"There were three kids on the Six O’Clock News on the climate change demos. One from Sheffield, one from Ullapool and one from Cardiff. I reckon if they did this quiz it would put them all in the South East of England."
No need to worry, it's only middle-class parents grooming their kids. Did anyone else find it embarrassing?
"There were three kids on the Six O’Clock News on the climate change demos. One from Sheffield, one from Ullapool and one from Cardiff. I reckon if they did this quiz it would put them all in the South East of England."
No need to worry, it's only middle-class parents grooming their kids. Did anyone else find it embarrassing?
I got Central London or Dover, and I've never lived, or worked in either.
"There were three kids on the Six O’Clock News on the climate change demos. One from Sheffield, one from Ullapool and one from Cardiff. I reckon if they did this quiz it would put them all in the South East of England."
No need to worry, it's only middle-class parents grooming their kids. Did anyone else find it embarrassing?
Whilst I’m all for kids learning about the environment etc., getting them actively interested in politics at such a young age seems odd to me. I reckon the first issue I really started to think about politics was the firefighters strike in 2002, when I was 15. But then 1995-2001 was a pretty quiet time politically.
Step back and see what other nations see if Mr Herdson is correct.
The EU Big-wigs see the UK Government making an elementary mistake by consulting their voters. Madness! But all's well, they're repeating the process until they get the right answer.
Switzerland see the UK incapable of running a referendum and implementing the result.
The rest of the world sees a country demanding democracy for others yet incapable of seeing the beam in their own eye.
"There were three kids on the Six O’Clock News on the climate change demos. One from Sheffield, one from Ullapool and one from Cardiff. I reckon if they did this quiz it would put them all in the South East of England."
No need to worry, it's only middle-class parents grooming their kids. Did anyone else find it embarrassing?
Whilst I’m all for kids learning about the environment etc., getting them actively interested in politics at such a young age seems odd to me. I reckon the first issue I really started to think about politics was the firefighters strike in 2002, when I was 15. But then 1995-2001 was a pretty quiet time politically.
BSE, the fuel strike and university tuition fees say hello.
"There were three kids on the Six O’Clock News on the climate change demos. One from Sheffield, one from Ullapool and one from Cardiff. I reckon if they did this quiz it would put them all in the South East of England."
No need to worry, it's only middle-class parents grooming their kids. Did anyone else find it embarrassing?
Whilst I’m all for kids learning about the environment etc., getting them actively interested in politics at such a young age seems odd to me. I reckon the first issue I really started to think about politics was the firefighters strike in 2002, when I was 15. But then 1995-2001 was a pretty quiet time politically.
My father introduced me (neutrally) to different political lines of thought when I was 6 - I've always been grateful to him. I started following events actively from then on (my first recollection of an outside event was Suez - our teacher, rather less neutrally, encouraged us to role-play British paratroops), though I didn't get actively involved in canvassing etc. till I was 16. I can't imagine growing up and not caring about the world around me, though obviously it's dependent on someone taking the trouble.
If she wins a majority her deal is still rejected.
Not if the manifesto was explicit and sitting MP's, and candidates, were selected on the basis of their agreement to implement her deal.
Yes, Soubry and a few others would stomp off but it would be a small price to pay.
It might have escaped your notice, but May is not a leader with that kind of absolute power. And even in your fantasy world, it would likely be the other extreme of the party doing the stomping.
Apart from that, a flawless plan.
Any plan that would potentially see Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Davis, Gove, Fabricant, Brady and Hannan (not an MP) leave both Parliament and the governing party is a plan that deserves to be considered very seriously.
I take exception to your inclusion of my local MP (Sir Graham Brady) in that list. Although I have not voted for him, he is a man of integrity, and acts in a dignified manner. He did an excellent job a few weeks ago in getting his motion on Brexit, which got to the nub of the problem, passed by the HoC. If the EU refuses to budge on the Irish backstop, then it should be no deal, with the blame pinned squarely on them.
"There were three kids on the Six O’Clock News on the climate change demos. One from Sheffield, one from Ullapool and one from Cardiff. I reckon if they did this quiz it would put them all in the South East of England."
No need to worry, it's only middle-class parents grooming their kids. Did anyone else find it embarrassing?
Whilst I’m all for kids learning about the environment etc., getting them actively interested in politics at such a young age seems odd to me. I reckon the first issue I really started to think about politics was the firefighters strike in 2002, when I was 15. But then 1995-2001 was a pretty quiet time politically.
BSE, the fuel strike and university tuition fees say hello.
We went on a school trip to a farm in 1996 (8/9 year olds) and we all pointed at the cows and said “mad cows”. The fuel strikes were a bit meh. Tuition fees is an interesting one. It probably should have been a bigger deal, but students support Labour.
I guess the reason the firefighters strike got me thinking was because my parents were very supportive of them and I wasn’t.
If she wins a majority her deal is still rejected.
Not if the manifesto was explicit and sitting MP's, and candidates, were selected on the basis of their agreement to implement her deal.
Yes, Soubry and a few others would stomp off but it would be a small price to pay.
It might have escaped your notice, but May is not a leader with that kind of absolute power. And even in your fantasy world, it would likely be the other extreme of the party doing the stomping.
Apart from that, a flawless plan.
Any plan that would potentially see Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Davis, Gove, Fabricant, Brady and Hannan (not an MP) leave both Parliament and the governing party is a plan that deserves to be considered very seriously.
I take exception to your inclusion of my local MP (Sir Graham Brady) in that list. Although I have not voted for him, he is a man of integrity, and acts in a dignified manner. He did an excellent job a few weeks ago in getting his motion on Brexit, which got to the nub of the problem, passed by the HoC. If the EU refuses to budge on the Irish backstop, then it should be no deal, with the blame pinned squarely on them.
Same old story Leavers blaming anyone but themselves . And a backstop isn’t a backstop if it’s time limited . The EU compromised and made it a UK wise customs arrangement after previously just wanting that for NI. It’s Mays red lines that are the problem .
