What is remarkable about the EU decision is not that it elegantly allows May one more chance (while removing the immediate No Deal blackmail threat from her armoury), subject to a tight deadline, removes the possibility of any further can kicking on her part, while still leaving options open to Parliament... it is that a group of nations with differing interests managed to formulate and agree to so elegant a solution in so short a time.
And moreover displays a great deal of goodwill on their part.
Spot on. We may not like it, but as a political institution the EU 'works' in a way that our national politics doesn't. The senior EU politicians are all former European national leaders who have come up through PR systems where problem solving and compromise are their bread and butter.
Whereas ours are highly trained in shouting and heckling their counterparts sitting across the aisle.
And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?
Or just the bits of the result you like?
As fellow posters on both sides if the debate very correctly point out, the vote was to Remain or Leave the EU. Norway respects that result absolutely which is why I and others campaigned on that basis for Leave.
UK agriculture will be unaffected if (a) we grant work permits for temporary workers, (b) we agree tariffs at nil and (c)maintain regulatory equivalence until a trade deal is agreed. All of that seems extremely likely to me.
UK farms are too small and inefficient to compete against zero tariff imports. They will be out of business as fast as you can say turkey and Christmas.
They have survived in the EU with zero tariff imports. Gove has set out a support structure similar to what we have now initially albeit he has some better ideas going forward. These will probably have to go on the back burner to ensure regulatory equivalence to some extent.
Watched ITV News last night. Whoever thought to add to the catalogue of dire portmanteaus with 'Brextension' should be forced to watch 24 hours of Piers Morgan.
There's still my "Brexistential crisis" to come.....
Guardian:But it was a lack of confidence in the prime minister following her latest performance in front of the leaders that forced the EU’s member states to act to shore up against a no-deal Brexit and allow the British parliament time to take control.
That's a nice gloss:
'time to take control'
aka
'make their fecking minds up on how they circumvent the referendum result'.
Yes, MPs now need to rise to the challenge. They moaned at May's depiction of them Wednesday; well, they now have a few weeks to prove her wrong.
They need a leader, though. It being quite clear that neither May nor Corbyn even begin to meet that description.
The leadership will mostly come from the moderate Labour side (Cooper and Benn) with the thinking mostly from the moderate Conservative side (Letwin and Grieve)
And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?
Or just the bits of the result you like?
As fellow posters on both sides if the debate very correctly point out, the vote was to Remain or Leave the EU. Norway respects that result absolutely which is why I and others campaigned on that basis for Leave.
Norway is leaving the EU, the referendum question asked nothing else.
And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?
Or just the bits of the result you like?
FOM was supported by 48%, plus a small percentage of the 52%, so yes it does respect the result of the referendum.
Norway+ is the least stupid option, but rather does ask the question "why should we not have a say in writing the rules?" All roads lead back to the Treaty of Rome, because our current deal is the best deal.
And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?
Or just the bits of the result you like?
As fellow posters on both sides if the debate very correctly point out, the vote was to Remain or Leave the EU. Norway respects that result absolutely which is why I and others campaigned on that basis for Leave.
Norway is leaving the EU, the referendum question asked nothing else.
Yes - and people who were advocating no deal on the same basis presumably can't deny that fact...
I wonder whether we'll see MV3 now. Even May can see she'll be defeated again, and will be forced to climb down, and another big defeat does her no favours. She will be forced to eat humble pie and would be better going straight for some sort of indicative vote process directly; Lidlington's previous commitment gives her cover to claim that was what she always intended to do.
May has pretty much nailed her career to the deal and continued to do so last night. So what should really happen is that she holds MV3, it goes down by a long way (now that mostly everyone knows it's not just her deal or no deal at the end of the month), May then says ok it will need a new plan, that means a longer extension and EU parliament elections, I have to resign on principle and let Parliament get on with it.
What WILL happen is that she'll lose MV3, the EU will go "what's your new plan" and she'll just...not answer. Probably mumble something about MV4. Then we'll largely be back to where we were a couple of days ago with nobody really knowing what the hell is happening.
No, the PM's TV disaster and Lidlington's broken promise on the next step now gives Letwin/Cooper the extra votes they need to get over the line. The real question is whether the MPs have the political skills that the government lacks to now be able to craft a consensus out of the myriad of competing potential solutions.
I can answer that now. No.
Let's see. May's TV address gives them a challenge. So far they have been constrained and whipped to prevent them acting freely. The next couple of weeks will at least be more interesting than seeing the PM do and say the same thing over and over.
Will it? Parliament shows no signs of being able to agree on anything - save, of course, for not wanting Hard Brexit, but this assertion achieves absolutely nothing. Hard Brexit is the law, and will still be the law if the date is put back - it'll just happen on April 12 rather than March 29, that's all.
The Prime Minister's statement of the bleeding obvious from the other night - that MPs can't just keep on saying what they don't want, but need to make up their minds about what they do want - continues to apply. Can they agree on a single course of positive action? Absent a complete u-turn on the WA, this would require a Commons majority for either revocation, a Deal/Remain referendum, or a reasonably clear plan to negotiate an Andrex Soft Brexit, to magically appear in about the next five minutes, when such a thing has remained elusive for a thousand days.
Hard Brexit remains the default, and most likely, outcome.
If a loan shark gives a debtor a few more days to pay, it's because they want their money, not because they're kind and caring.
The UK would suffer significant turbulence if we left without any sort of transition/deal whatsoever. So would the EU. The EU acted simply in its own interest.
If a loan shark gives a debtor a few more days to pay, it's because they want their money, not because they're kind and caring.
The UK would suffer significant turbulence if we left without any sort of transition/deal whatsoever. So would the EU. The EU acted simply in its own interest.
I’ll put you down as a part on the (very small) polite subset of the paranoid Brexiteers, then, Mr,D.
What is remarkable about the EU decision is not that it elegantly allows May one more chance (while removing the immediate No Deal blackmail threat from her armoury), subject to a tight deadline, removes the possibility of any further can kicking on her part, while still leaving options open to Parliament... it is that a group of nations with differing interests managed to formulate and agree to so elegant a solution in so short a time.
And moreover displays a great deal of goodwill on their part.
Spot on. We may not like it, but as a political institution the EU 'works' in a way that our national politics doesn't. The senior EU politicians are all former European national leaders who have come up through PR systems where problem solving and compromise are their bread and butter.
Whereas ours are highly trained in shouting and heckling their counterparts sitting across the aisle.
if "working" means having somewhere between a quarter and a third of your electorate voting for extremists - and growing - then we might not wish to rush in to it
And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?
Or just the bits of the result you like?
As fellow posters on both sides if the debate very correctly point out, the vote was to Remain or Leave the EU. Norway respects that result absolutely which is why I and others campaigned on that basis for Leave.
Norway is leaving the EU, the referendum question asked nothing else.
If a loan shark gives a debtor a few more days to pay, it's because they want their money, not because they're kind and caring.
The UK would suffer significant turbulence if we left without any sort of transition/deal whatsoever. So would the EU. The EU acted simply in its own interest.
Such a shame May folded the cards and stubbornly refused to choose a path.
Had a path been chosen like Gove advised this would have all been much smoother.
Gove was co-convener of the Vofe Leave campaign committee. Vote Leave’s campaign literature appeared to rule out a leaving without a deal. Accordingly any advice Gove gave, unless he was not fully behind his own campaign’s view on this, would presumably rule out the hard man no-dealer approach you have been advocating. I fail to see how any path Gove, who pointedly remains in cabinet, would significantly differ from the one taken.
