And concludes that the only way to avoid damaging healthcare is to remain a member of the bloc.
How convenient.
The Guardian has been running a story like this every day for the last 6 months.
There was an extremely good one yesterday when the Guardian warned that no deal Brexit would imperil our right to access the digital archive of Spare Rib magazine.
That's like saying removing Labour from the ballot papers in a general election would give Labour voters the power to choose whether the Conservatives or Lib Dems form the next government. Most Labour voters would probably say no thanks to such an opportunity.
No Dealers will have the option of abstention too.
The decision to leave the EU was recommended by voters in June 2016 and ratified by MPs in March 2017, when A50 was invoked. Therefore in theory, any referendum should be between the "deal" and "no deal".
In all this discussion, MPs and others are forgetting that any vote to extend A50 endorsed by the HoC is merely a request to the EU for such an extension. This will require unanimous support from key EU institutions and all other 27 EU member states, so in practice cannot be requested at the last minute. It is also unlikely to be granted if there is no clear aim/reason (i.e. a few more months of indecisive discussions would be unwelcome) or if it is for a long period (in practice beyond 30/6/19).
It is in the EU's interest to get Brexit done and dusted, and not have a recalcitrant member in perpetuity, with loads of problematic "opt out" clauses. Any rejoining of the EU by the UK or parts of it should be on standard terms and conditions, as for any new member states.
But this tells us little about what will actually happen.
I can't envisage the EU wanting more than a short delay to Brexit - it is in their interest to get rid of perfidious Albion.
And concludes that the only way to avoid damaging healthcare is to remain a member of the bloc.
How convenient.
Pharmaceutical reports are saying similar things. Shortages of medicines, many of which are imported. I looked at the three I take each morning the other day and every one seems to be made outside the UK.
All this excitable talk about another referendum ignores one crucial fact. Will the EU agree to an extension and won’t this depend on what the question is?
Smart play by the EU, as they know support for Brexit is only going one way - down. Every month that goes by, it gets weaker.
And concludes that the only way to avoid damaging healthcare is to remain a member of the bloc.
How convenient.
Pharmaceutical reports are saying similar things. Shortages of medicines, many of which are imported. I looked at the three I take each morning the other day and every one seems to be made outside the UK.
stop taking them and do yourself some good
One of them might not matter too much but a lifetimes experience of my condition underlines the value of the others.
And concludes that the only way to avoid damaging healthcare is to remain a member of the bloc.
How convenient.
Pharmaceutical reports are saying similar things. Shortages of medicines, many of which are imported. I looked at the three I take each morning the other day and every one seems to be made outside the UK.
Under any eventuality other than remain? Give me a break.
When people rely on these medicines (and a number of my family do as well) this is much closer to home. The impact is clearly greatest here by a long margin in a no deal scenario, which is why so many people have been urging for this to be taken off the table.
Pretending this is a real option is fantasy; so why pretend (on a clearly unbelievable basis) to the EU negotiators. Just fooling ourselves.
And concludes that the only way to avoid damaging healthcare is to remain a member of the bloc.
How convenient.
Pharmaceutical reports are saying similar things. Shortages of medicines, many of which are imported. I looked at the three I take each morning the other day and every one seems to be made outside the UK.
Under any eventuality other than remain? Give me a break.
Long term it'll get get sorted, whatever. Short-term is more problematic.
And concludes that the only way to avoid damaging healthcare is to remain a member of the bloc.
How convenient.
It might be 'convenient'; it might also be true.
In the short or medium term, I cannot see how Brexit will improve healthcare. Therefore the options are things remaining the same, or getting worse.
Given the general interconnectedness of all things, and the complexity of healthcare systems, it seems perfectly possible that such a change could cause disruption of various scales. And even a 'small' disruption might be critically important for individuals.
An issue is that such problems are going to be very difficult to predict in advance.
It might also not be true. The government has quite a lot of room for maneuver in terms of funding for the NHS, especially once the subsidies to the EU have stopped.
The three issues raised in the article are minimum salary thresholds for medical workers, more expensive private insurance, and delay for access to new medicines. The first is easily fixed and the second is only relevant for visitors to the UK. The third is probably the most problematic, but avoidable with continued cooperation in such matters.
And concludes that the only way to avoid damaging healthcare is to remain a member of the bloc.
How convenient.
Pharmaceutical reports are saying similar things. Shortages of medicines, many of which are imported. I looked at the three I take each morning the other day and every one seems to be made outside the UK.
Under any eventuality other than remain? Give me a break.
Long term it'll get get sorted, whatever. Short-term is more problematic.
Less problematic if the WA is signed, don't you think? It's only a potential issue if there's serious congestion in the event of a sudden no-deal exit.
And concludes that the only way to avoid damaging healthcare is to remain a member of the bloc.
How convenient.
Pharmaceutical reports are saying similar things. Shortages of medicines, many of which are imported. I looked at the three I take each morning the other day and every one seems to be made outside the UK.
Under any eventuality other than remain? Give me a break.
Long term it'll get get sorted, whatever. Short-term is more problematic.
Less problematic if the WA is signed, don't you think? It's only a potential issue if there's serious congestion in the event of a sudden no-deal exit.
Agree. However, I really, really don't want to be without my asthma prophylaxis.
A second referendum would have to include Remain, Leave with Deal and Leave with No Deal. There'd have to be a preference system to deal with none of the 3 options getting 50%. If you exclude any of those 3 options, millions of people would feel that the referendum didn't include their first option and would probably not bother to vote, which would be very divisive.
What's this "have to"? I guess you're saying you think it *should*?
If you were going to do 3 options I think the cleanest way is to have two rounds with a couple of weeks in between: First you work out what Brexit is (Deal vs Not), then you make sure you still want to do it (Leave the way you just decided vs Remain).
But I don't think there's a constituency for a No Deal option in Parliament, because the MPs who want No Deal are also outraged at the idea of having another referendum.
I say "have to" because, as I wrote, it would be very divisive to exclude the first choice option of millions of voters. To try to be "clever" by excluding one of the options on the basis that it would make one's preferred option (whatever that happens to be) more likely to win would be seen through by most voters in about 5 seconds.
The No Dealers would start issuing challenges to force Remain off the ballot and replace it with No Deal. It would take the Electoral Commission months to work through it all, and it's probably irreconcilable. Basically what it means is that a second referendum is impossible in practice.
The Electoral Commission only judges if the question is intelligible and fair. What the options are is a political decision and nothing to do with them.
Sure, I wasn't clear. Two options wouldn't be fair when there's clearly three paths available. My guess is that the EC would have to advise that there was no question they could recommend under those circumstances.
3 paths are only available if one of them is not blocked off and as part of the vote on a referendum it's perfectly possible for enough MPs to block off a No Deal option.
And entirely sensible. The one thing MPs aren't going to do is let such a misjudgement onto the ballot paper. Even our politicians retain some ability to learn from past mistakes.
