Mr Stop Brexit is getting some serious donations...
Bray has raised tens of thousands of pounds in donations in order to rent a luxury £6 million townhouse on the same street as Jacob Rees-Mogg, as well as Lords Flight, Luptan and Strathclyde, at the cost of £4,500 per week.
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.
Because the Plaid areas see themselves as very much Not English? See also Scots, Nationalists in NI and how they voted?
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.
I agree. I find that if something is added to the bill I don’t leave extra but if it isn’t then 15% a minimum with more for good service
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'd say Welsh Nats voted Remain for the same reason Scots Nats and Irish Nats did - they see London as the threat rather than Brussels.
But there are variations in the vote for various reasons.
Thinking about it the old mining areas in Yorkshire and the Midlands were significantly more Leave than those in the NE and Wales.
Yet the old mining areas in Yorkshire and the NE appear to be rather more prosperous than those in the NE and Wales.
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
If your suspicion is right that makes Glasgow (Remain, Yes, SNP) even more generous. Never doubted it for a minute.
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.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act definitely says that the Brexit date can be amended by regulations, not by primary legislation.
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.
The par score is Chris Huhne, who plead guilty at the first opportunity, showed immense contrition, resigned from his job as an MP prior to sentencing and got eight months.
Fiona pled not guilty, has shown no contrition - quite the opposite - and still protests her innocence. Oh, and she’s a solicitor.
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.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act definitely says that the Brexit date can be amended by regulations, not by primary legislation.
Correct, but it also has to be approved unanimously by the EU 27 on their side.
Yvette’s bill will force the government (executive) to ask the EU for the extension against their will.
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.
The par score is Chris Huhne, who plead guilty at the first opportunity, showed immense contrition, resigned from his job as an MP and got eight months.
Fiona pled not guilty, has shown no contrition - quite the opposite - and still protests her innocence. Oh, and she’s a solicitor.
14-15 for the spread?
I don't think he did plead guilty at the first opportunity, did he? I'd say Fiona is 50/50 to face 12 months.
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.
The par score is Chris Huhne, who plead guilty at the first opportunity, showed immense contrition, resigned from his job as an MP and got eight months.
Fiona pled not guilty, has shown no contrition - quite the opposite - and still protests her innocence. Oh, and she’s a solicitor.
14-15 for the spread?
Huhne didn't plead guilty immediately, did he; not until the Court process started. But I agree with you; Fiona appears to be playing a very silly and indeed dangerous game.
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.
The par score is Chris Huhne, who plead guilty at the first opportunity, showed immense contrition, resigned from his job as an MP and got eight months.
Fiona pled not guilty, has shown no contrition - quite the opposite - and still protests her innocence. Oh, and she’s a solicitor.
14-15 for the spread?
Huhne didn't plead guilty immediately, did he; not until the Court process started. But I agree with you; Fiona appears to be playing a very silly and indeed dangerous game.
Huhne got a reduction from 9 months to 8 months for his late guilty plea. An early guilty plea is usually 1/3 off, I believe.
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.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act definitely says that the Brexit date can be amended by regulations, not by primary legislation.
Correct, but it also has to be approved unanimously by the EU 27 on their side.
Yvette’s bill will force the government (executive) to ask the EU for the extension against their will.
Yes - I did mention the requirement on the EU side in my previous comment. But Big G's concern was about what would need to be done legally on the UK side and whether there was still time for that.
Yvette should remember to force the government also to change the Brexit date, or else an EU extension wouldn't make any difference!
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
If your suspicion is right that makes Glasgow (Remain, Yes, SNP) even more generous. Never doubted it for a minute.
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.
The par score is Chris Huhne, who plead guilty at the first opportunity, showed immense contrition, resigned from his job as an MP and got eight months.
Fiona pled not guilty, has shown no contrition - quite the opposite - and still protests her innocence. Oh, and she’s a solicitor.
14-15 for the spread?
I don't think he did plead guilty at the first opportunity, did he? I'd say Fiona is 50/50 to face 12 months.
Huhne pled guilty on the first day of his trial, as it became clear that his son would testify against him. I guess he could have plead guilty to the magistrates at an earlier hearing though, but he avoided the costs of a full trial.
