit", so Brexiteers should realise the four freedoms are a key benefit of the EU, not an "issue"
I understand that Leave voters were unhappy about immigration, and unscrupulous charlatans campaigned on the basis that leaving the EU would fix it, but running out of food and medicine will not help those voters (or solve the immigration concerns)
Telling people over and over that they benefit from freedom of movement when their own experience clearly taught them otherwise isn't just the reason why remain lost, it's the reason why project fear simply didn't stick then, and still isn't sticking now.
People believe what they can see with their own eyes. And what they see is the fact that they can't get a doctor's appointment for weeks, their schools are full of children who don't speak English as a first language, people from eastern eurpoe are crowding four, eight, twelve to a house - and so on and so forth. Ignore the macro effect of immigration on GDP or the tax take or anything so abstract, they do not feel that they, personally, have benefited.
Freedom of movement increases competition for jobs, state services and housing at the lowest rungs of society and remainers' utter inability to acknowledge this leads people to doubt them on everything else.
Why did areas with few immigrants vote more heavily Leave than areas with more?
And why do Remainers worry more about their finances than Leavers?
On average, they're wealthier.
It does rather go against the idea that Leavers were voting from desperation so widely touted by reactionaries who have suddenly sprouted a social conscience.
Overall, the Remain vote was a bit more skewed towards the better off than the Leave vote, but certainly, a large minority of well off voters supported Leave, and a large minority of poor voters backed Remain.
The only conclusion we can draw is that, if you voted Leave, you'll be condemned regardless of your wealth, but lauded for your wisdom if you voted Remain.
I am sorry to say that she has moved from reasonable to fanatical - the whole thing is such a mess and I see no way forward that doesn't involve massive damage in one direction or another.
I am sorry to say that she has moved from reasonable to fanatical - the whole thing is such a mess and I see no way forward that doesn't involve massive damage in one direction or another.
The four freedoms must be inextricably linked according to the EU, but that is a political decision. That is the issue we ought to be concentrating on.
Just as Brexiteers whine that Remoaners should "embrace the opportunities of Brexit", so Brexiteers should realise the four freedoms are a key benefit of the EU, not an "issue"
I understand that Leave voters were unhappy about immigration, and unscrupulous charlatans campaigned on the basis that leaving the EU would fix it, but running out of food and medicine will not help those voters (or solve the immigration concerns)
Telling people over and over that they benefit from freedom of movement when their own experience clearly taught them otherwise isn't just the reason why remain lost, it's the reason why project fear simply didn't stick then, and still isn't sticking now.
People believe what they can see with their own eyes. And what they see is the fact that they can't get a doctor's appointment for weeks, their schools are full of children who don't speak English as a first language, people from eastern eurpoe are crowding four, eight, twelve to a house - and so on and so forth. Ignore the macro effect of immigration on GDP or the tax take or anything so abstract, they do not feel that they, personally, have benefited.
And yet remainers keep on parroting the same tired lines. Freedom of movement is good! You benefit from it! Yes, you can go and work in Spain/Italy/Germany now! Etc. When what most people want, in these lean times, is a government that concentrates on fixing the problems at home and makes their sh*tty lives marginally better.
Freedom of movement increases competition for jobs, state services and housing at the lowest rungs of society and remainers' utter inability to acknowledge this leads people to doubt them on everything else.
Why did areas with few immigrants vote more heavily Leave than areas with more?
And why do Remainers worry more about their finances than Leavers?
On average, they're wealthier.
Most I know seem to be dismissive of nations, religions and culture, unless its chic overseas culture, uninterested in democratic principles, and very interested in the size of their wallet.
Funny that, most Leavers I know are xenophobic, ignorant racists who want to revive the Empire and expel all immigrants. Isn’t it amazing we both mostly know people on the other side of the debate who confirm all our views about people on the other side of the debate?
Last night I read a report that even if Cooper's amendment passes, or indeed no deal, the legislation needed to delay or stop no deal is virtually out of time and no deal will happen anyway
Cooper's amendment is about extending the deadline, isn't it? That doesn't need primary legislation, but it does need the unanimous agreement of all the other countries in the EU.
I think we can assume that if a deal passes the Commons, the EU will give us a shortish extension to give time for necessary legislation, though evidently they are very reluctant to go beyond the European elections.
What's much more doubtful is whether the EU will give us an extension just because we run out of time without agreeing anything. And in a sense Cooper's amendment is dangerous because it may lull MPs into thinking an extension is going to happen on demand, and therefore remove the pressure to decide something.
