I think there are a huge number of people who think this is the most important issue that has been faced by this country since the end of the second world war, but while there are many many like me that would prefer the customs union, we are not gullible enough to vote for comrade Corbyn.
Brexit is bad enough, but to compound it by putting Mr Thicky in charge would be enough to consign our great nation to a basket case of 1970s proportions for generations to come. So no, however attractive Labour's EU policy is, it is not enough to persuade us to put the anti-Semite in Chief into No 10. Someone more moderate would be a completely different scenario .
It's a view, but not a universal one. There is a segment of the electorate who feel that sorting out Brexit in a way that doesn't wreck the relationship with the EU is the top priority, and if the price for that is a short period of Corbyn-led coalition constrained by his own rebels, the LibDems, the SNP and anyone else needed for a majority is something they can tolerate. A very weak Corbyn government with the current Parliamentary arithmetic (dependent on some Remainer Tory abstentions - a "lack of no confidence and no supply" deal) might be the solution, since it's obvious that there is currently no majority in the Commons for turbo-charged socialism. Corbyn's offer would simply be to resolve Brexit and then call an election.
BBC showed a flowchart of the votes for the next few days. Assume they vote against May's deal, then against no deal and then against an extension we leave with no deal. That means they have voted for leaving with no deal and not leaving with no deal and no deal takes precedence over not leaving with no deal. The only logic I can see in that contradiction is they have changed their mind in 24 hours. This is all nonsense. You can equally argue that they decided not to leave with no deal but want to leave with a deal (not May's deal) without an extension - an equally (almost) impossible position.
Don't think I have ever written a statement with so many references to 'not' and 'no'.
All bonkers.
Brexit has been a bonkers concept form the outset.
Remainer implementation of Brexit has been a bonkers concept form the outset.
Ah the excuses! May is not a remainer. She has all the zealotry of a convert to a religion. She is determined to deliver what the headbangers in her party want in as much as she thinks is possible. If you consider her a remainer it simply shows the extremity of your position on the subject.
I hope May sits with with her MPs and cuts out the bullshit. Asks them what they really expect to happen if we go into an extension blind rather than sign the deal. That suddenly a better deal will emerge whoever is PM? That no deal will become more popular in parliament?
No. It's now leave or remain. If they want yo remain, perhaps just because or because her deal is not real Brexit, fine. But no more pussyfooting around about it.
BBC showed a flowchart of the votes for the next few days. Assume they vote against May's deal, then against no deal and then against an extension we leave with no deal. That means they have voted for leaving with no deal and not leaving with no deal and no deal takes precedence over not leaving with no deal. The only logic I can see in that contradiction is they have changed their mind in 24 hours. This is all nonsense. You can equally argue that they decided not to leave with no deal but want to leave with a deal (not May's deal) without an extension - an equally (almost) impossible position.
Don't think I have ever written a statement with so many references to 'not' and 'no'.
All bonkers.
Brexit has been a bonkers concept form the outset.
Remainer implementation of Brexit has been a bonkers concept form the outset.
Leavers could not be bothered to put someone forward to contest the Tory leadership.
BBC showed a flowchart of the votes for the next few days. Assume they vote against May's deal, then against no deal and then against an extension we leave with no deal. That means they have voted for leaving with no deal and not leaving with no deal and no deal takes precedence over not leaving with no deal. The only logic I can see in that contradiction is they have changed their mind in 24 hours. This is all nonsense. You can equally argue that they decided not to leave with no deal but want to leave with a deal (not May's deal) without an extension - an equally (almost) impossible position.
Don't think I have ever written a statement with so many references to 'not' and 'no'.
All bonkers.
There is much in this that is bonkers but leaving with no deal even if they say they dont want to is not one of them because that's what the law says and they need to take more than just saying they dont want no deal to change that.
I think the big difficulty for "no-dealers" is that there is clear evidence that there is no mandate for it, particularly underlined by Mike's recent post showing opinion immediately post referendum. Even Gove has said it was not part of what he campaigned for. No-deal was not a prospect put before the electorate. Who knows, they might still vote for it if offered, but so far it has not.
"Corbyn's offer would simply be to resolve Brexit."
As I've said earlier. next door's cat could resolve Brexit by agreeing to whatever the EU want and ignoring the referendum result. But it doesn't resolve the real problem. Once you pick and choose what elections you can ignore, there's little point holding them.
Since there will be no new deal on offer, MV2 would simply repeat MV1 and should not be tabled as Parliament has already given its verdict.
Parliament should vote on No-deal versus Revoke as that is what all the huffing and puffing boils down to. This choice is entirely in our hands without reference to Brussels.
That looks like billions which could have been spent on the NHS.
The tax loss equates to somewhere around 85% of our net annual contribution to the EU.
So in that respect, you could say that the EU might be well on the way to making good the deficit to the their budget which would result from our leaving.
It is only one part of what will be lost, of course. Other businesses are also relocating. yet more that might otherwise have come here will not. All this is a direct and entirely predictable consequence of the red lines that May drew. Brexit was always going to mean less inward investment and fewer opportunities. May exacerbated it - cheered on by the swivel-eyed Buccaneers.
BBC showed a flowchart of the votes for the next few days. Assume they vote against May's deal, then against no deal and then against an extension we leave with no deal. That means they have voted for leaving with no deal and not leaving with no deal and no deal takes precedence over not leaving with no deal. The only logic I can see in that contradiction is they have changed their mind in 24 hours. This is all nonsense. You can equally argue that they decided not to leave with no deal but want to leave with a deal (not May's deal) without an extension - an equally (almost) impossible position.
Don't think I have ever written a statement with so many references to 'not' and 'no'.
All bonkers.
Brexit has been a bonkers concept form the outset.
Remainer implementation of Brexit has been a bonkers concept form the outset.
Look, there's been a Tory leadership election and general election SINCE the vote. If you don't like the result, then I'm curious as to what democratic alternative you think would have produced something you're happier with.
But I can understand why millions of voters will vote Blue to stop the Reds, or Red to stop the Blues.
What a mess.