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?
High levels of immigration must have been a driver of the Leave vote in places like Boston, and the Fens.
Indeed. Our remainer friends might like to read this new statesman report from Boston
So it seems we have three main amendments under consideration - Brady, Cooper/Boles and now Malthouse.
Brady seems to be about giving control back to the Prime Minister (so it's no surprise No.10 supports it). AIUI, the gist is this is the plan the UK Parliament (or a majority of it) will accept - it's basically the WDA minus the backstop.
Okay, all good there and fine for May as it b rings most of her Government Coalition of loyalists, ERG and DUP onside but there's that little problem that the EU won't budge and with the added interest the backstop was apparently our idea in the first place.
Cooper/Boles does the opposite of Brady - it had the power to Parliament and basically forces May to do what Parliament tells her so if Parliament wants and extension to A50 that's what May has to ask for. Problem here is the EU hasn't given much encouragement to an extension if nothing is agreed.
Now we have Malthouse which is a bit like Brady in that it re-words the backstop clauses to a form with which most on the Conservative side seem happy. There's some flowery optimism about continuing free trade under WTO and GATT rules (maybe) but again it runs up against the EU's refusal to change the WDA.
While it's all good Parliamentary theatre, I'm far from convinced today is either a) important or b) will change anything. Parliament can vote against a No Deal but it's meaningless.
Nothing has changed - the options remain (as they've been for a while):
Accept the WDA as it stands Leave without a Deal Revoke A50
None of today's nonsense alters any of that - May will in time bring the original WDA back for a second vote. I'm far from convinced the outcome of a second vote will be much different to that of the first vote.
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.
The par score is Chris Huhne, who plead guilty at the first opportunity, showed immense contrition, resigned from his job as an MP and got eight months.
Fiona pled not guilty, has shown no contrition - quite the opposite - and still protests her innocence. Oh, and she’s a solicitor.
14-15 for the spread?
I don't think he did plead guilty at the first opportunity, did he? I'd say Fiona is 50/50 to face 12 months.
Huhne pled guilty on the first day of his trial, as it became clear that his son would testify against him. I guess he could have plead guilty to the magistrates at an earlier hearing though, but he avoided the costs of a full trial.
Isn't the past participle of to plead pleaded? In British English, anyway.
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.
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.
Because the Plaid areas see themselves as very much Not English? See also Scots, Nationalists in NI and how they voted?
I don't think everything comes down to differentiating one's self from the English, it would have taken some amount of prescience (a prescience not possessed by the wise minds of PB apparently!) to foresee England voting to leave and collectively vote otherwise. I believe polling suggests that the EU is less distrusted than Westminster, in Scotland anyway. We just don't have the intensity of feeling about the EU that many English people seem to have, and the sound and the fury seem largely incomprehensible to many Scots.
We have our own intensities of feeling of course..
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?
High levels of immigration must have been a driver of the Leave vote in places like Boston, and the Fens.
Indeed. Our remainer friends might like to read this new statesman report from Boston
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.
The par score is Chris Huhne, who plead guilty at the first opportunity, showed immense contrition, resigned from his job as an MP and got eight months.
Fiona pled not guilty, has shown no contrition - quite the opposite - and still protests her innocence. Oh, and she’s a solicitor.
14-15 for the spread?
I don't think he did plead guilty at the first opportunity, did he? I'd say Fiona is 50/50 to face 12 months.
Huhne pled guilty on the first day of his trial, as it became clear that his son would testify against him. I guess he could have plead guilty to the magistrates at an earlier hearing though, but he avoided the costs of a full trial.
Isn't the past participle of to plead pleaded? In British English, anyway.
Ooh, good question. A quick google suggests that either might be okay.
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.
Because the Plaid areas see themselves as very much Not English? See also Scots, Nationalists in NI and how they voted?
I don't think everything comes down to differentiating one's self from the English, it would have taken some amount of prescience (a prescience not possessed by the wise minds of PB apparently!) to foresee England voting to leave and collectively vote otherwise. I believe polling suggests that the EU is less distrusted than Westminster, in Scotland anyway. We just don't have the intensity of feeling about the EU that many English people seem to have, and the sound and the fury seem largely incomprehensible to many Scots.