An acquaintance of mine does Deliveroo in a wealthy University town. At least, the West half of the town is wealthy & fat with EU money and voted strongly for Remain.
The eastern wards are poor and voted strongly for Leave.
It is striking that all his tips come from the Eastern half.
So many from the Remainer Western half, living in their million pound houses, can't be arsed to give a trip to a Deliveroo driver biking through the rain with their dinner.
There are your Remainers "worried about their finances".
Yep, that proves it!!
Well, the data does exist, and (if one could get it), it would be an interesting calculation to do.
Where do Deliveroo drivers earn their trips? And are those wards correlated with any political party, or with Remain or Leave? Are e.g., SNP voters more generous than Tory voters ?
Why don't you propose your own idea of correlating Meanness with Political Viewpoint, if you like?
Oh, I am sorry. My mistake. You're Southam. You just bellyache.
About Corby or May or Leave or Whatever.
Not delivery tips, but no reason to think the generosity doesn't transfer: most generous tippers Glasgow, followed by London.
'London diners are among the most generous tippers in the UK, new study shows '
I am sorry to say that she has moved from reasonable to fanatical - the whole thing is such a mess and I see no way forward that doesn't involve massive damage in one direction or another.
There is massive damage and then there is MASSIVE DAMAGE!!!
There may be no good choices left, but that's not the same as all choices being equally bad.
The four freedoms must be inextricably linked according to the EU, but that is a political decision. That is the issue we ought to be concentrating on.
Just as Brexiteers whine that Remoaners should "embrace the opportunities of Brexit", so Brexiteers should realise the four freedoms are a key benefit of the EU, not an "issue"
I understand that Leave voters were unhappy about immigration, and unscrupulous charlatans campaigned on the basis that leaving the EU would fix it, but running out of food and medicine will not help those voters (or solve the immigration concerns)
Telling people over and over that they benefit from freedom of movement when their own
People believe what they can see with their own eyes. Andpersonally, have benefited.
And yet remainers keep on parroting the same tired lines. Freedom of movement is good! You benefit from it! Yes, you can go and work in Spain/Italy/Germany now! Etc. When what most people want, in these lean times, is a government that concentrates on fixing the problems at home and makes their sh*tty lives marginally better.
Freedom of movement increases competition for jobs, state services and housing at the lowest rungs of society and remainers' utter inability to acknowledge this leads people to doubt them on everything else.
Why did areas with few immigrants vote more heavily Leave than areas with more?
And why do Remainers worry more about their finances than Leavers?
On average, they're meaner.
An acquaintance of mine does Deliveroo in a wealthy University town. At least, the West half of the town is wealthy & fat with EU money and voted strongly for Remain.
The eastern wards are poor and voted strongly for Leave.
It is striking that all his tips come from the Eastern half.
So many from the Remainer Western half, living in their million pound houses, can't be arsed to give a trip to a Deliveroo driver biking through the rain with their dinner.
There are your Remainers "worried about their finances".
Yep, that proves it!!
It's not really a Leave/Remain point, and there are plenty of exceptions either way, but it tends to be the case that the rich are less generous than the poor.
Yep, that is certainly the case. You only need to look at the trouble immensely wealthy people take to ensure the state does not get a share of fortunes they could never hope to spend to see that.
As I observed looking at the closeness of the vote in London boroughs with large Asian populations like Newham, Redbridge and Hounslow quite a few voters from the Asian community must have voted leave. Cos perhaps they aren't so keen on freedom of movement either - as Eastern Europeans get preferential immigration rights over their relatives and also face the impact of the pressures on housing and local services and schools. Not most Asians - but quite a few must have voted leave.
Cos it isn't just the stereotype of 'old white people' who aren't entirely keen on EU freedom of movement!
Anecdotal but when I used to fly back to teach at Oxford about a third of my class would be british Asians - overwhelmingly they were leavers, especially turban-wearing sikhs for some reason, never met one who voted remain.
The four freedoms must be inextricably linked according to the EU, but that is a political decision. That is the issue we ought to be concentrating on.