It's ridiculous to say anyone could have done better: Brexit is a mess, and would have been a mess whoever was in charge of negotiations. The sides are too far apart for any meaningful compromise to be easily reached.
Give would have faced just as many problems as May; they might have been different problems, but problems nonetheless.
And the reason the sides are so far apart? The leave campaigns who lied about Brexit, and promised everything to everyone.
It'd be good for leavers to take some responsibility instead of pathetically moaning: "If my person was in charge it would have been different!"
May’s red lines created the mess. She drew them because she prioritised positive headlines in the right wing press over the national interest. The red lines created the backstop. Would Gove have been as needy, as insecure and as stupid as May? Possibly not. But he has supported her all the way.
I'm far from convinced that's the case: there was a vote to leave, and she believed that that vote needed to be respected.
Like our MPs SO knows what he's against (May's red lines) but its less clear what he is for, that would both respect the referendum result and try to balance the conflicting desires of Leave & Remain voters.
I think the EU deal does that - control of our laws & immigration (Leave voters top 2 motivations), while minimising the impact the consequences of that have on the economy (Remain voters #1 motivation).
Truth is, there is no available Brexit that delivers on Leave demands. If there were, we would be onto it by now. We won't "take control", save money, or get the EU out of our lives. We have been able to reduce immigration by making the UK a lot less desirable to migrants with marketable skills. Not really "control" and we didn't have to leave the EU to do it.
The Leave campaign lied and voters bought the snake oil. They are going through a slow and painful discovery about what they voted for.
And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?
Or just the bits of the result you like?
As fellow posters on both sides if the debate very correctly point out, the vote was to Remain or Leave the EU. Norway respects that result absolutely which is why I and others campaigned on that basis for Leave.
Norway is leaving the EU, the referendum question asked nothing else.
We do not often agree but you are right on this though TM's deal does provide the WDA that is fundamental to leaving and Norway or anything else follows on negotiation
Guardian:But it was a lack of confidence in the prime minister following her latest performance in front of the leaders that forced the EU’s member states to act to shore up against a no-deal Brexit and allow the British parliament time to take control.
That's a nice gloss:
'time to take control'
aka
'make their fecking minds up on how they circumvent the referendum result'.
Yes, MPs now need to rise to the challenge. They moaned at May's depiction of them Wednesday; well, they now have a few weeks to prove her wrong.
They need a leader, though. It being quite clear that neither May nor Corbyn even begin to meet that description.
The leadership will mostly come from the moderate Labour side (Cooper and Benn) with the thinking mostly from the moderate Conservative side (Letwin and Grieve)
Just because someone agrees with your position does not make them moderate. In this situation Dominic Grieve is not the moderate.
And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?
Or just the bits of the result you like?
FOM was supported by 48%, plus a small percentage of the 52%, so yes it does respect the result of the referendum.
Norway+ is the least stupid option, but rather does ask the question "why should we not have a say in writing the rules?" All roads lead back to the Treaty of Rome, because our current deal is the best deal.
Germany ++ (aka the current deal) is preferable from an economic point of view, but to maintain that would require a second vote.
Norway + has two key features, it avoids the political project and does the least harm compatible with 2016.
For those off to work who don't have time to listen and want a quick precis; Mrs May and the Tory Party are completely screwed......
It's all in the polls...
You're right, being only 4% ahead of the shambolic incompetent shambles that is the Corbyn led Labour party shows their support is weak. If Labour got a competent or credible leader they would be in terrible trouble.
But Labour can't. If Corbyn goes, somebody very much worse - Long-Bailey, Macdonnell, Pidcock, Burgon - is likely to replace him.
That's why, extraordinarily, the Tories are still value for the next election. Their next leader is (a) likely to get a honeymoon by not being May, (b) most unlikely to be completely crazy (c) will probably get a loud sigh of of relief from most of the PCP, unlike Labour where Corbyn continues to have the support of only about 25% of MPs and (d) will almost certainly call an immediate election. That's even leaving aside Labour's ongoing narrow support base which makes their vote very inefficient.
Whether that is a good thing for anybody is another question. Expect a wipeout in 2024 if this plays out and Labour finally come to their senses. But it still seems more plausible (sorry) than the alternatives.
And amid the noise the Tories took a council seat off Labour in Thurrock last night. Which is remarkable against the national backdrop.
Was the council seat in Thurrock an independent group seat that was previously UKIP?
And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?
Or just the bits of the result you like?
As fellow posters on both sides if the debate very correctly point out, the vote was to Remain or Leave the EU. Norway respects that result absolutely which is why I and others campaigned on that basis for Leave.
Norway is leaving the EU, the referendum question asked nothing else.
And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?
Or just the bits of the result you like?
As fellow posters on both sides if the debate very correctly point out, the vote was to Remain or Leave the EU. Norway respects that result absolutely which is why I and others campaigned on that basis for Leave.
Norway is leaving the EU, the referendum question asked nothing else.
We do not often agree but you are right on this though TM's deal does provide the WDA that is fundamental to leaving and Norway or anything else follows on negotiation
We agree on most things, we strongly disagree on the role May has played.
And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?
Or just the bits of the result you like?
As fellow posters on both sides if the debate very correctly point out, the vote was to Remain or Leave the EU. Norway respects that result absolutely which is why I and others campaigned on that basis for Leave.
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
But I don't recall 'We can LEAVE and keep FoM' featuring prominently, or indeed at all, in the Leave campaign.
Re Garuda and all the ill informed speculation here. It’s a convenient excuse for massive overcapacity, drastically poor management, liquidity constraints and the inability to make a profit even when airline economics should be so strong. The return of the PDPs might allow them to cure defaults. Convienetly politically helpful for the Indonesian government
In the pub last night, Brexit came up and even I was surprised by the vitriol against MPs. It came from Remainers and Labour supporters too. Mrs May has hurt the little darlings' feelings but she should have stuck to her guns. May took plenty of criticism too, but the bulk was reserved for MPs.
No one defended them. I assume they must have a fan club somewhere in the South of England or possibly Scotland.
"'If the Empire lasts a thousand years men will say, 'this was not their finest hour'."
For those off to work who don't have time to listen and want a quick precis; Mrs May and the Tory Party are completely screwed......
It's all in the polls...
You're right, being only 4% ahead of the shambolic incompetent shambles that is the Corbyn led Labour party shows their support is weak. If Labour got a competent or credible leader they would be in terrible trouble.
But Labour can't. If Corbyn goes, somebody very much worse - Long-Bailey, Macdonnell, Pidcock, Burgon - is likely to replace him.
That's why, extraordinarily, the Tories are still value for the next election. Their next leader is (a) likely to get a honeymoon by not being May, (b) most unlikely to be completely crazy (c) will probably get a loud sigh of of relief from most of the PCP, unlike Labour where Corbyn continues to have the support of only about 25% of MPs and (d) will almost certainly call an immediate election. That's even leaving aside Labour's ongoing narrow support base which makes their vote very inefficient.
Whether that is a good thing for anybody is another question. Expect a wipeout in 2024 if this plays out and Labour finally come to their senses. But it still seems more plausible (sorry) than the alternatives.
And amid the noise the Tories took a council seat off Labour in Thurrock last night. Which is remarkable against the national backdrop.
No they gained it from Thurrock Independents (TPFKAUKIP).
For those off to work who don't have time to listen and want a quick precis; Mrs May and the Tory Party are completely screwed......