We have our own intensities of feeling of course..
You do indeed. It is called anti-English prejudice. It is unpleasant and nothing to be proud of. SNP/BNP/UKIP, what's the difference? Very little really. Nationalism is doctrine based on divisiveness and hatred of one's neighbour, it is the thicky sibling of patriotism. You will now prove my point by shouting vitriol and abuse at me for calling out what the SNP is really about.
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.
The par score is Chris Huhne, who plead guilty at the first opportunity, showed immense contrition, resigned from his job as an MP prior to sentencing and got eight months.
Fiona pled not guilty, has shown no contrition - quite the opposite - and still protests her innocence. Oh, and she’s a solicitor.
14-15 for the spread?
I wouldn't be surprised if she gets 11 months and 29 days....
Of course, the fact the PM now rejects the withdrawal agreement she signed up to demonstrates why the backstop is needed from the EU’s perspective: the UK cannot be trusted.
Of course, the fact the PM now rejects the withdrawal agreement she signed up to demonstrates why the backstop is needed from the EU’s perspective: the UK cannot be trusted.
Of course, the fact the PM now rejects the withdrawal agreement she signed up to demonstrates why the backstop is needed from the EU’s perspective: the UK cannot be trusted.
Don’t be ridiculous
You always keep the principals out of the room precisely so you can retrade on the difficult bits.
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.
Because the Plaid areas see themselves as very much Not English? See also Scots, Nationalists in NI and how they voted?
I don't think everything comes down to differentiating one's self from the English, it would have taken some amount of prescience (a prescience not possessed by the wise minds of PB apparently!) to foresee England voting to leave and collectively vote otherwise. I believe polling suggests that the EU is less distrusted than Westminster, in Scotland anyway. We just don't have the intensity of feeling about the EU that many English people seem to have, and the sound and the fury seem largely incomprehensible to many Scots.
We have our own intensities of feeling of course..
You do indeed. It is called anti-English prejudice. It is unpleasant and nothing to be proud of. SNP/BNP/UKIP, what's the difference? Very little really. Nationalism is doctrine based on divisiveness and hatred of one's neighbour, it is the thicky sibling of patriotism. You will now prove my point by shouting vitriol and abuse at me for calling out what the SNP is really about.
Oh, go and bother someone else, you crashing bore.
Of course, the fact the PM now rejects the withdrawal agreement she signed up to demonstrates why the backstop is needed from the EU’s perspective: the UK cannot be trusted.
Don’t be ridiculous
You always keep the principals out of the room precisely so you can retrade on the difficult bits.
In the UK's case the principal is the electorate, given that this is only being done at their behest. The necessity of retrading on the difficult bits is what makes a second referendum inevitable.
Of course, the fact the PM now rejects the withdrawal agreement she signed up to demonstrates why the backstop is needed from the EU’s perspective: the UK cannot be trusted.
Don’t be ridiculous
You always keep the principals out of the room precisely so you can retrade on the difficult bits.
Sophistry, Chas. The PM signed an agreement. Now she wants to change it. She - and, therefore, the UK - cannot be trusted to deliver on commitments made. Everyone knows this anyway. Remember the election she wasn’t going to call?
Of course, the fact the PM now rejects the withdrawal agreement she signed up to demonstrates why the backstop is needed from the EU’s perspective: the UK cannot be trusted.
Don’t be ridiculous
You always keep the principals out of the room precisely so you can retrade on the difficult bits.
In the UK's case the principal is the electorate, given that this is only being done at their behest. The necessity of retrading on the difficult bits is what makes a second referendum inevitable.
You’ve never had multiple levels of principal in a deal...?
Of course, the fact the PM now rejects the withdrawal agreement she signed up to demonstrates why the backstop is needed from the EU’s perspective: the UK cannot be trusted.
Don’t be ridiculous
You always keep the principals out of the room precisely so you can retrade on the difficult bits.
Sophistry, Chas. The PM signed an agreement. Now she wants to change it. She - and, therefore, the UK - cannot be trusted to deliver on commitments made. Everyone knows this anyway. Remember the election she wasn’t going to call?
I doubt she signed it and any agreement was always subject to ratification.
