We're not dumping her anywhere. We're leaving her where she is in Syria. Good riddance to her.
Bangladesh could have stripped her citizenship first but didn't, we beat them to the punch.
It's hard to strip someone of a citizenship, when you don't know they're a citizen
The Government are still trying to strip me of my EU citzenship on March 29th, just saying.
No, the additional benefits of your UK citizenship are changing.
Am I an EU citizen today or not?
If the Government get's it's way will I still be an EU citizen on 30th March?
Why would it matter?
It matters to me.
Well, you always have the option of migrating.
I don't after March 29th.
Of course you can. My eldest emigrated to New Zealand 15 years ago and just did the paperwork
Same for EU
Nah, not with my medical condition Big_G - no country would take me in as an immigrant.
Anyway, I don't want to permanently move to another part of Europe, I just don't want to loose the freedoms and rights I currently have as an EU citizen.
I am sorry to hear that Ben. I did not mean to be insensitive, apologies
Theresa May has been warned by a group of 100 moderate Tory MPs that they are prepared to rebel against the Government to force her to delay Brexit if she cannot reach a deal.
The Brexit Delivery Group, which represents both Remain and Leave MPs, has called for a free vote next week on a backbench bid to take no deal off the table.
Simon Hart and Andrew Percy, the leaders of the bloc, say in letter leaked to The Daily Telegraph that "numerous" members of the group have become "deeply troubled" by the prospect of a no deal Brexit.
The letter to Julian Smith, the chief whip, says: "The reputation for competence of both the party and the Government depends on our ability to deliver an orderly exit, in line with the existing timescale.
"Whilst we fully expect some changes to the backstop arrangements to be made by ministers in Brussels this week, there remains a chance that these will not satisfy some colleagues.
"Numerous members of our group have alerted us to their intention (should rejection of the deal look likely) to get behind amendments that are planned in the name of Oliver Letwin and others and which will have the twin effect of taking no deal off the table and delaying Brexit."
Earlier this week four members of the Cabinet - Amber Rudd, David Gauke, Greg Clark and David Mundell - told the Prime Minister that they will support the backbench amendment, effectively challenging Mrs May to sack them.
They said that more than 20 members of the Government are prepared to quit unless the Government pledges to extend Article 50.
Too those advocating a second referendum. Can you assure me that if for example remain win by 52:48 but 6 months later after juncker and barnier's triumphalism (which seems likely) and the polls have swung back to leave 55:45 you will be on here arguing we need a third referendum because people have changed their mind? If you do assure us of this do you think anyone will believe it especially of William Glenn
On the subject of tig.....we have had centrism since 1997 (though I personally would count major as a centrist so I would argue 1992). During that time ABC1 have done well. The rest ....sort of the majority of the country haven't. We have seen our wages eroded as they stayed static while inflation increased. We have seen house prices rocket out of reach etc. You may welcome a new centrist party. I remain unconvinced the majority of the country that has not done so well under a centrist philosophy wants anything to do with it.
Welcome to PB.
I would somewhat disagree that the ABC1 have done well as I believe we are seeing what I refer to as 'middle class regression'.
That is people from middle class background and with a middle class education no longer being able to have middle class attributes and lifestyle.
The principal reason for this being housing costs making home ownership unaffordable to many people in many places. The effects of student tuition fees also having an increasing effect.
By contrast many of traditional working class background in traditional working class towns are doing very nicely if they have a useful skillset and positive work attitude.
Personally I'd just sign May's agreement. We can break every last clause of that agreement as we see fit in the future. At least it gives us a foundation for our future irresponsibility (which I encourage in that it's not a great deal).
I think you have a good insight into the mentality of the ERG types .The Davies "It's not worth the paper it's written on" gambit will be the ERG rationalisation for supporting the Deal. May still needs a decent chunk of Labour MPs to vote for the deal or abstain, so she doesn't have to worry about the DUP to get it over the line.
aka "Let's pretend it's not a Deal" is better than a bad deal.
As any thread relating to Brexit grows longer, the probability of someone invoking "but muh democracy" approaches 1.
The horror. The horror. Of people wanting a vote to be respected.
The thing is, it's such a thin argument. Nobody is an an out-and-out democracy fan for its own sake; everybody accepts that democracy has to be very heavily tempered and restricted to make it workable, which is why we don't have GEs twice a month or referendums on whether the death penalty should be reenacted for the child-killer du jour. "Oooh, you have to respect the vote" is a really pissy procedural point. It's also flat wrong because the referendum was advisory, so you can quite consistently consider the result in the most respectful manner imaginable and then reject it.
Yes, you can quite consider the result then reject it.
So long as you're willing for the 52% of people who voted in the way you're now rejecting to say, OK, democracy doesn't work. What now?
If you can name a better system than democracy, I'm all ears.
Why would the 52% say that? They would quite simply be wrong; considering advice does not necessarily entail following it, and they can hardly claim that their advice not been considered in quite some depth since it was given.
Because they were told time and time again by the Remain side that the decision would be final and would be respected. If you think that they will now view democracy in the same way if you ignore the referendum result then you are living on another planet.
What is "the Remain side"? I believe Cameron said in a press release that the result would be treated as final, but you clearly have no respect whatever for our great democratic institutions if you think the obiter dicta of an Old Etonian with a shiny forehead affect the law of the land. The referendum was advisory.
Well all three of the Tory MPs who have defected now claiming we should reverse Brexit said in their own election literature that the decision had to be respected and should not be reversed.
And of course the official campaign literature provided to every single household by the Government urging people to vote Remain said:
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide"
In Anna Soubry's leaflet she talks about her promise to respect the result in the past tense as having been fulfilled by voting to invoke Article 50 and says "we now need to move on".
Momm. I wonder how much of that applies to the government too. There has been a surfeit of Tory wets on the Downing Street catwalk today. TIG puts Corbyn in no 10 any time soon much further out of reach. And fear of Corbyn is a huge driver of Tory support. We will see.
The Tories are not in as much trouble as Labour - they don't see May as the problem. She is utterly in hock to the crazies, but Corbyn embodies our crazies. What you have to consider though is the Brexit wildcard. "Urgh but Corbyn" simply doesn't cut it any more when the real "Urgh but" is anything that isn't the hardest of hard Brexits. Too many voters now have become utterly psychotic on this issue and will absolutely punish the Conservative Party if May Betrays the British People by leading us out of the European Union - an utter betray of our voter to leave the European Union...
Brexit is the ultimate symptom of the current madness that has broken British Politics. But it is not the reason driving it - the gross and growing inequality and inequity of the Post-Thatcher settlement is what has driven that.