But, if they did, I’d expect turnout at the referendum to plummet.
I think the ERG and DUP will still vote the deal down regardless of the latest developments.
If that happens, I think a referendum becomes very likely. What would the conservatives propose to do otherwise? Continue to push for her deal indefinitely? Only other option is a GE, but not sure that necessarily solves anything, especially as we know how "good" TM is at fighting elections.....
That's like saying removing Labour from the ballot papers in a general election would give Labour voters the power to choose whether the Conservatives or Lib Dems form the next government. Most Labour voters would probably say no thanks to such an opportunity.
No Dealers will have the option of abstention too.
The decision to leave the EU was recommended by voters in June 2016 and ratified by MPs in March 2017, when A50 was invoked. Therefore in theory, any referendum should be between the "deal" and "no deal".
In all this discussion, MPs and others are forgetting that any vote to extend A50 endorsed by the HoC is merely a request to the EU for such an extension. This will require unanimous support from key EU institutions and all other 27 EU member states, so in practice cannot be requested at the last minute. It is also unlikely to be granted if there is no clear aim/reason (i.e. a few more months of indecisive discussions would be unwelcome) or if it is for a long period (in practice beyond 30/6/19).
It is in the EU's interest to get Brexit done and dusted, and not have a recalcitrant member in perpetuity, with loads of problematic "opt out" clauses. Any rejoining of the EU by the UK or parts of it should be on standard terms and conditions, as for any new member states.
But this tells us little about what will actually happen.
I can't envisage the EU wanting more than a short delay to Brexit - it is in their interest to get rid of perfidious Albion.
And in their interests that we stay, ending any desire to follow us down such a disaster-strewn path.
Pharmaceuticals have always been an interesting commodity. The cost is in years of research and development, the actual production costs are a pittance, once the QA is assured. You're basically charging for the preceding scientific endeavour.
Which means margins need to be high and it's why me-toos are popular. But it all depends on post-registration sales. We're not talking of bulky, low-value goods here. Could someone talk me through the mechanics of drugs falling from the sky and disappearing the moment we leave the EU. I spent half my career in drug research and development but never worried too much about marketing.
We're a big and a vital market, so you can be sure the companies won't be caught by surprise.
And concludes that the only way to avoid damaging healthcare is to remain a member of the bloc.
How convenient.
It might be 'convenient'; it might also be true.
In the short or medium term, I cannot see how Brexit will improve healthcare. Therefore the options are things remaining the same, or getting worse.
Given the general interconnectedness of all things, and the complexity of healthcare systems, it seems perfectly possible that such a change could cause disruption of various scales. And even a 'small' disruption might be critically important for individuals.
An issue is that such problems are going to be very difficult to predict in advance.
It might also not be true. The government has quite a lot of room for maneuver in terms of funding for the NHS, especially once the subsidies to the EU have stopped.
The three issues raised in the article are minimum salary thresholds for medical workers, more expensive private insurance, and delay for access to new medicines. The first is easily fixed and the second is only relevant for visitors to the UK. The third is probably the most problematic, but avoidable with continued cooperation in such matters.
Yes, it might not be true: but you appeared to be blindly assuming there are not going to be problems. Funding cannot solve many problems.
And the damndable thing about it is that any problems will be hard to predict: who would have guessed that a problem with a Dutch nuclear reactor ten years ago would have caused healthcare issues around EU, and to a lesser extent the world?
Many thanks for that link . It certainly brings up a real dilemma for the DUP if there’s another EU ref . NI on recent polling is even more pro Remain than in 2016.
I think the ERG and DUP will still vote the deal down regardless of the latest developments.
They are insane, so it's highly likely.
I think a good number of them don’t actually want to Leave.
Judging by actions, not words, I agree. It's all very well wanting a better Brexit but if it is not on the cards how much do they really want it? Their votes and rhetoric suggest not very much. Which woukd be fine, except they claim the EU is really horrible.
What do the DUP do if it’s a choice of Mays deal still with the backstop and Remain . Could be awkward !
If they are confronted with a fork which results in the same thing, them u-turning, the question is which would be least embarrassing or damaging for them personally.
Given they have existed with remain for decades and given how much they have condemned the deal, if they must back one of those two choices I think they'd choose remain. It's giving in but not to May.
Whisper it quietly, but the best outcome for the DUP is actually a people’s vote. They’ll scream red, white and blue murder if it happens but privately breathe a sigh of relief. Like Boris Johnson, they never wanted Brexit but wanted to be seen to support it. A second referendum offers an escape from their worst nightmare, while allowing them to reluctantly go along with “the will of the entire country”. Very unionist.
That's like saying removing Labour from the ballot papers in a general election would give Labour voters the power to choose whether the Conservatives or Lib Dems form the next government. Most Labour voters would probably say no thanks to such an opportunity.
No Dealers will have the option of abstention too.
The decision to leave the EU was recommended by voters in June 2016 and ratified by MPs in March 2017, when A50 was invoked. Therefore in theory, any referendum should be between the "deal" and "no deal".
In all this discussion, MPs and others are forgetting that any vote to extend A50 endorsed by the HoC is merely a request to the EU for such an extension. This will require unanimous support from key EU institutions and all other 27 EU member states, so in practice cannot be requested at the last minute. It is also unlikely to be granted if there is no clear aim/reason (i.e. a few more months of indecisive discussions would be unwelcome) or if it is for a long period (in practice beyond 30/6/19).
It is in the EU's interest to get Brexit done and dusted, and not have a recalcitrant member in perpetuity, with loads of problematic "opt out" clauses. Any rejoining of the EU by the UK or parts of it should be on standard terms and conditions, as for any new member states.
But this tells us little about what will actually happen.
I can't envisage the EU wanting more than a short delay to Brexit - it is in their interest to get rid of perfidious Albion.
And in their interests that we stay, ending any desire to follow us down such a disaster-strewn path.
It is in their interests if we stay, cowed and docile.
But, I do wonder if that will happen -- it is far more likely that the thwarting of the Referendum result will provide the EU with an extremely troublesome, recalcitrant, friendless and difficult member.
When the EU Commissioner Lord Hill resigned, he said these true words "What has been done, can't be undone".
Brexit or no Brexit, there is no way back to the cosy, consensual world before the Referendum.
Mr. B2, I was amused when the BBC last night acknowledged some doubt over how a second referendum might work, especially when what the question would be was described as a 'detail'.
Hmm. That word does not mean what I think they think it means.
" it is in their interest to get rid of perfidious Albion."
Are the other countries fighting each other to cover the shortfall in membership fees?
A short-term financial loss would be easily funded by Germany, but the UK has been such a trouble-maker and recalcitrant EU member that politically and in the long-term, the EU would be better off without it. Parts or all of the UK could rejoin in future, but without political clout and on standard terms and conditions.
