I'm no lawyer but when declaring a national emergency surely it undermines your justification for doing so to say "I didn't need to do this" out loud in front of the press?
I think it's pretty much perfect if he doesn't actually want to build the wall, but wants to point to an establishment that is preventing him from building his wall - thus needing the renewed support of voters in 2020 to drain the swamp in DC.
This after all would explain why a Republican controlled Congress didn't pass funding for his wall for two years, but as soon as the Democrats won the mid-terms it became urgent enough to warrant a record duration government shutdown.
Hmmm, I think you are reading too much into his comments. I really doubt that Trump is capable of that sort of strategising. More likely his bigly brain has simply let him down again.
Yes the EU Constitution was in manifestos but it was done so with a clear commitment by all major parties to have a referendum on it. After the French and Dutch rejected it though the Treaty was rebranded and rushed through without a referendum in a clear breach of the manifesto commitments.
Both referendums on the constitution were within a month of the 2005 General Election, and the Lisbon Treaty was only ratified three years later. Is that rushing it through?
Yes. Ratifying it without either a fresh General Election (and thus a new manifesto commitment) or a Referendum was rushing it through. The public having been promised a say saw it get ratified before they next got to vote.
If he really believed the opposite of what he was saying in public then he's a hypocritical scumbag who deserves no sympathy. But actually I think he, and a lot of other leavers, really did believe that the EU would fold if the UK voted to leave. There is a certain group in the population who are very anglocentric, probably do not travel abroad much and certainly do not understand foreigners (Gove is known to hate flying) and find it hard to imagine themselves on the other side of a negotiation process and so do not understand where their interlocutors are coming from. I think Gove is one such person.
That is very plausible.
Or perhaps what truly drove his desire to Leave was the event in his early life to which he often makes reference - the ruination of his Father's fishing business at the hands of restrictive EU regulation.
Intellectuals are not always cool and rational. They can be consumed with unruly passions. There are many examples of this (Satre, Kubrick, Simon Schama) and it could be that Gove is another.
True. But I think that was relatively late in the day. Many of the issues which have concerned people arose from the Maastricht treaty. Far more than Lisbon, in retrospect, that was the one which needed both popular consent and a real explanation of what it meant. Instead, it was pushed through by dint of hand to hand combat in Parliament and the opportunity was lost. The Parliamentary victory was a Pyrrhic one. They won the battle, not the war i.e. for people's hearts and minds for what this meant. It is no coincidence that the battles now involve some of the people involved then - at least on the Tory side.
Lisbon was the last chance and it was stupid of Labour to renege on their promise. But the reason it was given was because politicians realised that there was already concern which needed to be addressed. Had they done so we might have avoided ending up where we are.
Well yes precisely.
Maastricht could sort of be excused as the divisions then were fresh and referendums were not something we really had. It is hindsight now to say there maybe should have been a referendum on that.
Lisbon was inexcusable it was a flagrant violation of the manifesto and after referendums had been used a lot.
Yes the EU Constitution was in manifestos but it was done so with a clear commitment by all major parties to have a referendum on it. After the French and Dutch rejected it though the Treaty was rebranded and rushed through without a referendum in a clear breach of the manifesto commitments.
Both referendums on the constitution were within a month of the 2005 General Election, and the Lisbon Treaty was only ratified three years later. Is that rushing it through?
Yes. Ratifying it without either a fresh General Election (and thus a new manifesto commitment) or a Referendum was rushing it through. The public having been promised a say saw it get ratified before they next got to vote.
In terms of content, is there any reason Lisbon should have been more controversial than Nice or is it just the context that originally the intention was to replace all the treaties with a constitution?
Nor is your picture of the difficulties of effecting a short term fix correct. The business lobby across the EU will be crying out on 29th March for the can to be kicked down the road while longer term arrangements can be thrashed out.
They can cry out as much as they like, but if the treaty structure dictates that any deal requires unanimous formal ratification, then it requires unanimous formal ratification. The intensity of the crying out is 100% irrelevant to that point.
(Of course if David H is right that the Article 50 wording allows the Withdrawal Agreement to be concluded even after leaving, then that slightly alters things. Even then it seems very unlikely that that would give us much grace, and in practice the EU would just say: 'Sign the deal that's on the table, pay up, and then we'll talk').
But so could the UK. i.e."Sign our alternative deal that's on the table, or put your receipt book away, and eat your rotting tomatoes yourselves."
If you are right though, and the EU's bloated political structure reduces it to paralysis when faced with an opportunity to conclude even the simplest of short term trade deals to deliver shared short term benefits, then it rather confirms the wider point that the UK would be better off freed from such shackles when it comes to concluding trade deals in its own interests with the rest of the world.
If he really believed the opposite of what he was saying in public then he's a hypocritical scumbag who deserves no sympathy. But actually I think he, and a lot of other leavers, really did believe that the EU would fold if the UK voted to leave. There is a certain group in the population who are very anglocentric, probably do not travel abroad much and certainly do not understand foreigners (Gove is known to hate flying) and find it hard to imagine themselves on the other side of a negotiation process and so do not understand where their interlocutors are coming from. I think Gove is one such person.
That is very plausible.
Or perhaps what truly drove his desire to Leave was the event in his early life to which he often makes reference - the ruination of his Father's fishing business at the hands of restrictive EU regulation.
Intellectuals are not always cool and rational. They can be consumed with unruly passions. There are many examples of this (Satre, Kubrick, Simon Schama) and it could be that Gove is another.
And in fact his belief isn't based on fact is it? Seem to remember something about it.
The funereal expressions on their faces at the moment of victory tell us all we need to know.
They knew they could not deliver what had been promised.
In the moment of Cameron's resignation, you mean?
Don't understand that argument, which would only work if they had just heard, say, that Cameron had had a fatal heart attack. Cameron's resignation was a clearly foreseeable consequence of brexit - he had already said he would have resigned over losing indyref - so it's just more evidence of failing to think through the consequences of brexit. Plus, PMs are for 5 or 10 years but brexit is forever, so you'd expect sheer joy at the outcome to overcome any momentary regret over Cameron. Plus plus, for senior cabinet members with direct or indirect PM ambitions, which we know these two had, the resignation of the current PM is never a cause of unalloyed sorrow.
He had said he wouldn’t resign in the event of a Leave vote though.
True. But I think that was relatively late in the day. Many of the issues which have concerned people arose from the Maastricht treaty. Far more than Lisbon, in retrospect, that was the one which needed both popular consent and a real explanation of what it meant. Instead, it was pushed through by dint of hand to hand combat in Parliament and the opportunity was lost. The Parliamentary victory was a Pyrrhic one. They won the battle, not the war i.e. for people's hearts and minds for what this meant. It is no coincidence that the battles now involve some of the people involved then - at least on the Tory side.
Lisbon was the last chance and it was stupid of Labour to renege on their promise. But the reason it was given was because politicians realised that there was already concern which needed to be addressed. Had they done so we might have avoided ending up where we are.
Well yes precisely.
Maastricht could sort of be excused as the divisions then were fresh and referendums were not something we really had. It is hindsight now to say there maybe should have been a referendum on that.
Lisbon was inexcusable it was a flagrant violation of the manifesto and after referendums had been used a lot.