Not sure if mentioned, but there is a big Brexit story on p4 of the Times:
"Macron backs legally binding concessions to the back-stop."
Enough to get Geoffrey Cox to change his legal advice.
I say May's Deal + that change gets through.
If this is true, it's potentially interesting. However, unless it's in the Withdrawal Agreement rather than the Political Declaration it isn't 'legally binding,' and so is not relevant.
Which may also explain why it's on page four of the Times.
Yes, Ishmael, it is certainly correct that No Deal meets the requirements of the Referendum Result just as well as any other form of Leaving, so for the Government to rule out No Deal is a denial of that result.
I am puzzled by the blithe assumption that the EU would offer an extension to A50 for further can-kicking. They have indicated a willingness to extend the deadline for specific major events, such as a Referendum and/or a GE, but not can-kicking.
"There were three kids on the Six O’Clock News on the climate change demos. One from Sheffield, one from Ullapool and one from Cardiff. I reckon if they did this quiz it would put them all in the South East of England."
No need to worry, it's only middle-class parents grooming their kids. Did anyone else find it embarrassing?
I got Central London or Dover, and I've never lived, or worked in either.
If this is true, it's potentially interesting. However, unless it's in the Withdrawal Agreement rather than the Political Declaration it isn't 'legally binding,' and so is not relevant.
Which may also explain why it's on page four of the Times.
While the EU was ready to negotiate new legally binding assurances, there were, diplomats said, limitations on what could be offered. This was because of the risk to Leo Varadkar, the Irish prime minister, whose Fine Gael party has a minority in the country’s parliament. “If you said, for example, that UK is free of the backstop in 2023 or that Britain has unilateral exit clause, that is the end for Varadkar,” the ambassador said. “Other European leaders will not do that to one of their own.”
According to Brussels diplomats, the EU has begun work on a new protocol to be added to the withdrawal agreement and, potentially, for some “very minor keyhole surgery” to the backstop.
Yes, Ishmael, it is certainly correct that No Deal meets the requirements of the Referendum Result just as well as any other form of Leaving, so for the Government to rule out No Deal is a denial of that result.
I am puzzled by the blithe assumption that the EU would offer an extension to A50 for further can-kicking. They have indicated a willingness to extend the deadline for specific major events, such as a Referendum and/or a GE, but not can-kicking.
Why should they?
Your first makes no sense. It isn't a requirement for progressing the referendum result that every possible way in which we might leave the EU is ruled in.
The answer to your second is that it is better than the alternative, for everyone.
Not sure if mentioned, but there is a big Brexit story on p4 of the Times:
"Macron backs legally binding concessions to the back-stop."
Enough to get Geoffrey Cox to change his legal advice.
I say May's Deal + that change gets through.
If this is true, it's potentially interesting. However, unless it's in the Withdrawal Agreement rather than the Political Declaration it isn't 'legally binding,' and so is not relevant.
Which may also explain why it's on page four of the Times.
The important point is that it is enough of a change to get the Attorney General to change his advice. That suggests the death of Hotel California Brexit. If that doesn't slake the ERG's bloodlust, then fuck 'em....
If this is true, it's potentially interesting. However, unless it's in the Withdrawal Agreement rather than the Political Declaration it isn't 'legally binding,' and so is not relevant.
Which may also explain why it's on page four of the Times.
While the EU was ready to negotiate new legally binding assurances, there were, diplomats said, limitations on what could be offered. This was because of the risk to Leo Varadkar, the Irish prime minister, whose Fine Gael party has a minority in the country’s parliament. “If you said, for example, that UK is free of the backstop in 2023 or that Britain has unilateral exit clause, that is the end for Varadkar,” the ambassador said. “Other European leaders will not do that to one of their own.”
According to Brussels diplomats, the EU has begun work on a new protocol to be added to the withdrawal agreement and, potentially, for some “very minor keyhole surgery” to the backstop.
If she wins a majority her deal is still rejected.
Not if the manifesto was explicit and sitting MP's, and candidates, were selected on the basis of their agreement to implement her deal.
Yes, Soubry and a few others would stomp off but it would be a small price to pay.
It might have escaped your notice, but May is not a leader with that kind of absolute power. And even in your fantasy world, it would likely be the other extreme of the party doing the stomping.
Apart from that, a flawless plan.
Any plan that would potentially see Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Davis, Gove, Fabricant, Brady and Hannan (not an MP) leave both Parliament and the governing party is a plan that deserves to be considered very seriously.
I take exception to your inclusion of my local MP (Sir Graham Brady) in that list. Although I have not voted for him, he is a man of integrity, and acts in a dignified manner. He did an excellent job a few weeks ago in getting his motion on Brexit, which got to the nub of the problem, passed by the HoC. If the EU refuses to budge on the Irish backstop, then it should be no deal, with the blame pinned squarely on them.
And blaming the EU for "no deal" Brexit achieves what, exactly? Cold comfort at the food bank? Cold custard at the food bank? We can't vote against them and even if we could, it would be too late.
If she wins a majority her deal is still rejected.
Not if the manifesto was explicit and sitting MP's, and candidates, were selected on the basis of their agreement to implement her deal.
Yes, Soubry and a few others would stomp off but it would be a small price to pay.
It might have escaped your notice, but May is not a leader with that kind of absolute power. And even in your fantasy world, it would likely be the other extreme of the party doing the stomping.
Apart from that, a flawless plan.
Any plan that would potentially see Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Davis, Gove, Fabricant, Brady and Hannan (not an MP) leave both Parliament and the governing party is a plan that deserves to be considered very seriously.
I take exception to your inclusion of my local MP (Sir Graham Brady) in that list. Although I have not voted for him, he is a man of integrity, and acts in a dignified manner. He did an excellent job a few weeks ago in getting his motion on Brexit, which got to the nub of the problem, passed by the HoC. If the EU refuses to budge on the Irish backstop, then it should be no deal, with the blame pinned squarely on them.