Mr. B2, I was amused when the BBC last night acknowledged some doubt over how a second referendum might work, especially when what the question would be was described as a 'detail'.
Hmm. That word does not mean what I think they think it means.
" it is in their interest to get rid of perfidious Albion."
Are the other countries fighting each other to cover the shortfall in membership fees?
A short-term financial loss would be easily funded by Germany, but the UK has been such a trouble-maker and recalcitrant EU member that politically and in the long-term, the EU would be better off without it. Parts or all of the UK could rejoin in future, but without political clout and on standard terms and conditions.
A truly dumb outcome. Better to stay on the terms that we have.
I can’t see another EU ref. As an ardent Remainer I’d of course like to but I think too many bridges may have been burnt now with the EU. I think what the Labour move will do is to help get Mays deal through because it’s now much more high stakes for the ERG .
" it is in their interest to get rid of perfidious Albion."
Are the other countries fighting each other to cover the shortfall in membership fees?
A short-term financial loss would be easily funded by Germany, but the UK has been such a trouble-maker and recalcitrant EU member that politically and in the long-term, the EU would be better off without it. Parts or all of the UK could rejoin in future, but without political clout and on standard terms and conditions.
A truly dumb outcome. Better to stay on the terms that we have.
That is what you might wish, but staying is at the whim of the EU now - the UK would be a supplicant in asking to stay or even asking for an extension to A50. That was the real point of my initial post.
The more I think about it the more I'm up for the Brussels idea of a 21 month extension to A50 as long as the EU specifically uses that extension to hammer out the long term trading arrangement rather than discuss the backstop for another year and nine months.
I still struggle with how leave runs a good campaign in a second referendum if it's deal vs remain. It's all very well to be #TellThemAgain but we'd only be having the vote because the most hard core leavers in parliament didn't want to leave that way. Sure, plenty of remainers eager to overturn the result too, but leavers furious with the deal sank it.
And if they could muster up the willingness to campaign for it in a referendum they'd be able to suck it up and vote for it without risking remain in a public vote.
Mr. B2, I was amused when the BBC last night acknowledged some doubt over how a second referendum might work, especially when what the question would be was described as a 'detail'.
Hmm. That word does not mean what I think they think it means.
Clearly - this time - a referendum needs a specific proposition that people can weigh up and that can be implemented if it is accepted. If people don't want the proposition, things stay as they are. The point of detail is what is the proposition. To be implementable it needs to have been agreed by the EU, and unless Labour can pull agreement to a CU/EEA deal from the EU, there is only one candidate.
" it is in their interest to get rid of perfidious Albion."
Are the other countries fighting each other to cover the shortfall in membership fees?
A short-term financial loss would be easily funded by Germany, but the UK has been such a trouble-maker and recalcitrant EU member that politically and in the long-term, the EU would be better off without it. Parts or all of the UK could rejoin in future, but without political clout and on standard terms and conditions.
A truly dumb outcome. Better to stay on the terms that we have.
That is what you might wish, but staying is at the whim of the EU now - the UK would be a supplicant in asking to stay or even asking for an extension to A50. That was the real point of my initial post.
Technically we don't need their position to stay if we revoke but granted that seems unlikely without a public vote which does require the EU to grant us an extension. I'd agree long term better for the EU if we left.
" it is in their interest to get rid of perfidious Albion."
Are the other countries fighting each other to cover the shortfall in membership fees?
A short-term financial loss would be easily funded by Germany, but the UK has been such a trouble-maker and recalcitrant EU member that politically and in the long-term, the EU would be better off without it. Parts or all of the UK could rejoin in future, but without political clout and on standard terms and conditions.
A truly dumb outcome. Better to stay on the terms that we have.
That is what you might wish, but staying is at the whim of the EU now - the UK would be a supplicant in asking to stay or even asking for an extension to A50. That was the real point of my initial post.
I don't think there is really any doubt that they would accept it. Not least because ultimately it's our decision, as you say.
The currency markets seem to think that someone might have found a way out of the chamber of horrors.
The more I think about it the more I'm up for the Brussels idea of a 21 month extension to A50 as long as the EU specifically uses that extension to hammer out the long term trading arrangement rather than discuss the backstop for another year and nine months.
What makes you imagine our current administration has the capacity to do so ? It would be 21 months of the EU trying to get us to tell them what it is we want - IOW no different from the last two years.
The more I think about it the more I'm up for the Brussels idea of a 21 month extension to A50 as long as the EU specifically uses that extension to hammer out the long term trading arrangement rather than discuss the backstop for another year and nine months.
No, that is what the transition period is for. In a sane world the EU would have agreed to discuss the trade arrangements in parallel with the WA so we would have done this but they refused and, bizarrely, we acceded rather than telling them to do one.
What is urgently needed now, and has been since at least December (which year? Ed.) is a reduction in uncertainty. That means we leave with the WA and transition period as soon as possible. That probably isn't the original date because this government's supreme incompetence includes not passing the relevant legislation but as soon as possible thereafter.
Of course it is becoming increasingly likely we will not leave at all but I really dread to think what will happen to this country in that scenario.
"A short-term financial loss would be easily funded by Germany/"
Nice of you to volunteer the German taxpayer to pay our continuing billions in contributions, I'm sure they'll be happy to do so.
Mr Dancer, the form of the question, if there were to be a re-run of the referendum, is vital, and one on which there'll be much argument, It won't be settled easily if at all.
Mr. B2, I was amused when the BBC last night acknowledged some doubt over how a second referendum might work, especially when what the question would be was described as a 'detail'.
Hmm. That word does not mean what I think they think it means.
Clearly - this time - a referendum needs a specific proposition that people can weigh up and that can be implemented if it is accepted. If people don't want the proposition, things stay as they are. The point of detail is what is the proposition. To be implementable it needs to have been agreed by the EU, and unless Labour can pull agreement to a CU/EEA deal from the EU, there is only one candidate.
Well, not quite.
Obviously a #peoplesvote requires an extension to A50, realistically 6 months minimum. That takes either 6 months off the WA period, significantly abbreviating it, or an extension to the WA period and funding etc.
Not insurmountable of course, but not quite the existing Deal.
Wouldn't it all have been a bit simpler if Jezza had listened to his own conference back in September and implemented it then?
F1: second test commences today. Will we learn much? Probably not. But it'll be interesting to see what the mood music is.
We should get some more hints about whether Mercedes really are in trouble. I note Bottas was quoted about problems with balance, and a 'very narrow tyre window' - something they were supposed to have addressed as a development priority with the new car. Unless they are flat out lying, which seems unlikely, I think Ferrari ought to be initial favourites for the title.
For me, Corbyn’s hamfisted attempts to reach out to the Jewish Labour Movement are far more significant than what is actually just a symbolic u-turn on the referendum. It is a clear admission that the anti-Semitism charges are sticking and are damaging. It says that right now Corbyn and his mates feel they have lost control of the narrative inside Labour.