It isn't just now in the last few years that it has been known that issues of sovereignty are hearts and minds issues where consent must be wholehearted, informed and genuine. The tragedy is the pretence, for political expediency that our relation with the EU was not a sovereignty issue. If TMs deal gets through then there is a chance that the damage can be ultimately undone for us. But, and it is a big but, we are by no means the only country for whom the cynical entanglement of commercial relationships and political convergence is going to be a difficulty. It has the makings of tragedy because the ideals of the European integrationists are decent, but so are the ideals of those who want a sovereign and self determining UK, Italy or Greece. This clash is why the principle of consent is so important.
Interesting post in the Guardian, from Oli Khan, the secretary general of the Bangladesh Caterers Association
'At the time, the Bangladesh Caterers Association was worried about an average of four restaurants closing a week, rising rents and soaring business rates. Both Priti Patel and Boris Johnson approached us to collaborate with and support the Save Our Curry Houses campaign set up by Vote Leave. They said if we were to support the leave campaign, they would ensure we were able to get more chefs from south Asia by relaxing immigration rules with lower salary thresholds to hire staff from outside the EU.
Let's just reflect on who has delivered the current mess. We are led by a Remainer PM, willing to jump as high as the EU tells her to. Her Cabinet contains a majority of Remainers, the key Leavers long since having left on account of her duplicity, with Hammond left playing the pivotal role of promoting Project Fear. Our Parliament is overwhelmingly dominated by Remainers. Almost all of them wish to frustrate Brexit if they can, some openly, others covertly so long as they can avoid the electoral consequences of doing so. Those posters are just part of the operation to try and shift the blame.
I read thru that and was about to reprise my "failing and blaming" spiel, then I realised that thanks to the wording your statement could be interpreted oddly. Are you trying to blame the Remainers for LEAVE?
IF May gets her/a deal through parliament then my belief is that the likes of Boles, Soubry, Grieve, Woolaston etc are going to find it a challenge to stay inside the Tory tent.
There is going to be electoral gold in threatening to turn the ratchet in the UK's favour against the 'bullying' EU and every GE will play out against a backdrop of where your loyalties lie.
There is next to zero chance of any future Tory leader supporting re-joining which leaves Labour in an awful position if trying to decide whether it supports re-joining or not and all the internal problems that would bring for the party.
And even if they do decide on some half-way house then why would a voter opt for that when they have the full fat versions at either end with the Tories or LD's?
And that's before we start with the possibility of Scotland leaving the union which would be the final dagger in Labour hearts as their only realistic chance of a coalition government would slip beneath the waves.
Getting a deal through, or not, is absolutely crucial to both parties future.
IF May gets her/a deal through parliament then my belief is that the likes of Boles, Soubry, Grieve, Woolaston etc are going to find it a challenge to stay inside the Tory tent.
There is going to be electoral gold in threatening to turn the ratchet in the UK's favour against the 'bullying' EU and every GE will play out against a backdrop of where your loyalties lie.
You could have said exactly the same thing about the battle to invoke Article 50. How did the election turn out?
Interesting post in the Guardian, from Oli Khan, the secretary general of the Bangladesh Caterers Association
'At the time, the Bangladesh Caterers Association was worried about an average of four restaurants closing a week, rising rents and soaring business rates. Both Priti Patel and Boris Johnson approached us to collaborate with and support the Save Our Curry Houses campaign set up by Vote Leave. They said if we were to support the leave campaign, they would ensure we were able to get more chefs from south Asia by relaxing immigration rules with lower salary thresholds to hire staff from outside the EU.
The funereal expressions on their faces at the moment of victory tell us all we need to know.
They knew they could not deliver what had been promised.
In the moment of Cameron's resignation, you mean?
Don't understand that argument, which would only work if they had just heard, say, that Cameron had had a fatal heart attack. Cameron's resignation was a clearly foreseeable consequence of brexit - he had already said he would have resigned over losing indyref - so it's just more evidence of failing to think through the consequences of brexit. Plus, PMs are for 5 or 10 years but brexit is forever, so you'd expect sheer joy at the outcome to overcome any momentary regret over Cameron. Plus plus, for senior cabinet members with direct or indirect PM ambitions, which we know these two had, the resignation of the current PM is never a cause of unalloyed sorrow.
He had said he wouldn’t resign in the event of a Leave vote though.
Had he?
Lying toerag.
He said so in the house of commons in response to questions. Repeatedly.
Interesting post in the Guardian, from Oli Khan, the secretary general of the Bangladesh Caterers Association
'At the time, the Bangladesh Caterers Association was worried about an average of four restaurants closing a week, rising rents and soaring business rates. Both Priti Patel and Boris Johnson approached us to collaborate with and support the Save Our Curry Houses campaign set up by Vote Leave. They said if we were to support the leave campaign, they would ensure we were able to get more chefs from south Asia by relaxing immigration rules with lower salary thresholds to hire staff from outside the EU.
And we made the mistake of believing them.'
Along with 14 million other voters.
But Khan told his members, who were worried about the issue, what he'd been told. Understandably he, and they, feel 'aggrieved'!
The thing that made me laugh about the "searing" editorial in the Irish Independent is :
"Ireland has stood by the EU and should not be made to pay the price for another member storming out. We saddled our future generations with debt to protect the euro when the dam threatened to burst a decade ago. Small nations within the EU will be watching closely to see how we are treated."
Past behaviour really is a good predictor of future behaviour in the case of the EU.
If he really believed the opposite of what he was saying in public then he's a hypocritical scumbag who deserves no sympathy. But actually I think he, and a lot of other leavers, really did believe that the EU would fold if the UK voted to leave. There is a certain group in the population who are very anglocentric, probably do not travel abroad much and certainly do not understand foreigners (Gove is known to hate flying) and find it hard to imagine themselves on the other side of a negotiation process and so do not understand where their interlocutors are coming from. I think Gove is one such person.
That is very plausible.
Or perhaps what truly drove his desire to Leave was the event in his early life to which he often makes reference - the ruination of his Father's fishing business at the hands of restrictive EU regulation.
Intellectuals are not always cool and rational. They can be consumed with unruly passions. There are many examples of this (Satre, Kubrick, Simon Schama) and it could be that Gove is another.
Weirdly, I think he's wrong about the fishing. The thing that did for the GB fishing fleet was the increased availability of refrigerated trucks and storage and a much-improved road network. Why operate lots of little boats when you can get one humungeous factory ship, land it in one place, then truck the results safely across land? People forget that the road and rail network used to be so bad that moving stuff intra-GB by sea was a viable option. If this was his geas binding him to Leave, he's going to be sorely disappointed.
As reports go, that shares much in common with reports about ursine lavatorial habits.
This is the stage in the divorce in which the spurned wife says "i'm keeping the house and the car, if you want access to the kids, I want half your salary as well"
As reports go, that shares much in common with reports about ursine lavatorial habits.
This is the stage in the divorce in which the spurned wife says "i'm keeping the house and the car, if you want access to the kids, I want half your salary as well"
The funereal expressions on their faces at the moment of victory tell us all we need to know.
They knew they could not deliver what had been promised.
In the moment of Cameron's resignation, you mean?
Don't understand that argument, which would only work if they had just heard, say, that Cameron had had a fatal heart attack. Cameron's resignation was a clearly foreseeable consequence of brexit - he had already said he would have resigned over losing indyref - so it's just more evidence of failing to think through the consequences of brexit. Plus, PMs are for 5 or 10 years but brexit is forever, so you'd expect sheer joy at the outcome to overcome any momentary regret over Cameron. Plus plus, for senior cabinet members with direct or indirect PM ambitions, which we know these two had, the resignation of the current PM is never a cause of unalloyed sorrow.