I honestly think that Brexit/Fuck Business/Anti-Semitism has broken this, just as SindyRef broke it in Scotland. Just because something is the current norm doesn't mean it will continue to be.
I think there are a huge number of people who think this is the most important issue that has been faced by this country since the end of the second world war, but while there are many many like me that would prefer the customs union, we are not gullible enough to vote for comrade Corbyn.
Brexit is bad enough, but to compound it by putting Mr Thicky in charge would be enough to consign our great nation to a basket case of 1970s proportions for generations to come. So no, however attractive Labour's EU policy is, it is not enough to persuade us to put the anti-Semite in Chief into No 10. Someone more moderate would be a completely different scenario .
It's a view, but not a universal one. There is a segment of the electorate who feel that sorting out Brexit in a way that doesn't wreck the relationship with the EU is the top priority, and if the price for that is a short period of Corbyn-led coalition constrained by his own rebels, the LibDems, the SNP and anyone else needed for a majority is something they can tolerate. A very weak Corbyn government with the current Parliamentary arithmetic (dependent on some Remainer Tory abstentions - a "lack of no confidence and no supply" deal) might be the solution, since it's obvious that there is currently no majority in the Commons for turbo-charged socialism. Corbyn's offer would simply be to resolve Brexit and then call an election.
A better solution would be a Labour led government by a figure that can actually command the respect and support of the PLP perhaps? Tom Watson. I don't like the man, but a far better prospect than Corbyn. Corbyn can remain leader of the Labour/Momentum Party in a nominal sense but not be PM. Labour MPs clearly don't have the guts for such a solution, which is a shame for the country. Like many of the Tories, they put party above country
Since there will be no new deal on offer, MV2 would simply repeat MV1 and should not be tabled as Parliament has already given its verdict.
Parliament should vote on No-deal versus Revoke as that is what all the huffing and puffing boils down to. This choice is entirely in our hands without reference to Brussels.
They don't have the balls for that, hence an extension to buy time.
I think there are a huge number of people who think this is the most important issue that has been faced by this country since the end of the second world war, but while there are many many like me that would prefer the customs union, we are not gullible enough to vote for comrade Corbyn.
Brexit is bad enough, but to compound it by putting Mr Thicky in charge would be enough to consign our great nation to a basket case of 1970s proportions for generations to come. So no, however attractive Labour's EU policy is, it is not enough to persuade us to put the anti-Semite in Chief into No 10. Someone more moderate would be a completely different scenario .
It's a view, but not a universal one. There is a segment of the electorate who feel that sorting out Brexit in a way that doesn't wreck the relationship with the EU is the top priority, and if the price for that is a short period of Corbyn-led coalition constrained by his own rebels, the LibDems, the SNP and anyone else needed for a majority is something they can tolerate. A very weak Corbyn government with the current Parliamentary arithmetic (dependent on some Remainer Tory abstentions - a "lack of no confidence and no supply" deal) might be the solution, since it's obvious that there is currently no majority in the Commons for turbo-charged socialism. Corbyn's offer would simply be to resolve Brexit and then call an election.
The problem with that scenario is that no Tory - whatever their views on Brexit - would put Corbyn and probably more important, his advisers, in any position that would give them access to to top level security. Many Labour MPs would baulk at it too.
Since there will be no new deal on offer, MV2 would simply repeat MV1 and should not be tabled as Parliament has already given its verdict.
Parliament should vote on No-deal versus Revoke as that is what all the huffing and puffing boils down to. This choice is entirely in our hands without reference to Brussels.
They don't have the balls for that, hence an extension to buy time.
That looks like billions which could have been spent on the NHS.
The tax loss equates to somewhere around 85% of our net annual contribution to the EU.
So in that respect, you could say that the EU might be well on the way to making good the deficit to the their budget which would result from our leaving.
It is only one part of what will be lost, of course. Other businesses are also relocating. yet more that might otherwise have come here will not. All this is a direct and entirely predictable consequence of the red lines that May drew. Brexit was always going to mean less inward investment and fewer opportunities. May exacerbated it - cheered on by the swivel-eyed Buccaneers.
I'm mildly surprised the figures aren't being challenged (or dismissed) by the Buccaneers.
Since there will be no new deal on offer, MV2 would simply repeat MV1 and should not be tabled as Parliament has already given its verdict.
Parliament should vote on No-deal versus Revoke as that is what all the huffing and puffing boils down to. This choice is entirely in our hands without reference to Brussels.
They don't have the balls for that, hence an extension to buy time.
I think there are a huge number of people who think this is the most important issue that has been faced by this country since the end of the second world war, but while there are many many like me that would prefer the customs union, we are not gullible enough to vote for comrade Corbyn.
Brexit is bad enough, but to compound it by putting Mr Thicky in charge would be enough to consign our great nation to a basket case of 1970s proportions for generations to come. So no, however attractive Labour's EU policy is, it is not enough to persuade us to put the anti-Semite in Chief into No 10. Someone more moderate would be a completely different scenario .
It's a view, but not a universal one. There is a segment of the electorate who feel that sorting out Brexit in a way that doesn't wreck the relationship with the EU is the top priority, and if the price for that is a short period of Corbyn-led coalition constrained by his own rebels, the LibDems, the SNP and anyone else needed for a majority is something they can tolerate. A very weak Corbyn government with the current Parliamentary arithmetic (dependent on some Remainer Tory abstentions - a "lack of no confidence and no supply" deal) might be the solution, since it's obvious that there is currently no majority in the Commons for turbo-charged socialism. Corbyn's offer would simply be to resolve Brexit and then call an election.
A better solution would be a Labour led government by a figure that can actually command the respect and support of the PLP perhaps? Tom Watson. I don't like the man, but a far better prospect than Corbyn. Corbyn can remain leader of the Labour/Momentum Party in a nominal sense but not be PM. Labour MPs clearly don't have the guts for such a solution, which is a shame for the country. Like many of the Tories, they put party above country
But how would such a thing command anything near a majority in the current parliament ?
"Corbyn's offer would simply be to resolve Brexit."
As I've said earlier. next door's cat could resolve Brexit by agreeing to whatever the EU want and ignoring the referendum result. But it doesn't resolve the real problem. Once you pick and choose what elections you can ignore, there's little point holding them.
