Not the same thing at all. UK Parliamentary elections change the course of the UK. When has EU Parliament elections changed the course of the EU?
Last time there was an EU Parliament election, in 2014. The conservatives won, that's why their candidate for European Commission president is the European Commission president.
Don’t let facts get in the way of Brexiteers world view. Off course Tories didn’t have a day because they sulked off from the EPP.
Euro parliament reminds me of the undateables
Enid Coleslaw lookalikey creepily following Barnier around could be on the undateables next week.
Michael Fabricant.
Given we are talking about voting patterns going back up to 150 - does anyone think if Mr Fabricant had been around then he would be a member of the Whigs rather than the Tories?
< Wit the rather significant difference that it is almost impossible for the UK electorate on its own to throw out a European administration.
Obviously 13% of the electorate can't throw out the administration on its own, democratically that would definitely be a bug not a feature...
Well they can if they're independent.
Ditto if Scotland wants true self-governance it can go independent. If its happy to let England choose the PM most of the time they can stay part of the union.
Unless you secretly have mind control over tens of millions of English people your PM gets chosen for you by others just as much as Scottish people's do.
No area with Scotland's population controls the countries direction whether part of England or not. If a majority of seats go to one party then it doesn't matter who wins more seats in England or who gets more votes in England. Scotland with its close to 60 seats gets to decide who runs the country if the rest of the country runs up a less than 60 seat deficit between the two parties, which is the same as any other area with a similar amount of seats.
I don't have mind control over anyone English but I do view them as my compatriots.
I can't speak for the Scots here they can speak for themselves. If they view the English as their countrymen then fair enough to share voting with us. If they don't it would be logical to leave.
Can't edit but just thought its interesting to note that you said no area the same size ... which is a rather self fulfilling prophecy. I'm from the North West which to my memory is bigger than Scotland just by itself. But I went to uni in Nottingham which is obviously in the East Midlands region. Though I see no distinction nationwise between the North West and East Midlands. Nottingham is not foreign to me.
Last time I went to the House of Commons, I spent most of the time in the Strangers’ Bar. On the evidence of QT (I know, I know) we are becoming worryingly puritanical.
Heh, I always assumed in my formative years that social liberalism was only going one way, apparently not !
To further muddy the pond there is an Aspire gain from Labour in Tower Hamlets. Ah, the complexities of Bangadeshi politics.
Aspire - formerly known as Tower Hamlets first but in effect the Lutfur Rahman party. They wanted to call the party Tower Hamlets together but that was rejected as the Electoral Commission said it might confuse voters as a local health clinic had the same name.
Can't edit but just thought its interesting to note that you said no area the same size ... which is a rather self fulfilling prophecy. I'm from the North West which to my memory is bigger than Scotland just by itself. But I went to uni in Nottingham which is obviously in the East Midlands region. Though I see no distinction nationwise between the North West and East Midlands. Nottingham is not foreign to me.
More rain and better football teams in the Northwest compared to the East Midlands
Unless you secretly have mind control over tens of millions of English people your PM gets chosen for you by others just as much as Scottish people's do.
No area with Scotland's population controls the countries direction whether part of England or not. If a majority of seats go to one party then it doesn't matter who wins more seats in England or who gets more votes in England. Scotland with its close to 60 seats gets to decide who runs the country if the rest of the country runs up a less than 60 seat deficit between the two parties, which is the same as any other area with a similar amount of seats.
I don't have mind control over anyone English but I do view them as my compatriots.
I can't speak for the Scots here they can speak for themselves. If they view the English as their countrymen then fair enough to share voting with us. If they don't it would be logical to leave.
I don't view the French as my countrymen.
That is a fair argument but as Scottish people choose to remain part of the UK (or whatever name) then they have their PM chosen for them as much as any other part of the UK with similar amount of seats.
Those who think they have their PM chosen for them in the way you describe mostly already want to leave and are trying to leave I imagine. Those who feel they are actually separate and they do have the PM inflicted upon them rather than being part of the group choosing but don't want to leave the union must be pretty rare I'd imagine and not really representative of Scottish people.
And on your other post I accept the arguments which state one area or another is sufficiently different for more divergence in government, I disagree with them (for Brexit and Scot Ind) but I don't dismiss them.
I have a bit less time for arguments that dismiss the idea of being part of a larger group such as saying Scotland can always be outvoted, which can easily be the case if you broke it down once again, say the Highlands could always be outvoted. Or much like some of the arguments around the EU.
It comes up from time to time in various other ways, arguments about London being dragged into Brexit by others. Various states wanted to secede (in opinion pieces) when the wrong person becomes president.
If there is a good argument one area or another should diverge to a greater extent than it already does from others its linked to then that should be the argument, which would include being different enough groups like you said regarding France rather than being an outvoted part of a larger group. To clarify I'm making general points rather than aiming the post at you.
Is Motherwell a unionist stronghold? Because QT is the SNP are rubbish from audience member after audience member.
BBC QT has a very special audience selection policy when in Scotland. The ranting bloke in the red trackie top is on QT for at least his third time, and strangely he always gets to say his piece.
The problem with joining up all the people who have left Labour (even if we exclude O'Mara) is they only agree on disagreeing with Corbyn, some of the recent mentions have been about people's vote campaigners leaving, if they wanted the new group to have a united policy on Brexit they could only really take Woodcock out of the current lot, who left with an investigation under him uncompleted and no independent investigation seems to have started. So they'd be reluctant to take him on that basis and presumably O'Mara given his bad press as well.
If they are picky and ideologically consistent (on at least Brexit) they can only get some of those who would want to leave Labour (or who have), if not they start to become a questionable group, running away from deselection with no more consistency on policy than the bigger parties and not a lot of reasons to vote for them outside of don't like the other guys.
The problem with Luciana walking is I don't see how anyone can win that seat against Labour whilst being perceived to be to its right, even the most incredible personal vote couldn't overcome that. If somebody else has the Labour rosette they will win that constituency in current circumstances.
The problem with joining up all the people who have left Labour (even if we exclude O'Mara) is they only agree on disagreeing with Corbyn, some of the recent mentions have been about people's vote campaigners leaving, if they wanted the new group to have a united policy on Brexit they could only really take Woodcock out of the current lot, who left with an investigation under him uncompleted and no independent investigation seems to have started. So they'd be reluctant to take him on that basis and presumably O'Mara given his bad press as well.