Its a case of being respectful. Coming across as overly triumphant and jubilistic at the time their friend, colleague and boss had just resigned would have been deemed inappropriate.
Those facial expressions do not say "respectful" to me, they say gutted and terrified.
They say respectful to me.
Cos we all know what a respectful kind of guy Boris is!. Pull the other one,. They were one step away from soiling themselves.
True. But I think that was relatively late in the day. Many of the issues which have concerned people arose from the Maastricht treaty. Far more than Lisbon, in retrospect, that was the one which needed both popular consent and a real explanation of what it meant. Instead, it was pushed through by dint of hand to hand combat in Parliament and the opportunity was lost. The Parliamentary victory was a Pyrrhic one. They won the battle, not the war i.e. for people's hearts and minds for what this meant. It is no coincidence that the battles now involve some of the people involved then - at least on the Tory side.
Lisbon was the last chance and it was stupid of Labour to renege on their promise. But the reason it was given was because politicians realised that there was already concern which needed to be addressed. Had they done so we might have avoided ending up where we are.
Well yes precisely.
Maastricht could sort of be excused as the divisions then were fresh and referendums were not something we really had. It is hindsight now to say there maybe should have been a referendum on that.
Lisbon was inexcusable it was a flagrant violation of the manifesto and after referendums had been used a lot.
Yup. The source of all the angst, the grievance, accompanied by an unprecedented increase in migration.
There was no doubt it would have failed, hence never tried.
It's almost refreshing how upfront dictators are thesedays:
Egypt's parliament has overwhelmingly voted to approve draft constitutional changes that could extend President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi's time in office by another 12 years
President Sisi's supporters in parliament argue the longer term limits are needed to allow him more time to complete economic reforms and development projects.
That's great news - I'm sick of tired of them all treating us like idiots and saying things were constructive but there is much to do or other such bollocks.
If he really believed the opposite of what he was saying in public then he's a hypocritical scumbag who deserves no sympathy. But actually I think he, and a lot of other leavers, really did believe that the EU would fold if the UK voted to leave. There is a certain group in the population who are very anglocentric, probably do not travel abroad much and certainly do not understand foreigners (Gove is known to hate flying) and find it hard to imagine themselves on the other side of a negotiation process and so do not understand where their interlocutors are coming from. I think Gove is one such person.
That is very plausible.
Or perhaps what truly drove his desire to Leave was the event in his early life to which he often makes reference - the ruination of his Father's fishing business at the hands of restrictive EU regulation.
Intellectuals are not always cool and rational. They can be consumed with unruly passions. There are many examples of this (Satre, Kubrick, Simon Schama) and it could be that Gove is another.
Weirdly, I think he's wrong about the fishing. The thing that did for the GB fishing fleet was the increased availability of refrigerated trucks and storage and a much-improved road network. Why operate lots of little boats when you can get one humungeous factory ship, land it in one place, then truck the results safely across land? People forget that the road and rail network used to be so bad that moving stuff intra-GB by sea was a viable option. If this was his geas binding him to Leave, he's going to be sorely disappointed.
There was a report on BBC a day or so making that very point. A wholesale fish buyer was talking about loading the fish on to lorries and getting them from Peterhead to France in a day or so. No way is that possible by sea.
I hope it’s true. Are you prepared to bet your house, car and pension fund on it though?
My SIPP, and anybody else's with a properly diversified asset allocation, will in all likelihood be bolstered by a chaotic Brexit.
Take a look at what happened to equity returns when the pound fell post-June 2016.
Some points * In 2016 the pound fell dramatically but business remained buoyant as we had not left the EU. The results were increased share prices and your gains. But in a chaotic Brexit some of those firms will close and hence (let us assume) the economy will contract. This will not necessarily result in gains and may result in losses. * Money illusion. I know some pooh-pooh it, but measuring your wealth in a depreciated currency has an obvious problem * I have pointed out in the past that for a subset of Leavers the chaos is welcomed or even actively sought, as they will benefit from it.
You could have said exactly the same thing about the battle to invoke Article 50. How did the election turn out?
You could have but it would have been a false equivalence.
Why do you think it will be different in transition?
How could it not be?
There is still a fight to be had for remainers up until exit day of course but once that line has been crossed what will their argument be?
Are they going to support the EU in trade negotiations? They could but the opprobrium that would be heaped on them by the msm would be horrific.
Fighting to stay in the EU is understandable but fighting for the EU after exit day would be manna from heaven for the government.
Crossing the threshold into transition doesn't change the trade offs on the single market and customs union one iota, so the idea you'll suddenly be able to paint support for them as "taking the EU's side" is for the birds.
As reports go, that shares much in common with reports about ursine lavatorial habits.
This is the stage in the divorce in which the spurned wife says "i'm keeping the house and the car, if you want access to the kids, I want half your salary as well"
Remember, "we hold all the cards".
A truer representation of the UK's relationship with the EU would be difficult to find.
As is the corollary to your comparison where everybody feels relieved once it is all over and you've left the toxic partnership.
The funereal expressions on their faces at the moment of victory tell us all we need to know.
They knew they could not deliver what had been promised.
In the moment of Cameron's resignation, you mean?
Don't understand that argument, which would only work if they had just heard, say, that Cameron had had a fatal heart attack. Cameron's resignation was a clearly foreseeable consequence of brexit - he had already said he would have resigned over losing indyref - so it's just more evidence of failing to think through the consequences of brexit. Plus, PMs are for 5 or 10 years but brexit is forever, so you'd expect sheer joy at the outcome to overcome any momentary regret over Cameron. Plus plus, for senior cabinet members with direct or indirect PM ambitions, which we know these two had, the resignation of the current PM is never a cause of unalloyed sorrow.
He had said he wouldn’t resign in the event of a Leave vote though.
Who believed that? Others said they didn't think he would need to resign if he lost, and they didn't believe that either, it was just so they could present as loyal afterwards.
IF May gets her/a deal through parliament then my belief is that the likes of Boles, Soubry, Grieve, Woolaston etc are going to find it a challenge to stay inside the Tory tent.
There is going to be electoral gold in threatening to turn the ratchet in the UK's favour against the 'bullying' EU and every GE will play out against a backdrop of where your loyalties lie.
There is next to zero chance of any future Tory leader supporting re-joining leaves Labour in an awful position if trying to decide whether it supports re-joining or not and all the internal problems that would bring for the party.
And even if they do decide on some half-way house then why would a voter opt for that when they have the full fat versions at either end with the Tories or LD's?
And that's before we start with the possibility of Scotland leaving the union which would be the final dagger in Labour hearts as their only realistic chance of a coalition government would slip beneath the waves.
Getting a deal through, or not, is absolutely crucial to both parties future.
I am not so sure about that. The current Tory vote is inflated by a lot anti-EU feeling in disadvantaged places that are not really natural conservatives. I don't think that will survive our actually leaving for long. The blame will come back home. But the pro-EU middle classes in the south will be elusive for an out and out anti-European Tory party. I think the sweet spot for the Tories electorally will be staying out but 'forging close links with our allies'. It's a short step from that to rejoining in all but name. And once we are there, we can get back in less than a year.