Lesson one of politics: the government is always to blame.
Spot on for me (London), though I'd think there's a class element in the UK too for some of the questions - doubt if most Scottish professors say "breeks" or "it's pissing down", for instance.
Yes, Ishmael, it is certainly correct that No Deal meets the requirements of the Referendum Result just as well as any other form of Leaving, so for the Government to rule out No Deal is a denial of that result.
I am puzzled by the blithe assumption that the EU would offer an extension to A50 for further can-kicking. They have indicated a willingness to extend the deadline for specific major events, such as a Referendum and/or a GE, but not can-kicking.
Why should they?
Your first makes no sense. It isn't a requirement for progressing the referendum result that every possible way in which we might leave the EU is ruled in.
The answer to your second is that it is better than the alternative, for everyone.
Sorry, Ian, I don't understand.
The question on the ballot paper was simply Leave or Remain. No conditions were attached. It follows, I would have thought, that any type of Leave ticks the box.
Whether it is wise to Leave under any circumstances is a different question, but the question as put was simple enough. No Deal complies, as of course does BRINO, or any other concoction that actually tears up membership.
The key would be the AG changing his advice , given MPs made such a song and dance about seeing that last time it could put them in an uncomfortable position .
I doubt the ERG would back that regardless as they clearly will continue to find excuses not to vote for the WA and want a no deal .
You’d think by this time even May might get fed up of them and say either back her deal or Article 50 gets extended .
Step back and see what other nations see if Mr Herdson is correct.
The EU Big-wigs see the UK Government making an elementary mistake by consulting their voters. Madness! But all's well, they're repeating the process until they get the right answer.
Switzerland see the UK incapable of running a referendum and implementing the result.
The rest of the world sees a country demanding democracy for others yet incapable of seeing the beam in their own eye.
I don't think the Swiss ever meaningfully implemented the result of their immigration referendum, apart from a minor face-saving something.
It's the same pattern as Greece: You can win a referendum by telling the voters you have a great negotiating position and the EU will do what you want. But you don't, and they won't. So there's no way to give the voters what they expected when they voted, and you have to either ignore the result, have another referendum to change it, or implement the literal thing without the favourable results they expected, which they probably won't ultimately thank you for.
Yes, Ishmael, it is certainly correct that No Deal meets the requirements of the Referendum Result just as well as any other form of Leaving, so for the Government to rule out No Deal is a denial of that result.
I am puzzled by the blithe assumption that the EU would offer an extension to A50 for further can-kicking. They have indicated a willingness to extend the deadline for specific major events, such as a Referendum and/or a GE, but not can-kicking.
Why should they?
Your first makes no sense. It isn't a requirement for progressing the referendum result that every possible way in which we might leave the EU is ruled in.
The answer to your second is that it is better than the alternative, for everyone.
Sorry, Ian, I don't understand.
The question on the ballot paper was simply Leave or Remain. No conditions were attached. It follows, I would have thought, that any type of Leave ticks the box.
Whether it is wise to Leave under any circumstances is a different question, but the question as put was simple enough. No Deal complies, as of course does BRINO, or any other concoction that actually tears up membership.
Isn't that so?
But you didn't say that any type of leave ticked the box. You said that ruling out just one type of leave unticked the box. Which is obviously wrong.
Finally caught up on the first episode of Europe, 10 years of turmoil, last night. Was very good for those who like me thought another program about Brexit was above and beyond. Several things struck me relevant to this thread.
Firstly, Osborne's dig at May about generally saying little and contributing less. As DavidH says she has generally been cautious throughout her career. Secondly, her one substantial intervention was to insist on DC adding further conditionality on immigration to his deal, something Cameron achieved. May will not go for a deal that does not deal with freedom of movement.
Finally, it was difficult not to be totally exasperated with the Europeans who completely underestimated the challenges that Cameron was facing and the risk of losing far, far more than Cameron was asking for. A massive misjudgment with the benefit of hindsight, particularly by Merkel.
There was inevitably some ex post facto justification going on but well worth a watch. I will try to watch episode 2, the Greek tragedy, over the weekend.
A referendum is always a convenient device for holding together parties that are horribly divided. It doesn’t make them a good idea.
True, but how to get out of our present situation? It would certainly do that, but the danger of getting 'No Deal' would be real if the two part method is chosen. The government and probably Labour leadership would back Leave in the first part, so that would likely win, then we would be faced with a toss up as to the final outcome. So a new referendum is a good idea and may be the only way out but it must be a single part affair and if we must risk 'No Deal' then conducted by AV.
Three-option referendums have been carried out by FPTP:
When Barnier said the other day that May's negotiating strategy had utterly failed, did he pause at any moment to consider that if the outcome is no deal, a hard border in Ireland, and no money, then it won't exactly represent a triumph for the EU either?
When Barnier said the other day that May's negotiating strategy had utterly failed, did he pause at any moment to consider that if the outcome is no deal, a hard border in Ireland, and no money, then it won't exactly represent a triumph for the EU either?
Not the "it'll hurt them more" fallacy again?
Although you do answer the question as to why they would grant an extension.
If we don't Brexit, they can take whatever shower of shit comes their way. Because if we don't leave now, we will forever be wearing the blue and gold-starred gimp suit. And they can own that.
When Barnier said the other day that May's negotiating strategy had utterly failed, did he pause at any moment to consider that if the outcome is no deal, a hard border in Ireland, and no money, then it won't exactly represent a triumph for the EU either?
"Finally caught up on the first episode of Europe."
Both were excellent. I was only on the periphery of any political discussions, being obliquely concerned with obscure scientific discussions, but I was never impressed with our crop of diplomats. "On tap not on top" was their view of science.
I remember a lad from the CS who looked about twenty addressing an audience of scientists, preening himself and saying "You can look upon me as a junior Mandarin."