Just as Brexiteers whine that Remoaners should "embrace the opportunities of Brexit", so Brexiteers should realise the four freedoms are a key benefit of the EU, not an "issue"
I understand that Leave voters were unhappy about immigration, and unscrupulous charlatans campaigned on the basis that leaving the EU would fix it, but running out of food and medicine will not help those voters (or solve the immigration concerns)
Telling people over and over that they benefit from freedom of movement when their own
People believe what they can see with their own eyes. And what they see is the fact that they can't get a doctor's appointment for weeks, their schools are full of children who don't speak English as a first language, people from eastern eurpoe are crowding four, eight, twelve to a house - and so on and so forth. Ignore the macro effect of immigration on GDP or the tax take or anything so abstract, they do not feel that they, personally, have benefited.
Why did areas with few immigrants vote more heavily Leave than areas with more?
And why do Remainers worry more about their finances than Leavers?
On average, they're meaner.
An acquaintance of mine does Deliveroo in a wealthy University town. At least, the West half of the town is wealthy & fat with EU money and voted strongly for Remain.
The eastern wards are poor and voted strongly for Leave.
It is striking that all his tips come from the Eastern half.
So many from the Remainer Western half, living in their million pound houses, can't be arsed to give a trip to a Deliveroo driver biking through the rain with their dinner.
There are your Remainers "worried about their finances".
Yep, that proves it!!
It's not really a Leave/Remain point, and there are plenty of exceptions either way, but it tends to be the case that the rich are less generous than the poor.
It's certainly is on here with the well off remainers, never so much hatred told by so few.
Last night I read a report that even if Cooper's amendment passes, or indeed no deal, the legislation needed to delay or stop no deal is virtually out of time and no deal will happen anyway
If this is the case it is a collective failure by all mps and each and every one should be thrown out of their seats
Alternatively it is the outcome of the referendum being enacted through path of least resistance and if the MPs want to get a deal instead of no deal they should ratify one.
Last night I read a report that even if Cooper's amendment passes, or indeed no deal, the legislation needed to delay or stop no deal is virtually out of time and no deal will happen anyway
Cooper's amendment is about extending the deadline, isn't it? That doesn't need primary legislation, but it does need the unanimous agreement of all the other countries in the EU.
I think we can assume that if a deal passes the Commons, the EU will give us a shortish extension to give time for necessary legislation, though evidently they are very reluctant to go beyond the European elections.
What's much more doubtful is whether the EU will give us an extension just because we run out of time without agreeing anything. And in a sense Cooper's amendment is dangerous because it may lull MPs into thinking an extension is going to happen on demand, and therefore remove the pressure to decide something.
I cannot say this with any certainty but the report I read implied that even with the Cooper amendment there are steps that have to be taken in parliament by the mps to alter the exit legislation
I am sure fellow posters with more knowledge will help me out here.
Last night I read a report that even if Cooper's amendment passes, or indeed no deal, the legislation needed to delay or stop no deal is virtually out of time and no deal will happen anyway
Cooper's amendment is about extending the deadline, isn't it? That doesn't need primary legislation, but it does need the unanimous agreement of all the other countries in the EU.
I think we can assume that if a deal passes the Commons, the EU will give us a shortish extension to give time for necessary legislation, though evidently they are very reluctant to go beyond the European elections.
What's much more doubtful is whether the EU will give us an extension just because we run out of time without agreeing anything. And in a sense Cooper's amendment is dangerous because it may lull MPs into thinking an extension is going to happen on demand, and therefore remove the pressure to decide something.
I cannot say this with any certainty but the report I read implied that even with the Cooper amendment there are steps that have to be taken in parliament by the mps to alter the exit legislation
I am sure fellow posters with more knowledge will help me out here.
To quote the Guardian:
The new amendment, which seems likely to be among those selected for a vote, would guarantee parliamentary time for a private members’ bill drafted by Cooper that would extend article 50 to the end of 2019 if Theresa May failed to secure a deal by late February.
The issues are how time might be scheduled for the various stages of this bill to become law, we are talking of full primary legislation so we need a committee stage and everything through both houses for three readings - if the government are opposed to it and trying to get no-deal legislation through at the same time? At a push the government could simply refuse to give it to HM for assent, or do so after we’ve left the EU. Even if it becomes law, it would only mandate that we ask the EU for an extension, which they then need to approve unanimously. Why would they do so if our govt are opposed and all it does is push the can down the road at the request of our opposition?
Last night I read a report that even if Cooper's amendment passes, or indeed no deal, the legislation needed to delay or stop no deal is virtually out of time and no deal will happen anyway
Cooper's amendment is about extending the deadline, isn't it? That doesn't need primary legislation, but it does need the unanimous agreement of all the other countries in the EU.
I think we can assume that if a deal passes the Commons, the EU will give us a shortish extension to give time for necessary legislation, though evidently they are very reluctant to go beyond the European elections.