The only force against it is the Tory Party membership. But let's see what happens there. Parties can change surprisingly quickly.
As reports go, that shares much in common with reports about ursine lavatorial habits.
This is the stage in the divorce in which the spurned wife says "i'm keeping the house and the car, if you want access to the kids, I want half your salary as well"
Remember, "we hold all the cards".
We absolutely do. Unfortunately they were never playing a card game, so it didn't matter.
"Theresa May will face a wall of resistance when she returns to Brussels next week as the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, declared her Brexit strategy had “failed” after another parliamentary defeat inflicted by hardline Eurosceptics. May will insist to EU chiefs that her defeat in parliament on Thursday does not change her belief that her Brexit deal can still achieve a majority – as long as there are changes to the backstop. The mood hardened in Brussels on Friday amid doubts that the prime minister could ever forge any consensus in her warring party, with Barnier telling diplomats from member states that her strategy could not work. One EU ambassador has suggested the risk of a no-deal Brexit was as high as 90% given the prime minister’s intransigence." https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/15/brexit-deal-voted-through-theresa-may-eu-leaders-brussels
If he really believed the opposite of what he was saying in public then he's a hypocritical scumbag who deserves no sympathy. But actually I think he, and a lot of other leavers, really did believe that the EU would fold if the UK voted to leave. There is a certain group in the population who are very anglocentric, probably do not travel abroad much and certainly do not understand foreigners (Gove is known to hate flying) and find it hard to imagine themselves on the other side of a negotiation process and so do not understand where their interlocutors are coming from. I think Gove is one such person.
That is very plausible.
Or perhaps what truly drove his desire to Leave was the event in his early life to which he often makes reference - the ruination of his Father's fishing business at the hands of restrictive EU regulation.
Intellectuals are not always cool and rational. They can be consumed with unruly passions. There are many examples of this (Satre, Kubrick, Simon Schama) and it could be that Gove is another.
Weirdly, I think he's wrong about the fishing. The thing that did for the GB fishing fleet was the increased availability of refrigerated trucks and storage and a much-improved road network. Why operate lots of little boats when you can get one humungeous factory ship, land it in one place, then truck the results safely across land? People forget that the road and rail network used to be so bad that moving stuff intra-GB by sea was a viable option. If this was his geas binding him to Leave, he's going to be sorely disappointed.
There was a report on BBC a day or so making that very point. A wholesale fish buyer was talking about loading the fish on to lorries and getting them from Peterhead to France in a day or so. No way is that possible by sea.
Yeah. It's kinda sad when you think about it. For years we've been operating on the assumption that the only thing preventing us achieving our ULTIMATE DESTINY was EU membership and all we had to do was leave and riches will follow. And now we're finding out that that isn't the case. I hope we find the self-belief and skills to make a success of it. But I am concerned that the two major parties are finding "failing and blaming" more palatable than achievement.
As reports go, that shares much in common with reports about ursine lavatorial habits.
This is the stage in the divorce in which the spurned wife says "i'm keeping the house and the car, if you want access to the kids, I want half your salary as well"
Remember, "we hold all the cards".
We absolutely do. Unfortunately they were never playing a card game, so it didn't matter.
Or, we had the Queen of Spades and a shedload of low grade hearts, then found we were playing Black Maria.
Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!
We've moved a long way from the Mexicans paying for this wall, haven't we?
We have - maybe you could do an enlightened article on the political ramifications of today's events in Washington. e.g. how many republican senators could be deselected by the deplorables in the primaries for 2020.
The most egregious is Gove - all the more so because he is often held up as a powerful intellect and thinker. Nobody could say that about Davis, Raab or Corbyn.
I don’t think you can say that about Gove. He put an intellectual case for Leave, has been honest about its compromises, has backed May’s deal as a fair balance and has been the only one to develop positive (and better) post Brexit policies with a sensible plan to get there, in agriculture and fisheries.
More than one person has said that had this referendum not been called, or only very narrowly lost, Gove would have been likely to become the next Tory leader after Cameron, run a GE campaign on a Brexit platform, worked out a policy and strategy to implement it, run a referendum to endorse it, and then led us out via a practical negotiated exit settlement in the 2020s.
But, his hand was forced. He felt he had to fight or Brexit would be killed off by the referendum forever. He did us a favour with Boris but severely damaged himself in the process. And, we are now where we are with May.
Intense discussions are taking place at Westminster that could lead to the emergence of a new centrist party consisting of six or more disaffected anti-Brexit Labour MPs along with the involvement of some Conservatives and the backing of the Liberal Democrats.
Labour MPs reported that some of those involved had lobbied backbench colleagues they thought were sympathetic as to how they could “make the shift” away from a tribal loyalty to the party.
Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!
We aren't at the job losses stage yet. But when we are I don't think they will come in a way that allows reprisals against leavers. Not that such reprisals should be taken of course.
Intense discussions are taking place at Westminster that could lead to the emergence of a new centrist party consisting of six or more disaffected anti-Brexit Labour MPs along with the involvement of some Conservatives and the backing of the Liberal Democrats.
Labour MPs reported that some of those involved had lobbied backbench colleagues they thought were sympathetic as to how they could “make the shift” away from a tribal loyalty to the party.
Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!
We aren't at the job losses stage yet. But when we are I don't think they will come in a way that allows reprisals against leavers. Not that such reprisals should be taken of course.
Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!
We aren't at the job losses stage yet. But when we are I don't think they will come in a way that allows reprisals against leavers. Not that such reprisals should be taken of course.
And in fact his belief isn't based on fact is it? Seem to remember something about it.
I hadn't heard that but I can well believe it. Blaming the EU for something that is in truth caused by something else - it's impossible to sum up in a sentence why the country voted Leave but if I had to try I'm not sure I could do much better than that.
Intense discussions are taking place at Westminster that could lead to the emergence of a new centrist party consisting of six or more disaffected anti-Brexit Labour MPs along with the involvement of some Conservatives and the backing of the Liberal Democrats.
Labour MPs reported that some of those involved had lobbied backbench colleagues they thought were sympathetic as to how they could “make the shift” away from a tribal loyalty to the party.
As reports go, that shares much in common with reports about ursine lavatorial habits.
This is the stage in the divorce in which the spurned wife says "i'm keeping the house and the car, if you want access to the kids, I want half your salary as well"
Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!
We aren't at the job losses stage yet. But when we are I don't think they will come in a way that allows reprisals against leavers. Not that such reprisals should be taken of course.
I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.
I cannot believe in this day and age the pure indifference to how the economy will be afflicted by No Deal Brexit. Those who support wrecking the economy for no reason should feel the brunt. People will become homeless or will not afford to feed themselves because of this stupidity. It is not reasonable to load al this pain on the population!
As reports go, that shares much in common with reports about ursine lavatorial habits.
This is the stage in the divorce in which the spurned wife says "i'm keeping the house and the car, if you want access to the kids, I want half your salary as well"
Remember, "we hold all the cards".
Its a game of Fish
Actually I think the cards in question turned out to be four jokers.
I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.
Well, Theresa May has already got her P45. Now we just need Corbyn, Macdonnell, Boris, Mogg, Gove, Raab, Dodds etc to join her.
The most egregious is Gove - all the more so because he is often held up as a powerful intellect and thinker. Nobody could say that about Davis, Raab or Corbyn.