I can’t see another EU ref. As an ardent Remainer I’d of course like to but I think too many bridges may have been burnt now with the EU. I think what the Labour move will do is to help get Mays deal through because it’s now much more high stakes for the ERG .
Yep, it’s May’s deal or No Deal. The can will be kicked for as long as possible, but in the end that’s the choice MPs will be forced to make.
" it is in their interest to get rid of perfidious Albion."
Are the other countries fighting each other to cover the shortfall in membership fees?
A short-term financial loss would be easily funded by Germany, but the UK has been such a trouble-maker and recalcitrant EU member that politically and in the long-term, the EU would be better off without it. Parts or all of the UK could rejoin in future, but without political clout and on standard terms and conditions.
A truly dumb outcome. Better to stay on the terms that we have.
That is what you might wish, but staying is at the whim of the EU now - the UK would be a supplicant in asking to stay or even asking for an extension to A50. That was the real point of my initial post.
Technically we don't need their position to stay if we revoke but granted that seems unlikely without a public vote which does require the EU to grant us an extension. I'd agree long term better for the EU if we left.
The EU and the UK don't go away if we stop being members. A close relationship with the EU, which will be on their terms, is almost essential for us. For the EU, it's best we are completely in, or completely out and not mucking up their system. On the whole, best for both parties if we are members.
Brexit is based on some serious delusions. It will fail. It more or less has already. Once we accept that, we can have some sensible discussions with the EU about the way forward. It won't be an agreeable conversation for us.
Mr. CD13, that's my view too, which will mean a large minority will likely see the referendum as dubious even before it starts.
There are three options which all have legitimate reasons to be on the ballot, and reasons not to be as well. Remain, Leave with May's Deal, Leave with no deal.
Remain was rejected by the electorate. Currently, it's popular in the polls.
May's Deal is unpopular and was rejected by a record margin in the Commons. But, it is *a* deal.
No deal causes much concern about the economic impact. But if you reject May's Deal and hold to the 2016 referendum result, it's the only logical choice currently on offer. To do otherwise is to support an option rejected by the electorate or an option rejected by the Commons.
Of course, a straight revocation would be mechanically simpler, but that'd create even more ructions.
For me, Corbyn’s hamfisted attempts to reach out to the Jewish Labour Movement are far more significant than what is actually just a symbolic u-turn on the referendum. It is a clear admission that the anti-Semitism charges are sticking and are damaging. It says that right now Corbyn and his mates feel they have lost control of the narrative inside Labour.
The party has split into three, The Loony left, Watson's Lab within Labour and the TIGS.. I'd call that a loss of control of both narrative and the Party.
Pharmaceuticals have always been an interesting commodity. The cost is in years of research and development, the actual production costs are a pittance, once the QA is assured. You're basically charging for the preceding scientific endeavour.
Which means margins need to be high and it's why me-toos are popular. But it all depends on post-registration sales. We're not talking of bulky, low-value goods here. Could someone talk me through the mechanics of drugs falling from the sky and disappearing the moment we leave the EU. I spent half my career in drug research and development but never worried too much about marketing.
We're a big and a vital market, so you can be sure the companies won't be caught by surprise.
Big problem is the way the market works. In effect. there's only one purchaser for drugs, the NHS. And, as far as community pharmacy is concerned (hospitals are smaller, and the system management is different) the DoH tells pharmacists what it's prepared to pay for any given medication. The list is revised monthly. And there are four really, really big players, who also own the wholesalers and quite a few small ones. Medicines come in two categories, ethicals and generics. Ethicals are those still in patent, where the manufacturer agrees the price with the NHS...... we see an a public argument over those every so often. Generics are those out of patent where anyone whose factory can achieve the requisite standards can make them, and this can be anywhere in the world. The problems come when the NHS announces it will pay £x for whatever, and nowhere in the world can anyone be found to make and sell it for that price, or, of course, only one or two of the manufacturers. Consequently currency values affect the situation.
Though less likely this week, the polling suggests Northern Ireland would vote for a United Ireland if No Deal and a hard border but not if May's Deal passes or if it is Remain after EUref2
"A short-term financial loss would be easily funded by Germany/"
Nice of you to volunteer the German taxpayer to pay our continuing billions in contributions, I'm sure they'll be happy to do so.
Mr Dancer, the form of the question, if there were to be a re-run of the referendum, is vital, and one on which there'll be much argument, It won't be settled easily if at all.
There wouldn't be a short term financial gap as the UK already has plans to continue financial payments in the event of No Deal.
The more I think about it the more I'm up for the Brussels idea of a 21 month extension to A50 as long as the EU specifically uses that extension to hammer out the long term trading arrangement rather than discuss the backstop for another year and nine months.
No, that is what the transition period is for. In a sane world the EU would have agreed to discuss the trade arrangements in parallel with the WA so we would have done this but they refused and, bizarrely, we acceded rather than telling them to do one.
What is urgently needed now, and has been since at least December (which year? Ed.) is a reduction in uncertainty. That means we leave with the WA and transition period as soon as possible. That probably isn't the original date because this government's supreme incompetence includes not passing the relevant legislation but as soon as possible thereafter.
Of course it is becoming increasingly likely we will not leave at all but I really dread to think what will happen to this country in that scenario.
I doubt that much will happen if we Remain. Some people will be angry, others will be delighted, life will go on - much as it will go on in any of the scenarios that will play out from here. There are no good options at this stage. Just less bad ones. The least bad one is a symbolic departure that keeps us in the SM and CU, but outside the political project. It’s basically the Starmer plan. But that is the least likely to happen, even though most MPs would back it.
Here's a suggestion for the re-run referendum question..
Should we (a) Accept we're a supplicant nation and bend the knee to our betters in the EU before slinking away to lick our wounds like the whipped curs we are, OR
(b) Strike out to forge a confident nation once again, becoming a beacon of light for the new Europe.
The more I think about it the more I'm up for the Brussels idea of a 21 month extension to A50 as long as the EU specifically uses that extension to hammer out the long term trading arrangement rather than discuss the backstop for another year and nine months.
No, that is what the transition period is for. In a sane world the EU would have agreed to discuss the trade arrangements in parallel with the WA so we would have done this but they refused and, bizarrely, we acceded rather than telling them to do one.
What is urgently needed now, and has been since at least December (which year? Ed.) is a reduction in uncertainty. That means we leave with the WA and transition period as soon as possible. That probably isn't the original date because this government's supreme incompetence includes not passing the relevant legislation but as soon as possible thereafter.
Of course it is becoming increasingly likely we will not leave at all but I really dread to think what will happen to this country in that scenario.
