Just watching Everton v Liverpool I had a flash back to standing on the terraces with my dear Father at the 1966 world cup match, Brazil v Portugal, with the greats, Pele and Eusebio on the same pitch. 53 years ago, over half a century - how time flies and many happy memories
You must have been watching a different game to me.
I have just been out to get more wood for the stove.
It is officially windier than a hall where Boris Johnson is speaking to an audience who have only eaten baked beans for three years.
You're lucky. Our stove has refused point blank to light these past two days as there's a storm force 10 blowing straight down the chimney, it seems. If only I'd bought some herrings, the'd be nicely kippered by now.
Thankfully, the underfloor heating still works though.
Well, it took a while to get going. But my chimney's in the lee of the house. Probably too low for some random regulation or other.
If Mays deal goes down there will be a lot of pressure for a change in plan . Norway plus with some window dressing on FOM. The People’s Vote need to stop trashing that as most Remainers would gladly take it.
The remain wing of the ERG.
Going by the YouGov polling the other day a very soft Brexit (stay in SM + CU) annoys the least people.
Remaining in the EU pleases the most people.
In a system with preferences maybe very soft Brexit wins but in a FTPT system remain wins.
Which should be argued for on a current will of the people basis is an interesting argument.
Obviously that is just based off the poll which is far from infallible.
Supposedly there's already a plan for MV3 should MV2 fail, as expected. Unless there's a referendum or revocation then even if we extend the issues are the same and so there would presumably be a MV3 since that at least is a known option.
The strategy has been crystal clear since before Christmas - to allow fear to do the work. The prospect of leaving without a Deal has been couched in such apocalyptic terms that it's increasingly hard not to see the Deal as the least worst option.
It then comes down to who blinks first - May is clearly hoping the ERG and DUP will do the blinking and carry what many consider a far from perfect WA through the Commons.
Needless to say, we can already see the May apologists gearing up to proclaim the triumph when the WA gets passed - May will be lauded in almost Thatcher-esque terms and the siren calls to let her stay on and fight the next GE as Conservative leader will no doubt be heard. The Mail yesterday spoke of "garlands" being thrown at her - maybe.
The true cost of the months of delay, confusion and indecision on business, local authorities and others will of course not be mentioned or even considered in the euphoria (though the cost of the ads and the General Election should also be mentioned).
Remainers salivate at the possibility of splitting the leave vote between deal/no deal which would ultimately lead to us remaining, under AV, as others have pointed out below.
But the remain vote is not a monolith. If there is to be a second referendum, the question isn't just "what does leave look like?"
It should be "what does remain look like?" as well.
Remainers often say that leavers had no idea what leave would look like. Well, right back at you, remain. What happens if we stay?
What does remaining look like? What is there a mandate for? Is there one for ever closer union? The EU army? Tax harmonisation? I'm willing to bet the "people's" vote lot don't want to find out.
If we have a deal/no deal/remain referendum, the only fair choices would be deal/no deal/closer union/in but no closer union.
For the immediate future Remain would look exactly like it did before we triggered A50. What happens in years to come is always open to speculation but I believe w have the opt-outs and vetos to prevent us doing too much that we are opposed to. Do we not have an opt out re closer political union?
Brexit, on the other hand, is less than a month away and we still don't know how it will look then let alone in 5 years time.
The reality of the situation has nothing to do with whether remainers are "salivating" at the split in leavers. There is a split, that is simply a factual statement. Whether we go for No Deal or May's Deal, large numbers of leavers would be opposed.
This has been Leave's Achille's heel from the off. No version of Brexit could be ruled out without leave losing votes. That was fine if all that mattered was flopping over the referendum finishing line. It then meant that as soon as any "real" Brexit options were outlined some leavers wouldn't like it.
Wasn't the 'ever closer union' opt-out part of Cameron's plan that wasn't accepted because we went for a referendum?
It was. Against that it was an informal agreement, and therefore if the EU had chosen to ignore it (as at least one official said they would) there was nothing we could have done to stop them other than, er, leave.
Supposedly there's already a plan for MV3 should MV2 fail, as expected. Unless there's a referendum or revocation then even if we extend the issues are the same and so there would presumably be a MV3 since that at least is a known option.
The strategy has been crystal clear since before Christmas - to allow fear to do the work. The prospect of leaving without a Deal has been couched in such apocalyptic terms that it's increasingly hard not to see the Deal as the least worst option.
It then comes down to who blinks first - May is clearly hoping the ERG and DUP will do the blinking and carry what many consider a far from perfect WA through the Commons.
Needless to say, we can already see the May apologists gearing up to proclaim the triumph when the WA gets passed - May will be lauded in almost Thatcher-esque terms and the siren calls to let her stay on and fight the next GE as Conservative leader will no doubt be heard. The Mail yesterday spoke of "garlands" being thrown at her - maybe.
The true cost of the months of delay, confusion and indecision on business, local authorities and others will of course not be mentioned or even considered in the euphoria (though the cost of the ads and the General Election should also be mentioned).
It will be a political triumph, and people will talk about the cost of the months of delay, confusion and indecision, you're just pretending that the former means everyone will forget the latter.
Remainers salivate at the possibility of splitting the leave vote between deal/no deal which would ultimately lead to us remaining, under AV, as others have pointed out below.
But the remain vote is not a monolith. If there is to be a second referendum, the question isn't just "what does leave look like?"
It should be "what does remain look like?" as well.
Remainers often say that leavers had no idea what leave would look like. Well, right back at you, remain. What happens if we stay?
What does remaining look like? What is there a mandate for? Is there one for ever closer union? The EU army? Tax harmonisation? I'm willing to bet the "people's" vote lot don't want to find out.
If we have a deal/no deal/remain referendum, the only fair choices would be deal/no deal/closer union/in but no closer union.
For the immediate future Remain would look exactly like it did before we triggered A50. What happens in years to come is always open to speculation but I believe w have the opt-outs and vetos to prevent us doing too much that we are opposed to. Do we not have an opt out re closer political union?
Brexit, on the other hand, is less than a month away and we still don't know how it will look then let alone in 5 years time.
The reality of the situation has nothing to do with whether remainers are "salivating" at the split in leavers. There is a split, that is simply a factual statement. Whether we go for No Deal or May's Deal, large numbers of leavers would be opposed.
This has been Leave's Achille's heel from the off. No version of Brexit could be ruled out without leave losing votes. That was fine if all that mattered was flopping over the referendum finishing line. It then meant that as soon as any "real" Brexit options were outlined some leavers wouldn't like it.
Wasn't the 'ever closer union' opt-out part of Cameron's plan that wasn't accepted because we went for a referendum?
Cameron promised an "opt out" from ever closer union, but it was a political promise rather than a legal one.
Remainers salivate at the possibility of splitting the leave vote between deal/no deal which would ultimately lead to us remaining, under AV, as others have pointed out below.
But the remain vote is not a monolith. If there is to be a second referendum, the question isn't just "what does leave look like?"
It should be "what does remain look like?" as well.
Remainers often say that leavers had no idea what leave would look like. Well, right back at you, remain. What happens if we stay?
What does remaining look like? What is there a mandate for? Is there one for ever closer union? The EU army? Tax harmonisation? I'm willing to bet the "people's" vote lot don't want to find out.
If we have a deal/no deal/remain referendum, the only fair choices would be deal/no deal/closer union/in but no closer union.
For the immediate future Remain would look exactly like it did before we triggered A50. What happens in years to come is always open to speculation but I believe w have the opt-outs and vetos to prevent us doing too much that we are opposed to. Do we not have an opt out re closer political union?
Brexit, on the other hand, is less than a month away and we still don't know how it will look then let alone in 5 years time.
The reality of the situation has nothing to do with whether remainers are "salivating" at the split in leavers. There is a split, that is simply a factual statement. Whether we go for No Deal or May's Deal, large numbers of leavers would be opposed.
This has been Leave's Achille's heel from the off. No version of Brexit could be ruled out without leave losing votes. That was fine if all that mattered was flopping over the referendum finishing line. It then meant that as soon as any "real" Brexit options were outlined some leavers wouldn't like it.
Wasn't the 'ever closer union' opt-out part of Cameron's plan that wasn't accepted because we went for a referendum?
It was. Against that it was an informal agreement, and therefore if the EU had chosen to ignore it (as at least one official said they would) there was nothing we could have done to stop them other than, er, leave.
So, basically 'remain' is whatever the EU decide it is?
Supposedly there's already a plan for MV3 should MV2 fail, as expected. Unless there's a referendum or revocation then even if we extend the issues are the same and so there would presumably be a MV3 since that at least is a known option.
The strategy has been crystal clear since before Christmas - to allow fear to do the work. The prospect of leaving without a Deal has been couched in such apocalyptic terms that it's increasingly hard not to see the Deal as the least worst option.
It then comes down to who blinks first - May is clearly hoping the ERG and DUP will do the blinking and carry what many consider a far from perfect WA through the Commons.
Needless to say, we can already see the May apologists gearing up to proclaim the triumph when the WA gets passed - May will be lauded in almost Thatcher-esque terms and the siren calls to let her stay on and fight the next GE as Conservative leader will no doubt be heard. The Mail yesterday spoke of "garlands" being thrown at her - maybe.
The true cost of the months of delay, confusion and indecision on business, local authorities and others will of course not be mentioned or even considered in the euphoria (though the cost of the ads and the General Election should also be mentioned).
You made a similar post a few days ago and while TM would receive a boost if her deal goes through and she would be PM for quite some time, fighting the next GE is a no, even for this moderate
Remainers salivate at the possibility of splitting the leave vote between deal/no deal which would ultimately lead to us remaining, under AV, as others have pointed out below.
But the remain vote is not a monolith. If there is to be a second referendum, the question isn't just "what does leave look like?"
It should be "what does remain look like?" as well.
Remainers often say that leavers had no idea what leave would look like. Well, right back at you, remain. What happens if we stay?
What does remaining look like? What is there a mandate for? Is there one for ever closer union? The EU army? Tax harmonisation? I'm willing to bet the "people's" vote lot don't want to find out.
If we have a deal/no deal/remain referendum, the only fair choices would be deal/no deal/closer union/in but no closer union.
For the immediate future Remain would look exactly like it did before we triggered A50. What happens in years to come is always open to speculation but I believe w have the opt-outs and vetos to prevent us doing too much that we are opposed to. Do we not have an opt out re closer political union?
Brexit, on the other hand, is less than a month away and we still don't know how it will look then let alone in 5 years time.
The reality of the situation has nothing to do with whether remainers are "salivating" at the split in leavers. There is a split, that is simply a factual statement. Whether we go for No Deal or May's Deal, large numbers of leavers would be opposed.
This has been Leave's Achille's heel from the off. No version of Brexit could be ruled out without leave losing votes. That was fine if all that mattered was flopping over the referendum finishing line. It then meant that as soon as any "real" Brexit options were outlined some leavers wouldn't like it.
Wasn't the 'ever closer union' opt-out part of Cameron's plan that wasn't accepted because we went for a referendum?
Cameron promised an "opt out" from ever closer union, but it was a political promise rather than a legal one.
The so-called opt out would not have had any legal effect.
People smelled it for the B.S. it was.
It was irrelevant anyway. We had already built up a different status, and Cameron's deal just entrenched it by safeguarding the position of financial services in the single market but outside the Eurozone.
Wasn't the 'ever closer union' opt-out part of Cameron's plan that wasn't accepted because we went for a referendum?
It was. Against that it was an informal agreement, and therefore if the EU had chosen to ignore it (as at least one official said they would) there was nothing we could have done to stop them other than, er, leave.