If they are picky and ideologically consistent (on at least Brexit) they can only get some of those who would want to leave Labour (or who have), if not they start to become a questionable group, running away from deselection with no more consistency on policy than the bigger parties and not a lot of reasons to vote for them outside of don't like the other guys.
The problem with Luciana walking is I don't see how anyone can win that seat against Labour whilst being perceived to be to its right, even the most incredible personal vote couldn't overcome that. If somebody else has the Labour rosette they will win that constituency in current circumstances.
The Labour vote in that part of Liverpool used to have a very strong Lib Dem presence - old hands may remember David Alton as MP in the 1980s and 1990s...Liverpool is quite divided over Corbyn, it came out strongly in favour of REMAIN and is rather hostile to parachuting in candidates so splitting the Labour vote could produce an upset......there is a precedent for this and the LDs are quite quick to move in those circumstances....I dont think she'll walk though
The problem with joining up all the people who have left Labour (even if we exclude O'Mara) is they only agree on disagreeing with Corbyn, some of the recent mentions have been about people's vote campaigners leaving, if they wanted the new group to have a united policy on Brexit they could only really take Woodcock out of the current lot, who left with an investigation under him uncompleted and no independent investigation seems to have started. So they'd be reluctant to take him on that basis and presumably O'Mara given his bad press as well.
If they are picky and ideologically consistent (on at least Brexit) they can only get some of those who would want to leave Labour (or who have), if not they start to become a questionable group, running away from deselection with no more consistency on policy than the bigger parties and not a lot of reasons to vote for them outside of don't like the other guys.
The problem with Luciana walking is I don't see how anyone can win that seat against Labour whilst being perceived to be to its right, even the most incredible personal vote couldn't overcome that. If somebody else has the Labour rosette they will win that constituency in current circumstances.
The Labour vote in that part of Liverpool used to have a very strong Lib Dem presence - old hands may remember David Alton as MP in the 1980s and 1990s...Liverpool is quite divided over Corbyn, it came out strongly in favour of REMAIN and is rather hostile to parachuting in candidates so splitting the Labour vote could produce an upset......there is a precedent for this and the LDs are quite quick to move in those circumstances....I dont think she'll walk though
Were she to be replaced it would be by a selection from the local members so probably a good local candidate. Lib Dems did well (in more recent times) by being to the left of Labour when it they went into coalition their vote share was destroyed, going at Labour from the right in this constituency is not a winner. I wouldn't say it is impossible and remain is one issue where they have something but the Labour vote in this constituency is incredible.
Splitting (between Luciana and Labour) the Labour vote wouldn't be enough for the Lib Dems they'd need to win loads of Labour voters over as well, even getting the other parties voters behind them wouldn't do it. Only Labour voters or loads and loads of non voters.
For reference
Labour 34,717 79.6% Conserv 5,251 12% Lib Dem 2,858 6.5%
Norway gives no control on free movement, no trade deals, and no say on rules
So a Brexit that wouldn't deliver on the two most common reasons why people voted to leave.
Yup, it would actually be worse than Remain in that respect, because at least with Remain you'd have a veto you could use to keep out the Turkish hoards.
Norway gives no control on free movement, no trade deals, and no say on rules
So a Brexit that wouldn't deliver on the two most common reasons why people voted to leave.
Yup, it would actually be worse than Remain in that respect, because at least with Remain you'd have a veto you could use to keep out the Turkish hoards.
But outside of the ‘superstate’, which was the principal declared reason for leaving. And with the ability to renegotiate the relationship at any time in the future should we wish to do so.
Ooh, looks like the Vanilla fairies finished their upgrade overnight. Fingers crossed!
It just added the last couple of lines of a quote to my reply in the post above, for some reason. Which happened a couple of times to me when the upgrade process started... was it yesterday ? One loses track of time in purgatory.
If you have a system with inadequate bed capacity then there will always be cancellations at times of peak elective demand. It is built in inefficiency.
Not the same thing at all. UK Parliamentary elections change the course of the UK. When has EU Parliament elections changed the course of the EU?
Last time there was an EU Parliament election, in 2014. The conservatives won, that's why their candidate for European Commission president is the European Commission president.
Don’t let facts get in the way of Brexiteers world view. Off course Tories didn’t have a day because they sulked off from the EPP.
Euro parliament reminds me of the undateables
Enid Coleslaw lookalikey creepily following Barnier around could be on the undateables next week.
Michael Fabricant.
Given we are talking about voting patterns going back up to 150 - does anyone think if Mr Fabricant had been around then he would be a member of the Whigs rather than the Tories?
He has nothing to do with Whigs. That really is his own hair.
If you have a system with inadequate bed capacity then there will always be cancellations at times of peak elective demand. It is built in inefficiency.
Just had my (non-urgent medically) operation put back two weeks. Phoned, ironically, on the way from my pre-op assessment! At least I haven't to go through that again!
I seem to recall predicting that we would end up with the CU about a month ago. It is another consequence of the idiocies of the ERG who should have backed May's deal in its original form.
We will be in the CU for the transitional period. It removes any cliff edge, it takes the heat out of the NI issue, it makes up for the gross incompetence of Fox in failing to agree deals which effectively maintain our existing trade agreements with third party countries, it is an essential part of the reasons why deal is better than no deal.
Do we really want to commit ourselves to being in it indefinitely? I think that is a more complicated question. On the one hand the EU itself said we couldn't have that. They said that we could not pick and choose and the price of the CU was FoM. If they are now offering the CU without FoM then that is a big concession that we should think about carefully.
On the other there has to be a price for being in the CU and that is going to be regulatory. If our goods can freely move through the EU they have to be fully EU compliant. We will therefore be committed to whatever form of light bulbs the EU say we can have next and to not allowing ones that actually work back into the UK. That may prove irritating.
It has been obvious for some time that the EU regard the WA as the template for our future relationship. They have said as much. I think we would want to keep the option of being in the CU on the table but I am not so sure we should irrevocably commit to it now. But, personally, it is a price I would be willing to pay to get this damn deal through and allow us to move on.
