I find the issue of the backstop puzzling, I must say. Its end date is the FTA. So it will only endure if there is no FTA.
So the concern seems to be that Britain and the EU could not agree an FTA. Or am I missing something?
Presumably the concern is that the EU will only agree to an FTA if they're satisfied that it's compatible with keeping the border open, which brings you back to the choice of border in the Irish Sea or the whole of the UK following EU rules.
The only difference from now is that there's more time for the British to flesh out their "technological solutions" third way, but if the British aren't currently even able to *describe* something that satisfies the EU side, why would anyone think they'll be able to *implement* it in the next two years?
But while Labour may be ERG’s little helpers in the short-term I think long-term it will be ERG who will be seen as Labour’s little helpers. Or, rather, Corbyn’s useful idiots.
Don’t want to get into blame game. May could solve this still if she could compromise.
It doesn’t seem to be a word in her vocabulary.
I find the issue of the backstop puzzling, I must say. Its end date is the FTA. So it will only endure if there is no FTA.
So the concern seems to be that Britain and the EU could not agree an FTA. Or am I missing something?
No, that is exactly the problem. If we are committed to the backstop we are once again faced with a "take it or leave it" negotiation in respect of the FTA.
The fear is that we either get trapped into the backstop arrangement (which to me doesn't actually seem the worst scenario but concerns the slightly delusional "free traders") or a deal that very much favours the EU. Such a deal will focus on facilitating the continuation of our horrendous deficit in physical goods without facilitating our smaller but still significant surplus in services.
To me the solution is a back stop with a notice period in it that is sufficiently long to allow other arrangements to be made.
Thanks. That may be a solution. That doesn’t deal with your good point about services but that follows on from (a) a failure to take any account of services in the WA - partly as a result of May having no understanding of how Britain earns its living; (b) the imbalance of power between Britain and the EU; and (c) May making not being in the SM a red line since it is not being in the SM which will prejudice our services sector.
I don't think that we need to be in the SM for services but we certainly need detailed agreements about regulatory equivalence. It is deeply depressing that this rather important matter has barely surfaced in discussions about whether the price of our imported cars and white goods might increase because we would apparently want to impose tariffs on ourselves. The BoE has made some progress, at least for the transition period, but there is a lot to do when politicians stop preening and pontificating.
Emily Thornberry should be Labour leader. She's witty articulate and has a self confidence that party leaders need. She's also a female who sounds like she can look after herself. Always irresistable to the British and she's got no back story to cause problems.
The Corbyn proposals are actually a decent way forward and would probably be acceptable to most voters.
Yup, TMay should just take the deal. It would only make the splits in her party slightly worse, while doing serious damage to Labour, as per the thread.
Emily Thornberry should be Labour leader. She's witty articulate and has a self confidence that party leaders need. She's also a female who sounds like she can look after herself. Always irresistable to the British and she's got no back story to cause problems.
Time to get it on Labour
I don't know much about internal Labour machinations, but Jezza going before the next GE seems about as likely as a flying manhole cover landing on the moon.
Emily Thornberry should be Labour leader. She's witty articulate and has a self confidence that party leaders need. She's also a female who sounds like she can look after herself. Always irresistable to the British and she's got no back story to cause problems.
Emily Thornberry should be Labour leader. She's witty articulate and has a self confidence that party leaders need. She's also a female who sounds like she can look after herself. Always irresistable to the British and she's got no back story to cause problems.
Time to get it on Labour
Yep. Apart from anything else a government facing a vaguely competent opposition would have to raise its game from current abysmal levels. We need a choice so the self indulgence is kept within bounds. At the moment we don't have one.
https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/comment/2193677#Comment_2193677That’s very German. I once worked with a German who was a (very) part time academic at two universities. His business card read to the the effect of “Professor, Professor, Dr etc”. His Secretary printed his email for him to read as looking at a screen was Women’s work and beneath him.
He was also illegally appointed without competition and without due process over the heads of a number of abler candidates. He is seen (with good reason) as Juncker's personal stooge. He is widely loathed as a pompous bully (he insists everyone calls him 'Herr Professor Doktor Selmayr') and if anyone other than the EPP tops the poll he's toast.
Are you sure you didn't get that from the Daily Mail? That is exactly the technique they use to discredit people when they have nothing substantive to use.
People are seeing Corbyn’s letter to May as a defeat for Starmer. I am not so sure. The most ridiculous of Labour’s tests has been dropped. Starmer was smart enough to know it was ridiculous. He no longer needs to defend it. Labour now has a coherent position. Leaving the EU will damage the UK economically and politically. It’s a very foolish thing to do and I am opposed to it, but if we are going to leave - and, unfortunately, we are - then Labour’s blueprint is the one we should follow. I think most voters would agree.
I find the issue of the backstop puzzling, I must say. Its end date is the FTA. So it will only endure if there is no FTA.
So the concern seems to be that Britain and the EU could not agree an FTA. Or am I missing something?
No, that is exactly the problem. If we are committed to the backstop we are once again faced with a "take it or leave it" negotiation in respect of the FTA.
The fear is that we either get trapped into the backstop arrangement (which to me doesn't actually seem the worst scenario but concerns the slightly delusional "free traders") or a deal that very much favours the EU. Such a deal will focus on facilitating the continuation of our horrendous deficit in physical goods without facilitating our smaller but still significant surplus in services.
To me the solution is a back stop with a notice period in it that is sufficiently long to allow other arrangements to be made.
Thanks. That may be a solution. That doesn’t deal with your good point about services but that follows on from (a) a failure to take any account of services in the WA - partly as a result of May having no understanding of how Britain earns its living; (b) the imbalance of power between Britain and the EU; and (c) May making not being in the SM a red line since it is not being in the SM which will prejudice our services sector.
I don't think that we need to be in the SM for services but we certainly need detailed agreements about regulatory equivalence. It is deeply depressing that this rather important matter has barely surfaced in discussions about whether the price of our imported cars and white goods might increase because we would apparently want to impose tariffs on ourselves. The BoE has made some progress, at least for the transition period, but there is a lot to do when politicians stop preening and pontificating.
There is no-one in either government or the opposition with any concern for or understanding of how we earn our living and how wealth is created. This is why this rather important matter has been barely discussed.
Anyway, I have been up for hours with insomnia. Hence all this chat.
But today the B****t word is not important.
Not for me, anyway, as another B word is - my birthday. So I shall be off and treat myself to a nice coffee, some lovely chocs sent to me by my daughter and a lovely breakfast.
While the allegations are contested - plenty of her staff talk of her in glowing terms - that itself is not exculpatory.
Reading this, I wouldn’t be putting any money on her: What is indisputable, however, is that Klobuchar’s office consistently has one of the highest rates of staff turnover in the Senate. From 2001 to 2016, she ranked No. 1 in the Senate for staff turnover as measured by LegiStorm, a widely used database of congressional staff salaries. She’s now third, behind Maryland Democrat Chris Van Hollen and Louisiana Republican John Kennedy...
Unless there's a lot more to it I think it's reasonably easy for Baemy to counter, combination of "my office has high standards" and "guys like X work here for a bit then go on to greater things". It's a good test to see what she's like at defence though.
I disagree. Launching her bid without a campaign manager, in a crowded field, and starting off in defence, cannot be good for her prospects.
I find the issue of the backstop puzzling, I must say. Its end date is the FTA. So it will only endure if there is no FTA.
So the concern seems to be that Britain and the EU could not agree an FTA. Or am I missing something?