The slight problem is that the Brexit referendum result appears undeliverable. As I mentioned in a post down thread there is no mandate for no-deal. Trying to argue that there is without a further referendum is dishonest. We are in a political cleft stick. All outcomes, including remain, are now bad! What a balls-up!
Since there will be no new deal on offer, MV2 would simply repeat MV1 and should not be tabled as Parliament has already given its verdict.
Parliament should vote on No-deal versus Revoke as that is what all the huffing and puffing boils down to. This choice is entirely in our hands without reference to Brussels.
They don't have the balls for that, hence an extension to buy time.
"Buying time" is a chimera.
I agree. But it's easier.
It is what Cameron thought he was doing when he offered a referendum in the Tory manifesto! Instead he ended up with the shitty tail wagging the dog!
That looks like billions which could have been spent on the NHS.
The tax loss equates to somewhere around 85% of our net annual contribution to the EU.
So in that respect, you could say that the EU might be well on the way to making good the deficit to the their budget which would result from our leaving.
It is only one part of what will be lost, of course. Other businesses are also relocating. yet more that might otherwise have come here will not. All this is a direct and entirely predictable consequence of the red lines that May drew. Brexit was always going to mean less inward investment and fewer opportunities. May exacerbated it - cheered on by the swivel-eyed Buccaneers.
I'm mildly surprised the figures aren't being challenged (or dismissed) by the Buccaneers.
Many of us Brexiteers thought the economic damage from Brexit would be much worse. Might still be, of course - if we ever finally Leave.
"Corbyn's offer would simply be to resolve Brexit."
As I've said earlier. next door's cat could resolve Brexit by agreeing to whatever the EU want and ignoring the referendum result. But it doesn't resolve the real problem. Once you pick and choose what elections you can ignore, there's little point holding them.
The slight problem is that the Brexit referendum result appears undeliverable. As I mentioned in a post down thread there is no mandate for no-deal. Trying to argue that there is without a further referendum is dishonest. We are in a political cleft stick. All outcomes, including remain, are now bad! What a balls-up!
I'd say that Brexit is completely deliverable, just not in the timescale being attempted. I'd also say that trying to get it through unrealistically quickly is just as disrespectful of the vote as ignoring the vote altogether.
The fact Boris, Farage and Corbyn are against it is an encouraging sign that it's a good deal.
That said, it is strange and disturbing to find myself on the same side as Michael Gove.
ydoethur, It is as crap as it ever was and is going down. May is a nasty bit of work and time some of the Tory jellies got a backbone and showed her the door. This clearly shows what years of promoting your inbred chums does.
May has faults but I don't think even her enemies call her 'a nasty bit of work', cybernat in overdrive there
Does 'liar' count as 'a nasty piece of work'? Because she's certainly the former.
BBC showed a flowchart of the votes for the next few days. Assume they vote against May's deal, then against no deal and then against an extension we leave with no deal. That means they have voted for leaving with no deal and not leaving with no deal and no deal takes precedence over not leaving with no deal. The only logic I can see in that contradiction is they have changed their mind in 24 hours. This is all nonsense. You can equally argue that they decided not to leave with no deal but want to leave with a deal (not May's deal) without an extension - an equally (almost) impossible position.
Don't think I have ever written a statement with so many references to 'not' and 'no'.
All bonkers.
There is much in this that is bonkers but leaving with no deal even if they say they dont want to is not one of them because that's what the law says and they need to take more than just saying they dont want no deal to change that.
I think there are a huge number of people who think this is the most important issue that has been faced by this country since the end of the second world war, but while there are many many like me that would prefer the customs union, we are not gullible enough to vote for comrade Corbyn.
Brexit is bad enough, but to compound it by putting Mr Thicky in charge would be enough to consign our great nation to a basket case of 1970s proportions for generations to come. So no, however attractive Labour's EU policy is, it is not enough to persuade us to put the anti-Semite in Chief into No 10. Someone more moderate would be a completely different scenario .
It's a view, but not a universal one. There is a segment of the electorate who feel that sorting out Brexit in a way that doesn't wreck the relationship with the EU is the top priority, and if the price for that is a short period of Corbyn-led coalition constrained by his own rebels, the LibDems, the SNP and anyone else needed for a majority is something they can tolerate. A very weak Corbyn government with the current Parliamentary arithmetic (dependent on some Remainer Tory abstentions - a "lack of no confidence and no supply" deal) might be the solution, since it's obvious that there is currently no majority in the Commons for turbo-charged socialism. Corbyn's offer would simply be to resolve Brexit and then call an election.
A better solution would be a Labour led government by a figure that can actually command the respect and support of the PLP perhaps? Tom Watson. I don't like the man, but a far better prospect than Corbyn. Corbyn can remain leader of the Labour/Momentum Party in a nominal sense but not be PM. Labour MPs clearly don't have the guts for such a solution, which is a shame for the country. Like many of the Tories, they put party above country
But how would such a thing command anything near a majority in the current parliament ?
It wouldn't, there would need to be a GE. My point earlier was that there was no way that however good the Labour EU policy was from my perspective could I envisage supporting the anti-Semite leader of the Labour/Momentum Party to become PM
The fact Boris, Farage and Corbyn are against it is an encouraging sign that it's a good deal.
That said, it is strange and disturbing to find myself on the same side as Michael Gove.
ydoethur, It is as crap as it ever was and is going down. May is a nasty bit of work and time some of the Tory jellies got a backbone and showed her the door. This clearly shows what years of promoting your inbred chums does.
May has faults but I don't think even her enemies call her 'a nasty bit of work', cybernat in overdrive there
Does 'liar' count as 'a nasty piece of work'? Because she's certainly the former.
BBC showed a flowchart of the votes for the next few days. Assume they vote against May's deal, then against no deal and then against an extension we leave with no deal. That means they have voted for leaving with no deal and not leaving with no deal and no deal takes precedence over not leaving with no deal. The only logic I can see in that contradiction is they have changed their mind in 24 hours. This is all nonsense. You can equally argue that they decided not to leave with no deal but want to leave with a deal (not May's deal) without an extension - an equally (almost) impossible position.