The entertaining thing about the insistence that we absolutely definitely will leave on 29th March is that doing so is likely to fracture BOTH major parties. May will keep trying to run us down to the wire pointing to "No Brexit or No Deal" as the alternative to Her Deal - that it will break for good the Tories link to business doesn't seem to bother her. That it will see the breakaway of EITHER the Stop No Deal or Stop Her Deal camp should bother her.
As for Labour, Corbyn is a genius. Appearing to be the peacemaker whilst still proffering unicorn cake. His proposal is unworkable, undeliverable, breaks Starmer's 6 tests and as with the Tories will break the party. For Labour I can see two splits - the "Whatever Jeremy says is the Word of the Messiah" cultists will follow whatever half baked bollocks he says no matter how contradictory whilst screaming betrayal at anyone who points out that its bollocks. Which is how the rump continuity New Labour 30 are talking about considering their future AND the majority of MPs and members who are horrified at the idea of us backing even a tweaked version of May's Brexit are considering theirs.
I doubt that we will see new parties formed. Remember that whilst the WhatsApp party is having a decent stab of organising cross party on this single issue, the MPs don't like each other's policies and philosophies on everything else. So the idea that we will see Soubry and Cooper in a new centre party strikes me as excited speculation by political commentators rather than a real idea.
More likely we see multiple Labour and Tory parties, just as we saw multiple Liberal parties in the past. The Tories I can see in two groups - a pro-business pro-union Conservative Party trying to recapture the old one-nation ethos, and a Radical Tory group who parade Thatcher's name whilst crapping on everything she did. Labour again in two, with Campaign Labour capturing the cultists and Co-operative Labour capturing the people who want to be in government.
Inevitably these groups with try and work with each other - claiming continuity with the old united party whilst bitterly opposing the real enemy (the breakaway other half). Inevitably the need to purge parliament of pretenders making a mockery of their red/blue rosettes will lead to them running against each other - which means a coalition of some description after the next election.
Brexit is the catalyst that will reshape the British polity
< Wit the rather significant difference that it is almost impossible for the UK electorate on its own to throw out a European administration.
Obviously 13% of the electorate can't throw out the administration on its own, democratically that would definitely be a bug not a feature...
Well they can if they're independent.
Ditto if Scotland wants true self-governance it can go independent. If its happy to let England choose the PM most of the time they can stay part of the union.
Unless you secretly have mind control over tens of millions of English people your PM gets chosen for you by others just as much as Scottish people's do.
No area with Scotland's population controls the countries direction whether part of England or not. If a majority of seats go to one party then it doesn't matter who wins more seats in England or who gets more votes in England. Scotland with its close to 60 seats gets to decide who runs the country if the rest of the country runs up a less than 60 seat deficit between the two parties, which is the same as any other area with a similar amount of seats.
Statistics show we regularly vote against Tories and yet have been governed by them most of the time. It is a crap system as far as Scotland's interests are concerned.
Last time I went to the House of Commons, I spent most of the time in the Strangers’ Bar. On the evidence of QT (I know, I know) we are becoming worryingly puritanical.
Hope you were luckier than the punters the other night when police had to be called. How do these absolute roasters get elected.
The entertaining thing about the insistence that we absolutely definitely will leave on 29th March is that doing so is likely to fracture BOTH major parties. May will keep trying to run us down to the wire pointing to "No Brexit or No Deal" as the alternative to Her Deal - that it will break for good the Tories link to business doesn't seem to bother her. That it will see the breakaway of EITHER the Stop No Deal or Stop Her Deal camp should bother her.
As for Labour, Corbyn is a genius. Appearing to be the peacemaker whilst still proffering unicorn cake. His proposal is unworkable, undeliverable, breaks Starmer's 6 tests and as with the Tories will break the party. For Labour I can see two splits - the "Whatever Jeremy says is the Word of the Messiah" cultists will follow whatever half baked bollocks he says no matter how contradictory whilst screaming betrayal at anyone who points out that its bollocks. Which is how the rump continuity New Labour 30 are talking about considering their future AND the majority of MPs and members who are horrified at the idea of us backing even a tweaked version of May's Brexit are considering theirs.
I doubt that we will see new parties formed. Remember that whilst the WhatsApp party is having a decent stab of organising cross party on this single issue, the MPs don't like each other's policies and philosophies on everything else. So the idea that we will see Soubry and Cooper in a new centre party strikes me as excited speculation by political commentators rather than a real idea.
More likely we see multiple Labour and Tory parties, just as we saw multiple Liberal parties in the past. The Tories I can see in two groups - a pro-business pro-union Conservative Party trying to recapture the old one-nation ethos, and a Radical Tory group who parade Thatcher's name whilst crapping on everything she did. Labour again in two, with Campaign Labour capturing the cultists and Co-operative Labour capturing the people who want to be in government.
Inevitably these groups with try and work with each other - claiming continuity with the old united party whilst bitterly opposing the real enemy (the breakaway other half). Inevitably the need to purge parliament of pretenders making a mockery of their red/blue rosettes will lead to them running against each other - which means a coalition of some description after the next election.
Brexit is the catalyst that will reshape the British polity
Mr P, have a look at yesterday's council by-elections in Tower Hamlets if you want a picture of where that all leads. I'm not suggesting your forecast is wrong, though!
Under Corbyn's deal do we stop paying? I'm assuming we do, so that means no Brexit.
" ... is whether what’s in their proposal will be enough to satisfy the party’s largely remainer voters, party members and MPs." Surely, the party pledged to honour the referendum result? Who won the referendum?
Last time I went to the House of Commons, I spent most of the time in the Strangers’ Bar. On the evidence of QT (I know, I know) we are becoming worryingly puritanical.
Hope you were luckier than the punters the other night when police had to be called. How do these absolute roasters get elected.
The entertaining thing about the insistence that we absolutely definitely will leave on 29th March is that doing so is likely to fracture BOTH major parties. May will keep trying to run us down to the wire pointing to "No Brexit or No Deal" as the alternative to Her Deal - that it will break for good the Tories link to business doesn't seem to bother her. That it will see the breakaway of EITHER the Stop No Deal or Stop Her Deal camp should bother her.