No, that is exactly the problem. If we are committed to the backstop we are once again faced with a "take it or leave it" negotiation in respect of the FTA.
The fear is that we either get trapped into the backstop arrangement (which to me doesn't actually seem the worst scenario but concerns the slightly delusional "free traders") or a deal that very much favours the EU. Such a deal will focus on facilitating the continuation of our horrendous deficit in physical goods without facilitating our smaller but still significant surplus in services.
To me the solution is a back stop with a notice period in it that is sufficiently long to allow other arrangements to be made.
Thanks. That may be a solution. That doesn’t deal with your good point about services but that follows on from (a) a failure to take any account of services in the WA - partly as a result of May having no understanding of how Britain earns its living; (b) the imbalance of power between Britain and the EU; and (c) May making not being in the SM a red line since it is not being in the SM which will prejudice our services sector.
I don't think that we need to be in the SM for services but we certainly need detailed agreements about regulatory equivalence. It is deeply depressing that this rather important matter has barely surfaced in discussions about whether the price of our imported cars and white goods might increase because we would apparently want to impose tariffs on ourselves. The BoE has made some progress, at least for the transition period, but there is a lot to do when politicians stop preening and pontificating.
There is no-one in either government or the opposition with any concern for or understanding of how we earn our living and how wealth is created. This is why this rather important matter has been barely discussed.
Anyway, I have been up for hours with insomnia. Hence all this chat.
But today the B****t word is not important.
Not for me, anyway, as another B word is - my birthday. So I shall be off and treat myself to a nice coffee, some lovely chocs sent to me by my daughter and a lovely breakfast.
Emily Thornberry should be Labour leader. She's witty articulate and has a self confidence that party leaders need. She's also a female who sounds like she can look after herself. Always irresistable to the British and she's got no back story to cause problems.
Time to get it on Labour
Roger shes a woman
Labour dont do women except as window dressing
I can't think of much window dressing in that department except for Diane Abbott and I'm not sure she qualifies
Emily Thornberry should be Labour leader. She's witty articulate and has a self confidence that party leaders need. She's also a female who sounds like she can look after herself. Always irresistable to the British and she's got no back story to cause problems.
Time to get it on Labour
Roger and SeanT in agreement. Surely the End of Days.
Emily Thornberry should be Labour leader. She's witty articulate and has a self confidence that party leaders need. She's also a female who sounds like she can look after herself. Always irresistable to the British and she's got no back story to cause problems.
Time to get it on Labour
Yep. Apart from anything else a government facing a vaguely competent opposition would have to raise its game from current abysmal levels. We need a choice so the self indulgence is kept within bounds. At the moment we don't have one.
@bbclaurak: After Corbyn’s letter, hearing likely next steps are talks btw Lidington and Starmer - dep PM on @BBCr4today at 0810 so let’s find out !
It's a good letter - Corbyn is playing to his strengths (polite, constructive). It also gives cover to Labour MPs in Leave areas to oppose the deal if May rejects it - "we offered to make it work and the Tories didn't want to know" would be a strong line for a Labour Leave voter. It's also in the national interest as it actually shows a way out of the mess which keeps us close to the EU but nonetheless unmistakably out.
I disagree. Launching her bid without a campaign manager, in a crowded field, and starting off in defence, cannot be good for her prospects.
Unfair, perhaps, but the timing is not good.
Doesn't she have a campaign manager? The Huffpost article is a bit mysterious about that part - they lead with
At least three people have withdrawn from consideration to lead Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s nascent 2020 presidential campaign"
...but they don't say anything else about that part. I don't even know what it means - I mean, if everyone says Baemy is terrible to work for and that's an open secret, why would you start being under consideration in the first place so you can withdraw from it?
Emily Thornberry should be Labour leader. She's witty articulate and has a self confidence that party leaders need. She's also a female who sounds like she can look after herself. Always irresistable to the British and she's got no back story to cause problems.
Time to get it on Labour
Roger and SeanT in agreement. Surely the End of Days.
I find the issue of the backstop puzzling, I must say. Its end date is the FTA. So it will only endure if there is no FTA.
So the concern seems to be that Britain and the EU could not agree an FTA. Or am I missing something?
No, that is exactly the problem. If we are committed to the backstop we are once again faced with a "take it or leave it" negotiation in respect of the FTA.
The fear is that we either get trapped into the backstop arrangement (which to me doesn't actually seem the worst scenario but concerns the slightly delusional "free traders") or a deal that very much favours the EU. Such a deal will focus on facilitating the continuation of our horrendous deficit in physical goods without facilitating our smaller but still significant surplus in services.
To me the solution is a back stop with a notice period in it that is sufficiently long to allow other arrangements to be made.
Thanks. That may be a solution. That doesn’t deal with your good point about services but that follows on from (a) a failure to take any account of services in the WA - partly as a result of May having no understanding of how Britain earns its living; (b) the imbalance of power between Britain and the EU; and (c) May making not being in the SM a red line since it is not being in the SM which will prejudice our services sector.
I don't think that we need to be in the SM for services but we certainly need detailed agreements about regulatory equivalence. It is deeply depressing that this rather important matter has barely surfaced in discussions about whether the price of our imported cars and white goods might increase because we would apparently want to impose tariffs on ourselves. The BoE has made some progress, at least for the transition period, but there is a lot to do when politicians stop preening and pontificating.
There is no-one in either government or the opposition with any concern for or understanding of how we earn our living and how wealth is created. This is why this rather important matter has been barely discussed.
Anyway, I have been up for hours with insomnia. Hence all this chat.
But today the B****t word is not important.
Not for me, anyway, as another B word is - my birthday. So I shall be off and treat myself to a nice coffee, some lovely chocs sent to me by my daughter and a lovely breakfast.
It’s not the what but the how. Because of how the vote was won: affluent reactionaries decided that it was worth indulging their own prejudices, even if that meant winning by lying to frightened people about immigration. It was a vote against the complexities of an interconnected world, a mandate for turning back the clock to a world that never existed.
That led directly to Theresa May’s negotiating aims, which led directly to where we are now. Britain now has choices and all of them lead to alternative disasters, depending on what malign course it decides to follow.
It’s a great shame but this will be played out over decades now.
I take point with your description “affluent reactionaries”. Were they somehow more affluent than the remain side? Weren’t both campaigns run by wealthy politicians?
Also as I said yesterday there were two bases of support, people who wanted to end free movement (some of these people would be racist) and free traders / sovereign staters. The second group can hardly be classed as people frightened of an intereconnected world but people who want to engage.
Whilst you have made your point here repeatedly it makes it no more true by repetition - a small part of the campaign could have been how you describe but not the whole.
I don't understand your problem with the description "affluent reactionaries". The people I am referring to are affluent and they are reactionary. pb is stuffed full of them: the golf club bores who have a visceral hatred of the EU and for whom everything is absurdly simple (emphasis on the absurd). This group decided en masse to put their shrivelled hearts before their heads and to take any step, no matter how disgusting, to secure their mad obsession.
The majority could not have been won without frightening people with untrue claims that large numbers of Muslims were poised to descend on Britain. The so-called free traders/sovereign staters campaigned on that basis. They now want to pretend that is irrelevant. But it isn't and they are as trapped by their own malignity as the rest of us.
@bbclaurak: After Corbyn’s letter, hearing likely next steps are talks btw Lidington and Starmer - dep PM on @BBCr4today at 0810 so let’s find out !