Theresa May has been warned by a group of 100 moderate Tory MPs that they are prepared to rebel against the Government to force her to delay Brexit if she cannot reach a deal.
The Brexit Delivery Group, which represents both Remain and Leave MPs, has called for a free vote next week on a backbench bid to take no deal off the table.
Simon Hart and Andrew Percy, the leaders of the bloc, say in letter leaked to The Daily Telegraph that "numerous" members of the group have become "deeply troubled" by the prospect of a no deal Brexit.
The letter to Julian Smith, the chief whip, says: "The reputation for competence of both the party and the Government depends on our ability to deliver an orderly exit, in line with the existing timescale.
"Whilst we fully expect some changes to the backstop arrangements to be made by ministers in Brussels this week, there remains a chance that these will not satisfy some colleagues.
"Numerous members of our group have alerted us to their intention (should rejection of the deal look likely) to get behind amendments that are planned in the name of Oliver Letwin and others and which will have the twin effect of taking no deal off the table and delaying Brexit."
Earlier this week four members of the Cabinet - Amber Rudd, David Gauke, Greg Clark and David Mundell - told the Prime Minister that they will support the backbench amendment, effectively challenging Mrs May to sack them.
They said that more than 20 members of the Government are prepared to quit unless the Government pledges to extend Article 50.
Theresa May has been warned by a group of 100 moderate Tory MPs that they are prepared to rebel against the Government to force her to delay Brexit if she cannot reach a deal.
The Brexit Delivery Group, which represents both Remain and Leave MPs, has called for a free vote next week on a backbench bid to take no deal off the table.
Simon Hart and Andrew Percy, the leaders of the bloc, say in letter leaked to The Daily Telegraph that "numerous" members of the group have become "deeply troubled" by the prospect of a no deal Brexit.
The letter to Julian Smith, the chief whip, says: "The reputation for competence of both the party and the Government depends on our ability to deliver an orderly exit, in line with the existing timescale.
"Whilst we fully expect some changes to the backstop arrangements to be made by ministers in Brussels this week, there remains a chance that these will not satisfy some colleagues.
"Numerous members of our group have alerted us to their intention (should rejection of the deal look likely) to get behind amendments that are planned in the name of Oliver Letwin and others and which will have the twin effect of taking no deal off the table and delaying Brexit."
Earlier this week four members of the Cabinet - Amber Rudd, David Gauke, Greg Clark and David Mundell - told the Prime Minister that they will support the backbench amendment, effectively challenging Mrs May to sack them.
They said that more than 20 members of the Government are prepared to quit unless the Government pledges to extend Article 50.
Has anyone yet worked out how, as the default option of A50, No Deal is taken off the table?
"If parliament does not approve a deal, then article 50 will be revoked."
In theory but who will actually write the letter to revoke?
TM
So then ultimately on this the decision to revoke or not is entirely with TM and NOT Parliament?
Well if Parliament instructs May to revoke Article 50 and she refuses then Parliament could VONC her and put in place a successor who will revoke Article 50. #TakingBackControl.
Under FTPA could a VONC and new government, followed by revocation of A50 all be sorted out before 29th March?
Under FTPA could a VONC and new government, followed by revocation of A50 all be sorted out before 29th March?
Just 36 (nearly 35) day to go now...
Yep. I think that if it is done without needing a GE then it could take up to 14 days (the time between a VoNC and the requirement for a dissolution) and the revocation itself would probably be only a matter of hours. If a new government cannot be formed from the existing Parliament and a GE is required then no there is not time.
We're not dumping her anywhere. We're leaving her where she is in Syria. Good riddance to her.
Bangladesh could have stripped her citizenship first but didn't, we beat them to the punch.
It's hard to strip someone of a citizenship, when you don't know they're a citizen
The Government are still trying to strip me of my EU citzenship on March 29th, just saying.
No, the additional benefits of your UK citizenship are changing.
Am I an EU citizen today or not?
If the Government get's it's way will I still be an EU citizen on 30th March?
Why would it matter?
It matters to me.
Well, you always have the option of migrating.
I don't after March 29th.
Of course you can. My eldest emigrated to New Zealand 15 years ago and just did the paperwork
Same for EU
Nah, not with my medical condition Big_G - no country would take me in as an immigrant.
Anyway, I don't want to permanently move to another part of Europe, I just don't want to loose the freedoms and rights I currently have as an EU citizen.
I am sorry to hear that Ben. I did not mean to be insensitive, apologies
Theresa May has been warned by a group of 100 moderate Tory MPs that they are prepared to rebel against the Government to force her to delay Brexit if she cannot reach a deal.
The Brexit Delivery Group, which represents both Remain and Leave MPs, has called for a free vote next week on a backbench bid to take no deal off the table.
Simon Hart and Andrew Percy, the leaders of the bloc, say in letter leaked to The Daily Telegraph that "numerous" members of the group have become "deeply troubled" by the prospect of a no deal Brexit.
The letter to Julian Smith, the chief whip, says: "The reputation for competence of both the party and the Government depends on our ability to deliver an orderly exit, in line with the existing timescale.
"Whilst we fully expect some changes to the backstop arrangements to be made by ministers in Brussels this week, there remains a chance that these will not satisfy some colleagues.
"Numerous members of our group have alerted us to their intention (should rejection of the deal look likely) to get behind amendments that are planned in the name of Oliver Letwin and others and which will have the twin effect of taking no deal off the table and delaying Brexit."
Earlier this week four members of the Cabinet - Amber Rudd, David Gauke, Greg Clark and David Mundell - told the Prime Minister that they will support the backbench amendment, effectively challenging Mrs May to sack them.
They said that more than 20 members of the Government are prepared to quit unless the Government pledges to extend Article 50.
Has anyone yet worked out how, as the default option of A50, No Deal is taken off the table?
"If parliament does not approve a deal, then article 50 will be revoked."
In theory but who will actually write the letter to revoke?
TM
So then ultimately on this the decision to revoke or not is entirely with TM and NOT Parliament?
Well if Parliament instructs May to revoke Article 50 and she refuses then Parliament could VONC her and put in place a successor who will revoke Article 50. #TakingBackControl.
Under FTPA could a VONC and new government, followed by revocation of A50 all be sorted out before 29th March?
Just 36 (nearly 35) day to go now...
We rapidly changed PMs during both World Wars, so it'll be so easy during Brexit.
Even easier than all those trade deals that Foxy promised.
Personally I'd just sign May's agreement. We can break every last clause of that agreement as we see fit in the future. At least it gives us a foundation for our future irresponsibility (which I encourage in that it's not a great deal).