It's all in the polls...
You're right, being only 4% ahead of the shambolic incompetent shambles that is the Corbyn led Labour party shows their support is weak. If Labour got a competent or credible leader they would be in terrible trouble.
But Labour can't. If Corbyn goes, somebody very much worse - Long-Bailey, Macdonnell, Pidcock, Burgon - is likely to replace him.
That's why, extraordinarily, the Tories are still value for the next election. Their next leader is (a) likely to get a honeymoon by not being May, (b) most unlikely to be completely crazy (c) will probably get a loud sigh of of relief from most of the PCP, unlike Labour where Corbyn continues to have the support of only about 25% of MPs and (d) will almost certainly call an immediate election. That's even leaving aside Labour's ongoing narrow support base which makes their vote very inefficient.
Whether that is a good thing for anybody is another question. Expect a wipeout in 2024 if this plays out and Labour finally come to their senses. But it still seems more plausible (sorry) than the alternatives.
Can you explain how a hard leftwinger gets on the ballot?
It is not what I wanted but there is a majority for Norway. Neither party leaders wants it Corbyn as it robs him of a chaotic change of government and May as it turns her into a party splitting figure like Peel.
So for the first time MPs will have to have the stones to break cover. Will they? Looks more possible now perhaps.
And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?
Or just the bits of the result you like?
As fellow posters on both sides if the debate very correctly point out, the vote was to Remain or Leave the EU. Norway respects that result absolutely which is why I and others campaigned on that basis for Leave.
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
But I don't recall 'We can LEAVE and keep FoM' featuring prominently, or indeed at all, in the Leave campaign.
Lots of mendacious bullshit and xenophobic guff was uttered in the campaign. Who cares? There was nothing about FOM on the ballot.
Richard is right, and has been consistently right on this point from the outset.
For those off to work who don't have time to listen and want a quick precis; Mrs May and the Tory Party are completely screwed......
It's all in the polls...
You're right, being only 4% ahead of the shambolic incompetent shambles that is the Corbyn led Labour party shows their support is weak. If Labour got a competent or credible leader they would be in terrible trouble.
But Labour can't. If Corbyn goes, somebody very much worse - Long-Bailey, Macdonnell, Pidcock, Burgon - is likely to replace him.
That's why, extraordinarily, the Tories are still value for the next election. Their next leader is (a) likely to get a honeymoon by not being May, (b) most unlikely to be completely crazy (c) will probably get a loud sigh of of relief from most of the PCP, unlike Labour where Corbyn continues to have the support of only about 25% of MPs and (d) will almost certainly call an immediate election. That's even leaving aside Labour's ongoing narrow support base which makes their vote very inefficient.
Whether that is a good thing for anybody is another question. Expect a wipeout in 2024 if this plays out and Labour finally come to their senses. But it still seems more plausible (sorry) than the alternatives.
And amid the noise the Tories took a council seat off Labour in Thurrock last night. Which is remarkable against the national backdrop.
No they gained it from Thurrock Independents (TPFKAUKIP).
Yup. Just gone back to 2002. Labour don’t appear to have ever won the ward, but have been in front of the tories a number of times. Had a very strong UKIP presence from about 2010, and seemed to have stayed UKIP (and their new independent group who all resigned from UKIP) since then. First time tories have won the seat since about 2011. A very good result for the conservatives. It could have gone either way.
Last nights agreement by the EU has an important aspect that does need to be understood.
The 12th April cut off date if TM deal falls is little more than 14 days away and in order for any extension to be agreed beyond we have to take part in the EU elections
In order to do so HMG has to lay enabling legislation for us to take part and that has to pass into law by the 12th April.
I would suggest that in everyone's deliberations going forward this needs to be taken into consideration, particularly as ERG and others will fight the concept tooth and claw that we should be in the new EU Parliament
Therefore, without this passing an extension for a GE or a referendum extinguishes on the 12th April and that is the reality of these options. The EU lawyers have made it clear that if we were still in the EU after the 12th April and without representation, then all laws made by the new EU Parliament would be struck down by the ECJ as void. Now isn't that ironic
TM issues all but an apology last night to the HOC over her statement from no 10 which she said was due to her frustrations, but the HOC needs to grow up and put that behind them.
Tomorrows march for a referendum is now pointless as it is not possible and, no doubt, many in that movement, who consider they are academically superior to leavers, have swung behind revoke as per the 2 million plus signatures on the e petition, but I believe that is by far the most unlikely end state
To sum up and IMHO the choices are now - deal - no deal - amended deal i.e. Norway +
Such a shame May folded the cards and stubbornly refused to choose a path.
Had a path been chosen like Gove advised this would have all been much smoother.
Gove was co-convener of the Vofe Leave campaign committee. Vote Leave’s campaign literature appeared to rule out a leaving without a deal. Accordingly any advice Gove gave, unless he was not fully behind his own campaign’s view on this, would presumably rule out the hard man no-dealer approach you have been advocating. I fail to see how any path Gove, who pointedly remains in cabinet, would significantly differ from the one taken.
It's ridiculous to say anyone could have done better: Brexit is a mess, and would have been a mess whoever was in charge of negotiations. The sides are too far apart for any meaningful compromise to be easily reached.
Give would have faced just as many problems as May; they might have been different problems, but problems nonetheless.
And the reason the sides are so far apart? The leave campaigns who lied about Brexit, and promised everything to everyone.
It'd be good for leavers to take some responsibility instead of pathetically moaning: "If my person was in charge it would have been different!"
She drew them because she prioritised positive headlines in the right wing press over the national interest.
She drew them because she identified what had motivated LEAVE voters to the horror of their bien pensant betters.
And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?
Or just the bits of the result you like?
As fellow posters on both sides if the debate very correctly point out, the vote was to Remain or Leave the EU. Norway respects that result absolutely which is why I and others campaigned on that basis for Leave.
Norway is leaving the EU, the referendum question asked nothing else.
We do not often agree but you are right on this though TM's deal does provide the WDA that is fundamental to leaving and Norway or anything else follows on negotiation
We agree on most things, we strongly disagree on the role May has played.
It is good to agree Jonathan and I do not see TM as faultless in all of this
I suspect we'll not agree, but it seems to be an odd definition. We voted to leave. As it happens, there are one or two services, I'd like to keep, but that's only my opinion. You can't define 'leave' as you like if you mean staying on the same terms by another name and paying the same amount. I wish you well in pursuing that argument.
Such a shame May folded the cards and stubbornly refused to choose a path.
Had a path been chosen like Gove advised this would have all been much smoother.
Gove was co-convener of the Vofe Leave campaign committee. Vote Leave’s campaign literature appeared to rule out a leaving without a deal. Accordingly any advice Gove gave, unless he was not fully behind his own campaign’s view on this, would presumably rule out the hard man no-dealer approach you have been advocating. I fail to see how any path Gove, who pointedly remains in cabinet, would significantly differ from the one taken.
It's ridiculous to say anyone could have done better: Brexit is a mess, and would have been a mess whoever was in charge of negotiations. The sides are too far apart for any meaningful compromise to be easily reached.
Give would have faced just as many problems as May; they might have been different problems, but problems nonetheless.
And the reason the sides are so far apart? The leave campaigns who lied about Brexit, and promised everything to everyone.
It'd be good for leavers to take some responsibility instead of pathetically moaning: "If my person was in charge it would have been different!"
She drew them because she prioritised positive headlines in the right wing press over the national interest.