It's a good letter - Corbyn is playing to his strengths (polite, constructive). It also gives cover to Labour MPs in Leave areas to oppose the deal if May rejects it - "we offered to make it work and the Tories didn't want to know" would be a strong line for a Labour Leave voter. It's also in the national interest as it actually shows a way out of the mess which keeps us close to the EU but nonetheless unmistakably out.
Someone will have to lock May in a cupboard if there is to be any chance of a compromise in line with Labour's suggestions. Clearly this is the only way to get a majority in the Commons, but Tezzie keeps flirting with the ERG and DUP.
@bbclaurak: After Corbyn’s letter, hearing likely next steps are talks btw Lidington and Starmer - dep PM on @BBCr4today at 0810 so let’s find out !
It's a good letter - Corbyn is playing to his strengths (polite, constructive). It also gives cover to Labour MPs in Leave areas to oppose the deal if May rejects it - "we offered to make it work and the Tories didn't want to know" would be a strong line for a Labour Leave voter. It's also in the national interest as it actually shows a way out of the mess which keeps us close to the EU but nonetheless unmistakably out.
For once we are in full agreement! The big question is why this could not have been Labour’s line all along.
A lot of news coverage now being given to the deliberate distortion of Donald Tusk's very delierate comment. It seems what he actually said would attract widespread agreement on both sides of the divide. The misleading version thanks to Peter Bone is yet more evidence that what he said is accurate
Peter Bone is one of those destined for that circle of hell.
Thank you. I would be interested in your answer to my other question in my previous post.
If the vote had been won on the basis of concern about QMV, for instance, in what way would the negotiating priorities would have changed?
The reason I am pressing you on this is this. It is the fact of leaving the current trading relationship which is likely to be harmful. If the vote had been won on a different basis or even on the basis of concerns about FOM - but without the two xenophobic posters or even xenophobia generally - but on the basis that, say, not being able to control who comes in from the EU makes it practically very difficult to plan public services / housing etc - the consequences for the negotiating priorities would have been the same. And, therefore, the potential economic harm.
So why would the how (of the campaign) matter if the consequences are the same?
I have my own view on the possible answers to this but would be interested in your views since you have made this point repeatedly.
You are to some extent looking to thread the eye of the needle with that hypothetical. But I will address it.
The how of the campaign would have led to similar negotiating aims, I agree. It would not, however, have led to the deranged xenophobic paranoia that suffused the Leave entourage following the referendum result. There would have been no "citizens of nowhere", no "enemies of the people", no "crush the saboteurs", no routine accusations of treachery. It would also have led erstwhile Remainers to give the negotiators more of a fair wind.
In those circumstances, one can reasonably imagine that the negotiation would have been more constructive all round, with the temperature nowhere near as heightened.
As I think you appreciate, I do not think the EU has handled this negotiation well either. The how of your hypothetical campaign would have helped them approach the negotiation in a more clear-headed manner also.
Moreover, post-Brexit, however secured, the country would have been far more prepared to deal with questions raised by immigration in a dispassionate and flexible manner, adjusting to changing needs, without constant accusations of betrayal.
So I do not accept that the consequences would have been the same.
It’s not the what but the how. Because of how the vote was won: affluent reactionaries decided that it was worth indulging their own prejudices, even if that meant winning by lying to frightened people about immigration. It was a vote against the complexities of an interconnected world, a mandate for turning back the clock to a world that never existed.
That led directly to Theresa May’s negotiating aims, which led directly to where we are now. Britain now has choices and all of them lead to alternative disasters, depending on what malign course it decides to follow.
It’s a great shame but this will be played out over decades now.
I take point with your description “affluent reactionaries”. Were they somehow more affluent than the remain side? Weren’t both campaigns run by wealthy politicians?
Also as I said yesterday there were two bases of support, people who wanted to end free movement (some of these people would be racist) and free traders / sovereign staters. The second group can hardly be classed as people frightened of an intereconnected world but people who want to engage.
Whilst you have made your point here repeatedly it makes it no more true by repetition - a small part of the campaign could have been how you describe but not the whole.
I don't understand your problem with the description "affluent reactionaries". The people I am referring to are affluent and they are reactionary. pb is stuffed full of them: the golf club bores who have a visceral hatred of the EU and for whom everything is absurdly simple (emphasis on the absurd). This group decided en masse to put their shrivelled hearts before their heads and to take any step, no matter how disgusting, to secure their mad obsession.
The majority could not have been won without frightening people with untrue claims that large numbers of Muslims were poised to descend on Britain. The so-called free traders/sovereign staters campaigned on that basis. They now want to pretend that is irrelevant. But it isn't and they are as trapped by their own malignity as the rest of us.
lol
no one on PB has time for golf theyre too busy blogging
That’s very German. I once worked with a German who was a (very) part time academic at two universities. His business card read to the the effect of “Professor, Professor, Dr etc”. His Secretary printed his email for him to read as looking at a screen was Women’s work and beneath him.
he didn’t last in the new regime....
It is fairly common for female Indian doctors to double up on titles, for example Dr Mrs Hirani. This works particularly well when Dr Mr Hirani is in the same practice.
Thank you. I would be interested in your answer to my other question in my previous post.
If the vote had been won on the basis of concern about QMV, for instance, in what way would the negotiating priorities would have changed?
The reason I am pressing you on this is this. It is the fact of leaving the current trading relationship which is likely to be harmful. If the vote had been won on a different basis or even on the basis of concerns about FOM - but without the two xenophobic posters or even xenophobia generally - but on the basis that, say, not being able to control who comes in from the EU makes it practically very difficult to plan public services / housing etc - the consequences for the negotiating priorities would have been the same. And, therefore, the potential economic harm.
So why would the how (of the campaign) matter if the consequences are the same?
I have my own view on the possible answers to this but would be interested in your views since you have made this point repeatedly.
You are to some extent looking to thread the eye of the needle with that hypothetical. But I will address it.
The how of the campaign would have led to similar negotiating aims, I agree. It would not, however, have led to the deranged xenophobic paranoia that suffused the Leave entourage following the referendum result. There would have been no "citizens of nowhere", no "enemies of the people", no "crush the saboteurs", no routine accusations of treachery. It would also have led erstwhile Remainers to give the negotiators more of a fair wind.
In those circumstances, one can reasonably imagine that the negotiation would have been more constructive all round, with the temperature nowhere near as heightened.
As I think you appreciate, I do not think the EU has handled this negotiation well either. The how of your hypothetical campaign would have helped them approach the negotiation in a more clear-headed manner also.
Moreover, post-Brexit, however secured, the country would have been far more prepared to deal with questions raised by immigration in a dispassionate and flexible manner, adjusting to changing needs, without constant accusations of betrayal.
So I do not accept that the consequences would have been the same.
Thank you. I largely agree.
BTW we are both lawyers. Threading eyes of needles is our professional raison d’etre.
Thank you. I would be interested in your answer to my other question in my previous post.
If the vote had been won on the basis of concern about QMV, for instance, in what way would the negotiating priorities would have changed?
The reason I am pressing you on this is this. It is the fact of leaving the current trading relationship which is likely to be harmful. If the vote had been won on a different basis or even on the basis of concerns about FOM - but without the two xenophobic posters or even xenophobia generally - but on the basis that, say, not being able to control who comes in from the EU makes it practically very difficult to plan public services / housing etc - the consequences for the negotiating priorities would have been the same. And, therefore, the potential economic harm.