I think you have a good insight into the mentality of the ERG types .The Davies "It's not worth the paper it's written on" gambit will be the ERG rationalisation for supporting the Deal. May still needs a decent chunk of Labour MPs to vote for the deal or abstain, so she doesn't have to worry about the DUP to get it over the line.
The problem is that if the DUP are still opposed, the ERG will be afraid of looking weak if they vote for it. Capitulation only works if it has the blessing of the most intransigent.
The ERG are NOT capitulating. They are declaring victory and bringing Brexit home.
Theresa May has been warned by a group of 100 moderate Tory MPs that they are prepared to rebel against the Government to force her to delay Brexit if she cannot reach a deal.
The Brexit Delivery Group, which represents both Remain and Leave MPs, has called for a free vote next week on a backbench bid to take no deal off the table.
Simon Hart and Andrew Percy, the leaders of the bloc, say in letter leaked to The Daily Telegraph that "numerous" members of the group have become "deeply troubled" by the prospect of a no deal Brexit.
The letter to Julian Smith, the chief whip, says: "The reputation for competence of both the party and the Government depends on our ability to deliver an orderly exit, in line with the existing timescale.
"Whilst we fully expect some changes to the backstop arrangements to be made by ministers in Brussels this week, there remains a chance that these will not satisfy some colleagues.
"Numerous members of our group have alerted us to their intention (should rejection of the deal look likely) to get behind amendments that are planned in the name of Oliver Letwin and others and which will have the twin effect of taking no deal off the table and delaying Brexit."
Earlier this week four members of the Cabinet - Amber Rudd, David Gauke, Greg Clark and David Mundell - told the Prime Minister that they will support the backbench amendment, effectively challenging Mrs May to sack them.
They said that more than 20 members of the Government are prepared to quit unless the Government pledges to extend Article 50.
Has anyone yet worked out how, as the default option of A50, No Deal is taken off the table?
"If parliament does not approve a deal, then article 50 will be revoked."
In theory but who will actually write the letter to revoke?
TM
So then ultimately on this the decision to revoke or not is entirely with TM and NOT Parliament?
Well if Parliament instructs May to revoke Article 50 and she refuses then Parliament could VONC her and put in place a successor who will revoke Article 50. #TakingBackControl.
A few weeks ago you were rating the chance of no deal at 75% if I recall correctly. What do you rate it now?
Too those advocating a second referendum. Can you assure me that if for example remain win by 52:48 but 6 months later after juncker and barnier's triumphalism (which seems likely) and the polls have swung back to leave 55:45 you will be on here arguing we need a third referendum because people have changed their mind? If you do assure us of this do you think anyone will believe it especially of William Glenn
On the subject of tig.....we have had centrism since 1997 (though I personally would count major as a centrist so I would argue 1992). During that time ABC1 have done well. The rest ....sort of the majority of the country haven't. We have seen our wages eroded as they stayed static while inflation increased. We have seen house prices rocket out of reach etc. You may welcome a new centrist party. I remain unconvinced the majority of the country that has not done so well under a centrist philosophy wants anything to do with it.
I think it was Peter Kellner who pointed out that referendums often follow the pattern whereby there is an initial vote for "change" which then eventually collapses because there is no agreement on what that "change" should be.
Brexit has followed that pattern exactly, a narrow majority for change, then nearly 3 years on still no sign of any agreement on what that change should be. There is no majority support for any actual form of Brexit, be it May's deal or No deal.
That is why there are demands for a further vote, we have reached a complete impasse. If Remain had won we wouldn't have reached such an an impasse, the subsequent steps would have been quite clear.
As any thread relating to Brexit grows longer, the probability of someone invoking "but muh democracy" approaches 1.
The horror. The horror. Of people wanting a vote to be respected.
The thing is, it's such a thin argument. Nobody is an an out-and-out democracy fan for its own sake; everybody accepts that democracy has to be very heavily tempered and restricted to make it workable, which is why we don't have GEs twice a month or referendums on whether the death penalty should be reenacted for the child-killer du jour. "Oooh, you have to respect the vote" is a really pissy procedural point. It's also flat wrong because the referendum was advisory, so you can quite consistently consider the result in the most respectful manner imaginable and then reject it.
Yes, you can quite consider the result then reject it.
So long as you're willing for the 52% of people who voted in the way you're now rejecting to say, OK, democracy doesn't work. What now?
If you can name a better system than democracy, I'm all ears.
Why would the 52% say that? They would quite simply be wrong; considering advice does not necessarily entail following it, and they can hardly claim that their advice not been considered in quite some depth since it was given.
Because they were told time and time again by the Remain side that the decision would be final and would be respected. If you think that they will now view democracy in the same way if you ignore the referendum result then you are living on another planet.
What is "the Remain side"? I believe Cameron said in a press release that the result would be treated as final, but you clearly have no respect whatever for our great democratic institutions if you think the obiter dicta of an Old Etonian with a shiny forehead affect the law of the land. The referendum was advisory.
Well all three of the Tory MPs who have defected now claiming we should reverse Brexit said in their own election literature that the decision had to be respected and should not be reversed.
And of course the official campaign literature provided to every single household by the Government urging people to vote Remain said:
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide"
The government rather overselling its capability, there, as it transpired.
Theresa May has been warned by a group of 100 moderate Tory MPs that they are prepared to rebel against the Government to force her to delay Brexit if she cannot reach a deal.
The Brexit Delivery Group, which represents both Remain and Leave MPs, has called for a free vote next week on a backbench bid to take no deal off the table.
Simon Hart and Andrew Percy, the leaders of the bloc, say in letter leaked to The Daily Telegraph that "numerous" members of the group have become "deeply troubled" by the prospect of a no deal Brexit.
The letter to Julian Smith, the chief whip, says: "The reputation for competence of both the party and the Government depends on our ability to deliver an orderly exit, in line with the existing timescale.
"Whilst we fully expect some changes to the backstop arrangements to be made by ministers in Brussels this week, there remains a chance that these will not satisfy some colleagues.
"Numerous members of our group have alerted us to their intention (should rejection of the deal look likely) to get behind amendments that are planned in the name of Oliver Letwin and others and which will have the twin effect of taking no deal off the table and delaying Brexit."
Earlier this week four members of the Cabinet - Amber Rudd, David Gauke, Greg Clark and David Mundell - told the Prime Minister that they will support the backbench amendment, effectively challenging Mrs May to sack them.
They said that more than 20 members of the Government are prepared to quit unless the Government pledges to extend Article 50.
Has anyone yet worked out how, as the default option of A50, No Deal is taken off the table?
"If parliament does not approve a deal, then article 50 will be revoked."
In theory but who will actually write the letter to revoke?
TM
So then ultimately on this the decision to revoke or not is entirely with TM and NOT Parliament?