She drew them because she identified what had motivated LEAVE voters to the horror of their bien pensant betters.
Last nights agreement by the EU has an important aspect that does need to be understood.
The 12th April cut off date if TM deal falls is little more than 14 days away and in order for any extension to be agreed beyond we have to take part in the EU elections
In order to do so HMG has to lay enabling legislation for us to take part and that has to pass into law by the 12th April.
I would suggest that in everyone's deliberations going forward this needs to be taken into consideration, particularly as ERG and others will fight the concept tooth and claw that we should be in the new EU Parliament
Therefore, without this passing an extension for a GE or a referendum extinguishes on the 12th April and that is the reality of these options. The EU lawyers have made it clear that if we were still in the EU after the 12th April and without representation, then all laws made by the new EU Parliament would be struck down by the ECJ as void. Now isn't that ironic
TM issues all but an apology last night to the HOC over her statement from no 10 which she said was due to her frustrations, but the HOC needs to grow up and put that behind them.
Tomorrows march for a referendum is now pointless as it is not possible and, no doubt, many in that movement, who consider they are academically superior to leavers, have swung behind revoke as per the 2 million plus signatures on the e petition, but I believe that is by far the most unlikely end state
To sum up and IMHO the choices are now - deal - no deal - amended deal i.e. Norway +
Such a shame May folded the cards and stubbornly refused to choose a path.
Had a path been chosen like Gove advised this would have all been much smoother.
Gove was co-convener of the Vofe Leave campaign committee. Vote Leave’s campaign literature appeared to rule out a leaving without a deal. Accordingly any advice Gove gave, unless he was not fully behind his own campaign’s view on this, would presumably rule out the hard man no-dealer approach you have been advocating. I fail to see how any path Gove, who pointedly remains in cabinet, would significantly differ from the one taken.
It's ridiculous to say anyone could have done better: Brexit is a mess, and would have been a mess whoever was in charge of negotiations. The sides are too far apart for any meaningful compromise to be easily reached.
Give would have faced just as many problems as May; they might have been different problems, but problems nonetheless.
And the reason the sides are so far apart? The leave campaigns who lied about Brexit, and promised everything to everyone.
It'd be good for leavers to take some responsibility instead of pathetically moaning: "If my person was in charge it would have been different!"
She drew them because she prioritised positive headlines in the right wing press over the national interest.
She drew them because she identified what had motivated LEAVE voters to the horror of their bien pensant betters.
And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?
Or just the bits of the result you like?
As fellow posters on both sides if the debate very correctly point out, the vote was to Remain or Leave the EU. Norway respects that result absolutely which is why I and others campaigned on that basis for Leave.
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
But I don't recall 'We can LEAVE and keep FoM' featuring prominently, or indeed at all, in the Leave campaign.
Lots of mendacious bullshit and xenophobic guff was uttered in the campaign. Who cares? There was nothing about FOM on the ballot.
Richard is right, and has been consistently right on this point from the outset.
Absolutely right. The obligation from the referendum was to no longer be a member of the European Member. The EU and the UK have a very clear definition of a member, we could have a relationship as deep as an ocean in which we were all but members like Switzerland , or we could have no more association with the EU than say we have with South Korea. Both fulfil the referendum.
What is pernicious is the way that the current WA which sets the tone for a very shallow future relationship (which is still open enough to be negotiated in any direction at the next stage) is presented as BINO. Which it most certainly is not.
In the pub last night, Brexit came up and even I was surprised by the vitriol against MPs. It came from Remainers and Labour supporters too. Mrs May has hurt the little darlings' feelings but she should have stuck to her guns. May took plenty of criticism too, but the bulk was reserved for MPs.
No one defended them. I assume they must have a fan club somewhere in the South of England or possibly Scotland.
"'If the Empire lasts a thousand years men will say, 'this was not their finest hour'."
Yebbut so what? She can't appeal to the voters over the heads of the MPs unless she gives the people a vote.
For those off to work who don't have time to listen and want a quick precis; Mrs May and the Tory Party are completely screwed......
It's all in the polls...
You're right, being only 4% ahead of the shambolic incompetent shambles that is the Corbyn led Labour party shows their support is weak. If Labour got a competent or credible leader they would be in terrible trouble.
But Labour can't. If Corbyn goes, somebody very much worse - Long-Bailey, Macdonnell, Pidcock, Burgon - is likely to replace him.
That's why, extraordinarily, the Tories are still value for the next election. Their next leader is (a) likely to get a honeymoon by not being May, (b) most unlikely to be completely crazy (c) will probably get a loud sigh of of relief from most of the PCP, unlike Labour where Corbyn continues to have the support of only about 25% of MPs and (d) will almost certainly call an immediate election. That's even leaving aside Labour's ongoing narrow support base which makes their vote very inefficient.
Whether that is a good thing for anybody is another question. Expect a wipeout in 2024 if this plays out and Labour finally come to their senses. But it still seems more plausible (sorry) than the alternatives.
And amid the noise the Tories took a council seat off Labour in Thurrock last night. Which is remarkable against the national backdrop.
No they gained it from Thurrock Independents (TPFKAUKIP).
Yup. Just gone back to 2002. Labour don’t appear to have ever won the ward, but have been in front of the tories a number of times. Had a very strong UKIP presence from about 2010, and seemed to have stayed UKIP (and their new independent group who all resigned from UKIP) since then. First time tories have won the seat since about 2011. A very good result for the conservatives. It could have gone either way.
It says so much about the site that no one has actually commented on WHO won that by-election as opposed to which party. I expect that might have had a bit to do with the result.
Full disclosure, this has just been pointed out to me by isam by email. I wouldn't have spotted it either.
It is not what I wanted but there is a majority for Norway. Neither party leaders wants it Corbyn as it robs him of a chaotic change of government and May as it turns her into a party splitting figure like Peel.
So for the first time MPs will have to have the stones to break cover. Will they? Looks more possible now perhaps.
Last nights agreement by the EU has an important aspect that does need to be understood.
The 12th April cut off date if TM deal falls is little more than 14 days away and in order for any extension to be agreed beyond we have to take part in the EU elections
In order to do so HMG has to lay enabling legislation for us to take part and that has to pass into law by the 12th April.
I would suggest that in everyone's deliberations going forward this needs to be taken into consideration, particularly as ERG and others will fight the concept tooth and claw that we should be in the new EU Parliament
Therefore, without this passing an extension for a GE or a referendum extinguishes on the 12th April and that is the reality of these options. The EU lawyers have made it clear that if we were still in the EU after the 12th April and without representation, then all laws made by the new EU Parliament would be struck down by the ECJ as void. Now isn't that ironic
TM issues all but an apology last night to the HOC over her statement from no 10 which she said was due to her frustrations, but the HOC needs to grow up and put that behind them.
Tomorrows march for a referendum is now pointless as it is not possible and, no doubt, many in that movement, who consider they are academically superior to leavers, have swung behind revoke as per the 2 million plus signatures on the e petition, but I believe that is by far the most unlikely end state
To sum up and IMHO the choices are now - deal - no deal - amended deal i.e. Norway +
Or revoke.
I did cover that in my penultimate paragraph but yes it is possible but very unlikely
I suspect we'll not agree, but it seems to be an odd definition. We voted to leave. As it happens, there are one or two services, I'd like to keep, but that's only my opinion. You can't define 'leave' as you like if you mean staying on the same terms by another name and paying the same amount. I wish you well in pursuing that argument.