I doubt that much will happen if we Remain. Some people will be angry, others will be delighted, life will go on - much as it will go on in any of the scenarios that will play out from here. There are no good options at this stage. Just less bad ones. The least bad one is a symbolic departure that keeps us in the SM and CU, but outside the political project. It’s basically the Starmer plan. But that is the least likely to happen, even though most MPs would back it.
Pharmaceuticals have always been an interesting commodity. The cost is in years of research and development, the actual production costs are a pittance, once the QA is assured. You're basically charging for the preceding scientific endeavour.
Which means margins need to be high and it's why me-toos are popular. But it all depends on post-registration sales. We're not talking of bulky, low-value goods here. Could someone talk me through the mechanics of drugs falling from the sky and disappearing the moment we leave the EU. I spent half my career in drug research and development but never worried too much about marketing.
We're a big and a vital market, so you can be sure the companies won't be caught by surprise.
Big problem is the way the market works. In effect. there's only one purchaser for drugs, the NHS. And, as far as community pharmacy is concerned (hospitals are smaller, and the system management is different) the DoH tells pharmacists what it's prepared to pay for any given medication. The list is revised monthly. And there are four really, really big players, who also own the wholesalers and quite a few small ones. Medicines come in two categories, ethicals and generics. Ethicals are those still in patent, where the manufacturer agrees the price with the NHS...... we see an a public argument over those every so often. Generics are those out of patent where anyone whose factory can achieve the requisite standards can make them, and this can be anywhere in the world. The problems come when the NHS announces it will pay £x for whatever, and nowhere in the world can anyone be found to make and sell it for that price, or, of course, only one or two of the manufacturers. Consequently currency values affect the situation.
Yes, there have been problems with some of the staple generics that I prescribe, sometimes becoming unavailable for months or even permanently, asno manufacturer is interested in supplying at NHS prices. Sometimes the NHS drives down prices too much.
But, if they did, I’d expect turnout at the referendum to plummet.
Which is fine - Leave only won because (supposedly) young remain voters didn't vote. If leave doesn't win because people didn't vote for the leave option then they can protest all they want but it's no different from the previous referendum.
The interesting bit is how do you get to that position as the following needs to occurs.
First a referendum needs to be voted for - by those who want May's deal (yet don't mind it being delayed) and those Leave MPs who can't vote for May's deal for constituency reasons Then No deal needs to be taken off the table - by a combination of Remain MPs and those that like May's Deal.
The big question is do both of those options have a majority in the House of Commons.
For me, Corbyn’s hamfisted attempts to reach out to the Jewish Labour Movement are far more significant than what is actually just a symbolic u-turn on the referendum. It is a clear admission that the anti-Semitism charges are sticking and are damaging. It says that right now Corbyn and his mates feel they have lost control of the narrative inside Labour.
The party has split into three, The Loony left, Watson's Lab within Labour and the TIGS.. I'd call that a loss of control of both narrative and the Party.
Corbyn still controls the entire machinery of the party outside the PLP, but it seems pretty clear that Unite aside some of the big unions (the GMB, in particular) are beginning to lose faith.
Here's a suggestion for the re-run referendum question..
Should we (a) Accept we're a supplicant nation and bend the knee to our betters in the EU before slinking away to lick our wounds like the whipped curs we are, OR
(b) Strike out to forge a confident nation once again, becoming a beacon of light for the new Europe.
That's like saying removing Labour from the ballot papers in a general election would give Labour voters the power to choose whether the Conservatives or Lib Dems form the next government. Most Labour voters would probably say no thanks to such an opportunity.
No Dealers will have the option of abstention too.
The decision to leave the EU was recommended by voters in June 2016 and ratified by MPs in March 2017, when A50 was invoked. Therefore in theory, any referendum should be between the "deal" and "no deal".
In all this discussion, MPs and others are forgetting that any vote to extend A50 endorsed by the HoC is merely a request to the EU for such an extension. This will require unanimous support from key EU institutions and all other 27 EU member states, so in practice cannot be requested at the last minute. It is also unlikely to be granted if there is no clear aim/reason (i.e. a few more months of indecisive discussions would be unwelcome) or if it is for a long period (in practice beyond 30/6/19).
It is in the EU's interest to get Brexit done and dusted, and not have a recalcitrant member in perpetuity, with loads of problematic "opt out" clauses. Any rejoining of the EU by the UK or parts of it should be on standard terms and conditions, as for any new member states.
But this tells us little about what will actually happen.
I can't envisage the EU wanting more than a short delay to Brexit - it is in their interest to get rid of perfidious Albion.
And in their interests that we stay, ending any desire to follow us down such a disaster-strewn path.
Actually it is not in the EU's interest:
1. If the UK stays and the referendum result is rescinded, then it is almost certain that we would send a very large block of Farage-backed MEPs. Add that to the anti-EC Eastern European MEPs plus Salvini's block and whatever comes out of Spain and France etc. That makes the EC's job harder.
2. It will give the anti-EU parties a massive propaganda weapon by being able to say "look, we told you so. The elites ignore the people. Vote for us and we are tough enough to stand up to the EC and fight for our interests". Salvini, Orban etc will become the recourse for the downtrodden.
The more I think about it the more I'm up for the Brussels idea of a 21 month extension to A50 as long as the EU specifically uses that extension to hammer out the long term trading arrangement rather than discuss the backstop for another year and nine months.
No, that is what the transition period is for. In a sane world the EU would have agreed to discuss the trade arrangements in parallel with the WA so we would have done this but they refused and, bizarrely, we acceded rather than telling them to do one.
What is urgently needed now, and has been since at least December (which year? Ed.) is a reduction in uncertainty. That means we leave with the WA and transition period as soon as possible. That probably isn't the original date because this government's supreme incompetence includes not passing the relevant legislation but as soon as possible thereafter.
Of course it is becoming increasingly likely we will not leave at all but I really dread to think what will happen to this country in that scenario.
I doubt that much will happen if we Remain. Some people will be angry, others will be delighted, life will go on - much as it will go on in any of the scenarios that will play out from here. There are no good options at this stage. Just less bad ones. The least bad one is a symbolic departure that keeps us in the SM and CU, but outside the political project. It’s basically the Starmer plan. But that is the least likely to happen, even though most MPs would back it.
Grammar police.. fewer bad ones
Nope, I meant less bad ones. Maybe it should have been less worse.
That's like saying removing Labour from the ballot papers in a general election would give Labour voters the power to choose whether the Conservatives or Lib Dems form the next government. Most Labour voters would probably say no thanks to such an opportunity.
No Dealers will have the option of abstention too.
The decision to leave the EU was recommended by voters in June 2016 and ratified by MPs in March 2017, when A50 was invoked. Therefore in theory, any referendum should be between the "deal" and "no deal".
In all this discussion, MPs and others are forgetting that any vote to extend A50 endorsed by the HoC is merely a request to the EU for such an extension. This will require unanimous support from key EU institutions and all other 27 EU member states, so in practice cannot be requested at the last minute. It is also unlikely to be granted if there is no clear aim/reason (i.e. a few more months of indecisive discussions would be unwelcome) or if it is for a long period (in practice beyond 30/6/19).