As for Labour, Corbyn is a genius. Appearing to be the peacemaker whilst still proffering unicorn cake. His proposal is unworkable, undeliverable, breaks Starmer's 6 tests and as with the Tories will break the party. For Labour I can see two splits - the "Whatever Jeremy says is the Word of the Messiah" cultists will follow whatever half baked bollocks he says no matter how contradictory whilst screaming betrayal at anyone who points out that its bollocks. Which is how the rump continuity New Labour 30 are talking about considering their future AND the majority of MPs and members who are horrified at the idea of us backing even a tweaked version of May's Brexit are considering theirs.
I doubt that we will see new parties formed. Remember that whilst the WhatsApp party is having a decent stab of organising cross party on this single issue, the MPs don't like each other's policies and philosophies on everything else. So the idea that we will see Soubry and Cooper in a new centre party strikes me as excited speculation by political commentators rather than a real idea.
More likely we see multiple Labour and Tory parties, just as we saw multiple Liberal parties in the past. The Tories I can see in two groups - a pro-business pro-union Conservative Party trying to recapture the old one-nation ethos, and a Radical Tory group who parade Thatcher's name whilst crapping on everything she did. Labour again in two, with Campaign Labour capturing the cultists and Co-operative Labour capturing the people who want to be in government.
Inevitably these groups with try and work with each other - claiming continuity with the old united party whilst bitterly opposing the real enemy (the breakaway other half). Inevitably the need to purge parliament of pretenders making a mockery of their red/blue rosettes will lead to them running against each other - which means a coalition of some description after the next election.
Brexit is the catalyst that will reshape the British polity
Under Corbyn's deal do we stop paying? I'm assuming we do, so that means no Brexit.
" ... is whether what’s in their proposal will be enough to satisfy the party’s largely remainer voters, party members and MPs." Surely, the party pledged to honour the referendum result? Who won the referendum?
Details details. It's almost amusing that Corbyn is taking crap from some quarters for sticking to party policy. Whether it's time to change to the next phase of that is one thing, and whether the party wants something else now another, but the talk in effect that if brexit happens at all he's betraying them is remarkable.
It is a pro rata per head of population comparison. The raw numbers were 75000 in 2 years for Wales versus 8311 for one year in Scotland , so at least four times Scotland with much smaller population.
Last time I went to the House of Commons, I spent most of the time in the Strangers’ Bar. On the evidence of QT (I know, I know) we are becoming worryingly puritanical.
Yes, we are, and there is a whole industry that has grown up around it. The govt funds lobbyist who then, in turn, lobby the govt to change policy. Be it FOBT, Sugar, Meat, Salt, Alcohol. We have modern day temperance movements and it is all framed in the terms of "saving the NHS" as the NHS appears to have been elevated to the status of minor deity these days.
Last time I went to the House of Commons, I spent most of the time in the Strangers’ Bar. On the evidence of QT (I know, I know) we are becoming worryingly puritanical.
Yes, we are, and there is a whole industry that has grown up around it. The govt funds lobbyist who then, in turn, lobby the govt to change policy. Be it FOBT, Sugar, Meat, Salt, Alcohol. We have modern day temperance movements and it is all framed in the terms of "saving the NHS" as the NHS appears to have been elevated to the status of minor deity these days.
Drunk Tory ‘was grabbing bottoms to avoid falling....
....Witnesses said he could barely stand and they were concerned that he might vomit over them. One said he did not see any groping but described Mr Thomson as “handsy”. “He was handsy, yes, and holding people all over, but it was in a bid to stand upright,” he said. Mr Thomson had been “holding on to bottoms, but in a bid not to fall on the floor”.
Last time I went to the House of Commons, I spent most of the time in the Strangers’ Bar. On the evidence of QT (I know, I know) we are becoming worryingly puritanical.
Hope you were luckier than the punters the other night when police had to be called. How do these absolute roasters get elected.
Wearing the right rosette at the right time.
Seemingly it was the stress of all that Brexit work that caused it , had done about 5 minutes speaking in commons in a couple of months and was too much for them.
The power of inertia in politics deserves more attention than it gets.
A couple of weeks ago, the Business Minister said he was poised to resign. Then he said he'd give it another two weeks and then he was "done". Two weeks later, nothing has happened.
Theresa's can-kicking strategy, for all that we may deride it, is remarkably effective. Like centrists leaving the Labour Party, the moment is never quite right. This handy guide to the next couple of months shows the strategy in all its glory:
Last time I went to the House of Commons, I spent most of the time in the Strangers’ Bar. On the evidence of QT (I know, I know) we are becoming worryingly puritanical.
Hope you were luckier than the punters the other night when police had to be called. How do these absolute roasters get elected.
I would have thought SNP supporters would be keeping their heads down at the moment when it comes to discussions about alcohol induced criminal behaviour.
On topic, while Tusk and the EU might be in love with Corbyn’s plan of eternal servitude, it still doesn’t resolve the NI backstop Issue, and doesn’t stop the vote of no confidence in the government that happens immediately after it passes the Commons. Not to mention that a number of ministers would resign to vote against it, the plan being completely contradictory to the Conservative manifesto.
< Wit the rather significant difference that it is almost impossible for the UK electorate on its own to throw out a European administration.
Obviously 13% of the electorate can't throw out the administration on its own, democratically that would definitely be a bug not a feature...
Well they can if they're independent.
Ditto if Scotland wants true self-governance it can go independent. If its happy to let England choose the PM most of the time they can stay part of the union.
Unless you secretly have mind control over tens of millions of English people your PM gets chosen for you by others just as much as Scottish people's do.
No area with Scotland's population controls the countries direction whether part of England or not. If a majority of seats go to one party then it doesn't matter who wins more seats in England or who gets more votes in England. Scotland with its close to 60 seats gets to decide who runs the country if the rest of the country runs up a less than 60 seat deficit between the two parties, which is the same as any other area with a similar amount of seats.
Statistics show we regularly vote against Tories and yet have been governed by them most of the time. It is a crap system as far as Scotland's interests are concerned.
It must stick in your gut that the tories are only able to govern the UK because of the Conservative MPs your countrymen elected to send to Westminster.
And it looks as though the National enquirer has been (mis)behaving similarly towards other journalists.
I have little problem with journalists saying: "We will protect sources." I have massive problems with journalists saying: "If you don't do as we ask, we'll publish damaging material about you."
Bezos is strong enough, and rich enough, to face up to these shits. If they're doing it to him, they could do it to anyone. It is a massive misuse of journalism's privileges.