No, I thought, I'll look upon you as a junior twat.
The idea of a European single state is not of itself bad. It's like communism, you can see it working well in the right circumstances, but the right circumstances never seem to emerge. At least with a religion we assume we're all sinners, and don't pretend that we just need to let human nature take its course. It does, so repression always follows.
Yes, I'm a cynic, but the BBC does sometimes make interesting and thought-provoking programmes.
Demand for the 992 911 has been very good in the UK as people are suspecting it is going to be the last purely internal combustion 911. There is a third layshaft in the transmission which can serve no other purpose than to add a hybrid drive system sooner or later. Probably sooner. Porsche are just sneaking out a massive price rise in the expectation that the pound will be much weaker when they eventually deliver the massive 992 backlog. Taycan deposits are unaffected presumably because the RRP hasn't been set yet.
The rest of the world sees a country demanding democracy for others yet incapable of seeing the beam in their own eye.
I know there are people who sincerely believe it but the theory that a second referendum is undemocratic has quite a limited range, I think. For most people without a dog in the pro-EU/anti-EU fight, "they voted for something, it didn't go as hoped, they voted again" would be a normal democratic process.
Unilaterally revoking without a referendum would be a different story, although it's still your elected government that's doing it, so expect some eyerolling expressing your outrage to people in countries that are *actually* undemocratic.
Demand for the 992 911 has been very good in the UK as people are suspecting it is going to be the last purely internal combustion 911. There is a third layshaft in the transmission which can serve no other purpose than to add a hybrid drive system sooner or later. Probably sooner. Porsche are just sneaking out a massive price rise in the expectation that the pound will be much weaker when they eventually deliver the massive 992 backlog. Taycan deposits are unaffected presumably because the RRP hasn't been set yet.
Yes, Ishmael, it is certainly correct that No Deal meets the requirements of the Referendum Result just as well as any other form of Leaving, so for the Government to rule out No Deal is a denial of that result.
I am puzzled by the blithe assumption that the EU would offer an extension to A50 for further can-kicking. They have indicated a willingness to extend the deadline for specific major events, such as a Referendum and/or a GE, but not can-kicking.
Why should they?
Your first makes no sense. It isn't a requirement for progressing the referendum result that every possible way in which we might leave the EU is ruled in.
The answer to your second is that it is better than the alternative, for everyone.
Sorry, Ian, I don't understand.
The question on the ballot paper was simply Leave or Remain. No conditions were attached. It follows, I would have thought, that any type of Leave ticks the box.
Whether it is wise to Leave under any circumstances is a different question, but the question as put was simple enough. No Deal complies, as of course does BRINO, or any other concoction that actually tears up membership.
Isn't that so?
But you didn't say that any type of leave ticked the box. You said that ruling out just one type of leave unticked the box. Which is obviously wrong.
I thought I'd said precisely that, but no matter. We understand each other now.
Finally caught up on the first episode of Europe, 10 years of turmoil, last night. Was very good for those who like me thought another program about Brexit was above and beyond. Several things struck me relevant to this thread.
Firstly, Osborne's dig at May about generally saying little and contributing less. As DavidH says she has generally been cautious throughout her career. Secondly, her one substantial intervention was to insist on DC adding further conditionality on immigration to his deal, something Cameron achieved. May will not go for a deal that does not deal with freedom of movement.
Finally, it was difficult not to be totally exasperated with the Europeans who completely underestimated the challenges that Cameron was facing and the risk of losing far, far more than Cameron was asking for. A massive misjudgment with the benefit of hindsight, particularly by Merkel.
There was inevitably some ex post facto justification going on but well worth a watch. I will try to watch episode 2, the Greek tragedy, over the weekend.
It's an excellent series, David. You won't be disappointed by the Greek episode.
I couldn't agree more with your assessment of the EU's treatment of Cameron. I think with the benefit of hindsight they can see that they they not only put the UK's membership at risk but briefly jeopardised the whole EU project.
That danger appears to have passed but they were clearly unwise to have dismissed British concerns so lightly.
Finally caught up on the first episode of Europe, 10 years of turmoil, last night. Was very good for those who like me thought another program about Brexit was above and beyond. Several things struck me relevant to this thread.
Firstly, Osborne's dig at May about generally saying little and contributing less. As DavidH says she has generally been cautious throughout her career. Secondly, her one substantial intervention was to insist on DC adding further conditionality on immigration to his deal, something Cameron achieved. May will not go for a deal that does not deal with freedom of movement.
Finally, it was difficult not to be totally exasperated with the Europeans who completely underestimated the challenges that Cameron was facing and the risk of losing far, far more than Cameron was asking for. A massive misjudgment with the benefit of hindsight, particularly by Merkel.
There was inevitably some ex post facto justification going on but well worth a watch. I will try to watch episode 2, the Greek tragedy, over the weekend.
It's an excellent series, David. You won't be disappointed by the Greek episode.
I couldn't agree more with your assessment of the EU's treatment of Cameron. I think with the benefit of hindsight they can see that they they not only put the UK's membership at risk but briefly jeopardised the whole EU project.
That danger appears to have passed but they were clearly unwise to have dismissed British concerns so lightly.
I thought the inside story is that Cameron didn't ask for anything much on immigration until the last minute, as he didn't see it as a priority?
Yes, Ishmael, it is certainly correct that No Deal meets the requirements of the Referendum Result just as well as any other form of Leaving, so for the Government to rule out No Deal is a denial of that result.
I am puzzled by the blithe assumption that the EU would offer an extension to A50 for further can-kicking. They have indicated a willingness to extend the deadline for specific major events, such as a Referendum and/or a GE, but not can-kicking.
Why should they?
Your first makes no sense. It isn't a requirement for progressing the referendum result that every possible way in which we might leave the EU is ruled in.
The answer to your second is that it is better than the alternative, for everyone.