I don’t think you can say that about Gove. He put an intellectual case for Leave, has been honest about its compromises, has backed May’s deal as a fair balance and has been the only one to develop positive (and better) post Brexit policies with a sensible plan to get there, in agriculture and fisheries.
More than one person has said that had this referendum not been called, or only very narrowly lost, Gove would have been likely to become the next Tory leader after Cameron, run a GE campaign on a Brexit platform, worked out a policy and strategy to implement it, run a referendum to endorse it, and then led us out via a practical negotiated exit settlement in the 2020s.
But, his hand was forced. He felt he had to fight or Brexit would be killed off by the referendum forever. He did us a favour with Boris but severely damaged himself in the process. And, we are now where we are with May.
On the basis of that, I think you should resist any temptation to become an alt history author...
Intense discussions are taking place at Westminster that could lead to the emergence of a new centrist party consisting of six or more disaffected anti-Brexit Labour MPs along with the involvement of some Conservatives and the backing of the Liberal Democrats.
Labour MPs reported that some of those involved had lobbied backbench colleagues they thought were sympathetic as to how they could “make the shift” away from a tribal loyalty to the party.
The most egregious is Gove - all the more so because he is often held up as a powerful intellect and thinker. Nobody could say that about Davis, Raab or Corbyn.
True. But I think that was relatively late in the day. Many of the issues which have concerned people arose from the Maastricht treaty. Far more than Lisbon, in retrospect, that was the one which needed both popular consent and a real explanation of what it meant. Instead, it was pushed through by dint of hand to hand combat in Parliament and the opportunity was lost. The Parliamentary victory was a Pyrrhic one. They won the battle, not the war i.e. for people's hearts and minds for what this meant. It is no coincidence that the battles now involve some of the people involved then - at least on the Tory side.
Lisbon was the last chance and it was stupid of Labour to renege on their promise. But the reason it was given was because politicians realised that there was already concern which needed to be addressed. Had they done so we might have avoided ending up where we are.
Well yes precisely.
Maastricht could sort of be excused as the divisions then were fresh and referendums were not something we really had. It is hindsight now to say there maybe should have been a referendum on that.
Lisbon was inexcusable it was a flagrant violation of the manifesto and after referendums had been used a lot.
I think it’s actually very simple: the desires of the EU for political integration and the desires of the UK to avoid it had simply diverged to the point where full EU membership in this country was no longer politically sustainable.
That could have been addressed at any point along that journey, but wasn’t, and now it’s been forced both sides are tacking to the extremes and using the vote as confirmation of their existing prejudices.
I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.
Well, Theresa May has already got her P45. Now we just need Corbyn, Macdonnell, Boris, Mogg, Gove, Raab, Dodds etc to join her.
+1 I agree, we are badly served and a clear out of those you mention would be beneficial and welcome. They are just careerist politicians who might learn something new about the harsh realities of life in a post political career.
Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!
We aren't at the job losses stage yet. But when we are I don't think they will come in a way that allows reprisals against leavers. Not that such reprisals should be taken of course.
Were we to get to that stage I suspect a lot of the job losses will be utterly unexpected. Most will be the cascade effect of a problem at company 1 resulting in issues at suppliers 2 and 3
Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!
We aren't at the job losses stage yet. But when we are I don't think they will come in a way that allows reprisals against leavers. Not that such reprisals should be taken of course.
I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.
I cannot believe in this day and age the pure indifference to how the economy will be afflicted by No Deal Brexit. Those who support wrecking the economy for no reason should feel the brunt. People will become homeless or will not afford to feed themselves because of this stupidity. It is not reasonable to load al this pain on the population!
And if massive youth unemployment in Italy or Spain is the consequence of being in the EU and in the Euro? This sort of argument is useless. All actions, and non actions, have consequences some of which are good and some bad.
Nor is your picture of the difficulties of effecting a short term fix correct. The business lobby across the EU will be crying out on 29th March for the can to be kicked down the road while longer term arrangements can be thrashed out.
They can cry out as much as they like, but if the treaty structure dictates that any deal requires unanimous formal ratification, then it requires unanimous formal ratification. The intensity of the crying out is 100% irrelevant to that point.
(Of course if David H is right that the Article 50 wording allows the Withdrawal Agreement to be concluded even after leaving, then that slightly alters things. Even then it seems very unlikely that that would give us much grace, and in practice the EU would just say: 'Sign the deal that's on the table, pay up, and then we'll talk').
But so could the UK. i.e."Sign our alternative deal that's on the table, or put your receipt book away, and eat your rotting tomatoes yourselves."
If you are right though, and the EU's bloated political structure reduces it to paralysis when faced with an opportunity to conclude even the simplest of short term trade deals to deliver shared short term benefits, then it rather confirms the wider point that the UK would be better off freed from such shackles when it comes to concluding trade deals in its own interests with the rest of the world.
The EU is a political project.
It wants to make a political point about a departing member, not a practical deal.
Intense discussions are taking place at Westminster that could lead to the emergence of a new centrist party consisting of six or more disaffected anti-Brexit Labour MPs along with the involvement of some Conservatives and the backing of the Liberal Democrats.
Labour MPs reported that some of those involved had lobbied backbench colleagues they thought were sympathetic as to how they could “make the shift” away from a tribal loyalty to the party.
They really do think we're really dumb, don't they?
I thought you might have been in favour of a new Centrist Party??
I'm not opposed to the idea of a realignment in our politics. I find the endless bleating of cowardly MPs who have been talking about doing it for years tiresome and am not at all convinced that this time they mean it, particularly when their loyalties still appear to be to their existing brands and so any attempt to work with former Tories/Labour will fail very quickly, given they are not united in ideology, only by momentary circumstance, and their hatred of their former opponents remains.
Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!
We aren't at the job losses stage yet. But when we are I don't think they will come in a way that allows reprisals against leavers. Not that such reprisals should be taken of course.
Do you think it would be unfair?
I think it is pretty hypothetical. Terry Christian's story sounds made up to me. And even if it is true it is a bit of a one off. There aren't that many businesses small enough for the boss to know everyone's views, run by somebody unusually partisan and which have enough staff for applying a political criteria to the redundancy process to be feasible. And if it did happen, they'd never admit to it afterwards.
Nor is your picture of the difficulties of effecting a short term fix correct. The business lobby across the EU will be crying out on 29th March for the can to be kicked down the road while longer term arrangements can be thrashed out.
They can cry out as much as they like, but if the treaty structure dictates that any deal requires unanimous formal ratification, then it requires unanimous formal ratification. The intensity of the crying out is 100% irrelevant to that point.
(Of course if David H is right that the Article 50 wording allows the Withdrawal Agreement to be concluded even after leaving, then that slightly alters things. Even then it seems very unlikely that that would give us much grace, and in practice the EU would just say: 'Sign the deal that's on the table, pay up, and then we'll talk').
But so could the UK. i.e."Sign our alternative deal that's on the table, or put your receipt book away, and eat your rotting tomatoes yourselves."
If you are right though, and the EU's bloated political structure reduces it to paralysis when faced with an opportunity to conclude even the simplest of short term trade deals to deliver shared short term benefits, then it rather confirms the wider point that the UK would be better off freed from such shackles when it comes to concluding trade deals in its own interests with the rest of the world.
The EU is a political project.
It wants to make a political point about a departing member, not a practical deal.
It made its point some while ago, they had no need to make things more difficult for themselves to make that point.