What's much more doubtful is whether the EU will give us an extension just because we run out of time without agreeing anything. And in a sense Cooper's amendment is dangerous because it may lull MPs into thinking an extension is going to happen on demand, and therefore remove the pressure to decide something.
I cannot say this with any certainty but the report I read implied that even with the Cooper amendment there are steps that have to be taken in parliament by the mps to alter the exit legislation
I am sure fellow posters with more knowledge will help me out here.
To quote the Guardian:
The new amendment, which seems likely to be among those selected for a vote, would guarantee parliamentary time for a private members’ bill drafted by Cooper that would extend article 50 to the end of 2019 if Theresa May failed to secure a deal by late February.
The issues are how time might be scheduled for the various stages of this bill to become law, we are talking of full primary legislation so we need a committee stage and everything through both houses for three readings if the government are opposed to it. At a push the government could simply refuse to give it to HM for assent, or do so after we’ve left the EU. Even if it becomes law, it would only mandate that we ask the EU for an extension, which they then need to approve unanimously. Why would they do so if our govt are opposed and all it does is push the can down the road at the request of our opposition?
If Labour are whipping for Cooper I will have to make a significant adjustment to my model as regards what their ultimate game plan is.
Oh I think the ultimate game plan is to paint May into a corner where time has all but expired and her only options are No deal or Revoke. Since both would be extremely damaging to the Conservative Party Corbyn would be happy with either (a slight preference for No Deal, I expect, but would take either.)
The strategy is to pin the blame on the Tories whatever the outcome, so I guess 2nd Ref would be his worst outcome as it would shuffle some of the blame back on to the electorate. He would probably prefer May's Deal to that, since it seems to upset so many and please so few, but as long as the Labour Party does not appear complicit he would regard that as OK too.
In fact everything is OK for Corbyn as long as he can distance his Party from whatever outcome ensues.
What is best for the Country is a different gether altothing, but then that isn't the question being asked here.
you mean the thing thrashed out late at night by people congratulated just for getting in the room together, designed solely to try to stitch together party factions, might not be the most viable plan?
It will have already come into force by the time the ECJ rule on it.
It would be a brave court that kicked the U.K. overnight.
Can he please not say things like that? Stupid lines like that will wound their pride, make them more angry and defiant, and make it more likely they'll do something utterly retarded just to stick up two fingers to the BBC and the Remain Establishment.
The four freedoms must be inextricably linked according to the EU, but that is a political decision. That is the issue we ought to be concentrating on.
Just as Brexiteers whine that Remoaners should "embrace the opportunities of Brexit", so Brexiteers should realise the four freedoms are a key benefit of the EU, not an "issue"
I understand that Leave voters were unhappy about immigration, and unscrupulous charlatans campaigned on the basis that leaving the EU would fix it, but running out of food and medicine will not help those voters (or solve the immigration concerns)
Telling people over and over that they benefit from freedom of movement when their own experience clearly taught them otherwise isn't just the reason why remain lost, it's the reason why project fear simply didn't stick then, and still isn't sticking now.
People believe what they can see with their own eyes. And what they see is the fact that they can't get a doctor's appointment for weeks, their schools are full of children who don't speak English as a first language, people from eastern eurpoe are crowding four, eight, twelve to a house - and so on and so forth. Ignore the macro effect of immigration on GDP or the tax take or anything so abstract, they do not feel that they, personally, have benefited.
And yet remainers keep on parroting the same tired lines. Freedom of movement is good! You benefit from it! Yes, you can go and work in Spain/Italy/Germany now! Etc. When what most people want, in these lean times, is a government that concentrates on fixing the problems at home and makes their sh*tty lives marginally better.
Freedom of movement increases competition for jobs, state services and housing at the lowest rungs of society and remainers' utter inability to acknowledge this leads people to doubt them on everything else.
Why did areas with few immigrants vote more heavily Leave than areas with more?
You have to differentiate between types of immigrants.
I don't think its a coincidence that Boston has proportionally both the highest number of Eastern European immigrants and the highest Leave vote.
That sounds like he’s saying that if the Withdrawal Agreement (as opposed to the Political Declaration) can be reopened to remove the backstop text, then he’d be in favour of that amendment. Which is exactly the same as he’s said all along.
Can he please not say things like that? Stupid lines like that will wound their pride, make them more angry and defiant, and make it more likely they'll do something utterly retarded just to stick up two fingers to the BBC and the Remain Establishment.