So, basically 'remain' is whatever the EU decide it is?
Potentially, yes. Against that, closer integration would require treaty changes which we could have refused to endorse without concessions. This, over time, could have led to a form of two tier Europe with us and maybe the other non-EZ countries as associate members.
One reason I eventually plumped for Remain even though as most posters doubtless realise I am ambivalent about the EU is because I have little doubt that relieved of our restraining influence the EU will charge headlong into controversial, ill-thought-out and probably badly managed full-fledged federalism, with disastrous consequences that would do us a lot of damage.
Remainers salivate at the possibility of splitting the leave vote between deal/no deal which would ultimately lead to us remaining, under AV, as others have pointed out below.
But the remain vote is not a monolith. If there is to be a second referendum, the question isn't just "what does leave look like?"
It should be "what does remain look like?" as well.
Remainers often say that leavers had no idea what leave would look like. Well, right back at you, remain. What happens if we stay?
What does remaining look like? What is there a mandate for? Is there one for ever closer union? The EU army? Tax harmonisation? I'm willing to bet the "people's" vote lot don't want to find out.
If we have a deal/no deal/remain referendum, the only fair choices would be deal/no deal/closer union/in but no closer union.
For the immediate future Remain would look exactly like it did before we triggered A50. What happens in years to come is always open to speculation but I believe w have the opt-outs and vetos to prevent us doing too much that we are opposed to. Do we not have an opt out re closer political union?
Brexit, on the other hand, is less than a month away and we still don't know how it will look then let alone in 5 years time.
The reality of the situation has nothing to do with whether remainers are "salivating" at the split in leavers. There is a split, that is simply a factual statement. Whether we go for No Deal or May's Deal, large numbers of leavers would be opposed.
This has been Leave's Achille's heel from the off. No version of Brexit could be ruled out without leave losing votes. That was fine if all that mattered was flopping over the referendum finishing line. It then meant that as soon as any "real" Brexit options were outlined some leavers wouldn't like it.
Wasn't the 'ever closer union' opt-out part of Cameron's plan that wasn't accepted because we went for a referendum?
Cameron promised an "opt out" from ever closer union, but it was a political promise rather than a legal one.
Maybe the Welsh people should be given an opportunity to see if they've changed their minds since 1997 on whether to have an Assembly, given that it was approved by the very small margin of 50.3% to 49.7%.
You made a similar post a few days ago and while TM would receive a boost if her deal goes through and she would be PM for quite some time, fighting the next GE is a no, even for this moderate
I think those who support her more unconditionally would hail her triumph and strongly assert the quality of her leadership to the extent of precluding a challenge so the question then becomes whether May would step down voluntarily.
I don't see it but you may be right and the quid pro quo for the ERG's support in getting the WDA passed might very well be her departure in say 2020 or early 2021.
Liverpool just look so tired and desperate, you'd never thing to look at them in the last 5 or so games that they had daylight between them and City not that long ago. The worst thing is City probably do deserve to win the league.
Liverpool giving choking lessons to the Boston Strangler.....
For the immediate future Remain would look exactly like it did before we triggered A50. What happens in years to come is always open to speculation but I believe w have the opt-outs and vetos to prevent us doing too much that we are opposed to. Do we not have an opt out re closer political union?
Brexit, on the other hand, is less than a month away and we still don't know how it will look then let alone in 5 years time.
The reality of the situation has nothing to do with whether remainers are "salivating" at the split in leavers. There is a split, that is simply a factual statement. Whether we go for No Deal or May's Deal, large numbers of leavers would be opposed.
This has been Leave's Achille's heel from the off. No version of Brexit could be ruled out without leave losing votes. That was fine if all that mattered was flopping over the referendum finishing line. It then meant that as soon as any "real" Brexit options were outlined some leavers wouldn't like it.
Wasn't the 'ever closer union' opt-out part of Cameron's plan that wasn't accepted because we went for a referendum?
Cameron promised an "opt out" from ever closer union, but it was a political promise rather than a legal one.
The so-called opt out would not have had any legal effect.
People smelled it for the B.S. it was.
Much the same as any Political Declaration accompanying the WA then.
The future is uncertain, who knew?
Let the people have the Final Say.
Fair enough. The final say should be something like:
"We are where we are. Do you desire closer integration with the EU, or a gradual splitting apart? Because there is no such thing as "remain" where we are now. Choose the direction of travel."
I voted Remain for many reasons but a big part was to stop the UK becoming a lapdog of the USA.
Bizarely some Leavers are happy to be bent over and banged by Trump. It’s like anything to do with the EU bad , anything to do with the USA great even when they have made it plain they want to screw the UK.
You made a similar post a few days ago and while TM would receive a boost if her deal goes through and she would be PM for quite some time, fighting the next GE is a no, even for this moderate
I think those who support her more unconditionally would hail her triumph and strongly assert the quality of her leadership to the extent of precluding a challenge so the question then becomes whether May would step down voluntarily.
I don't see it but you may be right and the quid pro quo for the ERG's support in getting the WDA passed might very well be her departure in say 2020 or early 2021.
The letters go in again in December 2019.....at the latest.
You made a similar post a few days ago and while TM would receive a boost if her deal goes through and she would be PM for quite some time, fighting the next GE is a no, even for this moderate
I think those who support her more unconditionally would hail her triumph and strongly assert the quality of her leadership to the extent of precluding a challenge so the question then becomes whether May would step down voluntarily.
I don't see it but you may be right and the quid pro quo for the ERG's support in getting the WDA passed might very well be her departure in say 2020 or early 2021.
Certainly within a year or so - not before this summer but by mid 2020 (I would hope)
You made a similar post a few days ago and while TM would receive a boost if her deal goes through and she would be PM for quite some time, fighting the next GE is a no, even for this moderate
I think those who support her more unconditionally would hail her triumph and strongly assert the quality of her leadership to the extent of precluding a challenge so the question then becomes whether May would step down voluntarily.
I don't see it but you may be right and the quid pro quo for the ERG's support in getting the WDA passed might very well be her departure in say 2020 or early 2021.
The letters go in again in December 2019.....at the latest.
For the immediate future Remain would look exactly like it did before we triggered A50. What happens in years to come is always open to speculation but I believe w have the opt-outs and vetos to prevent us doing too much that we are opposed to. Do we not have an opt out re closer political union?
Brexit, on the other hand, is less than a month away and we still don't know how it will look then let alone in 5 years time.
The reality of the situation has nothing to do with whether remainers are "salivating" at the split in leavers. There is a split, that is simply a factual statement. Whether we go for No Deal or May's Deal, large numbers of leavers would be opposed.
This has been Leave's Achille's heel from the off. No version of Brexit could be ruled out without leave losing votes. That was fine if all that mattered was flopping over the referendum finishing line. It then meant that as soon as any "real" Brexit options were outlined some leavers wouldn't like it.
Wasn't the 'ever closer union' opt-out part of Cameron's plan that wasn't accepted because we went for a referendum?
Cameron promised an "opt out" from ever closer union, but it was a political promise rather than a legal one.
The so-called opt out would not have had any legal effect.
People smelled it for the B.S. it was.
Much the same as any Political Declaration accompanying the WA then.
The future is uncertain, who knew?
Let the people have the Final Say.
Fair enough. The final say should be something like:
"We are where we are. Do you desire closer integration with the EU, or a gradual splitting apart? Because there is no such thing as "remain" where we are now. Choose the direction of travel."
Gradual splitting apart as the UK is undeliverable. It can only be done by gradual disintegration of the UK.
I voted Remain for many reasons but a big part was to stop the UK becoming a lapdog of the USA.
Bizarely some Leavers are happy to be bent over and banged by Trump. It’s like anything to do with the EU bad , anything to do with the USA great even when they have made it plain they want to screw the UK.
I dislike the EU in many ways but also I am not a fan of Trump's US
You made a similar post a few days ago and while TM would receive a boost if her deal goes through and she would be PM for quite some time, fighting the next GE is a no, even for this moderate
I think those who support her more unconditionally would hail her triumph and strongly assert the quality of her leadership to the extent of precluding a challenge so the question then becomes whether May would step down voluntarily.
I don't see it but you may be right and the quid pro quo for the ERG's support in getting the WDA passed might very well be her departure in say 2020 or early 2021.
The letters go in again in December 2019.....at the latest.
No point before !!!!!!
Then I hope Graham Brady's postman can get a trolley instead of a sack for that day.
For the immediate future Remain would look exactly like it did before we triggered A50. What happens in years to come is always open to speculation but I believe w have the opt-outs and vetos to prevent us doing too much that we are opposed to. Do we not have an opt out re closer political union?
Brexit, on the other hand, is less than a month away and we still don't know how it will look then let alone in 5 years time.
The reality of the situation has nothing to do with whether remainers are "salivating" at the split in leavers. There is a split, that is simply a factual statement. Whether we go for No Deal or May's Deal, large numbers of leavers would be opposed.
This has been Leave's Achille's heel from the off. No version of Brexit could be ruled out without leave losing votes. That was fine if all that mattered was flopping over the referendum finishing line. It then meant that as soon as any "real" Brexit options were outlined some leavers wouldn't like it.
Wasn't the 'ever closer union' opt-out part of Cameron's plan that wasn't accepted because we went for a referendum?
Cameron promised an "opt out" from ever closer union, but it was a political promise rather than a legal one.
The so-called opt out would not have had any legal effect.
People smelled it for the B.S. it was.
Much the same as any Political Declaration accompanying the WA then.
The future is uncertain, who knew?
Let the people have the Final Say.
Fair enough. The final say should be something like:
"We are where we are. Do you desire closer integration with the EU, or a gradual splitting apart? Because there is no such thing as "remain" where we are now. Choose the direction of travel."
Gradual splitting apart as the UK is undeliverable. It can only be done by gradual disintegration of the UK.
Your love for the EU is only equalled by your dislike for our Union sadly
You made a similar post a few days ago and while TM would receive a boost if her deal goes through and she would be PM for quite some time, fighting the next GE is a no, even for this moderate
I think those who support her more unconditionally would hail her triumph and strongly assert the quality of her leadership to the extent of precluding a challenge so the question then becomes whether May would step down voluntarily.
I don't see it but you may be right and the quid pro quo for the ERG's support in getting the WDA passed might very well be her departure in say 2020 or early 2021.
The letters go in again in December 2019.....at the latest.
No point before !!!!!!
Then I hope Graham Brady's postman can get a trolley instead of a sack for that day.
You made a similar post a few days ago and while TM would receive a boost if her deal goes through and she would be PM for quite some time, fighting the next GE is a no, even for this moderate
I think those who support her more unconditionally would hail her triumph and strongly assert the quality of her leadership to the extent of precluding a challenge so the question then becomes whether May would step down voluntarily.
I don't see it but you may be right and the quid pro quo for the ERG's support in getting the WDA passed might very well be her departure in say 2020 or early 2021.
I don't think she has anyone who supports her "more unconditionally". Pretty much everyone wants to see the back of her and if she manages to force her deal (which everyone thinks is crap) through they will dump her pronto.
You made a similar post a few days ago and while TM would receive a boost if her deal goes through and she would be PM for quite some time, fighting the next GE is a no, even for this moderate
I think those who support her more unconditionally would hail her triumph and strongly assert the quality of her leadership to the extent of precluding a challenge so the question then becomes whether May would step down voluntarily.
I don't see it but you may be right and the quid pro quo for the ERG's support in getting the WDA passed might very well be her departure in say 2020 or early 2021.