Don't think I have ever written a statement with so many references to 'not' and 'no'.
All bonkers.
There is much in this that is bonkers but leaving with no deal even if they say they dont want to is not one of them because that's what the law says and they need to take more than just saying they dont want no deal to change that.
Are you suggesting that a law can't be bonkers?
I know you are really not - I'm just being mischievous.
Interesting. If Mr Thicky is forced out (I think unlikely) it is likely that the entryists in the Labour Party membership will foist McDonnell on us. It is said we get the politicians we deserve, God help us!
"Corbyn's offer would simply be to resolve Brexit."
As I've said earlier. next door's cat could resolve Brexit by agreeing to whatever the EU want and ignoring the referendum result. But it doesn't resolve the real problem. Once you pick and choose what elections you can ignore, there's little point holding them.
The slight problem is that the Brexit referendum result appears undeliverable. As I mentioned in a post down thread there is no mandate for no-deal. Trying to argue that there is without a further referendum is dishonest. We are in a political cleft stick. All outcomes, including remain, are now bad! What a balls-up!
If Brexit is “undeliverable” then that, curiously, vindicates the Brexiteers. Because it means all this bollocks about Britain “still being sovereign” within the EU was just that - bollocks. If you cannot leave an institution without ripping off an arm and going blind, then you are effectively jailed within that institution.
The problem for Brexiteers is that they were not listened to before. If we’d had votes on Maastricht or Lisbon we would not be fucked now. This site was one of the worst offenders.
JRP, as we must now call her because she is our AOC, writes very in the Guardian this morning putting the boot into The Saj's child killing experiment. Following on the back of her deadly Good Life metaphor in the Sunday Times she obviously senses that the Corbyn project is moving into the bunker on Wilhelmstrasse phase and is doing a soft launch of her leadership campaign.
I think I share Boles' firewalking proclivity when it comes to JRP.
"Corbyn's offer would simply be to resolve Brexit."
As I've said earlier. next door's cat could resolve Brexit by agreeing to whatever the EU want and ignoring the referendum result. But it doesn't resolve the real problem. Once you pick and choose what elections you can ignore, there's little point holding them.
The slight problem is that the Brexit referendum result appears undeliverable. As I mentioned in a post down thread there is no mandate for no-deal. Trying to argue that there is without a further referendum is dishonest. We are in a political cleft stick. All outcomes, including remain, are now bad! What a balls-up!
If Brexit is “undeliverable” then that, curiously, vindicates the Brexiteers. Because it means all this bollocks about Britain “still being sovereign” within the EU was just that - bollocks. If you cannot leave an institution without ripping off an arm and going blind, then you are effectively jailed within that institution.
The problem for Brexiteers is that they were not listened to before. If we’d had votes on Maastricht or Lisbon we would not be fucked now. This site was one of the worst offenders.
Nonsense. The reason it is undeliverable is that there is no consensus in either parliament or the country what we actually want. If there were, it would be entirely deliverable.
That is why she will go down as one of the poorest PMs ever.
It seems only a short while ago that I was being assured by pb.com that Cameron was one of the poorest PMs ever .... or Brown was one of the poorest PMs ever .... or the War Criminal was one of the poorest PMs ever.
My view is May is pretty average, she bears some of the responsibility for the mess, but not a huge amount.
She is very tightly constrained by Parliamentary arithmetic in what she can do (I don't buy the argument that big hugs were all that was needed for a cross-party consensus to emerge).
For sure, May lost Cameron's majority (and she bears a lot of responsibility for that). But, she actually needs a majority of ~ 50 and Cameron's was never enough.
Ian Dunt cannot help his idiotic use of language which demonstrates his flawed character
Expressed professionally I actually agree with him
Boris is an empire fantasist, who cannot accept the reality of modern UK. We sit on the edge of a massive trading bloc and we no longer have an empire.
Every headline, of course, has been written for the forthcoming leadership election. I fear there are too few Big-G's in the membership to stop Boris.
Basically MPs saying "We managed to stop you voting on the changes as the 'Common Market' evolved into the EC and then into the EU, and now you're trapped inside it. Aren't we clever? Much cleverer than you," isn't a vote winner.
Their only hope is to blame voters for the mess and ask them to vote correctly this time. It might work, but I doubt it.
If Brexit is “undeliverable” then that, curiously, vindicates the Brexiteers.
Bollocks
Brexit is only undeliverable if the government are not willing to crash the economy to do it.
Which is what Remainers said at the time of the vote. And thus they are vindicated...
No one is vindicated in this mess.
ERG and remainers have each attempted to sabotage a democratic vote, ERG because they are extreme and remainers who have refused to accept the referendum and have used influence throughout the EU to stop brexit
JRP, as we must now call her because she is our AOC, writes very in the Guardian this morning putting the boot into The Saj's child killing experiment. Following on the back of her deadly Good Life metaphor in the Sunday Times she obviously senses that the Corbyn project is moving into the bunker on Wilhelmstrasse phase and is doing a soft launch of her leadership campaign.
I think I share Boles' firewalking proclivity when it comes to JRP.
You're welcome to Ms "stab Corbyn in the front". She's a perfect ambassador for the Knife Crime Era.
Just imagine if she was PM, under actual scrutiny. She opens her gob, and another PR gaffe jumps out.
She is just like Eric Joyce or Dan Jarvis or any of the other mushwits that the Guardian has bigged up in the past. She'll go the same way.
It should be No-deal versus Revoke. The lobby lists for that vote would be revealing and also career threatening for many MPs. So @kle4 is right – they don't have the guts to do that.
Interesting. If Mr Thicky is forced out (I think unlikely) it is likely that the entryists in the Labour Party membership will foist McDonnell on us. It is said we get the politicians we deserve, God help us!
McDonnell's odds of succeeding Corbyn are longer than Tom Watson's. No idea how the betting hive mind has worked that one out, it's wrong.
That looks like billions which could have been spent on the NHS.
The tax loss equates to somewhere around 85% of our net annual contribution to the EU.
So in that respect, you could say that the EU might be well on the way to making good the deficit to the their budget which would result from our leaving.