Applaud them. Stroke their egos.
Anything else is moronic.
But they are the true snakes. Blair at least ruined another country, not his own, unforgiveable though it was.
Oh I think the ultimate game plan is to paint May into a corner where time has all but expired and her only options are No deal or Revoke. Since both would be extremely damaging to the Conservative Party Corbyn would be happy with either (a slight preference for No Deal, I expect, but would take either.)
Corbyn may have to tack (temporarily) to a more robust leave position when there is a by-election in Peterboghorror if Onansnsunsnnaayya gets a substantial serving of porridge.
Can he please not say things like that? Stupid lines like that will wound their pride, make them more angry and defiant, and make it more likely they'll do something utterly retarded just to stick up two fingers to the BBC and the Remain Establishment.
This farce over the backstop is incredible farce since December 2017.
Every time the PM has gone "there will be a backstop" her MPs and the DUP have gone, "we can't support that". Then she goes "we'll do something about the backstop *winks at EU*" and we roll forward a month where the MPs and DUP realise nothing has been done about the backstop and the whole charade repeats again.
The four freedoms must be inextricably linked according to the EU, but that is a political decision. That is the issue we ought to be concentrating on.
Telling people over and over that they benefit from freedom of movement when their own
People believe what they can see with their own eyes. And what they see is the fact that they can't get a doctor's appointment for weeks, their schools are full of children who don't speak English as a first language, people from eastern eurpoe are crowding four, eight, twelve to a house - and so on and so forth. Ignore the macro effect of immigration on GDP or the tax take or anything so abstract, they do not feel that they, personally, have benefited.
And yet remainers keep on parroting the same tired lines. Freedom of movement is good! You benefit from it! Yes, you can go and work in Spain/Italy/Germany now! Etc. When what most people want, in these lean times, is a government that concentrates on fixing the problems at home and makes their sh*tty lives marginally better.
Freedom of movement increases competition for jobs, state services and housing at the lowest rungs of society and remainers' utter inability to acknowledge this leads people to doubt them on everything else.
Why did areas with few immigrants vote more heavily Leave than areas with more?
And why do Remainers worry more about their finances than Leavers?
On average, they're meaner.
An acquaintance of mine does Deliveroo in a wealthy University town. At least, the West half of the town is wealthy & fat with EU money and voted strongly for Remain.
The eastern wards are poor and voted strongly for Leave.
It is striking that all his tips come from the Eastern half.
So many from the Remainer Western half, living in their million pound houses, can't be arsed to give a trip to a Deliveroo driver biking through the rain with their dinner.
There are your Remainers "worried about their finances".
Yep, that proves it!!
It's not really a Leave/Remain point, and there are plenty of exceptions either way, but it tends to be the case that the rich are less generous than the poor.
Not really. In my experience the “well-off” can be mean (because their success is because of their hard work/skill) while the “rich” are generous (because they understand the role of luck/debts to their community)
You have to differentiate between types of immigrants.
I don't think its a coincidence that Boston has proportionally both the highest number of Eastern European immigrants and the highest Leave vote.
I know; reasons for Leave voting varied considerably. Why did 'traditional Wales', the Plaid seats vote Remain, while Marcher Wales, the rural area closest to England, although with the same sort of economic activity, vote to Leave.
I can understand the Valleys; same reasons as NE England and other economically starved areas.
I am sorry to say that she has moved from reasonable to fanatical - the whole thing is such a mess and I see no way forward that doesn't involve massive damage in one direction or another.
There is massive damage and then there is MASSIVE DAMAGE!!!
There may be no good choices left, but that's not the same as all choices being equally bad.
It's time to stop making the situation worse.
Lol! It's the old betting adage, isn't it? 'When in a hole, stop digging.'
All outcomes are bad from here. Least bad, I estimate, is 2nd Ref, then May Deal, then Revoke, then No Deal, but they're all pretty bad and there isn't much between them.
Btw, I think this applies as much to damage to the Conservative Party as well as the country, but I'm not a Tory and can't speak for them so if the intelligent Tories on here (and there are plenty of them) beg to differ I would have to respect that.
(Oh, and I'm not counting 'delay' because that isn't an answer, just more can kicking to no obvious purpose, and the delay in itself will make matters worse, not better.)
The four freedoms must be inextricably linked according to the EU, but that is a political decision. That is the issue we ought to be concentrating on.