The letters go in again in December 2019.....at the latest.
No point before !!!!!!
Then I hope Graham Brady's postman can get a trolley instead of a sack for that day.
I very much doubt it will be needed.
Well, Theresa May is the one who's going to get the sack, of course...
You made a similar post a few days ago and while TM would receive a boost if her deal goes through and she would be PM for quite some time, fighting the next GE is a no, even for this moderate
I think those who support her more unconditionally would hail her triumph and strongly assert the quality of her leadership to the extent of precluding a challenge so the question then becomes whether May would step down voluntarily.
I don't see it but you may be right and the quid pro quo for the ERG's support in getting the WDA passed might very well be her departure in say 2020 or early 2021.
I don't think she has anyone who supports her "more unconditionally". Pretty much everyone wants to see the back of her and if she manages to force her deal (which everyone thinks is crap) through they will dump her pronto.
They cannot before December. If she decides to stand down she will do it in a manner that allows a proper election of her successor probably between the summer and next year
I voted Remain for many reasons but a big part was to stop the UK becoming a lapdog of the USA.
Bizarely some Leavers are happy to be bent over and banged by Trump. It’s like anything to do with the EU bad , anything to do with the USA great even when they have made it plain they want to screw the UK.
How certain are you that the leaders of France, Germany and Italy in say five years' time won't be as bad as, if not worse than, Trump? They certainly seem like they might be heading that way.
In any event, I can't help but remember that Trump wasn't President at the time of the referendum. Retrospectively, how would you have worded that post if Hillary had won in November 2016?
You made a similar post a few days ago and while TM would receive a boost if her deal goes through and she would be PM for quite some time, fighting the next GE is a no, even for this moderate
I think those who support her more unconditionally would hail her triumph and strongly assert the quality of her leadership to the extent of precluding a challenge so the question then becomes whether May would step down voluntarily.
I don't see it but you may be right and the quid pro quo for the ERG's support in getting the WDA passed might very well be her departure in say 2020 or early 2021.
The letters go in again in December 2019.....at the latest.
No point before !!!!!!
Then I hope Graham Brady's postman can get a trolley instead of a sack for that day.
I very much doubt it will be needed.
Well, Theresa May is the one who's going to get the sack, of course...
There seems to be something of a dearth of criticism of Jezza being egged. I'm sure all those who prolapsed when Jim Murphy was assaulted by un ouef (brownshirts, violent thugs, obnoxious, ugly, abusive, bitter, twisted) will be along later to express their disapproval.
I voted Remain for many reasons but a big part was to stop the UK becoming a lapdog of the USA.
Bizarely some Leavers are happy to be bent over and banged by Trump. It’s like anything to do with the EU bad , anything to do with the USA great even when they have made it plain they want to screw the UK.
There is a great overlap between Brexiteers and Trump fans, not only Farage and Trump himself but many others.
You made a similar post a few days ago and while TM would receive a boost if her deal goes through and she would be PM for quite some time, fighting the next GE is a no, even for this moderate
I think those who support her more unconditionally would hail her triumph and strongly assert the quality of her leadership to the extent of precluding a challenge so the question then becomes whether May would step down voluntarily.
I don't see it but you may be right and the quid pro quo for the ERG's support in getting the WDA passed might very well be her departure in say 2020 or early 2021.
I don't think she has anyone who supports her "more unconditionally". Pretty much everyone wants to see the back of her and if she manages to force her deal (which everyone thinks is crap) through they will dump her pronto.
By the way, not everyone dislikes her deal. Two thirds of conservative mps back it along with some labour mps
The Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, defended his own pledge to never put his country’s membership of the EU to a referendum by highlighting the damage to the British economy in which “one car factory after another stops or cancels planned production”.
Rasmussen said the British public had been taken in by “some rhetorically skilled politicians who turned out to be untrustworthy conmen who subsequently left the sinking ship”. He also described Westminster as a circus and “a paralysed political system that is about to melt down”.
You made a similar post a few days ago and while TM would receive a boost if her deal goes through and she would be PM for quite some time, fighting the next GE is a no, even for this moderate
I think those who support her more unconditionally would hail her triumph and strongly assert the quality of her leadership to the extent of precluding a challenge so the question then becomes whether May would step down voluntarily.
I don't see it but you may be right and the quid pro quo for the ERG's support in getting the WDA passed might very well be her departure in say 2020 or early 2021.
The letters go in again in December 2019.....at the latest.
Well we have heard it before. She doesn't seem to actually want to go, does she?
There seems to be something of a dearth of criticism of Jezza being egged. I'm sure all those who prolapsed when Jim Murphy was assaulted by un ouef (brownshirts, violent thugs, obnoxious, ugly, abusive, bitter, twisted) will be along later to express their disapproval.
It's dumb economics. The cost of the egg is more than the possible damage to Corbyn's haute couture....
I don't think she has anyone who supports her "more unconditionally". Pretty much everyone wants to see the back of her and if she manages to force her deal (which everyone thinks is crap) through they will dump her pronto.
I disagree completely. The sense of relief will be palpable when the WA gets through the Commons and you can already see the Mail and the Express breaking out the euphoria, superlatives and the gushing tributes when it happens.
The mood in the Conservative Party will change as if a switch had been clicked - all the critics will become unapologetic sycophants.
Bizarely some Remainers are happy to be bent over and banged by Juncker and Barnier. It’s like anything to do with the UK bad , anything to do with the EU great even when they have made it plain they want to screw the UK.
The Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, defended his own pledge to never put his country’s membership of the EU to a referendum by highlighting the damage to the British economy in which “one car factory after another stops or cancels planned production”.
Rasmussen said the British public had been taken in by “some rhetorically skilled politicians who turned out to be untrustworthy conmen who subsequently left the sinking ship”. He also described Westminster as a circus and “a paralysed political system that is about to melt down”.
Pity that he is using fake news on the car industry. Also JLR announced big investment in the UK for EV's this week
I voted Remain for many reasons but a big part was to stop the UK becoming a lapdog of the USA.
Bizarely some Leavers are happy to be bent over and banged by Trump. It’s like anything to do with the EU bad , anything to do with the USA great even when they have made it plain they want to screw the UK.
People who accuse the European Union of protectionism are in some ways right. But they make a mistake in thinking that people don't want that protection. A large part of the support that European citizens lend the EU, despite an alienation from the institutions, comes from their belief that the EU is the best protector of their way of life.
Most Leave support harking back to the seventies and beyond is conservative in intention. Yet they have voted to remove their best protector of their way of life. I suspect when the dust eventually settles on the Brexit fiasco, an implied deal will be worked out with the EU where it gives us commercial and social protection in exchange for us doing what we are told. That deal is very unlikely to be offered by the USA.
I voted Remain for many reasons but a big part was to stop the UK becoming a lapdog of the USA.
Bizarely some Leavers are happy to be bent over and banged by Trump. It’s like anything to do with the EU bad , anything to do with the USA great even when they have made it plain they want to screw the UK.
How certain are you that the leaders of France, Germany and Italy in say five years' time won't be as bad as, if not worse than, Trump? They certainly seem like they might be heading that way.
In any event, I can't help but remember that Trump wasn't President at the time of the referendum. Retrospectively, how would you have worded that post if Hillary had won in November 2016?
Clearly I would be less worried especially as Clinton wouldn’t be trying to destroy the EU in cahoots with Russia . And we’re not dealing with what ifs re the EU . As of now no other EU country could be as bad as Trump.
Maybe the Welsh people should be given an opportunity to see if they've changed their minds since 1997 on whether to have an Assembly, given that it was approved by the very small margin of 50.3% to 49.7%.
The Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, defended his own pledge to never put his country’s membership of the EU to a referendum by highlighting the damage to the British economy in which “one car factory after another stops or cancels planned production”.
Rasmussen said the British public had been taken in by “some rhetorically skilled politicians who turned out to be untrustworthy conmen who subsequently left the sinking ship”. He also described Westminster as a circus and “a paralysed political system that is about to melt down”.
Pity that he is using fake news on the car industry. Also JLR announced big investment in the UK for EV's this week
We’ve been through this exhaustively. You have to be in denial not to believe that Brexit is playing a part in the ongoing divestment in the British economy.
There seems to be something of a dearth of criticism of Jezza being egged. I'm sure all those who prolapsed when Jim Murphy was assaulted by un ouef (brownshirts, violent thugs, obnoxious, ugly, abusive, bitter, twisted) will be along later to express their disapproval.
Can't find the story anywhere on the BBC website. Has this been confirmed?
If so, obviously I'd be the first to condemn the violence that has taken place on both sides, and call for dialogue to resolve any issues.
I voted Remain for many reasons but a big part was to stop the UK becoming a lapdog of the USA.
Bizarely some Leavers are happy to be bent over and banged by Trump. It’s like anything to do with the EU bad , anything to do with the USA great even when they have made it plain they want to screw the UK.
How certain are you that the leaders of France, Germany and Italy in say five years' time won't be as bad as, if not worse than, Trump? They certainly seem like they might be heading that way.
In any event, I can't help but remember that Trump wasn't President at the time of the referendum. Retrospectively, how would you have worded that post if Hillary had won in November 2016?
Clearly I would be less worried especially as Clinton wouldn’t be trying to destroy the EU in cahoots with Russia . And we’re not dealing with what ifs re the EU . As of now no other EU country could be as bad as Trump.
Yes, but we were in 2016! And at that point is wasn't beyond the realms of possibility that Le Pen could've won in 2017.
The Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, defended his own pledge to never put his country’s membership of the EU to a referendum by highlighting the damage to the British economy in which “one car factory after another stops or cancels planned production”.
Rasmussen said the British public had been taken in by “some rhetorically skilled politicians who turned out to be untrustworthy conmen who subsequently left the sinking ship”. He also described Westminster as a circus and “a paralysed political system that is about to melt down”.
Pity that he is using fake news on the car industry. Also JLR announced big investment in the UK for EV's this week
Maybe the Welsh people should be given an opportunity to see if they've changed their minds since 1997 on whether to have an Assembly, given that it was approved by the very small margin of 50.3% to 49.7%.
The Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, defended his own pledge to never put his country’s membership of the EU to a referendum by highlighting the damage to the British economy in which “one car factory after another stops or cancels planned production”.
Rasmussen said the British public had been taken in by “some rhetorically skilled politicians who turned out to be untrustworthy conmen who subsequently left the sinking ship”. He also described Westminster as a circus and “a paralysed political system that is about to melt down”.
Pity that he is using fake news on the car industry. Also JLR announced big investment in the UK for EV's this week
We’ve been through this exhaustively.
This is the AV thread. Exhaustive ballot is something completely different.
There seems to be something of a dearth of criticism of Jezza being egged. I'm sure all those who prolapsed when Jim Murphy was assaulted by un ouef (brownshirts, violent thugs, obnoxious, ugly, abusive, bitter, twisted) will be along later to express their disapproval.
I don't think she has anyone who supports her "more unconditionally". Pretty much everyone wants to see the back of her and if she manages to force her deal (which everyone thinks is crap) through they will dump her pronto.
I disagree completely. The sense of relief will be palpable when the WA gets through the Commons and you can already see the Mail and the Express breaking out the euphoria, superlatives and the gushing tributes when it happens.
The mood in the Conservative Party will change as if a switch had been clicked - all the critics will become unapologetic sycophants.
Well I think its far from certain that the WA will go through, but if it does the ERG will want to dump May so they can install a true believer to make sure there is no backsliding during the trade negotiations. The history of the Tory Party over the past 25 years or so is a story of the ERG (and its predecessors) winning every battle and they are now in an immensely strong position.
The Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, defended his own pledge to never put his country’s membership of the EU to a referendum by highlighting the damage to the British economy in which “one car factory after another stops or cancels planned production”.
Rasmussen said the British public had been taken in by “some rhetorically skilled politicians who turned out to be untrustworthy conmen who subsequently left the sinking ship”. He also described Westminster as a circus and “a paralysed political system that is about to melt down”.
Pity that he is using fake news on the car industry. Also JLR announced big investment in the UK for EV's this week
We’ve been through this exhaustively. You have to be in denial not to believe that Brexit is playing a part in the ongoing divestment in the British economy.
JLM will only produce hybrid or ev from 2020
The media themselves confirmed the lost production was due to the collapse of diesel sales and with the new EU - Japan trade deal Japan can sell direct into the EU tariff free thereby negating their need to build in the EU
These decisions would have happened no matter that we were in the EU
When even the BBC say it is not brexit related it is time to accept the reality of the disaster facing the car industry worldwide, as no one in the car industry has accepted they are not ready to go all ev but the public will not buy diesels anymore
I have less irritation with the right wingers pushing Brexit than the left wingers who somehow have bought the garbage that out of the EU a socialist nirvana can happen .
The only protection against the right wing capitalism on steroids is staying in the EU . There’s no guarantee of a Labour government anytime soon so the lefties who voted to Leave have handed the keys over to Mogg and co .
Any Labour MP enabling a Tory Brexit should hang their heads in shame , instead of Flint and the others trashing a second vote they should be making the case that a Tory Brexit will be a disaster for their supporters .
Remainers salivate at the possibility of splitting the leave vote between deal/no deal which would ultimately lead to us remaining, under AV, as others have pointed out below.
But the remain vote is not a monolith. If there is to be a second referendum, the question isn't just "what does leave look like?"
It should be "what does remain look like?" as well.
Remainers often say that leavers had no idea what leave would look like. Well, right back at you, remain. What happens if we stay?
What does remaining look like? What is there a mandate for? Is there one for ever closer union? The EU army? Tax harmonisation? I'm willing to bet the "people's" vote lot don't want to find out.
If we have a deal/no deal/remain referendum, the only fair choices would be deal/no deal/closer union/in but no closer union.
For the immediate future Remain would look exactly like it did before we triggered A50. What happens in years to come is always open to speculation but I believe w have the opt-outs and vetos to prevent us doing too much that we are opposed to. Do we not have an opt out re closer political union?
Brexit, on the other hand, is less than a month away and we still don't know how it will look then let alone in 5 years time.
The reality of the situation has nothing to do with whether remainers are "salivating" at the split in leavers. There is a split, that is simply a factual statement. Whether we go for No Deal or May's Deal, large numbers of leavers would be opposed.
This has been Leave's Achille's heel from the off. No version of Brexit could be ruled out without leave losing votes. That was fine if all that mattered was flopping over the referendum finishing line. It then meant that as soon as any "real" Brexit options were outlined some leavers wouldn't like it.
Wasn't the 'ever closer union' opt-out part of Cameron's plan that wasn't accepted because we went for a referendum?
Cameron promised an "opt out" from ever closer union, but it was a political promise rather than a legal one.
It is beyond my comprehension that such hatred is endemic in the labour party and centred on Corbyn and his cabal. How can any labour mp remain in such a toxic culture without being implicit
If a bunch of BNP entryists joined the Conservatives, I don't believe you would leave the party. You would stay and fight, and try to purge the extremists. Why should Labour members and representatives do otherwise?
There is not much evidence that they are fighting and trying to purge the extremists. If anything it looks as if the extremists have taken over and are purging those repelled by what the extremists have wrought.
When that happens, staying makes you passively complicit.
There seems to be something of a dearth of criticism of Jezza being egged. I'm sure all those who prolapsed when Jim Murphy was assaulted by un ouef (brownshirts, violent thugs, obnoxious, ugly, abusive, bitter, twisted) will be along later to express their disapproval.
I don't think she has anyone who supports her "more unconditionally". Pretty much everyone wants to see the back of her and if she manages to force her deal (which everyone thinks is crap) through they will dump her pronto.
I disagree completely. The sense of relief will be palpable when the WA gets through the Commons and you can already see the Mail and the Express breaking out the euphoria, superlatives and the gushing tributes when it happens.
The mood in the Conservative Party will change as if a switch had been clicked - all the critics will become unapologetic sycophants.
Well I think its far from certain that the WA will go through, but if it does the ERG will want to dump May so they can install a true believer to make sure there is no backsliding during the trade negotiations. The history of the Tory Party over the past 25 years or so is a story of the ERG (and its predecessors) winning every battle and they are now in an immensely strong position.
Nothing happens before December unless TM decides herself
Remainers salivate at the possibility of splitting the leave vote between deal/no deal which would ultimately lead to us remaining, under AV, as others have pointed out below.
But the remain vote is not a monolith. If there is to be a second referendum, the question isn't just "what does leave look like?"
It should be "what does remain look like?" as well.
Remainers often say that leavers had no idea what leave would look like. Well, right back at you, remain. What happens if we stay?
What does remaining look like? What is there a mandate for? Is there one for ever closer union? The EU army? Tax harmonisation? I'm willing to bet the "people's" vote lot don't want to find out.
If we have a deal/no deal/remain referendum, the only fair choices would be deal/no deal/closer union/in but no closer union.
For the immediate future Remain would look exactly like it did before we triggered A50. What happens in years to come is always open to speculation but I believe w have the opt-outs and vetos to prevent us doing too much that we are opposed to. Do we not have an opt out re closer political union?
Brexit, on the other hand, is less than a month away and we still don't know how it will look then let alone in 5 years time.
The reality of the situation has nothing to do with whether remainers are "salivating" at the split in leavers. There is a split, that is simply a factual statement. Whether we go for No Deal or May's Deal, large numbers of leavers would be opposed.
This has been Leave's Achille's heel from the off. No version of Brexit could be ruled out without leave losing votes. That was fine if all that mattered was flopping over the referendum finishing line. It then meant that as soon as any "real" Brexit options were outlined some leavers wouldn't like it.
Wasn't the 'ever closer union' opt-out part of Cameron's plan that wasn't accepted because we went for a referendum?
It was. Against that it was an informal agreement, and therefore if the EU had chosen to ignore it (as at least one official said they would) there was nothing we could have done to stop them other than, er, leave.
So, basically 'remain' is whatever the EU decide it is?
and they keep the ratchet towards closer union going bit by bit by bit.
The Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, defended his own pledge to never put his country’s membership of the EU to a referendum by highlighting the damage to the British economy in which “one car factory after another stops or cancels planned production”.
Rasmussen said the British public had been taken in by “some rhetorically skilled politicians who turned out to be untrustworthy conmen who subsequently left the sinking ship”. He also described Westminster as a circus and “a paralysed political system that is about to melt down”.
Pity that he is using fake news on the car industry. Also JLR announced big investment in the UK for EV's this week
It is beyond my comprehension that such hatred is endemic in the labour party and centred on Corbyn and his cabal. How can any labour mp remain in such a toxic culture without being implicit
If a bunch of BNP entryists joined the Conservatives, I don't believe you would leave the party. You would stay and fight, and try to purge the extremists. Why should Labour members and representatives do otherwise?
There is not much evidence that they are fighting and trying to purge the extremists. If anything it looks as if the extremists have taken over and are purging those repelled by what the extremists have wrought.
When that happens, staying makes you passively complicit.
For the immediate future Remain would look exactly like it did before we triggered A50. What happens in years to come is always open to speculation but I believe w have the opt-outs and vetos to prevent us doing too much that we are opposed to. Do we not have an opt out re closer political union?
Brexit, on the other hand, is less than a month away and we still don't know how it will look then let alone in 5 years time.
The reality of the situation has nothing to do with whether remainers are "salivating" at the split in leavers. There is a split, that is simply a factual statement. Whether we go for No Deal or May's Deal, large numbers of leavers would be opposed.
This has been Leave's Achille's heel from the off. No version of Brexit could be ruled out without leave losing votes. That was fine if all that mattered was flopping over the referendum finishing line. It then meant that as soon as any "real" Brexit options were outlined some leavers wouldn't like it.
Wasn't the 'ever closer union' opt-out part of Cameron's plan that wasn't accepted because we went for a referendum?
Cameron promised an "opt out" from ever closer union, but it was a political promise rather than a legal one.
The so-called opt out would not have had any legal effect.
People smelled it for the B.S. it was.
Much the same as any Political Declaration accompanying the WA then.
The future is uncertain, who knew?
Let the people have the Final Say.
Fair enough. The final say should be something like:
"We are where we are. Do you desire closer integration with the EU, or a gradual splitting apart? Because there is no such thing as "remain" where we are now. Choose the direction of travel."
Gradual splitting apart as the UK is undeliverable. It can only be done by gradual disintegration of the UK.
Let us assume there is no such thing as remain or leave. There is only direction of travel, in an advisory referendum. Closer union, or further apart. Which would win? And what would be the consequences of our politicians ignoring that advice?
Somewhat close, I expect, to the situation we are in today.
The Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, defended his own pledge to never put his country’s membership of the EU to a referendum by highlighting the damage to the British economy in which “one car factory after another stops or cancels planned production”.
Rasmussen said the British public had been taken in by “some rhetorically skilled politicians who turned out to be untrustworthy conmen who subsequently left the sinking ship”. He also described Westminster as a circus and “a paralysed political system that is about to melt down”.
Pity that he is using fake news on the car industry. Also JLR announced big investment in the UK for EV's this week
We’ve been through this exhaustively. You have to be in denial not to believe that Brexit is playing a part in the ongoing divestment in the British economy.
The Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, defended his own pledge to never put his country’s membership of the EU to a referendum by highlighting the damage to the British economy in which “one car factory after another stops or cancels planned production”.
Rasmussen said the British public had been taken in by “some rhetorically skilled politicians who turned out to be untrustworthy conmen who subsequently left the sinking ship”. He also described Westminster as a circus and “a paralysed political system that is about to melt down”.
Pity that he is using fake news on the car industry. Also JLR announced big investment in the UK for EV's this week
We’ve been through this exhaustively. You have to be in denial not to believe that Brexit is playing a part in the ongoing divestment in the British economy.
Quite. I very much doubt that any of the foreign-owned car plants in the UK will still be here in 10 years time, even if we end up remaining. It will be at least a generation before the UK can convincingly claim to be a desirable location for foreign investment again.
The former foreign secretary told business to go forth and multiply. And indeed, they will go forth from the UK and multiply elsewhere.
You made a similar post a few days ago and while TM would receive a boost if her deal goes through and she would be PM for quite some time, fighting the next GE is a no, even for this moderate
I think those who support her more unconditionally would hail her triumph and strongly assert the quality of her leadership to the extent of precluding a challenge so the question then becomes whether May would step down voluntarily.
I don't see it but you may be right and the quid pro quo for the ERG's support in getting the WDA passed might very well be her departure in say 2020 or early 2021.
The letters go in again in December 2019.....at the latest.
Well we have heard it before. She doesn't seem to actually want to go, does she?
I will wait for the list of sycophants who want her to negotiate the trade deal.....
For the immediate future Remain would look exactly like it did before we triggered A50. What happens in years to come is always open to speculation but I believe w have the opt-outs and vetos to prevent us doing too much that we are opposed to. Do we not have an opt out re closer political union?
Brexit, on the other hand, is less than a month away and we still don't know how it will look then let alone in 5 years time.