Well if Parliament instructs May to revoke Article 50 and she refuses then Parliament could VONC her and put in place a successor who will revoke Article 50. #TakingBackControl.
A few weeks ago you were rating the chance of no deal at 75% if I recall correctly. What do you rate it now?
Someone "famous" must have just mentioned this petition on social media, because the number signing "in the last hour" has jumped from about 500 earlier today to almost 8,000.
Personally I'd just sign May's agreement. We can break every last clause of that agreement as we see fit in the future. At least it gives us a foundation for our future irresponsibility (which I encourage in that it's not a great deal).
I think you have a good insight into the mentality of the ERG types .The Davies "It's not worth the paper it's written on" gambit will be the ERG rationalisation for supporting the Deal. May still needs a decent chunk of Labour MPs to vote for the deal or abstain, so she doesn't have to worry about the DUP to get it over the line.
The problem is that if the DUP are still opposed, the ERG will be afraid of looking weak if they vote for it. Capitulation only works if it has the blessing of the most intransigent.
The ERG are NOT capitulating. They are declaring victory and bringing Brexit home.
Yeah but they can't pull that off if the activists aren't buying it. After all the things they've said in print about the deal, they can't now pretend it's not worth the paper it's written on.
Pants have clearly been shat in the Labour Party. They considered that: (a) Labour voters would vote for Corbyn because the alternative is the Tories, and (b) Shouting and Hectoring anyone who disagrees would shut them down because the alternative is the Tories
Except that the TIGers have fucked that delusion. They had convinced themselves that because Corbyn is Good and Corbyn is Right that anyone disagreeing could be bullied into submission. That Righteousness would deliver the Win because He is flawless.
Now they see reality. To win they need all the voters to their right, the ones they have slagged off endlessly who would have to vote Labour anyway because Tories. Whenever they failed to vote Labour anyway there was always an excuse - the Biased Broadcasting Corporation, the PLP, the people too stupid to see. But now its utterly clear that the centre does exist, that Jezbollah leads Labour further away from these voters at a rate of knows whilst simultaneously giving the finger to their 2017 voters who see him shitting on their future with his tacit support for Hard Brexit.
So the likes of Owen Jones are shatting themselves because they can finally see that the jig is up. There won't be a general election - because TIGers won't vote for it. There won't be a Labour majority of 704 because no GE and the voters find him a major turn off. There won't be a successful "you HAVE to vote for us" campaign because no, they don't.
Corbyn will not be the Labour Party leader at the next general election.
Momm. I wonder how much of that applies to the government too. There has been a surfeit of Tory wets on the Downing Street catwalk today. TIG puts Corbyn in no 10 any time soon much further out of reach. And fear of Corbyn is a huge driver of Tory support. We will see.
Main change is that TIG has forced both May and Corbyn to give a bit of love to their remainers, lest they walk away.
As any thread relating to Brexit grows longer, the probability of someone invoking "but muh democracy" approaches 1.
The horror. The horror. Of people wanting a vote to be respected.
The thing is, it's such a thin argument. Nobody is an an out-and-out democracy fan for its own sake; everybody accepts that democracy has to be very heavily tempered and restricted to make it workable, which is why we don't have GEs twice a month or referendums on whether the death penalty should be reenacted for the child-killer du jour. "Oooh, you have to respect the vote" is a really pissy procedural point. It's also flat wrong because the referendum was advisory, so you can quite consistently consider the result in the most respectful manner imaginable and then reject it.
Yes, you can quite consider the result then reject it.
So long as you're willing for the 52% of people who voted in the way you're now rejecting to say, OK, democracy doesn't work. What now?
If you can name a better system than democracy, I'm all ears.
Why would the 52% say that? They would quite simply be wrong; considering advice does not necessarily entail following it, and they can hardly claim that their advice not been considered in quite some depth since it was given.
Because they were told time and time again by the Remain side that the decision would be final and would be respected. If you think that they will now view democracy in the same way if you ignore the referendum result then you are living on another planet.
What is "the Remain side"? I believe Cameron said in a press release that the result would be treated as final, but you clearly have no respect whatever for our great democratic institutions if you think the obiter dicta of an Old Etonian with a shiny forehead affect the law of the land. The referendum was advisory.
Sure, we can pretend this was just a bit of a joke, but those pesky voters might disagree.
Why do you think "advisory" is synonymous with "a bit of a joke?" It isn't.
It is, if your view is that "advisory" means "you're having a laugh aren't you?"
Theresa May has been warned by a group of 100 moderate Tory MPs that they are prepared to rebel against the Government to force her to delay Brexit if she cannot reach a deal.
The Brexit Delivery Group, which represents both Remain and Leave MPs, has called for a free vote next week on a backbench bid to take no deal off the table.
Simon Hart and Andrew Percy, the leaders of the bloc, say in letter leaked to The Daily Telegraph that "numerous" members of the group have become "deeply troubled" by the prospect of a no deal Brexit.
The letter to Julian Smith, the chief whip, says: "The reputation for competence of both the party and the Government depends on our ability to deliver an orderly exit, in line with the existing timescale.
"Whilst we fully expect some changes to the backstop arrangements to be made by ministers in Brussels this week, there remains a chance that these will not satisfy some colleagues.
"Numerous members of our group have alerted us to their intention (should rejection of the deal look likely) to get behind amendments that are planned in the name of Oliver Letwin and others and which will have the twin effect of taking no deal off the table and delaying Brexit."
Earlier this week four members of the Cabinet - Amber Rudd, David Gauke, Greg Clark and David Mundell - told the Prime Minister that they will support the backbench amendment, effectively challenging Mrs May to sack them.
They said that more than 20 members of the Government are prepared to quit unless the Government pledges to extend Article 50.
Has anyone yet worked out how, as the default option of A50, No Deal is taken off the table?
"If parliament does not approve a deal, then article 50 will be revoked."
In theory but who will actually write the letter to revoke?
TM
So then ultimately on this the decision to revoke or not is entirely with TM and NOT Parliament?
Well if Parliament instructs May to revoke Article 50 and she refuses then Parliament could VONC her and put in place a successor who will revoke Article 50. #TakingBackControl.
A few weeks ago you were rating the chance of no deal at 75% if I recall correctly. What do you rate it now?
As any thread relating to Brexit grows longer, the probability of someone invoking "but muh democracy" approaches 1.
The horror. The horror. Of people wanting a vote to be respected.
The thing is, it's such a thin argument. Nobody is an an out-and-out democracy fan for its own sake; everybody accepts that democracy has to be very heavily tempered and restricted to make it workable, which is why we don't have GEs twice a month or referendums on whether the death penalty should be reenacted for the child-killer du jour. "Oooh, you have to respect the vote" is a really pissy procedural point. It's also flat wrong because the referendum was advisory, so you can quite consistently consider the result in the most respectful manner imaginable and then reject it.