Freedom of movement increases competition for jobs, state services and housing at the lowest rungs of society and remainers' utter inability to acknowledge this leads people to doubt them on everything else.
Why did areas with few immigrants vote more heavily Leave than areas with more?
And why do Remainers worry more about their finances than Leavers?
On average, they're meaner.
An acquaintance of mine does Deliveroo in a wealthy University town. At least, the West half of the town is wealthy & fat with EU money and voted strongly for Remain.
The eastern wards are poor and voted strongly for Leave.
It is striking that all his tips come from the Eastern half.
So many from the Remainer Western half, living in their million pound houses, can't be arsed to give a trip to a Deliveroo driver biking through the rain with their dinner.
There are your Remainers "worried about their finances".
Yep, that proves it!!
It's not really a Leave/Remain point, and there are plenty of exceptions either way, but it tends to be the case that the rich are less generous than the poor.
Not really. In my experience the “well-off” can be mean (because their success is because of their hard work/skill) while the “rich” are generous (because they understand the role of luck/debts to their community)
One is reminded of the Hilaire Belloc poem.
Lord Finchley tried to mend the Electric Light Himself. It struck him dead: And serve him right! It is the business of the wealthy man To give employment to the artisan.
Oh I think the ultimate game plan is to paint May into a corner where time has all but expired and her only options are No deal or Revoke. Since both would be extremely damaging to the Conservative Party Corbyn would be happy with either (a slight preference for No Deal, I expect, but would take either.)
Corbyn may have to tack (temporarily) to a more robust leave position when there is a by-election in Peterboghorror if Onansnsunsnnaayya gets a substantial serving of porridge.
An acquaintance of mine does Deliveroo in a wealthy University town. At least, the West half of the town is wealthy & fat with EU money and voted strongly for Remain.
The eastern wards are poor and voted strongly for Leave.
It is striking that all his tips come from the Eastern half.
So many from the Remainer Western half, living in their million pound houses, can't be arsed to give a trip to a Deliveroo driver biking through the rain with their dinner.
There are your Remainers "worried about their finances".
Yep, that proves it!!
Well, the data does exist, and (if one could get it), it would be an interesting calculation to do.
Where do Deliveroo drivers earn their trips? And are those wards correlated with any political party, or with Remain or Leave? Are e.g., SNP voters more generous than Tory voters ?
Why don't you propose your own idea of correlating Meanness with Political Viewpoint, if you like?
Oh, I am sorry. My mistake. You're Southam. You just bellyache.
About Corby or May or Leave or Whatever.
Not delivery tips, but no reason to think the generosity doesn't transfer: most generous tippers Glasgow, followed by London.
'London diners are among the most generous tippers in the UK, new study shows '
I suspect that London’s figure is inflated by the tendency of restaurants to add 10 or 12.5% to the bill - I’m assuming that the average London meal out is more expensive than in Glasgow
More relevant to look at tipping as a percentage of spend
As I observed looking at the closeness of the vote in London boroughs with large Asian populations like Newham, Redbridge and Hounslow quite a few voters from the Asian community must have voted leave. Cos perhaps they aren't so keen on freedom of movement either - as Eastern Europeans get preferential immigration rights over their relatives and also face the impact of the pressures on housing and local services and schools. Not most Asians - but quite a few must have voted leave.
Cos it isn't just the stereotype of 'old white people' who aren't entirely keen on EU freedom of movement!
Anecdotal but when I used to fly back to teach at Oxford about a third of my class would be british Asians - overwhelmingly they were leavers, especially turban-wearing sikhs for some reason, never met one who voted remain.
There was said to be tension between the two Leave campaigns, with Cummings's lot trawling for BAME supporters who would have second thoughts every time Farage popped up on telly.
Oh I think the ultimate game plan is to paint May into a corner where time has all but expired and her only options are No deal or Revoke. Since both would be extremely damaging to the Conservative Party Corbyn would be happy with either (a slight preference for No Deal, I expect, but would take either.)
Corbyn may have to tack (temporarily) to a more robust leave position when there is a by-election in Peterboghorror if Onansnsunsnnaayya gets a substantial serving of porridge.
An acquaintance of mine does Deliveroo in a wealthy University town. At least, the West half of the town is wealthy & fat with EU money and voted strongly for Remain.
The eastern wards are poor and voted strongly for Leave.
There are your Remainers "worried about their finances".
Yep, that proves it!!
Well, the data does exist, and (if one could get it), it would be an interesting calculation to do.