CD13: happy to define leave how they like to keep the bits of EU they like Also CD13: you can't define leave how you like to keep the bits of the EU you like
I suspect we'll not agree, but it seems to be an odd definition. We voted to leave. As it happens, there are one or two services, I'd like to keep, but that's only my opinion. You can't define 'leave' as you like if you mean staying on the same terms by another name and paying the same amount. I wish you well in pursuing that argument.
Or just stop using the referendum as a grant of a wish from the genie of the lamp, and actually put a programme together that can get through a general election. Revoke now and come back later and get a mandate for what you want.
For those off to work who don't have time to listen and want a quick precis; Mrs May and the Tory Party are completely screwed......
It's all in the polls...
You're right, being only 4% ahead of the shambolic incompetent shambles that is the Corbyn led Labour party shows their support is weak. If Labour got a competent or credible leader they would be in terrible trouble.
But Labour can't. If Corbyn goes, somebody very much worse - Long-Bailey, Macdonnell, Pidcock, Burgon - is likely to replace him.
That's why, extraordinarily, the Tories are still value for the next election. Their next leader is (a) likely to get a honeymoon by not being May, (b) most unlikely to be completely crazy (c) will probably get a loud sigh of of relief from most of the PCP, unlike Labour where Corbyn continues to have the support of only about 25% of MPs and (d) will almost certainly call an immediate election. That's even leaving aside Labour's ongoing narrow support base which makes their vote very inefficient.
Whether that is a good thing for anybody is another question. Expect a wipeout in 2024 if this plays out and Labour finally come to their senses. But it still seems more plausible (sorry) than the alternatives.
And amid the noise the Tories took a council seat off Labour in Thurrock last night. Which is remarkable against the national backdrop.
No they gained it from Thurrock Independents (TPFKAUKIP).
Yup. Just gone back to 2002. Labour don’t appear to have ever won the ward, but have been in front of the tories a number of times. Had a very strong UKIP presence from about 2010, and seemed to have stayed UKIP (and their new independent group who all resigned from UKIP) since then. First time tories have won the seat since about 2011. A very good result for the conservatives. It could have gone either way.
It says so much about the site that no one has actually commented on WHO won that by-election as opposed to which party. I expect that might have had a bit to do with the result.
Full disclosure, this has just been pointed out to me by isam by email. I wouldn't have spotted it either.
Ah, a celebrity___ that can make a difference, though it never helped poor Eddie Izzard.
I wonder whether we'll see MV3 now. Even May can see she'll be defeated again, and will be forced to climb down, and another big defeat does her no favours. She will be forced to eat humble pie and would be better going straight for some sort of indicative vote process directly; Lidlington's previous commitment gives her cover to claim that was what she always intended to do.
Yes, everyone's assuming it's going to come back for another vote, but I don't see how Bercow allows it. There have been no substantive changes to the motion.
The circumstances have changed which he can choose to say makes it permissible, its allowed. It's not going to pass he has nothing to worry about, but may also has no choice since the one helpful thing the EU did was essentially say she cannot delay her vote the whole 2 weeks.
For those off to work who don't have time to listen and want a quick precis; Mrs May and the Tory Party are completely screwed......
It's all in the polls...
You're right, being only 4% ahead of the shambolic incompetent shambles that is the Corbyn led Labour party shows their support is weak. If Labour got a competent or credible leader they would be in terrible trouble.
But Labour can't. If Corbyn goes, somebody very much worse - Long-Bailey, Macdonnell, Pidcock, Burgon - is likely to replace him.
That's why, extraordinarily, the Tories are still value for the next election. Their next leader is (a) likely to get a honeymoon by not being May, (b) most unlikely to be completely crazy (c) will probably get a loud sigh of of relief from most of the PCP, unlike Labour where Corbyn continues to have the support of only about 25% of MPs and (d) will almost certainly call an immediate election. That's even leaving aside Labour's ongoing narrow support base which makes their vote very inefficient.
Whether that is a good thing for anybody is another question. Expect a wipeout in 2024 if this plays out and Labour finally come to their senses. But it still seems more plausible (sorry) than the alternatives.
And amid the noise the Tories took a council seat off Labour in Thurrock last night. Which is remarkable against the national backdrop.
No they gained it from Thurrock Independents (TPFKAUKIP).
Yup. Just gone back to 2002. Labour don’t appear to have ever won the ward, but have been in front of the tories a number of times. Had a very strong UKIP presence from about 2010, and seemed to have stayed UKIP (and their new independent group who all resigned from UKIP) since then. First time tories have won the seat since about 2011. A very good result for the conservatives. It could have gone either way.
It says so much about the site that no one has actually commented on WHO won that by-election as opposed to which party. I expect that might have had a bit to do with the result.
Full disclosure, this has just been pointed out to me by isam by email. I wouldn't have spotted it either.
Well well. Clearly Tory policy is to join not the Euro, but Dollar.
And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?
Or just the bits of the result you like?
As fellow posters on both sides if the debate very correctly point out, the vote was to Remain or Leave the EU. Norway respects that result absolutely which is why I and others campaigned on that basis for Leave.
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
But I don't recall 'We can LEAVE and keep FoM' featuring prominently, or indeed at all, in the Leave campaign.
Lots of mendacious bullshit and xenophobic guff was uttered in the campaign. Who cares? There was nothing about FOM on the ballot.
Richard is right, and has been consistently right on this point from the outset.
I'm in favour of FoM and wish we weren't leaving - but worry what doing/keeping either will do to our democracy.
But by all means - ignore what voters want and see where that gets you.
Such a shame May folded the cards and stubbornly refused to choose a path.
Had a path been chosen like Gove advised this would have all been much smoother.
Gove was co-convener of the Vofe Leave campaign committee. Vote Leave’s campaign literature appeared to rule out a leaving without a deal. Accordingly any advice Gove gave, unless he was not fully behind his own campaign’s view on this, would presumably rule out the hard man no-dealer approach you have been advocating. I fail to see how any path Gove, who pointedly remains in cabinet, would significantly differ from the one taken.
It's ridiculous to say anyone could have done better: Brexit is a mess, and would have been a mess whoever was in charge of negotiations. The sides are too far apart for any meaningful compromise to be easily reached.
Give would have faced just as many problems as May; they might have been different problems, but problems nonetheless.
And the reason the sides are so far apart? The leave campaigns who lied about Brexit, and promised everything to everyone.
It'd be good for leavers to take some responsibility instead of pathetically moaning: "If my person was in charge it would have been different!"
Norway is a meaningful compromise, which could have been, and might just still be reached.
It would mean pissing off most people, but to a lesser extent overall than any other likely solution.
Norway does everything except deliver on the mandate obtained, which was an anti-immigration platform.
EU immigration to the UK has fallen since the referendum anyway so Norway Plus is an option now
Such a shame May folded the cards and stubbornly refused to choose a path.
Had a path been chosen like Gove advised this would have all been much smoother.
Gove was co-convener of the Vofe Leave campaign committee. Vote Leave’s campaign literature appeared to rule out a leaving without a deal. Accordingly any advice Gove gave, unless he was not fully behind his own campaign’s view on this, would presumably rule out the hard man no-dealer approach you have been advocating. I fail to see how any path Gove, who pointedly remains in cabinet, would significantly differ from the one taken.
It's ridiculous to say anyone could have done better: Brexit is a mess, and would have been a mess whoever was in charge of negotiations. The sides are too far apart for any meaningful compromise to be easily reached.
Give would have faced just as many problems as May; they might have been different problems, but problems nonetheless.