Sorry, Ian, I don't understand.
The question on the ballot paper was simply Leave or Remain. No conditions were attached. It follows, I would have thought, that any type of Leave ticks the box.
Whether it is wise to Leave under any circumstances is a different question, but the question as put was simple enough. No Deal complies, as of course does BRINO, or any other concoction that actually tears up membership.
Isn't that so?
But you didn't say that any type of leave ticked the box. You said that ruling out just one type of leave unticked the box. Which is obviously wrong.
I thought I'd said precisely that, but no matter. We understand each other now.
"No Deal meets the requirements of the Referendum Result just as well as any other form of Leaving, so for the Government to rule out No Deal is a denial of that result."
Yes, Ishmael, it is certainly correct that No Deal meets the requirements of the Referendum Result just as well as any other form of Leaving, so for the Government to rule out No Deal is a denial of that result.
I am puzzled by the blithe assumption that the EU would offer an extension to A50 for further can-kicking. They have indicated a willingness to extend the deadline for specific major events, such as a Referendum and/or a GE, but not can-kicking.
Why should they?
Your first makes no sense. It isn't a requirement for progressing the referendum result that every possible way in which we might leave the EU is ruled in.
The answer to your second is that it is better than the alternative, for everyone.
Sorry, Ian, I don't understand.
The question on the ballot paper was simply Leave or Remain. No conditions were attached. It follows, I would have thought, that any type of Leave ticks the box.
Whether it is wise to Leave under any circumstances is a different question, but the question as put was simple enough. No Deal complies, as of course does BRINO, or any other concoction that actually tears up membership.
Isn't that so?
But you didn't say that any type of leave ticked the box. You said that ruling out just one type of leave unticked the box. Which is obviously wrong.
I thought I'd said precisely that, but no matter. We understand each other now.
"No Deal meets the requirements of the Referendum Result just as well as any other form of Leaving, so for the Government to rule out No Deal is a denial of that result."
Exactly! No Deal ticks the box, just as any other form of leaving would.
Spot on for me (London), though I'd think there's a class element in the UK too for some of the questions - doubt if most Scottish professors say "breeks" or "it's pissing down", for instance.
Normal everyday people will use them at times though
Finally caught up on the first episode of Europe, 10 years of turmoil, last night. Was very good for those who like me thought another program about Brexit was above and beyond. Several things struck me relevant to this thread.
Firstly, Osborne's dig at May about generally saying little and contributing less. As DavidH says she has generally been cautious throughout her career. Secondly, her one substantial intervention was to insist on DC adding further conditionality on immigration to his deal, something Cameron achieved. May will not go for a deal that does not deal with freedom of movement.
Finally, it was difficult not to be totally exasperated with the Europeans who completely underestimated the challenges that Cameron was facing and the risk of losing far, far more than Cameron was asking for. A massive misjudgment with the benefit of hindsight, particularly by Merkel.
There was inevitably some ex post facto justification going on but well worth a watch. I will try to watch episode 2, the Greek tragedy, over the weekend.
It's an excellent series, David. You won't be disappointed by the Greek episode.
I couldn't agree more with your assessment of the EU's treatment of Cameron. I think with the benefit of hindsight they can see that they they not only put the UK's membership at risk but briefly jeopardised the whole EU project.
That danger appears to have passed but they were clearly unwise to have dismissed British concerns so lightly.
I thought the inside story is that Cameron didn't ask for anything much on immigration until the last minute, as he didn't see it as a priority?
We don't know enough about the minutae of the discussions, and obviously the programme couldn't go too far into that, but Cameron's overall position that the UK was concerned about the general direction of travel in the EU was a concern the EU Leaders should have taken a lot more seriously.
You didn't have to a Brexiteer to be concerned about that.
People who think the Tories will never again run a GE campaign as badly as the 2017 one should look at what was clearly a co-ordinated response to the kids’ climate change strike yesterday.
Finally caught up on the first episode of Europe, 10 years of turmoil, last night. Was very good for those who like me thought another program about Brexit was above and beyond. Several things struck me relevant to this thread.
Firstly, Osborne's dig at May about generally saying little and contributing less. As DavidH says she has generally been cautious throughout her career. Secondly, her one substantial intervention was to insist on DC adding further conditionality on immigration to his deal, something Cameron achieved. May will not go for a deal that does not deal with freedom of movement.
Finally, it was difficult not to be totally exasperated with the Europeans who completely underestimated the challenges that Cameron was facing and the risk of losing far, far more than Cameron was asking for. A massive misjudgment with the benefit of hindsight, particularly by Merkel.
There was inevitably some ex post facto justification going on but well worth a watch. I will try to watch episode 2, the Greek tragedy, over the weekend.
It's an excellent series, David. You won't be disappointed by the Greek episode.
I couldn't agree more with your assessment of the EU's treatment of Cameron. I think with the benefit of hindsight they can see that they they not only put the UK's membership at risk but briefly jeopardised the whole EU project.
That danger appears to have passed but they were clearly unwise to have dismissed British concerns so lightly.
I thought the inside story is that Cameron didn't ask for anything much on immigration until the last minute, as he didn't see it as a priority?
We don't know enough about the minutae of the discussions, and obviously the programme couldn't go too far into that, but Cameron's overall position that the UK was concerned about the general direction of travel in the EU was a concern the EU Leaders should have taken a lot more seriously.
You didn't have to a Brexiteer to be concerned about that.
What came across in the programme is that Cameron didn’t understand and therefore couldn’t engage with EU politics. He made a huge mistake in exiting the EPP.