Another interesting thing is who gave the NE these pics: Saudi? Israel? The US government?
The power of inertia in politics deserves more attention than it gets.
A couple of weeks ago, the Business Minister said he was poised to resign. Then he said he'd give it another two weeks and then he was "done". Two weeks later, nothing has happened.
Theresa's can-kicking strategy, for all that we may deride it, is remarkably effective. Like centrists leaving the Labour Party, the moment is never quite right. This handy guide to the next couple of months shows the strategy in all its glory:
If the deal had not been so comprehensively rejected it might well have worked was a strategy to wear enough people down. So so reckless though. Those constantly leaking that they might leave or quit don't deserve any respect, not after so many times, not even with how tough a choice it would be. Until they actually deliver on their whinging, like Davis eventually did, they deserve no sympathy for their supposed dilemmas.
The EU want a ‘Labour Brexit’ because it is in their macroeconomic interests to see have a customs union.
Given our massive trade deficit and service based economy, there is little evidence that is in our interests.
Well, obviously it is less good than being in the EU,but Labour's people's Brexit at least keeps many of the best features of being in the EU.
It also stands a decent chance of being passed by the Commons, and being supported by the EU.
Why leave - better to remain
Applies to all possible Brexit outcomes. We’ve known that for a while.
Norway gives no control on free movement, no trade deals, and no say on rules
So a Brexit that wouldn't deliver on the two most common reasons why people voted to leave.
Norway is an independent trading nation and can strike its own trade deals with none Eu states. It’s also heavily consulted about rules that apply to it.
On topic, while Tusk and the EU might be in love with Corbyn’s plan of eternal servitude, it still doesn’t resolve the NI backstop Issue, and doesn’t stop the vote of no confidence in the government that happens immediately after it passes the Commons. Not to mention that a number of ministers would resign to vote against it, the plan being completely contradictory to the Conservative manifesto.
Last time I went to the House of Commons, I spent most of the time in the Strangers’ Bar. On the evidence of QT (I know, I know) we are becoming worryingly puritanical.
Was having this discussion with my partner about the sexy model in the Scottish football kit picture. She said a few years ago the solution would have been to get a sexy male model in for the men's shirts, but today it's to put the sexy female model out of work. Society is becoming beholden to puritanical idiots on twitter.
We were assured that the referendum vote would be honoured. "You, the people, will decide." Remember that?
Now Jezza is suggesting a deal where we stay in the CU with FOM and continue to pay the same billions a year to the EU. This deal is essential to enable it to get through Parliament which is suddenly the over-seeing arbitrator.
Do they really think they'd ever be trusted again?
It's barmy and I sense real trouble brewing for the first time. No sensible politician could ever go down this route and that's why it can't happen.
Is Motherwell a unionist stronghold? Because QT is the SNP are rubbish from audience member after audience member.
BBC QT has a very special audience selection policy when in Scotland. The ranting bloke in the red trackie top is on QT for at least his third time, and strangely he always gets to say his piece.
They send out invites to the local parties, charities and ngos. They don’t want fired up people who are entertaining. They don’t chase particular individuals, but they also don’t want disengaged people who probably don’t vote either.
Chairman “You sir, at the back” Audience member “me? nah, I nee bother voting, ma tea’s on and the wee man is in the bath, i’ll have to go”.
Is Motherwell a unionist stronghold? Because QT is the SNP are rubbish from audience member after audience member.
BBC QT has a very special audience selection policy when in Scotland. The ranting bloke in the red trackie top is on QT for at least his third time, and strangely he always gets to say his piece.
They send out invites to the local parties, charities and ngos. They don’t want fired up people who are entertaining. They don’t chase particular individuals, but they also don’t want disengaged people who probably don’t vote either.
Chairman “You sir, at the back” Audience member “me? nah, I nee bother voting, ma tea’s on and the wee man is in the bath, i’ll have to go”.
I exonerate the BBC from bias. As I've mentioned before, when I saw the QT special from Boston just before the referendum. I saw Remainers in the majority, completely against my own experiences there.
But it wasn't deliberate bias. They have their own world-view and their own echo chamber. Their choice of participant is based on a Guardian reader's view of the world and to them, it reflects reality.
The trouble with Mike's bet is the practicalities. Even if Labour's deal is landed, its going to take more time, not least because May is already can-kicking again and will wait until the last minute before upsetting her party. There wont then be enough time to deal with the legislation without an extension.
Therefore I suggest as the likelihood of Labour's deal landing rises, the likelihood of an on time departure falls.
And it looks as though the National enquirer has been (mis)behaving similarly towards other journalists.
I have little problem with journalists saying: "We will protect sources." I have massive problems with journalists saying: "If you don't do as we ask, we'll publish damaging material about you."
Bezos is strong enough, and rich enough, to face up to these shits. If they're doing it to him, they could do it to anyone. It is a massive misuse of journalism's privileges.
Another interesting thing is who gave the NE these pics: Saudi? Israel? The US government?
Drunk Tory ‘was grabbing bottoms to avoid falling....
....Witnesses said he could barely stand and they were concerned that he might vomit over them. One said he did not see any groping but described Mr Thomson as “handsy”. “He was handsy, yes, and holding people all over, but it was in a bid to stand upright,” he said. Mr Thomson had been “holding on to bottoms, but in a bid not to fall on the floor”.
And it looks as though the National enquirer has been (mis)behaving similarly towards other journalists.
I have little problem with journalists saying: "We will protect sources." I have massive problems with journalists saying: "If you don't do as we ask, we'll publish damaging material about you."
Bezos is strong enough, and rich enough, to face up to these shits. If they're doing it to him, they could do it to anyone. It is a massive misuse of journalism's privileges.
Another interesting thing is who gave the NE these pics: Saudi? Israel? The US government?
We were assured that the referendum vote would be honoured. "You, the people, will decide." Remember that?
Now Jezza is suggesting a deal where we stay in the CU with FOM and continue to pay the same billions a year to the EU. This deal is essential to enable it to get through Parliament which is suddenly the over-seeing arbitrator.
Do they really think they'd ever be trusted again?
It's barmy and I sense real trouble brewing for the first time. No sensible politician could ever go down this route and that's why it can't happen.