It is only one part of what will be lost, of course. Other businesses are also relocating. yet more that might otherwise have come here will not. All this is a direct and entirely predictable consequence of the red lines that May drew. Brexit was always going to mean less inward investment and fewer opportunities. May exacerbated it - cheered on by the swivel-eyed Buccaneers.
I'm mildly surprised the figures aren't being challenged (or dismissed) by the Buccaneers.
We've had reports for years that tax revenues are going to be damaged etc
While it may eventually be true the evidence so far is tax revenues coming in better than expected.
Speaking from a hotel in sunny Bangkok it’s hard to get a grasp of where things are in Brexitland
Shall we do a round up of Pb-ers expected outcomes? Here are my latest thoughts, in descending order
1. Extension plus referendum: 30% 2. No deal crash Brexit, March 29: 25% 3. TMay deal passes (maybe after short extension): 20% 4. Extension plus GE: 15% 5. Revoke: 5% 6. Black Swan/Anglo-Chinese war: 5%
Ian Dunt cannot help his idiotic use of language which demonstrates his flawed character
Expressed professionally I actually agree with him
Boris is an empire fantasist, who cannot accept the reality of modern UK. We sit on the edge of a massive trading bloc and we no longer have an empire.
Every headline, of course, has been written for the forthcoming leadership election. I fear there are too few Big-G's in the membership to stop Boris.
Incredible to see May floundering round trying to get a majority for a "Deal" which the EU won't or can't accept. It's embarrassing and humiliating but she seems obsessed with saving herself, the Conservative Party and her notion of "our precious Union" in that order.
Even this stupid idea doesn't take No Deal off the table in any form.
I suspect, as has so often been the case of late, this week will resolve very little. Assuming the WA fails again tomorrow, the A50 extension will get passed though not perhaps comfortably and we'll have little sense as to how long any extension might or might not be.
There does seem to be growing public support for leaving without a Deal on the 29th just to "get it over with" as people are weary of the prolonged agony of A50 and Brexit. No point trying to persuade them leaving without a Deal doesn't end the process either.
That is why she will go down as one of the poorest PMs ever.
It seems only a short while ago that I was being assured by pb.com that Cameron was one of the poorest PMs ever .... or Brown was one of the poorest PMs ever .... or the War Criminal was one of the poorest PMs ever.
My view is May is pretty average, she bears some of the responsibility for the mess, but not a huge amount.
She is very tightly constrained by Parliamentary arithmetic in what she can do (I don't buy the argument that big hugs were all that was needed for a cross-party consensus to emerge).
For sure, May lost Cameron's majority (and she bears a lot of responsibility for that). But, she actually needs a majority of ~ 50 and Cameron's was never enough.
If she had not called the unnecessary election and blown the majority of course she could have negotiated with a majority and threatened/called an election at this point when it would have meant something.
Incredible to see May floundering round trying to get a majority for a "Deal" which the EU won't or can't accept. It's embarrassing and humiliating but she seems obsessed with saving herself, the Conservative Party and her notion of "our precious Union" in that order.
Even this stupid idea doesn't take No Deal off the table in any form.
I suspect, as has so often been the case of late, this week will resolve very little. Assuming the WA fails again tomorrow, the A50 extension will get passed though not perhaps comfortably and we'll have little sense as to how long any extension might or might not be.
There does seem to be growing public support for leaving without a Deal on the 29th just to "get it over with" as people are weary of the prolonged agony of A50 and Brexit. No point trying to persuade them leaving without a Deal doesn't end the process either.
The way this is being framed by the media the votes on no deal and extension to A50 will not happen this week
If you think the EU are inflexible on May's deal - wait until you see them on an extension.
The MPs vote on the terms of the extension will be fun - I totes think that £ Billion for 3 months is well worth it and I commend that the taxpayer money to be sent to Brussels.
That is why she will go down as one of the poorest PMs ever.
It seems only a short while ago that I was being assured by pb.com that Cameron was one of the poorest PMs ever .... or Brown was one of the poorest PMs ever .... or the War Criminal was one of the poorest PMs ever.
My view is May is pretty average, she bears some of the responsibility for the mess, but not a huge amount.
She is very tightly constrained by Parliamentary arithmetic in what she can do (I don't buy the argument that big hugs were all that was needed for a cross-party consensus to emerge).
For sure, May lost Cameron's majority (and she bears a lot of responsibility for that). But, she actually needs a majority of ~ 50 and Cameron's was never enough.
If she had not called the unnecessary election and blown the majority of course she could have negotiated with a majority and threatened/called an election at this point when it would have meant something.
Who is she "threatening" with this election? Other Tories?
Labour want one .. and the EU probably think a new election can hardly produce greater deadlock.
It is unquestionably a national humiliation. We have shown ourselves to be incompetent fantasists completely incapable of understanding how the world works and our place in it. But, of course, this is only the start. I hope I am around to see the mendacious fraudsters who foisted this on us held to account for their actions.
Wollaston is just a ludicrous figure. Recall she actually campaigned for Leave and then had a Damascene conversion at the 11th hour and decided Leaving was literally insane even though she’d been campaigning for it for months.
She was so clearly a Cameroon cuckoo planted in the Leave nest, meant to explode Leave from within. It was mortifying. No doubt she did it because Cameron promised her some job after he’d won. Oh dear. That worked out well.
Wollaston summarizes everything wrong with our politics. She is as foolish and unprincipled as they come. And I readily confess brexit has revealed some utterly clueless morons on the Leave side as well.
It is unquestionably a national humiliation. We have shown ourselves to be incompetent fantasists completely incapable of understanding how the world works and our place in it. But, of course, this is only the start. I hope I am around to see the mendacious fraudsters who foisted this on us held to account for their actions.
"National humiliation" ? Really - have you had French people pointing at you in the street and laughing ? Talk about first world problems..
If Brexit is “undeliverable” then that, curiously, vindicates the Brexiteers.
Bollocks
Brexit is only undeliverable if the government are not willing to crash the economy to do it.
Which is what Remainers said at the time of the vote. And thus they are vindicated...
No one is vindicated in this mess.