The reality of the situation has nothing to do with whether remainers are "salivating" at the split in leavers. There is a split, that is simply a factual statement. Whether we go for No Deal or May's Deal, large numbers of leavers would be opposed.
This has been Leave's Achille's heel from the off. No version of Brexit could be ruled out without leave losing votes. That was fine if all that mattered was flopping over the referendum finishing line. It then meant that as soon as any "real" Brexit options were outlined some leavers wouldn't like it.
Wasn't the 'ever closer union' opt-out part of Cameron's plan that wasn't accepted because we went for a referendum?
Cameron promised an "opt out" from ever closer union, but it was a political promise rather than a legal one.
The so-called opt out would not have had any legal effect.
People smelled it for the B.S. it was.
I've already done this (more than?) once before, and I suspect I'll have to do it again, but here goes. The use by the EU of things like Declarations is to cope with the fact that treaty changes to treaties take so long to sort out. The declaration is made and is then incorporated into the treaties at a later date. An example is the second Lisbon referendum in Ireland in 2009, when the declaration made was incorporated into the treaties when Croatia joined (2013?).
Parenthetically, I am sick to the bloody back teeth of the subset of political framing that slaps a word before or after another word to suit the person's politics. Examples include "technical recession" (it's a recession), "managed no-deal" (it's no-deal) or "political declaration" (it's a declaration)
For the immediate future Remain would look exactly like it did before we triggered A50. What happens in years to come is always open to speculation but I believe w have the opt-outs and vetos to prevent us doing too much that we are opposed to. Do we not have an opt out re closer political union?
Brexit, on the other hand, is less than a month away and we still don't know how it will look then let alone in 5 years time.
The reality of the situation has nothing to do with whether remainers are "salivating" at the split in leavers. There is a split, that is simply a factual statement. Whether we go for No Deal or May's Deal, large numbers of leavers would be opposed.
This has been Leave's Achille's heel from the off. No version of Brexit could be ruled out without leave losing votes. That was fine if all that mattered was flopping over the referendum finishing line. It then meant that as soon as any "real" Brexit options were outlined some leavers wouldn't like it.
Wasn't the 'ever closer union' opt-out part of Cameron's plan that wasn't accepted because we went for a referendum?
Cameron promised an "opt out" from ever closer union, but it was a political promise rather than a legal one.
The so-called opt out would not have had any legal effect.
People smelled it for the B.S. it was.
I've already done this (more than?) once before, and I suspect I'll have to do it again, but here goes. The use by the EU of things like Declarations is to cope with the fact that treaty changes to treaties take so long to sort out. The declaration is made and is then incorporated into the treaties at a later date. An example is the second Lisbon referendum in Ireland in 2009, when the declaration made was incorporated into the treaties when Croatia joined (2013?).
Parenthetically, I am sick to the bloody back teeth of the subset of political framing that slaps a word before or after another word to suit the person's politics. Examples include "technical recession" (it's a recession), "managed no-deal" (it's no-deal) or "political declaration" (it's a declaration)
The referendum suddenly became "advisory" after the nation voted the wrong way
Supposedly there's already a plan for MV3 should MV2 fail, as expected. Unless there's a referendum or revocation then even if we extend the issues are the same and so there would presumably be a MV3 since that at least is a known option.
The strategy has been crystal clear since before Christmas - to allow fear to do the work. The prospect of leaving without a Deal has been couched in such apocalyptic terms that it's increasingly hard not to see the Deal as the least worst option.
It then comes down to who blinks first - May is clearly hoping the ERG and DUP will do the blinking and carry what many consider a far from perfect WA through the Commons.
Needless to say, we can already see the May apologists gearing up to proclaim the triumph when the WA gets passed - May will be lauded in almost Thatcher-esque terms and the siren calls to let her stay on and fight the next GE as Conservative leader will no doubt be heard. The Mail yesterday spoke of "garlands" being thrown at her - maybe.
The true cost of the months of delay, confusion and indecision on business, local authorities and others will of course not be mentioned or even considered in the euphoria (though the cost of the ads and the General Election should also be mentioned).
A deal won through fear will not last. May’s Deal has got no real consent. Even if it goes through, the Tories are simply storing up problems for the future.
For the immediate future Remain would look exactly like it did before we triggered A50. What happens in years to come is always open to speculation but I believe w have the opt-outs and vetos to prevent us doing too much that we are opposed to. Do we not have an opt out re closer political union?
Brexit, on the other hand, is less than a month away and we still don't know how it will look then let alone in 5 years time.
The reality of the situation has nothing to do with whether remainers are "salivating" at the split in leavers. There is a split, that is simply a factual statement. Whether we go for No Deal or May's Deal, large numbers of leavers would be opposed.
This has been Leave's Achille's heel from the off. No version of Brexit could be ruled out without leave losing votes. That was fine if all that mattered was flopping over the referendum finishing line. It then meant that as soon as any "real" Brexit options were outlined some leavers wouldn't like it.
Wasn't the 'ever closer union' opt-out part of Cameron's plan that wasn't accepted because we went for a referendum?
Cameron promised an "opt out" from ever closer union, but it was a political promise rather than a legal one.
The so-called opt out would not have had any legal effect.
People smelled it for the B.S. it was.
Much the same as any Political Declaration accompanying the WA then.
The future is uncertain, who knew?
Let the people have the Final Say.
Fair enough. The final say should be something like:
"We are where we are. Do you desire closer integration with the EU, or a gradual splitting apart? Because there is no such thing as "remain" where we are now. Choose the direction of travel."
Gradual splitting apart as the UK is undeliverable. It can only be done by gradual disintegration of the UK.
Let us assume there is no such thing as remain or leave. There is only direction of travel, in an advisory referendum. Closer union, or further apart. Which would win? And what would be the consequences of our politicians ignoring that advice?
Somewhat close, I expect, to the situation we are in today.
The UK government cannot afford for the direction of travel on the island of Ireland to be further apart.
The Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, defended his own pledge to never put his country’s membership of the EU to a referendum by highlighting the damage to the British economy in which “one car factory after another stops or cancels planned production”.
Rasmussen said the British public had been taken in by “some rhetorically skilled politicians who turned out to be untrustworthy conmen who subsequently left the sinking ship”. He also described Westminster as a circus and “a paralysed political system that is about to melt down”.
Pity that he is using fake news on the car industry. Also JLR announced big investment in the UK for EV's this week
We’ve been through this exhaustively. You have to be in denial not to believe that Brexit is playing a part in the ongoing divestment in the British economy.
JLM will only produce hybrid or ev from 2020
The media themselves confirmed the lost production was due to the collapse of diesel sales and with the new EU - Japan trade deal Japan can sell direct into the EU tariff free thereby negating their need to build in the EU
These decisions would have happened no matter that we were in the EU
When even the BBC say it is not brexit related it is time to accept the reality of the disaster facing the car industry worldwide, as no one in the car industry has accepted they are not ready to go all ev but the public will not buy diesels anymore
As was discussed last week on here, the British automative industry is in rude health, with the smaller top-end manufacturers and their suppliers opening new facilities, hiring extra staff and with long waiting lists for new models - not to mention all the motorsport companies and F1 teams.
JLR are suffering for the same reasons as their competitors in Germany, because of crap diesels and not-quite-developed electric powertrains.
The Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, defended his own pledge to never put his country’s membership of the EU to a referendum by highlighting the damage to the British economy in which “one car factory after another stops or cancels planned production”.
Rasmussen said the British public had been taken in by “some rhetorically skilled politicians who turned out to be untrustworthy conmen who subsequently left the sinking ship”. He also described Westminster as a circus and “a paralysed political system that is about to melt down”.
The Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, defended his own pledge to never put his country’s membership of the EU to a referendum by highlighting the damage to the British economy in which “one car factory after another stops or cancels planned production”.
Rasmussen said the British public had been taken in by “some rhetorically skilled politicians who turned out to be untrustworthy conmen who subsequently left the sinking ship”. He also described Westminster as a circus and “a paralysed political system that is about to melt down”.
It would be nice if the EU acknowledged that their failed regulations and monitoring system has caused the problems with diesel sales that the car industry is suffering. This definately did not start in America. Also there has been no penalties applied to the cheating car makers in EUland.
Compared to the USA which 1) exposed the problem 2) banned sales of cheating cars. 3) compensated the buyers of cheating cars. 4) fined the companies very heavily. 5) Prosecuted the bosses and if guilty put them in jail.
The Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, defended his own pledge to never put his country’s membership of the EU to a referendum by highlighting the damage to the British economy in which “one car factory after another stops or cancels planned production”.
Rasmussen said the British public had been taken in by “some rhetorically skilled politicians who turned out to be untrustworthy conmen who subsequently left the sinking ship”. He also described Westminster as a circus and “a paralysed political system that is about to melt down”.
Pity that he is using fake news on the car industry. Also JLR announced big investment in the UK for EV's this week
We’ve been through this exhaustively. You have to be in denial not to believe that Brexit is playing a part in the ongoing divestment in the British economy.
JLM will only produce hybrid or ev from 2020
The media themselves confirmed the lost production was due to the collapse of diesel sales and with the new EU - Japan trade deal Japan can sell direct into the EU tariff free thereby negating their need to build in the EU
These decisions would have happened no matter that we were in the EU
When even the BBC say it is not brexit related it is time to accept the reality of the disaster facing the car industry worldwide, as no one in the car industry has accepted they are not ready to go all ev but the public will not buy diesels anymore
As was discussed last week on here, the British automative industry is in rude health, with the smaller top-end manufacturers and their suppliers opening new facilities, hiring extra staff and with long waiting lists for new models - not to mention all the motorsport companies and F1 teams.
JLR are suffering for the same reasons as their competitors in Germany, because of crap diesels and not-quite-developed electric powertrains.
Not really. The UK is missing out on an investment cycle at the time when investment is piling into other countries for electric vehicles. The SMMT and UK based senior staff have been making some very anxious noises.
For the immediate future Remain would look exactly like it did before we triggered A50. What happens in years to come is always open to speculation but I believe w have the opt-outs and vetos to prevent us doing too much that we are opposed to. Do we not have an opt out re closer political union?
Brexit, on the other hand, is less than a month away and we still don't know how it will look then let alone in 5 years time.
The reality of the situation has nothing to do with whether remainers are "salivating" at the split in leavers. There is a split, that is simply a factual statement. Whether we go for No Deal or May's Deal, large numbers of leavers would be opposed.
This has been Leave's Achille's heel from the off. No version of Brexit could be ruled out without leave losing votes. That was fine if all that mattered was flopping over the referendum finishing line. It then meant that as soon as any "real" Brexit options were outlined some leavers wouldn't like it.
Wasn't the 'ever closer union' opt-out part of Cameron's plan that wasn't accepted because we went for a referendum?
Cameron promised an "opt out" from ever closer union, but it was a political promise rather than a legal one.
The so-called opt out would not have had any legal effect.
People smelled it for the B.S. it was.
I've already done this (more than?) once before, and I suspect I'll have to do it again, but here goes. The use by the EU of things like Declarations is to cope with the fact that treaty changes to treaties take so long to sort out. The declaration is made and is then incorporated into the treaties at a later date. An example is the second Lisbon referendum in Ireland in 2009, when the declaration made was incorporated into the treaties when Croatia joined (2013?).
Parenthetically, I am sick to the bloody back teeth of the subset of political framing that slaps a word before or after another word to suit the person's politics. Examples include "technical recession" (it's a recession), "managed no-deal" (it's no-deal) or "political declaration" (it's a declaration)
So why are the EU insisting on a two-document output from the Brexit negotiations, with one being a legal Treaty and the other a “Political Declaration”?