The referendum asked if we wanted to "leave the European Union". If a deal where we leave the European Union isn't honouring a referendum asking of we should leave the European Union then the question surely to ask if what do you interpret the word "leave" and the words "European Union" to mean, as it evidently isn't what the dictionary / legal / sane definitions are
Mr. Meeks, saw the BBC News report on low projected UK growth. Managed to avoid saying it was pretty much the same (just between) the projected growth of France and Germany, which is less than excellent reporting.
That's considerably higher than the probability currently implied by Betfair (24%), but of course the Betfair market is for No Deal on 29 March.
Is it possible to bet on No Deal happening after an extension?
Yes. You can buy and stockpile food dated after, say, June 2019.
Currently no:all the odds on no deal expire on March 29. You can however bet on an extension regardless of deal. Unfortunately the odds are short. Happy to be corrected.
Mr. Meeks, saw the BBC News report on low projected UK growth. Managed to avoid saying it was pretty much the same (just between) the projected growth of France and Germany, which is less than excellent reporting.
On this one I'm with the BBC, and those drawing comparisons with France and Germany are the ones being misleading. 1.3% is pretty anaemic by any standard.
On topic, while Tusk and the EU might be in love with Corbyn’s plan of eternal servitude, it still doesn’t resolve the NI backstop Issue, and doesn’t stop the vote of no confidence in the government that happens immediately after it passes the Commons. Not to mention that a number of ministers would resign to vote against it, the plan being completely contradictory to the Conservative manifesto.
Haha. If JRM wasn't savagely bullied then his classmates need to ask themselves some serious questions. There was a very similar kid at my boarding school. We used to call him "Timpax" and haul him up the flagpole.
Mr. Meeks, saw the BBC News report on low projected UK growth. Managed to avoid saying it was pretty much the same (just between) the projected growth of France and Germany, which is less than excellent reporting.
Somebody posted the figures last night. The UK's projected growth of the 28(?) Countries estimated was the third lowest.
Drunk Tory ‘was grabbing bottoms to avoid falling....
....Witnesses said he could barely stand and they were concerned that he might vomit over them. One said he did not see any groping but described Mr Thomson as “handsy”. “He was handsy, yes, and holding people all over, but it was in a bid to stand upright,” he said. Mr Thomson had been “holding on to bottoms, but in a bid not to fall on the floor”.
I seem to recall predicting that we would end up with the CU about a month ago. It is another consequence of the idiocies of the ERG who should have backed May's deal in its original form.
We will be in the CU for the transitional period. It removes any cliff edge, it takes the heat out of the NI issue, it makes up for the gross incompetence of Fox in failing to agree deals which effectively maintain our existing trade agreements with third party countries, it is an essential part of the reasons why deal is better than no deal.
Do we really want to commit ourselves to being in it indefinitely? I think that is a more complicated question. On the one hand the EU itself said we couldn't have that. They said that we could not pick and choose and the price of the CU was FoM. If they are now offering the CU without FoM then that is a big concession that we should think about carefully.
On the other there has to be a price for being in the CU and that is going to be regulatory. If our goods can freely move through the EU they have to be fully EU compliant. We will therefore be committed to whatever form of light bulbs the EU say we can have next and to not allowing ones that actually work back into the UK. That may prove irritating.
It has been obvious for some time that the EU regard the WA as the template for our future relationship. They have said as much. I think we would want to keep the option of being in the CU on the table but I am not so sure we should irrevocably commit to it now. But, personally, it is a price I would be willing to pay to get this damn deal through and allow us to move on.
I am not sure you actually understand the Customs Union issue David. Tariff free movement of goods is not, per se, related to standards. That is the remit of both the single market and actually of any trade into the EU even if we are outside the CU and SM. Basically if you want to trade into the EU you have to meet their standards. It is exactly the same if you want to trade into the US.
The Customs Union is purely about whether or not we have to pay tariffs for market access with all the associated issues of the ability to make trade deals independently of the EU and the right to sit on the various standards bodies that make the rules for international trade. Obviously these things all overlap to some extent but we could be in the CU and still not be able to sell into the EU because of issues with our regulations.
Mr. Meeks, they're comparable economies, forecast to grow at comparable rates. One might've thought a comparison, particularly given the contrast of leaving the EU or not, might be worthwhile.
On topic, while Tusk and the EU might be in love with Corbyn’s plan of eternal servitude, it still doesn’t resolve the NI backstop Issue, and doesn’t stop the vote of no confidence in the government that happens immediately after it passes the Commons. Not to mention that a number of ministers would resign to vote against it, the plan being completely contradictory to the Conservative manifesto.
Haha. If JRM wasn't savagely bullied then his classmates need to ask themselves some serious questions. There was a very similar kid at my boarding school. We used to call him "Timpax" and haul him up the flagpole.
More troubling is that he seems to have his hair cut with a wonky chainsaw.....
Mr. Meeks, saw the BBC News report on low projected UK growth. Managed to avoid saying it was pretty much the same (just between) the projected growth of France and Germany, which is less than excellent reporting.
On this one I'm with the BBC, and those drawing comparisons with France and Germany are the ones being misleading. 1.3% is pretty anaemic by any standard.
Mr. Meeks, saw the BBC News report on low projected UK growth. Managed to avoid saying it was pretty much the same (just between) the projected growth of France and Germany, which is less than excellent reporting.
On this one I'm with the BBC, and those drawing comparisons with France and Germany are the ones being misleading. 1.3% is pretty anaemic by any standard.
Is that EU 1.5 number for a post-Brexit EU? Because at 1.5% with France, Belgium, Germany and Italy all below that, it gets filed under "things that make you go hmmmmm....." That Irish Tiger must really be roaring, with that backstop in place.....
Mr. Meeks, saw the BBC News report on low projected UK growth. Managed to avoid saying it was pretty much the same (just between) the projected growth of France and Germany, which is less than excellent reporting.
On this one I'm with the BBC, and those drawing comparisons with France and Germany are the ones being misleading. 1.3% is pretty anaemic by any standard.
Ireland, 4.1? Risks on the downside there, surely.
Malta at the top too I think. So countries in the EU that have links to the UK age forecast to do well. Obvious implication is that they're benefiting from UK-based countries finding a familiar safe haven within the EU.