Yes, you can quite consider the result then reject it.
So long as you're willing for the 52% of people who voted in the way you're now rejecting to say, OK, democracy doesn't work. What now?
If you can name a better system than democracy, I'm all ears.
Why would the 52% say that? They would quite simply be wrong; considering advice does not necessarily entail following it, and they can hardly claim that their advice not been considered in quite some depth since it was given.
Because they were told time and time again by the Remain side that the decision would be final and would be respected. If you think that they will now view democracy in the same way if you ignore the referendum result then you are living on another planet.
I think that is slightly disingenuous. It's not quite that simple because there was no agreement on how leave should be enacted. Nearly 3 years on there is still no agreement amongst the 52% as to how to "leave" so how exactly are we supposed to "how to honour the vote"? Keep arguing about it for the next 5 years?
Theresa May has been warned by a group of 100 moderate Tory MPs that they are prepared to rebel against the Government to force her to delay Brexit if she cannot reach a deal.
The Brexit Delivery Group, which represents both Remain and Leave MPs, has called for a free vote next week on a backbench bid to take no deal off the table.
Simon Hart and Andrew Percy, the leaders of the bloc, say in letter leaked to The Daily Telegraph that "numerous" members of the group have become "deeply troubled" by the prospect of a no deal Brexit.
The letter to Julian Smith, the chief whip, says: "The reputation for competence of both the party and the Government depends on our ability to deliver an orderly exit, in line with the existing timescale.
"Whilst we fully expect some changes to the backstop arrangements to be made by ministers in Brussels this week, there remains a chance that these will not satisfy some colleagues.
"Numerous members of our group have alerted us to their intention (should rejection of the deal look likely) to get behind amendments that are planned in the name of Oliver Letwin and others and which will have the twin effect of taking no deal off the table and delaying Brexit."
Earlier this week four members of the Cabinet - Amber Rudd, David Gauke, Greg Clark and David Mundell - told the Prime Minister that they will support the backbench amendment, effectively challenging Mrs May to sack them.
They said that more than 20 members of the Government are prepared to quit unless the Government pledges to extend Article 50.
Has anyone yet worked out how, as the default option of A50, No Deal is taken off the table?
"If parliament does not approve a deal, then article 50 will be revoked."
In theory but who will actually write the letter to revoke?
TM
So then ultimately on this the decision to revoke or not is entirely with TM and NOT Parliament?
Well if Parliament instructs May to revoke Article 50 and she refuses then Parliament could VONC her and put in place a successor who will revoke Article 50. #TakingBackControl.
Theresa May has been warned by a group of 100 moderate Tory MPs that they are prepared to rebel against the Government to force her to delay Brexit if she cannot reach a deal.
The Brexit Delivery Group, which represents both Remain and Leave MPs, has called for a free vote next week on a backbench bid to take no deal off the table.
Simon Hart and Andrew Percy, the leaders of the bloc, say in letter leaked to The Daily Telegraph that "numerous" members of the group have become "deeply troubled" by the prospect of a no deal Brexit.
The letter to Julian Smith, the chief whip, says: "The reputation for competence of both the party and the Government depends on our ability to deliver an orderly exit, in line with the existing timescale.
"Whilst we fully expect some changes to the backstop arrangements to be made by ministers in Brussels this week, there remains a chance that these will not satisfy some colleagues.
"Numerous members of our group have alerted us to their intention (should rejection of the deal look likely) to get behind amendments that are planned in the name of Oliver Letwin and others and which will have the twin effect of taking no deal off the table and delaying Brexit."
Earlier this week four members of the Cabinet - Amber Rudd, David Gauke, Greg Clark and David Mundell - told the Prime Minister that they will support the backbench amendment, effectively challenging Mrs May to sack them.
They said that more than 20 members of the Government are prepared to quit unless the Government pledges to extend Article 50.
Has anyone yet worked out how, as the default option of A50, No Deal is taken off the table?
"If parliament does not approve a deal, then article 50 will be revoked."
In theory but who will actually write the letter to revoke?
TM
So then ultimately on this the decision to revoke or not is entirely with TM and NOT Parliament?
Well if Parliament instructs May to revoke Article 50 and she refuses then Parliament could VONC her and put in place a successor who will revoke Article 50. #TakingBackControl.
A few weeks ago you were rating the chance of no deal at 75% if I recall correctly. What do you rate it now?
65%
Considering the advent of TIG and the news tonight of the 100 tories rebelling, isn’t 65% a bit high ?
Theresa May has been warned by a group of 100 moderate Tory MPs that they are prepared to rebel against the Government to force her to delay Brexit if she cannot reach a deal.
The Brexit Delivery Group, which represents both Remain and Leave MPs, has called for a free vote next week on a backbench bid to take no deal off the table.
Simon Hart and Andrew Percy, the leaders of the bloc, say in letter leaked to The Daily Telegraph that "numerous" members of the group have become "deeply troubled" by the prospect of a no deal Brexit.
The letter to Julian Smith, the chief whip, says: "The reputation for competence of both the party and the Government depends on our ability to deliver an orderly exit, in line with the existing timescale.
"Whilst we fully expect some changes to the backstop arrangements to be made by ministers in Brussels this week, there remains a chance that these will not satisfy some colleagues.
"Numerous members of our group have alerted us to their intention (should rejection of the deal look likely) to get behind amendments that are planned in the name of Oliver Letwin and others and which will have the twin effect of taking no deal off the table and delaying Brexit."
Has anyone yet worked out how, as the default option of A50, No Deal is taken off the table?
"If parliament does not approve a deal, then article 50 will be revoked."
In theory but who will actually write the letter to revoke?
TM
So then ultimately on this the decision to revoke or not is entirely with TM and NOT Parliament?
Well if Parliament instructs May to revoke Article 50 and she refuses then Parliament could VONC her and put in place a successor who will revoke Article 50. #TakingBackControl.
Under FTPA could a VONC and new government, followed by revocation of A50 all be sorted out before 29th March?
Just 36 (nearly 35) days to go now...
Of course the EU would extend Art 50 with no problems at all if revocation looked in prospect eg through EUref2 so that 36 days would soon become 46, 56 etc
I was being kind and assuming it was the second of the options.
I have been consistent in wanting TM deal but no deal is economic armageddon not only threatening all of us but a real risk to our Union which I support 100%
I will do anything to prevent no deal including remaining
In which case you reject democracy.
That is just silly. Democracy does not include economic armageddon
I do not know with what weapons the third referendum will be fought, but I do know that if there is a fourth it will be fought with sticks and stones...