All she’s saying is “I can’t get this ratified, but if you do X I can”. That might impact your view of May but not of the U.K.
Norwegian Air wants to raise 3bn Norwegian kroner (£268m) through a rights issue to improve its finances. The news comes as the company announced that its preliminary earnings for 2018 showed an operating loss of roughly 3.8bn kroner.
In other legal news the Beeb is reporting that, according to the defendants lawyer, the speedboat death would not have been a crime in Georgia and therefor Shepherd should not be extradited.
Of course, the fact the PM now rejects the withdrawal agreement she signed up to demonstrates why the backstop is needed from the EU’s perspective: the UK cannot be trusted.
Don’t be ridiculous
You always keep the principals out of the room precisely so you can retrade on the difficult bits.
In the UK's case the principal is the electorate, given that this is only being done at their behest. The necessity of retrading on the difficult bits is what makes a second referendum inevitable.
You’ve never had multiple levels of principal in a deal...?
It was just a rhetorical point. A Brexit deal that isn't signed off by the people in a referendum can't stick.
Of course, the fact the PM now rejects the withdrawal agreement she signed up to demonstrates why the backstop is needed from the EU’s perspective: the UK cannot be trusted.
Don’t be ridiculous
You always keep the principals out of the room precisely so you can retrade on the difficult bits.
Sophistry, Chas. The PM signed an agreement. Now she wants to change it. She - and, therefore, the UK - cannot be trusted to deliver on commitments made. Everyone knows this anyway. Remember the election she wasn’t going to call?
I doubt she signed it and any agreement was always subject to ratification.
All she’s saying is “I can’t get this ratified, but if you do X I can”. That might impact your view of May but not of the U.K.
She can’t deliver =/= the U.K. is untrustworthy
Well, clearly the UK is not trusted. That’s why the backstop is there.
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?
High levels of immigration must have been a driver of the Leave vote in places like Boston, and the Fens.
Indeed. Our remainer friends might like to read this new statesman report from Boston
Do you think we should have listened to the voice of Corby in the 30s and abolished free movement between England and Scotland?
A splendid reductio ad absurdam that nearly avoids my original point that freedom of movement has been a blight on the poorest in society, driving down wages while increasing competition for houses and public services. Moreover its clearly damaged community cohesion. Such sweeping societal changes require the consent of the people. Consent that was withdrawn when we voted to leave.
Norwegian Air wants to raise 3bn Norwegian kroner (£268m) through a rights issue to improve its finances. The news comes as the company announced that its preliminary earnings for 2018 showed an operating loss of roughly 3.8bn kroner.
How many airlines actually make money? Seems like even less than tech start-ups.
Airline business is now seriously cut-throat, especially for the legacy national carriers with their vast legacy overheads*
There’s likely to be a lot more consolidation to come, and a fair few failures.
*I’ve heard BA described as a pension scheme that owns 250 aeroplanes! Pilots still retire at 60 with close to six figure annual pensions and there are now more retired pilots than active ones.
Do you think we should have listened to the voice of Corby in the 30s and abolished free movement between England and Scotland?
A splendid reductio ad absurdam that nearly avoids my original point that freedom of movement has been a blight on the poorest in society, driving down wages while increasing competition for houses and public services. Moreover its clearly damaged community cohesion. Such sweeping societal changes require the consent of the people. Consent that was withdrawn when we voted to leave.
It's not a reductio ad absurdam argument but an exact parallel of a small community overwhelmed by incomers due to specific economic factors. Metropolitan Brexiteers couldn't care less about Boston. It's just virtue signalling.
Good job Labour are on top of this Brexit lark in case they have to take over...
Labour’s Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary Tony Lloyd - “I think if there is a good chance that today we will see the time frame begin to move away from that March 29th, very arbitrary deadline by the way there’s nothing in law, nothing anywhere else said March 29th had to be that date.”
He said the issues don't really matter. What matters is the emotional connection. "Does this candidate care about people like me?" He also said he thought a younger candidate would do better.
Someone down thread compared Kamala Harris to Hilary Clinton. I don't see that at all. Apart from the obvious differences (age and colour), Harris has an emotional connection that Hilary did not. Like Trump, she could answer Dean's question with a "Yes" whereas Clinton could not.