While David Herdson may be quite correct as to the meaning of a longer rather than shorter extension to Article 50 one must question whether it is going to be of more than can-kicking value, while it could be much worse in its effects. Firstly you have to get the problem of the 2019 European elections out of the way. If the UK takes part the outcome is an unknown and could be an unpredictable factor in itself. Secondly several million people will, not irrationally, question the legitimacy of having Remain on the ballot, and this may even skew the result and its legitimacy by campaigns for abstentions etc. Thirdly there isn't much reason to think there will be a decisive result - which is already part of the problem. Fourthly if we vote, even by a margin, to 'remain' this does not solve the problem that a majority wants the trading relationship but not the political union relationship. Fifthly, and this may or may not be seen as good, it could easily precipitate the fracturing of parties.
We should be careful what we wish for. TMs deal, slightly tweaked, remains the closest to a reconciling that is available to us, even if it is not very close and carries lots of risk.
The key would be the AG changing his advice , given MPs made such a song and dance about seeing that last time it could put them in an uncomfortable position .
I doubt the ERG would back that regardless as they clearly will continue to find excuses not to vote for the WA and want a no deal .
You’d think by this time even May might get fed up of them and say either back her deal or Article 50 gets extended .
Again, the EU keep saying there has to be a stable majority for a particular course of action before they'll agree to extend. Maybe they're bluffing, but we can't assume so.
Finally caught up on the first episode of Europe, 10 years of turmoil, last night. Was very good for those who like me thought another program about Brexit was above and beyond. Several things struck me relevant to this thread.
Firstly, Osborne's dig at May about generally saying little and contributing less. As DavidH says she has generally been cautious throughout her career. Secondly, her one substantial intervention was to insist on DC adding further conditionality on immigration to his deal, something Cameron achieved. May will not go for a deal that does not deal with freedom of movement.
Finally, it was difficult not to be totally exasperated with the Europeans who completely underestimated the challenges that Cameron was facing and the risk of losing far, far more than Cameron was asking for. A massive misjudgment with the benefit of hindsight, particularly by Merkel.
There was inevitably some ex post facto justification going on but well worth a watch. I will try to watch episode 2, the Greek tragedy, over the weekend.
It's an excellent series, David. You won't be disappointed by the Greek episode.
I couldn't agree more with your assessment of the EU's treatment of Cameron. I think with the benefit of hindsight they can see that they they not only put the UK's membership at risk but briefly jeopardised the whole EU project.
That danger appears to have passed but they were clearly unwise to have dismissed British concerns so lightly.
I thought the inside story is that Cameron didn't ask for anything much on immigration until the last minute, as he didn't see it as a priority?
We don't know enough about the minutae of the discussions, and obviously the programme couldn't go too far into that, but Cameron's overall position that the UK was concerned about the general direction of travel in the EU was a concern the EU Leaders should have taken a lot more seriously.
You didn't have to a Brexiteer to be concerned about that.
What came across in the programme is that Cameron didn’t understand and therefore couldn’t engage with EU politics. He made a huge mistake in exiting the EPP.
What came across in the programme is that Cameron didn’t understand and therefore couldn’t engage with EU politics. He made a huge mistake in exiting the EPP.
Yes, that was very clear.
It is ironic to reflect in 2005 David Davis sold himself as pro-EU because he wasn't going to yank the Tories out of the EPP.
But to be honest I really don't see how the party stayed aligned with an explicitly federalist group given its membership. Hannan and Juncker in the same group?
Of course, if the Tories had stayed in Juncker would have been quietly relegated to sweeping floors and we might just have voted in. Karma's a bitch.
Anyway, I am off to recharge some batteries with what I hope will be a relaxing break in Wales. Have a good week.
And no deal isn't going to any referendum. Even our politicians retain some ability to learn from previous mistakes.
ThisIs the most curious long running misconception in the history of pb. You cannot resolve to leave without it being implicit that you will leave with no deal if necessary, because otherwise you are committing to accepting whatever terms the eh chooses to impose.
Which is one reason why leaving was always a bad idea.
And no deal isn't going to any referendum. Even our politicians retain some ability to learn from previous mistakes.
ThisIs the most curious long running misconception in the history of pb. You cannot resolve to leave without it being implicit that you will leave with no deal if necessary, because otherwise you are committing to accepting whatever terms the eh chooses to impose.
Which is one reason why leaving was always a bad idea.
It was why having the Legislature involved in the minutae of the negotations was utter batshit-crazy stoopid.
There was only one approach that could ever work. Here's the final deal - take it, or else leave with no deal. Your call.
It'd be nice to think not, but we've heard it so much before, and with the DUP and labour rebels. Anytime it's reported, that Mays endless delay plan is working, they come out and form up opposition.
Until we have various MPs on the record switching to the deal+ or whatever is take it with a bowl of salt.
What came across in the programme is that Cameron didn’t understand and therefore couldn’t engage with EU politics. He made a huge mistake in exiting the EPP.
Yes, that was very clear.
It is ironic to reflect in 2005 David Davis sold himself as pro-EU because he wasn't going to yank the Tories out of the EPP.
But to be honest I really don't see how the party stayed aligned with an explicitly federalist group given its membership. Hannan and Juncker in the same group?
Of course, if the Tories had stayed in Juncker would have been quietly relegated to sweeping floors and we might just have voted in. Karma's a bitch.
Anyway, I am off to recharge some batteries with what I hope will be a relaxing break in Wales. Have a good week.
It made no sense for the Conservatives to be in the EPP, but then it makes no sense for Fidesz to belong.
And no deal isn't going to any referendum. Even our politicians retain some ability to learn from previous mistakes.
ThisIs the most curious long running misconception in the history of pb. You cannot resolve to leave without it being implicit that you will leave with no deal if necessary, because otherwise you are committing to accepting whatever terms the eh chooses to impose.
Which is one reason why leaving was always a bad idea.
It was why having the Legislature involved in the minutae of the negotations was utter batshit-crazy stoopid.
There was only one approach that could ever work. Here's the final deal - take it, or else leave with no deal. Your call.
Which is what May wanted to do. Parliament demanded flexibility so it could chase unicorns, and of course to enable remain if it could manage it.