Where do Deliveroo drivers earn their trips? And are those wards correlated with any political party, or with Remain or Leave? Are e.g., SNP voters more generous than Tory voters ?
Why don't you propose your own idea of correlating Meanness with Political Viewpoint, if you like?
Oh, I am sorry. My mistake. You're Southam. You just bellyache.
About Corby or May or Leave or Whatever.
Not delivery tips, but no reason to think the generosity doesn't transfer: most generous tippers Glasgow, followed by London.
'London diners are among the most generous tippers in the UK, new study shows '
I suspect that London’s figure is inflated by the tendency of restaurants to add 10 or 12.5% to the bill - I’m assuming that the average London meal out is more expensive than in Glasgow
More relevant to look at tipping as a percentage of spend
I find an automatic 10% addition to the bill annoying. Why don't the proprietors simply up their prices and pay their staff properly. Same applies to tipping generally of course.
Service in Australia/New Zealand doesn't seem to suffer as a result of no or very limited tipping.
Oh I think the ultimate game plan is to paint May into a corner where time has all but expired and her only options are No deal or Revoke. Since both would be extremely damaging to the Conservative Party Corbyn would be happy with either (a slight preference for No Deal, I expect, but would take either.)
Corbyn may have to tack (temporarily) to a more robust leave position when there is a by-election in Peterboghorror if Onansnsunsnnaayya gets a substantial serving of porridge.
Comments
The Brady Amendment does just that, it tells the EU that a deal with no backstop is acceptable to us. Then it would be up to the EU to discuss and get back to us. Most importantly it’s making it clear that the problem is with the WA itself, not with the political statement around it. Fiddling with that document isn’t going to change the minds of anyone.
Dare I suggest that if the discussion was moving towards closer EU integration, Dr Wollaston would be all for it.
I see the solution to the backstop is supposed to be an online document dated 12 December 2019 [sic]. I followed the link, but it's 59 pages.
Is there any reason to suppose that the EU is suddenly going to cave in and agree to something that isn't even new but was proposed nearly 7 weeks ago?
Is it a good sign that Theresa May says she needs more time to consider something that was proposed nearly 7 weeks ago?
An acquaintance of mine does Deliveroo in a wealthy University town. At least, the West half of the town is wealthy & fat with EU money and voted strongly for Remain.
The eastern wards are poor and voted strongly for Leave.
It is striking that all his tips come from the Eastern half.
So many from the Remainer Western half, living in their million pound houses, can't be arsed to give a trip to a Deliveroo driver biking through the rain with their dinner.
There are your Remainers "worried about their finances".
One of the most interesting pieces of British social attitudes research is that people think that things are worse in the rest of the country compared to their local area.
https://www.vogue.com/article/amy-klobuchar-minnesota-senator-interview
But we are where we are, the deal is dead and not enough preparation has been made for no deal - so anything that moves the debate forwards is a good thing right now!
Of course, in practice the MPs are going to let themselves down again by not agreeing to anything and talking only about what they don’t want, rather than what they do.
Why did areas with few immigrants vote more heavily Leave than areas with more?
So you're saying UK citizens can't originally be immigrants'
The premise is wrong anyway. It wasn't just UK citizens who could vote in the referendum - Irish and Commonwealth citizens could vote too as they can in all general elections.
The closeness of the vote in some less well off London boroughs with compartively low white British populations like Newham, Redbridge and Hounslow suggest quite a few BME voters/Commonwealth nationals (e.g. from the Indian sub continent) in those boroughs must have voted leave. Why - possibly because they weren't keen on freedom of movement either with eastern Europeans getting preferential immigration rights to the UK over their families and relatives (the opposite being the case before we joined the EEC)!
And those areas are also hit perhaps more than most by competition for housing and services. Yes - quite a few BME voters even in London backed leave!
Generalisations, of course, and there'll be exceptions aplenty. Does remind me a bit of the parable of the woman giving two coppers and the rich man giving a talent, and the difference between dedication and contribution.
As I observed looking at the closeness of the vote in London boroughs with large Asian populations like Newham, Redbridge and Hounslow quite a few voters from the Asian community must have voted leave. Cos perhaps they aren't so keen on freedom of movement either - as Eastern Europeans get preferential immigration rights over their relatives and also face the impact of the pressures on housing and local services and schools. Not most Asians - but quite a few must have voted leave.
Cos it isn't just the stereotype of 'old white people' who aren't entirely keen on EU freedom of movement!