I'm not sure whether Harris's giggly girly act is genuine or will be seen as phoney. I can't put myself into the head of her target audience. She is competent and formidably forensic when she is serious. She is trying hard. But I don't think she is a value bet at current prices.
He said the issues don't really matter. What matters is the emotional connection. "Does this candidate care about people like me?" He also said he thought a younger candidate would do better.
Someone down thread compared Kamala Harris to Hilary Clinton. I don't see that at all. Apart from the obvious differences (age and colour), Harris has an emotional connection that Hilary did not. Like Trump, she could answer Dean's question with a "Yes" whereas Clinton could not.
I'm not sure whether Harris's giggly girly act is genuine or will be seen as phoney. I can't put myself into the head of her target audience. She is competent and formidably forensic when she is serious. She is trying hard. But I don't think she is a value bet at current prices.
I saw that yesterday and I was quite impressed by Dean - I only know him for that scream - he seemed to be quite level headed and worth listening to.
He said the issues don't really matter. What matters is the emotional connection. "Does this candidate care about people like me?" He also said he thought a younger candidate would do better.
Someone down thread compared Kamala Harris to Hilary Clinton. I don't see that at all. Apart from the obvious differences (age and colour), Harris has an emotional connection that Hilary did not. Like Trump, she could answer Dean's question with a "Yes" whereas Clinton could not.
I'm not sure whether Harris's giggly girly act is genuine or will be seen as phoney. I can't put myself into the head of her target audience. She is competent and formidably forensic when she is serious. She is trying hard. But I don't think she is a value bet at current prices.
I saw that yesterday and I was quite impressed by Dean - I only know him for that scream - he seemed to be quite level headed and worth listening to.
Howard Dean was saved from being promoted above his ability.
And no, Trump hasn't been saved. In any sense of the term.
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.
Of course, the fact the PM now rejects the withdrawal agreement she signed up to demonstrates why the backstop is needed from the EU’s perspective: the UK cannot be trusted.
She is off chasing unicorns.
Riding unicorns through the fields of virgin wheat ...
I suppose it's how we'll always think of her when she's gone.
So, according to that report, Boston is booming because 10 years ago it was a wasteland with lots of boarded up shops that immigrants re-opened and now it is thriving again. It has low unemployment too.
But the key issue is that the locals "Doan like forriners! They speak funny...."
We go to the Germans with a perfectly reasonable peace proposal. They reject it. May returns chomping a cigar and sticking two fingers up (which way round doesn't matter too much) and declaims "Very well, alone!".
So, according to that report, Boston is booming because 10 years ago it was a wasteland with lots of boarded up shops that immigrants re-opened and now it is thriving again. It has low unemployment too.
But the key issue is that the locals "Doan like forriners! They speak funny...."
It is about prejudice, not economics.
Keep not listening. It's why, in a second referendum situation, leave would win again.
The 48% who didn''t vote for the blitz could stay up top, yelling to the Heinkels "not in my name...."
After all, they wouldn't have put any efforts into building those shelters.
Err. I think the analogy here is that Brexit is the Blitz if half the people in the shelter had ordered the bombing themselves.
Neither analogy works very well. Brexit was voted on by people who know they will gain nothing by voting for it other than the pleasure of making life more difficult for those whose opportunities and livelihoods will be damaged. They are simply vandals. No more no less. The same mentality as people who destroy bus shelters to hear the glass shatter.
So it seems we have three main amendments under consideration - Brady, Cooper/Boles and now Malthouse.
Brady seems to be about giving control back to the Prime Minister (so it's no surprise No.10 supports it). AIUI, the gist is this is the plan the UK Parliament (or a majority of it) will accept - it's basically the WDA minus the backstop.
Okay, all good there and fine for May as it b rings most of her Government Coalition of loyalists, ERG and DUP onside but there's that little problem that the EU won't budge and with the added interest the backstop was apparently our idea in the first place.
Cooper/Boles does the opposite of Brady - it had the power to Parliament and basically forces May to do what Parliament tells her so if Parliament wants and extension to A50 that's what May has to ask for. Problem here is the EU hasn't given much encouragement to an extension if nothing is agreed.