If you have corrected the odds to 6.5% for no deal you are effectively saying the no deal is now nigh on impossible to happen . So we have nothing the worry about then, the deal will be passed?
Someone "famous" must have just mentioned this petition on social media, because the number signing "in the last hour" has jumped from about 500 earlier today to almost 8,000.
I don't doubt your intellectual integrity for one second, but if Remain had won 51:49, Cameron had stood down by now to be replaced by (say) Gove, who immediately announced that he was invoking Article 50 on the basis that the referendum was advisory... well, what do you think would've happened next?
A clue: it is not all Remainers accepting this without question. They didn't do that even after they lost the vote.
I see your point, but it is a highly sophistic one. I think the answer is that he has not even been advised, on a net basis, to leave, and has no other mandate to do so. Personally I wouldn't at that stage have been too fussed: I thought there were flavours of Leave which would be better than remaining, but more flavours which would have been significantly worse. And that really is my point, that what we are now faced with is so incontrovertibly shit that Leave have abandoned any substantive arguments long ago, it's all process driven bollocks about when does advisory mean advisory and the startling claim that the electorate can bind its successors forever.
Considering the advent of TIG and the news tonight of the 100 tories rebelling, isn’t 65% a bit high ?
No, MPs aren't very good.
I don't think they have the wit to stop No Deal.
It also requires the support of Jeremy Corbyn and he's ambivalent on Brexit.
So No Deal will happen.
At this point the outcome is anyone’s guess. The probability is definitely less than 100%, and more than zero.....
Just remember all those thicko MPs who think the withdrawal agreement is the future trade deal or all those thickos who think they can stop No Deal by voting against No Deal, not realising they need primary legislation.
These morons couldn't find a cup of water if you dropped them in the middle of the Atlantic.
Someone "famous" must have just mentioned this petition on social media, because the number signing "in the last hour" has jumped from about 500 earlier today to almost 8,000.
Considering the advent of TIG and the news tonight of the 100 tories rebelling, isn’t 65% a bit high ?
No, MPs aren't very good.
I don't think they have the wit to stop No Deal.
It also requires the support of Jeremy Corbyn and he's ambivalent on Brexit.
So No Deal will happen.
At this point the outcome is anyone’s guess. The probability is definitely less than 100%, and more than zero.....
Just remember all those thicko MPs who think the withdrawal agreement is the future trade deal or all those thickos who think they can stop No Deal by voting against No Deal, not realising they need primary legislation.
These morons couldn't find a cup of water if you dropped them in the middle of the Atlantic.
I take the point, but chaos is inherently unpredictable.
Considering the advent of TIG and the news tonight of the 100 tories rebelling, isn’t 65% a bit high ?
No, MPs aren't very good.
I don't think they have the wit to stop No Deal.
It also requires the support of Jeremy Corbyn and he's ambivalent on Brexit.
So No Deal will happen.
Corbyn backs staying in a permanent Customs Union, which at the moment the median MP is more in favour of than No Deal or the Deal as the passage of the Spelman amendment ruling out No Deal and the fact more MPs have voted for permanent Customs Union than the Deal proves.
TIG also means Corbyn cannot now assume he will be the sole beneficiary of a No Deal outcome which hits the economy, TIG would be just as likely to benefit if not more so as they are more likely to attract Tory Remainers or soft Brexiteers than Corbyn Labour
And makes the sensible point that New Hampshire will settle Warren’s fate one way or another - but probably no one else’s. Sanders’s entry could also influence his competitors’ assessment of the earliest primary states, by causing other candidates to view the New Hampshire contest as a regional showdown between him and Warren. The state has a long history of favoring local contenders. “I can imagine candidates saying to themselves, Let the New England candidates fight it out over New Hampshire,” says Dante Scala, a University of New Hampshire political scientist and the author of Stormy Weather, a history of the New Hampshire primary....
Someone "famous" must have just mentioned this petition on social media, because the number signing "in the last hour" has jumped from about 500 earlier today to almost 8,000.
As any thread relating to Brexit grows longer, the probability of someone invoking "but muh democracy" approaches 1.
The horror. The horror. Of people wanting a vote to be respected.
The thing is, it's such a thin argument. Nobody is an an out-and-out democracy fan for its own sake; everybody accepts that democracy has to be very heavily tempered and restricted to make it workable, which is why we don't have GEs twice a month or referendums on whether the death penalty should be reenacted for the child-killer du jour. "Oooh, you have to respect the vote" is a really pissy procedural point. It's also flat wrong because the referendum was advisory, so you can quite consistently consider the result in the most respectful manner imaginable and then reject it.
Yes, you can quite consider the result then reject it.
So long as you're willing for the 52% of people who voted in the way you're now rejecting to say, OK, democracy doesn't work. What now?
If you can name a better system than democracy, I'm all ears.
Why would the 52% say that? They would quite simply be wrong; considering advice does not necessarily entail following it, and they can hardly claim that their advice not been considered in quite some depth since it was given.
Because they were told time and time again by the Remain side that the decision would be final and would be respected. If you think that they will now view democracy in the same way if you ignore the referendum result then you are living on another planet.
I think that is slightly disingenuous. It's not quite that simple because there was no agreement on how leave should be enacted. Nearly 3 years on there is still no agreement amongst the 52% as to how to "leave" so how exactly are we supposed to "how to honour the vote"? Keep arguing about it for the next 5 years?
It is not disingenuous at all. They did not qualify their commitments. They simply stated that they accepted we had to leave. And this was in 2017. Actually only about 20 months ago. Now they have voted against both a Deal and want to stop No Deal as well.
And makes the sensible point that New Hampshire will settle Warren’s fate one way or another - but probably no one else’s. Sanders’s entry could also influence his competitors’ assessment of the earliest primary states, by causing other candidates to view the New Hampshire contest as a regional showdown between him and Warren. The state has a long history of favoring local contenders. “I can imagine candidates saying to themselves, Let the New England candidates fight it out over New Hampshire,” says Dante Scala, a University of New Hampshire political scientist and the author of Stormy Weather, a history of the New Hampshire primary....
If Sanders wins New Hampshire again he has an excellent chance of being nominee, as Warren voters will then shift to him.
And makes the sensible point that New Hampshire will settle Warren’s fate one way or another - but probably no one else’s. Sanders’s entry could also influence his competitors’ assessment of the earliest primary states, by causing other candidates to view the New Hampshire contest as a regional showdown between him and Warren. The state has a long history of favoring local contenders. “I can imagine candidates saying to themselves, Let the New England candidates fight it out over New Hampshire,” says Dante Scala, a University of New Hampshire political scientist and the author of Stormy Weather, a history of the New Hampshire primary....