It is in the EU's interest to get Brexit done and dusted, and not have a recalcitrant member in perpetuity, with loads of problematic "opt out" clauses. Any rejoining of the EU by the UK or parts of it should be on standard terms and conditions, as for any new member states.
But this tells us little about what will actually happen.
I can't envisage the EU wanting more than a short delay to Brexit - it is in their interest to get rid of perfidious Albion.
And in their interests that we stay, ending any desire to follow us down such a disaster-strewn path.
Actually it is not in the EU's interest:
1. If the UK stays and the referendum result is rescinded, then it is almost certain that we would send a very large block of Farage-backed MEPs. Add that to the anti-EC Eastern European MEPs plus Salvini's block and whatever comes out of Spain and France etc. That makes the EC's job harder.
2. It will give the anti-EU parties a massive propaganda weapon by being able to say "look, we told you so. The elites ignore the people. Vote for us and we are tough enough to stand up to the EC and fight for our interests". Salvini, Orban etc will become the recourse for the downtrodden.
But both are minor inconveniences compared to the significant benefit of our contribution (financial and generally) and of demonstrating the dangers and difficulty of trying to sever forty years of economic and institutional convergence.
Here's a suggestion for the re-run referendum question..
Should we (a) Accept we're a supplicant nation and bend the knee to our betters in the EU before slinking away to lick our wounds like the whipped curs we are, OR
(b) Strike out to forge a confident nation once again, becoming a beacon of light for the new Europe.
That sounds fair enough.
How do you achieve b? Broad brush strokes are fine for the moment or even just this single question.
Do we use WTO terms to maximise our tariffs or minimise them? Bonus points for adding how likely we are to sign a trade deal based on your previous decision.
Clearly - this time - a referendum needs a specific proposition that people can weigh up and that can be implemented if it is accepted. If people don't want the proposition, things stay as they are. The point of detail is what is the proposition. To be implementable it needs to have been agreed by the EU, and unless Labour can pull agreement to a CU/EEA deal from the EU, there is only one candidate.
"Should the UK ask the EU to state its terms for giving the UK permission to Leave in the knowledge that if it rejects them the UK will otherwise Remain in the EU?"
But, if they did, I’d expect turnout at the referendum to plummet.
Which is fine - Leave only won because (supposedly) young remain voters didn't vote. If leave doesn't win because people didn't vote for the leave option then they can protest all they want but it's no different from the previous referendum.
The interesting bit is how do you get to that position as the following needs to occurs.
First a referendum needs to be voted for - by those who want May's deal (yet don't mind it being delayed) and those Leave MPs who can't vote for May's deal for constituency reasons Then No deal needs to be taken off the table - by a combination of Remain MPs and those that like May's Deal.
The big question is do both of those options have a majority in the House of Commons.
I read somewhere - and I am sure PBers will correct any inaccuracies - that the problem for getting any 2nd vote enshrined into law in time is that Brexiteers in the Lords would almost certainly file so many amendments that we would run out of time. Maybe that explains why we haven't had the ERG bunch not throwing a grenade into proceedings.
Whisper it quietly, but the best outcome for the DUP is actually a people’s vote. They’ll scream red, white and blue murder if it happens but privately breathe a sigh of relief. Like Boris Johnson, they never wanted Brexit but wanted to be seen to support it. A second referendum offers an escape from their worst nightmare, while allowing them to reluctantly go along with “the will of the entire country”. Very unionist.
The main conclusion I've drawn from yesterday's news from Labour is just how many MPs were presumably threatening to defect if the leadership didn't start listening to its Parliamentary base.
That's like saying removing Labour from the ballot papers in a general election would give Labour voters the power to choose whether the Conservatives or Lib Dems form the next government. Most Labour voters would probably say no thanks to such an opportunity.
No Dealers will have the option of abstention too.
But this tells us little about what will actually happen.
.
Actually it is not in the EU's interest:
1. If the UK stays and the referendum result is rescinded, then it is almost certain that we would send a very large block of Farage-backed MEPs. Add that to the anti-EC Eastern European MEPs plus Salvini's block and whatever comes out of Spain and France etc. That makes the EC's job harder.
2. It will give the anti-EU parties a massive propaganda weapon by being able to say "look, we told you so. The elites ignore the people. Vote for us and we are tough enough to stand up to the EC and fight for our interests". Salvini, Orban etc will become the recourse for the downtrodden.
But both are minor inconveniences compared to the significant benefit of our contribution (financial and generally) and of demonstrating the dangers and difficulty of trying to sever forty years of economic and institutional convergence.
The established EC parties are taking enough hammer blows as it is. It is likely that Salvini will make gains at the expense of 5 Star, thus taking Italy more into the anti-EU camp. Who knows what will come out of Spain with Vox. And, having been in Paris this weekend, France is not particularly happy. Also bear in mind a rescinding is very likely to lead to a more anti-EU/EC Govt (my base scenario is that the ERG don't leave the Conservative party, there is a wave of deselections of more pro-EU MPs, and that the Tories win against a divided Labour party)
Here's a suggestion for the re-run referendum question..
Should we (a) Accept we're a supplicant nation and bend the knee to our betters in the EU before slinking away to lick our wounds like the whipped curs we are, OR
(b) Strike out to forge a confident nation once again, becoming a beacon of light for the new Europe.
Pharmaceuticals have always been an interesting commodity. The cost is in years of research and development, the actual production costs are a pittance, once the QA is assured. You're basically charging for the preceding scientific endeavour.
Which means margins need to be high and it's why me-toos are popular. But it all depends on post-registration sales. We're not talking of bulky, low-value goods here. Could someone talk me through the mechanics of drugs falling from the sky and disappearing the moment we leave the EU. I spent half my career in drug research and development but never worried too much about marketing.
We're a big and a vital market, so you can be sure the companies won't be caught by surprise.
Big problem is the way the market works. In effect. there's only one purchaser for drugs, the NHS. And, as far as community pharmacy is concerned (hospitals are smaller, and the system management is different) the DoH tells pharmacists what it's prepared to pay for any given medication. The list is revised monthly. And there are four really, really big players, who also own the wholesalers and quite a few small ones. Medicines come in two categories, ethicals and generics. Ethicals are those still in patent, where the manufacturer agrees the price with the NHS...... we see an a public argument over those every so often. Generics are those out of patent where anyone whose factory can achieve the requisite standards can make them, and this can be anywhere in the world. The problems come when the NHS announces it will pay £x for whatever, and nowhere in the world can anyone be found to make and sell it for that price, or, of course, only one or two of the manufacturers. Consequently currency values affect the situation.