Finally caught up on the first episode of Europe, 10 years of turmoil, last night. Was very good for those who like me thought another program about Brexit was above and beyond. Several things struck me relevant to this thread.
Firstly, Osborne's dig at May about generally saying little and contributing less. As DavidH says she has generally been cautious throughout her career. Secondly, her one substantial intervention was to insist on DC adding further conditionality on immigration to his deal, something Cameron achieved. May will not go for a deal that does not deal with freedom of movement.
Finally, it was difficult not to be totally exasperated with the Europeans who completely underestimated the challenges that Cameron was facing and the risk of losing far, far more than Cameron was asking for. A massive misjudgment with the benefit of hindsight, particularly by Merkel.
There was inevitably some ex post facto justification going on but well worth a watch. I will try to watch episode 2, the Greek tragedy, over the weekend.
It's an excellent series, David. You won't be disappointed by the Greek episode.
I couldn't agree more with your assessment of the EU's treatment of Cameron. I think with the benefit of hindsight they can see that they they not only put the UK's membership at risk but briefly jeopardised the whole EU project.
That danger appears to have passed but they were clearly unwise to have dismissed British concerns so lightly.
I thought the inside story is that Cameron didn't ask for anything much on immigration until the last minute, as he didn't see it as a priority?
We don't know enough about the minutae of the discussions, and obviously the programme couldn't go too far into that, but Cameron's overall position that the UK was concerned about the general direction of travel in the EU was a concern the EU Leaders should have taken a lot more seriously.
You didn't have to a Brexiteer to be concerned about that.
Somewhere in the internet there is a detailed analysis by one of his then officials, which I recall was a good if detailed read, but cannot find. It put the discussions in a rather different light, if from an obviously partial perspective.
It'd be nice to think not, but we've heard it so much before, and with the DUP and labour rebels. Anytime it's reported, that Mays endless delay plan is working, they come out and form up opposition.
Until we have various MPs on the record switching to the deal+ or whatever is take it with a bowl of salt.
There was only one approach that could ever work. Here's the final deal - take it, or else leave with no deal. Your call.
The government could not have survived the day with that stance
Yet it is what the Lisbon Treaty says.
We have hundreds of Mps spitting mad that no deal is even possible despite them voting to trigger A50, and plenty others who claim or imply the 2 year period is Mays choice. What treaties do or do not say obviously doesn't matter to such people.
Reminder not to take the times seriously. Mood music is a better indicator of pace. Bad reliability can be reasonably accurately determined by testing.
It'd be nice to think not, but we've heard it so much before, and with the DUP and labour rebels. Anytime it's reported, that Mays endless delay plan is working, they come out and form up opposition.
Until we have various MPs on the record switching to the deal+ or whatever is take it with a bowl of salt.
Take it with the same bowl of salt as reports of ministerial resignations and Labour defections.
There was only one approach that could ever work. Here's the final deal - take it, or else leave with no deal. Your call.
The government could not have survived the day with that stance
Yet it is what the Lisbon Treaty says.
We have hundreds of Mps spitting mad that no deal is even possible despite them voting to trigger A50, and plenty others who claim or imply the 2 year period is Mays choice. What treaties do or do not say obviously doesn't matter to such people.
Maybe they just don't understand the Bills that they pass.
Yes, Ishmael, it is certainly correct that No Deal meets the requirements of the Referendum Result just as well as any other form of Leaving, so for the Government to rule out No Deal is a denial of that result.
I am puzzled by the blithe assumption that the EU would offer an extension to A50 for further can-kicking. They have indicated a willingness to extend the deadline for specific major events, such as a Referendum and/or a GE, but not can-kicking.
Why should they?
Your first makes no sense. It isn't a requirement for progressing the referendum result that every possible way in which we might leave the EU is ruled in.
The answer to your second is that it is better than the alternative, for everyone.
Sorry, Ian, I don't understand.
The question on the ballot paper was simply Leave or Remain. No conditions were attached. It follows, I would have thought, that any type of Leave ticks the box.
Whether it is wise to Leave under any circumstances is a different question, but the question as put was simple enough. No Deal complies, as of course does BRINO, or any other concoction that actually tears up membership.
Isn't that so?
But you didn't say that any type of leave ticked the box. You said that ruling out just one type of leave unticked the box. Which is obviously wrong.
I thought I'd said precisely that, but no matter. We understand each other now.
"No Deal meets the requirements of the Referendum Result just as well as any other form of Leaving, so for the Government to rule out No Deal is a denial of that result."
Exactly! No Deal ticks the box, just as any other form of leaving would.
But that is not what you said. What you said is that ruling out no deal is a denial of the result.
Any plan that would potentially see Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Davis, Gove, Fabricant, Brady and Hannan (not an MP) leave both Parliament and the governing party is a plan that deserves to be considered very seriously.
I take exception to your inclusion of my local MP (Sir Graham Brady) in that list. Although I have not voted for him, he is a man of integrity, and acts in a dignified manner. He did an excellent job a few weeks ago in getting his motion on Brexit, which got to the nub of the problem, passed by the HoC. If the EU refuses to budge on the Irish backstop, then it should be no deal, with the blame pinned squarely on them.
The backstop is in the UK's interest. That is why we asked for it.
Comments
"There were three kids on the Six O’Clock News on the climate change demos. One from Sheffield, one from Ullapool and one from Cardiff. I reckon if they did this quiz it would put them all in the South East of England."
No need to worry, it's only middle-class parents grooming their kids. Did anyone else find it embarrassing?
The EU Big-wigs see the UK Government making an elementary mistake by consulting their voters. Madness! But all's well, they're repeating the process until they get the right answer.
Switzerland see the UK incapable of running a referendum and implementing the result.
The rest of the world sees a country demanding democracy for others yet incapable of seeing the beam in their own eye.
"I got Central London or Dover, and I've never lived, or worked in either."
I got Lincolnshire and Yorkshire. The first correct, but the second an insult!