ERG and remainers have each attempted to sabotage a democratic vote, ERG because they are extreme and remainers who have refused to accept the referendum and have used influence throughout the EU to stop brexit
Those who believed Brexit would reduce the UK;s standing int he world while harming its economy are on the road to complete vindication.
Remainers did not draw Mrs May's red lines. Those are the biggest obstacle to a Brexit deal because they make the Irish border question unsolvable.
He isn't pro- or anti-imperial fantasies. He isn't pro- or anti-EU.
He's pro-Boris. That ambition is the sun around which everything else he says and does revolves. If he'd thought being pro-EU in the referendum would've helped his leadership prospects he would've campaigned for Remain.
The fact Boris, Farage and Corbyn are against it is an encouraging sign that it's a good deal.
That said, it is strange and disturbing to find myself on the same side as Michael Gove.
ydoethur, It is as crap as it ever was and is going down. May is a nasty bit of work and time some of the Tory jellies got a backbone and showed her the door. This clearly shows what years of promoting your inbred chums does.
May has faults but I don't think even her enemies call her 'a nasty bit of work', cybernat in overdrive there
Does 'liar' count as 'a nasty piece of work'? Because she's certainly the former.
Every politician lies at some stage, even nats
True. I bet they all sometimes want to go full on Jack Nicholson to us voters - “The Truth? You can’t handle the Truth!”
That looks like billions which could have been spent on the NHS.
The tax loss equates to somewhere around 85% of our net annual contribution to the EU.
So in that respect, you could say that the EU might be well on the way to making good the deficit to the their budget which would result from our leaving.
It is only one part of what will be lost, of course. Other businesses are also relocating. yet more that might otherwise have come here will not. All this is a direct and entirely predictable consequence of the red lines that May drew. Brexit was always going to mean less inward investment and fewer opportunities. May exacerbated it - cheered on by the swivel-eyed Buccaneers.
I'm mildly surprised the figures aren't being challenged (or dismissed) by the Buccaneers.
We've had reports for years that tax revenues are going to be damaged etc
While it may eventually be true the evidence so far is tax revenues coming in better than expected.
And what has clearly not happened is the 200,000+ job losses in the UK financial sector we were told would have happened by now.
Wollaston is just a ludicrous figure. Recall she actually campaigned for Leave and then had a Damascene conversion at the 11th hour and decided Leaving was literally insane even though she’d been campaigning for it for months.
She was so clearly a Cameroon cuckoo planted in the Leave nest, meant to explode Leave from within. It was mortifying. No doubt she did it because Cameron promised her some job after he’d won. Oh dear. That worked out well.
Wollaston summarizes everything wrong with our politics. She is as foolish and unprincipled as they come. And I readily confess brexit has revealed some utterly clueless morons on the Leave side as well.
Speaking from a hotel in sunny Bangkok it’s hard to get a grasp of where things are in Brexitland
Shall we do a round up of Pb-ers expected outcomes? Here are my latest thoughts, in descending order
1. Extension plus referendum: 30% 2. No deal crash Brexit, March 29: 25% 3. TMay deal passes (maybe after short extension): 20% 4. Extension plus GE: 15% 5. Revoke: 5% 6. Black Swan/Anglo-Chinese war: 5%
What do others think?
Who knows, but I'd probably put extension+GE on at least a comparable level to extension+referendum (reasoning: can be done in a shorter timescale, and - despite getting their fingers burnt last time - is less toxic than backing down on the vow not to hold one).
And I agree with you that No Deal is still very much on the table.
It is unquestionably a national humiliation. We have shown ourselves to be incompetent fantasists completely incapable of understanding how the world works and our place in it. But, of course, this is only the start. I hope I am around to see the mendacious fraudsters who foisted this on us held to account for their actions.
"National humiliation" ? Really - have you had French people pointing at you in the street and laughing ? Talk about first world problems..
Why does a national humiliation have to be personal? I do not feel humiliated by Brexit. I feel totally vindicated. But that is by the by and totally irrelevant to anything. There is no doubt that the UK's international standing has been severely harmed by the events of the last two and a bit years. If you do not want to accept that, so be it.
Wollaston is just a ludicrous figure. Recall she actually campaigned for Leave and then had a Damascene conversion at the 11th hour and decided Leaving was literally insane even though she’d been campaigning for it for months.
She was so clearly a Cameroon cuckoo planted in the Leave nest, meant to explode Leave from within. It was mortifying. No doubt she did it because Cameron promised her some job after he’d won. Oh dear. That worked out well.
Wollaston summarizes everything wrong with our politics. She is as foolish and unprincipled as they come. And I readily confess brexit has revealed some utterly clueless morons on the Leave side as well.
What did we do to deserve this?
If Carole Codswallop is looking for people to investigate regarding misleading the public then Wollaston should be at the front of the queue ahead of Arron Banks. There are plenty of incompetent MPs on both sides of the Brexit debate but none as dodgy as Wollaston.
Speaking from a hotel in sunny Bangkok it’s hard to get a grasp of where things are in Brexitland
Shall we do a round up of Pb-ers expected outcomes? Here are my latest thoughts, in descending order
1. Extension plus referendum: 30% 2. No deal crash Brexit, March 29: 25% 3. TMay deal passes (maybe after short extension): 20% 4. Extension plus GE: 15% 5. Revoke: 5% 6. Black Swan/Anglo-Chinese war: 5%
What do others think?
Last minute TM deal with fudge and a technical extension for the legislation 90% No deal 5% Remainer coup 5%
That looks like billions which could have been spent on the NHS.
The tax loss equates to somewhere around 85% of our net annual contribution to the EU.
So in that respect, you could say that the EU might be well on the way to making good the deficit to the their budget which would result from our leaving.
It is only one part of what will be lost, of course. Other businesses are also relocating. yet more that might otherwise have come here will not. All this is a direct and entirely predictable consequence of the red lines that May drew. Brexit was always going to mean less inward investment and fewer opportunities. May exacerbated it - cheered on by the swivel-eyed Buccaneers.
I'm mildly surprised the figures aren't being challenged (or dismissed) by the Buccaneers.