There is also the category of biologicals, where making 'generics' is considerably more problematic than just copying a formula. Demonstrating equivalence can require further clinical trials - and actual production costs are very far from 'a pittance'.
Vaccines more or less fall into this category, but afaik the UK is pretty strong in vaccine manufacturing.
The main conclusion I've drawn from yesterday's news from Labour is just how many MPs were presumably threatening to defect if the leadership didn't start listening to its Parliamentary base.
And still could if words do not turn into actions. I think it’s pretty clear that there has been a sugnificant level of coordination between a large part of the PLP, led by Watson, some unions and the TIGs. I imagine this will be ongoing.
Here's a suggestion for the re-run referendum question..
Should we (a) Accept we're a supplicant nation and bend the knee to our betters in the EU before slinking away to lick our wounds like the whipped curs we are, OR
(b) Strike out to forge a confident nation once again, becoming a beacon of light for the new Europe.
But Labour's proposition is that it whips in favour of May's deal conditional on the government whipping for the referendum (which presumably would be part of the same proposition, or attached to it by amendment prior). With both Tories and Labour whipping for such an approach, it'll go through regardless of rebels on both sides.
Where Snell is right is that Labour is unlikely to be able to force this through without government support, unless we have drastically underestimated the size of the Tory rebellion willing to support it (noting that Allen and Soubry have said 100+ Tories are very unhappy at the PM's approach)
The main conclusion I've drawn from yesterday's news from Labour is just how many MPs were presumably threatening to defect if the leadership didn't start listening to its Parliamentary base.
And still could if words do not turn into actions. I think it’s pretty clear that there has been a sugnificant level of coordination between a large part of the PLP, led by Watson, some unions and the TIGs. I imagine this will be ongoing.
I'm noting Emily Thornberry's role in all this. She has politely but firmly stood up to the anti-referendum forces around the leadership. Clearly she thinks this is necessary because she has to date been studiously loyal to Jeremy Corbyn.
' Thirteen people were found "absolutely packed" into a three-bedroom house in Newcastle, the BBC has found.
The bath had been ripped out and a bunk bed put in its place, officials found when they visited the property in Ponteland Road, Blakelaw, in January.
None of the people, who were restaurant workers, knew each other, Paula Davis from Newcastle City Council said.
The council is now pursuing the private landlord for operating a house in multiple occupation without a licence.
The Home Office said of the 13, three women and seven men aged between 20 and 51 were arrested for either overstaying their visas or on suspicion of obtaining leave to enter the UK by deception. '
"There wouldn't be a short term financial gap as the UK already has plans to continue financial payments in the event of No Deal."
That's news to me. So we really are booked into Hotel California?
Obviously there is a longer term financial gap, but it does seem that continued payments are part of our No Deal planning, presumably as part of a bigger package of mini deals.
There is a difference between No Deal and Trade War.
Labour are all over the place and Corbyn clearly will not back TM deal with a referendum
The impression I get is that Corbyn and his cabal are in a blind panic and attempting large doses of fudge to prevent further defections but the underlining issues of anti semitism and hard left views still remain with a substantial number of his mps.
He runs the risk of upsetting most everyone in his party, adding to the probability of a split in the next few months
However, if he had declared support for a leave/ remain referendum he would have drawn policy in line with the SNP and Lib Dems to wide acclaim from them, but he is a leaver and he could not contemplate doing the right thing by most of his membership and many of his mps
But Labour's proposition is that it whips in favour of May's deal conditional on the government whipping for the referendum (which presumably would be part of the same proposition, or attached to it by amendment prior). With both Tories and Labour whipping for such an approach, it'll go through regardless of rebels on both sides.
Where Snell is right is that Labour is unlikely to be able to force this through without government support, unless we have drastically underestimated the size of the Tory rebellion willing to support it (noting that Allen and Soubry have said 100+ Tories are very unhappy at the PM's approach)
Jezza doesn't want a 2nd vote, so he wont care how/when it fails.
Sorry Parker, I don't want to be rude, but you need to think through what you are saying about red bus It is the right decision, some protection to agriculture and consumers, but slash the rest to 2%. Politically the ERM interest rates calamity wounded John Major and Tories for a long time right into subsequent elections, and exiting with high tariffs and the impact of that on consumers already fragile breadlines will do the same. Politically this mixed approach is the only choice.
' Thirteen people were found "absolutely packed" into a three-bedroom house in Newcastle, the BBC has found.
The bath had been ripped out and a bunk bed put in its place, officials found when they visited the property in Ponteland Road, Blakelaw, in January.
None of the people, who were restaurant workers, knew each other, Paula Davis from Newcastle City Council said.
The council is now pursuing the private landlord for operating a house in multiple occupation without a licence.
The Home Office said of the 13, three women and seven men aged between 20 and 51 were arrested for either overstaying their visas or on suspicion of obtaining leave to enter the UK by deception. '
The main conclusion I've drawn from yesterday's news from Labour is just how many MPs were presumably threatening to defect if the leadership didn't start listening to its Parliamentary base.
And still could if words do not turn into actions. I think it’s pretty clear that there has been a sugnificant level of coordination between a large part of the PLP, led by Watson, some unions and the TIGs. I imagine this will be ongoing.
I'm noting Emily Thornberry's role in all this. She has politely but firmly stood up to the anti-referendum forces around the leadership. Clearly she thinks this is necessary because she has to date been studiously loyal to Jeremy Corbyn.
Yep, both Starmer and Thornberry have been unequivocal. This looks like a coup attempt against the Morning Star Brexiteers.
Comments
You're in a good mood this morning!
Pretending this is a real option is fantasy; so why pretend (on a clearly unbelievable basis) to the EU negotiators. Just fooling ourselves.
The three issues raised in the article are minimum salary thresholds for medical workers, more expensive private insurance, and delay for access to new medicines. The first is easily fixed and the second is only relevant for visitors to the UK. The third is probably the most problematic, but avoidable with continued cooperation in such matters.
Only other option is a GE, but not sure that necessarily solves anything, especially as we know how "good" TM is at fighting elections.....
'If we’re heading for a hard Brexit, then we’re heading for a united Ireland'
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/26/hard-brexit-united-ireland-second-referendum-dup
India's launched air strikes in Pakistani territory:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-47366718
Which means margins need to be high and it's why me-toos are popular. But it all depends on post-registration sales. We're not talking of bulky, low-value goods here. Could someone talk me through the mechanics of drugs falling from the sky and disappearing the moment we leave the EU. I spent half my career in drug research and development but never worried too much about marketing.
We're a big and a vital market, so you can be sure the companies won't be caught by surprise.
And the damndable thing about it is that any problems will be hard to predict: who would have guessed that a problem with a Dutch nuclear reactor ten years ago would have caused healthcare issues around EU, and to a lesser extent the world?
https://www.nature.com/news/2008/081023/full/news.2008.1186.html
" it is in their interest to get rid of perfidious Albion."