Weirdly, I think he's wrong about the fishing. The thing that did for the GB fishing fleet was the increased availability of refrigerated trucks and storage and a much-improved road network. Why operate lots of little boats when you can get one humungeous factory ship, land it in one place, then truck the results safely across land? People forget that the road and rail network used to be so bad that moving stuff intra-GB by sea was a viable option. If this was his geas binding him to Leave, he's going to be sorely disappointed.
Again, I think a theme. Times change, progress, the losers not helped out, difficult problems to tackle so let's blame our membership of the European Union.
Nor is your picture of the difficulties of effecting a short term fix correct. The business lobby across the EU will be crying out on 29th March for the can to be kicked down the road while longer term arrangements can be thrashed out.
They can cry out as much as they like, but if the treaty structure dictates that any deal requires unanimous formal ratification, then it requires unanimous formal ratification. The intensity of the crying out is 100% irrelevant to that point.
(Of course if David H is right that the Article 50 wording allows the Withdrawal Agreement to be concluded even after leaving, then that slightly alters things. Even then it seems very unlikely that that would give us much grace, and in practice the EU would just say: 'Sign the deal that's on the table, pay up, and then we'll talk').
But so could the UK. i.e."Sign our alternative deal that's on the table, or put your receipt book away, and eat your rotting tomatoes yourselves."
If you are right though, and the EU's bloated political structure reduces it to paralysis when faced with an opportunity to conclude even the simplest of short term trade deals to deliver shared short term benefits, then it rather confirms the wider point that the UK would be better off freed from such shackles when it comes to concluding trade deals in its own interests with the rest of the world.
The EU is a political project.
It wants to make a political point about a departing member, not a practical deal.
Lol. I think our government is making that point quite effectively all on its own.
You sure they weren’t just talking about Barclay ?
I thought that tweet was a bit harsh personally. I mean, it's impossible to imagine all 28 were completely useless, even given the job they do. Some of them probably power a wind turbine using the hot air they generate, for instance.
As reports go, that shares much in common with reports about ursine lavatorial habits.
This is the stage in the divorce in which the spurned wife says "i'm keeping the house and the car, if you want access to the kids, I want half your salary as well"
Remember, "we hold all the cards".
Its a game of Fish
Actually I think the cards in question turned out to be four jokers.
Or four number twos.
Take your pick.
It can't be four number two's.
The cards are probably:
1 The 2 of clubs 1 Card against Humanity booster pack card 1 The useless Top Trump card that changes hands every turn it's played 1 Master Bun the Bakers Son
I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.
Well, Theresa May has already got her P45. Now we just need Corbyn, Macdonnell, Boris, Mogg, Gove, Raab, Dodds etc to join her.
+1 I agree, we are badly served and a clear out of those you mention would be beneficial and welcome. They are just careerist politicians who might learn something new about the harsh realities of life in a post political career.
We the public would just replace them with people so similar it makes no odds. That's near certain given we almost always vote against someone rather than just for, so incompetents will get through because they have the right rosette.
Terry Christian has the right idea, those who voted for Brexit should be the first to feel the pain in any redundancy campaign. All that social media content or even outspoken Brexit chatter at work should influence who gets the chop first!
We aren't at the job losses stage yet. But when we are I don't think they will come in a way that allows reprisals against leavers. Not that such reprisals should be taken of course.
I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.
I cannot believe in this day and age the pure indifference to how the economy will be afflicted by No Deal Brexit. Those who support wrecking the economy for no reason should feel the brunt. People will become homeless or will not afford to feed themselves because of this stupidity. It is not reasonable to load al this pain on the population!
And if massive youth unemployment in Italy or Spain is the consequence of being in the EU and in the Euro? This sort of argument is useless. All actions, and non actions, have consequences some of which are good and some bad.
Membership of the Euro is a different question, the UK is not and has never been a member of the Euro. Unemployment in Italy and Spain or even Greece are an internal matter and should not be conflated with the trading prospects of the UK currently or post Brexit.
I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.
Well, Theresa May has already got her P45. Now we just need Corbyn, Macdonnell, Boris, Mogg, Gove, Raab, Dodds etc to join her.
+1 I agree, we are badly served and a clear out of those you mention would be beneficial and welcome. They are just careerist politicians who might learn something new about the harsh realities of life in a post political career.
We the public would just replace them with people so similar it makes no odds. That's near certain given we almost always vote against someone rather than just for, so incompetents will get through because they have the right rosette.
I think it's more who wants to be an MP for the money they are paid given the stress 24 hour news and social media creates. Heck I earn 50% more than an MPs salary for sitting at home writing the odd piece of software.
Nor is your picture of the difficulties of effecting a short term fix correct. The business lobby across the EU will be crying out on 29th March for the can to be kicked down the road while longer term arrangements can be thrashed out.
They can cry out as much as they like, but if the treaty structure dictates that any deal requires unanimous formal ratification, then it requires unanimous formal ratification. The intensity of the crying out is 100% irrelevant to that point.
(Of course if David H is right that the Article 50 wording allows the Withdrawal Agreement to be concluded even after leaving, then that slightly alters things. Even then it seems very unlikely that that would give us much grace, and in practice the EU would just say: 'Sign the deal that's on the table, pay up, and then we'll talk').
But so could the UK. i.e."Sign our alternative deal that's on the table, or put your receipt book away, and eat your rotting tomatoes yourselves."
If you are right though, and the EU's bloated political structure reduces it to paralysis when faced with an opportunity to conclude even the simplest of short term trade deals to deliver shared short term benefits, then it rather confirms the wider point that the UK would be better off freed from such shackles when it comes to concluding trade deals in its own interests with the rest of the world.
The EU is a political project.
It wants to make a political point about a departing member, not a practical deal.
Lol. I think our government is making that point quite effectively all on its own.
It is true that the best possible argument for being run by an unelected third-rate pseudo intellectual Nazi apologist working through a drunk kicked out of political office following mysterious actions by his security forces is the thought that the alternative is to have a current MP pulling the strings of government.
IF May gets her/a deal through parliament then my belief is that the likes of Boles, Soubry, Grieve, Woolaston etc are going to find it a challenge to stay inside the Tory tent.
There is going to be electoral gold in threatening to turn the ratchet in the UK's favour against the 'bullying' EU and every GE will play out against a backdrop of where your loyalties lie.
There is next to zero chance of any future Tory leader supporting re-joining leaves Labour in an awful position if trying to decide whether it supports re-joining or not and all the internal problems that would bring for the party.
And even if they do decide on some half-way house then why would a voter opt for that when they have the full fat versions at either end with the Tories or LD's?
And that's before we start with the possibility of Scotland leaving the union which would be the final dagger in Labour hearts as their only realistic chance of a coalition government would slip beneath the waves.
Getting a deal through, or not, is absolutely crucial to both parties future.
I am not so sure about that. The current Tory vote is inflated by a lot anti-EU feeling in disadvantaged places that are not really natural conservatives. I don't think that will survive our actually leaving for long. The blame will come back home. But the pro-EU middle classes in the south will be elusive for an out and out anti-European Tory party. I think the sweet spot for the Tories electorally will be staying out but 'forging close links with our allies'. It's a short step from that to rejoining in all but name. And once we are there, we can get back in less than a year.
The only force against it is the Tory Party membership. But let's see what happens there. Parties can change surprisingly quickly.