So why would the how (of the campaign) matter if the consequences are the same?
I have my own view on the possible answers to this but would be interested in your views since you have made this point repeatedly.
You are to some extent looking to thread the eye of the needle with that hypothetical. But I will address it.
The how of the campaign would have led to similar negotiating aims, I agree. It would not, however, have led to the deranged xenophobic paranoia that suffused the Leave entourage following the referendum result. There would have been no "citizens of nowhere", no "enemies of the people", no "crush the saboteurs", no routine accusations of treachery. It would also have led erstwhile Remainers to give the negotiators more of a fair wind.
In those circumstances, one can reasonably imagine that the negotiation would have been more constructive all round, with the temperature nowhere near as heightened.
As I think you appreciate, I do not think the EU has handled this negotiation well either. The how of your hypothetical campaign would have helped them approach the negotiation in a more clear-headed manner also.
Moreover, post-Brexit, however secured, the country would have been far more prepared to deal with questions raised by immigration in a dispassionate and flexible manner, adjusting to changing needs, without constant accusations of betrayal.
So I do not accept that the consequences would have been the same.
It's a good letter - Corbyn is playing to his strengths (polite, constructive). .
Polite? He always chucks a tanty with that big mad bulgy eye thing he does when he gets doorstepped by ITN or similar reptiles.
I have to agree. Nick often talks about Corbyn's politeness but he never strikes me as particularly polite. He often seems bored or irritated and almost completely without charm. Tony Blair was polite. Always. Even Theresa May-for all her faults -is polite. Corbyn....I can't see it.
I find the issue of the backstop puzzling, I must say. Its end date is the FTA. So it will only endure if there is no FTA.
So the concern seems to be that Britain and the EU could not agree an FTA. Or am I missing something?
No, that is exactly the problem. If we are committed to the backstop we are once again faced with a "take it or leave it" negotiation in respect of the FTA.
The fear is that we either get trapped into the backstop arrangement (which to me doesn't actually seem the worst scenario but concerns the slightly delusional "free traders") or a deal that very much favours the EU. Such a deal will focus on facilitating the continuation of our horrendous deficit in physical goods without facilitating our smaller but still significant surplus in services.
To me the solution is a back stop with a notice period in it that is sufficiently long to allow other arrangements to be made.
Thanks. That may be a solution. That doesn’t deal with your good point about services but that follows on from (a) a failure to take any account of services in the WA - partly as a result of May having no understanding of how Britain earns its living; (b) the imbalance of power between Britain and the EU; and (c) May making not being in the SM a red line since it is not being in the SM which will prejudice our services sector.
I don't think that we need to be in the SM for services but we certainly need detailed agreements about regulatory equivalence. It is deeply depressing that this rather important matter has barely surfaced in discussions about whether the price of our imported cars and white goods might increase because we would apparently want to impose tariffs on ourselves. The BoE has made some progress, at least for the transition period, but there is a lot to do when politicians stop preening and pontificating.
There is no-one in either government or the opposition with any concern for or understanding of how we earn our living and how wealth is created. This is why this rather important matter has been barely discussed.
Anyway, I have been up for hours with insomnia. Hence all this chat.
But today the B****t word is not important.
Not for me, anyway, as another B word is - my birthday. So I shall be off and treat myself to a nice coffee, some lovely chocs sent to me by my daughter and a lovely breakfast.
Jeremy Corbyn's letter has the great merits of being both a workable solution and completely unacceptable to Theresa May.
It has the great demerit of being completely unacceptable, for very different reasons, to a large chunk of his party's support. So he had better have a back-up plan.
As an ardent Remainer I could get behind Corbyns compromise . If it’s good enough for me then I’m sure it’s good enough for many Labour supporters . The second vote isn’t going to happen . Pro EU Labour MPs need to realize the game is up and work towards a realistic solution that a majority of the country could accept.
I It’s a great shame but this will be played out over decades now.
I take point with your description “affluent reactionaries”. Were they somehow more affluent than the remain side? Weren’t both campaigns run by wealthy politicians? .
I don't understand your problem with the description "affluent reactionaries". The people I am referring to are affluent and they are reactionary. pb is stuffed full of them: the golf club bores who have a visceral hatred of the EU and for whom everything is absurdly simple (emphasis on the absurd). This group decided en masse to put their shrivelled hearts before their heads and to take any step, no matter how disgusting, to secure their mad obsession.
The majority could not have been won without frightening people with untrue claims that large numbers of Muslims were poised to descend on Britain. The so-called free traders/sovereign staters campaigned on that basis. They now want to pretend that is irrelevant. But it isn't and they are as trapped by their own malignity as the rest of us.
But the reactionaries are no less affluent than the remainers - it is a redundant characterisation. Golf clubs will also have members who are pro business pro Eu, or pro business pro Mays deal.
It is the lazy characterisation who want to paint the Leave campaign as the Establishemnt in a revision of history. When you have the Government and civil service, all major political parties, EU, and business pro remain they were the establishment choice.
Secondly whilst in your opinion “it was the anti-Muslim posters that won it” that was one of the reasons I voted remain. And the other reason was the projected economic impact which hasn’t materialised. The remain side equally campaigned on misinformed fear mongering.
You are railing against the lack of clear plan from Leave. As I said yesterday the campaign was set up by Cameron in the way that he thought best that remain would have won. He attempted to delegitimise the Leave option by starving them of political and financial support. If he had allowed the government to be neutral on the matter there could have been manifestos and proposals from both sides, but for political advantage this didn’t happen - you can hardly blame the leavers for playing the field in front of them.
You have to watch the dates on this. It's still one of the few known ways out of the treacle, but if it happens there could be a good few can kicks first.
Anyway, I have been up for hours with insomnia. Hence all this chat.
But today the B****t word is not important.
Not for me, anyway, as another B word is - my birthday. So I shall be off and treat myself to a nice coffee, some lovely chocs sent to me by my daughter and a lovely breakfast.
Have a lovely day all.
Happy birthday. For one day, forget all else, think only of you - and spoil yourself rotten.
Jeremy Corbyn's letter has the great merits of being both a workable solution and completely unacceptable to Theresa May.
It has the great demerit of being completely unacceptable, for very different reasons, to a large chunk of his party's support. So he had better have a back-up plan.
Doesn’t the second point get solved by the first? When May rejects it - as she will - Labour is free to suggest other things.
Anyway, I have been up for hours with insomnia. Hence all this chat.
But today the B****t word is not important.
Not for me, anyway, as another B word is - my birthday. So I shall be off and treat myself to a nice coffee, some lovely chocs sent to me by my daughter and a lovely breakfast.
Have a lovely day all.
Happy birthday. For one day, forget all else, think only of you - and spoil yourself rotten. =
Pantomime? It is more that Meeksy has escaped from a PG Wodehouse novel.
The villains are always the Oldest Member of the Golf Club and Sir Roderick Spode.
Whilst the heroes think of themselves as sparky dynamos, buzzing around, keeping Piccadilly turning. They are all very wealthy, though they do nothing vital or interesting.
And of course, we have the comic-book descriptions of the poor and the working class.
“The man’s nothing but a bally carrot-muncher”, murmured Meeksy across the bar of the Drones.
The new "mobile" site (iPads seem to be exempt so far) is a hybrid amalgamation of two systems, looks like a development alpha version of something not intended for customer release. Two quote buttons, two image buttons etc.
The reply tab full of HTML (but still with the length limit) is almost impossible to edit correctly as there's little formatting on it. It was intended to only be read and only by machine.