And the reason the sides are so far apart? The leave campaigns who lied about Brexit, and promised everything to everyone.
It'd be good for leavers to take some responsibility instead of pathetically moaning: "If my person was in charge it would have been different!"
She drew them because she prioritised positive headlines in the right wing press over the national interest.
She drew them because she identified what had motivated LEAVE voters to the horror of their bien pensant betters.
There are plenty of compromises in the Deal - which is why the absolutists of the ERG have trashed, what is in fact, a pretty good deal. But if you think voters will think retaining FoM respects the result of the referendum you're a bigger optimist than I am.
And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?
Or just the bits of the result you like?
As fellow posters on both sides if the debate very correctly point out, the vote was to Remain or Leave the EU. Norway respects that result absolutely which is why I and others campaigned on that basis for Leave.
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
But I don't recall 'We can LEAVE and keep FoM' featuring prominently, or indeed at all, in the Leave campaign.
Lots of mendacious bullshit and xenophobic guff was uttered in the campaign. Who cares? There was nothing about FOM on the ballot.
Richard is right, and has been consistently right on this point from the outset.
I'm in favour of FoM and wish we weren't leaving - but worry what doing/keeping either will do to our democracy.
But by all means - ignore what voters want and see where that gets you.
If Labour pushes Norway, it risks pissing off those Remainers who don't want to Leave at all, and those of its Leavers who hadn't realised Labour was pushing to allow Romanian beggars to continue to travel to the UK....
I'm trying to be objective, even if I'm probably failing. Very few people would define leaving a club as staying in, using the facilities and paying the same amount.
Now, trying to be open-minded. if there is an appetite to retain some select bits (despite the EU shout of "No cherry-picking), that could be asked in a second referendum where the question is "Should we leave with no extras and no extra costs or should we ask for this and offer to pay the going rate?"
As you see I'm no politician, and I'm ignoring party politics. That's why it sounds so strange. However, our MPs ...
Such a shame May folded the cards and stubbornly refused to choose a path.
Had a path been chosen like Gove advised this would have all been much smoother.
Gove was co-convener of the Vofe Leave campaign committee. Vote Leave’s campaign literature appeared to rule out a leaving without a deal. Accordingly any advice Gove gave, unless he was not fully behind his own campaign’s view on this, would presumably rule out the hard man no-dealer approach you have been advocating. I fail to see how any path Gove, who pointedly remains in cabinet, would significantly differ from the one taken.
It's ridiculous to say anyone could have done better: Brexit is a mess, and would have been a mess whoever was in charge of negotiations. The sides are too far apart for any meaningful compromise to be easily reached.
Give would have faced just as many problems as May; they might have been different problems, but problems nonetheless.
And the reason the sides are so far apart? The leave campaigns who lied about Brexit, and promised everything to everyone.
It'd be good for leavers to take some responsibility instead of pathetically moaning: "If my person was in charge it would have been different!"
She drew them because she prioritised positive headlines in the right wing press over the national interest.
She drew them because she identified what had motivated LEAVE voters to the horror of their bien pensant betters.
There are plenty of compromises in the Deal - which is why the absolutists of the ERG have trashed, what is in fact, a pretty good deal. But if you think voters will think retaining FoM respects the result of the referendum you're a bigger optimist than I am.
By which you mean leave voters.
Evidently some of the do believe exactly that - and retainers would be quite happy with it. So, probably a majority of the electorate.
And parse it how you will, all that the ballot called for was leaving the EU. Norway does that.
"Respects" has become the most grossly abused term in politics.
Ho hum another 3 weeks of these bozos faffing about
Yes unfortunately. Given they will all believe they can get what they want in those 3 weeks that ensures MV3 is lost, so were back to hoping parliament can this time come up with something. At least the EU have demanded the deal be voted on next week so that it can be ruled out.
It could all be done in a day. Vote vote vote until a majority is reached. That's not rushed they've had months.
I'm trying to be objective, even if I'm probably failing. Very few people would define leaving a club as staying in, using the facilities and paying the same amount.
Now, trying to be open-minded. if there is an appetite to retain some select bits (despite the EU shout of "No cherry-picking), that could be asked in a second referendum where the question is "Should we leave with no extras and no extra costs or should we ask for this and offer to pay the going rate?"
As you see I'm no politician, and I'm ignoring party politics. That's why it sounds so strange. However, our MPs ...
All you are doing is illustrating the futility of argument by analogy when discussing legal agreements between states.
Ho hum another 3 weeks of these bozos faffing about
Yes unfortunately. Given they will all believe they can get what they want in those 3 weeks that ensures MV3 is lost, so were back to hoping parliament can this time come up with something. At least the EU have demanded the deal be voted on next week so that it can be ruled out.
It could all be done in a day. Vote vote vote until a majority is reached. That's not rushed they've had months.
If Letwin Benn passes on Monday that is precisely what will happen
For those off to work who don't have time to listen and want a quick precis; Mrs May and the Tory Party are completely screwed......
It's all in the polls...
You're right, being only 4% ahead of the shambolic incompetent shambles that is the Corbyn led Labour party shows their support is weak. If Labour got a competent or credible leader they would be in terrible trouble.
But Labour can't. If Corbyn goes, somebody very much worse - Long-Bailey, Macdonnell, Pidcock, Burgon - is likely to replace him.
That's why, extraordinarily, the Tories are still value for the next election. Their next leader is (a) likely to get a honeymoon by not being May, (b) most unlikely to be completely crazy (c) will probably get a loud sigh of of relief from most of the PCP, unlike Labour where Corbyn continues to have the support of only about 25% of MPs and (d) will almost certainly call an immediate election. That's even leaving aside Labour's ongoing narrow support base which makes their vote very inefficient.
Whether that is a good thing for anybody is another question. Expect a wipeout in 2024 if this plays out and Labour finally come to their senses. But it still seems more plausible (sorry) than the alternatives.
And amid the noise the Tories took a council seat off Labour in Thurrock last night. Which is remarkable against the national backdrop.
No they gained it from Thurrock Independents (TPFKAUKIP).
Yup. Just gone back to 2002. Labour don’t appear to have ever won the ward, but have been in front of the tories a number of times. Had a very strong UKIP presence from about 2010, and seemed to have stayed UKIP (and their new independent group who all resigned from UKIP) since then. First time tories have won the seat since about 2011. A very good result for the conservatives. It could have gone either way.
It says so much about the site that no one has actually commented on WHO won that by-election as opposed to which party. I expect that might have had a bit to do with the result.
Full disclosure, this has just been pointed out to me by isam by email. I wouldn't have spotted it either.
It was commented on last night by a number of posters.
It says so much about the site ...
The main conclusion is that many posters are completely up to speed ... though there are some laggards.
It is not what I wanted but there is a majority for Norway. Neither party leaders wants it Corbyn as it robs him of a chaotic change of government and May as it turns her into a party splitting figure like Peel.
So for the first time MPs will have to have the stones to break cover. Will they? Looks more possible now perhaps.
It will of course not be full Norway though as the EU will require the Customs Union for Northern Ireland so It will be Single Market and Customs Union BINO.
Do not forget even after Corn Laws repeal in 1846 and the Peelites left to join the Whigs to form the Liberals the Tories won most seats in 2/3 of the next general elections on a protectionist platform though were only able to form a Government after one of those. It was not until Palmerston won a Liberal majority in 1874 that the Liberal dominance really started with the Tories not winning another majority or even most seats again until 1874
Ho hum another 3 weeks of these bozos faffing about
Yes unfortunately. Given they will all believe they can get what they want in those 3 weeks that ensures MV3 is lost, so were back to hoping parliament can this time come up with something. At least the EU have demanded the deal be voted on next week so that it can be ruled out.