If Sanders wins New Hampshire again he has an excellent chance of being nominee, as Warren voters will then shift to him.
Someone "famous" must have just mentioned this petition on social media, because the number signing "in the last hour" has jumped from about 500 earlier today to almost 8,000.
If a new government cannot be formed from the existing Parliament and a GE is required
That's got to be the most likely outcome to a VONC given the total shambles Parliament is in at the moment...
Not sure. I would think so but certainly it is not impossible that they could get a majority agree around someone just to get the revocation through and then have a GE afterwards. It would be a bloodbath mind you.
Someone "famous" must have just mentioned this petition on social media, because the number signing "in the last hour" has jumped from about 500 earlier today to almost 8,000.
Now over 500,000 if I am correct. Can someone check that and it is not fake news
Of course it isn't fake news. I'm surprised even more people haven't signed it.
Well that means a debate in the HOC. Notice the media have not cottoned on to it
I really hate the politicians who have allowed populism to make a comeback in this country. In the 1990s it looked like we'd defeated it forever, but their ineptitude over the last 10 to 15 years has allowed it to make a reappearance.
As any thread relating to Brexit grows longer, the probability of someone invoking "but muh democracy" approaches 1.
The horror. The horror. Of people wanting a vote to be respected.
The thing is, it's such a thin argument. Nobody is an an out-and-out democracy fan for its own sake; everybody accepts that democracy has to be very heavily tempered and restricted to make it workable, which is why we don't have GEs twice a month or referendums on whether the death penalty should be reenacted for the child-killer du jour. "Oooh, you have to respect the vote" is a really pissy procedural point. It's also flat wrong because the referendum was advisory, so you can quite consistently consider the result in the most respectful manner imaginable and then reject it.
Yes, you can quite consider the result then reject it.
So long as you're willing for the 52% of people who voted in the way you're now rejecting to say, OK, democracy doesn't work. What now?
If you can name a better system than democracy, I'm all ears.
Why would the 52% say that? They would quite simply be wrong; considering advice does not necessarily entail following it, and they can hardly claim that their advice not been considered in quite some depth since it was given.
Because they were told time and time again by the Remain side that the decision would be final and would be respected. If you think that they will now view democracy in the same way if you ignore the referendum result then you are living on another planet.
What is "the Remain side"? I believe Cameron said in a press release that the result would be treated as final, but you clearly have no respect whatever for our great democratic institutions if you think the obiter dicta of an Old Etonian with a shiny forehead affect the law of the land. The referendum was advisory.
Well all three of the Tory MPs who have defected now claiming we should reverse Brexit said in their own election literature that the decision had to be respected and should not be reversed.
And of course the official campaign literature provided to every single household by the Government urging people to vote Remain said:
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide"
The government rather overselling its capability, there, as it transpired.
Yep they probably didn't consider that MPs would be so fundamentally dishonest.
If a new government cannot be formed from the existing Parliament and a GE is required
That's got to be the most likely outcome to a VONC given the total shambles Parliament is in at the moment...
Not sure. I would think so but certainly it is not impossible that they could get a majority agree around someone just to get the revocation through and then have a GE afterwards. It would be a bloodbath mind you.
Someone "famous" must have just mentioned this petition on social media, because the number signing "in the last hour" has jumped from about 500 earlier today to almost 8,000.
Now over 500,000 if I am correct. Can someone check that and it is not fake news
Of course it isn't fake news. I'm surprised even more people haven't signed it.
Well that means a debate in the HOC. Notice the media have not cottoned on to it
I really hate the politicians who have allowed populism to make a comeback in this country. In the 1990s it looked like we'd defeated it forever, but their ineptitude over the last 10 to 15 years has allowed it to make a reappearance.
I don't doubt your intellectual integrity for one second, but if Remain had won 51:49, Cameron had stood down by now to be replaced by (say) Gove, who immediately announced that he was invoking Article 50 on the basis that the referendum was advisory... well, what do you think would've happened next?
A clue: it is not all Remainers accepting this without question. They didn't do that even after they lost the vote.
I see your point, but it is a highly sophistic one. I think the answer is that he has not even been advised, on a net basis, to leave, and has no other mandate to do so. Personally I wouldn't at that stage have been too fussed: I thought there were flavours of Leave which would be better than remaining, but more flavours which would have been significantly worse. And that really is my point, that what we are now faced with is so incontrovertibly shit that Leave have abandoned any substantive arguments long ago, it's all process driven bollocks about when does advisory mean advisory and the startling claim that the electorate can bind its successors forever.
All fair and I broadly agree. My point is that arguing that the referendum was advisory is also sophistry, given that neither side would've accepted non implementation upon winning, and that most people expected the winning position to be enacted. Basically it shouldn't have been advisory in the first place: it probably had to be due to no one knowing what Leave looked like (as you say), but neither the EU nor the UK government would ever have countenanced that. Which, in turn, was a sizeable contribution to me (and probably others, at least indirectly) voting Leave.
And makes the sensible point that New Hampshire will settle Warren’s fate one way or another - but probably no one else’s. Sanders’s entry could also influence his competitors’ assessment of the earliest primary states, by causing other candidates to view the New Hampshire contest as a regional showdown between him and Warren. The state has a long history of favoring local contenders. “I can imagine candidates saying to themselves, Let the New England candidates fight it out over New Hampshire,” says Dante Scala, a University of New Hampshire political scientist and the author of Stormy Weather, a history of the New Hampshire primary....
If Sanders wins New Hampshire again he has an excellent chance of being nominee, as Warren voters will then shift to him.
Rubbish.
No, absolutely right.
The momentum is all with Sanders, he raised more in 24 hours than Harris did in weeks and if he knocks out Warren in NH her left liberal voters largely shift en masse to him.
I also can't see Harris winning Iowa and no Democratic nominee since 1992 has got the nomination without winning Iowa or New Hampshire and Bill Clinton then came a very strong second in New Hampshire after the Jennifer Flowers affair
Considering the advent of TIG and the news tonight of the 100 tories rebelling, isn’t 65% a bit high ?
No, MPs aren't very good.
I don't think they have the wit to stop No Deal.
It also requires the support of Jeremy Corbyn and he's ambivalent on Brexit.
So No Deal will happen.
At this point the outcome is anyone’s guess. The probability is definitely less than 100%, and more than zero.....
Just remember all those thicko MPs who think the withdrawal agreement is the future trade deal or all those thickos who think they can stop No Deal by voting against No Deal, not realising they need primary legislation.
These morons couldn't find a cup of water if you dropped them in the middle of the Atlantic.
I'm not sure I could either. Isn't all the plastic in the Pacific?