A cynic might suggest that what they want is in the first document, and what we want is in the second - and the PD isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
Bizarely some Leavers are happy to be bent over and banged by Trump.
It's not bizarre at all... unfortunately. Some people have redefined "British" as something closer to an identity or tribe and have applied terms like 'Anglosphere", "CANZUK", "union of English-speaking peoples". It's not a bad definition (and was I think its original definition pre-war) but it gives the person an excuse for disloyalty to the UK. Patriotism depends on the patria.
The Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, defended his own pledge to never put his country’s membership of the EU to a referendum by highlighting the damage to the British economy in which “one car factory after another stops or cancels planned production”.
Rasmussen said the British public had been taken in by “some rhetorically skilled politicians who turned out to be untrustworthy conmen who subsequently left the sinking ship”. He also described Westminster as a circus and “a paralysed political system that is about to melt down”.
Pity that he is using fake news on the car industry. Also JLR announced big investment in the UK for EV's this week
We’ve been through this exhaustively. You have to be in denial not to believe that Brexit is playing a part in the ongoing divestment in the British economy.
JLM will only produce hybrid or ev from 2020
The media themselves confirmed the lost production was due to the collapse of diesel sales and with the new EU - Japan trade deal Japan can sell direct into the EU tariff free thereby negating their need to build in the EU
These decisions would have happened no matter that we were in the EU
When even the BBC say it is not brexit related it is time to accept the reality of the disaster facing the car industry worldwide, as no one in the car industry has accepted they are not ready to go all ev but the public will not buy diesels anymore
As was discussed last week on here, the British automative industry is in rude health, with the smaller top-end manufacturers and their suppliers opening new facilities, hiring extra staff and with long waiting lists for new models - not to mention all the motorsport companies and F1 teams.
JLR are suffering for the same reasons as their competitors in Germany, because of crap diesels and not-quite-developed electric powertrains.
Not really. The UK is missing out on an investment cycle at the time when investment is piling into other countries for electric vehicles. The SMMT and UK based senior staff have been making some very anxious noises.
Err, JLR announced a billion-pound investment in electric cars only a couple of days ago.
ibed Westminster as a circus and “a paralysed political system that is about to melt down”.
Pity that he is using fake news on the car industry. Also JLR announced big investment in the UK for EV's this week
We’ve been through this exhaustively. You have to be in denial not to believe that Brexit is playing a part in the ongoing divestment in the British economy.
JLM will only produce hybrid or ev from 2020
The media themselves confirmed the lost production was due to the collapse of diesel sales and with the new EU - Japan trade deal Japan can sell direct into the EU tariff free thereby negating their need to build in the EU
These decisions would have happened no matter that we were in the EU
When even the BBC say it is not brexit related it is time to accept the reality of the disaster facing the car industry worldwide, as no one in the car industry has accepted they are not ready to go all ev but the public will not buy diesels anymore
As was discussed last week on here, the British automative industry is in rude health, with the smaller top-end manufacturers and their suppliers opening new facilities, hiring extra staff and with long waiting lists for new models - not to mention all the motorsport companies and F1 teams.
JLR are suffering for the same reasons as their competitors in Germany, because of crap diesels and not-quite-developed electric powertrains.
Not really. The UK is missing out on an investment cycle at the time when investment is piling into other countries for electric vehicles. The SMMT and UK based senior staff have been making some very anxious noises.
I think it was another_richard that used the ONS figures to prove that investment in the automotive industry was at a record high. The SMMT do make anxious noises but when you look at the small print of how they calculate that investment in the car industry has fallen, they add up the money in press releases issued.
I look forward to your explanation as to why that gives a complete picture of automotive investment.
For the immediate future Remain would look exactly like it did before we triggered A50. What happens in years to come is always open to speculation but I believe w have the opt-outs and vetos to prevent us doing too much that we are opposed to. Do we not have an opt out re closer political union?
Brexit, on the other hand, is less than a month away and we still don't know how it will look then let alone in 5 years time.
The reality of the situation has nothing to do with whether remainers are "salivating" at the split in leavers. There is a split, that is simply a factual statement. Whether we go for No Deal or May's Deal, large numbers of leavers would be opposed.
This has been Leave's Achille's heel from the off. No version of Brexit could be ruled out without leave losing votes. That was fine if all that mattered was flopping over the referendum finishing line. It then meant that as soon as any "real" Brexit options were outlined some leavers wouldn't like it.
Wasn't the 'ever closer union' opt-out part of Cameron's plan that wasn't accepted because we went for a referendum?
Cameron promised an "opt out" from ever closer union, but it was a political promise rather than a legal one.
The so-called opt out would not have had any legal effect.
People smelled it for the B.S. it was.
I've already done this (more than?) once before, and I suspect I'll have to do it again, but here goes. The use by the EU of things like Declarations is to cope with the fact that treaty changes to treaties take so long to sort out. The declaration is made and is then incorporated into the treaties at a later date. An example is the second Lisbon referendum in Ireland in 2009, when the declaration made was incorporated into the treaties when Croatia joined (2013?).
Parenthetically, I am sick to the bloody back teeth of the subset of political framing that slaps a word before or after another word to suit the person's politics. Examples include "technical recession" (it's a recession), "managed no-deal" (it's no-deal) or "political declaration" (it's a declaration)
The referendum suddenly became "advisory" after the nation voted the wrong way
The Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, defended his own pledge to never put his country’s membership of the EU to a referendum by highlighting the damage to the British economy in which “one car factory after another stops or cancels planned production”.
Rasmussen said the British public had been taken in by “some rhetorically skilled politicians who turned out to be untrustworthy conmen who subsequently left the sinking ship”. He also described Westminster as a circus and “a paralysed political system that is about to melt down”.
The Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, defended his own pledge to never put his country’s membership of the EU to a referendum by highlighting the damage to the British economy in which “one car factory after another stops or cancels planned production”.
Rasmussen said the British public had been taken in by “some rhetorically skilled politicians who turned out to be untrustworthy conmen who subsequently left the sinking ship”. He also described Westminster as a circus and “a paralysed political system that is about to melt down”.
It would be nice if the EU acknowledged that their failed regulations and monitoring system has caused the problems with diesel sales that the car industry is suffering. This definately did not start in America. Also there has been no penalties applied to the cheating car makers in EUland...
You might also consider why the E.U. is prepared to levy extremely large fines on US tech companies when the US isn’t. In both cases it has little to do with consumer protection...
There seems to be something of a dearth of criticism of Jezza being egged. I'm sure all those who prolapsed when Jim Murphy was assaulted by un ouef (brownshirts, violent thugs, obnoxious, ugly, abusive, bitter, twisted) will be along later to express their disapproval.
The public might choose an option that MP's don't want.
Yes. I'm a fan of direct democracy from my Swiss experience, but I think MPs have a duty only to offer options that they think, with their insight as full-time legislators (I know, but they really are more into the details than most), would not be a disaster. A choice between a deal that nobody likes very much but does get us out in one piece vs Remain would be reasonable. I don't think we can really talk about food and medicine shortages and disaster for industry on No Deal and then offer it as an option - too much like saying "Do you want chocolate, coffee or this loaded gun?"
The problem with this approach is that the next logical step for the people is to replace these legislators with ones willing to offer loaded guns
It is beyond my comprehension that such hatred is endemic in the labour party and centred on Corbyn and his cabal. How can any labour mp remain in such a toxic culture without being implicit
If a bunch of BNP entryists joined the Conservatives, I don't believe you would leave the party. You would stay and fight, and try to purge the extremists. Why should Labour members and representatives do otherwise?
There is not much evidence that they are fighting and trying to purge the extremists. If anything it looks as if the extremists have taken over and are purging those repelled by what the extremists have wrought.
When that happens, staying makes you passively complicit.
I turn up at Branch and CLP meetings, speak and vote against their loopy motions and vote against their unsuitable candidates for executive officer positions.
When I get outvoted by nutters, I have to respect the democratic process.
I have not personally witnessed any antisemitism from party members, but you can be sure that if I did I wouldn't let it pass.
There seems to be something of a dearth of criticism of Jezza being egged. I'm sure all those who prolapsed when Jim Murphy was assaulted by un ouef (brownshirts, violent thugs, obnoxious, ugly, abusive, bitter, twisted) will be along later to express their disapproval.
Golly, I know Jim Murphy is a neo lib apostle of British nationalism who hings oot wi' the Henry Jackson Society, but even I'd baulk at calling him a Nazi.
It is beyond my comprehension that such hatred is endemic in the labour party and centred on Corbyn and his cabal. How can any labour mp remain in such a toxic culture without being implicit
If a bunch of BNP entryists joined the Conservatives, I don't believe you would leave the party. You would stay and fight, and try to purge the extremists. Why should Labour members and representatives do otherwise?
There is not much evidence that they are fighting and trying to purge the extremists. If anything it looks as if the extremists have taken over and are purging those repelled by what the extremists have wrought.
When that happens, staying makes you passively complicit.
I turn up at Branch and CLP meetings, speak and vote against their loopy motions and vote against their unsuitable candidates for executive officer positions.
When I get outvoted by nutters, I have to respect the democratic process.
I have not personally witnessed any antisemitism from party members, but you can be sure that if I did I wouldn't let it pass.
Good for you.
At what point - if the nutters consistently outvote you - do you take the view that the party is no longer for you? What, in short, is your breaking point?
You made a similar post a few days ago and while TM would receive a boost if her deal goes through and she would be PM for quite some time, fighting the next GE is a no, even for this moderate
I think those who support her more unconditionally would hail her triumph and strongly assert the quality of her leadership to the extent of precluding a challenge so the question then becomes whether May would step down voluntarily.
I don't see it but you may be right and the quid pro quo for the ERG's support in getting the WDA passed might very well be her departure in say 2020 or early 2021.
I don't think she has anyone who supports her "more unconditionally". Pretty much everyone wants to see the back of her and if she manages to force her deal (which everyone thinks is crap) through they will dump her pronto.
They cannot before December. If she decides to stand down she will do it in a manner that allows a proper election of her successor probably between the summer and next year
I believe the letters could be resubmitted much earlier - indeed even today! - but could not be acted on until December.
I have less irritation with the right wingers pushing Brexit than the left wingers who somehow have bought the garbage that out of the EU a socialist nirvana can happen .
The only protection against the right wing capitalism on steroids is staying in the EU . There’s no guarantee of a Labour government anytime soon so the lefties who voted to Leave have handed the keys over to Mogg and co .
Any Labour MP enabling a Tory Brexit should hang their heads in shame , instead of Flint and the others trashing a second vote they should be making the case that a Tory Brexit will be a disaster for their supporters .
They should certainly not do anything to enable a political triumph for May. That alone would surely justify moves to deselect.
It is beyond my comprehension that such hatred is endemic in the labour party and centred on Corbyn and his cabal. How can any labour mp remain in such a toxic culture without being implicit
If a bunch of BNP entryists joined the Conservatives, I don't believe you would leave the party. You would stay and fight, and try to purge the extremists. Why should Labour members and representatives do otherwise?
There is not much evidence that they are fighting and trying to purge the extremists. If anything it looks as if the extremists have taken over and are purging those repelled by what the extremists have wrought.
When that happens, staying makes you passively complicit.
I turn up at Branch and CLP meetings, speak and vote against their loopy motions and vote against their unsuitable candidates for executive officer positions.
When I get outvoted by nutters, I have to respect the democratic process.