Over the water, a good piece of congressional theatre from OAC on campaign funding and transparency. I'd be interested to see whether she manages to remain that outspoken when she eventually campaigns for higher office (or how she responds to people playing this if not!). Hopefully, she'll retain the idealism and principles!
I seem to recall predicting that we would end up with the CU about a month ago. It is another consequence of the idiocies of the ERG who should have backed May's deal in its original form.
We will be in the CU for the transitional period. It removes any cliff edge, it takes the heat out of the NI issue, it makes up for the gross incompetence of Fox in failing to agree deals which effectively maintain our existing trade agreements with third party countries, it is an essential part of the reasons why deal is better than no deal.
Do we really want to commit ourselves to being in it indefinitely? I think that is a more complicated question. On the one hand the EU itself said we couldn't have that. They said that we could not pick and choose and the price of the CU was FoM. If they are now offering the CU without FoM then that is a big concession that we should think about carefully.
On the other there has to be a price for being in the CU and that is going to be regulatory. If our goods can freely move through the EU they have to be fully EU compliant. We will therefore be committed to whatever form of light bulbs the EU say we can have next and to not allowing ones that actually work back into the UK. That may prove irritating.
It has been obvious for some time that the EU regard the WA as the template for our future relationship. They have said as much. I think we would want to keep the option of being in the CU on the table but I am not so sure we should irrevocably commit to it now. But, personally, it is a price I would be willing to pay to get this damn deal through and allow us to move on.
Most EU regulations are very sensible.
Your facile example about light bulbs is a case in point - the old bulbs were inefficient and wasteful, land fill fodder.
People never want to change anything. Regulations drive things forward.
Did post this before, but the price on Ireland to beat Scotland with a -6 point handicap (Ladbrokes) has lengthened a bit from 1.9 to 2. Not sure if that's due to injury news or suchlike, though.
Comments
Given we are talking about voting patterns going back up to 150 - does anyone think if Mr Fabricant had been around then he would be a member of the Whigs rather than the Tories?
I can't speak for the Scots here they can speak for themselves. If they view the English as their countrymen then fair enough to share voting with us. If they don't it would be logical to leave.
I don't view the French as my countrymen.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/07/theresa-may-juncker-clash-brexit-robush-backstop
That's considerably higher than the probability currently implied by Betfair (24%), but of course the Betfair market is for No Deal on 29 March.
Is it possible to bet on No Deal happening after an extension?
Is Luciana Berger gonna be the first to walk?
Those who think they have their PM chosen for them in the way you describe mostly already want to leave and are trying to leave I imagine. Those who feel they are actually separate and they do have the PM inflicted upon them rather than being part of the group choosing but don't want to leave the union must be pretty rare I'd imagine and not really representative of Scottish people.
And on your other post I accept the arguments which state one area or another is sufficiently different for more divergence in government, I disagree with them (for Brexit and Scot Ind) but I don't dismiss them.
I have a bit less time for arguments that dismiss the idea of being part of a larger group such as saying Scotland can always be outvoted, which can easily be the case if you broke it down once again, say the Highlands could always be outvoted. Or much like some of the arguments around the EU.
It comes up from time to time in various other ways, arguments about London being dragged into Brexit by others. Various states wanted to secede (in opinion pieces) when the wrong person becomes president.
If there is a good argument one area or another should diverge to a greater extent than it already does from others its linked to then that should be the argument, which would include being different enough groups like you said regarding France rather than being an outvoted part of a larger group. To clarify I'm making general points rather than aiming the post at you.
Weren't Field, Lewis and Woodcock first
The more the merrier I say.
Come on Labour moderates - save your own party.
The problem with joining up all the people who have left Labour (even if we exclude O'Mara) is they only agree on disagreeing with Corbyn, some of the recent mentions have been about people's vote campaigners leaving, if they wanted the new group to have a united policy on Brexit they could only really take Woodcock out of the current lot, who left with an investigation under him uncompleted and no independent investigation seems to have started. So they'd be reluctant to take him on that basis and presumably O'Mara given his bad press as well.
If they are picky and ideologically consistent (on at least Brexit) they can only get some of those who would want to leave Labour (or who have), if not they start to become a questionable group, running away from deselection with no more consistency on policy than the bigger parties and not a lot of reasons to vote for them outside of don't like the other guys.
The problem with Luciana walking is I don't see how anyone can win that seat against Labour whilst being perceived to be to its right, even the most incredible personal vote couldn't overcome that. If somebody else has the Labour rosette they will win that constituency in current circumstances.
Splitting (between Luciana and Labour) the Labour vote wouldn't be enough for the Lib Dems they'd need to win loads of Labour voters over as well, even getting the other parties voters behind them wouldn't do it. Only Labour voters or loads and loads of non voters.
For reference
Labour 34,717 79.6%
Conserv 5,251 12%
Lib Dem 2,858 6.5%
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/health/huge-number-operations-cancelled-wales-14969458
Yup, it would actually be worse than Remain in that respect, because at least with Remain you'd have a veto you could use to keep out the Turkish hoards.
But outside of the ‘superstate’, which was the principal declared reason for leaving.
And with the ability to renegotiate the relationship at any time in the future should we wish to do so.
Which happened a couple of times to me when the upgrade process started... was it yesterday ? One loses track of time in purgatory.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47166938
Pause.
I'll get my coat.
At least I haven't to go through that again!
The fact that we aren't in the Eurozone, which has a QMV majority was a bug issue for me.
We will be in the CU for the transitional period. It removes any cliff edge, it takes the heat out of the NI issue, it makes up for the gross incompetence of Fox in failing to agree deals which effectively maintain our existing trade agreements with third party countries, it is an essential part of the reasons why deal is better than no deal.
Do we really want to commit ourselves to being in it indefinitely? I think that is a more complicated question. On the one hand the EU itself said we couldn't have that. They said that we could not pick and choose and the price of the CU was FoM. If they are now offering the CU without FoM then that is a big concession that we should think about carefully.
On the other there has to be a price for being in the CU and that is going to be regulatory. If our goods can freely move through the EU they have to be fully EU compliant. We will therefore be committed to whatever form of light bulbs the EU say we can have next and to not allowing ones that actually work back into the UK. That may prove irritating.
It has been obvious for some time that the EU regard the WA as the template for our future relationship. They have said as much. I think we would want to keep the option of being in the CU on the table but I am not so sure we should irrevocably commit to it now. But, personally, it is a price I would be willing to pay to get this damn deal through and allow us to move on.