We've had reports for years that tax revenues are going to be damaged etc
While it may eventually be true the evidence so far is tax revenues coming in better than expected.
And what has clearly not happened is the 200,000+ job losses in the UK financial sector we were told would have happened by now.
And neither do we have countless free trade agreements with countries across the world or a deal with the EU that has all the benefits of membership and none of the downsides. Instead, we are less than three weeks from leaving on terms that absolutely no-one set out at the time of the referendum.
Wollaston is just a ludicrous figure. Recall she actually campaigned for Leave and then had a Damascene conversion at the 11th hour and decided Leaving was literally insane even though she’d been campaigning for it for months.
She was so clearly a Cameroon cuckoo planted in the Leave nest, meant to explode Leave from within. It was mortifying. No doubt she did it because Cameron promised her some job after he’d won. Oh dear. That worked out well.
Wollaston summarizes everything wrong with our politics. She is as foolish and unprincipled as they come. And I readily confess brexit has revealed some utterly clueless morons on the Leave side as well.
It is unquestionably a national humiliation. We have shown ourselves to be incompetent fantasists completely incapable of understanding how the world works and our place in it. But, of course, this is only the start. I hope I am around to see the mendacious fraudsters who foisted this on us held to account for their actions.
The true test of how much Corbynites want to be elected will be how much they take stock of the ceiling on JC's support, and how far they choose to move as a result.
McDonnell = "we're quite happy snarking from the sidelines and have no real interest in taking power" (although I think he'd be an improvement, it's still an angry old white guy who looks like he's fighting for more overtime at British Leyland)
Almost anyone else = at least a bit.
One of the current sceptics = now you're talking. They can dismiss them as Blairite traitors as much as they like, but a Cooper or even a Watson (both on a platform some way to the left of Blair's peak) would be waaaaay more electable.
Wollaston is just a ludicrous figure. Recall she actually campaigned for Leave and then had a Damascene conversion at the 11th hour and decided Leaving was literally insane even though she’d been campaigning for it for months.
She was so clearly a Cameroon cuckoo planted in the Leave nest, meant to explode Leave from within. It was mortifying. No doubt she did it because Cameron promised her some job after he’d won. Oh dear. That worked out well.
Wollaston summarizes everything wrong with our politics. She is as foolish and unprincipled as they come. And I readily confess brexit has revealed some utterly clueless morons on the Leave side as well.
What did we do to deserve this?
If Carole Codswallop is looking for people to investigate regarding misleading the public then Wollaston should be at the front of the queue ahead of Arron Banks. There are plenty of incompetent MPs on both sides of the Brexit debate but none as dodgy as Wollaston.
The mad Brexiters are still foaming as their utterly wretched project brings the country to the brink.
As far as I can tell, Ms Woollaston stared into the abyss of Brexit and then rather wisely stepped back.
That makes her smarter than every single Brexiter on this board including such luminaries as SeanT, Charles, and the great rcs1000 himself.
Looks like May will go for a "provisional" vote on the Codpiece solution rejected by the EU.
What's the point of that? I've just provisionally voted myself at GT2 RS. I expect Porsche will be on the phone at any minute to ask me what colour I want. (Renngelb)
Speaking from a hotel in sunny Bangkok it’s hard to get a grasp of where things are in Brexitland
Shall we do a round up of Pb-ers expected outcomes? Here are my latest thoughts, in descending order
1. Extension plus referendum: 30% 2. No deal crash Brexit, March 29: 25% 3. TMay deal passes (maybe after short extension): 20% 4. Extension plus GE: 15% 5. Revoke: 5% 6. Black Swan/Anglo-Chinese war: 5%
What do others think?
Last minute TM deal with fudge and a technical extension for the legislation 90% No deal 5% Remainer coup 5%
I would have said that - and I agree it's still in there - but I'm increasingly unsure of where the fudge or the votes are coming from. Tick tock.
Looks like May will go for a "provisional" vote on the Codpiece solution rejected by the EU.
You could not make it up if you were writing a comedy sketch. Where did they dig up that stupid buffoon Cox, he almost makes Grayling and company look good. How can their be so many stupid thick morons in the cabinet.
It is unquestionably a national humiliation. We have shown ourselves to be incompetent fantasists completely incapable of understanding how the world works and our place in it. But, of course, this is only the start. I hope I am around to see the mendacious fraudsters who foisted this on us held to account for their actions.
Speaking from a hotel in sunny Bangkok it’s hard to get a grasp of where things are in Brexitland
Shall we do a round up of Pb-ers expected outcomes? Here are my latest thoughts, in descending order
1. Extension plus referendum: 30% 2. No deal crash Brexit, March 29: 25% 3. TMay deal passes (maybe after short extension): 20% 4. Extension plus GE: 15% 5. Revoke: 5% 6. Black Swan/Anglo-Chinese war: 5%
What do others think?
1. Extension for future trade talks: 20% 2. Extension for Deal vs Remain referendum: 10% 3. No Deal Brexit, March 29th: 20% 4. No Deal Brexit, June 29th: 35% 5. May's Deal passes, whenever: 10% 6. Black Swan/Revoke: 5%
May is simultaneously a millstone dragging the Tory party into the depths and the only thing holding it together. Meanwhile, if Corbyn becomes Prime Minister I have real worries about the durability of our democratic institutions.
Wollaston is just a ludicrous figure. Recall she actually campaigned for Leave and then had a Damascene conversion at the 11th hour and decided Leaving was literally insane even though she’d been campaigning for it for months.
She was so clearly a Cameroon cuckoo planted in the Leave nest, meant to explode Leave from within. It was mortifying. No doubt she did it because Cameron promised her some job after he’d won. Oh dear. That worked out well.
Wollaston summarizes everything wrong with our politics. She is as foolish and unprincipled as they come. And I readily confess brexit has revealed some utterly clueless morons on the Leave side as well.
What did we do to deserve this?
Out of interest, who on the Leave side do you think has not been revealed as an utterly clueless moron? I guess Michael Gove has realised what an epically ridiculous prospectus he advocated - but he probably knew that all along.