In Anna Soubry's leaflet she talks about her promise to respect the result in the past tense as having been fulfilled by voting to invoke Article 50 and says "we now need to move on".
"It is with a heavy heart, and against my long-held belief that the interests of this country are better served by our being a member of the European Union, that I shall support the Bill. In 2015, I promised the good people of Broxtowe that, if I was elected to represent them for another term, and in accordance with my party’s manifesto, I would vote for an in/out referendum on our EU membership, agreeing, in the words of David Cameron, that the people would “settle the matter”. I promised to respect and honour the vote. On 9 June 2015, along with 544 Members of this place, I agreed to that referendum, and in so doing I agreed to be bound by the result."
" I say to Opposition Members, though, that you cannot go back on your word because you do not agree with the result."
Considering the advent of TIG and the news tonight of the 100 tories rebelling, isn’t 65% a bit high ?
No, MPs aren't very good.
I don't think they have the wit to stop No Deal.
It also requires the support of Jeremy Corbyn and he's ambivalent on Brexit.
So No Deal will happen.
Corbyn is definitely Mr Inertia because he wants to make sure Brexit happens before he becomes PM. (I know, wishful thinking on his part, but there you go.)
So it's up to Tory and Labour rebels to stop No Deal. They're determined to stop it, but May has outmanoeuvred them so far (She and the Tories will probably pay for this in various ways later, but she's so fixed on the single target that she's blind to the collateral damage.) and left them confused and divided. It's hard to see the mechanism by which they stop it now. They have two options: work to get May's agreement passed, but that seems unlikely if the ERG and Corbyn won't support it, or revolt. I assume the revolt will happen next Wednesday, but what the outcome of it will be, I can't even imagine. It's really fascinating drama.
Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .
Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.
I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .
Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .
The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.
Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .
Are you claiming that Brits living in this country who don't own a passport as they haven't travelled aren't citizens?
Passports are eligible to citizens, owning a passport doesn't make you a citizen. Either you're a citizen or not (or eligible to become one) but that is neither here nor there to owning a passport.
Bangladeshi law seems to be clear that she is a citizen until her 21st birthday jus sanguinis. In which case, the law is the law.
Do you object that she's not a Bangladeshi citizen? In which case that's not Javid's legal advice.
Or do you object even if she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
I'm new to this forum. The depth of knowledge, to the extent that commentors are fully conversant with Bangladeshi Nationality Law, is outstanding. As a solicitor of 18 years standing in this jurisdiction, not being an immigration specialist, I would not consider myself remotely qualified to offer authoritative interpretations of the British Nationality Act 1981, particularly ones based on reading isolated sections alone. So the fact that so many on here can opine so authoritatively on the equivalent provisions in Bangladeshi law, specifically the Citizenship Act 1951 (as amended and interpreted according to constitutional norms there) demonstrates how far I have to travel to be worthy of comment here.
Yeah but someone on here googled Bangladeshi nationality law.
We're tired of experts etc etc.
I remember one of the soi disant car industry experts on here looking at the Honda plant on Google Maps and recommending the construction of an runway and cargo terminal in the car park.
Comments
I would somewhat disagree that the ABC1 have done well as I believe we are seeing what I refer to as 'middle class regression'.
That is people from middle class background and with a middle class education no longer being able to have middle class attributes and lifestyle.
The principal reason for this being housing costs making home ownership unaffordable to many people in many places. The effects of student tuition fees also having an increasing effect.
By contrast many of traditional working class background in traditional working class towns are doing very nicely if they have a useful skillset and positive work attitude.
https://electionleaflets.org/leaflets/15003/
Brexit is the ultimate symptom of the current madness that has broken British Politics. But it is not the reason driving it - the gross and growing inequality and inequity of the Post-Thatcher settlement is what has driven that.
....and then the same people voting for the above will block any form of deal.
There's only 3 possible final state outcomes.
Even easier than all those trade deals that Foxy promised.
Brexit has followed that pattern exactly, a narrow majority for change, then nearly 3 years on still no sign of any agreement on what that change should be. There is no majority support for any actual form of Brexit, be it May's deal or No deal.
That is why there are demands for a further vote, we have reached a complete impasse. If Remain had won we wouldn't have reached such an an impasse, the subsequent steps would have been quite clear.
I mean, I'm not complaining... he'd be better at it than dear old Liam.
I don't think they have the wit to stop No Deal.
It also requires the support of Jeremy Corbyn and he's ambivalent on Brexit.
So No Deal will happen.
IanB2 is being a silly sausage.
These morons couldn't find a cup of water if you dropped them in the middle of the Atlantic.
It's only by virtue of advisory status that the PM is "compelled" to do it.
TIG also means Corbyn cannot now assume he will be the sole beneficiary of a No Deal outcome which hits the economy, TIG would be just as likely to benefit if not more so as they are more likely to attract Tory Remainers or soft Brexiteers than Corbyn Labour
It's a delightfully old-fashioned idea, like the Victorian language of flowers.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/02/bernie-sanderss-impact-2020-presidential-race/583321/
And makes the sensible point that New Hampshire will settle Warren’s fate one way or another - but probably no one else’s.
Sanders’s entry could also influence his competitors’ assessment of the earliest primary states, by causing other candidates to view the New Hampshire contest as a regional showdown between him and Warren. The state has a long history of favoring local contenders. “I can imagine candidates saying to themselves, Let the New England candidates fight it out over New Hampshire,” says Dante Scala, a University of New Hampshire political scientist and the author of Stormy Weather, a history of the New Hampshire primary....
https://thehill.com/regulation/431024-judge-imposes-full-gag-order-on-roger-stone
NEW THREAD
The momentum is all with Sanders, he raised more in 24 hours than Harris did in weeks and if he knocks out Warren in NH her left liberal voters largely shift en masse to him.
I also can't see Harris winning Iowa and no Democratic nominee since 1992 has got the nomination without winning Iowa or New Hampshire and Bill Clinton then came a very strong second in New Hampshire after the Jennifer Flowers affair
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/21/larry-hogan-2020-trump-1179635
" I say to Opposition Members, though, that you cannot go back on your word because you do not agree with the result."
So it's up to Tory and Labour rebels to stop No Deal. They're determined to stop it, but May has outmanoeuvred them so far (She and the Tories will probably pay for this in various ways later, but she's so fixed on the single target that she's blind to the collateral damage.) and left them confused and divided. It's hard to see the mechanism by which they stop it now. They have two options: work to get May's agreement passed, but that seems unlikely if the ERG and Corbyn won't support it, or revolt. I assume the revolt will happen next Wednesday, but what the outcome of it will be, I can't even imagine. It's really fascinating drama.