Now we have Malthouse which is a bit like Brady in that it re-words the backstop clauses to a form with which most on the Conservative side seem happy. There's some flowery optimism about continuing free trade under WTO and GATT rules (maybe) but again it runs up against the EU's refusal to change the WDA.
While it's all good Parliamentary theatre, I'm far from convinced today is either a) important or b) will change anything. Parliament can vote against a No Deal but it's meaningless.
Nothing has changed - the options remain (as they've been for a while):
Accept the WDA as it stands Leave without a Deal Revoke A50
None of today's nonsense alters any of that - May will in time bring the original WDA back for a second vote. I'm far from convinced the outcome of a second vote will be much different to that of the first vote.
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 48% who didn''t vote for the blitz could stay up top, yelling to the Heinkels "not in my name...."
After all, they wouldn't have put any efforts into building those shelters.
Err. I think the analogy here is that Brexit is the Blitz if half the people in the shelter had ordered the bombing themselves.
Neither analogy works very well. Brexit was voted on by people who know they will gain nothing by voting for it other than the pleasure of making life more difficult for those whose opportunities and livelihoods will be damaged. They are simply vandals. No more no less. The same mentality as people who destroy bus shelters to hear the glass shatter.
Roger are you really a Leaver pretending to be a Remainer? Of course there were genuine concerns; sadly Remain didn't deal with them sensibly. Nor were people enthused to get out on the street.
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.
For the avoidance of doubt, I'd like to make a few things clear:-
1. I do not back withdrawing food/medicine from Leavers. (I have sometimes thought like that when I feel spiteful, which is not very often, & is very unworthy of me.) But as a serious policy, absolutely not.
3. The ECJ has ruled that Britain can revoke Article 50. I am not aware of any British court ruling on this topic since that decision.
4. I have made the point that for democracy to flourish there needs to be order first. That has historically been the case in most countries, including this one. If there is a breakdown in order then the voters may be somewhat less keen on the consequences of their votes. It is those in favour of a No Deal exit who are risking the imposition of martial law. Not me. Those who think that imposing potential serious economic harm on a country will not risk adversely impacting our democracy are being naive, IMO.
5. There is a similar serious risk if Brexit is cancelled without giving voters a say in this. We are seeing in the shenanigans in Parliament the consequences of imposing decision-making by referenda (direct democracy) on a system built for representative (Parliamentary) democracy. Hence the strains which are showing.
6. I could live with an exit with a sensible transition deal followed by a reasonable FTA. But it is Leavers who are refusing to agree to the WA their government has negotiated. So if they won't live with what they claim to desire - Brexit - I don't see why the rest of us who don't want it should.
7. So if the WA won't pass, then my personal preference, as I have stated on numerous occasions, is for a second referendum so that people can vote on whether they want to go ahead with Brexit on the basis of the WA or Remain. That is the most democratic option.
8. But since that is not, apparently, going to be on offer, I would choose Revoke rather than a No Deal exit. If politicians do Revoke they should explain why & let voters judge at the next election. It is a high risk strategy but there are no good options given that other ways out are being closed off, for no very good reason. A No Deal exit is a risk too far, IMO, for lots of reasons.
9. Brexiteers have had the best part of 3 years to come up with a realistic plan. They have failed to do so. It is this - not any great admiration of the EU - which has driven me to the view that, for the moment, we are better off Remaining.
10. And when criticising me for this view (as plenty have done), there is no point listing out all the things wrong with the EU. I agree with many of those criticisms, have made them myself both above and below the line. But criticism is not a plan for action, for the future. It is backward looking. Easy to criticise. Harder to propose. We all know the "push" factors. What we're waiting for are the "pull" ones. Something more than "Let's clap our hands & believe in fairies" is needed.
According to Guido, in the absence of a WA, the Malthouse Compromise would offer a “GATT 24 WTO-compliant standstill on trade with no tariffs, no quantitative restrictions and no new barriers for execution" - sounds like full single market access for goods without any of the compromises on FOM, EU regulation and oversight etc.? Weren't they listening in 2016 when the EU ruled this out?
Don't think so. No guilty plea but a much better record.