It could all be done in a day. Vote vote vote until a majority is reached. That's not rushed they've had months.
If Letwin Benn passes on Monday that is precisely what will happen
Ho hum another 3 weeks of these bozos faffing about
Yes unfortunately. Given they will all believe they can get what they want in those 3 weeks that ensures MV3 is lost, so were back to hoping parliament can this time come up with something. At least the EU have demanded the deal be voted on next week so that it can be ruled out.
It could all be done in a day. Vote vote vote until a majority is reached. That's not rushed they've had months.
If Letwin Benn passes on Monday that is precisely what will happen
It is not what I wanted but there is a majority for Norway. Neither party leaders wants it Corbyn as it robs him of a chaotic change of government and May as it turns her into a party splitting figure like Peel.
So for the first time MPs will have to have the stones to break cover. Will they? Looks more possible now perhaps.
It will of course not be full Norway though as the EU will require the Customs Union for Northern Ireland so It will be Single Market and Customs Union BINO.
Do not forget even after Corn Laws repeal in 1846 and the Peelites left to join the Whigs to form the Liberals the Tories won most seats in 2/3 of the next general elections on a protectionist platform though were only able to form a Government after one of those. It was not until Palmerston won a Liberal majority in 1857 that the Liberal dominance really started with the Tories not winning another majority or even most seats again until 1874
Such a shame May folded the cards and stubbornly refused to choose a path.
Had a path been chosen like Gove advised this would have all been much smoother.
Gove was co-convener of the Vofe Leave campaign committee. Vote Leave’s campaign literature appeared to rule out a leaving without a deal. Accordingly any advice Gove gave, unless he was not fully behind his own campaign’s view on this, would presumably rule out the hard man no-dealer approach you have been advocating. I fail to see how any path Gove, who pointedly remains in cabinet, would significantly differ from the one taken.
It's ridiculous to say anyone could have done better: Brexit is a mess, and would have been a mess whoever was in charge of negotiations. The sides are too far apart for any meaningful compromise to be easily reached.
Give would have faced just as many problems as May; they might have been different problems, but problems nonetheless.
And the reason the sides are so far apart? The leave campaigns who lied about Brexit, and promised everything to everyone.
It'd be good for leavers to take some responsibility instead of pathetically moaning: "If my person was in charge it would have been different!"
Norway is a meaningful compromise, which could have been, and might just still be reached.
It would mean pissing off most people, but to a lesser extent overall than any other likely solution.
Norway does everything except deliver on the mandate obtained, which was an anti-immigration platform.
EU immigration to the UK has fallen since the referendum anyway so Norway Plus is an option now
Do you not thing that it has 'something' to do with the vote?
But Norway seems to be the 'best' option now. it is 'the' compromise, but then no one gets what they actually want, which iswhy it might not happen...
Ho hum another 3 weeks of these bozos faffing about
Yes unfortunately. Given they will all believe they can get what they want in those 3 weeks that ensures MV3 is lost, so were back to hoping parliament can this time come up with something. At least the EU have demanded the deal be voted on next week so that it can be ruled out.
It could all be done in a day. Vote vote vote until a majority is reached. That's not rushed they've had months.
If Letwin Benn passes on Monday that is precisely what will happen
Has anything been confirmed for monday
Yes Letwin Benn will be submitted on Monday to propose indicative votes and Letwin says at least 5 MPs have switched to the amendmemt which should see it pass as it only lost by 2 votes last time
The can gets another short kick down the road it seems. Both the EU and to an extent Theresa may have looked over the cliff edge and stepped back though not very far. The legalities with which so many here have been exercised apply to the EU when it comes to the electoral process and so 12 April is as far as we can go without a final definitive decision and it's the EU elections and the ramifications thereof which define the end of the road.
To use a well worn phrase, nothing has changed. The options to support the WA, leave without endorsing a WA and revoking are as valid now as they were yesterday. All that has happened is that March 29th has become April 12th.
The only way to remain now however is to revoke. Back the WA and we leave on 22/5. Don't support the WA and we go on 12/4 and that's essentially it. For those opposed to the WA the dynamics of leaving haven't changed - it's a two week delay but that's all.
It does seem enough will be changed to allow the WA one more chance to clear the Commons but MV3 is the last chance - there won't be an MV4.
Where are we politically? May has probably done enough to survive until the WA and is surely hoping worried Council candidates and frightened Mail-clutching constituents will help sway wavering hardliners into line. Maybe but she now has to bring the MV back even if she knows it will fall again and I do think it will be, to coin a baseball parlance, "three strikes and out" for Theresa May. I don't see how she can survive a third rejection of the WA.
Such a shame May folded the cards and stubbornly refused to choose a path.
Had a path been chosen like Gove advised this would have all been much smoother.
Gove was co-convener of the Vofe Leave campaign committee. Vote Leave’s campaign literature appeared to rule out a leaving without a deal. Accordingly any advice Gove gave, unless he was not fully behind his own campaign’s view on this, would presumably rule out the hard man no-dealer approach you have been advocating. I fail to see how any path Gove, who pointedly remains in cabinet, would significantly differ from the one taken.
It's ridiculous to say anyone could have done better: Brexit is a mess, and would have been a mess whoever was in charge of negotiations. The sides are too far apart for any meaningful compromise to be easily reached.
Give would have faced just as many problems as May; they might have been different problems, but problems nonetheless.
And the reason the sides are so far apart? The leave campaigns who lied about Brexit, and promised everything to everyone.
It'd be good for leavers to take some responsibility instead of pathetically moaning: "If my person was in charge it would have been different!"
Norway is a meaningful compromise, which could have been, and might just still be reached.
It would mean pissing off most people, but to a lesser extent overall than any other likely solution.
Norway does everything except deliver on the mandate obtained, which was an anti-immigration platform.
EU immigration to the UK has fallen since the referendum anyway so Norway Plus is an option now
Do you not thing that it has 'something' to do with the vote?
But Norway seems to be the 'best' option now. it is 'the' compromise, but then no one gets what they actually want, which iswhy it might not happen...
but then again, 'something' has to happen.
Of course and it was ironically by May ruling out Norway initially that it fell and thus now makes Norway an option 3 years later
Ho hum another 3 weeks of these bozos faffing about
Yes unfortunately. Given they will all believe they can get what they want in those 3 weeks that ensures MV3 is lost, so were back to hoping parliament can this time come up with something. At least the EU have demanded the deal be voted on next week so that it can be ruled out.
It could all be done in a day. Vote vote vote until a majority is reached. That's not rushed they've had months.
If Letwin Benn passes on Monday that is precisely what will happen
Has anything been confirmed for monday
Yes Letwin Benn will be submitted on Monday to propose indicative votes and Letwin says at least 5 MPs have switched to the amendmemt which should see it pass as it only lost by 2 votes last time
Sky have just said tuesday for MV3 but might change
What we need is two Asia confederations: West Asia and East Asia with the latter including the Oceania nations. And Kazakhstan should be in West Asia rather than UEFA.
Mr. Meeks/Mr. Ace, I must say I find that definition of 'Europe' to be tosh (I appreciate what you're both saying is the reasoning behind the inclusion but I think said reason is silly).