It's also much larger in terms of data consumed, which is worth noting if you're on a pay as you go contract and hit refresh every few seconds.
One positive is that the landscape of the mobile site now displays larger text, rather than more of the same size text as the portrait version.
It's a good letter - Corbyn is playing to his strengths (polite, constructive). .
Polite? He always chucks a tanty with that big mad bulgy eye thing he does when he gets doorstepped by ITN or similar reptiles.
I have to agree. Nick often talks about Corbyn's politeness but he never strikes me as particularly polite. He often seems bored or irritated and almost completely without charm. Tony Blair was polite. Always. Even Theresa May-for all her faults -is polite. Corbyn....I can't see it.
Yes it’s a bit like the myth that he believes in discourse yet he only sits down for discourse with fanatics he supports. Unless someone can provide evidence of his discourse with USA, Israel or Loyalist terrorists in NI.
I It’s a great shame but this will be played out over decades now.
I take point with your description “affluent reactionaries”. Were they somehow more affluent than the remain side? Weren’t both campaigns run by wealthy politicians? .
I don't understand your problem with the description "affluent reactionaries". The people I am referring to are affluent and they are reactionary. pb is stuffed full of them: the golf club bores who have a visceral hatred of the EU and for whom everything is absurdly simple (emphasis on the absurd). This group decided en masse to put their shrivelled hearts before their heads and to take any step, no matter how disgusting, to secure their mad obsession.
The majority could not have been won without frightening people with untrue claims that large numbers of Muslims were poised to descend on Britain. The so-called free traders/sovereign staters campaigned on that basis. They now want to pretend that is irrelevant. But it isn't and they are as trapped by their own malignity as the rest of us.
But the reactionaries are no less affluent than the remainers - it is a redundant characterisation. Golf clubs will also have members who are pro business pro Eu, or pro business pro Mays deal.
It is the lazy characterisation who want to paint the Leave campaign as the Establishemnt in a revision of history. When you have the Government and civil service, all major political parties, EU, and business pro remain they were the establishment choice.
Secondly whilst in your opinion “it was the anti-Muslim posters that won it” that was one of the reasons I voted remain. And the other reason was the projected economic impact which hasn’t materialised. The remain side equally campaigned on misinformed fear mongering.
You are railing against the lack of clear plan from Leave. As I said yesterday the campaign was set up by Cameron in the way that he thought best that remain would have won. He attempted to delegitimise the Leave option by starving them of political and financial support. If he had allowed the government to be neutral on the matter there could have been manifestos and proposals from both sides, but for political advantage this didn’t happen - you can hardly blame the leavers for playing the field in front of them.
It's not redundant to note that these people are affluent. There's this absurd idea floating around that Leavers are horny-handed sons of toil. A critical cohort of them are very comfortably off indeed. You're surrounded by them on here.
On your second point, one would have hoped that those advocating a leap in the dark might have thought about investing in a torch first. A flaming pitchfork, it turns out, isn't up to the job.
People are seeing Corbyn’s letter to May as a defeat for Starmer. I am not so sure. The most ridiculous of Labour’s tests has been dropped. Starmer was smart enough to know it was ridiculous. He no longer needs to defend it. Labour now has a coherent position. Leaving the EU will damage the UK economically and politically. It’s a very foolish thing to do and I am opposed to it, but if we are going to leave - and, unfortunately, we are - then Labour’s blueprint is the one we should follow. I think most voters would agree.
Given May refused to even come up with ideas for fear if upsetting factions in her party, and still prioritises that even though it's impossible to please them all, there's no way she 'gives in' and strikes a deal with Corbyn.
Jeremy Corbyn's letter has the great merits of being both a workable solution and completely unacceptable to Theresa May.
It has the great demerit of being completely unacceptable, for very different reasons, to a large chunk of his party's support. So he had better have a back-up plan.
Doesn’t the second point get solved by the first? When May rejects it - as she will - Labour is free to suggest other things.
Well yes. That does seem to be Labour's approach. In its own, more sensible way, this proposal is a holding position between diametrically opposed positions, just as the Malthouse plan is for the Conservatives.
Emily Thornberry should be Labour leader. She's witty articulate and has a self confidence that party leaders need. She's also a female who sounds like she can look after herself. Always irresistable to the British and she's got no back story to cause problems.
Time to get it on Labour
Roger shes a woman
Labour dont do women except as window dressing
She also has some baggage over "white van man" disdaining patriotism. That might be good for momentum but I suspect it would not endear her to floating voters.
The mistake so many in the UK make is that getting a good Brexit deal depends on influencing UK public opinion. It doesn’t. Public opinion in the EU27 is what matters. And Tusk said what he said because he knows that.
Jeremy Corbyn's letter has the great merits of being both a workable solution and completely unacceptable to Theresa May.
It has the great demerit of being completely unacceptable, for very different reasons, to a large chunk of his party's support. So he had better have a back-up plan.
Doesn’t the second point get solved by the first? When May rejects it - as she will - Labour is free to suggest other things.
Well yes. That does seem to be Labour's approach. In its own, more sensible way, this proposal is a holding position between diametrically opposed positions, just as the Malthouse plan is for the Conservatives.
As an ardent Remainer I could get behind Corbyns compromise . If it’s good enough for me then I’m sure it’s good enough for many Labour supporters . The second vote isn’t going to happen . Pro EU Labour MPs need to realize the game is up and work towards a realistic solution that a majority of the country could accept.
That's right - and I'm an ultra-Europhile (favour eventually having a single European country). It's not wonderful but it's the best available from where we are.
An interesting point is that it's a delayed but positive response to Ken Clarke's question whether Labour would support a deal if it included permanent customs union, and that many Tories would be up for that if he was.
I think May will counter by politely declining and trying to win the Labour Leavers. But in PLP terms a rebellion led by John Mann is IMO unlikely to get 40-60 supporters as has been suggested - he is an interesting bloke with a mind of his own, but very much a loner. Nonetheless, what is lining up is a choice between loyalist Tories+Labour rebels vs Europhile Tories + loyalist Labour vs Brexiteer Tories.
Emily Thornberry should be Labour leader. She's witty articulate and has a self confidence that party leaders need. She's also a female who sounds like she can look after herself. Always irresistable to the British and she's got no back story to cause problems.
Time to get it on Labour
Roger shes a woman
Labour dont do women except as window dressing
She also has some baggage over "white van man" disdaining patriotism. That might be good for momentum but I suspect it would not endear her to floating voters.
If you cant laugh at someone who drapes three cross of St George flags the size of tennis courts across the front of his house then you can't laugh at anything
Mr. Observer, a deal that lasts requires at least reluctant acceptance from parties/electorate in the UK, though.
May might be ready to surrender whatever she's asked to, but that'll just mean her deal would be loathed and immediately contested at the next election. A sustainable deal would be a nice thing.
I'm also amused that Varadkar was describing the UK as 'resiling' from a deal it never signed up to, when the Commons voted against it, then runs to Brussels and meets Verhofstadt[sp] to ensure that the European Parliament would vote against any change to the backstop.
Mr. Observer, a deal that lasts requires at least reluctant acceptance from parties/electorate in the UK, though.
May might be ready to surrender whatever she's asked to, but that'll just mean her deal would be loathed and immediately contested at the next election. A sustainable deal would be a nice thing.