The judge said he was going to largely disregard his record, given he was straight from 2014-17. (Also not clear from twitter whether that 12 months was before or after discount). But comments now suggest he's looking a bit more favourably on her:
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 would of course constitute the benevolent rich. Is there no end to your virtue?
Norwegian Air wants to raise 3bn Norwegian kroner (£268m) through a rights issue to improve its finances. The news comes as the company announced that its preliminary earnings for 2018 showed an operating loss of roughly 3.8bn kroner.
Comments
Bray has raised tens of thousands of pounds in donations in order to rent a luxury £6 million townhouse on the same street as Jacob Rees-Mogg, as well as Lords Flight, Luptan and Strathclyde, at the cost of £4,500 per week.
https://order-order.com/2019/01/28/picture-special-stop-brexit-mans-6m-westminster-pad/
But there are variations in the vote for various reasons.
Thinking about it the old mining areas in Yorkshire and the Midlands were significantly more Leave than those in the NE and Wales.
Yet the old mining areas in Yorkshire and the NE appear to be rather more prosperous than those in the NE and Wales.
I cannot imagine the scenes in the HOC if he does not select it
Speaker B knows his days are numbered. He's just making a point now...
The par score is Chris Huhne, who plead guilty at the first opportunity, showed immense contrition, resigned from his job as an MP prior to sentencing and got eight months.
Fiona pled not guilty, has shown no contrition - quite the opposite - and still protests her innocence. Oh, and she’s a solicitor.
14-15 for the spread?
Yvette’s bill will force the government (executive) to ask the EU for the extension against their will.
Yvette should remember to force the government also to change the Brexit date, or else an EU extension wouldn't make any difference!
And other tear-jerking rubbish!
(Always wanted to say that!)
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/07/view-brexitland-boston-town-voted-strongest-leave-eu
So it seems we have three main amendments under consideration - Brady, Cooper/Boles and now Malthouse.
Brady seems to be about giving control back to the Prime Minister (so it's no surprise No.10 supports it). AIUI, the gist is this is the plan the UK Parliament (or a majority of it) will accept - it's basically the WDA minus the backstop.
Okay, all good there and fine for May as it b rings most of her Government Coalition of loyalists, ERG and DUP onside but there's that little problem that the EU won't budge and with the added interest the backstop was apparently our idea in the first place.
Cooper/Boles does the opposite of Brady - it had the power to Parliament and basically forces May to do what Parliament tells her so if Parliament wants and extension to A50 that's what May has to ask for. Problem here is the EU hasn't given much encouragement to an extension if nothing is agreed.
Now we have Malthouse which is a bit like Brady in that it re-words the backstop clauses to a form with which most on the Conservative side seem happy. There's some flowery optimism about continuing free trade under WTO and GATT rules (maybe) but again it runs up against the EU's refusal to change the WDA.
While it's all good Parliamentary theatre, I'm far from convinced today is either a) important or b) will change anything. Parliament can vote against a No Deal but it's meaningless.
Nothing has changed - the options remain (as they've been for a while):
Accept the WDA as it stands
Leave without a Deal
Revoke A50
None of today's nonsense alters any of that - May will in time bring the original WDA back for a second vote. I'm far from convinced the outcome of a second vote will be much different to that of the first vote.
Mind you, if they do return, it won't be long before people have had enough of expats.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/video/james-obrien-explains-why-graham-bradys-amendment-is-pointless/vp-BBSR5cX
We have our own intensities of feeling of course..
Do you think we should have listened to the voice of Corby in the 30s and abolished free movement between England and Scotland?
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1090197037675700224
You always keep the principals out of the room precisely so you can retrade on the difficult bits.
The MP told jurors she suffered a relapse of multiple sclerosis in September last year.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-46263183
Her son sounds like a cracking lad....
After all, they wouldn't have put any efforts into building those shelters.
All she’s saying is “I can’t get this ratified, but if you do X I can”. That might impact your view of May but not of the U.K.
She can’t deliver =/= the U.K. is untrustworthy
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47039303
How many airlines actually make money? Seems like even less than tech start-ups.
There’s likely to be a lot more consolidation to come, and a fair few failures.
*I’ve heard BA described as a pension scheme that owns 250 aeroplanes! Pilots still retire at 60 with close to six figure annual pensions and there are now more retired pilots than active ones.