But I rather suspect a departure on time and with no deal might be rather turbulent.
*slaps across the face with a large haddock*
How very dare thee impugn the honour of mighty Yorkshire?
I suspected that would get a response, But I was attempting to make Mr Cole feel better.
I guess the reason the firefighters strike got me thinking was because my parents were very supportive of them and I wasn’t.
"Macron backs legally binding concessions to the back-stop."
Enough to get Geoffrey Cox to change his legal advice.
I say May's Deal + that change gets through.
*Surprised face*
Which may also explain why it's on page four of the Times.
I am puzzled by the blithe assumption that the EU would offer an extension to A50 for further can-kicking. They have indicated a willingness to extend the deadline for specific major events, such as a Referendum and/or a GE, but not can-kicking.
Why should they?
According to Brussels diplomats, the EU has begun work on a new protocol to be added to the withdrawal agreement and, potentially, for some “very minor keyhole surgery” to the backstop.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brexit-macron-backs-legally-binding-concessions-to-irish-backstop-3c0snmnqk
The answer to your second is that it is better than the alternative, for everyone.
History shows that nothing satisfies their bloodlust.
And fuck 'em, how, exactly?
The question on the ballot paper was simply Leave or Remain. No conditions were attached. It follows, I would have thought, that any type of Leave ticks the box.
Whether it is wise to Leave under any circumstances is a different question, but the question as put was simple enough. No Deal complies, as of course does BRINO, or any other concoction that actually tears up membership.
Isn't that so?
The key would be the AG changing his advice , given MPs made such a song and dance about seeing that last time it could put them in an uncomfortable position .
I doubt the ERG would back that regardless as they clearly will continue to find excuses not to vote for the WA and want a no deal .
You’d think by this time even May might get fed up of them and say either back her deal or Article 50 gets extended .
It's the same pattern as Greece: You can win a referendum by telling the voters you have a great negotiating position and the EU will do what you want. But you don't, and they won't. So there's no way to give the voters what they expected when they voted, and you have to either ignore the result, have another referendum to change it, or implement the literal thing without the favourable results they expected, which they probably won't ultimately thank you for.
Firstly, Osborne's dig at May about generally saying little and contributing less. As DavidH says she has generally been cautious throughout her career. Secondly, her one substantial intervention was to insist on DC adding further conditionality on immigration to his deal, something Cameron achieved. May will not go for a deal that does not deal with freedom of movement.
Finally, it was difficult not to be totally exasperated with the Europeans who completely underestimated the challenges that Cameron was facing and the risk of losing far, far more than Cameron was asking for. A massive misjudgment with the benefit of hindsight, particularly by Merkel.
There was inevitably some ex post facto justification going on but well worth a watch. I will try to watch episode 2, the Greek tragedy, over the weekend.
https://twitter.com/jonworth/status/1096479601902186504
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum
Although you do answer the question as to why they would grant an extension.
It'll "hurt" everyone.
Still, at least it got the English bit correct.
Hartlepool Man's sympathy Rating? Not moving the needle one little bit.
Edit - oh, I think you mean you didn't understand me!
"Finally caught up on the first episode of Europe."
Both were excellent. I was only on the periphery of any political discussions, being obliquely concerned with obscure scientific discussions, but I was never impressed with our crop of diplomats. "On tap not on top" was their view of science.
I remember a lad from the CS who looked about twenty addressing an audience of scientists, preening himself and saying "You can look upon me as a junior Mandarin."
No, I thought, I'll look upon you as a junior twat.
The idea of a European single state is not of itself bad. It's like communism, you can see it working well in the right circumstances, but the right circumstances never seem to emerge. At least with a religion we assume we're all sinners, and don't pretend that we just need to let human nature take its course. It does, so repression always follows.
Yes, I'm a cynic, but the BBC does sometimes make interesting and thought-provoking programmes.
Unilaterally revoking without a referendum would be a different story, although it's still your elected government that's doing it, so expect some eyerolling expressing your outrage to people in countries that are *actually* undemocratic.
I'm from Birmingham. The test located me in much of central England. "Not with you" for me means, "I don't understand".
Every cloud...
I couldn't agree more with your assessment of the EU's treatment of Cameron. I think with the benefit of hindsight they can see that they they not only put the UK's membership at risk but briefly jeopardised the whole EU project.
That danger appears to have passed but they were clearly unwise to have dismissed British concerns so lightly.
You didn't have to a Brexiteer to be concerned about that.
We should be careful what we wish for. TMs deal, slightly tweaked, remains the closest to a reconciling that is available to us, even if it is not very close and carries lots of risk.
But to be honest I really don't see how the party stayed aligned with an explicitly federalist group given its membership. Hannan and Juncker in the same group?
Of course, if the Tories had stayed in Juncker would have been quietly relegated to sweeping floors and we might just have voted in. Karma's a bitch.
Anyway, I am off to recharge some batteries with what I hope will be a relaxing break in Wales. Have a good week.
https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1096705438152826882?s=21
There was only one approach that could ever work. Here's the final deal - take it, or else leave with no deal. Your call.
Until we have various MPs on the record switching to the deal+ or whatever is take it with a bowl of salt.
Reminder not to take the times seriously. Mood music is a better indicator of pace. Bad reliability can be reasonably accurately determined by testing.
Take Back Control...
Any plan that would potentially see Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Davis, Gove, Fabricant, Brady and Hannan (not an MP) leave both Parliament and the governing party is a plan that deserves to be considered very seriously.
I take exception to your inclusion of my local MP (Sir Graham Brady) in that list. Although I have not voted for him, he is a man of integrity, and acts in a dignified manner. He did an excellent job a few weeks ago in getting his motion on Brexit, which got to the nub of the problem, passed by the HoC. If the EU refuses to budge on the Irish backstop, then it should be no deal, with the blame pinned squarely on them.
The backstop is in the UK's interest. That is why we asked for it.