I'm also amused that Varadkar was describing the UK as 'resiling' from a deal it never signed up to, when the Commons voted against it, then runs to Brussels and meets Verhofstadt[sp] to ensure that the European Parliament would vote against any change to the backstop.
What deal do you think would be sustainable at present?
Mr. Observer, a deal that lasts requires at least reluctant acceptance from parties/electorate in the UK, though.
May might be ready to surrender whatever she's asked to, but that'll just mean her deal would be loathed and immediately contested at the next election. A sustainable deal would be a nice thing.
I'm also amused that Varadkar was describing the UK as 'resiling' from a deal it never signed up to, when the Commons voted against it, then runs to Brussels and meets Verhofstadt[sp] to ensure that the European Parliament would vote against any change to the backstop.
There is no sustainable, popular deal possible - only one that is the least unpopular. My guess is that Labour’s would be it. But May cannot accept it because doing so would split the Tories.
Emily Thornberry should be Labour leader. She's witty articulate and has a self confidence that party leaders need. She's also a female who sounds like she can look after herself. Always irresistable to the British and she's got no back story to cause problems.
Time to get it on Labour
Roger shes a woman
Labour dont do women except as window dressing
She also has some baggage over "white van man" disdaining patriotism. That might be good for momentum but I suspect it would not endear her to floating voters.
If you cant laugh at someone who drapes three cross of St George flags the size of tennis courts across the front of his house then you can't laugh at anything
When you want their vote, don't laugh at anything. (Personally, I'd take the vote away from anyone with plastic meerkats in their garden, but that would disenfranchise half of Torbay.)
The bitterest irony in all of this is that the Conservative Party, having recklessly put at risk the entire accumulated international respect for the the UK and a good part of its economy. Having trashed manufacturing and financial investment, including presiding over the loss of the AAA and a 15% devaluation. Having made an incompetent shambles of the negotiations, and all the while having sacrificed any pretense of working for the national interest and not their own party interest, and having inflicted on us the worst government in 200 years.
All of this and more, and yet the Tories may still be let off the hook by an Opposition Leader who is worse.
It's not redundant to note that these people are affluent. There's this absurd idea floating around that Leavers are horny-handed sons of toil. A critical cohort of them are very comfortably off indeed. You're surrounded by them on here.
On your second point, one would have hoped that those advocating a leap in the dark might have thought about investing in a torch first. A flaming pitchfork, it turns out, isn't up to the job.
So rather than all remainers being affluent it is now a critical cohort. I’d point out that a critical cohort of remainers are also very comfortably off indeed so it is redundant. Perhaps, probably, we move in different circles but in my small corner of South Gloucestershire if you walked down our high st and asked people to name Brexiteers you would probably get a long way down the list until you got to a name of a leaver that was a horny handed son of toil.
On my second point do you agree that the whole premise of the Brexit referendum was structured to screw over Leave? I think in the circumstances and without access to civil service support, and bearing in mind that all parties and government institutions were supporting remain, You think it would have been reasonable to have a firm plan. The SNP whose lifelong missions was independence didn’t have a fully detailed plan and they were the Scottish Government.
It's a good letter - Corbyn is playing to his strengths (polite, constructive). .
Polite? He always chucks a tanty with that big mad bulgy eye thing he does when he gets doorstepped by ITN or similar reptiles.
I have to agree. Nick often talks about Corbyn's politeness but he never strikes me as particularly polite. He often seems bored or irritated and almost completely without charm. Tony Blair was polite. Always. Even Theresa May-for all her faults -is polite. Corbyn....I can't see it.
I guess it's a matter of taste. I'm influenced by frequently seeing him talking with opponents inside and outside the party. In 50 years of acquaintance I've NEVER heard him be personally abusive about anyone, even when talking about an ultra-right-winger in private, and I've never seen him lose his temper beyond the minor irritation when he's doorstepped or asked repetitive questions. A more accurate criticism IMO is that he's buttoned up - you always have the feeling that he's being carefully restrained, like a head teacher choosing his words with precision. You can easily imagine John McDonnell or John Prescott or Ed Balls guffawing at a good joke, even at their expense. I can't imagine JC doing that.
Most Leavers couldn’t care less about an independent trade policy before the vote . It’s the ERG nutjobs who have peddled this and now some hold onto it as if it’s Moses Ten Commandments.
Corbyns letter and compromise would get a majority . May and the Tories now can fully own a no deal car crash .
Mr. Meeks, honestly, I think that might be impossible now.
May's flitted between idiotic stubbornness and vacillation, with a good serving of duplicity and lashings of general incompetence. The EU has not acted in good faith, their sequencing demand (to which we foolishly acquiesced) was irrational, and they seem to view (as does some of the UK media) their own red lines as sacred cows whereas the British ones are negotiating positions to be frittered away.
The lack of a prospect of a decent deal for both sides and general incompetence of May has helped to intensify the poisonous political atmosphere, entrenching polarised opinions and making compromise/nuance rather difficult (wandering in No Man's Land is not for the faint of heart).
The clock is running down quickly. The EU demands for regulatory annexation of Northern Ireland and to own UK customs without any way for us to leave is unacceptable (it seems there's other tosh in the proposal but that's the one everyone's focused on). The Commons is against almost everything.
Suppose a customs union got agreed (and passed through every stage of political ratification). It would instantly become a new battleground, to get us out of the customs union, and legitimately so. And then this rigmarole would start again.
The most sensible suggestion I've heard recently was the one to axe the 'transition' and just extend the Article 50 negotiation period. It would give us more time to prepare for no deal, if it comes to that, and might (though I wouldn't bet on this) lead to an acceptable deal for the future.
Labour is offering to support the Withdrawal Agreement essentially in return for a promise about the government's future negotiating position. A promise enshrined in law - but no parliament can bind his successors, so still only a politician's promise.
But that's what Labour is asking for. So why shouldn't Theresa May agree to that, while being perfectly open about the possibility of a future parliament changing its mind?
Thank you. I would be interested in your answer to my other question in my previous post.
If the vote had been won on the basis of concern about QMV, for instance, in what way would the negotiating priorities would have changed?
The reason I am pressing you on this is this. It is the fact of leaving the current trading relationship which is likely to be harmful. If the vote had been won on a different basis or even on the basis of concerns about FOM - but without the two xenophobic posters or even xenophobia generally - but on the basis that, say, not being able to control who comes in from the EU makes it practically very difficult to plan public services / housing etc - the consequences for the negotiating priorities would have been the same. And, therefore, the potential economic harm.
So why would the how (of the campaign) matter if the consequences are the same?
I have my own view on the possible answers to this but would be interested in your views since you have made this point repeatedly.
You are to some extent looking to thread the eye of the needle with that hypothetical. But I will address it.
The how of the campaign would have led to similar negotiating aims, I agree. It would not, however, have led to the deranged xenophobic paranoia that suffused the Leave entourage following the referendum result. There would have been no "citizens of nowhere", no "enemies of the people", no "crush the saboteurs", no routine accusations of treachery. It would also have led erstwhile Remainers to give the negotiators more of a fair wind.
LOL Brexit caused those?
"Citizens of nowhere" was said by our xenophobic remain voting PM who had the brainchild of the "Go Home" vans years ago. "Crush the saboteurs" was published by Paul Dacre who has never needed any encouragement to be a xenophobic s**t.
So we have one example from a Remainer who was xenophobic before the referendum and one from an infamous editor with decades of xenophobic publishing behind him.
It's not redundant to note that these people are affluent. There's this absurd idea floating around that Leavers are horny-handed sons of toil. A critical cohort of them are very comfortably off indeed. You're surrounded by them on here.