Labour’s Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary Tony Lloyd - “I think if there is a good chance that today we will see the time frame begin to move away from that March 29th, very arbitrary deadline by the way there’s nothing in law, nothing anywhere else said March 29th had to be that date.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0c0gxrt/politics-live-28012019 about 20 minutes in.
He said the issues don't really matter. What matters is the emotional connection. "Does this candidate care about people like me?" He also said he thought a younger candidate would do better.
Someone down thread compared Kamala Harris to Hilary Clinton. I don't see that at all. Apart from the obvious differences (age and colour), Harris has an emotional connection that Hilary did not. Like Trump, she could answer Dean's question with a "Yes" whereas Clinton could not.
I'm not sure whether Harris's giggly girly act is genuine or will be seen as phoney. I can't put myself into the head of her target audience. She is competent and formidably forensic when she is serious. She is trying hard. But I don't think she is a value bet at current prices.
https://twitter.com/tombarton/status/1090205048997593088
And no, Trump hasn't been saved. In any sense of the term.
I suppose it's how we'll always think of her when she's gone.
But the key issue is that the locals "Doan like forriners! They speak funny...."
It is about prejudice, not economics.
We go to the Germans with a perfectly reasonable peace proposal. They reject it. May returns chomping a cigar and sticking two fingers up (which way round doesn't matter too much) and declaims "Very well, alone!".
1. I do not back withdrawing food/medicine from Leavers. (I have sometimes thought like that when I feel spiteful, which is not very often, & is very unworthy of me.) But as a serious policy, absolutely not.
2. There is a more serious question about how to have moral hazard for our political class. There are far too many politicians proposing policies which will not affect them. The gap between their consequence-free decision making & the voters enduring the consequences is not good for our body politic. (One obvious example is FoM itself - see this - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/10/14/cyclefree-with-a-mischievous-suggestion/ & this - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/07/12/uniting-the-country/.). I might consider it for a thread header if I can write something sensible on the topic.
3. The ECJ has ruled that Britain can revoke Article 50. I am not aware of any British court ruling on this topic since that decision.
4. I have made the point that for democracy to flourish there needs to be order first. That has historically been the case in most countries, including this one. If there is a breakdown in order then the voters may be somewhat less keen on the consequences of their votes. It is those in favour of a No Deal exit who are risking the imposition of martial law. Not me. Those who think that imposing potential serious economic harm on a country will not risk adversely impacting our democracy are being naive, IMO.
5. There is a similar serious risk if Brexit is cancelled without giving voters a say in this. We are seeing in the shenanigans in Parliament the consequences of imposing decision-making by referenda (direct democracy) on a system built for representative (Parliamentary) democracy. Hence the strains which are showing.
7. So if the WA won't pass, then my personal preference, as I have stated on numerous occasions, is for a second referendum so that people can vote on whether they want to go ahead with Brexit on the basis of the WA or Remain. That is the most democratic option.
8. But since that is not, apparently, going to be on offer, I would choose Revoke rather than a No Deal exit. If politicians do Revoke they should explain why & let voters judge at the next election. It is a high risk strategy but there are no good options given that other ways out are being closed off, for no very good reason. A No Deal exit is a risk too far, IMO, for lots of reasons.
9. Brexiteers have had the best part of 3 years to come up with a realistic plan. They have failed to do so. It is this - not any great admiration of the EU - which has driven me to the view that, for the moment, we are better off Remaining.
10. And when criticising me for this view (as plenty have done), there is no point listing out all the things wrong with the EU. I agree with many of those criticisms, have made them myself both above and below the line. But criticism is not a plan for action, for the future. It is backward looking. Easy to criticise. Harder to propose. We all know the "push" factors. What we're waiting for are the "pull" ones. Something more than "Let's clap our hands & believe in fairies" is needed.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/magistrates-court/item/aggravating-and-mitigating-factors/
Of course now separately she is likely to be struck off.
Weren't they listening in 2016 when the EU ruled this out?
https://twitter.com/tombarton/status/1090206440093032448
The difficulties in markets such as India come from the existence of a state airline which is indifferent to economics but crucial to politics.