If this is the case it is a collective failure by all mps and each and every one should be thrown out of their seats
Regardless of where the tent was placed, she'd place herself just outside of it, so she could piss into it.
Funnily enough, whilst I vehemently disagree with him, Ken Clarke at least demonstrates a level of integrity and honesty in his politics many of his fellow travellers do not.
Where do Deliveroo drivers earn their trips? And are those wards correlated with any political party, or with Remain or Leave? Are e.g., SNP voters more generous than Tory voters ?
Why don't you propose your own idea of correlating Meanness with Political Viewpoint, if you like?
Oh, I am sorry. My mistake. You're Southam. You just bellyache.
About Corby or May or Leave or Whatever.
So how was support supposed to be tested?
Madness
I think we can assume that if a deal passes the Commons, the EU will give us a shortish extension to give time for necessary legislation, though evidently they are very reluctant to go beyond the European elections.
What's much more doubtful is whether the EU will give us an extension just because we run out of time without agreeing anything. And in a sense Cooper's amendment is dangerous because it may lull MPs into thinking an extension is going to happen on demand, and therefore remove the pressure to decide something.
'London diners are among the most generous tippers in the UK, new study shows '
https://tinyurl.com/y9qlnyrm
There may be no good choices left, but that's not the same as all choices being equally bad.
It's time to stop making the situation worse.
I am sure fellow posters with more knowledge will help me out here.
He never tipped.
The new amendment, which seems likely to be among those selected for a vote, would guarantee parliamentary time for a private members’ bill drafted by Cooper that would extend article 50 to the end of 2019 if Theresa May failed to secure a deal by late February.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/25/yvette-coopers-plan-to-see-off-no-deal-brexit-hangs-in-the-balance
The issues are how time might be scheduled for the various stages of this bill to become law, we are talking of full primary legislation so we need a committee stage and everything through both houses for three readings - if the government are opposed to it and trying to get no-deal legislation through at the same time? At a push the government could simply refuse to give it to HM for assent, or do so after we’ve left the EU. Even if it becomes law, it would only mandate that we ask the EU for an extension, which they then need to approve unanimously. Why would they do so if our govt are opposed and all it does is push the can down the road at the request of our opposition?
The strategy is to pin the blame on the Tories whatever the outcome, so I guess 2nd Ref would be his worst outcome as it would shuffle some of the blame back on to the electorate. He would probably prefer May's Deal to that, since it seems to upset so many and please so few, but as long as the Labour Party does not appear complicit he would regard that as OK too.
In fact everything is OK for Corbyn as long as he can distance his Party from whatever outcome ensues.
What is best for the Country is a different gether altothing, but then that isn't the question being asked here.
It would be a brave court that kicked the U.K. overnight.
Applaud them. Stroke their egos.
Anything else is moronic.
I don't think its a coincidence that Boston has proportionally both the highest number of Eastern European immigrants and the highest Leave vote.
I truly despise Tony Blair.
Seems to be a Plan C floating around that involves the old canard of facilitated, high tech customs, which the EU has rejected time and time again.
Have I missed something?
Every time the PM has gone "there will be a backstop" her MPs and the DUP have gone, "we can't support that". Then she goes "we'll do something about the backstop *winks at EU*" and we roll forward a month where the MPs and DUP realise nothing has been done about the backstop and the whole charade repeats again.
Who is the bigger fool here, the PM or the MPs?
Brexit has been mishandled. May’s deal carries almost no public support.
Brexit should be deferred until something with support can be arrived at, or put to a referendum for the public to cancel outright.
I can understand the Valleys; same reasons as NE England and other economically starved areas.
All outcomes are bad from here. Least bad, I estimate, is 2nd Ref, then May Deal, then Revoke, then No Deal, but they're all pretty bad and there isn't much between them.
Btw, I think this applies as much to damage to the Conservative Party as well as the country, but I'm not a Tory and can't speak for them so if the intelligent Tories on here (and there are plenty of them) beg to differ I would have to respect that.
(Oh, and I'm not counting 'delay' because that isn't an answer, just more can kicking to no obvious purpose, and the delay in itself will make matters worse, not better.)
Lord Finchley tried to mend the Electric Light
Himself. It struck him dead: And serve him right!
It is the business of the wealthy man
To give employment to the artisan.
https://twitter.com/PTstephenB/status/1089924449447669760
More relevant to look at tipping as a percentage of spend
Service in Australia/New Zealand doesn't seem to suffer as a result of no or very limited tipping.
I wonder if she'll be free to vote on tonight's amendments?