On your second point, one would have hoped that those advocating a leap in the dark might have thought about investing in a torch first. A flaming pitchfork, it turns out, isn't up to the job.
So rather than all remainers being affluent it is now a critical cohort. I’d point out that a critical cohort of remainers are also very comfortably off indeed so it is redundant. Perhaps, probably, we move in different circles but in my small corner of South Gloucestershire if you walked down our high st and asked people to name Brexiteers you would probably get a long way down the list until you got to a name of a leaver that was a horny handed son of toil.
On my second point do you agree that the whole premise of the Brexit referendum was structured to screw over Leave? I think in the circumstances and without access to civil service support, and bearing in mind that all parties and government institutions were supporting remain, You think it would have been reasonable to have a firm plan. The SNP whose lifelong missions was independence didn’t have a fully detailed plan and they were the Scottish Government.
You seem to be at cross-purposes with me on the first point. Leave won with a coalition. Part of that coalition was affluent reactionaries whose prime impulse was unreasoning visceral hatred of the EU. These people would eat grass before they chose to remain in the EU.
In order to secure victory in the referendum, they decided to do anything it took. What it took, they decided, was to whip up fears of immigration by telling straight lies. Britain is now going to have to live with the consequences of that disgraceful decision.
On your second point, the referendum was structured to make it difficult for Leave. That does not exonerate anyone advocating a course of action from the responsibility of actually making sure that course of action was sensible and workable. Donald Tusk's comments on them yesterday were blunt but unarguable.
The really interesting thing will be what Labour does when May says No to the proposals in Corbyn’s letter. In theory, her rejection will open the way to support for a referendum or even to revocation. In theory.
The really interesting thing will be what Labour does when May says No to the proposals in Corbyn’s letter. In theory, her rejection will open the way to support for a referendum or even to revocation. In theory.
Will TMay say no? That sounds uncharacteristically decisive. Won't she just not say yes?
Mr. Meeks, whilst Remain had very many advantages in the referendum, it is worth noting the rather odd decision by Cameron not to have either an independent body or the official Leave campaign outline their preferred arrangements for the UK should we leave.
Labour is offering to support the Withdrawal Agreement essentially in return for a promise about the government's future negotiating position. A promise enshrined in law - but no parliament can bind his successors, so still only a politician's promise.
But that's what Labour is asking for. So why shouldn't Theresa May agree to that, while being perfectly open about the possibility of a future parliament changing its mind?
Or have I really misunderstood?
Except he is not trying to bind future governments' negotiating position. He is trying to bind this current government in the forthcoming Trade Agreement talks would would follow on from passing the WTA and should be completed min then 3+ years before the next GE is due.
The really interesting thing will be what Labour does when May says No to the proposals in Corbyn’s letter. In theory, her rejection will open the way to support for a referendum or even to revocation. In theory.
She'll just say that some of the things they're asking for can't be done without remaining in the EU and/or don't respect the referendum. I'm sure Corbyn will find a way to avoid moving Labour's policy on.
Labour is offering to support the Withdrawal Agreement essentially in return for a promise about the government's future negotiating position. A promise enshrined in law - but no parliament can bind his successors, so still only a politician's promise.
But that's what Labour is asking for. So why shouldn't Theresa May agree to that, while being perfectly open about the possibility of a future parliament changing its mind?
Or have I really misunderstood?
Except he is not trying to bind future governments' negotiating position. He is trying to bind this current government in the forthcoming Trade Agreement talks would would follow on from passing the WTA and should be completed min then 3+ years before the next GE is due.
Seems reasonable. If May wants Labour votes, then she needs to tie herself to a practical plan to stick to a Labour Leave position. The only reason not to do so is political partisanship, so she will probably refuse to entertain it, and go to Brussels for her planned tin earred meeting and return emptyhanded.
Comments
The only difference from now is that there's more time for the British to flesh out their "technological solutions" third way, but if the British aren't currently even able to *describe* something that satisfies the EU side, why would anyone think they'll be able to *implement* it in the next two years?
@SouthamObserver
Do they have a £900 billion black hole in them, or have they not been 'fully costed?'
Time to get it on Labour
@DavidL
'but there is a lot to do when politicians stop preening and pontificating.'
I admire your optimistic suggestion that our politicians are going to stop preening and pontificating.
And on that cheerful note, have a good morning.
@bbclaurak: After Corbyn’s letter, hearing likely next steps are talks btw Lidington and Starmer - dep PM on @BBCr4today at 0810 so let’s find out !
Labour dont do women except as window dressing
https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/comment/2193677#Comment_2193677That’s very German. I once worked with a German who was a (very) part time academic at two universities. His business card read to the the effect of “Professor, Professor, Dr etc”. His Secretary printed his email for him to read as looking at a screen was Women’s work and beneath him.
he didn’t last in the new regime....
Mr. Sandpit, and he got the job in such an open and fair way too.
Leaving the EU will damage the UK economically and politically. It’s a very foolish thing to do and I am opposed to it, but if we are going to leave - and, unfortunately, we are - then Labour’s blueprint is the one we should follow. I think most voters would agree.
Anyway, I have been up for hours with insomnia. Hence all this chat.
But today the B****t word is not important.
Not for me, anyway, as another B word is - my birthday. So I shall be off and treat myself to a nice coffee, some lovely chocs sent to me by my daughter and a lovely breakfast.
Have a lovely day all.
Launching her bid without a campaign manager, in a crowded field, and starting off in defence, cannot be good for her prospects.
Unfair, perhaps, but the timing is not good.
The majority could not have been won without frightening people with untrue claims that large numbers of Muslims were poised to descend on Britain. The so-called free traders/sovereign staters campaigned on that basis. They now want to pretend that is irrelevant. But it isn't and they are as trapped by their own malignity as the rest of us.
https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/comment/2193666#Comment_2193666Still the same - horrible.
The how of the campaign would have led to similar negotiating aims, I agree. It would not, however, have led to the deranged xenophobic paranoia that suffused the Leave entourage following the referendum result. There would have been no "citizens of nowhere", no "enemies of the people", no "crush the saboteurs", no routine accusations of treachery. It would also have led erstwhile Remainers to give the negotiators more of a fair wind.
In those circumstances, one can reasonably imagine that the negotiation would have been more constructive all round, with the temperature nowhere near as heightened.
As I think you appreciate, I do not think the EU has handled this negotiation well either. The how of your hypothetical campaign would have helped them approach the negotiation in a more clear-headed manner also.
Moreover, post-Brexit, however secured, the country would have been far more prepared to deal with questions raised by immigration in a dispassionate and flexible manner, adjusting to changing needs, without constant accusations of betrayal.
So I do not accept that the consequences would have been the same.
no one on PB has time for golf theyre too busy blogging
BTW we are both lawyers. Threading eyes of needles is our professional raison d’etre.
Bye!
With all this backstop chatter can anyone tell me what the likely timescale is for Lord Trimble's legal challenge?
pantomime villains chez Meeks
It has the great demerit of being completely unacceptable, for very different reasons, to a large chunk of his party's support. So he had better have a back-up plan.
https://twitter.com/davidheniguk/status/1093413166816612352?s=21
Was Eden's cruel description at the time. Peter Principle example?
https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/comment/2193669#Comment_2193669Agreement with his point was never the issue, it was how it helped boost no deal. And he tweeted it so it wasn't distorted.