As for Labour, Corbyn is a genius. Appearing to be the peacemaker whilst still proffering unicorn cake. His proposal is unworkable, undeliverable, breaks Starmer's 6 tests and as with the Tories will break the party. For Labour I can see two splits - the "Whatever Jeremy says is the Word of the Messiah" cultists will follow whatever half baked bollocks he says no matter how contradictory whilst screaming betrayal at anyone who points out that its bollocks. Which is how the rump continuity New Labour 30 are talking about considering their future AND the majority of MPs and members who are horrified at the idea of us backing even a tweaked version of May's Brexit are considering theirs.
I doubt that we will see new parties formed. Remember that whilst the WhatsApp party is having a decent stab of organising cross party on this single issue, the MPs don't like each other's policies and philosophies on everything else. So the idea that we will see Soubry and Cooper in a new centre party strikes me as excited speculation by political commentators rather than a real idea.
More likely we see multiple Labour and Tory parties, just as we saw multiple Liberal parties in the past. The Tories I can see in two groups - a pro-business pro-union Conservative Party trying to recapture the old one-nation ethos, and a Radical Tory group who parade Thatcher's name whilst crapping on everything she did. Labour again in two, with Campaign Labour capturing the cultists and Co-operative Labour capturing the people who want to be in government.
Inevitably these groups with try and work with each other - claiming continuity with the old united party whilst bitterly opposing the real enemy (the breakaway other half). Inevitably the need to purge parliament of pretenders making a mockery of their red/blue rosettes will lead to them running against each other - which means a coalition of some description after the next election.
Brexit is the catalyst that will reshape the British polity
I'm not suggesting your forecast is wrong, though!
" ... is whether what’s in their proposal will be enough to satisfy the party’s largely remainer voters, party members and MPs." Surely, the party pledged to honour the referendum result? Who won the referendum?
Bit gloomy and windy today.
What a glorious time to be alive.
Drunk Tory ‘was grabbing bottoms to avoid falling....
....Witnesses said he could barely stand and they were concerned that he might vomit over them.
One said he did not see any groping but described Mr Thomson as “handsy”. “He was handsy, yes, and holding people all over, but it was in a bid to stand upright,” he said. Mr Thomson had been “holding on to bottoms, but in a bid not to fall on the floor”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/drunk-tory-was-grabbing-bottoms-to-avoid-falling-xcwhwrbjt
A couple of weeks ago, the Business Minister said he was poised to resign. Then he said he'd give it another two weeks and then he was "done". Two weeks later, nothing has happened.
Theresa's can-kicking strategy, for all that we may deride it, is remarkably effective. Like centrists leaving the Labour Party, the moment is never quite right. This handy guide to the next couple of months shows the strategy in all its glory:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/08/countdown-to-brexit-key-dates-uk-eu-exit-approaches
I would have thought SNP supporters would be keeping their heads down at the moment when it comes to discussions about alcohol induced criminal behaviour.
https://medium.com/@jeffreypbezos/no-thank-you-mr-pecker-146e3922310f
And it looks as though the National enquirer has been (mis)behaving similarly towards other journalists.
I have little problem with journalists saying: "We will protect sources."
I have massive problems with journalists saying: "If you don't do as we ask, we'll publish damaging material about you."
Bezos is strong enough, and rich enough, to face up to these shits. If they're doing it to him, they could do it to anyone. It is a massive misuse of journalism's privileges.
Another interesting thing is who gave the NE these pics: Saudi? Israel? The US government?
And the NE is already subject to a plea-bargain over payments from Trump's campaign to a former Playboy model:
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/421041-national-enquirer-publisher-agrees-to-cooperate-with-prosecutors
Those constantly leaking that they might leave or quit don't deserve any respect, not after so many times, not even with how tough a choice it would be. Until they actually deliver on their whinging, like Davis eventually did, they deserve no sympathy for their supposed dilemmas.
Norway is an independent trading nation and can strike its own trade deals with none Eu states. It’s also heavily consulted about rules that apply to it.
https://twitter.com/helpfulolive/status/1093305439230586880?s=21
No deal it is then.
We were assured that the referendum vote would be honoured. "You, the people, will decide." Remember that?
Now Jezza is suggesting a deal where we stay in the CU with FOM and continue to pay the same billions a year to the EU. This deal is essential to enable it to get through Parliament which is suddenly the over-seeing arbitrator.
Do they really think they'd ever be trusted again?
It's barmy and I sense real trouble brewing for the first time. No sensible politician could ever go down this route and that's why it can't happen.
Depends on how many people No Deal kills.
They send out invites to the local parties, charities and ngos. They don’t want fired up people who are entertaining. They don’t chase particular individuals, but they also don’t want disengaged people who probably don’t vote either.
Chairman “You sir, at the back”
Audience member “me? nah, I nee bother voting, ma tea’s on and the wee man is in the bath, i’ll have to go”.
But it wasn't deliberate bias. They have their own world-view and their own echo chamber. Their choice of participant is based on a Guardian reader's view of the world and to them, it reflects reality.
Therefore I suggest as the likelihood of Labour's deal landing rises, the likelihood of an on time departure falls.
There was a good series on the genesis and history of the malign excrescence here:
https://popbitch.com/2017/10/i-the-tabloid-triangle/
"You don't want to do that? Then you're all fird....and this paper has published its last edition. Shame. I quite liked some of your items...."
And how similar (although less beautiful) the woman he had an affair with is to his wife ...
Here's the full table for the EU:
https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/1093451163146612736
The Customs Union is purely about whether or not we have to pay tariffs for market access with all the associated issues of the ability to make trade deals independently of the EU and the right to sit on the various standards bodies that make the rules for international trade. Obviously these things all overlap to some extent but we could be in the CU and still not be able to sell into the EU because of issues with our regulations.
Jeff Bezos (stunt double, in micro print) angrily claims "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!"
https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1093680562424836096
Your facile example about light bulbs is a case in point - the old bulbs were inefficient and wasteful, land fill fodder.
People never want to change anything. Regulations drive things forward.
It is certainly true that Alastair bears an uncanny resemblance to Bezos.
Some point out that they have never been seen in the same room.