On McDonnell, my main concern about him being a contender to succeed Corbyn is his age; he is only 2 years younger than Jezza. Mind you I've backed Biden, Bernie and Trump...
Comments
No. It's now leave or remain. If they want yo remain, perhaps just because or because her deal is not real Brexit, fine. But no more pussyfooting around about it.
"Corbyn's offer would simply be to resolve Brexit."
As I've said earlier. next door's cat could resolve Brexit by agreeing to whatever the EU want and ignoring the referendum result. But it doesn't resolve the real problem. Once you pick and choose what elections you can ignore, there's little point holding them.
Parliament should vote on No-deal versus Revoke as that is what all the huffing and puffing boils down to. This choice is entirely in our hands without reference to Brussels.
If you don't like the result, then I'm curious as to what democratic alternative you think would have produced something you're happier with.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1105028515043463168
Make what you will of that - crazy days
The problem for Brexiteers is that they were not listened to before. If we’d had votes on Maastricht or Lisbon we would not be fucked now. This site was one of the worst offenders.
I think I share Boles' firewalking proclivity when it comes to JRP.
The reason it is undeliverable is that there is no consensus in either parliament or the country what we actually want.
If there were, it would be entirely deliverable.
You have a point about Lisbon, though.
My view is May is pretty average, she bears some of the responsibility for the mess, but not a huge amount.
She is very tightly constrained by Parliamentary arithmetic in what she can do (I don't buy the argument that big hugs were all that was needed for a cross-party consensus to emerge).
For sure, May lost Cameron's majority (and she bears a lot of responsibility for that). But, she actually needs a majority of ~ 50 and Cameron's was never enough.
Would send a message to the EU - unless you flex on the deal it isn't passing.
Expressed professionally I actually agree with him
Brexit is only undeliverable if the government are not willing to crash the economy to do it.
Which is what Remainers said at the time of the vote. And thus they are vindicated...
The EU know it, and they are not going to flex. Where does that leave us?
Every headline, of course, has been written for the forthcoming leadership election. I fear there are too few Big-G's in the membership to stop Boris.
Their only hope is to blame voters for the mess and ask them to vote correctly this time. It might work, but I doubt it.
ERG and remainers have each attempted to sabotage a democratic vote, ERG because they are extreme and remainers who have refused to accept the referendum and have used influence throughout the EU to stop brexit
Just imagine if she was PM, under actual scrutiny. She opens her gob, and another PR gaffe jumps out.
She is just like Eric Joyce or Dan Jarvis or any of the other mushwits that the Guardian has bigged up in the past. She'll go the same way.
The lobby lists for that vote would be revealing and also career threatening for many MPs. So @kle4 is right – they don't have the guts to do that.
While it may eventually be true the evidence so far is tax revenues coming in better than expected.
Shall we do a round up of Pb-ers expected outcomes? Here are my latest thoughts, in descending order
1. Extension plus referendum: 30%
2. No deal crash Brexit, March 29: 25%
3. TMay deal passes (maybe after short extension): 20%
4. Extension plus GE: 15%
5. Revoke: 5%
6. Black Swan/Anglo-Chinese war: 5%
What do others think?
Incredible to see May floundering round trying to get a majority for a "Deal" which the EU won't or can't accept. It's embarrassing and humiliating but she seems obsessed with saving herself, the Conservative Party and her notion of "our precious Union" in that order.
Even this stupid idea doesn't take No Deal off the table in any form.
I suspect, as has so often been the case of late, this week will resolve very little. Assuming the WA fails again tomorrow, the A50 extension will get passed though not perhaps comfortably and we'll have little sense as to how long any extension might or might not be.
There does seem to be growing public support for leaving without a Deal on the 29th just to "get it over with" as people are weary of the prolonged agony of A50 and Brexit. No point trying to persuade them leaving without a Deal doesn't end the process either.
The MPs vote on the terms of the extension will be fun - I totes think that £ Billion for 3 months is well worth it and I commend that the taxpayer money to be sent to Brussels.
Labour want one .. and the EU probably think a new election can hardly produce greater deadlock.
If she wants an election, she can get it.
She was so clearly a Cameroon cuckoo planted in the Leave nest, meant to explode Leave from within. It was mortifying. No doubt she did it because Cameron promised her some job after he’d won. Oh dear. That worked out well.
Wollaston summarizes everything wrong with our politics. She is as foolish and unprincipled as they come. And I readily confess brexit has revealed some utterly clueless morons on the Leave side as well.
What did we do to deserve this?
Remainers did not draw Mrs May's red lines. Those are the biggest obstacle to a Brexit deal because they make the Irish border question unsolvable.
He isn't pro- or anti-imperial fantasies. He isn't pro- or anti-EU.
He's pro-Boris. That ambition is the sun around which everything else he says and does revolves. If he'd thought being pro-EU in the referendum would've helped his leadership prospects he would've campaigned for Remain.
And I agree with you that No Deal is still very much on the table.
No deal 5%
Remainer coup 5%
McDonnell = "we're quite happy snarking from the sidelines and have no real interest in taking power" (although I think he'd be an improvement, it's still an angry old white guy who looks like he's fighting for more overtime at British Leyland)
Almost anyone else = at least a bit.
One of the current sceptics = now you're talking. They can dismiss them as Blairite traitors as much as they like, but a Cooper or even a Watson (both on a platform some way to the left of Blair's peak) would be waaaaay more electable.
As far as I can tell, Ms Woollaston stared into the abyss of Brexit and then rather wisely stepped back.
That makes her smarter than every single Brexiter on this board including such luminaries as SeanT, Charles, and the great rcs1000 himself.
https://labourlist.org/2019/03/labour-should-back-stop-and-search-to-deal-with-knife-crime-say-labourlist-readers/
2. Extension for Deal vs Remain referendum: 10%
3. No Deal Brexit, March 29th: 20%
4. No Deal Brexit, June 29th: 35%
5. May's Deal passes, whenever: 10%
6. Black Swan/Revoke: 5%
May is simultaneously a millstone dragging the Tory party into the depths and the only thing holding it together. Meanwhile, if Corbyn becomes Prime Minister I have real worries about the durability of our democratic institutions.
Good job Tezzie.