I don’t think the EU would ever offer us terms to rejoin that could pass a popular referendum in the UK. It’s a political project and it’ll be standard terms, and a debate on QMV weightings and MEPs, or nothing. That means a commitment to join both the Euro and Schengen and, by then, taxation, social union, eurozone chancellor, European army. Everything.
Of course, it’s possible a Lab/LD majority could force through the treaty and necessary parliamentary legislation with just a GE mandate, but i suggest that would be “brave”.
I disagree, people who support Brexit seem to think rules or bad luck in life are the property of others. If redundancies are a consequence of Brexit those who supported it should feel the pain.
Well, Theresa May has already got her P45. Now we just need Corbyn, Macdonnell, Boris, Mogg, Gove, Raab, Dodds etc to join her.
+1 I agree, we are badly served and a clear out of those you mention would be beneficial and welcome. They are just careerist politicians who might learn something new about the harsh realities of life in a post political career.
We the public would just replace them with people so similar it makes no odds. That's near certain given we almost always vote against someone rather than just for, so incompetents will get through because they have the right rosette.
A strong government needs a strong opposition as political commentators have asserted over the ages. I cannot say in all honestly that the current political system diverges from this at this time. A weak Government and weak opposition are prevalent at the moment.
The most egregious is Gove - all the more so because he is often held up as a powerful intellect and thinker. Nobody could say that about Davis, Raab or Corbyn.
I don’t think you can say that about Gove. He put an intellectual case for Leave, has been honest about its compromises, has backed May’s deal as a fair balance and has been the only one to develop positive (and better) post Brexit policies with a sensible plan to get there, in agriculture and fisheries.
More than one person has said that had this referendum not been called, or only very narrowly lost, Gove would have been likely to become the next Tory leader after Cameron, run a GE campaign on a Brexit platform, worked out a policy and strategy to implement it, run a referendum to endorse it, and then led us out via a practical negotiated exit settlement in the 2020s.
But, his hand was forced. He felt he had to fight or Brexit would be killed off by the referendum forever. He did us a favour with Boris but severely damaged himself in the process. And, we are now where we are with May.
On the basis of that, I think you should resist any temptation to become an alt history author...
It’s exactly what the Deputy Editor of this site said publicly on here at the time, and Tim Shipman has indicated.
Intense discussions are taking place at Westminster that could lead to the emergence of a new centrist party consisting of six or more disaffected anti-Brexit Labour MPs along with the involvement of some Conservatives and the backing of the Liberal Democrats.
Labour MPs reported that some of those involved had lobbied backbench colleagues they thought were sympathetic as to how they could “make the shift” away from a tribal loyalty to the party.
They really do think we're really dumb, don't they?
I thought you might have been in favour of a new Centrist Party??
I'm not opposed to the idea of a realignment in our politics. I find the endless bleating of cowardly MPs who have been talking about doing it for years tiresome and am not at all convinced that this time they mean it, particularly when their loyalties still appear to be to their existing brands and so any attempt to work with former Tories/Labour will fail very quickly, given they are not united in ideology, only by momentary circumstance, and their hatred of their former opponents remains.
IMO the realignment happened in 2016.
The day someone was elected who was on the side of the Many rather than the few, unlike all leaders and PMs since at least Thatcher
I don’t think the EU would ever offer us terms to rejoin that could pass a popular referendum in the UK. It’s a political project and it’ll be standard terms, and a debate on QMV weightings and MEPs, or nothing. That means a commitment to join both the Euro and Schengen and, by then, taxation, social union, eurozone chancellor, European army. Everything.
Of course, it’s possible a Lab/LD majority could force through the treaty and necessary parliamentary legislation with just a GE mandate, but i suggest that would be “brave”.
If Brexit happens, I don't think the UK will rejoin either, but England will.
Nor is your picture of the difficulties of effecting a short term fix correct. The business lobby across the EU will be crying out on 29th March for the can to be kicked down the road while longer term arrangements can be thrashed out.
They can cry out as much as they like, but if the treaty structure dictates that any deal requires unanimous formal ratification, then it requires unanimous formal ratification. The intensity of the crying out is 100% irrelevant to that point.
(Of course if David H is right that the Article 50 wording allows the Withdrawal Agreement to be concluded even after leaving, then that slightly alters things. Even then it seems very unlikely that that would give us much grace, and in practice the EU would just say: 'Sign the deal that's on the table, pay up, and then we'll talk').
But so could the UK. i.e."Sign our alternative deal that's on the table, or put your receipt book away, and eat your rotting tomatoes yourselves."
If you are right though, and the EU's bloated political structure reduces it to paralysis when faced with an opportunity to conclude even the simplest of short term trade deals to deliver shared short term benefits, then it rather confirms the wider point that the UK would be better off freed from such shackles when it comes to concluding trade deals in its own interests with the rest of the world.
The EU is a political project.
It wants to make a political point about a departing member, not a practical deal.
Lol. I think our government is making that point quite effectively all on its own.
It is contributing. The civil service was in no way prepared or resourced for this and GE2017 provided a Parliamentary stalemate.
Intense discussions are taking place at Westminster that could lead to the emergence of a new centrist party consisting of six or more disaffected anti-Brexit Labour MPs along with the involvement of some Conservatives and the backing of the Liberal Democrats.
Labour MPs reported that some of those involved had lobbied backbench colleagues they thought were sympathetic as to how they could “make the shift” away from a tribal loyalty to the party.
They really do think we're really dumb, don't they?
I thought you might have been in favour of a new Centrist Party??
I'm not opposed to the idea of a realignment in our politics. I find the endless bleating of cowardly MPs who have been talking about doing it for years tiresome and am not at all convinced that this time they mean it, particularly when their loyalties still appear to be to their existing brands and so any attempt to work with former Tories/Labour will fail very quickly, given they are not united in ideology, only by momentary circumstance, and their hatred of their former opponents remains.
IMO the realignment happened in 2016.
The day someone was elected who was on the side of the Many rather than the few, unlike all leaders and PMs since at least Thatcher
Intense discussions are taking place at Westminster that could lead to the emergence of a new centrist party consisting of six or more disaffected anti-Brexit Labour MPs along with the involvement of some Conservatives and the backing of the Liberal Democrats.
Labour MPs reported that some of those involved had lobbied backbench colleagues they thought were sympathetic as to how they could “make the shift” away from a tribal loyalty to the party.
They really do think we're really dumb, don't they?
I thought you might have been in favour of a new Centrist Party??
I'm not opposed to the idea of a realignment in our politics. I find the endless bleating of cowardly MPs who have been talking about doing it for years tiresome and am not at all convinced that this time they mean it, particularly when their loyalties still appear to be to their existing brands and so any attempt to work with former Tories/Labour will fail very quickly, given they are not united in ideology, only by momentary circumstance, and their hatred of their former opponents remains.
IMO the realignment happened in 2016.
The day someone was elected who was on the side of the Many rather than the few, unlike all leaders and PMs since at least Thatcher
I think it is rather insulting to suggest no party leaders and PMs have cared about the many. It also seems very unlikely since getting the support of as many of the many as possible is how leaders and PMs stay in post.
Regardless, even if your premise was correct that is not a realignment, it's still tribal loyalty to one party and tribal loyalty to another, and that utter hatred of another party means one can never leave a party which is not the same as it used to be.