I have not personally witnessed any antisemitism from party members, but you can be sure that if I did I wouldn't let it pass.
Good for you.
At what point - if the nutters consistently outvote you - do you take the view that the party is no longer for you? What, in short, is your breaking point?
If I felt that there was an alternative party that more closely aligned with my values and aspirations, and that had a realistic prospect of putting them into effect, then I might consider jumping. I'm a greeny - red soft-left democratic socialist, with a few non-conventional opinions. I'm in the right place.
There seems to be something of a dearth of criticism of Jezza being egged. I'm sure all those who prolapsed when Jim Murphy was assaulted by un ouef (brownshirts, violent thugs, obnoxious, ugly, abusive, bitter, twisted) will be along later to express their disapproval.
Golly, I know Jim Murphy is a neo lib apostle of British nationalism who hings oot wi' the Henry Jackson Society, but even I'd baulk at calling him a Nazi.
You made a similar post a few days ago and while TM would receive a boost if her deal goes through and she would be PM for quite some time, fighting the next GE is a no, even for this moderate
I think those who support her more unconditionally would hail her triumph and strongly assert the quality of her leadership to the extent of precluding a challenge so the question then becomes whether May would step down voluntarily.
I don't see it but you may be right and the quid pro quo for the ERG's support in getting the WDA passed might very well be her departure in say 2020 or early 2021.
I don't think she has anyone who supports her "more unconditionally". Pretty much everyone wants to see the back of her and if she manages to force her deal (which everyone thinks is crap) through they will dump her pronto.
They cannot before December. If she decides to stand down she will do it in a manner that allows a proper election of her successor probably between the summer and next year
I believe the letters could be resubmitted much earlier - indeed even today! - but could not be acted on until December.
It is beyond my comprehension that such hatred is endemic in the labour party and centred on Corbyn and his cabal. How can any labour mp remain in such a toxic culture without being implicit
If a bunch of BNP entryists joined the Conservatives, I don't believe you would leave the party. You would stay and fight, and try to purge the extremists. Why should Labour members and representatives do otherwise?
There is not much evidence that they are fighting and trying to purge the extremists. If anything it looks as if the extremists have taken over and are purging those repelled by what the extremists have wrought.
When that happens, staying makes you passively complicit.
I turn up at Branch and CLP meetings, speak and vote against their loopy motions and vote against their unsuitable candidates for executive officer positions.
When I get outvoted by nutters, I have to respect the democratic process.
I have not personally witnessed any antisemitism from party members, but you can be sure that if I did I wouldn't let it pass.
Good for you.
At what point - if the nutters consistently outvote you - do you take the view that the party is no longer for you? What, in short, is your breaking point?
It is interesting you don't ask these questions to Conservatives...
______________________________________________ Almost half (49%) of Conservative voters see Islam as a threat to the British way of life, with a similar number (47%) believing the false conspiracy theory that there are no-go areas where sharia law dominates and non-Muslims cannot enter.
An unbelievable 42% of Tory voters have a positive view of the way Yaxley-Lennon highlights issues ignored by the media ______________________________________________
If Labour held these kind of views towards any minority then questions could rightly be asked of Sandy.
I have less irritation with the right wingers pushing Brexit than the left wingers who somehow have bought the garbage that out of the EU a socialist nirvana can happen .
The only protection against the right wing capitalism on steroids is staying in the EU . There’s no guarantee of a Labour government anytime soon so the lefties who voted to Leave have handed the keys over to Mogg and co .
Any Labour MP enabling a Tory Brexit should hang their heads in shame , instead of Flint and the others trashing a second vote they should be making the case that a Tory Brexit will be a disaster for their supporters .
They should certainly not do anything to enable a political triumph for May. That alone would surely justify moves to deselect.
How about what is best for the country to move matters on
I have less irritation with the right wingers pushing Brexit than the left wingers who somehow have bought the garbage that out of the EU a socialist nirvana can happen .
The only protection against the right wing capitalism on steroids is staying in the EU . There’s no guarantee of a Labour government anytime soon so the lefties who voted to Leave have handed the keys over to Mogg and co .
Any Labour MP enabling a Tory Brexit should hang their heads in shame , instead of Flint and the others trashing a second vote they should be making the case that a Tory Brexit will be a disaster for their supporters .
They should certainly not do anything to enable a political triumph for May. That alone would surely justify moves to deselect.
How about what is best for the country to move matters on
What is best for May is not best for the country, in many peoples opinion.
MPs should not vote for anthing that they don't want to happen.
You made a similar post a few days ago and while TM would receive a boost if her deal goes through and she would be PM for quite some time, fighting the next GE is a no, even for this moderate
I think those who support her more unconditionally would hail her triumph and strongly assert the quality of her leadership to the extent of precluding a challenge so the question then becomes whether May would step down voluntarily.
I don't see it but you may be right and the quid pro quo for the ERG's support in getting the WDA passed might very well be her departure in say 2020 or early 2021.
I don't think she has anyone who supports her "more unconditionally". Pretty much everyone wants to see the back of her and if she manages to force her deal (which everyone thinks is crap) through they will dump her pronto.
They cannot before December. If she decides to stand down she will do it in a manner that allows a proper election of her successor probably between the summer and next year
I believe the letters could be resubmitted much earlier - indeed even today! - but could not be acted on until December.
Pointless
Not necessarily so- if it became widely believed that a hundred or so letters had been sent in waiting for the deadline to be reached in nine months time.
I have less irritation with the right wingers pushing Brexit than the left wingers who somehow have bought the garbage that out of the EU a socialist nirvana can happen .
The only protection against the right wing capitalism on steroids is staying in the EU . There’s no guarantee of a Labour government anytime soon so the lefties who voted to Leave have handed the keys over to Mogg and co .
Any Labour MP enabling a Tory Brexit should hang their heads in shame , instead of Flint and the others trashing a second vote they should be making the case that a Tory Brexit will be a disaster for their supporters .
They should certainly not do anything to enable a political triumph for May. That alone would surely justify moves to deselect.
How about what is best for the country to move matters on
I have less irritation with the right wingers pushing Brexit than the left wingers who somehow have bought the garbage that out of the EU a socialist nirvana can happen .
The only protection against the right wing capitalism on steroids is staying in the EU . There’s no guarantee of a Labour government anytime soon so the lefties who voted to Leave have handed the keys over to Mogg and co .
Any Labour MP enabling a Tory Brexit should hang their heads in shame , instead of Flint and the others trashing a second vote they should be making the case that a Tory Brexit will be a disaster for their supporters .
They should certainly not do anything to enable a political triumph for May. That alone would surely justify moves to deselect.
How about what is best for the country to move matters on
But that is entirely subjective, and it would make no sense for Labour MPs to act in a way that would be likely to strengthen a Tory PM. They were not sent to Westminster to do that.
Not really. The UK is missing out on an investment cycle at the time when investment is piling into other countries for electric vehicles. The SMMT and UK based senior staff have been making some very anxious noises.
I think it was another_richard that used the ONS figures to prove that investment in the automotive industry was at a record high. The SMMT do make anxious noises but when you look at the small print of how they calculate that investment in the car industry has fallen, they add up the money in press releases issued.
I look forward to your explanation as to why that gives a complete picture of automotive investment.
The biggest concern for UK automotive, however, which employs around 856,000 people across the wider industry, is the fall in investment witnessed last year.
The chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), Mike Hawes, said: “The most disturbing feature of the figures is about automotive investment. Last year, total automotive investment was £588.6 million for the year. The previous year was about £1.1 billion. The year before that it was about £1.6 billion. If you look at a running average over the last three or four years, it’s about £2.5 billion. We had some good years coming out of the recession where it reached £5 billion, so to be down at £588.6 million shows investment is effectively stalled.”
Hawes placed blame for the stalled investment firmly at the feet of Brexit: “We know uncertainty is the big enemy of business. We need a deal.”
Even if it's finger in the air stuff, the trend (which is our friend?) is clear. It also goes against other countries that are heavily investing in EV
I have less irritation with the right wingers pushing Brexit than the left wingers who somehow have bought the garbage that out of the EU a socialist nirvana can happen .
The only protection against the right wing capitalism on steroids is staying in the EU . There’s no guarantee of a Labour government anytime soon so the lefties who voted to Leave have handed the keys over to Mogg and co .
Any Labour MP enabling a Tory Brexit should hang their heads in shame , instead of Flint and the others trashing a second vote they should be making the case that a Tory Brexit will be a disaster for their supporters .
They should certainly not do anything to enable a political triumph for May. That alone would surely justify moves to deselect.
How about what is best for the country to move matters on
The party that held an unnecessary referendum and then busied itself deepening division rather than seeking a consensus on the way forward to of Brexit is in no position to appeal to others on the basis of national interest.
If a bunch of BNP entryists joined the Conservatives, I don't believe you would leave the party. You would stay and fight, and try to purge the extremists. Why should Labour members and representatives do otherwise?
There is not much evidence that they are fighting and trying to purge the extremists. If anything it looks as if the extremists have taken over and are purging those repelled by what the extremists have wrought.
When that happens, staying makes you passively complicit.
I turn up at Branch and CLP meetings, speak and vote against their loopy motions and vote against their unsuitable candidates for executive officer positions.
When I get outvoted by nutters, I have to respect the democratic process.
I have not personally witnessed any antisemitism from party members, but you can be sure that if I did I wouldn't let it pass.
Good for you.
At what point - if the nutters consistently outvote you - do you take the view that the party is no longer for you? What, in short, is your breaking point?
It is interesting you don't ask these questions to Conservatives...
No - it's not interesting.
I was responding to a thoughtful post made by Sandy and asking him for his views, not least because he appears - from his posts on here - to have an understanding that anti-semitism is a bad thing and is prepared to call it out when his side are guilty of it, even though he is a democratic socialist. Would that there were more members like him in Labour. It might then not be in such a bad state.
I respond to what others have said to move the conversation on.
I have already written a thread header on how the Tory party has been taken over by fundamentalists.
You seem to think that it is only Tory voters who have an issue with Islam. I think you will find that in every single country in Europe, a majority of voters (in most cases a larger majority than in the UK) have concerns about Islam and its compatibility with life in the West. You might try asking yourself why that might be rather than indulging in whataboutery to divert attention from the problems with anti-semitism in the party you support which even the Labour leadership accept exist - see, for instance, today's interview with John McDonnell on the World this Weekend on Radio 4.
There seems to be something of a dearth of criticism of Jezza being egged. I'm sure all those who prolapsed when Jim Murphy was assaulted by un ouef (brownshirts, violent thugs, obnoxious, ugly, abusive, bitter, twisted) will be along later to express their disapproval.
Golly, I know Jim Murphy is a neo lib apostle of British nationalism who hings oot wi' the Henry Jackson Society, but even I'd baulk at calling him a Nazi.
Owen Jones tweet is about Nick Griffin.
Reminds me of a fine old Soviet joke:
Marshall Zhukov walks out of a stormy meeting with Stalin, muttering 'stupid pig with a stupid moustache.'
Stalin's private secretary, Alexander Nikolaevich Poskrebyshev, hears him. He runs into Stalin's office and says, 'Excuse me Comrade Stalin, but I just heard Marshall Zhukov say 'stupid pig with a stupid moustache.'
Stalin thinks for a moment, then summons Zhukov. On Zhukov's arrival, he says, 'Comrade Zhukov, I hear you said 'stupid pig with a stupid moustache'. Who were you thinking of?'
'Hitler, of course,' replied Zhukov.