Are the other countries fighting each other to cover the shortfall in membership fees?
Given they have existed with remain for decades and given how much they have condemned the deal, if they must back one of those two choices I think they'd choose remain. It's giving in but not to May.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/26/hard-brexit-united-ireland-second-referendum-dup
But, I do wonder if that will happen -- it is far more likely that the thwarting of the Referendum result will provide the EU with an extremely troublesome, recalcitrant, friendless and difficult member.
When the EU Commissioner Lord Hill resigned, he said these true words "What has been done, can't be undone".
Brexit or no Brexit, there is no way back to the cosy, consensual world before the Referendum.
Hmm. That word does not mean what I think they think it means.
And if they could muster up the willingness to campaign for it in a referendum they'd be able to suck it up and vote for it without risking remain in a public vote.
The question involved in a potential referendum isn't a detail. It's (along with the options) the heart of the matter.
The currency markets seem to think that someone might have found a way out of the chamber of horrors.
It would be 21 months of the EU trying to get us to tell them what it is we want - IOW no different from the last two years.
What is urgently needed now, and has been since at least December (which year? Ed.) is a reduction in uncertainty. That means we leave with the WA and transition period as soon as possible. That probably isn't the original date because this government's supreme incompetence includes not passing the relevant legislation but as soon as possible thereafter.
Of course it is becoming increasingly likely we will not leave at all but I really dread to think what will happen to this country in that scenario.
"A short-term financial loss would be easily funded by Germany/"
Nice of you to volunteer the German taxpayer to pay our continuing billions in contributions, I'm sure they'll be happy to do so.
Mr Dancer, the form of the question, if there were to be a re-run of the referendum, is vital, and one on which there'll be much argument, It won't be settled easily if at all.
Obviously a #peoplesvote requires an extension to A50, realistically 6 months minimum. That takes either 6 months off the WA period, significantly abbreviating it, or an extension to the WA period and funding etc.
Not insurmountable of course, but not quite the existing Deal.
Wouldn't it all have been a bit simpler if Jezza had listened to his own conference back in September and implemented it then?
Unless they are flat out lying, which seems unlikely, I think Ferrari ought to be initial favourites for the title.
Brexit is based on some serious delusions. It will fail. It more or less has already. Once we accept that, we can have some sensible discussions with the EU about the way forward. It won't be an agreeable conversation for us.
There are three options which all have legitimate reasons to be on the ballot, and reasons not to be as well. Remain, Leave with May's Deal, Leave with no deal.
Remain was rejected by the electorate. Currently, it's popular in the polls.
May's Deal is unpopular and was rejected by a record margin in the Commons. But, it is *a* deal.
No deal causes much concern about the economic impact. But if you reject May's Deal and hold to the 2016 referendum result, it's the only logical choice currently on offer. To do otherwise is to support an option rejected by the electorate or an option rejected by the Commons.
Of course, a straight revocation would be mechanically simpler, but that'd create even more ructions.
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1100179720832995328?s=19
Should we (a) Accept we're a supplicant nation and bend the knee to our betters in the EU before slinking away to lick our wounds like the whipped curs we are, OR
(b) Strike out to forge a confident nation once again, becoming a beacon of light for the new Europe.
That sounds fair enough.
The interesting bit is how do you get to that position as the following needs to occurs.
First a referendum needs to be voted for - by those who want May's deal (yet don't mind it being delayed) and those Leave MPs who can't vote for May's deal for constituency reasons
Then No deal needs to be taken off the table - by a combination of Remain MPs and those that like May's Deal.
The big question is do both of those options have a majority in the House of Commons.
and
b) Remain!
1. If the UK stays and the referendum result is rescinded, then it is almost certain that we would send a very large block of Farage-backed MEPs. Add that to the anti-EC Eastern European MEPs plus Salvini's block and whatever comes out of Spain and France etc. That makes the EC's job harder.
2. It will give the anti-EU parties a massive propaganda weapon by being able to say "look, we told you so. The elites ignore the people. Vote for us and we are tough enough to stand up to the EC and fight for our interests". Salvini, Orban etc will become the recourse for the downtrodden.
Do we use WTO terms to maximise our tariffs or minimise them? Bonus points for adding how likely we are to sign a trade deal based on your previous decision.
https://twitter.com/PeterDWindsor/status/1100140537280114696
Maybe that explains why we haven't had the ERG bunch not throwing a grenade into proceedings.
"There wouldn't be a short term financial gap as the UK already has plans to continue financial payments in the event of No Deal."
That's news to me. So we really are booked into Hotel California?
You might be right about option (a).
Seumas not having a good week...
Vaccines more or less fall into this category, but afaik the UK is pretty strong in vaccine manufacturing.
Where Snell is right is that Labour is unlikely to be able to force this through without government support, unless we have drastically underestimated the size of the Tory rebellion willing to support it (noting that Allen and Soubry have said 100+ Tories are very unhappy at the PM's approach)
"Nope, I meant less bad ones. Maybe it should have been less worse."
My daughter when she was twelve came up with …' less qualified people' as the reason the 'less' vs 'fewer' difference is important.
The bath had been ripped out and a bunk bed put in its place, officials found when they visited the property in Ponteland Road, Blakelaw, in January.
None of the people, who were restaurant workers, knew each other, Paula Davis from Newcastle City Council said.
The council is now pursuing the private landlord for operating a house in multiple occupation without a licence.
The Home Office said of the 13, three women and seven men aged between 20 and 51 were arrested for either overstaying their visas or on suspicion of obtaining leave to enter the UK by deception. '
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-47310505
I have pointed out that modern middle class life is dependent upon exploitation of an immigrant serf class.
But we prefer it if they are kept out of sight.
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/culture/michelin-restaurants-in-britain-how-will-brexit-impact-uk-fine-dining-1-4839214
There is a difference between No Deal and Trade War.
The impression I get is that Corbyn and his cabal are in a blind panic and attempting large doses of fudge to prevent further defections but the underlining issues of anti semitism and hard left views still remain with a substantial number of his mps.
He runs the risk of upsetting most everyone in his party, adding to the probability of a split in the next few months
However, if he had declared support for a leave/ remain referendum he would have drawn policy in line with the SNP and Lib Dems to wide acclaim from them, but he is a leaver and he could not contemplate doing the right thing by most of his membership and many of his mps
Con 41%
Lab 30%
LDem 10%
Oth 19%
And with TIG:
Con 36%
Lab 23%
TIG 18%
LDem 6%
Oth 17%
(TIG taking 5% from Tory, 7% from Labour, 4% from LDs and 2% from others)
It is the right decision, some protection to agriculture and consumers, but slash the rest to 2%. Politically the ERM interest rates calamity wounded John Major and Tories for a long time right into subsequent elections, and exiting with high tariffs and the impact of that on consumers already fragile breadlines will do the same. Politically this mixed approach is the only choice.