Comments
Or perhaps what truly drove his desire to Leave was the event in his early life to which he often makes reference - the ruination of his Father's fishing business at the hands of restrictive EU regulation.
Intellectuals are not always cool and rational. They can be consumed with unruly passions. There are many examples of this (Satre, Kubrick, Simon Schama) and it could be that Gove is another.
Maastricht could sort of be excused as the divisions then were fresh and referendums were not something we really had. It is hindsight now to say there maybe should have been a referendum on that.
Lisbon was inexcusable it was a flagrant violation of the manifesto and after referendums had been used a lot.
In a No Deal crash out - which will not happen, BTW, so this is all just for fun - it will be us, the UK, suing for peace.
If you are right though, and the EU's bloated political structure reduces it to paralysis when faced with an opportunity to conclude even the simplest of short term trade deals to deliver shared short term benefits, then it rather confirms the wider point that the UK would be better off freed from such shackles when it comes to concluding trade deals in its own interests with the rest of the world.
Whatever you do, don't say.....I got this one...
Lying toerag.
'At the time, the Bangladesh Caterers Association was worried about an average of four restaurants closing a week, rising rents and soaring business rates. Both Priti Patel and Boris Johnson approached us to collaborate with and support the Save Our Curry Houses campaign set up by Vote Leave. They said if we were to support the leave campaign, they would ensure we were able to get more chefs from south Asia by relaxing immigration rules with lower salary thresholds to hire staff from outside the EU.
And we made the mistake of believing them.'
Take a look at what happened to equity returns when the pound fell post-June 2016.
https://twitter.com/matt_dathan/status/1096461662541045760
IF May gets her/a deal through parliament then my belief is that the likes of Boles, Soubry, Grieve, Woolaston etc are going to find it a challenge to stay inside the Tory tent.
There is going to be electoral gold in threatening to turn the ratchet in the UK's favour against the 'bullying' EU and every GE will play out against a backdrop of where your loyalties lie.
There is next to zero chance of any future Tory leader supporting re-joining which leaves Labour in an awful position if trying to decide whether it supports re-joining or not and all the internal problems that would bring for the party.
And even if they do decide on some half-way house then why would a voter opt for that when they have the full fat versions at either end with the Tories or LD's?
And that's before we start with the possibility of Scotland leaving the union which would be the final dagger in Labour hearts as their only realistic chance of a coalition government would slip beneath the waves.
Getting a deal through, or not, is absolutely crucial to both parties future.
Who knows.....
...so no, then.
Understandably he, and they, feel 'aggrieved'!
The thing that made me laugh about the "searing" editorial in the Irish Independent is :
"Ireland has stood by the EU and should not be made to pay the price for another member storming out. We saddled our future generations with debt to protect the euro when the dam threatened to burst a decade ago. Small nations within the EU will be watching closely to see how we are treated."
Past behaviour really is a good predictor of future behaviour in the case of the EU.
There was no doubt it would have failed, hence never tried.
Egypt's parliament has overwhelmingly voted to approve draft constitutional changes that could extend President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi's time in office by another 12 years
President Sisi's supporters in parliament argue the longer term limits are needed to allow him more time to complete economic reforms and development projects.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-47252315
Surely that should be to whoever is president time to complete economic reforms etc etc?
There is still a fight to be had for remainers up until exit day of course but once that line has been crossed what will their argument be?
Are they going to support the EU in trade negotiations? They could but the opprobrium that would be heaped on them by the msm would be horrific.
Fighting to stay in the EU is understandable but fighting for the EU after exit day would be manna from heaven for the government.
* In 2016 the pound fell dramatically but business remained buoyant as we had not left the EU. The results were increased share prices and your gains. But in a chaotic Brexit some of those firms will close and hence (let us assume) the economy will contract. This will not necessarily result in gains and may result in losses.
* Money illusion. I know some pooh-pooh it, but measuring your wealth in a depreciated currency has an obvious problem
* I have pointed out in the past that for a subset of Leavers the chaos is welcomed or even actively sought, as they will benefit from it.
A truer representation of the UK's relationship with the EU would be difficult to find.
As is the corollary to your comparison where everybody feels relieved once it is all over and you've left the toxic partnership.
The only force against it is the Tory Party membership. But let's see what happens there. Parties can change surprisingly quickly.
May will insist to EU chiefs that her defeat in parliament on Thursday does not change her belief that her Brexit deal can still achieve a majority – as long as there are changes to the backstop.
The mood hardened in Brussels on Friday amid doubts that the prime minister could ever forge any consensus in her warring party, with Barnier telling diplomats from member states that her strategy could not work.
One EU ambassador has suggested the risk of a no-deal Brexit was as high as 90% given the prime minister’s intransigence."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/15/brexit-deal-voted-through-theresa-may-eu-leaders-brussels
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-news-latest-moment-remain-campaigner-rachel-johnson-strips-off-on-sky-news-a4067476.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6708135/Terry-Christian-says-bosses-forced-lay-people-start-Leave-voters.html
More than one person has said that had this referendum not been called, or only very narrowly lost, Gove would have been likely to become the next Tory leader after Cameron, run a GE campaign on a Brexit platform, worked out a policy and strategy to implement it, run a referendum to endorse it, and then led us out via a practical negotiated exit settlement in the 2020s.
But, his hand was forced. He felt he had to fight or Brexit would be killed off by the referendum forever. He did us a favour with Boris but severely damaged himself in the process. And, we are now where we are with May.
Labour MPs reported that some of those involved had lobbied backbench colleagues they thought were sympathetic as to how they could “make the shift” away from a tribal loyalty to the party.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/15/uk-mps-intense-talks-setting-up-new-centrist-party-labour
https://twitter.com/catherinemep/status/1096475848931201025
I suggest we launch a group libel action.
I cannot believe in this day and age the pure indifference to how the economy will be afflicted by No Deal Brexit. Those who support wrecking the economy for no reason should feel the brunt. People will become homeless or will not afford to feed themselves because of this stupidity. It is not reasonable to load al this pain on the population!
Or four number twos.
Take your pick.
That could have been addressed at any point along that journey, but wasn’t, and now it’s been forced both sides are tacking to the extremes and using the vote as confirmation of their existing prejudices.
I agree, we are badly served and a clear out of those you mention would be beneficial and welcome. They are just careerist politicians who might learn something new about the harsh realities of life in a post political career.
And if massive youth unemployment in Italy or Spain is the consequence of being in the EU and in the Euro? This sort of argument is useless. All actions, and non actions, have consequences some of which are good and some bad.
It wants to make a political point about a departing member, not a practical deal.
The cards are probably:
1 The 2 of clubs
1 Card against Humanity booster pack card
1 The useless Top Trump card that changes hands every turn it's played
1 Master Bun the Bakers Son
Heck I earn 50% more than an MPs salary for sitting at home writing the odd piece of software.
Of course, it’s possible a Lab/LD majority could force through the treaty and necessary parliamentary legislation with just a GE mandate, but i suggest that would be “brave”.
It’s exactly what the Deputy Editor of this site said publicly on here at the time, and Tim Shipman has indicated.
The day someone was elected who was on the side of the Many rather than the few, unlike all leaders and PMs since at least Thatcher
Regardless, even if your premise was correct that is not a realignment, it's still tribal loyalty to one party and tribal loyalty to another, and that utter hatred of another party means one can never leave a party which is not the same as it used to be.