Stalin nods, as if satisfied. Then, he turns very slowly to Poskrebyshev and says, 'And who did you think he meant, Comrade Alexander Nikolaevich?'
I think it was another_richard that used the ONS figures to prove that investment in the automotive industry was at a record high. The SMMT do make anxious noises but when you look at the small print of how they calculate that investment in the car industry has fallen, they add up the money in press releases issued.
I look forward to your explanation as to why that gives a complete picture of automotive investment.
Getting detailed data on investment levels in hard, not least as well because:
1. Lots of investment (and more so disinvestment) is not announced publicly 2. Investment statistics include things that you or I would not classify as investment* 3. Lots of the plant investment decisions have extremely long lead-times so it is hard to get cause and effect connected. (It can be two to three years from deciding to open a new production line to it actually starting.)
With my former CFO hat on, I would be very surprised if a lot of car firms are going to be making decisions to invest in the UK right now, simply because there are too many unknowns. Do you know if the UK is going to have tariff free trade with the US, the EU, both or neither? What is the UK's own tariff schedule going to be?
Would you make a decision to commit $500m to a new line in Oxford that won't come on line until 2022, or would you defer the decision until you know what numbers you can put in the spreadsheet?
This means that - even in a perfect world where the UK has great trade agreements with everyone in 2019 - there will probably be an investment hiatus in the next couple of years.
All this being said, it's great that JLR has (hopefully) got confidence to announce a big investment round. With the caveat, of course, that an announcement now probably results in most of the spend happening in late 2020 or 2021.
* So, if Nissan buys a bunch of SAP licenses out of their European holding company, then even though those seats might be used in dealers across the continent, it's included in the UK numbers. Likewise, stock build is sometimes classified as investment; ditto purchases of firms, because buying a company is investment, even if no jobs are actually created.
Comments
Going by the YouGov polling the other day a very soft Brexit (stay in SM + CU) annoys the least people.
Remaining in the EU pleases the most people.
In a system with preferences maybe very soft Brexit wins but in a FTPT system remain wins.
Which should be argued for on a current will of the people basis is an interesting argument.
Obviously that is just based off the poll which is far from infallible.
It then comes down to who blinks first - May is clearly hoping the ERG and DUP will do the blinking and carry what many consider a far from perfect WA through the Commons.
Needless to say, we can already see the May apologists gearing up to proclaim the triumph when the WA gets passed - May will be lauded in almost Thatcher-esque terms and the siren calls to let her stay on and fight the next GE as Conservative leader will no doubt be heard. The Mail yesterday spoke of "garlands" being thrown at her - maybe.
The true cost of the months of delay, confusion and indecision on business, local authorities and others will of course not be mentioned or even considered in the euphoria (though the cost of the ads and the General Election should also be mentioned).
https://fullfact.org/europe/renegotiating-ever-closer-union/
The so-called opt out would not have had any legal effect.
People smelled it for the B.S. it was.
One reason I eventually plumped for Remain even though as most posters doubtless realise I am ambivalent about the EU is because I have little doubt that relieved of our restraining influence the EU will charge headlong into controversial, ill-thought-out and probably badly managed full-fledged federalism, with disastrous consequences that would do us a lot of damage.
The future is uncertain, who knew?
Let the people have the Final Say.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/10/18/the-nearest-run-thing/
I don't see it but you may be right and the quid pro quo for the ERG's support in getting the WDA passed might very well be her departure in say 2020 or early 2021.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJEMt8IZL3w
"We are where we are. Do you desire closer integration with the EU, or a gradual splitting apart? Because there is no such thing as "remain" where we are now. Choose the direction of travel."
Bizarely some Leavers are happy to be bent over and banged by Trump. It’s like anything to do with the EU bad , anything to do with the USA great even when they have made it plain they want to screw the UK.
In any event, I can't help but remember that Trump wasn't President at the time of the referendum. Retrospectively, how would you have worded that post if Hillary had won in November 2016?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/03/liam-fox-extending-article-50-may-be-only-option-for-a-smooth-brexit
The Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, defended his own pledge to never put his country’s membership of the EU to a referendum by highlighting the damage to the British economy in which “one car factory after another stops or cancels planned production”.
Rasmussen said the British public had been taken in by “some rhetorically skilled politicians who turned out to be untrustworthy conmen who subsequently left the sinking ship”. He also described Westminster as a circus and “a paralysed political system that is about to melt down”.
The mood in the Conservative Party will change as if a switch had been clicked - all the critics will become unapologetic sycophants.
Most Leave support harking back to the seventies and beyond is conservative in intention. Yet they have voted to remove their best protector of their way of life. I suspect when the dust eventually settles on the Brexit fiasco, an implied deal will be worked out with the EU where it gives us commercial and social protection in exchange for us doing what we are told. That deal is very unlikely to be offered by the USA.
"...@TSE and AV up a tree,
k-i-s-s-i-n-g..."
You have to be in denial not to believe that Brexit is playing a part in the ongoing divestment in the British economy.
If so, obviously I'd be the first to condemn the violence that has taken place on both sides, and call for dialogue to resolve any issues.
Am I accidentally making your point for you?
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1083305997408587781
The media themselves confirmed the lost production was due to the collapse of diesel sales and with the new EU - Japan trade deal Japan can sell direct into the EU tariff free thereby negating their need to build in the EU
These decisions would have happened no matter that we were in the EU
When even the BBC say it is not brexit related it is time to accept the reality of the disaster facing the car industry worldwide, as no one in the car industry has accepted they are not ready to go all ev but the public will not buy diesels anymore
The only protection against the right wing capitalism on steroids is staying in the EU . There’s no guarantee of a Labour government anytime soon so the lefties who voted to Leave have handed the keys over to Mogg and co .
Any Labour MP enabling a Tory Brexit should hang their heads in shame , instead of Flint and the others trashing a second vote they should be making the case that a Tory Brexit will be a disaster for their supporters .
When that happens, staying makes you passively complicit.
Somewhat close, I expect, to the situation we are in today.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/03/03/europeans-double-uk-investment-since-brexit-vote/
The former foreign secretary told business to go forth and multiply. And indeed, they will go forth from the UK and multiply elsewhere.
* .....tumbleweed blows through........ *
Parenthetically, I am sick to the bloody back teeth of the subset of political framing that slaps a word before or after another word to suit the person's politics. Examples include "technical recession" (it's a recession), "managed no-deal" (it's no-deal) or "political declaration" (it's a declaration)
JLR are suffering for the same reasons as their competitors in Germany, because of crap diesels and not-quite-developed electric powertrains.
Compared to the USA which 1) exposed the problem 2) banned sales of cheating cars. 3) compensated the buyers of cheating cars. 4) fined the companies very heavily. 5) Prosecuted the bosses and if guilty put them in jail.
Yep The EU protects consumer rights. Ho Hum.
A cynic might suggest that what they want is in the first document, and what we want is in the second - and the PD isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
The SMMT do make anxious noises but when you look at the small print of how they calculate that investment in the car industry has fallen, they add up the money in press releases issued.
I look forward to your explanation as to why that gives a complete picture of automotive investment.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/06/13/vw-pays-1bn-fine-germany-end-dieselgate-criminal-charges-europe/
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/18/german-carmakers-face-eu-anti-trust-inquiry-emissions
You might also consider why the E.U. is prepared to levy extremely large fines on US tech companies when the US isn’t.
In both cases it has little to do with consumer protection...
When I get outvoted by nutters, I have to respect the democratic process.
I have not personally witnessed any antisemitism from party members, but you can be sure that if I did I wouldn't let it pass.
At what point - if the nutters consistently outvote you - do you take the view that the party is no longer for you? What, in short, is your breaking point?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/02/tories-islamophobia-bigotry
______________________________________________
Almost half (49%) of Conservative voters see Islam as a threat to the British way of life, with a similar number (47%) believing the false conspiracy theory that there are no-go areas where sharia law dominates and non-Muslims cannot enter.
An unbelievable 42% of Tory voters have a positive view of the way Yaxley-Lennon highlights issues ignored by the media
______________________________________________
If Labour held these kind of views towards any minority then questions could rightly be asked of Sandy.
MPs should not vote for anthing that they don't want to happen.
The chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), Mike Hawes, said: “The most disturbing feature of the figures is about automotive investment. Last year, total automotive investment was £588.6 million for the year. The previous year was about £1.1 billion. The year before that it was about £1.6 billion. If you look at a running average over the last three or four years, it’s about £2.5 billion. We had some good years coming out of the recession where it reached £5 billion, so to be down at £588.6 million shows investment is effectively stalled.”
Hawes placed blame for the stalled investment firmly at the feet of Brexit: “We know uncertainty is the big enemy of business. We need a deal.”
Even if it's finger in the air stuff, the trend (which is our friend?) is clear. It also goes against other countries that are heavily investing in EV
I was responding to a thoughtful post made by Sandy and asking him for his views, not least because he appears - from his posts on here - to have an understanding that anti-semitism is a bad thing and is prepared to call it out when his side are guilty of it, even though he is a democratic socialist. Would that there were more members like him in Labour. It might then not be in such a bad state.
I respond to what others have said to move the conversation on.
I have already written a thread header on how the Tory party has been taken over by fundamentalists.
You seem to think that it is only Tory voters who have an issue with Islam. I think you will find that in every single country in Europe, a majority of voters (in most cases a larger majority than in the UK) have concerns about Islam and its compatibility with life in the West. You might try asking yourself why that might be rather than indulging in whataboutery to divert attention from the problems with anti-semitism in the party you support which even the Labour leadership accept exist - see, for instance, today's interview with John McDonnell on the World this Weekend on Radio 4.
Marshall Zhukov walks out of a stormy meeting with Stalin, muttering 'stupid pig with a stupid moustache.'
Stalin's private secretary, Alexander Nikolaevich Poskrebyshev, hears him. He runs into Stalin's office and says, 'Excuse me Comrade Stalin, but I just heard Marshall Zhukov say 'stupid pig with a stupid moustache.'
Stalin thinks for a moment, then summons Zhukov. On Zhukov's arrival, he says, 'Comrade Zhukov, I hear you said 'stupid pig with a stupid moustache'. Who were you thinking of?'
'Hitler, of course,' replied Zhukov.
Stalin nods, as if satisfied. Then, he turns very slowly to Poskrebyshev and says, 'And who did you think he meant, Comrade Alexander Nikolaevich?'
1. Lots of investment (and more so disinvestment) is not announced publicly
2. Investment statistics include things that you or I would not classify as investment*
3. Lots of the plant investment decisions have extremely long lead-times so it is hard to get cause and effect connected. (It can be two to three years from deciding to open a new production line to it actually starting.)
With my former CFO hat on, I would be very surprised if a lot of car firms are going to be making decisions to invest in the UK right now, simply because there are too many unknowns. Do you know if the UK is going to have tariff free trade with the US, the EU, both or neither? What is the UK's own tariff schedule going to be?
Would you make a decision to commit $500m to a new line in Oxford that won't come on line until 2022, or would you defer the decision until you know what numbers you can put in the spreadsheet?
This means that - even in a perfect world where the UK has great trade agreements with everyone in 2019 - there will probably be an investment hiatus in the next couple of years.
All this being said, it's great that JLR has (hopefully) got confidence to announce a big investment round. With the caveat, of course, that an announcement now probably results in most of the spend happening in late 2020 or 2021.
* So, if Nissan buys a bunch of SAP licenses out of their European holding company, then even though those seats might be used in dealers across the continent, it's included in the UK numbers. Likewise, stock build is sometimes classified as investment; ditto purchases of firms, because buying a company is investment, even if no jobs are actually created.