Europe was named after Europa. Greece was in, Asia Minor was out, and Kazakhstan must be about a thousand miles east of the west coast of Asia Minor/Turkey.
Comments
Whereas ours are highly trained in shouting and heckling their counterparts sitting across the aisle.
I don’t like any of the result, so your question is irrelevant.
Of course it was. To expect anything else would be absurd.
But they clearly demostrated that interest does not include the purported punishment Brexit motivations they are so often accused of.
Norway+ is the least stupid option, but rather does ask the question "why should we not have a say in writing the rules?" All roads lead back to the Treaty of Rome, because our current deal is the best deal.
The Prime Minister's statement of the bleeding obvious from the other night - that MPs can't just keep on saying what they don't want, but need to make up their minds about what they do want - continues to apply. Can they agree on a single course of positive action? Absent a complete u-turn on the WA, this would require a Commons majority for either revocation, a Deal/Remain referendum, or a reasonably clear plan to negotiate an Andrex Soft Brexit, to magically appear in about the next five minutes, when such a thing has remained elusive for a thousand days.
Hard Brexit remains the default, and most likely, outcome.
If a loan shark gives a debtor a few more days to pay, it's because they want their money, not because they're kind and caring.
The UK would suffer significant turbulence if we left without any sort of transition/deal whatsoever. So would the EU. The EU acted simply in its own interest.
Good morning!
The Leave campaign lied and voters bought the snake oil. They are going through a slow and painful discovery about what they voted for.
https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/1108992981363802112
Norway + has two key features, it avoids the political project and does the least harm compatible with 2016.
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
But I don't recall 'We can LEAVE and keep FoM' featuring prominently, or indeed at all, in the Leave campaign.
No one defended them. I assume they must have a fan club somewhere in the South of England or possibly Scotland.
"'If the Empire lasts a thousand years men will say, 'this was not their finest hour'."
So for the first time MPs will have to have the stones to break cover. Will they? Looks more possible now perhaps.
When I leave a club, I expect to stop paying the subs. Don't you?
Richard is right, and has been consistently right on this point from the outset.
We do DO NOT leave the EU in 7 days time deal or no deal (despite Theresa May saying over 100 times that we would leave on 29th March 2019)
Please leave the departure lounge and return home.
Have a lovely day all
Over and over again.
Funny old world!
The 12th April cut off date if TM deal falls is little more than 14 days away and in order for any extension to be agreed beyond we have to take part in the EU elections
In order to do so HMG has to lay enabling legislation for us to take part and that has to pass into law by the 12th April.
I would suggest that in everyone's deliberations going forward this needs to be taken into consideration, particularly as ERG and others will fight the concept tooth and claw that we should be in the new EU Parliament
Therefore, without this passing an extension for a GE or a referendum extinguishes on the 12th April and that is the reality of these options. The EU lawyers have made it clear that if we were still in the EU after the 12th April and without representation, then all laws made by the new EU Parliament would be struck down by the ECJ as void. Now isn't that ironic
TM issues all but an apology last night to the HOC over her statement from no 10 which she said was due to her frustrations, but the HOC needs to grow up and put that behind them.
Tomorrows march for a referendum is now pointless as it is not possible and, no doubt, many in that movement, who consider they are academically superior to leavers, have swung behind revoke as per the 2 million plus signatures on the e petition, but I believe that is by far the most unlikely end state
To sum up and IMHO the choices are now - deal - no deal - amended deal i.e. Norway +
...
Compromise!!
Unless you think that all 17.4m were racists.
I suspect we'll not agree, but it seems to be an odd definition. We voted to leave. As it happens, there are one or two services, I'd like to keep, but that's only my opinion. You can't define 'leave' as you like if you mean staying on the same terms by another name and paying the same amount. I wish you well in pursuing that argument.
But yes, you are spot on.
What is pernicious is the way that the current WA which sets the tone for a very shallow future relationship (which is still open enough to be negotiated in any direction at the next stage) is presented as BINO. Which it most certainly is not.
Yebbut so what? She can't appeal to the voters over the heads of the MPs unless she gives the people a vote.
Now there's a thought.
Full disclosure, this has just been pointed out to me by isam by email. I wouldn't have spotted it either.
At least you're not claiming that revoking is honouring the referendum result. I know language can change over time, but not that much, surely?
They should indeed break cover.
Let parliament TAKE BACK CONTROL.
Sir Olly Letwin as PM in a gnu?
Also CD13: you can't define leave how you like to keep the bits of the EU you like
EU did was essentially say she cannot delay her vote the whole 2 weeks.
But by all means - ignore what voters want and see where that gets you.
They certainly took no notice of Tezzie's supplication.
There's going to be a reckoning at some point.
Now, trying to be open-minded. if there is an appetite to retain some select bits (despite the EU shout of "No cherry-picking), that could be asked in a second referendum where the question is "Should we leave with no extras and no extra costs or should we ask for this and offer to pay the going rate?"
As you see I'm no politician, and I'm ignoring party politics. That's why it sounds so strange. However, our MPs ...
Evidently some of the do believe exactly that - and retainers would be quite happy with it. So, probably a majority of the electorate.
And parse it how you will, all that the ballot called for was leaving the EU. Norway does that.
"Respects" has become the most grossly abused term in politics.
It could all be done in a day. Vote vote vote until a majority is reached. That's not rushed they've had months.
Scotland had a terrible result last night in the Euro qualifiers beaten 3 - 0 by Kazakhstan
Supporters were furious and according to 5 live demanded their ticket money back
The tickets were a £1 each
It says so much about the site ...
The main conclusion is that many posters are completely up to speed ... though there are some laggards.
Do not forget even after Corn Laws repeal in 1846 and the Peelites left to join the Whigs to form the Liberals the Tories won most seats in 2/3 of the next general elections on a protectionist platform though were only able to form a Government after one of those. It was not until Palmerston won a Liberal majority in 1874 that the Liberal dominance really started with the Tories not winning another majority or even most seats again until 1874
How is Kazakhstan in Europe?
But Norway seems to be the 'best' option now. it is 'the' compromise, but then no one gets what they actually want, which iswhy it might not happen...
but then again, 'something' has to happen.
The can gets another short kick down the road it seems. Both the EU and to an extent Theresa may have looked over the cliff edge and stepped back though not very far. The legalities with which so many here have been exercised apply to the EU when it comes to the electoral process and so 12 April is as far as we can go without a final definitive decision and it's the EU elections and the ramifications thereof which define the end of the road.
To use a well worn phrase, nothing has changed. The options to support the WA, leave without endorsing a WA and revoking are as valid now as they were yesterday. All that has happened is that March 29th has become April 12th.
The only way to remain now however is to revoke. Back the WA and we leave on 22/5. Don't support the WA and we go on 12/4 and that's essentially it. For those opposed to the WA the dynamics of leaving haven't changed - it's a two week delay but that's all.
It does seem enough will be changed to allow the WA one more chance to clear the Commons but MV3 is the last chance - there won't be an MV4.
Where are we politically? May has probably done enough to survive until the WA and is surely hoping worried Council candidates and frightened Mail-clutching constituents will help sway wavering hardliners into line. Maybe but she now has to bring the MV back even if she knows it will fall again and I do think it will be, to coin a baseball parlance, "three strikes and out" for Theresa May. I don't see how she can survive a third rejection of the WA.
Europe was named after Europa. Greece was in, Asia Minor was out, and Kazakhstan must be about a thousand miles east of the west coast of Asia Minor/Turkey.