Fresh from endorsing trump like behaviour now youre endorsing corbynite diversions of calling even direct quotes from his tweets smears, in essence.
It is the lazy characterisation who want to paint the Leave campaign as the Establishemnt in a revision of history. When you have the Government and civil service, all major political parties, EU, and business pro remain they were the establishment choice.
Secondly whilst in your opinion “it was the anti-Muslim posters that won it” that was one of the reasons I voted remain. And the other reason was the projected economic impact which hasn’t materialised. The remain side equally campaigned on misinformed fear mongering.
You are railing against the lack of clear plan from Leave. As I said yesterday the campaign was set up by Cameron in the way that he thought best that remain would have won. He attempted to delegitimise the Leave option by starving them of political and financial support. If he had allowed the government to be neutral on the matter there could have been manifestos and proposals from both sides, but for political advantage this didn’t happen - you can hardly blame the leavers for playing the field in front of them.
Honestly the site looks fine on mobile, though I've not had character issues yet.
https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/comment/2193680#Comment_2193680Labour brexit, no deal or no brexit. I'd favour it
The villains are always the Oldest Member of the Golf Club and Sir Roderick Spode.
Whilst the heroes think of themselves as sparky dynamos, buzzing around, keeping Piccadilly turning. They are all very wealthy, though they do nothing vital or interesting.
And of course, we have the comic-book descriptions of the poor and the working class.
“The man’s nothing but a bally carrot-muncher”, murmured Meeksy across the bar of the Drones.
The new "mobile" site (iPads seem to be exempt so far) is a hybrid amalgamation of two systems, looks like a development alpha version of something not intended for customer release. Two quote buttons, two image buttons etc.
The reply tab full of HTML (but still with the length limit) is almost impossible to edit correctly as there's little formatting on it. It was intended to only be read and only by machine.
It's also much larger in terms of data consumed, which is worth noting if you're on a pay as you go contract and hit refresh every few seconds.
One positive is that the landscape of the mobile site now displays larger text, rather than more of the same size text as the portrait version.
< / UX Tester Mode >
On your second point, one would have hoped that those advocating a leap in the dark might have thought about investing in a torch first. A flaming pitchfork, it turns out, isn't up to the job.
https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/comment/2193717#Comment_2193717More accurate to say he is generally mild mannered. When under pressure he can be petty and bitchy. He hardly alone in that, but his politeness while there doesn't seem that important.
Enjoy your coffee and chocolates uncontaminated by each other!
https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/comment/2193706#Comment_2193706Most important for Labour is that it kneecaps May just as she’s heading off for Brussels.
The EU’s first line will be “You have a parliamentary majority for a deal. Labour has offered you one. Why should we concede anything to you?”
Which leaves two options on the table: No Deal or Labour’s deal. Both are disastrous for her.
For once, I think Corbyn might have played a blinder. That seems so out of character for him that I can only ascribe it to the stopped clock theory.
Given May refused to even come up with ideas for fear if upsetting factions in her party, and still prioritises that even though it's impossible to please them all, there's no way she 'gives in' and strikes a deal with Corbyn.
One wonders what Labour's back-up plan is.
Perhaps the surprise is that the Conservative party's backers in the business world have been unable to avert the prospect of a No Deal Brexit.
An interesting point is that it's a delayed but positive response to Ken Clarke's question whether Labour would support a deal if it included permanent customs union, and that many Tories would be up for that if he was.
I think May will counter by politely declining and trying to win the Labour Leavers. But in PLP terms a rebellion led by John Mann is IMO unlikely to get 40-60 supporters as has been suggested - he is an interesting bloke with a mind of his own, but very much a loner. Nonetheless, what is lining up is a choice between loyalist Tories+Labour rebels vs Europhile Tories + loyalist Labour vs Brexiteer Tories.
May might be ready to surrender whatever she's asked to, but that'll just mean her deal would be loathed and immediately contested at the next election. A sustainable deal would be a nice thing.
I'm also amused that Varadkar was describing the UK as 'resiling' from a deal it never signed up to, when the Commons voted against it, then runs to Brussels and meets Verhofstadt[sp] to ensure that the European Parliament would vote against any change to the backstop.
@Sandpit
it now says my reply has to be formatted to rich or somesuch? (I'm on vanilla)
This (together with my impatience especially at this time of the morning) is seriously irritating.
Having made an incompetent shambles of the negotiations, and all the while having sacrificed any pretense of working for the national interest and not their own party interest, and having inflicted on us the worst government in 200 years.
All of this and more, and yet the Tories may still be let off the hook by an Opposition Leader who is worse.
On my second point do you agree that the whole premise of the Brexit referendum was structured to screw over Leave? I think in the circumstances and without access to civil service support, and bearing in mind that all parties and government institutions were supporting remain, You think it would have been reasonable to have a firm plan. The SNP whose lifelong missions was independence didn’t have a fully detailed plan and they were the Scottish Government.
Corbyns letter and compromise would get a majority . May and the Tories now can fully own a no deal car crash .
May's flitted between idiotic stubbornness and vacillation, with a good serving of duplicity and lashings of general incompetence. The EU has not acted in good faith, their sequencing demand (to which we foolishly acquiesced) was irrational, and they seem to view (as does some of the UK media) their own red lines as sacred cows whereas the British ones are negotiating positions to be frittered away.
The lack of a prospect of a decent deal for both sides and general incompetence of May has helped to intensify the poisonous political atmosphere, entrenching polarised opinions and making compromise/nuance rather difficult (wandering in No Man's Land is not for the faint of heart).
The clock is running down quickly. The EU demands for regulatory annexation of Northern Ireland and to own UK customs without any way for us to leave is unacceptable (it seems there's other tosh in the proposal but that's the one everyone's focused on). The Commons is against almost everything.
Suppose a customs union got agreed (and passed through every stage of political ratification). It would instantly become a new battleground, to get us out of the customs union, and legitimately so. And then this rigmarole would start again.
The most sensible suggestion I've heard recently was the one to axe the 'transition' and just extend the Article 50 negotiation period. It would give us more time to prepare for no deal, if it comes to that, and might (though I wouldn't bet on this) lead to an acceptable deal for the future.
Labour is offering to support the Withdrawal Agreement essentially in return for a promise about the government's future negotiating position. A promise enshrined in law - but no parliament can bind his successors, so still only a politician's promise.
But that's what Labour is asking for. So why shouldn't Theresa May agree to that, while being perfectly open about the possibility of a future parliament changing its mind?
Or have I really misunderstood?
"Citizens of nowhere" was said by our xenophobic remain voting PM who had the brainchild of the "Go Home" vans years ago.
"Crush the saboteurs" was published by Paul Dacre who has never needed any encouragement to be a xenophobic s**t.
So we have one example from a Remainer who was xenophobic before the referendum and one from an infamous editor with decades of xenophobic publishing behind him.
But yes Mr Meeks. It's all Brexit'a fault.
In order to secure victory in the referendum, they decided to do anything it took. What it took, they decided, was to whip up fears of immigration by telling straight lies. Britain is now going to have to live with the consequences of that disgraceful decision.
On your second point, the referendum was structured to make it difficult for Leave. That does not exonerate anyone advocating a course of action from the responsibility of actually making sure that course of action was sensible and workable. Donald Tusk's comments on them yesterday were blunt but unarguable.
The only reason not to do so is political partisanship, so she will probably refuse to entertain it, and go to Brussels for her planned tin earred meeting and return emptyhanded.